1 2011-09-28 00:05:08 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2 2011-09-28 00:05:15 Moonies has quit (Quit: quack)
3 2011-09-28 00:05:26 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
4 2011-09-28 00:06:17 zhoutong has joined
5 2011-09-28 00:09:29 clr_ has joined
6 2011-09-28 00:13:02 eoss has joined
7 2011-09-28 00:13:10 clr_ is now known as c00w
8 2011-09-28 00:14:11 drewn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
9 2011-09-28 00:14:20 theorb has joined
10 2011-09-28 00:14:30 drewn has joined
11 2011-09-28 00:15:10 ephcon has joined
12 2011-09-28 00:15:18 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
13 2011-09-28 00:15:27 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
14 2011-09-28 00:22:11 Kolky has quit (Quit: Bye bye!)
15 2011-09-28 00:26:38 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
16 2011-09-28 00:26:51 zhoutong has joined
17 2011-09-28 00:29:06 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
18 2011-09-28 00:29:56 zhoutong has joined
19 2011-09-28 00:32:50 ephcon has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
20 2011-09-28 00:40:19 p0s has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
21 2011-09-28 00:40:20 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
22 2011-09-28 00:41:18 zhoutong has joined
23 2011-09-28 00:42:25 mortikia has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
24 2011-09-28 00:42:25 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
25 2011-09-28 00:42:36 mortikia has joined
26 2011-09-28 00:43:31 zhoutong has joined
27 2011-09-28 00:56:18 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
28 2011-09-28 00:56:19 coblee has quit (Quit: coblee)
29 2011-09-28 00:57:12 coblee has joined
30 2011-09-28 00:57:21 zhoutong has joined
31 2011-09-28 01:00:00 XX01XX has joined
32 2011-09-28 01:02:38 shadders has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
33 2011-09-28 01:05:03 mtrlt has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
34 2011-09-28 01:05:48 shadders has joined
35 2011-09-28 01:06:15 mtrlt has joined
36 2011-09-28 01:07:17 Cablesaurus has joined
37 2011-09-28 01:07:17 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
38 2011-09-28 01:07:17 Cablesaurus has joined
39 2011-09-28 01:09:08 Tracker- has joined
40 2011-09-28 01:09:37 alanp has joined
41 2011-09-28 01:10:01 mtrlt_ has joined
42 2011-09-28 01:11:12 mtrlt has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
43 2011-09-28 01:11:12 Tracker has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
44 2011-09-28 01:11:12 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
45 2011-09-28 01:11:42 kishy has quit (Disconnected by services)
46 2011-09-28 01:12:11 zhoutong has joined
47 2011-09-28 01:17:31 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
48 2011-09-28 01:18:13 BTCTrader_ has joined
49 2011-09-28 01:18:13 BTCTrader_ has quit (Changing host)
50 2011-09-28 01:18:13 BTCTrader_ has joined
51 2011-09-28 01:29:13 wolfspraul has joined
52 2011-09-28 01:30:18 t3a has joined
53 2011-09-28 01:30:19 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
54 2011-09-28 01:31:25 zhoutong has joined
55 2011-09-28 01:32:50 mtrlt_ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
56 2011-09-28 01:32:59 mtrlt has joined
57 2011-09-28 01:35:33 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
58 2011-09-28 01:36:05 zhoutong has joined
59 2011-09-28 01:38:15 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
60 2011-09-28 01:38:33 zhoutong has joined
61 2011-09-28 01:38:52 ahbritto_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
62 2011-09-28 01:40:05 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
63 2011-09-28 01:40:16 wolfspraul has joined
64 2011-09-28 01:42:24 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
65 2011-09-28 01:43:22 zhoutong has joined
66 2011-09-28 01:49:01 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
67 2011-09-28 01:49:51 SomeoneWeirdzzzz is now known as SomeoneWeird
68 2011-09-28 01:50:00 zhoutong has joined
69 2011-09-28 01:58:52 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
70 2011-09-28 01:59:25 <t3a> what happens when all 21 million bitcoins are mined?
71 2011-09-28 01:59:42 zhoutong has joined
72 2011-09-28 01:59:56 ahbritto has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
73 2011-09-28 02:00:10 <gmaxwell> t3a: We all sit back in our space ships and drink synthahol martinis.
74 2011-09-28 02:00:20 <t3a> im sorry, that wasn't clear
75 2011-09-28 02:00:29 <t3a> how are transactions confirmed?
76 2011-09-28 02:00:37 <gmaxwell> Same as they always were.
77 2011-09-28 02:00:56 <lfm> t3 miners will still mine for fees
78 2011-09-28 02:00:59 <gmaxwell> The maximum arises as the limit of the geometric series ... the reward halves every 210000 blocks.
79 2011-09-28 02:01:10 <t3a> lfm, what?
80 2011-09-28 02:01:24 <lfm> transaction fees that go to the miners
81 2011-09-28 02:01:32 <t3a> gmaxwell:oh, so it approaches 21m?
82 2011-09-28 02:01:56 <lfm> ya the limit wont really be reached for 140 years
83 2011-09-28 02:01:56 <gmaxwell> So it doesn't have to stop to have the limit. Though right now it actually will go to zero at some point, (which means that unless bitcoin's precision isn't increased it'll run just shy of the real limit).
84 2011-09-28 02:02:01 <t3a> but since bitcoins are granular it will reach a maxiumum
85 2011-09-28 02:02:10 <gmaxwell> But even once it reaches zero mining will still work fine.
86 2011-09-28 02:02:25 <t3a> because you will get transaction fees?
87 2011-09-28 02:02:33 <t3a> will the difficulty fall steeply?
88 2011-09-28 02:02:44 <t3a> relative to the futures hardware?
89 2011-09-28 02:03:03 <lfm> naw, the rewards will have been minisule for some time already by then
90 2011-09-28 02:03:04 <gmaxwell> Well it would still technically work fine even if there were zero fee.
91 2011-09-28 02:03:16 <luke-jr> t3a: a steep difficulty drop will kill Bitcoin
92 2011-09-28 02:03:23 <t3a> luke-jr: why?
93 2011-09-28 02:03:30 <t3a> 51% attack?
94 2011-09-28 02:03:33 <luke-jr> t3a: transactions would never confirm
95 2011-09-28 02:03:36 <gmaxwell> Though I seriously expect that if bitcoin is still in use by 2140 we will have increased the precision beyond 64 bits and it won't actually go to zero then.
96 2011-09-28 02:03:46 <lfm> cuz it could take days to confirm a transaction
97 2011-09-28 02:03:55 <luke-jr> the protocol should be changed to allow arbitrary fractions
98 2011-09-28 02:04:07 <gmaxwell> Luke is a fucking crackhead. Sorry luke.
99 2011-09-28 02:04:08 <imsaguy> psh
100 2011-09-28 02:04:11 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: no u
101 2011-09-28 02:04:11 <gmaxwell> :)
102 2011-09-28 02:04:20 <imsaguy> solidcoin determined 4 decimals makes them worth more
103 2011-09-28 02:04:24 <imsaguy> we should follow their lead
104 2011-09-28 02:04:24 <t3a> why were merkle roots used as a proof-of-work
105 2011-09-28 02:04:29 <imsaguy> :-x
106 2011-09-28 02:04:36 <lfm> solidcoin determined nothing
107 2011-09-28 02:04:36 <luke-jr> â¦
108 2011-09-28 02:04:56 <lfm> t3a they arnt
109 2011-09-28 02:05:02 <t3a> ?
110 2011-09-28 02:05:12 <t3a> what is the proof of work?
111 2011-09-28 02:05:14 <t3a> i thought that was
112 2011-09-28 02:05:28 <luke-jr> t3a: havign lots of 0s at the block hash
113 2011-09-28 02:05:42 <lfm> merkle roots are proof of transactions belonging to blocks, the proof of work is the sha256 block hashes
114 2011-09-28 02:05:45 <imsaguy> ;;bc,diffchange
115 2011-09-28 02:05:47 <gribble> -17.1193714344 % estimated difficulty change this period
116 2011-09-28 02:06:23 <luke-jr> imsaguy: that's bogus; closer to -3%
117 2011-09-28 02:06:27 <luke-jr> ;;bc,stats
118 2011-09-28 02:06:30 <luke-jr> ;;bc,spotestimate
119 2011-09-28 02:06:30 <imsaguy> I know
120 2011-09-28 02:06:31 <gribble> Current Blocks: 147183 | Current Difficulty: 1689334.4045971 | Next Difficulty At Block: 149183 | Next Difficulty In: 2000 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 weeks, 3 days, 9 hours, 13 minutes, and 20 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1440286.89360297 | Estimated Percent Change: -14.742345288
121 2011-09-28 02:06:31 <gribble> 1651054.74907
122 2011-09-28 02:06:33 <imsaguy> its because we just changed
123 2011-09-28 02:06:38 <t3a> oh, i thought that merkle roots was a system that involved finding a hash based on a merkle root given by the server (but in this case it would be from the previous block)
124 2011-09-28 02:06:39 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I still don't see how you think you can avoid obnoxiousness attacks with arbtitrary mixed radix numbers. e.g. where I pay you ~1 btc composed out of 1/N for n= all primes.
125 2011-09-28 02:06:42 <t3a> to wikipedia
126 2011-09-28 02:07:06 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I already explained how on the dev ML
127 2011-09-28 02:07:15 <lfm> t3a you were/are quite confused I guess
128 2011-09-28 02:07:17 <gmaxwell> Yes, but obviously I thought you were too nuts to remember. :)
129 2011-09-28 02:07:22 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: sorry.
130 2011-09-28 02:07:28 <luke-jr> â¦
131 2011-09-28 02:07:47 <lfm> you're not sorry
132 2011-09-28 02:08:06 <imsaguy> luke-jr just likes outputing â¦
133 2011-09-28 02:08:08 <gmaxwell> Or how you expect developers writing bitcoin apps will handle that when bitcoin exchanges have used @#$@# single precision floating point.
134 2011-09-28 02:08:14 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: also, I can take that post further-- miners don't *have* to take those stupid-prime fees either
135 2011-09-28 02:08:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: they can just let them be destryoed
136 2011-09-28 02:08:34 <t3a> Merkle root - 256-bit hash based on all of the transactions
137 2011-09-28 02:08:36 <t3a> i was
138 2011-09-28 02:08:45 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I expect implementations will round annoying fractions for end-users/services
139 2011-09-28 02:08:52 <luke-jr> at least early ones
140 2011-09-28 02:08:52 <gmaxwell> I meant that in a "I apologize" more than a "I regret" sort of way. :)
141 2011-09-28 02:09:01 <lfm> luke-jr they dont HAVE to take the 50 btc rewards either
142 2011-09-28 02:09:11 <luke-jr> lfm: exactly
143 2011-09-28 02:09:23 <luke-jr> t3a: the transactions aren't proof-of-work
144 2011-09-28 02:09:33 <t3a> ?
145 2011-09-28 02:09:41 <t3a> when did i say they were
146 2011-09-28 02:09:46 <t3a> i thought block generation was
147 2011-09-28 02:09:51 <lfm> yes you was confused
148 2011-09-28 02:10:14 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: the key thing with fractions is infinite future-compatibility
149 2011-09-28 02:10:25 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: so *future* clients can be more and more precise
150 2011-09-28 02:10:29 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: without changing the protocol again
151 2011-09-28 02:11:32 <lfm> luke-jr hehe, so why change the protocol at all untill it is actually needed?
152 2011-09-28 02:11:33 <t3a> is there something that modifies the data being hashed? Because if everyone is just hashing an integer incremented by 1 starting at 0 every time then the fastest computer will always win
153 2011-09-28 02:11:43 <luke-jr> lfm: I'm not suggesting that.
154 2011-09-28 02:11:52 <lfm> t3a: ya, its called a nonce
155 2011-09-28 02:11:53 <luke-jr> lfm: I'm suggesting that *when* the protocol is changed, we cover as much ground as possible
156 2011-09-28 02:12:01 <gmaxwell> lfm: no, it's not. :)
157 2011-09-28 02:12:05 <lfm> ah! I see
158 2011-09-28 02:12:07 <casascius> t3a: everyone is hashing something different
159 2011-09-28 02:12:10 <t3a> lfm: i thought the nonce was the number being incremented
160 2011-09-28 02:12:13 <gmaxwell> t3a: yes, they payment address for the generated coin.
161 2011-09-28 02:12:24 <luke-jr> t3a: the merkle root is different for every miner, because the generation txn has unique data
162 2011-09-28 02:12:24 <t3a> oh
163 2011-09-28 02:12:26 <t3a> makes sense
164 2011-09-28 02:12:28 <gmaxwell> t3a: there is also an extranonce which miners can set freely.
165 2011-09-28 02:12:41 <gmaxwell> (inside the coinbase txn)
166 2011-09-28 02:12:54 <lfm> t3a: also everyone has their own merkle roots since everyone want their coinbas transaction to pay out to a different address
167 2011-09-28 02:13:13 <lfm> like he said
168 2011-09-28 02:13:40 <lfm> plus there is extra nonce bits in the coinbase txn if needed
169 2011-09-28 02:13:41 <t3a> wait, i thought the merkle root was a hash of all the transactions?
170 2011-09-28 02:13:57 <luke-jr> t3a: yes, including the coinbase
171 2011-09-28 02:14:02 <gmaxwell> Yes, well a hash of a hash tree.
172 2011-09-28 02:14:03 <t3a> coinbase?
173 2011-09-28 02:14:11 <t3a> the walled ID?
174 2011-09-28 02:14:11 <lfm> and every time you add another txn you have to update the merkle root yes
175 2011-09-28 02:14:13 <casascius> coinbase = transaction that miners create to pay the 50 btc reward to themselves
176 2011-09-28 02:14:14 <gmaxwell> A special mandatory transaction.
177 2011-09-28 02:14:15 <luke-jr> t3a: the transaction that says I get 50 BTC new
178 2011-09-28 02:14:22 <t3a> oh
179 2011-09-28 02:14:40 <t3a> what is the coinbase based on?
180 2011-09-28 02:14:47 <lfm> 50 btc
181 2011-09-28 02:14:49 <luke-jr> whatever you want
182 2011-09-28 02:14:54 <t3a> oh
183 2011-09-28 02:14:54 <casascius> the rule that says 50 btc per block
184 2011-09-28 02:15:13 <lfm> for another year and a half then it will be 25
185 2011-09-28 02:15:20 <t3a> and im guessing bitcoin miners chose an arbitrary string?
186 2011-09-28 02:15:23 <luke-jr> t3a: presently, miners use their own address for the output, and use timestamp+incrementing number for input data
187 2011-09-28 02:15:43 <t3a> oh
188 2011-09-28 02:15:52 <t3a> brb, thanks for the help
189 2011-09-28 02:15:58 <luke-jr> (older miners used difficulty-bits+incrementing number)
190 2011-09-28 02:15:59 <lfm> t3a they generate a public/private key pair and then pay the 50 btc to the public key
191 2011-09-28 02:16:27 * luke-jr ponders if the block chain has any new-style coinbases yet
192 2011-09-28 02:16:36 <gmaxwell> well, they pay the maximum amount allows by the protocol unless they're crazy.
193 2011-09-28 02:16:49 <lfm> new-style?
194 2011-09-28 02:16:54 drewn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
195 2011-09-28 02:17:10 <gmaxwell> merged.
196 2011-09-28 02:17:12 <luke-jr> lfm: due to encrypted wallets, the coinbase format had to be changed
197 2011-09-28 02:17:26 <luke-jr> lfm: it was bits+extranonce for <0.4
198 2011-09-28 02:17:26 <gmaxwell> oh... right.
199 2011-09-28 02:17:26 <lfm> what?
200 2011-09-28 02:17:31 <gmaxwell> because of running out of keys.
201 2011-09-28 02:17:31 <luke-jr> now it's timestamp+extranonce
202 2011-09-28 02:17:35 drewn has joined
203 2011-09-28 02:17:53 <gmaxwell> lfm: if your encrypted wallet client runs out of keys you don't want it making duplicate coinbases.
204 2011-09-28 02:18:09 <gmaxwell> it doesn't do that conditionally, thats kinda lame.
205 2011-09-28 02:18:26 <luke-jr> http://pident.artefact2.com/block/00000000000009c2d2b97652568f6118052669ba57baa709b933cc87e2d133af is interesting
206 2011-09-28 02:18:37 <luke-jr> I wonder who that is
207 2011-09-28 02:19:13 <gmaxwell> whats interesting about it? (not used to the pident output)
208 2011-09-28 02:19:39 <lfm> so if you generated more than 100 new coinbases before the wallet could be re-encrypted youd have to reuse some keys or generate unencrypted keys or something
209 2011-09-28 02:20:27 <gmaxwell> lfm: right, it reuses but reusing has a risk of a duplicate coinbase which is unspendable (obviously)
210 2011-09-28 02:20:56 <gmaxwell> Generally the crypted wallet code will reuse if it runs out of keys, not just specific to this.
211 2011-09-28 02:20:59 <lfm> ok, if your extranonce also repeated or something.
212 2011-09-28 02:21:36 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: unusual coinbase
213 2011-09-28 02:22:33 <luke-jr> lfm: your extranonce *would* repeat
214 2011-09-28 02:22:37 <gmaxwell> lfm: well, they're often zero for non-pools.
215 2011-09-28 02:22:45 <luke-jr> lfm: consider prevblock is not part of the coinbase hash
216 2011-09-28 02:22:52 <lfm> anyway sounds like the change is a non-change really since the protcol ignored that nBits copy and certain "other" miners were already putting silly stuff in there
217 2011-09-28 02:23:07 <luke-jr> lfm: it's not a protocol change, correct
218 2011-09-28 02:24:28 <t3a> what exactly are the responsibilites of someone who generates a new block?
219 2011-09-28 02:24:42 <lfm> why would the extranonce reapeat, cant you just keep incrementing it? you could easiliy remember a copy from run to run if it was resetting at the start of a run.
220 2011-09-28 02:24:46 BTCTrader_ is now known as BTCTrader
221 2011-09-28 02:25:31 <lfm> t3a not really resposibilities, just follow the protocol if you want your coinbase to be honored
222 2011-09-28 02:25:47 <t3a> yes, thats what i mean
223 2011-09-28 02:26:01 <t3a> they have to confirm previous blocks?
