1 2011-08-24 00:00:12 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
   2 2011-08-24 00:00:38 wolfspraul has joined
   3 2011-08-24 00:04:22 markus_w1nner has joined
   4 2011-08-24 00:06:09 subversvir has joined
   5 2011-08-24 00:07:53 markus_wanner has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
   6 2011-08-24 00:08:42 subversvir has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
   7 2011-08-24 00:09:48 JackStorm has quit (Quit: JackStorm)
   8 2011-08-24 00:11:03 theorb has joined
   9 2011-08-24 00:11:35 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
  10 2011-08-24 00:11:46 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
  11 2011-08-24 00:12:04 ByteCoin has joined
  12 2011-08-24 00:12:23 <ByteCoin> theymos: You here?
  13 2011-08-24 00:12:51 normanrichards has quit (Quit: normanrichards)
  14 2011-08-24 00:13:33 <lfm> ;;seen theymos
  15 2011-08-24 00:13:34 <gribble> theymos was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 4 days, 4 hours, 14 minutes, and 48 seconds ago: <theymos> Not an impossible amount of space, at least.
  16 2011-08-24 00:14:35 boatski has joined
  17 2011-08-24 00:15:56 Lopuz has joined
  18 2011-08-24 00:21:29 <ByteCoin> thanks for that lfm!
  19 2011-08-24 00:21:50 volcanicwarrvbe has joined
  20 2011-08-24 00:23:23 k9quaint has joined
  21 2011-08-24 00:23:47 yorick_ has joined
  22 2011-08-24 00:25:04 yorick has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  23 2011-08-24 00:26:33 brunner has joined
  24 2011-08-24 00:26:50 magn3ts has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  25 2011-08-24 00:27:52 magn3ts has joined
  26 2011-08-24 00:31:58 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  27 2011-08-24 00:33:49 Lopuz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  28 2011-08-24 00:34:00 normanrichards has joined
  29 2011-08-24 00:34:03 rafsoaken1 has quit (Quit: rafsoaken1)
  30 2011-08-24 00:34:13 BTCTrader is now known as BTCT_away
  31 2011-08-24 00:39:12 hahuang65 has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
  32 2011-08-24 00:42:59 k9quaint has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  33 2011-08-24 00:52:40 bittwist has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  34 2011-08-24 00:52:56 Lopuz has joined
  35 2011-08-24 00:54:09 berend has joined
  36 2011-08-24 00:55:04 BTCTrader has joined
  37 2011-08-24 00:57:51 stalled has joined
  38 2011-08-24 00:59:04 c00w has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
  39 2011-08-24 01:03:44 c0ldaussie has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  40 2011-08-24 01:04:07 c0ldaussie has joined
  41 2011-08-24 01:11:04 NikScholz has joined
  42 2011-08-24 01:14:01 owowo has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  43 2011-08-24 01:20:42 ivan has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
  44 2011-08-24 01:21:43 terracotta has quit (Changing host)
  45 2011-08-24 01:21:43 terracotta has joined
  46 2011-08-24 01:21:53 Runnigan has left ()
  47 2011-08-24 01:22:26 ivan has joined
  48 2011-08-24 01:31:03 NikScholz has left ()
  49 2011-08-24 01:35:18 storrgie has joined
  50 2011-08-24 01:40:37 MBS has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  51 2011-08-24 01:42:50 <ByteCoin> ;;seen gavin
  52 2011-08-24 01:42:50 <gribble> I have not seen gavin.
  53 2011-08-24 01:43:00 <ByteCoin> ;;seen gavinandressen
  54 2011-08-24 01:43:01 <gribble> I have not seen gavinandressen.
  55 2011-08-24 01:43:20 <ByteCoin> ;;seen gavinandresen
  56 2011-08-24 01:43:21 <gribble> gavinandresen was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 7 hours, 9 minutes, and 24 seconds ago: <gavinandresen> nanotube: well, convincing ourselves it is secure is way more important, but might as well save bytes if we can (means lower tx fees for users eventually)
  57 2011-08-24 01:44:42 Guest21991 has joined
  58 2011-08-24 01:48:00 Blitzboom has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  59 2011-08-24 01:49:44 Guest21991 is now known as MBS
  60 2011-08-24 01:49:51 MBS has quit (Changing host)
  61 2011-08-24 01:49:51 MBS has joined
  62 2011-08-24 01:50:08 BitcoinForNewegg has joined
  63 2011-08-24 01:52:17 Cherothald has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  64 2011-08-24 01:53:09 Blitzboom has joined
  65 2011-08-24 02:00:18 boatski has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
  66 2011-08-24 02:02:29 johntobey253 has joined
  67 2011-08-24 02:08:16 aldiyen_ has joined
  68 2011-08-24 02:08:29 Miner-TE has joined
  69 2011-08-24 02:12:14 eoss has joined
  70 2011-08-24 02:12:14 eoss has quit (Changing host)
  71 2011-08-24 02:12:14 eoss has joined
  72 2011-08-24 02:14:05 Lopuz has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  73 2011-08-24 02:16:33 shLONG has quit ()
  74 2011-08-24 02:16:38 log0s has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  75 2011-08-24 02:19:46 huk has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  76 2011-08-24 02:20:10 huk has joined
  77 2011-08-24 02:20:57 brunner has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
  78 2011-08-24 02:21:24 storrgie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  79 2011-08-24 02:24:03 asher^ has joined
  80 2011-08-24 02:26:36 boatski has joined
  81 2011-08-24 02:27:57 normanrichards has quit (Quit: normanrichards)
  82 2011-08-24 02:31:30 ThomasV has joined
  83 2011-08-24 02:35:30 Diablo-D3 has joined
  84 2011-08-24 02:36:04 brunner has joined
  85 2011-08-24 02:40:05 normanrichards has joined
  86 2011-08-24 02:41:56 Miner-TE has quit (Quit: Page closed)
  87 2011-08-24 02:45:57 DukeOfURL has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
  88 2011-08-24 02:48:37 boatski has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
  89 2011-08-24 02:50:02 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
  90 2011-08-24 02:51:07 boatski has joined
  91 2011-08-24 02:51:17 zeropointo has joined
  92 2011-08-24 02:51:42 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
  93 2011-08-24 02:51:48 [7] has joined
  94 2011-08-24 03:01:06 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  95 2011-08-24 03:01:55 ThomasV has joined
  96 2011-08-24 03:05:10 genjix has left ()
  97 2011-08-24 03:07:29 boatski has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
  98 2011-08-24 03:07:45 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  99 2011-08-24 03:09:07 boatski has joined
 100 2011-08-24 03:14:06 peterpansen_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 101 2011-08-24 03:15:54 Rabbit67890 has quit (Quit: Rabbit67890)
 102 2011-08-24 03:19:32 log0s has joined
 103 2011-08-24 03:20:50 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 104 2011-08-24 03:21:13 zeropointo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 105 2011-08-24 03:22:53 ByteCoin has left ()
 106 2011-08-24 03:25:28 shadders has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 107 2011-08-24 03:27:15 KenArmitt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 108 2011-08-24 03:27:24 KenArmitt has joined
 109 2011-08-24 03:30:44 whiteman has joined
 110 2011-08-24 03:30:48 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 111 2011-08-24 03:31:23 <whiteman> If I want to make a Bitcoin web service, what do I use for the back end? Is there a libary?
 112 2011-08-24 03:31:38 peterpansen_ has joined
 113 2011-08-24 03:32:37 <Diablo-D3> whiteman: its normal jsonrpc
 114 2011-08-24 03:33:40 <whiteman> Is there a good example of a scripted client out there?
 115 2011-08-24 03:34:23 <Diablo-D3> no.
 116 2011-08-24 03:35:11 Doktor99 has joined
 117 2011-08-24 03:35:40 BlueMatt has joined
 118 2011-08-24 03:36:17 <johntobey253> There's libbitcoin under development and BitcoinJ in Java might help, but most everybody uses JSON-RPC.  See "bitcoind help"
 119 2011-08-24 03:37:18 <nanotube> see also the wiki docs
 120 2011-08-24 03:38:11 Doktor99_ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 121 2011-08-24 03:39:08 DontMindMe has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 122 2011-08-24 03:39:52 DontMindMe has joined
 123 2011-08-24 03:42:26 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 124 2011-08-24 03:43:14 shadders has joined
 125 2011-08-24 03:44:45 BlueMatt has joined
 126 2011-08-24 03:47:17 jimon has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 127 2011-08-24 03:47:36 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 128 2011-08-24 03:50:54 theymos has joined
 129 2011-08-24 03:51:43 jimon has joined
 130 2011-08-24 03:53:36 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 131 2011-08-24 03:56:25 MBS has quit (Read error: No route to host)
 132 2011-08-24 03:58:16 MBS has joined
 133 2011-08-24 04:02:23 BlueMatt has joined
 134 2011-08-24 04:05:25 Rabbit67890 has joined
 135 2011-08-24 04:10:07 KenArmitt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 136 2011-08-24 04:10:21 boatski has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 137 2011-08-24 04:16:38 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 138 2011-08-24 04:16:38 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 139 2011-08-24 04:17:42 b4epoche_ has joined
 140 2011-08-24 04:19:28 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 141 2011-08-24 04:26:51 DontMindMe has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
 142 2011-08-24 04:27:00 Xunie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 143 2011-08-24 04:27:10 b4epoche_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 144 2011-08-24 04:28:39 b4epoche_ has joined
 145 2011-08-24 04:29:29 Cablesaurus has joined
 146 2011-08-24 04:32:44 RazielZ has joined
 147 2011-08-24 04:32:53 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 148 2011-08-24 04:32:54 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 149 2011-08-24 04:33:17 sacarlson has joined
 150 2011-08-24 04:38:41 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
 151 2011-08-24 04:40:20 karnac has joined
 152 2011-08-24 04:48:18 stalled has joined
 153 2011-08-24 04:51:06 copumpkin has joined
 154 2011-08-24 04:54:39 aldiyen_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 155 2011-08-24 05:03:28 ferrousw1eel is now known as ferrouswheel
 156 2011-08-24 05:04:03 genjix has joined
 157 2011-08-24 05:04:26 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 158 2011-08-24 05:05:11 genjix has left ()
 159 2011-08-24 05:10:13 brooss has quit (Quit: Rage Quit)
 160 2011-08-24 05:13:10 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 161 2011-08-24 05:13:58 gjs278 has joined
 162 2011-08-24 05:14:17 ircuser-3 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 163 2011-08-24 05:25:45 stalled has joined
 164 2011-08-24 05:28:06 ircuser-3 has joined
 165 2011-08-24 05:32:18 b4epoche_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 166 2011-08-24 05:33:09 b4epoche_ has joined
 167 2011-08-24 05:34:40 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 168 2011-08-24 05:37:08 newbie15 has joined
 169 2011-08-24 05:37:42 {3r1c} has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 170 2011-08-24 05:40:16 newbie has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 171 2011-08-24 05:42:26 Eric has joined
 172 2011-08-24 05:42:52 Eric is now known as Guest59248
 173 2011-08-24 05:45:26 magn3ts has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 174 2011-08-24 05:49:32 Guest59248 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 175 2011-08-24 05:49:43 osmosis has joined
 176 2011-08-24 05:49:47 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 177 2011-08-24 05:51:44 RazielZ has joined
 178 2011-08-24 05:52:11 asher^ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 179 2011-08-24 05:55:55 Runnigan has joined
 180 2011-08-24 05:56:01 Guest59248 has joined
 181 2011-08-24 06:01:09 <osmosis> jgarzik, if  bitcoind getinfo  returned valuable diagnostic information, i could write some munin graphing plugins to track the data.
 182 2011-08-24 06:04:43 paul0_ has joined
 183 2011-08-24 06:04:56 paul0 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 184 2011-08-24 06:04:56 paul0_ is now known as paul0
 185 2011-08-24 06:08:15 <nanotube> hey osmosis :)
 186 2011-08-24 06:08:35 <osmosis> nanotube, yo! good seeing you at the conf
 187 2011-08-24 06:08:45 <nanotube> indeed, same here :)
 188 2011-08-24 06:09:44 ChanneledDan has joined
 189 2011-08-24 06:10:44 <osmosis> nanotube, definitely interested in more web interface stuff with web of trust. Will be on it as soon as i figure out how to manage my collapsing stack of worth while bitcoin projects.
 190 2011-08-24 06:11:36 <nanotube> hehe sounds great!
 191 2011-08-24 06:12:17 <nanotube> the web stuff and the distributed stuff can really be tackled independently, so let's see how it goes
 192 2011-08-24 06:12:55 <cjdelisle> also a complaint/response system would be awesome... will get there eventually if noone beats me to it.
 193 2011-08-24 06:13:25 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: not sure it's needed?
 194 2011-08-24 06:13:36 <luke-jr> the only problems I've seen are scammers downrating legit users
 195 2011-08-24 06:13:46 <luke-jr> and they aren't going to worry about complaint/response nonsense
 196 2011-08-24 06:14:16 <nanotube> well, ideally, the only ratings /you/ have to worry about is from people other people trust.
 197 2011-08-24 06:14:34 <osmosis> luke-jr, and scammers tricking new users into giving a rating of 10.
 198 2011-08-24 06:15:00 <nanotube> if $randomscammer downrates you, it doesn't do anything if nobody trusts him.
 199 2011-08-24 06:15:26 <nanotube> since it's not about cumulative ratings, but about trust paths between you and other 'real' users.
 200 2011-08-24 06:15:40 <cjdelisle> "they aren't going to worry about complaint/response nonsense" <-- that is part of the point. Also there are cases where nobody really meant to scam anyone and it's just a big misunderstanding.
 201 2011-08-24 06:15:59 <luke-jr> nanotube: in practice, I find there's too few connections to rely on that alone
 202 2011-08-24 06:16:18 brunner has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 203 2011-08-24 06:16:25 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: I suspect those misunderstands self-resolve :p
 204 2011-08-24 06:16:26 <nanotube> luke-jr: yes well, that is the unfortunate reality when the network is still quite small...
 205 2011-08-24 06:16:36 piotr_p has joined
 206 2011-08-24 06:16:43 paul0 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 207 2011-08-24 06:16:44 <nanotube> cjdelisle: then users get together (possibly with an arbiter), talk it out, and adjust their ratings subsequently.
 208 2011-08-24 06:16:48 <nanotube> (ideally) heh
 209 2011-08-24 06:17:03 paul0 has joined
 210 2011-08-24 06:17:51 <cjdelisle> Yea, it makes a lot more sense with websites where one "entity" is doing business with a ton of people and people want to know if they are responsive.
 211 2011-08-24 06:18:41 <nanotube> well, i would expect in the future plenty of businesses would have nodes on the wot
 212 2011-08-24 06:18:53 whiteman has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 213 2011-08-24 06:19:33 <cjdelisle> Also with a business, a satisfied customer is unlikely to uprate them but an angry customer will make a ton of noise.
 214 2011-08-24 06:19:52 ForceMajeure has quit ()
 215 2011-08-24 06:19:57 <cjdelisle> case in point: google $AnyHostingCompany scam
 216 2011-08-24 06:20:34 <nanotube> well, such is life. a business can encourage all customers to create wot accounts for a mutual rating
 217 2011-08-24 06:20:41 <nanotube> thus reducing this filter bias
 218 2011-08-24 06:21:56 <cjdelisle> I hope to solve the problem like the BBB but with less corruption, if you care about your reputation then you will answer complaints reasonably fast.
 219 2011-08-24 06:22:04 piotr_p has quit (Quit: leaving)
 220 2011-08-24 06:22:43 Incitatus has joined
 221 2011-08-24 06:22:53 <nanotube> cjdelisle: what is the bbb corruption? and how are you thinking of solving it?
 222 2011-08-24 06:23:13 <noagendamarket> bbb gets paid for good ratings
 223 2011-08-24 06:23:28 ThomasV has joined
 224 2011-08-24 06:24:29 <cjdelisle> There's no need for people to pay to be members and there's no need for an overall rating, people can read: "has 3 settled complaint and 1 open complaint"
 225 2011-08-24 06:26:45 <cjdelisle> I did some testing of the consept here: http://bitcoin.crimeunit.net/wiki/index.php/Complaints rammerhammer (Alex Nagelberg) had a problem with bitcoincashout.com so I took down the info and he is waiting on a response from them
 226 2011-08-24 06:27:07 coblee has joined
 227 2011-08-24 06:30:11 ircuser-3 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 228 2011-08-24 06:31:31 coderrr is now known as coderrr`brb
 229 2011-08-24 06:34:52 Workbench has joined
 230 2011-08-24 06:37:08 DD- has joined
 231 2011-08-24 06:38:42 bittwist has joined
 232 2011-08-24 06:46:19 ChanneledDan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 233 2011-08-24 06:53:01 paul0 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 234 2011-08-24 06:53:19 Rabbit67890 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 235 2011-08-24 06:53:30 paul0 has joined
 236 2011-08-24 06:56:35 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: I cna ytpe 300 wrods pre mniuet!!!)
