1 2017-09-11 00:11:19	0|esotericnonsense|hm. is there a reason why one my node would suddenly dump a bunch of tx from its' mempool (with maxmempool set at default)?
  2 2017-09-11 00:11:25	0|esotericnonsense|why one of my nodes*
  3 2017-09-11 00:12:04	0|esotericnonsense|e.g. different behaviour on one node versus another
  4 2017-09-11 00:12:59	0|sipa|a replacement was accepted?
  5 2017-09-11 00:14:10	0|esotericnonsense|hm. perhaps. the vsize change is 1MB. there could be some bug in my monitoring software and they're not running the same version unfortunately.
  6 2017-09-11 00:15:13	0|esotericnonsense|actually, they might both be on the same. either rc2 and rc3 or both rc3, will check
  7 2017-09-11 00:15:20	0|esotericnonsense|https://imgur.com/a/VCBK2
  8 2017-09-11 00:15:41	0|esotericnonsense|the small differences i can kind of understand, this massive drop is really odd
  9 2017-09-11 00:16:21	0|esotericnonsense|can an rbf transaction be accepted that invalidates a bunch of children?
 10 2017-09-11 00:17:03	0|esotericnonsense|i suppose if i leave it running, they should converge at some point if the mempool drops in size more and that'll give a clue
 11 2017-09-11 00:19:35	0|esotericnonsense|both on rc3
 12 2017-09-11 00:22:41	0|gmaxwell|esotericnonsense: was a block found at the same time...
 13 2017-09-11 00:22:51	0|gmaxwell|1MB of mempool drop is what you expect when a block is found normally. :)
 14 2017-09-11 00:23:19	0|esotericnonsense|gmaxwell: no
 15 2017-09-11 00:23:43	0|esotericnonsense|gmaxwell: also, the transactions that are dropped from one node are still there on the other node
 16 2017-09-11 00:23:57	0|esotericnonsense|all the other drops in the chart correspond to blocks (the ones that come off the top by fee prio), but not that one
 17 2017-09-11 00:24:00	0|gmaxwell|oh they could have just hit the expiration time.
 18 2017-09-11 00:24:56	0|esotericnonsense|i thought that, but, we've hit zero mempool recently, isn't that weeks?
 19 2017-09-11 00:26:33	0|esotericnonsense|well, i say 'we', i really mean, myself and other nodes that are monitoring this independently :P
 20 2017-09-11 00:41:44	0|meshcollider|argh why did #11289 fail again
 21 2017-09-11 00:41:45	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11289 | Add wallet backup text to import* and add* RPCs by MeshCollider · Pull Request #11289 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 22 2017-09-11 00:42:13	0|meshcollider|oh gribbles back
 23 2017-09-11 00:42:19	0|esotericnonsense|ah hang on now. it's like a puzzle waiting for me to solve it for new insights. i still don't understand the difference in behaviour, but i can see a reason my mempool analysis stuff is less useful in its current form than i thought
 24 2017-09-11 00:43:07	0|esotericnonsense|RBF limits the evictions to 100 transactions, but if you decide to send an opt-in RBF low-ish fee tx with say ten 50kB children and then replace it you can invalidate 500kB
 25 2017-09-11 00:43:26	0|gmaxwell|esotericnonsense: yes, though you have to pay a pretty phenomial fee to do that.
 26 2017-09-11 00:44:33	0|esotericnonsense|ah yes. the fee would have to include the children's fees. clever.
