1 2018-02-26 00:30:27	0|eklitzke|it's on my todo list, i have a systemtap script that hooks into the kernel events that update the process file descriptor tables
  2 2018-02-26 00:30:58	0|eklitzke|i want to use that to find the places where bitcoind creates file descriptors but doesn't track that
  3 2018-02-26 00:31:31	0|gmaxwell|eklitzke: the main reason we have FD limits at all is due to the use of select in the networking code.
  4 2018-02-26 00:31:54	0|eklitzke|so i don't quite understand what is the situation where you would get 1024 network sockets in your bitcoin process
  5 2018-02-26 00:32:03	0|gmaxwell|There is a fairly simple patch to use poll instead which has been delayed for a very long time now out of a desire to instead wait until a bigger rewrite.
  6 2018-02-26 00:32:32	0|gmaxwell|eklitzke: select will not work if any fd number is over 1023... not just if there are more network sockets.
  7 2018-02-26 00:32:37	0|eklitzke|ah, right
  8 2018-02-26 00:32:43	0|gmaxwell|because it's implemented as a bitmap.
  9 2018-02-26 00:32:53	0|gmaxwell|well a constant size bitmap. :P
 10 2018-02-26 00:33:28	0|gmaxwell|so we get fd pressure from all angles, multiple leveldbs, rpc, network, block files, etc.
 11 2018-02-26 01:34:47	0|Admun|admin
 12 2018-02-26 01:35:03	0|Admun|operation/sathoschi
 13 2018-02-26 01:35:20	0|Admun|franklin!!!
 14 2018-02-26 01:53:35	0|pierre_rochard|Any success stories of experimenting with the core codebase using Jupyter + xeus-cling? ( https://blog.jupyter.org/interactive-workflows-for-c-with-jupyter-fe9b54227d92 )
 15 2018-02-26 05:14:12	0|j0hnson2412|does the bitcoin: uri scheme work ok with segwit addresses?  i sent a payment with it and the actual transfer goes to a different address
 16 2018-02-26 05:15:40	0|sipa|it should work
 17 2018-02-26 05:15:56	0|sipa|what software and version?
 18 2018-02-26 05:17:43	0|j0hnson2412|bitcoin core v0.15.1
 19 2018-02-26 05:18:12	0|sipa|and do you mean a p2sh address or a native one? (3... or bc1...?)
 20 2018-02-26 05:18:42	0|j0hnson2412|the address parameter is set to a segwit (3) address, but it also has a r parameter.  reading it looks like it just ignores what that address is and fetches info from the r parameter
 21 2018-02-26 05:19:09	0|j0hnson2412|this is to a coinbase.com merchant
 22 2018-02-26 05:19:30	0|sipa|who created the URI?
 23 2018-02-26 05:19:31	0|j0hnson2412|they say they didnt receive the payment so it looks like coinbase is messed up then
 24 2018-02-26 05:19:59	0|j0hnson2412|its from one of those 'pay with coinbase.com' buttons
 25 2018-02-26 05:20:46	0|sipa|hmm, no idea what the r= stands for
 26 2018-02-26 05:21:17	0|j0hnson2412|https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0072.mediawiki
 27 2018-02-26 05:22:08	0|sipa|ah, bip72
 28 2018-02-26 05:22:12	0|sipa|payment rpotocol
 29 2018-02-26 05:22:30	0|sipa|yes, bitcoin core will prefer using the payment protocol over the raw address
 30 2018-02-26 05:43:30	0|j0hnson2412|and theres not really an easy way to decode the paymentrequest either.  god what a headache to send a simple payment
 31 2018-02-26 05:44:06	0|achow101|j0hnson2412: https://github.com/achow101/payment-proto-interface
 32 2018-02-26 05:46:21	0|sipa|j0hnson2412: you can also just drop the r= clause
 33 2018-02-26 05:46:27	0|j0hnson2412|yeah this is gonna take me another 10 hours to install python and figure it all out
 34 2018-02-26 05:46:40	0|sipa|(but you'd pay again, of course)
 35 2018-02-26 05:47:19	0|achow101|j0hnson2412: there's prebuilt packages: https://github.com/achow101/payment-proto-interface/releases
