1 2018-03-19 02:46:30	0|jonasschnelli|cfields: would appreciate a final review of #9502 (since it's touching net code)
  2 2018-03-19 02:46:33	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9502 | [Qt] Add option to pause/resume block downloads by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9502 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
  3 2018-03-19 05:15:49	0|jonasschnelli|If one wants to use the REST-API behind authentication (which makes very much sense for most use cases), use a reverse proxy via apache or other httpds
  4 2018-03-19 05:17:18	0|jcorgan|nginx works well here
  5 2018-03-19 05:19:18	0|jonasschnelli|Indeed,... though once I got told nginx is great for static data and apache is better for CGI/etc.,... I may be wrong.
  6 2018-03-19 05:19:23	0|eklitzke|discussions of apache vs nginx elsewhere please
  7 2018-03-19 05:19:25	0|jonasschnelli|however, OT
  8 2018-03-19 05:19:37	0|jonasschnelli|+1
  9 2018-03-19 05:20:14	0|jonasschnelli|eklitzke: I read your leveldb post! impressive.
 10 2018-03-19 05:20:41	0|eklitzke|thanks i need to get my max_open_files changed before i post more PRs though
 11 2018-03-19 05:20:43	0|eklitzke|waiting on wumpus for that
 12 2018-03-19 05:21:30	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #12721: Qt: remove "new" button during receive-mode in addressbook (06master...062018/03/addr_new_btn) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12721
 13 2018-03-19 05:21:46	0|jonasschnelli|eklitzke: I guess your work could be very useful for Ordoid-HC2 nodes with spinning disks
 14 2018-03-19 05:23:16	0|eklitzke|i want to make all low-end use cases work better, the three i am most interested in are: (1) regular computer with a slow external hard drive (or maybe home NAS) attached for storage, (2) default ec2/gcp cloud instance with slow disks, (3) something like an rpi
 15 2018-03-19 05:23:56	0|eklitzke|i think we could make all three of these work a lot better with the default options
 16 2018-03-19 05:24:45	0|jonasschnelli|eklitzke: great to hear!
 17 2018-03-19 08:38:12	0|wump|so we've kind of reached a dead end on transifex, not being able to set team permissions, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12657#issuecomment-373956561  Does anyone know if seone gets on Freenode?
 18 2018-03-19 08:38:54	0|wumpus|I've tried contacting him through the transifex message system but never heard back
 19 2018-03-19 08:41:54	0|midnightmagic|:-/
 20 2018-03-19 08:41:57	0|midnightmagic|that kinda sucks.
 21 2018-03-19 08:48:24	0|wumpus|it's not like github where it's possible to transfer projects between organizations, or at least, not with the permissions I have
 22 2018-03-19 08:48:44	0|wumpus|I can *copy* the translations to another project on another organization but how to get all the translators along
 23 2018-03-19 09:20:06	0|meshcollider|Could you contact transifex themselves? Would they help?
 24 2018-03-19 10:02:07	0|wumpus|maybe if seone completely went inactive, but I'm not sure about that. This is why my question if anyone knows him here.
 25 2018-03-19 10:02:30	0|wumpus|(or her, I have no idea really)
 26 2018-03-19 10:03:19	0|wumpus|luke-jr maybe?
 27 2018-03-19 10:03:38	0|wumpus|who was active in this project when the transifex translations started?
 28 2018-03-19 10:04:18	0|kinlo|wumpus: he does get on freenode, but the last time he was active on freenode was 20 weeks ago
 29 2018-03-19 10:04:30	0|wumpus|kinlo: that's not reassuring
 30 2018-03-19 10:04:36	0|kinlo|it is not
 31 2018-03-19 10:04:56	0|kinlo|but that is what /msg nickserv info seone tells me
 32 2018-03-19 10:06:19	0|kinlo|do we have an email for him?
 33 2018-03-19 10:06:53	0|wumpus|I don't
 34 2018-03-19 10:07:13	0|kinlo|I'll send him a message to contact you?