 237 2011-08-24 06:57:01 larsivi has joined
 238 2011-08-24 06:57:03 Cablesaurus has joined
 239 2011-08-24 06:58:51 altamic has joined
 240 2011-08-24 06:58:51 altamic has quit (Changing host)
 241 2011-08-24 06:58:51 altamic has joined
 242 2011-08-24 06:59:28 IncitatusOnWater has joined
 243 2011-08-24 07:05:37 Rabbit67890 has joined
 244 2011-08-24 07:05:52 noagendamarket has quit (Excess Flood)
 245 2011-08-24 07:06:08 huk has quit ()
 246 2011-08-24 07:06:12 E-sense has joined
 247 2011-08-24 07:06:49 noagendamarket has joined
 248 2011-08-24 07:10:31 mnass_ has joined
 249 2011-08-24 07:12:20 newbie15 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 250 2011-08-24 07:12:36 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 251 2011-08-24 07:12:47 newbie has joined
 252 2011-08-24 07:13:26 circelz has joined
 253 2011-08-24 07:14:09 mnass has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 254 2011-08-24 07:17:53 Rabbit67890 has quit (Quit: Rabbit67890)
 255 2011-08-24 07:19:04 RickyC has joined
 256 2011-08-24 07:21:39 Ricky_C has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 257 2011-08-24 07:22:52 altamic has quit (Quit: altamic)
 258 2011-08-24 07:30:01 drona has joined
 259 2011-08-24 07:30:51 <drona> cortex a8 timer0 any sample program link
 260 2011-08-24 07:30:56 MacRohard has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 261 2011-08-24 07:31:47 newbie1 has joined
 262 2011-08-24 07:35:11 newbie has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 263 2011-08-24 07:35:24 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 264 2011-08-24 07:38:26 ThomasV has joined
 265 2011-08-24 07:40:17 Ken`_ has quit (Quit: leaving)
 266 2011-08-24 07:40:17 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 267 2011-08-24 07:40:57 newbie has joined
 268 2011-08-24 07:40:57 newbie1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 269 2011-08-24 07:41:12 paul0_ has joined
 270 2011-08-24 07:41:39 paul0 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 271 2011-08-24 07:41:39 paul0_ is now known as paul0
 272 2011-08-24 07:41:41 erus` has joined
 273 2011-08-24 07:47:56 newbie1 has joined
 274 2011-08-24 07:47:57 mnass_ is now known as mnass
 275 2011-08-24 07:47:57 newbie has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 276 2011-08-24 07:48:22 newbie1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 277 2011-08-24 07:48:34 newbie has joined
 278 2011-08-24 07:49:43 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 279 2011-08-24 07:49:56 MacRohard has joined
 280 2011-08-24 07:52:06 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r9ab15a..666fcc cgminer/ (util.c miner.h uthash.h main.c): (5 commits)
 281 2011-08-24 08:04:54 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 282 2011-08-24 08:07:50 asher^ has joined
 283 2011-08-24 08:09:14 nr9 has joined
 284 2011-08-24 08:10:42 BTCTrader has quit (Quit: BTCTrader)
 285 2011-08-24 08:10:49 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 286 2011-08-24 08:11:11 nr9 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 287 2011-08-24 08:11:35 nr9 has joined
 288 2011-08-24 08:12:23 IncitatusOnWater has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 289 2011-08-24 08:12:54 Incitatus has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 290 2011-08-24 08:17:39 brunner has joined
 291 2011-08-24 08:19:34 pickett has quit (Read error: No route to host)
 292 2011-08-24 08:19:49 Incitatus has joined
 293 2011-08-24 08:19:51 pickett has joined
 294 2011-08-24 08:20:12 wirehead has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 295 2011-08-24 08:23:23 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 296 2011-08-24 08:34:14 gjs278 has joined
 297 2011-08-24 08:37:17 Incitatus has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 298 2011-08-24 08:38:43 BTCTrader has joined
 299 2011-08-24 08:38:43 BTCTrader has quit (Client Quit)
 300 2011-08-24 08:39:03 lemon__ has joined
 301 2011-08-24 08:42:08 circelz has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 302 2011-08-24 08:42:30 AStove has joined
 303 2011-08-24 08:50:37 brunner has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 304 2011-08-24 08:56:30 Daniel0108 has joined
 305 2011-08-24 08:57:19 DontMindMe has joined
 306 2011-08-24 09:00:42 dbosk has joined
 307 2011-08-24 09:03:40 Incitatus has joined
 308 2011-08-24 09:07:42 slush has joined
 309 2011-08-24 09:10:33 abragin has joined
 310 2011-08-24 09:10:33 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 311 2011-08-24 09:10:33 abragin has joined
 312 2011-08-24 09:10:45 TheAncientGoat has joined
 313 2011-08-24 09:17:04 lemon__ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 314 2011-08-24 09:19:18 erle- has joined
 315 2011-08-24 09:31:45 ThomasV has joined
 316 2011-08-24 09:34:17 larsivi has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
 317 2011-08-24 09:35:35 larsivi has joined
 318 2011-08-24 09:42:12 hugolp has joined
 319 2011-08-24 09:45:49 KenArmitt has joined
 320 2011-08-24 09:46:15 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 321 2011-08-24 09:52:05 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 322 2011-08-24 09:52:28 klikklak has joined
 323 2011-08-24 09:54:05 klikklak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 324 2011-08-24 09:58:29 toffoo has quit ()
 325 2011-08-24 10:03:26 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 326 2011-08-24 10:03:52 kish has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 327 2011-08-24 10:04:35 hugolp has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 328 2011-08-24 10:04:37 kish has joined
 329 2011-08-24 10:04:55 kish has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 330 2011-08-24 10:05:59 Gekz has joined
 331 2011-08-24 10:05:59 Gekz has quit (Changing host)
 332 2011-08-24 10:05:59 Gekz has joined
 333 2011-08-24 10:08:04 TheAncientGoat has joined
 334 2011-08-24 10:09:38 kish has joined
 335 2011-08-24 10:11:51 MC1984 has joined
 336 2011-08-24 10:17:16 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 337 2011-08-24 10:20:45 agricocb has joined
 338 2011-08-24 10:22:06 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r6197ff20096f cgminer/main.c: Remove silly debugging output.
 339 2011-08-24 10:25:16 dlb76 has joined
 340 2011-08-24 10:28:13 kish has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 341 2011-08-24 10:32:50 hugolp has joined
 342 2011-08-24 10:33:40 Sedra- has joined
 343 2011-08-24 10:34:30 hugolp has quit (Client Quit)
 344 2011-08-24 10:35:08 hugolp has joined
 345 2011-08-24 10:36:17 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 346 2011-08-24 10:38:45 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 347 2011-08-24 10:40:16  has left (3b|!foobar@cpe-72-179-19-4.austin.res.rr.com|".")
 348 2011-08-24 10:42:50 markus_w1nner is now known as markus_wanner
 349 2011-08-24 10:44:07 noagendamarket has joined
 350 2011-08-24 10:47:11 kish has joined
 351 2011-08-24 10:47:17 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r7407e887f607 cgminer/configure.ac: Update configure.ac for newer autoconf tools.
 352 2011-08-24 10:47:55 pixglen has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 353 2011-08-24 10:49:09 bittwist_ has joined
 354 2011-08-24 10:50:12 bittwist has quit (Disconnected by services)
 355 2011-08-24 10:50:32 bittwist_ is now known as bittwist
 356 2011-08-24 10:50:36 Lopuz has joined
 357 2011-08-24 10:53:05 pixglen has joined
 358 2011-08-24 10:53:06 <Lopuz> EXCEPTION: 11DbException Db::put: Cannot allocate memory
 359 2011-08-24 10:55:19 bittwist has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 360 2011-08-24 10:56:57 knotwork has joined
 361 2011-08-24 10:56:57 knotwork has quit (Changing host)
 362 2011-08-24 10:56:57 knotwork has joined
 363 2011-08-24 10:57:14 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r0899ee86aeeb cgminer/main.c: Only consider pool slow to respond if we can't even roll work.
 364 2011-08-24 10:58:30 vv01f has joined
 365 2011-08-24 10:58:57 <vv01f> hello everyone
 366 2011-08-24 11:00:31 disq has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 367 2011-08-24 11:00:46 bittwist has joined
 368 2011-08-24 11:00:46 bittwist has quit (Changing host)
 369 2011-08-24 11:00:46 bittwist has joined
 370 2011-08-24 11:00:51 <vv01f> there was a question in the forums: is it possible to use different wallets with a single instance of bicoin-daemon - so to either switch between wallets or handle multiple ones? if not, any plans or other solutions to that?
 371 2011-08-24 11:01:00 yorick_ is now known as yorick
 372 2011-08-24 11:02:09 <tcatm> vv01f: wallet export/import is the closest we'll have
 373 2011-08-24 11:03:30 <vv01f> any schedule or prio on that matter?
 374 2011-08-24 11:04:10 <vv01f> dunno if some wallet-service do contribute on those functions - but i assume they have some solution for those problems (offline wallet etc.)
 375 2011-08-24 11:04:30 <tcatm> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/220
 376 2011-08-24 11:04:54 <vv01f> thank you very much :)
 377 2011-08-24 11:06:04 bittwist has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 378 2011-08-24 11:07:52 <epscy> ;;bc,stats
 379 2011-08-24 11:07:52 kish has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 380 2011-08-24 11:07:55 <gribble> Current Blocks: 142384 | Current Difficulty: 1805700.8361937 | Next Difficulty At Block: 143135 | Next Difficulty In: 751 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 4 days, 22 hours, 16 minutes, and 57 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1873891.93679015
 381 2011-08-24 11:08:27 kish has joined
 382 2011-08-24 11:08:45 Lopuz has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 383 2011-08-24 11:10:40 kish has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 384 2011-08-24 11:10:42 Burgundy has joined
 385 2011-08-24 11:10:45 disq has joined
 386 2011-08-24 11:15:06 vv01f has left ()
 387 2011-08-24 11:16:37 bittwist has joined
 388 2011-08-24 11:16:48 bittwist has quit (Changing host)
 389 2011-08-24 11:16:48 bittwist has joined
 390 2011-08-24 11:17:36 Burgundy has quit ()
 391 2011-08-24 11:19:16 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 392 2011-08-24 11:20:33 bittwist has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 393 2011-08-24 11:20:47 bittwist has joined
 394 2011-08-24 11:21:26 WakiMiko has joined
 395 2011-08-24 11:23:29 kish has joined
 396 2011-08-24 11:25:12 dvide has joined
 397 2011-08-24 11:27:55 Burgundy has joined
 398 2011-08-24 11:30:07 bittwist has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 399 2011-08-24 11:30:09 b4epoche has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 400 2011-08-24 11:30:09 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 401 2011-08-24 11:39:24 bittwist has joined
 402 2011-08-24 11:39:24 bittwist has quit (Changing host)
 403 2011-08-24 11:39:24 bittwist has joined
 404 2011-08-24 11:40:32 Blitzboom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 405 2011-08-24 11:41:39 glitch-mod has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 406 2011-08-24 11:42:01 erle- has quit (Quit: CETERVM•AVTEM•CENSEO•CVTTENBERC•ESSE•DELENDVM)
 407 2011-08-24 11:42:01 volcanicwarrvbe has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 408 2011-08-24 11:42:34 Lopuz has joined
 409 2011-08-24 11:47:49 manifold_ has joined
 410 2011-08-24 11:52:40 homeopatuvp has joined
 411 2011-08-24 11:57:12 manifold_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 412 2011-08-24 11:59:55 ahihi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 413 2011-08-24 12:00:30 voot545 has joined
 414 2011-08-24 12:01:11 ahihi2 has joined
 415 2011-08-24 12:06:20 b4epoche_ has joined
 416 2011-08-24 12:07:30 vegard has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 417 2011-08-24 12:09:52 jine has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 418 2011-08-24 12:10:18 jine has joined
 419 2011-08-24 12:11:14 drona has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 420 2011-08-24 12:11:21 b4epoche_ has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 421 2011-08-24 12:17:08 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rdbf0a1366d69 cgminer/ (main.c miner.h): Use the new hashes directly for counts instead of the fragile counters currently in use.
 422 2011-08-24 12:17:09 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r73c98e1e7949 cgminer/main.c: Check if there is more than one work item queued before complaining about a slow pool.
 423 2011-08-24 12:30:22 erle- has joined
 424 2011-08-24 12:32:56 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 425 2011-08-24 12:34:21 Silverpike has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 426 2011-08-24 12:34:39 Silverpike has joined
 427 2011-08-24 12:37:03 coderrr`brb is now known as coderrr
 428 2011-08-24 12:37:30 Lopuz has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 429 2011-08-24 12:38:52 datagutt has joined
 430 2011-08-24 12:44:05 XRcode has quit (K-Lined)
 431 2011-08-24 12:44:13 johntobey253 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 432 2011-08-24 12:52:27 KenArmitt has quit ()
 433 2011-08-24 12:52:49 cjdelisle has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 434 2011-08-24 12:53:31 vegard has joined
 435 2011-08-24 12:54:41 cjdelisle has joined
 436 2011-08-24 12:58:23 Lopuz has joined
 437 2011-08-24 12:59:35 RickyC has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 438 2011-08-24 12:59:47 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 439 2011-08-24 13:00:42 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 440 2011-08-24 13:03:30 normanrichards has quit (Quit: normanrichards)
 441 2011-08-24 13:09:12 hugolp has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 442 2011-08-24 13:11:38 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 443 2011-08-24 13:13:46 b4epoche_ has joined
 444 2011-08-24 13:14:48 bittwist has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 445 2011-08-24 13:17:03 sytse has quit (Read error: No route to host)
 446 2011-08-24 13:19:45 bittwist has joined
 447 2011-08-24 13:20:32 normanrichards has joined
 448 2011-08-24 13:23:47 zeropointo has joined
 449 2011-08-24 13:30:50 somuchwin has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 450 2011-08-24 13:31:29 sytse has joined
 451 2011-08-24 13:31:37 somuchwin has joined
 452 2011-08-24 13:32:27 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r48f07d921933 cgminer/ (sha256_sse2_amd64.c x86_64/sha256_xmm_amd64.asm): Update to latest sse2 code from cpuminer-ng.
 453 2011-08-24 13:32:29 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rb643b56a9523 cgminer/main.c: Allow LP to reset block detect and block detect lp flags to know who really came first.
 454 2011-08-24 13:32:30 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r5a2cf5a6b123 cgminer/main.c: Get start times just before mining begins to not have very slow rise in average.
 455 2011-08-24 13:35:25 b4epoche_ has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
 456 2011-08-24 13:37:25 d1g1t4l has joined
 457 2011-08-24 13:37:26 ThomasV has joined
 458 2011-08-24 13:38:19 DukeOfURL has joined
 459 2011-08-24 13:38:27 DukeOfURL has quit (Client Quit)
 460 2011-08-24 13:42:13 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rcea1cf6cc0c5 cgminer/main.c: Revert "Since we roll work all the time now, we end up staging a lot of work without queueing, so don't queue if we've already got staged work."
 461 2011-08-24 13:42:14 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rf2f0ba80242b cgminer/main.c: Revert "Revert "Since we roll work all the time now, we end up staging a lot of work without queueing, so don't queue if we've already got staged work.""
 462 2011-08-24 13:50:42 manifold has joined
 463 2011-08-24 13:54:42 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 464 2011-08-24 13:55:22 larsig__ has joined
 465 2011-08-24 13:56:32 bittwist has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 466 2011-08-24 13:57:21 Lopuz has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 467 2011-08-24 13:58:15 bittwist has joined
 468 2011-08-24 14:05:03 egecko has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
 469 2011-08-24 14:05:41 voot545 has quit ()
 470 2011-08-24 14:06:44 erle- has quit (Quit: CETERVM•AVTEM•CENSEO•CVTTENBERC•ESSE•DELENDVM)
 471 2011-08-24 14:06:47 homeopatuvp has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 472 2011-08-24 14:08:32 mabus has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 473 2011-08-24 14:11:40 mabus has joined
 474 2011-08-24 14:11:42 egecko has joined
 475 2011-08-24 14:12:08 egecko has quit (Client Quit)
 476 2011-08-24 14:13:22 cosurgi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 477 2011-08-24 14:14:23 manifold has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 478 2011-08-24 14:17:14 furiousspiqre has joined
 479 2011-08-24 14:20:23 hugolp has joined
 480 2011-08-24 14:20:36 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 481 2011-08-24 14:23:37 ThomasV has joined
 482 2011-08-24 14:24:45 KenArmitt has joined
 483 2011-08-24 14:26:08 gavinandresen has joined
 484 2011-08-24 14:26:46 copumpkin has joined
 485 2011-08-24 14:26:49 copumpkin has quit (Changing host)
 486 2011-08-24 14:26:49 copumpkin has joined
 487 2011-08-24 14:28:48 topace has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 488 2011-08-24 14:30:48 huk has joined
 489 2011-08-24 14:33:10 d1g1t4l has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 490 2011-08-24 14:37:11 Maxel has joined
 491 2011-08-24 14:39:52 zeropointo has quit (Quit: leaving)
 492 2011-08-24 14:40:58 p0s has joined
 493 2011-08-24 14:41:39 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: what was that pull request you showed me, for signing message with wallet private keys ?
 494 2011-08-24 14:42:31 <gavinandresen> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/183
 495 2011-08-24 14:42:58 <ThomasV> ty
 496 2011-08-24 14:44:37 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r1224a14 / locale/cs/LC_MESSAGES/bitcoin.po :
 497 2011-08-24 14:44:37 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Merge pull request #474 from xHire/master
 498 2011-08-24 14:44:37 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Updated czech translation [only .po] - http://git.io/wGm2_A
 499 2011-08-24 14:46:18 BTCTrader has joined
 500 2011-08-24 14:48:04 zeropointo has joined
 501 2011-08-24 14:52:22 Rabbit67890 has joined
 502 2011-08-24 14:54:36 Maxel has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 503 2011-08-24 14:55:18 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 504 2011-08-24 14:55:56 MobiusL has joined
 505 2011-08-24 15:01:17 topace has joined
 506 2011-08-24 15:02:46 TheAncientGoat has joined
 507 2011-08-24 15:07:17 RazielZ has joined
 508 2011-08-24 15:08:43 DD- has quit ()
 509 2011-08-24 15:09:38 [Tycho] has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 510 2011-08-24 15:11:04 [Tycho] has joined
 511 2011-08-24 15:11:06 AlonzoTG has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 512 2011-08-24 15:12:55 coderrr is now known as coderrr`brb
 513 2011-08-24 15:13:03 coderrr`brb is now known as coderrr
 514 2011-08-24 15:15:27 cosurgi has joined
 515 2011-08-24 15:16:52 [Tycho] has quit (Changing host)
 516 2011-08-24 15:16:52 [Tycho] has joined
 517 2011-08-24 15:17:16 WildSoil has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 518 2011-08-24 15:25:01 zeropointo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 519 2011-08-24 15:26:37 BTCTrader has quit (Quit: BTCTrader)
 520 2011-08-24 15:28:18 dlb76 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 521 2011-08-24 15:33:46 Rabbit67890 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 522 2011-08-24 15:35:56 Burgundy has quit ()
 523 2011-08-24 15:38:22 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well)
 524 2011-08-24 15:40:00 lookdang has joined
 525 2011-08-24 15:42:27 <b4epoche> interesting email from Gavin
 526 2011-08-24 15:45:58 erus` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 527 2011-08-24 15:47:32 <nanotube> b4epoche: what email?
