1 2011-11-12 00:11:43 Edward_Black has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
   2 2011-11-12 00:16:02 <graingert> gmaxwell: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51604.msg615405#msg615405
   3 2011-11-12 00:16:28 <gmaxwell> 15:19 < graingert> you still have the 100 in the queue
   4 2011-11-12 00:16:28 <gmaxwell> 15:19 < gmaxwell> Nope.
   5 2011-11-12 00:16:28 <gmaxwell> 15:19 < gmaxwell> Fixing that too.
   6 2011-11-12 00:17:13 <gmaxwell> graingert: Sorry, I didn't intend to make you think that it was _already_ that way.
   7 2011-11-12 00:17:21 <graingert> ah I see
   8 2011-11-12 00:17:29 <gmaxwell> I was unclear, my fault.
   9 2011-11-12 00:17:34 <graingert> needs to be backported
  10 2011-11-12 00:18:01 <sipa> i suppose luke will backport it in his stable releases
  11 2011-11-12 00:18:39 <sipa> so it will be in 0.4.1 or 0.5
  12 2011-11-12 00:19:45 <graingert> 0.4.1 first
  13 2011-11-12 00:19:52 <graingert> 0.5 is blocked on other things
  14 2011-11-12 00:20:00 <gmaxwell> It is?
  15 2011-11-12 00:20:00 pumpkin has joined
  16 2011-11-12 00:20:17 <sipa> some UI issues
  17 2011-11-12 00:20:23 <sipa> not sure whether they're already fixed
  18 2011-11-12 00:20:55 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  19 2011-11-12 00:21:46 <graingert> mac compilation I believe
  20 2011-11-12 00:21:48 <luke-jr> Is there a fix ready to backport?
  21 2011-11-12 00:22:08 <luke-jr> little reminder: I'm only maintaining bitcoin*d* 0.4
  22 2011-11-12 00:22:16 <sipa> oh right
  23 2011-11-12 00:22:23 <luke-jr> so if someone wants a wxBitcoin 0.4.1, they'll have to volunteer…
  24 2011-11-12 00:22:24 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  25 2011-11-12 00:22:31 <graingert> is that <em>b</em>
  26 2011-11-12 00:22:35 <graingert> or wildcards
  27 2011-11-12 00:22:45 <luke-jr> graingert: bitcoind, the daemon
  28 2011-11-12 00:22:51 <graingert> I see
  29 2011-11-12 00:22:55 <luke-jr> maintaining a dead GUI is not my interest
  30 2011-11-12 00:23:01 <sipa> understandable
  31 2011-11-12 00:23:17 roconnor has joined
  32 2011-11-12 00:23:31 <roconnor> is there a way to enable block generation on the client for the testnet?
  33 2011-11-12 00:23:47 <luke-jr> roconnor: -gen=1
  34 2011-11-12 00:23:48 <sipa> setgenerate true
  35 2011-11-12 00:23:48 <gmaxwell> roconnor: -gen=1
  36 2011-11-12 00:24:04 <luke-jr> roconnor: note that it's regressed in later versions in terms of hashrate
  37 2011-11-12 00:24:14 <luke-jr> roconnor: so if you're not using TNIAB, you probably still want a good miner
  38 2011-11-12 00:24:16 <gmaxwell> roconnor: though you're not likely to get far with cpu mining unless you've avoided touching the real chain and just have two isolated nodes.
  39 2011-11-12 00:24:27 <roconnor> gmaxwell: even on testnet?
  40 2011-11-12 00:24:34 <luke-jr> roconnor: isolated testnet ftw
  41 2011-11-12 00:24:49 <gmaxwell> roconnor: people keep selling tnbtc.. which drives the rate up.
  42 2011-11-12 00:25:04 Edward_Black has joined
  43 2011-11-12 00:25:04 <sipa> testnet difficulty is 66
  44 2011-11-12 00:25:04 <roconnor> I was generating a block every few hours back in April on testnet
  45 2011-11-12 00:25:08 <graingert> testnet "ina" box
  46 2011-11-12 00:25:18 <JFK911> he said box
  47 2011-11-12 00:25:24 <graingert> LOL
  48 2011-11-12 00:25:28 <graingert> box
  49 2011-11-12 00:25:28 <sipa> ;;bc,gen 2000 66
  50 2011-11-12 00:25:29 <gribble> Error: invalid syntax (<string>, line 1)
  51 2011-11-12 00:25:31 <sipa> ;;bc,gend 2000 66
  52 2011-11-12 00:25:31 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 2000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 66, is 30.4796478965 BTC per day and 1.26998532902 BTC per hour.
  53 2011-11-12 00:25:36 <luke-jr> [19:10:30] <gmaxwell> roconnor: people keep selling tnbtc.. which drives the rate up. <-- seriously? O.o
  54 2011-11-12 00:25:37 <gmaxwell> at the moment the difficulty is 66.. which is better than when I'd looked before.
  55 2011-11-12 00:26:00 <graingert> !tn,stats
  56 2011-11-12 00:26:01 <luke-jr> who would pay for TNBC?
  57 2011-11-12 00:26:01 <gribble> Error: "tn,stats" is not a valid command.
  58 2011-11-12 00:26:03 <graingert> aw
  59 2011-11-12 00:26:09 <graingert> that should totally be a command
  60 2011-11-12 00:26:21 da2ce7 has joined
  61 2011-11-12 00:26:21 da2ce7 has quit (Changing host)
  62 2011-11-12 00:26:21 da2ce7 has joined
  63 2011-11-12 00:26:23 <graingert> luke-jr: people who cba with test net in a box
  64 2011-11-12 00:26:24 <luke-jr> also, I sent someone like 100k TNBC a few months ago and they never returned it
  65 2011-11-12 00:26:34 <graingert> lol
  66 2011-11-12 00:26:41 <gmaxwell> (it was at 500 three months ago)
  67 2011-11-12 00:27:16 <gmaxwell> too bad merged mining is such a disruptive change for the slaved chain.. otherwise it would be nice to do MM for testnet.
  68 2011-11-12 00:27:36 <graingert> wouldn't that just mean the diff would go up
  69 2011-11-12 00:27:59 <graingert> MM would be bad for testnet
  70 2011-11-12 00:28:36 <gmaxwell> graingert: we have two issues, one is that the difficulty gets too high for experimental mining. the second is that people do a burst of mining, which drives it up, then they abandon it and you can't even get txn processed.
  71 2011-11-12 00:29:03 <gmaxwell> looks like its been okay lately though.
  72 2011-11-12 00:29:05 <Eliel> graingert: you'd get testnet coins as you mine regular coins that way :) No-one would need to ask someone else for coins unless they have no mining power.
  73 2011-11-12 00:29:12 <iddo> i'm looking for comments whether this simplified probability analysis of faster than 10mins blocks is sound: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51504.msg614733#msg614733
  74 2011-11-12 00:29:42 <graingert> how many coins can you mine per block?
  75 2011-11-12 00:29:51 <graingert> if it was arbitrary
  76 2011-11-12 00:29:55 <graingert> would it solve these issues
  77 2011-11-12 00:30:49 <gmaxwell> iddo: the claims that the network latency is two seconds are BS... it's often much higher. Also, it will increase as volume increases and it takes more work to validate blocks.
  78 2011-11-12 00:30:50 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
  79 2011-11-12 00:31:23 <gmaxwell> graingert: are you asking how many things can be merged with merged mining? it's arbitrary.
  80 2011-11-12 00:31:24 <iddo> ok but any fixed latency, is the rest of the analysis sound?
  81 2011-11-12 00:31:33 <graingert> gmaxwell: nope
  82 2011-11-12 00:31:37 <graingert> I asked that ages ago
  83 2011-11-12 00:31:43 <graingert> gmaxwell: and got that answered
  84 2011-11-12 00:32:11 <luke-jr> I think MM for testnet would be a good idea
  85 2011-11-12 00:32:25 <luke-jr> in fact, Satoshi originally suggested making mainnet a MM-capable network
  86 2011-11-12 00:32:25 <iddo> s/but any/but for any
  87 2011-11-12 00:32:30 <graingert> gmaxwell: how many coins (ie n per x block) where x = btc, n= 50, where x = tnbtc n = ?
  88 2011-11-12 00:32:42 <graingert> afk
  89 2011-11-12 00:33:58 <graingert> back
  90 2011-11-12 00:34:32 <iddo> i think the way i was analysing it earlier was wrong because chain fork doesn't really cause dilution, only the network latency causes dilution it seems
  91 2011-11-12 00:36:27 <roconnor> what is MM?
  92 2011-11-12 00:36:36 <luke-jr> Merged mining
  93 2011-11-12 00:36:36 <sipa> merged mining
  94 2011-11-12 00:36:42 <luke-jr> multiple block chains with the same proof-of-work
  95 2011-11-12 00:36:56 <roconnor> isn't there only one block chain per network?
  96 2011-11-12 00:37:00 <luke-jr> testnet should be MM to predefined keys, which have public privkeys
  97 2011-11-12 00:37:12 <gmaxwell> reading up thread, I see other factual errors.
  98 2011-11-12 00:37:15 <gmaxwell> "So the probability of overtaking the honest chain after 6 blocks on the 2min intervals is exactly the same as 6 blocks on 10min intervals--hashes/block doesn't figure into the equations anywhere at all."
  99 2011-11-12 00:37:23 <gmaxwell> This is correct but entirely misleading.
 100 2011-11-12 00:37:35 <luke-jr> roconnor: pretty much
 101 2011-11-12 00:37:39 <sipa> roconnor: the trick is putting hashes of the subchain blocks inside the coinbase of mainnet
 102 2011-11-12 00:37:41 <gmaxwell> Because by casting it in terms of "probability" it's leaving the _cost_ free.
 103 2011-11-12 00:38:15 <gmaxwell> The probablity of it happening _by chance_ given the same portion of the hash power is the same.
 104 2011-11-12 00:38:16 btc_novice has left ()
 105 2011-11-12 00:38:17 <luke-jr> sipa: rather, using indirect proofs of work
 106 2011-11-12 00:38:19 <iddo> gmaxwell: it's incorrect if 2min blocks cause more dilution, which they do... but only a little it seems
 107 2011-11-12 00:38:20 <roconnor> sipa: I guess I need to look this up
 108 2011-11-12 00:38:24 <luke-jr> sipa: there doesn't NEED to be a mainnet
 109 2011-11-12 00:38:51 <sipa> luke-jr: sure, i was giving the easy concrete situation
 110 2011-11-12 00:38:58 <sipa> it can be generalized
 111 2011-11-12 00:39:01 <gmaxwell> iddo: no, and yes, I've said before it's only a little. (though the 1s part is off).. but its still not correct.
 112 2011-11-12 00:39:15 <sipa> roconnor: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7219.0
 113 2011-11-12 00:39:17 <luke-jr> roconnor: because NMC supports MM, any Bitcoin pool can mine NMC blocks with the same hashes
 114 2011-11-12 00:40:03 <gmaxwell> iddo: take bitcoin as is it.. switch to 2.5 minute blocks that reward 12.5 BTC instead.
 115 2011-11-12 00:40:06 theorb_ has joined
 116 2011-11-12 00:40:18 <iddo> gmaxwell: the 1s part, you mean 1min blocks?
 117 2011-11-12 00:40:36 theorb has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 118 2011-11-12 00:41:15 <Diablo-D3> HEY GMAXWELL
 119 2011-11-12 00:41:19 <Diablo-D3> YOU KNOW WHAT BITCOIN NEEDS?
 120 2011-11-12 00:41:23 <gmaxwell> iddo: okay. The cost to me to buy computing time to make a 6 block for is 75 BTC.   Vs right now it costs 300 BTC to make a six block fork. So given equal hashing power the _probablity_ of it happening by chance is the same, but the cost of the hashing power to make it happen intentionally is 1/4th.
 121 2011-11-12 00:41:41 amiller has joined
 122 2011-11-12 00:42:02 <Diablo-D3> IT NEEDS WAVELETS
 123 2011-11-12 00:42:14 <phantomcircuit> WAVELETS
 124 2011-11-12 00:42:15 <iddo> gmaxwell: i see
 125 2011-11-12 00:42:24 <Diablo-D3> WAVELETS!
 126 2011-11-12 00:42:32 <gmaxwell> iddo: no, I mean this notion of 1s latency. I've _observed_ propagation times a 1 minute (beteween eligius and btc guild back before luke setup the connect-to-everyone nodes).  While that may be atypically, to propagate a block you must validate it... which is not exactly a instant operation as bitcoin grows.
 127 2011-11-12 00:42:41 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 128 2011-11-12 00:43:47 <iddo> ok, i didn't mean to claim 1s latency is accurate, i was just using simple constant for the simplified probability analysis, i just wonder if this framework of probability analysis is sound
 129 2011-11-12 00:44:16 <gmaxwell> iddo: want the CDF under the event horizon.
 130 2011-11-12 00:44:22 <gmaxwell> er you also want.
 131 2011-11-12 00:44:33 <iddo> huh?
 132 2011-11-12 00:44:43 <iddo> event horizon?
 133 2011-11-12 00:44:44 <gmaxwell> e.g. you want to know what percentage of solutions happen between 0 seconds and the latency limit.
 134 2011-11-12 00:45:27 <Diablo-D3> hey guys, did you know /join 0 parts all channels?
 135 2011-11-12 00:45:46 slush has joined
 136 2011-11-12 00:46:18 <iddo> i don't understand, percentage of solutions?
 137 2011-11-12 00:46:49 eastender has joined
 138 2011-11-12 00:47:11 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: holy crap, you just came up with a reason to increase txn fees
 139 2011-11-12 00:48:18 <iddo> the main issue i was confused with earlier was thinking that different groups of miners trying to extend different forks is dilution, if they extend forks of same length then there's no dilution, and if different length then after latency they'll hear about it and switch
 140 2011-11-12 00:48:42 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I did?
 141 2011-11-12 00:48:51 AStove has quit ()
 142 2011-11-12 00:48:56 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: large block = slower propagation
 143 2011-11-12 00:49:03 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: smaller block = smaller risk of invalid
 144 2011-11-12 00:50:14 <gmaxwell> this was news to you?
 145 2011-11-12 00:50:37 <gmaxwell> it's only a pretty small difference though.
 146 2011-11-12 00:50:41 d4de has joined
 147 2011-11-12 00:50:41 d4de has quit (Changing host)
 148 2011-11-12 00:50:41 d4de has joined
 149 2011-11-12 00:50:49 graingert has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 150 2011-11-12 00:52:12 <Eliel> gmaxwell: and a lot of it could be solved by having the bitcoin nodes be intelligent about who to connect to.
 151 2011-11-12 00:52:20 <luke-jr> hmm
 152 2011-11-12 00:52:26 <luke-jr> flaw with OP_EVAL
 153 2011-11-12 00:52:42 <luke-jr> until now, you could vaguely measure the complexity of a transaction by its size
 154 2011-11-12 00:52:54 <luke-jr> OP_EVAL is one instruction that can do lots of complex stuff :/
 155 2011-11-12 00:53:02 <roconnor> sipa: thanks.  I think I maybe understand that
 156 2011-11-12 00:53:24 <Eliel> what I mean with nodes being intelligent here is that they'd try to find nodes to connect to who'd reduce the maximum path length from them to the furthest node.
 157 2011-11-12 00:53:59 <Eliel> luke-jr: why is that a problem?
 158 2011-11-12 00:54:23 <cjdelisle> Eliel: the easiest way to make the network more intelligent is to connect to nodes who provide blocks and transactions the fastest and disconnect from ones which find out about them slowest
 159 2011-11-12 00:54:33 <luke-jr> Eliel: because it breaks the fee calculations :P
 160 2011-11-12 00:54:34 <cjdelisle> then you get a tree structure much like the internet
 161 2011-11-12 00:54:51 <Eliel> luke-jr: no it doesn't, it moves that stuff to when it's spent.
 162 2011-11-12 00:55:08 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: that would reduce security
 163 2011-11-12 00:55:31 <luke-jr> oh, right
 164 2011-11-12 00:55:41 <luke-jr> that was another part of it
 165 2011-11-12 00:55:49 <cjdelisle> it would have lots of strange security implications but I think it would not be a problem.
 166 2011-11-12 00:55:51 <luke-jr> I think the fee should be based partly on the script of the output
 167 2011-11-12 00:55:53 <luke-jr> not just the input
 168 2011-11-12 00:56:06 <cjdelisle> because you tend to stay connected to fast nodes
 169 2011-11-12 00:56:19 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: right now, Bitcoin has the opposite algorithm
 170 2011-11-12 00:56:22 <Eliel> luke-jr: why?
 171 2011-11-12 00:56:25 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: it prefers nodes the furthest away
 172 2011-11-12 00:56:38 <roconnor> sipa: are any pools doing this merged mining?
 173 2011-11-12 00:56:39 <cjdelisle> hmm
 174 2011-11-12 00:56:41 <luke-jr> Eliel: because the output script has to run to verify the block
 175 2011-11-12 00:56:45 <luke-jr> roconnor: Eligius is
 176 2011-11-12 00:57:03 <theymos> Which networks are you merged mining on?
 177 2011-11-12 00:57:13 <luke-jr> theymos: afaik only NMC supports MM right now
 178 2011-11-12 00:57:29 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: perhaps 8 "diverse jurisdiction" nodes and 8 "fastest" nodes?
 179 2011-11-12 00:57:49 <cjdelisle> interesting
 180 2011-11-12 00:57:55 <cjdelisle> it would have to be testied
 181 2011-11-12 00:57:58 <cjdelisle> *tested
 182 2011-11-12 00:58:06 <Eliel> luke-jr: well, in case of OP_EVAL, it does run when verified, no?
