1 2018-04-12 00:01:02	0|fanquake|dongcarl I think measuring towards the end of every release cycle would be a good start. Likely to be funded out of the pockets of whoever is running the tests. Unless someone donates some servers.
  2 2018-04-12 00:22:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #12956: contrib: Only lint our src files for include guards (06master...06Mf1804-lintFixups) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12956
  3 2018-04-12 00:35:26	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sparpana opened pull request #12957: Update README.md (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12957
  4 2018-04-12 00:36:06	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #12957: Update README.md (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12957
  5 2018-04-12 00:51:03	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15Empact opened pull request #12959: Drop IsCompressedOrUncompressedPubKey and IsCompressedPubKey (06master...06is-compressed-or-uncompressed) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12959
  6 2018-04-12 01:32:35	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #12960: doc: Revert to previous header include policy (06master...06Mf1804-docIncludes) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12960
  7 2018-04-12 01:41:51	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12956: contrib: Only lint our src files for include guards (06master...06Mf1804-lintFixups) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12956
  8 2018-04-12 01:57:44	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #12433: [qt] move SendCoinsRecipient to its own file (06master...062018/02/qt-send-coins-recipient) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12433
  9 2018-04-12 02:30:03	0|fanquake|Is there an easy way to comment on an issue like #12961 inline?
 10 2018-04-12 02:30:04	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12961 | 979f598: Clang Static Analyzer Report · Issue #12961 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 11 2018-04-12 02:32:20	0|aj|fanquake: don't think so. you can copy a bit and quote it with a ">" prefix, eg "> what they said \n\n helpful response from you" ?
 12 2018-04-12 02:32:40	0|kallewoof|fanquake: Maybe I should've made a PR with 'no-merge:'. That would let you inline comment.
 13 2018-04-12 02:33:02	0|kallewoof|No/limited formatting though..
 14 2018-04-12 02:33:08	0|fanquake|Yes that's normally what I'd do, but copying out of an issue like that which has heaps of markdown is always a bit of a nightmare.
 15 2018-04-12 02:33:29	0|fanquake|kallewoof, I'll have a go at adding some comments to the issue first.
 16 2018-04-12 02:33:38	0|kallewoof|OK
 17 2018-04-12 03:18:14	0|mryandao|ok, i've rebased #12240 and it finally passed all the build jobs
 18 2018-04-12 03:18:16	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12240 | [rpc] Introduced a new `fees` structure that aggregates all sub-field fee types denominated in BTC by mryandao · Pull Request #12240 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 19 2018-04-12 03:35:43	0|wumpus|dongcarl: funding is hardly ever the issue
 20 2018-04-12 03:37:36	0|mryandao|while most open source project struggle with funding, bitcoin-core has a funny situation where there simply enough human resources to spend funding? :/
 21 2018-04-12 03:37:39	0|wumpus|if you have a good plan for that, but the problem is servers to run it on, I'm sure something can be agreed on
 22 2018-04-12 03:37:54	0|wumpus|yes the problem is people
 23 2018-04-12 03:45:50	0|kallewoof|Does anyone have any objections to extending the WIF format with types, so that wallet software can know what kind of key it corresponds to (P2WPKH, P2WPKH-P2SH, etc)? BIP proposal here: https://github.com/kallewoof/bips/blob/bip-typed-wif/bip-extended-privkey.mediawiki
 24 2018-04-12 03:46:13	0|wumpus|kallewoof: sounds like a good idea to me
 25 2018-04-12 03:47:16	0|kallewoof|luke-jr: Would you mind assigning a BIP number? I've had this on the ML for awhile, and no one replied (= no one objected).
 26 2018-04-12 03:51:14	0|wumpus|kallewoof:I think non-compressed should not be suffix 0, but simply 'no suffix byte', that's better for backward compatibility
 27 2018-04-12 03:51:33	0|wumpus|(you mention that yourself in Compatibility so :-)
 28 2018-04-12 03:52:29	0|wumpus|looks good to me otherwise
 29 2018-04-12 03:54:33	0|kallewoof|wumpus: Hm. I thought 0x00 was the same as 'no suffix byte', compatibility wise...
 30 2018-04-12 03:54:49	0|wumpus|kallewoof: a lot of implementations just check the length
 31 2018-04-12 03:54:50	0|kallewoof|wumpus: I mean, 0x00 is the same as 'no suffix' which means uncompressed.
 32 2018-04-12 03:54:54	0|kallewoof|wumpus: Geh. Okay.
 33 2018-04-12 03:56:27	0|wumpus|well I don't know about 'a lot' but I've seen it done, and I don't think there's a good reason to introduce a new encoding for P2PKH_UNCOMPRESSED - the current one is unambigious!
 34 2018-04-12 03:57:00	0|kallewoof|wumpus: Yeah, makes sense. So either have no suffix byte (=P2PKH_UNCOMPRESSED), or have one that is non-zero
 35 2018-04-12 03:57:01	0|luke-jr|well, then it suddenly becomes a bug to interpret it as compressed/etc
 36 2018-04-12 03:57:06	0|luke-jr|kallewoof: is there a PR?
 37 2018-04-12 03:57:24	0|wumpus|"all types with a suffix byte are compressed"
 38 2018-04-12 03:57:43	0|kallewoof|luke-jr: There's a branch, no PR yet. Can make one easily enough.
 39 2018-04-12 03:57:55	0|kallewoof|luke-jr: Will fix wumpus feedback and then make PR
 40 2018-04-12 03:57:57	0|luke-jr|kallewoof: PR for the BIP I mean
 41 2018-04-12 03:58:04	0|kallewoof|luke-jr: Yes
 42 2018-04-12 03:58:14	0|luke-jr|that goes before # assignment these days
 43 2018-04-12 04:00:50	0|kallewoof|luke-jr: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/673
 44 2018-04-12 04:01:23	0|kallewoof|wumpus: I did a first draft on switching to uncompressed = no suffix.
 45 2018-04-12 04:02:48	0|luke-jr|kallewoof: I suggest making type 0 always p2pk or p2pkh
 46 2018-04-12 04:03:18	0|luke-jr|"Legacy public key format" should be "p2pkh"
 47 2018-04-12 04:04:12	0|kallewoof|luke-jr: Isn't type 0 ambiguous with 'not compressed'? Or is 'not compressed' *always* a missing suffix byte?
 48 2018-04-12 04:04:57	0|kallewoof|luke-jr: I forgot about P2PK though...
 49 2018-04-12 04:05:06	0|luke-jr|might want to ask thomasv to co-author the BIP
 50 2018-04-12 04:05:18	0|kallewoof|Yeah, good idea
 51 2018-04-12 04:05:53	0|wumpus|yes, the important part is that other wallet authors agree
 52 2018-04-12 04:06:16	0|wumpus|if they're not on one page, it's not much of a standard :)
 53 2018-04-12 04:07:49	0|kallewoof|Yeah, I was sort of assuming they'd be on the ML and object if they found it offensive, but asking directly is definitely a good idea
 54 2018-04-12 04:08:49	0|wumpus|that would be the ideal situation, but in practice most people are probably very busy and don't pay much attention to the mailing list day to day - a common practice would be to CC: people that should absolutely see it
 55 2018-04-12 04:09:55	0|kallewoof|wumpus: I don't really know who to CC though, aside from thomasv, who is already in the thread. In fact, he's the author of it.
 56 2018-04-12 04:10:05	0|wumpus|ok
 57 2018-04-12 04:10:23	0|wumpus|(me neither, just have the same experience with ignored messages on MLs :-)
 58 2018-04-12 04:14:14	0|wumpus|in open source projects you shouldn't be afraid to poke people, if necessarily repeatedly (after some time passed)
 59 2018-04-12 04:15:09	0|kallewoof|wumpus: Haha, yeah I'm trying to get used to that idea.
 60 2018-04-12 04:23:06	0|wumpus|kallewoof: uh oh, looking at python-bitcoinlib's WIF decoder: https://github.com/petertodd/python-bitcoinlib/blob/master/bitcoin/wallet.py#L253 they treat only keys with suffix byte AND suffix byte=1 as compressed and the rest as uncompressed
 61 2018-04-12 04:23:58	0|kallewoof|wumpus: Wow... okay. Wonder why they chose that approach.
 62 2018-04-12 04:24:10	0|wumpus|accidentally, I think
 63 2018-04-12 04:25:12	0|wumpus|we can fix that at the same time as implementing your BIP - just a data point
 64 2018-04-12 04:26:02	0|wumpus|though at some point it would be safer to create a completely new WIF format
 65 2018-04-12 04:26:30	0|wumpus|especially if we find more examples of handling the suffix byte differently
 66 2018-04-12 04:26:32	0|kallewoof|wumpus: I'm gonna look around at other implementations and see how they're doing it.
 67 2018-04-12 04:26:36	0|kallewoof|wumpus: Yeah.