 528 2011-08-24 15:48:51 nr9 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 529 2011-08-24 15:49:15 kish has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 530 2011-08-24 15:52:31 <b4epoche> on the email list
 531 2011-08-24 15:52:41 <b4epoche> nanotube:^
 532 2011-08-24 15:54:06 Staatsfeind has joined
 533 2011-08-24 15:54:12 Staatsfeind is now known as markac
 534 2011-08-24 15:55:41 markac has quit (Client Quit)
 535 2011-08-24 15:56:33 BTCT_away is now known as BTCTrader_
 536 2011-08-24 15:58:21 kish has joined
 537 2011-08-24 16:08:16 <nanotube> b4epoche: yea found it. not a big fan of a 'blockchain fork' at all. multisig tx ++, but blockchainfork --.
 538 2011-08-24 16:08:24 <nanotube> imo
 539 2011-08-24 16:09:00 <ThomasV> what are multisignature tx ?
 540 2011-08-24 16:10:07 <ThomasV> oh I see
 541 2011-08-24 16:13:44 shadders has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 542 2011-08-24 16:14:16 Titeuf_87 has joined
 543 2011-08-24 16:16:40 <ThomasV> why does he call this a blockchain split ?
 544 2011-08-24 16:17:22 dlb76 has joined
 545 2011-08-24 16:19:51 AlonzoTG has joined
 546 2011-08-24 16:23:59 justmoon has joined
 547 2011-08-24 16:25:27 kish has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 548 2011-08-24 16:26:04 furiousspiqre has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 549 2011-08-24 16:26:32 shadders has joined
 550 2011-08-24 16:26:37 kish has joined
 551 2011-08-24 16:27:40 QueryTom3000 has joined
 552 2011-08-24 16:28:02 Xunie has joined
 553 2011-08-24 16:29:56 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 554 2011-08-24 16:30:34 sytse has joined
 555 2011-08-24 16:31:40 kish has quit (Quit: leaving)
 556 2011-08-24 16:34:49 erus` has joined
 557 2011-08-24 16:35:35 furiousspiqre has joined
 558 2011-08-24 16:37:09 <luke-jr> nanotube: I'm only a fan if it gets some bigger issues fixed.
 559 2011-08-24 16:37:17 kluge has joined
 560 2011-08-24 16:37:23 <nanotube> luke-jr: which are what?
 561 2011-08-24 16:37:25 <luke-jr> ThomasV: I think he wants to redo the whole address format? not sure on that part
 562 2011-08-24 16:37:37 <luke-jr> nanotube: see my email for a few
 563 2011-08-24 16:37:43 <ThomasV> yeah, I'm reading it
 564 2011-08-24 16:37:51 <nanotube> ThomasV: to get a 'short address' which is a hash of multiple pubkeys, we need new opcodes. that would fork the chain.
 565 2011-08-24 16:37:52 <jrmithdobbs> i'm confused on the necessity of the split as well
 566 2011-08-24 16:38:09 <justmoon> luke-jr, unrelated question: what's the status of your threaded_rpc patch/fork?
 567 2011-08-24 16:38:11 <jrmithdobbs> his email was kind of rambling
 568 2011-08-24 16:38:11 <nanotube> if you're ok with longer addresses (basically, concatenating a bunch of regular addresses), then no chainsplit and no new opcodes necessary.
 569 2011-08-24 16:38:18 <nanotube> jrmithdobbs: ^ see above
 570 2011-08-24 16:38:27 <nanotube> from his email, see also the link to that github gist.
 571 2011-08-24 16:38:32 boatski has joined
 572 2011-08-24 16:38:34 <jrmithdobbs> ya i saw it
 573 2011-08-24 16:38:36 <nanotube> where i think he describes things in some more details
 574 2011-08-24 16:38:38 <luke-jr> justmoon: current version works great
 575 2011-08-24 16:38:38 <ThomasV> nanotube: it would "fork" it only in the sense that a few users would forget to upgrade
 576 2011-08-24 16:38:46 <justmoon> luke-jr, k, thx
 577 2011-08-24 16:39:02 <nanotube> ThomasV: well, it's a fork then. :) currently if you forget to upgrade, you're still ok.
 578 2011-08-24 16:39:07 <jrmithdobbs> nanotube: he was just sort of jumping all over the place in his email and didn't really make his points very well
 579 2011-08-24 16:39:12 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
 580 2011-08-24 16:39:22 <nanotube> indeed. i think he was assuming prior knowledge from earlier discussion :)
 581 2011-08-24 16:39:23 * luke-jr notes there are STILL old clients in #bitcoin on freenode
 582 2011-08-24 16:39:27 <jrmithdobbs> nanotube: he kept talking about people's wallets getting stolen but what he was actually addressing in content really hase little-to-zero to do with that
 583 2011-08-24 16:39:27 <nanotube> because a lot of discussion happened at tho con
 584 2011-08-24 16:39:49 <nanotube> well, multisig stuff would be great for multi-factor authentication for tx spending
 585 2011-08-24 16:39:58 <nanotube> that's what he was meaning about stolen wallets
 586 2011-08-24 16:40:13 <jrmithdobbs> it doesn't help that at all
 587 2011-08-24 16:40:14 <nanotube> (i.e., to spend a tx, you need more than one key, each key is stored on different device)
 588 2011-08-24 16:40:39 <jrmithdobbs> if the multiple factors are coming from the same person and one set is compromised it's likely the other factors were stored similarly and will be just as easy to compromise
 589 2011-08-24 16:40:52 <nanotube> it helps a lot, imo? if your desktop is compromised and wallet stolen, but it only contains 1 of 2/3 keys needed to redeem your tx
 590 2011-08-24 16:41:10 <nanotube> jrmithdobbs: one of the keys can be escrowed with a third party, etc.
 591 2011-08-24 16:41:19 <nanotube> or can be on a mobile device
 592 2011-08-24 16:41:20 <jrmithdobbs> ya he left out all the context
 593 2011-08-24 16:41:23 <nanotube> or on a smartcard, etc.
 594 2011-08-24 16:41:29 <jrmithdobbs> there's a simpler solution tho
 595 2011-08-24 16:41:39 <jrmithdobbs> multifactor auth on the wallet crypto.
 596 2011-08-24 16:42:03 <jrmithdobbs> nanotube: i understand what he was saying now with that context. thanks ;p
 597 2011-08-24 16:42:11 <ThomasV> nanotube: if your desktop is compromised the attacker can compromise your client and you'll get stolen next time you plug your 2nd key
 598 2011-08-24 16:42:13 <luke-jr> nanotube: no. because people *won't* use bitcoin if they need 2 or 3 devices to spend
 599 2011-08-24 16:42:19 <nanotube> not the same - as long as wallet is decrypted to memory to sign stuff... a compromised computer means you can be screwed just as well.
 600 2011-08-24 16:42:23 <nanotube> luke-jr: it's /optional/
 601 2011-08-24 16:42:29 <nanotube> jrmithdobbs: np :)
 602 2011-08-24 16:42:30 <luke-jr> nanotube: and nobody will use it.
 603 2011-08-24 16:42:34 <jrmithdobbs> nanotube: it means that period
 604 2011-08-24 16:42:34 <luke-jr> nanotube: so it's useless :P
 605 2011-08-24 16:42:37 WildSoil has joined
 606 2011-08-24 16:42:39 <nanotube> ThomasV: you don't plug in the second key
 607 2011-08-24 16:42:44 <nanotube> the tx gets passed on to your second device.
 608 2011-08-24 16:42:48 <nanotube> and signed there
 609 2011-08-24 16:43:06 <nanotube> luke-jr: clients and services can develop to support that in a user-friendly manner.
 610 2011-08-24 16:43:09 <ThomasV> how so ?
 611 2011-08-24 16:43:21 <jrmithdobbs> nanotube: in the "Real World" if one of your clients gets compromised there's a good chance the second will as well
 612 2011-08-24 16:43:21 <ThomasV> you have 2 devices, with 2 displays ?
 613 2011-08-24 16:43:28 <jrmithdobbs> because of how real users actually use devices
 614 2011-08-24 16:43:31 <nanotube> ThomasV: yes, computer and phone, e.g.
 615 2011-08-24 16:43:39 <ThomasV> it's too complicated
 616 2011-08-24 16:43:54 <nanotube> or, computer and a "bitcoinsafe" which stores one of the privkeys for you
 617 2011-08-24 16:44:10 <nanotube> ThomasV: it still is better than having to require a special-made hardware device. well, cheaper, not better :)
 618 2011-08-24 16:44:10 <jrmithdobbs> either way
 619 2011-08-24 16:44:17 <ThomasV> I can see that it would be useful for escrow services, but not for a single individual
 620 2011-08-24 16:44:19 <jrmithdobbs> all that's necessary to make this work is outside of protocol level
 621 2011-08-24 16:44:27 <luke-jr> nanotube: less practical than special-made hardware
 622 2011-08-24 16:44:34 <jrmithdobbs> it just requires export of unsigned txns and import/broadcast of signed ones
 623 2011-08-24 16:44:36 <luke-jr> nanotube: and there's no reason phones can't be that special-made hardware
 624 2011-08-24 16:44:44 <ThomasV> nanotube: no, it's too unpractical
 625 2011-08-24 16:44:44 <luke-jr> they're certainly DRM'd up enough
 626 2011-08-24 16:44:47 E-sense has quit (Quit: System.exit(0);)
 627 2011-08-24 16:44:55 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: not really
 628 2011-08-24 16:45:00 <ThomasV> nanotube: if I am on the go, I need 2 telephones ?
 629 2011-08-24 16:45:04 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: phones are an awful choice for this
 630 2011-08-24 16:45:09 <nanotube> luke-jr: yes, but generally once you plug a phone by usb into a computer... its filesystem is your bitch.
 631 2011-08-24 16:45:17 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: because none of the user-accessible portions get encrypted/drm'ed
 632 2011-08-24 16:45:25 <nanotube> right
 633 2011-08-24 16:45:34 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: piss off customs re-entering the country? guess what? they have your privkeys.
 634 2011-08-24 16:45:56 <jrmithdobbs> because they will, and do, clone your phone
 635 2011-08-24 16:46:08 <luke-jr> nanotube: what's wallet encryption for?
 636 2011-08-24 16:46:32 <luke-jr> nevermind that it's currently based on AES which is broken
 637 2011-08-24 16:46:33 <nanotube> well... it offers some very good possibilities. once the network allows rebroadcasting multisig tx, the way is open for a bunch of interesting stuff.
 638 2011-08-24 16:46:46 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: aes isn't broken for pratical applications at this time
 639 2011-08-24 16:46:51 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: it's only broken by 2bits
 640 2011-08-24 16:47:02 zapnap has joined
 641 2011-08-24 16:47:03 <jrmithdobbs> and there is no better alternative
 642 2011-08-24 16:47:42 <jrmithdobbs> nanotube: i don't think multisig solves this problem. I think it just makes a very annoying use case for multi-factor auth that will never actually be used
 643 2011-08-24 16:48:12 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: for now
 644 2011-08-24 16:48:16 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: PGP?
 645 2011-08-24 16:48:35 <nanotube> jrmithdobbs: well, i can imagine systems built on this that actually work quite well.
 646 2011-08-24 16:49:03 <jrmithdobbs> jrmithdobbs: pgp uses aes/dsa/rsa and/or serpent (which does not have enough cryptanalysis done to know if it's better or worse than rjindael)?
 647 2011-08-24 16:49:30 <jrmithdobbs> jrmithdobbs: dsa/rsa are impractical for this application
 648 2011-08-24 16:49:32 <jrmithdobbs> erm
 649 2011-08-24 16:49:39 <jrmithdobbs> s/jrmithdobbs/luke-jr/ ^^
 650 2011-08-24 16:49:42 <luke-jr> IDEA?
 651 2011-08-24 16:49:47 <jrmithdobbs> patents
 652 2011-08-24 16:49:51 Zarutian has joined
 653 2011-08-24 16:49:53 <luke-jr> screw patents
 654 2011-08-24 16:50:17 <luke-jr> it's an algorithm
 655 2011-08-24 16:50:19 <luke-jr> the patent is invalid
 656 2011-08-24 16:50:21 <jrmithdobbs> aes256 is still the best we have now
 657 2011-08-24 16:50:27 <jrmithdobbs> that is legal to use
 658 2011-08-24 16:50:55 <b4epoche> luke-jr is going to put up the money to fight over the patent!
 659 2011-08-24 16:51:03 <jrmithdobbs> and he'll lose
 660 2011-08-24 16:51:16 <b4epoche> yep
 661 2011-08-24 16:51:19 <jrmithdobbs> because there's clear case history that contradicts his ideals which he refuses to accept.
 662 2011-08-24 16:51:33 <jrmithdobbs> s/history/law/
 663 2011-08-24 16:51:58 Tuxavant has joined
 664 2011-08-24 16:52:00 <luke-jr> no need
 665 2011-08-24 16:53:02 <upb> yep because the courts report to god
 666 2011-08-24 16:53:04 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: IDEA wont be free to use for another ~15 months
 667 2011-08-24 16:53:11 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: that's pretty soon
 668 2011-08-24 16:53:14 <imsaguy2> lol @ upb
 669 2011-08-24 16:53:15 <jrmithdobbs> yes
 670 2011-08-24 16:54:51 RealSolid has quit (Changing host)
 671 2011-08-24 16:54:51 RealSolid has joined
 672 2011-08-24 16:55:00 <luke-jr> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Data_Encryption_Algorithm#Patent_expiration_date
 673 2011-08-24 16:55:07 <luke-jr> looks like it expired already actually
 674 2011-08-24 16:55:10 <jrmithdobbs> but even with aes' recent breaking aes256 still provides more security than idea
 675 2011-08-24 16:55:18 <jrmithdobbs> depends on country
 676 2011-08-24 16:55:24 <luke-jr> PGP FAQ: "This patent expires 25 May 2010 (USA) or 16 May 2011 (Europe and Japan)."
 677 2011-08-24 16:55:34 <jrmithdobbs> there's one in 2012 as well
 678 2011-08-24 16:55:37 <jrmithdobbs> i forget where
 679 2011-08-24 16:55:46 octarine has joined
 680 2011-08-24 16:55:53 octarine has quit (Client Quit)
 681 2011-08-24 16:56:33 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: the Talk page suggests the 2012 date is kept simply because there's no ruling and Wikipedia wants to err on the side of safety
 682 2011-08-24 16:56:56 <Tuxavant> anyone here applied the sipa import/export patch? I'd like to give it a try and would like to know if someone here would be able to mentor me in how to get it done
 683 2011-08-24 16:57:09 <jrmithdobbs> but ya, 2^254 > 2^128 so aes256 is still better for now even assuming the less scrutinized IDEA has no flaws outside of the known weak keys (pretty huge assumption)
 684 2011-08-24 16:57:34 <jrmithdobbs> assuming proper use of xex/xts for large sets of data, of course
 685 2011-08-24 16:58:09 kish has joined
 686 2011-08-24 16:58:16 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: you're considering that AES256 is less secure than AES128?
 687 2011-08-24 16:58:33 <jrmithdobbs> only with crazy related key attacks that aren't relevant to the real world
 688 2011-08-24 16:59:14 ForceMajeure has joined
 689 2011-08-24 16:59:18 <jrmithdobbs> the only known, at this time, single-key attack on aes reduces it to 2^126 and 2^254 respectively
 690 2011-08-24 16:59:43 <jrmithdobbs> (the one published a couple weeks ago)
 691 2011-08-24 16:59:44 <Diablo-D3> in other words, not enough to matter yet.
 692 2011-08-24 16:59:50 <jrmithdobbs> right
 693 2011-08-24 17:00:27 <jrmithdobbs> it's enough that it's worth people starting to work on new ciphers, but they're going to be doing that anyways
 694 2011-08-24 17:01:50 danbri has joined
 695 2011-08-24 17:02:12 octarine has joined
 696 2011-08-24 17:02:24 octarine has left ()
 697 2011-08-24 17:03:51 cjdelisle has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 698 2011-08-24 17:03:55 Lopuz has joined
 699 2011-08-24 17:04:58 larsig__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 700 2011-08-24 17:05:25 cjdelisle has joined
 701 2011-08-24 17:08:28 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 702 2011-08-24 17:08:49 danbri has joined
 703 2011-08-24 17:09:52 coblee has joined
 704 2011-08-24 17:11:23 boatski has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 705 2011-08-24 17:14:08 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 706 2011-08-24 17:14:47 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
 707 2011-08-24 17:15:00 TheSeven has joined
 708 2011-08-24 17:16:29 lookdang has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 709 2011-08-24 17:17:54 Workbench has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 710 2011-08-24 17:22:53 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 711 2011-08-24 17:24:53 mosimo has joined
 712 2011-08-24 17:25:04 danbri has joined
 713 2011-08-24 17:25:14 tynx has joined
 714 2011-08-24 17:26:27 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 715 2011-08-24 17:26:30 devon_hillard has joined
 716 2011-08-24 17:26:30 devon_hillard has quit (Changing host)
 717 2011-08-24 17:26:30 devon_hillard has joined
 718 2011-08-24 17:27:57 wardearia has joined
 719 2011-08-24 17:28:31 kish has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 720 2011-08-24 17:30:10 MobiusL has joined
 721 2011-08-24 17:31:06 p0s- has joined
 722 2011-08-24 17:31:22 p0s has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 723 2011-08-24 17:32:12 kish has joined
 724 2011-08-24 17:35:29 RobinPKR has joined
 725 2011-08-24 17:46:11 erle- has joined
 726 2011-08-24 17:46:49 clr_ has joined
 727 2011-08-24 17:48:03 clr_ is now known as c00w
 728 2011-08-24 17:57:34 p0s- is now known as p0s
 729 2011-08-24 18:05:11 asher^ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 730 2011-08-24 18:10:23 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 731 2011-08-24 18:10:29 joeschmoe has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 732 2011-08-24 18:10:44 joeschmoe has joined
 733 2011-08-24 18:10:47 molecular has joined
 734 2011-08-24 18:13:08 p0s is now known as p0s-
 735 2011-08-24 18:18:04 <Tuxavant> looking for someone with a few minutes to get me started in compiling the bitcoin client with the sipa import/export patch on linux. anyone?
