1 2017-12-12 00:29:04	0|pierre_rochard|Does each wallet in vpwallets have a unique identifier?
  2 2017-12-12 02:48:21	0|kallewoof|I had no idea nodes randomly rebroadcasted other people's transactions. Double spending is the only solution then. (Another case for RBF default on)
  3 2017-12-12 02:48:57	0|sipa|kallewoof: some sites do
  4 2017-12-12 02:49:05	0|sipa|though in general, nodes don't
  5 2017-12-12 02:49:13	0|sipa|there is nothing to prevent them to, though
  6 2017-12-12 02:49:31	0|sipa|and i think we'd be better off if there was some mempool synchronization that levelled the field
  7 2017-12-12 02:49:33	0|kallewoof|Just see no reason for them to do it.
  8 2017-12-12 02:50:19	0|kallewoof|Mempool synchronization? Like what?
  9 2017-12-12 02:51:46	0|phantomcircuit|sipa, there are nodes that rebroadcast transactions seemingly on a timer
 10 2017-12-12 02:52:00	0|gmaxwell|kallewoof: bitcoin core doesn't rebroadcast third party txn, but random bozos do, because they think they're helping in some cases, or because they want to pump up mempool stats. or god knows why
 11 2017-12-12 02:52:25	0|phantomcircuit|either way, transactions do not expire
 12 2017-12-12 02:52:39	0|gmaxwell|mempool sync is discussed some here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1377345.0
 13 2017-12-12 02:54:05	0|kallewoof|gmaxwell: Ohh, okay. Thanks! (I should be on bitcointalk more often I guess)
 14 2017-12-12 03:04:36	0|phantomcircuit|kallewoof, i'd generally advise against that unless you filter for pre 2014
 15 2017-12-12 03:19:54	0|kallewoof|phantomcircuit: I very rarely visit it, but it seems like it has a lot of in-depth discussion.
 16 2017-12-12 03:47:37	0|meshcollider|kallewoof: so much rubbish too though unfortunately
 17 2017-12-12 04:12:00	0|kallewoof|meshcollider: That's unfortunate.
 18 2017-12-12 04:38:36	0|sipa|kallewoof: i think i stopped frequenting bitcointalk in 2012 maybe
 19 2017-12-12 04:38:56	0|sipa|or 2013
 20 2017-12-12 04:39:06	0|gmaxwell|it's no worse than the mailing list now.
 21 2017-12-12 04:39:46	0|gmaxwell|actually, I think it's better. There are a lot of dull and repetative posts on both, but BCT more promptly gets replies directing people to the last 20 times the material was discussed.
 22 2017-12-12 04:59:08	0|kallewoof|Heh
 23 2017-12-12 07:26:57	0|Provoostenator|sipa: so both the minimum fee required to get in the mempool and to bump transactions are both set by minrelayfee, but because there's also an MB limit to the mempool per node, that determines the effective minimum for the former?
 24 2017-12-12 07:28:20	0|sipa|Provoostenator: run getmempoolinfo
 25 2017-12-12 07:29:25	0|sipa|if your mempool is full, it will report a nonzero minrelayfee
 26 2017-12-12 07:30:06	0|sipa|any time a transaction is kicked out of the mempool, the new relay fee is raised to the fee of what was kicked out
 27 2017-12-12 07:30:12	0|sipa|and then it decays slowly back to 0
 28 2017-12-12 07:30:35	0|Provoostenator|Ok, so it's more than an emergent property from the fact that low fees are kicked out.
 29 2017-12-12 07:34:29	0|sipa|the goal is to have it carefully actually track the lowest acceptable feerate for your mempool
 30 2017-12-12 07:34:39	0|sipa|which doesn't work if the mempool is always empty ;)
 31 2017-12-12 07:35:33	0|Provoostenator|If people change their mempool size to something not standard, doesn't that create a fingerprinting opportunity?
 32 2017-12-12 07:36:36	0|sipa|yup
 33 2017-12-12 07:37:10	0|sipa|nodes even communicate their approximate minimum feerate to each other
 34 2017-12-12 07:55:43	0|Provoostenator|sipa: I'm doing a fresh make clean and make now to see if I can reproduce the test error. I did that yesterday as well, but I wonder how reproducable it is.
 35 2017-12-12 07:56:06	0|sipa|Provoostenator: also wipe your test cache
 36 2017-12-12 07:56:19	0|sipa|(test/cache directory)
 37 2017-12-12 07:56:34	0|Provoostenator|Ah, why doesn't make clean do that?
 38 2017-12-12 07:56:44	0|sipa|because make clean removes the results of make
 39 2017-12-12 07:56:53	0|sipa|the test cache isn't produced by make
 40 2017-12-12 07:57:15	0|Provoostenator|make nuke?
 41 2017-12-12 07:57:32	0|sipa|PR's welcome :p
 42 2017-12-12 07:58:28	0|Provoostenator|I can try. Do have an objection to make clean doing this? Or should it be another command? I can't see why anyone would possibly want to keep the test cache around after running make clean.
 43 2017-12-12 07:59:51	0|sipa|cfields: opinions? ^
 44 2017-12-12 08:07:48	0|sipa|Provoostenator: did removing the cache help?
