1 2018-01-04 00:00:16 0|achow101|Is this possibly a concern for us: https://meltdownattack.com/?
2 2018-01-04 00:00:31 0|achow101|At least it's certainly another reason to stop using Intel CPUs...
3 2018-01-04 00:07:31 0|TD-Linux|I don't think there are any obvious mitigations that bitcoin core can do that it doesn't already (like keeping unencrypted keys in memory for short times)
4 2018-01-04 00:08:26 0|promag|macos not affected?
5 2018-01-04 00:08:37 0|achow101|promag: it's a hardware bug, all OSes affected
6 2018-01-04 00:09:04 0|promag|sorry, there is "os x" reference there
7 2018-01-04 00:09:15 0|TD-Linux|apple has been silent so far. but you can assume that it's affected and not patched.
8 2018-01-04 00:09:29 0|promag|right
9 2018-01-04 00:10:04 0|achow101|"There are patches against Meltdown for Linux ( KPTI (formerly KAISER)), Windows, and OS X."
10 2018-01-04 00:18:06 0|phantomcircuit|TD-Linux, only thing to do is detect the failure and exit
11 2018-01-04 00:18:11 0|phantomcircuit|but even that is basically useless
12 2018-01-04 00:19:09 0|TD-Linux|all of the large VM providers are already patched, so I don't think there is any useful action to take.
13 2018-01-04 00:19:30 0|echeveria|TD-Linux: EC2 has scheduled forced reboots on the 5th.
14 2018-01-04 00:27:18 0|TD-Linux|I haven't gotten a notification for mine yet.
15 2018-01-04 00:29:06 0|megan_|Hi i am new baby in bitcoin development Please let me know how to get started in initial development
16 2018-01-04 00:30:52 0|promag|megan_: https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-documentation
17 2018-01-04 00:32:26 0|promag|consider this: generate(20) -> invalidateblock(#10) -> invalidateblock(#5) -> reconsiderblock(#5)
18 2018-01-04 00:32:29 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10 | Add address to listtransactions output by gavinandresen ÷ Pull Request #10 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
19 2018-01-04 00:32:30 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/5 | Make the version number the protocol version and not the client version ÷ Issue #5 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
20 2018-01-04 00:32:32 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/5 | Make the version number the protocol version and not the client version ÷ Issue #5 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
21 2018-01-04 00:32:37 0|promag|err
22 2018-01-04 00:32:58 0|promag|then getblockcount == 20
23 2018-01-04 00:33:48 0|promag|is this fine?
24 2018-01-04 00:40:08 0|megan_|promag: Thank you for support
25 2018-01-04 00:43:33 0|megan_|How to connect bitcoin exchange in open source any idea
26 2018-01-04 00:44:39 0|promag|megan_: wrong channel
27 2018-01-04 00:49:35 0|achow101|I'm slightly confused by hdmasterkeyid
28 2018-01-04 00:50:07 0|achow101|when I calculate the id of the master key I keep getting a different id than the one reported by the wallet
29 2018-01-04 00:51:06 0|megan_|promag: Please let me know what type of channel i need to follow
30 2018-01-04 00:52:13 0|promag|megan_: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/IRC_channels
31 2018-01-04 01:01:45 0|megan_|Promag: Thank you very much for support i will read get back
32 2018-01-04 01:05:23 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15promag opened pull request #12083: Improve getchaintxstats test coverage (06master...062018-01-getchaintxstats) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12083
33 2018-01-04 01:06:03 0|promag|sipa: please see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12083/commits/05c9591752256566c337ca45071648ceb9f63110 whenever you can
34 2018-01-04 01:06:52 0|promag|and #12083 btw
35 2018-01-04 01:06:53 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12083 | Improve getchaintxstats test coverage by promag ÷ Pull Request #12083 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
36 2018-01-04 05:01:43 0|Satoshi|When are you going to release a fork to lower transaction fees...it's becoming useless
37 2018-01-04 05:09:43 0|molz|Satoshi, forks are useless, and you're in the wrong channel
38 2018-01-04 05:11:59 0|Randolf|Satoshi: I suggest asking about that in the #bitcoin channel.
39 2018-01-04 05:14:44 0|Satoshi|Any updates on lightning network?
40 2018-01-04 07:04:23 0|Onmylevel25|Help
41 2018-01-04 07:05:27 0|Onmylevel25|-
42 2018-01-04 07:05:30 0|Onmylevel25|I
43 2018-01-04 07:59:19 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 146dda059 15251: [qt] Simplifies boolean expression model && model->haveWatchOnly()...
