1 2017-10-24 00:14:58 <BGL> why doesn't the bitcoin client even recognize the path to its previous installation, upgrading 14 to 15
 2 2017-10-24 00:15:22 <BGL> and this upgrading utxo database for 30 plus minus isn't expected eitehr
 3 2017-10-24 00:21:32 <esotericnonsense> dviola: right you can have ~infinite addresses (i imagine there's some very very large number that would break it)
 4 2017-10-24 01:07:31 <dviola> esotericnonsense: I see, thanks
 5 2017-10-24 01:17:01 <wxss> BGL, the utxo upgrade is expected, it is in the release notes
 6 2017-10-24 01:20:36 <dviola> so if I can create infinite amount of addresses, what is the 100 addresses that some people refer to?
 7 2017-10-24 01:24:16 <esotericnonsense> dviola: pre-HD wallets would create 100 keys on first load
 8 2017-10-24 01:24:37 <esotericnonsense> dviola: if you backed up your wallet, the backup was only useful for those first 100 keys, if you created more you'd eventually need another backup
 9 2017-10-24 01:24:48 <esotericnonsense> (which would have say, 200 or 300 keys in, e.g.)
10 2017-10-24 01:25:03 <esotericnonsense> this is not the case any more, newly created wallets use a seed.
11 2017-10-24 01:30:20 <dviola> esotericnonsense: I see, that makes sense, thanks
12 2017-10-24 02:56:11 <nixbox> Hello everyone
13 2017-10-24 02:56:50 <nixbox> What is the best way to start with bitcoin development. I understand the basics of Bitcoin and the blockchain. Do you think writing test cases would be a good place to start?
14 2017-10-24 02:57:10 <nixbox> Can anyone give me some useful pointers?
15 2017-10-24 02:57:58 <nixbox> fyi, I have the repository setup, i also compiled everything from source and played around with "regtest" a little bit.
16 2017-10-24 10:15:41 <dafuq> hello. trying to get a node going here
17 2017-10-24 10:16:10 <dafuq> it's going to take weeks(!). where is the bottleneck? my internet and hardware are decidely not the problem.
18 2017-10-24 10:16:35 <dafuq> is this normal? maybe there are a lot of people trying to set up nodes right now?
19 2017-10-24 10:16:51 <dafuq> just trying to understand where the bottleneck is
20 2017-10-24 10:29:39 <Tykling> dafuq: sometimes you can speed it up by bootstrapping it with a blockchain from some point not too long ago
21 2017-10-24 10:31:10 <dafuq> Tykling, so what i'm wondering is, is it a known problem? from your response, it sounds like it?
22 2017-10-24 10:31:29 <Tykling> what is a known problem?
23 2017-10-24 10:32:36 <dafuq> i can't parse and process that question.
24 2017-10-24 10:32:58 <Tykling> you are asking if it is a known problem, can you elaborate which problem you mean
25 2017-10-24 10:33:39 <dafuq> how long it takes to DL the blockchain to run a node.
26 2017-10-24 10:34:14 <Tykling> yes that is known to take a long time
27 2017-10-24 10:34:34 <dafuq> i can DL a +1G movie in the time it takes to make a coffee
28 2017-10-24 10:34:42 <dafuq> so it's not my HW
29 2017-10-24 10:34:48 <dafuq> or net
30 2017-10-24 10:35:10 <dafuq> so where is the bottleneck? other nodes not uploading freely?
31 2017-10-24 13:29:53 <sdfgsdfg> im not sure
32 2017-10-24 15:34:36 <LowKey> Hi, I getting an issue when compile qt wallet , with this error on pastebin : https://pastebin.com/GxYHYVup
33 2017-10-24 16:58:33 <Anon_Help> is there anyone i can pm to report a critical vulnerability
34 2017-10-24 17:04:03 <arubi> Anon_Help, I'd send to the 'security
35 2017-10-24 17:04:14 <arubi> email here: https://bitcoincore.org/en/contact/ with pgp for wumpus
36 2017-10-24 17:04:53 <Anon_Help> ok thx
37 2017-10-24 17:29:14 <jb55> yo does something like this already exist before I continue working on it? https://github.com/jb55/btcs
38 2017-10-24 17:29:40 <jb55> I've seen basic parsers/compilers/decompilers but no evaluators
39 2017-10-24 17:29:57 <jb55> except in Haskoin but I wanted something a bit more lightweight
40 2017-10-24 17:33:54 <arubi> the evaluator is the most interesting part :)  I would use it if you build it
41 2017-10-24 17:35:15 <arubi> it can be done with core, but not completely like checking if a transaction is actually valid now, eg a script could complete successfully but when you end up relaying the locktime could be preventing validity of the tx
42 2017-10-24 17:35:51 <jb55> yeah I'm still thinking about how to handle that properly
43 2017-10-24 17:36:00 <arubi> parameters!
