1 2018-06-04 01:27:22	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15yuntai closed pull request #13365: RPC/REST/ZMQ, Wallet: Set label with importprivkey only requested (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13365
  2 2018-06-04 02:57:25	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15qmma70 opened pull request #13388: util: Implement boolean conversion and !operator for uint_* (06master...06uint_bool) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13388
  3 2018-06-04 03:17:53	0|mryandao|i actually asked about patch submission via mailing list in response to the takeover rumors.
  4 2018-06-04 05:24:26	0|wumpus|mryandao: eek I understand now
  5 2018-06-04 05:29:02	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15n2yen opened pull request #13389: Utils and libraries: Fix #13371 - move umask operation earlier in AppInit() (06master...0613371) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13389
  6 2018-06-04 05:35:25	0|wumpus|mryandao: I don't think there's a hurry to get away from github, but I do think the microsoft takeover is the slow road to obsolence, just like sourceforge, until the service is finally put out of its misery (like happened with microsoft's other code hosting service, codeplex)
  7 2018-06-04 05:36:58	0|wumpus|aanyhow maybe we should bring up the host-our-own-gitlab-instance topic again at next meeting
  8 2018-06-04 05:48:59	0|wumpus|at the least I'm going to cancel my paid github membership as asoon as the announcement goes through, having to pay microsoft-tax with laptops is enough, not going to give them any more money...
  9 2018-06-04 05:52:39	0|wumpus|(while I didn't mind supporting a smaller company that simply provides a, generally well-maintained, service)
 10 2018-06-04 06:02:23	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141e4eec4 15steverusso: doc: split FreeBSD build instructions out of build-unix.md...
 11 2018-06-04 06:02:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e24bf1ce184b...f0149330d2f8
 12 2018-06-04 06:02:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f014933 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #13372: doc: split FreeBSD build instructions out of build-unix.md...
 13 2018-06-04 06:03:08	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #13372: doc: split FreeBSD build instructions out of build-unix.md (06master...06link-to-building-on-freebsd) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13372
 14 2018-06-04 06:46:37	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f41d339 15practicalswift: bench: Use non-throwing ParseDouble(...) instead of throwing boost::lexical_cast<double>(...)
 15 2018-06-04 06:46:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f0149330d2f8...2722a1f8e935
 16 2018-06-04 06:46:38	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142722a1f 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #13383: bench: Use non-throwing ParseDouble(...) instead of throwing boost::lexical_cast<double>(...)...
 17 2018-06-04 06:47:18	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #13383: bench: Use non-throwing ParseDouble(...) instead of throwing boost::lexical_cast<double>(...) (06master...06remove-dependency-on-lexical_cast-which-is-boost-and-also-throws) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13383
 18 2018-06-04 07:56:50	0|jonasschnelli|roasbeef: what is the reason for using the version byte twice? Once in the enciphered payload and once prepended in plaintext: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/aezeed/cipherseed.go#L39
 19 2018-06-04 10:11:13	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 8 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2722a1f8e935...0de7cc848e07
 20 2018-06-04 10:11:14	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 140df0178 15Pieter Wuille: Benchmark Merkle root computation
 21 2018-06-04 10:11:14	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1457f3463 15Pieter Wuille: Refactor SHA256 code
 22 2018-06-04 10:11:15	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d0c9632 15Pieter Wuille: Specialized double sha256 for 64 byte inputs
 23 2018-06-04 10:11:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #13191: Specialized double-SHA256 with 64 byte inputs with SSE4.1 and AVX2 (06master...06201709_dsha256_64) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13191
 24 2018-06-04 10:38:34	0|promag|is `./test/functional/wallet_multiwallet.py --usecli` working in master?
 25 2018-06-04 10:48:02	0|marcoagner|promag: it's running and passing in master here
 26 2018-06-04 10:49:26	0|marcoagner|if that's what you're asking
 27 2018-06-04 10:56:46	0|promag|ty
 28 2018-06-04 10:57:07	0|wumpus|yep, all the tests are passing on master
 29 2018-06-04 10:57:08	0|promag|is there a test cache?
 30 2018-06-04 10:57:46	0|wumpus|what do you mean with a test cache?
