< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 4e4de10 Gregory Sanders: Throw error if CPubKey is invalid during PSBT keypath serialization
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master ce7fcc3 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #14690: Throw error if CPubKey is invalid during PSBT keypath serialization...
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #14690: Throw error if CPubKey is invalid during PSBT keypath serialization (master...check_psbt_pubkey) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14690
< wumpus>
achow101: I've also heard that; only "webhooks" remain :(
< wumpus>
why does microsoft hate IRC :-(((( (no, kidding, this was already planned before the takeover)
< wumpus>
would be fairly straightforward to make an IRC bot that listens to github events, very similar to the twitter/mastodon bot, but it's yet another moving part it was nice that github handled this
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] murrayn opened pull request #14718: Remove unreferenced boost headers and quieten remaining clang warnings (master...clang_warnings) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14718
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 6c787d3 MarcoFalke: tests: Make feature_block pass on centos
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master fa21568 MarcoFalke: qa: Avoid race in p2p_invalid_block by waiting for the block request
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 5d605b2 MarcoFalke: Merge #14700: qa: Avoid race in p2p_invalid_block by waiting for the block request...
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #14700: qa: Avoid race in p2p_invalid_block by waiting for the block request (master...Mf1811-qaPassOnCentOs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14700
< instagibbs>
wumpus, would you mind if i made the sigdata const before you consider merging in #14678 ? Or would that "reset" the review? I think it would make intent of function more clear
< wumpus>
better to just do it the best way possible than put in a fixup PR just after it's merged, that's frustrating! I think "resetting review" is more of a concern for complex changes
< instagibbs>
yep, just making sure
< wumpus>
right
< phantomcircuit>
hmm sipa is definitely right that a sorted vector would be fast
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #14719: qa: Check specific reject reasons in feature_block (master...Mf1811-qaRejectBlock) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14719
< luke-jr>
wumpus: unfortunately, it looks like the existing plugin for github stuff doesn't work with my ljrbot :<
< luke-jr>
(and last time I tried to update it to the Limnoria fork, it was a mess)
< wumpus>
luke-jr: oh too bad
< luke-jr>
although, now that #anime has their own bot, maybe I can delete all the problematic aliases they added and try again, but ... time... :x
< bralyclow>
anyone around, posting a question I need your help with...question everyone, I have a bitcoin core full node and wallet, I tried sending a transaction today from a wallet on the node that spent all the BTC in all associated addresses at 1 satoshi per byte and the transaction has been unconfirmed now for over 8 hours which it should have been picked up by this 8 hour timeframe, my question is how can I increase the fee when ther
< bralyclow>
e is no BTC left in the wallet and associated addresses and when I try I get this error, "Increasing transaction fee failed (Transaction does not have a change output)" Can I simply deposit 10000 satoshi to an address in that wallet and then try to increase the fee to get it sent, or what can be done and how?
< jarthur>
Was it all truly spent, or did you get some back in change? And did you opt for a replaceable/RBF transaction?
< jarthur>
Also, this is the development channel. #bitcoin is the place to ask general network usage questions.
< bralyclow>
sorry about asking in here, but yes, all spent, no change or change address created as the fee was to be taken from the total left in that wallet, I did mark the transaction as enable RBF