1 2011-09-13 00:01:44 BTCTrader is now known as BTC_away
   2 2011-09-13 00:02:11 MrTiggr is now known as MrTiggrAFK
   3 2011-09-13 00:02:15 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
   4 2011-09-13 00:05:13 laetus has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
   5 2011-09-13 00:06:24 ymirhotfoot has joined
   6 2011-09-13 00:06:29 Cablesaurus has joined
   7 2011-09-13 00:06:29 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
   8 2011-09-13 00:06:29 Cablesaurus has joined
   9 2011-09-13 00:06:52 gavinandresen has joined
  10 2011-09-13 00:07:19 normanrichards has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  11 2011-09-13 00:09:38 copumpkin has joined
  12 2011-09-13 00:10:39 theorbtwo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
  13 2011-09-13 00:11:52 semb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  14 2011-09-13 00:11:53 iocor has joined
  15 2011-09-13 00:12:08 theorbtwo has joined
  16 2011-09-13 00:12:19 dvide has joined
  17 2011-09-13 00:14:15 jimb0 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  18 2011-09-13 00:16:37 iocor has quit (Client Quit)
  19 2011-09-13 00:16:52 pointbiz has joined
  20 2011-09-13 00:18:54 Ramen has left ()
  21 2011-09-13 00:28:13 BTCTrader_ has joined
  22 2011-09-13 00:28:23 BTCTrader_ has quit (Changing host)
  23 2011-09-13 00:28:23 BTCTrader_ has joined
  24 2011-09-13 00:29:01 minimoose has joined
  25 2011-09-13 00:30:28 tynx has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  26 2011-09-13 00:31:50 surikator has joined
  27 2011-09-13 00:45:10 BlueMatt has joined
  28 2011-09-13 00:49:58 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  29 2011-09-13 00:51:30 surikator has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  30 2011-09-13 00:52:33 egecko has joined
  31 2011-09-13 00:55:31 cande has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  32 2011-09-13 00:58:18 Matth1a3 has joined
  33 2011-09-13 01:00:25 alexwaters has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  34 2011-09-13 01:03:50 <JFK911> butts
  35 2011-09-13 01:09:27 wolfspraul has joined
  36 2011-09-13 01:09:41 wolfspraul has quit (Client Quit)
  37 2011-09-13 01:10:14 wolfspraul has joined
  38 2011-09-13 01:10:18 lolcat_ has quit (Changing host)
  39 2011-09-13 01:10:18 lolcat_ has joined
  40 2011-09-13 01:10:28 amtal has joined
  41 2011-09-13 01:10:41 lolcat_ is now known as lolcat^
  42 2011-09-13 01:12:55 <xelister> [03:03:10] <MagicalTux> and bitcoin users are known to be naive and dreamers hoping for a decentralized world, easy to trick into traps
  43 2011-09-13 01:13:31 wolfspra1l has joined
  44 2011-09-13 01:14:09 wolfspra1l has quit (Client Quit)
  45 2011-09-13 01:14:30 <gmaxwell> "to be naive and dreamers hoping for a decentralized world who happen to possess perfectly liquid, instantly transferable, unreversable money"
  46 2011-09-13 01:15:34 <gmaxwell> We might be sucker, sure, but everyone is. That we're suckers and have bitcoin is what makes us great targets because bitcoin's technical superiority as money cuts all ways.
  47 2011-09-13 01:15:54 <ymirhotfoot> gmaxwell: I think today
  48 2011-09-13 01:16:04 <ymirhotfoot> 1. bitcoin is not liquid
  49 2011-09-13 01:16:17 <ymirhotfoot> 2. bitcoin is not quickly transferable
  50 2011-09-13 01:16:20 <gmaxwell> it's perfectly liquid.
  51 2011-09-13 01:16:40 <gmaxwell> ymirhotfoot: three clicks and I've unrecoverably transfered some to you.
  52 2011-09-13 01:16:56 <gmaxwell> You can't do that with dollar bills or gold bars.
  53 2011-09-13 01:17:05 <ymirhotfoot> 3. I am not sure what the exact meaning of 'irrevesible' here is.  This one might be part right.
  54 2011-09-13 01:17:13 <MagicalTux> gmaxwell: wire transfers clears in a matter of minutes (provided it's not night or weekend)
  55 2011-09-13 01:17:46 <gmaxwell> MagicalTux: and indeed, people exploit other things that make the dollar more liquid. E.g. people abuse paypal users for the same reasons.
  56 2011-09-13 01:17:53 <ymirhotfoot> gmaxwell: irreversible in that sense, yes, I think bitcoin is such.
  57 2011-09-13 01:18:03 <MagicalTux> anyway
  58 2011-09-13 01:19:08 <ymirhotfoot> gmaxwell: This evening I will not debate liquidity of bitcoins, nor speed of transfers.
  59 2011-09-13 01:19:23 kinlo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
  60 2011-09-13 01:19:24 <ymirhotfoot> Some day, I would like to do so in person.
  61 2011-09-13 01:19:29 kinlo has joined
  62 2011-09-13 01:19:47 pwrcycle has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
  63 2011-09-13 01:19:49 iz has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
  64 2011-09-13 01:19:51 pwrcycle has joined
  65 2011-09-13 01:19:56 iz has joined
  66 2011-09-13 01:22:21 <gmaxwell> in any case, whenever someone says "foo-type-people is bar" you can usually replace "foo-type-people" with people and get a statment that is pretty much just as objectively true if noy more so.
  67 2011-09-13 01:22:31 <gmaxwell> s/noy/not/
  68 2011-09-13 01:23:27 <gmaxwell> and I agree with the claim— about bitcoin users and, more generally, about a lot of people.
  69 2011-09-13 01:24:00 <copumpkin> I think the type of people who say "foo-type-people is bar" are dumb!
  70 2011-09-13 01:24:30 <ymirhotfoot> But bar-people really are foo.
  71 2011-09-13 01:25:28 <ymirhotfoot> I attended for a bit the Open Video gathering in New York City last Saturday and Sunday.
  72 2011-09-13 01:26:04 <gmaxwell> ymirhotfoot: well, you missed your chance to debate with me in person then. (no doubt because I missed the bitcoin session)
  73 2011-09-13 01:26:07 <doublec> did you attend their micropayment/bitcoin session?
  74 2011-09-13 01:26:07 YifuGuo has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  75 2011-09-13 01:26:35 <ymirhotfoot> gmaxwell: I hoped you would be at that session.  I looked for you.
  76 2011-09-13 01:26:49 <ymirhotfoot> doublec: Yes.  I enjoyed it.
  77 2011-09-13 01:26:50 <gmaxwell> Sorry, got caught up in another session that ran over. :(
  78 2011-09-13 01:27:20 <ymirhotfoot> I mainly ranted against putting your wallet on a device that Steve jobs^W^WApple has root on.
  79 2011-09-13 01:27:42 <ymirhotfoot> gmaxwell: next time, and soon I hope.
  80 2011-09-13 01:27:44 <copumpkin> no no, I have root on it
  81 2011-09-13 01:27:50 <copumpkin> that device
  82 2011-09-13 01:28:02 <ymirhotfoot> Well all you fruits and vegetables are
  83 2011-09-13 01:28:05 <gmaxwell> I'd spin that another way: a device that apple has made such a jucy target for people to break the security on, since 99.9% of the security there is about preventing the owner from controlling his own device!
  84 2011-09-13 01:28:19 <ymirhotfoot> Masons, I heard from a
  85 2011-09-13 01:28:24 <ymirhotfoot> foobar person.
  86 2011-09-13 01:28:48 <ymirhotfoot> gmaxwell: Yes.
  87 2011-09-13 01:29:07 <gmaxwell> (e.g. no one compromised the PS3 security, until they booted linux off it…)
  88 2011-09-13 01:29:11 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
  89 2011-09-13 01:29:15 <ymirhotfoot> and there is no security, whether or not some person/organization other than Apple gets in.
  90 2011-09-13 01:29:44 <ymirhotfoot> Apple is already in, and they directly claim a legal power to run the device as they see fit.
  91 2011-09-13 01:30:03 <ymirhotfoot> Of course, in most cases, they have the practical power.
  92 2011-09-13 01:30:03 <copumpkin> that's why you take control over it :)
  93 2011-09-13 01:30:08 <ymirhotfoot> Yes.
  94 2011-09-13 01:30:19 <ymirhotfoot> TEAR ROOT FROM THE ENGLOBULATORS
  95 2011-09-13 01:30:36 <ymirhotfoot> ROOT AND BRANCH
  96 2011-09-13 01:31:18 Clipse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  97 2011-09-13 01:31:23 <ymirhotfoot> and as far as I can tell, Apple makes little effort to keep root
  98 2011-09-13 01:31:32 Clipse has joined
  99 2011-09-13 01:31:51 <ymirhotfoot> msot people can hire a "get root quick" person for a low price
 100 2011-09-13 01:32:00 Disposition has joined
 101 2011-09-13 01:32:01 <ymirhotfoot> or ask a friend.
 102 2011-09-13 01:32:44 <ymirhotfoot> gmaxwell: I think PS3 is well defended.
 103 2011-09-13 01:32:54 Dispose_away has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 104 2011-09-13 01:32:56 <ymirhotfoot> it is a fully Palladiated system.
 105 2011-09-13 01:33:23 <ymirhotfoot> I do not know how hard it is today to grab root on the PS3.
 106 2011-09-13 01:33:34 <ymirhotfoot> But i think it non-trivial.
 107 2011-09-13 01:33:52 <phantomcircuit> a wat
 108 2011-09-13 01:34:10 <ymirhotfoot> XBox is well defended too, I think.
 109 2011-09-13 01:34:36 amtal has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 110 2011-09-13 01:35:24 <ymirhotfoot> phantomcircuit: "Palladium" was the name for a/the system of crypto-signing low level code at startup, and more, designed so that the Englobulators could run systems used by home users in the day, about the year 200, as I remember.
 111 2011-09-13 01:35:38 <phantomcircuit> ah
 112 2011-09-13 01:35:51 <ymirhotfoot> there was some outcry against it on the cryptograhy mailing list, enough so that
 113 2011-09-13 01:36:12 <ymirhotfoot> the name was changed and Intel and microsoft et al did not force the system into all home computers.
 114 2011-09-13 01:36:32 <ymirhotfoot> a part of palladiaum is in use on the Chrome book devices, but
 115 2011-09-13 01:37:05 <ymirhotfoot> there are two switches which if put right, give the pwrson carrying the device
 116 2011-09-13 01:37:10 <ymirhotfoot> full root.
 117 2011-09-13 01:37:54 <ymirhotfoot> Google says that they will only work with hardware manufacturers who
 118 2011-09-13 01:38:14 <ymirhotfoot> agree to keep the two switches working on dveices sold to individuals.
 119 2011-09-13 01:38:50 <ymirhotfoot> So far, according to report, the two Chrome books, not from google itself, do have the switches, and they work.
 120 2011-09-13 01:39:07 <ymirhotfoot> The Cr-48 has the two switches.
 121 2011-09-13 01:39:37 <ymirhotfoot> One is not hard to throw, but the other requires unscrewing, I think, seven
 122 2011-09-13 01:39:56 <ymirhotfoot> identical screws and two slightly different screws,
 123 2011-09-13 01:40:11 <ymirhotfoot> and in effect, removing a jumper over the bios.
 124 2011-09-13 01:40:43 <ymirhotfoot> year 2000,
 125 2011-09-13 01:41:03 <ymirhotfoot> year 200 Athens original palladium was still up ;)
 126 2011-09-13 01:41:10 <ymirhotfoot> I think.
 127 2011-09-13 01:43:44 <ymirhotfoot> The first switch on the Cr-48 gives you full user powers, including root in in the sense you can edit /etc, etc..
 128 2011-09-13 01:44:28 <imsaguy> full user powers where?
 129 2011-09-13 01:44:35 <ymirhotfoot> But you cannot replace the official Google signed kernel
 130 2011-09-13 01:44:37 <imsaguy> of the booted os?
 131 2011-09-13 01:44:57 <ymirhotfoot> For that you must throw the second under the plate hood.
 132 2011-09-13 01:46:55 <ymirhotfoot> under the plate switch, I meant.
 133 2011-09-13 01:47:07 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 134 2011-09-13 01:47:37 <ymirhotfoot> At boot the bios+otherchips checks that control is transferred only in case the kernel code is signed.
 135 2011-09-13 01:47:55 <ymirhotfoot> Thus, a "know good" kernel is booted.
 136 2011-09-13 01:48:27 <ymirhotfoot> good for whom is the question, and since I believe the two switches work, I will use my Cr-48.
 137 2011-09-13 01:48:37 <ymirhotfoot> "known good"
 138 2011-09-13 01:49:37 BlueMatt has joined
 139 2011-09-13 01:49:42 <ymirhotfoot> The OS beyond the kernel is mostly, but not entirely standard GNU plus X plus usual other stuff.
 140 2011-09-13 01:50:16 <ymirhotfoot> On my Cr-48 there was no Emacs loaded.  Oi, that was a mite annoying.
 141 2011-09-13 01:51:00 <xelister> ymirhotfoot: so it means any chromebook can be extra easly rooted with hardware access?
 142 2011-09-13 01:51:40 <ymirhotfoot> xelister: Well the cr-48 is annoying, because the second switch is under a plate beneath the big battery,
 143 2011-09-13 01:52:01 <ymirhotfoot> to get full root is a mite annoying, but the easy switch
 144 2011-09-13 01:52:04 <xelister> dunno is it good.. or bad..
 145 2011-09-13 01:52:13 <ymirhotfoot> is just under the battery, and once you throw it,
 146 2011-09-13 01:52:26 <ymirhotfoot> you can put what you want on, in the usual way.
 147 2011-09-13 01:52:38 <ymirhotfoot> Except for switching in another kernel.
 148 2011-09-13 01:52:40 <dikidera> what is the maximum lenght a wallet address can be?
 149 2011-09-13 01:52:50 <xelister> actually if people have HW access you should consider box compromised.. and bad guys can root anyway in such situation.. so I suppose it is for the better for the people wanting to relace os?
 150 2011-09-13 01:53:09 <imsaguy> having hardware access has always been trump
 151 2011-09-13 01:53:16 <imsaguy> without physical security, the rest is shit
 152 2011-09-13 01:53:32 <ymirhotfoot> xelister: The Englobulators intend to keep root out of the hands of Bitcoiners,
 153 2011-09-13 01:53:41 <xelister> ymirhotfoot: hm??
 154 2011-09-13 01:54:00 <ymirhotfoot> and out of the hands of violaters of copyright on popular songes ;)
 155 2011-09-13 01:54:07 <ymirhotfoot> songs not songes
 156 2011-09-13 01:54:22 wardearia has joined
 157 2011-09-13 01:54:28 <xelister> friday friday .. gonna be arrested by riaa thugs on friday
 158 2011-09-13 01:54:40 <ymirhotfoot> Having a level of defense at the bios/kernel level is useful, if
 159 2011-09-13 01:54:55 <ymirhotfoot> you yourself indeed control the system, but
 160 2011-09-13 01:55:01 <xelister> btw, this is all very interesting...  but how is that bitcoin related? :)
 161 2011-09-13 01:55:10 <xelister> for bitcoin mobile app?
 162 2011-09-13 01:55:41 <ymirhotfoot> once these Palladiated systems become widespared, then the gummint/RIAA/MPAA/SAVETHECHILDREFROMPORN alliance can argue that, well
 163 2011-09-13 01:56:06 <ymirhotfoot> really the Englobulators should keep root, and getting root will be made a serious crime.
 164 2011-09-13 01:56:34 <ymirhotfoot> Once the devices are widespread, when the word comes down,
 165 2011-09-13 01:56:42 <xelister> Englobuwhat?
 166 2011-09-13 01:56:46 <ymirhotfoot> the (two) switches will be disabled.
 167 2011-09-13 01:56:55 <ymirhotfoot> Englobulators.
 168 2011-09-13 01:57:46 <xelister> People that spawn globules as they walk?
 169 2011-09-13 01:59:37 <ymirhotfoot> xelister: ;)
 170 2011-09-13 01:59:58 <ymirhotfoot> Here is one answer of mine as to what Palladium waqs really designed to do:
 171 2011-09-13 02:00:02 <ymirhotfoot> http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@wasabisystems.com/msg03822.html
 172 2011-09-13 02:00:53 <ymirhotfoot> I have other rants, the above is just short statement of fact in answer to some ridiculous claim by Microsoft that "Oh, we would never limit what you can do, once we get Palladium inside."
 173 2011-09-13 02:01:05 <ymirhotfoot> waqs -> was
 174 2011-09-13 02:01:39 <xelister> what are englobulators
 175 2011-09-13 02:02:15 <xelister> first google hits are not defininig it exactly
 176 2011-09-13 02:02:56 <ymirhotfoot> MPAA/FED/BofA/FBI/DisneyCo/CIA/ThePhoneCompany/TheCableCompany
 177 2011-09-13 02:03:00 <ymirhotfoot> etc..
 178 2011-09-13 02:03:18 <ymirhotfoot> the loose alliance of theose who have and want to grab all.
 179 2011-09-13 02:04:03 <ymirhotfoot> theose who have much today, and intend to grab all tomorrow, and who have been doing well for some decades
 180 2011-09-13 02:04:26 * imsaguy puts on his tin foil hat
 181 2011-09-13 02:04:32 <imsaguy> hack this
 182 2011-09-13 02:04:37 <ymirhotfoot> Apple has root on millions of devices, devices which are just computers with some
 183 2011-09-13 02:04:44 `2Fast2BCn has quit (Excess Flood)
 184 2011-09-13 02:04:49 <copumpkin> it "has root"
 185 2011-09-13 02:04:51 <ymirhotfoot> radio telecommunications capabilities.
 186 2011-09-13 02:04:53 <xelister> ymirhotfoot: /mtgox  ;)
 187 2011-09-13 02:04:55 <copumpkin> it doesn't mean they can remote control it
 188 2011-09-13 02:05:00 <imsaguy> so what, they have root
 189 2011-09-13 02:05:04 <imsaguy> you're still in control of it
 190 2011-09-13 02:05:16 <copumpkin> I can have root on a computer on a raft floating in the ocean
 191 2011-09-13 02:05:19 <xelister> imsaguy: when someone has a root, then you are not in controll of shit, by definition
 192 2011-09-13 02:05:20 <copumpkin> doesn't mean it does me any good
 193 2011-09-13 02:05:23 `2Fast2BCn has joined
 194 2011-09-13 02:05:31 <imsaguy> lol
 195 2011-09-13 02:05:33 <ymirhotfoot> Apple does remotely control iPhones and ipads.  Apple has disabled programs Apple does not like.
 196 2011-09-13 02:05:34 <imsaguy> if I have root, I have control
 197 2011-09-13 02:05:50 <copumpkin> not really
 198 2011-09-13 02:05:55 <ymirhotfoot> Amazon removed copies of a book they thought should not be on the kindle.
 199 2011-09-13 02:05:59 <xelister> (ok ok, except on like grsecurity system with limited 'root' - but then by Root we mean the unrestricted access e.g. gradm admin role ;)
 200 2011-09-13 02:06:09 <copumpkin> amazon is creepier
 201 2011-09-13 02:06:20 <imsaguy> its because they wrote that functionality in
 202 2011-09-13 02:06:20 <copumpkin> apple doesn't actually have much remote power
 203 2011-09-13 02:06:25 <imsaguy> its not some grand conspiracy
 204 2011-09-13 02:06:31 <BlueMatt> yes it is
 205 2011-09-13 02:06:31 <ymirhotfoot> it was 1984, and Amazon got confused and thoughjt that the copies got on the kindles by acts of copyright violation.
 206 2011-09-13 02:06:40 <xelister> it is really funny they censored 1984
 207 2011-09-13 02:06:40 <imsaguy> oh god
 208 2011-09-13 02:06:46 <ymirhotfoot> imsaguy: It is and it is not.
 209 2011-09-13 02:06:59 <copumpkin> either way, apple can't remote control your device
 210 2011-09-13 02:06:59 <imsaguy> what flavor was the koolaide?
 211 2011-09-13 02:07:02 <imsaguy> grape I hope.
 212 2011-09-13 02:07:06 <BlueMatt> everything is a conspiracy
 213 2011-09-13 02:07:08 <ymirhotfoot> Most of it indeed a conspiracy, but parts a distributed, spontaneous conspiracy.
 214 2011-09-13 02:07:10 <imsaguy> urmom
 215 2011-09-13 02:07:12 <BlueMatt> apple can blow the world up if you let them
 216 2011-09-13 02:07:21 <ymirhotfoot> parts of it are I meant.
 217 2011-09-13 02:07:24 <imsaguy> BlueMatt, I'm glad you know sarcasm.
 218 2011-09-13 02:07:29 <BlueMatt> they can blow up your battery man
 219 2011-09-13 02:07:36 <xelister> imsaguy: hm? ymirhotfoot is correct, amazon did remotelly killed your books like censored 1984 book (lol). they also removed USER OWN NOTES added to the book. woot?
 220 2011-09-13 02:07:38 <imsaguy> hot!
 221 2011-09-13 02:07:45 <imsaguy> well
 222 2011-09-13 02:07:57 <imsaguy> they removed the notes because they were attached to the book
 223 2011-09-13 02:07:58 <ymirhotfoot> No Apple claims a legal right to remove whatever files Apple does not like on all iPhones and ipads.
 224 2011-09-13 02:07:59 <copumpkin> amazon definitely did that shit
 225 2011-09-13 02:08:11 <copumpkin> ymirhotfoot: they still don't have the technical capability to do so
 226 2011-09-13 02:08:12 <imsaguy> its no different than me throwing away a notebook where you've stapled something to a page inside.
 227 2011-09-13 02:08:38 <ymirhotfoot> copumpkin: I think Apple does have this capability.
 228 2011-09-13 02:08:45 <copumpkin> I know they don't :)
 229 2011-09-13 02:08:49 <copumpkin> not remotely, at least
 230 2011-09-13 02:08:49 lkjJAR has joined
 231 2011-09-13 02:08:51 <imsaguy> enough conspiracy for me tonight
 232 2011-09-13 02:08:58 <copumpkin> if you restore your device, they can do whatever
 233 2011-09-13 02:09:03 <BlueMatt> ;;later tell devrandom it appears the non-determinism in the setup exe is a result of nsis aligning the bitcoin icon file to some boundry and padding with random crap...
 234 2011-09-13 02:09:03 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
 235 2011-09-13 02:09:04 <ymirhotfoot> When nyou be in new York copumpkin?
 236 2011-09-13 02:09:14 <copumpkin> in new york?
 237 2011-09-13 02:09:21 <xelister> imsaguy: yea but your are not throwing it away; the shop slips in while you are asleep, steals one of book he sold you (with your notes inside) and leaves "sorry" note...   I don't get it - are you now defending what Amazon did in this case?
 238 2011-09-13 02:09:23 <ymirhotfoot> New York City
 239 2011-09-13 02:09:28 <xelister> *shop owner
 240 2011-09-13 02:09:44 <imsaguy> I'm saying they didn't delete the notes on purpose
 241 2011-09-13 02:09:46 <copumpkin> ymirhotfoot: I don't have any visits to NYC scheduled, but I go down every few months
 242 2011-09-13 02:09:50 <imsaguy> that was a side effect of removing the book.
 243 2011-09-13 02:09:53 <ymirhotfoot> Oi, imsaguy, oi
 244 2011-09-13 02:10:07 <xelister> imsaguy: yes deleting notes was not on purpose, so what? it still sucks
 245 2011-09-13 02:10:12 <ymirhotfoot> Suppose it were some other theif, not Amazon, is it then OK?
 246 2011-09-13 02:10:24 <ymirhotfoot> No, and it is not OK when Amazon does it neither.
 247 2011-09-13 02:10:30 lkjJAR has quit (Client Quit)
 248 2011-09-13 02:10:30 <imsaguy> I remove shit from my user's machines if I don't like it, even if there's good stuff in it
 249 2011-09-13 02:10:53 <imsaguy> its a right they've given me.
 250 2011-09-13 02:10:54 <Disposition> ymirhotfoot: what about New york?
 251 2011-09-13 02:11:02 <ymirhotfoot> imsaguy: So it is OK if I come into your computer, look around remove nothing, but just copy some files to mine?
 252 2011-09-13 02:11:07 <xelister> imsaguy: are you defending amazon's remote removing of the books is already sold (+/unintentionall/ deletion of user own notes)?
 253 2011-09-13 02:11:20 <imsaguy> why'd they remove the books?
 254 2011-09-13 02:11:26 <ymirhotfoot> Amazon and apple not only calim a legal right to that, they have done that and worse.
 255 2011-09-13 02:11:31 <ymirhotfoot> Why is that OK?
 256 2011-09-13 02:11:37 <xelister> imsaguy: as a customer I do not care, I paid for the book
 257 2011-09-13 02:11:48 <imsaguy> they aren't selling you the book, they are selling you a revocable license to the book
 258 2011-09-13 02:11:53 <xelister> probably them screwed up something with organizing licensing. should be their problem
 259 2011-09-13 02:11:55 <imsaguy> read the terms
 260 2011-09-13 02:11:58 <ymirhotfoot> imsaguy: not relevant why.  The offense is that they have root.
 261 2011-09-13 02:12:07 <xelister> imsaguy: then amazon's terms sucks bawls
 262 2011-09-13 02:12:09 <imsaguy> you can delete without root
 263 2011-09-13 02:12:19 <ymirhotfoot> ad why: they thought the transfer of the copies violated copyright.
 264 2011-09-13 02:12:24 <imsaguy> they can remove books from my android device and they certainly don't have root
 265 2011-09-13 02:12:29 <ymirhotfoot> They were wrong about this small detail too.
 266 2011-09-13 02:12:38 <gmaxwell> publisher sold books, later it was claimed they didn't have the rights to the book, so amazon deleted it from people's device (also destroyed forever annotations users made, etc)
 267 2011-09-13 02:12:42 <xelister> on another consideration,  amazon's action of destorying user's notes, even if inadvertly, is inexcusable. at least to me.
 268 2011-09-13 02:12:46 <gmaxwell> slightly ironically the book in question was 1984.
 269 2011-09-13 02:12:49 <xelister> imsaguy: ^ you don't agree?
 270 2011-09-13 02:12:57 <ymirhotfoot> imsaguy: if you cannot stop them, then they own that device,
 271 2011-09-13 02:12:59 Guest14971 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 272 2011-09-13 02:13:02 <ymirhotfoot> and you do not.
 273 2011-09-13 02:13:05 <imsaguy> lol, they don't own the device
 274 2011-09-13 02:13:08 <imsaguy> they own the app
 275 2011-09-13 02:13:12 <imsaguy> learn the difference
 276 2011-09-13 02:13:12 <xelister> amazon is the mtgox of ereaders
 277 2011-09-13 02:13:28 <imsaguy> amazon can do whatever they want within the context of their app
 278 2011-09-13 02:13:31 <imsaguy> they don't have root
 279 2011-09-13 02:13:36 <ymirhotfoot> imsaguy: Oi.  What if I give you a file,
 280 2011-09-13 02:13:44 <imsaguy> root would allow them to remove my adobe flash app
 281 2011-09-13 02:13:47 <imsaguy> but they can't do that
 282 2011-09-13 02:13:51 <ymirhotfoot> and you place on your home computer, and it turns out
 283 2011-09-13 02:13:53 <gmaxwell> imsaguy: an app which you can't uninstall, which they can and do upgrade at any time without your consent... sounds like morre than "control an app" to me.
 284 2011-09-13 02:14:07 <xelister> I would gladly give root to companies to remove flash from computers :}
 285 2011-09-13 02:14:10 <ymirhotfoot> that i can activate the file, which has an excutable part, and dow aht i want
 286 2011-09-13 02:14:28 <ymirhotfoot> with that program on your hardware, what do you call that?
 287 2011-09-13 02:14:43 <ymirhotfoot> imsaguy: it is a trojan.
 288 2011-09-13 02:15:02 <imsaguy> its not the same comparison
 289 2011-09-13 02:15:10 <gmaxwell> xelister: if you give me root, I'll remove flash for you.
 290 2011-09-13 02:15:43 <gmaxwell> I'm an expirenced flash removal technician.
 291 2011-09-13 02:15:49 <ymirhotfoot> imsaguy: I prefer to control, if I can, everything on my home machine.
 292 2011-09-13 02:15:56 <imsaguy> amazon can add/remove books within their software as they please.  So on android devices, its very limited, on the nook, its not because the nook only is their ap.
 293 2011-09-13 02:16:08 <imsaguy> huge difference
 294 2011-09-13 02:16:10 <ymirhotfoot> I may fail, there are some serious home computer invaders out there, but
 295 2011-09-13 02:16:23 <xelister> gmaxwell: everywhere
 296 2011-09-13 02:16:33 <ymirhotfoot> I do not agree that Apple, nor Amazon, should run stuff on my computer, so
 297 2011-09-13 02:16:35 <gmaxwell> xelister: working on it.
 298 2011-09-13 02:16:40 <xelister> godspeed, gmaxwell
 299 2011-09-13 02:16:45 <imsaguy> then don't use the amazon software
 300 2011-09-13 02:16:48 <imsaguy> simple as that.
 301 2011-09-13 02:17:09 <ymirhotfoot> I do not own a Kindle nor any Apple portable computer/radio-telephone.
 302 2011-09-13 02:17:24 <imsaguy> then what's the issue?
 303 2011-09-13 02:17:56 <gmaxwell> "then don't do that" isn't a complete solution.
 304 2011-09-13 02:18:10 <imsaguy> it is.  they set forth the terms by which you can use their software
 305 2011-09-13 02:18:14 <imsaguy> either accept them or don't
 306 2011-09-13 02:18:28 <gmaxwell> So I have to forgo popular and useful products, simply because I want to retain complete control of my computing devices? Thats lame.
 307 2011-09-13 02:18:30 <imsaguy> it really is that simple.
 308 2011-09-13 02:18:41 <imsaguy> buy from a different publisher.
 309 2011-09-13 02:18:48 <imsaguy> err, distributer
 310 2011-09-13 02:18:49 <imsaguy> whatever
 311 2011-09-13 02:18:52 <ymirhotfoot> imsaguy: The issue is that once the hardware for "signed boot only" is on many devices, then another scare could easily lead to laws being passed that required that only "authorized systems" connect to the Net.
 312 2011-09-13 02:19:07 <xelister> imsaguy: what is the main distributor is a monopoly? more so reasons to destroy monopolies
 313 2011-09-13 02:19:23 <imsaguy> xelister, this isn't a mtgox issue
 314 2011-09-13 02:19:25 <gmaxwell> If there were only _one_ party doing this stuff, and if they weren't peddling products and services exclusively bound to their devices it would certantly be a lot easier.
 315 2011-09-13 02:19:27 <imsaguy> troll on that later
 316 2011-09-13 02:19:44 <xelister> imsaguy: monopolies
 317 2011-09-13 02:19:49 <xelister> there are other monopolies then mtgox
 318 2011-09-13 02:19:49 <ymirhotfoot> This wa sadvertised as one of the great benefits of Palldium, that palldium would offer a means of suppression of massive easy copyright violation, copyright on popular songs, and movies.
 319 2011-09-13 02:19:58 <imsaguy> gmaxwell, there are alternatives to apple and amazon.
 320 2011-09-13 02:20:16 <gmaxwell> more oligarchy than monopoly, same outcome though.
 321 2011-09-13 02:20:27 <xelister> imsaguy: easly reachable for typical user?
 322 2011-09-13 02:20:33 <imsaguy> yeah
 323 2011-09-13 02:20:38 <xelister> like?
 324 2011-09-13 02:20:40 <imsaguy> apple sells what?
 325 2011-09-13 02:20:43 <imsaguy> mp3 players
 326 2011-09-13 02:20:44 <xelister> crap?
 327 2011-09-13 02:20:56 <imsaguy> they sell music/video devices
 328 2011-09-13 02:21:00 asher^ has joined
 329 2011-09-13 02:21:02 <imsaguy> they sell pcs/laptops
 330 2011-09-13 02:21:04 <imsaguy> they sell tablets
 331 2011-09-13 02:21:05 <xelister> what e-reader can I get in poland easly with a wide choice of books and no drm crap/lock-in/remote-removing
 332 2011-09-13 02:21:08 <gmaxwell> There are, but there are thouands and thousands of useful applications that exist only for iphone for example. Or books that are only electronically available through amazon (due to exclusivity deals)
 333 2011-09-13 02:21:13 <imsaguy> there are plenty of others for any of those.
 334 2011-09-13 02:21:21 <xelister> imsaguy: like samsung?
 335 2011-09-13 02:21:34 <imsaguy> gmaxwell they only got like that because people allowed it by purchasing from them
 336 2011-09-13 02:21:38 <xelister> samsung's tabblets are banned in EU
 337 2011-09-13 02:21:39 <imsaguy> if you don't like it, vote with your dollars
 338 2011-09-13 02:21:42 <imsaguy> otherwise, stfu
 339 2011-09-13 02:21:44 <gmaxwell> and many of the alternatives have similar user unfriendly behaviors.
 340 2011-09-13 02:21:54 <imsaguy> then don't buy from them either
 341 2011-09-13 02:21:58 <imsaguy> you want free market, here it is
 342 2011-09-13 02:22:08 <imsaguy> nothing forces you to buy from 'evil' companies
 343 2011-09-13 02:22:08 <xelister> imsaguy: vote on what? Apple managed to ban Samsung's tabllets in EU
 344 2011-09-13 02:22:19 `2Fast2BCn has quit (Excess Flood)
 345 2011-09-13 02:22:24 <gmaxwell> imsaguy: I do vote with my dollars. And yet, it's like that. So I also vote with my voice— telling people like you that the situation sucks, and you should care about it, and you should vote with your dollars too.
 346 2011-09-13 02:22:37 <imsaguy> xelister, go derail the SR talk in #bitcoin
 347 2011-09-13 02:22:46 <imsaguy> I do
 348 2011-09-13 02:22:55 <imsaguy> but bitching on irc seems a lot like trolling, thats all
 349 2011-09-13 02:23:10 <ymirhotfoot> imsaguy: "they set forth the terms by which you can use their software", no they do not, a professor of law at the Open video meeting laughed at this claim, she pointed out that she gave up trying to read the sixty page, 60! page, Apple EULA, then explained that even the part she read waqs full of no-working, legally, claims, designed to scare poeple who are not law professors.
 350 2011-09-13 02:23:13 <gmaxwell> oh, sorry, I only joined to the coversation in progress. :)
 351 2011-09-13 02:23:53 <gmaxwell> ymirhotfoot: the most fun is that lots of sites _time out_ when I try to read their terms, and I read quite quickly.
 352 2011-09-13 02:24:15 <ymirhotfoot> gmaxwell: ;)
 353 2011-09-13 02:24:19 <xelister> imsaguy: what alternative e-reader I can buy easly in PL? What tabblets except google/Apple since Apple got a court to basically grant him the monopol (ban Samsung tablets)
 354 2011-09-13 02:24:27 <ymirhotfoot> imsaguy: WE TROLL FOR FREEDOM
 355 2011-09-13 02:24:38 <ymirhotfoot> and our ancient right to own a computer.
 356 2011-09-13 02:24:55 <xelister> fighting for freedom like a troll
 357 2011-09-13 02:24:58 <xelister> it's how we roll
 358 2011-09-13 02:25:04 <xelister> also buying high and selling low
 359 2011-09-13 02:25:08 <xelister> ;)
 360 2011-09-13 02:25:23 `2Fast2BCn has joined
 361 2011-09-13 02:25:27 <xelister> wait or was that chinese
 362 2011-09-13 02:25:43 <imsaguy> eggroll?
 363 2011-09-13 02:25:54 <gmaxwell> People have been fighting over the freedom to control computers since they were gigantic car sized timesharing systems. You'd think that by the time they were made pocket sized and personally owned that particular fight would be over… :)
 364 2011-09-13 02:26:21 <xelister> imsaguy: so you can not give me examples of alternative e-readers? You see, I agree with gmaxwell - situation sucks. Remember and act :)
 365 2011-09-13 02:26:41 <imsaguy> gmaxwell, it will never be over.
 366 2011-09-13 02:26:54 <imsaguy> xelister, how's the nook these days?
 367 2011-09-13 02:26:57 <gmaxwell> Steve Mann paints a grim vision of the future — pointing out that our interaction with the world is increasingly computer mediated, an so controlling those computers becomes increasingly valuable.
 368 2011-09-13 02:27:02 <shadders> !seen conman
 369 2011-09-13 02:27:04 <spaola> conman (~con@home.kolivas.org) was last seen quitting from #bitcoin-dev 1 day, 12 hours, 40 minutes ago stating (Ping timeout: 250 seconds).
 370 2011-09-13 02:27:09 <xelister> imsaguy: samsung's tablet is banned in EU
 371 2011-09-13 02:27:14 <ymirhotfoot> gmaxwell: The newspapers never mention root, never discuss who owns these devices,
 372 2011-09-13 02:27:18 <imsaguy> the nook is a good ereader
 373 2011-09-13 02:27:33 <ymirhotfoot> but rather substituet vague maunderings about
 374 2011-09-13 02:27:43 Sedra has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 375 2011-09-13 02:28:09 <imsaguy> well if you want to be technical, you've never had root on your phone
 376 2011-09-13 02:28:12 <imsaguy> unless you rooted yourself
 377 2011-09-13 02:28:14 <ymirhotfoot> "walled gardens" and "too great a degree of control", restrictions",
 378 2011-09-13 02:28:16 <imsaguy> and it was never an issue before
 379 2011-09-13 02:28:23 <xelister> imsaguy: interesting.. and what with uploading own PDFs? and buying ebooks, is ther some shop?
 380 2011-09-13 02:28:29 <imsaguy> they could remotely wipe your device and kill your addressbook
 381 2011-09-13 02:28:38 <ymirhotfoot> Oi, no they have root!  It is not subtle.
 382 2011-09-13 02:28:39 <gmaxwell> ymirhotfoot: they also never mention home owners assocs. that won't let you paint your house but one color. Peronal freedom just doesn't make for good press. Besides, the lack of it is hardly "news".
 383 2011-09-13 02:28:56 <imsaguy> xelister, don't bitch that barnes and noble hasn't included all the features that amazon
 384 2011-09-13 02:29:00 <imsaguy> you gotta tell them
 385 2011-09-13 02:29:01 <imsaguy> not me
 386 2011-09-13 02:29:03 <ymirhotfoot> gmaxwell: I have heard about such associations.
 387 2011-09-13 02:29:05 <imsaguy> lol
 388 2011-09-13 02:29:44 <ymirhotfoot> I have been lucky, an the only complaints about how I keep my garden are made by individual neighbors.
 389 2011-09-13 02:30:31 <ymirhotfoot> I rememebr when ownership of a telephone was
 390 2011-09-13 02:30:43 <ymirhotfoot> a federal offense.