44 2018-01-04 07:59:19 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c991b304dee3...a1136f0cb449
45 2018-01-04 07:59:20 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a1136f0 15Jonas Schnelli: Merge #12074: [qt] Optimizes boolean expression model && model->haveWatchOnly()...
46 2018-01-04 08:00:09 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #12074: [qt] Optimizes boolean expression model && model->haveWatchOnly() (06master...06patch/TransactionView-optimize-boolean-expression) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12074
47 2018-01-04 08:16:37 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a1136f0cb449...eeb6d5271de3
48 2018-01-04 08:16:38 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14275b2ee 15William Casarin: [qt] change õBTC to bits...
49 2018-01-04 08:16:38 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ebcee1d 15William Casarin: bips: add bip176 (Bits Denomination)...
50 2018-01-04 08:16:39 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14eeb6d52 15Jonas Schnelli: Merge #12035: [qt] change õBTC to bits...
51 2018-01-04 08:17:17 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #12035: [qt] change õBTC to bits (06master...06qt-bits) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12035
52 2018-01-04 08:23:22 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14aad3090 15Jeff Rade: [rpc] Adding ::minRelayTxFee amount to getmempoolinfo and updating mempoolminfee help description
53 2018-01-04 08:23:22 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/eeb6d5271de3...a9a49e6e7e8d
54 2018-01-04 08:23:23 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a9a49e6 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12001: [RPC] Adding ::minRelayTxFee amount to getmempoolinfo and updating help...
55 2018-01-04 08:23:58 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12001: [RPC] Adding ::minRelayTxFee amount to getmempoolinfo and updating help (06master...06update_mempoolminfee_help_details) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12001
56 2018-01-04 10:41:42 0|wumpus|BlueMatt: luke-jr: making the tarball include all git files was discussed a few files already, I think everyone is okay with that in principle, it's just hard to unify with the 'make dist' makefile-isms
57 2018-01-04 10:42:18 0|wumpus|*I mean not include the git files, but all files from the repository
58 2018-01-04 10:55:00 0|aj|wumpus: thoughts on getting #11796 merged?
59 2018-01-04 10:55:03 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11796 | [tests] Functional test naming convention by ajtowns ÷ Pull Request #11796 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
60 2018-01-04 10:59:08 0|wumpus|aj: at the moment I'm trying to save #11403 from having to be rebased again by not merging any all-over-the-place changes/renames
61 2018-01-04 10:59:14 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11403 | SegWit wallet support by sipa ÷ Pull Request #11403 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
62 2018-01-04 11:00:45 0|wumpus|but after that, sure
63 2018-01-04 11:05:12 0|wumpus|zelest: seems we just disagree
64 2018-01-04 11:05:51 0|zelest|Not saying my changes are correct, just explaining why I made them. :)
65 2018-01-04 11:08:34 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15bodapanxu opened pull request #12087: mycoin (06master...06master) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12087
66 2018-01-04 11:09:31 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12087: mycoin (06master...06master) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12087
67 2018-01-04 11:09:37 0|wumpus|^^ those kind of spurious PRs are the only kind that really annoy me
68 2018-01-04 11:09:42 0|zelest|I just wish to remove as much clutter as possible when it comes to documentations. :)
69 2018-01-04 11:09:51 0|zelest|hehe
70 2018-01-04 11:10:08 0|wumpus|I agree, but I don't think it's clutter, just try to move it to a place it won't be in the way when just following the guide
71 2018-01-04 11:10:50 0|wumpus|we don't have the capacity to act as tech support so anything that pre-empts issues that people might have is a win
72 2018-01-04 11:11:00 0|zelest|Yeah, but the clang thing.. why does the user need to know what the compiler is capable of since what version of openbsd? :)
73 2018-01-04 11:11:25 0|wumpus|you could shorten it, the point is that people are bound to forget the CC=cc CXX=c++ thing
74 2018-01-04 11:11:42 0|wumpus|if they do, they end up in a situation where e.g. berkeleydb is built using gcc, and bitcoind using clang
75 2018-01-04 11:11:49 0|wumpus|then they'll have linker errors
76 2018-01-04 11:11:59 0|zelest|hmms, yeah, true
77 2018-01-04 11:12:27 0|wumpus|the underlying issue is that openbsd 6.2 still has the gcc compiler, if it didn't, this wouldn't be an issue at all. Maybe for the next release it'll really go away?
