1 2018-02-06 00:30:14	0|conman|heh is there a testnet explorer that recognises bech32 addresses? I've mined a few and can't see anything on any explorers
  2 2018-02-06 00:33:09	0|conman|I guess it doesnt matter if my bitcoind shows it as present
  3 2018-02-06 00:42:48	0|gmaxwell|conman: smartbits shows them like this https://testnet.smartbit.com.au/tx/794bd7016aa9f70eea3138d231c22c981f68badc33ec037c38c356a812dd3958
  4 2018-02-06 00:44:44	0|conman|https://testnet.smartbit.com.au/tx/252b673ff3af4a3282881137d3f3212b30dc758d9b86f38754c36a9a4f67688f
  5 2018-02-06 00:44:55	0|conman|there's one I mined to a tb1 address
  6 2018-02-06 00:45:02	0|conman|seems okay, but it can't decipher the address
  7 2018-02-06 00:47:01	0|conman|does anyone have a sample testnet bech32 script address I can try?
  8 2018-02-06 00:48:55	0|conman|oh there are samples online, nm
  9 2018-02-06 00:50:11	0|conman|https://testnet.smartbit.com.au/tx/2f94872811ca3855cb7a5069bf2f4ea75377c3310d47a3ce36c082de19c205c3
 10 2018-02-06 00:50:15	0|conman|there, mined a script one too
 11 2018-02-06 00:50:21	0|conman|great, thanks everyone for your help
 12 2018-02-06 00:50:39	0|gmaxwell|Did you make sure you handle version 0 vs later versions correctly?
 13 2018-02-06 00:50:53	0|conman|no, I only handled v0 for now
 14 2018-02-06 00:51:25	0|gmaxwell|ugh.
 15 2018-02-06 00:51:28	0|gmaxwell|wtf dude.
 16 2018-02-06 00:51:35	0|conman|I'm still coding ?
 17 2018-02-06 00:51:38	0|gmaxwell|oh okay.
 18 2018-02-06 00:51:40	0|gmaxwell|:P
 19 2018-02-06 00:51:41	0|conman|haha
 20 2018-02-06 00:52:03	0|gmaxwell|Back to work!
 21 2018-02-06 00:52:10	0|conman|sir yes sir o\
 22 2018-02-06 00:57:12	0|conman|and v > 0 needs 0x50 I was told... just looking to figure out where exactly Mr. 0x50 goes
 23 2018-02-06 00:58:40	0|sipa|conman: BIP173 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki) under "The following list gives valid segwit addresses and the scriptPubKey that they translate to in hex" gives you what you need
 24 2018-02-06 00:59:11	0|conman|ty again
 25 2018-02-06 01:01:50	0|conman|are versions > 0 currently valid on the network?
 26 2018-02-06 01:02:30	0|sipa|they're nonstandard, but valid by consensus rules (otherwise introducing a  new version would require a hard fork)
 27 2018-02-06 01:02:46	0|conman|great
 28 2018-02-06 01:03:03	0|sipa|ideally wallets don't need an upgrade to be able to send to future versions, though
 29 2018-02-06 01:03:22	0|conman|sure but I'm not creating a wallet per se
 30 2018-02-06 01:07:30	0|conman|where does the op_reserved go for v>0 ? After the witness program?
 31 2018-02-06 01:07:42	0|sipa|what op_reserved?
 32 2018-02-06 01:08:01	0|conman|‎[15:56] ‎<‎luke-jr‎>‎ oh, right, you need to add 0x50 to any witver != 0
 33 2018-02-06 01:08:19	0|sipa|witver 1 = OP_1 + witness program push
 34 2018-02-06 01:08:26	0|sipa|witver 0 = OP_0 + witness program push
 35 2018-02-06 01:08:27	0|sipa|etc
 36 2018-02-06 01:08:30	0|sipa|OP_1 is just 0x51
 37 2018-02-06 01:08:32	0|conman|oh doh
 38 2018-02-06 01:08:35	0|conman|lol
 39 2018-02-06 01:08:42	0|sipa|while OP_0 is 0x00
 40 2018-02-06 01:08:59	0|conman|thanks, now I know what you mean by add
 41 2018-02-06 01:09:00	0|conman|thanks
 42 2018-02-06 01:09:02	0|sipa|yw
 43 2018-02-06 01:27:15	0|conman|well I made up a random v1 and it got mined
 44 2018-02-06 01:27:23	0|conman|so that's good I guess
 45 2018-02-06 01:27:32	0|conman|https://testnet.smartbit.com.au/tx/8f3fb2cba3deeb57d9432ca13b03306aac40638a99cce3fc06c6240ca65ac25f
 46 2018-02-06 01:31:08	0|conman|alright, it's a wrap, I've pushed mine-to-bech32 support into my master branch
 47 2018-02-06 01:32:40	0|gmaxwell|conman: link the commit.
 48 2018-02-06 01:32:52	0|conman|https://bitbucket.org/ckolivas/ckpool/commits/61513a765b12947fae30535179194b1672dc82b5
 49 2018-02-06 01:33:39	0|conman|the address is first checked against bitcoind
 50 2018-02-06 01:33:50	0|conman|hence why there's no error checking in that code
 51 2018-02-06 01:46:46	0|windsok|conman: this explorer is pretty good too https://tchain.btc.com/2f94872811ca3855cb7a5069bf2f4ea75377c3310d47a3ce36c082de19c205c3
 52 2018-02-06 02:06:34	0|luke-jr|conman: anything can get mined. the trick is when you go to spend it
 53 2018-02-06 02:09:50	0|conman|windsok: thanks :)
 54 2018-02-06 02:11:50	0|conman|didn't know those scumbags had testnet explorer, I couldn't see the link initially
 55 2018-02-06 02:22:08	0|windsok|I'm no fan of bitmain, but I enjoy that explorer
 56 2018-02-06 02:25:56	0|conman|yeah it is actually good
 57 2018-02-06 03:53:53	0|jnewbery|I don't know how serious it is, but I've observed a new corrupted double-linked list error in master and v0.16rc2
 58 2018-02-06 03:53:59	0|jnewbery|#12362
 59 2018-02-06 03:54:00	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12362 | bitcoind hits corrupted double-linked list error when running multiple wallet_multiwallet.py tests in parallel · Issue #12362 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 60 2018-02-06 03:54:44	0|jnewbery|I've bisected it to a commit in the last couple of weeks or so
 61 2018-02-06 03:55:07	0|jnewbery|only observed when running multiple multiwallet.py tests in parallel
 62 2018-02-06 03:55:32	0|jnewbery|(or rather, when running multiwallet.py in parallel with other tests)
 63 2018-02-06 04:52:05	0|esotericnonsense|hm. has anyone used libjson-rpc-cpp with bitcoind?
 64 2018-02-06 04:52:40	0|esotericnonsense|I get a "The response is invalid" exception but it looks like perfectly cromulent json to me
 65 2018-02-06 04:59:36	0|sipa|can you paste it somewhere?
 66 2018-02-06 04:59:59	0|esotericnonsense|https://0bin.net/paste/XIEvc4xwV48k262L#AhFeXj9gcTlR-kcpU10eycgTuRaJ5HvS3TGT31wVyrn
 67 2018-02-06 05:00:24	0|esotericnonsense|the rpc passwords and stuff don't need to be censored btw. :P
 68 2018-02-06 05:02:11	0|esotericnonsense|using basically their example code it just seems to explode.
