1 2017-09-22 00:11:27 0|gmaxwell|Patches to AFL that let you target specific parts of code, e.g. to fuzz test a patch: https://github.com/aflgo/aflgo
2 2017-09-22 04:37:05 0|ossifrage|FYI the twitching "Reindexing blocks on disk..." did not damp out as I made progress, now it is at 76% and twitching between 7 and 30 weeks
3 2017-09-22 05:28:48 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15Gazer022 opened pull request #11384: Merge pull request #1 from bitcoin/master (06master...06master) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11384
4 2017-09-22 05:29:38 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15Gazer022 closed pull request #11384: Merge pull request #1 from bitcoin/master (06master...06master) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11384
5 2017-09-22 05:43:59 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142a07f87 15Dan Raviv: Refactor: Modernize disallowed copy constructors/assignment...
6 2017-09-22 05:43:59 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/49f3d57eeb66...6c4fecfaf7be
7 2017-09-22 05:44:00 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 146c4fecf 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #11351: Refactor: Modernize disallowed copy constructors/assignment...
8 2017-09-22 05:44:39 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #11351: Refactor: Modernize disallowed copy constructors/assignment (06master...06refactor/modernize-no-copy) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11351
9 2017-09-22 06:45:57 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #11385: Remove some unused functions and methods (06master...06201709_misc_cleanups) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11385
10 2017-09-22 07:59:35 0|sipa|question: how to deal with existing tests that use getnewaddress/sendtoaddress? they often don't work without modification, as spends from segwit outputs don't work before segwit activates (in block 432 on regtest)
11 2017-09-22 07:59:49 0|sipa|1) force all tests to stick with legacy addresses
12 2017-09-22 08:01:18 0|sipa|2) make getnewaddress etc fall back to legacy addresses before segwit activation (but that's not something you want on mainnet, as it could lead to accidentally creating a legacy address if you're too fast
13 2017-09-22 08:02:48 0|sipa|3) have an cmdline argument to make segwit activate from genesis in regtest (which would be on by default, excepr for tests that actually test the transition)
14 2017-09-22 08:04:17 0|sipa|4) use -prematurewitness liberally, for cases where it's only wallet logic that is being tested (not validation/consensus)
15 2017-09-22 08:07:06 0|sipa|5) adapt all tests to mine enough blocks up front (but that's a lot of changes... getbalance calls everywhere)
16 2017-09-22 09:02:13 0|jl2012|sipa: I think 3) is the best, as it could also show all existing tests pass with the segwit getnewaddress
17 2017-09-22 09:03:54 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #11343: added `-walletallowsymboliclink` (default false) (060.15...06wallet-allow-symbolic-link) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11343
18 2017-09-22 09:04:27 0|meshcollider|I agree, 2 is quite nice in theory but I think 3 is best practically
19 2017-09-22 09:07:48 0|MarcoFalke|5 is an ugly workaround, lets not do that.
20 2017-09-22 09:46:35 0|gmaxwell|5 is strictly worse than 3. I like 3. technically we could make mainnet activate segwit at the same time as p2sh, which would also result in regtest being born-segwit... but it would break transistion tests.
21 2017-09-22 09:47:04 0|gmaxwell|I don't really think we need transition tests anymore, but they're probably also incidentally testing other useful things so probably not great to just drop them.
22 2017-09-22 11:32:16 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 146951a1c 15MeshCollider: Remove extremely outdated share/certs dir
23 2017-09-22 11:32:16 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6c4fecfaf7be...390771be6276
24 2017-09-22 11:32:17 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14390771b 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11380: Remove outdated share/certs/ directory...
25 2017-09-22 11:32:51 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11380: Remove outdated share/certs/ directory (06master...06201709_remove_old_certs) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11380
26 2017-09-22 11:34:06 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1446c9043 15Pieter Wuille: Remove some unused functions and methods...
27 2017-09-22 11:34:06 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/390771be6276...94c9015bca86
28 2017-09-22 11:34:07 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1494c9015 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11385: Remove some unused functions and methods...
29 2017-09-22 11:34:47 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11385: Remove some unused functions and methods (06master...06201709_misc_cleanups) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11385
30 2017-09-22 11:39:24 0|wumpus|it's kind of sad that we never merged #9937 and no one followed up on it
31 2017-09-22 11:39:26 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9937 | rpc: Prevent `dumpwallet` from overwriting files by laanwj ÷ Pull Request #9937 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
32 2017-09-22 11:40:22 0|wumpus|thinking about it, I don't really think "The change as written now allows to test the existence of any file." is a concern that should have prevented it from being merged, it's much better than being able to overwrite every file
33 2017-09-22 11:45:22 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj reopened pull request #9937: rpc: Prevent `dumpwallet` from overwriting files (06master...062017_03_walletdump_nooverwrite) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9937
34 2017-09-22 12:11:41 0|morcos|sipa: i'm in favor of 3 or even just dumping transition tests entirely. i know sdaftuar was looking at these for his attempts to have segwit active earlier, we should get his opinion
35 2017-09-22 12:28:53 0|sdaftuar|sipa: i agree with 3) as the best idea for now.