 68 2018-04-12 04:26:37	0|wumpus|yes, good idea
 69 2018-04-12 04:31:50	0|luke-jr|Could Bech32 it
 70 2018-04-12 04:32:35	0|wumpus|luke-jr: I had that in my mind as well
 71 2018-04-12 04:34:16	0|kallewoof|Yeah, that would be nice. I know sipa has talked about it in the past.
 72 2018-04-12 04:34:59	0|kallewoof|btcd seems to do the "right" thing (ignoring the suffix byte, actually.. I think.. so they should be 100% compatible): https://github.com/btcsuite/btcutil/blob/501929d3d046174c3d39f0ea54ece471aa17238c/wif.go#L90-L102
 73 2018-04-12 04:35:26	0|kallewoof|Oh wait, nevermind. They do check that it's 0x01 for compressed.
 74 2018-04-12 04:35:41	0|luke-jr|a Bech32 format would be a clean break of compatibility
 75 2018-04-12 04:36:42	0|wumpus|I've downgraded my ACK to Concept ACK for now
 76 2018-04-12 04:36:53	0|kallewoof|luke-jr: I was hoping we could get a fix in for WIF soonish, as I don't believe sipa is done with the params for the private key bech32 variant.
 77 2018-04-12 04:37:31	0|kallewoof|wumpus: I'll note the bech32 alternative on the BIP
 78 2018-04-12 04:37:55	0|wumpus|I'm a bit afraid that this might result in funds loss in some edge cases
 79 2018-04-12 04:38:25	0|wumpus|e.g. importing one of the new key types into an old wallet, there's no error, but as it is interpreted wrongly, nothing happens either
 80 2018-04-12 04:38:44	0|kallewoof|That would be a display error, not a fund loss
 81 2018-04-12 04:38:53	0|luke-jr|^
 82 2018-04-12 04:39:08	0|luke-jr|even if the user throws away the WIF, you could still export the key and fix it later
 83 2018-04-12 04:39:21	0|wumpus|ok
 84 2018-04-12 04:39:53	0|luke-jr|kallewoof: what's the need for an interim format? WIF is fine..
 85 2018-04-12 04:41:21	0|kallewoof|luke-jr: It's fine, except you need to import every possible type of public key as you don't know what kind it is. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12705#issuecomment-373973741
 86 2018-04-12 04:42:00	0|kallewoof|sipa said: "Relatedly, we don't have an encoding for "private key whose address is supposed to be P2SH-P2WPKH". My suggestion would be to add one (I believe Electrum has some sort of standard for this). importprivkey can't really use these, because it already has to assume it can be any type, but importmulti does not need to repeat this. It could assume just P2PKH for a legacy WIP encoding, and
 87 2018-04-12 04:42:03	0|kallewoof|P2SH/P2WPKH when one of those novel encodings is used."
 88 2018-04-12 04:43:09	0|wumpus|right, the problem is mostly one of inefficiency due to aspecificity
 89 2018-04-12 04:44:15	0|kallewoof|*nods*
 90 2018-04-12 04:45:37	0|luke-jr|kallewoof: minor enough I'd just prefer to wait for Bech32
 91 2018-04-12 04:45:57	0|luke-jr|users shouldn't be touching private keys by hand anyway
 92 2018-04-12 04:51:06	0|kallewoof|luke-jr: perhaps they shouldn't, but it's a pressing enough issue that wallets are making their own formats up for this, so it doesn't feel completely unwarranted. It depends of course on how far away we are from bech32-style format.
 93 2018-04-12 04:51:32	0|luke-jr|I'd say let them make the BIP then ;)
 94 2018-04-12 04:53:22	0|wumpus|I still think this is a good idea in itself
 95 2018-04-12 04:53:34	0|kallewoof|That puts us back at square 1 on other projects, like importmulti.
 96 2018-04-12 04:54:03	0|kallewoof|I agree with sipa that we should address the private key ambiguity before updating importmulti (#12705)
 97 2018-04-12 04:54:05	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12705 | [WIP] Importmulti private key support by kallewoof · Pull Request #12705 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 98 2018-04-12 04:54:53	0|wumpus|right
 99 2018-04-12 04:55:24	0|sipa|kallewoof, luke-jr, wumpus: i think we should see the existing WIF format as *just* a key with no information about associated addresses; it has to be clear from the context or irrelevant
100 2018-04-12 04:55:53	0|sipa|while the new format can be a combined key + implicit associated address
101 2018-04-12 04:56:29	0|sipa|kallewoof: i haven't worked on an extended bech32 in a while; i could pick it up again, but the design space is so big :)
102 2018-04-12 04:56:32	0|wumpus|yes
103 2018-04-12 04:56:44	0|kallewoof|sipa: Would it make sense to use bech32 as is for private keys?
104 2018-04-12 04:57:07	0|sipa|kallewoof: bech32 itself? it can only correct two errors
105 2018-04-12 04:57:47	0|kallewoof|Right. I know you were looking into optimizing that. I guess what I wonder is, does it make sense to do something without an optimized extended bech32 or should we just sit tight?
106 2018-04-12 04:57:50	0|sipa|i would expect that for private ieys you want to be able to correct more
107 2018-04-12 04:59:10	0|wumpus|you'd want to propose a completely new encoding for private keys?
108 2018-04-12 04:59:28	0|sipa|and things like extended pubkeys etc
109 2018-04-12 04:59:39	0|sipa|anything that's not specifically optimized to be short
110 2018-04-12 04:59:48	0|wumpus|right
111 2018-04-12 05:00:58	0|sipa|but again, i haven't worked on that in a while
112 2018-04-12 05:01:47	0|sipa|i believe with 13 checksum characters you can correct 4 errors easily
113 2018-04-12 05:01:58	0|wumpus|it seems a long-term thing, and there seems to be some demandfrom wallet authors for an intermediate format, I think that's what motivated the BIP
114 2018-04-12 05:02:41	0|sipa|yup
115 2018-04-12 05:07:27	0|wumpus|but yes having a robust, error correcting private key format would be very nice
116 2018-04-12 05:10:02	0|sipa|maybe i'll post a summary of the options on the ml
117 2018-04-12 05:10:15	0|kallewoof|sipa: That would be great
118 2018-04-12 05:10:44	0|kallewoof|sipa: I'd love to work on the extended bech32 format, but to be honest, I don't think I'd find an optimal solution on my own. :)
119 2018-04-12 05:12:40	0|sipa|i'll post a list of options
120 2018-04-12 05:14:21	0|sipa|i don't have the knowledge/computation to find an optimal solution either
121 2018-04-12 05:14:33	0|sipa|for bech32 it was doable due to limited search space
122 2018-04-12 06:30:40	0|jonasschnelli|Currently, encodings that use more space may be more cumbersome for seed backups,... though it could be orthogonal (depening on the new concept)
123 2018-04-12 06:30:43	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #12963: Fix Clang Static Analyzer warnings (06master...06issue-12961) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12963
124 2018-04-12 06:31:35	0|jonasschnelli|Also, if length is not an issue, why not just use <privkey><privkey><chsm>?
125 2018-04-12 06:31:59	0|sipa|?
126 2018-04-12 06:32:27	0|sipa|two privkeys?
127 2018-04-12 06:35:43	0|wumpus|could also encode to a passphrase in some dictionary and use the redundancy of e.g. english for error correction (not sure how that compares to other approaches :-)
128 2018-04-12 06:36:01	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: the same key twice
129 2018-04-12 06:36:39	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 143450a9b 15Ben Woosley: Extract consts for WITNESS_V0 hash sizes
130 2018-04-12 06:36:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/979f59850c72...e561cf4fa865
131 2018-04-12 06:36:40	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e561cf4 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12939: Extract consts for WITNESS_V0 hash sizes...
132 2018-04-12 06:37:47	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12939: Extract consts for WITNESS_V0 hash sizes (06master...06hash-size-constants) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12939
133 2018-04-12 06:38:31	0|jonasschnelli|Maybe I got a wrong understanding of the use case.
134 2018-04-12 06:39:33	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: that's stupid :)
135 2018-04-12 06:39:48	0|sipa|you can get far better error correction with that length :)
136 2018-04-12 06:40:04	0|sipa|wumpus: you know gramtropy?
137 2018-04-12 06:40:28	0|jonasschnelli|Okay. Then I'm better be quite about encoding and error correction. :)
138 2018-04-12 06:41:06	0|wumpus|sipa: I was just thinking of that, but couldn't find it, I suppose incorporating grammar would create even more redundancy
139 2018-04-12 06:41:19	0|jonasschnelli|https://github.com/sipa/gramtropy
140 2018-04-12 06:42:38	0|wumpus|though no, that's not as easy to correct for
141 2018-04-12 06:45:51	0|sipa|ha, no :)
142 2018-04-12 06:59:10	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: where is your long-term-wallet concept gist/wiki?
143 2018-04-12 06:59:43	0|jonasschnelli|Is there a central place for bitcoin core implementation concepts?
