< GitHub193>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #7334: [qt] coincontrol workaround is still needed in qt5.4 (fixed in qt5.5) (master...Mf1601-qt55Workaround) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7334
< GitHub52>
bitcoin/0.12 5771b71 Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Remove BIP65 mention from release notes...
< GitHub32>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7326: [Trivial] Fix typo, wrong information in gettxout help text (master...patch-15) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7326
< GitHub104>
bitcoin/master 2cd004b Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #7326...
< GitHub104>
bitcoin/master 3a9dfe9 paveljanik: Fix typo, wrong information in gettxout help text.
< GitHub195>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #7332: [wallet] Clarify rpc help message with regard to rounding (master...Mf1601-docAmount) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7332
< GitHub37>
bitcoin/0.12 a36d79b Alex Morcos: Add sane fallback for fee estimation...
< GitHub88>
bitcoin/master d570a1f Luke Dashjr: doc/bips: Document BIP 125 support
2016-01-12
< MarcoFalke>
#bitcoin ?
< morcos>
I think it is reasonable in the interim to sign such messages Bitcoin Core but to be able to explain to people what the process for making a decision on them is
<@Luke-Jr>
Quent: please take this to #bitcoin or not at all
< Quent>
with his hate for spv wallets, for oconf transactions, for all that makes bitcoin convenient
< Quent>
because it applies to bitcoin first and foremost, what is self evidently good and in the interest of man shall prevail
< helo>
Quent: go toss a pebble if you want to change the world. this channel is for bitcoin core dev discussion.
< JackH>
#bitcoin
< JackH>
ok, on to bitcoin then
< instagibbs>
#bitcoin or stop
< gribble>
Error: You don't have the #bitcoin-core-dev,op capability. If you think that you should have this capability, be sure that you are identified before trying again. The 'whoami' command can tell you if you're identified.
< Quent>
satoshi laid out how bitcoin is to scale, what he stated then remains relevant
< JackH>
as a Bitcoin business representative, this is THE most scary thing we can do with Bitcoin
< morcos>
any chance we could move this discussion back to bitcoin-dev? unless anyone wants to review #7296 or #7312 so we can move forward with getting 0.12 released?
< Quent>
on the other hand bitcoin has stronger incentive based self interest than any other altcoin
< brg444>
Bitcoin as a considerably stronger inertia than any other altcoins for very good reasons. It's important to take this in consideration when pondering the eventuality of a hard fork.
< instagibbs>
a closer example would be Bitcoin in the first or second year and Ethereum
< moli>
wangchun: yes, but they're altcoins with not as large markets as bitcoin
< zookolaptop>
Although of course, you could still be right, and one or another lucky break or special condition allowed Ethereum to succeed at that where Bitcoin wouldn't be able to do the same. Who knows.
< Luke-Jr>
morcos: if we had 100% of Bitcoin users convinced to do either a hardfork or softfork for segwit, the softfork would still be better
< jl2012>
they should only commit 32 bytes in bitcoin, and leave the rest of meta data in their own header
< morcos>
wangchun: Everyone in core would prefer to see segwit as a hard fork rather than a soft fork. but we take very seriously the notion that we should not be forcing the rules of bitcoin to change for people who might not agree
< wangchun>
Should we ACK Bitcoin Classic? I think it might be a good thing...
< GitHub195>
[bitcoin] paveljanik opened pull request #7326: [Trivial] Fix typo, wrong information in gettxout help text (master...patch-15) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7326
< sipa>
wumpus: i do think we need some clearly visible policy about which versions the bitcoin core project maintains and will issue bug fix releases for
< MarcoFalke>
Luke-Jr, even though a merge commit (or rebase) may appear trivial, I don't think we should put the burden on laanwj to go through that. (Not to mention it is hard to verify if any conflicts were solved during the final merge into bitcoin/bitcoin)
< GitHub3>
bitcoin/0.11 00aefcc Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #7259...
< GitHub174>
[bitcoin] theuni opened pull request #7322: c++11: add scoped enum fallbacks to CPPFLAGS rather than defining them locally (master...c++11-prep) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7322
< GitHub85>
[bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #7319: [Backport 0.12][QT] Intro: Display required space (0.12...2016/01/bp_qtintrodatadirsize) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7319
< GitHub110>
[bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #7318: Backport: quickfix for RPC timer interface problem (0.12...2016/01/bp_rpctimerinterface) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7318
< jonasschnelli>
sorry, sorry, MarcoFalke just told me the fact that i did push branches to bitcoin/bitcoin, will delete them immediately! that git beast!
