< GitHub128>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #7280: [travis] Fail when documentation is outdated (master...MarcoFalke-2015-travisDoc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7280
< dcousens>
Hey all, I'm submitting a TX to a bitcoind instance and getting back a mandatory-script-verify-flag-failed (unknown error) back, which, best I can tell, is an exception being thrown? Anyone have an insight into if I can find out more without recompiling the instance with some logging to determine more?
< dcousens>
well, I'm getting a "No error" upon changing the script, so, something is still wrong :S
< dcousens>
I'll let you know when I find out more
< petertodd>
thanks!
< CodeShark>
dcousens, I've rebased #6747
< CodeShark>
I had stopped working on it because of versionbits...but I'm now having second thoughts about versionbits in light of the new extensibility ideas unleashed by segwit
< CodeShark>
but I'm sure about decoupling soft fork activation logic from the rest of the consensus code and #6747 is a good step in that direction, IMHO
< dcousens>
CodeShark: I'll have to re-ACK it later :), forgot to include my previously reviewed commit hash so diff isn't a 1-step :(
< dcousens>
SegWit won't always be possible via the segwit method though? I guess it does cover a lot of the cases though
< CodeShark>
we can still use block version numbers to signal basic stuff (i.e. a new fork is about to activate)...but we're no longer limited to just the version number to provide specific information
< CodeShark>
we can commit to hashes of BIP specs, i.e.
< CodeShark>
in a block header witness
< CodeShark>
completely eliminates bit assignment and collision issues
< CodeShark>
without requiring a lot of extra bandwidth nor storage since all that needs to be transmitted is the diff (and recently used stuff can be cached)
< dcousens>
true
< dcousens>
petertodd: "non-minimally encoded script number
< dcousens>
is what was throwing, but not being shown in a error code ;)
< dcousens>
and that combined with the check2 fix by sipa is why it was showing "no error"
< CodeShark>
I'm a little confused about the script num spec. we have these op codes OP_1 through OP_16 that push the literal value on the stack. But we can also perform the same operation using two bytes where the first indicates a one byte push, right?
< CodeShark>
or...
< dcousens>
CodeShark: indeed, I guess it saves a byte
< CodeShark>
but at the cost of needing extra rules
< dcousens>
yup
< CodeShark>
and consuming 16 op codes
< dcousens>
Just 1 more reason for SegWit and maybe an eventual soft-fork removal of *everything* else? :P
< CodeShark>
if we're consensus-enforcing minimal encodings, then technically we should always be using OP_1 through OP_16 whenever we can
< CodeShark>
so 0x0101 should fail, i.e.
< dcousens>
I think it does
< dcousens>
Hell, it is for me atm
< dcousens>
but, I might be doing something wrong, only just started debugging it
< dcousens>
nvm :), agreed it can be confusing
< dcousens>
petertodd: thoughts on adding more error codes for the CheckLockTime, setting a serror for the nomatch/toearly/nonfinal cases respectively?
< dcousens>
(I'll happily do it, just figured I'd ask if there was a reason not too)
< dcousens>
s/too/to
< dcousens>
if the idea was to keep the method encapsulated, maybe 0 for success, then <0 for the various errors and we set the error in the EvalScript respectively?
< GitHub193>
bitcoin/master fa09562 MarcoFalke: [gitian] Set reference date to something more recent
< GitHub193>
bitcoin/master eb2b745 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #7251...
< GitHub113>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7251: [0.12] gitian: Set reference date to something more recent (0.12...MarcoFalke-2015-gitianTime-0.12) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7251
< MarcoFalke>
And it didn't break anything (I hope)
< sipa>
this can have merged version number things into master
< wumpus>
this is really confusing: let's not make too many pull requests for 0.12, the normal way of working is to first make a pull for master then backport
< MarcoFalke>
No, I based it on 0.11.99
< sipa>
the scriot should indeed check what branch it is for
< wumpus>
this makes sure that everything hits master first
< sipa>
but thay requires accessing the JSON API, which is hard from bash
< wumpus>
porting the script to python is on my todo somewhere
< sipa>
a rewrite in python or so would be easier and more powerful
< sipa>
jinx
< wumpus>
I remember there was also an earlier change which got reverted which was almost impossible to do with bash
< sipa>
a better commit message
< sipa>
indeed
< petertodd>
wumpus: quick q: rough eta on v0.12.0rc1?
< GitHub169>
bitcoin/master 0d59589 Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: update-translations: Allow numerus translations to omit %n specifier (usually when it only has one possible value)
< GitHub169>
bitcoin/master 45d13ab Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #7253...
< GitHub22>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7253: Bugfix: update-translations: Allow numerus translations to omit %n specifier (usually when it only has one possible value) (master...numerus_omit_n) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7253
< GitHub13>
bitcoin/0.12 a75a03a Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: update-translations: Allow numerus translations to omit %n specifier (usually when it only has one possible value)...
< GitHub184>
bitcoin/0.12 3cb066c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Update translations after #7253...
< vojtik>
hi , cna you help me with technical problem?
< murch>
Hey. I think it would be best if you just described your issue. There are plenty capable people in this channel.
< vojtik>
i have bitcoin core, and it generate me adress for income bitcoin, but in this moment i can this adress find, cant find money, anythink,,, just have link for block chain
< GitHub191>
[bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #7287: Consensus: Remove calls to error(), FormatStateMessage() and FormatMoney() (master...consensus-decouple-util-0.13.99) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7287
< GitHub131>
[bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #7289: [WIP] Make arguments reconfigurable at runtime via RPC (master...rpc_setarg) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7289
< GitHub179>
[bitcoin] EthanHeilman opened pull request #7291: Add CNetAddr and CService tests demonstrating constructor differences (master...cservice) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7291
< morcos>
BlueMatt: ping?
< GitHub199>
[bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #7292: [RPC] Expose ancestor/descendant information over RPC (master...add-chain-info) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7292
< GitHub151>
[bitcoin] sdaftuar closed pull request #7222: [WIP] RPC: Indicate which transactions are signaling opt-in RBF (master...add-optin-info) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7222
< GitHub1>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #7293: [wallet] Add regression test for vValue sort order (master...Mf1601-wallet-vValue) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7293