 391 2011-09-13 02:31:02 <xelister> ymirhotfoot: huh? when/what?
 392 2011-09-13 02:31:18 <gmaxwell> not _that_ long ago!
 393 2011-09-13 02:31:26 <ymirhotfoot> Well connecting a phone you owned to the Bell Telephone Network, the old USA part of the PSTN, was a federal offense.
 394 2011-09-13 02:31:35 <gmaxwell> the phone company owned all phone, and it was a crime to attach anything else to the network.
 395 2011-09-13 02:31:39 <ymirhotfoot> 1955
 396 2011-09-13 02:32:00 <ymirhotfoot> And this law was enforced.
 397 2011-09-13 02:32:30 <gmaxwell> the phone company argued that customer owned equipment (like answering machines) would break the network
 398 2011-09-13 02:32:46 <xelister> gmaxwell: that is a nice example
 399 2011-09-13 02:32:49 <gmaxwell> But in reality they only broke the phone companies ability to sell you the same services in the 'cloud'.
 400 2011-09-13 02:32:55 <xelister> of usafags and other govs stupidity
 401 2011-09-13 02:33:04 <ymirhotfoot> gmaxwell: ;)
 402 2011-09-13 02:33:07 Diablo-D3 has joined
 403 2011-09-13 02:33:21 <xelister> hi Disposition
 404 2011-09-13 02:33:22 <xelister> erm
 405 2011-09-13 02:33:24 <xelister> hi Diablo-D3
 406 2011-09-13 02:33:29 <Disposition> lol.
 407 2011-09-13 02:33:40 <gmaxwell> Thee regulations forstalled the development of many useful things, including modems. It was one reason that early modems and consumer teletype used accoustic couplers.
 408 2011-09-13 02:33:43 <xelister> Diablo-D3: what is the situation?  mtgox says your computer was probably hacked if you lost your money in mtgox
 409 2011-09-13 02:34:23 <xelister> hm
 410 2011-09-13 02:34:28 xelister is now known as retsilex
 411 2011-09-13 02:34:44 <retsilex> Diablo-D3: I fucking hope you are not again pretending to ignore me, since we have actually important questions to you
 412 2011-09-13 02:35:50 <retsilex> gmaxwell: either diablo-d3 was hacked, or we are rounding up for repeat of July 2011 mega-haxing of bitcoin community. (diablo-d3 mtgox account was allagedly cleaned,  mtgox blames diablo-d3 computer security,  diablo allagedly balmes mtgox)
 413 2011-09-13 02:35:59 <ymirhotfoot> ad phones and the PSTN:
 414 2011-09-13 02:36:01 <Diablo-D3> so I read my email
 415 2011-09-13 02:36:04 <ymirhotfoot> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterphone
 416 2011-09-13 02:36:13 <Diablo-D3> fucking MagicalTux sent me a form letter describing phishing
 417 2011-09-13 02:36:18 <Diablo-D3> so I think I have a smoking gun
 418 2011-09-13 02:36:32 Sedra has joined
 419 2011-09-13 02:36:33 <copumpkin> Diablo-D3: you didn't even try to talk to him...
 420 2011-09-13 02:36:38 <copumpkin> you bitched about it in here, and on the forum
 421 2011-09-13 02:36:41 jimb0 has joined
 422 2011-09-13 02:36:55 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: whats your smoking gun?
 423 2011-09-13 02:37:01 <gmaxwell> Do you have a yubikey?
 424 2011-09-13 02:37:01 Sedra has quit (Client Quit)
 425 2011-09-13 02:37:04 BurtyB2 has joined
 426 2011-09-13 02:37:06 <copumpkin> there's definitely something fishy (not phishy) going on with your account, but you didn't make much of an effort to resolve it
 427 2011-09-13 02:37:09 Sedra has joined
 428 2011-09-13 02:37:10 <MagicalTux> Diablo-D3: I didn't send you anything
 429 2011-09-13 02:37:31 Sedra has quit (Client Quit)
 430 2011-09-13 02:37:38 Sedra has joined
 431 2011-09-13 02:37:53 retsilex is now known as xelister
 432 2011-09-13 02:38:09 <imsaguy> The forums sent an email to everyone describing the hack, is that what you're referring to?
 433 2011-09-13 02:38:29 <xelister> imsaguy: diablo's *mtgox* trading account was allagedly cleared up by someone
 434 2011-09-13 02:38:49 <imsaguy> I know.
 435 2011-09-13 02:38:50 <imsaguy> I saw that.
 436 2011-09-13 02:39:21 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: I wish people would quit talking about yubikeys
 437 2011-09-13 02:39:39 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: they dont stop improperly secured servers, and there is also no reason to believe they improve security
 438 2011-09-13 02:39:51 <Disposition> ^
 439 2011-09-13 02:39:53 BurtyBB has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 440 2011-09-13 02:39:57 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: well, I asked only because it would be excellent evidence that you didn't just get screwed due to being lax with your password.
 441 2011-09-13 02:40:07 <xelister> I totally agree with Diablo-D3 here
 442 2011-09-13 02:40:16 <gmaxwell> they close of a few specific user-error attack vectors.
 443 2011-09-13 02:40:18 <xelister> Disposition: you should rename to Djsposition or smth
 444 2011-09-13 02:40:31 <gmaxwell> esp due to the longpress needed with withdraw from mtgox.
 445 2011-09-13 02:40:33 <dub> surprise! xelister takign an antigox position?!@
 446 2011-09-13 02:40:43 * copumpkin faints
 447 2011-09-13 02:40:57 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: no, I dont have one. as I said, they are not proven to improve security
 448 2011-09-13 02:41:02 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 449 2011-09-13 02:41:05 <xelister> dub: you think we should instead ignore possible another exploit in mtgox that would allow to clear people's accounts?
 450 2011-09-13 02:41:11 <copumpkin> they "obviously" fix certain kinds of attacks
 451 2011-09-13 02:41:11 Sedra has quit (Client Quit)
 452 2011-09-13 02:41:20 [7] has joined
 453 2011-09-13 02:41:21 <Diablo-D3> copumpkin: not if you can predict future numbers
 454 2011-09-13 02:41:31 <copumpkin> Diablo-D3: ...
 455 2011-09-13 02:41:42 <xelister> dub: also noone is taking a position here, it is not yet sure what happened. stfu and let them talk
 456 2011-09-13 02:41:44 <copumpkin> yeah, AES isn't secure if you know the key
 457 2011-09-13 02:41:49 <copumpkin> news at 11
 458 2011-09-13 02:41:58 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: if you had one, and the attacker withdrew money, I'd be willing to accept that there was ~no possiblity that this happened as a result of poor security on your part. ::shrugs::
 459 2011-09-13 02:42:02 <Diablo-D3> look at was considered the most secure random oracle dongle out there
 460 2011-09-13 02:42:04 <Diablo-D3> they cracked it
 461 2011-09-13 02:42:12 <copumpkin> it raises the bar
 462 2011-09-13 02:42:15 <Diablo-D3> secure government facilities use them
 463 2011-09-13 02:42:15 <copumpkin> that's all security does
 464 2011-09-13 02:42:35 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: the only way your argument could be valid is if mtgox REQUIRED the use of them
 465 2011-09-13 02:42:46 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: if your account has them they're required.
 466 2011-09-13 02:42:49 <copumpkin> Diablo-D3 is obviously more concerned with being right here than getting his issue resolved
 467 2011-09-13 02:42:50 Sedra has joined
 468 2011-09-13 02:43:16 <xelister> copumpkin: it is nice we have such not egocentric people
 469 2011-09-13 02:43:31 Sedra has quit (Client Quit)
 470 2011-09-13 02:43:36 <MagicalTux> Diablo-D3: would you mind if we talked privately ?
 471 2011-09-13 02:44:06 <Diablo-D3> copumpkin: if MagicalTux doesnt replace the missing money, there wont be a mtgox.
 472 2011-09-13 02:44:13 <Diablo-D3> so its completely up to him.
 473 2011-09-13 02:44:17 <copumpkin> Diablo-D3: yes, and you didn't even notify him of it
 474 2011-09-13 02:44:38 <xelister> copumpkin: he did
 475 2011-09-13 02:44:48 <xelister> http://xena.ww7.be/diablofud.txt
 476 2011-09-13 02:45:00 <copumpkin> xelister: what does that show?
 477 2011-09-13 02:45:00 <xelister> the filename of paste is not by me
 478 2011-09-13 02:45:15 <Diablo-D3> copumpkin: see my latest post on the forum thread
 479 2011-09-13 02:45:22 <xelister> (19:45) < Diablo-D3> why the fuck cant MagicalTux keep his shit secure?
 480 2011-09-13 02:45:23 <xelister> (19:45) <     edcba> because he is a noob ?
 481 2011-09-13 02:45:25 <xelister> epic
 482 2011-09-13 02:45:26 <Diablo-D3> I sent an email to info@mtgox, he sent a useless form reply that did not address the issue
 483 2011-09-13 02:45:29 <Diablo-D3> MagicalTux: and yes, go ahead
 484 2011-09-13 02:45:36 <xelister> Diablo-D3: diablo btw you know now mtgox hosts the bitcoin forum? :}
 485 2011-09-13 02:45:43 * copumpkin facepalms
 486 2011-09-13 02:45:52 <MagicalTux> Diablo-D3: I didn't send anything. Our support staff sent it as 99% of such issues are from people who got pwnd by the phishing
 487 2011-09-13 02:46:06 <copumpkin> does anyone not fucking know that MagicalTux is hosting the forum, at this point, xelister?
 488 2011-09-13 02:46:22 <copumpkin> some dude came up to me on the street today and told me that MagicalTux was hosting the forum
 489 2011-09-13 02:46:32 <Graet> lol
 490 2011-09-13 02:46:34 <Disposition> lol
 491 2011-09-13 02:46:35 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 492 2011-09-13 02:46:45 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: you should give him a chance to work through it with you first. Otherwise you just look like a dick, even to people who believe that it's not your fault and especially to anyone who thinks it might be.
 493 2011-09-13 02:46:48 KenArmitt has quit ()
 494 2011-09-13 02:46:49 <Diablo-D3> MagicalTux: its an official response from mtgox regardless
 495 2011-09-13 02:46:50 <xelister> copumpkin: lolz
 496 2011-09-13 02:47:04 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: I am only a dick to people who screw other people.
 497 2011-09-13 02:47:06 <cacheson> MagicalTux: if you get a free moment later, could you PM me?  I have some questions about your policies regarding the bitcoin.it wiki
 498 2011-09-13 02:47:27 <MagicalTux> Diablo-D3: if someone hacked in mtgox, they wouldn't need to login to your account to take funds out
 499 2011-09-13 02:47:42 <MagicalTux> plus, passwords are hashed, if your password is secure enough, there is no reason anyone could find it out from our database
 500 2011-09-13 02:48:08 <xelister> MagicalTux: yea that worked out really well last time. Are you sure you are NOW using the salt?
 501 2011-09-13 02:48:14 <copumpkin>  /msg chanserv identity pumpkin hunter2
 502 2011-09-13 02:48:14 <MagicalTux> and the logs show that someone actually logged in with a password that matched your account
 503 2011-09-13 02:48:16 <copumpkin> o crap
 504 2011-09-13 02:48:23 <imsaguy> lol
 505 2011-09-13 02:48:30 <Diablo-D3> MagicalTux: and since I didnt follow phishing emails (infact I was about to forward you one I got a few hours earlier)
 506 2011-09-13 02:48:31 <dub> pretty strange that someone tried to fish you, then your account gets cleaned out moments later
 507 2011-09-13 02:48:34 KArmitt has joined
 508 2011-09-13 02:48:43 <Diablo-D3> MagicalTux: and theres no way my box is compromised
 509 2011-09-13 02:48:50 <Diablo-D3> then you're going to have some serious explaining to do
 510 2011-09-13 02:49:05 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: hah, come on, anyone who knows you on IRC knows you're a dick more often than that. :) but really, take a breath and try to get all the facts in order at least.
 511 2011-09-13 02:49:07 <MagicalTux> Diablo-D3: and there's no way a hacker would go through the trouble of logging in as you if he compromised us
 512 2011-09-13 02:49:18 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: well how about this
 513 2011-09-13 02:49:19 <xelister> did you checked vicinity of your box for evidences of mtgox sent samurais and hdd access
 514 2011-09-13 02:49:23 <Diablo-D3> $60 is missing.
 515 2011-09-13 02:49:28 <Diablo-D3> Tux is on the line for it.
 516 2011-09-13 02:49:40 <Diablo-D3> and Tux has allowed this to turn into a PR nightmare.
 517 2011-09-13 02:49:49 <dub> called the #bitcoin-police? $60 is srs
 518 2011-09-13 02:49:51 <copumpkin> he was asleep most of the time you were asleep :P
 519 2011-09-13 02:49:52 <xelister> gmaxwell: diablo-d3 is a dick. But the good kind. And Im not even homo
 520 2011-09-13 02:49:53 <MagicalTux> Diablo-D3: anyway first thing, I need you to forward us the receipt from your local law enforcement regarding the theft
 521 2011-09-13 02:49:55 <Blitzboom> dub: haha
 522 2011-09-13 02:49:56 abstinence has joined
 523 2011-09-13 02:50:12 <Diablo-D3> Because I dont know about you, but mtgox being hacked is not good for the price of BTC.
 524 2011-09-13 02:50:36 <xelister> dub: it will be more serious if it turns out it is mtgox exploit and more ppl are ownd. You forget about july 2011 the first exploit?
 525 2011-09-13 02:50:39 <dub> I have actually been phished accidentally, while investigating a phishing attack :)
 526 2011-09-13 02:50:46 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: doesn't sound like MtGox was hacked, so maybe quit the trolling
 527 2011-09-13 02:50:46 <dub> too many tabs
 528 2011-09-13 02:50:58 <xelister> dub: lol. please do not use computer technology anymore
 529 2011-09-13 02:51:00 <dub> xelister: you are far to manic to converse with
 530 2011-09-13 02:51:01 <Diablo-D3> dub: except I didnt click on the URL
 531 2011-09-13 02:51:19 lollux_ has joined
 532 2011-09-13 02:51:19 <imsaguy> why's it gotta be in here? this channel is logged to the public
 533 2011-09-13 02:51:24 <dub> Diablo-D3: im not saying you are, still an interesting data point
 534 2011-09-13 02:51:25 <imsaguy> maybe take this somewhere else
 535 2011-09-13 02:51:34 <imsaguy> its only gonna give more bad PR
 536 2011-09-13 02:51:38 d4de has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 537 2011-09-13 02:51:42 <copumpkin> everyone loves drama
 538 2011-09-13 02:51:43 <Diablo-D3> so unless someone figured out how to phish someone while just READING an email, which the email has nothing in it since I viewed the raw email
 539 2011-09-13 02:51:47 <Disposition> bitcoin never had good pr.
 540 2011-09-13 02:51:50 <copumpkin> even if it's detrimental to all of us
 541 2011-09-13 02:52:07 <imsaguy> I'm just looking out for my coin
 542 2011-09-13 02:52:11 <copumpkin> same
 543 2011-09-13 02:52:12 <xelister> imsaguy: better found out about the exploit now then when it hits either thousands of users, or next release of diablominer. plus what copumpkin, I have my popcorn ready
 544 2011-09-13 02:52:16 KArmitt has quit (Client Quit)
 545 2011-09-13 02:52:17 <imsaguy> how you get scammed out of it, I don't care
 546 2011-09-13 02:52:40 <imsaguy> xelister, this is an issue that should be handled between 2 parties
 547 2011-09-13 02:52:46 <imsaguy> act like adults
 548 2011-09-13 02:52:46 <Disposition> Diablo-D3: what address was it withdraw to?
 549 2011-09-13 02:52:58 <imsaguy> having 30 other people involved only muddies things
 550 2011-09-13 02:53:06 wirehead has joined
 551 2011-09-13 02:53:06 <xelister> imsaguy: well it involces super pissed diablo-d3. I think heads will roll
 552 2011-09-13 02:53:09 <copumpkin> yeah, lots of trolling and snarky comments thrown in
 553 2011-09-13 02:53:13 Eradikater has joined
 554 2011-09-13 02:53:16 <copumpkin> Diablo-D3 is super-pissed 90% of the time
 555 2011-09-13 02:53:17 MrTiggrAFK is now known as MrTiggr
 556 2011-09-13 02:53:20 <copumpkin> this is the other 10%
 557 2011-09-13 02:53:24 <copumpkin> where he's ultra-pissed
 558 2011-09-13 02:53:31 <copumpkin> :)
 559 2011-09-13 02:53:33 <luke-jr> lol
 560 2011-09-13 02:53:36 <imsaguy> its morphin-pissed time!
 561 2011-09-13 02:53:38 <gmaxwell> "Quad damage"
 562 2011-09-13 02:53:40 OneMINER has joined
 563 2011-09-13 02:53:43 <copumpkin> ULTRA KILL
 564 2011-09-13 02:53:47 <copumpkin> (see, snarky comments)
 565 2011-09-13 02:53:48 <imsaguy> FATALITY
 566 2011-09-13 02:53:53 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 567 2011-09-13 02:53:58 <imsaguy> FINISH HIM
 568 2011-09-13 02:53:59 * copumpkin hugs Diablo-D3 
 569 2011-09-13 02:54:02 <copumpkin> I love Diablo-D3
 570 2011-09-13 02:54:09 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
 571 2011-09-13 02:54:10 <copumpkin> just giving him a hard time
 572 2011-09-13 02:54:10 <xelister> M M M M M M MT GOX gox gox gox
 573 2011-09-13 02:54:17 <nanotube> why don't we just give diablo and mtux time to chat in private and figure it out. then one or both of them will come back and tell us the result of their investigations.
 574 2011-09-13 02:54:19 <imsaguy> and in other news, bitcoin drops another 2.00 on mtgox, only problem is.. we don't know if we can trust the charts!
 575 2011-09-13 02:54:21 <Diablo-D3> Disposition: 12xrRm8RwdTMFuGnLJ9tGR26ExF77Jb5dA
 576 2011-09-13 02:54:30 <copumpkin> that mtgox magic card is hilarious, by the way :) the picture is perfect
 577 2011-09-13 02:54:32 <imsaguy> nanotube++
 578 2011-09-13 02:54:40 <ymirhotfoot> ;;ticker
 579 2011-09-13 02:54:40 <gribble> Best bid: 5.9821, Best ask: 6.02, Bid-ask spread: 0.0379, Last trade: 6.02101, 24 hour volume: 46378, 24 hour low: 5.4121, 24 hour high: 6.37699
 580 2011-09-13 02:54:41 <copumpkin> nanotube *= 3
 581 2011-09-13 02:54:42 <gmaxwell> nanotube*=nanotube;
 582 2011-09-13 02:54:46 <copumpkin> o shit
 583 2011-09-13 02:54:48 <copumpkin> gmaxwell outdid me
 584 2011-09-13 02:54:52 <gmaxwell> haha
 585 2011-09-13 02:54:55 <nanotube> hehe
 586 2011-09-13 02:55:00 <copumpkin> well
 587 2011-09-13 02:55:06 <xelister> nanotube: lol yes I see that happenening already!  <Diablo-D3> sorry, I was owned.. I suck at linux   <MagicalTux> whoops we again screwed up security in mtgox...     Yes this is likelly =)
 588 2011-09-13 02:55:15 <copumpkin> if nanotube was equal to 1, I win
 589 2011-09-13 02:55:22 Eradikater has quit (Client Quit)
 590 2011-09-13 02:55:29 <nanotube> copumpkin: lol
 591 2011-09-13 02:55:34 <imsaguy> nanotube is like chucknorris
 592 2011-09-13 02:55:39 Eradikater has joined
 593 2011-09-13 02:55:58 <nanotube> xelister: patience grasshopper :) idle speculation won't get us anywhere.
 594 2011-09-13 02:56:04 <imsaguy> heh
 595 2011-09-13 02:56:09 <imsaguy> but mtgox bashing will!
 596 2011-09-13 02:56:28 <xelister> worked with FBI
 597 2011-09-13 02:56:33 <nanotube> heh
 598 2011-09-13 02:56:47 Diab1o-D3 has joined
 599 2011-09-13 02:56:49 <Diab1o-D3> ok guys sorry
 600 2011-09-13 02:56:52 <Diab1o-D3> I was owned
 601 2011-09-13 02:57:01 <xelister> luke-jr: funny^
 602 2011-09-13 02:57:04 <imsaguy> gee luke-jr, your hostmask seems to match Diab1o-D3
 603 2011-09-13 02:57:05 <gmaxwell> oh. :(
 604 2011-09-13 02:57:09 <Diab1o-D3> :P
 605 2011-09-13 02:57:11 Diab1o-D3 has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 606 2011-09-13 02:57:11 <imsaguy> amazing!
 607 2011-09-13 02:57:12 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 608 2011-09-13 02:57:13 <gmaxwell> Diab1o-D3: that sucks, I'm sorry to to hear that.
 609 2011-09-13 02:57:15 <noagendamarket> haha
 610 2011-09-13 02:57:20 <xelister> ...FBI arrested some russian whitehat at security conference for developing proof of concept exploit thing, then community bashed FBI enough to make a diff;)
 611 2011-09-13 02:57:32 <copumpkin> so anyway
 612 2011-09-13 02:57:34 <cjdelisle> It's kind of too bad that this has already turned into a blame game, I would have liked to know what version of flash Diablo-D3 was running and if he had java applets enabled.. oh well
 613 2011-09-13 02:57:39 <copumpkin> what's everyone's opinion on ponies!?
 614 2011-09-13 02:57:46 <noagendamarket> maybe the price has been $30 the whole time its just the charts that are wrong ?
 615 2011-09-13 02:57:48 <ymirhotfoot> xelister: I think the thing worked.
 616 2011-09-13 02:57:48 <luke-jr> copumpkin: AWESOME, wanna play?
 617 2011-09-13 02:57:50 <xelister> cjdelisle: diablo is not the kind of guy that runs flash.
 618 2011-09-13 02:58:01 <copumpkin> luke-jr: play? :O
 619 2011-09-13 02:58:05 <xelister> noagendamarket: lol
 620 2011-09-13 02:58:10 <luke-jr> http://code.google.com/p/pink-pony/
 621 2011-09-13 02:58:11 <luke-jr> duh
 622 2011-09-13 02:58:16 <copumpkin> :O
 623 2011-09-13 02:58:18 <noagendamarket> diablo browses the internet in a terminal
 624 2011-09-13 02:58:23 <copumpkin> oh wow
 625 2011-09-13 02:58:25 <copumpkin> I had no idea
 626 2011-09-13 02:58:27 <copumpkin> this looks awesome
 627 2011-09-13 02:58:27 Xunie has joined
 628 2011-09-13 02:58:30 <luke-jr> lol
 629 2011-09-13 02:58:42 <gmaxwell> Diablo-d3 mines bitcoin with an abacus.
 630 2011-09-13 02:58:45 <dub> IPU FPS!
 631 2011-09-13 02:58:55 <copumpkin> unfortunately no mac build
 632 2011-09-13 02:59:10 <imsaguy> don't use an abacus, you'll be rooted!
 633 2011-09-13 02:59:18 <copumpkin> why do it with an abacus when you can do it in your head?
 634 2011-09-13 02:59:19 <luke-jr> imsaguy: f u, abacii rule
 635 2011-09-13 02:59:19 <xelister> Diablo-d3 implemented OpenCL support on abacus
 636 2011-09-13 02:59:22 <noagendamarket> lol
 637 2011-09-13 02:59:43 <pointbiz> updated version of bitaddress.org
 638 2011-09-13 02:59:44 <pointbiz> http://www.bitaddress.org/bitaddress.org-v0.2-SHA1-71216f5b84ef8831a805dbf66e9d8b83ad1dc5fb.html
 639 2011-09-13 02:59:54 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 640 2011-09-13 03:00:07 <imsaguy> copumpkin, TWSS
 641 2011-09-13 03:00:09 <noagendamarket> pooled abacus
 642 2011-09-13 03:00:15 MrTiggr is now known as MrTiggrAFKLunch
 643 2011-09-13 03:00:15 <copumpkin> imsaguy: yes, yes she did
 644 2011-09-13 03:00:55 <xelister> my popcorn is not getting any hotter, where is the exploit/ownage talk
 645 2011-09-13 03:01:09 <imsaguy> xelister: don't troll, it isn't pretty.
 646 2011-09-13 03:01:11 <copumpkin> xelister: I'll tell you about the iphone jailbreak/unlock scene if you want
 647 2011-09-13 03:01:20 <xelister> copumpkin: ok
 648 2011-09-13 03:01:29 <imsaguy> lets talk ps3 pwny
 649 2011-09-13 03:01:45 <xelister> btw
 650 2011-09-13 03:02:00 <copumpkin> what do you want to know?
 651 2011-09-13 03:02:05 <xelister> I have an actuall image of Diablo-D3 and his position on possibility that he was ownaged.
 652 2011-09-13 03:02:33 <xelister> http://www.oglaf.com/beot/1/
 653 2011-09-13 03:02:49 <copumpkin> :P
 654 2011-09-13 03:03:28 MobiusL has joined
 655 2011-09-13 03:03:48 MobiusL has quit (Changing host)
 656 2011-09-13 03:03:48 MobiusL has joined
 657 2011-09-13 03:04:02 <copumpkin> imsaguy: I know less about that, but still a bit
 658 2011-09-13 03:04:15 caedes has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 659 2011-09-13 03:04:28 d4de has joined
 660 2011-09-13 03:06:32 <copumpkin> well, I sure managed to kill conversation in here
 661 2011-09-13 03:06:42 * copumpkin brushes his hands and looks smug
 662 2011-09-13 03:06:45 <copumpkin> a job well done
 663 2011-09-13 03:09:16 shockdiode has joined
 664 2011-09-13 03:09:51 <pointbiz> the new version of bitaddress.org works in IE8/9 now
 665 2011-09-13 03:10:02 <xelister> we can take bets whether it is diablo getting owned or mtgox.com exploit
 666 2011-09-13 03:10:29 <xelister> I bet 1 BTC on Diablo (that he was not owned)
 667 2011-09-13 03:11:21 <copumpkin> pwnt is the technical term, here
 668 2011-09-13 03:11:57 <xelister> copumpkin: are you placing?
 669 2011-09-13 03:12:06 <copumpkin> nop
 670 2011-09-13 03:13:03 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
 671 2011-09-13 03:14:47 skeledrew has joined
 672 2011-09-13 03:14:51 ymirhotfoot has left ("ERC Version 5.2 (IRC client for Emacs)")
 673 2011-09-13 03:15:38 normanrichards has joined
 674 2011-09-13 03:16:21 MetaVolutioN has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 675 2011-09-13 03:16:29 Sedra has joined
 676 2011-09-13 03:17:16 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 677 2011-09-13 03:18:47 MetaVolutioN has joined
 678 2011-09-13 03:19:08 Guest91670 is now known as jarpiain
 679 2011-09-13 03:20:11 wolfspraul has joined
 680 2011-09-13 03:21:47 <phantomcircuit> If anybody has any questions about the new intersango.com platform https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43745.0
 681 2011-09-13 03:23:43 <MagicalTux> phantomcircuit: why don't you use hash_hmac ?
 682 2011-09-13 03:24:00 <phantomcircuit> i trust my https proxy
 683 2011-09-13 03:24:06 lollux_ has quit ()
 684 2011-09-13 03:24:39 <phantomcircuit> MagicalTux, although i will be adding significantly to the api
 685 2011-09-13 03:24:44 <phantomcircuit> it's currently 400 LOC
 686 2011-09-13 03:25:24 laetus has joined
 687 2011-09-13 03:27:02 <MagicalTux> phantomcircuit: for the password itself
 688 2011-09-13 03:27:28 <phantomcircuit> oh
 689 2011-09-13 03:27:32 <phantomcircuit> that is an hmac
 690 2011-09-13 03:28:14 <phantomcircuit> the concatenation is only the salt and secret to form the hmac key
 691 2011-09-13 03:28:15 Eradikater has quit ()
 692 2011-09-13 03:29:29 <phantomcircuit> if you mean why am i using mhash instead of the php pecl extension
 693 2011-09-13 03:29:35 nhodges has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 694 2011-09-13 03:29:49 <phantomcircuit> well because the guys who wrote mhash aren't incompetent
 695 2011-09-13 03:30:06 <phantomcircuit> the recent massive bug in php's crypt tells me the php devs are
 696 2011-09-13 03:31:00 <copumpkin> yet you continue to use PHP? :P
 697 2011-09-13 03:32:59 <xelister> MagicalTux: so was Diablo-D3's case clarified?
 698 2011-09-13 03:33:10 MetaVolutioN has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 699 2011-09-13 03:33:22 <jrmithdobbs> xelister: of course not
 700 2011-09-13 03:33:35 <jrmithdobbs> xelister: it'll be clarified when it flashcrashes
 701 2011-09-13 03:33:37 pointbiz has left ()
 702 2011-09-13 03:33:37 <jrmithdobbs> like last time
 703 2011-09-13 03:33:41 amtal has joined
 704 2011-09-13 03:33:47 denisx has joined
 705 2011-09-13 03:34:30 MetaVolutioN has joined
 706 2011-09-13 03:34:59 <phantomcircuit> copumpkin, gentoo stable PHP
 707 2011-09-13 03:35:06 <phantomcircuit> and carefully...
 708 2011-09-13 03:35:17 * copumpkin is a type system zealot
 709 2011-09-13 03:35:25 BlueMatt has joined
 710 2011-09-13 03:35:28 * copumpkin starts blabbering about category theory
 711 2011-09-13 03:35:58 * xelister turns copumpkin's bitcoins into solidcoins
 712 2011-09-13 03:36:06 <copumpkin> :O
 713 2011-09-13 03:36:14 <wardearia> how about gaseouscoins?
 714 2011-09-13 03:36:37 <dub> geistGELD
 715 2011-09-13 03:36:37 <noagendamarket> na I dont want that bubble to pop :)
 716 2011-09-13 03:36:45 <wardearia> #geistgeld
 717 2011-09-13 03:36:47 <dub> not sure about that from a marketing perspective
 718 2011-09-13 03:37:04 <dub> since geld in english means, to chop testicles off
 719 2011-09-13 03:37:09 <noagendamarket> yah
 720 2011-09-13 03:37:10 <xelister> lolz
 721 2011-09-13 03:37:11 <noagendamarket> not good
 722 2011-09-13 03:38:28 <copumpkin> dub: why is there such a short word for that concept?
 723 2011-09-13 03:38:34 <copumpkin> is it a common act?
 724 2011-09-13 03:40:00 <dub> in farming/agriculture sure
 725 2011-09-13 03:40:31 <jrmithdobbs> copumpkin: it actually was at one point, joking aside
 726 2011-09-13 03:40:38 <dub> on the internet, not so much. Sounds like it could be a section on bmezine.DE
 727 2011-09-13 03:40:51 <copumpkin> bmevideo is an interesting site
 728 2011-09-13 03:41:09 <copumpkin> jrmithdobbs: fair enough
 729 2011-09-13 03:41:15 d33tah has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 730 2011-09-13 03:43:08 conman has joined
 731 2011-09-13 03:43:30 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 732 2011-09-13 03:44:09 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,mtgox
 733 2011-09-13 03:44:10 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":6.369,"low":5.4121,"avg":6.003775248,"vwap":5.95486527,"vol":45872,"last":5.98101,"buy":5.98111,"sell":5.982}}
 734 2011-09-13 03:46:23 Cusipzzz has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 735 2011-09-13 03:46:30 Xunie has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 736 2011-09-13 03:47:22 <shadders> !seen conman
 737 2011-09-13 03:47:26 log0s has quit (Quit: leaving)
 738 2011-09-13 03:47:27 <conman> lol
 739 2011-09-13 03:47:29 <spaola> shadders, conman is right here!
 740 2011-09-13 03:47:38 amtal has quit (Quit: segfault)
 741 2011-09-13 03:47:38 <wardearia> ;;bc,intersango
 742 2011-09-13 03:47:39 <gribble> Error: "bc,intersango" is not a valid command.
 743 2011-09-13 03:47:41 <shadders> oh hai
 744 2011-09-13 03:47:49 zeiris has joined
 745 2011-09-13 03:47:49 <conman> o/
 746 2011-09-13 03:47:58 <wardearia> ;;help bc,mtgox
 747 2011-09-13 03:47:59 <gribble> (bc,mtgox <an alias, 0 arguments>) -- Alias for "web fetch https://mtgox.com/code/ticker.php".
 748 2011-09-13 03:48:09 <shadders> I'm seeing some weird stuff happening with cgminer LP when it talks to psj...
 749 2011-09-13 03:48:36 <conman> mmm
 750 2011-09-13 03:48:56 abstinence has left ("Leaving")
 751 2011-09-13 03:48:56 <shadders> I've added a whole bunch of logging to track what's going on coz btcguild had some clients that were getting spammed with lp responses...
 752 2011-09-13 03:49:05 <conman> so I heard
 753 2011-09-13 03:49:15 <shadders> every other client has oddities as well...
 754 2011-09-13 03:49:32 <shadders> but specific to cgminer it sends two requests at a time...
 755 2011-09-13 03:49:57 <conman> one good turn deserves another
 756 2011-09-13 03:50:01 <conman> uh ok
 757 2011-09-13 03:50:40 <conman> sorry, nfi
 758 2011-09-13 03:50:54 vragnaroda is now known as Glyph-Plus-658
 759 2011-09-13 03:51:03 <shadders> a key difference between pp and psj implementations is that psj longpolls have a a timeout (default 10 mins).  At timeout it will return a normal longpoll response... On timeout cg sends back a new LP request on the same connection... then a 2nd one on a new connection.
 760 2011-09-13 03:51:21 laetus has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 761 2011-09-13 03:51:23 Glyph-Plus-658 is now known as vragnaroda
 762 2011-09-13 03:51:27 <conman> um
 763 2011-09-13 03:51:31 <shadders> same happens at block change... the very first LP is a single request... every one after that is two...
 764 2011-09-13 03:52:18 <luke-jr> pp doesn't timeout LPs at all
 765 2011-09-13 03:53:01 <shadders> luke-jr: yeah I know... psj has to due a jetty limitation... even if it's long..
 766 2011-09-13 03:54:30 <shadders> 1:44:09 PM LP initial request from: test@[10.1.1.10:4952], AsyncContinuation@f66abc@DISPATCHED,initial isInitial: true, isExpired: false, isResumed: false, isSuspended: false,
 767 2011-09-13 03:54:31 <shadders> 1:44:09 PM LP initial request from: test@[10.1.1.10:4876], AsyncContinuation@1552b76@DISPATCHED,initial isInitial: true, isExpired: false, isResumed: false, isSuspended: false,
 768 2011-09-13 03:54:31 <shadders> 1:44:09 PM LP initial request from: test@[10.1.1.10:1030], AsyncContinuation@eb9dfa@DISPATCHED,initial isInitial: true, isExpired: false, isResumed: false, isSuspended: false,
 769 2011-09-13 03:54:47 <shadders> 1:44:39 PM LP expire response to: test@[10.1.1.10:4952], AsyncContinuation@f66abc@REDISPATCHED,resumed,expired isInitial: false, isExpired: true, isResumed: true, isSuspended: false,
 770 2011-09-13 03:54:59 <shadders> 1:44:39 PM LP initial request from: test@[10.1.1.10:4952], AsyncContinuation@f66abc@DISPATCHED,initial isInitial: true, isExpired: false, isResumed: false, isSuspended: false,
 771 2011-09-13 03:55:00 <shadders> 1:44:39 PM LP expire response to: test@[10.1.1.10:4876], AsyncContinuation@1552b76@REDISPATCHED,resumed,expired isInitial: false, isExpired: true, isResumed: true, isSuspended: false,
 772 2011-09-13 03:55:39 <shadders> these are all from the same instance of cgminer... you can match up the connections by port number...
 773 2011-09-13 03:55:54 <phantomcircuit> what the fuck
 774 2011-09-13 03:56:11 <imsaguy> you should consider pastebin
 775 2011-09-13 03:56:15 <imsaguy> or using #cgminer
 776 2011-09-13 03:56:49 <shadders> didn't know there was cgminer channel...
 777 2011-09-13 03:58:18 <luke-jr> me either
 778 2011-09-13 03:58:21 <luke-jr> too many bitcoin channels XD
 779 2011-09-13 03:58:40 laetus has joined
 780 2011-09-13 03:59:00 <imsaguy> compartmentalization
 781 2011-09-13 03:59:08 Xunie has joined
 782 2011-09-13 03:59:42 <shadders> luke-jr: does pp send anything back at all when it gets the initial LP request?
 783 2011-09-13 03:59:46 <shadders> header?
 784 2011-09-13 03:59:59 <luke-jr> no
 785 2011-09-13 04:00:14 <luke-jr> heck, it doesn't really decide what headers to send until later
 786 2011-09-13 04:01:04 <luke-jr> shadders: pushpool *does* leak when LPs take a long time, though
 787 2011-09-13 04:01:13 <luke-jr> but it's not as bad with properly configured keepalives
 788 2011-09-13 04:03:38 <shadders> that' what I though... psj doesn't send any response at all until either expiry or block change... so it should look identical from miner's point of view
 789 2011-09-13 04:03:54 <shadders> what do you mean 'leak'?
 790 2011-09-13 04:08:54 gjs278 has joined
 791 2011-09-13 04:10:55 glitch-mod has joined
 792 2011-09-13 04:11:34 ThomasV_ has joined
 793 2011-09-13 04:14:30 laetus has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 794 2011-09-13 04:15:43 vigilyn has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 795 2011-09-13 04:18:27 nhodges has joined
 796 2011-09-13 04:21:37 laetus has joined
 797 2011-09-13 04:21:55 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 798 2011-09-13 04:23:59 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 799 2011-09-13 04:35:34 sacarlson has joined
 800 2011-09-13 04:35:56 zapnap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 801 2011-09-13 04:41:25 random_cat has joined
 802 2011-09-13 04:43:03 SomeoneWeird has joined
 803 2011-09-13 04:43:03 SomeoneWeird has quit (Changing host)
 804 2011-09-13 04:43:03 SomeoneWeird has joined
 805 2011-09-13 04:44:08 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 806 2011-09-13 04:45:41 gfinn has joined
 807 2011-09-13 04:50:29 OneMINER has quit (Quit: Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers.)
 808 2011-09-13 05:00:10 sacarlson has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 809 2011-09-13 05:00:20 sacarlson has joined
 810 2011-09-13 05:01:57 gish has joined
 811 2011-09-13 05:03:37 num1 has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
 812 2011-09-13 05:05:53 fnord0 has joined
 813 2011-09-13 05:07:25 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 814 2011-09-13 05:10:22 richardblee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 815 2011-09-13 05:10:45 richardblee has joined
 816 2011-09-13 05:13:01 <CIA-101> poolserverj: shadders * a58c21dd9d12 r54 /src/main/java/com/shadworld/poolserver/ (6 files in 2 dirs):
 817 2011-09-13 05:13:01 <CIA-101> poolserverj: - longpoll logging and debugging code. Don't pull this commit it will fill you log with shit.
