1 2018-04-26 00:13:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ryanofsky closed pull request #12275: Improve ScanForWalletTransactions return value (06master...06pr/scanstat) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12275
  2 2018-04-26 01:41:04	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14bd9d67b 15Kristaps Kaupe: Don't test against min relay fee information in mining_prioritisetransaction.py...
  3 2018-04-26 01:41:04	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/25ad2f75f5d1...24106a85b3f6
  4 2018-04-26 01:41:05	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1424106a8 15MarcoFalke: Merge #13082: Tests: don't test against min relay fee information in mining_prioritisetransaction.py...
  5 2018-04-26 01:41:50	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #13082: Tests: don't test against min relay fee information in mining_prioritisetransaction.py (06master...06dont-hardcode-134) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13082
  6 2018-04-26 01:47:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 13 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/24106a85b3f6...a07e8caa5d50
  7 2018-04-26 01:47:50	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 140cb8303 15Jim Posen: [db] Create separate database for txindex....
  8 2018-04-26 01:47:50	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c88bcec 15Jim Posen: [db] Migration for txindex data to new, separate database.
  9 2018-04-26 01:47:51	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1434d68bf 15Jim Posen: [index] Create new TxIndex class....
 10 2018-04-26 01:48:36	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #13033: Build txindex in parallel with validation (06master...06txindex-refactor-take2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13033
 11 2018-04-26 06:15:57	0|wumpus|happiness, more unicorns...
 12 2018-04-26 07:08:07	0|wumpus|unicorns farmed: 1.5 octodecillion
 13 2018-04-26 07:08:27	0|wumpus|Randolf: a cat that is an unicorn too? is this heaven?
 14 2018-04-26 07:13:57	0|sipa|wth?
 15 2018-04-26 07:15:19	0|wumpus|github is working fine for me again, was another hiccup, though they do become awfully common
 16 2018-04-26 07:16:59	0|wumpus|moving the repository would be fairly easy but all the issue managment...
 17 2018-04-26 07:17:14	0|wumpus|can't see this working better with e.g. trac
 18 2018-04-26 07:19:39	0|meshcollider|We could move back to sourceforge ;)
 19 2018-04-26 07:20:31	0|kallewoof|Version control is overrated. Let's just email patches to the ML.
 20 2018-04-26 07:20:42	0|kallewoof|wumpus will sort it out
 21 2018-04-26 07:21:10	0|wumpus|kallewoof: I know you're sarcastic but that's how mesa/freedesktop still works, and it works ok, and they have much more patch traffic than us
 22 2018-04-26 07:21:22	0|wumpus|(also way more committers though...)
 23 2018-04-26 07:21:59	0|kallewoof|I'm amazed that it works ok. But I actually said it because I recall patches being tossed around on some mailing list some years ago.
 24 2018-04-26 07:22:31	0|luke-jr|I suspect they don't have the same review standards we do
 25 2018-04-26 07:22:39	0|wumpus|eh they do use git, it's not *instead* of source control, but I mean source patches are posted to the ML for review, testing etc
 26 2018-04-26 07:23:25	0|wumpus|luke-jr: that's true, the source code is also very compartimentalized, with reviewers for specific drivers and parts
 27 2018-04-26 07:23:46	0|wumpus|and if you post a patch you *need* to CC: the right people otherwise it will never get picked up
 28 2018-04-26 07:24:45	0|wumpus|no one reads everything on the entire ML
 29 2018-04-26 07:25:05	0|wumpus|anyhow no that's not a good fit for bitcoin core...
 30 2018-04-26 07:30:27	0|wumpus|meshcollider: I don't understand how they managed to make sourceforge such a mess, I don't hope that's the future for github
 31 2018-04-26 07:31:43	0|meshcollider|Ugh I know :(
 32 2018-04-26 07:33:08	0|wumpus|fanquake: great!
 33 2018-04-26 07:33:47	0|fanquake|wumpus Sorry for lack of review over the past few days, been very busy. Should be back to normal tomorrow/saturday
 34 2018-04-26 07:34:41	0|wumpus|fanquake: no problem, we all need a break sometimes, and I think even with that you've been more active than most of us :-)
 35 2018-04-26 07:35:06	0|jonasschnelli|indeed
 36 2018-04-26 07:35:09	0|wumpus|ah yes the
 37 2018-04-26 07:35:12	0|sipa|it's past midnight here, and the meeting is at noon
 38 2018-04-26 07:35:14	0|wumpus|'tonight' part must confuse some people
 39 2018-04-26 07:37:02	0|jonasschnelli|fanquake: but wait: the meeting is 3am for you? right
 40 2018-04-26 07:37:33	0|fanquake|jonasschnelli correct, and it's 3:37pm here right now.
 41 2018-04-26 07:39:10	0|jonasschnelli|I also did that in Indonesia... but mixed up the timezones.. woke up 3am and was one hour to early.
 42 2018-04-26 07:40:52	0|sipa|we should have meetings at every hour for which doubleSHA256(unix_timestamp) < 2^256 / 168
 43 2018-04-26 07:41:20	0|jonasschnelli|I guess you would be the only one who shows up on time sipa
 44 2018-04-26 07:41:21	0|sipa|that would at least be maximally inconvenient for everyone equally
 45 2018-04-26 07:41:32	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: lol, you don't know me
 46 2018-04-26 07:41:33	0|fanquake|heh
 47 2018-04-26 07:42:59	0|wumpus|randomized time-hopping meeting time allocation
 48 2018-04-26 07:44:20	0|jonasschnelli|the hopping-formula should also include a probability-shift depending on last meeting-attendees timezones and expected sleep-times.
 49 2018-04-26 07:44:40	0|fanquake|Entry and exit via wormhole only
 50 2018-04-26 07:46:57	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: that wouldn't maximimize inconvenience for everyone anymore
 51 2018-04-26 07:47:52	0|wumpus|fanquake: yes if it wasn't for IRC it'd have to be in a random location in space, too...
 52 2018-04-26 07:48:49	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: ideally there would be some factor (like a measurement or something that is unpredictable) that gets introduced last minute, so that it's not possible to plan ahead either
 53 2018-04-26 07:51:52	0|fanquake|wupus amount of time since any GitHub PR has 404'd for you
 54 2018-04-26 07:51:55	0|fanquake|*wumpus
 55 2018-04-26 07:52:04	0|jonasschnelli|Heh. fanquake: can you not just move to Europe or US, it seems to be less complicated. :)
 56 2018-04-26 07:52:31	0|jonasschnelli|Or do we have other non EU/US devs/timezones that want to participate at the meeting?
 57 2018-04-26 07:53:04	0|wumpus|fanquake: a very long time ago, these days it's usually timeouts
 58 2018-04-26 07:53:17	0|wumpus|fanquake: you're referring to disappearing issue issues?
 59 2018-04-26 07:53:54	0|fanquake|wumpus yes, and using that as your unpredictable factor ^
 60 2018-04-26 07:54:33	0|fanquake|jonasschnelli sure, if I can find somewhere to sleep in the US ;)
 61 2018-04-26 07:54:45	0|wumpus|fanquake: iterating the issue numbers then storing the pattern of 404 'memory holes', yes good idea
 62 2018-04-26 07:55:15	0|wumpus|github is sufficiently unpredictable at least...
 63 2018-04-26 07:59:50	0|wumpus|SHA256(SHA256(unix_timestamp) | num_unicorns) < 2^256 / 168
 64 2018-04-26 08:01:13	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fad2958 15MarcoFalke: [doc] build-windows: Switch to Artful, since Zesty is EOL
 65 2018-04-26 08:01:13	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a07e8caa5d50...646b7f6abe73
 66 2018-04-26 08:01:14	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14646b7f6 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12997: [doc] build-windows: Switch to Artful, since Zesty is EOL...
 67 2018-04-26 08:01:56	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12997: [doc] build-windows: Switch to Artful, since Zesty is EOL (06master...06Mf1804-docBuildWinArtful) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12997
 68 2018-04-26 08:04:18	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: lol
 69 2018-04-26 08:07:22	0|wumpus|fanquake: I guess europe is an even longer trip for you than the US?