 35 2018-03-19 10:08:41	0|kinlo|done, I've asked him to contact you, let's hope he reads that
 36 2018-03-19 10:09:26	0|wumpus|thanks!
 37 2018-03-19 11:15:06	0|Catherine|hello
 38 2018-03-19 11:15:52	0|Guest19657|help
 39 2018-03-19 11:16:42	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15krab opened pull request #12723: Qt5: Warning users about invalid-BIP21 URI bitcoin:// (06master...06qt5-uri-error-message) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12723
 40 2018-03-19 12:31:54	0|drexl|hey guys, how can I contribute if I only know python?
 41 2018-03-19 12:35:27	0|instagibbs|drexl, check out the functional test suite
 42 2018-03-19 12:35:29	0|instagibbs|`test/functional`
 43 2018-03-19 12:36:38	0|drexl|cheers
 44 2018-03-19 12:37:36	0|instagibbs|so expanding/improving functional tests is definitely one way
 45 2018-03-19 12:47:55	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15mathhoang88 opened pull request #12725: LCoin (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12725
 46 2018-03-19 12:57:36	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #12725: LCoin (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12725
 47 2018-03-19 13:23:45	0|rabidus|Am I the only one who lacks of connections after 0.16 release. Node has been up fairly long (with some shutdowns) for several weeks? I'm currently having 22 connections, while with 0.15 I was having 50+
 48 2018-03-19 13:47:05	0|fanquake|wumpus I was suspicious that was someone chasing altcoin dev help, was giving them the benefit of the doubt heh
 49 2018-03-19 13:56:15	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 140dbb32b 15Jeff Rade: Avoiding 'file' function name from python2 with more descriptive variable naming
 50 2018-03-19 13:56:15	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/00d1680498c5...872c921c0a20
 51 2018-03-19 13:56:16	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14872c921 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12720: qa: Avoiding 'file' function name from python2...
 52 2018-03-19 13:57:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12720: qa: Avoiding 'file' function name from python2 (06master...06pr_12437_variable_rename) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12720
 53 2018-03-19 14:24:49	0|setpill|i am trying to set up gitian builds but getting "lxc-execute: start.c: lxc_spawn: 1079 Failed to find gateway addresses."
 54 2018-03-19 14:25:48	0|setpill|i followed the instructions on https://github.com/bitcoin-core/docs/blob/master/gitian-building/gitian-building-setup-gitian-debian.md including the rc.local stuff, not sure what i missed
 55 2018-03-19 15:06:25	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 4 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/872c921c0a20...6324c68aa017
 56 2018-03-19 15:06:26	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1471129e0 15Vasil Dimov: Do not check for main() in libminiupnpc...
 57 2018-03-19 15:06:26	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148c632f7 15Vasil Dimov: ax_boost_{chrono,unit_test_framework}.m4: take changes from upstream...
 58 2018-03-19 15:06:27	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148ae4132 15Vasil Dimov: Remove redundant checks for MSG_* from configure.ac...
 59 2018-03-19 15:07:16	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12678: build: Fix a few compilation issues with Clang 7 and -Werror (06master...06master-compilation-fixes-with-clang7-werror) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12678
 60 2018-03-19 15:13:20	0|wumpus|fanquake: yes, good to give people the benefit of the doubt in general, but his response made it clear
 61 2018-03-19 15:34:04	0|luke-jr|wumpus: I can add a "project maintainer", but not sure if that's the same thing
 62 2018-03-19 15:34:58	0|luke-jr|and I think project maintainer can remove other people, so there is a possible risk
 63 2018-03-19 16:06:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fab8a6f 15MarcoFalke: wallet: Change output type globals to members
 64 2018-03-19 16:06:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6324c68aa017...c39dd2ef59c9
 65 2018-03-19 16:06:25	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c39dd2e 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12408: wallet: Change output type globals to members...
