1 2017-06-01 04:21:12	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #10493: Use range-based for loops (C+11) when looping over map elements (06master...06map) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10493
  2 2017-06-01 08:14:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10459: I found I needed to use gmake on FreeBSD 10.3 (060.14...06patch-2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10459
  3 2017-06-01 08:41:04	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #10495: contrib: Update location of seeds.txt (06master...062017_06_seeds_source) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10495
  4 2017-06-01 08:42:54	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141983c87 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: devtools: Retry after signing fails in github-merge...
  5 2017-06-01 08:42:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/18ba984140be...10e8c0a298b3
  6 2017-06-01 08:42:55	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1410e8c0a 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10486: devtools: Retry after signing fails in github-merge...
  7 2017-06-01 08:43:29	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10486: devtools: Retry after signing fails in github-merge (06master...062017_05_githubmerge_sign_error) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10486
  8 2017-06-01 08:48:39	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141b6602f 15Russell Yanofsky: Fix bumpfee rpc "errors" return value
  9 2017-06-01 08:48:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/10e8c0a298b3...ef2d062c9f72
 10 2017-06-01 08:48:40	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ef2d062 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10450: Fix bumpfee rpc "errors" return value...
 11 2017-06-01 08:49:14	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10450: Fix bumpfee rpc "errors" return value (06master...06pr/berr) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10450
 12 2017-06-01 08:51:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14cd5622d 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Make bitcoind invalid argument error message specific...
 13 2017-06-01 08:51:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ef2d062c9f72...f259263a7b11
 14 2017-06-01 08:51:25	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f259263 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10447: Make bitcoind invalid argument error message specific...
 15 2017-06-01 08:52:00	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10447: Make bitcoind invalid argument error message specific (06master...062017_05_bitcoind_commandline_error) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10447
 16 2017-06-01 10:44:08	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15benma opened pull request #10496: Add Binds, WhiteBinds, Whitelistedrange to CConnman::Options (06master...06connman_options) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10496
 17 2017-06-01 11:00:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ac9cd95 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: contrib: Update location of seeds.txt...
 18 2017-06-01 11:00:18	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f259263a7b11...6a38b79de439
 19 2017-06-01 11:00:19	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 146a38b79 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10495: contrib: Update location of seeds.txt...
 20 2017-06-01 11:00:57	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10495: contrib: Update location of seeds.txt (06master...062017_06_seeds_source) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10495
 21 2017-06-01 11:19:57	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1416d94d3 15James Evans: Fixing typo in rpcdump.cpp
 22 2017-06-01 11:19:57	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6a38b79de439...b6b150b01668
 23 2017-06-01 11:19:58	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b6b150b 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10469: Fixing typo in rpcdump.cpp...
 24 2017-06-01 11:20:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10469: Fixing typo in rpcdump.cpp (06master...06patch-2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10469
 25 2017-06-01 11:24:55	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b6fbfc2 15Cory Fields: net: only enforce the services required to connect...
 26 2017-06-01 11:24:55	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b6b150b01668...cb1716acc720
 27 2017-06-01 11:24:56	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14cb1716a 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10441: net: only enforce expected services for half of outgoing connections...
 28 2017-06-01 11:25:27	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10441: net: only enforce expected services for half of outgoing connections (06master...06serviceflags-required) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10441
 29 2017-06-01 12:15:42	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15benma opened pull request #10497: remove the PAIRTYPE macro (06master...06pairtype) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10497
 30 2017-06-01 12:20:13	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.14 149e3ad50 15Cory Fields: net: only enforce the services required to connect...
 31 2017-06-01 12:20:13	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.14: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9e3ad500780b284765654cff4144451c7fa5ef6b
 32 2017-06-01 12:35:35	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #10498: Use static_cast instead of C-style casts for non-fundamental types (06master...06static_cast) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10498
 33 2017-06-01 13:05:38	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14afc693d 15Luke Dashjr: contrib/init/bitcoind.openrcconf: Don't disable wallet by default...
 34 2017-06-01 13:05:38	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/cb1716acc720...27b99312bf09
 35 2017-06-01 13:05:39	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1427b9931 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10451: contrib/init/bitcoind.openrcconf: Don't disable wallet by default...
 36 2017-06-01 13:06:19	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10451: contrib/init/bitcoind.openrcconf: Don't disable wallet by default (06master...06openrc_wallet) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10451
 37 2017-06-01 13:13:52	0|instagibbs|wumpus, if you're still looking for things to merge :P https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10475
 38 2017-06-01 13:18:19	0|timothy|hi
 39 2017-06-01 13:19:46	0|timothy|who maintains dev.bitcoincore.org ?
 40 2017-06-01 13:21:25	0|fanquake|instagibbs I'm sure it'll get picked up tonight
 41 2017-06-01 13:22:05	0|instagibbs|fanquake, "tonight"? honest question, is there a method to the madness? :)
 42 2017-06-01 13:22:13	0|instagibbs|Other than ad hoc scanning
 43 2017-06-01 13:25:01	0|fanquake|instagibbs dev meeting tonight isn't there? Normally a time to get some merging done
 44 2017-06-01 13:31:28	0|instagibbs|oh yes, I always forget it's irc meeting day
 45 2017-06-01 13:32:22	0|fanquake|I probably wont be at the dev meeting, but would like opinions on Qt5.9.0 for 0.15. Compilation (brew, osx) looks ok so far, depends patches will need some fixes. Interested to see the results of the new -optimize-size option; claims of 5-20% binary size decrease. We should also be able to pass more -no-* flags to cut more crap out of our build.
 46 2017-06-01 14:05:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/27b99312bf09...64beb1317912
 47 2017-06-01 14:05:35	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1432325a3 15Jonas Schnelli: [Qt] hide bump context menu action if tx already has been bumped
 48 2017-06-01 14:05:35	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 146d7104c 15Jonas Schnelli: [Qt] make sure transaction table entry gets updated after bump
 49 2017-06-01 14:05:36	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1464beb13 15Jonas Schnelli: Merge #10449: Overhaul Qt fee bumper...
