< helo> is there a use case covered by abandontransaction that wouldn't be covered by something like bumpfee <unconfirmed txid> [nblocks=1]?
< helo> probably dirty to implement, though...
< gmaxwell> you ran two copies of a wallet at once and double spent some coins.
< helo> not sure i follow. abandontransaction is good in that scenario?
< GitHub19> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8302: [Qt] Disable some menu items during splashscreen/verification state (0.12...Mf1607-012qtDebugSplash) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8302
< gmaxwell> apparently we're able to connect to 0.0.0.0 now.
< gmaxwell> 2016-07-04 10:21:07 trying connection 0.0.0.0 lastseen=0.0hrs
< gmaxwell> 2016-07-04 10:21:07 connection from 127.0.0.1:35940 accepted
< sipa> ?
< gmaxwell> historically I've used connect=0.0.0.0 as a dummy to not connect to anything, and it seems that now this causes a connection to myself.
< gmaxwell> 2016-07-04 10:32:05 Ignoring getheaders from peer=21 because node is in initial block download
< gmaxwell> hm. thats confusing.
< gmaxwell> "blocks": 887328,
< gmaxwell> I don't understand why it's claiming to be in IBD. the best header it has is just one beyond that.
< sipa> how old is the best header?
< phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, is the time right?
< * phantomcircuit> laughs and runs away
< gmaxwell> ah, indeed.
< gmaxwell> /someone/ is opening up the time window on testnet.
< gmaxwell> my best block timestamp is 3.1 days old (best header timestamp I dunno how to easily get)
< gmaxwell> okay, well that logic is broken.
< jonasschnelli_> wumpus: is this meant for 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8288?
< btcdrak> 47 blocks until csv activation
< afk11> whoop!
< achow101> does a regtest network automatically have segwit deployed from the beginning?
< btcdrak> achow101, no you have to generate blocks first
< achow101> do I have to do the whole deployment thing or will newly generated blocks be segwit blocks
< btcdrak> you have to generate 144*2 blocks
< achow101> why only 288?
< btcdrak> just generate blocks, bitcoind will set and unset the bit. you can see examples here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/qa/rpc-tests/bip9-softforks.py
< achow101> ah. thanks
< btcdrak> yes, 144 transitions to locked_in, then 144 more to transition to activated.
< GitHub110> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/da50997a3ee7...115735d547fd
< GitHub110> bitcoin/master 36f1b9d Suhas Daftuar: Tests: Increase sync_blocks() timeouts in pruning.py
< GitHub110> bitcoin/master 115735d MarcoFalke: Merge #8280: Tests: Increase sync_blocks() timeouts in pruning.py...
< GitHub174> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #8280: Tests: Increase sync_blocks() timeouts in pruning.py (master...fix-pruning-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8280
< btcdrak> CSV activated!
< btcdrak> mined by Kano CKPool 000000000000000004a1b34462cb8aeebd5799177f7a29cf28f2d1961716b5b5
< JackH> \o/
< gmaxwell> \O/
< afk11> :D
< sipa> \\o
< sipa> o//
< sipa> \o/
< sipa> |o|
< afk11> %
< Chris_Stewart_5> ^.^
< moli> btcdrak, no, it was at block 419327 and mined by BTCC
< moli> right?