224 2011-09-28 02:26:01 <gmaxwell> t3a: obey the rules: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_rules
225 2011-09-28 02:26:18 <gmaxwell> t3a: thats implicit in the existance of the prev hash in the block header
226 2011-09-28 02:26:42 <lfm> t3a: you are not required to actually include any txn besides the coinbase if you are being mean. you might miss out on some txn fees is all.
227 2011-09-28 02:26:53 <luke-jr> lfm: if you're reusing the same payout address every time, you can NEVER reset extranonce if you do it that way
228 2011-09-28 02:27:00 <luke-jr> lfm: it's much easier to throw in a timestamp
229 2011-09-28 02:27:01 <t3a> what is txn?
230 2011-09-28 02:27:14 lolcat is now known as Be
231 2011-09-28 02:27:20 <gmaxwell> A transaction.
232 2011-09-28 02:27:22 <t3a> oh
233 2011-09-28 02:27:30 Be is now known as lolcat
234 2011-09-28 02:27:31 <lfm> luke-jr huh? extra nonce is not connected to the payout address!
235 2011-09-28 02:27:56 <gmaxwell> t3a: read this http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
236 2011-09-28 02:27:57 <t3a> i thought blocks had to confirm that previous blocks were valid?
237 2011-09-28 02:28:03 <t3a> okay
238 2011-09-28 02:28:06 <gmaxwell> lfm: ... read what he said again.
239 2011-09-28 02:28:12 <lfm> oh, but yes, you must not reuse the extranonce(s)
240 2011-09-28 02:28:22 <lfm> i see hwt you ment
241 2011-09-28 02:28:33 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: technically you can reset it, you just have to remember to skip your prior blocks. :)
242 2011-09-28 02:28:54 <gmaxwell> presumably you won't have so many that this is that much of a burden. :)
243 2011-09-28 02:28:55 <lfm> so just keep incrementing the extranonce forever. do not reset it
244 2011-09-28 02:29:05 <luke-jr> lfm: easier to include the timestamp
245 2011-09-28 02:29:08 <gmaxwell> lfm: the timestamp will be more compact after a while.
246 2011-09-28 02:30:40 <lfm> hmm, maybe but maybe not more compact than a timestamp plus an extranonce
247 2011-09-28 02:31:12 <gmaxwell> wellâ extranonce is often quite small.
248 2011-09-28 02:31:38 <lfm> ya, ok. timestamp is easier than passing the extranonce between runs
249 2011-09-28 02:31:45 <gmaxwell> Because if you're not mining with rolling you can reset it once per second, and thats what the code currently does so it's often just a single byte.
250 2011-09-28 02:32:22 Backburn has joined
251 2011-09-28 02:32:38 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: not anymore
252 2011-09-28 02:32:45 <luke-jr> current code assumes rollntime
253 2011-09-28 02:32:49 <gmaxwell> Did that get fixed?
254 2011-09-28 02:32:51 <gmaxwell> hurray.
255 2011-09-28 02:32:54 <luke-jr> we should probably add a header for it too
256 2011-09-28 02:33:01 <luke-jr> yeah, it was a dependency of the timestamp fix
257 2011-09-28 02:33:02 <t3a> are namecoins bitcoins with a different genesis block?
258 2011-09-28 02:33:10 <luke-jr> t3a: and DNS implementation
259 2011-09-28 02:33:30 <t3a> yes
260 2011-09-28 02:38:00 <Diablo-D3> http://www.damnlol.com/watermarked/ea83e08059fd271293365560edd6d795.jpg
261 2011-09-28 02:38:26 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneWeirdAFK
262 2011-09-28 02:38:57 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: Facebook ain't in Britian
263 2011-09-28 02:39:00 <luke-jr> it's in the USA
264 2011-09-28 02:40:50 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
265 2011-09-28 02:41:19 zhoutong has joined
266 2011-09-28 02:41:47 <imsaguy> but they must still comply with EU laws
267 2011-09-28 02:43:33 YifuGuo has quit (Quit: Leaving)
268 2011-09-28 02:44:48 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
269 2011-09-28 02:45:13 <luke-jr> imsaguy: nonsens
270 2011-09-28 02:45:37 <luke-jr> EU has no jurisdiction beyond EU borders
271 2011-09-28 02:45:49 zhoutong has joined
272 2011-09-28 02:49:02 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
273 2011-09-28 02:50:03 zhoutong has joined
274 2011-09-28 02:52:03 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
275 2011-09-28 02:52:28 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
276 2011-09-28 02:52:38 TheSeven has joined
277 2011-09-28 02:53:04 zhoutong has joined
278 2011-09-28 02:54:56 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
279 2011-09-28 02:55:37 zhoutong has joined
280 2011-09-28 03:01:12 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
281 2011-09-28 03:09:44 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
282 2011-09-28 03:09:55 zhoutong has joined
283 2011-09-28 03:10:29 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r27b4ecd7baec gentoo/app-misc/cgminer/ (4 files): app-misc/cgminer: Only depend on dev-util/amd-adl-sdk for building, not for runtime
284 2011-09-28 03:12:05 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
285 2011-09-28 03:12:38 zhoutong has joined
286 2011-09-28 03:15:05 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
287 2011-09-28 03:15:40 zhoutong has joined
288 2011-09-28 03:16:34 ike-exe has joined
289 2011-09-28 03:21:32 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
290 2011-09-28 03:25:58 tower has joined
291 2011-09-28 03:25:59 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
292 2011-09-28 03:26:59 zhoutong has joined
293 2011-09-28 03:27:25 DiabloD3 has joined
294 2011-09-28 03:30:50 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
295 2011-09-28 03:31:45 theorb has joined
296 2011-09-28 03:31:47 eoss has quit (Quit: Leaving)
297 2011-09-28 03:32:02 vorlov has joined
298 2011-09-28 03:32:45 Diablo_D3 has joined
299 2011-09-28 03:33:16 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
300 2011-09-28 03:33:28 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
301 2011-09-28 03:36:11 DiabloD3 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
302 2011-09-28 03:37:54 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
303 2011-09-28 03:38:02 Diablo_D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
304 2011-09-28 03:38:08 DiabloD3 has joined
305 2011-09-28 03:39:33 Diablo_D3 has joined
306 2011-09-28 03:42:03 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
307 2011-09-28 03:42:57 zhoutong has joined
308 2011-09-28 03:42:59 DiabloD3 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
309 2011-09-28 03:44:58 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
310 2011-09-28 03:46:04 zhoutong has joined
311 2011-09-28 03:46:19 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
312 2011-09-28 03:46:29 DiabloD3 has joined
313 2011-09-28 03:47:02 Diablo_D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
314 2011-09-28 03:49:03 DiabloD3 is now known as Diablo-D3
315 2011-09-28 03:50:41 Maged has joined
316 2011-09-28 03:51:27 Maged has quit (Client Quit)
317 2011-09-28 03:51:46 Maged has joined
318 2011-09-28 03:51:50 c00w has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
319 2011-09-28 03:52:25 Maged has quit (Client Quit)
320 2011-09-28 03:53:20 AAA_awright_ has joined
321 2011-09-28 03:53:33 dvide has joined
322 2011-09-28 03:53:37 TD[gone] is now known as TD
323 2011-09-28 03:54:23 <shadders> TD: hey
324 2011-09-28 03:54:38 <TD> hi there
325 2011-09-28 03:55:20 <TD> how's it going ?
326 2011-09-28 03:55:25 <shadders> how would you feel about adding a non-parsing constructor to all the message classes... and giving the option to retain byte array after parsing?
327 2011-09-28 03:56:07 <shadders> happy to do it mysel... just wondering if it's likely to be accepted
328 2011-09-28 03:57:02 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
329 2011-09-28 03:57:19 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik master * rab1bbe5 / README.md :
330 2011-09-28 03:57:19 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Merge pull request #533 from alexwaters/readme
331 2011-09-28 03:57:20 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Updated readme file with timers. - http://git.io/91O-SQ
332 2011-09-28 03:57:30 <shadders> also, is the reason for a monolitic package so you can use package protected access to fields and avoid getters for android performance?
333 2011-09-28 03:57:35 vorlov has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
334 2011-09-28 03:58:29 AAA_awright_ is now known as AAA_awright
335 2011-09-28 03:58:32 <shadders> if so then I guess we're stuck with it until gingerbread is widely adopted..
336 2011-09-28 04:09:19 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
337 2011-09-28 04:11:17 <TD> shadders: having parsing of some messages be lazy makes sense
338 2011-09-28 04:11:27 <TD> shadders: in particular for blocks
339 2011-09-28 04:11:57 <TD> shadders: ignoring proxies for a moment, chain download performance is dominated by block parsing time. delaying it until after a scan for interesting keys would be useful.
340 2011-09-28 04:12:33 <TD> shadders: i'm not sure it makes sense to expose as an api though. it might be better to just change how the Message class and descendants are implemented, so it's transparent to the object user.
341 2011-09-28 04:13:08 <TD> shadders: ie add a maybeParse() method call to the front of various getters
342 2011-09-28 04:13:36 <shadders> the way I'd normally do it would be to put a checkParsed() call in each getter and an array=null in each setter. but without getters and setters the code that wants to use lazy parsing will have to manage it
343 2011-09-28 04:13:53 <TD> shadders: no, getter performance was not a factor in that design. using package-scoped methods/fields just makes it easier to carve out a library api with the public keyword. a lot of the methods/fields only make sense for internal use
344 2011-09-28 04:14:17 <TD> shadders: we can introduce getters/setters as needed. i think most fields have them these days.
345 2011-09-28 04:14:57 <TD> shadders: i think a maybeParse() method would be ok. what's the use case for retaining the underlying byte array after parsing?
346 2011-09-28 04:15:05 <TD> avoiding reserialization costs?
347 2011-09-28 04:15:09 <shadders> yes
348 2011-09-28 04:15:50 <shadders> you may only want to read for example to get hash to lookup... then you may want to resend.
349 2011-09-28 04:16:23 <TD> maybe the c'tor should take an int parseFlags
350 2011-09-28 04:16:27 <shadders> if you write to a field of course you have to take responsibility for deleting the array unless you write through a setter
351 2011-09-28 04:16:32 <TD> NOW = 1;
352 2011-09-28 04:16:34 <TD> LAZY = 2;
353 2011-09-28 04:16:37 <TD> RETAIN = 4;
354 2011-09-28 04:17:18 <shadders> sounds good... easy to maintain backward compatibility. old constuctor just call with default flag.
355 2011-09-28 04:17:18 <TD> yes, sure. we can introduce getters/setters where it'd be useful to have lazy parsing, so for blocks/transactions/addrs/...? anything else?
356 2011-09-28 04:17:39 <TD> yeah. some old c'tors can probably be removed too.
357 2011-09-28 04:18:15 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
358 2011-09-28 04:18:18 <TD> we shouldn't worry too much about backwards compatibility for the moment. let's avoid gratuitous breakages, but api users are expected to keep up, as long as we don't make it too hard (breaking wallet serialization is a problem)
359 2011-09-28 04:18:22 <shadders> well the quandary is... if getters/setters manage the lazy/retain part so it's essentialy transparent then you'd have to make the fields private
360 2011-09-28 04:18:38 <TD> yeah that's fine. the trend over time was for more fields to become private.
361 2011-09-28 04:19:09 <shadders> one clean break would better than having it potentially still work without people knowing it's changed internallly
362 2011-09-28 04:20:12 <TD> sure. feel free to introduce getters/setters where useful.
363 2011-09-28 04:20:23 <TD> if you can break up your patches so they're small enough to quickly review, that'd be helpful.
364 2011-09-28 04:20:35 <TD> feel free to leave in some support goop in the interim that is eventually removed.
365 2011-09-28 04:20:49 <shadders> btw I can't see why we should be hiding message fields that are part of the protocol. There's any number of reasons people may need access to them.
366 2011-09-28 04:21:32 <TD> i think most fields of interest have getters by now
367 2011-09-28 04:21:53 <shadders> I will make the changes but I'd like to adopt a blanket policy of 'if the field is a protocol specified field, give public access'
368 2011-09-28 04:22:02 <TD> some fields are a bit complex because it doesn't always make sense to set them directly (eg, merkle roots)
369 2011-09-28 04:22:05 <shadders> through a getter I mean
370 2011-09-28 04:22:36 <TD> and some stuff probably should change, like, having outpoints be a separate class to inputs is something i copied from the c++, it doesn't necessarily make sense in java
371 2011-09-28 04:22:37 <shadders> well actually I have a use case for accesible merkle roots...
372 2011-09-28 04:22:48 <TD> accessible yes. settable, harder.
373 2011-09-28 04:22:58 <TD> i think there's already a getter for the merkle root on a block
374 2011-09-28 04:23:41 <TD> intellij is failing me right now ...
375 2011-09-28 04:24:17 <shadders> hmm... It might have been the calcMerkle methods I was thinking of that are private. static merkle utility methods would be useful. current use case, merged mining in poolserverj
376 2011-09-28 04:24:35 <shadders> anyway I'll stop scope creeping ;)
377 2011-09-28 04:24:44 <TD> ok
378 2011-09-28 04:24:52 <TD> there is a public getMerkleRoot() method
379 2011-09-28 04:24:57 <shadders> Will make the lazy/retain getter/setter changes and submit...
380 2011-09-28 04:24:58 <TD> it calculates the root lazily/on deand
381 2011-09-28 04:25:20 <TD> if you change the transactions in a block, the cached root is deleted and calling the getter will recalculate, as that's quite intensive.
382 2011-09-28 04:25:55 <TD> i tend to be conservative with marking stuff public, as the vague intention is that one day that'll be a stable api. clients can always fork the library a bit in order to make more stuff public if they'd find it useful
383 2011-09-28 04:26:09 <TD> given that the public methods aren't completely stable anyway though, maybe we should make more stuff public
384 2011-09-28 04:26:21 <TD> like Block.addTransaction should probably be public
385 2011-09-28 04:26:46 <TD> maybe some of the setters too, building your own blocks is something that makes sense to be public
386 2011-09-28 04:27:10 <TD> shadders: for the merged mining case, you want to calculate the merkle branches i think?
387 2011-09-28 04:27:22 <shadders> yes I really think bitcoinj should be library first, and client as a reference use case...
388 2011-09-28 04:27:27 <shadders> yes..
389 2011-09-28 04:27:39 YifuGuo has joined
390 2011-09-28 04:27:39 <TD> the current code only calculates full trees.
391 2011-09-28 04:27:39 <shadders> validate braches, calc them... build a tree etc...
392 2011-09-28 04:27:53 <TD> we should probably extract that out into a real API
393 2011-09-28 04:28:46 <TD> MerkleTree/MerkleBranch classes make sense. a tree would perhaps implement the List interface and let you add/remove Sha256Hash objects
394 2011-09-28 04:29:08 <shadders> I know.. I was going to make a proper merkle class to add all the missing bits. but I thought I'd talk about the other change 1st in case I frightened with mass change proposals
395 2011-09-28 04:29:18 <TD> the Tree could return a Branch for any given item in the list. Branch objects would know how to verify themselves.
396 2011-09-28 04:29:28 <TD> sure, thanks for checking with me
397 2011-09-28 04:29:33 <TD> making more stuff public i'm fine with
398 2011-09-28 04:29:51 <TD> if you want to introduce a real API for working with merkle trees/branches, posting a sketch of the API to the list would be helpful.
399 2011-09-28 04:30:11 <TD> i don't think it'd be hard to implement and would indeed be useful for some of the more exotic protocols like merged mining, some contract negotiations, etc
400 2011-09-28 04:30:20 <shadders> any idea when we can move to a DCVS? then I can just post a branch...
401 2011-09-28 04:30:46 <TD> oh, sure. soon. we needed to resolve some stuff google-side before doing a new release, that's now done.
402 2011-09-28 04:30:53 <midnightmagic> To the maximum coins convo earlier. t3a et al, the current total bitcoins that will ever be mined I believe is somewhere near this value: 20999999.97689999. It will happen at block 6929999. Since 2016 blocks in 14 days of seconds is the ideal retarget, and we are currently on 147195, that gives us about 129 52-week years before the final Satoshi is mined.
403 2011-09-28 04:31:00 <TD> so i want to get 0.3 out RSN. hopefully i can finish my current patch first.
404 2011-09-28 04:31:05 <shadders> I see I'm outvoted on mercurial... I guess I'll have to make my peace with git
405 2011-09-28 04:31:09 <TD> after 0.3 miron is going to do the conversion to git
406 2011-09-28 04:31:20 <TD> well honestly i'm not a huge git fan myself, but everyone except us seem to like it :)
407 2011-09-28 04:31:22 <midnightmagic> read: long after we're all dead.
408 2011-09-28 04:31:30 <Diablo-D3> midnightmagic: thats pretty much what I figured out a year ago
409 2011-09-28 04:31:48 <t3a> why do people call them satoshis?
410 2011-09-28 04:31:54 <Diablo-D3> t3a: after satoshi.
411 2011-09-28 04:31:58 <shadders> I'm sure I won't hate it as much once I learn how to use it...
412 2011-09-28 04:31:59 <t3a> i know
413 2011-09-28 04:32:14 <midnightmagic> There's no good name for 1x10e-8 bitcoins, which is the smallest indivisible unit of bitcoins.
414 2011-09-28 04:32:16 <TD> conceptually they're all the same. i actually used the very first DVCS many years ago
415 2011-09-28 04:32:19 <Diablo-D3> it seems fitting to name the smallest btc currency unit after him
416 2011-09-28 04:32:24 <TD> tom lords arch, implemented as a single gigantic shell script, lol
417 2011-09-28 04:32:29 <t3a> but people dont call the mona lisa the davinci
418 2011-09-28 04:32:31 <midnightmagic> er.. 1x10^-8 i mean.
419 2011-09-28 04:32:44 <midnightmagic> t3a: that's because there's a good name for the mona lisa. the mona lisa.
420 2011-09-28 04:32:51 <Diablo-D3> t3a: no, but you'd call a micro mona lisa a davinci.
421 2011-09-28 04:32:55 <t3a> bitcoin is a bad name?
422 2011-09-28 04:33:05 <t3a> a micro mona lisa?
423 2011-09-28 04:33:39 <midnightmagic> a bitcoin is divisible down to 1e-8 individual units.
424 2011-09-28 04:33:44 <TD> t3a: conventionally a "bitcoin" refers to 100000000 value units. the source code doesn't have any particular name for the smallest amount
425 2011-09-28 04:33:50 <midnightmagic> read: "bitcoin" is already taken.
