1 2015-06-09 10:37:22 <wumpus> flound1129: that's interesting it did look like it was a bad peer "there were misbehaving peer messages in the log earlier) but it kept looping instead of banning the peer"
 2 2015-06-09 10:37:32 <wumpus> flound1129: I think you should definitely file a github issue
 3 2015-06-09 10:38:02 <wumpus> (especially if this happens again, it's unfortunate that you lost the block files)
 4 2015-06-09 10:42:56 <LeMiner> wumpus, maybe you know this
 5 2015-06-09 10:43:01 <LeMiner> when QT closes in a non-standard way, does it literally ALWAYS have to rebuild the entire block database? Or are there ways around that?
 6 2015-06-09 10:45:22 <wumpus> LeMiner: I've killed my client in the most horrible ways, and never had to rebuild the database, it may be caused by a combination of OS and file system (or the underlying cause of the client crash is something to do with hw corruption)
 7 2015-06-09 10:46:00 <LeMiner> Weird, when I kill off QT I always have to rebuild it, hmmm
 8 2015-06-09 10:46:03 <moa> normally it is an I/O error that causes that
 9 2015-06-09 10:46:04 <wumpus> but it depends onthe reason why it dies
10 2015-06-09 10:46:09 <wumpus> right moa
11 2015-06-09 10:46:20 <LeMiner> it runs on an SSD
12 2015-06-09 10:46:21 <moa> so yeah HDD issue is most likely
13 2015-06-09 10:46:37 <LeMiner> lets say I pull the plug
14 2015-06-09 10:47:48 <wumpus> LeMiner: what version? what OS? what filesystem?
15 2015-06-09 10:48:30 <LeMiner> Win 8.1 64b - NTFS - QT v0.10.1
16 2015-06-09 10:48:37 <wumpus> I mean *ideally* pulling the plug would just work, the journaled nature of the database and the order of disk syncs should make sure of that, but there's tons of issues at various levels that can throw a spanner in the works
17 2015-06-09 10:49:04 <wumpus> it'd be interesting to diagnose what kind of corruption you get
18 2015-06-09 10:49:11 <LeMiner> it happens every single time it crashes, and I doubt it's because of the HD, since it happens on an identical PC as well
19 2015-06-09 10:49:21 <gmaxwell> wumpus: I think there must be some leveldb issue on windows or something.
20 2015-06-09 10:49:49 <LeMiner> going through 4+ years of block reindexing is really annoying every single time
21 2015-06-09 10:49:54 <gmaxwell> LeMiner: a while back when there were reports of corruption I left a computer running for many weeks running a loop that constantly cut the power on it.
22 2015-06-09 10:50:23 <wumpus> LeMiner: make a backup after a  succesfull reindex, that saves at least some time
23 2015-06-09 10:50:27 <LeMiner> I can reproduce the error any time, just tell me what you'd want me to run in terms of diagnostics
24 2015-06-09 10:50:52 <LeMiner> @wumpus that might be a good idea yeah
25 2015-06-09 10:51:07 <wumpus> gmaxwell: I wouldnt' be surprised either if it was related to leveldb on windows
26 2015-06-09 10:51:40 <LeMiner> Might be something fun to look into?
27 2015-06-09 10:52:15 <LeMiner> I'll create a github issue in a bit
28 2015-06-09 10:52:54 <wumpus> yes - though I have some tools for diagnosing block storage issues, but nothing for corrupted leveldb databases, I'm not acquainted with its on-disk format
29 2015-06-09 10:54:01 <LeMiner> hmm
30 2015-06-09 10:54:04 <wumpus> but upload your database files after it works again and possibly someone can find the issue
31 2015-06-09 10:54:11 <wumpus> eh after it *breaks* again
32 2015-06-09 10:54:27 <LeMiner> np, I'm just halfway through rebuilding it atm
33 2015-06-09 10:59:58 <priidu> can someone boot the spammer from #bitcoin?
34 2015-06-09 11:07:05 <wumpus> I don't have ops there
35 2015-06-09 12:08:50 <coiner> hi
36 2015-06-09 12:11:20 <jonasschnelli> hi
37 2015-06-09 13:55:48 <kanzure> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/sidechains-dev
38 2015-06-09 13:57:48 <harding> For the getinfo error field message "WARNING: check your network connection, 3 blocks received in the last 4 hours (24 expected)", if the error is legitimately displayed because you lost connection, should it be cleared when you reconnect and catch up to a reasonably-recent tip again?
39 2015-06-09 14:01:24 <sipa> harding: known issue
40 2015-06-09 14:01:39 <harding> sipa: ok, thanks!
41 2015-06-09 14:01:50 <sipa> will be fixed in 0.11.0rc1
42 2015-06-09 14:01:54 <sipa> eh, rc2
43 2015-06-09 14:12:49 <StormDev> guys do you have a good book to refresh my knowledge from Galois's Theory to elliptic curve cryptography?