 27 2017-09-11 00:45:16	0|esotericnonsense|this has gone quite OT for this channel now, sorry. :)
 28 2017-09-11 00:50:25	0|meshcollider|ok I can't see anything wrong in the log, guessing it was a random failure again. Can someone restart it please :)
 29 2017-09-11 00:54:48	0|meshcollider|I feel like I'm always asking for travis restarts, sorry about that but hopefully the random errors get fewer and fewer
 30 2017-09-11 00:54:50	0|wumpus|meshcollider: yes it needs to run after master re-cached
 31 2017-09-11 00:54:58	0|wumpus|restarted the build
 32 2017-09-11 00:55:38	0|meshcollider|thanks :) is there any way to enable me to restart builds myself without write access or whatever, so I can stop bugging people
 33 2017-09-11 00:55:48	0|meshcollider|not sure how travis permissions work tbh
 34 2017-09-11 00:55:52	0|wumpus|I hope so too, though it's always a fight with travis, for everyone not just you
 35 2017-09-11 00:56:10	0|wumpus|I think all organization members (no matter what their permissions) can restart builds
 36 2017-09-11 00:56:48	0|wumpus|and that's useful anyhow as it means issues can be assigned to you, so I'll invite you
 37 2017-09-11 00:57:22	0|gmaxwell|cfields: hopefully you can get the 0.15 release signatures up ASAP so we can get the gitian builds out. :(
 38 2017-09-11 00:58:00	0|meshcollider|Oh cool, sounds good
 39 2017-09-11 00:58:39	0|meshcollider|Is anyone working on segwit wallet support for 0.15.1 yet? I would kinda like to take a stab at that if no one else has had time yet
 40 2017-09-11 00:58:55	0|sipa|i haven't done it, but was planning to look into it
 41 2017-09-11 00:59:03	0|sipa|i expect it to be extremely easy
 42 2017-09-11 01:02:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MeshCollider closed pull request #11297: Make sure ~/.bitcoin doesn't exist before build (06master...06201709_travis_delete_dir) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11297
 43 2017-09-11 01:03:57	0|meshcollider|sipa: alright I'm happy to have a go at it if you want to offhand it, just let me know what the general strategy is :)
 44 2017-09-11 01:04:43	0|morcos|esotericnonsense: if you get any more insight into your issue, i'm interested.  i looked at several nodes that seemed to mirror your node that didn't experience the drop
 45 2017-09-11 01:05:19	0|esotericnonsense|morcos: sure. they've almost converged now
 46 2017-09-11 01:07:29	0|esotericnonsense|morcos: in particular the block at 0046 UTC (000000000000000000071cf8891c31cb5361797a24cf78e14e2979e9c8c65e29) knocked out a bunch of 10-15 sat/b transactions (in terms of byte size, i'm working on charting tx counts now)
 47 2017-09-11 01:09:06	0|esotericnonsense|right, so there were two blocks one after the other there
 48 2017-09-11 01:09:21	0|esotericnonsense|the first one had a similar effect on both nodes, the second one took less out of the mempool than it contributed by approx 300kB
 49 2017-09-11 01:09:53	0|esotericnonsense|(on the node that experienced the drop). i interpret that as being 300kB of transactions disappeared from the mempool that were included in that block.
 50 2017-09-11 01:10:08	0|esotericnonsense|i don't have logs of the txids unfortunately :(
 51 2017-09-11 01:14:18	0|esotericnonsense|(oh, relevant detail is that the non-drop node observed 600kb gone from mempool and 600kb block size approximately, so they weren't direct-from-miner tx)
 52 2017-09-11 01:21:05	0|esotericnonsense|morcos: digging about a bit and hacking my tool to show tx counts i think i've found the culprits but can't be entirely sure, that block has a few ~30kB consolidation tx that pay 3sat/b
 53 2017-09-11 01:22:48	0|esotericnonsense|vague tinfoil idea of a thing you could do: send child tx to some of the network that increase the total required for RBF, while simultaneously sending a tx to other nodes which RBF's the initial tx - if i'm interpreting things right, if my node is in the latter set it would drop the transaction and the others would ignore the fee replacement.
 54 2017-09-11 01:24:07	0|esotericnonsense|no idea why this is a thing you'd want to do
 55 2017-09-11 01:29:26	0|morcos|esotericnonsense: i'm not sure i follow all that, but how is this explained by a block, or are you just saying that the block ended up having txs that you think could have been the relevant RBF txs?
 56 2017-09-11 01:30:38	0|earlz|Can someone give me an explanation for this exploit that is apparently fixed by moving from a database storing per-tx to per-txout? I can't find any good write ups and maintain my own fork and trying to figure out if I'm affected
 57 2017-09-11 01:31:04	0|esotericnonsense|i'm just guessing really. it's not that important, just thought I would share as you asked.
 58 2017-09-11 01:32:25	0|esotericnonsense|if my node (or some set of nodes close to me) replaced the tx, but the rest of the network didn't, it would sort of make sense. basically you don't actually pay the large 'replace by fee' because you've deliberately seeded miners with an extra child first.