 36 2018-02-26 05:47:23	0|achow101|they shouldn't need python installed
 37 2018-02-26 05:47:49	0|j0hnson2412|their releases are broken, they won't even run
 38 2018-02-26 05:48:47	0|achow101|how do they not run (note that's my project)
 39 2018-02-26 05:48:57	0|achow101|other people have been able to use them
 40 2018-02-26 05:51:41	0|j0hnson2412|https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/H9nNc1r.png
 41 2018-02-26 05:51:45	0|j0hnson2412|i probably now have malware from this too
 42 2018-02-26 05:53:25	0|achow101|well if that's how you feel about it, guess I'll stop trying to help then
 43 2018-02-26 05:56:31	0|j0hnson2412|you need to statically link your stuff, linux one doesnt run either
 44 2018-02-26 06:30:48	0|bramc|Hey everybody
 45 2018-02-26 06:35:33	0|meshcollider|bramc: hi
 46 2018-02-26 06:37:15	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15kallewoof opened pull request #12537: [arith_uint256] Make it safe to use "self" in operators (06master...06uint-safe-self-op) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12537
 47 2018-02-26 06:45:03	0|j0hnson2412|finally got the bitcoin script extracted from the paymentdetails, but it's in some weird python mix of ascii and escaped octal..
 48 2018-02-26 06:45:06	0|j0hnson2412|"v\251\024*\375\005\177\323Y\374\034\030\013\027}\005\361\264\031\030gG\032\210\254"
 49 2018-02-26 06:51:37	0|j0hnson2412|all this work to figure out why a billion dollar payment gateway with no contact doesn't work, bitcoin is the future
 50 2018-02-26 07:03:31	0|kallewoof|j0hnson2412: It is probably binary. The ascii are probably just coincidence.
 51 2018-02-26 07:05:25	0|bramc|Python will include printables verbatim without escaping
 52 2018-02-26 08:54:05	0|wumpus|j0hnson2412: this might help if you're interacting with the payment protocol manually https://github.com/achow101/payment-proto-interface
 53 2018-02-26 08:54:16	0|wumpus|oh, I see someone posted that
 54 2018-02-26 09:08:20	0|wumpus|and yes the forced adoption of the payment protocol by bitpay etc has been a letdown, many wallets don't have a BIP70 implementation, some don't work properly, there's problems with cloudflare and tor when fetching the requests
 55 2018-02-26 09:09:37	0|wumpus|last time I tried to pay something using bitpay I had to give up and pay by bank... all was okay when you could just pay manually to an address
 56 2018-02-26 09:21:05	0|booyah|I was reading about the bitcoin db locks exploit, https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki  - but I don't see there information when it was introduced exactly and "who is responsible" for it
 57 2018-02-26 09:23:07	0|booyah|which commit/pr added this problem?
 58 2018-02-26 09:29:51	0|wumpus|can anyone review https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/513 please
 59 2018-02-26 09:30:59	0|wumpus|booyah:  that bug was always in there AFAIK, and I don't think it was intentionally exploited, it was an unexpected interaction between the db library and consensus
 60 2018-02-26 09:31:37	0|booyah|wumpus: so all released versions of Bitcoin, including Satoshi's release, were vulneable?
 61 2018-02-26 09:31:44	0|wumpus|booyah: yes
 62 2018-02-26 09:31:49	0|echeveria|yes
 63 2018-02-26 09:32:07	0|booyah|I'm asking also since there're idiots in -otc claiming that is "bitcoin core fault"
 64 2018-02-26 09:32:11	0|echeveria|satoshis bitcoin 0.1 was more vulnerable in a pile of ways. there’s lots of things that aren’t understood well.
