1 2017-04-27 00:23:56	0|cfields|well since we're all doing PRs for lots-of-changes-but-the-reason-isn't-obvious-until-the-next-PR, I suppose I'll do mine too.
  2 2017-04-27 00:24:59	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15theuni opened pull request #10285: net: refactor the connection process. moving towards async connections. (06master...06connman-events6) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10285
  3 2017-04-27 00:29:59	0|fanquake|cfields Now just open two more, each with another 5 commits, all building on top of each other.
  4 2017-04-27 00:30:33	0|cfields|fanquake: haha
  5 2017-04-27 00:31:41	0|BlueMatt|cfields: to be fair, sipa objected to mine and so I'm gonna open the reason to get concept acks before merge of the dependant
  6 2017-04-27 00:32:59	0|cfields|BlueMatt: sorry, that wasn't meant to be an insult. I've just been staring at this code for a week trying to figure out how to PR it. Just funny timing.
  7 2017-04-27 00:33:30	0|BlueMatt|nor was mine, i was just pointing to the vague policy understanding i took from sipa's understanding of my own comments and figured I'd mention it as a possible suggestion
  8 2017-04-27 00:35:28	0|sipa|as it seems to be a developing practice the past minutes in the vicinity of this communication channel to speak in relatively length sentences, i shall participate
  9 2017-04-27 00:35:42	0|fanquake|cfields If you'd rather stare at some different code for a while; I've been tracking down a Windows issue that's blocking us from moving to latest ZMQ #9254
 10 2017-04-27 00:35:44	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9254 | [depends] ZeroMQ 4.2.2 by fanquake · Pull Request #9254 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 11 2017-04-27 00:36:15	0|cfields|greg was here.
 12 2017-04-27 00:36:17	0|cfields|(probably)
 13 2017-04-27 00:36:29	0|cfields|fanquake: looking
 14 2017-04-27 00:36:56	0|BlueMatt|sipa: is your understanding of the developing practice of relatively lengthy sentences that it shall eventually move towards policy, or is it only a temporal disturbance in the sentence length requirement understanding of the participants of the vicinity of this channel?
 15 2017-04-27 00:37:49	0|fanquake|Also, noticed that libzmq is being relicensed.
 16 2017-04-27 00:38:09	0|fanquake|https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/issues/2376
 17 2017-04-27 00:38:26	0|BlueMatt|would that effect us?
 18 2017-04-27 00:38:43	0|BlueMatt|ahh, if anything positively
 19 2017-04-27 00:38:55	0|cfields|neat
 20 2017-04-27 00:39:14	0|BlueMatt|man i do not envy them in having to collect license grants from /everyone/
 21 2017-04-27 00:39:44	0|cfields|BlueMatt: they usually take the route of /everyone with a significant contribution/
 22 2017-04-27 00:39:50	0|BlueMatt|even still
 23 2017-04-27 00:40:17	0|cfields|yea: "from each individual contributor who wrote a major piece of code in the development process of libzmq"
 24 2017-04-27 00:40:38	0|cfields|no fun
 25 2017-04-27 00:41:02	0|cfields|but on the bright side, hooray for github centralization! Must make this much easier.
 26 2017-04-27 00:41:10	0|BlueMatt|f$cking internet...isp has peering presence but only uses it for IPv6...time to go annoy some noc operators
 27 2017-04-27 00:41:24	0|BlueMatt|s/peering/ix peering/
 28 2017-04-27 00:41:42	0|cfields|heh
 29 2017-04-27 00:41:57	0|cfields|fanquake: that error is very confusing. seems to be in a system header
 30 2017-04-27 00:42:22	0|cfields|my best guess is there's some define magic going on somewhere?
 31 2017-04-27 00:44:36	0|sipa|BlueMatt: i for one am of the opinion - which i shall hold until presented with sufficient evidence of the contrary - that this is merely a temporary phase, which will soon be considered inconvenient and unnecessary
 32 2017-04-27 00:46:35	0|fanquake|cfields Yea I'll have to look into it further.
 33 2017-04-27 00:46:38	0|gmaxwell|sipa: are you trying to match my length of lines on IRC?  It will take you an awful long time to catch up to my average.
 34 2017-04-27 00:47:34	0|fanquake|cfields While you're here, any significant plans depends wise for 0.15.0 ? I had a bunch of updates lined up, but haven't PR'd anything because I wanted to know what you were doing.
 35 2017-04-27 00:47:57	0|cfields|fanquake: go for it! the qt overhaul is the big one
 36 2017-04-27 00:48:01	0|cfields|fanquake: an osx toolchain bump
 37 2017-04-27 00:48:48	0|cfields|fanquake: I'll be doing the toolchain builder as well, but that should just plug in to current depends without too much interruption
 38 2017-04-27 00:49:05	0|sipa|gmaxwell: that is an impossible task, i might venture to state, and surely one should not let mere statistics in the history of an ephemeral communication channel like this guide one's actions
 39 2017-04-27 00:49:19	0|gmaxwell|sipa: You are currently at an average length of 54 in this channel... compared to my 103.
 40 2017-04-27 00:50:00	0|fanquake|cfields qt overhaul in regard to 5.8? I think they have some new "lite" build system. Will we see any benefit from that, I would have thought we were already pretty optimised?
 41 2017-04-27 00:50:20	0|achow101|gmaxwell: while you're here, any update on the alert key stuff?
 42 2017-04-27 00:50:26	0|BlueMatt|lol
 43 2017-04-27 00:50:36	0|cfields|fanquake: split builds for host/target.
 44 2017-04-27 00:50:37	0|BlueMatt|saw that one coming
 45 2017-04-27 00:51:01	0|cfields|fanquake: and yea, we'll benefit from the lite thing. We just need to crank up a long list of -no-feature-X
 46 2017-04-27 00:51:16	0|cfields|(they're supposed to actually work now, rather than just breaking stuff)
 47 2017-04-27 00:51:33	0|sipa|perhaps i shall go construct a plugin module for my Internet Relay Chat client to implement nagle's algorithm for outgoing messages and make it combine multiple successive lines into one?
 48 2017-04-27 00:51:46	0|fanquake|cfields No worries, I'll have a look at that as well.
 49 2017-04-27 00:53:21	0|cfields|fanquake: have you tried to bisect the zmq change? There are a bunch of versions in between :(
 50 2017-04-27 00:54:24	0|gmaxwell|achow101: not yet. personally I'm hoping for more old stuff to age off the network, since the key is explotable against that old stuff. (A fact we didn't really know until I did the final homework before releasing the key)
 51 2017-04-27 00:55:59	0|fanquake|Somewhat, I originally opened that PR with 4.2.0, then moved to 4.2.1, then 4.2.2, all seemed to have the same issue. So I'm assuming it's something that might have happened between 4.1.6 -> 4.2.0 . Which I wouldn't have tested yet. I'll post in that PR if I find anything.
 52 2017-04-27 00:56:27	0|achow101|gmaxwell: will those vulnerabilities be disclosed or not until old nodes drop off the network?
 53 2017-04-27 00:57:21	0|cfields|fanquake: so 4.1.6 works?
 54 2017-04-27 00:57:52	0|gmaxwell|achow101: well I'd rather not post a howto then later post the key. :)
 55 2017-04-27 00:58:19	0|gmaxwell|achow101: if you want to amuse yourself, why not go find the issues yourself. Make a write up. though I'd ask you to keep ir private for now, though ultimately that would be up to you.
 56 2017-04-27 00:58:53	0|achow101|but I can't know if I actually found something without the key
 57 2017-04-27 00:59:45	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #10286: Call wallet notify callbacks in scheduler thread (without cs_main) (06master...062017-01-wallet-cache-inmempool-4) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10286
 58 2017-04-27 01:00:28	0|gmaxwell|achow101: well if you wanted to try it, you can change the key or rig the signature validation to return true for it.
 59 2017-04-27 01:01:11	0|fanquake|cfields I can't remember if I tested it or just jumped straight to 4.2.0. I'll go back and take a look.
 60 2017-04-27 01:01:46	0|cfields|fanquake: maybe try disabling the precompiled stuff?
 61 2017-04-27 01:02:07	0|fanquake|The main windows related change from 4.1.6 seems to be https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/issues/2091
 62 2017-04-27 01:03:16	0|cfields|fanquake: aha! that could definitely be it. we may need to force the WINNT version
 63 2017-04-27 01:03:49	0|achow101|gmaxwell: heh. social engineering failed :(. I will amuse myself and find those vulns
 64 2017-04-27 01:04:35	0|sipa|achow101: hahaha
 65 2017-04-27 01:05:39	0|gmaxwell|hehe.
 66 2017-04-27 01:34:00	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jimmysong opened pull request #10287: [tests] Update Unit Test for addrman.h/addrman.cpp (06master...06test_addrman) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10287
 67 2017-04-27 03:39:57	0|jl2012|on testnet I made a script to repeatedly send the same coin to myself every 15 second. When the tx chain becomes long enough, however, it stops working until confirmed. So there is a limit? Is it possible to bypass it?
