< GitHub48> [bitcoin] pstratem opened pull request #7985: [Consensus] Add nAdjustedTime parameter to CheckBlock and CheckBlockHeader. (master...2016-05-01-checkblock-header) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7985
< phantomcircuit> gmaxwell: ^ ping
< gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: concept ack. While I'm here, can you get fuzzing going on matt's compact block relay new message types?
< phantomcircuit> i've been fuzzing most of the deserialization but had the same issue with linking as i'm having with CheckBlock
< phantomcircuit> best i can tell there's an issue with -fPIC and -fPIE being mixed somewhere but it doesn't really make any sense to me yet
< phantomcircuit> the next step for that is to make params also a parameter
< phantomcircuit> brb
< phantomcircuit> b
< gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6634387/c-statically-linked-shared-library < is that the error you're getting?
< phantomcircuit> gmaxwell: yeah
< phantomcircuit> i get what the issue is, i'm just not sure how to fix it with autotools
< jonasschnelli> gmaxwell, sipa: re encryption: Did we agree on rekeying = cranking the initial KDF by HASH(old_sym_key)?
< jonasschnelli> Lee Clagett mentioned (http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-April/012604.html) that a single ECDH should be sufficient for both directions. What do you think about that?
< jonasschnelli> «Why are there two key exchanges? A single shared-secret could be used
< jonasschnelli> to generate keys for each direction. And it would reinforce the single
< jonasschnelli> symmetric cipher rule.»
< sipa> i don't disagree; i think it's just easier to keep it seoarate
< sipa> *separate
< jonasschnelli> Yes. Let's keep it for now.
< jonasschnelli> What about dropping the Symmetric Cipher Negotiation for the first version of the BIP?
< jonasschnelli> There is only ChaCha20-Poly1305 anyways.
< jonasschnelli> If we would extend the encryption to support multiple symmetric cipher suites, we could work that out in detail.
< jonasschnelli> (later)
< GitHub145> [bitcoin] tuladhar opened pull request #7986: Refactor bitcoin-cli.cpp (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7986
< GitHub6> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0ad104190465...86b800c6a299
< GitHub6> bitcoin/master 073225c Wladimir J. van der Laan: chain: define enum used as bit field as uint32_t...
< GitHub6> bitcoin/master 07e4edb Wladimir J. van der Laan: auto_ptr → unique_ptr...
< GitHub6> bitcoin/master 86b800c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7964: Minor changes for c++11 consistency...
< GitHub16> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7964: Minor changes for c++11 consistency (master...2016_04_c++11_consistency) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7964
< GitHub92> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7983: Use std::unique_ptr instead of auto_ptr. (master...unique-ptr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7983
< GitHub168> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/86b800c6a299...03cf6e867502
< GitHub168> bitcoin/master f4ac02e Kaz Wesley: fix race that could fail to persist a ban...
< GitHub168> bitcoin/master 03cf6e8 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7959: fix race that could fail to persist a ban...
< GitHub132> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7959: fix race that could fail to persist a ban (master...banmap_race) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7959
< spudowiar1> if I were my brother's age now, I'd be rich now
< spudowiar1> anyone know where I can get proofs about Satoshi being uncovered?
< murch> spudowiar1: #bitcoin is chewing that piece of fat. Here is probably not the right place.
< spudowiar1> yeah, just found it
< spudowiar1> murch: forgot to join Bitcoin related channels on IRC
< spudowiar1> murch: just remembered
< GitHub86> [bitcoin] tuladhar opened pull request #7989: bitcoin-cli.cpp: Use symbolic constant for exit code (master...patch-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7989
< GitHub78> [bitcoin] tuladhar closed pull request #7986: Refactor bitcoin-cli.cpp (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7986
< spudowiar> hehe
< MarcoFalke> paveljanik, do you see the IndexError('pop from empty list',) often?
< paveljanik> MarcoFalke, master or 7980?
< paveljanik> current 7980 looks OK, no issues so far.
< paveljanik> but in the previous commit, almost always IIRC
< MarcoFalke> Hmm
< MarcoFalke> but good that it is now fixed, somehow
< paveljanik> I can't judge myself, sorry. I can only state what fails in the master and is OK in your PR.
< MarcoFalke> It is popping from the unspents, so if the dict was ordered wrong and you ended up with odd unspents... Maybe that caused it.
< MarcoFalke> I am running with the py3 patch and this dict-patch right now in a loop
< MarcoFalke> If there are no issues, I think it is fine
< paveljanik> BTW - why the difference between running from the main dir as python qa/rpc/... and ./smartfee.py?
< paveljanik> will be back in half an hour.
< MarcoFalke> Sure
< MarcoFalke> There should be no difference. It is just me being in the root dir all the time ;)
< paveljanik> MarcoFalke, ok, but why it has different results?
< paveljanik> on master, python qa/rpc-tests/smartfees.py --srcdir=src almost always ends up on "pop from empty list". But ./smartfee.py never...
< MarcoFalke> Which means self.nodes[0].listunspent(0) is empty
< MarcoFalke> Corrupt cache?
< paveljanik> what cache? Isn't it setting everything from scratch itself?
< paveljanik> a, you mean cache/ directory?
< MarcoFalke> Jup
< paveljanik> Right, removing it fixed the problem.
< paveljanik> 8)
< paveljanik> I was fooled by "Initializing test directory /var/folders/65/fn0h49r55k7779vg1b_h461r0000gn/T/testOdh...." 8)
< MarcoFalke> Yes, it is not really intuitive, as the cache dirs end up in different locations
< MarcoFalke> There prop should be only one cache dir at the root
< cfields> gmaxwell: took way too long to get to this, but: https://dev.bitcoincore.org/cfields/post-segwit.coverage/
< sdaftuar> cfields: that's the test suite coverage? i was just wanting to look at that...
< cfields> sdaftuar: yes, that's all tests, excluding extended pruning rpc
< sdaftuar> ah ok, awesome. thanks!
< paveljanik> MarcoFalke, tests running now - on master, every second fails, 7980: every test was OK so far. Will report tomorrow. Thank you!
< cfields> I'm looking through it now to see what's interesting to test for
< cfields> sdaftuar: as a next step i'm trying to create a coverage diff, but i'm not sure if the tools know how to handle that
< sdaftuar> cool. i'm going through the PR commit by commit, so i'll see if i can just manually look at what code hasn't been tested
< GitHub4> [bitcoin] kazcw opened pull request #7991: Save 7% total memory usage by using pointers as keys in mapNextTx (master...memusage) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7991
< gmaxwell> nickler: You asked me earlier about coverage, see cfiel ds above.
< james341> hey
< james341> can u help me with something?
< james341> now I am in a very difficult situation and I do not have enough money even for food . who do not mind , please give me a couple of dollars . here is my Bitcoin address :"1HZAGzo7DJ4cqMuHuhjPZY1hwHhZYU52Tu" . I will be very grateful to anyone who can help me -- do not consider this topic for spam, I need help
< spudowiar1> oin
< achow101> Is gavin's commit access still revoked?
< gmaxwell> Yes. I think it's unlikely to be restored. It hasn't been used in a year, and the situation with CSW is still very screwy.
< molz> gmaxwell, but what does it mean his name is still on this page: https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/people
< gmaxwell> molz: he's an org member with readonly access. like luke-jr. for example. (there are others, but they're set to private)
< molz> gmaxwell, ah.. thanks for this info, i kept wondering about this
< gmaxwell> (being an org member lets you assign tickets to them-- really bitcoin core should probably make a lot more people org members)