1 2014-10-09 00:00:03 <jtimon> then you will have core.o in the library instead of what you need, eventually you will want both to use the same code for that, but that requires changes in core
2 2014-10-09 00:00:28 <sipa> i have no problem with core.o in the library, as you know
3 2014-10-09 00:00:37 <cfields> :q
4 2014-10-09 00:00:40 <cfields> ...
5 2014-10-09 00:00:47 <sipa> reducing dependencies is an optimization, not a requirement
6 2014-10-09 00:00:55 <cfields> apparently i'm done with you guys :p
7 2014-10-09 00:01:00 <gmaxwell> I think there is a reasonable argument for also doing the LOCKTIMEVERIFY in the same softfork as BIP62: it's also a tool to address malleability, and it's mostly self contained, and what it does adjust is similar areas of code (validation flags).
8 2014-10-09 00:01:05 <sipa> and certainly not superior to code duplication...
9 2014-10-09 00:02:04 <jtimon> yes, I know, I would like to know what others think about it, I just want to have the two binaries to compare
10 2014-10-09 00:02:26 <sipa> having an idea of small we could gewt things is interesting indeed
11 2014-10-09 00:02:43 <sipa> ok, i'll stop preaching; you know my opinion :)
12 2014-10-09 00:03:06 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ack
13 2014-10-09 00:03:47 <jtimon> updated with what was mising, and not duplicating the whole checker
14 2014-10-09 00:05:11 <jtimon> s/updated/I'll update it
15 2014-10-09 00:05:50 <cfields> sipa: ok with moving BIP32Hash to hash.h/cpp ?
16 2014-10-09 00:06:08 <sipa> cfields: ok
17 2014-10-09 00:06:21 <cfields> thanks
18 2014-10-09 00:23:49 <dgenr8> gmaxwell: how about #2340 too? consistent with expanded nlocktime usage
19 2014-10-09 00:25:54 <sipa> dgenr8: 2340 is not a consensus rule
20 2014-10-09 00:26:00 <sipa> it can be deployed independently
21 2014-10-09 00:26:36 <dgenr8> even better
22 2014-10-09 00:28:48 <gmaxwell> oh for some reason I thought we'd merged that already.
23 2014-10-09 02:01:11 <BlueMatt> whats our deprecation method for rpcs?
24 2014-10-09 02:01:16 <BlueMatt> dont we have a flag somewhere for that?
25 2014-10-09 02:22:50 <gmaxwell> gah! I'm so tired of people getting confused about beta != prerelease. "I'm not going to run 0.9.3 until it's not beta, don't you have a patch for 0.9?"
26 2014-10-09 02:23:20 <BlueMatt> lets call 0.10 stable
27 2014-10-09 02:23:27 <BlueMatt> what was the old "bar for stable" metric?
28 2014-10-09 02:23:29 <BlueMatt> it included headers first
29 2014-10-09 02:23:33 <BlueMatt> and some other stuff
30 2014-10-09 02:23:37 <BlueMatt> maybe it was on gavin's gists
31 2014-10-09 02:23:37 <moa> 0.9.3 stable (beta)
32 2014-10-09 02:26:16 <Luke-Jr> wumpus: FWIW, I'm pending on the headers first merge for final-rebasing block proposals - just so you're aware
33 2014-10-09 02:26:39 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ok, seriously though, what is on your list for 1.0 or 0.10 non-beta?
34 2014-10-09 02:26:50 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: 0.9.3 final (all of Bitcoin is beta)
35 2014-10-09 02:26:52 <Luke-Jr> :p
36 2014-10-09 02:26:57 <Luke-Jr> ACTION puts quotes on that
37 2014-10-09 02:27:13 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: either removed or seriously improved wallet?
38 2014-10-09 02:27:36 <BlueMatt> its a reference client 1.0
39 2014-10-09 02:27:42 <BlueMatt> I dont think it needs that
40 2014-10-09 02:27:50 <sipa> BlueMatt: stable == his grandmother can use it
41 2014-10-09 02:28:05 <BlueMatt> I /really/ dont think thats required for the /reference/ client
42 2014-10-09 02:28:10 <sipa> (which i think is a bad goal now, as his grandmother shouldn't beusing a full node)
43 2014-10-09 02:28:11 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: at the very least, it should do sane backups
44 2014-10-09 02:29:19 <gmaxwell> we've proposed dropping the word before a long time ago but didn't because of wanting to avoid the inevitable "omg bitcoin is no longer beta!" garbage in the pump^wpress.
45 2014-10-09 02:30:18 <BlueMatt> yes, so slip it in
46 2014-10-09 02:30:18 <gmaxwell> I mean just from the version strings, where it leads to this particular confusion where people won't upgrade because they notice the beta on the new version and not the old. Fine to say the bitcoin system is a beta thing.
47 2014-10-09 02:31:09 <BlueMatt> dont announce it, and for the pr/code put giant comments that say "0.10 is NOT marking bitcoin as non-beta"
48 2014-10-09 02:31:18 <Luke-Jr> "Bitcoin Core version v0.10 for the experimental/beta Bitcoin consensus network"
49 2014-10-09 02:31:35 <sipa> the BBC
50 2014-10-09 02:31:43 <sipa> Bitcoin Beta Consensus
51 2014-10-09 02:58:18 <jtimon> BlueMatt cfields wumpus sipa what about https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/tree/scriptpreview? Is based on #4989 but not on #5054 (which wumpus doesn't like)
52 2014-10-09 02:59:32 <jtimon> sipa in fact I think that minimal duplication for people intersted only on the serialization of the tx and not in the whole structure as used for bitcoin core
53 2014-10-09 04:33:33 <Tebbo> Hey anyone else working with conformal?
