1 2018-02-22 00:04:48 <roasbeef> bsm117532: I see, off the top, I know of no such publicly published analysis
 2 2018-02-22 00:05:30 <bsm117532> I would have thought someone would have done it for the CSV fork, or for lightning timeouts...
 3 2018-02-22 00:27:08 <roasbeef> all our timeouts are expressed in blocks atm
 4 2018-02-22 00:27:12 <roasbeef> relative and absolute
 5 2018-02-22 00:27:26 <roasbeef> pre-spec, lnd used time in some places, but then switched over to blocks post-spec
 6 2018-02-22 00:27:39 <roasbeef> idk blocks just feels "cripser"
 7 2018-02-22 00:27:47 <roasbeef> all in the system
 8 2018-02-22 00:27:50 <roasbeef> crisper*
 9 2018-02-22 00:28:36 <bsm117532> i agree on that.  Business processes tend to have this 4pm problem though
10 2018-02-22 00:29:05 <bsm117532> Let's make all the transactions ever at 4pm.  It's a bad idea, but the way things work now.
11 2018-02-22 00:30:50 <bsm117532> I'm interested in timelocks to enforce business processes
12 2018-02-22 00:31:07 <bsm117532> Working on updating this idea https://blog.sldx.com/re-imagining-cold-storage-with-timelocks-1f293bfe421f
13 2018-02-22 00:39:23 <bsm117532> I never mentioned it in that article, but segwit is a critical component of the idea, because offline signed transactions can become invalid if malleation occurs.  So now that we have that...
14 2018-02-22 00:49:03 <bsm117532> roasbeef: How do you handle timelocks across two blockchains, where the block times are different?  I imagine you'd have to use absolute timestamps and Median Time Past?
15 2018-02-22 03:10:19 <roasbeef> bsm117532: either you tell me what the height is on say ltc, or I just know it (atm), then I can do the route as normal, for the border node (straddles both chains) i need to scale up or down depending on the diff in block
16 2018-02-22 03:18:20 <roasbeef> or reandevous style, you just give the the encrypted latter half, i handle getting to the border node, dunzo
17 2018-02-22 08:33:05 <FraJah> meows
18 2018-02-22 10:13:29 <BaranByk> hi all.
19 2018-02-22 14:46:43 <denis2342> every time when my bitcoind is stopped with SIGINT because the system is shutting down or rebooting all the blocks from that session get replayed with “Rolling Forward….”. This does not happen when I stop the deamon with bitcoin-cli stop
20 2018-02-22 14:46:52 <denis2342> can someone try to confirm this?
21 2018-02-22 14:47:12 <denis2342> running 0.16.0rc4 btw
22 2018-02-22 14:53:34 <wumpus> that's expected behavior, to make sure the in-memory work is entirely written to disk, you need to wait for bitcoind to exit. SIGINT does the same as bitcoin-cli stop, the only destinction is whether you wait for it to quit.
23 2018-02-22 14:53:51 <wumpus> (and not, say, send SIGKILL a second after...)
24 2018-02-22 14:56:41 <denis2342> wumpus: not convinced, because the timeout is 60 seconds before it gets killed and I saw that it didnt take that long
25 2018-02-22 14:57:03 <denis2342> I try to send the SIGINT by hand without timeout and see what happens…
26 2018-02-22 14:57:04 <wumpus> check the debug.log then and see if the shutdown sequence finished
27 2018-02-22 14:58:16 <wumpus> if it says there that it shut down completely (the "Shutdown: done" message) and it didn't flush everything to disk, then there might be a bug...
28 2018-02-22 15:10:05 <denis2342> wumpus: you’re right, after a system shutdown the message “Shutdown: done” is missing
29 2018-02-22 15:16:10 <wumpus> ok
30 2018-02-22 20:12:41 <armoredShawarma_> Hello
31 2018-02-22 21:03:04 <armoredShawarma_> Does anyone know of any good open source projects where I can learn and contribute?
32 2018-02-22 22:46:29 <FraJah> nite nite everyone. ^_^