 65 2018-02-26 09:32:32	0|wumpus|everything using berkeleydb for the utxo set, which was the case from the first version
 66 2018-02-26 09:32:36	0|echeveria|ie, you could create unlimited bitcoin out of thin air and spend anybodies bitcoin.
 67 2018-02-26 09:32:51	0|wumpus|not that one echeveria
 68 2018-02-26 09:33:05	0|echeveria|?
 69 2018-02-26 09:33:21	0|wumpus|that was another bug in satoshi's code, much earlier
 70 2018-02-26 09:33:36	0|echeveria|I’m saying it’s not perfect, and you can’t attribute that to later development at all. I realise they’re 3 different, earlier bugs.
 71 2018-02-26 09:33:49	0|booyah|we need better CVE / bug disclosure process guys
 72 2018-02-26 09:34:05	0|echeveria|uh. this is ancient history.
 73 2018-02-26 09:34:15	0|wumpus|yes, this is ancient history
 74 2018-02-26 09:34:17	0|booyah|above information should be state in that BIP 50 imo. Which versions were affected (all), when it was introduced (in first version), by who (Satoshi)
 75 2018-02-26 09:34:30	0|wumpus|both the BIP50 fork and satoshi's counting mistake :-)
 76 2018-02-26 09:34:40	0|booyah|it is also the most known security event (or 1 of like 3) used NOW to prove that bitcoin core is incompetent
 77 2018-02-26 09:34:47	0|booyah|"prove"
 78 2018-02-26 09:34:47	0|wumpus|feel free to dig in history, someone must, but I focus on the future only
 79 2018-02-26 09:35:00	0|echeveria|booyah: feel free to write them up.
 80 2018-02-26 09:35:02	0|booyah|[10:33] <mats> this is 0.8.0, which satoshi did not release
 81 2018-02-26 09:35:37	0|booyah|wumpus: I see. btw please provide such detailed info for any future (if any) then :)
 82 2018-02-26 09:35:37	0|echeveria|0.8 *fixed* the bug.
 83 2018-02-26 09:35:38	0|wumpus|if their point is that bitcoin core's contributors make mistakes, then they are right
 84 2018-02-26 09:35:56	0|echeveria|no version before 0.7 was consensus complete due to berkeleydb not being deterministic.
 85 2018-02-26 09:36:20	0|wumpus|find any person alive who writes bugless software FFS, we have a very thorough QA and testing process in place but it's impossible to guarantee that bugs won't happen
 86 2018-02-26 09:36:47	0|echeveria|booyah: let’s take this to #bitcoin please.
 87 2018-02-26 09:36:50	0|wumpus|most of that trolling comes from people supporting projects that publish code with virtually no review and QA at all
 88 2018-02-26 09:37:29	0|wumpus|yes, take it somewhere else, it's not relevant to anything today
 89 2018-02-26 09:41:52	0|wumpus|if you want to call me incompetent, go ahead and try to do better. I have more than 20 years of experience in development and computer security. But I'm not perfect. Open source hinges on having lots of eyes on the source code to catch mistakes, not any special person.
 90 2018-02-26 09:43:08	0|esotericnonsense|:)
 91 2018-02-26 09:43:11	0|wumpus|so: try to attack the code, that's good. Don't try to attack the developers, that just results in drama.
 92 2018-02-26 09:43:13	0|esotericnonsense|bitcoin 0.8 was not 'bitcoin core' :D
 93 2018-02-26 09:44:37	0|booyah|wumpus: speaking about the future, will the bitcoin wallet be returning to name "bitcoin" instead "bitcoin core"?
 94 2018-02-26 09:44:45	0|wumpus|no
 95 2018-02-26 09:44:59	0|wumpus|you can pry my project name from my cold dead hands
 96 2018-02-26 09:45:26	0|booyah|hm? I was just asking about the name :)
 97 2018-02-26 09:55:00	0|phantomcircuit|booyah, fyi the people trying to blame someone for that stuff know they're lying
 98 2018-02-26 09:55:02	0|wumpus|if you want a serious answer: some things (such as naming, branding) are too trivial to be concerned with here. There's as many opinions on it as bitcoin users. You can fork the source code today and change the name (it's a constant in configure.ac FWIW) or use luke-jr's Bitcoin Knots. If there is no agreement on changing something, the best thing is just to stick with what is there.
