1 2017-11-22 01:32:32 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15merehap opened pull request #11748: [Tests] Adding unit tests for GetDifficulty in blockchain.cpp. (06master...06blockchain_unittests) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11748
2 2017-11-22 02:05:56 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d2ea2bc 15practicalswift: trivial: Fix unsuccessful typo
3 2017-11-22 02:05:56 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d4267a3ab271...5ea932a51083
4 2017-11-22 02:05:57 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145ea932a 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #11746: trivial: Fix unsuccessful typo...
5 2017-11-22 02:06:31 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #11746: trivial: Fix unsuccessful typo (06master...06unsuccesful) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11746
6 2017-11-22 02:08:37 0|ForAll|wrapping my head around things first by observation
7 2017-11-22 03:55:45 0|meshcollider|sipa: are you here at the moment?
8 2017-11-22 03:56:13 0|sipa|that depends onyour definition of 'here'
9 2017-11-22 03:57:06 0|meshcollider|lol :) Just a quick question re #11708, if I make redeemScript also accept an array of scripts, do you think listunspent should also return the witnessScript inside a list of redeemScript's or as a separate entry for clarity, because otherwise the output of listunspent can't be directly passed into signrawtransaction
10 2017-11-22 03:57:08 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11708 | Add P2SH-P2WSH support to signrawtransaction and listunspent RPC by MeshCollider ÷ Pull Request #11708 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
11 2017-11-22 04:05:34 0|sipa|meshcollider: hmm, nnoying
12 2017-11-22 04:32:24 0|meshcollider|sipa: yeah :/ I think it would be best to make listunspent return an array of redeemScripts too in this case, there will only be two for P2SH-P2WSH so it should always be easy to work out which is which, but that would be a breaking change
13 2017-11-22 04:44:59 0|sipa|meshcollider: but that's technically an API break for listunspent for P2SH-P2WPKH
14 2017-11-22 04:53:12 0|meshcollider|sipa: I can think of two cases, either listunspent returns a string or an array when needed (which only breaks P2SH-P2WSH but is uglier code), or listunspent always returns an array even if it only has one element (which breaks P2SH, P2SH-P2WPKH, and P2SH-P2WSH but is cleaner long term)
15 2017-11-22 04:53:41 0|meshcollider|is the first case acceptable?
16 2017-11-22 04:56:28 0|sipa|i wouldn't even call the second obviously acceptable
17 2017-11-22 04:56:35 0|sipa|usually we don't break the api
18 2017-11-22 04:57:57 0|meshcollider|yeah
19 2017-11-22 04:58:09 0|meshcollider|so listunspent must return a string if there is only one element
20 2017-11-22 05:00:35 0|meshcollider|So that will only break P2SH-P2WSH but currently doesn't even work in that case so that's fine right
21 2017-11-22 05:03:39 0|sipa|yes, that's why it is maybe ok :)
22 2017-11-22 07:50:58 0|jonasschnelli|Would adding block size(s) and weight to the block index be completely wrong? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...jonasschnelli:2017/11/blockindex_size?expand=1
23 2017-11-22 07:51:37 0|jonasschnelli|I think only stats stuff could use it. So I'm unsure if the >8MB more ram consumption is worth it.
24 2017-11-22 07:52:10 0|jonasschnelli|For things like #5896 or #9849 it would probably required...
25 2017-11-22 07:52:11 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/5896 | [Qt][PoC] introduce "core-pulse" by jonasschnelli ÷ Pull Request #5896 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
26 2017-11-22 07:52:13 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9849 | Qt: Network Watch tool by luke-jr ÷ Pull Request #9849 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
27 2017-11-22 07:52:36 0|jonasschnelli|You don't want to load a block from the disk just to get some block size charts.
28 2017-11-22 09:42:10 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #11749: Set m_last_block_processed to nullptr in SetNull() (06master...06m_last_block_processed) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11749
29 2017-11-22 10:58:05 0|nani|hello
30 2017-11-22 12:27:39 0|dcousens|jonasschnelli so many things would be great to add... it probably shouldn't be in `bitcoind` though
31 2017-11-22 12:48:11 0|Varunram|Hey guys, I'm getting an error while compiling master `Assertion failed: ((pindexFirstNeverProcessed != nullptr) == (pindex->nChainTx == 0)), function CheckBlockIndex, file validation.cpp, line 4203.` What's the problem on my side?
