1 2018-04-04 02:12:02	0|archaeal|nevermind my last question...hadn't enabled the proper flags on configure
  2 2018-04-04 05:33:21	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15knoxcard opened pull request #12877: Show correct bitcoin daemon bash commands (06master...06patch-1) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12877
  3 2018-04-04 05:39:35	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ajtowns opened pull request #12878: [refactor] Config handling refactoring in preparation for network-specific sections (06master...06netconf-refactor) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12878
  4 2018-04-04 07:01:11	0|fanquake|Apologies if the labeller has been a bit off target lately. Should be back on track now..
  5 2018-04-04 07:01:48	0|luke-jr|fanquake: wait, that's automated? XD
  6 2018-04-04 08:03:22	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15kallewoof opened pull request #12879: [scripted-diff] No extern function declarations (06master...06scripted-no-extern-functions) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12879
  7 2018-04-04 08:50:38	0|aj|wumpus: i've split #12878 out of #11862 (-sasl/daer] has joined #bitcoin
  8 2018-04-04 08:50:41	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12878 | [refactor] Config handling refactoring in preparation for network-specific sections by ajtowns · Pull Request #12878 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
  9 2018-04-04 08:50:43	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11862 | Network specific conf sections by ajtowns · Pull Request #11862 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 10 2018-04-04 08:51:24	0|aj|wumpus: ...and can't cut&paste to irc competently apparently. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11862#issuecomment-378524308 has rationale. maybe 12878 could be high-pri-for-review?
 11 2018-04-04 10:39:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15murrayn opened pull request #12881: Tighten up bech32::Decode(); add tests. (06master...06bech32_decode) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12881
 12 2018-04-04 11:45:22	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142ebad11 15Sjors Provoost: make clean removes src/qt/moc_ files
 13 2018-04-04 11:45:22	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ad960f5771dc...1d540046fe47
 14 2018-04-04 11:45:23	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141d54004 15Jonas Schnelli: Merge #12870: make clean removes src/qt/moc_ files...
 15 2018-04-04 11:46:18	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #12870: make clean removes src/qt/moc_ files (06master...062018/04/make_clean_qt_moc) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12870
 16 2018-04-04 12:06:03	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #12882: tests: Fix lock-order-inversion (potential deadlock) in DoS_tests. Reported by TSAN. (06master...06lock-order-inversion-in-DoS_tests) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12882
 17 2018-04-04 12:14:17	0|setpill|hi all, im playing around with RBF in regtest, and noticed some weirdness. noticeably, the (undocumented) return value "walletconflicts" of "listtransactions" and "gettransaction" ONLY shows a conflict in the receiving node if a RBF tx is feebumped with that node again as receiving party
 18 2018-04-04 12:15:24	0|setpill|if node 1 sends a RBF tx to node 2, then RBFs it back to itself, node 2 will not show this conflict in any way even though the new tx (from node 1 to itself) is the one present in node 2's mempool
 19 2018-04-04 12:16:24	0|setpill|(in fact, even mining a new block with node 2 will mine the tx from node 1 to itself and the tx from node 1 to node 2 THEN disappears from node 2's wallet)
 20 2018-04-04 12:17:00	0|setpill|is this how it is intended to work?
 21 2018-04-04 13:15:32	0|provoostenator|setpill: "RBFs it back to itself" means a completely new transaction? If it has fewer bytes for whatever reason, it might violate one of the BIP-125 rules.
 22 2018-04-04 13:15:53	0|provoostenator|I would suggest testing first with just bumping the fee without changing anything else.
 23 2018-04-04 13:16:32	0|setpill|provoostenator: BIP 125 says nothing about byte size
 24 2018-04-04 13:16:49	0|provoostenator|https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki "3. The replacement transaction pays an absolute fee of at least the sum paid by the original transactions."