 818 2011-09-13 05:13:01 <CIA-101> poolserverj: - about to branch to new LP implementation.
 819 2011-09-13 05:13:01 <CIA-101> poolserverj: shadders * e326df38105a r55 /: Starting 'longpoll-mk2' branch
 820 2011-09-13 05:13:42 Clipse has quit (Quit: Clipse)
 821 2011-09-13 05:15:10 BurtyB2 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 822 2011-09-13 05:18:21 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
 823 2011-09-13 05:19:57 wolfspraul has joined
 824 2011-09-13 05:20:17 BurtyB has joined
 825 2011-09-13 05:21:48 grbgout_ is now known as grbgout
 826 2011-09-13 05:27:34 ymirhotfoot has joined
 827 2011-09-13 05:28:09 asher^ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 828 2011-09-13 05:36:26 Lolcust has quit (Quit: Oh shi...)
 829 2011-09-13 05:37:10 Lolcust has joined
 830 2011-09-13 05:42:50 ephcon has joined
 831 2011-09-13 05:46:35 ymirhotfoot has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.2 (IRC client for Emacs))
 832 2011-09-13 05:48:24 <wardearia> Does anyone know how I can push gitorious repo updates to irc with some sort of hook?  I see the option for github, but not gitorious.
 833 2011-09-13 05:49:08 <nanotube> hmm, probably could set something up with cia.vc...
 834 2011-09-13 05:51:48 c_k has quit (Quit: brb)
 835 2011-09-13 05:51:56 c_k has joined
 836 2011-09-13 05:57:23 MrTiggrAFKLunch is now known as MrTiggrAFK
 837 2011-09-13 05:59:33 Clipse has joined
 838 2011-09-13 06:03:43 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 839 2011-09-13 06:03:54 gish has left ()
 840 2011-09-13 06:04:23 larsivi has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 841 2011-09-13 06:14:22 ephcon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 842 2011-09-13 06:14:53 MBS has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 843 2011-09-13 06:17:46 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 844 2011-09-13 06:19:24 Akinava has joined
 845 2011-09-13 06:20:07 Guest17117 has joined
 846 2011-09-13 06:20:47 Guest17117 is now known as MBs
 847 2011-09-13 06:20:51 MBs is now known as MBS
 848 2011-09-13 06:20:55 MBS has quit (Changing host)
 849 2011-09-13 06:20:55 MBS has joined
 850 2011-09-13 06:23:55 ThomasV_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 851 2011-09-13 06:27:14 sawdearia has joined
 852 2011-09-13 06:28:43 Clipse has quit (Quit: Clipse)
 853 2011-09-13 06:34:16 conman is now known as ckolivas
 854 2011-09-13 06:36:11 ckolivas is now known as conman
 855 2011-09-13 06:41:12 sawdearia is now known as wardearia
 856 2011-09-13 06:46:56 <luke-jr> wardearia: BitGit
 857 2011-09-13 06:47:27 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 858 2011-09-13 06:53:59 GMP has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 859 2011-09-13 06:57:48 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 860 2011-09-13 06:57:53 E-sense has quit (Quit: System.exit(0);)
 861 2011-09-13 07:01:22 fnord0 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 862 2011-09-13 07:02:41 kjj has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 863 2011-09-13 07:04:07 kjj has joined
 864 2011-09-13 07:04:19 larsivi has joined
 865 2011-09-13 07:05:55 fnord0 has joined
 866 2011-09-13 07:16:21 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 867 2011-09-13 07:18:29 twobits1 has joined
 868 2011-09-13 07:22:43 noagendamarket has joined
 869 2011-09-13 07:23:23 iocor has joined
 870 2011-09-13 07:26:42 <Lolcust> Sorry if I'm asking something really dumb, but how does a "reset from checkpoint" get initiated, exactly ? I mean, there seems to be no straightforward way to trim the "undesirable" stuff after the checkpoint
 871 2011-09-13 07:30:24 molecular has joined
 872 2011-09-13 07:36:33 <gmaxwell> Lolcust: checkpoints and pruning are orthorgonal.
 873 2011-09-13 07:36:55 <gmaxwell> The current software doesn't bother to implement pruning in any case.
 874 2011-09-13 07:37:57 <Lolcust> So, ability to actually use checkpoints is currently more or less a todo, right ?
 875 2011-09-13 07:38:11 <noagendamarket> theres still a troll block in solidcoin
 876 2011-09-13 07:38:11 <gmaxwell> No, the checkpoints are actively used.
 877 2011-09-13 07:38:19 <noagendamarket> where artforz took a dumpo
 878 2011-09-13 07:38:24 AnniGONE is now known as AnnihilaT
 879 2011-09-13 07:39:26 <gmaxwell> Lolcust: checkpoints prevent someone from forking the chain from early on (with low difficulty) then mining a fake chain and tricking clients into using it (e.g. by getting all the network connections of a new client)
 880 2011-09-13 07:39:34 <Lolcust> gmaxwell I mean for pruning )
 881 2011-09-13 07:39:45 <gmaxwell> Checkpoints have nothing to do with pruning.
 882 2011-09-13 07:40:36 nejon has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 883 2011-09-13 07:40:37 <gmaxwell> To prune you take transactions which are spent and simply forget them. You retain their hash so you can still calculate the merkel root, but as you forget more of the spent txn in a block you can drop more and more of the hashes.
 884 2011-09-13 07:41:48 Eliel has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 885 2011-09-13 07:42:27 Eliel has joined
 886 2011-09-13 07:42:33 nejon has joined
 887 2011-09-13 07:44:24 gfinn has joined
 888 2011-09-13 07:46:41 cande has joined
 889 2011-09-13 07:47:05 Tamo has joined
 890 2011-09-13 07:50:56 <doublec> gmaxwell: the person threatening the namecoin chain claims that artforz has a method for skipping checkpoints
 891 2011-09-13 07:51:01 <doublec> gmaxwell: unsure if it's fud or not
 892 2011-09-13 07:51:24 abragin has joined
 893 2011-09-13 07:51:25 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 894 2011-09-13 07:51:25 abragin has joined
 895 2011-09-13 07:52:03 <doublec> gmaxwell: http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1916#p1916
 896 2011-09-13 07:53:42 <doublec> gmaxwell: the attack itself is discussed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43465.msg521136#msg521136
 897 2011-09-13 07:54:27 Fairuser has quit (AFK!~Fairuser@unaffiliated/fairuser|Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 898 2011-09-13 07:56:32 <gmaxwell> I can't think of how that would work, save some stupid bug that escaped everyone's review.
 899 2011-09-13 07:56:56 <Diablo-D3> which is somewhat unlikely
 900 2011-09-13 07:56:58 <gmaxwell> Or if it's just namecoin they're talking about, you might be able to by taking advantage of the behavior change on the merged mining point.
 901 2011-09-13 07:57:04 <Diablo-D3> how many times have we sat around thinking of exploitable bus =P
 902 2011-09-13 07:57:31 <gmaxwell> E.g. if you just mine a diff 1 namecoin fork up to the merged mining point, then add a merged block, BOOM the difficulty of that fork beats real namecoin.
 903 2011-09-13 07:57:50 <doublec> gmaxwell: the exploit to mine large numbers of blocks without increasing difficulty is here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43692.msg521772#msg521772
 904 2011-09-13 07:57:54 <Diablo-D3> yeah but that just means namecoin added a bug
 905 2011-09-13 07:57:59 <doublec> I can't imagine what the checkpoint problem is
 906 2011-09-13 07:58:24 <Diablo-D3> doublec: erm
 907 2011-09-13 07:58:35 <Diablo-D3> that attack sounds like a variant of the 50% bug
 908 2011-09-13 07:58:39 <Diablo-D3> its just exploiting it in a weird way
 909 2011-09-13 07:58:41 <gmaxwell> doublec: to do that you just fudge the time. Which is trivial if you have enough hash power that you don't need to worry about the rest of the network ignoring your invalidly timed blocks.
 910 2011-09-13 07:58:44 <doublec> yes it is
 911 2011-09-13 07:58:56 <Diablo-D3> so its still the 50% bug, so its a nonissue
 912 2011-09-13 07:59:12 GMP has joined
 913 2011-09-13 07:59:17 <Diablo-D3> WOAH
 914 2011-09-13 07:59:22 <Diablo-D3> artforz is on the forums?!
 915 2011-09-13 07:59:23 <gmaxwell> Thats one of the reasons that bitcoin only updates difficulty every 2016 blocks: to prevent someone mining a fork from driving down the difficulty quickly to make mainintaing the fork cheap.
 916 2011-09-13 07:59:25 <Diablo-D3> he never goes on airc anymore!
 917 2011-09-13 07:59:29 <doublec> Diablo-D3: and #namecoin
 918 2011-09-13 07:59:46 <doublec> Diablo-D3: and the various other alt chains at times
 919 2011-09-13 07:59:58 <Diablo-D3> so are alt chains worth mining yet?
 920 2011-09-13 08:00:12 <doublec> it depends on your value of 'worth'
 921 2011-09-13 08:00:18 <Diablo-D3> I want USD.
 922 2011-09-13 08:00:32 <doublec> Diablo-D3: it varies
 923 2011-09-13 08:00:51 <doublec> Diablo-D3: the coinotron pool has a list of the chains when they're profitable
 924 2011-09-13 08:00:56 <doublec> Diablo-D3: and mines the most profitable one
 925 2011-09-13 08:01:18 <doublec> Diablo-D3: also http://allchains.info/ does the calcs
 926 2011-09-13 08:01:27 <Disposition> lol Yifu from Bitcoin navigator just informed me that there's a host club in japan that accepts bitcoins.
 927 2011-09-13 08:01:42 <Diablo-D3> coinotron?
 928 2011-09-13 08:01:55 erus` has joined
 929 2011-09-13 08:02:04 <doublec> Diablo-D3: http://coinotron.com
 930 2011-09-13 08:03:30 * Diablo-D3 CLICKS ON A STRANGE URL ON IRC
 931 2011-09-13 08:04:35 * erus` uses a sane browser and doesnt have to worry
 932 2011-09-13 08:04:48 <doublec> erska: w3m?
 933 2011-09-13 08:04:58 <erus`> telnet
 934 2011-09-13 08:05:03 <acdb> telnet coinotron.com 80
 935 2011-09-13 08:06:14 Crshman has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
 936 2011-09-13 08:08:12 d1g1t4l has joined
 937 2011-09-13 08:08:44 wtfman is now known as wtfman[away]
 938 2011-09-13 08:13:54 Fairuser has joined
 939 2011-09-13 08:13:59 <Diablo-D3> erm
 940 2011-09-13 08:14:07 <Diablo-D3> doublec: so how does coinotron work?
 941 2011-09-13 08:17:01 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 942 2011-09-13 08:17:51 <twobits1> it is just a mining pool with a front end that automatically gives you work for the chain you picked
 943 2011-09-13 08:18:08 <Diablo-D3> can it automatically switch to most profitable chain?
 944 2011-09-13 08:18:15 <edcba> telnet is too risky
 945 2011-09-13 08:18:19 <twobits1> yes, they have an auto setting that lets you do that.
 946 2011-09-13 08:18:19 <edcba> you should use netcat
 947 2011-09-13 08:18:25 <Diablo-D3> <3 netcat
 948 2011-09-13 08:18:31 pierre` has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 949 2011-09-13 08:18:35 pierre` has joined
 950 2011-09-13 08:18:38 <Diablo-D3> twobits1: yeah, but that means I have to deal with shitty exchanges
 951 2011-09-13 08:18:41 <Diablo-D3> so I can consolodate into btc
 952 2011-09-13 08:18:43 <twobits1> yep
 953 2011-09-13 08:19:03 <Diablo-D3> not sure if its worth the effort
 954 2011-09-13 08:19:05 <twobits1> and the auto setting assumes you can sell at that price by the time you get enough to sell.
 955 2011-09-13 08:19:34 <Diablo-D3> okay if Im reading this right
 956 2011-09-13 08:19:43 <Diablo-D3> BTC is most profitable atm?
 957 2011-09-13 08:20:06 <Disposition> no, sc is.
 958 2011-09-13 08:20:17 <twobits1> Ill go look, but that would not suprise me,  heard all the alt chains are going down with the attack threats
 959 2011-09-13 08:20:23 <Disposition> ^
 960 2011-09-13 08:20:32 <twobits1> is showing sc and btc tied for me.
 961 2011-09-13 08:20:58 <twobits1> which after exchange fees would leave btc more profitable
 962 2011-09-13 08:20:59 zeiris has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 963 2011-09-13 08:21:28 <Diablo-D3> yeah what twobits1 said
 964 2011-09-13 08:21:32 zeiris has joined
 965 2011-09-13 08:21:34 <Disposition> well my personal math indicates it's about 3% more profitable after trade fees, however liquidity is something else to calculate for
 966 2011-09-13 08:22:02 <Diablo-D3> honestly I dont see the point until someone makes a large scale multicurrency forex trading site
 967 2011-09-13 08:22:11 <Disposition> so there's no reason to jump ship, I only swap if it's about 20% anyways
 968 2011-09-13 08:22:30 <twobits1> yeah, allchains.info shows i0 being the most profitable,  but we were talking about coinotrons display.
 969 2011-09-13 08:23:39 <Diablo-D3> well which one is lying then?\
 970 2011-09-13 08:24:03 <twobits1> not sure either is, they are probably fetching from diferent exchanges and/or caching for different amounts of time.
 971 2011-09-13 08:25:04 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 972 2011-09-13 08:26:31 <Disposition> my number is live :3
 973 2011-09-13 08:27:25 <twobits1> yeah, but it still assumes that will still be the price ratio between then when you go to sell what you just mined
 974 2011-09-13 08:27:43 <twobits1> so at best they are all educated gueses
 975 2011-09-13 08:27:44 <Disposition> yep, hedging.
 976 2011-09-13 08:28:09 <EskimoBob> so, did you guys figure out what happened in MtGox and why Diablo-D3 lost hes coin?
 977 2011-09-13 08:28:10 <Disposition> it might be more funny to buy then resell as "next profit" comes.
 978 2011-09-13 08:29:50 marf_away has joined
 979 2011-09-13 08:30:45 <Diablo-D3> EskimoBob: nope
 980 2011-09-13 08:30:50 <Diablo-D3> neither me nor tux can figure out what happened
 981 2011-09-13 08:31:18 Burgundy has joined
 982 2011-09-13 08:33:15 larsivi has joined
 983 2011-09-13 08:36:38 <Diablo-D3> heh someone asked me to pgp verify if Im really me
 984 2011-09-13 08:40:15 cande has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 985 2011-09-13 08:42:30 hugolp has joined
 986 2011-09-13 08:48:17 zamgo has joined
 987 2011-09-13 08:53:33 <ThomasV> is there a reason why bitcoin-abe is not multithreaded?
 988 2011-09-13 08:54:01 nr9 has joined
 989 2011-09-13 09:14:04 shockdiode has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 990 2011-09-13 09:15:42 cande has joined
 991 2011-09-13 09:22:15 yorick has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 992 2011-09-13 09:23:09 iddo has quit (Changing host)
 993 2011-09-13 09:23:09 iddo has joined
 994 2011-09-13 09:25:44 MrTiggrAFK is now known as MrTiggr
 995 2011-09-13 09:27:56 MrTiggr is now known as MrTiggrFeedKids
 996 2011-09-13 09:48:21 bittwist is now known as OhBama
 997 2011-09-13 09:51:41 slush1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 998 2011-09-13 09:53:30 malaimo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 999 2011-09-13 09:53:52 Sedra- has joined
1000 2011-09-13 09:56:42 malaimo has joined
1001 2011-09-13 09:57:20 Sedra- has quit (Client Quit)
1002 2011-09-13 09:57:34 Sedra- has joined
1003 2011-09-13 09:58:24 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1004 2011-09-13 10:03:57 abragin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1005 2011-09-13 10:05:30 abragin has joined
1006 2011-09-13 10:05:31 abragin has quit (Changing host)
1007 2011-09-13 10:05:31 abragin has joined
1008 2011-09-13 10:12:07 wuzel2 has joined
1009 2011-09-13 10:12:21 wuzel has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1010 2011-09-13 10:15:44 zamgo has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1011 2011-09-13 10:25:48 TD has joined
1012 2011-09-13 10:46:35 <xelister> SolidCoin author RealSolid thretens to modify his software to remove money from ArtzFortz by killing some transactions. SolidCoin, the paypal/mtgox of BitCoin?  I sure home never doing shit like that crossed mind of main BitCoin leaders? (except for reseting testnet)?
1013 2011-09-13 10:47:13 ghimli has joined
1014 2011-09-13 10:49:28 E-sense has joined
1015 2011-09-13 10:50:11 <mtrlt> xelister: citation needed
1016 2011-09-13 10:50:37 <xelister> <RealSolid> tbh i dont know why anyone would support the coins of someone who attacked the network
1017 2011-09-13 10:51:08 <xelister> <RealSolid> i think i may clean up the chain too   <RealSolid> and get rid of some of artforz wealth
1018 2011-09-13 10:52:16 dvide has quit ()
1019 2011-09-13 10:54:31 <xelister> lol he wants to do a rollback. :eyeroll:
1020 2011-09-13 10:54:38 cosurgi has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1021 2011-09-13 10:54:42 <mtrlt> >_<
1022 2011-09-13 10:55:38 <xelister> ok maybe a stop and restart thing... and remove some transactions - change the protocol
1023 2011-09-13 10:55:46 <xelister> imho this is against everything we value in bitcoin
1024 2011-09-13 10:55:57 <SomeoneWeird> wtf
1025 2011-09-13 10:55:58 <SomeoneWeird> yes
1026 2011-09-13 10:56:42 Tim7 has joined
1027 2011-09-13 10:57:20 <epscy> what happened?, sounds like artforz tried to kill solicoin?
1028 2011-09-13 10:57:37 <mtrlt> he just exploited a flaw in the protocol
1029 2011-09-13 10:57:46 <epscy> any details?
1030 2011-09-13 10:58:52 <mtrlt> on the forums somewhere :P
1031 2011-09-13 10:59:21 <mtrlt> i think he spammed transactions and people's HDs went full
1032 2011-09-13 11:00:57 <Diablo-D3> LOL
1033 2011-09-13 11:03:15 <xelister> mtrlt: indeed
1034 2011-09-13 11:03:26 <xelister> and now SC wants to "rewrite history" and he thinks this is a good idea
1035 2011-09-13 11:03:36 <xelister> I think someone missed hashmoney 101 class.
1036 2011-09-13 11:03:45 <xelister> #solidcoin
1037 2011-09-13 11:04:59 zeiris has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1038 2011-09-13 11:06:26 marf_away has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1039 2011-09-13 11:08:42 nr9 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1040 2011-09-13 11:09:00 nr9 has joined
1041 2011-09-13 11:13:21 <JFK911> hahahahahaha
1042 2011-09-13 11:14:53 cande has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1043 2011-09-13 11:18:02 RazielZ has joined
1044 2011-09-13 11:19:19 cosurgi has joined
1045 2011-09-13 11:19:57 ivan has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
1046 2011-09-13 11:21:07 ivan has joined
1047 2011-09-13 11:22:59 richardblee has quit (Quit: leaving)
1048 2011-09-13 11:23:21 kish has joined
1049 2011-09-13 11:26:02 Graet has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1050 2011-09-13 11:28:56 Graet has joined
1051 2011-09-13 11:30:00 <xelister> <molecular> tibanne trying to register "bitcoin" trademark? wtf? http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/trademark/data/010103646
1052 2011-09-13 11:30:03 <xelister> ^^^^^^ this ^^^^^^^^^^^^
1053 2011-09-13 11:32:46 <abragin> not a good idea, imo
1054 2011-09-13 11:33:04 <xelister> you think??
1055 2011-09-13 11:33:19 <abragin> the trademark should belong to a well-established non-commercial organization which is respected and consists from active community members
1056 2011-09-13 11:38:11 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1057 2011-09-13 11:40:37 wtfman[away] is now known as wtfman
1058 2011-09-13 11:42:19 <edcba> maybe it's satoshi's company :)
1059 2011-09-13 11:45:18 <xelister> then he is really failing. but it is not
1060 2011-09-13 11:46:34 <Graet> is there " a well-established non-commercial organization which is respected and consists from active community members"
1061 2011-09-13 11:47:07 <Graet> i'm setting up an au not for profit bitcoin association , but dont know of any existing
1062 2011-09-13 11:47:51 <Graet> and after talking to lawyer today it tyakes ~8months just to get trademark registered and working in au
1063 2011-09-13 11:48:48 <xelister> EFF obviously
1064 2011-09-13 11:48:57 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1065 2011-09-13 11:49:42 <Graet> why "obviously" wasnt to me
1066 2011-09-13 11:50:07 <conman> the eff has ruled it wont support bitcoin
1067 2011-09-13 11:50:08 <xelister> EFF is a most known organisation that defends e-liberies since many many years
1068 2011-09-13 11:50:19 <xelister> conman: not reall
1069 2011-09-13 11:50:31 <conman> I"m sure I read they didn't
1070 2011-09-13 11:50:37 <xelister> EFF decided to not take donations in bitcoins, to not risk being sued because then they can not defend others
1071 2011-09-13 11:50:40 <Graet> me too
1072 2011-09-13 11:50:45 <conman> ah yeah
1073 2011-09-13 11:50:47 WakiMiko has joined
1074 2011-09-13 11:50:58 <Graet> so why would they take on the trademark?
1075 2011-09-13 11:51:32 <xelister> if they would take BTC then could be accused of money laundering or heaving wrongly documented dotations or misshandling dotations etc - all nasty stuff
1076 2011-09-13 11:51:35 <Graet> not saying its a bad idea, just wasnt "obvious" as good choice to me
1077 2011-09-13 11:51:41 <xelister> owning a trademark for something does not have this problems imo
1078 2011-09-13 11:52:06 <xelister> we should ask them
1079 2011-09-13 11:52:17 <Graet> you should yeah :)
1080 2011-09-13 11:52:27 <xelister> while at it, lets search for some entity other then SonyGox to own forum
1081 2011-09-13 11:53:12 <Graet> there are 2 or3 already, we need more?
1082 2011-09-13 11:53:22 <xelister> Graet: hm?
1083 2011-09-13 11:53:51 <xelister> Graet: someone else should own bitcoin forum then sony-like (monopol/incopetent) mtgox. Lets make this happen
1084 2011-09-13 11:54:08 <Graet> theres one in uk that Vladamir is invo;ved in, one in au setup just the other day and i'm sure theres at least another
1085 2011-09-13 11:54:19 <EskimoBob> quote of the day "20:39:24  RealSolid       i wanted to get the source into a state which it could be more easily developed by normal people"
1086 2011-09-13 11:54:29 <Graet> lol
1087 2011-09-13 11:54:30 <xelister> lol EskimoBob =)
1088 2011-09-13 11:54:42 <EskimoBob> Hello normal people!
1089 2011-09-13 11:55:03 <Graet> i'm not!
1090 2011-09-13 11:55:25 <Graet> hi EskimoBob anyway :)
1091 2011-09-13 11:55:35 <SomeoneWeird> LOL EskimoBob
1092 2011-09-13 11:56:58 <Graet> xelister i'm all for community owned/driven, but the way it is atm the big money speaks and the small stakeholders wont combine funds to do stuff, thus not for profit or similar groups are needed by btc
1093 2011-09-13 11:57:52 <EskimoBob> Graet: i am not sure but BTC has no community driven nonprofit organisation
1094 2011-09-13 11:57:56 <CIA-101> poolserverj: shadders * edf47d70243c r56 /src/main/java/com/shadworld/poolserver/ (6 files in 2 dirs): Longpoll MK 2 - first commit.
1095 2011-09-13 11:57:56 <CIA-101> poolserverj: shadders * 8d8159594663 r57 /src/main/java/com/shadworld/poolserver/ (LongpollHandler.java BlockChainTracker.java): - added async LP dispatch.
1096 2011-09-13 11:58:03 <Graet> i'm setting up (with help from others ) a NFP in au and helpoing arrange a bitcoin gathering in melb for novemnber
1097 2011-09-13 11:58:26 <Graet> EskimoBob desperately needed and pleased to be at the forefront :)
1098 2011-09-13 11:58:31 <Graet> then ;)
1099 2011-09-13 11:58:58 <Graet> gtg get kids in bed bbl
1100 2011-09-13 11:59:09 <EskimoBob> Graet: there is a good channel for this btw. #brc-value if I am not mistaken
1101 2011-09-13 11:59:41 <EskimoBob> to set up a NFP is easy where I am. It probably takes 15 min or so
1102 2011-09-13 11:59:44 <Graet> sure, but the topic was raised here and i participated, sorry if its off topic]
1103 2011-09-13 11:59:46 <Graet> bbiaw
1104 2011-09-13 12:00:01 <Graet> takes 1 month in au, saw lawyer today
1105 2011-09-13 12:00:19 <EskimoBob> :) i did not want to get kicked :)
1106 2011-09-13 12:00:24 yorick has joined
1107 2011-09-13 12:00:45 <EskimoBob> let me check can I do it over the net with ID card ...
1108 2011-09-13 12:02:01 <shadders> Graet: why do you need an NFP?  Is it something to do with conference?
1109 2011-09-13 12:02:30 rdponticelli_ has joined
1110 2011-09-13 12:02:36 rdponticelli has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1111 2011-09-13 12:02:55 agricocb has joined
1112 2011-09-13 12:02:56 toffoo_ has joined
1113 2011-09-13 12:03:09 toffoo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1114 2011-09-13 12:03:09 toffoo_ is now known as toffoo
1115 2011-09-13 12:03:50 agricocb has quit (Client Quit)
1116 2011-09-13 12:06:14 agricocb has joined
1117 2011-09-13 12:09:51 <EskimoBob> if you need a legal entity, nonprofit is the easiest to set up.
1118 2011-09-13 12:10:00 <Graet> its a better idea than a trust and can be more longterm shadders - also a few ppl agree its a good thing for btc
1119 2011-09-13 12:10:06 <Graet> yes
1120 2011-09-13 12:10:17 <EskimoBob> sorry, I have to take off now but I'll look into, how had or easy it is to set it up
1121 2011-09-13 12:10:22 <Graet> and no-one can make money from it
1122 2011-09-13 12:10:41 <EskimoBob> setting up a Co. or Inc. takes about 20 min or so
1123 2011-09-13 12:10:53 <EskimoBob> sure you can :)
1124 2011-09-13 12:10:59 <Graet> i have a wad of paper an inch thick on it, with important swtuff highlighted
1125 2011-09-13 12:11:01 <Graet> lol
1126 2011-09-13 12:11:08 <EskimoBob> wtf?
1127 2011-09-13 12:11:11 <Graet> what country EskimoBob ?
1128 2011-09-13 12:11:34 <Graet> gimme email adress and i will send you a copy :/
1129 2011-09-13 12:12:35 Titeuf_87 has joined
1130 2011-09-13 12:14:00 Sedra- is now known as Sedra
1131 2011-09-13 12:16:01 <Diablo-D3> LOL
1132 2011-09-13 12:16:08 <Diablo-D3> someone just emailed me claiming to have keylogged my computer
1133 2011-09-13 12:16:25 erle- has joined
1134 2011-09-13 12:16:51 <conman> nice
1135 2011-09-13 12:17:00 <Diablo-D3> jokerpopcorn.gif
1136 2011-09-13 12:17:06 <Diablo-D3> http://pastebin.com/k3FwnJTu
1137 2011-09-13 12:17:06 <conman> haha
1138 2011-09-13 12:17:51 Guest63789 is now known as vegard
1139 2011-09-13 12:17:52 <coderrr> lol
1140 2011-09-13 12:18:07 <Diablo-D3> MagicalTux: ^
1141 2011-09-13 12:18:14 <xelister> lolol html e-mail.
1142 2011-09-13 12:21:59 <Diablo-D3> conman: lol my current reject rate on btcguild is 0.29%
1143 2011-09-13 12:22:09 <conman> yeah it's pretty slick
1144 2011-09-13 12:22:15 <conman> they run a decent outfit
1145 2011-09-13 12:22:22 <conman> wish they had autopay
1146 2011-09-13 12:23:06 twobits1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1147 2011-09-13 12:23:30 peck has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1148 2011-09-13 12:23:59 CutAndPaste has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1149 2011-09-13 12:24:15 erle- has quit (Quit: CETERVM•AVTEM•CENSEO•CVTTENBERC•ESSE•DELENDVM)
1150 2011-09-13 12:25:14 twobits has joined
1151 2011-09-13 12:25:38 CutAndPaste has joined
1152 2011-09-13 12:26:45 fnord0 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1153 2011-09-13 12:27:44 peck has joined
1154 2011-09-13 12:29:20 datagutt has joined
1155 2011-09-13 12:29:30 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1156 2011-09-13 12:29:31 huk has quit ()
1157 2011-09-13 12:29:39 erle- has joined
1158 2011-09-13 12:31:54 minimoose has joined
1159 2011-09-13 12:32:46 MrTiggrFeedKids is now known as MrTiggr
1160 2011-09-13 12:33:03 erle- has quit (Client Quit)
1161 2011-09-13 12:33:09 fnord0 has joined
1162 2011-09-13 12:35:02 minimoose has quit (Client Quit)
1163 2011-09-13 12:35:25 minimoose has joined
1164 2011-09-13 12:38:25 Akinava has quit (Quit: Akinava)
1165 2011-09-13 12:39:24 erle- has joined
1166 2011-09-13 12:40:17 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1167 2011-09-13 12:43:52 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1168 2011-09-13 12:44:07 OhBama is now known as bittwist
1169 2011-09-13 12:45:59 log0s has joined
1170 2011-09-13 12:47:25 Sedra has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1171 2011-09-13 12:49:36 Sedra has joined
1172 2011-09-13 12:50:36 erle- has quit (Quit: CETERVM•AVTEM•CENSEO•CVTTENBERC•ESSE•DELENDVM)
1173 2011-09-13 12:58:09 normanrichards has quit (Quit: normanrichards)
1174 2011-09-13 12:58:13 TheAncientGoat has joined
1175 2011-09-13 12:59:21 wardearia has joined
1176 2011-09-13 13:00:09 CaptDDL has joined
1177 2011-09-13 13:01:08 CaptainDDL has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1178 2011-09-13 13:04:13 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1179 2011-09-13 13:10:24 d4de has joined
1180 2011-09-13 13:15:32 ivan has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
1181 2011-09-13 13:16:27 ivan` has joined
1182 2011-09-13 13:17:41 _Silverpike_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1183 2011-09-13 13:17:57 Silverpike has joined
1184 2011-09-13 13:24:23 BitterTea has joined
1185 2011-09-13 13:26:56 normanrichards has joined
1186 2011-09-13 13:27:54 molecular has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1187 2011-09-13 13:29:54 erus` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1188 2011-09-13 13:32:42 erus` has joined
1189 2011-09-13 13:32:56 da2ce7 has joined
1190 2011-09-13 13:33:14 Joric has joined
1191 2011-09-13 13:35:28 gavinandresen has joined
1192 2011-09-13 13:38:24 zapnap has joined
1193 2011-09-13 13:39:27 Crshman has joined
1194 2011-09-13 13:40:14 hugolp has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1195 2011-09-13 13:43:09 cande has joined
1196 2011-09-13 13:43:52 Xunie has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1197 2011-09-13 13:48:42 noot has joined
1198 2011-09-13 13:49:09 noot has quit (Client Quit)
1199 2011-09-13 13:51:15 marf_away has joined
1200 2011-09-13 13:52:20 cande has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1201 2011-09-13 13:53:12 Disposition has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1202 2011-09-13 13:58:03 cande has joined
1203 2011-09-13 13:58:56 pwrcycle has quit (Changing host)
1204 2011-09-13 13:58:56 pwrcycle has joined
1205 2011-09-13 13:59:17 cronopio has joined
1206 2011-09-13 14:02:15 DontMindMe has joined
1207 2011-09-13 14:03:13 egecko has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
1208 2011-09-13 14:17:02 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1209 2011-09-13 14:17:51 Joric has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1210 2011-09-13 14:18:15 Joric has joined
1211 2011-09-13 14:18:15 Joric has quit (Changing host)
1212 2011-09-13 14:18:15 Joric has joined
1213 2011-09-13 14:18:54 Joric has left ()
1214 2011-09-13 14:26:10 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1215 2011-09-13 14:26:35 cande has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1216 2011-09-13 14:31:20 Astrohacker has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1217 2011-09-13 14:37:22 p0s has joined
1218 2011-09-13 14:40:52 caedes has joined
1219 2011-09-13 14:46:37 ByteCoin has left ()
1220 2011-09-13 14:46:41 ByteCoin has joined
1221 2011-09-13 14:47:07 Tim7 has quit ()
1222 2011-09-13 14:47:29 <EskimoBob> you guys know all about bitcoin so you probably know how is this possible:"SolidCoin will be shutting down the network at block 35250"
1223 2011-09-13 14:47:51 <Diablo-D3> its finally dead?!
1224 2011-09-13 14:47:54 <EskimoBob> how can one shit bird shut town the network?
1225 2011-09-13 14:47:59 <Diablo-D3> oh easily
1226 2011-09-13 14:48:02 <Diablo-D3> hes the only one mining on it
1227 2011-09-13 14:48:07 <EskimoBob> :)
1228 2011-09-13 14:48:19 <mtrlt> lol
1229 2011-09-13 14:48:20 <EskimoBob> "SolidCoin will be restarting at some point in the future (most likely within 2 weeks) with a new protocol, all coin owners up to block 35250 will still have their coins when SolidCoin restarts. There will be no loss of coins to these owners."
1230 2011-09-13 14:48:49 <EskimoBob> http://solidcoin.info/ :)
1231 2011-09-13 14:49:03 <mtrlt> central decentralization
1232 2011-09-13 14:49:11 <Diablo-D3> ...
1233 2011-09-13 14:49:14 <Diablo-D3> wait, what?
1234 2011-09-13 14:49:17 <EskimoBob> it's all there except how is this "network shutdown" is going to happen
1235 2011-09-13 14:49:35 <mtrlt> i guess he's just gonna start a new network with the old coins
1236 2011-09-13 14:50:30 <Diablo-D3> but
1237 2011-09-13 14:50:31 <Diablo-D3> the
1238 2011-09-13 14:50:32 <Diablo-D3> coins
1239 2011-09-13 14:50:34 <Diablo-D3> belong
1240 2011-09-13 14:50:34 <Diablo-D3> to
1241 2011-09-13 14:50:35 <Diablo-D3> the
1242 2011-09-13 14:50:36 <Diablo-D3> chain
1243 2011-09-13 14:50:40 <Diablo-D3> and
1244 2011-09-13 14:50:45 <Diablo-D3> just
1245 2011-09-13 14:50:47 <Diablo-D3> goddamnit
1246 2011-09-13 14:50:54 <Diablo-D3> we've all been trolled
1247 2011-09-13 14:50:56 <EskimoBob> need help?
1248 2011-09-13 14:51:04 <Diablo-D3> the solidcoin guy is a troll
1249 2011-09-13 14:51:05 <mtrlt> no, he can start a new one.
1250 2011-09-13 14:51:09 <Diablo-D3> and we have been trolled
1251 2011-09-13 14:51:13 copumpkin has joined
1252 2011-09-13 14:51:14 <mtrlt> it's not like anyone wants to use the old one
1253 2011-09-13 14:51:17 <mtrlt> it's the buggiest thing ever
1254 2011-09-13 14:52:15 <EskimoBob> problem is, that I can not ask this guy directly, he banned me. SO I ask from you guys because you probably know what is possible and what is not
1255 2011-09-13 14:52:48 <EskimoBob> Graet: are you still around?
1256 2011-09-13 14:53:10 <Diablo-D3> er
1257 2011-09-13 14:53:11 <Diablo-D3> he banned me too
1258 2011-09-13 14:53:14 <Diablo-D3> and mtrlt I think
1259 2011-09-13 14:53:16 <tcatm> EskimoBob: shutting down a chain is not possible
1260 2011-09-13 14:53:30 <Diablo-D3> tcatm: it is when you're the only miner
1261 2011-09-13 14:53:37 <log0s> my guess is the solidcoin person will stop mining and in his new software release, there will be a checkpoint for block 35250 and blocks after that point will have to follow slightly different rules (the "new protocol"), so any blocks mined with the current software after height 35250 won't follow these new rules will be invalid
1262 2011-09-13 14:54:07 <EskimoBob> log0s: ok, that makes sense. thanx
1263 2011-09-13 14:54:12 <Diablo-D3> yes but
1264 2011-09-13 14:54:16 <Diablo-D3> if you odnt upgrade
1265 2011-09-13 14:54:17 <Diablo-D3> you win
1266 2011-09-13 14:54:19 <tcatm> shutting down a chain of which other users still have a copy (+ set of rules/software) is impossible :)
1267 2011-09-13 14:54:33 <makomk> Given how overstated his previous claims have been, it's possible that by fixing the 51% attack he just means fixing ArtForz's latest timestamp trick too..
1268 2011-09-13 14:54:45 <log0s> he's effectively just forking the solidcoin blockchain
1269 2011-09-13 14:55:24 <Diablo-D3> what is this so called timestamp trick?
1270 2011-09-13 14:55:43 torsthaldo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1271 2011-09-13 14:55:51 <xelister> Diablo-D3: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43465.0;all
1272 2011-09-13 14:56:09 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
1273 2011-09-13 14:56:37 Astrohacker has joined
1274 2011-09-13 14:57:00 wolfspraul has joined
1275 2011-09-13 14:57:30 <xelister> no wait. not this one
1276 2011-09-13 14:57:42 <BitterTea> what's this ArtForz Geist exploit?
1277 2011-09-13 14:57:50 <xelister> this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43692.msg521772#msg521772
1278 2011-09-13 14:58:08 <BitterTea> I ask because of this discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43465.msg521136#msg521136
1279 2011-09-13 14:58:19 <jrmithdobbs> it's not an exploit
1280 2011-09-13 14:58:24 <jrmithdobbs> the solidcoin guy is just fucking retarded
1281 2011-09-13 14:58:48 <Diablo-D3> whats new
1282 2011-09-13 14:59:01 <BitterTea> so how are they using it against Namecoin, supposedly?
1283 2011-09-13 14:59:23 <xelister> [16:50:12] <Yahkin_W> Most solidcoins are on Mooncoin.  Mooncoin is down.  Chain gets shutdown.  FUCK!