 736 2011-08-24 18:19:47 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 737 2011-08-24 18:23:30 danbri has joined
 738 2011-08-24 18:24:02 kish has quit (Quit: leaving)
 739 2011-08-24 18:25:51 dr_win has joined
 740 2011-08-24 18:31:43 p0s- has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 741 2011-08-24 18:39:10 ThomasV has joined
 742 2011-08-24 18:40:42 _W_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 743 2011-08-24 18:41:00 piotrp has joined
 744 2011-08-24 18:42:26 abragin has quit ()
 745 2011-08-24 18:42:51 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
 746 2011-08-24 18:44:01 Cablesaurus has joined
 747 2011-08-24 18:44:01 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
 748 2011-08-24 18:44:01 Cablesaurus has joined
 749 2011-08-24 18:44:06 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: so, dumb question...  is this multisig stuff a breaking change, that makes blocks incompatible with older clients?
 750 2011-08-24 18:44:47 <imsaguy2> They were talking about a db version change that would
 751 2011-08-24 18:44:49 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: no, not my current proposal.  It uses only existing opcodes
 752 2011-08-24 18:44:50 <imsaguy2> one way
 753 2011-08-24 18:45:24 piotrp has quit (Quit: leaving)
 754 2011-08-24 18:45:38 <gavinandresen> ... the db4.7-4.8 is a different issue
 755 2011-08-24 18:46:26 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: That's about the only thing I would push back on, in a major way.  I really think breaking changes ("if (block > 200000) new_behavior()") should be avoided absent a catastrophic problem such as sha256 is broken.
 756 2011-08-24 18:46:53 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: Adding new standard transactions is a good thing in general.  I like the testnet roll-out that people currently do
 757 2011-08-24 18:47:14 tynx has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 758 2011-08-24 18:47:22 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: yes, this doesn't feel like a good reason to schedule a block chain split.
 759 2011-08-24 18:47:29 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: agreed
 760 2011-08-24 18:47:40 <gavinandresen> (although it it is SO tempting to make it perfect.....)
 761 2011-08-24 18:47:46 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: yes ;-) ;-)
 762 2011-08-24 18:49:14 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: I have ideas about that, too...   IMNSHO people need an outlet for breaking changes.  It's tempting to either (a) work on a bitcoin2, which is current bitcoin + rational breaking changes like new hash algo or new protocol, or (b) someone maintain a list of "changes community would like to see, if and only if there is a planned block chain split"
 763 2011-08-24 18:49:16 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: does Linux have something like the python PEP process for proposing new stuff?
 764 2011-08-24 18:50:04 piotrp has joined
 765 2011-08-24 18:50:10 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: no, the kernel is all very informal, but in one way, we are highly similar to bitcoin v0.x:  the ABI is inviolable.  we simply _do not_, ever, make breaking changes to the ABI.  Binaries from the original Linux should still be able to run.
 766 2011-08-24 18:50:14 Burgundy has joined
 767 2011-08-24 18:50:23 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: python and other projects can and do schedule major, breaking changes
 768 2011-08-24 18:50:41 <gavinandresen> yup, python3 is an interesting experiment.
 769 2011-08-24 18:52:21 <noagendamarket> swap your btc for sc and do the upgrade :)-
 770 2011-08-24 18:52:25 * noagendamarket ducks
 771 2011-08-24 18:52:33 <nanotube> gavinandresen: jgarzik: fwiw, i'm also not a fan of a blockchain fork for this. if we can do it without a fork, even if it's not quite as pretty, it should not be forked.
 772 2011-08-24 18:52:50 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 773 2011-08-24 18:53:18 <nanotube> and also, gavinandresen it seems you need a bit more detail in your proposal - had to explain to people here why you thought multisig had anything to do with stolen wallets :)
 774 2011-08-24 18:53:34 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: I was thinking about how to handle "when we DO decide to fork the blockchain" patches/changes, too...  didn't come up with any solution I really like.
 775 2011-08-24 18:53:39 danbri has joined
 776 2011-08-24 18:53:44 brooss has joined
 777 2011-08-24 18:54:42 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: yeah...
 778 2011-08-24 18:55:21 <gavinandresen> nanotube: I'll try to do better next time.
 779 2011-08-24 18:55:36 _W_ has joined
 780 2011-08-24 18:55:56 <nanotube> gavinandresen: just fyi :) it was all quite clear to me, but i had more context :)
 781 2011-08-24 18:56:02 Blitzboom has joined
 782 2011-08-24 18:56:02 Blitzboom has quit (Changing host)
 783 2011-08-24 18:56:02 Blitzboom has joined
 784 2011-08-24 18:56:38 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: from an existential and PR standpoint, I think major blockchain forks are tough no matter how high the technical justification, because, in theory, blockchhain forks are like US Constitutional Conventions:  _anything_ can be changed, in theory, including the basic rules like the 21M limit.  Blockchain forks are our equivalent of Federal Reserve policy changes.   It is the "nuclear option."
 785 2011-08-24 18:57:33 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: Thus, I prefer extremely ugly hacks, or simply saying "no" (or "put it in btc2") than blockchain forks that are incompatible with older clients
 786 2011-08-24 18:58:12 <jgarzik> blockchain forks that are compatible with older clients, I am OK with.  The sendmany was a good example of that...  clients wouldn't relay for a while, but older clients supported it just fine.
 787 2011-08-24 18:58:48 <nanotube> right, imo a 'fork' is where an older client will reject the chain as invalid. anything else is an incremental improvement.
 788 2011-08-24 18:58:55 <gavinandresen> yeah, when I say blockchain fork I mean a change that makes clients outright REJECT now-valid blocks.
 789 2011-08-24 18:59:14 <gavinandresen> (not the soft-shun of "I just won't include them in blocks I create")
 790 2011-08-24 19:00:33 danbri has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 791 2011-08-24 19:00:59 danbri has joined
 792 2011-08-24 19:01:37 <noagendamarket> cant you hash the existing bitcoins and prove you own old ones to be included in the new chain ?
 793 2011-08-24 19:01:39 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|do we have a wiki page discussing blockchain forks and what kind of changes causes what? if not, it would be useful.
 794 2011-08-24 19:03:08 <iddo> what is the difference between blockchain fork and starting a completely new blockchain ?
 795 2011-08-24 19:03:30 <iddo> noagendamarket: you mean this? http://bitcointalk.org/?topic=191.msg1585#msg1585
 796 2011-08-24 19:03:36 <noagendamarket> its not solid :)-
 797 2011-08-24 19:03:57 <noagendamarket> iddo yes
 798 2011-08-24 19:04:03 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 799 2011-08-24 19:04:12 <noagendamarket> if you need to upgrade the hashing algo
 800 2011-08-24 19:05:43 pogden has joined
 801 2011-08-24 19:06:46 <iddo> what is the difference between blockchain fork and starting a completely new blockchain ? would people be able to transfer the bitcoins that they control to the forked chain ?
 802 2011-08-24 19:07:39 <jgarzik> a blockchain fork does not invalidate older coins and transactions
 803 2011-08-24 19:07:49 <jgarzik> it simply requires a new client to understand new transactions
 804 2011-08-24 19:08:01 <jgarzik> and older clients cannot understand the new transactions
 805 2011-08-24 19:08:10 <noagendamarket> yeah everyone would have to update the client
 806 2011-08-24 19:08:57 <iddo> but the new clients still respect the old blocks ?
 807 2011-08-24 19:09:05 <noagendamarket> yea
 808 2011-08-24 19:09:32 <noagendamarket> as long as the majority of people upgraded
 809 2011-08-24 19:09:46 <noagendamarket> then youd get a new fork
 810 2011-08-24 19:10:48 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|thank satoshi for including opcode scripting in original client so that we can add things without doing blockchain forking.
 811 2011-08-24 19:10:58 pogden has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 812 2011-08-24 19:11:28 abragin has joined
 813 2011-08-24 19:11:33 Silverpike has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 814 2011-08-24 19:11:37 <iddo> so for example that switching from sha256 to sha3 is a blockchain fork ? because old clients don't use sha3 ?
 815 2011-08-24 19:11:44 <noagendamarket> yes
 816 2011-08-24 19:11:56 Silverpike has joined
 817 2011-08-24 19:12:18 <noagendamarket> if you do that you may as well doa  lot of stuff at once
 818 2011-08-24 19:12:19 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 819 2011-08-24 19:12:51 pogden has joined
 820 2011-08-24 19:13:32 Matth1a3 has joined
 821 2011-08-24 19:14:59 <iddo> not sure i understand why save sha3 for all the old blocks, instead of just for the last block before the fork
 822 2011-08-24 19:15:27 abragin has quit (Client Quit)
 823 2011-08-24 19:15:37 <Diablo-D3> you wouldnt
 824 2011-08-24 19:15:44 <Diablo-D3> you'd only need it for the first psudeo-genesis block
 825 2011-08-24 19:15:59 klikklak has joined
 826 2011-08-24 19:16:50 klikklak has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 827 2011-08-24 19:16:50 <iddo> Diablo-D3: i'm just quoting "The software could save the new hash of all the old blocks to make sure a different block with the same old hash can't be used."
 828 2011-08-24 19:16:55 <jgarzik> noagendamarket: what is SC?
 829 2011-08-24 19:17:20 <ThomasV> jgarzik:  solidcoin
 830 2011-08-24 19:17:32 <iddo> maybe he simply meant by "all the old blocks" just the last block before the fork
 831 2011-08-24 19:17:49 <noagendamarket> what ThomasV said
 832 2011-08-24 19:18:50 <jgarzik> noagendamarket: hmmm, the manifesto at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38453.0 contains a lot of exaggerations.  sounds a bit like ixcoin
 833 2011-08-24 19:19:14 Optimo_ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 834 2011-08-24 19:19:41 <noagendamarket> well it was  a response to it
 835 2011-08-24 19:20:27 <Diablo-D3> iddo: thats impossible.
 836 2011-08-24 19:20:52 <Diablo-D3> iddo: block header includes gen time.
 837 2011-08-24 19:21:01 <Diablo-D3> iddo: also, how do you use an old header?
 838 2011-08-24 19:21:02 <Diablo-D3> er
 839 2011-08-24 19:21:03 <Diablo-D3> old block
 840 2011-08-24 19:21:09 <Diablo-D3> same rules apply for block gen
 841 2011-08-24 19:21:15 <Diablo-D3> number of binary zeros.
 842 2011-08-24 19:21:30 <Diablo-D3> a sha2 with a high number of binary zeroes is NOT going to produce a sha3 with high number of binary zeros
 843 2011-08-24 19:21:34 <Diablo-D3> theres nothing TO reuse.
 844 2011-08-24 19:22:25 <iddo> you need to link somehow the new genesis block to the last forked block, no?
 845 2011-08-24 19:24:00 <iddo> i dont think you need leading zeros or anything
 846 2011-08-24 19:24:26 abragin has joined
 847 2011-08-24 19:24:26 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 848 2011-08-24 19:24:26 abragin has joined
 849 2011-08-24 19:24:54 <iddo> just all the new clients have to agree what is the sha3 hash of the last block of the old blockchain
 850 2011-08-24 19:25:03 Optimo_ has joined
 851 2011-08-24 19:25:09 <Diablo-D3> iddo: thats why I said psudeo genesis
 852 2011-08-24 19:25:12 <Diablo-D3> and no
 853 2011-08-24 19:25:19 <Diablo-D3> all the clients have to agree when the first sha3 is by count
 854 2011-08-24 19:25:22 <Diablo-D3> not by last sha2
 855 2011-08-24 19:25:25 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 856 2011-08-24 19:25:28 <Diablo-D3> because you wont know what the last sha2 is ahead of time
 857 2011-08-24 19:25:34 <Diablo-D3> you need to plan for sha3 a year or more ahead of time
 858 2011-08-24 19:27:21 <iddo> ahh so you cannot use sha256 vulnerabilities to extend the old blocks, because you will get stuck when you reach the new pseudo genesis block
 859 2011-08-24 19:27:57 <Diablo-D3> yes
 860 2011-08-24 19:28:13 <Diablo-D3> all clients will say, say, the 250kth block will be the first sha3
 861 2011-08-24 19:28:16 <Diablo-D3> and all afterwards are sha3
 862 2011-08-24 19:28:29 <Diablo-D3> you cant do anything stupid because its nonsensical
 863 2011-08-24 19:29:27 <cjdelisle> That wouldn't really work either because I could just offer old blocks from per-change with mercal tree schenanigans, swapping payout addresses etc.
 864 2011-08-24 19:29:28 <iddo> so the forum post seems to be wrong?
 865 2011-08-24 19:30:09 <iddo> what do you mean, offer old blocks ?
 866 2011-08-24 19:30:15 <cjdelisle> yeap
 867 2011-08-24 19:30:21 <iddo> ?
 868 2011-08-24 19:30:32 <iddo> i dont understand
 869 2011-08-24 19:30:55 <cjdelisle> If sha256 is (completely) broken, I'll just attack the transactions so they all pay me.
 870 2011-08-24 19:31:02 Veladon has joined
 871 2011-08-24 19:31:02 Veladon has quit (Client Quit)
 872 2011-08-24 19:31:34 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: not quite
 873 2011-08-24 19:31:38 <mtrlt> and how do you do that >_>
 874 2011-08-24 19:31:39 <Diablo-D3> half of the potential attacks dont apply
 875 2011-08-24 19:31:46 <iddo> we assume majority of honest clients, so they will only respect the longest chain, with sha3 starting at some point
 876 2011-08-24 19:31:48 <mtrlt> afaik you need to break ecdsa for that
 877 2011-08-24 19:31:54 <Diablo-D3> the other half of potential attacks only effect future blocks
 878 2011-08-24 19:32:25 <Diablo-D3> remember
 879 2011-08-24 19:32:29 <Diablo-D3> any "useful" attack on sha256
 880 2011-08-24 19:32:31 <iddo> cjdelisle: maybe you mean if sha256 becomes suddenly completely broken?
 881 2011-08-24 19:32:33 <Diablo-D3> will be added to my miner.
 882 2011-08-24 19:32:46 <Diablo-D3> so an attack on sha256 just increases difficulty
 883 2011-08-24 19:32:48 * copumpkin resists urge to correct usage
 884 2011-08-24 19:32:57 <ThomasV> I do not feel comfortable with the idea of a blockchain split
 885 2011-08-24 19:33:04 <Diablo-D3> ThomasV: there wouldnt be
 886 2011-08-24 19:33:16 <cjdelisle> I could go through all the coinbase transactions and generate new ones which fit the mercal tree but pay out to me instead of the original miner then tell everyone that those are the real transactions.
 887 2011-08-24 19:33:19 <Diablo-D3> there would be a very small minority of users wondering why their client is out of sync.
 888 2011-08-24 19:33:22 <Diablo-D3> and they cant make new blocks
 889 2011-08-24 19:33:29 <Diablo-D3> and new tx are being lost
 890 2011-08-24 19:33:51 <Diablo-D3> you need a significant number of clients that didnt upgrade a year earlier to do that
 891 2011-08-24 19:34:02 <ThomasV> Diablo-D3: that's not the problem. my problem is that I am not convinced if the proposeed changes are necessary
 892 2011-08-24 19:34:03 <Diablo-D3> er, to fork the chain I mean
 893 2011-08-24 19:34:10 <Diablo-D3> ThomasV: oh, they arent
 894 2011-08-24 19:34:16 <ThomasV> lol
 895 2011-08-24 19:34:19 <Diablo-D3> people keep talking about it and it doesnt matter
 896 2011-08-24 19:34:25 <Diablo-D3> the sha256 is used as a proof of work
 897 2011-08-24 19:34:33 <Diablo-D3> if it is significantly broken, difficulty just skyrockets.
 898 2011-08-24 19:35:07 <Diablo-D3> coin ownership (ie, public/private keypairs) dont use sha256.
 899 2011-08-24 19:35:20 <Diablo-D3> and like I said, half of potential attacks dont work
 900 2011-08-24 19:35:44 <Diablo-D3> we have a 80 byte header which is always 80 byte headers which you have very little control over whats in it...
 901 2011-08-24 19:35:48 <Diablo-D3> and we run sha256 twice.
 902 2011-08-24 19:36:23 <cjdelisle> mercal tree attacks would work since you can add arbitrary data by just adding a bunch of tiny transactions with bunk public keys.
 903 2011-08-24 19:37:23 <iddo> cjdelisle: huh? you need to extend the blockchain all the way to the current blocks, which are sha3 ?
 904 2011-08-24 19:37:36 <cjdelisle> But the solution os not that difficult either, you just make a sha3 based chain which tracks the original chain but the sha3 based chain's difficulty is 0 and it just idles until it is needed, then everyone switches to the sha3 chain and the difficulty is increased.
 905 2011-08-24 19:38:37 <cjdelisle> and at the time of the switch, obviously, the hash of the last 0 difficulty block is hardcoded into the source.
 906 2011-08-24 19:39:52 hugolp has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 907 2011-08-24 19:40:53 <iddo> cjdelisle: what attack will work? we assume that majority of honest clients will respect some block at future as genesis sha3 block, i.e. they consider it as the block right after the last sha256 block even though they are not linked
 908 2011-08-24 19:41:31 voot545 has joined
 909 2011-08-24 19:42:36 <iddo> if you couldnt attack until reaching the genesis sha3 block, what new attack do you have now?
