1 2017-10-19 00:51:46	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15JeremyRubin opened pull request #11523: [Refactor] CValidation State (06master...06dos-cleanup) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11523
  2 2017-10-19 08:03:51	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15tjps opened pull request #11524: [net] De-duplicate connection eviction logic (06master...06tjps_eviction) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11524
  3 2017-10-19 09:29:42	0|darthJarjar|hi to all
  4 2017-10-19 09:48:18	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15pierreN opened pull request #11525: Utils and libraries: fix warning -Wsign-compare in ConsumeDecimalNumber (06master...06fix_sign_compare_lvldb_logging) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11525
  5 2017-10-19 09:51:33	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #11525: Utils and libraries: fix warning -Wsign-compare in ConsumeDecimalNumber (06master...06fix_sign_compare_lvldb_logging) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11525
  6 2017-10-19 10:13:07	0|wallet42|Would it be a lot of change to have an -option so that when spending coins in the chainstate db instead of deleting the key, it will be renamed from c[txid][nout] to s[txid][nout] ? basically have it ever growing coins db?
  7 2017-10-19 10:13:39	0|wallet42|it would ease some of my analysis tools
  8 2017-10-19 10:21:46	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipsorcery opened pull request #11526: Visual Studio build configuration for Bitcoin Core. (06master...06build_msvc) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11526
  9 2017-10-19 10:49:35	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15schildbach opened pull request #11527: Remove my testnet DNS seed as I currently don't have the capacity to … (06master...06remove-seed) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11527
 10 2017-10-19 12:55:08	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/02ac8c892b1f...b9e1299f048d
 11 2017-10-19 12:55:09	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 143d1c311 15Cory Fields: Revert "travis: filter out pyenv"...
 12 2017-10-19 12:55:09	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a86e81b 15Cory Fields: travis: move back to the minimal image...
 13 2017-10-19 12:55:10	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b9e1299 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11521: travis: move back to the minimal image...
 14 2017-10-19 12:55:46	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11521: travis: move back to the minimal image (06master...06travis-minimal) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11521
 15 2017-10-19 12:56:10	0|wumpus|cfields: ok, applied
 16 2017-10-19 12:56:13	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.15 14b28415b 15Cory Fields: travis: move back to the minimal image...
 17 2017-10-19 12:56:13	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 060.15: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1646f9c76036...ca0f3f734c46
 18 2017-10-19 12:56:14	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.15 14ca0f3f7 15Cory Fields: Revert "travis: filter out pyenv"...
 19 2017-10-19 13:00:32	0|wumpus|there are so many unmerged PRs tagged for 0.15.0.2, anything ready to merge?
 20 2017-10-19 13:02:10	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14132d322 15Andreas Schildbach: Remove my testnet DNS seed as I currently don't have the capacity to keep it up to date.
 21 2017-10-19 13:02:10	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1413f53b7 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11527: Remove my testnet DNS seed as I currently don't have the capacity to …...
 22 2017-10-19 13:02:10	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b9e1299f048d...13f53b750dc0
 23 2017-10-19 13:02:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.15: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a2bd86a5ff1d75d85089e4ba6c908ece83451c5c
 24 2017-10-19 13:02:40	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.15 14a2bd86a 15Andreas Schildbach: Remove my testnet DNS seed as I currently don't have the capacity to keep it up to date....
 25 2017-10-19 13:04:04	0|wumpus|#11476 seems to be ready
 26 2017-10-19 13:04:07	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11476 | Avoid opening copied wallet databases simultaneously by ryanofsky · Pull Request #11476 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 27 2017-10-19 13:04:41	0|sipa|ack
 28 2017-10-19 14:06:33	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipsorcery opened pull request #11528: Minimal code changes to allow msvc compilation (06master...06code_msvc) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11528
 29 2017-10-19 14:31:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15promag opened pull request #11529: Avoid slow transaction search with txindex enabled (06master...062017-10-txindex-get-transaction) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11529
 30 2017-10-19 14:32:28	0|wumpus|huh didn't we already have that one
 31 2017-10-19 14:39:41	0|promag|I can make it one line too, just one "return false;" if txindex
 32 2017-10-19 14:40:13	0|promag|the thing is, there is no point in doing the slow search if txindex is enabled and doesn't have the given txid
 33 2017-10-19 14:40:53	0|sipa|i prefer promag's approach slightly more
 34 2017-10-19 14:41:21	0|promag|also, I would like to discuss what locks are required in each case
 35 2017-10-19 14:41:36	0|promag|for instance, cs_main is not required to mempool.get right?