44 2017-10-24 17:36:05 <arubi> lots and lots of em
45 2017-10-24 17:36:08 <jb55> ideally it would be some pure state input
46 2017-10-24 17:36:27 <arubi> that's not too difficult with core already
47 2017-10-24 17:37:14 <arubi> I say not too difficult, it is difficult really
48 2017-10-24 17:37:23 <arubi> but not something you can't get used to hehe
49 2017-10-24 17:38:47 <arubi> something like what you're building is very useful even if you don't add script validation with context.  don't let me discourage you.  I'll probably use it
50 2017-10-24 17:39:44 <jb55> I'm not discouraged, I would find it useful even without context but I want that as well :)
51 2017-10-24 17:44:35 <arubi> jb55, awesome.  for my serializer, I also defined a few "make your life easy" templates, like plain numbers are treated as scriptnum (need to be valid), the character @ means minimal push, so something like @<hex pubkey> is converted to 0x21 0x<pubkey> (and longer pushes if needed), a 0x<hex> is just treated like literal serialized part of the script..  you're probably already on it, but just my pov :)
52 2017-10-24 17:46:42 <jb55> arubi: oh yes this is all planned :)
53 2017-10-24 17:47:29 <jb55> although I never thought of that minimal push thing... thanks
54 2017-10-24 17:52:18 <jb55> arubi: if you have any other ideas for high level constructs let me know. I'm using this as a vehicle to learn bitcoin script so I'm not sure of all the patterns yet.
55 2017-10-24 17:57:57 <arubi> jb55, not anything you wouldn't be able to pick up on quickly enough.  script is very simple if you just accept reverse polish notation :)
56 2017-10-24 17:58:25 <arubi> will definitely try to help if you have questions, feel free to ask
57 2017-10-24 17:58:31 <jb55> will do, thanks
58 2017-10-24 18:00:55 <jb55> tokenizing <pubkey> is a fun test for now because I can basically run BIP examples as is
59 2017-10-24 18:02:00 <jb55> maybe there would be a mode that prompts for input at those points lol, variables eventually?? not a high prio right now though
60 2017-10-24 18:02:16 <arubi> that would be very cool
61 2017-10-24 18:02:21 <arubi> like an active shell
62 2017-10-24 18:02:39 <jb55> just want to make it really easy to test new ideas quickly
63 2017-10-24 18:03:10 <jb55> or for learning, since many scripts right now are pretty simple if your brain is wired for RPN
64 2017-10-24 18:03:59 <arubi> yea, and if you're not checking signatures, it's really just "run this from start to finish"
65 2017-10-24 18:05:05 <jb55> yeah I'm less interested in checking signatures, more interested in testing control flow for different inputs
66 2017-10-24 18:05:37 <jb55> although that will ultimately sometimes depend on sigs so that will be in there of course :P
67 2017-10-24 18:06:25 <jb55> but more so along the lines of "if this sigcheck succeeds or fails what happens"
68 2017-10-24 18:06:30 <arubi> yes, and then you might want to look at op_codeseparator which will make your life interesting :)
69 2017-10-24 18:06:33 <jb55> as apposed to explicit sig checking
70 2017-10-24 18:06:58 <jb55> arubi: I've looked at that but I still don't know what it does
71 2017-10-24 18:07:24 <arubi> it's a marker for a checksig operation to mark "where from" to serialize a script for sighash
72 2017-10-24 18:07:47 <jb55> whoa
73 2017-10-24 18:07:50 <arubi> if there aren't any, it's at the start.  as the script executes, if a codesep is met, the marker is now where it was
74 2017-10-24 18:08:05 <jb55> interesting...
75 2017-10-24 18:08:51 <arubi> it only makes a difference for checksig stuff, but yes it is interesting, and legacy checksigs vs. segwit checksigs serialize it differently :),  segwit is much easier
76 2017-10-24 18:09:09 <arubi> really you could just be "segwit compatible only" and save a lot of headache
77 2017-10-24 18:11:41 <jb55> sounds reasonable
78 2017-10-24 18:16:01 <arubi> the behavior is pretty similar really, segwit serializes the codesep while legacy doesn't.  segwit makes checksig ops a lot easier because of the better sighash scheme in bip143.  there are so many interesting sighash types, and there are probably going to be more eventually, that implementing legacy just seems like a waste of time now
79 2017-10-24 18:20:00 <jb55> cool I'll check out that bip