1 2018-01-05 00:51:13	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake opened pull request #12095: [contrib] Use BDB_LIBS/CFLAGS and pass --disable-replication (06master...06db4-script-flags) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12095
  2 2018-01-05 02:27:25	0|phantomcircuit|so there are a lot of peers which are sending transactions even when you're in blocksonly mode
  3 2018-01-05 02:27:45	0|phantomcircuit|would there be any opposition to banning those peers?
  4 2018-01-05 02:31:44	0|achow101|phantomcircuit: aren't they supposed to be banned?
  5 2018-01-05 02:36:57	0|BlueMatt|phantomcircuit: I mean you have to do *something* for eg spv peers...at a minimum would need to bump protocol version and only apply to peers over that version, or have some additional handshake message
  6 2018-01-05 03:06:25	0|echeveria|BlueMatt: blocksonly should really be implying peerbloomfilters=0 anyway.
  7 2018-01-05 03:07:26	0|BlueMatt|echeveria: why?
  8 2018-01-05 03:08:01	0|BlueMatt|echeveria: you mean because its implied "low-bandwidth-dont-serve-others" mode?
  9 2018-01-05 03:15:03	0|phantomcircuit|BlueMatt, iirc the version was already bumped
 10 2018-01-05 03:15:19	0|phantomcircuit|it sets the flag in the version message which was part of the bip37 changes originally
 11 2018-01-05 03:21:57	0|phantomcircuit|echeveria, not sure it matters, the only thing you'll filter on is mempool requests and you dont have a mempool
 12 2018-01-05 03:22:00	0|phantomcircuit|so
 13 2018-01-05 03:22:45	0|phantomcircuit|\_(``/)_/-
 14 2018-01-05 03:25:56	0|phantomcircuit|oh you'll filter blocks
 15 2018-01-05 03:25:58	0|phantomcircuit|derp
 16 2018-01-05 03:25:58	0|phantomcircuit|yeah
 17 2018-01-05 03:26:13	0|phantomcircuit|im hungry
 18 2018-01-05 03:27:57	0|echeveria|BlueMatt: they want mempool transactions, a blocks only node is deceptively useless to them.
 19 2018-01-05 03:28:18	0|BlueMatt|echeveria: do they? they also filter blocks
 20 2018-01-05 03:29:01	0|echeveria|BlueMatt: if they trust a node will give it mempool transactions, and it doesn't. they only ever use one 'master' node, others for headers only.
 21 2018-01-05 03:29:58	0|BlueMatt|echeveria: I'd very much hope no bloom-filter-based clients are only using one node to receive transaction data, that would be a huge, huge security issue for them
 22 2018-01-05 03:30:18	0|BlueMatt|also, my point stands - bip37 nodes *also* receive filtered blocks, it may be that they're ok with just that
 23 2018-01-05 03:32:51	0|echeveria|unless they only get those block peers.
 24 2018-01-05 03:47:49	0|luke-jr|[03:08:01] <BlueMatt> echeveria: you mean because its implied "low-bandwidth-dont-serve-others" mode? <-- this does seem like a good reason to toggle the default in blocksonly mode
 25 2018-01-05 03:49:28	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: yea, i kinda realized that after i said it, its not a bad justification for changing default, though we've always used nolisten as a "really dont want to be serving other clients" not nopeerbloomfilter
 26 2018-01-05 03:50:17	0|echeveria|luke-jr: blocksonly is pretty much a DOS on bad bip37 peers expecting unconfirmed transactions.
 27 2018-01-05 03:51:15	0|BlueMatt|"I only accept transactions from one peer, and that peer isnt sending me transactions" aww boo hoo
 28 2018-01-05 03:52:24	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: true
 29 2018-01-05 03:52:36	0|echeveria|BlueMatt: I trusted a node to filter transactions and they just sent back blank proofs. literally no SPV client handles that today either.
 30 2018-01-05 03:52:48	0|luke-jr|echeveria: it's absurd for light clients to look at unconfirmed transactions anyway
 31 2018-01-05 03:53:03	0|echeveria|luke-jr: yes, but people are conditioned to think that's reasonable.
