1 2017-08-29 00:05:38 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15donesnake opened pull request #11187: 0.9 (06master...060.9) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11187
2 2017-08-29 00:06:23 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #11187: 0.9 (06master...060.9) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11187
3 2017-08-29 00:15:19 0|tloriato|Hello. Good morning/night. I was wondering where I could find a Javascript documentation on how to interact with a Bitcoin full node via JSON RPC? Sorry if I'm in the wrong place, I'm new to the space and trying to develop some things
4 2017-08-29 00:16:23 0|sipa|#bitcoin or bitcoin.stackexchange.com
5 2017-08-29 00:16:38 0|tloriato|thanks!
6 2017-08-29 01:58:35 0|kallewoof|After a day of stats, I have some updates regarding the mempool optimization for fees. Still WIP but looks interesting so far. Blocks 482344 ~ 482418:
7 2017-08-29 01:58:37 0|kallewoof|[bench::fees ( conservative|non-mempool)] 11940 ests, 11940 overshoots (313659 more sat/k/tx), 0 undershoots (0 less sat/k/tx)
8 2017-08-29 01:58:39 0|kallewoof|[bench::fees (non-conservative|non-mempool)] 12198 ests, 11940 overshoots (187298 more sat/k/tx), 258 undershoots (14414 less sat/k/tx)
9 2017-08-29 01:58:41 0|kallewoof|[bench::fees ( conservative| mempool)] 12745 ests, 11913 overshoots (85940 more sat/k/tx), 820 undershoots (23188 less sat/k/tx)
10 2017-08-29 01:58:43 0|kallewoof|[bench::fees (non-conservative| mempool)] 13102 ests, 11879 overshoots (56938 more sat/k/tx), 1216 undershoots (23577 less sat/k/tx)
11 2017-08-29 01:58:45 0|kallewoof|For mempool use, 6.5% undershot (conservative) / 9.3% undershot (non-conservative) (<-- still needs work)
12 2017-08-29 01:58:47 0|kallewoof|On average 227719 sat/k (72.6%) was saved for conservative / 130360 sat/k (30.4%) for non-conservative.
13 2017-08-29 05:20:54 0|meshcollider|15,999 stars on bitcoin repo, so close to 16k lol
14 2017-08-29 06:18:56 0|jcorgan|only 385 to go
15 2017-08-29 06:56:10 0|meshcollider|Til what lol
16 2017-08-29 06:56:53 0|aj|meshcollider: 2**14
17 2017-08-29 07:19:18 0|wumpus|rc3 binaries up https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.15.0/test.rc3/ https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.15.0/test.rc3/
18 2017-08-29 07:36:24 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15grzegorzblaszczyk opened pull request #11188: FIX: typo in Polish "Unknown..." => "Nieznane..." (06master...06master) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11188
19 2017-08-29 07:38:57 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #11188: FIX: typo in Polish "Unknown..." => "Nieznane..." (06master...06master) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11188
20 2017-08-29 08:07:31 0|wumpus|luke-jr: also I'd hope libevent-based P2P is really coming for 0.16
21 2017-08-29 08:19:12 0|luke-jr|wumpus: right, but we'd hoped that for 0.14 (0.13?) as well
22 2017-08-29 08:19:22 0|luke-jr|I agree nobody probably really cares about building without libevent tho :p
23 2017-08-29 08:19:40 0|luke-jr|even the person asking me to make it available in Core, didn't want to uninstall libevent to test a patch
24 2017-08-29 08:31:20 0|wumpus|yes, let's hope a bit more in the direcction of cfields :)
25 2017-08-29 08:32:20 0|wumpus|heh
26 2017-08-29 08:37:29 0|wumpus|btw thanks fanquake achow101 meshcollider for being so quick to do gitian builds (and cfields for uploading the sigs quickly), we're getting really fast at doing rcs/releases :)
27 2017-08-29 08:39:05 0|luke-jr|does that mean we should up the sig requirement to 5 signers? :p
28 2017-08-29 08:39:51 0|wumpus|would make sense to do that for final releases
29 2017-08-29 08:40:34 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 144f2905b 15Cristian Mircea Messel: Add getmininginfo functional test
30 2017-08-29 08:40:34 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/91e49c51f1ae...a90e6d2bffc4
31 2017-08-29 08:40:35 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a90e6d2 15MarcoFalke: Merge #11150: [tests] Add getmininginfo test...