36 2017-09-22 12:30:44 0|sdaftuar|gmaxwell: sipa: i was experimenting with moving segwit activation back to p2sh activation for mainnet, to see how much code simplification we could get
37 2017-09-22 12:30:57 0|sdaftuar|it ended up being a lot messier than i thought and i got a little stuck on that project--
38 2017-09-22 12:31:32 0|sdaftuar|moving SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS enforcement back is a straightforward change, but the rules around witness commitments in the coinbase are not really changeable, as far as i can tell
39 2017-09-22 12:32:52 0|sdaftuar|the simplest example -- pre-segwit, someone mines a block with a witness commitment that commits to the transactions all not having a witness -- doesn't validate, because checking the commitment
40 2017-09-22 12:33:03 0|sdaftuar|requires checking the witness nonce, which is not present
41 2017-09-22 12:33:28 0|sdaftuar|never mind if there are blocks which have an incorrect commitment (pre-activation) -- i assume those exist too
42 2017-09-22 12:34:31 0|sdaftuar|so i was left wondering if it was worth splitting segwit activation into two parts -- one where witness commitments are only checked at some height, but SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS is enforced eg from genesis
43 2017-09-22 12:34:41 0|sdaftuar|and my instinct was that was only complicating things, and not simplifying
44 2017-09-22 12:34:50 0|sdaftuar|but i'd be interested in others' opinions
45 2017-09-22 13:55:08 0|jnewbery|sdaftuar: I think it's still worthwhile, even if you need to split SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS enforcement from witness commitment verification. We could then change SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNES activation height on regtest to 0 and remove all the transition tests (except one test for verifying that witness commitment verification is not enforced before witness commitment verification height)
46 2017-09-22 13:58:21 0|jnewbery|sipa: (3) is best for now. It'd be nice to eventually dump most transition tests if possible
47 2017-09-22 15:15:33 0|instagibbs|how would people feel about removing mempoolreplacement arg? There's no tests, and I have yet to hear a reason to not allow it.(or people setting it to off)
48 2017-09-22 15:29:22 0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: Oh. I completely forgot #9937. We should have merged it, yes.
49 2017-09-22 15:29:24 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9937 | rpc: Prevent `dumpwallet` from overwriting files by laanwj ÷ Pull Request #9937 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
50 2017-09-22 15:30:40 0|Sentineo|/window 3
51 2017-09-22 15:38:33 0|jnewbery|luke-jr: I'm looking at #11383 (nice work btw!). I don't understand the comment about it requiring #10615. It looks like they're basically orthogonal (except a bit of overlap in the RPC console). I think it'll probably aid review if you separate them out so there's no cross-dependency.
52 2017-09-22 15:38:34 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11383 | Basic Multiwallet GUI support by luke-jr ÷ Pull Request #11383 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
53 2017-09-22 15:38:36 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10615 | RPC: Allow rpcauth configs to specify a 4th parameter naming a specific wallet (multiwallet RPC support) by luke-jr ÷ Pull Request #10615 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
54 2017-09-22 16:43:31 0|luke-jr|jnewbery: 10615 has the commit resolving the wallet for RPC earlier, so GUI can assign it
55 2017-09-22 17:21:30 0|jnewbery|luke-jr : That's only used for the RPC console. If I just cherry-pick all the commits apart from that, then it works fine without 10615. There are still several outstanding concerns in 10615, so I think it makes sense to separate the two PRs and allow them to be reviewed separately
56 2017-09-22 18:23:23 0|luke-jr|jnewbery: it should be used by WalletModel too (although maybe it isn't yet)
57 2017-09-22 18:23:31 0|luke-jr|(pretty sure it is tho)
58 2017-09-22 18:48:10 0|achow101|.... wow. I managed to get bitcoin 0.1.0 to start syncing off of Core 0.15.99
59 2017-09-22 18:49:51 0|sipa|achow101: i assume you needed to patch 0.1.0 a bit?
60 2017-09-22 18:50:17 0|achow101|sipa: I patched Core to speak 0.1.0
61 2017-09-22 18:50:35 0|achow101|and apparently bitcoin.org's docs are wrong
62 2017-09-22 18:50:42 0|sipa|fix them!
