Basically gleb's simulator simulates a plausable bitcoin network topology, and then measures how transactions relay around in it with different relaying schemes, so we can try different ideas and measure their impacts.
but bitcoin-cli is a way for humans to talk to bitcoind
It's the recommended way to use bitcoin from the commandline.
sipa: I mean, why use cURL requests if I can just shell_exec() the bitcoin-cli binary?
bitcoin-cli is really just a slightly-specialized version of curl
I didn't think Bitcoin Core itself had the ability to connect/do anything with the RPC API on a different machine.
Come to think of it, I don't really understand what bitcoin-cli is either. I use standard cURL requests to talk to http://127.0.0.01/ with the port specified (it works).
I have rpcconnect, rpcport, rpcuser, rpcpassword set in my bitcoin.conf. Don't really understand why Bitcoin Core needs to be told where to connect... itself?
rpcconnect only affects bitcoin-cli
rpcbind only affects bitcoind and bitcoin-qt (when running with -daemon)
you could dig in the bitcoin talk forums and find layer after layer of the same kinds of discussions, going back to the beginning, repeated every time. Where did those 8 years go, suddenly...
on the old bitcoin.org server there was a script that automatically generated the .torrent when all the files are in place; but I don't think that helps much, compared to uploading the torrent along with the rest of the files
I followed the intstructions in the OS X build docs for opening the project in QT Creator, but by default it was unable to see a bunch of headers and I had to add some lines to bitcoin-qt.include to make it avoid drowning everything in red squiggly underlines
anecdotally, if someone just wants to transact in bitcoin they often just go to electrum/trezor/bread/etc.
if it were, I think bitcoin would be nearly dead... there would be very little reason for people to bother even trying to start a node.
would it be an acceptable user experience for us to completely strip bdb out in some major release, provide an upgrade tool, and throw an error if users try to start bitcoin with bdb-format wallets?
And the reason it would matter is if under that case, you handle errors differently, e.g. the actual bug may be elsewhere in bitcoin or in the test but were hidden by the old behavior. The fact that you can't reproduce it locally is kind of annoying. you could try to figure out which test case is failing, by adding commits to change the test.
in any case I think for the purposes of rust-bitcoin we're not too concerned about that
yeah, i think the correct thing to do is to treat a bitcoin-pubkey as a pair of (ec-pubkey, compressedness), as from bitcoin's perspective they're really different things
we haven't had trouble thus far having the compressed/uncompressed distinction only exist as part of bitcoin Privkeys that correspond to bitcoin addresses
ok. the issue is that in rust-bitcoin, we don't store whether a pubkey is compressed or uncompressed, it's just a libsecp secp256k1_pubkey. (our Address and Privkey have this extra info ofc, but the raw ecdsa pubkey type does not)
just today I was trying to google "what is a sighash again?" (since when I do not work on bitcoin for a while I keep forgetting its terminology) and I keep ending up at bitcoin.org developer docs
karelb: an alternative approach is to maintain your own diff between the `bitcoin-cli help` in its current inconsistent format and the idealized consistent format you suggest, which shouldn't be too much work as the current help is pretty stable, then develop your tooling around that, proving its worth. Then you'll not only have stronger evidence that it's externally useful, but you'll also have the parsing tools to help create
gmaxwell: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14305 for better or worse, the only other mis-named attribute I could find was in the same functional test module. Included that in the fix, but avoided the one already covered in #14300.
kanzure: is the bitcoin-dev mailing list being migrrated to another host? If so, do you think it'd also be able to support an -announce list that only supported sending from the mailman moderator interface?
though it sucks more when its the guy controlling bitcoin.org doing it.
I dunno I get called incompetent because of things random people I've never heard of before on twitter says too. People can't grok decenteralization, so apparently every participant is the bitcoin project is jointly and severally responsible for everything every supporter says. or something. :P
maybe we need to get forrestv back into bitcoin, guy was a wizard with overly complex python things. :P
Getting fairly consistent behavior now, even with disablewallet=1. bitcoin-cli stop seems to stop the RPC server, but not the invalidation process. Curious if anyone can reproduce. I'll let it sync to the tip before trying again.
Also, it's still going even though bitcoin-cli stop said it would stop. I'll look at the dirty page counts...
is there some tool or setup guide that is telling people to open this port? I thought it was pretty difficult (not a single switch) to get Bitcoin Core to bind the RPC interface to 0.0.0.0.