 31 2018-06-04 10:59:12	0|wumpus|I think the only cache used by the tests is a pre-generated blockchain and wallet
 32 2018-06-04 10:59:26	0|promag|never mind, I'm trying make clean && make
 33 2018-06-04 11:25:24	0|promag|make clean && ccache -C && make and the test above continues to fail :S
 34 2018-06-04 11:43:54	0|wumpus|promag_: with what problem?
 35 2018-06-04 11:45:52	0|promag|wumpus: https://pastebin.com/Ghy69Ud0
 36 2018-06-04 11:51:18	0|wumpus|so it expects "Requested wallet does not exist or is not loaded" but it gets a CalledProcessError
 37 2018-06-04 11:52:08	0|wumpus|"subprocess.CalledProcessError: Command '/Users/joao/Projects/bitcoin/src/bitcoin-cli' returned non-zero exit status 18."
 38 2018-06-04 11:52:44	0|wumpus|code 18 is RPC_WALLET_NOT_FOUND
 39 2018-06-04 11:52:59	0|wumpus|so that looks correct, I'm confused
 40 2018-06-04 12:32:35	0|wumpus|promag: just tried to run that test separately here on master (ubuntu 16.04), no issues
 41 2018-06-04 12:35:09	0|wumpus|promag: not sure what is special about your environment that could trigger this
 42 2018-06-04 12:35:34	0|promag|wumpus: thanks
 43 2018-06-04 12:35:52	0|promag|wumpus: I too can't understand why
 44 2018-06-04 12:37:59	0|wumpus|you could try doing a completely new checkout, then if that passes, compare the difference
 45 2018-06-04 12:41:52	0|wumpus|if even a new build from a clean tree doesn't pass, it would be extremely confusing
 46 2018-06-04 12:42:51	0|promag|right, I hate on this happens
 47 2018-06-04 12:42:55	0|promag|*when
 48 2018-06-04 12:45:43	0|wumpus|it's bad, but one level of badness below issues that reproduce on travis but not locally
 49 2018-06-04 13:24:00	0|promag|wumpus: git clone, autogen, configure, make, test same error :|
 50 2018-06-04 13:24:47	0|promag|Python 3.6.5
 51 2018-06-04 13:26:42	0|wumpus|promag: what OS?
 52 2018-06-04 13:27:07	0|promag|wumpus: macos 10.13.3
 53 2018-06-04 13:27:39	0|wumpus|can't try that, but I see ubuntu 1804 has the same version of python, will try that
 54 2018-06-04 13:28:21	0|promag|ok, ty
 55 2018-06-04 13:28:36	0|promag|I'll be back in a bit
 56 2018-06-04 13:35:29	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ken2812221 opened pull request #13390: Tests: Ignore RemoteDisconnected and BadStatusLine when stopping node (06master...06stop_node) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13390
 57 2018-06-04 13:42:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #13391: Make tinyformat noexcept: Use default error handling (assert(0 && reason)) on incorrect format strings (06master...06non-throwing-tinyformat) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13391
 58 2018-06-04 14:12:08	0|wumpus|pierre_rochard: for some reason, bitcoinacks is not counting my concept ACK here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12136
 59 2018-06-04 14:13:40	0|pierre_rochard|wumpus: I'm taking a look, it should've picked that up automatically
 60 2018-06-04 14:19:59	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift closed pull request #13391: Make tinyformat noexcept: Use default error handling (assert(0 && reason)) on incorrect format strings (06master...06non-throwing-tinyformat) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13391
 61 2018-06-04 14:28:18	0|pierre_rochard|wumpus: fix is deployed https://bitcoinacks.com/?search=12136
 62 2018-06-04 14:28:48	0|wumpus|pierre_rochard: thanks!
 63 2018-06-04 14:46:06	0|jnewbery|promag: seems like the bitcoin-cli stderr is not matching the expected string. See test_node.py L370. I suggest you put a breakpoint in there and see what cli_stderr is set to
 64 2018-06-04 14:49:17	0|promag|jnewbery: will do
 65 2018-06-04 15:08:50	0|wumpus|promag: passed on ubuntu 18.04 with 3.6.5
 66 2018-06-04 15:08:55	0|wumpus|+python
 67 2018-06-04 15:09:02	0|promag|right
 68 2018-06-04 15:11:48	0|wumpus|so yes makes sense to try to debug this issue locally, it's unlikely we're going to be able to reproduce it
 69 2018-06-04 15:12:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #13392: util: Make strprintf noexcept. Improve error message on format string error. (06master...06strprintf-noexcept) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13392
 70 2018-06-04 15:17:28	0|marcoagner|promag: got curious at lunch and successfully passed the test you're having issue on my other laptop (macos 10.13.4 with python 3.6.5)... no help, it seems.