426 2011-09-28 04:33:51 <Diablo-D3> yes, a very tiny divsion of the mona lisa would be one divinci.
427 2011-09-28 04:33:54 <TD> t3a: it simply refers to it as 'value'
428 2011-09-28 04:34:04 <TD> but that's a fairly ambiguous term
429 2011-09-28 04:34:21 <t3a> oh, so the smallest possible usit of bitcoins is a satoshi?
430 2011-09-28 04:34:24 <Diablo-D3> t3a: you know how dollars have cents?
431 2011-09-28 04:34:34 <Diablo-D3> btc has 8 places of cents, called satoshis.
432 2011-09-28 04:34:46 <Diablo-D3> instead of just 2 like dollars do
433 2011-09-28 04:35:08 <midnightmagic> and they can't just be cents, because cents is short for hundredths
434 2011-09-28 04:35:25 <Diablo-D3> I was calling them ubtc for awhile
435 2011-09-28 04:35:38 <t3a> how about
436 2011-09-28 04:35:42 <Diablo-D3> then someone decided to call them satoshis and it fit
437 2011-09-28 04:35:43 <t3a> 10 nano-bitcoins
438 2011-09-28 04:35:59 <Diablo-D3> t3a: because that implies you can have 1 ubtc.
439 2011-09-28 04:35:59 <midnightmagic> t3a: because you're getting your units mixed up.
440 2011-09-28 04:36:07 <Diablo-D3> and its micro, not nano
441 2011-09-28 04:36:10 <t3a> midnightmagic: goo point
442 2011-09-28 04:36:13 <t3a> *good
443 2011-09-28 04:36:21 <t3a> 500 nano-btc
444 2011-09-28 04:36:30 <Diablo-D3> so satoshis works
445 2011-09-28 04:36:39 <t3a> yep
446 2011-09-28 04:36:57 jargon_ has joined
447 2011-09-28 04:37:58 <TD> shadders: btw if you implement a MerkleBranch class, could you make sure it's compatible with how satoshi defined a branch?
448 2011-09-28 04:37:59 <TD> shadders: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.h#L876
449 2011-09-28 04:40:52 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
450 2011-09-28 04:41:34 <TD> shadders: ideally try and avoid the way satoshi wrote this code though, unless the alternatives are much slower. his style is efficient and compact but also involves the sort of logic that lots of people aren't familiar with.
451 2011-09-28 04:42:01 <midnightmagic> what sort of logic is that?
452 2011-09-28 04:42:44 <TD> look at GetMerkleBranch. it uses XOR and bit shifts.
453 2011-09-28 04:43:08 <TD> it works well but you have to think about it carefully
454 2011-09-28 04:43:32 <TD> compare https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.h#L857 vs http://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/source/browse/trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/Block.java#291
455 2011-09-28 04:43:49 <TD> same function but the latter version has variable names that are a bit more helpful and more comments
456 2011-09-28 04:44:04 WakiMiko_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
457 2011-09-28 04:44:15 <midnightmagic> it makes me sad that features of the language should be avoided.
458 2011-09-28 04:44:35 <TD> *shrug* they don't have to be avoided. just depends what your aims are.
459 2011-09-28 04:44:38 <shadders> ok will have a look... I might write a simple less efficient implementation first then can use that as a test against a more cryptic implementation
460 2011-09-28 04:45:22 <shadders> the more cryptic it is the less likely I am to notice it's behaving oddly...
461 2011-09-28 04:45:28 <midnightmagic> for maximum collaboration. those sorts of constructs are almost certainly avoided by my coworkers too.
462 2011-09-28 04:46:05 WakiMiko has joined
463 2011-09-28 04:46:20 YifuGuo has quit (Quit: leaving)
464 2011-09-28 04:46:28 YifuGuo has joined
465 2011-09-28 04:46:55 <TD> shadders: yeah. at the very least if you copy his code, make sure you write lots of comments to explain each line. otherwise something like int i = std::min(nIndex^1, nSize-1); can be quite inscrutable
466 2011-09-28 04:47:35 <shadders> hehe... well it is to me unless I'm prepared to get a headache...
467 2011-09-28 04:47:46 <midnightmagic> C as a language can contain a kind of terseness that I rarely see these days, and I miss discovering it. it's a kind of purity, like a rare crystal.
468 2011-09-28 04:48:10 <shadders> I bet you had fun deciphering it all to buld bitcoinj
469 2011-09-28 04:48:43 <shadders> honestly bitcoinj is the best documentation bitcoin has imho
470 2011-09-28 04:49:00 <TD> barrels of fun. i mean i know conceptually what these functions all do. sometimes i've had to step through some of the more complex algorithms on paper to convince myself i understand them
471 2011-09-28 04:49:16 <TD> the lightweight-mode reorg handling was a pain in the ass because it has to work differently to the c++ implementation
472 2011-09-28 04:49:26 <midnightmagic> well, crystals do need to be handled delicately. :)
473 2011-09-28 04:49:29 <TD> hehe
474 2011-09-28 04:49:37 <TD> yep. i kind of like these functions too
475 2011-09-28 04:49:42 <TD> once you get them, they are kind of pure
476 2011-09-28 04:49:51 YifuGuo has quit (Client Quit)
477 2011-09-28 04:50:20 <TD> but satoshi tends to write the kind of stuff i'd throw back in a code review with a request for, at minimum, way more comments.
478 2011-09-28 04:50:28 YifuGuo has joined
479 2011-09-28 04:50:44 <midnightmagic> honestly, i can almost hear a sort of bell ringing in my head when I read that stuff. not like a synaethesia or anything, but I get the same thing when I taste coffee that has no flaws in it.
480 2011-09-28 04:50:54 <midnightmagic> yeah for sure..
481 2011-09-28 04:50:55 * TD doesn't drink coffee
482 2011-09-28 04:51:21 <midnightmagic> 'tis a harsh mistress for a gourmet..
483 2011-09-28 04:51:45 <shadders> well I'm glad it was you that came up with merged mining not satoshi... I had a week of nightmares getting my head around that... I think if I had to learn from satoshi code I would have gone mental
484 2011-09-28 04:52:01 <TD> i didn't come up with it
485 2011-09-28 04:52:18 <midnightmagic> "vince durham" came up with it. or at least coded the first example I'd seen.
486 2011-09-28 04:52:22 <TD> satoshi proposed it in a couple of paragraphs in some forum post
487 2011-09-28 04:52:31 <TD> however nobody understood what he was talking about.
488 2011-09-28 04:52:43 <shadders> you wrote the original wiki article explain how it was possible
489 2011-09-28 04:52:49 <TD> eventually we came up with a guess, and he confirmed it was correct
490 2011-09-28 04:53:00 <TD> explained a few other details. i wrote it up on the wiki with lots of explanations
491 2011-09-28 04:53:14 <midnightmagic> ah, really?
492 2011-09-28 04:53:14 <TD> satoshi is clearly a very, very sharp guy. sometimes it's tough to keep up :)
493 2011-09-28 04:53:18 <midnightmagic> well, i didn't know that.
494 2011-09-28 04:53:38 <shadders> ahh... there you go.. you are the official satoshi translator then...
495 2011-09-28 04:53:54 <TD> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6197.0
496 2011-09-28 04:54:06 <shadders> making his ideas remotely intelligible ;)
497 2011-09-28 04:54:16 <TD> You have one piece of work. If you solve it, it will solve a block from both Bitcoin and BitDNS. In concept, they're tied together by a Merkle Tree. To hand it in to Bitcoin, you break off the BitDNS branch, and to hand it in to BitDNS, you break off the Bitcoin branch.
498 2011-09-28 04:54:25 <TD> In practice, to retrofit it for Bitcoin, the BitDNS side would have to have maybe ~200 extra bytes, but that's not a big deal.
499 2011-09-28 04:54:28 <TD> Note that the chains are below this new Merkle Tree. That is, each of Bitcoin and BitDNS have their own chain links inside their blocks. This is inverted from the common timestamp server arrangement, where the chain is on top and then the Merkle Tree, because that creates one common master chain. This is two timestamp servers not sharing a chain.
500 2011-09-28 04:55:08 <TD> these three paragraphs are a LONG way from a description of how to implement :/
501 2011-09-28 04:55:14 YifuGuo has quit (Client Quit)
502 2011-09-28 04:55:53 <TD> "If you're still worried about it, it's cryptographically possible to make a risk free trade. The two parties would set up transactions on both sides such that when they both sign the transactions, the second signer's signature triggers the release of both. The second signer can't release one without releasing the other." ..... -> also a long way from being a useful protocol description. he clearly understood the protocol in question but didn't bother to
503 2011-09-28 04:55:53 <TD> describe it. that system was 'rediscovered' by LuxGladius
504 2011-09-28 04:56:23 <TD> anyway. i need to scavenge some food. back later.
505 2011-09-28 04:56:41 <shadders> later...
506 2011-09-28 04:58:06 <shadders> lol... it's almost like a scripture... the satoshi scrolls... cryptoarcheologists of the future will be discovering new techniques for centuries by poring over his old forum posts and trying to work out what he meant
507 2011-09-28 04:58:07 osmosis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
508 2011-09-28 04:59:10 BGL has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
509 2011-09-28 05:00:25 jargon_ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
510 2011-09-28 05:00:27 <midnightmagic> wouldn't it be wonderful of Satoshi was +orc
511 2011-09-28 05:00:53 <Gekz> an orc you say
512 2011-09-28 05:00:57 <Gekz> a magical orc or a retarded orc?
513 2011-09-28 05:01:41 <midnightmagic> no, +orc.
514 2011-09-28 05:03:53 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
515 2011-09-28 05:03:58 luke-jr has quit (Excess Flood)
516 2011-09-28 05:04:19 luke-jr has joined
517 2011-09-28 05:04:57 zhoutong has joined
518 2011-09-28 05:08:55 <midnightmagic> http://www.home.aone.net.au/~byzantium/found/found1.html
519 2011-09-28 05:09:04 <midnightmagic> +orc knows crypto
520 2011-09-28 05:10:13 YifuGuo has joined
521 2011-09-28 05:10:25 <midnightmagic> And nobody knows who +orc is either.
522 2011-09-28 05:11:06 <midnightmagic> +fravia might've but he's dead now, unfortunately for the world.
523 2011-09-28 05:11:43 <t3a> how bad is this? http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/chart.png?width=1016&m=mtgoxUSD&k=&r=&i=&c=0&s=&e=&Prev=&Next=&v=0&cv=0&ps=0&l=0&p=0&t=C&b=&a1=&m1=10&a2=&m2=25&x=0&i1=&i2=&i3=&i4=&SubmitButton=Draw&
524 2011-09-28 05:12:05 <Gekz> bad gateway
525 2011-09-28 05:12:05 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
526 2011-09-28 05:12:42 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
527 2011-09-28 05:13:25 BurtyB has joined
528 2011-09-28 05:13:32 ThomasV has joined
529 2011-09-28 05:26:24 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
530 2011-09-28 05:26:57 zhoutong has joined
531 2011-09-28 05:30:17 BGL has joined
532 2011-09-28 05:31:01 magn3ts has joined
533 2011-09-28 05:32:31 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
534 2011-09-28 05:33:44 AStove has joined
535 2011-09-28 05:36:00 <TD> t3a: that's ok. remember that bitcoin is experiencing what is formally defined as hyperinflation until 2012
536 2011-09-28 05:36:24 <t3a> td, good point
537 2011-09-28 05:36:26 <TD> to keep the price stable requires huge amounts of inbound money, to offset the inflation
538 2011-09-28 05:36:55 <TD> and besides, the $ value of a coin is fairly arbitrary. as a way of making/receiving payments, bitcoin works just as well regardless of what value it has because people just use it as a proxy
539 2011-09-28 05:37:02 <TD> stability is more important than absolute value
540 2011-09-28 05:40:18 <Gekz> 100 times this
541 2011-09-28 05:40:20 amtal has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
542 2011-09-28 05:41:13 <mtrlt> but it's not gonna be very stable.
543 2011-09-28 05:41:59 <t3a> what is the lowest hash value thats been created?
544 2011-09-28 05:43:25 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
545 2011-09-28 05:44:06 <t3a> looks like this one http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000000001e8d6829a8a21adc5d38d0a473b144b6765798e61f98bd1d
546 2011-09-28 05:44:25 mtrlt has quit ()
547 2011-09-28 05:44:34 zhoutong has joined
548 2011-09-28 05:49:03 MrTiggr has quit (Disconnected by services)
549 2011-09-28 05:49:26 MrTiggr- has joined
550 2011-09-28 05:53:15 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
551 2011-09-28 05:54:24 zhoutong has joined
552 2011-09-28 05:56:13 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
553 2011-09-28 05:57:08 zhoutong has joined
554 2011-09-28 06:00:54 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
555 2011-09-28 06:01:37 zhoutong has joined
556 2011-09-28 06:10:44 d33tah_ has joined
557 2011-09-28 06:10:49 <d33tah_> hi guys
558 2011-09-28 06:10:51 d33tah_ has quit (Client Quit)
559 2011-09-28 06:11:12 <d33tah> hiya ;)
560 2011-09-28 06:11:30 <d33tah> anyone familiar with bitcoin's timing functions?
561 2011-09-28 06:12:12 <d33tah> i have a problem - on my virtual server, my universal time is set incorrectly and I can't change it because that would involve changing the system time, for which I have no privilleges
562 2011-09-28 06:12:52 <d33tah> thus the question - can I somehow hardcode in the sources to offset the clock by 8 hours?
563 2011-09-28 06:16:24 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
564 2011-09-28 06:17:06 Lopuz has joined
565 2011-09-28 06:17:14 zhoutong has joined
566 2011-09-28 06:21:29 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
567 2011-09-28 06:22:02 zhoutong has joined
568 2011-09-28 06:24:22 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
569 2011-09-28 06:25:03 zhoutong has joined
570 2011-09-28 06:27:12 AStove has quit ()
571 2011-09-28 06:32:26 <d33tah> ok, i've found the solution - http://www.code-wizards.com/projects/libfaketime/
572 2011-09-28 06:39:29 abragin has joined
573 2011-09-28 06:39:30 abragin has quit (Changing host)
574 2011-09-28 06:39:30 abragin has joined
575 2011-09-28 06:40:21 amtal has joined
576 2011-09-28 06:43:53 gjs278 has joined
577 2011-09-28 06:44:54 E-sense has quit (Quit: System.exit(0);)
578 2011-09-28 06:53:22 TransistOrg has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
579 2011-09-28 06:54:16 TD is now known as TD[gone]
580 2011-09-28 06:58:58 SomeoneWeirdAFK is now known as SomeoneWeird
581 2011-09-28 07:00:43 mmoya has joined
582 2011-09-28 07:00:54 YifuGuo has quit (Quit: Leaving)
583 2011-09-28 07:03:31 dlb76 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
584 2011-09-28 07:05:32 <d33tah> guys
585 2011-09-28 07:05:35 <d33tah> i have a bitcoind problem
586 2011-09-28 07:05:54 <d33tah> i'm trying to connect to my bitcoind and all i get is connection reset by peer
587 2011-09-28 07:06:07 <d33tah> i wonder what might be wrong
588 2011-09-28 07:06:12 <neofutur> locally or distant ?
589 2011-09-28 07:06:15 <d33tah> locally
590 2011-09-28 07:07:58 <d33tah> the only thing shown in debug logs is:
591 2011-09-28 07:07:58 <d33tah> ThreadRPCServer ReadHTTP timeout
592 2011-09-28 07:08:43 <neofutur> local network setup problem ?
593 2011-09-28 07:09:09 <d33tah> well, my admin put there some weird firewall
594 2011-09-28 07:09:19 <d33tah> but i can open any port fine and receive messages
595 2011-09-28 07:10:13 <ThomasV> perhaps it's your libfaketime?
596 2011-09-28 07:10:22 Firefly007 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
597 2011-09-28 07:10:30 <d33tah> hm, nice idea!
598 2011-09-28 07:10:40 <d33tah> i wonder if I can set rpctimeout to 8 hours
599 2011-09-28 07:10:45 <d33tah> :D
600 2011-09-28 07:11:25 <ThomasV> you can also use a cronjob to reset your clock periodically
601 2011-09-28 07:11:25 <CIA-101> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-exit: Stefan Thomas master * r843db99 / README.md : Fixed installation instructions. - http://git.io/_E0Hhw
602 2011-09-28 07:12:00 <ThomasV> I did that once with a vps
603 2011-09-28 07:12:15 <d33tah> i can't really 'reset' it
604 2011-09-28 07:12:20 <d33tah> openvz forbids me that
605 2011-09-28 07:12:24 <d33tah> whoa
606 2011-09-28 07:12:29 <d33tah> ThomasV, you're my hero :D
607 2011-09-28 07:12:31 <d33tah> that was it
608 2011-09-28 07:12:49 huk has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
609 2011-09-28 07:12:52 <ThomasV> I mean resync
610 2011-09-28 07:13:01 <ThomasV> with a remote time server
611 2011-09-28 07:13:27 <d33tah> yeah, i know, ntp or smth
612 2011-09-28 07:13:29 <d33tah> the problem is
613 2011-09-28 07:13:36 <d33tah> i can't change my system date
614 2011-09-28 07:13:37 <d33tah> just can't
615 2011-09-28 07:13:43 <ThomasV> google ntp drift
616 2011-09-28 07:13:56 <ThomasV> and do not configure your vps as a server
617 2011-09-28 07:14:16 <d33tah> what do you mean 'as a server'?
618 2011-09-28 07:14:32 huk has joined
619 2011-09-28 07:14:55 <ThomasV> as a time server, ntpd
620 2011-09-28 07:15:08 <luke-jr> â¦
621 2011-09-28 07:15:13 <luke-jr> ThomasV: he can't change the clock
622 2011-09-28 07:15:20 <ThomasV> oh
623 2011-09-28 07:15:32 <neofutur> bad hosting -> change hosting :p
624 2011-09-28 07:15:44 <d33tah> well, i like this hosting
625 2011-09-28 07:15:46 <ThomasV> yes, change hosting
626 2011-09-28 07:15:49 <luke-jr> http://lightfoot.dashjr.org/?page=vps
627 2011-09-28 07:15:50 <luke-jr> :p
628 2011-09-28 07:15:54 <d33tah> i got it for free :p
629 2011-09-28 07:16:20 <ThomasV> d33tah: I use cinfu now, cheap, accepts btc
630 2011-09-28 07:16:37 <neofutur> [ps30040]$ date -s "-5 min"
631 2011-09-28 07:16:37 <neofutur> date: cannot set date: Operation not permitted
632 2011-09-28 07:17:03 <d33tah> i guess that for bitcoinbounties.org it would be best not to use a hosting associated with bitcoins :P
633 2011-09-28 07:17:11 <neofutur> I also cant change the date on a vps, but i still have no problem with bitcoind
634 2011-09-28 07:17:26 <ThomasV> d33tah: why?
