1 2011-09-19 00:00:54 <wpl> I do have a Linux installation, but my main working environment is Windows at the moment. And since there is a windows version, it must be possible to compile it on this terrible OS as well.
   2 2011-09-19 00:01:21 <lfm> wpl it might not be possible, it might be cross compiled
   3 2011-09-19 00:02:12 <luke-jr> ^
   4 2011-09-19 00:02:29 <luke-jr> pretty sure most Windows builds of free software are cross-compiled now
   5 2011-09-19 00:02:37 <wpl> lfm: Good point.
   6 2011-09-19 00:02:53 <luke-jr> nobody wants to have to run Windows ;)
   7 2011-09-19 00:03:07 <sipa> please
   8 2011-09-19 00:06:44 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
   9 2011-09-19 00:06:55 log0s has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  10 2011-09-19 00:07:08 Lexa has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  11 2011-09-19 00:08:41 log0s has joined
  12 2011-09-19 00:13:29 theorb has joined
  13 2011-09-19 00:13:53 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  14 2011-09-19 00:14:07 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
  15 2011-09-19 00:20:02 zapnap has joined
  16 2011-09-19 00:28:07 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  17 2011-09-19 00:28:15 stalled has joined
  18 2011-09-19 00:31:33 pickett has joined
  19 2011-09-19 00:32:30 denisx_ has joined
  20 2011-09-19 00:33:19 baz has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  21 2011-09-19 00:36:08 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  22 2011-09-19 00:36:08 denisx_ is now known as denisx
  23 2011-09-19 00:40:23 Rabbit67890 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
  24 2011-09-19 00:42:10 Noxitu has left ()
  25 2011-09-19 00:44:57 ymirhotfoot has joined
  26 2011-09-19 00:49:57 ymirhotfoot has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.2 (IRC client for Emacs))
  27 2011-09-19 00:50:51 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
  28 2011-09-19 00:53:15 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  29 2011-09-19 00:53:35 WakiMiko has joined
  30 2011-09-19 00:58:03 wolfspraul has joined
  31 2011-09-19 01:26:07 shadders is now known as shadders_
  32 2011-09-19 01:26:55 shadders_ is now known as shadders
  33 2011-09-19 01:28:12 copumpkin has joined
  34 2011-09-19 01:46:52 Kolky has quit (Quit: Bye bye!)
  35 2011-09-19 02:03:29 gfinn has joined
  36 2011-09-19 02:04:02 BurtyBB has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  37 2011-09-19 02:04:18 BurtyBB has joined
  38 2011-09-19 02:08:31 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  39 2011-09-19 02:09:28 zapnap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  40 2011-09-19 02:11:55 vragnaroda is now known as vragnaroda_
  41 2011-09-19 02:12:28 vragnaroda_ is now known as vragnaroda
  42 2011-09-19 02:16:00 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  43 2011-09-19 02:17:51 upb has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  44 2011-09-19 02:18:19 upb has joined
  45 2011-09-19 02:31:23 gfinn has joined
  46 2011-09-19 02:31:44 OpenOcean is now known as Mad7Scientist
  47 2011-09-19 02:34:28 maqr has joined
  48 2011-09-19 02:34:32 <Matth1a3> luke-jr: is it ok to pm you?
  49 2011-09-19 02:34:37 pointbiz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  50 2011-09-19 02:51:56 <luke-jr> Matth1a3: about?
  51 2011-09-19 02:53:05 <Matth1a3> luke-jr: I suppose I can just ask here. What did you mean by somewhere people can freely commit to
  52 2011-09-19 02:54:15 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  53 2011-09-19 02:54:51 <luke-jr> Matth1a3: a website/service that doesn't have a dubious terms-of-service
  54 2011-09-19 02:56:55 <Matth1a3> luke-jr: GitHub's ToS is unsatisfactory then? I just wasn't sure what was meant by that. I definitely respect your opinion, I'm sure it's shared by other skilled developers
  55 2011-09-19 02:57:31 <luke-jr> Matth1a3: GitHub's ToS uses dubious language regarding paying them legal expenses, and can be revised without notice, etc
  56 2011-09-19 02:58:02 <Matth1a3> luke-jr: I see, that does sound suspect
  57 2011-09-19 02:58:06 <luke-jr> ie, if someone merely threatens them with unfounded legal action and it never goes anywhere, you owe them money
  58 2011-09-19 02:58:07 storrgie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  59 2011-09-19 03:00:33 minimoose has joined
  60 2011-09-19 03:02:05 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
  61 2011-09-19 03:02:19 [7] has joined
  62 2011-09-19 03:10:37 <shadders> !seen TD
  63 2011-09-19 03:10:40 <spaola> I found 2 matches to your query (sorted): TD[gone] TD. TD[gone] (~mike@ip6.plan99.net) was last seen changing nicks from TD on #bitcoin-dev 4 hours, 57 minutes ago. TD[gone] is still there.
  64 2011-09-19 03:12:19 egecko has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  65 2011-09-19 03:13:00 egecko has joined
  66 2011-09-19 03:15:46 magn3ts has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  67 2011-09-19 03:15:52 magn3ts has joined
  68 2011-09-19 03:16:51 magn3ts has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  69 2011-09-19 03:16:54 magn3ts_ has joined
  70 2011-09-19 03:22:33 egecko has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
  71 2011-09-19 03:26:32 wpl has quit (Quit: leaving)
  72 2011-09-19 03:27:16 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
  73 2011-09-19 03:30:30 <shadders> there's no uniqueness guarantee for sha256 hash is there?  i.e. two different inputs could theoretically produce the same hash?
  74 2011-09-19 03:30:52 <cjdelisle> correct
  75 2011-09-19 03:30:53 <gmaxwell> Sure.
  76 2011-09-19 03:31:16 <shadders> thx
  77 2011-09-19 03:31:22 <gmaxwell> Pigeonhole principle says such a guarantee is impossible.
  78 2011-09-19 03:31:30 <cjdelisle> it is not *guaranteed* to be collision proof but it is prised for collision resistance and none has yet been found.
  79 2011-09-19 03:32:42 <copumpkin> everyone loves the pigeonhole principle
  80 2011-09-19 03:33:02 <gmaxwell> Right, it's not that it's just not guaranteed. It it would be impossible to not have them. It's just computationally intractable to find any.
  81 2011-09-19 03:33:26 <cjdelisle> /ond
  82 2011-09-19 03:33:32 <cjdelisle> /nod even
  83 2011-09-19 03:34:02 <copumpkin> shadders: a 256-bit hash function can take arbitrarily large (or to a very large limit) inputs and only outputs 2^256 different answers. There have to be collisions :)
  84 2011-09-19 03:34:48 <shadders> I'm sure the bitcoin network could find one if it set it's mind to it...
  85 2011-09-19 03:35:22 <shadders> eventually ;)
  86 2011-09-19 03:35:31 <copumpkin> a bunch of computers can defeat certain kinds of things, but combinatorics always wins ;)
  87 2011-09-19 03:36:18 <shadders> I will definately try to use the word
  88 2011-09-19 03:36:30 <shadders> 'combinatorics' in casual conversation today
  89 2011-09-19 03:37:59 <copumpkin> well, in theory at least, after doing 10^58 SHA256s, you'd have approximately a 50% chance of having a collision
  90 2011-09-19 03:38:07 wolfspraul has joined
  91 2011-09-19 03:38:19 <copumpkin> oh whoops
  92 2011-09-19 03:38:23 <copumpkin> 10^38 :)
  93 2011-09-19 03:38:59 <copumpkin> (by brute force)
  94 2011-09-19 03:39:19 <cjdelisle> but 10^38 * 32 = more bytes than you have in ram
  95 2011-09-19 03:39:39 <cjdelisle> so your memory lookups for checking for collisions are going to suuuuck
  96 2011-09-19 03:39:39 <copumpkin> yeah, and he's talking about the entire network
  97 2011-09-19 03:39:55 <copumpkin> so we'd need a distributed lookup system of all hashes ever computed by miners
  98 2011-09-19 03:40:00 <copumpkin> even though most of them are thrown away
  99 2011-09-19 03:40:20 <cjdelisle> some kind of really fast dht
 100 2011-09-19 03:41:34 <copumpkin> shadders: at the current network hash rate
 101 2011-09-19 03:41:52 <copumpkin> that'd be ~10^17 years to get a 50% chance of finding a collision
 102 2011-09-19 03:41:53 <soap> but just a table of hash collisions isn't all that fun.
 103 2011-09-19 03:41:55 <gmaxwell> well, first you need to give all the miners _much_ faster pcie busses, because right now they couldn't even get all the hashes they try off the cards.
 104 2011-09-19 03:41:57 <copumpkin> assuming we keep all the hashes away
 105 2011-09-19 03:42:02 <soap> What you want is to be able to /design/ a collision.
 106 2011-09-19 03:42:03 <copumpkin> anyway
 107 2011-09-19 03:42:07 <copumpkin> soap: yep
 108 2011-09-19 03:42:17 <cjdelisle> it would require 3,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 gigabytes of ram to do lookups on a dataset that big
 109 2011-09-19 03:42:35 <copumpkin> so yeah, combinatorics wins again
 110 2011-09-19 03:42:46 <copumpkin> poor bitcoin network
 111 2011-09-19 03:42:48 <copumpkin> I still love it
 112 2011-09-19 03:43:17 <shadders> ok so just compare this hash to previous hash... it might take a bit longer though...
 113 2011-09-19 03:43:42 <copumpkin> lol
 114 2011-09-19 03:43:46 <cjdelisle> well bitcoin is the other extreme
 115 2011-09-19 03:43:52 <cjdelisle> it only compares to 1 number
 116 2011-09-19 03:43:53 <cjdelisle> 0
 117 2011-09-19 03:44:44 <cjdelisle> if you were looking for collisions, you could do some fancy stuff to look for a bunch of numbers forwhich you have known hash imputs that hash to them
 118 2011-09-19 03:45:15 <gmaxwell> you might even call the data structure… a hash table!
 119 2011-09-19 03:45:24 <cjdelisle> and you wouldn't exhaust all of the memory in the universe that way
 120 2011-09-19 03:45:28 <copumpkin> a distributed one!
 121 2011-09-19 03:47:05 noagendamarket has joined
 122 2011-09-19 03:47:14 <cjdelisle> it would be funny though to make a chain where the proof of work was derived by creating a partial hash collision for a forged ssl cert
 123 2011-09-19 03:47:19 <cjdelisle> that would make people mad
 124 2011-09-19 03:47:30 <gjs278> ;;bc,stats
 125 2011-09-19 03:47:33 <gribble> Current Blocks: 145968 | Current Difficulty: 1755425.3203287 | Next Difficulty At Block: 147167 | Next Difficulty In: 1199 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 1 day, 10 hours, 9 minutes, and 53 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1737101.38994040
 126 2011-09-19 03:47:53 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: it would be harmless, getting a full hit would remain astronomically unlikely
 127 2011-09-19 03:48:13 <cjdelisle> unless it was the verisign md2 cert ;)
 128 2011-09-19 03:48:36 <copumpkin> for a while, I remember there existed a root cert with a 16384-bit RSA key
 129 2011-09-19 03:48:44 <copumpkin> anyone know which one I'm talking about?
 130 2011-09-19 03:49:47 <copumpkin> ah, it belonged to thawte
 131 2011-09-19 03:50:15 <copumpkin> https://www.globaltrustpoint.com/x509/x509cert_about.jsp?certID=8bc28a24affb565de850157b7a6b6f14784c90e3&certType=ca
 132 2011-09-19 03:50:43 <copumpkin> that's my kind of modulus
 133 2011-09-19 03:51:28 log0s has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 134 2011-09-19 03:51:30 <shadders> and I thought I was a geek
 135 2011-09-19 03:51:34 <cjdelisle> 16384 bit modulus
 136 2011-09-19 03:51:37 <cjdelisle> sha1 hash
 137 2011-09-19 03:51:40 <cjdelisle> hmm
 138 2011-09-19 03:52:07 log0s has joined
 139 2011-09-19 03:53:33 <copumpkin> :)
 140 2011-09-19 03:54:54 egecko has joined
 141 2011-09-19 03:59:14 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 142 2011-09-19 04:01:21 Lopuz has quit (Quit: Leaving - 15jGPpKT5DeuE3vUbPuwKtZmj1LQUiGFfZ)
 143 2011-09-19 04:02:14 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
 144 2011-09-19 04:09:41 brunner has joined
 145 2011-09-19 04:09:44 zeta-51b` has left (".")
 146 2011-09-19 04:09:48 brunner has quit (Client Quit)
 147 2011-09-19 04:10:07 <flying> kittens.
