1 2017-04-27 01:41:24 <mchrosto> Trying to build master, Ubuntu 16.04, I've had to compile my own Boost to avoid undefined __cxx11::string references. Looks like I have to do the same for ZMQ. Have I made a mistake somewhere or might it make sense to update the build-unix.md for more recent Ubuntu.
  2 2017-04-27 02:15:47 <Rozal> So is this vitamin thing bad for bitcoin
  3 2017-04-27 10:11:01 <edcba> rescan is that slow ??
  4 2017-04-27 10:12:12 <edcba> oh no ok progress=0.02 means 2% not 0.02% :)
  5 2017-04-27 10:12:51 <edcba> well it's still not that fast
  6 2017-04-27 11:08:42 <czaanja_> Hello, please is there a way to tell bitcoind to store transactions with unconfirmed inputs in the memory pool? For example this transaction https://blockchain.info/tx/aca740da21490448f73a6abdc6f964d36ff29a1c46af188c13d5cc9885a22495 . I can see that transaction on blockchain.info, but can not see it with bitcoin-cli getrawtransaction <txid> on my local bitcoin core ( even with with txindex=1 )
  7 2017-04-27 11:58:54 <afk11> czaanja_, your node might not have observed it over the p2p network. one reason it mightn't propagate is the awfully low fee paid on that transaction
  8 2017-04-27 12:08:32 <edcba> fee are required to propagate now ?
  9 2017-04-27 12:18:09 <afk11> edcba, he paid 8sat/b, most other txs are paying around 100
 10 2017-04-27 12:22:17 <edcba> but for propagation you don't really need fee ?
 11 2017-04-27 12:22:35 <edcba> i mean it may never be mined but still seen by network ?
 12 2017-04-27 12:22:44 <edcba> mined/validated
 13 2017-04-27 12:25:17 <afk11> hmm, actually, it looks like that transaction is also a part of a chain of unconfirmed transactions. it's highly likely that's part of the reason.
 14 2017-04-27 12:37:02 <edcba> why did i get some btc on old addr ?
 15 2017-04-27 12:37:28 <edcba> is that part of a privacy attack ?
 16 2017-04-27 12:38:45 <czaanja_> afk11: Yes, thanks for the reply, actually I realized it was discovered by my node, but i think i restarted it later, so it wanished from the mempool.
 17 2017-04-27 12:39:31 <edcba> ok looks like it https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a1hte/psa_dust_being_sent_to_your_addresses_might_help/
 18 2017-04-27 12:40:04 <czaanja_> afk11: But some transactions does not really get to my node. Is there any solution to make the chance of geting note of it higher? Raising the connections?
 19 2017-04-27 12:48:35 <edcba> is your node 24/7 ?
 20 2017-04-27 13:34:11 <edcba> about merge avoidance, currently if i have 3 addr with 10 10.0001 and .1 COIN, will sending 10.0001 result in picking all from same addr ?
 21 2017-04-27 13:41:12 <instagibbs> edcba, depends on the coin selection strategy. There are lots of factors. But the smart thing would be to just use the exact-matching one(assuming fees are 0 or included)
 22 2017-04-27 13:43:25 <edcba> well i mean using latest bitcoin core
 23 2017-04-27 13:43:46 <edcba> reading SelectCoinsMinConf right now but i'm not sure yet
 24 2017-04-27 13:48:01 <instagibbs> so the first iteration will assume no fee(hahaha) and do an exact match first
 25 2017-04-27 13:48:23 <instagibbs> it will then do a fee estimation for that size and try again
 26 2017-04-27 13:48:50 <instagibbs> will very likely end up picking 2 inputs that suffice
 27 2017-04-27 13:50:03 <edcba> well my example was with fee included of course lol
 28 2017-04-27 13:50:32 <instagibbs> ah ok, then it should exact match
 29 2017-04-27 13:51:06 <edcba> how the fuck there are still a lot of magic values in that source code
 30 2017-04-27 14:02:58 <inersha> If hard forking wasn't an issue, would it have been a lot easier to fix transaction malleability by ignoring all the scriptSig fields in transactions when creating the TXID?
 31 2017-04-27 15:57:14 <czaanja_> edcba: Yes, the node is 24/7. Now for example this transaction https://blockchain.info/tx/9daadfbfcedbae164caf57b2dcbfb68e1eceb0eb911dc3e245c9444920c4dc24 I can not see either. I guess it is due to the unconfirmed inputs, since the fee seems to be average.