 45 2017-12-12 08:07:58	0|sipa|if that's the case, that's unexpected on its own
 46 2017-12-12 08:08:13	0|Provoostenator|sipa: my machine is not that fast; I'll tell you in 15 minutes or so :-)
 47 2017-12-12 08:08:27	0|Provoostenator|But I'd that's safe to assume.
 48 2017-12-12 08:08:59	0|Provoostenator|Oh ok, so the cache is supposed to be wiped? I'll see ifI can break that.
 49 2017-12-12 08:09:09	0|Provoostenator|I wish Github emails would should show the comment someone replied to, so it's easier to tell what "fixed" refers to. I'll stalk them.
 50 2017-12-12 08:09:12	0|sipa|no, wiping the cache _should not_ matter for this
 51 2017-12-12 08:09:37	0|sipa|i'm just saying that before jumping to conclusions, you should try to reproduce with an empty cache
 52 2017-12-12 08:09:51	0|Provoostenator|That's what I meant. I'll try if wiping helps, but it shouldn't. Make is running as we speak.
 53 2017-12-12 08:10:07	0|sipa|install ccache
 54 2017-12-12 08:10:13	0|Provoostenator|(I've learned not to assume stuff :-)
 55 2017-12-12 08:10:24	0|sipa|no need to recompile from scratch every time you switch branches
 56 2017-12-12 08:10:57	0|Provoostenator|Generally I don't recompile everything. In this case I just wanted to make sure everything was clean and it wasn't some build problem.
 57 2017-12-12 08:11:13	0|Provoostenator|I'll try ccache
 58 2017-12-12 08:11:52	0|sipa|if ccache is installed, configure will automatically detect and use it
 59 2017-12-12 08:11:58	0|Provoostenator|Any good tools that can leverage other machines (e.g. EC2 nodes) to speed op compilation?
 60 2017-12-12 08:12:18	0|sipa|distcc i guess, but i never really looked into that
 61 2017-12-12 08:12:47	0|sipa|it's fast enough on an octacore machine :)
 62 2017-12-12 08:13:16	0|Provoostenator|Don't make me quote CSW :-)
 63 2017-12-12 08:13:22	0|sipa|hahaha
 64 2017-12-12 08:27:09	0|Provoostenator|sipa: your comment about why self.nodes[0].generate(1) was needed just solved another mystery for me: https://medium.com/provoost-on-crypto/debugging-bitcoin-core-functional-tests-cc0aa6e7fd3e
 65 2017-12-12 08:30:00	0|Provoostenator|I'll see if I can make sync_mempools() throw a warning if you call it during IDB.
 66 2017-12-12 08:32:47	0|Provoostenator|And it would be nice to have a command to tell test nodes IDB is done without mining a block (cc jnewbery).
 67 2017-12-12 08:34:36	0|aj|Provoostenator: you mean IBD (initial block download), or is IDB something i don't know about?
 68 2017-12-12 08:34:58	0|Provoostenator|I need to stop making that typo. Yes, IBD, IDB is a record company :-)
 69 2017-12-12 08:35:38	0|Provoostenator|(or whatever it is)
 70 2017-12-12 08:57:48	0|Provoostenator|sipa: address_types.py passes now. I'll make a Github ticket next time I notice when removing test cache fixes a test.
 71 2017-12-12 09:11:28	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 4 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0e722e8879a8...c0902624b0ec
 72 2017-12-12 09:11:29	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142851b77 15Pieter Wuille: Make all script verification flags softforks
 73 2017-12-12 09:11:29	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142dd6f80 15Pieter Wuille: Add a test that all flags are softforks
 74 2017-12-12 09:11:30	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1401013f5 15Pieter Wuille: Simplify tx validation tests
 75 2017-12-12 09:11:43	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10699: Make all script validation flags backward compatible (06master...0620170628_softflags) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10699
 76 2017-12-12 09:15:01	0|sipa|o/
 77 2017-12-12 09:18:20	0|wumpus|\o
 78 2017-12-12 09:28:27	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1407c4838 15Matt Corallo: Always return true if AppInitMain got to the end...
 79 2017-12-12 09:28:27	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c0902624b0ec...d48ab83f0053
 80 2017-12-12 09:28:28	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d48ab83 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11831: Always return true if AppInitMain got to the end...
 81 2017-12-12 09:29:04	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11831: Always return true if AppInitMain got to the end (06master...062017-12-startup-exit-return-code-race) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11831
 82 2017-12-12 09:51:12	0|Provoostenator|p2p_full_blocktests failing on me with AssertionError: 1513072096.035577 <= 1513072096.086564
 83 2017-12-12 09:51:52	0|Provoostenator|Slightly differtent numbers is another run: 1513070202.4765592 <= 1513070202.517996
 84 2017-12-12 09:52:16	0|wumpus|uhoh
 85 2017-12-12 09:52:17	0|Provoostenator|(on the segwit branch, I'll try master as well)
 86 2017-12-12 09:52:44	0|wumpus|was it one of the recent commits?