32 2017-11-22 13:53:04 0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: 9849 works fine without it already\
33 2017-11-22 14:55:37 0|jeffrade|I posted a question yesterday on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3172 I need some clarification.
34 2017-11-22 14:56:04 0|jeffrade|I assume it is still relevant since not closed
35 2017-11-22 15:00:20 0|promag|jeffrade: I don't think the idea is to add new flags
36 2017-11-22 15:02:04 0|jeffrade|so should these "ping pong" transactions as they were called happen for any node that has the -testnet flag enabled?
37 2017-11-22 15:03:43 0|jeffrade|or is this just an isolated node hosted by an individual that will send these ping pong tx to the testnet network?
38 2017-11-22 15:07:33 0|promag|> hosted by an individual that will send these ping pong tx to the testnet network?
39 2017-11-22 15:08:00 0|promag|jeffrade: I think the idea is to have some cron script to do that for instance
40 2017-11-22 15:11:09 0|promag|IMHO that issue could be closed.
41 2017-11-22 15:11:18 0|jeffrade|promag: So this is nothing that will live in the repo, e.g. bitcoin/test/functional/ ?
42 2017-11-22 15:11:50 0|promag|jeffrade: no I don't think it should, but it could :D
43 2017-11-22 15:13:47 0|jeffrade|promag: Should I tag someone specific on the github issue? Sounds like it should be closed or some new requirements
44 2017-11-22 15:15:09 0|promag|I've made a comment
45 2017-11-22 15:15:52 0|jeffrade|promag: Awesome, thank you so much! Will keep and eye on it and look for something else :)
46 2017-11-22 16:10:33 0|instagibbs|uh, is abortrescan not supposed to work on a general -rescan argument, rather than importprivkey?
47 2017-11-22 16:34:17 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #11743: qa: Add multiwallet prefix test (06master...06Mf1711-qaMultiwallet) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11743
48 2017-11-22 17:01:33 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jamesob closed pull request #11751: Use override in CCoinsView* subclasses (06master...06add-override-coins) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11751
49 2017-11-22 17:50:54 0|sipa|instagibbs: -rescan is processed when loading a wallet, i don't think RPC is active then
50 2017-11-22 18:53:47 0|instagibbs|sad! ok
51 2017-11-22 19:09:09 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15instagibbs opened pull request #11753: clarify abortrescan rpc use (06master...06abortrescanclarity) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11753
52 2017-11-22 20:41:34 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift closed pull request #11749: wallet: Set m_last_block_processed to nullptr in SetNull() (06master...06m_last_block_processed) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11749
53 2017-11-22 20:42:44 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift closed pull request #11749: wallet: Set m_last_block_processed to nullptr in SetNull() (06master...06m_last_block_processed) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11749
54 2017-11-22 20:50:44 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #11754: Add missing cs_wallet locks when accessing m_last_block_processed (06master...06missing-m_last_block_processed-locks) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11754
55 2017-11-22 22:10:26 0|cluelessperson|Can someone link me to the node protocol used?
56 2017-11-22 22:10:39 0|cluelessperson|I'm trying to figure how the communication is built?
57 2017-11-22 22:16:54 0|sipa|cluelessperson: bitcoin.org developer documentation is pretty good
58 2017-11-22 22:21:27 0|jonasschnelli|cluelessperson: this is also a handy resource (seems up to date): https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation
59 2017-11-22 22:26:41 0|sipa|otherwise, several implementations exist, and several BIPs describe protocol changes (but they don't fully specify it), including 14, 31, 35, 37, 61, 111, 130, 133, 144
60 2017-11-22 22:38:05 0|Antarctica|Everyone's wallet. ECDSA Public Key: 1Fjh9tUjTWYz5cuCqixUa9o7NaQQDz7twd ECDSA Private Key: 5KEnS3QYkja72J7JBz1cUdLvkVsJqVV7pQTdMF5dF5xjEorkB4i
61 2017-11-22 22:39:03 0|Antarctica|They are already priceless
62 2017-11-22 22:40:08 0|cluelessperson|?