1 2016-05-13 02:16:24 <mappum> how does Bitcoin Core handle relaying orphans? i would assume not all valid blocks are relayed, otherwise you could DoS the network by announcing a lot of low-work connected to the beginning of the chain
 2 2016-05-13 02:17:10 <mappum> but they must be relayed somehow, otherwise reorgs/forks wouldn't be able to happen. so am i correct that valid orphans will be relayed if they are connected to a recent-enough block?
 3 2016-05-13 02:49:50 <luke-jr> mappum: orphan and stale blocks (which I suspect you really mean) are never relayed.
 4 2016-05-13 02:50:12 <luke-jr> in the case of a reorg, your own node must finish reorging before it will relay the no-longer-stale parent blocks
 5 2016-05-13 05:45:50 <RainMan28> is the paytxfee setting in bitcoin core 0.12 not a parameter that can be set in the bitcoin.conf file?
 6 2016-05-13 05:45:57 <RainMan28> I tried doing paytxfee=0 in my bitcoin.conf file and got an error on startup saying that the fee has to be at least 0.00025 BTC but in the 0.12.0 release notes it says you can set a value of 0 to have floating fees
 7 2016-05-13 05:52:57 <RainMan28> luke-jr: happen to be around?
 8 2016-05-13 06:02:56 <phantomcircuit> RainMan28, iirc the default is 0
 9 2016-05-13 06:03:55 <RainMan28> phantomcircuit: do i just leave out the paytxfee entirely from my bitcoin.conf file? When i put paytxfee=0 it gives an error requiring it to be higher.
10 2016-05-13 06:04:22 <RainMan28> Error: Invalid amount for -paytxfee=<amount>: '0' (must be at least 0.00025000 BTC/kB)
11 2016-05-13 06:06:33 <phantomcircuit> RainMan28, you need to be above minRelayTxFee
12 2016-05-13 06:07:07 <RainMan28> phantomcircuit: ok so if i want the floating fee calculation do I just remove a minRelayTxFee?
13 2016-05-13 06:07:09 <phantomcircuit> which you can change with minrelaytxfee
14 2016-05-13 06:07:29 <phantomcircuit> which just has to be > 0
15 2016-05-13 06:07:37 <phantomcircuit> im not sure you want to do that though since
16 2016-05-13 06:07:45 <phantomcircuit> oh wrong channel
17 2016-05-13 06:10:40 <phantomcircuit> morcos, this is indeed confusing, can you help clarify?
18 2016-05-13 07:19:16 <mappum> is something wonky going on in the testnet? i see there have been tens of thousands of blocks in the last day
19 2016-05-13 07:20:21 <mappum> or is it just this block explorer?
20 2016-05-13 07:35:24 <mappum> ohh, the segwit soft fork was deployed, and most block explorers have broken
21 2016-05-13 08:58:35 <mappum> it's a soft fork so it seems like that shouldn't be related, but it's a weird coincidence
22 2016-05-13 08:59:29 <Diablo-D3> heh
23 2016-05-13 08:59:35 <Diablo-D3> block explorers blow up like once a year
24 2016-05-13 08:59:37 <Diablo-D3> I swear
25 2016-05-13 17:31:10 <nub> could a client server bitcoind be developeed where many clients could conect to the one local bitcoindserver hosting the blockchain
26 2016-05-13 17:32:28 <arubi> it already exists.  see electrum and electrum server
27 2016-05-13 17:33:49 <Chris_Stewart_5> arubi: Can't you do this bitcoind via rpc?
28 2016-05-13 17:34:13 <arubi> Chris_Stewart_5, one daemon = one wallet
29 2016-05-13 17:34:59 <Chris_Stewart_5> arubi: But that doesn't mean you couldn't have multiple clients to that daemon, obvious security implications but still possible
30 2016-05-13 17:35:17 <arubi> how are these clients different from one anoter then?
31 2016-05-13 17:36:20 <Chris_Stewart_5> Sounds like nub just needs blockchain data, so they aren't. Of course I'm draw conclusions here though :-)
32 2016-05-13 17:36:28 <Chris_Stewart_5> drawing*
33 2016-05-13 17:37:17 <arubi> he's obviously asking an XY question.  we just don't know what X is yet :)
34 2016-05-13 17:41:28 <luke-jr> arubi: Electrum is just another SPV client with a centralised server list and requiring custom server code
35 2016-05-13 17:41:34 <luke-jr> s/SPV/"SPV"/
36 2016-05-13 17:41:41 <arubi> luke-jr, sure, I'm talking about running your own server and using that
37 2016-05-13 17:41:51 <luke-jr> sure, bitcoind + any other "SPV" client
38 2016-05-13 17:42:01 <luke-jr> just lock the latter to your node over tor
39 2016-05-13 17:42:17 <arubi> mhm.  that'll be bitcoind + clients support, somewhat
40 2016-05-13 17:52:56 <nub> anyone against autoupdating clients?
41 2016-05-13 17:53:30 <helo> nub: everybody
42 2016-05-13 17:57:14 <nub> couldnt hard forks be done multiple times a year
43 2016-05-13 17:57:22 <nub> saving blockchain size
44 2016-05-13 17:58:22 <instagibbs> nub, I'm pretty sure you were told to take this line of questioning to #bitcoin
45 2016-05-13 17:58:41 <instagibbs> I'm sure people would be glad to answer you there, it's off-topic here.
46 2016-05-13 17:59:03 <nub> okay new topic
47 2016-05-13 17:59:19 <nub> could blockchain trimming work
48 2016-05-13 17:59:32 <nub> eg after xy date it splits
49 2016-05-13 17:59:41 <nub> then it archives
50 2016-05-13 18:00:31 <instagibbs> Again, these kind of beginner questions are good for #bitcoin
51 2016-05-13 18:01:13 <instagibbs> (not saying they aren't reasonable questions, but people read the scrollback, and people try to keep the noise down)
52 2016-05-13 18:02:45 <nub> I'm from jpmorgan
53 2016-05-13 18:02:54 <nub> looking to hire bitcoin devs
54 2016-05-13 18:03:09 <nub> is anyone interested in sending in an application
55 2016-05-13 18:04:00 <instagibbs> "This is for discussion about the Bitcoin network and reference software  between developers." please stop
56 2016-05-13 18:05:22 <midnightmagic> nub: Take it to the appropriate channels immediately. Final warning.
57 2016-05-13 18:05:25 <nub> how do i get in contact with bitcoin core devs
58 2016-05-13 18:05:33 <nub> yes
59 2016-05-13 18:51:27 <RainMan28> is the value for paytxfee in BTC/KiB? Or is it just a flat amount that goes regardless of txn size?
60 2016-05-13 19:09:55 <RainMan28> On 0.11.2 was it based on transaction size? I was running 0.11.2 until yesterday and looking back at my old txns, I see 0.00025 BTC fees being used even on transactions that are smaller than 1 KB