 87 2017-12-12 09:53:09	0|Provoostenator|Most recent version #11403
 88 2017-12-12 09:53:15	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11403 | SegWit wallet support by sipa · Pull Request #11403 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 89 2017-12-12 09:54:14	0|Provoostenator|I am running make in another process, so maybe it's a timing thing?
 90 2017-12-12 09:54:21	0|Provoostenator|I'll play around with it.
 91 2017-12-12 09:54:59	0|Provoostenator|(make in another process, but also a different directory, so I mean perhaps heavy CPU / disk usage messes with the tests)
 92 2017-12-12 09:57:49	0|wumpus|tests failures due to timing are unfortunately quite common
 93 2017-12-12 10:05:43	0|wumpus|it passes here locally
 94 2017-12-12 10:05:48	0|wumpus|(on current master)
 95 2017-12-12 10:06:17	0|Provoostenator|Travis is happy too, so it's obviously not deterministic.
 96 2017-12-12 10:11:50	0|wumpus|yes I've been running it a few times on different hosts
 97 2017-12-12 10:18:14	0|Provoostenator|Are there any good tools to generate disk / cpu background usage? (other than running an Ethereum full node :-)
 98 2017-12-12 10:18:43	0|sipa|cpuburn
 99 2017-12-12 10:28:31	0|aj|wumpus: hey, i think i found a bug in the util unit test, that's been there since 2f7f2a in 2011; https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11862/commits/56ca063fd65e05b8b71fa5421592cb9f56cd4d09 (argc < length(argv), so non-option behaviour isn't actually tested)
100 2017-12-12 10:30:20	0|wumpus|aj: cool, please send a fix :)
101 2017-12-12 10:34:27	0|wumpus|Provoostenator: do you get it on master too?
102 2017-12-12 10:34:49	0|Provoostenator|wumpus: yes, just did
103 2017-12-12 10:35:17	0|terrence|I want to develop a wallet, how can I get the lowest level api, or interface? instead of existing wrapped apis
104 2017-12-12 10:38:29	0|wumpus|terrence: the lowest level would be to implement transaction serialization, deserialization, signing, as well as keeping the balance and unspent state up to date with the current status of the block chain yourself
105 2017-12-12 10:39:21	0|promag|wumpus: not sure if that is what he means
106 2017-12-12 10:40:00	0|promag|terrence: do you know bitcoind rpc interface?
107 2017-12-12 10:40:20	0|wumpus|promag: lol, let's leave that to them instead of arguing about it between us
108 2017-12-12 10:41:10	0|promag|heh, "existing wrapped apis" I guess he is talking about some client library or web api.. dunno... *flys away*
109 2017-12-12 10:43:17	0|promag|wumpus: should replace in Assert with annotation in #11515?
110 2017-12-12 10:43:19	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11515 | Assert cs_main is held when retrieving node state by promag · Pull Request #11515 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
111 2017-12-12 10:44:05	0|promag|or keep both?
112 2017-12-12 10:44:07	0|terrence|@promag  sorry, I dont know, I'm new to blockchain dev
113 2017-12-12 10:44:27	0|wumpus|promag: well BlueMatt has a point that if it can be checked compile time,there's no point doing it at run time
114 2017-12-12 10:44:55	0|wumpus|promag: personally I wouldn't remove the comment though
115 2017-12-12 10:45:09	0|wumpus|promag: 'this datastructure is protected by lock X' is useful information
116 2017-12-12 10:45:21	0|promag|terrence: see https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#remote-procedure-calls-rpcs for instance
117 2017-12-12 10:45:41	0|wumpus|however a GUARDED_BY annotation does the same
118 2017-12-12 10:45:48	0|wumpus|and is checked by the compiler, unlike a comment
119 2017-12-12 10:46:14	0|Provoostenator|Deleting cache doesn't help either. Getting this error quite consistently now.
120 2017-12-12 10:46:15	0|promag|yes, the comment is redundant
121 2017-12-12 10:46:22	0|wumpus|IF you add the annotation
122 2017-12-12 10:46:24	0|terrence|promag: thank you, how did you
123 2017-12-12 10:46:42	0|wumpus|I don't agree that the AssertLockHeld in one function makes the comment redundant
124 2017-12-12 10:47:06	0|terrence|I have so many questions that I cannot find on the internet...