 148 2011-09-19 04:11:48 Matth1a3 is now known as alexwaters
 149 2011-09-19 04:14:37 noagendamarket has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 150 2011-09-19 04:15:59 zeta-51b has joined
 151 2011-09-19 04:23:34 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 152 2011-09-19 04:28:58 noagendamarket has joined
 153 2011-09-19 04:29:38 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
 154 2011-09-19 04:37:16 sacarlson has joined
 155 2011-09-19 04:43:41 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 156 2011-09-19 04:45:32 WakiMiko has joined
 157 2011-09-19 04:51:12 Qatz has joined
 158 2011-09-19 04:53:19 vsrinivas has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 159 2011-09-19 04:53:27 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 160 2011-09-19 05:03:59 AStove has joined
 161 2011-09-19 05:05:57 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 162 2011-09-19 05:08:09 Daniel0108 has joined
 163 2011-09-19 05:08:13 kish has quit (Quit: leaving)
 164 2011-09-19 05:08:45 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 165 2011-09-19 05:10:59 imsaguy has joined
 166 2011-09-19 05:11:00 imsaguy has quit (Changing host)
 167 2011-09-19 05:11:00 imsaguy has joined
 168 2011-09-19 05:13:40 BurtyB has joined
 169 2011-09-19 05:14:01 BurtyBB has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 170 2011-09-19 05:17:14 zeta-51b has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 171 2011-09-19 05:17:34 zeta-51b has joined
 172 2011-09-19 05:24:32 imsaguy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 173 2011-09-19 05:24:42 SomeoneWeird has joined
 174 2011-09-19 05:25:09 imsaguy has joined
 175 2011-09-19 05:25:09 imsaguy has quit (Changing host)
 176 2011-09-19 05:25:09 imsaguy has joined
 177 2011-09-19 05:29:58 upb has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 178 2011-09-19 05:32:16 kish has joined
 179 2011-09-19 05:34:49 Daniel0108 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 180 2011-09-19 05:40:28 <CIA-101> poolserverj: shadders * 338a47b43595 r113 /poolserverj-main/src/main/java/com/shadworld/poolserver/ (4 files in 3 dirs): - partial implementation of worker cache preloading
 181 2011-09-19 05:40:28 <CIA-101> poolserverj: shadders * 4e0cf7fa634c r114 /poolserverj-core/target/ (2 files in 2 dirs): remove target dir from repo
 182 2011-09-19 05:40:31 <CIA-101> poolserverj: Shadders * 34a1f1adc140 r115 /.hgignore: clear out untracked files
 183 2011-09-19 05:40:33 <CIA-101> poolserverj: shadders * 30c5a5182b86 r116 / (320 files in 58 dirs):
 184 2011-09-19 05:40:33 <CIA-101> poolserverj: Merge with 34a1f1adc140b8f719651fc12daa2f3d0a65cd03
 185 2011-09-19 05:40:33 <CIA-101> poolserverj: merging longpoll mk 2 branch
 186 2011-09-19 05:40:33 <CIA-101> poolserverj: shadders * 2dbedff0034c r117 /: Starting 'merged mining' branch
 187 2011-09-19 05:46:31 blishchrot has joined
 188 2011-09-19 05:47:38 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 189 2011-09-19 06:00:46 kish has quit (Quit: leaving)
 190 2011-09-19 06:01:29 kish has joined
 191 2011-09-19 06:05:50 henchan has joined
 192 2011-09-19 06:05:59 henchan has left ()
 193 2011-09-19 06:06:23 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 194 2011-09-19 06:08:30 BTCPoliceLogger has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 195 2011-09-19 06:08:47 BTCPoliceLogger has joined
 196 2011-09-19 06:09:46 ThomasV has joined
 197 2011-09-19 06:10:02 skeledrew has joined
 198 2011-09-19 06:10:28 Joric has joined
 199 2011-09-19 06:15:34 AStove has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 200 2011-09-19 06:20:19 E-sense has quit (Quit: System.exit(0);)
 201 2011-09-19 06:26:09 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 202 2011-09-19 06:26:34 pickett has joined
 203 2011-09-19 06:27:06 BTCPoliceLogger has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 204 2011-09-19 06:27:19 BTCPoliceLogger has joined
 205 2011-09-19 06:31:48 BTCPoliceLogger has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 206 2011-09-19 06:32:00 BTCPoliceLogger has joined
 207 2011-09-19 06:41:31 AnniGONE is now known as AnnihilaT
 208 2011-09-19 06:44:07 ircuser-6 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 209 2011-09-19 07:00:45 Disposition has joined
 210 2011-09-19 07:01:25 larsivi has joined
 211 2011-09-19 07:11:47 jimb0 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 212 2011-09-19 07:18:47 upb has joined
 213 2011-09-19 07:19:22 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 214 2011-09-19 07:20:37 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 215 2011-09-19 07:20:54 erus` has joined
 216 2011-09-19 07:23:23 gjs278 has joined
 217 2011-09-19 07:23:26 jimb0 has joined
 218 2011-09-19 07:26:05 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 219 2011-09-19 07:26:34 erus` has joined
 220 2011-09-19 07:29:09 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 221 2011-09-19 07:29:30 AAA_awright has joined
 222 2011-09-19 07:30:45 erus`_ has joined
 223 2011-09-19 07:31:31 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 224 2011-09-19 07:31:32 [7] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 225 2011-09-19 07:31:37 erus`_ is now known as erus`
 226 2011-09-19 07:32:15 TheSeven has joined
 227 2011-09-19 07:34:06 molecular has joined
 228 2011-09-19 07:34:33 Lolcust has joined
 229 2011-09-19 07:34:35 erus`_ has joined
 230 2011-09-19 07:36:22 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 231 2011-09-19 07:36:22 upb has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 232 2011-09-19 07:36:27 erus`_ is now known as erus`
 233 2011-09-19 07:40:08 <flying> bbl, pizza
 234 2011-09-19 07:41:27 AAA_awright_ has joined
 235 2011-09-19 07:42:39 AAA_awright has quit (Disconnected by services)
 236 2011-09-19 07:42:47 AAA_awright_ is now known as AAA_awright
 237 2011-09-19 07:47:10 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 238 2011-09-19 07:47:41 WakiMiko has joined
 239 2011-09-19 07:47:53 CPUoflove has joined
 240 2011-09-19 07:48:09 CPUoflove has left ()
 241 2011-09-19 07:49:05 CutAndPaste has quit (Read error: No route to host)
 242 2011-09-19 07:52:47 TuxBlackEdo has joined
 243 2011-09-19 07:54:06 upb has joined
 244 2011-09-19 08:07:37 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 245 2011-09-19 08:07:57 WakiMiko has joined
 246 2011-09-19 08:08:22 nr9 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 247 2011-09-19 08:09:16 nr9 has joined
 248 2011-09-19 08:24:11 Sedra has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 249 2011-09-19 08:25:17 abragin has joined
 250 2011-09-19 08:25:17 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 251 2011-09-19 08:25:17 abragin has joined
 252 2011-09-19 08:25:24 Sedra has joined
 253 2011-09-19 08:26:54 vsrinivas has joined
 254 2011-09-19 08:27:23 stalled has joined
 255 2011-09-19 08:31:58 vsrinivas has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 256 2011-09-19 08:39:10 vsrinivas has joined
 257 2011-09-19 08:39:44 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 258 2011-09-19 08:43:49 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 259 2011-09-19 08:44:37 tpocra has joined
 260 2011-09-19 08:50:02 gfinn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 261 2011-09-19 08:59:32 wardearia has joined
 262 2011-09-19 09:01:17 Joric has quit ()
 263 2011-09-19 09:01:40 gfinn has joined
 264 2011-09-19 09:03:01 jimb0 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 265 2011-09-19 09:04:17 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 266 2011-09-19 09:04:43 copumpkin has joined
 267 2011-09-19 09:08:04 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 268 2011-09-19 09:09:58 jimb0 has joined
 269 2011-09-19 09:12:18 Burgundy has joined
 270 2011-09-19 09:18:00 noagendamarket has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 271 2011-09-19 09:23:08 Lolcust has quit (Quit: Oh shi...)
 272 2011-09-19 09:23:20 Lolcust has joined
 273 2011-09-19 09:29:07 Lolcust has quit (Quit: Oh shi...)
 274 2011-09-19 09:29:08 wolfspraul has joined
 275 2011-09-19 09:29:19 Lolcust has joined
 276 2011-09-19 09:29:29 Lolcust has quit (Client Quit)
 277 2011-09-19 09:29:49 Lolcust has joined
 278 2011-09-19 09:30:31 iocor has joined
 279 2011-09-19 09:31:48 noagendamarket has joined
 280 2011-09-19 09:35:25 slush1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 281 2011-09-19 09:43:41 abragin has quit ()
 282 2011-09-19 09:50:28 Clipse has quit (Quit: Clipse)
 283 2011-09-19 09:51:29 Clipse has joined
 284 2011-09-19 09:52:40 abragin has joined
 285 2011-09-19 09:52:41 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 286 2011-09-19 09:52:41 abragin has joined
 287 2011-09-19 09:56:09 <alexwaters> does anyone know what resource leak fix https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/385 fixes? and how I can reproduce / see the resource leak
 288 2011-09-19 09:59:07 ThomasV has joined
 289 2011-09-19 09:59:21 ThomasV has quit (Changing host)
 290 2011-09-19 09:59:21 ThomasV has joined
 291 2011-09-19 09:59:44 BurtyBB has joined
 292 2011-09-19 10:01:13 <sipa> alexwaters: it supposedly leaks threads
 293 2011-09-19 10:02:24 <sipa> i.e., threads created that are never cleaned up, even after they exit
 294 2011-09-19 10:02:36 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 295 2011-09-19 10:11:21 upb has quit (Changing host)
 296 2011-09-19 10:11:21 upb has joined
 297 2011-09-19 10:17:11 jackmcbarn has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 298 2011-09-19 10:21:26 jackmcbarn has joined
 299 2011-09-19 10:30:37 <alexwaters> sipa: I have no idea what would reproduce it though - just adding connections?
 300 2011-09-19 10:35:40 <sipa> there are only a limited number of threads created afaik
 301 2011-09-19 10:38:35 molecular has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 302 2011-09-19 10:42:42 tpocra has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 303 2011-09-19 10:45:04 tpocra has joined
 304 2011-09-19 10:45:45 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 305 2011-09-19 10:48:08 marf_away has joined
 306 2011-09-19 10:51:22 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 307 2011-09-19 10:51:47 WakiMiko has joined
 308 2011-09-19 10:52:44 erle- has joined
 309 2011-09-19 10:57:19 <phantomcircuit> sipa, a resource leak that leaks a constant amount of resources
 310 2011-09-19 10:57:20 <phantomcircuit> meh
 311 2011-09-19 11:00:16 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 312 2011-09-19 11:00:33 <alexwaters> phantomcircuit: so if I'm looking at my system performance, I should see my thread count continually rise when I add nodes?
 313 2011-09-19 11:00:58 <sipa> alexwaters: no
 314 2011-09-19 11:01:07 wolfspraul has joined
 315 2011-09-19 11:01:34 <sipa> (i'm not entirely sure, i haven't investigated all call sites of CreateThread in bitcoin)
 316 2011-09-19 11:01:38 wpl has joined
 317 2011-09-19 11:02:01 <alexwaters> i'm sorry I'm completely ignorant on this - I've been scripting for like 8 years - haven't touched anything outside the browser for a while
 318 2011-09-19 11:02:24 <sipa> if my assumption is true, it's a bit of a stretch to call it a resource leak
 319 2011-09-19 11:02:42 <sipa> it's just a limited number of threads that are never cleaned up
 320 2011-09-19 11:02:43 <alexwaters> sipa: it just looked like an easy pull to test
 321 2011-09-19 11:02:53 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 322 2011-09-19 11:02:55 <alexwaters> sipa: so i jumped on it to get the number of opens pulls down
 323 2011-09-19 11:02:58 larsivi has joined
 324 2011-09-19 11:03:04 <sipa> the patch seems sound to me, btw
 325 2011-09-19 11:03:13 <alexwaters> sipa: i see, thanks
 326 2011-09-19 11:06:01 <sipa> strange, there are no calls to CreateThread left which set fWantHandle to true
 327 2011-09-19 11:08:05 <alexwaters> so if it's rebased, the leak doesn't exist, and I can close the pull?
 328 2011-09-19 11:09:10 <sipa> hmm?
 329 2011-09-19 11:11:12 <alexwaters> sipa: is pull 385 relevant in the current release candidate? or did it only apply to an older version
 330 2011-09-19 11:13:08 <sipa> seems already fixed
 331 2011-09-19 11:13:21 <alexwaters> sipa: awesome, I'll close it then - thanks!
 332 2011-09-19 11:15:17 RazielZ has joined
 333 2011-09-19 11:17:01 <sipa> it was fixed in two other commits
 334 2011-09-19 11:17:04 <sipa> but only partially
 335 2011-09-19 11:17:12 <sipa> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/858cebed7dee2e9801e754a9969844b7969254ee
 336 2011-09-19 11:18:18 wardearia has joined
 337 2011-09-19 11:23:09 <flying> mmm, sleep
 338 2011-09-19 11:25:47 <ThomasV> my ABE database is corrupted. I suppose that I need to delete the most recent block from the pgsql table. does someone know how to do that?
 339 2011-09-19 11:26:39 <ThomasV> I get the following error trying to delete the block:
 340 2011-09-19 11:26:42 <ThomasV> ERROR:  update or delete on table "block" violates foreign key constraint "chain_chain_last_block_id_fkey" on table "chain"
 341 2011-09-19 11:26:44 <alexwaters> sipa: that null gets passed to fWantHandle?
 342 2011-09-19 11:27:29 <alexwaters> nvm
 343 2011-09-19 11:28:47 pierre` has joined
 344 2011-09-19 11:29:19 <ThomasV> I suppose that I could decrement chain_last_block_id in the "chain" table
 345 2011-09-19 11:29:39 <ThomasV> anyone familiar with ABE ?
 346 2011-09-19 11:36:53 <alexwaters> anyone know who i could talk to about the test_bitcoin unit test runner? is anyone maintaining that?
 347 2011-09-19 11:38:43 <sipa> gavin, probably
 348 2011-09-19 11:48:04 tcatm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 349 2011-09-19 11:53:36 tcatm has joined
 350 2011-09-19 11:53:36 tcatm has quit (Changing host)
 351 2011-09-19 11:53:36 tcatm has joined
 352 2011-09-19 12:09:04 henchan has joined
 353 2011-09-19 12:09:48 henchan1 has joined
 354 2011-09-19 12:09:59 henchan has quit (Client Quit)
 355 2011-09-19 12:16:41 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 356 2011-09-19 12:20:42 mtrlt has quit ()
 357 2011-09-19 12:20:50 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 358 2011-09-19 12:23:07 pickett has joined
 359 2011-09-19 12:26:09 b4epoche_ has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 360 2011-09-19 12:31:33 minimoose has joined
 361 2011-09-19 12:32:18 erus`_ has joined
 362 2011-09-19 12:33:08 erus` has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 363 2011-09-19 12:33:09 erus`__ has joined
 364 2011-09-19 12:33:12 erus`__ is now known as erus`
 365 2011-09-19 12:36:53 erus`_ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 366 2011-09-19 12:37:04 Guest35246 has joined
 367 2011-09-19 12:38:54 Guest35246 has quit (Client Quit)
 368 2011-09-19 12:39:12 datagutt_ has joined
 369 2011-09-19 12:39:23 datagutt_ has quit (Changing host)
 370 2011-09-19 12:39:23 datagutt_ has joined
 371 2011-09-19 12:40:30 Daniel0108 has joined
 372 2011-09-19 12:43:47 kish has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 373 2011-09-19 12:44:01 b4epoche_ has joined
 374 2011-09-19 12:45:08 <nanotube> alexwaters: about your post on the mailing list - consider investigating the tools sourceforge provides for bugtracking etc. i know a lot of projects use a mix of github and sf.
 375 2011-09-19 12:46:34 <alexwaters> nanotube: I was hoping to get down a system for sanity testing pull requests so that we can get them processed faster - unless Gavin would rather me spend time researching project managment solutions first
 376 2011-09-19 12:46:47 gavinandresen has joined
 377 2011-09-19 12:47:14 <nanotube> alexwaters: i'm in no way implying that should be first on the list to do. :) just that /when/ you get around to it, you can take a look. :)
 378 2011-09-19 12:48:22 <tcatm> tagging of pull requests might be useful, we have quite a lot and I don't think every dev knows the current state of each
 379 2011-09-19 12:48:37 <nanotube> does github support that?
 380 2011-09-19 12:48:44 <alexwaters> definitely, and thank you. I'm still trying to get a gauge of the priority needs
 381 2011-09-19 12:48:59 <alexwaters> nanotube: we have a label system with basic implementation currently
 382 2011-09-19 12:49:08 <tcatm> nanotube: no, but we could add that using their API
 383 2011-09-19 12:49:24 <alexwaters> tcatm: oh my bad, I thought you were talking about the labels
 384 2011-09-19 12:50:13 iddo has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 385 2011-09-19 12:50:17 <alexwaters> something like this: http://aehlke.github.com/tag-it/ ?