144 2018-04-12 07:03:22	0|kallewoof|jonasschnelli: Don't think so. We could make a page on the wiki and link to stuff as we see it maybe.
145 2018-04-12 07:03:38	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. Maybe a topic for today
146 2018-04-12 07:07:12	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: https://gist.github.com/sipa/125cfa1615946d0c3f3eec2ad7f250a2
147 2018-04-12 07:07:16	0|jonasschnelli|thx!
148 2018-04-12 07:09:50	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15lutangar closed pull request #12736: [RPC][Refactoring] Meaningful error code when called with wrong number of arguments (06master...06error-code-for-param-number) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12736
149 2018-04-12 07:17:56	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1472ec5b7 15Gregory Sanders: debug log number of unknown wallet records on load
150 2018-04-12 07:17:56	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e561cf4fa865...39439e5ab419
151 2018-04-12 07:17:57	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1439439e5 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12888: debug log number of unknown wallet records on load...
152 2018-04-12 07:18:51	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12888: debug log number of unknown wallet records on load (06master...06unknownrec) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12888
153 2018-04-12 07:30:31	0|kallewoof|So, I've now heard several people express positive things about "<type literal>:<WIF>" as a way to specify key types. So if you had a bech32 public key, you would express its private key as p2wpkh:<Base58WIF>. This is apparently what Electrum is/did switch(ing) to.
154 2018-04-12 07:32:00	0|kallewoof|My only concern is if people start manually prefixing previously dumped privkeys and getting the type wrong, but that should never cause a loss of funds as discussed earlier.
155 2018-04-12 07:37:29	0|sipa|well... humans shouldn't be dealing with private keys directly, in general
156 2018-04-12 07:37:31	0|stevenroose|sipa: about the coins cache, AddCoin only checks if a new entry doesn't overwrite a non-spent entry *in the cache*. what prevents overwriting a non-spent entry that is not cached?
157 2018-04-12 07:37:45	0|sipa|stevenroose: bip30
158 2018-04-12 07:38:12	0|sipa|and bip34
159 2018-04-12 07:39:27	0|sipa|stevenroose: the checks there are consistency checks (= they protect against bugs in the code), they're not what prevents actual blocks from performing such uodates
160 2018-04-12 07:39:37	0|sipa|those are dealt with in consensus code
161 2018-04-12 07:40:58	0|kallewoof|sipa: Sure, but this encourages that behavior by being human readable, as opposed to a binary byte value embedded in the format itself.
162 2018-04-12 07:48:02	0|stevenroose|sipa: that makes sense
163 2018-04-12 07:55:05	0|sipa|kallewoof: fair point
164 2018-04-12 07:55:20	0|sipa|kallewoof: but then again, why do we have a concise format anyway?
165 2018-04-12 07:59:36	0|kallewoof|sipa: well, in my case I realized I had an old GUI wallet with bitcoin in it, and it allowed me to export the private keys. I just imported those into bitcoin core, rather than sending the amount (it was tiny). In the future, this will probably be done using the HD master key instead, but I don't know. Anyway, I may not always want to import the entire wallet, just a specific key...
166 2018-04-12 08:03:24	0|jonasschnelli|kallewoof: IMO "transporting" private keys is non-ideal security practice
167 2018-04-12 08:05:29	0|kallewoof|jonasschnelli: It may not be ideal, but I think people will be tempted to do it between their own wallets, esp if the amounts are smallish.
168 2018-04-12 08:46:01	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #12965: Add RPC call setscriptthreadsenabled: allow to temp. throttle CPU usage (06master...062018/04/svt) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12965
169 2018-04-12 09:28:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15kallewoof opened pull request #12966: [WIP] Mempool optimized feerate (06master...06mempool-optimized-feerate) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12966
170 2018-04-12 10:11:56	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15Empact closed pull request #12459: Assert compressed keys are strictly shorter than regular (06master...06assert-compressed-smaller) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12459
171 2018-04-12 10:19:59	0|fanquake|wumpus I opened #12955 for the weird travis failures. I'd like to know what's happening before we merge 12899..
172 2018-04-12 10:20:00	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12955 | travis: Windows build failing after -pie changes · Issue #12955 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
173 2018-04-12 10:20:47	0|wumpus|fanquake: I agree, certainly don't plan to merge it unless it passes travis
174 2018-04-12 10:22:37	0|fanquake|wumpus I'm also putting together a PR for most of the 0.16 backports. Any thoughts on a 0.16.1 release? Looks like there is 1 PR left which needs a rebase.
175 2018-04-12 10:23:13	0|wumpus|fanquake: is there a trigger for a 0.16.1 release?
176 2018-04-12 10:23:18	0|fanquake|*1 PR that should be merged before 0.16.1 that is
177 2018-04-12 10:23:35	0|wumpus|(apart from that it's a good idea to already backport some things, but just wondering)
178 2018-04-12 10:24:16	0|fanquake|wumpus no particular trigger at the moment
179 2018-04-12 10:28:01	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake opened pull request #12967: backport: #12626, #12650, #12487 (060.16...06backport-12626) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12967
180 2018-04-12 10:35:48	0|promag|someone knows why assert(CWallet::GetConflicts(txid).count(txid) == 0) can fail??
181 2018-04-12 10:36:13	0|promag|can a txid conflict with itself?
182 2018-04-12 11:48:02	0|instagibbs|jonasschnelli, also writing down a key twice means correlated errors. sad!
183 2018-04-12 11:48:20	0|instagibbs|if im writing down a key, get a character wrong, super likely ill do it twice
184 2018-04-12 12:19:41	0|wumpus|instagibbs: just munge the second time w/ some xor key *ducks*
185 2018-04-12 14:02:56	0|jamesob|anyone have any good workarounds for the github-unicorn-of-death effect for prs with many comments? I'm basically unable to continue review on #11857 because the page won't load
186 2018-04-12 14:03:01	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11857 | Build tx index in parallel with validation by jimpo · Pull Request #11857 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
187 2018-04-12 14:05:06	0|fanquake|jamesob Pretty sure that's just GitHub having a sad
188 2018-04-12 14:05:15	0|fanquake|I'm also seeing unicorns
189 2018-04-12 14:05:30	0|jamesob|fanquake: yeah it's been pretty bad for the last 24 hours
190 2018-04-12 14:05:38	0|aj|huh, it's working fine here :-/
191 2018-04-12 14:06:04	0|jamesob|of course their status page reports 100% uptime :)
192 2018-04-12 14:24:13	0|sipa|kallewoof: my goal here is to make sure there exists a compact description of your wallet that's human readable to the extent it has structure that matters (see my wallet design gist)... but it doesn't need to be a single string or collection thereof
193 2018-04-12 14:38:51	0|promag_|jnewbery: hi, did you understand my point?
194 2018-04-12 14:44:06	0|promag|jnewbery: saw your relpy in gh, ty
195 2018-04-12 14:45:51	0|jnewbery|promag: i don't think I fully understand! I've answered as best I can, but perhaps you can elaborate in the PR
196 2018-04-12 14:46:32	0|promag|jnewbery: I thought 0.18 won't have those dummy args
197 2018-04-12 14:48:54	0|jnewbery|It's possible to remove the dummy args in a future version, but not necessary. Removing dummy args is an API break.
198 2018-04-12 14:49:46	0|jnewbery|Other RPCs have had dummy args for many releases. See priorisetransaction and move for example.
199 2018-04-12 15:34:09	0|wumpus|how careful to be with RPC API breakage depends on how much the RPC is used (uncommon and debugging RPCs should just be changed, but e.g. not sendtoaddress), as well as the consequences when running old code and the dummy argument is provided anyway
200 2018-04-12 17:22:01	0|promag|meeting at 20 utc?
201 2018-04-12 17:22:27	0|wumpus|19 utc
202 2018-04-12 17:22:33	0|promag|ok ty
203 2018-04-12 17:22:56	0|wumpus|which should be 1 hour and ~38 minutes from now
204 2018-04-12 17:23:30	0|promag|:+1:
205 2018-04-12 17:38:06	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #12968: leveldb: Add ARMv8 CRC32C support (06master...062018_04_armv8_crc32c) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12968
206 2018-04-12 17:48:07	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: what ARM v8 machine do you use for testing/develpoing?
207 2018-04-12 17:48:40	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: a server at mininodes that crashes all the time! I have a i.mx8 boards that I should set up though
208 2018-04-12 17:49:58	0|wumpus|(https://www.nxp.com/support/developer-resources/run-time-software/i.mx-developer-resources/evaluation-kit-for-the-i.mx-8m-applications-processor:MCIMX8M-EVK)
209 2018-04-12 17:50:18	0|jonasschnelli|The Cortex A53 is also v8 and should have the crc32 ext, right?
