1 2011-09-06 00:00:11 <ashrewdmint> Hmm, it looks like the transactions returned by the API don't have information about the sender/reciever address
2 2011-09-06 00:00:32 <ashrewdmint> E.g. for a transaction received, it only has the receivers address, not the senders.
3 2011-09-06 00:03:21 luke-jr_ is now known as luke-jr
4 2011-09-06 00:04:32 squeeboz has joined
5 2011-09-06 00:04:56 fpgaminer has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
6 2011-09-06 00:05:14 fpgaminer has joined
7 2011-09-06 00:06:19 squeeboz has quit (Client Quit)
8 2011-09-06 00:07:04 BTCTrader_ has quit (Quit: BTCTrader_)
9 2011-09-06 00:07:22 Asphodelia has quit (Quit: Asphodelia)
10 2011-09-06 00:08:26 <ashrewdmint> I think this might be because I'm using the testnet and the testnet faucet...
11 2011-09-06 00:10:31 DontMindMe has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
12 2011-09-06 00:12:08 theorb has joined
13 2011-09-06 00:12:30 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
14 2011-09-06 00:12:36 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
15 2011-09-06 00:20:09 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
16 2011-09-06 00:20:31 squeeboz has joined
17 2011-09-06 00:22:27 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
18 2011-09-06 00:23:49 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rd3642bec6ff1 cgminer/compat/jansson/jansson.h: Fix compilation warning on win32.
19 2011-09-06 00:23:51 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r2053de6d59e3 cgminer/ (main.c miner.h ocl.c): Add the directory name from the arguments cgminer was called from as well to allow it running from a relative pathname.
20 2011-09-06 00:23:56 aga has joined
21 2011-09-06 00:24:08 aga is now known as agath
22 2011-09-06 00:24:42 tower has joined
23 2011-09-06 00:26:13 <shadders_> I can see the argument against most of the solidcoin protocol changes but what's the argument against the short difficulty retargetting cycle?
24 2011-09-06 00:26:48 <EvanR> ill get in on these stupid clones when 'liquidcoin' comes out
25 2011-09-06 00:27:25 omegadraconis has quit (Quit: I cna ytpe 300 wrods pre mniuet!!!)
26 2011-09-06 00:28:30 <forloop> !bc,blocks
27 2011-09-06 00:28:32 <shadders_> not really interested in clones... just want to understand why bitcoin wouldn't adopt that change...
28 2011-09-06 00:29:01 <shadders_> ;seen gavinandresen
29 2011-09-06 00:29:06 orkaa has left ()
30 2011-09-06 00:29:30 <shadders_> !seen gavinandresen
31 2011-09-06 00:29:37 <spaola> gavinandresen (~gavinandr@pool-72-79-216-148.spfdma.east.verizon.net) was last seen quitting from #bitcoin-dev 2 hours, 16 minutes ago stating (Quit: gavinandresen).
32 2011-09-06 00:29:56 fnord0 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
33 2011-09-06 00:30:25 <phantomcircuit> shadders_, for bitcoin it adds little since causing a massive difficulty spike like happened to solidcoin would be *very* expensive
34 2011-09-06 00:31:30 <shadders_> how so? doesn't it just increase the resolution of market adjustments?
35 2011-09-06 00:31:32 <mtrlt> it's not the spike
36 2011-09-06 00:31:42 <mtrlt> it's the problem when a lot of miners quit suddenly
37 2011-09-06 00:32:12 theymos has joined
38 2011-09-06 00:32:56 <mtrlt> and that might happen if BTC price keeps falling
39 2011-09-06 00:33:22 <phantomcircuit> i doubt it at this point a fairly large % of the miners are operating on marginal cost alone
40 2011-09-06 00:33:29 <phantomcircuit> since they have long since paid off capital expenses
41 2011-09-06 00:33:32 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,mtgox
42 2011-09-06 00:33:33 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":8.03161,"low":7.1715,"avg":7.578915515,"vwap":7.589749319,"vol":34005,"last":7.31102,"buy":7.31102,"sell":7.39998}}
43 2011-09-06 00:33:38 <Diablo-D3> heh maybe I should sell
44 2011-09-06 00:33:50 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r36a65e41ead3 cgminer/configure.ac: Add a --disable-adl option to configure and only enable it if opencl support exists.
45 2011-09-06 00:33:52 <cjdelisle> shadders_: another problem with short difficulty is that nodes inherently disagree about the time, by making the time span really long, that disagreement has little effect, if it is too short then that is magnified.
46 2011-09-06 00:34:01 <Diablo-D3> everytime I sell a large part
47 2011-09-06 00:34:04 <Diablo-D3> the price shoots back up
48 2011-09-06 00:34:33 <shadders_> Diablo-D3: let me know when yr selling then...
49 2011-09-06 00:35:02 <Diablo-D3> sent it to mtgox, now all I gotta do is wait for it to show up
50 2011-09-06 00:35:57 <shadders_> cjdelisle: how significant can that effect be though... assuming most nodes use ntp which is probably reasonable we are talking about a few seconds discprepancy... and in any case retargets are not based on time but # of blocks...
51 2011-09-06 00:36:20 <Diablo-D3> yes, blocks is a unit of time in bitcoin
52 2011-09-06 00:36:37 aq83 has joined
53 2011-09-06 00:37:14 <cjdelisle> shadders_: think about the worst imaginable nodes because we're talking about how it will behave under attack.
54 2011-09-06 00:37:34 <Diablo-D3> well
55 2011-09-06 00:37:41 <Diablo-D3> if node time is -/+ 5 minutes off
56 2011-09-06 00:37:45 <Diablo-D3> they have trouble connecting to the network
57 2011-09-06 00:38:30 <vsrinivas> we should look at NTP for time sources for the client, probably.
58 2011-09-06 00:39:23 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
59 2011-09-06 00:39:36 <cjdelisle> That would work great as long as NTP servers care more about providing accurate time than they do about making fools out of the bitcoin users, clearly Satoshi didn't make that bet.
60 2011-09-06 00:39:46 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
61 2011-09-06 00:40:17 <Diablo-D3> vsrinivas: no
62 2011-09-06 00:40:19 <theymos> The original design was to combine NTP with network time. I think that would be the best design.
63 2011-09-06 00:40:25 <vsrinivas> Diablo-D3: no? ;
64 2011-09-06 00:40:26 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin should NOT do ntp itself
65 2011-09-06 00:40:28 <vsrinivas> theymos: combine how?
66 2011-09-06 00:40:29 <Diablo-D3> do NOT do this
67 2011-09-06 00:40:33 <vsrinivas> why not?
68 2011-09-06 00:40:37 <Diablo-D3> both windows and osx already supply ntp clients
69 2011-09-06 00:40:41 <Diablo-D3> as does linux
70 2011-09-06 00:40:48 <Diablo-D3> _just turn it on_
71 2011-09-06 00:41:01 <theymos> vsrinivas: Compare NTP, network time, and system time, and see whether there is an agreement.
72 2011-09-06 00:41:10 sneak has joined
73 2011-09-06 00:41:10 sneak has quit (Changing host)
74 2011-09-06 00:41:10 sneak has joined
75 2011-09-06 00:41:17 <cjdelisle> unless you're like me and you don't wanna
76 2011-09-06 00:41:20 <Diablo-D3> writing a useful ntp client is VERY difficult
77 2011-09-06 00:41:23 <Diablo-D3> so quit being fags.
78 2011-09-06 00:41:24 <vsrinivas> okay; (was wondering whether you were going to suggest a filter to combine them)
79 2011-09-06 00:42:15 <vsrinivas> Diablo-D3: don't need to write a heavyweight one; agreed that NTP clients are difficult.
80 2011-09-06 00:42:39 <Diablo-D3> you dont write one at all
81 2011-09-06 00:42:44 <Diablo-D3> both windows and osx ALREADY HAVE NTP BUILT IN
82 2011-09-06 00:42:52 <Diablo-D3> JUST TURN IT ON
83 2011-09-06 00:43:10 fnord0 has joined
84 2011-09-06 00:43:27 <vsrinivas> heh. ; if system time is correct (and it should be and all systems should have NTP on), why does the bitcoin daemon already not directly use system time?
85 2011-09-06 00:43:41 <vsrinivas> why does it mix in times from remote connected nodes?
86 2011-09-06 00:44:18 <theymos> I'd like time to work like this: If NTP agrees with system time or network time, use NTP time (not any averages). Otherwise, use the average of the two sources that do agree. If nothing agrees, warn the user.
87 2011-09-06 00:44:32 <k9quaint> we should write a new transport protocol to carry the time messages!
88 2011-09-06 00:44:43 <cjdelisle> whatdyamean 'we'?
89 2011-09-06 00:44:54 <k9quaint> good point
90 2011-09-06 00:44:57 <k9quaint> you should write it :P
91 2011-09-06 00:44:58 <EvanR> einstein proved that clocks cant be synchronized, why try
92 2011-09-06 00:45:03 <cjdelisle> lolno
93 2011-09-06 00:45:06 <shadders_> ok so I need clarify my understanding of retarget algo: at retarget block each node calc something like: new_diff = (T2weeks / (Tnow - Tlastretarget)) * old_diff
94 2011-09-06 00:46:02 <shadders_> does node use local time for Tnow and Tlastretarget? Or is Tlastretarget somehow agreed upon by the network....
95 2011-09-06 00:46:13 <theymos> It uses block times.
96 2011-09-06 00:46:30 <shadders_> in any case every node will have a different Tnow so how is agreement formed?
97 2011-09-06 00:47:00 <shadders_> theymos: so Tnow is timestamp from lastblock?
98 2011-09-06 00:47:04 <theymos> Yes.
99 2011-09-06 00:47:30 squeeboz has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
100 2011-09-06 00:47:55 <b4epoche_> is there a reason the "send via IP address" stuff is still in the UI?
101 2011-09-06 00:48:28 <shadders_> now there's a limit to time variance I believe... if node recevies new block and block time - my_time > threshold then reject block
102 2011-09-06 00:48:32 <shadders_> ?
103 2011-09-06 00:49:24 <theymos> Yes. It can't be more than two hours in the future, IIRC. There is an attack that exploits this. Something needs to be adjusted there.
104 2011-09-06 00:49:47 <phantomcircuit> iirc it's still exploitable
105 2011-09-06 00:49:55 <theymos> Yeah, it is.
106 2011-09-06 00:50:06 <phantomcircuit> you would need to pair it with a sybil attack though
107 2011-09-06 00:50:13 <phantomcircuit> so it's unlikely to be used in practice
108 2011-09-06 00:50:37 <theymos> b4epoche: I use it to transfer BTC between computers. It creates smaller transactions.
109 2011-09-06 00:50:38 <phantomcircuit> the problem is that the clock can be shifted +-2 hours but blocks are rejected if they're +- 70 minutes
110 2011-09-06 00:50:50 <phantomcircuit> so you can push 2 peers clocks in opposite directions and double spend
111 2011-09-06 00:51:03 <b4epoche_> theymos: can you even get to it in the UI?
112 2011-09-06 00:51:17 <phantomcircuit> but it's a ridiculously difficult attack that would require non trivial amounts of mining equipment
113 2011-09-06 00:51:25 <shadders_> right so with a 12 hr retarget there's potential for a up to a 2 hr discrepancy in difficulty to the downside = about 15%
114 2011-09-06 00:51:28 <theymos> b4epoche: Maybe not in the latest version (which would suck). But I'm using old versions.
115 2011-09-06 00:51:54 <phantomcircuit> some of the things changed in alt chains are just silly
116 2011-09-06 00:51:54 <b4epoche_> how do you do it in the old version?
117 2011-09-06 00:52:00 <shadders_> assuming someone with a bad clock found the last block
118 2011-09-06 00:52:17 <phantomcircuit> increaseing the rate at which blocks are found does absolutely nothing to increase certainty that the transaction has completed
119 2011-09-06 00:52:26 <theymos> phantomcircuit: The fix seems simple, so I'm not sure why it hasn't been done yet. Just don't let the network adjust your time more than 40 minutes.
120 2011-09-06 00:52:37 <phantomcircuit> theymos, neither am i
121 2011-09-06 00:52:49 <theymos> b4epoche: It's in the "Send Bitcoins" dialog. You also have to enable it on the receiving side with a switch.
122 2011-09-06 00:53:00 <shadders_> phantomcircuit: I'm not talking about the block rate... only the retarget interval... I get that changing block rate is pointless
123 2011-09-06 00:53:37 <b4epoche_> theymos: send dialog looks different than: http://snapplr.com/2dw6 ?
124 2011-09-06 00:53:53 <phantomcircuit> shadders_, just though id share
125 2011-09-06 00:54:05 <b4epoche_> or do you just enter an IP address instead of a bitcoin address?
126 2011-09-06 00:54:13 <vsrinivas> why does the client allow the network to adjust its time at all?
127 2011-09-06 00:54:37 <vsrinivas> (disabling that would solve this attack as well, no?)
128 2011-09-06 00:54:52 <theymos> vsrinivas: The block times are supposed to be somewhat accurate, and you could be segmented from the network if your time is too far off.
129 2011-09-06 00:55:07 <vsrinivas> if you have NTP time service, it'd be okay?
130 2011-09-06 00:55:11 <vsrinivas> (on your system)
131 2011-09-06 00:55:13 <cjdelisle> shadders_: you could speed up the retarget intravle but it would be of little benefit if it still used 1440 block sample. If you retargetted based on a smaller sample then all kinds of attacks on time would move from being academic to being practical.
132 2011-09-06 00:55:36 <theymos> b4epoche: http://i.imgur.com/sfcRd.png
133 2011-09-06 00:55:56 nwtspv has left ()
134 2011-09-06 00:56:45 <theymos> "From" and "message" are greyed out with address transactions. I see that they've totally hidden them now. Maybe using an IP address would still work, though.
135 2011-09-06 00:57:06 <vsrinivas> what is 'message'?
136 2011-09-06 00:57:08 <theymos> You can try sending some money to my IP address. I'm still accepting them.
137 2011-09-06 00:57:23 <theymos> It's sent with IP transactions.
138 2011-09-06 00:57:50 <b4epoche_> I'm pretty sure it's deprecated
139 2011-09-06 00:57:56 <vsrinivas> okay, but only then.
140 2011-09-06 00:58:51 <b4epoche_> but the code seems to suggest if you enter an IP (or any none bitcoin address) it switches to IP mode
141 2011-09-06 00:59:15 <theymos> Something like IP transactions will probably be popular in the future, as it can be used with more lightweight clients. Probably some better networking thing will be used that doesn't require port fowarding, though.
142 2011-09-06 00:59:19 BurtyB has joined
143 2011-09-06 00:59:45 <cjdelisle> integrate the namecoin transactions and then let people send to domain name ;)
144 2011-09-06 01:00:14 <theymos> Namecoin can't possibly work on lightweight clients, so they'd need to use a regular DNS server, anyway.
145 2011-09-06 01:01:36 <cjdelisle> dns is woefully insecure
146 2011-09-06 01:02:01 <cjdelisle> and dnssec is a bad joke
147 2011-09-06 01:02:15 <cjdelisle> x509 disaster all over again
148 2011-09-06 01:02:59 <theymos> I think it's better than x509 because at least you're doing business with the "CA" that you're trusting. With x509 random CAs you don't know can break your security.
149 2011-09-06 01:03:44 <cjdelisle> yea, they fixed that one thing but everything about it stinks. RSA-1024? This is not the mid 90's
150 2011-09-06 01:04:07 <theymos> Is that algorithm hardcoded?
151 2011-09-06 01:04:09 <cjdelisle> and ofc everyone is using RSA-768 because it's faster...
152 2011-09-06 01:05:11 <cjdelisle> IIRC they offered a choice of RSA-512 and RSA-768 then on the 5th rewrite when everyone was laughing at them, they bumped it up to RSA-1024 and RSA-768
153 2011-09-06 01:05:50 <phantomcircuit> and yet people are still laughing
154 2011-09-06 01:06:13 <cjdelisle> yea, as far as jokes go, it's the gift that keeps on giving.
155 2011-09-06 01:06:35 <theymos> Yeah, not a very good algorithm. Maybe ECDSA would have been better.
156 2011-09-06 01:06:56 <vsrinivas> wasn't wellknown when DNSSEC was in development
157 2011-09-06 01:06:56 <cjdelisle> And the packets are huge because they have a whole cert chain back to the root.
158 2011-09-06 01:07:07 <cjdelisle> patent paranoia
159 2011-09-06 01:07:10 <vsrinivas> (wasn't ready perhaps?)
160 2011-09-06 01:07:52 <theymos> Better than nothing, I suppose. Even RSA-512 is not *easily* broken.
161 2011-09-06 01:08:13 <cjdelisle> legacy dns is better IMO
162 2011-09-06 01:09:21 <cjdelisle> And I'm not a huge fan of namecoin since he didn't make any material improvments to how the chain is stored but I think it's quite a bit better than anything to come out of the dnssec meetings.
163 2011-09-06 01:10:24 ymirhotfoot has joined
164 2011-09-06 01:12:16 <theymos> Previously I thought that Namecoin was terrible, but I've changed my mind: I now think that it is better than Internet DNS and good enough to work. Though it could have been done much better.
165 2011-09-06 01:14:21 <cjdelisle> It's missing the part that makes the lookups happen and it's kind of hard to justify letting people who mined the first blocks "win" since it's really incomplete. However, that is the right direction and it would be cool if something like that were to make it's way upstream to the central chain.
166 2011-09-06 01:15:11 <cjdelisle> Still there's a lot to do, I would be kidding myself if I said there wasn't.
167 2011-09-06 01:15:50 <theymos> I think it' be better if the currency aspect was somehow removed from the DNS aspect. If you can do just DNS, then there'd be no need to keep historical blocks for more than a few months, which would be very nice.
168 2011-09-06 01:16:40 <cjdelisle> good point
169 2011-09-06 01:18:50 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rf10f8faefb9c cgminer/main.c: Retry before returning a failure to get upstream work as a failure to avoid false positives for pool dead.
170 2011-09-06 01:19:00 <cjdelisle> despite being someone who has almost no btc, I firmly believe there should be only one coin and forking should only be done if there is absolutely no way to integrate a change.
171 2011-09-06 01:19:21 noagendamarket has quit (Quit: Leaving)
172 2011-09-06 01:19:41 BurtyB has quit (Read error: No route to host)
173 2011-09-06 01:19:49 <cjdelisle> solidcoin's fast chain which provided (less valuble) confirmations faster could be implemented in BTC rather trivially through a modified version of p2pool
174 2011-09-06 01:19:58 BurtyB has joined
175 2011-09-06 01:20:03 <theymos> I don't think merged mining would be bad in this case, though I would not be opposed to putting the data in Bitcoin's block chain.
176 2011-09-06 01:22:43 <cjdelisle> Yea the problem with transaction spam is a problem of the "everybody knows everything" solution to proving nonexistance of a (doublespend) transfer.
177 2011-09-06 01:25:55 ymirhotfoot has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
178 2011-09-06 01:27:23 noagendamarket has joined
179 2011-09-06 01:27:31 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
180 2011-09-06 01:30:40 ymirhotfoot has joined
181 2011-09-06 01:30:54 pickett has joined
182 2011-09-06 01:31:46 <luke-jr> Namecoin is lacking in the regulatory area.
183 2011-09-06 01:31:58 <luke-jr> ie, there's no way to enforce a court order
184 2011-09-06 01:32:12 <luke-jr> Bitcoin has the same problem, but it's not as big a deal when it's all just numbers
185 2011-09-06 01:32:33 <luke-jr> when it's a unique item, however, I don't think it is rational
186 2011-09-06 01:34:27 <cjdelisle> Well there are a lot of things that don't move for a court order.
187 2011-09-06 01:34:35 <copumpkin> mountains!
188 2011-09-06 01:35:16 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
189 2011-09-06 01:35:35 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: yep, but domain names are unique and affect everyone
190 2011-09-06 01:36:27 <cjdelisle> I think that the security of the internet is important enough to everyone's safety that a court can understand when it is unable to make things go away because it is not technically feasible.
191 2011-09-06 01:36:55 <luke-jr> Namecoin is not the only way to secure DNS
192 2011-09-06 01:37:30 <luke-jr> whatever establishes the security tokens could intentionally accept a court's signature in lieu of the owner's
193 2011-09-06 01:37:47 <cjdelisle> x509
194 2011-09-06 01:38:22 <cjdelisle> Basicly you put your trust in some guy who is willing to accept a court order but promises not to do it for criminals.
195 2011-09-06 01:38:33 <cjdelisle> But what if the criminals capture his family?
196 2011-09-06 01:38:52 <cjdelisle> Do you expect anyone to let his family die for the safety of the internet?
197 2011-09-06 01:39:21 <cjdelisle> Real security is about putting things beyond anyone's control, even your own.
198 2011-09-06 01:39:35 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr noncerange * r2dd2ad48e7d2 pushpool-personal/ (msg.c server.c server.h): Implement noncerange extension (DRAFT, please review)
199 2011-09-06 01:48:50 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r73e33c092568 cgminer/main.c: Retry also if the decoding of work fails.
200 2011-09-06 01:50:31 Cablesaurus has joined
201 2011-09-06 01:52:16 wolfspraul has joined
202 2011-09-06 01:52:19 minimoose has joined
203 2011-09-06 01:59:19 JackStorm has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
204 2011-09-06 02:01:06 JackStorm has joined
205 2011-09-06 02:03:03 <ashrewdmint> What's the best way to detect if new transactions come in besides repeatedly polling bitcoind?
206 2011-09-06 02:04:28 <ashrewdmint> It would be really nice if you bitcoind accepted `changes_since [time]`
207 2011-09-06 02:07:02 ymirhotfoot has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.2 (IRC client for Emacs))
208 2011-09-06 02:07:19 tower has quit (Disconnected by services)
209 2011-09-06 02:07:33 tower has joined
210 2011-09-06 02:09:10 DavidSJ has joined
211 2011-09-06 02:09:19 DavidSJ has quit (Client Quit)
212 2011-09-06 02:10:09 DavidSJ has joined
213 2011-09-06 02:10:17 DavidSJ has quit (Client Quit)
214 2011-09-06 02:11:04 DavidSJ has joined
215 2011-09-06 02:11:23 DavidSJ has quit (Client Quit)
216 2011-09-06 02:11:56 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
217 2011-09-06 02:12:27 DavidSJ has joined
218 2011-09-06 02:12:57 DavidSJ has quit (Client Quit)
219 2011-09-06 02:13:09 noagendamarket has quit (Quit: Leaving)
220 2011-09-06 02:13:59 DavidSJ has joined
221 2011-09-06 02:14:08 DavidSJ has left ()
222 2011-09-06 02:15:10 DavidSJ has joined
223 2011-09-06 02:18:53 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * ra0a5858d15e7 cgminer/util.c: Use the presence of X-Roll-Ntime in the header as a bool for exists unless N is found in the response.
224 2011-09-06 02:19:11 <Diablo-D3> shadders_: sold.
225 2011-09-06 02:21:26 <shadders_> Diablo-D3: ???
226 2011-09-06 02:21:42 <Diablo-D3> [08:26:26] <shadders_> Diablo-D3: let me know when yr selling then...
227 2011-09-06 02:22:05 <shadders_> oh right... will start buying then ;)
228 2011-09-06 02:22:29 BTCTrader has joined
229 2011-09-06 02:22:36 <shadders_> except it's also axiomatic that when I buy price will drop so we have a paradox
230 2011-09-06 02:22:41 BTCTrader has quit (Changing host)
231 2011-09-06 02:22:41 BTCTrader has joined
232 2011-09-06 02:26:48 noagendamarket has joined
233 2011-09-06 02:32:38 <shadders_> any bitcoinj devs here?
234 2011-09-06 02:33:01 <shadders_> Trying to setup current trunk as an m2eclipse project...
235 2011-09-06 02:33:38 <shadders_> All is cool except the ECKey.java has half the bouncycastle imports recognised and half not resolved.
236 2011-09-06 02:34:30 <shadders_> I've got bcprov-jdk15-1.46.jar in maven dependencies and I can see both the recognised and unrecognised classes in the jar.
237 2011-09-06 02:35:28 <shadders_> !seen TD
238 2011-09-06 02:35:37 <spaola> TD (~hearn@80-219-50-52.dclient.hispeed.ch) was last seen quitting from #bitcoin-dev 3 hours, 37 minutes ago stating (Quit: TD).
239 2011-09-06 02:38:07 Astrohacker has quit (Quit: Leaving)
240 2011-09-06 02:38:11 gjs278 has joined
241 2011-09-06 02:41:56 ymirhotfoot has joined
242 2011-09-06 02:46:32 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
243 2011-09-06 02:47:06 TheSeven has joined
244 2011-09-06 02:49:07 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
245 2011-09-06 02:51:04 DavidSJ has quit (Quit: DavidSJ)
246 2011-09-06 02:52:21 surikator has quit (Quit: Scientific discovery is just maximal compression of strings. Nothing more, nothing less.)
247 2011-09-06 02:55:58 asdewi has joined
248 2011-09-06 02:59:34 MrTiggr is now known as MrTiggrAFK
249 2011-09-06 02:59:36 c00w has joined
250 2011-09-06 03:00:18 <shadders_> this is something to do with unrestricted security providers methinks...