 59 2017-09-11 01:32:29	0|morcos|earlz: you can watch the presentation from breaking bitcoin today, but essentially the fact that the pre-0.15 utxo set stored unspent outputs per transaction meant that a new tx could pull in an input that was 1 of many outputs in a previous transaction
 60 2017-09-11 01:33:03	0|morcos|so processing that required pulling the whole previous tx into memory.  this is true for each input of a transaction you are processing.
 61 2017-09-11 01:33:10	0|esotericnonsense|i can't see what it actually achieves other than mucking about with my mempool and possibly fee estimation if it were based on mempool (which it shouldn't be for that reason)
 62 2017-09-11 01:33:41	0|morcos|depending on your threat model, it can be bad in the regular case for low memory nodes, or bad in a contrived attack case for virtually any node
 63 2017-09-11 01:34:05	0|morcos|recommend you watch the presentation if you're concerned
 64 2017-09-11 01:45:14	0|earlz|thanks, I had similar thoughts last time I worked with coindb that it might be more expensive than expected, but not "can break bitcoin" or crash a node. I'll watch the presentation
 65 2017-09-11 02:48:12	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MeshCollider reopened pull request #11297: Make sure ~/.bitcoin doesn't exist before build (06master...06201709_travis_delete_dir) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11297
 66 2017-09-11 02:48:52	0|meshcollider|Just in case ^
 67 2017-09-11 02:55:37	0|meshcollider|wumpus: 21630 failed again with the ~/.bitcoin issue
 68 2017-09-11 02:55:53	0|meshcollider|#11289
 69 2017-09-11 02:55:55	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11289 | Add wallet backup text to import* and add* RPCs by MeshCollider · Pull Request #11289 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 70 2017-09-11 02:56:12	0|meshcollider|why would it still be failing if the cache was cleared :?
 71 2017-09-11 06:02:52	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b73628d 15MeshCollider: Make sure ~/.bitcoin doesn't exist before build
 72 2017-09-11 06:02:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ee50c9e48786...16e41844e7d6
 73 2017-09-11 06:02:53	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1416e4184 15MarcoFalke: Merge #11297: Make sure ~/.bitcoin doesn't exist before build...
 74 2017-09-11 06:03:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #11297: Make sure ~/.bitcoin doesn't exist before build (06master...06201709_travis_delete_dir) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11297
 75 2017-09-11 06:20:17	0|meshcollider|Someone mind restarting  #11289 now that's merged ^? wumpus: seems like I still can't restart travis builds
 76 2017-09-11 06:20:19	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11289 | Add wallet backup text to import* and add* RPCs by MeshCollider · Pull Request #11289 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 77 2017-09-11 06:20:45	0|meshcollider|oh actually I probably need to rebase to make it work anyway, dw
 78 2017-09-11 06:25:38	0|sipa|yeah
 79 2017-09-11 06:33:11	0|fanquake|I've just pushed up sigs for 0.15
 80 2017-09-11 08:12:34	0|midnightmagic|Would it be useful to push sigs for 0.15.0 in advance of the detached sigs "officially" becoming avail for v0.15.0 ? Or should I wait?
 81 2017-09-11 08:14:09	0|midnightmagic|(or rather, open a PR, not push, obviously)
 82 2017-09-11 08:14:11	0|meshcollider|useful because the detached sigs "officially" become available only after at least 3 people have (correct me if I'm wrong)
 83 2017-09-11 08:19:08	0|fanquake|Yes we need people to build 0.15.0 and push sigs before we can create the detached sigs.
 84 2017-09-11 08:19:48	0|meshcollider|im building it atm, should have it up soon too
 85 2017-09-11 08:21:49	0|mryandao|is there a threshold of signatures required before a release can be made?
 86 2017-09-11 08:22:28	0|midnightmagic|okie doke then.
 87 2017-09-11 08:22:58	0|meshcollider|mryandao: It's all described here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-process.md
 88 2017-09-11 08:25:16	0|mryandao|meshcollider: cool thanks.
