1 2011-11-28 00:03:44 luke-jr has quit (Excess Flood)
2 2011-11-28 00:04:02 luke-jr has joined
3 2011-11-28 00:04:02 theorb has joined
4 2011-11-28 00:04:29 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
5 2011-11-28 00:04:41 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
6 2011-11-28 00:05:02 gfinn has quit (Quit: gfinn)
7 2011-11-28 00:05:57 Guest23404 is now known as EvanR
8 2011-11-28 00:06:03 EvanR has quit (Changing host)
9 2011-11-28 00:06:03 EvanR has joined
10 2011-11-28 00:15:22 AStove has quit ()
11 2011-11-28 00:33:08 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
12 2011-11-28 00:44:32 AAA_awright has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
13 2011-11-28 00:46:54 Kolky has quit (Quit: Bye bye!)
14 2011-11-28 00:48:11 AAA_awright has joined
15 2011-11-28 01:01:22 copumpkin has joined
16 2011-11-28 01:04:52 knotwork_ has joined
17 2011-11-28 01:05:01 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
18 2011-11-28 01:06:44 NickelBot7 has joined
19 2011-11-28 01:07:03 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
20 2011-11-28 01:07:35 knotwork__ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
21 2011-11-28 01:08:25 NickelBot7 is now known as NickelBot
22 2011-11-28 01:12:11 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
23 2011-11-28 01:13:43 crazy_imp has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
24 2011-11-28 01:15:34 crazy_imp has joined
25 2011-11-28 01:15:57 coventry` has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
26 2011-11-28 01:21:19 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
27 2011-11-28 01:24:35 <Diablo-D3> https://www.google.com/trends?q=bitcoin&ctab=0&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=0
28 2011-11-28 01:24:39 <Diablo-D3> http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg360zvztgSzm1g10zm2g25
29 2011-11-28 01:24:43 <Diablo-D3> huh.
30 2011-11-28 01:25:28 <upb> yeah..
31 2011-11-28 01:25:48 <gmaxwell> but whats the cause and whats the effect.
32 2011-11-28 01:26:02 <gmaxwell> Bitcoins being $30 sure makes them more interesting to search for!
33 2011-11-28 01:26:29 <the_batman> we need a bitcoin pr team
34 2011-11-28 01:26:33 <the_batman> to get that price back up to $30
35 2011-11-28 01:26:48 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: ooh didnt think of that
36 2011-11-28 01:26:51 * Diablo-D3 steals gmaxwell's thoughts
37 2011-11-28 01:27:02 <gmaxwell> Oh noes! they be stealing my thoughts!
38 2011-11-28 01:27:08 <gmaxwell> the_batman: bubbles are bad.
39 2011-11-28 01:27:27 <gmaxwell> We need a PR team to get bitcoin adoption up. The value will follow (hopefully slowly)
40 2011-11-28 01:27:39 <upb> someone needs to find that gay guy :)
41 2011-11-28 01:27:41 <upb> again
42 2011-11-28 01:27:42 <the_batman> adoption by whom?
43 2011-11-28 01:27:50 <upb> bruce or whatever he was
44 2011-11-28 01:27:55 <the_batman> bitcoin got hella pr and then was adpoted by finance nerds
45 2011-11-28 01:28:01 <the_batman> and the price went up to $30
46 2011-11-28 01:28:08 <the_batman> that's what it got from mainstream pr*
47 2011-11-28 01:28:11 <gmaxwell> Preferably people who are not the finance nerds.
48 2011-11-28 01:28:15 <the_batman> no other adoption, that is to say
49 2011-11-28 01:28:24 <the_batman> lol
50 2011-11-28 01:29:12 <the_batman> I dunno. I like the finance nerd crowd.
51 2011-11-28 01:29:30 <the_batman> they're pretty intelligent and down-to-earth \
52 2011-11-28 01:29:47 <gmaxwell> sure but they don't add a lot to the ecosystem that attracts anyone else.
53 2011-11-28 01:30:11 <gmaxwell> We need them too, but they're the easiest to win.. they'll go wherever there is money to be made.
54 2011-11-28 01:30:19 <the_batman> dont they give a palpable degree of price stability?
55 2011-11-28 01:30:42 <the_batman> yah we need a real use for the bitcoin
56 2011-11-28 01:30:46 <the_batman> indeed, this old discussion
57 2011-11-28 01:30:54 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
58 2011-11-28 01:30:57 <gmaxwell> They doâ except when they don't.
59 2011-11-28 01:31:00 <the_batman> with the only conclusion "hold bitcoins and wait [for magic]"
60 2011-11-28 01:31:11 <the_batman> lol
61 2011-11-28 01:31:43 <gmaxwell> There are people using bitcoin every day, using it to tranfer value between countries without exchange inefficiency, etc.. we just need more of it.
62 2011-11-28 01:31:51 <the_batman> ??? really? who
63 2011-11-28 01:32:02 <Diablo-D3> [08:26:54] <gmaxwell> Oh noes! they be stealing my thoughts!
64 2011-11-28 01:32:04 <Diablo-D3> hn needs them!
65 2011-11-28 01:32:43 <gmaxwell> the_batman: e.g. apparently it's attractive to the aussies for this.
66 2011-11-28 01:33:13 <gmaxwell> Though china should be even betterâ due to the government dorked exchange rates... but I've not heard of big adoption in china yet.
67 2011-11-28 01:33:16 <the_batman> very interesting
68 2011-11-28 01:33:25 * the_batman takes notes
69 2011-11-28 01:33:38 <the_batman> that's the first I've ever heard of solid uses :o
70 2011-11-28 01:33:52 <the_batman> why do the aussies prefer it? what's making their exchange rates bad?
71 2011-11-28 01:34:43 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
72 2011-11-28 01:35:11 <gmaxwell> No clue, I just noticed people on the forum saying this. They don't have to be particularly bad... especially if you get a whole circle of bitcoin using people on it so that most of the value can stay in the form of bitcoin.
73 2011-11-28 01:35:38 * the_batman intrigued
74 2011-11-28 01:35:41 <gmaxwell> There is certantly a critical mass factor involved in that kind of tradeoff, but it's not unique to bitcoin.
75 2011-11-28 01:36:49 <coderrr> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/11/bitcoin.html
76 2011-11-28 01:36:59 <gmaxwell> See e.g. how hawala is used â bitcoin serves some of the same legitimate needs: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/terrorist-illicit-finance/Documents/FinCEN-Hawala-rpt.pdf
77 2011-11-28 01:39:24 <Diablo-D3> coderrr: see the hn thread
78 2011-11-28 01:39:34 <Diablo-D3> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3282793
79 2011-11-28 01:39:36 <Diablo-D3> epic stupidity abound
80 2011-11-28 01:40:17 <coderrr> i think thast the first semi-pro bitcoin post on HN that actually got a lot of votes
81 2011-11-28 01:40:47 Beremat has quit (Quit: ( www.nnscript.com :: NoNameScript 4.22 :: www.esnation.com ))
82 2011-11-28 01:40:48 <Diablo-D3> nope, Ive seen higher
83 2011-11-28 01:42:19 <coderrr> but werent most of those anti bitcoin posts?
84 2011-11-28 01:42:33 <gmaxwell> "The only thing in the bitcoin protocol which facilitates this is an alert" thats not true, the fact that all the relevant messages have version numbers is also prepration for upgrades.
85 2011-11-28 01:43:06 <gmaxwell> The other thing is that you can change, e.g. the commonly used transaction types without upgrading all the clients.