 183 2011-11-12 00:58:19 <luke-jr> Eliel: that's my point.
 184 2011-11-12 00:58:30 <cjdelisle> I can see attacks using ddos in combination to introducing very fast nodes to the network
 185 2011-11-12 00:59:12 <Eliel> luke-jr: I still can't see why it matters i the ee is based on inputs or outputs.
 186 2011-11-12 00:59:16 <cjdelisle> but then I suppose a combination ddos/sybil attack would work even now.
 187 2011-11-12 00:59:46 <luke-jr> Eliel: since transactions slow down a block's propagation time, it's reasonable to make the fee include that cost
 188 2011-11-12 01:00:11 <Eliel> luke-jr: yes, but OP_EVAL transactions do that only when used as inputs.
 189 2011-11-12 01:00:31 <Eliel> and that's when the fee is paid.
 190 2011-11-12 01:00:33 <luke-jr> …
 191 2011-11-12 01:00:47 <luke-jr> right now, fee is based on IncludedTxn's input+output scripts
 192 2011-11-12 01:01:10 <luke-jr> I'm saying bill based on previousTo(IncludedTxn) output + IncludedTxn input
 193 2011-11-12 01:01:19 <luke-jr> possibly + IncludedTxn output to a different degree
 194 2011-11-12 01:02:14 localhost has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 195 2011-11-12 01:02:53 <cjdelisle> I read a bit about op_eval, I still don't understand what is the "killer app" which is not possible without it.
 196 2011-11-12 01:03:02 <Eliel> ah, now I get it, maybe. :)
 197 2011-11-12 01:03:22 wasabi2 has joined
 198 2011-11-12 01:03:23 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: "(KeyA and KeyB) or KeyC" to redeem
 199 2011-11-12 01:03:42 <cjdelisle> ahh ol
 200 2011-11-12 01:03:44 <cjdelisle> ok
 201 2011-11-12 01:05:01 <Eliel> luke-jr: you want to make sure the fee algorithm makes you pay for only the stuff you caused to be in the blockchain.
 202 2011-11-12 01:05:26 <luke-jr> Eliel: also for the added risk of an invalid block, IMO
 203 2011-11-12 01:05:32 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 204 2011-11-12 01:06:18 localhost has joined
 205 2011-11-12 01:07:08 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: if the opeval is complicated then the txn spending it will be big.
 206 2011-11-12 01:07:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ah, ok then
 207 2011-11-12 01:07:23 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: and its when that txn happens that you actually do the evaluation.
 208 2011-11-12 01:07:28 <gmaxwell> so it's okay.
 209 2011-11-12 01:07:58 <gmaxwell> I pointed out in my first forum response to OP_EVAL is that it might sometimes make people mad: right now if you make an unspendably fat txn it just gets stuck and your coin stays put.
 210 2011-11-12 01:08:22 <gmaxwell> With op_eval you can make an unspendably fat destination and the coins become stuck in limbo until you can convince someone to mine the txn spending them.
 211 2011-11-12 01:08:43 <gmaxwell> but I don't think it's a really serious issue.
 212 2011-11-12 01:11:33 Cusipzzz has joined
 213 2011-11-12 01:11:53 osmosis has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 214 2011-11-12 01:14:07 Burgundy has quit ()
 215 2011-11-12 01:15:21 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 216 2011-11-12 01:15:41 denisx has joined
 217 2011-11-12 01:17:12 graingert has joined
 218 2011-11-12 01:23:05 zeta-51b has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 219 2011-11-12 01:25:57 crazy_imp has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 220 2011-11-12 01:26:11 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: so I'm thinking that as a useful security improvement, mining nodes ought to be smart enough to detect network partitions and to stop adding transactions (or only add 'trusted' txn) to blocks when they suspect there may be a parition. (They'd keep mining of course, hoping that they're on the wining side of any partition) Do you have any thoughts on what metrics would be acceptable for this.
 221 2011-11-12 01:26:36 tyn has joined
 222 2011-11-12 01:26:43 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I see no reason to stop accepting txns
 223 2011-11-12 01:28:00 crazy_imp has joined
 224 2011-11-12 01:29:16 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: imagine that the EU and and US were mostly partitioned due to some crazy cable cuts/terrorist attack whatever. People could spend on both sides.. get many confirmations.. but only one side would survive.
 225 2011-11-12 01:29:55 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: that's why you get a warning when the hashrate dropoff is detected on your client
 226 2011-11-12 01:29:56 <gmaxwell> The vulnerability would be greatly reduced if both sides stopped processing txn during such an event automatically... knowing that there is a chance the txn they're validating could end up on the losing side.
 227 2011-11-12 01:30:16 <makomk> In theory it only takes one person with a connection across to stop the partition.
 228 2011-11-12 01:30:17 <luke-jr> miners are no better off at detecting it than users
 229 2011-11-12 01:30:44 <luke-jr> but if miners stop accepting txns altogether, it makes recovery harder
 230 2011-11-12 01:30:55 <gmaxwell> makomk: yes, in _theory_. But seeming redundant infrastructure often has shared fate.
 231 2011-11-12 01:31:14 <makomk> Indeed.
 232 2011-11-12 01:31:16 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: how does it make recovery harder, except a bigger backlog?
 233 2011-11-12 01:31:32 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: bigger backlog is what i meant
 234 2011-11-12 01:32:07 Transformer has joined
 235 2011-11-12 01:32:17 <luke-jr> it should be up to clients to refuse to Confirm transactions when they detect a split
 236 2011-11-12 01:32:24 <gmaxwell> Yes, slow txn after an unspeakably severe network partition is a pretty boring problem compared to a lot of doublespending activity.
 237 2011-11-12 01:32:43 <gmaxwell> In particular, a shutdown behavior would discourage trouble makers from intentionally bringing about such a partition.
 238 2011-11-12 01:33:10 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I guess you're right that the client part is necessary and sufficient. Fair enough.
 239 2011-11-12 01:33:12 TheZimm has joined
 240 2011-11-12 01:33:22 <graingert> gmaxwell: the connection algorithm could be altered to use a distributed algorithm that protects against splits
 241 2011-11-12 01:33:45 <graingert> eg a circle of nodes
 242 2011-11-12 01:33:55 Transformer has quit (Excess Flood)
 243 2011-11-12 01:34:03 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 244 2011-11-12 01:34:04 <gmaxwell> graingert: randomly wired graphs already have pretty fantastic properties... and they're immune to gaming behavior.
 245 2011-11-12 01:34:36 <gmaxwell> graingert: vs if the nodes tried to achieve some particular well distributed property an attacker could game it to create cuts.
 246 2011-11-12 01:34:46 <graingert> the fact that a single connection can ruin a split
 247 2011-11-12 01:34:49 <graingert> is sufficient to me
 248 2011-11-12 01:34:52 <graingert> tbh
 249 2011-11-12 01:35:05 <graingert> taking advantage of multicast would be pretty cool
 250 2011-11-12 01:35:08 luke-jr has quit (Excess Flood)
 251 2011-11-12 01:35:28 luke-jr has joined
 252 2011-11-12 01:35:49 <gmaxwell> graingert: nontrivial partitions happen on the internet with some regularity.. usually not geographic ones (though e.g. see how we lost most of the middle east/india two years ago) but ones between providers... often due to human error with massive shared fate.
 253 2011-11-12 01:36:43 <graingert> if bitcoin became "big"
 254 2011-11-12 01:36:55 <graingert> ensuring the internet did not split will become even more important
 255 2011-11-12 01:37:26 <luke-jr> anyone remember when some large portion of internet traffic US->US got rerouted through China for some time period?
 256 2011-11-12 01:37:36 <graingert> oh dear
 257 2011-11-12 01:37:38 <graingert> that
 258 2011-11-12 01:37:38 <gmaxwell> we can make bitcoin splits less likely by providing non-internet links between big miners.
 259 2011-11-12 01:37:40 <graingert> lol
 260 2011-11-12 01:37:51 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: good idea
 261 2011-11-12 01:38:04 <luke-jr> except perhaps not necessarily miners
 262 2011-11-12 01:38:05 <graingert> HAM radio
 263 2011-11-12 01:38:11 <graingert> maybe use the ionosphere
 264 2011-11-12 01:38:23 <luke-jr> graingert: yeah, peer with whoever talks on HAM radio :D
 265 2011-11-12 01:38:34 <gmaxwell> graingert: I've tried to get people to do an HF bitcoin link with me between the US and europe but I can't find a taker on the europe side.
 266 2011-11-12 01:38:45 <graingert> bounce it off sky's satellite
 267 2011-11-12 01:39:05 <graingert> gmaxwell: I know a wireless society
 268 2011-11-12 01:39:10 <gmaxwell> Satellite is often kinda tricky.. there is now a lot of internet reliance at the ground stations.
 269 2011-11-12 01:39:30 <graingert> gmaxwell: sky's satalite bounces irrispectively
 270 2011-11-12 01:40:27 <graingert> gmaxwell: okay talking to someone from SOWN now
 271 2011-11-12 01:40:36 <gmaxwell> bitcoin via moonbounce. ;)
 272 2011-11-12 01:40:42 <roconnor> gmaxwell: are you serious about a radio link?
 273 2011-11-12 01:40:47 <luke-jr> HAM is probably good
 274 2011-11-12 01:40:52 <luke-jr> UDP HAM ideally
 275 2011-11-12 01:40:56 <gmaxwell> roconnor: sure.
 276 2011-11-12 01:40:57 * Eliel wonders how useful a satellite covered (earth facing) with a spherical mirror would be. Theoretically could allow forming direct laser links between different places :)
 277 2011-11-12 01:41:20 <graingert> Eliel: tracking would be insane
 278 2011-11-12 01:41:29 <graingert> microwaves are much better
 279 2011-11-12 01:41:33 <gmaxwell> Eliel: sounds like the plot for a superman villian.. "I'll clame its for comms but I'll really use it as a reflector for a DEATH BEAM"
 280 2011-11-12 01:41:45 <Eliel> yep, would need quite advanced tracking :)
 281 2011-11-12 01:41:50 <Eliel> gmaxwell: haha, yep :)
 282 2011-11-12 01:41:54 <roconnor> gmaxwell: do we need to transmit transactions or just blocks?
 283 2011-11-12 01:42:07 <luke-jr> just blocks imo
 284 2011-11-12 01:42:08 <gmaxwell> roconnor: I'd just transmit blocks. And probably pruned blocks.
 285 2011-11-12 01:42:14 <Eliel> blocks is sufficient.
 286 2011-11-12 01:42:27 <roconnor> gmaxwell: pruned blocks seems insufficent
 287 2011-11-12 01:42:37 <graingert> gmaxwell: SUWS*
 288 2011-11-12 01:42:42 <gmaxwell> roconnor: you'd have to trust that it was actually validated.
 289 2011-11-12 01:42:55 <graingert> gmaxwell: http://suws.susu.org/index.php/Southampton_University_Wireless_Society
 290 2011-11-12 01:43:17 * gmaxwell is being pulled off to dinner
 291 2011-11-12 01:44:00 luke-jr has quit (Excess Flood)
 292 2011-11-12 01:44:18 luke-jr has joined
 293 2011-11-12 01:44:26 <luke-jr> speaking of netsplits…
 294 2011-11-12 01:44:35 <graingert> luke-jr: that was excess flood
 295 2011-11-12 01:44:49 <luke-jr> but anyhow, IMO HAM should be as anonymous as possible-- ie, not publish where the links are
 296 2011-11-12 01:45:03 <luke-jr> graingert: yeah, packet loss = delayed traffic = all of it hits Freenode at once
 297 2011-11-12 01:45:20 <graingert> IC
 298 2011-11-12 01:45:56 xtor_ has joined
 299 2011-11-12 01:46:27 * Eliel wonders if any group is working on an open spec wireless lan protocol that's actually designed to work well even when the place is crowded with other devices supporting the spec.
 300 2011-11-12 01:47:21 <Eliel> the wlans I've used so far have proved to be very unusable if there's a lot of users.
 301 2011-11-12 01:47:21 <JFK911> like 802.11s?
 302 2011-11-12 01:47:28 <graingert> Eliel: an automated metal grappel
 303 2011-11-12 01:47:37 <graingert> that can fire and connect between divices
 304 2011-11-12 01:47:42 <luke-jr> Eliel: GSM?
 305 2011-11-12 01:47:46 <luke-jr> GPRS
 306 2011-11-12 01:47:48 <graingert> powerfull enough to penetrate through people
 307 2011-11-12 01:48:31 <luke-jr> Motive for murder: the victim was blocking his direct line of sight to his network link
 308 2011-11-12 01:48:36 <Eliel> luke-jr: GSM and 3G fit the bill but they're rather ... umm. specific tech.
 309 2011-11-12 01:48:51 <luke-jr> 3G isn't something you can run at home :/
 310 2011-11-12 01:48:57 <luke-jr> GSM/GPRS is
 311 2011-11-12 01:49:11 <luke-jr> provided it's low-power
 312 2011-11-12 01:49:12 <Eliel> interesting
 313 2011-11-12 01:49:28 <luke-jr> and not interfering with others I presume
 314 2011-11-12 01:49:58 <phantomcircuit> GSM is pretty slow actually
 315 2011-11-12 01:51:32 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: fast enough for blocks!
 316 2011-11-12 01:51:39 <phantomcircuit> maybe
 317 2011-11-12 01:51:51 <Eliel> JFK911: 802.11s doesn't quite fit the bill since it relies on the easily congested links made with wlan standard.
 318 2011-11-12 01:51:53 <phantomcircuit> fast enough for blocks
 319 2011-11-12 01:52:01 <phantomcircuit> maybe fast enough for transactions
 320 2011-11-12 01:53:09 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
 321 2011-11-12 02:01:35 dr_win has joined
 322 2011-11-12 02:03:01 wasabi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 323 2011-11-12 02:05:00 wasabi has joined
 324 2011-11-12 02:05:12 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 325 2011-11-12 02:05:15 aglenday has joined
 326 2011-11-12 02:13:42 <roconnor> Ugh!
 327 2011-11-12 02:13:54 <roconnor> the alternate stack is cleared on each call to EvalScript
 328 2011-11-12 02:14:03 <roconnor> this protocol is like a minefield
 329 2011-11-12 02:14:11 etotheipi_ has joined
 330 2011-11-12 02:14:21 <roconnor> anyone want to make a note in the wiki?
 331 2011-11-12 02:16:48 <roconnor> To be more specific, the alternate stack is effectively cleared between when the publickey script and the sigature script are executed.
 332 2011-11-12 02:17:47 <etotheipi_> ahh.. I always wondered about that (I guess I could've just looked in the src code)
 333 2011-11-12 02:18:31 * roconnor wonders if bitcoinj does this right
 334 2011-11-12 02:18:39 <roconnor> TD is probably more careful than me
 335 2011-11-12 02:19:44 eastender has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 336 2011-11-12 02:20:17 aglenday has quit (Quit:  HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- The alternative IRC client)
 337 2011-11-12 02:21:48 <roconnor> it looks like bitcoinj doesn't support non-standard transactions.
 338 2011-11-12 02:21:52 OneFixt_ has joined
 339 2011-11-12 02:22:11 <roconnor> but I was told that there are non-standard transactions in the mainline
 340 2011-11-12 02:22:22 <roconnor> oh wait, maybe bitcoinj doesn't verify transactions
 341 2011-11-12 02:23:15 <etotheipi_> btw, I don't remember any scripts exercising the alt stack, but I did extract every non-std tx from the testnet, last week
 342 2011-11-12 02:23:28 <etotheipi_> there's some pretty elaborate ones in there, if you're interested in seeing them
 343 2011-11-12 02:23:46 <etotheipi_> err... they do use the alt stack, but not between TxNew.script and TxOld.script
 344 2011-11-12 02:24:28 SomeoneWeird has joined
 345 2011-11-12 02:24:29 SomeoneWeird has quit (Changing host)
 346 2011-11-12 02:24:29 SomeoneWeird has joined
 347 2011-11-12 02:25:13 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 348 2011-11-12 02:25:51 <etotheipi_> https://github.com/etotheipi/PyBtcEngine/blob/master/testnetNonStdScript.txt  -- I found them really useful for debugging my scripting engine
 349 2011-11-12 02:26:50 <roconnor> etotheipi_: thanks
 350 2011-11-12 02:27:24 <etotheipi_> https://github.com/etotheipi/PyBtcEngine/blob/master/scriptEvalStackState.txt
 351 2011-11-12 02:27:30 <pumpkin> roconnor: still planning on doing it in coq?
 352 2011-11-12 02:27:33 <etotheipi_> that is the intermediate output of the scripts at every step
 353 2011-11-12 02:28:22 <roconnor> pumpkin: heh, not really
 354 2011-11-12 02:28:53 <roconnor> etotheipi_: does that mean you know if numbers are big or little endian?
 355 2011-11-12 02:29:15 <etotheipi_> in scripts, most numbers are big endian
 356 2011-11-12 02:29:19 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 357 2011-11-12 02:29:20 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 358 2011-11-12 02:29:52 <roconnor> etotheipi_: really?  I think they are little endian, but I have very little confidence
 359 2011-11-12 02:29:54 <etotheipi_> but it's not always the case, I can double check for you on any particular number
 360 2011-11-12 02:30:03 <etotheipi_> the public key integers are stored in big-endian (in the 65-byte public key)
 361 2011-11-12 02:30:11 <roconnor> yes that is true
 362 2011-11-12 02:30:30 <etotheipi_> hold on, I'll check
 363 2011-11-12 02:30:48 <roconnor> etotheipi_: you need to run an operations that overflows 256 with OP_ADD
 364 2011-11-12 02:30:54 denisx has joined
 365 2011-11-12 02:31:53 <etotheipi_> okay, var_ints are little endian
 366 2011-11-12 02:31:55 <roconnor> etotheipi_: are you building test scripts?