 89 2017-09-11 09:06:58	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15mrwhythat opened pull request #11299: [WIP] Implement pruning to location (06master...06prune-to-location-option) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11299
 90 2017-09-11 10:22:01	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MeshCollider opened pull request #11300: Tests: Add a lint check for trailing whitespace (06master...06201709_whitespace_lint) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11300
 91 2017-09-11 11:01:20	0|meshcollider|heh, have I got the worst luck with travis or what, unrelated test timeout on that one too ^
 92 2017-09-11 11:19:03	0|fanquake|meshcollider restarted it.
 93 2017-09-11 13:20:42	0|achow101|I won't be able to do gitian builds for a few days since my build machine is down for maintenance
 94 2017-09-11 13:29:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15benma closed pull request #10915: Refactor fRelayTxes global to CConnman member (06master...06fRelayTxes) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10915
 95 2017-09-11 14:25:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15benma opened pull request #11301: add m_added_nodes to connman options (06master...06addnode) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11301
 96 2017-09-11 15:15:24	0|morcos|sipa: I was just discussing BIP 173 with sdaftuar and I agree with him that the upper case and lower case rules for the hrp are very unclear.
 97 2017-09-11 15:16:05	0|morcos|In particular the BIP says that the hrp is restricted to ASCII characters in the range of 33-126
 98 2017-09-11 15:17:00	0|morcos|but I assume you don't want to allow a human readable part where "Aa" is allowed? or "AA" is not the same thing as "aa"?
 99 2017-09-11 15:19:43	0|morcos|I think the intention is pretty clear from the uppercase/lowercase section, but it seems like we should just require that the hrp not be allowed tocontain the characters in 65-90 (upper case) and that the rules of converting upper to lower before processing apply to hrp and data?
100 2017-09-11 15:20:27	0|sipa|morcos: sounds good
101 2017-09-11 15:21:26	0|morcos|And maybe add just a little bit that to the QR section that indicates the alphanumeric mode may be possible depending on the hrp choices
102 2017-09-11 15:22:42	0|sipa|morcos: i do think it's already implied... as the text says that mixing cases is not allowed, and that for computing the checksum the lowercase version of the hrp is used
103 2017-09-11 15:23:17	0|sipa|it's probably clearer if we point out that the hrp is just always lowercase
104 2017-09-11 15:23:58	0|morcos|yes, but if you pick some of the allowed characters for hrp, they dont' fall in alphanumeric such as '<'
105 2017-09-11 15:24:32	0|morcos|so they are still allowed for a bech32 code, but don't want to confuse people that all bech32 codes will be always able to take advantage of alphanumeric QR encoding
106 2017-09-11 15:25:15	0|morcos|oh sorry you were responding to the first part
107 2017-09-11 15:25:46	0|sipa|alphanumeric mode is chosen by the encoder on a character-by-character basis
108 2017-09-11 15:26:02	0|sipa|it's not tyat your whole string needs to be uppercase to use the advantages
109 2017-09-11 15:26:14	0|sipa|but they do disappear when you switch all the time
110 2017-09-11 15:34:42	0|gmaxwell|sipa: that was my ultimate answer to sdaftuar on that too, but I admit I struggled with extracting the justification from the spec.
111 2017-09-11 15:52:20	0|bitjazz|hi
112 2017-09-11 16:20:06	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift closed pull request #11261: scripted-diff: Use <cxxx> instead of deprecated <xxx.h> when including C compatibility headers (06master...06cinclude) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11261
113 2017-09-11 17:32:17	0|morcos|sipa: is anything holding up #11100, I know luke-jr does not agree, but we're not goign to get him on board.   Let's just merge it so we can stop fighting about it an move on.
114 2017-09-11 17:32:19	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11100 | Fix confusing blockmax{size,weight} options, dont default to throwing away money by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #11100 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
115 2017-09-11 17:37:04	0|gmaxwell|morcos: fwiw, since that last discussion I've heard from two other miners that accidentally produced undersized blocks due to the defaults.
116 2017-09-11 17:43:58	0|morcos|yeah it just needs to be merged, it has plenty of ACK's.  I was going to see if I needed to spend more time reviewing it or something, but thats not the hold up.
