1 2017-09-26 01:49:57	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #11403: SegWit wallet support (06master...06201709_segwitwallet2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11403
  2 2017-09-26 01:55:31	0|analiser|look like #10783 041dad9 RCP Various rpc argument fixes(instagiibbs) in the 0.15 channelog is what cause some errors in python bicoinlib module i just solve the issue removing from module bitcoin SelectParams() attribute and from bitcoin.rpc remove Proxy() attribute hope that work for any here
  3 2017-09-26 01:55:34	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10783 | [RPC] Various rpc argument fixes by instagibbs · Pull Request #10783 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
  4 2017-09-26 02:59:01	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon opened pull request #11404: RPC: Chainparams: Simplify -rpcport and CBaseMainParams  (06master...06b16-chainparams-rpcport) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11404
  5 2017-09-26 06:52:26	0|EVM|hi
  6 2017-09-26 10:28:17	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1428d4542 15Matt Corallo: Disallow uncompressed pubkeys in bitcoin-tx [multisig] output adds
  7 2017-09-26 10:28:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8cf88b4aaeaf...67879b7c4431
  8 2017-09-26 10:28:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1467879b7 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11377: Disallow uncompressed pubkeys in bitcoin-tx [multisig] output adds...
  9 2017-09-26 10:28:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11377: Disallow uncompressed pubkeys in bitcoin-tx [multisig] output adds (06master...062017-09-bitcoin-tx-uncompressed-segwit) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11377
 10 2017-09-26 14:17:19	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14df10edf 15MeshCollider: More user-friendly error message when partially signing
 11 2017-09-26 14:17:19	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/67879b7c4431...0f8e09599db6
 12 2017-09-26 14:17:20	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 140f8e095 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11288: More user-friendly error message when partially signing...
 13 2017-09-26 14:18:16	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11288: More user-friendly error message when partially signing (06master...06201709_partial_sign_error) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11288
 14 2017-09-26 14:24:54	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d01a968 15Suhas Daftuar: wallet: update stored witness in AddToWallet...
 15 2017-09-26 14:24:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0f8e09599db6...dc597bb895ef
 16 2017-09-26 14:24:55	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14dc597bb 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11225: wallet: update stored witness in AddToWallet...
 17 2017-09-26 14:25:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11225: wallet: update stored witness in AddToWallet (06master...062017-09-update-tx-witness) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11225
 18 2017-09-26 16:03:59	0|promag|jnewbery: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11031/commits/a6919d9a6908efaf0c913cccda21d63ed1517b3c s/enablerpcmethod/deprecatedrpc
 19 2017-09-26 16:27:27	0|jnewbery|promag: thanks, fixed
 20 2017-09-26 16:52:13	0|maaku|I'm considering removing the 200 non-push opcode limit and SIGOP counting for my tail-call proposal. I would be interested in feedback as to why this would be a terrible idea.
 21 2017-09-26 17:36:27	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon closed pull request #11404: RPC: Chainparams: Simplify -rpcport and CBaseMainParams  (06master...06b16-chainparams-rpcport) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11404
 22 2017-09-26 17:51:50	0|instagibbs|what interval if any does travis run extended functional tests?
 23 2017-09-26 18:32:02	0|jtimon|sipa: what's the reasoning for the bias for nodes using the default port? that seems weird
 24 2017-09-26 18:33:04	0|sipa|jtimon: otherwise you can spam the network with addr messages for services you don't like, and get the whole bitcoin network to try connecting to them
 25 2017-09-26 18:33:39	0|jtimon|how is that affected by the port, I don't follow...
 26 2017-09-26 18:33:56	0|sipa|with the bias, that can pretty much only happen for P2P default port, which is very unlikely to have any interesting services running, other than bitcoin :)
 27 2017-09-26 18:34:30	0|jtimon|oh, I see
 28 2017-09-26 18:34:45	0|jtimon|I think I get it...
 29 2017-09-26 18:35:20	0|jtimon|in any case, as said seems unrelated to #11404
 30 2017-09-26 18:35:31	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11404 | RPC: Chainparams: Simplify -rpcport and CBaseMainParams by jtimon · Pull Request #11404 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 31 2017-09-26 18:35:50	0|sipa|well you're giving all networks the same default port
 32 2017-09-26 18:36:05	0|sipa|meaning that if you want to run more than one network on the same machine, one of them will need a non-default port
 33 2017-09-26 18:36:43	0|jtimon|the same defaul rpc port
 34 2017-09-26 18:36:56	0|esotericnonsense|yes, it's the rpc port only in the PR, was a bit confused by your comment sipa
 35 2017-09-26 18:37:03	0|sipa|oh!
