< otebuv>
what are the main differences between bitcoin-core and bitcoinj in terms of functionality
< Chris_Stewart_5>
How long is a 'retarget period' in BIP9?
< Chris_Stewart_5>
Seems like it isn't defined in BIP9 unless I am missing something..
< pigeons>
is it 2015 blocks or 2016?
< Chris_Stewart_5>
pigeons: Could be, it would make sense from drawing conclusions from the code snippets
< luke-jr>
otebuv: Bitcoin Core implements (and defines) the actual Bitcoin protocol, whereas BitcoinJ just has enough to trust a remote Bitcoin Core node
< luke-jr>
(BlueMatt added Core-imitation logic implementing the actual Bitcoin protocol in BitcoinJ years ago, but AFAIK it's likely buggy and outdated by now)
< luke-jr>
(and nobody uses it afaik, which is probably a good thing)
< otebuv>
@luke-jr what about wallet/addresses functionality can i create new wallet addresses with bitcoin-core
< luke-jr>
otebuv: Bitcoin Core does indeed have a wallet builtin
< luke-jr>
in fact, it was the ONLY wallet for several years, and still the most mature
< BlueMatt>
yea, it really, really should be removed
< BlueMatt>
and is very outdated now
< luke-jr>
BlueMatt: referring to BitcoinJ's impl of the protocol, and not Core's wallet, I assume?
< BlueMatt>
yea
< paveljanik>
BlueMatt, #8068 doesn't compile at all here now (with clang).
< paveljanik>
./blockencodings.h:36:33: error: no matching conversion for functional-style cast from 'unsigned long' to 'CCompactSize'
< luke-jr>
paveljanik: maybe another 32/64-bit issue?
< BlueMatt>
looks like it...i fixed thaat bug in two other places....
< BlueMatt>
just missed one
< BlueMatt>
paveljanik: try now?
< paveljanik>
will do
< paveljanik>
./blockencodings.h:157:35: error: no matching function for call to 'min'
< BlueMatt>
huh
< BlueMatt>
its fucking std::min........
< BlueMatt>
paveljanik: added the include......
< luke-jr>
BlueMatt: std::min only works when both arguments are exactly the same type
< luke-jr>
and it won't cast implicitly
< BlueMatt>
fucking 32-bit......
< paveljanik>
BlueMatt, you are on 32bits?
< BlueMatt>
no
< BlueMatt>
I suppose I'd be having these issues if I were :p
< paveljanik>
I'm on x86_64...
< paveljanik>
BlueMatt, now there are only two other errors: ./blockencodings.h:40 and 82 std::min
< BlueMatt>
wtf
< BlueMatt>
ugh...make me fucking install clang
< BlueMatt>
anddddd...clang segfaults
< BlueMatt>
well i fixed the std::min
< paveljanik>
retrying...
< paveljanik>
passed the file now. Congrats! ;-)
< BlueMatt>
heh
< BlueMatt>
does clang really make size_t a 32-bit on 64-bit platforms???
< BlueMatt>
that seems somewhat strange to me
< paveljanik>
no no. It is unsigned long vs. unsigned long long
< BlueMatt>
yea, unsigned long is probably 32-bit, no?
< paveljanik>
unsigned long is 8 bytes long here.
< paveljanik>
and ULL is 8 bytes here
< BlueMatt>
heh, funny that it complains when 2 8-byte types dont match
< GitHub87>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8033: Fix Socks5() connect failures to be less noisy and less unnecessarily scary (master...proxy_fail_too_scary) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8033
< BlueMatt>
luke-jr: so it looks like its in the review queue?
< luke-jr>
yeah
< luke-jr>
but it's fairly important to get released before CSV activates
< sipa>
csv won't activate soon
< BlueMatt>
it might, but, indeed, there seems to be some meme about CSV not being useful without segwit :/
< luke-jr>
could be within a month, no? and we need time for rc testing etc
< luke-jr>
hmm
< morcos>
how important is it for us to get CSV activated soon?
< luke-jr>
I don't know any urgent need for it tbh
< BlueMatt>
dont think its /criticial/, but it would be very nice for a few folks
< sipa>
the demand for csv is for supporting htlcz
< luke-jr>
htlcz?
< morcos>
but doesn't it seem like segwit is such a big additional improvement that its not worth trying to push for CSV adoption now and instead saving our energy for segwit adoption?
< BlueMatt>
luke-jr: s/z/s/
< luke-jr>
ah
< BlueMatt>
morcos: it would be very nice if it didnt activate at the same time, but while there are some use-cases, its true, I'm not aware of anyone clamoring for csv RIGHT NOW
< morcos>
BlueMatt: just for the purposes of having a live VB activation before segwit?
< BlueMatt>
it is kinda dissapointing that miners dont care enough to upgrade, since there were other bugfixes there, but whatever
< luke-jr>
I got the (mistaken?) impression BlueMatt and gmaxwell were upset CSV was taking long, so I assumed it was getting pressure on
< morcos>
that doesn't seem so critical to me, now that we've had so many testnet type activations
< BlueMatt>
morcos: yea, that would be nice too
< morcos>
i agree its disappointing, but i'm not sure its something thats worth worrying about or doing anything about. lets just roll out the next great thing
< BlueMatt>
luke-jr: no, I think gmaxwell would very much like it to move forward faster, and I am dissapointed that its not, but as morcos points out, its not critical
< sipa>
what could be do to improve adoption?
< luke-jr>
sipa: 0.11 backport would get Eligius
< BlueMatt>
sipa: not much, a few folks were bugging the 2 big miners left
< luke-jr>
right now solo depends on VB GBT, and Eligius depends on either 0.11 backport or 0.12 CPFP testing/review
< sipa>
luke-jr: i'll review the patches tomorrow
< BlueMatt>
luke-jr: I'm working on the cpfp review
< BlueMatt>
next topic?
< luke-jr>
should we make specific plans for the weekend?
< luke-jr>
or maybe jonasschnelli already has that planned
< BlueMatt>
I think thats already mostly planned/most folks arent here/there is an email thread
< sipa>
yes
< luke-jr>
oh, has anyone looked at the OpenSSL exploits?
< jonasschnelli>
I haven't planed a schedule on what to talk about or on what to work. I think this should be done together.
< jonasschnelli>
Any I guess 20 people can't work on the same thing. We might need to form groups.
< sipa>
if there are no further topics, i suggest closing the meeting soon
< luke-jr>
OpenSSL exploits could be a topic. IIRC there was an uncertainty of the risk of the last batch
< BlueMatt>
sounds good to me
< BlueMatt>
luke-jr: yes, someone should look at that
< BlueMatt>
luke-jr: you feel like digging into it?
< luke-jr>
if we're going to release 0.12.2 with the VB GBT stuff, might as well bump OpenSSL with it?
< sipa>
that sou ds reasonable
< luke-jr>
BlueMatt: I don't feel competent in crypto, but I could dig a little I guess
< sipa>
sounds
< BlueMatt>
luke-jr: indeed, if we do another release (I think we'd need a quorum here to discuss that), then we should bump openssl
< luke-jr>
guess nothing else to discuss?
< BlueMatt>
#endmeeting
< lightningbot>
Meeting ended Thu May 19 19:24:06 2016 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)