 68 2017-04-27 03:40:43	0|achow101|jl2012: the limit is 25 unconfirmed transactions in a chain
 69 2017-04-27 03:40:58	0|achow101|you can raise it for your own node but not anyone else
 70 2017-04-27 03:41:41	0|jl2012|so other miners won't mine beyond 25 txs by default?
 71 2017-04-27 03:41:52	0|achow101|yes
 72 2017-04-27 03:42:06	0|jl2012|thanks
 73 2017-04-27 04:06:28	0|sipa|jl2012: there is also an option to make the wallet refuse to create transactions with coins in too long chains (though it avoids using them by default)
 74 2017-04-27 12:46:01	0|fanquake|Is there a dev meeting tonight?
 75 2017-04-27 12:53:14	0|jonasschnelli|fanquake: Yes.
 76 2017-04-27 12:53:29	0|jonasschnelli|fanquake: in 6h and 7min.
 77 2017-04-27 12:54:06	0|fanquake|jonasschnelli 3am :|
 78 2017-04-27 12:54:18	0|jonasschnelli|fanquake: hah. Yeah. Hard for OZ.
 79 2017-04-27 13:25:59	0|wumpus|yes the time is not exactly ideal for asia/OZ
 80 2017-04-27 16:25:52	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 143edbd79 15Alex Morcos: cleanup: reduce to one GetMinimumFee call signature
 81 2017-04-27 16:25:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/47535d7c3ec7...a550f6e415fd
 82 2017-04-27 16:25:53	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a550f6e 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #10283: Cleanup: reduce to one GetMinimumFee call signature...
 83 2017-04-27 16:26:16	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #10283: Cleanup: reduce to one GetMinimumFee call signature (06master...06oneGetMinimumFee) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10283
 84 2017-04-27 18:26:12	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a550f6e415fd...4c924011f535
 85 2017-04-27 18:26:13	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 144c92401 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10075: Remove unused C++ code not covered by unit tests...
 86 2017-04-27 18:26:13	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b51aaf1 15practicalswift: Remove unused C++ code not covered by unit tests
 87 2017-04-27 18:26:33	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10075: Remove unused C++ code not covered by unit tests (06master...06unused) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10075
 88 2017-04-27 19:01:09	0|luke-jr|meeting?
 89 2017-04-27 19:01:21	0|jonasschnelli|Yes
 90 2017-04-27 19:01:25	0|petertodd|yup
 91 2017-04-27 19:01:28	0|kanzure|yes
 92 2017-04-27 19:02:01	0|BlueMatt|wumpus, wherefor art thou wumpus
 93 2017-04-27 19:02:01	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Apr 27 19:02:01 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
 94 2017-04-27 19:02:01	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
 95 2017-04-27 19:02:01	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
 96 2017-04-27 19:02:32	0|jonasschnelli|I have two topic proposals: "hd-restore" and "limited NODE_NETWORK (NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED) signaling"
 97 2017-04-27 19:02:33	0|wumpus|#bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt
 98 2017-04-27 19:02:33	0|wumpus|instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 instagibbs
 99 2017-04-27 19:02:40	0|kanzure|hi.
100 2017-04-27 19:02:45	0|instagibbs|here
101 2017-04-27 19:02:47	0|cfields|hi
102 2017-04-27 19:03:17	0|wumpus|#topic hd-restore (jonasschnelli)
103 2017-04-27 19:03:21	0|jtimon|suggested topic: summary of BlueMatt's overall plan for libconsensu
104 2017-04-27 19:03:41	0|kanzure|is this 10240?
105 2017-04-27 19:03:46	0|jtimon|if BlueMatt wants of course
106 2017-04-27 19:03:47	0|BlueMatt|jtimon: k, can share. jonasschnelli you have the floor :)
107 2017-04-27 19:03:50	0|jonasschnelli|Re. HD restore. I'm not sure if we should always try to restore funds or if we should check for the bestblock and compare it to the chain tip and only then restore
108 2017-04-27 19:04:12	0|jonasschnelli|The main stuff is in #10240
109 2017-04-27 19:04:13	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10240 | [WIP] Add basic HD wallet restore functionality by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #10240 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
110 2017-04-27 19:04:24	0|instagibbs|ack libconsensus discussion
111 2017-04-27 19:04:35	0|jonasschnelli|But I think we should only restore if the wallet's bestblock lacks behind
112 2017-04-27 19:04:36	0|instagibbs|oh sorry, didnt see topic set already :)
113 2017-04-27 19:04:44	0|jonasschnelli|Because...
114 2017-04-27 19:04:51	0|jonasschnelli|Encrypted wallets may need to unlock
115 2017-04-27 19:05:06	0|jonasschnelli|And also for performance / log reasons
116 2017-04-27 19:05:09	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: i assumed we'd always keep a buffer of X pubkeys around
117 2017-04-27 19:05:15	0|BlueMatt|because you may have wallet "forks"
118 2017-04-27 19:05:21	0|BlueMatt|not sure what you mean by "restore"?
119 2017-04-27 19:05:28	0|BlueMatt|(feel free to tell me to shut up and go read the pr)
120 2017-04-27 19:05:56	0|jonasschnelli|BlueMatt: By restore I mean always check the keypool keys and auto-extend (if only 50 [TBD] keys are left, topup to 100 [TBD]
121 2017-04-27 19:05:58	0|kanzure|looks like it's re: finding relevant transactions
122 2017-04-27 19:06:20	0|jonasschnelli|If we always restore... we would need to unlock encrypted wallet...
123 2017-04-27 19:06:29	0|jonasschnelli|(more often)
124 2017-04-27 19:06:31	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: my assumption was that we'd always mark seen keys as used (and we should do that independently)
125 2017-04-27 19:06:44	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: we should also always extend the keypool when we can
126 2017-04-27 19:06:54	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: ah, you mean like "when do we extend keypool to watch buffer"?
127 2017-04-27 19:06:56	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: Yes. But what if we can't?
128 2017-04-27 19:06:59	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: and if the keypool runs out in a non-interactive setting, shutdown
129 2017-04-27 19:07:00	0|achow101|If it needs to generate keys you could prompt the user right when the main gui pops up
130 2017-04-27 19:07:16	0|jonasschnelli|And whats a save gap limit? I would assume >100 keys.
131 2017-04-27 19:07:18	0|BlueMatt|another option would be to stop updating best seen block
132 2017-04-27 19:07:30	0|BlueMatt|and then kick off a background rescan-from-that-height when wallet next unlocks
133 2017-04-27 19:07:38	0|BlueMatt|if gap goes under some threshold
134 2017-04-27 19:07:38	0|jonasschnelli|If someone has handed out 101 keys and only the position 101 has payed...
135 2017-04-27 19:07:45	0|kanzure|yea, trigger on next unlock is better than achow101 popup
136 2017-04-27 19:07:59	0|BlueMatt|achow101: needs to be cli-compatible, though
137 2017-04-27 19:08:03	0|jonasschnelli|achow101: GUI is solvable..
138 2017-04-27 19:08:08	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: if we fix the bdb flushing stupidity, generating new keys becomes very cheap
139 2017-04-27 19:08:11	0|jonasschnelli|I don't know how to solve the non GUI way
140 2017-04-27 19:08:21	0|achow101|jonasschnelli: how would you hand out 101 keys if the 101st wasn't generated yet?
141 2017-04-27 19:08:21	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: shutdown. make sure it doesn't happen
142 2017-04-27 19:08:30	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: i mean keys are cheap, can do 250 or 500 or something crazy
143 2017-04-27 19:08:35	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: But how to unlock during init in the first place?
144 2017-04-27 19:08:41	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: you can't
145 2017-04-27 19:08:47	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: but cant we just use the keypool number now as the "buffer"?
146 2017-04-27 19:08:49	0|sipa|ah, i see what you mean
147 2017-04-27 19:08:50	0|jonasschnelli|But right after we rescan and sync
148 2017-04-27 19:09:07	0|BlueMatt|and, like, the lower bound should be like keypool count / 2
149 2017-04-27 19:09:22	0|BlueMatt|sipa: you cant just shutdown mid-sync
150 2017-04-27 19:09:30	0|jonasschnelli|BlueMatt: Yes. But with the current 100 default, we would enforce a shutdown on startup for encrypted wallets
151 2017-04-27 19:09:34	0|sipa|BlueMatt: why not?
