< luke-jr> bingo, osx tar.gz matches now
< luke-jr> MarcoFalke: what distro actually works with your snapcraft thing? :/
< MarcoFalke> anywhere you can install snapd
< MarcoFalke> fedora, mint, idk
< MarcoFalke> it is sponsored by canonical, so it will probably shut down next year anyway
< luke-jr> MarcoFalke: I ask because I can't get it to work on bionic ;)
< luke-jr> MarcoFalke: and to clarify: I mean building it, not installing it
< MarcoFalke> Eh, me neither
< luke-jr> Failed to fetch stage packages: Error downloading packages for part 'desktop-qt5': The package 'locales-all' was not found..
< luke-jr> MarcoFalke: you don't do the bitcoin-core snap building? :x
< MarcoFalke> oh god no. I don't want anyone to run executables I compiled on my machine
< MarcoFalke> It only compiles on xenia, btw
< MarcoFalke> xenial
< luke-jr> well, the snap thing just fetches and uses the gitian-made binaries
< MarcoFalke> Unless you want to pick up https://github.com/bitcoin-core/packaging/pull/12
< MarcoFalke> yeah
< MarcoFalke> It also runs the test on the hardware
< MarcoFalke> And I don't have that hardware
< fanquake> dongcarl cool. fwiw I was seeing "Throw to key `encoding-error' with args `("scm_to_stringn" "cannot convert wide string to output locale" 84 #f #f)'." when installing 6w65nzbc3ah30y5kr4zx9rcgknpjr1f5-nss-certs-3.43
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 21 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f19a3b2ded4b...d7d7d3150606
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f34fa71 Matt Corallo: Drop obsolete sigops comment
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 00e11e6 Matt Corallo: [refactor] rename stateDummy -> orphan_state
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8818729 Matt Corallo: [refactor] Refactor misbehavior ban decisions to MaybePunishNode()
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #15141: Rewrite DoS interface between validation and net_processing (master...2019-01-rewrite-validation-interface) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15141
< fanquake> \o/ > 1yr an 6mo for those changes
< aj> yay!
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Juniormrd opened pull request #15953: Update PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15953
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #15953: Update PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15953
< tryphe> looks like #14482 can be closed (it was merged in #15829)
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14482 | Better name for "Request Payment" button · Issue #14482 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15829 | qt: update request payment button text and tab description by fanquake · Pull Request #15829 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< luke-jr> tbh I think the name change in #15829 was for the worse
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15829 | qt: update request payment button text and tab description by fanquake · Pull Request #15829 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< tryphe> luke-jr, yeah, i prefer just "generate address" but that's me. a "receive address" might create the concept of a "sending address" in people's minds which could cause some confusion.
< luke-jr> normal people associate "address" with things not related to Bitcoin addresses, so I'd prefer to avoid the term altogether
< luke-jr> (eg, normally you would expect you can reuse an address..)
< tryphe> yeah, normally you would send to an address multiple times no problem with a paper mail system, which you can't have the same assumptions for here
< luke-jr> same for email addresses, website addresses, etc
< luke-jr> IMO "Request payment" was good :P
< tryphe> i like the idea of "my addresses" vs. "other people's addresses" but i'm not sure if "send" and "receive" is the right language to use.
< booyah> well you can send to same address in btc ofc
< booyah> maybe /instead/ just always remind people to avoid reusing addresses for security
< tryphe> i think having an "address book" is inherently bad for multiple reasons. one is the obvious one that people will re-use addresses, but another is that wallet metadata can be changed in an unlocked wallet, so someone could change the address of an alias you intend to use in the future, even with the wallet locked.
< tryphe> unlocked/locked* rather
< tryphe> if i wanted to scam someone, i wouldn't even need to wait for them to unlock their wallet, i could just create a similar-ish looking vanity address
< tryphe> assuming i had access to the wallet. but still, i think it creates a bad precedent where overconfidence in encryption/whatever else will encourage sloppy behavior.