 66 2018-03-19 16:07:06	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12408: wallet: Change output type globals to members (06master...06Mf1802-walletChangeTypeMember) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12408
 67 2018-03-19 16:09:46	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15lutangar opened pull request #12727: [RPC][Trivial] Remove unreachable help conditions in `rpcwallet.cpp` (06master...06unreachable-help-condition) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12727
 68 2018-03-19 16:13:39	0|ossifrage|rabidus, I used to have hundreds of connections, now I only have 4 inbound connections. I attributed it to my ip address changing (multiple times due to power failures) and not 0.16.x
 69 2018-03-19 16:14:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c39dd2ef59c9...93634f296e0b
 70 2018-03-19 16:14:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1481b0822 15Ben Woosley: test: Use wait_until in tests where time was used for polling
 71 2018-03-19 16:14:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 149d7f839 15Ben Woosley: test: Use os.path.join consistently in feature_pruning tests
 72 2018-03-19 16:14:19	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1493634f2 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12553: Prefer wait_until over polling with time.sleep...
 73 2018-03-19 16:15:03	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12553: Prefer wait_until over polling with time.sleep (06master...06wait-until) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12553
 74 2018-03-19 16:18:27	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 144c317d8 15Russell Yanofsky: Document RPC method aliasing...
 75 2018-03-19 16:18:27	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/93634f296e0b...ebdf84c9601e
 76 2018-03-19 16:18:28	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ebdf84c 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12700: Document RPC method aliasing...
 77 2018-03-19 16:19:22	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12700: Document RPC method aliasing (06master...06pr/alias) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12700
 78 2018-03-19 16:27:07	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14499d95e 15Russell Yanofsky: Add static_assert to prevent VARINT(<signed value>)...
 79 2018-03-19 16:27:07	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ebdf84c9601e...ee7b67e2784a
 80 2018-03-19 16:27:08	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ee7b67e 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9753: Add static_assert to prevent VARINT(<signed value>)...
 81 2018-03-19 16:27:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9753: Add static_assert to prevent VARINT(<signed value>) (06master...06pr/varint-assert) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9753
 82 2018-03-19 19:03:38	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery opened pull request #12728: [tests] rename TestNode to TestP2PConn in tests (06master...06rename_test_node) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12728
 83 2018-03-19 19:57:20	0|bcamacho|Hello, I have a full node configured and fully sync. I can create new addresses which are validated with RPC commands. I'm running into an issue when using signmessage, the results reports "Address does not refer to key (code -3)" -- Has anyone faced this issue?
 84 2018-03-19 20:01:28	0|luke-jr|bcamacho: signmessage is deprecated, and only works with old 1-style addresses
 85 2018-03-19 20:02:52	0|luke-jr|bcamacho: signmessage was often misunderstood as a "proof of funds", which it doesn't actually prove; and very rarely used correctly.. so a new specification is needed to address these issues
 86 2018-03-19 20:03:32	0|luke-jr|there is some discussion on the development mailing list around trying to get a newer message-signing spec made
 87 2018-03-19 20:15:26	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #12712: Support serialization as another type without casting (06master...06201803_astype) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12712
 88 2018-03-19 20:31:36	0|jimpo|sipa: I updated the PR description of #12254 with stats on the filter sizes in proportion to block sizes
 89 2018-03-19 20:31:39	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12254 | BIP 158: Compact Block Filters for Light Clients by jimpo · Pull Request #12254 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 90 2018-03-19 20:40:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ryanofsky opened pull request #12729: Get rid of ambiguous OutputType::NONE value (06master...06pr/nonone) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12729
 91 2018-03-19 20:51:54	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e5468a1 15lutangar: Remove unreachable help conditions
 92 2018-03-19 20:51:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ee7b67e2784a...8ee5c7b74717
 93 2018-03-19 20:51:55	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148ee5c7b 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12727: [RPC] Remove unreachable help conditions in rpcwallet.cpp...