152 2017-04-27 19:09:48	0|sipa|it's an error condition that we cannot recover from
153 2017-04-27 19:09:56	0|BlueMatt|and then rescan when keypool next gets filled
154 2017-04-27 19:09:57	0|sipa|hmm
155 2017-04-27 19:10:05	0|jonasschnelli|IMO an explicit "restore-mode" with a "unlock during startup" (not sure how) would be preferable for encrypted wallets
156 2017-04-27 19:10:12	0|sipa|BlueMatt: you should also stop pruning
157 2017-04-27 19:10:21	0|BlueMatt|sipa: yes, that would be my major reservation
158 2017-04-27 19:10:30	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: not sure you realistically can in a daemon setting
159 2017-04-27 19:10:41	0|jonasschnelli|is stdin a total nogo? *duck*
160 2017-04-27 19:10:45	0|sipa|so i guess we need a special "stop syncing" mode that we go into when the keypool runs out
161 2017-04-27 19:10:50	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: there is no stdin with -daemon
162 2017-04-27 19:10:51	0|BlueMatt|sipa: i guess you can stop pruning and if disk fills it will do the shutdown part for you :p
163 2017-04-27 19:10:58	0|sipa|BlueMatt: ugh
164 2017-04-27 19:11:03	0|BlueMatt|yea, i know
165 2017-04-27 19:11:03	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: Yes. But at least you could run in non-daemon headless
166 2017-04-27 19:11:07	0|wumpus|yes a blocking mode makes sense in that case
167 2017-04-27 19:11:24	0|BlueMatt|ok, so blocking in pruning mode, rescan-later in non-pruning mode?
168 2017-04-27 19:11:34	0|wumpus|and no, stdin is not an option, there should be no expectation with bitcoind that there's anyone at the terminal
169 2017-04-27 19:11:36	0|jonasschnelli|If you run with an encrypted wallet and the bestblock lacks behind, shutdown if we can't unlock over stdin
170 2017-04-27 19:11:53	0|BlueMatt|no stdin, just shutdown
171 2017-04-27 19:11:56	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: So we have only RPC to unlock?
172 2017-04-27 19:11:57	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: but only in prune mode
173 2017-04-27 19:11:57	0|wumpus|everything should be scriptable
174 2017-04-27 19:12:07	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: yes
175 2017-04-27 19:12:15	0|jonasschnelli|But how do we unlock/extend before we sync?
176 2017-04-27 19:12:25	0|wumpus|just wait until the wallet is unlocked to start
177 2017-04-27 19:12:26	0|jonasschnelli|rpc starts after chain sync
178 2017-04-27 19:12:31	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: you go into a blocking mode, and you continue after walletunlock
179 2017-04-27 19:12:37	0|wumpus|right
180 2017-04-27 19:12:52	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: and no, no stdin ever
181 2017-04-27 19:13:04	0|jonasschnelli|but can we block the sync and wait for RPC wallettunlock?
182 2017-04-27 19:13:10	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: why not?
183 2017-04-27 19:13:15	0|wumpus|sure
184 2017-04-27 19:13:18	0|BlueMatt|ProcessNewBlock { return false; }
185 2017-04-27 19:13:18	0|jonasschnelli|(without changing too much)?
186 2017-04-27 19:13:32	0|jonasschnelli|okay... sounds good. Need to take a closer look.
187 2017-04-27 19:13:33	0|sipa|add a function to validation.h to let the core know that validation cannot progress
188 2017-04-27 19:13:43	0|BlueMatt|maybe stop net too under the current net-pause stuff
189 2017-04-27 19:13:48	0|sipa|right
190 2017-04-27 19:13:53	0|jonasschnelli|Good point.
191 2017-04-27 19:13:55	0|kanzure|should it shutdown if wallet is not unlocked within a certain time period? if it's not shutdown users might expect it to still be syncing.
192 2017-04-27 19:14:00	0|jonasschnelli|Next question: what's a sane gap limit?
193 2017-04-27 19:14:03	0|wumpus|the only precondition for getting out of Init() is that the genesis block has been processed, everything else can be delayed
194 2017-04-27 19:14:04	0|jonasschnelli|100 seems way to low to me
195 2017-04-27 19:14:17	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: keypool / 2?
196 2017-04-27 19:14:17	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: fix bdb flushing insanity, and raise it to 1000 or 10000
197 2017-04-27 19:14:18	0|jonasschnelli|(risk of losing funds is involved)
198 2017-04-27 19:14:24	0|BlueMatt|and we can bump keypool to 500
199 2017-04-27 19:14:26	0|achow101|how would you know that it is blocking and you need to walletunlock?
200 2017-04-27 19:14:29	0|kanzure|jonasschnelli: i think the answer will depend on performance.  also, do you really want to encourage users to use gaps? the answer might be yes..
201 2017-04-27 19:15:06	0|kanzure|achow101: yes that is why i suggested shutdown after a certain period of time. users might not realize that syncing is stopped otherwise.
202 2017-04-27 19:15:15	0|jonasschnelli|there my next concern pops up... all user will always have to have 500+ keypools. In an explicit restore more, only then we would need to have a large pool
203 2017-04-27 19:15:31	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: who cares about 500 keys'
204 2017-04-27 19:15:41	0|sipa|it's 16 kB of memory
205 2017-04-27 19:15:52	0|sipa|well, some small constant multiple of that
206 2017-04-27 19:15:53	0|kanzure|i thought derivation time was the bottleneck?
207 2017-04-27 19:15:56	0|jonasschnelli|Hmm... yes.
208 2017-04-27 19:16:09	0|jonasschnelli|If it just would be a pubkey and H160 onyl.. but it's also the privatre key! hell
209 2017-04-27 19:16:18	0|wumpus|the memory usage of keys is not an issue, just generation time (and that's only due to bdb stupidity)
210 2017-04-27 19:16:34	0|sipa|kanzure: we can do ~10000 derivation steps per second on a single thread on modern CPU
211 2017-04-27 19:16:43	0|kanzure|is that with bdb madness? :)
212 2017-04-27 19:16:47	0|sipa|and maybe 5 due to BDB flushing
213 2017-04-27 19:16:48	0|wumpus|calling fsync after every key is not a good idea, it should create the entire keypool refill in one transaction
214 2017-04-27 19:16:54	0|luke-jr|IMO automatic pruning should probably have as a precondition that the wallet has updated to the block being pruned, if it doesn't already; then the wallet can just set its criteria for processing
215 2017-04-27 19:17:21	0|luke-jr|and if auto-pruning is enabled, block validation (safely) when the size is hit, until it can prune further?
216 2017-04-27 19:17:30	0|sipa|luke-jr: agree, but that's not a concern right now as the wallet updates synchronously... with BlueMatt's coming changes maybe that changes
217 2017-04-27 19:17:43	0|BlueMatt|yes, that changes, but it still shouldnt be too slow
218 2017-04-27 19:17:48	0|jonasschnelli|With HD, there would also be no need for the disk-keypool for unencrypted wallets,.. it's just legacy. We could always fill up in-mem
219 2017-04-27 19:18:03	0|BlueMatt|if your wallet falls behind consensus, you have a very, very large wallet
220 2017-04-27 19:18:14	0|BlueMatt|(and should pause sync anyway)
221 2017-04-27 19:18:39	0|sipa|right, the wallet should have the ability to pause syncing or prevent pruning
222 2017-04-27 19:18:50	0|jonasschnelli|Conclusion: a) always scan keypool and topup, b) extend keypool and gap-limit to 500+, c) block when encrypted until RPC unlocked.
223 2017-04-27 19:19:11	0|sipa|sgtm
224 2017-04-27 19:19:18	0|wumpus|yes
225 2017-04-27 19:19:19	0|jonasschnelli|thanks. That was effective
226 2017-04-27 19:19:32	0|wumpus|#topic libconsensus (BlueMatt)
227 2017-04-27 19:19:51	0|BlueMatt|yes, so obviously this is all based on #771
228 2017-04-27 19:19:54	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/771 | CBlockStore by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #771 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
229 2017-04-27 19:20:00	0|BlueMatt|:)
230 2017-04-27 19:20:08	0|jonasschnelli|(19 Jan 2012)
231 2017-04-27 19:20:23	0|BlueMatt|but pr #10279 creates a CChainState class which will hold things like mapBlockIndex chainActive, etc, etc
232 2017-04-27 19:20:23	0|wumpus|archeology?
233 2017-04-27 19:20:24	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10279 | Add a CChainState class to validation.cpp to take another step towards clarifying internal interfaces by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #10279 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
234 2017-04-27 19:20:40	0|BlueMatt|and have ProcessNewBlock Activate..., Connect, etc, etc, etc
235 2017-04-27 19:20:53	0|sipa|yay
236 2017-04-27 19:21:04	0|BlueMatt|long-term that class' public interface will be libbitcoinconsensus, but right now its really just to clean up internal interfaces within validation.cpp
237 2017-04-27 19:21:14	0|wumpus|sounds good to me
238 2017-04-27 19:21:29	0|BlueMatt|that class would get a pcoinsTip and related stuff to write/read blocks from disk
239 2017-04-27 19:21:40	0|BlueMatt|and then only be able to call that and pure functions (eg script validation)
240 2017-04-27 19:21:45	0|jtimon|BlueMatt: so what's the next thing we will be able to expose with these changes?
