[02:34:38] <navcoin-bot> <prole> if you can engineer machines that fly through the sky im sure you can wrap your head around programming 😉
[02:49:13] <navcoin-bot> <Goku> With him we can improve nav's aerodynamic to get faster to the moon 🚀
[04:24:56] <navcoin-bot> <salmonskinroll> lol thats the sad part, i can never leave earth
[05:57:36] <navcoin-bot> <prole> why not?
[06:02:35] <navcoin-bot> <salmonskinroll> technically i only deal with airplanes so i kinda need the atmosphere
[10:32:42] <navcoin-bot> <prole> Well you can help us get to the stratosphere at least then
[10:33:18] <navcoin-bot> <prole> I'll be on NavCoin Core tomorrow for the full day, so I'll probably have to catch up with you guys in ~12 hours time to see where things are at.
[10:33:43] <navcoin-bot> <prole> Or feel free to point me in a direction of where you need me to help and I'll read it in the morning
[11:25:21] <navcoin-bot> <aguycalled> you could start with dao or confirming the prs salmonskin already reviewed (staking split gui and dandelion)
[11:25:47] <navcoin-bot> <aguycalled> or maybe the prs with needed for final release first
[15:45:29] <navcoin-bot> <salmonskinroll> aren't those C++ 11 standard one and nullptr one easy to be reviewed as well? just guessing since the change is minimum
[15:46:05] <navcoin-bot> <salmonskinroll> i also built and played with c++11 one as well, and that one worked fine
[15:58:19] <navcoin-bot> <aguycalled> yes its easy to review and approve them
[16:45:32] <navcoin-bot> <salmonskinroll> @aguycalled posted 1st round of report of DAO testing. for point 9, im seeing more consultation showing it on different cycles on different nodes now. still working on replicating it.
[16:54:52] <navcoin-bot> <aguycalled> amazing
[16:55:13] <navcoin-bot> <aguycalled> ill have a look
[22:38:14] <navcoin-bot> <salmonskinroll> @salmonskinroll you have any luck finding out what's causing point 9? basically every proposal now is seeing a different cycle at least on one node now. im thinking about restarting the network but not sure if i should in case i can't replicate it
[22:38:37] <navcoin-bot> <salmonskinroll> oh why did i tag myself lol @aguycalled
[22:40:47] <navcoin-bot> <aguycalled> i havent looked at it yet, will probably do on friday as tomorrow is bank holiday in germany and we will spend the day out
[22:43:30] <navcoin-bot> <salmonskinroll> sounds good, i'll keep the network for now then.
[23:50:41] <navcoin-bot> <prole> I've reviewed the code for https://github.com/navcoin/navcoin-core/pull/604
[23:50:45] <navcoin-bot> <prole> and it makes sense
[23:50:50] <navcoin-bot> <prole> it also compiles and runs
[23:51:06] <navcoin-bot> <prole> I was thinking of writing an RPC test for this change.
[23:51:24] <navcoin-bot> <prole> Is it worth it?
[23:51:37] <navcoin-bot> <prole> I think the test would be something like this;  Test 1: create two nodes, activate forks, disconnect the nodes, mine 498 blocks on one, 499 on the other and resync them together and they should both be at the hash of the 499 chain.   Test 2: create two nodes, activate forks, disconnect the nodes, mine 500 blocks on one, 501 on the other and try to resync them together and they should both remain on different forks.
[23:52:06] <navcoin-bot> <prole> would this display the behaviour of this change correctly?
[23:58:40] <navcoin-bot> <mxaddict> I think that test should work nicely, I did a similar test manually when I reviewed the PR
[23:58:48] <navcoin-bot> <mxaddict> How long do you think that test would run?
[23:59:21] <navcoin-bot> <prole> should be pretty fast because we dont have to wait for the blocks to generate naturally, we can just generate them