54 2014-10-09 04:35:35 <Tebbo> rpc.cert: The system cannot find the path specified.
55 2014-10-09 04:39:48 <phantomcircuit> <moa> [02:23:40] 0.9.3 stable (beta)
56 2014-10-09 04:39:52 <phantomcircuit> i actually like that
57 2014-10-09 04:42:59 <Tebbo> anyone know if you can issue command line arguments (like -server) to the bitcoin-qt program on windows 7?
58 2014-10-09 04:46:09 <moa> phantomcircuit: me too, makes sense for joe "worries if he got it right" installer
59 2014-10-09 04:49:16 <phantomcircuit> moa, to be fair
60 2014-10-09 04:49:17 <phantomcircuit> im
61 2014-10-09 04:49:21 <phantomcircuit> pretttty drunk
62 2014-10-09 04:49:23 <Tebbo> phantomcircuit
63 2014-10-09 04:49:24 <Tebbo> dude
64 2014-10-09 04:49:35 <Tebbo> i miss you man
65 2014-10-09 04:49:44 <moa> oh, watch out for the enforcers then ...
66 2014-10-09 04:49:46 <Tebbo> I need to hang out in this channel more
67 2014-10-09 04:50:03 <moa> i'm sick of creating new Nyms everytime i get booted off here
68 2014-10-09 04:50:12 <Tebbo> :( I'm having a problem with an error
69 2014-10-09 04:50:19 <Tebbo> C:\Users\User\AppData\Local\Btcd\rpc.cert: The system cannot find the path specified.
70 2014-10-09 04:50:26 <Tebbo> the rpc client isn't running i don't think
71 2014-10-09 04:50:31 <Tebbo> ACTION looks up .cert
72 2014-10-09 04:50:54 <phantomcircuit> moa, he's ok
73 2014-10-09 04:50:56 <phantomcircuit> just a bit
74 2014-10-09 04:50:57 <phantomcircuit> ...
75 2014-10-09 04:50:58 <phantomcircuit> slow
76 2014-10-09 04:51:03 <phantomcircuit> ;)
77 2014-10-09 05:03:46 <BlueMatt> Tebbo: this is not conformal-support
78 2014-10-09 05:03:55 <Tebbo> i know buddy i know
79 2014-10-09 05:03:59 <Tebbo> don't get your panties in a wad
80 2014-10-09 05:04:08 <Tebbo> suggest a topic and i'll talk about it
81 2014-10-09 05:04:20 <Tebbo> i'm currently listening to the canadian video post
82 2014-10-09 05:09:39 <davec> Tebbo: you need to specify an rpcuser and rpcpass for the RPC server to be running. https://github.com/conformal/btcd/blob/master/sample-btcd.conf
83 2014-10-09 05:09:47 <davec> then the cert will be autogenerated on first start
84 2014-10-09 05:16:42 <Tebbo> davec, I'm trying to not use btcd, I want to use the conformal btcrpcclient with the bitcoin-qt, json rpc
85 2014-10-09 05:18:07 <davec> use the bitcoin core example.https://github.com/conformal/btcrpcclient/tree/master/examples/bitcoincorehttp
86 2014-10-09 05:18:59 <Tebbo> https://github.com/conformal/btcrpcclient/tree/master/examples/bitcoincorehttp
87 2014-10-09 05:19:22 <Tebbo> yeah I'm trying to use the websockets because it is the only one with TLS mode unlocked
88 2014-10-09 05:20:27 <Tebbo> I need to unlock the wallet and issue a send command
89 2014-10-09 05:20:30 <davec> join the btcd channel and I'll help - people get upset in this onefor support stuff
90 2014-10-09 05:20:35 <Tebbo> kk
91 2014-10-09 05:21:43 <gmaxwell> support stuff here is usually in #bitcoin but I dunno if anyone that knows anything about that program hang out in #bitcoin
92 2014-10-09 06:14:02 <wumpus> anyone know if you can issue command line arguments (like -server) to the bitcoin-qt program on windows 7? <- sure! although unless it's a onetime command like -reindex, putting the settings in bitcoin.conf is usually easier
93 2014-10-09 06:16:00 <wumpus> that was @Tebbo
94 2014-10-09 06:35:55 <Tebbo> wumpus, yeah i figured that
95 2014-10-09 09:54:41 <dcousens> sipa: would your latest PR make the following redundant: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/69dd8c919aa3a1b88af34265f828fe0a58a55014/src/script/script.cpp#L230-L255
96 2014-10-09 09:55:02 <dcousens> It seems to me it would, but the only reason that above needs to be kept is because yours is an optional flag?
97 2014-10-09 09:57:16 <dcousens> or is there reason this is done because it is softfork safe?
98 2014-10-09 09:57:24 <dcousens> s/there/the
99 2014-10-09 11:07:58 <onefox> has someone here some expierens with micropayment channels ?
100 2014-10-09 13:38:48 <helo> onefox: there is some talk of them in -wizards from time to time
101 2014-10-09 13:39:14 <onefox> helo: in bitcoin-wizards ?
102 2014-10-09 13:39:29 <helo> yes
103 2014-10-09 13:39:51 <onefox> thanks