 99 2018-02-26 09:55:08	0|phantomcircuit|pointing out that they're lying is mostly useless
100 2018-02-26 09:57:07	0|provoostenator|If the amount of discussion required to change a few words in a tooltip is any indication... changing the name of the app would eat up all of Core's resources for a year :-) There's more important things to work on.
101 2018-02-26 09:57:11	0|wumpus|And if you want to change the bitcoin logo to a purple elephant and denominate coins in 'fluppydoodleblurz' from now on, go ahead and release a wallet that does that, use that on your sites, make a BIP, etc. By nature, bitcoin is permissionless.
102 2018-02-26 09:58:16	0|wumpus|provoostenator: exactly, it's like a human DDoS attack :)
103 2018-02-26 09:58:32	0|provoostenator|Needs CVE?
104 2018-02-26 10:02:52	0|wumpus|CVE-0000-0000000
105 2018-02-26 11:11:03	0|wumpus|poke: can anyone review https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/513 , needs to be reviewed to allow merging, so that the site can be updated
106 2018-02-26 11:25:57	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d3f4dd3 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Add historical release notes for 0.16.0...
107 2018-02-26 11:25:57	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/d3f4dd313e5fe58903caf2f4d04827e7f7944e17
108 2018-02-26 12:39:50	0|provoostenator|laanwj: does this need a blog entry too?
109 2018-02-26 12:39:55	0|provoostenator|wumpus
110 2018-02-26 12:47:22	0|jonasschnelli|provoostenator: yes. We should do one. Do you want to do it provoostenator?
111 2018-02-26 12:47:45	0|jonasschnelli|Just the "Recent Posts" thing
112 2018-02-26 12:49:28	0|provoostenator|It would be nice if it had pretty pictures like 0.15: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2017/09/01/release-0.15.0/
113 2018-02-26 12:50:14	0|wumpus|David Harding usually does that, don't know if he has time, might want to ping him
114 2018-02-26 12:50:32	0|provoostenator|I'm happy to review it.
115 2018-02-26 12:52:18	0|jonasschnelli|Okay. Let me ping him.
116 2018-02-26 12:53:36	0|wumpus|he's not here is he
117 2018-02-26 12:54:20	0|jonasschnelli|Just aked him on twitter... :/
118 2018-02-26 12:55:56	0|wumpus|https://bitcoin.org/en/download is not updating even though I updated the git repository at https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org, might be that someone needs to push a button there too
119 2018-02-26 12:57:03	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: I have 0.16.0 at https://bitcoin.org/en/download
120 2018-02-26 12:59:05	0|jonasschnelli|Dave said he is going to do it
121 2018-02-26 13:00:34	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: oh, apparently needed an explicit request, my browser was caching the old page. Phew.
122 2018-02-26 13:00:47	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: awesome
123 2018-02-26 13:01:44	0|wumpus|I'll add him to the cc-list for RCs next time
124 2018-02-26 14:36:50	0|promag|#12083 should be ready
125 2018-02-26 14:36:53	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12083 | Improve getchaintxstats test coverage by promag · Pull Request #12083 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
126 2018-02-26 14:54:46	0|denis2342|is this worth a pull request?: https://github.com/denis2342/bitcoin/commit/89d961ed274b42fb8ee01f5e79f59ba6fd078d1c
127 2018-02-26 15:01:32	0|sipa|denis2342: the style guide favors include_hex over fIncludeHez
128 2018-02-26 15:01:35	0|sipa|*x
129 2018-02-26 15:02:07	0|denis2342|sipa: ok, there were both and I took the wrong one ;)
130 2018-02-26 15:02:11	0|denis2342|I can change that
131 2018-02-26 15:03:11	0|sipa|denis2342: the style guide also says not to create patches purely to improve style
132 2018-02-26 15:03:25	0|sipa|(the overhead of the review process is just not worth it for does)
133 2018-02-26 15:03:42	0|denis2342|sipa: it is not purely style
134 2018-02-26 15:04:06	0|sipa|oh, i see!