32 2017-08-29 08:40:37 0|MarcoFalke|Hope I set up my new fedora box by then :)
33 2017-08-29 08:41:09 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #11150: [tests] Add getmininginfo test (06master...06test_rpc_getmininginfo) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11150
34 2017-08-29 08:41:20 0|wumpus|gititan on fedora, always up for a challenge eh
35 2017-08-29 08:41:37 0|luke-jr|that sounds easy enough
36 2017-08-29 08:41:48 0|luke-jr|I'm more curious how much trouble it will be to do gitian on Talos
37 2017-08-29 08:41:56 0|wumpus|easier than on gentoo?
38 2017-08-29 08:42:10 0|luke-jr|dunno, depends on Fedora having dependencies
39 2017-08-29 08:42:22 0|MarcoFalke|It shouldn't be a problem. I am still waiting on the package, though.
40 2017-08-29 08:42:32 0|luke-jr|particularly vmbuilder
41 2017-08-29 08:42:40 0|luke-jr|which afaict is Ubuntu home-grown
42 2017-08-29 08:42:52 0|wumpus|so are Talos' actually for sale already?
43 2017-08-29 08:43:02 0|luke-jr|wumpus: preorder :x
44 2017-08-29 08:43:22 0|wumpus|oh still :x
45 2017-08-29 08:43:26 0|luke-jr|https://raptorcs.com/TALOSII/
46 2017-08-29 08:43:40 0|wumpus|vmbuilder should be reasonably easy to build from source IIRC
47 2017-08-29 08:43:43 0|luke-jr|upgraded since the Talos "1" that never happened
48 2017-08-29 08:46:32 0|wumpus|"Expected to ship Q4 2017"
49 2017-08-29 08:46:55 0|wumpus|once they actually ship something I might
50 2017-08-29 08:49:45 0|luke-jr|IIRC they're saying they might not do a second batch. â˹
51 2017-08-29 08:50:53 0|wumpus|bleh, if not, I wouldn't really feel comfortable owning it in the first place, will be impossible to get either hardware or software support for a one-off product
52 2017-08-29 08:53:29 0|luke-jr|at least the CPU isn't one-off :p
53 2017-08-29 08:54:41 0|luke-jr|I suppose if it's successful, there will probably be another one-off next-gen in 5 years or so
54 2017-08-29 08:58:22 0|wumpus|I'll just keep waiting for a reasonably fast RiscV board, heck even if only on par with current ARM SoC would be enough to do *something*, especially with a bunch of them
55 2017-08-29 08:58:58 0|wumpus|you get your gitian result 2 week late but at least it was built on secure hw :P
56 2017-08-29 09:15:36 0|luke-jr|ME neutering seems to make good progress otoh
57 2017-08-29 09:15:42 0|wumpus|their last update is so sad https://www.crowdsupply.com/raptor-computing-systems/talos-secure-workstation/updates/the-state-of-owner-controlled-computing-as-talos-winds-down
58 2017-08-29 11:14:34 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #11190: [tests] Remove unused imports (script.OP_0 and script.sha256) (06master...06remove-unused-import-op_0) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11190
59 2017-08-29 12:08:15 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15AkioNak opened pull request #11191: RPC: Improve help text and behavior of RPC-logging. (06master...06fix_rpc_logging) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11191
60 2017-08-29 13:44:22 0|jnewbery|Anyone know who controls the @bitcoincoreorg twitter handle? Is this true: https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/902304153195737089 ?
61 2017-08-29 13:46:08 0|instagibbs|jnewbery, a number of folks I think, including btcdrak
62 2017-08-29 13:48:34 0|jnewbery|btcdrak - is @bitcoincoreorg blocking people? If so, why? Seems counter to an open development culture
63 2017-08-29 14:03:18 0|btcdrak|jnewbery: Jeff isnt blocked anymore. It was a relic from a long time ago.
