< GitHub34> [bitcoin] theuni closed pull request #8023: RFC: Interruptible threads (master...interruptible-thread) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8023
< GitHub184> [bitcoin] theuni opened pull request #8631: Nuke boost::thread and boost::thread_group (master...no-interrupt-threads) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8631
< GitHub111> [bitcoin] JeremyRubin opened pull request #8632: Speed up prevector tests by parallelization (master...faster_prevector_tests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8632
< achow101> how do i use the cookie based auth
< GitHub112> [bitcoin] JeremyRubin opened pull request #8633: Ugly hack to print out tests as they are run to mitigate travis timeouts (master...test-driver-hack) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8633
< achow101> how do I force bitcoind to have a cookie even if an rpcpassword and rpcuser are set?
< gmaxwell> achow101: use rpcauth instead.
< gmaxwell> strUsage += HelpMessageOpt("-rpcauth=<userpw>", _("Username and hashed password for JSON-RPC connections. The field <userpw> comes in the format: <USERNAME>:<SALT>$<HASH>. A canonical python script is included in share/rpcuser. This option can be specified multiple times"));
< achow101> I don't think that really fits what I am trying to do
< achow101> the idea is that the user should be able to just start Bitcoin Core with no options (except server=1 I guess) and the software (Armory) would be able to automatically know how to connect to the server without any user input
< achow101> it seems that cookie auth is best for this since the cookie is automatically generated
< gmaxwell> thats what the cookie auth is for.
< gmaxwell> achow101: what I'm telling you is to stop setting rpcuser/rpcpassword, they're depricated and will be removed.
< achow101> I know. I'm working on that, hence cookie auth
< gmaxwell> Currently it lodges a complaint in the debug.log.
< gmaxwell> And rpcauth does not disable cookie auth.
< achow101> I was primarily trying to figure out a way to not completely wreck backwards compatibility
< jeremyrubin> gmaxwell: if you have a moment could you look at the build settings for the bench code? Reproducably (by cfields and I) it doesn't run under wine.
< jeremyrubin> gmaxwell: even on this branch which removes sys/time https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...JeremyRubin:refactor-bench
< jeremyrubin> gmaxwell: (I'm asking you specifically because you seem to have spent some time on it fairly recently)
< cfields> jeremyrubin: did you reproduce on win64 as well?
< jeremyrubin> cfields: yes
< jeremyrubin> cfields: different error but same failure to start
< cfields> jeremyrubin: i'm wondering if any of the win32 crap we do in AppInit2 is necessary for bench_bitcoin
< jeremyrubin> cfields: Is that done in bench_bitcoin now?
< cfields> jeremyrubin: no. but looking at it now, i don't see how any of those things would help
< jeremyrubin> cfields: ok I've narrowed it to SetupEnvironment
< jeremyrubin> cfields: nevermind, was a dirty build
< GitHub36> [bitcoin] jl2012 opened pull request #8634: Add policy: null signature for failed CHECK(MULTI)SIG (master...nullfail) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8634
< GitHub47> [bitcoin] jl2012 opened pull request #8635: Enforce mandatory softfork flags for segwit block/tx (master...mandatorysegwitflags) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8635
< jl2012> why violating the nLockTime has 10 DoS score instead of 100? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/6c9f1b8c24052134413b1a7d7d0599339daffc32/src/main.cpp#L3547
< GitHub134> [bitcoin] jl2012 opened pull request #8636: Implement NULLDUMMY softfork (master...nulldummy) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8636
< GitHub8> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2b23dbaee5b8...df3f12d4096c
< GitHub8> bitcoin/master 323a5fe Alexey Vesnin: Berkeley DB v6 compatibility fix...
< GitHub8> bitcoin/master df3f12d Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8626: Berkeley DB v6 compatibility fix...
< GitHub84> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8626: Berkeley DB v6 compatibility fix (master...netsafe-patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8626
< GitHub76> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/df3f12d4096c...e8ed6eb45731
< GitHub76> bitcoin/master fa994a7 MarcoFalke: contrib: Don't use shell=True
< GitHub76> bitcoin/master e8ed6eb Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8621: [contrib] python: Don't use shell=True...
< GitHub86> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8621: [contrib] python: Don't use shell=True (master...Mf1608-trivial17) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8621
< phantomcircuit> jl2012: it's something you could reasonably just screw up
< GitHub143> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e8ed6eb45731...f25684300a72
< GitHub143> bitcoin/master 883175f Wladimir J. van der Laan: build: Updates for OpenBSD...
< GitHub143> bitcoin/master 6275123 Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Update build-openbsd for 0.13.0+ and OpenBSD 5.9...
< GitHub143> bitcoin/master f256843 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8604: build,doc: Update for 0.13.0+ and OpenBSD 5.9...