 69 2018-02-06 05:07:12	0|esotericnonsense|(same happens for anything, getmininginfo for example, it pulls out the response but raises an exception)
 70 2018-02-06 05:07:50	0|sipa|looks fine to me
 71 2018-02-06 05:09:11	0|esotericnonsense|yeah. i'm trying to figure out where the exception originates from like whether it's trying to parse the json and failing somehow.
 72 2018-02-06 05:24:05	0|esotericnonsense|bah. it's json-rpc 1.0 not 2.0.
 73 2018-02-06 05:25:07	0|esotericnonsense|https://github.com/cinemast/libjson-rpc-cpp/blob/e960bf5c00489dd2451be087ac4f05c9e5a47aa4/src/jsonrpccpp/client/rpcprotocolclient.cpp#L109 this is where it borked. changing to v1.0 client works fine. thanks anyway sipa :)
 74 2018-02-06 09:13:03	0|promag|wumpus: is this updated https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+project%3Abitcoin%2Fbitcoin%2F8+ ?
 75 2018-02-06 09:13:46	0|promag|which is/are more important?
 76 2018-02-06 09:14:06	0|promag|#10740 is wip, not sure if it should be in that list
 77 2018-02-06 09:14:08	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10740 | [WIP] [wallet] dynamic loading/unloading of wallets by jnewbery · Pull Request #10740 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 78 2018-02-06 09:37:58	0|wumpus|promag: no, that hasn't been updated for weeks, as the 0.16 milestone was effectively 'high priority for review', so we'll want to go over it next meeting and determine what still belongs there and what not
 79 2018-02-06 09:38:35	0|wumpus|I agree it's somewhat strange to have a WIP there
 80 2018-02-06 09:40:53	0|promag|are we done regarding feature freeze?
 81 2018-02-06 09:47:13	0|wumpus|yes, 0.16 is forked off
 82 2018-02-06 09:47:23	0|wumpus|so we can merge new features into master, if they're ready
 83 2018-02-06 10:06:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12359: Update license year range to 2018 (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12359
 84 2018-02-06 10:09:36	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: assuming no other issues come up do you think we'll release RC2 as final (now that we know that qt assert is not new and really fringe) or do you think we'd do an RC3 for that alone?
 85 2018-02-06 10:11:54	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: as it's only a crash on shutdown and happens only in certain circumstances, I'd say we shouldn't hold up the release just for that
 86 2018-02-06 10:12:32	0|gmaxwell|thats my view. it's an assert and it looks like it requires lucky timing and a shutdown when started with reindex.
 87 2018-02-06 10:12:58	0|wumpus|right, an assertion fail, not even a proper 'crash'
 88 2018-02-06 10:19:27	0|gmaxwell|anyone else see a bunch of connections from 23.92.36.0/24 ?
 89 2018-02-06 10:19:57	0|Sentineo|let me check
 90 2018-02-06 10:21:03	0|Sentineo|gmaxwell: yes, 5
 91 2018-02-06 10:22:09	0|Sentineo|but I see it from tor and all bitcoinj:0.14.5
 92 2018-02-06 10:23:17	0|esotericnonsense|same
 93 2018-02-06 10:23:50	0|esotericnonsense|i also have 5
 94 2018-02-06 10:24:24	0|gmaxwell|Sentineo: what do you mean 'from tor'?
 95 2018-02-06 10:25:58	0|wumpus|connections from tor hs would come from 127.0.0.1
 96 2018-02-06 10:26:22	0|esotericnonsense|i also seem to have a ton of spy nodes or something odd like that lately
 97 2018-02-06 10:27:18	0|esotericnonsense|actually perhaps not, i think i'm actually getting inbound peers where before i'd only get like 10 :op
 98 2018-02-06 10:27:30	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: yes, five here on two nodes  checked
 99 2018-02-06 10:30:17	0|wumpus|a .2 .51 .62 .52  .59 b .2  .54 .57 .59. .61
100 2018-02-06 10:32:28	0|Sentineo|ah true for tor wumpus, but I do see the local address as 127.0.0.1:8333 for all of them.
101 2018-02-06 10:32:52	0|Sentineo|so that is why I thought tor, but yeh it would come through tor socks ...
102 2018-02-06 10:34:17	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: interesting, different hosts than I see too.
103 2018-02-06 10:34:49	0|esotericnonsense|i have 2, 51, 44, 42, 41
104 2018-02-06 10:34:56	0|Sentineo|not sure why some connections show for addrlocal my public IP, some show 127.0.0.1:8333 and some the ipv6 one.
105 2018-02-06 10:34:57	0|esotericnonsense|https://esotericnonsense.com/ peers tab
106 2018-02-06 10:35:36	0|gmaxwell|anyone see any outside of 23.92.36/24 but inside 23.92.32/20 ?
107 2018-02-06 10:36:04	0|Sentineo|nope
108 2018-02-06 10:36:22	0|Sentineo|http://node.ispol.sk/#!/overview - just the /24
109 2018-02-06 10:36:44	0|wumpus|nope, all .36
110 2018-02-06 10:37:15	0|gmaxwell|I think this is the first time I've added a subnet to my banlist.
111 2018-02-06 10:37:20	0|Sentineo|34,32,2,30,29
112 2018-02-06 10:41:57	0|rabidus|.2, .56, .58, .59, .60
113 2018-02-06 10:45:35	0|gmaxwell|Updated my banlists:
114 2018-02-06 10:45:36	0|gmaxwell|https://people.xiph.org/~greg/banlist.cli.txt
115 2018-02-06 10:45:40	0|gmaxwell|https://people.xiph.org/~greg/banlist.gui.txt
116 2018-02-06 10:48:34	0|rabidus|entered those, 5 new ip address were banned
117 2018-02-06 10:48:57	0|gmaxwell|rabidus: you mean 5 got disconnected as a result of loading those?
118 2018-02-06 10:49:01	0|rabidus|yep
119 2018-02-06 10:49:35	0|rabidus|i used your list ~6 months ago
120 2018-02-06 10:49:55	0|gmaxwell|::nods::
121 2018-02-06 10:50:01	0|wumpus|esotericnonsense: just curious, what features prevent json rpc 2.0 from working?
122 2018-02-06 10:51:23	0|Sentineo|is there a list for ipv6 gmaxwell ?
123 2018-02-06 10:54:38	0|wumpus|ipv6 nodes could be included in this list, there just aren't any  in it at the moment
124 2018-02-06 10:55:18	0|gmaxwell|I don't run v6 nodes currently, so I can't gather data on them.
125 2018-02-06 10:56:33	0|wumpus|fwiw I have one node on ipv6
126 2018-02-06 10:56:51	0|esotericnonsense|wumpus: i believe it's the client being strict about the spec
127 2018-02-06 10:56:54	0|esotericnonsense|wumpus: see http://www.jsonrpc.org/specification#response_object
128 2018-02-06 10:57:02	0|esotericnonsense|jsonrpc: A String specifying the version of the JSON-RPC protocol. MUST be exactly "2.0".
129 2018-02-06 10:57:14	0|wumpus|esotericnonsense: sure, ok, but do you know what *specifically* it fails on
130 2018-02-06 10:57:23	0|wumpus|oh simply the version number
131 2018-02-06 10:57:37	0|esotericnonsense|there are other bits in the spec that are REQUIRED but at least in the core dev docs they're not REQUIRED (for the requests at least if not the responses)
132 2018-02-06 10:57:47	0|esotericnonsense|but I know that the developer docs are often outdated
133 2018-02-06 10:57:54	0|wumpus|can you try to lolpatch that to 2.0 and see if it works?
