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|Ã¯Â¿Â¼ 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 donÃÂ´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.