1 2011-10-19 00:00:46 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2 2011-10-19 00:01:17 <whiteman> Oh crap the apt-get commands are a page down from what I'm reading.
3 2011-10-19 00:02:44 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
4 2011-10-19 00:03:49 zhoutong has joined
5 2011-10-19 00:09:15 ThomasV has joined
6 2011-10-19 00:10:34 eoss has joined
7 2011-10-19 00:10:34 eoss has quit (Changing host)
8 2011-10-19 00:10:34 eoss has joined
9 2011-10-19 00:15:07 pecket has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
10 2011-10-19 00:16:17 theorb has joined
11 2011-10-19 00:16:19 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
12 2011-10-19 00:16:32 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
13 2011-10-19 00:18:16 magn3ts has joined
14 2011-10-19 00:19:37 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
15 2011-10-19 00:24:32 peck has joined
16 2011-10-19 00:28:30 <alexwaters> anyone else having issues building after upgrading to Ubuntu ocelot?
17 2011-10-19 00:29:02 Kolky has quit (Quit: Bye bye!)
18 2011-10-19 00:29:20 <neofutur> alexwaters: whats the error message ?
19 2011-10-19 00:31:13 <alexwaters> hmm, i close the VM and deleted it - i'll try it again in a little bit and post the issue to the issue tracker. I clicked a button to delete some files during the install, and I want to see if this is the reason. It was giving an error with stream.io - sorry I don't remember the exact message
20 2011-10-19 00:31:26 <alexwaters> it seemed like a missing dependency issue
21 2011-10-19 00:31:34 TheZimm has joined
22 2011-10-19 00:31:49 <alexwaters> so I think the upgrade from natty modifies or removes one or some of the deps
23 2011-10-19 00:33:43 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
24 2011-10-19 00:34:15 dvide_ has joined
25 2011-10-19 00:34:24 zhoutong has joined
26 2011-10-19 00:35:16 gp5st has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
27 2011-10-19 00:35:54 dvide has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
28 2011-10-19 00:46:44 machine2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
29 2011-10-19 00:48:41 machine2 has joined
30 2011-10-19 00:49:03 wolfspraul has joined
31 2011-10-19 00:50:55 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
32 2011-10-19 00:51:16 zhoutong has joined
33 2011-10-19 00:51:48 Ramen has joined
34 2011-10-19 00:53:24 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
35 2011-10-19 00:53:57 zhoutong has joined
36 2011-10-19 00:55:26 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
37 2011-10-19 00:56:33 zhoutong has joined
38 2011-10-19 01:00:20 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
39 2011-10-19 01:05:03 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
40 2011-10-19 01:06:00 zhoutong has joined
41 2011-10-19 01:10:35 HaltingState has joined
42 2011-10-19 01:12:27 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
43 2011-10-19 01:13:14 zhoutong has joined
44 2011-10-19 01:13:43 Graet has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
45 2011-10-19 01:14:46 shadders has quit (Quit: Leaving)
46 2011-10-19 01:15:57 dr_win has joined
47 2011-10-19 01:16:44 clr_ has joined
48 2011-10-19 01:16:57 clr_ is now known as c00w
49 2011-10-19 01:19:37 dr_win has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
50 2011-10-19 01:21:11 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
51 2011-10-19 01:21:31 crazy_imp has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
52 2011-10-19 01:23:15 crazy_imp has joined
53 2011-10-19 01:23:18 pickett has joined
54 2011-10-19 01:25:46 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Easy as 3.14159265358979323846...)
55 2011-10-19 01:25:46 Graet has joined
56 2011-10-19 01:26:00 shadders has joined
57 2011-10-19 01:26:34 SomeoneWeirdzzzz is now known as SomeoneWeird
58 2011-10-19 01:35:05 Cablesaurus has joined
59 2011-10-19 01:35:05 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
60 2011-10-19 01:35:05 Cablesaurus has joined
61 2011-10-19 01:43:56 wasabi1 has joined
62 2011-10-19 01:45:45 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
63 2011-10-19 01:48:56 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
64 2011-10-19 01:49:57 Ramen has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
65 2011-10-19 02:16:12 snowing has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
66 2011-10-19 02:16:25 snowing has joined
67 2011-10-19 02:20:02 EPiSKiNG- has joined
68 2011-10-19 02:21:51 amenstop has joined
69 2011-10-19 02:22:48 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
70 2011-10-19 02:33:20 <gjs278> ;;bc,stats
71 2011-10-19 02:33:23 <gribble> Current Blocks: 149814 | Current Difficulty: 1468195.4272208 | Next Difficulty At Block: 151199 | Next Difficulty In: 1385 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 1 hour, 4 minutes, and 25 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1280646.08059896 | Estimated Percent Change: -12.7741404955
72 2011-10-19 02:35:44 m00p has joined
73 2011-10-19 02:37:22 brunner has joined
74 2011-10-19 02:40:18 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
75 2011-10-19 02:40:30 TheSeven has joined
76 2011-10-19 02:42:14 shadders has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
77 2011-10-19 02:44:31 Xunie has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
78 2011-10-19 02:44:34 brunner has left ("Leaving.")
79 2011-10-19 02:46:48 t3a has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
80 2011-10-19 02:46:49 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
81 2011-10-19 02:48:46 zhoutong has joined
82 2011-10-19 02:52:48 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
83 2011-10-19 02:53:12 t3a has joined
84 2011-10-19 02:54:15 shadders has joined
85 2011-10-19 02:54:31 zhoutong has joined
86 2011-10-19 02:56:54 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
87 2011-10-19 02:57:12 zhoutong has joined
88 2011-10-19 02:57:32 c00w has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
89 2011-10-19 03:04:08 c00w has joined
90 2011-10-19 03:04:33 c00w is now known as Guest95119
91 2011-10-19 03:05:34 min0r has joined
92 2011-10-19 03:06:00 <min0r> just a question, once all coins are mined, is it possible to change the block speed to 1 minute from 10 minutes? (i.e. new client)
93 2011-10-19 03:06:05 Guest95119 is now known as clr_
94 2011-10-19 03:06:19 <min0r> Just thinking that no real commerce will ever be done with bitcoins if blocks take 10 minutes to confirm
95 2011-10-19 03:06:33 <min0r> i.e. who wants to wait 10 minutes to pay for dinner? or a pair of jeans? etc
96 2011-10-19 03:07:26 <min0r> is it possible that new clients in the future can change the block speed?
97 2011-10-19 03:09:10 cronopio has quit (Quit: leaving)
98 2011-10-19 03:15:56 clr_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
99 2011-10-19 03:16:28 <[Tycho]> min0r, there are many other solutions.
100 2011-10-19 03:16:42 <[Tycho]> And you were told about it.
101 2011-10-19 03:17:34 <gjs278> once all fo the blocks are mined YOU WILL BE DEAD DONT WORRY ABOUT
102 2011-10-19 03:17:35 <gjs278> IT
103 2011-10-19 03:18:25 <phantomcircuit> gjs278, lol
104 2011-10-19 03:18:48 <gjs278> bitcoin making it to 2140 is the real lol
105 2011-10-19 03:18:55 <gjs278> but hey we have to plan ahead
106 2011-10-19 03:21:34 Beremat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
107 2011-10-19 03:27:09 Blitzboom has quit ()
108 2011-10-19 03:29:19 brunner has joined
109 2011-10-19 03:33:56 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
110 2011-10-19 03:34:21 Xunie has joined
111 2011-10-19 03:35:36 TheZimm has joined
112 2011-10-19 03:39:49 <min0r> What are the other solutions? bit-pay and ripple?
113 2011-10-19 03:40:05 <min0r> there is no widespread solution to the POS problem
114 2011-10-19 03:40:29 <min0r> bitcoin will trend toward $0 unless its used in real-world commerce... i think POS is a big part of this
115 2011-10-19 03:42:47 clr_ has joined
116 2011-10-19 03:42:54 clr_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
117 2011-10-19 03:45:08 terrytibbs has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
118 2011-10-19 03:46:15 <gmaxwell> min0r: jesus go read before I ban you from this channel too
119 2011-10-19 03:46:25 <gmaxwell> Also see the youtube link allinvain gave you
120 2011-10-19 03:48:58 <phantomcircuit> actually that's an interesting thought
121 2011-10-19 03:49:06 <phantomcircuit> bitcoins can be used as ripple cash with a final clear
122 2011-10-19 03:49:09 <phantomcircuit> interesting
123 2011-10-19 03:51:22 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: yea, I pointed it out here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=28565.5;wap2
124 2011-10-19 03:51:39 <gmaxwell> (when someone described something I thought looked like ripple)
125 2011-10-19 03:54:15 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
126 2011-10-19 03:56:41 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
127 2011-10-19 03:57:20 Cusipzzz has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
128 2011-10-19 03:57:55 Moonies has joined
129 2011-10-19 03:58:03 zhoutong has joined
130 2011-10-19 03:59:12 amenstop has quit (Quit: Page closed)
131 2011-10-19 03:59:13 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
132 2011-10-19 04:00:13 zhoutong has joined
133 2011-10-19 04:02:11 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
134 2011-10-19 04:03:00 zhoutong has joined
135 2011-10-19 04:05:33 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
136 2011-10-19 04:06:15 zhoutong has joined
137 2011-10-19 04:06:37 zapnap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
138 2011-10-19 04:07:14 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
139 2011-10-19 04:08:40 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
140 2011-10-19 04:09:41 zhoutong has joined
141 2011-10-19 04:10:43 BTCTrader has joined
142 2011-10-19 04:10:59 BTCTrader is now known as impissed
143 2011-10-19 04:11:10 impissed is now known as wtfwtf
144 2011-10-19 04:11:38 <copumpkin> wtfwtf: what's wrong?
145 2011-10-19 04:11:45 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
146 2011-10-19 04:12:21 TheZimm has joined
147 2011-10-19 04:14:53 rjk has joined
148 2011-10-19 04:15:41 rjk has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
149 2011-10-19 04:15:54 rjk has joined
150 2011-10-19 04:15:57 rjk2 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
151 2011-10-19 04:16:21 rjk is now known as rjk2
152 2011-10-19 04:16:38 rjk2 has quit (Changing host)
153 2011-10-19 04:16:38 rjk2 has joined
154 2011-10-19 04:17:24 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
155 2011-10-19 04:17:37 Incitatus has joined
156 2011-10-19 04:18:40 denisx has joined
157 2011-10-19 04:19:31 btca has joined
158 2011-10-19 04:28:18 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
159 2011-10-19 04:28:31 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneWeirdAFK
160 2011-10-19 04:29:28 zhoutong has joined
161 2011-10-19 04:31:02 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
162 2011-10-19 04:34:43 btca has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
163 2011-10-19 04:42:33 SomeoneWeirdAFK is now known as SomeoneWeird
164 2011-10-19 04:42:37 WakiMiko has joined
165 2011-10-19 04:45:58 WakiMiko_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
166 2011-10-19 04:46:19 min0r has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
167 2011-10-19 04:46:43 eoss has quit (Quit: Leaving)
168 2011-10-19 04:54:06 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
169 2011-10-19 04:54:37 zhoutong has joined
170 2011-10-19 05:04:23 min0r has joined
171 2011-10-19 05:04:47 <min0r> gmaxell, can you repost allinvain's youtube link? i lost the link when you kicked me
172 2011-10-19 05:04:58 <min0r> isnt allinvain the guy that had 50K BTC stolen?
173 2011-10-19 05:07:13 <gmaxwell> min0r: 5 million btc!
174 2011-10-19 05:07:42 <gmaxwell> min0r: 20:07 < allinvain> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z4m4lnjxkY
175 2011-10-19 05:08:41 <whiteman> On Ubuntu 11.10 I'm getting an error about missing db_cxx.h, which I believe is related to package libdb4.8++-dev.
176 2011-10-19 05:08:53 <whiteman> Apparently this package has been deleted. http://www.ubuntuupdates.org/packages/show/335212
177 2011-10-19 05:09:28 twist has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
178 2011-10-19 05:11:23 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
179 2011-10-19 05:11:56 min0r has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
180 2011-10-19 05:11:59 zhoutong has joined
181 2011-10-19 05:15:34 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
182 2011-10-19 05:16:12 zhoutong has joined
183 2011-10-19 05:18:08 theymos has joined
184 2011-10-19 05:20:18 DontMindMe has joined
185 2011-10-19 05:24:25 twist has joined
186 2011-10-19 05:24:28 AStove has joined
187 2011-10-19 05:24:32 DontMindMe has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
188 2011-10-19 05:25:07 Daniel0108 has joined
189 2011-10-19 05:25:15 DontMindMe has joined
190 2011-10-19 05:28:22 ThomasV has joined
191 2011-10-19 05:29:34 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
192 2011-10-19 05:32:53 terrytibbs has joined
193 2011-10-19 05:33:12 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
194 2011-10-19 05:34:47 <whiteman> Looks like libdb5.1-dev and libdb5.1++-dev will work fine.
195 2011-10-19 05:35:24 denisx_ has joined
196 2011-10-19 05:38:46 Daniel0108 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
197 2011-10-19 05:38:52 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
198 2011-10-19 05:38:52 denisx_ is now known as denisx
199 2011-10-19 05:39:04 denisx has quit (Client Quit)
200 2011-10-19 05:43:37 sacarlson has joined
201 2011-10-19 05:46:15 erle- has joined
202 2011-10-19 05:50:32 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
203 2011-10-19 05:51:02 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
204 2011-10-19 05:51:25 llama has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
205 2011-10-19 05:51:34 llama has joined
206 2011-10-19 05:51:34 llama has quit (Changing host)
207 2011-10-19 05:51:34 llama has joined
208 2011-10-19 05:51:39 dvide_ has quit ()
209 2011-10-19 05:54:58 llama has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
210 2011-10-19 05:55:05 llama has joined
211 2011-10-19 05:55:39 Gekz_ has joined
212 2011-10-19 05:55:39 Gekz_ has quit (Changing host)
213 2011-10-19 05:55:39 Gekz_ has joined
214 2011-10-19 05:55:52 Gekz has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
215 2011-10-19 06:00:25 wolfspraul has joined
216 2011-10-19 06:04:25 <devrandom> whiteman: our reference build OS is lucid (10.04)
217 2011-10-19 06:04:47 Clipse has joined
218 2011-10-19 06:08:49 <devrandom> whiteman: you are breaking new ground ;)
219 2011-10-19 06:09:38 Cory has joined
220 2011-10-19 06:10:04 Cory is now known as Guest1091
221 2011-10-19 06:15:00 dr_win has joined
222 2011-10-19 06:16:30 midnightmagic has quit (Quit: quit)
223 2011-10-19 06:16:32 AStove has quit ()
224 2011-10-19 06:16:37 midnightmagic has joined
225 2011-10-19 06:19:51 magn3ts has quit (Quit: Leaving)
226 2011-10-19 06:21:35 Gekz_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
227 2011-10-19 06:23:19 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
228 2011-10-19 06:26:50 BurtyB has joined
229 2011-10-19 06:27:14 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.)