86 2011-11-28 01:43:35 <Diablo-D3> coderrr: theres been a few positive ones
87 2011-11-28 01:43:47 <Diablo-D3> the problem is you have fucking idiots who grandstand on HN to bitch about bitcoin
88 2011-11-28 01:43:48 <coderrr> ah k, probly jsut forgot
89 2011-11-28 01:43:51 <Diablo-D3> which is rather inappropriate
90 2011-11-28 01:43:53 <coderrr> so much hate everywhere
91 2011-11-28 01:43:55 <gmaxwell> E.g. if we were to find some ECDSA weakness today we could roll out a new signature type using OP_EVAL style compatiblity (using a NOP).
92 2011-11-28 01:43:55 <Diablo-D3> I mean as comments, not posts
93 2011-11-28 01:44:00 <Diablo-D3> but dont worry!
94 2011-11-28 01:44:04 <Diablo-D3> guess what!
95 2011-11-28 01:44:11 Eliel_ is now known as Eliel
96 2011-11-28 01:44:11 <Diablo-D3> I have enough hn karma to downvote comments!
97 2011-11-28 01:44:24 <coderrr> lol
98 2011-11-28 01:44:56 <coderrr> when i finally got enough to downvote they increased the downvote requirement :/
99 2011-11-28 01:44:56 <Diablo-D3> I have a screenshot of my karma of 666 <3
100 2011-11-28 01:45:06 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt "increase"
101 2011-11-28 01:45:09 <Diablo-D3> theres a math formula for it
102 2011-11-28 01:45:17 <Diablo-D3> I just dont know what it is
103 2011-11-28 01:45:21 <Diablo-D3> its near 500
104 2011-11-28 01:45:24 <Diablo-D3> atm I mean
105 2011-11-28 01:45:29 <coderrr> ah, ic
106 2011-11-28 01:45:39 <coderrr> i thought that was a manual change
107 2011-11-28 01:47:21 <Diablo-D3> nope, pretty sure its in the code
108 2011-11-28 01:47:25 <Diablo-D3> also, did hn just go down?
109 2011-11-28 01:49:42 <gmaxwell> damnit!
110 2011-11-28 01:50:28 <gmaxwell> Anyone want to proofread my post (responding to the comment that bitcoin can't be upgraded)
111 2011-11-28 01:50:31 <gmaxwell> http://pastebin.com/65auAt32
112 2011-11-28 01:50:38 <gmaxwell> oops stupid spellcheck
113 2011-11-28 01:50:43 <gmaxwell> biodegradability wtf. hah
114 2011-11-28 01:51:08 <coderrr> lol
115 2011-11-28 01:52:08 <vrs> i thought it was a nice metaphor
116 2011-11-28 01:52:22 <vrs> along with code rot
117 2011-11-28 01:58:00 <gmaxwell> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3284091 < feel free to give me all your upvotes.
118 2011-11-28 02:00:23 arneis has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
119 2011-11-28 02:05:10 <Diablo-D3> [08:52:00] <vrs> i thought it was a nice metaphor
120 2011-11-28 02:05:10 <Diablo-D3> [08:52:14] <vrs> along with code rot
121 2011-11-28 02:05:20 <Diablo-D3> I need to write a post involving that metaphor now
122 2011-11-28 02:06:45 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
123 2011-11-28 02:06:54 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
124 2011-11-28 02:07:14 <vrs> biodegradable protocols?
125 2011-11-28 02:07:22 [Tycho] has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
126 2011-11-28 02:07:56 [Tycho] has joined
127 2011-11-28 02:08:00 magn3ts has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
128 2011-11-28 02:12:28 [Tycho] has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
129 2011-11-28 02:14:07 [Tycho] has joined
130 2011-11-28 02:19:48 skeledrew has quit (Quit: Instantbird 1.2a1pre)
131 2011-11-28 02:40:43 magn3ts has joined
132 2011-11-28 02:40:46 magn3ts has quit (Changing host)
133 2011-11-28 02:40:46 magn3ts has joined
134 2011-11-28 02:53:12 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
135 2011-11-28 03:01:30 somuchwin has joined
136 2011-11-28 03:02:13 somuchwin2 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
137 2011-11-28 03:17:49 copumpkin has joined
138 2011-11-28 03:17:55 skeledrew has joined
139 2011-11-28 03:24:11 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
140 2011-11-28 03:27:18 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
141 2011-11-28 03:27:29 TheSeven has joined
142 2011-11-28 03:44:01 nmat has joined
143 2011-11-28 03:45:22 nmat has quit (Quit: Page closed)
144 2011-11-28 03:54:35 albert has joined
145 2011-11-28 04:00:27 albert has quit (Quit: Page closed)
146 2011-11-28 04:03:26 FellowTraveler has left ()
147 2011-11-28 04:03:49 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
148 2011-11-28 04:06:03 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
149 2011-11-28 04:10:39 <the_batman> biodegradable protocols? we gonna start a protocol compost box?
150 2011-11-28 04:10:49 Maged has joined
151 2011-11-28 04:11:52 <Diablo-D3> see what I mean? its perfect
152 2011-11-28 04:25:57 MobiusL has joined
153 2011-11-28 04:40:56 RobinPKR_ has joined
154 2011-11-28 04:43:04 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
155 2011-11-28 04:43:04 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
156 2011-11-28 04:45:13 Guest91451 is now known as Keefe
157 2011-11-28 04:45:44 Keefe is now known as Guest81172
158 2011-11-28 04:48:32 protip has joined
159 2011-11-28 04:49:11 protip has quit (Changing host)
160 2011-11-28 04:49:11 protip has joined
161 2011-11-28 04:49:21 Raccoon has quit (Disconnected by services)
162 2011-11-28 04:49:21 protip is now known as Raccoon
163 2011-11-28 04:49:58 Guest81172 is now known as Keefe
164 2011-11-28 04:50:28 Keefe is now known as Guest56650
165 2011-11-28 04:51:11 agricocb has joined
166 2011-11-28 04:52:33 Guest56650 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
167 2011-11-28 04:57:15 Keefe_ has joined
168 2011-11-28 05:00:35 a_meteorite has joined
169 2011-11-28 05:25:08 coingenuity has joined
170 2011-11-28 05:36:48 gjs278 has joined
171 2011-11-28 05:45:51 Keefe_ is now known as Keefe
172 2011-11-28 05:45:55 Keefe has quit (Changing host)
173 2011-11-28 05:45:55 Keefe has joined
174 2011-11-28 05:48:25 RazielZ has joined
175 2011-11-28 05:52:24 Raccoon has quit ()
176 2011-11-28 05:55:46 Raccoon has joined
177 2011-11-28 06:00:33 Sedra has joined
178 2011-11-28 06:01:06 localhost has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
179 2011-11-28 06:04:55 localhost has joined
180 2011-11-28 06:08:51 ThomasV has joined
181 2011-11-28 06:11:26 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
182 2011-11-28 06:17:10 mtve has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
183 2011-11-28 06:18:12 yorick has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
184 2011-11-28 06:18:57 yorick has joined
185 2011-11-28 06:28:49 dvide_ has quit ()
186 2011-11-28 06:35:54 davout has joined
187 2011-11-28 06:41:38 PK has joined
188 2011-11-28 06:49:08 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
189 2011-11-28 06:51:38 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
190 2011-11-28 07:01:28 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
191 2011-11-28 07:03:27 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
192 2011-11-28 07:15:58 flok has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
193 2011-11-28 07:20:48 flok has joined
194 2011-11-28 07:31:44 AStove has joined
195 2011-11-28 07:37:27 Sedra- has joined
196 2011-11-28 07:40:09 cryptoxchange has joined
197 2011-11-28 07:40:23 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
198 2011-11-28 07:42:18 [Tycho]_ has joined
199 2011-11-28 07:44:36 [Tycho] has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
200 2011-11-28 07:48:49 dissipate has joined
201 2011-11-28 07:48:50 dissipate has quit (Changing host)
202 2011-11-28 07:48:50 dissipate has joined
203 2011-11-28 07:52:36 coingenuity has left ()
204 2011-11-28 08:09:29 iocor has joined
205 2011-11-28 08:09:32 larsivi has joined
206 2011-11-28 08:09:36 larsivi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
207 2011-11-28 08:09:42 Sedra has joined
208 2011-11-28 08:12:30 Sedra- has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
209 2011-11-28 08:15:41 AStove has quit ()
210 2011-11-28 08:17:55 abragin has joined
211 2011-11-28 08:17:55 abragin has quit (Changing host)
212 2011-11-28 08:17:55 abragin has joined
213 2011-11-28 08:18:27 <Lolcust_Backup> !seen orange-hand
214 2011-11-28 08:18:27 <gribble> orange-hand was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 4 weeks, 4 days, 3 hours, 4 minutes, and 38 seconds ago: <orange-hand> good talking to you
215 2011-11-28 08:18:28 <spaola> orange-hand (~orange-ha@gateway/tor-sasl/orange-hand) was last seen quitting from #namecoin 3 days, 17 hours, 48 minutes ago stating (Ping timeout: 248 seconds).