 25 2018-04-04 13:17:05	0|setpill|sure... that is distinct from bytes
 26 2018-04-04 13:17:11	0|provoostenator|Yes, it's indirect
 27 2018-04-04 13:17:47	0|setpill|eh
 28 2018-04-04 13:17:49	0|setpill|anyway
 29 2018-04-04 13:17:52	0|provoostenator|But it matters if your new transaction is smaller and the fee rate isn't increased enough to offset that. There's some discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailinglist to relax that particular rule
 30 2018-04-04 13:17:52	0|setpill|it does get propagated
 31 2018-04-04 13:18:29	0|setpill|the conflict is just not shown in the wallet rpc output
 32 2018-04-04 13:18:50	0|provoostenator|I'm not familiar with that part of the RPC, so not sure what's going on there.
 33 2018-04-04 13:18:58	0|setpill|and in the UI it's only shown VERY indirectly, when opening the transaction details it says "status: [..] not in mempool"
 34 2018-04-04 13:50:08	0|sdaftuar|setpill: i haven't double checked but what you describe makes some sense to me--
 35 2018-04-04 13:50:41	0|sdaftuar|setpill: the receiving node's wallet will never even be aware of the second transaction (except indirectly) because the second transaction doesn't involve it at all (no inputs, no outputs belong to the wallet)
 36 2018-04-04 13:51:00	0|sdaftuar|the receiving node will notice that the original transaction is no longer in the mempool, i think
 37 2018-04-04 13:51:36	0|sdaftuar|but the "walletconflicts" output from the rpc call only reports other transactions that spend the same inputs
 38 2018-04-04 13:51:51	0|setpill|no, apparently not
 39 2018-04-04 13:51:53	0|sdaftuar|this could use some documentation i think if it's missing
 40 2018-04-04 13:52:06	0|setpill|it only reports other transactions that spend the same inputs AND touch the local wallet
 41 2018-04-04 13:52:24	0|sdaftuar|setpill: yes, sorry that's what i meant.  listtransactions is a wallet rpc call, so the context here is transactions in your wallet
 42 2018-04-04 13:52:38	0|sdaftuar|not eg transactions in the mempool
 43 2018-04-04 13:52:43	0|sdaftuar|"walletconflicts"
 44 2018-04-04 13:53:37	0|setpill|right, yes, but it would be useful to see conflicting txes in the mempool of local wallet txes even if the conflicting txes dont touch the local wallet
 45 2018-04-04 13:53:49	0|setpill|(actually id be MORE interested in them if they dont touch the local wallet since then it is a doublespend)
 46 2018-04-04 13:54:17	0|setpill|the receiving tx not being in the mempool might just be due to mempool being full
 47 2018-04-04 13:59:35	0|jnewbery|archael: I presume you built without wallet. If you run the functional tests through test_runner, it'll check that the wallet was compiled in. If you run the tests directly, I think they'll just fail with confusing messages like you saw
 48 2018-04-04 13:59:48	0|jnewbery|(generate is a wallet RPC, which is why it returned the Method not found error)
 49 2018-04-04 14:00:38	0|sdaftuar|setpill: i think it might be pretty straightforward to do what i think you're asking.  perhaps open an issue on bitcoin core as a feature request?
 50 2018-04-04 14:01:03	0|setpill|sdaftuar: will do, just wasnt sure if i was missing something :)
 51 2018-04-04 14:01:55	0|sdaftuar|setpill: well it's possible i'm missing something too and there's already a good workflow, in which case i expect someone to say as much on the github issue :)
 52 2018-04-04 14:02:11	0|setpill|👍
 53 2018-04-04 14:30:21	0|setpill|sdaftuar: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12883
 54 2018-04-04 14:42:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jamesob closed pull request #12873: [ci] Run functional tests using bitcoin-qt in one Travis job (06master...062018-04-03-travis-func-qt) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12873
 55 2018-04-04 15:10:01	0|jnewbery|MarcoFalke , wumpus: any idea why #12873 isn't getting picked up by travis? jamesob has force pushed and close-opened the PR, but it's not getting run on travis.
 56 2018-04-04 15:10:02	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12873 | [ci] Run functional tests using bitcoin-qt in one Travis job by jamesob · Pull Request #12873 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 57 2018-04-04 15:14:36	0|sipa|maybe it's confused by the close/reopen?
