<@wumpus>
Chris_Stewart_5: I have no experience with it either, if you can apply it to improve test coverage of bitcoin core, why not try it
< Chris_Stewart_5>
sipa: Do you have any thoughts on property based checking? I'm starting to integrate it into a library I'm writing and it seems it would be useful in Bitcoin Core. I was looking at this library for C++
< petertodd>
GreenIsMyPepper: yeah, the tl;dr: is Lightning means if Bitcoin breaks, we have deadlines to fix it or all hell breaks loose
< gmaxwell>
Chris_Stewart_5: going back to your earlier comments, per the lifecycle, changes for network consensus exist outside of the bitcoin core release cycle, the reason we're talking about segwit merge in master here is not so much related to deploying segwit in the network, but related to managing the code implementing segwit in core as part of master. This is important to us because of the overhead
< petertodd>
GreenIsMyPepper: it's ok for a bit, but given a sufficiently long period of empty blocks being mined eventually lightning users are really screwed over; that's not true for other ways of using Bitcoin
<@wumpus>
consensus changes are not on bitcoin core's major release schedule, the first release introducing segwit would ideally be 0.12.x
< petertodd>
so, I'd strongly suggest we at least get in my global optin setting, so that people who need RBF can easily use external scripts to do so: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7132
< GitHub171>
bitcoin/master 0a64777 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8208: Do not set extra flags for unfiltered DNS seed results...
< GitHub118>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8208: Do not set extra flags for unfiltered DNS seed results (master...simplerservices) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8208
< GitHub171>
bitcoin/master bc0a895 Pieter Wuille: Do not set extra flags for unfiltered DNS seed results
< GitHub19>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8207: [trivial] Add a link to the Bitcoin-Core repository and website to the About Dialog (master...Mf1606-LicInfo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8207
< GitHub163>
bitcoin/master f7a403b Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8207: [trivial] Add a link to the Bitcoin-Core repository and website to the About Dialog...
< GitHub163>
bitcoin/master fa58e5e MarcoFalke: [doc] Add website links to about dialog
< GitHub100>
[bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #8208: Do not set extra flags for unfiltered DNS seed results (master...simplerservices) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8208
< GitHub170>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8207: [trivial] Add a link to the Bitcoin-Core repository to the About Dialog (master...Mf1606-LicInfo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8207
< GitHub29>
[bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #8206: [Wallet] add HD xpriv to dumpwallet, show masterkeyid in getwalletinfo (master...2016/06/hd_info) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8206
< GitHub116>
[bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #8205: [Wallet] add HD keypath to CKeyMetadata, report over validateaddress (master...2016/06/hd_metadata) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8205
< jonasschnelli>
sipa: hmm.. "dig A testnet-seed.bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch" reports different result then "dig A x1.testnet-seed.bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch"?
< sipa>
no results from x9.testnet-seed.bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch :(
< wumpus>
at least bitcoin core doesn't change the 'user agent' on such conditions, no
< murch>
instagibbs: Main goals of the work are a comprehensive overview of the problem, the different parameters and approaches how it could be solved, and an evaluation of said approaches. Whether or not it gets adopted by Bitcoin Core is not part of my thesis, but a personal goal. :)
< murch>
Yeah, but my overall familiarity with the Bitcoin Core is slightly behind yours. ;) But I guess, I'd count that as an "I haven't seen anything that contradicts Murch". :)
< wumpus>
jonasschnelli: I'm trying to get a bucket of random testnet hosts by looking up testnet-seed.bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch manually, but none of the node IP returned seem to have port 18333 open, am I doing something wrong?
< GitHub4>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7598: Refactor CreateNewBlock to be a method of the BlockAssembler class (master...BlockAssembler) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7598
< GitHub61>
bitcoin/master c2dd5a3 Alex Morcos: FIX: correctly measure size of priority block
< GitHub61>
bitcoin/master a278764 Alex Morcos: FIX: Account for txs already added to block in addPriorityTxs
< GitHub61>
bitcoin/master 4dc94d1 Alex Morcos: Refactor CreateNewBlock to be a method of the BlockAssembler class
< GitHub158>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #8193: [trivial][doc] Use Debian 8.5 in the gitian-build guide (master...gitian-debian-85) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8193
< GitHub196>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #8192: [trivial] Add a link to the Bitcoin-Core repository to the About Dialog (master...source-code-link) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8192
2016-06-11
< GitHub59>
[bitcoin] paveljanik opened pull request #8191: Do not shadow variables in src/wallet (master...20160611_shadowing_wallet) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8191
< GitHub153>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8187: [WIP] [0.12.2] backport: [qa] Switch to py3 (0.12...Mf1606-qaPy3Backport) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8187
< GitHub176>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8186: [0.12.2] backport: getblockchaininfo: make bip9_softforks an object, not an array. (0.12...Mf1606-rpcBip9Backport) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8186
< luke-jr>
jeremyrubin: segwit is a major change to Bitcoin - not Bitcoin Core.
< wumpus>
jeremyrubin: I'm not sure. I have no idea what autogen.sh would be spending time on. But it seems more a GNU problem thatn a bitcoin core problem :)
< luke-jr>
jonasschnelli: I'm thinking more of Bitcoin-Qt
< jonasschnelli>
I think adding cross compile depends options for ARM and AARCH64 would also reduce the "memory problem" (at least the amount of complains): https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8162
< wumpus>
seek/read access for source files is only a problem for really huge projects, and then especially when the source is hosted on some horrible network file system (like clearcase), in any case bitcoin doesn't even come close
< jonasschnelli>
What about providing a script/cli-tool (C++) that would perform some heave leveldb tests with block like data? Something like a bitcoin-hardware-test?
< GitHub101>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8172: Fix two warnings for comparison between signed and unsigned (master...fixunsigned) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8172
< GitHub0>
bitcoin/master 7e6dd7b Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8172: Fix two warnings for comparison between signed and unsigned...
< GitHub0>
bitcoin/master 77f63a4 Pieter Wuille: Fix two warnings for comparison between signed and unsigned