1 2018-01-09 00:07:58 0|Lauda|sipa: Tested rescan
2 2018-01-09 00:08:27 0|Lauda|The balance is there, looks spendable. Received from in Transactions shows an empty label
3 2018-01-09 00:09:18 0|Lauda|Coin control shows nothing though.
4 2018-01-09 00:12:27 0|Randolf|sure that I don't proceed incorrectly. Do I just create a new Pull Request so that peer-review can commence, or does peer-review come first? (2 files have minor changes, and 1 new file containing instructions was added for NetBSD users.) Thanks in advance.
5 2018-01-09 00:12:27 0|Randolf|With the help of folks in the NetBSD community, I can now compile bitcoind (and friends) in NetBSD 7.0 after making a few minor changes to 2 files. I also added one "doc" file which provides build instructions. Since I'm new to GitHub and this is my first contribution to bitcoin, I want to make
6 2018-01-09 00:13:22 0|sipa|Randolf: unless you're very unsure about the approach, i suggest you just open a PR
7 2018-01-09 00:14:35 0|Randolf|sipa: Okay, I assume PR is short of Pull Request, and not Problem Report?
8 2018-01-09 00:14:41 0|Lauda|Yes
9 2018-01-09 00:14:42 0|Randolf|s/short of/short for/
10 2018-01-09 00:14:44 0|Randolf|Thank.
11 2018-01-09 00:14:48 0|Randolf|Thanks.
12 2018-01-09 00:19:08 0|sipa|yes, pull request
13 2018-01-09 00:35:52 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15randolf opened pull request #12125: Fix NetBSD compilation (06master...06master) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12125
14 2018-01-09 01:22:02 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sdaftuar opened pull request #12127: Remove unused mempool index (06master...062018-01-remove-unused-index) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12127
15 2018-01-09 02:42:04 0|kexkey|Hi! listunspent returns a list of UTXOs and some of them have an amount of 0. Weird. I thought I could use coin control to get rid of those UTXOs but looks like the feature uses UTXOs with amount > 0. How can I clean those UTXOs? Thanks!
16 2018-01-09 02:49:09 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon opened pull request #12128: Refactor: One CBaseChainParams should be enough (06master...06b16-baseparams-nohierarchy) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12128
17 2018-01-09 03:17:56 0|meshcollider|keykey: the fifth parameter to listunspent is "query_options" which allows you to specify minimumAmount, is that what you are looking for?
18 2018-01-09 03:18:03 0|meshcollider|kexkey*
19 2018-01-09 03:19:10 0|meshcollider|kexkey: the fact that is shows 0 value UTXOs was exlicitly added in #6036 though, its not weird :)
20 2018-01-09 03:19:12 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/6036 | Show zero value txouts in listunspent. by gmaxwell ÷ Pull Request #6036 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
21 2018-01-09 04:09:04 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15threepehr opened pull request #12130: Update chain.h (06master...06dev) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12130
22 2018-01-09 04:10:10 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15threepehr closed pull request #12130: Update chain.h (06master...06dev) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12130
23 2018-01-09 06:46:47 0|anuby|hi
24 2018-01-09 06:47:24 0|anuby|how to get test bitcoin
25 2018-01-09 06:51:21 0|echeveria|anuby: ask nicely.
26 2018-01-09 06:51:27 0|echeveria|(and post an address)
27 2018-01-09 06:52:50 0|anuby|@echeveria thx, mwqYfSNTb3onBSp9bnsdJXPpxDepB6Y6UD
28 2018-01-09 06:53:09 0|echeveria|you're now rich.
29 2018-01-09 06:53:17 0|anuby|thx
30 2018-01-09 06:54:00 0|anuby|@echeveria thank you
31 2018-01-09 07:16:54 0|kexkey|meshcollider, I should have said "surprising" instead of weird. :) Well, displaying 0 value UTXOs is expected, but creating them is surprising, I wonder what's the point of having 0 value UTXOs. Now is it possible to used them as inputs? I'll try that tomorrow. :) Thanks!