230 2011-10-19 06:32:19 <phantomcircuit> ;;bc,blocks
231 2011-10-19 06:32:20 <gribble> 149837
232 2011-10-19 06:38:12 da2ce7 has joined
233 2011-10-19 06:38:34 da2ce7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
234 2011-10-19 06:39:06 larsivi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
235 2011-10-19 06:47:15 wasabi3 has joined
236 2011-10-19 06:48:38 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
237 2011-10-19 06:49:49 <phantomcircuit> ;;bc,blocks
238 2011-10-19 06:49:50 <gribble> 149841
239 2011-10-19 06:49:57 da2ce7 has joined
240 2011-10-19 06:51:07 shadders has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
241 2011-10-19 06:51:08 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
242 2011-10-19 06:52:28 zhoutong has joined
243 2011-10-19 06:53:27 shadders has joined
244 2011-10-19 07:00:09 Moonies has quit (Quit: quack)
245 2011-10-19 07:06:45 amtal has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
246 2011-10-19 07:14:32 DontMindMe has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
247 2011-10-19 07:24:56 Cablesaurus has joined
248 2011-10-19 07:24:57 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
249 2011-10-19 07:24:57 Cablesaurus has joined
250 2011-10-19 07:30:22 gjs278 has joined
251 2011-10-19 07:31:55 genjix has joined
252 2011-10-19 07:33:02 <genjix> Diablo-D3: do you want to do a conference talk? not sure if i already invited you, http://conference.bitgroups.org/
253 2011-10-19 07:33:13 <genjix> nanotube: same?
254 2011-10-19 07:33:25 <genjix> anyone else i've forgotten to invite
255 2011-10-19 07:35:15 <genjix> da2ce7: got my email? want to do an OpenTransactions talk?
256 2011-10-19 07:35:48 <genjix> anyone else, feel free to email us. conference@bitgroups.org
257 2011-10-19 07:37:10 genjix has left ()
258 2011-10-19 07:37:50 larsivi has joined
259 2011-10-19 07:38:25 marf_away has joined
260 2011-10-19 07:42:12 AAA_awright_ has joined
261 2011-10-19 07:44:08 TD has joined
262 2011-10-19 07:44:19 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
263 2011-10-19 07:46:35 wasabi1 has joined
264 2011-10-19 07:46:48 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
265 2011-10-19 07:47:09 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
266 2011-10-19 07:47:11 ThomasV has joined
267 2011-10-19 07:47:18 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
268 2011-10-19 07:48:17 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
269 2011-10-19 07:48:56 erle- has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
270 2011-10-19 07:49:29 ymirhotfoot has joined
271 2011-10-19 07:52:06 larsivi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
272 2011-10-19 07:55:50 larsivi has joined
273 2011-10-19 07:55:51 iocor has joined
274 2011-10-19 07:59:30 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
275 2011-10-19 08:02:18 erle- has joined
276 2011-10-19 08:03:40 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
277 2011-10-19 08:04:56 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
278 2011-10-19 08:06:13 zhoutong has joined
279 2011-10-19 08:10:29 danbri has joined
280 2011-10-19 08:13:26 V8P0RG3N13 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
281 2011-10-19 08:13:52 AAA_awright_ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
282 2011-10-19 08:15:05 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
283 2011-10-19 08:16:26 zhoutong has joined
284 2011-10-19 08:29:10 abragin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
285 2011-10-19 08:29:27 abragin has joined
286 2011-10-19 08:31:17 da2ce7 has joined
287 2011-10-19 08:31:55 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
288 2011-10-19 08:34:44 DontMindMe has joined
289 2011-10-19 08:38:18 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
290 2011-10-19 08:39:37 zhoutong has joined
291 2011-10-19 08:45:40 DontMindMe has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
292 2011-10-19 08:46:15 DontMindMe has joined
293 2011-10-19 08:47:35 amtal has joined
294 2011-10-19 08:47:57 ymirhotfoot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
295 2011-10-19 08:51:14 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
296 2011-10-19 09:03:49 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
297 2011-10-19 09:04:24 zhoutong has joined
298 2011-10-19 09:10:16 iocor has joined
299 2011-10-19 09:16:06 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
300 2011-10-19 09:16:28 zhoutong has joined
301 2011-10-19 09:19:24 shadders has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
302 2011-10-19 09:24:08 TD has joined
303 2011-10-19 09:25:50 RazielZ has joined
304 2011-10-19 09:25:51 wasabi2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
305 2011-10-19 09:26:31 wasabi2 has joined
306 2011-10-19 09:32:59 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
307 2011-10-19 09:33:46 zhoutong has joined
308 2011-10-19 09:36:35 <Lolcust_Backup> anyone seen jgarzik ?
309 2011-10-19 09:37:58 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
310 2011-10-19 09:43:04 <neofutur> !seen jgarzik
311 2011-10-19 09:43:07 <spaola> jgarzik (~jgarzik@99-43-178-25.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net) was last seen changing nicks to Guest51076 on #bitcoin-dev 1 day, 5 hours, 48 minutes ago.
312 2011-10-19 09:44:32 upb has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
313 2011-10-19 09:44:40 upb has joined
314 2011-10-19 09:44:41 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
315 2011-10-19 09:45:13 groffer has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
316 2011-10-19 09:45:45 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
317 2011-10-19 09:46:19 <Diablo-D3> [03:20:54] <genjix> Diablo-D3: do you want to do a conference talk? not sure if i already invited you, http://conference.bitgroups.org/
318 2011-10-19 09:46:23 <Diablo-D3> meh he left
319 2011-10-19 09:46:32 devrandom has joined
320 2011-10-19 09:49:10 erus` has joined
321 2011-10-19 09:50:36 pickett has joined
322 2011-10-19 09:51:47 groffer has joined
323 2011-10-19 09:53:57 huk has quit ()
324 2011-10-19 09:58:42 upb has quit (Changing host)
325 2011-10-19 09:58:42 upb has joined
326 2011-10-19 10:03:21 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
327 2011-10-19 10:04:47 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
328 2011-10-19 10:08:34 shLONG has joined
329 2011-10-19 10:09:03 tower has joined
330 2011-10-19 10:12:10 DontMindMe has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
331 2011-10-19 10:13:27 iocor has joined
332 2011-10-19 10:21:18 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
333 2011-10-19 10:21:54 zhoutong has joined
334 2011-10-19 10:23:26 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
335 2011-10-19 10:23:26 Gekz has joined
336 2011-10-19 10:23:26 Gekz has quit (Changing host)
337 2011-10-19 10:23:26 Gekz has joined
338 2011-10-19 10:24:30 zhoutong has joined
339 2011-10-19 10:35:56 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
340 2011-10-19 10:45:10 Lexa has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
341 2011-10-19 10:46:39 shadders has joined
342 2011-10-19 10:48:50 V8P0RG3N13 has joined
343 2011-10-19 10:49:27 wtfwtf has quit (Quit: wtfwtf)
344 2011-10-19 10:57:19 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
345 2011-10-19 10:57:26 danbri has joined
346 2011-10-19 11:02:30 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
347 2011-10-19 11:09:27 dr_win has joined
348 2011-10-19 11:10:07 BTCTrader has joined
349 2011-10-19 11:10:30 <shadders> TD: ping
350 2011-10-19 11:10:33 BTCTrader is now known as Guest67171
351 2011-10-19 11:10:40 cenuij has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
352 2011-10-19 11:10:40 <shadders> TD[gone]: ping
353 2011-10-19 11:13:01 iocor has joined
354 2011-10-19 11:13:22 <TD> hi
355 2011-10-19 11:13:26 <TD> i just replied to your mail
356 2011-10-19 11:13:38 <shadders> ya saw it... that's all I was pinging about
357 2011-10-19 11:14:15 <shadders> yr past comments seemed to imply you wanted to do it or were already so didn't want to double up.
358 2011-10-19 11:14:31 Beremat has joined
359 2011-10-19 11:15:21 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
360 2011-10-19 11:18:19 Guest67171 has quit (Quit: Guest67171)
361 2011-10-19 11:19:30 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
362 2011-10-19 11:19:44 <shadders> TD: BTW what's the correct convention for author in new classes? I notice most of them just have 'google'
363 2011-10-19 11:20:20 <shadders> and what's this mean: - Remove VersionMessage check in Message serialization roundtrip checks
364 2011-10-19 11:20:51 iocor has joined
365 2011-10-19 11:20:52 iocor has quit (Client Quit)
366 2011-10-19 11:22:22 iocor has joined
367 2011-10-19 11:22:24 iocor has quit (Client Quit)
368 2011-10-19 11:23:13 da2ce7 has joined
369 2011-10-19 11:23:46 cenuij has joined
370 2011-10-19 11:23:46 cenuij has quit (Changing host)
371 2011-10-19 11:23:47 cenuij has joined
372 2011-10-19 11:26:54 DontMindMe has joined
373 2011-10-19 11:28:22 DontMindMe has quit (Client Quit)
374 2011-10-19 11:28:41 Beremat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
375 2011-10-19 11:29:16 iocor has joined
376 2011-10-19 11:29:45 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
377 2011-10-19 11:33:26 BTCTrader has joined
378 2011-10-19 11:33:46 iocor has quit (Client Quit)
379 2011-10-19 11:33:52 BTCTrader is now known as Guest79665
380 2011-10-19 11:36:56 iocor has joined
381 2011-10-19 11:38:10 Lexa has joined
382 2011-10-19 11:40:36 iocor has quit (Client Quit)
383 2011-10-19 11:43:42 terrytibbs has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
384 2011-10-19 11:45:22 Guest79665 has quit (Quit: Guest79665)
385 2011-10-19 11:46:22 molecular has quit (Quit: Leaving)
386 2011-10-19 11:48:26 wasabi3 has joined
387 2011-10-19 11:49:12 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
388 2011-10-19 11:53:20 terrytibbs has joined
389 2011-10-19 11:58:28 AStove has joined
390 2011-10-19 12:01:45 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
391 2011-10-19 12:01:46 Daniel0108 has joined
392 2011-10-19 12:02:09 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
393 2011-10-19 12:03:33 da2ce7 has joined
394 2011-10-19 12:05:11 Joric has joined
395 2011-10-19 12:06:15 Daniel0108 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
396 2011-10-19 12:07:23 TheDaniel0108 has joined
397 2011-10-19 12:07:24 TheDaniel0108 has quit (Changing host)
398 2011-10-19 12:07:24 TheDaniel0108 has joined
399 2011-10-19 12:08:23 rdponticelli has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
400 2011-10-19 12:10:07 rdponticelli has joined
401 2011-10-19 12:12:02 TheDaniel0108 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
402 2011-10-19 12:14:11 TheDaniel0108 has joined
403 2011-10-19 12:16:46 erus` has joined
404 2011-10-19 12:21:25 Tracker- has joined
405 2011-10-19 12:23:10 Tracker has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
406 2011-10-19 12:27:37 bobke has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
407 2011-10-19 12:33:19 da2ce7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
408 2011-10-19 12:42:18 datagutt has joined
409 2011-10-19 12:42:23 datagutt has quit (Changing host)
410 2011-10-19 12:42:23 datagutt has joined
411 2011-10-19 12:51:45 TheDaniel0108 is now known as Daniel0108
412 2011-10-19 12:52:06 Lexa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
413 2011-10-19 12:54:32 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
414 2011-10-19 12:57:05 pickett has joined
415 2011-10-19 12:58:41 Guest1091 is now known as Cory
416 2011-10-19 12:58:49 Cory has quit (Changing host)
417 2011-10-19 12:58:49 Cory has joined
418 2011-10-19 12:59:01 gp5st has joined
419 2011-10-19 13:12:56 molecular has joined
420 2011-10-19 13:13:18 marf_away has joined
421 2011-10-19 13:14:08 Lexa has joined
422 2011-10-19 13:14:56 bobke has joined
423 2011-10-19 13:25:26 zapnap has joined
424 2011-10-19 13:35:46 n5 has joined
425 2011-10-19 13:36:53 <n5> Do we have bitcoin 0.4.0 rpm's for centos 5 or 6 ?
426 2011-10-19 13:38:10 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
427 2011-10-19 13:40:56 llama has quit (Quit: llama)
428 2011-10-19 13:45:10 localhost has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
429 2011-10-19 13:48:16 LK- has quit ()
430 2011-10-19 13:48:28 Ceaser86 has joined
431 2011-10-19 13:48:47 localhost has joined
432 2011-10-19 13:48:56 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
433 2011-10-19 13:49:15 wasabi1 has joined
434 2011-10-19 13:51:39 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
435 2011-10-19 13:55:51 n5 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
436 2011-10-19 14:01:21 erus` has joined
437 2011-10-19 14:07:29 nhodges has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
438 2011-10-19 14:10:09 gavinandresen has joined
439 2011-10-19 14:10:37 machine2 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
440 2011-10-19 14:12:36 <terrytibbs> gavinandresen: You never publicized the ClearCoin source code, did you?
441 2011-10-19 14:12:53 <gavinandresen> terrytibbs: nope
442 2011-10-19 14:13:04 <terrytibbs> roger
443 2011-10-19 14:13:24 <gavinandresen> ... it didn't show up on some hacker forum somewhere, did it? :-)
444 2011-10-19 14:14:10 <gavinandresen> sipa: ping
445 2011-10-19 14:14:15 <sipa> gavinandresen: pang
446 2011-10-19 14:14:41 <terrytibbs> gavinandresen: I wouldn't know anything about such a thing! :)
447 2011-10-19 14:14:42 <gavinandresen> sipa: I've been thinking about smaller signatures and op_eval...
448 2011-10-19 14:15:06 <gavinandresen> I like your proposal, but it feels "too radical"
449 2011-10-19 14:15:13 <sipa> i understand
450 2011-10-19 14:15:15 n5 has joined
451 2011-10-19 14:15:42 <gavinandresen> I'm thinking: what if the CHECKSIG opcodes behaved a little differently when 'inside' an OP_EVAL?