 32 2018-01-05 03:53:12	0|luke-jr|unless it's your own node it's using, in which case "don't do that"
 33 2018-01-05 03:53:27	0|luke-jr|echeveria: that's a reason TO break it, not to avoid breaking it
 34 2018-01-05 03:53:34	0|BlueMatt|echeveria: do no spv clients do duplicative sync from multiple peers?
 35 2018-01-05 03:53:57	0|echeveria|BlueMatt: I'd have to check, not when I last looked. there's also like, 2 BIP37 wallets in use today.
 36 2018-01-05 03:54:15	0|BlueMatt|jimpo: where are we on the better spv sync stuff? :p
 37 2018-01-05 03:54:35	0|BlueMatt|echeveria: yea, well bip37 should be killed off entirely at this point anyway
 38 2018-01-05 03:54:45	0|echeveria|BlueMatt: the biggest one is Bread and they refuse to use Segwit, so, maybe it's a problem that solves itself.
 39 2018-01-05 03:55:11	0|BlueMatt|"refuse"? as in "we dont want to do the work, fuck our users"?
 40 2018-01-05 03:55:43	0|BlueMatt|or as in "we're going under, so dont support the app anymore"
 41 2018-01-05 03:55:47	0|echeveria|er hold on, I am not remembering that right.
 42 2018-01-05 03:55:53	0|echeveria|there's a fork here. https://github.com/breadwallet/breadwallet-core/tree/segwit
 43 2018-01-05 03:56:00	0|BlueMatt|yea, that doesnt sound like breadwallet, but i dunno
 44 2018-01-05 03:56:07	0|echeveria|there was *some* wallet that was saying it's not valuable, I forget which.
 45 2018-01-05 03:56:11	0|BlueMatt|s/dunno/dont know them well/
 46 2018-01-05 03:56:38	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: Bread was doing 2X-y stuff back when
 47 2018-01-05 03:57:01	0|BlueMatt|so were lots of folks, doesnt mean they'd deliberately screw their users *now*...
 48 2018-01-05 03:57:16	0|echeveria|luke-jr: note that I retracted my comment there.
 49 2018-01-05 03:57:24	0|luke-jr|not using Segwit isn't screwing anyone
 50 2018-01-05 03:57:40	0|BlueMatt|depends on if your users want cheaper fees, but, sure
 51 2018-01-05 04:00:01	0|luke-jr|if users believe Segwit reduces fees and want to use it, they can always look at competing wallets
 52 2018-01-05 04:12:05	0|jimpo|BlueMatt: It's Coming Soon TM.
 53 2018-01-05 04:12:30	0|jimpo|Another look at #11857 might help :-). I promise it's related.
 54 2018-01-05 04:12:32	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11857 | Build tx index in parallel with validation by jimpo · Pull Request #11857 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 55 2018-01-05 04:13:04	0|BlueMatt|jimpo: mmm, ok, added to heap...
 56 2018-01-05 04:13:13	0|jimpo|\o/
 57 2018-01-05 04:14:08	0|jimpo|Yeah, I'm pretty close with the drafts of the revised BIPs (I'm thinking 2 instead of 1, though it might end up just being one huge one). Need to run the changes by roasbeef.
 58 2018-01-05 04:15:45	0|BlueMatt|jimpo: heh, dont get too excited, the heap is very very large and essentially unsorted :p
 59 2018-01-05 04:16:41	0|jimpo|Oh, it's unsorted then I've got some probability of being next at random.
 60 2018-01-05 09:11:04	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15kallewoof opened pull request #12096: [rpc] [wallet] Allow single-output transactions in bumpfee (06master...06better-bumpfee) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12096
 61 2018-01-05 09:44:20	0|ossifrage|This is odd, bitcoin-qt is still running and responding to bitcoin-cli commands, but the tray icon is gone and I can't seem to map the window.
 62 2018-01-05 09:45:13	0|Randolf|ossifrage:  Do you mean the Taskbar icon?  Or the System Tray icon?