 367 2011-11-12 02:32:18 <roconnor> cause it would be great to build a test script that fails if then endianess is implemented wrong
 368 2011-11-12 02:32:35 <etotheipi_> so you're right, most numbers are little endian
 369 2011-11-12 02:32:51 <roconnor> and another if the alternate stack isn't cleared between pubkey script and signing script
 370 2011-11-12 02:33:15 <pumpkin> wait, there are differing endiannesses in the protocol?
 371 2011-11-12 02:33:18 <pumpkin> that's kinda weird
 372 2011-11-12 02:33:28 <etotheipi_> the endianness is a disaster
 373 2011-11-12 02:33:38 <roconnor> pumpkin: the difference is roughly that bitcoin is all little endian and openssl stuff is big endian
 374 2011-11-12 02:33:45 <pumpkin> ouch
 375 2011-11-12 02:33:50 <pumpkin> and openssl shit is encoded into the protocol?
 376 2011-11-12 02:34:02 <roconnor> yep
 377 2011-11-12 02:34:03 <roconnor> directly
 378 2011-11-12 02:34:15 <pumpkin> sounds like a blast for mr. reimplement it all in pure haskell
 379 2011-11-12 02:34:37 <pumpkin> :P
 380 2011-11-12 02:34:38 <roconnor> pumpkin: oh, and I don't think bitcoin runs properly on non Intel arch
 381 2011-11-12 02:34:52 <pumpkin> roconnor: for reasons other than endianness?
 382 2011-11-12 02:34:59 <roconnor> for endianness
 383 2011-11-12 02:35:12 <pumpkin> oh, so anything big-endian
 384 2011-11-12 02:35:19 <roconnor> ya
 385 2011-11-12 02:35:23 <roconnor> I guess that's what I mean
 386 2011-11-12 02:35:26 <pumpkin> anyone have an old ppc?
 387 2011-11-12 02:35:32 <etotheipi_> I think functional programming language will be excellent platform for BTC
 388 2011-11-12 02:35:34 <pumpkin> or even a new ppc :P
 389 2011-11-12 02:35:43 <roconnor> etotheipi_: I have a Haskell implementation
 390 2011-11-12 02:35:46 <etotheipi_> at least the protocol
 391 2011-11-12 02:35:56 <pumpkin> roconnor accidentally the whole thing
 392 2011-11-12 02:35:57 <etotheipi_> err.. the computational
 393 2011-11-12 02:36:02 <roconnor> of the core block verification engine
 394 2011-11-12 02:36:31 <roconnor> the scripting langauge is incomplete; I'm working on supporting nonstandard transactions
 395 2011-11-12 02:36:32 <etotheipi_> I'll tell you the most confusing endianness
 396 2011-11-12 02:36:41 <etotheipi_> in OP_CHECKSIG
 397 2011-11-12 02:37:18 <etotheipi_> you have to attach a little-endian hashcode... then hash the value, and convert to big-endian before ECDSA signing
 398 2011-11-12 02:37:24 <pumpkin> lol
 399 2011-11-12 02:37:33 <pumpkin> nice
 400 2011-11-12 02:37:37 <pumpkin> I gotta go, but will bbiab
 401 2011-11-12 02:37:40 pumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 402 2011-11-12 02:37:48 erus` has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 8.0/20111104165243])
 403 2011-11-12 02:38:28 <etotheipi_> well, that file I gave you with non-std scripts is invaluable
 404 2011-11-12 02:38:33 <etotheipi_> but only test ones that have been spent
 405 2011-11-12 02:39:02 <etotheipi_> people can put anything in the TxOut script, but you don't know if it's a "legit" script until you see them spend it
 406 2011-11-12 02:39:14 <roconnor> etotheipi_: right
 407 2011-11-12 02:39:25 <etotheipi_> there's quite a few confusing ones: like the first 6 or so in that file that look like pubkey scripts... but contain 6 extra bytes
 408 2011-11-12 02:39:46 <etotheipi_> do you have OP_CHECKSIG implemented?
 409 2011-11-12 02:39:51 <roconnor> yes
 410 2011-11-12 02:39:59 <etotheipi_> okay, well that's the worst part
 411 2011-11-12 02:40:43 <roconnor> oh, maybe I haven't done the signature filtering
 412 2011-11-12 02:41:13 <etotheipi_> I mean, have you gotten to the part with hashcodes, txCopy, and actually signing/verifying?
 413 2011-11-12 02:41:16 <etotheipi_> because that's a total bitch
 414 2011-11-12 02:42:12 <roconnor> yep
 415 2011-11-12 02:42:20 <roconnor> though txCopy isn't so hard in an immutable language :P
 416 2011-11-12 02:42:28 <etotheipi_> https://github.com/etotheipi/PyBtcEngine/blob/master/unittest.py
 417 2011-11-12 02:42:33 <roconnor> since everything is a copy (ish)
 418 2011-11-12 02:42:46 <etotheipi_> the bottom of that file contains a 2-of-2, 2-of-3, and a OP_CHECKMULTISIG
 419 2011-11-12 02:43:02 <etotheipi_> both TxOut script and TxIn script spending them
 420 2011-11-12 02:43:11 <roconnor> etotheipi_: python implementation?
 421 2011-11-12 02:43:30 <etotheipi_> yes, I'm putting together a ton of tools in python... eventually a client
 422 2011-11-12 02:44:09 <roconnor> nice
 423 2011-11-12 02:44:22 <roconnor> I'd be happy to copy your tests :D
 424 2011-11-12 02:44:28 <etotheipi_> go for it
 425 2011-11-12 02:44:42 <etotheipi_> those three tests at the bottom are all you need for upcoming multi-sig tx's
 426 2011-11-12 02:44:52 <etotheipi_> if they ever make it into the client
 427 2011-11-12 02:45:12 <etotheipi_> they're probably overkill for it
 428 2011-11-12 02:45:21 <roconnor> well, I want to be able to verify everything in testnet
 429 2011-11-12 02:45:30 <roconnor> everything that is executed
 430 2011-11-12 02:46:02 <etotheipi_> https://github.com/etotheipi/PyBtcEngine/blob/master/scriptEvalStackState.txt again, that's the intermediate output of each of those three tests
 431 2011-11-12 02:46:12 <etotheipi_> there's like 30 opcodes each
 432 2011-11-12 02:46:24 <etotheipi_> if you can handle that, you are in really good shape
 433 2011-11-12 02:48:44 HaltingState has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 434 2011-11-12 02:51:47 xtor_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 435 2011-11-12 02:52:11 extor has joined
 436 2011-11-12 02:55:59 conman has joined
 437 2011-11-12 02:56:03 shadders has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 438 2011-11-12 02:57:05 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
 439 2011-11-12 02:58:07 Turingi has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 440 2011-11-12 03:00:19 TheZimm has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 441 2011-11-12 03:01:37 BitCoinUser has joined
 442 2011-11-12 03:03:51 eoss has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 443 2011-11-12 03:05:09 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
 444 2011-11-12 03:07:11 TheZimm has joined
 445 2011-11-12 03:07:44 <roconnor> etotheipi_: for me, my addBlock code is what is still a mess
 446 2011-11-12 03:08:11 <etotheipi_> you mean, updating your internal blockchain with a new block?
 447 2011-11-12 03:08:19 eastender has joined
 448 2011-11-12 03:08:56 <roconnor> mostly checking all the things you need to check before adding a block
 449 2011-11-12 03:09:12 <etotheipi_> I had quite a battle with mine
 450 2011-11-12 03:09:17 <roconnor> checking timestamps, recalculating difficulties, making sure transactions are final
 451 2011-11-12 03:09:24 <etotheipi_> oh, I don't actually do that
 452 2011-11-12 03:09:40 <roconnor> it is so complicated that even satoshi got it wrong
 453 2011-11-12 03:09:47 <etotheipi_> I believe it
 454 2011-11-12 03:09:53 <etotheipi_> I've seen the lists of things to check
 455 2011-11-12 03:10:19 <etotheipi_> I'm skipping that step because it's going to be godawful slow in Python, and even Gavin said that normal clients probably won't need to be doing it in the future
 456 2011-11-12 03:10:22 <roconnor> oh an you have to round all the calcualtions eactly the right way
 457 2011-11-12 03:10:57 dvide has quit ()
 458 2011-11-12 03:11:09 <etotheipi_> for me, the fact that the block made it into my blockchain is evidence enough that it's valid:  all the miners are verifying it for me :)
 459 2011-11-12 03:11:40 <roconnor> etotheipi_: unless you have been isolated from the network and are being scammed :P
 460 2011-11-12 03:11:47 <etotheipi_> ...except for that
 461 2011-11-12 03:12:45 <etotheipi_> I had to make some... tradeoffs... I knew that was going to be a bitch, and I didn't think it was entirely necessary, so I decided to skip it
 462 2011-11-12 03:12:52 <roconnor> it's reasonable :P
 463 2011-11-12 03:13:28 <etotheipi_> my plan is actually to just to put in very light networking code, and access my bitcoin/bitcoind node through a localhost socket
 464 2011-11-12 03:13:33 <roconnor> I don't have any features like wallets sending transactions, or even a decent network connection.
 465 2011-11-12 03:13:40 copumpkin has joined
 466 2011-11-12 03:13:45 <etotheipi_> then my node can do all the complicated verification and networking
 467 2011-11-12 03:13:59 <etotheipi_> and my python code can sit back and only worry about making/receiving txsw
 468 2011-11-12 03:14:02 <roconnor> ya, I only connect to localhost :D
 469 2011-11-12 03:14:24 <etotheipi_> Well I"m sure you know, too... there's a LOT of details
 470 2011-11-12 03:14:33 <etotheipi_> SelectCoins was a bitch
 471 2011-11-12 03:14:46 <gmaxwell> selectcoins isn't normative at least
 472 2011-11-12 03:14:46 <roconnor> ooh, my funny transactions on testnet have a confirmation
 473 2011-11-12 03:14:48 <etotheipi_> and I'm workign on wallets and wallet encyrption now
 474 2011-11-12 03:15:18 <gmaxwell> you could do that crazy thing someone on the forums suggested... just take inputs in order of smallest to largest and stop when you reach the required output size. :)
 475 2011-11-12 03:15:38 <etotheipi_> I think I actually came up with a really good idea.... and it seems to work really well
 476 2011-11-12 03:15:55 <etotheipi_> write a method for *evaluating* a SelectCoins answer
 477 2011-11-12 03:16:03 <etotheipi_> put a lot of time into getting it right
 478 2011-11-12 03:16:05 <gmaxwell> link to a non-linear integer programming solver. and let it handle it?
 479 2011-11-12 03:16:21 <etotheipi_> In my case, my evaluator spits out six scores
 480 2011-11-12 03:16:34 <etotheipi_> for tx_size, num-addr-combined, anonymity, etc
 481 2011-11-12 03:16:45 <etotheipi_> you can choose some weights for each score
 482 2011-11-12 03:16:51 <roconnor> http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/rawtx/362bbbf21f6d0b47ee2e45f975b4c2bd81ed49ba371cbd618835e91b00a66006
 483 2011-11-12 03:16:57 <gmaxwell> Hopefully fee/priority is one/two of them?
 484 2011-11-12 03:16:58 <roconnor> "ver":971503818
 485 2011-11-12 03:17:00 <roconnor> :)
 486 2011-11-12 03:17:10 <etotheipi_> then just randomize the order of your coins 1000 times
 487 2011-11-12 03:17:22 <etotheipi_> and pick the one with the best score (yes allowFree is my top priority)
 488 2011-11-12 03:17:47 SomeoneWeird_ has joined
 489 2011-11-12 03:17:47 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: that kind of solver will fail impressively if your wallet gets bloated with a large number of 'useless' txn.
 490 2011-11-12 03:18:00 <etotheipi_> haha, well that's the start of it
 491 2011-11-12 03:18:09 <gmaxwell> E.g. if I send you a bunch of 1e-8 coins you'll probably fail to reach a solution.
 492 2011-11-12 03:18:09 <etotheipi_> I also have a dozen non-random inputs
 493 2011-11-12 03:18:49 Cusipzzz has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 494 2011-11-12 03:18:50 <etotheipi_> every time I think of a solution for one type of coin-selection-problem, I write up a quick method and throw it in with the randoms
 495 2011-11-12 03:19:01 <gmaxwell> In any case, any weight of those optimization targets could be stated as a non-linear integer program, and the relaxiation can be linearized and solved with branch/bound/cut.
 496 2011-11-12 03:19:16 <etotheipi_> I'm sure simplex might help
 497 2011-11-12 03:19:50 <gmaxwell> Might be fun to have a contest.
 498 2011-11-12 03:20:10 <etotheipi_> but yeah, I didn't mean to suggest COMPLETELY random, but it prevents you from having to come up with ONE algorithm... you can throw in dozens and the best one for the moment wins
 499 2011-11-12 03:20:20 <etotheipi_> and it's easy to change the weights to just change the prioiritization
 500 2011-11-12 03:20:30 <etotheipi_> perhaps I want max anonymity on this tx
 501 2011-11-12 03:20:32 SomeoneWeird has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 502 2011-11-12 03:20:46 <gmaxwell> You've made the measurement code... generate a bunch of fake wallets and transactions to evaluate against them. .. publish half the fake problems... people submit code... then you score the winners on the hidden set.
 503 2011-11-12 03:21:18 <etotheipi_> that's what I did to test my algorithm actually
 504 2011-11-12 03:21:22 <etotheipi_> for myself
 505 2011-11-12 03:21:44 <etotheipi_> but it does seem like it would make a good competition
 506 2011-11-12 03:22:01 <gmaxwell> So how well does your work compared to the solver it bitcoin e.g. for best txn size?
 507 2011-11-12 03:22:25 <etotheipi_> I'm not sure how the satoshi client does it
 508 2011-11-12 03:22:40 <roconnor> Also my transaction uses nHashType = 0xa0
 509 2011-11-12 03:22:42 shadders has joined
 510 2011-11-12 03:23:20 <etotheipi_> but I'm extremely happy with the outputs... sometimes it adds one too many input addresses... but it always finds a solution I'm happy with
 511 2011-11-12 03:23:28 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: it the testing I did it seemed to always pick the smallest tx data size (of the txn it was considering). Does a pretty good job at that.
 512 2011-11-12 03:24:07 <etotheipi_> now that you mention it, I will have to re-run with some really challenging wallets: to see if I can find free tx in difficult situations
 513 2011-11-12 03:24:12 SomeoneWeird__ has joined
 514 2011-11-12 03:24:49 <gmaxwell> yea, the flaw with the current code is that its priority blind .. and the fact that the first cut is only 6 confirms means that it will often end up generating a fee needing txn when it wouldn't have to.
 515 2011-11-12 03:25:00 <gmaxwell> (well, depending on the composition of the wallet)
 516 2011-11-12 03:25:21 <etotheipi_> one of my priority/scores is number of trailing zeros
 517 2011-11-12 03:25:29 <gmaxwell> \0/
 518 2011-11-12 03:25:37 <etotheipi_> and if the zeros are close, then size of change output compared to target
 519 2011-11-12 03:25:39 <roconnor> trailing zeros?
 520 2011-11-12 03:25:42 <gmaxwell> Yea, cancel out that dust.
 521 2011-11-12 03:25:53 <gmaxwell> roconnor: dust elimination.
 522 2011-11-12 03:26:12 <etotheipi_> and one of my filters targets making tx's twice as big as target: remove small change outputs, improve anonymity
 523 2011-11-12 03:26:15 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
 524 2011-11-12 03:26:15 <gmaxwell> Now that all the pool are giving out full precision payments the whole fresh address for change is a complete waste of time.
 525 2011-11-12 03:26:21 <gmaxwell> You can almost always identify people's change now.
 526 2011-11-12 03:26:56 <roconnor> meh, I don't even pretend that bitcoin is anonymous
 527 2011-11-12 03:27:00 <etotheipi_> right... well if you send someone 1 BTC, that 10000000, and if you send 1.274823 that's 127482300
 528 2011-11-12 03:27:09 <gmaxwell> forget anonymous. Anonymous shouldn't be a goal.
 529 2011-11-12 03:27:11 <etotheipi_> the first has 8 trailing zeros
 530 2011-11-12 03:27:15 <etotheipi_> the second has only 2
 531 2011-11-12 03:27:37 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
 532 2011-11-12 03:27:40 SomeoneWeird_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 533 2011-11-12 03:27:45 <gmaxwell> roconnor: the problem isn't lacking anonymity, it's lacking _privacy_. It sucks when bitcoin is more subject to snooping by your neighbor, coworkers, family, etc. than traditional banking.
 534 2011-11-12 03:27:50 <etotheipi_> if one is output the other is change:  I look for txs that are within 1 trailing zero of each other
 535 2011-11-12 03:27:55 <gmaxwell> 'anonymity' in bitcoin is our only source of privacy.
