< ossifrage> FYI, I tried to do a "verifychain 4 0" from the qt console and it failed with an assertion at the 50% point (after about 1h15m)
< ossifrage> bitcoin-qt: validation.cpp:1977: bool CChainState::ConnectBlock(const CBlock&, BlockValidationState&, CBlockIndex*, CCoinsViewCache&, const CChainParams&, bool): Assertion `hashPrevBlock == view.GetBestBlock()' failed.
< fanquake> wumpus / sipa: can you block Iixixi & haggleburt1972 if you haven't already
< aj> fanquake: btw/fyi #19683 isn't a poem, it's alternate lyrics for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAEppFUWLfc
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19683 | depends: Pin clang search paths for darwin host by dongcarl · Pull Request #19683 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< fanquake> aj: tune
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] instagibbs closed pull request #18723: Expand on contracting carve-out rule test (master...onemore_again) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18723
< AdulrunaRedviva> hi all
< wumpus> fanquake: done
< wumpus> fanquake: there's lots of similar user names, iixixiv, iixixii, hope they're not part of the same series somehow
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #20242: fuzz: Properly initialize PrecomputedTransactionData (master...2010-fuzzInit) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20242
< fanquake> wumpus: thanks. Hopefully not
< vasild> luke-jr: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20234#issuecomment-716045914 what do you mean in particular? I think all is in the PR description, but apparently not, since you ask...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #20243: rpc, wallet: Expose wallet id in getwalletinfo RPC output (master...201026-wid) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20243
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MewTww opened pull request #20244: Create BITCOIN (master...patch-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20244
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #20244: Create BITCOIN (master...patch-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20244
< luke-jr> vasild: I guess I mean with that change, -bind=… would result in the Tor-is-classified-as-non-Tor bugs coming back
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #20245: test: Run script_assets_test even if built --with-libs=no (master...2010-testAssetTestlibconsensus) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20245
< AdulrunaRedviva> hi
< AdulrunaRedviva> 
< AdulrunaRedviva> How do I select the installed wallets to trade? (sample getbalance)
< wumpus> AdulrunaRedviva: it's unclear to me what you mean, I suppose you are using multiwallet but what are yo trying to do? to select a wallet for RPC getbalance in bitcoin-cli you can pass -rpcwallet=<walletname>
< luke-jr> AdulrunaRedviva: #Bitcoin for user questions, but rephrase it
< luke-jr> (also note getbalance is broken in Core for the last several releases, but maybe not in a way you care about)
< wumpus> ossifrage: strange, anything in debug.log?
< AdulrunaRedviva> each user needs to make transactions for their wallet. How do I specify which wallet it is for when sending commands via rpc?
< luke-jr> AdulrunaRedviva: again, #bitcoin
< AdulrunaRedviva> okey.
< wumpus> ossifrage: what it crashes on is a sanity check that the previous block of the block to be validated matches the current head block, I have no idea how you could end up in a state where that's not the case at that point in the code
< wumpus> it's too bad this is only reproducible after 1h15m
< wumpus> I don't think many people use verifychain to verify the entire chain
< luke-jr> hmm, it looks like the /wallet/walletname endpoint isn't actually documented? :o
< wumpus> documented where?
< luke-jr> doc/
< luke-jr> JSON-RPC-interface.md might be a good place
< wumpus> yes it would
< vasild> luke-jr: but now we have -bind=addr=onion to resolve those
< luke-jr> vasild: I'm talking about the case where that is'nt specified
< luke-jr> I wonder if Tor has a way to ask it, if a given source port is from Tor :P
< luke-jr> I suppose the ideal for this would be to have Tor send us sockets over the control socket
< luke-jr> not sure if Windows supports sending sockets tho
< vasild> in #20234 maybe we can/should issue a warning if -bind= is given without -bind=...=onion and -listenonion=1 - something like "please specify -bind=...=onion in order to distinguish incoming tor connections"
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20234 | net: dont extra bind for Tor if binds are restricted by vasild · Pull Request #20234 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< vasild> luke-jr: what does it mean to "send a socket"?
