1 2017-06-18 00:00:58	0|luke-jr|no
  2 2017-06-18 00:01:05	0|luke-jr|unless a buffer overflow or smth
  3 2017-06-18 00:01:39	0|phantomcircuit|CScript expect = CScript() << nHeight;
  4 2017-06-18 00:01:55	0|phantomcircuit|for values less than 10 CScript can encode them using the constant opcodes
  5 2017-06-18 00:02:08	0|luke-jr|phantomcircuit: btw, add yourself to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support
  6 2017-06-18 00:02:18	0|phantomcircuit|1-75 i guess
  7 2017-06-18 00:02:27	0|phantomcircuit|are probably wrong in every pools implementation of this
  8 2017-06-18 00:02:56	0|phantomcircuit|er
  9 2017-06-18 00:03:03	0|phantomcircuit|1-17 that is
 10 2017-06-18 00:03:11	0|luke-jr|oh, lol
 11 2017-06-18 00:03:34	0|phantomcircuit|yeah i doubt anybody has that one right
 12 2017-06-18 00:03:37	0|phantomcircuit|i certainly dont
 13 2017-06-18 00:06:58	0|phantomcircuit|Lightsword, ^
 14 2017-06-18 00:07:45	0|Lightsword|phantomcircuit, oh…yeah I had an issue at around that I recall
 15 2017-06-18 00:08:06	0|phantomcircuit|Lightsword, why though?
 16 2017-06-18 00:08:14	0|phantomcircuit|nothing new should be using that commitment
 17 2017-06-18 00:08:26	0|phantomcircuit|just change it to use the locktime or whatever it is
 18 2017-06-18 00:08:51	0|Lightsword|for testnets which immediately enforce BIP34
 19 2017-06-18 00:09:40	0|Lightsword|“for values less than 10 CScript can encode them using the constant opcodes” how would that work?
 20 2017-06-18 00:11:02	0|sipa|use OP_5 rather than 0x01 0x05
 21 2017-06-18 00:13:37	0|sipa|Lightsword: is that from the BIP?
 22 2017-06-18 00:13:42	0|sipa|that's not implemented in the consensus rules...
 23 2017-06-18 00:13:53	0|luke-jr|?
 24 2017-06-18 00:14:04	0|sipa|using OP_n for the height in BIP34
 25 2017-06-18 00:14:31	0|sipa|oh, he was quoting phantomcircuit
 26 2017-06-18 00:14:54	0|sipa|no, the << operator on CScript always does a data push, never an OP_n
 27 2017-06-18 00:16:34	0|Lightsword|so block heights 1-17 are encoded differently?
 28 2017-06-18 00:17:14	0|phantomcircuit|sipa, really?
 29 2017-06-18 00:18:59	0|phantomcircuit|sipa, push_int64 seems to implement the 1-17 encoding thing
 30 2017-06-18 00:21:39	0|phantomcircuit|sipa, yeah no it only does data pushes if it's data you're pushing
 31 2017-06-18 00:21:55	0|phantomcircuit|does use constants if it's an integer though
 32 2017-06-18 00:27:12	0|sipa|phantomcircuit: i once tried to "fix" that, and ended up almost created a consensus bug
 33 2017-06-18 00:28:52	0|sipa|Lightsword: no, they're all encoded the same
 34 2017-06-18 00:30:05	0|Lightsword|sipa, same as each other or same as block 18-127?
 35 2017-06-18 00:46:46	0|phantomcircuit|sipa, it seems like the push int things have always handled the shorter encodings
 36 2017-06-18 00:47:15	0|phantomcircuit|sipa, wait how would fixing that cause a consensus bug
 37 2017-06-18 00:49:51	0|luke-jr|phantomcircuit: encoding must be identical for height
 38 2017-06-18 00:50:11	0|luke-jr|although I guess BIP34 was never enforced at those heights for mainnet
 39 2017-06-18 03:27:38	0|phantomcircuit|sipa, yeah it's exactly what i thought
 40 2017-06-18 03:27:47	0|phantomcircuit|height 1-75 are all single byte encodings
 41 2017-06-18 03:32:03	0|sipa|phantomcircuit: sure
 42 2017-06-18 03:32:17	0|sipa|single byte lengths
 43 2017-06-18 03:32:42	0|sipa|phantomcircuit: but << will never cause an OP_n
 44 2017-06-18 03:35:52	0|phantomcircuit|sipa, no it does
 45 2017-06-18 03:36:03	0|phantomcircuit|try changing regtest to requite bip34 at height 2
 46 2017-06-18 03:36:05	0|phantomcircuit|you'll see
 47 2017-06-18 03:40:57	0|Lightsword|so how exactly do you do BIP34 single byte encodings?