64 2017-08-29 14:04:34 0|jnewbery|thanks btcdrak
65 2017-08-29 15:28:15 0|instagibbs|// account (CPFP)"
66 2017-08-29 15:28:15 0|instagibbs|"// The mining code doesn't (currently) take children into
67 2017-08-29 15:28:18 0|instagibbs|this isn't true anymore, right?
68 2017-08-29 15:38:31 0|jnewbery|correct - mining codes looks at packages of transactions
69 2017-08-29 15:46:38 0|instagibbs|should this commit be revisited in light of that? fc8c19a07c20ab63f6a69f7494f486204d8f2b7a
70 2017-08-29 16:17:48 0|cencen|voila... bitcoin price is up!
71 2017-08-29 16:20:14 0|cencen|hello, Yogaqueef
72 2017-08-29 16:24:55 0|Lauda|cencen wrong channel
73 2017-08-29 17:05:28 0|kanzure|"Can't read block from disk" is probably stale block?
74 2017-08-29 17:12:04 0|sdaftuar|kanzure: i don't think stale blocks would trigger that in general -- just disk corruption or pruning i think.
75 2017-08-29 17:12:13 0|jnewbery|instagibbs: bitcoind wallet doesn't allow fees to be bumped for transaction that have descendants in the wallet or mempool, so in practice I don't think it's much of an issue. sdaftuar would be the man to ask
76 2017-08-29 17:12:59 0|kanzure|sdaftuar: if no pruning enabled then it would have to be disk corruption ya?
77 2017-08-29 17:13:36 0|sdaftuar|kanzure: i think so. only other case i can think of is if you upgraded a pre-segwit node after segwit activated, triggering the rewindblockindex code. i assume that's not something you did?
78 2017-08-29 17:13:56 0|kanzure|testnet node in this case
79 2017-08-29 17:14:01 0|kanzure|no recent upgrade
80 2017-08-29 17:15:16 0|sdaftuar|then yeah disk corruption sounds like the culprit
81 2017-08-29 17:15:45 0|kanzure|is it terribly unhealthy to do fast bitcoind kills in succession and will that cause disk corruption
82 2017-08-29 17:17:36 0|sipa|what kind of hardware?
83 2017-08-29 17:18:01 0|kanzure|embarrassing
84 2017-08-29 17:19:08 0|kanzure|is there an easy way to fix this? delete latest block file somewhere?
85 2017-08-29 17:20:51 0|sipa|nope
86 2017-08-29 17:21:04 0|sdaftuar|kanzure: restore from your last backup?
87 2017-08-29 17:21:07 0|sipa|sorry, the block files are needed to even rewind the utxo set
88 2017-08-29 17:22:18 0|kanzure|other than restore, what is the hard way?
89 2017-08-29 17:22:46 0|sdaftuar|restart with -reindex
90 2017-08-29 17:23:04 0|kanzure|oh that's doable
91 2017-08-29 17:23:23 0|sdaftuar|did you get that error in response to an rpc call?
92 2017-08-29 17:23:34 0|kanzure|getblock
93 2017-08-29 17:23:46 0|kanzure|getblock 00000000000006dc84fa41a1cffa2f0a3c541f2a8247e3f8159ee9d91fe720c6
94 2017-08-29 17:26:30 0|kanzure|2017-08-29 17:25:07 ERROR: ReadBlockFromDisk: Errors in block header at CBlockDiskPos(nFile=77, nPos=109816002)
95 2017-08-29 17:26:42 0|sdaftuar|ouch
96 2017-08-29 17:27:02 0|sdaftuar|oh that's a pretty recent file at least
97 2017-08-29 17:27:26 0|kanzure|well i am getting the error in a loop, if you refer to the timestamp, heh
98 2017-08-29 17:27:54 0|sdaftuar|i think -reindex is the way to go
99 2017-08-29 17:28:14 0|kanzure|great thank you
100 2017-08-29 17:30:38 0|sdaftuar|instagibbs: jnewbery: yeah i think that code could be revisited now that the mining algorithm is better. i don't think there's any real DoS potential there, but i think there's room to be more conservative to ensure that miner income is being maximized.