635 2011-09-28 07:17:37 <d33tah> because i keep a wallet there
636 2011-09-28 07:17:49 <d33tah> neofutur: perhaps your date -u is correct
637 2011-09-28 07:17:54 <d33tah> it's not on the hosting i use
638 2011-09-28 07:18:38 <neofutur> https://www.kalyhost.com/?_a=96fc0a3d-7839-49ac-9c76-e14642b8358c accept bitcoins for hosting
639 2011-09-28 07:18:48 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
640 2011-09-28 07:19:04 da2ce7 has joined
641 2011-09-28 07:19:06 <neofutur> ( operated by the same company as mtgox )
642 2011-09-28 07:19:29 theorbtwo has joined
643 2011-09-28 07:20:13 <c_k> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade#Dedicated.2FVirtual_Server_Hosting
644 2011-09-28 07:20:15 <neofutur> whats your budget for hosting ?
645 2011-09-28 07:20:15 <c_k> loads do
646 2011-09-28 07:20:25 <d33tah> neofutur: 0$
647 2011-09-28 07:20:26 <d33tah> :d
648 2011-09-28 07:20:34 <neofutur> loads of untrusted anonymous :p
649 2011-09-28 07:20:43 <neofutur> d33tah: ok, i cant help you
650 2011-09-28 07:20:48 <d33tah> i guessed so ;)
651 2011-09-28 07:21:16 <c_k> tbh, $7 USD per month for 2GB RAM is neat at chicagovps :) - http://www.lowendbox.com/blog/chicagovps-7-2gb-openvz-vps-in-chicago/
652 2011-09-28 07:21:20 huk has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
653 2011-09-28 07:21:35 <c_k> explicitly not oversold
654 2011-09-28 07:21:56 <neofutur> + limited monthly bandwidth , or hosted on a dsl line . . .
655 2011-09-28 07:22:18 iocor has joined
656 2011-09-28 07:22:33 Firefly007 has joined
657 2011-09-28 07:22:36 <c_k> heh, 206.217.141.182 is my ip
658 2011-09-28 07:23:03 <neofutur> yup this chicagovps seems cool, i ll have a look
659 2011-09-28 07:24:21 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
660 2011-09-28 07:24:47 <c_k> Dupont Fabros Technology, Chicago
661 2011-09-28 07:24:51 <c_k> http://www.dft.com/themes/dft/images/data_centers/DFT_brochure_ch1.pdf
662 2011-09-28 07:24:59 <c_k> doesn't look like a kids closet to me ...
663 2011-09-28 07:25:19 zhoutong has joined
664 2011-09-28 07:25:29 <d33tah> daaamn
665 2011-09-28 07:25:36 <d33tah> the old bitcoind connection takes so long...
666 2011-09-28 07:25:39 <d33tah> need to export the data
667 2011-09-28 07:25:49 marf_away has joined
668 2011-09-28 07:31:01 Backburn has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
669 2011-09-28 07:31:21 <d33tah> how can I check what address is assigned to a particular bitcoind label?
670 2011-09-28 07:34:06 <d33tah> oh, getaccountaddress
671 2011-09-28 07:36:25 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
672 2011-09-28 07:36:35 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
673 2011-09-28 07:36:40 zapnap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
674 2011-09-28 07:37:24 zhoutong has joined
675 2011-09-28 07:38:13 <neofutur> c_k: on the link you gave , the coupon coe wont work / out of stock
676 2011-09-28 07:40:28 <neofutur> so its $24.95, not 7$
677 2011-09-28 07:40:47 kish has joined
678 2011-09-28 07:40:56 * neofutur lost 10 mins triyng
679 2011-09-28 07:41:30 KArmitt has joined
680 2011-09-28 07:42:08 huk has joined
681 2011-09-28 07:52:08 <d33tah> luke-jr: read my PM perhaps?
682 2011-09-28 07:55:10 <c_k> neofutur: We are currently out of stock on this item so orders for it have been suspended until more stock is available. For furthur information, please contact us.
683 2011-09-28 07:55:23 <c_k> they usually get more stock pretty quick
684 2011-09-28 07:56:57 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
685 2011-09-28 07:57:24 <neofutur> they have the same servers in stock , only the coupon code is out of stock . . .
686 2011-09-28 07:58:17 AlexWaters has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
687 2011-09-28 08:06:02 <neofutur> tcatm: would be cool to be able to sort by column on http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/
688 2011-09-28 08:06:18 <neofutur> ie sort by volume or 30day volume
689 2011-09-28 08:06:49 iocor has joined
690 2011-09-28 08:09:16 <edcba> ;;bc,mtgox
691 2011-09-28 08:09:17 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":5.028,"low":4.8219,"avg":4.91348668,"vwap":4.904695491,"vol":18537,"last":4.85,"buy":4.84924,"sell":4.85}}
692 2011-09-28 08:11:43 iddo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
693 2011-09-28 08:14:52 iddo has joined
694 2011-09-28 08:18:40 danbri has joined
695 2011-09-28 08:23:48 Burgundy has joined
696 2011-09-28 08:23:49 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
697 2011-09-28 08:24:56 zhoutong has joined
698 2011-09-28 08:25:29 <d33tah> looks like it'll never reach 10USD back
699 2011-09-28 08:26:42 <neofutur> to me, it looks like some big players want to stabilize it
700 2011-09-28 08:27:11 <neofutur> which is not a bad thing for bitcoin, only for traders and speculation
701 2011-09-28 08:27:28 <ThomasV> a 5k bidwall vanished this morning
702 2011-09-28 08:27:54 <ThomasV> well, the wall is still there, but smaller
703 2011-09-28 08:31:08 <neofutur> http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD/accumulated_orderbook.png
704 2011-09-28 08:31:11 <neofutur> not so bad
705 2011-09-28 08:31:43 <ThomasV> yes, but there was another 5k bid this morning
706 2011-09-28 08:31:52 <ThomasV> it was removed
707 2011-09-28 08:32:03 <neofutur> but a little bit offtopic here, I d prefer to continue on ##mtgox-chat
708 2011-09-28 08:32:25 <ThomasV> heh
709 2011-09-28 08:32:41 <ThomasV> I prefer #btc-value
710 2011-09-28 08:41:18 <neofutur> seems an interesting chan
711 2011-09-28 08:43:56 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
712 2011-09-28 08:44:27 <sipa> bit unstable though
713 2011-09-28 08:48:45 enquirer_ has joined
714 2011-09-28 08:49:23 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
715 2011-09-28 08:49:23 enquirer_ is now known as enquirer
716 2011-09-28 08:58:18 ThomasV has joined
717 2011-09-28 09:00:04 shadders has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
718 2011-09-28 09:02:11 shadders has joined
719 2011-09-28 09:02:20 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
720 2011-09-28 09:05:20 tower has joined
721 2011-09-28 09:06:12 tower has quit (Changing host)
722 2011-09-28 09:06:12 tower has joined
723 2011-09-28 09:08:37 wolfspraul has joined
724 2011-09-28 09:10:01 huk has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
725 2011-09-28 09:12:24 huk has joined
726 2011-09-28 09:22:45 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
727 2011-09-28 09:23:29 zhoutong has joined
728 2011-09-28 09:23:33 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
729 2011-09-28 09:23:59 marf_away has joined
730 2011-09-28 09:30:22 MrTiggr- is now known as MrTiggr
731 2011-09-28 09:31:47 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
732 2011-09-28 09:32:03 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
733 2011-09-28 09:32:38 zhoutong has joined
734 2011-09-28 09:33:09 cenuij has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
735 2011-09-28 09:34:26 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
736 2011-09-28 09:34:55 Blitzboom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
737 2011-09-28 09:35:09 Blitzboom has joined
738 2011-09-28 09:35:18 zhoutong has joined
739 2011-09-28 09:35:34 Blitzboom has quit (Changing host)
740 2011-09-28 09:35:34 Blitzboom has joined
741 2011-09-28 09:37:03 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
742 2011-09-28 09:37:24 mmoya has joined
743 2011-09-28 09:37:47 zhoutong has joined
744 2011-09-28 09:39:34 log0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
745 2011-09-28 09:41:37 Lexa has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
746 2011-09-28 09:43:31 log0s has joined
747 2011-09-28 09:48:06 slush has joined
748 2011-09-28 09:51:51 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
749 2011-09-28 09:53:08 zhoutong has joined
750 2011-09-28 09:58:04 Lexa has joined
751 2011-09-28 09:59:18 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
752 2011-09-28 10:00:41 zhoutong has joined
753 2011-09-28 10:09:38 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
754 2011-09-28 10:10:32 iocor has joined
755 2011-09-28 10:11:14 iocor has quit (Changing host)
756 2011-09-28 10:11:14 iocor has joined
757 2011-09-28 10:13:09 erus` has joined
758 2011-09-28 10:13:25 da2ce7_ has joined
759 2011-09-28 10:14:32 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
760 2011-09-28 10:16:02 danbri has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
761 2011-09-28 10:18:01 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
762 2011-09-28 10:19:29 <epscy> hey guys, asked this in #bitcoin but thought i might get a better response here
763 2011-09-28 10:19:42 danbri has joined
764 2011-09-28 10:19:45 <epscy> are random numbers used in the mining process?
765 2011-09-28 10:20:07 <epscy> and if there are is there any benefit to using an entropy source over a PRNG?
766 2011-09-28 10:24:06 <neofutur> afaik yes the mining process is random you ll try random hashes until you find one
767 2011-09-28 10:24:31 <neofutur> not sure a better entropy is useful
768 2011-09-28 10:24:40 <neofutur> good question indeed
769 2011-09-28 10:25:13 da2ce7_ is now known as da2ce7
770 2011-09-28 10:26:17 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
771 2011-09-28 10:28:00 danbri has joined
772 2011-09-28 10:28:17 danbri has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
773 2011-09-28 10:28:42 danbri has joined
774 2011-09-28 10:30:24 da2ce7_ has joined
775 2011-09-28 10:30:50 BTCTrader has quit (Quit: BTCTrader)
776 2011-09-28 10:32:16 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
777 2011-09-28 10:32:41 noagendamarket has joined
778 2011-09-28 10:33:55 da2ce7_ is now known as da2ce7
779 2011-09-28 10:34:01 da2ce7 has quit (Client Quit)
780 2011-09-28 10:34:01 dlb76 has joined
781 2011-09-28 10:34:11 casascius has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
782 2011-09-28 10:34:18 da2ce7 has joined
783 2011-09-28 10:35:22 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
784 2011-09-28 10:36:26 zhoutong has joined
785 2011-09-28 10:36:30 amiller has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
786 2011-09-28 10:37:38 <sipa> epscy: the nonces are tried one by one in sequential order
787 2011-09-28 10:38:07 <sipa> however, the payout is done to a randomly generated public key
788 2011-09-28 10:38:21 <sipa> which is part of what is hashed in the mining process
789 2011-09-28 10:38:48 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
790 2011-09-28 10:40:17 <epscy> sipa: ahh thanks that makes sense
791 2011-09-28 10:40:41 da2ce7 has joined
792 2011-09-28 10:40:47 <epscy> so it is likely that miners are working on the same nonces?
793 2011-09-28 10:41:04 <epscy> still seems like that would favour faster hashers
794 2011-09-28 10:41:58 <epscy> to the point where the fastest hasher would find all the correct hashes first?
795 2011-09-28 10:42:12 danbri_ has joined
796 2011-09-28 10:42:14 danbri has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
797 2011-09-28 10:43:11 <epscy> ok i think understand now
798 2011-09-28 10:43:39 <epscy> your address is part of what being hashed
799 2011-09-28 10:43:42 <epscy> which is unique
800 2011-09-28 10:44:49 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
801 2011-09-28 10:45:13 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
802 2011-09-28 10:47:08 danbri_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
803 2011-09-28 10:48:02 danbri has joined
804 2011-09-28 10:49:19 <epscy> sipa: is there any reason why the nonces have to be tried in a sequential order?
805 2011-09-28 10:49:32 <epscy> could a random number be used instead?
806 2011-09-28 10:51:50 da2ce7 has joined
807 2011-09-28 10:52:43 <sipa> yes
808 2011-09-28 10:52:46 da2ce7_ has joined
809 2011-09-28 10:52:46 <sipa> but why bother?
810 2011-09-28 10:52:57 AStove has joined
811 2011-09-28 10:53:10 <epscy> i suppose sequential should be faster
812 2011-09-28 10:53:21 <epscy> although probably only very slightly
813 2011-09-28 10:53:49 Lolcust has quit (Quit: Oh shi...)
814 2011-09-28 10:54:39 da2ce7 has quit (Disconnected by services)
815 2011-09-28 10:54:50 da2ce7_ is now known as da2ce7
816 2011-09-28 11:01:09 da2ce7_ has joined
817 2011-09-28 11:04:00 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
818 2011-09-28 11:07:23 da2ce7_ is now known as da2ce7
819 2011-09-28 11:08:47 da2ce7_ has joined
820 2011-09-28 11:08:54 Clipse has joined
821 2011-09-28 11:09:39 RazielZ has joined
822 2011-09-28 11:11:37 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
823 2011-09-28 11:11:59 LightRider has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
824 2011-09-28 11:14:32 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
825 2011-09-28 11:14:57 da2ce7_ is now known as da2ce7
826 2011-09-28 11:17:52 da2ce7_ has joined
827 2011-09-28 11:19:13 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
828 2011-09-28 11:21:08 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
829 2011-09-28 11:21:28 b4epoche_ has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
830 2011-09-28 11:28:15 da2ce7_ is now known as da2ce7
831 2011-09-28 11:28:46 da2ce7_ has joined
832 2011-09-28 11:32:40 da2ce7_ has quit (Client Quit)
833 2011-09-28 11:32:56 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
834 2011-09-28 11:33:53 da2ce7 has joined
835 2011-09-28 11:34:19 da2ce7_ has joined
836 2011-09-28 11:35:54 da2ce7_ has quit (Client Quit)
837 2011-09-28 11:36:38 da2ce7_ has joined
838 2011-09-28 11:37:40 da2ce7_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
839 2011-09-28 11:37:58 marf_away has joined
840 2011-09-28 11:38:01 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
841 2011-09-28 11:38:03 da2ce7 has joined
842 2011-09-28 11:38:58 da2ce7_ has joined
843 2011-09-28 11:38:59 da2ce7 has quit (Disconnected by services)
844 2011-09-28 11:43:56 coblee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
845 2011-09-28 11:46:42 da2ce7_ is now known as da2ce7
846 2011-09-28 11:47:12 da2ce7_ has joined
847 2011-09-28 11:47:12 da2ce7 has quit (Disconnected by services)
848 2011-09-28 11:48:03 da2ce7_ is now known as da2ce7
849 2011-09-28 11:50:38 ike-exe_ has joined
850 2011-09-28 11:51:08 da2ce7_ has joined
851 2011-09-28 11:51:09 da2ce7 has quit (Disconnected by services)
852 2011-09-28 11:51:58 da2ce7_ is now known as da2ce7
853 2011-09-28 11:52:32 ike-exe has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
854 2011-09-28 11:52:32 da2ce7_ has joined
855 2011-09-28 11:52:32 da2ce7 has quit (Disconnected by services)
856 2011-09-28 11:52:33 ike-exe_ is now known as ike-exe
857 2011-09-28 11:53:14 da2ce7_ is now known as da2ce7
858 2011-09-28 11:56:17 <Eliel> would there be any sense to introduce a slightly modified standard tx type with the idea that if a tranaction is of that type, it means the "from" addresses in the transaction will work as return addresses?
859 2011-09-28 11:56:58 da2ce7_ has joined
860 2011-09-28 11:56:59 da2ce7 has quit (Disconnected by services)
861 2011-09-28 11:57:00 <Eliel> ideally, the difference would be one bit somewhere that's flipped.
862 2011-09-28 11:57:31 da2ce7_ is now known as da2ce7
863 2011-09-28 11:57:42 <Eliel> or an added byte, if that's not possible
864 2011-09-28 11:58:31 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
865 2011-09-28 11:58:31 <sipa> i'm not convinced that's the right solution to the problem
866 2011-09-28 11:58:45 drewn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
867 2011-09-28 11:58:53 b4epoche_ has joined
868 2011-09-28 11:59:19 <Eliel> I mean, as it is, if it wasn't for web wallets that mix the addresses, you could just use the from addresses as return addresses.
869 2011-09-28 11:59:28 drewn has joined
870 2011-09-28 11:59:35 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
871 2011-09-28 12:00:26 <sipa> but that means you're standardizing on a system that implies suboptimal behaviour for those who have to rely on web wallets
872 2011-09-28 12:01:03 <Eliel> sipa: it's not impossible to make web wallets work with it.
873 2011-09-28 12:01:11 <sipa> how?
874 2011-09-28 12:01:50 <sipa> you mean by not mixing?
875 2011-09-28 12:02:32 <Eliel> at the simplest, they could simply keep separate wallets for each user. But even with mixing, as long as they're not recycling the receiving addresses they use, they should just be able to mark spent addresses as owned by the user whose send it was.
876 2011-09-28 12:03:02 <phantomcircuit> keeping a different wallet for each user is completely out of the question with the current implementation
877 2011-09-28 12:03:10 <sipa> i believe bitcoin transactions shouldn't be more than moving amounts of bitcoin around
878 2011-09-28 12:03:37 pickett has joined
879 2011-09-28 12:03:37 <sipa> and that anything beyond does not belong in the block chain, but in an out-of-band protocol outside of bitcoin
880 2011-09-28 12:03:48 sneak has joined
881 2011-09-28 12:03:48 sneak has quit (Changing host)
882 2011-09-28 12:03:48 sneak has joined
883 2011-09-28 12:04:49 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
884 2011-09-28 12:05:32 <sipa> (see https://gist.github.com/1237788)
885 2011-09-28 12:05:38 <Eliel> sipa: I think it's reasonably important to have a working automatic way of returning bitcoins to the sender that isn't dependant on out of band communication outside bitcoin.