 94 2018-03-19 20:52:53	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12727: [RPC] Remove unreachable help conditions in rpcwallet.cpp (06master...06unreachable-help-condition) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12727
 95 2018-03-19 21:10:01	0|bcamacho|luke-jr do you have a link that you could share regarding message-signing?
 96 2018-03-19 21:12:12	0|bcamacho|luke-jr: in my project I'm using message-signing as proof of identity. You can sign a message proving address ownership, not proof of funds.
 97 2018-03-19 21:33:20	0|luke-jr|bcamacho: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-March/015818.html ?
 98 2018-03-19 22:02:02	0|bcamacho|I just noticed that the new addressesing starts with 3xx versus 1xx. Thanks to luke-jr for assisting :)
 99 2018-03-19 22:02:35	0|sipa|"new"?
100 2018-03-19 22:02:42	0|sipa|it was proposed and implemented in 2012
101 2018-03-19 22:03:02	0|bcamacho|I thought 3xx was used for multi-sig wallets
102 2018-03-19 22:03:10	0|sipa|yes, since 2012
103 2018-03-19 22:04:03	0|bcamacho|All new client addresses are now being issued with 3xx, even if they are not multi-sig.
104 2018-03-19 22:04:32	0|sipa|the 3xxx addresses are P2SH: they send to a *script* rather than to a key
105 2018-03-19 22:04:50	0|sipa|the first thing they were being used for was multisig, but it's always been generically usable for any script
106 2018-03-19 22:05:05	0|hirish|3xx are P2SH addreses, it means they encapsulate a script. Now core is issuing 3xx addresses because is encapsulating witness scripts
107 2018-03-19 22:05:18	0|sipa|since segwit all backward compatible addresses use P2SH, as it's the only way to use segwit
108 2018-03-19 22:06:18	0|sipa|jimpo: looking at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9ff9435ccb6668c96d6c554129a31e5de6df4dda, it uses GetOp to determine what to index
109 2018-03-19 22:06:32	0|sipa|i believe that means it will have 2 elements for every native segwit output
110 2018-03-19 22:06:56	0|bcamacho|Got it! Thanks for the help on this. I was originally using 1xx addresses to sign message and prove ownership for authentication. Do you have a suggestion for how we can sign to prove id with 3xx addresses?
111 2018-03-19 22:07:12	0|sipa|bcamacho: different approaches are being discussed
112 2018-03-19 22:08:23	0|sipa|jimpo: that seems highly inefficient (perhaps it should be restricted to pushes above a certain size... or just to the whole output at once rather than its pushes?)
113 2018-03-19 22:11:45	0|luke-jr|bcamacho: 3xx isn't new anymore. New is now bc1… ;)
114 2018-03-19 22:14:41	0|bcamacho|I understand. I'm trying to figure out how I still can use message signing. It seems at this moment, the only way is to stick with 1xx addresses.
115 2018-03-19 22:20:55	0|setpill|is this the right place to ask for help on getting gitian builds working? im trying to follow the instructions for the virtualbox debian build, but so far only the windows version builds
116 2018-03-19 22:21:08	0|setpill|(manifest matches, though, so that's a plus)
117 2018-03-19 22:21:16	0|setpill|getting lxc-execute: conf.c: setup_rootfs: 1279 failed to mount rootfs for the linux build
118 2018-03-19 22:21:51	0|jimpo|sipa: Yes, it pushes small OP_0 - OP_16 opcodes
119 2018-03-19 22:21:52	0|luke-jr|bcamacho: there's no harm to using 1xx for identification, at least.
120 2018-03-19 22:21:58	0|jimpo|but they get deduped per block filter
121 2018-03-19 22:22:09	0|sipa|jimpo: right, so it's at most 17
122 2018-03-19 22:22:12	0|luke-jr|although actually generating a 1xx address with Core 0.16 may be a pain..
123 2018-03-19 22:22:22	0|luke-jr|probably need to use the debug window
124 2018-03-19 22:22:23	0|jimpo|yes, at most 17 additional elements per filter
125 2018-03-19 22:23:39	0|sipa|so you're relying on standardness/miner policy to prevent someone from creating outputs with just a bunch of pushes?