241 2017-04-27 19:21:52	0|cfields|ooh, +1
242 2017-04-27 19:21:54	0|BlueMatt|there is a bit of cleanup in the pr, but mostly its just moving into a class
243 2017-04-27 19:22:06	0|BlueMatt|jtimon: expose-wise? probably nothing for like 2 more releases "until its ready"
244 2017-04-27 19:22:21	0|jtimon|the class itself? mhmm
245 2017-04-27 19:22:33	0|BlueMatt|i mean "the class"  but I assume via a C API
246 2017-04-27 19:24:01	0|BlueMatt|any other questions? or next topic?
247 2017-04-27 19:24:08	0|jtimon|yes, I know, and I'm very open to see what you want to expose, even if I don't renounce to the verifyWithoutChangingState x {block, header, tx, script} + getFlags() vision I had
248 2017-04-27 19:24:39	0|jtimon|but that's helpful, I can just imagine the class being exposed as a c api
249 2017-04-27 19:25:15	0|wumpus|not directly, it's just another step toward being able to
250 2017-04-27 19:25:36	0|wumpus|#topic limited NODE_NETWORK (NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED) signaling (jonasschnelli)
251 2017-04-27 19:25:57	0|petertodd|wumpus: +1
252 2017-04-27 19:25:58	0|jonasschnelli|I wanted to ask if a first step to announce pruned NODE_NETWORK would make sense.
253 2017-04-27 19:26:05	0|jonasschnelli|Could be NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED
254 2017-04-27 19:26:12	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: what would it entail?
255 2017-04-27 19:26:15	0|jonasschnelli|The only requirement is relay, and serve the last 144 blocks
256 2017-04-27 19:26:21	0|petertodd|jonasschnelli: ACK
257 2017-04-27 19:26:22	0|wumpus|we had this discussion recently, I thnk the conclusion was to use two service bits
258 2017-04-27 19:26:28	0|wumpus|(or one, at first)
259 2017-04-27 19:26:31	0|gmaxwell|what wumpus said.
260 2017-04-27 19:26:32	0|jonasschnelli|(which is almost always possible with the current auto-prune limit)
261 2017-04-27 19:26:44	0|sipa|i would suggest something that guarantees 1 day and 1 week
262 2017-04-27 19:26:52	0|wumpus|one bit combination would be 144, one would be ~1000
263 2017-04-27 19:26:59	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: so segwit prune=550 wouldn't be allowed?
264 2017-04-27 19:27:03	0|gmaxwell|Which should be 2 days and 2 weeks so the boundary condition doesn't leave you right out.
265 2017-04-27 19:27:09	0|sipa|BlueMatt: i have data!
266 2017-04-27 19:27:12	0|jonasschnelli|luke-jr: We would have to bump there
267 2017-04-27 19:27:15	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: sipa has data on request rates.
268 2017-04-27 19:27:21	0|BlueMatt|oh, true, thats right
269 2017-04-27 19:27:23	0|wumpus|luke-jr: it's allowed, but it can't signal anything
270 2017-04-27 19:27:45	0|gmaxwell|The only think to bikeshed is how much higher do we need the cutoff than his data, it should be at least a couple blocks higher because of reorgs/boundary conditions.
271 2017-04-27 19:27:45	0|sipa|BlueMatt: i'll analyse the numbers again if there is interest
272 2017-04-27 19:28:20	0|gmaxwell|our existing minimum sizing for pruning is sized out for 288 blocks, so I think we should just do that, it will make ~144 pretty reliable.
273 2017-04-27 19:28:29	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #10290: Add -stopatheight for benchmarking (06master...06shutdown_at_height) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10290
274 2017-04-27 19:28:39	0|wumpus|yep
275 2017-04-27 19:28:47	0|BlueMatt|sipa: ack without seeing code
276 2017-04-27 19:28:50	0|jonasschnelli|Two service bits seems to be great. Did anyone started with specs/BIP?
277 2017-04-27 19:29:28	0|sipa|BlueMatt: i just have a log of which depths of blocks are being fetched from my node
278 2017-04-27 19:29:43	0|cfields|how would NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED interact (if at all) with the remote peer's advertised height?
279 2017-04-27 19:30:00	0|sipa|BlueMatt: since february
280 2017-04-27 19:30:03	0|gmaxwell|cfields: I don't think it should?
281 2017-04-27 19:30:05	0|luke-jr|IMO would be nicer to have the new service bit require *some* historical storage, but I guess we're not running out..
282 2017-04-27 19:30:09	0|jonasschnelli|IMO the purpose is to signal "I have only a limited amount of blocks"
283 2017-04-27 19:30:12	0|wumpus|cfields: not at all, we ignore that value
284 2017-04-27 19:30:24	0|BlueMatt|sipa: yes, i recall now
285 2017-04-27 19:30:26	0|cfields|ok, good
286 2017-04-27 19:30:27	0|gmaxwell|That advetised height shouldn't be used for almost anything.
287 2017-04-27 19:30:28	0|wumpus|(as it's easily spoofable)
288 2017-04-27 19:30:32	0|jonasschnelli|The best-height in version doesn't matter IMO
289 2017-04-27 19:30:33	0|wumpus|it isn't used at all
290 2017-04-27 19:30:39	0|sipa|i believe it is not used at all
291 2017-04-27 19:30:44	0|sipa|(by bitcoin core)
292 2017-04-27 19:30:46	0|luke-jr|I'm not sure why more than the last 1-2 blocks should be needed to indicate relaying
293 2017-04-27 19:30:54	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: I  think it's used by SPV
294 2017-04-27 19:31:01	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: because or reorgs.
295 2017-04-27 19:31:20	0|gmaxwell|if I can't serve you the parents of my tip, I can't help you reorg onto it, making my serving nearly useless.
296 2017-04-27 19:31:24	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: I meant in bitcoin core; I don't know about other implementations
297 2017-04-27 19:31:25	0|luke-jr|hmm
298 2017-04-27 19:31:28	0|jonasschnelli|Is a min of 144 blocks to height?
299 2017-04-27 19:31:44	0|jonasschnelli|No... nm
300 2017-04-27 19:31:45	0|petertodd|luke-jr: and requiring nodes to have a GB or two of space for this is a trivial cost these days
301 2017-04-27 19:31:52	0|achow101|is the point of NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED just to tell nodes that they can request the most recent blocks from said node?
302 2017-04-27 19:31:56	0|luke-jr|assuming we only fetch blocks when reorging to their chain
303 2017-04-27 19:32:02	0|instagibbs|It's the unbounded growth that gets people to shut off nodes
304 2017-04-27 19:32:05	0|achow101|and right now you can't request any blocks from pruned nodes?
305 2017-04-27 19:32:11	0|gmaxwell|In any case the bit must promise more than nodes count on.
306 2017-04-27 19:32:17	0|sipa|achow101: pruned nodes don't even advertize they can relay blocks
307 2017-04-27 19:32:34	0|instagibbs|achow101, NODE_NETWORK is a flag for that, and it's missing from pruned nodes currently
308 2017-04-27 19:32:37	0|jonasschnelli|achow101: once you are in sync (>-144) you can pair with pruned peers and be fine
309 2017-04-27 19:32:54	0|achow101|ok
310 2017-04-27 19:32:57	0|gmaxwell|Say nodes frequently need to catch up a day.  You only keep 144 blocks.   Peer needs to catch up a day, connects to you.. opps you can't help them because a day turned out to be 150 blocks, they wasted their time connecting to you for nothing.
311 2017-04-27 19:33:43	0|gmaxwell|So for this to be useful the requester has to be conservative and not try to talk to you unless it thinks you are _very_ likely to have what it needs, which means that you need a fair amount more than the target.
312 2017-04-27 19:34:12	0|gmaxwell|So to serve a day of blocks, you'll need a day and a half or so. Round it up to 288.
313 2017-04-27 19:34:25	0|gmaxwell|petertodd: oh hi. long time no see.
314 2017-04-27 19:34:34	0|petertodd|gmaxwell: heh
315 2017-04-27 19:34:40	0|gmaxwell|and as mentioned, our pruning limit is already there.
316 2017-04-27 19:34:50	0|jonasschnelli|I just think we should allow the current auto-pruning 550 peers to signal relay and "limited amount of blocks around the tip".
317 2017-04-27 19:35:08	0|luke-jr|so 137 blocks?
318 2017-04-27 19:35:21	0|jonasschnelli|If we set NODE_NETWORK_LIMIT higher while allowing to prune shorter,.. this would wast potential peers
319 2017-04-27 19:35:23	0|petertodd|luke-jr: 1337 blocks
320 2017-04-27 19:35:28	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: then that will never be used.
321 2017-04-27 19:35:29	0|jonasschnelli|heh
322 2017-04-27 19:35:44	0|gmaxwell|If we don't know how many blocks to except we'll never connect to them.