1284 2011-09-13 14:59:28 <kinlo> he is going to solve the 51% problem, so he must be very smart   [sarcasm sign for the sheldons amongst us]
1285 2011-09-13 14:59:42 <Diablo-D3> solving the 51% problem is easy
1286 2011-09-13 14:59:48 <Diablo-D3> dont mine at all
1287 2011-09-13 15:00:27 <BitterTea> xelister: Ah, didn't realize that link was in response to me, thanks
1288 2011-09-13 15:00:57 <tcatm> he could use a centralized chain to solve the 51% problem ;)
1289 2011-09-13 15:02:08 <jrmithdobbs> he's just retarded and is balking at the fact that people proved to him that his changes to the protocol were a bad idea
1290 2011-09-13 15:02:58 <BitterTea> brief description of the differences between btc and solidcoin?
1291 2011-09-13 15:03:01 <BitterTea> or a link
1292 2011-09-13 15:03:17 <jrmithdobbs> they fucked up the difficulty re-calc
1293 2011-09-13 15:03:18 <helo> solidcoin is less bitty than bitcoin
1294 2011-09-13 15:03:25 <jrmithdobbs> and set a fixed per-txn fee
1295 2011-09-13 15:03:36 <Diablo-D3> fixed per txn fee?
1296 2011-09-13 15:03:42 <Diablo-D3> lol FederalReserveCoin
1297 2011-09-13 15:03:47 <BitterTea> oh, so you just need to wait for more blocks for the same amount of security?
1298 2011-09-13 15:03:47 <upb> so someone fucked his system to prove his superiority_
1299 2011-09-13 15:03:49 <upb> ?
1300 2011-09-13 15:03:53 <jrmithdobbs> and wanted to play the "well crap wish i'd been an early adopter game"
1301 2011-09-13 15:03:54 <upb> yep sounds like bitcoin community:D
1302 2011-09-13 15:04:14 <BitterTea> upb: Way to straw man
1303 2011-09-13 15:04:18 <jrmithdobbs> BitterTea: no, his diff recalc is flawed and exploitable
1304 2011-09-13 15:04:45 <jrmithdobbs> BitterTea: and his fixed txn fee encourages "miners" to only include small txns since there's no benefit to spending more compute time on larger ones
1305 2011-09-13 15:05:02 <BitterTea> ah, interesting
1306 2011-09-13 15:05:22 <jrmithdobbs> tl;dr: dude's retarded and now he's butthurt that someone pointed it out publically by trashing his chain
1307 2011-09-13 15:05:36 <edcba> why larger tx would spend more compute time ?
1308 2011-09-13 15:05:49 <edcba> should be negligible
1309 2011-09-13 15:05:50 <jrmithdobbs> edcba: not large in coins, larger in number of inputs
1310 2011-09-13 15:05:53 <BitterTea> who's behind solidcoin?
1311 2011-09-13 15:06:07 molecular has joined
1312 2011-09-13 15:06:13 <edcba> even in tx size that should be negligible
1313 2011-09-13 15:06:24 <jrmithdobbs> short term, maybe
1314 2011-09-13 15:06:47 <BitterTea> but how can this be, it even says on the solidcoin website that "SolidCoin has the potential to make Bitcoin a secondary currency due to the fact it fixes some important issues in the Bitcoin protocol"
1315 2011-09-13 15:07:05 <jrmithdobbs> it fixes his flawed understanding of the "issues"
1316 2011-09-13 15:07:06 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
1317 2011-09-13 15:07:13 <EskimoBob> lol
1318 2011-09-13 15:07:16 <Diablo-D3> even I wont touch most of the shit in bitcoin
1319 2011-09-13 15:07:20 <Diablo-D3> and I actually know what Im doing
1320 2011-09-13 15:07:26 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin, for the most part, is done right
1321 2011-09-13 15:07:44 <BitterTea> yeah, earlier I was referring to his flawed attempt at speeding up transactions by targeting a smaller interval between
1322 2011-09-13 15:07:55 <Diablo-D3> BitterTea: erm
1323 2011-09-13 15:07:57 <BitterTea> doing so just means each block represents less work and you need to wait for more confirmations
1324 2011-09-13 15:07:58 <Diablo-D3> if he wants faster t
1325 2011-09-13 15:08:00 <Diablo-D3> tx
1326 2011-09-13 15:08:08 <Diablo-D3> he can just lower his confirmations
1327 2011-09-13 15:08:15 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin alreayd lets you do that
1328 2011-09-13 15:08:16 <upb> EskimoBob: whats up russian
1329 2011-09-13 15:08:43 <EskimoBob> ?
1330 2011-09-13 15:08:51 <BitterTea> Diablo-D3: he targeted 3 minutes per block for solidcoin, that's what I'm referring to
1331 2011-09-13 15:09:02 <upb> EskimoBob: iirc you said you were from .ee
1332 2011-09-13 15:09:29 <EskimoBob> just for the record, I am not russian and upb is a troll
1333 2011-09-13 15:09:46 <xelister> so Diablo-D3 was hacked
1334 2011-09-13 15:09:53 <xelister> and diablominer is compromised
1335 2011-09-13 15:10:18 <xelister> -or- mtgox.com still have unpatched way to get cleartext passwords of user.  Am I the only one thinking we should /really/ look into this?
1336 2011-09-13 15:10:33 <BitterTea> ???
1337 2011-09-13 15:10:57 <EskimoBob> FUD much?
1338 2011-09-13 15:11:06 <xelister> BitterTea: someone logged into mtgox Diablo-D3's account and took his coins. He logged with random password of Diablo-D3. Only 2 ways this could happened.
1339 2011-09-13 15:12:11 <xelister> EskimoBob: no, it was on forum and earlier here on IRC. Actually, who has the link to forum post by Diablo-D3?
1340 2011-09-13 15:12:12 gfinn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1341 2011-09-13 15:12:14 <lianj> aw, Diablo-D3 did he get much? :(
1342 2011-09-13 15:12:17 devon_hillard has joined
1343 2011-09-13 15:12:17 devon_hillard has quit (Changing host)
1344 2011-09-13 15:12:17 devon_hillard has joined
1345 2011-09-13 15:13:03 <xelister> lianj: 60 coins and mtgox covered it; but mtgox did not patched anything because they do not know what exploit was used to gain this password - or if it was Diablo-D3's computer hacked (but that seems unlikelly imo more)
1346 2011-09-13 15:14:09 <Graet> EskimoBob am now if you still are
1347 2011-09-13 15:14:21 <xelister> EskimoBob: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43678.0
1348 2011-09-13 15:14:50 <lianj> oh, very nice of mtgox to cover it
1349 2011-09-13 15:15:24 <jrmithdobbs> hush money
1350 2011-09-13 15:15:24 <EskimoBob> xelister: yes, i did read it . thanx
1351 2011-09-13 15:15:28 <jrmithdobbs> obviously
1352 2011-09-13 15:15:34 <upb> :)
1353 2011-09-13 15:15:39 <EskimoBob> Graet: yes, I am still here.
1354 2011-09-13 15:16:18 <EskimoBob> about this NFP foundation, did you take it over to #btc-value?
1355 2011-09-13 15:16:33 <Diablo-D3> lianj: who what?
1356 2011-09-13 15:16:38 <EskimoBob> I think they had a similar idea
1357 2011-09-13 15:17:04 <EskimoBob> not for profit  - NFP
1358 2011-09-13 15:17:30 <EskimoBob> not natural family planning ;)
1359 2011-09-13 15:17:57 <xelister> =)
1360 2011-09-13 15:18:20 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: you realise me and gmaxwell said the network time should be completely dropped like 3 months ago right?
1361 2011-09-13 15:18:29 <gavinandresen> jrmithdobbs: yup
1362 2011-09-13 15:18:42 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: and were yelled at because "relying on ntp isn't decentralized"
1363 2011-09-13 15:18:45 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
1364 2011-09-13 15:18:59 <xelister> jrmithdobbs: that is correct, relying on ntp is bad
1365 2011-09-13 15:19:30 <jrmithdobbs> xelister: no, relying on maluable/spoofable data from individual nodes is worse
1366 2011-09-13 15:19:33 gp5st has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1367 2011-09-13 15:19:41 <xelister> for now actually the blockchain IS the time source.   is it possible to fix issues while not assuming there is external time source
1368 2011-09-13 15:19:43 <jrmithdobbs> for something so central to keeping the network secured
1369 2011-09-13 15:19:59 <jrmithdobbs> there will always be an external time source, though
1370 2011-09-13 15:20:20 <ghimli> I have a question, why after setting settxfee to 0.0 using JSON-RPC on bitcoind, getinfo shows txfee 0.0, but when I send transfer i pay 0.0005? Using bitcoind 0.3.24
1371 2011-09-13 15:20:21 <xelister> the time source should be the guys with most hashpower -> the blocks. And it is as it was. Only small changes are needed to fix it (counting the 1 more block thing) right?
1372 2011-09-13 15:20:54 <gavinandresen> I'm leaning towards "discourage" (don't build on) blocks that have way-out-of-whack timestamps.  But accept them if they get buried in a longer chain.
1373 2011-09-13 15:20:56 <xelister> ghimli: there are also involuntarly fees if your transaction is "complex" that is, uses recnelty received coins or many small coins afair
1374 2011-09-13 15:21:10 <dikidera> wtf
1375 2011-09-13 15:21:11 <gavinandresen> Where way-out-of-whack means "doesn't agree with the time on MY machine"
1376 2011-09-13 15:21:14 <Graet> EskimoBob not yet, i had to go out and been on phone since i got home
1377 2011-09-13 15:21:15 <dikidera> a small restart of xampp...
1378 2011-09-13 15:21:19 <dikidera> and i cant login to phpmyadmin anymore..
1379 2011-09-13 15:21:59 asher^ has joined
1380 2011-09-13 15:22:35 <ghimli> xelister: I know but in this case bitcoind should't allow me to do this transfer (because of fee set to 0.0)
1381 2011-09-13 15:23:38 gfinn has joined
1382 2011-09-13 15:24:04 <gavinandresen> ghimli: you're really upset about paying 0.0005 BTC?  You realize that is less than a third of a penny?
1383 2011-09-13 15:24:59 <ghimli> gavinandersen: no I'm not upset learning to use it and this behaviour seems strange to me
1384 2011-09-13 15:25:05 <gavinandresen> ghimli: ... and if you pay yourself minimum wage then if you spent more than 2 minutes thinking about it you're losing money?
1385 2011-09-13 15:25:12 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: i think if network time is kept at all it should be narrowed by 90-105 minutes
1386 2011-09-13 15:26:01 <jrmithdobbs> the 2 hour floating window allows for cases where people have fucked DST settings, but people with fucked DST settings probably have other un-updated software that's exploitable and i think that should be discouraged given the theft/etc
1387 2011-09-13 15:26:25 <xelister> gavinandresen: perhaps a flag warn_before_forced_fee in config
1388 2011-09-13 15:26:37 <xelister> and have GUI client ask too... actually wait, it does that already afair
1389 2011-09-13 15:26:40 <gavinandresen> xelister: it just isn't a high priority
1390 2011-09-13 15:26:51 <ghimli> gavinandersen: hehe you are right so this is normal?
1391 2011-09-13 15:26:53 <gavinandresen> (and yeah, GUI already asks)
1392 2011-09-13 15:27:04 <xelister> gavinandresen: did someone implemented it for CLI already>
1393 2011-09-13 15:27:06 <xelister> ?
1394 2011-09-13 15:27:14 <tcatm> maybe we could analyze the blockchain to figure what the smallest timing window is for which the current blockchain is still valid?
1395 2011-09-13 15:27:18 <ghimli> gavinandersen: guiclient returns error in that case that i should set higher fee
1396 2011-09-13 15:27:38 <gavinandresen> ghimli: yes, it is normal.  bitcoind is mostly for website or other inside-infrastructure uses, where it doesn't make sense to stop and ask about fees
1397 2011-09-13 15:27:57 <jrmithdobbs> ghimli: why not go rebase the estimatetxfee patch and lobby for it to get merged?
1398 2011-09-13 15:28:06 <gavinandresen> tcatm: great idea
1399 2011-09-13 15:28:07 <jrmithdobbs> ghimli: then your scripts can always run estimatetxfee before sending
1400 2011-09-13 15:28:35 <jrmithdobbs> ghimli: problem solved.
1401 2011-09-13 15:28:54 <jrmithdobbs> ghimli: it's a really simple patch so shouldn't be hard to update.
1402 2011-09-13 15:29:28 OneMINER has joined
1403 2011-09-13 15:30:21 <ghimli> jrmithdobbs: i don't need that :) just asking in case I implemented something wrong way
1404 2011-09-13 15:32:17 <ghimli> jrmithdobbs: so settxfee only sets voluntary fee above those needed by network?
1405 2011-09-13 15:32:22 Joric has joined
1406 2011-09-13 15:33:21 <jrmithdobbs> ghimli: it only sets the required min fees
1407 2011-09-13 15:33:37 <tcatm> gavinandresen: btw, is Bitcoin.dmg the final filename? I think it should be lowercase and include a version number. e.g. bitcoin-0.4rc2.dmg
1408 2011-09-13 15:34:18 <jrmithdobbs> agreed
1409 2011-09-13 15:34:20 <gavinandresen> tcatm: good idea
1410 2011-09-13 15:35:11 gp5st has joined
1411 2011-09-13 15:38:12 <tcatm> gavinandresen: do you know whether there is some documentation about the time range algorithm?
1412 2011-09-13 15:38:58 <gavinandresen> tcatm: besides the code?  I don't know
1413 2011-09-13 15:39:50 <gavinandresen> tcatm: renamed the .dmg on github
1414 2011-09-13 15:39:52 <jrmithdobbs> there's not any to my knowledge
1415 2011-09-13 15:40:04 <jrmithdobbs> the code is pretty straight forward though
1416 2011-09-13 15:43:59 erle- has joined
1417 2011-09-13 15:44:34 nhodges has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1418 2011-09-13 15:45:29 AStove has joined
1419 2011-09-13 15:46:06 erle- has left ()
1420 2011-09-13 15:46:55 <xelister> What will be the implication if mtgox's attempt to trademark "BitCoin" succeedes?
1421 2011-09-13 15:47:31 <xelister> since the term is used everywhere from developers through community to shops and exchanges
1422 2011-09-13 15:48:58 <jrmithdobbs> he's trying to trademark bitcoin?
1423 2011-09-13 15:49:03 <BitterTea> http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/trademark/data/010103646
1424 2011-09-13 15:49:28 <BitterTea> yeah, I've been on the fence about Tibanne for a while now... this may have pushed me over
1425 2011-09-13 15:49:29 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1426 2011-09-13 15:49:37 <jrmithdobbs> lol
1427 2011-09-13 15:49:38 <nanotube> it is a protective measure against random asshat lawyers trying to do that (remember that one that tried)
1428 2011-09-13 15:49:41 <BitterTea> remember the reaction when it was discovered that some shitty lawyer was trying to trademark it in the U.S.?
1429 2011-09-13 15:49:55 <jrmithdobbs> nanotube: so having a random asshat business owner is better?
1430 2011-09-13 15:49:56 <gavinandresen> hmm?  last i heard that was a defensive move, prompted by the lawyer who was trying to trademark it first
1431 2011-09-13 15:50:06 <nanotube> jrmithdobbs: mtux has stated that he will grant the use of the trademark to everyone
1432 2011-09-13 15:50:10 <nanotube> so yes, it is better
1433 2011-09-13 15:50:15 <jrmithdobbs> because he's been so honest in the past
1434 2011-09-13 15:50:21 <nanotube> than having it open for any mean asshat to trademark it
1435 2011-09-13 15:50:26 <jrmithdobbs> and he can still revoke that right and sell the trademark at will
1436 2011-09-13 15:50:29 <jrmithdobbs> you realize this right?
1437 2011-09-13 15:50:35 <BitterTea> nanotube: If only the system worked, nobody should be able to trademark it
1438 2011-09-13 15:50:54 <nanotube> yea well... the point is that if it is open, you have to continually monitor and challenge any sumbissions
1439 2011-09-13 15:51:03 <nanotube> otherwise it'll be granted, and once granted, it is harder to fight
1440 2011-09-13 15:51:08 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: i think you should appeal that showing prior use and get a precident set
1441 2011-09-13 15:51:20 <jrmithdobbs> once precident is set it's harder to trademark elsewhere
1442 2011-09-13 15:51:21 <nanotube> so all things considered, taking it preemptively is probably a good idea
1443 2011-09-13 15:51:22 <gavinandresen> whether or not 'bitcoin' is a generic term that cannot be trademarked would be up to the courts, laws in different countries, etc etc etc
1444 2011-09-13 15:51:34 <gavinandresen> jrmithdobbs: I ?  why me?  I'm not a lawyer
1445 2011-09-13 15:51:48 <jrmithdobbs> because you're the maintainer
1446 2011-09-13 15:51:56 <jrmithdobbs> of the project that has been using it for 2+ years?
1447 2011-09-13 15:52:02 <jrmithdobbs> which clearly demonstrates prior use
1448 2011-09-13 15:52:05 <jrmithdobbs> in the same domain.
1449 2011-09-13 15:52:23 <gavinandresen> Not a high priority
1450 2011-09-13 15:52:29 <BitterTea> I'm just wondering how any trademark for "Bitcoin" could be approved. it's not a brand
1451 2011-09-13 15:52:41 <jrmithdobbs> and I'd rather see precident for it not being trademarkable than let tux further consolidate ownership of everything bitcoin
1452 2011-09-13 15:52:57 <BitterTea> let's move this discussion back to #btc-value
1453 2011-09-13 15:53:01 <gavinandresen> talk to a lawyer.  I think you can trademark anything, then if you try to sue for use the people you're suing can challenge it.
1454 2011-09-13 15:53:24 <jrmithdobbs> BitterTea: why this is relevent here
1455 2011-09-13 15:53:34 <BitterTea> ok, seemed OT, but whatev
1456 2011-09-13 15:53:46 <Graet> need an International Bitcoin association to hold trademarks if any
1457 2011-09-13 15:54:22 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: that's supposed to be true but it usually ends up whoever has the biggest pocket book wins, not to mention all the court costs in between
1458 2011-09-13 15:54:36 <gavinandresen> jrmithdobbs: exactly, and you want ME to wade into that mess?  no thanks
1459 2011-09-13 15:55:07 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: i just see tux owning the bitcoin trademark ending in "innocent bystanders," if you will, getting drug into court and ruined for doing something tux doesn't like
1460 2011-09-13 15:55:18 asher^ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1461 2011-09-13 15:55:43 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1462 2011-09-13 15:55:44 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: well it is your project, would seem to me it'd be your responsibility, no? Thought you'd worked something out with some organization to make doing things like this easier and to pay you to work on bitcoin?
1463 2011-09-13 15:56:02 <jrmithdobbs> or'd that fall through?
1464 2011-09-13 15:56:05 <nanotube> jrmithdobbs: problem is, all that lawyerly stuff is a mess and costs money. so realistically speaking, i think tux's protective ownership of said tm is probably the best we can get right now. unless you're willing to cough up a bunch of dough for starting some kind of bitcoin organization, and paying a bunch of lawyers to tm bitcoin through it
1465 2011-09-13 15:56:15 <gavinandresen> TruCoin is paying me a salary to mostly work on core bitcoin
1466 2011-09-13 15:56:27 <xelister> nanotube: seriously you take mtgox side on this?
1467 2011-09-13 15:56:30 <tcatm> can someone explain what this function does http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=stTyDtp3 ?
1468 2011-09-13 15:56:31 <BitterTea> gavinandresen: TruCoin?
1469 2011-09-13 15:56:40 <xelister> <nanotube> jrmithdobbs: mtux has stated that he will grant the use of the trademark to everyone
1470 2011-09-13 15:56:46 <nanotube> xelister: if we can get some kind of legal guarantees of tm non-enforcement, yes.
1471 2011-09-13 15:56:49 <xelister> he stated he will not goxx us with exploits or freeze our money too.
1472 2011-09-13 15:57:00 <nanotube> (rather than just a word and a handshake)
1473 2011-09-13 15:57:02 <gavinandresen> And RE: this is "my" project:  I very much hope that in a year I'm one of many people leading the bitcoin project
1474 2011-09-13 15:57:15 <xelister> why are the (first) developers now all so friendly for mtgox. forum. support trademark. etc.
1475 2011-09-13 15:57:27 <gavinandresen> BitterTea: http://www.trucoin.com/
1476 2011-09-13 15:57:28 <BitterTea> xelister: chill out man
1477 2011-09-13 15:57:28 <jrmithdobbs> nanotube: all we're going to get is his word and a handshake and you know it
1478 2011-09-13 15:57:35 <Graet> maybe he would hand trademark over to some properly setup nfp organisation - i'll ask him later, off to bed now
1479 2011-09-13 15:57:46 <k9quaint> xelister: its a conspiracy to implant mind control probes in your head
1480 2011-09-13 15:58:00 <nanotube> jrmithdobbs: i try not to make assertions about stuff i don't know about :)
1481 2011-09-13 15:58:03 <BitterTea> gavinandresen: Awesome
1482 2011-09-13 15:58:07 <xelister> k9quaint: business doing 100,000 USD a month surly have interest to protect his income
1483 2011-09-13 15:58:28 <k9quaint> mind control probes are pricey these days
1484 2011-09-13 15:58:58 <xelister> k9quaint: not sure what are you trying to do with such ridiculous strawman arguments
1485 2011-09-13 15:59:05 <Lopuz> not the hackable ones ;)
1486 2011-09-13 15:59:18 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: at the least you should be trying to get him to provide some form of legal protection against him changing his mind re: using the mark later down the line
1487 2011-09-13 16:00:13 <Lopuz> k9quaint, did you get tapped?
1488 2011-09-13 16:00:13 <BitterTea> jrmithdobbs: I don't know why you think it's gavin's responsibility. you have just as much standing to do so as he
1489 2011-09-13 16:00:21 <k9quaint> xelister: not sure what you are trying to do by extending the argument that mtgox is an alien front for implanting mind control probes in the heads of unsuspecting bitcoin users
1490 2011-09-13 16:00:23 <jrmithdobbs> no, I don't
1491 2011-09-13 16:00:52 <BitterTea> he's the lead developer, not CE
1492 2011-09-13 16:00:54 <BitterTea> *CEO
1493 2011-09-13 16:00:55 <xelister> mtgox is usually not holding his word, at least when it comes up to deadlines.  Even if he would be more trustworhy, still "we proooomise to not use our new powers against you" is not what we - libertarians, free people, anti-corporation, etc, want.
1494 2011-09-13 16:01:42 <xelister> but dunno perhaps bitcoin / mtgoxcoin is now targeted to other audience, but if mtgox controlls everything we don't need all the crypto crap, just make a regular e-payments client-centralserver system
1495 2011-09-13 16:01:56 <b4epoche> is Linux trademarked?
1496 2011-09-13 16:02:09 <jrmithdobbs> yes by a nfp
1497 2011-09-13 16:02:16 <xelister> jrmithdobbs: which one actually?
1498 2011-09-13 16:02:21 <k9quaint> you should look up the prior-use defense against trademarks before you get too worried
1499 2011-09-13 16:02:25 <jrmithdobbs> linuxfoundation.org iirc
1500 2011-09-13 16:02:26 <b4epoche> seems like the same route would be good here
1501 2011-09-13 16:02:33 RAWRwins254 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1502 2011-09-13 16:03:25 <xelister> k9quaint: that really worked with Apple blocking selling round looking tables in Germany. Even though such "tablets deisng" what used in movie Space Odysey from ~2001 year.   Oh wait, no, they won this one and banned selling Samsung's round-rectangle looking tabblets in entire Germany
1503 2011-09-13 16:03:34 <b4epoche> anyone start a bitcoin foundation?
1504 2011-09-13 16:03:58 chinaskibit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1505 2011-09-13 16:04:04 martind has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1506 2011-09-13 16:04:07 ocharles has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1507 2011-09-13 16:04:13 Kobier_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1508 2011-09-13 16:04:14 Graet has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1509 2011-09-13 16:04:15 <gavinandresen> a bitcoin foundation has been discussed, and is probably still being discussed.  But do you really want a centralized organization when the point of bitcoin is decentralization?
1510 2011-09-13 16:04:37 <jrmithdobbs> to control trademark/patent issues? yes.
1511 2011-09-13 16:05:00 <jrmithdobbs> better than letting some random business operator with interests that could diverge from bitcoin-as-a-whole overnight
1512 2011-09-13 16:05:05 <jrmithdobbs> have said control
1513 2011-09-13 16:05:07 <k9quaint> xelister: you should become a lawyer :)
1514 2011-09-13 16:05:09 Baksch has joined
1515 2011-09-13 16:05:09 <lfm> so long as trademark is nopt controlling anything else like source
1516 2011-09-13 16:05:10 <lianj> xelister: and they german court really stated 'its just the outside, doesnt matter whats running inside'
1517 2011-09-13 16:05:11 LK- has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1518 2011-09-13 16:05:13 <BitterTea> gavinandresen: that seems like a silly argument given centralized exchanges, pools, etc
1519 2011-09-13 16:05:20 <jrmithdobbs> i mean, 6 months ago? tibanne inc was a shitty struggling webhosting company in japan
1520 2011-09-13 16:05:22 <BitterTea> also development team...
1521 2011-09-13 16:05:34 Incitatus has joined
1522 2011-09-13 16:05:38 <jrmithdobbs> that is no longer it's primary business. who's to say what it's primary business will be 6-12 months from now?
1523 2011-09-13 16:05:41 <xelister> gavinandresen: now everything is centralized around mtgox: 75% exchange trade, forum database/hosting, they founds bounties on bitcoin.it wiki, they now try to trademark "bitcoin", they are used as most standard exchange-rate oracle even by the bots here even though they often have bugs liek yesterday
1524 2011-09-13 16:05:49 MC1984 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1525 2011-09-13 16:05:57 Graet has joined
1526 2011-09-13 16:06:08 MC1984 has joined
1527 2011-09-13 16:06:11 <jrmithdobbs> in 6 months tibanne could turn into a trademark/patent troll and wipe everyone out
1528 2011-09-13 16:06:16 <b4epoche> someone set up a bitcoin foundation
1529 2011-09-13 16:06:16 erus` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1530 2011-09-13 16:06:28 <jrmithdobbs> this is why things like the linuxfoundation/gnu/etc get set up. to keep this kind of nonsense from happening.
1531 2011-09-13 16:06:33 <gavinandresen> jrmithdobbs: interfacing with the legal system is a good reason for centralization, I agree.
1532 2011-09-13 16:06:49 <xelister> or EFF
1533 2011-09-13 16:06:50 Joric has joined
1534 2011-09-13 16:06:51 Joric has quit (Changing host)
1535 2011-09-13 16:06:51 Joric has joined
1536 2011-09-13 16:07:17 <lfm> so we rename bitcoin.exe to supercoin.exe and poof no more trademark
1537 2011-09-13 16:08:07 <Lopuz> why does it have to be a _coin_ ?
1538 2011-09-13 16:08:08 <xelister> lfm: and you get the 100,000 shops/merchants/twitters/users to now say Supercoin instead Bitcoin, and I get the other 100,000. seems bulletproof plan to me
1539 2011-09-13 16:08:10 <Lopuz> xxxcoin
1540 2011-09-13 16:08:10 <b4epoche> this is what's needed:  http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff
1541 2011-09-13 16:08:11 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: and all the branding/etc (all though, current trends aren't exactly giving it a good name) behind the bitcoin name goes down the toilet
1542 2011-09-13 16:08:33 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: an arguably million+ $ value in naming gone and given away tux
1543 2011-09-13 16:08:41 <jrmithdobbs> s/tux/to tux/
1544 2011-09-13 16:08:47 <xelister> bitcoin -> About 16,100,000 results .   well that should be easy to rename to SuperCoin.
1545 2011-09-13 16:08:48 <b4epoche> drugcoin/porncoin
1546 2011-09-13 16:09:02 <Lopuz> no currency except the one currency that does not use coins, call its self bitcoin
1547 2011-09-13 16:09:16 <Lopuz> supercoin
1548 2011-09-13 16:09:19 <Lopuz> come on
1549 2011-09-13 16:09:30 <lfm> if its still compatible and still uses the same block chain?
1550 2011-09-13 16:09:30 <xelister> gavinandresen: since tux has forum, main exchange and trademark, why you hold on to that github RW access?
1551 2011-09-13 16:09:42 <xelister> we can give it to him and all is clear
1552 2011-09-13 16:09:49 <b4epoche> is trucoin a non-profit?
1553 2011-09-13 16:09:59 <gavinandresen> b4epoche: no, trucoin is for-profit
1554 2011-09-13 16:10:04 <jrmithdobbs> no it's a llc
1555 2011-09-13 16:10:19 <Graet> b4epoche> someone set up a bitcoin foundation  << yep said that before, some of us are starting an au one - once there are some in other countries we can setup internnational association
1556 2011-09-13 16:10:29 <BitterTea> does non profit/for profit really matter that much?
1557 2011-09-13 16:10:37 <jrmithdobbs> yes
1558 2011-09-13 16:10:41 <Graet> yes
1559 2011-09-13 16:10:44 <jrmithdobbs> for things like this it is tantamount
1560 2011-09-13 16:10:44 <xelister> gavinandresen: I ask seriously here: why everything that bitcoin initiall developers have is being given away one way or another to mtgox?
1561 2011-09-13 16:10:52 <xelister> perhaps mtgox already is paying off developers
1562 2011-09-13 16:10:58 <BitterTea> honest question: why is it important?
1563 2011-09-13 16:11:10 <xelister> I sure would be tempted by that 10k (100k?) btc offer mentioned yesterday
1564 2011-09-13 16:11:15 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: he's trolling, but that really is a trend that appears to be happening and is a question that deserves a response
1565 2011-09-13 16:11:46 <xelister> gavinandresen: so?
1566 2011-09-13 16:11:54 <jrmithdobbs> BitterTea: legal reasons re: funding, dispertion of funds, etc
1567 2011-09-13 16:12:04 <gavinandresen> who's trolling?
1568 2011-09-13 16:12:06 <b4epoche> maybe we can sell advertising in the block chain to make some money for supporting stuff ;-)
1569 2011-09-13 16:12:15 <BitterTea> gavinandresen: I think he's referring to xelister
1570 2011-09-13 16:12:17 <k9quaint> gavinandresen: were you also behind the 9/11 attacks in addition to this vast conspiracy with mtgox to create a cryptocurrency?
1571 2011-09-13 16:12:17 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: xelister? he always is
1572 2011-09-13 16:12:19 <xelister> I thought Im signing up for decentralized currency, not everything owned by some JP company
1573 2011-09-13 16:12:51 <gavinandresen> oh, I have xelister on ignore
1574 2011-09-13 16:12:56 <gavinandresen> what was the question?
1575 2011-09-13 16:13:06 <BitterTea> xelister: What can Tibanne do to control Bitcoin that wouldn't immediately cause them to lose the support of the community, destroying their control?
1576 2011-09-13 16:13:07 <k9quaint> that would explain it
1577 2011-09-13 16:13:08 <xelister> jrmithdobbs: Im not trolling you idiot, the situation is commical though -> libertarians dreams decentralized currency now centralized into 1 company
1578 2011-09-13 16:13:08 <jrmithdobbs> 11:01 < xelister> gavinandresen: I ask seriously here: why everything that bitcoin initiall developers have is being given away one way or another to mtgox?
1579 2011-09-13 16:13:21 E-sense has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1580 2011-09-13 16:13:23 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: is what i was reffering to
1581 2011-09-13 16:13:35 <BitterTea> xelister: What are you referring to being given away?
1582 2011-09-13 16:13:50 <BitterTea> oh, you mean mtgox, bitcointalk, etc?
1583 2011-09-13 16:13:50 <lfm> xelister: or jp company dreams of taking over decentralized currency -> fails miserably
1584 2011-09-13 16:13:54 <gavinandresen> mtgox is hosting the bitcointalk server because sirius didn't want to deal with it anymore, and mtgox volunteered
1585 2011-09-13 16:14:13 <xelister> BitterTea: bitcoin forum was given away to mtgox. To "host it". We all know what "host it" means. DB r/w access. And we know how mtgox leaked even own precious users db to internet
1586 2011-09-13 16:14:28 <gavinandresen> mtgox is hosting the wiki because they created it as a replacement for the original wiki...
1587 2011-09-13 16:14:40 <xelister> lfm: so far they are winning
1588 2011-09-13 16:14:58 <gavinandresen> ... and mtgox is the biggest exchange because they were better than bitcoinmarket, and nobody better has stepped up to replace them.
1589 2011-09-13 16:15:02 <lfm> so you say
1590 2011-09-13 16:15:15 <BitterTea> xelister: Umm... speculation. And you keep saying "MtGox" as if MtGox wasn't bought out by Tibanne in the first place. Besides, if people don't like the forum under their administration, a new one will be made
1591 2011-09-13 16:15:34 <xelister> BitterTea: mtgox always was tibanne. Not sure what you mean here?
1592 2011-09-13 16:15:39 <BitterTea> No it wasn't
1593 2011-09-13 16:15:46 <gavinandresen> RE: being decentralized:  I took a lot of flak for making the "Forums" link on the bitcoin.org homepage point to a google search, but the whole point of that was to try to decentralize
1594 2011-09-13 16:15:49 <BitterTea> Tibanne bought it from Jed (Jeb?)
1595 2011-09-13 16:15:52 <xelister> yea excelpt when it was used by jed2 to host magic the gathering exchange
1596 2011-09-13 16:15:55 <xelister> *except
1597 2011-09-13 16:16:07 <BitterTea> they didn't own it, they hosted it. big diff
1598 2011-09-13 16:16:45 <Joric> what do you think about this? is it legit? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mini_private_key_format
1599 2011-09-13 16:16:46 <BitterTea> he sold it to them after it had become the #1 bitcoin exchange (before there was much competition, sure)
1600 2011-09-13 16:16:47 martind has joined
1601 2011-09-13 16:16:56 <xelister> sure by mtgox I mean Tibanne / MagicalTux / Mark Karpeles / mtgox.com bitcoin exchange
1602 2011-09-13 16:17:06 <xelister> but I think this is obvious to everyone here, if not then --^
1603 2011-09-13 16:18:03 <gavinandresen> Joric: I think mini private keys are a nifty idea
1604 2011-09-13 16:18:58 <tcatm> Joric: creating those keys seems to be very inefficient
1605 2011-09-13 16:19:37 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: i just think it's a bit ironic that not 30 minutes ago you said centralizing with a nfp was bad for something decentralized yet current trends are letting everything centralize to a for-profit llc with no accountability except to themselves
1606 2011-09-13 16:19:46 ocharles has joined
1607 2011-09-13 16:20:19 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: and the ambivilence towards things like tibanne trademarking bitcoin is disheartening, and quite frankly, scarey
1608 2011-09-13 16:20:21 <gavinandresen> jrmithdobbs: okey doke.  I expect the centralize/decentralize pendulum to swing back and forth as bitcoin grows....
1609 2011-09-13 16:20:43 <Joric> tcatm, yeah 717 sha256 rounds
1610 2011-09-13 16:20:43 <xelister> jrmithdobbs: what gavinandresen says seems a bit like bullshit
1611 2011-09-13 16:20:44 nhodges has joined
1612 2011-09-13 16:20:48 <gavinandresen> jrmithdobbs: like I said, I am not a lawyer and I try to spend my time doing things that I think will do the most good for bitcoin.
1613 2011-09-13 16:20:53 <xelister> could it be that orginal bitcoin developers where already paid off by mtgox?
1614 2011-09-13 16:21:07 <JFK911> did mtgox buy gavinandresen so they could reverse the hacker stealing those btc?
1615 2011-09-13 16:21:35 <lfm> xelister: I think you are getting more people to /ignore you
1616 2011-09-13 16:21:38 <b4epoche> I'm serious about there needing to be a team like, say, Wikimedia has...
1617 2011-09-13 16:21:41 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: then maybe you need to find someone who's going to actually run this project from a higher level? I understand your focus is mostly on code/etc, that doesn't mean these aren't important issues. You're the person that has the weight in the "community" to make something like a nfp happen.
1618 2011-09-13 16:21:46 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: whether you like it or not :(
1619 2011-09-13 16:22:03 <b4epoche> while it would have to be much smaller at this point, we should look to see how the Wikimedia team grew
1620 2011-09-13 16:22:16 <Lopuz> yawn
1621 2011-09-13 16:22:23 <upb> lol xelister the 2001 is space oddyssey name :) it was made in like60s
1622 2011-09-13 16:22:24 BTC_away is now known as BTCTrader
1623 2011-09-13 16:22:34 <xelister> upb: well even better hehe
1624 2011-09-13 16:22:48 <gavinandresen> jrmithdobbs: I'm not the right person to create non-profit organizations, sorry.  I hate networking, I hate fundraising, I hate schmoozing.....
1625 2011-09-13 16:23:11 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: then you need to start looking for someone
1626 2011-09-13 16:23:12 <lfm> xelister should make foundation
1627 2011-09-13 16:23:37 <xelister> lfm: perhaps I already made =)
1628 2011-09-13 16:23:43 superman2016 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1629 2011-09-13 16:23:44 <gavinandresen> jrmithdobbs: mmm.  I'll put an ad on Craigslist....
1630 2011-09-13 16:23:51 <lfm> xelister: url?
1631 2011-09-13 16:23:54 <xelister> lfm: at least Im not buyable here
1632 2011-09-13 16:24:02 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: like I said, i understand your focus is mostly on code, but without some kind of wikimedia-like organization this is all going to get monopolized (current trends indicate by tibanne llc) and all your work will be for naught
1633 2011-09-13 16:24:11 <Graet> we actually need country associations forming and making an international organisation. it is no one persons responsibility
1634 2011-09-13 16:24:12 <b4epoche> I'm half serious about advertising…  ads in the client (that can be turned off)?
1635 2011-09-13 16:24:24 <gavinandresen> Graet: +1
1636 2011-09-13 16:24:35 <Graet> ty gavinandresen :)
1637 2011-09-13 16:24:45 <jrmithdobbs> Graet: yes, something like that
1638 2011-09-13 16:24:51 <Graet> australia has one coming :)
1639 2011-09-13 16:24:57 SomeoneWeird has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1640 2011-09-13 16:24:59 <xelister> Graet: woot
1641 2011-09-13 16:25:03 <gavinandresen> .... that another problem with creating "a" bitcoin foundation.  In what country?  Under whose laws?
1642 2011-09-13 16:25:04 glitch-mod has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1643 2011-09-13 16:25:12 <jrmithdobbs> Graet: but there'll have to be an initial driving force and endorsement by gavin for anything like it to get any traction and have any weight
1644 2011-09-13 16:25:21 <Graet> we are starting under au laws
1645 2011-09-13 16:25:43 <Graet> jrmithdobbs why? cannot the bitcoin community do it?
1646 2011-09-13 16:25:49 <gavinandresen> jrmithdobbs: I'm trying hard NOT to be King of Bitcoin; suggestions for how to do a better job of that welcome.
1647 2011-09-13 16:25:50 chinaskibit has joined
1648 2011-09-13 16:25:59 <lfm> b4epoche: well, get unserious about those adds now please.
