< alb_> hi
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 closed pull request #11446: Disconnect Peers for Duplicate Invalid blocks. (master...bad-block-interrogation) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11446
< ossifrage> I've been trying to smooth out the bandwidth costs of uploading old blocks, I added a command line option to set nMaxOutboundTimeframe.
< ossifrage> When the node doesn't have that many peers it helps, but once the peer count gets high enough it doesn't help, it seems like just having rate limiting would be a better solution
< jtimon> rebased https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8994 I know it's not a priority, but, please, review, it's kind of painful to rebase the tests
< jtimon> I think a reasonable next step would be to make regtest just another custom chain that you can select with either -regtest or -chain=regtest and it's identical to the current regtest by defaul on everything except the genesis block
< jtimon> it already accepts custom bip9 params
< jtimon> unless of course changing the genesis block for regtest was a problem in itself
< BlueMatt> cfields: I'm not looking to rework *any* of the Misbehaving code - only make CValidationState have no concept of nDoS
< cfields> oh, ok
< BlueMatt> re: working-on-top-of-banman
< jonasschnelli> BlueMatt, cfields: interested an giving #10387 another review (after the service flag refactoring)?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10387 | Implement BIP159, define and signal NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED (pruned peers) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #10387 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: heh, after :p
< sdaftuar> BlueMatt: did i convince you that feelers and extra outbound peers can exist simultaneously? just responded to your comment on github
< BlueMatt> sdaftuar: lemme read you github comment
< BlueMatt> I dont care /strongly/
< BlueMatt> but I thought it'd be cool if we didnt
< sdaftuar> i could make it so that we don't, but we do now
< sdaftuar> i mean, we do in the current PR
< BlueMatt> yea, I dont think we got to fully discussing which it /should/ be
< BlueMatt> I noted I'd prefer if we didnt have both
< BlueMatt> for the same reasons as its not "nice" to have >9 connections open too often
< BlueMatt> (if nothing else you make your peers do an eviction)
< sdaftuar> i think with the new quikc-disconnect-timer, and the guaranteed longer window when we're not trying to make a 9th connection, stealing the feeler's spot for the extra outbound makes more sense to me
< sdaftuar> originally i thought it was kind of bad to just break feeler functionality during a slow-block period, but now that seems less relevant
< BlueMatt> yea, agreed
< Rayser> hi
< Rayser> i have a portuguese-br translation for this link > https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2017-10-09-segwit2x-safety