 386 2011-09-19 12:50:27 <tcatm> issues have labels. pulls do not
 387 2011-09-19 12:51:04 p0s has joined
 388 2011-09-19 12:51:17 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 389 2011-09-19 12:51:35 <alexwaters> tcatm: I have been trying to get around that by tagging the resultant issues. AFAIK whenever a pull request is made, it pops up in the issues area. Maybe I should make a pull label so that they are easily identified
 390 2011-09-19 12:51:42 copumpkin has joined
 391 2011-09-19 12:52:25 <tcatm> maybe something simple as: fetch list of pull requests and their comments, fetch list of collaborators and then check whether all collaborators have written an ACK (or NACK) as a comment and make a nice overview
 392 2011-09-19 12:52:52 normanrichards has quit (Quit: normanrichards)
 393 2011-09-19 12:54:01 <tcatm> maybe with a third keyword meaning "this needs some more work" and then add a link to that exact comment in the pull request (if possible). the developer could overwrite that with an ACK once the issue is resolved
 394 2011-09-19 12:54:44 <alexwaters> tcatm: I would love to build something like that (and am confident I can in PHP/jQuery). I need to bang out some pulls requests first though imho
 395 2011-09-19 12:54:55 <alexwaters> just so we can get the numbers down, it's a little unruly
 396 2011-09-19 12:55:55 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 397 2011-09-19 12:56:02 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 398 2011-09-19 12:56:47 <tcatm> what about closing all "dead" not-automergeable pull requests with no activity for a few months?
 399 2011-09-19 12:56:58 <alexwaters> tcatm: my ultimate plan involves BEPS, GitHub, a voting system, and custom reporting that would allow something similar to what you're talking about
 400 2011-09-19 12:57:34 <sipa> the BEPS proposal is about requests for changes to the protocol
 401 2011-09-19 12:57:37 <alexwaters> tcatm: I would love to implement a timer, I proposed that in the readme file pull request I made - but heard no response
 402 2011-09-19 12:57:42 <sipa> not about the client
 403 2011-09-19 12:58:07 <sipa> maybe something similar is useful there, but those are separate things
 404 2011-09-19 12:59:10 <tcatm> #125 #169 #174 #180 #182 should be closed IMHO
 405 2011-09-19 12:59:52 <alexwaters> sipa: I believe that they both share many similarities, and a templateable system should be put in place
 406 2011-09-19 13:00:09 <tcatm> #183 should either be fixed and merged soon or closed
 407 2011-09-19 13:00:32 <alexwaters> sipa: as far as contribution control
 408 2011-09-19 13:00:48 <sipa> tcatm: i plan on getting #183 in a mergeable state soon
 409 2011-09-19 13:01:19 <sipa> 180 is too outdated to be useful, i think
 410 2011-09-19 13:01:25 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 411 2011-09-19 13:01:55 <sipa> 182 needs reworking/discussion i think
 412 2011-09-19 13:02:03 <sipa> 174 same
 413 2011-09-19 13:02:16 <tcatm> 182 will probably break with QT
 414 2011-09-19 13:02:57 <gavinandresen> I agree with sipa, BEP process is separate from keeping track of changes to the "satoshi implementation"
 415 2011-09-19 13:03:43 <tcatm> err. 182 will definitely break with QT as it depends on a WX feature
 416 2011-09-19 13:05:12 <alexwaters> gavinandresen: do client changes intermingle with protocol changes frequently? one leading to the other?
 417 2011-09-19 13:06:07 <alexwaters> sipa & tcatm: I have added them to my little list, but I think we need to implement an official timer in the readme (which I am rewriting as we speak) and wait for ACKs
 418 2011-09-19 13:06:50 <gavinandresen> alexwaters: it'll be messy.  Somebody will decide a protocol change is a good idea, and will probably start a BEP and implement it at the same time.
 419 2011-09-19 13:07:03 <gavinandresen> (to demonstrate that their proposed change actually works)
 420 2011-09-19 13:07:51 <gavinandresen> alexwaters: Or one client will add suppport for... oh, I dunno, bitcoin: URLs.  And then a BEP will be written up to try to get everybody to do them the same way
 421 2011-09-19 13:08:19 <alexwaters> gavinandresen: I see, that would not be good and would probably lead to more forking/distraction
 422 2011-09-19 13:08:50 <tcatm> btw, I think a separate staging branch would be useful so we could start merging for 0.5 while 0.4 is still RC
 423 2011-09-19 13:08:57 <gavinandresen> alexwaters: I expect lots of forking distraction
 424 2011-09-19 13:09:30 <gavinandresen> tcatm: I was thinking of just starting to pull into master.  0.4rc2 is already tagged, a 0.4 branch can be easily created
 425 2011-09-19 13:10:10 <gavinandresen> tcatm: although I'd like to get jgarzik's advice on that
 426 2011-09-19 13:10:32 <tcatm> I think master should always contain the latest stable version
 427 2011-09-19 13:10:36 normanrichards has joined
 428 2011-09-19 13:10:38 devrandom has joined
 429 2011-09-19 13:10:49 henchan1 has left ()
 430 2011-09-19 13:10:55 <sipa> btw, what happened to the RPC calls to tentatively create a transaction, allow inspection, and then decide to either retract or confirm sending it?
 431 2011-09-19 13:10:57 <alexwaters> fraking forking distractions...
 432 2011-09-19 13:11:06 <sipa> there used to be a pull req for that, iirc
 433 2011-09-19 13:11:17 kish has joined
 434 2011-09-19 13:12:37 <gavinandresen> sipa: did it ever become a pull?  Might have just been a patch on the forums...
 435 2011-09-19 13:13:06 <sipa> i believe it was part if BlueMatt's fee-fix pull request
 436 2011-09-19 13:13:09 <sipa> *of
 437 2011-09-19 13:13:33 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 438 2011-09-19 13:13:53 <alexwaters> gavinandresen: could we alter the makefile to build from the current release candidate, and not from master?
 439 2011-09-19 13:14:02 <sipa> ?
 440 2011-09-19 13:14:05 <alexwaters> if it were branched...
 441 2011-09-19 13:14:14 <sipa> the makefile is part of the branch
 442 2011-09-19 13:14:46 <gavinandresen> alexwaters: you mean the gitian builder doo-hickey?
 443 2011-09-19 13:14:55 <gavinandresen> (I think you tell it what tag to fetch)
 444 2011-09-19 13:15:40 <alexwaters> gavinandresen: yes, so that it builds the current stable - and not the master (which will have merges without rc milestones)
 445 2011-09-19 13:16:50 <alexwaters> so that we can merge new changes to master, but have builds reference tagged snapshots (like rc2)
 446 2011-09-19 13:17:08 <gavinandresen> alexwaters: that is what git pull 'tag-name' is for
 447 2011-09-19 13:17:31 <gavinandresen> (or git pull 'branch-name' )
 448 2011-09-19 13:19:00 <tcatm> are there any objections to merging http://188.138.99.158/ to bitcoin.org (list of contributors is now under About)?
 449 2011-09-19 13:19:57 <gavinandresen> a certain someone will object that you're not including every bitcoin project under the sun....
 450 2011-09-19 13:19:58 <gavinandresen> ... but I have no objections.
 451 2011-09-19 13:20:14 <sipa> as soon as bitcoin-qt is merged, wumpus will shoot to #1 there :)
 452 2011-09-19 13:20:14 khalahan is now known as khalahan2
 453 2011-09-19 13:20:19 * alexwaters pokes luke
 454 2011-09-19 13:20:37 khalahan2 is now known as khalahan
 455 2011-09-19 13:20:44 <gavinandresen> Only objection I could think of is that maybe somebody in the list might want to opt-out.
 456 2011-09-19 13:21:05 <gavinandresen> ("Yes I submitted a translation, but I didn't know my NAME would appear on a WEB PAGE!")
 457 2011-09-19 13:21:08 <tcatm> sipa: I think it's possible to merge qt in a single commit
 458 2011-09-19 13:21:30 <sipa> gavinandresen: what's your opinion about possibly-patented technology?
 459 2011-09-19 13:21:37 <sipa> in the bitcoin client
 460 2011-09-19 13:21:45 <tcatm> and we should do that. No need to include the complete history of that patch in bitcoin's history
 461 2011-09-19 13:22:04 <gavinandresen> sipa: I know of no possibly patented tech....
 462 2011-09-19 13:22:18 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 463 2011-09-19 13:22:19 <tcatm> git merge --no-ff will merge it as a single commit
 464 2011-09-19 13:22:24 <sipa> gavinandresen: specifically, ECC point compression
 465 2011-09-19 13:22:59 <gavinandresen> sipa: is that one of your patches?  Or is it already in OpenSSL?
 466 2011-09-19 13:23:11 <alexwaters> who are they going to sue...
 467 2011-09-19 13:23:25 <sipa> i was thinking about tinkering with khalahan's arbitrary-text-sign patch
 468 2011-09-19 13:23:53 <sipa> using key reconstruction, the signatures could be a lot smaller
 469 2011-09-19 13:24:00 <khalahan> hi
 470 2011-09-19 13:24:06 <sipa> but key reconstruction uses ECC point reconstruction
 471 2011-09-19 13:24:11 <sipa> *compression
 472 2011-09-19 13:24:14 <gavinandresen> I think it ain't worth the possible legal hassles, so if you can get the same feature less efficiently by steering away from patented stuff, then steer away
 473 2011-09-19 13:24:18 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 474 2011-09-19 13:24:21 <sipa> ok
 475 2011-09-19 13:25:33 <sipa> then a cleartext signature would be a serialized structure containing a normal bitcoin signature + pubkey
 476 2011-09-19 13:25:39 <sipa> 195 bytes base58
 477 2011-09-19 13:25:51 <sipa> s/cleartext/arbitrary/
 478 2011-09-19 13:27:32 <sipa> tcatm: i think --no-ff will generate a merge commit anyway, but that merge commit will still contain the entire history
 479 2011-09-19 13:28:55 egecko has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
 480 2011-09-19 13:29:55 agricocb has joined
 481 2011-09-19 13:30:30 <tcatm> sipa: I'll try it on a local repo
 482 2011-09-19 13:31:26 glitch-mod has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 483 2011-09-19 13:31:32 magn3ts_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 484 2011-09-19 13:31:37 <gavinandresen> i think we should just merge qt the regular way, and wumpus gets credited with a bunch of commits.  qt was a ton of work, he deserves it
 485 2011-09-19 13:31:48 <sipa> that's absolutely true
 486 2011-09-19 13:34:03 <tcatm> FYI. bitcoin.org is now automatically generated from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org by my VPS instead of github so in case it doesn't update my VPS is probably down. in that case someone else can run the script in _contrib/. requirements are listed in README.md
 487 2011-09-19 13:34:05 <wumpus> I also think it's best to merge the old-fashioned way, not because I want a high commit-count, but because other people have also contributed to bitcoin-qt and otherwise that author info is lost
 488 2011-09-19 13:34:16 <sipa> wumpus: agree
 489 2011-09-19 13:34:53 <wumpus> apart from that, the number of commits is not a good way to judge the value of people's contribution :-)
 490 2011-09-19 13:35:41 <wumpus> it's like MS that used "number of lines of code" as metric of a programmers worth, they ended up with flight simulator as an easter egg inside excel :p
 491 2011-09-19 13:35:51 <gavinandresen> It's not good, but at least it is easily measurable.
 492 2011-09-19 13:36:22 <wumpus> that's true
 493 2011-09-19 13:36:30 <tcatm> the number is only there so people can see who contributes a lot and who only wrote a single patch
 494 2011-09-19 13:37:03 <gavinandresen> But Gavin is evil and doesn't include all of my cool patches.....
 495 2011-09-19 13:37:13 <gmaxwell> Really, the worst thing about it as a metric is that it significantly understates the contribution of people doing reproductions/testing, even though they might only directly contribute small fixes here and there, they're often the biggest gap in open source development teams.
 496 2011-09-19 13:37:34 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: agreed.  Any idea of how we might fix that?
 497 2011-09-19 13:38:06 pickett has joined
 498 2011-09-19 13:39:11 <gmaxwell> No one else has solved it either, as far as I know. Certantly further promoting commits/loc as metrics isn't great. The best I've been able to do on my own projects is being liberal with kudos in my commit messages.
 499 2011-09-19 13:39:25 iddo has joined
 500 2011-09-19 13:39:29 <wumpus> my first idea would be to look what other open source projects use, if they need metrics
 501 2011-09-19 13:39:51 <wumpus> which I'm not sure they do at all 
 502 2011-09-19 13:40:00 iddo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 503 2011-09-19 13:40:42 <soap> Clearly such metrics create perverse incentives, but surely y'all have a non-perverse reason for displaying them?
 504 2011-09-19 13:41:14 <sipa> maybe just list all contributors, ordered by number of commits, without actually showing the numbers?
 505 2011-09-19 13:41:29 b4epoche_ has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 506 2011-09-19 13:41:54 <sipa> i'm sure it will incentivize satoshi to play catch-up with wumpus ;)
 507 2011-09-19 13:41:57 <tcatm> sipa: then we should draw a line between < X commits and >= X commits like git-scm does
 508 2011-09-19 13:41:58 <soap> Why "rank" contributors by anything other than date of first commit?
 509 2011-09-19 13:42:38 <b4epoche> how about start tracking 'billable hours' ;-)
 510 2011-09-19 13:42:39 <gavinandresen> because somebody who re-implemented the GUI in QT deserves more credit than somebody who submitted an Esperanto translation
 511 2011-09-19 13:42:54 <soap> why?  As I said doing such creates perverse incentives.
 512 2011-09-19 13:43:07 <soap> Anybody who /wants/ to look up a commit history can.
 513 2011-09-19 13:43:16 iddo has joined
 514 2011-09-19 13:43:19 <gavinandresen> soap: because it seems to work nicely for other open source projects, like git.
 515 2011-09-19 13:43:44 <b4epoche> and what about the person who re-implemented the GUI in Cocoa?
 516 2011-09-19 13:43:46 <gavinandresen> (just doesn't work for QA/testing, but it seems that you have to pay people if you want good testing)
 517 2011-09-19 13:44:15 <soap> Rockbox just tacks people onto the tail of the credits file.
 518 2011-09-19 13:44:18 <gavinandresen> b4epoche: I love cocoa... mmmmm, with some donuts.....
 519 2011-09-19 13:44:58 <wumpus> tcatm: indeed, you could rank approximately, and list people in the same broad catagory in alphabetical order ... 
 520 2011-09-19 13:45:10 <wumpus> tcatm: then again, that introduces some subjectiveness, I guess
 521 2011-09-19 13:45:22 <b4epoche> I say just list people and if contributors are vain enough to care where they are on the list, f'em.
 522 2011-09-19 13:45:45 zapnap has joined
 523 2011-09-19 13:45:51 <wumpus> tcatm: btw, what error do you get in the wx ui?
 524 2011-09-19 13:46:23 <tcatm> http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=xvmpMKw7
 525 2011-09-19 13:46:31 <soap> Is displaying a ranking supposed to be an incentive for people?
