1 2017-03-25 00:34:09	0|gmaxwell|oh theo, trolling about the openssl license thing by targing unrelated parties: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=149032069130072&w=2
  2 2017-03-25 05:16:34	0|luke-jr|crap, sizefp is broken
  3 2017-03-25 05:17:09	0|luke-jr|hm, or is it
  4 2017-03-25 05:18:31	0|luke-jr|actually, I think it might be okay. it's possible to produce a fraud proof that lies about the tx count, but you'd never be able to make one that proves it's bigger than it really is I think
  5 2017-03-25 06:33:21	0|da2ce7|luke-jr: what is the cost of just relaying the full oversized block. Or at least the first 1mb of the block? Most SPV wallets have enough bandwidth for 1mb
  6 2017-03-25 06:35:58	0|luke-jr|da2ce7: up to 4 MB with segwit
  7 2017-03-25 06:36:44	0|da2ce7|that doesn't sound unreasonable for my phone either.
  8 2017-03-25 06:38:30	0|da2ce7|Is SVP fraud proof spam/dos a concern?
  9 2017-03-25 06:38:58	0|gmaxwell|da2ce7: yes, because if you don't like your fraud being proven first you claim fraud falsely on every block to every client... all the time and they waste bandwidth.
 10 2017-03-25 06:39:18	0|gmaxwell|and the users get pissed and change software or turn off the feature.
 11 2017-03-25 06:39:49	0|gmaxwell|though you're right to say that 1mb isn't that burdensom... kinda sad that all these wallets totally screw user privacy to save a bandwidth amount the user probably doesn't care about.
 12 2017-03-25 06:44:04	0|da2ce7|Banning the Peer that gives a false proof isn't sufficient?  I suppose not, because the new peer that you could connect to could give a false fraud proof again.
 13 2017-03-25 06:45:24	0|gmaxwell|well once you're convinced a given block was okay, you never need to fetch it.
 14 2017-03-25 06:45:28	0|gmaxwell|er again.
 15 2017-03-25 06:45:38	0|gmaxwell|but it can just happen for the next block.
 16 2017-03-25 06:46:42	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: a radically different approach would be able to have miners mergemine a message [Block 0x00023023423 is oversized.]... then you have some minimum difficulty for such messages such that dos is ineffectual.
 17 2017-03-25 06:46:58	0|gmaxwell|and when you get one of those messages, you just go download the whole block to check for yourself.
 18 2017-03-25 06:47:26	0|da2ce7|cool
 19 2017-03-25 06:47:30	0|gmaxwell|hm. well I suppose the attacker can cheaply produce false proofs for all the good blocks, scratch that idea.
 20 2017-03-25 06:49:10	0|da2ce7|Banning the offending peer isn't enough? A bad peer can only send 1 bad fraud proof... You would cycle through to 8 good peers quite quickly.
 21 2017-03-25 06:52:55	0|da2ce7|You can also have a rate-limit, where if you get a new peer, you won't accept a fraud proof until they have been well behaved for a certain time, (such 1/2 * time connected to longest peer).
 22 2017-03-25 06:53:18	0|da2ce7|This will severely rate-limit bad fraud proofs.
 23 2017-03-25 07:23:14	0|luke-jr|da2ce7: these nodes don't even accept incoming connections, so..
 24 2017-03-25 08:06:55	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15luke-jr opened pull request #10074: Block size/weight fraud proofs (06master...06sizefp) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10074
 25 2017-03-25 08:08:23	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14cc995e2 15flack: add missing spaces so that markdown recognizes headline
 26 2017-03-25 08:08:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a0b1e57b20a1...530fcbd49be2
 27 2017-03-25 08:08:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14530fcbd 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10063: add missing spaces so that markdown recognizes headline...
 28 2017-03-25 08:08:44	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10063: add missing spaces so that markdown recognizes headline (06master...06patch-1) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10063
 29 2017-03-25 08:10:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145d7eb39 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10067: [trivial] Dead code removal...
 30 2017-03-25 08:10:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c59aedc 15Thomas Snider: [trivial] Dead code removal
 31 2017-03-25 08:10:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/530fcbd49be2...5d7eb39aecda
 32 2017-03-25 08:10:47	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10067: [trivial] Dead code removal (06master...06tjps_dead_code) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10067
 33 2017-03-25 09:01:58	0|luke-jr|wumpus: blkindex.dat was the UTXO BDB database IIRC
 34 2017-03-25 09:04:56	0|sipa|it was everything
 35 2017-03-25 09:05:09	0|sipa|it has the byte position of every transactions
 36 2017-03-25 09:05:26	0|sipa|and the byte position of the transaction that spent each input
 37 2017-03-25 09:05:45	0|wumpus|ok
 38 2017-03-25 09:07:34	0|sipa|12 bytes for every output ever :)
 39 2017-03-25 09:07:46	0|sipa|bla bla scability
 40 2017-03-25 09:07:52	0|sipa|*scalability
 41 2017-03-25 09:10:22	0|wumpus|yes you did so much incredible work on that sipa :)
 42 2017-03-25 09:11:44	0|wumpus|Huh! https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8218   "this issue was closed"  by whom? github admin?