 63 2018-01-05 09:45:32	0|ossifrage|system tray icon (I have it set to unmap to the tray)
 64 2018-01-05 09:46:05	0|ossifrage|the hexchat system tray icon is still present and I can map/unmap that window by clicking on it, but bitcoin-qt is gone
 65 2018-01-05 09:46:15	0|ossifrage|(it has been running for >50 days)
 66 2018-01-05 09:46:42	0|Randolf|ossifrage:  Windows sometimes unexpectedly moves System Tray icons into the more obscure section, which you have to use the mouse to access -- the icon to access it usually looks like a Carat character:  ^
 67 2018-01-05 09:47:17	0|ossifrage|Randolf, this is linux running xfce... it does show up as a client with xlsclients, but does not show up in the wm window lists
 68 2018-01-05 09:47:35	0|Randolf|ossifrage:  Oh.  Sorry.
 69 2018-01-05 09:47:41	0|Randolf|I made an assumption there.
 70 2018-01-05 09:49:46	0|wumpus|systray causes a never ending string of issues on linux, should get #12054 in asap
 71 2018-01-05 09:49:47	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12054 | Qt: Minimize to tray functionality only on Windows by vajdaz · Pull Request #12054 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 72 2018-01-05 09:49:47	0|ossifrage|Nothing in the .xsession-errors log, but I think I've long since closed the terminal I initially started bitcoin-qt
 73 2018-01-05 09:51:42	0|provoostenator|Compiling bitcoin dependencies on Ubuntu inside Windows 10 running on a VM on an iMac. Wonderful... I notice compilation sometimes just stalls and I have to hit enter to make it continue.
 74 2018-01-05 09:52:23	0|ossifrage|wumpus, this is a new failure mode for me, trying to figure out how to force remap the window id or something
 75 2018-01-05 09:53:13	0|wumpus|ossifrage: I've heard many reports of the icon just disappearing, or not appearing at all, it works better in some wm's than others but overall it seems unreliable
 76 2018-01-05 09:54:43	0|ossifrage|wumpus, sending the system tray process a SIGHUP fixed the problem
 77 2018-01-05 09:55:51	0|wumpus|ok
 78 2018-01-05 09:56:04	0|ossifrage|I'm amazed it worked, I sorta expected the whole thing to catch fire or something
 79 2018-01-05 09:58:23	0|sipa|heh
 80 2018-01-05 09:58:27	0|sipa|that was easy
 81 2018-01-05 09:59:41	0|sipa|provoostenator: you must go deeper
 82 2018-01-05 10:24:53	0|provoostenator|Well, I got as far as "make" but CCLD    lisecp256k1.la complains: libtool: warning: undefined symbols not allowed in x86_64-w64-mingw32 shared libraries; building static only
 83 2018-01-05 10:26:18	0|provoostenator|And then things break down: https://gist.github.com/Sjors/37bf6a3af47be36baed169788b2316a3
 84 2018-01-05 10:34:40	0|provoostenator|I'll try upgrading to Ubuntu 17.
 85 2018-01-05 10:35:10	0|provoostenator|y
 86 2018-01-05 10:35:47	0|wumpus|looks like you didn't install the posix variant of gcc-mingw
 87 2018-01-05 10:36:16	0|wumpus|sudo update-alternatives --config x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++ (see the build-windows.md)
 88 2018-01-05 10:36:42	0|provoostenator|Afaik I followed the ritual in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/build-windows.md#cross-compilation-for-ubuntu-and-windows-subsystem-for-linux
 89 2018-01-05 10:37:40	0|wumpus|you must have forgot that line otherwise you wouldn't be getting errors with c++11 threading primitives
 90 2018-01-05 10:38:03	0|wumpus|unless this is yet another new issue with WFL
 91 2018-01-05 10:40:29	0|provoostenator|I'll check my bash history after either the upgrade is done or I figure out how to open a second window / tab in this Windows 10 setup...
 92 2018-01-05 10:48:39	0|provoostenator|wumpus: would all the dependencies have built successfully if I hadn't entered that command?
