[Bitcoin-development] Emergency List Move: Sunday, June 21st, 2015 at 9pm UTC

Given the Sourceforge list server exploded and unsubscribed the majority of the old list, we decided to move forward with the planned list move in roughly 50 minutes from now. 9pm UTC or 2pm PDT this list will be permanently shut down with auto-reject on all posts. https://lists.linuxfoundation.o

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Membership disabled due to bounces

Was literally *everyone* unsubscribed? Sigh. As much as this is good reason to move the list ASAP, we need both the LF sysadmin and an existing SF list admin to be online simultaneously to effect an orderly transition. We have a scheduled time for this on Tuesday at 8pm UTC. I can ask if they a

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Membership disabled due to bounces

I set that password back in 2013 ... shortly after a fun debate that was largely responsible for my decision to fix up Litecoin. Thanks Gavin! On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > I just got this mail ... unclear how mail with my gmail account would be > causing b

Re: [Bitcoin-development] confirm 1e595b258d48a8badd07523cbd8a8d74c150803c

I just got this mail ... unclear how mail with my gmail account would be causing bounces with this list. On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 8:56 PM, < bitcoin-development-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > Your membership in the mailing list Bitcoin-development has been > disabled due to excessive boun

[Bitcoin-development] IMPORTANT - Bitcoin Dev List Move Tuesday, June 23rd 8pm UTC

This is an important notice to all members of the Bitcoin Dev List. *Tuesday, June 23rd 8pm UTC (1pm PDT) the following will happen.* - The current list at bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net will reject all posts. - The current archives at http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mail

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mailman incompatibility with DKIM ...

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: > The new list currently has footers removed during testing. I am not >> pleased with the need to remove the subject tag and footer to be more >> compatible with DKIM users. >> > > Lists can do what are effectively MITM attacks on people's mess

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mailman incompatibility with DKIM ...

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > We already removed the footer because it was incompatible with DKIM >> signing. Keeping the "[Bitcoin-dev] " prepend tag in subject is compatible >> with DKIM header signing only if the poster manually prepends it in their >> subject header.

[Bitcoin-development] Mailman incompatibility with DKIM ...

Both you and jgarzik experienced mail getting tossed into gmail's spam folder thanks to DKIM... I am concerned that DKIM is too fragile and not very compatible with mailing lists. We already removed the footer because it was incompatible with DKIM signing. Keeping the "[Bitcoin-dev] " prepend tag

Re: [Bitcoin-development] FYI - Mailing List Move Preparations

Togami Jr. wrote: > After discussions in #bitcoin-dev in the past day we decided it would be a > bad idea to link the old and new lists in some way during a transition > period. We decided we are better off announcing the switchover very soon, > and after that point all posts to the o

[Bitcoin-development] FYI - Mailing List Move Preparations

After discussions in #bitcoin-dev in the past day we decided it would be a bad idea to link the old and new lists in some way during a transition period. We decided we are better off announcing the switchover very soon, and after that point all posts to the old list will be rejected with a message

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity

On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > > *List Name?* Would people prefer "bitcoin-development" for he new list > name instead of a shorter name like "bitcoin-dev"? I personally like the > shorter name, but either is fine. > https:

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity

On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > * ACK on moving away from SourceForge mailing lists - though only once a > community-welcomed replacement is up and running > > * ACK on using LF as a mailing infrastructure provider > > * Research secure mailing list models, for bitcoin-secur

[Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity

Discomfort with Sourceforge For a while now people have been expressing concern about Sourceforge's continued hosting of the bitcoin-dev mailing list. Downloads were moved completely to bitcoin.org after the Sept 2014 hacking incident of the SF project account. The company's behavior and perceiv

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

not just start stripping bitcoin out of > adopters wallets? Same thing. > -- > From: Warren Togami Jr. > Sent: ‎1/‎06/‎2015 10:30 PM > Cc: Bitcoin Dev > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements > > Whilst it would be nice if miners i

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

Whilst it would be nice if miners in *outside* China can carry on forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in *outside* China can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall *TO THE MAJORI

Re: [Bitcoin-development] A suggestion for reducing the size of the UTXO database

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Andreas Schildbach wrote: > Yes, that's the issue. Because you're connecting only to one node, you > don't get any instant confirmations -- due to a Bitcoin protocol > limitation you can only get them from nodes you don't post the tx to. Is it really wise to call

