< phantomcircuit> maaku, there's a typo in BIP 68 "block-heigh" -> "block-height"
< maaku> phantomcircuit: thank you will correct
< phantomcircuit> maaku, also "the remaining bits reduced by 2^14" does that mean the remaining 30 bits - 2^14 ?
< maaku> it means ">> 14"
< maaku> have a better way of phrasing that?
< maaku> you're the 2nd person to comment on it
< jgarzik> Writing it as pseudo-C code may be more clear.
< phantomcircuit> maaku, wouldn't that be the same as simply saying "the next 16 bits are interpreted as"
< maaku> phantomcircuit: yeah that's pretty clear. I'll do that
< maaku> the normative C code is included below it
< phantomcircuit> i assume you're not using the full range of 30 bits such as to preserve the most bits possible as undefined meaning?
< maaku> *C++
< maaku> phantomcircuit: correct
< phantomcircuit> probably want to note that explicitly, otherwise the format is super confusing
< phantomcircuit> (as in appears to make no sense :)
< maaku> right ok
< phantomcircuit> maaku, OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY is in master currently for mempool checking right?
< maaku> phantomcircuit: mempool-only CLTV is in master, yes
< phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, still working on the mempool limiter?
< BlueMatt> no, please review
< BlueMatt> I mean yes, needs unit tests
< BlueMatt> but please review
< phantomcircuit> lol
< petertodd> btcdrak: I'll open a pull-req for FSS-RBF soon, now that the mempool is settling down a bit
< petertodd> dgenr8: the attack spree after f2pool turned full-rbf on happened *after* they turned full-rbf *off*
< CodeShark> petertodd: I'm a good ways along in implementing versionbits
< CodeShark> I hope to have a PR ready next week
< CodeShark> and we can merge all this and still continue to use IsSuperMajority for the time being
< petertodd> CodeShark: cool!
< petertodd> CodeShark: yeah, deploying versionbits in parallel to IsSuperMajority() is fine
< sipa> CodeShark: i've been busy, but i'll review your code soon
< CodeShark> thanks, sipa
< btcdrak> where did --with-gui=no go as a ./configure option?
< btcdrak> has it been renamed?
< sipa> --without-X is an alias for --with-X=no
< btcdrak> ty
< btcdrak> --with-gui=no now returns an error
< sipa> oh?
< sipa> really?
< btcdrak> yeah, said unrecognised option, --without-gui worked
< btcdrak> sipa: interesting, --with-gui works, but not --with-gui=no
< sipa> works for me
< sipa> maybe it depends on what version of autoconf you use?
< btcdrak> 2.69
< CodeShark> err, wrong window :p
< btcdrak> has something else changed recently in the build requirements? I've been struggling to build master on a fresh Ubuntu instance https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/35OCOFYh/ - doesnt make sense.
< wumpus> btcdrak: something is very wrong with your autoconf/configure run, looks like presence of byte-swap primitives is misdetected
< wumpus> --without-gui works fine here
< wumpus> what version of ubuntu is that? are you sure it's a fresh checkout, or an old polluted tree?
< btcdrak> wumpus: yeah it was an old tree, git clean -dfx solved it.
< wumpus> ok
< GitHub18> [bitcoin] petertodd opened pull request #6751: Document pull-req #6424 in release-notes (master...pull-req-6424-release-notes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6751
< wumpus> cfields, jonasschnelli: looks like we collected some warning cruft in the build system, probably introduced by the unicode subtree change: make[2]: Circular univalue/lib/libunivalue.la <- univalue/lib/libunivalue.la dependency dropped.
< GitHub103> [bitcoin] ptschip opened pull request #6752: Changed rpc-tests.sh to rpc-tests.py in README.md (master...readme) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6752
< wumpus> AddLocal(addr) automatically sets SetReachable(addr.net). Although I understand why, I don't think this is always correct, for example listening on an ONION address (-externalip=XXX.onion, or through #6639) doesn't mean we can do outgoing connections to them
< jonasschnelli> wumpus: yes. I also saw the "circular reference" warning. Will have a look at it soon.