1 2017-11-28 02:41:55	0|gmurf|any good places to learn how to use Bitcoin api
  2 2017-11-28 04:13:31	0|rusty|Latest master branch, bitcoind in regtest mode: bitcoind: validation.cpp:4203: void CheckBlockIndex(const Consensus::Params&): Assertion `(pindexFirstNeverProcessed != nullptr) == (pindex->nChainTx == 0)' failed.
  3 2017-11-28 04:16:11	0|rusty|Pretty sure that was a .bitcoind dir from an older bitcoind.
  4 2017-11-28 05:47:02	0|aj|rusty: hey, i can duplicate that
  5 2017-11-28 05:57:04	0|aj|rusty: try https://pastebin.com/QfjsEHFK to reproduce -- bug seems to be in validation.cpp::RewindBlockIndex where pindexIter->nTx or nChainTx gets set to 0, but not real sure what the fix should be
  6 2017-11-28 06:25:01	0|wangyuan|test
  7 2017-11-28 07:13:31	0|Varunram|rusty: aj: had the bugs  few days back, turned out to be exactly what rusty specified, there'd be another .bitcoin directory somewhere. Once I changed home directories, it went well
  8 2017-11-28 07:16:53	0|Varunram|bug*
  9 2017-11-28 07:23:29	0|aj|Varunram: yeah, i think it'd be triggered by an old regtest blockchain from before #11389 got merged
 10 2017-11-28 07:23:33	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11389 | Support having SegWit always active in regtest (sipa, ajtowns, jnewbery) by sipa · Pull Request #11389 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 11 2017-11-28 07:24:51	0|Varunram|aj: Thanks! I was looking for that commit, couldn't find it
 12 2017-11-28 07:40:43	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11722: Switched sync.{cpp,h} to std threading primitives. (06master...06tjps_sync_antiboost) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11722
 13 2017-11-28 07:41:53	0|wumpus|I'm completely lost with regard to PRs once again - anything ready for merge?
 14 2017-11-28 07:45:33	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: I think a lot of "unfinished" PRs right now...
 15 2017-11-28 07:45:40	0|wumpus|yes...
 16 2017-11-28 07:45:54	0|fanquake|A few that could probably just be closed as well
 17 2017-11-28 07:46:20	0|jonasschnelli|fanquake: BTW. Thanks for your awesome work on closing / pinging on PRs!
 18 2017-11-28 07:46:24	0|fanquake|wumpus probably lost in that wormhole from earlier :p
 19 2017-11-28 07:46:32	0|wumpus|yes thanks fanquake :)
 20 2017-11-28 07:46:54	0|fanquake|jonasschnelli I try and keep on top of it. Have been wanting to ask you about your place for the coredev-tech site. Saw you put it up on GH?
 21 2017-11-28 07:47:32	0|jonasschnelli|fanquake: Yeah, The site is ugly (but simple). jnewbery will probably do some changes for the NY meeting.
 22 2017-11-28 07:47:48	0|jonasschnelli|(Which you are very welcome to join)
 23 2017-11-28 07:49:06	0|fanquake|jonasschnelli when is that, might see if I can come along? I'm waiting for a meetup down here heh
 24 2017-11-28 07:49:48	0|jonasschnelli|fanquake: Australia is on the list,.. :) I'm not sure about the NY one... you need to ask jnewbery. Not sure if the exact date stays.. Guess it's in March 18
 25 2017-11-28 07:49:51	0|jonasschnelli|Not announce yet
 26 2017-11-28 07:50:59	0|fanquake|jonasschnelli cool. Good chance to discuss any potential iOS development work as well.
 27 2017-11-28 07:51:21	0|aj|"next one in NYC the week of March 5th 2018"
 28 2017-11-28 07:53:07	0|jonasschnelli|aj: Thanks!
 29 2017-11-28 07:53:28	0|jonasschnelli|fanquake: Yeah. Though, I won't attend. Schedule-colision.
