1 2011-11-14 00:00:42 <roconnor> aww
   2 2011-11-14 00:01:02 * roconnor died on block 0000000000e00662eb3d28a404292f044c8407a06fab630a650c8797651074a0:2011-09-05 10:19:10
   3 2011-11-14 00:01:14 Daviey has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
   4 2011-11-14 00:02:24 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
   5 2011-11-14 00:02:33 adulau has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
   6 2011-11-14 00:02:34 <eueueue> Other example: people donated 1000btc. But the key with 1000btc can only be spent if % of who donated (AGREE). Will be possible?
   7 2011-11-14 00:03:12 adulau has joined
   8 2011-11-14 00:03:41 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
   9 2011-11-14 00:03:42 extor has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  10 2011-11-14 00:03:58 <gmaxwell> yes, but without an oracle if the number of parties in the vote is small enough to keep the transaction size reasonable.
  11 2011-11-14 00:04:15 Sedra- has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  12 2011-11-14 00:04:51 llama has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  13 2011-11-14 00:04:59 llama has joined
  14 2011-11-14 00:05:02 llama has quit (Changing host)
  15 2011-11-14 00:05:02 llama has joined
  16 2011-11-14 00:05:13 <gmaxwell> (thats the same as the regular assurance contract, but the output script has an N of M signatures condition)
  17 2011-11-14 00:05:33 Daviey has joined
  18 2011-11-14 00:06:24 <gmaxwell> e.g. it wouldn't be reasonable to have the condition be >50% of 1000 people.  It would be reasonable to have 2 of 3 or 3 of 4 or something like that.
  19 2011-11-14 00:06:28 <eueueue> ok. But if for each time I want to spend a part of 1000btc, I would like to people vote for agree or deny
  20 2011-11-14 00:06:28 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
  21 2011-11-14 00:06:38 <iddo> everyone donated same amount? otherwise % of who donated is unfair
  22 2011-11-14 00:07:53 <eueueue> the % is of people and not of btc donated
  23 2011-11-14 00:07:58 <gmaxwell> The best way to accomplish that is using oracles to conduct the vote... simply because that scales better, and allows ownership of the 'shares' to be transfered.
  24 2011-11-14 00:08:19 <gmaxwell> But it can be done directly if there are few enough parties that the txn size would be realistic.
  25 2011-11-14 00:08:41 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  26 2011-11-14 00:09:07 <roconnor> strange, I seem to have failed on a normal run-of-the-mill transaction
  27 2011-11-14 00:09:09 <eueueue> ok, I just wanted to know if will be possible. The answer is yes. so GREAT
  28 2011-11-14 00:09:29 <gmaxwell> eueueue: I told you yes a while ago. :)
  29 2011-11-14 00:09:44 <eueueue> hehehe
  30 2011-11-14 00:09:48 <eueueue> thanks
  31 2011-11-14 00:10:42 copumpkin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  32 2011-11-14 00:10:45 Sedra has joined
  33 2011-11-14 00:11:08 copumpkin has joined
  34 2011-11-14 00:11:09 ThomasV has joined
  35 2011-11-14 00:11:36 <iddo> what does % of who donated means? when total of all donations reaches 1000btc then it goes into effect? or what?
  36 2011-11-14 00:12:14 <eueueue> Total of keys that donated
  37 2011-11-14 00:12:25 <gmaxwell> iddo: you'd make an assurance contract that when it reaches its target pays into a trust account (a N of M signatures account)
  38 2011-11-14 00:12:45 <iddo> each key donates any amount it wishes, or fixed amount?
  39 2011-11-14 00:12:57 <eueueue> any
  40 2011-11-14 00:13:13 <eueueue> was my example
  41 2011-11-14 00:13:15 <iddo> so how N of M will work?
  42 2011-11-14 00:14:02 HaltingState has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
  43 2011-11-14 00:14:20 <eueueue> In my example, I wanted to the % for decision will be based on keys and not on btc
  44 2011-11-14 00:14:37 extor has joined
  45 2011-11-14 00:14:41 <iddo> target is 1000btc and if N people donated 0.001btc then they control the outcome?
  46 2011-11-14 00:14:51 <gmaxwell> iddo: "don't do that then"
  47 2011-11-14 00:15:22 <gmaxwell> iddo: all the parties would have to agree on the trust account geometry _before_ they paid in, since it'll be included in their signatures.
  48 2011-11-14 00:15:55 <iddo> geometry means what?
  49 2011-11-14 00:16:08 <sipa> if there are 1000 parties, there will probably be some elected (group of) people who are allowed to judge whether the conditions are satisfied
  50 2011-11-14 00:16:29 <gmaxwell> sipa: I said that like .. oh.. three times. ;)  Oracle-proxies.
  51 2011-11-14 00:16:30 <sipa> the transaction will only need signatures from those people then
  52 2011-11-14 00:16:41 sacarlson has joined
  53 2011-11-14 00:16:42 <sipa> gmaxwell: "oracle" can be a bit confusing, i assume :)
  54 2011-11-14 00:17:00 <gmaxwell> iddo: the conditions of the account, which keys can sign and how many are required.
  55 2011-11-14 00:17:19 <iddo> he said 1000btc and unknown num of parties, and % of num of parties has control..? sounds messed up
  56 2011-11-14 00:17:33 <gmaxwell> iddo: so? the system lets you make stupid deals.
  57 2011-11-14 00:17:51 <sipa> all that matters to the system is who is allowed to decide whether the transaction goes through
  58 2011-11-14 00:17:56 <sipa> that can be very complex
  59 2011-11-14 00:18:16 <sipa> but in practice, it will become easier, as those people trust eachother in general, to a certain degree
  60 2011-11-14 00:19:31 <iddo> you don't know in advance have many parties donated until reaching 1000btc, but you can design it so % of that number will be needed to release the funds?
  61 2011-11-14 00:19:56 karnac has joined
  62 2011-11-14 00:20:09 <eueueue> by the keys
  63 2011-11-14 00:20:23 <eueueue> a key will be a person.
  64 2011-11-14 00:21:26 <eueueue> this kind of contract will not be for anonymous donations.
  65 2011-11-14 00:21:51 <gmaxwell> iddo: you can using a oracle-proxy as the release agent, otherwise you need to know the parties before anyone commits.
  66 2011-11-14 00:22:41 <iddo> what is oracle-proxy ?
  67 2011-11-14 00:23:04 <sipa> iddo: a group of delegates that are allowed to judge whether the transaction goes though
  68 2011-11-14 00:23:09 <sipa> *through
  69 2011-11-14 00:23:20 <gmaxwell> iddo: an agent that signs things based on preset instructions.  You could have several of them.
  70 2011-11-14 00:23:23 <eueueue> each people donate and prove that key allow to him. So will not have a person donating 2 times on different key to allow have more % on decision
  71 2011-11-14 00:24:32 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  72 2011-11-14 00:24:52 <iddo> so how does this agent knows if % agree to release?
  73 2011-11-14 00:25:19 amiller has joined
  74 2011-11-14 00:25:30 <gmaxwell> iddo: for example, someone could buy an IBM cryptocard— a secure tamper proof computer that can prove the software it runs to third parties—  and then you could write an agent that tallies the votes for the release (w/ signatures), and show everyone the source of the agent. Then the agent runs on the card and does the signing.
  75 2011-11-14 00:25:33 <iddo> i don't really understand the scenario, when you reach 1000btc doesn't it mean that everyone agreed to what they donated?
  76 2011-11-14 00:26:20 <sipa> iddo: bitcoin scripts cannot see other transactions, they have no way to calculate how much was donated in total
  77 2011-11-14 00:26:28 <gmaxwell> iddo: I think you're confusing yourself by mixing up the mechenism with eueueue's specific requirements. eueueue's requirements might be stupid (they sound kind of stupid to me), I'm just answering that the system can do it and do so in several different ways.
  78 2011-11-14 00:26:29 <sipa> so you need a trusted entity to make that decision
  79 2011-11-14 00:26:40 <gmaxwell> sipa: or you need to have the donors agree in advance.
  80 2011-11-14 00:26:47 <sipa> indeed
  81 2011-11-14 00:28:34 <gmaxwell> sipa: would be kinda fun to write some code for a cryptocard engine that executed scripts which were a bit more powerful that bitcoins, and had access e.g. to a persistant secure storage. to act minimal trust agents for this sort of thing.
  82 2011-11-14 00:29:55 <eueueue> My english is really bad, but I'll write on google translate and paste here a pratical example of the requirement
  83 2011-11-14 00:30:24 ThomasV has joined
  84 2011-11-14 00:30:33 <sipa> eueueue: where are you from?
  85 2011-11-14 00:30:49 <eueueue> Brasil
  86 2011-11-14 00:31:44 <roconnor> I think the wiki's description of OP_0NOTEQUAL is completely wrong
  87 2011-11-14 00:31:47 <gmaxwell> Your english is way better than my portuguese. :)
  88 2011-11-14 00:31:49 <iddo> so it that example everyone sends bitcoins to address controlled by agent? how do you prove no one malicious controls the address?
  89 2011-11-14 00:32:38 <gmaxwell> iddo: thats one option (the one that works when there are many parties), but it doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) just one agent. It can be N of M agents.
  90 2011-11-14 00:33:05 <gmaxwell> iddo: and the agents could be programs that run on tamperproof hardware, if you like.
  91 2011-11-14 00:34:32 <iddo> well N of M agents makes more sense, not sure i understand tamperproof hardware, how do you know that the address isn't also controlled by something else?
  92 2011-11-14 00:34:34 <gmaxwell> iddo: it can also be done agentless, if you agree on the signing parties in advance and there are few enough that you can reasonably fit them into a transaction.
  93 2011-11-14 00:35:01 eoss has joined
  94 2011-11-14 00:35:01 <gmaxwell> iddo: because the tamperproof hardware does remote attestation.
  95 2011-11-14 00:35:01 eoss has quit (Changing host)
  96 2011-11-14 00:35:02 eoss has joined
  97 2011-11-14 00:35:35 <sipa> roconnor: you're right, it's exactly the opposite
  98 2011-11-14 00:35:53 <sipa> roconnor: OP_0NOTEQUAL tests whether the value is different from zero, not wether it equals zero
  99 2011-11-14 00:35:56 <gmaxwell> iddo: you upload a program to the hardware that generates a key. It then signs the key it outputs, along with the hash of the program, with a key which is only known to the hardware. That key is signed by the hardware maker.
 100 2011-11-14 00:36:25 <roconnor> sipa: can you fix it?
 101 2011-11-14 00:36:37 <sipa> roconnor: i'd leave the honor to you, but if you want me to, sure
 102 2011-11-14 00:36:52 <gmaxwell> iddo: so someone can validate that the agent does what it says it will, and that no one else controls the key. (so long as you trust the maker of the agent to not cheat)
 103 2011-11-14 00:36:54 <roconnor> I want you do because I haven't gone through the overhead of creating a wiki account yet
 104 2011-11-14 00:37:06 <roconnor> s/do/to
 105 2011-11-14 00:37:59 <gmaxwell> (well maker _and_ the operator to not cheat and conspire with each other)
 106 2011-11-14 00:38:15 <sipa> roconnor: done
 107 2011-11-14 00:38:48 <roconnor> thanks
 108 2011-11-14 00:39:03 <iddo> gmaxwell: you know that no one else controls the key because you verify that the key was created from the random bits that were chosen by the signed program?
 109 2011-11-14 00:39:39 <eueueue> I have a home in a condominium where a fee is charged every month. The administrator of the condominium is responsible for maintaining the condo and decide for themselves what to buy. My intention is that the decision-making were all residents
 110 2011-11-14 00:39:48 <gmaxwell> iddo: by the signed program running on the secure hardware (and the program uses the hardware's built in RNG)
 111 2011-11-14 00:40:06 <roconnor> crap I screwed up IF_DUP
 112 2011-11-14 00:40:07 theorb has joined
 113 2011-11-14 00:40:10 <roconnor> IFDUP
 114 2011-11-14 00:40:42 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 115 2011-11-14 00:40:47 llama has quit (Quit: llama)
 116 2011-11-14 00:40:54 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
 117 2011-11-14 00:41:31 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 118 2011-11-14 00:42:11 <eueueue> So all residents pay in BTC and the admin only can spend the btc if 80% agree that is necessary spend the btc buying a new .....
 119 2011-11-14 00:42:17 llama has joined
 120 2011-11-14 00:42:17 llama has quit (Changing host)
 121 2011-11-14 00:42:17 llama has joined
 122 2011-11-14 00:42:32 HaltingState has joined
 123 2011-11-14 00:42:33 HaltingState has quit (Changing host)
 124 2011-11-14 00:42:33 HaltingState has joined
 125 2011-11-14 00:42:40 <eueueue> it's a big condominium
 126 2011-11-14 00:43:10 <eueueue> it's just an example
 127 2011-11-14 00:43:33 <iddo> i think you need to trust that the calls to get random bits on the secure hardware are really random, then the rest seems ok
 128 2011-11-14 00:43:38 <gmaxwell> eueueue: if its big (more than a dozen or so residents) then you need to use agent to conduct the vote... because doing it directly would make the transactions too big.
 129 2011-11-14 00:43:50 <gmaxwell> iddo: yes, you trust that the maker of the secure hardware didn't cheat.
 130 2011-11-14 00:43:57 <iddo> cool
 131 2011-11-14 00:44:19 <gmaxwell> but presumably he knew nothing of this application when he made the hardware, so it would be somewhat hard for him to do so.
 132 2011-11-14 00:44:47 llama has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 133 2011-11-14 00:44:54 llama has joined
 134 2011-11-14 00:45:02 llama has quit (Changing host)
 135 2011-11-14 00:45:02 llama has joined
 136 2011-11-14 00:45:13 <gmaxwell> iddo: the key could also require a signature by the operator of the service which he made on some other hardware. So both the maker and operator would have to cheat.
 137 2011-11-14 00:46:35 <eueueue> the admin own the condominiun key. All residentes pay a month charge to this key. The admin only can spend the btc if 80% of all residentes agree.
 138 2011-11-14 00:46:55 <iddo> signature of operator to prove he's really the operator? ok
 139 2011-11-14 00:47:36 <iddo> eueueue: what happens to the btc is less than 80% agree ?
 140 2011-11-14 00:48:01 <eueueue> the admin can't spend the btc
 141 2011-11-14 00:48:31 <iddo> so the btc is destroyed? or returned to residents?
 142 2011-11-14 00:48:37 <gmaxwell> eueueue: yes, the funds are payed to an output that looks like MANAGER and 80% (RESIDENT A, RESIDENT B, RESIDENT C...)    or if there are many residents  "MANAGER and >50% (AGENT A, AGENT B, AGENT C)"  where the agents are third parties trusted to only sign if the vote comes out correctly.
 143 2011-11-14 00:48:49 <gmaxwell> iddo: it's just stuck until they do agree.
 144 2011-11-14 00:49:58 <eueueue> iddo: let me think
 145 2011-11-14 00:50:02 <iddo> gmaxwell: that 80% (RESIDENT A, RESIDENT B, RESIDENT C...) only works if they all donate same amount, no?
 146 2011-11-14 00:50:09 * roconnor kinda thinks some of these things are better delt with using open transactions
 147 2011-11-14 00:50:12 <gmaxwell> iddo: thats completely and totally unrelated.
 148 2011-11-14 00:50:27 <iddo> (with single multisign txn i mean)
 149 2011-11-14 00:50:29 Beremat has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 150 2011-11-14 00:50:54 <gmaxwell> roconnor: requires trusted banks.
 151 2011-11-14 00:51:05 <iddo> how do you do 80% if it's 80% of total btc donated, without agent?
 152 2011-11-14 00:51:54 <gmaxwell> iddo: he didn't want that, but if he did you take the GCD of the inputs and give users multiple keys proportional to the payments.
 153 2011-11-14 00:51:57 <eueueue> iddo: return to residents. I think it's the correct to be done
 154 2011-11-14 00:52:14 <gmaxwell> eueueue: you can't make it automatically do that.
 155 2011-11-14 00:52:28 <eueueue> why?
 156 2011-11-14 00:52:31 vragnaroda has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 157 2011-11-14 00:52:47 <gmaxwell> because the script evaluation is a function that doesn't involve time.
 158 2011-11-14 00:52:57 <gmaxwell> So when would it be automatically returned?