 910 2011-08-24 19:43:29 <cjdelisle> the transactions are hashed into the blocks, for starters I could forge coinbase transactions so it looks like I mined all of the coins before the switch.
 911 2011-08-24 19:44:06 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: merkle tree attacks "work"
 912 2011-08-24 19:44:11 <Diablo-D3> but for a completely different reason
 913 2011-08-24 19:44:18 <Diablo-D3> I already said you have control over very little of the data.
 914 2011-08-24 19:44:23 <Diablo-D3> thats very little of the data.
 915 2011-08-24 19:44:28 <Diablo-D3> sha256 hashes the header, not the whole block.
 916 2011-08-24 19:44:44 <Diablo-D3> and no, you dont start a new chain
 917 2011-08-24 19:44:47 <Diablo-D3> because its not a new chain
 918 2011-08-24 19:45:00 <Diablo-D3> it already contains transactions and coins in play.
 919 2011-08-24 19:45:07 <Diablo-D3> you dont "track" the original chain.
 920 2011-08-24 19:45:12 <Diablo-D3> and you dont set the diff to 0
 921 2011-08-24 19:45:18 <Diablo-D3> the diff will manage itself.
 922 2011-08-24 19:45:25 <iddo> but all the honest miners only agree to extend the longest chain that they see, so they will extend with the new sha3 genesis block, and if you couldnt attack it until that time, you cannot compete with the honest miners now either, no?
 923 2011-08-24 19:45:32 <Diablo-D3> iddo: uh, no
 924 2011-08-24 19:45:39 <Diablo-D3> its not about honest miners.
 925 2011-08-24 19:45:52 <TuxBlackEdo> wut
 926 2011-08-24 19:46:03 <Diablo-D3> miners cant extends their own chain without having more than 50% of the global hash power.
 927 2011-08-24 19:46:05 <Diablo-D3> period.
 928 2011-08-24 19:46:22 <Diablo-D3> and we are not starting a brand new sha3 chain
 929 2011-08-24 19:46:24 <Diablo-D3> that is nonsensical.
 930 2011-08-24 19:46:47 <cjdelisle> meh, at this point it's barroom discussion
 931 2011-08-24 19:46:54 <Diablo-D3> honestly, people, use your fucking common sense.
 932 2011-08-24 19:47:18 <Diablo-D3> not only that
 933 2011-08-24 19:47:29 <Diablo-D3> what matters is how many cycles per bit a gpu implemention takes
 934 2011-08-24 19:47:35 <iddo> Diablo-D3: i think the concern was that someone could extend the old chain in a different way, before the genesis sha3 block, because the new genesis block isnt linked to the last forked block... so i tried to explain why you cannot do it without 50% hash power
 935 2011-08-24 19:47:52 <Diablo-D3> iddo: no, thats called "the only bitcoin attack"
 936 2011-08-24 19:48:06 <TuxBlackEdo> or the government could shutdown bitcoins
 937 2011-08-24 19:48:10 <Diablo-D3> AND the sha3 switch happens at a defined future block.
 938 2011-08-24 19:48:14 noot has joined
 939 2011-08-24 19:48:21 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt matter if an attack happens or not
 940 2011-08-24 19:48:29 <Diablo-D3> if it happens at block 250k, it happens at block 250k period.
 941 2011-08-24 19:48:39 noot has left ()
 942 2011-08-24 19:48:42 <TuxBlackEdo> ;;bc,blocks
 943 2011-08-24 19:48:43 <gribble> 142423
 944 2011-08-24 19:48:46 pogden has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 945 2011-08-24 19:49:03 <Diablo-D3> the 249999 that becomes the new newest block is the parent of the first sha3 block, 250000.
 946 2011-08-24 19:49:11 <Diablo-D3> anyhow, as I was saying
 947 2011-08-24 19:49:13 <iddo> all i wanted to claim is that if sha256 was broken "enough" before the fork, then by deciding to do the fork you don't allow new attacks
 948 2011-08-24 19:49:16 <Diablo-D3> [03:40:30] <Diablo-D3> what matters is how many cycles per bit a gpu implemention takes
 949 2011-08-24 19:49:30 <Diablo-D3> sha3 will not use enough cycles per bit over sha2.
 950 2011-08-24 19:49:49 <Diablo-D3> in other words, _it will be the same thing_
 951 2011-08-24 19:49:53 <iddo> s/was/wasn't
 952 2011-08-24 19:49:57 <Diablo-D3> difficultly will remain roughly unchanged.
 953 2011-08-24 19:50:05 <Diablo-D3> sha256 is used as a proof of work
 954 2011-08-24 19:50:13 <Diablo-D3> any usable attack just ups the difficulty.
 955 2011-08-24 19:50:26 <Diablo-D3> we are not using it as a cryptographic signature, we are using it as a proof of work.
 956 2011-08-24 19:51:15 <iddo> yes, the far-fetchecd concern is that sha256 would become broken like md4, so it needs to be replaced
 957 2011-08-24 19:51:21 <jrmithdobbs> ya sha being collidable doesn't really change much. it'd have to be a pretty major flaw that was simple as shit to take advantage of
 958 2011-08-24 19:51:30 <iddo> i.e. just increased difficulty is not enough to cope with it
 959 2011-08-24 19:51:39 <Diablo-D3> iddo: yes
 960 2011-08-24 19:51:41 <Diablo-D3> and when that happens
 961 2011-08-24 19:51:42 <jrmithdobbs> and the pre-image is pretty sane so something like md4 is fairly unlikely
 962 2011-08-24 19:51:43 <Diablo-D3> we switch.
 963 2011-08-24 19:52:43 <cjdelisle> The max hash is a long way from zero so difficulty has a long way to go. INO it doesn't really even matter from that perspective.
 964 2011-08-24 19:53:03 <Diablo-D3> and btw
 965 2011-08-24 19:53:05 <Diablo-D3> if we switch
 966 2011-08-24 19:53:09 <Diablo-D3> it wont be to 256 bits
 967 2011-08-24 19:53:13 <Diablo-D3> it'll be to 512.
 968 2011-08-24 19:53:21 <cjdelisle> that makes the most sense
 969 2011-08-24 19:53:31 <iddo> ok all i was saying that i dont understand what cjdelisle attack is, and also satoshi's forum post about hashing old blocks with sha3
 970 2011-08-24 19:53:42 <Diablo-D3> all the sha3 canidates have the same "difficulty" per bit as sha2
 971 2011-08-24 19:53:58 <Diablo-D3> iddo: uh, why do you think hashing old blocks means anything?
 972 2011-08-24 19:54:02 <Diablo-D3> sha3 is not related to sha2
 973 2011-08-24 19:54:15 <Diablo-D3> a header that produces a target sha2 wont produce a sha3 that meets target
 974 2011-08-24 19:54:21 <Diablo-D3> not only that, the header contains a time stamp
 975 2011-08-24 19:54:30 <iddo> Diablo-D3: you convinced me that it doesn't.... i was just quoting http://bitcointalk.org/?topic=191.msg1585#msg1585
 976 2011-08-24 19:54:49 <Diablo-D3> erm
 977 2011-08-24 19:54:54 <Diablo-D3> except he didnt say reuse old blocks.
 978 2011-08-24 19:54:58 <Diablo-D3> he said exactly what I said above.
 979 2011-08-24 19:55:06 <Diablo-D3> we all agree on a future block to switch, we switch
 980 2011-08-24 19:55:11 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt require any magic
 981 2011-08-24 19:55:35 <iddo> maybe i don't understand what he said: "The software could save the new hash of all the old blocks to make sure a different block with the same old hash can't be used."
 982 2011-08-24 19:55:54 <Diablo-D3> huh
 983 2011-08-24 19:55:58 dbosk has quit (Quit: leaving)
 984 2011-08-24 19:55:59 <Diablo-D3> I need to yell at satoshi
 985 2011-08-24 19:56:05 <Diablo-D3> he already accounted for that flaw
 986 2011-08-24 19:56:15 <Diablo-D3> -/+ 10 minute timestamps.
 987 2011-08-24 19:56:19 <Diablo-D3> you cannot reuse old blocks.
 988 2011-08-24 19:57:51 <iddo> i think it might even be possible to fork if ECDSA is broken?
 989 2011-08-24 19:58:25 <cjdelisle> "pay to ip address" transactions don't use ECDSA
 990 2011-08-24 19:58:37 <Diablo-D3> btw
 991 2011-08-24 19:58:38 <iddo> if ECDSA is broken in theory, each user could generate a more secure pk/sk pair, sign the new pk with his old sk (which no one else can do because it'd be a gradual process untill ECDSA is actually broken in practice), and by being the first who broadcasts the new keys signed by the old insecure sk, he retains control over his bitcoins?
 992 2011-08-24 19:58:39 <Diablo-D3> as a side note
 993 2011-08-24 19:58:44 <Diablo-D3> if sha256 is broken, the world ends.
 994 2011-08-24 19:58:53 <Diablo-D3> if ecdsa is broken, the world ended sometime last week.
 995 2011-08-24 19:59:02 <cjdelisle> that is true
 996 2011-08-24 19:59:27 <cjdelisle> or at least X509 ends -- /me would celebrate that :D
 997 2011-08-24 19:59:48 <Diablo-D3> seriously, the military and banking sectors DEPEND on that shit running
 998 2011-08-24 19:59:59 <Diablo-D3> and anything involving high end computer security
 999 2011-08-24 20:01:02 <iddo> they depend on public key crypto (ssl) mostly to protect from evedropping? it's less important dependency compared to bitcoin, no?
1000 2011-08-24 20:01:18 <cjdelisle> everything
1001 2011-08-24 20:02:36 <cjdelisle> not just ssl, all signatures
1002 2011-08-24 20:02:50 <cjdelisle> (all sigs which use sha256 which is basicly all)
1003 2011-08-24 20:03:05 <iddo> banks use signatures for what?
1004 2011-08-24 20:04:21 <cjdelisle> signed swift transfers, vpn connections, idk what else
1005 2011-08-24 20:05:26 <iddo> ok
1006 2011-08-24 20:06:05 <cjdelisle> without x509, https becomes http, online banking and ecommerce is gone, governments, contractors all of those people use smart card auth and guess what it's using... PKCS7... x509...
1007 2011-08-24 20:06:17 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1008 2011-08-24 20:06:28 <Diablo-D3> most password schemes are broken too
1009 2011-08-24 20:06:30 <Diablo-D3> even complex ones
1010 2011-08-24 20:06:31 <log0s> sorry, i missed most of the discussion and maybe this was covered, but if sha256 is broken to a significant degree, wouldn't an attacker be able to relatively easily create *fake* blockchain history (different blocks, but same block IDs) preceding the new sha3 branch, allowing them to effectively steal everyone's bitcoins that were received from mining?
1011 2011-08-24 20:06:45 <Diablo-D3> log0s: no, if sha256 is broken badly, THE WORLD ENDS.
1012 2011-08-24 20:06:58 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin is the least of your worries.
1013 2011-08-24 20:07:12 <Diablo-D3> log0s: also, no, you cant impersonate anyone
1014 2011-08-24 20:07:20 <Diablo-D3> sha256 is only used to provide proof of work.
1015 2011-08-24 20:07:23 <cjdelisle> well, md5 was broken badly enough to forge a CA cert but that didn't end the world
1016 2011-08-24 20:07:26 <log0s> Diablo-D3: perhaps bitcoin is the least of my worries then, but that doesn't answer my question
1017 2011-08-24 20:07:35 devrandom has joined
1018 2011-08-24 20:07:39 <Diablo-D3> no, but that answered your question
1019 2011-08-24 20:07:54 <Diablo-D3> user identities (ie, bitcoin addresses) are not protected by sha256.
1020 2011-08-24 20:08:04 <Diablo-D3> sha256 is not used as a cryptographic signature in bitcoin.
1021 2011-08-24 20:08:06 <Diablo-D3> its used as a proof of work.
1022 2011-08-24 20:08:25 <Diablo-D3> its hard to create a target hash, its easy to validate it.
1023 2011-08-24 20:08:30 <iddo> log0s: we assume that sha256 is broken gradually, so clients can update to sha3 at certain block in future before sha256 is completely broken in practice (until then, increased difficulty can deal with it)
1024 2011-08-24 20:08:34 <cjdelisle> Yes, if sha256 is reduced to triviality, mercal trees can be forged so every transaction can be modified.
1025 2011-08-24 20:08:43 imsaguy2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1026 2011-08-24 20:08:46 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: no.
1027 2011-08-24 20:09:07 <cjdelisle> Is sha256 not used to hash mercal trees?
1028 2011-08-24 20:09:12 <log0s> Diablo-D3: why is cjdelisle wrong?
1029 2011-08-24 20:09:13 <Diablo-D3> its merkle goddamnit
1030 2011-08-24 20:09:32 <cjdelisle> oh, I thought you were disagreeing with my arguement.
1031 2011-08-24 20:09:43 <Diablo-D3> I am
1032 2011-08-24 20:09:45 <Diablo-D3> but its merkle.
1033 2011-08-24 20:09:49 <Diablo-D3> its a guys name.
1034 2011-08-24 20:10:13 <Diablo-D3> you cant CHANGE past transactions
1035 2011-08-24 20:10:16 <Diablo-D3> they have to come out valid.
1036 2011-08-24 20:10:16 <log0s> even when everyone switches to sha3, they still have to download the old blockchain history of blocks that were originally hashed with sha256...how do you know if they are forged or not?
1037 2011-08-24 20:10:27 <Diablo-D3> log0s: because they have to make sense.
1038 2011-08-24 20:10:37 <Diablo-D3> if I have 5 coins, and then I send 5 coins, and then I send 5 coins
1039 2011-08-24 20:10:42 <Diablo-D3> thats nonsensical.
1040 2011-08-24 20:10:52 <Diablo-D3> and the transactions themselves are signed with ECDSA
1041 2011-08-24 20:10:59 <Diablo-D3> you cant forge transactions
1042 2011-08-24 20:11:12 traviscj has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1043 2011-08-24 20:11:46 erle- has quit (Quit: CETERVM•AVTEM•CENSEO•CVTTENBERC•ESSE•DELENDVM)
1044 2011-08-24 20:11:46 furiousspiqre has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1045 2011-08-24 20:11:50 <cjdelisle> I can forge coinbase transactions pretty easy since they even have a place to put arbitraty data.
1046 2011-08-24 20:12:08 <mtrlt> how do you change the address into which the coins are paid?
1047 2011-08-24 20:12:19 <Diablo-D3> you cant, its signed with ECDSA.
1048 2011-08-24 20:12:20 <TuxBlackEdo> is there any way of running a gui without a running thread that constantly checks if buttons were pressed?
1049 2011-08-24 20:12:21 <log0s> Diablo-D3: why can't someone create a new branch from the genesis block on that has all of the coinbase transactions going to the attacker?
1050 2011-08-24 20:12:26 <mtrlt> Diablo-D3: exactly
1051 2011-08-24 20:12:28 <Diablo-D3> the address is the hash of the ecdsa public key.
1052 2011-08-24 20:12:40 <Diablo-D3> log0s: how can he?
1053 2011-08-24 20:12:53 <cjdelisle> what's signed with ECDSA? the sha256 hash?
1054 2011-08-24 20:13:01 <Diablo-D3> the transaction is signed.
1055 2011-08-24 20:13:04 <log0s> Diablo-D3: i'm talking about creating *new blocks*, that hash to the same hash the original block at that height hashed to
1056 2011-08-24 20:13:13 <Diablo-D3> log0s: yes, and you cant do that.
1057 2011-08-24 20:13:18 <cjdelisle> the first part of signing is hashing
1058 2011-08-24 20:13:22 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1059 2011-08-24 20:13:29 <Diablo-D3> you would require a very fucking bad collision attack
1060 2011-08-24 20:13:36 <cjdelisle> Yeap
1061 2011-08-24 20:13:40 <Diablo-D3> which doesnt exist
1062 2011-08-24 20:13:43 <log0s> Diablo-D3: i thought that's what we were talking about...sha256 being broken!!!
1063 2011-08-24 20:13:47 <cjdelisle> That's why I said "reduced to triviality"
1064 2011-08-24 20:13:51 <Diablo-D3> log0s: no, sha256 being broken is vague
1065 2011-08-24 20:14:15 devrandom has joined
1066 2011-08-24 20:14:19 <iddo> log0s: maybe you'll agree with my earlier comment: but all the honest miners only agree to extend the longest chain that they see, so they will extend with the new sha3 genesis block, and if you couldnt attack it until that time, you cannot compete with the honest miners now either
1067 2011-08-24 20:14:27 <Diablo-D3> sha256 has been basically proven that I am more likely to win powerball than a collision attack of the magnitude you need to pule this off
1068 2011-08-24 20:14:36 <Diablo-D3> and btw, dont call it a genesis block
1069 2011-08-24 20:14:41 <Diablo-D3> its a psudeo genesis block
1070 2011-08-24 20:14:43 <Diablo-D3> it has a parent.
1071 2011-08-24 20:14:47 traviscj has joined
1072 2011-08-24 20:14:48 <Namegduf> Our blockchain can't repel a collision attack of that magnitude
1073 2011-08-24 20:15:19 <log0s> Diablo-D3: i'm talking about the original genesis block, block 0, created by Satoshi...not some future block at height 250k or whatever
1074 2011-08-24 20:15:46 <log0s> oh sorry, you were talking to iddo?
1075 2011-08-24 20:15:57 <b4epoche> this conversation needs rebooted
1076 2011-08-24 20:16:15 <cjdelisle> actually, halt is probably better
1077 2011-08-24 20:16:25 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1078 2011-08-24 20:16:32 <iddo> sorry, should have called it pseudo genesis
1079 2011-08-24 20:17:15 lookdang has joined
1080 2011-08-24 20:17:20 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1081 2011-08-24 20:17:43 <Diablo-D3> log0s: I was talking to iddo
1082 2011-08-24 20:17:52 <Diablo-D3> log0s: and btw, like I said, the client has deep attack proofness
1083 2011-08-24 20:18:02 <Diablo-D3> log0s: the client contains new blocks as well
1084 2011-08-24 20:18:06 <Diablo-D3> every so many blocks
1085 2011-08-24 20:18:53 voot545 has quit ()
1086 2011-08-24 20:21:44 <log0s> what i'm trying to confirm is that if sha256 is broken enough so that it is feasible to create a new blockchain from Satoshi's genesis block to the new sha3 branch, where each forged block has the same ID as the original block at the same height, you could fool a new bitcoin installation while it's downloading the blockchain for the first time into accepting the forged blockchain history instead of the original
1087 2011-08-24 20:22:00 <Diablo-D3> log0s: no.
