2016-07-15

< GitHub55> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #8343: [Wallet] Ensure <0.13 clients can't open HD wallets (master...2016/07/hd_minversion) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8343
< GitHub167> [bitcoin] NicolasDorier opened pull request #8342: Consensus: Trivial transform BOOST_FOREACH into for loop (master...removeforeach) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8342
< GitHub29> [bitcoin] NicolasDorier opened pull request #8341: Consensus: Remove calls to error() from ContextualCheckBlock (master...error-calls) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8341
< superduper> SUPER AMAZING! I can multiply your bitcoin using block-chain exploding technology. Send me some BTC and get MUCH more back! WOW! PM me to begin!

2016-07-14

< GitHub177> [bitcoin] jtimon closed pull request #8328: Consensus: Rename: Move consensus code to the consensus directory (master...0.12.99-consensus-rename) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8328
< jtimon> so it seems the consensus folder thing is not clear, see? not that hard to say no fast, closing #8328 and taking the renames out of https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commits/0.12.99-consensus (and #8329 and #8337 )
< bsm117532> wumpus: FWIW I'm working on a commercial product that will include a bitcoin full node. It needs to fund transactions for many users, so the "label" idea sounds appropriate. But, I'll mostly be querying txids. (Which is one reason I've been working on getting segwit into python-bitcoinlib)
< petertodd> maaku: fwiw, I already do that kind of separation in python-bitcoinlib, with everything consensus under bitcoin.core
< petertodd> maaku: that's how I learned how the bitcoin protocol works
< petertodd> maaku: my usual advice to people is to follow the block acceptance logic and read the consensus code to understand how the bitcoin protocol works
<@wumpus> well if bitcoin core's wallet is unusable for commercial use, I wonder what wallet is..
< gmaxwell> I was getting flammed on reddit that it's common knoweldge that bitcoin core's wallet was unusuable for commercial use. I tried to get some unpacking there: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4snk48/roger_ver_and_his_supporters_are_pushing_policies/d5bb73w?context=3 might be worth looking at the comments.
< petertodd> gmaxwell: well, my advice is to either use a lite-client w/ up-to-date full node, or if you're using bitcoin core, plan to put it behind an up-to-date node
< jtimon> btcdrak: I didn't knew, never used the bitcoin slack
<@wumpus> and it's not used anywhere yet in bitcoin
<@wumpus> sdaftuar: I don't think all items of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8294 are currenly being addressed in PRs?
<@wumpus> #link https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8295 Mining-related fixups for 0.13.0 also by sdaftuar
<@wumpus> #link https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8305 Improve handling of unconnecting headers by sdaftuar
< gmaxwell> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier
< sdaftuar> bsm2357: you might find it helpful to review the p2p-segwit.py test in qa/rpc-tests, see for instance https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/qa/rpc-tests/p2p-segwit.py#L1236
< cool_guy> ASTOUNDING! I have discovered blockchain exploding technology. Send me your bitcoin and I will return MUCH more back to you, INSTANTLY. This is totally legitimate & vouched by the OPS of this channel. PM me to begin!
< jtimon> I believe we need it for this single error message: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1959
< jtimon> first step is completing libconsensus while allowing bitcoin core to keep using its internals
< jtimon> sipa: yeah at some point if we want to completely separate libconsensus, after bitcoin core itself calls its API, I see no other option than to duplicate some of the code in bitcoin core, but seems too far away in the future to be a big concern
< jtimon> I think it takes less time to read the changes in the makefile https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8328/files#diff-480477e89f9b6ddafb30c4383dcdd705R90 than explaining but whatever...
< jtimon> if people can't review the trivial things then they will never review the cool stuff like https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commit/4215929d563097f19d8059dff8b0f7d5ba7aee59
< jonasschnelli> sipa: while you are around (heh!), mind doing a quick review on https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/compare/master...jonasschnelli:2016/07/bip151_hkdf? Only technical, language will be checked by Jonathan Cross
< jtimon> in https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commits/0.12.99-consensus there are big architectural changes though
< jtimon> NicolasDorier: updated https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commits/0.12.99-consensus VerifyTx just lacks CheckTransaction (because it would be redundant with the call in CheckBlock()) now in there
< GitHub199> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8324: [Wallet] keep HD seed during salvagewallet (master...2016/07/hd_salvage) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8324
< GitHub179> bitcoin/master bc94b87 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8324: [Wallet] keep HD seed during salvagewallet...
< GitHub179> bitcoin/master b993671 Jonas Schnelli: [Wallet] keep HD seed during salvagewallet
< GitHub179> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/af9b7a9f2f73...bc94b8748782
< GitHub111> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #8340: [qa] Solve trivial merge conflict in p2p-segwit.py (master...Mf1607-qaSolveMerge) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8340
< GitHub128> bitcoin/master af9b7a9 MarcoFalke: Merge #8340: [qa] Solve trivial merge conflict in p2p-segwit.py...
< GitHub128> bitcoin/master 66668c4 MarcoFalke: [qa] Solve merge conflict of 4324bd237c3147fc153ba5046c211f03e8ac956a
< GitHub128> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ca40ef6029c1...af9b7a9f2f73
< GitHub51> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8340: [qa] Solve merge conflict of 4324bd237c3147fc153ba5046c211f03e8ac956a (master...Mf1607-qaSolveMerge) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8340
< GitHub79> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8312: Fix mempool DoS vulnerability from malleated transactions (master...mempool-malleability) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8312
< GitHub56> bitcoin/master ca40ef6 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8312: Fix mempool DoS vulnerability from malleated transactions...
< GitHub56> bitcoin/master 46c9620 Suhas Daftuar: Test that unnecessary witnesses can't be used for mempool DoS...
< GitHub56> bitcoin/master bb66a11 Suhas Daftuar: Fix DoS vulnerability in mempool acceptance...
< GitHub56> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/4324bd237c31...ca40ef6029c1
< GitHub181> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8311: Rename CTxinWitness -> CTxInWitness (master...CTxInWitness) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8311
< GitHub15> bitcoin/master 4324bd2 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8311: Rename CTxinWitness -> CTxInWitness...
< GitHub15> bitcoin/master 36ae37a Bob McElrath: Rename CTxinWitness -> CTxInWitness
< GitHub15> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1bc9c8085f71...4324bd237c31
< GitHub138> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8271: [bugfix] Do not send witnesses in cmpctblock (master...nowitnesscb) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8271
< GitHub69> bitcoin/master 1bc9c80 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8271: [bugfix] Do not send witnesses in cmpctblock...
< GitHub69> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/4831a16223db...1bc9c8085f71
< GitHub69> bitcoin/master 252675e Pieter Wuille: Do not send witnesses in cmpctblock
< GitHub118> [bitcoin] NicolasDorier opened pull request #8339: Consensuslib: Block Verify / Transaction Verify [Work in progress] (master...blkconsensus) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8339
< phantomcircuit> i tried that first and somehow screwed it up so i ended up copying bitcoin-tx stuff but that's not great cause i actually do want multiple executables