216 2011-11-28 08:19:07 marf_away has joined
217 2011-11-28 08:23:59 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
218 2011-11-28 08:24:23 Sedra- has joined
219 2011-11-28 08:24:36 molecular has joined
220 2011-11-28 08:27:16 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
221 2011-11-28 08:27:28 mtve has joined
222 2011-11-28 08:30:03 spq has joined
223 2011-11-28 08:31:43 larsivi has joined
224 2011-11-28 08:35:14 ThomasV has joined
225 2011-11-28 08:40:40 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
226 2011-11-28 08:49:04 _Fireball has joined
227 2011-11-28 08:55:11 cloudbank has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
228 2011-11-28 08:57:04 cloudbank has joined
229 2011-11-28 08:57:44 iocor has joined
230 2011-11-28 09:10:33 chrisb__ has joined
231 2011-11-28 09:10:34 MrTiggr has joined
232 2011-11-28 09:10:38 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
233 2011-11-28 09:11:56 erus` has joined
234 2011-11-28 09:14:37 theorb has joined
235 2011-11-28 09:15:11 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
236 2011-11-28 09:15:14 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
237 2011-11-28 09:15:22 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
238 2011-11-28 09:17:39 Detritus has joined
239 2011-11-28 09:27:31 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
240 2011-11-28 09:27:38 _Fireball has quit (Quit: HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- *I* use it, so it must be good!)
241 2011-11-28 09:27:53 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
242 2011-11-28 09:28:19 abragin has quit ()
243 2011-11-28 09:28:35 larsivi has joined
244 2011-11-28 09:35:35 erle- has joined
245 2011-11-28 09:36:51 [Tycho]_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
246 2011-11-28 09:41:57 maqr has joined
247 2011-11-28 09:45:19 Ken` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
248 2011-11-28 09:54:06 davout has joined
249 2011-11-28 10:03:42 Cairo has joined
250 2011-11-28 10:04:18 <Cairo> interesting
251 2011-11-28 10:04:21 Cairo has left ("Leaving")
252 2011-11-28 10:04:48 nmat has joined
253 2011-11-28 10:05:42 nmat has left ()
254 2011-11-28 10:07:16 TD has joined
255 2011-11-28 10:22:27 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
256 2011-11-28 10:26:18 iocor has joined
257 2011-11-28 10:30:16 bllctx has joined
258 2011-11-28 10:36:38 extor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
259 2011-11-28 10:36:45 dissipate has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
260 2011-11-28 10:44:20 lfm has joined
261 2011-11-28 10:54:16 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
262 2011-11-28 11:01:00 BurtyB has joined
263 2011-11-28 11:18:15 merde has quit ()
264 2011-11-28 11:19:45 <CIA-100> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r273 /wiki/GettingStarted.wiki: Update for changes in 0.3
265 2011-11-28 11:27:51 iocor has joined
266 2011-11-28 11:29:55 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
267 2011-11-28 11:30:02 ejones has joined
268 2011-11-28 11:35:22 merde has joined
269 2011-11-28 11:35:50 merde has quit (Client Quit)
270 2011-11-28 11:40:01 abragin has joined
271 2011-11-28 11:40:01 abragin has quit (Changing host)
272 2011-11-28 11:40:01 abragin has joined
273 2011-11-28 11:44:18 sacarlson has joined
274 2011-11-28 11:44:38 djoot_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
275 2011-11-28 11:45:32 djoot has joined
276 2011-11-28 11:45:45 merde has joined
277 2011-11-28 11:49:04 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
278 2011-11-28 11:55:35 stalled has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
279 2011-11-28 11:56:47 Beremat has joined
280 2011-11-28 11:59:43 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
281 2011-11-28 12:00:31 stalled has joined
282 2011-11-28 12:09:14 Beremat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
283 2011-11-28 12:31:27 TD has joined
284 2011-11-28 12:37:18 _Fireball has joined
285 2011-11-28 12:56:55 TheAncientGoat has joined
286 2011-11-28 13:03:36 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
287 2011-11-28 13:22:33 datagutt has joined
288 2011-11-28 13:22:36 datagutt has quit (Changing host)
289 2011-11-28 13:22:36 datagutt has joined
290 2011-11-28 13:22:54 GMP has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
291 2011-11-28 13:24:46 chrisb__ has joined
292 2011-11-28 13:31:36 ThomasV_ has joined
293 2011-11-28 13:31:50 ThomasV_ has quit (Client Quit)
294 2011-11-28 13:32:11 ThomasV has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
295 2011-11-28 13:32:30 ThomasV has joined
296 2011-11-28 13:39:07 [Tycho] has joined
297 2011-11-28 13:41:26 agricocb has joined
298 2011-11-28 13:43:26 Bwild has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
299 2011-11-28 13:43:48 denisx has joined
300 2011-11-28 13:44:36 slush has joined
301 2011-11-28 13:50:07 wolfspraul has joined
302 2011-11-28 13:53:30 Bwild has joined
303 2011-11-28 13:56:21 danbri has joined
304 2011-11-28 13:57:19 eueueue has joined
305 2011-11-28 14:05:36 oww has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
306 2011-11-28 14:11:54 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
307 2011-11-28 14:16:56 zirpu has joined
308 2011-11-28 14:19:36 gp5st has joined
309 2011-11-28 14:21:07 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
310 2011-11-28 14:21:31 GMP has joined
311 2011-11-28 14:22:38 merde has quit ()
312 2011-11-28 14:23:32 iocor has joined
313 2011-11-28 14:28:33 <sipa> ;;later tell justmoon I'm afraid the Bloom filter idea will not help preventing db writes; consider: txout gets spent, bits are marked, nothing is written to disk. Now a double spend arrives; all bits are said, meaning "probably spent" - there is however no way to verify this
314 2011-11-28 14:28:33 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
315 2011-11-28 14:30:22 <sipa> ;;later tell justmoon so, there is no way to guarantee in advance whether a future filter lookup will provide certainty
316 2011-11-28 14:30:22 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
317 2011-11-28 14:32:11 MartianW has joined
318 2011-11-28 14:42:06 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
319 2011-11-28 14:48:58 <TD> sipa: what was the idea?
320 2011-11-28 14:49:40 <sipa> TD: using a Bloom filter of spent txouts to quickly verify whether all txouts in a transaction were still available
321 2011-11-28 14:50:31 <sipa> and additionally, only store the cases where the Bloom filter fails (false positives) to disk
322 2011-11-28 14:50:36 <sipa> but that last part is not possiblre
323 2011-11-28 14:50:51 <TD> i think it'd be easier to just host the DB in ram or on an SSD
324 2011-11-28 14:51:05 <TD> is anyone actually going to bottleneck on db writes anytime soon?