210 2018-04-12 17:51:10	0|jonasschnelli|(RPi3, Pine64, Ordoid-C2)
211 2018-04-12 17:51:24	0|wumpus|ah yes good idea, I have an odroid C2 here which has it
212 2018-04-12 17:52:20	0|jonasschnelli|My HC2/XU4 have an A15 (v7)... will report about performance soon
213 2018-04-12 17:52:44	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: what tool do/did you use for performance measuring, gperf?
214 2018-04-12 17:52:48	0|wumpus|thanks!
215 2018-04-12 17:53:33	0|wumpus|I didn't measure performance of bitcoind at all yet, just crcbench independently: https://github.com/laanwj/crcbench
216 2018-04-12 17:53:47	0|jonasschnelli|ok
217 2018-04-12 17:55:49	0|wumpus|(which was impressive; about 6x faster on C2)
218 2018-04-12 17:56:34	0|cfields|wumpus: nice :)
219 2018-04-12 18:11:26	0|jonasschnelli|bitcoin_bench should have some verification benchmarks (simulate connectblock() or something with -par=0[auto])
220 2018-04-12 18:15:41	0|wumpus|I think that's the only one out of the couple of benchmarks I proposed that never got implemented; it's difficult to do without setting up a lot of context
221 2018-04-12 18:34:32	0|drexl|is a compressed public key valid for a P2PK scriptPubKey?
222 2018-04-12 18:35:15	0|wumpus|yes
223 2018-04-12 18:36:41	0|drexl|cheers
224 2018-04-12 18:37:57	0|midnightmagic|wonder when it'll be time to pick up a sifive thingy..
225 2018-04-12 18:39:48	0|wumpus|the sifive unleashed board seems really nice
226 2018-04-12 18:40:06	0|midnightmagic|bunny crapped on it :-/
227 2018-04-12 18:40:35	0|wumpus|oh? just the closed bootloader thing or more?
228 2018-04-12 18:40:39	0|midnightmagic|dunno why, ultimately. Are you picking one up for porting?
229 2018-04-12 18:40:54	0|midnightmagic|wumpus: just the closed initial boot stuff, yes, so far.
230 2018-04-12 18:41:11	0|wumpus|well that's no worse than NXP then at least...
231 2018-04-12 18:41:17	0|wumpus|midnightmagic: yes :)
232 2018-04-12 18:41:34	0|midnightmagic|nice, I'm glad. that makes me want one now.
233 2018-04-12 18:42:07	0|wumpus|would be more worried if e.g. the performance was really bad, or worse it crashed randomly
234 2018-04-12 18:43:42	0|jonasschnelli|Our gitian -debug builds -O2 -g, right? They should be okay for performance profiling?
235 2018-04-12 18:44:32	0|wumpus|yes -O2 -g is fine for performance profiling, -g itself doesn't make your code slower, make sure the lock debugging and such is not enabled though
236 2018-04-12 18:45:06	0|jonasschnelli|I once remember reading something about -g3 for gcc... anyway, thanks wumpus
237 2018-04-12 18:45:57	0|jonasschnelli|cfields: do you know why the dependency download on OSX is timing out on gitian/master: https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/builds/564/build_osx.log
238 2018-04-12 18:46:03	0|jonasschnelli|+?
239 2018-04-12 18:46:40	0|wumpus|-g is additive, it adds metadata, -g2 -g3 (potentially, depending on the compiler) adds more metadata. But that's all separate from the .text segments afaik
240 2018-04-12 18:47:13	0|jonasschnelli|thanks
241 2018-04-12 18:48:36	0|cfields|jonasschnelli: looking
242 2018-04-12 18:49:16	0|cfields|jonasschnelli: curl: (28) Resolving timed out after 10542 milliseconds
243 2018-04-12 18:49:26	0|cfields|dns issues?
244 2018-04-12 18:49:36	0|jonasschnelli|let me check
245 2018-04-12 18:50:09	0|jonasschnelli|dig dig bitbucket.org works perfect...
246 2018-04-12 18:50:49	0|jonasschnelli|maybe an LXC container thing
247 2018-04-12 18:50:52	0|cfields|jonasschnelli: are you sure your gitian machine has dns/net access?
248 2018-04-12 18:50:57	0|cfields|right, that's what I was thinking
249 2018-04-12 18:51:13	0|jonasschnelli|the machine has,... not sure about LXC<-HOST->NET
250 2018-04-12 18:51:36	0|cfields|jonasschnelli: can you download sources as a prior step?
251 2018-04-12 18:52:16	0|jonasschnelli|cfields: Yes. But that is outside of the VM/LXC
252 2018-04-12 18:52:29	0|cfields|right
253 2018-04-12 18:53:04	0|jonasschnelli|need to check how I can get the LXC shell again...
254 2018-04-12 18:55:28	0|cfields|jonasschnelli: if you've got the right candles burning and say the right incantation, "libexec/on-target" might work.
255 2018-04-12 18:55:39	0|jonasschnelli|heh
256 2018-04-12 19:00:27	0|BlueMatt|mtg?
257 2018-04-12 19:00:49	0|sdaftuar|ack
258 2018-04-12 19:01:00	0|Randolf|Ack.
259 2018-04-12 19:01:11	0|BlueMatt|whereforartthou wumpus
260 2018-04-12 19:01:33	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
261 2018-04-12 19:01:34	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Apr 12 19:01:49 2018 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
262 2018-04-12 19:01:34	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
263 2018-04-12 19:01:48	0|wumpus|#bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator
264 2018-04-12 19:01:53	0|promag|hi
265 2018-04-12 19:01:57	0|Randolf|Hello.
266 2018-04-12 19:01:58	0|achow101|hi
267 2018-04-12 19:02:00	0|jonasschnelli|hi
268 2018-04-12 19:02:00	0|sipa|hi
269 2018-04-12 19:02:12	0|kanzure|hi.
270 2018-04-12 19:02:21	0|cfields|hi
271 2018-04-12 19:02:24	0|meshcollider|hi
272 2018-04-12 19:02:24	0|wumpus|any proposed topics?
273 2018-04-12 19:02:27	0|luke-jr|o hai
274 2018-04-12 19:02:44	0|sipa|#12874 What to do with IsMine of bare multisig?
275 2018-04-12 19:02:45	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12874 | Only accept bare multisig outputs after addmultisigaddress by sipa · Pull Request #12874 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
276 2018-04-12 19:03:02	0|wumpus|thanks
277 2018-04-12 19:03:13	0|jimpo|hi
278 2018-04-12 19:03:13	0|promag|dynamic wallet load/unload
279 2018-04-12 19:03:22	0|luke-jr|I don't know why we would *ever* accept bare multisig
280 2018-04-12 19:03:26	0|wumpus|let's start with "high priority for review" as usual
281 2018-04-12 19:03:29	0|wumpus|#topic high priority for review
282 2018-04-12 19:03:39	0|wumpus|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
283 2018-04-12 19:03:59	0|jimpo|Waiting on BlueMatt to rereview #11857 after revision
284 2018-04-12 19:04:01	0|wumpus|#11857 #12560 #11775
285 2018-04-12 19:04:02	0|BlueMatt|#11775 should probably removed and replaced with the forthcoming split of it into multiple pr's
286 2018-04-12 19:04:03	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11857 | Build tx index in parallel with validation by jimpo · Pull Request #11857 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
287 2018-04-12 19:04:08	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11857 | Build tx index in parallel with validation by jimpo · Pull Request #11857 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
288 2018-04-12 19:04:13	0|BlueMatt|though the first few commits could still use eyeballs
289 2018-04-12 19:04:13	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12560 | [wallet] Upgrade path for non-HD wallets to HD by achow101 · Pull Request #12560 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
290 2018-04-12 19:04:14	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11775 | Move fee estimator into validationinterface/cscheduler thread by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #11775 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
291 2018-04-12 19:04:16	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11775 | Move fee estimator into validationinterface/cscheduler thread by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #11775 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
292 2018-04-12 19:04:25	0|sdaftuar|BlueMatt: i'll give you my comments after you split it :P
293 2018-04-12 19:04:28	0|BlueMatt|as for 11857, yes, thats my fault :/
294 2018-04-12 19:05:01	0|jtimon|hi
295 2018-04-12 19:05:22	0|jimpo|#12560 still has one unaddressed comment by me I think
296 2018-04-12 19:05:24	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12560 | [wallet] Upgrade path for non-HD wallets to HD by achow101 · Pull Request #12560 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
297 2018-04-12 19:05:24	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: ok
298 2018-04-12 19:05:25	0|BlueMatt|as for 12560...why no reivew? :/
299 2018-04-12 19:05:53	0|wumpus|dunno github gives me the unicorn now
300 2018-04-12 19:06:33	0|jtimon|I guess https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10757 is not a priority, but review beg either way now that there's many people
301 2018-04-12 19:06:33	0|Randolf|The "unicorn?"