78 2018-01-04 11:12:41 0|wumpus|but for now, as long as gcc 4.2 is still installed, we need it
79 2018-01-04 11:13:05 0|zelest|it will probably be there for quite some time
80 2018-01-04 11:13:22 0|zelest|the whole ports tree and all the different architectures they build on
81 2018-01-04 11:13:31 0|wumpus|and automake/autoconf tends to choose gcc over cc if it can
82 2018-01-04 11:13:38 0|wumpus|which is terrible in this specific case
83 2018-01-04 11:19:30 0|zelest|yeah, i should've based my changes on your pull request, like you initially said...
84 2018-01-04 11:19:42 0|zelest|oh well, at least I've learned a bit more how github works now :)
85 2018-01-04 11:21:20 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15bodapanxu opened pull request #12088: mycoin/dash (06master...06master) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12088
86 2018-01-04 11:22:08 0|wdev01|HELP
87 2018-01-04 11:25:59 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #12088: mycoin/dash (06master...06master) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12088
88 2018-01-04 11:31:40 0|aj|wumpus: sounds sensible :)
89 2018-01-04 11:33:08 0|wumpus|because of the spurious PRs I've blocked bodapanxu from the bitcoin org for now, please let me know
90 2018-01-04 11:33:31 0|wumpus|if he comes up with a valid reason then I'll remove them from the list again
91 2018-01-04 12:08:53 0|fazec|hey peeps
92 2018-01-04 12:09:24 0|fazec|I was trying to hard fork the main bitcoin chain today with https://github.com/SegwitB2X/bitcoin2x/ that fork
93 2018-01-04 12:09:39 0|fazec|I learned about syncing and forking at a certain height
94 2018-01-04 12:09:51 0|fazec|I specified the params in src/chainparams.cpp
95 2018-01-04 12:10:14 0|fazec|but still it's giving me a lot of errors such as 2018-01-04 12:07:30 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: Consensus:âââ :ContextualCheckBlockHeader: 0000000000000000008c8f2437dâââ 13a70632eb9e5ece259f2f96d03cac3ae5c84, not-hardfork, incâââ orrect block version (code 16)
96 2018-01-04 12:10:27 0|fazec|Anyone?
97 2018-01-04 12:15:23 0|wumpus|forks are offtopic here, try #bitcoin-forks
98 2018-01-04 12:15:59 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c9439e7 15Akira Takizawa: [Trivial] Update license year range to 2018
99 2018-01-04 12:15:59 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a9a49e6e7e8d...36a5a4404836
100 2018-01-04 12:16:00 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1436a5a44 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12063: [Trivial] Update license year range to 2018...
101 2018-01-04 12:16:37 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12063: [Trivial] Update license year range to 2018 (06master...062018-license) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12063
102 2018-01-04 12:19:01 0|Varunram|wumpus: What is the possibility of a testnet seed connecting to a bitcoin abc seed?
103 2018-01-04 12:19:28 0|Varunram|Asking this because I happened to connect to Peter Todd's seed and got redirected to an abc seed
104 2018-01-04 12:19:43 0|wumpus|redirected?
105 2018-01-04 12:20:04 0|wumpus|DNS seeds shouldn't redirect at all
106 2018-01-04 12:22:11 0|Varunram|hm, bad language on my part I guess. So a related question would be what actually happens when I try to connect to a testnet seed? (you can answer at #bitcoin if its off-topic :) )
107 2018-01-04 12:24:12 0|wumpus|in principle the DNS seeders should avoid reporting nodes that are on forks, but in the current implementation this is based on service bits, they don't actually (Afaik) check what chain they're on
108 2018-01-04 12:26:34 0|Varunram|oh, alright. Weird thing was it didn't spawn an error (might be someone messing with the banner). Our fault I guess. Thanks!
109 2018-01-04 13:12:54 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #12089: qa: Don't remember TestNodeCLI options between calls (06master...06Mf1801-qaCliOptions) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12089
110 2018-01-04 13:16:07 0|fanquake|wumpus With the amount of forks I'm surprised we don't see more of those prs
111 2018-01-04 13:19:55 0|Varunram|fanquake: The problem is, anybody can compare the diffs and PR..