126 2018-03-19 22:24:41	0|jimpo|well, and the cost of the data they are adding to the block for no good reason
127 2018-03-19 22:25:05	0|jimpo|It sounds like your suggestion is just to push the entire scriptPubKey instead of parsing out data pushes?
128 2018-03-19 22:25:10	0|sipa|yes
129 2018-03-19 22:25:39	0|sipa|i don't think this loses you anything
130 2018-03-19 22:25:40	0|jimpo|That's fine with me and eliminates the edge case of corrupted output scripts
131 2018-03-19 22:25:47	0|jimpo|Lemme check with roasbeef
132 2018-03-19 22:26:21	0|sipa|the filter size numbers look nice, btw
133 2018-03-19 22:29:23	0|jimpo|Oh, regarding the extended filter thing. If we're OK burning another service bit, we could separate the two so that nodes can choose to just build basic or just build extended filters.
134 2018-03-19 22:29:44	0|jimpo|but service bits are kind of limited
135 2018-03-19 22:31:08	0|sipa|i would be fine with that (it's not too hard to extend the service bits field if really necessary - it's just a p2p change)
136 2018-03-19 22:31:46	0|sipa|do you have filter size number per filter element? (in other words: what's the actual size compared to 20bits * elements)
137 2018-03-19 22:35:34	0|jimpo|hmm, good question. No, I did not pull down the number of elements per filter, but I will now.
138 2018-03-19 22:36:15	0|sipa|thank you!
139 2018-03-19 22:37:54	0|luke-jr|sipa: if you use the entire scriptPubKey only, that wouldn't work with stuff like stealth addresses, right?
140 2018-03-19 22:38:28	0|sipa|luke-jr: stealth addresses are inherently incompatible with this approach
141 2018-03-19 22:38:44	0|sipa|(if there was something to match on, they wouldn't be stealth)
142 2018-03-19 22:38:54	0|luke-jr|true
143 2018-03-19 22:39:50	0|sipa|and i think it's perfectly fine to add more filters later if there are use cases for them... i just prefer being conservative in what responsibilities get added to full nodes for the purpose of serving P2P extensions; they may turn out to be very hard to get rid of
144 2018-03-19 22:40:10	0|jimpo|That said, a light client could pull down only the scriptPubKeys for a block and scan those before pulling down all block data (in a stealth address world)
145 2018-03-19 22:40:15	0|setpill|wtf these scripts... ran the exact same invocation of gitian-build.sh again and it decided to remove 2 packages (???) and now it seems to be compiling
146 2018-03-19 22:40:53	0|echeveria|sipa: bip37 also separately hashes every single script element
147 2018-03-19 22:41:02	0|sipa|echeveria: yes, a stupid choice IMHO :)
148 2018-03-19 22:41:05	0|echeveria|so up to 1M bloom filter elements per block.
149 2018-03-19 22:41:19	0|echeveria|I guess 4M with segwit.
150 2018-03-19 22:41:32	0|sipa|segwit inputs aren't scripts ;)
151 2018-03-19 22:41:40	0|sipa|so they're not included in BIP37
152 2018-03-19 22:41:55	0|echeveria|right
153 2018-03-19 22:42:05	0|sipa|they are in the extended BIP118 filters though
154 2018-03-19 22:42:32	0|sipa|as currently written, at least
155 2018-03-19 22:48:17	0|drexl|where does one find the pgp key to verify the signature?
156 2018-03-19 22:48:27	0|luke-jr|which signature?
157 2018-03-19 22:48:35	0|drexl|from the release
158 2018-03-19 22:48:58	0|luke-jr|there are many signatures on each release; you can get key ids from the source, and the keys themselves from any public keyserver typically
159 2018-03-19 22:49:36	0|luke-jr|bitcoin.org hosts a mirror of some keys, but you should probably verify the keys are correct from multiple sources, or someone you know/trust personally
160 2018-03-19 22:50:44	0|drexl|might be a good idea to upload them to keybase.io ? so it can be publicly verifiable that the owner of the domain/repo owns the keys
161 2018-03-19 22:51:15	0|sipa|how does it let you verify that...?
