1 2017-03-13 03:00:22 <Micheal_PVR> What's bitcoin's hexadecimal WIF code?
 2 2017-03-13 03:06:53 <achow101> Micheal_PVR: WIF is not in hex
 3 2017-03-13 03:07:24 <Micheal_PVR> I understand that
 4 2017-03-13 03:07:43 <Micheal_PVR> but there's a hexadecimal code that determines the byte to be placed for WIF
 5 2017-03-13 03:08:02 <Micheal_PVR> I.E LTC would have a different code
 6 2017-03-13 03:08:19 <Micheal_PVR> actually, the LTC code is 0xB030
 7 2017-03-13 03:08:42 <Micheal_PVR> I've read that the BTC code is 0x80, but I'm having difficulties so wanted confirmation
 8 2017-03-13 09:19:24 <ThomasV> jonasschnelli: hi, does dbb support rbf transactions?
 9 2017-03-13 09:19:59 <jonasschnelli> ThomasV: the device yes,... but the app no. So.. no.
10 2017-03-13 09:20:17 <jonasschnelli> ThomasV: I guess it should work with the Electrum plugin though...
11 2017-03-13 09:20:27 <jonasschnelli> Haven't tried.
12 2017-03-13 09:20:39 <ThomasV> where do you pass the txin sequence parameter?
13 2017-03-13 09:21:01 <ThomasV> I don't see that
14 2017-03-13 09:21:17 <jonasschnelli> Electrum plugin or native DBB app?
15 2017-03-13 09:21:29 <ThomasV> in the electrum plugin
16 2017-03-13 09:21:41 <ThomasV> I can add it if you show me how to :)
17 2017-03-13 09:21:43 <jonasschnelli> It's done by douglas... Let me check.. 1sec
18 2017-03-13 09:22:50 <jonasschnelli> I'd say the tx creation is in the electrum part (and not in the plugin)... i'll ask Douglas.
19 2017-03-13 09:23:09 <ThomasV> also, there is a check in the plugin that seems to be copied from ledger: "P2SH / regular input mixed in same transaction not supported"
20 2017-03-13 09:23:19 <ThomasV> is that a limitation of your device too?
21 2017-03-13 09:24:29 <ThomasV> jonasschnelli: I don't have my device to test right now. I'm asking because we realized that the ledger plugin does not support RBF
22 2017-03-13 09:24:34 <jonasschnelli> I don't think so.. Sadly, I'm not familiar with the Electrum plugin. I'll have a look.
23 2017-03-13 09:24:45 <ThomasV> I will test later tonight
24 2017-03-13 09:24:49 <jonasschnelli> Very likely that we also don't support it.
25 2017-03-13 09:25:07 <ThomasV> ok, but it should be easy to add
26 2017-03-13 09:25:16 <ThomasV> it's just one parameter
27 2017-03-13 09:25:20 <jonasschnelli> Its just the INTMAX()-2 right?
28 2017-03-13 09:26:32 <ThomasV> the sequence parameter value? it can be any int < INTMAX
29 2017-03-13 09:27:18 <jonasschnelli> ThomasV I don't see a tx creation in the plugin, only signing. I think tx creation is handled outside the plugin. I would expect it does use the inputs nSequence you use per default in your tx creation code.
30 2017-03-13 09:27:44 <ThomasV> so your device parses the native tx?
31 2017-03-13 09:28:10 <jonasschnelli> No.. just creates a signature for the hash.
32 2017-03-13 09:28:35 <ThomasV> oh, right, you don't display anything because there's no screen :)
33 2017-03-13 09:28:58 <jonasschnelli> Yes. And the SmartVerification (requires a web-connection) is not implemented in Electrum.
34 2017-03-13 09:29:10 <ThomasV> ok
35 2017-03-13 09:29:14 <jonasschnelli> But we should do that so one could verify the tx over a smartphone.
36 2017-03-13 09:29:32 <ThomasV> how does it work?
37 2017-03-13 09:29:49 <jonasschnelli> The pairing process is a bit complex and currently only available over our desktop app.
38 2017-03-13 09:30:11 <ThomasV> btw, do you plan to create a device with a screen in the future?
39 2017-03-13 09:30:27 <jonasschnelli> It's a ECDH between the device and your smartphone.
40 2017-03-13 09:30:48 <jonasschnelli> +xor a random blink code from the LED to avoid MITM during paring.
41 2017-03-13 09:31:07 <jonasschnelli> Then, it goes encrypted over the internet from Wallet <-> Smartphone.
42 2017-03-13 09:31:20 <ThomasV> I see
43 2017-03-13 09:31:25 <jonasschnelli> It would be possible from the electrum plugin...
44 2017-03-13 09:31:55 <jonasschnelli> Sometimes i'd prefere a screen.