 58 2018-04-04 15:14:43	0|sipa|was there a push in between the close and reopen?
 59 2018-04-04 15:26:27	0|jnewbery|no - github won't allow you to re-open if there's been a push since close
 60 2018-04-04 15:26:55	0|jnewbery|I suggested james close-open to try and kick travis, since it wasn't running before
 61 2018-04-04 15:29:04	0|sipa|weird
 62 2018-04-04 16:20:33	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #12885: Reduce implementation code inside CScript (06master...06201803_reducescript) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12885
 63 2018-04-04 17:15:27	0|sipa|why are so many of the win64 travis jobs timing out suddenly?
 64 2018-04-04 17:19:07	0|sipa|should we temporarily disable testing those?
 65 2018-04-04 17:19:24	0|sipa|oh, it's the win32 one
 66 2018-04-04 17:28:31	0|jnewbery|sipa: unit tests are slow in wine
 67 2018-04-04 17:29:27	0|jnewbery|#12772 was a mitigation to help, but we need to figure out why those tests are so slow and fix
 68 2018-04-04 17:29:28	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12772 | [CI]: bump travis timeout for make check to 50m by jnewbery · Pull Request #12772 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 69 2018-04-04 17:34:42	0|sipa|jnewbery: just unit tests, not functional tests?
 70 2018-04-04 17:44:47	0|jnewbery|just unit tests I believe. See https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/361486215 for example
 71 2018-04-04 17:45:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jamesob closed pull request #12873: [ci] Run functional tests using bitcoin-qt in one Travis job (06master...062018-04-03-travis-func-qt) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12873
 72 2018-04-04 17:45:38	0|jnewbery|that travis job doesn't run functional tests
 73 2018-04-04 18:08:41	0|jnewbery|wumpus: #12167 may be ready for merge
 74 2018-04-04 18:08:42	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12167 | Make segwit failure due to CLEANSTACK violation return a SCRIPT_ERR_CLEANSTACK error code by maaku · Pull Request #12167 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 75 2018-04-04 18:11:38	0|jamesob|did we document the new procedure for changelog additions anywhere? (i.e. file-per-change to be aggregated at release time, IIRC)
 76 2018-04-04 18:13:46	0|jnewbery|jamesob: i think the outcome was that the maintainers have no objection to contributors adding per-PR release notes files
 77 2018-04-04 18:14:11	0|jamesob|jnewbery: any convention on where that lives? (apologies if obvious)
 78 2018-04-04 18:14:53	0|jnewbery|not yet!
 79 2018-04-04 18:26:11	0|jimpo_|Am I correct that undo data is only pruned if blocks themselves are pruned?
 80 2018-04-04 18:26:24	0|sdaftuar|jimpo_: yes
 81 2018-04-04 18:30:37	0|jimpo_|Seems like there could be an option to prune that after a certain height and leave the block data so it can be served to other nodes?
 82 2018-04-04 18:31:36	0|sipa|indeed
 83 2018-04-04 18:31:51	0|sipa|though the undo data is relatively small compared to the block data, so it doesn't gain you all that much
 84 2018-04-04 18:32:11	0|jimpo_|Eh, it's still 37/196 GB on my machine
 85 2018-04-04 18:32:34	0|jnewbery|wumpus: #12460 could be ready for merge too
 86 2018-04-04 18:32:36	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12460 | Assert CPubKey::ValidLength to the pubkeys header-relevant size by Empact · Pull Request #12460 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 87 2018-04-04 18:32:46	0|jimpo_|But I see the point that if you're willing to keep 160+ GB, you can afford the extra 37
 88 2018-04-04 18:32:56	0|sipa|jnewbery: i'll do some merges soon if wumpus is not around
 89 2018-04-04 18:33:53	0|sipa|jimpo_: yes, i'm not disagreeing with you - pruning undo data more than block data makes sense
 90 2018-04-04 18:34:18	0|sipa|but given that the reduction ratio of storage isn't all that high i guess it hasn't really been a priority
 91 2018-04-04 18:34:23	0|sipa|18:33:58 < sipa> jimpo_: yes, i'm not disagreeing with you - pruning undo data more than block data makes sense
 92 2018-04-04 18:34:35	0|jimpo|Thx, makes sense
 93 2018-04-04 19:14:46	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jamesob reopened pull request #12873: [ci] Run functional tests using bitcoin-qt in one Travis job (06master...062018-04-03-travis-func-qt) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12873
 94 2018-04-04 19:44:07	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #12886: Introduce Slice type and use it instead of FLATDATA (06master...06201803_slice) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12886
 95 2018-04-04 19:54:27	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery opened pull request #12887: [trivial] Add newlines to end of log messages. (06master...06log_messages_newlines) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12887
 96 2018-04-04 19:58:45	0|DrDraake|Hey guys
 97 2018-04-04 20:00:30	0|DrDraake|This might be a silly question to some.  I'm just having a hard time finding the answer.  If someone has a Bitcoin Core wallet and I install the Bitcoin Core Wallet on a new PC.  Do I need to wait for the entire history of the blockchain to download prior to receiving coins?