 50 2017-06-01 14:05:57	0|jonasschnelli|cfields: ping
 51 2017-06-01 14:06:31	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #10449: Overhaul Qt fee bumper (06master...062016/05/bump_qt_overhaul) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10449
 52 2017-06-01 15:57:28	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ryanofsky opened pull request #10500: Avoid CWalletTx copies in GetAddressBalances and GetAddressGroupings (06master...06pr/wtxcopy) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10500
 53 2017-06-01 16:56:50	0|jtimon|mhmm FAIL: qt/test/test_bitcoin-qt on master 64beb13... Merge #10449: Overhaul Qt fee bumper
 54 2017-06-01 16:56:51	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10449 | Overhaul Qt fee bumper by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #10449 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 55 2017-06-01 16:59:08	0|jtimon|seems lie #10449 is to blame since this passes: 27b99312 Merge #10451: contrib/init/bitcoind.openrcconf: Don't disable wallet by default
 56 2017-06-01 16:59:09	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10449 | Overhaul Qt fee bumper by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #10449 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 57 2017-06-01 16:59:10	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10451 | contrib/init/bitcoind.openrcconf: Dont disable wallet by default by luke-jr · Pull Request #10451 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 58 2017-06-01 17:14:55	0|instagibbs|can someone explain to me where/how "--without-gui" is consumed?
 59 2017-06-01 17:15:07	0|instagibbs|grepping for it fails :)
 60 2017-06-01 17:15:57	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15benma opened pull request #10501: remove some unused functions (06master...06unusedfuncs) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10501
 61 2017-06-01 17:17:12	0|wumpus|timothy: "<timothy> who maintains dev.bitcoincore.org ?" cfields should have access at least, why?
 62 2017-06-01 17:17:45	0|timothy|nothing, solved :)
 63 2017-06-01 17:17:55	0|wumpus|instagibbs: it gets converted to --with-gui=no IIRC
 64 2017-06-01 17:19:27	0|instagibbs|oh. there we go
 65 2017-06-01 17:19:27	0|wumpus|--(with|without)-x and --(enable|disable)-x are standard autoconf arguments that have a special handler construct, don't know by heart how it's called though
 66 2017-06-01 17:19:37	0|instagibbs|thanks
 67 2017-06-01 17:19:48	0|Dizzle|Yep, part of the autoconf/automake stuff. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/ed09dd3f5a87db570152ebbec4d9a489e414deed/build-aux/m4/bitcoin_qt.m4#L55
 68 2017-06-01 17:20:04	0|instagibbs|I knew that it was part of autoconf, which is why I asked, because it's a black box to me :)
 69 2017-06-01 17:22:00	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f128f78 15Gregory Sanders: getmempool mempoolminfee is a BTC/KB feerate
 70 2017-06-01 17:22:00	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/64beb1317912...39039b12a744
 71 2017-06-01 17:22:01	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1439039b1 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10475: [RPC] getmempoolinfo mempoolminfee is a BTC/KB feerate...
 72 2017-06-01 17:23:01	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10475: [RPC] getmempoolinfo mempoolminfee is a BTC/KB feerate (06master...06poolfeerate) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10475
 73 2017-06-01 17:23:49	0|wumpus|Dizzle: exactly
 74 2017-06-01 17:24:34	0|Dizzle|instagibbs: the source I linked deals with the flag, sets the bitcoin_enable_qt vars you'll see referenced throughout the rest of the configure/make stuff.
 75 2017-06-01 17:26:02	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon opened pull request #10502: scripted-diff: Remove BOOST_FOREACH, Q_FOREACH and PAIRTYPE (06master...06b15-boost-foreach) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10502
 76 2017-06-01 17:33:08	0|gmaxwell|holy crap Block Filter Digest profiling post on bitcoin-dev.
 77 2017-06-01 18:15:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #10503: Use REJECT_DUPLICATE for already known and conflicted txn (06master...06more61duplicate) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10503
 78 2017-06-01 18:47:58	0|gmaxwell|Meeting in 12 minutes.
 79 2017-06-01 18:50:26	0|wumpus|yep
 80 2017-06-01 18:51:50	0|btcdrak|I might make it this time
 81 2017-06-01 18:52:44	0|jtimon|I suggest we start with the priority PRs topic, that tends to be short and spring other topics
 82 2017-06-01 18:53:16	0|wumpus|jtimon: ok, let's do that
 83 2017-06-01 18:54:46	0|jtimon|mhm, weird error https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/237624588
 84 2017-06-01 18:56:36	0|BlueMatt|cfields: is out dealing with life things, apparently
 85 2017-06-01 18:57:03	0|cfields|BlueMatt: nevermind, i made it!
 86 2017-06-01 18:57:09	0|BlueMatt|lolk
 87 2017-06-01 18:57:30	0|btcdrak|jtimon: just needs to be restarted
 88 2017-06-01 18:57:34	0|cfields|jonasschnelli: sorry, it's moving day (apparently), wasn't around earlier. You around to discuss after the meeting?
 89 2017-06-01 18:59:45	0|jonasschnelli|cfields: I guess I fall to sleep in 1h. But we may make it tomorrow. :)
 90 2017-06-01 18:59:50	0|jonasschnelli|No hurry
 91 2017-06-01 19:00:01	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
 92 2017-06-01 19:00:04	0|jonasschnelli|But love to hear how we can solve the wallet-tool building
 93 2017-06-01 19:00:11	0|cfields|jonasschnelli: ah, ok
 94 2017-06-01 19:00:13	0|sdaftuar|hi
 95 2017-06-01 19:00:20	0|jonasschnelli|hi
 96 2017-06-01 19:00:21	0|btcdrak|hi
 97 2017-06-01 19:00:21	0|morcos|i'm kind of here for the next 25 mins
 98 2017-06-01 19:00:31	0|sipa|present
 99 2017-06-01 19:00:41	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Jun  1 19:00:41 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
100 2017-06-01 19:00:41	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
101 2017-06-01 19:00:41	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
102 2017-06-01 19:00:44	0|achow101|hi
103 2017-06-01 19:01:01	0|wumpus|proposed topics?