251 2011-09-06 03:05:37 asher^ has joined
252 2011-09-06 03:10:05 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Alex Waters master * radb8a55 / README.md : Updated readme file - http://git.io/89Zj0g
253 2011-09-06 03:10:06 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik master * r3a7c4d8 / README.md :
254 2011-09-06 03:10:06 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Merge pull request #495 from alexwaters/readme
255 2011-09-06 03:10:06 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Updated readme file - http://git.io/CbrPSw
256 2011-09-06 03:10:59 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik master * rcc558f0 / README.md : README.md: word wrap text file - http://git.io/UIL8Ig
257 2011-09-06 03:14:03 brooss has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
258 2011-09-06 03:14:16 brooss has joined
259 2011-09-06 03:15:24 forloop has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
260 2011-09-06 03:16:05 bushing has quit (Quit: Coyote finally caught me)
261 2011-09-06 03:16:51 bushing has joined
262 2011-09-06 03:19:16 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
263 2011-09-06 03:19:43 copumpkin has joined
264 2011-09-06 03:27:51 fpgaminer has quit ()
265 2011-09-06 03:28:10 f33x has joined
266 2011-09-06 03:29:22 <alexwaters> does anyone know who can create qa@bitcoin.org and point it to my email?
267 2011-09-06 03:33:48 <forrestv> alexwaters, it looks like bitcoin.org's MX record is pointed at the host that hosts the forums ... so you'd have to talk to...
268 2011-09-06 03:33:50 <forrestv> umm.
269 2011-09-06 03:33:53 jimon has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
270 2011-09-06 03:34:34 <forrestv> alexwaters, theymos
271 2011-09-06 03:34:51 <alexwaters> forrestv: thank you =)
272 2011-09-06 03:35:14 c00w has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
273 2011-09-06 03:38:16 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
274 2011-09-06 03:38:47 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r2e192a2adaed cgminer/NEWS: Update NEWS.
275 2011-09-06 03:38:48 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r40750fc47d14 cgminer/README: Update README with extensive documentation about overclocking.
276 2011-09-06 03:38:51 jimon has joined
277 2011-09-06 03:40:41 f33x has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
278 2011-09-06 03:40:42 f33x_ has joined
279 2011-09-06 03:42:48 f33x_ is now known as f33x
280 2011-09-06 03:43:10 ThomasV_ has joined
281 2011-09-06 03:44:32 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
282 2011-09-06 03:45:06 f33x has left ()
283 2011-09-06 03:45:38 soap_ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
284 2011-09-06 03:46:31 f33x has joined
285 2011-09-06 03:48:15 ThomasV_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
286 2011-09-06 03:48:51 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r8a1ae4a371c2 cgminer/README: Updated FAQ.
287 2011-09-06 03:52:56 ThomasV_ has joined
288 2011-09-06 03:54:07 paul0 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
289 2011-09-06 03:56:32 cuqa has joined
290 2011-09-06 03:56:38 <cuqa> hello
291 2011-09-06 03:57:37 <cuqa> how do you deal with that immense logfiles at pushpool. can you rotate the logs without losing data
292 2011-09-06 03:57:51 <cuqa> or is it even possible to rotate them while pushpool is runnning?
293 2011-09-06 04:08:51 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * ra62b4e3e225e cgminer/ (Makefile.am configure.ac): Remove unused LIBCURL_CPPFLAGS variable which should help cgminer compile on other platforms.
294 2011-09-06 04:08:53 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * ra74554a2c449 cgminer/configure.ac: Bump version to 2.0.0
295 2011-09-06 04:11:09 <ymirhotfoot> MUST SHOW POWER OF LISP
296 2011-09-06 04:11:13 <ymirhotfoot> > (pp (map (lambda (i) (map (lambda (i) (random 2)) (iota 20))) (iota 20)))
297 2011-09-06 04:11:13 <ymirhotfoot> ((0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0)
298 2011-09-06 04:11:13 <ymirhotfoot> (1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1)
299 2011-09-06 04:11:13 <ymirhotfoot> (0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1)
300 2011-09-06 04:11:18 <ymirhotfoot> (0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1)
301 2011-09-06 04:11:21 <ymirhotfoot> (0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0)
302 2011-09-06 04:11:24 <ymirhotfoot> (0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1)
303 2011-09-06 04:11:27 <ymirhotfoot> (1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1)
304 2011-09-06 04:11:31 <ymirhotfoot> (0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1)
305 2011-09-06 04:11:31 <ymirhotfoot> (0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1)
306 2011-09-06 04:11:34 <ymirhotfoot> (0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1)
307 2011-09-06 04:11:37 <ymirhotfoot> (0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0)
308 2011-09-06 04:11:40 <ymirhotfoot> (1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1)
309 2011-09-06 04:11:43 <ymirhotfoot> (1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1)
310 2011-09-06 04:11:48 <ymirhotfoot> (1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1)
311 2011-09-06 04:11:51 <ymirhotfoot> (0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0)
312 2011-09-06 04:11:55 <ymirhotfoot> (0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1)
313 2011-09-06 04:11:55 <ymirhotfoot> (0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1)
314 2011-09-06 04:11:58 <ymirhotfoot> (0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0)
315 2011-09-06 04:12:01 <matth1a3> the matrix
316 2011-09-06 04:12:01 <ymirhotfoot> (0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1)
317 2011-09-06 04:12:04 <ymirhotfoot> (0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1))
318 2011-09-06 04:12:14 <ymirhotfoot> the inner ">" is the Lisp, here Aubrey Jaffer's scm, prompt, and the rest, ah
319 2011-09-06 04:12:18 <ymirhotfoot> ;)
320 2011-09-06 04:12:35 <ymirhotfoot> pp is the symbol for the procedure pretty-print, and the rset is standard Lisp
321 2011-09-06 04:13:05 <ymirhotfoot> well (random 2) is aprocedure that returns 0 with probability 1/2 and 1 with probability 1/2
322 2011-09-06 04:13:54 <matth1a3> ymirhotfoot: I think it's etiquette to use pastebin, nonetheless i'm impressed by anyone that has the patience to write lisp and/or read binary
323 2011-09-06 04:14:02 <ymirhotfoot> Note we found a block, if the difficulty was "5 zeroes".
324 2011-09-06 04:14:47 <ymirhotfoot> Oi, you are right! I will use pastebin from now on. Or lisp-paste if that is its name. I remember both.
325 2011-09-06 04:15:17 <matth1a3> i haven't seen many lispers in these parts, welcome
326 2011-09-06 04:15:23 <copumpkin> iota just repeats something?
327 2011-09-06 04:15:34 <ymirhotfoot> My formatting of the one liner was wrong. Ny convention it is absolutely not a one liner, because it should be on several lines.
328 2011-09-06 04:15:57 <copumpkin> I couldn't do that easily in haskell :(
329 2011-09-06 04:16:02 <copumpkin> but then again, :)
330 2011-09-06 04:16:11 <copumpkin> and, it wouldn't be that much harder
331 2011-09-06 04:16:14 <ymirhotfoot> Ah, almost. OK, no patsbin, only two lines:
332 2011-09-06 04:16:16 <ymirhotfoot> > (iota 5)
333 2011-09-06 04:16:16 <ymirhotfoot> (0 1 2 3 4)
334 2011-09-06 04:16:20 <copumpkin> ah okay
335 2011-09-06 04:16:31 <copumpkin> don't you have a "repeat" function?
336 2011-09-06 04:16:37 <copumpkin> I guess that wouldn't work
337 2011-09-06 04:17:29 <ymirhotfoot> Oi, offhand I cannot think of one.
338 2011-09-06 04:17:45 <ymirhotfoot> Ah, in the R5RS standard, ther is a do loop.
339 2011-09-06 04:17:53 <ymirhotfoot> But few Schemers use it.
340 2011-09-06 04:18:05 <copumpkin> λ> replicateM 20 (replicateM 20 randomIO) :: IO [[Bool]]
341 2011-09-06 04:18:25 <copumpkin> you probably want 1s and 0s, eh
342 2011-09-06 04:18:33 <ymirhotfoot> And you are right, if we wanted a million random lists of 0s and 1s, we swould not use iota, because of un-necessary waste of the heap.
343 2011-09-06 04:18:57 <ymirhotfoot> ad Haskell: I know a few haskellers. I am sure their one liner would be shorter and funnier.
344 2011-09-06 04:19:04 <copumpkin> I just wrotei t :P
345 2011-09-06 04:19:38 <forrestv> hehe
346 2011-09-06 04:19:41 f33x has left ()
347 2011-09-06 04:19:46 <ymirhotfoot> CANADA, YES, BITCOIN IS EVERYWHERE
348 2011-09-06 04:20:22 <ymirhotfoot> ;;bc,stats
349 2011-09-06 04:20:25 <gribble> Current Blocks: 144152 | Current Difficulty: 1777774.4820015 | Next Difficulty At Block: 145151 | Next Difficulty In: 999 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 6 days, 20 hours, 16 minutes, and 48 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1811618.55251082
350 2011-09-06 04:20:44 <ymirhotfoot> !ticker
351 2011-09-06 04:21:06 <copumpkin> ymirhotfoot: there you go: http://snapplr.com/9e4p
352 2011-09-06 04:21:36 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
353 2011-09-06 04:21:50 <ymirhotfoot> Thanks, but I must have the command wrong, oi
354 2011-09-06 04:21:55 <copumpkin> mapM_ (print . map fromEnum) =<< replicateM 20 (replicateM 20 (randomIO :: IO Bool))
355 2011-09-06 04:22:05 <copumpkin> oh, I was talking about the random matrix :P
356 2011-09-06 04:22:14 <ymirhotfoot> Ah, thank you, copumpkin!
357 2011-09-06 04:23:11 <ymirhotfoot> Good grief!
358 2011-09-06 04:23:20 <ymirhotfoot> You have one with a difficulty of 6!
359 2011-09-06 04:23:55 <copumpkin> ?
360 2011-09-06 04:24:23 <copumpkin> ymirhotfoot: also, you may be interested, but a guy implemented most of a bitcoin client in pure haskell :)
361 2011-09-06 04:24:30 <ymirhotfoot> 6 zeroes at the front.
362 2011-09-06 04:24:55 <copumpkin> oh, nice
363 2011-09-06 04:24:59 <copumpkin> that means I should solo mine
364 2011-09-06 04:25:10 <copumpkin> my luck must be good right now ;)
365 2011-09-06 04:25:19 <ymirhotfoot> copumpkin, I am interested. I am slowly learning the formats of the data of Bitcoin, and I have ahard time with C, even C++.
366 2011-09-06 04:25:33 <ymirhotfoot> ad luck: ;)
367 2011-09-06 04:25:35 <copumpkin> you'll want to darcs get r6.ca/Purecoin
368 2011-09-06 04:25:46 <ymirhotfoot> thank you, will do.
369 2011-09-06 04:25:47 <copumpkin> not sure if he's done anything with it recently
370 2011-09-06 04:26:22 <ymirhotfoot> WE THE PEOPLE MUST FINISH THE PURE BASH BITCOIND
371 2011-09-06 04:26:30 <ymirhotfoot> and deplay, that is the secret.
372 2011-09-06 04:26:46 <ymirhotfoot> deploy. We want to keep the play in it.
373 2011-09-06 04:27:48 <copumpkin> lol
374 2011-09-06 04:28:17 <ymirhotfoot> Is gribble not listening? I thought "ticker" was the command.
375 2011-09-06 04:30:47 log0s has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
376 2011-09-06 04:31:00 log0s has joined
377 2011-09-06 04:32:19 <ymirhotfoot> ;;ticker
378 2011-09-06 04:32:20 <gribble> Best bid: 7.05, Best ask: 7.055, Bid-ask spread: 0.005, Last trade: 7.01, 24 hour volume: 39575, 24 hour low: 7.01, 24 hour high: 8.02797
379 2011-09-06 04:32:39 <ymirhotfoot> OK, I forgot the special marker.
380 2011-09-06 04:36:04 sacarlson has joined
381 2011-09-06 04:39:57 <ymirhotfoot> gribble speaks a different dialect in #bitcoin-dev
382 2011-09-06 04:40:01 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
383 2011-09-06 04:52:30 <Dispositions> the hell, ticker's gap is huge right now
384 2011-09-06 04:53:24 <Dispositions> oh wait nvm .-
385 2011-09-06 04:54:56 <ymirhotfoot> ;;ticker
386 2011-09-06 04:54:57 <gribble> Best bid: 6.9432, Best ask: 6.95, Bid-ask spread: 0.0068, Last trade: 6.95, 24 hour volume: 42331, 24 hour low: 6.87, 24 hour high: 8.02797
387 2011-09-06 04:59:50 <ymirhotfoot> Bitcoin-devers! I put that bit of Lisp up, with output, because I thought I was in #bitcoin, answering a question.
388 2011-09-06 05:01:25 Kardos has joined
389 2011-09-06 05:02:06 f33x has joined
390 2011-09-06 05:05:24 toffoo has joined
391 2011-09-06 05:06:44 BurtyBB has joined
392 2011-09-06 05:08:12 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
393 2011-09-06 05:08:18 BurtyB2 has joined
394 2011-09-06 05:11:55 BurtyBB has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
395 2011-09-06 05:12:12 Daniel0108 has joined
396 2011-09-06 05:13:58 Lexa has joined
397 2011-09-06 05:17:47 ashrewdmint has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
398 2011-09-06 05:18:01 kakobreklaaa has joined
399 2011-09-06 05:18:44 Disposition has joined
400 2011-09-06 05:19:45 undeadslipcre has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
401 2011-09-06 05:19:45 Wack0 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
402 2011-09-06 05:19:46 nexes has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
403 2011-09-06 05:20:05 tKM has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
404 2011-09-06 05:20:05 amtal has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
405 2011-09-06 05:20:05 jandd has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
406 2011-09-06 05:20:06 `2Fast2BCn has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
407 2011-09-06 05:20:06 aCR-[i] has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
408 2011-09-06 05:20:06 vsrinivas has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
409 2011-09-06 05:20:06 Wack0 has joined
410 2011-09-06 05:20:22 amtal has joined
411 2011-09-06 05:20:27 tKM has joined
412 2011-09-06 05:21:33 vsrinivas has joined
413 2011-09-06 05:21:51 nexes has joined
414 2011-09-06 05:22:41 `2Fast2BCn has joined
415 2011-09-06 05:23:20 Incitatus has joined
416 2011-09-06 05:23:28 ThomasV_ has joined
417 2011-09-06 05:23:40 RazielZ has joined
418 2011-09-06 05:25:22 jandd has joined
419 2011-09-06 05:28:37 Stove has joined
420 2011-09-06 05:29:17 bender32 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
421 2011-09-06 05:36:27 BGL has joined
422 2011-09-06 05:49:57 BurtyB2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
423 2011-09-06 05:50:52 hahuang65 has joined
424 2011-09-06 06:03:34 BurtyB has joined
425 2011-09-06 06:05:03 ThomasV_ has quit (Quit: Quitte)
426 2011-09-06 06:10:19 <BTCTrader> does anyone know how do you run bitcoind remotely from a machine you are processing transactions on?
427 2011-09-06 06:10:46 <BTCTrader> this bitcoind has user accounts on it, etc
428 2011-09-06 06:11:09 <kjj> rpcallow=blah in the bitcoin.conf
429 2011-09-06 06:11:34 <kjj> er, my bad. rpcallowip=blah
430 2011-09-06 06:12:16 <kjj> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Running_Bitcoin
431 2011-09-06 06:12:22 <luke-jr> BTCTrader: bitcoind doesn't support users
432 2011-09-06 06:12:31 <kjj> make sure you use SSL
433 2011-09-06 06:13:27 <sytse> also make sure you formulate your questions such that people can understand them :P
434 2011-09-06 06:13:42 <BTCTrader> ok. i have never worked with rpc type connections like that before.
435 2011-09-06 06:14:26 <BTCTrader> rpcconnect would appear to do the trick
436 2011-09-06 06:15:53 Katapult has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
437 2011-09-06 06:17:14 Katapult has joined
438 2011-09-06 06:17:17 Stove has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
439 2011-09-06 06:21:34 noagendamarket has quit (Excess Flood)
440 2011-09-06 06:22:54 noagendamarket has joined
441 2011-09-06 06:23:15 wolfspraul has joined
442 2011-09-06 06:30:22 Akinava has quit (away!~lis@pff.eltel.net|Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
443 2011-09-06 06:38:14 BTCTrader has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
444 2011-09-06 06:38:24 Akinava has joined
445 2011-09-06 06:39:20 f33x has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
446 2011-09-06 06:41:00 BTCTrader has joined
447 2011-09-06 06:42:37 DD- has joined
448 2011-09-06 06:43:15 gjs278 has joined
449 2011-09-06 06:46:27 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
450 2011-09-06 06:48:52 Cablesaurus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
451 2011-09-06 06:51:55 asdewi has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
452 2011-09-06 06:52:27 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
453 2011-09-06 06:52:29 testx0r has joined
454 2011-09-06 06:52:35 testx0r has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
455 2011-09-06 06:53:57 MacRohard has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
456 2011-09-06 06:56:12 tcoppi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
457 2011-09-06 06:58:01 BTCTrader has quit (Quit: BTCTrader)
458 2011-09-06 07:08:01 larsivi has joined
459 2011-09-06 07:10:22 ymirhotfoot has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.2 (IRC client for Emacs))
460 2011-09-06 07:12:28 tcoppi has joined
461 2011-09-06 07:15:34 DD- has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
462 2011-09-06 07:17:25 molecular has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
463 2011-09-06 07:17:45 molecular has joined
464 2011-09-06 07:22:06 devrandom has joined
465 2011-09-06 07:24:17 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
466 2011-09-06 07:26:49 noagendamarket has joined
467 2011-09-06 07:30:27 <lfm> ;;seen artforzz
468 2011-09-06 07:30:27 <gribble> I have not seen artforzz.
469 2011-09-06 07:30:30 <lfm> ;;seen artforz
470 2011-09-06 07:30:30 <gribble> artforz was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 11 weeks, 6 days, 9 hours, 6 minutes, and 33 seconds ago: <ArtForz> eternal beta. hah, satoshi is secretly a google employee!
471 2011-09-06 07:34:19 DD- has joined
472 2011-09-06 07:34:53 <lfm> did you send me a msg earleir?
473 2011-09-06 07:35:16 <lfm> erlier
474 2011-09-06 07:36:58 <lfm> k nm
475 2011-09-06 07:37:34 twobitcoins has joined
476 2011-09-06 07:38:02 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
477 2011-09-06 07:38:11 <lfm> k no prob, sorry to bother you
478 2011-09-06 07:39:24 <ThomasV> hello. I am still banned on #solidcoin ; is there someone who could unban me ?
479 2011-09-06 07:51:53 erus` has joined
480 2011-09-06 07:56:10 noagendamarket has joined
481 2011-09-06 07:56:27 xelister has joined
482 2011-09-06 08:00:44 dvide has joined
483 2011-09-06 08:04:41 cuqaa has joined
484 2011-09-06 08:07:32 marf_away has joined
485 2011-09-06 08:07:52 wtfman is now known as wtfman[away]
486 2011-09-06 08:07:57 <mabus> lol
487 2011-09-06 08:08:00 wirehead has joined
488 2011-09-06 08:08:04 cuqa has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
489 2011-09-06 08:08:09 <mabus> probably not the best place to ask for help
490 2011-09-06 08:08:21 Burgundy has joined
491 2011-09-06 08:08:47 Burgundy_ has joined
492 2011-09-06 08:08:55 <wirehead> block 144159 contains 636783.50186464 worth of transactions
493 2011-09-06 08:08:59 Burgundy_ has quit (Client Quit)
494 2011-09-06 08:09:18 <wirehead> can anyone determine how much of those were mined during 2009
495 2011-09-06 08:09:45 <wirehead> http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000000091b0c6ddc46f1cca99fe5a28916eb2420e1b1d8e7a9cc3779a0
496 2011-09-06 08:16:06 nr9 has joined
497 2011-09-06 08:17:50 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
498 2011-09-06 08:19:55 <cacheson> wirehead: if I'm reading it right, it looks like there's a chain of transactions sending 3000ish btc from one to the next all within that block
499 2011-09-06 08:20:24 <k9quaint> They originated from this account, 13K BTC in it at one time http://blockexplorer.com/address/1442M9RZQjEVphBBDsvfCdACT3TTaEtbiJ
500 2011-09-06 08:20:26 <wirehead> yeah, it seems like someone sending money back and forth repeatedly
501 2011-09-06 08:20:52 <k9quaint> I wonder if those are the missing mybitcoins :)
502 2011-09-06 08:21:21 wtfman[away] is now known as wtfman
503 2011-09-06 08:21:41 fnord0 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
504 2011-09-06 08:21:59 d1g1t4l has joined
505 2011-09-06 08:22:43 asher^ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
506 2011-09-06 08:23:15 fnord0 has joined
507 2011-09-06 08:24:40 <shadders_> !seen gavinandresen
508 2011-09-06 08:24:41 <spaola> gavinandresen (~gavinandr@pool-72-79-216-148.spfdma.east.verizon.net) was last seen quitting from #bitcoin-dev 10 hours, 11 minutes ago stating (Quit: gavinandresen).
509 2011-09-06 08:29:18 pickett has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
510 2011-09-06 08:33:19 surikator has joined
511 2011-09-06 08:34:24 pickett has joined
512 2011-09-06 08:35:47 sytse has quit (Read error: No route to host)
513 2011-09-06 08:37:50 pickett has quit (Client Quit)
514 2011-09-06 08:43:13 pickett has joined
515 2011-09-06 08:46:30 Stellar has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
516 2011-09-06 08:52:28 KenArmitt has joined
517 2011-09-06 08:57:09 gjs278 has joined
518 2011-09-06 09:03:26 Akinava has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
519 2011-09-06 09:07:40 kakobreklaaa has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
520 2011-09-06 09:08:13 kakobrekla has joined
521 2011-09-06 09:12:52 kakobrekla has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
522 2011-09-06 09:15:33 kakobrekla has joined
523 2011-09-06 09:19:41 ryan_ has joined
524 2011-09-06 09:20:08 <ryan_> Hey I'm having trouble using the client
525 2011-09-06 09:20:12 <ryan_> apparently it crashed
526 2011-09-06 09:20:23 <ryan_> and messed up something with libdb
527 2011-09-06 09:20:25 <ryan_> and I cant
528 2011-09-06 09:20:29 <ryan_> restart it
529 2011-09-06 09:20:33 hugolp has joined
530 2011-09-06 09:20:35 kakobrekla has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
531 2011-09-06 09:20:40 <ryan_> help?
532 2011-09-06 09:20:41 <ryan_> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/k686o/why_cant_i_receive_bitcoins_in_my_client/
533 2011-09-06 09:21:46 kakobrekla has joined
534 2011-09-06 09:22:54 <xelister> ryan_: hi
535 2011-09-06 09:23:10 <xelister> ryan_: set me you wallet for inspection
536 2011-09-06 09:23:14 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
537 2011-09-06 09:23:17 <xelister> problem, customer? :}
538 2011-09-06 09:23:21 <xelister> *send
539 2011-09-06 09:23:33 <ryan_> ...
540 2011-09-06 09:23:50 <ryan_> I think I've got the right version of libdb
541 2011-09-06 09:24:09 <xelister> do you ahve backup of wallet
542 2011-09-06 09:24:14 <ryan_> yeah a few
543 2011-09-06 09:24:22 <xelister> backup the broken dir
544 2011-09-06 09:24:26 <xelister> install fresh bitcoin
545 2011-09-06 09:24:30 <xelister> run it on
546 2011-09-06 09:24:38 <xelister> then turn it off, copy backedup wallet and run again should work
547 2011-09-06 09:25:00 <xelister> if backup was made after your last generating of new receive address its guaranteed to work
548 2011-09-06 09:25:09 <xelister> if no, then depends on luck (keypool)
549 2011-09-06 09:25:20 <ryan_> ok
550 2011-09-06 09:25:22 <ryan_> well
551 2011-09-06 09:25:32 <ryan_> I've only got the "my first bitcoin" address
552 2011-09-06 09:25:38 <ryan_> and it was backed up nice
553 2011-09-06 09:25:40 <xelister> then it will work
554 2011-09-06 09:25:50 <ryan_> ok
555 2011-09-06 09:26:00 <ryan_> I'll go ahead and reinstall it
556 2011-09-06 09:29:46 <ryan_> yeah ok
557 2011-09-06 09:29:47 <ryan_> well
558 2011-09-06 09:29:49 <ryan_> good
559 2011-09-06 09:29:56 <ryan_> I can get the client running now
560 2011-09-06 09:30:02 <ryan_> I've only got 1200 blocks now
561 2011-09-06 09:30:09 <ryan_> but progress was made
562 2011-09-06 09:30:14 <ryan_> thanks
563 2011-09-06 09:30:20 <ryan_> The backed up wallet.dat
564 2011-09-06 09:30:31 <ryan_> has my addresses in it
565 2011-09-06 09:30:37 <ryan_> so I'm assuming it worked fine
566 2011-09-06 09:31:59 <xelister> yea you need to wait
567 2011-09-06 09:33:18 <ryan_> ok
568 2011-09-06 09:33:24 <ryan_> I'll wait for blocks now
569 2011-09-06 09:33:34 <ryan_> I guess wallet.dat is the only important file.
