< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #9384: CCoinsViewCache code cleanup & deduplication (based on #9107, #9308, #9310) (master...pr/ccoins-cleanup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9384
< BlueMatt> #9212 0.14 tag?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9212 | Assertion failed: (nSendVersion != 0), function GetSendVersion, file ./net.h, line 775. · Issue #9212 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] kallewoof opened pull request #9387: RAII of libevent stuff using set of wrappers (master...raii-libevents) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9387
< wumpus> tagged #9212
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9212 | Assertion failed: (nSendVersion != 0), function GetSendVersion, file ./net.h, line 775. · Issue #9212 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7f72568e6b15...3097ea40d719
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master faf4ca8 MarcoFalke: [wallet] Disable free transactions when relay is disabled
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3097ea4 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9316: [wallet] Disable free transactions when relay is disabled...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9316: [wallet] Disable free transactions when relay is disabled (master...Mf1612-sendFreeNo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9316
< btcdrak> wumpus: now that instagibbs addressed the maps nit in 9262, is it mergeable?
< btcdrak> i backported it aswell
< wumpus> btcdrak: yes. I think so
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 5 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3097ea40d719...5a70572049d0
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0b2294a Gregory Sanders: SelectCoinsMinConf: Prefer coins with fewer ancestors
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5882c09 Gregory Sanders: CreateTransaction: Don't return success with too-many-ancestor txn
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master af9bedb Gregory Sanders: Test for fix of txn chaining in wallet
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9262: Prefer coins that have fewer ancestors, sanity check txn before ATMP (master...toolong) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9262
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9382: [backport 0.13] Prefer coins that have fewer ancestors, sanity check txn before ATMP (0.13...backport9262) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9382
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/8e707e868d6020de0d352279eed4fcd0138f3695
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.13 8e707e8 Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Add #9382 to release notes
< wumpus> will label 0.13.2rc1 in a bit - doing last-minute checks
< btcdrak> wumpus: exciting :)
< rabidus_> nice
< jtimon> yeah, nice
< wumpus> * [new tag] v0.13.2rc1 -> v0.13.2rc1
< btcdrak> \o/
< instagibbs> woohoo
< thrasher`> nice :D
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] rebroad opened pull request #9388: Relative time (master...RelativeTime) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9388
< achow101> eh, a tag. I'm late to the party!
< MarcoFalke_web> first matching sig!
< jtimon> I would really welcome help from experts on ./rpc-tests/segwit.py or ./rpc-tests/p2p-compactblocks.py I really can't understand why changing the genesis block of regtests should be an issue or how can I correct it or find my error
< jtimon> sorry, I'm talking about #8994 again, which changes all rpc/py tests from "regtest" to "custom" (the tests should be identical except for the genesis block, those 2 tests resist)
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8994 | Testchains: Introduce custom chain whose constructor... by jtimon · Pull Request #8994 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< instagibbs> jtimon, what error are you getting
< jtimon> in each of them, one test is failing, let me go back to what line was failing on each
< gmaxwell> \O/ hurray about the RC.
< instagibbs> jtimon, please give more info thanks
< jtimon> oh, sorry, I forgot
< jtimon> in segwit.py the first error is in L428, in L844
< jtimon> in segwit.py the first error is in L428, in qa/rpc-tests/p2p-compactblocks.py in L844
< jtimon> in all the rest everything seems to be working fine, my fear is omse of them aren't calling setup_chain()
< jtimon> in segwit.py the error is "missing inputs", my guess is that the tests are somehow using regtest genesis block instead of the custom chain one
< MarcoFalke_web> Does the new chain work with the caching in the python tests?
< MarcoFalke_web> looking at your pull, it should
< jtimon> the custom chain should be completely identical for regtest and custom by default expect for the genesis block
< jtimon> mhmm, this commit says I need to fix p2p-segwit too...https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8994/commits/8e3de77110892e3684a9cb98ced9c9129997257c
< jtimon> ideally, that commit would only touch test_framework.py and be squashed somewhere
< jtimon> I'm pretty convinced it has something to do with the mininodes, but there still some chain-dependent code I'm looking fore
< cfields> gitian builders: detached sigs for 0.13.2rc1 pushed.