 70 2018-04-26 08:07:59	0|wumpus|we could also all just move to Australia
 71 2018-04-26 08:08:20	0|fanquake|^ I heard that's the place for the next dev meetups anyways
 72 2018-04-26 08:10:07	0|jonasschnelli|fanquake: I guess because this years SB is in Tokyo, the next dev meetup will be there..
 73 2018-04-26 08:12:41	0|fanquake|jonasschnelli Syd/Melb would be ok. I'd suggest Perth to save myself a flight but there isn't much happening here..
 74 2018-04-26 08:13:15	0|jonasschnelli|fanquake: Perth has better weather. :)
 75 2018-04-26 08:13:43	0|jonasschnelli|(usually)
 76 2018-04-26 08:14:04	0|fanquake|jonasschnelli Core-Dev @ the beach heh
 77 2018-04-26 08:14:28	0|wumpus|hehe
 78 2018-04-26 08:27:34	0|luke-jr|I have a beach here
 79 2018-04-26 08:29:40	0|wumpus|jnewbery: great to see so much progress on account deprecation re: #13075, should we create an issue to track the importprunedfunds issue?
 80 2018-04-26 08:29:41	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13075 | Remove account API from wallet functional tests by jnewbery · Pull Request #13075 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 81 2018-04-26 08:30:10	0|wumpus|luke-jr: but you're not in australia!
 82 2018-04-26 08:35:45	0|luke-jr|:p
 83 2018-04-26 09:10:09	0|promag|I think #13028 is merge ready, but lacking some acks..
 84 2018-04-26 09:10:11	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13028 | Make vpwallets usage thread safe by promag · Pull Request #13028 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 85 2018-04-26 09:33:42	0|aj|fanquake: there's a lightning dev summit in Adelaide, Nov 8th/9th!
 86 2018-04-26 09:37:33	0|fanquake|aj cool. Is there some info about it somewhere?
 87 2018-04-26 09:41:50	0|aj|fanquake: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2018-April/001168.html
 88 2018-04-26 09:42:01	0|aj|fanquake: followup corrects date in subject:
 89 2018-04-26 09:57:43	0|fanquake|aj cheers
 90 2018-04-26 10:00:32	0|murrayn|#12881? After squash it's pretty straightforward, but it's been stuck for weeks.
 91 2018-04-26 10:00:32	0|murrayn|any chance for eyeballs on
 92 2018-04-26 10:00:34	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12881 | Tighten up bech32::Decode(); add tests. by murrayn · Pull Request #12881 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 93 2018-04-26 10:11:22	0|mryandao|[O/T] is this lightning summit event in Adelaide a public event?
 94 2018-04-26 10:13:31	0|mryandao|#12240 has been squashed for months
 95 2018-04-26 10:13:34	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
 96 2018-04-26 10:13:43	0|aj|mryandao: i imagine you have to be a lightning dev and register first
 97 2018-04-26 10:16:58	0|fanquake|murrayn mryandao can bring both up at the dev meeting. Looks like both are almost ready to go.
 98 2018-04-26 10:18:06	0|mryandao|when do the dev meetings happen? does it usually happen while aussies are asleep?
 99 2018-04-26 10:20:27	0|fanquake|mryandao https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/ It is late night here yes
100 2018-04-26 10:22:13	0|mryandao|i think i'll call it a night and wake up later then. kek
101 2018-04-26 10:35:33	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 147de1de7 15mryandao: Add new fee structure with all sub-fields denominated in BTC
102 2018-04-26 10:35:33	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/646b7f6abe73...6f8b3453f8a3
103 2018-04-26 10:35:34	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 146f8b345 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12240: [rpc] Introduced a new `fees` structure that aggregates all sub-field fee types denominated in BTC...
104 2018-04-26 10:36:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12240: [rpc] Introduced a new `fees` structure that aggregates all sub-field fee types denominated in BTC (06master...06fix-getrawmempool-fee-representation) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12240
105 2018-04-26 10:40:06	0|promag_|mryandao there you go
106 2018-04-26 10:41:07	0|mryandao|promag: oh sweet. So I dont have to wake up too early :)
107 2018-04-26 10:41:33	0|promag|but you should
108 2018-04-26 10:41:41	0|promag|dev meetings are fun
109 2018-04-26 10:42:12	0|mryandao|oh man, it'd be 5am when the meeting starts
110 2018-04-26 10:42:15	0|wumpus|if PRs are ready for merge you should just let me know, no need to wait for the meeting
111 2018-04-26 10:42:55	0|promag|wumpus: since you ask #13028
112 2018-04-26 10:42:58	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13028 | Make vpwallets usage thread safe by promag · Pull Request #13028 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
113 2018-04-26 10:49:51	0|wumpus|promag: only has one utACK yet
114 2018-04-26 10:50:18	0|wumpus|promag: in some more trivial cases that's enough, but changes around threading are pretty risky
115 2018-04-26 10:51:13	0|mryandao|i've been curious, why does core perfer C stdlib over C++ stdlib?
116 2018-04-26 10:51:36	0|wumpus|just a historical thing, it doesn't matter right?
117 2018-04-26 10:51:45	0|wumpus|it's just not worth wasting cycles on imo
118 2018-04-26 10:52:03	0|mryandao|i was just curious. I thought it had to do with performance
119 2018-04-26 10:52:14	0|wumpus|eh, I think you're talking about something else than me
120 2018-04-26 10:52:31	0|wumpus|I thought you meant include style eg. #include <stdio.h> instead fo #include <cstdio>
121 2018-04-26 10:52:56	0|wumpus|not sure what you mean now
122 2018-04-26 10:53:00	0|mryandao|oh no. why fprintf as oppose to just <<
123 2018-04-26 10:53:08	0|mryandao|as an example
124 2018-04-26 10:53:22	0|wumpus|<< is used in some places, for example the wallet dumping
125 2018-04-26 10:54:00	0|wumpus|yes, for logging printf/fprintf is used, but that's the only thing AFAIK
126 2018-04-26 10:54:44	0|wumpus|there's a huge list of standard library functions that should be avoided, or at least used very carefully because they're locale dependent (see #13041)
127 2018-04-26 10:54:45	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13041 | build: Add linter checking for accidental introduction of locale dependence by practicalswift · Pull Request #13041 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
128 2018-04-26 10:56:29	0|mryandao|there's another thing I wanted to address, which is core blowing up when debuglog is set to /dev/stdout because it tries to do a shrink
129 2018-04-26 10:56:43	0|wumpus|eh definitely don't set it to a non-file
130 2018-04-26 10:56:53	0|wumpus|you can do -printtostdout you know that right?
131 2018-04-26 10:57:08	0|luke-jr|I thoguht it was -printtoconsole
132 2018-04-26 10:57:10	0|mryandao|no I didnt. Now I do.
133 2018-04-26 10:57:22	0|wumpus|printtoconsole, yes
134 2018-04-26 10:57:31	0|mryandao|printtoconsole, i know all along
135 2018-04-26 10:58:24	0|wumpus|if you really want to log to a device that is not a file, you can use -printtoconsole and pipe it to that. It'd be possible to add detection of special devices to the logging code, of course, and skip the shrink step...
136 2018-04-26 10:58:38	0|wumpus|but that'd be OS dependent at least
137 2018-04-26 10:58:52	0|mryandao|I was using core in a docker container, that's why I wanted to log to a file
138 2018-04-26 10:58:57	0|mryandao|s/file/device/
139 2018-04-26 10:59:09	0|wumpus|e.g. windows has a completely different convention for devices than unix
140 2018-04-26 10:59:24	0|mryandao|and i couldnt use a pipe redirect because I wanted to allow appending of more flags as needed
141 2018-04-26 11:01:09	0|wumpus|I don't understand that reasoning
142 2018-04-26 11:01:21	0|wumpus|then again, I don't know anything about docker
143 2018-04-26 11:03:45	0|mryandao|do windows users even use Core on commandline?
