1 2017-09-18 01:00:09 <molz> Krellan, there's a newer version
 2 2017-09-18 01:02:56 <molz> v0.15.0.1 but you have to compile it: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tags
 3 2017-09-18 16:33:38 <RealM9> Bitcoin is again under a spam attack https://imgur.com/a/Jxfvy
 4 2017-09-18 16:50:29 <gmaxwell> RealM9: stop fudding.
 5 2017-09-18 16:50:38 <gmaxwell> I looked last night when people first started squaking about that and it appeared to be due to txs like https://blockchain.info/tx/87cd70a1859f1029d7619ca6b745232e34b8627fc7ac1e2e50a4b2705c6aba48 which are just plain aggregation tx
 6 2017-09-18 16:50:41 <cluelessperson> Not found.
 7 2017-09-18 16:51:15 <gmaxwell> what do you mean not found
 8 2017-09-18 18:54:14 <digitlimit> With regards to bitcoin core wallet, will I pay a transaction fee if I send bitcoin from address A to address B all in same wallet?
 9 2017-09-18 18:56:04 <belcher> yes digitlimit
10 2017-09-18 18:56:18 <belcher> also thats a question better suited for #bitcoin
11 2017-09-18 18:56:56 <digitlimit> I asked in #bitcoin no response
12 2017-09-18 18:56:58 <digitlimit> thanks
13 2017-09-18 19:27:58 <sturles> gmaxwell: At 7:02 AM UTC today, someone dumped 13 MB of high fee (more than double of what estimatefee 4 recommended 10 minutes before) transactions on the network in a minute.
14 2017-09-18 19:28:26 <sturles> If it wasn't spam, it was certainly not very smart.
15 2017-09-18 19:29:05 <sturles> Consolidation like that can be done almost for free at a slow pace.
16 2017-09-18 19:30:07 <gmaxwell> sturles: their first ten transactions were at 1s/byte.
17 2017-09-18 19:30:16 <gmaxwell> then they went to 100... might be a fatfinger.
18 2017-09-18 19:30:44 <sturles> OK.
19 2017-09-18 19:30:53 <sturles> It was 6 AM UTC, btw.
20 2017-09-18 19:30:57 <sturles> Example: 865dde5929e0179e004e21c47f186a93849b18548319f8aa91f4660128d34d5b
21 2017-09-18 19:31:00 <cluelessperson> 41 confirmations since 2017-09-18T07:27:14, 130 in, 2 out, 19539 Bytes, 111 sat/B fee
22 2017-09-18 19:31:27 <gmaxwell> 87cd70a1859f1029d7619ca6b745232e34b8627fc7ac1e2e50a4b2705c6aba48
23 2017-09-18 19:31:30 <cluelessperson> Not found.
24 2017-09-18 19:31:34 <gmaxwell> lies.
25 2017-09-18 19:32:19 <sturles> If you follow it, you see it was consolidated to 100 BTC, then split up again to 20, etc.
26 2017-09-18 21:50:54 <StopAndDecrypt> oh shit
27 2017-09-18 21:50:56 <StopAndDecrypt> pruned
28 2017-09-18 21:51:21 <StopAndDecrypt> do i have to start it in pruned or can i change that in the console during sync
29 2017-09-18 21:59:20 <StopAndDecrypt> again nvm
30 2017-09-18 22:28:00 <omarshibli> Hey all, I'm working on a new BIP proposal - Pay to Contract https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/586
31 2017-09-18 22:28:01 <omarshibli> I think we have introduced some confusion with the non-traditional usage of HD wallets, the main mistake is that HD specification deals with wallets that are derived from a single seed and enumerable set, while in the proposed BIP wallet are derived from a single seed and non-enumerable set.
32 2017-09-18 22:28:01 <omarshibli> We got feedback from Luke recently raising a serious backward compatibility issues in the proposed BIP to BIP32 and its related BIPs, based on the feedback we updated the BIP to make it clear that this BIP is not compatible with any of BIP32 related specifications.
33 2017-09-18 22:28:02 <omarshibli> I think we may have different options to solve this, would like to hear your thoughts about:
34 2017-09-18 22:28:04 <omarshibli> 1. Stick with BIP32 derivation mechanism,
35 2017-09-18 22:28:06 <omarshibli> advantages: wallet implementation easier due to code reuse.
36 2017-09-18 22:28:08 <omarshibli> disadvantages: performance far my ideal, it might be not a big deal since it's off-chain computation anyway.
37 2017-09-18 22:28:10 <omarshibli> 2. Create a new wallet structure that supports a bigger range of values, maybe something like this:
38 2017-09-18 22:28:12 <omarshibli> m / coin' / sha256_hash_in_hex
39 2017-09-18 22:28:14 <omarshibli> coin - similar to BIP44 - livenet/testnet
40 2017-09-18 22:28:16 <omarshibli> sha256_hash_in_hex - sha246 hash of the contract in hex format
41 2017-09-18 22:28:18 <omarshibli> examples:
42 2017-09-18 22:28:20 <omarshibli> livenet: m / 0' / 2c26b46b68ffc68ff99b453c1d30413413422d706483bfa0f98a5e886266e7ae
43 2017-09-18 22:28:22 <omarshibli> testnet: m / 1' / 2c26b46b68ffc68ff99b453c1d30413413422d706483bfa0f98a5e886266e7ae
44 2017-09-18 22:28:24 <omarshibli> Please advice, any hint would be much appreciated.
45 2017-09-18 22:30:06 <omarshibli> urgh, the message is missed up a bit, I should have copy it line by line, sorry.