< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] kallewoof opened pull request #9235: Refactor: Removes all uses of `using namespace` in all source files. (master...no-using-ns2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9235
< achow101> what happened to createwitnessaddress?
< btcdrak> achow101: it was removed
< achow101> I gathered that much. I don't quite understand why it was removed. Couldn't it just have been modified to check for address validity too?
< sipa> achow101: it has no access to the wallet, so it would at least need an api change
< sipa> where you pass it the full script, pubkeys, ...
< achow101> oh. i see
< fanquake> Finally finished a deterministic fuzzing cycle with 9172. Happy to share the outputs with anyone who'd like a look.
< rabidus> next step: pebble
< rabidus> :)
< rabidus> wow, i didn't know that pebble has some sort of crypto/hash processor
< rabidus> /offtopic
< btcdrak> fullnode wrist watches? I like the idea.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gmaxwell opened pull request #9236: Fix races for strMiscWarning and fLargeWork*Found, make QT runawayException use GetWarnings (master...strMiscraceless) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9236
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c4522e71c7e1...7bd1aa566fb4
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 15fa95d fsb4000: Fix some typos
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7bd1aa5 MarcoFalke: Merge #9233: Fix some typos...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #9233: Fix some typos (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9233
< gmaxwell> damn, I noticed that github is now setting that 'allow edits from maintainers' thing without prompting you.
< luke-jr> gmaxwell: wasn't it always, since introduction?
< gmaxwell> at least before on the pull req screen it was a clear option there, I don't see it now and it's just on.
< luke-jr> :/
< wumpus> yea it always defaulted to on from when the option was there, not sure whether you can change that default for your account
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7bd1aa566fb4...0a0441358c81
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 498a1d7 Ivo van der Sangen: Include select.h when WIN32 is not defined
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0a04413 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9224: Prevent FD_SETSIZE error building on OpenBSD...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9224: Prevent FD_SETSIZE error building on OpenBSD (master...unix-compilation) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9224
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 6 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0a0441358c81...5488514b901d
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 42071ca Matt Corallo: Make fDisconnect an std::atomic
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 047ea10 Matt Corallo: Make fImporting an std::atomic
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master dbfaade Matt Corallo: Fix AddrMan locking
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9225: Fix some benign races (master...2016-11-lockfixes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9225
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5488514b901d...e56cf67e6b3f
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3532818 Wladimir J. van der Laan: bench: Add support for measuring CPU cycles...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e56cf67 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9202: bench: Add support for measuring CPU cycles...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9202: bench: Add support for measuring CPU cycles (master...2016_11_bench_cpu_cycles) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9202
< Chris_Stewart_5> Do redeem scripts have a push op added to them when they are removed from the stack? I'm looking at this test case specifically
< Chris_Stewart_5> When the tx is serialized for a signature, the redeem script has a '43' pushop prepended to it so the script is '4341047...'
< Chris_Stewart_5> in the case of segwit I should say
< morcos> sipa: What do you think about removing txConflicted from the block connection logic? You and I had a discussion about it referenced here: #8692 and sdaftuar and I have been discussing all morning
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8692 | Marking chains of txs conflicted properly · Issue #8692 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< morcos> Right now, it does effectively nothing (marks balances dirty, but the balance recalculation will result in the same balance because the txs conflicted via mempool detection aren't actually marked conflicted)
< morcos> I propose commenting (in the code?) about a general out line of how we could do a better best efforts for also using the mempool for conflict detection. but there are several corner cases that make this a larger project.
< morcos> I think it woudl be simpler to understand if for now we didn' thave this ineffective method sitting around, and later if anyone is inclined they could try a new design to do it properly?
< morcos> BlueMatt: ^ ?
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #9238: Ignore BIP35 mempool command by default (master...2016/11/dis_mempool) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9238
< sipa> morcos: i vaguely remember we're effectively only using the in-wallet confict detection?
< morcos> sipa: correct, the in-wallet detection is the only one that marks conflicted.. that issue links to the IRC convo you and i had, but in short you were proposing we could make the mempool conflict detection also mark conflicted
< morcos> and then be smarter later about how to mark things dirty if they might have become unconflicted
< sipa> hmm
< morcos> this would improve our "best efforts" basis of finding all conflicts
< morcos> but i think there are lots of corner cases and its basically impossible to get perfect
< sipa> my only concern was that it felt stupid to delete code which has a reasonable chance of being close to working
< morcos> my only suggestion now, is remove the misleading and useless mempool conflict detection for now, until we decide to do it better, if we ever do
< sipa> but if you say there are many edge cases to get right, delete it
< morcos> yeah that was my concern too, but i think there are enough issues around it .. yep.. ok, i'll propose a PR
< morcos> not necessarily too many, but too many that we're about to do it anytime soon, and it might look a bit different when we do
< morcos> jonasschnelli: I have some questions about the new smart fee slider label introduced in #8989
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8989 | [Qt] overhaul smart-fee slider, adjust default confirmation target by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #8989 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< morcos> The way the smart fee slider always worked was it was displaying to you the estimate that estimateSMARTfee was returning which might have been at a different number of blocks than your requested target.
< morcos> now it is true, that the pre-existing code was then actually trying to send your transaction with estimatesmartefee from you requested target, which i guess might have changed if that was all of a sudden now possible to return an answer
< morcos> so that was maybe already a slight bug
< morcos> but i think it is confusing now that the label below the slider shows your requested target, which maybe different from the label above ths slider which shows the found target
< morcos> That said... i'm not really sure what the solution is
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] morcos opened pull request #9239: Disable fee estimates for 1 block target (master...blockstreamtil2blocks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9239
< morcos> jonasschnelli: I think the way I did above PR, the problem will be rare that the 2 numbers will be different... so its probably not worth worrying about.. although you should make sure you are ok with changes to smartfeeslider
< Chris_Stewart_5> Is casting to CScriptBase the only way to serialize CScript to a hex string while keeping the push ops around?
< BlueMatt> morcos: hum, I dont think I've looked at the conflict-detection code in forever
< BlueMatt> if you fix it up I'm more than happy to take a look :p
< morcos> BlueMatt: i'm not fixing it up (at least not now) i'm removing the code that doesn't serve a valuable function.. partly pinging you as it affects #9014. anyway, will do and then we can discuss on PR. right now i'm swimming in asserts
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9014 | Fix block-connection performance regression by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9014 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< BlueMatt> morcos: yea, i figured it'd effect 9014, but probably not in any way I care about :p
< jonasschnelli> morcos: good point.
< jonasschnelli> The label does show the requested target
< morcos> jonasschnelli: once we eliminate fee estimates for 1, they will only disagree either on startup or very rarely.. so i think its probably ok..
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] morcos opened pull request #9240: Remove txConflicted (master...removeTxConflicted) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9240