 36 2017-10-19 14:42:41	0|promag|dunno about pblocktree
 37 2017-10-19 14:44:33	0|sipa|pblocktree requires cs_main
 38 2017-10-19 14:44:40	0|sipa|mempool has its own lock
 39 2017-10-19 14:47:58	0|promag|and pcoinsTip?
 40 2017-10-19 14:48:01	0|wumpus|I prefer the smaller change, especially as it already had so many utACKS, the rationale for re-doing it in another way now is unclear to me
 41 2017-10-19 14:48:45	0|sipa|promag: cs_main
 42 2017-10-19 14:49:00	0|wumpus|feel free to explain it though if there's cases that it covers and the other one doesn't, but the PR isn't very clear
 43 2017-10-19 14:49:28	0|sipa|wumpus: there's no difference afaik - but it's cleaner that the dependency on txindex in localized in one place
 44 2017-10-19 14:49:37	0|sipa|but really no strong opinion
 45 2017-10-19 14:49:40	0|wumpus|I mean the change is more complex and more ways to mess it up
 46 2017-10-19 14:50:15	0|wumpus|it adds so much code!
 47 2017-10-19 14:50:25	0|sipa|oh, the change is much bigger than i expected - i just knew the concept
 48 2017-10-19 14:50:28	0|promag|wumpus: do you prefer this:
 49 2017-10-19 14:50:29	0|promag|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...promag:2017-10-txindex-get-transaction-2?expand=1
 50 2017-10-19 14:50:36	0|sipa|promag showed a much smaller change earlier
 51 2017-10-19 14:51:01	0|wumpus|ow diffing with w=1 makes it better
 52 2017-10-19 14:51:26	0|wumpus|still I don't see why so much logic needs to be changed for this
 53 2017-10-19 14:51:32	0|sipa|still, what i saw earlier was 1 line
 54 2017-10-19 14:51:44	0|sipa|but inside GetTransaction rather than in the caller
 55 2017-10-19 14:51:49	0|promag|see last link
 56 2017-10-19 14:51:59	0|wumpus|sounds good to me
 57 2017-10-19 14:52:07	0|sipa|^ that
 58 2017-10-19 14:53:25	0|promag|done
 59 2017-10-19 14:53:53	0|promag|although I think we can only lock cs_main after mempool lookup
 60 2017-10-19 14:54:12	0|sipa|you can hold both
 61 2017-10-19 14:54:24	0|sipa|but you need to grab main first, if you need both
 62 2017-10-19 14:54:44	0|promag|really?
 63 2017-10-19 14:54:49	0|sipa|yes
 64 2017-10-19 14:54:56	0|sipa|there exists a lock order
 65 2017-10-19 14:55:10	0|promag|ah got it, so the other commit was wrong
 66 2017-10-19 14:55:26	0|sipa|which means that if there is one place in the code where A is being held while B is being taken, you can't have another place where A is being taken while B is held
 67 2017-10-19 14:55:38	0|promag|ok
 68 2017-10-19 14:55:45	0|sipa|the opposite is called lock order inversion, and is a risk for deadlocking
 69 2017-10-19 14:56:18	0|sipa|-DDEBUG_LOCKORDER automatically detects lock order inversions
 70 2017-10-19 14:57:07	0|promag|thanks for the explanation
 71 2017-10-19 15:03:37	0|wumpus|is there something wrong with travis again or is everyone just submitting PRs that break it? :)
 72 2017-10-19 15:22:08	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Is there numbers any where of how long it takes to validate/verify a block w/ 0.15.0
 73 2017-10-19 15:22:49	0|wumpus|-debug=bench
 74 2017-10-19 16:10:27	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11507: [RPC] Don't do slow transaction lookup when txindex is enabled (06master...06getrawtx-txindex) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11507
 75 2017-10-19 16:17:23	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14478a89c 15Russell Yanofsky: Avoid opening copied wallet databases simultaneously...