 526 2011-09-19 13:46:41 <tcatm> but now that I think about it I might have forgotten to run make clean
 527 2011-09-19 13:46:44 <wumpus> I've built bitcoin-qt, bitcoind and bitcoin from the same source base and they all work
 528 2011-09-19 13:46:49 <alexwaters> soap: gamification is the new parallel processing
 529 2011-09-19 13:47:03 <wumpus> human parallel processing
 530 2011-09-19 13:47:12 <soap> just curious if this is about achieving a goal or painting a bikeshead.
 531 2011-09-19 13:47:23 <tcatm> wumpus: make clean fixed it :)
 532 2011-09-19 13:47:27 <b4epoche> ramification?  game-ification?
 533 2011-09-19 13:47:34 <wumpus> tcatm: great
 534 2011-09-19 13:47:45 <gavinandresen> soap: it is mostly painting a bike shed.  So why are you arguing?
 535 2011-09-19 13:47:48 <b4epoche> damn, auto-correct...
 536 2011-09-19 13:47:56 <soap> gavinandresen, I'm arguing?
 537 2011-09-19 13:48:18 <b4epoche> alexwaters:  is gamification = game-ification?
 538 2011-09-19 13:48:31 <alexwaters> b4epoche: afaik
 539 2011-09-19 13:48:50 <gavinandresen> soap: ok, why are you asking lots of questions about something that, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't matter?
 540 2011-09-19 13:48:56 <b4epoche> okay, just wasn't sure if you mean glamification
 541 2011-09-19 13:49:03 <soap> curiosity.
 542 2011-09-19 13:49:09 <wumpus> I think the list is a good idea because it gives recognition to everyone contributing, I don't really care that much how it is ordered
 543 2011-09-19 13:49:44 <gavinandresen> (the numbers are useful to me just because if we had a bunch of people with push access to the tree who hadn't authored a lot of code I'd start to wonder what I was smoking)
 544 2011-09-19 13:49:51 <soap> Was honestly looking for a goal-oriented reason projects would implement such a thing.  The concept is foreign to all projects I am "familiar" with.
 545 2011-09-19 13:49:56 <alexwaters> b4epoche: for an index of similar terminology: http://jasonputorti.com/post/5642422788/no-brand-cuffs
 546 2011-09-19 13:50:03 <b4epoche> would the ordering act as an incentive?  It wouldn't for me but I might be weird
 547 2011-09-19 13:51:12 <gavinandresen> Anybody here have experience with Twisted unit testing (python asynchronous programming) ?
 548 2011-09-19 13:51:28 <tcatm> maybe we could weight #commits over time so people who contribute regularly will be listed higher?
 549 2011-09-19 13:51:32 <b4epoche> alexwaters:  I'm working hard to gamify mechanical engineering education
 550 2011-09-19 13:51:58 danbri has joined
 551 2011-09-19 13:52:09 <log0s> tcatm: i'm trying to find out from MagicalTux if that trade at ~$12.5 is cancelled or not (like you said before, it doesn't appear to be so his "cancelled trade" api), and in doing so, i found a different trade of 5 btc @ $10.50328 at timestamp 1315753351 on your site which is approximately the same time as the tradeid 1315753351004599 on mtgox's cancelled trade list
 552 2011-09-19 13:52:13 <cosurgi> http://coinabul.com/
 553 2011-09-19 13:52:20 <wumpus> nope, I did some stuff with twisted inthe past but not unit testing
 554 2011-09-19 13:52:26 <cosurgi> they sell gold for BTC
 555 2011-09-19 13:52:30 <cosurgi> and ship by UPS
 556 2011-09-19 13:52:34 <alexwaters> b4epoche: that sounds challenging, cogs in place of xp? =P
 557 2011-09-19 13:52:53 <sipa> cosurgi: if that's real, honest and trustable.... nice
 558 2011-09-19 13:53:01 <tcatm> log0s: my database says Empty set (0.06 sec) when asked for that tid :)
 559 2011-09-19 13:53:14 <b4epoche> alexwaters:  World of Goo is pretty good at teaching vibrations ;-)
 560 2011-09-19 13:53:21 <cosurgi> sipa: exactly. both transactions are irreversible, so they will work long to get trust
 561 2011-09-19 13:53:25 * b4epoche is off to teach students about Goo
 562 2011-09-19 13:53:47 <log0s> tcatm: that's nice, but your api is returning this: "1315753351,10.503280000000,5.000000000000"
 563 2011-09-19 13:54:26 <tcatm> log0s: that's tid 1315753351032421
 564 2011-09-19 13:54:57 <cosurgi> do you know what bytes in getwork call are merkle? slush needs it to to detect that merkle changed from getwork call, for LP.
 565 2011-09-19 13:55:16 <log0s> tcatm: ok, i'll ask about that one too...i wish mtgox would do their job
 566 2011-09-19 13:56:42 <sipa> cosurgi: bytes 36-68
 567 2011-09-19 13:57:41 <alexwaters> tcatm & sipa: 30 day limit on pull requests seem reasonable? with a 20 day limit on non-bug issues? that would cut the numbers drastically... writing the readme commit
 568 2011-09-19 13:57:50 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 569 2011-09-19 13:57:53 <log0s> tcatm: can you lookup the trade id for the trade @ 12.50028 for me please?
 570 2011-09-19 13:58:06 <log0s> at timestamp 1315753408
 571 2011-09-19 14:00:05 datagutt_ is now known as datagutt
 572 2011-09-19 14:00:08 <tcatm> alexwaters: I don't think it should be a time based limit. as long as it's automergable it can stay there. once that's not possible you could start the timeout.
 573 2011-09-19 14:00:19 <tcatm> alexwaters: https://github.com/api/v2/json/pulls/bitcoin/bitcoin/ see the mergeable key
 574 2011-09-19 14:00:37 <tcatm> log0s: 1315753408850547
 575 2011-09-19 14:00:46 <log0s> tcatm: thanks!
 576 2011-09-19 14:01:38 mquin has left ()
 577 2011-09-19 14:02:51 <alexwaters> tcatm: hmm, so "mergeable":false makes the whole pull ineligible then?
 578 2011-09-19 14:03:50 <tcatm> alexwaters: well it should be marked as "needs rebasing"
 579 2011-09-19 14:04:14 <log0s> tcatm: supposedly those trades were cancelled but just not on mtgox's cancelled trade list...MT just added them to the cancelled trade list now
 580 2011-09-19 14:05:23 <tcatm> alexwaters: it could still be a feature that is useful and should be merged some day but no dev had time for it yet and the code changed so it become un-auto-mergeable
 581 2011-09-19 14:05:30 <tcatm> log0s: great... :/
 582 2011-09-19 14:06:07 <alexwaters> tcatm: do we want to keep those open? or close them and label in the issuetracker as pending or some other dubious label
 583 2011-09-19 14:06:48 <sipa> it's a really bad sign to have pull requests that have been open for months
 584 2011-09-19 14:07:11 <alexwaters> sipa: I agree, and labeling will allow us to have them on hand without being in the queue
 585 2011-09-19 14:07:27 <tcatm> alexwaters: depends. maybe you can bug all devs to decide on that within a few days?
 586 2011-09-19 14:07:44 <alexwaters> sure, I'll write it up. It would definitely help streamline some things
 587 2011-09-19 14:08:42 <tcatm> log0s: rebuilding database now. mtgoxUSD charts might be weird for the next 20..60 minutes
 588 2011-09-19 14:10:14 <log0s> tcatm: wow, ok
 589 2011-09-19 14:10:19 <log0s> tcatm: thanks
 590 2011-09-19 14:10:27 ByteCoin has left ()
 591 2011-09-19 14:11:01 lfm has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 592 2011-09-19 14:11:57 Daniel0108 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 593 2011-09-19 14:12:45 <sipa> right now, i think it is unclear to many people whether a particular old pull request will ever be merged or not
 594 2011-09-19 14:13:40 <tcatm> anyone heard of "Kucci server"?
 595 2011-09-19 14:13:58 <tcatm> either bitcoincharts or my dns is hacked
 596 2011-09-19 14:15:29 marf_away has joined
 597 2011-09-19 14:16:15 ArmittK has joined
 598 2011-09-19 14:16:31 E-sense has joined
 599 2011-09-19 14:17:08 Daniel0108 has joined
 600 2011-09-19 14:17:19 KArmitt has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 601 2011-09-19 14:17:34 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 602 2011-09-19 14:17:39 log0s has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 603 2011-09-19 14:18:38 log0s has joined
 604 2011-09-19 14:20:44 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 605 2011-09-19 14:22:06 <tcatm> could someone of you try to run curl bitcoincharts.com -v a few times and see if you get <h1>Not Found</h1><p>The requested URL was not found on this server.</p><hr><address>Kucci Server</address></body></html> ?
 606 2011-09-19 14:22:45 <tcatm> (a 301 redirect would be the expected response)
 607 2011-09-19 14:23:40 <wumpus> 2011-09-19 16:14:02 ERROR 404: Not Found.
 608 2011-09-19 14:23:49 <tcatm> fsck
 609 2011-09-19 14:24:07 <gavinandresen> tcatm:    HTTP/1.1 502 Bad Gateway
 610 2011-09-19 14:24:18 <tcatm> 502 is okay, too
 611 2011-09-19 14:24:33 <tcatm> ssh now outputs http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=2hZgxJAF
 612 2011-09-19 14:24:54 <wumpus> I get 502 also part of the time
 613 2011-09-19 14:25:17 <tcatm> 502 is okay too. that happens when I'm rebuilding the database
 614 2011-09-19 14:25:34 kisom__ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 615 2011-09-19 14:25:37 <wumpus> also the Server: Kucci
 616 2011-09-19 14:25:49 <wumpus> the 502's are from Nginx
 617 2011-09-19 14:28:06 Joric has joined
 618 2011-09-19 14:29:00 SomeoneWeird has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 619 2011-09-19 14:29:03 <Joric> i see bitcoinj made a giant leap :D http://www.google.com/wallet/
 620 2011-09-19 14:29:18 <Joric> they claim to launch this service tomorrow
 621 2011-09-19 14:30:13 <jix> Joric: and what does this have to do with bitcoin?
 622 2011-09-19 14:30:37 <wumpus> both are made by google employees
 623 2011-09-19 14:31:49 <wumpus> then again, the android bitcoin wallet already supported nfc payments, just no one is using it because hardly any phones support nfc
 624 2011-09-19 14:33:56 <cjdelisle> hehe
 625 2011-09-19 14:34:08 <cjdelisle> maybe google wallet will support bitcoin on april first
 626 2011-09-19 14:34:40 <wumpus> april first 2024
 627 2011-09-19 14:36:14 LK- has quit (Excess Flood)
 628 2011-09-19 14:36:27 LK- has joined
 629 2011-09-19 14:36:51 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 630 2011-09-19 14:39:27 TD[gone] is now known as TD
 631 2011-09-19 14:39:45 copumpkin has joined
 632 2011-09-19 14:46:21 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Man who run behind car get exhausted)
 633 2011-09-19 14:48:24 <sipa> khalahan: your signandverify branch doesn't seem to exist anymore
 634 2011-09-19 14:50:00 huk has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 635 2011-09-19 14:52:11 <flying> hooray for tor
 636 2011-09-19 14:52:32 <gmaxwell> flying: whats that related to?
 637 2011-09-19 14:53:08 pickett has joined
 638 2011-09-19 14:56:27 <khalahan> sipa: indeed, i had a "conflict" on github with bitcoin and namecoin forks
 639 2011-09-19 14:56:47 <khalahan> do you need the source code now ?
 640 2011-09-19 14:59:45 <khalahan> i've put it again, but it is based on a old bitcoin tree
 641 2011-09-19 15:00:34 <wumpus> khalahan: yes, it's annoying that github forces a fork to have the same name as the original project, and there is no way to change "forkedness" status afterwards
 642 2011-09-19 15:02:41 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 643 2011-09-19 15:03:33 xelister has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 644 2011-09-19 15:03:50 <sipa> and if both you and X have a fork of project P, you can't do a pull request into a branch of X
 645 2011-09-19 15:06:53 <khalahan> indeed, i must choose between namecoin and bitcoin to be able to use the "pull request" feature...
 646 2011-09-19 15:07:09 <khalahan> sipa, i've rebased the patched on the current bitcoin tree
 647 2011-09-19 15:07:17 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 648 2011-09-19 15:07:21 <wumpus> yup
 649 2011-09-19 15:07:23 pickett has joined
 650 2011-09-19 15:09:25 <khalahan> hum, it seems i can "pull request" to both projects now...
 651 2011-09-19 15:14:56 danbri has joined
 652 2011-09-19 15:15:43 wasabi2 has joined
 653 2011-09-19 15:15:51 erle- has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 654 2011-09-19 15:16:21 luke-jr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 655 2011-09-19 15:16:34 luke-jr has joined
 656 2011-09-19 15:16:57 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 657 2011-09-19 15:24:54 asher^ has joined
 658 2011-09-19 15:36:28 ocharles has quit (Excess Flood)
 659 2011-09-19 15:36:35 fahadsadah has quit (Excess Flood)
 660 2011-09-19 15:36:59 Fairuser1 has joined
 661 2011-09-19 15:36:59 Fairuser has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 662 2011-09-19 15:42:51 Clipse has quit (Quit: Clipse)
 663 2011-09-19 15:43:04 ocharles_ has joined
 664 2011-09-19 15:43:08 AnnihilaT is now known as AnniGONE
 665 2011-09-19 15:43:08 Clipse has joined
 666 2011-09-19 15:43:46 Cablesaurus has joined
 667 2011-09-19 15:43:47 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
 668 2011-09-19 15:43:47 Cablesaurus has joined
 669 2011-09-19 15:44:48 fahadsadah has joined
 670 2011-09-19 15:47:02 BTCTrader_ has quit (Quit: BTCTrader_)
 671 2011-09-19 15:48:36 AStove has joined
 672 2011-09-19 15:50:39 AnniGONE is now known as AnnihilaT
 673 2011-09-19 15:51:51 nhodges has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 674 2011-09-19 15:52:36 wpl has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 675 2011-09-19 15:54:14 alanp_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 676 2011-09-19 15:54:42 wpl has joined
 677 2011-09-19 15:55:01 alanp has joined
 678 2011-09-19 15:55:22 asher^ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 679 2011-09-19 15:58:54 <jgarzik> gavinandresen, tcatm: IMO multiple branches == multiple headaches
 680 2011-09-19 15:59:01 <jgarzik> just pull into master
 681 2011-09-19 16:01:22 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: you're using git wrong
 682 2011-09-19 16:01:35 <Diablo-D3> multiple branches are fine for topic specific branches.
 683 2011-09-19 16:01:43 <Diablo-D3> NEVER commit directly into master.
 684 2011-09-19 16:02:11 <sipa> we're talking about multiple head branches
 685 2011-09-19 16:02:20 AStove has quit ()
 686 2011-09-19 16:02:23 <sipa> not about development branches for specific features
 687 2011-09-19 16:02:47 <Diablo-D3> oh
 688 2011-09-19 16:02:49 <Diablo-D3> yeah, dont do that
 689 2011-09-19 16:02:50 <sipa> (as in, a stable 0.4.x branch separately from an unstable 0.5.x branch)
 690 2011-09-19 16:02:51 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 691 2011-09-19 16:02:58 <Diablo-D3> git doesnt work that way
 692 2011-09-19 16:03:04 <Diablo-D3> hell, development doesnt work that way
 693 2011-09-19 16:03:12 <nanotube> sipa: well, some guys still want to get together and maintain a stable 0.4 branch...