32 2018-01-09 07:19:06 0|kexkey|meshcollider, oh and thanks for the PR number, I'll have a look at it. :)
33 2018-01-09 07:19:32 0|meshcollider|kexkey: yeah I think the PR describes why better than i can
34 2018-01-09 09:17:20 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15kallewoof opened pull request #12131: [BIP-98 + BIP-116] MERKLEBRANCHVERIFY (06master...06mbv) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12131
35 2018-01-09 09:18:47 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15kallewoof opened pull request #12132: [BIP-117] Tail call semantics (06master...06tcs) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12132
36 2018-01-09 09:19:46 0|meshcollider|\o/
37 2018-01-09 10:34:04 0|promag|Lauda: have you talked to jl2012? ref #12124 #11400
38 2018-01-09 10:34:05 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12124 | [wallet] Remove segwit status check by laudaa ÷ Pull Request #12124 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
39 2018-01-09 10:34:06 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11400 | [wallet] Remove segwit status check by jl2012 ÷ Pull Request #11400 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
40 2018-01-09 10:36:09 0|Lauda|promag: Nope. It seemed like he abandoned/was too busy for it and it's been needing a rebase since October I think.
41 2018-01-09 10:36:20 0|promag|jl2012: ping?
42 2018-01-09 10:37:42 0|kallewoof|Needing a rebase doesn't really mean anything. If there are unanswered questions or change requests that may be a different story though.
43 2018-01-09 10:38:31 0|kallewoof|I tend to only rebase if a PR gets attention (I'm the quiet type -- my PRs generally take 6-12 months to be merged, since I never bug anyone about them).
44 2018-01-09 10:38:32 0|promag|there is jnewbery comments in the old one
45 2018-01-09 10:39:10 0|promag|I would wait for jl2012 feedback at least
46 2018-01-09 10:39:35 0|kallewoof|Ahh, yeah. That kind of does look abandoned. Agree on waiting for jl2012 feedback.
47 2018-01-09 10:48:43 0|Lauda|Well, it's part of the Segwit project and seemed abandoned; that's why, but sure!
48 2018-01-09 10:49:41 0|kallewoof|Lauda: I sometimes have people randomly pick up my PR:s and remaking them, thinking they're abandoned even though I'm simply waiting for people to get around to reviewing. :)
49 2018-01-09 10:51:18 0|Lauda|hehe, that's unfortunate.
50 2018-01-09 11:17:36 0|promag|kallewoof: little noise from time to time doesn't hurt
51 2018-01-09 17:02:22 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jl2012 closed pull request #11400: [wallet] Remove segwit status check (06master...06postsegwitwallet) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11400
52 2018-01-09 17:03:11 0|jl2012|kallewoof, Lauda, promag: sorry I have been busy lately and forgot #11400. Just closed it
53 2018-01-09 17:03:13 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11400 | [wallet] Remove segwit status check by jl2012 ÷ Pull Request #11400 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
54 2018-01-09 17:03:47 0|promag|there you go Lauda
55 2018-01-09 17:26:40 0|Lauda|Thanks for letting us know jl2012, I'll try to ping next time before I do something. :)
56 2018-01-09 17:27:14 0|jl2012|Lauda: It's my fault. Thanks!
57 2018-01-09 17:27:52 0|Lauda|jnewbery: You want me to mention jl2012 in the commit message?
58 2018-01-09 17:28:15 0|jl2012|Lauda: no need. That's trivial
59 2018-01-09 17:28:35 0|Lauda|He mentioned that in my pull request, which is why I'm asking
60 2018-01-09 17:30:14 0|jl2012|ok, i replied
61 2018-01-09 17:31:23 0|Lauda|I think I managed to did it now anyways, but thanks!
62 2018-01-09 17:47:40 0|jb55|is anyone working on this right now? https://people.xiph.org/~greg/compacted_txn.txt
63 2018-01-09 17:50:10 0|sipa|jb55: i'm not
64 2018-01-09 18:24:20 0|sipa|luke-jr: does you dns seed support the x[HEX]. prefix for flag filtering?
65 2018-01-09 18:26:08 0|luke-jr|yes
66 2018-01-09 18:26:59 0|BlueMatt|I assume we should just take #12102?
67 2018-01-09 18:27:01 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12102 | Apply hardening measurements in bitcoind systemd service file by Flowdalic ÷ Pull Request #12102 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
68 2018-01-09 18:33:32 0|provoostenator|I'm trying to sync a v0.15.1 node with a master branch node on regtest, but they seem to reject each-others blocks with: Reject block code 16: bad-witness-nonce-size
69 2018-01-09 18:35:04 0|provoostenator|(the functional test framework lets you point to alternative binaries, which might be useful for testing compatibility between versions)
70 2018-01-09 18:35:29 0|BlueMatt|the default parameters changed on master - segwit is always (?) active now, or something like that, iirc
71 2018-01-09 18:37:05 0|provoostenator|Ah yes, I remember that too. Should I patch the old version(s) or is there a file I can copy over?
