< chatter29> hey guys
< chatter29> allah is doing
< chatter29> sun is not doing allah is doing
< chatter29> to accept Islam say that i bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad peace be upon him is his slave and messenger
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/080d7c700fc3...fadf078c9cd7
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master bd41d98 Andrew Chow: Datadir option in linearize scripts...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fadf078 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10104: linearize script: Option to use RPC cookie...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10104: linearize script: Option to use RPC cookie (master...linearize-use-cookie) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10104
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/fadf078c9cd7...5fc6a77aa626
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5b95a19 Alex Morcos: Make pcoinsTip memory calculations consistent...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f33afd3 Alex Morcos: Lower default memory footprint slightly
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1b55e07 Alex Morcos: Make threshold for flushing more conservative....
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10133: Clean up calculations of pcoinsTip memory usage (master...cachememory) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10133
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 0.14: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a44a6a15f94a...0e5133cb2ef8
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.14 ab864d3 Alex Morcos: Make pcoinsTip memory calculations consistent...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.14 d686768 Alex Morcos: Lower default memory footprint slightly...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.14 0e5133c Alex Morcos: Make threshold for flushing more conservative....
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5fc6a77aa626...f93f9b92969b
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ba7dd8b Suhas Daftuar: Test prioritisetransaction and ancestor fee state...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9bef02e Suhas Daftuar: Bugfix: ancestor modifed fees were incorrect for descendants...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f93f9b9 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10144: Prioritisetransaction wasn't always updating ancestor fee...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10144: Prioritisetransaction wasn't always updating ancestor fee (master...2017-04-fix-mempool-modified-ancestor-fees) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10144
< wumpus> I think we're ready to tag 0.14.1rc1 again
< jonasschnelli> ack
< sipa> awesöme
< gmaxwell> awesöme
< fanquake> I didn't realise we'd already done it once
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 0.14: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0e5133cb2ef8...47d24c85b71b
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.14 d947afc Suhas Daftuar: Test prioritisetransaction and ancestor fee state...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.14 ea060c7 Suhas Daftuar: Bugfix: ancestor modifed fees were incorrect for descendants...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.14 47d24c8 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Bump version to 0.14.1
< wumpus> no I didn't actually do it last friday, but was about to
< gmaxwell> technically we're supposted to update the assumevalid, and work.. doesn't really matter much if we don't. But stating it for the future.
< wumpus> that would need another review cycle
< wumpus> it's not 'obvious' like the version bump
< gmaxwell> yea, thats why I'm not saying "hold up hold up"
< wumpus> but yes it's close enough after 0.14.0 that it shouldn't really matter
< gmaxwell> yea, it's fine.
< wumpus> v0.14.1rc1 pushed
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f93f9b92969b...fade78854cf4
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master faab624 MarcoFalke: logging: Fix off-by-one for shrinkdebugfile
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fade788 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10153: logging: Fix off-by-one for shrinkdebugfile default...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10153: logging: Fix off-by-one for shrinkdebugfile default (master...Mf1704-offbyoneDebug) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10153
< wumpus> MarcoFalke: off-by-one errors on booleans are an interesting concept :)
< wumpus> off-by-one and off-by-everything at the same time
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #10155: build: Deduplicate version numbers (master...2017_03_version_bump) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10155
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] AllanDoensen opened pull request #10156: Fix for issues with startup and mutiple monitors on windows. (master...masterMultiMonFix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10156
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/fade78854cf4...3c95bd43d8ff
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master faafa80 MarcoFalke: init: Remove redundant logging code
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3c95bd4 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10154: init: Remove redundant logging code...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10154: init: Remove redundant logging code (master...Mf1704-lognodebug) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10154
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3c95bd43d8ff...c7e73eafa139
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master cd7f394 John Newbery: initialize flag variable to 0 (and continue if GetLogCategory() fails)
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c7e73ea Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10151: [logging] initialize flag variable to 0 (and continue if GetLogCategory() fails)...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10151: [logging] initialize flag variable to 0 (and continue if GetLogCategory() fails) (master...logging_initialization) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10151
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 0.14: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/920acbcca8240cb11a74055a81d5129c8a4c85af
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.14 920acbc Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Update release notes for 0.14.1
< wumpus> anoyone care to write something about notable changes in 0.14.1? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.14/doc/release-notes.md#notable-changes
< wumpus> (or if you contributed to 0.14.1 and somehow your name is missing in the credits, let me know)
< sipa> only behavior changes are the already listed arg rename, memory usage changes, and default segwit enable?
