00:48
<
CrazyPython >
Every 2016 blocks, Bitcoin contacts a centralized, man in the middle vulnerable system
00:49
<
CrazyPython >
Known as NTP. Are there any plans to fix this problem to prevent a chain split?
00:50
<
CrazyPython >
sipa: Every 2016 blocks, Bitcoin adjusts the difficulty/block production rate per unit of work based on the wall clock 10 minutes
00:51
<
CrazyPython >
The wall clock 10 minutes is based on the operating system clock time, which uses NTP.
00:51
<
BlueMatt >
that is wholly untrue
00:51
<
CrazyPython >
How does the 10 minutes calibration work?
00:51
<
BlueMatt >
based on the timestamp included in the block header
00:56
<
sipa >
i guess that means "i see"
03:45
<
fanquake >
do we need a new linter to stop the re-introduction on non-standard/boost-only <filesystem> code
03:45
<
* fanquake >
ducks
04:30
<
fanquake >
wumpus / sipa: can you block Modusto25
09:21
<
wumpus >
fanquake: done
10:18
<
fanquake >
wumpus:please also block dasa376
10:20
<
wumpus >
fanquake: done
10:52
<
wumpus >
hebasto: no i hadn't, thank you for investigating
10:53
<
wumpus >
i'll add that and update the PR
11:08
<
bitcoin-git >
bitcoin/master c10f27f practicalswift: net: Make IPv6ToString do zero compression as described in RFC 5952
11:08
<
bitcoin-git >
bitcoin/master 54548ba practicalswift: net: Avoid calling getnameinfo when formatting IPv6 addresses in CNetAddr:...
11:08
<
bitcoin-git >
bitcoin/master 7b87fca W. J. van der Laan: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#21756: Avoid calling `getnameinfo` when formatting I...
11:28
<
wumpus >
wait, does 'bips' have a publicly editable wiki
11:28
<
wumpus >
aj: will do
11:33
<
wumpus >
anyhow, deleted the scammy sidebar and blocked the user
11:36
<
michaelfolkson >
wumpus: Yeah it appears the wiki is publicly editable. Maybe worth changing that luke-jr?
12:36
<
wumpus >
yes i don't know, if the idea is that outsiders can add their own comments to BIPs, then closing it to say org members only wouldn't be great
12:41
<
michaelfolkson >
Yeah I'
12:41
<
michaelfolkson >
Yeah I'd be a +1 for dropping comments
12:42
<
michaelfolkson >
Comments on the original PR (while it is still open) and then opening a new PR or posting to bitcoin-dev mailing list seems sufficient to me
12:42
<
aj >
wumpus: (an example of why wiki isn't great for that: that page is a mix of luke-jr's, michaelfolkson's and laurentmt's thoughts; but you can only tell which is which if you look at the history page)
12:43
<
michaelfolkson >
aj: Agreed
12:45
<
wumpus >
yes a message-based approach is better than a wiki for comments, the Talk pages on wikipedia also always seemed awkward to me
13:19
<
bitcoin-git >
bitcoin/master 55c012d Hennadii Stepanov: qt: Extract translations correctly from UTF-8 formatted source
13:19
<
bitcoin-git >
bitcoin/master c34a49f W. J. van der Laan: qt: English translations update
13:19
<
bitcoin-git >
bitcoin/master 6d1d33d Hennadii Stepanov: Merge bitcoin-core/gui#323: English translations update
14:15
<
michaelfolkson >
I think 0racl3z needs to banned too
14:15
<
wumpus >
we're on a roll today
14:16
<
michaelfolkson >
So. much. banning. :)
14:16
<
wumpus >
couldn't that one be accidental?
14:17
<
michaelfolkson >
Multiple comments, I guess...
14:18
<
wumpus >
it does look pretty weird if you look at his other comments as well
14:20
<
wumpus >
all they do is randomly seemingly randomly approve PRs and post 'Thx!' sometimes multiple times
14:21
<
wumpus >
sure, going to block...
14:22
<
michaelfolkson >
I was going to write a comment saying please stop but yeah a block works too
14:24
<
wumpus >
jonatack: huh, why close
14:25
<
jonatack >
wumpus: it was made obsolete by #21756 merged a few hours ago
14:25
<
wumpus >
if i misunderstood it
14:25
<
jonatack >
we no longer return any scoped ids
14:27
<
wumpus >
is that a good thing?
14:27
<
wumpus >
i admit that's a part of IPv6 i really never paid attention to
14:28
<
wumpus >
in any case at least it's now consistent between operating systems
14:31
<
jonatack >
but i've spend more time than i would have preferred chasing my tail on this
14:32
<
jonatack >
so i don't plan to look more into it
14:33
<
jonatack >
(at least, unless someone is affected or cares about it)
14:33
<
wumpus >
they can't be globally routed anyhow, so for the P2P code i'd say it's kind of irrelevant
14:45
<
wumpus >
happy to make a PR for that if anyone cares
14:48
<
jonatack >
well, i don't know if there's a reason against doing it but i'd review it
14:49
<
wumpus >
it's in the structure so there is something to be said for having it in the ToString() to avoid losing information leading to confusion
14:50
<
wumpus >
though again i have no idea how anything ends up in m_scope_id in the first place
14:51
<
wumpus >
ah CService::CService(const struct sockaddr_in6 &addr) : CNetAddr(addr.sin6_addr, addr.sin6_scope_id)
14:55
<
luke-jr >
michaelfolkson: that's kinda the point of a wiki?
14:56
<
luke-jr >
wumpus: thanks for cleaning it up
14:57
<
wumpus >
jonatack: I don't understand practicalswift's reasoning that "scope ids don't make sense", either they're part of the protocol or not
14:58
<
jonatack >
i don't know either. maybe the idea is just that binding, listening and connecting is enough but not return them in the ToString()
14:59
<
jonatack >
i've been more or less stymied about it :D
15:00
<
jonatack >
but i have never used them myself, i have no claim to expertise other than trying to read the docs
15:00
<
wumpus >
anyhow going to do a PR that adds the %<scope_id> and brings back the tests