452 2011-10-19 14:16:08 <gavinandresen> The different behavior would be: if the public key is 21 bytes, then interepret it as a hash+bits
453 2011-10-19 14:16:21 <sipa> you could just switch to the compact signatures inside OP_EVAL
454 2011-10-19 14:16:22 <gavinandresen> ... and do the key extraction thing to get the pubkey from the sig
455 2011-10-19 14:16:44 <gavinandresen> feel like writing some code?
456 2011-10-19 14:16:58 <sipa> sure
457 2011-10-19 14:17:07 <gavinandresen> Start here: https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/tree/op_eval
458 2011-10-19 14:17:19 machine2 has joined
459 2011-10-19 14:17:55 nhodges has joined
460 2011-10-19 14:18:43 <sipa> i'm not sure whether overloading CHECKSIG is the way to go
461 2011-10-19 14:18:55 erle- has quit (Quit: CETERVMÂAVTEMÂCENSEOÂFDPÂESSEÂDELENDVM)
462 2011-10-19 14:19:04 <gavinandresen> why not?
463 2011-10-19 14:19:23 <gavinandresen> (less flexible, I know....)
464 2011-10-19 14:19:52 <gavinandresen> The semantics seem clear: either <sig> <pubkey> CHECK or <sig> <hash+bits> CHECK ...
465 2011-10-19 14:20:08 <gavinandresen> (or maybe: <compatsig> <hash+bits> CHECK)
466 2011-10-19 14:20:30 <n5> you all developing here, its great, but i can't compile 0.4 version on centos, and it sux, because a lot of users who want to use bitcoin on webservices are waiting for some good toturial :)
467 2011-10-19 14:20:50 <sipa> what about just adding OP_RECOVER and/or OP_CHECKHASH inside OP_EVAL (and leave the rest untouched) ?
468 2011-10-19 14:20:54 <sipa> that feels cleaner
469 2011-10-19 14:21:18 <gmaxwell> n5: you're not providing any detailsâ the build instructions for prior versions should mostly work for 0.4 IIRC
470 2011-10-19 14:21:28 <gavinandresen> That means more complicated for IsStandard() checks
471 2011-10-19 14:21:46 erle- has joined
472 2011-10-19 14:21:53 <gavinandresen> n5: I don't know nuthin about centos
473 2011-10-19 14:21:54 <sipa> it means adding an extra case to the script solver
474 2011-10-19 14:22:00 <sipa> but you need an extra case anyway, no?
475 2011-10-19 14:22:17 <sipa> (haven't looked at your OP_EVAL code yet)
476 2011-10-19 14:22:23 <gavinandresen> No, CHECKSIG is already a standard case (and I added CHECKMULTISIG as a standard case)
477 2011-10-19 14:22:53 <gavinandresen> ... and you'd need code that did "If inside an op_eval THEN OP_RECOVER is allowed, otherwise it isn't, etc etc)
478 2011-10-19 14:23:15 <sipa> ok, just OP_CHECKHASH?
479 2011-10-19 14:23:20 <gavinandresen> Don't get me wrong, I like OP_RECOVER/OP_CHECKHASH, I just think baby steps is the way to go
480 2011-10-19 14:23:31 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
481 2011-10-19 14:23:41 <sipa> which is identical to OP_CHECKSIG except it takes a hash instead of a pubkey
482 2011-10-19 14:23:56 log0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
483 2011-10-19 14:24:05 <n5> gmaxwell, but they not working, firstly, i had to edit makefile.unix, like 10 times, sometimes files in difrent folders, and later on i got error anyway
484 2011-10-19 14:24:23 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: won't you still need a check to prevent check from accepting hash+bits without eval?
485 2011-10-19 14:24:55 <gmaxwell> n5: I don't mean to insult, but it sounds like you need to read this http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
486 2011-10-19 14:24:59 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: yes, but that's a check on redemption, not an IsStandard check....
487 2011-10-19 14:25:10 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: ah point.
488 2011-10-19 14:25:49 <n5> gmaxwell, I asked if we have somewhere rpms for centos
489 2011-10-19 14:25:53 <gmaxwell> n5: I have to go out for a bit, so I'm not ignoring youâ but really "i had to edit makefile.unix, like 10 times" and "later on I got an error" tells me nothing that could possibly help me make a suggestion for you.
490 2011-10-19 14:25:55 <n5> its not smart question?
491 2011-10-19 14:26:02 log0s has joined
492 2011-10-19 14:26:08 <neofutur> n5: centos is the worst place to build bitcoin , their ssl is not supporting things bitcoin need
493 2011-10-19 14:26:10 <gmaxwell> n5: Oh, well, the answer to that is apparently no. :)
494 2011-10-19 14:26:16 <n5> I'm used this script - https://github.com/sneak/bitcoin-el5-rpm
495 2011-10-19 14:26:36 <gmaxwell> neofutur: it's a trivial change to the openssl srpm to fix that.
496 2011-10-19 14:26:59 <neofutur> I tried
497 2011-10-19 14:27:15 <neofutur> if its trivial . . . please provide the working rpm ;)
498 2011-10-19 14:27:28 <gmaxwell> I don't have any centos systems, I can give you a fedora one.
499 2011-10-19 14:27:41 <gavinandresen> sipa: CHECKHASH probably means 4 new opcodes; do you not want to overload the CHECKSIG opcodes for aesthetic reasons? (ugly to look at number-of-bytes-in-item-on-stack to decide what to do?)
500 2011-10-19 14:27:56 <n5> gmaxwell, sorry, its just soo huge mess doing it, that its a little hard for me
501 2011-10-19 14:28:35 <gmaxwell> if its any comfort.. 0.5 will be easier to build.
502 2011-10-19 14:28:37 <sipa> gavinandresen: it feels wrong to me to hardcode one form of addresses (the OP_HASH160-based one) inside a standard opcode
503 2011-10-19 14:29:01 <n5> gmaxwell, fedora is almost like centos, so rpms should work maybe :D i dont know
504 2011-10-19 14:30:03 <gmaxwell> n5: I don't have fedora rpms for bitcoin.. only openssl. (I don't bother building with wx, which is half the trouble of building bitcoin <0.5 on fedora)
505 2011-10-19 14:30:04 imsaguy2 has left ("BRB, update")
506 2011-10-19 14:30:22 <gavinandresen> sipa: got it. Well, it seems more likely we'll want/need to upgrade ECDSA than we'll want/need to upgrade the RIPEMD(SHA256()) that is HASH160
507 2011-10-19 14:30:44 <neofutur> gmaxwell: i been able to rebuild on fedora, but not on centos, i can provide a ssh if you re interested in trying
508 2011-10-19 14:30:57 <neofutur> rpmbuild and src rpm already installed
509 2011-10-19 14:32:00 <gavinandresen> sipa: can you help me with a back-of-the-envelope how many bytes could be saved? 21 bytes for hash+bits versus 65 for full public key...
510 2011-10-19 14:32:08 <n5> http://pastebin.com/GytYagNk
511 2011-10-19 14:32:16 <n5> this is error i'm stuck right now
512 2011-10-19 14:32:30 <sipa> right now, signatures are 72 bytes, pubkeys are 65 bytes
513 2011-10-19 14:32:41 <gavinandresen> ... and how small can signatures get?
514 2011-10-19 14:32:52 <neofutur> n5: yup same problem here on centos, you have to rebuild the openssl rpm from source, and it wont work :p
515 2011-10-19 14:32:53 <sipa> with your proposal, signatures will be 64 bytes, "pubkeys" will be 21 bytes
516 2011-10-19 14:32:57 imsaguy2 has joined
517 2011-10-19 14:33:22 <sipa> although i'd add the extra bits to the signature, and not to the pubkeyhash
518 2011-10-19 14:33:29 <neofutur> n5: centos openssl dont have support for ecdsa
519 2011-10-19 14:33:30 <n5> neofutur, yes i did it, but its not working
520 2011-10-19 14:33:36 <sipa> so you'd have 65 byte signatures and 20 byte pubkeys
521 2011-10-19 14:33:38 <neofutur> i know
522 2011-10-19 14:33:51 <n5> so its crazy :D
523 2011-10-19 14:34:34 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
524 2011-10-19 14:35:27 <n5> how to do it? I have all site ready to integrate bitcoin, tested with remote server on windows and everything went ok, soo I want to let bitcoind run on local webserver and its impossible, because of OS its running :D
525 2011-10-19 14:35:39 <gavinandresen> sipa: thanks
526 2011-10-19 14:36:19 <sipa> gavinandresen: so, in your proposal, you'd do: txout: "OP_DUP <scriptHash> OP_HASH160 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_OPEN", txin: "<65-byte sig> < <pubkeyhash> OP_CHECKHASH>", right?
527 2011-10-19 14:36:39 <neofutur> n5: try gentoo ;)
528 2011-10-19 14:36:42 <sipa> (whether OP_CHECKHASH is the same opcode as OP_CHECKSIG or not)
529 2011-10-19 14:36:47 <gavinandresen> ^OP_OPEN^OP_EVAL^
530 2011-10-19 14:37:00 <sipa> eh, right - no idea where that came from
531 2011-10-19 14:37:02 TheZimm has joined
532 2011-10-19 14:37:39 <gavinandresen> Well, in my proposal there would be no OP_CHECKHASH-- OP_CHECKSIG would notice that it is getting 65/20 byte items on the stack and Do the Right Thing
533 2011-10-19 14:37:47 <n5> neofutur, I can't change OS on server because its running my websites :D I'm stuck on CentOS and its not working
534 2011-10-19 14:37:54 <sipa> yes, yes - so it's just the same opcode as OP_CHECKSIG
535 2011-10-19 14:38:49 <n5> soo, anyone else have ideas?
536 2011-10-19 14:39:03 <sipa> gavinandresen: or, would you consider: txout: <<<pubkeyhash> <OP_CHECKHASH>> OP_EVAL>, txin: < <sig> > ?
537 2011-10-19 14:39:40 <cuqa> hey
538 2011-10-19 14:40:07 <neofutur> n5: I can migrate your websites on a secure gentoo hardened server, query me if interested, https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=1687.0
539 2011-10-19 14:40:08 <cuqa> my bitcoind does not seem to react any more after restart saying: error: couldn't connect to server
540 2011-10-19 14:40:17 <sipa> cuqa: version?
541 2011-10-19 14:40:23 <cuqa> the blockchain is up to date
542 2011-10-19 14:40:27 <cuqa> 0.3.24
543 2011-10-19 14:40:31 <gavinandresen> sipa: let me think about that ....
544 2011-10-19 14:40:51 <n5> neofutur, i'm just need to run bitcoind on centos :D
545 2011-10-19 14:41:15 <cuqa> how long is normal for bitcoind to start up? oO
546 2011-10-19 14:41:48 <gavinandresen> sipa: one thing I like about the DUP/HASH/EVAL form is it is semi-secure even with old miners/clients-- if you've never used the pubkey before, then the script hash is unique and un-guessable
547 2011-10-19 14:42:20 <gavinandresen> (hash is unique, what script produces that hash is un-guessable)
548 2011-10-19 14:42:21 <tcatm> n5: have you tried compiling openssl manually?
549 2011-10-19 14:42:36 <sipa> gavinandresen: what's the difference?
550 2011-10-19 14:42:49 <sipa> gavinandresen: right now, if you've never used a pubkey, it is also un guessable?
551 2011-10-19 14:43:22 <neofutur> n5: so contact centos support to know why its impossible to rebuild their openssl source package with ecdsa and ec
552 2011-10-19 14:43:23 <gavinandresen> If an old client gets <...anything> OP_EVAL, then any scriptPubKey will validate as true
553 2011-10-19 14:43:32 <sipa> oh, i see
554 2011-10-19 14:43:41 <sipa> yes, that is true
555 2011-10-19 14:43:56 <neofutur> n5: i could build it with ecdsa but after that you have another problem
556 2011-10-19 14:43:57 <n5> tcatm, yes
557 2011-10-19 14:43:57 <n5> cd %{_builddir}/openssl-1.0.0a
558 2011-10-19 14:43:57 <n5> ./config --prefix=%{_builddir}/deps/ --openssldir=%{_builddir}/deps/openssl no-shared no-dso no-krb5
559 2011-10-19 14:43:57 <n5> make && make install
560 2011-10-19 14:43:58 <n5> using this command
561 2011-10-19 14:44:17 <neofutur> ( bitcoin/src/key.h:169: undefined reference to `EC_KEY_new_by_curve_name' )
562 2011-10-19 14:44:36 <neofutur> ( after you fix the one in your pastebin )
563 2011-10-19 14:44:52 <n5> huh... its hard
564 2011-10-19 14:45:37 <neofutur> n5: and you have to edit the rpm spec file before rebuilding
565 2011-10-19 14:45:52 erus` has joined
566 2011-10-19 14:46:03 danbri has joined
567 2011-10-19 14:46:05 <neofutur> rpmbuild/SPECS/openssl.spec
568 2011-10-19 14:46:38 <neofutur> ( search for ecdsa in the spec file )
569 2011-10-19 14:47:01 <neofutur> i could add ecdsa support but i stuck on the next problem
570 2011-10-19 14:47:11 <tcatm> n5: can you paste your patched makefile somewhere?
571 2011-10-19 14:48:31 copumpkin has joined
572 2011-10-19 14:50:15 <cuqa> is 0.3.24 out dated and not recommend to use any more
573 2011-10-19 14:50:16 <cuqa> ?
574 2011-10-19 14:50:40 <gavinandresen> yes, 0.3.24 is outdated and not recommended to use any more
575 2011-10-19 14:51:05 ByteCoin has joined
576 2011-10-19 14:51:09 <cuqa> could it be caused by the version that I cant start it any more?
577 2011-10-19 14:51:37 <gavinandresen> no, 0.3.24 should still start and run just fine
578 2011-10-19 14:52:10 <neofutur> n5: the "error: db_cxx.h: No such file or directory" is easyer to fix, just install a recent bdb
579 2011-10-19 14:52:53 <neofutur> ( and add the path in makefile.unix )
580 2011-10-19 14:55:56 ThomasV has joined
581 2011-10-19 14:56:53 <ByteCoin> ping gavin?
582 2011-10-19 14:57:23 <gavinandresen> Hey ByteCoin
583 2011-10-19 14:58:10 <ByteCoin> Am I right in thinking that (A and B) or C transactions are not going to be in the first round of multisignature transactions implemented?
584 2011-10-19 14:58:22 <gavinandresen> yes
585 2011-10-19 14:58:27 cronopio has joined
586 2011-10-19 14:58:30 <gavinandresen> (yes, you're right)
587 2011-10-19 14:58:45 <gavinandresen> ... although I've been thinking about them....
