< gmaxwell> anyone looked into the large amount of big low feerate transactions?
< gmaxwell> (there are currently about 87MB of 1s/b txn in mempools now)
< belcher> only about 4000 txes on my node with 84MB, which means a small number of very big txes
< felixweis> Murch said he happy for consolidation transactions. https://twitter.com/murchandamus/status/1195090917423759360
< gmaxwell> belcher: yes, they have 552-ish inputs.
< gmaxwell> agred that it's good-- would be nice if whomever it was was just constantly doing it.
< wumpus> luke-jr: lol, light as well just skip 0.19.0 and go for 0.20.0 :-)
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Sjors opened pull request #17486: build: make Travis catch unused variables (master...2019/11/Werror-unused-variable) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17486
< wumpus> I really don't know about git-subtree... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17398#issuecomment-554292159
< wumpus> ^^ should I create a new issue for the git-subtreecheck issue? is it expected behavior or not?
< instagibbs_> not to continue off-topic too long, but looks like the consolidations are tether-related or something, it's a *ton* of near dust outputs being put together into 0.0007 BTC chunks
< instagibbs_> 546 sat outputs, all of them
< BlueMatt> grrrrrr, intel errata, apparently new intel cpus can misexecute jcc if it lands on a 32 byte boundary......
< BlueMatt> should we tweak 0.19.0.1 with the ld patches at https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2019-11/msg00173.html
< fanquake> BlueMatt have you got the new slow microcode yet
< BlueMatt> fanquake: I'm mostly not on intel these days :p
< BlueMatt> I just dont, you know, want to fall out of consensus with all the buggy intel cpus
< fanquake> BlueMatt heh. I guess there isn't Intel chips in those LORA devices either
< BlueMatt> lol theres no "regular" cpu at all if you do it right
< BlueMatt> ohoh, i misread that, so the microcode fixes it, just the compiler can fix a bit of the performance loss
< BlueMatt> thats fine then
< luke-jr> wumpus: x.y.z - z is bugfixes- totally makes sense to increment it; y is features, not so logical in this case
< luke-jr> BlueMatt: maybe we should check that the user doesn't have a broken microcode, though
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jamesob opened pull request #17487: coins: add `erase` parameter to control cacheCoins drop on flush (master...2019-11-au-coins-erase) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17487
< BlueMatt> luke-jr: is there an easy way to do that? Also, we've never done that in the past for intel stupidity, so dunno if we need to in like a minor bump, would maybe be a cool feature in the future, though
< BlueMatt> given we already have all the code to check cpu flag shit
< sipa> is there even a way for user level code to gain information about microcode versions?
< luke-jr> well, we could always explicitly test for the bug?
< luke-jr> get a 32-byte-aligned buffer and execute jcc?
< luke-jr> seems like a fit for the current sanity test stuff
< BlueMatt> luke-jr: according to the errata its some edge case depending on exact internal state of the various icaches and ucode translation shit
< luke-jr> bleh
< sipa> if it was trivially observable this bug wouldn't have existed for years
< sipa> so i think we can assume that it's extremely unlikely to be triggered by chance
< luke-jr> did it? I intepreted BlueMatt's "new intel cpus" to mean stuff they just started shipping :x
< sipa> skylake and up
< sipa> on the market since 2015
< luke-jr> "@laanwj pushed 0 commits"... ok, GitHub
< sipa> that generally means that only commits were removed but no new ones were added
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #17488: test: fix "bitcoind already running" warnings on macOS (master...macos_pidof_test_runner_warning) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17488
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Xekyo opened pull request #17489: Remove unused variable COINBASE_FLAGS (master...removeUnusedVariable) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17489
< provoostenator> We did a 0.17.0.1 release once because of a macOS bug that we missed in 0.17.0. I think it's fine to use 0.19.0.1 given the timing.
< hebasto> if 0.19.0.1 is coming, is it worth to backport #17427 into it?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17427 | qt: Fix missing qRegisterMetaType for size_t by hebasto . Pull Request #17427 . bitcoin/bitcoin . GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/21ee676dd6a7...c7709cbf4c15
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fac942c MarcoFalke: test: Remove fragile assert_memory_usage_stable
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c7709cb MarcoFalke: Merge #17469: test: Remove fragile assert_memory_usage_stable
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #17469: test: Remove fragile assert_memory_usage_stable (master...1911-testFragileMem) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17469
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c7709cbf4c15...422ec33d45ed
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 38516f9 Gregory Sanders: Fix input size assertion in wallet_bumpfee.py
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 422ec33 MarcoFalke: Merge #17322: Fix input size assertion in wallet_bumpfee.py
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #17322: Fix input size assertion in wallet_bumpfee.py (master...w_bp_assert) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17322
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/422ec33d45ed...f92e750eb4eb
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5e8a563 Sebastian Falbesoner: test: add unit test for non-standard txs with too large scriptSig
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f92e750 MarcoFalke: Merge #17480: test: add unit test for non-standard txs with too large scri...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #17480: test: add unit test for non-standard txs with too large scriptSig (master...20191114-test-check-for-non-standard-txs-with-too-large-scriptsig) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17480
< instagibbs_> achow101, I'm not 100% sure that effective value knapsack is going to end up with the "same" results as non-effective value
< instagibbs_> maybe a bug, but also could just be different behavior coming out of it
< achow101> instagibbs_: it's pretty close actually: https://gist.github.com/achow101/edf6b5e308035a489fbb1f28d12e2109
< achow101> there was a bug that I fixed that made the earlier branch differ more. it looks like the primary different is in BnB usage
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f92e750eb4eb...1ed3e071dfea
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d604b4c practicalswift: tests: Update valgrind suppressions
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1ed3e07 MarcoFalke: Merge #17455: tests: Update valgrind suppressions
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #17455: tests: Update valgrind suppressions (master...valgrind-suppressions) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17455
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1ed3e071dfea...b90dad514399
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 18b18f8 Sjors Provoost: [build] ./configure --enable-werror: add unused-variable
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b90dad5 MarcoFalke: Merge #17486: build: make Travis catch unused variables
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #17486: build: make Travis catch unused variables (master...2019/11/Werror-unused-variable) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17486
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #17490: ci: Add valgrind run (master...1911-ciValgrind) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17490
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #17492: [WIP] QT: bump fee returns PSBT on clipboard for watchonly-only wallets (master...gui_bump_psbt) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17492
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Xekyo closed pull request #17489: Remove unused variable COINBASE_FLAGS (master...removeUnusedVariable) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17489
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #17493: util: Forbid ambiguous repeated assignments in config file (master...pr/wdmult) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17493