Quent: please take this to #bitcoin or not at all
with his hate for spv wallets, for oconf transactions, for all that makes bitcoin convenient
because it applies to bitcoin first and foremost, what is self evidently good and in the interest of man shall prevail
Quent: go toss a pebble if you want to change the world. this channel is for bitcoin core dev discussion.
ok, on to bitcoin then
#bitcoin or stop
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.
satoshi laid out how bitcoin is to scale, what he stated then remains relevant
as a Bitcoin business representative, this is THE most scary thing we can do with Bitcoin
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?
on the other hand bitcoin has stronger incentive based self interest than any other altcoin
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.
a closer example would be Bitcoin in the first or second year and Ethereum
wangchun: yes, but they're altcoins with not as large markets as bitcoin
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.
morcos: if we had 100% of Bitcoin users convinced to do either a hardfork or softfork for segwit, the softfork would still be better
they should only commit 32 bytes in bitcoin, and leave the rest of meta data in their own header
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
Should we ACK Bitcoin Classic? I think it might be a good thing...
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)
bitcoin/0.11 00aefcc Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #7259...
so we also need to include bitcoin-config.h before that
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 ?
i think just patching boost in-place with that and rebuilding bitcoin should do it, no need to rebuild boost
Bitcoin source or boost?
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
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
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
[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
bitcoin/master 45d13ab Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #7253...
bitcoin/master 0d59589 Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: update-translations: Allow numerus translations to omit %n specifier (usually when it only has one possible value)