1 2017-08-20 06:28:11	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15CryptAxe opened pull request #11098: [Qt] Add spend all button to the SendCoinsDialog (06master...06spendall) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11098
  2 2017-08-20 11:21:33	0|marek_|I wanna ask question. If I build bicoind with shared libraries, the version of the libraries is 0.0.0...is it wanted?
  3 2017-08-20 13:11:07	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c1470a0 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: test: Increase initial RPC timeout to 60 seconds...
  4 2017-08-20 13:11:07	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/262167393d05...a8532299d8b9
  5 2017-08-20 13:11:08	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a853229 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11091: test: Increase initial RPC timeout to 60 seconds...
  6 2017-08-20 13:11:48	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11091: test: Increase initial RPC timeout to 60 seconds (06master...062017_08_test_wait_for_rpc) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11091
  7 2017-08-20 18:26:08	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15greenaddress opened pull request #11099: [RPC][mempool]: add rpc command to dump the mempool to disk (06master...06dump_mempool_rpc) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11099
  8 2017-08-20 21:19:29	0|luke-jr|#11026 seems merge-ready
  9 2017-08-20 21:33:25	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: does it make sense to support non-segwit miners in 0.16? why not just remove some code instead?
 10 2017-08-20 21:33:58	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: I don't think we should force miners to support Segwit. Wait until they all do so by choice IMO.
 11 2017-08-20 21:34:11	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: also, bugfixes should go into 0.15 too
 12 2017-08-20 21:34:20	0|luke-jr|(even if the related code is removed in 0.16)
 13 2017-08-20 21:34:45	0|BlueMatt|10595 is not gonna make 15, its wayyyy too late (and is not a regression, even if you call it a bugfix)
 14 2017-08-20 21:35:06	0|luke-jr|it's 2 months old now :p
 15 2017-08-20 21:35:08	0|BlueMatt|I mean I dont disagree, but they could just as easily run pre-0.13.1 with 0.14/15 proxies
 16 2017-08-20 21:35:18	0|promag|luke-jr: move comment https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11026#issuecomment-322063440 to PR description?
 17 2017-08-20 21:35:19	0|BlueMatt|ok, well I apologize I missed it until now
 18 2017-08-20 21:35:26	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: it has no practical effect, so 0.15.1 is fine
 19 2017-08-20 21:35:48	0|BlueMatt|well my point is segwit is gonna activate by then, so we can see if its even needed at that point :p
 20 2017-08-20 21:35:49	0|luke-jr|promag: k
 21 2017-08-20 21:36:07	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: 0.15.1 shouldn't remove features
 22 2017-08-20 21:36:34	0|gmaxwell|sensible 0.15.1 thing.
 23 2017-08-20 21:36:56	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: note that #10595 isn't about Segwit active or not, but about whether the GBT client supports it
 24 2017-08-20 21:37:03	0|BlueMatt|I'm aware, yes
 25 2017-08-20 21:37:13	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: I think matt's point is that it won't matter much if thats supported if it's virtually unused.
 26 2017-08-20 21:37:31	0|luke-jr|it doesn't matter much either way
 27 2017-08-20 21:37:32	0|BlueMatt|well other question, do any gbt clients actually care about those fields?
 28 2017-08-20 21:37:39	0|luke-jr|just would be nice to get fixed so long as we support it
 29 2017-08-20 21:37:44	0|BlueMatt|it was my impression they ignored them entirely and just used the txn selected by bitcoind
 30 2017-08-20 21:37:52	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: no, that's why it doesn't matter much
 31 2017-08-20 21:38:01	0|BlueMatt|yea, ok
 32 2017-08-20 21:38:15	0|luke-jr|there might be some edge cases for p2pool or Eligius since they make large generation txns
 33 2017-08-20 21:38:30	0|luke-jr|but hopefully they'll just upgrade to Segwit if they haven't yet
 34 2017-08-20 21:38:58	0|luke-jr|(and until then, a workaround is to set maxblocksize lower)
 35 2017-08-20 21:39:25	0|gmaxwell|on that subject can we please stop setting irrational defaults for the maximum size.
 36 2017-08-20 21:39:53	0|BlueMatt|what default do we have for max size?
 37 2017-08-20 21:40:07	0|luke-jr|so reduce it?
 38 2017-08-20 21:40:09	0|gmaxwell|we default to a maximum weight of 3million.
 39 2017-08-20 21:40:10	0|BlueMatt|is it not just max_block_weight - sensible overhead of generation tx?
 40 2017-08-20 21:40:14	0|BlueMatt|wtf whyyyyy
 41 2017-08-20 21:40:19	0|BlueMatt|yea, lets fix that, please
 42 2017-08-20 21:40:19	0|gmaxwell|because luke-jr
 43 2017-08-20 21:40:34	0|luke-jr|because 1 MB blocks are not safe
 44 2017-08-20 21:40:40	0|gmaxwell|-makemelosemoneyplease=1
 45 2017-08-20 21:41:00	0|luke-jr|if we're going to go this road, we should softfork the block size limit down.
 46 2017-08-20 21:41:10	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: irrespective if they're ideal for the network or not, they are locally non-optimal for miners/users, something we should (and historically have always tried to) try to avoid
 47 2017-08-20 21:41:27	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: ok, go find consensus for that change then we'll make it happen!
 48 2017-08-20 21:41:30	0|gmaxwell|the only effect these settings have is showing the world that we're idiots who don't care about the software working in reasonable ways.
 49 2017-08-20 21:41:58	0|gmaxwell|Personally opting to use a lower size just makes to lose money, unless you're controlling hashpower for other people, in which case it makes them lose money.
 50 2017-08-20 21:41:59	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: no, historically we have tried to do what is best for the network. changing that has been an unfortunate campaign of some devs.
