1 2018-01-23 02:50:48	0|jtimon|sdaftuar: oh, I had missed https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11739 till today, good one
 2 2018-01-23 03:55:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15luke-jr opened pull request #12246: Bugfix: Only run bitcoin-tx tests when bitcoin-tx is enabled (06master...06separate_utils) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12246
 3 2018-01-23 06:06:42	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15karibik opened pull request #12247: ZSnarks tech integration (06master...06HODLCoin0.11.3) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12247
 4 2018-01-23 06:07:46	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #12247: ZSnarks tech integration (06master...06HODLCoin0.11.3) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12247
 5 2018-01-23 14:02:44	0|instagibbs|is there any particular reason the genesis block transaction isnt included in txindex?
 6 2018-01-23 14:45:47	0|meshcollider|instagibbs: same reason it's not spendable I guess
 7 2018-01-23 14:46:08	0|instagibbs|txindex isn't consensus, but I could see the reason being "because no one would ever bother trying to spend it"
 8 2018-01-23 14:46:23	0|instagibbs|just was surprised that joe schmoe can't use bitcoind to inspect it
 9 2018-01-23 14:46:36	0|meshcollider|Yeah I just mean in terms of code, there's no reason I can see why we shouldn't add it
10 2018-01-23 14:46:53	0|meshcollider|It'd make sense to add it I think
11 2018-01-23 14:47:40	0|sipa|instagibbs: well from a consensus point of view the genesis block isn't really a normal block
12 2018-01-23 14:47:58	0|sipa|it's just there as a given starting point
13 2018-01-23 14:48:35	0|sipa|it could be removed from bitcoind entirely, and just treat its hash in a prevblock as an indication "this is the first block"
14 2018-01-23 14:49:23	0|Sentineo|one can not fetch the first coinbase tx from RPC then and show it the people - here is the january 3 message ... :)
15 2018-01-23 14:49:50	0|Sentineo|which is kind of a question I get a lot - why doesn;t it work
16 2018-01-23 14:51:42	0|instagibbs|sipa, ehhhhh it'd be just as easy to remove it from txindex in that case :)
17 2018-01-23 14:51:49	0|instagibbs|anyways, not a big deal, just surprised me
18 2018-01-23 14:52:35	0|sipa|instagibbs: my point is that it shouldn't be in the txindex, because for all intents and purposes, that transaction doesn't exist
19 2018-01-23 14:52:45	0|sipa|it's just some arbitrary data the genesis block happens to be filled with
20 2018-01-23 14:53:03	0|sipa|the system would work equally well if it wasn't even a valid transaction
21 2018-01-23 14:53:05	0|instagibbs|disagree, but that's enough NACK to leave it as a simple observation than a PR
22 2018-01-23 15:03:46	0|sipa|instagibbs: maybe there is a bit more historical context here
23 2018-01-23 15:04:09	0|sipa|before 0.8, there was no chainstate - the whole utxo set was defined by the txindex, and the txindex was all there was
24 2018-01-23 15:04:39	0|sipa|no version of bitcoin ever added the genesis block to the txindex, which is the reason why the genesis coinbase output is unspendable
25 2018-01-23 15:04:42	0|instagibbs|ah, yes that is more motivated
26 2018-01-23 15:05:02	0|sipa|in 0.8, the consensus relevance of the txindex was moved to the chainstate
27 2018-01-23 15:05:31	0|BW^-|sipa: ah, so those first 1 million BTC minted by Satoshi, are unspendable?
28 2018-01-23 15:05:34	0|sipa|but as the genesis coinbase tx (intentionally or not) had never been part of the txindex, there isn't really a reason to change it
29 2018-01-23 15:05:38	0|sipa|BW^-: no, the first 50
30 2018-01-23 15:07:40	0|sipa|instagibbs: it's been brought up so many times on SE that i wonder if gettransaction should special case it and return some special error or so :)
31 2018-01-23 15:08:07	0|instagibbs|hah
32 2018-01-23 15:08:16	0|instagibbs|answer: yes
33 2018-01-23 15:10:19	0|BW^-|sipa: the first 50 blocks
34 2018-01-23 15:10:26	0|BW^-|?
35 2018-01-23 15:11:09	0|sipa|BW^-: no, we're only talking about the genesis block, which has an "output" of 50 BTC - those 50 BTC are not spendable
36 2018-01-23 15:11:48	0|BW^-|ah.
37 2018-01-23 15:15:57	0|Sentineo|ah I always wondered why it is unspendable :) ty sipa !
38 2018-01-23 15:17:10	0|Sentineo|I beleive chainstate was created to make the utxo set more compact and maybe efficient (lookup wise)
39 2018-01-23 15:17:19	0|Sentineo|is it a correct assumption sipa ?
40 2018-01-23 15:17:33	0|sipa|yes
41 2018-01-23 15:17:53	0|sipa|the txindex was 2 GB by the time the chainstate was 70 MB
42 2018-01-23 15:18:06	0|sipa|now the chainstate is 2 GB, i don't want to know how large the txindex would have been :)
43 2018-01-23 15:20:17	0|Sentineo|well my index folder with txindex=1 is 15G :)
44 2018-01-23 15:20:52	0|sipa|yes, but the post-0.8 txindex is much smaller than the one in pre-0.8 times
45 2018-01-23 15:21:00	0|Sentineo|my chainstate is 3.4G ... is it cause txindex is on?