134 2018-02-06 10:58:00	0|esotericnonsense|it doesn't even respond with jsonrpc
135 2018-02-06 10:58:15	0|esotericnonsense|i.e. it's not jsonrpc 1.0, it's just not there :P
136 2018-02-06 10:58:40	0|esotericnonsense|i can yeah but not immediately (a lolhack I suppose would be to reply with whatever was in the request :P)
137 2018-02-06 10:58:46	0|wumpus|we pretty much do 2.0, there might be some small things missing
138 2018-02-06 11:00:17	0|wumpus|for example features such as batching are 2.0 afaik
139 2018-02-06 11:03:11	0|esotericnonsense|indeed
140 2018-02-06 11:21:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c887f87 15Clem Taylor: Extend #11583 to include the most common message generated by non-contributing peers (port scanners?)...
141 2018-02-06 11:21:18	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2a30e67d20f7...eaeaa2d0b4e8
142 2018-02-06 11:21:19	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14eaeaa2d 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12342: Extend #11583 to include "version handshake timeout" message...
143 2018-02-06 11:21:25	0|esotericnonsense|wumpus: nah that doesn't work. from looking at the code above (github link) it's clear why
144 2018-02-06 11:21:46	0|esotericnonsense|it interprets the spec very literally. we send error: null when it wants the error field to not exist if there's a result
145 2018-02-06 11:22:10	0|esotericnonsense|from memory i think we might also send result: null when the error is non-null
146 2018-02-06 11:22:19	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12342: Extend #11583 to include "version handshake timeout" message (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12342
147 2018-02-06 11:22:41	0|wumpus|in the long run we should move toward compliance with the spec, maybe first a command line option (for backwards compatiblity)
148 2018-02-06 11:23:35	0|esotericnonsense|yes that works
149 2018-02-06 11:24:10	0|esotericnonsense|lolpatch required to make it work in this specific instance: https://0bin.net/paste/d4-gThuaT2e1ZRk7#rsIjxU2jNyfmuWZHDaM76BRiVYOE723m7sP5vzVILEt
150 2018-02-06 11:24:26	0|esotericnonsense|i agree, you'd need to track the client version though
151 2018-02-06 11:26:12	0|esotericnonsense|it would have to be a commandline option because I think it would make sense to enforce the restrictions on the client at the same time
152 2018-02-06 11:26:53	0|wumpus|I mean to moving to strict json rpc 2.0 only, and keep the hack-1.0 compatibility as a command line option for the forseeable future for backwards compatiblity
153 2018-02-06 11:27:03	0|esotericnonsense|ah sure
154 2018-02-06 11:27:45	0|esotericnonsense|that might be something I could look at in the next few weeks :)
155 2018-02-06 11:28:51	0|wumpus|the way it is now is pretty much a historical mistake, but as a lot of software is written against our peculiar json-rpc dialect we can't and shouldn't completely drop it, but having a spec-compliant mode would be great
156 2018-02-06 11:30:15	0|wumpus|awesome
157 2018-02-06 11:31:55	0|wumpus|btcd has this option: --rpcquirks             Mirror some JSON-RPC quirks of Bitcoin Core -- NOTE: Discouraged unless interoperability issues need to be worked around   -- O dpm
158 2018-02-06 11:32:04	0|wumpus|I don't know what it exactly changes
159 2018-02-06 11:33:57	0|esotericnonsense|the JSONRPCReplyObj function seems to encapsulate all the problems if you could assume the client is jsonrpc 2.0
160 2018-02-06 11:34:27	0|wumpus|ok
161 2018-02-06 11:34:28	0|esotericnonsense|on the response side at least
162 2018-02-06 11:35:07	0|esotericnonsense|i guess it's less important to be strict about what clients send you, but then you don't want to later have a 'really really jsonrpc2.0' flag
163 2018-02-06 11:35:08	0|wumpus|right might be that bitcoin-cli needs changes as well
164 2018-02-06 11:35:09	0|esotericnonsense|:P
165 2018-02-06 11:35:17	0|esotericnonsense|yes\
166 2018-02-06 11:35:18	0|wumpus|haha no
167 2018-02-06 11:49:33	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d3a185a 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: net: Move misbehaving logging to net logging category...
168 2018-02-06 11:49:33	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/eaeaa2d0b4e8...9a32114626fc
169 2018-02-06 11:49:34	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 149a32114 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12218: net: Move misbehaving logging to net logging category...
170 2018-02-06 11:50:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12218: net: Move misbehaving logging to net logging category (06master...062018_01_misbehaving_logging) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12218
171 2018-02-06 11:54:26	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14eeeb416 15murrayn: Remove suggestion to make cloned repository world-writable for Windows build.
172 2018-02-06 11:54:26	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9a32114626fc...c3451483d283
173 2018-02-06 11:54:27	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c345148 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12322: Docs: Remove step making cloned repository world-writable for Windows build....
174 2018-02-06 11:55:13	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12322: Docs: Remove step making cloned repository world-writable for Windows build. (06master...06doc_change) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12322
175 2018-02-06 12:39:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12325: Use dynamic_cast for downcasting instead of static_cast. (06master...06use_dynamic_cast_to_downcast) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12325
176 2018-02-06 14:46:33	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15conscott opened pull request #12363: Update README after filename change (06master...06test-readme-update) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12363
177 2018-02-06 14:54:50	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c3451483d283...88971352f610
178 2018-02-06 14:54:51	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fabb72b 15MarcoFalke: contrib: Remove xpired 522739F6 key
179 2018-02-06 14:54:51	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14faeab66 15MarcoFalke: contrib: Replace developer keys with list of pgp fingerprints
180 2018-02-06 14:54:52	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148897135 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11909: contrib: Replace developer keys with list of pgp fingerprints...
181 2018-02-06 14:55:26	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11909: contrib: Replace developer keys with list of pgp fingerprints (06master...06Mf1712-gitianKeysDel) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11909
182 2018-02-06 15:14:38	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/88971352f610...f6cd41d93e12
183 2018-02-06 15:14:39	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145460460 15James O'Beirne: Add AbsPathForConfigVal to consolidate datadir prefixing for path args...
184 2018-02-06 15:14:39	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a1e1305 15James O'Beirne: Clarify help messages for path args to mention datadir prefix...
185 2018-02-06 15:14:40	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f6cd41d 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12305: [docs] [refactor] Add help messages for datadir path mangling...
186 2018-02-06 15:15:26	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12305: [docs] [refactor] Add help messages for datadir path mangling (06master...06jamesob/conf-flag-path-help) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12305
187 2018-02-06 15:54:13	0|ossifrage|Has anyone noticed a reduction in the number of connections with v0.16.x? Normally after ~3ish days of uptime I'd be upto 90 or so peers and with the new version I'm having a hard time keeping 60 connections?
188 2018-02-06 15:57:36	0|Dudley|Should  DEFAULT_WALLET_RBF be set to TRUE in wallet.h for version 0.16?
189 2018-02-06 16:03:34	0|Randolf|ossifrage:  I wonder if some folks have simply stopped running Bitcoin nodes given the recent downturn in price.  Or are you seeing the same number of initial connections as you did before?
190 2018-02-06 16:05:08	0|ossifrage|Randolf, previously I had no problem hitting ~100 connections in a few days and often >120
191 2018-02-06 16:05:21	0|ossifrage|Now I'm only hitting 50-60
192 2018-02-06 16:06:17	0|Randolf|I suppose you've been checking your logs?