135 2018-02-26 15:07:27	0|denis2342|changed to include_hex  https://github.com/denis2342/bitcoin/commit/c8a34e51ad06a1a6f3d82925bb17da34e5766173
136 2018-02-26 15:16:06	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15nopara73 opened pull request #12540: Remove suggestion "getinfo" (06master...06patch-2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12540
137 2018-02-26 15:28:04	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15denis2342 opened pull request #12541: streamlined the use of include_hex (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12541
138 2018-02-26 15:31:09	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12540: Remove suggestion "getinfo" (06master...06patch-2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12540
139 2018-02-26 15:38:08	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15luke-jr closed pull request #11802: RPC/Wallet: Refuse to dumpprivkey for derived addresses (06master...06dumpprivkey_noderived) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11802
140 2018-02-26 15:40:30	0|promag|denis2342: should have a test there no?
141 2018-02-26 15:41:41	0|denis2342|promag: ?
142 2018-02-26 15:47:30	0|promag|denis2342: for instance, decoderawtransactions calls TxToUniv with include_hex=false, so it would be nice to have some test checking that hex field isn't there
143 2018-02-26 15:51:45	0|promag|denis2342: furthermore, this change is breaking change, and requires release note
144 2018-02-26 15:51:46	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d3f4dd313e5f...228b086b9a3d
145 2018-02-26 15:51:47	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14501b439 15João Barbosa: rpc: Refactor blockhash parse in getchaintxstats
146 2018-02-26 15:51:47	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1457e6786 15João Barbosa: qa: Improve getchaintxstats functional test
147 2018-02-26 15:51:48	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14228b086 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12083: Improve getchaintxstats test coverage...
148 2018-02-26 15:52:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12083: Improve getchaintxstats test coverage (06master...062018-01-getchaintxstats) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12083
149 2018-02-26 15:54:56	0|promag|gmaxwell: regarding #12080, should we just remove the address book instead? :)
150 2018-02-26 15:54:57	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12080 | Add support to search the address book by promag · Pull Request #12080 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
151 2018-02-26 17:37:56	0|provoostenator|Where does QT serialize its (OptionsModel) settings and do I clear them?
152 2018-02-26 17:40:18	0|provoostenator|http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qsettings.html#clear
153 2018-02-26 17:41:13	0|provoostenator|Which is what the Reset settings feature uses.
154 2018-02-26 17:51:30	0|provoostenator|I was thinking of using a (much) higher dbcache in QT if physical memory size is known (e.g. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc300158(v=VS.85).aspx) and large enough. In that case we could remove the setting from the UI, and only honor -dbcache if set. Thoughts?
155 2018-02-26 18:16:38	0|esotericnonsense|i'd be in favour of automatic dbcache / mempool / etc sizing. it seems obvious/useful enough that there's probably a reason we're not doing it though.
156 2018-02-26 18:17:23	0|esotericnonsense|e.g. on a 1GB machine it's really common for bitcoind to get oomkilled and it seems to me that anyone that really wanted it to use ~all of the system ram could set that.
157 2018-02-26 18:20:57	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #12542: Remove redundant includes. Conform to header include guidelines. (06master...06include-guidelines) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12542
158 2018-02-26 18:40:49	0|provoostenator|I think the case for QT is stronger than bitcoind. GUI's are usually not on all the time. We may also want to flush if there's no activity for a while. I think this is especially useful during IBD, where the progress bar should make it obvious to users that this process can be a drain on their system.
159 2018-02-26 18:41:12	0|provoostenator|I also don't think many GUI users will feel comfortable touching these settings.