63 2017-09-22 18:50:45 0|achow101|I will
64 2017-09-22 18:53:56 0|sipa|morcos: perhaps you can answer https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/59854/where-are-the-new-smart-fee-estimate-data-saved-can-the-file-be-re-used
65 2017-09-22 19:08:36 0|morcos|sipa: ok done
66 2017-09-22 19:08:51 0|achow101|are coinbase transactions supposed to have witnesses?
67 2017-09-22 19:09:13 0|achow101|I'm seeing coinbase transactions with witness fields of 32 bytes of 0's
68 2017-09-22 19:09:29 0|achow101|*1 stack item of 32 bytes of 0's
69 2017-09-22 19:09:32 0|sipa|achow101: yes
70 2017-09-22 19:09:43 0|sipa|achow101: they're a field intended for extensibility
71 2017-09-22 19:10:11 0|achow101|sipa: oh, ok. I don't see that in the BIPs though..
72 2017-09-22 19:10:39 0|achow101|oh, nvm. found it in bip 141
73 2017-09-22 19:10:58 0|sipa|it's called 'witness reserved value' in the bip
74 2017-09-22 19:27:53 0|thomas__|Hey guys, new here. Does someone have to work on windows and has a good workflow set up ?
75 2017-09-22 19:28:12 0|sipa|a good workflow for what?
76 2017-09-22 19:28:25 0|thomas__|to dev
77 2017-09-22 19:31:58 0|thomas__|I'll be rebuilding a lot this weekend to see how things work, if someone has a way to make it less painful I'd like to hear from him ^^
78 2017-09-22 19:32:14 0|achow101|thomas__: use linux and read the Bitcoin Core docs
79 2017-09-22 19:33:02 0|thomas__|damit, everyone has the same answer. I have an ubuntu set up on my computer, but I also have to do stuff on windows. I don't see myself switching 3 times a day between both.
80 2017-09-22 19:33:21 0|achow101|thomas__: then use a VM
81 2017-09-22 19:33:36 0|achow101|developing things is infintely easier to do in a *nix environment than windows
82 2017-09-22 19:33:43 0|sipa|how well does bash-on-windows work these days?
83 2017-09-22 19:34:18 0|achow101|sipa: pretty well, but AFAIK, no gui support
84 2017-09-22 19:34:23 0|thomas__|the wsl works if you keep all your file on the linux side
85 2017-09-22 19:34:27 0|achow101|i.e. can't run bitcoin-qt
86 2017-09-22 19:35:06 0|thomas__|I'm cross compiling right now, I'll know after that
87 2017-09-22 19:35:40 0|achow101|thomas__: I suppose you could use wsl and cross compile. note that cross compiling with ubuntu 15.10+ (wsl uses ubuntu 16.04) is a bit flaky
88 2017-09-22 19:37:11 0|thomas__|Apparently mine uses: Description: Ubuntu 14.04.5 LTS
89 2017-09-22 19:37:18 0|thomas__|So should be ok then
90 2017-09-22 19:38:06 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15runn1ng opened pull request #11386: RPC: Consistently use UniValue.pushKV instead of push_back(Pair()) (06master...06univalue_bikeshed) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11386
91 2017-09-22 20:12:55 0|achow101|with old versions of bitcoin (e.g. 0.1.0), what happens if they receive blocks out of order?
92 2017-09-22 20:17:36 0|sipa|achow101: stored as orphans in memory until the parent is fetched
93 2017-09-22 20:18:10 0|sipa|at some point we limited the size of the orphan block pool, which resulted in the same blocks being fetched over and over again
94 2017-09-22 20:18:16 0|sipa|until headers-sync in 0.10
95 2017-09-22 20:32:17 0|esotericnonsense|thomas__: if you haven't spent much time working in VM's I'd really recommend it. on modern hardware it's a treat.
96 2017-09-22 20:32:48 0|thomas__|A few years ago a lot of people were bitching about it and so I never took the time to really try
97 2017-09-22 20:50:50 0|jonasschnelli|Should we tolerate lost GUI window positions in 0.16 (the window will recenter in 0.16 when merging #11335)
98 2017-09-22 20:50:52 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11335 | Replace save|restoreWindowGeometry with Qt functions by MeshCollider ÷ Pull Request #11335 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
99 2017-09-22 22:27:52 0|ossifrage|That is really annoying chrome decided to eat up all the memory, but the oom killer took out bitcoin (while doing a reindex) and somehow the progress went from 99ish% to 85%, that is quite a bit of rollback
100 2017-09-22 22:32:00 0|esotericnonsense|ossifrage: how long does the entire reindex take? if it's the same mechanism as during IBD then with a high dbcache value it's just every N minutes/hours (don't remember the figure)
101 2017-09-22 22:32:54 0|esotericnonsense|(sorry, that's a flush happening every N minutes/hours)
102 2017-09-22 22:33:07 0|gmaxwell|ossifrage: it'll rollback to the last flush. In the future we'll hopefully switch to more incremental flushing which will roll back less far in the event of a crash during initial sync.
