< wumpus>
sipa: how would that work? you'd pass in two lambas - one gets called if the value is present, and the other if the return value is not present?
< sipa>
wumpus: yup
< sipa>
Maybe a = (a -> b, () -> b) -> b
< sipa>
in haskellish type notation
< wumpus>
though if the function would no longer have a return type at all, it would have the advantage that callbacks can be asynchronous
< wumpus>
that would be more NodeJS than Haskell though :-(
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master dd869c6 Gregory Maxwell: Add an explanation of quickly hashing onto a non-power of two range....
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 232508f Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10577: Add an explanation of quickly hashing onto a non-power of two range....
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10577: Add an explanation of quickly hashing onto a non-power of two range. (master...hashrange-comment) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10577
< wumpus>
NicolasDorier: #10622 is strange - it looks like a stale bitcoin-config.h is floating around, but I'd expect git clean -dfx to take care of that
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 1887337 Gregory Maxwell: Add a comment explaining the use of MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE.
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master eee398f Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10608: Add a comment explaining the use of MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE....
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10608: Add a comment explaining the use of MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE. (master...size_comment) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10608
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10339: Optimization: Calculate block hash less times (master...b15-optimization-blockhash) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10339
< achow101>
Does anyone know what commit(s) or PRs removed IP transactions? I was looking at #253 but it says 0 commits and 0 changes and the commit it references is completely unrelated :(
< _void>
Hi! I've been reading about sidechains (and I'm reading now a Vitalik's post about sharding) and there is something I don't get, because I always thought that to secure a sidechain the only thing needed is a hash on the main chain
< Lauda>
Wrong channel
< _void>
Mmm sorry, I'm new here
< Lauda>
try #bitcoin-dev
< _void>
Mhh what's the difference? I think I should use some channel for "discuss" like the mailing list (dev and discuss)
< sipa>
this channel is about development of one specific implementation of the bitcoin protocol called bitcoin core
< _void>
Now I see, there are a bunch of channels, maybe you see me here anyway, I'm thinking of joining the dev community :)
< sipa>
achow101: i think it was removed in various steps
< TheV01D>
hello ppl
< TheV01D>
I want to use base58 and key.h in a seperate program
< jtimon>
it almost never needs rebase, but I have looked if it needs it or not so many times...there doesn't seem to be much interest in #9176 wumpus should I close it?
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9176 | Globals: Pass Consensus::Params through CBlockTreeDB::LoadBlockIndexGuts() by jtimon · Pull Request #9176 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< jtimon>
is in a sense similar to #10339 in the sense that people seem to dislike more explicit arguments