 30 2017-11-28 07:54:42	0|wumpus|this is what we should avoid: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11747   the person posts a straightforward two-line fix for an actual issue, when well-meaning but overly zealous review comments get them to refactor things in a questionable way resulting in much more discussion and doubt of correctness
 31 2017-11-28 07:55:05	0|fanquake|jonasschnelli no worries
 32 2017-11-28 07:55:17	0|wumpus|if something fixes a problem, please just utACK it, if you want to refactor it to your personal taste later then go ahead but that's not part of review
 33 2017-11-28 07:55:59	0|wumpus|now we have yet another PR that is stuck...
 34 2017-11-28 07:56:01	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: indeed.
 35 2017-11-28 07:57:01	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #9859: Make TestBlockValidity optional in CreateNewBlock (06master...06tbv-optional) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9859
 36 2017-11-28 07:58:22	0|fanquake|I've always wondered how best we could keep tracked of post merge nits/minor fixups. Maybe another tag that we can add to PRs post merge which have any todos remaining in the comments? Then occasionally someone can sweep through and "clean up" stuff.
 37 2017-11-28 07:58:56	0|fanquake|If GitHub search was a bit better it mightn't be such as issue.
 38 2017-11-28 07:58:56	0|wumpus|fanquake: I think MarcoFalke added the "up for grabs" tag for that
 39 2017-11-28 07:59:14	0|aj|commits that sweep through and clean up stuff are generally pretty painful though, aren't they?
 40 2017-11-28 07:59:22	0|wumpus|yes, they are
 41 2017-11-28 07:59:30	0|fanquake|wumpus I mean PRs that have been merged, but with outstanding todos. Rather than just abandoned. I guess they are somewhat the same.
 42 2017-11-28 07:59:53	0|wumpus|fanquake: if they have important TODOs that warrants an issue of its own, if not, better to forget about it sometimes
 43 2017-11-28 08:00:00	0|wumpus|if no one cares to remember it
 44 2017-11-28 08:00:03	0|fanquake|Is it more painful than not having obvious fixes easily merged
 45 2017-11-28 08:00:35	0|raheel_|?HELP
 46 2017-11-28 08:00:40	0|fanquake|wumpus fair enough. I guess they get picked up again eventually anyways.
 47 2017-11-28 08:01:07	0|wumpus|for criticial concerns with something that is merged always open an issue, that's what they're for
 48 2017-11-28 08:01:10	0|raheel_|I want to create wallet address in pphp
 49 2017-11-28 08:01:19	0|wumpus|raheel_: #bitcoin
 50 2017-11-28 08:01:22	0|raheel_|php
 51 2017-11-28 08:01:37	0|raheel_|any api ?
 52 2017-11-28 08:01:47	0|wumpus|raheel_, take this to #bitcoin
 53 2017-11-28 08:01:55	0|jonasschnelli|raheel_: this is the core dev channel, pleae use #bitcoin or #bitcoin-dev for your Q
 54 2017-11-28 08:01:58	0|wumpus|read the topic for a change
 55 2017-11-28 08:02:14	0|fanquake|Thoughts on #9754 ? This is the second or third time this PR has been opened, hasn't ever gotten any real discussion
 56 2017-11-28 08:02:15	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9754 | Change NULLFAIL => SIG_NULLFAIL. by richardkiss · Pull Request #9754 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 57 2017-11-28 08:02:23	0|raheel_|hii
 58 2017-11-28 08:03:09	0|wumpus|fanquake: it seems it doesn't really bother anyone but him
 59 2017-11-28 08:03:52	0|fanquake|I think I'm just going to close it again.
 60 2017-11-28 08:04:48	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #9754: Change NULLFAIL => SIG_NULLFAIL. (06master...06feature/unify_sig_nullfail) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9754
 61 2017-11-28 08:04:59	0|fanquake|re ready to merge. Maybe #11647 if you wanted to verify the backports.