 76 2017-10-19 16:17:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/13f53b750dc0...99e93de6f8ab
 77 2017-10-19 16:17:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1499e93de 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11476: Avoid opening copied wallet databases simultaneously...
 78 2017-10-19 16:17:58	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11476: Avoid opening copied wallet databases simultaneously (06master...06pr/wid) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11476
 79 2017-10-19 16:24:44	0|promag|in travis, what's the point in running functional tests if make check fails?
 80 2017-10-19 17:03:50	0|cfields|heh, all 0.15.0.2 issues are pretty closely intertwined.
 81 2017-10-19 17:04:12	0|cfields|#topicsuggestion ^^ :)
 82 2017-10-19 17:09:11	0|wumpus|promag: the functional tests also don't work like that, if one test fails it continues with the rest. I guess it's useful to see exactly what tests fail.
 83 2017-10-19 17:09:35	0|wumpus|if it stops at the first failed test you need to re-run time after time after fixing a single test
 84 2017-10-19 17:46:26	0|ossifrage|That copy paste problem I reported earlier is an actual QT bug: "GUI: QXcbClipboard::setMimeData: Cannot set X11 selection owner"
 85 2017-10-19 17:48:36	0|ossifrage|It seems to have been triggered by running a second instance of firefox as another user.
 86 2017-10-19 17:50:52	0|ossifrage|It is possible that using the QClipboard wrapper instead of the QXcb* stuff will address some of these edge cases...
 87 2017-10-19 17:50:58	0|wumpus|yea X has some interesting clipboard issues sometimes, especially combined with 'remote' windows, or with some software that tries to keep up to date with the clipboard and querying it all the time
 88 2017-10-19 17:51:46	0|ossifrage|This one was a bit of a usability issue and I ended up having to use bitcoin-cli to copy and paste addresses without screwing up
 89 2017-10-19 17:51:51	0|wumpus|I'm sure we don't use QXcb clipboard stuff directly in our code
 90 2017-10-19 17:52:34	0|wumpus|it's possible to build bitcoin-qt w/ wayland, for example, and the clipboard works
 91 2017-10-19 17:52:44	0|ossifrage|firefox, chrome, xfce-terminal where all un-effected, but gnome-terminal and bitcoin-qt where
 92 2017-10-19 17:53:46	0|wumpus|xclip is a useful tool to probe around with X clipboards, did you know it actually has three of them?
 93 2017-10-19 17:53:52	0|ossifrage|wumpus, the clipboard worked fine, I use it extensively with bitcoin-qt, until I launched a 'lazy sandboxed' firefox as another user
 94 2017-10-19 17:54:24	0|ossifrage|wumpus, yeah I tried to use xclip to clear all 3 hoping that would magically reset whatever permissions it was confused about, with no love
 95 2017-10-19 17:54:41	0|wumpus|lol it's such a mess
 96 2017-10-19 17:55:04	0|ossifrage|Restarting gnome-terminal fixed the problem for it, but I didn't want to restart bitcoin-qt
 97 2017-10-19 17:55:15	0|wumpus|but hey windows has to be better at something :)
 98 2017-10-19 17:55:20	0|ossifrage|(I have some sort of uptime/connection count fetish)
 99 2017-10-19 17:56:01	0|ossifrage|I used to run X stuff over ssh tunnels for years and never remember having a problem like this...
100 2017-10-19 17:56:24	0|wumpus|I've had more clipboard issues with X than I can even remember
101 2017-10-19 17:56:53	0|ossifrage|Weirdness yes, but complete failure to work, not so much...