 48 2017-06-18 03:52:57	0|sipa|Lightsword: it's always the same!
 49 2017-06-18 03:53:02	0|sipa|push the number as bytes
 50 2017-06-18 03:53:17	0|sipa|heights 0 through 255 or 0x01 + 1 byte
 51 2017-06-18 03:53:30	0|sipa|256 through 65535 are 0x02 + 2 bytes
 52 2017-06-18 03:53:43	0|sipa|65536 through 16777215 are 0x03 + 3 bytes
 53 2017-06-18 03:54:07	0|Lightsword|uh, luke said the “len2/len3 ought to be 32768 and 8388608”
 54 2017-06-18 03:54:41	0|sipa|oh, right, signed
 55 2017-06-18 03:54:45	0|sipa|ignore what is aid
 56 2017-06-18 03:54:55	0|sipa|but there is nothing special about low heights
 57 2017-06-18 04:46:45	0|phantomcircuit|sipa, im quite certain you are wrong there
 58 2017-06-18 04:52:49	0|NicolasDorier|I am having issues to build:
 59 2017-06-18 04:52:53	0|NicolasDorier|https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/AMQqyjfy/
 60 2017-06-18 04:53:07	0|NicolasDorier|I tried git clean -dfx and everything I could
 61 2017-06-18 04:53:21	0|NicolasDorier|it just explode here
 62 2017-06-18 05:01:47	0|NicolasDorier|posted issue on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10622
 63 2017-06-18 05:14:24	0|sipa|phantomcircuit: look at the code
 64 2017-06-18 05:17:05	0|sipa|phantomcircuit: hmm, seems i'm wrong!
 65 2017-06-18 05:17:06	0|sipa|wut
 66 2017-06-18 05:18:52	0|sipa|very confused about history now
 67 2017-06-18 06:02:17	0|Lightsword|hmm, so this is a block at height 1 that’s getting “ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-cb-height, block height mismatch in coinbase (code 16)” any idea what’s wrong with it? https://0bin.net/paste/BzoPFsAofSo1zeSM#KF5e3O9H-+/txOlckwy13c6w0NKRpwek5OKgoToalA/
 68 2017-06-18 06:10:00	0|phantomcircuit|Lightsword, can you just paste the coinbase scriptsig?
 69 2017-06-18 06:10:16	0|Lightsword|should be 0101000493164659045433cd380c9916465985184659b22100000a636b706f6f6c162f426974636f696e2d496e6469612f4249503134382f I think
 70 2017-06-18 06:15:13	0|phantomcircuit|should be 52 at the front
 71 2017-06-18 06:23:15	0|Lightsword|phantomcircuit, hmm, any idea how I would get that using this serialization code? https://0bin.net/paste/AP402Ma-yujCRW8H#WBhmhyL1i5L0BJhLqKjMH39sQdmBMRgapFrXJkp4sD3
 72 2017-06-18 06:24:14	0|luke-jr|phantomcircuit: why 52?
 73 2017-06-18 06:25:18	0|phantomcircuit|luke-jr, OP_1 is 52
 74 2017-06-18 06:25:28	0|phantomcircuit|0x51
 75 2017-06-18 06:25:33	0|phantomcircuit|ok im off by 1
 76 2017-06-18 06:25:34	0|luke-jr|Lightsword: if (val < 17) { s[0] = 0x50 + val; return 1; }
 77 2017-06-18 06:25:56	0|luke-jr|then your remaining bug is if you were to mine a genesis block, but that'd be dumb
 78 2017-06-18 06:31:14	0|Lightsword|luke-jr, yep that worked
 79 2017-06-18 06:32:16	0|luke-jr|Lightsword: what are you even doing? <.<
 80 2017-06-18 06:32:31	0|Lightsword|screwing around with local testnets
 81 2017-06-18 06:33:39	0|phantomcircuit|is that the only place where the encoding rules for CScript is a consensus rule?
 82 2017-06-18 06:33:41	0|phantomcircuit|i think it is
 83 2017-06-18 06:37:57	0|Lightsword|so how did this abomination happen? :P
 84 2017-06-18 06:56:01	0|luke-jr|Lightsword: which part? :P
 85 2017-06-18 06:57:19	0|Lightsword|luke-jr CScript encoding rules being consensus critical
 86 2017-06-18 06:59:03	0|luke-jr|Lightsword: I don't know that it's a bad thing.
