1 2016-02-09 00:00:57 <wumpus> none at all
  2 2016-02-09 00:01:45 <midnightmagic> :-(
  3 2016-02-09 00:02:21 <midnightmagic> wumpus: when was the last time you rebuilt your base vm images?
  4 2016-02-09 00:03:03 <wumpus> the relevant one (base-trusty-amd64) is from jan 13
  5 2016-02-09 00:50:04 <moa> what's the new blockonly flag?  "-blockonly" "-onlyblock" "-blocksonly" ?
  6 2016-02-09 00:52:35 <moa> nm
  7 2016-02-09 00:53:22 <phantomcircuit> moa, blocksonly
  8 2016-02-09 01:00:21 <moa> phantomcircuit: thnx ... will the node still serve blocks also if this enabled?
  9 2016-02-09 01:06:23 <phantomcircuit> moa, just
 10 2016-02-09 01:06:37 <moa> jsut listen
 11 2016-02-09 01:06:46 <phantomcircuit> moa, the only thing it wont do that you might care about is relay wallet transactions
 12 2016-02-09 01:06:55 <moa> right
 13 2016-02-09 01:07:03 <phantomcircuit> if you're using blocksonly and a wallet you have to relay the transactions some other way
 14 2016-02-09 01:07:21 <phantomcircuit> (or enable relaying of wallet transactions again, but that destroys your privacy)
 15 2016-02-09 10:42:52 <mrlack> is bitcoin the our future?
 16 2016-02-09 10:44:33 <mrlack> Is anybody here?
 17 2016-02-09 11:01:19 <firelegend> In Core, is it normal sync-ing of around 5 weeks to take more than half a day?
 18 2016-02-09 11:01:46 <firelegend> Also, are tx'es/blocks commited on per tx/block basis or when a buffer has been filled sufficiently?
 19 2016-02-09 11:13:39 <gmaxwell> firelegend: depends on your hardware and connecitivity. 0.12rc is _much_ faster.
 20 2016-02-09 11:14:26 <gmaxwell> During initial block download flushes depend on memory usage. If you have a lot of ram you can set dbcache=3000 and greatly speed things up. (though not as much as 0.12rc speeds it up, though the combination is fastest)
 21 2016-02-09 11:14:58 <gmaxwell> we've been working for years to extract the speed that is in 0.12... it's difficult keeping up with the system's rapid growth!
 22 2016-02-09 11:19:35 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, i can do a full chain sync with checkpoints disabled in ~4 hours on my i7-4790k system with the entire chain in ram
 23 2016-02-09 11:20:17 <phantomcircuit> unfortunately this is the fastest single threaded performance cpu available on the market (which is partially the bottleneck now)
 24 2016-02-09 11:20:31 <phantomcircuit> (also it's like several years old intel hasn't made anything faster since)
 25 2016-02-09 11:21:25 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: I have benchmarks under 4 hours... though on a much faster system.
 26 2016-02-09 11:21:50 <gmaxwell> (the 24 core haswell v3 box with 128 gb ram... from the public internet though)
 27 2016-02-09 11:22:33 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, interesting
 28 2016-02-09 11:22:45 <phantomcircuit> possibly it wasn't actually all in ram
 29 2016-02-09 11:23:03 <phantomcircuit> i was doing a reindex which would be slower than the public internet in most scenarios
 30 2016-02-09 11:23:12 <firelegend> phantomcircuit:Was gmaxwell responding to me?
 31 2016-02-09 11:23:30 <phantomcircuit> the price for 4790k cpus hasn't gone down at all in 2 years
 32 2016-02-09 14:42:07 <jl2012> My 2-3 year proposal for better header format and larger block size: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012414.html
 33 2016-02-09 14:47:54 <aj> jl2012: Q3 for BIP141? booo! :)
 34 2016-02-09 14:48:33 <jl2012> aj: it also depends on how miners adopt
 35 2016-02-09 14:48:56 <jl2012> code should be merged in Q2
 36 2016-02-09 14:50:40 <aj> jl2012: yeah, i know. :) your first approach's stage 2 sounds the same as BlueMatt's proposal to me?