 93 2018-01-05 11:04:21	0|wumpus|provoostenator: yes
 94 2018-01-05 11:04:41	0|wumpus|the dependencies are all statically linked, so you'd only get the error as soon as it tries to build a target executable
 95 2018-01-05 11:05:14	0|wumpus|oh wait, no, this is not a linker issue
 96 2018-01-05 11:05:18	0|wumpus|I'm not sure
 97 2018-01-05 11:05:55	0|wumpus|but I think bitcoin core itself is the only thing among the dependencies that uses c++11 threading
 98 2018-01-05 11:06:08	0|provoostenator|I did run that command.
 99 2018-01-05 11:06:08	0|wumpus|boost implements its own, the other deps are C
100 2018-01-05 11:06:41	0|wumpus|well then, you discovered a new problem it seems
101 2018-01-05 11:06:53	0|provoostenator|I'll upload config.log (anything else?)
102 2018-01-05 11:06:55	0|wumpus|number of days since last WFL issue: 0
103 2018-01-05 11:07:17	0|provoostenator|Will hold off on upgrading Ubuntu version if that's useful.
104 2018-01-05 11:14:31	0|wumpus|provoostenator: something to try would be to make a minimal c++ file that uses c++11 threading primitives, and try to compile/link that separately
105 2018-01-05 11:14:56	0|wumpus|provoostenator: if that also doesn't work you can be sure your build environment is bodged, otherwise it might be something with bitcoin's build system...
106 2018-01-05 11:16:53	0|wumpus|make sure to cross-bulid for the target and not for the local OS (e.g. x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++ test.cpp -o test.exe)
107 2018-01-05 11:19:15	0|provoostenator|wumpus: config.log : https://gist.github.com/Sjors/495cd97e60e517da24a2a0070c889d0e
108 2018-01-05 11:20:09	0|provoostenator|"make a minimal c++ file that uses c++11 threading primitives" - I think you're overestimating my C++ and Windows compiler skill level :-)
109 2018-01-05 11:20:31	0|provoostenator|(I'm still working my way through a rather massive primer on C++)
110 2018-01-05 13:46:10	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15Sjors opened pull request #12097: [scripts] lint-whitespace: use perl instead of grep -P (06master...06lint-whitespace-no-grep-P) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12097
111 2018-01-05 14:06:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12054: Qt: Minimize to tray functionality only on Windows (06master...06win-only-tray) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12054
112 2018-01-05 14:07:40	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15Sjors opened pull request #12098: [scripts] lint-whitespace: add param to check last N commits (06master...06lint-whitespace-n-commits) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12098
113 2018-01-05 15:40:22	0|coolass|Where do they take suggestions for improvement of the User Experience for the bitcoin core application?
114 2018-01-05 15:41:18	0|sipa|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues
115 2018-01-05 15:45:10	0|coolass|thx!
116 2018-01-05 15:50:45	0|promag|sipa: hi
117 2018-01-05 15:52:00	0|sipa|ohai
118 2018-01-05 15:52:47	0|promag|how do you suggest to detect invalid hash when parsing?
119 2018-01-05 15:53:01	0|sipa|in what context?
120 2018-01-05 15:53:10	0|promag|I had in mind return the processed characters in SetHex
121 2018-01-05 15:53:21	0|promag|getblock foobar
122 2018-01-05 15:53:25	0|sipa|we have IsHexNumber ?
123 2018-01-05 15:55:20	0|promag|but why base_blob<BITS>::SetHex(const char* psz) doesn't process the whole input?
124 2018-01-05 15:56:58	0|sipa|constructors are very annoying to return error conditions from, as they have to produce an object (or throw an exception)
125 2018-01-05 15:57:06	0|sipa|oh, SetHex, ignore me
126 2018-01-05 15:57:26	0|sipa|it could return a bool
127 2018-01-05 16:01:47	0|Chris_Stewart_5|sipa: How do you feel about trying to create an abstraction of coinselection with higher order functions (lambdas)
128 2018-01-05 16:01:54	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Do you think this is possible/reasonable to do?