325 2011-11-28 14:51:30 <phantomcircuit> bitcoin is currently calling fsync pretty often
326 2011-11-28 14:51:42 <sipa> I believe the DB reads/writes are the bottleneck when downloading the blockchain in the satoshi client, right now.
327 2011-11-28 14:52:00 <TD> oh, right. well, but lightweight mode is the solution to that :-)
328 2011-11-28 14:52:04 <phantomcircuit> it's not so much a bottleneck as it is added latency
329 2011-11-28 14:52:17 <TD> somebody could try swapping out berkleydb for leveldb and see if it helps much
330 2011-11-28 14:52:19 <phantomcircuit> the #1 issue in the current client is the latency of each step
331 2011-11-28 14:53:45 <gmaxwell> Lightweight isn't the only thing needed there.
332 2011-11-28 14:54:05 <gmaxwell> It's not okay for full nodes to suck just because there are lightweight nodes too.
333 2011-11-28 14:54:12 <sipa> gmaxwell: exactly
334 2011-11-28 14:54:21 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
335 2011-11-28 14:55:22 <gmaxwell> But considering that there are checkpoints already.. a lot of things are possible. e.g. using a different format for blockchain storage below the highest checkpoint.. (e.g. once that multiple people could independantly generate and sign, and which could be distributed in a secure manner without demanding the node validate all of it, perhaps)
336 2011-11-28 14:55:55 <TD> a full db could be included with the downloaded client
337 2011-11-28 14:56:08 <TD> this was brought up several times before. i don't recall the rationale for not doing it.
338 2011-11-28 14:56:45 <makomk> TD: requires excessive trust in the developers, I think.
339 2011-11-28 14:57:26 <TD> you already trust the developers implicitly
340 2011-11-28 14:57:39 <TD> if you are downloading a binary instead of compiling from source, you don't know what the code might do. it could do anything.
341 2011-11-28 14:57:49 <TD> if you compile from source, the db would not be included.
342 2011-11-28 14:58:09 iocor has joined
343 2011-11-28 14:58:29 <PK> something's odd. My BTC client has 47 connections into the network but the newest block is 1 hour old?
344 2011-11-28 14:58:47 <phantomcircuit> https://privatepaste.com/download/691d4b5040
345 2011-11-28 14:58:54 <phantomcircuit> just to give people an idea of what im talking about
346 2011-11-28 14:59:40 <phantomcircuit> fdatasync takes on average 1.8 ms
347 2011-11-28 14:59:57 <phantomcircuit> add that into the rtt time for the networking stuff
348 2011-11-28 15:00:02 <phantomcircuit> and you have a fairly slow process
349 2011-11-28 15:00:11 <phantomcircuit> it's the latency that's killing performance
350 2011-11-28 15:00:13 <phantomcircuit> not throughput
351 2011-11-28 15:00:57 <TD> this only matters when you're downloading the chain for the first time though, right.
352 2011-11-28 15:01:12 <phantomcircuit> no
353 2011-11-28 15:01:16 <phantomcircuit> this keeps mattering
354 2011-11-28 15:01:24 <phantomcircuit> the latency continues to be an issue
355 2011-11-28 15:07:23 eueueue has quit (Quit: Saindo)
356 2011-11-28 15:13:59 <sipa> some statistics from a custom blockchain compressor i wrote: http://pastebin.com/7iKJkuqh
357 2011-11-28 15:14:12 <sipa> (it doesn't do any attempt to compress coinbases or scripts)
358 2011-11-28 15:18:19 erle- has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
359 2011-11-28 15:23:36 MartianW has quit (Quit: Bye all.)
360 2011-11-28 15:27:43 copumpkin has joined
361 2011-11-28 15:29:17 [Tycho] has joined
362 2011-11-28 15:31:36 <davout> TD: you also trust the source with the hardcoded checkpoints
363 2011-11-28 15:31:55 <TD> indeed
364 2011-11-28 15:32:22 <sipa> davout: however, even with hardcoded checkpoints, the block chain must still exist and contain the claimed amount of proof-of-work
365 2011-11-28 15:32:54 <davout> sipa: oh yeah, definitely
366 2011-11-28 15:32:57 <makomk> Yeah. An incorrect checkpoint would tend to break stuff.
367 2011-11-28 15:33:32 <sipa> if you include the blocks directly in the distribution, without any checking at import, you could set people off with even a fake/invalid block chain
368 2011-11-28 15:33:52 <sipa> the difference is mostly psychological though :)
369 2011-11-28 15:34:00 <davout> sipa: i argued a while ago that the hardcoded checkpoints were unnecessary and actually conveyed a wrong idea that the blockchain's PoW security mechanism was somehow not enough
370 2011-11-28 15:34:17 <roconnor> I don't understand why you cannot ship the blockchain with the code; it doesn't matter where you find the longest block chain; whether it is from the network, or from disk, or from aliens directly trasmitting into your brain that you trascribe into your hex editor; the longest chain wins no matter where it comes from (note: longest chain means chain with most work)
371 2011-11-28 15:34:27 <roconnor> davout: I would agree with you
372 2011-11-28 15:34:39 <sipa> roconnor: if you ship it, and still process it at import: sure
373 2011-11-28 15:34:48 <davout> anyway, it does not really matter does it
374 2011-11-28 15:34:53 <roconnor> sipa: isn't that what we are talking about?
375 2011-11-28 15:35:07 <davout> maybe the best of both worlds would be to torrent the chain
376 2011-11-28 15:35:24 <sipa> roconnor: that doesn't have that much advantage over just downloading it
377 2011-11-28 15:35:40 <sipa> the time for processing it would remain
378 2011-11-28 15:36:07 <davout> yea, unless you skip it altogether by also shipping a BDB snapshot :D
379 2011-11-28 15:36:24 <sipa> if you go as far as shipping the block chain, i suppose it would be in the form of a pre-loaded database, including database of spent txouts
380 2011-11-28 15:36:28 <davout> e-wallets are the future for general ppl
381 2011-11-28 15:36:39 <sipa> davout: or at least lightweight clients
382 2011-11-28 15:36:43 <davout> yea
383 2011-11-28 15:36:47 <davout> btw
384 2011-11-28 15:36:58 <davout> nvm
385 2011-11-28 15:37:04 <sipa> lol
386 2011-11-28 15:37:10 <davout> XD
387 2011-11-28 15:37:15 <roconnor> sipa: oh, how long does it take to process the block chain? I thought it was just a few minutes; though I haven't tried lately.
388 2011-11-28 15:37:21 <davout> lol
389 2011-11-28 15:37:22 <davout> no
390 2011-11-28 15:37:26 <sipa> roconnor: 8 hours?
391 2011-11-28 15:37:29 <davout> first download is a few hours
392 2011-11-28 15:37:43 <roconnor> davout: I mean if you have the chain locally on your computer
393 2011-11-28 15:37:55 <davout> and unless you've got a SSD your HD will scream
394 2011-11-28 15:38:06 <sipa> roconnor: disk access is the problem
395 2011-11-28 15:38:09 <roconnor> oh
396 2011-11-28 15:38:22 <sipa> purecoin still does everything in RAM?
397 2011-11-28 15:38:26 <roconnor> yep
398 2011-11-28 15:38:32 <davout> whats purecoin?
399 2011-11-28 15:38:44 <roconnor> but is is even slower since it doesn't use ASM for sha
400 2011-11-28 15:38:59 <sipa> how long does it take to import the entire chain?
401 2011-11-28 15:39:05 <roconnor> though the SHA module could be replaced with as ASM version
402 2011-11-28 15:39:32 <roconnor> sipa: many hours; I'm not sure how long since I run out of memory on my laptop (I have no swap)
403 2011-11-28 15:42:26 <roconnor> Most of the reason it is slow is due to the garbage collector trying to squeeze every ounce of space out of my 2 or 3 GB memory
404 2011-11-28 15:42:41 <roconnor> I'd be curious to see how it runs on a 16 or 32 GB machine
405 2011-11-28 15:42:50 <roconnor> copumpkin: Have you run purecoin on such a machine?