 62 2017-11-28 08:05:00	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11647 | 0.15: Backports by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #11647 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 63 2017-11-28 08:05:47	0|wumpus|agree with closing, I see no way forward for that PR
 64 2017-11-28 08:11:53	0|aj|wumpus, fanquake: maybe having a 'highfive' bot would be an interesting idea to pursue? (auto welcome new contributors, assign reviewers, complain about lacking tests, modifying unsafe code, etc) http://sarah.thesharps.us/2016/11/17/impact-of-bots-on-github-communities/
 65 2017-11-28 08:12:31	0|wumpus|I think we should add cfields's #11457 to high priority for review, to make sure his net refactoring work can move forward
 66 2017-11-28 08:12:34	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11457 | Introduce BanMan by theuni · Pull Request #11457 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 67 2017-11-28 08:13:34	0|wumpus|aj: don't know about others, but I'm not really a fan of bots personally, they generate a lot of extra notification. We had a "pull tester" bot once, you know.
 68 2017-11-28 08:14:02	0|wumpus|I like how travis integration doesn't generate a message, just shows the status inline
 69 2017-11-28 08:16:12	0|aj|wumpus: no, didn't know. how was the "pull tester" different to travis now?
 70 2017-11-28 08:16:25	0|wumpus|it posted a message if the tests failed/passed
 71 2017-11-28 08:16:42	0|aj|wumpus: ah, so same idea, just differnt github hook?
 72 2017-11-28 08:17:14	0|wumpus|I guess so, it was a project specific solution. travis is generic
 73 2017-11-28 08:48:52	0|Provoostenator|Coveralls can be configured to post the result like Travis does and not leave comments.
 74 2017-11-28 08:49:06	0|Provoostenator|Maybe the other bots can be too.
 75 2017-11-28 08:54:13	0|wumpus|if so I have no problem with them
 76 2017-11-28 08:58:32	0|wumpus|aj: anyhow that article seems interesting
 77 2017-11-28 09:36:47	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #11781: Add `-debuglogfile` option (06master...062017_11_logfile) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11781
 78 2017-11-28 11:12:51	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #11783: Fix shutdown in case of errors during initialization (06master...062017_11_notify_callbacks_shutdown_crash) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11783
 79 2017-11-28 12:11:55	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11287: DRY config header inclusion (06master...06refactor/dry-config) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11287
 80 2017-11-28 12:46:46	0|promag|wumpus: I'm going to test #11783 rebased with #11781
 81 2017-11-28 12:46:48	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11783 | Fix shutdown in case of errors during initialization by laanwj · Pull Request #11783 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 82 2017-11-28 12:46:49	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11781 | Add `-debuglogfile` option by laanwj · Pull Request #11781 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 83 2017-11-28 12:48:19	0|wumpus|thanks!
 84 2017-11-28 12:56:57	0|promag|wumpus: bitcoind -debuglogfile=/foo/bar/bar.log doesn't crash without 11783
 85 2017-11-28 12:57:40	0|promag|> (currently this segfaults afterwards, but that is due to an unrelated problem introduced in #10286, see #11783)
 86 2017-11-28 12:57:44	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10286 | Call wallet notify callbacks in scheduler thread (without cs_main) by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #10286 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 87 2017-11-28 12:57:46	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11783 | Fix shutdown in case of errors during initialization by laanwj · Pull Request #11783 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 88 2017-11-28 12:57:56	0|promag|doesn't segfault here
 89 2017-11-28 13:00:55	0|wumpus|well that's good
 90 2017-11-28 13:03:50	0|wumpus|still happens here
 91 2017-11-28 13:04:20	0|wumpus|"src/bitcoind  -debuglogfile=/dfdf" is enough to reproduce it immediately
 92 2017-11-28 13:12:14	0|promag|wumpus: what I mean is that 11781 alone doesn't segfault, how could it segfault there?
 93 2017-11-28 13:12:43	0|wumpus|I don't know, maybe a subtle configuration difference?
 94 2017-11-28 13:18:17	0|wumpus|backtrace: https://0bin.net/paste/s2wRk1OomkBcFp3j#3-RdKCqzohpsAOe3dBIjacEmEuu6fh6tgCa9E4FIxBS
 95 2017-11-28 13:18:20	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3 | Encrypt wallet · Issue #3 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 96 2017-11-28 13:19:28	0|wumpus|so it calls UnregisterValidationInterface(0) . I don't see how that could not segfault.