2016-07-13

< shangzhou> sipa: the bitcoin.sipa.be data looks like not up to date
< MiraclePerson> SUPER!!!! Want more bitcoin? Send me some Bitcoin and I'll instantly send you MORE back. I use special block-chain exploding skills. Totally safe & secure. Vouched by all the OPS! Pm me to begin!
< shatoshi> INCREDIBLE! Send me some bitcoin and I can turn it into MUCH more, using special blockchain accelerating technology. Your bitcoin wallet will explode! Guaranteed to work & vouched by the OPS. PM me to begin!
< sipa> ack, let's move to #bitcoin
< petertodd> sipa: note that the change from longest-chain to most-work was in 0.3.3 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/40cd0369419323f8d7385950e20342e998c994e1#diff-623e3fd6da1a45222eeec71496747b31R420
< xinxi_> i mean, if a Bitcoin client of a very low version sees a block generated by the newest version of Bitcoin client, what will happen?
< petertodd> xinxi_: (modulo radical redesigns of how bitcoin works, like my client-side validation concepts)
< petertodd> sipa: example: the switch to most-work-chain from bitcoin 0.1's longest-chain rule is something I'd definitely call a hard-fork
< petertodd> xinxi_: (there is a "bitcoin foundation", but they don't pay anyone, and are essentially bankrupt last I checked)
< petertodd> xinxi_: many do - there's no "bitcoin foundation" that pays core developers, but there's lots of ways to get paid
< xinxi_> petertodd: So Bitcoin Core developers get paid?
< sipa> xinxi_: by 'scripting' we mean bitcoin Script here, which is the language used inside transaction outputs to describe the condition under which they can be spent
< petertodd> xinxi_: I'm a consultant, who works pretty much full time on contracts in this space (including Bitcoin Core development contracts)
< petertodd> xinxi_: for example basically all my scalability research is stuff that I do knowing full well that it may never be able to be deployed on bitcoin
< petertodd> xinxi_: whereas if you want high certainty of being able to deploy your work in production on bitcoin, you'll need to set your sights lower to thinks that can be done in a soft-fork
< petertodd> xinxi_: I'm just saying, that anything that for any work you do that may require a hard-fork to deploy, you should accept that you may need to create a new currency, economically distint from bitcoin, to deploy your work in production
< petertodd> xinxi_: I'd suggest you take that kind of discussion to #bitcoin-wizards at least
< xinxi_> i need to make sure that tremendous amount of effort that could make Bitcoin even greater will be deployed.
< sipa> it is off topic for the developer of bitcoin core, which is what this channel is about
< jtimon> yep, sorry, #bitcoin I guess
< jeremyrubin> xinxi_: probably discuss this on #bitcoin
< sturles> xinxi_: All bitcoin users.
< jtimon> xinxi_: here's a few different ways to coordinate activation, the last 3 in there use bip 9 : https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/blob/0.12.99-consensus/src/consensus/versionbits.cpp#L172
< Chris_Stewart_5> sipa: Is there documentation for addrman any where? Doesn't seem to be in the p2p networking part: https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#p2p-network
< xinxi_> jtimon: cool. so all the code in libconsensus is in this directory https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/tree/0.12.99-consensus/src/consensus, right?
< jtimon> xinxi_: right now the longest branch I have is https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/tree/0.12.99-consensus but I still have things to cherry pick from https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commits/jt (plus some things that will just have to be new)
< bsm2357> Hmmm. Taking this question to #bitcoin-dev.
< jtimon> and I will continue in https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/tree/0.12.99-consensus but I won't open more PRs for now
< jtimon> kanzure: NicolasDorier: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8337
< GitHub147> [bitcoin] jtimon reopened pull request #8328: Consensus: Rename: Move consensus code to the consensus directory (master...0.12.99-consensus-rename) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8328
< GitHub12> [bitcoin] jtimon closed pull request #8328: Consensus: Rename: Move consensus code to the consensus directory (master...0.12.99-consensus-rename) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8328
< jonasschnelli> sipa, gmaxwell: maybe you find time to quickly review the BIP151 switch from HMAC_SHA512 "KDF" to HKDF: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/compare/master...jonasschnelli:2016/07/bip151_hkdf?expand=1
< jonasschnelli> sipa, gmaxwell: mind doing a review of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8323? I'd like and I think its important to have this in 0.13
< jtimon> if we're sure about it belonging in libconsensus, I should squash https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8329/commits/8af7c64f6908ea4526efde9896d046c431016e00 in #8328
< jtimon> on another topic, should utilmoneystr be part of libconsensus only for this line or should we just write the message in satoshis? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8329/files#diff-ca81084f62961a188f5c1e86a5ff1d7cR238
< gmaxwell> KwukDuck: that kind of issue is usually caused by hardware error, lose or bad disk cables, or bad memory (run memtest86?)-- sometimes antivirus software can screw with the files bitcoin is using.
< jtimon> at least for bitcoin core as a caller (assuming one day bitcoin core directly calls libconsensus instead of its internals) I don't see how performance would be affected very negatively, I worry more about serializing and deserialzing the parameters (like the tx in verify) for example, since people have complained (that's the reason why libbitcoin copies the code instead of using libconsensus' API directly)
< jtimon> I was working on https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commits/jt but I broke the branch when backported bip9 and never cared to fix it (but review is still very welcomed since I plan to rewrite/cherry pick most of the stuff from there)
< NicolasDorier> I started working on https://github.com/NicolasDorier/bitcoin/commits/blkconsensus but still not done
< KwukDuck> My Bitcoin Core client keeps crashing since a few days... http://pastebin.com/fiPXrzZY
< murch> gmaxwell: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7664#issuecomment-232230899 <-- I think you meant "is a large multiple" instead of "isn't"
< GitHub99> [bitcoin] maiiz opened pull request #8336: Issues #8334 (master...issues-8334) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8336