117 2017-09-11 18:33:27	0|cfields|gitian builders: v0.15.0 detached sigs are pushed
118 2017-09-11 18:34:39	0|gmaxwell|\O/
119 2017-09-11 19:18:44	0|BlueMatt|heh, in bench we go out of our way to cache countMaskInv (inverse of countMask, an int, as a double) to avoid a div during the inner loop...but in order to avoid that div we first do a convert from int to float, then a mul, then a convert back, which by my instruction tables is roughly the same cost (a tiny bit less, but not enough to care) as just doing the regular int div
120 2017-09-11 19:18:49	0|BlueMatt|anyone care if I nuke that?
121 2017-09-11 19:19:30	0|gmaxwell|I think that was benchmarked, but I hate this code.
122 2017-09-11 19:19:47	0|gmaxwell|the adaptive interval counts stink and make doign a/b tests basically impossible.
123 2017-09-11 19:22:00	0|BlueMatt|yep, if the interval counts change you are *guaranteed* to get a different result, in my experience, even for 10ish-ms runtimes
124 2017-09-11 19:22:39	0|gmaxwell|thats suspicious, but I've seen it too
125 2017-09-11 19:23:09	0|BlueMatt|lol, I know you've run the fibre bench stuff....I think its super sensitive to cache effects given what it does, so that may make it worse
126 2017-09-11 19:23:23	0|BlueMatt|and possibly malloc time
127 2017-09-11 19:23:46	0|BlueMatt|anyway, I'm gonna nuke this int-div conversion crap, if someone wants to actually make the framework work, they can, but this isnt the issue with it
128 2017-09-11 19:33:27	0|BlueMatt|heh, reading wallet, "who in the fuck wrote this garbage"...."oh, I did...in 2011"
129 2017-09-11 19:34:15	0|achow101|BlueMatt: are you volunteering to be wallet maintainer?
130 2017-09-11 19:34:42	0|gmaxwell|sipa is already the wallet maintainer.
131 2017-09-11 19:34:45	0|BlueMatt|no, I thought we nominated sipa
132 2017-09-11 19:34:46	0|BlueMatt|:p
133 2017-09-11 19:34:49	0|sipa|i thought i had already been volunteerified
134 2017-09-11 19:35:33	0|achow101|oh yes, sipa was voluntold
135 2017-09-11 19:39:39	0|sipa|haha
136 2017-09-11 19:43:55	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f151f5f 15Jonas Schnelli: [macOS] remove Growl support, remove unused code
137 2017-09-11 19:43:55	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/16e41844e7d6...31e72b284ef5
138 2017-09-11 19:43:56	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1431e72b2 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11268: [macOS] remove Growl support, remove unused code...
139 2017-09-11 19:44:40	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11268: [macOS] remove Growl support, remove unused code (06master...062017/09/rm_growl) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11268
140 2017-09-11 19:55:07	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #11303: Fix estimatesmartfee rounding display issue (06master...062017-09-estimatesmartfee-round) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11303
141 2017-09-11 20:00:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 4 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/31e72b284ef5...1afc22a7667a
142 2017-09-11 20:00:33	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ba206d2 15Matt Corallo: Deprecate confusing blockmaxsize, fix getmininginfo output...
143 2017-09-11 20:00:34	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 143dc263c 15Matt Corallo: Use a sensible default for blockmaxweight...
144 2017-09-11 20:00:34	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 146f703e9 15Matt Corallo: Add release notes describing blockmaxweight deprecation
145 2017-09-11 20:01:06	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #11100: Fix confusing blockmax{size,weight} options, dont default to throwing away money (06master...062017-08-sane-default-limits) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11100
146 2017-09-11 22:23:36	0|BlueMatt|#11304 translates to "Generally I do not understand how to install on linux kali (# 11304)"...should probably just be closed
147 2017-09-11 22:23:37	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11304 | Вообще не понимаю как установить на linux kali · Issue #11304 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
148 2017-09-11 22:33:43	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1afc22a7667a...b9bceaf1c081
149 2017-09-11 22:33:44	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b86a420 15Gregory Sanders: when clearing addrman clear mapInfo and mapAddr
150 2017-09-11 22:33:44	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b9bceaf 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #11252: [P2P] When clearing addrman clear mapInfo and mapAddr....
151 2017-09-11 22:34:18	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #11252: [P2P] When clearing addrman clear mapInfo and mapAddr. (06master...06recreateaddrman) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11252