886 2011-09-28 12:05:50 <Eliel> the out of band can't be guaranteed to be there.
887 2011-09-28 12:05:58 zhoutong has joined
888 2011-09-28 12:06:31 <sipa> Eliel: see my proposal :)
889 2011-09-28 12:11:46 <Eliel> oh, you intend to make your out-of-band protocol the standard way of doing bitcoin transactions.
890 2011-09-28 12:12:05 <Eliel> that could work.
891 2011-09-28 12:12:27 <sipa> not necessarily mine - i just argue that using something more than a static txout template would have many advantages
892 2011-09-28 12:12:37 cuqa_ has joined
893 2011-09-28 12:12:38 cuqa has quit (Disconnected by services)
894 2011-09-28 12:12:47 <Eliel> yes, I agree.
895 2011-09-28 12:15:12 ThomasV has joined
896 2011-09-28 12:15:51 ThomasV has quit (Changing host)
897 2011-09-28 12:15:51 ThomasV has joined
898 2011-09-28 12:20:49 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
899 2011-09-28 12:27:46 rdponticelli has joined
900 2011-09-28 12:32:02 soap is now known as soap_
901 2011-09-28 12:34:38 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
902 2011-09-28 12:36:20 wolfspraul has joined
903 2011-09-28 12:37:16 vsrinivas has quit (Quit: leaving)
904 2011-09-28 12:41:28 wolfspraul has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
905 2011-09-28 12:42:59 wolfspraul has joined
906 2011-09-28 12:43:30 datagutt has joined
907 2011-09-28 12:44:20 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
908 2011-09-28 12:47:28 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
909 2011-09-28 12:47:59 RazielZ has joined
910 2011-09-28 12:53:34 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
911 2011-09-28 12:54:44 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
912 2011-09-28 13:01:12 wolfspraul has joined
913 2011-09-28 13:01:25 asher^ has joined
914 2011-09-28 13:02:50 asher^ has left ()
915 2011-09-28 13:04:48 wolfspraul has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
916 2011-09-28 13:05:10 wolfspraul has joined
917 2011-09-28 13:08:27 wolfspraul has quit (Client Quit)
918 2011-09-28 13:08:41 wolfspraul has joined
919 2011-09-28 13:10:06 DontMindMe has joined
920 2011-09-28 13:13:25 casascius has joined
921 2011-09-28 13:23:42 TheAncientGoat has joined
922 2011-09-28 13:24:50 duck1123 has joined
923 2011-09-28 13:25:38 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
924 2011-09-28 13:29:07 c00w has joined
925 2011-09-28 13:29:30 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
926 2011-09-28 13:33:23 sneak has joined
927 2011-09-28 13:33:23 sneak has quit (Changing host)
928 2011-09-28 13:33:23 sneak has joined
929 2011-09-28 13:37:14 c00w has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
930 2011-09-28 13:38:12 c00w has joined
931 2011-09-28 13:38:36 b4epoche_ has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
932 2011-09-28 13:39:07 huk has quit ()
933 2011-09-28 13:45:49 gavinandresen has joined
934 2011-09-28 13:47:12 Diablo-D3 has joined
935 2011-09-28 13:56:07 rdponticelli_ has joined
936 2011-09-28 13:57:04 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
937 2011-09-28 13:57:38 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneWeirdBRB
938 2011-09-28 13:57:57 SomeoneWeirdBRB is now known as SomeoneWeird
939 2011-09-28 14:01:26 ken has joined
940 2011-09-28 14:04:38 c00w has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
941 2011-09-28 14:06:33 iocor has joined
942 2011-09-28 14:06:56 amtal has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
943 2011-09-28 14:07:43 smtmnyz has quit (Quit: quiting)
944 2011-09-28 14:10:28 amtal has joined
945 2011-09-28 14:12:22 b4epoche_ has joined
946 2011-09-28 14:15:59 smtmnyz has joined
947 2011-09-28 14:18:21 Daniel0108 has joined
948 2011-09-28 14:18:39 TheAncientGoat has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
949 2011-09-28 14:23:10 rdponticelli_ has quit (Quit: http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.)
950 2011-09-28 14:23:32 rdponticelli has joined
951 2011-09-28 14:34:19 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
952 2011-09-28 14:39:20 danbri has joined
953 2011-09-28 14:39:38 Lexa has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
954 2011-09-28 14:41:41 da2ce7 has joined
955 2011-09-28 14:41:54 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
956 2011-09-28 14:42:24 da2ce7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
957 2011-09-28 14:44:57 iocor has joined
958 2011-09-28 14:45:56 BlueMatt has joined
959 2011-09-28 14:46:36 ike-exe_ has joined
960 2011-09-28 14:48:02 ike-exe has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
961 2011-09-28 14:48:09 ken has quit (Disconnected by services)
962 2011-09-28 14:48:15 ike-exe_ is now known as ike-exe
963 2011-09-28 14:48:33 noagendamarket has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
964 2011-09-28 14:49:03 BlueMattBot has quit ()
965 2011-09-28 14:49:13 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: ping
966 2011-09-28 14:49:23 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: what's up
967 2011-09-28 14:49:46 BlueMattBot has joined
968 2011-09-28 14:50:23 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: me, devrandom and sipa discussed briefly moving/copying/forking https://github.com/devrandom/bitcoin-release into bitcoin/bitcoin-release to collect gitian sigs and make gitian release process more "official"
969 2011-09-28 14:50:29 <BlueMatt> would be nice to do that...
970 2011-09-28 14:51:18 c00w has joined
971 2011-09-28 14:53:24 <gavinandresen> Can one of you write up what the process for managing that more official tree would be? I have no problem creating it, I just don't want it to become an unloved orphan
972 2011-09-28 14:53:52 <gavinandresen> (stuff like why it exists, what it is used for, who has access to read/write it, etc)
973 2011-09-28 14:56:27 copumpkin has joined
974 2011-09-28 14:56:31 <gavinandresen> Also: I'm not sure "bitcoin-release" is a good name, I'd expect to either get release binaries from there or see released source code...
975 2011-09-28 14:56:59 Blitzboom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
976 2011-09-28 14:57:15 Blitzboom has joined
977 2011-09-28 14:57:16 Blitzboom has quit (Changing host)
978 2011-09-28 14:57:16 Blitzboom has joined
979 2011-09-28 15:00:11 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: whatever you call it, maybe bitcoin-gitian-sigs or smth...
980 2011-09-28 15:08:56 AlexWaters has joined
981 2011-09-28 15:09:05 b4epoche_ has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
982 2011-09-28 15:09:39 <AlexWaters> sipa: hey, can you tell me how I would run the unit test you wrote for 524?
983 2011-09-28 15:10:01 <AlexWaters> sipa: i didn't see it in any commits
984 2011-09-28 15:10:30 <AlexWaters> ;;seen sipa
985 2011-09-28 15:10:30 <gribble> sipa was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 2 hours, 58 minutes, and 2 seconds ago: <sipa> not necessarily mine - i just argue that using something more than a static txout template would have many advantages
986 2011-09-28 15:11:50 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
987 2011-09-28 15:12:43 zhoutong has joined
988 2011-09-28 15:18:08 <sipa> AlexWaters: build test_bitcoin, run it :)
989 2011-09-28 15:18:41 BTCTrader_ has joined
990 2011-09-28 15:19:14 <sipa> AlexWaters: it's in the third commit of #524
991 2011-09-28 15:22:28 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
992 2011-09-28 15:23:34 zhoutong has joined
993 2011-09-28 15:24:33 <AlexWaters> oh weird, I didn't realize you could update like that. thanks - didn't see it.
994 2011-09-28 15:24:43 <sipa> update a pull request?
995 2011-09-28 15:25:03 <AlexWaters> yeah, I thought it would have added another comment with the new commit(s)
996 2011-09-28 15:25:14 <sipa> github groups them together
997 2011-09-28 15:25:40 <sipa> and you can do force pushes, overwriting earlier commits
998 2011-09-28 15:27:15 <tcatm> AlexWaters: do we have something to announce proposed changes (like deprecating "midstate" in getwork, see mailing list)? maybe we could have a simple roadmap on bitcoin.org?
999 2011-09-28 15:27:43 c00w has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1000 2011-09-28 15:29:10 <MacRohard> can't the midstate thing be reimplemented using openssl?
1001 2011-09-28 15:30:12 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/536
1002 2011-09-28 15:30:24 <BlueMatt> (assuming repo is bitcoin-gitian-sigs)
1003 2011-09-28 15:30:59 <tcatm> MacRohard: yes. that's what my pull request does. still, it's redundant information and can be easily calculated more efficiently on the miner.
1004 2011-09-28 15:32:06 <MacRohard> tcatm, yea.. but people are using it. if it's easy to keep the functionality it probably should be.
1005 2011-09-28 15:32:29 <AlexWaters> tcatm: the mailing list would be the best place to announce changes, what would the roadmap on bitcoin.org look like?
1006 2011-09-28 15:32:59 <tcatm> AlexWaters: 0.5 - QT, 0.6 - "midstate" removed, 0.7 - other big change?
1007 2011-09-28 15:32:59 abragin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1008 2011-09-28 15:33:23 <BlueMatt> tcatm: is midstate removal really that big of a change that it gets its own version?
1009 2011-09-28 15:33:28 <AlexWaters> tcatm: Gavin has talked about that in the forum, let me try to find the post
1010 2011-09-28 15:33:29 <gavinandresen> n
1011 2011-09-28 15:33:30 <sipa> i don't think so
1012 2011-09-28 15:33:53 <tcatm> BlueMatt: no, but I don't want to remove it too soon so miners have time to update their code
1013 2011-09-28 15:33:53 <BlueMatt> imho just remove midstate early on in a release cycle and give people a chance to update
1014 2011-09-28 15:33:58 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1015 2011-09-28 15:34:05 <BlueMatt> ie do it now...
1016 2011-09-28 15:34:09 <sipa> we could discuss a roadmap for so future changes, which can include deprecation/removal of certain features
1017 2011-09-28 15:34:09 <BlueMatt> or right after 0.5 release
1018 2011-09-28 15:34:17 <gavinandresen> no. speaking of removing stuff, we should remove the deprecated RPC methods
1019 2011-09-28 15:34:23 <BlueMatt> just gonna say that
1020 2011-09-28 15:34:51 abragin has joined
1021 2011-09-28 15:35:05 <AlexWaters> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=44330.msg529670#msg529670
1022 2011-09-28 15:35:21 <AlexWaters> so that's all I know...
1023 2011-09-28 15:36:04 <sipa> gavinandresen: how far would you consider going in 0.5.0 regarding support for multisig?
1024 2011-09-28 15:36:32 <sipa> i'd say make a set of transactions pass IsStandard(), without implemented solver
1025 2011-09-28 15:36:55 * BlueMatt agrees (for what its worth)
1026 2011-09-28 15:36:58 <gavinandresen> I was playing with unit tests for my simple three-more-standard transactions this morning
1027 2011-09-28 15:37:33 AlexWaters is now known as AlexWaters_afk1h
1028 2011-09-28 15:38:53 <gavinandresen> I'd love to hear TD and genjix's and Stefan's takes on the different IsStandard proposals, since they'll eventually have to implement them
1029 2011-09-28 15:39:17 <BlueMatt> too bad TD[gone] is gone
1030 2011-09-28 15:39:35 <sipa> the only reason for not letting something pass IsStandard() is fear of implementation bugs, right?
1031 2011-09-28 15:40:55 <BlueMatt> that and what goes along with it (dos, etc)
1032 2011-09-28 15:41:27 <sipa> gavinandresen: which types of transactions a client supports (i.e., can use as inputs) can be client-dependent
1033 2011-09-28 15:42:15 <gavinandresen> sipa: sure, but we want to encourage a standard way of doing things so theymos doesn't go crazy showing the 16 different forms of escrow transaction on block explorer
1034 2011-09-28 15:42:21 <sipa> agree
1035 2011-09-28 15:42:45 <gavinandresen> ... and so security researchers have a small set of cases to reason about
1036 2011-09-28 15:42:58 kish has quit (Quit: leaving)
1037 2011-09-28 15:42:59 <sipa> but there is no problem in making IsStandard broader than what the main client can solve
1038 2011-09-28 15:43:16 <BlueMatt> except relay issues
1039 2011-09-28 15:43:17 <sipa> as long as you trust there are no implementation bugs which verifying those transactions
1040 2011-09-28 15:43:26 kish has joined
1041 2011-09-28 15:43:44 <gavinandresen> what do you mean by "can solve" ? You mean extract the keys needed to spend a transaction?
1042 2011-09-28 15:44:05 <sipa> "can solve" = be able to construct a txin script using such an output
1043 2011-09-28 15:45:14 <gavinandresen> Ah. No, I think only transactions that the main client can spend should be allowed-- I'd want to see the figure-out-my-wallet-balance code AND the IsStandard() checks (and the choose-coins-to-spend) all updated at the same time.
1044 2011-09-28 15:45:25 <casascius> some multisig situations can be forseen to be where the client cannot solve it, but might still recognize that it is its own address (e.g. (A AND B) OR C) when client only has A
1045 2011-09-28 15:45:47 <gavinandresen> ... but not give the standard client a way of actually generating multisigs for the first release
1046 2011-09-28 15:46:20 <sipa> gavinandresen: i don't agree; for certain escrow transactions you'll need special negotiation with other parties, which is something that shouldn't necessarily go in the main client
1047 2011-09-28 15:47:15 <BlueMatt> I would argue for adding to IsStandard in a release prior to the spend/solve code so that stuff gets relayed earlier
1048 2011-09-28 15:47:16 <casascius> i have always thought that multisigs would often involve a third party provider, and that third party provider would be in a position to provide a patched client that integrated their multisig functionality (i.e. which would also include rpc's to the multisig provider to get the foreign signature)
1049 2011-09-28 15:47:24 <BlueMatt> (though I would have said put that in 0.4...)
1050 2011-09-28 15:47:31 <sipa> also, IsStandard() can already legally be bypassed by submitting to a pool that allows them
1051 2011-09-28 15:47:46 marf_away has joined
1052 2011-09-28 15:48:19 <gavinandresen> casascius: that's a red herring for what I'd like to see happen ASAP
1053 2011-09-28 15:48:29 Turingi has joined
1054 2011-09-28 15:48:29 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
1055 2011-09-28 15:48:29 Turingi has joined
1056 2011-09-28 15:49:17 <BlueMatt> one could define an api and you fill in the provider settings...
1057 2011-09-28 15:49:25 <BlueMatt> instead of patched clients
1058 2011-09-28 15:49:36 <gavinandresen> sipa: I want IsStandard plus recognition-of-multisigs-you-can-spend in place at the same time because I'm worried that a complicated multisig solution might make things like GetBalance() or -rescan unbearably slow
1059 2011-09-28 15:50:08 <sipa> gavinandresen: i don't see why those are related
1060 2011-09-28 15:50:31 genjix has joined
1061 2011-09-28 15:50:35 <genjix> hey
1062 2011-09-28 15:50:39 <gavinandresen> sipa: Have you ever performance profiled GetBalan ce()?
1063 2011-09-28 15:51:08 <sipa> not really
1064 2011-09-28 15:51:18 <gavinandresen> sipa: if I recall correctly, it spends most of its time extracting addresses from transactions and figuring out if you have the keys
1065 2011-09-28 15:51:41 <gavinandresen> (I may be confusing it with -rescan,though)
1066 2011-09-28 15:52:04 <gavinandresen> genjix : hey. Do you have an opinion on the two multisig proposals?
1067 2011-09-28 15:52:39 <sipa> gavinandresen: the way i see it: you have a client, that client supports a number of incoming transaction types; it will only produce addresses (or whatever equivalent is used to construct a transaction to it) that match those types of transactions, so there is no way you can receive a transaction which is in a form your client doesn't support
1068 2011-09-28 15:52:43 <gavinandresen> https://gist.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6f versus https://gist.github.com/dba89537d352d591eb36
1069 2011-09-28 15:52:56 <genjix> yep i saw them a while back
1070 2011-09-28 15:53:01 <genjix> I think I preferred yours
1071 2011-09-28 15:53:01 <sipa> however, a larger set of transaction types may be considered safe, and can reliably be verified without risk for DOS by the client
1072 2011-09-28 15:53:07 <sipa> and those pass IsStandard
1073 2011-09-28 15:53:18 <genjix> the other one was needlessly more complex, but i'd have to re-read them to be sure.
1074 2011-09-28 15:53:20 wolfspra1l has joined
1075 2011-09-28 15:53:31 <genjix> gavinandresen: btw i found a few bugs in bitcoin
1076 2011-09-28 15:53:38 <wardearia> GetBalan ce()? ?
1077 2011-09-28 15:53:59 <genjix> nAskedForBlocks is uninitialized
1078 2011-09-28 15:54:01 <gavinandresen> genjix: great, put them in the issue tracker or send them via private email (if they're exploitable)
1079 2011-09-28 15:54:10 wpl has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1080 2011-09-28 15:54:12 <genjix> nah they're very minor
1081 2011-09-28 15:54:32 <gavinandresen> genjix: ... or submit patches to fix them...
1082 2011-09-28 15:54:55 <genjix> was 3 things... damn i forgot 2 of them
1083 2011-09-28 15:55:24 <genjix> CNode::Subscribe isn't used anywhere. any idea what the original intention of that was?
1084 2011-09-28 15:55:38 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1085 2011-09-28 15:55:55 wpl has joined
1086 2011-09-28 15:56:48 <gavinandresen> genjix: Satoshi intended to implement some funky super-anonymous meet-in-the-middle scheme for merchants and customers to connect
1087 2011-09-28 15:57:14 zapnap has joined
1088 2011-09-28 15:57:18 <genjix> meh i thought it was something like tracking of messages
1089 2011-09-28 15:57:29 <genjix> weird that bitcoin is a message based protocol over TCP
1090 2011-09-28 15:58:23 <casascius> in these multisig proposals, what is the expected behavior of the client when the client has one but not all of the keys for an incoming transaction? ignore it? or show it as "encumbered" or something similar
1091 2011-09-28 15:58:35 <gavinandresen> casascius: Initially: ignore it
1092 2011-09-28 15:59:01 <gavinandresen> (if sipa gets his way, then even if you have all the keys it'll be initially ignored....)