1088 2011-08-24 20:22:05 <Diablo-D3> you do not create a NEW block chain
1089 2011-08-24 20:22:13 <Diablo-D3> because its not a new block chain
1090 2011-08-24 20:22:13 bitterpalnpr has joined
1091 2011-08-24 20:22:21 <Diablo-D3> a new block chain involves destroying all btc and all transactions.
1092 2011-08-24 20:22:31 <Diablo-D3> you are merely changing the hashing format on FUTURE blocks.
1093 2011-08-24 20:22:42 <Diablo-D3> block 250k is block 250k, its not block 0 of a new chain.
1094 2011-08-24 20:22:59 <Diablo-D3> log0s: you're mixing two different things
1095 2011-08-24 20:23:10 <Diablo-D3> you're talking about attacks that apply to the existing sha2-only chain
1096 2011-08-24 20:23:48 <Diablo-D3> yes, if an attacker can get enough hosts up in a way that can get around bitcoin's defenses against such an attack AND has more than 50% of the global hash power
1097 2011-08-24 20:23:51 <Diablo-D3> that attack can happen
1098 2011-08-24 20:23:58 <Diablo-D3> but it doesnt involve NEW clients
1099 2011-08-24 20:24:13 <Diablo-D3> both new and old clients will switch to the longest chain
1100 2011-08-24 20:24:15 <Diablo-D3> BUT
1101 2011-08-24 20:24:27 <Diablo-D3> the attacker can only fork at the last block the bitcoin client itself knows
1102 2011-08-24 20:25:30 <Diablo-D3> the client itself already has blocks other than block 0
1103 2011-08-24 20:25:36 <iddo> log0s: what do you mean by fool new bitcoin installation? any txns that this installation tries to do have to be considered valid by majority of honest hash power in the network, and that majority respects the longest chain that includes the sha3 blocks
1104 2011-08-24 20:25:52 <Diablo-D3> iddo: he thinsk new means something
1105 2011-08-24 20:25:58 <Diablo-D3> new clients will download BOTH forks
1106 2011-08-24 20:26:02 <log0s> Diablo-D3: ok, since me calling it a "new blockchain" seems to be causing confusion, what should i call it when a whole chain of blocks that have IDs colliding with the original blockchain IDs at the same heights?
1107 2011-08-24 20:26:12 <Diablo-D3> log0s: a fork.
1108 2011-08-24 20:26:21 <Diablo-D3> forks are a natural part of bitcoin too
1109 2011-08-24 20:26:35 <iddo> call it forked blockchain instead of new blockchain
1110 2011-08-24 20:26:40 <Diablo-D3> theres something like 20 some forks in the chain.
1111 2011-08-24 20:26:55 <Diablo-D3> where fork is defined as a dead fork that has more than one descendant that is not the current fork
1112 2011-08-24 20:26:59 <lfm> Not all nodes see all forks
1113 2011-08-24 20:27:05 <Diablo-D3> yes, what lfm said
1114 2011-08-24 20:27:13 <Diablo-D3> brand spanking new clients will not know about ancient forks that didnt survive
1115 2011-08-24 20:27:24 <Diablo-D3> they will only learn of competing forks in current time
1116 2011-08-24 20:27:44 <Diablo-D3> if an attack goes on, even if he has 90% of nodes on the network, the old fork will eventually win
1117 2011-08-24 20:27:59 <Diablo-D3> the attacker's fork can only win if he ALSO has more than 50% of hash power
1118 2011-08-24 20:28:11 <Diablo-D3> which also means he only needs, say, 1 node on the network.
1119 2011-08-24 20:28:24 <Diablo-D3> he only needs the hash power to do it.
1120 2011-08-24 20:28:48 <Diablo-D3> the only useful part of this attack is to get all new coin gens
1121 2011-08-24 20:29:04 <Diablo-D3> you can essentially shut out new blocks from anyone else if you have more than 50%
1122 2011-08-24 20:29:09 <lfm> ya one unimaginably large node could do it.
1123 2011-08-24 20:29:17 imsaguy has joined
1124 2011-08-24 20:29:21 <Diablo-D3> you just never accept outside new blocks
1125 2011-08-24 20:29:25 <Diablo-D3> and only mine your own
1126 2011-08-24 20:29:25 <log0s> wow, this seems to be going no where...i'm not sure anyone's understanding what i'm trying to say
1127 2011-08-24 20:29:34 <Diablo-D3> log0s: no, we get it, its you that dont.
1128 2011-08-24 20:29:43 <Diablo-D3> all these attacks have been imagined and played out.
1129 2011-08-24 20:29:53 <Diablo-D3> "the one big bitcoin" attack is how I described
1130 2011-08-24 20:30:04 <Diablo-D3> >50% hash power, mine yourself to oblivion.
1131 2011-08-24 20:30:31 <Diablo-D3> once you hit the 50% point, you can just mine your own fork and make it longer
1132 2011-08-24 20:30:44 <Diablo-D3> and then broadcast that
1133 2011-08-24 20:30:51 <Diablo-D3> and then everyone else starts mining your fork
1134 2011-08-24 20:30:55 <Diablo-D3> and bam you won.
1135 2011-08-24 20:31:07 <lfm> there is no way anyone would accept a new genisis block. they might log a new block 1 but it would only be historical.
1136 2011-08-24 20:31:15 <Diablo-D3> lfm: no.
1137 2011-08-24 20:31:24 <Diablo-D3> the genesis block is hardcoded AND several blocks afterwards.
1138 2011-08-24 20:31:24 <Rozz> sad part is "you won your 50btc"
1139 2011-08-24 20:31:35 <Diablo-D3> you cant fake new transactions
1140 2011-08-24 20:31:43 <Diablo-D3> you CAN remove old transactions by merely not including them
1141 2011-08-24 20:32:13 <Diablo-D3> iirc the newest block the client is hardcoded to know is >125k, so rather recent
1142 2011-08-24 20:32:22 <log0s> Diablo-D3: the reason i think you're misunderstanding me is because you're going off talking about plain old 50% attacks...i'm talking about sha256 being broken and an attacker's version of the blockchain being created with the same block IDs but different transctions (coingens to himself)
1143 2011-08-24 20:32:38 <Diablo-D3> log0s: yes, and Im saying thats basically impossible.
1144 2011-08-24 20:33:02 <Diablo-D3> you have to have a significant collision attack problem, which I can say doesn't exist.
1145 2011-08-24 20:33:25 <Diablo-D3> its already been basically proven that such an attack of that magnitude won't exist.
1146 2011-08-24 20:33:27 <log0s> Diablo-D3: i didn't say it exists now...but you guys were talking about switching to sha3 if sha256 became broken
1147 2011-08-24 20:33:34 <jrmithdobbs> ya sha would have to be fundamentally broken in a fairly extraordinary way for such an attack to work
1148 2011-08-24 20:33:41 <Diablo-D3> yeah
1149 2011-08-24 20:33:42 <log0s> jrmithdobbs: i agree
1150 2011-08-24 20:33:46 <jrmithdobbs> a way that, if it was, we'd already know about
1151 2011-08-24 20:33:47 <lfm> log0s: ok thay could perhaps go back to the last hardcoded "checkpoint" like Diablo-D3 sez at block 125000 or whatever. if they could produce 1000s of new blocks very quickly they could replace a large amount of block chain, yes
1152 2011-08-24 20:33:56 <Diablo-D3> yes but
1153 2011-08-24 20:33:59 <Diablo-D3> if sha256 is broken
1154 2011-08-24 20:34:03 <Diablo-D3> WE know about it already
1155 2011-08-24 20:34:07 Pinion has joined
1156 2011-08-24 20:34:15 <lfm> ya it would be pretty obvous
1157 2011-08-24 20:34:16 <Diablo-D3> so me and phatk and m0 upgrade our shit to take advantage of it
1158 2011-08-24 20:34:25 <Diablo-D3> and thus the attacker is screwed
1159 2011-08-24 20:34:30 <Diablo-D3> we're back to outhashing him again
1160 2011-08-24 20:34:30 <log0s> lfm: you're misunderstanding...if sha256 is broken and you can create a different block with the same ID, those checkpoints don't matter if they're being check only by the ID
1161 2011-08-24 20:34:38 <Diablo-D3> log0s: nope
1162 2011-08-24 20:34:49 <Diablo-D3> the transactions in the block have to make logical sense
1163 2011-08-24 20:34:58 <jrmithdobbs> log0s: except that you'd have to have it verify with your corrupted transactions and the same hash
1164 2011-08-24 20:35:11 <jrmithdobbs> i don't think you're quite getting how the blockchain uses sha
1165 2011-08-24 20:35:18 <Diablo-D3> jrmithdobbs: he doesnt
1166 2011-08-24 20:35:29 <Diablo-D3> even how the merkle tree is constructed wont fall to even pretty heavy sha damage
1167 2011-08-24 20:35:52 <Diablo-D3> block id (double sha256) is not cypto in nature, its a proof of work
1168 2011-08-24 20:35:53 <jrmithdobbs> ya, sha would have to be more broken than md4, MUCH more broken, for most attacks to be feasible
1169 2011-08-24 20:36:03 <iddo> log0s: i tried to explain why having sha3 pseudo genesis block doesnt open you to new attacks, the only attacks possible are those that were possible without the pseudo genesis sha3 block
1170 2011-08-24 20:36:03 <jrmithdobbs> like, fundamentally unusable and collidable with arbitrary data
1171 2011-08-24 20:36:09 <Diablo-D3> we use it as block id merely because it cant be future known
1172 2011-08-24 20:36:35 <jrmithdobbs> eg: broken in a way that by this point saying "it is unlikely" is the understatement of the century
1173 2011-08-24 20:36:49 <Diablo-D3> merklet trees in bitcoin use double sha256 recusively
1174 2011-08-24 20:36:53 <jrmithdobbs> maybe the millenium
1175 2011-08-24 20:36:59 <Diablo-D3> which makes it VERY FUCKING HARD to do this
1176 2011-08-24 20:37:09 <lfm> log0s: I think the checkpoint is such that it has accepted already a block 125000 so it would ignore new blocks older than that.
1177 2011-08-24 20:37:27 <Diablo-D3> I mean, fuck even having the flaw
1178 2011-08-24 20:37:30 <Diablo-D3> try USING it
1179 2011-08-24 20:37:38 <Diablo-D3> you're just fucked.
1180 2011-08-24 20:37:40 Uri2011 has joined
1181 2011-08-24 20:37:45 <jrmithdobbs> right the part that would be particularly useful to corrupt is the merkle tree
1182 2011-08-24 20:37:55 <Diablo-D3> yeah
1183 2011-08-24 20:38:00 <Diablo-D3> which is going to be a fucking pita to design
1184 2011-08-24 20:38:12 <Diablo-D3> because you're not going to have useful collisions
1185 2011-08-24 20:38:26 <jrmithdobbs> which, once again, because a) it's sha256(sha256()) is exponentially harder, and b) would also have to be collidable with pratically arbitrary attacker-controlled input
1186 2011-08-24 20:38:30 <Diablo-D3> hell, at this point, if sha256 has them for our usage, we could just make a fucking blacklist
1187 2011-08-24 20:38:35 <Diablo-D3> and never allow them to be used
1188 2011-08-24 20:38:41 <jrmithdobbs> b) is basically impossible or sha wouldn't be usable AT ALL FOR ANYTHING
1189 2011-08-24 20:38:53 <Diablo-D3> yeah
1190 2011-08-24 20:39:05 <Diablo-D3> the attacker neither has attacker-controlled input nor the attack to begin with
1191 2011-08-24 20:39:14 <jrmithdobbs> right
1192 2011-08-24 20:39:23 <jrmithdobbs> sha being broken is the *least* of bitcoin's worries
1193 2011-08-24 20:39:32 <Diablo-D3> he can spam fake bullshit tx at the end of the merkle root to cover up changing the gen block
1194 2011-08-24 20:39:44 <jrmithdobbs> the sepck256 curve for ecdsa is a *much* more likely and harmful attack vector
1195 2011-08-24 20:39:45 <Diablo-D3> but thats going to be computationally more expensive than _just mining to begin with_
1196 2011-08-24 20:39:52 <lfm> we could just say in a new client, replace all sha2 functions withe sha3 after block x and ignore any block older after that
1197 2011-08-24 20:39:57 <jrmithdobbs> and also: much easier to replace
1198 2011-08-24 20:40:02 <Diablo-D3> lfm: not ignore
1199 2011-08-24 20:40:06 imsaguy is now known as imsaguy2
1200 2011-08-24 20:40:08 <Diablo-D3> they're still valid existing blocks
1201 2011-08-24 20:40:22 <Diablo-D3> its just that after 250k (the example switchover point), the hash is sha3 512
1202 2011-08-24 20:40:23 <jrmithdobbs> and we don't use sha-2 so why would we use sha-3
1203 2011-08-24 20:40:33 <jrmithdobbs> but w/e
1204 2011-08-24 20:40:33 <Diablo-D3> jrmithdobbs: we use sha2
1205 2011-08-24 20:40:37 <lfm> I mean ignore any replacement for a block old than that, embed the current blocks in stone
1206 2011-08-24 20:40:40 <Diablo-D3> sha256 = sha2 256
1207 2011-08-24 20:41:05 <lfm> jrmithdobbs: sha256 is a version of sha2
1208 2011-08-24 20:42:09 <jrmithdobbs> so it is, my bad
1209 2011-08-24 20:43:37 <Diablo-D3> heh.
1210 2011-08-24 20:43:39 <Diablo-D3> anyhow
1211 2011-08-24 20:43:45 <Diablo-D3> the only real switch I see is
1212 2011-08-24 20:43:46 <lfm> ya if the signatues were broken it would be harder to handle
1213 2011-08-24 20:43:48 <jrmithdobbs> log0s: the point is, sha is the least compromisable part of bitcoin because of how it's used.
1214 2011-08-24 20:43:49 <Diablo-D3> when we hit the end of difficulty.
1215 2011-08-24 20:43:57 <jrmithdobbs> ya
1216 2011-08-24 20:44:08 <jrmithdobbs> and we've got a ways on that
1217 2011-08-24 20:44:08 <Diablo-D3> which means sha3 whatever the highest is
1218 2011-08-24 20:44:20 <Diablo-D3> we might as well just go for batshit insanity at that point
1219 2011-08-24 20:44:31 <iddo> maybe it's a good idea to fork to sha3 even if sha256 isn't broken? otherwise someone else will probably start a new network with sha3, like ixcoin etc. ?
1220 2011-08-24 20:44:45 <jrmithdobbs> not really
1221 2011-08-24 20:45:00 <lfm> iddo: well sha3 has not had as much testing, sha3 might get broke BEFORE sha2
1222 2011-08-24 20:45:02 <jrmithdobbs> you're missing the part where sha being broken will basically be meaningless to bitcoin
1223 2011-08-24 20:45:32 <jrmithdobbs> it's not used in such a way that the normal use of "broken" for crypto hashes *matters*
1224 2011-08-24 20:45:41 <Diablo-D3> wait wait wait
1225 2011-08-24 20:45:42 <Diablo-D3> dude
1226 2011-08-24 20:45:46 <Diablo-D3> how do you plan on FORKING to it?
1227 2011-08-24 20:45:56 <Diablo-D3> clients who arent in on the joke reject your dynamic worldview.
1228 2011-08-24 20:46:13 <iddo> lfm: yes that's somewhat true, but in the sha3 competition they do a lot of testing... not sure that sha256 had that much testing either, so far they're still breaking sha-1
1229 2011-08-24 20:46:29 <lfm> iddo: it had lots too
1230 2011-08-24 20:46:36 <noagendamarket> just create bitcoinv2
1231 2011-08-24 20:46:48 <jrmithdobbs> iddo: sha-1 is broken already
1232 2011-08-24 20:46:58 <Diablo-D3> sha256 was written by the people who are considered the smart ones.
1233 2011-08-24 20:47:01 <lookdang> noagendamarket, you are crazy
1234 2011-08-24 20:47:17 <iddo> jrmithdobbs: yes, but no collision found yet...
1235 2011-08-24 20:47:25 <jgarzik> I think work should begin on btc2
1236 2011-08-24 20:47:32 <lfm> lookdang: lots of people are trying to create bitcoinv2 already
1237 2011-08-24 20:47:34 <jrmithdobbs> iddo: here's the fun part though
1238 2011-08-24 20:47:39 <jgarzik> plenty of people are interested in breaking changes
1239 2011-08-24 20:47:43 <jrmithdobbs> iddo: even if collissions had been found
1240 2011-08-24 20:47:45 <jgarzik> start a brand new btc2 block chain in 1 year
1241 2011-08-24 20:47:46 <lookdang> lfm, everyone is! It is call iocoin.
1242 2011-08-24 20:47:51 <lookdang> or solidcoin
1243 2011-08-24 20:47:52 <jrmithdobbs> iddo: bitcoin could be using sha1 and it'd be fine do to how it changes.
1244 2011-08-24 20:47:54 <lookdang> or urmumcoin
1245 2011-08-24 20:47:58 <jrmithdobbs> err s/changes/uses it/
1246 2011-08-24 20:47:59 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1247 2011-08-24 20:48:19 <lfm> lookdang: yup and one of them MIGHT be the new bitcoin no matter how much we doubt it
1248 2011-08-24 20:48:20 <lookdang> but the fact is that bitcoin is good, and will keep it's value unelss there is a pressing _need_ to replace it.
