1 2017-11-01 00:50:55 <rupy> hi, can you use the old deprecated accounts with segwit transactions?
 2 2017-11-01 00:56:07 <rupy> I'll expand on that, I don't think bitcoin will ever become anything more than store of value unless there is an internal accounting system.
 3 2017-11-01 00:56:44 <rupy> Is anyone looking into accounts or is it still deprecated, and when will it be defunct/removed?
 4 2017-11-01 01:31:41 <achow101> rupy: accounts are a Bitcoin Core only thing, not a networkwide thing. there is no "internal accounting system" in Bitcoin at all
 5 2017-11-01 01:31:56 <achow101> rupy: accounts should still work with segwit
 6 2017-11-01 01:34:01 <rupy> ok, thx
 7 2017-11-01 01:36:06 <rupy> do you know if any open-source alternative to the deprecated accounts in core exists yet?
 8 2017-11-01 02:44:37 <mlz> rupy, if you want "accounts", use fiat systems
 9 2017-11-01 03:51:09 <ghost43> if I call a method via JSON-RPC without any arguments but it expected some, is the common error code to expect -1 (RPC_MISC_ERROR)? I would just like to test via JSON-RPC whether a method is available in a somewhat generic way
10 2017-11-01 07:18:11 <rupy> @mlz I'm aiming for off-chain microtransactions, and no I'm not going to use fiat for that.
11 2017-11-01 14:09:28 <paulo_> hello
12 2017-11-01 14:09:42 <paulo_> why is the difficulty encoded in the blocks?
13 2017-11-01 14:09:57 <paulo_> can't the client calculate it based on the timestamps?
14 2017-11-01 15:05:02 <achow101> paulo_: it allows clients to not have the full blockchain to be able to calculate whether a proof of work is valid
15 2017-11-01 15:05:16 <achow101> s/full blockchain/full headers chain/
16 2017-11-01 15:06:28 <paulo_> okay. are there clients that not have the full headers chain?
17 2017-11-01 15:06:49 <paulo_> or is it more of a "just in case"?
18 2017-11-01 15:07:59 <achow101> it's more of a "just in case" I think
19 2017-11-01 15:08:11 <achow101> it doesn't hurt to have the target specified in the header
20 2017-11-01 15:08:26 <paulo_> okay, thank you.
21 2017-11-01 15:53:02 <paulo_> why does the client need to keep both sides when the blockchain forks?
22 2017-11-01 15:53:17 <paulo_> why not use a rule, like follow the block with the smaller hash?
23 2017-11-01 18:23:30 <kallewoof> paulo_: hash doesn't really matter, as long as it's below target. it keeps both because it has no idea which one miners will build on top of next
24 2017-11-01 21:17:20 <ghost43> how can I force a blockchain reorg on regtest? e.g. can I somehow set assumeNOTvalid for a header? :D can't see any useful command for this in bitcoin-cli help
25 2017-11-01 21:20:47 <ghost43> I guess I could do this on the filesystem layer by making copies of the db... I'll do that for now, but would still be interested if there's a better way
26 2017-11-01 22:47:57 <esotericnonsense> ghost43: sync up another client with stopatheight and mine from that height?
27 2017-11-01 22:48:06 <esotericnonsense> haven't tried it, just a guess
28 2017-11-01 22:50:18 <ghost43> esotericnonsense: yes, that might work. or I could just partition the network and do it that way. but it would be nice to be able to do it with a single node