1 2017-12-09 00:00:20	0|sipa|cluelessperson: use getmempoolentry RPC
 2 2017-12-09 00:03:03	0|cluelessperson|sipa: first I'd like to focus on getting the fee for every transaction in the last N blocks
 3 2017-12-09 00:03:17	0|sipa|there is no way to do that without txindex
 4 2017-12-09 00:03:28	0|sipa|(which is incompatible with pruning)
 5 2017-12-09 00:03:29	0|cluelessperson|sipa: what about the next block mined?
 6 2017-12-09 00:04:39	0|cluelessperson|sipa: If my software is just running, it can just check the transactions as they are being confirmed, before the UTXO is gone?
 7 2017-12-09 00:05:52	0|sipa|cluelessperson: no
 8 2017-12-09 00:06:25	0|sipa|you can for mempool transactions
 9 2017-12-09 00:06:28	0|sipa|but not for blocs
10 2017-12-09 00:06:30	0|cluelessperson|sipa: is there a way to get all the UTXOs that the current block deals with? like some sort of subscriptions?
11 2017-12-09 00:06:43	0|cluelessperson|sipa: my goal is to understand fees that go through, not just those waiting
12 2017-12-09 00:07:03	0|cluelessperson|I'm concerned that I'll miss things if I just watch for mempool transactions disappearing
13 2017-12-09 00:07:29	0|cluelessperson|sipa: unless! maybe I can measure mempool transactions, and then verify they went into the last block when they disappear?
14 2017-12-09 00:14:36	0|sipa|cluelessperson: won't work for all transactions
15 2017-12-09 00:14:46	0|sipa|some transactions are not seen until they appear in a block
16 2017-12-09 00:16:04	0|Sentineo|miner not broadcasting them? or somehow they get lost during transmit to my node sipa ?
17 2017-12-09 00:17:09	0|sipa|miners have full discretion about what transactions they put in blocks
18 2017-12-09 01:28:47	0|promag|jimpo: why not use std::queue for m_queue?
19 2017-12-09 01:30:34	0|jimpo|I need an iterator where elements can be erased for the Interrupt method
20 2017-12-09 01:30:49	0|jimpo|Originally was using deque, then I changed it
21 2017-12-09 01:35:46	0|promag|initially BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain can take a while right?
22 2017-12-09 01:43:16	0|jimpo|Not really, it should just return false until it's gotten in sync once, then it should process blocks pretty quickly after that
23 2017-12-09 03:12:20	0|agolx|I'd like to make my bitcoind collect any valid transaction and not evict things if it gets full. I know there's a max mem limit that you can increase, but is there a minimum fee setting somewhere? and is it configurable or do I have to modify a header and rebuild.
24 2017-12-09 03:12:21	0|agolx|thx
25 2017-12-09 03:18:23	0|agolx|@here
26 2017-12-09 03:24:47	0|sipa|agolx: -minrelayfee
27 2017-12-09 03:24:55	0|agolx|thanks
28 2017-12-09 03:25:06	0|agolx|works in the config file right?
29 2017-12-09 03:27:08	0|sipa|yes
30 2017-12-09 03:27:12	0|sipa|like every setting
31 2017-12-09 03:29:30	0|agolx|there are literally zero hits in source for minrelayfee
32 2017-12-09 03:29:36	0|agolx|so no
33 2017-12-09 03:31:01	0|aj|minrelaytxfee
34 2017-12-09 03:31:12	0|agolx|<3
35 2017-12-09 03:31:50	0|aj|also, apparently patches work better when you compile them
36 2017-12-09 03:32:56	0|agolx|are when yhou don't rm -rf your desktop like i did :)
37 2017-12-09 07:39:38	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11740: Implement BIP159 NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED (pruned peers) *signaling only* (06master...062017/11/NNL_signaling) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11740
38 2017-12-09 07:54:14	0|achow101|\o/
39 2017-12-09 09:38:22	0|mesh_|\o/
40 2017-12-09 14:02:44	0|cluelessperson|does bitcoin core support an "addrindex=1" ?
41 2017-12-09 16:43:40	0|instagibbs|cluelessperson, no, there are various efforts that add it internally or externally
42 2017-12-09 20:22:08	0|andytoshi|on regtest, under what conditions will `sendrawtransaction` silently succeed but the tx then not get confirmed by a `generate` call?
43 2017-12-09 20:25:26	0|sipa|andytoshi: what height are you at?
44 2017-12-09 20:26:02	0|andytoshi|sipa: 148
45 2017-12-09 20:27:20	0|andytoshi|my coins are 100 blocks old and i have prematurewitness on
46 2017-12-09 20:29:46	0|sipa|andytoshi: segwit only activates at block 432 iirc
47 2017-12-09 20:30:30	0|andytoshi|right, but with the -prematurewitness flag it should activate immediately, right?
48 2017-12-09 20:30:50	0|andytoshi|initially i was getting an RPC error no-witness-yet or something like that, and -prematurewitness made that error stop happening, so i think i'm in the clear
49 2017-12-09 20:32:07	0|andytoshi|i'll jump 1000 blocks forward and see what happens..
50 2017-12-09 20:32:11	0|arubi|do minrelaytxfee \ blockmintxfee behave the same on regtest?  maybe the fee is too low for the defaults?
51 2017-12-09 20:32:31	0|andytoshi|there's an explicit error when the fee is too low
52 2017-12-09 20:43:34	0|andytoshi|jumping forward 1000 blocks seems to fix it, i think this may be a bug (or a misunderstanding on my part) in what prematurewitness does
53 2017-12-09 20:43:45	0|andytoshi|i'll circle back, i've got another bug to chase down in my software..
54 2017-12-09 20:53:39	0|andytoshi|ok, got that. now jumping ahead 1000 vs 100 blocks at startup is the difference between my software's integration tests passing or failing. i guess it's just the segwit activation height then.
55 2017-12-09 20:54:13	0|andytoshi|thanks. if somebody familiar with -prematurewitness can comment on whether this sounds like a bug, i'll open an issue
56 2017-12-09 21:44:41	0|sipa|andytoshi: prematurewitness is just about the mempool, iirc
57 2017-12-09 21:50:18	0|foobar_|hi
58 2017-12-09 21:50:45	0|foobar_|does bitcoin rule or what
59 2017-12-09 21:51:20	0|foobar_|doesnt wtf bye
60 2017-12-09 21:53:22	0|sipa|andytoshi: yes, the block assembly code won't include segwit transactions until the rule is enforced by consensus