570 2011-09-06 09:34:59 <xelister> yea
571 2011-09-06 09:35:44 <ryan_> ok I'm going to reboot the comp now and let this run until I've got this many blocks http://blockexplorer.com/q/getblockcount
572 2011-09-06 09:35:49 <ryan_> probably will take a while
573 2011-09-06 09:35:52 <ryan_> thanks
574 2011-09-06 09:36:00 <xelister> no problembro
575 2011-09-06 09:38:23 ryan_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
576 2011-09-06 09:52:21 toffoo has quit ()
577 2011-09-06 10:10:57 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
578 2011-09-06 10:13:42 TiggrBot has joined
579 2011-09-06 10:15:16 d1g1t4l has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
580 2011-09-06 10:18:24 denisx has joined
581 2011-09-06 10:21:39 nullrouten has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
582 2011-09-06 10:23:10 nullrouten has joined
583 2011-09-06 10:24:21 DontMindMe has joined
584 2011-09-06 10:26:18 Prattler has joined
585 2011-09-06 10:26:35 asher^ has joined
586 2011-09-06 10:27:29 f33x has joined
587 2011-09-06 10:27:43 <iddo> ;;bc,stats
588 2011-09-06 10:27:45 <gribble> Current Blocks: 144187 | Current Difficulty: 1779163.943662 | Next Difficulty At Block: 145151 | Next Difficulty In: 964 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 6 days, 16 hours, 23 minutes, and 56 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1801322.53336435
589 2011-09-06 10:32:21 larsivi has joined
590 2011-09-06 10:32:40 noagendamarket has joined
591 2011-09-06 10:35:47 c00w has joined
592 2011-09-06 10:37:16 <UukGoblin> oh lol bitparking doesn't take solidcoin anymore
593 2011-09-06 10:39:51 <mtrlt> pretty much everyone gave up on it :P
594 2011-09-06 10:39:51 <doublec> yep
595 2011-09-06 10:40:11 <UukGoblin> took faster than I had thought
596 2011-09-06 10:40:15 <ThomasV> and I am still banned on #solidcoin ...
597 2011-09-06 10:40:18 m86 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
598 2011-09-06 10:40:20 <doublec> me too
599 2011-09-06 10:40:39 <ThomasV> wow
600 2011-09-06 10:40:49 <ThomasV> what did you do ?
601 2011-09-06 10:41:01 <doublec> realsolid says I was stealing his ideas and posting to the bitcoin development list to get them to adopt them
602 2011-09-06 10:41:09 <mtrlt> lol
603 2011-09-06 10:41:12 <doublec> so I went on and challenged to post links to them
604 2011-09-06 10:41:16 <doublec> so he banned me
605 2011-09-06 10:42:22 <ThomasV> heh
606 2011-09-06 10:42:23 <mtrlt> and that guy is supposed to develop the bitcoin killer :P
607 2011-09-06 10:43:17 <noagendamarket> Hes said they were on your blog or something
608 2011-09-06 10:43:36 <ThomasV> is he online now ?
609 2011-09-06 10:43:51 <doublec> noagendamarket: pointer to where they are on my blog?
610 2011-09-06 10:43:57 <doublec> noagendamarket: http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz
611 2011-09-06 10:44:08 <mtrlt> so instead of posting a link to said blog, he bans people >_>
612 2011-09-06 10:44:23 <doublec> maybe he means my post on temporal media fragment support for firefox
613 2011-09-06 10:44:28 <noagendamarket> lol
614 2011-09-06 10:44:33 <noagendamarket> who knows
615 2011-09-06 10:44:38 <doublec> or the one on safe destruction of resources in the ATS programming language
616 2011-09-06 10:45:00 <noagendamarket> if you post that you probably need to back it up
617 2011-09-06 10:45:32 <ThomasV> doublec: ok, he unbanned me
618 2011-09-06 10:45:44 <doublec> lets see how long that lasts
619 2011-09-06 10:46:04 <ThomasV> doublec: I will be quiet this time
620 2011-09-06 10:46:22 MacRohard has joined
621 2011-09-06 10:46:31 <ThomasV> I will only praise sc, and listen to the channel
622 2011-09-06 10:46:58 <UukGoblin> rotfl he's trying to advertise 1.04 as "solidcoin hardens itself" :-D
623 2011-09-06 10:47:31 Akinava has joined
624 2011-09-06 10:48:25 <ThomasV> hmm, some people keep bumping my 1.04 post ; he might notice it and ban me again :-/
625 2011-09-06 10:48:53 <Eliel> he obviously has a drama pattern in his behaviour. Please stop feeding it by talking about him :)
626 2011-09-06 10:49:13 <ThomasV> yeah
627 2011-09-06 10:49:16 <doublec> true
628 2011-09-06 10:49:24 <doublec> so, how 'bout that btc price aye
629 2011-09-06 10:49:33 <mtrlt> good thing i sold at 8.
630 2011-09-06 10:49:35 * doublec things that may possibly be a bad topic change
631 2011-09-06 10:49:39 <ThomasV> I look forward to 1.05
632 2011-09-06 10:49:46 SomeoneWeird has joined
633 2011-09-06 10:49:50 <mtrlt> i hope you mean $1.05 per BTC because we just changed the topic!
634 2011-09-06 10:49:52 <mtrlt> :<
635 2011-09-06 10:49:59 <doublec> haha
636 2011-09-06 10:50:05 <ThomasV> hmm
637 2011-09-06 10:50:06 SomeoneWeird has quit (Changing host)
638 2011-09-06 10:50:06 SomeoneWeird has joined
639 2011-09-06 10:50:14 <ThomasV> mtrlt: wrong channel
640 2011-09-06 10:50:45 <mtrlt> mm yeah :P
641 2011-09-06 10:50:50 <UukGoblin> lol
642 2011-09-06 10:50:53 <UukGoblin> yeah
643 2011-09-06 10:51:03 <UukGoblin> imho it'll drop below profitability for 5970s
644 2011-09-06 10:51:19 <UukGoblin> how much hashpower have we got in FPGAs/ASICs?
645 2011-09-06 10:52:27 <Gekz> er
646 2011-09-06 10:52:32 <mtrlt> profitability depends on your electricity price too
647 2011-09-06 10:52:33 <Gekz> in 10 minutes
648 2011-09-06 10:52:38 <Gekz> I've downloaded 500 blocks :/
649 2011-09-06 10:52:40 <mtrlt> so there is no "below profitability for 5970s"
650 2011-09-06 10:52:48 <UukGoblin> mtrlt, I mean with regular electricity prices
651 2011-09-06 10:53:00 <UukGoblin> or more specifically, MY electricity prices
652 2011-09-06 10:53:06 <xelister> mtrlt: 5970 looses probably some value per month, needs repairs. not to mention electricity cost for most
653 2011-09-06 10:53:12 <Gekz> I have port 8333 open, what's the problem?
654 2011-09-06 10:53:48 <asher^> Gekz what version?
655 2011-09-06 10:53:49 <UukGoblin> Gekz, I had issues with block downloads too... have you got any connections?
656 2011-09-06 10:54:22 <Gekz> 26
657 2011-09-06 10:54:25 <Gekz> asher^: .24
658 2011-09-06 10:54:38 PhilBert has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
659 2011-09-06 10:55:33 <UukGoblin> weird
660 2011-09-06 10:55:44 <asher^> ya
661 2011-09-06 10:56:28 <Gekz> it has no love for me
662 2011-09-06 10:56:32 <Gekz> and its SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT
663 2011-09-06 10:58:12 <Gekz> how many MB is the blockchain at now?
664 2011-09-06 10:58:32 <asher^> have you tried restarting bitcoind?
665 2011-09-06 10:58:50 <Gekz> yes
666 2011-09-06 10:59:02 <asher^> is it a crappy vm or something?
667 2011-09-06 10:59:10 <Gekz> I just got "27 connections" and now I'm getting around 100 blocks per second
668 2011-09-06 10:59:19 <Gekz> no ffs asher^, the network is just shit at the moment
669 2011-09-06 10:59:22 <Gekz> I think that's obvious
670 2011-09-06 10:59:23 <Gekz> lol
671 2011-09-06 10:59:48 <Gekz> had to rebuild my blockchain because I corrupted it a while ago
672 2011-09-06 11:00:20 <UukGoblin> you corrupted it? did you get permission for that from the devs?
673 2011-09-06 11:00:27 <UukGoblin> (lol, sorry, I'll stop)
674 2011-09-06 11:01:01 <Gekz> lol
675 2011-09-06 11:02:46 iocor has joined
676 2011-09-06 11:04:20 PhilBert has joined
677 2011-09-06 11:07:37 <noagendamarket> lots of blockchains in thailand
678 2011-09-06 11:07:55 <noagendamarket> but theyre all corrupted
679 2011-09-06 11:08:10 <xelister> Batman has the uncorruptable
680 2011-09-06 11:08:14 <xelister> blockchain
681 2011-09-06 11:08:22 <noagendamarket> chuck norris does
682 2011-09-06 11:16:12 p0s has joined
683 2011-09-06 11:19:01 xelister has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
684 2011-09-06 11:20:43 Incitatus has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
685 2011-09-06 11:21:40 xelister has joined
686 2011-09-06 11:23:58 Tamo has joined
687 2011-09-06 11:24:34 TheSeven has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
688 2011-09-06 11:25:00 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
689 2011-09-06 11:25:15 TheSeven has joined
690 2011-09-06 11:28:20 erle- has joined
691 2011-09-06 11:28:35 BurtyBB has joined
692 2011-09-06 11:30:26 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
693 2011-09-06 11:31:15 spaola has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
694 2011-09-06 11:32:42 b4epoche_ has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
695 2011-09-06 11:33:23 BurtyBB has quit (Read error: No route to host)
696 2011-09-06 11:34:15 BurtyB has joined
697 2011-09-06 11:35:55 Baksch has joined
698 2011-09-06 11:36:02 spaola has joined
699 2011-09-06 11:39:26 BurtyB has quit (Read error: No route to host)
700 2011-09-06 11:41:15 wtfman is now known as wtfman[away]
701 2011-09-06 11:42:05 WakiMiko has joined
702 2011-09-06 11:43:01 theszak has joined
703 2011-09-06 11:44:59 c00w has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
704 2011-09-06 11:45:06 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
705 2011-09-06 11:45:25 WakiMiko_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
706 2011-09-06 11:46:41 TheAncientGoat has joined
707 2011-09-06 11:47:42 theszak has quit ()
708 2011-09-06 11:50:11 sytse has joined
709 2011-09-06 11:53:14 BurtyB has joined
710 2011-09-06 11:54:34 minimoose has joined
711 2011-09-06 12:00:08 MUILTFN has joined
712 2011-09-06 12:00:23 tlocalhos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
713 2011-09-06 12:01:45 SomeoneWeird has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
714 2011-09-06 12:04:29 tlocalhos has joined
715 2011-09-06 12:09:23 b4epoche_ has joined
716 2011-09-06 12:09:29 KenArmitt has quit ()
717 2011-09-06 12:27:06 wasabi2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
718 2011-09-06 12:27:14 huk has quit ()
719 2011-09-06 12:33:13 sirky has joined
720 2011-09-06 12:33:43 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * ra79401b / src/ui.cpp :
721 2011-09-06 12:33:43 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Merge pull request #496 from alexwaters/boost_fs3
722 2011-09-06 12:33:43 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Support for boost filesystem version 3 - http://git.io/NWuHZQ
723 2011-09-06 12:33:44 Lopuz has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
724 2011-09-06 12:34:36 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * rc5eed9a / (contrib/gitian.yml contrib/wxwidgets.yml):
725 2011-09-06 12:34:36 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Merge pull request #490 from TheBlueMatt/master
726 2011-09-06 12:34:36 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Fix build process to actually work (yet again). - http://git.io/1_Guvg
727 2011-09-06 12:35:09 datagutt has joined
728 2011-09-06 12:35:14 datagutt has quit (Changing host)
729 2011-09-06 12:35:14 datagutt has joined
730 2011-09-06 12:40:34 surikator has quit (Quit: Computer is sleeping. I'm probably not.)
731 2011-09-06 12:48:48 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
732 2011-09-06 12:51:41 b4epoche has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
733 2011-09-06 12:51:42 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
734 2011-09-06 12:52:53 Lopuz has joined
735 2011-09-06 12:53:52 b4epoche_ has joined
736 2011-09-06 12:58:54 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rffa68cdaab99 cgminer/Makefile.am: Ideally we should like with -ldl for dlopen() dlclose().
737 2011-09-06 13:00:22 paul0 has joined
738 2011-09-06 13:02:17 aleks1k has joined
739 2011-09-06 13:10:22 brutecorp has joined
740 2011-09-06 13:11:50 brutecorp has left ()
741 2011-09-06 13:22:06 Clipse has quit (Quit: Clipse)
742 2011-09-06 13:22:49 b4epoche has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
743 2011-09-06 13:22:50 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
744 2011-09-06 13:27:36 gavinandresen has joined
745 2011-09-06 13:28:19 MUILTFN has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
746 2011-09-06 13:29:58 agricocb has joined
747 2011-09-06 13:30:52 GMP has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
748 2011-09-06 13:31:45 denisx_ has joined
749 2011-09-06 13:31:53 denisx_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
750 2011-09-06 13:32:14 denisx_ has joined
751 2011-09-06 13:32:46 <TuxBlackEdo> Why is it that everytime I click on my balance in the win32 bitcoin gui it copies the balance with an extra 2 spaces after the balance?
752 2011-09-06 13:33:28 Clipse has joined
753 2011-09-06 13:34:11 sha256trust has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
754 2011-09-06 13:34:37 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
755 2011-09-06 13:34:38 denisx_ is now known as denisx
756 2011-09-06 13:35:03 BlueMatt has joined
757 2011-09-06 13:35:34 BlueMatt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
758 2011-09-06 13:38:57 <diki> TuxBlackEdo:inb4blameitonthecoders
759 2011-09-06 13:39:01 <diki> blame it on the coders!
760 2011-09-06 13:39:42 Incitatus has joined
761 2011-09-06 13:43:12 shLONG has joined
762 2011-09-06 13:43:22 wasabi2 has joined
763 2011-09-06 13:43:28 IRCReaderBOT has joined
764 2011-09-06 13:43:46 egecko has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
765 2011-09-06 13:44:06 shirtwalk has joined
766 2011-09-06 13:46:48 IRCReaderBOT has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
767 2011-09-06 13:47:04 gp5st has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
768 2011-09-06 13:50:03 IRCReaderBOT has joined
769 2011-09-06 13:50:35 IRCReaderBOT has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
770 2011-09-06 13:52:19 IRCReaderBOT has joined
771 2011-09-06 13:53:38 <Lopuz> will i have a different wallet if i am on the testnet?
772 2011-09-06 13:54:18 IRCReaderBOT has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
773 2011-09-06 13:54:24 <phantomcircuit> Lopuz, yes
774 2011-09-06 13:57:19 IRCReaderBOT has joined
775 2011-09-06 13:57:55 <xelister> Lopuz: its in subdirectory in ~/.bitcoin
776 2011-09-06 13:59:55 IRCReaderBOT has quit (K-Lined)
777 2011-09-06 13:59:56 gp5st has joined
778 2011-09-06 13:59:58 <Lopuz> okay
779 2011-09-06 14:01:04 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
780 2011-09-06 14:01:14 cokein_ has joined
781 2011-09-06 14:02:14 Cokein has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
782 2011-09-06 14:02:23 cokein_ is now known as Cokein
783 2011-09-06 14:03:22 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin-Sanitytest build #14: FAILURE in 1 hr 2 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin-Sanitytest/14/
784 2011-09-06 14:11:32 ymirhotfoot has joined
785 2011-09-06 14:11:41 <ymirhotfoot> !ticker
786 2011-09-06 14:12:02 amtal has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
787 2011-09-06 14:12:03 <ymirhotfoot> ;;ticker
788 2011-09-06 14:12:03 <gribble> Best bid: 6.81761, Best ask: 6.85, Bid-ask spread: 0.03239, Last trade: 6.81761, 24 hour volume: 83799, 24 hour low: 6.122, 24 hour high: 7.90731
789 2011-09-06 14:15:35 ymirhotfoot has quit (Client Quit)
790 2011-09-06 14:17:14 lfm has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
791 2011-09-06 14:17:30 lfm has joined
792 2011-09-06 14:19:28 ymirhotfoot has joined
793 2011-09-06 14:20:02 ymirhotfoot has quit (Client Quit)
794 2011-09-06 14:26:37 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
795 2011-09-06 14:28:27 <shadders_> gavinandresen: can you tell me a bit about the proxy that mike's talking about here: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28049058
796 2011-09-06 14:28:53 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
797 2011-09-06 14:29:05 <shadders_> it would need to be c++ so it could be eventually integrated into bitcoind wouldn't it?
798 2011-09-06 14:29:30 <gavinandresen> No. It just needs to accept thousands or tens of thousands of connections, and relay message traffic between them
799 2011-09-06 14:29:49 Cablesaurus has joined
800 2011-09-06 14:29:49 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
801 2011-09-06 14:29:49 Cablesaurus has joined
802 2011-09-06 14:30:24 <UukGoblin> gavinandresen, ohai, did you get my email? :-]
803 2011-09-06 14:30:27 <shadders_> so one proxy in front of each bitcoind hub?
804 2011-09-06 14:30:47 <gavinandresen> Problem to be solved: bitcoind only listens to 125 connections. If lightweight clients (that only make 8 outgoing connections) are more than... 8/125 of the network, then the network breaks
805 2011-09-06 14:31:06 <shadders_> I presume this is for a more hub/client oriented model
806 2011-09-06 14:31:15 <shadders_> then yes..
807 2011-09-06 14:31:31 <gavinandresen> yes, as network traffic scales up bitcoin will have to evolve towards a hub/client model
808 2011-09-06 14:31:43 <gavinandresen> (actually, even before then, portable devices shouldn't be hubs)
809 2011-09-06 14:33:30 <shadders_> sorry if I'm being a bit thick here but... If you've got a proxy that can handle 10k incoming connections, it has to farm off the incoming to something that can respond... if you've only got 1 bitcoind behind it then you may be able to serialize all the incoming traffic but the 1 bitcoind still has to handle it whether it's parallel or serial
810 2011-09-06 14:34:20 TheAncientGoat has joined
811 2011-09-06 14:34:22 <gavinandresen> one bitcoind can handle the traffic volume just fine. It can't handle 10,000 connections (it'll run out of sockets)
812 2011-09-06 14:34:46 <shadders_> oh...
813 2011-09-06 14:36:02 <shadders_> so I'd be happy to build this but I have to ask... is altering the bitcoind thread model a big enough challenge to make it worth putting a seperate piece of code in front of it rather integrating
814 2011-09-06 14:36:57 <shadders_> sorry not the thread model.. I guess it's the IO model if it's connection limited..
815 2011-09-06 14:38:02 <gavinandresen> personally, I prefer the unix style of programming of cooperating processes that each do one thing really well
816 2011-09-06 14:38:32 <gavinandresen> that is NOT bitcoin, but I think that is because it started as a Windows does-everything-in-one-exe
817 2011-09-06 14:39:00 <gavinandresen> So yes, I think a proxy/hub that handles thousands of connections is a good idea
818 2011-09-06 14:39:08 copumpkin has joined
819 2011-09-06 14:39:19 <shadders_> hmmm... well if I put my hand up for this it's going to be java... is that an issue?
820 2011-09-06 14:39:43 <shadders_> I've done exactly this sort of thing in the last couple of weeks actually...
821 2011-09-06 14:40:05 <gavinandresen> Yes, you should write it in Erlang. KIDDING, JUST KIDDING. No, I don't care about langauges
822 2011-09-06 14:40:34 <shadders_> lol...
823 2011-09-06 14:40:47 <gavinandresen> (now somebody is going to pipe up and tell us how Erlang is the One True Network Programming Language...)
824 2011-09-06 14:40:52 <UukGoblin> high-performance multi-connection hub/proxy? yeah, erlang sounds like a better choice ;-]
825 2011-09-06 14:41:00 <gavinandresen> (and then we can have a nice language flame-war)
826 2011-09-06 14:41:03 <UukGoblin> ^ there
827 2011-09-06 14:41:08 <shadders_> poolserverj basically does this in reverse... though that's not what I meant by the thing I did in the last couple of weeks...
828 2011-09-06 14:41:10 <UukGoblin> at your service. :-]
829 2011-09-06 14:41:23 topace has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
830 2011-09-06 14:41:57 <shadders_> if you want 100K+ connections then netty is the tool for the job methinks...
831 2011-09-06 14:42:21 <UukGoblin> might be, might be
832 2011-09-06 14:42:48 <shadders_> so the key question... how does the proxy present to bitcoind... the other side is easy...
833 2011-09-06 14:43:08 TheAncientGoat_ has joined
834 2011-09-06 14:43:47 <shadders_> bitcoind needs to route traffic to destination node... how closely does it tie the other node's identity to it's network address?
835 2011-09-06 14:43:52 TheAncientGoat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
836 2011-09-06 14:45:30 <gavinandresen> the proxy should just like like a full bitcoin peer that can accept thousands of incoming connections.
837 2011-09-06 14:45:44 cronopio has joined
838 2011-09-06 14:45:45 <gavinandresen> it should respond to getblocks, should relay transactions, etc.......
839 2011-09-06 14:45:47 <lfm> bitcoind doesnt really route, it broadcasts doesnt it
840 2011-09-06 14:46:26 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
841 2011-09-06 14:47:37 nhodges has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
842 2011-09-06 14:47:50 <xelister> lfm: ye, afaik
843 2011-09-06 14:48:25 <Disposition> gavinandresen: no use Haskell :3
844 2011-09-06 14:48:49 storrgie has joined
845 2011-09-06 14:50:53 <forrestv> gavinandresen, can i get your opinion on the getmemorypool rpc call? haven't had much of a response to it
846 2011-09-06 14:51:09 <lfm> but ya I spoze ip address is the main id for a node
847 2011-09-06 14:51:19 TheAncientGoat_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
848 2011-09-06 14:51:24 <shadders_> I see.. so using getaddr as an example since I've been working with it all day... proxy takes a getaddre requests, farms it off to bitcoind to get response and pass it back... possibly caching result so if no new addresses come in before the next getaddr request it can respond without bothering bitcoind...
849 2011-09-06 14:52:15 <shadders_> in any case all requests go to bitcoind through a single channel so it doesn't have to deal with concurrency...
850 2011-09-06 14:52:35 <shadders_> proxy would need to be semi protocol aware I think???
851 2011-09-06 14:52:39 <gavinandresen> forrestv: looked harmless, and seems like a good idea.
852 2011-09-06 14:53:03 <Disposition> shadders_: what would it do?
853 2011-09-06 14:53:13 <lfm> different node could be requesting different blocks at the same time
854 2011-09-06 14:53:43 <forrestv> so ... what of the potential for pulling it? it is harmless, as it's behind the rpc interface :p
855 2011-09-06 14:54:03 PhilBert has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
856 2011-09-06 14:54:10 pumpkin has joined
857 2011-09-06 14:54:12 <shadders_> lfm: in which case proxy either serialising requests to bitcoind or caching results and preventing a lot unneccesary requests reaching bitcoind
858 2011-09-06 14:54:31 <gavinandresen> forrestv: maybe after 0.4 is out. There are lots of higher priority things that need to get done
859 2011-09-06 14:54:41 shirtwalk has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
860 2011-09-06 14:54:58 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
861 2011-09-06 14:55:01 <gavinandresen> (if you want it to be higher priority, then you'll have to get other people excited about it)
862 2011-09-06 14:55:32 <shadders_> forrestv: I'm excited... I don't know what it does, just lending support ;)
863 2011-09-06 14:56:04 <lfm> shadders_: is it easier to pass on requests to a bitcoind or to make your own block database?
864 2011-09-06 14:56:11 <forrestv> shadders_, heh ... it's a patch to let rpc clients get the transaction list out of bitcoind, so programs like p2pool can include transactions in blocks. see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/476
865 2011-09-06 14:56:27 <forrestv> would make creating normal pools easier too
866 2011-09-06 14:57:05 <gavinandresen> ... so get some pool operators to lobby for it....
867 2011-09-06 14:57:17 <forrestv> there's a bit of a conflict of interest there
868 2011-09-06 14:57:18 <gavinandresen> (first, get them to review the API and agree it is the right way to go)
869 2011-09-06 14:57:27 <forrestv> heh
870 2011-09-06 14:57:27 <epscy> i can't describe how excited that makes me
871 2011-09-06 14:57:43 <shadders_> lfm: probably depends a lot on the particular type of request... getblock would presumably have the same response no matter who requested so it would be a good candidate for caching
872 2011-09-06 14:57:45 <lfm> cant describe null set?
873 2011-09-06 14:58:40 <shadders_> not sure yet... I'm trying to get into gavinandresen's head atm
874 2011-09-06 14:58:48 <k9quaint> so did anyone figure out what was up with block 144159?
875 2011-09-06 14:59:08 <lfm> k9quaint: what about it?
876 2011-09-06 14:59:28 <shadders_> it would be easier if he wasn't real like satoshi then I could just make shit up and no one could argue with me...