 98 2018-04-04 20:01:24	0|sipa|please go to #bitcoin or https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com
 99 2018-04-04 20:01:32	0|DrDraake|Got it.
100 2018-04-04 20:01:35	0|sipa|there are plenty of answers about questions like that
101 2018-04-04 20:16:44	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jamesob closed pull request #12873: [ci] Run functional tests using bitcoin-qt in one Travis job (06master...062018-04-03-travis-func-qt) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12873
102 2018-04-04 20:17:16	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jamesob reopened pull request #12873: [ci] Run functional tests using bitcoin-qt in one Travis job (06master...062018-04-03-travis-func-qt) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12873
103 2018-04-04 20:22:04	0|dtnge|JOIN
104 2018-04-04 21:03:35	0|jnewbery|wumpus: mind if I take over #7729?
105 2018-04-04 21:03:38	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7729 | rpc: introduce label API for wallet by laanwj · Pull Request #7729 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
106 2018-04-04 21:26:38	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fa6f12a 15MarcoFalke: travis: Run verify-commits only on cron jobs
107 2018-04-04 21:26:38	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1d540046fe47...648252e8ae91
108 2018-04-04 21:26:39	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14648252e 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12851: travis: Run verify-commits only on cron jobs...
109 2018-04-04 21:27:26	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12851: travis: Run verify-commits only on cron jobs (06master...06Mf1804-travisCronVerifyCommits) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12851
110 2018-04-04 21:28:11	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12702: [wallet] [rpc] [doc] importprivkey: hint about importmulti (06master...06importprivkey-importmulti-hint) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12702
111 2018-04-04 21:29:31	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14faace13 15MarcoFalke: qa: Match full plain text by default
112 2018-04-04 21:29:31	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/dab0d6859b8a...2106c4c64c36
113 2018-04-04 21:29:32	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142106c4c 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12853: qa: Match full plain text by default...
114 2018-04-04 21:30:21	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12853: qa: Match full plain text by default (06master...06Mf1803-qaErrorMatchFullText) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12853
115 2018-04-04 21:51:26	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f8c249a 15Ben Woosley: Assert CPubKey::ValidLength to the pubkey's header-relevent size...
116 2018-04-04 21:51:26	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2106c4c64c36...bfaed1ab2ec7
117 2018-04-04 21:51:27	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14bfaed1a 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12460: Assert CPubKey::ValidLength to the pubkey's header-relevant size...
118 2018-04-04 21:52:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12460: Assert CPubKey::ValidLength to the pubkey's header-relevant size (06master...06key-size-check-header) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12460
119 2018-04-04 22:08:22	0|aj|jamesob, jnewbery: i did doc/release-nots-pr12823.md fwiw
120 2018-04-04 22:08:25	0|aj|notes even
121 2018-04-04 22:09:57	0|aj|i noticed that unit tests in gcc seem to take longer than unit tests in clang (2min vs 40s), seems a bit odd? haven't investigated
122 2018-04-04 22:25:07	0|sipa|aj: that's dramatic :o