46 2018-01-23 15:21:13	0|Sentineo|ah ok, so it would have been even bigger
47 2018-01-23 15:21:13	0|sipa|as it doesn't need to serve the function of UTXO set anymore
48 2018-01-23 15:23:22	0|sipa|in particular, the pre-0.8 txindex had information about all spent inputs; now we only keep information per block or per tx
49 2018-01-23 15:23:29	0|sipa|(the latter when txindex is enabled)
50 2018-01-23 15:24:22	0|Sentineo|ic
51 2018-01-23 15:55:07	0|promag|sipa: btw
52 2018-01-23 15:55:08	0|promag|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/wallet/wallet.cpp#L2742
53 2018-01-23 15:55:42	0|promag|if the creation fails or whatever then que key is returned to the pool
54 2018-01-23 15:56:21	0|promag|but LearnRelatedScripts will add other addresses to the wallet. Or am I wrong?
55 2018-01-23 16:04:29	0|sipa|LearnRelatedScripts never has any effect
56 2018-01-23 16:04:35	0|sipa|except for downgrading
57 2018-01-23 19:08:27	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ryanofsky opened pull request #12250: Make CKey::Load references const (06master...06pr/keyload) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12250
58 2018-01-23 20:00:52	0|jnewbery|v0.16.0 contains a change to P2SH activation, so we activate based on height rather than block time (a similar change to BIP 90 buried deployment). I have a very short BIP written up to describe the change. Do people think it's worth publishing as a BIP?
59 2018-01-23 20:04:01	0|sdaftuar|see also #11739 -- if we merge that then perhaps this is moot
60 2018-01-23 20:04:03	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11739 | Enforce SCRIPT_VERIFY_P2SH and SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS from genesis by sdaftuar · Pull Request #11739 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
61 2018-01-23 20:04:48	0|instagibbs|i think BIPs are a good idea if we're changing consensus rules
62 2018-01-23 20:04:57	0|Chris_Stewart_5|jnewbery: Do you think this will be re-usable for other soft forks or is p2sh unique in the regard the activation was done by block time
63 2018-01-23 20:05:01	0|MarcoFalke|The motivation for the consensus change was to make (test) code look cleaner. Since we have 11739 upcoming, that temporary more clean code is no longer a valid motivation for a change on the consensus level, as it comes with documentation burden of e.g. creating a bip.
64 2018-01-23 20:18:40	0|jnewbery|in some ways it's not a consensus change, since it's below the last checkpoint
65 2018-01-23 20:19:51	0|jnewbery|Chris_Stewart_5: I can imagine we may want to bury the CSV deployment at some point
66 2018-01-23 20:20:45	0|jnewbery|11739 would remove segwit bip9 activation
67 2018-01-23 20:21:20	0|Chris_Stewart_5|jnewbery: I say publish it -- especially if it could apply to other soft forks
68 2018-01-23 20:25:27	0|MarcoFalke|Chris_Stewart_5: Can you elaborate? If the BIP is published, it couldn't be applied to other soft forks
69 2018-01-23 20:25:38	0|MarcoFalke|You can't really change BIPs retroactively
70 2018-01-23 20:27:10	0|Chris_Stewart_5|MarcoFalke: I was thinking about it the way that BIP9 provides process for deploying soft forks -- not a *specific* soft fork
71 2018-01-23 20:27:53	0|Chris_Stewart_5|I.e. you could use this process to bury CSV deployment alogn with p2sh if i understand what it does correctly...
72 2018-01-23 20:28:14	0|Chris_Stewart_5|but perhaps this is too narrow.. idk
73 2018-01-23 20:28:27	0|MarcoFalke|I see
74 2018-01-23 20:29:44	0|MarcoFalke|If I am not mistaken, p2sh deployment is the only time based soft fork that "is left". So it wouldn't apply to others...
75 2018-01-23 20:33:36	0|Chris_Stewart_5|either way, i think posting it to the dev mailing list at least isn't a bad
76 2018-01-23 20:33:44	0|Chris_Stewart_5|bad idea
77 2018-01-23 20:39:05	0|MarcoFalke|Agree, text itself looks fine to me, but I will stick to -0
78 2018-01-23 20:49:58	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #12251: initwallet: Do not translate highly technical addresstype help (06master...06Mf1801-walletNoTranslateInitHelp) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12251
79 2018-01-23 20:58:51	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ajtowns opened pull request #12252: Require all tests to follow naming convention (06master...06rename_tests_no_leeway) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12252
80 2018-01-23 21:09:41	0|jtimon|sdaftuar: perhaps mention in your bip that this is similar to the way bip30 was activated ?
81 2018-01-23 21:14:38	0|cncr04s|how do I setup LN on mainnet?
82 2018-01-23 21:15:13	0|cncr04s|I run mining/pool/deposit services. I would like to try to test it out
83 2018-01-23 21:22:09	0|achow101|cncr04s: not here, try asking in #lightning-dev
84 2018-01-23 21:23:03	0|cncr04s|thanks
85 2018-01-23 21:51:37	0|jojeyh|hey trying to setup private regtest chain locally.  running the command 'bitcoind -regtest -daemon' outputs usual phrase 'Bitcoin server starting.." but 'ps aux' returns no process running it
86 2018-01-23 21:52:41	0|jojeyh|nvm guess it was because i was also running testnet too, but this shouldn't be a problem right?
87 2018-01-23 21:52:51	0|jojeyh|i shutdown testnet and regtest worked
88 2018-01-23 21:59:49	0|jojeyh|nvm now i can run testnet and regtest at same time
89 2018-01-23 21:59:54	0|jojeyh|don't know what i did wrong