 159 2011-11-14 00:53:05 <eueueue> hum
 160 2011-11-14 00:53:19 <eueueue> so involve time is a good feature
 161 2011-11-14 00:53:21 vragnaroda has joined
 162 2011-11-14 00:53:27 <iddo> gmaxwell: i think you're assuming that it's agreed in advance how much each resident will donate (and eneueue doesn't assume that)
 163 2011-11-14 00:53:38 <gmaxwell> Or rather, I suppose you could do this with an oracle... "(MANAGER and 80% (RESIDENT A, RESIDENT B, RESIDENT C...)) OR TIMEOUT_ORACLE"
 164 2011-11-14 00:53:56 <gmaxwell> iddo: you can only do it using the resident keys directly if you agree on the amounts in advance.
 165 2011-11-14 00:54:10 <gmaxwell> iddo: besides, a person weighed system is moronic without advance agreement.
 166 2011-11-14 00:54:16 <iddo> ok, that's what i thought
 167 2011-11-14 00:54:25 <gmaxwell> iddo: otherwise I'll have me and my 1000 clones donate 0.0000001.
 168 2011-11-14 00:54:36 <eueueue> gmaxwell: will not have any feature that involve time?
 169 2011-11-14 00:54:45 pnicholson has joined
 170 2011-11-14 00:54:50 pnicholson has left ()
 171 2011-11-14 00:55:29 <gmaxwell> I guess the residents could agree to create a time locked timeout transaction at the start... but you can't force them to agree to this.
 172 2011-11-14 00:55:42 <eueueue> iddo: the residentes will tell what key own to each residente
 173 2011-11-14 00:56:21 <iddo> eueueue: did you mean that each resident will donate whatever amount he likes, until reaching 1000btc ? or each resident donates some specific amount that is known in advance ?
 174 2011-11-14 00:56:28 <eueueue> so the amount of btc can be different and the % could be by key
 175 2011-11-14 00:56:50 <eueueue> iddo: forget the first example
 176 2011-11-14 00:57:31 <eueueue> the example now is the same amount for each resident.
 177 2011-11-14 00:57:51 <eueueue> but of course some can pay different amount
 178 2011-11-14 00:58:05 <eueueue> but each resident will have only one key
 179 2011-11-14 00:58:19 <eueueue> so the % on decision will be by key
 180 2011-11-14 00:58:35 <eueueue> so the amount will not matter
 181 2011-11-14 00:59:54 <eueueue> gmaxwell said will not involve time the deicision to have btc back. This will be great (If involve time)
 182 2011-11-14 01:00:35 <iddo> so everyone donates, and then if 80% agree then the transaction goes through?
 183 2011-11-14 01:00:55 <eueueue> this feature is just not developed yet or will never exist by bitcoin design?
 184 2011-11-14 01:01:37 <eueueue> iddo: everyone pay, and then if 80% agree then the transaction goes through. YES
 185 2011-11-14 01:01:37 <gmaxwell> eueueue: Transactions which directly involve time will never exist by design. But you could do what you want if the residents first generate a timeout transaction.
 186 2011-11-14 01:02:23 <gmaxwell> I'm sorry, the language barrier is making it a little too hard for me to communicate here. :(
 187 2011-11-14 01:02:32 <eueueue> yes
 188 2011-11-14 01:02:33 <iddo> eueueue: you can do N of M secret sharing on the key that controls the output
 189 2011-11-14 01:02:36 <eueueue> but thanks
 190 2011-11-14 01:03:00 <gmaxwell> iddo: ah thats a good idea too.
 191 2011-11-14 01:03:03 <eueueue> I'll let you free. I understood most part
 192 2011-11-14 01:03:03 localhost has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 193 2011-11-14 01:03:22 <iddo> i.e. create random key shared among M paries using multiparty computation
 194 2011-11-14 01:03:23 <gmaxwell> iddo: but threshold secret sharing requires a trusted party to do the split.
 195 2011-11-14 01:03:27 <eueueue> really thanks for the patience
 196 2011-11-14 01:03:33 wolfspraul has joined
 197 2011-11-14 01:04:02 <iddo> why trusted party? it's just that if there's no agreement then btc stays locked?
 198 2011-11-14 01:04:28 Kolky has quit (Quit: Bye bye!)
 199 2011-11-14 01:04:45 <roconnor> in CHECKMULTISIG if the number of public keys left to check ever drops below the number of signatures to check, the operations pushes FALSE; however if the number of publick keys starts out less than the number of signatures, then instead the script immediately fails ...
 200 2011-11-14 01:04:47 <roconnor> *sigh*
 201 2011-11-14 01:05:00 <iddo> or can use the example from bitcoin contracts wiki where they prepare another txn and if no agreement after 6 months the btc is sent to another address?
 202 2011-11-14 01:05:53 <sipa> roconnor: CHECKMULTISIG is really a terrible beast that somehow got in, without thinking things through
 203 2011-11-14 01:06:18 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 204 2011-11-14 01:06:51 localhost has joined
 205 2011-11-14 01:07:54 mologie has joined
 206 2011-11-14 01:08:55 HaltingState has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 207 2011-11-14 01:09:04 OpenOcean has joined
 208 2011-11-14 01:09:15 <iddo> eueueue: i think the answer is it can be done on top of bitcoin, except you cannot return the bitcoins to residents if no agreement is reached
 209 2011-11-14 01:09:16 <gmaxwell> iddo: yes, I kept saying that. "generate a timeout transaction"
 210 2011-11-14 01:09:24 <iddo> ok
 211 2011-11-14 01:09:32 * roconnor leaves implementing OP_IF for another day
 212 2011-11-14 01:09:38 <eueueue> iddo: thanks
 213 2011-11-14 01:10:22 OpenOcean is now known as Mad7Scientist
 214 2011-11-14 01:10:47 <iddo> it's possible for M parties who hold secret key they generated by MPC to do another MPC to sign a txn with this key, without anyone knowing the full key
 215 2011-11-14 01:11:14 <iddo> mpc = multiparty computation
 216 2011-11-14 01:11:48 erus` has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 8.0/20111104165243])
 217 2011-11-14 01:12:35 GMP has joined
 218 2011-11-14 01:12:57 <gmaxwell> iddo: show be an implementation. :)
 219 2011-11-14 01:13:02 <gmaxwell> er s/be/me/
 220 2011-11-14 01:13:17 somuchwin has joined
 221 2011-11-14 01:14:07 <iddo> yeah that's a problem... i suspect it's inefficient even though poly time
 222 2011-11-14 01:14:21 <iddo> there's implementation of mental poker though?
 223 2011-11-14 01:15:35 <iddo> but mental poker doesn't involve computing ecdsa signature
 224 2011-11-14 01:16:24 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 225 2011-11-14 01:19:41 <eueueue> another example is: the admin show 10 options of products to buy.  (each one has a different price) the btc will be spent on the option with more %. voted.
 226 2011-11-14 01:19:48 Sedra- has joined
 227 2011-11-14 01:20:18 TheZimm has joined
 228 2011-11-14 01:20:43 da2ce7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 229 2011-11-14 01:22:27 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 230 2011-11-14 01:23:55 da2ce7 has joined
 231 2011-11-14 01:23:55 da2ce7 has quit (Changing host)
 232 2011-11-14 01:23:55 da2ce7 has joined
 233 2011-11-14 01:24:46 <iddo> everyone who votes pledges the same fixed amount of btc ?
 234 2011-11-14 01:25:20 <eueueue> tell: yes
 235 2011-11-14 01:26:17 crazy_imp has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 236 2011-11-14 01:26:40 <iddo> who receives the product?
 237 2011-11-14 01:27:19 <eueueue> iddo: the condominiun admin, who adminstrate the admin key
 238 2011-11-14 01:27:34 <eueueue> that receive the btcs of all residents
 239 2011-11-14 01:27:38 crazy_imp has joined
 240 2011-11-14 01:29:10 <iddo> the price of each of the 10 products is the same?
 241 2011-11-14 01:29:54 <eueueue> no
 242 2011-11-14 01:30:09 <eueueue> the choose of products will be represented my numbers
 243 2011-11-14 01:30:50 <eueueue> the condominiun admin will tell: number one is product.... number 2 is product .....
 244 2011-11-14 01:30:52 <iddo> so what happens to rest of btc if they vote to buy product that's cheaper?
 245 2011-11-14 01:31:07 <eueueue> will remain on the admin key
 246 2011-11-14 01:32:01 <eueueue> example: the admin key has 1000btc. but he needs to by a product of 10btc. has has 10 option to this product to choose. some is 12 other is 14btc
 247 2011-11-14 01:32:04 <iddo> but you want the voters to decide which product to buy, and disallow the admin to decide?
 248 2011-11-14 01:32:16 <eueueue> yes
 249 2011-11-14 01:32:50 <eueueue> the admin will give the options of products that will be represented by numbers
 250 2011-11-14 01:33:47 <eueueue> i'm staying crazy
 251 2011-11-14 01:33:49 <eueueue> hhehe
 252 2011-11-14 01:33:54 <iddo> hmm so if 10btc then you want the voters to do a transaction that sends 10btc to shop to buy product, and sends 990btc to admin so he can do whatever he wants with the 990 ?
 253 2011-11-14 01:34:04 <eueueue> better write a good argument
 254 2011-11-14 01:34:27 <eueueue> the idea is:
 255 2011-11-14 01:35:56 <eueueue> the admin will have a key with as much as btc the residentes paid on the year. But he can only spend the btc with approval of residentes.
 256 2011-11-14 01:36:12 mizerydearia has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 257 2011-11-14 01:36:28 <eueueue> the admin key will need 80% of approval of specific keys
 258 2011-11-14 01:36:40 <eueueue> the specific yes are the key of the residentes
 259 2011-11-14 01:37:16 <iddo> 80% ? you said they vote and whatever product wins is bought?
 260 2011-11-14 01:37:38 <eueueue> forguet everthing I told
 261 2011-11-14 01:37:46 <iddo> :)
 262 2011-11-14 01:37:49 <eueueue> and think in this:
 263 2011-11-14 01:37:57 <eueueue> the admin will have a key with as much as btc the residentes paid on the year. But he can only spend the btc with approval of residentes
 264 2011-11-14 01:38:08 <eueueue> the admin key will need 80% of approval of specific keys
 265 2011-11-14 01:38:12 SomeoneWeird_ has joined
 266 2011-11-14 01:38:18 <eueueue> the specific yes are the key of the residentes
 267 2011-11-14 01:38:38 <eueueue> the specific keys are the keys of the residentes
 268 2011-11-14 01:38:50 <eueueue> by design, this is possible?
 269 2011-11-14 01:39:06 gasteve has joined
 270 2011-11-14 01:39:14 <eueueue> I think all I wrote before, I wanted to explaing this situtation
 271 2011-11-14 01:39:36 ahbritto_ has joined
 272 2011-11-14 01:39:36 ahbritto_ has quit (Changing host)
 273 2011-11-14 01:39:36 ahbritto_ has joined
 274 2011-11-14 01:39:50 SomeoneWeird_ has quit (Client Quit)
 275 2011-11-14 01:39:54 <iddo> so admin tells residents he wanna buy some product, and if 80% agree then they allow him to buy the product?
 276 2011-11-14 01:40:03 <eueueue> yes
 277 2011-11-14 01:40:38 <phantomcircuit> eueueue, congratulations you've just reinvented the cooperative
 278 2011-11-14 01:41:03 <gmaxwell> cooperative.. but with cryptography!
 279 2011-11-14 01:41:22 <eueueue> but if he wants to buy a product and exist different kind of this product he could give an option to residentes choose which one to but
 280 2011-11-14 01:41:25 <iddo> ok so it's same as your previous scenario, just instead of signing a transaction that sends the btc to admin address, they sign txn that sends 10btc of the total btc to shop address
 281 2011-11-14 01:41:58 <eueueue> i think yes
 282 2011-11-14 01:42:58 <eueueue> it's possible by design?
 283 2011-11-14 01:43:16 <eueueue> cooperative
 284 2011-11-14 01:43:22 <cjdelisle> gmaxwell: I expanded on your proposal a bit: http://btc.pastebay.com/144544
 285 2011-11-14 01:43:32 <eueueue> people together choose what to buy or not to buy
 286 2011-11-14 01:45:01 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: you can spend and recieve transactions without the open tree though, using a lite client. You only need the headers and the tree fragments.
 287 2011-11-14 01:45:45 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: it's just with lite clients you can't validate on your own, you must wait until a txn paying you is burried before you're confident that it was valid at all.
 288 2011-11-14 01:46:55 <cjdelisle> I was aiming at allowing all nodes to be light in the far future.
 289 2011-11-14 01:47:11 <cjdelisle> re why it's stupidly complex
 290 2011-11-14 01:48:01 <gmaxwell> ::nods:: yes, I know the advantages of using open txn trees. ;) But thats not clear in your intro.
 291 2011-11-14 01:48:53 <gmaxwell> Haven't read your complete page yet, though one thing that bothered me was the risk of an attacker intentionally producing transactions that fall on the same spots on the tree, thus causing super long branches.
 292 2011-11-14 01:49:25 <cjdelisle> yup, I can't fix that because if I did, it would blow the amazing getdiff magic trick to hell
 293 2011-11-14 01:50:20 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: well, one thing I thought of was using some function of the chain to periodically perturb the hash used for the tree.
 294 2011-11-14 01:50:32 <gmaxwell> but it would mean that you'd need to reconstruct the full tree whenever it changed.
 295 2011-11-14 01:50:51 <gmaxwell> I suppose you could also just make txn fees go up for ugly tree attachment.
 296 2011-11-14 01:50:55 HaltingState has joined
 297 2011-11-14 01:51:05 <cjdelisle> I thought of that
 298 2011-11-14 01:51:24 <cjdelisle> it could be added to the "security concerns" part of the paper
 299 2011-11-14 01:51:32 <iddo> why isn't it enough for lite client to start new wallet and chain headers from last checkpoint of official client?
 300 2011-11-14 01:52:08 <gmaxwell> iddo: because not all nodes can be lite.
 301 2011-11-14 01:52:22 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: under a scheme that commits to open txn, all nodes can be lite.
 302 2011-11-14 01:52:30 <gmaxwell> (or, really, semi-lite)
 303 2011-11-14 01:53:28 <cjdelisle> there's a whole range of lightness
 304 2011-11-14 01:53:45 <cjdelisle> miners can hold the last 200 blocks, you or I can hold the last 3
 305 2011-11-14 01:53:57 <iddo> but for lite clients, starting just from last checkpoint is good or bad?
 306 2011-11-14 01:54:19 <gmaxwell> I don't see why checkpoints matter.
 307 2011-11-14 01:54:48 <iddo> matters so not to download the entire chain headers when you connect the first time?
 308 2011-11-14 01:54:50 <gmaxwell> They just introduce an ugly and unwanted trust factor. A light client can just get 'enough' blocks and trust that someone wouldn't waste that much computation on a fraud chain.
 309 2011-11-14 01:55:08 <gmaxwell> besides, headers are cheap as hell.
 310 2011-11-14 01:55:12 <cjdelisle> indeed
 311 2011-11-14 01:55:20 <iddo> i see
 312 2011-11-14 01:55:22 <cjdelisle> and this stuff doesn't even need the header
 313 2011-11-14 01:55:39 <cjdelisle> it can literally function with nothing more than the array of hashes
 314 2011-11-14 01:55:46 <cjdelisle> block hashes
 315 2011-11-14 01:55:49 <gmaxwell> iddo: ten years of headers is only 42mbytes. No big deal.
 316 2011-11-14 01:56:02 <iddo> if miners trim spent txns from their chain locally, how will a new miner get the full chain?
 317 2011-11-14 01:56:15 <cjdelisle> err yea, it probably wants the whole headers so it can prove that they actually fit together
 318 2011-11-14 01:56:28 <gmaxwell> iddo: they don't need the full chain under this scheme.
 319 2011-11-14 01:56:36 <gmaxwell> because the headers commit to the open transactions.
 320 2011-11-14 01:57:06 <cjdelisle> I've been using "unspent transactions" because calling it OpenTransactions will open a can of worms ;)
 321 2011-11-14 01:57:23 <iddo> the scheme in pastebay i didn't understand yet, i was asking about bitcoin in general
 322 2011-11-14 01:57:30 <gmaxwell> I used the phrase first.
 323 2011-11-14 01:57:32 <gmaxwell> ;)
 324 2011-11-14 01:57:40 <cjdelisle> hehe
 325 2011-11-14 01:57:52 <cjdelisle> git offa mah laawn
 326 2011-11-14 01:58:06 <gmaxwell> iddo: they can't. They either have to trust that peers aren't lying or they need to get a copy from an archive someplace.