323 2017-04-27 19:36:15	0|gmaxwell|This impacts the connection logic, we'll need logic that changes the requested services based on an estimate of how far back we are.
324 2017-04-27 19:36:17	0|sipa|when you're fully synced, why wouldn't you connect to a node that guarantees for example having the last 10 blocks?
325 2017-04-27 19:36:20	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: Well, if we are in sync, you could be friendly and make space for the one who need sync and re-connect to limited peers?
326 2017-04-27 19:36:30	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. What sipa said
327 2017-04-27 19:36:58	0|jonasschnelli|I would expect the larger the chain grows the more pruned peers we will see
328 2017-04-27 19:37:10	0|jonasschnelli|(rought assumption)
329 2017-04-27 19:37:11	0|sipa|not that we should support pruning that much, but for bandwidth reasons it may be reasonable that someone wants to relay new blocks, but not historical ones
330 2017-04-27 19:38:12	0|petertodd|sipa: I think we can make a good argument that requiring nodes to have something like 1GB of storage for historical blocks isn't a big deal, and makes the logic around all this stuff simpler
331 2017-04-27 19:38:13	0|jonasschnelli|signaling the amount of block you have is also not extremly effective because of the addr-man, seed/crawl delay
332 2017-04-27 19:38:18	0|jonasschnelli|*blocks
333 2017-04-27 19:38:30	0|sipa|petertodd: again, not talking about storage, but about bandwidth
334 2017-04-27 19:38:53	0|sipa|it's an open question - i'm not convinced it's needed or useful
335 2017-04-27 19:39:03	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. Agree with sipa. Main pain point in historical blocks is upstream bandwidth
336 2017-04-27 19:39:07	0|gmaxwell|sipa sure that would also work: but (1) nodes that only keep ten blocks are a hazard to the network, and (2) there is no real reason to keep that little, and (3) we don't have signaling room to send out every tiny variation.
337 2017-04-27 19:39:10	0|petertodd|sipa: how much more bandwidth do your status say serving ~100 or whatever blocks is vs. 10?
338 2017-04-27 19:39:22	0|petertodd|sipa: I mean, you can just turn off NODE_NETWORK_LIMIT entirely
339 2017-04-27 19:39:27	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: They would keep more but only willing to serve the last 10
340 2017-04-27 19:39:29	0|gmaxwell|sipa: if you want to limit your bandwidth, limit it.
341 2017-04-27 19:39:32	0|sipa|gmaxwell: well we have 3 possibilities
342 2017-04-27 19:39:45	0|jonasschnelli|NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED would be a limit
343 2017-04-27 19:39:51	0|sipa|fair enough, we have other mechanisms for limiting bandwidth
344 2017-04-27 19:39:52	0|edcba|QoS on historical blocks :)
345 2017-04-27 19:40:21	0|sipa|petertodd: i need to look again... it may not be that much difference
346 2017-04-27 19:40:31	0|gmaxwell|sipa: and we have had reorgs longer than 10 in recent memory, what happens if all of your peers are like that?
347 2017-04-27 19:40:58	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: we have?!
348 2017-04-27 19:41:17	0|sipa|BlueMatt: bip50 was 30 deep, iirc
349 2017-04-27 19:41:18	0|BlueMatt|oh, you mean the csv false-signaling reorgs?
350 2017-04-27 19:41:23	0|BlueMatt|yea, ok
351 2017-04-27 19:41:44	0|sipa|ok, i retract my suggestion for 10 deep
352 2017-04-27 19:41:46	0|jonasschnelli|Would the two bit amount-of-blocks-available signaling be effective regarding the delay of address distribution?
353 2017-04-27 19:41:52	0|BlueMatt|always need 2 * MAX_HUMAN_FIX_TIME_FACTOR for everything :p
354 2017-04-27 19:42:02	0|sipa|but we do have 3 possibilities with 2 bits... perhaps we can have a 3rd limit
355 2017-04-27 19:42:08	0|jonasschnelli|People tend to prune to MB rather then blocks (which could be a design mistake)
356 2017-04-27 19:42:17	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: Why do you think it has much to do with address distribution delay at all?
357 2017-04-27 19:42:30	0|gmaxwell|if you keep the last 288 you keep the last 288.. you're not going to flicker that on and off.
358 2017-04-27 19:42:42	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: the design guarentees that you'll have 288 blocks.
359 2017-04-27 19:42:48	0|gmaxwell|(of the software)
360 2017-04-27 19:42:54	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: Maybe I'm looking to much to our seeders,... but the crawling till you serve IPs can be very delayed.
361 2017-04-27 19:43:02	0|gmaxwell|so?
362 2017-04-27 19:43:09	0|jtimon|jonasschnelli: I think I agree on prunning by height being more useful
363 2017-04-27 19:43:14	0|gmaxwell|You'll signal you keep X if you're guarenteed to keep X.
364 2017-04-27 19:43:26	0|jtimon|or relative height rather
365 2017-04-27 19:43:33	0|sipa|s/height/depth/
366 2017-04-27 19:43:36	0|jonasschnelli|Okay. But prune=550 is a MB target. Does it guarantee and amount of blocks?
367 2017-04-27 19:43:42	0|jtimon|sipa: right, thanks
368 2017-04-27 19:43:43	0|jonasschnelli|*an
369 2017-04-27 19:44:11	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: it guarentees we'll keep 288 blocks. The whole feature was designed to guarentee that for reorg reasons, but people thought offering a MB centric UI would be more useful to users.
370 2017-04-27 19:44:21	0|gmaxwell|I think in the future we'll change it to a limited set of options.
371 2017-04-27 19:44:46	0|gmaxwell|Maybe all of them named after words for big in different languages, like starbucks. :P
372 2017-04-27 19:44:53	0|achow101|gmaxwell: the MB option confuses people though since it includes the undo data. people see 550 and they assume it means 550 blocks since 1 MB blocks
373 2017-04-27 19:44:53	0|jonasschnelli|Okay. Fair enough...
374 2017-04-27 19:44:54	0|luke-jr|eh, 550 MB is only guaranteed 137 blocks with segwit
375 2017-04-27 19:45:05	0|luke-jr|oh, forgot undo data
376 2017-04-27 19:45:11	0|sipa|gmaxwell: "For me a venti depruned node, please"
377 2017-04-27 19:45:21	0|wumpus|lol @ coffee names
378 2017-04-27 19:45:24	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: then that needs to get fixed.
379 2017-04-27 19:45:25	0|jonasschnelli|lol
380 2017-04-27 19:45:39	0|gmaxwell|sipa: with a double shot of xthin.
381 2017-04-27 19:45:44	0|jonasschnelli|pfff
382 2017-04-27 19:46:10	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: easy fix.
383 2017-04-27 19:46:18	0|luke-jr|controversial fix
384 2017-04-27 19:46:24	0|sipa|gmaxwell: it'll break existing configs
385 2017-04-27 19:46:41	0|jonasschnelli|Okay. I can start writing a draft specs about the two bit (144/~1000) NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED.. will announce once I have something
386 2017-04-27 19:46:43	0|BlueMatt|sipa: I'm sorry, I dont speak starbucks
387 2017-04-27 19:46:50	0|gmaxwell|sipa: so?
388 2017-04-27 19:47:04	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: seriously, like why did I bother commenting today?
389 2017-04-27 19:47:19	0|sipa|BlueMatt: venti is italian for 20. easy. that's obviously more than "grande" or "tall"
390 2017-04-27 19:47:23	0|gmaxwell|first peak is at 144, if _must_ keep more than that to be useful.
391 2017-04-27 19:47:50	0|BlueMatt|sipa: ehh, I'll stick with my *good* coffee, thanks
392 2017-04-27 19:47:56	0|BlueMatt|anyway, next topic?
393 2017-04-27 19:48:09	0|wumpus|#topic high priority for review
394 2017-04-27 19:48:15	0|praxeology|My 2 cents: the UI should stay in MB, but underlying the variables stored by the software should be in block count... for the prune threshold.
395 2017-04-27 19:48:43	0|wumpus|anything to add to project https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8?
396 2017-04-27 19:48:57	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10199 | Better fee estimates by morcos · Pull Request #10199 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
397 2017-04-27 19:49:00	0|BlueMatt|(who is out today)
398 2017-04-27 19:49:17	0|sipa|i'd like to get review on #10195 (which i think is ready)
399 2017-04-27 19:49:18	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10195 | Switch chainstate db and cache to per-txout model by sipa · Pull Request #10195 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
400 2017-04-27 19:49:22	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7729 | rpc: introduce label API for wallet by laanwj · Pull Request #7729 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
401 2017-04-27 19:49:26	0|BlueMatt|sipa: pyou already have an entry....