406 2011-11-28 15:44:40 <copumpkin> I wish I had one :(
407 2011-11-28 15:45:16 storrgie has joined
408 2011-11-28 15:46:24 <roconnor> anyhow purecoin tries to be as simiple an implementation as I can get away with. The idea is more for documentation than for real use.
409 2011-11-28 15:46:42 wasabi1 has joined
410 2011-11-28 15:47:35 eueueue has joined
411 2011-11-28 15:47:40 copumpkin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
412 2011-11-28 15:47:45 BurtyB has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
413 2011-11-28 15:48:07 copumpkin has joined
414 2011-11-28 15:55:04 BurtyB has joined
415 2011-11-28 15:56:15 cjdelisl1 has joined
416 2011-11-28 15:56:50 cjdelisle has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
417 2011-11-28 15:58:24 Maged has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 8.0.1/20111120135848])
418 2011-11-28 15:58:38 <eps> i think we need blockchain pruning
419 2011-11-28 15:59:06 <eps> many hours on first startup is going to put people off
420 2011-11-28 15:59:26 <gmaxwell> eps: it wouldn't solve that.
421 2011-11-28 16:00:00 <TD> pruning is a disk space savings
422 2011-11-28 16:00:10 <TD> lightweight modes are the solution to the startup time issues
423 2011-11-28 16:00:15 <TD> for instance, MultiBit starts much faster
424 2011-11-28 16:00:26 <TD> of course lightweight mode in bitcoin c++ would be great
425 2011-11-28 16:00:34 <TD> but it's a bit complicated. done wrong it could starve the network of full nodes
426 2011-11-28 16:00:35 <davout> running a node is not for everyone
427 2011-11-28 16:00:41 <gmaxwell> roconnor: I could loan you a shell if you wanted to try it.
428 2011-11-28 16:00:49 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
429 2011-11-28 16:00:55 <roconnor> gmaxwell: does it have ghc installed?
430 2011-11-28 16:01:12 <gmaxwell> roconnor: (on a machine with 64 gig)
431 2011-11-28 16:01:13 <gmaxwell> Glasgow Haskell Compiler, Version 6.12.3, for Haskell 98, stage 2 booted by GHC version 6.12.3
432 2011-11-28 16:01:24 <eps> when the chain is downloaded does it start at the beginning?
433 2011-11-28 16:01:37 <gmaxwell> eps: Yes.
434 2011-11-28 16:01:37 <roconnor> gmaxwell: :O
435 2011-11-28 16:01:50 <eps> is it possible to start at the end, work backwards and not download blocks that are fully spent?
436 2011-11-28 16:01:57 <eps> kind like pruning on the fly
437 2011-11-28 16:01:59 <gmaxwell> No.
438 2011-11-28 16:02:33 <gmaxwell> The whole point of downloading the chain is to validate the history of bitcoin, to confirm for yourself that gavin isn't secretly giving himself a million bitcoin.
439 2011-11-28 16:02:41 <gmaxwell> You can't do that operation backwards.
440 2011-11-28 16:02:45 <eps> i see
441 2011-11-28 16:03:03 <gmaxwell> Also, I've seen no evidence that the actual _download_ time is problematic for pretty much everyone.
442 2011-11-28 16:03:15 <roconnor> gmaxwell: I'd like to try that some day in the future.
443 2011-11-28 16:03:29 <gmaxwell> (well I suppose there is someone in the desert with a satlink as their only internet that might care...)
444 2011-11-28 16:03:46 <gmaxwell> roconnor: sure. my hosts are super busy at the moment anyways. But I'm around...
445 2011-11-28 16:03:55 <roconnor> thanks
446 2011-11-28 16:04:24 gavinandresen has joined
447 2011-11-28 16:06:51 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
448 2011-11-28 16:08:56 <gmaxwell> TD: getting the incentives right is hard... especially with the mining pool situation. In theory there are only a few dozen people who are overtly and directly incented to run full nodes, assuming that there was a really good line client that could drop in.
449 2011-11-28 16:11:14 <roconnor> line client?
450 2011-11-28 16:14:06 devrandom has joined
451 2011-11-28 16:16:09 <gmaxwell> lite.
452 2011-11-28 16:17:16 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
453 2011-11-28 16:17:44 comboy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
454 2011-11-28 16:19:04 <wereHamster> roconnor: in which language are you writing purecoin?
455 2011-11-28 16:19:40 <roconnor> wereHamster: Haskell
456 2011-11-28 16:20:31 [Tycho] has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
457 2011-11-28 16:23:30 comboy has joined
458 2011-11-28 16:23:53 <TD> gmaxwell: i'd like to see the satoshi client start out as lightweight, then upgrade itself to full in the background
459 2011-11-28 16:23:57 <TD> that's quite some tricky coding though
460 2011-11-28 16:24:14 <luke-jr> TD: that would be neat
461 2011-11-28 16:24:30 <luke-jr> too bad Gavin added all that anti-"DoS" nonsense tho
462 2011-11-28 16:24:31 <TD> otherwise i agree, finding the right balance is tough
463 2011-11-28 16:24:42 <luke-jr> that stuff means you can't relay anything until you're a full client
464 2011-11-28 16:24:44 <TD> running a full node is fairly cheap though
465 2011-11-28 16:24:55 <wereHamster> roconnor: cool, a friend of mine is constatnly trying to convince me to learn haskell. Where can I see the source?
466 2011-11-28 16:25:08 <gavinandresen> TD: lightweight-to-full shouldn't be that hard... that's my plan for the headers-only branch
467 2011-11-28 16:25:23 <TD> i'd hope that a combination of "public service announcements" and a decent website would be enough reason for enthusiastic supporters to run a nide
468 2011-11-28 16:25:27 <TD> gavinandresen: cool
469 2011-11-28 16:25:32 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: maybe the anti-DoS rules need reconsideration to allow lightweight relays?
470 2011-11-28 16:25:57 <TD> well
471 2011-11-28 16:25:58 <roconnor> wereHamster: if you install darcs, you can run the command "darcs get http://r6.ca/Purecoin"
472 2011-11-28 16:26:05 <TD> relaying without validating adds latency but also adds sockets
473 2011-11-28 16:26:11 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: how do the anti-DoS rules affect lightweight relays? You mean being dinged for relaying invalid transactions/blocks ?
474 2011-11-28 16:26:14 <TD> i'm not sure it's a great idea for lightweight clients to relay. bitcoinj does not.
475 2011-11-28 16:26:19 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: right
476 2011-11-28 16:26:34 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: if you're relaying invalid crap then you're not helping the network, imho
477 2011-11-28 16:26:47 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: you are, so long as you also relay valid crap
478 2011-11-28 16:26:50 btc_novice has joined
479 2011-11-28 16:26:59 <lianj> hehe
480 2011-11-28 16:27:41 <TD> i think in future lightweight clients won't be running for a long time
481 2011-11-28 16:27:50 <TD> the model would be "start up, spend/check receipts, shut down"
482 2011-11-28 16:28:02 <TD> so relaying or not is unlikely to make a huge difference
483 2011-11-28 16:28:11 <TD> certainly, mobile clients won't relay
484 2011-11-28 16:28:16 <gavinandresen> I agree with TD. That's actually the way I run bitcoin-- startup if I need to spend or move coins, then shutdown.