 37 2016-02-09 14:51:39 <jl2012> aj: yes, just with more details
 38 2016-02-09 14:53:00 <jl2012> aj: oh no, BlueMatt's proposal implies both
 39 2016-02-09 14:55:22 <aj> jl2012: BlueMatt had the extra nonce bits as optional, and didn't have timewarp or header format changes i think?
 40 2016-02-09 14:55:43 <aj> jl2012: ("we could table #4, or activate #4 a year or two after 1-3 activate")
 41 2016-02-09 14:56:39 <jl2012> yes, not exactly the same. But time warp attack could only be fixed by a *real* hardfork, and we MUST fix it someday
 42 2016-02-09 14:57:25 <jl2012> header format change is actually Luke-Jr's proposal, which is mentioned in Bluematt's post
 43 2016-02-09 14:59:52 <aj> jl2012: yeah; i think i like your approach as a refinement on BlueMatt's (ie, providing a rough timeline, and separating out changes that SPV nodes won't notice from ones they will)
 44 2016-02-09 15:01:36 <fugaditokens> one question please :) smos linux work alone or up another OS?
 45 2016-02-09 15:26:24 <dansmith_btc> Hi, is utxo db serialized deterministically? The reason why Im asking: I want a few people to confirm their utxo hash at the same block height. Will their hashes match?
 46 2016-02-09 15:27:21 <wumpus> dansmith_btc: the utxo hash in gettxoutsetinfo is deterministic
 47 2016-02-09 15:31:09 <dansmith_btc> cheers, i wasnt aware of that rpc
 48 2016-02-09 17:31:47 <bsm117532> Journal club about ECC encryption in NYC on Feb 24 if anyone is interested: http://www.meetup.com/BitDevsNYC/events/228728729/
 49 2016-02-09 19:37:29 <adiabat> Hi - is there a channel specific to the segregated witness test network (segnet), or are those questions appropriate here?
 50 2016-02-09 19:38:50 <gmaxwell> adiabat: #segwit-dev
 51 2016-02-09 19:39:25 <adiabat> got it thanks
 52 2016-02-09 20:19:29 <GuruMonk> Hi All
 53 2016-02-09 20:20:23 <midnightmagic> wumpus: would an issue be useful at all for me to submit for the gitian building process?
 54 2016-02-09 20:21:16 <midnightmagic> .. i'll just file it, for tracking.
 55 2016-02-09 20:26:51 <qingu> Hey, quick question: how do I get the coverage report for tests? I tried ./configure --enable-lcov && make cov, but without luck
 56 2016-02-09 21:08:06 <skyzer> How is this possible my bitcoin core generated bitcoin address that is not valid? Sorry, '1FxCEQsvS5TEecLCUXbsZfsK5WwyBUUk7kai' is not a valid BTC address, wallet name, transaction or block
 57 2016-02-09 21:08:47 <skyzer> https://gyazo.com/b6a6fbbad450c192445993b6d234ecb6 here is a screenshot of it
 58 2016-02-09 21:09:55 <buZz> that isnt a bitcoin core screenshot, is it?
 59 2016-02-09 21:10:12 <skyzer> nono, its from my app, but bitcoin core generated it.
 60 2016-02-09 21:10:24 <skyzer> only thing before outputting in that field im using encodeURI in jS
 61 2016-02-09 21:10:31 <buZz> think it would be best to post screenshot from creating the address then
 62 2016-02-09 21:10:34 <skyzer> encodeURI(data.address)
 63 2016-02-09 21:10:42 <skyzer> yes, digging into it
 64 2016-02-09 21:10:51 <buZz> do you have the privkey to it?
 65 2016-02-09 21:11:04 <buZz> have you asked your daemon 'validateaddress' with this address?
 66 2016-02-09 21:11:11 <skyzer> doin
 67 2016-02-09 21:12:19 <arubi> I can't validate it..
 68 2016-02-09 21:12:33 <Luke-Jr> cfields: fwiw http://0bin.net/paste/fxh1xRMZd8yWeyh3#OR5lltiWDfbQaOC8ae05hddY+vQwWox0NPdJN5gAd5o
 69 2016-02-09 21:13:36 <cfields> Luke-Jr: thanks. will add once access is fixed up
 70 2016-02-09 21:13:42 <skyzer> 1 FxCEQS5TEecLCUXbsZfsK5WwyBUUk7kai: valid. after page refresh.