101 2017-08-29 17:31:50 0|sdaftuar|instagibbs: probably the easiest thing to do would be to add one more check, that the ancestor feerate of the new transaction is higher than that of all the transactions being replaced.
102 2017-08-29 17:32:54 0|sdaftuar|and maybe we could loosen the requirement that all the new inputs already be confirmed
103 2017-08-29 17:46:50 0|instagibbs|ok, not knowledgeable enough to really dive into improvements, was having a discussion that revolved around bip125/Core design of replacement
104 2017-08-29 17:50:23 0|ryanofsky|kallewoof, if you want to post your overshoot/undershoot code somewhere, I could combine it with #10443 and test it with data going back to july
105 2017-08-29 17:59:17 0|gmaxwell|Can someone who understands twitter better explain to me what blocking someone does there... what would blocking someone on the bitcoin core account accomplish?
106 2017-08-29 18:02:19 0|instagibbs|it's an annoying feature tbh, all it does is stop a logged in account that is blocked from seeing messages and/or pinging notifications
107 2017-08-29 18:02:36 0|instagibbs|which is easily routed by just loading twitter not logged in...
108 2017-08-29 18:03:29 0|gmaxwell|Then why would any role account (like bitcoincoreorg) ever block anyone? Seems like all it would do is create offense for no gain.
109 2017-08-29 18:03:55 0|instagibbs|Perhaps to sift through mentions easier, although muting does this, and doesn't offend
110 2017-08-29 18:04:21 0|instagibbs|muting is just so you don't "hear" about that person talking about your account, or see their tweets when people RT them
111 2017-08-29 18:06:25 0|instagibbs|I think a policy of "only muting" is totally appropriate, regardless of motivations
112 2017-08-29 18:08:07 0|gmaxwell|I suppose it may have the effect of lowering the incidence of crap posting your announcements, but just causing them to not see them more often.
113 2017-08-29 18:08:17 0|gmaxwell|But otherwise it seems completely useless.
114 2017-08-29 18:18:15 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #11193: Terminate string *pszExePath after readlink and before passing to operator << (06master...06null-terminate-after-readlink) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11193
115 2017-08-29 18:18:49 0|jnewbery|I *think* blocking would also prevent the blocked party from replying to your tweets, so other people won't see their crap. So I think it is appropriate to block pure trolls/impersonators.
116 2017-08-29 18:19:13 0|gmaxwell|If it blocks replies then is serves a real purpose.
117 2017-08-29 18:19:21 0|gmaxwell|So, lets assume for a moment that we do that.
118 2017-08-29 18:20:29 0|gmaxwell|We put announcements of new releases out on twitter, if there is an account that constatly replies the the announcements with offtopic fudding than then diverts the replies into noise arguing with the... I think blocking them would be appropriate.
119 2017-08-29 18:20:43 0|gmaxwell|(arguing with them)
120 2017-08-29 18:21:15 0|gmaxwell|People doing that, incidentally, was one of the reasons I wasn't super excited about the project having a twitter account to begin with.
121 2017-08-29 18:21:42 0|luke-jr|yes, Twitter blocks prevent replies, which is why I actually block people on it (typically I don't)
122 2017-08-29 18:22:11 0|luke-jr|(personally)
123 2017-08-29 18:22:52 0|gmaxwell|You can actually see jgarzik going into offtopic conspiracy fud stuff in his response to morcos too, ... :(
124 2017-08-29 18:26:47 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery closed pull request #10882: [Do not merge] Stop advancing best block and shutdown node if keypool drops below critical threshold (06master...06keypool_topup) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10882
125 2017-08-29 18:31:03 0|jnewbery|yes, all a bit disappointing (and totally unnecessary). I think the twitter account is fine and useful if it's used purely to push technical information about the project. And I agree that blocking blatant trolls is totally appropriate.