44 2015-06-09 14:13:11 <StormDev> book/reference
45 2015-06-09 14:29:51 <Rozal_> anyone here a iOS dev?
46 2015-06-09 14:35:55 <jonasschnelli> Rozal: yes. I do iOS stuff.
47 2015-06-09 14:36:01 <slkz> god damn openbsd :] has anyone here successfully built and tested 0.10.2 or higher on openbsd-current?
48 2015-06-09 14:36:08 <jonasschnelli> (if i need money). :)
49 2015-06-09 14:37:12 <Rozal> jonasschnelli: how is iOS9, need a dev to add a device to their account so I can test
50 2015-06-09 14:37:39 <jonasschnelli> Rozal: is this related to bitcoin-dev in some ways?
51 2015-06-09 14:37:56 <Rozal> not at all
52 2015-06-09 14:38:08 <jonasschnelli> So PM me or change channel. :)
53 2015-06-09 14:38:15 <Rozal> yes sir!
54 2015-06-09 15:03:25 <jonasschnelli> when having a LOCK() within the main level of a function, i don't need to wrap out the return?
55 2015-06-09 15:03:29 <jonasschnelli> Example: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/wallet/crypter.cpp#L201
56 2015-06-09 15:04:09 <jonasschnelli> is that required? (the extra level of {} before the return)
57 2015-06-09 15:05:17 <sipa> jonasschnelli: nope, not needed
58 2015-06-09 15:05:33 <jonasschnelli> sipa: okay. I wasn't 100% sure. Thanks!
59 2015-06-09 15:05:50 <sipa> and in fact, if the expression after return would use some variables that are protected by the lock, it must be inside
60 2015-06-09 15:06:31 <sipa> jonasschnelli: part is historical, when the construct was LOCK(cs) { ... }, rather than { LOCK(cs); ... }
61 2015-06-09 15:06:34 <jonasschnelli> sipa: okay. return inside the LOCK looks safer to me.
62 2015-06-09 15:07:34 <jonasschnelli> hd pr for internal wallet 95% done
63 2015-06-09 15:07:42 <sipa> nice
64 2015-06-09 15:07:51 <jonasschnelli> (95% unless you add testing on the top)
65 2015-06-09 15:07:55 <sipa> haha
66 2015-06-09 15:08:02 <jonasschnelli> (as always)
67 2015-06-09 15:08:51 <jonasschnelli> what it really made it complex is that i was implementing support for multiple hd chains of keys
68 2015-06-09 15:09:06 <jonasschnelli> so you can rotate your hd chain
69 2015-06-09 18:42:19 <sipa> ;;tblb 2600
70 2015-06-09 18:42:21 <gribble> The expected time between blocks taking 43 minutes and 20 seconds to generate is 16 hours, 53 minutes, and 16 seconds
71 2015-06-09 18:42:24 <sipa> ;;tblb 3600
72 2015-06-09 18:42:25 <gribble> The expected time between blocks taking 1 hour and 0 seconds to generate is 4 days, 6 hours, 56 minutes, and 3 seconds
73 2015-06-09 19:58:17 <Luke-Jr> ugh, the merge script was never fixed to include something descriptive in the first line? :<
74 2015-06-09 19:58:30 <sipa> nope
75 2015-06-09 19:58:46 <sipa> needs a python replacement or so
76 2015-06-09 19:59:00 <sipa> as it needs to fetch things through githib's rest interface
77 2015-06-09 20:00:06 <Luke-Jr> at this point, the "damage" is done enough I'm more inclined to hack up git log :|
78 2015-06-09 20:05:52 <Luke-Jr> bleh, no simple way to do that it seems
79 2015-06-09 22:53:29 <PRab> I'm guessing https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/5798 won't make it before 0.11 final, right?
80 2015-06-09 22:54:29 <sipa> PRab: eh, someone will need to implement it first?
81 2015-06-09 22:54:54 <PRab> I know it's my pet feature, but it makes the default behavior fail to install on a securely setup machine.
82 2015-06-09 22:56:13 <PRab> sipa: Yep, thats the joy and pitfall of OSS. I try not to squak too loudly unless I'm actually contributing code.
83 2015-06-09 22:56:52 <PRab> I'll go back to being quiet unless I get enough motivation to actually implement it.
84 2015-06-09 22:57:47 <sipa> don't want to yell you down or anything, but unless someone implements it, there's no way it will make it into any release :)
85 2015-06-09 22:58:35 <PRab> I get it. No hard feelings.
86 2015-06-09 22:59:19 <PRab> Other than that, rc1 installed smoothly and looks good to me.
87 2015-06-09 22:59:35 <sipa> there will be an rc2 in any case
88 2015-06-09 23:14:50 <PRab> Is it a bug that bitcoin-qt logged "GUI: PaymentServer::LoadRootCAs: Loaded  36  root certificates " even though I have my wallet disabled?
89 2015-06-09 23:15:32 <PRab> I thought that would only be used for payment protocol stuff, but with the wallet disabled that shouldn't be relevant.