877 2011-09-06 14:59:44 <k9quaint> lfm: it has 636783 of BTC tranactions in it, and in a wierd pattern
878 2011-09-06 15:00:02 <gavinandresen> I dunno how the thousands-of-proxy-node aught to work... I just want it to work, so we don't run out of connection slots when lighweight clients are more than 8/125'th of the network
879 2011-09-06 15:00:23 <gavinandresen> (lightweight or non-listening-behind-firewall clients)
880 2011-09-06 15:00:33 <Disposition> shadders_: well then you might as well design for the hub patch, and make the proxy/hub able to query last block data from the bitcoind and thus signing new transactions
881 2011-09-06 15:00:48 <gavinandresen> That's the great thing about the proxy project, you get to figure all that stuff out. And that's the fun part, right?
882 2011-09-06 15:00:58 <lfm> k9quaint: ya I have noticed someone seems to be trying to make a max size block recently. sounds like another one of those
883 2011-09-06 15:01:29 <k9quaint> that wallet also has 13K BTC in it
884 2011-09-06 15:01:59 <shadders_> Disposition: there's the crux... where to draw the line... it could easily grow to become a client of it's own if you got carried away
885 2011-09-06 15:02:43 <k9quaint> lfm: I wonder if those are the missing mybitcions (puts on conspiracy tinfoil hat)
886 2011-09-06 15:03:03 <Disposition> true. though i it's really the same goal, unless I'm missing something
887 2011-09-06 15:03:07 <shadders_> gavinandresen: true... ok I think I've got enough background there to start mulling it over...
888 2011-09-06 15:04:35 <lfm> k9quaint: looks like someone breaking up a block of 3250.00 btc
889 2011-09-06 15:04:37 <shadders_> Disposition: yes that's what I was trying to clarify... why not just make bitcoind capable of massive concurrency...
890 2011-09-06 15:04:58 <shadders_> maybe it's too messy to achieve without huge instability...
891 2011-09-06 15:05:05 <lfm> k9quaint: started in previous block(s)
892 2011-09-06 15:05:10 <Disposition> i don't think that's reallly needed, but more on the level of able to identify blocks -> provide data for transactions.
893 2011-09-06 15:05:17 <k9quaint> lfm: it originated from this wallet http://blockexplorer.com/address/1442M9RZQjEVphBBDsvfCdACT3TTaEtbiJ
894 2011-09-06 15:05:17 <Disposition> to sign*
895 2011-09-06 15:05:35 <Disposition> as it stands with block headers you can see bitcoins, but you can't spend them
896 2011-09-06 15:06:04 <Disposition> so if these thin clients can pull from a node that just dl's blockchain, and some how pass data to thin clients AND is a massive concurrency model
897 2011-09-06 15:06:08 <Disposition> it'd be the best
898 2011-09-06 15:06:15 <Disposition> I just haven't work out the technicals yet :3
899 2011-09-06 15:06:17 <gavinandresen> lfm: broadcasting a max-size block?
900 2011-09-06 15:06:21 pumpkin is now known as copumpkin
901 2011-09-06 15:07:14 <lfm> gavinandresen: not quite just 478034 bytes back in block 143885
902 2011-09-06 15:07:29 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: not to say lightweight clients won't grow in demand, but phones shouldn't run even that much
903 2011-09-06 15:07:37 <lfm> gavinandresen: new all time record largest bytes in one block
904 2011-09-06 15:08:10 DD- has quit ()
905 2011-09-06 15:09:52 TheAncientGoat has joined
906 2011-09-06 15:09:54 <lfm> k9quaint: those seem ok technicly just might have been better if they used a multi-output txn
907 2011-09-06 15:10:02 <gavinandresen> oh, lovely, the solidcoin folks are trying to break the main chain
908 2011-09-06 15:10:58 <shadders_> gavinandresen: let them die their own death... the dev forgot that a project is 90% marketing and 10% coding...
909 2011-09-06 15:11:24 Sedo_32235235 has joined
910 2011-09-06 15:11:25 <shadders_> destroying his own rep killed the project
911 2011-09-06 15:12:13 Akinava is now known as Akinava|away
912 2011-09-06 15:12:14 Baksch has quit (Disconnected by services)
913 2011-09-06 15:12:20 Sedo_32235235 is now known as Baksch
914 2011-09-06 15:12:28 <cjdelisle> lol Realsolid's handin out satoshi's I want one
915 2011-09-06 15:13:05 <lfm> such a generous guy
916 2011-09-06 15:14:34 storrgie has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
917 2011-09-06 15:16:36 <b4epoche> solidcoin satoshi's or real ones?
918 2011-09-06 15:16:50 <lfm> seems he is paying hefty fees to support his tricks so Im not gonna complain
919 2011-09-06 15:17:59 <cjdelisle> Anybody who says Bitcoin is not backed by anything is a liar or a fool.
920 2011-09-06 15:18:05 Zarutian has joined
921 2011-09-06 15:18:18 <cjdelisle> Each and every Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of drama on the internet.
922 2011-09-06 15:18:30 <lfm> of course it is backed by a lot of hot air too
923 2011-09-06 15:18:40 <vegard> meanwhile, the block chain keeps growing...
924 2011-09-06 15:18:55 <lfm> vegard: better than the alternative
925 2011-09-06 15:19:07 <vegard> that it keeps getting shorter?
926 2011-09-06 15:19:15 <lfm> or blows up
927 2011-09-06 15:19:39 <k9quaint> cjdelisle: if it was backed by drama on the internet, BTC would be trading @ 5,000 USD
928 2011-09-06 15:19:50 twobitcoins_ has joined
929 2011-09-06 15:19:52 twobitcoins has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
930 2011-09-06 15:19:56 storrgie has joined
931 2011-09-06 15:20:14 <lfm> prolly will be trading at 5.00 usd soon
932 2011-09-06 15:20:38 <k9quaint> whats a few orders of magnitude between friends :)
933 2011-09-06 15:20:53 <cjdelisle> hehe just as the price is sagging, someone has heroicly stepped up to create demand for bitcoin.
934 2011-09-06 15:21:02 <lfm> it all just numbers anyway
935 2011-09-06 15:22:13 nhodges has joined
936 2011-09-06 15:22:29 <gmaxwell> yuck wtf is with 143885?
937 2011-09-06 15:23:21 <cjdelisle> Realsolid has started #bitcoin-welfare, he's handing out 1 satoshi to anyone who wants one.
938 2011-09-06 15:23:59 Internet13 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
939 2011-09-06 15:24:07 ryannathans has joined
940 2011-09-06 15:24:15 <lfm> seems hes handed out about 7500 of them so far
941 2011-09-06 15:24:21 <ryannathans> I TOLD YOU ALL THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
942 2011-09-06 15:24:32 <vegard> 7500 satoshis?
943 2011-09-06 15:24:33 <lfm> ryannathans: all what?
944 2011-09-06 15:24:42 <lfm> vegard: ya
945 2011-09-06 15:25:07 <ryannathans> -.- http://pident.artefact2.com/block/0000000000000305f98ffbe1db8445ce847fb9a924551945b465386c828f136f
946 2011-09-06 15:25:09 <gavinandresen> it is the first step in a make-database-logs-big attack
947 2011-09-06 15:25:11 <vegard> great. so he is wrecking the block chain for no purpose at all :-P
948 2011-09-06 15:25:18 <gmaxwell> If this persists it will make it much harder to run a full node rather quickly.
949 2011-09-06 15:25:21 <noagendamarket> there is a purpose
950 2011-09-06 15:25:25 <gavinandresen> patch is here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/491
951 2011-09-06 15:25:55 <gavinandresen> noagendamarket: what's the purpose?
952 2011-09-06 15:25:59 Internet13 has joined
953 2011-09-06 15:26:23 <lfm> vegard: no, he's not wrecking it. it can handle his abuse prolly no worse than older spam attempts
954 2011-09-06 15:26:27 <noagendamarket> my guess it is to get someon e to patch it
955 2011-09-06 15:27:08 <gmaxwell> lfm: I don't believe any of the prior attacks resulted in 500k blocks.
956 2011-09-06 15:27:11 <noagendamarket> It like sending a petition lol
957 2011-09-06 15:27:25 <cjdelisle> is this attack documented? are they write berklydb ahead logs we're talking about?
958 2011-09-06 15:27:41 <matth1a3> noagendamarket: that's childish IMO
959 2011-09-06 15:27:48 <gavinandresen> cjdelisle: see the pull request, it describes the problem
960 2011-09-06 15:27:56 <ryannathans> the world is full of children
961 2011-09-06 15:28:09 <vegard> should getinfo take 2.6s to return?
962 2011-09-06 15:28:17 <MrTiggrAFK> niiice fix gavin
963 2011-09-06 15:28:56 roconnor has joined
964 2011-09-06 15:28:59 <lfm> only 1 block that size
965 2011-09-06 15:29:09 <matth1a3> vegard: that is approximately what I average
966 2011-09-06 15:29:14 <cjdelisle> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/491 <-- this one I assume
967 2011-09-06 15:29:18 <log0s> lol @ block 143885
968 2011-09-06 15:29:50 <MrTiggrAFK> cjdelisle: yep
969 2011-09-06 15:30:14 <vegard> matth1a3: it used to be faster, no? :-/
970 2011-09-06 15:30:33 <cjdelisle> Well I'd be happy to build one and fire it up just to get another node online
971 2011-09-06 15:31:03 <lfm> well ya more than one, also #143890
972 2011-09-06 15:31:14 <lfm> and #143878
973 2011-09-06 15:31:30 <matth1a3> vegard: not for some time
974 2011-09-06 15:32:09 <cjdelisle> I don't quite get why the mining pools don't crash when they try to build the block before it ever makes the chain though.
975 2011-09-06 15:32:11 <gmaxwell> lfm: I still like my proposed discouragement for blocks of unusual size.
976 2011-09-06 15:32:48 <lfm> gmaxwell: noteice they did pay proper fees to do it
977 2011-09-06 15:33:07 <ryannathans> notice*
978 2011-09-06 15:33:23 <lfm> cjdelisle: no need to crash if you have some ram installed
979 2011-09-06 15:33:34 <log0s> iirc there are some occasional ~500k blocks as early as last november
980 2011-09-06 15:33:53 <cjdelisle> Oh I see
981 2011-09-06 15:34:05 * cjdelisle has 16 gigs, time to fire up a node :)
982 2011-09-06 15:34:06 ryannathans has left ()
983 2011-09-06 15:34:06 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: lol that block is awesome
984 2011-09-06 15:34:48 <matth1a3> it's pretty ridiculous\
985 2011-09-06 15:35:15 <gmaxwell> (basically, "refuse to forward on a oversized block until its burried at least one deep", which would strongly encourage miners to have good anti-spam logic. And because its just a delay it doesn't require a consistent decision on all nodes, so full nodes could use their own anti-spam logic to make the call)
986 2011-09-06 15:35:32 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: yup
987 2011-09-06 15:36:02 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: same logic could apply to individual transactions
988 2011-09-06 15:36:28 <jrmithdobbs> someone needs to donate ~9k btc to me for a perfectly good use of turning the block chain to mush
989 2011-09-06 15:36:47 <jrmithdobbs> (let's encode the wikileaks cables into the block chain for posterity!)
990 2011-09-06 15:36:56 * jrmithdobbs runs
991 2011-09-06 15:37:05 <UukGoblin> does that block encode anything?
992 2011-09-06 15:37:36 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: no, from the sound of it its just a stupid attack.
993 2011-09-06 15:37:49 <UukGoblin> mh
994 2011-09-06 15:37:50 <UukGoblin> m
995 2011-09-06 15:38:12 <UukGoblin> it'll get interesting when someone puts illegal content in there
996 2011-09-06 15:38:41 <gmaxwell> No, actually it won't.
997 2011-09-06 15:39:05 <UukGoblin> well, good that we're good for now.
998 2011-09-06 15:39:18 <log0s> sorry, i guess there were some blocks ~200k as early as last november, but none near 500k
999 2011-09-06 15:39:27 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: Pi already contains all possible "illegal content", do you find that interesting?
1000 2011-09-06 15:39:28 <lfm> maybe just a link to illegal content?
1001 2011-09-06 15:39:28 <UukGoblin> interesting idea about refusal of spammy-looking block forwarding
1002 2011-09-06 15:39:49 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, yeah
1003 2011-09-06 15:40:02 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, I find it interesting how no-one tries to prosecute Pi for what it is
1004 2011-09-06 15:40:14 <UukGoblin> yet have issues with other numbers
1005 2011-09-06 15:40:24 <phantomcircuit> I FUCKING HATE PI
1006 2011-09-06 15:40:45 <gmaxwell> Well, not refusal. Delay. Refusal would gum up the distributed algorithim.
1007 2011-09-06 15:41:18 <DaQatz> phantomcircuit, try cak
1008 2011-09-06 15:41:21 <DaQatz> cake*
1009 2011-09-06 15:41:36 * UukGoblin can't wait for /raspberry/ pi
1010 2011-09-06 15:41:54 <vegard> what is all this latin doing in the block chain?
1011 2011-09-06 15:41:57 <DaQatz> Soon UukGoblin soon'
1012 2011-09-06 15:42:19 <vegard> and the religious prose
1013 2011-09-06 15:42:23 <lfm> vegard luke-jr is planning on transcribing the roman catholic bible to the block chain
1014 2011-09-06 15:42:26 <UukGoblin> vegard, luke-jr's testing :-)
1015 2011-09-06 15:42:38 topace has joined
1016 2011-09-06 15:42:40 <vegard> oh.
1017 2011-09-06 15:42:48 <vegard> why?
1018 2011-09-06 15:42:49 <lfm> You beleive me?
1019 2011-09-06 15:42:54 <UukGoblin> the upside is, he's planning to let his miners have a say on what the blocks should include
1020 2011-09-06 15:42:54 <luke-jr> vegard: lfm is a troll
1021 2011-09-06 15:43:33 <vegard> oh ok
1022 2011-09-06 15:43:39 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: pi contains the bits used by illegal content, but not in the same colour
1023 2011-09-06 15:43:58 <lfm> not in the same order?
1024 2011-09-06 15:44:05 <luke-jr> lfm: same order probably
1025 2011-09-06 15:44:08 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: sure it does, you just have to go far enough in
1026 2011-09-06 15:44:09 <luke-jr> but different colour
1027 2011-09-06 15:44:18 <vegard> luke-jr: are you religious?
1028 2011-09-06 15:44:20 <luke-jr> pi is all one colour
1029 2011-09-06 15:44:24 <luke-jr> vegard: I am Catholic
1030 2011-09-06 15:45:32 vragnaroda has quit (Quit:)
1031 2011-09-06 15:45:59 <lfm> so that doesnt really answer the question
1032 2011-09-06 15:46:18 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: he's super religious
1033 2011-09-06 15:46:43 <jrmithdobbs> his faith quantity is of course expressed in tonal so he can't quantify to anyone not running crazy nazi fonts
1034 2011-09-06 15:46:51 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
1035 2011-09-06 15:46:52 <vegard> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Incidents "More worrisome was the observation that arbitrary content can be inserted into a transaction after it has been released to miners, but before it has been included into a block"
1036 2011-09-06 15:46:55 * cjdelisle grumbles bazillion dependencies
1037 2011-09-06 15:47:03 <lfm> like are the preists who like those alter boys "religious"?
1038 2011-09-06 15:47:05 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: Yes, I linked that essay the last time it came up. I'd argue the same for the blockchain, at least for everyone not downloading it for the purpose of extracting that data. The extraction tool would be the problematic one.
1039 2011-09-06 15:47:15 <vegard> is this still the case?
1040 2011-09-06 15:47:46 TD has joined
1041 2011-09-06 15:47:48 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: nah, data extraction tools would be quite easy using genjix's libbitcoin
1042 2011-09-06 15:48:08 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: since it dumps it all into a split out sql db
1043 2011-09-06 15:48:08 <luke-jr> vegard: that sounds like FUD..
1044 2011-09-06 15:48:25 <cjdelisle> gmaxwell: You do realize that nobody really cares about the legality of it. It's going to be a PR disaster either way.
1045 2011-09-06 15:48:46 <vegard> luke-jr: "This was done via an arbitrary prefix on the ScriptSig" (sorry, forgot this)
1046 2011-09-06 15:48:48 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: genjix's libbitcoin doesn't actually find the interesting things to extract. The example would be a Pi dumper isn't problamatic, but one with the embedded locations of child porn in pi would be.
1047 2011-09-06 15:48:52 <luke-jr> vegard: still FUD
1048 2011-09-06 15:49:07 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: ah, ya, you'd need to know where the interesting data was
1049 2011-09-06 15:49:40 <UukGoblin> you'd have to be extremely lucky to find 4kb that form a picture in pi
1050 2011-09-06 15:49:51 <phantomcircuit> lucky?
1051 2011-09-06 15:49:51 <UukGoblin> not to mention a pornographic picture
1052 2011-09-06 15:49:52 <phantomcircuit> no
1053 2011-09-06 15:49:57 <gavinandresen> not lucky, just persistent
1054 2011-09-06 15:49:59 <phantomcircuit> a picture of something meaningful?
1055 2011-09-06 15:49:59 <phantomcircuit> yes
1056 2011-09-06 15:50:00 <UukGoblin> yeah
1057 2011-09-06 15:50:04 <gmaxwell> It's not 'luck', right.
1058 2011-09-06 15:50:14 <jrmithdobbs> ya, it's definitely there
1059 2011-09-06 15:50:15 <phantomcircuit> well i can show you a picture using pi
1060 2011-09-06 15:50:17 <phantomcircuit> easy
1061 2011-09-06 15:50:19 <jrmithdobbs> just a matter of where
1062 2011-09-06 15:50:22 <phantomcircuit> it'll just be white noise
1063 2011-09-06 15:50:30 <lfm> persistant wouldnt cut it, how many lifetimes will you wait?
1064 2011-09-06 15:50:46 <UukGoblin> phantomcircuit, I meant reasonable picture
1065 2011-09-06 15:50:53 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: i bet you could find a valid jpeg/png header much more quickly than you would think
1066 2011-09-06 15:50:59 <phantomcircuit> UukGoblin, i mean
1067 2011-09-06 15:51:02 <gmaxwell> lfm: well no one knows how to invert indexing into pi yet, but there is no reason to think it can't be done.
1068 2011-09-06 15:51:05 vragnaroda has joined
1069 2011-09-06 15:51:15 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: now, like phantomcircuit said, it'd just be a white noise picture most likely, but a picture none-the-less
1070 2011-09-06 15:51:16 <gmaxwell> Just as the fast forward transform was only recently discovered.
1071 2011-09-06 15:51:23 <gmaxwell> (well, ten years ago)
1072 2011-09-06 15:51:32 <hugolp> why the design change of bitcoin.org design and why is the css all wrong (chromium/ubuntu)?
1073 2011-09-06 15:52:01 <copumpkin> oh sweet, another meaning to give FFT
1074 2011-09-06 15:52:14 <copumpkin> I'm sure the fast forward transform will be much more useful than that fourier shit
1075 2011-09-06 15:52:26 <lfm> jrmithdobbs: I dont think pictures of white noise are illegal
1076 2011-09-06 15:52:29 glitch-mod has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1077 2011-09-06 15:52:29 <gmaxwell> (you can find digits arbitarily deep in Pi now without computing the digits ahead of them)
1078 2011-09-06 15:52:36 <copumpkin> yeah, I know :)
1079 2011-09-06 15:52:56 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: what if the picture of whitenois contains something stego'ed with a key you don't know that involves state secrets? then they'd be illegal ;p
1080 2011-09-06 15:53:09 glitch-mod has joined
1081 2011-09-06 15:53:12 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: getting the idea? ;p
1082 2011-09-06 15:53:26 <UukGoblin> jrmithdobbs, the whole idea of OFFsystem is based on that
1083 2011-09-06 15:53:26 <lfm> jrmithdobbs: I'd accept that. but I think your waiting for life times again
1084 2011-09-06 15:53:33 duck1123 has joined
1085 2011-09-06 15:53:39 <phantomcircuit> http://covertinferno.org/~phantomcircuit/bitcoin-malware.jpg
1086 2011-09-06 15:53:44 <phantomcircuit> i swear there is nothing hidden in there
1087 2011-09-06 15:53:46 <phantomcircuit> promise
1088 2011-09-06 15:54:37 <lfm> phantomcircuit: an xor one time pad type key?
1089 2011-09-06 15:54:48 <phantomcircuit> i swear there is nothing hidden in there
1090 2011-09-06 15:55:00 <jrmithdobbs> UukGoblin: that's pretty nifty, hadn't heard of that
1091 2011-09-06 15:55:14 <gmaxwell> In any case, right now finding data in Pi takes O(2^number of bits+number of bits-1) operations
1092 2011-09-06 15:55:27 <UukGoblin> jrmithdobbs, yeah it's one of the lesser-known anonymous/distributed replacements for bittorrent ;-)
1093 2011-09-06 15:55:58 <cjdelisle> hrm
1094 2011-09-06 15:56:06 <cjdelisle> are blocks downloaded in plaintext?
1095 2011-09-06 15:56:28 QueryTom3000 has joined
1096 2011-09-06 15:56:31 <cjdelisle> imean is the transaction output the same on the wire as it is in the db?
1097 2011-09-06 15:56:37 <phantomcircuit> yes
1098 2011-09-06 15:56:43 <cjdelisle> utoh
1099 2011-09-06 15:57:44 <cjdelisle> I guess you'd have to mine a block to make it happen but, tiny ancient virus in the blockchain will make AV software maaad
1100 2011-09-06 15:57:51 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: there is no encryption in bitcoin (well, except for wallet crypto now I guess)
1101 2011-09-06 15:58:21 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: LOL
1102 2011-09-06 15:58:29 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: i wonder why noone's done that
1103 2011-09-06 15:58:40 shLONG has quit ()
1104 2011-09-06 15:59:08 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: and no, you wouldn't have to mine a block to make it happen, just pay a fee to eligius
1105 2011-09-06 15:59:15 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
1106 2011-09-06 15:59:20 erus` has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 6.0.1/20110830092941])
1107 2011-09-06 16:00:55 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: shhhhhh
1108 2011-09-06 16:01:06 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: because when people bring it up, we hush them :P
1109 2011-09-06 16:01:19 sytse_ has joined
1110 2011-09-06 16:01:20 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: what's your fee to take non-IsStandard() txns again?
1111 2011-09-06 16:01:21 sytse has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1112 2011-09-06 16:01:28 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: doesn't matter, it'd be "standard"
1113 2011-09-06 16:01:28 <jrmithdobbs> i'm not doing anything evil, promise ;p
1114 2011-09-06 16:01:30 <midnightmagic> did dan kaminsky report this stuff to bitcoin devs?
1115 2011-09-06 16:01:31 <cjdelisle> I only said it because it seems pretty difficult to attack
1116 2011-09-06 16:01:38 <midnightmagic> or did he just report it to the conference?
1117 2011-09-06 16:01:53 <jrmithdobbs> midnightmagic: he didn't find anything interesting that wasn't already known
1118 2011-09-06 16:01:58 <jrmithdobbs> he just thinks he's special
1119 2011-09-06 16:02:21 <jrmithdobbs> he gave a good talk, though, at least looking at the slides
1120 2011-09-06 16:02:25 <midnightmagic> the ability to add new data to a transaction after the fact but before it's included in the block?
1121 2011-09-06 16:02:39 <Disposition> jrmithdobbs: 0.02btc iirc
1122 2011-09-06 16:05:48 <midnightmagic> "So it turns out anyone can add addtional data to an otherwise valid transaction" <-- is he referring to the actual transaction, like a single transaction itself?
1123 2011-09-06 16:06:06 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: dan contacted me before his black-hat talk
1124 2011-09-06 16:06:26 <midnightmagic> ah well that was responsible of him. I'm glad someone still thinks to do that after all.
1125 2011-09-06 16:07:12 <midnightmagic> hrm.. he's talking about tacking in additional data during the relay of the transaction to another node isn't he.
1126 2011-09-06 16:07:47 <cjdelisle> sounds like trickery with the ANYONE_CAN_PAY instruction
1127 2011-09-06 16:07:49 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: yes. basically, you can broadcast a transaction, then a miner can decide to put a different version of the 'same' transaction in the chain.
1128 2011-09-06 16:07:58 <gavinandresen> cjdelisle: no
1129 2011-09-06 16:08:32 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: it is worrisome because that changes the transaction id, and it seems like it might be possible to pull off some attack... although nobody has seen how.
1130 2011-09-06 16:08:41 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: Dan implies that anyone can do it not just miners..? Is it just miners, or can anyone relaying said transaction do it?
1131 2011-09-06 16:09:05 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: he's right, anybody can man-in-the-middle and modify before it relays
1132 2011-09-06 16:09:06 <midnightmagic> (He says that the signature can't cover itself and therefore the signature can be modified.. which implies to me that it can happen in-transit..)
1133 2011-09-06 16:09:14 <midnightmagic> okay, thanks Gavin.
1134 2011-09-06 16:09:16 <MrTiggrAFK> cjdelisle: it wudnt evn need to be a real virus - http://eicar.org/86-0-Intended-use.html
1135 2011-09-06 16:09:37 <gavinandresen> You'd have to be well-connected to get YOUR version of the transaction accepted over the initially broadcast one, though
1136 2011-09-06 16:09:46 <cjdelisle> MrTiggrAFK: Naw, av software will detect that but it won't kill processes or tcp connections over it.
