1 2017-10-20 08:47:16	0|promag|#11316 is asking for some comments :P
  2 2017-10-20 08:47:18	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11316 | [qt] Add use available balance in send coins dialog by promag · Pull Request #11316 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
  3 2017-10-20 11:13:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipsorcery closed pull request #11528: Minimal code changes to allow msvc compilation (06master...06code_msvc) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11528
  4 2017-10-20 12:10:53	0|wallet42|@sipa: can we imagine a -utxomove option where coins get renamed to s[txid][nout] instead of deleting them from chainstate? Ideally also append the spend block height to the value. It would allow a lot of my analysis to not require a second database.
  5 2017-10-20 12:11:40	0|wallet42|or maybe call it -stxodb=1
  6 2017-10-20 12:13:06	0|sdaftuar|wallet42: that sounds interesting, but would be terrible for performance -- it would prevent an optimization we currently do where coins that are created in our memory cache, which are fully spent, never need a disk access
  7 2017-10-20 12:13:17	0|sdaftuar|wallet42: so i wouldn't expect that to be something we implement in the repo
  8 2017-10-20 12:13:55	0|wallet42|interesting..
  9 2017-10-20 12:14:50	0|wallet42|we'll it's obviously not for general consuption
 10 2017-10-20 12:15:32	0|wallet42|also maybe having another leveldb where these spend coins are stored instead of bloating the chainstate db
 11 2017-10-20 12:18:50	0|wallet42|sdaftuar: what's you estimate for manhours for someone who is familiar with the code for such a change?
 12 2017-10-20 12:24:00	0|sdaftuar|wallet42: no idea, sorry
 13 2017-10-20 12:25:57	0|sipa|wallet42: i'd rather spend time on creating a project that implements tgat as a separate process than trying to hack it into bitcoind
 14 2017-10-20 12:25:57	0|wumpus|i wouldn't expect that to be upstreamed, but yeah you can do the patch for yourself, for better or worse lots of analysis is easiest to do by changing the node code
 15 2017-10-20 12:27:30	0|wallet42|so how to approach this, zmq block only works after IBD
 16 2017-10-20 12:27:48	0|wallet42|i would love to not have to much duplicate data
 17 2017-10-20 12:28:37	0|wumpus|it's a one line change to make zmq notifications work before IBD
 18 2017-10-20 12:29:11	0|wumpus|certainly faster than hacking how the database works...
 19 2017-10-20 12:29:36	0|sipa|wallet42: i'd make a python project that uses basic p2p implementation
 20 2017-10-20 12:30:17	0|wallet42|will bitcoind then wait with processing the blocks and publishing to zmq when a buffer is full?
 21 2017-10-20 12:30:56	0|wallet42|so get multiple blocks in binary via INV from a local node
 22 2017-10-20 12:31:11	0|sipa|if your bitcoind is pruned, there is no duplication
 23 2017-10-20 12:31:57	0|sipa|with manual pruning you can inform bitcoind when you're ready processing a block
 24 2017-10-20 12:32:44	0|wumpus|no, bitcoind will never block on zmq notifications
 25 2017-10-20 12:33:14	0|wumpus|adding that wouldn't be too difficult either if zmq supports it
 26 2017-10-20 12:33:16	0|wallet42|wumpus: python will much slower to process blocks than bitcoind
 27 2017-10-20 12:33:41	0|wumpus|pypy is nice
 28 2017-10-20 12:34:09	0|wallet42|sipa: what about an rpc that i can use to query the blockindex and then access the *.blk files ondisk?
 29 2017-10-20 12:34:40	0|wumpus|and python is much more flexible as to formulating queries and analysis etc then hardcoding things into c++
 30 2017-10-20 12:34:49	0|wallet42|wumpus: love pypy, unfortunatly wasn't able to compile leveldb bindings for pypy3.6
 31 2017-10-20 12:35:15	0|wumpus|then don't use leveldb
 32 2017-10-20 12:35:54	0|wumpus|wallet42: you can look at contrib/linearize, it pretty much does that, though not through an RPC
 33 2017-10-20 12:36:13	0|wumpus|it builds its own mapping from block hash to location on disk
 34 2017-10-20 12:37:00	0|wumpus|it only uses rpc to get the list of block hashes that is the current chain
 35 2017-10-20 12:37:05	0|sipa|wallet42: you can use the rest interface to request blocks in binary
 36 2017-10-20 12:37:10	0|sipa|probably faster than rpc
 37 2017-10-20 12:37:18	0|sipa|p2p protocol is probably even faster
 38 2017-10-20 12:38:22	0|wumpus|that, too, though there's still a deserialize/serialize involved in that case, in principle rest could send the data directly from disk but it doesn't
 39 2017-10-20 12:38:57	0|wallet42|sendfile linux?