 51 2017-08-20 21:42:40	0|gmaxwell|That  is much of the reason that "have an infinite max blocksize and hope people will set it sensibly" doesn't work.
 52 2017-08-20 21:42:56	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: er, no, weve done things that are good for the network at very small difference for miners/users, we do not do things which are significantly non-optimal to the point that ~every user just changes the default
 53 2017-08-20 21:43:15	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: having a consistenct size is best for the network, smaller sizes make fee estimation less reliable, and hardly improve anything.  Lower _limits_ are another matter.
 54 2017-08-20 21:43:32	0|luke-jr|only if the fee estimation logic is broken
 55 2017-08-20 21:44:02	0|gmaxwell|no, there is nothing broken.
 56 2017-08-20 21:44:17	0|bitcoinreminder|does anyone has a bitcoin-org email address? I created a impersonation-request on twitter for the fake https://twitter.com/BcoreProject account, but they told me that someone with a bitcoin-org email address has to create the request
 57 2017-08-20 21:44:19	0|gmaxwell|occasional blocks with mysteriously lower size makes the network capacity less predictable.
 58 2017-08-20 21:44:34	0|luke-jr|bitcoinreminder: bitcoin.org isn't even Bitcoin Core..
 59 2017-08-20 21:44:45	0|gmaxwell|no use in educating twitter on that.
 60 2017-08-20 21:44:46	0|bitcoinreminder|sorry, I meant bitcoin-core.org
 61 2017-08-20 21:44:52	0|gmaxwell|bitcoinreminder: email domain@bitcoin.org
 62 2017-08-20 21:44:59	0|gmaxwell|thats cobra.
 63 2017-08-20 21:45:11	0|gmaxwell|feel free to CC me or wladimir.
 64 2017-08-20 21:45:13	0|BlueMatt|oh, @bitcoincore.org? I assume someone does...
 65 2017-08-20 21:45:13	0|luke-jr|bitcoinreminder: or do you mean bitcoincore.org ? just copy/paste what you mean :/
 66 2017-08-20 21:45:16	0|bitcoinreminder|no sorry, I was talking about bitcoin-core
 67 2017-08-20 21:45:23	0|bitcoinreminder|:P
 68 2017-08-20 21:45:25	0|gmaxwell|hm.
 69 2017-08-20 21:45:40	0|gmaxwell|do we even have email working there.. BlueMatt
 70 2017-08-20 21:45:56	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: dunno, i see that there is an mx record, and there are at least aliases to send to it
 71 2017-08-20 21:46:16	0|luke-jr|I'd expect btcdrak to be the one to know
 72 2017-08-20 21:46:19	0|bitcoinreminder|just want to tell you, feel free do keep it in mind or ignore it :D
 73 2017-08-20 21:46:40	0|bitcoinreminder|its just sad to see so much fud/lies spread there
 74 2017-08-20 21:46:48	0|BlueMatt|yea, I assume btcdrak can figure out how to make it send
 75 2017-08-20 21:46:56	0|gmaxwell|bitcoinreminder: sounds super useful.  yea, we'll get btcdrak to handle it.
 76 2017-08-20 21:47:19	0|bitcoinreminder|ok cool :)
 77 2017-08-20 21:54:50	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #11100: Use a sensible default for blockmax{size,weight} (06master...062017-08-sane-default-limits) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11100
 78 2017-08-20 21:55:38	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: there you go ^
 79 2017-08-20 21:57:21	0|BlueMatt|sipa: PR plox
 80 2017-08-20 21:57:24	0|sipa|it seems to work
 81 2017-08-20 21:57:35	0|sipa|BlueMatt: where would we use it?
 82 2017-08-20 21:57:58	0|sipa|merkle root calculation perhaps
 83 2017-08-20 21:58:22	0|BlueMatt|sipa: yes, taht
 84 2017-08-20 21:58:23	0|BlueMatt|that
 85 2017-08-20 21:59:58	0|gmaxwell|sipa: is it faster than anything
 86 2017-08-20 22:00:17	0|sipa|gmaxwell: haven't benchmarked
 87 2017-08-20 22:00:54	0|BlueMatt|sipa: it would also be kinda nice to use that during block deserialization to set the hashes of the txn, but that would be a nontrivial change to serialization code :/
 88 2017-08-20 22:01:23	0|sipa|yes...
 89 2017-08-20 22:01:31	0|BlueMatt|but, yea, I'd be super excited to see something that makes merkle root calculation any faster
 90 2017-08-20 22:01:37	0|BlueMatt|its one of my bigger bottlenecks
 91 2017-08-20 22:01:38	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: I really want changes that let us NOT hash the transactions, so we can use that for rescan...
 92 2017-08-20 22:02:03	0|sipa|and block serving
 93 2017-08-20 22:02:21	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: yea, that too
 94 2017-08-20 22:02:44	0|BlueMatt|sipa: see-also (you're gonna kill me) https://github.com/bitcoinfibre/bitcoinfibre/commit/2263253fe73f0a5f2ee7604532582da649702396
 95 2017-08-20 22:04:20	0|sipa|BlueMatt: all good as long as you don't PR that :p
 96 2017-08-20 22:04:24	0|BlueMatt|heh, fair
 97 2017-08-20 22:47:59	0|kanzure|luke-jr: what about providing a 'transitional' config for miners (based on the previous values), including big warning in the release notes, and then next release deprecate that extra config example file?
 98 2017-08-20 22:48:51	0|kanzure|(for #3229)
 99 2017-08-20 22:49:17	0|luke-jr|kanzure: what do you mean example? just a snippet in the release notes?
100 2017-08-20 22:49:39	0|kanzure|uhh maybe. that might satisfy the concern from wumpus.