1137 2011-09-06 16:10:05 <midnightmagic> yeah for sure.. or just really persistent.
1138 2011-09-06 16:10:08 <midnightmagic> and patient.
1139 2011-09-06 16:10:54 <lfm> it would look like double spending attempts I think
1140 2011-09-06 16:11:36 <midnightmagic> no because the bitcoins aren't changing destination.
1141 2011-09-06 16:13:00 <midnightmagic> it looks to me like (assuming Dan's not an idiot.. big assumption I know) the signature field can be modified in a way that an end-node can't tell the difference between the real sig and the modified sig without some kind of human intervention or data form checking (like, hey, this doesn't look like a signature bitcoind would make, I'ma reject this shiznit)
1142 2011-09-06 16:13:22 Stove has joined
1143 2011-09-06 16:14:02 <jrmithdobbs> midnightmagic: anyone can do it but if it's someone besides a miner it's a race condition since your modified txn has to be seen by the including miner before the 'real' one since otherwise it'll get stopped by the doublespend logic
1144 2011-09-06 16:14:22 <jrmithdobbs> teach me to get up and get something to drink without hitting enter, gavin already said that ;p
1145 2011-09-06 16:14:30 Titeuf_87 has joined
1146 2011-09-06 16:14:45 <midnightmagic> right..
1147 2011-09-06 16:14:55 <midnightmagic> =]
1148 2011-09-06 16:15:00 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, you're over estimating the difficulty of forcing propagation of a modified transaction and attack has the advantage of half the latency
1149 2011-09-06 16:15:18 <gavinandresen> It is worrisome, but I haven't been able to think of a way of exploiting it.
1150 2011-09-06 16:15:22 <jrmithdobbs> also getting a well connected node isn't as hard as you seem to think
1151 2011-09-06 16:15:30 <phantomcircuit> normally the client sends an inv and the transaction in full is sent in response, but you can simply push the transaction right after the inv
1152 2011-09-06 16:15:36 <midnightmagic> are you guys reading something I'm not? :)
1153 2011-09-06 16:16:12 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: ya since clients process txns whether they request them or not
1154 2011-09-06 16:16:23 <phantomcircuit> jrmithdobbs, exactly
1155 2011-09-06 16:16:25 <jrmithdobbs> which should probably be fixed
1156 2011-09-06 16:16:46 <jrmithdobbs> not just txns they process anything
1157 2011-09-06 16:16:48 <midnightmagic> phantomcircuit: are you reading a post or a file and responding to it?
1158 2011-09-06 16:17:02 d1g1t4l has joined
1159 2011-09-06 16:17:04 <jrmithdobbs> it's almost like it's a poorly designed udp protocol living inside tcp ...
1160 2011-09-06 16:17:07 <midnightmagic> phantomcircuit: and hey did that guy give you back the 512 btc?
1161 2011-09-06 16:17:22 <UukGoblin> what? modifying a transaction?
1162 2011-09-06 16:17:26 <jrmithdobbs> at least, the netcode for it is
1163 2011-09-06 16:17:29 <UukGoblin> more detail plz :-P
1164 2011-09-06 16:17:35 <UukGoblin> or a link or sth
1165 2011-09-06 16:17:36 <phantomcircuit> midnightmagic, no
1166 2011-09-06 16:17:39 <gmaxwell> ISTM this could be avoided by simply changing the rules to mandate that the signatures be in some canonical form after some block number.
1167 2011-09-06 16:17:57 <gavinandresen> .... i've been saying for a very long time that I'd love to see somebody implement a different bitcoin network stack....
1168 2011-09-06 16:18:08 <midnightmagic> lol
1169 2011-09-06 16:18:10 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: yup
1170 2011-09-06 16:18:18 <phantomcircuit> i've gotten nothing but shit for suggesting it...
1171 2011-09-06 16:18:24 <jrmithdobbs> .0005 is min txn fee per 1k using mainline client right?
1172 2011-09-06 16:18:27 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: from who?
1173 2011-09-06 16:18:32 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1174 2011-09-06 16:18:34 <midnightmagic> I'd love to implement one. I've always wanted something to tell me when weird stuff happens so I can ogle it and go "ooooOOO"
1175 2011-09-06 16:18:37 <phantomcircuit> bluematt for one
1176 2011-09-06 16:19:03 <midnightmagic> phantomcircuit: What?! I told you it was a good idea!
1177 2011-09-06 16:19:15 <midnightmagic> I've ben saying it for months to everyone who'd listen! lol
1178 2011-09-06 16:19:15 <phantomcircuit> >.>
1179 2011-09-06 16:19:25 clr_ has joined
1180 2011-09-06 16:19:33 <phantomcircuit> i distinctly remember getting shit about it
1181 2011-09-06 16:19:37 <midnightmagic> phantomcircuit: Oh.. wait you're talking about canonical sig, or new network stack?
1182 2011-09-06 16:19:44 <phantomcircuit> network stack
1183 2011-09-06 16:19:45 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: build an alternate stack and a dual-stack 'bridge' and I'll be a happy camper
1184 2011-09-06 16:19:46 <UukGoblin> sorry, I've missed something.. can you rewrite transactions when being in the middle?
1185 2011-09-06 16:20:00 <midnightmagic> wtf when you first started talking about building it, I said it was a good idea! lol
1186 2011-09-06 16:20:07 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: no, not really, but the signature is malleable.
1187 2011-09-06 16:20:10 <jrmithdobbs> UukGoblin: you can't change the txin/out info but you can add arbitrary data to them
1188 2011-09-06 16:20:19 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, easier that you'd think i beleive
1189 2011-09-06 16:20:31 <phantomcircuit> jrmithdobbs, lol what
1190 2011-09-06 16:20:32 <phantomcircuit> link?
1191 2011-09-06 16:20:33 <UukGoblin> so how is it a problem?
1192 2011-09-06 16:20:40 <phantomcircuit> oh right
1193 2011-09-06 16:20:49 <phantomcircuit> because of the checksig signaturetype's
1194 2011-09-06 16:20:55 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: it's in the talk gavin/midnightmagic were talking about
1195 2011-09-06 16:21:24 <midnightmagic> It's just a problem if you mind parasitic data consuming up the bandwidth you've already paid for I guess.
1196 2011-09-06 16:21:58 <cjdelisle> Is there somewhere I could look to see exactly what is hashed over in a transaction?
1197 2011-09-06 16:22:15 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: everything except the signature, because, duh.
1198 2011-09-06 16:22:26 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1199 2011-09-06 16:22:26 <UukGoblin> can you add some magic script stuff to affect the outcome of the script-run and pay someone else instead?
1200 2011-09-06 16:22:27 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, that's not right actually
1201 2011-09-06 16:22:32 <phantomcircuit> it depends on the signature type
1202 2011-09-06 16:22:43 <phantomcircuit> cjdelisle, SignatureHash
1203 2011-09-06 16:22:44 <gmaxwell> well, you mask the other inputs too.
1204 2011-09-06 16:23:20 nr9 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1205 2011-09-06 16:23:25 <cjdelisle> If it only hashed the inputs then you could leave the outputs out of the chain. You only need the inputs to prove that a coin was not doublespent.
1206 2011-09-06 16:23:32 <phantomcircuit> kaminsky is boring
1207 2011-09-06 16:23:46 <phantomcircuit> that dns shit was actually known about for a long time
1208 2011-09-06 16:23:49 <phantomcircuit> but nobody gave a shit
1209 2011-09-06 16:23:56 <cjdelisle> ^
1210 2011-09-06 16:23:58 <phantomcircuit> since it's pretty much impossible to exploit and has always been
1211 2011-09-06 16:24:13 <jrmithdobbs> which dns thing?
1212 2011-09-06 16:24:25 <phantomcircuit> dns spoofing by guessing the src port
1213 2011-09-06 16:24:25 <gmaxwell> His last claim to fame.
1214 2011-09-06 16:24:26 <jrmithdobbs> i thought his stuff on syncookies was interesting in that talk tho
1215 2011-09-06 16:24:39 <phantomcircuit> jrmithdobbs, you have a link to the talk?
1216 2011-09-06 16:24:44 <jrmithdobbs> not handy
1217 2011-09-06 16:24:49 <jrmithdobbs> it's on his blog
1218 2011-09-06 16:25:43 <cjdelisle> Most of the spam attacks seem to be on the outputs and outputs are only needed to validate a particular transfer. They are not needed to prove the absence of a past doublespend.
1219 2011-09-06 16:26:21 <midnightmagic> WHOAH lol some upnp is open on external ports?!
1220 2011-09-06 16:26:29 <midnightmagic> I gotta read bugtraq more
1221 2011-09-06 16:26:42 <cjdelisle> I could see it working where the payer hands over the liniage of that payment to the payee so that the whole network doesn't have to bother with it.
1222 2011-09-06 16:27:30 <midnightmagic> ah I never liked upnp anyway..
1223 2011-09-06 16:28:15 <lfm> isnt that the whole idea of upnp, to open up external ports?
1224 2011-09-06 16:28:21 QueryTom3000 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1225 2011-09-06 16:28:30 <iz> cjdelisle: how does the payee verify that payer isn't giving them incomplete information?
1226 2011-09-06 16:28:34 <phantomcircuit> jrmithdobbs, lol slide # 11 is just plain wrong
1227 2011-09-06 16:28:42 <phantomcircuit> "potential 50% savings"
1228 2011-09-06 16:28:46 <phantomcircuit> hurrr
1229 2011-09-06 16:29:07 <cjdelisle> iz: because the inputs are in the chain, you map input to output and make sure there are no other inputs in between.
1230 2011-09-06 16:30:18 <cjdelisle> You need to prove absence of extranious inputs and presence of the outputs, proving presence is something the payer can do.
1231 2011-09-06 16:30:58 <cjdelisle> ofc giant massive breaking change that will never be implemented :/
1232 2011-09-06 16:32:38 <cjdelisle> <3 multiprocess build
1233 2011-09-06 16:32:47 <iz> cjdelisle: what if the payer makes a payment that has 10 extra outputs that don't match any inputs?
1234 2011-09-06 16:33:03 <cjdelisle> then he is lying
1235 2011-09-06 16:33:06 asher^ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1236 2011-09-06 16:33:13 <cjdelisle> and you should not accept his money
1237 2011-09-06 16:33:19 <midnightmagic> lfm: Yeah sure, but outside people shouldn't be able to do it. :)
1238 2011-09-06 16:35:04 <iz> how would you match input to output? just by the amount? or amount and bitcoin addr, i suppose?
1239 2011-09-06 16:35:12 <cjdelisle> I thought btc took a long time to build, 30 seconds o_O
1240 2011-09-06 16:35:36 <iz> are you really saving anything by omitting the output from the public blockchain if you need to encode all that information anyway for "just the inputs"
1241 2011-09-06 16:35:39 <cjdelisle> no that would only work if the inputs also contained a hash of the outputs
1242 2011-09-06 16:35:52 <cjdelisle> otherwise hehe
1243 2011-09-06 16:37:28 erus` has joined
1244 2011-09-06 16:40:40 Backburn has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1245 2011-09-06 16:41:59 jimb0 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1246 2011-09-06 16:44:46 ThomasV has joined
1247 2011-09-06 16:44:57 <makomk> http://pastebin.com/Vf6gL1ME - does this look relatively sensible in terms of not doing a full Merkle tree update for every getwork?
1248 2011-09-06 16:46:03 clr_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1249 2011-09-06 16:46:31 <lfm> makomk: you should only need to update the branch of the tree that you are changing
1250 2011-09-06 16:46:55 <lfm> the branch thru to the root
1251 2011-09-06 16:47:57 Diablo-D3 has joined
1252 2011-09-06 16:47:59 <makomk> Yeah, that's hopefully what that patch achieves, but there may be better ways to do it...
1253 2011-09-06 16:49:03 jimb0 has joined
1254 2011-09-06 16:49:36 <lfm> makomk: I spoze the point is that most trees are actually quite small so you dont want to get too complex, just recacling the whole thing may be as good as any
1255 2011-09-06 16:49:39 MacRohard has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1256 2011-09-06 16:50:17 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1257 2011-09-06 16:50:19 <cjdelisle> Hey, we should put up a portscanner on like bitcoin.org and/or the forum. [Click here to see if you are globally reachable]
1258 2011-09-06 16:50:26 <cjdelisle> s/we/you/
1259 2011-09-06 16:51:02 * cjdelisle uses shieldsup to see if he got the nat chain forwarded correctly
1260 2011-09-06 16:53:42 <phantomcircuit> tcatm, hey
1261 2011-09-06 16:54:09 d1g1t4l has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1262 2011-09-06 16:55:20 <midnightmagic> who's Joel Katz? Is he okay?
1263 2011-09-06 16:56:03 <cjdelisle> !bc,blocks
1264 2011-09-06 16:56:44 Ramen has joined
1265 2011-09-06 16:56:47 <lfm> cjdelisle: you must have a good machine, best I can do is like 80 sec
1266 2011-09-06 16:57:07 <lfm> ;;bc,blocks
1267 2011-09-06 16:57:08 <gribble> 144222
1268 2011-09-06 16:57:13 <cjdelisle> thx
1269 2011-09-06 16:57:17 <cjdelisle> I used -j 6
1270 2011-09-06 16:57:32 <cjdelisle> because I expected to be in for the long haul
1271 2011-09-06 16:57:41 <lfm> -j 2 is best for my system atm
1272 2011-09-06 16:58:01 <cjdelisle> -j 7 works, -j 8 --> kernel panic
1273 2011-09-06 16:58:30 <lfm> eeww, bad ram or something? shouldnt panic
1274 2011-09-06 16:58:50 * phantomcircuit builds with -j
1275 2011-09-06 16:59:07 <cjdelisle> naw, it's all ecc ram, I think it's just a bit of a weird chip and some stuff just sets it off
1276 2011-09-06 16:59:37 <cjdelisle> 2 dies in one module == weird
1277 2011-09-06 16:59:39 <lfm> do you have any swap set up? maybe it is running out
1278 2011-09-06 16:59:46 <cjdelisle> lol
1279 2011-09-06 16:59:52 <cjdelisle> 16gb of ram
1280 2011-09-06 16:59:59 TheAncientGoat has joined
1281 2011-09-06 17:00:11 <lfm> yup -j8 might use 16gb
1282 2011-09-06 17:00:16 <phantomcircuit> easily
1283 2011-09-06 17:00:34 <phantomcircuit> each gcc instance peaks at 2.1 gb iirc
1284 2011-09-06 17:00:38 <cjdelisle> actually it was only 8 when I was playing with it (time testing building the kernel)
1285 2011-09-06 17:00:53 <phantomcircuit> gets worse if you're io is saturated
1286 2011-09-06 17:01:29 <cjdelisle> wow this block chain validation alfo needs some tlc
1287 2011-09-06 17:01:41 <lfm> it why I peak at -j2 with 2gb even tho I have 4 cores
1288 2011-09-06 17:02:24 <lfm> I need swap at that
1289 2011-09-06 17:02:47 forloop has joined
1290 2011-09-06 17:03:00 <cjdelisle> haha I bet you could cheat really bad by just downloading/validating sections of the chain then mating them together
1291 2011-09-06 17:03:27 <lfm> thats not cheating really, just optimizing
1292 2011-09-06 17:04:05 <cjdelisle> could probably do it in forked processes, no threading headaches necessary =]
1293 2011-09-06 17:04:16 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1294 2011-09-06 17:04:56 <lfm> cjdelisle: yup download from several nodes at once, would be much better end result
1295 2011-09-06 17:06:57 twobitcoins_ is now known as twobitcoins
1296 2011-09-06 17:07:42 BTC_away is now known as BTCTrader_
1297 2011-09-06 17:08:36 iocor has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1298 2011-09-06 17:09:23 Blitzboom_ has joined
1299 2011-09-06 17:11:28 Blitzboom has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1300 2011-09-06 17:14:17 <cjdelisle> I see what makes it complex, you spawn a thread/process and pipe it a section of chain and it pipes you back a list of transaction claims which must be valid in order for that section of chain to be valid.
1301 2011-09-06 17:15:00 Lopuz has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1302 2011-09-06 17:15:01 <cjdelisle> and if you're clever, you have it also pipe you a list of transaction sigScripts which are unclimed so that you can match them with the next section of chain
1303 2011-09-06 17:15:08 RobinPKR_ has joined
1304 2011-09-06 17:15:10 <cjdelisle> a bit like a mergesort
1305 2011-09-06 17:16:26 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1306 2011-09-06 17:16:27 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
1307 2011-09-06 17:22:22 Blitzboom_ is now known as Blitzboom
1308 2011-09-06 17:22:29 Blitzboom has quit (Changing host)
1309 2011-09-06 17:22:29 Blitzboom has joined
1310 2011-09-06 17:24:40 QueryTom3000 has joined
1311 2011-09-06 17:28:35 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Han Lin Yap master * re032099 / locale/readme.txt : Add a note to only include .po file - http://git.io/OowQUA
1312 2011-09-06 17:28:36 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * rdc0c768 / locale/readme.txt :
1313 2011-09-06 17:28:36 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Merge pull request #499 from codler/patch-3
1314 2011-09-06 17:28:36 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Add a note to only include .po file - http://git.io/x7HxYA
1315 2011-09-06 17:31:39 joepie91 has quit (laptop!~joepie91@s514735fe.adsl.wanadoo.nl|Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1316 2011-09-06 17:39:57 <cjdelisle> Hmm it spent like 2 minutes on block 114066 and was using 0 processor.
1317 2011-09-06 17:40:26 tynx has joined
1318 2011-09-06 17:40:44 Baksch has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1319 2011-09-06 17:41:00 <Blitzboom> is bitcoin a bubble?
1320 2011-09-06 17:41:40 <ThomasV> yes
1321 2011-09-06 17:42:25 <ThomasV> a bubble that you can download
1322 2011-09-06 17:46:13 <Blitzboom> are bubbles a scam?
1323 2011-09-06 17:46:33 brunner has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1324 2011-09-06 17:47:09 <luke-jr> yeah
1325 2011-09-06 17:47:12 <luke-jr> run out too fast
1326 2011-09-06 17:47:22 <luke-jr> gotta go shopping and buy more bubbles
1327 2011-09-06 17:47:25 <log0s> lol
1328 2011-09-06 17:47:54 <Blitzboom> are investors or the exchange rate of any priority to devs?
1329 2011-09-06 17:48:12 <log0s> Blitzboom: doubtful
1330 2011-09-06 17:50:57 huk has joined
1331 2011-09-06 17:50:58 <Blitzboom> just wondering as what they see bitcoin
1332 2011-09-06 17:51:06 <Blitzboom> payment method? currency? store of value?
1333 2011-09-06 17:51:16 wtfman[away] is now known as wtfman
1334 2011-09-06 17:51:45 <cjdelisle> Blitzboom needs to go back to troll college
1335 2011-09-06 17:52:00 <Blitzboom> iâm kind of serious
1336 2011-09-06 17:52:26 <Blitzboom> i think there should be clear communication what the priorities are
1337 2011-09-06 17:52:39 <Tamo> It's only peoples money at stake.
1338 2011-09-06 17:53:39 <ThomasV> Blitzboom: what's up with you ?
1339 2011-09-06 17:53:49 <Blitzboom> hehe nothing, just having fun
1340 2011-09-06 17:54:03 <Blitzboom> i still need to watch money as debt
1341 2011-09-06 17:54:14 <ThomasV> oh yes you need to
1342 2011-09-06 17:54:22 <cjdelisle> watch "Money Banking and the Federal Reserve"
1343 2011-09-06 17:54:40 <cjdelisle> by the time you're done with that, you ass will be stuck to the chair and your hair will be grey
1344 2011-09-06 17:54:46 <cjdelisle> but you will *look* like a banker
1345 2011-09-06 17:55:19 <ThomasV> "money as debt" is great
1346 2011-09-06 17:55:23 <log0s> Blitzboom: and read The Creature From Jekyll Island
1347 2011-09-06 17:55:41 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * re4626e9 / src/main.cpp :
1348 2011-09-06 17:55:41 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Merge pull request #491 from gavinandresen/manytxfix
1349 2011-09-06 17:55:41 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Optimize database writes for transactions with lots of TxIns. - http://git.io/qVsxeQ
1350 2011-09-06 17:55:45 <ThomasV> it is really the best demonstration that something is wrong in our system
1351 2011-09-06 17:56:01 TD has joined
1352 2011-09-06 17:56:30 <ThomasV> after you see it, you will try to use bitcoins whenever you can
1353 2011-09-06 17:56:41 BlueMatt has joined
1354 2011-09-06 17:56:52 <BlueMatt> ;;seen gavinandresen
1355 2011-09-06 17:56:52 <gribble> gavinandresen was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 1 hour, 37 minutes, and 6 seconds ago: <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: build an alternate stack and a dual-stack 'bridge' and I'll be a happy camper
1356 2011-09-06 17:57:02 <gavinandresen> what
1357 2011-09-06 17:57:13 <BlueMatt> wondering if/when rc2 will be tagged?
1358 2011-09-06 17:57:22 <ThomasV> ;;seen gavinandresen
1359 2011-09-06 17:57:22 <gribble> gavinandresen was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 19 seconds ago: <gavinandresen> what
1360 2011-09-06 17:57:30 <ThomasV> :-)
1361 2011-09-06 17:57:31 <gavinandresen> As soon as I get a sanity review of: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/500
1362 2011-09-06 17:57:45 <Blitzboom> 0.4 rc2?
1363 2011-09-06 17:57:47 <gavinandresen> ... wait, hang on, no there's one more patch that needs writing....
1364 2011-09-06 17:57:51 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: yes
1365 2011-09-06 17:57:54 <TD> jrmithdobbs: bitcoin protocol isn't that bad
1366 2011-09-06 17:57:54 <Blitzboom> nice
1367 2011-09-06 17:58:04 <TD> jrmithdobbs: if you think this is bad, look at jabber/xmpp some time ;)
1368 2011-09-06 17:58:24 <BlueMatt> bitcoin proto has issues, its not perfect, but its really not /that/ bad
1369 2011-09-06 17:58:35 <ThomasV> just a naive question: will it be possible to increase the fee on transactions that remain stuck in the ether, or to cancel them ?
1370 2011-09-06 17:58:48 <TD> in particular it's easily framed by proxies, which is relevant apropos the discussion on the list today
1371 2011-09-06 17:58:50 <BlueMatt> The_SLain_MAn_: yes
1372 2011-09-06 17:59:09 <BlueMatt> ThomasV: yes
1373 2011-09-06 17:59:11 bitcoiner has joined
1374 2011-09-06 17:59:12 <BlueMatt> my bad
1375 2011-09-06 17:59:25 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: so just gonna leave the bugfixes from me out? :P
1376 2011-09-06 17:59:27 <ThomasV> BlueMatt: in 0.4 or later ?
1377 2011-09-06 18:00:04 roconnor has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1378 2011-09-06 18:00:16 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I'll pull the .gitignore one-- I still have no opinion of the getwork one
1379 2011-09-06 18:00:28 <gavinandresen> (and we already pulled the filesystem3 one, thanks)
1380 2011-09-06 18:00:52 <BlueMatt> ThomasV: if someone ever bothers to write support, but its theoretically possible with the current protocol
1381 2011-09-06 18:00:55 <luke-jr> shrug
1382 2011-09-06 18:01:12 tynx has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1383 2011-09-06 18:01:13 <luke-jr> cool with me to leave the ignorant solo miners out to dry ;)
1384 2011-09-06 18:01:52 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr master * re39f925 / .gitignore : ignore stuff - http://git.io/TbRvdg
1385 2011-09-06 18:02:04 <ThomasV> BlueMatt: tell me more
1386 2011-09-06 18:02:16 <ThomasV> how does it work
1387 2011-09-06 18:02:57 <BlueMatt> ThomasV: grep around in the code to find the return false that currently shortcuts the ability to replace...
1388 2011-09-06 18:03:18 <ThomasV> ok
1389 2011-09-06 18:03:33 <BlueMatt> you should be able to wait long enough and double-spend just about anything right now though
1390 2011-09-06 18:11:15 ndeee has joined
1391 2011-09-06 18:11:44 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1392 2011-09-06 18:12:01 ndeee has left ()
1393 2011-09-06 18:12:50 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1394 2011-09-06 18:13:56 wardearia has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1395 2011-09-06 18:15:04 wardearia has joined
1396 2011-09-06 18:15:36 larsivi has joined
1397 2011-09-06 18:17:06 Lopuz has joined
1398 2011-09-06 18:17:40 b4epoche_ has joined
1399 2011-09-06 18:18:53 BlueMatt has joined
1400 2011-09-06 18:25:18 <vsrinivas> gavinandresen: could you take a look at the 8-19 email to the bitcoin-development mailing list? has a tiny patch to define MSG_NOSIGNAL 0 when not already defined, lets bitcoind build on openbsd.
1401 2011-09-06 18:26:39 <manveru> gavinandresen: was the ThreadExit failure fixed already in bitcoind?
1402 2011-09-06 18:26:47 zeiris has joined
1403 2011-09-06 18:27:12 cronopio has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1404 2011-09-06 18:27:31 <manveru> ah, it's different now...