< luke-jr> vasild: Linux allows you to take a fd, and send it in a socket, such that the receiver now has the fd and can use it
< luke-jr> vasild: look up SCM_RIGHTS
< luke-jr> https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/af_unix-comes-to-windows/ suggests in 2017 it wasn't supported by Windows
< vasild> I wasn't aware of that
< vasild> tor# grep -r SCM_RIGHTS .
< vasild> (nothing)
< luke-jr> [14:18:37] <luke-jr> https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/af_unix-comes-to-windows/ suggests in 2017 it wasn't supported by Windows
< vasild> right
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #20247: fuzz: Check for addrv1 compatibility before using addrv1 serializer. Fuzz addrv2 address serialization. (master...fuzzers-netaddr-post-addrv2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20247
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dgpv opened pull request #20248: Fix test: length of R check in test/key_tests.cpp:key_signature_tests (master...fix-test-key-signature-low-r) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20248
< roconnor> For those interested, I got back the result of instrumenting the compilation of "all of nixpkgs" with GCC 9. There are a handful of new packages miscompiled, again about half of them are test cases.
< roconnor> Strangely BitcoinABC's CNetAddr:IsRoutable() gets miscompiled, but not Bitcoin's. I have no explaination.
< luke-jr> O.o
< wumpus> roconnor: I think what everyone wants to know most, anything at all potentially security sensitive?
< wumpus> ("yes" or "no" is fine, I understand if you don't want to give details)
< roconnor> wumpus: Not that I have been able to tell. I still need to sort through the context of everything.
< wumpus> okay :)
< roconnor> There is a miscompiled crypto library in dolphin-emu.
< roconnor> So maybe don't do you encryption on a gaming emulator.
< luke-jr> lol
< roconnor> mariadb-galera has some miscompilation in it gcache code. ... not sure how serious that is.
< roconnor> oh an there is miscompilation in wireshark's packet-adwin-config.
< roconnor> I'm not familiar with what ADwin is.
< luke-jr> Wireshark has a history of vulnerabilities, so hopefully everyone is careful already :x
< wumpus> thanks for looking into it, very interesting
< queip> roconnor: uhm, stable releases of gcc sometime miss-compile well-formed C++ programs?
< luke-jr> queip: welcome to last month? XD
< queip> that's quite shocking, thanks
< wumpus> compiler bugs happen quite often, though usually in more obscure circumstances, the surprise here was that it's so low-level, memcmp is used pretty much everywhere
< ossifrage> wumpus, the debug log was just printing the progress report, it had made it to 50%
< ossifrage> I recently moved my block data several times, finally ending on a SSD and I wanted to do a sanity check that everything is happy
< ossifrage> Which is why I did a verifychain over all blocks
< sipa> ossifrage: you're better off doing a reindex-chainstate in that case
< sipa> checklevel=4 means rolling back to the point you specify, and then reconstructing everything after
< sipa> if you're going to do that all the way back to genesis, just starting from scratch and only doing the forward part is going to be faster
< sipa> by 50% you mean it did 50% of the blocks?
< ossifrage> 50% is just what the command reported in the log, no clue what that translates to
< sipa> oh, 50% means it just made it all the way back to genesis in the rewind phase
< sipa> that makes sense... it probably hit an edge case trying to rewind the genesis block
< ossifrage> gmaxwell thought the assert might have happened on the genesis block
< sipa> yeah, exactly
< sipa> miscompilation in all GCC releases since 7.something
< luke-jr> jonatack (IIRC) is right, the explicit fee modes are a mess :/
< luke-jr> sipa: thoughts on <major>.<softforks>.<bugfixes>?
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #20250: Bugfix: RPC/Wallet: Make BTC/kB and sat/B fee modes work sanely (master...rpcwallet_explicit_fixups) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20250
< luke-jr> jonatack: ^
< sipa> luke-jr: not sure i like using consensus rules in the versioning scheme
< sipa> that may make sense for libconsensus if that ever has separate versioned releases
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #20251: Move major version to first version integer as specified by SemVer (master...semver2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20251
< luke-jr> sipa: the code has consensus rules, though. This way, it's not only less confusing, but extra-clear to users what they're getting
< luke-jr> to be clear, it isn't the consensus rules we'd be versioning, but Core's compatibility with them
< luke-jr> actual consensus rules versioning would look something very different: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Consensus_versions