193 2018-02-06 16:06:39	0|adiabat|ossifrage: I've also seen a big dropoff in nodes and also network traffic, down 50% or so in the last 2 weeks
194 2018-02-06 16:07:18	0|ossifrage|it could just be fall off in price results in a fall off in the number of nodes
195 2018-02-06 16:08:35	0|Randolf|drop.
196 2018-02-06 16:08:35	0|Randolf|Markets have been down a lot over the past few weeks (more than two weeks), and so I'm guessing that a number of folks might have chosen to stop running their nodes because of that.  I've certainly seen some chatter about that with other cryptocurrencies too from folks getting out while the markets
197 2018-02-06 16:09:10	0|Randolf|It could be interesting to find out which countries are seeing the most drops in node runners.
198 2018-02-06 16:09:16	0|Randolf|...assuming that's what's happening.
199 2018-02-06 16:09:35	0|Randolf|It would also be nice to know whether some major ISPs have actively started blocking Bitcoin node traffic.
200 2018-02-06 16:09:51	0|rabidus|i haven't seen any drop in my node peer count (.fi)
201 2018-02-06 16:10:19	0|Randolf|rabidus:  Are you using v0.16?
202 2018-02-06 16:10:35	0|rabidus|ah, sry, no.
203 2018-02-06 16:10:55	0|Randolf|rabidus:  It's still good to know that you haven't seen a drop.  :)
204 2018-02-06 16:11:26	0|rabidus|hmmm, well now i'm very curious to test that
205 2018-02-06 16:12:48	0|Randolf|Maybe I'll set up a node too, and let it run for a week.
206 2018-02-06 16:12:55	0|Randolf|...at least.
207 2018-02-06 16:13:30	0|BlueMatt|I belive #12273 needs an 0.16 tag
208 2018-02-06 16:13:32	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12273 | rpc: Add back missing cs_main lock in getrawmempool by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #12273 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
209 2018-02-06 16:15:10	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: #12337 has two bugs, the first is a regression (so should likely be tagged 0.16, but should be an easy fix), the second is not a regression, though should also be an easy fix so dunno why we shouldnt just fix it
210 2018-02-06 16:15:11	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12337 | 0.16 Shutdown assertion · Issue #12337 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
211 2018-02-06 16:15:25	0|Dudley|Command line options help displays   "walletrbf Send transactions with full-RBF opt-in enabled (RPC only, default: 0)" for version 0.16rc2
212 2018-02-06 16:15:27	0|BlueMatt|#12273 is a regression
213 2018-02-06 16:15:30	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12273 | rpc: Add back missing cs_main lock in getrawmempool by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #12273 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
214 2018-02-06 16:16:42	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: we removed the 0.16 tag from 12337, it doesn't warrant doing another r
215 2018-02-06 16:16:45	0|wumpus|rc
216 2018-02-06 16:17:06	0|wumpus|(which I also explained in my post there)
217 2018-02-06 16:17:08	0|BlueMatt|a regression causing a scarry assert on shutdown?
218 2018-02-06 16:17:22	0|wumpus|it's very rare
219 2018-02-06 16:17:31	0|wumpus|and it's only an assert, and only on shutdown
220 2018-02-06 16:17:39	0|BlueMatt|I mean I ran into it like 3 times during testing yesterday
221 2018-02-06 16:17:49	0|BlueMatt|its only rare if you never quit during startup, afaict
222 2018-02-06 16:17:55	0|wumpus|yeah...
223 2018-02-06 16:18:14	0|BlueMatt|(and other stuff probably does merit an rc3, so might as well, imo)
224 2018-02-06 16:19:25	0|wumpus|yes, if an rc3 turns out to be needed we can include the fix
225 2018-02-06 16:20:23	0|BlueMatt|#12273 could be rather annoying for a user who doesnt notice...it probably doesnt itself warrant an rc3 but that + the two bugs in 12337 might
226 2018-02-06 16:20:25	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12273 | rpc: Add back missing cs_main lock in getrawmempool by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #12273 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
227 2018-02-06 16:20:29	0|BlueMatt|and 12362 may by itself warrant one
228 2018-02-06 16:20:54	0|wumpus|12273 affects more than just the tests?
229 2018-02-06 16:21:30	0|BlueMatt|its a race between eg sendrawtransaction and getrawmempool....someone who does a sendrawtransaction followed by an immediate getrawmempool to...test for something or check fee or something may suddenly start failing
230 2018-02-06 16:21:48	0|BlueMatt|its not exactly critical, especially since it doesnt effect wallet
231 2018-02-06 16:21:56	0|wumpus|right, it seems far-fetched
232 2018-02-06 16:21:58	0|BlueMatt|but its kinda gross
233 2018-02-06 16:22:05	0|wumpus|needs to be fixed but does not warrant another rc
234 2018-02-06 16:22:10	0|BlueMatt|agreed (by itself)
235 2018-02-06 16:23:34	0|wumpus|#12362 is scary though, it's exactly what I was afraid of merging #12266 last minute :/
236 2018-02-06 16:23:35	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12362 | bitcoind hits corrupted double-linked list error when running multiple wallet_multiwallet.py tests in parallel · Issue #12362 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
237 2018-02-06 16:23:37	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12266 | Move scheduler/threadGroup into common-init instead of per-app by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #12266 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
238 2018-02-06 16:24:28	0|BlueMatt|yea, its rather surprising to me...something is really sketchy there :(
239 2018-02-06 16:25:10	0|BlueMatt|I mean this is why I wanted a full cycle of testing on all the parallell/background stuff, turns out even that seems like it wasnt enough :(
240 2018-02-06 16:30:08	0|Dudley|Discard my question.     I guess default for walletrbf is different for RPC then the GUI
241 2018-02-06 16:31:09	0|wumpus|Dudley: yes
242 2018-02-06 16:59:09	0|provoostenator|I'm making a fresh Debian 8 VM for Gitian to see which of the issues that I encountered last week are Debian 9 specific (probably still worth fixing at some point).
243 2018-02-06 16:59:41	0|provoostenator|(for rc3)
244 2018-02-06 17:00:30	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148a6c62b 15Conor Scott: [tests] Update README after filename change
245 2018-02-06 17:00:30	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f6cd41d93e12...5ad320598f06
246 2018-02-06 17:00:31	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145ad3205 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12363: Update README after filename change...
247 2018-02-06 17:01:25	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12363: Update README after filename change (06master...06test-readme-update) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12363
248 2018-02-06 17:03:22	0|wumpus|provoostenator: yeah it would help a lot if someone worked through that guide and fixed the things that are no longer correct, it's been too long
249 2018-02-06 17:03:44	0|wumpus|most people who have a working gitian environment dread to touch it again
250 2018-02-06 17:03:49	0|provoostenator|I already left about 10 issues on the docs repo, but I suspect some of it was Debian 9 related.
251 2018-02-06 17:05:07	0|wumpus|ok cool
252 2018-02-06 17:05:57	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14bdb3231 15251: Implements a virtual destructor on the BaseRequestHandler class....
253 2018-02-06 17:05:57	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5ad320598f06...1462bde767a1
254 2018-02-06 17:05:58	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141462bde 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12050: [trivial] Implements a virtual destructor on the BaseRequestHandler class....
255 2018-02-06 17:06:13	0|provoostenator|I'm also looking at clarifying how to build on the VM, but sign on the host machine.
256 2018-02-06 17:06:34	0|provoostenator|As well as push to github fro the host machine.
257 2018-02-06 17:06:42	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12050: [trivial] Implements a virtual destructor on the BaseRequestHandler class. (06master...06patch/BaseRequestHandler-virtual-dtor) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12050
258 2018-02-06 17:07:21	0|provoostenator|I already have a bash script for that, but need to combine that with the existing script (before or after someone converts that to Python).