129 2018-01-05 16:02:14	0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: or just an interface class
130 2018-01-05 16:02:18	0|Chris_Stewart_5|proovsentator mentioned this yesterday during the meeting
131 2018-01-05 16:02:27	0|sipa|or even just something that you pass a list of all UTXOs
132 2018-01-05 16:02:34	0|sipa|and the short-term and long-term feerate
133 2018-01-05 16:02:56	0|Chris_Stewart_5|yeah, i was thinking like (utxos, minFee, maxFee, amount) -> utxos
134 2018-01-05 16:03:12	0|sipa|right, and amount :)
135 2018-01-05 16:03:31	0|Chris_Stewart_5|i haven't delved into it too much I guess, I wanted to see if it was an obvious bad idea hah
136 2018-01-05 16:04:15	0|Chris_Stewart_5|would interfaces be preferred for backwards compatability of older c++ compilers?
137 2018-01-05 16:04:57	0|sipa|no, we target c++11; you're free to use any c++11 features
138 2018-01-05 16:05:19	0|sipa|but lambdas may not be the most appropriate thing to do (if there are multiple callbacks involved, for example)
139 2018-01-05 16:05:58	0|sipa|but even that is overkill - we currently build an explicit list of all UTXOs anyway, no reason why you can't just create a mechanism where you pass that list explicitly
140 2018-01-05 16:07:11	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Hmm, I'll have to dive into the details. Seems like it would be better to just have lambda's represent our various coin selection algo's instead of some weird inheritance hierachy
141 2018-01-05 16:07:27	0|sipa|i suggest you start simple
142 2018-01-05 16:07:31	0|sipa|and not use any of those
143 2018-01-05 16:08:09	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Fair enough. Thanks for the advice!
144 2018-01-05 16:15:48	0|leviathan_|hello
145 2018-01-05 16:28:56	0|provoostenator|I installed a nightly Ubuntu 18.04 build on a VM, compiled Bitcoin, ran QT in regtest mode, make check, ran functional tests (all pass except fullblocktest.py). Seems to Just Work(tm). Shocking?
146 2018-01-05 16:38:58	0|sipa|no, why would it not work?
147 2018-01-05 16:39:08	0|provoostenator|New OS, so you never know?
148 2018-01-05 16:39:38	0|sipa|there are occasionally issues with new boost versions that show some incompatibilities, but that's about it
149 2018-01-05 16:39:51	0|sipa|sometimes some Qt/UI issues
150 2018-01-05 16:39:54	0|provoostenator|As for Windows 10... I reinstalled Ubuntu and upgraded straight to 17.10 (which didn't go smooth). I get an error during the dependencies make for zeromq: funcs.mk:242: recipe for target '/usr/src/bitcoin/depends/work/build/x86_64-w64-mingw32/zeromq/4.2.2-c6f340e09c9/.stamp_preprocessed' failed
151 2018-01-05 16:40:43	0|sipa|compiling for windows in general is more error prone, it seems :)
152 2018-01-05 16:41:32	0|provoostenator|When I try make again, it throws a nice riddle: Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected!  Assume -R?
153 2018-01-05 16:44:46	0|provoostenator|I cleared the zeromq dir and tried again, but no luck: https://gist.github.com/Sjors/b4b3c683144e84a23bc43a4009d2fcbb
154 2018-01-05 17:02:56	0|provoostenator|I fixed the locale error with some incantations. Now zeromq does compile.
155 2018-01-05 17:33:25	0|provoostenator|No it doesn't. Blegh, will try some other time.
156 2018-01-05 19:43:53	0|provoostenator|Mmm, I didn't select the "posix" option in the update-alternatives command
157 2018-01-05 19:44:10	0|jonasschnelli|provoostenator: have you installed all windows cross compile dependencies?
158 2018-01-05 19:44:32	0|provoostenator|Yes, I think I got all the other stuff right, but I'll try again with this change.
159 2018-01-05 19:44:50	0|provoostenator|As well as on a regular Ubuntu 17.10 VM.
160 2018-01-05 19:45:15	0|jonasschnelli|I recently (~2 weeks ago) compile windows on Debian 9 (worked there)
161 2018-01-05 19:46:04	0|provoostenator|If this works, I might make a PR that moves that instruction from a code comment to the main markdown text.