1649 2011-09-13 16:26:03 gp5st has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1650 2011-09-13 16:26:13 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: i understand that, but whether you like it or not, as far as the community is concerned you currently are
1651 2011-09-13 16:26:22 <BitterTea> jrmithdobbs: Speak for yourself
1652 2011-09-13 16:26:23 <b4epoche> lfm:  adds or ads?
1653 2011-09-13 16:26:27 <Graet> these things are best driven by the community or you get more of what xelister has been sayinh
1654 2011-09-13 16:26:28 DeeTah has joined
1655 2011-09-13 16:26:28 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: i'm just suggesting taking steps to rectify that
1656 2011-09-13 16:26:28 <lfm> yes
1657 2011-09-13 16:26:33 <DeeTah> hi devs
1658 2011-09-13 16:26:40 <BitterTea> I appreciate what Gavin does, but he has no more right to dictate anything Bitcoin than any of us
1659 2011-09-13 16:26:52 <b4epoche> somehow some real money needs to be injected into the project
1660 2011-09-13 16:27:01 <jrmithdobbs> ^
1661 2011-09-13 16:27:07 <Lopuz> BitterTea, sure he do, he knows what to do :P
1662 2011-09-13 16:27:07 <Graet> it would be great if gavinandresen recognised these associations but not essential he drive them (or even good actually)
1663 2011-09-13 16:27:14 <DeeTah> is it technically possible to store just public keys on the hard drive, leaving private key only on a pendrive?
1664 2011-09-13 16:27:20 gp5st has joined
1665 2011-09-13 16:27:31 <DeeTah> i mean, are there any technical obstacles?
1666 2011-09-13 16:27:37 <jrmithdobbs> Graet: i'm not saying he should drive them, but recognizing/endorsing is an imperative
1667 2011-09-13 16:27:38 <gavinandresen> I'll be happy to say nice things about associations that I think will help the bitcoin project
1668 2011-09-13 16:27:46 <Graet> i must sleep. damn this tz thing, good luck guys
1669 2011-09-13 16:27:52 <Lopuz> technically, you are dead without one time pads, DeeTah
1670 2011-09-13 16:27:54 <xelister> How will gavinandresen guarantee the main client will remain objective?
1671 2011-09-13 16:28:14 <xelister> we just had a problem few hours ago where SolidCoin author wanted to authorativly remove ArtFrot'z transactions from chain
1672 2011-09-13 16:28:16 <Graet> cheers guys :) i'll be in touch gavinandresen :)
1673 2011-09-13 16:28:23 <xelister> what guarantees it will not happen here too
1674 2011-09-13 16:28:35 <Lopuz> buy a time machine
1675 2011-09-13 16:28:44 <b4epoche> xelister:  did it actually happen?
1676 2011-09-13 16:28:53 <DeeTah> Lopuz: i didn't understand what one time pads you mean
1677 2011-09-13 16:29:02 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: he's trying
1678 2011-09-13 16:29:03 <Joric> DeeTah, you won't be able to sign transactions?
1679 2011-09-13 16:29:14 <xelister> b4epoche: #solidcoin  - afeter harsh critizim by me and 1-2 other guys afair he refrains from removing the txes
1680 2011-09-13 16:29:19 <xelister> not 100% sure. ask him
1681 2011-09-13 16:29:31 <jrmithdobbs> oh did he?
1682 2011-09-13 16:29:32 <DeeTah> Joric: something like 'enter the pendrive to sign a transaction'
1683 2011-09-13 16:29:37 * b4epoche wants nothing to do with soiledcoin
1684 2011-09-13 16:29:58 <lfm> xelister: what garantee you are now s hill for tradehill just upset that mtgox is bigger
1685 2011-09-13 16:30:01 <xelister> b4epoche: we have similar problem possible in bitcoin. So far BTC reseted the blockchain
1686 2011-09-13 16:30:01 <gavinandresen> DeeTah: that will work, but you're still vulnerable to trojans.
1687 2011-09-13 16:30:03 <xelister> once
1688 2011-09-13 16:30:08 <xelister> the testnet. and thsi is probably fine
1689 2011-09-13 16:30:09 <Lopuz> DeeTah, the only encryption system where you stand equal against the one who try to break your encryption
1690 2011-09-13 16:30:34 <b4epoche> xelister:  but there's enough momentum in bitcoin to prevent that
1691 2011-09-13 16:30:45 <DeeTah> i think it would be wise, on one side you could check your balance, on the other you have to sign manually
1692 2011-09-13 16:30:51 <lfm> Lopuz: one time pads are useless
1693 2011-09-13 16:30:56 <b4epoche> how is one person going to make a change like that at this point?
1694 2011-09-13 16:31:03 <DeeTah> gavinandresen: what do you think? ;)
1695 2011-09-13 16:31:05 <Lopuz> lfm, how come
1696 2011-09-13 16:31:12 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: [tycho] could
1697 2011-09-13 16:31:18 <gavinandresen> DeeTah: http://gavinthink.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-arent-bitcoin-wallets-encrypted.html
1698 2011-09-13 16:31:27 <lfm> Lopuz: cuz keys are as big as all your messages put together
1699 2011-09-13 16:31:47 <Lopuz> lfm, so, why arent your non-one-time-pads useless?
1700 2011-09-13 16:32:03 <Lopuz> cuz we broke them
1701 2011-09-13 16:32:03 <jrmithdobbs> Lopuz: are you joking
1702 2011-09-13 16:32:05 <Lopuz> thats why
1703 2011-09-13 16:32:06 <Lopuz> :P
1704 2011-09-13 16:32:06 <lfm> lopuz keys are usefull if they are managable
1705 2011-09-13 16:32:09 BitterTea has left ()
1706 2011-09-13 16:32:21 <DeeTah> gavinandresen: i don't like the argumentation. don't you think it would give a bit of security anyway?
1707 2011-09-13 16:32:34 <b4epoche> jrmithdobbs:  but it would be very difficult for him to do it…  and the social dynamic would be huge
1708 2011-09-13 16:32:55 <gavinandresen> DeeTah: what? storing the private keys on a usb drive?  Sure... but that has to be balanced against the risk of losing them...
1709 2011-09-13 16:33:06 <DeeTah> backing up perhaps, dunno
1710 2011-09-13 16:33:07 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: would it? except for the first couple freak outs noone even seems to notice how close to 50% he is
1711 2011-09-13 16:33:12 <DeeTah> gavinandresen: i'm thinking of something else though
1712 2011-09-13 16:33:19 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: and he's disappeared from the "community"
1713 2011-09-13 16:33:24 <Lopuz> lfm, because you need to distribute the keys in a non-official matter, they are not practical?
1714 2011-09-13 16:33:24 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: and has known kgb ties
1715 2011-09-13 16:33:42 <b4epoche> the backlash on his profit engine would be huge
1716 2011-09-13 16:33:53 <b4epoche> basically he'd wind up killing his business
1717 2011-09-13 16:34:02 <DeeTah> would it be possible to port all the key storing and transaction generation to a TEENSY embedded device, like arduino?
1718 2011-09-13 16:34:19 <xelister> <BitterTea> xelister: What can Tibanne do to control Bitcoin that wouldn't immediately cause them to lose the support of the community, destroying their control?
1719 2011-09-13 16:34:24 <xelister> ^-- he can do it slowly
1720 2011-09-13 16:34:43 <b4epoche> jrmithdobbs:  in fact, it might be good to start some nice rumors (to get people to go to other pools)
1721 2011-09-13 16:35:11 <xelister> in last days he gained forum hosting (db access), and calls bitcoin users idiots dreaming libertarian dreams, and we found out he trademarks BitCoin
1722 2011-09-13 16:35:24 <xelister> and still only small pushback from "us" the community
1723 2011-09-13 16:35:26 <tcatm> gavinandresen: http://i.imgur.com/lHn63.png x: height, y: blktimestamp - GetMedianTimePast()
1724 2011-09-13 16:35:38 <DeeTah> gavinandresen: would it be possible to port all the key storing and transaction generation to a TEENSY embedded device, like arduino?
1725 2011-09-13 16:36:20 <lfm> xelister: we know you are watching him for us! :-)
1726 2011-09-13 16:36:31 <Lopuz> all your keys are belong to us
1727 2011-09-13 16:36:35 <gavinandresen> DeeTah: sure, a few people are working on that.  Nobody has a device, yet
1728 2011-09-13 16:36:52 <DeeTah> okay
1729 2011-09-13 16:36:58 <gavinandresen> tcatm: what is the vertical scale?
1730 2011-09-13 16:37:35 <xelister> lfm: who cares who is anyone watching
1731 2011-09-13 16:38:10 <tcatm> gavinandresen: blktimestamp - GetMedianTimePast(). I'm not sure how to make sense of that chart yet :)
1732 2011-09-13 16:38:55 <gavinandresen> tcatm: blktimestamp is seconds? milliseconds?  microseconds?
1733 2011-09-13 16:39:00 <tcatm> seconds
1734 2011-09-13 16:39:14 <xelister> Graet: I wish bitcoin community would be strong to unite to fight any centralisations that are monopolies, but so far it does not seem to be working too well, and lead developers are granting more powers into mtgox despite it being the monopol (and incopetent)
1735 2011-09-13 16:39:19 <gavinandresen> that's what I thought, but then the vertical numbers make no sense
1736 2011-09-13 16:40:09 <gavinandresen> tcatm: variance looks nice and small recently, though....
1737 2011-09-13 16:40:42 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1738 2011-09-13 16:41:19 <lfm> bkl timestamp is prolly only accurate to maybe stddev of 5-10 minutes
1739 2011-09-13 16:42:33 <lfm> evidence is the number of backward steps of time
1740 2011-09-13 16:43:23 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: that's because recently *everything* goes through a pool
1741 2011-09-13 16:43:44 * lfm is suprized at how many people do not sync their clocks to a network time server
1742 2011-09-13 16:44:36 <xelister> <gavinandresen> mtgox is hosting the wiki because they created it as a replacement for the original wiki...
1743 2011-09-13 16:44:43 <xelister> why, what was wrong with orginal wiki?
1744 2011-09-13 16:44:55 <lfm> xelister: unreliable
1745 2011-09-13 16:45:22 <jrmithdobbs> i have a backup of the wiki before tux took it over, it'd be interesting to compare ;p
1746 2011-09-13 16:45:50 <tcatm> how would lowering nMedianTimeSpan affect the timing attack?
1747 2011-09-13 16:46:48 <gavinandresen> afk for a bit (lunch)
1748 2011-09-13 16:48:01 nr9 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1749 2011-09-13 16:48:07 <lfm> tcatm: I think itd be better to just have a config option that defaults to current scheme and you can switch it to say your system time is accurate and use it as standard to compare blk timestamps to instead of bitcon average
1750 2011-09-13 16:48:46 <xelister> lfm: unreliable in what way? We redirected bitcoin.org to bitcoin.it orginal wiki  when slashdoted and it worked fine
1751 2011-09-13 16:48:55 <xelister> back in the days (2010?)
1752 2011-09-13 16:49:20 nhodges has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1753 2011-09-13 16:49:22 <Joric> passwords have been stolen for sure https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43825.0
1754 2011-09-13 16:49:28 <gmaxwell> lfm: I have run a node doing that without issue (I just deactivated the network time correction)— but we can do one better than that.
1755 2011-09-13 16:49:35 <lfm> xelister: unreliable == crashed, not available
1756 2011-09-13 16:50:04 <gmaxwell> lfm: We can have bitcoin talk to the local ntp daemon (if there is one) and if the daemon says ntp is healthy, it can use that instead of network time.
1757 2011-09-13 16:50:34 <lfm> gmaxwell: Naw, I dont need bitcoin to talk to ntp. I have my system doing that already
1758 2011-09-13 16:51:04 <gmaxwell> lfm: then bitcoin can't tell if ntp is healthy or not.
1759 2011-09-13 16:51:16 <lfm> gmaxwell: also ntp is not the only time server system
1760 2011-09-13 16:51:21 <gmaxwell> FWIW, there are gnutella clients that do what I'm describing.
1761 2011-09-13 16:52:39 Kobier_ has joined
1762 2011-09-13 16:52:57 <tcatm> http://i.imgur.com/sotmB.png this looks interesting
1763 2011-09-13 16:53:04 <gmaxwell> lfm: sure, then provide an option to force it to local time manually. But if there is a supported time daemon running it could detect it without needing configuration.
1764 2011-09-13 16:53:10 <lfm> gmaxwell: but I admit your suggetion would prolly work ok for almost all people
1765 2011-09-13 16:54:35 erus` has joined
1766 2011-09-13 16:54:37 <gmaxwell> http://www.koders.com/c/fid2343DFFBC1CA5222B43E59AB9A2939C9D0BCB617.aspx (random search turns up this gtk-gnutella code)
1767 2011-09-13 16:55:02 <martind> gavinandresen: (I'm an outside observer) fwiw having a single person as gatekeeper for code contributions *and* with their hands in misc popular businesses is just asking for trouble. bitcoin would benefit from a more formal governance structure, incl serious attempts to separate businesses and governance
1768 2011-09-13 16:55:13 d1g1t4l has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1769 2011-09-13 16:55:29 <martind> a.g. a non-profit that owns trademark and domain, and a community-driven board
1770 2011-09-13 16:55:32 <martind> *e.g.
1771 2011-09-13 16:55:55 <gmaxwell> lfm: it's important to check because ntp is often not healthy, even if its running.  E.g. many versions/configs of the ntp daemon will only move the clock slowly. So if the system gets too far off ntp is basically unable to wrangle it in again. Though it _knows_ it's off.
1772 2011-09-13 16:56:09 <gmaxwell> martind: er. I don't agree with what you're proposing.
1773 2011-09-13 16:56:20 <martind> which part
1774 2011-09-13 16:56:22 <gmaxwell> In that it doesn't at all reduce the need for alternative popular client software.
1775 2011-09-13 16:56:46 <martind> why should it? alt clients are good, no?
1776 2011-09-13 16:56:49 <gmaxwell> And once that exists, there isn't much reason to worry about the developers of particular client too much (beyond them being possible fraudsters)
1777 2011-09-13 16:57:26 iocor has joined
1778 2011-09-13 16:57:36 <martind> yeah let's see. there are some central resources that are quite valuable. e.g. trademark and domain name
1779 2011-09-13 16:57:39 da2ce7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1780 2011-09-13 16:58:01 <martind> valuable in that they allow the owner to exert control if they feel like it
1781 2011-09-13 16:58:12 <lfm> martind: we dont agree that there IS one person with control of source.
1782 2011-09-13 16:58:28 <martind> what's your affiliation?
1783 2011-09-13 16:58:35 <martind> sorry I don't know the community that well yet
1784 2011-09-13 16:58:43 <martind> just checking who says what :)
1785 2011-09-13 16:58:52 <lfm> Me? I am not affiliated
1786 2011-09-13 16:58:59 <martind> ta :)
1787 2011-09-13 16:59:02 <gmaxwell> Then we need to figure out how to dillute the value of these things— otherwise bitcoin is not a decentralized system, and if it's not— well there is no way you're going to find any finite board that people will broadly agree are okay to "control" it.
1788 2011-09-13 16:59:39 <gmaxwell> Also— wrt trademark, there isn't one.
1789 2011-09-13 16:59:41 <martind> it's totally possible. and it's easier once everyone agrees that community governance and business interests don't go well together
1790 2011-09-13 17:00:05 <martind> gmaxwell: yes it's a slightly hypothetical point atm, but I've heard it come up a few times now
1791 2011-09-13 17:00:23 da2ce7 has joined
1792 2011-09-13 17:00:41 <gmaxwell> No, it's not hypothetical. Some jackass tried to obtain one in an unfriendly manner and his application was slain. It's dead now and can't come back.
1793 2011-09-13 17:00:59 <martind> is that in the US? that's one jurisdiction
1794 2011-09-13 17:01:18 <gmaxwell> Oy international trademarks are a costly mess, have fun.
1795 2011-09-13 17:02:17 <gmaxwell> In any case, no it's really not possible. I wouldn't trust any small group as having formal official control over bitcoin. It doesn't matter how great they are: someone can always hold a gun to their heads to make them do something they don't want.
1796 2011-09-13 17:02:33 <martind> does the Bitcoin protocol ever change? or does the paper describe it in sufficient detail that every client will automatically get along
1797 2011-09-13 17:02:40 <gmaxwell> The whole point of a decenteralized system is that it lacks points like that (at a great cost in many other waysS)
1798 2011-09-13 17:02:54 <martind> gmaxwell: yes I actually agree
1799 2011-09-13 17:03:08 <martind> but in reality there are a few centralised resources
1800 2011-09-13 17:03:11 <gmaxwell> martind: the on the wire protocol isn't especially important, not everyone needs to speak the same one.
1801 2011-09-13 17:03:18 <martind> trademark, domain, IRC bootstrapping channel.
1802 2011-09-13 17:03:29 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: not even for control of thinks like trademark/patents?
1803 2011-09-13 17:03:30 <martind> gmaxwell: oh good to hear
1804 2011-09-13 17:03:33 <jrmithdobbs> s/thinks/things/
1805 2011-09-13 17:03:41 <gmaxwell> IRC isn't important now.
1806 2011-09-13 17:04:02 <gmaxwell> It bootstraps okay without it.
1807 2011-09-13 17:04:02 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: eg, noone is stepping up to challenge tux's attempt to trademark bitcoin
1808 2011-09-13 17:04:13 <jrmithdobbs> this isn't a theorhetical, it's something happening right now
1809 2011-09-13 17:04:33 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: hm?
1810 2011-09-13 17:04:54 <lfm> jrmithdobbs: challenge how?
1811 2011-09-13 17:05:06 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: tibanne llc has filed for trademark on bitcoin in several jurisdictions
1812 2011-09-13 17:05:19 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: that's what brought the whole conversation up
1813 2011-09-13 17:05:24 <lfm> jrmithdobbs: you mean like in a courtroom or something?
1814 2011-09-13 17:05:43 <gmaxwell> lfm: varrious trademark offices have interferrence procedures.
1815 2011-09-13 17:05:43 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: they have filed the paperwork in jp and several eu countries, yes
1816 2011-09-13 17:05:53 <gmaxwell> MagicalTux: You did what?
1817 2011-09-13 17:05:58 <martind> lfm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Registration
1818 2011-09-13 17:06:07 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: conversation makes a bit more sense now, huh? :)
1819 2011-09-13 17:06:35 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/trademark/data/010103646
1820 2011-09-13 17:06:48 <lfm> ok challenge the applications on what grounds?
1821 2011-09-13 17:07:03 <martind> and how?
1822 2011-09-13 17:07:08 <jrmithdobbs> prior use
1823 2011-09-13 17:07:13 <jrmithdobbs> in the same domain
1824 2011-09-13 17:07:39 <jrmithdobbs> he has no right to that trademark (but that usually wont stop them from being issued without someone actually challenging)
1825 2011-09-13 17:07:56 joepie91 has joined
1826 2011-09-13 17:08:46 <martind> first step: find a lawyer in that jurisdiction. which raises the question: who would employ them? which raises the question of Bitcoin community governance
1827 2011-09-13 17:08:49 <martind> hence this discussion
1828 2011-09-13 17:09:04 <b4epoche> hence needing some money
1829 2011-09-13 17:09:19 mosi2cb has joined
1830 2011-09-13 17:09:23 <jrmithdobbs> martind: it's estimated that tux is spending a very large percent of his ~100K usd /month on lawyers for this and his france banking issues
1831 2011-09-13 17:09:33 <jrmithdobbs> martind: need to find someone with that kind of money.
1832 2011-09-13 17:09:33 <martind> so let me reiterate: bitcoin would benefit from a more formal governance structure, incl serious attempts to separate businesses and governance
1833 2011-09-13 17:09:59 <b4epoche> martind:  see earlier discussion of Wikimedia
1834 2011-09-13 17:09:59 <martind> jrmithdobbs: it might be quite easy to challenge that application, not sure what's involved
1835 2011-09-13 17:10:19 <martind> b4epoche: in here? will read
1836 2011-09-13 17:10:50 <b4epoche> will maybe not much of a discussion but a suggestion to follow Wikimedia
1837 2011-09-13 17:11:01 <b4epoche> drama and all
1838 2011-09-13 17:11:04 <jrmithdobbs> too bad tycho has disappeared
1839 2011-09-13 17:11:14 <luke-jr> too bad? why bad?
1840 2011-09-13 17:11:15 AnnihilaT is now known as AnniGONE
1841 2011-09-13 17:11:16 <jrmithdobbs> he'd probably have the resources
1842 2011-09-13 17:11:19 <jrmithdobbs> to contest
1843 2011-09-13 17:11:24 <joepie91> I would disagree with any organization holding the bitcoin trademark altogether, out of principle
1844 2011-09-13 17:11:34 <jrmithdobbs> joepie91: works for the linuxfoundation
1845 2011-09-13 17:11:47 <joepie91> keywords: out of principle
1846 2011-09-13 17:11:51 <joepie91> I wasn't saying it didn't work
1847 2011-09-13 17:11:55 <martind> joepie91: someone will need to own it. you can't prevent people from applying for it
1848 2011-09-13 17:12:06 <joepie91> plus, linux is not decentralized in the sense bitcoin is
1849 2011-09-13 17:12:17 <jrmithdobbs> ya but that's not how trademark law works
1850 2011-09-13 17:12:24 <joepie91> martind: in some cases, you can't, I'm aware of that
1851 2011-09-13 17:12:28 <joepie91> that doesn't mean that it's not worth a try
1852 2011-09-13 17:12:28 <jrmithdobbs> it's geared towards protecting people/corporations
1853 2011-09-13 17:12:42 <jrmithdobbs> so *someone* has to own it or you end up fighting an endless battle when people re-apply
1854 2011-09-13 17:12:46 <joepie91> and I'd much rather try to be part of a solution and fail, than to be part of the problem
1855 2011-09-13 17:13:20 <luke-jr> MagicalTux is as good as anyone for holding the TM
1856 2011-09-13 17:13:34 <luke-jr> at least I've never seen him do anything harmful to Bitcoin
1857 2011-09-13 17:13:50 <jrmithdobbs> until he switches gears to pursue his new business goals of patent/trademark trolling
1858 2011-09-13 17:14:03 <martind> he's clearly not impartial. he's also running a business. which he may want to sell later
1859 2011-09-13 17:14:06 <jrmithdobbs> just like ~6 months ago he switched gears from his failing webhosting to bitcoin
1860 2011-09-13 17:14:08 <joepie91> luke-jr, like, leaving up the biggest exchange with massive holes?
1861 2011-09-13 17:14:20 <luke-jr> joepie91: FUD
1862 2011-09-13 17:14:20 <joepie91> I'm pretty damn sure that was harmful
1863 2011-09-13 17:14:21 Internet13 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1864 2011-09-13 17:14:23 <joepie91> oh come on
1865 2011-09-13 17:14:29 <joepie91> I found a vulnerability myself, for fucks sake
1866 2011-09-13 17:14:46 <joepie91> that was harmful, period
1867 2011-09-13 17:14:48 <luke-jr> joepie91: so what? you want him to just shut it all down?
1868 2011-09-13 17:14:53 <martind> let's not start making claims about people's integrity; the general issue is just it shouldn't be owned by a business
1869 2011-09-13 17:14:53 <joepie91> so you can't say that he 'didn't do anything harmful to bitcoin'
1870 2011-09-13 17:14:56 <joepie91> did you see me say that?
1871 2011-09-13 17:15:04 <joepie91> I said that your claim about him 'never doing something harmful to bitcoin' is nonsense
1872 2011-09-13 17:15:06 <luke-jr> he had no choice when someone abused access
1873 2011-09-13 17:15:14 <luke-jr> and people whined about it beign down for 2 weeks
1874 2011-09-13 17:15:16 <joepie91> his platform was full of obvious holes.
1875 2011-09-13 17:15:16 <martind> this is independent of who that person/business would be
1876 2011-09-13 17:15:18 <jrmithdobbs> and the propagandizing begins
1877 2011-09-13 17:15:23 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1878 2011-09-13 17:15:27 <luke-jr> just imagine if he shut it down because of a *theoretical* issue, and it was down for a month
1879 2011-09-13 17:15:31 <martind> it should be owned by an impartial non-profit/charitable organisation
1880 2011-09-13 17:15:35 <jrmithdobbs> joepie91: you understand luke has a business relationship with tux right?
1881 2011-09-13 17:15:36 <joepie91> then at least it would have been secure
1882 2011-09-13 17:15:41 <jrmithdobbs> joepie91: this is a pointless conversation
1883 2011-09-13 17:15:45 <joepie91> jrmithdobbs, irrelevant imo
1884 2011-09-13 17:15:58 x11_ has joined
1885 2011-09-13 17:15:59 <luke-jr> joepie91: nothing is perfectly secure, ever
1886 2011-09-13 17:16:01 <joepie91> I judge people on what they say or do, not on what I think they are
1887 2011-09-13 17:16:09 <jrmithdobbs> joepie91: it's not because even if he sees your point he wont admit it publically to protect his interest
1888 2011-09-13 17:16:26 <joepie91> luke-jr, there is a difference between 'not perfectly secure' and 'full of blatant holes fucking everywhere'
1889 2011-09-13 17:16:26 <jrmithdobbs> just wasting time
1890 2011-09-13 17:16:36 <luke-jr> joepie91: guess that's why he was rushing to rewrite it
1891 2011-09-13 17:16:38 que123 has joined
1892 2011-09-13 17:16:40 <joepie91> in fact I had to spam him everywhere before he even RESPONDED to my report of a vuln
1893 2011-09-13 17:16:43 Tim7 has joined
1894 2011-09-13 17:16:46 <joepie91> I had to fucking call him out
1895 2011-09-13 17:16:48 <joepie91> in a public channel
1896 2011-09-13 17:16:49 <joepie91> before he responded
1897 2011-09-13 17:16:53 <luke-jr> joepie91: did you try EMAIL?>
1898 2011-09-13 17:16:57 <joepie91> that is FAR beyond 'not perfectly secure'
1899 2011-09-13 17:16:58 <joepie91> yes, I did
1900 2011-09-13 17:16:59 <joepie91> and PM
1901 2011-09-13 17:17:01 <joepie91> on both forums and IRC
1902 2011-09-13 17:17:06 <joepie91> multiple times on IRC even
1903 2011-09-13 17:17:09 <joepie91> plus a support ticket
1904 2011-09-13 17:17:27 CaptDDL is now known as CaptainDDL
1905 2011-09-13 17:17:28 <joepie91> and he only responded when I called him out in #mtgox
1906 2011-09-13 17:17:31 <joepie91> in public
1907 2011-09-13 17:17:38 <joepie91> that's far beyond 'not perfectly secure'
1908 2011-09-13 17:17:41 <jrmithdobbs> obviously this is FUD, what's what we call facts in the bitcoin world these days
1909 2011-09-13 17:17:45 <jrmithdobbs> or at least, what luke calls facts
1910 2011-09-13 17:17:45 <joepie91> yes, he harmed bitcoin - you may not like it, but it's the case
1911 2011-09-13 17:17:50 <joepie91> and idgaf whether it was on purpose or not
1912 2011-09-13 17:17:52 <joepie91> he harmed bitcoin, period
1913 2011-09-13 17:18:08 <EskimoBob> is there a kill switch in the bitcoin code?
1914 2011-09-13 17:18:11 <jrmithdobbs> ya, the huge crash was almost solely his fault, whether intentional or not
1915 2011-09-13 17:18:17 localhost has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1916 2011-09-13 17:18:19 <luke-jr> joepie91: by leaving the biggest exchange up, right…
1917 2011-09-13 17:18:24 <jrmithdobbs> so saying he didn't harm bitcoin is blatant propaganda
1918 2011-09-13 17:18:31 <joepie91> luke-jr: oh, so the issue was that otherwise people would trade elsewhere?
1919 2011-09-13 17:18:34 <lfm> EskimoBob: huh?
1920 2011-09-13 17:18:35 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: in a known-broken state which he has admitted to.
1921 2011-09-13 17:18:36 <joepie91> after all, there were plenty exchanges
1922 2011-09-13 17:18:40 <joepie91> that people could have gone to
1923 2011-09-13 17:19:00 <lfm> EskimoBob: it is open source. what good would a killswitch do?
1924 2011-09-13 17:19:00 <joepie91> you know, if you take down an exchange, that doesn't mean that all the bitcoin users disappear
1925 2011-09-13 17:19:01 <EskimoBob> lfm: I was just reading this RealSolids crap and he writes: "There is a kill switch in the code but I disabled it for SolidCoin (perhaps I shouldn't have now :) ) ."
1926 2011-09-13 17:19:01 <luke-jr> joepie91: people wouldn't trade elsewhere. they'd scream bloody murder that it was down and their funds were "locked".
1927 2011-09-13 17:19:06 <joepie91> they will just trade elsewhere for the time being
1928 2011-09-13 17:19:11 <UukGoblin> you're not srsly suggesting that the guy running the biggest bitcoin exchange is harmful to bitcoin?
1929 2011-09-13 17:19:15 <luke-jr> joepie91: no, back then there were NOT plenty exchanges
1930 2011-09-13 17:19:15 <k9quaint> joepie91: when you find a hole, notify the site and if they don't take you seriously, publish it
1931 2011-09-13 17:19:15 <EskimoBob> lfm: i have no idea. I was just asking
1932 2011-09-13 17:19:21 <joepie91> luke-jr, yes, there were
1933 2011-09-13 17:19:24 <joepie91> k9quaint, that is what I did
1934 2011-09-13 17:19:25 <luke-jr> joepie91: I don't think TradeHill was even open back then, was it?
1935 2011-09-13 17:19:32 <joepie91> luke-jr, pretty sure it was actually
1936 2011-09-13 17:19:38 <k9quaint> joepie91: leave it at that, no reason to get bent one way or the other
1937 2011-09-13 17:19:43 <joepie91> I think tradehill opened just before the mt gox hack
1938 2011-09-13 17:19:51 <lfm> EskimoBob: there is the time to update message, ya, not really killswitch since you can disable it with a config option
1939 2011-09-13 17:19:52 <joepie91> not to mention the several other exchanges
1940 2011-09-13 17:19:55 <joepie91> the amount of exchanges was >1
1941 2011-09-13 17:19:59 <joepie91> which is my entire point
1942 2011-09-13 17:20:05 <jrmithdobbs> tradehill was def open because i got spammed by their users when the db leaked
1943 2011-09-13 17:20:36 <lfm> joepie91: is shill for tradehill?
1944 2011-09-13 17:20:37 <EskimoBob> lfm: OK, thanx. I guess this retard is just trying to be interesting  :)
1945 2011-09-13 17:20:53 <joepie91> lfm: no, I very much dislike tradehill in fact
1946 2011-09-13 17:20:54 marktraceur has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1947 2011-09-13 17:20:54 <luke-jr> joepie91: regardless, peoples' money was mostly in MtGox, and *real world history* tells us when it DID shutdown for just 2 weeks, people complained about that much more than theoretical vulns
1948 2011-09-13 17:20:58 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: no
1949 2011-09-13 17:21:08 Internet13 has joined
1950 2011-09-13 17:21:09 <joepie91> luke-jr, those theoretical vulns turned out to not be so theoretical after all huh?
1951 2011-09-13 17:21:11 * luke-jr likes TradeHill because they let you withdraw USD via check
1952 2011-09-13 17:21:17 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: that's funnier than the months of "joepie91 is lulzsec"
1953 2011-09-13 17:21:21 <joepie91> and what's the issue with allowing people to take out their funds when the real exchange is down?
1954 2011-09-13 17:21:27 <joepie91> so that they can trade elsehwere>?
1955 2011-09-13 17:21:32 <joepie91> or is this about marketshare instead?
1956 2011-09-13 17:21:51 <luke-jr> joepie91: afaik none of the vulns were in the actual trading code
1957 2011-09-13 17:21:56 localhost has joined
1958 2011-09-13 17:21:59 <joepie91> right
1959 2011-09-13 17:22:06 <joepie91> a SQLi in the API, I believe
1960 2011-09-13 17:22:07 <luke-jr> so allowing people to withdraw would mean the vulns would be there
1961 2011-09-13 17:22:11 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: you mean like the one 2 days ago where invalid orders were getting matched?
1962 2011-09-13 17:22:13 <joepie91> the password sniffing vuln in the login system
1963 2011-09-13 17:22:13 <jrmithdobbs> in the NEW code?
1964 2011-09-13 17:22:24 E-sense has joined
1965 2011-09-13 17:22:29 <joepie91> and there was a CSRF somewhere as well I think? can't recall that for sure
1966 2011-09-13 17:22:30 <jrmithdobbs> oh wait sorry, that's fud too
1967 2011-09-13 17:22:36 <jrmithdobbs> there was
1968 2011-09-13 17:22:40 <jrmithdobbs> in reset email/password
1969 2011-09-13 17:22:55 <jrmithdobbs> hilariously enough
1970 2011-09-13 17:22:55 <joepie91> pretty sure that's enough reason to take down an exchange.
1971 2011-09-13 17:23:04 <joepie91> hell, if necessary, handle withdrawing bitcoins manually
1972 2011-09-13 17:23:12 <joepie91> and take the fucking responsibility
1973 2011-09-13 17:23:31 <joepie91> raking in heaps of money in exchange fees and then handling situations like that is just unacceptable
1974 2011-09-13 17:23:38 <joepie91> and no matter what way you spin it, he DID harm bitcoin with that
1975 2011-09-13 17:23:45 <joepie91> and I don't even care if it was intentional or not
1976 2011-09-13 17:23:47 <joepie91> it happened
1977 2011-09-13 17:23:55 <joepie91> due to the choices he made
1978 2011-09-13 17:24:07 <joepie91> so don't go play "he's innocent, he never harmed bitcoin" because he clearly did
1979 2011-09-13 17:24:10 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: far from not having done anything detrimental to bitcoin, as you've claimed, I'd say tibanne llc is the source of the *most harm* done by any single entity.
1980 2011-09-13 17:24:18 <k9quaint> balance that against the opportunity cost of not having an exchange at all
1981 2011-09-13 17:24:34 <lfm> well mybitcoin.com problem was worse I think
1982 2011-09-13 17:24:44 <k9quaint> yeah, mybitcoin was far worse
1983 2011-09-13 17:25:09 <joepie91> at least with mybitcoin the users could have *known* that it was a bad idea to keep using it
1984 2011-09-13 17:25:14 <joepie91> and they had a choice
1985 2011-09-13 17:25:18 <luke-jr> joepie91: those issues were present from the day MtGox opened
1986 2011-09-13 17:25:26 <joepie91> (besides the automated payment processing that is)
1987 2011-09-13 17:25:29 <gmaxwell> damn, mtgox has a 100 btc daily withdraw limit?
1988 2011-09-13 17:25:30 <joepie91> luke-jr: so?
1989 2011-09-13 17:25:34 <martind> joepie91 jrmithdobbs luke-jr -- your input is useful. but in the end the general issue remains, and is independent of any individual agent. the bigger question is who *should* own these resources
1990 2011-09-13 17:25:39 <luke-jr> joepie91: why shut it down when the replacement is due "any week now"?
1991 2011-09-13 17:25:42 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: unless you provide PII, yup
1992 2011-09-13 17:25:58 <joepie91> luke-jr, because vulnerabilities get reported that may well fuck over your entire exchange and all customers with it?
1993 2011-09-13 17:26:04 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: but no deposit limits (which they should if they were actually following the law)
1994 2011-09-13 17:26:04 <joepie91> ... which is essentially what happened
1995 2011-09-13 17:26:07 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: interesting huh
1996 2011-09-13 17:26:19 <luke-jr> martind: perhaps MagicalTux would sign a contract with various people to guarantee the trademark remains available under specific terms
1997 2011-09-13 17:26:34 <joepie91> sorry, but if you're dealing with other peoples money, and you get critical vulnerabilities reported, then you SHUT DOWN your shit, no exceptions
1998 2011-09-13 17:26:39 <luke-jr> joepie91: and it ran for years with those same vulns
1999 2011-09-13 17:26:42 <joepie91> so?
2000 2011-09-13 17:26:42 <lfm> jrmithdobbs: japanese law?
2001 2011-09-13 17:26:44 <joepie91> what exactly is your point?
2002 2011-09-13 17:26:53 <jrmithdobbs> martind: i said earlier i think it should be a nfp
2003 2011-09-13 17:26:53 <joepie91> in fact, were those vulnerabilities known before?
2004 2011-09-13 17:26:57 <martind> luke-jr: that's not as useful as having it be owned by a fully independent, non-profit organisation
2005 2011-09-13 17:27:04 <martind> jrmithdobbs: yes I agree
2006 2011-09-13 17:27:11 <luke-jr> martind: yes, it's even more useful
2007 2011-09-13 17:27:28 <luke-jr> martind: I don't trust some "fully indepedent, non-profit organisation" any more
2008 2011-09-13 17:27:34 <lfm> martind: I dont think a non-profit could manage an exchange
2009 2011-09-13 17:27:41 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: from my understanding of their KYC/AML equiv laws, yes, but seeing as I don't read japanese i'm not exactly an authoritative source
2010 2011-09-13 17:27:46 <joepie91> huh
2011 2011-09-13 17:27:47 <k9quaint> joepie91: it almost never works that way though (shutting down when handling others peoples money)
2012 2011-09-13 17:27:49 <joepie91> exchange =/= trademark
2013 2011-09-13 17:27:52 <martind> it's not about an exchange. it's about the "Bitcoin" name
2014 2011-09-13 17:27:53 <luke-jr> martind: you'd end up making that organization into the Fed
2015 2011-09-13 17:27:56 <joepie91> k9quaint, that doesn't mean that it SHOULDN'T be done like that
2016 2011-09-13 17:28:03 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
2017 2011-09-13 17:28:05 <joepie91> "everyone does it" is not an excuse
2018 2011-09-13 17:28:09 <k9quaint> merchants & banks always deny deny deny while they try to fix it without anyone noticing
2019 2011-09-13 17:28:15 <joepie91> ESPECIALLY not if you are not willing to refund the people affected by the consequences
2020 2011-09-13 17:28:19 <luke-jr> martind: for example, who's to say that org won't be run by decimal bigots who forbid calling TBC "Bitcoin"?
2021 2011-09-13 17:28:28 <martind> luke-jr: it's not about monetary policy. the reality is that trademarks exist, and they have one distinct owner; and this owner can wield their power
2022 2011-09-13 17:28:29 <joepie91> <joepie91> "everyone does it" is not an excuse
2023 2011-09-13 17:28:44 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: you'd seriously trust a fly by night webhosting company that got lucky and saved itself from going out of business because it happened to host the mtgox site and knew the owner more than a NFP?
2024 2011-09-13 17:28:48 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: seriously?
2025 2011-09-13 17:29:01 <martind> jrmithdobbs: slow down, calm and steady pls :)
2026 2011-09-13 17:29:06 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: are you insane?