 97 2017-11-28 13:49:51	0|promag|wumpus: sorry my bad, forget to git checkout . after git reset HEAD~1
 98 2017-11-28 14:07:27	0|wumpus|hah!
 99 2017-11-28 14:22:32	0|wumpus|what would be a good functional test to add the -debuglogfile= test in? can create a new one but it seems kind of overkill
100 2017-11-28 14:24:57	0|wumpus|none itseems, I'll just create a new one
101 2017-11-28 14:43:02	0|Provoostenator|In an RPC test, how would I go about debugging why sync_mempools times out, after a succesful sendrawtransaction?
102 2017-11-28 14:44:57	0|Provoostenator|See bumpfee.py in https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/tree/bumpfee-test-refactor
103 2017-11-28 14:45:45	0|Provoostenator|I don't think it's related to the minimum relay fee, as even a 0.1 BTC fee doesn't help.
104 2017-11-28 14:46:53	0|Provoostenator|I probably broke something about the nodes in the test setup, but it would be nice if I can reveal some sort of P2P error message to get a clue what I broke.
105 2017-11-28 14:47:19	0|Provoostenator|E.g. can I access log files of the test nodes?
106 2017-11-28 14:47:29	0|wumpus|timeout problems are notoriously annoying to debug
107 2017-11-28 14:47:57	0|wumpus|yes, you can, it prints the test directory at start
108 2017-11-28 14:48:04	0|wumpus|inside that are the data directories for the nodes
109 2017-11-28 14:48:31	0|wumpus|also pass --nocleanup to not clean up
110 2017-11-28 14:49:38	0|Provoostenator|Ah yes, that's very useful.
111 2017-11-28 14:51:17	0|wumpus|there's also test/functional/combine_logs.py to merge the test log with logs of multiple nodes
112 2017-11-28 14:51:27	0|wumpus|(to show one timeline)
113 2017-11-28 14:52:44	0|Provoostenator|I'm seeing an AddToWallet entry in the logs for the node that created the transaction, but no obvious error messages after that related to propagating it to the other peer.
114 2017-11-28 14:53:20	0|Provoostenator|The other node has a "got inv: tx" entry for the same tx
115 2017-11-28 14:54:02	0|Provoostenator|And no obvious error either.
116 2017-11-28 14:55:01	0|Provoostenator|mempool.dat is empty for the other node though
117 2017-11-28 15:26:07	0|Provoostenator|So I’m looking for debut messages that might explain why a node receives a transaction, but doesn’t add it to its mempool.
118 2017-11-28 16:10:51	0|instagibbs|Provoostenator, you may have to set debug=p2p, if you haven't yet
119 2017-11-28 17:54:29	0|Provoostenator|instagibbs: is that a flag to pass to the test node?
120 2017-11-28 17:58:36	0|Provoostenator|--tracerpc is quite useful too, although in this case it just shows that the second node's mempool is indeed empty every time sync_mempools looks at it
121 2017-11-28 18:02:18	0|instagibbs|Provoostenator, yes, `debug=X` is the general purpose logging argument
122 2017-11-28 18:04:07	0|Provoostenator|"<category> can be: net, tor, mempool, http, bench, zmq, db, rpc, estimatefee, addrman, selectcoins, reindex, cmpctblock, rand, prune, proxy, mempoolrej, libevent, coindb, qt, leveldb"
123 2017-11-28 18:04:58	0|instagibbs|oh sorry, so it's "net"
124 2017-11-28 18:14:36	0|Provoostenator|Ok, that seems to add a bit more detail. So the node which doesn't update its mempool log says: "received: inv (37 bytes) peer=1", "got inv: tx b4e9...f354  new peer=1"
125 2017-11-28 18:14:55	0|Provoostenator|I'll turn on some more debug options...