 87 2017-06-18 06:59:13	0|luke-jr|BIP 62 was going to do the same
 88 2017-06-18 07:17:11	0|phantomcircuit|Lightsword, gavin
 89 2017-06-18 08:44:42	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #10623: doc: Add 0.14.2 release notes (06master...06Mf1706-docRel) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10623
 90 2017-06-18 10:57:55	0|lifeofguenter|hi all - is it normal for maxconnections to be limited to < 1024 ? I would have thought with libevent there would be virtually no limit of such?
 91 2017-06-18 12:10:49	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 147810993 15John Newbery: [trivial] fix indentation for ArgsManager class
 92 2017-06-18 12:10:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/cafe24f039e1...e053e05c1305
 93 2017-06-18 12:10:50	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e053e05 15MarcoFalke: Merge #10592: [trivial] fix indentation for ArgsManager class...
 94 2017-06-18 12:11:19	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #10592: [trivial] fix indentation for ArgsManager class (06master...06argsmanager) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10592
 95 2017-06-18 12:17:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 6 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e053e05c1305...643fa0b22d70
 96 2017-06-18 12:17:33	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 144a0c08f 15John Newbery: [tests] update zmq test to use correct config.ini file
 97 2017-06-18 12:17:33	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145ebd5f9 15John Newbery: [tests] tidy up zmq_test.py
 98 2017-06-18 12:17:34	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b1bac1c 15John Newbery: [tests] in zmq test, timeout if message not received
 99 2017-06-18 12:18:03	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #10552: [Test] Tests for zmqpubrawtx and zmqpubrawblock (06master...06zmq-raw-tests) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10552
100 2017-06-18 12:26:20	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke reopened pull request #10552: [Test] Tests for zmqpubrawtx and zmqpubrawblock (06master...06zmq-raw-tests) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10552
101 2017-06-18 18:22:17	0|luke-jr|10790 installs of 0.14.1 from Core's official PPA.. :o
102 2017-06-18 18:22:29	0|luke-jr|about 22% of all 0.14.1 nodes
103 2017-06-18 18:22:54	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: ^
104 2017-06-18 18:35:54	0|gaf_|luke-jr, can you share link of charts?
105 2017-06-18 18:53:04	0|luke-jr|gaf_: no, there aren't any such charts
106 2017-06-18 18:53:24	0|luke-jr|and getting the install counts needs some stupid Python mess :/
107 2017-06-18 18:54:03	0|luke-jr|some modules of which only support Python3, and others which only support Python2, curiously enough (I used 2to3 to get them to work together)
108 2017-06-18 19:37:08	0|draadpiraat[m]|0.14.2 release note link seems broken?
109 2017-06-18 19:42:37	0|draadpiraat[m]|disregard me, I just noticed the PR for it
110 2017-06-18 19:51:53	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #10626: doc: Remove outdated minrelaytxfee comment (06master...06Mf1706-docInit) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10626
111 2017-06-18 20:46:05	0|luke-jr|* [new tag]               v0.14.2.knots20170618 -> v0.14.2.knots20170618  <-- midnightmagic, wumpus, and anyone else who can contribute gitian builds..
112 2017-06-18 20:53:08	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: dear god dont tell me that
113 2017-06-18 21:01:11	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: also, I'm entirely sure most of those are not always running, so its a much, much smaller percentage of total 0.14.1 nodes
114 2017-06-18 21:02:26	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: "not always running" still counts as a node IMO
115 2017-06-18 21:03:01	0|BlueMatt|sure, but it means there are more nodes of the non-ppa variety that you arent aware of, so your percentage is skewed
116 2017-06-18 21:03:18	0|BlueMatt|not counting nodes behind nat and the like that may have never gotten their addr relayed
117 2017-06-18 21:03:21	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: no, I'm counting them in the total too
118 2017-06-18 21:03:42	0|BlueMatt|no, cause addrs dont get relayed reliably
119 2017-06-18 22:49:46	0|draadpiraat[m]|forgive me for cursing in the church, but is anyone here monitoring the btc1 repo?
120 2017-06-18 22:51:05	0|draadpiraat[m]|I've been trying to analyze what the hardfork code changes do but the spaghetti factor is high