 32 2017-04-27 16:00:22 <abpa> Too-long chains aren't allowed
 33 2017-04-27 16:18:40 <czaanja_> abpa: So am i getting it right that the transaction is not being re-broadcasted and does not even get to my node? Or it got to my node, but it ignores it?
 34 2017-04-27 16:19:44 <abpa> Actually it looks like another issue
 35 2017-04-27 16:20:00 <abpa> These all build on an unconfirmed 3 sat/byte tx
 36 2017-04-27 16:20:11 <abpa> That won't relay well
 37 2017-04-27 16:21:22 <edcba> how much time that addr has been reused ?
 38 2017-04-27 16:22:01 <edcba> 9429 transactions ?
 39 2017-04-27 16:23:05 <czaanja_> abpa: So the transaction is not even being relayed and blockchain.info can see it only because it is connected to to huge amount of nodes?
 40 2017-04-27 16:23:11 <abpa> Probably
 41 2017-04-27 16:23:24 <czaanja_> edcba: Which address do you mean?
 42 2017-04-27 16:23:28 <abpa> Relayed is not a black/white thing
 43 2017-04-27 16:23:37 <abpa> Many nodes will just ignore super low fee transactions because they don't have space in memory for all of them
 44 2017-04-27 16:23:58 <edcba> wait i'm lost in blockchain UI
 45 2017-04-27 16:24:20 <czaanja_> abpa: Ok, I got this. I am jsut wondering if there is anything I can do about beeing able to know about such a transactions.
 46 2017-04-27 16:24:45 <abpa> You can rebroadcast yourself and add more fees but then you pay for the entire chain
 47 2017-04-27 16:24:48 <edcba> https://blockchain.info/address/19xuKwgfphk3mMaN7TEYYYULLou671KxfC
 48 2017-04-27 16:25:27 <czaanja_> edcba: Yes I can see that, but I dont know.
 49 2017-04-27 16:26:07 <czaanja_> Oh, jsut to make myself clear. I did not made that transaction. Im just wondering how to get known about the transaction.
 50 2017-04-27 16:26:10 <edcba> so it's a transaction of unconfirmed input * 2 ?
 51 2017-04-27 16:27:12 <edcba> i wonder if clients retransmit all needed transactions for his addr or just those done by himself
 52 2017-04-27 16:27:41 <abpa> I think it's just their own ones
 53 2017-04-27 16:27:49 <abpa> And they will be re-transmitted every x hours
 54 2017-04-27 16:28:01 <czaanja_> edcba: Yes it seems to be a chain of unconfirmed transactions as abpa mentioned. And so i see that this might be the reason why I can not see it.
 55 2017-04-27 16:28:03 <abpa> You can manually re-broadcast someone else's tx
 56 2017-04-27 16:28:15 <czaanja_> But anyway thank you guys a lot for your help.
 57 2017-04-27 16:28:54 <czaanja_> abpa: Yes I can, but I can not if I am not even notified that some transaction arrived, which is the issue I am having.
 58 2017-04-27 17:18:41 <rugu> Hey, I am using bitcoin-cli to get the transaction details which shows me the outputs, but now I am not sure how to figure out which UTXOs were actually consumed to produce that transaction. Could someone help me out please?
 59 2017-04-27 17:31:29 <arubi> rugu, it also shows you the input txids and indexes, so getrawtransaction one of those input txids and at that index you will have the output that was redeemed
 60 2017-04-27 17:31:48 <rugu> can I see this on a block explorer?
 61 2017-04-27 17:32:18 <arubi> I don't like the way block explorers show stuff, but I guess you can sort of figure it out from a block explorer, yea
 62 2017-04-27 17:32:40 <rugu> i am writing a custom script to index UTXOs by address
 63 2017-04-27 17:32:54 <rugu> I know there are other options, but wanted to do it myself
 64 2017-04-27 17:33:19 <arubi> okay, I never tried doing that myself
 65 2017-04-27 18:08:23 <mappum> it has been 20 mins and my email to the mailing list hasn't gone through. does it have to be approved by a moderator first?