588 2011-10-19 14:58:55 <ByteCoin> Oh... that's a pity
589 2011-10-19 14:59:11 <ByteCoin> Any reason?
590 2011-10-19 14:59:36 <sipa> gavinandresen: anyway, so you'd have 114 bytes for scriptSig + scriptPubKey
591 2011-10-19 14:59:42 <gavinandresen> Just trying to keep things as simple as possible to start
592 2011-10-19 15:00:34 <ByteCoin> ok. thx
593 2011-10-19 15:00:38 <sipa> where now that is 164 bytes
594 2011-10-19 15:00:48 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: what use-case are you thinking of for a&b | c ?
595 2011-10-19 15:01:28 fahadsadah has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
596 2011-10-19 15:01:42 <ByteCoin> gavin: A&B is standard "overseen" transaction but what happens if your oversight agency disappears? You need the key in your safe C
597 2011-10-19 15:02:05 <ByteCoin> Otherwise your coins are not available for you to spend
598 2011-10-19 15:02:15 <gavinandresen> Yes, B should send you a copy of the private key in the mail in case they disappear
599 2011-10-19 15:02:40 <gavinandresen> (I agree it would be nifty if you could generate a C and keep it safe just in case, but it adds a fair bit of complexity)
600 2011-10-19 15:03:17 fahadsadah has joined
601 2011-10-19 15:03:26 wboy1 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
602 2011-10-19 15:03:36 <ByteCoin> Ok. I can see your reasoning. From an oversight agency point of view there's a problem in exposing these keys internally to allow them to be printed out.
603 2011-10-19 15:03:57 <gavinandresen> That IS the use case I was thinking about... but I think it would require a third type of bitcoin address that had 2 20-byte hashes in it...
604 2011-10-19 15:03:59 codemojo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
605 2011-10-19 15:04:15 <gavinandresen> ... and I think it will be hard enough to get people to agree that one more type of bitcoin address is a good idea
606 2011-10-19 15:04:21 <ByteCoin> Printing out or otherwise distributing private keys becomes an impediment to using different keys.
607 2011-10-19 15:04:43 <gavinandresen> hmm? what do you mean?
608 2011-10-19 15:04:50 <ByteCoin> Oh? Why such long addresses?
609 2011-10-19 15:05:02 <ByteCoin> Surely with OP_EVAL only one kind of address is needed ever
610 2011-10-19 15:05:08 <ByteCoin> Otherwise what's the point?
611 2011-10-19 15:05:20 <ByteCoin> (Ok until we leave Hash160)
612 2011-10-19 15:05:28 cenuij has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
613 2011-10-19 15:05:45 <gavinandresen> Well, consider: you create a transaction that is (a AND b) OR c. lets say you use a different (a) for every transaction, b and c are fixed keys.
614 2011-10-19 15:06:08 <gavinandresen> You compute the hash of the script for that.... and then you store that hash in your wallet.
615 2011-10-19 15:06:30 <gavinandresen> Now b goes out of business. No problem, I can sign with c.
616 2011-10-19 15:06:36 <gavinandresen> But what if I lose my wallet?
617 2011-10-19 15:07:04 <gavinandresen> I'd really like to sign with c, but I can't because I don't have HASH(script of a and b or c) in my wallet....
618 2011-10-19 15:07:10 <ByteCoin> Isn't losing your wallet a coin-losing proposition anyway? Why's this worse?
619 2011-10-19 15:07:20 <gmaxwell> sipa: gavinandresen: one loss resulting from just using checksig is that you can't express a script needing a AND b AND c by writing RECOVER RECOVER RECOVER CONCAT CONCAT HASH EQUALS <160bit/256bit number> you'd have to express three pubkey hashes.
620 2011-10-19 15:07:50 <gavinandresen> If I lose my wallet but I have c's public/private keys someplace safe and offline, then I aught to be able to recover
621 2011-10-19 15:08:22 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: Huh? A &B & C is 3 ... 3 CHECKMULTISIG
622 2011-10-19 15:08:51 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: If (a&b)
623 2011-10-19 15:08:54 <gavinandresen> ...grr
624 2011-10-19 15:09:05 <ByteCoin> gavin: Yes you are right.
625 2011-10-19 15:09:17 <gavinandresen> If (a&b)|c is expressed as two hash-checks in the scriptPubKey, then I can recover with just c
626 2011-10-19 15:09:45 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: The improvement I'm describing is that you should only need one hash per possible way of satisfiying a txn. E.g. there is only one way to satisify A&B&C so you should only need one hash.. the hash of the concat of all the public keys.
627 2011-10-19 15:09:46 <gavinandresen> ... which is where I get to a 2-hash bitcoin address form
628 2011-10-19 15:10:13 codemojo_ has joined
629 2011-10-19 15:10:21 <gavinandresen> afk a minute
630 2011-10-19 15:10:26 <ByteCoin> gavin: Ok your 2 hash bitcoin address is one way to solve the problem
631 2011-10-19 15:10:28 nhodges has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
632 2011-10-19 15:10:28 Kobier_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
633 2011-10-19 15:10:41 gp5st1 has joined
634 2011-10-19 15:10:52 <gavinandresen> ... nevermind, back
635 2011-10-19 15:11:18 <ByteCoin> gavin: You should have posted your thoughts on the forum as there are other solutions to this problem
636 2011-10-19 15:11:42 nhodges has joined
637 2011-10-19 15:12:12 <ByteCoin> One solution is the use of a deterministic wallet
638 2011-10-19 15:12:21 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: conversations on the forums have a tendency to wander off topic....
639 2011-10-19 15:12:47 <gavinandresen> And yeah, a deterministic wallet could let you compute all the possible (a&b)|c variations to find the ones that belong to you
640 2011-10-19 15:13:00 <ByteCoin> (agreed about offtopic - Moderation?) Another solution is to lodge the scripts for a hash with some 3rd party
641 2011-10-19 15:13:03 <gmaxwell> ByteCoin: or just publish A/B far and wideâ its not exactly private data but not in the blockchain...
642 2011-10-19 15:13:21 <ByteCoin> gmaxwell: Exactly
643 2011-10-19 15:13:28 gp5st has quit (Ping timeout: 259 seconds)
644 2011-10-19 15:13:48 <ByteCoin> It's just a question of not storing stuff in the block chain that doesn't NEED to be there
645 2011-10-19 15:13:49 <gmaxwell> As a matter of general principle, if your problem is "I need to reliably store some data" the bitcoin blockchain is not a good solution. :)
646 2011-10-19 15:13:54 <gavinandresen> Well, new standard transaction types should be easy...
647 2011-10-19 15:14:34 <ByteCoin> afk
648 2011-10-19 15:14:53 <n5> tcatm, i'm using default makefile.uni from src/src dir
649 2011-10-19 15:15:47 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: another possiblitity would be to have an address format which encodes that data tagged onto the end but doesn't actually write the extrabits into the chain.
650 2011-10-19 15:15:56 <gmaxwell> Then its a matter of "remember your old address"
651 2011-10-19 15:15:57 faraday has joined
652 2011-10-19 15:16:12 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: I'm proposing a scriptPubKey that is a generic: DUP HASH <hash> EQUALVERIFY OP_EVAL...
653 2011-10-19 15:16:32 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: ... that is satisified by a generic <signatures> <serialized-script>
654 2011-10-19 15:16:55 <gavinandresen> e.g. <serialized script> might be <3 pubkey pubkey pubkey 3 CHECKMULTISIG>
655 2011-10-19 15:16:57 dvide has joined
656 2011-10-19 15:17:10 <tcatm> n5: that makefile is probably still using the system's openssl libs. you should add -I and -L flags so it can find your own libs. you might also want to link the resulting binary statically so it doesn't break when you delete or move your openssl libs
657 2011-10-19 15:17:34 <n5> http://pastebin.com/LHgeLHUJ
658 2011-10-19 15:17:59 <gavinandresen> (although I was trying to convince sipa that teaching the CHECKSIG opcodes to do pubkey extraction if given 20-byte hashes instead of pubkeys would be a good idea)
659 2011-10-19 15:19:43 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: right, above I suggested a script type why making CHECKSIG do recovery alone wouldn't be ideal. Because for a&b&c you'd be better off (smaller data) coding RECOVER RECOVER RECOVER CONCAT CONCAT HASH <hash> EQUALVERIFY
660 2011-10-19 15:20:04 <gmaxwell> (though I guess we have the concat turned off right now)
661 2011-10-19 15:20:06 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: hi gavin, is piotrnar's importexporttx patch going to be merged at some point ?
662 2011-10-19 15:20:26 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: ah, got it
663 2011-10-19 15:20:51 <gavinandresen> ThomasV: is that a pull request?
664 2011-10-19 15:21:15 Ceaser86 has quit ()
665 2011-10-19 15:21:25 <ThomasV> no I don't think it's a pull request, as far as I can tell :https://github.com/piotrnar/bitcoin/commits/importexporttx
666 2011-10-19 15:21:34 Ceaser86 has joined
667 2011-10-19 15:22:12 Ramen has joined
668 2011-10-19 15:22:13 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: for three keys that construction would save about 34 bytes. about 14 bytes for a&b. It doesn't do anything for e.g. 2 of 3 though.
669 2011-10-19 15:23:17 <gmaxwell> ( (a&b)|(b&c)|(a&c) ... as you'd need three hashes anyplace, plus you'd lose from having a bunch more opcodes to express it. :) )
670 2011-10-19 15:23:17 Kobier_ has joined
671 2011-10-19 15:24:26 <ByteCoin> Guys. I can see you're spending a lot of time thinking about how to reduce space. Why don't we just not include signatures in blocks? Just have signed transactions?
672 2011-10-19 15:25:23 <ByteCoin> The transactions hashes shouldn't be affected by the signatures already
673 2011-10-19 15:25:41 <ByteCoin> So going one step further and not including them in blocks makes sesne
674 2011-10-19 15:25:46 <n5> tcatm, can you help me and tell where to add -I and -L to makefile.unix?
675 2011-10-19 15:25:56 <edcba> what about not including previous hash ? :)
676 2011-10-19 15:26:00 <gmaxwell> ByteCoin: but then the rest of the network must trust that you actually validated the signatures.
677 2011-10-19 15:26:08 <lianj> edcba: neat idea!
678 2011-10-19 15:26:50 <ByteCoin> gmaxwell: If the rest of the network cared then they can see all the transactions anyway
679 2011-10-19 15:26:51 <gmaxwell> ByteCoin: and my space misering is shed painting. I apologize if I'm making it look very important.
680 2011-10-19 15:26:57 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: interesting. That seems like a protocol optimization for cases where you already trust (or can verify) that your neighbor is feeding you valid blocks
681 2011-10-19 15:26:58 <edcba> anyway now that bitcoin is low again we will be able to do breaking changes :))
682 2011-10-19 15:27:19 <gavinandresen> ("give me the block, but don't bother giving me the scriptSigs")
683 2011-10-19 15:27:36 <gmaxwell> Yes, it sounds like a useful on the wire optimization- I wouldn't want to make it a default however.
684 2011-10-19 15:27:43 <ByteCoin> gavin: Yes.. If they want the sigs they could ask for the raw transactiosn too
685 2011-10-19 15:28:07 <gmaxwell> Also fun would be making nodes just validate a small random percent of them... so if you start trying to feed a nonsense chain they'll eventually figure out that you're lying.
686 2011-10-19 15:28:24 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: randomness for the win....
687 2011-10-19 15:28:27 <ByteCoin> gmaxwell: If the rest of the network wanted to verify all the signatures they would have to ask for all the signatures separately
688 2011-10-19 15:29:08 <lianj> ByteCoin: sadly you cant ask for old transactions alone. just for old blocks
689 2011-10-19 15:29:13 <tcatm> n5: add them to CXXFLAGS
690 2011-10-19 15:29:14 <gavinandresen> I like it. Who wants to write up a BIP extending the protocol?
691 2011-10-19 15:29:25 <ByteCoin> gmaxwell: They'd figure out much sooner as - if they're relayers - they'd see whether the transactions in the blocks matched up to the transactions they'd seen
692 2011-10-19 15:29:40 <sipa> if we're going to change the block format, we should do everything at once (that is agreed upon)
693 2011-10-19 15:29:43 <ByteCoin> lianj: That's the current situatuion
694 2011-10-19 15:29:46 slush has joined
695 2011-10-19 15:29:53 <sipa> i like splitting off the signatures
696 2011-10-19 15:30:02 <gmaxwell> E.g. A node that is going to verify one in a hundred signatures but you can't predict which is almost as good for network security as a full node (assuming it isn't mining). Because you'll screw yourself doing a high difficulty mining operation only to get caught out by some node.
697 2011-10-19 15:30:02 imsaguy3 has joined
698 2011-10-19 15:30:20 imsaguy2 has quit (Disconnected by services)
699 2011-10-19 15:30:25 imsaguy3 is now known as imsaguy2
700 2011-10-19 15:30:30 imsaguy2 has quit (Changing host)
701 2011-10-19 15:30:30 imsaguy2 has joined
702 2011-10-19 15:30:33 <sipa> if we do that, also add a merkle of the available txouts to the coinbase
703 2011-10-19 15:30:36 <ByteCoin> gmaxwell: Nodes see all transactions + sigs when they relay anyway
704 2011-10-19 15:30:46 magn3ts has joined
705 2011-10-19 15:30:56 <ByteCoin> sipa: Excellent idea "balance sheets"
706 2011-10-19 15:31:05 <sipa> it was gmaxwell's idea :)
707 2011-10-19 15:31:05 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: does it need to be a pull request before I can get an informal opinion on it ?
708 2011-10-19 15:31:06 <gmaxwell> ByteCoin: not alwaysâ sometimes you really do learn of a txn first via a block.
709 2011-10-19 15:31:21 <gavinandresen> ThomasV: is the RPC interface for it written up somewhere?
710 2011-10-19 15:31:26 <gmaxwell> It was my idea, but ByteCoin had it too. (he was probably first, I was just unaware of it)
711 2011-10-19 15:31:45 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: I do not know
712 2011-10-19 15:32:13 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: it is not ready to be merged anyway
713 2011-10-19 15:32:17 <gavinandresen> ThomasV: I could go digging through the code, but it'd be nice if there was a little design document written so I didn't have to
714 2011-10-19 15:32:31 <gmaxwell> (Bytecoin also had a more complete vision, I was mostly concerned with the impossiblity of namecoin lite nodesâ because validating open txn is important in namecoin in a way that it isn't in bitcoin)
715 2011-10-19 15:32:42 <ByteCoin> gavin: Re: BIP for this conversation. First I'll do a forum post - then if there seems to be a consesus that it's desirable then I might invest the necessary work
716 2011-10-19 15:32:57 <gavinandresen> ThomasV: in general, I like the idea of creating transactions and then submitting them to bitcoind to validate and send across the network
717 2011-10-19 15:33:15 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: ok, that's what I wanted to know
718 2011-10-19 15:33:43 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: I don't care if it is through that particular patch or another
719 2011-10-19 15:33:49 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: thats good functionalityâ it means you can have offnet wallets and such.
