1 2015-12-13 00:14:57 <syriven> hey all. new-ish to irc. is this a good place to talk about a bitcoin project i'm working on?
 2 2015-12-13 00:25:36 <syriven> anyone around? is this a dead channel?
 3 2015-12-13 00:25:50 <sipa> no
 4 2015-12-13 00:26:44 <syriven> hmmmmmmmmmmm
 5 2015-12-13 00:26:50 <sipa> it's not unusual that it takes a few hours or more until someone answers
 6 2015-12-13 00:27:23 <sipa> discussion happens in bursts when enough interested people are present
 7 2015-12-13 00:27:46 <sipa> and asking whether something is on topic is hard to answer without knowing what it is about :)
 8 2015-12-13 00:29:28 <syriven> gotcha
 9 2015-12-13 00:30:16 <syriven> basically, it's a marketplace server which takes bitcoin deposits from "agents" (human or script-based), and offers services to these agents for sub-satoshi, off-chain deductions on their balance
10 2015-12-13 00:30:38 <syriven> the services are centered around marketplace/networking/database operations
11 2015-12-13 00:30:52 <syriven> if bitcoin is the money for IoT, this aims to be the marketplace.
12 2015-12-13 00:31:34 <sipa> then no; this channel is about development of bitcoin itself (and the network protocol and consensus rules different clients use), not for development of systems on top
13 2015-12-13 00:31:51 <syriven> k. is there a better channel you know of for this kinda stuff?
14 2015-12-13 10:29:23 <sturles> I found the reason for my absurdly-high-fee problems when sending transactions.  AcceptToMemoryPool has this condition: if (fRejectAbsurdFee && nFees > ::minRelayTxFee.GetFee(nSize) * 10000)
15 2015-12-13 10:29:52 <sturles> I set relayfee to 0.00000001.
16 2015-12-13 10:30:27 <sturles> So normal fee paying transactions will get rejected if the thransaction has a fee. :-/
17 2015-12-13 10:31:00 <sturles> Not sure if this is the optimal way of cheching if a fee is absurdly high or nor.
18 2015-12-13 10:31:04 <sturles> *not
19 2015-12-13 10:32:14 <Luke-Jr> sturles: well don't do that..
20 2015-12-13 10:32:38 <Luke-Jr> actually, I guess that should be a supported configuration. maybe.
21 2015-12-13 10:33:49 <sturles> I tried to set it to 0, since mempool limiting made it somewhat irrelevant.
22 2015-12-13 10:34:10 <Luke-Jr> ah
23 2015-12-13 10:34:16 <Luke-Jr> well, not irrelevant as you can see :p
24 2015-12-13 10:34:25 <Luke-Jr> it also affects the dust spamfilter
25 2015-12-13 10:34:31 <sturles> Yep, it has some side-effects.
26 2015-12-13 10:36:31 <gmaxwell> It'll also result in stuck transactions if you're lower than other nodes around you.
27 2015-12-13 10:41:19 <sturles> I can't set minrelayfee via rpc, right?
28 2015-12-13 10:43:04 <sturles> This in qt/sendcoinsdialog.cpp is clearly wrong:  msgParams.first = tr("A fee higher than %1 is considered an absurdly high fee.").arg(BitcoinUnits::formatWithUnit(model->getOptionsModel()->getDisplayUnit(), 10000000));
29 2015-12-13 10:43:44 <sturles> Only correct with the default relayfee setting.
30 2015-12-13 10:44:17 <Luke-Jr> sturles: I believe that is fixed in master, or maybe a PR
31 2015-12-13 10:44:23 <sturles> OK
32 2015-12-13 20:23:48 <rusty> kanzure, btcdrak: hmm, I see posts from jl2012 on dormant UTXOs in the mod queue.  That thread seems to have stopped making progress, are we suggesting it move to -discuss?
33 2015-12-13 20:39:17 <rusty> I accepted his posts, but sent all participants a cheery note that it was just circling.
34 2015-12-13 20:41:05 <kanzure> rusty: why is it circling ?
35 2015-12-13 20:41:35 <rusty> kanzure: because the initial proposal was pretty clear and now it's just being re-stated in different words.
36 2015-12-13 20:41:41 <kanzure> rusty: they looked like good contributions
37 2015-12-13 20:42:15 <kanzure> happy to see we're moderating content now
38 2015-12-13 20:42:39 <kanzure> jl2012 has some email/subscription issues so anything that resembles "rehashing" might be either new content or be due to mail client/delivery issues :-/
39 2015-12-13 20:46:21 <rusty> kanzure: UTXO thread goes: (1) proposal  from jl2012.  (2) "me too" from gb.  (3) response which misunderstands propsal from vincent, with self-noted "off-topic" section(!).  (4) Clarification from gmaxwell.  (5) Confusion from Chris Priest.  (6) Clarification from gmaxwell.  (7) More "I don't like this" opposition from Chris Priest. (8) another calrification from gmaxwll...
40 2015-12-13 20:47:18 <rusty> kanzure: I suggested it's time for a move to -discuss, or some actual simulation or implementation results
41 2015-12-13 20:59:50 <CodeShark> rusty: other than Chris Priest's misunderstanding, I think the thread actually contains a lot of great info. my main issue is I wish gmaxwell would publish these things in places where people could find them more easily rather than letting them get buried in these threads :)
42 2015-12-13 21:00:34 <CodeShark> there are other ideas that stem from these TXO commitment ideas that could be added to the thread, though - some of these were discussed earlier in -wizards