 43 2017-03-25 09:12:32	0|luke-jr| ghost closed this on Jun 18, 2016
 44 2017-03-25 09:13:09	0|wumpus|oh. I was looking at the notifications and saw "this issue was closed" at the end, assuming that was the recent activity
 45 2017-03-25 09:13:25	0|gmaxwell|'ghost' ?!
 46 2017-03-25 09:13:42	0|wumpus|if it was closed in 2016 already, okay, I still don't realy understand why but that makes sense
 47 2017-03-25 09:13:48	0|wumpus|ghost is github's "removed user" account
 48 2017-03-25 09:13:55	0|gmaxwell|oh the opened user.
 49 2017-03-25 09:14:40	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli's post there still makes a lot of sense, we need a standard for these things
 50 2017-03-25 09:15:34	0|wumpus|anyhow, sorry for the false alarm, github confused me
 51 2017-03-25 09:16:40	0|da2ce7|Hello. #bitcoin-core-dev,  I've made a patch for BIP 148, unfortunately I'm not a developer so building it a secure manner is a bit over my head.  If anyone can fire-up their gitian, and help me verify the build it would be a great help for me.
 52 2017-03-25 09:16:41	0|da2ce7|https://github.com/da2ce7/bitcoin/commit/f0bbd97bb5db7da1f8d0019973c048646ad44dbc
 53 2017-03-25 09:16:51	0|da2ce7|(based upon bitcoin knots).
 54 2017-03-25 09:21:14	0|wumpus|one gitian builder doesn't really accomplish much, the strength in that process is to make multiple people build something and compare. Or have you gitian-built it and want to compare hashes?
 55 2017-03-25 09:22:14	0|da2ce7|I've only built bitcoin privately, I haven't used gitian before.  I don't want to release my private binaries.
 56 2017-03-25 09:23:13	0|wumpus|you shouldn't feel okay distributing someone else's gitian-built binaries either
 57 2017-03-25 09:23:44	0|wumpus|unless it's multiple independent people I guess
 58 2017-03-25 09:23:46	0|luke-jr|I wouldn't mind providing one of multiple builds (not as an endorsement).
 59 2017-03-25 09:24:15	0|wumpus|yes I wouldn't mind building either, but am a bit wary of subverting trust in gitian :) for the releasses we usually wait for 5 signers at least before distributing executables
 60 2017-03-25 09:24:42	0|luke-jr|wumpus: sadly, Knots only usually has 2 signers to work with; maybe we can improve on this in general
 61 2017-03-25 09:25:14	0|wumpus|luke-jr: yes, I don't mind building/signing that
 62 2017-03-25 09:25:39	0|da2ce7|once I have the expected hashes, then I'll ask around for many people to build and verify it.
 63 2017-03-25 09:25:52	0|luke-jr|wumpus: latest tag is v0.14.0.knots20170307 and the bitcoin-knots github has a sigs repo
 64 2017-03-25 09:26:06	0|wumpus|as you say it's not an endorsement (though I have nothing against knots either) and improves general bitcoin security so anyhow
 65 2017-03-25 09:26:11	0|sipa|why do we need gitian builds for a single patch?
 66 2017-03-25 09:27:32	0|luke-jr|sipa: I guess people want to upgrade to it sooner rather than later; da2ce7 isn't the first wanting such binaries
 67 2017-03-25 09:27:40	0|da2ce7|I want to release binaries that include this patch. Gitian (with many people verifying) is the only way I know that I would feel confident in doing so.
 68 2017-03-25 09:43:45	0|wumpus|no idea, though having an official 'unofficial gitian sigs' repository would be kind of strange :)
 69 2017-03-25 09:44:03	0|da2ce7|luke-jr you can just pm me. I will collect them and publish them once I have enough.  Be clear to include "unoffical" or something in the sig.
 70 2017-03-25 09:45:48	0|da2ce7|maybe possible to append something to the end of the binary hash?