720 2011-10-19 15:33:59 <edcba> anyway there is plenty ways to improve bitcoin
721 2011-10-19 15:34:07 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: or lightweight wallets
722 2011-10-19 15:34:17 <gavinandresen> edcba: heresy, bitcoin is absolutely perfect the way it is
723 2011-10-19 15:34:26 <ThomasV> lol
724 2011-10-19 15:34:26 <n5> ok tcatm it helped
725 2011-10-19 15:34:28 <edcba> haha
726 2011-10-19 15:34:55 <gmaxwell> edcba: you'd help your position if you didn't argue crazy things like not including the prev hash! :)
727 2011-10-19 15:35:25 <edcba> it was a semi joke
728 2011-10-19 15:35:44 <gmaxwell> There are so many bad suggestions around (some by me!) that I can't tell anymore!
729 2011-10-19 15:36:12 <gavinandresen> RE: offline transactions: what SHOULD a partially-signed transaction look like? serialized bytes like it appears on the bitcoin network... but what if you have a 3-of-6 MULTISIG with 1 signature? ....
730 2011-10-19 15:36:13 <edcba> there are a lot of tradeoff you can make if you want to sacrifice some security with bitcoin
731 2011-10-19 15:36:35 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
732 2011-10-19 15:36:40 <gavinandresen> I think groffer's patch had OP_0 placeholders for missing signatures, I'm not sure if that is the right way to go, though
733 2011-10-19 15:36:50 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: no idea, this is over my head
734 2011-10-19 15:37:14 <n5> tcatm, other error now - http://pastebin.com/FDeyhKB7
735 2011-10-19 15:37:38 <gmaxwell> edcba: yes, I don't think any non-trivial system wide security loss is really tolerable. People that have invested time into bitcoin bought into a system with particular security parameters.
736 2011-10-19 15:37:53 <ByteCoin> gavin: Obviously it's vital that the signatures don't affect the transaction hash
737 2011-10-19 15:38:08 machine2 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
738 2011-10-19 15:38:09 <tcatm> n5: add USE_UPNP= after bitcoind (when calling make)
739 2011-10-19 15:38:20 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: that seems like a separate issue
740 2011-10-19 15:38:42 <gmaxwell> edcba: so strict improvements are fine, but changes in the compromises are very touchy. If its personal, e.g. you can choose to run a weaker node (just another kind of lite node, which was already possible) then its less of an issue.. but overall changes, not so much.
741 2011-10-19 15:38:44 <gavinandresen> (separate to "what does it look like to send a partially signed transaction to somebody else to gather more signatures")
742 2011-10-19 15:39:07 <ByteCoin> Well if you part sign the transaction and the hash changes then the next signature is going to be signing a different hash etc...
743 2011-10-19 15:39:20 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I'd probably prefer stubbing out a missing signature with zeros.
744 2011-10-19 15:40:38 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: I'm wondering if for the JSON-RPC interface something like "here's the transaction" and "here's a dictionary of <input> : <signature>" might be a better way to do it
745 2011-10-19 15:40:54 <ByteCoin> Gavin: As I mentioned in a forum post a long time ago. Partially signed transactions can't work at the moment because signing the transaction changes the hash
746 2011-10-19 15:41:10 <sipa> not the message hash, does it?
747 2011-10-19 15:41:15 <ByteCoin> Yup
748 2011-10-19 15:41:18 <n5> tcatm, how to use it? dont understand
749 2011-10-19 15:41:23 <sipa> or does the message hash depend on previous signatures as well?
750 2011-10-19 15:41:24 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: I don't think so....
751 2011-10-19 15:41:27 <gmaxwell> waa?
752 2011-10-19 15:41:33 <tcatm> n5: make -f makefile..... bitcoind USE_UPNP=
753 2011-10-19 15:41:40 <n5> ok
754 2011-10-19 15:41:55 <ByteCoin> Let me find the forum post...
755 2011-10-19 15:42:01 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
756 2011-10-19 15:42:36 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: I hacked a version of bitcoin to spit out what was actually being signed while I was implementing OP_EVAL, and the signatures aren't signed.
757 2011-10-19 15:43:30 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: well you need to know the exact outputs for your dictonary approach.. and their order... Actually just passing the transaction itself around sounds simpler to me... though I guess you'll need a way of parsing it and displaying it.
758 2011-10-19 15:43:44 <gavinandresen> CHECKSIG does not sign the transaction hash that you see in block explorer....
759 2011-10-19 15:43:46 <ByteCoin> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40627.msg494697#msg494697
760 2011-10-19 15:44:02 <ByteCoin> Ok. Sorry. I'm muddled
761 2011-10-19 15:44:22 <ByteCoin> You can't have a transaction that spends an unsigned transaction
762 2011-10-19 15:44:39 <gmaxwell> oh because the signature changes the id on the network.
763 2011-10-19 15:44:41 <n5> tcatm, - http://pastebin.com/3HVLywEK
764 2011-10-19 15:44:53 <gmaxwell> Thats unfortunate, but its not what we were talking about here.
765 2011-10-19 15:45:04 <ByteCoin> Yes. Sorry about that. I misremembered. Yes it's not relevant to the current discussion
766 2011-10-19 15:45:05 RazielZ has joined
767 2011-10-19 15:45:49 <ByteCoin> I vote for inserting zero bytes for the missing signatures. And the code should be changed so that signatures always take a constant number of bytes to encode
768 2011-10-19 15:46:19 <tcatm> n5: you need to install BDB's c++ dev package using the system's package manager
769 2011-10-19 15:46:23 <ByteCoin> The current way of interpreting numbers with the top bit set as negative is a problem
770 2011-10-19 15:47:07 <gmaxwell> ByteCoin: the proposed signature recovery stuff would make signatures constant size as a side effect I think.
771 2011-10-19 15:47:08 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: the "you need to know where to put the signatures" is part of why I think maybe just a serialized sig with zero placeholders might not be the right thing to do... although I'm probably wrong
772 2011-10-19 15:47:30 ccoy has joined
773 2011-10-19 15:48:10 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: the danger would be people write code that just fill in signatures of 'weird' transactions that they don't understand. Although I suppose we could just say you're an idiot if you do that, because you might not be signing what you think you're signing
774 2011-10-19 15:48:19 <ByteCoin> gmaxwell: Good. I guess if the 2 hint bits are in the lsbs of top byte of the number then that's ok
775 2011-10-19 15:48:47 cut has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
776 2011-10-19 15:49:36 machine2 has joined
777 2011-10-19 15:49:40 <ByteCoin> gavin: If the places to put the signatures was indicated in any other way, broken software could still try to stuff a signature in an inappropriate place anyway
778 2011-10-19 15:50:38 <gavinandresen> The code for filling in a (say) 2-of-6 MULTISIG would be a little trickier, because the order of signatures matters...
779 2011-10-19 15:52:02 cut has joined
780 2011-10-19 15:52:09 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
781 2011-10-19 15:52:32 <gavinandresen> ... so whoever ends up sending the transaction will probably end up digging out all the signatures and re-ordering them anyway.
782 2011-10-19 15:55:07 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: yes, but no disagreement over what they're actually signing.
783 2011-10-19 15:55:16 <n5> tcatm, - http://pastebin.com/MdS683wp huh its hard a bit, i dont get it at all
784 2011-10-19 15:56:38 ccoy has left ()
785 2011-10-19 15:56:55 <tcatm> n5: does it work when compiling without -static?
786 2011-10-19 15:57:08 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: right. It just seems to me that if the task is "gather up signatures for this transaction" then a serialized transaction with zero'ed out pubkeys in the signature may not be the right data structure; everybody will end up pulling signatures out anyway to figure out what has already been signed and what hasn't, etc....
787 2011-10-19 15:58:06 <jrmithdobbs> why not just have each signature prefixed with it's position?
788 2011-10-19 15:58:39 <jrmithdobbs> it's not like >256 sigs are going to be common
789 2011-10-19 15:58:55 <gavinandresen> jrmithdobbs: that's what <input> : <signature> would be....
790 2011-10-19 15:59:08 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: Perhaps. I also like the idea that a completed but unsent txn has the same format as an incomplete one.
791 2011-10-19 15:59:22 <ByteCoin> You could have a dummy-verifier for a transaction where if a signature were all zero then it would be tweaked to evaluate it as correct. This would enable people to verify that their signature was put in the right place
792 2011-10-19 15:59:22 <gmaxwell> But I guess it doesn't actually matter so long as the result works.
793 2011-10-19 15:59:41 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: i didn't read the whole buffer, but yes
794 2011-10-19 16:00:33 <ByteCoin> If they replace the wrong sequence of zero bytes with their signature then the transaction now gets rejected by the dummy-verifier
795 2011-10-19 16:01:08 <jrmithdobbs> how is that more helpful than just rejecting once all sigs are available and combination fails?
796 2011-10-19 16:01:23 <jrmithdobbs> seems overcomplicated for no gain
797 2011-10-19 16:01:28 <lianj> there are some right reason to add complexity but so many wrong ones
798 2011-10-19 16:01:29 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: the problem with ordering is lets say you need 2 of <a,b,c> to sign, but you ask <b> to sign first. Should <b> put the signature in the first or second slot?
799 2011-10-19 16:02:30 <ByteCoin> gavin: I'm not familiar with your intended syntax for 2 of 3 multisignatures. Is order important?
800 2011-10-19 16:02:42 <jrmithdobbs> ByteCoin: also, prefixing with the index may be kind of ugly but it allows huge, say, 0x10 of 0xf0ffff sigs without blowing up the blockchain
801 2011-10-19 16:02:52 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: yes, I'm assuming CHECKMULTISIG where the order of signatures must match order of public keys
802 2011-10-19 16:02:55 <jrmithdobbs> which while not common could definitely be useful transactions
803 2011-10-19 16:03:54 <ByteCoin> gavin: It would be polite to indicate where to place the signature but if that information were not forthcoming, <b> could use my dummy-verifier to ascertain where to put the signature
804 2011-10-19 16:04:31 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: ... but where to put the signature depends on whether a or c is asked to sign next.... and b can't know that
805 2011-10-19 16:05:19 <ByteCoin> Ah....
806 2011-10-19 16:05:23 <ByteCoin> I see
807 2011-10-19 16:05:26 sytse has joined
808 2011-10-19 16:05:39 Zidonuke has joined
809 2011-10-19 16:05:54 <ByteCoin> Seems to be a good reason to make checkmultisig not care about the order
810 2011-10-19 16:06:55 <ByteCoin> As the public key can be extracted from the signature, perhaps checmultisig can work it out correctly...
811 2011-10-19 16:07:14 <gavinandresen> Mmmm... that'd be a blockchain-splitting change unless we 'hid' it inside OP_EVAL changes... and I'm worried about making the OP_EVAL proposals too extensive already
812 2011-10-19 16:08:20 <ByteCoin> gavin: Signatures must be moveable so if <b> signs in the "first" place and the transaction is then sent to <a> then <a> must move the signature?
813 2011-10-19 16:08:42 <ByteCoin> Otherwise <a>'s validation of the transaction will fail
814 2011-10-19 16:09:51 <ByteCoin> <b>s dummy-verification of the 2-of-3 transaction would succeed as the dummy-verifier would assume that the zero signature had been supplied by <c>
815 2011-10-19 16:10:03 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
816 2011-10-19 16:10:30 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: sure, that's do-able, it is just more complicated code than "Add my signatures to the dictionary" and then having the txn submission code grab signatures from the dictionary to create the final scriptSigs.
817 2011-10-19 16:10:58 <gavinandresen> I wonder if there is a use case for gathering more signatures than required, and then having some preference for WHICH signatures are used to satisfy...
818 2011-10-19 16:11:26 <gavinandresen> e.g. if you have a 2-of-3 transaction, would you ever want to gather all three and then have some preference on which 2 you use?
819 2011-10-19 16:11:45 <ByteCoin> You couldn't rule such a thing out....
820 2011-10-19 16:12:12 <ByteCoin> The fact that someone can be seen to have signed something conveys information
821 2011-10-19 16:13:08 <ByteCoin> Now that you've discussed it, I think that your solution is better than what I proposed initially. I've changed my mind.
822 2011-10-19 16:13:15 <gavinandresen> That's a problem for the placeholder solution if, for example, you had a.. oh, I dunno, 1-of-6. And somebody wanted to give you the information "I hold 3 of the keys" (since there's only room for 1 placeholder)
823 2011-10-19 16:14:47 <ByteCoin> Use your method of having a signature dictionary/map/list/whatever
824 2011-10-19 16:16:01 * nathan7 unexpectedly steals gavinandresen's facial features
825 2011-10-19 16:16:11 gwillen is now known as gwillen|onfire
826 2011-10-19 16:16:12 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: meh, don't do that. Use signmessage to prove ownership.
827 2011-10-19 16:16:32 <gmaxwell> Arguably you shouldn't be permitted to provide too many for x-of-y validations.
828 2011-10-19 16:16:33 <ByteCoin> The equivalent of the "dummy-verifier" code has to be a bit more intelligent with your solution though....
829 2011-10-19 16:16:49 gwillen is now known as onfire!~gwillen@unaffiliated/gwillen|gwillen
830 2011-10-19 16:17:52 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: that's why I asked "is there a use case" .... I don't have a clear vision in my head how more complicated m-of-n signature schemes will work
831 2011-10-19 16:21:11 <n5> tcatm, ok i'm done for today... its not working, will work on it tommorow
832 2011-10-19 16:22:06 <ByteCoin> gmaxwell: Re: you shouldn't be permitted to provide too many for x-y validations. Yes when you submit the transaction it shouldn't have too many signatures but while it's being passed round partly signed then you couldn't rule it out. Such as if m of n signatures are used for voting schemes were the number of votes you hold is represented by how many signatures you can provide
833 2011-10-19 16:23:16 <whiteman> Just in case you guys didn't see last night, I found a problem compiling under Ubuntu 11.10. The package libdb4.8++-dev no longer exists, but libdb5.1++-dev works as a replacement on both 11.04 and 11.10.