 36 2017-09-26 18:37:09	0|sipa|this is about the RPC port
 37 2017-09-26 18:37:12	0|esotericnonsense|i still dislike the behaviour of having to specify a different rpcport for testnet/regtest though
 38 2017-09-26 18:37:23	0|esotericnonsense|though that's just a quality-of-life annoyance
 39 2017-09-26 18:37:32	0|sipa|yes, agree - though that's much less bad than having the same P2P port
 40 2017-09-26 18:37:55	0|sipa|sorry, i misunderstood!
 41 2017-09-26 18:38:48	0|esotericnonsense|while we're on the subject is there any preference for connecting to nodes with a different IP (perhaps based on this standard port bias)? e.g. if I run 50000 nodes from one IP and spam addr messages
 42 2017-09-26 18:38:58	0|gmaxwell|it just makes them unusable by default, I cannot fathom why we would do that.
 43 2017-09-26 18:39:54	0|sipa|esotericnonsense: we never make more than 1 outgoing connection to the same 'network group' (whose definition is dependent on the network, but for IPv4 it's a /16 i think)
 44 2017-09-26 18:40:03	0|esotericnonsense|aha.
 45 2017-09-26 18:40:42	0|sipa|and without -addnode we'll never connect to an unroutable address (so not to 192.168.x, not, not 10.x, etc)
 46 2017-09-26 18:41:16	0|sipa|i think we should at some point have local network discovery and try to connect within your own network, but not using the same external connection slots)
 47 2017-09-26 18:42:30	0|gmaxwell|sipa: I started working on that and didn't have a good way to eliminate the duplicate connections.
 48 2017-09-26 18:42:44	0|gmaxwell|E.g. hosts A and B on the local network, both connect to each other.
 49 2017-09-26 18:43:54	0|gmaxwell|I thought perhaps just a stupid hurestic, "if you listen, connect only to lower sort-order addresses than yours".
 50 2017-09-26 18:44:44	0|sipa|or just test for duplicate IP pairs? within a local network you can probably assume that both parties will see each other's by their actual IP (not NAT etc0
 51 2017-09-26 18:45:20	0|sipa|so don't connect out to any IP you're seeing an incoming connection from
 52 2017-09-26 18:46:30	0|gmaxwell|Good point. What about the race when two connect at the same time
 53 2017-09-26 18:46:45	0|jtimon|esotericnonsense: for bitcoin-cli, specifying -testnet does the same as -rpcport=18332, if you specify rpcport, specifying -testnet is completely meaningless
 54 2017-09-26 18:47:38	0|jtimon|gmaxwell: what is made unusable by default? I don't follow
 55 2017-09-26 18:48:17	0|sipa|gmaxwell: if you have a duplicate pair among actual connections, and your IP is the lexicographically lower of the two, disconnect?
 56 2017-09-26 18:48:55	0|Sentineo|gmaxwell: sipa it sounds like split horizont in routing protocols what discuss ...
 57 2017-09-26 18:49:08	0|Sentineo|what you discuss
 58 2017-09-26 18:49:30	0|gmaxwell|jtimon: Making everything use the same rpc port means you cannot run testnet and bitcoin at the same time anymore except through manually configuring them.
 59 2017-09-26 18:50:29	0|Sentineo|btw sipa why is a node keeping 8 connetions outside ? I have a node with 123 connection, 8 of them always go outside. I would assume my node should prefer inbound connections.
 60 2017-09-26 18:50:48	0|jtimon|oh, that. yeah. if you want to use both in the same machine you have to specify a different rpc port in one of the,
 61 2017-09-26 18:50:59	0|jtimon|them
 62 2017-09-26 18:51:10	0|sipa|Sentineo: we always make 8 outgoing connections - regardless of how many incoming connections you have
 63 2017-09-26 18:51:30	0|sipa|outgoing connections are far more sybil resistant, as their endpoints are under your own control
 64 2017-09-26 18:52:01	0|jtimon|I don't think that unusable, but ok
 65 2017-09-26 18:52:03	0|gmaxwell|Sentineo: "prefer inbound" ?!?! ... the inbound could all be a single badguy.  We consider inbounds irrelevant for security because of that.