485 2011-11-28 16:29:04 int0x27h has quit (Quit: bye)
486 2011-11-28 16:30:50 int0x27h has joined
487 2011-11-28 16:30:59 merde has joined
488 2011-11-28 16:33:12 <wereHamster> roconnor: ah, the haskell people just love darcs, don't they? :)
489 2011-11-28 16:33:41 <roconnor> naturally
490 2011-11-28 16:37:24 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
491 2011-11-28 16:38:53 <wereHamster> roconnor: does your project have a web/homepage?
492 2011-11-28 16:41:19 <roconnor> nope
493 2011-11-28 16:42:11 <roconnor> last thing we need are people running incompatible clients
494 2011-11-28 16:42:56 <copumpkin> prove it compatible
495 2011-11-28 16:43:16 <sipa> yes, lets feed it every possible block chain
496 2011-11-28 16:43:40 <roconnor> sipa: that's not necessarly
497 2011-11-28 16:43:55 <roconnor> all we need is formal semantics for C++ and Haskell and prove that the two programs are the same.
498 2011-11-28 16:44:02 <copumpkin> proof by exhaustive search is the best kind of proof
499 2011-11-28 16:44:11 <wereHamster> for haskell I imagine it already exists, but for C++?
500 2011-11-28 16:44:32 <copumpkin> even haskell isn't really well specified
501 2011-11-28 16:48:12 copumpkin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
502 2011-11-28 16:48:27 <sipa> unsafePerformIO and FFI ahoy
503 2011-11-28 16:50:06 <luke-jr> speaking of which, bitcoin.org should provide downloads for wxBitcoin, Bitcoin-Qt, and MultiBit. discuss. :P
504 2011-11-28 16:50:35 <TD> wxbitcoin is obsolete and ugy, no. bitcoin-qt is already there. multibit .... ~no. bitcoinj isn't robust enough for serious real-world usage yet.
505 2011-11-28 16:50:49 <TD> also it's kind of confusing to present users with multiple clients and no advice on which to choose
506 2011-11-28 16:51:29 <gavinandresen> Is StrongCoin or one of the trust-no-one web-based solutions far enough along to recommend?
507 2011-11-28 16:52:22 <gavinandresen> ... actually, I guess any of the web-based solutions require you trust them to serve up the code that they claim they're serving up...
508 2011-11-28 16:52:34 <TD> i don't know. i think there's a problem with recommending anything that isn't bitcoin-qt right now
509 2011-11-28 16:52:39 <Eliel> gavinandresen: unless you package up the client portion to be loaded from local system.
510 2011-11-28 16:52:43 <TD> we should maybe link to them
511 2011-11-28 16:52:52 <TD> with the caveat that they are "there for exploration and experimentation" or something
512 2011-11-28 16:52:54 <luke-jr> TD: wxBitcoin isn't quite obsolete until there's a need for 0.4.2 that isn't fulfilled. ;)
513 2011-11-28 16:53:11 <TD> so regular users who read about bitcoin in Wired or whatever just use the satoshi client, and people who get a bit more adventurous can try out others (+devs)
514 2011-11-28 16:53:12 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, yeah exactly fundamentally flawed
515 2011-11-28 16:53:38 <luke-jr> TD: wxBitcoin is more appropriate recommendation for users who don't want a whole UI change
516 2011-11-28 16:53:45 <TD> gavinandresen: i think justmoon was talking about some tricks that would avoid that, basically implementing client-side type update procedures on top of the web
517 2011-11-28 16:53:55 <luke-jr> and Bitcoin-Qt has been reported to corrupt wallets, still, yet with no reproducability
518 2011-11-28 16:54:03 <TD> gavinandresen: ultimately, you have to trust the provider of your software. there is no way to avoid that, unless you're a dev and can read the code thoroughly.
519 2011-11-28 16:54:37 <TD> the issue with alt implementations is they're all very new, and mostly written by people who are also new to the community
520 2011-11-28 16:54:50 <gavinandresen> TD: yep. Ideally, I'd like the bitcoin.org homepage to get out of the distributing software business entirely
521 2011-11-28 16:54:54 <luke-jr> MultiBit supposedly is fully functional
522 2011-11-28 16:55:03 <TD> i can vouch for the BitCoinJ based clients and i was playing with bitcoin since 2009, so i've got a track record. the strongcoin guys .... they seem to be doing a great job, but building trust takes time
523 2011-11-28 16:55:09 <luke-jr> wxBitcoin obviously is, and much more well-tested than Bitcoin-Qt
524 2011-11-28 16:55:20 <TD> luke-jr: it "works" but there's some non-ideal stuff in there (not in jims code, in mine). for instance the fees implementation is a hack
525 2011-11-28 16:55:28 <sipa> luke-jr: and which UI are you using yourself?
526 2011-11-28 16:55:36 <roconnor> I guarentee that purecoin is not entirely compatible with bitcoin
527 2011-11-28 16:55:40 <luke-jr> TD: the fee implementation in the original codebase is a hack too
528 2011-11-28 16:55:44 <luke-jr> sipa: Bitcoin-Qt
529 2011-11-28 16:55:53 <lianj> last time i checked bitcoinj didnt implement the signature check tho
530 2011-11-28 16:55:55 <TD> gavinandresen: i guess Electrum represents a reasonable tradeoff, the key issue there being what if their server goes away
531 2011-11-28 16:56:01 <TD> lianj: it's a lightweight client
532 2011-11-28 16:56:03 erus` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
533 2011-11-28 16:56:04 <TD> lianj: that's intentioanl
534 2011-11-28 16:56:07 <sipa> roconnor: where precisely?
535 2011-11-28 16:56:45 <lianj> TD: hm, the functions were there, yes just returned true :D
536 2011-11-28 16:56:49 <roconnor> well it doesn't handle OP_IF, but I'm pretty sure there are many more unknown incompatibilities.
537 2011-11-28 16:57:02 <TD> lianj: yes, obsolete code. it should be deleted. i thought i had deleted it actually
538 2011-11-28 16:57:10 <TD> yeah i did
539 2011-11-28 16:57:12 <TD> maybe you read an old version
540 2011-11-28 16:57:25 <lianj> yea, didnt look at it for some month :)
541 2011-11-28 16:57:35 <lianj> oh the code is by you?
542 2011-11-28 16:58:06 <TD> yeah
543 2011-11-28 16:58:20 <lianj> thank you. it really helped me understand some parts of bitcoin. reading it was more enjoyable then the c++ client
544 2011-11-28 16:58:45 <lianj> good code quality :)
545 2011-11-28 16:59:00 <roconnor> sipa: also I don't think I filter out signatures from scripts
546 2011-11-28 16:59:51 zirpu has left ()
547 2011-11-28 17:00:06 <ThomasV> TD: there will soon be more than one server; ovidiusoft is setting up another one
548 2011-11-28 17:01:20 <TD> lianj: thanks!
549 2011-11-28 17:01:22 <sipa> roconnor: hmm, but you can verify everything currently in the main and testnet chains?
550 2011-11-28 17:01:32 <TD> ThomasV: cool
551 2011-11-28 17:02:19 <roconnor> sipa: ya, because the verfication runs on the public key scripts, but the signature is always on the signature script in standard transactions.
552 2011-11-28 17:02:31 <roconnor> sipa: so there is nothing to filter for normal transactions.
553 2011-11-28 17:02:56 <roconnor> sipa: actually I can't think of any sane script where filtering would do anything
554 2011-11-28 17:03:13 copumpkin has joined
555 2011-11-28 17:03:31 <roconnor> I actually suspect this is simply a bit of junk code that is a hold-over from previous versions.
556 2011-11-28 17:03:38 <TD> what code is that ?