 694 2011-09-19 16:03:12 <Diablo-D3> and anyone who says it does is a fag who never gets anything done
 695 2011-09-19 16:03:21 <sipa> nanotube: i know, and i understand why
 696 2011-09-19 16:03:24 <Diablo-D3> nanotube: wrong
 697 2011-09-19 16:03:35 <Diablo-D3> thats not how development works
 698 2011-09-19 16:03:45 <Diablo-D3> nothing _unstable_ should ever be commited into master
 699 2011-09-19 16:03:46 <Diablo-D3> ever
 700 2011-09-19 16:03:49 <nanotube> Diablo-D3: dude, tell it to them, not to me. i'm just stating a fact.
 701 2011-09-19 16:04:03 <Diablo-D3> I should be able to roll a new release from ANY commit in master, and have it work
 702 2011-09-19 16:04:07 <sipa> stable and unstable are not binary flags
 703 2011-09-19 16:04:23 <Diablo-D3> sipa: in a way, yes
 704 2011-09-19 16:04:25 <Diablo-D3> its a constant.
 705 2011-09-19 16:04:52 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: no u
 706 2011-09-19 16:04:52 <Diablo-D3> you should never have unstable code in master.
 707 2011-09-19 16:04:53 <sipa> a new feature may be merged into master if it is assumed to be stable
 708 2011-09-19 16:04:54 <nanotube> Diablo-D3: that said, there may be some value, to some people, in maintaining an older codebase with more conservative changes.
 709 2011-09-19 16:04:54 <Diablo-D3> sipa: assumed? this is what test suites are for.
 710 2011-09-19 16:05:04 <Diablo-D3> nanotube: nope.
 711 2011-09-19 16:05:04 <Diablo-D3> there isnt.
 712 2011-09-19 16:05:09 <Diablo-D3> its duplication of effort.
 713 2011-09-19 16:05:16 <sipa> yes it is
 714 2011-09-19 16:05:29 <sipa> but that doesn't mean it's pointless in every case
 715 2011-09-19 16:06:15 * luke-jr notes it wouldn't be duplication of effort if the development were done correctly in the first place
 716 2011-09-19 16:06:18 erus` has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 6.0.2/20110902133214])
 717 2011-09-19 16:06:31 <Diablo-D3> sipa: its pointless in every single case
 718 2011-09-19 16:06:46 <Diablo-D3> remember when the apache maint for deb misunderstood the policy for stable?
 719 2011-09-19 16:07:08 <sipa> luke-jr: what would correct development be, according to you?
 720 2011-09-19 16:07:15 <luke-jr> sipa: fixing the bug where it was introduced
 721 2011-09-19 16:07:28 <Diablo-D3> <luke-jr> well, first, I need to quote the bible, and then jerk off a faux jesus penis.
 722 2011-09-19 16:07:37 <sipa> please
 723 2011-09-19 16:07:37 <luke-jr> ie, if it was introduced in commit da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709, then that commit is the parent of the fix
 724 2011-09-19 16:08:08 <wumpus> luke-jr: what problem are we talking about here?
 725 2011-09-19 16:08:24 <luke-jr> wumpus: having a stable branch for production services to use
 726 2011-09-19 16:08:43 <wumpus> yes, but what bug was not fixed?
 727 2011-09-19 16:09:02 <luke-jr> wumpus: no bugs are being fixed in the older versions right now
 728 2011-09-19 16:09:24 <wumpus> afaik the only thing being committed to bitcoin right now are bug fixes
 729 2011-09-19 16:09:32 jgarzik has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 730 2011-09-19 16:09:34 <imsaguy> Diablo-D3, that would be wasted seed, therefore a sin
 731 2011-09-19 16:09:52 <luke-jr> wumpus: no, there are features mixed in.
 732 2011-09-19 16:09:55 <luke-jr> wumpus: as there should be
 733 2011-09-19 16:09:59 <luke-jr> and refactoring
 734 2011-09-19 16:10:13 <luke-jr> admittedly, the refactoring is a barrier to proper bugfixing
 735 2011-09-19 16:10:20 <Diablo-D3> imsaguy: its not like luke can ever produce viable offspring.
 736 2011-09-19 16:10:32 <luke-jr> hence the need for maintaining a stable branch independently
 737 2011-09-19 16:10:44 danbri has joined
 738 2011-09-19 16:10:45 <wumpus> huh, refactoring is only useful if it results in more maintainable code and thus less bugs and better bugfixing
 739 2011-09-19 16:10:52 <luke-jr> wumpus: it does.
 740 2011-09-19 16:11:08 <luke-jr> the Satoshi client is making some progress there
 741 2011-09-19 16:11:10 <sipa> refactoring is needed, but it indeed hurts pull requests that are waiting
 742 2011-09-19 16:11:24 <sipa> which may also be needed
 743 2011-09-19 16:11:24 <luke-jr> but in the meantime, a stable branch is needed to ensure people can stick with a known-working codebase and still get fixes
 744 2011-09-19 16:11:27 jgarzik has joined
 745 2011-09-19 16:11:53 jgarzik is now known as Guest97925
 746 2011-09-19 16:12:06 <wumpus> well if people are prepared to maintain that, why not
 747 2011-09-19 16:13:08 <luke-jr> wumpus: yeah, all we're asking Gavin et al for is to make their next version be 0.5 so we can use 0.4.x for stable releases, and possibly (if they're willing) post those releases on their site and do builds of them
 748 2011-09-19 16:13:15 <wumpus> as long as it doesn't hold back the current devs from working on the future of bitcoin
 749 2011-09-19 16:13:27 <luke-jr> (like it really should be anyway)
 750 2011-09-19 16:15:04 <luke-jr> but the brunt of the work would be those of us interested in the stable branch, not the people working on the mainline
 751 2011-09-19 16:15:31 <wumpus> yeah, bitcoin developers are already thinly spread out, requiring even more of them would be a bad idea
 752 2011-09-19 16:18:01 <sipa> i think the idea is viable, if done correctly
 753 2011-09-19 16:18:11 Qatz is now known as DaQatz
 754 2011-09-19 16:18:12 E-sense has quit (Quit: System.exit(0);)
 755 2011-09-19 16:19:06 luke-jr has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 756 2011-09-19 16:19:14 luke-jr has joined
 757 2011-09-19 16:19:18 luke-jr has quit (otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
 758 2011-09-19 16:19:41 luke-jr has joined
 759 2011-09-19 16:19:59 <luke-jr> [12:05:34] <luke-jr> but the brunt of the work would be those of us interested in the stable branch, not the people working on the mainline
 760 2011-09-19 16:20:33 <gmaxwell> Forget developers.
 761 2011-09-19 16:20:40 <gmaxwell> The resource limit is testing.
 762 2011-09-19 16:21:07 <gmaxwell> Having many important things running on some branch will deprive mainline of the absolutely essential testing which it need.
 763 2011-09-19 16:21:10 <gmaxwell> er needs.
 764 2011-09-19 16:21:19 <sipa> luke-jr: would that mean only backporting fixes from 0.5.x to 0.4.x, or also separately develop fixes?
 765 2011-09-19 16:21:23 <luke-jr> using important things as guinea pigs is no good
 766 2011-09-19 16:21:40 <luke-jr> sipa: backport, or merging stuff already in 0.5+
 767 2011-09-19 16:21:57 <luke-jr> sipa: developed fixes would obviously need to be in newer versions too
 768 2011-09-19 16:22:00 <sipa> testing for those should be a lot easier than the mainline development itself
 769 2011-09-19 16:22:11 <sipa> but for a 'stable' version you want things possible even better tested
 770 2011-09-19 16:22:21 <luke-jr> testing bugfixes is usually pretty simple
 771 2011-09-19 16:22:33 <luke-jr> ie, you can just test that the function works the same as it did before (other than the fix)
 772 2011-09-19 16:22:41 <wumpus> unless the ycause other bugs in some other place
 773 2011-09-19 16:23:23 <luke-jr> if input->results is the same, there's no logical reason to expect it to create problems somewhere else
 774 2011-09-19 16:23:33 <luke-jr> (results being output + side effects)
 775 2011-09-19 16:23:48 <gmaxwell> if 'output + side effects' is the same then it wasn't fixed!
 776 2011-09-19 16:24:00 <luke-jr> and again, this is stuff for the stable team, not trunk developers
 777 2011-09-19 16:24:09 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: hence "(other than the fix)"
 778 2011-09-19 16:24:10 <wumpus> yeah, you're right if it was  always a nicely isolated function that changed
 779 2011-09-19 16:24:38 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: "I've proved that it didn't change except to the extent that it changed" doesn't prove the change is any good. ;)
 780 2011-09-19 16:24:58 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: there should be a very well-defined behaviour change that can be considered
 781 2011-09-19 16:25:22 <gmaxwell> It's not like we have unit tests that can be easily employed here.
 782 2011-09-19 16:25:25 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: and like sipa implied, these changes already need testing for trunk
 783 2011-09-19 16:25:58 <luke-jr> regardless, it'll be better than the current status quo
 784 2011-09-19 16:26:06 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 785 2011-09-19 16:26:11 TheAncientGoat has joined
 786 2011-09-19 16:26:23 <luke-jr> where people are faced with "run new mostly untested code" vs "run old code with possibly known exploits"
 787 2011-09-19 16:26:40 AStove has joined
 788 2011-09-19 16:26:46 <gmaxwell> But is it 'better' in the right direction?
 789 2011-09-19 16:26:57 <wumpus> but what prevents you from simply working together, forking a github repository, and calling it bitcoin-stable?
 790 2011-09-19 16:27:09 <wumpus> you don't need any of our help do you?
 791 2011-09-19 16:27:15 <gmaxwell> From my perspective the Problem is that people are staying on _old_ code. This doesn't solve that problem.
 792 2011-09-19 16:27:21 <luke-jr> wumpus: that's the point (minus GitHub)
 793 2011-09-19 16:27:23 <sipa> the only thing he asks is in the version numbering
 794 2011-09-19 16:27:32 <luke-jr> wumpus: the only thing we need from trunk is that they don't conflict with the version numbers
 795 2011-09-19 16:27:37 <sipa> and some support in building/distribution
 796 2011-09-19 16:27:50 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: production stuff *should* stay on old code.
 797 2011-09-19 16:28:07 <luke-jr> sipa: the latter is strictly "if you don't mind"
 798 2011-09-19 16:28:24 <gmaxwell> bullshit bitcoin is labled experimental for a reason.
 799 2011-09-19 16:28:35 <sipa> that's the problem
 800 2011-09-19 16:28:39 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it has to move beyond experimental or it will die soon
 801 2011-09-19 16:28:45 <wumpus> isn't this kind of an arbitrary point to begin with it, though? why not make 0.4.x the stable branch after 0.5.0 is released
 802 2011-09-19 16:29:13 <luke-jr> wumpus: stable branch would begin with 0.4.0 being released
 803 2011-09-19 16:29:41 <wumpus> yes, but my point is... you can start a "stable" branch at any time, why now?
 804 2011-09-19 16:29:41 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: for better or worse, the Bitcoin economy is moving faster than development
 805 2011-09-19 16:29:54 <luke-jr> wumpus: because it's needed yesterday :P
 806 2011-09-19 16:30:06 <gmaxwell> I think it would be informative for you to go through the commits from .21 to 4. and point out what commits you wouldn't take. There were very few changes that weren't bugfixes.
 807 2011-09-19 16:30:07 <wumpus> it could go faster if people would not be insisting on making a branch that moves EVEN slower :p
 808 2011-09-19 16:30:20 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: the whole wallet refactoring, for example
 809 2011-09-19 16:30:34 Turing_i has joined
 810 2011-09-19 16:30:34 Turing_i has quit (Changing host)
 811 2011-09-19 16:30:34 Turing_i has joined
 812 2011-09-19 16:30:36 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yes, but thats the only thing I can think of walletcrypt+refactoring
 813 2011-09-19 16:30:44 <luke-jr> wumpus: the feature set planned for 0.4 is sufficient for many services
 814 2011-09-19 16:30:46 <wumpus> so, did the wallet refactoring bring any problems for you?
 815 2011-09-19 16:30:53 <wumpus> or the lock cleanup?
 816 2011-09-19 16:30:53 <luke-jr> wumpus: I'm still using 0.3.23
 817 2011-09-19 16:31:07 <wumpus> if anything, it's much more stable now...
 818 2011-09-19 16:31:13 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: the only feature .4 adds over .23/.24 is wallet crypto IIRC.
 819 2011-09-19 16:31:55 <wumpus> I think so too
 820 2011-09-19 16:32:22 <sipa> i think 0.4 will be the most stable release since a long time
 821 2011-09-19 16:32:27 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: post-0.4 includes Qt, build system improvements, key import/export, signmessage, etc
 822 2011-09-19 16:32:40 <luke-jr> sipa: yes, that's why I want to wait for it instead of starting with 0.3.24
 823 2011-09-19 16:32:51 <gmaxwell> Did those account fixes make it into .4?
 824 2011-09-19 16:33:08 <sipa> some, iirc
 825 2011-09-19 16:33:11 <Diablo-D3> so I wonder if everyone has quit eligius by now
 826 2011-09-19 16:33:18 <gmaxwell> Sorry, I know thats vague.
 827 2011-09-19 16:33:25 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: no, most people don't use broken miners
 828 2011-09-19 16:33:31 <wumpus> luke-jr: why not continue 0.3.x for the stable branch?
 829 2011-09-19 16:33:37 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: and even those who do don't notice it's broken thanks to my workaround
 830 2011-09-19 16:33:54 <luke-jr> wumpus: because 0.4 in theory has most of the bugs from 0.3.x fixed
 831 2011-09-19 16:34:06 <Diablo-D3> I cant hear you over my quarter of a percent reject rate.
 832 2011-09-19 16:34:10 <wumpus> uh, i mean forking as soon as 0.4.0 is released
 833 2011-09-19 16:34:17 <luke-jr> wumpus: that's the plan
 834 2011-09-19 16:34:19 <wumpus> and simply continuing the 0.3.x version numbers
 835 2011-09-19 16:34:24 <luke-jr> that doesn't make sense
 836 2011-09-19 16:34:32 <wumpus> they won't be used anymore anyway
 837 2011-09-19 16:35:09 <Diablo-D3> wait, what?
 838 2011-09-19 16:35:14 <wumpus> the numbers even look old :P
 839 2011-09-19 16:35:53 <luke-jr> 0.3.25 shouldn't be based on 0.4 :P
 840 2011-09-19 16:36:03 luke-jr has quit (Excess Flood)
 841 2011-09-19 16:36:04 <wumpus> then base it on the last commit before 0.4
 842 2011-09-19 16:36:05 <wumpus> :P
 843 2011-09-19 16:36:21 luke-jr has joined
 844 2011-09-19 16:36:23 * luke-jr kicks router
 845 2011-09-19 16:37:07 d33tah has joined
 846 2011-09-19 16:37:25 <d33tah> where can I find a sample transaction data, as sent through TCP/IP?