126 2017-11-28 18:18:51	0|sipa|there is also -debug=all
127 2017-11-28 18:31:00	0|Provoostenator|Even -debug-all doesn't tell me anything useful. Here's the combined log: https://gist.github.com/Sjors/f887722422f49144fe9b97cee9fef836
128 2017-11-28 18:32:00	0|Provoostenator|Interestingly the same transaction (ca43...) is sent twice, even though only one test is run.
129 2017-11-28 18:38:23	0|luke-jr|Provoostenator: -debug=all is not -debug-all
130 2017-11-28 18:40:15	0|Provoostenator|luke-jr: that was a typo in IRC only.
131 2017-11-28 18:43:32	0|Provoostenator|The test framework shows a warning if you use an unsupported debug category.
132 2017-11-28 19:13:07	0|MarcoFalke|nanotube: Where is the gribble code hosted that runs in this channel?
133 2017-11-28 19:13:20	0|MarcoFalke|nanotube: https://github.com/nanotube/supybot-bitcoin-marketmonitor is only for the market, no?
134 2017-11-28 19:31:05	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: Would it make sense to mention absolute paths are possibbe in #11781 (in the release notes or the init.cpp part)?
135 2017-11-28 19:31:07	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11781 | Add `-debuglogfile` option by laanwj · Pull Request #11781 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
136 2017-11-28 19:31:35	0|jonasschnelli|Only after reading the code I know it's possible (if (logfile.is_absolute()) {)
137 2017-11-28 19:31:43	0|jonasschnelli|*knew
138 2017-11-28 19:32:03	0|jonasschnelli|But maybe it's obvious
139 2017-11-28 19:41:14	0|blockchain|hi I have installed bitcoin-core 15.01 and want to use the replace by fee. but the "increase transaction fee" option is grey, how can i activate it ?
140 2017-11-28 19:42:36	0|jonasschnelli|blockchain: better use #bitcoin for this... off-topic here.
141 2017-11-28 19:42:51	0|blockchain|ok didnt know where to ask
142 2017-11-28 20:46:05	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: every tried ODROID-XU4 with Core?
143 2017-11-28 20:46:43	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: i'm syncing on an odroid-c2 currently
144 2017-11-28 20:47:26	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: Oh. What storage?
145 2017-11-28 20:50:23	0|sipa|128 GB microsd card, pruned
146 2017-11-28 20:52:06	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: okay. Happy to hear more... (sync speed, corruptions)
147 2017-11-28 20:53:00	0|sipa|i just started maybe 10 hours ago
148 2017-11-28 20:53:12	0|sipa|ask me again in a week :)
149 2017-11-28 20:53:46	0|jonasschnelli|I'd say in 3 days. :)
150 2017-11-28 20:54:20	0|Masterboy|jonasschnelli, sync speed is really bad on my core i3 pentium 300mbit connection
151 2017-11-28 20:54:38	0|Masterboy|it took me days to sync from the start
152 2017-11-28 20:54:50	0|jonasschnelli|Masterboy: dbcache how large?
153 2017-11-28 20:55:14	0|Masterboy|and the ping and speed to other clients was like 1/mbit
154 2017-11-28 20:55:20	0|Masterboy|wait i will see
155 2017-11-28 20:55:31	0|Masterboy|now it is crawling slow
156 2017-11-28 20:55:41	0|Masterboy|client 0.15.1
157 2017-11-28 20:58:07	0|jonasschnelli|Masterboy: network speed doesn't matter that much. What matters is CPU speed for signature verification, a.s.o. Disk speed is also important for the UTXO set read/writes.
158 2017-11-28 20:58:33	0|jonasschnelli|Make sure you use a large dbcache which can make a significant improvement
159 2017-11-28 21:02:04	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: running with dbcache=450 maxmempool=10
160 2017-11-28 21:02:15	0|sipa|default settings made it OOM
161 2017-11-28 21:04:49	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: but you have 2GB, right?