 536 2011-11-12 03:28:06 <etotheipi_> extra credit if the change tx has more trailing zeros
 537 2011-11-12 03:28:52 <etotheipi_> and to my surprise, I got a lot of selections that led to say, a target 1.24, and change of 1.3
 538 2011-11-12 03:29:06 <roconnor> gmaxwell: I had an idea once about using homomorphic encryption to encrypt transaction amounts
 539 2011-11-12 03:29:35 <etotheipi_> how do you do that in BTC
 540 2011-11-12 03:29:59 <etotheipi_> I'm pretty sure you can't hide the amount
 541 2011-11-12 03:30:02 <roconnor> well it wouldn't be bitcoin anymore since the protocol would have to be vastly different
 542 2011-11-12 03:30:08 <gmaxwell> hm. so you could see the outputs add to the input.. but not what the ouputs are?
 543 2011-11-12 03:30:15 <roconnor> gmaxwell: exactly
 544 2011-11-12 03:30:31 <gmaxwell> cute. a zillion X data expansion though?
 545 2011-11-12 03:30:32 <roconnor> though you still need to make sure that the balances aren't negative
 546 2011-11-12 03:30:32 SomeoneWeird__ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 547 2011-11-12 03:30:45 <bd_> actually the only parties that need to know the outputs add to the input are the ones who eventually receive the coin
 548 2011-11-12 03:30:46 <roconnor> but it appears that this is still doable
 549 2011-11-12 03:30:55 <roconnor> (or at least with very high probability)
 550 2011-11-12 03:31:12 <gmaxwell> bd_: hm? the network needs to know that you're not pulling coin out of thin air.
 551 2011-11-12 03:31:14 <bd_> you could in principle encrypt all the txouts with an ephemeral key, and include this key in any txins referencing it, as well as encrypted to the recipient keys
 552 2011-11-12 03:31:44 <gmaxwell> ah, then only the miner mining it would see it.. but then he could throw out the key and forget.
 553 2011-11-12 03:31:48 <roconnor> gmaxwell: ya, the coinbase won't really be hidden; everyone will know its value
 554 2011-11-12 03:31:52 <bd_> gmaxwell: no, only the people receiving the coins need to be able to do validation. If you make an illegal transaction you simply waste any coins you reference
 555 2011-11-12 03:32:06 <bd_> (since the resulting coin would be unspendable)
 556 2011-11-12 03:32:26 <bd_> downside is that you have to validate the entire transaction chain in order to accept a coin
 557 2011-11-12 03:32:36 <gmaxwell> bd_: I was just about to say...
 558 2011-11-12 03:32:39 <bd_> which could be extremely expensive
 559 2011-11-12 03:32:48 <roconnor> gmaxwell: the miner just needs to know that the sum of the inputs equals the sum of the outputs; not the values themselves.
 560 2011-11-12 03:32:55 <gmaxwell> especially since it grows exponentially as coins are merged and split.
 561 2011-11-12 03:33:26 <bd_> roconnor: yes, but if you find some way to hide this information we get back to the problem of who validates this sum
 562 2011-11-12 03:33:31 <roconnor> bd_: my idea was to make it publically verifiable that the sum of the inputs equals the sum of the outputs in each transaction.
 563 2011-11-12 03:33:37 <bd_> and then we have the validating-entire-txn-tree-on-recipt problem
 564 2011-11-12 03:33:57 <bd_> roconnor: how do you validate txins then, though?
 565 2011-11-12 03:33:59 <roconnor> bd_: the miner (and strong clients) can do the verification; like it is done now.
 566 2011-11-12 03:34:05 <gmaxwell> bd_: roconnor proposes that you use a cryptographic scheme that makes it easy for anyone to validate the sum but hard to know the values.
 567 2011-11-12 03:34:14 <bd_> say someone makes a coin with two txouts: A = 1 BTC, B = 2 BTC
 568 2011-11-12 03:34:19 <bd_> (with amounts blinded)
 569 2011-11-12 03:34:31 <bd_> now, say there's another coin, with TXIN=A, TXOUT = 1 BTC, 1 BTC
 570 2011-11-12 03:34:46 <bd_> miners can't determine if this is invalid, since they can't see the amount of A
 571 2011-11-12 03:34:50 <gmaxwell> E.g. addition over ecc can have properties like this.. but I think you can end up with multiple solutions that still sum but are crazy.
 572 2011-11-12 03:34:53 <bd_> therefore the recipient must validate
 573 2011-11-12 03:35:20 <bd_> but they need to validate the entire tree, because an attacker can build an arbitrarily deep tree of illegal transactions
 574 2011-11-12 03:36:58 <gmaxwell> bd_: You've ignored what roconnor said he was considering. It would allow the public to verify the sum. For example I can give you a big number and you can tell that it's big.. but you can't easily tell me what its prime factors are (if I picked a big number that had no small factors)
 575 2011-11-12 03:37:11 <bd_> the sum isn't what I'm worried about
 576 2011-11-12 03:37:23 <bd_> I'm worried about the value in a txin being equal to the value in the txout it's referring to
 577 2011-11-12 03:37:45 <bd_> How do you check this? And without giving away information about the txins in the parent coin?
 578 2011-11-12 03:37:47 <gmaxwell> bd_: you combine all the inputs and all the outputs and validate that they sum to zero.
 579 2011-11-12 03:37:56 <roconnor> bd_: if the transaction leaks the value of TXOUT then and there is only one intput then the person leaks the value of the one input.
 580 2011-11-12 03:38:38 <roconnor> people can leak the value of their coins if they want.
 581 2011-11-12 03:38:45 <bd_> roconnor: I don't think you understand. Given two coins, A and B, where B references A (and possibly others) as txins, and where I hold a key to one of the txouts in B, how do I verify that the value that B claims A has is actually the value in A?
 582 2011-11-12 03:39:20 <roconnor> bd_: you would have the decription key to decrypt the value of B.
 583 2011-11-12 03:39:31 <bd_> roconnor: you mean A?
 584 2011-11-12 03:39:38 <bd_> but okay, now how do I know that A is valid in the same way?
 585 2011-11-12 03:39:42 conman has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 586 2011-11-12 03:39:43 <bd_> A has some other parents - call them X and Z
 587 2011-11-12 03:40:01 <bd_> I don't have A's keys
 588 2011-11-12 03:40:46 <roconnor> right, but you can verify that the sum of the outputs transaction producing A is equal to the sum of the inputs
 589 2011-11-12 03:40:57 <bd_> roconnor: how?
 590 2011-11-12 03:41:07 <roconnor> that is what homomorphic encryption lets you do :)
 591 2011-11-12 03:41:16 <bd_> roconnor: and how much overhead does this carry?
 592 2011-11-12 03:41:35 <bd_> but seriously, this is too much handwaving
 593 2011-11-12 03:41:43 <roconnor> I agree I'm handwaving
 594 2011-11-12 03:42:02 <bd_> and the other problem is the txins and txouts are based on an entirely different set of keys
 595 2011-11-12 03:42:19 <gmaxwell> I don't know of a particular homomorphic scheme that lets you do this, but I can see some what would almost work, so it seems likely to be possible.
 596 2011-11-12 03:42:35 <bd_> I could see you proving that the sum of a set of numbers X, all encrypted with key K, equals the sum of a set of numbers Y, encrypted with the _same_, _single_ key K
 597 2011-11-12 03:42:59 <bd_> but when every number is encrypted with a completely different key?
 598 2011-11-12 03:43:17 * copumpkin wants holomorphic encryption
 599 2011-11-12 03:43:33 <roconnor> bd_: hmm, what you say sounds reasonable
 600 2011-11-12 03:44:10 <gmaxwell> I think I can see how to get over that if the miner will do an interactive proof with you... but I guess that doesn't convince anyone else.
 601 2011-11-12 03:44:26 * roconnor reviews the Paillier Cryptosystem
 602 2011-11-12 03:45:06 Backburn has quit ()
 603 2011-11-12 03:45:30 <etotheipi_> on a not-really-related note... anyone know what the crazy defines in serialize.h do for mlock?
 604 2011-11-12 03:45:50 <etotheipi_> around line 50:  I'm not sure why mlock alone isn't sufficient
 605 2011-11-12 03:46:46 <etotheipi_> #define mlock(a,b) \
 606 2011-11-12 03:46:46 <etotheipi_>   mlock(((void *)(((size_t)(a)) & (~((PAGESIZE)-1)))),\
 607 2011-11-12 03:46:46 <etotheipi_>   (((((size_t)(a)) + (b) - 1) | ((PAGESIZE) - 1)) + 1) - (((size_t)(a)) & (~((PAGESIZE) - 1))))
 608 2011-11-12 03:47:00 <gmaxwell> :)
 609 2011-11-12 03:47:04 <gmaxwell> Yes, I know what that does.
 610 2011-11-12 03:47:29 <roconnor> gmaxwell: there are ways of doing non-interactive interactive proofs using hashes.
 611 2011-11-12 03:47:38 <roconnor> but this starts really getting beyond my knowledge
 612 2011-11-12 03:47:39 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: man mlock
 613 2011-11-12 03:47:42 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell:  go on
 614 2011-11-12 03:47:46 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: it needs to be aligned
 615 2011-11-12 03:47:48 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: EINVAL (Not on Linux) addr was not a multiple of the page size.
 616 2011-11-12 03:47:50 <copumpkin> to your page size
 617 2011-11-12 03:48:11 <copumpkin> that's fancy code for "snapping" to the beginning of a page
 618 2011-11-12 03:48:17 <etotheipi_> ahhh, got it
 619 2011-11-12 03:48:39 <gmaxwell> well it snaps and fixes the size.
 620 2011-11-12 03:48:47 <copumpkin> sure
 621 2011-11-12 03:49:09 <gmaxwell> I thought there was a comment in jrmithdobbs's patch about why this was required (on OSX)
 622 2011-11-12 03:49:14 <bd_> wonderful, non-hygenic macros ftw
 623 2011-11-12 03:49:14 <gmaxwell> guess it fell out.
 624 2011-11-12 03:49:28 <bd_> what's wrong with a nice inline static function? :(
 625 2011-11-12 03:49:46 <bd_> maybe even a RAII-style LockedMemoryBlock
 626 2011-11-12 03:49:51 <copumpkin> bd_: macros are moar l33t
 627 2011-11-12 03:49:53 <gmaxwell> bd_: that macros is perfectly hygenic.
 628 2011-11-12 03:50:06 <etotheipi_> haha
 629 2011-11-12 03:50:25 <bd_> gmaxwell: mlock(foo[i++], bar[j++]); <-- undefined behavior :3
 630 2011-11-12 03:50:49 <bd_> actually, just mlock(listofptrs[i++], length);
 631 2011-11-12 03:50:52 <gmaxwell> bd_: it's unspecified, and it's also unspecified in a function call.
 632 2011-11-12 03:51:01 <bd_> gmaxwell: no, this is undefined behavior
 633 2011-11-12 03:51:07 <bd_> as in anything can happen.
 634 2011-11-12 03:51:17 <bd_> including summoning demons through your nose
 635 2011-11-12 03:51:41 <copumpkin> oh shit, I just tried running it and he's right
 636 2011-11-12 03:51:46 <copumpkin> aaaaahjhhh'
 637 2011-11-12 03:52:06 <bd_> ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E) J.2: The behavior is undefined in the following circumstances: [...] Between two sequence points, an object is modified more than once, or is modified
 638 2011-11-12 03:52:09 <bd_> and the prior value is read other than to determine the value to be stored (6.5).
 639 2011-11-12 03:52:44 <gmaxwell> bd_: I misread it and thought you did mlock(foo[i++], bar[i++])
 640 2011-11-12 03:52:46 <bd_> 'undefined behavior' is the same category of behavior used to describe the semantics of dereferencing a null pointer, or reading an uninitialized variable
 641 2011-11-12 03:52:51 <copumpkin> my e-penis is longer than yours because I know which of the two undesirable forms of C you are using
 642 2011-11-12 03:53:13 <bd_> gmaxwell: well, yeah, that would be UB no matter what :)
 643 2011-11-12 03:53:24 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: its an important distinction and bd_ is correct. I was being daft.
 644 2011-11-12 03:53:27 <bd_> but seriously, that's a perfect example of what NOT to use macros for
 645 2011-11-12 03:53:45 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: from a practical standpoint, you want to avoid both of them :)
 646 2011-11-12 03:53:46 <bd_> it has more parenthesis than a typical lisp function, ffs
 647 2011-11-12 03:54:18 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: it's still an important distinction. Only one is allowed to cause the universe to end without documenting it.
 648 2011-11-12 03:54:20 <etotheipi_> so... I'm tempted to copy this from the serialize.h, but I looks like it's controversial
 649 2011-11-12 03:54:31 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: do YOU want to be responsible for the end of the universe??
 650 2011-11-12 03:54:34 <etotheipi_> well also, might there be copyright issues with it?
 651 2011-11-12 03:54:35 <copumpkin> nooooooooo
 652 2011-11-12 03:54:47 <copumpkin> okay, I shall make the distinction when deciding not to use one or the other
 653 2011-11-12 03:55:13 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: there is no copyright issue. It's a common form and not especially tricky. It just subtracts to convert a number into a mask.
 654 2011-11-12 03:55:35 <etotheipi_> haha, well it was easier to ask here, than to try to decipher what it's actually doing
 655 2011-11-12 03:55:53 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: you're just not used to doing systems programming in C or something? :)
 656 2011-11-12 03:55:55 <etotheipi_> I mean, I get the pagesize thing.... but it's pretty obvious where I copied it from if I used it
 657 2011-11-12 03:57:16 <etotheipi_> btw, am I missing something?  I'm new to IRC, and I keep getting the highlighted username when someone uses "etotheipi_:"... is there a command for that?
 658 2011-11-12 03:57:34 <etotheipi_> or do I just type the username: at the beginning?
 659 2011-11-12 03:57:49 <gmaxwell> my client tab completes the username.
 660 2011-11-12 03:58:01 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, is this right?
 661 2011-11-12 03:58:04 <gmaxwell> (yours probably does too)
 662 2011-11-12 03:58:09 <gmaxwell> yes, you're highlighted for me.
 663 2011-11-12 03:58:13 <etotheipi_> perfect
 664 2011-11-12 03:58:35 zapnap has joined
 665 2011-11-12 03:58:36 <etotheipi_> thanks
 666 2011-11-12 04:04:50 wasabi1 has joined
 667 2011-11-12 04:06:26 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 668 2011-11-12 04:08:11 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 669 2011-11-12 04:09:30 HaltingState has joined
 670 2011-11-12 04:09:31 HaltingState has quit (Changing host)
 671 2011-11-12 04:09:31 HaltingState has joined
 672 2011-11-12 04:10:24 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
 673 2011-11-12 04:10:47 TheSeven has joined
 674 2011-11-12 04:24:17 osmosis has joined
 675 2011-11-12 04:25:04 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 676 2011-11-12 04:30:12 MimeNarrator has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 677 2011-11-12 04:33:14 MimeNarrator has joined
 678 2011-11-12 04:35:43 slush has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 679 2011-11-12 04:36:58 OneFixt_ has quit (Changing host)
 680 2011-11-12 04:36:58 OneFixt_ has joined
 681 2011-11-12 04:37:01 OneFixt_ is now known as OneFixt
 682 2011-11-12 04:44:03 RobinPKR has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 683 2011-11-12 04:44:52 RobinPKR has joined
 684 2011-11-12 04:50:39 MimeNarrator has quit ()
 685 2011-11-12 04:50:45 MimeNarrator has joined
 686 2011-11-12 04:50:45 MimeNarrator has quit (Client Quit)
 687 2011-11-12 04:51:24 MimeNarrator has joined
 688 2011-11-12 04:52:08 MimeNarrator has quit (Client Quit)
 689 2011-11-12 04:52:16 MimeNarrator has joined
 690 2011-11-12 04:52:20 MimeNarrator has quit (Changing host)
 691 2011-11-12 04:52:20 MimeNarrator has joined
 692 2011-11-12 04:54:12 zapnap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 693 2011-11-12 04:57:51 WakiMiko has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 694 2011-11-12 04:59:23 WakiMiko has joined
 695 2011-11-12 05:00:28 SomeoneWeird_ has joined
 696 2011-11-12 05:01:08 SomeoneWeird_ has quit (Client Quit)
 697 2011-11-12 05:04:17 dryden has joined
 698 2011-11-12 05:08:20 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 699 2011-11-12 05:08:26 roconnor_ has joined
 700 2011-11-12 05:33:15 AAA_awright__ has joined
 701 2011-11-12 05:35:39 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 702 2011-11-12 05:36:48 AAA_awright__ is now known as AAA_awright
 703 2011-11-12 05:41:21 roconnor_ is now known as roconnor
 704 2011-11-12 05:44:45 eastender has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 705 2011-11-12 05:45:27 WakiMiko_ has joined
 706 2011-11-12 05:46:51 <roconnor> a bit off topic, but are there any whitepapers on open-transactions?