104 2017-06-01 19:01:11	0|luke-jr|suggested topic: safe DoS handling around softforks
105 2017-06-01 19:02:02	0|wumpus|ok, we'll start with high-priority review as suggested by jtimon
106 2017-06-01 19:02:03	0|gmaxwell|It was proposed we talk about PRs first.
107 2017-06-01 19:02:05	0|wumpus|#topic High-priority review PRs
108 2017-06-01 19:02:18	0|jonasschnelli|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
109 2017-06-01 19:02:34	0|wumpus|anything to add this week?
110 2017-06-01 19:02:46	0|jonasschnelli|Please review HD auto restore... I whised we have this in 0.15. But seems to get late: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10240
111 2017-06-01 19:02:51	0|jtimon|mine still is #10339  (which contains #9717 )
112 2017-06-01 19:02:54	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10339 | Optimization: Calculate block hash less times by jtimon · Pull Request #10339 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
113 2017-06-01 19:02:55	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9717 | Pow: Remove fCheckPOW from CheckBlockHeader by jtimon · Pull Request #9717 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
114 2017-06-01 19:03:06	0|jtimon|did squash and the requested rename
115 2017-06-01 19:03:26	0|cfields|wumpus: I _promise_ to review your unix socket changes this week. They slipped off my radar, but I'm aware they're painful rebases.
116 2017-06-01 19:03:29	0|gmaxwell|Where have we gotten on multiwallet?
117 2017-06-01 19:03:46	0|jonasschnelli|luke-jr: there are compile issues
118 2017-06-01 19:03:53	0|sipa|i'm currently squashing #10195, after that i'd like to request review on #10321
119 2017-06-01 19:03:58	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
120 2017-06-01 19:03:59	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10321 | Use FastRandomContext for all tests by sipa · Pull Request #10321 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
121 2017-06-01 19:03:59	0|jonasschnelli|Gitian won't compile I guess because of the test fixtures
122 2017-06-01 19:04:07	0|luke-jr|hmm
123 2017-06-01 19:04:23	0|jonasschnelli|Once that is fixed, I guess we can merge luke-jr first step
124 2017-06-01 19:04:45	0|jonasschnelli|But ideally we work on runtime-wallet loading
125 2017-06-01 19:04:54	0|jonasschnelli|shouldn't be that hard
126 2017-06-01 19:05:25	0|jtimon|#7729 needs rebase
127 2017-06-01 19:05:26	0|wumpus|cfields: thanks!
128 2017-06-01 19:05:28	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7729 | rpc: introduce label API for wallet by laanwj · Pull Request #7729 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
129 2017-06-01 19:05:35	0|cfields|jonasschnelli: if i'm understanding correctly, that's the tl;dr for fixing the wallet tool build issue as well :)
130 2017-06-01 19:05:46	0|cfields|(my proposal, anyway)
131 2017-06-01 19:05:51	0|wumpus|jtimon: yes
132 2017-06-01 19:05:59	0|jonasschnelli|cfields: wallet-tool build issue could solve salvage, upgrade, etc.
133 2017-06-01 19:06:20	0|jonasschnelli|currently multiwallet does only allow all-or-nothing rescans/salvages,zaps, etc.
134 2017-06-01 19:06:41	0|gmaxwell|7729 was mostly API review. I kind of got lost on it becuase I didn't see how the api can be cleanly extended to multiple lables per transaction, but I keep forgetting about it to go read in again what the api was in order to prodice more commentary. :(
135 2017-06-01 19:06:44	0|cfields|i see
136 2017-06-01 19:06:48	0|jtimon|just giving heads up, also #10044's tests are failing
137 2017-06-01 19:06:48	0|kanzure|hi.
138 2017-06-01 19:06:50	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10044 | Run functional tests in `make check` by jnewbery · Pull Request #10044 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
139 2017-06-01 19:07:11	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: I think it was proposed to make salvage/zap only work when one wallet was loaded.
140 2017-06-01 19:07:17	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: multiple labels per transactions simply wasn't a goal there
141 2017-06-01 19:07:21	0|gmaxwell|which seemed like a fine stopgap to me.
142 2017-06-01 19:07:33	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: I'm fine with doing it later, but let's not scope creep this, it's already getting late
143 2017-06-01 19:07:45	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: Seems reasonable.
144 2017-06-01 19:08:00	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: I understand; I am not trying to suggest that it should do that, but not sure if the api can be cleanly extended later to support that.
145 2017-06-01 19:08:10	0|wumpus|the goal of #7729 was explicitly to offer the same API as the GUI has for labels
146 2017-06-01 19:08:12	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7729 | rpc: introduce label API for wallet by laanwj · Pull Request #7729 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
147 2017-06-01 19:08:18	0|wumpus|to be able to drop the account system
148 2017-06-01 19:08:27	0|wumpus|after that, the label system can be improved, both in the GUI and RPC
149 2017-06-01 19:08:34	0|jonasschnelli|ack
150 2017-06-01 19:08:50	0|ryanofsky|#10244 would be my priority review, if it could be added
151 2017-06-01 19:08:52	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10244 | [qt] Add abstraction layer for accessing node and wallet functionality from gui by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10244 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
152 2017-06-01 19:08:58	0|gmaxwell|okay. so long as its not an omission. I feel like we end up with our hands tied by the rpc interface pretty often.
153 2017-06-01 19:08:59	0|jtimon|sounds reasonable, certainly the priority is to remove the accounts system IMO
154 2017-06-01 19:09:00	0|jonasschnelli|setlabel and deletelabel should be multi-label compatible (API wise)
155 2017-06-01 19:09:24	0|gmaxwell|(by not an omission I mean that we don't put ourselves in a corner just because we didn't think of it. If you're aware, thats enough.)
156 2017-06-01 19:09:46	0|jonasschnelli|7729 can be perfectly extaned later
157 2017-06-01 19:09:59	0|jonasschnelli|(without breaking the API)
158 2017-06-01 19:10:09	0|gmaxwell|OK.
