< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #9733: Add getchaintxstats RPC (master...chaintxstats) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9733
< BlueMatt> cfields: 0.15, please
< BlueMatt> cfields: lets please get simple-to-review shit so we can (finally) get 0.14 out the door
< cfields> BlueMatt: see the PR. I really have no preference
< BlueMatt> wait, which pr?
< BlueMatt> oh, comment
< BlueMatt> cfields: I guess my (weak) preference is atomics
< BlueMatt> because it doesnt change the compiled code for x86 (well, ok, only if we use release/acquire, but close enough) and is more obviously correct (tm)
< cfields> BlueMatt: works for me.
< BlueMatt> cfields: want me to pull it into that pr or a new one? it already has acks....
< cfields> heh
< BlueMatt> hmm?
< cfields> BlueMatt: well, technically commit is buggy because it doesn't fix the race as advertised. So i'd call that a fix to the PR as opposed to something new
< cfields> so I think it makes sense to just stick on top and poke for quick re-acks
< BlueMatt> I'll change the pr title, then :p
< BlueMatt> wait, no pr title was valid when opened
< BlueMatt> "Clean up all known races/platform-specific UB at the time PR was opened #9708
< BlueMatt> "
< BlueMatt> happy now?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9708 | Clean up all known races/platform-specific UB at the time PR was opened by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9708 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< BlueMatt> :p
< cfields> heh, I was just making the point that it's a fix. I really don't care :)
< cfields> lol
< cfields> ok, i'm definitely closing mine now though, since 9708 is tagged for 0.14
< BlueMatt> ok, sounds good, open another one :)
< cfields> tell you what, I'll open another one based on master if it happens to not conflict with yours
< BlueMatt> great! :)
< cfields> without looking, i'd call it 50/50 :)
< BlueMatt> conflict on git's within-3-lines shit? probably....actually conflict? no
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theuni closed pull request #9695: net: fix a few races. Credit @TheBlueMatt (master...net-atomic) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9695
< cfields> actually, I think I'll pass on it either way. I think fatigue of these race commits is starting to set in. And since it's two 1-bit comparisons that have existed in prior releases, it's just not worth holding things up
< BlueMatt> cfields: ok, I have no objections to that, either...when its std::string copies I'm not very happy, when its just pointer == NULL comparisons I suppose I dont care much
< cfields> BlueMatt: sure. The only reason I'd push for it is if it was the lone thing keeping valgrind/helgrind/tsan/etc. from running cleanly.
< BlueMatt> fair
< cfields> and I don't think that's the case?
< BlueMatt> my helgrind is still running cleanly :)
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #9734: Add updating of chainTxData to release process (master...chaintxnotes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9734
< gmaxwell> Whatever patch stack I'm running with here makes tsan clean except for some startup noise.
< gmaxwell> (by noise I mean real issues, in this case.)
< beyondsee> any one here?
< sipa> nope
< cannon-c> no
< paveljanik> haven't seen any one for a long time...
< sipa> paveljanik! what a surprise!
< paveljanik> gribble" later tell anyone Beyonce wanted to talk to you
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/36f9d3ae6da4...33f3b21407a3
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ca9955e Jonas Schnelli: Remove bitseed.xf2.org form the dns seed list
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 33f3b21 Jonas Schnelli: Merge #9730: Remove bitseed.xf2.org form the dns seed list...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #9730: Remove bitseed.xf2.org form the dns seed list (master...2017/02/seeds) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9730
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #9735: devtools: Handle Qt formatting characters edge-case in update-translations.py (master...2017_02_qt_translations) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9735
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #9736: Pre-0.14.0 hardcoded seeds update (master...2017_02_dnsseeds) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9736
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] rebroad opened pull request #9737: Don't disconnect feeler connections prematurely (master...ServicesIrrelevantForFeelerConnections) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9737
< jl2012> Is it useful to have an rpc command for calling TestBlockValidity, with or without checking PoW?
< wumpus> I don't know? what is your use case?
< jl2012> For example, I created a block and want to test if it is valid, before mining it
< wumpus> but sure, a "block proposals" thing could make sense, it has been discussed before on github
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/33f3b21407a3...2447c1024e60
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 45e2e08 Cory Fields: net: rearrange so that socket accesses can be grouped together
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9a0b784 Cory Fields: net: add a lock around hSocket
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2447c10 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9698: net: fix socket close race...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9698: net: fix socket close race (master...fix-socket-disconnect2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9698
< wumpus> though I can't find it right now
< cfields> i'll rebase
< gmaxwell> jl2012: we have block proposals, use getblocktemplate with the mode "proposal" and it will check a block while ignoring the pow.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #9738: gettxoutproof() should return consistent result (master...fixgettxoutproof) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9738
< Chris_Stewart_5> Is there a reason there isn't more functionality exposed for the java secp256k1 api? Or is it a matter of some one just needs to write it?
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2447c1024e60...b860915f8b0d
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9db8eec John Newbery: Fix RPC failure testing...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b860915 MarcoFalke: Merge #9707: Fix RPC failure testing...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #9707: Fix RPC failure testing (master...rpctestassert) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9707
< sipa> Chris_Stewart_5: what is missing?
< sipa> patches welcome
< Chris_Stewart_5> I think you had mentioned there is a CPubKey::IsValid function inside of secp256k1 which is the consensus check if the pubkey is valid?
< sipa> look at what bitcoin core does
< sipa> CPubKey::IsFullyValid
< Chris_Stewart_5> ahh, that makes much more sense.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #9739: Fix BIP68 activation test (master...fixbip68testing) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9739
< cfields> jnewbery: lots of great work!
< jnewbery> Thanks! I've uncovered some gnarly stuff in the course of my archaeology :)
< cfields> jnewbery: heh, i see that. Seems many of the tests have been accidentally working for a while
< jnewbery> yup. Hopefully once these PRs have gone through we'll be in a better place and the tests will actually be testing things!
< cfields> heh
< cfields> jnewbery: i ran into something similar to 9707 (i think) when writing a test recently. I suck at python, and the exception model in mininode is not clear to me. Mind taking look when you have a min and seeing if my approach is reasonable or i'm just piling on more brokenness?
< jnewbery> Absolutely. Very happy to look at it
< cfields> jnewbery: thanks! It's the test added in #9720
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9720 | net: fix banning and disallow sending messages before receiving verack by theuni · Pull Request #9720 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< cfields> jnewbery: ping me when you have a min to look at it and i'll explain the problem?
< jnewbery> Sure. Give me a few minutes
< cfields> no rush
< jnewbery> did you get my private message?