144 2018-04-26 11:04:00	0|mryandao|i'd expect their usage behaviour to be just running the GUI client
145 2018-04-26 11:05:25	0|wumpus|yes, surprisingly many do, even macosx users use bitcoind
146 2018-04-26 11:05:37	0|wumpus|hard to believe but windows is also used for servers
147 2018-04-26 11:06:12	0|fanquake|Maybe even more surprising given I thought it was our least tested OS
148 2018-04-26 11:07:33	0|wumpus|it's mostly hard to troubleshoot errors
149 2018-04-26 11:07:51	0|wumpus|on linux or osx you can just run the thing in gdb and get a backtrace... good luck with anything like that on windows
150 2018-04-26 11:08:35	0|fanquake|Atleast you can download a Windows 10 "Dev" VM for free and throw it straight into virtualbox. Makes some testing slightly easier
151 2018-04-26 11:08:38	0|wumpus|yes,you can use gdb on windows but it's a nightmare, and yes, other debuggers exist, but they all manage to be incompatible with mingws symbol format
152 2018-04-26 11:09:36	0|fanquake|Still a bit absurd that I'm just about running 3 OSs to build and test a windows binary though
153 2018-04-26 11:10:54	0|wumpus|it's interesting how much advances microsoft is making toward linux, I really hope win32 will disappear on the long run and it will be another POSIX-ish OS like macosx
154 2018-04-26 11:12:04	0|wumpus|pretty much everything else in the world is
155 2018-04-26 11:14:44	0|fanquake|wumpus did you want to merge #12384 even though it still has the formatting changes
156 2018-04-26 11:14:46	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12384 | [Docs] Add version footnote to tor.md by Willtech · Pull Request #12384 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
157 2018-04-26 11:15:16	0|fanquake|Not quite sure why there are <a></a> tags being used
158 2018-04-26 11:18:28	0|wumpus|fanquake: I hate that PR...
159 2018-04-26 11:18:50	0|wumpus|(that's why I ignore it, maybe I should just close it)
160 2018-04-26 11:19:36	0|fanquake|wumpus heh I remember from ny. I can split out the actual change if you'd like it in. Dropping the other stuff.
161 2018-04-26 11:19:55	0|wumpus|tried to have a reasonable discussion with the guy but it just isn't dawn on him, and it doesn't make sense to make format changes at the same time, certainly not ones that I disgaree with in the first place
162 2018-04-26 11:20:43	0|wumpus|though he means well, I'm sure, which is why I haven't really confronted him I guess...
163 2018-04-26 11:21:28	0|wumpus|his whole point is that "torcontrol" works from version 0.2.7.0 and higher
164 2018-04-26 11:21:35	0|wumpus|if that was the whole of the change I'd be happy with it
165 2018-04-26 11:22:18	0|wumpus|what he's trying to bring into it is that manually setting up the tor settings is somehow deprecated just because the automatic control exists
166 2018-04-26 11:22:26	0|wumpus|that's just false
167 2018-04-26 11:22:57	0|wumpus|and then some completely random formatting changes on top
168 2018-04-26 11:23:09	0|fanquake|wumpus np. I'll sort something out.
169 2018-04-26 11:23:12	0|wumpus|fanquake: yes, we could do that, at least we can close it then :)
170 2018-04-26 11:24:10	0|promag|fanquake: why is <a></a> even there?
171 2018-04-26 11:24:46	0|fanquake|promag I'm not sure, you definitely don't need it to create links in .md files.
172 2018-04-26 11:24:53	0|wumpus|promag: I think that is to add an anchor, to refer to in the link above it
173 2018-04-26 11:25:06	0|wumpus|promag: sections create auto-anchors though
174 2018-04-26 11:25:12	0|promag|right
175 2018-04-26 11:25:26	0|wumpus|and <a name=""> has been deprecated for a long time in favor of <a id="">
176 2018-04-26 11:25:32	0|fanquake|Is the idea that all "Up for Grabs" labelled can be closed? Given that you can find them using the label?
177 2018-04-26 11:25:33	0|wumpus|but it shouldn't be needed
178 2018-04-26 11:25:44	0|fanquake|*labelled PRs
179 2018-04-26 11:25:48	0|wumpus|fanquake: I think so, yes
180 2018-04-26 11:26:10	0|aj|do up-for-grabs labels get removed when someone grabs them?
181 2018-04-26 11:26:15	0|wumpus|at least if the author is inactive, if they're still working on it it shouldn't have 'up for grabs' in the first place
182 2018-04-26 11:26:18	0|wumpus|aj: hopefully...
183 2018-04-26 11:26:21	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #13068: tests: Remove unused constant MAX_INV_SZ (06master...06MAX_INV_SZ) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13068
184 2018-04-26 11:26:43	0|fanquake|aj ideally. Same as "Needs backport" being removed after backporting
185 2018-04-26 11:27:11	0|fanquake|At the moment pretty much all needs backporting PRs are taken care of except for one thing in the 0.15 branch
186 2018-04-26 11:29:02	0|fanquake|Which is #11809 if anyone is interested in taking a look
187 2018-04-26 11:29:04	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11809 | gui: Fix proxy setting options dialog crash by laanwj · Pull Request #11809 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
188 2018-04-26 11:30:56	0|wumpus|yes it's one of those 'if we're going to do a 0.15.2 for some reason, that one should be in'
189 2018-04-26 11:34:24	0|fanquake|I wonder if we should be more explicit about "You should probably be building the release.x branch if you are building an older version. Rather than the last release/tag.
190 2018-04-26 11:35:06	0|fanquake|Noticed someone having an issue building 0.15.1 on osx, (bottom of #12009), even though we've backported that fix to the 0.15 branch.
191 2018-04-26 11:35:08	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12009 | Cant build on macOS Sierra: likely a boost c++11 error? · Issue #12009 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
192 2018-04-26 11:35:31	0|wumpus|yes, would make sense to add something about what branch/tag to use to README.md
193 2018-04-26 11:35:44	0|wumpus|also that many people use master while they should be using e.g. the 0.16 branch
194 2018-04-26 12:12:29	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ajtowns opened pull request #13088: Log early messages with -printtoconsole (06master...06earlyconsolelog) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13088
195 2018-04-26 12:29:47	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12183: Make use of emplace in nonassociative containers. (06master...06use_emplace) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12183
196 2018-04-26 12:32:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12169: Avoid temporary copies in C++11 ranged-based for loops. (06master...06remove_loop_implicit_casts) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12169
197 2018-04-26 12:33:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12158: Avoid unnecessary copy of objects. (06master...06avoid_copies) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12158
198 2018-04-26 12:38:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12300: [Build] Adding --enable-mainnet configuration option for running mainnet (06master...06mainnet_chain_config) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12300
199 2018-04-26 12:42:38	0|fanquake|wumpus possibly #11231 due to inactivity?
200 2018-04-26 12:42:40	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11231 | Improve netaddress implementation by danra · Pull Request #11231 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
201 2018-04-26 12:46:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #12152: [WIP] misc. backwards compatibility tests (06master...06previous-release-segwit-wallet-test) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12152
202 2018-04-26 12:49:53	0|wumpus|fanquake: yep
203 2018-04-26 12:50:03	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11231: Improve netaddress implementation (06master...06refactor/safe-netaddress) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11231
204 2018-04-26 12:51:02	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6f8b3453f8a3...eac067ad5962
205 2018-04-26 12:51:03	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1441ff967 15fivepiece: list the types of scripts we should consider for a witness program
206 2018-04-26 12:51:03	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 144f933b3 15fivepiece: p2wpkh, p2wsh and p2sh-nested scripts in decodescript...
207 2018-04-26 12:51:04	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14eac067a 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12321: p2wsh and p2sh-p2wsh address in decodescript...