112 2018-01-04 13:20:53 0|Varunram|i.e. they needn't fork the fork's repo
113 2018-01-04 14:11:24 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c99a3c3 15Anthony Towns: [tests] util_tests.cpp: actually check ignored args...
114 2018-01-04 14:11:24 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/36a5a4404836...ddff3447f29b
115 2018-01-04 14:11:25 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ddff344 15MarcoFalke: Merge #11997: [tests] util_tests.cpp: actually check ignored args...
116 2018-01-04 14:12:02 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #11997: [tests] util_tests.cpp: actually check ignored args (06master...06parseparam-fix) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11997
117 2018-01-04 14:13:36 0|luke-jr|why did Bech32 completely omit P2SH^2 stuff? :/
118 2018-01-04 14:35:03 0|sdaftuar|luke-jr: not sure if my memory is failing me, but i believe p2wsh uses a single sha256 of the script, no?
119 2018-01-04 14:35:37 0|sdaftuar|(anyway this is the first i've heard of the p2sh^2 idea, so i can't comment on your question generally)
120 2018-01-04 14:36:45 0|sipa|i don't think relying on relay policy to prevent data storage is very realistic
121 2018-01-04 14:37:07 0|sipa|at best it will make miners create websites where you can submit things
122 2018-01-04 14:37:10 0|luke-jr|relay+miner policy; realistic or not, having it as an option is helpful
123 2018-01-04 14:38:18 0|luke-jr|it might not help much with our current problems, but in the future it could become valuable
124 2018-01-04 14:39:25 0|luke-jr|sdaftuar: elaborated more on my bitcoin-dev post; from the BIP, it doesn't seem to use single SHA256
125 2018-01-04 14:42:07 0|sipa|luke-jr: it's also fundamentally incompatible with one of bech32's design goal: being forward compatible with future witness versions that may use dofferent hashing schemes
126 2018-01-04 14:42:15 0|sipa|*different
127 2018-01-04 14:43:37 0|luke-jr|sipa: but not forward compatible with this scheme :x
128 2018-01-04 14:44:01 0|luke-jr|what if we define the first decoded data value being 17 or 18, to P2SH^2 modes?
129 2018-01-04 14:44:27 0|luke-jr|or something like that
130 2018-01-04 14:44:42 0|sipa|meh, that would be possible, but won't be extensible to newer witness versions (which i exoect will be proposed soon anyway)
131 2018-01-04 14:45:27 0|luke-jr|could do 17 to indicate "additionally SHA256 hash", 18 to indicate "additionally RIPEMD160 hash", and then have a byte following it be the witness version
132 2018-01-04 15:00:44 0|luke-jr|ugh, GitHub requires JS for opening PRs :<
133 2018-01-04 15:48:23 0|promag|sipa: do you think it makes sense to return the number of processed characters in base_blob::SexHex?
134 2018-01-04 16:05:35 0|provoostenator|luke-jr: you could probably use the Github API
135 2018-01-04 16:14:45 0|ryanofsky|you can do it with a curl command, see https://developer.github.com/v3/pulls/#create-a-pull-request https://gist.github.com/caspyin/2288960
136 2018-01-04 19:00:52 0|promag|meeting?
137 2018-01-04 19:01:07 0|achow101|meeting?
138 2018-01-04 19:01:09 0|provoostenator|meeting?
139 2018-01-04 19:01:18 0|meshcollider|meeting?
140 2018-01-04 19:01:26 0|jonasschnelli|meeting?
141 2018-01-04 19:01:38 0|Chris_Stewart_5|fake news?
142 2018-01-04 19:01:47 0|jonasschnelli|Maybe wumpus is still on vacation...
143 2018-01-04 19:01:58 0|cfields|iirc he said he wouldn't be around for 2 meetings
144 2018-01-04 19:02:11 0|jonasschnelli|Okay... then lets start
145 2018-01-04 19:02:14 0|jonasschnelli|#startmeeting
146 2018-01-04 19:02:14 0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Jan 4 19:02:13 2018 UTC. The chair is jonasschnelli. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
147 2018-01-04 19:02:14 0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
148 2018-01-04 19:02:33 0|jonasschnelli|Meeting request: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag
149 2018-01-04 19:02:38 0|jonasschnelli|Any topics?
150 2018-01-04 19:02:43 0|kanzure|hi.
