< jonasschnelli>
we could try to get https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7096 reviewed and merged, and backported.... then remove the absolute fee from master (which is trivial)
< gmaxwell>
jonasschnelli: AFAIK nothing about the bitcoin system uses absolute fees, and it would be irrational for miners to do so.
< wump>
so re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7096 was this change in RPC settxfee behavior ever planned, or noticed before? I think it's strange that this is in 0.11, but no one reported the change from per-kB to absolute fee?
< GitHub92>
[bitcoin] gmaxwell opened pull request #7100: Replace setInventoryKnown with a rolling bloom filter. (master...known_bloom) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7100
< tulip>
dnsseed.bitcoin.DASHjr.org
< sipa>
cfields_: i think it's running github.com/sipa/bitcoin-seeder
< wumpus>
it never was; gitian-downloader was meant to be a downloader for bitcoin that checks the gitian signatures, but AFAIK it was never completed or used
< wumpus>
jonasschnelli: good call on closing #7089 - indeed, bitcoin's core github is not the place to request changes to consensus behavior
< GitHub54>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7092: build: Set osx permissions in the dmg to make Gatekeeper happy (master...osx-perm-fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7092
< GitHub102>
bitcoin/master 348b281 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #7092...
< GitHub102>
bitcoin/master 392d3c5 Cory Fields: build: Set osx permissions in the dmg to make Gatekeeper happy
< wumpus>
gmaxwell: can we have your input on these tests? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7086 Looks like one hidden place where openssl is still used, as an oversight, as openssl hasn't been part of consensus in that particular way for ages
< gmaxwell>
phantomcircuit: reworking time in bitcoin core is something I've wanted to do since 2011 but its so unimportant that I never will.
< GitHub190>
[bitcoin] pstratem opened pull request #7094: Assert now > 0 in GetTime GetTimeMillis GetTimeMicros (master...2015-11-24-assert-time) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7094
2015-11-24
< jtimon>
but the main question...is it ok to add primitives/block, arith_uint256, version.h, serialize.h and company to the consensus package (and therefore to bitcoin-tx)?
< GitHub91>
[bitcoin] theuni opened pull request #7092: build: Set osx permissions in the dmg to make Gatekeeper happy (master...osx-perm-fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7092
< GitHub197>
[bitcoin] petertodd opened pull request #7090: Connect to Tor hidden services by default (master...2015-11-onion-by-default) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7090
< GitHub148>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7045: Bugfix: Use unique autostart filenames on Linux for testnet/regtest (master...linux_autostart_unique) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7045
< GitHub105>
bitcoin/master 72dccfc Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #7045...
< GitHub105>
bitcoin/master 2aa49ce Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: Use unique autostart filenames on Linux for testnet/regtest
< gmaxwell>
The gettxoutproof RPC in bitcoin core also provides an eqivilent message over the RPC.
< gmaxwell>
raskolnnikov: instead you can download a block and filter the download to particular transactions or addresses, see MSG_FILTERED_BLOCK in the bitcoin core source code
< gmaxwell>
raskolnnikov: if someone were to give you a transaction, they could also give you the proof that it was in a block. So there is currently no facility in the protocol to just extract a proof for an arbritary transaction. (among other things this would require an index of all transactions, which bitcoin full nodes do not usually have)
< raskolnnikov>
SPV's wallets provide a txn hash to full nodes whenever they want to verify if the transaction exists on a previous block and is unspent. where in the SRC code does bitcoin-core process and replies to these kind of requests?