 327 2011-11-14 01:59:46 <iddo> is there some flag saying that the chain of the miner wasn't trimmed? or should there be such flag? so it could be monitored for making sure enough nodes in the network have the full chain?
 328 2011-11-14 02:00:56 <iddo> or maybe just miner who trimmed his chain shouldn't send it to others?
 329 2011-11-14 02:01:05 eueueue has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 330 2011-11-14 02:01:10 <iddo> (i realize the official client doesn't trim)
 331 2011-11-14 02:07:20 Burgundy has joined
 332 2011-11-14 02:08:53 <gmaxwell> iddo: I don't think there is currently any way to send a trimmed chain to others.
 333 2011-11-14 02:10:27 traviscj has joined
 334 2011-11-14 02:13:25 <cjdelisle> anyway that was my little sunday evening brainstorm, I didn't give it much thought at all so there are probably still some limitations
 335 2011-11-14 02:14:43 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 336 2011-11-14 02:14:57 <cjdelisle> when a block is mined and there's a new tree, all of the nodes will be scrambling to get their branch connected back to the root so there will be a getdiff and getproof request per new transaction per node which could be pretty bad
 337 2011-11-14 02:15:13 <cjdelisle> but with a caching DHT that might be ok
 338 2011-11-14 02:17:44 mizerydearia has joined
 339 2011-11-14 02:21:45 BCBot has joined
 340 2011-11-14 02:25:25 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 341 2011-11-14 02:25:30 wasabi has joined
 342 2011-11-14 02:26:44 Shaded has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 343 2011-11-14 02:27:40 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 344 2011-11-14 02:30:32 pickett has joined
 345 2011-11-14 02:35:07 chrisb__ has joined
 346 2011-11-14 02:47:31 cocktopus has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 347 2011-11-14 02:47:46 sshc has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 348 2011-11-14 02:49:35 cocktopus has joined
 349 2011-11-14 02:49:47 sshc has joined
 350 2011-11-14 02:54:53 TheZimm has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 351 2011-11-14 03:01:54 TheZimm has joined
 352 2011-11-14 03:01:58 TheZimm has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 353 2011-11-14 03:02:12 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 354 2011-11-14 03:03:46 wolfspraul has joined
 355 2011-11-14 03:05:04 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 356 2011-11-14 03:05:15 wolfspraul has quit (Client Quit)
 357 2011-11-14 03:05:41 wolfspraul has joined
 358 2011-11-14 03:09:14 traviscj_ has joined
 359 2011-11-14 03:11:59 traviscj has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 360 2011-11-14 03:16:38 eoss has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 361 2011-11-14 03:19:16 chrisb__ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 362 2011-11-14 03:24:30 chrisb__ has joined
 363 2011-11-14 03:25:15 Shaded has joined
 364 2011-11-14 03:26:29 wolfspraul has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 365 2011-11-14 03:26:43 wolfspraul has joined
 366 2011-11-14 03:28:53 <gmaxwell> If anyone is in need of OpenSSL RPMs for Fedora 16 so you can build bitcoin from git, I've posted some here: https://people.xiph.org/~greg/openssl/
 367 2011-11-14 03:29:07 <gmaxwell> If people are interested I'll also maintain ones for prior fedora versions and centos.
 368 2011-11-14 03:29:14 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 369 2011-11-14 03:30:11 llama has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 370 2011-11-14 03:30:39 vrs has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 371 2011-11-14 03:32:32 Shaded has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 372 2011-11-14 03:34:01 Shaded has joined
 373 2011-11-14 03:37:05 denisx has joined
 374 2011-11-14 03:37:50 llama has joined
 375 2011-11-14 03:37:50 llama has quit (Changing host)
 376 2011-11-14 03:37:50 llama has joined
 377 2011-11-14 03:43:31 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 378 2011-11-14 03:46:04 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
 379 2011-11-14 03:47:21 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 380 2011-11-14 03:48:03 <CIA-89> poolserverj: shadders * c34d97b39b7c r234 / (9 files in 6 dirs):
 381 2011-11-14 03:48:03 <CIA-89> poolserverj: Cleaner reports task times to mem_clean traceTarget
 382 2011-11-14 03:48:03 <CIA-89> poolserverj: Pretty up the listWorkCache method with a table and some extra worker stats
 383 2011-11-14 03:48:03 <CIA-89> poolserverj: add 'testnet' column to database field list
 384 2011-11-14 04:02:14 <roconnor> etotheipi_: did you implement DER decoding?
 385 2011-11-14 04:04:08 <roconnor> etotheipi_: there is something unusual about transaction 95038c3155de45fc7753f90b35c04b494ff1379e665dbbd9d013496a2531b7a7
 386 2011-11-14 04:05:36 <cjdelisle> what language are you using? der encoding is pretty common
 387 2011-11-14 04:06:08 <roconnor> I wrote my own special DER decoder for what is needed in bitcoin
 388 2011-11-14 04:06:15 <roconnor> etotheipi_ is using python
 389 2011-11-14 04:07:06 <cjdelisle> why not use openssl or gcrypt or bouncycastle or whatever?
 390 2011-11-14 04:08:09 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
 391 2011-11-14 04:08:25 <roconnor> because then I wouldn't know what is going down the wire
 392 2011-11-14 04:08:32 TheSeven has joined
 393 2011-11-14 04:15:10 traviscj has joined
 394 2011-11-14 04:17:26 traviscj_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 395 2011-11-14 04:23:19 <denisx> why is sending bitcoind a midstate in the getwork call?
 396 2011-11-14 04:23:24 <denisx> pushpoold does not use it
 397 2011-11-14 04:23:26 <denisx> who does?
 398 2011-11-14 04:24:48 <nanotube> it's legacy
 399 2011-11-14 04:25:56 HaltingState has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 400 2011-11-14 04:29:38 <jgarzik> denisx: nobody
 401 2011-11-14 04:34:07 <denisx> and the target?
 402 2011-11-14 04:34:19 <denisx> it seems to be part of the data already
 403 2011-11-14 04:36:18 copumpkin is now known as FUDPAcker
 404 2011-11-14 04:36:45 Sedra has joined
 405 2011-11-14 04:40:06 Sedra- has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 406 2011-11-14 04:40:22 Sedra- has joined
 407 2011-11-14 04:41:13 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 408 2011-11-14 04:41:51 <denisx> jgarzik: so it is safe to say JoelKatz he can omit misstate?
 409 2011-11-14 04:42:01 <denisx> to tell
 410 2011-11-14 04:44:09 Rav3nSw0rd has joined
 411 2011-11-14 04:44:32 FUDPAcker is now known as copumpkin
 412 2011-11-14 04:45:06 RobinPKR_ has joined
 413 2011-11-14 04:45:28 <roconnor> crap
 414 2011-11-14 04:45:35 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 415 2011-11-14 04:45:35 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
 416 2011-11-14 04:47:31 Sedra has joined
 417 2011-11-14 04:48:19 <roconnor> I might have to read the openssl sources to debug this
 418 2011-11-14 04:49:58 Sedra- has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 419 2011-11-14 04:51:08 <jgarzik> denisx: some miners may break
 420 2011-11-14 04:55:21 <luke-jr> denisx: up until recently, cgminer required midstate
 421 2011-11-14 04:55:35 * luke-jr patched it to compensate, so he can drop it from Eligius in the future
 422 2011-11-14 04:55:51 <luke-jr> pushpoold *does* pass midstate on to the end miner if it's there
 423 2011-11-14 04:56:40 <luke-jr> denisx: perhaps interested in my pushpoold+bitcoind replacement? ;)
 424 2011-11-14 04:57:13 <denisx> luke-jr: replacement? you merged them?
 425 2011-11-14 04:57:35 <luke-jr> (jgarzik: no offense intended: it was really bitcoind and libevent that were to blame for me replacing pushpool; your code is good :p)
 426 2011-11-14 04:57:56 <luke-jr> denisx: it only uses bitcoind to tell it which transactions to put in blocks (via getmemorypool)
 427 2011-11-14 04:57:57 <denisx> whats wrong with libevent?
 428 2011-11-14 04:58:18 <luke-jr> denisx: as you know, the older version pushpool uses in mainline has issues
 429 2011-11-14 04:58:30 <denisx> yes
 430 2011-11-14 04:59:18 <denisx> but to have them separated has also advantages
 431 2011-11-14 04:59:21 * roconnor can't find the source code for d2i_ECDSA_SIG
 432 2011-11-14 04:59:38 <denisx> if only bitcoind had multiuser support
 433 2011-11-14 04:59:43 <luke-jr> denisx: does it? :p
 434 2011-11-14 05:00:34 <luke-jr> my algorithm is super-fast at getting work for clients
 435 2011-11-14 05:01:01 <denisx> how many getworks/sec?
 436 2011-11-14 05:01:33 <luke-jr> depends on the CPU of course, but easily 5,000/sec sustained, probably much more
 437 2011-11-14 05:01:41 <luke-jr> bursts can go higher
 438 2011-11-14 05:02:33 <luke-jr> denisx: feel free to clone http://eligius.st/~luke-jr/.eloipool.git to look at it
 439 2011-11-14 05:02:54 <luke-jr> it's not currently licensed for distribution/use mainly because I want some third-party reviews of it first :p
 440 2011-11-14 05:03:13 <luke-jr> I plan to AGPL it
 441 2011-11-14 05:03:26 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 442 2011-11-14 05:03:35 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 443 2011-11-14 05:03:57 <cocktopus> AGPL is evil
 444 2011-11-14 05:04:03 <MimeNarrator> gmaxwell: isn't openssl in either the standard fedora repos or fedora fusion?
 445 2011-11-14 05:04:30 <luke-jr> cocktopus: I was going to be even less free originally ;)
 446 2011-11-14 05:04:33 <gmaxwell> MimeNarrator: of course openssl is in standard fedora. But it has all ECC removed, so its useless for bitcoin.
 447 2011-11-14 05:04:41 <MimeNarrator> ah
 448 2011-11-14 05:05:02 <cocktopus> luke-jr: go big or go home :)
 449 2011-11-14 05:05:23 <gmaxwell> MimeNarrator: (because the openssl developers won't seperate out the everyone-agrees-its-patented ecc stuff from the obviously not patentable ecc stuff, so fedora just removes all of it since basically no one uses it)
 450 2011-11-14 05:05:26 <luke-jr> cocktopus: my original license was "contribute or go away" ;)
 451 2011-11-14 05:05:44 <cocktopus> ;)
 452 2011-11-14 05:06:14 NickelBot has joined
 453 2011-11-14 05:06:19 <luke-jr> but shadders over there is competing too strong with PoolServerJ
 454 2011-11-14 05:06:25 <luke-jr> so I feel I need something more liberal :|
 455 2011-11-14 05:08:35 pnicholson has joined
 456 2011-11-14 05:08:35 <denisx> go BSD
 457 2011-11-14 05:09:00 <cocktopus> woot
 458 2011-11-14 05:09:29 <kiba> hello I am looking for bitcoin related work
 459 2011-11-14 05:11:05 <shadders> luke-jr: I'm sure there's a healthy market for eloipool... there's plenty of java-haters out there that won't touch poolserverj
 460 2011-11-14 05:11:35 <kiba> dun dun dun
 461 2011-11-14 05:14:06 Shaded_ has joined
 462 2011-11-14 05:14:07 Shaded_ has quit (Changing host)
 463 2011-11-14 05:14:07 Shaded_ has joined
 464 2011-11-14 05:14:14 Shaded has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 465 2011-11-14 05:14:14 Shaded_ is now known as Shaded
 466 2011-11-14 05:16:51 <luke-jr> denisx: BSD enables too much abuse
 467 2011-11-14 05:17:05 knotwork has joined
 468 2011-11-14 05:18:12 <cocktopus> i prefer wtfpl or beerware  :P
 469 2011-11-14 05:18:37 <luke-jr> beerware is non-free
 470 2011-11-14 05:19:52 <cocktopus> free enough for me
 471 2011-11-14 05:19:57 vrs has joined
 472 2011-11-14 05:20:03 <cocktopus> i like to donate to an author that makes good stuff
 473 2011-11-14 05:20:04 vrs has quit (Changing host)
 474 2011-11-14 05:20:04 vrs has joined
 475 2011-11-14 05:20:41 gasteve has quit (Quit: gasteve)
 476 2011-11-14 05:20:56 NickelBot5 has joined
 477 2011-11-14 05:21:36 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 478 2011-11-14 05:23:11 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 479 2011-11-14 05:23:30 NickelBot5 is now known as NickelBot
 480 2011-11-14 05:25:11 magn3ts has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 481 2011-11-14 05:28:47 HaltingState has joined
 482 2011-11-14 05:28:47 HaltingState has quit (Changing host)
 483 2011-11-14 05:28:47 HaltingState has joined
 484 2011-11-14 05:29:06 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 485 2011-11-14 05:37:07 knotwork has joined
 486 2011-11-14 05:37:49 <roconnor> this signature shouldn't be valid
 487 2011-11-14 05:39:41 <gmaxwell> uh oh?
 488 2011-11-14 05:40:41 <roconnor> Maybe this is a bug in openssl?
 489 2011-11-14 05:40:51 <roconnor> more likely I'm mistaken
 490 2011-11-14 05:40:53 <roconnor> but still ...
 491 2011-11-14 05:42:09 <gmaxwell> Is it a point compressed key or something?
 492 2011-11-14 05:42:27 <roconnor> gmaxwell: on the testnet in transaction 95038c3155de45fc7753f90b35c04b494ff1379e665dbbd9d013496a2531b7a7 there is a DER encodined ECDSA sigature: 304402208cc1fc128333d3f0b3eaeb2c6705b6d86624edea42c62eb1abaaa947f3ace8ae0220c40312c291b500084556dc5e331f8e143aca30fd885585a7baf7382cbe0b36c501
 493 2011-11-14 05:43:32 <roconnor> There are two integers encoded in the ECDSA signature: 02208cc1fc128333d3f0b3eaeb2c6705b6d86624edea42c62eb1abaaa947f3ace8ae and 0220c40312c291b500084556dc5e331f8e143aca30fd885585a7baf7382cbe0b36c5
 494 2011-11-14 05:43:45 <roconnor> look carefully and the second integer
 495 2011-11-14 05:43:54 <roconnor> the first 0x20 means that it is an integer
 496 2011-11-14 05:44:00 eastender has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 497 2011-11-14 05:44:05 <roconnor> the next 0x20 says that it is 32 bytes
 498 2011-11-14 05:44:30 <roconnor> but, the kicker is that the integer begins with 0xc4
 499 2011-11-14 05:44:39 <roconnor> the leading bit is 1!!!
 500 2011-11-14 05:44:48 <roconnor> which is supposed to be a negative number
 501 2011-11-14 05:45:24 WakiMiko_ has joined
 502 2011-11-14 05:45:39 <roconnor> and the numbers in a signature, if I understand well, must be non-negative.
 503 2011-11-14 05:46:15 <roconnor> it is hard to tell for sure because the DER decoding in openssl is all implemented with macros
 504 2011-11-14 05:46:23 <etotheipi_> roconnor,  are you sure you're not reading the wrong endian?
 505 2011-11-14 05:46:33 <etotheipi_> DER is encoded big-endian
 506 2011-11-14 05:47:03 <roconnor> etotheipi_: I've validated tens of thousands of ECSDA signatures before
 507 2011-11-14 05:47:13 <roconnor> this is the first one I've encountered that is negative.
 508 2011-11-14 05:47:23 <etotheipi_> okay, just making sure
 509 2011-11-14 05:47:28 <roconnor> or rather the first one I've encountered with a leading bit 1.
 510 2011-11-14 05:47:35 <roconnor> etotheipi_: no problem
 511 2011-11-14 05:47:40 <etotheipi_> wait...
 512 2011-11-14 05:47:59 <etotheipi_> I'm confused... (r,s) *are* positive numbers
 513 2011-11-14 05:48:17 <etotheipi_> and I seem to remember, when the the top bit is 1, there's supposed to be an extra 0x00 byte in front to fix the problem
 514 2011-11-14 05:48:19 <roconnor> etotheipi_: well, they are supposed to be
 515 2011-11-14 05:48:23 <roconnor> etotheipi_: yep
 516 2011-11-14 05:48:36 <roconnor> but there is no extra 0x00 byte here
 517 2011-11-14 05:48:46 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 518 2011-11-14 05:48:52 <etotheipi_> but is it possible that the library you are using *always* interprets them as unsigned?