72 2018-01-09 18:37:34 0|BlueMatt|you can change the bip9 activation parameters option thinggy so they match
73 2018-01-09 18:37:44 0|provoostenator|#11389
74 2018-01-09 18:37:47 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11389 | Support having SegWit always active in regtest (sipa, ajtowns, jnewbery) by sipa ÷ Pull Request #11389 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
75 2018-01-09 18:39:43 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sdaftuar opened pull request #12133: [qa] Fix rare failure in p2p-segwit.py (06master...062018-01-fix-p2p-segwit) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12133
76 2018-01-09 19:11:10 0|luke-jr|should probably get #10595 merged too (trivial fix, sortof blocking further cleanup)
77 2018-01-09 19:11:11 0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10595 | Bugfix: RPC/Mining: Use pre-segwit sigops and limits, when working with non-segwit GBT clients by luke-jr ÷ Pull Request #10595 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub
78 2018-01-09 19:24:13 0|hghghg|...
79 2018-01-09 19:36:10 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15Sjors opened pull request #12134: [WIP] Build previous releases and run functional tests (06master...06previous-release) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12134
80 2018-01-09 19:52:06 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15adityasubramanian opened pull request #12135: we out here (06master...06master) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12135
81 2018-01-09 19:54:04 0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #12135: we out here (06master...06master) 02 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12135
82 2018-01-09 20:46:24 0|echeveria|huh, there's no way of finding out if you're on testnet via RPC now?
83 2018-01-09 20:46:32 0|echeveria|it used to be in getinfo['testnet']
84 2018-01-09 20:47:15 0|cncr04s|validateaddress m..... vs 1......
85 2018-01-09 20:47:36 0|echeveria|that's dirty.
86 2018-01-09 20:47:58 0|cncr04s|i'll add getinfo back into the code when I need to
87 2018-01-09 20:48:08 0|echeveria|it was removed for a reason
88 2018-01-09 20:48:15 0|cncr04s|which is?
89 2018-01-09 20:48:23 0|echeveria|it did dumbass shit like touched the wallet keypool every time you called it.
90 2018-01-09 20:48:35 0|echeveria|it would reserve, then unreserve a key.
91 2018-01-09 20:49:05 0|cncr04s|then just make it not do that
92 2018-01-09 20:49:42 0|echeveria|the RPC is gone, it's not really up for debate or re-inclusion.
93 2018-01-09 20:49:59 0|cncr04s|I can edit my own source as I please=D
94 2018-01-09 20:50:45 0|echeveria|ok, but in the context of using a piece of software I'm not talking about your insanity fork that grasps onto RPCs deprecated a long time ago.
95 2018-01-09 20:51:27 0|cncr04s|well then i guess you'll need to use validateaddress
96 2018-01-09 20:54:14 0|instagibbs|echeveria, getnetworkinfo["chain"] I think
97 2018-01-09 20:55:08 0|jonasschnelli|echeveria: getblockchaininfo and look for "chain"
98 2018-01-09 20:56:14 0|echeveria|instagibbs: jonasschnelli: blind. thanks.
99 2018-01-09 20:56:50 0|instagibbs|ah, I was close! still learning
100 2018-01-09 20:57:00 0|echeveria|I did exactly the same thing
101 2018-01-09 20:57:19 0|echeveria|I expected it to be 'network info', as in information about the network, not information about *your* network :)
102 2018-01-09 20:57:47 0|instagibbs|heh, true
103 2018-01-09 23:50:51 0|cfields|BlueMatt: whoops, missed your ping yesterday. Yes, I need to do my next round of rebasing/PR for the libevent stuff.
104 2018-01-09 23:52:59 0|cfields|sipa: out of curiosity... It looks like dns servers pretty much ignore the port provided in the query, but are free to filter based on it. What was the reasoning for using subdomains rather than plugging it in there?
105 2018-01-09 23:54:05 0|cfields|mm, I suppose that would break caching/ttl