 40 2017-10-20 12:39:26	0|wumpus|maybe
 41 2017-10-20 12:39:52	0|wallet42|okay thanks for the pointers!
 42 2017-10-20 12:40:24	0|wumpus|in any case, usually optimization work is wasted if all you do is a one-time analysis
 43 2017-10-20 12:40:31	0|wumpus|just use a big machine
 44 2017-10-20 12:41:07	0|wumpus|hw is cheap custom software is not
 45 2017-10-20 12:42:06	0|wallet42|i want to build a in-memory blockchain database. instead of 1 big machine, have multiple machines indexed different parts of the chain
 46 2017-10-20 12:42:16	0|wallet42|clusterdb
 47 2017-10-20 12:44:41	0|wallet42|then have a map/reduce approach to queries
 48 2017-10-20 12:45:54	0|wumpus|it's a pity bitcoin's block chain is so easy to analyse isn't it
 49 2017-10-20 13:37:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15zastil opened pull request #11532: 0.15 (06master...060.15) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11532
 50 2017-10-20 13:37:45	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #11532: 0.15 (06master...060.15) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11532
 51 2017-10-20 14:07:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15Thoragh opened pull request #11533: Docs: Update WSL installation for Fall Creators update (06master...06Update-WSL-installation-for-Fall-Creators-update) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11533
 52 2017-10-20 14:21:52	0|sdaftuar|;;tblb 3600
 53 2017-10-20 14:21:53	0|gribble|The expected time between blocks taking 1 hour and 0 seconds to generate is 1 week, 3 days, 4 hours, 31 minutes, and 14 seconds
 54 2017-10-20 14:22:17	0|sdaftuar|;;tblb 7200
 55 2017-10-20 14:22:18	0|gribble|The expected time between blocks taking 2 hours and 0 seconds to generate is 51 years, 15 weeks, 4 days, 23 hours, 13 minutes, and 38 seconds
 56 2017-10-20 14:32:16	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sdaftuar opened pull request #11534: Evict outbound peers if tip is stale (06master...062017-10-stale-tip-eviction) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11534
 57 2017-10-20 15:33:01	0|PatBoy|thx to all your great work guys ! (sry for writing spam here)
 58 2017-10-20 16:23:11	0|wumpus|*cries* more travis failures on master
 59 2017-10-20 16:23:16	0|wumpus|"Please upgrade to at least gpg 2.1.10 to check for weak signatures"
 60 2017-10-20 16:23:29	0|wumpus|https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/290513926
 61 2017-10-20 16:44:21	0|cfields|wtf, that was working yesterday
 62 2017-10-20 16:53:57	0|wumpus|it was!
 63 2017-10-20 16:54:03	0|wumpus|we did nothing wrong
 64 2017-10-20 16:57:37	0|wumpus|they should stop messing with their infrastructure, it's getting annoyging
 65 2017-10-20 17:04:23	0|cfields|wumpus: ah, that doesn't happen on PRs, only pushes
 66 2017-10-20 17:04:52	0|cfields|I assume the switch to minimal did this. They must've had a gpg ppa in the bigger image
 67 2017-10-20 17:09:08	0|cfields|trying to find a fix
 68 2017-10-20 17:18:01	0|ArgenTo|hi
 69 2017-10-20 17:23:55	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #11535: test: Avoid unintentional unsigned integer wraparounds (06master...06unsigned-integer-wraparounds) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11535
 70 2017-10-20 18:09:44	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ryanofsky opened pull request #11536: Rename account to label where appropriate (06master...06pr/acct) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11536
 71 2017-10-20 18:19:36	0|achow101|we should stop using travis *ducks*
 72 2017-10-20 18:21:16	0|karelb|Travis is getting very unreliable recently
 73 2017-10-20 18:21:26	0|karelb|But you get what you pay for :)
 74 2017-10-20 18:24:05	0|wumpus|we'd pay for better travis support if it was possible!
 75 2017-10-20 18:26:24	0|wumpus|however there's no paid option for open source projects
 76 2017-10-20 18:27:53	0|karelb|Oh :(
 77 2017-10-20 18:28:02	0|karelb|That's unfortunate
 78 2017-10-20 18:29:01	0|cfields|wumpus: i have a ticket open atm about my suspended account (suspected of mining, i assume). I'll ask again when I hear back.
