< Chris_Stewart_5> I have a question about BIP66 and this test case inside of script_valid.json
< Chris_Stewart_5> [
< Chris_Stewart_5> "1",
< Chris_Stewart_5> "0x21 0x038282263212c609d9ea2a6e3e172de238d8c39cabd5ac1ca10646e23fd5f51508 CHECKSIG NOT",
< Chris_Stewart_5> "",
< Chris_Stewart_5> "BIP66 example 6, without DERSIG"
< Chris_Stewart_5> ]
< Chris_Stewart_5> BIP66 says that "if the signature does not pass the IsValidSignatureEncoding check below, the entire script evaluates to false immediately."
< Chris_Stewart_5> why would this script evaluate to true? Wouldn't it fail immediately after seeing "1" since it is not DER compliant
< Chris_Stewart_5> shouldn't it just fail immediately
< Chris_Stewart_5> ?
< gmaxwell> Chris_Stewart_5: I assume because it is not run with the DERSIG flag. (as is the case for most of the blocks in the chain)
< Chris_Stewart_5> gmaxwell: So after BIP66 this would fail, pre BIP66 this would pass, correct?
< Chris_Stewart_5> and this is indicated with the flags
< phantomcircuit> do i need a lock for Params() ?
< sipa> i'd say no
< phantomcircuit> sipa: what about CBlockIndex objects? I would assume yes but that they remain valid between lock acquisitions
< phantomcircuit> (i mean pointers)
< sipa> phantomcircuit: some fields are immutable
< sipa> if you take a CBlockIndex object from mapBlockIndex, its CBlockHeader fields, chainWork, pprev, ... are immutable
< sipa> so you can use GetAncestor without lock
< sipa> nStatus, nFile, nBlockPos, nUndoPos, ... are mutable and need cs_main
< phantomcircuit> sipa: just interested in whether a CBlockIndex pointed from mapBlockIndex will continue to work when passed to chainActive.Next
< sipa> phantomcircuit: yes, it will
< sipa> pointers to CBlockIndex remain vlaid forever
< sipa> chainActive.Next will return NULL if the passed CBlockIndex is no longer in the main chaim
< sipa> phantomcircuit: i'm wrong
< sipa> chainActive itself needs cs_main
< sipa> though the CBlockIndex pointer do remain valid across different lockings
< sipa> which may be enough
< jonasschnelli> Is there a chance to escape IBD in regtest (getheaders command reject with reason "node is in IBD)"?
< sipa> first mine a block?
< jonasschnelli> :} ... let me try that... I didn't tried that because the IBD warning icon was also there in Qt after I mined couple of blocks...
< sipa> hmm
< jonasschnelli> (1min)
< jonasschnelli> sipa: thanks! Was my stupidity (of not mining a block)...
< GitHub185> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #7732: [Qt] Debug window: replace "Build date" with "Datadir" (master...2016/03/qt_datadir) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7732