< eck>
I was told that there's a proposal from someone (I forget who!) to do multi-process bitcoin core, where some of the processes could be sandboxed (similar to firefox/chrome); does anyone know where I could learn more about this?
< blockchain>
So actually I have saved one wallet.dat with all my bitcoins stored some years ago. Then when I want to use some bitcoin I just load one privat key into my new wallet.dat. I am somehow concerned loading my whole wallet with all my bitcoins stored evertime I want to move some bitcoins
< sipa>
it's not what bitcoin core was designed for
< sipa>
blockchain: bitcoin core now supports multiple wallets
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] mikedennis closed pull request #11670: [Docs] Update with instructions for WSL for Win 10 fall 2017 creator update (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11670
< luke-jr>
might be best to take this to #bitcoin ..
< BGL>
why can't bitcoin core start where it left off on re-indexing blocks, i seriously just had to restart twice in the last day and i'm back to zero again
< LumberCartel>
tyrick: This is where core developers are collaborating. I suggest not trying to "bug" anyone here. You might try asking about your issue in the #bitcoin channel first.
2017-11-11
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #10749: Use compile-time constants instead of unnamed enumerations (remove "enum hack") (master...enum-hack) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10749
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 2adbddb MarcoFalke: Merge #10749: Use compile-time constants instead of unnamed enumerations (remove "enum hack")...
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 1e65f0f practicalswift: Use compile-time constants instead of unnamed enumerations (remove "enum hack")
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] benma closed pull request #9897: AppInitMain: split initialization of Connman into a new function (master...connman) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9897
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #11055: [wallet] [rpc] getreceivedbyaddress should return error if called with address not owned by the wallet (master...getreceivedbyaddress_error) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11055
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 95e14dc MarcoFalke: Merge #11055: [wallet] [rpc] getreceivedbyaddress should return error if called with address not owned by the wallet...
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 5e0ba8f John Newbery: [wallet] getreceivedbyaddress should return error if address is not mine
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master ea0cd24 John Newbery: [tests] Tidy up receivedby.py...
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #11658: During IBD, when doing pruning, prune 10% extra to avoid pruning again soon after (master...ibd_prune_extra) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11658
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #11655: Explicitly state assumption that state.m_chain_sync.m_work_header != nullptr in ConsiderEviction(…) (master...m_chain_sync.m_work_header) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11655
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #11654: Initialize recently introduced non-static class member lastCycles to zero in constructor (master...uninitialized-members) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11654
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #11652: Add missing locks to init.cpp (in AppInitMain + ThreadImport) and validation.cpp (master...init-and-validation-locks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11652
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master fe503e1 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11646: Require a steady clock for bench with at least micro precision...
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11646: Require a steady clock for bench with at least micro precision (master...2017-11-11562-cleanups) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11646
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 620bae3 Matt Corallo: Require a steady clock for bench with at least micro precision
< LumberCartel>
exit70: There's a bot here named bitcoin-git that announces pull requests and the status updates. So lurking here can be educational too. (Welcome, by the way.)
< LumberCartel>
exit70: This is probably where you want to start looking into the source code for Bitcoin: https://www.github.com/bitcoin/
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #11053: refactor: Make all #includes relative to project root (master...2017_08_includes_absolute) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11053
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MeshCollider opened pull request #11651: refactor: Make all #includes relative to project root (rebased) (master...201711_absolute_includes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11651
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 3155fd2 Jonas Schnelli: CKeystore: move relevant implementation out of the header
< BlueMatt>
jonasschnelli: heh, I'm not too worried, if they google any of us they'll find bitcoin faster than if they look at what companies we are connected to :p
< jonasschnelli>
BlueMatt: The ownership can have some sideeffects... I personally don't want to be in a register with my Name tied to a company that have "Bitcoin" in it's name. For travel purposes...
< achow101>
BlueMatt: people who want to look at the paperwork and then go "X controls bitcoin blarg" conspiracy
< gmaxwell>
"Orginization which does not control Bitcoin. LLC"
< jonasschnelli>
DCI would be fine for me as well, though I prefer "Bitcoin Core Code Signing Assocation" over "DCI" (which is a private owned company) in the signing details
< gmaxwell>
I would rather not use DCI simply because we really have suffered from people using that stupid message as proof BCF controls bitcoin. I'd rather the name be more benign. (the "foo code signing" sort).
< wumpus>
but it's outside the scope of the bitcoin core project
< morcos>
Guys, if you are signing code, you are responsible for that code. If we are signing it in the name of Bitcoin Core we are all taking responsibility. Please let's limit this discussion to the code we all work on together
< * BlueMatt>
votes for someone to just create Bitcoin Core Code Signing, LLC
< kanzure>
yes if it's a "bitoin core org" then it should be named "bitcoin core code signing key holding only and nothing else, llc."
< gmaxwell>
Bitcoin Core Code Signing Key inc.