 71 2018-06-04 15:19:09	0|wumpus|promag: you don't happen to have a different version of bitcoind running that it, for some reason or bug, runs against?
 72 2018-06-04 15:21:44	0|jonasschnelli|roasbeef: what is the reason for using the version byte twice? Once in the enciphered payload and once prepended in plaintext: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/aezeed/cipherseed.go#L39
 73 2018-06-04 15:22:14	0|jonasschnelli|(sry, wanted to post that on #lightning-dev)
 74 2018-06-04 15:36:00	0|promag|wumpus: jnewbery: marcoagner: fixed :|
 75 2018-06-04 15:36:11	0|promag|export EVENT_NOKQUEUE=1
 76 2018-06-04 15:36:57	0|promag|jnewbery: thanks for the tip
 77 2018-06-04 15:37:12	0|promag|so my stderr has `[warn] kq_init: detected broken kqueue; not using.: Undefined error: 0`
 78 2018-06-04 15:43:04	0|wumpus|promag: whoa. GOod find. I'm surprised you get that warning only for that test thoug!
 79 2018-06-04 16:07:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ken2812221 closed pull request #13390: Tests: Ignore RemoteDisconnected and BadStatusLine when stopping node (06master...06stop_node) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13390
 80 2018-06-04 16:18:22	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ken2812221 reopened pull request #13390: Tests: Ignore RemoteDisconnected and BadStatusLine when stopping node (06master...06stop_node) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13390
 81 2018-06-04 16:21:39	0|cfields|wumpus: that's just libevent falling back to poll(), as kqueue was known-buggy for 1 or 2 major macOS releases.
 82 2018-06-04 16:32:02	0|wumpus|cfields: we should probably make sure that that warning is silenced, at least for the tests
 83 2018-06-04 16:33:00	0|cfields|wumpus: I believe it should be fed to the logger. Maybe we don't have the libevent log callbacks hooked up for the tests?
 84 2018-06-04 16:38:47	0|wumpus|cfields: we don't set up a logger at all in bitcoin-cli
 85 2018-06-04 16:39:01	0|wumpus|cfields: (and this is in a --with-cli test)
 86 2018-06-04 16:39:11	0|cfields|wumpus: ahh, I missed that this was with -cli!
 87 2018-06-04 16:39:54	0|cfields|yep, that's the problem then. Need to event_set_log_callback() there.
 88 2018-06-04 16:51:48	0|wumpus|cfields: where to send the output though? or just drop it
 89 2018-06-04 16:52:32	0|cfields|wumpus: iirc it makes a distinction between errors and warnings. For -cli I suppose we could just drop warnings?
 90 2018-06-04 16:55:58	0|echeveria|kind of feels like the extra transaction pool default should be slightly higher
 91 2018-06-04 16:56:19	0|echeveria|I'm getting a lot of compact block value out of doubling it, without an enormous memory usage hit.
 92 2018-06-04 16:56:23	0|wumpus|cfields: seems it indeed passes in a severity, so it's possible to distinguish. I think it's fine to drop warnings for bitcoin-cli.
 93 2018-06-04 16:57:11	0|wumpus|cfields: though I'm happy this goes to stderr, not stdout, at least it won't corrupt the output!
 94 2018-06-04 16:57:44	0|cfields|heh yes, that's nice
 95 2018-06-04 16:57:45	0|wumpus|would be kind of messed-up for RPCs that only return a string, and suddenly it has some silly libevent warning in it
 96 2018-06-04 16:58:22	0|cfields|wumpus: I'll PR a quick change to ignore warnings and abort on errors (as I assume it would do now anyway)
 97 2018-06-04 17:02:55	0|wumpus|cfields: sgtm
 98 2018-06-04 17:17:45	0|luke-jr|echeveria: comparing two nodes running at the same time?
 99 2018-06-04 17:17:51	0|luke-jr|or different times?
100 2018-06-04 17:25:29	0|echeveria|luke-jr: comparing two nods, but only visually looking at the logs for now.