Re: [Bitcoin-development] About watch-only addresses

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320695 I made a branch of Bitcoin 0.9.3 plus backports including watch-only and a huge pile of patches cleaning it up from the master branch. It seems to work fine although it is not heavily tested. I suppose if you use ONLY for watch-only it can't be harmf

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core Nightly Builds

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=571414.0 Thanks to the efforts of Cory Fields, Bitcoin Core now has deterministic builds for MacOS X. The nightly builder now has Windows, Linux and MacOS X test builds available for download. Warren On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Warren Togami Jr

[Bitcoin-development] 0.9.2 RC postponed for 7 days

The release candidate for 0.9.2 was previously scheduled for May 13th. Yesterday it was decided to postpone this for 7 days due to the Bitcoin 2014 Amsterdam conference. The string freeze is now in effect and it is a very good time to contribute translations

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Regtest Address Version Change Proposal

ame? > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I propose changing all of the address versions in -regtest mode to be >> unique so they are no longer identical to testnet. >> >> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/List

[Bitcoin-development] Regtest Address Version Change Proposal

Hi folks, I propose changing all of the address versions in -regtest mode to be unique so they are no longer identical to testnet. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/List_of_address_prefixes For example, regtest pubkey hash addresses could begin with r or R. We need to know if any existing tools would n

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Translators Needed for Bitcoin Core

the release for at least a week after that. Even if you do not speak other languages, you can help by pointing other people who do at this page. Warren On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > You do not need to be a developer to help in the improvement of Bitcoin. >

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Development Roadmap of Bitcoin Core 0.9.2

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Wladimir wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Gregory Maxwell > wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Warren Togami Jr. > wrote: > >> If you are > >> a rare user who needs Bitcoin-Qt on an incompatible system you

[Bitcoin-development] Translators Needed for Bitcoin Core

You do not need to be a developer to help in the improvement of Bitcoin. http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/32255092/ Bitcoin Core 0.9.2 feature freeze is May 13th, 2014. Now is the time for native non-English speakers to join Transifex to clean up the translations in all languages.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Development Roadmap of Bitcoin Core 0.9.2

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Kristov Atlas wrote: > I see that the latest nightly build (thanks for that, Warren) is still not > compatible with Tails/Debian Squeeze. Is there still an intention to > address this issue? Might it be fixed by 0.9.2? > If I understand the situation, bitcoind do

[Bitcoin-development] Development Roadmap of Bitcoin Core 0.9.2

Development Roadmap of Bitcoin Core 0.9.2 The Bitcoin Core developers have a desire to do a mostly bug-fix and translation update release in v0.9.2. A feature and string freeze will start about 3 weeks from now. The purpose of this development roadmap is to communicate the project intent and to b

[Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core Nightly Builds

The Bitcoin Core developers have a desire to do a mostly bug-fix, cleanup and translation update release in v0.9.2 a few weeks from now. You do not need to be a developer to help! With these unofficial nightly builds, power users can more easily aid in testing of the master branch which will help

Re: [Bitcoin-development] On OP_RETURN in upcoming 0.9 release

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > Either the transaction fees are sufficient to pay the cost for whatever > random junk anyone wants to put there, or they are not, and if they are > not, then I suggest you re-think the fee structure rather than trying > to pre-regulate

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core 0.9rc1 release schedule

Just a small note of caution for those joining in testing. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3529 Currently the master branch has this issue where leveldb renames all of .sst files to .ldb. This makes running the 0.8.x version of Bitcoin think the index is corrupt. Until a fix is include

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Peer Discovery and Overlay

I was concerned about this issue so we sponsored BlueMatt to implement an address database for bitcoinj. In the future it won't be entirely reliant on what DNS tells it. Warren On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > As for node addresses being a service, that's what the DNS seeds

Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.8.6 release candidate 1

Our testing of the macos leveldb parts for the past 6 days has had zero complaints of new corruption from OMG and LTC users. I agree it is time to release 0.8.6. On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > >> I

Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.8.6 release candidate 1

I found a tiny error in 0.8.6rc1. The leveldb subtree merge was done incorrectly leaving an errant db/ directory in the base of bitcoin instead of src/leveldb. See my earlier mail on 0.8.6 for suggested subtree squash and merge syntax. (On plane now...) Warren On Dec 5, 2013 10:53 PM, "Gavin An