2016-07-12

< sipa> they're even discouraged and no modern bitcoin core wallet will use them by default
< Chris_Stewart_5> sipa: Is this section in the developer reference wrong then? Under the heading 'Transaction response' https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#tx
< xinxi> I've herd there is slack group for Bitcoin core dev. Who can tell me the URL?
< michagogo> (i.e. it _might_ let us sanely get Bitcoin Core into Ubuntu)
< michagogo> Which sounds like it would solve a lot of the problems we've had with Bitcoin being packaged in the Ubuntu repos
< michagogo> Has anyone looked into packaging Bitcoin Core into a snap?
< GitHub72> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #8335: update inline copyright notices (master...update-inline-copyright) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8335
< GitHub74> [bitcoin] kholbekj opened pull request #8335: update inline copyright notices (master...update-inline-copyright) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8335
< GitHub97> bitcoin/master 4831a16 Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: periodic translation update...
< GitHub97> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/4831a16223dbb42da3091e616c47eeb01f53f73b
< phantomcircuit> wumpus, fyi you might find this interesting https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8333
< phantomcircuit> indeed wumpus is right, possibly this could move to #bitcoin
<@wumpus> PSA: this channel is about bitcoin core development, XT and classic and certainly non-technical drama around them are very off-topic
< gmaxwell> eragmus: (1) because software that silently downgrades security then promotes itself as faster is a risk to the continued viability and value of Bitcoin, which I care about. .. and because he attacks me by claiming that I've acted unethically, which if left unchallenged ends up recycled as accepted truth in places like the NYT where it can cause me lifelong harm.
< gmaxwell> Seriously, if I wanted to 'backdoor' your software, the avenues available are far more profound-- your response has made me profoundly uncomfortable with the continued existance of Bitcoin XT-- you'll continue to copy code from Core, and when the inevitable errors that happen from interactions which I could never have anticiapted; you've shown that you'll accuse me of unethical or even criminal
< gmaxwell> A few days ago you seemed to be arguing that using the _miner provided_ timestamps on blocks to decide to bother validating the block or not would require 100% hashpower and control of the users local clock to exploit-- functionality you added without even adding a _release note_ to Bitcoin XT. Your response to this being pointed out was to again repeat accusations that I backdoored your softwa
< gmaxwell> And, what the heck is "a 51% attack" -- Bitcoin exists as a confluence of incentives, one part of it is that even a user who buys up large amounts of hashpower for a brief period only gains the ability to reorganize recent transactions, which is difficult to profitably exploit at any scale-- which users can protect themselves from by waiting for additional confirmations. Under the security mod
< GitHub136> [bitcoin] dcousens opened pull request #8332: semi trivial: clarify witness branches in transaction.h serialization (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8332