162 2018-01-05 19:46:57	0|provoostenator|Even though I'm stupid, I'd like to assume at least some other people will make the same mistake :-)
163 2018-01-05 19:50:15	0|jonasschnelli|I made https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11903/files after the last attempt to X-compile
164 2018-01-05 19:50:39	0|jonasschnelli|So,.. I think it would be good to overhaul the documentation even further to make it simpler to setup the depends/x-compile
165 2018-01-05 19:57:15	0|provoostenator|Note to self: don't run two VM's and give each of them half your RAM and CPU's and expect the host computer not to crash...
166 2018-01-05 20:16:09	0|provoostenator|jonasschnelli: mmm, why are those in depends.md and not in windows build? Or are they the same?
167 2018-01-05 20:16:59	0|jonasschnelli|provoostenator: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11903#pullrequestreview-83645560
168 2018-01-05 20:17:02	0|provoostenator|Oh wait, the windows sections points there, nvm
169 2018-01-05 20:17:11	0|jonasschnelli|Not sure if it would be better if all would be in depends.md
170 2018-01-05 20:18:15	0|provoostenator|Yeah, I do find the division of information a bit confusing. It might be more clear to put all instructions up to the ./autogen step in depends.md for all platforms and cross complication setups.
171 2018-01-05 20:42:55	0|provoostenator|I deleted the "built" folder, but the zeromq stuff still doesn't work for me.
172 2018-01-05 20:44:08	0|provoostenator|(will try again deleting the whole depends folder to be on the safe side)
173 2018-01-05 20:50:33	0|cfields|provoostenator: depends is fully deterministic. If you delete the 'built' folder, it'll just get rebuilt the same way :)
174 2018-01-05 20:51:36	0|cfields|doing a 'make' in depends after re-configuring gcc should trigger all cross packages to be rebuilt
175 2018-01-05 20:51:40	0|provoostenator|Wouldn't it be different after I selected that -posix option?
176 2018-01-05 20:52:38	0|cfields|sorry, that was probably unclear. Doing a 'make' in depends should do the right thing. If nothing's changed, nothing should be rebuilt. If something has changed, it should rebuild appropriately
177 2018-01-05 20:52:59	0|cfields|but you shouldn't ever need to manually mess with the built packages
178 2018-01-05 21:13:56	0|cfields|provoostenator: i see. Annoyingly, clang shows its thread-model with "clang --version", but gcc needs "-version -v"
179 2018-01-05 21:15:22	0|cfields|this should fix: https://0bin.net/paste/Nqyju+vaLybxvxyg#v3T6OFViIa9mqTb+28wNrHmSsiwXJ1HBcc3z6boYIBq
180 2018-01-05 21:16:51	0|cfields|grr nm, that won't fix either. The verbose stuff is sent to stderr :\
181 2018-01-05 21:21:39	0|provoostenator|Deterministic schmermenistic, I got a different result this time (haven't tried your fix): https://gist.github.com/Sjors/87c05168dd5ebde87f264bd7e055968d
182 2018-01-05 21:22:35	0|provoostenator|(will read the chat log tomorrow)
183 2018-01-05 21:23:05	0|cfields|provoostenator: yes, I see now that the change won't be detected.
184 2018-01-05 21:23:39	0|cfields|Not too concerned though, I'm working on the toolchain builder atm that would remove the issue completely
185 2018-01-05 21:24:56	0|cfields|provoostenator: looks like you installed for x86_64 but not x86? or gcc but not g++?
186 2018-01-05 21:38:13	0|luke-jr|cfields: thoughts on migrating to bionic/18.04 for gitian?
187 2018-01-05 21:38:41	0|luke-jr|or maybe not worth it with the plan to build our own compilers anyway
188 2018-01-05 21:38:54	0|cfields|luke-jr: with the toolchain builder done, the ubuntu image should be irrelevant
189 2018-01-05 21:39:17	0|cfields|precise/trusty/xenial/bionic _should_ all build the same result
190 2018-01-05 21:39:21	0|luke-jr|cfields: what toolchain are we targetting for now?