259 2018-02-06 17:14:07	0|arubi|provoostenator, I'm successfully building w/ debian 9 as the host VM, here are my notes if it helps https://gist.github.com/fivepiece/4c5cd8733973b9821dba9c9c42958209
260 2018-02-06 17:15:38	0|arubi|it's also possible to set up the bridge stuff using the new `ip` commands, but I wasn't sure if the gitian builder scripts look for ifconfig and friends so I'm also pulling the net-tools package
261 2018-02-06 17:16:14	0|arubi|one plus is that it doesn't require installing an old vmbuilder as root
262 2018-02-06 17:55:59	0|BlueMatt|ok, so found the issue in #12362...trying to find minimal patch
263 2018-02-06 17:56:00	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12362 | bitcoind hits corrupted double-linked list error when running multiple wallet_multiwallet.py tests in parallel · Issue #12362 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
264 2018-02-06 17:56:05	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: you still around? you know this code much better than I
265 2018-02-06 17:56:24	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: yes
266 2018-02-06 17:57:02	0|wumpus|(as in still around, not sure about knowing the code better)
267 2018-02-06 17:57:03	0|BlueMatt|issue is simple: HTTPWorkQueueRun starting in a new thread may take longer to get to the queue->Run() call than it takes for us to go through InterruptHTTPServer(); StopHTTPServer()
268 2018-02-06 17:57:15	0|BlueMatt|so the thread will start after the underlying queue has been deleted
269 2018-02-06 17:57:18	0|BlueMatt|resulting in garbage
270 2018-02-06 17:57:43	0|wumpus|looks like we need a lock
271 2018-02-06 17:57:57	0|BlueMatt|prior to the commit to move the threadGroup to interrupt later, the only thing between VerifyWallets() was threadGroup.interrupt_all(), which was enough to keep from seeing this
272 2018-02-06 17:58:30	0|BlueMatt|but once that was removed if VerifyWallets() fails you essentially just immediately call InterruptHTTPServer() and then StopHTTPRPC(), StopREST(), StopRPC() and StopHTTPServer()
273 2018-02-06 17:58:35	0|BlueMatt|so you just get into a simple race there
274 2018-02-06 17:59:10	0|wumpus|yes, so when interrupthttpserver is run, we first need to wait that it is actually running
275 2018-02-06 17:59:13	0|BlueMatt|easy to test for - add a sleep at the top of HTTPWorkQueueRun and run in valgrind
276 2018-02-06 17:59:16	0|BlueMatt|you'll see it immediately
277 2018-02-06 17:59:35	0|BlueMatt|yea, just need to somehow pause until stuff is running
278 2018-02-06 17:59:54	0|BlueMatt|the stupid patch at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12362#issuecomment-363503855 apparently works
279 2018-02-06 17:59:56	0|wumpus|also, queue->run shouldn't run if it is already terminated
280 2018-02-06 18:01:34	0|BlueMatt|yea, i think that would be an equivalent fix
281 2018-02-06 18:01:44	0|wumpus|but does this fix the race?
282 2018-02-06 18:02:23	0|wumpus|there's still a small window where threads_running is incrased but queue->run is not yet executed
283 2018-02-06 18:02:38	0|BlueMatt|oh yea I mean its not a sufficient fix
284 2018-02-06 18:02:41	0|BlueMatt|its just a hack for testing
285 2018-02-06 18:02:52	0|wumpus|right
286 2018-02-06 18:03:51	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: do you understand the qt init stuff well enough to fix #12337? (it just needs to have its shutdown match bitcoind - Shutdown() should always get called if AppInitMain() gets called, even if it fails)
287 2018-02-06 18:03:52	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12337 | 0.16 Shutdown assertion · Issue #12337 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
288 2018-02-06 18:04:13	0|BlueMatt|I mean I can do a dirty hack for an rc3 that just does it directly but I dont understand the lifetimes well enough to not break things
289 2018-02-06 18:04:15	0|wumpus|I lost track of the qt init stuff to be honest, I used to understand it, but a lot changed
290 2018-02-06 18:04:20	0|BlueMatt|:(
291 2018-02-06 18:04:41	0|wumpus|oh that part, yes that should be easy
292 2018-02-06 18:05:00	0|wumpus|it's interesting because it used to be exactly the other way around
293 2018-02-06 18:05:01	0|BlueMatt|ok, well I'd propose we do that and just fix the 4 outstanding issues and do an rc3, then
294 2018-02-06 18:05:18	0|BlueMatt|yea, that stuff got confused and bitcoind and qt diverged introducing the bug in 12337 :(
295 2018-02-06 18:05:35	0|wumpus|I think that switched around a few times
296 2018-02-06 18:05:55	0|BlueMatt|well also AppInit got split.....
297 2018-02-06 18:06:03	0|wumpus|that shouldn't change this
298 2018-02-06 18:06:43	0|wumpus|the earlier appinits shouldn't require a shutdown
299 2018-02-06 18:06:45	0|wumpus|only the last one
300 2018-02-06 18:06:55	0|BlueMatt|yea, well when there was only one appinit... :p
301 2018-02-06 18:06:56	0|wumpus|as that is what is executed in the daemon process
302 2018-02-06 18:07:11	0|wumpus|the other ones are preparation
303 2018-02-06 18:07:50	0|BlueMatt|so one thing we should maybe consider is a test framework that changes shutdownrequested to just start shutdown after being called N times, and then run for all N 0...inf to make sure we handle all these cases well
304 2018-02-06 18:08:06	0|BlueMatt|cause we now have, what, 2 issues that would be caught by a test like that
305 2018-02-06 18:08:08	0|wumpus|yes it definitely needs tests
306 2018-02-06 18:08:46	0|wumpus|the initialization sequence and shutdown are really undertested
307 2018-02-06 18:14:59	0|wumpus|so for the queue->Run() I don't understand why interrupting it before the Run is hit is a problem, interrupt should set the stopped flag on the queue, so it should just fall through and exit the thread immediately
308 2018-02-06 18:15:50	0|wumpus|or does deletion (which should happen in ShutdownHTTPServer, not Interrupt) somehow not wait for the threads to have stopped?
309 2018-02-06 18:16:52	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: I do not believe ShutdownHTTPServer does any meaningful waiting, no
310 2018-02-06 18:17:04	0|wumpus|then that is likely the issue, let me see
311 2018-02-06 18:17:10	0|BlueMatt|yea, I dont think Interrupt is the issue, I think its Shutdown
312 2018-02-06 18:17:45	0|wumpus|it does workqueue->WaitExit()
313 2018-02-06 18:17:52	0|wumpus|in Shutdown
314 2018-02-06 18:18:33	0|BlueMatt|yea, but if the thread hasnt joined (ie is still waiting to call numThreads++) then the wait is null
315 2018-02-06 18:18:34	0|ryanofsky|#11625 adds some testing for qt init code, fwiw
316 2018-02-06 18:18:37	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11625 | Add BitcoinApplication & RPCConsole tests by ryanofsky · Pull Request #11625 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
317 2018-02-06 18:19:10	0|wumpus|ah apparently it doesn't actually join the thread objects
318 2018-02-06 18:19:19	0|wumpus|ryanofsky: good!