557 2011-11-28 17:04:19 <roconnor> TD: the code that filters out signatures in a script before validating the signature
558 2011-11-28 17:04:23 copumpkin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
559 2011-11-28 17:04:28 <TD> yeah
560 2011-11-28 17:04:39 <TD> that always foxed me too. agreed it's probably left over from work in progress
561 2011-11-28 17:04:44 <TD> maybe OP_CODESEPARATOR is the same
562 2011-11-28 17:04:49 copumpkin has joined
563 2011-11-28 17:04:53 <roconnor> ya
564 2011-11-28 17:05:13 iocor has joined
565 2011-11-28 17:05:27 <roconnor> like junk DNA :D
566 2011-11-28 17:06:25 <TD> it's too bad there's no flag that allows the signature to not cover the outpoint
567 2011-11-28 17:06:43 <TD> it might be useful to be able to sign properties of a tx that can be connected to arbitrary inputs
568 2011-11-28 17:07:07 AStove has joined
569 2011-11-28 17:07:53 <TD> "The design supports a tremendous variety of possible transaction types that I designed years ago. Escrow transactions, bonded contracts, third party arbitration, multi-party signature, etc."
570 2011-11-28 17:08:11 <TD> i think we got all of those, right. it may be there aren't a whole lot of contracts left to 'discover' (i hesitate to say invent)
571 2011-11-28 17:08:20 <TD> though i'm not sure what a bonded contract is, in this context
572 2011-11-28 17:08:28 <roconnor> TD: doesn't SIGHASH_NONE not cover any outpoints?
573 2011-11-28 17:08:44 <TD> SIGHASH_NONE clears the outPUTs not outPOINTs
574 2011-11-28 17:08:49 <TD> outpoints are a property of the input
575 2011-11-28 17:09:19 <roconnor> doesn't AnyoneCanPay not cover any inputs?
576 2011-11-28 17:09:34 <TD> it still covers the output being checked
577 2011-11-28 17:09:36 <TD> sorry
578 2011-11-28 17:09:38 <TD> outpoint
579 2011-11-28 17:09:47 <TD> it clears the other inputs, not all inputs
580 2011-11-28 17:10:18 <roconnor> I'm pretty sure that AnyoneCanPay clears all inputs
581 2011-11-28 17:10:35 <roconnor> it is normal transactions that clears the other inputs
582 2011-11-28 17:10:53 <TD> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script.cpp#L924
583 2011-11-28 17:10:59 <roconnor> either that or I have more mistakes in my code
584 2011-11-28 17:11:01 <TD> // Blank out other inputs completely, not recommended for open transactions
585 2011-11-28 17:11:01 <TD> if (nHashType & SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY)
586 2011-11-28 17:11:02 <TD> {
587 2011-11-28 17:11:02 <TD> txTmp.vin[0] = txTmp.vin[nIn];
588 2011-11-28 17:11:02 <TD> txTmp.vin.resize(1);
589 2011-11-28 17:11:02 <TD> }
590 2011-11-28 17:11:55 <roconnor> oh right
591 2011-11-28 17:11:58 <roconnor> I see now
592 2011-11-28 17:12:10 <roconnor> and in fact, my code does that; I was just misreading it.
593 2011-11-28 17:12:19 <TD> yeah it's tricky, even when you've implemented it :-)
594 2011-11-28 17:12:19 * roconnor needs to rename a few idenifiers
595 2011-11-28 17:12:34 <TD> it would have been useful if there was a way to do this for network speed assurance contracts
596 2011-11-28 17:13:00 <TD> they're something i'm still designing but didn't succeed in a totally low-trust solution yet
597 2011-11-28 17:13:25 LK- has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
598 2011-11-28 17:23:09 MasterChief has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
599 2011-11-28 17:23:20 MC1984 has joined
600 2011-11-28 17:30:38 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
601 2011-11-28 17:32:27 Diablo-D3 has joined
602 2011-11-28 17:33:32 cjdelisl1 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
603 2011-11-28 17:34:02 DontMindMe has joined
604 2011-11-28 17:38:38 bllctx has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
605 2011-11-28 17:44:40 <devrandom> hey TD
606 2011-11-28 17:44:50 <TD> hey devrandom
607 2011-11-28 17:46:59 cjdelisle has joined
608 2011-11-28 17:47:54 btc_novice has left ()
609 2011-11-28 17:48:03 <TD> devrandom: any idea if/when you'll have time to do the git conversion?
610 2011-11-28 17:48:20 <devrandom> I'll do it right now
611 2011-11-28 17:49:12 <topi`> 0.5.0 claims to be faster at downloading the block chain. but how can it be downloaded faster?
612 2011-11-28 17:49:32 <topi`> downloading a 80K block requires 80k bytes to be received thru the 'net...
613 2011-11-28 17:49:46 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
614 2011-11-28 17:50:02 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
615 2011-11-28 17:50:05 <nanotube> topi`: probably has to do with verification rather than network
616 2011-11-28 17:50:18 cjdelisle has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
617 2011-11-28 17:50:23 <nanotube> the bottleneck in blockchain dl is not bandwidth, but all the cpu-intensive verification of all the blocks and transactions
618 2011-11-28 17:50:41 talso has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
619 2011-11-28 17:51:21 <topi`> but it only has to hash the data once, and calculate the merkel tree
620 2011-11-28 17:51:33 <topi`> where's the cpu intensivity?
621 2011-11-28 17:51:38 <TD> nope
622 2011-11-28 17:51:51 <TD> it has to verify all the signatures as well (at least, it did, until gavin changed it)
623 2011-11-28 17:51:52 <nanotube> well first, it has to verify that for every block, but also ecdsa sigs
624 2011-11-28 17:51:55 <TD> and update the on-disk db
625 2011-11-28 17:52:23 cjdelisle has joined
626 2011-11-28 17:52:30 <nanotube> TD: so gavin made it not check the sigs on all transactions?
627 2011-11-28 17:52:47 <topi`> what signatures?
628 2011-11-28 17:52:52 <TD> right. not until some period before the last checkpoint
629 2011-11-28 17:52:59 <nanotube> TD: ah ic.
630 2011-11-28 17:53:08 <topi`> like, who transferred the coin to whom?
631 2011-11-28 17:53:23 <TD> yeah. to transfer value you have to sign for it
632 2011-11-28 17:53:29 ThomasV has joined
633 2011-11-28 17:53:31 <TD> and everyone who sees that transaction, has to check (unless they are lightweight)
634 2011-11-28 17:54:02 <nanotube> topi`: a transaction is a signed data packet, signed by the private key of the public key that hashes to the address(es) that received the input(s)
635 2011-11-28 17:54:18 <nanotube> s/key/key(s)/g
636 2011-11-28 17:54:45 <topi`> ah, indeed
637 2011-11-28 17:55:14 <topi`> gpg takes some time in verifying sigs
638 2011-11-28 17:55:27 <upb> gpg ?
639 2011-11-28 17:55:40 <nanotube> well yes, it's a similar idea to gpg signatures
640 2011-11-28 17:55:47 <topi`> i don't have any benchmarks.
641 2011-11-28 17:55:49 <nanotube> they're both asymmetric keys
642 2011-11-28 17:56:29 <nanotube> last i saw gavin mention it, it takes something like 0.3s to verify an ecdsa sig? TD is that right or am i off by a few orders of magnitude :)
643 2011-11-28 17:56:59 <TD> that's wrong by orders of magnitude :)
644 2011-11-28 17:56:59 <sipa> nanotube: you're off by 3 orders of magintude
645 2011-11-28 17:57:01 <nanotube> either 3millisec, or 300millisec... is what i recall.