1249 2011-08-24 20:48:29 <Diablo-D3> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiMZa8flyYY
1250 2011-08-24 20:48:48 <noagendamarket> lookdang :)-
1251 2011-08-24 20:49:49 <lfm> lookdang: I agree bitcoin is working well, and I feel we will have plenty of warning of new crypto developments and have time to keep ahead of them
1252 2011-08-24 20:50:34 <iddo> i dont see significant disadvantage with forking to sha3, i.e. no good way to exploit the transition, so it might be nice to do at some point in the future, and no need for new btc2 chain
1253 2011-08-24 20:50:47 <noagendamarket> lookdang I like having another blockchain to money launder through :)-
1254 2011-08-24 20:50:49 <Diablo-D3> stop saying forking.,
1255 2011-08-24 20:50:51 <Diablo-D3> it wont be a fork.
1256 2011-08-24 20:51:00 <lookdang> lfm. the next big development will be tools that extend bitcons ulity... the successfull ones will NOT have a block chain.
1257 2011-08-24 20:51:05 <lookdang> such as OT
1258 2011-08-24 20:51:13 <lookdang> or some WOT tools.
1259 2011-08-24 20:51:28 <Diablo-D3> lookdang: uh no
1260 2011-08-24 20:51:42 <lookdang> Diablo-D3?
1261 2011-08-24 20:51:57 darksk1ez has joined
1262 2011-08-24 20:52:00 <lookdang> why not... we already have a great block chain... why need annother?
1263 2011-08-24 20:52:18 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1264 2011-08-24 20:52:28 <Diablo-D3> you implied future tools wont have one at all
1265 2011-08-24 20:52:30 <Diablo-D3> yes, yes they will
1266 2011-08-24 20:52:31 <lookdang> but we don't have a great WOT system... or a great centralized currency tools.
1267 2011-08-24 20:52:56 <lfm> oh, wasnt clear what you ment there. ya, just extend current block chain if at all possible, do not fork it.
1268 2011-08-24 20:53:28 <Diablo-D3> we dont need a WOT system
1269 2011-08-24 20:53:35 <Diablo-D3> the whole entire point of bitcoin is I dont trust you fuckers.
1270 2011-08-24 20:53:43 <lfm> I spoze a sha3 chain might look like a fork to old versions that don't upgrade
1271 2011-08-24 20:54:05 <imsaguy2> speaking of which, there are a few in here still
1272 2011-08-24 20:54:07 larsivi has joined
1273 2011-08-24 20:54:07 <lookdang> Diablo-D3, if you live in the real world, you still need to trust ppl... bitcoin or not bitcoin.
1274 2011-08-24 20:54:32 <lookdang> Diablo-D3, block chains fufill a very niche rolls... they cannot be generalized to many thing... there is many things that require some sort of central trust.
1275 2011-08-24 20:55:15 <Diablo-D3> erm dude
1276 2011-08-24 20:55:15 <lfm> and we all mostly trust the developers, even if they are watching each other, we gotta trust it isnt a big comsiracy
1277 2011-08-24 20:55:24 <lfm> conspiracy
1278 2011-08-24 20:55:31 <Diablo-D3> I can use a bitcoin-like system to do decentralized COW logging that is cryptographically signed.
1279 2011-08-24 20:55:54 <Diablo-D3> if you have no clue what I just implied when I said that, you shouldnt be discussing this.
1280 2011-08-24 20:56:01 <lookdang> Diablo-D3, it may be better for each farm to manage their own cows?
1281 2011-08-24 20:56:14 <Diablo-D3> lookdang: copy on write you dingbat.
1282 2011-08-24 20:56:20 <noagendamarket> lol
1283 2011-08-24 20:56:55 <noagendamarket> the great thing about bitcoin is you can roll your own
1284 2011-08-24 20:56:56 agricocb has joined
1285 2011-08-24 20:57:06 <Diablo-D3> I mean, thats what it really is
1286 2011-08-24 20:57:35 <imsaguy2> Diablo-D3, do you hear the whooshing noise?
1287 2011-08-24 20:57:36 <lookdang> Diablo-D3, hmm I think that you have missed the cost's assioated in such a proof-of-work distributed systems... like bitcoin...
1288 2011-08-24 20:57:59 <Diablo-D3> a transactional distributed no trust cryptographically secured and mathematically proven system.
1289 2011-08-24 20:58:00 <lookdang> they are good... but you dont' want them for everything.
1290 2011-08-24 20:58:13 <Diablo-D3> and that is very fucking useful
1291 2011-08-24 20:58:25 <Diablo-D3> to use it merely for bitcoins is lame
1292 2011-08-24 20:58:40 <lookdang> you want to have small world netwok based cross-trust signing...
1293 2011-08-24 20:58:51 <lookdang> much more usefull trust-model
1294 2011-08-24 20:59:56 <lfm> Diablo-D3: so long as they pay fees for other uses it should be ok, we can log those 200 byte or 64 byte hashes for them
1295 2011-08-24 21:00:09 <lfm> 20 byte or 64 byte
1296 2011-08-24 21:00:14 <log0s> Diablo-D3: http://pastebin.com/EBqM6Cwm
1297 2011-08-24 21:00:20 <log0s> Diablo-D3: if sha256 becomes broken, is it not possible for an attacker to do this?
1298 2011-08-24 21:00:30 kakobrekla has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1299 2011-08-24 21:00:37 <imsaguy2> that's a huge IF
1300 2011-08-24 21:00:54 <log0s> imsaguy2: i'm well aware of that
1301 2011-08-24 21:01:05 <lfm> log0s: yes many things are possible if sha256 is broke. now do you have something specific in mind when you ask?
1302 2011-08-24 21:01:07 <imsaguy2> It'll happen, but at that point, the system will already be on to something else
1303 2011-08-24 21:02:03 kakobrekla has joined
1304 2011-08-24 21:02:11 <lfm> log0s: cuz if you are trying to announce a sha256 hack this is a very strange place to do it
1305 2011-08-24 21:02:18 <lookdang> it is easy just to put a new hash into the chain valid after xyz block... I'm not worried about sha256 being broken... no hash so far has been broken 0day.
1306 2011-08-24 21:04:25 <lfm> and even if it was zero day WE can rewind the block chain to a point we choose and continue from there (see the overflow bug event in history)
1307 2011-08-24 21:06:22 fathead has joined
1308 2011-08-24 21:09:23 <log0s> i'm just talking about the hypothetical case of bitcoin switching to sha3 presumably because serious weaknesses have been found in sha256...
1309 2011-08-24 21:09:26 <log0s> i know sha256 is not broken now, i know the switch would probably happen well before sha256 is seriously broken...i'm asking about if someone could create a "blockchain collision" and how you would go about verifying the old sha256 blocks if an attacker created a colliding version of the sha256-based portion of the blockchain
1310 2011-08-24 21:09:52 piotrp has quit (Quit: piotrp)
1311 2011-08-24 21:10:00 <iddo> Diablo-D3: sorry, i think i was wrong to say that sha3 pseudo genesis block isn't linked to previous block, the previous block proof of work hash should be contained in the pseudo genesis block, this way no one can try to extend the pseudo genesis block ahead of time
1312 2011-08-24 21:10:13 <lfm> log0s: if we change over to sha3 then after that we would not ab accepting any updates to sha2 hashed blocks or txns
1313 2011-08-24 21:11:00 <iddo> log0s: you seem to be ignoring the fact hat 50% honest hash power respects the longest chain
1314 2011-08-24 21:11:41 <log0s> lfm: what if you didn't already have all or any of the sha256 portion of the blockchain on your machine, yet?
1315 2011-08-24 21:12:00 <log0s> lfm: how do you get it, and how do you know it's the real one and not the attacker's version?
1316 2011-08-24 21:12:36 <log0s> lfm: the block id's would be the same, so checkpoints that only check against the ID's doesn't seem to help...you'd have to verify it another way, would you not?
1317 2011-08-24 21:12:57 <lfm> log0s: the client has special checkpoints already for certain blocks, the new sha3 checkpoint could not presumably be faked
1318 2011-08-24 21:13:22 Lopuz has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1319 2011-08-24 21:13:25 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1320 2011-08-24 21:13:38 <log0s> ok, good, finally someone's talking about sha3 id's of the old sha256 blocks!
1321 2011-08-24 21:13:48 <lfm> nope
1322 2011-08-24 21:14:02 <lfm> just a sha3 checkpoint of the new blocks
1323 2011-08-24 21:14:29 <log0s> ah, lol, i misread that...
1324 2011-08-24 21:14:38 <lfm> but ya you could do a sha3 hash of an old block as a checkpoint
1325 2011-08-24 21:14:59 <iddo> log0s: to exploit sha256 in order to extend the old chain, you will still need to continue to extend it with sha3 and compete with the honest hash power, otherwise you don't have the longest chain so your effort is worthless
1326 2011-08-24 21:15:38 <log0s> the first sha3 block is going to point to an old sha256 block...how do you know you have the right sha256 block that the sha3 block is pointing to if there are multiple versions of that prior block that hash to the same ID with sha256?
1327 2011-08-24 21:15:42 <lfm> log0s: and feeding a whole fake chain would involve a lot of work even if you can produce hashes quickly
1328 2011-08-24 21:16:01 <iddo> lfm: yes that's my last comment to Diablo-D3, the first (pseudo genesis) sha3 block contains the last sha256 hash, so it's all linked
1329 2011-08-24 21:16:28 <lfm> log0s: we have the one we like now. new ones can be rejected
1330 2011-08-24 21:16:46 <jrmithdobbs> log0s: sha would have to be so beyond fucking broken for that to work that it's pratically impossible
1331 2011-08-24 21:16:49 <iddo> log0s: the point is that switching to sha3 doesnt allow you to exploit anything beyond what you could already do before
1332 2011-08-24 21:16:58 <jrmithdobbs> log0s: because if it were *that* broken it wouldn't be usable at all and we'd already know
1333 2011-08-24 21:17:03 <jrmithdobbs> once again.
1334 2011-08-24 21:17:09 <jrmithdobbs> you do not understand how bitcoin uses sha
1335 2011-08-24 21:17:10 <log0s> lfm: how does someone that doesn't already have the originals know that the attacker's version is the "new" one?
1336 2011-08-24 21:17:37 <log0s> jrmithdobbs: lol, i'm quite aware of how bitcoin uses sha
1337 2011-08-24 21:17:50 <jrmithdobbs> log0s: you would have to generate an entirely new chain longer than the current one and overwhelm the network by sybiling
1338 2011-08-24 21:18:00 <lfm> log0s: no more than they know now. only by the checkpoints embeded in the client and the proof of work theory that no one can do it
1339 2011-08-24 21:18:09 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1340 2011-08-24 21:18:14 <jrmithdobbs> you would only be able to sybil nodes that don't currently have the chain past the point you start the attack
1341 2011-08-24 21:18:18 <jrmithdobbs> it is not a feasible attack
1342 2011-08-24 21:18:23 <iddo> log0s: you dont need to know how to differentiate the attacker version, the only thing that matters is that you cannot compete with honest hash power that already continued to extend the chain
1343 2011-08-24 21:18:41 <jrmithdobbs> log0s: so no, you don't understand
1344 2011-08-24 21:18:57 <jrmithdobbs> log0s: sha isn't being used as a cryptographic hash
1345 2011-08-24 21:19:30 <lfm> jrmithdobbs: waaa?
1346 2011-08-24 21:19:32 <jrmithdobbs> log0s: it would have to be so arbitrarily collidable (which we already know it isn't) to even begin talking about this, THEN it would have to be so arbitrarily colidable in a way that two rounds of it was JUST as broken as one
1347 2011-08-24 21:20:06 fathead has left ()
1348 2011-08-24 21:20:29 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: it's proof of work and basically a checksum for the merkle tree
1349 2011-08-24 21:21:07 <lfm> ok so side effects of cryptographic hashes?
1350 2011-08-24 21:22:12 <lfm> you wouldn't be able to just substitute a crc256 that wasn't cryptographic hash and hope to do the same thing
1351 2011-08-24 21:23:54 QueryTom3000 has left ()
1352 2011-08-24 21:24:48 <log0s> i (finally) see what some of you are arguing now...i've been ignoring that the sha3 branch would likely have existed and been worked for quite some time before sha256 would become broken enough for the attack, and that creating a colliding blockchain history in the sha256 portion would also require a 50%+ attack on the sha3 portion
1353 2011-08-24 21:25:20 DontMindMe has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
1354 2011-08-24 21:27:04 lookdang has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1355 2011-08-24 21:27:07 <iddo> yes, if/when sha256 becomes practically broken (for partial preimage attack), sha3 blocks should already be in the chain
1356 2011-08-24 21:28:24 <iddo> but again, the point was that having sha3 from some future block in the chain doesn't allow you any attacks that you couldn't already do anyway
1357 2011-08-24 21:29:19 <cjdelisle> still talking about this O_O
1358 2011-08-24 21:29:33 <iddo> the only issue is that we need all the miners to update to the new sha3 client before reaching that future block
1359 2011-08-24 21:29:59 zomtec has joined
1360 2011-08-24 21:30:56 <lfm> iddo for a nice orderly changover yes. various emergency scenarios have different criteria (see history of overflow bug event again)
1361 2011-08-24 21:31:14 hahuang65 has joined
1362 2011-08-24 21:31:29 <iddo> yes i was wrong to say "all" miners
1363 2011-08-24 21:32:39 <log0s> i messed up after having a brief thought i had earlier in the discussion that the sha3 portion of the blockchain won't *necessarily* contain any transactions spending outputs from the sha256 portion *before* the attack...but obviously it most likely would contain such transactions in practice, which would require a 50%+ attack on the sha3 branch
1364 2011-08-24 21:32:57 <log0s> s/having//
1365 2011-08-24 21:33:49 brunner has joined
1366 2011-08-24 21:34:23 <iddo> log0s: it doesn't matter, the sha3 blocks can be without any transactions too
1367 2011-08-24 21:36:08 <lfm> hhm what if you could produce hash160 collisions? you could "steal" old txn outputs to addresses right?
1368 2011-08-24 21:36:12 <log0s> iddo: how so?
1369 2011-08-24 21:36:34 <iddo> all i'm saying is that if at time X sha256 becomes practically broken, if the blockchain began to use sha3 blocks before time X then we're safe, without allowing any new attacks because of the sha3 switch
1370 2011-08-24 21:37:42 <iddo> log0s: because you won't be able to compete with honest hash power and extend the sha3 chain after time X (and you also couldn't before time X, because until then sha256 wasn't broken)
1371 2011-08-24 21:37:52 <log0s> iddo: but if the only reference in the sha3 portion is to the last sha256 block, and no transactions are referenced, how does one know whether the sha256 blocks are the original blocks, or an attacker's version of the blocks with the colliding block id?
1372 2011-08-24 21:38:30 <lfm> we have a sha3 checkpoint in the client of the first sha3 block
1373 2011-08-24 21:38:32 Enlik has joined
1374 2011-08-24 21:38:38 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: If you can't laugh at yourself, make fun of other people.)
1375 2011-08-24 21:39:24 <iddo> log0s: the first sha3 block contains the hash of the last sha256 block, and the blockchain continues to be extended by honest hash power, so the attacker cannot compete and create longer chain, compared to the chain that is already being extended
1376 2011-08-24 21:40:06 <lfm> and we already have all the older blocks, we are not accepting updates to them. if you wanna try to feed new nodes a bad chhain the you'll need to KEEP those new nodes isolated forever from the new net
1377 2011-08-24 21:40:32 <lfm> from the main net
1378 2011-08-24 21:40:35 <log0s> lfm: you're right, you'd have to keep them isolated
1379 2011-08-24 21:40:41 <log0s> ok
1380 2011-08-24 21:40:50 <iddo> log0s: just keep in mind that honest clients respect the longest chain (the chain that most work was needed in order to build it)
1381 2011-08-24 21:41:06 <lfm> log0s: if you have the power to keep nodes isolated like that you can do several other attacks anyway
1382 2011-08-24 21:42:05 <lfm> the isolated nodes would soon figure out thay are not seeing the main net
1383 2011-08-24 21:42:47 <iddo> yes there are this kind of partition / isolating attacks... mybitcoin nonsense tried to claim that this attack was used i think
1384 2011-08-24 21:43:11 vsrinivas has joined
1385 2011-08-24 21:43:41 <log0s> you guys are right...i was overlooking the need to keep other nodes isolated in order for them to use the attacker's version of the sha256 portion, because most of the network will already have the original blocks and continue working on the sha3 branch, eventually spending transactions in the sha256 portion, etc...i now see that the attack i was envisioning is merely a sybil attack
1386 2011-08-24 21:44:13 hachiya_ is now known as hachiya
1387 2011-08-24 21:45:07 <vsrinivas> hi folks!; i submitted a patch on-list to work around a lack of MSG_NOSIGNAL on OpenBSD; haven't seen a reaction, would it be alright to ping the list about that? or should i just wait?
1388 2011-08-24 21:45:45 <iddo> i remember some discussion here about attacks by isolating nodes, but it doesn't really have relevance to sha3 fork
1389 2011-08-24 21:46:23 Cablesaurus has joined
1390 2011-08-24 21:46:23 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
1391 2011-08-24 21:46:23 Cablesaurus has joined
1392 2011-08-24 21:47:34 <log0s> hmmm...well, now that i wasted the last 1.5 hours of my and everyone else's time...
1393 2011-08-24 21:47:41 mologie has joined
1394 2011-08-24 21:48:10 <iddo> log0s: you can read the earlier discussion about partition attack here: http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2011/08/06/1
1395 2011-08-24 21:48:31 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1396 2011-08-24 21:50:20 semb has joined
1397 2011-08-24 21:50:56 <lfm> log0s: naw, not total waste. we all prolly clerified a few points in peoples minds
1398 2011-08-24 21:52:19 <lfm> things like this mainly serve to reinforce the briliance of Satoshi's design in my estimation
1399 2011-08-24 21:57:49 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1400 2011-08-24 21:58:54 gp5st has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1401 2011-08-24 22:00:11 <TuxBlackEdo> anyone know of any good dns hosting?
