< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] scravy opened pull request #15715: Better support for mainframes and EBCDIC users in general (master...cater-mainframes-and-ebcdic-users) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15715
< wumpus>
(there's nothing wrong with asking that question on twitter on your own personal accord, but having it come from "bitcoin core" is going to cause lots of noise)
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #15704: Move Win32 defines to configure.ac to ensure they are globally defined (master...win32_defines_globally) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15704
< sipa>
yeah, so your bitcoin core wallet will correspond to a union of several things that are (possibly) compatible with an electrum wallet individually
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] dongcarl opened pull request #15689: netaddress: Update CNetAddr for ORCHIDv2 (master...2019-03-account-for-orchidv2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15689
< gmaxwell>
I've always made a point of CCing other people (usually wumpus and sipa) anytime I communicated something 'for bitcoin core project', even dumb stuff like lame whining at people for idiotic tweets. ... just so if I drop off the face of the earth someone has context.
< gmaxwell>
I'm concerned that we're erroring a little too strongly towards total compatiblity, which is causing industry participants to make an economically rational decision to ignore updating their bitcoin support in favor of supporting more altcoins.
< moneyball>
we have 1 proposed topic! topic proposed by gmaxwell: Bech32 support shipped first in Bitcoin Core in Feb 2018, more than a year ago. We should consider making an announcement that Bitcoin Core intends to change the default addresstype from p2sh-segwit to bech32 in 0.19 or 0.20.
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #15687: test: tool wallet test coverage for unexpected writes to wallet (master...tool-wallet-tests-for-unexpected-writes-to-wallet-file) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15687
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] instagibbs closed pull request #15547: Switch wallet default to reject too-long transaction chains for mempool (master...walletreject_true) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15547
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] murrayn closed pull request #15500: Support for a bitcoind 'ready' file to indicate startup is complete. (master...ready_file) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15500
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/0.18 09a05e8 Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: Translations update pre-rc3
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/0.18 f14a0aa Wladimir J. van der Laan: build: Bump to rc3
< wumpus>
running bitcoin on an unupdated w7 ouch :)
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] theuni opened pull request #15682: release: Update the Windows Codesigning certificate (master...new-win-cert) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15682
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] TheBlueMatt opened pull request #15681: [mempool] Allow one extra single-ancestor transaction per package (master...2019-03-lightning-policy) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15681
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master e16b6a7 Miguel Herranz: rpc: Rename size to vsize in mempool related calls
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master e14cd04 MarcoFalke: Merge #15637: rpc: Rename size to vsize in mempool related calls
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] torkelrogstad opened pull request #15669: rpc: Fix help text for signtransactionwithXXX (master...signrawtx-rpc-help) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15669
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #15668: p2p: Slightly more private initial tx relay (master...1903-p2pSlightlyPrivateTxRelay) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15668
< BostX>
sipa: maybe some warnings would be helpful. Like "You're signing a TX w/ no inputs". Or maybe a better message in the `bitcoin-cli help signrawtransactionwithwallet`
< BostX>
sipa: Uhm... I'd like to sign my TX on an offline computer where I don't want to install anything other than bitcoin-core.
< sipa>
BostX: perhaps you should head to bitcoin.stackexchange.com
< BostX>
sipa: I created: bitcoin-cli createrawtransaction '[]' '{"unused-new-address": <number>}'
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #15664: change default Python block serialization to witness, test round-trip (master...default_wit_block) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15664
< midnightmagic>
Just a hackish informational thing that means I don't have to use bitcoin-iterate
< gmaxwell>
It gets used by things like custom wallet software to make bitcoin core track data needed for spending. I assume electrum personal server uses it. Joinmarket uses it.
< harding>
echeveria: yes, but (as I mentioned) Bitcoin Core trickles txes. That is, it doesn't send to each of its peers immediately but separates all of its peers into buckets of peers and maintains a queue of transactions for each bucket, sending to all the peers in the bucket on some schedule. This means a transaction may be propagated to a non-spy node, relayed through the network, and then heard about by the spy node from some other
< harding>
echeveria: encryption by itself, if we assume no mitm and no eclipse, improves own-transaction relay privacy in combination with Bitcoin Core's existing tx trickling code. Right now when you send your own transaction, spy nodes can't be sure whether you originated a transaction or just relayed it. However, your ISP can see that you never received the tx over clearnet before sending it, so unless your node is also on Tor or
< echeveria>
I couldn't work that out. its pretty clear what is running bitcoin, from the traffic or the port number.
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #14050: Add chacha20/poly1305 and chacha20poly1305_AEAD from openssh (master...2018/08/bip151_chachapoly1305) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14050
< echeveria>
harding: the only other one I was thinking of was Parity Bitcoin, and they seemed to have only been funded to create that for a very short period.
< harding>
echeveria: not that I'm aware of at the moment. I was thinking about 2015-17 contention between Bitcoin Core and some of the stuff Unlimited was doing. Also XT had BIP64 support and a different protocol version.
< echeveria>
is there any actually used implementation of a bitcoin node other than btcd and bitcoin core?