 847 2011-09-19 16:37:42 <wumpus> I think the wiki has some
 848 2011-09-19 16:38:05 <gmaxwell> 09:24 < luke-jr> wumpus: because 0.4 in theory has most of the bugs from 0.3.x fixed
 849 2011-09-19 16:38:06 <gmaxwell> hahahahahah
 850 2011-09-19 16:38:24 <d33tah> wumpus: just found, thanks
 851 2011-09-19 16:38:43 <luke-jr> branching stable from 0.3 would mean starting with nothing newer than 0.3.20
 852 2011-09-19 16:38:46 <luke-jr> whcih would mean a lot of work
 853 2011-09-19 16:39:10 <d33tah> how are transactions signed?
 854 2011-09-19 16:39:12 <d33tah> i can't find that part
 855 2011-09-19 16:39:32 <wumpus> I don't see the problem with starting from the last commit before it became 0.4.x... essentially it's still 0.3.x
 856 2011-09-19 16:40:15 <sipa> you'd fork from somewhere in 0.3.x, and include every single patch up to 0.4.0 release *except* the one changing the version number
 857 2011-09-19 16:40:23 <wumpus> +1 sipa
 858 2011-09-19 16:40:33 <gmaxwell> or just add another digit to your verions
 859 2011-09-19 16:40:53 <luke-jr> of course, in x.y.z, .z is *supposed* to be bugfix-only ;)
 860 2011-09-19 16:41:00 <wumpus> then you can continue 0.3.25 0.3.26 0.3.27 until 0.3.6480 in 2020
 861 2011-09-19 16:41:08 <gmaxwell> geesh, but I'm still thinking that this isn't a grand idea. It'll just be an excuse to keep criticial infrastucture on old code when it _really_ needs to be upgraded.
 862 2011-09-19 16:41:16 Lopuz has joined
 863 2011-09-19 16:41:22 <gmaxwell> And it's mostly providing a stable base for patches which ought to be made public and integrated.
 864 2011-09-19 16:41:40 <gmaxwell> (though the time to integration has been pretty slow :( )
 865 2011-09-19 16:41:45 <Diablo-D3> >patches
 866 2011-09-19 16:41:49 <Diablo-D3> >on a project that uses git
 867 2011-09-19 16:41:51 <wumpus> yep just so that people don't have to upgrade their 'secret' patches .:-)
 868 2011-09-19 16:41:54 <Diablo-D3> niggawat
 869 2011-09-19 16:42:03 <Diablo-D3> wumpus: bullshit
 870 2011-09-19 16:42:07 <Diablo-D3> they can use git and a private branch
 871 2011-09-19 16:42:18 <wumpus> lol I was just joking
 872 2011-09-19 16:42:25 <gmaxwell> wumpus: bingo. Though sadly, luke makes his hit public and it still doesn't get merged in a timely manner, so it's hard to bitch.
 873 2011-09-19 16:42:36 <gmaxwell> wumpus: well people _are_ running private patches.
 874 2011-09-19 16:42:38 fnord0 has joined
 875 2011-09-19 16:42:57 <wumpus> gmaxwell: right, he doesn't seem to be keeping them back
 876 2011-09-19 16:42:57 <Diablo-D3> luke doesnt do anything
 877 2011-09-19 16:42:59 <Diablo-D3> quit making shit up
 878 2011-09-19 16:43:09 <gmaxwell> You can't run a non-trivial mining operation without a non-trivial stack of patches, but only luke has made his changes public.
 879 2011-09-19 16:44:12 <Diablo-D3> bullshit
 880 2011-09-19 16:44:13 mosimo has joined
 881 2011-09-19 16:44:18 <Diablo-D3> I run mining with zero patches.
 882 2011-09-19 16:44:27 <gmaxwell> With two gpus?
 883 2011-09-19 16:44:33 <Diablo-D3> no, one.
 884 2011-09-19 16:44:34 * Diablo-D3 runs
 885 2011-09-19 16:44:40 <gmaxwell> Right.
 886 2011-09-19 16:44:51 <Diablo-D3> but its a really fast gpu
 887 2011-09-19 16:45:32 <gmaxwell> It only takes about 5/6 before bitcoind starts to fall over and leave workers idle. Plus at that point you'll lose a couple percent due to duplicate getworks.
 888 2011-09-19 16:47:29 TD is now known as TD[gone]
 889 2011-09-19 16:48:31 <d33tah> i'm digging the docs and i don't understand. what exactly do we hash to get scriptPubKey?
 890 2011-09-19 16:48:32 abragin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 891 2011-09-19 16:50:00 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 892 2011-09-19 16:50:32 abragin has joined
 893 2011-09-19 16:53:15 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: btw, the point isn't to patch on top of stable branch, that's just the solution I noted in response to "but 0.4 doesn't have enough features" ;)
 894 2011-09-19 16:54:50 <sipa> d33tah: scriptPubKey is a script
 895 2011-09-19 16:55:07 <d33tah> sipa: i know this part. what I don't get is hash inside of this script
 896 2011-09-19 16:55:11 <d33tah> assume normal address to address tx
 897 2011-09-19 16:55:24 <sipa> an address is a base58 encoding of a 160-bit hash of a public key
 898 2011-09-19 16:55:38 <d33tah> OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
 899 2011-09-19 16:55:43 <d33tah> how to calculate this pubKeyHash?
 900 2011-09-19 16:55:56 erus` has joined
 901 2011-09-19 16:56:00 <sipa> in the case of a spend-to-address transaction output, the script will verify that the provided public key hashes to the chosen hash160
 902 2011-09-19 16:56:09 maikmerten has joined
 903 2011-09-19 16:56:16 <sipa> you don't calculate it, it's just the unencoded number the address corresponds to
 904 2011-09-19 16:56:27 <d33tah> i'd like to know how to generate a transaction
 905 2011-09-19 16:56:31 <d33tah> step by step
 906 2011-09-19 16:56:40 <d33tah> so I could implement it myself in another language
 907 2011-09-19 16:56:43 <sipa> it's quite complex
 908 2011-09-19 16:56:52 <d33tah> i can settle for some simplifications
 909 2011-09-19 16:56:59 Clipse has quit (Quit: Clipse)
 910 2011-09-19 16:57:06 ThomasV has joined
 911 2011-09-19 16:57:07 tpocra has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 912 2011-09-19 16:57:11 <d33tah> i don't want to implement the whole scripting, just assume spend to address
 913 2011-09-19 16:57:17 <sipa> so to get that pubKeyHash, just decode the address the transaction spends to
 914 2011-09-19 16:57:48 <gavinandresen> d33tah: Check out this thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=29416.0
 915 2011-09-19 16:58:11 <d33tah> gavinandresen: i will
 916 2011-09-19 17:00:25 tpocra has joined
 917 2011-09-19 17:00:38 <d33tah> hm
 918 2011-09-19 17:01:08 <d33tah> i'm not sure that's it
 919 2011-09-19 17:01:14 <d33tah> i need the generation part instead
 920 2011-09-19 17:03:01 <Joric> d33tah, bitcoinj has an example how to redeem from private key to a certain address
 921 2011-09-19 17:03:26 <Joric> the easiest and the fastest solution, probably
 922 2011-09-19 17:03:42 disq has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 923 2011-09-19 17:04:44 <d33tah> i think i need to take a step back.
 924 2011-09-19 17:05:13 <d33tah> let's say I want to transfer 0.1BTC from address A to B.
 925 2011-09-19 17:05:19 <sipa> no
 926 2011-09-19 17:05:23 <d33tah> what data, aside from the amounts and addresses do I want?
 927 2011-09-19 17:05:47 <sipa> bitcoins are not identified by addresses
 928 2011-09-19 17:05:53 <sipa> but by transaction outputs
 929 2011-09-19 17:06:06 <d33tah> okay. so the address is not needed at all?
 930 2011-09-19 17:06:11 <sipa> if you want to spend a coin, you need to have an unredeemed transaction output for which you have the key
 931 2011-09-19 17:06:22 <sipa> that will serve as input for your transaction
 932 2011-09-19 17:06:37 <d33tah> the key being some ascii text?
 933 2011-09-19 17:07:14 <sipa> ascii is just an encoding
 934 2011-09-19 17:07:33 <sipa> yes you can store a private key as ascii text, but unless for interchange that's not what happens
 935 2011-09-19 17:07:52 <sipa> either it is a serialized openssl data structure in the wallet, or an encrypted form thereof
 936 2011-09-19 17:08:58 <d33tah> hm, so the output contains its private key - i understand that's a number.
 937 2011-09-19 17:09:07 <sipa> no it doesn't
 938 2011-09-19 17:09:11 MrTiggr is now known as MrTiggrZzzzss
 939 2011-09-19 17:09:31 <sipa> the output just says "Hey, if you can prove you have the private key corresponding to a public key that hashes to X, you can use me!"
 940 2011-09-19 17:10:34 <sipa> private keys are in most typical situation never tranferred from one system to another
 941 2011-09-19 17:10:46 <d33tah> and they are assigned to the addresses?
 942 2011-09-19 17:11:02 <sipa> from a private key, you can derive the public key
 943 2011-09-19 17:11:11 <sipa> if you hash the public key, you get the address
 944 2011-09-19 17:11:22 <d33tah> ok.
 945 2011-09-19 17:11:43 <Joric> d33tah, examine the sendcoins code starting from here http://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/source/browse/trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/examples/PrivateKeys.java
 946 2011-09-19 17:11:56 stalled has joined
 947 2011-09-19 17:12:06 <Joric> it imports a private key into a fresh wallet then sends it out
 948 2011-09-19 17:13:29 <d33tah> all its contents?
 949 2011-09-19 17:14:00 Zarutian has joined
 950 2011-09-19 17:14:24 <Joric> yep everything that related to that private key
 951 2011-09-19 17:14:27 <d33tah> ok
 952 2011-09-19 17:14:43 <d33tah> thanks, i'm looking at it
 953 2011-09-19 17:15:07 Raccoon` has joined
 954 2011-09-19 17:15:47 tpocra has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 955 2011-09-19 17:16:24 Raccoon has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 956 2011-09-19 17:16:24 Raccoon` is now known as Raccoon
 957 2011-09-19 17:18:04 <d33tah> createSend seems to be the juicy method
 958 2011-09-19 17:18:27 da2ce7 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 959 2011-09-19 17:19:48 <d33tah> Transaction sendTx = new Transaction(params);
 960 2011-09-19 17:19:52 <d33tah> wth is params?
 961 2011-09-19 17:20:23 <d33tah> anything important from my point of view?
 962 2011-09-19 17:20:45 <Joric> Transaction(NetworkParameters params) { }
 963 2011-09-19 17:21:29 zapnap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 964 2011-09-19 17:21:30 <Joric> address type is used in the base58 version of the private key
 965 2011-09-19 17:21:38 <d33tah> i'm not a java coder, but it looks like an empty constructor to me, which would seem that the param is ignored
 966 2011-09-19 17:22:36 <Joric> well there are a lot of lousy coders in google
 967 2011-09-19 17:23:07 <d33tah> so i'm right about that?
 968 2011-09-19 17:23:52 <Joric> extends message, super(params)
 969 2011-09-19 17:24:49 <d33tah> conn.writemessage - is that java's standard library already?
 970 2011-09-19 17:26:00 Clipse has joined
 971 2011-09-19 17:26:47 disq has joined
 972 2011-09-19 17:26:48 disq has quit (Changing host)
 973 2011-09-19 17:26:48 disq has joined
 974 2011-09-19 17:26:54 <Joric> we won't go very far this way, just examine the source, atleast it's a bit easier than the cpp version
 975 2011-09-19 17:26:56 Incitatus has joined
 976 2011-09-19 17:27:21 <d33tah> i am
 977 2011-09-19 17:30:23 d33tah has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 978 2011-09-19 17:32:58 EskimoBob has joined
 979 2011-09-19 17:32:58 EskimoBob has quit (Changing host)
 980 2011-09-19 17:32:58 EskimoBob has joined
 981 2011-09-19 17:33:41 d33tah has joined
 982 2011-09-19 17:34:24 <d33tah> just got disconnected, could anyone copy last two lines?
 983 2011-09-19 17:35:20 EskimoBob has quit (Client Quit)
 984 2011-09-19 17:35:22 <Joric> there was none
 985 2011-09-19 17:35:58 <d33tah> mkay
 986 2011-09-19 17:35:58 <d33tah> so, i feel kinda lost now
 987 2011-09-19 17:35:58 <d33tah> i'm trying to undestand ECKey key = wallet.findKeyFromPubHash(connectedPubKeyHash);
 988 2011-09-19 17:36:07 <d33tah> it's Transaction.signInputs
 989 2011-09-19 17:36:22 <d33tah> that's the only reference to the wallet there
 990 2011-09-19 17:36:31 <d33tah> does it mean that to sign the inputs, all I need from the wallet is the public key?
 991 2011-09-19 17:36:32 <Joric> ecdsa keypair, 32 bit secret + 65 bytes public key (1+32+32)
 992 2011-09-19 17:36:32 <gmaxwell> private.
 993 2011-09-19 17:36:43 <d33tah> yeah, that makes more sense to me
 994 2011-09-19 17:36:44 <Joric> 32 bytes secret sry
 995 2011-09-19 17:37:06 <d33tah> so findKeyFromPubHash finds both private and secret?
 996 2011-09-19 17:37:46 <gmaxwell> IIRC it finds the private key from the hash of the public key.
 997 2011-09-19 17:38:22 <d33tah> ok
 998 2011-09-19 17:39:14 pirateat40 has joined
 999 2011-09-19 17:39:20 <d33tah> so it's the ECKey key = wallet.findKeyFromPubHash(connectedPubKeyHash);
1000 2011-09-19 17:39:20 pirateat40 has left ()
1001 2011-09-19 17:39:36 <d33tah> sorry, wrong hotkey :p
1002 2011-09-19 17:39:58 <d33tah> so it's this ECDSA encoding that is in scriptpubkey?
1003 2011-09-19 17:41:32 <sipa> signatures are DER encoded
1004 2011-09-19 17:43:58 <d33tah> i'm reading up on DER and it's not clear to me
1005 2011-09-19 17:44:47 <d33tah> does that mean there's no ECDSA algorithm used in scriptpubkey?
1006 2011-09-19 17:46:04 <sipa> how do you mean?
1007 2011-09-19 17:46:27 <sipa> scriptPubKey contains the OP_CHECKSIG instructor for normal txouts
1008 2011-09-19 17:46:38 <sipa> which performs an ECDSA signature verification
1009 2011-09-19 17:46:40 <Joric> d33tah, ECKey hides the ecdsa from us we only need ECKey.getPrivKeyBytes(), ECKey.getPubKey() and ECKey.sign(byte[] input)
1010 2011-09-19 17:47:23 zapnap has joined
1011 2011-09-19 17:50:12 <d33tah> so, the inputs are signed by ecdsa
1012 2011-09-19 17:50:27 <d33tah> for which we need our private key
1013 2011-09-19 17:50:41 <d33tah> do we need it for anything else but signing the inputs in the transaction?