 66 2017-04-27 18:10:41 <abpa> Maybe it was flagged as spam
 67 2017-04-27 18:10:44 <mappum> nvm, just went through
 68 2017-04-27 18:16:53 <arubi> mappum, nice :)  I'm half way, looks very cool.  might be even a bit cheaper with a 0 amount output for the assertion
 69 2017-04-27 18:22:35 <mappum> arubi: true, but if Output 1 of the Funding tx is 0 amount then it would be nonstandard and not get relayed. and it's small enough not to be a big deal (it could be even smaller, i just couldn't remember what the dust amount was)
 70 2017-04-27 18:23:05 <arubi> mappum, no outputs is invalid in itself (for the assertion redemption)
 71 2017-04-27 18:23:12 <arubi> but still, I think there's another issue
 72 2017-04-27 18:23:31 <arubi> I mean, anyone could just double spend the bounty before it's claimed
 73 2017-04-27 18:23:34 <arubi> segwit or not
 74 2017-04-27 18:23:43 <arubi> (err, the signer.  not anyone)
 75 2017-04-27 18:23:53 <arubi> any signer, or contributor
 76 2017-04-27 18:24:26 <mappum> oh really? wouldn't using CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY in the outputs prevent that?
 77 2017-04-27 18:25:18 <arubi> oh I think I thought you meant using nlocktime for locking it, not cltv.  will re-read.
 78 2017-04-27 18:25:24 <arubi> s/I think//
 79 2017-04-27 18:26:02 <mappum> the contributor can't spend from the Funding TX until H, and the miner of block H can ensure their bounty payout gets included instead of some other tx signed by the contributor
 80 2017-04-27 18:26:27 <mappum> the funding tx is broadcast at setup time, the others are locked until H
 81 2017-04-27 18:26:28 <arubi> I mean, something is a bit off for me, but I might just be confused here.  some non segwit output is signed along a segwit one.  in case segwit doesn't go through, the signature from the segwit output isn't really important
 82 2017-04-27 18:27:18 <mappum> since the signature given to the miner uses SIGHASH_ALL, the sig for the non-segwit input is invalid if the segwit input is invalid
 83 2017-04-27 18:27:45 <arubi> yes but that output is spendable without that segwit sig if it doesn't go through
 84 2017-04-27 18:30:22 <arubi> again, I might be confused.  it's been a long day and I only read your post once.  I'll try it out locally and see :)
 85 2017-04-27 18:31:07 <mappum> i'll double check to make sure i'm understanding the BIP 143 stuff correctly
 86 2017-04-27 18:31:23 <arubi> cheers, I'll do some more reading here
 87 2017-04-27 18:40:16 <mappum> crap, i think you're right. the segwit output will be anyone-can-spend, so the non-segwit sig is still valid
 88 2017-04-27 18:41:01 <arubi> right, seems so
 89 2017-04-27 18:41:16 <mappum> idk how i missed that :(
 90 2017-04-27 18:41:35 <arubi> as long as you're frowning, the checksigverify would also fail :(
 91 2017-04-27 18:41:48 <arubi> use checksig if it's the final op being done.  you want a TRUE on stack
 92 2017-04-27 18:42:41 <mappum> ah, right
 93 2017-04-27 18:43:33 <arubi> I think it's a cool concept though.  it's ironic that with segwit, these kind of clever scripts and transactions would work out of the box
 94 2017-04-27 18:44:02 <arubi> I mean eventually, when we get an upgrade to sighash :)
 95 2017-04-27 19:01:30 <praxeology> Did I come here at the right time to witness a meeting?
 96 2017-04-27 19:02:41 <arubi> looking for #bitcoin-core-dev ?
 97 2017-04-27 19:02:55 <arubi> it's starting now
 98 2017-04-27 19:03:01 <jonasschnelli> praxeology: yes. #bitcoin-core-dev
 99 2017-04-27 19:03:15 <edcba> i didn't know about this one
100 2017-04-27 20:53:34 <mchrosto> Hi, I'm trying to compile master on Ubuntu 16.04 and am finding I need to recompile many dependencies to avoid 'defined reference to __cxx11' namespace errors. Does it sound like I missed something or is this expected?
101 2017-04-27 20:53:45 <mchrosto> s/defined/undefined
102 2017-04-27 20:58:02 <mchrosto> omfg, Ubuntu was grabbing GCC 5.x from while I had 4.x in /usr/local... nevermind