 707 2011-11-12 05:49:11 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 708 2011-11-12 05:59:17 BurtyBB has joined
 709 2011-11-12 05:59:21 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 710 2011-11-12 06:00:28 TheZimm has joined
 711 2011-11-12 06:02:24 TheZimm has quit (Client Quit)
 712 2011-11-12 06:02:55 TheZimm has joined
 713 2011-11-12 06:03:56 tyn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 714 2011-11-12 06:05:24 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
 715 2011-11-12 06:05:58 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
 716 2011-11-12 06:15:36 SomeoneWeird has joined
 717 2011-11-12 06:21:53 dryden has quit (Quit: leaving)
 718 2011-11-12 06:23:32 ThomasV has joined
 719 2011-11-12 06:28:26 tyn has joined
 720 2011-11-12 06:35:08 t3a has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 721 2011-11-12 06:38:48 RazielZ has joined
 722 2011-11-12 06:45:58 BurtyBB has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 723 2011-11-12 06:48:50 BurtyB has joined
 724 2011-11-12 07:04:37 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 725 2011-11-12 07:06:28 Beremat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 726 2011-11-12 07:08:31 t3a has joined
 727 2011-11-12 07:10:46 minimoose has joined
 728 2011-11-12 07:11:20 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 729 2011-11-12 07:14:59 Litt has quit ()
 730 2011-11-12 07:21:18 <CIA-89> poolserverj: shadders * 29cf4a34c920 r227 /poolserverj-main/src/main/java/com/shadworld/poolserver/conf/Conf.java: fix for nullpointer when aux daemon payout address not set
 731 2011-11-12 07:21:20 <CIA-89> poolserverj: shadders * 93ca178a6bce r228 / (6 files in 4 dirs):
 732 2011-11-12 07:21:20 <CIA-89> poolserverj: updates to mgmt interface to include links for methods that don't need params.
 733 2011-11-12 07:21:20 <CIA-89> poolserverj: add help page
 734 2011-11-12 07:21:20 <CIA-89> poolserverj: add dynamic trace target changes
 735 2011-11-12 07:22:51 Litt has joined
 736 2011-11-12 07:28:56 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 737 2011-11-12 07:30:18 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 738 2011-11-12 07:30:35 molecular has joined
 739 2011-11-12 07:38:39 <amiller> has anyone ever heard of a model of bitcoin in the E language
 740 2011-11-12 07:38:48 <amiller> for dsitributed cryptographic protocols
 741 2011-11-12 07:39:08 <SomeoneWeird> E?
 742 2011-11-12 07:39:13 <SomeoneWeird> never heard of it
 743 2011-11-12 07:39:23 <amiller> erobank.com/download/index.html
 744 2011-11-12 07:39:36 <amiller> er
 745 2011-11-12 07:39:37 <amiller> http://erights.org/smart-contracts/index.html
 746 2011-11-12 07:39:40 <SomeoneWeird> lol
 747 2011-11-12 07:40:21 <amiller> Welcome to ERights.org, home of E, the secure distributed pure-object platform and p2p scripting language
 748 2011-11-12 07:43:43 cronopio has joined
 749 2011-11-12 07:50:54 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 750 2011-11-12 07:52:07 iocor has joined
 751 2011-11-12 08:00:01 AlexWaters has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 752 2011-11-12 08:01:01 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
 753 2011-11-12 08:02:56 Rabbit6789 has joined
 754 2011-11-12 08:03:15 d4de has joined
 755 2011-11-12 08:05:47 Rabbit6789 has quit (Client Quit)
 756 2011-11-12 08:06:32 wasabi has joined
 757 2011-11-12 08:08:44 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 758 2011-11-12 08:08:57 AlexWaters has joined
 759 2011-11-12 08:19:52 Rabbit67890 has joined
 760 2011-11-12 08:25:48 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 761 2011-11-12 08:27:49 wolfspraul has joined
 762 2011-11-12 08:43:36 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 763 2011-11-12 08:45:02 peck has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 764 2011-11-12 08:50:07 erle- has joined
 765 2011-11-12 08:50:27 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
 766 2011-11-12 09:05:37 cronopio has quit (Quit: leaving)
 767 2011-11-12 09:05:44 peck has joined
 768 2011-11-12 09:18:50 Sedra has joined
 769 2011-11-12 09:22:11 amtal has joined
 770 2011-11-12 09:22:24 Sedra- has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 771 2011-11-12 09:24:11 AStove has joined
 772 2011-11-12 09:24:53 BitCoinUser has quit (Read error: No route to host)
 773 2011-11-12 09:26:22 num1 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 774 2011-11-12 09:27:28 <ThomasV> Mqrius: you here?
 775 2011-11-12 09:31:28 Sedra- has joined
 776 2011-11-12 09:34:32 <jrmithdobbs> can you mine bitcoins on high capacity 2.5" sata2 drives now or something?
 777 2011-11-12 09:34:45 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 778 2011-11-12 09:34:54 <jrmithdobbs> haven't seen anything limited in ordering quantity this much since spring/summer with the gpu rush
 779 2011-11-12 09:35:18 Sedra has joined
 780 2011-11-12 09:35:26 <jrmithdobbs> 1 per customer does not work. i need 4 drives damn it. charge me $20/ea more or something
 781 2011-11-12 09:36:12 Sedra- has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 782 2011-11-12 09:39:43 <phantomcircuit> jrmithdobbs, flooding in thailand destroyed a ton of hdd factories
 783 2011-11-12 09:40:07 <phantomcircuit> the response of limiting sales of hdds is dumb
 784 2011-11-12 09:40:12 <phantomcircuit> they should just be increasing prices
 785 2011-11-12 09:40:38 abragin has joined
 786 2011-11-12 09:40:39 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 787 2011-11-12 09:40:39 abragin has joined
 788 2011-11-12 09:42:33 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: this is dumb, i need 4 2.5" drives
 789 2011-11-12 09:42:49 <phantomcircuit> borrow someone elses creditcard
 790 2011-11-12 09:42:55 int0x27h has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 791 2011-11-12 09:44:28 SomeoneWeird_ has joined
 792 2011-11-12 09:45:13 SomeoneWeird_ has quit (Changing host)
 793 2011-11-12 09:45:13 SomeoneWeird_ has joined
 794 2011-11-12 09:45:25 SomeoneWeird is now known as Guest73689
 795 2011-11-12 09:47:45 Guest73689 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 796 2011-11-12 09:50:14 Sedra- has joined
 797 2011-11-12 09:53:12 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 798 2011-11-12 09:54:28 <JFK911> tech data is selling disks, but not at regular prices.
 799 2011-11-12 10:02:01 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 800 2011-11-12 10:04:51 Rabbit67890 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 801 2011-11-12 10:08:34 cloudbank has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 802 2011-11-12 10:08:44 Sedra has joined
 803 2011-11-12 10:09:54 dvide has joined
 804 2011-11-12 10:09:59 SomeoneWeird_ is now known as SomeoneWeird
 805 2011-11-12 10:10:32 magn3ts has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 806 2011-11-12 10:10:42 cloudbank has joined
 807 2011-11-12 10:11:36 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 808 2011-11-12 10:11:41 Sedra- has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 809 2011-11-12 10:12:33 luke-jr has quit (Excess Flood)
 810 2011-11-12 10:12:56 luke-jr has joined
 811 2011-11-12 10:13:55 gjs278 has joined
 812 2011-11-12 10:14:33 d4de has joined
 813 2011-11-12 10:18:09 <extor> So is there anything a CPU can do that a GPU absolutely cannot do?
 814 2011-11-12 10:25:28 erus` has joined
 815 2011-11-12 10:26:36 <lianj> boot linux? :P
 816 2011-11-12 10:31:29 <wumpus> extor: complicated code with a lot of decisions that is inherently linear / single threaded, or has very dynamic data access patterns
 817 2011-11-12 10:31:47 <wumpus> well the GPU can do it but is subpar in those cases
 818 2011-11-12 10:32:39 roconnor has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 819 2011-11-12 10:33:00 <extor> but most proggies today are multithreaded, hence not single threaded
 820 2011-11-12 10:33:05 <wumpus> the single threaded performance of CPUs (at least intel/amd ones) is much better than that of GPUs, and CPUs have more advanced branch prediction and caching
 821 2011-11-12 10:33:06 <extor> But are they "linear"?
 822 2011-11-12 10:33:46 <wumpus> Most of the code written is still "linear". Multi-threaded algorithms are being used more these days, for scalability, but not really for application code.
 823 2011-11-12 10:34:23 <extor> I was thinking of diving into programming. And my first project would be a captcha cracking application. I wondered if I'd be able to use a GPU for that being a total noob and all who has just messed with a little C++ and script programming on x86 CPUs
 824 2011-11-12 10:35:06 <extor> And of course, wondering if the GPU would be super fast at that compared to say a regular intel CPU
 825 2011-11-12 10:35:14 <wumpus> also, writing gpu code is conceptually harder, except for embarassingly parallel problems... though I agree that with the multicore trend both are coming closer together
 826 2011-11-12 10:35:59 <extor> why is writing gpu code harder, do you have to substitute floating point operations for "linear" steps in execution perhaps?
 827 2011-11-12 10:36:33 <wumpus> well gpus are very suited to image processing, also for recognition tasks, so that might be a good area for GPU yes
 828 2011-11-12 10:37:15 <extor> And to harness a GPU I need a NUMA driver I take it. And an sdk kit.
 829 2011-11-12 10:37:18 <wumpus> when I wrote a captcha cracker I also used GPU, at least for the initial steps (which involves a convolutional neural network, very computation-expensive to train)
 830 2011-11-12 10:38:02 <wumpus> NUMA driver?
 831 2011-11-12 10:38:03 <extor> In your opinion then, how many times faster was your GPU in cracking captchas than a CPU of that era would have been?
 832 2011-11-12 10:38:31 <wumpus> OpenCL or CUDA (depending on AMD/NVidia)
 833 2011-11-12 10:38:41 <extor> Ok that's what I meant to say then
 834 2011-11-12 10:38:44 <wumpus> 100x or so...
 835 2011-11-12 10:38:50 <extor> Good grief
 836 2011-11-12 10:39:05 <extor> That is one hell of a reason to run such code in gpus
 837 2011-11-12 10:39:12 <wumpus> and I didn't even write the GPU code myself in this case but used Theano to generate it :-)
 838 2011-11-12 10:39:24 <extor> There's plenty of blackhat software that depends on captcha cracking. So definately a market out there.
 839 2011-11-12 10:39:46 <extor> What is Theano, some sort of RAD toolkit for GPU programming?
 840 2011-11-12 10:39:48 <wumpus> hand-optimized it could have been a factor 2-3 faster even I think... but that wasn't worth the trouble in this case, it was already incredibly fast
 841 2011-11-12 10:40:13 <wumpus> yes, it is a symbolic manipulation library that generates CPU/GPU code
 842 2011-11-12 10:40:40 <wumpus> great for tensor/matrix math
 843 2011-11-12 10:41:02 <extor> Were you rehashing libcaca or did you write all your code from scratch
 844 2011-11-12 10:41:35 <wumpus> the ocr algorithms was geared to a specific kind of captcha and written from scratch
 845 2011-11-12 10:43:00 <wumpus> it usually first involves some steps to get to a normalized representation, then you use machine learning on that
 846 2011-11-12 10:44:00 <extor> machine learning as in...you match OCR guesses with human input to "train" the algorithm to work better, in conjunction with the database that you build?
 847 2011-11-12 10:44:15 <wumpus> getting to the normalized representation is more of a cpu job, can involve such things such as finding the convex hull, detecting orientation, partial rotation/skew etc...
 848 2011-11-12 10:44:45 <wumpus> yes
 849 2011-11-12 10:44:53 <extor> Also matching the input with a database of sorts
 850 2011-11-12 10:44:55 <wumpus> you need tons of training samples
 851 2011-11-12 10:45:19 <extor> that's very "linear" too is it not? Even though you'd probably store the db in a binary tree format for fast access
 852 2011-11-12 10:45:26 iocor has joined
 853 2011-11-12 10:45:43 <extor> Gosh how many total hours of work did that take you, it sounds like a massive effort if it was done from scratch
 854 2011-11-12 10:46:15 shadders- has joined
 855 2011-11-12 10:46:20 <wumpus> nah the 'db' in this case was simply a directory structure on disk with a lot of images :-) but caching the intermediate results in a real database can make a lot of sense if you're iteratively improving
 856 2011-11-12 10:48:17 <extor> Ok I was thinking you probably digitized different smudged, skewed versions of each character into a sort of matrix that was indexed in some trickey way; optimized so as to be parsed rapidly for a match with the freshly OCRed characters
 857 2011-11-12 10:48:21 <wumpus> nah just use the tools and algorthms that are available
 858 2011-11-12 10:48:52 <wumpus> btw, if you have the algorithm for generating the capcha you can very quickly generate a training set without humans
 859 2011-11-12 10:49:21 <wumpus> (I didn't, in my case, but heh)
 860 2011-11-12 10:49:46 <extor> so the algorithm basically smudges and skews a character amirite?
 861 2011-11-12 10:50:04 <wumpus> that's one of the steps in a long pipeline
 862 2011-11-12 10:50:34 <extor> How would you tacke reCaptcha then? That doesn't really have an algorithm obviously.
 863 2011-11-12 10:50:40 <wumpus> but you need to mangle it into a recognizable as possible form for the machine learning algorithm
 864 2011-11-12 10:50:52 <wumpus> tons of training samples
 865 2011-11-12 10:51:20 <wumpus> recapcha is probably not a good one to start with :-)
 866 2011-11-12 10:51:30 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 867 2011-11-12 10:51:57 <extor> what other public source is out there besides libcaca
 868 2011-11-12 10:52:59 <wumpus> uhm there are a lot of resources on character recognition
 869 2011-11-12 10:54:12 <wumpus> if you want source code you can find anything from simple neural networks to packages like tesseract
 870 2011-11-12 10:55:20 <extor> This isn't really a project a noob would excel at I take it. Like someone who has just done some linux scripting and taken a couple of semesters of C++ in school?
 871 2011-11-12 10:55:41 <wumpus> nope
 872 2011-11-12 10:56:01 <extor> How many years of schooling and hands on experience have you had
 873 2011-11-12 10:57:23 <wumpus> 20+, I've been programming all my life
 874 2011-11-12 10:58:50 <extor> Oh gawd
 875 2011-11-12 10:59:10 <wumpus> but most of the AI stuff I learned at university or reading papers or simply trying and iterating 
 876 2011-11-12 10:59:44 <extor> There's that 10,000 hour rule this reminds me of. It basically says that in order to become an expert in the field your path of experience and educatgion needs to cross 10,000 total hours
 877 2011-11-12 11:00:04 <extor> divided by 40 that's 250 workweeks or about 5 years
 878 2011-11-12 11:00:34 <wumpus> well I crossed that threshold quite some time ago I guess and I still feel like I know nothing :)
 879 2011-11-12 11:04:07 theorb_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 880 2011-11-12 11:04:51 theorbtwo has joined
 881 2011-11-12 11:05:07 chrisb__ has joined
 882 2011-11-12 11:07:14 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 883 2011-11-12 11:07:55 d4de has joined
 884 2011-11-12 11:07:55 d4de has quit (Changing host)
 885 2011-11-12 11:07:55 d4de has joined
 886 2011-11-12 11:10:37 abragin has quit ()
 887 2011-11-12 11:14:55 abragin has joined
 888 2011-11-12 11:14:55 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 889 2011-11-12 11:14:55 abragin has joined
 890 2011-11-12 11:16:16 pickett has joined
 891 2011-11-12 11:35:15 iocor has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 892 2011-11-12 11:35:50 cryptoxchange has joined
 893 2011-11-12 11:35:50 cryptoxchange has quit (Changing host)
 894 2011-11-12 11:35:50 cryptoxchange has joined
 895 2011-11-12 11:43:43 Clipse has joined
 896 2011-11-12 11:43:48 Clipse has quit (Excess Flood)
 897 2011-11-12 11:47:39 Sedra- has joined
 898 2011-11-12 11:50:35 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 899 2011-11-12 11:52:05 int0x27h has joined
 900 2011-11-12 11:55:41 bobd0bb has joined
 901 2011-11-12 11:55:42 bobd0bb has quit (Client Quit)
 902 2011-11-12 12:03:19 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 903 2011-11-12 12:06:37 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 904 2011-11-12 12:08:08 pickett has joined
 905 2011-11-12 12:08:48 magn3ts has joined
 906 2011-11-12 12:08:50 da2ce7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 907 2011-11-12 12:15:15 da2ce7 has joined
 908 2011-11-12 12:15:16 da2ce7 has quit (Changing host)
 909 2011-11-12 12:15:16 da2ce7 has joined
 910 2011-11-12 12:30:57 datagutt has joined
 911 2011-11-12 12:33:27 tower has quit (Disconnected by services)
 912 2011-11-12 12:33:42 tower has joined
 913 2011-11-12 12:34:10 SomeoneWeird_ has joined
 914 2011-11-12 12:36:49 SomeoneWeird has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 915 2011-11-12 12:39:49 <wumpus> I just generated bitcoin doxygen docs, see https://dev.visucore.com/bitcoin/doxygen  ... not much is documented yet (that's a todo), but it can help already a bit in finding your way around the source code
 916 2011-11-12 12:50:10 <nathan7> Yay!
 917 2011-11-12 12:50:18 * nathan7 awards wumpus a muffin
 918 2011-11-12 12:53:49 <Eliel> http://jkaartinen.iki.fi/~jojkaart/ntxbymarket.html
 919 2011-11-12 13:33:10 stalled has joined
 920 2011-11-12 13:36:13 SomeoneWeird__ has joined
 921 2011-11-12 13:36:49 Sedra- has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 922 2011-11-12 13:39:40 SomeoneWeird_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 923 2011-11-12 13:40:26 Sthebig has joined
 924 2011-11-12 13:47:06 PK has joined
 925 2011-11-12 13:51:05 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
 926 2011-11-12 13:51:31 SomeoneWeird_ has joined
 927 2011-11-12 13:52:30 storrgie has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 928 2011-11-12 13:54:56 SomeoneWeird__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 929 2011-11-12 13:57:32 Sedra has joined
 930 2011-11-12 14:02:34 amtal has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 931 2011-11-12 14:12:41 erle- has joined
 932 2011-11-12 14:21:11 stalled has quit (Quit: ...)