 71 2017-03-25 09:46:27	0|wumpus|the assert file is YAML, I think you can add additial fields that will be ignored by the tooling
 72 2017-03-25 09:46:50	0|luke-jr|ideally GPG would print a message upon verification
 73 2017-03-25 09:50:18	0|wumpus|I doubt it's possible to add custom messages there
 74 2017-03-25 09:51:57	0|wumpus|(as mimicing GPG output there could fool scripts, or even people expecting a certain output)
 75 2017-03-25 09:52:31	0|luke-jr|true
 76 2017-03-25 09:56:12	0|bambum|any agreement / concensus between core / miners / bu regarding onchain blocksize foreseeable or do we have to wait for 1. bu hard fork or/and 2. uasf or/and 3. pow change ? I am long term holder but considering to sell now :(
 77 2017-03-25 09:56:56	0|wumpus|bambum: that's not a bitcoin-core-dev topic, #bitcoin please
 78 2017-03-25 09:59:33	0|bambum|well #bitcoin is just speculation and fud, I would be happy to see some core opinion
 79 2017-03-25 10:00:08	0|luke-jr|bambum: you can get that in #bitcoin too
 80 2017-03-25 10:00:31	0|sipa|core is a software project; we don't decide what people should run
 81 2017-03-25 10:00:41	0|sipa|please keep politics out of here
 82 2017-03-25 10:01:03	0|wumpus|amen
 83 2017-03-25 10:02:31	0|bambum|well you naturally dont need to answer this question. I just hoped to get some prospectics. I think its really important for bitcoin holder to know about it and i am sure you have your own view and don´t only focus on tecnical
 84 2017-03-25 10:03:47	0|sipa|i have my own view, but it is completely off topic here
 85 2017-03-25 10:04:56	0|sipa|please understand that the politics in this space severely affect people's lives here
 86 2017-03-25 10:05:08	0|wumpus|right, everyone has their own view, but discussing those views is of topic here for the exact reason of preventing this from becoming a "speculation and fud" channel. We had that problem with bitcoin-dev and that's why this channel was created
 87 2017-03-25 10:07:34	0|bambum|ok I got it, but you should also know that it also affects my life. I have almost my entire savings into bitcoin, its not so easy for me to get  allthat money into my bank account.
 88 2017-03-25 10:08:11	0|luke-jr|bambum: again, please take it to #bitcoin ; many of us are there as well and would answer you if you ask there
 89 2017-03-25 10:08:20	0|bambum|ok
 90 2017-03-25 10:22:04	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #10075: Remove unused C++ code not covered by unit tests (06master...06unused) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10075
 91 2017-03-25 11:15:48	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5d7eb39aecda...90dd9e6c4c0c
 92 2017-03-25 11:15:49	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b1f584d 15Matthew Zipkin: fix build if spaces in src dir path
 93 2017-03-25 11:15:50	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1490dd9e6 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9946: Fix build errors if spaces in path or parent directory...
 94 2017-03-25 11:16:04	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9946: Fix build errors if spaces in path or parent directory (06master...06dirspaces2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9946
 95 2017-03-25 13:18:07	0|guyonabike|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10074 <- are the names for the p2p messages accurate? I was thinking that maybe "fraud/getfraud" may be a good name to be used for other fraud proofs for spv, like tx inclusion/exclusion
 96 2017-03-25 13:50:06	0|luke-jr|guyonabike: yes, it's extensible
 97 2017-03-25 13:50:15	0|luke-jr|guyonabike: see the FP type
 98 2017-03-25 14:01:37	0|guyonabike|as far as i understood from the code, the fraud, but I'm not sure about getfraud, perhaps add something analogous to invtype in getinv?
 99 2017-03-25 14:02:14	0|guyonabike|luke-jr: sorry if I'm not making much sense, I'm relatively new in this
100 2017-03-25 14:03:06	0|luke-jr|did you read BIP 180? that might help ;)
101 2017-03-25 14:12:09	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #10076: [qa] combine_logs: Use ordered list for logfiles (06master...06Mf1703-orderedLog) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10076
102 2017-03-25 14:20:34	0|guyonabike|luke-jr: thanks. i was thinking on fraud proofs for mempool txs received by spv clients, where I could ask a random node for validation, but now I think that might be dangerous and probably more aligned to be a rpc call
103 2017-03-25 14:21:14	0|guyonabike|luke-jr: thanks for writing this bip, its great work
104 2017-03-25 14:35:18	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #10077: [qa] Add setnetworkactive smoke test (06master...06Mf1703-toggleNet) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10077
105 2017-03-25 15:13:14	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14803e6a3 15Nicolas Dorier: [QA] Fix typo in fundrawtransaction test...
106 2017-03-25 15:13:14	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/90dd9e6c4c0c...111849345bb5
107 2017-03-25 15:13:15	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141118493 15MarcoFalke: Merge #10069: [QA] Fix typo in fundrawtransaction test...
108 2017-03-25 15:13:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #10069: [QA] Fix typo in fundrawtransaction test (06master...06patch-3) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10069
109 2017-03-25 15:46:21	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #10078: [qa] Fundraw: Use named args to limit scope of names (06master...06Mf1703-qaNamedShadow) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10078
110 2017-03-25 19:16:41	0|RealM9|So, when will you sign BIP148 binaries?
111 2017-03-25 19:30:53	0|gmaxwell|In case "RealM9" comes back, I don't think anyone who regularly works on Bitcoin Core has even looked much at BIP148 yet.
112 2017-03-25 19:31:24	0|gmaxwell|We're certantly not going to ship a consensus change proposal that is only a couple weeks old.