162 2017-11-28 21:05:34	0|jonasschnelli|maybe the maxmempool->dbcache-during-IBD-change is a OOM-problem for such systems
163 2017-11-28 21:05:54	0|sipa|the total RSS was totally within expected ranges
164 2017-11-28 21:06:03	0|sipa|it's more a question of what else was using memory i guess
165 2017-11-28 21:06:07	0|sipa|but i haven't investigated
166 2017-11-28 21:06:14	0|jonasschnelli|running with X?
167 2017-11-28 21:06:15	0|Masterboy|jonasschnelli, sorry it take some time to load btc-qt like 10 min now. i am loading it from a hdd 700gb
168 2017-11-28 21:06:35	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: yes, with a 4k screen - maybe that causes a lot of video memory
169 2017-11-28 21:06:46	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: go headless!
170 2017-11-28 21:06:53	0|sipa|yes, i should
171 2017-11-28 21:07:00	0|Masterboy|jonasschnelli, how can i find out the dbcache value?
172 2017-11-28 21:07:06	0|jonasschnelli|4k screen. ;-)
173 2017-11-28 21:07:06	0|sipa|Masterboy: #bitcoin
174 2017-11-28 21:07:45	0|Masterboy|ok default is 450 i see in the manual
175 2017-11-28 21:07:50	0|sipa|my tv was the only screen i had available with an HDMI port
176 2017-11-28 21:08:30	0|Masterboy|jonasschnelli, so how can i make it faster? what should i set for a 300mbit connection?
177 2017-11-28 21:08:49	0|Masterboy|jonasschnelli, cpu is 2.4ghz
178 2017-11-28 21:09:10	0|jonasschnelli|Masterboy: please answer in the #bitcoin channel
179 2017-11-28 21:35:55	0|BlueMatt|sipa: I highly recommend headless c2s, you can now build upstream kernels from released branches and upstream u-boot and things work :)
180 2017-11-28 21:36:01	0|BlueMatt|no closed-source drivers needed
181 2017-11-28 21:36:44	0|BlueMatt|(closed source tool needed to convert u-boot build to binary image, sadly, and it does have a close-source first boot loader stage)
182 2017-11-28 21:43:15	0|nanotube|MarcoFalke: that repo you linked contains a bunch of the plugins, but the core of the bot is https://github.com/nanotube/supybot_fixes
183 2017-11-28 21:43:57	0|MarcoFalke|nanotube: I was specifically looking for the code that does this: #1337
184 2017-11-28 21:43:58	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1337 | Quieter initial block download by rebroad · Pull Request #1337 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
185 2017-11-28 21:48:46	0|nanotube|MarcoFalke: ah, that's the MessageParser plugin :) the actual function to spit out issues is just config in the plugin
186 2017-11-28 21:51:50	0|cluelessperson|I'm sorry to annoy you, is there an ETA on Core segwit support in the QT wallet?
187 2017-11-28 22:00:02	0|sipa|cluelessperson: when it's done
188 2017-11-28 22:01:49	0|sipa|cluelessperson: we never have the ability to set ETAs on features, as they depend on review, which is done by people volunteering their time
189 2017-11-28 22:05:08	0|cluelessperson|sipa: how can I help?  (I don't know C++)
190 2017-11-28 22:05:48	0|sipa|cluelessperson: you can help by testing it for sure
191 2017-11-28 22:06:09	0|cluelessperson|sipa: can you lead me through what I need to do?
192 2017-11-28 22:06:15	0|sipa|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11403
193 2017-11-28 22:06:18	0|cluelessperson|maybe I can gain some experience and help more on my own in the future
194 2017-11-28 22:06:36	0|sipa|can you compile from sourcr?
195 2017-11-28 22:06:42	0|cluelessperson|yes
196 2017-11-28 22:07:31	0|sipa|well the hardest part of being a good testing is figuring out what are good scenarios to test
197 2017-11-28 22:07:37	0|sipa|identifying potential edge cases
198 2017-11-28 22:07:49	0|cluelessperson|I figure I could try to test everythign on testnet
199 2017-11-28 22:07:57	0|Chris_Stewart_5|*something something* #8469 *something something*
200 2017-11-28 22:07:59	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8469 | [POC] Introducing property based testing to Core by Christewart · Pull Request #8469 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
201 2017-11-28 22:10:56	0|cfields|Chris_Stewart_5: ugh, sorry. I promised you at Stanford that I'd take a look at that again, and never did.