102 2017-10-19 17:57:13	0|wumpus|it's most fun VNC or xpra and remote windows get involved, sometimes they get into a loop updating
103 2017-10-19 17:57:40	0|cfields|ossifrage: huh, very interesting. my Konsole copy/paste quit working yesterday.
104 2017-10-19 17:57:43	0|wumpus|or sometimes you suddenly get old clipboard contents back
105 2017-10-19 17:58:15	0|ossifrage|wumpus, yeah I've seen that before and I think clipboard managers make the problem even worse
106 2017-10-19 17:58:20	0|wumpus|and copy some password into something that aboslutely shouldn't have it
107 2017-10-19 17:58:31	0|wumpus|ossifrage: yup like the one that KDE comes with
108 2017-10-19 17:59:02	0|ossifrage|wumpus, I have a shell alias for clearing the clipboard after pasting a password :p
109 2017-10-19 18:00:09	0|wumpus|cfields: interesting, maybe it's some recent update that made it worse
110 2017-10-19 18:00:40	0|cfields|sounds reasonable
111 2017-10-19 18:01:26	0|cfields|I didn't investigate much because i use vim's yank for the most part. I just chalked it up to a Konsole bug.
112 2017-10-19 18:05:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 147a5f930 15João Barbosa: Avoid slow transaction search with txindex enabled
113 2017-10-19 18:05:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/99e93de6f8ab...ff92fbf24739
114 2017-10-19 18:05:25	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ff92fbf 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11529: Avoid slow transaction search with txindex enabled...
115 2017-10-19 18:05:32	0|wumpus|heh if you use one of the -x11 variants of vim, yank will also copy to the X clipboard
116 2017-10-19 18:05:54	0|cfields|ah, neat
117 2017-10-19 18:05:58	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11529: Avoid slow transaction search with txindex enabled (06master...062017-10-txindex-get-transaction) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11529
118 2017-10-19 18:07:06	0|wumpus|well at least the clipboard becomes one of the yank registers, not the default one
119 2017-10-19 18:07:24	0|cfields|dammit, I've squashed/force-pushed this pr like 5 times now, I keep missing little things I forgot to address. I hope that's not blowing up anybody's mailbox?
120 2017-10-19 18:07:54	0|wumpus|oh wait, even two of them, + and *, for two differnt clipboards, of course
121 2017-10-19 18:08:27	0|wumpus|cfields: well not mine at least
122 2017-10-19 18:09:03	0|cfields|k. wasn't sure if you could subscribe to new commits, even if they're just a rebase
123 2017-10-19 18:09:36	0|wumpus|thinking of it, I don't get mails for pushes at all, just for comments
124 2017-10-19 18:09:49	0|wumpus|not that I know of
125 2017-10-19 18:10:24	0|cfields|I got them for pushes at some point. Can't remember if i turned it off for being to spammy, or if Github disabled that
126 2017-10-19 18:10:32	0|cfields|*too spammy
127 2017-10-19 18:12:31	0|achow101|I definitely get emails for new commits
128 2017-10-19 18:12:34	0|wumpus|you can enable mails for pushes to your repository https://help.github.com/articles/choosing-the-types-of-notifications-you-receive/
129 2017-10-19 18:12:53	0|wumpus|achow101: but also for PRs you're subscribed to?
130 2017-10-19 18:13:02	0|MarcoFalke|I get for pushes, but not for force pushes
131 2017-10-19 18:13:14	0|achow101|but there's a delay between pushing a commit or making a comment and then getting the email. I think github is smart enough to not send out too many mails if you make multiple pushes within a minute or two of each other
132 2017-10-19 18:13:44	0|achow101|wumpus: this is for PRs
133 2017-10-19 18:14:02	0|wumpus|ok, strange, well I don't really mind not getting them, I already get way too much mail
134 2017-10-19 18:15:02	0|cfields|achow101: ok. for future reference, did you just get about 5 from me for 11512? Or it skipped them all because they were force-pushes?