< GitHub114> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8604: build,doc: Update for 0.13.0+ and OpenBSD 5.9 (master...2016_08_openbsd_update) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8604
< jl2012> phantomcircuit: since it is already a block, there is no reason for that to be violated
< phantomcircuit> jl2012: it's something that people actually do break when experimenting on testnet at least
< GitHub72> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8187: [0.12.2] backport: [qa] Switch to py3 (0.12...Mf1606-qaPy3Backport) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8187
< GitHub28> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 0.12: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1233cb42dde9...15502d7b2543
< GitHub28> bitcoin/0.12 2826565 MarcoFalke: [qa] Switch to py3...
< GitHub28> bitcoin/0.12 15502d7 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8187: [0.12.2] backport: [qa] Switch to py3...
< GitHub177> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f25684300a72...0c8875d23b37
< GitHub177> bitcoin/master de1bbe3 Pavel Janík: Do not shadow global RPC table variable (tableRPC)
< GitHub177> bitcoin/master 0c8875d Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8163: Do not shadow global RPC table variable (tableRPC)...
< GitHub86> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8163: Do not shadow global RPC table variable (tableRPC) (master...20160607_shadowing_rpc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8163
< GitHub199> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0c8875d23b37...5cac8b123e7e
< GitHub199> bitcoin/master 33336e1 MarcoFalke: [util] CopyrightHolders: Check for untranslated substitution...
< GitHub199> bitcoin/master 5cac8b1 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8291: [util] CopyrightHolders: Check for untranslated substitution...
< GitHub111> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8291: [util] CopyrightHolders: Check for untranslated substitution (master...Mf1607-utilCopy) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8291
< GitHub175> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5cac8b123e7e...abc677c9a98a
< GitHub175> bitcoin/master b175cb7 Pavel Janík: Do not shadow variables.
< GitHub175> bitcoin/master abc677c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8191: Do not shadow variables in src/wallet...
< GitHub10> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8191: Do not shadow variables in src/wallet (master...20160611_shadowing_wallet) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8191
< achow101> MasteR01
< achow101> oops
< murch> sipa: I had read part of the discussion on the BIP status updates on the dev list. There was a bit about the gap limit there and I assumed that Bitcoin Core also implements BIP44.
< murch> Maybe I assumed incorrectly
< sipa> bitcoin core does not implement bip44
< murch> sipa: okay, thanks, I'll correct
< murch> So, it fills up the regular keypool of 100 instead?
< sipa> yes
< sipa> the bip32 support is very very basic
< sipa> it won't automatically recover addresses or anything
< sipa> it just makes sure that a backup contains enough to not lose money
< murch> sipa: so to recover money, you could just increase the keypool parameter?
< instagibbs> murch, or createnewaddress a bunch of times
< sipa> or call getnewaddress
< murch> ah yes
< instagibbs> or whatever its called <_<
< GitHub163> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #8637: Compact Block Tweaks (rebase of #8235) (master...compactblocktweaks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8637
< murch> sipa: I didn't get a ticket for Scaling Bitcoin unfortunately. :( I'm now hoping that my proposal will be accepted, otherwise it looks like I might not be able to go. (I'm on the waiting list.)
< GitHub24> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #8138: Add maximal amount-of-transactions limit to checkblock/CVerifyDB (master...2016/06/verify_db) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8138
< GitHub127> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/abc677c9a98a...84decb54f259
< GitHub127> bitcoin/master 887919c Pieter Wuille: Check for compatibility with download in FindNextBlocksToDownload
< GitHub127> bitcoin/master 84decb5 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8612: Check for compatibility with download in FindNextBlocksToDownload...
< GitHub53> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8612: Check for compatibility with download in FindNextBlocksToDownload (master...fixwitban) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8612
< gmaxwell> needs backport ^
< instagibbs> who normally takes charge of backports?
< instagibbs> the original author?
< sipa> the release manager for the backport
< sipa> unless the patches are very nontrivial to backport
< gmaxwell> in that case, the patch just applies.
< warren> I'm surprised to find that the gitian documentation in the bitcoin repo no longer explains the gitian default qemu-kvm (non-LXC) method of using make-base-vm.
< GitHub155> [bitcoin] theuni closed pull request #8542: RFC: net: Pass best block known height into net (master...pass-in-height) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8542
< GitHub55> [bitcoin] yurizhykin closed pull request #8313: Use std::move() instead of copying/removing in TxMemPool (master...tx-delete) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8313
< jtimon> #8493 welcomes new review, although it's moveonly base #8337 failed for an unkown reason
< jtimon> as explained in the OP TODOs, BlockIndexInterface can be made void for the interface, gaining C++11 extensibility
< jtimon> internally
< GitHub107> [bitcoin] djpnewton opened pull request #8638: rest.cpp: change HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR to HTTP_BAD_REQUEST (master...patch-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8638
< achow101> W0sh1h@njuch@m
< achow101> oops
< cfields> achow101: time to change that one :)
< achow101> yep