 519 2011-11-14 05:49:03 <etotheipi_> regardless of the leadbyte
 520 2011-11-14 05:49:25 <roconnor> well, my library (I wrote) fails to decode numbers with a leading bit of 1
 521 2011-11-14 05:49:31 <roconnor> so it rejected this signature
 522 2011-11-14 05:49:44 <etotheipi_> hmmm
 523 2011-11-14 05:50:20 nejon has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 524 2011-11-14 05:50:29 <roconnor> and I cannot (easily) inspect the sources of DER decoding in openssl since it is macro heavy stuff
 525 2011-11-14 05:50:49 <etotheipi_> even if it wasn't macro-heavy... I've looked into DER before
 526 2011-11-14 05:50:55 <etotheipi_> it's pretty heavy, itself
 527 2011-11-14 05:51:05 <roconnor> I was following the DER speck
 528 2011-11-14 05:51:07 <roconnor> *spec
 529 2011-11-14 05:51:22 <etotheipi_> I couldn't quite figure out the spec
 530 2011-11-14 05:51:29 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 531 2011-11-14 05:51:45 nejon has joined
 532 2011-11-14 05:51:47 <luke-jr> roconnor: cpp && indent
 533 2011-11-14 05:52:02 Cusipzzz has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 534 2011-11-14 05:52:04 <roconnor> luke-jr: ya, this is pushing my c ablities
 535 2011-11-14 05:52:10 <etotheipi_> try adding a leading 0x00 byte to each sig before you parse it... see if it passes
 536 2011-11-14 05:52:39 <etotheipi_> er.. .adding leading 0x00 to each sig component
 537 2011-11-14 05:52:46 <roconnor> ya, I'm trying that now
 538 2011-11-14 05:53:05 <roconnor> (or rather I'm trying with interpreting it as unsigned)
 539 2011-11-14 05:53:44 <etotheipi_> well, that would be only explanation
 540 2011-11-14 05:54:01 <etotheipi_> it can't be negative, and so if the client accepted it as valid, it must be interpretted as unsigned
 541 2011-11-14 05:54:08 <etotheipi_> regardless of what the DER suggests should happen
 542 2011-11-14 05:54:36 <roconnor> the whole point of DER is to be deterministic
 543 2011-11-14 05:54:38 * roconnor sighs
 544 2011-11-14 05:55:21 <etotheipi_> haha, I don't disagree with you... but Bitcoin is big an complicated...as you know, they got quite a few *intended* details wrong
 545 2011-11-14 05:55:29 <etotheipi_> although if it's actually in the OpenSSL code
 546 2011-11-14 05:55:41 <roconnor> right now, I'm conjecturing it is a bug in openssl
 547 2011-11-14 05:55:56 <roconnor> well, I'm conjucturing that I'm wrong in some way that I don't see yet
 548 2011-11-14 05:56:27 <roconnor> etotheipi_: The signature passes if it is treated as unsigned
 549 2011-11-14 05:56:39 <roconnor> I think this is a bug in openssl
 550 2011-11-14 05:56:44 <roconnor> or I don't understand DER
 551 2011-11-14 05:57:04 wolfspraul has joined
 552 2011-11-14 05:57:22 <roconnor> This could maybe even be a serious bug; because it means there is more than one way to encode the same values using DER
 553 2011-11-14 05:59:13 <roconnor> I should go to bed
 554 2011-11-14 05:59:43 <gmaxwell> oh I think we knew there was a redundant encoding issue.
 555 2011-11-14 05:59:53 <roconnor> gmaxwell: oh?
 556 2011-11-14 06:00:05 <luke-jr> I think so too
 557 2011-11-14 06:00:13 <luke-jr> I don't see why it matters.
 558 2011-11-14 06:00:21 <luke-jr> There's more than one way to encode the txn anyway
 559 2011-11-14 06:00:23 <gmaxwell> It's a fork risk if not everyone supports it.
 560 2011-11-14 06:00:26 <roconnor> well, I don't think it is a problem for bitcoin, as much as it is a problem for openssl
 561 2011-11-14 06:00:45 <gmaxwell> yes, I'm pretty sure there was a advisory for openssl earlier this year for this.
 562 2011-11-14 06:01:09 dan__ has joined
 563 2011-11-14 06:01:14 <etotheipi_> well, even for sig values that *don't* have a leading bit, you can still add the 0x00 byte (as I do), so that gives two possible ways for half of all sigs
 564 2011-11-14 06:01:22 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: oooh, so if openssl is fixed, we get a fork? :|
 565 2011-11-14 06:01:41 <roconnor> luke-jr: sounds plausible
 566 2011-11-14 06:01:44 <luke-jr> ew
 567 2011-11-14 06:01:49 <roconnor> etotheipi_: I was wondering about htat
 568 2011-11-14 06:01:54 <gmaxwell> I can't seem to find it. darnit.
 569 2011-11-14 06:04:43 <etotheipi_> you are an amazingly-thorough developer, roconnor
 570 2011-11-14 06:05:06 <roconnor> etotheipi_: this is what happens when you implement everything from scratch
 571 2011-11-14 06:05:21 <roconnor> the real hero is the crazy person who posted that transaction to testnet
 572 2011-11-14 06:05:21 <etotheipi_> I have tons of patience, and try to be thorough, but sometimes I just concede to having to do what works without sweating too much
 573 2011-11-14 06:05:42 <roconnor> how did he make such a signature? why did he drop the leading 0x00?
 574 2011-11-14 06:06:12 <etotheipi_> I mean, I always add the leading 0x00 because I know it's a valid encoding, and then I don't have to think about it...
 575 2011-11-14 06:06:35 <etotheipi_> dropping the zero sounds questionable... but what's the worst that can happen?  his tx is rejected?
 576 2011-11-14 06:07:45 <roconnor> gmaxwell: I'm going to bed; let me know if you guys find any details about this
 577 2011-11-14 06:08:09 <roconnor> like I said, I don't think it is really a problem for bitcoin as much as it is a problem for openssl
 578 2011-11-14 06:08:22 <roconnor> ... though if openssl says it is a bug and fixes it, then we have a problem for bitcoin
 579 2011-11-14 06:08:36 <etotheipi_> does BTC do any processing on the DER strings?
 580 2011-11-14 06:08:41 <etotheipi_> or is it all openssl?
 581 2011-11-14 06:08:46 <roconnor> it is all openssl
 582 2011-11-14 06:09:02 <roconnor> so if openssl changes then the bitcoin protocol changes
 583 2011-11-14 06:09:07 <roconnor> nice, isn't it
 584 2011-11-14 06:09:23 <etotheipi_> does the client dynamically link to OpenSSL?  or static?
 585 2011-11-14 06:09:36 <roconnor> etotheipi_: dynamic IIRC
 586 2011-11-14 06:09:45 <roconnor> not certain though
 587 2011-11-14 06:09:54 <etotheipi_> if it's dynamic, that could be dangerous
 588 2011-11-14 06:10:21 <etotheipi_> but I bet it kind of has to be... I doubt they could distribute the static libraries with the client
 589 2011-11-14 06:10:22 <gmaxwell> The distributed binaries are static, if you build yourself its dynamic.
 590 2011-11-14 06:10:38 * roconnor builds bitcoin himself
 591 2011-11-14 06:11:35 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 592 2011-11-14 06:13:58 BurtyB has joined
 593 2011-11-14 06:15:07 nameless1 is now known as nameless|
 594 2011-11-14 06:27:26 wasabi1 has joined
 595 2011-11-14 06:29:33 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 596 2011-11-14 06:32:51 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 597 2011-11-14 06:33:31 BurtyB has joined
 598 2011-11-14 06:37:43 Turingi has joined
 599 2011-11-14 06:37:56 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 600 2011-11-14 06:42:04 tower has joined
 601 2011-11-14 06:44:11 AStove has joined
 602 2011-11-14 06:56:58 ThomasV has joined
 603 2011-11-14 07:02:46 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 604 2011-11-14 07:03:04 enquirer has joined
 605 2011-11-14 07:03:59 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 606 2011-11-14 07:08:35 Detritus has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 607 2011-11-14 07:09:02 cande has quit (Quit: Lämnar)
 608 2011-11-14 07:13:25 knotwork_ has joined
 609 2011-11-14 07:13:44 NickelBot5 has joined
 610 2011-11-14 07:13:56 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 611 2011-11-14 07:15:01 NickelBot5 has quit (Excess Flood)
 612 2011-11-14 07:15:35 NickelBot has joined
 613 2011-11-14 07:15:56 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 614 2011-11-14 07:17:12 pnicholson has quit (Quit: pnicholson)
 615 2011-11-14 07:23:21 Sedra has joined
 616 2011-11-14 07:31:38 dan__ has quit (Quit: dan__)
 617 2011-11-14 07:32:39 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 618 2011-11-14 07:32:58 molecular has joined
 619 2011-11-14 07:41:52 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 620 2011-11-14 07:46:38 pickett has joined
 621 2011-11-14 07:59:10 Joric has joined
 622 2011-11-14 07:59:51 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 623 2011-11-14 08:02:43 ThomasV has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 624 2011-11-14 08:04:06 CaptainDDL has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 625 2011-11-14 08:06:54 devrandom has joined
 626 2011-11-14 08:17:33 iocor has joined
 627 2011-11-14 08:22:21 larsivi has joined
 628 2011-11-14 08:27:23 AStove has quit ()
 629 2011-11-14 08:28:04 Shaded has quit (Quit: Shaded)
 630 2011-11-14 08:42:49 cronopio has quit (Quit: leaving)
 631 2011-11-14 08:43:58 abragin has joined
 632 2011-11-14 08:43:59 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 633 2011-11-14 08:43:59 abragin has joined
 634 2011-11-14 08:44:03 Shaded has joined
 635 2011-11-14 08:49:18 danbri has joined
 636 2011-11-14 08:57:40 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 637 2011-11-14 08:59:19 <sipa> roconnor: before i look deeper: der encoding is diffferent from the mpi encoding that is used for numbers
 638 2011-11-14 08:59:52 <sipa> sure the rules for negative integers are the same?
 639 2011-11-14 09:06:36 Kapkao has joined
 640 2011-11-14 09:10:36 erus` has joined
 641 2011-11-14 09:11:11 Kapkao has left ()
 642 2011-11-14 09:20:46 <AliciaC> my harddrive got messed up overnight and it was the only place I had my bitcoin wallet (no backups), does anyone know if there is a particular pattern I could search for to recover it? (partition table is broken and so is the filesystem index I guess, but a lot of the data that was stored seems to be intact)
 643 2011-11-14 09:21:03 <edcba> hmm
 644 2011-11-14 09:21:33 <edcba> create another wallet on another computer and look for start of wallet.dat i guess
 645 2011-11-14 09:21:37 <Diablo-D3> THIS IS WHY YOU BACKUP SHIT
 646 2011-11-14 09:21:55 <edcba> or that's why wallet.dat is not a good idea
 647 2011-11-14 09:22:31 <abragin> AliciaC - you can try various filesystem repair tools, they usually find files in a broken filesystem
 648 2011-11-14 09:22:33 <abragin> including filenames
 649 2011-11-14 09:22:41 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 650 2011-11-14 09:22:42 <abragin> esepcially if it was NTFS, you have a good chance
 651 2011-11-14 09:23:17 <AliciaC> ah, I should look into that, I've only been running photorec so far to try to recover some files, the filesystem is ext4
 652 2011-11-14 09:23:35 <abragin> ah, ext4, not so bad either
 653 2011-11-14 09:23:35 iocor has joined
 654 2011-11-14 09:23:41 <Diablo-D3> edcba: SHIT, BACK IT UP
 655 2011-11-14 09:24:34 <edcba> also
 656 2011-11-14 09:25:12 <edcba> especially now that wallet.dat isn't useless anymore after a single transaction :)
 657 2011-11-14 09:27:50 <edcba> i have some 01 04 20 66 60 F9 pattern at 61A0 in file
 658 2011-11-14 09:28:04 <edcba> but most of beginning of file looks empty
 659 2011-11-14 09:28:48 <edcba> now it just be some public/private key of mine :)
 660 2011-11-14 09:28:52 <edcba> +may
 661 2011-11-14 09:29:39 io_error has joined
 662 2011-11-14 09:29:39 io_error has quit (Changing host)
 663 2011-11-14 09:29:39 io_error has joined
 664 2011-11-14 09:29:40 <AliciaC> *nods* I couldn't find that in the other wallet file I have here
 665 2011-11-14 09:29:41 io_error has left ()
 666 2011-11-14 09:34:57 d4de has joined
 667 2011-11-14 09:36:27 wboy1 has joined
 668 2011-11-14 09:37:16 <wboy1> Hey Guys,any javascripts dev's that are interested in joining a bitcoin related funded startup,drop me a message,Thanks!
 669 2011-11-14 09:39:34 <edcba> javascript dev lol
 670 2011-11-14 09:39:45 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 671 2011-11-14 09:39:53 <edcba> you mean you need some guy who *only* knows JS ?
 672 2011-11-14 09:40:35 sytse has joined
 673 2011-11-14 09:40:54 <edcba> ;;bc,mtgox
 674 2011-11-14 09:40:55 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":3.03,"low":2.3,"avg":2.63160626,"vwap":2.570532461,"vol":289596,"last_all":2.66702,"last_local":2.66702,"last":2.66702,"buy":2.6655,"sell":2.667}}
 675 2011-11-14 09:43:02 <Joric> wboy1, http://ragecoin.appspot.com ? :)
 676 2011-11-14 09:45:03 <wboy1> hehe hell no:)
 677 2011-11-14 09:45:17 <wboy1> ya js :)
 678 2011-11-14 09:45:24 ThomasV has joined
 679 2011-11-14 09:47:29 <Joric> i was using mybitcoin on that site but it fell apart (
 680 2011-11-14 09:51:19 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 681 2011-11-14 09:51:57 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 682 2011-11-14 09:52:26 <wboy1> lol mybitcoin suck:)heh
 683 2011-11-14 09:52:43 CaptainDDL has joined
 684 2011-11-14 09:53:57 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 685 2011-11-14 09:54:23 copumpkin has joined
 686 2011-11-14 10:00:49 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 253 seconds)
 687 2011-11-14 10:04:58 tower has joined
 688 2011-11-14 10:06:30 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 689 2011-11-14 10:23:51 Shaded has quit (Quit: Shaded)
 690 2011-11-14 10:29:10 wasabi has joined
 691 2011-11-14 10:31:01 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 692 2011-11-14 10:35:59 d4de has joined
 693 2011-11-14 10:35:59 d4de has quit (Changing host)
 694 2011-11-14 10:35:59 d4de has joined
 695 2011-11-14 10:36:32 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 696 2011-11-14 10:39:54 Detritus has joined
 697 2011-11-14 10:40:30 Joric has joined
 698 2011-11-14 10:40:30 Joric has quit (Changing host)
 699 2011-11-14 10:40:30 Joric has joined
 700 2011-11-14 10:44:08 Joric has quit (Client Quit)
 701 2011-11-14 10:47:59 AlexWaters has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 702 2011-11-14 10:48:23 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 703 2011-11-14 10:50:34 AlexWaters has joined
 704 2011-11-14 10:52:39 tower has joined
 705 2011-11-14 10:54:09 D0han has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 706 2011-11-14 11:03:13 AlexWaters1 has joined
 707 2011-11-14 11:03:49 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneNormal
 708 2011-11-14 11:03:52 dlb76 has quit ()
 709 2011-11-14 11:04:24 SomeoneNormal is now known as SomeoneWeird
 710 2011-11-14 11:04:29 AlexWaters has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 711 2011-11-14 11:11:31 marf_away has joined
 712 2011-11-14 11:13:59 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 713 2011-11-14 11:14:44 iocor has joined
 714 2011-11-14 11:20:52 RazielZ has joined
 715 2011-11-14 11:29:42 wasabi1 has joined
 716 2011-11-14 11:31:35 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 717 2011-11-14 11:50:05 Guest5200 has joined
 718 2011-11-14 11:51:09 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 719 2011-11-14 11:53:34 Guest5200 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 720 2011-11-14 11:54:00 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 721 2011-11-14 11:55:17 wolfspraul has joined
 722 2011-11-14 11:56:52 BCBot has joined
 723 2011-11-14 12:12:49 nmat has joined
 724 2011-11-14 12:12:50 Beremat has joined
 725 2011-11-14 12:17:59 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 726 2011-11-14 12:20:58 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 727 2011-11-14 12:24:26 storrgie has joined
 728 2011-11-14 12:27:35 Beremat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 729 2011-11-14 12:33:22 Guest77610 has joined
 730 2011-11-14 12:37:04 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 731 2011-11-14 12:37:28 Guest77610 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 732 2011-11-14 12:38:03 BitcoinBug has joined
 733 2011-11-14 12:40:19 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 734 2011-11-14 12:40:53 nmat has left ()
 735 2011-11-14 12:41:58 wolfspra1l has joined
 736 2011-11-14 13:07:06 TD_ has joined
 737 2011-11-14 13:12:55 TD_ has quit (Quit: TD_)
 738 2011-11-14 13:13:29 agricocb has joined
 739 2011-11-14 13:13:58 TD_ has joined
 740 2011-11-14 13:14:59 cryptoxchange has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 741 2011-11-14 13:16:25 cryptoxchange has joined
 742 2011-11-14 13:16:45 <roconnor> sipa: in fact, I'm claiming the encoding rules are different.  I'm claiming that DER uses 2-complement signed integers.