101 2018-06-04 17:26:20	0|luke-jr|right, I just mean time the transactions/blocks were received (ie, comparing the same circumstances)
102 2018-06-04 17:27:11	0|luke-jr|echeveria: want to make a PR and I can throw it in Knots 0.16.1 to give it some more real-world exposure? ;)
103 2018-06-04 18:32:15	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #13393: Enable double-SHA256-for-64-byte code on 32-bit x86 (06master...06201806_dsha256_i386) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13393
104 2018-06-04 18:35:15	0|gmaxwell|sipa: I thought there was intel core stuff that had SSE4 but not 64-bit?
105 2018-06-04 18:35:57	0|sipa|gmaxwell: perhaps, let me check!
106 2018-06-04 18:36:36	0|gmaxwell|echeveria: if you felt board you could do a bit of code copying, and keep an extra cache of each size...
107 2018-06-04 18:36:54	0|echeveria|hm, yeah
108 2018-06-04 18:37:03	0|echeveria|can simulate misses
109 2018-06-04 18:37:06	0|sipa|gmaxwell: they were introduced in Penryn, which supports x86_64
110 2018-06-04 18:37:18	0|sipa|perhaps SSE4 was later 'backported' to 32-bit CPU lines, though
111 2018-06-04 18:37:51	0|gmaxwell|Also technically our SSE4 code before was SSSE3, I dunno if thats the case for the new stuff.
112 2018-06-04 18:38:16	0|gmaxwell|(and I do have a cpu here which is SSSE3 and not SSE4 and I did try our old SSE4 code on it)
113 2018-06-04 18:39:18	0|sipa|hmm, can you try the new code?
114 2018-06-04 18:42:08	0|luke-jr|hmm, I wonder if I should make a 32-bit chroot to test this on then
115 2018-06-04 18:42:26	0|luke-jr|SSSE3 does NOT work correctly on Haswell CPUs running in 32-bit mode
116 2018-06-04 18:42:32	0|luke-jr|even though the CPU claims to support it
117 2018-06-04 18:42:52	0|luke-jr|(possibly an ABI/alignment issue)
118 2018-06-04 18:43:56	0|luke-jr|but that's assuming the new code is still SSSE3 at all.. :P
119 2018-06-04 18:58:14	0|jonasschnelli|Before:
120 2018-06-04 18:58:14	0|jonasschnelli|SHA256, 5, 340, 3.79253, 0.00222458, 0.00224373, 0.00222941
121 2018-06-04 18:58:22	0|jonasschnelli|Current master:
122 2018-06-04 18:58:22	0|jonasschnelli|SHA256, 5, 340, 3.85136, 0.00224624, 0.00227539, 0.00226702
123 2018-06-04 18:59:31	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: use the Merkle branchmark or SHA256D64 benchmark
124 2018-06-04 18:59:42	0|jonasschnelli|SHA256D64_1024, 5, 7400, 3.54442, 9.52022e-05, 9.65184e-05, 9.57865e-05
125 2018-06-04 18:59:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15theuni opened pull request #13394: cli: Ignore libevent warnings (06master...06cli-event) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13394
126 2018-06-04 18:59:57	0|sipa|the normal SHA256 isn't affected by #13191
127 2018-06-04 19:00:02	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13191 | Specialized double-SHA256 with 64 byte inputs with SSE4.1 and AVX2 by sipa · Pull Request #13191 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
128 2018-06-04 19:00:10	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: Yes. Right. SSE4 was enabled before..
129 2018-06-04 19:14:41	0|roasbeef|jonasschnelli: external version for how to decipher the thing in the first place, internal version tells wallet what scheme was used to derive the set of addrs
130 2018-06-04 19:15:17	0|jonasschnelli|roasbeef: I see. Thanks!
131 2018-06-04 19:16:04	0|gmaxwell|sipa: I can but it'll be a bit since that computer is in a box right now.
132 2018-06-04 19:18:26	0|gmaxwell|echeveria: At least a few weeks ago I was watching it and almost never seeing hits out of my ordinary sized extrapool... but that might have just been because it was a bit too small.
133 2018-06-04 19:21:38	0|echeveria|2018-06-04 18:15:44.495322 Successfully reconstructed block 00000000000000000037acbd8ccb51a8f09222800eab38f30c89bbe48ade3925 with 1 txn prefilled, 2075 txn from mempool (incl at least 13 from extra pool) and 16 txn requested
134 2018-06-04 19:21:52	0|echeveria|2018-06-04 18:06:29.634709 Successfully reconstructed block 0000000000000000000e62f80def774b415e812da4473cdb49f3ba56ea0f1865 with 1 txn prefilled, 343 txn from mempool (incl at least 11 from extra pool) and 332 txn requested
135 2018-06-04 19:21:53	0|echeveria|woof.
