bitcoinreminder: bitcoin.org isn't even Bitcoin Core..
does anyone has a bitcoin-org email address? I created a impersonation-request on twitter for the fake https://twitter.com/BcoreProject account, but they told me that someone with a bitcoin-org email address has to create the request
hey guys, when executing a estimatefee RPC command on a node that is not fully sync-ed, shouldn't bitcoin-cli make a note that said node is not fully sync-ed and user should be cautioned to not use the estimated fee?
kallewoof: does your bitcoin process have enough memory to hold the entire chainstate?
gmaxwell: there is some amount of overhead as I am doing the profiling on my own. Maybe that's the cause for the high portion of time spent there, but it still seems like a lot of LOCK calls, regardless of actual CPU cycle count. Would be cool if the mempool could be copied once and then not lock cs at all. Code is here btw: https://github.com/kallewoof/bitcoin/tree/profile-resources
Like... I know that BitPay and Coinbase are declaring that they will support Segwit2x... has any exchange declared that they will continue to support Bitcoin (Bitcoin Core's rules)?
I'm running a modified Bitcoin Core node to do some profiling on where resources are spent (CPU cycles and bandwidth in particular) and am seeing some really weird stuff. E.g:
in other news, Texas Bitcoin conference is promoting 2X as if it's Bitcoin, so I think that makes the decision to go simple (ie, not to)
if they said "[compatible fully validating nodes] btc1 \n [compatible wallet software] bitcoin classic\n" it would n... oh okay, well I suppose because it's not a lie in every possible sense it's okay. :P
Abra|BitClub Network|Bitcoin.com|BitFury|BitGo|Bitmain|BitPay Blockchain|Bloq|BTCC|Circle|Ledger|RSK Labs|Xapo, no thanks
Wow, this is super dishonest https://segwit2x.github.io/segwit2x-announce.html ... "Bitcoin Upgrade" is untrue... it claims Bitcoin "Classic" and unlimited are compatible "Compatible Fully-Validating Node Software" but they don't implement the S2X rules and don't even implement segwit!
i find it amazing that all of bitcoin core's history, is less than 100 MB
And in particular, the people that the users of bitcoin are generally reseting a fair amount of trust to create and maintain the software the network is using, for the most part (or completely though we can't be sure) don't agree with the narative they're being sold.
I mean can you seriously claim that almost the entirety of your rather short blog posts is disagreed with by almost any contributor to bitcoin core
(also, "here is a really interesting view you should read and consider" is not morally equivilent to /pretending to be us/ or faking that s2x is just an uncontroversial and low risk bitcoin upgrade...)
i think there's the two issues: 1) claiming to be core 2) claiming to offer bitcoin upgrades
morcos: see greg's comments - people are claiming to "be" bitcoin core saying otherwise
Maybe... the people who would be duped into downloading/installing btc1... haven't even/don't/won't install Bitcoin Core in the first place. So that set of people is probably pretty small, like maybe 0 people?
I disagree with luke's suggested rename to "2X". Ideally we could get the whole bitcoin/altcoin community to change the name, but its too late now, should just stick w/ what everyone is familiar with
to be clear, I'm not disputing the quality of morcos's posts, and I personally agree with them, but I find the idea of 'Bitcoin Core thinks <x>' objectionable
can also just quote tweet and say like "Some thoughts on 2x, from a major contributor to Bitcoin Core"
"Of the 25 Bitcoin Core developers who have stated a position on 2X, all of them are opposed."
Murch - I agree. Have misgivings about "Bitcoin Core" endorsing a personal opinion
gmaxwell: That needs a response from the actual Bitcoin Core twitter account to condemn it as false flag.
luke-jr: yes, something like https://planet.freedesktop.org/ would be nice, though on the other hand for bitcoin that would result in endless political discussions about who to include and who not
[bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #11055: getreceivedbyaddress should return error if called with address not owned by the wallet (master...getreceivedbyaddress_error) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11055
the details are in comments, but basically I ensure each blockfile is loaded in OS cache before bitcoin-qt opens them while rescanning the whole blockchain
Hey... I worked out a small speedup to initial blockchain load from bootstrap.dat (and likely rescan operations)... If you're interested it would be best implemented as a separate thread in the bitcoin node...
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10483: scripted-diff: Use the C++11 keyword nullptr to denote the pointer literal instead of the macro NULL (master...nullptr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10483
bitcoin/master ce74799 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10483: scripted-diff: Use the C++11 keyword nullptr to denote the pointer literal instead of the macro NULL...
bitcoin/master 90d4d89 practicalswift: scripted-diff: Use the C++11 keyword nullptr to denote the pointer literal instead of the macro NULL...