319 2018-02-06 18:20:04	0|wumpus|the threads are detached and the handle is thrown away
320 2018-02-06 18:20:53	0|BlueMatt|yea
321 2018-02-06 18:21:10	0|wumpus|ok this is easy to solve
322 2018-02-06 18:22:22	0|wumpus|will PR in a minute
323 2018-02-06 18:24:47	0|wumpus|thanks for finding this, I wonder if I introduced this bug or it somehow snuck in when going from boost::thread to std::thread (probably the former)
324 2018-02-06 18:29:10	0|BlueMatt|alright, well I propose we fix all 4 bugs here and then rc3
325 2018-02-06 18:29:52	0|BlueMatt|wait, i may have another....
326 2018-02-06 18:30:43	0|BlueMatt|yup, ok, 5 bugs
327 2018-02-06 18:32:36	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #12366: http: Join worker threads before deleting work queue (06master...062017_02_httpserver_join) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12366
328 2018-02-06 18:37:57	0|wumpus|as for qt, it seems it's already supposed to call Shutdown() even if AppInitMain() fails, don't know what goes wrong
329 2018-02-06 18:38:30	0|BlueMatt|[13:16:58] <cfields> BlueMatt: BitcoinApplication connects requestedShutdown to shutdown(), but SplashScreen connects it to close()
330 2018-02-06 18:38:30	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: [13:15:15] <cfields> BlueMatt: i think i might see the issue
331 2018-02-06 18:38:43	0|BlueMatt|[13:17:32] <cfields> so it looks like we should re-route that after AppInitMain has started
332 2018-02-06 18:39:22	0|wumpus|a signal can be connected to two handlers, I don't see the problem
333 2018-02-06 18:40:01	0|wumpus|that just makes sure that the splash screen is hidden when the shutdown window is shown
334 2018-02-06 18:40:03	0|BlueMatt|ahh, well I didnt look into it that deeply, but if Shutdown() is called, nThreadsServicingQueue should be pretty clearly 0
335 2018-02-06 18:40:14	0|BlueMatt|as it join()s
336 2018-02-06 18:40:50	0|wumpus|I'm fairly sure that this has always worked, when closing during the splash screen the shutdown window is shown and it waits for proper shutdown
337 2018-02-06 18:41:09	0|wumpus|no idea wtf messed this up...
338 2018-02-06 18:43:52	0|wumpus|so the assertion is triggered after exiting main()?
339 2018-02-06 18:44:05	0|BlueMatt|yes
340 2018-02-06 18:44:08	0|BlueMatt|static-deinit
341 2018-02-06 18:45:50	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #12367: Fix two fast-shutdown bugs (06master...062018-02-wait-genesis-exit) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12367
342 2018-02-06 18:46:02	0|BlueMatt|^ fixes two fast-shutdown bugs, hopefully with really-simple patches
343 2018-02-06 18:46:27	0|MarcoFalke|rc2 is basically rc1
344 2018-02-06 18:46:41	0|MarcoFalke|As we need to give users time to test, there is no downside in rc3
345 2018-02-06 18:53:37	0|dongcarl|Hi all, I've been trying to get gitian on LXC working to no avail. I'm running into the same issues kallewoof ran into on Dec 1st, 2017. where the error is "sudo: unable to resolve host gitian / cannot set terminal process group (1): Inappropriate ioctl for device / no job control in this shell"
346 2018-02-06 18:53:55	0|dongcarl|I fixed the unable to resolve host error by modifying the /etc/hosts of the base image
347 2018-02-06 18:53:55	0|wumpus|unable to resolve host is harmless at least
348 2018-02-06 18:54:04	0|wumpus|that's just a warning
349 2018-02-06 18:54:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #12368: Hold mempool.cs for the duration of ATMP. (06master...062018-02-getrawmempool-race) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12368
350 2018-02-06 18:54:26	0|BlueMatt|MarcoFalke: ^
351 2018-02-06 18:54:34	0|wumpus|never saw the others though
352 2018-02-06 18:55:16	0|dongcarl|wumpus: thanks, it seems like there were case before where this happened as well, e.g. https://github.com/devrandom/gitian-builder/issues/63
353 2018-02-06 18:55:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12273: rpc: Add back missing cs_main lock in getrawmempool (06master...06Mf1801-rpcMempoolGetLock) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12273
354 2018-02-06 18:56:15	0|dongcarl|What happens with the error is that I get dropped into a root shell, and when I ctrl-d, a loop of "sudo: unknown user: ubuntu" and "sudo: unable to initialize policy plugin" pops up
355 2018-02-06 18:56:18	0|BlueMatt|ok, so #12368 + #12367 + #12366 + the qt bug and then rc3? I think all of those except the last are at least super-trivial patches...and at this rate getting an extra week on testing cycles seems to make sense
356 2018-02-06 18:56:20	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12368 | Hold mempool.cs for the duration of ATMP. by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #12368 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
357 2018-02-06 18:56:21	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12367 | Fix two fast-shutdown bugs by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #12367 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
358 2018-02-06 18:56:22	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12366 | http: Join worker threads before deleting work queue by laanwj · Pull Request #12366 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
359 2018-02-06 19:15:18	0|wumpus|dongcarl: is that perhaps with debian 9?
360 2018-02-06 19:15:35	0|dongcarl|wumpus: the base image is trusty
361 2018-02-06 19:15:44	0|wumpus|no, I mean the outer VM
362 2018-02-06 19:15:56	0|dongcarl|I'm on Arch right now
363 2018-02-06 19:16:23	0|dongcarl|am I understanding this wrong? I thought there were two layers, my laptop (Arch) and the lxc container (Trusty)
364 2018-02-06 19:16:24	0|wumpus|heh you might be the first that tries running gitian on arch
365 2018-02-06 19:16:49	0|dongcarl|wumpus: yeah I wanted to make a PR on how to workaround the kinks
366 2018-02-06 19:16:55	0|provoostenator|dongcarl: I've only used the Debian VM. Not sure if it's worth maintaining documentation for 2 distros.
367 2018-02-06 19:17:22	0|provoostenator|Although I suppose it would make the scripts more robust.
368 2018-02-06 19:17:23	0|MarcoFalke|provoostenator: We already have it for fedora as well
369 2018-02-06 19:17:24	0|dongcarl|provoostenator: I think it'll be nice if the scripts are distro-agnostic
370 2018-02-06 19:17:25	0|esotericnonsense|bah run debian or whatever in a vm and run the lxc within that. solved. :P
371 2018-02-06 19:17:28	0|dongcarl|yeah
372 2018-02-06 19:17:31	0|wumpus|well iI assumed you were following the gitian-building md, it starts out with debian VM in which the LXC based gitian is run
373 2018-02-06 19:17:47	0|wumpus|it would be nice, but not realistic I think
374 2018-02-06 19:17:55	0|wumpus|we have lots of trouble keeping it working in just debian
375 2018-02-06 19:18:07	0|dongcarl|:-/
376 2018-02-06 19:18:29	0|provoostenator|I'm getting better at it though, having nuked and rebuilt a Gitian VM half a dozen times now.
377 2018-02-06 19:18:36	0|dongcarl|So I know the zcash people use gitian+vagrant
378 2018-02-06 19:18:49	0|dongcarl|and vagrant is pretty portable across hosts and drivers
379 2018-02-06 19:18:56	0|dongcarl|but that's a whole other thing
380 2018-02-06 19:19:02	0|dongcarl|I think I know where the problem lies...
381 2018-02-06 19:19:10	0|MarcoFalke|Maybe we can get rid of gitian ...
382 2018-02-06 19:19:18	0|sipa|in theory there shouldn't be that much dependece on the outer host
383 2018-02-06 19:19:25	0|sipa|but that's theory...