402 2017-04-27 19:49:31	0|sipa|oh :(
403 2017-04-27 19:49:51	0|wumpus|added 10199
404 2017-04-27 19:50:23	0|cfields|It's not urgent, but #10285 is first in a long line towards libevent
405 2017-04-27 19:50:24	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10285 | net: refactor the connection process. moving towards async connections. by theuni · Pull Request #10285 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
406 2017-04-27 19:50:24	0|sipa|ok, swap #10148 for #10195 then; 10148 needs more tests
407 2017-04-27 19:50:26	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10148 | [WIP] Use non-atomic flushing with block replay by sipa · Pull Request #10148 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
408 2017-04-27 19:50:27	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10195 | Switch chainstate db and cache to per-txout model by sipa · Pull Request #10195 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
409 2017-04-27 19:50:38	0|luke-jr|suggested topic? planned obsolecense
410 2017-04-27 19:50:42	0|jtimon|random though: what about maintaining the mb option an adding an incompatible one (you can only set one) with depth ? then the mb can be just an estimation that translates to depth on init, but you don't break old configs, only the expected guarantees about limits
411 2017-04-27 19:51:01	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: NACK
412 2017-04-27 19:51:16	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: NACK topic or NACK it altogether? :/
413 2017-04-27 19:51:25	0|achow101|luke-jr: planned obsolecense is a bad name for it
414 2017-04-27 19:51:26	0|BlueMatt|second
415 2017-04-27 19:52:10	0|wumpus|added 10285, swapped #10148 for #10195
416 2017-04-27 19:52:12	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10148 | [WIP] Use non-atomic flushing with block replay by sipa · Pull Request #10148 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
417 2017-04-27 19:52:13	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10195 | Switch chainstate db and cache to per-txout model by sipa · Pull Request #10195 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
418 2017-04-27 19:52:28	0|sipa|thanks
419 2017-04-27 19:52:51	0|wumpus|#topic bitcoind expiration
420 2017-04-27 19:53:42	0|jonasschnelli|10282
421 2017-04-27 19:53:44	0|jonasschnelli|#10282
422 2017-04-27 19:53:45	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10282 | Expire bitcoind & bitcoin-qt 7-8 years after its last change by luke-jr · Pull Request #10282 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
423 2017-04-27 19:53:50	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: reasoning for NACK?
424 2017-04-27 19:54:11	0|cfields|luke-jr: maybe explain reasoning for doing so first?
425 2017-04-27 19:54:13	0|luke-jr|re achow101's comment, I don't really think it matters what we call it
426 2017-04-27 19:54:23	0|luke-jr|cfields: 10282 has a full explanation
427 2017-04-27 19:54:51	0|petertodd|any timeframe short enough to really be useful will probably be short enough to raise political risks...
428 2017-04-27 19:54:52	0|luke-jr|1) it's basically guaranteed to be unsafe by then; 2) hardforks become softforks with enough lead time
429 2017-04-27 19:55:01	0|jtimon|I think if it's optional and disabled by default it kind of defeats the point, but I certainly don't want that for myself or the users I recommend to use bitcoin core
430 2017-04-27 19:55:20	0|sipa|luke-jr: i don't see how this has anything to do with consensus changes
431 2017-04-27 19:55:33	0|petertodd|also, is there any precedent for this kind of expiration in other software?
432 2017-04-27 19:55:40	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: 110% sends the wrong message. if i expected any reasonable person to see that and think "I need to think for myself about what consensus of the network is" I'd be happy with it, but realistically the only people reading that will think "oh, I have to switch to the latest thing from Bitcoin Core, for whatever Bitcoin Core is according to my local google server"
433 2017-04-27 19:55:43	0|luke-jr|jtimon: what is the use case for running node software over 7 years after its release, without maintenance?
434 2017-04-27 19:55:53	0|gmaxwell|petertodd: yes, but I'm not aware of any that can be overridden.
435 2017-04-27 19:56:06	0|sipa|luke-jr: i think insecurity of the software is perhaps a good reason, but not consensus
436 2017-04-27 19:56:07	0|petertodd|gmaxwell: got any examples?
437 2017-04-27 19:56:13	0|gmaxwell|petertodd: see also the thing with debian and xscreensaver.
438 2017-04-27 19:56:33	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: that's a problem independent of this IMO
439 2017-04-27 19:56:35	0|petertodd|gmaxwell: ah, yeah, that crazy situation...
440 2017-04-27 19:57:02	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: how is that independant of the thing which creates it? but, indeed, security may be a reasonable reason, not sure its justified, though
441 2017-04-27 19:57:27	0|BlueMatt|am i really not allowed to not upgrade the bitcoind I've got running behind by bitcoind/xyz firewall?
442 2017-04-27 19:57:34	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: people will mostly all update before this triggers; probably using the insecure method you describre
443 2017-04-27 19:57:44	0|gmaxwell|I agree with petertodd's point about short enough to be useful is short enough to be problematic. :( But there are other not really useful features...
444 2017-04-27 19:57:51	0|BlueMatt|oops, bitcoind crashed in production
445 2017-04-27 19:58:23	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: note this has an explicit override allowed
446 2017-04-27 19:58:26	0|petertodd|gmaxwell: and there's a larger point too: chances are the surrounding software on your machine is also not getting updated anyway, so you've got other big problems
447 2017-04-27 19:58:33	0|luke-jr|if you really don't want to upgrade, just add to your config file
448 2017-04-27 19:58:36	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: yes, and you can do that /after/ your bitcoind has crashed
449 2017-04-27 19:58:37	0|jtimon|luke-jr: let's say my friend remembers what I told him about being up to date 6 years and 11 months after I helped him install bitcoin core
450 2017-04-27 19:58:38	0|BlueMatt|which is kinda shit
451 2017-04-27 19:58:49	0|gmaxwell|it would be nice to be able to say there are no nodes running older than X without the user deciding to keep them running.
452 2017-04-27 19:58:58	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: you could do it before as well, but IMO after 7 years it's okay to force the user to do something
453 2017-04-27 19:59:04	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: yes, but the crash was an RCE and all your funds are now gone. :)
454 2017-04-27 19:59:27	0|wumpus|if you run nodes in production you'll have some system to monitor it
455 2017-04-27 19:59:30	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: not if its the bitcoind that everything talks to on your network and it just sits behind sufficient layers of regularly-updated bitcoind firewalls
456 2017-04-27 19:59:40	0|wumpus|and summon an operator on crashes
457 2017-04-27 19:59:53	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: lol, i meannnnn, maybe
458 2017-04-27 20:00:09	0|sipa|wumpus: hahaha, yes, with a server farm at the end of the rainbow
459 2017-04-27 20:00:19	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: and what if it doesn't crash, but someone exploits your failure to enforce a softfork?
460 2017-04-27 20:00:21	0|jtimon|or shouldn't I recommend bitcoin core for a wallet?
461 2017-04-27 20:00:26	0|petertodd|wumpus: you should talk to some banking IT guys about how hard it is to get approval to update things :)
462 2017-04-27 20:00:34	0|luke-jr|jtimon: I don't understand your argument.
463 2017-04-27 20:00:45	0|wumpus|petertodd: I'm not saying anything about updating
464 2017-04-27 20:00:54	0|instagibbs|jtimon, you can over-ride the setting, I believe
465 2017-04-27 20:01:09	0|jtimon|instagibbs: oh, I missed that
466 2017-04-27 20:01:09	0|petertodd|wumpus: literally touching a config option is an update by those standards
467 2017-04-27 20:01:19	0|wumpus|only about crashes, if some software is important to your business and it crashes, you'll notice.
468 2017-04-27 20:01:41	0|wumpus|anyhow
469 2017-04-27 20:01:43	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Apr 27 20:01:43 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
470 2017-04-27 20:01:43	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-04-27-19.02.html
471 2017-04-27 20:01:43	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-04-27-19.02.txt
472 2017-04-27 20:01:43	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
473 2017-04-27 20:01:44	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-04-27-19.02.log.html
474 2017-04-27 20:01:59	0|jtimon|luke-jr: sorry, I missed what instagibbs just said, should read the proposal I guess
475 2017-04-27 20:03:17	0|jnewbery|"after 7 years it's okay to force the user to do something" - not sure I understand this. Who's forcing the user to do something?
476 2017-04-27 20:03:25	0|wumpus|heck my nodes do nothing imporant and even I have a one-liner script that sends me a mail on crash or unexpected exit
477 2017-04-27 20:03:44	0|luke-jr|jnewbery: 7 years after it's released, bitcoind/-qt would exit and refuse to start until the user chose to either upgrade it, or override the expiration
478 2017-04-27 20:03:49	0|jtimon|jnewbery: also, this is free software, you can't force users
479 2017-04-27 20:04:00	0|jnewbery|jtimon - right that's my point
480 2017-04-27 20:04:07	0|sipa|my node does something important, and i have a 0-line script that sends me an mail on crash (= people mail me that my website stopped updating)
481 2017-04-27 20:04:18	0|luke-jr|jtimon: you can force users to *do something* :P
482 2017-04-27 20:04:20	0|wumpus|sipa: well that works too
483 2017-04-27 20:04:26	0|luke-jr|sipa: haha
484 2017-04-27 20:05:15	0|jtimon|luke-jr: yes, but then I will disable the anti-feature for my friend the first time I help him install and tell him about updates
485 2017-04-27 20:06:03	0|luke-jr|jtimon: why?
