1 2016-03-29 08:30:17 <jeremias> is there easy way to clear conflicting transactions from ones wallet?
 2 2016-03-29 08:31:20 <wumpus> abandontransaction in 0.12
 3 2016-03-29 08:31:34 <jeremias> wumpus: thx
 4 2016-03-29 08:31:44 <wumpus> though it doesn't actually remove the transactions, just neuters them
 5 2016-03-29 08:37:43 <jonasschnelli> jeremias: If you < 0.12 you can also use -zapwallettxes (during startup).
 6 2016-03-29 08:38:34 <jonasschnelli> jeremias: And happy if you want to test the proposed abandoning feature for the GUI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7707
 7 2016-03-29 08:41:48 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: btw re: the GUI, it seems that no one is really interested in the "output number" that you get when doing "copy transaction id", e.g. the -001 added. maybe we should remove it
 8 2016-03-29 08:42:11 <jonasschnelli> Yes. Also though about it. The recent issues showed that again.
 9 2016-03-29 08:42:24 <wumpus> people paste those into block explorers all the time and are confused by it, which is slightly funny as I hate block explorers, but anyhow
10 2016-03-29 08:42:52 <wumpus> (ok, I hate *centralized* block explorers)
11 2016-03-29 08:43:53 <jonasschnelli> But if you double-click the txhash, you should only select until the -. Hmm... but people might think the -000 is part of the txhash
12 2016-03-29 08:44:09 <jonasschnelli> wumpus: what about placing the output number on a different line?
13 2016-03-29 08:44:19 <wumpus> the output number should be in the details
14 2016-03-29 08:44:31 <wumpus> what I mean is what you get in the clipboard after using the contet menu
15 2016-03-29 08:45:31 <jonasschnelli> Right. There we need to remove the output number for sure.
16 2016-03-29 08:45:57 <jonasschnelli> In the details, we could write "<txhash> (output: 0000)"
17 2016-03-29 08:46:06 <jonasschnelli> brackets and "output:"
18 2016-03-29 08:46:32 <wumpus> sounds good to me
19 2016-03-29 08:47:04 <jonasschnelli> okay. will change that.
20 2016-03-29 08:47:10 <wumpus> btw the (overall) transaction details HTML may be one of the only things from the GUI still left over fro the original satoshi client
21 2016-03-29 08:47:24 <wumpus> s/one of the only/the only/
22 2016-03-29 08:48:02 <wumpus> cool, yeah no hurry, you can also create an issue maybe anew dev can pick it up
23 2016-03-29 15:18:26 <jl2012> is it normal that blocks in blk?????.dat are not ordered by height?
24 2016-03-29 15:19:04 <sdaftuar> jl2012: yes, blocks can be downloaded out of order, and they're written in the order downloaded
25 2016-03-29 15:20:23 <jl2012> thanks sdaftuar
26 2016-03-29 15:44:19 <wumpus> there's a linearize script which can be used to create a set of ordered block files
27 2016-03-29 15:44:35 <wumpus> contrib/linearize
28 2016-03-29 20:20:29 <johnwhitton> Hey quick question on git and commits, When a repo is forked and then some changes made, how do you see the changes made just since the fork
29 2016-03-29 20:20:59 <teward> johnwhitton: on github, you can 'compare' across forks; on 'git' itself on your computer, you would have to compare commit logs
30 2016-03-29 20:21:15 <johnwhitton> e.g. Bloq had a repo https://github.com/bloq/bitcoin when I look at it I see 9946 commits and 339 contributors
31 2016-03-29 20:21:22 <teward> this is usually why I use separate branches for 'developing' things, and then run a `git diff` between 'master' and the branch
32 2016-03-29 20:22:22 <johnwhitton> Thanks teward
33 2016-03-29 20:22:25 <teward> johnwhitton: well, I'd say that that's a poor example; given that it's 380+ commits *behind* Master (so it's not updated or kept in sync)
34 2016-03-29 20:22:28 <teward> johnwhitton: give me a moment
35 2016-03-29 20:22:32 <johnwhitton> So I hit the compare button which gave me tis https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...bloq:master
36 2016-03-29 20:22:46 <johnwhitton> which says There isn’t anything to compare
37 2016-03-29 20:23:05 <helo> johnwhitton: https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/rewriting-history/git-rebase
38 2016-03-29 20:23:23 <helo> also, #git is pretty helpful
39 2016-03-29 20:23:26 <teward> also that
40 2016-03-29 20:24:49 <johnwhitton> Ok so helo: or teward: can you give me a link that shows the commits that have been done on the bloq fork, or should I swing over to #git?
41 2016-03-29 20:24:59 <teward> johnwhitton: there *are* none
42 2016-03-29 20:25:03 <johnwhitton> BTW thanks for your help on this
43 2016-03-29 20:25:26 <teward> johnwhitton: the fork you are looking at has already had its changes incorporated into the master repository, if there ever were any.  Since then, over 300 changes have been made to master, so there's nothing to compare
44 2016-03-29 20:25:27 <johnwhitton> so You think it was just forked with the anticipation of doing some work, but noone ever did? could be the case
45 2016-03-29 20:25:32 <teward> johnwhitton: can't say
46 2016-03-29 20:25:47 <teward> johnwhitton: compare this, by the way: https://github.com/teward/git-testing/compare/crap  This is a test repo, consider the branch compared against master as if it were a fork
47 2016-03-29 20:26:06 <teward> when there's changes in the 'fork' and they aren't incorporated into 'master' there's a list of commit differences
48 2016-03-29 20:26:28 <teward> the list does NOT show up if the fork, when compared against Master, is behind Master, or if the commits are already merged into Master, or when both conditions apply
49 2016-03-29 20:27:01 <teward> i would research 'git' and ask 'git' general questions like this one in #git; however if you have github specific questions like this, then it should be better off done in a channel more suited for that.
50 2016-03-29 20:29:34 <johnwhitton> Thanks teward: I guess I was expecting to see more work done on the repo but an initial looks implies not too much has been done on it :) Yep and thanks for #git I’ll used that for generic git questions moving forward
51 2016-03-29 20:29:36 <johnwhitton> :)
52 2016-03-29 20:29:46 <teward> johnwhitton: I'm going to PM you for more
53 2016-03-29 22:42:31 <Chris_Stewart_5> How is this signature suppose to be interpreted in this test case?
54 2016-03-29 22:42:33 <Chris_Stewart_5> ["0x4a 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000", "0 CHECKSIG NOT", "", "Overly long signature is correctly encoded"]
55 2016-03-29 22:42:47 <Chris_Stewart_5> There isn't really a r,s component of this signature is there?
56 2016-03-29 22:43:09 <Chris_Stewart_5> Also is this a valid der encoding? Its obviously not strict der encoding as per bip66
57 2016-03-29 23:42:23 <rusty> Hmm, I wonder if the duration for BIP9 should be in blocks, not time... Oh well, sipa has implemented it now anyway.
58 2016-03-29 23:45:59 <instagibbs> rusty, not that it matters anymore, but why?
59 2016-03-29 23:46:33 <rusty> instagibbs: simplicity; there's only one GetMedianTime() (for the start), then it's all simple counters.
60 2016-03-29 23:46:51 <rusty> instagibbs: but I'm sure if it'd been markedly simpler sipa would have proposed it already.