208 2018-04-26 12:51:30	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12321: p2wsh and p2sh-p2wsh address in decodescript (06master...06decodescript-p2wsh) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12321
209 2018-04-26 12:55:55	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #11523: [Refactor] CValidation State (06master...06dos-cleanup) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11523
210 2018-04-26 12:59:35	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #9443: Repairing the large-work fork warning system (06master...06forkwarning) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9443
211 2018-04-26 13:00:31	0|wumpus|also not sure about #10563
212 2018-04-26 13:00:34	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10563 | Remove safe mode by achow101 · Pull Request #10563 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
213 2018-04-26 13:01:13	0|wumpus|asking for rebase again is kind of pointless if we don't know whether to do it
214 2018-04-26 13:01:18	0|wumpus|(or when, at least)
215 2018-04-26 13:01:57	0|fanquake|agree. Maybe bring it up at the meeting. If there's no "let's do this and we'll review it quite soon" type consensus I think closing for now is fine.
216 2018-04-26 13:05:42	0|wumpus|I do agree with the rationale though now
217 2018-04-26 13:05:48	0|wumpus|so I'll remove my concept NACK
218 2018-04-26 13:34:44	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #13090: Remove Safe mode (rebased) (06master...062018_04_remove_safemode_rebased) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13090
219 2018-04-26 13:35:11	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10563: Remove safe mode (06master...06rm-safemode) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10563
220 2018-04-26 13:40:04	0|fanquake|Spent a good while compiling/installing bitcoin-qt for Windows and the .exe just refuses to run. 0 output at all.
221 2018-04-26 13:42:36	0|wumpus|fanquake: ugh, those errors are the worst :-(
222 2018-04-26 13:42:39	0|wumpus|later kallewoof
223 2018-04-26 13:42:56	0|kallewoof|wumpus: I was imitating an album, but yeah, am leaving for the day too. :)
224 2018-04-26 13:43:21	0|wumpus|yes I already thought so :)
225 2018-04-26 13:49:12	0|promag|wumpus: how about this one #12151?
226 2018-04-26 13:49:14	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12151 | Remove cs_main lock from blockToJSON and blockheaderToJSON by promag · Pull Request #12151 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
227 2018-04-26 13:55:48	0|fanquake|Has anyone else noticed the Windows "SmartScreen" blocks downloading the Windows binary from bitcoincore.org ?
228 2018-04-26 13:55:59	0|fanquake|I can't remember seeing this before.
229 2018-04-26 13:56:22	0|wumpus|me neither
230 2018-04-26 13:56:32	0|wumpus|also never heard about someone else encountering that
231 2018-04-26 13:57:52	0|fanquake|This is what I'm seeing https://0bin.net/paste/vHiSbOiO39vquNfn#WPo95lp1IycB8zhK9tPbSWwNRFcBtahbymS+aYyIYHU
232 2018-04-26 13:59:44	0|fanquake|However it doesn't block either 32 bit downloads.. Only the 64 bit .zip and .exe
233 2018-04-26 14:01:17	0|wumpus|certainly seems like some false positive
234 2018-04-26 14:08:45	0|fanquake|I think the scanner must toss a coin to decide which message it's going to throw
235 2018-04-26 14:08:47	0|fanquake|https://0bin.net/paste/AwG3Gl69a32wQjQR#CT7E0d5SHrE7kdtYHkAt8glTBA7WOYaIQEXz7oXwWiY
236 2018-04-26 14:09:03	0|fanquake|Apparently the .exe now "contained a virus".
237 2018-04-26 15:14:33	0|bitcoin20|hello frens
238 2018-04-26 15:14:35	0|bitcoin20|happy 17m
239 2018-04-26 15:16:55	0|Randolf|Hello bitcoin20.
240 2018-04-26 15:23:00	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14abd58a2 15Aaron Clauson: Fix for utiltime to compile with msvc.
241 2018-04-26 15:23:00	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/eac067ad5962...826acc9a3d02
242 2018-04-26 15:23:01	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14826acc9 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #13031: Fix for utiltime to compile with msvc....
243 2018-04-26 15:23:41	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #13031: Fix for utiltime to compile with msvc. (06master...06msvc_gmtime) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13031
244 2018-04-26 15:24:28	0|bitcoin20|is bitcoincore adapted to asic  technology?
245 2018-04-26 15:25:01	0|Randolf|bitcoin20:  That's a good question for the #bitcoin channel.  Please ask there.
246 2018-04-26 15:25:21	0|bitcoin20|isnt it the dev
247 2018-04-26 15:26:54	0|Randolf|This channel is focused on Bitcoin Core code development.  The question you ask seems to be a more general one.
248 2018-04-26 15:37:48	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake opened pull request #13091: [0.15] doc: Add compilation note to README.md (060.15...060-15-0-readme) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13091
249 2018-04-26 16:22:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake opened pull request #13093: [0.15] backport: depends qt patches (060.15...060-15-depends-qt-backport) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13093
250 2018-04-26 16:43:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ken2812221 opened pull request #13094: tests: Add test for 64-bit Windows PE, modify 32-bit test results (06master...06patch-1) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13094
251 2018-04-26 17:04:38	0|fanquake|wumpus Agree that the note being "in" the branch isn't ideal, I'm open to other suggestions on where to put.
252 2018-04-26 17:05:07	0|wumpus|fanquake: I think it would make sense to have a section about branches in the README.md in master, somewhere near the top
253 2018-04-26 17:05:52	0|fanquake|wumpus ok. I guess that section could get adjusted at branching time to be more specific if required as well.
254 2018-04-26 17:12:31	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake opened pull request #13095: build: update ax_boost_chrono/unit_test_framework (06master...06sync-boost-ax-chrono-unit-test) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13095
255 2018-04-26 17:28:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jl2012 opened pull request #13096: [Policy] Fix MAX_STANDARD_TX_WEIGHT check (06master...06max_std_tx_weight) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13096
256 2018-04-26 17:31:14	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15promag opened pull request #13097: Support wallets loaded dynamically (06master...062018-04-ui-wallet-loaded) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13097
257 2018-04-26 17:33:37	0|promag|fanquake: ui label on that one
258 2018-04-26 17:36:02	0|promag|ty
259 2018-04-26 17:48:14	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/826acc9a3d02...8d045a0f66df
260 2018-04-26 17:48:15	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fa02c5b 15MarcoFalke: qa: Clarify documentation for send_txs_and_test
261 2018-04-26 17:48:15	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fadfbd3 15MarcoFalke: qa: Add test for orphan handling
262 2018-04-26 17:48:16	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148d045a0 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #13003: qa: Add test for orphan handling...
263 2018-04-26 17:48:59	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #13003: qa: Add test for orphan handling (06master...06Mf1804-qaOrphans) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13003
264 2018-04-26 18:10:19	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 10 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8d045a0f66df...487dcbe80c20
265 2018-04-26 18:10:20	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14952d821 15Pieter Wuille: Make CScript -> CScriptID conversion explicit
266 2018-04-26 18:10:21	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1419fc973 15Pieter Wuille: Do not expose SigVersion argument to IsMine...
267 2018-04-26 18:10:21	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fb1dfbb 15Pieter Wuille: Remove unused IsMine overload
268 2018-04-26 18:11:04	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #13002: Do not treat bare multisig outputs as IsMine unless watched (06master...06201804_cleanismine) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13002
269 2018-04-26 18:12:59	0|achow101|what happened to cflatdata?
270 2018-04-26 18:13:41	0|sipa|achow101: gone!
271 2018-04-26 18:13:45	0|sipa|what do you need it for?
272 2018-04-26 18:13:52	0|achow101|rebasing psbt
273 2018-04-26 18:14:02	0|sipa|what kind of object are you serializing?
274 2018-04-26 18:14:27	0|achow101|std::vector<unsigned char>
275 2018-04-26 18:14:34	0|sipa|with fixed known size?
276 2018-04-26 18:14:49	0|sipa|READWRITE(MakeSpan(the_vector)) should work
277 2018-04-26 18:15:49	0|achow101|s << CFlatData(REF(entry.second));
278 2018-04-26 18:15:49	0|achow101|sipa: I have things like this: WriteCompactSize(s, entry.second.size());
279 2018-04-26 18:15:55	0|achow101|entry.second is a CScript actually
280 2018-04-26 18:16:05	0|sipa|s << MakeSpan(entry.second);
281 2018-04-26 18:16:25	0|achow101|ok, thanks
282 2018-04-26 18:16:44	0|sipa|does 's << entry.second' not work (replacing the WriteCompactSize too)?