 933 2011-11-12 14:22:02 TheZimm has joined
 934 2011-11-12 14:30:00 Turingi has joined
 935 2011-11-12 14:31:35 Turingi has quit (Client Quit)
 936 2011-11-12 14:31:49 Turingi has joined
 937 2011-11-12 14:31:50 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
 938 2011-11-12 14:31:50 Turingi has joined
 939 2011-11-12 14:32:27 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 940 2011-11-12 14:35:53 slush has joined
 941 2011-11-12 14:36:48 MC1984 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 942 2011-11-12 14:36:57 MasterChief has joined
 943 2011-11-12 14:40:51 shadders has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 944 2011-11-12 14:40:52 shadders- is now known as shadders
 945 2011-11-12 14:40:52 shadders is now known as 64MAA32AG
 946 2011-11-12 14:45:06 roconnor has joined
 947 2011-11-12 14:51:20 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 948 2011-11-12 14:56:46 zeiris has joined
 949 2011-11-12 14:58:50 freewil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 950 2011-11-12 14:59:10 freewil has joined
 951 2011-11-12 14:59:10 freewil has quit (Changing host)
 952 2011-11-12 14:59:10 freewil has joined
 953 2011-11-12 15:07:16 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 954 2011-11-12 15:09:04 dvide has quit ()
 955 2011-11-12 15:09:40 wasabi1 has joined
 956 2011-11-12 15:10:01 DaQatz has joined
 957 2011-11-12 15:10:05 yebyen has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 958 2011-11-12 15:10:37 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 959 2011-11-12 15:12:28 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 960 2011-11-12 15:12:59 MVXA has quit (Quit: Nothing serves forever)
 961 2011-11-12 15:18:10 dvide has joined
 962 2011-11-12 15:20:35 stalled has joined
 963 2011-11-12 15:22:31 <CIA-89> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * r68802b2 / test/simnet.js : Added test case that simulates two connected nodes. (+10 more commits...) - http://git.io/X98SgA
 964 2011-11-12 15:25:35 <roconnor> For BIP_0012, wouldn't it be better to target block numbers instead of dates for the switchover?
 965 2011-11-12 15:26:05 groffer has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 966 2011-11-12 15:26:12 <iddo> what's the difference?
 967 2011-11-12 15:26:37 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 968 2011-11-12 15:26:44 <roconnor> iddo: everyone agrees on block numbers, but no one agrees on what time it is exactly
 969 2011-11-12 15:29:07 <iddo> the client supporting OP_EVAL wasn't released yet i think
 970 2011-11-12 15:29:42 <iddo> i suppose it would be easier to implement it so the nodes switch at certain block num
 971 2011-11-12 15:29:52 <roconnor> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0012 says new clients and miners will be coded to interpret OP_EVAL as a no-op until February 1, 2012.
 972 2011-11-12 15:30:16 <roconnor> but it seems less error prone to intepret OP_EVAL as no-op until block number whatever
 973 2011-11-12 15:30:31 <iddo> hmm check gavin's branch to see how he actually implemented it?
 974 2011-11-12 15:31:52 erus` has joined
 975 2011-11-12 15:33:31 <roconnor> iddo: as far as I can tell gavin's branch evaluates OP_EVAL unconditionally
 976 2011-11-12 15:34:06 <roconnor> *sigh* I wish these changes were more thoughly doucmented
 977 2011-11-12 15:35:15 <roconnor> such as "during OP_EVAL The alternate stack is pushed onto a stack of alternate stacks and a new empty alternate stack is initalized when executing OP_EVAL, the old alternate stack is restored when the OP_EVAL completes"
 978 2011-11-12 15:35:20 Beremat has joined
 979 2011-11-12 15:36:08 <iddo> i still don't see the big difference? respect op_eval if block timestamp reached some value or block number reached some value?
 980 2011-11-12 15:36:19 erus`_ has joined
 981 2011-11-12 15:36:52 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 982 2011-11-12 15:37:04 erus`_ is now known as erus`
 983 2011-11-12 15:37:19 <roconnor> iddo: well block timestamps can retrograde by several hours
 984 2011-11-12 15:37:47 <roconnor> so with your suggestion block could flip back and forth between before and after the time threshold
 985 2011-11-12 15:37:47 <lfm> not that much
 986 2011-11-12 15:38:15 <roconnor> Fine, I can say yes, the timestamp approach can work, but it is full of landmines
 987 2011-11-12 15:38:46 <roconnor> do you switch over one the first block in recieved with a suitable timestamp, or is it on a per block basis, etc.
 988 2011-11-12 15:39:18 <roconnor> does it matter on the block the script is executed, or on the block that the script is made?
 989 2011-11-12 15:39:58 SomeoneWeird_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 990 2011-11-12 15:40:14 devrandom has joined
 991 2011-11-12 15:41:30 <iddo> maybe feb 1 2012 meant block estimate around that time, so it will be implemented as block num, which seems a little better i agree
 992 2011-11-12 15:46:15 <roconnor> If serialized script is a large or complicated multi-signature script, then the burden of paying for it (in increased transaction fees due to more signature operations or transaction size) is shifted from the sender to the receiver.
 993 2011-11-12 15:46:24 <roconnor> This claim seems to be false:
 994 2011-11-12 15:47:03 <roconnor> wait, maybe I don't know how opsigs are counted
 995 2011-11-12 15:47:05 * roconnor check
 996 2011-11-12 15:47:10 * roconnor checks
 997 2011-11-12 15:48:36 <lfm> any fees have to be included in the txn by the sender. but they could be "paid" by the receiver, thats just an accounting decision
 998 2011-11-12 15:49:23 <roconnor> are only the number of signature operations exectued in the transactions in a block counted?
 999 2011-11-12 15:50:13 groffer has joined
1000 2011-11-12 15:53:37 Guest30746 is now known as MBS
1001 2011-11-12 15:53:48 MBS has quit (Changing host)
1002 2011-11-12 15:53:48 MBS has joined
1003 2011-11-12 15:54:05 <lfm> largest backward timestamp step in the block chain so far is 118.583 minutes
1004 2011-11-12 15:54:18 <Eliel> roconnor: you do realize that when OP_EVAL is used in an output, the actual script the transaction uses won't be in the output tx. It'll be introduced in the input.
1005 2011-11-12 15:54:35 <Eliel> when that transaction is spent
1006 2011-11-12 15:55:58 <roconnor> Eliel: My concern is that I can construct serialized scripts using arithmetic operations, so that the number of op_sig operations is not plainly visible in the script.
1007 2011-11-12 15:56:29 <sipa> roconnor: good point
1008 2011-11-12 15:56:30 <Eliel> roconnor: you mean that you worry that they can't be filtered out?
1009 2011-11-12 15:56:53 <roconnor> well, I'm not sure of the details on how the limit of the number of op_sigs used is enforced
1010 2011-11-12 15:56:57 <roconnor> I can't find any documentation.
1011 2011-11-12 15:56:59 <lfm> he thinks they cant be used for setting fees?
1012 2011-11-12 15:57:00 <Eliel> just filter them out at the input then. Refuse to accept those at that point (or ask huge fee)
1013 2011-11-12 15:58:01 <roconnor> Eliel: well, every client has to do the computation, not just the miner.
1014 2011-11-12 15:58:39 <roconnor> Like I said, I'm not entirely sure how the op_sigs are counted, but I don't see a counter in the script interpretation code
1015 2011-11-12 15:58:53 <Eliel> roconnor: It's unlikely clients other than miners will be doing the verification for too long.
1016 2011-11-12 15:58:56 Sedra- has joined
1017 2011-11-12 15:59:23 <roconnor> Eliel: still, all the miners will have to do the verification, not just the one getting the fees
1018 2011-11-12 15:59:25 <Eliel> it'll become increasingly resource heavy.
1019 2011-11-12 15:59:54 <roconnor> I conjecture that OP_EVAL can be used to reimplement the OP_SIG DOS attack
1020 2011-11-12 16:00:05 <lfm> you think fancy scripts would be used a lot?
1021 2011-11-12 16:00:26 <roconnor> lfm: by maillicous users, certianly.
1022 2011-11-12 16:00:34 <Eliel> roconnor: I see no reason why you can't defend against that with OP_EVAL as opposed to defending against it in regular scripts.
1023 2011-11-12 16:01:00 <sipa> the problem is that certains checks that are now part of the verification of an output, move to verification of an imput
1024 2011-11-12 16:01:00 Rabbit67890 has joined
1025 2011-11-12 16:01:21 <sipa> if there are inconsistencies, you end up with an output that was accepted, without possible input to spend it (worst case scenario)
1026 2011-11-12 16:01:27 <roconnor> Eliel: ya, you can probably defend against this, but someone, you know, should implement this.
1027 2011-11-12 16:01:31 <Eliel> with current scripts, you prevent the transaction with too complex script from going out at all. with OP_EVAL, you just prevent it being spent.
1028 2011-11-12 16:01:33 <sipa> s/possible/acceptable/
1029 2011-11-12 16:01:41 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1030 2011-11-12 16:02:27 <Eliel> yes, true. which version is OP_EVAL slated to go into?
1031 2011-11-12 16:02:29 <Eliel> 0.6?
1032 2011-11-12 16:02:50 <sipa> not earlier than 0.6
1033 2011-11-12 16:03:03 Rav3nSw0rd has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1034 2011-11-12 16:03:32 Rav3nSw0rd has joined
1035 2011-11-12 16:03:39 <roconnor> anyhow, sipa, you understand what I'm saying, so you can make sure that if it is a real problem it is dealt with :)
1036 2011-11-12 16:05:06 <sipa> my largest fear with OP_EVAL is that it will become the de-facto way for creating more advanced transactions, and stand in the way of a decent pay-to-URL standard that supports advanced txouts
1037 2011-11-12 16:05:16 Rabbit67890 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1038 2011-11-12 16:06:27 <Eliel> huh? why would that be a problem? OP_EVAL just simplifies the URLs a lot.
1039 2011-11-12 16:06:51 <Eliel> the payer doesn't need to know what kind of transaction the payment is going into.
1040 2011-11-12 16:07:47 eastender has joined
1041 2011-11-12 16:08:11 <sipa> as such, no it is not a problem, and it only simplifies things, but i fear it may be overused
1042 2011-11-12 16:11:22 <roconnor> heh
1043 2011-11-12 16:11:32 <roconnor> OP_EVAL is like adding loops to a linear langauge.
1044 2011-11-12 16:11:38 ThomasV has joined
1045 2011-11-12 16:11:52 <roconnor> It probably becomes Turing complete if it weren't for the recursion limit.
1046 2011-11-12 16:12:41 <sipa> i suppose so
1047 2011-11-12 16:13:30 <sipa> assuming you have full access to the arithmetic operators
1048 2011-11-12 16:15:03 <Eliel> roconnor: kind of :D
1049 2011-11-12 16:15:18 <roconnor> ya, hard to say;  I suspect even without multiplication you are fine; but it isn't so clear.
1050 2011-11-12 16:23:15 p0s has joined
1051 2011-11-12 16:31:14 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1052 2011-11-12 16:40:29 Sedra- is now known as Sedra
1053 2011-11-12 16:41:37 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1054 2011-11-12 16:46:17 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1055 2011-11-12 16:47:46 slush has joined
1056 2011-11-12 16:57:39 riush has joined
1057 2011-11-12 16:57:39 Beremat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1058 2011-11-12 17:04:35 Cusipzzz has joined
1059 2011-11-12 17:10:36 wasabi has joined
1060 2011-11-12 17:12:46 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1061 2011-11-12 17:13:22 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1062 2011-11-12 17:22:03 PK has quit ()
1063 2011-11-12 17:25:21 TD has joined
1064 2011-11-12 17:25:35 chrisb__ has joined
1065 2011-11-12 17:26:28 eastender has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1066 2011-11-12 17:28:29 tyn has joined
1067 2011-11-12 17:28:35 <etotheipi_> is op-eval using recursion?
1068 2011-11-12 17:28:44 <etotheipi_> that scares me a little bit if it is
1069 2011-11-12 17:28:55 <sipa> limited recursion
1070 2011-11-12 17:29:07 <etotheipi_> how limited?
1071 2011-11-12 17:29:13 <sipa> 2 levels, iirc
1072 2011-11-12 17:29:38 <sipa> i'm not sure whether there is a use case for it yet, and if not, maybe it should be disabled for now
1073 2011-11-12 17:29:59 <etotheipi_> I just fear someone finding a bug in it that allows them to infinitely recurse, and crash every node on the network when they hit the system recursion limit
1074 2011-11-12 17:30:29 <sipa> that's definitely something that should be part of the standard test suite
1075 2011-11-12 17:30:40 MVXA has joined
1076 2011-11-12 17:33:25 dlb76 has quit ()
1077 2011-11-12 17:34:41 <TD> good evening
1078 2011-11-12 17:35:22 <sipa> hello, TD
1079 2011-11-12 17:38:21 * TD is the proud owner of some new physical bitcoins
1080 2011-11-12 17:42:18 <sipa> casascius?
1081 2011-11-12 17:44:58 eastender has joined
1082 2011-11-12 17:48:03 <TD> yeah
1083 2011-11-12 17:48:43 <sipa> have you tried redeeming one?
1084 2011-11-12 17:49:17 <justmoon> TD: did customs open your package as well?
1085 2011-11-12 17:49:21 <justmoon> (they did mine)
1086 2011-11-12 17:49:46 <TD> huh
1087 2011-11-12 17:49:51 <TD> i don't think so. it didn't look opened.
1088 2011-11-12 17:50:07 <TD> sipa: not yet. going to try in a bit. i didn't get any ACK from mike that he filled them up yet
1089 2011-11-12 17:50:15 <TD> justmoon: did they provide any explanation for that ?
1090 2011-11-12 17:50:21 <justmoon> yeah in my case they ripped it to bits and then put the bits in new SwissPost packaging
1091 2011-11-12 17:50:23 <TD> i'd think x-ray would be enough to check the label on the outside is correct
1092 2011-11-12 17:50:28 <justmoon> no explanation
1093 2011-11-12 17:50:36 <TD> that's kind of stupid. i wonder what they were looking for.
1094 2011-11-12 17:50:53 <justmoon> well, it was an array of little paperbags with metal inside ^^
1095 2011-11-12 17:51:11 * TD is dense tonight
1096 2011-11-12 17:51:15 <TD> so what can that be other than coins?
1097 2011-11-12 17:51:33 <justmoon> coin-shaped... cocaine... bombs?
1098 2011-11-12 17:51:44 <TD> hmmm :)
1099 2011-11-12 17:51:48 <TD> you'd make a better criminal than me obviously
1100 2011-11-12 17:51:54 <justmoon> the coins were all there and undamaged, so no harm no foul :)
1101 2011-11-12 17:52:05 <justmoon> they look gorgeous, don't they?
1102 2011-11-12 17:52:36 <TD> yeah, mike did an amazing job
1103 2011-11-12 17:53:26 <TD> justmoon: got hit by this today: http://www.swiss.com/web/EN/various/Pages/optional_payment_charge.aspx
1104 2011-11-12 17:53:39 <TD> 22 CHF for booking a flight outside the eu via credit card :-(
1105 2011-11-12 17:53:52 <justmoon> hm!
1106 2011-11-12 17:54:07 <justmoon> speaking of travels - are you going to prague?
1107 2011-11-12 17:54:11 <TD> nope
1108 2011-11-12 17:54:13 <TD> not this year
1109 2011-11-12 17:54:19 <TD> but say hi to the gang for me :)
1110 2011-11-12 17:54:19 <justmoon> aww :(
1111 2011-11-12 17:54:23 eueueue has joined
1112 2011-11-12 17:54:30 * sipa might go...
1113 2011-11-12 17:54:37 <justmoon> TD: I can get you in free?
1114 2011-11-12 17:54:40 <TD> it's sort of complicated because of the employment thing. don't want people to feel i'm representing google or anything
1115 2011-11-12 17:54:45 <justmoon> ah
1116 2011-11-12 17:54:46 <TD> hehe it's not the money :)
1117 2011-11-12 17:54:53 luke-jr has quit (Excess Flood)
1118 2011-11-12 17:55:00 <justmoon> go in disguise!
1119 2011-11-12 17:55:10 <TD> lol. i could go as satoshi :)
1120 2011-11-12 17:55:11 luke-jr has joined
1121 2011-11-12 17:55:16 twobitcoins has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1122 2011-11-12 17:55:21 <justmoon> see problem solved!
1123 2011-11-12 17:55:21 <sipa> go dressed as someone from facebook
1124 2011-11-12 17:55:35 <justmoon> I can lend you my "I AM SATOSHI" t shirt
1125 2011-11-12 17:55:38 <justmoon> (from the ny conf)
1126 2011-11-12 17:56:39 <TD> i wouldn't have much to say at the conf anyway. i didn't get any time for bitcoin research lately.
1127 2011-11-12 17:56:49 <justmoon> ah well
1128 2011-11-12 17:56:51 <TD> hopefully can return to it in a few weeks
1129 2011-11-12 17:57:11 <justmoon> we do have to do another swiss meetup sometime soon - maybe after the conf
1130 2011-11-12 17:57:14 <TD> yeah, definitely
1131 2011-11-12 17:57:18 <TD> it's been too long
1132 2011-11-12 17:57:21 <justmoon> and you have to go paragliding!
1133 2011-11-12 17:57:23 <justmoon> :P
1134 2011-11-12 17:57:36 <TD> right. long list of things i want to do :-)
1135 2011-11-12 17:58:06 <TD> next thing i want to research is p2p credit and lending topics
1136 2011-11-12 17:58:13 twobitcoins has joined
1137 2011-11-12 17:58:25 <justmoon> TD: mmh, interesting
1138 2011-11-12 17:58:46 <TD> seeing as how that's a big function of banks, beyond routing payments.