< wumpus> yes, I think so
< wumpus> lol "#10094 37bf0d5 0.14: Clear release notes (MarcoFalke)" I left a meta-PR in
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10094 | 0.14: Clear release notes by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #10094 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< fanquake> Looks alright
< fanquake> wumpus will you try push detached sigs tonight? I'll upload my unsigned sigs in a minute.
< wumpus> fanquake: that's up to cfields, I think he waits for a few unsigned sigs first
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 0.14: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/df82ea914f6f569e244ab59ca24e4eea898eb1a9
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.14 df82ea9 Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Remove release note about release notes
< Victorsueca> lol, release-note-inception
< wumpus> yeah :-)
< sdaftuar> wumpus: i think the backport of the test in #10144 to the 0.14 branch is broken, due to the api change in prioritisetransaction
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10144 | An error has occurred and has been logged. Please contact this bot's administrator for more information.
< wumpus> okay
< sdaftuar> i'll try to pr a fix shortly
< wumpus> yes I only looked whether the test wouldn't start failing after backport
< wumpus> it could be passing wrongly
< BlockchainKid> hi
< sdaftuar> wumpus: odd, the test is failing for me locally due to the api change, maybe its an extended test?
< sdaftuar> ah, yes its an extended test
< wumpus> oh indeed didn't check the extended ones
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #10157: [0.14] Fix the mempool_packages.py test (0.14...test-0.14.1rc1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10157
< achow101> weren't there some memory usage improvements in 0.14.1?
< BlueMatt> achow101: for default configs, yes, and slightly reduced in general from 0.14.0, yes?
< achow101> Ok. Well I think they should be documented in the release notes
< cfields> I'm working on building/signing rc1. I'm out of town and using my laptop, so it's a bit painful and slower than usual.
< bincap> when writting functional tests in python, we can use .generate to add blocks to test blockchain; and can I add a block with manually set flags, like segwit signalling on/off?
< bincap> also, how to set given date of the block generation? I want to test bip148 that rejects blocks that do not signal for segwit activation
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gmaxwell opened pull request #10158: Add some more release notes for 0.14.1. (0.14...relnote141) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10158
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #10159: [tests] color test results and sort alphabetically (master...sort_test_results) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10159
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #10160: [WIP] updatepeer RPC (master...updatepeer) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10160
< jeremyrubin> gmaxwell: I think your asicboost description is backwards?
< jeremyrubin> or am I misunderstanding
< jeremyrubin> distinct first 64-byte chunks but identical 16-byte
< jeremyrubin> Oh maybe I'm misunderstanding how asicboost works?
< gmaxwell> I think you were misunderstanding, or my explination is unclear.
< gmaxwell> for asic boost you need multiple different first-compression runs for each second compression run. This allows you to reuse the computation for the message expansion in the second compression run.
< jeremyrubin> yeah I'm misunderstanding merkle damgard
< gmaxwell> I think part of the reason people haven't taken it seriously as a threat is because it's tricky to understand.
< gmaxwell> while talking about it privately for the last month I ran into many experts that kept lapsing into thinking that the collision required 2^32 work, and other misunderstandings.
< jeremyrubin> gmaxwell: I think it gets a bit scarier if you don't include any transactions?
< jeremyrubin> gmaxwell: Maybe this is related to why ------- is mining empty blocks?
< jeremyrubin> gmaxwell: or if you only include stale transactions you control and guarantee won't be spent in a prior block
< jeremyrubin> gmaxwell: this would suggest your solution of including header hash is worth it
< gmaxwell> My goal here is only to block the form which is incompatible with protocol improvements like segwit that add additional per transaction data. I leave blocking asicboost more generally an open question. A miner could mine empty blocks too, but they'll at least be disadvantaged by the loss of fee income-- so, personally, I feel that is largely self correcting.
< jeremyrubin> I see; I think that's reasonable.
< jeremyrubin> You don't nescessarily lose that much fee though this way, I'd point out. You can just mine things closer to the bottom which are unlikely to get mined.
< jeremyrubin> You can also mask it by mining a full block with only your transactions in it.
< Taek> even masked, you are still disadvantaged
< jeremyrubin> Taek: yeah, but you get a huge benefit, because your set of valid RHS commitments goes up over time and only decreases (by 1) when you mine
< gmaxwell> jeremyrubin: if you can't do the left/right split trick you have to do a log(txn) hashes for each try.
< gmaxwell> In any case: the goal, again, isn't to stop asicboost but to stop forms that are incompatible with protocol extensions. I believe anything that works after this bip works just as well with segwit and friends.
< gmaxwell> I expect other people to make proposals to block asicboost more completely (in fact, I kind of cut off private discussion along these lines with this proposal-- because I think it's critical to seperate the concerns)
< btcdrak> There's a writeup of the process https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/JjfwEylh/