486 2017-04-27 20:06:12	0|luke-jr|the "anti-feature" has no harm in any reasonable scenario
487 2017-04-27 20:06:20	0|jnewbery|I'd be happy for there to be a warning if running an old version, but I really don't like it automatically disabling a node after 7 years, particularly if the reason is "this enables a sort of certainty of old nodes ending by a deadline, turning any hardfork into a de facto softfork provided it is planned 8 years out."
488 2017-04-27 20:06:20	0|wumpus|another possiblity would be to only refuse to start after 7 years, not stop if already running
489 2017-04-27 20:06:26	0|wumpus|this would give less guarantees, but still
490 2017-04-27 20:06:28	0|jnewbery|In that case, we might as well have auto-update
491 2017-04-27 20:06:50	0|wumpus|jnewbery: wow that's very black and white
492 2017-04-27 20:06:55	0|luke-jr|jnewbery: not the same thing at all; the user can always opt to bypass the expiration
493 2017-04-27 20:06:55	0|petertodd|wumpus: god help us if we ever release a version that gets the date wrong...
494 2017-04-27 20:07:00	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: yea, something much more watered down may be reasonable, including huge fat warnings if the software is like 2 years old
495 2017-04-27 20:07:21	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: the perception will be black and white as well
496 2017-04-27 20:07:23	0|wumpus|petertodd: well it could mention the flag to override I guess
497 2017-04-27 20:07:44	0|jtimon|luke-jr: again, sorry, should read the proposal but "programmed obsolecense" definitely sounds like an anti-feature, after reading the proposal, if I think is a feature, will maybe just suggest to rename it
498 2017-04-27 20:07:51	0|BlueMatt|refusing to start with an error message mentioning the flag to override would be reasonable, but also largely useless
499 2017-04-27 20:07:55	0|wumpus|anyhow, apparently the consensus is to not do it, that's fine
500 2017-04-27 20:07:59	0|BlueMatt|though maybe not just to remind users
501 2017-04-27 20:08:00	0|petertodd|wumpus: you still might have quite a bit of chaos of nodes being shut down all at once
502 2017-04-27 20:08:21	0|wumpus|petertodd: that's why I suggested "<wumpus> another possiblity would be to only refuse to start after 7 years, not stop if already running"
503 2017-04-27 20:08:41	0|wumpus|in any case, seems there's too much drawbacks to this
504 2017-04-27 20:09:01	0|sipa|wumpus: so all you need to do after 7 years is find a remote crashing bug, and use it on every remaining node (and finding a remote crash bug for 7 yo software doesn't sound hard...)
505 2017-04-27 20:09:05	0|sipa|:)
506 2017-04-27 20:09:07	0|petertodd|wumpus: I'd think nodes get restarted reasonably often, and often by automatic means
507 2017-04-27 20:09:15	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: yes, your proposal i could get behind, mostly because it would inform users that they can add a conf option, making the "refuse to start" thing kinda moot, while still being really insistent on telling users to upgrade, which is fine
508 2017-04-27 20:09:45	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: I think that's acceptable after 7 years
509 2017-04-27 20:10:01	0|sipa|i don't think that there is much difference between refusing to start vs stopping to work
510 2017-04-27 20:10:05	0|wumpus|come on, 7 years is an eternity on the internet, we shouldn't bee too childish about this
511 2017-04-27 20:10:15	0|sipa|especially at that timeframe
512 2017-04-27 20:10:26	0|wumpus|sipa: right
513 2017-04-27 20:10:38	0|BlueMatt|sipa: I tend to disagree
514 2017-04-27 20:10:41	0|jnewbery|wumpus: not helpful. I think people are raising legitimate concerns
515 2017-04-27 20:10:55	0|wumpus|a startup check is simpler to implement and less error prone though
516 2017-04-27 20:11:04	0|BlueMatt|(re difference between startup and forced shutdown)
517 2017-04-27 20:11:26	0|wumpus|jnewbery: really, a legitimate concern, that people are running 7 year old software in production?
518 2017-04-27 20:11:34	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: yes
519 2017-04-27 20:11:53	0|jnewbery|a legitimate concern that devs don't have the right to "force" users to do something
520 2017-04-27 20:11:53	0|wumpus|sometimes it's just like people are just making up unlikely \things just to argue
521 2017-04-27 20:11:55	0|instagibbs|and can't be bothered to click through, or set a flag?
522 2017-04-27 20:11:59	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: 7 years is, in fact, *not* an eternity on the internet
523 2017-04-27 20:12:08	0|instagibbs|I understand it would need to be done right, but that's a little nuts.
524 2017-04-27 20:12:17	0|wumpus|it wouldn't be forcing to do anything, as there is an override
525 2017-04-27 20:12:18	0|wumpus|sigh
526 2017-04-27 20:12:21	0|BlueMatt|instagibbs: click through fine, shutdown *while running*?
527 2017-04-27 20:12:31	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: it's only slightly shorter than Bitcoin's current lifetime
528 2017-04-27 20:12:33	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: okay, what ever
529 2017-04-27 20:12:37	0|instagibbs|BlueMatt, sure, that's another dot on the matrix, I agree on that one
530 2017-04-27 20:12:56	0|jtimon|it should still be relatively easy for users to get out of the stuck situation in case they can't upgrade in the same system or something, like maybe deleting a filed named ~/.bitcoin/DELETE_ME_ONLY_IF_YOU_CANT_UPGRADE_IN_THIS_SYSTEM or something
531 2017-04-27 20:13:13	0|luke-jr|jtimon: yes, it's already easy to override
532 2017-04-27 20:13:22	0|BlueMatt|jtimon: conf flag seems neater, no one checks their bitcoin datadir
533 2017-04-27 20:13:24	0|luke-jr|we can make it easier perhaps by taking a YYYY instead of POSIX timestamp
534 2017-04-27 20:13:31	0|petertodd|gmaxwell: btw, re: your comment in the meeting, no-one's funding me to do any work on Bitcoin Core these days
535 2017-04-27 20:13:40	0|jtimon|luke-jr: BlueMatt: great
536 2017-04-27 20:14:20	0|luke-jr|jnewbery: nobody is forcing users to run Core at all.
537 2017-04-27 20:15:10	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: on a less controversial note, #7729 is ripe for rebase-and-review, no? or are we now so bogged down on major features that need review you're waiting? :/
538 2017-04-27 20:15:11	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7729 | rpc: introduce label API for wallet by laanwj · Pull Request #7729 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
539 2017-04-27 20:15:30	0|jnewbery|luke-jr indeed, and I don't think core devs should attempt to force users to upgrade
540 2017-04-27 20:16:01	0|luke-jr|jnewbery: we're not. by running Core, they would be opting in to being forced to either upgrade OR tell the software they don't want to
541 2017-04-27 20:16:07	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: yes, I tried once, but so much moved around since that it's pretty much "re-do" instead of rebase
542 2017-04-27 20:16:16	0|BlueMatt|grr, sorry about that :/
543 2017-04-27 20:16:17	0|luke-jr|"forced" is really the wrong word here
544 2017-04-27 20:16:48	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: thats ridiculous, you're living in a world where people have the time go read a ton of bitcoin core docs/code before running it, and do...neither of which are true
545 2017-04-27 20:16:49	0|wumpus|I don't think we're going to agree on this luke-jr
546 2017-04-27 20:16:50	0|jtimon|yeah, as BlueMatt said, being annoying about upgrading is fine
547 2017-04-27 20:17:29	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: not before, simply read a short notice when it tells them to make a decision
548 2017-04-27 20:17:34	0|wumpus|when it detoriorates to arguing about what words to use it's better to just stop
549 2017-04-27 20:18:08	0|luke-jr|jtimon: well, this proposal comes down to being annoying at worst, and BlueMatt doesn't like it either
550 2017-04-27 20:18:31	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: which proposal now? refusing to startup or crashing while running?
551 2017-04-27 20:18:40	0|BlueMatt|but, yea, I'm gonna go back to review, this has devolved
552 2017-04-27 20:18:40	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: IIRC I don't think any of the wallet changes that complicate rebasing #7729 are your fault, just a lot happened there
553 2017-04-27 20:18:42	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7729 | rpc: introduce label API for wallet by laanwj · Pull Request #7729 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
554 2017-04-27 20:18:52	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: yes, being able to override it means it's merely annoying
555 2017-04-27 20:19:04	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: fair, but its on the rest of us to get it reviewed in a timely manner :p
556 2017-04-27 20:19:45	0|jtimon|luke-jr: as said, without reading it, my only concern that it wasn't relatively easy or undocumented for a user to overrule the annoyance
557 2017-04-27 20:19:46	0|michagogo|Last week we were talking about WSL and Gitian
558 2017-04-27 20:19:49	0|wumpus|I would have liked quicker feedback on the API. But I think there's agreement on that now so implementation should be fairy simple
559 2017-04-27 20:20:03	0|michagogo|I haven't tried with VBox yet, but I can confirm that LXC doesn't work
560 2017-04-27 20:20:14	0|jtimon|what is the link again?
