< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 010d68e Pieter Wuille: Broadcast address every day, not 9 hours
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 5c63d66 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10460: Broadcast address every day, not 9 hours...
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10460: Broadcast address every day, not 9 hours (master...hour_is_not_24_minutes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10460
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] cg31 opened pull request #10477: Use C++ initializer to initialze map and implement map comparator as const (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10477
< gmaxwell>
more changes to checkpoint code, great. :P
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #10478: rpc: Add listen address to incoming connections in `getpeerinfo` (master...2017_05_peer_listenaddr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10478
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #10479: [trivial] Fix comment for ForceSetArg() (master...trivial_forcesetarg_comment) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10479
< morcos>
you should be able to get an estimate for a target of X after recording 2*X blocks worth of fee data. The recording basically starts after the first block received after your node is caught up (its own defintiion of caught up)
< instagibbs>
huh ok something is definitely wrong then
< morcos>
no
< morcos>
you're using estimaterawfee
< morcos>
no reason to use that
< instagibbs>
wow mega brainfart
< instagibbs>
omg, sorry
< morcos>
use "estimatesmartfee target" or "estimatesmartfee target false"
< instagibbs>
yes I'm getting estimates just fine
< instagibbs>
using raw
< morcos>
estimaterawfee defaults to the medium time horizon which only tracks up to 48 confirms
< instagibbs>
err smart
< morcos>
so you could do what you want with "estimaterawfee 49 0.85 2" which would select the long time horizon and use an 85% threshold
< morcos>
but smart will combine several calculations more intelligently
< instagibbs>
right. Totally forgot about the 3rd param
< morcos>
don't let sipa read that, he wanted me to get rid of that param :)
< jtimon>
sipa: do you want me to s/blockHash/hashBlock/ in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10339 ? I'm fine, but I wasn't trying to use hungarian notation there, just blockHash as opposed to txHash
< jtimon>
or block_hash or whatever
< jtimon>
in some places still says just "hash", but I didn't find that clear enough
< sipa>
jtimon: assuming people like the new style guide... i'd say block_hash or hash
< jtimon>
sipa: where was the new style guide again, sorry?