302 2018-04-12 19:06:43	0|sipa|#10757
303 2018-04-12 19:06:46	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10757 | RPC: Introduce getblockstats to plot things by jtimon · Pull Request #10757 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
304 2018-04-12 19:07:12	0|wumpus|Randolf: the "This page is taking way too long to load." unicorn
305 2018-04-12 19:07:27	0|BlueMatt|lol, cancel meeting cause github broken?
306 2018-04-12 19:07:38	0|Randolf|wumpus:  I haven't seen that one yet.
307 2018-04-12 19:07:42	0|Randolf|That's hilarious.
308 2018-04-12 19:07:43	0|wumpus|looks like the bot still can use the API
309 2018-04-12 19:07:49	0|jtimon|works for me just fine...
310 2018-04-12 19:08:09	0|jtimon|I got a unicorn the other day though, I reloaded and it worked
311 2018-04-12 19:08:40	0|wumpus|usually it takes a few minutes and then it works again
312 2018-04-12 19:08:54	0|promag|jtimon: I'll take a look
313 2018-04-12 19:09:04	0|jtimon|promag: awesome, thanks
314 2018-04-12 19:09:12	0|wumpus|I'll add 10757
315 2018-04-12 19:10:02	0|achow101|i believe i addressed all comments for 12560, but i could have missed one or two
316 2018-04-12 19:10:14	0|jtimon|great, I had it kind of abandoned for some time but aj helped me with the tests and I got "unstuck"
317 2018-04-12 19:10:55	0|jimpo|achow101: I requested that HaveKey be moved out of the RPC file and into keystore
318 2018-04-12 19:10:55	0|promag|I can also look 12560, at least code wise
319 2018-04-12 19:11:00	0|jimpo|not sure if others agree
320 2018-04-12 19:12:11	0|wumpus|might want to discuss that outside the meeting?
321 2018-04-12 19:12:26	0|achow101|oh, I missed that comment
322 2018-04-12 19:12:43	0|jnewbery|hi
323 2018-04-12 19:12:48	0|plorark|hey
324 2018-04-12 19:12:50	0|plorark|omg
325 2018-04-12 19:12:54	0|plorark|I've found people alive
326 2018-04-12 19:12:56	0|jimpo|yeah, we can discuss offline (well, still online, but yeah)
327 2018-04-12 19:13:16	0|plorark|watshapenin
328 2018-04-12 19:13:17	0|wumpus|#topic What to do with IsMine of bare multisig? (sipa)
329 2018-04-12 19:13:30	0|sipa|hi
330 2018-04-12 19:13:33	0|wumpus|plorark: after the meeting please
331 2018-04-12 19:13:34	0|Randolf|plorark:  You've joined this channel during a meeting.
332 2018-04-12 19:13:49	0|plorark|omg sorry
333 2018-04-12 19:13:49	0|sipa|so currently (and since forever) we accept bare multisig outputs to us
334 2018-04-12 19:14:09	0|sipa|this is stupid, annoying, pointless, and hard to maintain
335 2018-04-12 19:14:18	0|achow101|are there any wallets that can even make bare multisig?
336 2018-04-12 19:14:27	0|sipa|BIP70, technically :)
337 2018-04-12 19:14:33	0|achow101|ew
338 2018-04-12 19:14:36	0|sipa|because it only works when you have all the public keys
339 2018-04-12 19:14:45	0|sipa|eh, all the private keys
340 2018-04-12 19:14:57	0|sipa|so generally i think this is a feature that nobody should ever want
341 2018-04-12 19:14:57	0|wumpus|sounds completely useless
342 2018-04-12 19:15:04	0|luke-jr|we don't act as BIP70 server ever though
343 2018-04-12 19:15:10	0|sipa|however, there may be existing outputs to it
344 2018-04-12 19:15:18	0|sipa|i don't know if this is the case or not
345 2018-04-12 19:15:22	0|jtimon|do people use bip70 ?
346 2018-04-12 19:15:24	0|sipa|but it sounds scary to just stop supporting it
347 2018-04-12 19:15:32	0|wumpus|so  that needs some chain analysis I suppose
348 2018-04-12 19:15:39	0|echeveria|bitpay uses bip70 exclusively.
349 2018-04-12 19:15:51	0|BlueMatt|sipa: we'd not "stop supporting it", you'd still be able to sign for them in rawtransaction rpcs
350 2018-04-12 19:15:59	0|BlueMatt|so write up a five-sentence release not and stop supporting it :p
351 2018-04-12 19:16:09	0|achow101|sipa: is it possible to just prevent new bare multisig?
352 2018-04-12 19:16:09	0|jtimon|sipa: perhaps deperecate it on the next release ?
353 2018-04-12 19:16:10	0|sipa|BlueMatt: i have no intention to stop supporting signing for it
354 2018-04-12 19:16:13	0|jtimon|echeveria: thanks
355 2018-04-12 19:16:19	0|BlueMatt|sipa: yes, thats my point
356 2018-04-12 19:16:21	0|sipa|this is just about IsMine
357 2018-04-12 19:16:31	0|wumpus|just stop supporting it for receiving to our wallet
358 2018-04-12 19:16:43	0|sipa|yes, that's the easy part
359 2018-04-12 19:16:52	0|jtimon|BlueMatt: sounds fair enough
360 2018-04-12 19:16:52	0|sipa|but what if there are existing outputs in people's wallet
361 2018-04-12 19:16:54	0|BlueMatt|I mean step back a minute, if we're still talking about doing another hd split to move to a address model instead of a pubkey model in the wallet, why not do it then
362 2018-04-12 19:17:04	0|BlueMatt|and keep doing the default-add of the scripts from the original keys?
363 2018-04-12 19:17:12	0|BlueMatt|incl all the stuff we support today
364 2018-04-12 19:17:22	0|sipa|BlueMatt: ah, because it's impossible to remain compatible with it in an address model
365 2018-04-12 19:17:30	0|jonasschnelli|if one has already detected bar multisig txns, they will not disappear (unless rescan)?
366 2018-04-12 19:17:32	0|sipa|(you get a cubic explosion of combinations)
367 2018-04-12 19:17:42	0|BlueMatt|I though we only supported about 4 different script types?
368 2018-04-12 19:17:46	0|instagibbs_|sipa: sorry give an example?
369 2018-04-12 19:17:51	0|BlueMatt|raw multisig, p2ph, p2pubkey, and...?
370 2018-04-12 19:18:00	0|achow101|isn't the plan to move to a script model?
371 2018-04-12 19:18:04	0|sipa|BlueMatt: yes, but raw multisig up to 3-of-3
372 2018-04-12 19:18:15	0|BlueMatt|ouch
373 2018-04-12 19:18:15	0|sipa|which means N^3 combinations if you have N private keys
374 2018-04-12 19:18:17	0|plorark|ehh... I know I was not supposed to interrupt the meeting, but it's pointless for me to wait if this is not the channel i'm looking for. Is altcoins development discussions allowed here?
375 2018-04-12 19:18:23	0|Randolf|I thought Multisig could support more than 3 signatures.
376 2018-04-12 19:18:24	0|sipa|plorark: no
377 2018-04-12 19:18:29	0|sipa|Randolf: not standard
378 2018-04-12 19:18:35	0|instagibbs_|plorark: no
379 2018-04-12 19:18:39	0|plorark|oh, ok, sorry
380 2018-04-12 19:18:41	0|plorark|see ya
381 2018-04-12 19:18:44	0|Randolf|plorark:  Join the ##altcoins channel.
382 2018-04-12 19:18:46	0|plorark|thx
383 2018-04-12 19:18:54	0|luke-jr|##altcoin-dev *
384 2018-04-12 19:18:54	0|plorark|thx
385 2018-04-12 19:18:56	0|plorark|oops
386 2018-04-12 19:19:03	0|BlueMatt|I mean, anyway, does it matter much? I'd default to "dont support with release notes indicating you can use signrawtransaction"
387 2018-04-12 19:19:03	0|plorark|thx and bye
388 2018-04-12 19:19:16	0|sipa|so the #1 reason to fix this now is because I'd like to remain compatible with whatever the wallet already supports
389 2018-04-12 19:19:19	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1 | JSON-RPC support for mobile devices ("ultra-lightweight" clients) · Issue #1 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
390 2018-04-12 19:19:20	0|sipa|except for bare multisig
391 2018-04-12 19:19:30	0|BlueMatt|if we really care, add an option to include them when we move to address-based
392 2018-04-12 19:19:36	0|BlueMatt|with a note indicating it will eat all your memory
393 2018-04-12 19:19:39	0|Randolf|sipa:  Maintaining compatibility seems like a very good justification.
394 2018-04-12 19:19:53	0|sipa|BlueMatt: by default our keypool is 2000 keys
395 2018-04-12 19:19:58	0|sipa|the cube of that is 8 billion
396 2018-04-12 19:19:59	0|BlueMatt|yes, I know
397 2018-04-12 19:20:04	0|sipa|that's just not feasible
398 2018-04-12 19:20:08	0|jimpo|Is there a way to register bare multisigs as some sort of key-thing?