< timothy> hi, I have a slightly question. I'm trying to integrate bitcoin with tor under docker
< timothy> it works, but unlucky -proxy and -torcontrol doesn't support hostnames, but only IPs and this doesn't work under docker-compose
< gmaxwell> the tor support in Bitcoin Core really intends the tor daemon to be on localhost.
< gmaxwell> if it's on another host right now it will end up banning the tor host.
< timothy> well, it works also if you have the tor daemon on another host, but I need to specify the ip :P
< gmaxwell> It doesn't work for long.
< timothy> ok, wrong idea. thank you :)
< sipa> -proxy certainly accepts IP addresses
< gmaxwell> hopefully we'll fix that in an upcoming version.
< gmaxwell> sipa: yes, outbound would be fine.
< jtimon> right, for simple proxies an env variable for docker may be enough
< gmaxwell> Proxy won't take a hostname?
< btcdrak> I dont mean to be a stick in the mud, but why are merge commits not signed in the gitian.sigs repository?
< MarcoFalke_web> What would it help?
< sipa> gmaxwell: seems it doesn't
< jtimon> no, but environment variable would give the ip, no? I'm not really sure what he is trying to do so probably I shouldn't talk
< gmaxwell> lol, gitian sigs are already sigs.
< MarcoFalke_web> btcdrak: Your linux has a mismatch
< btcdrak> MarcoFalke_web: just the linux one?
< MarcoFalke_web> jup
< btcdrak> weird.
< gmaxwell> A request for 0.13rc2 testers: Please run ./qa/pull-tester/rpc-tests.py ... we have this fantastic test suite and I get the impression that a lot of people only use it via travis. If there are bad interactions with your system and the software these tests are probably more likely to reveal them then just your local testing alone.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #9389: 0.13.2 release process (0.13...Mf1612-01302Bump) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9389
< achow101> a bunch of tests just failed for me
< instagibbs> achow101, make sure you don't have zombie processes or cache folder lying around
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #9390: travis: make distdir (master...Mf1612-travisDistDir) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9390
< achow101> I'm gitian building at the same time, so that might be interfering with something too
< MarcoFalke> Could be also OOM
< achow101> could be
< morcos> sipa: i've spent too long confused by move semantics already today, but i think there is an easily fixable potential bug... can you take a quick look
< morcos> in wallet.cpp under the logic for -walletrejectlongchains
< morcos> hasn't txNew been moved from?
< sipa> what line?
< morcos> search for walletrejectlongchains, i'm not on master
< morcos> right under that
< morcos> sorry second occurence, line 2566
< sipa> yup
< sipa> i wonder how that code works at all
< morcos> thats what i mean by confused
< morcos> i made the same error myself on some other wallet code i was working on earlier
< sipa> txNew in practice will just have empty txin and txout
< morcos> same bug in 0.13.2
< morcos> if you don't mind taking it from here.. i have a couple things i'm rushing to finish before dinner
< morcos> but out of curiousity, why is that such an easy mistake to make? shouldn't there be a compiler warning or something
< sipa> there can't be
< sipa> well, it could be a suggestion
< sipa> but in general, use after move is well defined
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #9391: wallet: Remove sendfree (master...Mf1612-015walletSendFreeNONO) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9391
< gmaxwell> rc1 appears to be reporting "subver": "/Satoshi:0.13.1/",
< sipa> see #9389
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9389 | 0.13.2 release process by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #9389 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gmaxwell> heh just went and made most of those changes.. should have paid more attention.
< achow101> for what reasons would core close a connection to another node besides shutdown on one side?
< phantomcircuit> achow101, various protocol violations which are eggregious
< achow101> would a getdata message with the segwit flags (msg_witness_tx, etc) cause that right now since segwit is not activated?
< achow101> also, would such a disconnect show up in the debug.log?
< BlueMatt> before anyone freaks out, no, I think #9392 is 0.14.0 tag not 0.13.2, as mentioned in the review of 9262
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9392 | Wallet ancestor sanity-check ignores sigops · Issue #9392 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< achow101> what's up with these 0.13.1 nodes with short sendcmpct messages?