125 2017-12-12 10:47:06	0|wumpus|locks protect data, not code
126 2017-12-12 10:47:51	0|wumpus|so the annotation or comment belongs at the data structure definition
127 2017-12-12 10:48:52	0|promag|terrence: you have to dig, learn, experiment.. you are not in the matrix
128 2017-12-12 10:49:28	0|promag|wumpus: what I meant is to keep the assert and replace the comment with the annotation
129 2017-12-12 10:49:56	0|wumpus|I'm ok with that
130 2017-12-12 10:50:07	0|promag|it conflicts with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11226/files#diff-eff7adeaec73a769788bb78858815c91R272
131 2017-12-12 10:50:12	0|terrence|promag: exactly, I'm new to blockchain, but I'm fascinated by blockchain
132 2017-12-12 10:50:31	0|wumpus|althoug in principle the assert is redundant when the annotation is there, but it doesn't hurt to have it so I don't find it worth a long discussion
133 2017-12-12 10:50:41	0|wumpus|better to be overcomplete here
134 2017-12-12 10:50:47	0|promag|terrence: then join #bitcoin instead
135 2017-12-12 10:51:42	0|promag|wumpus: I agree, if asserts can be removed when annotations are in place
136 2017-12-12 10:52:09	0|wumpus|promag: it's somewhat complicated because not all compilers check the annotations
137 2017-12-12 10:52:33	0|promag|so that's a +1 for assert
138 2017-12-12 10:53:45	0|terrence|promag: I did, seems no one active in there
139 2017-12-12 10:54:15	0|promag|terrence: try #bitcoin-dev
140 2017-12-12 10:54:36	0|wumpus|#bitcoin is the most busy channel in the bitcoin community,  if no one is active there you're just at the wrong time
141 2017-12-12 10:55:49	0|terrence|wumpus: okay... maybe wrong time
142 2017-12-12 10:58:07	0|promag|wumpus: if you're bored #11870
143 2017-12-12 10:58:08	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11870 | wallet: Remove unnecessary mempool lock in ReacceptWalletTransactions by promag · Pull Request #11870 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
144 2017-12-12 10:58:55	0|promag|pushed #11515
145 2017-12-12 10:58:56	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11515 | Assert cs_main is held when retrieving node state by promag · Pull Request #11515 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
146 2017-12-12 10:59:20	0|wumpus|I'm never bored
147 2017-12-12 10:59:30	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11354: Coins DB: Improve handling of FRESH child with non-DIRTY parent in CCoinsViewCa… (06master...06fix/batch-write-clean-parent-fresh-child) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11354
148 2017-12-12 11:00:07	0|wumpus|so many things to do and so little time/energy
149 2017-12-12 11:01:38	0|promag|wumpus: are you talking about 234 open PR's? :p
150 2017-12-12 11:01:45	0|wumpus|for ex.
151 2017-12-12 11:02:13	0|fanquake|The amount of stuff I see wumpus star on GH he must have about 5 side projects on the go
152 2017-12-12 11:02:56	0|wumpus|that's... about right :)
153 2017-12-12 11:03:44	0|fanquake|Plenty todo with graphics cards and their drivers/related software.
154 2017-12-12 11:21:19	0|promag|ah I guess you don't have kids
155 2017-12-12 11:24:05	0|promag|wumpus: "I think both ways should be supported for the foreseeable future, no need to deprecate anything right now" why keep legacy? in 3 releases it should not be there IMO
156 2017-12-12 11:24:39	0|wumpus|because we don't want to break people's software just because
157 2017-12-12 11:25:06	0|wumpus|the current way apparently works for everyone well. I kind of hate RPC PRs that break the interface just because the author likes some convention better.
158 2017-12-12 11:25:34	0|wumpus|I personally would prefer using arrays as well there but that doesn't mean that all previously written software that uses createrawtransaction shoudl break
159 2017-12-12 11:26:20	0|wumpus|it's just an alternative way of specifying the same data
160 2017-12-12 11:26:44	0|promag|I don't think overloading is that great
161 2017-12-12 11:27:00	0|wumpus|fine, I'll just NACK the whole change then
162 2017-12-12 11:27:20	0|promag|heh
163 2017-12-12 11:27:36	0|wumpus|keep the users in mind please
164 2017-12-12 11:28:51	0|promag|in these cases I tend to prefer new calls instead of overloading
165 2017-12-12 11:28:59	0|wumpus|which would be bs in this case
166 2017-12-12 11:37:27	0|meshcollider|which PR are you discussing
167 2017-12-12 11:38:07	0|meshcollider|oh, #11872 ?
168 2017-12-12 11:38:09	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11872 | [rpc] createrawtransaction: Accept sorted outputs by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #11872 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
169 2017-12-12 11:43:26	0|wumpus|FWIW in principle it is already possible to specify the order of outputs, but only if the client-side JSON library can emit ordered dictionaries. Python's can do this when you use Collections.OrderedDict() instead of a dictionary. The server-side (univalue) won't reorder dictionaries. But using an array is conforming to the spec instead of 'it happens to work'.
170 2017-12-12 12:10:31	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 5 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d48ab83f0053...ad1820cbad15
171 2017-12-12 12:10:32	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145fc6e71 15John Newbery: [tests] Add network_thread_ utility functions....
172 2017-12-12 12:10:32	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1474e64f2 15John Newbery: [tests] Use network_thread_start() in tests.
173 2017-12-12 12:10:33	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1434e08b3 15John Newbery: [tests] Fix network threading in functional tests...
174 2017-12-12 12:25:54	0|promag|wumpus: OrderedDict doesn't allow to test duplicate output address
175 2017-12-12 12:26:28	0|wumpus|promag: that's true :)
176 2017-12-12 12:26:41	0|promag|how would we test that atm?