283 2018-04-26 18:17:50	0|achow101|I'm not sure
284 2018-04-26 18:36:19	0|achow101|sipa: so Span effectively replaces CFlatData?
285 2018-04-26 18:38:32	0|sipa|achow101: Span is much more :)
286 2018-04-26 18:39:04	0|sipa|it's just a pointer to some data + length, that acts like a container on itself
287 2018-04-26 18:39:25	0|sipa|but Span<unsigned char> has a special serializer that works like serializing arrays
288 2018-04-26 18:39:53	0|sipa|it has a subset of the functionality of std::span that is proposed for C++20
289 2018-04-26 18:40:42	0|achow101|ah ok
290 2018-04-26 18:40:58	0|achow101|I made liberal use of CFlatData when implementing psbt so now I need to figure out how to fix all of that
291 2018-04-26 18:41:30	0|sipa|oh, you can also serialize arrays of chars directly now
292 2018-04-26 18:41:36	0|sipa|s << array;
293 2018-04-26 18:43:17	0|achow101|What about deserializing arrays of chars?
294 2018-04-26 18:44:32	0|sipa|also works
295 2018-04-26 18:44:48	0|sipa|also on Spans
296 2018-04-26 18:44:50	0|achow101|Does it have to be length prefixed?
297 2018-04-26 18:44:56	0|sipa|no
298 2018-04-26 18:45:08	0|sipa|vectors are serialized with length prefixed
299 2018-04-26 18:45:15	0|sipa|arrays and spans are not
300 2018-04-26 18:45:24	0|sipa|(serialized and deserialized)
301 2018-04-26 18:45:29	0|achow101|ok
302 2018-04-26 18:52:09	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #12583: [WIP] Unit test sub-directories (06master...06unittest_subdir) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12583
303 2018-04-26 18:56:39	0|jonasschnelli|achow101: I need to study psbt, but was wondering if it was designed to deseialize on low mem mcus
304 2018-04-26 18:57:29	0|jonasschnelli|example: deserialize with a buffer of say 1kb, get hash and total of all outputs
305 2018-04-26 18:57:32	0|achow101|jonasschnelli: I did intend for it to be used with hardware wallets, but I'm not sure if it actually will
306 2018-04-26 18:57:56	0|sipa|i expect there will be translation layers between PSBT and every hardware device
307 2018-04-26 18:58:08	0|achow101|a psbt can be quite large
308 2018-04-26 18:58:15	0|sipa|that translation layer can present things to the device in whatever format it wants
309 2018-04-26 18:58:32	0|jonasschnelli|size does not matter too much, as long the the deser/ser is cleverly design to allow tx verification with a small buffer
310 2018-04-26 18:58:44	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: it isn't
311 2018-04-26 18:59:05	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: yes. then I guess the layer is required
312 2018-04-26 18:59:13	0|sipa|i think that's inevitable
313 2018-04-26 18:59:19	0|jonasschnelli|Though it will introduce another form of an API which is unfortunate
314 2018-04-26 18:59:55	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
315 2018-04-26 18:59:56	0|instagibbs|meeting?
316 2018-04-26 18:59:56	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Apr 26 19:00:23 2018 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
317 2018-04-26 18:59:56	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
318 2018-04-26 18:59:58	0|instagibbs|hi
319 2018-04-26 19:00:00	0|jamesob_|:wave:
320 2018-04-26 19:00:02	0|sipa|meeting
321 2018-04-26 19:00:02	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
322 2018-04-26 19:00:05	0|achow101|hi
323 2018-04-26 19:00:10	0|sdaftuar|hi
324 2018-04-26 19:00:12	0|cfields|hi
325 2018-04-26 19:00:13	0|fanquake|hi
326 2018-04-26 19:00:15	0|jonasschnelli|hi
327 2018-04-26 19:00:17	0|sipa|hi
328 2018-04-26 19:00:17	0|wumpus|proposed topics?
329 2018-04-26 19:01:05	0|wumpus|#topic high priority for review
330 2018-04-26 19:01:13	0|kanzure|hi.
331 2018-04-26 19:01:26	0|fanquake|Would suggest #10757 but I'm seeing unicorns..
332 2018-04-26 19:01:30	0|wumpus|#12979 #12560 #10757
333 2018-04-26 19:01:31	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10757 | RPC: Introduce getblockstats to plot things by jtimon · Pull Request #10757 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
334 2018-04-26 19:01:32	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12979 | Split validationinterface into paralell validation/mempool interfaces by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #12979 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
335 2018-04-26 19:01:35	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
336 2018-04-26 19:01:37	0|wumpus|are currently open and on there
337 2018-04-26 19:01:40	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10757 | RPC: Introduce getblockstats to plot things by jtimon · Pull Request #10757 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
338 2018-04-26 19:01:44	0|instagibbs|proposed topic: the necessity of "totalFee" as an argument for bumpfee
339 2018-04-26 19:02:06	0|BlueMatt|I mean we havent really been getting any review on the "high priority" list
340 2018-04-26 19:02:11	0|BlueMatt|so not sure the use of bringing it up every week
341 2018-04-26 19:02:26	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: if we don't bring it up it's even more pointless I guess
342 2018-04-26 19:02:37	0|sdaftuar|yeah we either nag or we give up -- i vote for the former
343 2018-04-26 19:02:53	0|aj|BlueMatt: 10757's had review, and txindex made it in. yours is hard :(
344 2018-04-26 19:02:53	0|BlueMatt|I've nagged the last two weeks (sorry wasnt prepared today) but...no dice
345 2018-04-26 19:02:55	0|wumpus|but if it doens't help we can give up on it too, fine with me
346 2018-04-26 19:03:08	0|jonasschnelli|Agree. Though "High Priority" is probably the wrong name for that list
347 2018-04-26 19:03:45	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: any idea for a better name?
348 2018-04-26 19:03:51	0|sipa|i wonder if the "everyone can get one of their PRs on the list" policy is very good
349 2018-04-26 19:04:13	0|wumpus|sipa: any idea for a better policy?
350 2018-04-26 19:04:16	0|jonasschnelli|I have no better name
351 2018-04-26 19:04:19	0|aj|BlueMatt: and yours needs rebase again. :( worth tracking which non-high-pri PRs conflict with high-pri issues and avoid merging them?
352 2018-04-26 19:04:29	0|promag|hi
353 2018-04-26 19:04:36	0|BlueMatt|the subsection is "blockers"
354 2018-04-26 19:04:40	0|BlueMatt|ie "this is blocking my work"
355 2018-04-26 19:04:41	0|jonasschnelli|I think the policy seems pretty fair regarding the lack of a steering commitee
356 2018-04-26 19:04:44	0|BlueMatt|which is correct for a few of those
357 2018-04-26 19:04:48	0|sipa|BlueMatt: ah yes, that makes sense
358 2018-04-26 19:04:55	0|jamesob|aj: sounds like a lot of work
359 2018-04-26 19:05:15	0|wumpus|yes "blockers" might be a better name
360 2018-04-26 19:05:21	0|aj|jamesob: i have a script that approximates it; haven't been running it regularly, but there's no reason i couldn't
361 2018-04-26 19:05:21	0|wumpus|that's why they're high priority
362 2018-04-26 19:05:23	0|BlueMatt|aj: you can still review things with trivial conflicts....
363 2018-04-26 19:05:29	0|sipa|i started reviewing #12979 but had difficulty following
364 2018-04-26 19:05:31	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12979 | Split validationinterface into paralell validation/mempool interfaces by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #12979 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
365 2018-04-26 19:05:31	0|wumpus|or supposed to be, anyhow
366 2018-04-26 19:05:47	0|jamesob|aj: oh interesting
367 2018-04-26 19:05:56	0|BlueMatt|sipa: well it got split off of 11775, so its a pure refactor
368 2018-04-26 19:06:04	0|BlueMatt|all it is is moving things around, so on its face it looks useless and dumb
369 2018-04-26 19:06:37	0|sipa|also, BlueMatt, do you think #11639 may not be closer to merge (as it seems like it may conflict with 12979?)