1014 2011-09-19 17:51:47 <Joric> ripemd160(sha256(pubkey)) is a bitcoin address
1015 2011-09-19 17:52:07 <d33tah> okay.
1016 2011-09-19 17:53:24 <d33tah> but as far as I can see in the protocol specification, the address is not needed anywhere to form a 'tx' message
1017 2011-09-19 17:55:27 <d33tah> i'd first want to list all the variables that are needed to create such a message with 1 input and 1 output
1018 2011-09-19 17:55:30 <sipa> addresses are really just a way for authenticating transactions
1019 2011-09-19 17:56:39 <Joric> to create ECKey keypair you need only the 32 byte private key nothing more
1020 2011-09-19 17:56:44 <sipa> if i spend to address X, which corresponds to pubkeyhash Y, i'm really just creating a transaction output that says "give me a public key P and a signature S, such that hash160(P)=Y, and S is a valid signature on this transaction using P"
1021 2011-09-19 17:57:02 <sipa> "if you can do so, you can spend me"
1022 2011-09-19 17:57:52 Burgundy has joined
1023 2011-09-19 17:58:46 <d33tah> so it's all about transferring the signature, right?
1024 2011-09-19 17:59:09 <sipa> the scriptSig of the input that consumes that output (in some later transaction) will contain those P and S
1025 2011-09-19 17:59:31 <sipa> and creating S requires having a private key whose public key is P
1026 2011-09-19 18:00:17 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1027 2011-09-19 18:01:18 TheAncientGoat has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
1028 2011-09-19 18:01:23 <d33tah> so, are we hashing S so that only the receiver can decrypt it?
1029 2011-09-19 18:01:38 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1030 2011-09-19 18:01:46 <sipa> S is a signature
1031 2011-09-19 18:01:48 <sipa> not a hash
1032 2011-09-19 18:02:16 <sipa> and bitcoin (except for the upcoming wallet encryption in 0.4.0) *never* does any encryption or decryption
1033 2011-09-19 18:02:28 CutAndPaste has joined
1034 2011-09-19 18:02:40 <d33tah> okay
1035 2011-09-19 18:02:45 <d33tah> sorry but i gotta go
1036 2011-09-19 18:02:52 <sipa> read up on ECDSA
1037 2011-09-19 18:03:01 <d33tah> thanks for trying to explain it to me, i guess i'm too tired today
1038 2011-09-19 18:03:08 <d33tah> cya guys, thanks a lot ;)
1039 2011-09-19 18:03:13 <sipa> it takes care of noone but the owner of the key being able to create a signature
1040 2011-09-19 18:10:01 alexwaters has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1041 2011-09-19 18:10:47 Matth1a3 has joined
1042 2011-09-19 18:20:50 Noxitu has joined
1043 2011-09-19 18:21:10 TD[gone] is now known as TD
1044 2011-09-19 18:21:15 maikmerten has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1045 2011-09-19 18:30:42 <d33tah> i'm back for a couple of minutes
1046 2011-09-19 18:31:02 <d33tah> sipa: perhaps a different approach could help me understand that
1047 2011-09-19 18:31:18 <d33tah> we generate a coin. it's sent to some address. what exactly is sent to this address?
1048 2011-09-19 18:32:05 <sipa> nothing
1049 2011-09-19 18:32:06 <gavinandresen> d33tah: nothing is "sent".  A transaction is broadcast with a TxOut that can only be satisfied (signed) by a person who holds a particular private key.
1050 2011-09-19 18:32:08 <gmaxwell> d33tah: Have you read the bitcoin paper?
1051 2011-09-19 18:32:16 <gmaxwell> There isn't really any sending, there is a bit of publishing.
1052 2011-09-19 18:32:18 p0s has joined
1053 2011-09-19 18:32:38 <gavinandresen> the bitcoin paper doesn't actually say much about signing transactions, Satoshi just references previous work for that....
1054 2011-09-19 18:32:55 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: it does show that txn chain illustration.
1055 2011-09-19 18:33:29 <sipa> there is just a signed transaction with an output that is declared to be only usable by the.owner of address X
1056 2011-09-19 18:34:11 <sipa> that output itself is the closest thing to a 'bitcoin value' that exists
1057 2011-09-19 18:34:11 <gmaxwell> E.g. you write a classified ad in the paper that says "The property at 123 Maple st. is now owned by someone who can produce a signature from a public key with hash ABCDEF. --signed previous owner 1BCDEF" and then everyone can see that this is so.
1058 2011-09-19 18:34:21 <gmaxwell> Except there is no newspaper.
1059 2011-09-19 18:34:22 <gmaxwell> :)
1060 2011-09-19 18:34:59 <gavinandresen> ... there is no spoon....
1061 2011-09-19 18:35:18 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, hi
1062 2011-09-19 18:35:42 <d33tah> so, the block is validated by its header being correct. it contains a list of txouts, that can only be used by owners of specific addresses.
1063 2011-09-19 18:35:50 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: howdy
1064 2011-09-19 18:36:02 <d33tah> how are they tied to address owners' private keys?
1065 2011-09-19 18:36:12 <flying> ahem, peniskitten?
1066 2011-09-19 18:37:33 <phantomcircuit> sometimes people make me sad
1067 2011-09-19 18:37:45 <gmaxwell> d33tah: because they say so.
1068 2011-09-19 18:37:59 <gmaxwell> can we kick flying? it only seems to make random unrelated statements.
1069 2011-09-19 18:38:06 knotwork has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1070 2011-09-19 18:38:07 NickelBot has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1071 2011-09-19 18:38:35 <gavinandresen> d33tah: Try this podcast, I think it is a pretty good 'deep listen' on how it all works:  http://omegataupodcast.net/2011/03/59-bitcoin-a-digital-decentralized-currency/
1072 2011-09-19 18:38:39 <phantomcircuit> britcoin is getting about 25 requests/minute for files that have never existed
1073 2011-09-19 18:38:42 <phantomcircuit> mind boggling
1074 2011-09-19 18:39:05 <d33tah> so it's like coming up with a random number, then registering the fact that only a particular user can use that number?
1075 2011-09-19 18:39:20 <d33tah> gavinandresen: ok, i will
1076 2011-09-19 18:39:22 <gmaxwell> No, it's not really like that.
1077 2011-09-19 18:40:32 <d33tah> sorry if i sound like brain-dead today
1078 2011-09-19 18:40:51 NickelBot has joined
1079 2011-09-19 18:40:51 <gmaxwell> Don't be sorry, it's a different system.
1080 2011-09-19 18:41:18 Lolcust has joined
1081 2011-09-19 18:41:37 <d33tah> i seem to fail to understand the basics
1082 2011-09-19 18:42:04 <d33tah> where is a public and private key, there is some encrypted message, otherwise it wouldn't be needed, right?
1083 2011-09-19 18:42:13 <gmaxwell> There is no encrypted message.
1084 2011-09-19 18:42:24 <nanotube> signed messages, d33tah
1085 2011-09-19 18:42:36 <d33tah> ok, signed.
1086 2011-09-19 18:43:17 <d33tah> so there's something signed transferred to the user when he receives the just-generated coins, right?
1087 2011-09-19 18:43:30 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin is, functionally, a system of deeds which supports spliting and combining deeds and specifying rules for allowing people to modify a deed, plus a distibuted system for reaching consensus about which operations happened in which order.
1088 2011-09-19 18:44:27 <gmaxwell> d33tah: nothing is transfered to anyone in particular, they're recorded in a distributed transaction log (the block chain)
1089 2011-09-19 18:44:49 Maged has joined
1090 2011-09-19 18:45:21 <d33tah> ok, there's something signed and then recorded in the block chain, right?
1091 2011-09-19 18:45:28 <gmaxwell> No signature then.
1092 2011-09-19 18:45:42 <d33tah> no signature anywhere or just at the generation?
1093 2011-09-19 18:46:41 <gmaxwell> You only need a signature to spend from tranactions which are preexisting and which require a siganture (of course, all do)
1094 2011-09-19 18:47:18 <d33tah> damnit, i have to go again
1095 2011-09-19 18:47:25 <d33tah> i'll come back tomorrow
1096 2011-09-19 18:47:31 <gmaxwell> Newly generated coins appear from thin air to whomever processes the block that creates them.
1097 2011-09-19 18:50:38 Matth1a3 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1098 2011-09-19 18:51:27 Matth1a3 has joined
1099 2011-09-19 18:51:59 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1100 2011-09-19 18:52:26 Matth1a3 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1101 2011-09-19 18:52:52 Matth1a3 has joined
1102 2011-09-19 18:58:07 Stellar has joined
1103 2011-09-19 18:58:50 <helo> (depending on your altitude)
1104 2011-09-19 18:59:51 zamgo has joined
1105 2011-09-19 19:02:43 TheAncientGoat has joined
1106 2011-09-19 19:09:05 larsivi has joined
1107 2011-09-19 19:12:09 yorick has quit (Quit: Poef!)
1108 2011-09-19 19:13:29 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1109 2011-09-19 19:13:50 baz has joined
1110 2011-09-19 19:14:29 Maged has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1111 2011-09-19 19:22:35 Incitatus has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1112 2011-09-19 19:23:54 TD is now known as TD[gone]
1113 2011-09-19 19:28:42 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Nils Schneider master * r5909013 / (src/main.cpp src/net.h): log low-level network messages only when fDebug is set - http://git.io/NoOplg
1114 2011-09-19 19:28:42 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Nils Schneider master * re674680 / src/net.h : missed printf in AbortMessage(); merged printfs in EndMessage - http://git.io/EOyvoA
1115 2011-09-19 19:28:43 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Nils Schneider master * r2d294e0 / (src/main.cpp src/net.h):
1116 2011-09-19 19:28:43 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Merge pull request #520 from tcatm/less-logging
1117 2011-09-19 19:28:43 <CIA-101> bitcoin: log low-level network messages only when fDebug is set - http://git.io/qSE9yg
1118 2011-09-19 19:31:55 TD[gone] is now known as TD
1119 2011-09-19 19:36:16 nhodges has joined
1120 2011-09-19 19:41:36 hahuang65 has joined
1121 2011-09-19 19:49:17 cande has joined
1122 2011-09-19 19:49:35 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1123 2011-09-19 19:51:07 c_k has quit (Quit: leaving)
1124 2011-09-19 19:51:14 c_k has joined
1125 2011-09-19 19:51:28 c_k has quit (Client Quit)
1126 2011-09-19 19:52:20 c_k has joined
1127 2011-09-19 19:55:56 E-sense has joined
1128 2011-09-19 19:57:14 marf_away has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1129 2011-09-19 20:02:10 AStove has quit ()
1130 2011-09-19 20:07:16 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1131 2011-09-19 20:09:20 amiller has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1132 2011-09-19 20:10:35 amiller has joined
1133 2011-09-19 20:14:00 localhost has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1134 2011-09-19 20:17:35 localhost has joined
1135 2011-09-19 20:18:59 Kolky has joined
1136 2011-09-19 20:26:29 midnightslipper has joined
1137 2011-09-19 20:28:22 Lexa has joined
1138 2011-09-19 20:35:23 Joric has quit ()
1139 2011-09-19 20:36:14 sacarlson has joined
1140 2011-09-19 20:36:17 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
1141 2011-09-19 20:40:38 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1142 2011-09-19 20:50:44 knotwork has joined
1143 2011-09-19 20:50:44 knotwork has quit (Changing host)
1144 2011-09-19 20:50:44 knotwork has joined
1145 2011-09-19 20:50:54 cande has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1146 2011-09-19 20:50:55 donpdonp has joined
1147 2011-09-19 20:52:14 <donpdonp> the bitcoind api doesnt have a notion of a 'from' address, does it? im writing a service that accepts a bitcoin payment - it can refund that payment but id like to limit the refund to the address that sent the payment. this doesnt seem to be possible
1148 2011-09-19 20:52:54 <tcatm> there is no "from" address
1149 2011-09-19 20:52:55 <phantomcircuit> the RPC api doesn't
1150 2011-09-19 20:53:10 <phantomcircuit> but yeah you cant really do that in a useful way
1151 2011-09-19 20:53:33 <donpdonp> yeah so im gathering. i have to rethink how to do refunds then
1152 2011-09-19 20:53:49 <tcatm> technically, there is but you should never assume that you can send funds to it. it could be one address of a huge ewallet like mtgox and thus your funds might end up in the wrong account or may be lost completely
1153 2011-09-19 20:55:35 <donpdonp> are there any simple validations on a text field to see if its a bitcoin address? (like length)
1154 2011-09-19 20:55:47 <phantomcircuit> donpdonp, javascript or php
1155 2011-09-19 20:56:06 <donpdonp> phantomcircuit: if you have one in js, that'd be good
1156 2011-09-19 20:56:16 <phantomcircuit> only php
1157 2011-09-19 20:56:25 <donpdonp> ha. thats ok too. i speak php
1158 2011-09-19 20:56:31 cande has joined
1159 2011-09-19 20:57:35 gjs278 has joined
1160 2011-09-19 21:00:55 <phantomcircuit> donpdonp, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1026.0
1161 2011-09-19 21:00:56 <phantomcircuit> python
1162 2011-09-19 21:01:56 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1163 2011-09-19 21:02:13 bittwist has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1164 2011-09-19 21:05:17 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1165 2011-09-19 21:06:27 joepie91`dnd has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1166 2011-09-19 21:07:38 gjs278 has joined
1167 2011-09-19 21:09:17 Disposition has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1168 2011-09-19 21:11:03 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1169 2011-09-19 21:14:08 <sipa> donpdonp: in short: do not rely on inputs-last-sent-to as being under control of the person who paid you
1170 2011-09-19 21:15:59 Joric has joined
1171 2011-09-19 21:19:06 Nebuluz has quit ()
1172 2011-09-19 21:23:36 que123 has joined
1173 2011-09-19 21:25:01 TD is now known as TD[gone]
1174 2011-09-19 21:26:51 agricocb has joined
1175 2011-09-19 21:28:16 zamgo has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1176 2011-09-19 21:32:26 AnnihilaT is now known as AnniGONE
1177 2011-09-19 21:33:44 bitanarchy has joined
1178 2011-09-19 21:34:04 <cuqa> hey, how does it affect the mining process when u are mining with 10 Mhash/s or with 1 GH/s
1179 2011-09-19 21:34:35 <bitanarchy> Does multibit have a local blockchain?
1180 2011-09-19 21:34:41 <sipa> it goes approximately 100 times as many hashes per seconds
1181 2011-09-19 21:34:53 <cuqa> the 1 GH/s will throw out a share every couple of secs, but the 10 Mhash/s will submit a share every 10 mins or so
1182 2011-09-19 21:34:53 <sipa> bitanarchy: headers only
1183 2011-09-19 21:35:18 <bitanarchy> What if multibit becomes a the main client? Then only the miners have the block chain... is that a problem?