2027 2011-09-13 17:29:07 <k9quaint> joepie91: no, but you seemed surprised that it happened
2028 2011-09-13 17:29:19 <joepie91> k9quaint, I was not surprised, I was merely criticizing it
2029 2011-09-13 17:29:42 <Baksch> Anybody: When creating a transaction, does the Bitcoin client "use" the complete balance of one or more addresses (all outputs), or can it leave some part of the balance be? So after a transaction, are all addresses used balance == 0?
2030 2011-09-13 17:29:44 <joepie91> if I got to speak to any guy working at a bank doing this exact same thing I would've been going off on the exact same rant
2031 2011-09-13 17:29:53 <luke-jr> martind: the owner's power can be limited by contracts
2032 2011-09-13 17:30:01 <lfm> Baksch: yes
2033 2011-09-13 17:30:07 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: they can with a nfp to?!
2034 2011-09-13 17:30:14 <k9quaint> joepie91: you will get the same response, crickets :)
2035 2011-09-13 17:30:17 <martind> luke-jr: but the owner can still decide who to sign contract with. contracts aren't useful
2036 2011-09-13 17:30:48 <joepie91> k9quaint, so? what exactly is the point?
2037 2011-09-13 17:30:54 <joepie91> everyone does it, so it's perfectly acceptable?
2038 2011-09-13 17:30:55 <martind> this community keeps spawning new businesses; it's not helpful to have a gatekeeper contract
2039 2011-09-13 17:31:02 <luke-jr> MagicalTux could make a contract with everyone else who claims some possible ownership of the same, that they won't dispute his trademark, and he agrees to keep it available under X terms
2040 2011-09-13 17:31:15 <luke-jr> (available to anyone under those terms)
2041 2011-09-13 17:31:22 <k9quaint> joepie91: it's like getting very upset about people jaywalking in NYC
2042 2011-09-13 17:31:29 <lfm> Baksch: well the "inputs" are previous "outputs" and they need to completely use them but they can break them up into more outputs which can go back to the same address as they uased for input
2043 2011-09-13 17:31:41 <joepie91> k9quaint, I don't give a fuck, they have a fucking RESPONSIBILITY to take care of peoples shit
2044 2011-09-13 17:31:49 <k9quaint> no they don't actually
2045 2011-09-13 17:31:50 <joepie91> if they don't want to take that responsibility, then don't run a goddamn bank/exchange
2046 2011-09-13 17:31:55 <joepie91> yes, they dop
2047 2011-09-13 17:31:56 <joepie91> do*
2048 2011-09-13 17:31:59 <k9quaint> they are not a bank
2049 2011-09-13 17:32:02 marktraceur has joined
2050 2011-09-13 17:32:03 <joepie91> so?
2051 2011-09-13 17:32:13 <k9quaint> they don't have fiduciary responsibility
2052 2011-09-13 17:32:20 <joepie91> I'm not talking about legal shit here
2053 2011-09-13 17:32:23 <joepie91> I'm talking about common sense
2054 2011-09-13 17:32:36 <k9quaint> sense is not common, at least in my experience ;)
2055 2011-09-13 17:32:43 <joepie91> they offer a service and claim it's secure - then they have to KEEP it secure
2056 2011-09-13 17:32:57 <Baksch> lfm: What I wanted to know, does Bitcoin use all current outputs to one address or can it leave some outputs alone?
2057 2011-09-13 17:33:02 <joepie91> "Buy and Sell Bitcoins. Fully automated, always available, 24 hours a day, Safe and Easy."
2058 2011-09-13 17:33:29 <luke-jr> and in a snap of fingers, your security bug is fixed!
2059 2011-09-13 17:33:37 <kjj> Baksch: it uses transactions, not inputs.
2060 2011-09-13 17:33:40 <luke-jr> in the real world, things don't work like that
2061 2011-09-13 17:33:41 <joepie91> only it wasn't.
2062 2011-09-13 17:33:45 <martind> well their responsibilities would be outlined in their Terms of Service, and possibly also subject to regional regulations
2063 2011-09-13 17:33:49 <luke-jr> it takes time to fix and test things
2064 2011-09-13 17:33:50 <lfm> Baksch: the standard bitcoin client will not send any of the outputs back normally and if there are several transactions existing to a single output to choose from, they can use one of them and leave the others
2065 2011-09-13 17:33:51 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: for the majority tux's it wouldn't have been much harder than a snap of the finger ;p
2066 2011-09-13 17:33:52 <joepie91> martind: what terms of service?
2067 2011-09-13 17:33:56 <martind> yes I know
2068 2011-09-13 17:34:04 <martind> this is partially my point
2069 2011-09-13 17:34:07 <joepie91> luke-jr: if you fucking KNOW that your exchange is vulnerable and that your users are at risk
2070 2011-09-13 17:34:11 <k9quaint> joepie91: a website that does not live up to its claims? INFORM ICANN!
2071 2011-09-13 17:34:13 <joepie91> then you DON'T keep your mouth shut
2072 2011-09-13 17:34:17 <joepie91> and not do anything about it
2073 2011-09-13 17:34:26 <luke-jr> joepie91: he WAS doing something about it
2074 2011-09-13 17:34:35 <joepie91> luke-jr, and in the meantime leaving the front door wide open
2075 2011-09-13 17:34:38 gavinandresen has left ()
2076 2011-09-13 17:34:49 <joepie91> k9quaint, you can ridicule all you want, but regardless of what you're laughing about, magicaltux has fucked up - plain and simple
2077 2011-09-13 17:34:51 <luke-jr> yes, let's shutdown every major service whenever there's a possible vuln
2078 2011-09-13 17:34:57 <joepie91> luke-jr, it was a PROVEN vulnerability
2079 2011-09-13 17:35:01 <luke-jr> everything would be going down all the time
2080 2011-09-13 17:35:02 <joepie91> MULTIPLE proven vulnerabilities
2081 2011-09-13 17:35:05 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: funny, because most services do exactly that
2082 2011-09-13 17:35:06 <joepie91> so yes, let's take it down
2083 2011-09-13 17:35:09 <joepie91> so that at least your users are safe
2084 2011-09-13 17:35:15 <joepie91> and they don't take the flak for you
2085 2011-09-13 17:35:18 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: see: the several times dropbox has completely shutdown
2086 2011-09-13 17:35:21 <joepie91> or at the VERY least refund those affected
2087 2011-09-13 17:35:27 <joepie91> if it DOES get exploited
2088 2011-09-13 17:35:29 <joepie91> which didn't happen either
2089 2011-09-13 17:35:30 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: or the multitude of other examples
2090 2011-09-13 17:35:33 <k9quaint> yes, they made a mistake
2091 2011-09-13 17:35:41 <luke-jr> joepie91: MtGox *did* refund people affected
2092 2011-09-13 17:35:48 <joepie91> luke-jr, then where is my $200?
2093 2011-09-13 17:35:54 <lfm> joepie91: yes, we must take joepie91's word for it when ever he says there is a vuln and shut them down right away without verification since he is a net god
2094 2011-09-13 17:35:55 <luke-jr> joepie91: what $200?
2095 2011-09-13 17:36:02 <k9quaint> joepie91: don't use their services anymore
2096 2011-09-13 17:36:05 <joepie91> last time I checked they claimed they were 'unable to refund anything because there was no proof it was their fault'
2097 2011-09-13 17:36:12 <luke-jr> joepie91: also note, to prove any vuln, you are a criminal
2098 2011-09-13 17:36:12 <joepie91> luke-jr, the $200 that was stolen from my account
2099 2011-09-13 17:36:18 <Baksch> lfm: I do not mean sending them back, but never use them in the first place.
2100 2011-09-13 17:36:19 <luke-jr> joepie91: why should Tux respond to a criminal?
2101 2011-09-13 17:36:28 <joepie91> luke-jr, did I actually use it? no
2102 2011-09-13 17:36:32 <luke-jr> then it wasn't proven.
2103 2011-09-13 17:36:34 <joepie91> yes, it was
2104 2011-09-13 17:36:40 <joepie91> CSS history sniffing is proven
2105 2011-09-13 17:36:45 <joepie91> it was proven that my login data was sent with a GET request
2106 2011-09-13 17:36:46 <joepie91> done
2107 2011-09-13 17:36:55 <luke-jr> …
2108 2011-09-13 17:37:04 <joepie91> he would only have to ask me to write a bit of code to prove it, and I would have
2109 2011-09-13 17:37:05 <luke-jr> GET has no security implications
2110 2011-09-13 17:37:08 <joepie91> yes, it does
2111 2011-09-13 17:37:12 <lfm> Baksch: yes if say you send 3 txn of 50 btc each to the same address then they can be used one at a time in separate txn and leave the others.
2112 2011-09-13 17:37:15 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: wait so now noone should report security issues to tux because that'd make them criminals?
2113 2011-09-13 17:37:20 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: did you really just say that?
2114 2011-09-13 17:37:24 <joepie91> your login details are stored in your browser history, and can be locally bruteforced using css history sniffing
2115 2011-09-13 17:37:28 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: noone should try to exploit his site without his permission
2116 2011-09-13 17:37:30 <joepie91> want some example code?
2117 2011-09-13 17:37:43 <luke-jr> joepie91: that's an exploit in your browser then
2118 2011-09-13 17:37:43 <Baksch> lfm: say Address A has 3 transactions crediting it one BTC, and Bitcoin client needs to send two BTC, can it use 2 of 3 outputs and leave one untoched
2119 2011-09-13 17:37:47 <joepie91> (not that it works in every browser, but in several situations it's a present vuln)
2120 2011-09-13 17:37:50 <joepie91> no, it's not
2121 2011-09-13 17:37:51 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: there's no TOS so by running a public service they have his permission
2122 2011-09-13 17:37:52 <luke-jr> yes it is
2123 2011-09-13 17:37:54 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: natch
2124 2011-09-13 17:37:59 <joepie91> luke-jr, you seem to have missed a part of security history
2125 2011-09-13 17:37:59 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: nonsense
2126 2011-09-13 17:38:01 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: try that in court
2127 2011-09-13 17:38:06 <lfm> Baksch: yes, it could
2128 2011-09-13 17:38:13 <Baksch> lfm: thanks!
2129 2011-09-13 17:38:20 <luke-jr> joepie91: if a website can access history for another site, that's a security hole in the browser
2130 2011-09-13 17:38:21 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: sure
2131 2011-09-13 17:38:46 <joepie91> luke-jr,
2132 2011-09-13 17:38:46 <joepie91> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dUy4sF6qzDsJ:www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2010/11/30/history-sniffing-how-youporn-checks-what-other-porn-sites-youve-visited-and-ad-networks-test-the-quality-of-their-data/+css+history+sniffing&cd=5&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=nl
2133 2011-09-13 17:38:50 <joepie91> have a read
2134 2011-09-13 17:38:55 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: noone's ever used that defense in court because no company has ever been stupid enough to try and go after people helping them improve their service
2135 2011-09-13 17:39:01 CutAndPaste has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.5)
2136 2011-09-13 17:39:07 <luke-jr> "your worship, the access point was not encrypted and I never saw a TOS, so I had implicit permission to try to crack the login screen"
2137 2011-09-13 17:39:10 <joepie91> it's part of the expected behaviour for css and javascript
2138 2011-09-13 17:39:15 <lfm> some histories are public, like bitcoin txn history
2139 2011-09-13 17:39:15 <k9quaint> jrmithdobbs: actually, several companies have
2140 2011-09-13 17:39:21 <joepie91> but yeah, where's my $200? if magicaltux "refunded users"
2141 2011-09-13 17:39:39 <joepie91> because I remember a very different answer
2142 2011-09-13 17:39:43 <jrmithdobbs> k9quaint: only case i know of is weev's and that didn't go to trial because he was stupid about making jokes on the internet that would have clouded the proceedings
2143 2011-09-13 17:39:49 <lfm> joepie91: I guess you were no considered credible
2144 2011-09-13 17:39:59 <joepie91> lfm: then who was?
2145 2011-09-13 17:40:05 <joepie91> I haven;t haerd of ANYONE getting a refund
2146 2011-09-13 17:40:06 * luke-jr got refunded
2147 2011-09-13 17:40:17 <luke-jr> I haven't heard of anyone NOT getting a refund
2148 2011-09-13 17:40:20 <jrmithdobbs> oh so tux refunded his business partners?
2149 2011-09-13 17:40:20 <luke-jr> until you today
2150 2011-09-13 17:40:22 <joepie91> I was the first fucking person to make a thread about people losing their funds
2151 2011-09-13 17:40:22 <jrmithdobbs> surprise
2152 2011-09-13 17:40:24 Clipse has joined
2153 2011-09-13 17:40:26 <joepie91> you know
2154 2011-09-13 17:40:28 <joepie91> that sticky thread
2155 2011-09-13 17:40:33 <joepie91> on the forums?
2156 2011-09-13 17:40:43 <joepie91> totally not credible
2157 2011-09-13 17:40:49 <b4epoche> y'all need to head over to http://www.woot.com/
2158 2011-09-13 17:40:49 <lfm> joepie91: ya, like the first witness at a murder is a suspect
2159 2011-09-13 17:41:02 <b4epoche> get one of those and relieve some stress
2160 2011-09-13 17:41:10 <joepie91> lfm: I was not even the very first person to report it, just the first person to make a proper topic about it it seemed
2161 2011-09-13 17:41:20 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: haha that is awesome
2162 2011-09-13 17:41:30 <k9quaint> jrmithdobbs: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060510/1343242.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050309/1240241_F.shtml
2163 2011-09-13 17:42:18 <joepie91> We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience which the June hacking incident caused. Whilst Mt.Gox can offer you a free Yubikey as a way of improving account security, we unfortunately can not refund any amount of the stolen funds. While this is extremely disappointing news, it is unavoidable. Issuing a direct refund is not possible as there is no way of proving that your account was in fact compromised, or that it was the Mt.Gox databa
2164 2011-09-13 17:42:18 <joepie91> se leak that caused this to happen. As a business if Mt.Gox were to offer you a cash or bitcoin refund in compensation of this extremely unfortunate event, there would likely be a large increase in the number of hacking attempts to exploit the possibility of financial reward.
2165 2011-09-13 17:42:26 <joepie91> straight from my email
2166 2011-09-13 17:42:41 <joepie91> that sounds a lot like "we're not going to refund users", no?
2167 2011-09-13 17:43:09 <k9quaint> jrmithdobbs: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080915/0227582273.shtml and I could keep on linking, but you can google as well as I can ;)
2168 2011-09-13 17:44:07 <lfm> Happy Programmer Day!
2169 2011-09-13 17:44:19 <jrmithdobbs> k9quaint: alright, point taken
2170 2011-09-13 17:45:24 <jrmithdobbs> k9quaint: though i've not seen any in that list that didn't get pleabargained
2171 2011-09-13 17:45:36 <jrmithdobbs> k9quaint: so who knows if that defense would actually work
2172 2011-09-13 17:45:48 <luke-jr> joepie91: sorry, I meant they refunded people who lost money due to their being cracked
2173 2011-09-13 17:45:55 <luke-jr> joepie91: not due to people using insecure browsers
2174 2011-09-13 17:46:04 <jrmithdobbs> uh what
2175 2011-09-13 17:46:30 <joepie91> luke-jr, what does my being cracked have to do with an insecure browser?
2176 2011-09-13 17:46:39 <joepie91> where did I ever say that *I* was hit by that vuln?
2177 2011-09-13 17:46:43 <joepie91> I said it was present
2178 2011-09-13 17:46:59 <joepie91> it would not have worked on me because I had a 20 char alphanumeric mixed case password.
2179 2011-09-13 17:47:09 <joepie91> which is too long to bruteforce with said method.
2180 2011-09-13 17:52:08 <jrmithdobbs> but it's ok to ignore the complete db compromise and what that would have given the attackers the ability to do and blame users
2181 2011-09-13 17:52:11 <jrmithdobbs> keep up
2182 2011-09-13 17:52:28 <jrmithdobbs> god joepie91 stop your FUD!
2183 2011-09-13 17:54:00 <JFK911> fud what?
2184 2011-09-13 17:57:31 ThomasV has joined
2185 2011-09-13 17:57:34 <joepie91> *crickets*
2186 2011-09-13 18:08:02 wardearia has joined
2187 2011-09-13 18:08:57 HyperSynergy has joined
2188 2011-09-13 18:09:05 <HyperSynergy> hi
2189 2011-09-13 18:09:50 TD has joined
2190 2011-09-13 18:09:56 <HyperSynergy> anyone have any btc mining remote monitoring software?
2191 2011-09-13 18:10:09 MetaVolutioN has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2192 2011-09-13 18:10:10 <HyperSynergy> open source code I can start from
2193 2011-09-13 18:10:16 <lfm> just ssh
2194 2011-09-13 18:10:39 <HyperSynergy> I want graphs of the json data from the pools
2195 2011-09-13 18:10:53 <HyperSynergy> hash rate graphs over time
2196 2011-09-13 18:11:18 <lfm> like http://www3.telus.net/millerlf/hashes.png ?
2197 2011-09-13 18:13:38 <HyperSynergy> that's the total network rate right?
2198 2011-09-13 18:13:46 <lfm> ya
2199 2011-09-13 18:15:04 <HyperSynergy> I want to graph my personal  mining rigs hash rates both that reported by the miner client and the rate reported by the pools over JSON
2200 2011-09-13 18:16:05 <HyperSynergy> guess I'll just write it, can't take more than a days worth of coding in c#
2201 2011-09-13 18:16:15 <erus`> c# yuck
2202 2011-09-13 18:16:22 <erus`> enjoy your painful misery
2203 2011-09-13 18:16:27 <HyperSynergy> heh
2204 2011-09-13 18:16:43 <AnniGONE> why c#
2205 2011-09-13 18:16:44 <lfm> whatever language you prefer
2206 2011-09-13 18:16:47 AnniGONE is now known as AnnihilaT
2207 2011-09-13 18:16:51 <HyperSynergy> we were just talking about how visual studio is much better IDE than eclipse
2208 2011-09-13 18:16:56 <lfm> note I used gnuplot
2209 2011-09-13 18:16:59 BlueMatt has joined
2210 2011-09-13 18:17:05 <AnnihilaT> IDE ?
2211 2011-09-13 18:17:09 <AnnihilaT> who needs em
2212 2011-09-13 18:17:22 <AnnihilaT> nano & vim are good enough
2213 2011-09-13 18:17:23 <AnnihilaT> :D
2214 2011-09-13 18:17:26 <erus`> gedit
2215 2011-09-13 18:17:31 <lfm> emacs
2216 2011-09-13 18:17:32 <erus`> on windows
2217 2011-09-13 18:17:34 <joepie91> geany
2218 2011-09-13 18:17:46 <HyperSynergy> hated emacs
2219 2011-09-13 18:18:05 <HyperSynergy> terminal  is fine but not emacs please
2220 2011-09-13 18:18:11 <joepie91> geany for both windows and linux :P
2221 2011-09-13 18:18:24 * lfm started with microemacs on msdos and I still like it for somethings
2222 2011-09-13 18:18:25 <erus`> i wish stalman spoke with a lisp
2223 2011-09-13 18:18:30 <HyperSynergy> notepad++ is my favorite text editor
2224 2011-09-13 18:18:57 MetaVolutioN has joined
2225 2011-09-13 18:19:03 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2226 2011-09-13 18:19:05 <HyperSynergy> the hex edit is good
2227 2011-09-13 18:19:18 <HyperSynergy> but I've been a windows programmer for a long time
2228 2011-09-13 18:19:32 <HyperSynergy> win32, then .net
2229 2011-09-13 18:19:43 gjs278 has joined
2230 2011-09-13 18:19:48 <HyperSynergy> but honestly MS makes me want to puke
2231 2011-09-13 18:19:58 * lfm wrote my own hex edit
2232 2011-09-13 18:20:03 <joepie91> notepad++ is pretty good but I still prefer geany :p
2233 2011-09-13 18:20:06 <joepie91> I used textpad for ages as well
2234 2011-09-13 18:20:56 <lfm> HyperSynergy: but you like c#?!
2235 2011-09-13 18:21:04 <HyperSynergy> ok I better not get a virus from your geany
2236 2011-09-13 18:21:08 <HyperSynergy> lol
2237 2011-09-13 18:21:12 <joepie91> lolol
2238 2011-09-13 18:21:15 <joepie91> nah :P
2239 2011-09-13 18:22:10 <HyperSynergy> so how do I get into the inner circle of btc masterminds?
2240 2011-09-13 18:22:34 <lfm> HyperSynergy: download the source, study it
2241 2011-09-13 18:22:38 <HyperSynergy> quid pro quo
2242 2011-09-13 18:22:50 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2243 2011-09-13 18:23:10 <lfm> seems obvious
2244 2011-09-13 18:23:25 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
2245 2011-09-13 18:23:29 <HyperSynergy> read the white paper
2246 2011-09-13 18:23:45 <lfm> you mean you havnt yet?
2247 2011-09-13 18:24:02 Clipse has quit (Quit: Clipse)
2248 2011-09-13 18:24:05 <BlueMatt> ;;seen gavinandresen
2249 2011-09-13 18:24:05 <gribble> gavinandresen was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 1 hour, 37 minutes, and 16 seconds ago: <gavinandresen> afk for a bit (lunch)
2250 2011-09-13 18:24:06 TheSeven has joined
2251 2011-09-13 18:24:14 <BlueMatt> 1.5 hour lunch?
2252 2011-09-13 18:24:31 <HyperSynergy> I read it but some of the math I couldn't remember
2253 2011-09-13 18:24:32 <HyperSynergy> poisson
2254 2011-09-13 18:25:08 <BlueMatt> join the mailing list and start contributing, it doesnt take any more than that really
2255 2011-09-13 18:25:09 <lfm> prolly dont need to follow that math that much
2256 2011-09-13 18:25:14 <HyperSynergy> got geany installed. what can I do with it/ Can I debug python?
2257 2011-09-13 18:25:22 <BlueMatt> just about all communication is public anyway
2258 2011-09-13 18:25:34 <HyperSynergy> I mean the inner circle
2259 2011-09-13 18:25:49 <HyperSynergy> nm
2260 2011-09-13 18:25:52 x11_ has quit ()
2261 2011-09-13 18:25:55 <joepie91> HyperSynergy, you can edit stuff with it :P
2262 2011-09-13 18:25:59 <joepie91> F5 will run your code
2263 2011-09-13 18:26:08 <BlueMatt> HyperSynergy: this essentially is the inner circle
2264 2011-09-13 18:26:11 <joepie91> it *should* automatically recognize what language it is and run the appropriate command
2265 2011-09-13 18:26:14 <HyperSynergy> I'm being stupid and paranoid thinking the whole market is being manipulated by a select few
2266 2011-09-13 18:26:24 <joepie91> but not sure if that works on windows as well, assuming you're on windows
2267 2011-09-13 18:26:32 <HyperSynergy> yeah windows
2268 2011-09-13 18:26:40 <joepie91> might have to configure it in the build meny
2269 2011-09-13 18:26:46 <lfm> HyperSynergy: oh you want the starchamber guys. you gotta learn the secret handshake
2270 2011-09-13 18:26:49 Baksch has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2271 2011-09-13 18:26:50 <imsaguy2> BlueMatt, mailing list url?
2272 2011-09-13 18:26:50 <BlueMatt> there are a few email lists discussing where we should take the price next, but we arent supposed to talk about those...
2273 2011-09-13 18:27:07 <BlueMatt> imsaguy2: its on sf, find it there...
2274 2011-09-13 18:27:09 <HyperSynergy> lol
2275 2011-09-13 18:27:48 <lfm> the first rule of the starchanber is we can't talk about the starchamber
2276 2011-09-13 18:27:49 <HyperSynergy> I did aquick  project with JSON in .net and c# for someone
2277 2011-09-13 18:28:23 <imsaguy2> thanks.
2278 2011-09-13 18:28:24 <HyperSynergy> I can get a graphing app running in c# pretty quick I think
2279 2011-09-13 18:28:47 <lfm> or just use graphs in a spreadsheet
2280 2011-09-13 18:29:49 <HyperSynergy> assuming there's an easy to use graphing lib for c#
2281 2011-09-13 18:30:42 <HyperSynergy> JSON so much more fun than xml
2282 2011-09-13 18:30:49 <HyperSynergy> good stuff
2283 2011-09-13 18:30:56 <Joric> how would you call a project that you can't list in your resume due to some agreement? non-attribution policy project? :)
2284 2011-09-13 18:31:17 devon_hillard has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2285 2011-09-13 18:31:28 <HyperSynergy> are you talking about google's unofficial btc app?
2286 2011-09-13 18:31:52 <martind> Joric: it's called an NDA (non disclosure agreement.) as in, "project is under NDA"
2287 2011-09-13 18:35:23 <HyperSynergy> btc will go into a retraction  phase where most folks will bail out very disallusioned
2288 2011-09-13 18:35:48 <HyperSynergy> only the hard core digerati will stick it out.
2289 2011-09-13 18:35:54 <gmaxwell> Joric: just write about it generically and explain when they as "Worked on a xxxxy sized babymulching application using foo technology"
2290 2011-09-13 18:36:28 <HyperSynergy> then when the software is ready and the public comes in, the techies will have all the money and we will have a technocracy.
2291 2011-09-13 18:37:11 <Joric> i'm talking about something like that guy wants http://london.craigslist.co.uk/cpg/2591274619.html
2292 2011-09-13 18:37:12 dikidera has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2293 2011-09-13 18:37:58 <gmaxwell> Joric: well that sounds like some guy trying to outsource his dayjob.
2294 2011-09-13 18:38:09 diki has joined
2295 2011-09-13 18:38:35 wardearia has joined
2296 2011-09-13 18:38:41 diki is now known as Guest23525
2297 2011-09-13 18:38:52 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2298 2011-09-13 18:39:04 <gmaxwell> In any case, the advice I gave is fine, people often write vague things like that for internal-only applications.
2299 2011-09-13 18:39:07 DontMindMe has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
2300 2011-09-13 18:40:11 Guest23525 is now known as dikidera
2301 2011-09-13 18:45:26 ymirhotfoot has joined
2302 2011-09-13 18:45:37 eyu100 has joined
2303 2011-09-13 18:45:38 <joepie91> Joric: and what would he be doing exactly? :l
2304 2011-09-13 18:45:48 <joepie91> like, concretely
2305 2011-09-13 18:45:52 <eyu100> can someone explain to me what artforz exploited?
2306 2011-09-13 18:46:05 <eyu100> I see references to this all over the forums but I can't find the actual issue
2307 2011-09-13 18:46:09 <Joric> joepie91, protection!
2308 2011-09-13 18:46:16 <joepie91> lol
2309 2011-09-13 18:46:37 <Joric> a job you can't refuse
2310 2011-09-13 18:47:15 <lfm> eyu100: he made mining hardware?
2311 2011-09-13 18:47:54 <lfm> eyu100: he exploited his special skill for making hardware
2312 2011-09-13 18:48:07 <eyu100> how?
2313 2011-09-13 18:48:15 <eyu100> did he just mine super fast?
2314 2011-09-13 18:48:20 <phantomcircuit> he had > 51% of the mining power for namecoin
2315 2011-09-13 18:48:24 <lfm> eyu100: people in forums think it is unfair that he knows hardware and they dont
2316 2011-09-13 18:48:48 <eyu100> the btc express guy said the exploit allowed him to generate thousands of blocks in minutes...
2317 2011-09-13 18:49:07 <eyu100> not sure if he is bsing
2318 2011-09-13 18:49:30 <lfm> ya prolly used his gpu farm and did it the obvious way
2319 2011-09-13 18:49:49 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
2320 2011-09-13 18:49:54 <gmaxwell> Doesn't that that much to generate a lot of diff 1 blocks…
2321 2011-09-13 18:49:55 <eyu100> even with 51% you couldn't lengthen the block chain by 50% in minutes
2322 2011-09-13 18:50:19 <eyu100> hmm did artforz generate lots of really simple blocks?
2323 2011-09-13 18:50:33 <eyu100> using his knowledge of hardware to do it fast?
2324 2011-09-13 18:50:36 <gmaxwell> s/that/take/
2325 2011-09-13 18:50:37 <lfm> eyu100: if there was only a few other people mining on namecoin then you could
2326 2011-09-13 18:50:39 <eyu100> that's my best guess, I have no idea how he actually did it
2327 2011-09-13 18:51:01 <gmaxwell> Well _namecoin_ has the potential for special vulnerabilities.
2328 2011-09-13 18:51:19 <eyu100> ah, like what?
2329 2011-09-13 18:51:26 <eyu100> here's the paragraph I don't understand:
2330 2011-09-13 18:51:30 <eyu100> At 19101 we are going to stop the block chain and do a reset to block 10,000. Using ArtForz modified exploit we are going to generate 5000 blocks in a matter of minutes, confirm them and commence experimenting. We will effectively split the NMC block chain and invalidate the old one past block 10000.
2331 2011-09-13 18:51:36 <gmaxwell> I mentioned last night that I think it's possible to easily outpace namecoin by making a long diff1 chanin with a single merged mining block.
2332 2011-09-13 18:52:09 <eyu100> oh it's a merged mining exploit
2333 2011-09-13 18:52:15 <gmaxwell> I don't know that.
2334 2011-09-13 18:52:29 <lfm> oh they dont use total work to judge the best chain?
2335 2011-09-13 18:52:31 <gmaxwell> I'm just pointing out that namecoin has additional options for risks that bitcoin lacks.
2336 2011-09-13 18:52:42 <eyu100> I thought artforz found a way to circumvent the basic bitcoin safety mechanism
2337 2011-09-13 18:52:46 <eyu100> but apparently not
2338 2011-09-13 18:52:48 <gmaxwell> lfm: I _think_ the merged mining will use the bitcoin total work.
2339 2011-09-13 18:52:55 <eyu100> btw, has the attack on namecoin happened yet?
2340 2011-09-13 18:53:04 <jrmithdobbs> eyu100: afaik he only demonstrated why alt chains are bad
2341 2011-09-13 18:53:21 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2342 2011-09-13 18:53:55 <gmaxwell> So, any merged chain will instantly outcost a non-merged one oweing to the tremendous computation that has gone into bitcoin.
2343 2011-09-13 18:53:58 <jrmithdobbs> there's a minor timing bug that's technically exploitable but not in the bitcoin chain due to rate of hashing
2344 2011-09-13 18:54:20 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2345 2011-09-13 18:54:23 <jrmithdobbs> it's really not a big deal except for the alt chains
2346 2011-09-13 18:54:34 <eyu100> so if you merge a bitcoin chain into the namecoin chain, it will totally overwhelm it, but you can't do the reverse because the difficulty in the alt chains is too small?
2347 2011-09-13 18:54:47 <jrmithdobbs> right
2348 2011-09-13 18:54:51 <HyperSynergy> merged mining exploit?
2349 2011-09-13 18:54:53 <eyu100> fyi, I have an intermediate understanding of bitcoin
2350 2011-09-13 18:54:57 <HyperSynergy> someothing been on my mind
2351 2011-09-13 18:55:00 <eyu100> I'm not sure what merged mining is
2352 2011-09-13 18:55:08 <gmaxwell> eyu100: not just that, because bitcoin has no support for being slaved to another chain.
2353 2011-09-13 18:55:10 gjs278 has joined
2354 2011-09-13 18:55:10 cronopio has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2355 2011-09-13 18:55:13 <eyu100> is it just finding blocks that are valid in multiple chains?
2356 2011-09-13 18:55:17 <gmaxwell> (while namecome does now)
2357 2011-09-13 18:55:18 <HyperSynergy> if you mine for a pool can you use the same results for solo mining
2358 2011-09-13 18:55:29 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: but even if it did that would hold true
2359 2011-09-13 18:55:38 cronopio has joined
2360 2011-09-13 18:55:43 <HyperSynergy> laters
2361 2011-09-13 18:55:44 <eyu100> HyperSynergy: solo mining in the same chain, or in an alt-chain?
2362 2011-09-13 18:55:47 <lfm> HyperSynergy: no, you dont have all the info
2363 2011-09-13 18:55:48 <gmaxwell> eyu100: namecoin has specific support for being slaved to another chain in order to close some of the altchain risks.
2364 2011-09-13 18:56:09 <eyu100> is that the "fix" that was implemented to stop the 51% attack?
2365 2011-09-13 18:56:09 <gmaxwell> HyperSynergy: you can't.
2366 2011-09-13 18:56:42 <eyu100> HyperSynergy: the address is part of what is hashed, so if you send the bitcoins to a different address you do different work
2367 2011-09-13 18:56:47 <eyu100> destination address*
2368 2011-09-13 18:56:51 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2369 2011-09-13 18:56:57 <HyperSynergy> ic
2370 2011-09-13 18:56:59 <twobits> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=42417.msg517020#msg517020
2371 2011-09-13 18:57:13 <eyu100> pools put their *own* public addr in the block they try to generate
2372 2011-09-13 18:57:25 <HyperSynergy> gotta go help the users
2373 2011-09-13 18:57:25 <eyu100> so miners can't rip them off
2374 2011-09-13 18:57:26 <HyperSynergy> ttyl
2375 2011-09-13 18:57:35 <HyperSynergy> thanks for clarifying
2376 2011-09-13 18:57:49 <eyu100> afaik, miners could still cheat the pools by withholding valid blocks, but with no benefit to themselves
2377 2011-09-13 18:57:50 <eyu100> right?
2378 2011-09-13 18:57:57 peper has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2379 2011-09-13 18:58:13 ppr has joined
2380 2011-09-13 18:58:33 <gmaxwell> ah, the difficulty calculation must be ignoring one block's delta.
2381 2011-09-13 18:59:02 ppr is now known as peper
2382 2011-09-13 18:59:12 <gmaxwell> looks like you can ramp difficulty without pushing the chain head far into the future. Still not much of a pratical risk for bitcoin proper unless the pool operators exploit it.
2383 2011-09-13 18:59:12 <iddo> eyu100: you mean send back to pool only shares that are below the difficulty? what's the point?
2384 2011-09-13 18:59:17 <gmaxwell> But yea, that should be fixed.
2385 2011-09-13 18:59:52 cande has joined
2386 2011-09-13 19:00:36 <eyu100> iddo: no point
2387 2011-09-13 19:00:50 <eyu100> iddo: but you get the same payoff, while ripping the pool off, right?
2388 2011-09-13 19:01:22 <iddo> with PPS ?
2389 2011-09-13 19:01:46 <eyu100> what is pay per share?
2390 2011-09-13 19:02:08 <iddo> if it's propotional reward, then you don't get same payoff...
2391 2011-09-13 19:03:06 <iddo> if you deny the pool from getting the reward, then it doesn't have coins to divvy up to all the workers
2392 2011-09-13 19:03:32 <eyu100> but the probability of you finding a block is negligible
2393 2011-09-13 19:03:48 <eyu100> in effect you take payouts away from honest miners
2394 2011-09-13 19:03:52 <eyu100> it doesn't benefit you at all
2395 2011-09-13 19:03:56 <eyu100> but it is one way to attack a pool
2396 2011-09-13 19:04:12 danbri has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2397 2011-09-13 19:04:38 <eyu100> hash and find shares, but don't submit real blocks
2398 2011-09-13 19:04:46 <forrestv> there was a proposal for 'blind mining', where miner submitted difficulty-1 shares, and a secret was hashed with the share to get a final hash that was used to decide whether it became a block
2399 2011-09-13 19:04:47 <iddo> if you don't find a block, then what you say is irrelevant, you have nothing to that you wouldn't send back to the pool
2400 2011-09-13 19:04:47 danbri has joined
2401 2011-09-13 19:04:52 <forrestv> where a miner*
2402 2011-09-13 19:05:24 <eyu100> iddo: hash and find shares, but don't submit real blocks; say your hashing power is equal to the total hashing power of the rest of the pool, then their payouts will be halved
2403 2011-09-13 19:05:32 <eyu100> iddo: causing the pool to die out
2404 2011-09-13 19:06:09 <eyu100> iddo:  as people realize that they could get a higher return elsewhere
2405 2011-09-13 19:06:24 <iddo> so you're wasting your hash power to attack the pool? your own rewards diminish along with everyone else
2406 2011-09-13 19:06:38 <eyu100> well of course
2407 2011-09-13 19:06:47 <eyu100> most bitcoin attacks take hash power...
2408 2011-09-13 19:07:10 <iddo> i still don't see your point, seems like you're only attacking yourself along with the others
2409 2011-09-13 19:07:25 <jrmithdobbs> ya the right way to perform this attack
2410 2011-09-13 19:07:29 <jrmithdobbs> is very easy
2411 2011-09-13 19:07:35 <jrmithdobbs> step 1) run a large pool
2412 2011-09-13 19:07:45 <eyu100> like if deepbit redirected 25% of their power to attack slush
2413 2011-09-13 19:07:47 <jrmithdobbs> step 2) proxy X% of your miners to another pool and filter good shares
2414 2011-09-13 19:07:54 <jrmithdobbs> step 3) accuse competition of skimming
2415 2011-09-13 19:07:58 <eyu100> jrmithdobbs: exactly what I was about to say
2416 2011-09-13 19:08:11 <jrmithdobbs> eyu100: ya this has been known for a while
2417 2011-09-13 19:08:17 <gmaxwell> The only purposefor that attack is (1) to bankrupt pps pools, or (2) to kill the reputation of proportional pools, ... and if you want thee outcome you're probably working for a pool operator anyways.
2418 2011-09-13 19:08:30 <lfm> iddo ya, pool attack like that would pay more if you used the same power to mine solo
2419 2011-09-13 19:08:41 <iddo> the point is to get people from other pools to join your pool?
2420 2011-09-13 19:08:44 <jrmithdobbs> and it makes perfect economic sense for other pools to do because they'd still get the payouts from the other pools
2421 2011-09-13 19:08:49 <jrmithdobbs> iddo: yes
2422 2011-09-13 19:08:50 <eyu100> iddo: yes
2423 2011-09-13 19:08:59 <gmaxwell> lfm: it would, though if you can put competition out of business then you might make more in the long run.
2424 2011-09-13 19:09:48 eyu100 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2425 2011-09-13 19:09:54 <iddo> anyway this doesn't attack prop or PPLNS pools
2426 2011-09-13 19:10:08 <iddo> and PPLNS is good against hoppers?
2427 2011-09-13 19:10:12 <jrmithdobbs> yes it does
2428 2011-09-13 19:10:32 <gmaxwell> iddo: sure, it attacks proportional and quasi-propotional pools. It just does so at a greater cost to the attacker.
2429 2011-09-13 19:10:48 <jrmithdobbs> right
2430 2011-09-13 19:11:10 <jrmithdobbs> but if you're say, deepbit, who the fuck cares about that? you've got enough from historical earnings to cover it and make it look to your users like nothing is going on
2431 2011-09-13 19:11:18 <kjj> the barrier to entry for mining pools is very close to zero
2432 2011-09-13 19:11:36 <iddo> why does it attack proportional pools? aren't you just wasting your own hash power? why would the pool care that you do that?