 743 2011-11-14 13:20:32 BitcoinBug has quit ()
 744 2011-11-14 13:24:08 <UukGoblin> sipa, what happened to the graphs? they're unreadable now :-/
 745 2011-11-14 13:24:21 <UukGoblin> at least the short-term ones
 746 2011-11-14 13:25:54 <upb> why do people like reinventing wheels ?:P
 747 2011-11-14 13:25:56 * upb slaps roconnor 
 748 2011-11-14 13:26:12 <roconnor> sipa: more specifically I'm claiming that DER is supposed to use 2-complement signed integers, but openssl is actually implementing it as unsigned integers
 749 2011-11-14 13:27:29 <roconnor> upb: hey, I didn't write ISO/IEC 8825-1:2003(E).  Don't slap the messenger. :)
 750 2011-11-14 13:27:50 <upb> arent you writing your own der decoder ?:P
 751 2011-11-14 13:28:40 <roconnor> ... true
 752 2011-11-14 13:29:19 <roconnor> heh
 753 2011-11-14 13:29:32 <roconnor> it's part of my evil plan to fork the blockchain
 754 2011-11-14 13:30:20 <sipa> UukGoblin: seems my bitcoind died
 755 2011-11-14 13:31:14 <UukGoblin> sipa, ah yes, it like to do that every now and then
 756 2011-11-14 13:31:25 <sipa> owww... out of disk space
 757 2011-11-14 13:31:29 <UukGoblin> likes*
 758 2011-11-14 13:31:36 <UukGoblin> ah, quite a common reason :->
 759 2011-11-14 13:33:32 <sipa> roconnor: right... that does look like a mistake
 760 2011-11-14 13:33:56 TD_ has quit (Quit: TD_)
 761 2011-11-14 13:37:08 <sipa> roconnor: from openssl's asn1.h:
 762 2011-11-14 13:37:09 <sipa> #define V_ASN1_NEG                      0x100   /* negative flag */
 763 2011-11-14 13:37:14 <sipa> #define V_ASN1_INTEGER                  2
 764 2011-11-14 13:37:14 <sipa> #define V_ASN1_NEG_INTEGER              (2 | V_ASN1_NEG)
 765 2011-11-14 13:37:20 TD_ has joined
 766 2011-11-14 13:38:04 <sipa> roconnor: sounds to me like they encode negative integers using a different tag
 767 2011-11-14 13:41:28 <roconnor> The INTEGER type denotes an arbitrary integer. INTEGER values can be positive, negative, or zero, and can have any magnitude.
 768 2011-11-14 13:41:35 <roconnor> from http://luca.ntop.org/Teaching/Appunti/asn1.html
 769 2011-11-14 13:42:08 nmat has joined
 770 2011-11-14 13:42:51 <roconnor> it aslo says on that page that 02 01 80 encodes -128
 771 2011-11-14 13:43:10 <roconnor> and 02 02 FF 7F encodes -129
 772 2011-11-14 13:47:12 <sipa> roconnor: i know, i looked over the DER specification
 773 2011-11-14 13:47:22 <sipa> but it seems openssl uses a slightly different standard?
 774 2011-11-14 13:47:39 <sipa> roconnor: do signatures normally have the extra zero byte in front?
 775 2011-11-14 13:48:04 <sipa> because maybe openssl encodes correctly according to DER, but is lax in parsing it
 776 2011-11-14 13:51:38 roconnor has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 777 2011-11-14 13:52:35 minimoose has joined
 778 2011-11-14 13:58:44 nmat has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 779 2011-11-14 13:59:33 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 780 2011-11-14 14:15:31 darkmethod has joined
 781 2011-11-14 14:22:49 karnac has joined
 782 2011-11-14 14:26:45 graingert has joined
 783 2011-11-14 14:28:58 erle- has joined
 784 2011-11-14 14:31:03 wasabi has joined
 785 2011-11-14 14:31:52 storrgie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 786 2011-11-14 14:31:58 zapnap has joined
 787 2011-11-14 14:32:22 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 788 2011-11-14 14:32:36 llama has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 789 2011-11-14 14:32:41 dlb76 has joined
 790 2011-11-14 14:32:45 llama has joined
 791 2011-11-14 14:32:47 llama has quit (Client Quit)
 792 2011-11-14 14:47:48 <wboy1> Hey Guys,any javascripts dev's that are interested in joining a bitcoin related funded startup,drop me a message,Thanks!
 793 2011-11-14 14:56:03 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneWeirdzzzz
 794 2011-11-14 15:01:11 dan__ has joined
 795 2011-11-14 15:03:00 dan__ has quit (Client Quit)
 796 2011-11-14 15:11:33 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r88a1b89 / src/bitcoinrpc.cpp :
 797 2011-11-14 15:11:33 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Merge pull request #633 from laanwj/qtrpcconflict
 798 2011-11-14 15:11:33 <CIA-89> bitcoin: RPC: do not launch Shutdown in a new thread in case we are running the UI - http://git.io/ZptRFg
 799 2011-11-14 15:12:23 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * re6a729d / (12 files in 3 dirs):
 800 2011-11-14 15:12:23 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Merge pull request #631 from luke-jr/free_icons
 801 2011-11-14 15:12:23 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Free icons - http://git.io/VUgFMQ
 802 2011-11-14 15:12:59 iocor has joined
 803 2011-11-14 15:13:03 karnac has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 804 2011-11-14 15:13:58 cloudbank has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 805 2011-11-14 15:15:37 roconnor has joined
 806 2011-11-14 15:15:43 slush has joined
 807 2011-11-14 15:17:25 cloudbank has joined
 808 2011-11-14 15:19:03 gp5st has joined
 809 2011-11-14 15:19:26 <roconnor> sipa: signuatres normally have an extra 0x00 in the front
 810 2011-11-14 15:19:48 <roconnor> sipa: if openssl is using a very slightly incompatible standard to DER, that will be very confusing for everyone
 811 2011-11-14 15:20:03 <roconnor> sounds more like microsoft than openssl
 812 2011-11-14 15:21:53 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: any news on a fix?
 813 2011-11-14 15:23:02 <sipa> roconnor: my assumption is then that openssl creates correct DER-conforming signatures, but allows signatures that do not follow the strict rules
 814 2011-11-14 15:23:03 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I'm pulling sipa's dump-all-private-keys branch and will work through the test plan on my machine
 815 2011-11-14 15:23:35 <sipa> roconnor: and someone using an alternative client produced these signatures without the 0 byte
 816 2011-11-14 15:23:42 <gavinandresen> ... assuming tests all pass, I'll tag a 0.5 rc4, compile binaries, and then work on back-porting to 0.4
 817 2011-11-14 15:23:59 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 818 2011-11-14 15:24:50 <luke-jr> k
 819 2011-11-14 15:25:06 <gavinandresen> ... I just rebased the pull, by the way.
 820 2011-11-14 15:25:37 <luke-jr> do you plan to build 0.4.1 binaries, btw, or should I be looking for someone to do that?
 821 2011-11-14 15:25:59 <sipa> what about wxbitcoin 0.4?
 822 2011-11-14 15:27:30 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: if you can help with 0.4.1 binaries, that'd make me happy.
 823 2011-11-14 15:27:56 <gavinandresen> sipa:  if somebody can volunteer to backport the GUI changes to wx 0.4.1 that'd make me VERY happy
 824 2011-11-14 15:28:08 * luke-jr never got the 0.4 build system to work as-is even on Linux :p
 825 2011-11-14 15:28:24 eueueue has joined
 826 2011-11-14 15:29:03 gp5st has left ()
 827 2011-11-14 15:29:11 <sipa> gavinandresen: you may want to ask BlueMatt
 828 2011-11-14 15:31:05 <AliciaC> I didn't have any problem compiling bitcoins 0.4 on GNU/Linux, (if we're talking about the same versions..)
 829 2011-11-14 15:31:22 wasabi1 has joined
 830 2011-11-14 15:33:59 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 831 2011-11-14 15:39:06 roconnor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 832 2011-11-14 15:39:16 roconnor has joined
 833 2011-11-14 15:39:22 btc_novice has joined
 834 2011-11-14 15:40:09 karnac has joined
 835 2011-11-14 15:43:36 karnac has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 836 2011-11-14 15:43:57 <AlexWaters1> sipa: any chance you know the best way for me to get private keys in hex, in a text file?
 837 2011-11-14 15:44:42 <sipa> AlexWaters1: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/tree/dumpallkeys
 838 2011-11-14 15:44:52 <sipa> RPC call gethexprivkeys
 839 2011-11-14 15:45:07 cronopio has joined
 840 2011-11-14 15:46:05 <gavinandresen> AlexWaters1: I was just testing that to update the gist with instructions...
 841 2011-11-14 15:46:38 <sipa> gavinandresen: have you verified that it outputs the private keys in correct endianness?
 842 2011-11-14 15:46:39 <gavinandresen> sipa:  Weirdness with gethexprivkeys:  it seems to be dumping an extra private key
 843 2011-11-14 15:46:48 <gavinandresen> sipa: endianness is correct, yes
 844 2011-11-14 15:47:15 <sipa> "extra" ?
 845 2011-11-14 15:47:16 <gavinandresen> sipa: I'll email you the wallet and what I"m seeing
 846 2011-11-14 15:47:21 <sipa> ok
 847 2011-11-14 15:48:48 copumpkin has joined
 848 2011-11-14 15:49:30 <AlexWaters1> gavinandresen: awesome - thank you Gavin. Good Bruins game?
 849 2011-11-14 15:49:54 <edcba> :Wg 2
 850 2011-11-14 15:49:57 <edcba> oops
 851 2011-11-14 15:50:37 <gavinandresen> AlexWaters1: yeah, they won 6-2.  Went with a Buffalo fan that wasn't happy, though
 852 2011-11-14 15:51:13 <gavinandresen> sipa: email sent, it shouldn't affect testing but does look like a bug in gethexprivkeys/dumpwallet
 853 2011-11-14 15:51:36 <AlexWaters1> gavinandresen: I only saw the highlights of Miller getting smashed...good comeback
 854 2011-11-14 15:55:26 <gavinandresen> AlexWaters1: I've updated https://gist.github.com/1361001
 855 2011-11-14 15:55:32 <sipa> gavinandresen: can you run rcp dumpwallet, and see whether it also contains that extra key?
 856 2011-11-14 15:59:21 <gavinandresen> sipa: sure, if you can tell me what 00d7b26c8554264e49f77a08d9fe91ac6389caee4cbd1a56659b4c61c1ee7d71 in the private key base58 encoding
 857 2011-11-14 16:00:00 <sipa> ah, damnit, of course
 858 2011-11-14 16:00:05 <sipa> never mind, i'll figure it out
 859 2011-11-14 16:00:33 <gavinandresen> sipa: looks like dumpwallet has the same bug, I get 105 keys out of it (should be 104)
 860 2011-11-14 16:01:00 <sipa> gavinandresen: getallhexkeys and dumpwallet should report keys in the same order, so the first one...
 861 2011-11-14 16:01:15 <AlexWaters1> gavinandresen: thank you testing in ubuntu now
 862 2011-11-14 16:03:28 <hippich> is there open source bitcoin faucet available?
 863 2011-11-14 16:04:31 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 864 2011-11-14 16:08:30 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 865 2011-11-14 16:10:37 zapnap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 866 2011-11-14 16:10:55 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
 867 2011-11-14 16:11:43 MimeNarrator has quit (Ping timeout: 259 seconds)
 868 2011-11-14 16:13:04 datagutt has joined
 869 2011-11-14 16:15:45 <AlexWaters1> sipa: i'm getting a 'did you run git update-server-info on the server error' when trying to clone https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/tree/dumpallkeys - should i just clone your repo and checkout the dumpallkeys branch? is this my error?
 870 2011-11-14 16:16:04 <sipa> AlexWaters1: yes
 871 2011-11-14 16:16:56 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 872 2011-11-14 16:18:55 dvide has joined
 873 2011-11-14 16:21:24 <roconnor> sipa: I think it is somewhat bad of openssl to accept incorrect encodings of signatures as valid signatures.
 874 2011-11-14 16:21:43 <roconnor> sipa: I find it plausible that this could be a security problem.
 875 2011-11-14 16:22:47 karnac has joined
 876 2011-11-14 16:23:14 <gavinandresen> 'discouraging' transactions that are not in the strictest, canonical encoding would be a very good idea, in my humble opinion.  Patches welcome....
 877 2011-11-14 16:24:20 <roconnor> gavinandresen: this particular problem is with openssl
 878 2011-11-14 16:25:03 <roconnor> gavinandresen: though if openssl changes its behaviour, then that becomes a bitcoin problem
 879 2011-11-14 16:25:25 <gavinandresen> roconnor: exactly.  And maybe a problem for lots of other things that use openssl
 880 2011-11-14 16:25:37 <roconnor> yep :/
 881 2011-11-14 16:25:56 <roconnor> what I really need is a contact person from openssl
 882 2011-11-14 16:26:49 <gavinandresen> roconnor: when this came up before, I suggested that decoding then re-encoding signatures, and comparing the re-encoded to the original, might be a good check
 883 2011-11-14 16:27:05 <gavinandresen> (I assume OpenSSL always encodes in strictest, most-canonical form)
 884 2011-11-14 16:27:36 <roconnor> gavinandresen: has this particular issue of signed vs unsigned integers in signature come up before?
 885 2011-11-14 16:28:00 <gavinandresen> roconnor: I think it was a different BER versus DER encoding issue.
 886 2011-11-14 16:28:21 <roconnor> ah
 887 2011-11-14 16:28:51 <gavinandresen> my memory if famously bad for that kind of detail, though...
 888 2011-11-14 16:29:10 <roconnor> that's okay
 889 2011-11-14 16:29:35 zapnap has joined
 890 2011-11-14 16:31:57 wasabi has joined
 891 2011-11-14 16:33:39 <gavinandresen> roconnor: If you do find an actual exploit due to OpenSSL accepting multiple encodings, please send email to bitcoin-security@lists.sourceforge.net
 892 2011-11-14 16:34:11 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 893 2011-11-14 16:34:31 wasabi1 has joined
 894 2011-11-14 16:34:50 random_cat has joined
 895 2011-11-14 16:34:56 <roconnor> :)
 896 2011-11-14 16:35:13 <roconnor> I don't think I know enough about openssl to transform this "bug" into an exploit unfortunately
 897 2011-11-14 16:35:51 <gavinandresen> Last time 'we' thought about it, the consensus was "it makes us uncomfortable, but we don't see how to exploit it..."
 898 2011-11-14 16:35:58 <sipa> i don't think signatures are ever reconstructed and compared to other signatures
 899 2011-11-14 16:36:04 <sipa> they're just checked for validity
 900 2011-11-14 16:36:46 <roconnor> my concern would be the use in a more general system where one part of the system thinks the signature is valid, and another part of the system (not using openssl) thinks it is invalid.
 901 2011-11-14 16:37:00 <AlexWaters1> so i built sipa's dumpallkeys branch, ran bitcoind, ran bitcoind gethexprivkeys > privatkeys.txt, and compared to wallet.dat with bfind.py (102 matches). I then encrypted the wallet and ran bfind.py again - and it's still returning 102 matches. surely I am missing something here...
 902 2011-11-14 16:37:04 <roconnor> I imagine that could break some invarients
 903 2011-11-14 16:37:20 <sipa> AlexWaters1: encrypted using which version?
