< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] benthecarman opened pull request #15378: tests: Added missing tests for RPC wallet errors (master...tests_missing_tests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15378
< meshcollider> provoostenator: if you can get a last review of #15226 done, I think it'll be ready to merge
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15226 | Allow creating blank (empty) wallets (alternative) by achow101 · Pull Request #15226 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< meshcollider> (If you have a bit of time)
< achow101> meshcollider: do you think we can get #14021 and #14075 in for 0.18? I've changed 14075 so that it doesn't conflict with 15226 anymore
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14021 | Import key origin data through descriptors in importmulti by achow101 · Pull Request #14021 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14075 | Import watch only pubkeys to the keypool if private keys are disabled by achow101 · Pull Request #14075 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< meshcollider> Maybe 14021 but I dont think 14075 as well unless theres a sudden surge of review :)
< achow101> 14021 would be nice since it actually makes hwi usable with core
< fanquake> \o/
< mryandao> hello, i've stumbled upon a threading exception with bitcoind and the program crashed. The exception message is "invalid argument in bitcoin scheduler"
< mryandao> the commit i'm running is "5029e94f855c73bad2e0ea6dc0378f33787ae131"
< fanquake> mryandao Can you open an issue with the details, include a stack trace if possible etc
< mryandao> i have the corefile
< mryandao> 500+ MB, would that be helpful?
< gmaxwell> you can use the corefile to get a stack trace.
< mryandao> yep, ok. On it.
< fanquake> mryandao thanks
< zndtoshi> Hello. I connect to bitcoin network over Tor. Can someone please tell me how I can change the onion address of my bitcoin core?
< booyah> zndtoshi: it is best to ask in #bitcoin for usage questoins
< provoostenator> meshcollider: on my list, should be today or tomorrow
< wumpus> still kind of meh about #14239, do we know for sure the change to validation (ConnectBlock) is safe?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14239 | Avoid dividing by zero (undefined behaviour) in EstimateMedianVal (policy)/ConnectTip (validation)/CreateTransaction (wallet) by practicalswift · Pull Request #14239 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus> zndtoshi: if it's auto-binding to tor, delete $DATADIR/onion_private_key and restart, if you've configured the hidden service manually then see the tor manual I guess
< wumpus> thanks for looking at it gmaxwell
< gmaxwell> wumpus: np. I feel kind of overwhelmed by changes like these myself, and I'm only looking at a fraction of the ones you are.
< gmaxwell> assuming that I'm correct in my belief that nBlocksTotal is only accessed in those bench lines, that part of the change is consensus safe. (The same behavior or arguably better could also be had by initilizing it to 1, instead of zero...)
< wumpus> I think you're correct in that
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MeshCollider pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/294549242493...6f4e0d154256
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7687f78 Andrew Chow: [wallet] Support creating a blank wallet
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6f4e0d1 MeshCollider: Merge #15226: Allow creating blank (empty) wallets (alternative)
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MeshCollider merged pull request #15226: Allow creating blank (empty) wallets (alternative) (master...blank-wallets) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15226
< meshcollider> because of the nature of #15368, it will be difficult for most people to review the maths behind the checksum (just like for bech32). Who do we need to have reviews from there? gmaxwell and andytoshi?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15368 | Descriptor checksums by sipa · Pull Request #15368 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< sipa> meshcollider: i'll change the checksum soon once a more extensive analysis finishes (in a day or 2), but the design is similar to bech32
< sipa> also, it's massive overkill in any case - almost any 8 character checksum will have a one in a trillion chance for failure; the added properties in addition are nice to have
< meshcollider> Oh ok, I missed that it wasn't final yet
< meshcollider> thanks :)
< sipa> also, perhaps sdaftuar wants to have a look
< achow101> meshcollider: do you think #15006 can make it for 0.18?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15006 | Add option to create an encrypted wallet by achow101 · Pull Request #15006 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< meshcollider> IMO no, it hasn't had much review yet and itd be better for reviewers to focus on the others in the milestone
< meshcollider> but as always, depends on whether other people agree/disagree and review it in time :)
< anon7485> Hello, one question. why validateaddress is not reporting the option "ismine"? I have wallet enabled and can generate addresses, but when I use validateaddress it doesn't display the field "ismine"
< sipa> anon7485: use getaddressinfo instead
< sipa> validateaddress is now a node-level rpc which is independent of the wallet
< anon7485> Wow man, thanks a lot. I was reading the docs but didn't see anything related to that change, also neither the command "getaddressinfo"
< sipa> anon7485: it's in the release notes
< sipa> for 0.17.0
< anon7485> I just saw it now since you provided me the command, thanks again
< anon7485> I was reading here https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference
< anon7485> instead of bitcoincore.org website
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] andrewtoth opened pull request #15380: trivial: correct parameter name in comments (master...fix-comment) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15380