1405 2011-09-06 18:33:00 cronopio has joined
1406 2011-09-06 18:38:32 <jrmithdobbs> TD: oh god. don't remind me how awful xmpp is. I used to have to debug jabberd back before there was any sane jabber software somewhere I worked
1407 2011-09-06 18:38:39 <jrmithdobbs> TD: way too familiar with that pile of crap ;p
1408 2011-09-06 18:39:28 <jgarzik> vsrinivas: pull request #?
1409 2011-09-06 18:39:39 <cjdelisle> haha
1410 2011-09-06 18:39:43 <jgarzik> vsrinivas: I've been merging compat patches
1411 2011-09-06 18:39:45 <cjdelisle> xmpp is lols
1412 2011-09-06 18:39:54 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: only email
1413 2011-09-06 18:40:10 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: "Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Patch to provide MSG_NOSIGNAL defn where not available"
1414 2011-09-06 18:40:54 <cjdelisle> I used to have a buggy copy of psi, and, I shit you not, every time I connected to jabber.org and opened my preferences, jabber.org's ejabberd would fall over.
1415 2011-09-06 18:41:48 Blitzboom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1416 2011-09-06 18:42:02 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1417 2011-09-06 18:42:07 Blitzboom has joined
1418 2011-09-06 18:42:36 <vsrinivas> jgarzik: no pull request, sorry (didn't use github); could set up if you want.
1419 2011-09-06 18:44:45 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1420 2011-09-06 18:45:54 <jgarzik> vsrinivas: pull requests make life easier for us :)
1421 2011-09-06 18:46:02 MacRohard has joined
1422 2011-09-06 18:46:10 <jgarzik> vsrinivas: gets all change requests in one location, and easy merges are one-click
1423 2011-09-06 18:46:47 <jgarzik> vsrinivas: so, (a) your changes get in faster and (b) your changes have more visibility to everyone watching the github pull queue
1424 2011-09-06 18:48:16 <vsrinivas> okay. i'm not schooled in github ways; must a pull request name a branch != master? or can the patch be on master?
1425 2011-09-06 18:48:48 <jgarzik> vsrinivas: I'm pretty sure the patch can be on master
1426 2011-09-06 18:49:23 <jgarzik> vsrinivas: it is standard practice to push the change to a branch, though that is not required. if you wind up with more than one submitted change, you'll probably want to use a branch
1427 2011-09-06 18:49:34 <jgarzik> vsrinivas: I can help with specific git commands, if you have a git question
1428 2011-09-06 18:49:59 <vsrinivas> nah, git's fine. i tend to work on master and throw away repositories; (i learned hg first).
1429 2011-09-06 18:50:28 <vsrinivas> setting up, will get back to you with a pull request soon.
1430 2011-09-06 18:53:22 devon_hillard has joined
1431 2011-09-06 18:54:31 p0s has joined
1432 2011-09-06 18:57:16 <jgarzik> vsrinivas: throw away repositories are how I am used to working, in the Linux kernel...
1433 2011-09-06 18:58:23 <BlueMattBot> Yippie, build fixed!
1434 2011-09-06 18:58:23 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin-Sanitytest build #15: FIXED in 1 hr 2 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin-Sanitytest/15/
1435 2011-09-06 18:59:12 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Alex B master * r905cbf0 / locale/ro/LC_MESSAGES/bitcoin.po : Romanian translation added - http://git.io/4FHHAg
1436 2011-09-06 18:59:12 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik master * r04f9a37 / locale/ro/LC_MESSAGES/bitcoin.po :
1437 2011-09-06 18:59:12 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Merge pull request #501 from paraipanakos/master
1438 2011-09-06 18:59:12 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Added Romanian translation - http://git.io/5LdQFQ
1439 2011-09-06 18:59:15 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1440 2011-09-06 19:04:21 <vsrinivas> okay, i think I made a successful pull request?
1441 2011-09-06 19:04:21 BlueMatt has joined
1442 2011-09-06 19:05:12 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: for pull #500 (fix AddAddress deadlock), were you able to reproduce the original problem?
1443 2011-09-06 19:05:21 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: yes
1444 2011-09-06 19:05:22 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: the description in the pull request was unclear on that
1445 2011-09-06 19:05:26 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: ok
1446 2011-09-06 19:06:56 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Venkatesh Srinivas master * r6a02967 / src/util.h :
1447 2011-09-06 19:06:56 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Define MSG_NOSIGNAL to 0 on platforms where it is unavailable.
1448 2011-09-06 19:06:56 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Enables building bitcoind on OpenBSD. - http://git.io/UT6hrg
1449 2011-09-06 19:06:56 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik master * r0746539 / src/util.h :
1450 2011-09-06 19:06:56 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Merge pull request #502 from vsrinivas/master
1451 2011-09-06 19:06:56 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Define MSG_NOSIGNAL to 0 when it is not defined. Gets OpenBSD building. - http://git.io/KbFKUg
1452 2011-09-06 19:07:27 glitch-mod has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1453 2011-09-06 19:09:05 sirky has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1454 2011-09-06 19:09:36 bitcoiner has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 3.6.21/20110830092825])
1455 2011-09-06 19:11:21 nemesis51 is now known as away!~nemesis@178-25-127-144-dynip.superkabel.de|nemesis51
1456 2011-09-06 19:11:22 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Matt Corallo master * rfd5eaf3 / locale/ro/LC_MESSAGES/bitcoin.mo : Add binary mo for new translation. - http://git.io/zazA6Q
1457 2011-09-06 19:11:22 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik master * rff4bd39 / locale/ro/LC_MESSAGES/bitcoin.mo :
1458 2011-09-06 19:11:22 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Merge pull request #503 from TheBlueMatt/translatefix
1459 2011-09-06 19:11:22 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Add binary mo for new translation. - http://git.io/afkceQ
1460 2011-09-06 19:11:41 wirehead has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1461 2011-09-06 19:17:04 theorbtwo has joined
1462 2011-09-06 19:20:09 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1463 2011-09-06 19:20:56 <helo> why?
1464 2011-09-06 19:24:18 <jgarzik> how?
1465 2011-09-06 19:25:17 <theorbtwo> who?
1466 2011-09-06 19:25:59 shLONG has joined
1467 2011-09-06 19:26:01 <BlueMatt> what?
1468 2011-09-06 19:26:02 <BlueMatt> when?
1469 2011-09-06 19:26:03 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1470 2011-09-06 19:26:05 <b4epoche> what's the end result of a deadlock?
1471 2011-09-06 19:26:15 <BlueMatt> two threads unable to do work
1472 2011-09-06 19:26:17 <b4epoche> i.e. what would the user observe
1473 2011-09-06 19:26:24 <gavinandresen> bitcoin/bitcoind hangs
1474 2011-09-06 19:26:34 <BlueMatt> if one is gui thread -> no gui response
1475 2011-09-06 19:26:40 <BlueMatt> if one is rpc thread -> no rpc response
1476 2011-09-06 19:26:44 <b4epoche> I still occasionally see continued 100% (x2) use
1477 2011-09-06 19:26:53 <BlueMatt> shouldnt happen
1478 2011-09-06 19:27:10 <b4epoche> would that be from a deadlock?
1479 2011-09-06 19:27:27 <BlueMatt> if a deadlock occurs, more than the two locked threads are likely to lock over time so gui and/or rpc will also probably lock
1480 2011-09-06 19:27:31 <BlueMatt> shouldnt be
1481 2011-09-06 19:28:04 <b4epoche> I'll need to trace stuff when it happens
1482 2011-09-06 19:28:33 <b4epoche> I thought it was my Cocoa GUI but then when I was trying to rebase on the 0.4 code it happened with the Wx client too
1483 2011-09-06 19:29:03 <b4epoche> but I'm not sure how to reproduce it
1484 2011-09-06 19:29:41 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: did you ever do a post explaining where the money is coming from to pay you (and alex?)
1485 2011-09-06 19:30:15 marf_away2 has joined
1486 2011-09-06 19:30:18 <b4epoche_> where is the money coming from?
1487 2011-09-06 19:30:23 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: I don't think so-- but we're both being paid by TruCoin
1488 2011-09-06 19:30:36 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1489 2011-09-06 19:31:13 <b4epoche_> they paying enough for you to live? or just enough to keep your attention?
1490 2011-09-06 19:31:47 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1491 2011-09-06 19:31:49 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: dont they also fund bitcoinjs?
1492 2011-09-06 19:32:03 <jgarzik> I wish I was paid by a They
1493 2011-09-06 19:32:13 <BlueMatt> who doesnt?
1494 2011-09-06 19:32:22 superman2016 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1495 2011-09-06 19:32:28 <b4epoche_> instead of Him?
1496 2011-09-06 19:32:30 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: yes, Stefan is a TruCoin employee now too
1497 2011-09-06 19:32:39 * BlueMatt wishes he was paid at all...for anything...
1498 2011-09-06 19:33:26 * b4epoche_ is paid for nothing ;-)
1499 2011-09-06 19:34:00 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: nice, is it public where they make their money? or do they pay you so little that bitcoindeals can pay for it?
1500 2011-09-06 19:35:39 <jeremias> maybe they have funding
1501 2011-09-06 19:35:47 <BlueMatt> that was my question
1502 2011-09-06 19:35:52 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: start a bitcoin biz :)
1503 2011-09-06 19:36:14 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: heh, dont see you lining up either...
1504 2011-09-06 19:36:36 <jeremias> https://github.com/kangasbros/django-bitcoin <- start your bitcoin business easier with this django module made by me
1505 2011-09-06 19:36:53 aq83 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1506 2011-09-06 19:36:56 <BlueMatt> heh, great almost-robot-sounding plug
1507 2011-09-06 19:37:05 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: TruCoin is a startup, spending money right now, not making it.
1508 2011-09-06 19:37:08 superman2016 has joined
1509 2011-09-06 19:37:16 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: fair enough
1510 2011-09-06 19:37:43 <gavinandresen> (and I don't want to go into whether or not they are looking for investors because there are SEC regulations about talking about stuff like that)
1511 2011-09-06 19:38:12 <BlueMatt> fair enough
1512 2011-09-06 19:40:26 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: did you announce -rc1 on the forum?
1513 2011-09-06 19:40:44 <BlueMatt> meh, wait till rc2 and actual builds
1514 2011-09-06 19:40:45 <BlueMatt> ?
1515 2011-09-06 19:41:42 * jgarzik 's default setting is "more testers, sooner" :)
1516 2011-09-06 19:41:50 <jgarzik> but yeah, builds are pretty necessary
1517 2011-09-06 19:41:51 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: nope, didn't want to be innundated with "bitcoin hangs for me"
1518 2011-09-06 19:42:05 <vsrinivas> particularly since this version changes a lot?
1519 2011-09-06 19:42:06 <BlueMatt> how many people are on the forum and can build that arent on the mailing list?
1520 2011-09-06 19:42:39 <cacheson> jeremias: cool, what license?
1521 2011-09-06 19:43:13 <jeremias> cacheson: lol, actually haven't decided about license yet
1522 2011-09-06 19:43:19 <jeremias> maybe public domain
1523 2011-09-06 19:43:27 <jeremias> gotta think about that
1524 2011-09-06 19:43:32 <jeremias> public domain for now
1525 2011-09-06 19:43:33 * cacheson nods
1526 2011-09-06 19:44:04 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1527 2011-09-06 19:44:21 <cacheson> jeremias: alrighty. I'm working (sort of) on a django site, but I wasn't planning on releasing the source right away
1528 2011-09-06 19:44:32 <cacheson> jeremias: just wanted to make sure it wasn't AGPL
1529 2011-09-06 19:44:42 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: wait, ArtForz is still alive?
1530 2011-09-06 19:47:26 <lfm> ;;seen artforz
1531 2011-09-06 19:47:27 <gribble> artforz was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 11 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 23 minutes, and 28 seconds ago: <ArtForz> eternal beta. hah, satoshi is secretly a google employee!
1532 2011-09-06 19:47:38 <BlueMatt> he, love that quote
1533 2011-09-06 19:47:55 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: the forums are good for trolling for testers
1534 2011-09-06 19:48:06 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: you want to hit as many userbases as possible
1535 2011-09-06 19:48:10 <BlueMatt> lfm: I was talking about pull 491 "Patch from ArtForz..."
1536 2011-09-06 19:48:26 <lfm> bluematt I am one, on forum , build capable and not on mailing list
1537 2011-09-06 19:48:30 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: meh, I dont really care...I was saying its not a big deal...
1538 2011-09-06 19:48:44 <BlueMatt> lfm: why are you on the forum but not the mailing list?
1539 2011-09-06 19:48:51 <BlueMatt> better question: why are you on the forum at all?
1540 2011-09-06 19:49:03 m00p has joined
1541 2011-09-06 19:49:08 <jgarzik> I treat the forum as write-only ;-)
1542 2011-09-06 19:49:17 <BlueMatt> as one should
1543 2011-09-06 19:49:19 <lfm> been on forum for long time, dont like email much really
1544 2011-09-06 19:49:28 <jgarzik> well, not quite true. I do read the 'press hits' thread that I started.
1545 2011-09-06 19:49:29 <BlueMatt> meh, fair enough
1546 2011-09-06 19:49:43 * BlueMatt goes to troll jgarzik on the press hits thread
1547 2011-09-06 19:50:06 <makomk> BlueMatt: ArtForz has been mucking with alternative blockchains and lurking on the various FPGA miner threads lately, from what I can tell...
1548 2011-09-06 19:50:34 <BlueMatt> makomk: oh, I just wondered as he hasnt joined this chan in forever, in fact hes not in any chans atm...
1549 2011-09-06 19:50:37 <BlueMatt> (though he is online)
1550 2011-09-06 19:52:47 <makomk> He's actually in #btcguild right now, apparently.
1551 2011-09-06 19:53:23 <BlueMatt> why is whois such a fail...
1552 2011-09-06 19:54:24 <helo> because whoisnt never gained much use?
1553 2011-09-06 19:54:42 <helo> ba dum dum
1554 2011-09-06 19:54:51 <BlueMatt> ...
1555 2011-09-06 19:55:50 rdponticelli has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
1556 2011-09-06 19:55:57 rdponticelli has joined
1557 2011-09-06 19:56:18 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: is 482 not a release-blocker?
1558 2011-09-06 19:56:29 <makomk> It's intentional; one of the standard IRC modes only shows that you're in channels in /whois if the user asking is in that channel.
1559 2011-09-06 19:56:54 <BlueMatt> well thats no fun
1560 2011-09-06 19:57:55 <gavinandresen> 482? github can't find pull request 482...
1561 2011-09-06 19:58:03 <BlueMatt> issue, not pull
1562 2011-09-06 19:58:05 <lfm> how you spozed to stalk anyone?
1563 2011-09-06 19:58:08 <BlueMatt> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/482#issuecomment-2013255
1564 2011-09-06 19:58:12 <BlueMatt> lfm: exactly
1565 2011-09-06 19:58:37 <gavinandresen> oh, the duplicate coinbase issue...
1566 2011-09-06 19:58:40 larsivi has joined
1567 2011-09-06 20:00:31 storrgie has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1568 2011-09-06 20:00:57 <gavinandresen> jgarzik, what do you think? You know a lot more about mining/coinbase stuff than I do: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/482
1569 2011-09-06 20:02:17 <gavinandresen> ... looks to me like nExtraNonce is always incremented and put into the coinbase, but I'm not entirely following the logic of resetting it to 1...
1570 2011-09-06 20:03:24 sytse_ has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1571 2011-09-06 20:03:41 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: it's def. a problem
1572 2011-09-06 20:04:04 <gavinandresen> who wants to volunteer to fix it?
1573 2011-09-06 20:04:19 * jgarzik -> disappears for Teething Toddler shopping :)
1574 2011-09-06 20:04:36 sytse has joined
1575 2011-09-06 20:04:41 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: luke-jr had a fix ISTR
1576 2011-09-06 20:04:50 <makomk> gavinandresen: see my comment. Not resetting it to one doesn't fix the duplicate coinbase issue AFAICT>
1577 2011-09-06 20:05:03 <makomk> It just makes it less likely.
1578 2011-09-06 20:05:03 zamgo has joined
1579 2011-09-06 20:05:53 <makomk> (Also, lukejr's fix resets the extranonce upon getting a new block instead, which doesn't help with the duplicate coinbase problem.)
1580 2011-09-06 20:06:01 <luke-jr> jgarzik: he "still has no opinion" on merging that
1581 2011-09-06 20:06:38 <gavinandresen> like I said, most of the mining code is a black box to me.
1582 2011-09-06 20:06:47 <luke-jr> and yeah, mine only deals with the older bug, not the encryption issue
1583 2011-09-06 20:09:23 <lfm> increment extranonce more often, do not reset it except maybe when restarting bitcoin. it can be very big if needed, not limited to 2 or even 4 bytes
1584 2011-09-06 20:10:04 <luke-jr> lfm: makomk already explained why that isn't safe
1585 2011-09-06 20:10:13 <gavinandresen> simplest fix seems like it would be to teach getwork and the internal miner to fail if they run out of keys
1586 2011-09-06 20:10:29 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: IMO, better would be to start making unencrypted keys
1587 2011-09-06 20:10:29 <gavinandresen> (don't allow mining to the default key)
1588 2011-09-06 20:11:15 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: that sounds like a pain-in-the-ass to test
1589 2011-09-06 20:11:28 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: realistically, a timestamp should just be added to coinbase
1590 2011-09-06 20:11:33 <BlueMatt> which also isnt too hard to do
1591 2011-09-06 20:11:40 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: dumb question you might have contacts that are able to answer
1592 2011-09-06 20:11:52 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: that defeats the purpose of wallet encryption
1593 2011-09-06 20:11:59 <gavinandresen> random number instead of timestamp might be even better.....
1594 2011-09-06 20:12:06 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: what the hell is going on with mirrors1.kernel.org and mirrors2.kernel.org? (the us mirrors.kernel.org servers ... 3/4 the eu servers are up)
1595 2011-09-06 20:12:08 <gavinandresen> so who's going to volunteer?
1596 2011-09-06 20:12:13 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: random number can collide
1597 2011-09-06 20:12:19 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: there's no official announcement that I can find and they've been down for 4 or 5 days
1598 2011-09-06 20:12:22 <luke-jr> and doesn't do anything better
1599 2011-09-06 20:12:26 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: less likely than timestamps
1600 2011-09-06 20:12:33 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: timestamps cannot collide
1601 2011-09-06 20:12:42 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: extranonce is only ever reset if the timestamp changes
1602 2011-09-06 20:12:48 <lfm> jrmithdobbs: slashdot sed Linus is migrating to github
1603 2011-09-06 20:12:59 <gavinandresen> ok, this is why I'm asking for somebody ELSE to fix the friggin thing
1604 2011-09-06 20:13:01 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: kernel.org servers recently hacked...see a lot of sources
1605 2011-09-06 20:13:01 <luke-jr> lfm: bad troll
1606 2011-09-06 20:13:19 <luke-jr> hmm
1607 2011-09-06 20:13:21 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: i know that but www. says nothing about mirrors. being taken down
1608 2011-09-06 20:13:26 <luke-jr> it'd be trivial if coinbaser were merged ;)
1609 2011-09-06 20:13:27 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: nothing on any of the lists, etc
1610 2011-09-06 20:13:35 <BlueMatt> might just be down?
1611 2011-09-06 20:13:41 <jrmithdobbs> for almost a week?
1612 2011-09-06 20:13:42 <gavinandresen> y'all talk amongst yourselves on what the best fix, I'm going to go away for a while
1613 2011-09-06 20:13:48 <luke-jr> but coinbaser is a fairly big change
1614 2011-09-06 20:13:57 <luke-jr> maybe I can backport the important bit
1615 2011-09-06 20:14:01 storrgie has joined
1616 2011-09-06 20:14:02 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: hence why i was asking someone that might be able to contact someone who knows ;p
1617 2011-09-06 20:14:09 <jrmithdobbs> something doesn't seem right
1618 2011-09-06 20:14:21 <luke-jr> specifically, the part that saves the CScript instead of the 32-bit integer extranonce
1619 2011-09-06 20:14:21 <jrmithdobbs> i check sigs on all the packages i get from there so not too worried just want to know wtf is up
1620 2011-09-06 20:15:18 <k9quaint> if I understand correctly, what you need is to include a UUID in the hash to avoid collisions?
1621 2011-09-06 20:15:43 <BlueMatt> no, a timestamp
1622 2011-09-06 20:15:48 <BlueMatt> your address already is a uuid
1623 2011-09-06 20:15:51 iocor has joined
1624 2011-09-06 20:15:57 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: you realize this only works around the problem?
1625 2011-09-06 20:16:00 <k9quaint> yes, but the address will not change
1626 2011-09-06 20:16:06 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: what problem?
1627 2011-09-06 20:16:14 <luke-jr> that is, even if this is fixed, there's still a lack of pseudonomity remaining
1628 2011-09-06 20:16:20 <BlueMatt> k9quaint: yes, but a uuid doesnt help, a timestamp does...
1629 2011-09-06 20:16:21 <luke-jr> because it reuses the same addr
1630 2011-09-06 20:16:30 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: this is a problem how?
1631 2011-09-06 20:16:39 <lfm> problem of getwork never designed for high volume
1632 2011-09-06 20:16:52 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: currently, generation is pseudonymous
1633 2011-09-06 20:17:03 <lfm> so?
1634 2011-09-06 20:17:24 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: so what if you reuse addrs, if its a big deal to you, unlock your wallet every once in a while
1635 2011-09-06 20:17:24 <luke-jr> lfm: this has nothing to do with volume of getwork
1636 2011-09-06 20:17:28 <makomk> Speaking of high-volume getwork... I should figure out how to make it take locks for less time :3
1637 2011-09-06 20:17:41 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: not a bug
1638 2011-09-06 20:17:42 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: just saying it's a regression, not that it needs to be avoided
1639 2011-09-06 20:18:12 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: that case is clearly described in commitmsg or readme already
1640 2011-09-06 20:18:12 <luke-jr> afaik the only REAL way to fix this bit, would be deterministic wallets
1641 2011-09-06 20:18:13 <k9quaint> you could include the timestamp and blocknumber, that is unlikely to collide
1642 2011-09-06 20:18:21 <luke-jr> then you could generate new pubkeys without the key
1643 2011-09-06 20:18:28 <lfm> unlikely == still possible?
1644 2011-09-06 20:18:30 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: deterministic wallet defeats the purpose of wallet encryption...
1645 2011-09-06 20:18:31 <luke-jr> k9quaint: timestamp is enough
1646 2011-09-06 20:18:38 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I disagree.
1647 2011-09-06 20:18:57 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: it really doesnt but youve already shown previously that you dont understand why
1648 2011-09-06 20:19:05 <jrmithdobbs> so lets not go down this road
1649 2011-09-06 20:19:17 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: the only thing wallet encryption stops is for servers that dont send or people who can read your disk
1650 2011-09-06 20:19:33 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: deterministic wallets != deterministic encrypted wallets
1651 2011-09-06 20:19:51 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: obviously I mean the combination in this case
1652 2011-09-06 20:19:52 <BlueMatt> deterministic doesnt mean more secure, it just means you dont need to keep backing up
1653 2011-09-06 20:20:10 <luke-jr> deterministic wallet means you don't need access to private key storage to get a new pubkey
1654 2011-09-06 20:20:13 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: that would defeat the purpose as you would have the seed key in memory...
1655 2011-09-06 20:20:20 surikator has joined
1656 2011-09-06 20:20:28 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: there's separate seeds for private and public
1657 2011-09-06 20:20:34 <BlueMatt> which a proper encrypted deterministic wallet shouldnt do...
1658 2011-09-06 20:21:02 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: when did it change from hashing seed into ecdsa private keys and finding pubkeys from there?
1659 2011-09-06 20:21:11 <lfm> pub keys could be sequential
1660 2011-09-06 20:21:14 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: from the start
1661 2011-09-06 20:21:23 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: the original deterministic wallet post
1662 2011-09-06 20:21:27 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: that is the only suggestion ive ever seen...
1663 2011-09-06 20:21:34 <lfm> pub keys could be sequential , would not make priv keys easier
1664 2011-09-06 20:21:55 nemesis51 is now known as nemesis51|away
1665 2011-09-06 20:22:35 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: I clearly understand the purpose/use/working of det. wallets, some people feel they serve more of a purpose than they do...they are clearly useful but when it comes to facts about exactly how they work, no one has ever proven me wrong...
1666 2011-09-06 20:23:09 <BlueMatt> opinions clearly differ on their uses, but facts are facts and when it comes to how they work, there are no opinions...
1667 2011-09-06 20:24:38 <luke-jr> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=19137.0
1668 2011-09-06 20:24:40 <luke-jr> see Type 2
1669 2011-09-06 20:25:10 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: yea, was just reading it...for some reason I remember that didnt work but I think I might just be remembering things on that part...
1670 2011-09-06 20:25:43 <iddo> type 2 was discussed here several times before
1671 2011-09-06 20:25:49 <BlueMatt> that I know
1672 2011-09-06 20:25:59 <iddo> BlueMatt: prove you wrong regarding what?
1673 2011-09-06 20:26:05 <BlueMatt> wasnt there a post with 3 types or smth?
1674 2011-09-06 20:26:59 <BlueMatt> iddo: I was responding to jrmithdobbs' comment that I "dont understand why" deterministic wallets are good
1675 2011-09-06 20:27:02 <iddo> type 2 and type 1 should have same security, type 2 uses ECC feature that allows generating new pubkeys without knowing private keys
1676 2011-09-06 20:27:04 <BlueMatt> which is blatant bullshit...
