1 2014-11-02 02:12:49 <amiller> is there a good way to tell which mining pool mined which block?
 2 2014-11-02 02:13:03 <amiller> i don't like using blockchain.info's because it's just based on "Relayed by" rather than anything... better... i dunno
 3 2014-11-02 02:13:17 <amiller> is there any uniform way by which pools sign their blocks to claim them?
 4 2014-11-02 02:13:46 <amiller> http://blockorigin.pfoe.be/
 5 2014-11-02 02:13:46 <gmaxwell> amiller: some miners put a string into their coinbases.
 6 2014-11-02 02:13:58 <gmaxwell> the bc.i data is crap, kinlo's data (that url) is generally better.
 7 2014-11-02 02:17:00 <amiller> kinlo's data seems to toss stuff out after 2016 blocks ;(
 8 2014-11-02 02:17:29 <amiller> blocktrail.com also has a "mined by" field but don't explain where it comes from
 9 2014-11-02 02:23:11 <Luke-Jr> amiller: none of the "signatures" are cryptographic, note; it's easy to imposter
10 2014-11-02 02:23:39 <Luke-Jr> amiller: IIRC, BitPay's block explorer thing just uses those "signatures"
11 2014-11-02 02:23:48 <Luke-Jr> and/or well-known address reuse
12 2014-11-02 04:57:36 <BlueMatt> cfields: do you have a suggestion as to where to actually put MAX_BLOCK_SIZE?
13 2014-11-02 04:57:44 <BlueMatt> there doesnt appear to be a good place for it
14 2014-11-02 04:58:28 <BlueMatt> (the copy of it was to check that that main.h include was actually only being used for MAX_BLOCK_SIZE, but I forgot to remove it before commit)
15 2014-11-02 05:04:12 <BlueMatt> cfields: nvm, chose core/block.h, but...meh, whatever
16 2014-11-02 05:13:20 <cfields> BlueMatt: not really, that's why i didn't suggest any :p
17 2014-11-02 05:13:46 <cfields> BlueMatt: makes sense to me, i'm sure someone will yell if not
18 2014-11-02 05:14:45 <BlueMatt> meh, its strange as main.h previously had all the constants, now one is arbitrarily moved....
19 2014-11-02 05:15:33 <BlueMatt> anyway, its in its own commit, I suggest merger flip a coin
20 2014-11-02 06:19:07 <sipa> BlueMatt, cfields: i believe it's easy to avoid, by not having CPartialMerkeTree validate the number of transactions, but main doing so before decoding
21 2014-11-02 06:19:41 <sipa> as if we're making PMT a separate module from main, it imho shouldn't be doing that type of validation
22 2014-11-02 06:20:23 <sipa> also, it's technically dead code, and always has been, as we're only constructing and not parsing PMTs in bitcoin core (though that may change if we add an SPV wallet)
23 2014-11-02 06:23:22 <BlueMatt> sipa: note: I'm ading an rpc to verify/create the pmts now
24 2014-11-02 07:17:09 <BlueMatt> sipa: didnt we used to have a IsInMainChain() function?
25 2014-11-02 07:17:25 <sipa> use chainActive.Contains
26 2014-11-02 07:18:05 <BlueMatt> thanks
27 2014-11-02 07:46:55 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, there's a bunch of code that does weird stuff to check that
28 2014-11-02 07:46:58 <phantomcircuit> like
29 2014-11-02 07:47:11 <phantomcircuit> HeightInChain() > 0
30 2014-11-02 09:51:10 <paveljanik> sipa: utACK?
31 2014-11-02 09:52:19 <sipa> paveljanik: untested ACK; "I agree with merging this, but have not tested it"
32 2014-11-02 09:52:52 <paveljanik> ah, ok. Thanks for explanation.