162 2018-03-19 22:51:40	0|drexl|you sign a public gist in your github account
163 2018-03-19 22:51:50	0|jimpo|Bidirectional links to social media accounts
164 2018-03-19 22:52:19	0|sipa|i guess i should read up on keybase
165 2018-03-19 22:53:56	0|jimpo|It's pretty sweet. And it has web-of-trust type stuff where you can see which accounts other people follow with signed proofs that they are following them.
166 2018-03-19 22:55:40	0|luke-jr|PGP has web-of-trust stuff built-in.. IIRC (but probably didn't look into it too much) keybase wasn't anything interesting
167 2018-03-19 22:56:31	0|drexl|it's kind of the opposite of web of trust, every account you link with your keys is accompanied with a proof that anyone can verify
168 2018-03-19 22:56:36	0|drexl|you dont have to trust anyone
169 2018-03-19 22:56:48	0|drexl|and you can link domains too
170 2018-03-19 23:00:11	0|setpill|you still need to bootstrap the trust
171 2018-03-19 23:04:22	0|drexl|setpill look at GPGTools for example https://keybase.io/GPGTools
172 2018-03-19 23:04:36	0|drexl|I can verify myself that they own the domain and the twitter account
173 2018-03-19 23:25:14	0|bcamacho|luke-jr or sipa: Is there a link regarding deprecation for signmessage? I was reviewing the developer documentation and it has no mention of the deprecation: https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#signmessage
174 2018-03-19 23:27:15	0|sipa|it's not deprecated
175 2018-03-19 23:27:25	0|sipa|it just doesn't support new address types
176 2018-03-19 23:34:54	0|bcamacho|sipa: thanks, i figured as much. I'm now trying to figure out a solution. I compile v0.16 and seeing if I can generate a 1xx address with the core client to mode the wallet to prompt user regarding address types. I believe there is still use of sign/verify with address for proof of ID, not funds. It would be great if we can use and manage mix addresses.
177 2018-03-19 23:35:38	0|bcamacho|If you have any info that could help save time on this, please share :)
178 2018-03-19 23:35:43	0|sipa|bitcoin addresses are not identities
179 2018-03-19 23:35:56	0|bcamacho|They can be for services
180 2018-03-19 23:36:01	0|sipa|that's nonsense
181 2018-03-19 23:36:15	0|sipa|they're single use payment request identifiers at best
182 2018-03-19 23:38:21	0|sipa|i can't prevent you from leveraging them for more, but i think it's ill-advised to reuse keys across multiple application at best
183 2018-03-19 23:39:17	0|bcamacho|Why nonsense? If you can prove ownership of 1xx address you can utilize that for authenticated webservices. No need for username or password. Not for production, more for creative education.
184 2018-03-19 23:39:43	0|sipa|why would you do such a thing?
185 2018-03-19 23:39:49	0|sipa|the address doesn't mean anything
186 2018-03-19 23:39:59	0|sipa|you can just as well use a different key
187 2018-03-19 23:40:08	0|aj|bcamacho: all you're doing is reinventing public key auth, but adding the potential that someone might screw up and lose their btc funds?
188 2018-03-19 23:40:13	0|sipa|which is generally good practice in cryptography to use separate keys for separate purposes
189 2018-03-19 23:40:58	0|sipa|as far as using the signmessage functionality in bitcoin core goes, you can use validateaddress to extract the public key for an address (if it's yours), and then sign with the P1PKH address corresponding to that key instead
190 2018-03-19 23:41:19	0|sipa|please take any further discussion elsewhere, it has nothing to do with bitcoin core's software development
191 2018-03-19 23:42:29	0|bcamacho|sipa: I was not trying to clog up this thread with non-core discussions. Thank you for your help!