159 2017-06-01 19:10:11	0|wumpus|I just think we shouldn't aim too far - we've been talking about deprecating the account system for so long and this is blocking it. But if there's suggesting for improving the API to (later) support multiple labels that's very welcome.
160 2017-06-01 19:10:42	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. We finally should do it.
161 2017-06-01 19:10:51	0|jtimon|other topics?
162 2017-06-01 19:11:14	0|wumpus|ryanofsky: sure; though we should first get the multiwallet base in, I think more abstraction around the wallet right now will break various PRs there again
163 2017-06-01 19:11:56	0|wumpus|#topic safe DoS handling around softforks (luke-jr)
164 2017-06-01 19:11:58	0|cfields|proposed quick topic: 0.14.2
165 2017-06-01 19:12:31	0|wumpus|ryanofsky: I'll add your PR to the high-priority PRs, but we need to keep that in mind
166 2017-06-01 19:12:50	0|sipa|i think DoS scoring in general needs a rework, but especially for blocks, i think that few is needed after PoW checking
167 2017-06-01 19:12:57	0|sdaftuar|#9530
168 2017-06-01 19:12:58	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9530 | [brainstorm] DoS protection for blocks · Issue #9530 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
169 2017-06-01 19:13:02	0|jtimon|just add it as a depdendency in the OP and rebase on top of it maybe?
170 2017-06-01 19:13:07	0|luke-jr|it's come to light that blocks cause DoS penalties for invalid prev-blocks
171 2017-06-01 19:13:16	0|ryanofsky|wumpus, thanks. there is barely anything that would have to be change with current multiwallet prs, but i don't know what multiwallet plans for qt are
172 2017-06-01 19:13:25	0|luke-jr|which are liable to get triggered by outdated nodes following softforks
173 2017-06-01 19:13:40	0|wumpus|ryanofsky: I don't know either - just that multiwallet is priority for 0.15.0, better abstraction for the wallet can theoretically wait until 0.16
174 2017-06-01 19:14:03	0|luke-jr|part of this is easy to fix: just don't DoS-ban for invalid prevblocks
175 2017-06-01 19:14:13	0|wumpus|(would be great to get everything in, but in practice resources are limited and we have to choose)
176 2017-06-01 19:14:28	0|luke-jr|but there is also a ban for sending headers that "don't" connect (because we rejected an earlier invalid header)
177 2017-06-01 19:14:59	0|luke-jr|would there be any harm to checking the PoW on headers earlier, banning for failure there, and not banning for unconnecting ones?
178 2017-06-01 19:15:36	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: if you do not disconnect peers on incompatible consensus rules you will likely become partitioned from nodes on consensus rules which are consistent with yourself.
179 2017-06-01 19:15:40	0|morcos|Doesn't it seem safer to keep the current banning behavior unitl we've also improved the ability to make sure we're not partitioned from nodes following our rules
180 2017-06-01 19:16:04	0|gmaxwell|One of the totally braindamaged element of BIP148 is that it does nothing to make the network of BIP148 users connected and it sounds like you'd like to make that even worse?
181 2017-06-01 19:16:11	0|wumpus|ryanofsky: but if it hardly collides in practice then it isn't a problem (sorry, will shut up about previous topic now)
182 2017-06-01 19:16:21	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: softforks are backward compatible
183 2017-06-01 19:17:16	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: when there is a persistant chain on invalid rules there is a hardfork.
184 2017-06-01 19:17:22	0|luke-jr|this is nothing specific to BIP148
185 2017-06-01 19:17:29	0|luke-jr|it is an issue for all softforks
186 2017-06-01 19:17:33	0|gmaxwell|BIP148 is a softfork but it creates a hardfork, its the hardfork that creates that partitioning issue.
187 2017-06-01 19:17:53	0|sipa|gmaxwell: i'm confused
188 2017-06-01 19:17:54	0|jtimon|can we stay on the issue as general to all softforks?
189 2017-06-01 19:18:04	0|instagibbs|I'm not sure how this topic arose?
190 2017-06-01 19:18:17	0|instagibbs|(I get the original topic)
191 2017-06-01 19:18:28	0|luke-jr|instagibbs: it was an observation on the current BIP148 PR that I'm investigating; but it applies to any softfork
192 2017-06-01 19:18:38	0|sipa|gmaxwell: i thought i understood your concern until you said it creates a hardfork
193 2017-06-01 19:19:09	0|BlueMatt|i assume here "hardfork" means "nodes will not converge"
194 2017-06-01 19:19:20	0|jtimon|I'm confused, are we talking about 2 different things? #9530 is from january
195 2017-06-01 19:19:21	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9530 | [brainstorm] DoS protection for blocks · Issue #9530 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
196 2017-06-01 19:19:29	0|instagibbs|Yes they dont' appear to be connected?
197 2017-06-01 19:19:35	0|sdaftuar|perhaps this brainstorming should take place on #9530?  the current DoS scoring is broken, and potentially problematic for softforks (though not for segwit)
198 2017-06-01 19:19:36	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9530 | [brainstorm] DoS protection for blocks · Issue #9530 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
199 2017-06-01 19:19:44	0|sdaftuar|but there's no urgent issue here
200 2017-06-01 19:19:49	0|morcos|sdaftuar: +1
201 2017-06-01 19:19:50	0|sdaftuar|and lots of ways to solve, i suspect
202 2017-06-01 19:19:52	0|instagibbs|ACK
203 2017-06-01 19:19:57	0|sipa|BlueMatt: yes, nodes will risk not converging, but that's a P2P issue, not a consensus issue
204 2017-06-01 19:20:13	0|gmaxwell|::sigh:: I give up.
205 2017-06-01 19:20:22	0|kanzure|sipa: from a payments angle, it's not just p2p.
206 2017-06-01 19:20:22	0|luke-jr|jtimon: 9530 is unrelated afaik
207 2017-06-01 19:20:24	0|gmaxwell|this terminology is too limited.