1093 2011-09-28 15:59:32 <genjix> what are the arguments for hiding it?
1094 2011-09-28 16:00:05 <gavinandresen> casascius: eventually: I dunno, what's the right thing for the UI to do in that case? "Here's some money you can't spend" ?
1095 2011-09-28 16:00:15 <sipa> gavinandresen: it's not hiding; it's not supporting
1096 2011-09-28 16:00:18 <sipa> eh, genjix
1097 2011-09-28 16:00:34 <casascius> gavinandresen: yeah exactly....thats what paypal does when you sell things on ebay
1098 2011-09-28 16:00:42 <sipa> and obviously for the types of transaction you do support (like the onles being discussied now), it will support them, and it will show them
1099 2011-09-28 16:00:59 huk has joined
1100 2011-09-28 16:01:09 <casascius> gavinandresen: and that's what your bank does just right after you deposit funds (e.g. "available balance" != "balance")
1101 2011-09-28 16:01:16 Titeuf_87 has joined
1102 2011-09-28 16:01:22 <tcatm> gavinandresen: I made a pull request to remove all deprecated RPCs (not midstate, though)
1103 2011-09-28 16:01:41 <gavinandresen> tcatm: cool, thanks
1104 2011-09-28 16:01:49 <sipa> but more interesting types of multisig transactions are only useful within a more complex series of actions (see the contracts page), that are not just "you receive a transaction, and use the resulting funds"
1105 2011-09-28 16:02:13 <gavinandresen> scope creep
1106 2011-09-28 16:02:22 <genjix> sipa: i don't think so. for me the most interesting use would be holding the funds in a group
1107 2011-09-28 16:02:30 <genjix> not trusting a single treasurer
1108 2011-09-28 16:02:49 <sipa> genjix: sure, and that is a type of transaction that can very well standardized and supported by all clients
1109 2011-09-28 16:03:34 <genjix> for me implementing any multisig scheme is easy peasy. the multisig part is just a generalisation of checksig, and the other ops are not hard.
1110 2011-09-28 16:03:59 <genjix> so whichever standard is chosen, is fine. i'm more inclined though to the simpler/clearer one
1111 2011-09-28 16:04:35 <sipa> i just think that IsStandard shouldn't be used as a way for preventing known-to-be-useful types of transactions from the network, as long as you've verified that they can reliably be checked by the client
1112 2011-09-28 16:04:45 <casascius> one feasible way I think it could work, is if you have funds but only "some" of the keys, that you could "spend" the funds, but what you'd get as a result is a cut-n-paste base64-encoded block of the transaction that you could forward to somebody else. and then if you were to import a pre-signed transaction for which you had the remaining keys, you would have the option to "sign & submit"
1113 2011-09-28 16:04:50 <sipa> genjix: checksig and solver are two different things
1114 2011-09-28 16:05:06 <genjix> sipa: yep i'd prefer a proper scripting system, not disabled
1115 2011-09-28 16:05:15 ThomasV has joined
1116 2011-09-28 16:05:17 <genjix> sipa: ?
1117 2011-09-28 16:05:21 ThomasV has quit (Changing host)
1118 2011-09-28 16:05:21 ThomasV has joined
1119 2011-09-28 16:05:51 <sipa> genjix: i'm arguing in favor of relaxing IsStandard(), even for types of transactions that the main client can't use as input
1120 2011-09-28 16:05:52 <genjix> ah, by multisig part, i meant multisig op
1121 2011-09-28 16:06:00 <luke-jr> d33tah: no PM from you
1122 2011-09-28 16:06:07 <sipa> but i understand gavinandresen's view
1123 2011-09-28 16:06:27 <genjix> i see, i got told about this convo because of which multisig scheme to choose
1124 2011-09-28 16:06:42 <gavinandresen> Before opening up the IsStandard floodgates I think two things need to happen: 1) fast headers-only initial download. So block chain size isn't an issue for new users.
1125 2011-09-28 16:06:43 <genjix> but yep relaxing the scripting system is the way forwards in general
1126 2011-09-28 16:07:01 <genjix> sipa: even a point scoring system could work
1127 2011-09-28 16:07:14 <sipa> gavinandresen: that's reasonable
1128 2011-09-28 16:07:14 <genjix> so checksig is 20 points, add is 1 point
1129 2011-09-28 16:07:20 * luke-jr notes Gavin doesn't control the "IsStandard floodgates"
1130 2011-09-28 16:07:26 <gavinandresen> ... and 2) un-hard-code the transaction fee system, so miners and clients can work out what transaction fees
1131 2011-09-28 16:07:37 <genjix> if sum(point score) > X: reject tx
1132 2011-09-28 16:08:27 <sipa> genjix: that's possible, comparable to the current DOS protection system
1133 2011-09-28 16:08:35 <genjix> gavinandresen: then you'll need to re-enable the sequence, no?
1134 2011-09-28 16:08:49 <sipa> nsequence is something else
1135 2011-09-28 16:08:52 <genjix> sipa: yep except the question is how to random various operations.
1136 2011-09-28 16:09:28 <genjix> well if you let users set their own fees, then people are going to try 0 fee transactions that are never picked up
1137 2011-09-28 16:09:45 <genjix> so you'd want to allow people to replace old txs that arent getting picked up
1138 2011-09-28 16:09:47 BlueMatt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1139 2011-09-28 16:09:51 <sipa> you need a way to measure how long a tx will take to get confirmed
1140 2011-09-28 16:09:58 <sipa> at least estimate
1141 2011-09-28 16:10:02 BlueMatt has joined
1142 2011-09-28 16:10:27 <genjix> it could be subjective
1143 2011-09-28 16:11:23 <tcatm> do we have a short document describing the mining process (which arrays to byteswap, how to format buffers)?
1144 2011-09-28 16:11:26 <genjix> tbh a checksig vs an add is like 10000+ vs 1
1145 2011-09-28 16:11:51 <gavinandresen> yes, that's why I want miners to start deciding how much transactions REALLY cost
1146 2011-09-28 16:12:11 <JFK911> why let pools decide that
1147 2011-09-28 16:12:26 <genjix> here's an idea.
1148 2011-09-28 16:12:29 <genjix> recommend a few
1149 2011-09-28 16:12:31 <genjix> fee
1150 2011-09-28 16:12:43 <genjix> but show a warning if they try to override it with a lower number
1151 2011-09-28 16:12:48 <sipa> i really *really* hope that when we push for configurable fees in miners, they don't all set them to "accept everything"
1152 2011-09-28 16:12:59 <genjix> why?
1153 2011-09-28 16:13:16 <tcatm> sipa: I'm pretty sure some will do that
1154 2011-09-28 16:13:22 <sipa> some is not a problem
1155 2011-09-28 16:13:24 <genjix> that's great.
1156 2011-09-28 16:13:32 <sipa> but it's in their best interest to allow as much as possible
1157 2011-09-28 16:14:03 <sipa> and it is in the best interest of the network to have fees correspond as much as possible with real costs (for all full nodes, not only miners, who are the ones who get paid)
1158 2011-09-28 16:14:24 <tcatm> maybe we can calculate the fee automatically similiar to how we calculate difficulty?
1159 2011-09-28 16:14:30 <casascius> here is a crazy idea: implement a little script interpreter (e.g. Lua) which allows the user to set the "include/notinclude" decision, and allow people to trade their own scripts via their clipboards, so being able to set your price for mining doesn't require compiling anything
1160 2011-09-28 16:14:53 <genjix> sipa: why does it matter?
1161 2011-09-28 16:15:10 <sipa> genjix: it may not matter
1162 2011-09-28 16:15:11 <genjix> block reward is subsidising txs anyway
1163 2011-09-28 16:15:16 <sipa> that's the problem
1164 2011-09-28 16:15:20 <sipa> block reward pays the miners
1165 2011-09-28 16:15:23 <sipa> but nobody else
1166 2011-09-28 16:15:35 <genjix> it's not a big deal.
1167 2011-09-28 16:15:39 <sipa> for now, no
1168 2011-09-28 16:15:47 <genjix> well then :)
1169 2011-09-28 16:15:56 <sipa> anyway
1170 2011-09-28 16:16:39 <luke-jr> casascius: QtScript? :D
1171 2011-09-28 16:16:51 <sipa> i don't think you need to make it that complex
1172 2011-09-28 16:17:02 <sipa> that will make it hard to estimate time-to-inclusion too
1173 2011-09-28 16:17:26 <casascius> luke-jr: i'm unfamiliar with it, but if it worked, i couldn't complain
1174 2011-09-28 16:17:39 <luke-jr> casascius: it's an ECMAScript implementation
1175 2011-09-28 16:18:05 <sipa> anyway, i'm off for a while
1176 2011-09-28 16:18:08 sipa has left ()
1177 2011-09-28 16:18:15 <luke-jr> unfortunately, the problem with any scripting language is that it will be limited to making decisions periodically at best
1178 2011-09-28 16:18:47 <luke-jr> ie, there'd be no way to setup a rule "accept this at a discount for the first hour after we see it, but then stop accepting it"
1179 2011-09-28 16:19:08 c00w has joined
1180 2011-09-28 16:21:41 <phantomcircuit> genjix, tcatm a properly constructed headers only client should be able to process very large numbers of transactions fairly cheaply
1181 2011-09-28 16:21:47 D0han_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1182 2011-09-28 16:22:06 <phantomcircuit> i've noticed that a lot of things that happen in bitcoind are far from optimal
1183 2011-09-28 16:22:50 <genjix> yeah no shit
1184 2011-09-28 16:23:04 <phantomcircuit> <3 genjix
1185 2011-09-28 16:23:57 <gavinandresen> I'd say "patches welcome" but I know that wouldn't get anywhere with you two....
1186 2011-09-28 16:24:51 <phantomcircuit> lol
1187 2011-09-28 16:25:18 <genjix> start with the freecoin branch, we put lots of things in there (build system, python/java/lua/perl bindings, strings in rpc, rpc immediate initialisaton, ...)
1188 2011-09-28 16:25:19 <phantomcircuit> most of the things which are sub optimal are almost certainly going to break other things by fixing them
1189 2011-09-28 16:25:58 <gavinandresen> fixing a car when it is running is definitely harder than one you're building from scratch
1190 2011-09-28 16:26:02 <genjix> but lots of small things can be improved in bitcoin, like the merkle root function or the bignum implementation
1191 2011-09-28 16:26:23 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: "patches welcome" is quite often not true of bitcoind mainline
1192 2011-09-28 16:27:07 ArdaXi_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1193 2011-09-28 16:27:12 <genjix> well it's a difference in ideas, which i'm cool with
1194 2011-09-28 16:27:20 <genjix> like upstream vs downstream
1195 2011-09-28 16:27:42 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: btw, kinda up in the air whether your "DoSprevention" code should be merged to stable or not (it's on the boundary of bugfix and feature); what do you think?
1196 2011-09-28 16:28:01 <luke-jr> I'm leaning toward omitting it, due to the higher risk of potential bugs
1197 2011-09-28 16:28:35 <BlueMatt> Id say omit
1198 2011-09-28 16:28:45 <genjix> and i did try for a long while to add these features to mainline, but it's annoying to be stone-walled all the time.
1199 2011-09-28 16:29:39 Moonies has joined
1200 2011-09-28 16:31:58 <gavinandresen> genjix: stonewalled by me or by Satoshi? I'll admit I've been super conservative about changes because it is way too easy to screw up and break important things unintentionally
1201 2011-09-28 16:32:42 <gavinandresen> (and I'll freely admit I don't know the code inside-out-and-backwards)
1202 2011-09-28 16:33:13 <tcatm> IMHO new features should live in their own branches until they are a stable and well tested and are merged in small steps so they are easy to review. they are also separate from bug fixes (those should be as small as possible and may contain code that will become obsolete soon as part of a better implementation of the "broken" feature)
1203 2011-09-28 16:33:18 <genjix> want to make an omelette, then you have to crack some eggs
1204 2011-09-28 16:33:36 <kjj> tcatm: that's a very good idea, but might be hard to do in practice
1205 2011-09-28 16:33:57 <luke-jr> nothing is ever perfectly stable
1206 2011-09-28 16:34:51 <luke-jr> wallet import/export has been fairly stable for some time, and not merged yet IIRC because of the risk some n00b uses it wrong
1207 2011-09-28 16:35:16 TheAncientGoat has joined
1208 2011-09-28 16:35:24 <luke-jr> despite the fact that it only has a JSON-RPC interface, which is explicitly for webapps, not n00b users
1209 2011-09-28 16:35:45 <gavinandresen> wallet import/export hasn't been merged yet because sipa says there are still bugs.
1210 2011-09-28 16:36:30 <luke-jr> O.o
1211 2011-09-28 16:37:42 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Matt Corallo master * r4572358 / doc/release-process.txt : Update release-process.txt with gitian release instructions. - http://git.io/BLeF9A
1212 2011-09-28 16:37:42 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik master * r4dcad1d / doc/release-process.txt :
1213 2011-09-28 16:37:42 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Merge pull request #536 from TheBlueMatt/build-updates
1214 2011-09-28 16:37:42 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Update release-process.txt with gitian release instructions. - http://git.io/bHlSlA
1215 2011-09-28 16:42:21 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneWeirdzzzz
1216 2011-09-28 16:44:06 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1217 2011-09-28 16:45:11 zhoutong has joined
1218 2011-09-28 16:47:51 <casascius> i had reported an unfixed bug in wallet import/export two days ago, he has a fix for it now that worked for me (though that's not to say there is nothing else wrong)
1219 2011-09-28 16:48:52 <luke-jr> would be cool to run bitcoind through that LVMM thing
1220 2011-09-28 16:49:27 <luke-jr> http://llvm.org/pubs/2008-12-OSDI-KLEE.pdf
1221 2011-09-28 16:49:48 <gavinandresen> casascius: that was key import/export, wasn't it?
1222 2011-09-28 16:50:36 <gavinandresen> (sipa has two pulls pending, key import/export and full wallet import/export)
1223 2011-09-28 16:55:07 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: KLEE is ... mostly a pita. It would be useful to pull out small parts of bitcoin (e.g. unit tests) through it.
1224 2011-09-28 16:55:38 <gmaxwell> But good luck getting it working, I had to setup a VM to match their linux distro of choice the last time I screwed with it.
1225 2011-09-28 16:56:53 <gmaxwell> zzuf + valgrind is a more pratical tool. E.g. setup a node in valgrind (patch openssl first) with -connect to a single basteon node and use zzuf on the socket. Remove the 'crc' check on the protocol messages.
1226 2011-09-28 16:56:53 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1227 2011-09-28 16:58:50 c00w has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1228 2011-09-28 17:06:42 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: doesn't your distro's valgrind package have the proper ignores for openssl by default? ;p
1229 2011-09-28 17:06:49 <casascius> gavinandresen: yeah that was key import/export only
1230 2011-09-28 17:07:00 <casascius> my bad
1231 2011-09-28 17:07:12 mosimo has joined
1232 2011-09-28 17:07:57 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: it's not possibleâ openssl splatters uninitilized tractable memory into its output.. where it triggers branches in the application code.
1233 2011-09-28 17:09:25 rdponticelli has joined
1234 2011-09-28 17:13:27 Lexa has joined
1235 2011-09-28 17:14:11 t3a has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1236 2011-09-28 17:15:58 <CIA-101> libbitcoin: genjix * rbbd01f83b797 / (3 files in 3 dirs): One line implementation of CBigNumber::set_uint64 :)
1237 2011-09-28 17:16:19 jackmcbarn has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1238 2011-09-28 17:16:58 jackmcbarn has joined
1239 2011-09-28 17:17:19 MichaelBurge_ has joined
1240 2011-09-28 17:18:23 localhost has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1241 2011-09-28 17:19:05 Nicksasa has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1242 2011-09-28 17:20:29 MichaelBurge has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1243 2011-09-28 17:21:59 localhost has joined
1244 2011-09-28 17:22:35 shLONG has joined
1245 2011-09-28 17:26:14 Titeuf_87 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1246 2011-09-28 17:30:18 MichaelBurge_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1247 2011-09-28 17:31:23 MichaelBurge has joined
1248 2011-09-28 17:34:53 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1249 2011-09-28 17:35:57 zhoutong has joined
1250 2011-09-28 17:37:38 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1251 2011-09-28 17:38:38 zhoutong has joined
1252 2011-09-28 17:40:40 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1253 2011-09-28 17:41:13 zhoutong has joined
1254 2011-09-28 17:45:43 clr_ has joined
1255 2011-09-28 17:46:48 clr_ is now known as c0w
1256 2011-09-28 17:46:51 c0w is now known as c00w
1257 2011-09-28 17:46:55 Nicksasa has joined
1258 2011-09-28 17:50:09 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1259 2011-09-28 17:50:51 zhoutong has joined
1260 2011-09-28 17:52:33 caedes has joined
1261 2011-09-28 17:57:25 amiller has joined
1262 2011-09-28 17:58:26 AlexWaters_afk1h is now known as AlexWaters
1263 2011-09-28 18:02:32 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1264 2011-09-28 18:03:37 zhoutong has joined
1265 2011-09-28 18:03:53 ThomasV has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1266 2011-09-28 18:04:12 Burgundy has joined
1267 2011-09-28 18:04:17 ThomasV has joined
1268 2011-09-28 18:04:19 MichaelBurge has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1269 2011-09-28 18:04:31 MichaelBurge has joined
1270 2011-09-28 18:04:38 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1271 2011-09-28 18:04:54 pensan has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1272 2011-09-28 18:06:50 huk has quit ()
1273 2011-09-28 18:07:36 minimoose has joined
1274 2011-09-28 18:11:41 dvide has quit ()
1275 2011-09-28 18:14:53 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Relax, its only ONES and ZEROS!)
1276 2011-09-28 18:15:18 Daniel0108 has quit (Excess Flood)
1277 2011-09-28 18:15:45 c00w has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1278 2011-09-28 18:18:43 Daniel0108 has joined
1279 2011-09-28 18:22:01 Cablesaurus has joined
1280 2011-09-28 18:22:01 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
1281 2011-09-28 18:22:01 Cablesaurus has joined
1282 2011-09-28 18:22:06 EskimoBob has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1283 2011-09-28 18:22:32 D0han has joined
1284 2011-09-28 18:24:13 pensan has joined
1285 2011-09-28 18:24:28 <helo> how often do transactions with one confirmation get overturned by a competing block?