191 2018-01-05 21:39:31	0|luke-jr|is there a PR?
192 2018-01-05 21:39:34	0|cfields|trusty
193 2018-01-05 21:39:45	0|luke-jr|no, I mean the compiler we build/use
194 2018-01-05 21:39:46	0|cfields|luke-jr: no, still working on it. Hitting some snags.
195 2018-01-05 21:40:00	0|luke-jr|looks like GCC 6 is the bare minimum needed for POWER9 target
196 2018-01-05 21:40:36	0|cfields|luke-jr: oh, you mean the one I'm working on? I've been targetting 7.2 for no particular reasoon
197 2018-01-05 21:40:51	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148a93543 15251: Replaces numbered place marker %2 with %1....
198 2018-01-05 21:40:51	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/56910285fa4a...fd4ca17360e6
199 2018-01-05 21:40:52	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fd4ca17 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12092: [qt] Replaces numbered place marker %2 with %1....
200 2018-01-05 21:41:07	0|cfields|(other than I wanted to see what new warnings it would show during bitcoind build)
201 2018-01-05 21:41:30	0|luke-jr|cfields: sounds good, probably makes sense to just wait for it, before tackling POWER9
202 2018-01-05 21:41:41	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12092: [qt] Replaces numbered place marker %2 with %1. (06master...06patch/12015/sendcoinsdialog-replaces-numbered-place-marker) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12092
203 2018-01-05 21:42:30	0|cfields|luke-jr: heh yes, I'd rather not jump through hoops for hardware that's coming "in two weeks" :p
204 2018-01-05 21:43:00	0|cfields|no reason why it shouldn't work as long as gcc supports it, though
205 2018-01-05 21:43:08	0|luke-jr|cfields: hey, at least they're shipping with Meltdown+Sceptre fixed* :p
206 2018-01-05 21:43:16	0|cfields|luke-jr: what endianness does it use by default?
207 2018-01-05 21:43:20	0|luke-jr|no idea
208 2018-01-05 21:43:26	0|cfields|oh?
209 2018-01-05 21:43:28	0|luke-jr|not sure there is a default
210 2018-01-05 21:44:13	0|cfields|well something has to select it somewhere down the line, and that selector must have a default :)
211 2018-01-05 21:44:30	0|luke-jr|whatever OS you install? ☺
212 2018-01-05 21:45:07	0|cfields|fair enough
213 2018-01-05 21:45:39	0|cfields|that's bound to flesh out all kinds of endian-hard-coded-at-build-time != runtime-endian bugs
214 2018-01-05 21:46:04	0|luke-jr|I don't think any software can handle different target/runtime endians
215 2018-01-05 21:47:53	0|cfields|i meant that plenty of software does #if x86 do small_endian_stuff()
216 2018-01-05 21:48:20	0|cfields|but "#if power9 do_big_endian_stuff()" would break
217 2018-01-05 21:48:35	0|sipa|i'm sure it will rather be power9 and power9le
218 2018-01-05 21:48:46	0|sipa|which systems will treat as different architectures
219 2018-01-05 21:48:50	0|sipa|like mips and mipsel
220 2018-01-05 21:48:57	0|cfields|sipa: but it's switchable at boot time
221 2018-01-05 21:49:09	0|sipa|so?
222 2018-01-05 21:49:34	0|sipa|x86_64 and i686 are also selectable at boot time, and run on the same hardware
223 2018-01-05 21:49:51	0|sipa|(bad example, as i686 actually runs on x86_64 systems, but ignore that for a second)
224 2018-01-05 21:50:44	0|luke-jr|it's switchable at runtime too <.<
225 2018-01-05 21:51:15	0|cfields|sipa: yes, one is a subset of the other there. I don't see your point.
226 2018-01-05 21:51:23	0|luke-jr|cfields: if software does #if x86 for endian, it's already totally broken
227 2018-01-05 21:51:30	0|sipa|cfields: i mean... i expect that the kernel you compile will support either only BE or only LE; you boot a particular kernel, and then the entirety of the OS and all userspace must use that endianness
228 2018-01-05 21:51:54	0|cfields|luke-jr: sure, agreed. But that doesn't mean it's not done
229 2018-01-05 21:51:56	0|luke-jr|sipa: are you sure?