1677 2011-09-06 20:27:33 <iddo> BlueMatt: i'm trying to read what you wrote, why the seed has to be in memory?
1678 2011-09-06 20:27:39 QueryTom3000 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1679 2011-09-06 20:27:57 ephcon has joined
1680 2011-09-06 20:27:59 <BlueMatt> iddo: I was thinking of type 1, for type 2 only the B_secret does
1681 2011-09-06 20:28:00 <iddo> can't you calc the private key sequence as needed, then remove it from memory?
1682 2011-09-06 20:28:14 <BlueMatt> iddo: then you dont solve the original bug
1683 2011-09-06 20:28:20 <BlueMatt> s/bug/thing/
1684 2011-09-06 20:28:44 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik master * rcbd959c / src/util.h :
1685 2011-09-06 20:28:44 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Revert "Define MSG_NOSIGNAL to 0 on platforms where it is unavailable."
1686 2011-09-06 20:28:44 <CIA-92> bitcoin: This reverts commit 6a0296791d5e81102a12a3142f5be25cb40f9825.
1687 2011-09-06 20:28:44 <CIA-92> bitcoin: The change breaks build on Fedora Linux. - http://git.io/FBdU_Q
1688 2011-09-06 20:28:44 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik master * r0535644 / locale/ro/LC_MESSAGES/bitcoin.mo : Merge branch 'master' of git://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin - http://git.io/sc28FA
1689 2011-09-06 20:28:46 <iddo> det encrypted wallet means just the master seed is encrypted ?
1690 2011-09-06 20:29:10 <iddo> what's the original thing that needs to be solved?
1691 2011-09-06 20:29:20 <jgarzik> vsrinivas: had to revert... it breaks build on some Linux platforms
1692 2011-09-06 20:29:31 agricocb has joined
1693 2011-09-06 20:29:53 rokj has joined
1694 2011-09-06 20:29:55 <BlueMatt> iddo: in this case the requirement would be that no one could spend the coins, but new addresses could be generated without the info needed to spend coins
1695 2011-09-06 20:30:10 <jgarzik> vsrinivas: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/471476/
1696 2011-09-06 20:30:20 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: i said you didnt understand why deterministic wallets dont defeat the purpose of wallet crypto but w/e
1697 2011-09-06 20:30:32 <iddo> BlueMatt: type 2 achieves that, no?
1698 2011-09-06 20:30:35 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: are you fucking kiding me?
1699 2011-09-06 20:30:37 <BlueMatt> iddo: yes
1700 2011-09-06 20:31:03 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: read
1701 2011-09-06 20:31:12 <iddo> i guess i need to read the backlog more? what's the original thing to solve?
1702 2011-09-06 20:31:28 <BlueMatt> that you cant gen new keys at will with current wallet encryption
1703 2011-09-06 20:31:33 <BlueMatt> (when the wallet is locked)
1704 2011-09-06 20:31:38 <BlueMatt> which means reusing keys when mining
1705 2011-09-06 20:31:43 <BlueMatt> (and not unlocking wallet for a while)
1706 2011-09-06 20:31:50 <luke-jr> IMO, wallets should contain multiple key-roots and allow user to flag which one is used for generation, change, etc ;)
1707 2011-09-06 20:31:57 <dinox> How far is bitcoin 0.4 from releasing on mac?
1708 2011-09-06 20:32:15 <BlueMatt> dinox: further than windows/linux Im sure
1709 2011-09-06 20:32:17 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: you first
1710 2011-09-06 20:32:21 <iddo> BlueMatt: are you talking about deteministic encrypted wallet now? or regular independent keys?
1711 2011-09-06 20:32:39 <vsrinivas> jgarzik: very curious. what version of fedora? how is MSG_NOSIGNAL defined there?
1712 2011-09-06 20:32:44 <BlueMatt> iddo: the current wallet encryption stuff ie regular independent keys
1713 2011-09-06 20:32:45 <dinox> BlueMatt: Hehe, yeah, how far on linux/windows then?
1714 2011-09-06 20:33:12 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: well that is just getting way overcomplicated for the average user IMO, but meh whatever
1715 2011-09-06 20:33:35 <BlueMatt> dinox: no way to know, sometime after now and before, I dont know probably in the next two weeks
1716 2011-09-06 20:33:53 <diki> luke-jr:if you want a feature so much
1717 2011-09-06 20:33:58 <diki> why dont you write it yourself?
1718 2011-09-06 20:34:00 brunner has joined
1719 2011-09-06 20:34:06 <diki> you seem to have the knowledge
1720 2011-09-06 20:34:15 <iddo> BlueMatt: i asked you once about it, you said that when you send coins and need to generate new key, that's the usualy scenario when user is prompted for wallet password anyway, so it's not a big issue?
1721 2011-09-06 20:34:47 <iddo> i.e. when you send coins you can also generate new key into the pool, with single prompt for password from user?
1722 2011-09-06 20:35:11 <BlueMatt> iddo: correct
1723 2011-09-06 20:35:22 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: average user just uses the default key-root it generates the first time you run it
1724 2011-09-06 20:35:37 <iddo> so what's the thing that needs to be solved?
1725 2011-09-06 20:36:16 <BlueMatt> iddo: in this case, I see nothing wrong, but for some pools that generate often, if they dont unlock their wallet regularly to fill keypool they could start mining to the same address multiple times
1726 2011-09-06 20:36:30 f33x has quit (Quit: f33x)
1727 2011-09-06 20:36:31 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: well file it away with some of the other magical ui stuff down the road ;)
1728 2011-09-06 20:36:44 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: but it's not UI-relatedâ¦
1729 2011-09-06 20:37:03 <BlueMatt> whatever, general stuff that sounds great and is doable, but no one has time to do
1730 2011-09-06 20:38:02 <iddo> are we talking about someone who needs to generate more key by pressing 'generate new receiving address' button?
1731 2011-09-06 20:38:11 <jrmithdobbs> i'm sure luke has time just doesn't want to waste more time writing code that'll be reject ;p
1732 2011-09-06 20:38:31 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: stop bitching
1733 2011-09-06 20:38:45 ephcon has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1734 2011-09-06 20:38:47 <jrmithdobbs> you're unusually pissy today
1735 2011-09-06 20:38:59 <BlueMatt> me?
1736 2011-09-06 20:40:03 <iddo> with deterministic wallet you can generate new public keys without prompting for password, and prompt for password only when signing txns of those keys, no?
1737 2011-09-06 20:40:22 <BlueMatt> with type 2: yes
1738 2011-09-06 20:40:44 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1739 2011-09-06 20:40:44 <iddo> i didn't understand the comment about deterministic seed that has to be in memory, why does it have to?
1740 2011-09-06 20:40:52 <iddo> yes type 2
1741 2011-09-06 20:43:31 <iddo> anyway to repeat previous discussions, deterministic wallet has two security issues, (1) is obvious and unavoidable, if someone finds one of your private keys then he can generate all the next private keys, and (2) is less obvious, there might be crypto attack, by looking at (public) signatures of related keys, as opposed to independent keys
1742 2011-09-06 20:44:07 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1743 2011-09-06 20:44:49 <lfm> (1) is avoidable too
1744 2011-09-06 20:45:05 <jrmithdobbs> iddo: 2 was addressed in how they were proposed
1745 2011-09-06 20:45:11 gp5st has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1746 2011-09-06 20:45:15 <iddo> lfm: huh?
1747 2011-09-06 20:45:31 gp5st has joined
1748 2011-09-06 20:46:08 <iddo> jrmithdobbs: (2) wasn't addressed in forum, it was discussed here, bottom line is that we probably cannot prove anything
1749 2011-09-06 20:47:05 <lfm> iddo you have s1, s2, s3 sequence. generate keys from hash(s1), hash(s2), hash(s3)
1750 2011-09-06 20:47:31 <lfm> so long as s is secret you're ok
1751 2011-09-06 20:47:50 <iddo> what is s ?
1752 2011-09-06 20:47:59 <lfm> a number
1753 2011-09-06 20:48:35 <CIA-92> bitcoinj: miron@google.com * r200 /trunk/ (2 files in 2 dirs): Use RandomAccessFile in DiskBlockStore to fix corruption. Resolves issue 76
1754 2011-09-06 20:49:52 <log0s> what is the reason for having deterministic wallets in the first place? (sorry if this was answered above...)
1755 2011-09-06 20:49:55 <lfm> iddo if anyone finds hash(s1) they still dont know s1 (or s)
1756 2011-09-06 20:49:56 <iddo> lfm: are you talking about type 2 ?
1757 2011-09-06 20:50:06 <jrmithdobbs> log0s: several different reasons
1758 2011-09-06 20:50:13 <luke-jr> I have a fix for BlueMattBot's thing
1759 2011-09-06 20:50:14 <iddo> log0s: smart phones...
1760 2011-09-06 20:50:53 <iddo> lfm: with type2 you can generate next pubkey using only public info
1761 2011-09-06 20:51:15 <log0s> what's the benefit as compared to just generating unrelated ecdsa private keys?
1762 2011-09-06 20:51:23 <lfm> iddo ya then youd need to store all private keys
1763 2011-09-06 20:51:34 <lfm> i think
1764 2011-09-06 20:51:59 <lfm> iddo not what I was talking about really
1765 2011-09-06 20:52:04 <iddo> log0s: your wallet.dat secret is a single key, so it's good for smartphones etc.
1766 2011-09-06 20:52:32 cuqa has joined
1767 2011-09-06 20:52:32 cuqa has quit (Changing host)
1768 2011-09-06 20:52:32 cuqa has joined
1769 2011-09-06 20:52:36 <log0s> don't smart phones typically have gigs of storage space?
1770 2011-09-06 20:53:02 <lfm> log0s: ya, I dont know why the wallet is any sort of problem
1771 2011-09-06 20:53:19 <luke-jr> log0s: no
1772 2011-09-06 20:53:34 <luke-jr> log0s: also, you only need to backup once
1773 2011-09-06 20:53:42 <iddo> log0s: one concern is related to backups, with new independent keys you must always make sure to backup your latest wallet safely, with determinisitc pseudorandom sequence you just need to backup the master seed
1774 2011-09-06 20:53:55 <luke-jr> log0s: and you can have a webserver accepting transactions (generating addresses) while it is also unable to spend them
1775 2011-09-06 20:54:18 <lfm> iddo are you dropping the pregenerated key queue?
1776 2011-09-06 20:54:22 <luke-jr> ie, private key is only offline ever
1777 2011-09-06 20:54:36 <luke-jr> lfm: deterministic wallets have no need to pregenerate
1778 2011-09-06 20:54:46 <lfm> not what I asked
1779 2011-09-06 20:56:08 <iddo> lfm: i think secure implementation with encrypted wallet should calculate the needed key each time?
1780 2011-09-06 20:56:15 cuqaa has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1781 2011-09-06 20:56:25 <lfm> iddo so you like it slow
1782 2011-09-06 20:56:29 <iddo> each time you need private key to sign txn
1783 2011-09-06 20:56:38 <log0s> lol, ok
1784 2011-09-06 20:57:13 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,mtgox
1785 2011-09-06 20:57:14 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":7.65713,"low":6.122,"avg":6.857890803,"vwap":6.775873027,"vol":77742,"last":6.451,"buy":6.45202,"sell":6.55}}
1786 2011-09-06 20:57:32 <luke-jr> lfm: if it gets slow, you can store every Nth key ;)
1787 2011-09-06 20:58:20 superman2016 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1788 2011-09-06 20:58:42 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr unique_coinbase * rb760e254584a bitcoind-personal/src/ (main.cpp rpc.cpp): Merge branch 'getwork_dedupe' into unique_coinbase
1789 2011-09-06 20:58:44 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr unique_coinbase * r49c8e53ee2c2 bitcoind-personal/src/rpc.cpp: Save coinbase, not just extraNonce
1790 2011-09-06 20:58:45 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr unique_coinbase * r83f4cd156e9d bitcoind-personal/src/ (main.cpp main.h rpc.cpp): Bugfix: Use timestamp in coinbase rather than "bits", needed to ensure coinbase txn is unique even if address is the same
1791 2011-09-06 21:00:04 <lfm> or every key
1792 2011-09-06 21:00:55 <luke-jr> lfm: yep, weigh disk space vs CPU time
1793 2011-09-06 21:00:56 <iddo> lfm: why slow, you just do master + hash(n|secret) ?
1794 2011-09-06 21:01:13 <luke-jr> oooooo
1795 2011-09-06 21:01:31 <iddo> i mean hash(n|seed)
1796 2011-09-06 21:03:35 shLONG has quit ()
1797 2011-09-06 21:03:56 <lfm> hmm, seems I need an implementation to follow. not clear how you're gonna do all this type1 and / or type 2 stuff
1798 2011-09-06 21:04:07 <luke-jr> [16:16:26] <luke-jr> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=19137.0
1799 2011-09-06 21:04:14 superman2016 has joined
1800 2011-09-06 21:04:17 <luke-jr> there is no implementation yet, but algorithms
1801 2011-09-06 21:04:30 <lfm> right
1802 2011-09-06 21:05:41 Titeuf_87 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1803 2011-09-06 21:06:16 <iddo> i think i was wrong earlier about being able to find all next private keys if you find single private key
1804 2011-09-06 21:07:05 <iddo> you need to know the seed too
1805 2011-09-06 21:08:39 <lfm> ya if you get the seed you get all the keys, right
1806 2011-09-06 21:09:28 <iddo> the idea of type2 is that given the seed, you can generate new pubkeys, without access to the secret data
1807 2011-09-06 21:10:01 <iddo> so i suppose we shouldn't assume that the seed is secret
1808 2011-09-06 21:10:27 <log0s> for a tiny device with almost no storage space and which doesn't spend any bitcoins, storing just the minimum required information for generating a series of related public keys makes sense...but outside of a special case like that, it seems silly...am i missing something?
1809 2011-09-06 21:11:35 <lfm> log0s: I think you're probably right
1810 2011-09-06 21:11:53 <iddo> so given any private key pk which is #n in the pesudorandom sequence, you do master=pk-hash(n|seed) to find the master key, then any other private key with master+hash(n'|seed)
1811 2011-09-06 21:12:03 gp5st has left ()
1812 2011-09-06 21:13:14 <iddo> that assumes that you found some private key and know its sequence number, and the seed is public
1813 2011-09-06 21:14:00 m00p has joined
1814 2011-09-06 21:14:26 erus` has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1815 2011-09-06 21:14:28 <lfm> iddo I dont see how type2 would ever actually work then
1816 2011-09-06 21:14:30 <iddo> so i guess type2 has this additional security concern of being able to generate next keys if you find one private key, which type1 doesn't have
1817 2011-09-06 21:14:52 <iddo> because for type2 it makes sense to have the seed public, i htink
1818 2011-09-06 21:14:55 <iddo> think
1819 2011-09-06 21:15:36 huk has quit ()
1820 2011-09-06 21:15:41 <lfm> if only the owner device needs to find pub keys maybe and keep seed to itself
1821 2011-09-06 21:15:54 <iddo> lfm: type2 advantage is that some vendor can generate new receiving addresses for his customers without need to access secret data
1822 2011-09-06 21:15:58 <luke-jr> log0s: security
1823 2011-09-06 21:16:05 <iddo> but this advantage comes with security concern
1824 2011-09-06 21:16:23 <luke-jr> log0s: or *properly* using the same wallet on multiple PCs
1825 2011-09-06 21:16:28 <lfm> iddo better to just have a file with a list of pub keys
1826 2011-09-06 21:16:38 <luke-jr> lfm: not better
1827 2011-09-06 21:16:45 <luke-jr> more work for nothing
1828 2011-09-06 21:17:06 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1829 2011-09-06 21:17:19 <luke-jr> my use case: making Eligius scale to multiple physical servers
1830 2011-09-06 21:17:28 <lfm> luke-jr pub keys are public anyway, why worry if they get exposed
1831 2011-09-06 21:17:46 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1832 2011-09-06 21:18:19 <iddo> and i might misunderstood, better ask gmaxwell about it
1833 2011-09-06 21:18:54 <iddo> but there's stille the other issue of crypto attack on related signatures
1834 2011-09-06 21:19:05 <iddo> s/stille/still
1835 2011-09-06 21:19:16 <WakiMiko> when i run bitcoin on a port other than 8333, my connections never go above 8. on the default port i get lots of incoming connections though.
1836 2011-09-06 21:19:21 <lfm> iddo not related of the hash is secure
1837 2011-09-06 21:19:22 <WakiMiko> anyone else having that problem?
1838 2011-09-06 21:19:28 <WakiMiko> i am definitely connectable
1839 2011-09-06 21:20:04 <lfm> WakiMiko: ya other than 8333 not actually supported on publib net
1840 2011-09-06 21:20:11 <lfm> public
1841 2011-09-06 21:20:12 huk has joined
1842 2011-09-06 21:21:00 <WakiMiko> its not? when clients exchange ips im pretty sure they also exchange the corresponding ports
1843 2011-09-06 21:21:03 <iddo> lfm: it was discussed before, secure hash usually means resistance to preimage or collision attacks, which is not what you need here, you'd want here hash that behaves like random function (which it cannot be), otherwise quirks could be exploited
1844 2011-09-06 21:21:40 <lfm> iddo nope, hash is hash, its not reversable
1845 2011-09-06 21:22:09 <log0s> luke-jr: what do you mean by the "proper" way to use the same wallet on multiple machines?
1846 2011-09-06 21:22:23 <lfm> if there were quirks it wouldnt be cryptogrphic hash
1847 2011-09-06 21:23:33 <lfm> finding a key for a given hash is much harder than finding collisions
1848 2011-09-06 21:23:50 <iddo> lfm: reversable (preimage attack) isn't what we need here, the idea of related key attacks is getting signatures of keys that are related in some way, e.g. few bit flips between them, and discovering the private keys this way
1849 2011-09-06 21:24:27 <lfm> ya, just like preimage mathematiclyy I think
1850 2011-09-06 21:25:15 <iddo> if the hash behaves like totally random function, then everything is easy to prove
1851 2011-09-06 21:25:17 <lfm> ie full mixing tests
1852 2011-09-06 21:25:22 <luke-jr> log0s: right now, if you simply copy wallet.dat, you end up using the same addresses for change and such
1853 2011-09-06 21:25:29 <iddo> but hash cannot be totally random
1854 2011-09-06 21:25:52 <lfm> iddo ya its psudoerandom, so waht?
1855 2011-09-06 21:25:55 <luke-jr> log0s: with deterministic wallets, each would have its own root-key
1856 2011-09-06 21:26:05 <luke-jr> log0s: but also have the others' root-key
1857 2011-09-06 21:26:51 <iddo> lfm: so it might have exploitable quirks, i.e. we cannot prove that signing with deterministic wallet keys is as secure as signing with independent keys
1858 2011-09-06 21:27:23 <lfm> ya if the hash is not secure then its not secure, I think we started with that premis
1859 2011-09-06 21:27:59 <lfm> if it has exploitable quirks then its not secure
1860 2011-09-06 21:28:35 <iddo> lfm: the hash can be secure to preimage and collision attacks, and still if you use it for signing with related ECDSA keys there might be an attack on it
1861 2011-09-06 21:28:49 <lfm> and it true random unrelatyed keys do not have that problem.
1862 2011-09-06 21:29:04 abragin has quit ()
1863 2011-09-06 21:29:36 <lfm> iddo nits. if you need to expand what YOU mean by secure hash then EXPAND IT ALREADY
1864 2011-09-06 21:30:54 <iddo> we cannot prove that if hash is secure in usual sense (preimage and collision resistance), then it's also good for signing with related keys
1865 2011-09-06 21:31:10 <lfm> you cant prove the hash is secure in any sense
1866 2011-09-06 21:31:42 <iddo> lfm: i mentioned before, what would be need is that the hash behaves like a random function, but the problem is that the hash cannot be totally random
1867 2011-09-06 21:31:57 <lfm> all you know is the attempt to break it which have been published so far have failed
1868 2011-09-06 21:32:30 <lfm> "random function" == nonsense
1869 2011-09-06 21:32:35 <iddo> lfm: there are hash functions which you can prove resistance to collisions etc., based on standard assumptions, like lattice crypto
1870 2011-09-06 21:32:47 abragin has joined
1871 2011-09-06 21:33:22 <lfm> you know the attempts so far have failed. yes.
1872 2011-09-06 21:34:02 <iddo> i meant rigorous proof
1873 2011-09-06 21:34:16 surikator has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1874 2011-09-06 21:34:17 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1875 2011-09-06 21:34:27 <lfm> rigorous proof of special cases == yet another attempt to break it
1876 2011-09-06 21:34:48 <iddo> what do you mean special cases?
1877 2011-09-06 21:35:02 <lfm> "standard assumptions" == special cases
1878 2011-09-06 21:35:04 <iddo> there are such hash functions, but they are less efficient
1879 2011-09-06 21:35:21 talso has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1880 2011-09-06 21:35:27 talso has joined
1881 2011-09-06 21:35:45 <iddo> standard assumption can be something like integer factoring is hard
1882 2011-09-06 21:35:55 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1883 2011-09-06 21:36:06 <lfm> and of course we dont actually know that do we
1884 2011-09-06 21:36:19 Daniel0108 has quit (Quit: Good night, guys)
1885 2011-09-06 21:36:47 surikator has joined
1886 2011-09-06 21:36:52 <lfm> so all you know is that it isnt broken yet
1887 2011-09-06 21:36:59 d4de has joined
1888 2011-09-06 21:37:38 <iddo> no, but integer factoring has been investigated for hundreds of years...
1889 2011-09-06 21:37:54 <diki> so
1890 2011-09-06 21:38:02 <lfm> and it has been getting easier and easier
1891 2011-09-06 21:38:03 <diki> if i want to make a blockexplorer of my own
1892 2011-09-06 21:38:07 <diki> which file do i read?
1893 2011-09-06 21:38:17 <lfm> diki blk0001.dat
1894 2011-09-06 21:38:23 <diki> only that file?
1895 2011-09-06 21:38:27 <diki> no other?
1896 2011-09-06 21:38:55 <lfm> diki I think so, I dont think you need wallet.dat and you might use blkindex.dat but you dont really need it
1897 2011-09-06 21:39:15 Stove has quit ()
1898 2011-09-06 21:39:32 hugolp has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1899 2011-09-06 21:39:45 <iddo> lfm: if integer factoring becomes easier then bitcoin (discrete log) might be broken...
1900 2011-09-06 21:39:53 <lfm> yup
1901 2011-09-06 21:40:27 <lfm> or it might just need to use larger keys. depends exactly what is discovered
1902 2011-09-06 21:40:34 zamgo has left ()
1903 2011-09-06 21:40:41 iocor has joined
1904 2011-09-06 21:41:44 <iddo> anyway the bottom line is that it's possible that sha256 is resistant to (partial) preimage attacks, but still if you use sha256 for deterministic wallet then there might be related keys attack... we cannot prove that it'd be resistant to related key attacks based on assuming resistance to preimage attack
1905 2011-09-06 21:42:02 <lfm> like it is almost garanteed that factoring will get easier when faster computers are created
1906 2011-09-06 21:42:37 <lfm> but that is relativly slow and we can easily compensate for it
1907 2011-09-06 21:42:56 <iddo> all known factoring algorithms are exponential time
1908 2011-09-06 21:44:01 <lfm> and compueter speeds get faster exponentially too
1909 2011-09-06 21:44:19 <lfm> or they have in the past
1910 2011-09-06 21:44:56 surikator has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1911 2011-09-06 21:45:15 surikator has joined
1912 2011-09-06 21:45:33 cloudier has quit (Quit: leaving)
1913 2011-09-06 21:46:46 <diki> so which berkeleydb is bitcoin using?
1914 2011-09-06 21:47:02 <Diablo-D3> over 9000
1915 2011-09-06 21:47:04 <lfm> bdb 4.7
1916 2011-09-06 21:47:16 <diki> thanks :)
1917 2011-09-06 21:47:55 <phantomcircuit> iirc 4.7 AND 4.8
1918 2011-09-06 21:48:01 <phantomcircuit> depending on your binary
1919 2011-09-06 21:48:08 <Diablo-D3> 4.8 only if you're an osxfag
1920 2011-09-06 21:48:10 cjdelisle has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1921 2011-09-06 21:48:24 <Diablo-D3> and btw, opening it as read only WILL write upgrades
1922 2011-09-06 21:48:28 <Diablo-D3> thkx bdb
1923 2011-09-06 21:48:34 <lfm> ya some like mac use 4.8 but 4.7 is recomended in build-unix.txt file in sources
1924 2011-09-06 21:49:18 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1925 2011-09-06 21:50:26 BlueMatt has joined
1926 2011-09-06 21:50:55 <xelister> ...and that's why I belive it was last goxxing in this month
1927 2011-09-06 21:51:02 * xelister presses BlueMatt's buttons
1928 2011-09-06 21:51:10 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: wtf is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/0535644b30c150a2603a8b1adc7ac86bacbf3c76 ?
1929 2011-09-06 21:51:14 * BlueMatt gets pissed at xelister
1930 2011-09-06 21:51:16 * copumpkin goxes xelister all night long
1931 2011-09-06 21:51:24 <vsrinivas> both work fine.