370 2018-04-26 19:06:42	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11639 | Rewrite the interface between validation and net_processing wrt DoS by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #11639 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
371 2018-04-26 19:07:58	0|BlueMatt|sipa: it is almost certainly closer to merge, but it is *not* blocking me so is not my "high-priority blocker"
372 2018-04-26 19:08:06	0|BlueMatt|whereas 12979 is blocking about 10 other things
373 2018-04-26 19:08:11	0|sipa|ah, i see
374 2018-04-26 19:08:29	0|BlueMatt|however, our high-priority policy has historically been that you can nominate someone else' pr if its blocking you
375 2018-04-26 19:08:38	0|BlueMatt|so if thats blocking someone, they can nominate it
376 2018-04-26 19:08:56	0|wumpus|sure, you can nominate someone else's pr
377 2018-04-26 19:10:56	0|wumpus|also I don't think we have enough other meeting topics every week that not discussing the high priority for review would help
378 2018-04-26 19:11:09	0|wumpus|but I'm fine with dropping the topic if there's agreement to do that
379 2018-04-26 19:11:28	0|sipa|i'd like to keep it - but if there's not much to say, not much needs to be said about it
380 2018-04-26 19:11:29	0|BlueMatt|well we keep coming back to needing *something* to make progress move when you get blocked on something
381 2018-04-26 19:11:41	0|BlueMatt|if not the high-priority list, what?
382 2018-04-26 19:11:44	0|wumpus|yes, if there's nothing to be said we can just move on
383 2018-04-26 19:11:49	0|BlueMatt|and the high-priority list seems to be pretty reliably not working
384 2018-04-26 19:12:01	0|wumpus|well one thing got merged from it...
385 2018-04-26 19:12:04	0|instagibbs|BlueMatt, for your PRs or for all?
386 2018-04-26 19:12:22	0|BlueMatt|yes, but it only got review from like 2 people for several weeks where people were active and it sat on the list
387 2018-04-26 19:12:31	0|BlueMatt|instagibbs: all
388 2018-04-26 19:12:32	0|wumpus|so is that because it is on the list?
389 2018-04-26 19:12:54	0|LukeJr|for all IMO; I'm at least partly to blame though - usually I just pick random PRs without checking the high prio list
390 2018-04-26 19:12:55	0|BlueMatt|no, I'm saying about 2 people bothered to review it for many weeks
391 2018-04-26 19:13:00	0|BlueMatt|which clearly indicates its not working
392 2018-04-26 19:13:15	0|sipa|being on the list doesn't compel people to review
393 2018-04-26 19:13:22	0|wumpus|it's clear that things are on the list that have a hard time getting review
394 2018-04-26 19:13:24	0|BlueMatt|certainly I'm not great either, but we need something to get people to care about some blockers list
395 2018-04-26 19:13:26	0|instagibbs|take it off, see if it gets less review #science
396 2018-04-26 19:13:30	0|LukeJr|I think having the list is better than not - just a matter of remembering to use it
397 2018-04-26 19:14:42	0|wumpus|anyhow, if this topic is only about how ineffective the list is every week, I'm going to drop it
398 2018-04-26 19:15:05	0|BlueMatt|anyway, I'll shut up, instagibbs had a topic
399 2018-04-26 19:15:29	0|wumpus|#topic the necessity of "totalFee" as an argument for bumpfee (instagibbs)
400 2018-04-26 19:18:06	0|instagibbs|ohhi
401 2018-04-26 19:18:07	0|instagibbs|sorry
402 2018-04-26 19:18:15	0|instagibbs|yes, is it needed
403 2018-04-26 19:18:18	0|wumpus|what is this argument used for?
404 2018-04-26 19:18:21	0|sdaftuar|it's optional, no?
405 2018-04-26 19:18:41	0|instagibbs|sdaftuar, I was hoping to upgrade rbf/cpfp in not too distant future, but it complicates logic to support
406 2018-04-26 19:19:06	0|instagibbs|I could just not support any better RBF that uses it, but was wondering if it makes sense regardless
407 2018-04-26 19:19:22	0|instagibbs|wumpus, you pay X BTC more in fees, total, rather than bump by feerate
408 2018-04-26 19:19:33	0|sdaftuar|not X more, X total, right?
409 2018-04-26 19:19:39	0|instagibbs|yes
410 2018-04-26 19:20:24	0|wumpus|instagibbs: I suppose that is useful when all of the fee computation happens on the client side?
411 2018-04-26 19:20:32	0|sdaftuar|i dunno, i don't feel strongly about it, i think these user interface questions are hard to answer in the abstract
412 2018-04-26 19:20:40	0|sdaftuar|so if you have a proposal for some other interface, we should talk about that
413 2018-04-26 19:20:43	0|aj|instagibbs: error out if totalFee > old-fee + old-change?
414 2018-04-26 19:20:52	0|wumpus|(as the topic is necessity it's good to have some use cases?)
415 2018-04-26 19:21:05	0|LukeJr|aj: or do it as CPFP possibly
416 2018-04-26 19:21:07	0|instagibbs|aj, hm?
417 2018-04-26 19:21:18	0|instagibbs|ah, interesting
418 2018-04-26 19:21:21	0|LukeJr|I'm not sure total fee really makes sense when changing the size though
419 2018-04-26 19:21:44	0|sdaftuar|yeah i agree that seems like a confusing case at the least
420 2018-04-26 19:21:49	0|sipa|agree
421 2018-04-26 19:22:07	0|instagibbs|I redid everything to just use CreateTransaction, fwiw
422 2018-04-26 19:22:24	0|instagibbs|so it will select more coins, which changes size
423 2018-04-26 19:22:30	0|instagibbs|(if needed)
424 2018-04-26 19:23:02	0|sdaftuar|one issue we ran into with bumpfee was nailing down all the rquirements up-front. might be worth laying out what constraints we are trying to satisfy as part of the discussion, so we can ensure we're still meeting them all
425 2018-04-26 19:23:21	0|LukeJr|instagibbs: considering total fee is optional, we need to work without it regardless; so how does keeping it simplify anything?
426 2018-04-26 19:23:24	0|instagibbs|BIP125 constraints are the PITA I think
427 2018-04-26 19:23:35	0|instagibbs|LukeJr, I want to get rid of it
428 2018-04-26 19:23:40	0|instagibbs|or think about doing so
429 2018-04-26 19:23:42	0|LukeJr|oh
430 2018-04-26 19:24:15	0|instagibbs|ok, just wanted to hear any good use cases if they thought of them
431 2018-04-26 19:24:27	0|sdaftuar|i think if you're changing tx size that's a pretty good argument for dropping it
432 2018-04-26 19:24:29	0|LukeJr|I suppose totalFee could be a kind of "if you calculated a higher fee, fail rather than bump; if lower, increase fee to match"
433 2018-04-26 19:24:57	0|aj|yeah, what lukejr said
434 2018-04-26 19:25:01	0|LukeJr|or even just the former might be the useful part
435 2018-04-26 19:25:02	0|instagibbs|If want total fee, I suppose I could just forbid any new coin selection, and fail out otherwise
436 2018-04-26 19:25:20	0|instagibbs|backwards compatible without additional cruft
437 2018-04-26 19:25:31	0|instagibbs|ok, end
438 2018-04-26 19:26:03	0|wumpus|oh I have a topic
439 2018-04-26 19:26:04	0|wumpus|#topic Remove safemode
440 2018-04-26 19:26:16	0|wumpus|#13090 #10563
441 2018-04-26 19:26:17	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13090 | Remove Safe mode (achow101) by laanwj · Pull Request #13090 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
442 2018-04-26 19:26:18	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10563 | Remove safe mode by achow101 · Pull Request #10563 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
443 2018-04-26 19:26:43	0|wumpus|this has been open for a long time, safemode was disabled since 0.16, should we complately remove it for 0.17?
