1 2016-08-25 00:32:26 <roasbeef> midnightmagic: why would BU stuff be off topic here? Wasn't #bitcoin-core-dev created specifically to have forum for discussing bitcoin-core related dev?
 2 2016-08-25 00:35:21 <grubles> i believe this is for development and not support
 3 2016-08-25 00:37:31 <roasbeef> ex4it may have been setting up a development environment but was impeded by the compile error
 4 2016-08-25 00:41:02 <grubles> then maybe they should have said so :)
 5 2016-08-25 00:41:39 <grubles> > tell us what you're trying to do, not how you're  trying to do it
 6 2016-08-25 00:41:41 <grubles> in the /topic
 7 2016-08-25 01:36:57 <midnightmagic> BU is not the reference software.
 8 2016-08-25 01:37:08 <midnightmagic> BU is offtopic in here.
 9 2016-08-25 02:11:12 <roasbeef> midnightmagic: BU is a part of the Bitcoin network
10 2016-08-25 02:15:24 <roasbeef> is Knots off-topic here?
11 2016-08-25 02:16:07 <midnightmagic> knots is consensus-compatible. Please take your pointless posturing elsewhere.
12 2016-08-25 02:20:29 <roasbeef> not posturing, just wanting some clarification
13 2016-08-25 02:20:44 <roasbeef> midnightmagic: what's the difference between this channel an #bitcoin-core-dev?
14 2016-08-25 02:22:07 <pigeons> relly? you think bu is another implementtion like btcd and not that it intneds to fork incompatibly?
15 2016-08-25 02:22:44 <midnightmagic> This channel was wrecked and -core-dev was created to avoid further administrative abuses.
16 2016-08-25 02:22:48 <midnightmagic> IMO.
17 2016-08-25 02:23:46 <midnightmagic> The existence of two channels does not have any meaning beyond that: you are misinterpreting. In any event, take it elsewhere, I'm starting to get tired with being polite.
18 2016-08-25 06:09:02 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: pfft. none of them are off-topic here -.-
19 2016-08-25 06:09:17 <luke-jr> (although user support is)
20 2016-08-25 07:29:30 <midnightmagic> luke-jr: You mean knots, or BU *and* kntos?
21 2016-08-25 07:30:14 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: I think I mean both. BU is more imcompetent than altcoiny IMO.
22 2016-08-25 07:32:11 <luke-jr> this channel was never supposed to be about the reference software specifically; the topic is wrong
23 2016-08-25 07:32:13 <midnightmagic> BU I would argue is offtopic as long as they act like a hostile work-sink claiming credit for other peoples' work and generally failing to contribute. Work gone into them is redirected exactly against us in the future. In terms of the actual technology, I would argue that xthin and e.g. the traffic control aspects are 100% on-topic. I explicitly meant to imply that knots would be on-topic, and
24 2016-08-25 07:32:19 <midnightmagic> also, yeah that too: support is offtopic.
25 2016-08-25 07:32:30 <midnightmagic> Well, originally #bitcoin-dev was the main discussion channel in general.
26 2016-08-25 07:33:44 <midnightmagic> Like in 2010. ArtForz was pretty harsh even on people trying to clean up the illegal/anarchistic/sweary misogyny nonsense.
27 2016-08-25 07:34:31 <luke-jr> heh, that was a long time ago :P
28 2016-08-25 07:35:32 <luke-jr> but there's a difference between "never was meant to be" and "used to be in the past" ;)
29 2016-08-25 07:37:11 <midnightmagic> Yeah, when I say "the existence of two channels" I mean just the fact that two channels exist can't really be inferred to mean much given -core-dev was created explicitly in reaction to jgarzik pulling that stunt he did.
30 2016-08-25 07:37:16 <gribble> jgarzik was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 32 weeks, 6 days, 12 hours, 11 minutes, and 29 seconds ago: <jgarzik> to respond to self-assignment complaints
31 2016-08-25 07:37:16 <midnightmagic> ;;seen jgarzik
32 2016-08-25 09:14:00 <daddinuz> Hi, I would like to show you a commit I made in a fork of mine about the halvings in regtest mode.
33 2016-08-25 09:14:07 <daddinuz> I have a test framework that has to generate a very huge amount of blocks, I faced some problems because
34 2016-08-25 09:14:15 <daddinuz> I didn't know that the halving interval in regtest mode is way less than the others (150) so I reached
35 2016-08-25 09:14:23 <daddinuz> the scenario in which the reward for mining a block is 0 and that broke my tests.
36 2016-08-25 09:14:59 <daddinuz> So I thought it could be useful to make just in regtest mode the subsidy halving interval parametric and get the value
37 2016-08-25 09:15:08 <daddinuz> from configuration in order to test all possible scenarios about halving.
38 2016-08-25 09:15:17 <daddinuz> That's the link to the commit: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...daddinuz:parametric_halving_interval
39 2016-08-25 09:15:26 <daddinuz> Now I wanted to test the code I have written but I don't know where to start and I don't know the bitcoin test suite.
40 2016-08-25 09:15:39 <daddinuz> Do you have some hints to give me about the code itself or how to test it?
41 2016-08-25 09:42:00 <wumpus> daddinuz: the usual way would be to create a test in qa/rpc-tests
42 2016-08-25 09:42:34 <wumpus> (that launches a node with that option, then mines, then checks the halving interval)
43 2016-08-25 10:35:56 <daddinuz> wumpus, Thanks for your reply
44 2016-08-25 19:34:55 <earlz> Is there an easy way to simulate forks and orphaned blocks/transactions with regtest mode?