1932 2011-09-06 21:51:52 <xelister> binary file edited?
1933 2011-09-06 21:52:04 <xelister> should we edit po and mo should be NOT in git as rebuildable resource?
1934 2011-09-06 21:52:08 ephcon has joined
1935 2011-09-06 21:52:37 <BlueMatt> xelister: yes, the *.mo files should absolutely be removed from git
1936 2011-09-06 21:52:50 <xelister> po:DONATE: "Donate to jgarzik" mo:DONATE Double your money
1937 2011-09-06 21:52:51 <BlueMatt> that was another thing that was supposed to happen right after autotools
1938 2011-09-06 21:52:52 <log0s> luke-jr: other than saving space, how is that different in effect than pre-generating two sets of keys (one set marked for machine A, and the other set marked for machine B), and both machines having a copy both sets?
1939 2011-09-06 21:53:17 <xelister> :}
1940 2011-09-06 21:53:41 erle- has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1941 2011-09-06 21:53:44 <BlueMatt> xelister: autotools will (apparently) do the msgfmt stuff for you, so it would have been easy to do...
1942 2011-09-06 21:58:52 m00p has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1943 2011-09-06 21:58:56 cjdelisle has joined
1944 2011-09-06 22:03:15 <gjs278> ;;bc,stats
1945 2011-09-06 22:03:18 <gribble> Current Blocks: 144263 | Current Difficulty: 1777774.4820015 | Next Difficulty At Block: 145151 | Next Difficulty In: 888 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 6 days, 2 hours, 1 minute, and 36 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1811511.09987824
1946 2011-09-06 22:08:05 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, autotools will write the program for you
1947 2011-09-06 22:08:13 <phantomcircuit> if only you can figure out the right voodoo for it
1948 2011-09-06 22:08:57 <BlueMatt> so true...
1949 2011-09-06 22:09:53 <phantomcircuit> everytime someone does something in auto tools i just think
1950 2011-09-06 22:09:59 <phantomcircuit> "STAND BY IM TRYING MAGIC"
1951 2011-09-06 22:10:06 erle- has joined
1952 2011-09-06 22:10:36 <BlueMatt> git the git reset --hard ready when it all blows up...
1953 2011-09-06 22:11:01 <xelister> autotool can mine 1200 MHash on a CPU
1954 2011-09-06 22:11:04 <BlueMatt> hehe, s/git the git/get the git/
1955 2011-09-06 22:11:10 <xelister> /when/ properly configured
1956 2011-09-06 22:11:12 ymirhotfoot has joined
1957 2011-09-06 22:11:53 <phantomcircuit> xelister, i have a good plan
1958 2011-09-06 22:12:05 <phantomcircuit> we'll design our own anonymous network just for bitcoin
1959 2011-09-06 22:12:08 storrgie has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1960 2011-09-06 22:12:33 <lfm> didnt we already do that once?
1961 2011-09-06 22:12:44 <lfm> Or Satoshi did it I guess.
1962 2011-09-06 22:12:46 <xelister> we should do fnbtc
1963 2011-09-06 22:12:52 <xelister> transport freenet blocks in bitcoin chain
1964 2011-09-06 22:12:53 <phantomcircuit> it's actually reasonably anonymous
1965 2011-09-06 22:13:15 <phantomcircuit> although i definitely wouldn't stake my life on it
1966 2011-09-06 22:13:30 <ymirhotfoot> I think Bitcoin, as she is spoke today, is not a system for anonymity.
1967 2011-09-06 22:13:53 <xelister> phantomcircuit: what is? bitcoin??
1968 2011-09-06 22:13:54 <phantomcircuit> hey guys
1969 2011-09-06 22:13:59 <xelister> bitcoin is totally NOT anonymous at all
1970 2011-09-06 22:14:06 <xelister> used normally
1971 2011-09-06 22:14:07 <phantomcircuit> there is only 1 legitimately open support ticket for britcoin or intersango.com
1972 2011-09-06 22:14:09 <phantomcircuit> FUCK YEAH
1973 2011-09-06 22:14:12 agricocb has joined
1974 2011-09-06 22:14:21 <phantomcircuit> xelister, the p2p network is reasonably anonymous
1975 2011-09-06 22:14:26 <phantomcircuit> the chain is not
1976 2011-09-06 22:14:32 <xelister> phantomcircuit: p2p? no
1977 2011-09-06 22:14:33 <ymirhotfoot> Every transaction is logged, massively publicallay distributed, and statistically defended against corruption.
1978 2011-09-06 22:14:51 <xelister> imaging all thoes agents snooping on bitcoin p2p node traffic...
1979 2011-09-06 22:15:01 <xelister> ...sir we have PLAIN TEXT messages again! how do we proceed?!
1980 2011-09-06 22:15:04 <lfm> and you have no way of knowing really how many btc I have still
1981 2011-09-06 22:15:07 <xelister> I dont know! all is lost men!
1982 2011-09-06 22:16:02 <xelister> everyone who says bitcoin is anonymus should be slapped and called a treitor
1983 2011-09-06 22:17:09 <phantomcircuit> lol
1984 2011-09-06 22:17:19 <phantomcircuit> xelister, the p2p network wont hide that you're using bitcoin
1985 2011-09-06 22:17:28 <cjdelisle> OMG santa is really... DAD!
1986 2011-09-06 22:17:30 <ymirhotfoot> No. We should gently encourage them.
1987 2011-09-06 22:17:34 <xelister> I mean it just transfers all the data right there in plaintext
1988 2011-09-06 22:17:38 <phantomcircuit> but the delayed transaction stuff actualyl mkaes it reasonably hard to correlate ip with transaction
1989 2011-09-06 22:17:55 <phantomcircuit> you'd need to do lots of network timing analysis
1990 2011-09-06 22:17:59 <ymirhotfoot> Then take them for their bitcoins. Or cash depending on the exchange rate.
1991 2011-09-06 22:18:00 <xelister> phantomcircuit: unless it can make node C emit my tx before node A in A-
1992 2011-09-06 22:18:13 <xelister> phantomcircuit: unless it can make node C emit my tx before node A in A->B->C->D model... but then it breaks the causality and our universe
1993 2011-09-06 22:18:23 <phantomcircuit> lol
1994 2011-09-06 22:18:34 <phantomcircuit> i didn't like this one anyways
1995 2011-09-06 22:18:37 <xelister> or unless A and B use TOR but then this is not "normally using standard bitcoin setup"
1996 2011-09-06 22:18:50 <lfm> just add another connect to C
1997 2011-09-06 22:19:10 <ymirhotfoot> In some places with "dynamic ip address" distributed by the Cable Company, the address does not change on a time scale of a year or so.
1998 2011-09-06 22:19:15 <xelister> lfm: how it helps when LEA/thugs snoop A->B and B->C transfers, exactly?
1999 2011-09-06 22:19:50 <xelister> it's triviall the EARLIEST adreess that emits tx is the orginator, duuuh.
2000 2011-09-06 22:20:01 <xelister> if you can observe basically all intrenet traffic
2001 2011-09-06 22:20:15 <xelister> HEY guess who can observe basically all intrenet traffic esp in USA and requires ISP to faciliate this :}
2002 2011-09-06 22:20:29 <ymirhotfoot> Not the Masons!
2003 2011-09-06 22:20:35 <ymirhotfoot> Again!
2004 2011-09-06 22:20:37 <ymirhotfoot> Oi!
2005 2011-09-06 22:20:38 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: that is a merge commit
2006 2011-09-06 22:20:51 <lfm> xelister: I thot luke-jr was the one who supported omnicient obserers.
2007 2011-09-06 22:21:11 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: merge of branch master from bitcoin/bitcoin into branch master of bitcoin/bitcoin?
2008 2011-09-06 22:21:17 <ymirhotfoot> LUKE'S FATHER KNOWS
2009 2011-09-06 22:21:30 <imsaguy> your mama
2010 2011-09-06 22:21:40 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: that's just how it works out locally
2011 2011-09-06 22:21:49 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I pulled remote bitcoin/bitcoin into local
2012 2011-09-06 22:22:17 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2013 2011-09-06 22:22:33 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ok, what commit did that merge?
2014 2011-09-06 22:22:36 <BlueMatt> I dont see one...
2015 2011-09-06 22:23:47 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I committed my revert, which made my local tree != remote github official tree. to push that, I had to pull latest upstream, then push. the merge commit was resolving that order with upstream order.
2016 2011-09-06 22:24:45 <BlueMatt> cant you just push to sync them instead of complicated reverse-merges?
2017 2011-09-06 22:25:07 <BlueMatt> oh, you made that commit before...nvm I get it
2018 2011-09-06 22:25:13 <BlueMatt> still, seems like git should handle that better...
2019 2011-09-06 22:26:01 Cory has quit ()
2020 2011-09-06 22:26:01 f33x has joined
2021 2011-09-06 22:26:03 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: can't. local tree chain is A->C. remote tree has A->B. you cannot rewrite the hash chain given that situation, you must create a merge commit.
2022 2011-09-06 22:26:32 <jgarzik> well, you _could_ rewrite the hash chain, but that's not really how anybody uses git :)
2023 2011-09-06 22:26:46 <BlueMatt> yea, I get it, but you could merge from another branch instead of master, cause that just looks...odd
2024 2011-09-06 22:26:50 <BlueMatt> anyway, I get it now, its all good
2025 2011-09-06 22:27:03 <vsrinivas> handled it fine.
2026 2011-09-06 22:29:42 Cory has joined
2027 2011-09-06 22:29:42 Cory has quit (Changing host)
2028 2011-09-06 22:29:42 Cory has joined
2029 2011-09-06 22:29:46 Cory has quit (Excess Flood)
2030 2011-09-06 22:30:02 Cory has joined
2031 2011-09-06 22:30:07 Cory is now known as Guest48227
2032 2011-09-06 22:30:21 Guest48227 is now known as Cory
2033 2011-09-06 22:30:27 Cory has quit (Changing host)
2034 2011-09-06 22:30:27 Cory has joined
2035 2011-09-06 22:31:21 <jgarzik> vsrinivas: to answer your earlier question... this is standard glibc stuff, which defines MSG_NOSIGNAL as a cpp _and_ C symbol:
2036 2011-09-06 22:31:22 <jgarzik> enum {
2037 2011-09-06 22:31:23 <jgarzik> ...
2038 2011-09-06 22:31:25 <jgarzik> MSG_NOSIGNAL = 0x4000, /* Do not generate SIGPIPE. */
2039 2011-09-06 22:31:25 <jgarzik> #define MSG_NOSIGNAL MSG_NOSIGNAL
2040 2011-09-06 22:31:26 <jgarzik> };
2041 2011-09-06 22:31:51 <ymirhotfoot> What is the story about recent thread difficulties in the latest bitcoind?
2042 2011-09-06 22:31:53 <jgarzik> vsrinivas: I'm guessing that it could be fixed with some better include ordering on bitcoin's part
2043 2011-09-06 22:32:23 <vsrinivas> alternatively could just be fixed in an OpenBSD makefile i suppose.
2044 2011-09-06 22:32:28 <vsrinivas> -DMSG_NOSIGNAL=0
2045 2011-09-06 22:32:39 <vsrinivas> why does glibc do that?
2046 2011-09-06 22:32:43 Baksch has joined
2047 2011-09-06 22:33:49 Taveren93HGK has joined
2048 2011-09-06 22:34:57 Burgundy has quit ()
2049 2011-09-06 22:35:58 ThomasV has joined
2050 2011-09-06 22:37:35 Baksch has quit (Client Quit)
2051 2011-09-06 22:38:19 glitch-mod has joined
2052 2011-09-06 22:39:47 nhodges has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2053 2011-09-06 22:44:01 <jgarzik> vsrinivas: for the reason I just stated -- defines it as a C symbol as well as a cpp symbol
2054 2011-09-06 22:44:36 <jgarzik> vsrinivas: makes compiled code more readable, for example, because the symbol shows up in debug info
2055 2011-09-06 22:44:47 <vsrinivas> okay, that's what i was asking about.
2056 2011-09-06 22:45:56 <vsrinivas> sorry about that, did not try on linux;
2057 2011-09-06 22:47:33 <cjdelisle> #define MSG_NOSIGNAL MSG_NOSIGNAL <-- Forgive me for the noob qustion but what does it do?
2058 2011-09-06 22:49:07 <jrmithdobbs> defines a cpp macro that resolves to the same name
2059 2011-09-06 22:49:35 <xelister> oh c pre proc u so silly
2060 2011-09-06 22:49:59 <jrmithdobbs> where cpp != c++
2061 2011-09-06 22:50:04 <cjdelisle> It looks like it's just there to make idiots ask questions and in that case it has apparently worked.
2062 2011-09-06 22:50:10 DontMindMe has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
2063 2011-09-06 22:50:19 <xelister> well it seems to work here, cjdelisle ;)
2064 2011-09-06 22:51:28 b4epoche_ has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
2065 2011-09-06 22:51:33 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: it does it for the reasons jgarzik breifly mentioned
2066 2011-09-06 22:52:03 <cjdelisle> Ok so I take it #define has a different meaning in C++ than it does in C.
2067 2011-09-06 22:52:28 <cjdelisle> AKA it's smarter than just find/replace
2068 2011-09-06 22:53:01 <jrmithdobbs> it prevents things like: #ifdef MSG_NOSIGNAL from breaking while at the same time referelcing an actual defined type so it shows up as something useful in debug output ... basically
2069 2011-09-06 22:53:41 <vsrinivas> the C++ preprocessor is the same as the C preprocessor. ; you can't #ifdef on enum constants though, so you want the macro.
2070 2011-09-06 22:54:05 <jrmithdobbs> actually, c++'s cpp is dumber than c's in several areas depending on which spec and in neither case is it a simple find and replace
2071 2011-09-06 22:54:08 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
2072 2011-09-06 22:54:32 <cjdelisle> Oh #ifdef
2073 2011-09-06 22:54:41 <cjdelisle> I didn't even think of that...
2074 2011-09-06 22:54:41 forrestv has quit (Quit: Coyote finally caught me)
2075 2011-09-06 22:54:45 <cjdelisle> That makes a ton of sense
2076 2011-09-06 22:54:47 * cjdelisle noob
2077 2011-09-06 22:54:48 <vsrinivas> okay, c99's has variadic macros; (C++0x? has it though?); but where else are they different?
2078 2011-09-06 22:57:02 marf_away2 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2079 2011-09-06 22:57:07 forrestv has joined
2080 2011-09-06 22:59:26 <vsrinivas> ... from a linux system's headers: /* The kernel header does this so there may be a reason. */ ...
2081 2011-09-06 23:04:27 <makomk> Ah, sso my 1.16% isn't terribly absurd then?
2082 2011-09-06 23:04:37 <makomk> Sorry,l ignore that >.>
2083 2011-09-06 23:04:39 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2084 2011-09-06 23:04:53 b4epoche_ has joined
2085 2011-09-06 23:06:21 negativedesreg has joined
2086 2011-09-06 23:07:22 magn3ts has joined
2087 2011-09-06 23:09:05 <currynrice> nonono
2088 2011-09-06 23:09:28 <currynrice> no way
2089 2011-09-06 23:11:27 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
2090 2011-09-06 23:11:30 denisx has joined
2091 2011-09-06 23:13:06 denisx has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2092 2011-09-06 23:13:52 denisx has joined
2093 2011-09-06 23:14:51 nhodges has joined
2094 2011-09-06 23:18:58 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r4d13f8ad3ca4 cgminer/findnonce.c: ByteReverse is not used and the bswap opcode breaks big endian builds. Remove it.
2095 2011-09-06 23:19:52 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
2096 2011-09-06 23:20:12 erle- has quit (Quit: CETERVMÂAVTEMÂCENSEOÂCVTTENBERCÂESSEÂDELENDVM)
2097 2011-09-06 23:20:12 negativedesreg has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2098 2011-09-06 23:21:41 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
2099 2011-09-06 23:22:27 <cjdelisle> what's a good number for -maxconnections?
2100 2011-09-06 23:22:48 <cjdelisle> ~80KB dsl line, willing to donate some b/w
2101 2011-09-06 23:23:13 <phantomcircuit> the bandwidth will be negligible
2102 2011-09-06 23:23:21 <phantomcircuit> the memory usage per peer however might not be
2103 2011-09-06 23:23:25 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: more important is memory
2104 2011-09-06 23:23:32 <phantomcircuit> jrmithdobbs, JYNX
2105 2011-09-06 23:23:33 <cjdelisle> Willing to donate memory too
2106 2011-09-06 23:23:38 <cjdelisle> how mich per peer?
2107 2011-09-06 23:23:43 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: ~10M/connection
2108 2011-09-06 23:23:48 <cjdelisle> hehe
2109 2011-09-06 23:24:01 <cjdelisle> we'll start with 512 and see what happens...
2110 2011-09-06 23:24:08 <jrmithdobbs> no i'm serious
2111 2011-09-06 23:24:17 <jrmithdobbs> that's how the code is written, it can use up to 10MB/connection
2112 2011-09-06 23:24:35 <cjdelisle> so 5GB of memory
2113 2011-09-06 23:24:38 <cjdelisle> I can spare that much
2114 2011-09-06 23:24:42 <phantomcircuit> it can actually us infinitely more, but wont for very long unless you can trigger a deadlock (which i have as of yet not been able to do)
2115 2011-09-06 23:25:08 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: He who laughs last, thinks slowest)
2116 2011-09-06 23:25:41 <imsaguy> cjdelisle, how many connections are you up to?
2117 2011-09-06 23:26:45 <cjdelisle> 165
2118 2011-09-06 23:27:05 cronopio has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2119 2011-09-06 23:27:20 <imsaguy> nice
2120 2011-09-06 23:28:10 cronopio has joined
2121 2011-09-06 23:28:13 storrgie has joined
2122 2011-09-06 23:28:42 <xelister> cjdelisle: if you are in bw-donating mood, try tor/i2p (and perhaps freenet if you have 2 gb ram)
2123 2011-09-06 23:28:59 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rb8be1e6c1593 cgminer/ (adl.c miner.h): Ignore whether the display is active or not since only display enabled devices work this way, and we skip over repeat entries anwyay.
2124 2011-09-06 23:29:13 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: it'll fill up pretty quick
2125 2011-09-06 23:29:34 * cjdelisle just started it
2126 2011-09-06 23:29:34 <cjdelisle> seems to have settled out at 178
2127 2011-09-06 23:30:07 <jrmithdobbs> not once you hit the dns seed
2128 2011-09-06 23:30:09 <cjdelisle> lot of people d/ling the blockchain apparently because it's saturating my upstream b/w
2129 2011-09-06 23:30:37 <jrmithdobbs> ya, p2p network is starved for hosts with the full blockchain and good connectivity
2130 2011-09-06 23:30:40 medallvba has joined
2131 2011-09-06 23:30:51 <cjdelisle> is rate limiting ok?
2132 2011-09-06 23:31:07 <Prattler> how come I only have 34 nodes connected to me? :/ I reboot my "server" sometimes, but it only gets a decent number (50+) after 24 hour uptime
2133 2011-09-06 23:31:23 <jrmithdobbs> because uptime factors into it
2134 2011-09-06 23:31:29 <imsaguy> Prattler, you can only connect to 8 peers outgoing
2135 2011-09-06 23:31:33 <imsaguy> the rest have to be incoming
2136 2011-09-06 23:31:38 <imsaguy> if I'm not mistaken
2137 2011-09-06 23:31:38 <Prattler> doesn't seem like cjdelisle had long uptime
2138 2011-09-06 23:31:44 <jrmithdobbs> and there's some weird gotchas in the peer selection code that are pretty surprising
2139 2011-09-06 23:31:44 <cjdelisle> I don't know this network engine very well, with bittorrent you can rate limit it and there's no problem
2140 2011-09-06 23:31:52 <imsaguy> maybe they hate you Prattler ;)
2141 2011-09-06 23:31:53 <Prattler> I know, I'm saying noone wants to connect to me :/ bastards
2142 2011-09-06 23:31:55 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: should be fine
2143 2011-09-06 23:31:57 * Prattler nods
2144 2011-09-06 23:32:06 <imsaguy> take it as a good thing
2145 2011-09-06 23:32:12 <cjdelisle> I'll drop some iptables rules in to make that happen
2146 2011-09-06 23:32:13 <imsaguy> you don't get anything from tons of peers really
2147 2011-09-06 23:32:13 <jrmithdobbs> Prattler: do you disable irc? that's a big factor
2148 2011-09-06 23:32:20 17WAAICXX has joined
2149 2011-09-06 23:32:58 <cjdelisle> Prattler: I am running the git from earlier today
2150 2011-09-06 23:33:11 <cjdelisle> 181 connections
2151 2011-09-06 23:33:19 <cjdelisle> buffer bloat is killing me though
2152 2011-09-06 23:33:43 somuchwin has joined
2153 2011-09-06 23:34:08 <Prattler> jrmithdobbs, checked my bitcoin.conf again, irc seems to be enabled (#noirc=1)
2154 2011-09-06 23:35:08 <jrmithdobbs> mine floats between ~400-512
2155 2011-09-06 23:35:22 <jrmithdobbs> "connections" : 425,
2156 2011-09-06 23:35:38 * Prattler is using the stable 0.3.24
2157 2011-09-06 23:35:44 <jrmithdobbs> bitcoin 2770 19.2 40.9 986740 845980 ? SLl Aug10 7463:14 /usr/local/bin/bitcoind -datadir=/home/bitcoin -printtoconsole -maxconnections=512
2158 2011-09-06 23:35:47 <jrmithdobbs> same
2159 2011-09-06 23:36:24 <Prattler> but strange, I was puzzled by this for some time.. network starving for connections, but I don't seem to get that many.. I get >8, usually around 30, and have to wait days for 100+
2160 2011-09-06 23:36:42 <jrmithdobbs> if you don't use -printtoconsole (and either discard the output completely or use something like svlogd to rotate it for you) you *will* eventually fill up your disk with that many connections
2161 2011-09-06 23:36:47 <jrmithdobbs> just fyi
2162 2011-09-06 23:36:56 <jrmithdobbs> ~1MB/minute of logs i shit you not
2163 2011-09-06 23:37:28 <jrmithdobbs> Prattler: part of the reason that node gets so many is because it's on a fairly rare class b as it's on one of the last allocated segments of ipv4 ;p
2164 2011-09-06 23:37:41 <Prattler> yeah, could be
2165 2011-09-06 23:37:49 <jrmithdobbs> no it definitely is a factor
2166 2011-09-06 23:38:20 <jrmithdobbs> cause i'm an acceptable peer for every home network in the US, for example, since i'm not on the same class B
2167 2011-09-06 23:40:49 <dub> '94 called..
2168 2011-09-06 23:40:52 clr_ has joined
2169 2011-09-06 23:44:32 <jrmithdobbs> dub: ?
2170 2011-09-06 23:47:00 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2171 2011-09-06 23:47:11 storrgie has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2172 2011-09-06 23:48:54 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rc8d40fb4348b cgminer/ (Makefile.am configure.ac): Win32 does not use dlopen so link in -ldl only when not on win32 and display what ldflags are being passed on ./configure.
2173 2011-09-06 23:49:32 zapnap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2174 2011-09-06 23:51:34 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
2175 2011-09-06 23:51:35 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2176 2011-09-06 23:54:02 genjix has joined
2177 2011-09-06 23:54:25 <genjix> gavinandresen: hey why did you disable signature verification when it's initial block chain download?
2178 2011-09-06 23:54:45 <genjix> it doesn't make sense to disable one check out of this very thorough series of events
2179 2011-09-06 23:55:13 <genjix> if you don't want to have the checking then only do CheckBlock() / AccpetBlock()
2180 2011-09-06 23:57:09 <gavinandresen> genjix: why: because it makes downloading the chain much faster. And is safe.
2181 2011-09-06 23:57:27 <gavinandresen> Why not disable the other checks: because the other checks are quick.
2182 2011-09-06 23:57:42 <genjix> this is a hack at best though
2183 2011-09-06 23:57:57 <gavinandresen> Sure, the real solution is headers-only initial download, but I haven't had time to finish that work
2184 2011-09-06 23:58:06 <genjix> and you have to make sure the last block value in the sourcecode matches the last checkpoint
2185 2011-09-06 23:58:06 eoss has joined
2186 2011-09-06 23:58:25 <gavinandresen> huh?
2187 2011-09-06 23:58:37 <genjix> for IsInitialBlockChainDownload
2188 2011-09-06 23:58:50 <genjix> otherwise you can sneak some malicious blocks in there
2189 2011-09-06 23:59:09 <gavinandresen> Right... that's what IsInitialBlockChainDownload does... returns true if !testnet and you're 120-blocks-or-more behind the last checkpoint
2190 2011-09-06 23:59:17 Vladimir has joined
2191 2011-09-06 23:59:33 <Vladimir> bitcoin.org.uk roll
2192 2011-09-06 23:59:38 <Vladimir> ;;dice 1d20
2193 2011-09-06 23:59:38 <gribble> 13
2194 2011-09-06 23:59:43 <ymirhotfoot> What is the well understood sorter form of the distributed "blockchain guarantee certificate"?
2195 2011-09-06 23:59:45 asher^ has joined
2196 2011-09-06 23:59:45 <genjix> ok but making lots of changes like this degrades the sourcecode