2016-07-11

< GitHub44> [bitcoin] dooglus opened pull request #8331: Fix three 'comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions' warnings. (master...fix-compilation-warnings) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8331
< sipa> xinxi: (i'll only mention this once): bitcoin core's cryptography library (libsecp256k1) does have some modest attempts at formally verifying pieces of the code, and help there would also be very welcome. It's much less ambitious than proving properties about bitcoin's consensus code, but also much easier to accomplish something in my opinion
< petertodd> btcdrak: self-enforcing because of the underlying proof-of-work layers ensuring consensus, and the fact that people widely choose to accept the outputs of the system - bitcoin being a perfect - albeit inflexible - example
< petertodd> xinxi: equally, the definition of the bitcoin protocol is what the bitcoin implementation accepts as valid - the fact the code that does that is somewhat intermixed with code that records state is just a historical mistake
< petertodd> xinxi: the most likely way bitcoin will fail right now is a failure of decentralization, which is very closely tied to scalability
< petertodd> xinxi: bitcoin is exactly the same, except that on top of that, PoW allows our state to converge to a single consensus history
< xinxi> And the biggest concern of Bitcoin to me is not the lack of functions but its security. Many people still think it is too young and not reliable enough and could fail completely and thus don't want to adopt it.
< xinxi> To me, Bitcoin is great because it is solving a real problem.
< petertodd> sipa: point is, I think xinxi would be much better off solving problems in that problem space first, as they're easier to solve with more impact, and that'll give them tools to tackle bitcoin later; misunderstandings about that problem space are indicative of serious misunderstandings with how bitcoin works
< xinxi> petertodd: yeah, we can use Bitcoin in that AWS based smart contract platform. It does not have to be decentralized.
< sipa> xinxi: for bitcoin's security assumptions to hold, verification of blocks must be negligable in time compared to the block production rate
< petertodd> Chris_Stewart_5: I'm not saying there isn't interest, I'm saying that if you want to make a high impact with formal verification deployed in production, Bitcoin isn't interesting because the risks of deploying formal verification in production are higher than the theoretical benefits
< xinxi> But after that, we will take off. And Bitcoin will be much more secure than before.
< Chris_Stewart_5> petertodd: I think there actually has been some considerable interest in the formal verification community in bitcoin. I've talked to a handful of researchers myself and I don't think directing them away from the core protocol is a good idea
< sipa> xinxi: it gives you an idea of how complicated it was to find some of the actually known consensus failures in bitcoin
< sipa> and bitcoin's scripting language before the removal of OP_VER was also a consensus problem
< sipa> how many consensus failures in bitcoin can you name? :)
< Chris_Stewart_5> Bitcoin has already had issues with this in the past
< Chris_Stewart_5> petertodd: I disagree, the consensus layer is the bedrock of bitcoin, if we screw that up in a major way we are done
< xinxi> petertodd: I think we are just lucky that Bitcoin has not yet experienced any catastrophic attacks?
< petertodd> xinxi: it's not going to be huge - the reliability of the consensus specification/implementation hasn't been a major problem for bitcoin - other problems are far higher-impact (scaling)
< kanzure> xinxi: there are many bitcoin developers who want that as well. i think you could easily find collaborators from this conversation.
< xinxi> the purpose is simple. we want to make bitcoin reliable.
< GitHub72> [bitcoin] JeremyRubin opened pull request #8330: WIP: Structure Packing Optimizations in CTransaction and CTxMemPoolEntry (master...structurepacking) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8330
< kanzure> sipa: maybe we can hijack the milan conference for these purposes (scaling bitcoin 3)
< xinxi> For Bitcoin, the programming language is not a big issue, and using languages like Coq, which enables a unified way for both coding and proofs could make it a lot easier.
< gmaxwell> xinxi: yes, and Bitcoin has to achieve high efficiency, efficiency is a security parameter for us.