135 2017-10-19 18:15:30	0|cfields|er, 11457
136 2017-10-19 18:15:54	0|achow101|cfields: I did not get any emails about those force pushes
137 2017-10-19 18:16:03	0|cfields|great, thanks
138 2017-10-19 18:18:27	0|ryanofsky|i think github doesn't send "pushed commits" messages for prs when the new commits have the same subject lines as the old commits
139 2017-10-19 18:21:15	0|cfields|ryanofsky: well about 3 of my force-pushes right now were squashing "temp" and "fixup" commits that I accidentally left in. So it apparently doesn't notify on new ones, at least
140 2017-10-19 18:21:39	0|cfields|or, maybe only after some delay like achow101 said
141 2017-10-19 18:22:58	0|wumpus|it probably only mails when a new commit (or more) was added on top of the last known one
142 2017-10-19 18:23:19	0|cfields|ah, that would make sense
143 2017-10-19 18:59:50	0|wumpus|meeting time?
144 2017-10-19 19:00:07	0|jonasschnelli|jup
145 2017-10-19 19:00:10	0|meshcollider|Hi
146 2017-10-19 19:00:32	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
147 2017-10-19 19:00:33	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Oct 19 19:00:32 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
148 2017-10-19 19:00:33	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
149 2017-10-19 19:00:35	0|achow101|hi
150 2017-10-19 19:00:53	0|wumpus|#bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101
151 2017-10-19 19:01:08	0|cfields|hi
152 2017-10-19 19:01:13	0|sipa|mildly present
153 2017-10-19 19:01:18	0|kanzure|hi.
154 2017-10-19 19:01:21	0|wumpus|primary topic I suppose is 0.15.0.2
155 2017-10-19 19:01:35	0|wumpus|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A0.15.0.2
156 2017-10-19 19:02:24	0|wumpus|anything that is close to merging, or that needs further discussion?
157 2017-10-19 19:03:26	0|cfields|BlueMatt: are you around to fill in some of the cb interactions with those PRs? They're hard to review because of subtleties I assume I'm not fully accounting for.
158 2017-10-19 19:03:28	0|achow101|I wasn't able to do as much as I wanted to this week because of exams. I'll fix up #11446 later today hopefully
159 2017-10-19 19:03:30	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11446 | Disconnect Peers for Duplicate Invalid blocks. by achow101 · Pull Request #11446 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
160 2017-10-19 19:04:04	0|BlueMatt|sdaftuar: (and somewhat I) worked out a replacement for #11487, that I need to rewrite and close the original
161 2017-10-19 19:04:06	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11487 | Check that new headers are not a descendant of an invalid block by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #11487 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
162 2017-10-19 19:04:37	0|BlueMatt|so I'll do that a bit later
163 2017-10-19 19:05:03	0|wumpus|ok
164 2017-10-19 19:05:04	0|sdaftuar|i updated #11490 with some bug fixes and addressed feedback.  i also added a unit test that passes locally but fails in travis :( workin gon it...
165 2017-10-19 19:05:06	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11490 | Disconnect from outbound peers with bad headers chains by sdaftuar · Pull Request #11490 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
166 2017-10-19 19:05:44	0|wumpus|great!
167 2017-10-19 19:06:28	0|wumpus|travis has been having some issues the last few days, be sure it's related to your pull  and not some intermittent problem
168 2017-10-19 19:08:29	0|wumpus|any other topics?
169 2017-10-19 19:08:53	0|achow101|any updates on segwit wallet stuff?
170 2017-10-19 19:09:24	0|wumpus|I doubt anyone has been working on that w/ the .2 release rushed before
171 2017-10-19 19:09:41	0|sipa|i've been distracted the past week
172 2017-10-19 19:09:49	0|achow101|ok
173 2017-10-19 19:09:53	0|wumpus|will get back to that when sanity has returned
174 2017-10-19 19:09:59	0|jnewbery|topic suggestion: Chaincode Residency (sorry for the shameless plug)
175 2017-10-19 19:10:09	0|sipa|next week i'll have more time (i'm in europe until the end of the month)
176 2017-10-19 19:10:31	0|wumpus|#topic Chaincode Residency
177 2017-10-19 19:10:41	0|jnewbery|Thanks!