 71 2016-02-09 21:13:42 <skyzer> 1FxCEQsvS5TEecLCUXbsZfsK5WwyBUUk7kai: invalid
 72 2016-02-09 21:15:45 <buZz> thats not the same key
 73 2016-02-09 21:16:03 <Luke-Jr> skyzer: sounds like you have a problem copying the address from Core to the webpage
 74 2016-02-09 21:16:17 <Luke-Jr> buZz: the first one is just invalid, it isn't a key at all
 75 2016-02-09 21:16:27 <skyzer> after page refresh it showed it all good.
 76 2016-02-09 21:16:29 <buZz> some windows viruses abuse copypaste buffers to replace addresses with their own
 77 2016-02-09 21:16:31 <skyzer> yes, some app problem
 78 2016-02-09 21:18:00 <skyzer> okay, user told he probably accidently hit some keys and inserted there characters.
 79 2016-02-09 21:18:06 <skyzer> i got little bit worried, its all okay now=)
 80 2016-02-09 21:41:40 <Dizzle> gavinandresen and jtoomim: naive question, but is Classic's 2MB consensus code licensed such that Core could incorporate the same changes should they decide to do so at some point?
 81 2016-02-09 21:44:15 <jtoomim> of course
 82 2016-02-09 21:44:37 <jtoomim> it uses the same license as Core
 83 2016-02-09 21:44:50 <jtoomim> i think it's either BSD or MIT, can't remember which
 84 2016-02-09 21:45:11 <jtoomim> MIT.
 85 2016-02-09 21:46:12 <Dizzle> cool, thanks
 86 2016-02-09 21:46:23 <brg444> jtoomim: do you plan to address claims that support for Classic is mischaracterized on the website?
 87 2016-02-09 21:47:05 <jtoomim> i do not control the website
 88 2016-02-09 21:47:17 <brg444> i see
 89 2016-02-09 21:47:19 <brg444> who does?
 90 2016-02-09 21:48:12 <jtoomim> i think olivier set that up
 91 2016-02-09 21:48:45 <brg444> Understood. Thanks
 92 2016-02-09 22:27:25 <jtimon> jl2012: although I BIP99 contains the timewarp fix, it wasn't selected because it's critical, but rather because undeniably good and trivial to implement, with the hope of adding more little things to a reasonably sized list of little things (like recovering bits and other stuff), and in fact  my fear was that there would be too many little things and that would have to be comprimised with the goal of maintaining it relatively
 93 2016-02-09 22:27:25 <jtimon> trivial to backport/reimplement. But it's not so clear to me that the timewarp is worth it as a single-feature hardfork
 94 2016-02-09 22:29:13 <jtimon> I'm very tempted to remove the hardfork proposal part from bip99 and leave it as purely informational when I update it to link to luke's and your hardfork bit BIPs
 95 2016-02-09 23:19:18 <vergeDEV> has anything crazy changed since .9 and .12 as far as the rpc getwork? i just made a clone of .12 for testing, and cant even mine the genesis block, miner gives me a server error 500...
 96 2016-02-09 23:19:46 <vergeDEV> ive only tried cpuminer, i guess i can try my antminer, but figured id check first
 97 2016-02-09 23:20:49 <vergeDEV> never had an issue like this from .9 or previous
 98 2016-02-09 23:21:49 <gmaxwell> vergeDEV: take altcoin questions elsewhere. The genesis block has always been hardcoded in bitcoin and getwork hasn't been in the software for years.
 99 2016-02-09 23:23:59 <vergeDEV> gmaxwell: this channel is exactly for protocol talk. ive been coming in here for years. there is no "altcoin" channel for talking about bitcoins protocol
100 2016-02-09 23:24:30 <vergeDEV> the genesis block is hardcoded in all coins, we know its hardcoded in chain paramaters.
101 2016-02-09 23:25:08 <vergeDEV> if you cant contribute to the conversation, you chime-ins aren't needed.
102 2016-02-09 23:33:24 <sunerok> heh.