103 2017-09-22 22:34:11 0|ossifrage|gmaxwell, I had a 4G dbcache which was part of the reason the oom killer picked on bitcoin
104 2017-09-22 22:34:22 0|esotericnonsense|static const unsigned int DATABASE_FLUSH_INTERVAL = 24 * 60 * 60;
105 2017-09-22 22:34:40 0|esotericnonsense|O_o
106 2017-09-22 22:34:43 0|gmaxwell|I wish linux mem handling had a "shrink now or you're gonna get killed" signal.
107 2017-09-22 22:35:20 0|gmaxwell|esotericnonsense: that means it'll force a flush once a day if it hasn't been triggered by the cache filling.
108 2017-09-22 22:35:32 0|gmaxwell|during IBD cache filling triggers the flushes.
109 2017-09-22 22:36:19 0|ossifrage|esotericnonsense, I am generating the full tx index (txindex=1) and it is taking a very long time [I'm not sure when I started it, the debug.log got truncated]
110 2017-09-22 22:36:27 0|ossifrage|>24 hours ago
111 2017-09-22 22:37:10 0|gmaxwell|>24 hours with a 4gb dbcache. damn txindex.
112 2017-09-22 22:37:53 0|esotericnonsense|think my laptop was sub 24hours when I did it and it's not super-fast or anything. though that was syncing over LAN rather than reindex.
113 2017-09-22 22:38:05 0|esotericnonsense|(with txindex on).
114 2017-09-22 22:38:37 0|esotericnonsense|is that on a HDD?
115 2017-09-22 22:38:44 0|ossifrage|gmaxwell, it doesn't seem to be IO or CPU bound, but I am using spinning rust, it seemed wasteful to eat up a large % of my ssd on bitcoin
116 2017-09-22 22:38:50 0|esotericnonsense|ah yeah.
117 2017-09-22 22:40:07 0|gmaxwell|ossifrage: with a large dbcache it doesn't matter if you're on a SSD or rust when txindex is not in use, alas...
118 2017-09-22 22:40:47 0|ossifrage|If I turn txindex off, do I have to start over again when I turn it back on?
119 2017-09-22 22:43:10 0|ossifrage|The last log entry was 96% with a 2446MB dbcache and it rolled back to 84% (my memory of almost done was faulty)
120 2017-09-22 23:06:32 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/94c9015bca86...877678710800
121 2017-09-22 23:06:33 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1435e5c22 15Marko Bencun: remove unused IsArgSet check...
122 2017-09-22 23:06:33 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 146059182 15Marko Bencun: add m_added_nodes to connman options
123 2017-09-22 23:06:34 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148776787 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #11301: add m_added_nodes to connman options...
124 2017-09-22 23:07:19 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #11301: add m_added_nodes to connman options (06master...06addnode) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11301
125 2017-09-22 23:07:24 0|esotericnonsense|ossifrage: if you have enough log, you can go back and find the time when dbcache reset, that will be the last flush probably at 84%.
126 2017-09-22 23:09:32 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1422fd04b 15Gregory Maxwell: Remove nBlockMaxSize from miner opt struct as it is no longer used.
127 2017-09-22 23:09:32 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/877678710800...c6223b3daab0
128 2017-09-22 23:09:33 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c6223b3 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #11362: Remove nBlockMaxSize from miner opt struct as it is no longer used....
129 2017-09-22 23:10:12 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #11362: Remove nBlockMaxSize from miner opt struct as it is no longer used. (06master...062017_09_rm_nBlockMaxSize) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11362
130 2017-09-22 23:16:29 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15theuni opened pull request #11387: net: remove more CConnman globals (06master...06more-connman-params) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11387
131 2017-09-22 23:18:09 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c6223b3daab0...aeed345c9bad
132 2017-09-22 23:18:10 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 143a131b7 15Johnson Lau: Rename out to m_tx_out in CScriptCheck
133 2017-09-22 23:18:10 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e912118 15Johnson Lau: [Refactor] Combine scriptPubKey and amount as CTxOut in CScriptCheck
134 2017-09-22 23:18:11 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14aeed345 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #10953: [Refactor] Combine scriptPubKey and amount as CTxOut in CScriptCheck...
135 2017-09-22 23:18:33 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #10953: [Refactor] Combine scriptPubKey and amount as CTxOut in CScriptCheck (06master...06combine_script_amount) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10953