208 2017-06-01 19:20:41	0|gmaxwell|In any case, if your peers are accepting a chain you will not accept you need different peers.
209 2017-06-01 19:20:47	0|sipa|of course
210 2017-06-01 19:20:56	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: unless those peers will accept the chain you have too.
211 2017-06-01 19:21:11	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: not unless, you still need different peers.
212 2017-06-01 19:21:23	0|gmaxwell|(or at least _some_ different peers)
213 2017-06-01 19:21:25	0|luke-jr|or rather, they need you as a peer
214 2017-06-01 19:21:43	0|gmaxwell|they might, but you're useless to them if you're only connected to other nodes that are also on chains you won't accept.
215 2017-06-01 19:22:18	0|luke-jr|I wonder if we should have a different criteria for our outbound connections, than for inbound
216 2017-06-01 19:22:38	0|luke-jr|eg, tolerate more from inbound peers, but be super-strong that we are on the same block as our outbound peers
217 2017-06-01 19:22:41	0|gmaxwell|If you want to talk about making some fraction of your connection slots more agressive in enforcement than others that would be reasonable, but you can't have a case where you will never disconnect peers that accept different rules.
218 2017-06-01 19:22:58	0|morcos|yes we need a more comprehensive solution..  ideally you could figure out whether they'd accept your chain or not, and that could be a factor as well you knowing whether you'd accept theirs, but we shouldn't make ad hoc changes
219 2017-06-01 19:23:07	0|sipa|gmaxwell: am i summarizing correctly... even though DoS scoring for invalid blocks isn't needed as such, it's currently our only protection against accidentally ending up with only peers that will not accept the best chain you'd accept if you'd see it
220 2017-06-01 19:23:21	0|cfields|luke-jr: I have a patch-set worked up for making that possible. It doesn't change any current policy, just makes it more flexible to do that kind of thing
221 2017-06-01 19:23:34	0|gmaxwell|sipa: ya!
222 2017-06-01 19:23:46	0|sipa|ok, in that case i agree with you
223 2017-06-01 19:23:58	0|luke-jr|can we currently disconnect nodes, without banning them?
224 2017-06-01 19:24:04	0|luke-jr|I guess just set fDisconnect?
225 2017-06-01 19:24:07	0|morcos|which is what you guys said to each other on 9530
226 2017-06-01 19:24:21	0|gmaxwell|I think it would be sufficient to disconnect in those cases, yes.
227 2017-06-01 19:24:44	0|gmaxwell|(or very short ban)
228 2017-06-01 19:24:57	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: I'm thinking of a conditional disconnect-only-if-outgoing-conn
229 2017-06-01 19:25:27	0|sdaftuar|in #9530, there's a suggestion of rotating outbound connections periodically
230 2017-06-01 19:25:28	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9530 | [brainstorm] DoS protection for blocks · Issue #9530 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
231 2017-06-01 19:25:37	0|sdaftuar|and whether your outbound peer is on the same chain as you could be a criteria
232 2017-06-01 19:27:17	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9530 | [brainstorm] DoS protection for blocks · Issue #9530 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
233 2017-06-01 19:27:17	0|jtimon|action continue discussion on #9530 ?
234 2017-06-01 19:27:58	0|luke-jr|9530 sounds like too much refactoring IMO. I'm thinking for a bugfix only right now.
235 2017-06-01 19:28:18	0|luke-jr|but maybe there's enough overlap, dunno
236 2017-06-01 19:29:24	0|jtimon|anyway, next topic?
237 2017-06-01 19:29:24	0|luke-jr|in any case, is there a specific reason to disconnect for unconnectable headers, independently of the "same chain peers" issue?
238 2017-06-01 19:29:32	0|jtimon|or not
239 2017-06-01 19:30:16	0|luke-jr|we could move on if there's another topic, too; maybe someone can answer OOB if there's a need for the disconnect there
240 2017-06-01 19:30:29	0|wumpus|ok
241 2017-06-01 19:30:43	0|wumpus|#topic 0.14.2 (cfields)
242 2017-06-01 19:31:03	0|wumpus|I think we've merged/backported everything that was tagged?
243 2017-06-01 19:31:15	0|cfields|just wanted to keep that rolling. several backports went in this week, anything else need to go?
244 2017-06-01 19:31:18	0|wumpus|if so, we can tag it after the meeting
245 2017-06-01 19:31:22	0|jonasschnelli|not yet
246 2017-06-01 19:31:38	0|wumpus|what's missing?
247 2017-06-01 19:31:40	0|jonasschnelli|Wait.. has been merged. Nm
248 2017-06-01 19:32:18	0|cfields|wumpus: +1 then
249 2017-06-01 19:32:19	0|jonasschnelli|I check the backports and seems that now everything went in
250 2017-06-01 19:32:25	0|jonasschnelli|checked
251 2017-06-01 19:32:39	0|wumpus|right, great
252 2017-06-01 19:32:54	0|jtimon|so rc?
253 2017-06-01 19:32:57	0|wumpus|that was indeed a short topic
254 2017-06-01 19:33:15	0|wumpus|yes
255 2017-06-01 19:34:03	0|wumpus|other topics?
256 2017-06-01 19:34:28	0|sipa|i wanted to bring up whether my writeup for style guidelines was acceptable, but i see it was already merged :)
257 2017-06-01 19:34:40	0|jonasschnelli|heh. Yes.
258 2017-06-01 19:34:58	0|jtimon|what was the pr?
259 2017-06-01 19:34:58	0|luke-jr|no, it's terrible. I'm not following it. /s
260 2017-06-01 19:35:01	0|wumpus|heh yes, it was exactly what was discussed in the previous meeting
261 2017-06-01 19:35:13	0|wumpus|#topic variable name guidelines
262 2017-06-01 19:35:20	0|luke-jr|wumpus: it was sarcasm :p
263 2017-06-01 19:35:30	0|sipa|OK.
