< phantomcircuit>
Chris_Stewart_5, there's usually comments explaining why a test should fail
< phantomcircuit>
cfields, what's the correct way to add another binary to the automake process?
< GitHub31>
[bitcoin] TheBlueMatt opened pull request #7903: Fix help text around importaddress and rename it to importscript (master...16-04-importaddress-helptext) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7903
< assder>
Is version 0x20000000 voting for BIP68/112/113?
< sipa>
it is not
< sipa>
it's BIP9 without supporting any specific deployment
< sipa>
the CSV deployment (bip68/112/113) only starts on may 1st
< assder>
Ok. Just to be clear, they could vote for it, but it wouldn't count, right?
< sipa>
yes; in fact, it would trigger warnings as it would be support for an undefined bit
< assder>
Ok. version 0x20000000 means they are mining with 0.12.1 though, correct?
< sipa>
or master
< sipa>
or any software tweaked to set that version number there
< assder>
Gotcha.
< assder>
Thanks.
< sipa>
in fact, some 0x20000000 blocks appeared before 0.12.1 was released
< GitHub19>
[bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #7904: txdb: Fix assert crash in new UTXO set cursor (master...2016_04_fix_utxo_iterator) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7904
< instagibbs>
Chris_Stewart_5, find where it complains about too many sigops. Pretty straight forward.
< Chris_Stewart_5>
instagibbs: The term 'sigop' doesn't exist anywhere in interpreter.cpp. Looks like the error is propogated as a normal SCRIPT_ERR_OP_COUNT.
< sipa>
Chris_Stewart_5: sigops are counted separately, before script execution