 904 2011-11-14 16:37:34 <gavinandresen> AlexWaters1: what sipa said, his branch doesn't include the fix
 905 2011-11-14 16:37:40 <AlexWaters1> same build, ahhh
 906 2011-11-14 16:37:41 <AlexWaters1> lol
 907 2011-11-14 16:37:43 <AlexWaters1> wow, sorry
 908 2011-11-14 16:37:56 <sipa> ok, that just proves how bad the situation is
 909 2011-11-14 16:37:57 <roconnor> this system wouldn't be bitcoin; some other system using openssl
 910 2011-11-14 16:38:29 <AlexWaters1> i just stole all my keys =O
 911 2011-11-14 16:39:05 <sipa> naughty you
 912 2011-11-14 16:40:16 skitixch has joined
 913 2011-11-14 16:40:38 <gavinandresen> sipa:  what does this mean:  GetAllReserveKeyHashes() : unknown key in key pool
 914 2011-11-14 16:41:31 <gavinandresen> (test case was:  your branch, brand-new wallet.  My fix:  encrypt wallet.  Your branch:  unlock wallet, then try to gethexprivkeys)
 915 2011-11-14 16:41:42 <sipa> gavinandresen: there's a keypool entry in the wallet.dat with a pubkey for which no privkey is known
 916 2011-11-14 16:42:01 caedes has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 917 2011-11-14 16:42:18 <sipa> wait a sec
 918 2011-11-14 16:42:21 <sipa> that code may be wrong
 919 2011-11-14 16:46:50 p0s has joined
 920 2011-11-14 16:47:32 nmat has joined
 921 2011-11-14 16:54:00 <skitixch> hey, could someone help me figure out why this example of a websocket implementation isn't working for me? https://gist.github.com/1215530
 922 2011-11-14 16:56:00 ThomasV has joined
 923 2011-11-14 16:57:23 <skitixch> or how about this, is anyone familiar with websockets in here?
 924 2011-11-14 16:59:07 <sipa> gavinandresen: do you get any reserve keys from dumping an encrypted but unlocked wallet?
 925 2011-11-14 16:59:12 ByteCoin has joined
 926 2011-11-14 16:59:29 <nmat> skitixch I think mtgox no longer supports websockets. let me find the thread...
 927 2011-11-14 16:59:39 <gavinandresen> sipa:  I'll check...  (I was doing some poking around with bitcointools)
 928 2011-11-14 17:00:24 <skitixch> nmat (!) if that's the case, is there still a way to pull realtime market stats?
 929 2011-11-14 17:01:21 <nmat> skitixch https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=14412.msg613253#msg613253
 930 2011-11-14 17:01:22 <gavinandresen> sipa:  I'm running with keypool=10, by the way, makes testing a lot faster
 931 2011-11-14 17:02:16 <gavinandresen> sipa:  unlock wallet, then call dumpwallet and I get the GetAllReserveKeyHashes() : unknown key in key pool error
 932 2011-11-14 17:02:34 <gavinandresen> (is there another way to dump the wallet?)
 933 2011-11-14 17:03:06 <sipa> it seems the code in GetAllReserveKeys wasn't adapted from encrypted wallets
 934 2011-11-14 17:03:21 <skitixch> nmat awesome, thanks for the heads up. Do you know if the mtgox api on their site is still accurate then?
 935 2011-11-14 17:03:36 <gavinandresen> sipa: do you have time to fix it now?
 936 2011-11-14 17:05:48 <ByteCoin> ;;seen runeks
 937 2011-11-14 17:05:49 <gribble> I have not seen runeks.
 938 2011-11-14 17:05:50 <nmat> skitixch I have no idea... check the mtgox api at the wiki and magical tux posts at bitcointalk. this was a recent change
 939 2011-11-14 17:06:56 <skitixch> nmat: thank you so much, this partially explains why I was tearing my hair out the other day.
 940 2011-11-14 17:07:28 <nmat> skitixch np. good luck
 941 2011-11-14 17:07:32 MasterChief has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 942 2011-11-14 17:07:33 MC1984 has joined
 943 2011-11-14 17:07:34 <skitixch> thanks :)
 944 2011-11-14 17:07:36 <ByteCoin> Hi sipa, gavinandresen. Has the current problems with plaintext private keys remaining in the database made you inclined to consider moving to a deterministic wallet?
 945 2011-11-14 17:07:46 <ByteCoin> Over some timescale...
 946 2011-11-14 17:07:52 erus` has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 8.0/20111104165243])
 947 2011-11-14 17:08:12 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: yes, I was inclined to move to a deterministic wallet even before the current problem...
 948 2011-11-14 17:09:04 <gavinandresen> ... although I think multi-device signatures is still more important (because the passphrase-stealing-trojan is a bigger threat)
 949 2011-11-14 17:09:15 pickett_ has joined
 950 2011-11-14 17:09:42 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 951 2011-11-14 17:09:45 <ByteCoin> Ok. Agreed on all points. Do you think that all the developers a positive about deterministic wallets?
 952 2011-11-14 17:09:58 <ByteCoin> Just off the top of your head...
 953 2011-11-14 17:10:21 <AlexWaters1> gavinandresen: before i encrypt the wallet to test against the hex output - should i be building from https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/tree/encryptionbug ?
 954 2011-11-14 17:10:32 <gavinandresen> AlexWaters1: yes
 955 2011-11-14 17:10:46 <AlexWaters1> gavinandresen: i am getting an error in db.cpp:47:42 ... has no member named 'generic_string' ...
 956 2011-11-14 17:11:06 <AlexWaters1> during build
 957 2011-11-14 17:11:11 <gavinandresen> grrr..  boost filesystem 2/3 difference...
 958 2011-11-14 17:11:27 <gavinandresen> I think i need to add an #ifdef
 959 2011-11-14 17:11:31 <gavinandresen> one sec
 960 2011-11-14 17:12:09 <sipa> gavinandresen: should be fixed, just testing whether it compiles now
 961 2011-11-14 17:13:35 <sipa> gavinandresen: ok, done
 962 2011-11-14 17:13:43 <sipa> untested, but the bug was quite obvious
 963 2011-11-14 17:14:02 <gavinandresen> sipa: thanks.... Alex: figuring out what the right #ifdef is now...
 964 2011-11-14 17:15:29 <AlexWaters1> gavinandresen: cool - i'm in no rush if you're busy. i can pull some other tests in my new shiny windows qt binary that i have been playing with
 965 2011-11-14 17:15:56 <gavinandresen> AlexWaters1: I'm busy with this :-)
 966 2011-11-14 17:17:01 <cjdelisle> ByteCoin: did you propose a system for supporting light clients using an unspent transaction hashtree?
 967 2011-11-14 17:17:45 pickett_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 968 2011-11-14 17:19:40 <AlexWaters1> ;;seen bluematt
 969 2011-11-14 17:19:41 <gribble> bluematt was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 2 days, 23 hours, 4 minutes, and 51 seconds ago: <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: hmmm
 970 2011-11-14 17:20:24 pickett has joined
 971 2011-11-14 17:21:06 <ByteCoin> cjdelisle: Yes I did. It was not intended purely for light clients but could be used by all clients. I don't know where the light-client-only misapprehension came from...
 972 2011-11-14 17:21:10 <AlexWaters1> does anyone know why jenkins is building bitcoin-qt.exe superbly in http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/ws/ but isn't building it at all in http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin-Testing-Build/ws/ ?
 973 2011-11-14 17:21:16 AlexWaters1 is now known as alexwaters
 974 2011-11-14 17:21:50 <cjdelisle> do you have a copy of the proposal?
 975 2011-11-14 17:22:13 chrisb__ has joined
 976 2011-11-14 17:22:32 <gavinandresen> alexwaters: I just pushed a fix to the encryptionbug branch
 977 2011-11-14 17:22:41 Sedra- has joined
 978 2011-11-14 17:22:54 <alexwaters> gavinandresen: ok
 979 2011-11-14 17:23:07 <cjdelisle> ByteCoin: I made a similar proposal, which should theoretically allow all clients to become "light clients" in the future. http://btc.pastebay.com/144544  I'd be interested to read your work on the subject.
 980 2011-11-14 17:24:58 mc__ has joined
 981 2011-11-14 17:25:00 <cjdelisle> A limitation of my proposal is that when a block comes out, nodes will have to query information about every transaction in that block so you have a "tx count * node count" storm of messages.
 982 2011-11-14 17:25:27 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: I haven't heard any objections to deterministic wallets; the only concern I'd have is if you set your deterministic wallet passphrase when you first get bitcoin you're likely to forget it, because your wallet is empty so you probably don't care much...
 983 2011-11-14 17:25:50 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 984 2011-11-14 17:25:51 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: ... but a good 'emergency backup' plan of some sort would fix that.
 985 2011-11-14 17:26:40 <alexwaters> gavinandresen: it built - thanks
 986 2011-11-14 17:27:07 <ByteCoin> gavin: Indeed. The devil's in the implementation details. Thanks for the answer. I'm feeling confident development is going in a positive direction.
 987 2011-11-14 17:28:30 <alexwaters> so with an old wallet, after building with the patch - i am still getting 102 matches found
 988 2011-11-14 17:29:00 <alexwaters> is the fix retroactive?
 989 2011-11-14 17:29:25 dan__ has joined
 990 2011-11-14 17:29:27 <ByteCoin> cjdelisle: My balance sheet proposal is probably best explained here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=505.0
 991 2011-11-14 17:29:56 <gavinandresen> sipa:  thanks, showprivkeys is working now
 992 2011-11-14 17:30:12 <ByteCoin> It's more of an idea for discussion rather than a completely specified proposal though...
 993 2011-11-14 17:30:27 <gavinandresen> alexwaters: it should upgrade the wallet and then shut down when you run the patched bitcoind
 994 2011-11-14 17:30:28 <alexwaters> hmm, i'm reading that it should rewrite the wallet.dat upon encryption - very confused
 995 2011-11-14 17:30:48 <gavinandresen> alexwaters: what did you run,when?
 996 2011-11-14 17:30:57 <alexwaters> gavinandresen: it gave me that message. i restarted the daemon and then ran bfind.py
 997 2011-11-14 17:31:07 <alexwaters> do i have to give the encryptwallet command 2x?
 998 2011-11-14 17:31:23 <gavinandresen> alexwaters: nope....
 999 2011-11-14 17:31:58 <alexwaters> ok i can make a quick vid to show steps - i think it might be easier
1000 2011-11-14 17:32:32 <alexwaters> have people tested with sucessful 0 matches? am i a black sheep right now?
1001 2011-11-14 17:32:53 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1002 2011-11-14 17:33:05 <gavinandresen> working for me...
1003 2011-11-14 17:33:14 <alexwaters> ok eta 15 minutes
1004 2011-11-14 17:33:19 <gavinandresen> check the dates on your wallet.dat?  Is it being rewritten?
1005 2011-11-14 17:33:43 <gavinandresen> ... and are you running the same -datadir for bitcoin and the bfind.py ?
1006 2011-11-14 17:34:10 <alexwaters> gavinandresen: yes it has been modified after building your pull
1007 2011-11-14 17:34:45 <alexwaters> i have bfind.py running in .bitcoin - the default folder. it's the only datadir i've used (haven't been passing -datadir=)
1008 2011-11-14 17:35:04 <alexwaters> i had copied the keyfile.txt to my .bitcoin directory earlier
1009 2011-11-14 17:35:47 <alexwaters> privatekeys.txt*
1010 2011-11-14 17:35:48 AStove has joined
1011 2011-11-14 17:36:51 Shaded has joined
1012 2011-11-14 17:38:09 <gavinandresen> alexwaters: testing on ubuntu, right?
1013 2011-11-14 17:39:11 <ByteCoin> cjdelisle: I have read your article. Is it being discussed on the forum? The problem with all these schemes (including mine) is that without developer support, there's no point discussing the details,
1014 2011-11-14 17:41:55 erus` has joined
1015 2011-11-14 17:44:20 pnicholson has joined
1016 2011-11-14 17:47:00 <sipa> gavinandresen: is the 'extra' key still there as well?
1017 2011-11-14 17:47:04 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1018 2011-11-14 17:47:38 <gavinandresen> sipa: not sure... running a fresh testcase to try to reproduce alex's problem and gethexprivkeys is now returning blank lines when run on an UNencrypted wallet
1019 2011-11-14 17:48:30 <sipa> buh, i'll need to do some testing myself i fear - not now though
1020 2011-11-14 17:49:19 <gavinandresen> sipa:  oops, nope, mistaken:  it was an encrypted, LOCKED wallet
1021 2011-11-14 17:49:49 <sipa> ah, right, getallhexkeys doesn't check whether the wallet state is ok, and getkey fails if not
1022 2011-11-14 17:49:53 <sipa> it was written hastily
1023 2011-11-14 17:51:11 <alexwaters> gavinandresen: yes natty, sorry was afk
1024 2011-11-14 17:51:44 dan__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1025 2011-11-14 17:54:20 <gavinandresen> alexwaters: I definitely can't reproduce on my Mac, linked against bdb 4.8 ...
1026 2011-11-14 17:54:44 <gavinandresen> alexwaters: I'll setup an ubuntu test environment after lunch.  What version of bdb are you linking against?
1027 2011-11-14 17:55:25 eastender has joined
1028 2011-11-14 17:55:46 <alexwaters> hrm, trying to remember where bdb puts their files
1029 2011-11-14 17:56:01 <alexwaters> usr/bin?
1030 2011-11-14 17:56:20 <alexwaters> nope...
1031 2011-11-14 17:57:45 <gavinandresen> look for DB_VERSION_STRING in include/something/db.h
1032 2011-11-14 17:57:56 <gavinandresen> (or include/db.h  ... depending ...)
1033 2011-11-14 17:58:32 <alexwaters> yeah searching my filesystem for berkeley only came back with python libraries..werid
1034 2011-11-14 17:58:34 <alexwaters> ok checking
1035 2011-11-14 17:58:44 Disposition has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1036 2011-11-14 17:59:21 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1037 2011-11-14 17:59:39 <gavinandresen> alexwaters: afk for lunch for a bit, but here's the results of my last test run:  https://gist.github.com/1364565
1038 2011-11-14 18:00:19 <gavinandresen> (with one of my 'real' wallets, encrypted with a 0.5.0 release candidate build)
1039 2011-11-14 18:05:42 localhost has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1040 2011-11-14 18:06:36 <alexwaters> gavinandresen: ok interesting. it could be my weird way of using the python - or my libs - or my wallet coming from sipa's build - or my anger at the Islanders sucking so bad
1041 2011-11-14 18:07:06 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1042 2011-11-14 18:08:44 <gavinandresen> alexwaters: make sure privatekeys.txt looks reasonable... (should be full of hexadecimal strings, 64-characters-per-line....)
1043 2011-11-14 18:11:36 Kolky has joined
1044 2011-11-14 18:12:01 nmat has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1045 2011-11-14 18:14:54 mc__ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1046 2011-11-14 18:15:43 <AliciaC> are you sure it's not base64? (I know in other situations base64 is used a lot for cryptographic keys)
1047 2011-11-14 18:20:30 <cjdelisle> ByteCoin: sorry, was away having lunch, my proposal is not being discussed on the forum because I am not a forum member, if you feel like pasting it that would be cool.. After reading your proposal I am not sure what you mean by "balance sheet" since there are some advanced transactions and until they are claimed, it is not possible to know "who" has the money so a simple "alice has 5$, bob has 3" type of balance sheet wouldn't work.
1048 2011-11-14 18:22:36 <alexwaters> is it possible for bitcoin to build without berkeleydb? this is driving me nuts, i can't find it - and berkeleydb -v doesn't have a path to reference
1049 2011-11-14 18:23:09 <cjdelisle> As far as developer support, I always design proposals with the idea that 95% of the community will hate them and try to guerila patch them in to the network even so.
1050 2011-11-14 18:24:30 <alexwaters> gavinandresen: the privatekeys.txt is giving me 101 lines, 65 col of hex and an additional linebreak at the end for a total of 102 lines
1051 2011-11-14 18:25:46 <alexwaters> i counted the characters across - there's 64
1052 2011-11-14 18:26:08 <lianj> the empty line is the secret network-takeover keypair
1053 2011-11-14 18:27:52 <gavinandresen> alexwaters: find /usr/include -name db.h -print  aught to find it...
1054 2011-11-14 18:28:28 <gavinandresen> ... unless you have your dependencies setup oddly.
1055 2011-11-14 18:29:48 eueueue has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1056 2011-11-14 18:33:29 <alexwaters> Berkeley DB 4.8.30 - thank you. my brain is runing on fumes (no sleep)
1057 2011-11-14 18:33:35 <alexwaters> running*
1058 2011-11-14 18:33:57 <alexwaters> lianj: aha!
