[03:41:12] arm build was commented on my script [05:25:10] Ahh [06:09:37] @aguycalled how did the gitian builds go? [07:51:45] found the reason why it failed [07:51:59] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/416000318149754881/578127423753945089/unknown.png [08:50:50] Ahh [15:45:59] @aguycalled so were you able to get a build cooking? 😃 [15:46:14] its going [15:46:23] Nice [15:46:29] BTW, I think this is good to merge [15:46:29] https://github.com/navcoin/navcoin-core/pull/480 [15:46:36] But we need 1 more review [15:46:50] Anyone we can pull in to review while @prole is on vaca? [16:15:18] didnt you integrate those on your pr? [16:21:49] i dont know why i thought u did [16:22:09] @Matt (Dev) can approve also [17:08:23] I only merged master into my PR cause there was a conflict with one of the earlier merges [17:09:13] The new travis setup on https://github.com/navcoin/navcoin-core/pull/461 is working nicely 😄 [17:09:54] That should also help with future PRs (So we don't get the timeouts anymore, or atleast we can restart the test and it will finish the next run) [17:21:30] @aguycalled I have a local navcoin-qt instance that seems to have forked [17:21:40] Or atleast it would no longer accept blocks from peers [17:21:41] https://github.com/navcoin/navcoin-core/issues/481 [17:22:04] can you send me the log [17:22:48] Yes, how do you want me to send it? [17:22:52] Just DM or email? [17:27:49] @aguycalled [17:29:04] alex@nav.community [17:36:11] Sent [17:36:35] @mxaddict what does listproposals output [17:37:12] @aguycalled is it a problem that the pool is currently apply duplicate votes for proposals and payment requests on staked blocks? [17:37:38] nope, those are counted as 1 [17:38:16] @aguycalled I'll check [17:39:43] I'll add to the issue, as it's pretty long [17:40:51] @aguycalled I added listproposals to the issue [17:48:46] looks like your client crashed``` 2019-05-15 00:04:13 GUI: The X11 connection broke: I/O error (code 1) 2019-05-15 00:04:13 NavCoinStaker runtime error: boost: mutex lock failed in pthread_mutex_lock: Invalid argument```` [17:49:09] and when restarted at 2019-05-15 17:01:16 [17:49:16] the cfund db state was not consistent [17:49:34] so some payment requests were reseted [17:50:02] well i dont know if it crashed, but at least it was not a clean close [17:50:05] @mxaddict [17:50:38] you can see it because you were synced up to 3129508 and then on launch it started again from 3116189 [17:51:08] this is solved moving the cfund db to the coins db, i have a branch where i started this [17:54:44] Nice [17:55:06] Ohh, so the cfund db is lagging behind the coins db? [17:55:21] Which is why it thinks that block 397db81e64408823be5abd2a04cf0457f34960cf6b2e43606bea18daa37c016d is invalid? [17:57:16] the different dbs can be flushed to disk at different points causing those inconsistencies [17:57:42] specially if there are crashes/wallets exits out of the normal procedure [17:58:39] Yeah, I could see how that would cause an issue [17:59:02] So the solution you have is to sync the flush or to merge the dbs into 1? [17:59:25] Anyways, thanks, I guess I'll have to bootstrap then 😄 [18:05:04] id go for using the coins db for the cfund [18:13:19] You have a PR I can review? 😃 [18:14:05] not yet finished [18:14:16] ill stop what im doing im finish that one [18:36:47] Ok [18:37:06] I'm working on the ledger thing now myself [18:37:27] I think I can just fork https://github.com/LedgerHQ/ledger-app-btc and add NAV to it. [18:37:46] Or should we seperate it from that main ledger-app? [18:37:53] @aguycalled [18:40:34] looks like a pr is the way [18:40:36] https://github.com/LedgerHQ/ledger-app-btc/pull/89/files [18:40:45] but they won't approve it till theres a companion app [18:41:44] @mxaddict [18:43:27] Yes [18:43:42] But I saw some coins forked completely [18:43:46] Maybe there is a reason why? [18:44:05] IE https://github.com/LedgerHQ/ledger-app-particl [18:44:25] They seem to have removed all other coin's from the fork, and add the particl [18:44:58] Would there be benefits for doing it like that for our support? [18:45:45] I'd rather PR to just add it, but maybe we need to fork (I'm looking for ideas) [18:45:49] @aguycalled [19:00:20] it depends if we need to add different signing schemes [19:01:25] so they have another bolos app [19:02:07] for merely classic tx signing, adding nav support to the btc app should be enough [19:02:17] @CryptoMaximalist [19:03:53] particl has multi-sig for cold staking i think, one more layer for security afaik [19:06:30] Ahh, so that is why they have forked @salmonskinroll ? [19:06:52] I guess we can start with a PR for adding support and fork it in the future if we ever need to add more layers ontop [19:07:06] yes, for the user is better to have only one app [19:07:15] Damn, I need to make logos for nav 😄 [19:07:16] each ledger admits a reduced number of apps at the same time [19:07:25] so they can reuse the btc app [19:07:25] @aguycalled do we have SVGs of the navcoin logo? [19:07:31] no clue [19:07:42] So I can create the logos needed [19:07:43] just draw an N :p [19:07:58] its very lores logos right [19:08:41] Hmmm, maybe we should get a designer onboard to standardize assets? [19:08:45] Do we have one? [19:08:46] 😄 [19:08:57] I'm no good with graphics, so I can't really do it. [19:09:08] https://navhub.org/assets [19:09:15] Ohh [19:09:16] Nice [19:10:12] Nice [19:10:37] I think this will do nicely, I just need to make it fit in the standard for ledger assets [19:10:41] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/416000318149754881/578298224268410912/Nav_Flavicon.png [19:10:58] They have a few types of logos for different ledger hardware [19:11:17] I'll just create them based on the guidlines and use this logo as the base [19:11:23] Should be fine right? 😃 [19:15:16] yup [19:23:46] @mxaddict gitian finished, commented on git [19:26:36] Nice [19:26:58] So windows builds are now deteministic and confirmed to work on machines other than my own 😄 [19:27:01] Feels good [19:46:33] good jo [19:57:55] just approved #461 [19:57:59] @mxaddict [20:03:04] Thanks! 😄 [20:03:19] I got a bit carried away with that issue, was having a bit too much fun, LOL [20:03:37] Travis build was the trickiest part, but totally worth it if we can get away from the timeouts 😄 [20:13:45] @aguycalled what do you think about the comment for: AX_CHECK_COMPILE_FLAG([-fPIC],[PIC_FLAGS="-fPIC"]) [20:14:07] i dont know why the comment is showing now, i commented days ago [20:14:20] if you remove it because upstream did it s ok [20:17:32] Ohh [20:17:36] Ok [20:17:49] I think the replacement code does effectively the same [20:18:19] Since it adds the flag to PIC_FLAGS instead of CFLAGS for any HOST that is not windows [20:18:30] Old code only added it for linux hosts [21:53:19] I can cACK and read over some code but I don't have much time to dedicate to actual testing atm