1402 2011-08-24 22:00:15 <TuxBlackEdo> preferably free
1403 2011-08-24 22:00:16 denisx has joined
1404 2011-08-24 22:00:19 <iddo> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Breaking_the_cryptography links to Satoshi's forum post, which seems wrong because he suggests there to hash all the old blocks with new hash (or maybe i misunderstand him)
1405 2011-08-24 22:01:53 <lfm> iddo hmm, perhaps that could be done too. I spoze it wouldnt really take long, the main time would be rebuilding all the database indexes I spoze
1406 2011-08-24 22:02:22 <iddo> but why would it be useful?
1407 2011-08-24 22:02:47 <iddo> just having the last sha256 hash inside the first sha3 block is all that's needed i think?
1408 2011-08-24 22:02:49 <lfm> iddo then new programs would not need to support old data formats?
1409 2011-08-24 22:03:11 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|iddo: if sha256 is truly broken, then that means it may be possible to hash a block (+ nonce) to anything hash you want
1410 2011-08-24 22:03:37 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|so you can take an old block, change the transactions, add a nonce, and hash it to the exact same old hash as before
1411 2011-08-24 22:04:16 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|then you can totally screw up the network by introducing new versions of previous blocks. and the bitcoin network would not be able to tell which is the right one
1412 2011-08-24 22:04:31 <lfm> thatd prolly really mess up the databases which assume all hashes are unique
1413 2011-08-24 22:04:36 <iddo> lfm: he seems to suggest that it's because of security concern, not data structure efficency
1414 2011-08-24 22:04:56 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|so satoshi recommended that when sha256 starts to break down, we use sha3 to hash all the old blocks and have that hardcoded in the client code
1415 2011-08-24 22:05:03 <iddo> coblee|2: did you read our discussion here?
1416 2011-08-24 22:05:12 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|no, sorry. too long :p
1417 2011-08-24 22:06:18 <iddo> coblee|2: well, i think you are wrong:) feel free to read it...
1418 2011-08-24 22:07:33 <lfm> wrong where tho?
1419 2011-08-24 22:07:41 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|iddo: if you can, please summarize. your discussion already scrolled past my buffer
1420 2011-08-24 22:08:51 kluge has quit (Quit: ....)
1421 2011-08-24 22:10:25 <iddo> coblee|2: you cannot exploit sha256 weakness after sha3 blocks are already in the blockchain, because you cannot compete with longest chain created by honest hash power
1422 2011-08-24 22:10:27 <lfm> coblee|2: log0s figured if sha256 was completly broken an attacker would try to produce some sort of large scale fork amounting to a parallel block chain. I think we convinced him it would still require a 50% attack or a sybil attack to carry out successfully.
1423 2011-08-24 22:11:07 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|iddo, you don't need to compete with longest block chain
1424 2011-08-24 22:11:13 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|you just have to replace an old block
1425 2011-08-24 22:11:54 <iddo> ahh i didnt think of that
1426 2011-08-24 22:12:21 <iddo> you mean not to find partial preimage with leading 0s, but to find that actual same hash of block already in the chain
1427 2011-08-24 22:12:27 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|you can remove a transaction from an old block, and a different nonce, and sha256 hash it to the same exact hash as before
1428 2011-08-24 22:12:29 Pinion has quit (Quit: Has quit)
1429 2011-08-24 22:12:41 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|assuming sha256 is really that broken!
1430 2011-08-24 22:12:51 <Diablo-D3> dear lord people
1431 2011-08-24 22:12:52 <iddo> so maybe that's what Satoshi meant....
1432 2011-08-24 22:12:54 <Diablo-D3> I go afk to eat support
1433 2011-08-24 22:12:56 <Diablo-D3> I come back
1434 2011-08-24 22:13:00 <jrmithdobbs> jesus christ are you idiots still talking about this?
1435 2011-08-24 22:13:01 <Diablo-D3> and you're still fucking talking about it
1436 2011-08-24 22:13:02 <Diablo-D3> AND
1437 2011-08-24 22:13:03 <IO_> eat support?
1438 2011-08-24 22:13:04 <Diablo-D3> AND
1439 2011-08-24 22:13:12 <Diablo-D3> YOU HAVENT GOTTEN ANYWHERE
1440 2011-08-24 22:13:16 <jrmithdobbs> Diablo-D3: hahaha, ya i just got dragged into a conference call from hell
1441 2011-08-24 22:13:21 <IO_> did you get extra cheese on your support?
1442 2011-08-24 22:13:27 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|well, i just got back too
1443 2011-08-24 22:13:31 <Diablo-D3> yes, I eat support technicians
1444 2011-08-24 22:13:31 <IO_> i always get extra cheese.
1445 2011-08-24 22:13:44 <log0s> iddo: you didn't know i was talking about replacing blocks with different ones that hash to the same id?
1446 2011-08-24 22:13:44 <Diablo-D3> but no, I was eating supper
1447 2011-08-24 22:13:57 <jrmithdobbs> do you guys realise that md4, the most broken hash ever, isn't even broken enough to allow these scenarios?
1448 2011-08-24 22:14:01 <jrmithdobbs> i mean seriously
1449 2011-08-24 22:14:09 <lfm> I think we kinda settled it for log0s but then coblee|2  come and restarted us
1450 2011-08-24 22:14:10 <jrmithdobbs> shut up already
1451 2011-08-24 22:14:40 <iddo> log0s: sorry i was wrong
1452 2011-08-24 22:15:15 <iddo> you'd need full preimage attack, not partial preimage
1453 2011-08-24 22:15:24 mologie has joined
1454 2011-08-24 22:15:26 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|all i'm saying is I believe satoshi suggested rehashing all old blocks with the newest hash algorithm to prevent this kind of attack, no matter how unlikely
1455 2011-08-24 22:16:14 <lfm> coblee|2: not sure you really CAN replace old blocks once they are recorded by the clients.
1456 2011-08-24 22:16:37 semb has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1457 2011-08-24 22:17:19 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|lfm: probably not, but new clients will be confused. and blockchain might be forked if different clients have different views of what's right
1458 2011-08-24 22:18:22 <iddo> hmm i still don't understand
1459 2011-08-24 22:18:26 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|it can lead to unforseen problems.
1460 2011-08-24 22:18:39 <iddo> you cannot hardcode all the new hashes into the clients
1461 2011-08-24 22:19:15 <lfm> coblee|2: yes, unforseen problems based on unrealistic assumption! grin
1462 2011-08-24 22:21:25 <iddo> ahh i guess i understand
1463 2011-08-24 22:21:58 <iddo> all old blocks will also have field with sha3 of previous block
1464 2011-08-24 22:22:01 magn3ts has joined
1465 2011-08-24 22:22:22 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1466 2011-08-24 22:22:29 <iddo> so to replace a block, you would now need full preimage attack on sha3 too
1467 2011-08-24 22:22:33 <coblee> 2!~chocobo@nat/google/x-nshufclxqewlnyrw|lfm: it was just my guess. i don't know enough to argue either way.
1468 2011-08-24 22:23:00 <iddo> ok so Satoshi is right:)
1469 2011-08-24 22:24:17 <lfm> basicll add a field that is sha3 of (previous block + sha3 of block before that)
1470 2011-08-24 22:25:16 <lfm> keep the sha2 hashes for the proof of work and difficulty calc
1471 2011-08-24 22:27:58 theorb has joined
1472 2011-08-24 22:28:22 Pinion has joined
1473 2011-08-24 22:28:46 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1474 2011-08-24 22:28:52 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
1475 2011-08-24 22:31:13 <luke-jr> )#*$)#*
1476 2011-08-24 22:31:23 <luke-jr> know how basically everything in block hashing is done in little endian?
1477 2011-08-24 22:31:59 imsaguy has joined
1478 2011-08-24 22:34:38 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1479 2011-08-24 22:34:51 zomtec has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1480 2011-08-24 22:35:45 <mtrlt> uints are stored in little endian :)
1481 2011-08-24 22:37:51 <luke-jr> mtrlt: on some platforms
1482 2011-08-24 22:38:04 pixglen has quit (Quit: pixglen)
1483 2011-08-24 22:38:08 Titeuf_87 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1484 2011-08-24 22:38:19 <Diablo-D3> BOO HOO
1485 2011-08-24 22:38:21 <Diablo-D3> ENDIANS
1486 2011-08-24 22:38:24 <Diablo-D3> get over it.
1487 2011-08-24 22:38:31 <luke-jr> but anyhow, it turns out SHA256 itself doesn't work with bytes, it works with 32-bit ints. so no matter what endian the platform, SHA256 of an int is Big Endian
1488 2011-08-24 22:38:47 <Diablo-D3> nope.
1489 2011-08-24 22:38:51 <Diablo-D3> sha256 is also little endian.
1490 2011-08-24 22:39:44 <luke-jr> nope
1491 2011-08-24 22:40:19 <mtrlt> sha works with bytes, and it arranges the bytes into groups of four :-)
1492 2011-08-24 22:40:29 <mtrlt> and the groups are interpreted as big-endian integers
1493 2011-08-24 22:42:11 <mtrlt> and that's why the groups of 4 bytes are byteswapped in the getwork response. to make it "easier" for little-endian systems. they don't have to swap the bytes themselves.
1494 2011-08-24 22:42:35 <mtrlt> but it just creates more confusion imo :P
1495 2011-08-24 22:42:37 <vsrinivas> heh!
1496 2011-08-24 22:43:14 brunner has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1497 2011-08-24 22:45:04 abragin has quit ()
1498 2011-08-24 22:47:49 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day)
1499 2011-08-24 22:52:19 mologie has joined
1500 2011-08-24 22:54:15 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1501 2011-08-24 22:56:34 mosimo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1502 2011-08-24 22:59:25 AStove has quit ()
1503 2011-08-24 23:03:24 shLONG has joined
1504 2011-08-24 23:03:34 c00w has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1505 2011-08-24 23:04:01 erus` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1506 2011-08-24 23:08:22 <IO_> SSShhhhhhhh
1507 2011-08-24 23:09:28 paul0 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1508 2011-08-24 23:10:36 berend has left ("ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)")
1509 2011-08-24 23:10:41 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1510 2011-08-24 23:12:20 Rabbit67890 has joined
1511 2011-08-24 23:16:43 Rabbit67890 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1512 2011-08-24 23:17:17 Rabbit67890 has joined
1513 2011-08-24 23:18:04 b4epoche_ has joined
1514 2011-08-24 23:22:25 paul0 has joined
1515 2011-08-24 23:25:09 Pinion has quit (Quit: Has quit)
1516 2011-08-24 23:26:37 shLONG has quit ()
1517 2011-08-24 23:27:26 JStoker has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1518 2011-08-24 23:29:27 <mtrlt> [01:30:52] <luke-jr> mtrlt: on some platforms <- also i was talking about btc mining in general
1519 2011-08-24 23:32:33 paul0 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1520 2011-08-24 23:35:00 copumpkin has joined
1521 2011-08-24 23:37:39 <luke-jr> mtrlt: in any case, SHA256 works with 32-bit integers, and doesn't care how the CPU handles them
1522 2011-08-24 23:37:56 <luke-jr> but when fed character data, parses it into integers big-endian style
1523 2011-08-24 23:38:11 kakobrekla has left ()
1524 2011-08-24 23:38:19 <luke-jr> so in effect, the first step of SHA256 is to .. byte flip every 32-bit block
1525 2011-08-24 23:38:24 bitterpalnpr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1526 2011-08-24 23:38:25 <luke-jr> which explains why data is formatted the way it is
1527 2011-08-24 23:38:30 <mtrlt> yep
1528 2011-08-24 23:39:15 <vsrinivas> what is the performance cost to doing so? its not a lot of data and byte swaps are fairly fast.
1529 2011-08-24 23:39:28 <luke-jr> vsrinivas: about 0.3% I think
1530 2011-08-24 23:39:31 brunner has joined
1531 2011-08-24 23:39:56 Herodes has joined
1532 2011-08-24 23:40:31 <luke-jr> to just swap nonce
1533 2011-08-24 23:40:55 ppr has joined
1534 2011-08-24 23:41:14 peper has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1535 2011-08-24 23:41:17 toffoo has joined
1536 2011-08-24 23:42:13 <mtrlt> having to swap nonce for noncerange is nonoptimal. it can be implemented without having to swap.
1537 2011-08-24 23:42:40 <luke-jr> I agree
1538 2011-08-24 23:43:03 <luke-jr> since SHA256 always processes integers as if they were big-endian data, noncerange will simply have to specify that
1539 2011-08-24 23:43:24 Enlik has left ()
1540 2011-08-24 23:43:31 <vsrinivas> adds more confusions to data from getwork
1541 2011-08-24 23:43:44 <luke-jr> yeah
1542 2011-08-24 23:43:51 <mtrlt> kinda
1543 2011-08-24 23:43:58 <luke-jr> especially since the 'data' on the protocol will be little endian as a result
1544 2011-08-24 23:44:03 <mtrlt> the nonce is not gotten from the getwork data tho
1545 2011-08-24 23:44:11 <mtrlt> it has to be written there so meh >_>
1546 2011-08-24 23:44:16 <luke-jr> mtrlt: the return path
1547 2011-08-24 23:44:20 <mtrlt> yeah
1548 2011-08-24 23:44:46 <mtrlt> but nothing needs to be changed there
1549 2011-08-24 23:45:25 <luke-jr> think the noncerange value should also be little-endian just to match it?
1550 2011-08-24 23:45:59 <mtrlt> the call to clEnqueueNDRangeKernel has the parameters base and globalsize
1551 2011-08-24 23:46:29 <mtrlt> i think i should just be able to plug the values in there without any endian conversions
1552 2011-08-24 23:46:35 <mtrlt> -i think
1553 2011-08-24 23:47:14 <luke-jr> so I send 100000001fffffff and expect back dddddd1d? XD
1554 2011-08-24 23:47:16 <mtrlt> so the nonce range from 0x10000000 to 0x1FFFFFFF should be 100000001FFFFFFF imo
1555 2011-08-24 23:47:36 <mtrlt> yes, i think so
1556 2011-08-24 23:47:43 <luke-jr> sigh
1557 2011-08-24 23:47:54 <mtrlt> i'll think about it a bit more
1558 2011-08-24 23:48:11 <mtrlt> yes.
1559 2011-08-24 23:48:24 <mtrlt> it would work like that indeed :)
1560 2011-08-24 23:49:06 hypermbax has joined
1561 2011-08-24 23:49:28 <mtrlt> blame the person that decided to byteswap on the server's side :p
1562 2011-08-24 23:51:15 <TuxBlackEdo> hello
1563 2011-08-24 23:52:52 dikidera has joined
1564 2011-08-24 23:54:00 <dikidera> If anyone has taken a look at cgminer, can they tell me if when the mining threads are created they access the functions independantly? I.e if thread 1 requests work(variables are set) then can thread 2 access these variables as well as long as i dont overwrite them in the function?
1565 2011-08-24 23:54:59 <Diablo-D3> dikidera: no.
1566 2011-08-24 23:55:08 <dikidera> no what?
1567 2011-08-24 23:55:13 <Diablo-D3> no, you cant.
1568 2011-08-24 23:55:22 <dikidera> this is troublesome
1569 2011-08-24 23:55:45 <dikidera> It really depends on how you interpreted the question tho
1570 2011-08-24 23:56:31 <Diablo-D3> you want to read stuff across threads.
1571 2011-08-24 23:56:45 <dikidera> basically
1572 2011-08-24 23:56:49 <dikidera> hmm
1573 2011-08-24 23:56:52 <dikidera> then how can i?
1574 2011-08-24 23:56:58 <Diablo-D3> you clearly do not understand the concept of a race condition.
1575 2011-08-24 23:57:16 <dikidera> never knew there was such a concept
1576 2011-08-24 23:57:26 <mtrlt> read more plz
1577 2011-08-24 23:57:29 <dikidera> nope
1578 2011-08-24 23:57:32 <dikidera> i do more, read less
1579 2011-08-24 23:57:41 <mtrlt> i can see that :P
1580 2011-08-24 23:57:45 <Diablo-D3> dikidera: my miner I designed to be as thread safe as possible. for a reason.
1581 2011-08-24 23:57:57 <dikidera> ugh, define thread sage
1582 2011-08-24 23:58:00 <dikidera> *safe
1583 2011-08-24 23:58:00 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
1584 2011-08-24 23:58:01 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: btw, did you give up on trying to make SHA256 work in little-endian? :P
1585 2011-08-24 23:58:06 <mtrlt> but unless you want obscure bugs, you really want to learn multithreading properly first
1586 2011-08-24 23:58:15 <luke-jr> or just ignore the fact that flipping the rotates and constants didn't work?
1587 2011-08-24 23:58:24 <dikidera> mtrlt:no bugs, just a little feature for myself
1588 2011-08-24 23:58:26 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: um, my kernel IS little endian.
1589 2011-08-24 23:58:30 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: is it?
1590 2011-08-24 23:58:33 <Diablo-D3> yes!
1591 2011-08-24 23:58:38 <Diablo-D3> radeons are little endian!
1592 2011-08-24 23:58:53 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: so if you limit your nonce range to 0..0x10000000, I will get that in solutions?
1593 2011-08-24 23:59:00 <mtrlt> dikidera: if you do multithreading and don't know what you're doing, you will get obscure bugs.
1594 2011-08-24 23:59:01 <luke-jr> platform endianness is irrelevant to SHA256
1595 2011-08-24 23:59:08 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: that is not done in the kernel.
1596 2011-08-24 23:59:09 <luke-jr> SHA256 *always* treats things as big endian
1597 2011-08-24 23:59:12 <Diablo-D3> that would be done inside of the host code.
1598 2011-08-24 23:59:27 <Diablo-D3> no, a big endian impl of sha256 is big endian
1599 2011-08-24 23:59:28 <mtrlt> yep in the enqueuendrangekernel call.
1600 2011-08-24 23:59:45 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: can you demonstrate please?