< bitfriend> hi if i want to buy ethereum do i need to buy bitcoin first
< bitfriend> oh is this the wrong channel
< sipa> try #bitcoin
< bitfriend> thank you friend i went to #ethereum and they helped me
< kb4yer__> Be a part of the NEW V-Tec-Telegram Lognterm Trading BOT Start here: https://goo.gl/yYT5qJ
< luke-jr> correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems compact blocks breaks the "DoS banning for invalid blocks" stuff..
< luke-jr> the assumption of it, relied on to ensure peers are on the same chain
< gmaxwell> luke-jr: it didn't break it, it intentionally changed the behavior in order to facilitate relay before validation.
< luke-jr> gmaxwell: then there's no problem with removing DoS banning from non-compactblock cases? O.o
< gmaxwell> they'll still get disconnected if diverged (e.g. once the parent of their tip is not your tip)
< luke-jr> oh, because that scenario falls back to non-cb?
< gmaxwell> yes.
< luke-jr> gmaxwell: lacking a clean way to ensure the tips match, can you think of any problem with simply turning all existing DoS banning for invalid blocks into a disconnect-only-if-a-primary-peer?
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8d9f45ea6a5e...303c171b949b
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 30c2d9d practicalswift: [tests] Remove unused function InsecureRandBytes(size_t len)
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9f841a6 practicalswift: [tests] Remove accidental trailing semicolon
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 67ca816 practicalswift: Simplify "bool x = y ? true : false" to "bool x = y"
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10553: Simplify "bool x = y ? true : false". Remove unused function and trailing semicolon. (master...minor-cleanups) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10553
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] drizzt opened pull request #10580: Prefer gpg2 to gpg (master...prefer_gpg2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10580
< rupy> hi, so I know accounts are deprecated but I have no choice but to use them anyways. My concern is that come segwit accounts won't be able to make the new transactions, any1 have any clue about that?
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/303c171b949b...a514ac3dcb60
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e241a63 Pieter Wuille: Clarify prevector::erase and avoid swap-to-clear
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a514ac3 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10534: Clarify prevector::erase and avoid swap-to-clear...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10534: Clarify prevector::erase and avoid swap-to-clear (master...clarify_erase) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10534
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a514ac3dcb60...22ec76883886
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a090d1c Pieter Wuille: Header include guideline
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 22ec768 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10575: Header include guideline...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10575: Header include guideline (master...includeguide) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10575
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 5 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/22ec76883886...a4fe07714da1
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master cf44e4c Pieter Wuille: Squashed 'src/leveldb/' changes from a31c8aa40..196962ff0...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e4030ab Pieter Wuille: Update to LevelDB 1.20
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2424989 Cory Fields: leveldb: enable runtime-detected crc32 instructions
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10544: Update to LevelDB 1.20 (master...leveldb120) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10544
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a4fe07714da1...fbf5d3ba1516
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5432fc3 Pieter Wuille: Fail on commit with VERIFY SCRIPT but no scripted-diff
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fbf5d3b Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10480: Improve commit-check-script.sh...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10480: Improve commit-check-script.sh (master...update_script_check) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10480
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #10581: Simplify return values of GetCoin/HaveCoin(InCache) (master...simplehavecoin) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10581
< morcos> wumpus: where are we with 0.14.2? i'm still tracking down where this bug appeared, and not sure it's urgent to fix, but the coin control approxmiate fee is no longer updated by the smart fee slider. it looks like the bug exists in 0.14.1 but not in 0.13.2
< gmaxwell> unrelated to anything, should we be considering changing the fallback fee?
< gmaxwell> I believe it's at a level which will never get confirmed.
< morcos> gmaxwell: i'd be in favor of increasing it, but its unclear to what
< gmaxwell> some minimum amount that is actually getting confirmed? https://anduck.net/bitcoin/fees/
< morcos> Well it depends, a couple of weeks ago txs paying up to 70 sat/B were evicted from the mempool
< gmaxwell> 70s/b would be a big improvement over where it is now.
< morcos> I think this past weekend, txs were being confirmed possibly as low as 20 sat/B
< morcos> but maybe its ok if the fallback is occasionally an over estimate
< morcos> its not like 70 sat/B is so high that it would have been considered ridiculous any time in the last year
< gmaxwell> well, so long as we don't have replacability by default I think it's better to overpay a little.
< morcos> and its not a floor its just a fall back, so yeah that seems reasonable, maybe even higher...
< morcos> btw, it looks like #8989 is what broke the approximate fee in the coin control section
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8989 | [Qt] overhaul smart-fee slider, adjust default confirmation target by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #8989 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< morcos> i don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me this is fairly important to fix
< morcos> if people are trying to manually select coins and there is a wide range of fee rates, it'll be super annoying if its not actually telling them how much its going to pay
< morcos> the final dialog box at the end after you click send has the correct fee of course
< gmaxwell> that PR is confusing.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] morcos opened pull request #10582: Pass in smart fee slider value to coin control dialog (master...fixcoincontrolfee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10582
< kvnn> @gmaxwell are you indeed the Gmaxwell at https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Segwit_support&action=history ? Sorry, I'm not sure how else to verify
< midnightmagic> Sure hope so, or else someone's been impersonating him all these years
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] benma closed pull request #10497: remove the PAIRTYPE macro (master...pairtype) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10497
< phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, possibly there shouldn't be a fallback fee at all
< phantomcircuit> if we fail to estimate the fee
< phantomcircuit> we should probably just do an rbf transaction with no fee
< phantomcircuit> and correct later
< phantomcircuit> (but work)
< gmaxwell> kvnn: yes.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #10583: [RPC] Split part of validateaddress into getaddressinfo (master...getaddressinfo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10583
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #10584: Remove unused ResendWalletTransactions notification (master...pr/noresend) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10584
< TD-Linux> phantomcircuit, is there fee bumping support in bitcoin core now?
< sipa> there is a bumpfee RPC
< sipa> only works for bip125 transactions
< TD-Linux> seems like exposing that in the GUI would be required before relying on it
< gmaxwell> ACK
< * sipa> volunteers TD-Linux to implement that
< TD-Linux> :)
< TD-Linux> though immediately, I'm mostly suggesting that you just crank the fallback fee to 70 sat/b for now
< TD-Linux> by the way, the top Google results for "bitcoin transaction stuck" involve multi-step processes using web wallets that are much worse than overpaying
< TD-Linux> oh, bumpfee is already in the gui. right click transaction -> increase transaction fee
< sipa> orly?
< TD-Linux> seems to work. automatically picks fee bump
< TD-Linux> I do think if there's still opposition to enabling replaceability by default, enabling it when smartfee isn't available is reasonable
< gmaxwell> TD-Linux: the GUI support isn't in a release yet.