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coin Control, Send crash on MacOS X

On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Wladimir wrote: > On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > >> https://github.com/litecoin-project/bitcoinomg/commits/0.8.5-OMG6 >> http://download1.rpmfusion.org/~warren/bitcoin-0.8.5-OMG6/ >> I've been backpo

[Bitcoin-development] Coin Control, Send crash on MacOS X

https://github.com/litecoin-project/bitcoinomg/commits/0.8.5-OMG6 http://download1.rpmfusion.org/~warren/bitcoin-0.8.5-OMG6/ I've been backporting patches from master and Litecoin to make a Bitcoin 0.8 client with more features. It works quite well on Linux and Win32. http://pastebin.com/g8QqheGc

Re: [Bitcoin-development] [PATCH, try2] bitcoind: whitelist nodes against banning

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2906 There is already a bannode RPC PR. Last I tried it didn't work though. On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Gregory Maxwell > wrote: > > Is there a reason not to have a parallel get rpc to get the

[Bitcoin-development] Bounty: MacOS X Bitcoin Corruption Issue

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=337294 Since 0.8.x many MacOS X users have been experiencing periodic leveldb data corruption issues. While not fatal, it is very time consuming to recover from this corruption and upsetting that it happens often for some users. There have been three commit

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: "reject" p2p message

How about rejection codes to notify you that you have been rate limited? Warren On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback, everybody, gist updated: > https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/7079034 > > Categories are: > > 0x01-0x0f Protocol syntax errors

[Bitcoin-development] 0.8.5 with libsecp256k1

https://github.com/sipa/secp256k1 sipa's secp256k1, optimized ecdsa, significantly faster than openssl Today someone in #bitcoin-dev asked for Bitcoin 0.8.5 with sipa's secp256k1. Litecoin has been shipping test builds with secp256k1 for several months now so it was a simple matter to throw toget

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review

https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches Read the section under "14) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by: and Suggested-by:". That might be helpful in our process too? Warren On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Mike H

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bitcoind stops responding

https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/issues/67 0.8.2 apparently was the first Bitcoin version to support RPC keepalive. With the 4 RPC thread limit, four keepalive connections will exhaust all four and prevent further connections. This issue describes a workaround where you build with mor

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind

Hence ship a miner that automatically reads the bitcoin.conf to find the RPC authentication info. It would be faster and more efficient than the unoptimized miner while simplifying the bitcoind code. Win for everyone. Warren On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Andreas Schildbach wrote: > On 08/1

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind

FWIW, Litecoin 0.8.x entirely removed the internal miner and we warned people that getwork will be removed in the next major version. Pooler's CPU minerd which supports both sha256d and scrypt recently grew stratum support. Perhaps he could be convinced to add GBT support too, which would help th

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Gavin's post-0.9 TODO list...

nodes though. I'm not too worried about this. > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > >> bitcoinj-0.10 release notes: >> >>- We now require Bloom-capable (0.8+) peers by default and will >>disconnect from older nodes. Thi

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Gavin's post-0.9 TODO list...

I might agree this would be helpful for the many phones plugged into power and on wifi for large portions of the day. However that doesn't really help much when phone IP addresses change often as you move onto different networks, and currently IP address is the only thing that peers can keep track

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Gavin's post-0.9 TODO list...

bitcoinj-0.10 release notes: - We now require Bloom-capable (0.8+) peers by default and will disconnect from older nodes. This avoids accidental bandwidth saturation on mobile devices. Given the user-security concern that Peter brings up, reconsideration of this new default behavior in S

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Gavin's post-0.9 TODO list...

ed are really just script > kiddies. Also anything that involves every node operator doing manual > intervention rather works against decentralisation and having a big > network. That's why I keep pushing for automated heuristic driven > prioritisation. > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Gavin's post-0.9 TODO list...

https://togami.com/~warren/archive/2013/example-bitcoind-dos-mitigation-via-iptables.txt *Anti-DoS Low Hanging Fruit: source IP or subnet connection limits* If you disallow the same IP and/or subnet from establishing too many TCP connections with your node, it becomes more expensive for attackers t