2433 2011-09-13 19:11:43 <gmaxwell> Since an attacker probably only needs to sustain a 10% fake burden on a pool to ruin its reputation the cost to the attacker is only 10% plus fees
2434 2011-09-13 19:11:55 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: that would hurt YOUR pool too
2435 2011-09-13 19:11:58 <gmaxwell> iddo: because the pool users care that they're losing their income.
2436 2011-09-13 19:12:14 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: short term, slightly, long term? only if you got found out.
2437 2011-09-13 19:12:36 <gmaxwell> iddo: and you spread rumors that the operator of the victim pool is stealing, and people look at their payouts and find improbably low and believe the rumor.
2438 2011-09-13 19:13:06 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: "improbably low" cannot be measured reasonably
2439 2011-09-13 19:13:21 <jrmithdobbs> maybe not in tonal units
2440 2011-09-13 19:13:23 <gmaxwell> It's effective because it's basically impossible to detect small amounts of theft by pool operators.
2441 2011-09-13 19:13:30 <jrmithdobbs> but the rest of the world has working statistics
2442 2011-09-13 19:13:31 <luke-jr> in my experience with Eligius, we have been insanely super-lucky for weeks, and then insanely unlucky for weeks
2443 2011-09-13 19:13:50 <luke-jr> (and now we're on the lucky end again)
2444 2011-09-13 19:13:56 <iddo> hmm right, with prop, part of the reward is still given to you according to shares you sent back to pool, even though you contribute anything to generating the reward
2445 2011-09-13 19:14:11 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: sure, the varience can be modeled jut fine though. And I can do things like say "this last months outcome has only a 1:100000 chance of being this poor due to varience"
2446 2011-09-13 19:14:31 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: but it requires months of data
2447 2011-09-13 19:14:55 <jrmithdobbs> so?
2448 2011-09-13 19:15:03 <luke-jr> when was the last time a miner looked at that? :P
2449 2011-09-13 19:15:14 <gmaxwell> a month should be enough to get it out to one in 100k chances on a good sized pool.
2450 2011-09-13 19:15:27 bender32 has joined
2451 2011-09-13 19:15:30 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: you're also not taking into account the human factor
2452 2011-09-13 19:15:37 dedeibel has joined
2453 2011-09-13 19:15:39 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: reality shows a month is too short
2454 2011-09-13 19:15:39 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: the attacker, as "a concerned citizien" pays me to do the analysis. :)
2455 2011-09-13 19:15:42 <jrmithdobbs> it's pretty easy to convince people they're being cheated when they're not
2456 2011-09-13 19:16:02 <jrmithdobbs> see: 9/11
2457 2011-09-13 19:17:14 <luke-jr> anyhow, there are ways to detect cheaters
2458 2011-09-13 19:17:33 <iddo> forrestv: what was it you said about blind mining solution to this attack? i don't see how it would work
2459 2011-09-13 19:17:45 tcoppi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2460 2011-09-13 19:18:02 <jrmithdobbs> iddo: peer to peer mining pools solve it but noones actually made that work
2461 2011-09-13 19:18:10 <jrmithdobbs> because there's no pool operator to be skimming in the first place
2462 2011-09-13 19:18:34 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: sure, you can do thing like occasionally replay an old winning header and notice they fail to solve it.
2463 2011-09-13 19:18:47 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: they solve the false accusation, but not the cheating
2464 2011-09-13 19:18:50 <gmaxwell> But no one is going to bother to implement that until the attack is already a problem.
2465 2011-09-13 19:19:04 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: the de-incentivize the cheating because of the lack of people to accuse
2466 2011-09-13 19:19:11 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: since then cheating only hurts you
2467 2011-09-13 19:19:16 <iddo> with p2p, you can still deny rewards from everyone else, while getting your prop share when they generate rewards, no?
2468 2011-09-13 19:19:18 <jrmithdobbs> s/the/they/
2469 2011-09-13 19:19:32 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: because there's no reason to withhold valid shares except to be a dick
2470 2011-09-13 19:19:47 <gmaxwell> iddo: of course not, that would be broken.
2471 2011-09-13 19:19:49 abragin has quit ()
2472 2011-09-13 19:20:21 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: well, if you're a centeralized pool operator you can still win in the long game by making p2p pools non-viable.
2473 2011-09-13 19:20:22 <iddo> what's special about p2p pool?
2474 2011-09-13 19:20:43 <iddo> in relation to this attack
2475 2011-09-13 19:20:48 <gmaxwell> iddo: oh you mean this same throw-away attack? sure you can do that.
2476 2011-09-13 19:20:54 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: true, but then you'd need to waste a significantly larger portion of your hash power, wouldn't you?
2477 2011-09-13 19:20:55 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: that's already true
2478 2011-09-13 19:20:58 MUILTFN has joined
2479 2011-09-13 19:21:15 <gmaxwell> But whats the incentive? You can't trick people into thinking someone is skimming the p2p pool.
2480 2011-09-13 19:21:29 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: since the lack of social engineering means the "evidence" needs to be stronger
2481 2011-09-13 19:21:34 <luke-jr> p2p pool is already non-viable
2482 2011-09-13 19:21:43 <jrmithdobbs> says a pool operator
2483 2011-09-13 19:21:49 <jgarzik> :)
2484 2011-09-13 19:22:05 <luke-jr> it can only reduce the variance so much
2485 2011-09-13 19:22:19 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: so? we don't need zero variance.
2486 2011-09-13 19:22:27 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: so it can't reduce it enough for 99% of miners
2487 2011-09-13 19:22:28 <iddo> i guess the incentive is just to get the other participants in the p2p pool to quit, because they would feel unlucky
2488 2011-09-13 19:23:03 <gmaxwell> a factor of 10 reduction would be awesome and would make solomining much more attractive.
2489 2011-09-13 19:23:05 <iddo> anyone knows what forrestv meant by blind mining?
2490 2011-09-13 19:23:22 <jrmithdobbs> iddo: but attacking the p2p pool wourd take more wasted hash power on the attackers end than attacking a direct non-p2p competitor
2491 2011-09-13 19:23:44 <jrmithdobbs> so until there's only one pool it's not an attractive target
2492 2011-09-13 19:24:27 <jrmithdobbs> iddo: no, I've not heard that one before
2493 2011-09-13 19:25:54 abragin has joined
2494 2011-09-13 19:25:54 abragin has quit (Changing host)
2495 2011-09-13 19:25:54 abragin has joined
2496 2011-09-13 19:26:02 <iddo> hmm i don't see how it could work, the miner client needs to send only share with proof of work, so the miner knows when the difficulty threshold was obtained
2497 2011-09-13 19:26:15 <gmaxwell> I can't see how you'd do this with bitcoin, but I could make a system where you mine but can't tell if you have a solution or not.
2498 2011-09-13 19:26:36 <iddo> unless you could hide the different between share difficulty and actual block difficulty, somehow...
2499 2011-09-13 19:26:48 <gmaxwell> You could do it by having two POWs basically, both must be true for a valid block, but only one for a share.
2500 2011-09-13 19:26:48 <iddo> s/different/difference
2501 2011-09-13 19:27:01 <iddo> ahh
2502 2011-09-13 19:27:21 <iddo> and the miner doesn't have a way to calculate the 2nd POW ?
2503 2011-09-13 19:27:23 <gmaxwell> and you make it so the miner can't calculate the second one (e.g. making it be a pow on an encrypted block and you don't tell them the key)
2504 2011-09-13 19:28:05 <gmaxwell> but I thought about this a while back and couldn't come up with a way of doing it in bitcoin without changing things.
2505 2011-09-13 19:28:18 piuk has joined
2506 2011-09-13 19:28:26 <iddo> for this the bitcoin protocol will have to be modified? or not?
2507 2011-09-13 19:28:39 <jrmithdobbs> ya i don't know how you'd shove that into bitcoin
2508 2011-09-13 19:29:09 <mtrlt> gmaxwell: wouldn't shares need to be "partial" solutions?
2509 2011-09-13 19:29:27 <jrmithdobbs> it would require blockchain format changes
2510 2011-09-13 19:29:32 <mtrlt> i see no obvious way to do it.
2511 2011-09-13 19:30:48 <iddo> anyway these attacks aren't nice but don't attack bitcoin itself, unless they would lead to a pool with 51% hash power
2512 2011-09-13 19:31:12 <gmaxwell> iddo: yep
2513 2011-09-13 19:32:46 <jrmithdobbs> iddo: ya this has all been hashed over quite thoroughly in the past
2514 2011-09-13 19:32:54 <jrmithdobbs> iddo: nothing new was just discussed ;p
2515 2011-09-13 19:34:24 <iddo> if deepbit for example becomes too big, maybe other miners could run code that give higher priority to extending the chain by not using deepbit blocks?
2516 2011-09-13 19:35:15 <gmaxwell> iddo: if they could detect the blocks, sure.
2517 2011-09-13 19:35:22 piuk_ has joined
2518 2011-09-13 19:35:25 <jrmithdobbs> but they can't
2519 2011-09-13 19:35:33 <jrmithdobbs> because it's a unique key on every block gen
2520 2011-09-13 19:35:44 <iddo> ahh
2521 2011-09-13 19:35:50 <jrmithdobbs> well, they can't just by looking at the chain
2522 2011-09-13 19:36:01 <luke-jr> if there was a way to detect it, the system could forbid miners from getting 50% ;)
2523 2011-09-13 19:36:30 <iddo> but the pubkey is known to deepbit's miners who try to generate the block
2524 2011-09-13 19:36:34 <jrmithdobbs> there are convoluted ways you could make a pretty good educated guess, but they require resources
2525 2011-09-13 19:36:39 <gmaxwell> And you end up with scarlson's "licened mining"
2526 2011-09-13 19:36:44 <jrmithdobbs> lol
2527 2011-09-13 19:36:58 <jrmithdobbs> i forgot about that nonsense
2528 2011-09-13 19:36:59 piuk has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2529 2011-09-13 19:37:02 <jrmithdobbs> thx, i needed a laugh ;p
2530 2011-09-13 19:37:17 <gmaxwell> Yes, one way you can do this is run 'miners' connected to the pool to try to get enough info to detect the block. Though the miners can't just see the key.
2531 2011-09-13 19:37:17 <luke-jr> iddo: no, it isn't.
2532 2011-09-13 19:37:56 <gmaxwell> (they only see the root of the merkel tree, which is ~miner unique)
2533 2011-09-13 19:38:58 <hippich> hey, theoretical question - is it bad/good/thesame for chain security if block will be generated faster? like 1 block each minute and 60 confirmations for "confirmed" status, and 1200 confirmations for block to mature?
2534 2011-09-13 19:39:36 <iddo> ahh i see, basically the miners see a hash of the block data they are working on
2535 2011-09-13 19:39:59 <luke-jr> hippich: basically no
2536 2011-09-13 19:40:22 <hippich> "no" = bad or good or the same? =)
2537 2011-09-13 19:40:28 <luke-jr> hippich: bad
2538 2011-09-13 19:40:35 <jrmithdobbs> hippich: faster means less proof of work means you just have to wait for more blocks to be sure things are "right"
2539 2011-09-13 19:40:43 <jrmithdobbs> hippich: aka: yes, we know the solidcoin guy is stupid
2540 2011-09-13 19:40:52 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: it also means a lot more forking
2541 2011-09-13 19:40:54 <gmaxwell> hippich: it's bad for security.
2542 2011-09-13 19:41:04 <gmaxwell> Becausse you get hash power dillution due to forking.
2543 2011-09-13 19:41:17 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: yes
2544 2011-09-13 19:41:17 <hippich> hm. got it. thanx =)
2545 2011-09-13 19:41:17 zamgo_ has joined
2546 2011-09-13 19:41:31 <gmaxwell> The current mean block time was selected so that fast blocks (that cause forking and power dillution) would be rare.
2547 2011-09-13 19:41:33 * luke-jr thinks someone should take his txn-mesh idea and finish it :P
2548 2011-09-13 19:42:03 <luke-jr> or rather, a team of someones
2549 2011-09-13 19:42:04 <iddo> hash power dillution means stale shares?
2550 2011-09-13 19:42:15 <jrmithdobbs> no
2551 2011-09-13 19:42:16 <luke-jr> iddo: no, it means lower difficulty and less security
2552 2011-09-13 19:42:34 <jrmithdobbs> iddo: it means trying to extend the wrong side of a split chain
2553 2011-09-13 19:42:38 <jrmithdobbs> simply
2554 2011-09-13 19:42:47 <iddo> i see
2555 2011-09-13 19:42:47 <jrmithdobbs> where wrong == losing
2556 2011-09-13 19:43:01 <jrmithdobbs> which can't be determined until one side has won
2557 2011-09-13 19:43:02 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: a wrong side, not the... there will be many if the time is too short!
2558 2011-09-13 19:43:16 <jrmithdobbs> good point
2559 2011-09-13 19:43:29 <iddo> i see why it's wasting hash power. but why is it less secure?
2560 2011-09-13 19:43:43 <jrmithdobbs> because more of the hash power is being wasted
2561 2011-09-13 19:43:47 <luke-jr> iddo: the whole point to requiring hashing is to secure it
2562 2011-09-13 19:43:54 <gmaxwell> Because an attacker who concentrates their hash power will gain an advantage in the ability to produce long chains.
2563 2011-09-13 19:43:54 <hippich> iddo, ebcause less hash power goes to "true" block chain, not fork
2564 2011-09-13 19:44:07 <iddo> i see
2565 2011-09-13 19:44:19 piuk_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2566 2011-09-13 19:44:29 <luke-jr> reminder: http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/code/newcc.png
2567 2011-09-13 19:44:41 <gmaxwell> E.g if everyone else is bouncing around splattering their hash power everwhere a single attacker with 30% who makes sure their 30% is well coordinated will get ahead of everyone else.
2568 2011-09-13 19:44:41 que123 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2569 2011-09-13 19:44:42 <hippich> hm.
2570 2011-09-13 19:45:36 <hippich> trying to think how to build chain or mesh for this...
2571 2011-09-13 19:45:42 <mtrlt> luke-jr: any project started based on that?
2572 2011-09-13 19:45:48 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: though, in the real world right, shorter timespans would work fine in bitcoin proper since the POW is so consolidated anyways (3 pools == 75%)
2573 2011-09-13 19:45:51 <luke-jr> mtrlt: no, that's what I was suggesting someone do :p
2574 2011-09-13 19:45:55 <jrmithdobbs> s/right/right now/
2575 2011-09-13 19:46:03 <mtrlt> luke-jr: i'd need some more information :-)
2576 2011-09-13 19:46:09 <mtrlt> (to start)
2577 2011-09-13 19:46:15 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: shorter than it currently is, i mean, and that's not saying such a thing would be a good idea, more that the consolidation is a bad one ;p
2578 2011-09-13 19:46:20 <luke-jr> mtrlt: I'd be glad to sit in and suggest things if someone wanted to
2579 2011-09-13 19:46:42 <iddo> so if we have for example 5 hour per block instead of 10 minutes per block, would it be even more secure?
2580 2011-09-13 19:47:18 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: i don't think i'm understanding what your image is trying to depict
2581 2011-09-13 19:47:32 <iddo> just in terms of double-spending attack, i mean
2582 2011-09-13 19:47:35 p0s has joined
2583 2011-09-13 19:47:41 <luke-jr> #meshcc to discuss my pic or other possible new-cryptocurrency concepts
2584 2011-09-13 19:47:44 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: since in reality the txns in the chain are related the same way they're depicted on the right?!
2585 2011-09-13 19:48:08 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: right, except without the block chain, there's no forking or other silly stuff
2586 2011-09-13 19:48:15 <luke-jr> or rather, forking is natural and expected
2587 2011-09-13 19:48:26 <jrmithdobbs> but that means everyone sending a txn needs POW
2588 2011-09-13 19:48:47 <jrmithdobbs> which means noone without compute resources can use the system
2589 2011-09-13 19:48:57 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: https://people.xiph.org/~greg/newcc.png  < about as meaningful to me.
2590 2011-09-13 19:49:21 <jrmithdobbs> ya
2591 2011-09-13 19:49:28 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: no, because POW isn't needed necessarily
2592 2011-09-13 19:49:38 <jrmithdobbs> your image just says "how get rid of chain"
2593 2011-09-13 19:49:43 <jrmithdobbs> it doesn't actually propose anything
2594 2011-09-13 19:49:52 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: then you have the sybil problem.
2595 2011-09-13 19:50:25 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: maybe flesh out your idea into a short paper instead of a nonsensical image?
2596 2011-09-13 19:50:33 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: too much time
2597 2011-09-13 19:51:02 <jrmithdobbs> because what you're saying is hard to understand, and if it's what you seem to be it has huge holes that are hard to point out since you've not explicitly said anything
2598 2011-09-13 19:51:11 <gmaxwell> Ideas are a dime a dozen, plans are harder, and engineering harder tool.
2599 2011-09-13 19:51:14 <gmaxwell> er too.
2600 2011-09-13 19:51:34 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, that has significant implications for the time complexity of verifying a transaction
2601 2011-09-13 19:51:44 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: speaking of ideas, i've got a working prototype of that one i was discussing
2602 2011-09-13 19:51:53 <gmaxwell> I could sit around and constantly spew new and at least semi-novel cryptocurrency ideas for as long as you'd care to listen, but the real work is in figuring out the details.
2603 2011-09-13 19:51:55 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: but have found some flaws and need to rework it a bit ;p
2604 2011-09-13 19:52:02 <jrmithdobbs> think i've got solutions though
2605 2011-09-13 19:52:54 <yebyen> i think that bitcoin actually works like the picture on the right just as much as the picture on the left...
2606 2011-09-13 19:53:12 <jrmithdobbs> yebyen: ya that's what i said
2607 2011-09-13 19:53:19 <jrmithdobbs> heh
2608 2011-09-13 19:53:32 <yebyen> since you need multiple inputs to make a bigger value (combine them)
2609 2011-09-13 19:53:34 <yebyen> lol
2610 2011-09-13 19:53:58 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: verifying a transaction would be totally different
2611 2011-09-13 19:54:11 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: instead of confirmations, you'd have % of new transactions approving it
2612 2011-09-13 19:54:12 <yebyen> i've started to talk about "bitcoin envelopes" with people who don't seem to understand how money works
2613 2011-09-13 19:54:57 <yebyen> since they also think that bitcoin is beyond them
2614 2011-09-13 19:55:10 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: also your system as depicted by that picture, means all of the currency must exist up front
2615 2011-09-13 19:56:48 <copumpkin> I'll take it all
2616 2011-09-13 19:56:51 <copumpkin> and will hand it out to the worthy
2617 2011-09-13 19:58:09 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: no, it's simply not discussed by that pic ;)
2618 2011-09-13 19:58:26 <jrmithdobbs> i like gmaxwell's better
2619 2011-09-13 19:58:45 <jrmithdobbs> in his it's quite obvious that the existence of the money comes from the stargate
2620 2011-09-13 19:59:03 <jrmithdobbs> much easier to understand
2621 2011-09-13 19:59:08 <helo> hah
2622 2011-09-13 20:00:04 jimpsson has joined
2623 2011-09-13 20:00:04 <jrmithdobbs> the real question is, how do you keep the goa'uld out of the system?
2624 2011-09-13 20:00:08 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: sure and then I just startup 1000 sybil nodes that spew txn and confirm the ones I want confirmed and ignore the ones I don't want confirmed.
2625 2011-09-13 20:00:10 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: please address this design flaw asap
2626 2011-09-13 20:00:16 jimpsson has left ()
2627 2011-09-13 20:00:43 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: by using 512 bit addresses, then they can't manage to find the addreses of any friendly transactions.
2628 2011-09-13 20:01:09 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i dunno they seem to have vast brute forcing powers, they've been at this for eons man
2629 2011-09-13 20:01:21 <jrmithdobbs> maybe we should use 8192bit just to be safe
2630 2011-09-13 20:02:15 JackStorm has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2631 2011-09-13 20:02:44 piuk has joined
2632 2011-09-13 20:04:20 zamgo_ is now known as zamgo
2633 2011-09-13 20:09:54 <tower> http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/13/high-school-student-pitches-reactos-project-to-russian-president/
2634 2011-09-13 20:12:57 kakobreklaaa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2635 2011-09-13 20:14:07 kakobrekla has joined
2636 2011-09-13 20:14:44 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2637 2011-09-13 20:14:45 larsivi has joined
2638 2011-09-13 20:15:33 ThomasV has joined
2639 2011-09-13 20:15:48 <Lopuz> jrmithdobbs, goa-uld's are the good guys
2640 2011-09-13 20:15:52 <Lopuz> didnt you get that?
2641 2011-09-13 20:16:54 <jrmithdobbs> out nerded
2642 2011-09-13 20:17:03 <jrmithdobbs> so ashamed ;p
2643 2011-09-13 20:18:03 log0s has quit (Quit: leaving)
2644 2011-09-13 20:18:05 DontMindMe has joined
2645 2011-09-13 20:18:52 huk has joined
2646 2011-09-13 20:20:00 <Lopuz> evil guys are those roswell aliens
2647 2011-09-13 20:20:54 agricocb has joined
2648 2011-09-13 20:24:17 <jrmithdobbs> anyone know of any mailling list/etc threads discussing dnscurve?
2649 2011-09-13 20:28:11 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2650 2011-09-13 20:29:50 MUILTFN has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2651 2011-09-13 20:30:02 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik master * r53c6c12 / locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/bitcoin.po :
2652 2011-09-13 20:30:02 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Merge pull request #512 from paraipanakos/master
2653 2011-09-13 20:30:02 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Spanish translation update - http://git.io/M80k4g
2654 2011-09-13 20:34:31 gavinandresen has joined
2655 2011-09-13 20:35:08 Cory has quit ()
2656 2011-09-13 20:35:32 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
2657 2011-09-13 20:35:35 dibbs has joined
2658 2011-09-13 20:37:25 Clipse has joined
2659 2011-09-13 20:38:42 iocor has joined
2660 2011-09-13 20:38:43 iocor has quit (Changing host)
2661 2011-09-13 20:38:43 iocor has joined
2662 2011-09-13 20:40:32 <joepie91> contribooting: http://cryto.net/projects/bitcoin-poster/
2663 2011-09-13 20:41:21 log0s has joined
2664 2011-09-13 20:43:19 <hippich> joepie91, nice =)
2665 2011-09-13 20:43:20 Titeuf_87 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
2666 2011-09-13 20:43:30 <joepie91> need ideas for more templates though
2667 2011-09-13 20:43:36 testx0r has joined
2668 2011-09-13 20:43:38 copumpkin is now known as frownyface
2669 2011-09-13 20:43:42 frownyface is now known as copumpkin
2670 2011-09-13 20:44:32 testx0r has quit (Client Quit)
2671 2011-09-13 20:44:54 testx0r has joined
2672 2011-09-13 20:45:57 HaltingState has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2673 2011-09-13 20:48:51 piuk has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2674 2011-09-13 20:49:44 wuzel2 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2675 2011-09-13 20:50:22 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2676 2011-09-13 20:50:35 wuzel has joined
2677 2011-09-13 20:51:43 shockdiode has joined
2678 2011-09-13 20:51:43 shockdiode has quit (Changing host)
2679 2011-09-13 20:51:43 shockdiode has joined
2680 2011-09-13 20:52:33 ghimli has quit (Quit: Wychodzi)
2681 2011-09-13 20:52:51 Beremat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2682 2011-09-13 20:53:33 que123 has joined
2683 2011-09-13 20:54:23 Beremat has joined
2684 2011-09-13 20:55:53 num1 has joined
2685 2011-09-13 20:57:55 AnnihilaT is now known as AnniGONE
2686 2011-09-13 20:58:19 MUILTFN has joined
2687 2011-09-13 20:59:57 cande has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2688 2011-09-13 21:01:06 normanrichards has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2689 2011-09-13 21:04:59 rlifchitz has quit (Quit: "I never worry about action, but only about inaction" (W. Churchill))
2690 2011-09-13 21:06:37 rlifchitz has joined
2691 2011-09-13 21:06:38 rlifchitz has quit (Changing host)
2692 2011-09-13 21:06:38 rlifchitz has joined
2693 2011-09-13 21:07:47 fnord0 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2694 2011-09-13 21:09:40 <cjdelisle> re the timejacking attacks, wouldn't it make the most sense to: 1. warn the user via the gui about the clock skew between the system time and network time, 2. when there are plenty of connections, disconnect from the nodes whose clocks are the furthest out and 3. if it is detected that the OS has NTP enabled, disconnect from the nodes whose time is the furthest from the *system* time instead.
2695 2011-09-13 21:11:33 Tim7 has quit ()
2696 2011-09-13 21:11:58 <tcatm> it's probably a good idea to find a way to have a reliable timesource instead of relying on the bitcoin network
2697 2011-09-13 21:12:05 <cjdelisle> This makes sybil attacks harder to recover from because if the time can be dragged out far enough then it will never connect to an honest node but sybil attacks are hard to begin with and you have to already have a node isolated in order for it to work.
2698 2011-09-13 21:12:46 iocor has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
2699 2011-09-13 21:13:50 <cjdelisle> If the user has NTP enabled then that's awesome and that node should be much stricter since it pretty much knows that it is correct, still the network time agreement is important to network resiliency IMO.
2700 2011-09-13 21:14:00 cjdelisle has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
2701 2011-09-13 21:14:48 <gavinandresen> What is the simplest possible secure solution?
2702 2011-09-13 21:14:49 <tcatm> the user could have a different reliable time source (like a GPS receiver)
2703 2011-09-13 21:15:42 <gavinandresen> What if bitcoin just assumed the user was running a system with an accurate clock?  What would happen?
2704 2011-09-13 21:15:56 <gavinandresen> (running through the thought experiment....)
2705 2011-09-13 21:16:02 iocor has joined
2706 2011-09-13 21:16:31 erle- has joined
2707 2011-09-13 21:16:40 <gavinandresen> If their clock was far off, bitcoin would ignore new-block messages.  So maybe if it sees X new-block messages with bad timestamps it warns the user that their clock is probably wrong.
2708 2011-09-13 21:16:43 <tcatm> for users only sending/receiving transactions nothing bad should happen as they basically use the blockchain as a time source
2709 2011-09-13 21:16:52 irssi has joined
2710 2011-09-13 21:17:03 irssi is now known as cjdelisle
2711 2011-09-13 21:18:08 TD is now known as TD2
2712 2011-09-13 21:18:31 <gavinandresen> I don't really care about miners who are running on systems with out-of-sync clocks; worst case their blocks get rejected by the network, and they'll quickly learn to run ntp (or get a gps receiver or....)
2713 2011-09-13 21:18:53 Litt has joined
2714 2011-09-13 21:19:15 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: the flaw is the assumption that in-sync clock allows one to use the correct time header value
2715 2011-09-13 21:19:34 <gavinandresen> I have no idea what that means luke-jr
2716 2011-09-13 21:19:54 <luke-jr> it means whoever decided 32 bits was sufficient for nonce is to blame
2717 2011-09-13 21:19:59 <tcatm> can we calculate difficulty without timestamps?
2718 2011-09-13 21:20:04 <luke-jr> cuz it isn't.
2719 2011-09-13 21:20:57 <luke-jr> therefore, the time header has to be abused for more bits
2720 2011-09-13 21:21:00 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: okey doke....   how much wiggle room do pools need to play with time to get enough extranonce-equivalent ?
2721 2011-09-13 21:21:06 devon_hillard has joined
2722 2011-09-13 21:21:31 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: exponential as pool sizes go up I guess?
2723 2011-09-13 21:21:38 <nanotube> tcatm: since difficulty is about targeting a particular block rate, i don't think so. you can't determining the rate, without knowing anything about time.
2724 2011-09-13 21:21:39 <gmaxwell> 120*nonce is a lot of extra space, but not much loss of sync.
2725 2011-09-13 21:22:03 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: but then you have to disable rollnonce on the miners
2726 2011-09-13 21:22:17 agricocb has joined
2727 2011-09-13 21:22:37 <nanotube> luke-jr: why not just stuff whatever you want into the coinbase?
2728 2011-09-13 21:22:39 cande has joined
2729 2011-09-13 21:22:44 <luke-jr> nanotube: more work
2730 2011-09-13 21:22:44 <nanotube> that gives you all the nonce space you need
2731 2011-09-13 21:22:58 que123 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2732 2011-09-13 21:23:01 <tcatm> nanotube: yes. hrm, maybe it might be someting worth to explore for a bitcoin successor
2733 2011-09-13 21:23:13 <luke-jr> it takes seconds to generate new merkle roots every block
2734 2011-09-13 21:23:23 normanrichards has joined
2735 2011-09-13 21:23:32 <tcatm> optimize the merkle root algorithm?
2736 2011-09-13 21:23:35 <nanotube> luke-jr: why not farm the work off to the clients?
2737 2011-09-13 21:23:53 <jrmithdobbs> then you have to trust the clients?
2738 2011-09-13 21:23:59 <jrmithdobbs> which is no bueno
2739 2011-09-13 21:24:05 <jrmithdobbs> obviously
2740 2011-09-13 21:24:12 <luke-jr> then you have to verify the shares
2741 2011-09-13 21:24:18 <cande> is there a speed differance in paying with bitcoin if you pay more transfere fee?
2742 2011-09-13 21:24:26 <tcatm> I'm sure you could cache parts of the tree
2743 2011-09-13 21:24:28 <jrmithdobbs> cande: depends
2744 2011-09-13 21:24:29 <luke-jr> cande: yes
2745 2011-09-13 21:24:34 <cande> how?
2746 2011-09-13 21:24:38 <nanotube> cande: depends on tx size and input age
2747 2011-09-13 21:24:41 <nanotube> ;;bc,wiki transaction fees
2748 2011-09-13 21:24:42 <gribble> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees | Aug 30, 2011 ... Transaction fees may be included with any transfer of bitcoins from one address to another. At the moment, many transactions are typically ...
2749 2011-09-13 21:24:59 <luke-jr> cande: generally, whether your transaction gets accepted in the next block or has to wait around
2750 2011-09-13 21:25:40 <cande> and next block, that is the new block generation that miners do?
2751 2011-09-13 21:25:46 <luke-jr> yes
2752 2011-09-13 21:26:05 <cande> will there always be new blocks every 10:th minute?
2753 2011-09-13 21:26:12 <luke-jr> about
2754 2011-09-13 21:26:19 <gmaxwell> cande: on average.
2755 2011-09-13 21:26:35 TD[gone] has joined
2756 2011-09-13 21:26:36 <gmaxwell> Though sometimes a new one comes in a second.. and sometimes it takes 40 minutes.
2757 2011-09-13 21:26:59 AStove has quit ()
2758 2011-09-13 21:27:00 <cande> how many transferes can be included in each new block?
2759 2011-09-13 21:27:28 wardearia has joined
2760 2011-09-13 21:27:42 TD[gone] has quit (Client Quit)
2761 2011-09-13 21:27:47 <cande> nanotube: input age?
2762 2011-09-13 21:27:51 <gmaxwell> Currently the clients cap the blocks size, so about ~4000 though it's expected that the cap will be increased once the traffic justifies it.
2763 2011-09-13 21:28:08 <cande> ah..
2764 2011-09-13 21:28:57 <cande> and the miners, can they choocse to include transferes or not?
2765 2011-09-13 21:29:01 TD[gone] has joined
2766 2011-09-13 21:29:09 gp5st has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2767 2011-09-13 21:29:45 TD[gone] has quit (Client Quit)
2768 2011-09-13 21:29:52 TD[gone] has joined
2769 2011-09-13 21:29:52 TD[gone] is now known as TD
2770 2011-09-13 21:29:57 <cjdelisle> A time agreement protocol could be as dumb as: use mean time from all peers, if NTP enabled, periodically disconnect from peer who has worst skew from system time, otherwise periodicly disconnect from peer who has worst skew against network time.
2771 2011-09-13 21:30:16 Litt has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2772 2011-09-13 21:30:40 <cjdelisle> Despite being pretty dumb it would lead to a core group of ntp enabled nodes whose times are really really close to correct
2773 2011-09-13 21:31:04 <cande> or several groups
2774 2011-09-13 21:31:16 <cande> ?
2775 2011-09-13 21:31:42 TD2 has quit (Quit: TD2)
2776 2011-09-13 21:32:49 <gavinandresen> cjdelisle: that sounds complicated and maybe subject to sybil attacks...
2777 2011-09-13 21:33:04 <phantomcircuit> i was about to say
2778 2011-09-13 21:33:36 brunner has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2779 2011-09-13 21:33:39 <gmaxwell> closing the gross vulnerabilties would be nice.
2780 2011-09-13 21:33:41 <imsaguy> and its possible that over time, the time could end up just being really really wrong as it drifts
2781 2011-09-13 21:33:57 <gmaxwell> Right now if I have a lot of IPs I can skew your clock however I like by just connecting to you from each.
2782 2011-09-13 21:34:01 <cjdelisle> It would allow an already working sybil attack to be continued
2783 2011-09-13 21:34:09 <gmaxwell> Because we don't forget adjustments ever.
2784 2011-09-13 21:34:18 <gmaxwell> And we take corrections from nodes that connected to us.
2785 2011-09-13 21:34:20 <dikidera> CPUs generate pseudo-random stuff right? does that mean its the same for the "rand0m" getworks too?
2786 2011-09-13 21:34:34 <gavinandresen> I'm still thinking simply ripping out all the clock-adjusting code is the right thing to do.
2787 2011-09-13 21:35:17 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: the consequence of that may be that just by owning a couple NTP services you have substantial control over the bitcoin network.
2788 2011-09-13 21:35:30 <gmaxwell> Since a lot of ntp user are solesorcing their time from single parties.
2789 2011-09-13 21:35:45 <Eliel> gavinandresen: wouldn't it be enough to just reduce the time skew tolerance?
2790 2011-09-13 21:35:51 <gmaxwell> e.g. on my laptop:
2791 2011-09-13 21:35:51 <gmaxwell> server 0.fedora.pool.ntp.org iburst
2792 2011-09-13 21:35:51 <gmaxwell> server 1.fedora.pool.ntp.org iburst
2793 2011-09-13 21:35:51 <gmaxwell> server 2.fedora.pool.ntp.org iburst
2794 2011-09-13 21:35:51 <gmaxwell> server 3.fedora.pool.ntp.org iburst
2795 2011-09-13 21:35:54 <luke-jr> time skew is needed
2796 2011-09-13 21:35:58 <imsaguy> reduce the tolerance
2797 2011-09-13 21:36:15 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: so buy a gps receiver.  But then you've got to trust the US government.....
2798 2011-09-13 21:36:30 <jrmithdobbs> those servers are trusting the us gov anyways
2799 2011-09-13 21:36:32 RAWRwins254 has joined
2800 2011-09-13 21:36:35 <jrmithdobbs> but w/e
2801 2011-09-13 21:36:36 <luke-jr> what is time?
2802 2011-09-13 21:36:37 <imsaguy> at the end of the day, the 'official' time ends up coming from one of ajust a few sources, regardless of ntp
2803 2011-09-13 21:36:44 <gmaxwell> Trimbletruetimes show up cheap on ebay, I have a pair (though not on my laptop! :) )
2804 2011-09-13 21:36:57 <cande> luke-jr time is 12.00 when the sun is in zenith
2805 2011-09-13 21:37:02 <k9quaint> the bitcoin client should validate based on the curvature of space instead
2806 2011-09-13 21:37:03 <gavinandresen> Yup, as long as everybody agrees about the official time ( to within a couple minutes) there's no issue.
2807 2011-09-13 21:37:03 <cande> ;)
2808 2011-09-13 21:37:08 <gavinandresen> Right?
2809 2011-09-13 21:37:14 d1g1t4l has joined
2810 2011-09-13 21:37:23 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: no issue right now, I think
2811 2011-09-13 21:37:29 <dikidera> CPUs generate pseudo-random stuff right? does that mean its the same for the "rand0m" getworks too?
2812 2011-09-13 21:37:36 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: if you start reducing the tolerance, there's an issue ;)
2813 2011-09-13 21:37:38 CutAndPaste has joined
2814 2011-09-13 21:37:39 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2815 2011-09-13 21:38:02 <cjdelisle> Dont the timing attacks require bringing nodes online whose time is grosely out of whack?
2816 2011-09-13 21:38:11 <gmaxwell> In any case, I think moving off network time in one step is probably a bad idea even if doing so is the ultimate goal.. what should be done is that the worst flaws should be fixed and the allowable network adjustment should be reduced incrementally over many releases.
2817 2011-09-13 21:38:27 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: you mean making a one line adjustment to the software?
2818 2011-09-13 21:38:28 erle64- has joined
2819 2011-09-13 21:39:04 <cande> why not use an internal time, that then is translated to "normal" time
2820 2011-09-13 21:39:10 <luke-jr> define time
2821 2011-09-13 21:39:11 <cande> if needed..
2822 2011-09-13 21:39:15 <cjdelisle> I'm just asking, do all of the attacks require bringing online nodes with system time thats way off?
2823 2011-09-13 21:39:24 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: of course not
2824 2011-09-13 21:39:41 <gavinandresen> cjdelisle: no, the block-chain attacks on the other networks were putting bogus timestamps in generated blocks
2825 2011-09-13 21:39:54 erle- has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2826 2011-09-13 21:39:56 <gavinandresen> (to manipulate the difficulty calculation)
2827 2011-09-13 21:40:07 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: the current limits already prevent totally bogus timestamps
2828 2011-09-13 21:40:24 <luke-jr> afaik the only problem is when those limits are bypassed
2829 2011-09-13 21:40:28 <gavinandresen> There are two problems I know about:  "timejacking" and the manipulate-difficulty problem.
2830 2011-09-13 21:40:30 <luke-jr> eg, initial blockchain download
2831 2011-09-13 21:40:43 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: That someone can skeq the time by a few percent per difficulty cycle is a pretty much a non issue IMO.
2832 2011-09-13 21:40:44 tcoppi has joined
2833 2011-09-13 21:40:48 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2834 2011-09-13 21:40:53 <cjdelisle> The really old fork attack is pretty trivial to defend against by locking in blocks.
2835 2011-09-13 21:41:06 <jrmithdobbs> the fact that the memory pool for time never gets flushed is a dos issue on long running nodes, though
2836 2011-09-13 21:41:07 TD is now known as TD[gone]
2837 2011-09-13 21:41:08 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: no, there's an off-by-one-error in the difficulty calculations that gives miners an incentive to play with times of blocks at the beginning of difficulty adjustment periods
2838 2011-09-13 21:41:17 TD[gone] has quit (Quit: Coyote finally caught me)
2839 2011-09-13 21:41:18 <cjdelisle> I feel bad for realsolid though because he doesn't have that option.
2840 2011-09-13 21:41:25 TD[gone] has joined
2841 2011-09-13 21:41:31 TD[gone] is now known as TD
2842 2011-09-13 21:41:39 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: right, so lets fix that.