444 2018-04-26 19:26:47	0|instagibbs|sdaftuar, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12271 please contribute if this issue helps (ok now done)
445 2018-04-26 19:27:24	0|LukeJr|I think safemode is a useful concept, but without anyone working to make it useful in practice (ie, detecting actual problem conditions), might as well drop it
446 2018-04-26 19:27:45	0|wumpus|it's disabled by default in 0.16 and I've heard no one complaining about it
447 2018-04-26 19:27:54	0|achow101|most people don't know it exists
448 2018-04-26 19:27:58	0|wumpus|to be honest I don't think anyone cares
449 2018-04-26 19:28:04	0|instagibbs|frankly ive never heard of anyone using it, and I still don't know what it does, if anything
450 2018-04-26 19:28:08	0|wumpus|and we should drop it to simplify the code
451 2018-04-26 19:28:13	0|jonasschnelli|agree...
452 2018-04-26 19:28:16	0|jtimon|sorry, late, yeah 10757 got review, thanks
453 2018-04-26 19:28:20	0|achow101|instagibbs: it disables a few RPCs related to the wallet
454 2018-04-26 19:28:29	0|jonasschnelli|If one cares about, it could be re-written as external RPC layer/proxy
455 2018-04-26 19:28:47	0|sdaftuar|wumpus: yep seems reasonable to me as well
456 2018-04-26 19:28:50	0|wumpus|I mean the alerts that trigger it aren't reliable in the first place
457 2018-04-26 19:29:01	0|wumpus|and then it haphazardly disables some wallet RPCs
458 2018-04-26 19:29:20	0|LukeJr|can always add it back if someone does the work
459 2018-04-26 19:29:21	0|LukeJr|(but I don't see how it's useful as-is)
460 2018-04-26 19:29:21	0|LukeJr|tbf, if it were useful, and disabled by default, the reaction of someone to not having it would probably be to just enable it, not complain
461 2018-04-26 19:29:40	0|wumpus|if someone would make the alerts useful and reliable, that'd be a first step :)
462 2018-04-26 19:29:44	0|achow101|has safemode ever been triggered before due to a chain fork?
463 2018-04-26 19:29:47	0|wumpus|there's -alertnotify!
464 2018-04-26 19:30:23	0|wumpus|achow101: not that I know of...
465 2018-04-26 19:30:34	0|LukeJr|it might make sense to have a "setsafemode" RPC instead of automatic stuff?
466 2018-04-26 19:30:42	0|wumpus|meh
467 2018-04-26 19:31:25	0|wumpus|I don't think the current selection of RPCs to disable is useful, maybe something to disable all wallet calls then? I don't know - I don't think there is demand for this inpractice
468 2018-04-26 19:31:27	0|jtimon|BlueMatt: you make something that seems useless and dumb and isn't supposed to change behaviour and don't ping me for review? I'm disappointed :p
469 2018-04-26 19:31:48	0|achow101|What exactly is the purpose of safemode though? If we keep it/change it, what is it's goal?
470 2018-04-26 19:31:52	0|wumpus|so anyhow, that was what I wanted t osay
471 2018-04-26 19:32:02	0|wumpus|I think everyone is 'meh' about it just like me
472 2018-04-26 19:32:11	0|wumpus|other topics?
473 2018-04-26 19:32:16	0|sipa|i think it can just be removed
474 2018-04-26 19:32:50	0|wumpus|yes, I'd prefer that
475 2018-04-26 19:33:10	0|LukeJr|achow101: eg, if there was an invalid chain longer than the best valid one
476 2018-04-26 19:33:10	0|LukeJr|achow101: ideally, it would detect odd network conditions and disable confirming transactions
477 2018-04-26 19:33:10	0|LukeJr|wumpus: walletunload :D
478 2018-04-26 19:33:11	0|LukeJr|(or actually, even more ideal would be to compare the chains, and only confirm transactions common to both..)
479 2018-04-26 19:33:29	0|wumpus|#topic walletunload (Lukejr)
480 2018-04-26 19:33:30	0|sipa|disabling RPCs is not how the bitcoin ecosystem will deal with an emergency anyway - a lot of infrastructure wouldn't even notice
481 2018-04-26 19:34:06	0|promag|I already have unload working without UI reacting
482 2018-04-26 19:34:09	0|LukeJr|wumpus: I wasn't suggesting it as a topic
483 2018-04-26 19:34:17	0|wumpus|LukeJr: oh...
484 2018-04-26 19:34:30	0|sipa|#unload walletunload
485 2018-04-26 19:34:36	0|fanquake|maybe topic: cfields any updates on app signing/certs etc? meant to follow up with you from ny
486 2018-04-26 19:34:36	0|LukeJr|wumpus: just saying it would have the same result as disabling wallet RPCs
487 2018-04-26 19:34:36	0|wumpus|#untopic
488 2018-04-26 19:35:04	0|cfields|fanquake: need to poke gmaxwell. He might've forgotten about it
489 2018-04-26 19:35:19	0|LukeJr|promag: what happens if you try to use the GUI after unloading its wallet?
490 2018-04-26 19:35:22	0|wumpus|LukeJr: ok yes, I understand now :)
491 2018-04-26 19:35:33	0|achow101|has anyone seen gmaxwell recently? is he still alive?
492 2018-04-26 19:35:45	0|promag|LukeJr: don't know, only tested with bitcoind
493 2018-04-26 19:35:45	0|sipa|yes
494 2018-04-26 19:35:45	0|wumpus|he's still alive
495 2018-04-26 19:36:35	0|promag|LukeJr: after #13097 I'll submit unload in the UI
496 2018-04-26 19:36:36	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13097 | Support wallets loaded dynamically by promag · Pull Request #13097 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
497 2018-04-26 19:37:37	0|wumpus|I think we've run out of topics
498 2018-04-26 19:37:53	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-04-26-19.00.log.html
499 2018-04-26 19:37:53	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Apr 26 19:38:21 2018 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
500 2018-04-26 19:37:53	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-04-26-19.00.html
501 2018-04-26 19:37:53	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-04-26-19.00.txt
502 2018-04-26 19:37:53	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
503 2018-04-26 19:40:36	0|jtimon|LukeJr: yeah, total fee meaning "max total fee" makes sense to me without increasing it if you pay less
504 2018-04-26 19:41:13	0|sipa|damn peer
505 2018-04-26 19:43:13	0|jamesob|(late to party) fwiw, I like the High Priority queue. I consult it, I just rarely get a chance to actually get around to it :)
506 2018-04-26 19:44:39	0|wumpus|jamesob: it's always the really large or difficult ones that end up the list, that doesn't help either
507 2018-04-26 19:44:57	0|jamesob|right
508 2018-04-26 19:44:59	0|wumpus|though it makes sense because the others don't need so much encouragement for review
509 2018-04-26 19:48:36	0|promag|i like it too
510 2018-04-26 19:53:50	0|jtimon|yeah, what was supposed to be the initial goal of the safe mode if nobody thinks that either the activation conditions make sense, how did it came to this state? who championed it?
511 2018-04-26 19:57:34	0|jtimon|agree with jamesob I like it to be there even though if I don't have much time to review I tend to ignore big PRs anyway
512 2018-04-26 19:59:53	0|sipa|jtimon: safe mode has existed since forever
513 2018-04-26 20:00:16	0|jtimon|I see
514 2018-04-26 20:00:36	0|harding|jtimon: didn't Nakamoto add safe mode based on the P2P protocol authenticated alert messages back in 0.3.something?  I think it's just transitioned to triggering based on local conditions (I think that was something Andresen advocated after the 0.7/0.8 consensus failure).
