1 2017-05-05 02:02:59 <btcdrak> This looks like a great replacement for my addrindex fork https://github.com/dcousens/indexd
 2 2017-05-05 15:02:40 <dgenr8> luke-jr: bips test is failing on absence of optional Comments-Summary header
 3 2017-05-05 15:10:33 <luke-jr> dgenr8: because it's absent, duh
 4 2017-05-05 15:10:43 <luke-jr> it's not optional
 5 2017-05-05 15:11:11 <luke-jr> hmm, or is it supposed to be?
 6 2017-05-05 15:12:14 <luke-jr> that's annoyign
 7 2017-05-05 15:12:48 <dgenr8> * Comments-Summary: <summary tone>
 8 2017-05-05 15:12:49 <dgenr8> just following the rules
 9 2017-05-05 15:13:39 <luke-jr> nitpicking* :P
10 2017-05-05 15:14:48 <dgenr8> it will always be empty at the start, that might be why?
11 2017-05-05 15:15:25 <luke-jr> well, BIP 2 does specify "Comments-Summary: No comments yet." as the initial state also
12 2017-05-05 15:15:49 <luke-jr> anyhow, fixed the script, now it fails on README.mediawiki: https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bips/builds/229089899?utm_source=github_status&utm_medium=notification
13 2017-05-05 15:22:47 <luke-jr> dgenr8: "If the block height is encoded at the start of the coinbase scriptSig, as per BIP34," <-- why the "if"?
14 2017-05-05 15:26:27 <luke-jr> dgenr8: "rounded down to the nearest byte" is self-contradicting
15 2017-05-05 15:28:24 <dgenr8> implementation efficiency. bip34 doesn't have a defined starting height and we need to extract the vote before the bip34 check
16 2017-05-05 15:30:06 <dgenr8> 1.05^4 is not an integer
17 2017-05-05 15:30:36 <dgenr8> 1.05^4 * 1000000
18 2017-05-05 15:44:34 <luke-jr> dgenr8: but "rounded down" means truncating any fractional part, and "nearest" means rounding up when the fraction is >=.5
19 2017-05-05 16:24:17 <dgenr8> Since we say that raise limit is denominated in bytes, I agree "rounded down" alone is sufficient.  Ditto for lower limit.  I'll add to a fixups commit in process.
20 2017-05-05 17:19:09 <luke-jr> dgenr8: I don't post those questions, to be answered directly (where nobody will see the answer later); they should be clarified in the BIP so others have the answer right there
21 2017-05-05 17:25:17 <dgenr8> ok, they will make it better, sure, mostly. i don't plan to add anything about lowering block size below 1MB though
22 2017-05-05 17:41:33 <dgenr8> I don't know where you get 1164% annual growth. i get 1.05^26 - 1 = 256%
23 2017-05-05 17:44:22 <dgenr8> oh, it looks like you used 52 periods.  nope only about 26 :P
24 2017-05-05 18:08:33 <luke-jr> oh, right
25 2017-05-05 18:08:40 <luke-jr> still, this stuff should be documented at least
26 2017-05-05 20:31:14 <ProfMac> any guess on the grand total of share submissions per minute to the mining pools?
27 2017-05-05 21:31:14 <CryptAxe> Can anyone explain the comments about fee sniping in CWallet::CreateTransaction to me? I understand that setting the locktime discourages fee sniping by forcing the blockchain to move forward in order to include the tx. I don't understand the second comment though "// Secondly occasionally randomly pick a nLockTime even further back..." Doesn't this part cause transactions to occasionally encourage reorgs / fee sniping? And how does it help with priv