834 2011-10-19 16:23:21 <gmaxwell> ByteCoin: well, if I have enough to meet M on my own. ... tada. I win.
835 2011-10-19 16:23:42 <ByteCoin> Obviously.
836 2011-10-19 16:24:02 <whiteman> I got a segmentation fault when trying to run bitcoin-qt on 11.10, but I'm rechecking that now.
837 2011-10-19 16:24:06 <ByteCoin> We're presuming in the voting scenario that one person doesn't have enough signatures to satisfy it
838 2011-10-19 16:24:24 <gmaxwell> ByteCoin: right why not fill with all I can.. then pass it along until its met?
839 2011-10-19 16:25:21 <gmaxwell> so. .. e.g. if it needs 10 votes and you and I have 8 keys and you have 4 ... we just have me prove 8, and you provide two.
840 2011-10-19 16:25:30 <ByteCoin> Ok. Imagine a 4 of 5 scheme in which A holds 2 and B holds 1 and C holds 2. If A and B sign then it still needs C to sign
841 2011-10-19 16:25:47 dedeibel has joined
842 2011-10-19 16:26:25 <jrmithdobbs> i don't even understand what is being discussed at this point
843 2011-10-19 16:26:38 <ByteCoin> It's all very far in the future.
844 2011-10-19 16:26:38 <jrmithdobbs> anything more than M just gets discarded
845 2011-10-19 16:27:12 Joric has quit ()
846 2011-10-19 16:27:29 <jrmithdobbs> even if >M sigs are present they wont matter since M is all that's required so just don't allow >M sigs ... what exactly is the problem?
847 2011-10-19 16:27:48 <ByteCoin> If not all the parties signing can communicate directly with eachother then I have a feeling that sometime signing with more than necessary could be an important use-case
848 2011-10-19 16:28:03 <ByteCoin> Just a feeling...
849 2011-10-19 16:28:04 <gavinandresen> jrmithdobbs: the problem is we might decide on a format for sending around transactions that doesn't let us do something we might want to do....
850 2011-10-19 16:28:21 <gavinandresen> (sending around transactions BEFORE they're broadcast on the p2p network)
851 2011-10-19 16:29:10 <ByteCoin> gavin: On the other hand, if we get the format wrong then changing it is not a traumatic block-splitting event
852 2011-10-19 16:29:15 <gavinandresen> true
853 2011-10-19 16:29:28 <jrmithdobbs> ByteCoin: for what? I'm not seeing a use. technically speaking M is all that is required so any sigs past M are redundant wastes of space
854 2011-10-19 16:30:00 <ByteCoin> jr: But can you prove there's no use?
855 2011-10-19 16:30:09 <gavinandresen> I have the same feeling as ByteCoin: seems like there might be a use case hiding in there....
856 2011-10-19 16:30:12 <ByteCoin> I can't see a use...... yet
857 2011-10-19 16:30:53 <gavinandresen> ... and I think it'll actually be easier to code if the signatures are kept separate from the serialized txn.
858 2011-10-19 16:31:09 <sipa> i'd just send around a) the transaction with signatures being zeroed out b) the signature/(pubkey / hash / ...) pairs
859 2011-10-19 16:31:14 <ByteCoin> Whether ,<b>'s signature should be in slot 1 or 2 of a 2 of 3 transaction is already a good case for gavin's solution
860 2011-10-19 16:31:24 <sipa> so only the one eventually composing the transaction needs to understand the script
861 2011-10-19 16:31:30 ThomasV has joined
862 2011-10-19 16:31:41 <whiteman> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
863 2011-10-19 16:31:41 <whiteman> 0x0000000000533260 in ClientModel::getOptionsModel() ()
864 2011-10-19 16:32:01 <whiteman> Doesn't seem to work on 11.10.
865 2011-10-19 16:33:14 Ferdirand has joined
866 2011-10-19 16:34:32 danbri has quit (Changing host)
867 2011-10-19 16:34:32 danbri has joined
868 2011-10-19 16:34:42 <Ferdirand> hello. I read somewhere in the bitcoin spec that it uses ripemd160(sha256(something)) at some point. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this ?
869 2011-10-19 16:35:21 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneWeirdzzzz
870 2011-10-19 16:36:44 <ByteCoin> It provide a warmer, fuzzier feeling than just truncating sha256.
871 2011-10-19 16:36:56 inlikeflynn has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
872 2011-10-19 16:38:52 <gmaxwell> Ferdirand: generally truncation is scarry because the strength of the hash may not be equally distributed.
873 2011-10-19 16:39:31 <ByteCoin> gmaxwell: Although any results that demonstrate the truth of that statement would be taken as a proof that the hash function was insecure
874 2011-10-19 16:39:58 <ByteCoin> And you'd get a nice academic paper from your work
875 2011-10-19 16:40:20 <gmaxwell> Ferdirand: For example, I could make a 264 bit hash with exactly the same strength as SHA-256 (for many but not all purposes) by tacking a zero byte on the end. ... Now if you truncate my hash one way you get a provably less secure hash.
876 2011-10-19 16:40:24 inlikeflynn has joined
877 2011-10-19 16:41:01 <Ferdirand> gmaxwell: yes, but doesn't double hashing increase the odds of collisions ?
878 2011-10-19 16:41:23 <Ferdirand> well maybe not more than truncating
879 2011-10-19 16:41:29 <ByteCoin> Fer: Yes but that's not a significant weakness either
880 2011-10-19 16:41:37 <gmaxwell> ByteCoin: Indeed. Well, for some constructions you can show this (e.g. where the hash looks like a feistel structure e.g. cutting it wrong would reduce compleity of an attack by a round but no one would call that insecure)
881 2011-10-19 16:42:05 <gmaxwell> Ferdirand: compared to the space reduction its not relevant unless the hash has some very surprising property.
882 2011-10-19 16:42:21 <gmaxwell> s/compleity/complexity/ (stupid failing x key)
883 2011-10-19 16:42:52 dedeibel has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
884 2011-10-19 16:43:15 ByteCoin has left ()
885 2011-10-19 16:43:56 slush has joined
886 2011-10-19 16:44:20 <Ferdirand> so you consider ripemd160 broken enough that you don't want to use it alone ?
887 2011-10-19 16:45:06 <gavinandresen> who is "you" ? Nobody really knows what Satoshi was thinking, but we suppose that he was just being extra-cautious using two different hash functions.
888 2011-10-19 16:46:42 <gavinandresen> (and no, I don't think any of us think that ripemd160 is even slightly broken)
889 2011-10-19 16:46:53 <whiteman> Double hashing is becoming more common.
890 2011-10-19 16:47:23 <whiteman> (In one form or another)
891 2011-10-19 16:47:24 <gmaxwell> Ferdirand: but IF sha256 is busted then bitcoin has problems in several other places, so it wouldn't make sense to leave sha256 out.
892 2011-10-19 16:47:26 <Ferdirand> i'm not sure why double hashing is becoming common, but that doesn't sound very safe to me
893 2011-10-19 16:47:55 <Ferdirand> at least it is clear that if the inner hash is broken, the outer one doesn't add anything, yes ?
894 2011-10-19 16:48:07 <Ferdirand> so it's just a fancier way of truncating ?
895 2011-10-19 16:48:19 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
896 2011-10-19 16:48:20 <gmaxwell> (and actually what I said about feistel structure applies to sha256 too.. depending on what side you truncate from you can save up to four rounds on a such)
897 2011-10-19 16:48:30 <gmaxwell> Ferdirand: it depends on _how_ its broken.
898 2011-10-19 16:48:50 <Ferdirand> collisions, in this case, right ?
899 2011-10-19 16:48:53 <gmaxwell> Ferdirand: for example, sha256 could have a break which requires information lost in the truncation.
900 2011-10-19 16:49:14 <whiteman> Bit Torrent uses two hashes to verify data integrity. Even if a data collision was found for one hash method, it is a near impossibility that the same piece of data would match the second hash.
901 2011-10-19 16:49:20 <gavinandresen> is it just me, or do discussions of how modern hash functions could be broken seem like angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin arguments?
902 2011-10-19 16:49:32 <gmaxwell> Ferdirand: before a bitcoin address is spent from third parties won't know the midstate.
903 2011-10-19 16:49:40 <Ferdirand> whiteman: Joux seems to disagree with that, with the multicollisions business
904 2011-10-19 16:50:05 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: absolutely. It's only relevant to the extent that you shouldn't design things in a way that makes changing the crypto functions completely impossible in the future.
905 2011-10-19 16:50:56 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: working through the OP_EVAL stuff makes me much more optimistic about doing that in the future...
906 2011-10-19 16:51:22 <Ferdirand> gmaxwell: okay, so that kind of break would make the security of the composed hashes weaker than the inner one alone. But if the inner one is fully broken, then the truncation, and the double hash, are also broken ? (considering only collisions here)
907 2011-10-19 16:51:27 RobinPKR has joined
908 2011-10-19 16:51:41 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: yep. If there were actually anything to change we could easily do such a change now... but I don't think there is anything objectively better than what we already have on the crypto front.
909 2011-10-19 16:51:52 Turingi has joined
910 2011-10-19 16:52:07 <Ferdirand> anyway, i was just curious, didn't want to start an argument war :)
911 2011-10-19 16:52:24 <Ferdirand> thanks for your input
912 2011-10-19 16:52:56 <gavinandresen> sorry I'm grumpy, I've just listened through too many "what if SHA256 is broken" discussions....
913 2011-10-19 16:53:17 <gmaxwell> Ferdirand: Consider this attack model. You post a bitcoin txn for a zillion bitcoin to address AAAA
914 2011-10-19 16:53:44 <Ferdirand> i'm not questioning bitcoin or hashing in general, just the practice of double hashing from a rather theoretical point of view
915 2011-10-19 16:53:53 merde has joined
916 2011-10-19 16:54:13 <gavinandresen> there's a nifty crypto.stackexchange.com that probably already has an answer
917 2011-10-19 16:54:34 <sneak> n5: oh hi
918 2011-10-19 16:54:38 <sneak> that's mine, and it's quite old
919 2011-10-19 16:54:38 <Ferdirand> orly ? i'll have a look then
920 2011-10-19 16:54:44 <gmaxwell> Ferdirand: lets assume that SHA-256 has pratical weaknesses (/me ducks) that allows an attacker to find collisions if they know the final hash that they are trying to collide. This attack would not be very effective against bitcoin as it is today.
921 2011-10-19 16:54:45 <gavinandresen> http://crypto.stackexchange.com/
922 2011-10-19 16:55:08 <gmaxwell> Was that the reason to do what bitcoin does? who knows. it's an argument that can be made, there are opposing arguments against it.
923 2011-10-19 16:57:20 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: be happy, we could go back to arguing about the fact that the length encoding on the varints lets you code the same value multiple ways.
924 2011-10-19 16:57:27 <n5> sneak, hi
925 2011-10-19 16:58:26 <sipa> or argue about LE vs. network byte order
926 2011-10-19 16:58:41 <gmaxwell> (a reason why passing around tables of inputs/outputs for signing can get annoying... should some implementation decide to not use the most efficient integer encoding in its scripts)
927 2011-10-19 17:00:42 <Ferdirand> gmaxwell: wait. if an attacker can find collisions if he knows the final hash, the second layer doesn't add any security unless the attacker doesn't know the hashed value.
928 2011-10-19 17:01:15 <Ferdirand> so maybe in this use case he would not know it, but I was under the impression whatever was hashed was a public value. maybe i'm wrong.
929 2011-10-19 17:01:30 <Ferdirand> crap, out of battery :/
930 2011-10-19 17:01:39 <sipa> it doesn't help against collisions
931 2011-10-19 17:01:43 <gavinandresen> (the real reason I'm grumpy is because writing up BIPs for OP_EVAL will probably take as much time as actually implementing it took....)
932 2011-10-19 17:01:46 <sipa> but it does help against preimage attacks
933 2011-10-19 17:02:03 <Ferdirand> sipa: that's exactly what i'm saying, I think
934 2011-10-19 17:02:13 <gmaxwell> Ferdirand: in bitcoin addresses the data isn't public unless an address is reused until just before the attack is no longer possible.
935 2011-10-19 17:02:15 <Ferdirand> or at least what I tried to say
936 2011-10-19 17:02:57 <Ferdirand> okay, that makes sense, got to look deeper into it
937 2011-10-19 17:03:11 <Ferdirand> my battery is dying, i'll have to leave, but thanks for the explanations !
938 2011-10-19 17:03:46 Ferdirand has left ("thanks")
939 2011-10-19 17:04:29 Lolcust_Backup has quit (Quit: Nap time)
940 2011-10-19 17:04:43 <whiteman> Ferdirand: I know you just left, but I'm responding anyway. I'm reading some of this paper by Joux. Granted I don't understand most of it, but he both says a multicollision is exponentially more costly, and also multicollisions in iterated hash functions are
941 2011-10-19 17:04:44 <whiteman> not really harder to find than ordinary collision.
942 2011-10-19 17:07:19 Lolcust_Backup has joined
943 2011-10-19 17:08:40 <whiteman> I understand that with an interative hash function it's really the bit length that matters.
944 2011-10-19 17:09:32 <whiteman> The hash function itself can be made more costly, but ultimately collisions will exist.
945 2011-10-19 17:10:35 <whiteman> What is ripemd160(sha256()) called? Is that compounding?
946 2011-10-19 17:14:08 <whiteman> Compounding like that increases the cost, but the bit length is the same, so a collision is not much more "difficult".
947 2011-10-19 17:19:06 <Guest51076> Lolcust_Backup: ?
948 2011-10-19 17:19:10 Guest51076 is now known as jgarzik
949 2011-10-19 17:19:13 <jgarzik> Lolcust_Backup: ?
950 2011-10-19 17:21:52 <whiteman> Now that I'm reading it closer, this paper by Joux is using "multicollision" in a completely different sense. It does not talk about a single piece of data that creates a collision in two different hashes.
951 2011-10-19 17:22:39 <whiteman> God damn it Ferdirand, why did you have to leave before I destroyed your argument.
952 2011-10-19 17:29:04 Joric has joined
953 2011-10-19 17:30:38 wboy1 has joined
954 2011-10-19 17:31:10 comboy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
955 2011-10-19 17:33:29 comboy has joined
956 2011-10-19 17:34:19 Kolky has joined
957 2011-10-19 17:34:33 danbri has joined
958 2011-10-19 17:48:56 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
959 2011-10-19 17:51:16 wasabi3 has joined
960 2011-10-19 17:52:11 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
961 2011-10-19 17:54:56 <whiteman> So anyone need any debug info for this Ubuntu 11.10 segmentation fault? If not I'll just shut up about it.