1139 2011-11-12 17:58:58 <TD> smart property is a start but not enough
1140 2011-11-12 17:59:07 Internet13 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1141 2011-11-12 17:59:44 Internet13 has joined
1142 2011-11-12 17:59:51 <justmoon> mi...@google.com = devrandom?
1143 2011-11-12 18:00:07 <TD> yeah
1144 2011-11-12 18:00:28 <sipa> devrandom is another mi[...] ?
1145 2011-11-12 18:01:02 <justmoon> mike is he...@google.com :D
1146 2011-11-12 18:01:17 <sipa> right
1147 2011-11-12 18:02:07 luke-jr has quit (Excess Flood)
1148 2011-11-12 18:02:10 <justmoon> TD: the multibit guy will be in prague - I really like their solution with dragging and dropping QR codes into the client
1149 2011-11-12 18:02:24 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1150 2011-11-12 18:02:25 luke-jr has joined
1151 2011-11-12 18:02:40 <TD> mmmhm
1152 2011-11-12 18:02:42 <TD> i tried to discourage that
1153 2011-11-12 18:02:51 <justmoon> how come?
1154 2011-11-12 18:03:09 <TD> it seems not as smooth as clicking a link to a magic url or file
1155 2011-11-12 18:03:14 batouzo has joined
1156 2011-11-12 18:03:14 tyn has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1157 2011-11-12 18:03:14 <TD> qrcodes are fundamentally ugly, mechanical things
1158 2011-11-12 18:03:24 <TD> even though you can prettify them a bit, they're still intended for machines not people
1159 2011-11-12 18:03:34 <TD> so dragging and dropping a qrcode isn't a natural action at all
1160 2011-11-12 18:03:55 <sipa> you mean dragging an image file into the client?
1161 2011-11-12 18:03:55 <justmoon> you could easily have all three ways hooked up: qr for mobile phones, drag & drop and bitcoin://
1162 2011-11-12 18:03:55 <TD> that said, jim is doing a good job of putting a nice desktop gui on top of bitcoinj
1163 2011-11-12 18:04:03 <TD> just wish i had more time to work on it
1164 2011-11-12 18:04:16 <TD> yeah, for sure, though i think single-click is easier than drag/drop for most people
1165 2011-11-12 18:04:26 <TD> so on the desktop that's how i'd prefer to implement it myself.
1166 2011-11-12 18:04:29 <justmoon> sipa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFPYBYIayU
1167 2011-11-12 18:05:15 <TD> in the screencase note that the browser is sized rather awkwardly. i use everything maximized all the time
1168 2011-11-12 18:05:17 <TD> so drag/drop is a pain
1169 2011-11-12 18:05:19 <justmoon> TD: I suppose that makes sense - drag and drop is going to be more responsive though - protocol handlers have to run an executable and my experience with them is that they always have a little delay
1170 2011-11-12 18:05:38 <TD> i don't think it's a big deal. you can use browser plugins/extensions if you need tighter integration
1171 2011-11-12 18:05:52 <TD> a browser extension can easily render these links/files as qrcodes if you want that
1172 2011-11-12 18:06:05 <justmoon> whenever I argue with you, I lose ^^
1173 2011-11-12 18:06:05 <TD> but the best way (for android users) is C2DM
1174 2011-11-12 18:06:16 <TD> ie, you click a link and it automatically opens the app on your phone on the confirm screen
1175 2011-11-12 18:06:27 <TD> it takes a second or two. really fast. no need to ever see a qrcode
1176 2011-11-12 18:06:29 <TD> well i'm stubborn :)
1177 2011-11-12 18:06:54 <justmoon> yeah, or just right :P
1178 2011-11-12 18:07:12 <justmoon> I suppose it still can't hurt to hook up d&d
1179 2011-11-12 18:07:23 <sipa> d&d?
1180 2011-11-12 18:07:29 <justmoon> sorry, drag and drop
1181 2011-11-12 18:07:32 <da2ce7> hello everone :)
1182 2011-11-12 18:07:51 <sipa> right, i interpreted it as dungeons&dragons :)
1183 2011-11-12 18:08:24 <justmoon> sipa, every bitcoin client should have a basic D&D game builtin I agree :D
1184 2011-11-12 18:08:48 <sipa> haha
1185 2011-11-12 18:08:54 <da2ce7> when I'm running ldconfig -n -v /usr/local/lib  for my newly compiled lib... libotapi-java.so.0.0.1  it isn't creating the libotapi-java.so symbolic link automaticaly...
1186 2011-11-12 18:08:57 <da2ce7> any ideas?
1187 2011-11-12 18:09:18 <sipa> justmoon: hope to see you in prague, btw
1188 2011-11-12 18:09:27 <justmoon> sipa: awesome, looking forward to it!
1189 2011-11-12 18:09:32 <da2ce7> sipa, cool, cannot wait to see ya :)
1190 2011-11-12 18:09:43 <da2ce7> and justmoon :)
1191 2011-11-12 18:09:58 <justmoon> da2ce7, yay! we're social!
1192 2011-11-12 18:10:03 <sipa> anyone an idea of how many registrations there are?
1193 2011-11-12 18:10:07 <TD> da2ce7: that link is one you have to create yourself. it's only used for compilation so the runtime linker doesn't create it
1194 2011-11-12 18:10:46 <da2ce7> so I have to do EVEN MORE messy stuff in my makefile :S
1195 2011-11-12 18:10:56 <da2ce7> grrr...
1196 2011-11-12 18:11:01 <TD> it's done for you by autotools
1197 2011-11-12 18:11:27 <da2ce7> yeah I really should move the project over to autotools, except I didn't start it.
1198 2011-11-12 18:12:46 * da2ce7 thinks using sed in a makefile is one of the least elegant things you can do.
1199 2011-11-12 18:13:52 <sipa> justmoon: also, a friend of mine who works at google zurich now came to see a presentation of yours a few months ago about bitcoin
1200 2011-11-12 18:14:11 <TD> sipa: who is your friend? do i know them ?
1201 2011-11-12 18:14:24 <sipa> TD: sebastiaan indesteege, i don't think he knows you
1202 2011-11-12 18:14:32 <justmoon> sipa: cool, hope he enjoyed it
1203 2011-11-12 18:14:35 <TD> no, never heard of the guy. i hope he's on the bitcoin mailing list.
1204 2011-11-12 18:15:22 <sipa> justmoon: anyway, rather funny to hear about my nickname being mentioned irl somewhere in switzerland :)
1205 2011-11-12 18:15:42 <justmoon> oh shit - yeah I couldn't remember your real name ^^
1206 2011-11-12 18:15:47 <justmoon> I've learned it since though
1207 2011-11-12 18:15:47 <sipa> haha :)
1208 2011-11-12 18:15:50 <justmoon> thanks to bitcoin-dev
1209 2011-11-12 18:15:58 <justmoon> err
1210 2011-11-12 18:16:04 <justmoon> I mean the mailing list
1211 2011-11-12 18:16:06 <sipa> the mailing list, i assume
1212 2011-11-12 18:16:07 <sipa> yeah
1213 2011-11-12 18:16:14 <justmoon> Bitcoin-development
1214 2011-11-12 18:16:16 <justmoon> that's it
1215 2011-11-12 18:17:18 <justmoon> TD: I'm building a new storage backend for bitcoinjs using leveldb
1216 2011-11-12 18:17:30 <TD> oh that's sanjays thing
1217 2011-11-12 18:17:36 <TD> didn't realize it was open sourced already
1218 2011-11-12 18:17:37 <justmoon> very very nice library, such a clean API
1219 2011-11-12 18:17:56 <TD> yeah him+jeff are good at clean APIs. bigtable is very easy to work with
1220 2011-11-12 18:18:04 <TD> given how much complexity there is under the hood
1221 2011-11-12 18:18:15 <justmoon> TD: oh it's not open sourced, I used the id i swiped from you to get into the building :P
1222 2011-11-12 18:18:19 <justmoon> j/k
1223 2011-11-12 18:18:21 <TD> :-)
1224 2011-11-12 18:18:30 <TD> well finding a good db is hard so i understand
1225 2011-11-12 18:18:37 <justmoon> lol
1226 2011-11-12 18:18:59 <justmoon> I tried tokyo cabinet first - it would probably be faster and more flexible, but also more complicated, so now I've earmarked that as a possible step 2
1227 2011-11-12 18:19:11 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1228 2011-11-12 18:19:38 twobitcoins has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1229 2011-11-12 18:20:19 AlexWaters has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1230 2011-11-12 18:20:54 <TD> didn't hear about that
1231 2011-11-12 18:20:57 <TD> wait, no, yes i did
1232 2011-11-12 18:20:59 <TD> some ruby thing?
1233 2011-11-12 18:21:15 <justmoon> well, rubyists like it because it's "web-scale" xD
1234 2011-11-12 18:21:30 <justmoon> it's a plain c persistent hashtable and persistent b-tree
1235 2011-11-12 18:21:35 <justmoon> in process database
1236 2011-11-12 18:21:39 <TD> oh
1237 2011-11-12 18:21:41 BCBot has joined
1238 2011-11-12 18:21:46 <TD> how is that better than sqlite or bdb?
1239 2011-11-12 18:22:29 <Eliel> I made this graph today. I think it's reasonably useful for gauging if bitcoin is overvalued. http://jkaartinen.iki.fi/~jojkaart/ntxbymarket.html
1240 2011-11-12 18:22:33 <justmoon> TD: one benchmark
1241 2011-11-12 18:22:37 <justmoon> http://tokyocabinet.sourceforge.net/benchmark.pdf
1242 2011-11-12 18:22:38 erle- has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1243 2011-11-12 18:22:44 <wumpus> justmoon: drag&dropping bitcoin: urls already works with the standard client, no need to use qr codes for that :p
1244 2011-11-12 18:22:56 <justmoon> (insert usual disclaimer about benchmarks here)
1245 2011-11-12 18:23:05 <copumpkin> you already did, by saying "one benchmark"
1246 2011-11-12 18:23:13 <TD> yeah that doesn't seem to be a very realistic benchmark
1247 2011-11-12 18:23:15 <copumpkin> :)
1248 2011-11-12 18:23:21 <TD> writing new records only? what about mutating existing records?
1249 2011-11-12 18:23:30 <justmoon> TD: you don't do that in bitcoin
1250 2011-11-12 18:24:03 freewil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1251 2011-11-12 18:24:46 <TD> huh
1252 2011-11-12 18:24:50 <TD> i wonder why we renamed zippy to snappy
1253 2011-11-12 18:24:56 <TD> trademarks i guess
1254 2011-11-12 18:25:19 <justmoon> it has nothing to do with zip, does it?
1255 2011-11-12 18:25:29 <justmoon> so maybe it's just a less confusing name
1256 2011-11-12 18:25:43 erle- has joined
1257 2011-11-12 18:26:22 <TD> that's true
1258 2011-11-12 18:33:42 AlexWaters has joined
1259 2011-11-12 18:39:50 <roconnor> Hi TD.  Does bitcoinj do any evaluation of scripts?
1260 2011-11-12 18:39:56 <TD> no
1261 2011-11-12 18:40:07 <roconnor> thanks; explains why I couldn't find it :)
1262 2011-11-12 18:40:12 AlexWaters has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1263 2011-11-12 18:45:31 <TD> it's a lightweight client, it can't evaluate scripts
1264 2011-11-12 18:45:38 <TD> that requires a full blockchain copy+index
1265 2011-11-12 18:45:40 <sipa> wumpus: good idea about the doxygen page, by the way
1266 2011-11-12 18:45:52 <sipa> wumpus: i hope it encourages more documentation in the code
1267 2011-11-12 18:46:33 <wumpus> sipa: yep :)
1268 2011-11-12 18:47:11 <sipa> i'm not familiar with doxygen myself, but i'll sure try to use whatever style of comments it requires
1269 2011-11-12 18:47:50 <wumpus> doxygen can cope with a lot of kinds of comment style, see http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/docblocks.html
1270 2011-11-12 18:48:16 <wumpus> I'm still learning it as well
1271 2011-11-12 18:49:50 TD_ has joined
1272 2011-11-12 18:52:49 gavinandresen has joined
1273 2011-11-12 18:53:26 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1274 2011-11-12 18:53:26 TD_ is now known as TD
1275 2011-11-12 18:56:04 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1276 2011-11-12 18:59:06 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1277 2011-11-12 19:14:35 slush has joined
1278 2011-11-12 19:15:41 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1279 2011-11-12 19:19:40 AlexWaters has joined
1280 2011-11-12 19:23:41 eastender has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1281 2011-11-12 19:25:29 ThomasV has joined
1282 2011-11-12 19:30:44 Cusipzzz has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1283 2011-11-12 19:35:32 twobitcoins has joined
1284 2011-11-12 19:39:39 twobitcoins_ has joined
1285 2011-11-12 19:39:50 <DrHaribo> Is it not possible to search by block hash or transaction hash on the namecoin block explorer?
1286 2011-11-12 19:40:43 twobitcoins has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1287 2011-11-12 19:53:47 <eueueue> Hi people, I'm newbie and would like to do a question: If I don't want to let the bitcoin app opened but would like to always have the blockchain updated. Is there a way to do this?
1288 2011-11-12 19:54:21 <cjdelisle> minimize it?
1289 2011-11-12 19:54:35 <eueueue> I have a slow pc
1290 2011-11-12 19:54:36 <TD> you could run it in server mode. it'd still be running but the window wouldn't be visible. minimization is probably easier though
1291 2011-11-12 19:54:41 tyn has joined
1292 2011-11-12 19:54:42 <TD> ah, well, that won't help. you could try MultiBit
1293 2011-11-12 19:54:48 <eueueue> and the gui make it slow
1294 2011-11-12 19:54:48 <TD> it's not as stable as the main client but has lower resource usage
1295 2011-11-12 19:54:53 twobitcoins_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1296 2011-11-12 19:55:12 <eueueue> Yes, I already tested multibit
1297 2011-11-12 19:55:31 <cjdelisle> TD: you do interesting projects. Was reading backscroll re credit system.
1298 2011-11-12 19:55:33 <eueueue> but why multibit doesn't allow the same wallet of bitcoin?
1299 2011-11-12 19:56:02 <TD> it's a different app
1300 2011-11-12 19:56:07 <TD> you have to send the coins between them
1301 2011-11-12 19:56:11 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1302 2011-11-12 19:56:20 <eueueue> don't have any project to multibit accept bitcoin wallet?
1303 2011-11-12 19:56:22 <TD> cjdelisle: well i didn't come up with much for credit yet :-) it just seems important
1304 2011-11-12 19:56:27 <TD> eueueue: well, it's possible, but hard
1305 2011-11-12 19:56:33 <TD> there are higher priorities
1306 2011-11-12 19:56:37 <TD> it's not hard to send coins from one to another
1307 2011-11-12 19:56:47 <eueueue> hehe
1308 2011-11-12 19:56:50 <eueueue> right
1309 2011-11-12 19:57:18 <eueueue> but why people started multi bit if we have bitcoin?
1310 2011-11-12 19:57:55 <TD> multibit is written in a different way that makes it much less resource intensive (but gives it different security tradeoffs)
1311 2011-11-12 19:58:34 <eueueue> hum, so why bitcoin devs just don't migrate to multibit?
1312 2011-11-12 19:58:47 <eueueue> if it's better
1313 2011-11-12 19:58:57 <TD> it's not
1314 2011-11-12 19:58:59 <TD> it's just different
1315 2011-11-12 19:59:00 <sipa> you can't compare the applications
1316 2011-11-12 19:59:07 <TD> the network can't have _only_ lightweight clients like multibit
1317 2011-11-12 19:59:16 <TD> some people have to run full bitcoin or the system can't function
1318 2011-11-12 19:59:19 <sipa> multibit does not implement a full bitcoin node like bitcoind or bitcoin-qt
1319 2011-11-12 19:59:35 <eueueue> understand
1320 2011-11-12 20:00:05 <sipa> your question is comparable to "why doesn't microsoft developers migrate to OSX?"
1321 2011-11-12 20:00:10 <sipa> *don't
1322 2011-11-12 20:00:27 <TD> if you just want to send/receive coins, eventually things like multibit will be better. for merchants, companies, miners, people who want to help the network, full bitcoin is going nowhere
1323 2011-11-12 20:00:53 <eueueue> right
1324 2011-11-12 20:01:30 <eueueue> but what happens almost all people use light clients, the network will stop?
1325 2011-11-12 20:01:39 <TD> that's a topic that's discussed from time to time.
1326 2011-11-12 20:01:51 <eueueue> hum
1327 2011-11-12 20:01:54 <TD> no, it probably won't stop. there will always be some people running the full client
1328 2011-11-12 20:02:02 <TD> there's a risk of overload
1329 2011-11-12 20:02:08 <TD> but there are projects underway to address that
1330 2011-11-12 20:02:22 <eueueue> ok
1331 2011-11-12 20:02:40 <TD> before he left satoshi thought you could support millions of users on lightweight clients with a core network of around 10,000 nodes
1332 2011-11-12 20:02:48 <TD> you don't need a huge backbone to support lots of users.
1333 2011-11-12 20:03:00 <TD> if bitcoin ever gets that big there'll be plenty of people willing to run full nodes
1334 2011-11-12 20:03:30 <eueueue> probably companies right?
