< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] merehap opened pull request #11748: [Tests] Adding unit tests for GetDifficulty in blockchain.cpp. (master...blockchain_unittests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11748
< ForAll>
wrapping my head around things first by observation
< meshcollider>
sipa: are you here at the moment?
< sipa>
that depends onyour definition of 'here'
< meshcollider>
lol :) Just a quick question re #11708, if I make redeemScript also accept an array of scripts, do you think listunspent should also return the witnessScript inside a list of redeemScript's or as a separate entry for clarity, because otherwise the output of listunspent can't be directly passed into signrawtransaction
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11708 | Add P2SH-P2WSH support to signrawtransaction and listunspent RPC by MeshCollider · Pull Request #11708 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< sipa>
meshcollider: hmm, nnoying
< meshcollider>
sipa: yeah :/ I think it would be best to make listunspent return an array of redeemScripts too in this case, there will only be two for P2SH-P2WSH so it should always be easy to work out which is which, but that would be a breaking change
< sipa>
meshcollider: but that's technically an API break for listunspent for P2SH-P2WPKH
< meshcollider>
sipa: I can think of two cases, either listunspent returns a string or an array when needed (which only breaks P2SH-P2WSH but is uglier code), or listunspent always returns an array even if it only has one element (which breaks P2SH, P2SH-P2WPKH, and P2SH-P2WSH but is cleaner long term)
< meshcollider>
is the first case acceptable?
< sipa>
i wouldn't even call the second obviously acceptable
< sipa>
usually we don't break the api
< meshcollider>
yeah
< meshcollider>
so listunspent must return a string if there is only one element
< meshcollider>
So that will only break P2SH-P2WSH but currently doesn't even work in that case so that's fine right
< jonasschnelli>
You don't want to load a block from the disk just to get some block size charts.
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #11749: Set m_last_block_processed to nullptr in SetNull() (master...m_last_block_processed) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11749
< nani>
hello
< dcousens>
jonasschnelli so many things would be great to add... it probably shouldn't be in `bitcoind` though
< Varunram>
Hey guys, I'm getting an error while compiling master `Assertion failed: ((pindexFirstNeverProcessed != nullptr) == (pindex->nChainTx == 0)), function CheckBlockIndex, file validation.cpp, line 4203.` What's the problem on my side?
< luke-jr>
jonasschnelli: 9849 works fine without it already\