< sipa> so now bitcoin's "specification" implicitly depended on OpenSSL's implementation
< sipa> xinxi: for example, for a long time, bitcoin relied on OpenSSL's signature parsing code
< xinxi> so the motivation of this is to avoid catastrophic failures of Bitcoin.
< sipa> xinxi: so we've usually said that a specification for bitcoin would be descriptive but not prescriptive... the laws of the network are those implemented by the code that people choose to run, not by an abstract descriptio
< xinxi> hey guys, I want to make Bitcoin provably correct.
< GitHub65> [bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #8329: Consensus: MOVEONLY: Move functions for tx verification (master...0.12.99-consensus-moveonly-tx) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8329
< BTCking> AMAZING! My bitcoin-grower is now ready. Send me some bitcoin (1btc, 2btc, etc.) and get MUCH more back INSTANTLY. This uses Block-chain explanding technology! Proven safe & secure. You cannot lose. PM me to begin!!
< BTCking> AMAZING! My bitcoin-grower is now ready. Send me some bitcoin (1btc, 2btc, etc.) and get MUCH more back INSTANTLY. This uses Block-chain explanding technology! Proven safe & secure. You cannot lose. PM me to begin!!
< jtimon> sipa: what's the advantage of validating this https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L3558 in ContextualCheckBlock() instead of ConnectBlock() ?
< GitHub175> [bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #8328: Consensus: Rename: Move consensus code to the consensus directory (master...0.12.99-consensus-rename) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8328
< GitHub31> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8317: [rpcwallet] Don't use floating point (master...Mf1607-rpcFloat) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8317
< GitHub118> bitcoin/master 304eff3 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8317: [rpcwallet] Don't use floating point...
< GitHub118> bitcoin/master 477777f MarcoFalke: [rpcwallet] Don't use floating point
< GitHub118> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/26316ffa7dc5...304eff3c614a
< GitHub157> bitcoin/0.12 1233cb4 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8302: 0.12.2: [Qt] Disable some menu items during splashscreen/verification state...
< GitHub27> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8302: 0.12.2: [Qt] Disable some menu items during splashscreen/verification state (0.12...Mf1607-012qtDebugSplash) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8302
< GitHub157> bitcoin/0.12 fe98533 Jonas Schnelli: [Qt] Disable some menu items during splashscreen/verification state...
< GitHub157> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 0.12: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5c8438207661...1233cb42dde9
< GitHub143> bitcoin/0.12 5c84382 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8318: [0.12] Backport "Rename OP_NOP3 to OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY #7540"...
< GitHub143> bitcoin/0.12 c4e5688 BtcDrak: Rename NOP3 to CHECSEQUENCEVERIFY in rpc tests
< GitHub143> bitcoin/0.12 ac5577b BtcDrak: Rename OP_NOP3 to OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY
< GitHub78> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8318: [0.12] Backport "Rename OP_NOP3 to OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY #7540" (0.12...rename_nop3_0.12) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8318
< GitHub143> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 0.12: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/080457c4ee97...5c8438207661
< GitHub140> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8289: bash-completion: Adapt for 0.12 and 0.13 (master...completion) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8289
< GitHub82> bitcoin/master 26316ff Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8289: bash-completion: Adapt for 0.12 and 0.13...
< GitHub82> bitcoin/master 1ba3db6 Christian von Roques: bash-completion: Adapt for 0.12 and 0.13...
< GitHub82> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/67caef673089...26316ffa7dc5
< GitHub119> [bitcoin] pstratem closed pull request #8277: Refactor CBlockHeaderAndShortTxIDs::GetShortID into CTransaction (master...2016-06-26-ctransaction-getshortid) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8277
< GitHub125> [bitcoin] pstratem closed pull request #7940: [WIP] Fuzzing framework (master...2016-04-20-fuzzing-framework) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7940