1335 2011-11-12 20:03:49 <eueueue> and anyone who wants
1336 2011-11-12 20:03:51 <TD> yes, companies, hobbyists ..... kind of like saying what happens when everyone uses web browsers and nobody runs web servers :)
1337 2011-11-12 20:04:04 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1338 2011-11-12 20:05:15 <eueueue> conclusion: for now it's necessary people run full client. On future will not be necessary
1339 2011-11-12 20:05:31 wolfspraul has joined
1340 2011-11-12 20:05:37 <sipa> No - there will always be a need for people running full clients.
1341 2011-11-12 20:05:47 <sipa> Just not everyone.
1342 2011-11-12 20:06:02 <eueueue> right
1343 2011-11-12 20:07:01 <TD> eueueue: if you can't run the full client, just use multibit for now and send the coins across
1344 2011-11-12 20:07:04 <eueueue> what is time size of blockchain today?
1345 2011-11-12 20:07:08 <eueueue> 1 gb
1346 2011-11-12 20:07:10 <TD> just be careful. multibit is not as well tested or as stable as regular full bitcoin
1347 2011-11-12 20:07:16 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1348 2011-11-12 20:07:26 <eueueue> Td: thamks
1349 2011-11-12 20:07:26 <TD> about 700mb
1350 2011-11-12 20:07:32 RazielZ has joined
1351 2011-11-12 20:07:32 <TD> multibit will use about 15mb of disk i guess
1352 2011-11-12 20:08:07 <eueueue> so when be 100gb, we have a estimate year when this will happen?
1353 2011-11-12 20:08:18 <TD> 100gb?
1354 2011-11-12 20:08:23 <TD> that's a lot
1355 2011-11-12 20:08:26 <TD> hard to say for two reasons
1356 2011-11-12 20:08:29 <TD> 1) depends how much bitcoin is used
1357 2011-11-12 20:08:37 <TD> 2) depends if/when somebody implements tx pruning, which can delete a lot of data
1358 2011-11-12 20:08:44 <eueueue> and will necessary more cpu to run 100gb instead of 700mb right?
1359 2011-11-12 20:08:56 <TD> well cpu usage is proportional to activity
1360 2011-11-12 20:09:10 <eueueue> ha ok
1361 2011-11-12 20:09:11 <TD> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability
1362 2011-11-12 20:09:13 <TD> see that page
1363 2011-11-12 20:09:36 <eueueue> will read. Will let you free now. Was a lot of questions
1364 2011-11-12 20:09:38 <eueueue> thanks
1365 2011-11-12 20:10:20 <sipa> gavinandresen: does shutting down cleanly but immediately after encrypting guarantee that no leftover caches will be written to the database files?
1366 2011-11-12 20:10:39 <TD> np
1367 2011-11-12 20:10:57 <cjdelisle> I had an interesting idea today.. it should be possible if the namecoin stuff was merged into bitcoin to have a sendto() for a "domain name" by looking up the ip addr of the domain in the blockchain then connect directly to the node at the other end and ask for an address to sendTo along with a proof that the owner of the "domain" also owns the btc address.
1368 2011-11-12 20:11:24 <gavinandresen> sipa: I don't know.  It seems to work in practice...
1369 2011-11-12 20:11:39 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1370 2011-11-12 20:11:58 wolfspraul has joined
1371 2011-11-12 20:12:16 <gavinandresen> sipa:  ... but I wouldn't be surprised if there could be a race condition that breaks it (encrypt, then a tx comes in on the network that makes bdb do some more work that puts extra stuff in the new wallet.dat, then shutdown)
1372 2011-11-12 20:12:42 <sipa> cjdelisle: which is what you would get if a general pay-to-domain system was implemented (which i hope will be), and you have a resolver on your system that uses namecoin
1373 2011-11-12 20:12:51 <sipa> no need to hardcode it
1374 2011-11-12 20:13:14 <sipa> gavinandresen: yes, that's what i fear
1375 2011-11-12 20:13:15 <cjdelisle> if there isn't a namecoin resolver then it's relying on dns which is not safe.
1376 2011-11-12 20:13:28 <sipa> and namecoin is?
1377 2011-11-12 20:13:55 Rabbit67890 has joined
1378 2011-11-12 20:13:58 <sipa> all depends on how much your trust the authority
1379 2011-11-12 20:14:13 <TD> cjdelisle: it can be with DNSSEC
1380 2011-11-12 20:14:17 <TD> i'm not sure you need namecoin for that
1381 2011-11-12 20:14:21 <TD> (or ssl)
1382 2011-11-12 20:14:24 <cjdelisle> Namecoin is extremely safe compared to dns.
1383 2011-11-12 20:14:29 <AlexWaters> sipa: it's nearly identical to bitcoin except that the namecoin protocol allows you to buy namecoin domains with namecoins
1384 2011-11-12 20:14:39 <sipa> AlexWaters: i know what namecoin is :)
1385 2011-11-12 20:14:46 <cjdelisle> Dnssec is sad.
1386 2011-11-12 20:14:55 <AlexWaters> sipa: lol, i jumped in here a little out of step then =P sorry
1387 2011-11-12 20:15:01 <cjdelisle> I'm sorry to troll but dnssec just isn't going to happen.
1388 2011-11-12 20:15:07 <AlexWaters> sipa: i was surprised thinking you didn't
1389 2011-11-12 20:15:45 <cjdelisle> You can't put an rsa-1024 chain of trust into a udp packet
1390 2011-11-12 20:15:50 <sipa> cjdelisle: well, if you don't trust the dns (or dnssec) system, you shouldn't use any resolver but namecoin i suppose
1391 2011-11-12 20:16:01 <sipa> that is still independent from bitcoin
1392 2011-11-12 20:16:26 <cjdelisle> The advantage of it being included in bitcoin is that you don't have to trust the big bad world.
1393 2011-11-12 20:16:43 <sipa> but you do trust the big bad world for web browsing?
1394 2011-11-12 20:16:54 zeiris has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1395 2011-11-12 20:16:57 <cjdelisle> sending money != web browsing
1396 2011-11-12 20:17:03 <gavinandresen> AlexWaters: can you look over:  https://gist.github.com/1361001   (test plan for wallet encryption bugfix)
1397 2011-11-12 20:17:46 <cjdelisle> if you send money, there is #1 a higher loss and #2 a greater incentive to attack then if you are looking for google.
1398 2011-11-12 20:18:09 <cjdelisle> You can be pretty certain that once something has been in the bitcoin chain for a while, it's not going to vanish or suddenly change.
1399 2011-11-12 20:18:26 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1400 2011-11-12 20:18:33 <sipa> if someone got access to my gmail but mitm'ing my connection to google, i may have larger problems than if my entire stash of bitcoins was stolen.
1401 2011-11-12 20:18:52 <sipa> that may not be the case anymore "if bitcoin got big"
1402 2011-11-12 20:19:15 <AlexWaters> gavinandresen: i promised my girlfriend I would work on her website, but i can look at that and the bugs I plan to test  (about 7) this evening / tomorrow. is it time sensitive?
1403 2011-11-12 20:19:20 kiba has joined
1404 2011-11-12 20:19:28 <kiba> hey
1405 2011-11-12 20:19:35 <gavinandresen> sipa: maybe a sanity check after wallet re-encryption should be coded... something like:  Store all private keys in memory during re-encryption.  Then during shtudown, after bdb is shut down, scan the new wallet.dat to make sure none are in it
1406 2011-11-12 20:20:15 <sipa> cjdelisle: but still, the problem is trust in a domain system, and if you think the existing dns setup on your own system is not sufficient for certain applications, you need some other setup.
1407 2011-11-12 20:20:26 <cjdelisle> mitm'ing gmail connections has happened in the wild
1408 2011-11-12 20:20:36 <gavinandresen> AlexWaters: yes, it is time sensitive, but if you can't get to it until Monday we'll survive
1409 2011-11-12 20:21:25 <cjdelisle> dns is what we have and it's okish for most things, I don't see anyone changing dns any time soon.
1410 2011-11-12 20:21:38 <AlexWaters> gavinandresen: ok i will play with it first thing this evening
1411 2011-11-12 20:21:43 <sipa> gavinandresen: that's quite extensive - maybe something for a tool in contrib/ rather than in mainline client?
1412 2011-11-12 20:22:05 Rav3nSw0rd has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1413 2011-11-12 20:22:07 <gavinandresen> AlexWaters: the time sensitive part is just looking over the test plan and seeing if I forgot something
1414 2011-11-12 20:22:08 <cjdelisle> for sending money through a pseudoanonymous non-chargeback-able system, making sure you sent to the right addr is serious business.
1415 2011-11-12 20:22:37 Rav3nSw0rd has joined
1416 2011-11-12 20:22:54 <gavinandresen> (I don't expect testing to happen until there's an easy-to-run tool for extracting private keys from an encrypted wallet)
1417 2011-11-12 20:22:57 Kolky has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1418 2011-11-12 20:23:05 Kolky has joined
1419 2011-11-12 20:23:29 <sipa> gavinandresen: you've seen etotheipi_'s tools?
1420 2011-11-12 20:23:54 <gavinandresen> sipa:  yes
1421 2011-11-12 20:24:22 <gavinandresen> sipa: ... I don't think he's implemented decryption, though.
1422 2011-11-12 20:24:36 <sipa> Oh, that's what you mean - no indeed.
1423 2011-11-12 20:24:53 Fnar has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1424 2011-11-12 20:25:03 <gavinandresen> sipa: actually, your feedback on the testplan would be great, too:  https://gist.github.com/1361001]
1425 2011-11-12 20:25:17 etotheipi_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1426 2011-11-12 20:25:23 <gavinandresen> sipa:  the little python code I've been using to find private keys in files is part of that.
1427 2011-11-12 20:25:41 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1428 2011-11-12 20:27:38 <kiba> I wonder why the gas station isn't like a warehouse where you just pay and they deliver the gas or goodies to you
1429 2011-11-12 20:28:11 <kiba> when you order food
1430 2011-11-12 20:28:17 <kiba> they should be able to just ship it to you
1431 2011-11-12 20:28:18 etotheipi_ has joined
1432 2011-11-12 20:28:43 Fnar has joined
1433 2011-11-12 20:29:23 agricocb has joined
1434 2011-11-12 20:29:30 <sipa> gavinandresen: to extract the keys from the encrypted wallet.dat file, you could use my private key export patch?
1435 2011-11-12 20:29:49 <sipa> (maybe a separate executable, not the actual executable being tested)
1436 2011-11-12 20:30:22 <gavinandresen> sipa: what format does it export to?
1437 2011-11-12 20:30:36 <sipa> wallet export exports to json
1438 2011-11-12 20:30:54 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1439 2011-11-12 20:31:00 <sipa> oh, in base58, not hex
1440 2011-11-12 20:31:10 wolfspraul has joined
1441 2011-11-12 20:31:38 <gavinandresen> I've been meaning to teach bitcointools to understand 'wkey' entries, and implement the passphrase decryption....
1442 2011-11-12 20:31:48 <sipa> that would be great
1443 2011-11-12 20:32:08 <sipa> but maybe not trivial, as you'd need to mimick OpenSSL's EVP_BytesToKey function e.g.
1444 2011-11-12 20:32:10 <gavinandresen> That'll be more work, but at least it would be useful-in-the-future work
1445 2011-11-12 20:32:28 <sipa> anyway, it's easy to write a function that just dumps all private keys in hex to a text file
1446 2011-11-12 20:32:31 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1447 2011-11-12 20:32:39 <sipa> i can adapt the export code to do that, if you like
1448 2011-11-12 20:32:39 <gavinandresen> I could just call EVP_BytesToKey and add a soft-dependency on openssl.   I think.
1449 2011-11-12 20:33:11 <gavinandresen> sipa:  short-term, if you could create a version of your patch that just spits out private keys in hex, one-per-line, that'd be spiffy
1450 2011-11-12 20:33:43 <gavinandresen> (I'm about to turn into a pumpkin-- going to a Bruins hockey game tonight)
1451 2011-11-12 20:34:31 <AlexWaters> gavinandresen: as a testcase - this seems pretty straightforward and simple. I think this is a high priority test to be running continuously, and it should be evolving with penetration testing to foil it. in my limited experience, there might be something that this test is missing - and I'll do my best to try and find that. Overall, I think it covers the vectors that I can imagine for preventing unencrypted data being mistaken for encrypted
1452 2011-11-12 20:37:27 <AlexWaters> gavinandresen: i'm hoping that's the bigger goal for why we need to test for this? to make sure that private keys aren't lurking in corners?
1453 2011-11-12 20:38:00 <sipa> AlexWaters: we know that private keys are lurking in corners
1454 2011-11-12 20:38:02 <gavinandresen> AlexWaters: yes-- and good point about running it continuously
1455 2011-11-12 20:38:45 <gavinandresen> AlexWaters: I thought I cc'ed you on the discussion, but if not, see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51604.0
1456 2011-11-12 20:39:59 <AlexWaters> gavinandresen: sorry I missed that, trying to play catchup this weekend with bitcoin qa
1457 2011-11-12 20:43:41 zeiris has joined
1458 2011-11-12 20:47:54 clr_ has joined
1459 2011-11-12 20:51:19 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1460 2011-11-12 20:51:40 slush has joined
1461 2011-11-12 20:52:06 wolfspraul has joined
1462 2011-11-12 20:55:15 <CIA-89> libbitcoin: genjix * r0df89ac1c7c5 / (6 files in 5 dirs): Initial BDB skeleton.
1463 2011-11-12 20:55:16 <CIA-89> libbitcoin: genjix * rfd5cbecf44b7 / (5 files in 5 dirs): genesis_block()
1464 2011-11-12 20:55:23 <CIA-89> libbitcoin: genjix * r4ca6ea360ed7 /include/bitcoin/bitcoin.hpp: added bc namespace alias.
1465 2011-11-12 21:00:16 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1466 2011-11-12 21:01:11 TheZimm has joined
1467 2011-11-12 21:01:14 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1468 2011-11-12 21:02:31 sytse has quit (Quit: reboot)
1469 2011-11-12 21:03:28 wolfspraul has joined
1470 2011-11-12 21:06:51 sytse has joined
1471 2011-11-12 21:07:27 Rabbit67890 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1472 2011-11-12 21:10:23 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1473 2011-11-12 21:12:31 wasabi1 has joined
1474 2011-11-12 21:14:21 stalled has joined
1475 2011-11-12 21:14:27 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1476 2011-11-12 21:15:10 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1477 2011-11-12 21:15:29 karnac has joined
1478 2011-11-12 21:18:06 TD has joined
1479 2011-11-12 21:18:12 luke-jr has quit (Excess Flood)
1480 2011-11-12 21:18:31 luke-jr has joined
1481 2011-11-12 21:29:48 eueueue has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1482 2011-11-12 21:31:34 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1483 2011-11-12 21:32:16 wolfspraul has joined
1484 2011-11-12 21:36:51 copumpkin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1485 2011-11-12 21:37:24 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1486 2011-11-12 21:37:48 wolfspraul has joined
1487 2011-11-12 21:45:13 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r4c68ad0183ba cgminer/configure.ac: Fix for Intel Macs.
1488 2011-11-12 21:47:54 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1489 2011-11-12 21:57:49 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1490 2011-11-12 22:02:46 twobitcoins has joined
1491 2011-11-12 22:10:00 wolfspra1l has joined
1492 2011-11-12 22:12:24 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
1493 2011-11-12 22:12:43 freewil has joined
1494 2011-11-12 22:12:43 freewil has quit (Changing host)
1495 2011-11-12 22:12:43 freewil has joined
1496 2011-11-12 22:13:48 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1497 2011-11-12 22:14:18 shadders has joined
1498 2011-11-12 22:16:14 batouzo has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1499 2011-11-12 22:22:35 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1500 2011-11-12 22:37:02 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1501 2011-11-12 22:38:50 denisx has joined
1502 2011-11-12 22:39:18 <denisx> gmaxwell: now my database calls are async
1503 2011-11-12 22:43:55 shadders has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1504 2011-11-12 22:44:03 Zarutian has joined
1505 2011-11-12 22:45:02 shadders has joined
1506 2011-11-12 22:45:42 shadders has quit (Client Quit)
1507 2011-11-12 22:55:56 eastender has joined
1508 2011-11-12 23:03:48 Lexa has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1509 2011-11-12 23:15:10 wasabi has joined
1510 2011-11-12 23:15:34 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1511 2011-11-12 23:16:24 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1512 2011-11-12 23:20:08 abragin has quit ()
1513 2011-11-12 23:21:50 sshc has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1514 2011-11-12 23:22:45 sshc has joined
1515 2011-11-12 23:27:28 dvide has quit ()
1516 2011-11-12 23:28:59 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1517 2011-11-12 23:31:26 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1518 2011-11-12 23:34:38 <CIA-89> bitcoinj: miron@google.com * r258 /trunk/ (22 files in 4 dirs): Cleanup of lazy block parsing, patch from shadders
1519 2011-11-12 23:34:49 eastender has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1520 2011-11-12 23:43:28 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
1521 2011-11-12 23:43:37 iocor has joined
1522 2011-11-12 23:45:05 sacarlson has joined
1523 2011-11-12 23:46:52 <CIA-89> bitcoinj: miron@google.com * r259 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/Utils.java: Make decodeCompactBits public, resolves issue 99.
1524 2011-11-12 23:54:49 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1525 2011-11-12 23:55:20 Cory has joined
1526 2011-11-12 23:55:40 Cory has quit (Changing host)
1527 2011-11-12 23:55:40 Cory has joined
1528 2011-11-12 23:57:01 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)