177 2017-12-12 12:26:52	0|wumpus|promag: I think python will let you write a dictionary class that can hold duplicate keys
178 2017-12-12 12:27:33	0|promag|there is defaultdict
179 2017-12-12 12:27:38	0|wumpus|alternatively, write the query yourself, insert raw json somehow
180 2017-12-12 12:27:55	0|wumpus|defaultdict doesn't allow that afaik
181 2017-12-12 12:28:34	0|wumpus|what you'd want is a list-kind of class with a custom json serializer that serializes as object
182 2017-12-12 12:28:43	0|wumpus|not sure how to do that or whether it's even possible
183 2017-12-12 12:29:21	0|promag|raw it is
184 2017-12-12 12:38:24	0|wumpus|promag: this seems to work https://gist.github.com/laanwj/822e1d8684a7ffc20cf08156654b37f7
185 2017-12-12 12:38:33	0|Provoostenator|I forgot that I used ./configure --enable-debug. The weird test functional errors I described above when I remove that (followed by make clean && make). They issues come back when I set --enable-debug again.
186 2017-12-12 12:39:01	0|wumpus|Provoostenator: that's very strange
187 2017-12-12 12:39:19	0|Provoostenator|They also run a lot slower with debug enabled, so that might be related.
188 2017-12-12 12:39:27	0|wumpus|--enable-debug does make locking a lot slower, so if it's some kind of race condition, it could be triggered by that
189 2017-12-12 12:39:30	0|Provoostenator|I'll run again with jnewbery's latest commits you just merged
190 2017-12-12 12:39:30	0|wumpus|right.
191 2017-12-12 12:41:17	0|promag|wumpus: nice, are you going to add the test or mind I do?
192 2017-12-12 13:37:25	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 7 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ad1820cbad15...214046f69b19
193 2017-12-12 13:37:26	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1450701ba 15Matt Corallo: Move txindex/undo data disk location stuff out of ConnectBlock
194 2017-12-12 13:37:26	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1493a34cf 15Matt Corallo: Make DisconnectBlock unaware of where undo data resides on disk
195 2017-12-12 13:37:27	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e104f0f 15Matt Corallo: Move block writing out of AcceptBlock
196 2017-12-12 13:37:35	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10279: Add a CChainState class to validation.cpp to take another step towards clarifying internal interfaces (06master...062016-12-cconsensus) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10279
197 2017-12-12 13:56:53	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a720b92 15practicalswift: Remove includes in .cpp files for things the corresponding .h file already included
198 2017-12-12 13:56:53	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/214046f69b19...5d132e8b9746
199 2017-12-12 13:56:54	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145d132e8 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10574: Remove includes in .cpp files for things the corresponding .h file already included...
200 2017-12-12 13:57:06	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10574: Remove includes in .cpp files for things the corresponding .h file already included (06master...06redundant) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10574
201 2017-12-12 14:19:24	0|pierre_rochard|Does each wallet in vpwallets have a unique identifier? The class has GetName “for logging/debugging purposes” and there is the wallet’s vector index, not sure that I can rely on either of these
202 2017-12-12 14:21:30	0|promag|don't use the index
203 2017-12-12 14:21:42	0|promag|btw, what is the purpose?
204 2017-12-12 14:24:05	0|pierre_rochard|accounting in multi-wallet world - which addresses belong to which wallet
205 2017-12-12 14:25:17	0|promag|a wallet index can change
206 2017-12-12 14:25:34	0|promag|and a wallet name too, if you do rename the wallet
207 2017-12-12 14:26:15	0|promag|there is no embedded unique id in the wallet yet and don't know if there will be one
208 2017-12-12 14:26:25	0|pierre_rochard|ah so is the wallet name the file name? like wallet.dat?
209 2017-12-12 14:26:47	0|promag|yes
210 2017-12-12 14:26:58	0|pierre_rochard|If there won’t be an embedded unique ID then wallet name will have to suffice
211 2017-12-12 14:27:03	0|pierre_rochard|Thank you!
212 2017-12-12 14:27:22	0|promag|don't recall if it is the filename or filepath though
213 2017-12-12 15:01:53	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15promag opened pull request #11877: Improve createrawtransaction functional tests (06master...062017-12-createrawtransaction) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11877
214 2017-12-12 15:09:24	0|promag|wumpus: when you said "Something that I guess needs to be tested explicitly now" I thought you meant there should be a functional test :P
215 2017-12-12 15:10:03	0|wumpus|promag: adding tests is alwasys good
216 2017-12-12 15:13:06	0|wumpus|promag: but indeed I meant adding the check, which I didn't expect to be there yet
217 2017-12-12 15:14:23	0|promag|wumpus: btw, is it really necessary to be unique? in terms of specification, is it possible to have duplicate output address?
218 2017-12-12 15:14:54	0|promag|IIRC there is no restriction there
219 2017-12-12 15:15:10	0|wumpus|I don't think transaction validation prohibits it
220 2017-12-12 15:15:25	0|wumpus|but our software enforces it everywhere so it's good to be consistent
221 2017-12-12 15:15:44	0|promag|are we disallowing just because of the key/value parameter?
222 2017-12-12 15:16:00	0|promag|I should test in the UI..
