1 2017-10-27 10:07:55	0|alb_|hi
 2 2017-10-27 15:41:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15achow101 closed pull request #11446: Disconnect Peers for Duplicate Invalid blocks. (06master...06bad-block-interrogation) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11446
 3 2017-10-27 18:06:10	0|ossifrage|I've been trying to smooth out the bandwidth costs of uploading old blocks, I added a command line option to set nMaxOutboundTimeframe.
 4 2017-10-27 18:07:19	0|ossifrage|When the node doesn't have that many peers it helps, but once the peer count gets high enough it doesn't help, it seems like just having rate limiting would be a better solution
 5 2017-10-27 20:14:37	0|jtimon|rebased https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8994 I know it's not a priority, but, please, review, it's kind of painful to rebase the tests
 6 2017-10-27 20:17:52	0|jtimon|I think a reasonable next step would be to make regtest just another custom chain that you can select with either -regtest or -chain=regtest and it's identical to the current regtest by defaul on everything except the genesis block
 7 2017-10-27 20:18:34	0|jtimon|it already accepts custom bip9 params
 8 2017-10-27 20:19:16	0|jtimon|unless of course changing the genesis block for regtest was a problem in itself
 9 2017-10-27 20:29:40	0|BlueMatt|cfields: I'm not looking to rework *any* of the Misbehaving code - only make CValidationState have no concept of nDoS
10 2017-10-27 20:29:57	0|cfields|oh, ok
11 2017-10-27 20:29:59	0|BlueMatt|re: working-on-top-of-banman
12 2017-10-27 21:13:46	0|jonasschnelli|BlueMatt, cfields: interested an giving #10387 another review (after the service flag refactoring)?
13 2017-10-27 21:13:48	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10387 | Implement BIP159, define and signal NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED (pruned peers) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #10387 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14 2017-10-27 21:14:30	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: heh, after 0.15.0.2 :p
15 2017-10-27 21:37:42	0|sdaftuar|BlueMatt: did i convince you that feelers and extra outbound peers can exist simultaneously?  just responded to your comment on github
16 2017-10-27 21:40:41	0|BlueMatt|sdaftuar: lemme read you github comment
17 2017-10-27 21:40:46	0|BlueMatt|I dont care /strongly/
18 2017-10-27 21:40:50	0|BlueMatt|but I thought it'd be cool if we didnt
19 2017-10-27 21:41:07	0|sdaftuar|i could make it so that we don't, but we do now
20 2017-10-27 21:41:17	0|sdaftuar|i mean, we do in the current PR
21 2017-10-27 21:41:48	0|BlueMatt|yea, I dont think we got to fully discussing which it /should/ be
22 2017-10-27 21:41:53	0|BlueMatt|I noted I'd prefer if we didnt have both
23 2017-10-27 21:42:08	0|BlueMatt|for the same reasons as its not "nice" to have >9 connections open too often
24 2017-10-27 21:42:17	0|BlueMatt|(if nothing else you make your peers do an eviction)
25 2017-10-27 21:43:54	0|sdaftuar|i think with the new quikc-disconnect-timer, and the guaranteed longer window when we're not trying to make a 9th connection, stealing the feeler's spot for the extra outbound makes more sense to me
26 2017-10-27 21:44:12	0|sdaftuar|originally i thought it was kind of bad to just break feeler functionality during a slow-block period, but now that seems less relevant
27 2017-10-27 21:44:40	0|BlueMatt|yea, agreed
28 2017-10-27 23:10:27	0|Rayser|hi
29 2017-10-27 23:11:29	0|Rayser|i have a portuguese-br translation for this link > https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2017-10-09-segwit2x-safety