I was looking at one of the public internet mapping tools for bitcoin core versions. there's a pretty disturbing number of hosts that have 8332 open.
there used to be bitcoin-security, but that was handled sort of poorly.
nanotube: :( I feel really uncomfortable with people going to bitcoin.org for that kind of information.
nanotube: any page on Bitcoin.org, top menu, Participate, Development, "to report an issue, please see the Bug Reporting page", Responsible Disclosure.
would it make sense to propose a 'contact' page on bitcoin.org similar to the one on bitcoincore.org? it appears it is non-trivial to find where to privately report security issues unless one knows to go to bitcoincore.org, since earlz had to come asking on #bitcoin-dev and -core-dev for a way to report.
promag: I think you could just oen a PR for a test for bitcoin-wallet-tool, including the commit from 13926. I expect any test would be merged as part of the original PR, but discussion of the tests can be in your new PR.
when bitcoincore.org started hosting executables I think I copied everything from bitcoin.org
bitcoincore.org is mostly concerned about distributing working, tested and non-vulnerable software versions of Bitcoin Core. The site should not serve as an archive of binary blobs. Note that releases before 0.10.0 are already not offered as download on https://bitcoincore.org/bin/.
What's the best way to privately report a security problem in bitcoin core?
I'm more concerned with adding more utilities to bitcoin core than the test framework expanding to test them
so it integrates somewhat more closely with the existing tests that bitcoin-tx which is an independend utility
promag: I'd say it's probably better to keep them separate if possible. Take a look at the bitcoin-tx tests in test/util. Tests for bitcoin-wallet-tool should probably go in there.
jnewbery: do you think BitcoinTestFramework should be used/extended to support bitcoin-wallet-tool tests?
In the file there are signatures for bitcoin-0.10.4rc1 !
Is it on purpose, that the SHA256SUMs file in https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.17.0/test.rc4/ is now named SHA256SUMS instead of SHA256SUMS.asc like it used to be named in the past? Because I have a download script and that looks for the file SHA256SUMS.asc to verfiy the download and the script does fail now because of missing signature file.
gmaxwell, I was just building a fresh bitcoin and noticed I still had a madvise(MADV_RANDOM) when mmapping read only data in leveldb, Is this worth a PR? It seem to reduces the number of pages fetched, but I don't have a good way to show if it actually helps
I'm trying to build the man pages on a Gitian box, which doesn't have a display. Any idea how to get around "QXcbConnection: Could not connect to display" for "bitcoin-qt --help"?
zndtoshi: this is more appropriate for #bitcoin, please ask it there.
miners. They have a veto option by signaling acceptance or not of a future softfork. But they should/will meet with everyone else at the Schelling point as well. Is there a REAL need for mining nodes to signal inside the Bitcoin Network? If not, are there any risks to remove mining node signaling?
Pierre Rochard explained in a presentation about Bitcoin Governance that consensus is reached similary to people meeting at the Schelling point: they know the city but not the location and hour to meet. They will think what the other would do and vice versa and in NY meet in Grand Central Station at noon without communicating. So conseus in Bitcoin is the same: everyone gravitates to the right software to use or the rig
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14196 | [0.17][psbt] always drop the unnecessary utxo and convert non-witness utxo to witness when necessary by achow101 · Pull Request #14196 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHubAsset 1Asset 1
jimpo: reading https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/725#pullrequestreview-154741923 it looks like you're suggesting the proof of funds should be a (fakeish) transaction, and the messsage signing should not be. Am I understanding that right? If so, it seems like you could just do transaction in both cases to simplify the spec. I.e. for signing message, craft two txs with the latter spending the former and former using
reserve could have blinded inputs and outputs as well, or whatever else the bitcoin protocol is made to allow. As long as the spends are tangled up with the fake input (via SIGHASH_ALL or a mimblewimble kernel, or whatever), it doesn't matter."
echeveria: To quote argument for a tx-like protocol: "It also works well with proof of reserve: the proof of reserve is a bitcoin transaction spending all the funds, but with an additional input (covered by SIGHASH_ALL) that points to a fake/invalid tx. This has the additional benefit of working in a forward compatible way with any future bitcoin extension, like confidential transactions or mimblewimble: your proof of
The expected result in that test is equal to the input, the author @achow101 wanted to make sure bitcoind doesn't 'crash' on that scenario but it silently moves on. The scenario is when we're trying to sign a PSBT input but one of the requirement fails -> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blame/master/bip-0174.mediawiki#L342
mryandao: the bigger risk is undiscovered bugs in the dependent libraries, this blew up several times in the past. Bitcoin devs found/reported/fixed many bugs in openssl and spent years to carefully write a replacement to get rid of openssl.
Yes it would be really nice to be able to use most of bitcoin core as libraries in other projects.
mryandao: multiple people here started years ago on the side of "This is crazy! We need to write a specification of what is Bitcoin." and a year or two of study later realize reimplmentations are too dangerous.
wumpus and I talked about perhaps writing a standalone P2P bitcoin server in Rust that can FFI with bitcoind
anyone balsy enough to run parity-bitcoin?
rust-bitcoin is a library that implements some bitcoin primitives in rust, it's not meant as a replacement for bitcoin core, but something like python-bitcoinlib