264 2017-06-01 19:35:32	0|sipa|end topic
265 2017-06-01 19:35:35	0|wumpus|wanted to merge it as soon as possible to be able to point people at it in reviews
266 2017-06-01 19:35:43	0|sipa|yes, thank you for that
267 2017-06-01 19:36:27	0|jtimon|ok, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10461 reading now, but I assume it will be acceptable to me
268 2017-06-01 19:36:31	0|wumpus|more topics? this is becoming a high frequeny meeting
269 2017-06-01 19:37:16	0|sipa|we have 1.5 months left until feature freeze for 0.15
270 2017-06-01 19:37:35	0|sipa|anything to talk about there?
271 2017-06-01 19:37:41	0|sipa|i guess not... things happen as they happen
272 2017-06-01 19:38:01	0|wumpus|I... don't think so... would really love multiwallet to get in this time
273 2017-06-01 19:38:03	0|sdaftuar|perhaps suggestions for high priority features for 0.15?
274 2017-06-01 19:38:16	0|sdaftuar|as potentially distinct from high priority prs
275 2017-06-01 19:39:05	0|wumpus|if no PRs exist for them it might be too late already, but sure
276 2017-06-01 19:39:14	0|wumpus|#topic high priority features
277 2017-06-01 19:39:45	0|jtimon|I would love https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8994 , working on the blocksigning stuff again
278 2017-06-01 19:40:06	0|sdaftuar|i'd suggest matt's #10192 (script cache).  huge validation win.
279 2017-06-01 19:40:08	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10192 | Cache full script execution results in addition to signatures by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #10192 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
280 2017-06-01 19:40:18	0|sipa|ya
281 2017-06-01 19:40:38	0|cfields|+1
282 2017-06-01 19:40:44	0|jtimon|I have 2 PRs prefixed "Optimization", but didn't benchmark any of them...
283 2017-06-01 19:41:04	0|luke-jr|10192 sounds problematic for future softforks
284 2017-06-01 19:41:05	0|wumpus|sdaftuar: any reason for not just adding that one to the high priority PRs though?
285 2017-06-01 19:41:14	0|jonasschnelli|+1 on 10192,.. seems also madable for 0.15
286 2017-06-01 19:41:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ryanofsky opened pull request #10506: Fix bumpfee test after #10449 (06master...06pr/bumpdis) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10506
287 2017-06-01 19:41:19	0|sdaftuar|wumpus: i was going to suggest it but thought matt might yell at me if it displaced his existing one :)
288 2017-06-01 19:41:41	0|sipa|luke-jr: i believe it shouldn't be, unless i've misunderstood the design
289 2017-06-01 19:41:46	0|wumpus|ohh okay, yes it's not really a blocker for his further work I guess, but before the feature freeze we can make an exception
290 2017-06-01 19:41:53	0|BlueMatt|yes, i still want #10179 to get in :(
291 2017-06-01 19:41:55	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10179 | Give CValidationInterface Support for calling notifications on the CScheduler Thread by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #10179 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
292 2017-06-01 19:42:04	0|sipa|BlueMatt: will review
293 2017-06-01 19:42:13	0|BlueMatt|so much stuff to build on top of things
294 2017-06-01 19:42:17	0|sdaftuar|sipa: it interferes with script features that require chain-context.  i think luke has proposed such a thing.
295 2017-06-01 19:42:35	0|luke-jr|sipa: specifically softforks where transactions are valid in some blocks, but not in others
296 2017-06-01 19:42:37	0|jtimon|merging something like #10427 before #10192 (I don't care his commit or mine, but would really love the nits solved) would make it simpler to review
297 2017-06-01 19:42:38	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10427 | Consensus: Introduce static GetScriptFlags (mostly MOVEONLY) by jtimon · Pull Request #10427 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
298 2017-06-01 19:42:40	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10192 | Cache full script execution results in addition to signatures by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #10192 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
299 2017-06-01 19:42:45	0|jonasschnelli|I think we should add 10192 to the prio list (and credit sdaftuar for it)
300 2017-06-01 19:43:05	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: I've added it
301 2017-06-01 19:43:12	0|cfields|I have a good bit of net changes still coming, working on making them reviewable and adding tests. Definitely coming in time for 0.15.
302 2017-06-01 19:43:42	0|jonasschnelli|cfields: great!
303 2017-06-01 19:44:23	0|cfields|sipa: are you aiming to have openssl nuked in time for 0.15 ?
304 2017-06-01 19:44:48	0|sipa|luke-jr: fair enough, i agree - but i do think it's solvable (store the context-dependent script validation flags along with the entry in the cache)
305 2017-06-01 19:44:59	0|wumpus|is 'nuking openssl' really a goal?
306 2017-06-01 19:45:15	0|luke-jr|sipa: yes, but is it worth it?
307 2017-06-01 19:45:18	0|jonasschnelli|For the PRNG, I though so
308 2017-06-01 19:45:25	0|wumpus|ok
309 2017-06-01 19:45:57	0|luke-jr|hmm, 1.7x
310 2017-06-01 19:46:01	0|sipa|i'd like to be independent from OpenSSL, but that's more from a code management perspective than an actual fear for security
311 2017-06-01 19:46:05	0|cfields|wumpus: I was referring to #10299
312 2017-06-01 19:46:07	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10299 | Remove OpenSSL by sipa · Pull Request #10299 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
313 2017-06-01 19:46:28	0|sipa|as such, i don't think removing openssl should be a priority, but i think it should eventually happen
314 2017-06-01 19:46:52	0|wumpus|I'd agree about boost but I'm... not sure trying to nuke all dependencies is a wise path
315 2017-06-01 19:47:11	0|luke-jr|dependencies are better than reinventing stuff
316 2017-06-01 19:47:31	0|luke-jr|(all else being equal)
317 2017-06-01 19:47:40	0|wumpus|that's an argument that should be considered, we can't do everything better, but yes everything else being equal
318 2017-06-01 19:47:44	0|cfields|sure, I wasn't arguing for/against, was just curious if 10299 was still desired
319 2017-06-01 19:47:47	0|jtimon|sorry for linking so many of my prs, but re boost: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10502
320 2017-06-01 19:48:14	0|luke-jr|our binaries are getting annoyingly large btw..