962 2011-10-19 17:56:31 <neofutur> pastebin it anyway
963 2011-10-19 17:56:54 <neofutur> so its not lost
964 2011-10-19 17:57:56 <CIA-101> libbitcoin: genjix * r1b3e6959e8b7 / (4 files in 2 dirs): Use bytea in postgres storage.
965 2011-10-19 17:58:07 wtfman[away] has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
966 2011-10-19 17:58:09 Ramen1 has joined
967 2011-10-19 17:58:16 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
968 2011-10-19 17:58:34 Ramen has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
969 2011-10-19 17:59:13 zyb has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
970 2011-10-19 17:59:13 dooglus has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
971 2011-10-19 17:59:13 spaola has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
972 2011-10-19 18:00:45 <whiteman> How do I build this thing with debug symbols so I can get more specific info?
973 2011-10-19 18:00:47 dooglus has joined
974 2011-10-19 18:00:47 dooglus has quit (Changing host)
975 2011-10-19 18:00:47 dooglus has joined
976 2011-10-19 18:01:01 wtfman[away] has joined
977 2011-10-19 18:01:05 zyb has joined
978 2011-10-19 18:01:07 danbri has joined
979 2011-10-19 18:05:16 spaola has joined
980 2011-10-19 18:08:06 clr_ has joined
981 2011-10-19 18:08:41 wasabi1 has joined
982 2011-10-19 18:09:07 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
983 2011-10-19 18:09:19 gp5st1 has left ()
984 2011-10-19 18:13:39 Cokein has joined
985 2011-10-19 18:16:34 <ThomasV> is there a piece of documentation that explains how to sign a transaction?
986 2011-10-19 18:16:37 coblee has joined
987 2011-10-19 18:18:03 ircuser-6 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
988 2011-10-19 18:18:15 clr_ is now known as c00w
989 2011-10-19 18:18:44 <gavinandresen> ThomasV: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_CHECKSIG
990 2011-10-19 18:18:45 ircuser-6 has joined
991 2011-10-19 18:19:03 <ThomasV> ty
992 2011-10-19 18:19:50 ephcon has joined
993 2011-10-19 18:22:45 ephcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
994 2011-10-19 18:23:56 ephcon has joined
995 2011-10-19 18:25:23 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
996 2011-10-19 18:26:52 huk has joined
997 2011-10-19 18:27:18 AnnihilaT is now known as AnniGONE
998 2011-10-19 18:36:11 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
999 2011-10-19 18:37:28 MobiusL_ has joined
1000 2011-10-19 18:38:45 molecular has joined
1001 2011-10-19 18:40:11 [MobiusL] has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1002 2011-10-19 18:44:31 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?)
1003 2011-10-19 18:48:22 topace_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1004 2011-10-19 18:49:45 larsivi has joined
1005 2011-10-19 18:49:59 topace has joined
1006 2011-10-19 18:50:00 topace has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1007 2011-10-19 18:50:16 Blitzboom has joined
1008 2011-10-19 18:50:16 Blitzboom has quit (Changing host)
1009 2011-10-19 18:50:16 Blitzboom has joined
1010 2011-10-19 18:54:40 karnac has joined
1011 2011-10-19 18:55:00 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: miron@google.com * r241 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/ (5 files): Fix serialization UIDs, other cleanup
1012 2011-10-19 19:01:50 Joric has quit ()
1013 2011-10-19 19:02:25 huk has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1014 2011-10-19 19:02:32 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1015 2011-10-19 19:02:39 huk has joined
1016 2011-10-19 19:06:40 diki has joined
1017 2011-10-19 19:06:43 <diki> Very interesting
1018 2011-10-19 19:06:52 <diki> amd adl library is saying i have 6 devices for my 2 cards
1019 2011-10-19 19:07:01 <diki> ...i cant even process this as to how it can be
1020 2011-10-19 19:20:27 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1021 2011-10-19 19:25:37 magn3ts has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1022 2011-10-19 19:25:45 Ramen1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1023 2011-10-19 19:39:23 amtal has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1024 2011-10-19 19:42:33 denisx has joined
1025 2011-10-19 19:43:39 p0s has joined
1026 2011-10-19 19:44:13 somuchwin has joined
1027 2011-10-19 19:45:48 topace has joined
1028 2011-10-19 19:47:23 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1029 2011-10-19 19:52:47 TheAncientGoat has joined
1030 2011-10-19 19:53:19 magn3ts has joined
1031 2011-10-19 20:03:08 Lolcust has joined
1032 2011-10-19 20:05:07 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1033 2011-10-19 20:05:28 wboy1 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1034 2011-10-19 20:05:31 rdponticelli has joined
1035 2011-10-19 20:06:04 dedeibel has joined
1036 2011-10-19 20:06:17 zhoutong has joined
1037 2011-10-19 20:07:29 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1038 2011-10-19 20:08:27 zhoutong has joined
1039 2011-10-19 20:12:34 clr__ has joined
1040 2011-10-19 20:12:57 <CIA-101> libbitcoin: genjix * r9db2b0512968 / (4 files in 2 dirs): Use bytea in postgres storage.
1041 2011-10-19 20:13:32 c00w has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1042 2011-10-19 20:16:31 clr__ has quit (Client Quit)
1043 2011-10-19 20:17:39 Beremat has joined
1044 2011-10-19 20:19:43 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1045 2011-10-19 20:20:48 da2ce7 has joined
1046 2011-10-19 20:20:51 zhoutong has joined
1047 2011-10-19 20:21:36 vorlov has joined
1048 2011-10-19 20:23:49 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1049 2011-10-19 20:31:47 meLon has joined
1050 2011-10-19 20:31:48 meLon has quit (Changing host)
1051 2011-10-19 20:31:48 meLon has joined
1052 2011-10-19 20:32:54 PK has joined
1053 2011-10-19 20:37:53 p0s has quit (Quit: bye)
1054 2011-10-19 20:39:19 meLon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1055 2011-10-19 20:43:50 alystair has joined
1056 2011-10-19 20:45:07 magn3ts has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1057 2011-10-19 20:49:46 localhost has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1058 2011-10-19 20:59:03 AStove has quit ()
1059 2011-10-19 21:04:47 localhost has joined
1060 2011-10-19 21:05:43 BlueMatt has joined
1061 2011-10-19 21:06:57 <whiteman> BlueMatt: How do I compile a debug build of bitcoin-qt?
1062 2011-10-19 21:08:19 <BlueMatt> make debug
1063 2011-10-19 21:08:26 <BlueMatt> if you mean gitian -> modify the script
1064 2011-10-19 21:08:44 <BlueMatt> whiteman: ^
1065 2011-10-19 21:08:44 <whiteman> No, just a standard build using the head version.
1066 2011-10-19 21:08:49 <whiteman> It says no target.
1067 2011-10-19 21:08:55 <BlueMatt> yea qmake followed by make debug instead of make
1068 2011-10-19 21:09:23 <whiteman> make: *** No rule to make target `debug'. Stop.
1069 2011-10-19 21:09:30 <BlueMatt> qmake; make debug
1070 2011-10-19 21:09:49 <whiteman> $ qmake; make debug
1071 2011-10-19 21:09:49 <whiteman> Project MESSAGE: Building with UPNP support
1072 2011-10-19 21:09:49 <whiteman> Project MESSAGE: Building with UPNP support
1073 2011-10-19 21:09:49 <whiteman> make: *** No rule to make target `debug'. Stop.
1074 2011-10-19 21:10:02 <BlueMatt> what, I know I did that the other day...
1075 2011-10-19 21:10:52 <neofutur> no need to -f makefile.unix ?
1076 2011-10-19 21:11:04 <BlueMatt> no, bitcoin-qt doesnt use the old makefiles
1077 2011-10-19 21:11:09 <BlueMatt> that is just bitcoind now
1078 2011-10-19 21:11:41 <whiteman> I get a segmentation fault on Ubuntu 11.10 and I'm trying to get more debug info.
1079 2011-10-19 21:12:07 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1080 2011-10-19 21:13:34 <BlueMatt> well, it looks like you might have to redefine the stuff in bitcoin-qt.pro
1081 2011-10-19 21:13:46 <BlueMatt> I could have sworn I did a debug build like a day ago...
1082 2011-10-19 21:15:52 <BlueMatt> it looks like just qmake CONFIG=debug; make works well
1083 2011-10-19 21:16:54 <BlueMatt> well no now thats not working for me...
1084 2011-10-19 21:17:04 <BlueMatt> anyway, just change the CONFIG += ... line to add debug at the end
1085 2011-10-19 21:17:06 <BlueMatt> works well enough
1086 2011-10-19 21:17:20 <BlueMatt> dont know if it defines enough gcc stuff, but it doesnt strip
1087 2011-10-19 21:17:56 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: miron@google.com * r242 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/ (3 files): Remove dependency on Java 1.6
1088 2011-10-19 21:20:12 Daniel0108 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1089 2011-10-19 21:22:12 <gmaxwell> 0_o someone posting on bitcointalk saying AT&T send them a form letter saying that connecting to IRC was a violation of their AUP.
1090 2011-10-19 21:22:23 <BlueMatt> lulwut
1091 2011-10-19 21:22:36 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49038.msg583804#msg583804
1092 2011-10-19 21:22:55 <neofutur> many datacenters also forbid irc connections from dedicated servers
1093 2011-10-19 21:22:55 <BlueMatt> haha you are freaking kidding me
1094 2011-10-19 21:23:09 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1095 2011-10-19 21:23:25 <neofutur> even if this rule is generally not enforced as long as you re not a botnet
1096 2011-10-19 21:23:27 <dub> I have a VPS with a no irc clause
1097 2011-10-19 21:23:45 <BlueMatt> seriously?
1098 2011-10-19 21:23:48 <neofutur> same here, many servers with this clause
1099 2011-10-19 21:23:54 <BlueMatt> what is irc too much bw for them?
1100 2011-10-19 21:23:57 HaltingState has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1101 2011-10-19 21:24:04 <neofutur> but generally its not enforced if you do nothing bad
1102 2011-10-19 21:24:16 <BlueMatt> why do they care?
1103 2011-10-19 21:24:22 <neofutur> BlueMatt: irc widely used by botnets and other viruses. . .
1104 2011-10-19 21:24:23 <gavinandresen> that's what the -noirc switch is for....
1105 2011-10-19 21:24:39 <BlueMatt> neofutur: I know, but that doesnt mean a vps provider should care
1106 2011-10-19 21:24:53 <BlueMatt> I get a home isp, or maybe even t1 business isp
1107 2011-10-19 21:24:54 <BlueMatt> but vps???
1108 2011-10-19 21:25:06 <neofutur> TOS are always going more far than what is needed, just in case
1109 2011-10-19 21:25:10 <BlueMatt> if your vps has a virus...oh god
1110 2011-10-19 21:25:13 <Ukto> being a host myself
1111 2011-10-19 21:25:22 <neofutur> TOS are mostly made by paranoid lawyers . . .
1112 2011-10-19 21:25:23 <Ukto> irc is generall banned due to ddos attacks
1113 2011-10-19 21:25:30 <Ukto> actualyl neo
1114 2011-10-19 21:25:33 <BlueMatt> they could just put in "if your machine appears to be running a c&c server, we will shut it down"...
1115 2011-10-19 21:25:34 <Ukto> even ppl with small irc servers
1116 2011-10-19 21:25:37 <Ukto> tend to piss of script kiddies
1117 2011-10-19 21:25:40 <Ukto> who get networks ddos'd
1118 2011-10-19 21:25:41 <dub> when I queried it they said they only enforce when customers become DoS targets or generate lots of DMCA complaints
1119 2011-10-19 21:25:43 <Ukto> over a $50/mo account
1120 2011-10-19 21:25:53 <Ukto> and, alot of ppl will put up irc servers
1121 2011-10-19 21:25:57 <BlueMatt> or put in "if you become a ddos target, we will kill you"
1122 2011-10-19 21:25:59 <Ukto> and load botnets onto them
1123 2011-10-19 21:26:04 <dub> IRC servers are almost never allowed
1124 2011-10-19 21:26:08 <Ukto> and that becomes a giant legal issue
1125 2011-10-19 21:26:13 <dub> since they are 90% likely to get hit
1126 2011-10-19 21:26:19 <Ukto> i dont know how many botnet ircd's i have shut down
1127 2011-10-19 21:26:25 HaltingState has joined
1128 2011-10-19 21:26:28 <BlueMatt> its not like you have to specify irc, that just limits you even more than it should
1129 2011-10-19 21:26:31 <Ukto> i have my own personal irc network,
1130 2011-10-19 21:26:40 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: miron@google.com * r243 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/Utils.java: Fix bug in Utils.copyOf
1131 2011-10-19 21:26:41 <Ukto> we had to custom make software to stop ppl from loading botnets onto it
1132 2011-10-19 21:26:54 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1133 2011-10-19 21:26:55 <BlueMatt> just put "no illegal activity including, but not limited to, spam generation, c&c servers. and no pissing off botnet-owners"
1134 2011-10-19 21:27:08 <Ukto> as was said earlier
1135 2011-10-19 21:27:14 <Ukto> we dont look for ircd's
1136 2011-10-19 21:27:22 <dub> BlueMatt: pissing off botherderd is not illegal
1137 2011-10-19 21:27:23 <Ukto> but if we get a customer getting ddos'd because of it
1138 2011-10-19 21:27:25 <Ukto> we ask them to leave
1139 2011-10-19 21:27:29 <dub> botherders*
1140 2011-10-19 21:27:35 <BlueMatt> dub: hence why there is a period and an and
1141 2011-10-19 21:27:54 <whiteman> Ubuntu 11.10 segfault on load: http://pastebin.com/TnGfwbZf
1142 2011-10-19 21:28:30 <dub> right, anyway having NO IRC in the ToS is an easy way to deal with shitty customers
1143 2011-10-19 21:28:33 <BlueMatt> whiteman: put it on the bugtracker and wladimir should take a look
1144 2011-10-19 21:28:43 <BlueMatt> dub: easier way, see above
1145 2011-10-19 21:29:08 <dub> BlueMatt: IANAL but 'no pissing people off' sounds hard to enforce
1146 2011-10-19 21:29:21 <BlueMatt> dub: or "no getting ddos'd"
1147 2011-10-19 21:29:32 <BlueMatt> that is easy to enforce
1148 2011-10-19 21:30:00 <dub> BlueMatt: I think its goign to scare off more sales than 'no irc'
1149 2011-10-19 21:30:14 <BlueMatt> who reads the tos and decides no based on them?