223 2017-12-12 15:16:00	0|wumpus|no, because it's always been that way, also in the GUI
224 2017-12-12 15:16:08	0|promag|ah ok ty
225 2017-12-12 15:16:15	0|wumpus|there's no reason to do it so it's generally indicative of a bug
226 2017-12-12 15:17:01	0|promag|wumpus: why? I could split coins to the same private, no?
227 2017-12-12 15:17:11	0|wumpus|just makes the transaction bigger than it should be, to pay more fees
228 2017-12-12 15:17:26	0|wumpus|if you want to split, definitely use different keys
229 2017-12-12 15:17:54	0|promag|right, best practise there
230 2017-12-12 15:39:10	0|BlueMatt|promag: was asking about a quick rebase-then-merge on #11041, which I think would be a good idea
231 2017-12-12 15:39:13	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11041 | Add LookupBlockIndex by promag · Pull Request #11041 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
232 2017-12-12 15:39:28	0|BlueMatt|mostly cause it would help me re-implement/rebase #10692 in a cleaner way
233 2017-12-12 15:39:30	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10692 | Make mapBlockIndex and chainActive and all CBlockIndex*es const outside of validation/CChainState by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #10692 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
234 2017-12-12 15:39:57	0|BlueMatt|I think it has enough concept ack to merit that....promag, care to rebase?
235 2017-12-12 15:40:29	0|BlueMatt|I'll commit to reviewing it quick, and yelling at people to get it merged in a day or three
236 2017-12-12 15:42:10	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11403 | SegWit wallet support by sipa · Pull Request #11403 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
237 2017-12-12 15:45:24	0|instagibbs|re-re-review time eh
238 2017-12-12 15:58:03	0|R|Hey, is anyone active here?
239 2017-12-12 15:59:13	0|Guest89357|?
240 2017-12-12 16:02:47	0|Randolf|Guest89357:  There are many active folks here, but the discussions are usually focused on the development of the various facets of the Bitcoin project.
241 2017-12-12 16:02:59	0|Guest89357|Ok
242 2017-12-12 16:03:02	0|Guest89357|well
243 2017-12-12 16:03:18	0|Guest89357|I have a problem related to an old bitcoin core client
244 2017-12-12 16:03:32	0|Guest89357|I don't suppose you guys could help me out with it?
245 2017-12-12 16:03:47	0|Randolf|Guest89357:  For support, the #bitcoin channel is probably your best bet.
246 2017-12-12 16:04:00	0|wumpus|better to ask in #bitcoin, this is not a support but a development channel, read the topic please
247 2017-12-12 16:04:04	0|Guest89357|Ok
248 2017-12-12 16:04:13	0|Guest89357|sorry for bothering, will check that channel out!
249 2017-12-12 16:20:20	0|promag|BlueMatt: ok then
250 2017-12-12 16:21:26	0|promag|BlueMatt: later tonight (utc+0 here) I can do it
251 2017-12-12 16:21:43	0|BlueMatt|k, thanks
252 2017-12-12 16:29:56	0|ryanofsky|pierre_rochard, wallet files do have embedded identifiers, search for "get_fileid" in the code
253 2017-12-12 16:30:09	0|ryanofsky|but for your case, i think you probably better off using wallet filename, so users can understand & choose the id
254 2017-12-12 16:30:20	0|ryanofsky|also #11687 adds CWallet::m_name and should clarify things: see comment https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11687/commits/3dba60c313ae111492dafc3eb09f2c5044fb1b4d#diff-12635a58447c65585f51d32b7e04075bR724
255 2017-12-12 16:30:24	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11687 | External wallet files by ryanofsky · Pull Request #11687 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
256 2017-12-12 16:31:34	0|promag|ryanofsky: is get_fileid immutable?
257 2017-12-12 16:32:24	0|ryanofsky|not sure i understand but it's generated randomly, and we never change it but you can call an api to change it
258 2017-12-12 16:35:42	0|pierre_rochard|Thanks for the headsup ryanofsky - I’ll go with the wallet filename and will read through the PR
259 2017-12-12 16:35:52	0|promag|BlueMatt: I've updated the comment https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11866#pullrequestreview-82808956 which I think you misinterpreted
260 2017-12-12 16:40:41	0|bitcoinman55|how do i encrypt a wallet on linux? ubuntu 16.04
261 2017-12-12 16:40:56	0|bitcoinman55|is it possible with the gui or i'll have to do it with commands
262 2017-12-12 16:42:04	0|BlueMatt|promag: no, I dont think I did
263 2017-12-12 16:42:17	0|BlueMatt|promag: I think we shouldnt be doing the duplicative check at all
264 2017-12-12 16:42:31	0|BlueMatt|bitcoinman55: #bitcoin will probably help you more, but, yes, there should be a button somewhere
265 2017-12-12 16:43:02	0|promag|but for instance, in the case there is a conflict, you say it will fire TransactionRemovedFromMempool right?
266 2017-12-12 17:38:52	0|sipa|instagibbs: if addresstype is bech32, addmultisigaddress should give you a bech32 address
267 2017-12-12 17:39:27	0|sipa|and passing bech32 addresses for individual keys to addmultisigaddress should work fine
268 2017-12-12 17:39:52	0|instagibbs|oh hmmm, so it only complains if you default with a different kind?