160 2018-02-26 18:45:22	0|CubicEarths|provoostenator: GUI users include many technical people
161 2018-02-26 19:07:38	0|doo-dah|bitcoin.org seems to be down...
162 2018-02-26 19:16:58	0|doo-dah|...and it's back.
163 2018-02-26 19:20:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #12543: Fix typos (06master...06typos-201802) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12543
164 2018-02-26 19:34:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15Empact opened pull request #12545: test: Extend wait time by .1 seconds to ensure ping goes out (06master...06ping-timing) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12545
165 2018-02-26 20:44:58	0|tr4vis220202|When sending a bip-70 payment, bitcoin core sent to regular address instead of p2sh, hexdump of script is 76A9142AFD057FD359FC1C180B177D05F1B4191867471A88AC
166 2018-02-26 20:58:25	0|sipa|tr4vis220202: are you sure the BIP70 request didn't contain a regular output?
167 2018-02-26 20:59:27	0|sipa|as far as i can see in the code, it just uses the exact script requested in the BIP70 payment request - regardless of what type of output it is
168 2018-02-26 21:10:53	0|tr4vis220202|when i decode it, there is an address, and a p2sh
169 2018-02-26 21:12:10	0|sipa|can you share the URI and the payment request?
170 2018-02-26 21:12:29	0|sipa|(perhaps privately)
171 2018-02-26 21:43:48	0|michagogo|Quick question about the release notes
172 2018-02-26 21:44:20	0|michagogo|“Bitcoin Core is extensively tested on multiple operating systems using the Linux kernel, macOS 10.8+, and Windows Vista and later.”
173 2018-02-26 21:44:48	0|michagogo|Is there actually anyone testing extensively on Vista?
174 2018-02-26 21:45:11	0|sipa|I hope some people are testing the RCs on windows?
175 2018-02-26 21:45:27	0|michagogo|Yeah, but Vista?
176 2018-02-26 21:45:35	0|Randolf|I have been running RC3 and then RC4 on Windows 10 (64-bit).
177 2018-02-26 21:45:45	0|Randolf|Haven't had any problems with it.
178 2018-02-26 21:45:46	0|Chris_Stewart_5|doesn't microsoft even support vista anymore?
179 2018-02-26 21:45:50	0|Chris_Stewart_5|does*
180 2018-02-26 21:46:01	0|michagogo|Yeah, IIRC it EoL’d about a year ago
181 2018-02-26 21:46:12	0|sipa|oh, i'm not up to date on windows versions
182 2018-02-26 21:46:24	0|Randolf|There probably are people using Bitcoin on Windows 7.  Windows Vista, I suspect, likely isn't used for much these days.
183 2018-02-26 21:46:26	0|sipa|but we still support vista, no?
184 2018-02-26 21:46:50	0|michagogo|And as far as I know, it’s not even like XP, which tons of people stuck with for way too long
185 2018-02-26 21:47:03	0|michagogo|sipa: that’s the question
186 2018-02-26 21:47:10	0|Randolf|I have extra hardware and a Windows Vista license I could throw together to see if Bitcoin works on it.
187 2018-02-26 21:47:17	0|michagogo|Do we really, or did that just never get updated?
188 2018-02-26 21:47:56	0|michagogo|And also, does it actually not work on XP, or do we just say we don’t support it?
189 2018-02-26 21:48:14	0|michagogo|If the latter, we should drop Vista too imho
190 2018-02-26 21:49:28	0|Randolf|I'd suggest we move it up to Windows 7.
191 2018-02-26 21:49:40	0|Randolf|I can put a Pull Request in easily for that now.
192 2018-02-26 21:53:00	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15randolf opened pull request #12546: [docs] Minor improvements to Compatibility notes (06master...06patch-3) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12546
193 2018-02-26 21:53:17	0|Randolf|See PR #12546 for this change.