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] promag opened pull request #15652: wallet: Update transactions with current mempool after load (master...2019-03-fix-15591) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15652
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15647 | [rpc] Remove deprecated functionality message from validateaddress help by jnewbery · Pull Request #15647 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gmaxwell>
#proposedmeetingtopic Bech32 support shipped first in Bitcoin Core in Feb 2018, more than a year ago. We should consider making an announcement that Bitcoin Core intends to change the default addresstype from p2sh-segwit to bech32 in 0.19 or 0.20.
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #15651: torcontrol: Use the default/standard network port for Tor hidden services, even if the internal port is set differently (master...tor_standard_port) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15651
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] lucayepa opened pull request #15650: Handle the result of posix_fallocate system call (master...handle-posix-fallocate) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15650
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #15643: contrib: gh-merge: Include review comments in merge commit (master...1903-ghMergeAck) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15643
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #15641: Backport #15614 to 0.18: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is active (0.18...2019/03/promag/2019-03-wallet-modal-widget) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15641
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #15641: Backport #15614 to 0.18: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is active (0.18...2019/03/promag/2019-03-wallet-modal-widget) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15641
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jonasschnelli merged pull request #15614: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is active (master...2019-03-wallet-modal-widget) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15614
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master a10972b João Barbosa: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is active
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master abd914e Jonas Schnelli: Merge #15614: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is act...
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #15639: bitcoin-wallet tool: Drop libbitcoin_server.a dependency (master...pr/link2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15639
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #15638: Move-only: Pull wallet code out of libbitcoin_server (master...pr/link) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15638
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #13008: rpc: Rename size to vsize in mempool related calls (master...rename-size-to-vsize) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13008
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #15637: rpc: Rename size to vsize in mempool related calls (master...rebased-13008-rename-size-vsize) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15637
2019-03-21
< echeveria>
wumpus: for the record, I reported the malicious versions of the bitcoin core website to the host.
< sipa>
or even that the source code is what people canonically understand to be bitcoin core
< jonasschnelli>
(An attacker could register "Bitcoin Core Code Shitting Association" and signing the malicious binary with that and nobody would recognise that)
< gwillen>
"the bitcoin core code signing association thinks Windows should not yell when running this binary"
< luke-jr>
"this is bitcoin core" *should* be meaningless really
< jonasschnelli>
It only tells users it was signed by an organisation called "Bitcoin Core Code Signing Association"
< sipa>
or "this is bitcoin core"
< luke-jr>
jonasschnelli: obviously there would have to be some reasonable policy on what gets signed (eg, gitian builds of Bitcoin-compatible software)
< jonasschnelli>
There is another association I'm currently building up (with a proper structure) called "Bitcoin Developer and Researcher Association" (BitDRA) which should aim to finance real work/projects
< gwillen>
yes I am happy to formally donate to the Bitcoin Core Code Signing Association, someone should tell me an amount and where to mail a check :-)
< jonasschnelli>
Bitcoin Core Code Signing Association (based in Switzerland)
< warren>
oh I missed the win signature discussion, will it be something other than Bitcoin Foundation in the future?
< wumpus>
surprisingly much of the infrastructure and stuff around bitcoin is hanging together by a few threads, and single individuals that happily still care about it
< wumpus>
thanks to the Linux Foundation too, then! it wouldn't be crazy for them to drop bitcoin-dev if it's such a hot potato
< warren>
It's worth noting despite trying to deprecate the old mailman2 server they've tried to keep it online for us and a few other dev communities who had a hard time moving, and most of their downtime trouble was due to DoS attacks targeting only bitcoin-dev.
< wumpus>
in principle it's even off topic in the bitcoin core meeting, the bitcoin-dev mailing list is outside it's scope, not that I mind
< jonasschnelli>
Would also be good to get a sponsor for the Bitcoin Core Code Signing Association at some point (raise your hand if your willing)
< jonasschnelli>
cfields: should we register a new one via the Bitcoin Core Code Signing Association?
< promag>
again, this is really very unlikely, you have to run bitcoin-qt -server
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15614 | 0.18: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is active by promag · Pull Request #15614 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15614 | 0.18: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is active by promag · Pull Request #15614 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15614 | 0.18: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is active by promag · Pull Request #15614 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15614 | 0.18: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is active by promag · Pull Request #15614 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15614 | 0.18: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is active by promag · Pull Request #15614 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15614 | 0.18: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is active by promag · Pull Request #15614 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus>
so apparently there's some funding initiative by Twitter/Square for core devs (I only learn of this through twitter now), https://twitter.com/jimmysong/status/1108500506106843137 - anyhow, if you're actively involved in Bitcoin Core's development and need this funding, and would like me to write a recommendation for you, let me know
< echeveria>
fanquake: I can confirm that this is an attack site (as if it wasn't obvious). depending on the links you follow, you either get the legit binaries, or "bitcoin.exe".
2019-03-20
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #15632: Remove ResendWalletTransactions from the Validation Interface (master...no_resend_wallet_txs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15632
< dongcarl>
ryanofsky: I see. When we have multiprocess bitcoin, will it be an interface violation for optionsmodel.cpp to include net.h?
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #15629: init: Throw error when network specific config is ignored (master...1903-InitErrorConf) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15629