178 2017-10-19 19:10:56	0|jnewbery|We're hosting another residency program in Jan/Feb 2018: http://hackerresidency.com/ https://medium.com/@ChaincodeLabs/chaincode-residency-2018-26cd8a65d5f7
179 2017-10-19 19:11:23	0|jnewbery|If you know anyone who might be suitable, please refer them to the website
180 2017-10-19 19:11:27	0|jnewbery|end topic
181 2017-10-19 19:11:40	0|wumpus|ok!
182 2017-10-19 19:12:01	0|cfields|woohoo! We'll be expecting at least 1 new jnewbery and 1 new ryanofsky.
183 2017-10-19 19:12:12	0|jnewbery|1 jnewbery is quite enough
184 2017-10-19 19:12:22	0|wumpus|hehe
185 2017-10-19 19:12:35	0|jonasschnelli|;-.)
186 2017-10-19 19:12:49	0|cfields|heh
187 2017-10-19 19:12:49	0|sipa|jnewbery: how do you know? have you ever met one?
188 2017-10-19 19:13:01	0|wumpus|doppelganger
189 2017-10-19 19:13:09	0|wumpus|okay, anyone else have anything to discuss?
190 2017-10-19 19:14:08	0|jnewbery|sipa: I've been informed that 1 is at the upper range of most people's tolerance
191 2017-10-19 19:15:28	0|meshcollider|Hmm might be good to briefly discuss what the plan is for #7729 and #11497
192 2017-10-19 19:15:31	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7729 | rpc: introduce label API for wallet by laanwj · Pull Request #7729 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
193 2017-10-19 19:15:32	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11497 | Hide accounts system behind deprecation switch by achow101 · Pull Request #11497 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
194 2017-10-19 19:15:32	0|wumpus|well as long as they keep the great patches coming :)
195 2017-10-19 19:16:08	0|wumpus|needs to be rebased and merged :p
196 2017-10-19 19:16:22	0|achow101|meshcollider: I'm thinking they should probably be done simultaneously. 11947 should probably be part of 7729
197 2017-10-19 19:16:28	0|jonasschnelli|Plans to rebase 7729 or waiting until someone picks it up?
198 2017-10-19 19:16:41	0|wumpus|sorry, yes, I really need to push it the last bit
199 2017-10-19 19:16:48	0|jnewbery|I'm not convinced on the approach for 11497 (using -deprecatedprc)
200 2017-10-19 19:17:03	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: thanks!
201 2017-10-19 19:17:25	0|wumpus|jnewbery: what is your concern with it?
202 2017-10-19 19:17:40	0|jnewbery|Seems to me that the account/label switch is conceptually on the level of the wallet, not on the level of the node
203 2017-10-19 19:17:57	0|sipa|today again a user on SE who was confused about accounts
204 2017-10-19 19:18:19	0|jnewbery|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11497#issuecomment-336991350
205 2017-10-19 19:18:32	0|jonasschnelli|lables / account are completely on the wallet level... yes.
206 2017-10-19 19:19:15	0|wumpus|yes, they're at the wallet level, I agree
207 2017-10-19 19:19:27	0|jnewbery|I don't think 11497 addresses the problem of migrating from an account system to a label system, although I may not have fully understood what the plan is
208 2017-10-19 19:19:39	0|achow101|yeah, I agree with that. 11497 was really just done in a fit of anger after I got too fed up with handling account things
209 2017-10-19 19:19:39	0|wumpus|though from the perspective of the database there's no difference, accounts and labels use the same underlying strucures
210 2017-10-19 19:19:51	0|meshcollider|Agreed but there were concerns bumping the wallet version because of HD wallets right
211 2017-10-19 19:20:05	0|sipa|meshcollider: has nothing to do with accounts
212 2017-10-19 19:20:23	0|wumpus|it doesn't need a  new wallet version
213 2017-10-19 19:20:24	0|jnewbery|meshcollider: yes. Is now a good time to raise the topic of feature flags on wallets?