1059 2011-11-14 18:34:17 llama has joined
1060 2011-11-14 18:34:17 llama has quit (Changing host)
1061 2011-11-14 18:34:17 llama has joined
1062 2011-11-14 18:35:02 llama has quit (Client Quit)
1063 2011-11-14 18:38:24 Shaded has quit (Quit: Shaded)
1064 2011-11-14 18:39:00 <roconnor> sipa:
1065 2011-11-14 18:39:02 <roconnor> /* Custom primitive type for BIGNUM handling. This reads in an ASN1_INTEGER as a
1066 2011-11-14 18:39:03 <roconnor>  * BIGNUM directly. Currently it ignores the sign which isn't a problem since all
1067 2011-11-14 18:39:05 <roconnor>  * BIGNUMs used are non negative and anything that looks negative is normally due
1068 2011-11-14 18:39:06 <roconnor>  * to an encoding error.
1069 2011-11-14 18:39:08 <roconnor>  */
1070 2011-11-14 18:39:26 <roconnor> This is from openssl-1.0.0e/crypto/asn1/x_bignum.c
1071 2011-11-14 18:39:34 <roconnor> so it looks like it is deliberate
1072 2011-11-14 18:39:57 <roconnor> Although I question their claim that it isn't a problem.
1073 2011-11-14 18:40:36 <roconnor> If this isn't exploitable today; I suspect it is only a matter of time.
1074 2011-11-14 18:40:49 ByteCoin has left ()
1075 2011-11-14 18:41:07 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1076 2011-11-14 18:42:01 * roconnor grumbles
1077 2011-11-14 18:51:08 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
1078 2011-11-14 18:53:16 <luke-jr> roconnor: that looks like they're saying "not checking for negative, because anything that might be negative should be invalid at a higher level"
1079 2011-11-14 18:54:09 TD_ has quit (Quit: TD_)
1080 2011-11-14 18:54:25 eueueue has joined
1081 2011-11-14 18:56:02 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
1082 2011-11-14 18:58:16 skitixch has quit (Quit: skitixch)
1083 2011-11-14 19:02:37 PK has joined
1084 2011-11-14 19:05:43 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1085 2011-11-14 19:10:30 Rav3nSw0rd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1086 2011-11-14 19:10:33 Shaded has joined
1087 2011-11-14 19:15:25 Shaded has quit (Client Quit)
1088 2011-11-14 19:17:57 tower has quit (Disconnected by services)
1089 2011-11-14 19:18:10 tower has joined
1090 2011-11-14 19:19:21 knotwork_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1091 2011-11-14 19:33:21 semb has joined
1092 2011-11-14 19:38:18 semb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1093 2011-11-14 19:43:14 Rav3nSw0rd has joined
1094 2011-11-14 19:43:37 storrgie has joined
1095 2011-11-14 19:43:48 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1096 2011-11-14 19:43:48 amiller has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1097 2011-11-14 19:44:07 magn3ts has joined
1098 2011-11-14 19:45:47 knotwork has joined
1099 2011-11-14 19:45:51 amiller has joined
1100 2011-11-14 19:54:26 TD_ has joined
1101 2011-11-14 19:55:58 magn3ts has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1102 2011-11-14 20:03:05 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1103 2011-11-14 20:06:06 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1104 2011-11-14 20:09:18 num1 has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
1105 2011-11-14 20:10:48 PK has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1106 2011-11-14 20:10:50 PK_ has joined
1107 2011-11-14 20:14:53 RazielZ has joined
1108 2011-11-14 20:18:22 PK_ is now known as PK
1109 2011-11-14 20:19:50 storrgie has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1110 2011-11-14 20:20:27 Shaded has joined
1111 2011-11-14 20:20:45 larsivi has joined
1112 2011-11-14 20:22:28 gronager has joined
1113 2011-11-14 20:22:37 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1114 2011-11-14 20:23:26 eueueue has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1115 2011-11-14 20:28:17 HaltingState has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1116 2011-11-14 20:29:41 chrisb__ has joined
1117 2011-11-14 20:33:03 p0s has joined
1118 2011-11-14 20:34:59 num1 has joined
1119 2011-11-14 20:35:08 num1 has quit (Changing host)
1120 2011-11-14 20:35:08 num1 has joined
1121 2011-11-14 20:45:34 eastender has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1122 2011-11-14 20:47:02 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
1123 2011-11-14 20:48:14 AStove has quit ()
1124 2011-11-14 20:49:40 HaltingState has joined
1125 2011-11-14 20:49:40 HaltingState has quit (Changing host)
1126 2011-11-14 20:49:40 HaltingState has joined
1127 2011-11-14 20:49:54 semb has joined
1128 2011-11-14 20:50:38 AStove has joined
1129 2011-11-14 20:51:28 AStove has quit (Client Quit)
1130 2011-11-14 20:52:42 AStove has joined
1131 2011-11-14 20:54:38 iocor has joined
1132 2011-11-14 20:58:13 pickett has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1133 2011-11-14 20:59:16 pickett has joined
1134 2011-11-14 21:00:47 gronager has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1135 2011-11-14 21:01:12 danbri_ has joined
1136 2011-11-14 21:01:40 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1137 2011-11-14 21:03:03 <makomk> edcba: if you haven't recovered your bitcoins yet, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25091.0 might be worth trying though it's limited and very user-unfriendly.
1138 2011-11-14 21:03:34 knotwork has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1139 2011-11-14 21:05:04 knotwork has joined
1140 2011-11-14 21:05:07 knotwork has quit (Changing host)
1141 2011-11-14 21:05:07 knotwork has joined
1142 2011-11-14 21:05:45 gronager has joined
1143 2011-11-14 21:07:10 dikidera has joined
1144 2011-11-14 21:11:12 gronager has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1145 2011-11-14 21:18:21 <wboy1>  Hey Guys,any javascript dev's that are interested in joining a bitcoin related funded startup,drop me a message,Thanks!
1146 2011-11-14 21:21:23 skitixch has joined
1147 2011-11-14 21:26:22 skitixch has quit (Quit: skitixch)
1148 2011-11-14 21:32:05 Shaded has quit (Quit: Shaded)
1149 2011-11-14 21:33:12 <edcba> makomk: i didn't lose any bitcoin yet afaik :)
1150 2011-11-14 21:35:10 erle- has joined
1151 2011-11-14 21:37:20 karnac has joined
1152 2011-11-14 21:41:00 zapnap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1153 2011-11-14 21:44:45 knotwork has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1154 2011-11-14 21:44:52 wboy1 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1155 2011-11-14 21:45:18 Diablo-D3 has joined
1156 2011-11-14 21:45:41 danbri_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1157 2011-11-14 21:46:31 danbri has joined
1158 2011-11-14 21:46:48 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1159 2011-11-14 21:50:28 rdponticelli has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
1160 2011-11-14 21:50:48 rdponticelli has joined
1161 2011-11-14 21:53:33 wboy1 has joined
1162 2011-11-14 21:53:43 mjdb_ has joined
1163 2011-11-14 21:54:03 Clipse has joined
1164 2011-11-14 21:54:11 <mjdb_> is anyone mining under opensuse11.4 cant get my second card working...
1165 2011-11-14 21:55:40 <mjdb_> or even just general help...  i have a monitor hooked up and a desktop running from both cards under xinerama
1166 2011-11-14 21:55:51 <mjdb_> aticonfig --lsa shows both cards
1167 2011-11-14 21:56:00 <mjdb_> clinfo shows just 1
1168 2011-11-14 22:01:30 wboy1 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1169 2011-11-14 22:10:59 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
1170 2011-11-14 22:11:41 clark has joined
1171 2011-11-14 22:12:26 Shaded has joined
1172 2011-11-14 22:12:39 roconnor has joined
1173 2011-11-14 22:16:10 wboy1 has joined
1174 2011-11-14 22:17:28 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1175 2011-11-14 22:20:51 Satori has joined
1176 2011-11-14 22:21:12 <tcatm> cool new bitcoincharts feature: raw chart data in a table :)
1177 2011-11-14 22:21:37 <Mqrius> Does nibor have a presence on IRC?
1178 2011-11-14 22:22:12 <edcba> same as namtab i guess
1179 2011-11-14 22:23:04 <Satori> I'm building a site that uses BitCoin, and I need to know how to get everything installed and configured.  Is there anyone knowledgeable on this here?
1180 2011-11-14 22:23:26 <edcba> lol
1181 2011-11-14 22:23:41 <cjdelisle> nah, nobody here really knows anything
1182 2011-11-14 22:23:58 <edcba> maybe 4 ppl have implemented bitcoin themselves here i guess
1183 2011-11-14 22:24:29 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1184 2011-11-14 22:24:32 <Satori> Beats the market speculator convo scrolling through #bitcoin i suppose.
1185 2011-11-14 22:24:56 <edcba> indeed
1186 2011-11-14 22:26:17 <roconnor> Satori: I think you just download the binaries and run bitcoind (or bitcoin)
1187 2011-11-14 22:26:28 <roconnor> Satori: then it is available for RPC
1188 2011-11-14 22:26:48 <Satori> I'm using Drupal 7 and its plug-ins.  They're asking for JSON-RPC, that's working with XMLRPC.  As I'm not very familiar with PHP, I'm uncertain whether there's a specific library I need to add to my PHP configuration.  I already have XMLRPC.
1189 2011-11-14 22:26:49 <roconnor> oh wait, maybe there is a configuration file to edit
1190 2011-11-14 22:27:01 <Satori> There is.  That I can probably get myself.
1191 2011-11-14 22:27:05 abragin has quit ()
1192 2011-11-14 22:27:10 <edcba> yes to set your user/pass :)
1193 2011-11-14 22:27:32 iocor has joined
1194 2011-11-14 22:28:39 PK has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1195 2011-11-14 22:29:01 PK_ has joined
1196 2011-11-14 22:29:35 wboy1 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1197 2011-11-14 22:29:51 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1198 2011-11-14 22:32:11 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
1199 2011-11-14 22:32:21 PK_ has quit (Client Quit)
1200 2011-11-14 22:32:56 tower has joined
1201 2011-11-14 22:33:00 AStove has quit ()
1202 2011-11-14 22:33:54 wboy1 has joined
1203 2011-11-14 22:35:16 <tcatm> sipa: the y-axis looks a bit weird on http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-thumbnail.png
1204 2011-11-14 22:35:24 semb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1205 2011-11-14 22:35:41 <Satori> Does anyone know whether JSON-RPC is part of XML-RPC, or needs to be added somehow?
1206 2011-11-14 22:36:33 eastender has joined
1207 2011-11-14 22:42:19 <luke-jr> Satori: JSON-RPC has nothing to do with XML-RPC
1208 2011-11-14 22:43:34 <Satori> luke-jr: My understanding is that Drupal uses XML-RPC to interact with JSON-RPC, or the other way 'round.  Website interface to RPC to bitcoind.
1209 2011-11-14 22:44:03 <luke-jr> k, well Drupal is stupid, not the norm
1210 2011-11-14 22:44:18 <Satori> Hey, thanks.  And those shoes look nice.
1211 2011-11-14 22:44:21 <Satori> =)
1212 2011-11-14 22:45:49 <Satori> Found the answer.  JSON-RPC has come standard with PHP since 5.2.0 and on, in case anyone else asks.  It's likely, as bitcoin-for-Drupal is just starting to happen.
1213 2011-11-14 22:46:23 theorbtwo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1214 2011-11-14 22:46:28 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1215 2011-11-14 22:47:09 <Satori> luke-jr: How do most sites do it?  Site -> RPC -> BitCoin, yes?
1216 2011-11-14 22:47:30 <luke-jr> dunno
1217 2011-11-14 22:47:35 <luke-jr> I just use system()
1218 2011-11-14 22:47:39 <luke-jr> <.<
1219 2011-11-14 22:48:15 <Satori> Alrighty.  Thanks guys!
1220 2011-11-14 22:48:24 wolfspra1l has quit (Quit: leaving)
1221 2011-11-14 22:48:36 <tcatm> Satori: with a good webserver you could proxy RPC so you can access it via JavaScript (I do that for my js-remote demo ;)
1222 2011-11-14 22:49:44 <Satori> tcatm: Worth knowing.  Drupal essentially constrains you to work with the modules available or build one yourself though.
1223 2011-11-14 22:51:26 <Diablo-D3> guess what peopl
1224 2011-11-14 22:51:29 <Diablo-D3> its share the pain time
1225 2011-11-14 22:51:34 <Diablo-D3> http://pastebin.com/VuizTHAm
1226 2011-11-14 22:51:37 <Diablo-D3> behold, PAIN
1227 2011-11-14 22:53:19 <cocktopus> wat
1228 2011-11-14 22:53:24 <cocktopus> ees
1229 2011-11-14 22:53:26 <cocktopus> dees
1230 2011-11-14 22:53:28 <cocktopus> shit
1231 2011-11-14 22:54:05 <phantomcircuit> what
1232 2011-11-14 22:54:06 <phantomcircuit> the
1233 2011-11-14 22:54:06 <phantomcircuit> fuck
1234 2011-11-14 22:54:25 <phantomcircuit> HESessionResults
1235 2011-11-14 22:54:31 <phantomcircuit> the fuck could that be
1236 2011-11-14 22:54:45 <Diablo-D3> [05:38:09] <Diablo-D3> apparently
1237 2011-11-14 22:54:45 <Diablo-D3> [05:38:12] <Diablo-D3> its in a php script
1238 2011-11-14 22:54:45 <Diablo-D3> [05:38:17] <Diablo-D3> that is called by a js script
1239 2011-11-14 22:54:46 <Diablo-D3> [05:38:21] <Diablo-D3> and the js is assembled by a php script
1240 2011-11-14 22:54:48 <Diablo-D3> [05:38:29] <Diablo-D3> which is called by a jsf template.
1241 2011-11-14 22:55:07 <cocktopus> oh jesus
1242 2011-11-14 22:55:26 aga_ is now known as agath
1243 2011-11-14 22:55:32 <cocktopus> quick, someone refactor it to one line before my brain '
1244 2011-11-14 22:55:36 <cocktopus> splodes
1245 2011-11-14 22:55:39 <Diablo-D3> too late
1246 2011-11-14 22:57:21 <da2ce7> Diablo-D3, http://pastebin.com/VuizTHAm  <--- what is that ugly piece of shit?
1247 2011-11-14 22:57:40 <Diablo-D3> da2ce7: see description
1248 2011-11-14 22:58:03 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, that is
1249 2011-11-14 22:58:05 <da2ce7> now hiring now ?
1250 2011-11-14 22:58:07 <phantomcircuit> impressively stupid
1251 2011-11-14 22:58:16 <Diablo-D3> oh and the fun part?
1252 2011-11-14 22:58:19 <Diablo-D3> it might be in google's code.
1253 2011-11-14 22:58:22 Matt_von_Mises has joined
1254 2011-11-14 22:58:24 <da2ce7> omg.
1255 2011-11-14 22:58:41 * da2ce7 has been teaching himself java, I think that Diablo-D3 would be proud.
1256 2011-11-14 22:59:01 <Diablo-D3> if your java looks like this, I will rape you in your sleep
1257 2011-11-14 22:59:09 * da2ce7 likes the swing gui, if you use it correctly.
1258 2011-11-14 22:59:35 <Matt_von_Mises> Hello. Since you can broadcast transactions to the network that have a time before they are valid, I assume future software could create repeat payments without needing to be online?
1259 2011-11-14 22:59:55 <Diablo-D3> Matt_von_Mises: no.
1260 2011-11-14 22:59:56 <Matt_von_Mises> Just need to broadcast the payments all at once that come valid after intervals.
1261 2011-11-14 23:00:11 <Diablo-D3> because "future" transactipns I _think_ cant be more than 10 minutes in the future.
1262 2011-11-14 23:00:12 <Matt_von_Mises> I didn't read something right then
1263 2011-11-14 23:00:15 <da2ce7> Matt_von_Mises, yes, but you need to do some crazy scripting stuff. afaik
1264 2011-11-14 23:00:21 <Diablo-D3> or what da2ce7 said
1265 2011-11-14 23:00:30 <Matt_von_Mises> "because "future" transactipns I _think_ cant be more than 10 minutes in the future." THat isn't what I read
1266 2011-11-14 23:00:47 <Matt_von_Mises> I read you can place a time into transactions where it only is valid after that time.
1267 2011-11-14 23:00:53 <Diablo-D3> well, it'd be weird if it works, Matt_von_Mises.