< davec>
there is a definitely at least one bogus client out there claiming to be bitcoin-seeder
< tulip>
bitcoin seeder does a mempool request? surely not
< gmaxwell>
actually no, most of those are "/bitcoin-seeder:0.01/" "/Snoopy:0.2.1/"
2015-11-23
< GitHub164>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #7084: mempool: Replace maxFeeRate of 10000*minRelayTxFee with maxTxFee (master...MarcoFalke-2015-mempoolMaxTxFee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7084
< GitHub151>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #7083: [init] Print OpenSSL version fix (master...MarcoFalke-2015-initOpenSSL) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7083
< GitHub70>
[bitcoin] gmaxwell opened pull request #7082: Do not absolutely protect local peers and make eviction more aggressive. (master...evict_more) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7082
< GitHub1>
[bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #7081: -bytespersigop option to additionally limit sigops in transactions we relay and mine (master...bytespersigop) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7081
< tulip>
phantomcircuit: most bitcoin nodes don't seem to have very accurate time.
< GitHub191>
[bitcoin] tulip0 opened pull request #7075: Move time data log print to 'net' category to reduce noise (master...no-time-offset-logging) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7075
< GitHub106>
[bitcoin] CodeShark closed pull request #7074: Added a command line option -checkscripts (master...disable_script_checks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7074
< GitHub188>
[bitcoin] CodeShark opened pull request #7074: Added a command line option -scriptchecks (master...disable_script_checks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7074
< gmaxwell>
davec: Part of the motivation for DOS in bitcoin core is that we could ban peers that do a lot of something while leaving others alone.
< gmaxwell>
sipa: right now large parties using bitcoin core have to periodically rotate out wallets to keep things managable. Things are much better now because of varrious fat trimming. (Including the addtowallet fix we just merged from luke)
< GitHub42>
[bitcoin] gmaxwell closed pull request #6851: Optimisation: Store transaction list order in memory rather than compute it every need (master...opti_txorder) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6851
< GitHub146>
[bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #7068: [RPC-Tests] add simple way to run rpc test over QT clients (master...2015/11/rpc_tests_qt) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7068
< GitHub15>
[bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #7067: [Wallet] improve detection of conflicted transactions (master...2015/11/mempool_wallet) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7067
< GitHub86>
[bitcoin] paveljanik opened pull request #7066: [Trivial,Doc] Add missing "blocktime" description to listtransactions help, fix formatting. (master...listtransactions_blocktime) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7066
< gmaxwell>
During the last malleability attacks I walked a bitcoin ATM operator through doing that. Hard part was explaining the need, once they got it the actual implementation was easy. (well also the wallet they were using to fill their ATMs ..... had no sendmany support. :( )
< wumpus>
there's an option in bitcoin core's wallet to not spend any unconfirmed outputs
< gmaxwell>
it could cause you to overdraft yourself and rip people off accidentally and be unable to make it right (at least not immediately) because you no longer have enough bitcoin.
< GitHub122>
[bitcoin] pstratem opened pull request #7064: Perform entire CWallet::TopUpKeyPool in a transaction. (master...2015-11-19-wallet-topupkeypool) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7064
2015-11-19
< jtimon>
what's with bitcoin-cli ?
< jtimon>
does bitcoin-tx use every function defined in every cpp in util and common?
< cfields_>
yes, but see bitcoin-cli
< jtimon>
doesn't bitcoin-tx depend on both of them?
< jtimon>
in the same sense, bitcoin-tx may not require everything in util or common, but it depends on util and common as a whole
< jtimon>
assuming a future in which bitcoin core consumes libbitcoinconsensus C API directly instead of its code, that dependency will eventually happen
< cfields_>
jtimon: that's what i meant by "consensus isn't the only POV". For (bad) example, bitcoin-tx might need hashing, but not use libsecp256k1
< jtimon>
which reminds me...I need to ask cfields what would he think about a consensus building module separated from util, common, etc, maybe merging with libsecp256 and crypto modules (that is not good for bitcoin-tx when we start adding non-tx stuff to the module, but verifyheader and verifyblock should be relatively light compared to verifytx and verifyscript)
< sipa>
hmm, do we have any means for people to select pruning at first run of Bitcoin-Qt?