1184 2011-09-19 21:35:18 <cuqa> my question is if the length of the share calculation somehow effects its validity
1185 2011-09-19 21:35:22 <sipa> no
1186 2011-09-19 21:35:42 <sipa> as long as it updates frequently enough
1187 2011-09-19 21:36:13 Dagger3 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1188 2011-09-19 21:36:30 <sipa> bitanarchy: you'll have full nodes and lightweight nodes
1189 2011-09-19 21:36:33 <bitanarchy> how much can you check wrt transactions when you only have the headers?
1190 2011-09-19 21:36:33 <cuqa> does a share which took 10 mins to calculate have the same chance to succeed like a share that was calculated in 2 secs?
1191 2011-09-19 21:36:44 <sipa> cuqa: yes
1192 2011-09-19 21:36:59 <sipa> each share has a 1/difficulty chance to be a good one
1193 2011-09-19 21:37:09 <sipa> indepdent fron almost anything
1194 2011-09-19 21:37:22 <gmaxwell> s/almost//
1195 2011-09-19 21:38:01 <cuqa> ok so there are probably lots of valid shares that are deemed not valid by a backend like pushpool?
1196 2011-09-19 21:38:10 Dagger3 has joined
1197 2011-09-19 21:38:14 <cuqa> because they took too long
1198 2011-09-19 21:38:26 <sipa> a share takes a microsecond to find
1199 2011-09-19 21:38:43 <sipa> it's just that most attempts don't work out
1200 2011-09-19 21:39:08 <gmaxwell> cuqa: yes, sure. Though if prior block has changed then it might be a fine solution that would never become a valid part of the block chain.
1201 2011-09-19 21:39:15 <sipa> ;;bc,calc 2^48/65535
1202 2011-09-19 21:39:16 <gribble> Error: Something in there wasn't a valid number.
1203 2011-09-19 21:39:19 <sipa> ;;calc 2^48/65535
1204 2011-09-19 21:39:20 <gribble> (2^48) / 65,535 = 4.29503283 * 10^(9)
1205 2011-09-19 21:39:39 <cuqa> ok, so you can say there are (true) stales, as you described
1206 2011-09-19 21:39:54 huk has joined
1207 2011-09-19 21:39:58 <cuqa> and there is valid work that is just ignored because backend doesnt know it any more
1208 2011-09-19 21:40:43 <cuqa> or could it be that a backend deems a share as valid, even though it could not become a part of the block chain
1209 2011-09-19 21:40:50 AnniGONE is now known as AnnihilaT
1210 2011-09-19 21:40:55 <gmaxwell> Indeed.
1211 2011-09-19 21:41:07 Joric has quit ()
1212 2011-09-19 21:41:14 danbri has joined
1213 2011-09-19 21:41:24 zapnap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1214 2011-09-19 21:41:32 marf_away has joined
1215 2011-09-19 21:41:38 <cuqa> that is what long polling is fore I assume? giving out info as soon as possible to old work does not get submitted
1216 2011-09-19 21:41:50 <cuqa> s/to/that
1217 2011-09-19 21:41:53 <gmaxwell> In fact, thats a way a proportional pool could cheat: credit users for stale shares.... then the pool will have an amazingly low reject rate.... but all users will suffer from lower payouts.
1218 2011-09-19 21:42:50 <gmaxwell> cuqa: right, long polling triggers users to get new work when the network has found a new block— because any block found by the users are that point would more likely become an orphan.
1219 2011-09-19 21:42:59 <cuqa> but their invalid percentage would differ from that one which is displayed in the miner's command window?
1220 2011-09-19 21:43:24 <gmaxwell> Thats just reporting what the pool reports back.
1221 2011-09-19 21:43:37 <gmaxwell> They'd agree, and be low. But the pool would have less than expected returns.
1222 2011-09-19 21:43:46 <gmaxwell> It would seem perpetually a bit unlucky.
1223 2011-09-19 21:43:52 <cuqa> ok, so how could pools do this
1224 2011-09-19 21:44:10 <cuqa> not that I would like it to do, I just want to understand it
1225 2011-09-19 21:44:28 <gmaxwell> Just change pushpool to reject shares that otherwise would be consiered stale.
1226 2011-09-19 21:45:03 <gmaxwell> s/reject/not reject/ s/consiered/considered/
1227 2011-09-19 21:45:28 <cuqa> ok but ure just talkin gof stale, or also of unknown-work ?
1228 2011-09-19 21:45:42 <gmaxwell> Just stale.
1229 2011-09-19 21:45:45 <cuqa> ok crazy
1230 2011-09-19 21:46:13 <gmaxwell> Rewarding people for unknown work would be a way to let users cheat like crazy. I'd mine on pool a and submit my work also to pool b. :)
1231 2011-09-19 21:46:34 <cuqa> mhh
1232 2011-09-19 21:47:07 <cuqa> but slow miners would suffer from that also
1233 2011-09-19 21:47:26 <gmaxwell> I don't follow what you're saying.
1234 2011-09-19 21:47:27 <cuqa> in pushpool you apparently have a 120 secs limit to submit your result or its deemed unkown
1235 2011-09-19 21:47:39 cande has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1236 2011-09-19 21:47:40 <gmaxwell> That has nothing to do with being slow.
1237 2011-09-19 21:47:58 <gmaxwell> Every a dog slow cpu miner is attempting millions of times per second.
1238 2011-09-19 21:48:42 <gmaxwell> That timeout just means that the nodes have to pull new work at least that often.
1239 2011-09-19 21:48:47 cande has joined
1240 2011-09-19 21:52:07 <cuqa> ok, just wondering, cause im trying poolserverj right now and i set that similar limit to 600 secs (keep work in a map)
1241 2011-09-19 21:52:21 <cuqa> and now I get like a 0% stale rate
1242 2011-09-19 21:52:39 <cuqa> before it was about 50%.. just wondering if that has a big downside
1243 2011-09-19 21:52:54 <sipa> 50% stales? :o
1244 2011-09-19 21:53:04 <cuqa> i have a 35Mhash GPU
1245 2011-09-19 21:53:12 <cuqa> nvidia, sometimes I can get better
1246 2011-09-19 21:53:21 <cuqa> but usually i have about 50 at every pool
1247 2011-09-19 21:55:02 <RAWRwins254> cuqa: it's most likely because you're the operator of the poolserverj machine and you're the only one using that machine
1248 2011-09-19 21:55:28 <cuqa> no, I tested it before and had also lotsof stales
1249 2011-09-19 21:55:42 <RAWRwins254> weird
1250 2011-09-19 21:55:56 <cuqa> unknown-work I mean
1251 2011-09-19 21:56:19 E-sense has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1252 2011-09-19 21:56:23 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1253 2011-09-19 21:56:39 que123 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1254 2011-09-19 21:56:46 E-sense has joined
1255 2011-09-19 21:59:53 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1256 2011-09-19 22:04:54 num1_ has joined
1257 2011-09-19 22:05:30 num1_ is now known as num1
1258 2011-09-19 22:07:09 <luke-jr> cuqa: it needs to be at least 70 seconds
1259 2011-09-19 22:07:23 <luke-jr> cuqa: and don't use DiabloMiner, it has known bugs
1260 2011-09-19 22:07:34 <cuqa> no, I tested with phoenix 1.6.2
1261 2011-09-19 22:07:40 <luke-jr> oh
1262 2011-09-19 22:07:47 <luke-jr> Phoenix is pretty buggy too at low hashrates
1263 2011-09-19 22:08:07 <cuqa> what would you recommend?
1264 2011-09-19 22:08:12 <TuxBlackEdo> cgminer
1265 2011-09-19 22:11:21 Beremat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1266 2011-09-19 22:13:09 Beremat has joined
1267 2011-09-19 22:13:52 <luke-jr> cuqa: I use poclbm, but cgminer seems pretty good now
1268 2011-09-19 22:14:48 <TuxBlackEdo> phoenix 1.6.2 might be good too, i still am on v 1.5.1 though
1269 2011-09-19 22:15:13 erle- has joined
1270 2011-09-19 22:16:12 <freewil> cgminer is amazing
1271 2011-09-19 22:17:02 <freewil> you can monitor your card temps and fan speed
1272 2011-09-19 22:17:22 <freewil> it's pretty nice
1273 2011-09-19 22:17:58 <TuxBlackEdo> I have tried an old version (it was hell trying to solve cgminer's dependencies) and I didn't like it, it maked cards sick and kept them offline for long periods of time... but conman might have fixed it already, I will give that miner another try when I got an hour to look for dependencies again
1274 2011-09-19 22:18:40 eoss has joined
1275 2011-09-19 22:18:40 eoss has quit (Changing host)
1276 2011-09-19 22:18:40 eoss has joined
1277 2011-09-19 22:18:41 BTCTrader_ has joined
1278 2011-09-19 22:18:41 BTCTrader_ has quit (Changing host)
1279 2011-09-19 22:18:41 BTCTrader_ has joined
1280 2011-09-19 22:19:34 <freewil> i think cgminer tends to run more "intensely"
1281 2011-09-19 22:19:46 <freewil> i had the same problem with sick cards when i switched from phoenix
1282 2011-09-19 22:20:03 <freewil> had to lower my clock rates and set intensity to 9
1283 2011-09-19 22:20:28 <imsaguy2> yeah
1284 2011-09-19 22:20:34 <imsaguy2> he did say that OC is less necessary
1285 2011-09-19 22:20:35 <TuxBlackEdo> I modified phoenix to quit everytime it got to the line where it says "miner is idle" and then kept phoenix in a bash scripted loop... been working like a charm
1286 2011-09-19 22:21:14 <TuxBlackEdo> btw, #bitcoin-mining might help more then #bitcoin-dev :)
1287 2011-09-19 22:22:31 DaQatz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1288 2011-09-19 22:24:06 DaQatz has joined
1289 2011-09-19 22:28:27 Tracker has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1290 2011-09-19 22:29:07 bitanarchy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1291 2011-09-19 22:33:15 amtal has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1292 2011-09-19 22:36:08 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1293 2011-09-19 22:36:12 cande has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1294 2011-09-19 22:37:02 gjs278 has joined
1295 2011-09-19 22:37:09 tomat has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1296 2011-09-19 22:37:39 cande has joined
1297 2011-09-19 22:39:13 erus` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1298 2011-09-19 22:39:16 <cuqa> Q: 74 A: 6 R: 0 Efficiency: 8%
1299 2011-09-19 22:39:35 <cuqa> i would have been banned by bitcoinpoolc.om already :[
1300 2011-09-19 22:40:19 <gmaxwell> They're still in operation?
1301 2011-09-19 22:40:39 <cuqa> yes, they are now in political business apparently
1302 2011-09-19 22:40:45 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1303 2011-09-19 22:40:56 <cuqa> as you can see on their web site
1304 2011-09-19 22:44:24 <phantomcircuit> cuqa, they're friends of thieves
1305 2011-09-19 22:45:22 <cuqa> I know, I know
1306 2011-09-19 22:45:26 <cuqa> call 511
1307 2011-09-19 22:45:29 <cuqa> haha j/k
1308 2011-09-19 22:45:35 <cuqa> sorry :|
1309 2011-09-19 22:45:41 <phantomcircuit> call 511?
1310 2011-09-19 22:45:43 <phantomcircuit> wat
1311 2011-09-19 22:45:56 <cuqa> wasnt it 511 bitcoins that were sent?
1312 2011-09-19 22:45:57 fnord0 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1313 2011-09-19 22:46:02 vegard has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1314 2011-09-19 22:46:05 <phantomcircuit> cuqa, oh yes
1315 2011-09-19 22:46:06 abragin has quit ()
1316 2011-09-19 22:46:32 <phantomcircuit> cuqa, i thought you were saying the phone number
1317 2011-09-19 22:46:35 <phantomcircuit> which would be weird
1318 2011-09-19 22:47:05 <cuqa> yes, I thought it would be funny
1319 2011-09-19 22:47:09 zibbo has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1320 2011-09-19 22:47:09 nejon has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1321 2011-09-19 22:47:09 <cuqa> like 911, just 511
1322 2011-09-19 22:47:50 <phantomcircuit> oh
1323 2011-09-19 22:47:52 <phantomcircuit> i get it
1324 2011-09-19 22:47:56 <phantomcircuit> kind of slow
1325 2011-09-19 22:48:26 <cuqa> i am really bad at directing ppl to the punch line
1326 2011-09-19 22:49:01 zibbo has joined
1327 2011-09-19 22:49:04 henchan has joined
1328 2011-09-19 22:49:08 sirius has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1329 2011-09-19 22:49:10 nejon has joined
1330 2011-09-19 22:49:47 sirius has joined
1331 2011-09-19 22:50:37 gjs278 has joined
1332 2011-09-19 22:51:09 Daniel0108 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1333 2011-09-19 22:52:35 cande has left ("Leaving")
1334 2011-09-19 22:52:48 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1335 2011-09-19 23:02:46 erle- has quit (Quit: CETERVM•AVTEM•CENSEO•FDP•ESSE•DELENDVM)
1336 2011-09-19 23:04:07 <midnightslipper> /portal 2
1337 2011-09-19 23:05:31 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
1338 2011-09-19 23:06:45 Stellar has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1339 2011-09-19 23:10:24 mixter has joined
1340 2011-09-19 23:14:14 BurtyB2 has joined
1341 2011-09-19 23:15:10 pointbiz has joined
1342 2011-09-19 23:18:24 BurtyBB has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1343 2011-09-19 23:19:14 b4epoche_ has joined
1344 2011-09-19 23:19:33 nhodges has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1345 2011-09-19 23:21:05 BurtyB2 is now known as BurtyB
1346 2011-09-19 23:21:08 normanrichards has quit (Quit: normanrichards)
1347 2011-09-19 23:23:41 p0s has joined
1348 2011-09-19 23:24:49 nhodges has joined
1349 2011-09-19 23:25:04 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1350 2011-09-19 23:25:14 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1351 2011-09-19 23:29:40 mosimo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1352 2011-09-19 23:30:30 E-sense has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1353 2011-09-19 23:35:05 normanrichards has joined
1354 2011-09-19 23:37:35 henchan has left ()
1355 2011-09-19 23:37:38 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
1356 2011-09-19 23:37:56 amtal has joined
1357 2011-09-19 23:43:32 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1358 2011-09-19 23:44:10 Noxitu has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1359 2011-09-19 23:44:19 Noxitu has joined
1360 2011-09-19 23:49:48 Joric has joined
1361 2011-09-19 23:50:37 copumpkin has joined
1362 2011-09-19 23:53:32 magn3ts has joined
1363 2011-09-19 23:53:44 Herodes has joined
1364 2011-09-19 23:54:15 b4epoche_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1365 2011-09-19 23:56:04 normanrichards has quit (Quit: normanrichards)
1366 2011-09-19 23:57:24 Noxitu has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1367 2011-09-19 23:58:04 b4epoche_ has joined
1368 2011-09-19 23:59:08 pointbiz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1369 2011-09-19 23:59:38 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)