 66 2017-09-26 18:52:55	0|Sentineo|yeah, did not thing of that. Was lookng at it the "i serve the network" point of view, which is stupid from security standpoing ...
 67 2017-09-26 19:10:06	0|maaku|sipa: Bonjour/Zeroconf would make initial sync of new devices without blowing data caps much more idiot proof
 68 2017-09-26 19:11:50	0|maaku|it would also make sense to combine that with preferring making block requests to local peers during IBD
 69 2017-09-26 19:13:28	0|sipa|the IBD sync will already prefer faster peers, and will disconnect peers that prevent it from going faster - so i hope no special logic for that is needed
 70 2017-09-26 19:14:23	0|sipa|i haven't looked at any of those local connection services
 71 2017-09-26 19:16:39	0|gmaxwell|they are awful zeroday magnets.
 72 2017-09-26 19:16:45	0|gmaxwell|of course.
 73 2017-09-26 19:17:45	0|maaku|sipa: the disconnect actually sounds somewhat dangerous. could I used fast connectivity and network attacks to partition someone off during IBD?
 74 2017-09-26 19:18:52	0|sipa|maaku: there is certainly an increased attack vector, but you'd at least need to combine it with other strategies to control the new connections being made (eclipse attacks etc)
 75 2017-09-26 19:19:10	0|sipa|maaku: in general i do think that partitioning during IBD is less of an issue - you know you're not caught up
 76 2017-09-26 19:23:27	0|TD-Linux|bonjour is a pretty sensible protocol for that
 77 2017-09-26 19:23:41	0|gmaxwell|you're still making progress and you already have your headers. There is an argument, however, that 'after' IBD we should dump most of our outbound peers.
 78 2017-09-26 19:24:30	0|gmaxwell|but that is complicated by there not being a clear 'after'.
 79 2017-09-26 19:36:46	0|maaku|right
 80 2017-09-26 19:44:33	0|gmaxwell|TD-Linux: things like bonjour don't help doing things like having connections inside amazon regions for hosts on aws, which have radically less expensive bandwidth than bandwidth to the internet.
 81 2017-09-26 20:04:30	0|TD-Linux|gmaxwell, nope. I guess you could ship lists of these
 82 2017-09-26 20:26:00	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #11406: Add state message print to AcceptBlock failure message. (06master...062017-09-checkblock-fail-print) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11406
 83 2017-09-26 20:34:45	0|jtimon|does anybody use -mempoolreplacement=0 ? would it make sense to do https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements/pull/248 in bitcoin ?
 84 2017-09-26 20:45:22	0|luke-jr|jtimon: yes, people use it, and removing it would likely make a ruckus. There's also zero harm in leaving it.
 85 2017-09-26 20:45:53	0|jtimon|yeah, if people use it, no point in removing it
 86 2017-09-26 20:56:19	0|promag|achow101: in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10583/commits/8d5d4cf4c3077e8f3269fab3b98da7413e100081 commit message there is a double space. Also, Validateaddress should always be lowercase?
 87 2017-09-26 20:59:51	0|promag|jnewbery: so -deprecatedrpc can be used to enable some deprecated params? I thought is to enable the full (deprecated) rpc
 88 2017-09-26 21:08:00	0|achow101|promag: who cares
 89 2017-09-26 21:08:28	0|achow101|promag: super nitty things like that don't really matter and are not particularly conducive to development
 90 2017-09-26 21:11:29	0|promag|that's ok, I was reading your code and figured you want to know about that if by any change you happen to fix something else
 91 2017-09-26 21:11:37	0|promag|*chance
 92 2017-09-26 21:14:12	0|promag|talking about nitty things https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11395#issuecomment-332308834
 93 2017-09-26 21:15:28	0|promag|luke-jr: if you run clang-format as per developer notes you will see those details
 94 2017-09-26 21:18:49	0|promag|if there is such guide, which took some community effort to write why not follow it? I would say top core developers should be the first to comply? It's not that it takes a lot of time doing so.
 95 2017-09-26 21:25:14	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15instagibbs opened pull request #11407: add functional test for mempoolreplacement command line arg (06master...06testmempoolreplacearg) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11407
 96 2017-09-26 21:37:44	0|sipa|promag: there is balance between costs and benefits of enforcing style
 97 2017-09-26 21:38:07	0|sipa|it adds overhead to both people who write patches and those who reviee
 98 2017-09-26 21:51:21	0|jnewbery|promag: I personally think it's fine to use -deprecatedrpc to signal that you want to receive an RPC return object in the old format
 99 2017-09-26 21:55:14	0|promag|sipa: the problem is to find the sweet spot for everyone. Running clang-format-diff.py is not that big overhead is it? Anyway, I'll stop nitpicking.