1150 2011-10-19 21:30:22 <BlueMatt> in fact, who reads the tos?
1151 2011-10-19 21:30:27 <dub> people that are not stupid?
1152 2011-10-19 21:30:29 <cjdelisl1> I do and I do
1153 2011-10-19 21:30:37 <BlueMatt> heh
1154 2011-10-19 21:30:44 <dub> I read it, and I queried the 'no irc' bit before purchasing
1155 2011-10-19 21:30:51 <BlueMatt> really? damn
1156 2011-10-19 21:31:38 <cjdelisl1> long tos -> these people are just looking for an excuse to throw you out as soon as you pay for a month's service and keep the loot
1157 2011-10-19 21:32:15 <BlueMatt> if you are buying from a site that shitty, you should have done more research than just reading the tos
1158 2011-10-19 21:32:20 <BlueMatt> at least google them for a while
1159 2011-10-19 21:32:43 <BlueMatt> also, out of curiosity, what vps hosts are people on?
1160 2011-10-19 21:32:59 <cjdelisl1> enetsouth
1161 2011-10-19 21:33:18 <BlueMatt> happy with them?
1162 2011-10-19 21:33:55 <dub> this one was cheap, WHT was generally positive. In fact, that they are actively discouraging DoS catching customers is a good sign imo
1163 2011-10-19 21:34:19 ThomasV has joined
1164 2011-10-19 21:34:25 <cjdelisl1> I've not really used them for anything but for a little idle box they're good enough
1165 2011-10-19 21:34:42 <cjdelisl1> as with vps's if you bring ddos you kind of expect to get binned
1166 2011-10-19 21:37:12 <BlueMatt> yep
1167 2011-10-19 21:37:44 <cjdelisl1> making it explicit in the tos just kind of shows them to be letigious bastards..
1168 2011-10-19 21:38:16 <BlueMatt> or they just have lawyers who feel like being overly careful
1169 2011-10-19 21:38:28 <BlueMatt> which isnt really a bad thing, as long as the people making the actual decisions arent lawyers
1170 2011-10-19 21:38:44 <dub> I have photonvps and linode VPSen, no complaints with either
1171 2011-10-19 21:39:05 <cjdelisl1> the words "looking for a fight" come to mind
1172 2011-10-19 21:40:31 <BlueMatt> true, but tos isnt necessarily written by anyone connected to making decisions
1173 2011-10-19 21:40:51 <BlueMatt> (it can be, but isnt already)
1174 2011-10-19 21:40:57 <BlueMatt> s/already/always/
1175 2011-10-19 21:41:01 osmosis has joined
1176 2011-10-19 21:41:22 magn3ts has joined
1177 2011-10-19 21:45:47 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1178 2011-10-19 21:46:24 zhoutong has joined
1179 2011-10-19 21:47:00 dedeibel has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1180 2011-10-19 22:01:36 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1181 2011-10-19 22:04:36 erle- has quit (Quit: CETERVMÂAVTEMÂCENSEOÂFDPÂESSEÂDELENDVM)
1182 2011-10-19 22:07:00 shLONG has quit ()
1183 2011-10-19 22:12:07 vorlov has quit (Quit: vorlov)
1184 2011-10-19 22:12:48 ThomasV has joined
1185 2011-10-19 22:15:28 iocor has joined
1186 2011-10-19 22:21:33 helo is now known as leakslayer
1187 2011-10-19 22:22:35 leakslayer is now known as helo
1188 2011-10-19 22:24:31 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1189 2011-10-19 22:30:58 PK has quit ()
1190 2011-10-19 22:34:59 coblee has quit (2!coblee@nat/google/x-tkovsaojsedyljbd|Quit: coblee|2)
1191 2011-10-19 22:35:17 iocor has joined
1192 2011-10-19 22:40:26 erus` has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 7.0.1/20110928134238])
1193 2011-10-19 22:45:00 merde has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1194 2011-10-19 22:45:14 whiteman has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1195 2011-10-19 22:47:33 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1196 2011-10-19 22:47:40 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1197 2011-10-19 22:48:12 amiller has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1198 2011-10-19 22:50:34 maqr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1199 2011-10-19 22:50:57 Ukto has quit (Disconnected by services)
1200 2011-10-19 22:50:59 Guest77951 has joined
1201 2011-10-19 22:50:59 maqr has joined
1202 2011-10-19 22:51:22 amiller has joined
1203 2011-10-19 22:51:32 merde has joined
1204 2011-10-19 22:53:37 theorb has joined
1205 2011-10-19 22:53:50 theorbtwo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1206 2011-10-19 22:53:58 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
1207 2011-10-19 22:54:38 Matt_von_Mises has joined
1208 2011-10-19 22:55:21 <Matt_von_Mises> Hello. Is there any technical documentation for bitcoin anywhere?
1209 2011-10-19 22:55:41 <sipa> bitcoin.it
1210 2011-10-19 22:55:49 <sipa> look for protocol specification and other pages
1211 2011-10-19 22:57:24 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1212 2011-10-19 22:57:30 <Matt_von_Mises> Thank you. Hmm, can you make a bitcoin client from scratch using just those pages?
1213 2011-10-19 23:01:50 zomtec has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1214 2011-10-19 23:01:52 <gmaxwell> No, probably not. But you could make a lot of progress.
1215 2011-10-19 23:02:26 <gmaxwell> Matt_von_Mises: unfortunately there are all sorts of 'pointless' decisions like the orders of various values that aren't well documented except by the (MIT licensed) source.
1216 2011-10-19 23:03:46 <Matt_von_Mises> I'm interested in the workings of bitcoin, I just don't understand the source code at all (I don't do C++ for a start).
1217 2011-10-19 23:03:52 <Matt_von_Mises> So this is why I asked, thank you.
1218 2011-10-19 23:07:22 stalled has joined
1219 2011-10-19 23:12:40 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1220 2011-10-19 23:12:49 <Matt_von_Mises> Why does bitcoin not use RSA?
1221 2011-10-19 23:13:26 <copumpkin> why should it?
1222 2011-10-19 23:13:48 <Matt_von_Mises> I don't know, you tell me why not?
1223 2011-10-19 23:14:01 <gmaxwell> ...
1224 2011-10-19 23:14:02 <copumpkin> I always like my crypto to use the most famous branded algorithms
1225 2011-10-19 23:14:11 <lianj> ^^
1226 2011-10-19 23:14:18 <gmaxwell> Matt_von_Mises: because we don't want a blockchain which would already be 10 gigabytes in size.
1227 2011-10-19 23:15:23 <gmaxwell> Matt_von_Mises: the ECC we use has security compariable to 3072 bit RSA .. but keys which are 12x smaller.
1228 2011-10-19 23:15:29 <copumpkin> there's at least one other implementation of bitcoin
1229 2011-10-19 23:15:31 <copumpkin> mostly complete
1230 2011-10-19 23:15:32 <copumpkin> in haskell
1231 2011-10-19 23:15:42 <copumpkin> not sure if that's any better than c++ for you :)
1232 2011-10-19 23:15:43 <Matt_von_Mises> So it's more secure with smaller keys?
1233 2011-10-19 23:15:54 <Matt_von_Mises> Does it take longer to compute?
1234 2011-10-19 23:15:57 <gmaxwell> Matt_von_Mises: yes. And probably more secure period.
1235 2011-10-19 23:16:14 <Matt_von_Mises> Haskell? :( I like my stuff in C.
1236 2011-10-19 23:16:20 <gmaxwell> Per bit ECC is somewhat slower. But per unit of security its faster, I think. Key generation is _MUCH_ faster.
1237 2011-10-19 23:16:46 <kinlo> don't really think the speed of ECC really matters
1238 2011-10-19 23:16:53 <midnightmagic> i love haskell
1239 2011-10-19 23:17:24 <kinlo> except verification speed that is - that's what all clients need to do a lot
1240 2011-10-19 23:17:34 <gmaxwell> kinlo: not today but it's not irrelevant either. The size is what matters for bitcoin. having to present a 3kbit public key with your transactions would suck.
1241 2011-10-19 23:17:45 <kinlo> key generation and encryption are irrelevant
1242 2011-10-19 23:17:53 <gmaxwell> We don't use encryption.
1243 2011-10-19 23:17:55 <copumpkin> midnightmagic: maybe you should marry it then!!
1244 2011-10-19 23:18:26 <Matt_von_Mises> It's the ideal algorithm then? I suppose protocols are all stuck in the past accepting RSA then?
1245 2011-10-19 23:18:35 <gmaxwell> Generation is relevant, if you had to wait 30 seconds to generate a new key (fast for 3kbit RSA) you would not be inclined to use a fresh key for every txn... and even with background computation and pooling high volume sites might run low on keys. :)
1246 2011-10-19 23:19:00 <kinlo> well, perhaps I'm not using the correct word, but in the end you are "encrypting" the hash so everyone with the public key can decrypt it and verify that it is yours... what's the word I'm looking for...
1247 2011-10-19 23:19:03 ThomasV has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1248 2011-10-19 23:19:03 <Matt_von_Mises> Places still use MD5
1249 2011-10-19 23:19:05 <gmaxwell> Matt_von_Mises: ECC is pretty much strictly superior. It's not widely used on the internet because certicom has run around with a bunch of patent fud.
1250 2011-10-19 23:19:07 <Matt_von_Mises> For hashes.
1251 2011-10-19 23:19:18 <gmaxwell> kinlo: signing. :)
1252 2011-10-19 23:19:21 <kinlo> right
1253 2011-10-19 23:19:28 <kinlo> I'm way too tired :p
1254 2011-10-19 23:19:51 <Matt_von_Mises> Signing is encryption with a private key
1255 2011-10-19 23:20:00 <Matt_von_Mises> So technically correct, no?
1256 2011-10-19 23:20:05 <copumpkin> y^2 = x^3 + x
1257 2011-10-19 23:20:05 <copumpkin> HAH
1258 2011-10-19 23:20:06 <kinlo> yeah :p
1259 2011-10-19 23:20:10 <copumpkin> sue me if you dare
1260 2011-10-19 23:20:40 <Matt_von_Mises> I suppose you don't need to know how these algorithms in side out to understand bitcoin? Just what they do?
1261 2011-10-19 23:20:43 <gmaxwell> Matt_von_Mises: It's not the same process.
1262 2011-10-19 23:20:59 <copumpkin> Matt_von_Mises: you just need to know it's a signature algorithm :P
1263 2011-10-19 23:21:00 <gmaxwell> You can just wave your arms and call signing encrypting with a private key.. and thats fine enough. :)
1264 2011-10-19 23:21:20 <copumpkin> you could abstract the whole thing over the signing algorithm and just use whatever signature/verification pair someone provided
1265 2011-10-19 23:21:26 <copumpkin> but it's in the system's interest to agree on a single one
1266 2011-10-19 23:21:27 JFK911 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1267 2011-10-19 23:21:32 JFK911 has joined
1268 2011-10-19 23:21:47 <Matt_von_Mises> If you wanted to make a bitcoin client you could just copy and paste the crytography functions from the internet I guess?
1269 2011-10-19 23:21:58 <Matt_von_Mises> Or use a library
1270 2011-10-19 23:22:02 <kinlo> afaik it doesn't really matter for bitcoin which protocol is used... I believe the bitcoin protocol can be extended to use a different signing alogirthm later on
1271 2011-10-19 23:22:03 <copumpkin> I'd use a library :P
1272 2011-10-19 23:22:11 <copumpkin> the haskell one reimplements them all from scratch
1273 2011-10-19 23:22:13 <WakiMiko> yes, thats how the original client was written
1274 2011-10-19 23:22:24 <WakiMiko> satoshi just copied and pasted random crap
1275 2011-10-19 23:22:27 <Matt_von_Mises> I guess I learnt everything I need to know in A-level Computing then
1276 2011-10-19 23:22:29 <WakiMiko> and then there was bitcoin
1277 2011-10-19 23:22:49 <Matt_von_Mises> We learned about what the encryption algorithms do but not how they work.
1278 2011-10-19 23:22:54 <gmaxwell> WakiMiko: yea, thats exactly how it happened.. copy and past buffer got stuck and then .. oops he accidentally a bitcoin.
1279 2011-10-19 23:23:28 <sipa> lol
1280 2011-10-19 23:23:39 <kinlo> Matt_von_Mises: if you actually know the different types of encryption algorithms and so on, you know enough :)
1281 2011-10-19 23:23:45 <kinlo> hi sipa :)
1282 2011-10-19 23:23:48 <copumpkin> now that someone's described homomorphic encryption, we need holomorphic encryption, homoiconic encryption, homological encryption, homotopic encryption
1283 2011-10-19 23:24:08 <sipa> i'd shy away from homophobic encryption though
1284 2011-10-19 23:24:22 <Matt_von_Mises> It would be a nightmare is bitcoin used modified crytography algorithms.
1285 2011-10-19 23:24:23 <copumpkin> yeah, I'm not a fan
1286 2011-10-19 23:24:25 HaltingState has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1287 2011-10-19 23:24:32 <copumpkin> homophilic encryption?
1288 2011-10-19 23:25:29 <Diablo-D3> copumpkin: or homosexual ecryption
1289 2011-10-19 23:25:46 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: is that another word for broadcast encryption?
1290 2011-10-19 23:26:40 <Matt_von_Mises> I probably have the ability to make a C library for bitcoin and then an Objective-C GUI for Mac I guess but I need to know the technical details to the atom or it wont work.
1291 2011-10-19 23:26:47 <Matt_von_Mises> Put the message in the wrong chat
1292 2011-10-19 23:29:36 HaltingState has joined
1293 2011-10-19 23:29:37 HaltingState has quit (Changing host)
1294 2011-10-19 23:29:37 HaltingState has joined
1295 2011-10-19 23:30:51 HaltingState has quit (Client Quit)
1296 2011-10-19 23:33:43 slush has joined
1297 2011-10-19 23:38:17 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1298 2011-10-19 23:41:34 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1299 2011-10-19 23:42:19 alystair has quit (Quit: â(ã»_ã»)âOUTTA HEREâ(ã»oã»)â)
1300 2011-10-19 23:44:16 HaltingState has joined
1301 2011-10-19 23:44:42 machine2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1302 2011-10-19 23:50:36 meLon has joined
1303 2011-10-19 23:50:36 meLon has quit (Changing host)
1304 2011-10-19 23:50:36 meLon has joined
1305 2011-10-19 23:54:07 wasabi3 has joined
1306 2011-10-19 23:56:07 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1307 2011-10-19 23:56:16 karnac has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1308 2011-10-19 23:56:39 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)