2016-07-10

< oddishh> WOW! My bitcoin expander is now READY! Put some bitcoin in my wallet and I'll intantly expand it & send you more back. Totally vouched & legit. PM me to begin!
< gmaxwell> petertodd: go stab the people your blog post has confused: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4s3a9r/segwit_code_review_update/

2016-07-09

< GitHub44> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #8325: 0.12 (master...0.12) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8325
< GitHub68> [bitcoin] Pranit-Harekar opened pull request #8325: 0.12 (master...0.12) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8325
< GitHub121> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #8324: [Wallet] keep HD seed during salvagewallet (master...2016/07/hd_salvage) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8324
< GitHub29> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #8205: [Wallet] add HD keypath to CKeyMetadata, report over validateaddress (master...2016/06/hd_metadata) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8205
< GitHub108> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #8323: Add HD keypath to CKeyMetadata, report metadata in validateaddress (master...2016/07/hd_013) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8323

2016-07-08

< GitHub109> [bitcoin] tjps opened pull request #8321: Trivial: minor code cleanups for readability (master...tjps_cleanups) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8321
< GitHub137> [bitcoin] KrzysiekJ opened pull request #8320: Fix 0.12 release notes on block relaying (master...0.12-release-notes-block-relaying) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8320
< GitHub165> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8319: [qa] wallet*.py: Check for salvagewallet regressions (master...Mf1607-qaSalv) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8319
< jonasschnelli> I think we should consider https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8205/files for 0.13
< GitHub82> bitcoin/master 67caef6 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8314: Fix pkg-config issues for 0.13...
< GitHub52> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8314: Fix pkg-config issues for 0.13 (master...fix-pkg-config) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8314
< GitHub82> bitcoin/master b556bed Cory Fields: build: fix Windows builds without pkg-config...
< GitHub82> bitcoin/master 0c928cb Cory Fields: build: Fix Qt5PlatformSupport check without pkg-config...
< GitHub82> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2e51590961a0...67caef673089
< GitHub156> [bitcoin] btcdrak opened pull request #8318: [0.12] Backport "Rename OP_NOP3 to OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY #7540" (0.12...rename_nop3_0.12) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8318
< GitHub178> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8317: [rpcwallet] Don't use floating point (master...Mf1607-rpcFloat) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8317
< GitHub69> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8315: gitian: Don't require sudo for Linux. (master...gitian-no-sudo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8315
< GitHub156> bitcoin/master 2e51590 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8315: gitian: Don't require sudo for Linux....
< GitHub156> bitcoin/master 099d4b0 Cory Fields: gitian: use a wrapped gcc/g++ to avoid the need for a system change...
< GitHub156> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ff46dd4a3457...2e51590961a0
< GitHub193> bitcoin/master ff46dd4 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7540: Rename OP_NOP3 to OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY...
< GitHub195> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7540: Rename OP_NOP3 to OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (master...rename_nop3) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7540
< GitHub193> bitcoin/master 14d0130 BtcDrak: Rename OP_NOP3 to OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY
< GitHub193> bitcoin/master 18c975c BtcDrak: Rename NOP3 to CHECSEQUENCEVERIFY in rpc tests
< GitHub16> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8316: [qa] feefilter: Clear mempool after each check (master...Mf1607-qafeefilter) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8316
< GitHub193> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5077d2c2b6b8...ff46dd4a3457
< GitHub189> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8303: [Doc] Update bips.md for CSV softfork. (master...bips-csv-softfork) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8303
< GitHub127> bitcoin/master 5077d2c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8303: [Doc] Update bips.md for CSV softfork....
< GitHub127> bitcoin/master ab0c35a fanquake: [Doc] Update bips.md for CSV softfork.
< GitHub127> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/bb2646aea0a8...5077d2c2b6b8
< GitHub181> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8309: [qa] Add wallet-hd test (master...Mf1607-qaHD) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8309
< GitHub175> bitcoin/master bb2646a Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8309: [qa] Add wallet-hd test...
< GitHub175> bitcoin/master fade505 MarcoFalke: [qa] Add wallet-hd test
< GitHub175> bitcoin/master fa9976b MarcoFalke: [qa] test_framework: Add wrapper for stop_node
< GitHub175> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6ae20df823d1...bb2646aea0a8
< GitHub58> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8310: build: require boost for bench (master...fix-bench-boost) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8310
< GitHub137> bitcoin/master cf2ef78 Cory Fields: build: require boost for bench
< GitHub137> bitcoin/master 6ae20df Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8310: build: require boost for bench...
< GitHub137> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0cca2feb357a...6ae20df823d1
< GitHub85> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8213: gitian: Move as-root preparation to gitian prepare script (master...2016_06_gitian_linux_prepare_script) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8213
< GitHub177> [bitcoin] theuni opened pull request #8315: gitian: Don't require sudo for Linux. (master...gitian-no-sudo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8315