230 2018-01-05 21:52:05	0|sipa|luke-jr: no, not at all
231 2018-01-05 21:52:35	0|sipa|but i would be very surprised if it's possible to make different endianesses cooperate
232 2018-01-05 21:52:36	0|cfields|sipa: ok, I see your point. You're saying a different config is effectively different hardware as far as the build for it goes
233 2018-01-05 21:52:46	0|luke-jr|I guess at the very least you'd need both endians in libraries
234 2018-01-05 21:52:47	0|sipa|cfields: yup
235 2018-01-05 21:52:58	0|sipa|cfields: but that's a theory
236 2018-01-05 21:53:16	0|luke-jr|but so long as we're talking static binaries..
237 2018-01-05 21:53:32	0|sipa|cfields: i think it will be very similar to mips and mipsel
238 2018-01-05 21:53:34	0|cfields|luke-jr: then you'd download the power9 or power9le binary
239 2018-01-05 21:53:37	0|luke-jr|sounds like the ELF header decides the program's endianness
240 2018-01-05 21:54:10	0|luke-jr|cfields: well, if we can avoid any dynamic linking, we *could* just do a fully static binary of one or the other, and I think it will run on either
241 2018-01-05 21:54:20	0|luke-jr|but.. we might need dynamic linking for Qt I guess
242 2018-01-05 21:54:38	0|cfields|why? we already link qt static
243 2018-01-05 21:54:48	0|sipa|or maybe the linux world will quickly come to a convential that only LE is used (or only BE)
244 2018-01-05 21:54:58	0|sipa|oh wait, linux and agreeing on a convention, never mind...
245 2018-01-05 21:55:00	0|luke-jr|ok, wasn't there something we dynamic link?
246 2018-01-05 21:55:07	0|luke-jr|sipa: :D
247 2018-01-05 21:55:25	0|cfields|luke-jr: we used to dynamic link qt and leave it up to the target system to provide it
248 2018-01-05 21:57:06	0|cfields|sipa: you can end any linux "convention" discussion with one of dozens of buzzwords. So that seems unlikely :p
249 2018-01-05 21:58:11	0|sipa|http://hackles.org/strips/cartoon284.png
250 2018-01-05 21:59:34	0|cfields|haha that's the first one that came to mind
251 2018-01-05 22:00:03	0|cfields|speaking of which, it's hilarious to see "#ifdef emacs" in the gcc code
252 2018-01-05 22:00:12	0|cfields|I haven't dug in to see why yet
253 2018-01-05 22:01:27	0|Fithos|Why does Bitcoin Core max out at 0.1 btc in transaction fee?
254 2018-01-05 22:01:55	0|luke-jr|I sure hope there's never a need to pay more :/
255 2018-01-05 22:02:23	0|Fithos|My transaction size is like 60kb =(
256 2018-01-05 22:03:03	0|Fithos|I had my miner paying into my wallet like once per day.. I need to get a new wallet!
257 2018-01-05 22:03:47	0|Derek314|A
258 2018-01-05 22:04:02	0|Fithos|I didn't know amount of transactions would increase the fee /cries
259 2018-01-05 22:07:03	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: my understanding is sipa is correct here - you'd have a hard time getting a be binary to run with a le kernel and visa versa, however you *can* run a be vm inside a le host and visa versa
260 2018-01-05 22:07:09	0|BlueMatt|(on power)
261 2018-01-05 22:10:51	0|luke-jr|I guess the syscalls are endian-specific
262 2018-01-05 22:28:45	0|bambum|hi i have a bug on bitcoin-qt. Its not broadcasting my transaction but the amount showing me is already 0
263 2018-01-05 22:29:27	0|bambum|txid: 73627d8ad001135c50cc279cab7b372b8ed83669390b22e50a8b213e10e058e6 waiting 2 hours already but can´t find anything on public blockchain explorers