136 2018-06-04 19:22:03	0|gmaxwell|oh man, yea thats pretty good
137 2018-06-04 19:22:52	0|echeveria|yeah I'll collect some proper stats.
138 2018-06-04 19:23:30	0|echeveria|a lot of the time I'm getting complete reconstructions which is nice. the node is running on a core i3 box that's mega underpowered, intentionally to see how it'll run.
139 2018-06-04 19:30:31	0|gmaxwell|sipa: should call for someone to try out 13386 on shani supporting intel, ... they only have it on some atom cpus.
140 2018-06-04 19:31:06	0|sipa|i know; Goldmont only
141 2018-06-04 19:31:24	0|gmaxwell|not that its that important but it would be interesting to see numbers.
142 2018-06-04 19:31:52	0|echeveria|I looked around a while ago and couldn't find anything easy to get my hands on with a goldmont chip
143 2018-06-04 19:32:11	0|echeveria|works on my rizen 7 server though.
144 2018-06-04 19:33:03	0|gmaxwell|I assume DO or some other hosting provider is using goldmonts in vpses.
145 2018-06-04 19:33:28	0|echeveria|they're larger x86 cores for DO and ScaleWay.
146 2018-06-04 19:33:38	0|gmaxwell|(since basically thats the target application for that chip, AFAICT)
147 2018-06-04 19:33:59	0|echeveria|ScaleWay has armv7 servers which is vaguely interesting, I run an edge router node on one of their ARM boxes.
148 2018-06-04 19:48:24	0|luke-jr|what is the cpuinfo entry for shani?
149 2018-06-04 19:49:53	0|luke-jr|a: sha_ni
150 2018-06-04 19:55:17	0|sipa|luke-jr: sha ?
151 2018-06-04 19:56:18	0|sipa|sha_ni, indeed
152 2018-06-04 19:56:21	0|sipa|on my Ryzen
153 2018-06-04 21:53:48	0|cfields|sipa: taking an optim from the intel sha2 whitepaper gives me a ~6% speedup on the SHA256D64_1024 bench, using sse4 (no avx2 here :( )
154 2018-06-04 21:53:57	0|cfields|paper: https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/white-papers/sha-256-implementations-paper.pdf
155 2018-06-04 21:54:24	0|cfields|changes: https://github.com/theuni/bitcoin/commits/sha2-avx1 (top two, very simple)
156 2018-06-04 21:55:05	0|cfields|I assume it would benefit the avx2 impl the same way, but can't test
157 2018-06-04 21:55:32	0|sipa|cfields: oh, nice
158 2018-06-04 22:02:49	0|sipa|cfields: testing
159 2018-06-04 22:04:54	0|sipa|cfields: makes it slower for me
160 2018-06-04 22:05:14	0|sipa|3.5% slower
161 2018-06-04 22:06:27	0|cfields|sipa: huh. Is that sse4, or did you merge it into avx2?
162 2018-06-04 22:06:48	0|sipa|i merged it into avx2
163 2018-06-04 22:07:51	0|cfields|sipa: is it slower for the sse4 path on your cpu too?
164 2018-06-04 22:23:46	0|sipa|cfields: 5% speedup for SSE4
165 2018-06-04 22:23:52	0|sipa|(when disabling AVX2 in both)
166 2018-06-04 22:23:56	0|sipa|so go for it
167 2018-06-04 22:24:01	0|cfields|ok, so I'm not crazy
168 2018-06-04 22:35:04	0|jarthur|gmaxwell sipa sorry I haven't had a chance to play with trying the dual SHA-NI on Ryzen yet. Anyone else had a chance to try it yet?
169 2018-06-04 23:12:48	0|promag|#13111
170 2018-06-04 23:12:50	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13111 | Add unloadwallet RPC by promag · Pull Request #13111 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
171 2018-06-04 23:13:07	0|promag|^ awesome PR to review!..
172 2018-06-04 23:16:45	0|sipa|"coredevelopers do not want you to see this awesome trick!"
173 2018-06-04 23:17:39	0|promag|:P