151 2018-01-04 19:02:53 0|instagibbs|hi
152 2018-01-04 19:02:58 0|cfields|yet another quick codesigning update
153 2018-01-04 19:03:07 0|jonasschnelli|#topic code signing
154 2018-01-04 19:03:41 0|cfields|I've got the csr patching worked out, and gmaxwell is currently working on documenting the keygen process
155 2018-01-04 19:03:54 0|jonasschnelli|nice!
156 2018-01-04 19:04:05 0|cfields|Ideally we'd get that worked out in the next few days
157 2018-01-04 19:04:35 0|jonasschnelli|Good. I think there is no need for rush things,... ideally, we would have the new cert for the 0.16 (or say 16.) release
158 2018-01-04 19:04:37 0|cfields|jonasschnelli: is apple's signing process automated and pretty quick, i hope?
159 2018-01-04 19:04:49 0|achow101|Do we have a new Apple cert? It expires in a few days
160 2018-01-04 19:04:51 0|cfields|jonasschnelli: well the current cert expires on the 11
161 2018-01-04 19:04:53 0|jonasschnelli|cfields: once we have the csr, ... it's a matter of seconds
162 2018-01-04 19:05:06 0|meshcollider|achow101: we don't need it until 0.16
163 2018-01-04 19:05:07 0|jonasschnelli|achow101: expiring only matter for new binaries
164 2018-01-04 19:05:11 0|cfields|it's not a huge issue as we're not ready to release yet, ofc
165 2018-01-04 19:05:18 0|cfields|right
166 2018-01-04 19:05:23 0|achow101|meshcollider: jonasschnelli right, duh
167 2018-01-04 19:05:31 0|cfields|I'd still like to avoid a lapse if possible, though
168 2018-01-04 19:05:48 0|cfields|note that we also have the actual signing process to deal with
169 2018-01-04 19:05:49 0|achow101|although sooner is better. otherwise it becomes a release blocker
170 2018-01-04 19:05:49 0|jonasschnelli|yes. In "emergency" cases, we can still create a single-person RSA cert...
171 2018-01-04 19:06:12 0|cfields|luckily I hacked up the mac codesigner last year, but it needs a bit of polish
172 2018-01-04 19:06:27 0|jonasschnelli|achow101: Yes. Though we have the fallback doing the same as we already did (single person RSA cert)
173 2018-01-04 19:07:02 0|jonasschnelli|How about Windows?
174 2018-01-04 19:07:04 0|cfields|the only snag is that it doesn't handle timestamping. So worst-case, we may do a non-timestamped 0.16. It could be followed up with a timestamped release once that's worked out
175 2018-01-04 19:07:24 0|jonasschnelli|Timestamping of what?
176 2018-01-04 19:07:33 0|cfields|imo we should go ahead and do Windows once we've gone though the process for osx and identified the kinks
177 2018-01-04 19:08:05 0|jonasschnelli|I have no insights how Windows code signing works... but probably the same RSA approach could be taken, right?
178 2018-01-04 19:08:11 0|cfields|windows uses a free/open-source signer though, so that's no concern
179 2018-01-04 19:08:26 0|cfields|yea, ideally we'd use the same procedure for both
180 2018-01-04 19:09:00 0|cfields|it's possible that it's just an hour's worth of work. I just haven't looked into apple's timestamping mechanism yet
181 2018-01-04 19:10:00 0|cfields|ok, that's it from me
182 2018-01-04 19:10:13 0|jonasschnelli|thanks for the update! Thanks for working on this cfields
183 2018-01-04 19:10:17 0|jonasschnelli|Any other topics?
184 2018-01-04 19:10:40 0|achow101|coin selection
185 2018-01-04 19:10:53 0|Murch|Hi :)
186 2018-01-04 19:10:54 0|jonasschnelli|#topic coin selection (murchs algo)
187 2018-01-04 19:11:06 0|meshcollider|Perfect timing Murch ;)
188 2018-01-04 19:11:12 0|jonasschnelli|heh
189 2018-01-04 19:11:17 0|Murch|Highlight on "coin selection" ;)
190 2018-01-04 19:11:27 0|achow101|I did a bunch of simulations https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10637#issuecomment-353989346
191 2018-01-04 19:11:38 0|achow101|I'm not quite sure how to interpret the results
192 2018-01-04 19:12:20 0|achow101|but it basically looks like it performs no worse than the current algo
193 2018-01-04 19:12:24 0|jonasschnelli|Maybe Murch can comment on your results?