321 2017-06-01 19:48:19	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: IMO the rng mostly matters for the wallet keys, and long term, I'm not sure if wallet keys created on the environments we run (Linux/OSX/Windows) are in general a "good thing". Using our own PRNG (via Fortuna, etc,) seems fine to me
322 2017-06-01 19:48:50	0|jonasschnelli|luke-jr: define "large"
323 2017-06-01 19:48:55	0|wumpus|improving the PRNG is certainly a good goal
324 2017-06-01 19:49:18	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: 215 MB excluding the debuginfo files
325 2017-06-01 19:49:21	0|sipa|wumpus: i'd say removing OpenSSL will come naturally once our PRNG has undergone a few more improvement
326 2017-06-01 19:49:32	0|wumpus|luke-jr: you certainly shouldn't cound debug info, no one ships that
327 2017-06-01 19:49:39	0|luke-jr|wumpus: that's why I didn't.
328 2017-06-01 19:50:11	0|cfields|luke-jr: wha?? stripped bitcoind is < 10mb on all platforms iirc
329 2017-06-01 19:50:16	0|wumpus|luke-jr: where do you think it comes from? is it just bitcoin-qt being large or everything?
330 2017-06-01 19:50:19	0|cfields|luke-jr: or did you mean all binaries combined?
331 2017-06-01 19:50:40	0|wumpus|sipa: ok, makes sense
332 2017-06-01 19:50:50	0|jonasschnelli|BitcoinD linux 64 is 9.3MB, Qt: ~33,
333 2017-06-01 19:50:57	0|jonasschnelli|Perfectly fine
334 2017-06-01 19:51:04	0|luke-jr|cfields: yes
335 2017-06-01 19:51:05	0|jtimon|and if somebody can help with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10193/commits/3f404ca62c26dae8f5a4f321820a460bf7b5373e I am kind of stuck there
336 2017-06-01 19:51:10	0|wumpus|qt is huge, but that's unavoidable,it's a lot of code...
337 2017-06-01 19:51:11	0|luke-jr|wumpus: it might be
338 2017-06-01 19:51:34	0|cfields|future builds should be much slimmer
339 2017-06-01 19:51:35	0|jonasschnelli|Qt5.9 can shrink ~20% from what I have read
340 2017-06-01 19:51:40	0|cfields|yes
341 2017-06-01 19:51:41	0|wumpus|I recently had to compile qt on a single-core ARM system (don't ask), took about 2 week
342 2017-06-01 19:51:46	0|cfields|and I'd be curious to see what lto does to bitcoin-qt ?
343 2017-06-01 19:51:50	0|jonasschnelli|hehe
344 2017-06-01 19:51:57	0|luke-jr|2.7M bitcoin-cli; 33M bitcoin-qt; 3.0M bitcoin-tx; 8.9M bitcoind; 12M test_bitcoin
345 2017-06-01 19:52:24	0|jonasschnelli|compared to the 100GB blockchain... what should I say
346 2017-06-01 19:52:33	0|wumpus|luke-jr: it compresses very well though
347 2017-06-01 19:52:41	0|jtimon|is it a worry that test_bitcoin is big?
348 2017-06-01 19:52:48	0|jonasschnelli|no
349 2017-06-01 19:52:51	0|wumpus|nope
350 2017-06-01 19:53:05	0|wumpus|I think those numbers are pretty ok, compared to most desktop software
351 2017-06-01 19:53:11	0|jonasschnelli|indeed
352 2017-06-01 19:53:14	0|wumpus|(or even mobile software, nowadays)
353 2017-06-01 19:53:22	0|luke-jr|it adds up though
354 2017-06-01 19:53:31	0|luke-jr|but not too crazy I guess
355 2017-06-01 19:53:36	0|jtimon|I mean, if it can get smaller I don't think anybody will oppose
356 2017-06-01 19:53:53	0|luke-jr|I'd be curious what using shared libs would do for it.
357 2017-06-01 19:53:58	0|luke-jr|at least for Windows, where it's trivial
358 2017-06-01 19:53:58	0|wumpus|yeah... hardly a priority though, it's only such a small part of the memory use
359 2017-06-01 19:54:16	0|cfields|luke-jr: there'd be a ton of circular deps to unravel
360 2017-06-01 19:54:23	0|luke-jr|cfields: ?
361 2017-06-01 19:54:30	0|wumpus|cfields: I think he just means for the deps
362 2017-06-01 19:54:40	0|cfields|ah
363 2017-06-01 19:54:40	0|luke-jr|ah
364 2017-06-01 19:54:58	0|wumpus|yes on windows it's trivial
365 2017-06-01 19:55:08	0|luke-jr|re internals as shared libs: on Linux, circular deps are not a problem, but IIRC they are for Windows
366 2017-06-01 19:55:11	0|cfields|osx as well, fwiw
367 2017-06-01 19:55:27	0|wumpus|on linux you can't simply ship .so's in the same directory and have it work
368 2017-06-01 19:55:44	0|cfields|wumpus: you can but you have to use rpath hacks :\
369 2017-06-01 19:55:44	0|luke-jr|right, we'd need wrapper scripts (maybe okay, iff it makes a big difference)
370 2017-06-01 19:55:50	0|luke-jr|oh
371 2017-06-01 19:55:54	0|luke-jr|forgot about rpath :D
372 2017-06-01 19:56:00	0|cfields|there's a special rpath symbol that means pwd
373 2017-06-01 19:56:04	0|cfields|s/symbol/value/
374 2017-06-01 19:56:07	0|luke-jr|yes, I use it in BFGMiner
375 2017-06-01 19:56:09	0|wumpus|cfields: doesn't that use the *current* directory instead of the application directory though?
376 2017-06-01 19:56:26	0|luke-jr|$ORIGIN
377 2017-06-01 19:56:31	0|luke-jr|the name suggests app dir
378 2017-06-01 19:56:32	0|jtimon|other super fast topic?