126 2017-08-29 19:15:48 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15theuni opened pull request #11194: fees: optimize decay (06master...06speedup-movingaverage) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11194
127 2017-08-29 19:17:14 0|cfields|morcos: ^^ the quick speedup I forgot to push last week
128 2017-08-29 19:37:14 0|gmaxwell|cfields: tip: try to make the oneline git summaries maximally useful, "optimize decay" is a little opaque, e.g. it coudl mean making the esimator more accurate by changing the delay constants.
129 2017-08-29 19:38:01 0|cfields|gmaxwell: ack
130 2017-08-29 19:38:05 0|gmaxwell|cfields: aside. have you caonsidered branch that skips decay processing when there is no data?
131 2017-08-29 19:40:32 0|cfields|gmaxwell: see pr description. I figured morcos/sdaftuar would know immediately where to stick that, so I didn't look too hard. i wasn't satisfied that my quick hack wouldn't break something.
132 2017-08-29 20:01:41 0|cfields|gmaxwell: on a different note, do you happen to have any fun simulation, or even live node that would be good for stress-testing high connection counts?
133 2017-08-29 20:02:23 0|cfields|I'm finally happy enough with the functionality of these libevent changes. Been working well locally for the past few days
134 2017-08-29 20:03:28 0|cfields|It doesn't show much benefit here, but I'm assuming it will be much more obvious with a few hundred peers
135 2017-08-29 20:04:35 0|sipa|cfields: i believe sdaftuar or morcos have a replay-network-traffic simulation
136 2017-08-29 20:05:02 0|cfields|sipa: ooh, good thinking
137 2017-08-29 20:05:26 0|sdaftuar|sipa: cfields: i don't actually...
138 2017-08-29 20:05:36 0|cfields|sipa: back to your corner.
139 2017-08-29 20:05:46 0|sdaftuar|my replay network traffic simulation mocks out the network to test the rest of bitcoind
140 2017-08-29 20:06:47 0|cfields|ah
141 2017-08-29 20:07:34 0|sdaftuar|i suppose we could build a simulator that plays back historical data via p2p
142 2017-08-29 20:07:37 0|gmaxwell|cfields: I don't really, unfortunately, not much more than your prior fuzztester.
143 2017-08-29 20:07:42 0|cfields|hmm, i guess something as dumb as ~500 peers sending over-sized (1mb or so) pings might cut it
144 2017-08-29 20:10:39 0|cfields|sdaftuar: that could be helpful. I'll think on it.
145 2017-08-29 21:38:55 0|esotericnonsense|not sure if this is offtopic for the channel. is there a discussion anywhere surrounding why bitcoin uses bdb 4.8? it seems to me that the only real concern with using 5.x is that users would not then be able to downgrade wallet software, but how likely/useful is that anyway (and also, providing recompiled binaries for older releases with 5.x seems possible now?)
146 2017-08-29 21:54:24 0|Dizzle|It's not off-topic. A fine question. My guess is it's also a pain to come up with an upgrade mechanism as well.
147 2017-08-29 21:55:14 0|esotericnonsense|it already works, 5.x can use 4.8 wallets but not vice versa
148 2017-08-29 21:57:04 0|esotericnonsense|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/6253 found this at least.
149 2017-08-29 23:21:53 0|goatpig|achow101: pushed binaries for 0.96.2
150 2017-08-29 23:21:57 0|goatpig|woops
151 2017-08-29 23:42:21 0|achow101|can someone help me figure out what is wrong with https://github.com/achow101/bitcoin/tree/split-signraw-broken? That's my in progress rebase and comment addressing of #10579
152 2017-08-29 23:42:30 0|achow101|I'm having some assertlockheld problem
153 2017-08-29 23:44:55 0|meshcollider|compiler error?
154 2017-08-29 23:49:40 0|achow101|no, it fails tests with an assertion error about assertlockheld failing
155 2017-08-29 23:49:54 0|achow101|maybe I should try it normally first
156 2017-08-29 23:50:40 0|achow101|actually nvm. I didn't make clean so an earlier broken version was the problem