399 2018-04-12 19:20:16	0|BlueMatt|meh, so dont support it at all without manual key-adds, then
400 2018-04-12 19:20:31	0|BlueMatt|jimpo: you could register the scripts as watch only
401 2018-04-12 19:20:33	0|instagibbs_|jimpo: manual import isn't out of question i assume
402 2018-04-12 19:20:34	0|sipa|BlueMatt: that's what #12874 does!
403 2018-04-12 19:20:36	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12874 | Only accept bare multisig outputs after addmultisigaddress by sipa · Pull Request #12874 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
404 2018-04-12 19:20:37	0|jimpo|So that IsMine is true only if you explicitly watch the script
405 2018-04-12 19:20:49	0|sipa|jimpo: yes, that is the PR i have open
406 2018-04-12 19:20:52	0|BlueMatt|sipa: I dont even think we need to match IsMine/accept them at that point
407 2018-04-12 19:20:54	0|jimpo|Oh, cool
408 2018-04-12 19:20:57	0|BlueMatt|sipa: would prefer we get rid of it completely
409 2018-04-12 19:21:03	0|BlueMatt|and just let people mark it watchonly
410 2018-04-12 19:21:06	0|BlueMatt|then signrawtransaction it
411 2018-04-12 19:21:06	0|sipa|i want to bring up is: is this overkill, and should we instead just remove it
412 2018-04-12 19:21:15	0|sipa|can you watchonly it?
413 2018-04-12 19:21:25	0|sipa|you can only watchonly addresses, not scripts, afaik
414 2018-04-12 19:21:38	0|sipa|ok i will investigate
415 2018-04-12 19:21:40	0|sdaftuar|importmulti lets you, i thought?
416 2018-04-12 19:21:41	0|instagibbs_|does it not sneak under redeemscript field or somesuch?
417 2018-04-12 19:21:44	0|jonasschnelli|just stop supporting it and mention it in the release notes... this seems safe and okay to me.
418 2018-04-12 19:21:45	0|instagibbs_|yeah check it out
419 2018-04-12 19:22:29	0|jimpo|sipa: Do you think there's a large burden to maintaining #12874?
420 2018-04-12 19:22:31	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12874 | Only accept bare multisig outputs after addmultisigaddress by sipa · Pull Request #12874 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
421 2018-04-12 19:22:58	0|sipa|jimpo: no, but it'd be better not to
422 2018-04-12 19:23:05	0|jonasschnelli|bar-multisig use-cases are data-services only IMO... we could analyze the utxos first to get a idea about how many potentail users would be affected...
423 2018-04-12 19:23:13	0|jonasschnelli|but right,.. existing bare multisig wtx would not disapear, right?
424 2018-04-12 19:23:32	0|sipa|they would
425 2018-04-12 19:23:41	0|jonasschnelli|ah.. isMine(), right
426 2018-04-12 19:24:04	0|jonasschnelli|but we could detect that and warn
427 2018-04-12 19:24:28	0|jimpo|If there's not a big downside to #12874, I'd prefer that approach, but don't care much if it's deprecated
428 2018-04-12 19:24:29	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12874 | Only accept bare multisig outputs after addmultisigaddress by sipa · Pull Request #12874 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
429 2018-04-12 19:25:09	0|sipa|BlueMatt: it seems we can indeed watch scripts
430 2018-04-12 19:25:20	0|sipa|i think that's my preferred approach then
431 2018-04-12 19:25:39	0|sipa|remove support entirely and note a workaround for the highly unlikely case in the release notes
432 2018-04-12 19:25:52	0|BlueMatt|yes
433 2018-04-12 19:25:52	0|jonasschnelli|ack
434 2018-04-12 19:25:53	0|BlueMatt|agreed
435 2018-04-12 19:25:53	0|wumpus|yes
436 2018-04-12 19:25:56	0|sipa|end topic
437 2018-04-12 19:26:13	0|wumpus|#topic dynamic wallet load/unload (promag)
438 2018-04-12 19:26:19	0|Randolf|Ack.
439 2018-04-12 19:26:34	0|promag|not sure what you guys think
440 2018-04-12 19:26:41	0|instagibbs_|what's the controversy in this topic :)
441 2018-04-12 19:26:45	0|jonasschnelli|#10740
442 2018-04-12 19:26:46	0|sipa|it should happen, duh
443 2018-04-12 19:26:48	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10740 | [WIP] [wallet] dynamic loading/unloading of wallets by jnewbery · Pull Request #10740 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
444 2018-04-12 19:26:51	0|wumpus|seems like something we want to have at some point...
445 2018-04-12 19:26:52	0|promag|but I think luke agrees that wallet management should be with shared pointers
446 2018-04-12 19:26:52	0|sipa|how and when is another :)
447 2018-04-12 19:27:11	0|luke-jr|indeed, using names just asks for chaos with runtime-changing wallets
448 2018-04-12 19:28:03	0|promag|please read #11402 for some reasons to switch
449 2018-04-12 19:28:05	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11402 | Use shared pointer for wallet instances by promag · Pull Request #11402 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
450 2018-04-12 19:28:38	0|jonasschnelli|IMO 10740 can't create wallets, IMO first step would be to add a createwallet RPC call
451 2018-04-12 19:29:06	0|jonasschnelli|the whole creation/configuration setup if flawed since multiwallet
452 2018-04-12 19:29:13	0|jonasschnelli|stuff like -keypool should be per wallet
453 2018-04-12 19:29:25	0|jnewbery|jonasschnelli: you think createwallet should go in *before* load/unload?
454 2018-04-12 19:29:28	0|jonasschnelli|and persisted in the wallet file (as configuration section)
455 2018-04-12 19:29:39	0|jonasschnelli|jnewbery: not sure,.. just thinking
456 2018-04-12 19:29:49	0|jnewbery|seems reasonable to me
457 2018-04-12 19:30:09	0|jonasschnelli|createwallet could also *not* load the wallet in the first step (not ideal, but maybe reduces complexity)
458 2018-04-12 19:30:10	0|sipa|that seems strange... you could create a new wallet at run time but not use it?
459 2018-04-12 19:30:25	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: createwallet could also directly load/use the wallet
460 2018-04-12 19:30:31	0|jnewbery|I think createwallet would also load the new wallet, no?
461 2018-04-12 19:30:33	0|promag|create implies loading
462 2018-04-12 19:30:36	0|luke-jr|sipa: iow, 0 to 1 only.
463 2018-04-12 19:30:51	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: well then you need to have loading functionality first!
464 2018-04-12 19:30:58	0|sipa|and if you have it, why not expose it
465 2018-04-12 19:31:37	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: yes. That's a point.
466 2018-04-12 19:31:39	0|jnewbery|createwallet could also be done by bitcoin-wallet-tool
467 2018-04-12 19:32:07	0|jnewbery|(#8745)
468 2018-04-12 19:32:09	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8745 | [PoC] Add wallet inspection and modification tool "bitcoin-wallet-tool" by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #8745 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
469 2018-04-12 19:32:20	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. Would be possible...
470 2018-04-12 19:32:39	0|jonasschnelli|I just think the create-during-startup approach is not good
471 2018-04-12 19:32:51	0|promag|also related #10973
472 2018-04-12 19:32:52	0|jnewbery|jonasschnelli: I agree
473 2018-04-12 19:32:54	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10973 | Refactor: separate wallet from node by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10973 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
474 2018-04-12 19:32:55	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: agree
475 2018-04-12 19:33:09	0|jonasschnelli|And as a first step I though createwallet would make sense.. but not loading it seems after a strange use-case
476 2018-04-12 19:33:14	0|luke-jr|load -> create -> unload
477 2018-04-12 19:33:18	0|jonasschnelli|but a nice first code/impl. step
478 2018-04-12 19:33:21	0|luke-jr|unload is the complex part tbh
479 2018-04-12 19:33:33	0|jnewbery|luke-jr: agree
480 2018-04-12 19:33:49	0|jonasschnelli|Agree with luke-jr. Maybe split unload away from the existing PR jnewbery ?
481 2018-04-12 19:33:57	0|jnewbery|yes
482 2018-04-12 19:34:13	0|jnewbery|I intend to pick up 10740 again soon, rebase and rework it
483 2018-04-12 19:34:23	0|promag|consider the use case: 1) rpc rescan wallet 2) in parallel unload wallet - should 2) wait for 1) ?
484 2018-04-12 19:34:42	0|luke-jr|probably
485 2018-04-12 19:34:45	0|jonasschnelli|Great. Dynamic loading/creating is a nice feature that we probably want for 0.17!
486 2018-04-12 19:35:14	0|promag|luke-jr: and if the unload is from the UI?
487 2018-04-12 19:35:42	0|jnewbery|promag: do you consider 11402 a prereq for load/unload? What about just load?