515 2018-04-26 20:01:16	0|sipa|jtimon: introduced in 0.3.8 under the name "lockdown"
516 2018-04-26 20:02:30	0|sipa|ah yes, there have multiple triggers for ot
517 2018-04-26 20:02:35	0|sipa|including alerts
518 2018-04-26 20:03:51	0|jtimon|harding: I had no idea, that's why I asked, but thanks
519 2018-04-26 20:07:01	0|jtimon|not sure if this is offtopic, but for elements we want a simpler approach (just stop and don't start again until a file with a huge scary name gets deleted). see  https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements/pull/323
520 2018-04-26 20:08:32	0|jtimon|I would be more than happy to upstream if there's any interest, but it's kind of orthogonal to removing the current safe mode I guess
521 2018-04-26 20:11:24	0|sipa|yes, seems orthogonal
522 2018-04-26 20:12:03	0|jtimon|so, sorry, were there opened prs to remove the current safe mode?
523 2018-04-26 20:12:39	0|harding|#13090
524 2018-04-26 20:12:41	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13090 | Remove Safe mode (achow101) by laanwj · Pull Request #13090 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
525 2018-04-26 20:13:26	0|jtimon|thanks, perhaps we can put it on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8 ?
526 2018-04-26 20:13:46	0|wumpus|right, it used to have a wider scope of triggers, in time it became less and less
527 2018-04-26 20:14:01	0|wumpus|because no one really wants half of their RPCs to break unexpectedly
528 2018-04-26 20:14:30	0|wumpus|certainly not because of a signed message from the P2P network
529 2018-04-26 20:14:33	0|jtimon|yeah, from the people's comments just smelled like something that made sense at some point but didn't made sense anymore
530 2018-04-26 20:14:33	0|promag|do we want menus "File"->"Open Wallet" and "File"->"Close Wallet" ?
531 2018-04-26 20:15:10	0|wumpus|I guess it's not high priority because it's not blocking anything
532 2018-04-26 20:15:28	0|wumpus|also I think it's the kind of thing that gets lots of attention without being on a list
533 2018-04-26 20:16:01	0|jtimon|fair enough, just an idea
534 2018-04-26 20:16:23	0|jtimon|since it seemed nothing was added to the list this week
535 2018-04-26 20:16:59	0|jtimon|to be clear 10757 isn't blocking any work I'm doing on bitcoin core directly either
536 2018-04-26 20:17:55	0|jtimon|I just thought the policy was "say it on a meeting if you don't have one there already and see if people consider it a priority or not"
537 2018-04-26 20:18:11	0|wumpus|yes, in principle it is
538 2018-04-26 20:21:30	0|jtimon|wumpus: well, you don't have any pr on the list, do you?
539 2018-04-26 20:21:55	0|jtimon|anyway, never mind
540 2018-04-26 20:21:59	0|wumpus|true
541 2018-04-26 20:23:18	0|jtimon|it is very small anyway, will get plenty of review in no time, I think
542 2018-04-26 20:23:40	0|aj|having a separate list for blockers and been-hanging-around-for-a-while-let's-knock-this-off might make sense?
543 2018-04-26 20:24:36	0|wumpus|easy enough to add another column
544 2018-04-26 20:24:48	0|aj|jtimon: are the getblockstats test failing for you now too btw?
545 2018-04-26 20:25:05	0|wumpus|jtimon: exactly my point :) the kind of PRs that need nagging about are either obscure ones, or difficult ones that change a lot of code or threading semantics and such
546 2018-04-26 20:25:21	0|jtimon|aj: no, are they failing for you? I can re-test
547 2018-04-26 20:25:38	0|aj|jtimon: yeah. i think they fail once the block timestamps are >24h old
548 2018-04-26 20:25:49	0|aj|jtimon: (i commented on the PR)
549 2018-04-26 20:26:20	0|jtimon|uhm, it is running for too long, not 1 sec as expected, I'll have a look, thanks
550 2018-04-26 20:26:29	0|aj|jtimon: yeah. should time out after 60s
551 2018-04-26 20:27:00	0|jtimon|it's failing to sync the 2 nodes...
552 2018-04-26 20:27:14	0|aj|jtimon: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10757#issuecomment-384440743
553 2018-04-26 20:27:25	0|jtimon|yeah, sorry
554 2018-04-26 20:27:30	0|aj|jtimon: np :)
555 2018-04-26 20:30:25	0|jtimon|aj: mhmm, I guess it's about the timestamps of the blocks and we need to use the mocktime thing?
556 2018-04-26 20:31:05	0|aj|jtimon: yeah, that would make sense. set the mocktime based on the json data?
557 2018-04-26 20:31:18	0|jtimon|yeah, that's my thought
558 2018-04-26 20:31:40	0|jtimon|never used the mocktime before, let me grep how that looks like
559 2018-04-26 20:37:13	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #13098: Skip tx-rehashing on historic blocks (06master...06Mf1804-readPureBlock) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13098
560 2018-04-26 20:54:52	0|promag|how should the user load a wallet from the ui? File->OpenWallet -> FileDialog ?
561 2018-04-26 20:55:24	0|wumpus|I guess so?
562 2018-04-26 20:55:29	0|promag|another option is a Wallet menu
563 2018-04-26 20:55:48	0|promag|with all wallets in the wallet dir
564 2018-04-26 20:56:07	0|promag|and then a "Open external" option
565 2018-04-26 20:56:16	0|harding|promag: instead of a Wallet menu, you could have a Recent Wallets entry in the file menu listing the last 10 walets that have been opened.
566 2018-04-26 20:57:03	0|promag|harding: I thought of that too, but IMO that's for "round 2"
567 2018-04-26 20:58:00	0|promag|harding: that needs qsettings to remember wallets, cleanup of unexisting wallets...
568 2018-04-26 20:58:47	0|promag|also, in the UI, should prompt the user if a wallet is being unloaded, for instance, via rpc?
569 2018-04-26 20:59:54	0|sipa|i don't think so
570 2018-04-26 21:00:13	0|sipa|if something is done through RPC you can assume that's the user explicitly acting
571 2018-04-26 21:00:16	0|promag|just asking, I don't think so too
572 2018-04-26 21:00:47	0|harding|promag: makes sense.  I guess the question for creating a Wallets menu is whether it's something that would be around permanently or would be just temporary until a Recent Wallets submenu was added.  If it's temp, then I'd suggest not adding it at all and making the user go through the file dialog each time they want to open a particular wallet.
573 2018-04-26 21:01:57	0|promag|harding: yeah, and by default open the directory -walletdir
574 2018-04-26 21:02:26	0|promag|and "Close wallet" should close the "current" wallet correct?
575 2018-04-26 21:02:34	0|harding|If possible, I'd default to opening the last used directory.
576 2018-04-26 21:02:48	0|harding|I think most apps do that.
577 2018-04-26 21:02:58	0|promag|should we allow closing all wallets? the UI is not prepared for no wallets
578 2018-04-26 21:03:08	0|harding|(But if there's no last used directory, then -walletdir is a good default.)
579 2018-04-26 21:04:57	0|promag|harding: remembering the last user choice is probably "round 2" too
580 2018-04-26 21:06:10	0|promag|"round 1" should be basic and stable support in the UI
581 2018-04-26 21:23:22	0|promag|"the UI is not prepared for no wallets" <- i was wrong
582 2018-04-26 21:27:30	0|wumpus|yes, it can run without wallet fine, e.g. -disablewallet
583 2018-04-26 21:36:52	0|promag|-nowallet
584 2018-04-26 21:59:17	0|achow101|sipa: how would I serialize a CPubKey without the leading size?
585 2018-04-26 22:06:21	0|sipa|achow101: you could use Span<const unsigned char>(pubkey.begin(), pubkey.size())
586 2018-04-26 22:06:38	0|sipa|or you could add a CPubKey::data() method, and then just use MakeSpan(pubkey)
587 2018-04-26 22:22:21	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jamesob opened pull request #13099: Use thread names in logs and deadlock diagnostics (06master...062018-04-26-use-threadnames) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13099
588 2018-04-26 23:01:08	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15promag opened pull request #13100: Add menu entry to open wallet (06master...062018-04-ui-open-wallet) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13100