194 2018-02-26 21:53:19	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12546 | [docs] Minor improvements to Compatibility notes by randolf · Pull Request #12546 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
195 2018-02-26 21:56:45	0|esotericnonsense|as far as I'm aware XP is used _more_ than vista
196 2018-02-26 21:57:00	0|Randolf|esotericnonsense++
197 2018-02-26 21:57:13	0|Randolf|Windows Vista was so horrible that most people seem to want to forget it even existed.
198 2018-02-26 21:58:02	0|sipa|Sounds like Windows ME to me.
199 2018-02-26 21:58:10	0|sipa|(coincidentally the last windows version I used...)
200 2018-02-26 21:58:41	0|michagogo|esotericnonsense: right, that’s my impression too
201 2018-02-26 21:58:41	0|Randolf|That's pre-WindowsXP stuff there.
202 2018-02-26 21:58:53	0|Randolf|Vista came after XP.
203 2018-02-26 21:59:25	0|michagogo|Randolf: I don’t think sipa was saying he thought we were talking about me
204 2018-02-26 21:59:39	0|michagogo|Rather, comparing the situation and the badness
205 2018-02-26 21:59:44	0|esotericnonsense|according to wikipedia, vista has consistently had about 1/5th the usage of XP for the past few years. according to their trackers anyway.
206 2018-02-26 21:59:50	0|Randolf|Oh, okay.  :)
207 2018-02-26 22:00:16	0|esotericnonsense|statcounter has it as 0.41% in march 2017 vs 2% for XP (of the overall total, desktop, mobile, everything included)
208 2018-02-26 22:00:39	0|rabidus|mobile xp ..
209 2018-02-26 22:00:50	0|michagogo|Randolf: I’m not sure MacOS is right
210 2018-02-26 22:00:58	0|michagogo|I don’t think it was ever called that
211 2018-02-26 22:01:19	0|esotericnonsense|rabidus: no, as in, all browser stats. approx 45% desktop and 55% mobile for whatever sites they're tracking. so XP is 4% of desktops in that stat
212 2018-02-26 22:01:28	0|Randolf|Oh?  I merely changed "macOS" to "MacOS" because I do remember supporting some MacOS computers at a help desk job many years ago.
213 2018-02-26 22:01:41	0|Randolf|Maybe they've changed it since then?
214 2018-02-26 22:01:55	0|michagogo|It was Mac OS until over a decade ago, then Mac OS X. A while back they dropped the Mac and made it just OS X
215 2018-02-26 22:02:17	0|michagogo|In the last year or two (IIRC), it was renamed to macOS
216 2018-02-26 22:03:13	0|Randolf|Oh.  I'll have to fix that then.
217 2018-02-26 22:03:24	0|Randolf|That new version looks like a mistake.  Oh well.  :)
218 2018-02-26 22:03:52	0|michagogo|10.8 was still OS X (no Mac) if I’m not mistaken, but 1. I’m not sure if the renaming was retroactive or not, and 2. I feel like macOS is more understandable
219 2018-02-26 22:04:48	0|michagogo|They changed it in order to make their various OSes consistent
220 2018-02-26 22:05:06	0|michagogo|iOS, watchOS, tvOS, etc
221 2018-02-26 22:05:14	0|Randolf|Well, I see that "macOS" is indeed how they're marketing it on their web site nowadays, so you're obviously correct that the name should begin with a lower-case "m."
222 2018-02-26 22:05:29	0|michagogo|Don’t know what the HomePod runs
223 2018-02-26 22:05:42	0|esotericnonsense|this is kind of a bitcoin question but kind of not. what's the trick to make bitcoin-qt not appear as a postage stamp on ubuntu with high dpi screens?
224 2018-02-26 22:06:15	0|esotericnonsense|is there a 'qt-tweaker' or something?
225 2018-02-26 22:24:57	0|mlz|i've been testing the RCs on windows for a while now but ofc I don't check everything
226 2018-02-26 22:28:29	0|mlz|one thing i'm wondering if can be improved: cross-compiling for windonws on ubuntu 14 Trusty starting fresh from beginning to finishing takes about 4-5 hours, I wish this could be shorter