384 2018-02-06 19:19:27	0|wumpus|hahaha
385 2018-02-06 19:19:29	0|wumpus|in theory
386 2018-02-06 19:19:46	0|MarcoFalke|sipa: The lxc bridge thing usually breaks
387 2018-02-06 19:19:59	0|sipa|the difference between theory and practice is of course that in theory there is nome, but in practice...
388 2018-02-06 19:20:01	0|wumpus|the lxc setup is quite fragile
389 2018-02-06 19:20:06	0|MarcoFalke|yeah
390 2018-02-06 19:20:33	0|wumpus|maybe it's easier with vagrant or another container hoster, I don't know
391 2018-02-06 19:20:48	0|wumpus|if someone has time to play around with that it'd be appreciated
392 2018-02-06 19:21:05	0|arubi|vagrant requires virtualbox right?
393 2018-02-06 19:21:14	0|dongcarl|arubi: no
394 2018-02-06 19:21:19	0|dongcarl|it can take a lot of drivers
395 2018-02-06 19:21:21	0|wumpus|I thought it was just another user of linux containers, just like lxc and docker
396 2018-02-06 19:21:29	0|arubi|oic
397 2018-02-06 19:21:35	0|arubi|I was using qemu for mine
398 2018-02-06 19:21:42	0|dongcarl|it's orchestration layer on top of multiple drivers, lxc, qemu, etc
399 2018-02-06 19:21:49	0|arubi|oh cool
400 2018-02-06 19:21:50	0|dongcarl|quite easy to write extensions
401 2018-02-06 19:22:06	0|wumpus|that sounds like another layer of complexity
402 2018-02-06 19:22:32	0|dongcarl|wumpus: right, that's why I don't know if people would want vagrant
403 2018-02-06 19:22:38	0|wumpus|the problem is that lxc is hard to set up, so switch to something that is another abstraction layer over multiple kinds of virtualization, just like gitian is already trying to be
404 2018-02-06 19:22:43	0|dongcarl|wumpus: but it's quite well-tested and easy to set up
405 2018-02-06 19:23:19	0|arubi|maybe aboriginal linux -> mkroot -> build? :P
406 2018-02-06 19:23:19	0|wumpus|gitian as-is can also be used with qemu, lxc or even virtualbox (though no one is doing the latter anymore since Gavin left, I think)
407 2018-02-06 19:23:38	0|dongcarl|wumpus: I think the end goal is for gitian to target vagrant, and for vagrant to handle interacting with the drivers
408 2018-02-06 19:23:45	0|dongcarl|which would make gitian work much easier
409 2018-02-06 19:24:05	0|dongcarl|anyways, I'll play around with it and see if it actually delivers
410 2018-02-06 19:24:17	0|dongcarl|(or just makes things more complicated)
411 2018-02-06 19:25:01	0|wumpus|right, that could work I guess
412 2018-02-06 19:26:18	0|dongcarl|quick question: is anyone allowed to submit their gitian sigs or just a limited group of people?
413 2018-02-06 19:27:00	0|sipa|dongcarl: if you plan to regularly dongitian builds foe bitcoin core releases, you're very mufh encouraged to upload your key and do so:)
414 2018-02-06 19:27:22	0|sipa|that n between do and gitian is a typo, i swear!
415 2018-02-06 19:27:37	0|dongcarl|sipa: I'm definitely going to name my PR branch dongitian now ;-)
416 2018-02-06 19:27:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12349: shutdown: fix crash on shutdown with reindex-chainstate (06master...06fix-qt-shutdown) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12349
417 2018-02-06 19:28:58	0|wumpus|everyone is allowed to submit gitian sigs, the more the better
418 2018-02-06 19:30:57	0|dongcarl|<3
419 2018-02-06 19:32:20	0|wumpus|the only requirement is that you get the build working :)
420 2018-02-06 19:33:35	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: did you have any idea why the qt shit isnt calling Shutdown() reliably or should I try to decipher qt
421 2018-02-06 19:33:56	0|wumpus|no, I have no idea right now
422 2018-02-06 19:33:59	0|BlueMatt|k
423 2018-02-06 19:34:08	0|wumpus|from what I see it should simply work
424 2018-02-06 19:37:04	0|cfields|BlueMatt: see my last comment on that ticket, I think I'm in the right ballpark
425 2018-02-06 19:37:18	0|BlueMatt|cfields: wumpus indicated that didnt seem likely
426 2018-02-06 19:37:26	0|cfields|though admittedly, I tried a million theories and probably crossed myself up in the process
427 2018-02-06 19:37:27	0|cfields|oh?
428 2018-02-06 19:37:29	0|BlueMatt|lol well I currently cant build qt due to the moc bug, so...ugh
429 2018-02-06 19:37:42	0|jnewbery|wumpus: change looks good. I can't reproduce 12362 with your PR
430 2018-02-06 19:37:45	0|cfields|eh? still?
431 2018-02-06 19:37:45	0|wumpus|cfields had a different theory there, I haven't checked that one
432 2018-02-06 19:38:16	0|wumpus|jnewbery: great!
433 2018-02-06 19:38:39	0|BlueMatt|cfields: well I never found any resolution to it? moc doesnt build bitcoin-qt right now....no idea why
434 2018-02-06 19:39:24	0|wumpus|cfields: just that the one about re-attaching the signal was not correct, because it's perfectly valid to attach multiple listeners to a signal (or did I misunderstand what you meant?)
435 2018-02-06 19:39:29	0|BlueMatt|cfields: is it just me or is the issue simply that BitcoinCore::initialize() calls initializeResult(false) if AppInitMain() fails, which calls quit() directly instead of calling shutdown() (which would call Interrupt(), Shutdown(), and then shutdownResult() which calls quit())?
436 2018-02-06 19:39:43	0|wumpus|quit() just exits the main loop
437 2018-02-06 19:39:54	0|BlueMatt|yes, but we thus wont call Shutdown(), I think
438 2018-02-06 19:39:56	0|wumpus|after that it starts the shutdown sequence in a new main loop
439 2018-02-06 19:40:00	0|BlueMatt|oh
440 2018-02-06 19:40:04	0|wumpus|after showing the shutdown window
441 2018-02-06 19:40:21	0|BlueMatt|funny because shutdown() will call Interrupt() and then Shutdown() and then quit()
442 2018-02-06 19:40:32	0|wumpus|that should just work, I tested it a zillion times
443 2018-02-06 19:40:37	0|wumpus|yes it calls quit again
444 2018-02-06 19:40:51	0|wumpus|to exit the new mainloop (which handles exiting)
445 2018-02-06 19:40:52	0|BlueMatt|hmm, ok, well I guess I'm just confused
446 2018-02-06 19:45:05	0|wumpus|FWIW it's structured like this because existing the main window will exit the main loop, so we need a new main loop instance to handle the shutdown window while it's shutting down (in the background). There's certainly different ways to do it, but this used to work at least.
447 2018-02-06 19:46:28	0|BlueMatt|well I'll debug moc a bit more and see if I can get that working again
448 2018-02-06 19:47:58	0|cfields|BlueMatt: the problem as i saw it was that quit() is called _both_ by the failed AppInitMain(), as well as when it gets the shutdown signal.
449 2018-02-06 19:48:18	0|cfields|I can only defer to wumpus as to whether that's an issue or not.
450 2018-02-06 19:49:42	0|cfields|but yes, in all of my tests, exit does wait on the shutdown procedure to finish. I can't force any other result :\
451 2018-02-06 19:50:09	0|wumpus|cfields: wait, we don't stop the shutdown poll timer while shutting down?