379 2017-06-01 19:56:37	0|wumpus|ok
380 2017-06-01 19:56:55	0|wumpus|anyhow it's worth experimenting with, possibly, for a future version
381 2017-06-01 19:57:28	0|jonasschnelli|Bitcoin Core ICO?
382 2017-06-01 19:57:37	0|jonasschnelli|*duck*
383 2017-06-01 19:57:45	0|wumpus|security might be slightly improved as well as different libs can be ASLRed relative to each other
384 2017-06-01 19:57:48	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: ack
385 2017-06-01 19:57:50	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: lol
386 2017-06-01 19:57:51	0|jtimon|testnet 4 ico at most
387 2017-06-01 19:57:59	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: IHO instead?
388 2017-06-01 19:58:02	0|luke-jr|compromise.
389 2017-06-01 19:58:10	0|luke-jr|(Initial Hat Offering)
390 2017-06-01 19:58:15	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: hahahaha
391 2017-06-01 19:58:20	0|jtimon|ITO
392 2017-06-01 19:58:29	0|jonasschnelli|Win32 had plenty if .ICO's
393 2017-06-01 19:58:31	0|BlueMatt|Bitcoin Series A ICO
394 2017-06-01 19:58:50	0|gmaxwell|We could sell international reply coupons... it would have a lot more substance than most ICOs. :)
395 2017-06-01 19:59:12	0|luke-jr|reply coupons? O.o\
396 2017-06-01 19:59:32	0|cfields|sipa: https://bitcoincore.org/assets/images/favicon.ico
397 2017-06-01 19:59:47	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-06-01-19.00.log.html
398 2017-06-01 19:59:47	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Jun  1 19:59:47 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
399 2017-06-01 19:59:47	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-06-01-19.00.html
400 2017-06-01 19:59:47	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-06-01-19.00.txt
401 2017-06-01 19:59:47	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
402 2017-06-01 20:00:50	0|jtimon|can someone restart https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/237624588 ?
403 2017-06-01 20:01:00	0|wumpus|sure
404 2017-06-01 20:04:17	0|wumpus|* [new tag]         v0.14.2rc1 -> v0.14.2rc1
405 2017-06-01 20:04:35	0|jtimon|thanks!
406 2017-06-01 20:15:47	0|cfields|woohoo
407 2017-06-01 20:54:14	0|sipa|travis is so slow these days
408 2017-06-01 20:54:27	0|sipa|is it because we have many pull requests and rebases?
409 2017-06-01 20:54:37	0|sipa|it seems to be lagging behind easily
410 2017-06-01 22:30:17	0|jtimon|yeah travis seems to fail and lag more than usual these days
411 2017-06-01 22:37:32	0|jtimon|btw, travis didn't even run for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9176
412 2017-06-01 22:55:29	0|sipa|what's the matter with test_bitcoin_qt failing on master?
413 2017-06-01 22:58:49	0|sipa|16:56:50 < jtimon> mhmm FAIL: qt/test/test_bitcoin-qt on master 64beb13... Merge #10449: Overhaul Qt fee bumper
414 2017-06-01 22:58:50	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10449 | Overhaul Qt fee bumper by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #10449 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
415 2017-06-01 23:01:22	0|jtimon|sipa: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10506
416 2017-06-01 23:01:28	0|sipa|jtimon: thanks!
417 2017-06-01 23:20:56	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 30 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/39039b12a744...1088b02f0ccd
418 2017-06-01 23:20:57	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e66dbde 15Pieter Wuille: Add SizeEstimate to CDBBatch...
419 2017-06-01 23:20:57	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f54580e 15Pieter Wuille: error() in disconnect for disk corruption, not inconsistency...
420 2017-06-01 23:20:58	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e484652 15Pieter Wuille: Introduce CHashVerifier to hash read data...
421 2017-06-01 23:21:22	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #10195: Switch chainstate db and cache to per-txout model (06master...06pertxoutcache) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10195
422 2017-06-01 23:26:39	0|gmaxwell|Hey everybody!!!   ^^^^^
423 2017-06-01 23:26:46	0|gmaxwell|This means that after you pull your database will upgrade.
424 2017-06-01 23:26:54	0|gmaxwell|And will no longer be compatible with earlier versions!
425 2017-06-01 23:27:40	0|gmaxwell|HOLY COW I'M GOING SO FAST https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb97AbB8M_o
426 2017-06-01 23:27:58	0|gmaxwell|If you do make the grave error of downgrading, you'll need to reindex. See you next month in that case.
427 2017-06-01 23:28:27	0|TD-Linux|bonus: pruned mode :^)
428 2017-06-01 23:29:00	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148906a9a 15Russell Yanofsky: Fix bumpfee test after #10449...
429 2017-06-01 23:29:00	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1088b02f0ccd...7cc2c670e3d7
430 2017-06-01 23:29:01	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 147cc2c67 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #10506: Fix bumpfee test after #10449...
431 2017-06-01 23:29:30	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #10506: Fix bumpfee test after #10449 (06master...06pr/bumpdis) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10506
432 2017-06-01 23:33:31	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #10396: Report LevelDB estimate for chainstate size in gettxoutsetinfo (06master...06diskdbsize) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10396
433 2017-06-01 23:38:21	0|jtimon|if I get some more concept acks on #10339 maybe I should just close the noisy #9717 as included in it
434 2017-06-01 23:38:23	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10339 | Optimization: Calculate block hash less times by jtimon · Pull Request #10339 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
435 2017-06-01 23:38:24	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9717 | Pow: Remove fCheckPOW from CheckBlockHeader by jtimon · Pull Request #9717 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
436 2017-06-01 23:56:40	0|gmaxwell|2017-06-01 23:31:03.714604 Upgrading database...
437 2017-06-01 23:56:40	0|gmaxwell|2017-06-01 23:40:32.394248 [DONE].
438 2017-06-01 23:56:40	0|gmaxwell|4 yottabytes of leveldb log entries later