269 2017-12-12 17:40:29	0|sipa|you can't pass a P2WSH address to addmultisigaddress
270 2017-12-12 17:40:40	0|sipa|because that is not an address that refers to a key
271 2017-12-12 17:40:54	0|instagibbs|oh did I get my wires crossed and try a p2wsh
272 2017-12-12 17:42:52	0|instagibbs|ah yeah, thought i was testing a p2pkh
273 2017-12-12 17:44:05	0|instagibbs|still returning me a nested p2sh
274 2017-12-12 17:44:08	0|instagibbs|fwiw
275 2017-12-12 17:44:25	0|instagibbs|oh nevermind, typo in startup
276 2017-12-12 17:48:28	0|instagibbs|all comments retracted :) good work
277 2017-12-12 18:01:22	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery opened pull request #11879: [tests] remove redundant univalue_tests.cpp (06master...06remove_univalue_test) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11879
278 2017-12-12 18:04:12	0|sipa|Provoostenator: aha, snoei
279 2017-12-12 18:05:10	0|Provoostenator|I just got a new machine, so it's a good opportunity to see if any dependencies are missing in the docs...
280 2017-12-12 18:05:26	0|Provoostenator|Having some issues with make deploy not showing the icons.
281 2017-12-12 18:11:32	0|Provoostenator|Fixed by reboot, nvm.
282 2017-12-12 18:35:29	0|BlueMatt|hmm, re: #11873 I'm curious if anyone would maintain it or if it'd just die compared to travis where we at least theoretically work to fix failures
283 2017-12-12 18:35:30	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11873 | Visual studio Build setup for CI · Issue #11873 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
284 2017-12-12 18:35:52	0|BlueMatt|but it looks like its just a simple travis clone thinggy that runs windows vms instead of linux and is free for oss
285 2017-12-12 18:37:10	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: eh didn't the person more or less commit to maintaining MSVC support for forseeable future?
286 2017-12-12 18:37:38	0|wumpus|it was one of the first things I asked
287 2017-12-12 18:38:19	0|wumpus|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11526#issuecomment-338163039
288 2017-12-12 18:39:34	0|BlueMatt|oh heh
289 2017-12-12 18:39:50	0|BlueMatt|so we are gonna add this other travis-y thing to bitcoin/bitcoin?
290 2017-12-12 18:40:36	0|BlueMatt|#11854 could prolly get merged
291 2017-12-12 18:40:38	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11854 | Split up key and script metadata for better type safety by ryanofsky · Pull Request #11854 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
292 2017-12-12 18:41:06	0|sipa|?
293 2017-12-12 18:42:24	0|BlueMatt|as in I'd like to see segwit wallet built on 11854, given it was partially the result of my review comments :p
294 2017-12-12 18:42:40	0|sipa|oh, no opinion there
295 2017-12-12 18:42:49	0|sipa|i'll gladly rebase if it's merged first
296 2017-12-12 18:44:34	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: yes I think it's basically good to go, there was some discussion about where to put the MSVC build system that I didn't read in detail yet
297 2017-12-12 18:45:26	0|BlueMatt|ah cool
298 2017-12-12 18:46:53	0|BlueMatt|also #11870 could probably be merged
299 2017-12-12 18:46:55	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11870 | wallet: Remove unnecessary mempool lock in ReacceptWalletTransactions by promag · Pull Request #11870 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
300 2017-12-12 18:47:39	0|wumpus|ok
301 2017-12-12 18:58:17	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 149c8eca7 15Russell Yanofsky: Split up key and script metadata for better type safety...
302 2017-12-12 18:58:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5d132e8b9746...22149540f9e7
303 2017-12-12 18:58:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142214954 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11854: Split up key and script metadata for better type safety...
304 2017-12-12 18:58:48	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11854: Split up key and script metadata for better type safety (06master...06pr/scriptmet) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11854
305 2017-12-12 19:04:47	0|BlueMatt|sipa: segwit wallet needs rebase :p
306 2017-12-12 19:05:26	0|sipa|BlueMatt: already on it
307 2017-12-12 19:09:47	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: do you mind rebasing #11281 before review? Its kind confusing when some code added in intermediary commits is likely to be removed during rebase
308 2017-12-12 19:09:50	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11281 | Avoid permanent cs_main/cs_wallet lock during RescanFromTime by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #11281 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
309 2017-12-12 19:10:01	0|jonasschnelli|Oh. It needs rebase.. yes. Let me do that
310 2017-12-12 19:10:40	0|jonasschnelli|BlueMatt: You mean cleanup the commit history?
311 2017-12-12 19:10:55	0|jonasschnelli|The last two commits need squashing... can do now
312 2017-12-12 19:17:40	0|BlueMatt|yes, squash
313 2017-12-12 19:17:41	0|BlueMatt|thanks
314 2017-12-12 19:19:26	0|sipa|BlueMatt: done
315 2017-12-12 19:26:26	0|jonasschnelli|BlueMatt: here you go: #11281
316 2017-12-12 19:26:29	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11281 | Avoid permanent cs_main/cs_wallet lock during RescanFromTime by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #11281 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
317 2017-12-12 19:26:46	0|BlueMatt|thanks
318 2017-12-12 19:27:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145b25293 15João Barbosa: wallet: Remove unnecessary mempool lock in ReacceptWalletTransactions
319 2017-12-12 19:27:18	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/22149540f9e7...ef8ba7d73a48
320 2017-12-12 19:27:19	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ef8ba7d 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11870: wallet: Remove unnecessary mempool lock in ReacceptWalletTransactions...