2016-07-07

< bsm117532> Would bitcoin-cli decoderawtransaction abort due to the negative output there? That might be my problem...
< jonasschnelli> shortly back to the HD issue: I think it's a simple bug in the test https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8309/files#diff-ee4afcd6c3d5f19104c21bcc03407aeaR71 ( self.node_args[1].extend(['-rescan']) does not work)
<@wumpus> petertodd: indeed, bitcoin wallet for android has been doing a similar thing
< gmaxwell> cfields: I've found that a lot of people would like to play with it are actually thrown off by setting an option. It's not so intutive for GUI users. I think this would greatly increase testnet usage to have builds that work more like bitcoin/altcoin installs.
< gmaxwell> Matt has announced his new relaynetwork work that uses UDP and FEC, http://bluematt.bitcoin.ninja/2016/07/07/relay-networks/ the current not really fully cooked software gets worldwide block propagation 99% of the time in less than 100ms over the fiber-path distances.
< MarcoFalke> #action Help with review on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/20
<@wumpus> in any case, to conclude this topic: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/20 is an accurate reflection of what has to be done before rc1? (apart from the release notes issue)
< btcdrak> remaining issue/prs for 0.13 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestones/0.13.0
< michagogo> (Gitian issues or Bitcoin Core?)
< gmaxwell> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier
< GitHub94> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #8304: [travis] Update SDK_URL (master...Mf1606-travisSDKURL) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8304
< GitHub155> bitcoin/master 0cca2fe Jonas Schnelli: Merge #8304: [travis] Update SDK_URL...
< GitHub155> bitcoin/master fa6ad56 MarcoFalke: [travis] Update SDK_URL
< GitHub155> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/91abb77970f4...0cca2feb357a
< GitHub148> [bitcoin] theuni opened pull request #8314: Fix pkg-config issues for 0.13 (master...fix-pkg-config) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8314
< zooko> Hey Core Devs: here's another patch we've been working on for Zcash which you might want upstream in Bitcoin Core: https://github.com/zcash/zcash/issues/915
< GitHub155> [bitcoin] yurizhykin opened pull request #8313: Use std::move() instead of copying/removing in TxMemPool (master...tx-delete) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8313
< jonasschnelli> MarcoFalke: you could add a dumpwallet here (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8309/files#diff-ee4afcd6c3d5f19104c21bcc03407aeaR71) and see if it dumps the missing/failed-to-restore-funds-from-key
< MarcoFalke> See the HD test: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8309
<@wumpus> anyhow it seems that https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8206 solves this issue by adding it to dumpwallet, that's exactly what we want
< GitHub152> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #8312: Fix mempool DoS vulnerability from malleated transactions (master...mempool-malleability) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8312
< GitHub83> [bitcoin] mcelrath opened pull request #8311: Rename CTxinWitness -> CTxInWitness (master...CTxInWitness) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8311

