< midnightmagic>
achow101: Thanks. I'm colourblind. I thought the blue line next to the first 144 block average was green.
< NicolasDorier>
sipa: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10195 is really too hard to review for me. I think an easier approach for review, would be to make a first PR which only change CCoinView class while making no change to the underlying storage. Then a second PR dealing with the storage change/optimization.
< NicolasDorier>
by "change to CCoinView" I mean only the method signatures to be per txout
< NicolasDorier>
without changing any underlying storage
< sipa>
NicolasDorier: there is no easy way first do one without the other, but i'll try
< sipa>
NicolasDorier: and signatures have nothing to do with it
< NicolasDorier>
I said method signature
< NicolasDorier>
ie like GetCoins() is per Outpoint instead of uint256
< sipa>
wumpus: not sure if you know this, but you can run with -reindex, make it process a couple block files, and then abort and restart with -reindex-chainstate
< sipa>
that will just make it fully process those couple files
< SopaXorzTaker>
with a full blockchain, obviously
< sipa>
SopaXorzTaker: i tried, it would reject it because it's nonstandard
< sipa>
SopaXorzTaker: and modifying the code wouldn't help, as other peers would reject it too
< sipa>
you need to send it directly to miners, as you were told above
<@wumpus>
yes I tried that about an hour ago, on a few nodes. Please don't repeat yourself. This channel is not for idle bitcoin discussion or technical help but for development discussion
< aguyonabike>
Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question, but could Segwit be changed to be covert-asicboost-compatible? The way I figure this could be done is similar to the extension blocks proposal, adding a special transaction "at the end" instead of using coinbase space for the witness commit
<@wumpus>
yes, wrong channel, this is about concrete development of the source code on github, may be better to ask in #bitcoin-wizards or such
< aguyonabike>
sorry about it :) thanks
< SopaXorzTaker>
sipa, eligius doesn't reject
< SopaXorzTaker>
how do I feed that to a miner node?
<@wumpus>
SopaXorzTaker: different channel please, this is not development related
< SopaXorzTaker>
sorry
<@wumpus>
general questions like that belong in#bitcoin
<@wumpus>
alternatively, the bitcoin stack exchange can be useful for community support, it doesn't rely on people being who know being around at the time
<@wumpus>
-being
< SopaXorzTaker>
offtopic: give an example of a miner node that I can feed the transaction to, please
< SopaXorzTaker>
wumpus, sipa ^
< SopaXorzTaker>
I can't find any
< sipa>
SopaXorzTaker: not here, offtopic
< SopaXorzTaker>
okay
<@wumpus>
this is not a "highlight developers to get support" channel, last warning
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #10226: wallet: Use boost to more portably ensure -wallet specifies only a filename (master...refactor_wallet_pathsep) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10226
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #10227: Make functions in validation.cpp static: (master...b14-chainparams-validation-static) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10227
< jtimon>
so what's next for #10189 ?
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10189 | devtools/net: add a verifier for scriptable changes. Use it to make CNode::id private. by theuni · Pull Request #10189 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< jtimon>
I also read the topic on last meeting which I missed, it seems we agree that this facilitates review but doesn't replace it
< BlueMatt>
jtimon: I believe cfields has a few things to update on it?
< jtimon>
BlueMatt: apart from requiring a specific prefix (which can be done later), anything else?
< BlueMatt>
that was my only comment
< BlueMatt>
dont think it should be done in a separate pr, though? you dont want to gratuitously change it so that old commits are no longer verifyable for no reason
< BlueMatt>
(plus its super trivial)
< cfields>
sure, will add
< jtimon>
yeah, I actually didn't thought about making it mandatory for the script to be checked, just as a convention to put in the development notes with some explanation on how to use this, but ack on making the script check for the tittle prefix
< jtimon>
BlueMatt: ack on completing it further, thanks guys
< jtimon>
I'm also not sure if there's any blocker for #9494, maybe squashing #10119 into it?
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9494 | Introduce an ArgsManager class encapsulating cs_args, mapArgs and mapMultiArgs by jtimon · Pull Request #9494 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< jtimon>
perhaps I should reduce the scope if I can't find a fix (and I'm still pretty clueless about why the code I "stole" from the interwebs isn't working)