100 2017-09-26 21:55:56	0|promag|jnewbery: I guess so, and should tests all deprecated keys or one is enough?
101 2017-09-26 21:59:36	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 147b137ac 15Lucas Betschart: [Qt] Add delay before filtering transactions...
102 2017-09-26 21:59:36	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/dc597bb895ef...2505c5c0a9f8
103 2017-09-26 21:59:37	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142505c5c 15Jonas Schnelli: Merge #11015: [Qt] Add delay before filtering transactions...
104 2017-09-26 22:00:07	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #11015: [Qt] Add delay before filtering transactions (06master...06searchDelay) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11015
105 2017-09-26 22:01:51	0|sipa|promag: i'm personally in favor of more strict style conventions, and would very much like the project to force one style... but that's just not feasible. nitpicking everything kills people's motivation to work
106 2017-09-26 22:06:12	0|CryptAxe|Is it possible for nodes that don't understand the extended transaction serialization format for segwit to still validate blocks with those transactions inside of them?
107 2017-09-26 22:06:58	0|goatpig|they cant check the scriptsigs
108 2017-09-26 22:07:15	0|goatpig|but otherwise pre SW nodes can verify SW transactions
109 2017-09-26 22:08:13	0|sipa|CryptAxe: sure, they just won't see the witnesses
110 2017-09-26 22:08:26	0|sipa|(as peers will strip the witness before relaying to a non-segwit peer)
111 2017-09-26 22:08:57	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15PierreRochard opened pull request #11408: Trivial: Fix parameter name typo in ErasePurpose walletdb method (06master...06walletdb-typo) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11408
112 2017-09-26 22:09:32	0|CryptAxe|So they can still deserialize the transaction? Cool, I think this part: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/primitives/transaction.h#L204-L212 made me think that they would have an empty vin and it would be invalid
113 2017-09-26 22:10:02	0|CryptAxe|Ahhh so the transactions are relayed in a different format to old nodes
114 2017-09-26 22:10:07	0|CryptAxe|I didn't see that part
115 2017-09-26 22:10:11	0|sipa|CryptAxe: if they see the witness, the serialization will very deliberately fail
116 2017-09-26 22:10:43	0|sipa|CryptAxe: the reason segwit is a softfork is the fact that it is possible to strip out the witness without invalidating the transaction (from the perspective of old nodes)
117 2017-09-26 22:11:08	0|CryptAxe|goatpig and sipa thank you, I have more reading to do now :)
118 2017-09-26 22:11:30	0|sipa|it's probably better to think of the witness as not actually part of the transaction - it's just some auxilliary data - which _only for relay_ is relayed in a weird interspersed way inside the normal tx data
119 2017-09-26 22:12:06	0|CryptAxe|sipa so the stripped format has some kind of dummy vin or something?
120 2017-09-26 22:12:11	0|sipa|no
121 2017-09-26 22:12:23	0|sipa|the stripped format is just the old transaction format
122 2017-09-26 22:12:34	0|sipa|it has inputs and outputs, and no witnesses
123 2017-09-26 22:12:44	0|sipa|ah, i see what you mean
124 2017-09-26 22:12:50	0|sipa|yes, the scriptSigs are empty
125 2017-09-26 22:12:59	0|sipa|but the rest of the inputs is intact
126 2017-09-26 22:13:04	0|CryptAxe|Thank you, a bit confused about all that
127 2017-09-26 22:17:22	0|CryptAxe|sipa without the scriptSigs why aren't the transactions invalid to the older nodes?
128 2017-09-26 22:17:43	0|sipa|CryptAxe: because their scriptPubKeys don't require a scriptSig
129 2017-09-26 22:17:50	0|CryptAxe|Ah!
130 2017-09-26 22:17:59	0|sipa|(they have the form OP_0 <20-byte hash>)
131 2017-09-26 22:18:06	0|CryptAxe|genius
132 2017-09-26 22:18:58	0|sipa|if segwit is used in P2SH-wrapped form, the scriptPubKey is a P2SH output with Hash(OP_0 <20-byte hash>), and the scriptSig contains _only_ the redeemscript (which is equal to the actual OP_0 <20 byte hash>)
133 2017-09-26 22:21:25	0|CryptAxe|Cool, thanks again guys!