194 2018-01-04 19:12:32 0|achow101|It looks like it usually does slightly better since BnB is hit a small percentage of the time
195 2018-01-04 19:13:02 0|Murch|achow101: If you're only simulating flat fees the only thing that you're counting is the number of transactions that don't create a change output.
196 2018-01-04 19:13:36 0|achow101|Murch: I've only simulated flat fee so far. Maybe I should try it with somehow using mainnet fee estimation?
197 2018-01-04 19:14:13 0|Murch|achow101: What would be really interesting is whether the different selection algorithm has an impact on the cost in varying fee levels, because it could cause BnB to select more unspents at a higher fee level and fewer at a lower level, which would only be visible in a scenario of varying fee levels.
198 2018-01-04 19:14:26 0|achow101|If people would like to run their own simulations, the code for it is available here: https://github.com/achow101/bitcoin/tree/bnb-simulate. More info in this commnet: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10637#issuecomment-353452113
199 2018-01-04 19:14:41 0|Murch|That's at least my main concern in regard to deploying BnB.
200 2018-01-04 19:15:25 0|achow101|Murch: I did run the simulation at different flat fee rates
201 2018-01-04 19:15:30 0|provoostenator|Vaguely related question: is it possible to refactor the coin selection algo into a pure function that takes whatever info it needs (coins, mempool stats, etc) as input and returns the coins? That might make it easier to try different algos.
202 2018-01-04 19:15:31 0|achow101|*simulations
203 2018-01-04 19:16:26 0|Murch|achow101: Yes, I see that. But the selection effect would only be visible in a scenario with changing fees.
204 2018-01-04 19:16:28 0|jonasschnelli|provoostenator: also in the past, there where discussions about having multiple coin selection
205 2018-01-04 19:16:35 0|jonasschnelli|*selections
206 2018-01-04 19:16:51 0|provoostenator|Right, that would be the idea. Easier to add more experimental selection mechanisms.
207 2018-01-04 19:16:56 0|achow101|Murch: ah, right
208 2018-01-04 19:17:07 0|instagibbs|provoostenator, standard coin selection right now is a loopy affair, kind of complicated :/
209 2018-01-04 19:17:30 0|Murch|provoostenator: achow101's implementation does a big step in that direction .
210 2018-01-04 19:18:18 0|jonasschnelli|other topics?
211 2018-01-04 19:18:51 0|Murch|@achow101: The table seems to show only the final UTXO count, right?
212 2018-01-04 19:19:18 0|Murch|Interesting would also be the final balance of the wallet, especially in regard to the scenario with varying fee levels.
213 2018-01-04 19:19:19 0|achow101|Murch: it shows all of the same things that your simulation framework outputs
214 2018-01-04 19:19:21 0|achow101|I think
215 2018-01-04 19:19:44 0|achow101|It's a big table, you'll have to scroll
216 2018-01-04 19:19:54 0|Murch|Perhaps we could put our heads together in the next few days.
217 2018-01-04 19:20:12 0|achow101|ok
218 2018-01-04 19:20:22 0|Murch|Great work there, though thank you!
219 2018-01-04 19:20:36 0|jonasschnelli|Yes. Thanks achow101!
220 2018-01-04 19:20:37 0|Chris_Stewart_5|provoostenator: So basically you pass in a higher order function to the actual 'read from wallet' function
221 2018-01-04 19:21:55 0|jonasschnelli|Other topics?
222 2018-01-04 19:22:26 0|promag|merge fest?
223 2018-01-04 19:23:22 0|provoostenator|Maybe after SegWit UI is merged?
224 2018-01-04 19:23:42 0|promag|I'm talking about that one :)
225 2018-01-04 19:23:43 0|provoostenator|(I mean SegWit wallet)
226 2018-01-04 19:24:02 0|jonasschnelli|Soon. :)
227 2018-01-04 19:24:03 0|jonasschnelli|#endmeeting
228 2018-01-04 19:24:03 0|lightningbot|Log: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-01-04-19.02.log.html
229 2018-01-04 19:24:03 0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Jan 4 19:24:02 2018 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
230 2018-01-04 19:24:03 0|lightningbot|Minutes: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-01-04-19.02.html
231 2018-01-04 19:24:03 0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-01-04-19.02.txt
232 2018-01-04 19:24:16 0|meshcollider|Soonââ¢
233 2018-01-04 19:24:17 0|provoostenator|promag: Oh ok, I thought you wanted to have everyone go through every open PR and see if it's close to mergeable...