452 2018-02-06 19:50:20	0|cfields|hmm?
453 2018-02-06 19:50:59	0|wumpus|BitcoinGUI::detectShutdown()
454 2018-02-06 19:51:17	0|wumpus|does that run while it's in the second main loop (while the shutdown window is visible)?
455 2018-02-06 19:51:47	0|wumpus|if so it will prematurely end that loop becuase, yes, it's shut down
456 2018-02-06 19:52:21	0|cfields|wumpus: ugh, no clue. I didn't even look at that.
457 2018-02-06 19:52:59	0|wumpus|cfields: I thought that's what you mean with 'when it gets the shutdown signal'
458 2018-02-06 19:54:07	0|wumpus|the other one (in shutdownResult) is for *after Shutdown() finished* so that's ok
459 2018-02-06 19:54:35	0|wumpus|and the one in initializeResult() is ok too, it means it goes into the shutdown sequence
460 2018-02-06 19:54:48	0|wumpus|but the timer might create such a weird race issue
461 2018-02-06 19:55:45	0|wumpus|ah, pollShutdownTimer is stopped
462 2018-02-06 19:55:52	0|wumpus|in requestShutdown
463 2018-02-06 19:56:32	0|wumpus|no, that should be ok
464 2018-02-06 20:00:06	0|cfields|wumpus: ah, so the timer sees StartShutdown() and fires requestedShutdown(). I see. I thought that was coming from the close button. So shutdown() isn't an overridden qt function?
465 2018-02-06 20:00:37	0|wumpus|cfields: no :)
466 2018-02-06 20:01:08	0|cfields|heh ok
467 2018-02-06 20:01:09	0|wumpus|shutdown() is just the background thread function that actually calls Interrupt() and Shutdown()
468 2018-02-06 20:02:26	0|wumpus|this is bound to the signal requestedShutdown(), coming from the GUI thread
469 2018-02-06 20:02:29	0|cfields|right. I know we call it, but I thought qt emitted it too as some life-cycle callback
470 2018-02-06 20:03:10	0|cfields|yes, I have a much better idea now, thanks
471 2018-02-06 20:22:30	0|dongcarl|If anyone has a working LXC Trusty gitian container, could they show me `ls -la /dev/tty*'?
472 2018-02-06 20:31:38	0|arubi|dongcarl, are you running a nested lxc then?  lxc host and gitian builder lxc inside it?  if so fwiw it's not so straight forward
473 2018-02-06 20:42:06	0|arubi|if anybody's up for it, please kill the current running #25110 travis job.  it's obsolete a waste to keep folks waiting
474 2018-02-06 20:42:07	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25110 | HTTP Error 404: Not Found
475 2018-02-06 20:43:43	0|sipa|do you have URL?
476 2018-02-06 20:43:55	0|arubi|sipa, https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/builds/338165077
477 2018-02-06 20:56:16	0|sipa|arubi: done
478 2018-02-06 20:56:26	0|arubi|cheers
479 2018-02-06 21:32:41	0|BlueMatt|MarcoFalke: you can just close #12365 its a launchpad security issue that launchpad appears to give 0 fucks about fixing
480 2018-02-06 21:32:42	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12365 | Add ppa:bitcoin/bitcoin repository on linux problem · Issue #12365 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
481 2018-02-06 21:32:48	0|BlueMatt|yay ubuntu dgaf about security, apparently
482 2018-02-06 21:33:00	0|BlueMatt|well, i guess we knew that
483 2018-02-06 21:33:35	0|sipa|dgaf?
484 2018-02-06 21:33:41	0|BlueMatt|dont give a fuck
485 2018-02-06 21:33:55	0|dongcarl|(kids these days)
486 2018-02-06 21:35:39	0|dongcarl|arubi: no, it's just that I've isolated the problem down to the fact that 'sudo lxc-execute -n gitian -f var/lxc.config -- bash' doesn't work
487 2018-02-06 21:35:53	0|dongcarl|it says 'bash: cannot set terminal process group (1): Inappropriate ioctl for device'
488 2018-02-06 21:36:11	0|dongcarl|when i do s/bash/sh/
489 2018-02-06 21:36:20	0|dongcarl|it says 'sh: 0: can't access tty; job control turned off'
490 2018-02-06 21:36:28	0|dongcarl|so something's wrong with tty somewhere...
491 2018-02-06 21:37:31	0|arubi|I see, sorry, I didn't get this error here
492 2018-02-06 21:37:56	0|dongcarl|I think it's to do with me running a newer version of lxc
493 2018-02-06 21:38:13	0|dongcarl|it complains about the config file being an old format too and I had to look at what key names changed
494 2018-02-06 21:39:01	0|arubi|oh man that sounds like a lot of work once non bleeding edge os's are updated to newer lxc..
495 2018-02-06 21:39:15	0|dongcarl|arubi: yup, which is why I'm starting now...
496 2018-02-06 21:39:24	0|arubi|good luck
497 2018-02-06 21:39:30	0|dongcarl|<3
498 2018-02-06 22:13:06	0|BlueMatt|cfields: were you ever able to materially reproduce #12337?
499 2018-02-06 22:13:08	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12337 | 0.16 Shutdown assertion · Issue #12337 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
500 2018-02-06 22:13:52	0|cfields|BlueMatt: no :(
501 2018-02-06 22:14:17	0|BlueMatt|you "killed" by just closing window?
502 2018-02-06 22:14:19	0|cfields|BlueMatt: i can confirm that Shutdown() wasn't called though
503 2018-02-06 22:14:29	0|cfields|yep
504 2018-02-06 22:15:26	0|cfields|BlueMatt: I tried all kinds of sleeps/early returns to try to hit it again, but no luck
505 2018-02-06 22:17:18	0|cfields|tail of log:
506 2018-02-06 22:17:22	0|cfields|2018-02-02 20:39:50 [0%]...[CANCELLED].
507 2018-02-06 22:17:22	0|cfields|2018-02-02 20:39:50 Shutdown requested. Exiting
508 2018-02-06 22:17:22	0|cfields|2018-02-02 20:39:50 Upgrading utxo-set database...
509 2018-02-06 22:19:07	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15akx20000a opened pull request #12371: Add gitian PGP key: akx20000 (06master...06gitian-key) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12371
510 2018-02-06 22:19:26	0|BlueMatt|hmm, k
511 2018-02-06 22:20:33	0|promag|BlueMatt: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12368#issuecomment-363584547
512 2018-02-06 22:24:13	0|BlueMatt|promag: the validationinterface background-thread stuff breaks lock-order =D
513 2018-02-06 22:34:41	0|promag|BlueMatt: got it, forgot about that X)
514 2018-02-06 23:07:50	0|BlueMatt|ugh, alright cfields I give up :/ at least I found #12372 in the process
515 2018-02-06 23:07:51	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12372 | Qt Splash Screen is deleted (and accesses wallet) after Shutdown() (and wallets are deleted). · Issue #12372 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
516 2018-02-06 23:07:59	0|BlueMatt|hopefully it doesnt show up again in rc3
517 2018-02-06 23:08:50	0|cfields|heh
518 2018-02-06 23:08:55	0|cfields|BlueMatt: i never saw that one :\
519 2018-02-06 23:09:19	0|BlueMatt|I have no idea how realistic it is
520 2018-02-06 23:09:31	0|BlueMatt|I was just putting sleeps in the middle of AppInitMain and closing splashscreen
521 2018-02-06 23:13:53	0|cfields|BlueMatt: how long are the sleeps? anywhere near reasonable?