< Luke-Jr>
so we also need to include bitcoin-config.h before that
< Luke-Jr>
cfields: why are you defining FORCE_BOOST_EMULATED_SCOPED_ENUMS in bitcoin-config.h rather than BOOST_NO_SCOPED_ENUMS and BOOST_NO_CXX11_SCOPED_ENUMS ?
< cfields>
i think just patching boost in-place with that and rebuilding bitcoin should do it, no need to rebuild boost
< Luke-Jr>
Bitcoin source or boost?
< Yoghur114_2>
phantomcircuit: ok I've identified the confusion more precisely (for the record): it was a git thing. What I didn't understand was why a 0.11.2 build didn't trigger this test: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/configure.ac#L717 - which I thought was added january 20th of 2015 according to the history, however, that commit was part of a PR that only got merged into master last september - after master branched off from .11
< GitHub59>
[bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #7311: MOVEONLY: non-consensus: from pow to chain: (master...consensus-pow-moveonly-0.13.99) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7311
< GitHub180>
[bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #7310: MOVEONLY: Move consensus functions out of main (master...consensus-moveonly-0.13.99) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7310
< jtimon>
MarcoFalke: unless I'm missing something, Luke-Jris just tired of rebasing and wants to do it only one last time before Bitcoin Core is ready to accept his patch
< GitHub122>
[bitcoin] jtimon closed pull request #7238: Blocksize: Some small preparations for a blocksize hardfork (master...6526-6625-remainings-0.13.99) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7238
< GitHub163>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7257: Combine common error strings for different options so translations can be shared and reused (master...reduce_opt_ts) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7257
< GitHub110>
bitcoin/master de9e5ea Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #7257...
< GitHub110>
bitcoin/master 5e10922 Luke Dashjr: Combine common error strings for different options so translations can be shared and reused
< Luke-Jr>
morcos: for an example using real-world terms, say I merge the "Unify name" PR into Bitcoin LJR yesterday; and now I rebase it for Core master. Trying to merge this rebased branch into Bitcoin LJR will not work, even after I merge Core master into LJR, because the rebased branch conflicts with the pre-rebase branch
< morcos>
imagine someone has some external program that does their own fee estimation. And they use settxfee to tell bitcoin core what fee to pay based on that
< GitHub105>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7217: Mark blocks with too many sigops as failed (master...fix-sigops-rejection) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7217
< GitHub141>
bitcoin/master a10a792 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #7217...
< GitHub141>
bitcoin/master 5246180 Suhas Daftuar: Mark blocks with too many sigops as failed
< morcos>
I'm asking this because I think we should change the default value that gets used if fee estimation can't give you an answer. As rusty was pointing out in bitcoin-dev, 1000 sat/KB is just too small
2016-01-04
< GitHub1>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #7293: [wallet] Add regression test for vValue sort order (master...Mf1601-wallet-vValue) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7293
< GitHub151>
[bitcoin] sdaftuar closed pull request #7222: [WIP] RPC: Indicate which transactions are signaling opt-in RBF (master...add-optin-info) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7222
< GitHub199>
[bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #7292: [RPC] Expose ancestor/descendant information over RPC (master...add-chain-info) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7292
< GitHub179>
[bitcoin] EthanHeilman opened pull request #7291: Add CNetAddr and CService tests demonstrating constructor differences (master...cservice) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7291
< GitHub131>
[bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #7289: [WIP] Make arguments reconfigurable at runtime via RPC (master...rpc_setarg) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7289
< GitHub191>
[bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #7287: Consensus: Remove calls to error(), FormatStateMessage() and FormatMoney() (master...consensus-decouple-util-0.13.99) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7287
< vojtik>
i have bitcoin core, and it generate me adress for income bitcoin, but in this moment i can this adress find, cant find money, anythink,,, just have link for block chain
< GitHub184>
bitcoin/0.12 3cb066c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Update translations after #7253...
< GitHub13>
bitcoin/0.12 a75a03a Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: update-translations: Allow numerus translations to omit %n specifier (usually when it only has one possible value)...
< GitHub22>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7253: Bugfix: update-translations: Allow numerus translations to omit %n specifier (usually when it only has one possible value) (master...numerus_omit_n) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7253
< GitHub169>
bitcoin/master 45d13ab Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #7253...
< GitHub169>
bitcoin/master 0d59589 Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: update-translations: Allow numerus translations to omit %n specifier (usually when it only has one possible value)
< GitHub113>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7251: [0.12] gitian: Set reference date to something more recent (0.12...MarcoFalke-2015-gitianTime-0.12) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7251
< GitHub193>
bitcoin/master eb2b745 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #7251...
< GitHub193>
bitcoin/master fa09562 MarcoFalke: [gitian] Set reference date to something more recent