 79 2017-10-20 18:33:01	0|wumpus|cfields: thanks, hopefully they'll resolve that any time soon. mining. lol
 80 2017-10-20 18:33:41	0|cfields|wumpus: i assume the recent monero js mining stuff has made things difficult for them :(
 81 2017-10-20 18:36:38	0|achow101|what does "language: minimal" mean? I can't seem to find docs about it
 82 2017-10-20 18:37:02	0|cfields|achow101: it just selects their most minimal base image
 83 2017-10-20 18:37:16	0|achow101|oh
 84 2017-10-20 18:37:26	0|cfields|i can't find wtf a usable gnupg2 is installed on the big generic image, though :\
 85 2017-10-20 18:50:20	0|wumpus|it makes no sense
 86 2017-10-20 18:58:59	0|arubi|last time I tried tracking these things, I ended up in https://quay.io/organization/travisci .  most updated seems to be te-main, you can follow tag -> sha of specific commit -> packages to see versions and stuff.  eventually I ended up using their docker infrastructure to just run vanilla docker images
 87 2017-10-20 19:27:26	0|cfields|wumpus: wait, i can actually reproduce the error locally
 88 2017-10-20 20:03:33	0|cfields|ah, jeez
 89 2017-10-20 20:03:40	0|cfields|so many red herrings
 90 2017-10-20 20:04:21	0|cfields|one of sipa's old keys expired last night
 91 2017-10-20 20:04:35	0|cfields|and verify-commit doesn't play nice with that
 92 2017-10-20 20:05:28	0|BlueMatt|argh
 93 2017-10-20 20:06:47	0|cfields|BlueMatt: for travis, i think we can just verify the commit range rather than the whole branch?
 94 2017-10-20 20:07:20	0|cfields|that would solve this issue at least
 95 2017-10-20 20:07:33	0|BlueMatt|no
 96 2017-10-20 20:07:43	0|BlueMatt|if verify-commits is broken, master needs to be force-pushed
 97 2017-10-20 20:07:48	0|cfields|oh wait nm, these aren't PRs
 98 2017-10-20 20:07:52	0|BlueMatt|thats kinda the whole point
 99 2017-10-20 20:08:16	0|BlueMatt|if a key is expired, however, you can just un-expire the key
100 2017-10-20 20:08:20	0|BlueMatt|and then verify-commits will magically work again
101 2017-10-20 20:11:59	0|BlueMatt|ohoh, its a super old commit
102 2017-10-20 20:12:01	0|BlueMatt|lemme look
103 2017-10-20 20:13:56	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sdaftuar opened pull request #11538: qa: Fix replace-by-fee race condition failures (06master...062017-10-fix-rbf-test) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11538
104 2017-10-20 20:36:03	0|BlueMatt|cfields: v
105 2017-10-20 20:36:07	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #11539: [verify-commits] Allow revoked keys to expire (06master...062017-10-verify-regsig-expsig) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11539
106 2017-10-20 20:51:18	0|cfields|BlueMatt: i'm confused. I get different strings out of gpg
107 2017-10-20 20:51:41	0|cfields|(looking at git verify-commit --raw <sha>)
108 2017-10-20 20:52:02	0|cfields|i see KEYREVOKED/KEYEXPIRED/SIGEXPIRED
109 2017-10-20 20:52:49	0|cfields|oh wait, REVKEYSIG/EXPKEYSIG take the place of VALIDSIG
110 2017-10-20 20:53:05	0|BlueMatt|no they dont?
111 2017-10-20 20:54:01	0|cfields|ok then confused. Could you paste your output of verify-commit --raw ?
112 2017-10-20 20:54:30	0|BlueMatt|cfields: you should get a VALIDSIG line AND a REGKEYSIG/EXPKEYSIG line, you will however, not get a GOODSIG line (which is what git wants to see)
113 2017-10-20 20:55:51	0|cfields|ok, gotcha
114 2017-10-20 20:56:31	0|BlueMatt|are you getting confused between the --weak-digest sha1 pass and the one missing it?
115 2017-10-20 20:57:08	0|cfields|no, i'm good. I was thinking different gpg versions might use different terms.
116 2017-10-20 20:57:41	0|cfields|i was just missing the EXPKEYSIG output, only saw "KEYEXPIRED"
117 2017-10-20 20:58:43	0|BlueMatt|ah, k