< morcos>
I'm happy to have an official Bitcoin Core org established if we want that, but it does seem like there are downsides to that
< jonasschnelli>
But plase... don't set up an orga called "Bitcoin Core"
< meshcollider>
Then bitcoin core really would be a company and you'd set off all the conspiracy theorists
< gmaxwell>
BlueMatt: well the other option is that we just register a bitcoin core org someplace and have it get the key. But I wouldn't want to suggest that for a key that is expiring soon.
< BlueMatt>
gmaxwell: so can I just legally change my name to Bitcoin Core, get a cert, and then change it back?
< gmaxwell>
I think it's _really_ unfortunate to have any name except the project name on the binaries, causes a drama and stupidity. There are still people that think the bitcoin foundation controls bitcoin just because of that existing cert. :(
< jonasschnelli>
Apple is still the Bitcoin Foundatiomn, right?
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11580: Do not send (potentially) invalid headers in response to getheaders (master...2017-10-getheaders-valid-only) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11580
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 1f4375f Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11580: Do not send (potentially) invalid headers in response to getheaders...
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 725b79a Russell Yanofsky: [test] Verify node doesn't send headers that haven't been fully validated
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 3788a84 Matt Corallo: Do not send (potentially) invalid headers in response to getheaders...
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11583 | Do not make it trivial for inbound peers to generate log entries by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #11583 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] TheBlueMatt opened pull request #11646: Require a steady clock for bench with at least micro precision (master...2017-11-11562-cleanups) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11646
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10890: libbitcoinconsensus: Add version field to pkg-config info file (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10890
< BlueMatt>
#bitcoin is more active, #bitcoin-wizards is occasionally interesting
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11639 | Rewrite the interface between validation and net_processing wrt DoS by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #11639 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10866 | Fix -Wthread-safety-analysis warnings. Compile with -Wthread-safety-analysis if available. by practicalswift · Pull Request #10866 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bsm117532>
yurit: try asking your question in #bitcoin
< yurit>
Hello everyone. I am interested in learning about bitcoin one of the doubts that I have is technically. What makes the difficulty of mining increase?
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master d0b1fc8 Vivek Ganesan: Docs: Change formatting for sequence of steps...
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master f9b74ef MarcoFalke: Merge #11624: Docs: Change formatting for sequence of steps...
< wumpus>
that might be all real-world usage of it, in which case removing it from bitcoin core wouldn't affect anyone :)
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #11621: [build] Add temp_bitcoin_locale_qrc to CLEANFILES to fix make distcheck (master...fix-osx-distcheck) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11621
< Sentineo>
andre1: this is the core dev channel, discussions are about developement and code. Can you please repaste that question to #bitcoin? I will answer there.
< andre1>
I started downloading the bitcoin core wallet since a couple of days and although I realize this might have been asked many times before I could find the answer on the web. Why does the download start in 2009 and works its way to today and not the other way round start with today and work back to 2009?
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11611: [build] Don't fail when passed --disable-lcov and lcov isn't available (master...dontfaillcov) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11611
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 0e70791 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11611: [build] Don't fail when passed --disable-lcov and lcov isn't available...
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 223a4aa fanquake: [build] Don't fail when passed --disable-lcov and lcov isn't available
< analiser>
if bitcoin-cli move and accounts are deprecated how should i identify users ? only by address?
< sipa>
also, none of the people currently involved with bitcoin core development are working for the foundation anymore
< wumpus>
LumberCartel: let's say the bitcoin foundation has a checkered reputation, there's been so much drama about it. But it's off topic here, #bitcoin would be a better place to discuss.
< LumberCartel>
wxss: What's the problem with The Bitcoin Foundation, Inc.?
< wxss>
the Windows binaries are still signed by The Bitcoin Foundation, Inc. -- that is kinda gross
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/0.15 2ce9e58 Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Fill in 0.15.1 changelog and authors in release notes...
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #11611: [build] Don't fail when passed --disable-lcov and lcov isn't available (master...dontfaillcov) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11611
< Provoostenator>
To answer my own q: once all linux versions finish building, it spits out a summary with hashes. You can compare that with e.g. gitian.sigs/0.15.1rc1-linux/laanwj/bitcoin-linux-0.15-build.assert
< sipa>
bitcoin core tends to stress CPUs far more than usual desktop software
< fobban>
I've got a i7-6700k. Never got these hardware errors before and I only get them once I start bitcoin core again
< fobban>
I'm running (or trying to run) bitcoin-core on arch linux but ever since v0.15 I get a CPU hardware error after a few minutes which causes the computer to reboot. I redownloaded the blockchain but a few seconds after it was complete I got the error again.
< donaloconnor>
I guess it's pow? - I'm not entirely sure... apologies I'm learning. Miners generate the block hash to find one that satisfies the difficulty. I mean, where does bitcoin core check that this hash is actually valid (ie: hashing the block again results int he same hash)
< donaloconnor>
Can anyone point to me where in the code bitcoin core checks if the block hash is valid? - I can see it checks POW in CheckBlockHeader