561 2017-04-27 20:20:16	0|wumpus|what doesn't work?
562 2017-04-27 20:20:27	0|michagogo|make-base-vm fails, as does lxc-create
563 2017-04-27 20:20:28	0|wumpus|building master using gitian?
564 2017-04-27 20:20:36	0|michagogo|No, running LXC in WSL
565 2017-04-27 20:20:44	0|luke-jr|no surprise there
566 2017-04-27 20:20:45	0|wumpus|ohh. Yes we know that, that's an upstream problem
567 2017-04-27 20:20:47	0|michagogo|Right
568 2017-04-27 20:20:51	0|wumpus|bother microsoft :)
569 2017-04-27 20:20:56	0|michagogo|I wasn't expecting it to, at all
570 2017-04-27 20:21:09	0|michagogo|But someone last week thought maybe it would, so I tried it
571 2017-04-27 20:21:13	0|wumpus|even building depends in WSL currently doesn't work, due to some vague change in their ubuntu
572 2017-04-27 20:21:34	0|BlueMatt|microsoft: taking "compatibility" to a new level
573 2017-04-27 20:21:38	0|wumpus|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10269
574 2017-04-27 20:21:54	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: yeah embrace and extinguish, round N
575 2017-04-27 20:22:52	0|michagogo|Really? I didn't know that.
576 2017-04-27 20:23:07	0|michagogo|I remember when WSL was pretty new I tried it and it worked perfectly
577 2017-04-27 20:23:26	0|wumpus|it worked at some point
578 2017-04-27 20:24:24	0|BlueMatt|it worked when they made the press release for all the people to try it, after that they only cared that it appeared to work so that windows folks build software that doesnt really work on linux, but claims to :p
579 2017-04-27 20:24:39	0|michagogo|It's times like this that I wish I had Windows 10 on my computer
580 2017-04-27 20:24:52	0|BlueMatt|ewwwwwww
581 2017-04-27 20:25:01	0|BlueMatt|thats worse than starbucks coffee!
582 2017-04-27 20:25:05	0|michagogo|I mean, I'm on Win7 right now
583 2017-04-27 20:25:14	0|BlueMatt|ouch
584 2017-04-27 20:26:11	0|michagogo|Haven't upgraded for two reasons. First, I don't use my computer at home so much lately (= the last couple years) and don't have so much time to spend with it to try and fix it if it gets messed up, smooth out the kinks, etc.
585 2017-04-27 20:26:35	0|edcba|7yrs software in prod rotfl: in 2016 i was supporting xp at work...
586 2017-04-27 20:26:35	0|michagogo|Second, at work I have 7, and I'm concerned that one of two things will happen
587 2017-04-27 20:27:26	0|jtimon|is there an issue in win7's github for the bug on their side? let's just go concept ack there
588 2017-04-27 20:27:46	0|michagogo|Either it'll be too different and I won't adjust to it because I'll still be mostly using 7, and then my time with it will be annoying, or, it'll be amazing and I'll get used to having stuff from it, and then be sad when I go back to 7 at work
589 2017-04-27 20:27:51	0|michagogo|"win7's github"?
590 2017-04-27 20:28:00	0|jtimon|sorry, bad joke
591 2017-04-27 20:28:01	0|BlueMatt|michagogo: i think it was a joke :p
592 2017-04-27 20:28:09	0|BlueMatt|jtimon: i found it comical
593 2017-04-27 20:28:25	0|michagogo|Wait, which bug?
594 2017-04-27 20:28:33	0|michagogo|I first thought you meant Windows 10
595 2017-04-27 20:28:42	0|jtimon|BlueMatt: oh, thanks, I read your "I think" as a confirmation that it was bad
596 2017-04-27 20:28:55	0|michagogo|Because if Core builds on Ubuntu but not in WSL, that *is* a bug in WSL
597 2017-04-27 20:29:42	0|wumpus|after all we did a gitian build very shortly ago, which uses the same version of ubuntu (14.04)
598 2017-04-27 20:30:03	0|wumpus|maybe it's some magic with line endings or such
599 2017-04-27 20:30:23	0|michagogo|I think as of Creator Update, a couple weeks ago, new WSL installs are Xenial
600 2017-04-27 20:30:39	0|wumpus|ugh
601 2017-04-27 20:30:45	0|michagogo|Ugh? Why?
602 2017-04-27 20:30:58	0|wumpus|the windows toolchain on xenial is kind of broken
603 2017-04-27 20:31:10	0|BlueMatt|no wonder wsl is broken
604 2017-04-27 20:31:20	0|wumpus|yes, that explains it then
605 2017-04-27 20:31:27	0|michagogo|Really? Have bugs been filed?
606 2017-04-27 20:31:31	0|wumpus|they can be happy they don't get executables
607 2017-04-27 20:31:49	0|wumpus|I don't think it was ever narrowed down
608 2017-04-27 20:32:19	0|michagogo|Is there anything different besides gcc being replaced by mingw-w64?
609 2017-04-27 20:32:43	0|wumpus|see "Ubuntu 16.04 Windows cross-build" on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects for a collection of issues
610 2017-04-27 20:33:01	0|wumpus|it's a newer version of mingw-w64 that doesn't work so well
611 2017-04-27 20:33:10	0|michagogo|I was thinking of upgrading my Ubuntu VM (that I use mostly for gitian building) from Trusty to Xenial - should I not do that?
612 2017-04-27 20:33:19	0|wumpus|fstack-protector produces broken executables, and there was some c++11 threading snafu
613 2017-04-27 20:33:33	0|wumpus|could be that these are solved by now, I have no idea, haven't tried it for months
614 2017-04-27 20:34:12	0|wumpus|you can't use xenial for gitian building without everyone else changing too
615 2017-04-27 20:34:27	0|michagogo|I meant for the host
616 2017-04-27 20:34:33	0|wumpus|oh the host can be anything
617 2017-04-27 20:34:35	0|michagogo|Not changing the target container
618 2017-04-27 20:34:41	0|wumpus|I use debian for the host
619 2017-04-27 20:34:49	0|jtimon|wumpus: btw, it would be nice to put BlueMatt 's libconsensus-related PRs in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/6 (and always tag anything there with "consensus")
620 2017-04-27 20:34:57	0|michagogo|I wonder if I should delete my precise sandbox VM
621 2017-04-27 20:35:22	0|wumpus|michagogo: yes, why not
622 2017-04-27 20:35:25	0|wumpus|jtimon: ok
623 2017-04-27 20:36:29	0|jtimon|wumpus: thanks, I mean, not a priority, just would be somewhat helpful
624 2017-04-27 20:41:17	0|jtimon|btw BlueMatt thanks for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/771 I shouldn't look at it much and look at the new things instead but like these things if I find the time
625 2017-04-27 20:41:52	0|BlueMatt|jtimon: lol, that was so long ago even I dont remember how it was designed
626 2017-04-27 20:42:24	0|jtimon|but you said it was based on it, so I was hoping some ideas remained
627 2017-04-27 20:43:09	0|jtimon|that's what makes it more interesting IMO, it could be the same general idea with very different code
628 2017-04-27 20:44:17	0|jtimon|or more or less the same code, which I would find more amusing
629 2017-04-27 21:01:11	0|sipa|jtimon: i think the extent of the similarity is "encapsulate all the state related to blockchain censensus"
630 2017-04-27 21:17:01	0|achow101|wumpus: michagogo windows cross compile on ubuntu xenial is still broken.
631 2017-04-27 21:17:16	0|achow101|on wsl, there's a different problem with depends failing
632 2017-04-27 21:24:10	0|wumpus|achow101: yes, seems to be different issues - confusing
633 2017-04-27 21:24:28	0|wumpus|building on xenial, for xenial works fine in any case
634 2017-04-27 21:24:46	0|wumpus|it only breaks with windows in the picture (either as cross compile or WSL)
635 2017-04-27 21:33:56	0|michagogo|Hm, if I have a VM with a snapshot and a bunch of changes since the snapshot, and I want to create a snapshot of the current state and delete the existing one
636 2017-04-27 21:34:19	0|michagogo|Does it matter at all whether I delete the current one before or after taking the new one, in terms of final size?
637 2017-04-27 22:49:11	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift closed pull request #9544: [trivial] Add end of namespace comments. Improve consistency. (06master...06consistent-use-of-end-of-namespace-comments) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9544
638 2017-04-27 22:51:41	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift reopened pull request #9544: [trivial] Add end of namespace comments. Improve consistency. (06master...06consistent-use-of-end-of-namespace-comments) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9544