488 2018-04-12 19:35:46	0|jonasschnelli|the wallet-tool is IMO orthogonal to wallet creation
489 2018-04-12 19:35:58	0|jonasschnelli|*via RPC
490 2018-04-12 19:36:23	0|luke-jr|promag: probably the same
491 2018-04-12 19:36:27	0|promag|jnewbery: IMHO for both
492 2018-04-12 19:36:34	0|jonasschnelli|RPC seems to be a must, wallet-tool can be a better place to create some sorts of wallets (or inspect it), .. like encrypted wallets
493 2018-04-12 19:36:37	0|luke-jr|promag: at least initially
494 2018-04-12 19:37:25	0|jnewbery|promag: want to rebase and put on high priority for review then, if you consider it a blocker?
495 2018-04-12 19:37:34	0|promag|luke-jr: my point is that it should not block, you request the unload and go on, when the wallet is not used anymore it gets unloaded
496 2018-04-12 19:37:55	0|jonasschnelli|#11402
497 2018-04-12 19:37:57	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11402 | Use shared pointer for wallet instances by promag · Pull Request #11402 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
498 2018-04-12 19:38:00	0|luke-jr|promag: you mean leave the wallet loaded, but invisible? that seems worst outcome IMO
499 2018-04-12 19:38:11	0|luke-jr|user may unload and just shut off the PC
500 2018-04-12 19:38:29	0|wumpus|the unload should probably be in two stages: after requesting it, RPC and the GUI lose access to it. Then it waits for current operations tofinish. Then the thing really gets delted.
501 2018-04-12 19:38:34	0|luke-jr|yes
502 2018-04-12 19:38:37	0|promag|luke-jr: then the application will wait for wallets to unload
503 2018-04-12 19:38:38	0|jnewbery|I don't think we need to worry about unload at this stage. First step is add load functionality, then createwallet functionality
504 2018-04-12 19:38:41	0|luke-jr|and make it visible to the user in the meantime
505 2018-04-12 19:38:51	0|luke-jr|jnewbery: +1
506 2018-04-12 19:39:02	0|promag|wumpus: right, hence shared pointers
507 2018-04-12 19:39:57	0|wumpus|ok
508 2018-04-12 19:40:04	0|wumpus|any other topics? we've had the proposed ones
509 2018-04-12 19:40:50	0|luke-jr|gitian updates?
510 2018-04-12 19:41:02	0|luke-jr|seems we have at least a few things that need a newer VM
511 2018-04-12 19:41:11	0|luke-jr|not sure if there's anything to discuss tho
512 2018-04-12 19:42:18	0|wumpus|dunno if cfields is here, if not it makes little sense to discuss this I think
513 2018-04-12 19:42:29	0|cfields|sure
514 2018-04-12 19:42:45	0|wumpus|#topic gitian update
515 2018-04-12 19:43:22	0|wumpus|#12511 I guess
516 2018-04-12 19:43:24	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12511 | Switch to Ubuntu 18.04 for gitian building · Issue #12511 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
517 2018-04-12 19:44:08	0|wumpus|not sure what's there to discuss about it
518 2018-04-12 19:44:38	0|luke-jr|I guess we need a replacement for vmbuilder or something, since Canonical hasn't updated it to support anything recent :/
519 2018-04-12 19:45:40	0|cfields|ah, i didn't realize gitian couldn't handle it :(
520 2018-04-12 19:45:47	0|wumpus|debootstrap?
521 2018-04-12 19:45:55	0|luke-jr|debootstrap is a step in vmbuilder
522 2018-04-12 19:46:31	0|cfields|anyway, concept ack
523 2018-04-12 19:47:21	0|achow101|I'm considering adding docker support to gitian so we would use a default ubuntu docker image and then build from there
524 2018-04-12 19:47:22	0|wumpus|cool
525 2018-04-12 19:48:05	0|cfields|sgtm
526 2018-04-12 19:48:09	0|jcorgan|that would be nice
527 2018-04-12 19:48:49	0|wumpus|yes
528 2018-04-12 19:49:03	0|luke-jr|so KVM would no longer work?
529 2018-04-12 19:49:29	0|wumpus|heh if you make it work it will work
530 2018-04-12 19:49:40	0|luke-jr|Docker seems to just be a LXC wrapper
531 2018-04-12 19:50:03	0|achow101|Docker avoids all of the vm setup because someone else did that for us
532 2018-04-12 19:50:05	0|luke-jr|it's also x86-64 only
533 2018-04-12 19:50:09	0|wumpus|if vmbuilder or debootstrap does't work you could always manually install ubuntu to a base image I guess...
534 2018-04-12 19:50:49	0|jtimon|achow101: please, ping me for review if you do
535 2018-04-12 19:50:52	0|wumpus|but in my experience debootstrap works very well, though I've never used it for ubuntu on x86
536 2018-04-12 19:51:04	0|wumpus|I
537 2018-04-12 19:51:57	0|achow101|jtimon: sure
538 2018-04-12 19:53:04	0|wumpus|yes, I'm willing to test the docker stuff as well
539 2018-04-12 19:53:23	0|luke-jr|I suppose fixing vmbuilder might be not too unreasonable effort, maybe I will try that :/
540 2018-04-12 19:53:34	0|wumpus|though I agree iwht luke-jr it's not a long-term solution, can't be used from other platforms, though cfields is still working on his long-term solution I hope
541 2018-04-12 19:54:12	0|cfields|wumpus: yes, very much so.
542 2018-04-12 19:54:40	0|wumpus|great!
543 2018-04-12 19:55:14	0|wumpus|time to wrap up the meeting I think
544 2018-04-12 19:55:23	0|wumpus|unless someone has a quick topic
545 2018-04-12 19:55:55	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
546 2018-04-12 19:55:56	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-04-12-19.01.log.html
547 2018-04-12 19:55:56	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Apr 12 19:56:11 2018 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
548 2018-04-12 19:55:56	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-04-12-19.01.html
549 2018-04-12 19:55:56	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-04-12-19.01.txt
550 2018-04-12 19:56:52	0|sipa|wumpus: would you like me to not use the lifetime extension of temporaries approach in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12803#discussion_r180788539 ?
551 2018-04-12 19:57:30	0|wumpus|sipa: it's fine, I just didn't know about that
552 2018-04-12 19:57:53	0|sipa|it's a feature i knew about for years, but always wondered about it usefulness
553 2018-04-12 19:58:42	0|wumpus|well this seems a good reason!
554 2018-04-12 19:59:25	0|sipa|i guess the reasoning was "assigning a temporary to a reference never makes any sense! ok, let's give it another meaning that does make sense then..."
555 2018-04-12 20:01:29	0|promag|that was new to me too, but could drop the reference no?
556 2018-04-12 20:01:47	0|wumpus|I like the fact that this avoids having to export the type
557 2018-04-12 20:03:34	0|sipa|promag: no
558 2018-04-12 20:04:00	0|promag|right, doesn't work with base = extended..
559 2018-04-12 20:04:05	0|promag|see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/init.cpp#L90-L92
560 2018-04-12 20:04:16	0|promag|sipa: could use your approach there right?
561 2018-04-12 20:04:35	0|promag|and turn g_wallet_init_interface to a reference instead?
562 2018-04-12 20:04:40	0|sipa|if we write it as "const BaseSignatureCreator dummy_creator = DummySignatureCreator()", a DummySignatureCreator object is created, but then *assigned* (using operator=) to a BaseSignatureCreator object which is exported
563 2018-04-12 20:05:01	0|sipa|rather than exporting the DummySignatureCreator object itself (with a hidden type)
564 2018-04-12 20:05:13	0|sipa|hmm, perhaps
565 2018-04-12 20:05:31	0|wumpus|it will get sliced
566 2018-04-12 20:06:27	0|wumpus|if you don't make it a reference or pointer
567 2018-04-12 20:06:37	0|promag|I'll try the same with g_wallet_init_interface, don't think a pointer is good for such "central" instances
568 2018-04-12 20:06:59	0|wumpus|and a pointer would have the problem of needing a scoped ptr etc
569 2018-04-12 20:07:08	0|jonasschnelli|cfields: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE was missing...
570 2018-04-12 20:07:22	0|cfields|jonasschnelli: aha :)
571 2018-04-12 20:07:37	0|promag|wumpus: not true, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/init.cpp#L90-L91 workaround
572 2018-04-12 20:08:05	0|wumpus|promag: why would that be any better though?
573 2018-04-12 20:08:36	0|wumpus|also the initialization/freeing order is less clear that way
574 2018-04-12 20:08:37	0|promag|\
575 2018-04-12 20:08:37	0|promag|I'm§ ~
576 2018-04-12 20:08:43	0|promag|ops, cat..