214 2017-10-19 19:20:42	0|meshcollider|Oh I thought that was discussed in 7729
215 2017-10-19 19:20:43	0|wumpus|accounts do not introduce any new wallet features , at least this first incarnation simply does what the GUI does
216 2017-10-19 19:20:44	0|achow101|meshcollider: it's the same database structures, so that shouldn't matter
217 2017-10-19 19:21:25	0|meshcollider|Yeah I thought 7729 comments were discussing using the version number as a flag for the label/account switch
218 2017-10-19 19:21:26	0|wumpus|people are requesting things like allowing multiple labels for one address, which would need extensions to functionality, but the current one is simply what is already done by the GUI
219 2017-10-19 19:21:34	0|jonasschnelli|(another topic, but): we can bump the wallet version because all new wallets now must be HD, right?
220 2017-10-19 19:21:34	0|wumpus|seems unnecessary
221 2017-10-19 19:21:38	0|sipa|i think using -deprecatedrpc is fine for accounts - it's literally just removing some functionality
222 2017-10-19 19:21:50	0|wumpus|sipa: yeah, it removes functionaltiy from the RPC interface
223 2017-10-19 19:21:53	0|sipa|but we may first need to add label-based RPCs
224 2017-10-19 19:21:54	0|wumpus|it's an RPC interface thing
225 2017-10-19 19:22:06	0|wumpus|sipa: yes, 7729 needs to go in first
226 2017-10-19 19:22:10	0|sipa|okay
227 2017-10-19 19:22:29	0|wumpus|then the flag can select between the old account based interface and the new label based one
228 2017-10-19 19:22:48	0|achow101|maybe we should use a different flag than -deprecatedrpc
229 2017-10-19 19:22:48	0|wumpus|at least for 0.16, in 0.17 I suppose the old interface will simply go away
230 2017-10-19 19:23:06	0|meshcollider|So yeah jnewbery topic suggestion of wallet feature flags?
231 2017-10-19 19:23:23	0|wumpus|this won't lose compatiblity with old wallets
232 2017-10-19 19:23:31	0|wumpus|it just will lose access to any account info in them
233 2017-10-19 19:23:46	0|sipa|right, it's not a wallet feature
234 2017-10-19 19:23:49	0|wumpus|so it's not really a wallet versioning thing
235 2017-10-19 19:23:50	0|jonasschnelli|meshcollider: no flags required for the label/account switch (only changes on functional level)
236 2017-10-19 19:23:56	0|sipa|it's a sofrware feature that can be turned on or off
237 2017-10-19 19:24:18	0|jnewbery|ok, so it sounds like it's not necessary for accounts/labels. I'll go back and look at 7729 again.
238 2017-10-19 19:25:23	0|wumpus|#action implement and merge the label api finally
239 2017-10-19 19:25:26	0|wumpus|ok, next topic?
240 2017-10-19 19:25:29	0|sipa|achow101: the big idea is that all accounts functionality remains under the name "label", except the concept of an acount balance
241 2017-10-19 19:25:47	0|achow101|sipa: so it is a node thing and not wallet based?
242 2017-10-19 19:25:54	0|sipa|achow101: wut?
243 2017-10-19 19:26:00	0|sipa|achow101: no, it's an RPC thing
244 2017-10-19 19:26:08	0|sipa|the wallet or node are unaffected
245 2017-10-19 19:26:13	0|wumpus|right
246 2017-10-19 19:26:25	0|achow101|s/node thing/rpc thing/
247 2017-10-19 19:26:31	0|sipa|right
248 2017-10-19 19:26:34	0|jonasschnelli|the wallet structure is unaffected although the wallet code is
249 2017-10-19 19:26:50	0|sipa|is it?
