#bitcoin please, this is just about software development
I'm reading the bitcoin white paper, and in section 11 Satoshi gives the calculations for how you can prove with probability that an attacker can't outpace the combined processing power of the rest of the nodes, but I am not quite getting the math being used.
Just wanted to let everyone who has committed code to bitcoin core that there are A LOT of shout-outs and appreciation to all of you the past few days on Slack, Twitter, etc. We know what you have done and continuing to do and can't thank you enough!
That question is better suited for Bitcoin.stackexchange.com than for this channel. However, the difficulty scales on a range of 2^256, so that scenario is pretty far-fetched.
Hello, I was wondering about the following problem. Miners in bitcoin verify transactions in the blockchain by hashing the previous blocks header, transaction data and a nonce value. However, the block is only considered a legitimate block
sipa: if you get particularly bored, I went down a way-too-deep rabbit hole reading mapBlocksUnlinked and pruning logic, and ended up with a few teaks to help my understanding and fix some tiny edge cases as I go....care to take a look at all but the top commit on https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commits/2017-11-unlinked-blockx-fixes and tell me if its worth upstreaming?
is UnspentTransactionOutputs only available throught REST ? I can also run that command throught bitcoin-cli I guess?
this is what we should avoid: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11747 the person posts a straightforward two-line fix for an actual issue, when well-meaning but overly zealous review comments get them to refactor things in a questionable way resulting in much more discussion and doubt of correctness
jl2012: This channel is focused on the software development aspects of bitcoin core. What you've raised seems to be a usability question, which is much more likely to be served well on the #bitcoin channel. That's why I suggested that you ask there.
jl2012: Well, why don't you ask in the #bitcoin channel? Maybe it's already supported (I don't know).
jl2012: You seem to be asking a question about useability rather than about development. Have you tried asking your question in the #bitcoin channel?
bitcoin isn't really a good project for first time open source contributors in that regard, some projects just merge everything effectively instantly, but we cannot have a policy like that, not for first contributors ither
meshcollider: mainnet bitcoin.conf and network.conf live in the same directory :(
Or would having them both called bitcoin.conf be confusing
meshcollider: i'm not sure if there's a use case... atm, you could have standard settings in bitcoin.conf and special settings in network.conf (mainnet addnode's say), and switch either independently via command line options. that just seems a bit more flexible and maybe natural to me?
meshcollider: i worry about that too. current behaviour is that bitcoin.conf is loaded first and network.conf second (so bitcoin.conf can specify the network), and any setting in bitcoin.conf overrides any setting in network.conf
meshcollider: yeah: patch makes bitcoind load two config files, .bitcoin/bitcoin.conf and .bitcoin/testnet3/network.conf; -conf lets you choose a different name for the first one, -netconf a different name for the second one
also it'd make no sense, we'd have to distinguish which daemon is logging for each line - if you really want to dump all your bitcoin logging to one place, you can already use -printtoconsole w/ some log aggregation like systemd
JeffSlentz: If not, then there may be other options for you, but you'll probably need to ask about those possibilities in the #bitcoin channel.
Hey, as a recent grad with not much experience with the Bitcoin Core project, are there any suggestions for contributing?
morcos: I was just looking at fee rate estimation. I'm surprised that the Bitcoin Core estimate is still on 170 for second block target when the network has been clearing the mempool of <40 for four days.
Hi all, I just ran "make cov" on bitcoin core, looking for low hanging fruit for writing new unit tests. I found that src/rpc/blockchain.cpp has low coverage. Are there any objections to me adding unit tests for this file? Any caveats?