577 2018-04-12 20:09:34	0|promag|wumpus: not saying it's better, I prefer sipa approach
578 2018-04-12 20:10:38	0|wumpus|ok, sorry, I misunderstood you then
579 2018-04-12 20:32:02	0|cfields|sipa: fyi, since you were looking at it earlier... on my slow (mac) laptop, the coin_selection tests spend half of their time formatting the date/time string for the debug print in AddToWallet()
580 2018-04-12 20:32:27	0|cfields|wouldn't surprise me if that's even more painful via Wine
581 2018-04-12 20:34:31	0|sipa|heh
582 2018-04-12 20:36:04	0|wumpus|whoops
583 2018-04-12 20:48:38	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15Empact opened pull request #12969: Drop dead code CScript::Find (06master...06cscript-find) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12969
584 2018-04-12 20:56:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/39439e5ab419...8480d41e0f9d
585 2018-04-12 20:56:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14190b8d2 15Pieter Wuille: Make BaseSignatureCreator a pure interface
586 2018-04-12 20:56:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14be67831 15Pieter Wuille: Make DummySignatureCreator a singleton
587 2018-04-12 20:56:25	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148480d41 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12803: Make BaseSignatureCreator a pure interface...
588 2018-04-12 20:57:38	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12803: Make BaseSignatureCreator a pure interface (06master...06201803_puresignaturecreator) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12803
589 2018-04-12 21:06:51	0|cfields|whoa
590 2018-04-12 21:07:08	0|cfields|Leaving test case "knapsack_solver_test"; testing time: 358694ms
591 2018-04-12 21:07:21	0|cfields|i386 + old wine ^^
592 2018-04-12 21:07:32	0|cfields|Leaving test case "knapsack_solver_test"; testing time: 6781ms
593 2018-04-12 21:07:42	0|cfields|^^ same, but with the LogPrint commented out
594 2018-04-12 21:08:44	0|wumpus|now that's optimization
595 2018-04-12 21:09:12	0|wumpus|but I don't get it, it's the unit test, aren't all logging categories disabled?
596 2018-04-12 21:09:26	0|cfields|so, there's the recent huge slowdown. Probably also addressed in newer wine, hence the speedup in 12931
597 2018-04-12 21:09:53	0|cfields|wumpus: it's a LogPrintf :(
598 2018-04-12 21:10:34	0|wumpus|should it be in a debug category? sounds like an extremly high volume one
599 2018-04-12 21:11:18	0|cfields|wumpus: I think that test just hits it really hard
600 2018-04-12 21:11:54	0|cfields|it'd be nice to have an explicit no-logging option for these tests, though
601 2018-04-12 21:12:48	0|wumpus|if both log-to-file and log-to-console is disabled, it should probably bypass all logging
602 2018-04-12 21:13:50	0|wumpus|even without category
603 2018-04-12 21:14:58	0|jnewbery|I think #11862 is now in really good shape (and is well structured and easy to review). Perhaps concept ACKers (jonasschnelli, meshcollider, jtimon) could do some review?
604 2018-04-12 21:15:02	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11862 | Network specific conf sections by ajtowns · Pull Request #11862 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
605 2018-04-12 21:16:43	0|wumpus|so should that one be in high priority for review?
606 2018-04-12 21:18:53	0|jtimon|jnewbery: I think aj is right here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11862#issuecomment-379061898 and if not it should be solvable in the other pr after rebase, but I will try to upgrade the concept ack to an ut ack or tested ack
607 2018-04-12 21:19:22	0|jnewbery|it's not super important and doesn't block anything, so doesn't really fit high priority. But it has been around for a while and I think it's a well-structured easy review
608 2018-04-12 21:20:09	0|jnewbery|I'd like to make some progress on config model. There have been a bunch of PRs around for months
609 2018-04-12 21:20:16	0|jtimon|yeah, I had a glance with the concept ack, should have another look
610 2018-04-12 21:21:12	0|jnewbery|#10267 is another one, but I think that should rebase on 11862, since 11862 seems like it's closer to merge
611 2018-04-12 21:21:14	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10267 | New -includeconf argument for including external configuration files by kallewoof · Pull Request #10267 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
612 2018-04-12 21:22:14	0|jnewbery|jtimon: I don't think this interacts badly with your 8994, so it shouldn't be blocked
613 2018-04-12 21:23:31	0|jtimon|no, not at all, I think it interacts pretty well, and that's the part of the pr that I reviewed, just asked for confirmation from the author
614 2018-04-12 21:24:00	0|jtimon|and even if it implied a little bit more work on #8994 I don't think that's a blocking reason anyway
615 2018-04-12 21:24:04	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8994 | Testchains: Introduce custom chain whose constructor... by jtimon · Pull Request #8994 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
616 2018-04-12 21:24:17	0|jtimon|but I think it doesn't
617 2018-04-12 21:25:12	0|jnewbery|great!
618 2018-04-12 21:25:14	0|jtimon|btw, I'm not rebasing #8994 very often because I think there's a few open questions I left that haven't been answered
619 2018-04-12 21:25:16	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8994 | Testchains: Introduce custom chain whose constructor... by jtimon · Pull Request #8994 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
620 2018-04-12 21:26:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15theuni opened pull request #12970: logging: bypass timestamp formatting when not logging (06master...06slow-tests) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12970
621 2018-04-12 21:27:42	0|jtimon|in particular, is it ok to change regtest's genesis block? if so, all those changes to the python tests that always require rebase wouldn't be needed or could be done later, perhaps while introducting new more intresting tests like making sure regtest and testest2 disconnect from each other and stuff like that
622 2018-04-12 21:28:30	0|jtimon|perhaps a topic for another meeting
623 2018-04-12 21:33:44	0|wumpus|preferably that'd be avoided, as it makes it impossible to have a regtest with two different versions of bitcoind
624 2018-04-12 21:36:43	0|jtimon|wumpus: ok, thanks but moving all the python tests to custom/regtest2 is fine, right?
625 2018-04-12 21:36:56	0|wumpus|why?
626 2018-04-12 21:37:25	0|jtimon|ok, I think there's 2 parts to this PR, perhaps I should separate them
627 2018-04-12 21:37:48	0|wumpus|but, no, I don't think it's problematic to move th tests to a different kind of chain, though I'm not sure I see why
628 2018-04-12 21:37:49	0|jtimon|one is having custom params, but that can be done in regtest without changing the genesis block
629 2018-04-12 21:38:39	0|wumpus|for the existing tests, the current params don't need to be changed?
630 2018-04-12 21:39:24	0|jtimon|the sencond is introducing the -chain option, which allows you to create new regtests (well, custom chains) on demand which have different genesis blocks (well, you just need to use a different name on -chain=mycustomchain)
631 2018-04-12 21:39:51	0|jtimon|right, but this opens the door to new tests
632 2018-04-12 21:40:54	0|jtimon|to me, the second part is more interesting, but I now think that I should probably separate them (since many people seem confused about the purpose)
633 2018-04-12 21:41:46	0|jtimon|wumpus: does that make sense to you? (or at least one of the parts)
634 2018-04-12 21:42:29	0|wumpus|yes for new tests that make use of different parameters it'd make sense
635 2018-04-12 21:42:51	0|jtimon|another recurrent topic is whether the custom params should be loaded from conf and the regular gArgs or only from an independent file
636 2018-04-12 21:44:40	0|jtimon|well, I think one point of the custom params is to avoid things like https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L382 for testing perhaps I should start with that
637 2018-04-12 21:44:49	0|wumpus|I'd say regular args would add too many arguments
638 2018-04-12 21:45:31	0|wumpus|this is only meant for testing, after all, so by far most will have no business overriding chain parameters
639 2018-04-12 21:46:51	0|jtimon|similar things have been proposed multiple times for specific fields, and also an NonConstParams() with individual sets for everything, I think this is "the right way" for any such tests
640 2018-04-12 21:47:35	0|jtimon|this would only override params for regtest and/or customchain, of course
641 2018-04-12 21:48:32	0|jtimon|CMainParams should not have an UpdateFromArgs method
642 2018-04-12 21:50:26	0|jtimon|anyway, I'm fine with a separate file, I think that's what I implemented first, but I thought it was confusing people and left it for later
643 2018-04-12 21:51:00	0|jtimon|or someone preferred regular args and conf file, I don't remember
644 2018-04-12 21:52:04	0|jtimon|wumpus: thanks for the feedback, so what do you think about separating it in 2? which part you think makes the most sense?
645 2018-04-12 21:52:27	0|jtimon|or can be more useful for tests we lack
646 2018-04-12 22:03:30	0|wumpus|yes, I think that makes sense
647 2018-04-12 22:12:41	0|instagibbs|listtransactions should list all transactions the wallet is involved in, yes? Including self-sends?
648 2018-04-12 22:13:00	0|instagibbs|sorry if #bitcoin, just getting odd results and help isn't clear
649 2018-04-12 22:13:35	0|sipa|yes
650 2018-04-12 22:23:55	0|instagibbs|thanks
651 2018-04-12 23:08:07	0|drexl|why does a scriptcode start with a PUSH byte? is it supposed to be pushed on the stack?