45 2017-03-13 09:32:20 <jonasschnelli> But,... complex transaction are much simpler to verify on a interactive smarttphone then on a 128x32pixel screen.
46 2017-03-13 09:32:35 <jonasschnelli> Or if you want to sign a PDF,... not possible on a calculator size screen.
47 2017-03-13 09:32:35 <ThomasV> yeah :)
48 2017-03-13 09:33:15 <jonasschnelli> I'll give it a try with Electrum 2.8.0 and RBF...
49 2017-03-13 09:33:35 <jonasschnelli> ThomasV: I guess you use BIP125 opt-in RBF (nSequence == intmax()-2)?
50 2017-03-13 09:35:37 <ThomasV> jonasschnelli: I use nSequence = 0. is there a recommendation to use intmax -2 ?
51 2017-03-13 09:35:56 <jonasschnelli> This is full-RBF i guess.
52 2017-03-13 09:36:10 <jonasschnelli> Maybe check:_ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki#summary
53 2017-03-13 09:36:43 <ThomasV> I'm checking right now
54 2017-03-13 09:37:34 <jonasschnelli> Well,.. I think nSequence = 0 is also BIP125.
55 2017-03-13 09:38:39 <ThomasV> jonasschnelli: well, if other wallets use maxint-2, then using 0 leaks some info about which wallet you're using
56 2017-03-13 09:38:57 <ThomasV> so it's a privacy issue
57 2017-03-13 09:39:16 <ThomasV> I never looked at what value other wallets use
58 2017-03-13 09:39:54 <ThomasV> that'll be a new topic for the meeting :)
59 2017-03-13 09:39:55 <jonasschnelli> I don't know about other, Core uses -2 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/wallet/wallet.cpp#L2515)
60 2017-03-13 09:40:41 <jonasschnelli> I got confused. BIP125 is opt in *full* RBF. So nSequence = 0 would also confirm to BIP125.
61 2017-03-13 09:41:05 <jonasschnelli> But I think maxint-2 makes most sense for wallets.
62 2017-03-13 09:43:12 <ThomasV> before I fully read that BIP, I was under the impression that you needed to increase nSequence in order to bump the fee, that's why I set it to zero.
63 2017-03-13 09:43:42 <ThomasV> but I think it's better to standardize this, for privacy
64 2017-03-13 09:43:50 <jonasschnelli> I think we can keep it maxint-2 for future bumps.
65 2017-03-13 09:44:01 <ThomasV> yes you can
66 2017-03-13 09:44:10 <ThomasV> I keep it zero, I don't increase it
67 2017-03-13 09:44:11 <jonasschnelli> Yes. It should have been standardised in the BIP.
68 2017-03-13 09:44:24 <jonasschnelli> Okay.. yes. We should discuss that 1st/2nd april.
69 2017-03-13 09:44:46 <ThomasV> I guess it's going to be non-controversial :)
70 2017-03-13 09:44:54 <jonasschnelli> AFAIK Electrum and Core are the only wallets who support BIP125 (not sure though)
71 2017-03-13 09:45:04 <ThomasV> greenaddress too, no?
72 2017-03-13 09:45:56 <jonasschnelli> GAit: ping.
73 2017-03-13 09:46:16 <ThomasV> I'll set it to maxint-2 for now
74 2017-03-13 09:46:24 <jonasschnelli> Yes. Makes sense.
75 2017-03-13 10:04:11 <ThomasV> jonasschnelli: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/commit/2d8df85aab780f6ceecf64701ae41c836fca4052
76 2017-03-13 10:04:54 <jonasschnelli> Looks good! Thanks
77 2017-03-13 11:01:37 <johtso> hey, is there any way to work out why this testnet transaction I created isn't being processed? https://live.blockcypher.com/btc-testnet/tx/49f314ee9a31633688637abc9712a62e6222a659afad9b91db25ac16894a6958/
78 2017-03-13 11:03:20 <johtso> It's spending from a p2sh address with this script: 2, key1, key2, 2, OP_CHECKMULTISIG
79 2017-03-13 11:04:19 <johtso> I'm using python-bitcoinlib, and the signed transaction validated successfully
80 2017-03-13 22:52:12 <Iriez> Can someone explain why release notes shows 101 contributors but github only shows 24? For reference - https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/5x1vk2/eth_price_discussion_frowned_upon/dew1c47/?context=3
81 2017-03-13 22:52:33 <Iriez> (yes i know thats eth sub, trying to defeat the trolls who are everywhere shitpost)
82 2017-03-13 22:52:36 <Iriez> ing*
83 2017-03-13 23:18:28 <achow101> Iriez: github credits the committers, not authors, but release notes are usually by author, not committer
84 2017-03-13 23:18:56 <achow101> people who commit on github (for stuff like document changes) don't show up in the contributors list, but do show up when release notes are compiled