1286 2011-09-28 18:24:44 <helo> i assume it never happens after more than one confirmation...
1287 2011-09-28 18:25:06 <imsaguy2> there's a reason that the bitcoin.org version waits until 6
1288 2011-09-28 18:25:15 <helo> not that it could not, but that it in practice does not occur
1289 2011-09-28 18:25:15 EskimoBob has joined
1290 2011-09-28 18:25:21 EskimoBob has quit (Changing host)
1291 2011-09-28 18:25:21 EskimoBob has joined
1292 2011-09-28 18:27:15 <imsaguy2> it becomes easier to do as difficulty drops
1293 2011-09-28 18:27:18 c00w has joined
1294 2011-09-28 18:27:37 <helo> are there any statistics available?
1295 2011-09-28 18:30:02 <phantomcircuit> helo, i believe 6 was chosen because that's the longest known block chain reorganization
1296 2011-09-28 18:30:08 <phantomcircuit> but that happened a long time ago
1297 2011-09-28 18:30:14 <tcatm> phantomcircuit: wrong
1298 2011-09-28 18:30:55 <phantomcircuit> care to flesh that out?
1299 2011-09-28 18:32:52 <tcatm> bitcoin.pdf 11. Calculations
1300 2011-09-28 18:33:14 <phantomcircuit> the chart?
1301 2011-09-28 18:33:38 <phantomcircuit> i dont remember seeing a specific reference to 6
1302 2011-09-28 18:34:56 <helo> it apparently is where the "long tail" of the poisson distribution begins
1303 2011-09-28 18:34:56 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1304 2011-09-28 18:35:58 zhoutong has joined
1305 2011-09-28 18:36:03 c00w has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1306 2011-09-28 18:37:15 fnord0 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1307 2011-09-28 18:38:10 <phantomcircuit> tcatm, honestly anybody who doesn't trust the larger mining pools should be waiting for > 10 blocks
1308 2011-09-28 18:38:14 <tcatm> yep. I think satoshi assumed an attacker might easily have about 10..15% of the network and thus 6 confirmations would be enough to make an successful attack unlikely (<0.1%)
1309 2011-09-28 18:38:44 fnord0 has joined
1310 2011-09-28 18:39:24 <imsaguy2> but if a person could maintain a sustained 10-15% of the network, you could continue to plug at it
1311 2011-09-28 18:39:50 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1312 2011-09-28 18:39:50 log0s has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1313 2011-09-28 18:40:03 <helo> is there any problem with using the least significant digits of the fee and transfer amount to encode data?
1314 2011-09-28 18:40:20 <tcatm> helo: yes. lots of small change
1315 2011-09-28 18:40:46 <tcatm> and it will break once bitcoins are worth a lot more
1316 2011-09-28 18:41:38 <helo> that seems acceptable :)
1317 2011-09-28 18:42:11 log0s has joined
1318 2011-09-28 18:42:36 <gavinandresen> helo: what data do you want to encode? There are much cooler ways of hiding data in the block chain, like picking a particular value for the 'random' nonce used for signatures....
1319 2011-09-28 18:43:07 <helo> right... i was just thinking that may be a better idea. would just take longer
1320 2011-09-28 18:44:34 <helo> for now it may not be worth the extra effort of trying to generate a suitable signature, but in the future it may be
1321 2011-09-28 18:45:19 <gavinandresen> well, using the amounts will make it obvious to anybody who cares to look that you're doing SOMETHING mysterious.
1322 2011-09-28 18:48:22 * ThomasV compiling bitcoin qt gui for the first time
1323 2011-09-28 18:48:47 E-sense has joined
1324 2011-09-28 18:50:13 <ThomasV> oh, it's cute!
1325 2011-09-28 18:51:07 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1326 2011-09-28 18:52:04 cronopio has joined
1327 2011-09-28 18:52:35 <helo> encoding the data in the amounts allows the receiving party (via bitcoin qr generation) to be solely responsible for both encoding and decoding it consistently. maybe a better alternative meeting that requirement would be for the requester to generate receiving addresses that contained the data.
1328 2011-09-28 18:54:14 pickett has joined
1329 2011-09-28 18:56:13 <ThomasV> the qt gui is very nice. did it ship with 0.4 ?
1330 2011-09-28 18:56:39 <tcatm> no, it will be in 0.5
1331 2011-09-28 18:58:14 clr_ has joined
1332 2011-09-28 19:00:00 BTCTrader_ has quit (Quit: BTCTrader_)
1333 2011-09-28 19:00:05 <ThomasV> hmm, I guess wallet encryption is not handled by the gui. can I safely encrypt my wallet using the qt gui ?
1334 2011-09-28 19:00:43 <ThomasV> well, let's see :-)
1335 2011-09-28 19:01:07 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1336 2011-09-28 19:01:31 pensan has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1337 2011-09-28 19:05:02 <Blitzboom> wallet goes poof
1338 2011-09-28 19:05:04 <Blitzboom> :P
1339 2011-09-28 19:09:26 <ThomasV> ok, I really like that gui. just sent a payment, it asked me for my passphrase at that moment
1340 2011-09-28 19:09:43 <ThomasV> the only thing that I find annoying is the decimal point
1341 2011-09-28 19:09:53 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1342 2011-09-28 19:10:06 baz_ has joined
1343 2011-09-28 19:10:14 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1344 2011-09-28 19:12:02 <Blitzboom> the GUI includes new units such as mBTC, doesnât it?
1345 2011-09-28 19:12:02 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1346 2011-09-28 19:12:55 noagendamarket has joined
1347 2011-09-28 19:13:07 zhoutong has joined
1348 2011-09-28 19:13:08 <jrmithdobbs> where is qt tree / os x build instructions?
1349 2011-09-28 19:13:39 ArdaXi_ has joined
1350 2011-09-28 19:14:04 <ThomasV> jrmithdobbs: git pull; qmake; make
1351 2011-09-28 19:14:25 <jrmithdobbs> ThomasV: it's in head now?
1352 2011-09-28 19:14:27 clr_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1353 2011-09-28 19:14:31 <ThomasV> Blitzboom: yes it does, but that just moves the decimal point elsewhere
1354 2011-09-28 19:14:37 <ThomasV> jrmithdobbs: yes
1355 2011-09-28 19:15:06 Joric has joined
1356 2011-09-28 19:15:20 <jrmithdobbs> ThomasV: is that seriously all the docs? needs boost/miniupnpc/qt anything else?
1357 2011-09-28 19:15:25 Lopuz has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1358 2011-09-28 19:15:40 <ThomasV> jrmithdobbs: I did not find any doc
1359 2011-09-28 19:15:54 <ThomasV> I compiled without upnp
1360 2011-09-28 19:16:25 <ThomasV> and then I figured out that the .pro was in the upper dir, not src
1361 2011-09-28 19:16:59 baz_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1362 2011-09-28 19:17:02 <ThomasV> I hope someday it uses configtools
1363 2011-09-28 19:17:15 <Joric> just compiled qt win32 build of the main branch with upnp and stuff, wasn't easy
1364 2011-09-28 19:17:59 <tcatm> I wish I had VMs for compiling linux, win and osx binaries. and maybe even VisualStudio on windows
1365 2011-09-28 19:18:01 <Joric> current version of qt sdk refuses to build it had to download the older one
1366 2011-09-28 19:18:18 pensan has joined
1367 2011-09-28 19:18:53 <Joric> used this one ftp://ftp.qt.nokia.com/qtsdk/qt-sdk-win-opensource-2010.05.exe
1368 2011-09-28 19:18:56 FAMULUS has joined
1369 2011-09-28 19:19:14 baz_ has joined
1370 2011-09-28 19:19:29 FAMULUS has left ()
1371 2011-09-28 19:20:08 <Joric> also there was no prebuilt miniupnpc in deps for some reason like upnp is not important
1372 2011-09-28 19:20:20 Clipse has joined
1373 2011-09-28 19:20:23 <ThomasV> hmm, the encrypted wallet only encrypts the private keys ; the rest is not encrypted. so I would need to encrypt it again before I put it on my remote backup storage
1374 2011-09-28 19:21:12 <tcatm> yes, that feature is mostly to avoid spending coins "by accident"
1375 2011-09-28 19:21:26 <Joric> it's so ugly i want to scoop my eyes out http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/1908/bitcoinwallet2011092901.png
1376 2011-09-28 19:21:53 <ThomasV> no, it's not ugly
1377 2011-09-28 19:22:35 <ThomasV> I was irritated by the plain "xyzt confirmations" written on each line
1378 2011-09-28 19:24:10 baz_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1379 2011-09-28 19:24:31 <ThomasV> it was a pure waste of space
1380 2011-09-28 19:24:43 <Joric> that shapeless green check irritates even more
1381 2011-09-28 19:25:48 baz_ has joined
1382 2011-09-28 19:26:02 <ThomasV> it's a question mark when the tx is unconfirmed
1383 2011-09-28 19:26:43 <tcatm> It should be (red x), 1, ... 9, (green check)
1384 2011-09-28 19:27:11 <ThomasV> oh, now it is a clock (1 confirmation)
1385 2011-09-28 19:28:53 <ThomasV> I wish it could encrypt the whole wallet, not just the keys, as an extra safety measure. a wallet contains private information
1386 2011-09-28 19:29:10 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: then use disk encryption, thats what thats for.
1387 2011-09-28 19:29:34 <gmaxwell> It's _very_ good that the wallet doesn't encrypt the whole thing, if it did the key would have to be in memory 100% of the time bitcoin was running.
1388 2011-09-28 19:29:55 <gmaxwell> The way it currently works you can leave bitcoin running and you only need to provide your key when you send money and it can forget it right after.
1389 2011-09-28 19:30:00 <ThomasV> no it would not
1390 2011-09-28 19:30:29 <gmaxwell> The key or the same plaintext data.
1391 2011-09-28 19:30:39 <luke-jr> ThomasV: what "else" do you want excrypted?
1392 2011-09-28 19:30:40 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: you can encrypt the whole thing, and ask again for passphrase when doing a tx
1393 2011-09-28 19:30:41 <luke-jr> encrypted*
1394 2011-09-28 19:30:56 <luke-jr> ThomasV: the only thing besides the private keys is the public keys
1395 2011-09-28 19:31:03 <luke-jr> ThomasV: and it needs the public keys to handle p2p traffic
1396 2011-09-28 19:31:05 <log0s> i created an encrypted keystore for my private keys so i didn't have to deal with that nonsense
1397 2011-09-28 19:31:09 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: you need to know the other content of your wallet to know your balance, know what txn you have, know when a new txn is yours, etc. These are the only things not encrypted.
1398 2011-09-28 19:31:11 <ThomasV> luke-jr: no, there's labels, etc
1399 2011-09-28 19:31:25 <luke-jr> ThomasV: needs those too
1400 2011-09-28 19:31:25 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: you need those in order to simply run the client, to see your balance and such.
1401 2011-09-28 19:31:41 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: what is your point?
1402 2011-09-28 19:31:42 mmoya has joined
1403 2011-09-28 19:31:43 <gmaxwell> (and for the internal accounting to update those balances as txn come in)
1404 2011-09-28 19:31:53 <tcatm> encrypting labels and comments would be a good idea
1405 2011-09-28 19:32:13 <luke-jr> tcatm: if the labels are encrypted, you can't do the accounting as transactions come in
1406 2011-09-28 19:32:44 <tcatm> luke-jr: yes, you could. you just won't be able to see the label in cleartext
1407 2011-09-28 19:32:46 <gmaxwell> tcatm: all you could do is obsecure their text. .. and even with that you'd then have constant pressure to keep the key data available just to see the balances. Comments might have a better argument.
1408 2011-09-28 19:33:02 <luke-jr> tcatm: oh, I get it
1409 2011-09-28 19:33:22 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: I used to encrypt my wallet with a script that decrypts, launches the gui, and encrypts it back when I am done. don't tell me that I should use disk encryption...
1410 2011-09-28 19:33:23 <tcatm> but yes, FDE would be the easier and probably better solution
1411 2011-09-28 19:33:33 <gmaxwell> It would mean the user would have to present their key signficantly more often, increasing the oppturnties for it to tget taken.
1412 2011-09-28 19:33:46 <ThomasV> oh come on...
1413 2011-09-28 19:33:49 <luke-jr> ThomasV: that must be painful
1414 2011-09-28 19:34:02 <ThomasV> why ?
1415 2011-09-28 19:34:02 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: thats a perfectly fine thing to do, and you can still do that. Wallet encrpytion does something that what you were doing _cannot_ do.
1416 2011-09-28 19:34:21 <ThomasV> I know I can still do that
1417 2011-09-28 19:34:49 <ThomasV> but what I was doing might be useful for more people than just me
1418 2011-09-28 19:34:57 <gmaxwell> What wallet encryption does which a fully encrypted wallet cannot is keep a fully fuctional read and recieve only copy of bitcoin running.
1419 2011-09-28 19:35:05 BlueMatt has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1420 2011-09-28 19:35:27 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: I understood that; you really think I am retarded ?
1421 2011-09-28 19:35:38 <gmaxwell> Well, there have been indicationsâ¦
1422 2011-09-28 19:35:40 <gmaxwell> ;)
1423 2011-09-28 19:36:23 <ThomasV> all I'm saying is that there is some private info in a wallet, and that "use disk encryption" is not an answer
1424 2011-09-28 19:36:42 <gmaxwell> Well, what do you want. The way it works provides very useful functionality which is very useful and can't be achieved another way. And you want it to instead do something less useful, which can be easily provided by disk encryption.
1425 2011-09-28 19:36:49 <gmaxwell> (or file encryption, etc)
1426 2011-09-28 19:37:16 <ThomasV> I know I want it too
1427 2011-09-28 19:37:23 <ThomasV> I never said it's wrong
1428 2011-09-28 19:40:25 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1429 2011-09-28 19:40:47 clr_ has joined
1430 2011-09-28 19:43:41 Nightblade has left ()
1431 2011-09-28 19:45:10 FAMULUS has joined
1432 2011-09-28 19:46:33 <jrmithdobbs> ThomasV: your method leaves the private keys sitting around on the device too, it's awful really
1433 2011-09-28 19:51:41 <Diablo-D3> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/09/28/1651223/Zotac-Releases-GeForce-GT-520-With-Classic-PCI-Connector?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29
1434 2011-09-28 19:51:43 <Diablo-D3> wtf
1435 2011-09-28 19:52:56 <lfm> cool
1436 2011-09-28 19:53:02 FAMULUS has quit (Quit: FAMULUS)
1437 2011-09-28 19:54:14 iocor has joined
1438 2011-09-28 19:56:45 <ThomasV> jrmithdobbs: huh? what method ?
1439 2011-09-28 20:01:40 <ThomasV> jrmithdobbs: my file encryption script is not intended to REPLACE the current key encryption ; I used to use it because it was better than no encryption at all. and I will keep using it because wallets contain personal information besides the private keys
1440 2011-09-28 20:02:52 cronopio has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1441 2011-09-28 20:03:12 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1442 2011-09-28 20:03:41 <ThomasV> fyi, "normal" people do not use disk encryption
1443 2011-09-28 20:04:06 log0s has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1444 2011-09-28 20:04:19 <gmaxwell> They shouldâ it's pretty widely recommended, it's required on company laptops by many companies. Support is built into OSX, for example.
1445 2011-09-28 20:04:26 <tcatm> "normal" people do not have secure computers
1446 2011-09-28 20:04:41 <ThomasV> tcatm: exactly
1447 2011-09-28 20:04:52 <Blitzboom> bitcoin is not for normal people, itâs for the elite
1448 2011-09-28 20:05:06 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: You've really offered no alternative in any case.
1449 2011-09-28 20:05:29 <gmaxwell> How would you propose wallet encryption work instead?
1450 2011-09-28 20:05:39 <ThomasV> Blitzboom: that's how we prepare the next bitomat
1451 2011-09-28 20:06:08 <Blitzboom> the next bitomat, mtgox, mybitcoin, <insert any bitcoin related entity>
1452 2011-09-28 20:06:15 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: exactly like now, but with an extra layer to encrypt/decrypt the wallet file when the client is launched/closed
1453 2011-09-28 20:07:12 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: so the user will need to remember two passwords, the loss of either makes them lose their bitcoins forever? And what happens when there is a power outage or crash instead of a clean shutdown?
1454 2011-09-28 20:07:26 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: so that people who find my wallet.dat cannot extract sensitive information from it. that's simple, no?
1455 2011-09-28 20:08:19 imsaguy has joined
1456 2011-09-28 20:08:41 pensan has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1457 2011-09-28 20:08:43 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: can use same pw ; power outages / crashes are a reason why you want to do backups
1458 2011-09-28 20:09:52 zomtec has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1459 2011-09-28 20:10:00 <gmaxwell> Okay, I guess it could be the same. But â you'll lose data if you lose power or shutdown uncleanly? Don't you think this is more likely than someone finding your wallet and then doing something 'bad' to you with the non-key data inside?
1460 2011-09-28 20:11:09 <gmaxwell> also means you couldn't have bitcoin run on system startup if the startup is unattended.
1461 2011-09-28 20:11:19 log0s has joined
1462 2011-09-28 20:11:50 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: how exactly do you plan to lose data?
1463 2011-09-28 20:13:00 <lfm> nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
1464 2011-09-28 20:13:13 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: encrypt. decrypt. compare unencrypted versions. delete only if they match
1465 2011-09-28 20:13:18 erus` has joined
1466 2011-09-28 20:13:40 <gmaxwell> It's not clear to me what you're prosing, your "power outages / crashes are a reason why you want to do backups" response made it sound to me like you were thinking of something the only kept the wallet in memory until the user provided a key to reencrypt it at shutdown.
1467 2011-09-28 20:14:23 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: if you ever write the non-encrypted data on disk it's mostly worthless to bother encrypting it in the first place.
1468 2011-09-28 20:14:51 <gmaxwell> You'll end up with lots of copies in the free space where it can be trivially recovered, so thats no good.
1469 2011-09-28 20:15:07 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: shm
1470 2011-09-28 20:15:23 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: http://sanescreen.org/wallet
1471 2011-09-28 20:15:36 clr_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1472 2011-09-28 20:15:54 <ThomasV> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6424.0
1473 2011-09-28 20:16:37 <gmaxwell> great, so if you lose power/crash you'll lose data from your wallet, potentially your bitcoin depending on how much of your keypool you've used while running.