< GitHub67>
[bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #7063: [Tests] Add prioritisetransaction RPC test (master...add-prioritisetransaction-rpctest) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7063
< GitHub36>
[bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #7062: [Mempool] Fix mempool limiting for PrioritiseTransaction (master...fix-mempool-limiting) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7062
< sipa>
jgarzik: it seems that that is not really the case; you can come up with a formula to treat bitcoin-days-destroyed as extra fee, but it's probably hard to prevent it from making miners lose large amounts in fees
< wumpus>
the wallet code gives me a headache. I tried to explain https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7054 (Difference in getbalance and sum(listtransactions) amounts (testnet)) but failed
< wumpus>
but I agree that you either want bitcoin core to choose a fee for you (estimate confirm within # confirmations) or you want to set a fee/kB, which should be above what your mempool accepts at all
< MarcoFalke>
wumpus, about the "all fees in bitcoin core are per kB" thing:
< GitHub9>
[bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #7060: doc: Make networking work inside builder in gitian-building.md (master...2015_11_gitian_building) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7060
< GitHub150>
bitcoin/master 2e31d74 Wladimir J. van der Laan: gitian: use trusty for building
< wumpus>
there's one difference though: tor only authenticates on opening the connection, bitcoin http authenticates for every request. So they can use more key stretching without creating command latency issues.
< Greyboy>
instagibbs, i know i'm new and my opinion is relatively worthless, but i think it's a good idea. my question is what percent of people who run bitcoin-core actually need this solution?
< GitHub111>
[bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #7053: Globals: Remove a bunch of Params() from main.cpp before 0.12 (master...globals-chainparams-main) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7053
< GitHub184>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #7052: [qa] python-bitcoinrpc is no longer a subtree (master...MarcoFalke-2015-qaSubtree) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7052
< GitHub23>
[bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #7051: ui: Add "Copy raw transaction data" to transaction list context menu (master...2015_11_transaction_hex2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7051
< gmaxwell>
Okay, I confess some paranoia here-- I don't want this to be like the rpc hangs issue. Where we pigheadily avoid improvements for some silly footgun which is making people stop using bitcoin core and switch to hosted apis.
< GitHub150>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #7048: [doc][trivial] Update miniupnpc version in build-unix (master...miniupnpc-build-unix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7048
< gmaxwell>
As far as I know the normal relay network bitcoin nodes do nothing special on the bitcoin p2p protocol.
< GitHub144>
[bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #7047: [WIP] Backports for 0.11.3 (updated to e8df8a5) (0.11...backports-for-0.11.3) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7047
< BlueMatt>
morcos: sorry, I've been behind on bitcoin core...people were starting to notice the relay network had been broken for a long time so i figured i needed to fix it
< GitHub102>
[bitcoin] pstratem opened pull request #7046: [WIP] Net: Ignore "tx" messages in blocks only mode. (master...2015-11-17-blocksonly) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7046
< GitHub121>
[bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #7045: Bugfix: Use unique autostart filenames on Linux for testnet/regtest (master...linux_autostart_unique) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7045
< GitHub126>
[bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #7044: RPC: Added additional config option for multiple RPC users. (master...multrpc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7044
< GitHub93>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7020: Implement helper class for CTxMemPoolEntry constructor (master...EntryHelper) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7020
< GitHub86>
bitcoin/master e8df8a5 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge pull request #7020...
< GitHub86>
bitcoin/master e587bc3 Alex Morcos: Implement helper class for CTxMemPoolEntry constructor...
< wumpus>
(or #bitcoin-wizards if it is moonmath related :-) )
< wumpus>
well definitely not here, this channel is just for bitcoin core related programming work. The proper answer to your question is stil 'the mailing list'. #bitcoin-dev is fine, but IRC discussion tends to be more ephermal than mailing lists
< CodeShark>
The usual procedure for BIP proposals is to discuss on mailing list first. But given that at least a few important reviewers/critics either have unsubscribed to the ML entirely or else just ignore it, should we discuss it here or in bitcoin-dev?