2843 2011-09-13 21:41:41 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: ok, so fix that one?
2844 2011-09-13 21:41:45 <Joric> is it possible to run bitcoinj as a java applet? it says security exception, i can't figure out why
2845 2011-09-13 21:41:48 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: no reason to change it all?
2846 2011-09-13 21:41:53 <jrmithdobbs> combine that with ipv6 using current addr.dat code and you could probably swat down individual nodes like flies
2847 2011-09-13 21:41:53 <k9quaint> cjdelisle: don't worry, Realsolid has declared all things about solidcoin to be amazing
2848 2011-09-13 21:41:57 <dikidera> gavinandresen:where exactly in the source are the getworks generated? i mean prior to returning the array to the miner
2849 2011-09-13 21:42:03 <TD> Joric: it needs local disk access at least
2850 2011-09-13 21:42:09 <TD> Joric: depending on how you build your applet
2851 2011-09-13 21:42:13 <Joric> i've created a new applet and added bitcoinj.jar
2852 2011-09-13 21:42:40 rdponticelli_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2853 2011-09-13 21:42:44 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: sure. did you read my email to bitcoin -dev?
2854 2011-09-13 21:42:58 <Joric> i don't need disk functions, just dns discovery and transaction propagation
2855 2011-09-13 21:43:03 <TD> Joric: i think you're the first to try this. good luck!
2856 2011-09-13 21:43:06 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: i thought fixing that would cause a fork if you can't convince luke/tycho to upgrade quickly was the whole issue?
2857 2011-09-13 21:43:17 <TD> you probably need to request permissions for networking
2858 2011-09-13 21:43:20 <jrmithdobbs> neither of which likes to upgrade
2859 2011-09-13 21:43:30 <imsaguy> multibit is already running a functional .java wallet
2860 2011-09-13 21:43:30 erle64- is now known as erle-
2861 2011-09-13 21:43:31 <gmaxwell> Yes, but I guess I don't understand why you're focusing on tightening timing instead of just fixing the window.
2862 2011-09-13 21:43:45 <Joric> it says security exception on the very first call on new NetworkParameters()
2863 2011-09-13 21:43:54 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: because changing the diff calc means the big pools need to coordinate upgrade?
2864 2011-09-13 21:43:55 <gavinandresen> Easiest fix for the off-by-one would be to schedule a "you must upgrade by DATE" block-chain fork.  I think that is NOT the way to go.
2865 2011-09-13 21:44:19 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: you fix it to a block number.
2866 2011-09-13 21:44:35 <gmaxwell> and you make it a minimal patch so it's easy to apply.
2867 2011-09-13 21:44:42 <gavinandresen> I'm proposing that blocks with out-of-whack timestamps be 'discouraged' -- not built on, but accepted (so no possibility of a fork)
2868 2011-09-13 21:44:52 MUILTFN has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2869 2011-09-13 21:45:12 <gmaxwell> The problem is that the most important discouragement is the miners, and they're the only ones that can perform the attack.
2870 2011-09-13 21:45:13 <Joric> TD, so i don't have permission for networking by default? that's sad (
2871 2011-09-13 21:45:16 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that doesn't fix anything afaik, and a miner who merges that is simply going to get 99% invalid
2872 2011-09-13 21:45:35 <TD> Joric: i suggest reading the applets tutorial, but maybe rethink using applets entirely? they are disabled by default in many modern browsers
2873 2011-09-13 21:45:38 <TD> as they are a security problem
2874 2011-09-13 21:46:26 <luke-jr> lol
2875 2011-09-13 21:46:27 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: according to the graphs tcatm made, a 10-minute window for accurate block timestamps would be absolutely no problem for miners and pools
2876 2011-09-13 21:46:40 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: what graphs?
2877 2011-09-13 21:46:44 rdponticelli has joined
2878 2011-09-13 21:46:44 <cjdelisle> Joric: actually you can do pretty much anything with an applet including root the computer it runs on.. because thet are a security problem
2879 2011-09-13 21:46:49 <Joric> in fact they are _supported_ in all modern browsers and it's a way faster than downloading/running something
2880 2011-09-13 21:47:06 <tcatm> luke-jr: http://i.imgur.com/sotmB.png
2881 2011-09-13 21:47:08 <TD> they are not supported in chrome
2882 2011-09-13 21:47:11 <gavinandresen> Announcing "new" blocks with old timestamps opens up all sorts of interesting attacks....
2883 2011-09-13 21:47:25 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: fine, so make a nice wide window that won't require any operational changes... and use that to give breathing room for a blockchain requirement six month out.
2884 2011-09-13 21:47:35 <luke-jr> just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it isn't a problem
2885 2011-09-13 21:47:39 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: which checkpoint largely close.
2886 2011-09-13 21:47:46 <luke-jr> and the difficulty goes up usually
2887 2011-09-13 21:47:55 <luke-jr> which means the necessity to play with times does too
2888 2011-09-13 21:48:10 <luke-jr> Joric: not all
2889 2011-09-13 21:48:26 <luke-jr> TD: Google propaganda for NaCl? ;)
2890 2011-09-13 21:48:33 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: that's almost what I'm proposing.  Just no blockchain requirement (I don't think the threat is great enough to justify a potential block-chain split, and modifying difficulty calculation WOULD split the blockchain for any old nodes)
2891 2011-09-13 21:48:39 <TD> :-)
2892 2011-09-13 21:48:46 <luke-jr> Java is more secure than Flash/NaCl at least
2893 2011-09-13 21:49:06 <TD> hard to say, as nacl is so new. but java has a track record of being pretty woeful
2894 2011-09-13 21:49:19 <luke-jr> …
2895 2011-09-13 21:49:20 <TD> it deserved to be disabled. look at the contents of any exploit kit ....
2896 2011-09-13 21:49:23 <gmaxwell> that graph looks to me like the window would need to be ~216 minutes to not discourage any past blocks. No?
2897 2011-09-13 21:49:25 <TD> anyway
2898 2011-09-13 21:49:27 <luke-jr> I've never heard of Java applets being a security issue
2899 2011-09-13 21:49:32 <TD> no?
2900 2011-09-13 21:49:32 <gmaxwell> (is y seconds?)
2901 2011-09-13 21:49:47 <cjdelisle> luke-jr: I talked to a guy who built a botnet with java applets
2902 2011-09-13 21:50:05 <TD> http://isc.sans.edu/diary.html?storyid=9916
2903 2011-09-13 21:50:13 <Joric> TD, so i'm the first who tries to make a java applet out of bitcoinj? that's odd )
2904 2011-09-13 21:50:21 <cjdelisle> I have a jave applet exploit sitting on my disk that someone dropped the link to here IIRC
2905 2011-09-13 21:50:22 <imsaguy> you aren't
2906 2011-09-13 21:50:29 <imsaguy> there's already a java app
2907 2011-09-13 21:50:31 <imsaguy> I said that
2908 2011-09-13 21:50:35 <imsaguy> read up
2909 2011-09-13 21:50:41 <Joric> frankly all i need is to construct, sign and send a transaction via the network
2910 2011-09-13 21:50:49 <luke-jr> TD: bad link
2911 2011-09-13 21:50:59 Beremat has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2912 2011-09-13 21:51:14 <TD> http://secniche.blogspot.com/2011/05/finest-5-java-exploit-on-fire.html
2913 2011-09-13 21:51:16 <TD> anyway
2914 2011-09-13 21:51:17 * TD -> bed
2915 2011-09-13 21:51:18 <Joric> want to make rapid redeem from the private key, within a browser
2916 2011-09-13 21:51:19 TD is now known as TD[gone]
2917 2011-09-13 21:53:08 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: in any case, discouraging at a threshold that has pretty much never been hit before (whatever that is) sounds baiscally okay. But I'm also concerned that if we don't fix it it makes explaining bitcoin's security harder. Since it invalidates my explination of why people can't torque the time in the chain, and leave it depending on the effectiveness of discouragement which in't so black and white.
2918 2011-09-13 21:54:03 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2919 2011-09-13 21:54:08 Beremat has joined
2920 2011-09-13 21:54:28 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: all good, valid arguments...
2921 2011-09-13 21:58:25 <luke-jr> "never been hit before" is only because we've never hit a higher difficulty before…
2922 2011-09-13 22:00:09 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yes, but making the clocks more accurate should greatly reduce the skew to begin with.
2923 2011-09-13 22:00:23 <cjdelisle> re the clock skewing, it makes sense that when a node disconnects the skew from that node should be removed since it's not provably a part of the network.
2924 2011-09-13 22:00:31 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: no, because the skew isn't related to clock accuracy
2925 2011-09-13 22:00:32 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: shouldn't the two issues be addressed separately but possibly at the same time?
2926 2011-09-13 22:00:43 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: part of it is.
2927 2011-09-13 22:00:54 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: eg, lower clock skew variance accepted and bump nonce to 64-128bit?
2928 2011-09-13 22:00:56 <gmaxwell> Or are you telling me that someone incremented their time 14000 time?
2929 2011-09-13 22:00:58 <phantomcircuit> http://imgur.com/WpvKU
2930 2011-09-13 22:01:03 <phantomcircuit> that is very interesting
2931 2011-09-13 22:01:05 <gmaxwell> er times.
2932 2011-09-13 22:01:13 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: possible
2933 2011-09-13 22:01:25 <cjdelisle> It would be nice to warn users about their system time skew from the network as I2P does, I'm pretty sure that I'm ~10 minutes off myself.
2934 2011-09-13 22:01:28 denisx has joined
2935 2011-09-13 22:01:34 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: we do.
2936 2011-09-13 22:01:35 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: wait, 14000? really?
2937 2011-09-13 22:01:47 <cjdelisle> hmm it's not obvious in the gui
2938 2011-09-13 22:01:48 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: though you have to be an hour off to get the warning.
2939 2011-09-13 22:01:53 <cjdelisle> oh I see
2940 2011-09-13 22:02:13 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: Eligius will increment it up to 7200
2941 2011-09-13 22:02:20 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: thats what the maximum of that graph looked like (well more like 13000) vs mediantime.
2942 2011-09-13 22:02:34 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: well, come on, you don't need to do that much.
2943 2011-09-13 22:02:42 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: up to
2944 2011-09-13 22:02:49 <cjdelisle> maybe just a little indicator next to connection count and block count would help people like me get off their lazy asses and fix their clocks.
2945 2011-09-13 22:02:55 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: if I have 7200/120 miners without noncerange support, I do
2946 2011-09-13 22:02:55 Cory has joined
2947 2011-09-13 22:02:55 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: he claims nonce isn't big enough to handle as much getworks without it
2948 2011-09-13 22:03:02 Cory has quit (Changing host)
2949 2011-09-13 22:03:02 Cory has joined
2950 2011-09-13 22:03:07 <jrmithdobbs> as much as requested by current # of users
2951 2011-09-13 22:03:09 <luke-jr> that's only 60
2952 2011-09-13 22:03:32 <luke-jr> so for every 60 miners, one of them has ntime=now+7200
2953 2011-09-13 22:03:37 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: 9 more bits of nonce would be more than enough, and you can get a bit from going backwards in time too.
2954 2011-09-13 22:04:21 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you can't handle doing a few sha256's a second? feh. fix your software stack.
2955 2011-09-13 22:04:44 random_cat has joined
2956 2011-09-13 22:05:40 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it's a few *with* the ntime rolling
2957 2011-09-13 22:05:47 <luke-jr> without it, it's thousands
2958 2011-09-13 22:06:03 <luke-jr> also, I don't want to reinvent bitcoind
2959 2011-09-13 22:06:15 <cronopio> ¿? http://bitcoin.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/bitcoin?revision=252&view=revision
2960 2011-09-13 22:06:40 <luke-jr> cronopio: can't read?
2961 2011-09-13 22:06:50 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: run multiple bitcoinds
2962 2011-09-13 22:07:05 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: not viable without deterministic wallets
2963 2011-09-13 22:07:12 <Joric> cronopio, spanish much?
2964 2011-09-13 22:07:13 <gmaxwell> I can do a millionish sha256/sec on a boring single core with unoptimized software.
2965 2011-09-13 22:07:49 <gavinandresen> cronopio: http://bitcoin.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/bitcoin/trunk/README.txt?view=markup&pathrev=252
2966 2011-09-13 22:07:58 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: increase the keypool to 100,000 and make each node take every nth. key.
2967 2011-09-13 22:08:14 <cronopio> gavinandresen: im sorry
2968 2011-09-13 22:08:23 <gavinandresen> cronopio: no worries
2969 2011-09-13 22:08:24 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: not interested in hacking bitcoind
2970 2011-09-13 22:08:59 <gmaxwell> Oh well. Thats the cost of business. Why should we all suffer from design consequences in the software that ultimately stem from your inability to hack on bitcoin to meet you special needs?
2971 2011-09-13 22:09:15 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: the cost of "business" already far outweighs the little transaction fees I get.
2972 2011-09-13 22:09:33 <luke-jr> I'd sooner shutdown Eligius or fork the blockchain at this point
2973 2011-09-13 22:09:34 <gmaxwell> I didn't mean that to be a personal attack, sorry.
2974 2011-09-13 22:09:40 wirehead has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2975 2011-09-13 22:09:59 <gmaxwell> Then charge, if a free pool isn't viable, it isn't viable.
2976 2011-09-13 22:10:29 <luke-jr> the problem is the design flaws of bitcoin
2977 2011-09-13 22:10:34 <gavinandresen> bitcoind wasn't designed for pools
2978 2011-09-13 22:10:55 <gmaxwell> what gavinandresen said
2979 2011-09-13 22:11:07 <gavinandresen> (... waiting for somebody to snark about bitcoind being designed at all....)
2980 2011-09-13 22:11:20 <gavinandresen> (which is actually pretty true, it has evolved over time....)
2981 2011-09-13 22:11:58 dedeibel has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2982 2011-09-13 22:12:00 <luke-jr> how about redefining the time header to be 20 bits, and extending nonce by 12 bits?
2983 2011-09-13 22:12:10 wuzel has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2984 2011-09-13 22:12:16 wuzel has joined
2985 2011-09-13 22:12:17 <gmaxwell> seriously, the nonce size is _no_ problem, except for random bitcoind scale limits. you have to do ~2 sha-256 operations for every 2^32 mining operations in order to use no ntime rolling at all.
2986 2011-09-13 22:12:26 <gavinandresen> ... and that's one of the problems with scheduling a block-chain split, it opens up debate to fix a zillion things.
2987 2011-09-13 22:12:43 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: moving 12 bits from ntime to nonce doesn't split anything
2988 2011-09-13 22:12:50 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: that problem only grows. The answere has to be to only change ~1 thing at a time.
2989 2011-09-13 22:13:05 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: erm, no. changing more is better than changing few
2990 2011-09-13 22:13:07 d1g1t4l has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2991 2011-09-13 22:13:15 <gmaxwell> Not when the debate never ends.
2992 2011-09-13 22:13:23 <luke-jr> even the smallest change in that area requires a fork. better to change it all at once
2993 2011-09-13 22:13:26 <kinlo> if you want to change the blockheader, increase the nonce field to be 64bit, if you change the time field, change it to 64 bit too to resolve unixtime wraps
2994 2011-09-13 22:13:43 <luke-jr> kinlo: that's a forking change
2995 2011-09-13 22:13:54 <gmaxwell> We could easily agree to fix the difficulty calculation, but getting consensus on $OTHERTHING will inevitably be hard.
2996 2011-09-13 22:13:55 <kinlo> yep, so if you do it, do it like that
2997 2011-09-13 22:14:01 <luke-jr> changing time/nonce to 20/44 bits is non-forking
2998 2011-09-13 22:14:08 ymirhotfoot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2999 2011-09-13 22:14:09 vrag_naroda has joined
3000 2011-09-13 22:14:31 <kinlo> it is forking, you will change the way the clients need to interprete the timestamp
3001 2011-09-13 22:14:39 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: no it's not. .. because if you don't shift the meaning of the time you don't solve the time skewing attacks.
3002 2011-09-13 22:14:42 <luke-jr> kinlo: no, you don't.
3003 2011-09-13 22:15:20 <kinlo> luke-jr: the timestamp is used by the client to see if the block has a valid time...
3004 2011-09-13 22:15:30 vragnaroda has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3005 2011-09-13 22:15:31 <luke-jr> kinlo: and the 12 bits shifts are precision that we never had
3006 2011-09-13 22:15:47 <luke-jr> shifted*
3007 2011-09-13 22:16:07 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you're not even proposing a change, you're _already_ using those bits for nonce.
3008 2011-09-13 22:16:23 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: sure
3009 2011-09-13 22:16:36 <gmaxwell> And this does nothing to prevent the skew attacks.
3010 2011-09-13 22:16:37 <kinlo> luke-jr: 12 bits is more then 1 hour, and like gmaxwell says, you are already using it
3011 2011-09-13 22:17:09 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: never said it did.
3012 2011-09-13 22:17:23 <luke-jr> messing with the time rules doesn't have anything to do with skew attacks
3013 2011-09-13 22:17:33 <gmaxwell> Then you're totally @#$@ offtopic. There is no need for a "change" that changes nothing and fixes nothing.
3014 2011-09-13 22:17:41 <gmaxwell> Yes it does.
3015 2011-09-13 22:17:51 <kinlo> luke-jr: in any case, if miners would put correct time in the time field, then you still need to do 2^32 hashes per second...
3016 2011-09-13 22:17:56 Eradikater has joined
3017 2011-09-13 22:18:03 <gmaxwell> if the forwarding rules make skewed blocks not get forwarded/extended then the attack is strongly discouraged.
3018 2011-09-13 22:18:09 <jrmithdobbs> how does it not? the broken time rules is part of what makes the skew attacks possible?
3019 2011-09-13 22:18:19 <luke-jr> kinlo: we do far more than that
3020 2011-09-13 22:18:58 <kinlo> luke-jr: true, but the extranonce is there to handle those cases (and not to put prayers in, but to generate other merkle tree root's)
3021 2011-09-13 22:19:20 <luke-jr> kinlo: extranonce is too slow
3022 2011-09-13 22:20:00 <kinlo> yeah, so you need to increase the nonce field, but that's a fork
3023 2011-09-13 22:20:38 <dibbs> anyone here know if there are haskell/erlang alt clients floating around?
3024 2011-09-13 22:21:09 <kinlo> in any case
3025 2011-09-13 22:21:50 <kinlo> can someone clarify for me: the longest blockchain is the blockchain with the most combined difficulty values right?  not the blockchain with the most blocks in it
3026 2011-09-13 22:22:02 <gmaxwell> kinlo: right.
3027 2011-09-13 22:22:11 <kinlo> so the time attack can only happen with 51% hash power
3028 2011-09-13 22:22:21 <kinlo> which is currently in any case a problem
3029 2011-09-13 22:22:47 <gmaxwell> well, you can make a fork and then drive the diff down, then do a netwok attack where you isolate node and feed them your fork.
3030 2011-09-13 22:23:04 <luke-jr> you can do that regardless
3031 2011-09-13 22:23:19 CaptainDDL has quit (Quit: I leave my first mate in charge!)
3032 2011-09-13 22:23:34 <gmaxwell> Yes, but it's very hard to drive the difficulty down without the bug.
3033 2011-09-13 22:23:40 tomat has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3034 2011-09-13 22:23:43 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
3035 2011-09-13 22:24:04 <kinlo> if you have a pool you could abuse
3036 2011-09-13 22:24:08 <gmaxwell> esp since you can't drive your fake chain far into the future since your victims will ignore it.
3037 2011-09-13 22:24:56 <kinlo> I'm really wondering what solidcoin will produce as a solution to that hack :)
3038 2011-09-13 22:25:13 <kinlo> in a way, the guy behind it is funny to watch :)
3039 2011-09-13 22:26:44 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: so what exactly are you complaining about besides your inability to scale out for load?
3040 2011-09-13 22:26:58 kish has quit (Quit: fuck off)
3041 2011-09-13 22:27:04 <jrmithdobbs> because that's not a bitcoind issue that's a you not building infastructure properly issue
3042 2011-09-13 22:27:14 <jrmithdobbs> (and don't say it's not because deepbit proves you wrong)
3043 2011-09-13 22:27:29 <luke-jr> running multiple bitcoinds = cheating
3044 2011-09-13 22:27:55 <kinlo> why is running multiple bitcoind's cheating?
3045 2011-09-13 22:28:00 <jrmithdobbs> yes, scaling horizontally is absolutely unheard of in IT infrastructure
3046 2011-09-13 22:28:15 <jrmithdobbs> so that really is your only complaint?
3047 2011-09-13 22:28:17 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
3048 2011-09-13 22:28:28 vrag_naroda is now known as vragnaroda
3049 2011-09-13 22:28:47 * luke-jr ignores troll
3050 2011-09-13 22:29:12 <jrmithdobbs> you're the only one complaining about this issue, other pools have found ways to make it work
3051 2011-09-13 22:29:15 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: wth, it's a perfectly valid point. It's the obvious solution which everyone else has used without little/no complaint.
3052 2011-09-13 22:29:24 <jrmithdobbs> and *I'm* the one trolling?
3053 2011-09-13 22:29:37 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: other pools don't do the same things
3054 2011-09-13 22:29:47 <phantomcircuit> lol
3055 2011-09-13 22:29:59 <gmaxwell> Shit, I do that for solo mining. I didn't even think of it as a scaling strategy. "Oh, RPCs are hanging, start two more bitcoinds, done"
3056 2011-09-13 22:30:01 <jrmithdobbs> so your design doesn't work, and other's do, so other's designs are broken?
3057 2011-09-13 22:30:05 <phantomcircuit> it should be possible to do pretty much anything bitcoin related with a single instance of bitcoind
3058 2011-09-13 22:30:11 CaptainDDL has joined
3059 2011-09-13 22:30:33 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: other designs don't support the same functionality
3060 2011-09-13 22:30:33 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: it absolutely should, but what he's complaining about has very little to do with the issue being discussed
3061 2011-09-13 22:30:38 <phantomcircuit> like i find it hilarious that mtgox needs a pool of bitcoind's
3062 2011-09-13 22:30:48 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: MtGox has custom code
3063 2011-09-13 22:30:51 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, oh you're talking about eligius
3064 2011-09-13 22:30:54 <kinlo> yeah, but if one bitcoind doesn't scale, what's wrong of having multiple bitcoind?
3065 2011-09-13 22:31:02 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: your design has a single point of failure that requires synchronisity at a time-critical moment
3066 2011-09-13 22:31:03 <gmaxwell> Well, bitcoind should be improved.
3067 2011-09-13 22:31:06 <kinlo> I'm running multiple bitcoind's
3068 2011-09-13 22:31:09 <luke-jr> kinlo: I'd have to hack them to work together
3069 2011-09-13 22:31:12 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: ever consider that that's why other people aren't doing it? because it doesn't scale?
3070 2011-09-13 22:31:13 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, he has said multiple times that he is using a pool of bitcoind's
3071 2011-09-13 22:31:34 leodocosta has joined
3072 2011-09-13 22:31:45 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: he probably runs into the exptime coin selection for uncomfirmed self txn.
3073 2011-09-13 22:31:49 <kinlo> luke-jr: so because you're doing special payouts, you have troubles scaling... don't really see why others should have the same problems...
3074 2011-09-13 22:31:54 abragin has quit ()
3075 2011-09-13 22:31:57 <jrmithdobbs> bitcoind should definitely be improved, but, there are other issues in bitcoind that would improve your use case in this area besides increasing nonce size which is your hack to work around the current problems
3076 2011-09-13 22:32:00 <jrmithdobbs> is my point
3077 2011-09-13 22:32:09 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, what?
3078 2011-09-13 22:32:14 <kinlo> we use several backends
3079 2011-09-13 22:32:21 <kinlo> with automatic failovers
3080 2011-09-13 22:32:29 <kinlo> several bitcoind's
3081 2011-09-13 22:32:58 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, exponential time for coin selection for unconfirmed self transactions?
3082 2011-09-13 22:33:17 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: if you have a bunch of unconfimed change txn in you wallet (e.g. from breaking up single big inputs, like mtgox does due to offline wallet usage) then the cpu cost of selecting inputs grows exponentially with the number of unconfirmed txn in your wallet.
3083 2011-09-13 22:33:37 <phantomcircuit> oh
3084 2011-09-13 22:34:11 <gmaxwell> because the input selection traverses the whole chain of of unconfirmed inputs to find the first txn that isn't yours to see if its confirmed or not, and it does this for every input without memoization.
3085 2011-09-13 22:34:16 <phantomcircuit> which gets reset when there is a block
3086 2011-09-13 22:34:44 <gmaxwell> it doesn't memoize it at all as far as I recall, unless someone added that lately.
3087 2011-09-13 22:35:00 <gmaxwell> There are some caches that get reset but this traversal doesn't use them.
3088 2011-09-13 22:35:05 BurtyBB has joined
3089 2011-09-13 22:35:20 <gmaxwell> look at the IsConfirmed code for IsMine txn.
3090 2011-09-13 22:35:39 <phantomcircuit> i didn't understand what you were talking about at first
3091 2011-09-13 22:35:58 <gmaxwell> I noticed it while torture testing the encrypted wallet code— had txn taking two minutes to select inputs. :)
3092 2011-09-13 22:36:13 <gmaxwell> becuase I had a node offline and it was just constantly respending its own outputs.
3093 2011-09-13 22:36:28 <gmaxwell> I think that only required a chain 30ish deep to hit times like that though.
3094 2011-09-13 22:36:28 BurtyBB has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
3095 2011-09-13 22:36:37 <phantomcircuit> yeah but how many unconfirmed transactions did it take before it took 2 minutes to do the selection?
3096 2011-09-13 22:36:46 BurtyBB has joined
3097 2011-09-13 22:37:17 <phantomcircuit> i believe his web interface directly interacts with bitcoin for things like verifying a bitcoin address as valid
3098 2011-09-13 22:37:52 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3099 2011-09-13 22:38:09 <gmaxwell> not that many... the problem is that it checks every input, and every input traverses the whole tree... and when it finally hits the first not-mine txn it check that its valid (e.g does hashing and signature validation)
3100 2011-09-13 22:38:11 BurtyB has joined
3101 2011-09-13 22:39:13 BurtyB2 has joined
3102 2011-09-13 22:39:57 erus` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3103 2011-09-13 22:40:01 <gmaxwell> But mtgox is in no position to throw stones scaability wise— they could prevent that situation by (1) not aggregating up all their input into single big ones, and (2) delaying payments by a few seconds in order to groom them into nice sendmanys.  Both would be generally helpful for the network as well as be less burdensom on their wallets.
3104 2011-09-13 22:40:01 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: so it's an O(n^n-1) operation which has multiple hashing steps, basically
3105 2011-09-13 22:41:03 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: Yes, roughly.
3106 2011-09-13 22:41:05 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: but that code could definitely be improved, that's awful
3107 2011-09-13 22:41:09 erle- has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3108 2011-09-13 22:41:25 CaptainDDL has quit (Quit: I leave my first mate in charge!)
3109 2011-09-13 22:41:40 <kinlo> yeah, why do people do not use sendmany for payouts
3110 2011-09-13 22:41:40 <gmaxwell> It mostly only matters in really spammy cases where you're blasting out txn much faster than the network can confirm them and thus constantly respending your own change.
3111 2011-09-13 22:41:43 zamgo has left ()
3112 2011-09-13 22:41:44 BurtyBB has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3113 2011-09-13 22:41:49 <gmaxwell> kinlo: because they'd have to have a queue.
3114 2011-09-13 22:41:58 <jrmithdobbs> definitely see how you could end up with 2+ minute waits when you couple that with the locking madness
3115 2011-09-13 22:42:03 <gmaxwell> instead of calling the payment directly inside the instance that got the request.
3116 2011-09-13 22:42:07 <kinlo> yeah, but if you can program a little bit you can program a queue
3117 2011-09-13 22:42:08 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Copywight 2007 Elmer Fudd. All wights wesewved.)
3118 2011-09-13 22:42:23 piuk has joined
3119 2011-09-13 22:42:25 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: you queue withdrawls don't you?
3120 2011-09-13 22:42:31 <jrmithdobbs> into sendmanys?
3121 2011-09-13 22:42:31 <phantomcircuit> yes
3122 2011-09-13 22:42:32 <kinlo> and if you cannot program, please stay the hell away from bitcoins, you cannot seriously think about handling money when you can't program
3123 2011-09-13 22:42:36 <gmaxwell> kinlo: also, it's nice to be able to give the user the txn id instantly.
3124 2011-09-13 22:42:36 <jrmithdobbs> thought so
3125 2011-09-13 22:42:38 <phantomcircuit> we could use sendmany but do not currently
3126 2011-09-13 22:42:49 <kinlo> gmaxwell: indeed....
3127 2011-09-13 22:42:50 <gmaxwell> But I think the aggregation is an improvement worth delaying the txn id a litt.e
3128 2011-09-13 22:43:06 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3129 2011-09-13 22:43:09 <gmaxwell> In fact, it would be nice if bitcoind would do this, but the damn API gives the txn id in response.
3130 2011-09-13 22:43:12 <phantomcircuit> sendmany has the downside of reducing anonymity for people
3131 2011-09-13 22:43:28 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: input selection almost certantly does the complete job of that already.
3132 2011-09-13 22:43:34 <phantomcircuit> true
3133 2011-09-13 22:43:51 <gmaxwell> I can also rain pennies on your wallet to mark your output transactions.
3134 2011-09-13 22:43:58 <kinlo> can it happen that the input from a transaction in a block is the output from another transaction in the *same* block?
3135 2011-09-13 22:44:04 BurtyB2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
3136 2011-09-13 22:44:07 BurtyB has joined
3137 2011-09-13 22:44:26 <kinlo> coz it would make sense for people to pay a severe extra fee for doing that...
3138 2011-09-13 22:44:29 <gmaxwell> e.g. setup a bot that fires 100 0.01 btc into you per day, and withdraws 1 btc. ...eventually almost all your txn will get tainted by that.
3139 2011-09-13 22:44:38 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
3140 2011-09-13 22:44:53 <gmaxwell> kinlo: it already does that no problems.
3141 2011-09-13 22:45:03 <gmaxwell> Otherwise you'd create big delays when you need to quickly respend change.
3142 2011-09-13 22:45:32 <kinlo> gmaxwell: yeah, but afaik the fee isn't recalculated for it to be more expensive
3143 2011-09-13 22:46:03 <gmaxwell> No, and I don't think it should be. an attacker could choose to avoid it by first just spliting their funds N ways and then simply interleaving them.
3144 2011-09-13 22:46:19 <gmaxwell> but normal people sometimes can't avoid that situation.
3145 2011-09-13 22:46:30 <kinlo> mmmz
3146 2011-09-13 22:46:32 <jrmithdobbs> ya if you have an hour or two to burn getting around all the fee rules is dead simple
3147 2011-09-13 22:46:37 <gmaxwell> (well, only be thinking ahead and trying to avoid it)
3148 2011-09-13 22:46:42 <jrmithdobbs> i really don't get why people bitch so much
3149 2011-09-13 22:47:12 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: because they're opaque enough that people imagine them to be whatever they need to imagine in order to be mad about them
3150 2011-09-13 22:47:17 <kinlo> well, I've got code to do payouts with no fee's, which should be possible in a way, but that way people will never get block fee's
3151 2011-09-13 22:47:26 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: you left out the fun easy solution to the sending to self problem
3152 2011-09-13 22:48:04 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: if you're running something like mtgox you should be modifying your coinselection to be a FIFO then you just trim the fucking old keys
3153 2011-09-13 22:48:08 <jrmithdobbs> problem.solved.
3154 2011-09-13 22:49:11 <gmaxwell> meh, well it currently does a pretty good job of picking inputs to reduce txn size. I don't really want to encourage anyone to screw with that code.
3155 2011-09-13 22:49:29 <jrmithdobbs> yes but a large exchange is obviously a special case that shouldn't apply to everyone
3156 2011-09-13 22:49:41 <jrmithdobbs> not saying anyone *else* should modify that code in that way
3157 2011-09-13 22:49:59 <gmaxwell> Running multiple bitcoinds is also an acceptable solution.
3158 2011-09-13 22:50:08 <jrmithdobbs> there's got to be a better way to do that calculation though
3159 2011-09-13 22:50:09 <kinlo> I don't really see why mtgox should change that part of the code...
3160 2011-09-13 22:50:15 <gmaxwell> Also, if you're careles in coin selection code you can trivally lose money (into fees)
3161 2011-09-13 22:50:33 <jrmithdobbs> fair
3162 2011-09-13 22:50:57 <kinlo> the bitcoin client really needs an rpc call that will allow you to specify the maximum fee you're willing to pay or something
3163 2011-09-13 22:51:09 <jgarzik> that is true -- coin selection should pay attention to the cost
3164 2011-09-13 22:51:19 <jrmithdobbs> kinlo: it really doesn't
3165 2011-09-13 22:51:21 <kinlo> the fact that the current blocksize determines the fee is very dangerous...
3166 2011-09-13 22:51:23 <jgarzik> paying attention to the size is just an approximation, though a useful one
3167 2011-09-13 22:51:33 <gmaxwell> it does, but only indirectly.
3168 2011-09-13 22:51:34 <kinlo> jrmithdobbs: if the block is nearly full, a fee of 100 BTC can happen
3169 2011-09-13 22:51:47 <kinlo> jrmithdobbs: don't you want to know that before you send something?
3170 2011-09-13 22:51:56 <gmaxwell> I don't think anyone wants to ship bitcoin with a 30 megabyte non-linear integer programming solver though....
3171 2011-09-13 22:52:03 <jgarzik> heh
3172 2011-09-13 22:52:11 <luke-jr> kinlo: afaik sending never treats blocks as full
3173 2011-09-13 22:52:12 <jrmithdobbs> kinlo: yes, an estimatetxfee call is useful, a hard cutoff not as much
3174 2011-09-13 22:52:16 <luke-jr> the automatic fee bit anyhow
3175 2011-09-13 22:52:22 <luke-jr> it always assumes the block is empty
3176 2011-09-13 22:52:22 <CIA-101> poolserverj: shadders * d0d8ce7078b9 r58 /src/main/java/com/shadworld/poolserver/ (WorkerProxy.java servlet/MgmtInterfaceServlet.java): - added listWorkerCache method to mgmt interface
3177 2011-09-13 22:52:41 <kinlo> luke-jr: no, if the block is empty, the fee is 0, so if what you say is true, the fee would always be 0
3178 2011-09-13 22:52:51 <luke-jr> kinlo: no, the fee isn't always 0
3179 2011-09-13 22:52:56 <kinlo> (required fee that is, not talking about the fee you can configure yourself)
3180 2011-09-13 22:53:12 <kinlo> luke-jr: it is (given that all outputs are > 0.01
3181 2011-09-13 22:53:15 <luke-jr> there's still input age and output amounts
3182 2011-09-13 22:53:21 <luke-jr> and transaction size
3183 2011-09-13 22:53:44 <gmaxwell> The solver in it already does an admirable job. If I were to change it I'd probably focus on training it to tidy the wallet when there is additional space in a txn below where fees would hit. E.g. having multiple change outputs to break up inputs to typical spending sizes when the change is very large, and adding additional tiny inputs when the change is small.
3184 2011-09-13 22:53:49 leodocosta has quit (Quit: Page closed)
3185 2011-09-13 22:53:49 <kinlo> luke-jr: the same transaction can be free one moment, and have a required fee later on
3186 2011-09-13 22:54:11 <luke-jr> kinlo: not according to the automatic fee forcer
3187 2011-09-13 22:54:36 <kinlo> according to the code I read it does...
3188 2011-09-13 22:54:39 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: the size is just an approximation but it does try the solution mutiple times, first limited to coins which have 6 confirms. so that helps.
3189 2011-09-13 22:56:24 zeiris has joined
3190 2011-09-13 22:56:54 <gmaxwell> or maybe a first step which only considered inputs which at least enough confirms to be free if used in isolation.
3191 2011-09-13 22:57:14 <gmaxwell> (and txn composed of such coins exclusively will itself be free)
3192 2011-09-13 22:58:00 mosi2cb has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
3193 2011-09-13 22:58:29 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3194 2011-09-13 23:02:47 erle- has joined
3195 2011-09-13 23:05:00 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
3196 2011-09-13 23:08:28 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
3197 2011-09-13 23:09:00 browep has joined
3198 2011-09-13 23:11:25 gjs278 has joined
3199 2011-09-13 23:11:42 <OneFixt> do any of you guys know whether i can hook up 3 monitors to an HD3600 card that has 1 DVI, 1 HDMI, and 1 DisplayPort output?
3200 2011-09-13 23:13:55 <kinlo> I assume you can, why else would there be 3 ports?
3201 2011-09-13 23:14:14 <OneFixt> you can't put one in DVI and one in HDMI afaik
3202 2011-09-13 23:14:21 <kinlo> my card has 1 dvi, 4 minidisplayports, wouldn't make sense if I cannot connect 5 monitors
3203 2011-09-13 23:14:28 <OneFixt> i can use splitters, but don't know if the card would support 3
3204 2011-09-13 23:20:14 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3205 2011-09-13 23:23:43 denisx has joined
3206 2011-09-13 23:25:22 pointbiz has joined
3207 2011-09-13 23:29:22 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3208 2011-09-13 23:29:47 normanrichards has quit (Quit: normanrichards)
3209 2011-09-13 23:29:54 gjs278 has joined
3210 2011-09-13 23:30:14 gavinandresen has joined
3211 2011-09-13 23:32:42 Matth1a3 has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
3212 2011-09-13 23:34:02 Matth1a3 has joined
3213 2011-09-13 23:35:06 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3214 2011-09-13 23:35:16 piuk has quit (Quit: Page closed)
3215 2011-09-13 23:36:43 kish has joined
3216 2011-09-13 23:39:27 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
3217 2011-09-13 23:41:25 iz is now known as NBGuest
3218 2011-09-13 23:42:03 NBGuest is now known as iz
3219 2011-09-13 23:44:21 Cablesaurus has joined
3220 2011-09-13 23:44:21 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
3221 2011-09-13 23:44:21 Cablesaurus has joined
3222 2011-09-13 23:45:56 ThomasV has joined
3223 2011-09-13 23:47:10 Lopuz has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
3224 2011-09-13 23:47:16 Lopuz has joined
3225 2011-09-13 23:47:31 edcba has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
3226 2011-09-13 23:48:16 Matth1a3 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3227 2011-09-13 23:49:22 Matth1a3 has joined
3228 2011-09-13 23:49:37 edcba has joined
3229 2011-09-13 23:53:26 toffoo_ has joined
3230 2011-09-13 23:53:29 toffoo has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3231 2011-09-13 23:53:29 toffoo_ is now known as toffoo
3232 2011-09-13 23:55:12 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
3233 2011-09-13 23:55:12 cronopio has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
3234 2011-09-13 23:56:04 cronopio has joined