321 2017-12-12 19:27:55	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11870: wallet: Remove unnecessary mempool lock in ReacceptWalletTransactions (06master...062017-12-reaccept-wallet-transactions) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11870
322 2017-12-12 19:35:07	0|jonasschnelli|BlueMatt: thanks for reviewing #10387, what do you think about https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10387#issuecomment-343357330
323 2017-12-12 19:35:10	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10387 | Eventually connect to NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED peers by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #10387 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
324 2017-12-12 19:43:08	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: yes my comment was in response to gmaxwell's comment
325 2017-12-12 19:44:17	0|jonasschnelli|BlueMatt: overlooked that comment. Thanks
326 2017-12-12 19:46:05	0|cfields|BlueMatt: woohoo @ #10279!
327 2017-12-12 19:46:07	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10279 | Add a CChainState class to validation.cpp to take another step towards clarifying internal interfaces by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #10279 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
328 2017-12-12 19:47:28	0|BlueMatt|cfields: heh, lol, yea
329 2017-12-12 19:47:49	0|BlueMatt|next is #10692, but want to rebase on #11041 first
330 2017-12-12 19:47:50	0|cfields|BlueMatt: that was much easier to review than I anticipated. Sorry for just getting to it.
331 2017-12-12 19:47:50	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10692 | Make mapBlockIndex and chainActive and all CBlockIndex*es const outside of validation/CChainState by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #10692 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
332 2017-12-12 19:47:52	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11041 | Add LookupBlockIndex by promag · Pull Request #11041 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
333 2017-12-12 19:48:24	0|cfields|BlueMatt: could i convince you to do a quick PR to rename the class members? They're really confusing atm.
334 2017-12-12 19:49:35	0|BlueMatt|cfields: I mean you can do it, 10692 needs a *ton* of rebase, so I dont have anything important built on top of it
335 2017-12-12 19:50:17	0|cfields|ok
336 2017-12-12 19:53:25	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery opened pull request #11881: [WIP] [concept] Remove Python2 support (06master...06remove_python2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11881
337 2017-12-12 20:43:25	0|jnewbery|Provoostenator: Your p2p-fullblocktest.py failures are due to timeouts. The assert message isn't very helpful but if you look down the stack you'll see that it's a timeout
338 2017-12-12 20:43:48	0|jnewbery|most likely because the re-org test at the end of p2p-fullblocktest.py isn't completing within the required 60 seconds
339 2017-12-12 20:44:14	0|jnewbery|Take a look at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11632 and see if the suggested change helps you
340 2017-12-12 20:44:39	0|jnewbery|instagibbs: achow101: did that change fix it for you?
341 2017-12-12 20:45:35	0|jnewbery|I've also completely refactored that test in #11773. Any review of those PRs, starting with #11771 would be greatly appreciated
342 2017-12-12 20:45:36	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11771 | [tests] Change invalidtxrequest to use BitcoinTestFramework by jnewbery · Pull Request #11771 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
343 2017-12-12 20:45:36	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11773 | [tests] Change p2p-fullblocktest to use BitcoinTestFramework by jnewbery · Pull Request #11773 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
344 2017-12-12 20:46:50	0|instagibbs|the refactor of the test fixed it yes
345 2017-12-12 20:49:39	0|achow101|jnewbery: 11773 fixed it for me
346 2017-12-12 21:00:27	0|jnewbery|great. Thanks!
347 2017-12-12 22:41:01	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #11882: Improve fallback fee situations (06master...062017/12/feeest_readyness) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11882
348 2017-12-12 23:11:32	0|meshcollider|jnewbery: is there anything wrong with modifying bitcoin.conf in run_test() or should that only be done in setup_chain() ?
349 2017-12-12 23:20:55	0|jnewbery|meshcollider: by default, the test_framework will start your nodes in self.setup_nodes(), which is called *before* run_test() begins. That means if you don't restart your bitcoin nodes, then they won't see any changes in bitcoin.conf that you make in run_test()
350 2017-12-12 23:21:45	0|jnewbery|If you're stop-starting nodes and expect them to pick up changes in bitcoin.conf, then I see no problem with changing it in run_test().
351 2017-12-12 23:22:22	0|jnewbery|You can get the datadir with the datadir variable in TestNode
352 2017-12-12 23:22:45	0|jonasschnelli|Travis lacks a couple of PRs behind... I wonder if we once have that situation continues, all it requires is a new PR / PR push every 2hs.
353 2017-12-12 23:25:39	0|meshcollider|jnewbery: ok sweet, thanks
354 2017-12-12 23:59:30	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MeshCollider opened pull request #11883: Add configuration file/argument testing (06master...06201712_datadir_tests) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11883