1268 2011-11-14 23:00:57 <Matt_von_Mises> And it didn't say only 10 minutes
1269 2011-11-14 23:01:00 <phantomcircuit> either way it's disabled iirc
1270 2011-11-14 23:01:15 <phantomcircuit> yes it is
1271 2011-11-14 23:01:16 clark has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1272 2011-11-14 23:01:23 <phantomcircuit> it's by block number of by unix timestamp
1273 2011-11-14 23:01:35 <phantomcircuit> Matt_von_Mises, so the answer is you should but you cant
1274 2011-11-14 23:01:39 <Matt_von_Mises> Disabled?
1275 2011-11-14 23:01:53 <Matt_von_Mises> People were talling me this could be done before
1276 2011-11-14 23:02:00 <phantomcircuit> default client drops transactions which dont have lock_time == 0
1277 2011-11-14 23:02:18 <Matt_von_Mises> You could create self-terminating wallets with a third party that send the coins back to you after a time period.
1278 2011-11-14 23:02:19 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, do you know why?
1279 2011-11-14 23:02:54 <Matt_von_Mises> So now you cannot make joint wallets that terminate automatically?
1280 2011-11-14 23:03:07 <Matt_von_Mises> It was on the bitcoin wiki, it said it could be don
1281 2011-11-14 23:03:07 <Matt_von_Mises> e
1282 2011-11-14 23:03:11 <phantomcircuit> well yes and no
1283 2011-11-14 23:03:12 <Matt_von_Mises> But the lock time is basically a lie?
1284 2011-11-14 23:03:29 <phantomcircuit> mostly no
1285 2011-11-14 23:03:33 <da2ce7> Matt_von_Mises, what you are talking about it is planned, just not implemented yet.  Scripting bitcoin tx's is very hard.
1286 2011-11-14 23:03:33 <phantomcircuit> but kind of yes
1287 2011-11-14 23:03:49 <phantomcircuit> da2ce7, it's actually implemented but disabled
1288 2011-11-14 23:03:58 somuchwin2 has joined
1289 2011-11-14 23:04:34 somuchwin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1290 2011-11-14 23:04:35 <Diablo-D3> do I know why it doesnt work?
1291 2011-11-14 23:04:37 <da2ce7> phantomcircuit, so the code is one switch way from working?
1292 2011-11-14 23:04:39 <Diablo-D3> yeah, because theres no ui for it
1293 2011-11-14 23:04:41 <Matt_von_Mises> So in the future I make a joint wallet with a third party to make trustable instant payments, I use the service to send some bitcoins to a normal address but the person wont get them because "it's disabled"?
1294 2011-11-14 23:04:53 <Matt_von_Mises> With the older software
1295 2011-11-14 23:05:04 <Matt_von_Mises> Older in the context of this future idea.
1296 2011-11-14 23:05:25 <phantomcircuit> Matt_von_Mises, im actually not sure about that one
1297 2011-11-14 23:05:27 <Matt_von_Mises> Wait but for that idea...
1298 2011-11-14 23:05:31 <Matt_von_Mises> It would be fine
1299 2011-11-14 23:05:32 <da2ce7> Matt_von_Mises, well 'non-standard tx's' don't get relayed; or automaticaly acepted into a block.
1300 2011-11-14 23:05:43 <Matt_von_Mises> Because the lock time is only used for the transaction to myself
1301 2011-11-14 23:05:47 <Matt_von_Mises> And I ahve the new software
1302 2011-11-14 23:05:51 <da2ce7> however if you are mining your own blocks you can place em' in and your tx's will be still vaild.
1303 2011-11-14 23:05:55 <phantomcircuit> Matt_von_Mises, you could swing it if you could convince a miner actually
1304 2011-11-14 23:05:59 <Matt_von_Mises> But I can't send lock time transactions to people with old software?
1305 2011-11-14 23:06:12 <phantomcircuit> i remember the reason for it now too
1306 2011-11-14 23:06:15 <da2ce7> Matt_von_Mises, no everyone will except em'
1307 2011-11-14 23:06:23 <phantomcircuit> the cutoff is hard
1308 2011-11-14 23:06:32 <phantomcircuit> and not all nodes have the same time
1309 2011-11-14 23:06:40 <Matt_von_Mises> Hold on, what are you saying now. Clients will accept them?
1310 2011-11-14 23:06:42 <Matt_von_Mises> But miners wont?
1311 2011-11-14 23:06:53 Shaded has quit (Quit: Shaded)
1312 2011-11-14 23:06:56 <phantomcircuit> so it makes doing a low confirm double spend easier
1313 2011-11-14 23:07:00 <da2ce7> Matt_von_Mises, everyone accepts them IF they get into a block...
1314 2011-11-14 23:07:08 <da2ce7> getting into a block is the hard part.
1315 2011-11-14 23:07:16 <Matt_von_Mises> So it is a miner problem?
1316 2011-11-14 23:07:29 <phantomcircuit> Matt_von_Mises, normal clients wont relay them, so they wont tend to make it to a miner
1317 2011-11-14 23:07:30 <da2ce7> no it is a stablity problem.
1318 2011-11-14 23:07:35 <phantomcircuit> so they dont tend to get into blocks
1319 2011-11-14 23:07:43 <Matt_von_Mises> So they are valid transactions, you just need to have miners that mine the lock time transactions and no miners accept this yet?
1320 2011-11-14 23:08:00 <da2ce7> no
1321 2011-11-14 23:08:07 <da2ce7> eliguis should
1322 2011-11-14 23:08:08 <Matt_von_Mises> Clients don't relay them so when you broadcast, they get lost?
1323 2011-11-14 23:08:14 <Matt_von_Mises> Or stuck
1324 2011-11-14 23:08:19 <Matt_von_Mises> Whatever language I should use
1325 2011-11-14 23:08:20 <da2ce7> if you send directly to that miner, it should work.
1326 2011-11-14 23:08:27 ale_ has joined
1327 2011-11-14 23:08:39 <Matt_von_Mises> Does the protocol allow you to find miners on the network?
1328 2011-11-14 23:08:51 <phantomcircuit> Matt_von_Mises, no you have to guess
1329 2011-11-14 23:09:10 <phantomcircuit> Matt_von_Mises, although if you just want to send a transaction to everybody that's actually a fairly cheap operation
1330 2011-11-14 23:09:11 <Matt_von_Mises> Guess? Well that wont work out then.
1331 2011-11-14 23:09:44 <Matt_von_Mises> Alright,s o you send the transaction to everyone and you are safe in the knowledge that it will be processed?
1332 2011-11-14 23:10:04 <Matt_von_Mises> With the lock time element included?
1333 2011-11-14 23:10:29 Satori has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1334 2011-11-14 23:12:26 <sipa> AliciaC: i wrote it, it's hexadecimal :)
1335 2011-11-14 23:12:40 <luke-jr> sipa: next time use tonal!
1336 2011-11-14 23:13:39 <da2ce7> luke-jr is the fore-runner of my 'troll of the year' award; :)
1337 2011-11-14 23:13:58 <luke-jr> da2ce7: 'cept I ain't trollin
1338 2011-11-14 23:14:09 <da2ce7> :O
1339 2011-11-14 23:14:27 * da2ce7 somehow remains unconvinced.
1340 2011-11-14 23:14:50 <Matt_von_Mises> Since I'm doing an online bitcoin survey should I just assume repeat payments is a feature I can add to a list in a question?
1341 2011-11-14 23:15:59 <da2ce7> Matt_von_Mises, maybe; depends if people want to wait annother 3months for it or not...
1342 2011-11-14 23:16:29 <da2ce7> there is lost of work to get a feature working 'in-proof-of-concept' to stable and solid...
1343 2011-11-14 23:16:53 <da2ce7> even our simple 'encrypt wallet' function had* has issues.
1344 2011-11-14 23:17:07 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1345 2011-11-14 23:17:08 <da2ce7> and that took lots of work also,
1346 2011-11-14 23:18:15 <da2ce7> the bitcoin community has very good programmers;  however the problems we are dealing with are non-trivial if you want to do them in  a super-solid and secure way.
1347 2011-11-14 23:18:21 <Matt_von_Mises> Ok, well thanks for the answers
1348 2011-11-14 23:18:30 <sipa> the software is still beta, and there are far more urgent matters to deal with first
1349 2011-11-14 23:18:36 <Matt_von_Mises> People have already been working on the repeat transactions? I didn't even know
1350 2011-11-14 23:18:45 <Matt_von_Mises> Urgent matters?
1351 2011-11-14 23:18:50 <Matt_von_Mises> What are those?
1352 2011-11-14 23:19:02 <sipa> security
1353 2011-11-14 23:19:13 devrandom has joined
1354 2011-11-14 23:19:23 <sipa> things like second keys, external devices, deterministic wallets
1355 2011-11-14 23:21:06 <gmaxwell> even after the core security things are done .... there are more secondary security improvements like DOS resistance, network paritioning detection, double spend detection.
1356 2011-11-14 23:21:08 ymirhotfoot has joined
1357 2011-11-14 23:22:28 MobiusL has joined
1358 2011-11-14 23:23:40 tower has joined
1359 2011-11-14 23:26:31 <Matt_von_Mises> There aren't any severe security issues though, right?
1360 2011-11-14 23:27:57 <gmaxwell> there isn't anything that isn't well understood by bitcoin users, except perhaps the recently discovered fact that the wallet encryption can leave unencrypted data in the wallet.
1361 2011-11-14 23:28:33 <gmaxwell> But just because people are aware of the security limitations and aren't in any severe danger that doesn't mean they aren't essential priorities for development.
1362 2011-11-14 23:29:10 agricocb has joined
1363 2011-11-14 23:29:24 <gmaxwell> I think it's fair to say that security should be the primary focus of the core developers, simply because there is more room for experimentation, diversity, market solutions, etc. for most other things.
1364 2011-11-14 23:30:02 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1365 2011-11-14 23:30:04 mjdb_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1366 2011-11-14 23:31:01 <sipa> gmaxwell: i don't understand that last sentence
1367 2011-11-14 23:31:29 <cjdelisle> core devs need to do security because users will push feature patches..
1368 2011-11-14 23:31:41 <cjdelisle> as I understand
1369 2011-11-14 23:32:02 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1370 2011-11-14 23:32:08 <gmaxwell> yes basically. Or route around missing features with external services.
1371 2011-11-14 23:32:28 <gmaxwell> But you can't route around a loss of confidence from less security.
1372 2011-11-14 23:33:36 <gmaxwell> and security has little tolerance for misunderstanding the system, while other things may.
1373 2011-11-14 23:33:41 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1374 2011-11-14 23:34:16 sshc has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1375 2011-11-14 23:36:37 <cjdelisle> Is it planned to use wallet crypto from the start in the future?
1376 2011-11-14 23:37:18 <Matt_von_Mises> I'm reading this -> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Smart_Property But would it be upheld in current legal systems?
1377 2011-11-14 23:38:41 <sipa> cjdelisle: 0.5.0rc4 will flush the keypool when encrypting the wallet, so if you encrypt a fresh wallet, you end up with the same
1378 2011-11-14 23:39:03 <cjdelisle> Because wallet crypto could be worked into the UI very nicely with a: Welcome to Bitcoin, [new wallet] [open wallet]
1379 2011-11-14 23:39:41 <cjdelisle> [new wallet] -> Name your wallet: ___  Passphrase: ___
1380 2011-11-14 23:39:50 <cjdelisle> Then it feels natural
1381 2011-11-14 23:39:58 <sipa> That's one thing that is not clear to me yet: should the bitcoin ui have one (or more) internal wallets, that can be exported and imported
1382 2011-11-14 23:40:23 <sipa> or should it be considered a view/editor/manager for existing wallet files, stored at locations you choose
1383 2011-11-14 23:40:33 <cjdelisle> ^^
1384 2011-11-14 23:40:40 <cjdelisle> I like the second FWIW
1385 2011-11-14 23:40:56 <cjdelisle> Most software "thinks" that way
1386 2011-11-14 23:41:26 <luke-jr> sipa: neither
1387 2011-11-14 23:41:32 <luke-jr> UIs shouldn't touch wallet files at all
1388 2011-11-14 23:41:54 <luke-jr> they should talk to wallet servers over a standard protocol, and the latter deal with all the security issues
1389 2011-11-14 23:42:05 <cjdelisle> mmhmm
1390 2011-11-14 23:42:11 <sipa> ok; same question for your wallet server
1391 2011-11-14 23:43:14 ymirhotfoot has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.2 (IRC client for Emacs))
1392 2011-11-14 23:43:26 <luke-jr> I think there's room for both single-user wallet servers and multiuser servers
1393 2011-11-14 23:45:34 sacarlson has joined
1394 2011-11-14 23:46:42 adulau has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1395 2011-11-14 23:46:51 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1396 2011-11-14 23:46:51 Matt_von_Mises has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1397 2011-11-14 23:47:00 Matt_von_Mises has joined
1398 2011-11-14 23:47:52 adulau has joined
1399 2011-11-14 23:48:08 <agath> Q. What's yellow and dangerous?
1400 2011-11-14 23:48:20 <agath> A. *((int*)rand()) = 0xffff00;
1401 2011-11-14 23:49:10 <cjdelisle> that's yellow?
1402 2011-11-14 23:49:29 <iocor> 0xffff00; is yellow
1403 2011-11-14 23:49:46 <iocor> and *((int)*rand()) will almost certainly segfault
1404 2011-11-14 23:49:49 <cjdelisle> if by yellow you mean pink, yes.
1405 2011-11-14 23:50:00 <iocor> red + green = yellow
1406 2011-11-14 23:50:04 <iocor> rgb yo!
1407 2011-11-14 23:50:04 <sipa> what about *((int*)rand) = 0xFFFF00
1408 2011-11-14 23:50:26 <iocor> http://www.colorcombos.com/FFFF00-hex-color
1409 2011-11-14 23:50:34 <cjdelisle> ic
1410 2011-11-14 23:51:14 <cjdelisle> dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/kmem bs=1 count=1 seek=$RANDOM <-- for people playing at home without the benefit of GCC
1411 2011-11-14 23:51:38 <gmaxwell> agath: hopyfully setting address 0 would segfault just as well and it would need 100% less library calls.
1412 2011-11-14 23:52:22 <gmaxwell> I guess windows has 0 mapped.
1413 2011-11-14 23:52:27 <Matt_von_Mises> Why would you do this? *((int*)rand) = 0xFFFF00
1414 2011-11-14 23:52:29 <agath> in older systems (for example C= Amiga) it would have been more fun :-)
1415 2011-11-14 23:52:52 <agath> Matt_von_Mises: it's just a joke.... something yellow and dangerous.......
1416 2011-11-14 23:52:53 <luke-jr> Matt_von_Mises: that won't hurt you unless you call rand() later
1417 2011-11-14 23:53:06 <gmaxwell> Matt_von_Mises: depends on the arch and your use of rand()
1418 2011-11-14 23:53:24 <cjdelisle> it should hit the nx bit protection and blow up fast
1419 2011-11-14 23:53:30 <cjdelisle> on amd64
1420 2011-11-14 23:54:03 Beremat has joined
1421 2011-11-14 23:54:11 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: why? nx = no execute
1422 2011-11-14 23:54:19 <luke-jr> nothing about where you can/can't write … :p
1423 2011-11-14 23:54:22 <gmaxwell> 48e96ce0 <rand>:
1424 2011-11-14 23:54:22 <gmaxwell> 48e96ce0:       55                      push   %ebp
1425 2011-11-14 23:54:22 <gmaxwell> 48e96ce1:       89 e5                   mov    %esp,%ebp
1426 2011-11-14 23:54:22 <gmaxwell> 48e96ce3:       53                      push   %ebx
1427 2011-11-14 23:54:41 <Matt_von_Mises> If you create a pointer and then modify the data at the address, couldn't you cause a big problem there?
1428 2011-11-14 23:54:50 <cjdelisle> luke-jr: correct, I had that wrong, it's the read only bit which is right next to the nx bit
1429 2011-11-14 23:54:52 <gmaxwell> You'd smash the stack on your next call to rand().
1430 2011-11-14 23:54:55 <cjdelisle> but nothing hides quite as well as:  int *n;  *n = 3;
1431 2011-11-14 23:55:37 <luke-jr> int n; *(&n) = 3;
1432 2011-11-14 23:56:30 <Matt_von_Mises> int n = 3; There you go. It's easy enough.
1433 2011-11-14 23:56:52 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: oh good point.
1434 2011-11-14 23:56:53 <Matt_von_Mises> Then you do int * p = &n;
1435 2011-11-14 23:57:18 <luke-jr> int p; ⁂⁂⁂p = 0xffff00;
1436 2011-11-14 23:58:55 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1437 2011-11-14 23:59:01 bernie has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)