1474 2011-09-28 20:17:06 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: I use backups. you know about that, right ?
1475 2011-09-28 20:17:49 genjix has left ()
1476 2011-09-28 20:18:10 <gmaxwell> Sure backups are a grand thing and people should use them.
1477 2011-09-28 20:18:19 <ThomasV> lol
1478 2011-09-28 20:18:37 <gmaxwell> Creating a system that will lose data on common events and then saying "lol you should have had backups". Well, *ploink*
1479 2011-09-28 20:19:27 Daniel0108 has quit (Changing host)
1480 2011-09-28 20:19:27 Daniel0108 has joined
1481 2011-09-28 20:19:57 Joric has quit ()
1482 2011-09-28 20:22:31 <ThomasV> keypool extension + power outage at the same time is not a common event; and I know about that, I care about keypool extension
1483 2011-09-28 20:23:21 <gmaxwell> Running the keypool down to the bones is pretty trivial with wallet encryption.
1484 2011-09-28 20:24:12 coblee has joined
1485 2011-09-28 20:24:54 fnord0 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1486 2011-09-28 20:26:05 <jrmithdobbs> ThomasV: it's more common than wallet theft
1487 2011-09-28 20:26:13 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: I always considered my script as a temporary solution, I am not advocating it. but you really don't seem to understand my point. if we want bitcoin to be used by more people, we need to worry about that, because most people do not use disk encryption
1488 2011-09-28 20:26:36 <ThomasV> and they do not know how to encrypt a file
1489 2011-09-28 20:26:37 <jrmithdobbs> ThomasV: you're missing the point
1490 2011-09-28 20:26:38 fnord0 has joined
1491 2011-09-28 20:26:47 <jrmithdobbs> ThomasV: nothing better can be done without disk encryption
1492 2011-09-28 20:26:58 <jrmithdobbs> what "normal people" do or do not currently use is irrelevant
1493 2011-09-28 20:28:00 <ThomasV> jrmithdobbs: what happens when you use disk encryption and there's a power outage when you write a file?
1494 2011-09-28 20:28:04 <gmaxwell> I wouldn't go so far as to say 'nothing', but it's difficult to do more than what we have. Moreove "most people" aren't all that worried about private data in the encrypted wallet.dat on their computer: if someone compromises their computer their browser history is probably more compromising than their bitcoin addresses.
1495 2011-09-28 20:28:24 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1496 2011-09-28 20:28:28 Litt has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1497 2011-09-28 20:28:29 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: basically the same thing that happens when you don't use disk encryption and have a power outage.
1498 2011-09-28 20:29:25 <gmaxwell> (hell, my browser historyâ and I bet yours too, gives away quite a few of my bitcoin addresses all on its own)
1499 2011-09-28 20:30:28 <ThomasV> my .mozilla is a symbolic link to the local disk of my machine
1500 2011-09-28 20:31:07 <ThomasV> but of course some other people can access it
1501 2011-09-28 20:34:08 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1502 2011-09-28 20:37:46 p0s has joined
1503 2011-09-28 20:37:52 CaptainDDL has quit (Quit: I leave my first mate in charge!)
1504 2011-09-28 20:38:07 shLONG has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1505 2011-09-28 20:41:09 Nightblade has joined
1506 2011-09-28 20:42:29 <ThomasV> the "File" menu of the qt gui is a bit awkward
1507 2011-09-28 20:42:42 <ThomasV> radio buttons..
1508 2011-09-28 20:42:58 <ThomasV> and E instead of X to exit
1509 2011-09-28 20:45:47 ThatOneRoadie has joined
1510 2011-09-28 20:47:41 AStove has quit ()
1511 2011-09-28 20:48:52 <erus`> does anyone want 'frozen synapse' i have a spare key
1512 2011-09-28 20:49:13 sacarlson has joined
1513 2011-09-28 20:55:20 shockdiode has joined
1514 2011-09-28 20:55:38 TransistOrg has joined
1515 2011-09-28 20:56:47 fathead has joined
1516 2011-09-28 20:58:09 <fathead> hi, has anyone had any luck getting multi-currency balance on MtGox? eg. https://mtgox.com/api/0/getFunds.php?Currency=EUR
1517 2011-09-28 20:58:41 <fathead> It's only returning "usds" and "btcs" for me, even though I have funds in my EUR wallet.
1518 2011-09-28 20:58:44 elkingrey has joined
1519 2011-09-28 21:00:10 <lfm> maybe need to enable cookies or something
1520 2011-09-28 21:00:26 DontMindMe has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
1521 2011-09-28 21:00:46 <elkingrey> After having installed bitcoin on my server and modified my bitcoin.conf file to include rpcuser and rpcpassword I get this error when running the bitcoind command. Any ideas? http://pastebin.com/rbmP95uD
1522 2011-09-28 21:01:22 <lfm> is the server running?
1523 2011-09-28 21:02:17 TransistOrg has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1524 2011-09-28 21:03:26 <lfm> why are you in /bin?
1525 2011-09-28 21:04:19 <lfm> what user owns ~/.bitcoin and the files in it?
1526 2011-09-28 21:05:27 <elkingrey> The server is running, I was recommended to put my bitcoind instance in /bin, a non-root user owns /.bitcoin
1527 2011-09-28 21:05:53 <lfm> are you logged into the user that own it?
1528 2011-09-28 21:06:16 <elkingrey> I am logged in with root, su to user
1529 2011-09-28 21:06:41 <lfm> I expect you should actually log in as the user
1530 2011-09-28 21:07:03 <elkingrey> Hmmm
1531 2011-09-28 21:07:32 <elkingrey> Problem is my users are sftp jailed and chrooted and cannot access /bin
1532 2011-09-28 21:08:19 <lfm> ok thats another problem, how would you expect it to run bitcoind if it cant access /bin
1533 2011-09-28 21:08:44 <elkingrey> Well, originally I was going to run it as root, but I was advised against it.
1534 2011-09-28 21:08:49 <lfm> make a regular user for bitcoin
1535 2011-09-28 21:09:08 <elkingrey> Okay.
1536 2011-09-28 21:09:49 <Namegduf> Just don't put bitcoind inside /bin
1537 2011-09-28 21:09:54 <Namegduf> But actually put it in the chroot
1538 2011-09-28 21:10:41 <lfm> ya I generally prefer it in ~/bin myself
1539 2011-09-28 21:10:47 <elkingrey> Namegduf: You don't see any potential problems from putting it in /srv/www/example.com/public_html/ directory?
1540 2011-09-28 21:11:15 <Namegduf> elkingrey: Um
1541 2011-09-28 21:11:23 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1542 2011-09-28 21:11:23 <lfm> huh? why would you want it in your web server dirs?
1543 2011-09-28 21:11:24 <Namegduf> If you run all your users in the SAME chroot
1544 2011-09-28 21:11:32 <Namegduf> You basically lose all point in having a chroot
1545 2011-09-28 21:11:36 <tcatm> do we really need the twitter and facebook link on bitcoin.org?
1546 2011-09-28 21:11:43 <elkingrey> No, not all users have same chroot
1547 2011-09-28 21:12:07 <elkingrey> But the user I would give it to is located in public_html directory.
1548 2011-09-28 21:12:07 <Namegduf> So put bitcoind in a chroot which isn't related to your web server
1549 2011-09-28 21:12:12 <elkingrey> I could create a new user, though
1550 2011-09-28 21:12:17 <Namegduf> Yes, do that.
1551 2011-09-28 21:12:28 <elkingrey> Okay, thanks for the advise
1552 2011-09-28 21:12:41 <lfm> cant you make a /home/user dir for that account?
1553 2011-09-28 21:12:42 <Namegduf> Not much point isolating your web user from other things on the system when it isn't isolated from the stuff controlling all your money.
1554 2011-09-28 21:12:55 <Namegduf> bitcoind is almost the thing to defend, really
1555 2011-09-28 21:13:19 <Namegduf> If they can compromise it in any way, bye bye bitcoins.
1556 2011-09-28 21:13:21 <elkingrey> You recommend creating a strictly bitcoin user and chrooting it in /bin?
1557 2011-09-28 21:13:27 <shockdiode> wget http://example.com/.bitcoin/wallet.dat
1558 2011-09-28 21:13:35 <Namegduf> Or in its own directory.
1559 2011-09-28 21:13:46 <lfm> i wouldnt chroot it, it needs several dyn libs
1560 2011-09-28 21:13:55 <elkingrey> ok
1561 2011-09-28 21:15:16 <elkingrey> Just out of curiosity, do you guys see many new people installing bitcoins on their server in order to set up online stores that offer payment in bitcoin?
1562 2011-09-28 21:15:44 <lfm> some but they are pros and usually dont need our help
1563 2011-09-28 21:16:08 <elkingrey> Well, I'm no pro, but I am doing that and I appreciate the help. Definitely need more people offering payment in bitcoin.
1564 2011-09-28 21:16:35 <lfm> good luck, I expect you need it
1565 2011-09-28 21:16:43 <elkingrey> hah! I'll be back
1566 2011-09-28 21:27:15 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1567 2011-09-28 21:27:52 iocor has joined
1568 2011-09-28 21:30:03 amtal has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1569 2011-09-28 21:31:25 <casascius> it is possible to accept bitcoins without using bitcoind
1570 2011-09-28 21:31:26 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1571 2011-09-28 21:32:02 <gmaxwell> casascius: You might want to elaborate on that, I'm not sure what you're asking.
1572 2011-09-28 21:32:29 zhoutong has joined
1573 2011-09-28 21:32:51 <gmaxwell> Are you asking if the import stuff has a user interface yet?
1574 2011-09-28 21:32:52 <casascius> not asking anything, just mentioning to elkingrey that bitcoins can be accepted without bitcoind...sorry for not making that very clear
1575 2011-09-28 21:32:56 <kjj> If he is asking what I think he is asking, the answer is yes. Just watch block explorer
1576 2011-09-28 21:33:01 <gmaxwell> ohhh.
1577 2011-09-28 21:33:02 <gmaxwell> feh
1578 2011-09-28 21:33:13 <casascius> assuming he is even still here
1579 2011-09-28 21:33:17 <lfm> casascius: use a bank, like mtgox or something
1580 2011-09-28 21:33:18 <gmaxwell> I seem to frequently read "it is" as "is it". Sorry.
1581 2011-09-28 21:33:54 <casascius> i'm accepting bitcoins on my website and just using block explorer and nothing more
1582 2011-09-28 21:34:13 <casascius> privkeys are kept in a separate wallet, bitcoin addresses are preloaded in the server and dispensed as needed
1583 2011-09-28 21:34:45 <casascius> when i get an email saying an order is received, it comes with a link to blockexplorer so I can verify they paid before shipping
1584 2011-09-28 21:37:57 <elkingrey> casascius: I am in the process of making a new oscommerce add-on for bitcoin payment module work with bitcoin.
1585 2011-09-28 21:41:29 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1586 2011-09-28 21:42:01 fathead has quit (Quit: leaving)
1587 2011-09-28 21:42:12 zhoutong has joined
1588 2011-09-28 21:44:59 Daniel0108 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1589 2011-09-28 21:45:48 theymos has joined
1590 2011-09-28 21:51:02 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1591 2011-09-28 21:51:56 lfm has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1592 2011-09-28 21:52:09 zhoutong has joined
1593 2011-09-28 21:53:29 mologie has joined
1594 2011-09-28 21:53:29 <casascius> elkingrey: is using a pre-generated database of bitcoin addresses and avoiding having privkeys on the server a viable choice for your application?
1595 2011-09-28 21:53:50 <casascius> elkingrey: I have seen patches for bitcoind that enable it to simply tell you about transactions occurring (via http post)
1596 2011-09-28 21:54:09 <elkingrey> To be honest, I don't know.
1597 2011-09-28 21:54:29 <elkingrey> Right now I'm just trying to get the standard setup going
1598 2011-09-28 21:54:45 <casascius> every approach has its tradeoffs, but having no privkeys on the server means if the server gets compromised, that funds can't be stolen (except in limited circumstances, such as an attacker making your site give out his addresses instead of yours)
1599 2011-09-28 21:55:39 <elkingrey> I'm less concerned about that right now. Perhaps more in the future.
1600 2011-09-28 21:56:11 <elkingrey> I don't think I'll have enough funds or traffic to really worry about that. But in the future, I may very well want to take the necessary steps
1601 2011-09-28 21:56:19 <casascius> i am assuming your site wants to know instantly when the payment arrives?
1602 2011-09-28 21:56:32 <elkingrey> It's not necessary, right now at least.
1603 2011-09-28 21:57:15 <elkingrey> At least I don't think it is.
1604 2011-09-28 21:57:31 <elkingrey> I need a better understand before I can make definitive statements.
1605 2011-09-28 21:57:55 <casascius> Is it geared toward ecommerce of physical goods or of instantly delivered services? (or just generic?)
1606 2011-09-28 21:58:03 <elkingrey> physical goods
1607 2011-09-28 21:58:12 <casascius> cause you could do what im doing at casascius.com which is drop dead simple
1608 2011-09-28 21:58:25 <elkingrey> let me check it out
1609 2011-09-28 21:58:30 <casascius> generate a csv file of 10,000+ addresses, store them on your server, and assign one to each order
1610 2011-09-28 21:58:49 <casascius> bitaddress.org can generate you the csv file, or my bitcoin utility for windows can do it, or there are other ways too
1611 2011-09-28 21:59:13 <elkingrey> Do you even have bitcoind installed on your server?
1612 2011-09-28 21:59:31 <casascius> on casascius.com my order form pretty much says "what do you want". and when you hit submit, it just pulls an address from the database, says this is yours, and saves your order with it.
1613 2011-09-28 21:59:36 <casascius> No bitcoind! =)
1614 2011-09-28 21:59:50 <casascius> then i can go collect the bitcoins on some other unrelated computer that has all the privkeys
1615 2011-09-28 22:00:44 <elkingrey> hmmm
1616 2011-09-28 22:00:51 <elkingrey> How's business been?
1617 2011-09-28 22:01:07 <casascius> You are welcome to make a fake order on my website just to see how it works...just click confirm as though you paid, but don't pay
1618 2011-09-28 22:01:23 <casascius> pretty good, those coins have been doing quite well
1619 2011-09-28 22:01:52 <elkingrey> Wow.
1620 2011-09-28 22:03:14 <elkingrey> Okay, well I'll keep that in mind. Right now I'm playing around with user permissions and such, trying to best figure out how to do this. I will look further into your option if I can't. Part of what I'm doing though is geared towards harmonizing an oscommerce bitcoin payment module with a server side installation
1621 2011-09-28 22:03:46 <casascius> for an item that gets shipped, by the time im ready to sit down and ship it, it will already have confirmed, so i just click into block explorer (the confirmation email gives me the link already pre-loaded with the address you were assigned) and if theres funds, i ship. i don't even use bitcoind until i actually need to spend the bitcoins somewhere else
1622 2011-09-28 22:04:25 <casascius> sure, hope you are successful regardless!@
1623 2011-09-28 22:07:42 <elkingrey> thanks!
1624 2011-09-28 22:09:05 Sedra has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1625 2011-09-28 22:10:01 lfm has joined
1626 2011-09-28 22:10:46 Joric has joined
1627 2011-09-28 22:10:51 duck1123 has quit (Quit: duck1123)
1628 2011-09-28 22:15:28 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1629 2011-09-28 22:15:34 CaptainDDL has joined
1630 2011-09-28 22:16:41 zhoutong has joined
1631 2011-09-28 22:19:13 crazy_imp has joined
1632 2011-09-28 22:19:16 <crazy_imp> heyho
1633 2011-09-28 22:20:24 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1634 2011-09-28 22:20:54 erus` has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 6.0.2/20110902133214])
1635 2011-09-28 22:22:54 mosimo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1636 2011-09-28 22:29:55 Sedra has joined
1637 2011-09-28 22:34:28 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1638 2011-09-28 22:40:51 ThatOneRoadie has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1639 2011-09-28 22:42:28 duck1123 has joined
1640 2011-09-28 22:44:37 osmosis has joined
1641 2011-09-28 22:46:09 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1642 2011-09-28 22:46:16 gjs278 has joined
1643 2011-09-28 22:46:40 abragin has quit ()
1644 2011-09-28 22:47:25 shockdiode has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1645 2011-09-28 22:47:37 shockdiode has joined
1646 2011-09-28 22:56:05 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
1647 2011-09-28 23:02:31 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1648 2011-09-28 23:03:31 zhoutong has joined
1649 2011-09-28 23:07:02 shLONG has joined
1650 2011-09-28 23:09:11 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1651 2011-09-28 23:12:23 diki has joined
1652 2011-09-28 23:12:36 <diki> how do i calculate the stale percent of shares?
1653 2011-09-28 23:13:11 <diki> ValidUserShares*/ - or...?
1654 2011-09-28 23:15:04 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1655 2011-09-28 23:16:07 clr_ has joined
1656 2011-09-28 23:16:08 zhoutong has joined
1657 2011-09-28 23:16:23 clr_ is now known as c00w
1658 2011-09-28 23:17:50 marf_away2 has joined
1659 2011-09-28 23:18:48 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1660 2011-09-28 23:20:07 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1661 2011-09-28 23:21:13 zhoutong has joined
1662 2011-09-28 23:25:16 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1663 2011-09-28 23:26:36 wolfspra1l has quit (Quit: leaving)
1664 2011-09-28 23:26:45 wolfspraul has joined
1665 2011-09-28 23:28:15 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1666 2011-09-28 23:28:20 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1667 2011-09-28 23:37:54 osmosis_ has joined
1668 2011-09-28 23:38:05 osmosis has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1669 2011-09-28 23:43:31 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1670 2011-09-28 23:44:32 zhoutong has joined
1671 2011-09-28 23:47:16 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1672 2011-09-28 23:50:06 TransistOrg has joined
1673 2011-09-28 23:51:32 copumpkin has joined
1674 2011-09-28 23:53:44 <luke-jr> diki: I guess you're another example of how schools don't teach crap
1675 2011-09-28 23:53:54 <luke-jr> diki: your question is answered by elementary math
1676 2011-09-28 23:55:59 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r9e9d25c7bad9 cgminer/ (README main.c): Enable 0.5% donation by default.
1677 2011-09-28 23:57:32 wardearia has joined
1678 2011-09-28 23:58:50 c00w has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1679 2011-09-28 23:59:49 kabo69 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)