01:07 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #10563: Remove safe mode (master...rm-safemode) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10563

02:09 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gmaxwell opened pull request #10564: Return early in IsBanned. (master...banned-early-term) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10564

02:14 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #10565: [coverage] Remove leveldb, univalue, and benchmarks from coverage report (master...lcov-remove-extra) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10565

08:49 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #10566: Use the "domain name setup" image (previously unused) in the gitian docs (master...unreferenced-file) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10566

10:41 < jonasschnelli> wumpus: the recent mail sent to security@ seems phishy... haven't checked although.

10:41 < wumpus> yes, I'd be careful

10:41 < jonasschnelli> Indeed

10:43 < jonasschnelli> Such attacks (against developers) will rise IMO... good protection is really required now

10:45 < wumpus> yes, agreed, we all need to start using qubes asap :)

10:45 < timothy> the only problem of qubes is xen

10:46 < wumpus> right, that's kind of its central point of failure

10:48 < wumpus> its achilles heel. Then again, it does raise the difficulty and cost of compromise, which is the point of security

10:49 < timothy> people are moving to kvm, xen in less maintained (as "big players" only amazon uses it, but they don't push patches upstream)

10:50 < wumpus> that's good to hear - I use kvm a lot for manual VM wrangling

10:51 < wumpus> kvm+libvirt is a breeze to use

10:54 < wumpus> I also moved all gpg signing to tokens a while ago, as well as some critical ssh authenticions

10:58 < timothy> openstack is kvm-based :)

10:58 < timothy> ovirt / rhv (red hat virtualization) too

10:58 < wumpus> trying to reduce attack surface as well as the impact when compromise would happen

10:59 < wumpus> okay :)

10:59 < timothy> I mean, big players are working on it

11:02 < timothy> infact I think I'll convert my gitian setup to use kvm instead of virtualbox

11:03 < wumpus> I've also started to use freebsd and openbsd for some things, to diversify from just linux

11:04 < wumpus> gitian with virtualbox? didn't know anyone was actually using that, most use either lxc or kvm

11:07 < timothy> the "official" procedure wants to install the VM on virtualbox and then gitian inside the vm

11:08 < timothy> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/gitian-building.md

11:09 < wumpus> right, okay, yes the outer VM doesn't really matter, using virtualbox there because it's easy to set up both on linux and windows

11:09 < timothy> my main OS is fedora, so it's not to easy to use gitian directly here :P

11:10 < wumpus> I'm imagine - never tried

11:10 < wumpus> I'd*

11:16 < MarcoFalke> hmm, I haven't had any major issues running gitian in fedora

11:26 < wumpus> also moving critical infrastructure to RiscV/open hardware as possible, as devices become available

11:27 < wumpus> MarcoFalke: might be useful to add that to one of the documents, apparently people think it only works on debian derivatives

13:13 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #10568: Remove unnecessary forward class declarations in header files (master...fwd-decl) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10568

18:54 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #10569: Fix stopatheight (master...fix-stopatheight) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10569

20:09 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/29f80cd230c3...76f268b9bd1b

20:09 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 90593ed practicalswift: Limit variable scope

20:09 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 76f268b Pieter Wuille: Merge #10521: Limit variable scope...

20:10 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #10521: Limit variable scope (master...tighten-scope) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10521

20:25 < gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: http://imgur.com/a/PxsfD post on reddit linking that, looks like a bug that it's showing unknown for a synced up node?

21:14 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: you should ping everyone listed on this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support 1:1 to make sure its accurate.

21:30 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: hmm, so I think the only ones who haven't edited or been pinged 1:1 so far would be: sdaftuar MarcoFalke maaku rusty petertodd

21:43 < luke-jr> does p2p-fullblocktest's runbarelyexpensive timeout for anyone else? it seems to have a limit of 60s for a 1000+ block reorg, which isn't practical? O.o