202 2017-11-28 22:11:00	0|cfields|adding it to my review queue.
203 2017-11-28 22:11:16	0|BlueMatt|Chris_Stewart_5: I believe its still blocked on gcc 4.9, no?
204 2017-11-28 22:11:21	0|BlueMatt|jnewbery: seemed to think so, at least
205 2017-11-28 22:11:25	0|BlueMatt|(we currently only require 4.8)
206 2017-11-28 22:11:30	0|Chris_Stewart_5|cfields: It's fine! I just like to make shameless plugs when I can.
207 2017-11-28 22:12:13	0|Chris_Stewart_5|BlueMatt: I'm far from an expert on the build system, but can we make it only build if we have a >= 4.9 compiler?
208 2017-11-28 22:12:44	0|Chris_Stewart_5|it was my understanding that 4.8 is going to be around for awhile
209 2017-11-28 22:12:58	0|BlueMatt|4.8 is some debian thing, right?
210 2017-11-28 22:13:01	0|BlueMatt|like oldstable?
211 2017-11-28 22:13:15	0|cfields|that's what we just did for DEBUG_LOCKORDER, so that sounds like fair game to me
212 2017-11-28 22:13:20	0|BlueMatt|true
213 2017-11-28 22:13:40	0|cfields|Trusty is 4.8 too
214 2017-11-28 22:13:49	0|BlueMatt|ah, an ubuntu thing
215 2017-11-28 22:14:05	0|BlueMatt|oldstable appears to be 4.9
216 2017-11-28 22:14:23	0|sipa|what feature in 4.9 is needed?
217 2017-11-28 22:14:42	0|BlueMatt|heh, trusty doesn't die until 2019
218 2017-11-28 22:14:54	0|BlueMatt|man I'm so glad ubuntu shortened their supported cycle
219 2017-11-28 22:15:02	0|Chris_Stewart_5|sipa: See the pull request. The library I'm using uses lambda's heavily
220 2017-11-28 22:15:28	0|Chris_Stewart_5|apparently there is an issue with parameter packs
221 2017-11-28 22:16:07	0|cfields|variadic lambdas? I thought that was a c++14 (or higher?) thing
222 2017-11-28 22:17:13	0|cfields|oh, maybe that's a variadic in the callback definition as opposed to unpacking inside the lambda
223 2017-11-28 22:17:37	0|MarcoFalke|nanotube: Ah, so the config is not in the repo... Have you enabled the Scheduler plugin? If so, mind adding a repeat every seconds=7*24*60*60 with a message of 'Meeting in ~30min' (first time at around 18:30UTC next Thursday)?
224 2017-11-28 22:19:10	0|MarcoFalke|cfields: yeah travis is on trusty.
225 2017-11-28 22:19:22	0|MarcoFalke|And I'd prefer to have it run on travis. Or at least compile
226 2017-11-28 22:19:30	0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: it looks like it's a c++11 feature that's just buggy in gcc 4.5-4.8
227 2017-11-28 22:19:39	0|sipa|cfields: ^
228 2017-11-28 22:19:50	0|MarcoFalke|Jup, it is a bug in gcc4.8 that was never fixed (or backported)
229 2017-11-28 22:19:51	0|cfields|MarcoFalke: well we could always work around that. The issue is what we consider to be the minimum for building.
230 2017-11-28 22:20:36	0|BlueMatt|cfields: werent you gonna get us a depends-built gcc by 0.15 :p
231 2017-11-28 22:21:04	0|MarcoFalke|Jup, could use that as work-around and keep min-gcc at 4.8
232 2017-11-28 22:21:15	0|cfields|BlueMatt: yea, I just started messing with it again. Still unclear, though, whether we should go the gcc or clang route :(
233 2017-11-28 22:21:29	0|BlueMatt|i thought we were going the "trusting trust" route :p
234 2017-11-28 22:21:47	0|BlueMatt|(ie: both)
235 2017-11-28 22:22:30	0|cfields|BlueMatt: both available for use? or use them to compile each-other, then use 1 of the resulting ones?