2016-07-06

< sipa> also, bitcoin core's qa/rpc/test_framework already supports it
< GitHub112> [bitcoin] theuni opened pull request #8310: build: require boost for bench (master...fix-bench-boost) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8310
< GitHub123> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8309: [qa] Add wallet-hd test (master...Mf1607-qaHD) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8309
< Chris_Stewart_5> Why is there a 'Transaction Count' inside of the Headers message? https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#getheaders
< bsm1175321> Does there exist any UTXO set commitment implementation as a patch/PR to bitcoin? I'm interested in running some benchmarks and comparisons of ways we might do it.
< GitHub142> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #8288: qt: Network-specific example address (master...2016_06_network_based_example_address) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8288
< GitHub153> bitcoin/master 91abb77 Jonas Schnelli: Merge #8288: qt: Network-specific example address...
< GitHub153> bitcoin/master 4f44cb6 Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: Network-specific example address...
< GitHub153> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b978701ba182...91abb77970f4
< GitHub108> bitcoin/master b978701 Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: periodic translations update
< GitHub108> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/b978701ba1822140452d35f037ce776fdcba0175
< GitHub138> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8273: Bump `-dbcache` default to 300MiB (master...2016_06_dbcache) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8273
< GitHub154> bitcoin/master 396f9d6 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8273: Bump `-dbcache` default to 300MiB...
< GitHub154> bitcoin/master efd1d83 Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Mention dbcache increase in release notes
< GitHub154> bitcoin/master 32cab91 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Bump `-dbcache` default to 300MiB...
< GitHub154> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/042c323922fc...396f9d629662
< GitHub172> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8241: 0.13: Disable bad chain alerts (master...2016_06_alexit) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8241
< GitHub195> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8275: Remove bad chain alert partition check (master...partitionalerts) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8275
< GitHub108> bitcoin/master 042c323 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8275: Remove bad chain alert partition check...
< GitHub108> bitcoin/master ab8be98 BtcDrak: Remove bad chain alert partition check...
< GitHub108> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/aef381161f3b...042c323922fc
< GitHub158> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8298: wallet: Revert input selection post-pruning (master...2016_06_revert_wallet_input_postprune) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8298
< GitHub88> bitcoin/master aef3811 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8298: wallet: Revert input selection post-pruning...
< GitHub88> bitcoin/master 20f3cd7 Wladimir J. van der Laan: wallet: Revert input selection post-pruning...
< GitHub88> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/005d3b643009...aef381161f3b
< GitHub0> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8306: Revert "net: Avoid duplicate getheaders requests." PR #8054 (master...revert_8054) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8306
< GitHub98> bitcoin/master 005d3b6 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8306: Revert "net: Avoid duplicate getheaders requests." PR #8054...
< GitHub98> bitcoin/master 4fbdc43 Gregory Maxwell: Revert "net: Avoid duplicate getheaders requests." PR #8054...
< GitHub98> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/115735d547fd...005d3b643009

2016-07-05

< phantomcircuit> i/j #bitcoin
< GitHub9> [bitcoin] gmaxwell opened pull request #8306: Revert "net: Avoid duplicate getheaders requests." PR #8054 (master...revert_8054) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8306
< GitHub166> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #8305: Improve handling of unconnecting headers (master...fix-relay-2hr-rule) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8305
< GitHub11> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8304: [travis] Update SDK_URL (master...Mf1606-travisSDKURL) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8304
< GitHub121> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #8303: [Doc] Update bips.md for CSV softfork. (master...bips-csv-softfork) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8303

2016-07-04

< GitHub174> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #8280: Tests: Increase sync_blocks() timeouts in pruning.py (master...fix-pruning-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8280
< GitHub110> bitcoin/master 36f1b9d Suhas Daftuar: Tests: Increase sync_blocks() timeouts in pruning.py
< GitHub110> bitcoin/master 115735d MarcoFalke: Merge #8280: Tests: Increase sync_blocks() timeouts in pruning.py...