234 2018-01-04 19:24:42 0|provoostenator|Which might be nice close to a release.
235 2018-01-04 19:24:44 0|achow101|provoostenator: we should do that too
236 2018-01-04 19:25:09 0|provoostenator|With one or two weeks for their respective authors to address remaining nits.
237 2018-01-04 19:37:15 0|BlueMatt|ugh, totally forgot today is meeting :/
238 2018-01-04 19:37:57 0|promag|BlueMatt: since you're there, #11041
239 2018-01-04 19:38:00 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11041 | Add LookupBlockIndex by promag ÷ Pull Request #11041 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
240 2018-01-04 19:38:08 0|BlueMatt|yea, its on my queue :p
241 2018-01-04 19:39:12 0|promag|+1
242 2018-01-04 19:43:09 0|cfields|kanzure: heh, looks like saurik added osx signing to ldid ~the same day we discussed in the meeting here last year
243 2018-01-04 19:43:29 0|cfields|so we can cross that off the todo list :)
244 2018-01-04 19:45:19 0|phantomcircuit|i was busy sleeping
245 2018-01-04 19:45:35 0|kanzure|cfields: chalk this one up to teamwork and call it a day :P
246 2018-01-04 19:46:06 0|cfields|kanzure: nah, i'm chalking it up to you pinging him about it. So, thanks :)
247 2018-01-04 19:48:53 0|cfields|(and also to Cunningham's law, as my quick hacks probably made his eyes bleed)
248 2018-01-04 20:31:41 0|sipa|oops, i was timezone confused and missed it
249 2018-01-04 20:36:29 0|luke-jr|I thought we weren't having meetings during Christmas? :p
250 2018-01-04 20:37:41 0|Murch|no wonder the meeting was so short and few ;)
251 2018-01-04 20:37:58 0|Chris_Stewart_5|Murch: rekt! ;)
252 2018-01-04 20:39:58 0|instagibbs|luke-jr, when does Christmas end for you
253 2018-01-04 20:47:16 0|sdaftuar|sipa: any further thoughts (concept ack/nack) on whether you think #11739 is worth doing?
254 2018-01-04 20:47:18 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11739 | RFC: Enforce SCRIPT_VERIFY_P2SH and SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS from genesis by sdaftuar ÷ Pull Request #11739 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
255 2018-01-04 20:48:51 0|sdaftuar|if so i feel like next step would be for me to email the dev list and figure out a way to document this (maybe update one of the existing bips?)
256 2018-01-04 21:01:42 0|luke-jr|instagibbs: Jan 6 I think
257 2018-01-04 21:22:10 0|maxzor|Hello, pls bear with some chitchat :) do you have an estimate of the average concurrent nodes working on a given transaction? Of the blocks that are discarded (are they stored in the extensive ledger?) ?
258 2018-01-04 21:24:30 0|sipa|#bitcoin or bitcoin.stackexchange.com please
259 2018-01-04 21:48:47 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12089: qa: TestNodeCLI Rework output parsing, Prevent options mixups, Make command optional (06master...06Mf1801-qaCliOptions) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12089
260 2018-01-04 21:59:14 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15251Labs opened pull request #12092: [qt] Replaces numbered place marker %2 with %1. (06master...06patch/12015/sendcoinsdialog-replaces-numbered-place-marker) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12092
261 2018-01-04 22:48:08 0|phantomcircuit|batch rpc seems broken in master
262 2018-01-04 22:48:59 0|phantomcircuit|hmm maybe just for very large batches
263 2018-01-04 22:56:04 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #12093: Fix incorrect Markdown link (06master...06fix-incorrect-markdown-link) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12093
264 2018-01-04 22:56:23 0|phantomcircuit|i guess 500k is too many for a single batch
265 2018-01-04 23:48:14 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #12094: Fix hdmaster-key / seed-key confusion (06master...062018/01/hdseed) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12094
266 2018-01-04 23:49:37 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 144aa6455 15practicalswift: Fix incorrect Markdown link
267 2018-01-04 23:49:37 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ddff3447f29b...56910285fa4a
268 2018-01-04 23:49:38 0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145691028 15Jonas Schnelli: Merge #12093: Fix incorrect Markdown link...
269 2018-01-04 23:50:21 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #12093: Fix incorrect Markdown link (06master...06fix-incorrect-markdown-link) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12093