250 2017-10-19 19:27:05	0|jonasschnelli|if we consider rpcwallet as wallet code
251 2017-10-19 19:27:05	0|sipa|i wouldn't expect it to (until it is deleted entirely)
252 2017-10-19 19:27:05	0|wumpus|some small changes are necessary
253 2017-10-19 19:27:08	0|sipa|ok
254 2017-10-19 19:27:17	0|sipa|anyway, details
255 2017-10-19 19:27:27	0|sipa|i'm going off soo
256 2017-10-19 19:27:32	0|jonasschnelli|meshcollider: in case you want to work on wallet flags (there is already a closed PR) #8369
257 2017-10-19 19:27:32	0|wumpus|there's some functionaltiy that would be in the label API but the GUI doesn't use at the moment, from what I remember, but anyhow yeah it's minimal
258 2017-10-19 19:27:34	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8369 | [FOR LATER USE][WIP][Wallet] add support for a flexible "set of features" by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #8369 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
259 2017-10-19 19:28:01	0|jnewbery|Last comment from wumpus in 7729 included "Either label or account RPCs could be usable based on the wallet version." I think we probably need to look at that PR again to refresh our memories (I certainly do)
260 2017-10-19 19:28:12	0|meshcollider|jonasschnelli: Oh right, I'll have a look
261 2017-10-19 19:28:15	0|sipa|okay
262 2017-10-19 19:28:17	0|wumpus|jnewbery: what a dumb comment!
263 2017-10-19 19:28:35	0|jnewbery|I think it was in response to me, more as a 'this is how it could possibly work'
264 2017-10-19 19:28:35	0|wumpus|going to remove it immediately :-)
265 2017-10-19 19:28:42	0|sipa|pffft, fact based analysis, how boring
266 2017-10-19 19:28:49	0|meshcollider|Yeah that comments probably what I was thinking of
267 2017-10-19 19:29:37	0|wumpus|back then I probably thought using the wallet version was a useful way of doing that flagging, but I reconsider
268 2017-10-19 19:29:50	0|achow101|well now we have -deprecatedrpc
269 2017-10-19 19:30:04	0|sipa|right
270 2017-10-19 19:30:07	0|wumpus|yes
271 2017-10-19 19:30:59	0|sipa|no more topics?
272 2017-10-19 19:31:07	0|wumpus|nope
273 2017-10-19 19:31:19	0|sipa|#halfameeting
274 2017-10-19 19:31:28	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
275 2017-10-19 19:31:29	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-10-19-19.00.log.html
276 2017-10-19 19:31:29	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Oct 19 19:31:27 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
277 2017-10-19 19:31:29	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-10-19-19.00.html
278 2017-10-19 19:31:29	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-10-19-19.00.txt
279 2017-10-19 19:31:50	0|achow101|review/merge beg on #11415 #10583 #10579 (rpc split things for removing #ifdef enable wallet)
280 2017-10-19 19:32:09	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11415 | [RPC] Disallow using addresses in createmultisig by achow101 · Pull Request #11415 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
281 2017-10-19 19:32:11	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10583 | [RPC] Split part of validateaddress into getaddressinfo by achow101 · Pull Request #10583 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
282 2017-10-19 19:32:14	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10579 | [RPC] Split signrawtransaction into wallet and non-wallet RPC command by achow101 · Pull Request #10579 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
283 2017-10-19 19:32:27	0|wumpus|or alternatively, everyone should be reviewing 0.15.0.2 PRs
284 2017-10-19 19:32:47	0|achow101|that too
285 2017-10-19 19:33:10	0|wumpus|we have kind of a strict deadline there
286 2017-10-19 20:21:29	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #11530: Add share/rpcuser to dist. source code archive (06master...06Mf1710-distShare) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11530
287 2017-10-19 21:02:20	0|earlz|In GetTime(), it uses time(NULL)'s result directly. The returned value doesn't appear to be standard guaranteed to be UTC/unix time though. Shouldn't GetTime use gmtime or something similar to correct ofr this?
288 2017-10-19 21:15:53	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #11531: Check that new headers are not a descendant of an invalid block (more effeciently) (06master...062017-10-cache-invalid-indexes) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11531
289 2017-10-19 22:38:10	0|meshcollider|That should be added to 0.15.0.2 milestone ^
290 2017-10-19 23:20:19	0|Alkhara|Anyone local to the Boston area?