236 2017-11-28 22:22:40	0|BlueMatt|the second
237 2017-11-28 22:23:02	0|cfields|yea, even if we use clang for everything, we'll still want to build it with gcc at least once.
238 2017-11-28 22:25:35	0|cfields|Chris_Stewart_5: https://github.com/emil-e/rapidcheck/commit/100fc66908b7c063160a3eebc5b778becaa335d1
239 2017-11-28 22:25:58	0|cfields|Chris_Stewart_5: have you tried with a very recent rapidcheck, as opposed to what's shipped by distros?
240 2017-11-28 22:26:35	0|MarcoFalke|lol, what disto ships that?
241 2017-11-28 22:27:06	0|MarcoFalke|Aren't we fetching the code from the git directly?
242 2017-11-28 22:28:28	0|Chris_Stewart_5|cfields: I did not see that and MarcoFalke yes. IIRC someone created a .mk file for it
243 2017-11-28 22:28:42	0|cfields|oh, i assumed distros packaged it so we could use a local copy. nm.
244 2017-11-28 22:28:42	0|MarcoFalke|I did ;)
245 2017-11-28 22:28:47	0|Chris_Stewart_5|hah I thought it was you.
246 2017-11-28 22:29:22	0|Chris_Stewart_5|cfields: I'll look at that later and see if I can just use that hack instead of having to do all this extra work
247 2017-11-28 22:29:31	0|Chris_Stewart_5|thanks!
248 2017-11-28 22:29:59	0|cfields|Chris_Stewart_5: well it's pretty old, so I assume it's not enough
249 2017-11-28 22:30:21	0|cfields|(I was thinking you were testing with a stale distro package)
250 2017-11-28 22:34:26	0|cfields|yea, your commit includes the hack
251 2017-11-28 23:50:54	0|meshcollider|promag: are you here?
252 2017-11-28 23:51:00	0|promag|y
253 2017-11-28 23:51:15	0|meshcollider|re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11726/commits/75ae7453769517397df1020407bfa201121c5e31#r151863274 what do you mean by removing the default value?
254 2017-11-28 23:51:34	0|meshcollider|what would you suggest I put there instead?
255 2017-11-28 23:53:19	0|promag|I thought this was true: std::string GetArg(const std::string& strArg, const std::string& strDefault="") const;
256 2017-11-28 23:53:49	0|promag|Because your code is inside if (gArgs.IsArgSet("-walletdir") ...
257 2017-11-28 23:54:31	0|promag|So this would look better gArgs.GetArg("-walletdir")
258 2017-11-28 23:54:47	0|meshcollider|iirc GetArg didn't default to empty string?
259 2017-11-28 23:55:00	0|meshcollider|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/util.h#L229
260 2017-11-28 23:55:00	0|promag|right, it doesn't
261 2017-11-28 23:56:14	0|promag|it could be overloaded: std::string GetArg(const std::string& strArg) const; and there it would assert(IsSet(strArg))
262 2017-11-28 23:56:55	0|meshcollider|yeah true, probably out of scope for this PR though :)
263 2017-11-28 23:57:34	0|meshcollider|Also re: same PR, I'm unsure about the change you suggested to files.md, because even nodes running 0.16.0 will use the old file location if its an upgrade not a new install
264 2017-11-28 23:58:05	0|meshcollider|if I move it to a "Only used in pre-0.16.0" section, users may not realise that
265 2017-11-28 23:58:37	0|promag|you mean this https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11726/files#r153250209 ?
266 2017-11-28 23:58:51	0|promag|just say:
267 2017-11-28 23:58:57	0|meshcollider|yep
268 2017-11-28 23:59:19	0|promag|* db.log: wallet database log file; replaced by wallets/ directory in 0.16.0 for fresh installs?
269 2017-11-28 23:59:22	0|promag|or something?