646 2011-11-28 17:57:01 <TD> 3msec
647 2011-11-28 17:57:03 <nanotube> hehe ok
648 2011-11-28 17:57:27 <nanotube> sipa: that's 2 orders, not 3 :P
649 2011-11-28 17:57:28 <topi`> :)
650 2011-11-28 17:58:07 <sipa> nanotube: oh, i define an order of magnitude as about a factor 4.64 ;)
651 2011-11-28 17:58:24 <sipa> ok ok, you're right
652 2011-11-28 17:58:27 <nanotube> sipa: lol
653 2011-11-28 18:00:08 <topi`> an average of 20 sigs per block is only 0.06 s
654 2011-11-28 18:00:54 <nanotube> topi`: well, later blocks have more tx
655 2011-11-28 18:01:31 <nanotube> note also that each tx is as likely as not to have more than one sig
656 2011-11-28 18:01:47 <topi`> right now, 243 tx per hour.
657 2011-11-28 18:01:48 <roconnor> sipa: It'd be funny if my Haskell implementation ran faster than the standard client on a 64 GB machine. :)
658 2011-11-28 18:02:02 <sipa> roconnor: I expect it to be faster
659 2011-11-28 18:02:18 <roconnor> sipa: well, maybe if I replace the SHA module with one that calls C
660 2011-11-28 18:02:26 <sipa> the standard client loses most of its time synchronizing to disk
661 2011-11-28 18:02:33 <topi`> roconnor: you've implemented some handling in haskell? very interesting!
662 2011-11-28 18:02:52 <roconnor> topi`: I have almost the entire verification protocol impelmented.
663 2011-11-28 18:02:53 <topi`> i haven't touched haskell in many months...
664 2011-11-28 18:03:16 <topi`> cool, very cool
665 2011-11-28 18:03:27 <roconnor> :) I'm glad you think so
666 2011-11-28 18:03:37 abragin has left ()
667 2011-11-28 18:04:28 <topi`> haskell is absolutely wonderful
668 2011-11-28 18:04:44 <topi`> very concise:)
669 2011-11-28 18:04:45 <sipa> !hi5
670 2011-11-28 18:04:45 <gribble> Error: "hi5" is not a valid command.
671 2011-11-28 18:04:48 larsivi has joined
672 2011-11-28 18:04:57 <topi`> except with a ton of boilerplate ;)
673 2011-11-28 18:05:19 <roconnor> topi`: There are several libraries for boilerplate removal :)
674 2011-11-28 18:05:37 * gribble hi-fives sipa
675 2011-11-28 18:06:10 <sipa> 1932456 txs, 4476972 txouts, 3265935 txins
676 2011-11-28 18:06:16 <sipa> (current blockchain stats)
677 2011-11-28 18:06:54 <sipa> that means with 3ms per signature verification, the client spends 2.7h for verifying the block chain
678 2011-11-28 18:06:54 <Edward_Black> Hey, could someone with good knowledge of how btc "nonstandard" transactions work (and don't work), the upcoming mulisign does not allow you to explicitly specify (when "creating" it) to which address should it go when all signatures are in place ?
679 2011-11-28 18:07:07 <nanotube> sipa: so 2.7 hours to verify all the sigs, assuming absolutely no other overhead eh. :)
680 2011-11-28 18:07:27 <Edward_Black> oh bother, missed "please clarify"...for shame :~(
681 2011-11-28 18:07:37 <gmaxwell> Edward_Black: I thought I answered this for you before. It doesn't. You specify that in the transaction which spends it, the one with many signatures.
682 2011-11-28 18:07:39 T_X has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
683 2011-11-28 18:07:54 <gmaxwell> 3ms sounds slow
684 2011-11-28 18:08:07 <sipa> in practice it's a lot less on modern cpu's
685 2011-11-28 18:08:19 <sipa> i've seen 0.6ms on my desktop, i believe
686 2011-11-28 18:08:37 * Edward_Black scratches head... I'm pretty sure this is my first foray into bitcoin transaction forests
687 2011-11-28 18:08:53 <Edward_Black> gmaxwell thanks
688 2011-11-28 18:09:17 <gmaxwell> Edward_Black: weird, someone must have asked a similar question a couple days ago.
689 2011-11-28 18:09:39 <gmaxwell> Edward_Black: of course the people doing the signing can all see where the funds go, and so they can decide to refuse to sign unless they like the outputs.
690 2011-11-28 18:09:39 <sipa> Edward_Black: call a transaction output a "coin", and transactions destroy coins and create new ones
691 2011-11-28 18:09:54 <sipa> Edward_Black: these new coins are then owner by someone the transaction specifies
692 2011-11-28 18:10:08 <sipa> complex transactions allow you to create a coin that is owned by multiple people
693 2011-11-28 18:10:20 <sipa> who must e.g. both agree what to do with it
694 2011-11-28 18:10:42 <sipa> but the complex transaction doesn't specify *what* to do with it next - that's up to the next transaction
695 2011-11-28 18:11:15 cjdelisle has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
696 2011-11-28 18:12:23 <Edward_Black> sipa what I am having on my mind is a nonstandard TX that does (unlike multisign-as-proposed) specify possible "destination" addresses, but can only become spendable when 2 parties agree (so that it gets hung in "limbo" in the blockchain untill they agree).
697 2011-11-28 18:12:34 <Edward_Black> Is such a monster at all possible ?
698 2011-11-28 18:12:43 <sipa> read TD's text about contracts
699 2011-11-28 18:13:11 <TD> not only is it possible, work is being done to implement it
700 2011-11-28 18:13:16 <TD> so you can have 2-factor coins
701 2011-11-28 18:13:27 Kolky has joined
702 2011-11-28 18:13:50 arneis has joined
703 2011-11-28 18:13:51 T_X has joined
704 2011-11-28 18:13:51 T_X has quit (Changing host)
705 2011-11-28 18:13:51 T_X has joined
706 2011-11-28 18:14:32 <Edward_Black> TD well, that sounds quite awesome. Gotta tell lolcust
707 2011-11-28 18:15:06 <sipa> afaik you can't have a complex transaction determine what to do next with the outputs
708 2011-11-28 18:15:55 <Edward_Black> sipa awwww, is that a fundamental scripting language limit ?
709 2011-11-28 18:16:07 <Edward_Black> That would be sad :~(
710 2011-11-28 18:16:18 <sipa> i'm not sure why you'd need it?
711 2011-11-28 18:16:28 <TD> sometimes there are ways around the limitations
712 2011-11-28 18:16:37 <sipa> (i'm not stating that there are no applications for that, but i current don't see one)
713 2011-11-28 18:16:38 <TD> for your use case, you'd sign a bunch of different transactions, one for each possible output address
714 2011-11-28 18:16:53 <TD> and not broadcast them, until one was selected+signed
715 2011-11-28 18:16:59 <TD> anyway, need to go
716 2011-11-28 18:17:05 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
717 2011-11-28 18:17:09 <Edward_Black> Bye, TD
718 2011-11-28 18:17:29 davout has joined
719 2011-11-28 18:18:18 <Edward_Black> sipa basically, what I want is, send a TX to A's address, and have it "struck in the stone of blockchain" that it was sent to that very address) but not let him spend them as long as we reach an agreement of sorts
720 2011-11-28 18:18:55 <sipa> why do you need it in the block chain?
721 2011-11-28 18:19:00 Turingi has joined
722 2011-11-28 18:19:00 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
723 2011-11-28 18:19:00 Turingi has joined
724 2011-11-28 18:19:58 <gmaxwell> If it's a matter of proving that a contract existed.. the parties could just use their addresses to sign a message with a statement of intent.
725 2011-11-28 18:20:53 <Edward_Black> sipa to ensure that a third party could see that 1) there is this TX to this address 2) it is not yet spent 3) there is a certain comment oppdropped into it, formated in accordance to a certain specification
726 2011-11-28 18:21:27 <Edward_Black> It's basically "this address has a comment on it, and the party who placed the comment has not deemed it worthy of being "no longer valid""
727 2011-11-28 18:21:41 <sipa> a) comments to not belong in the block chain
728 2011-11-28 18:22:06 <sipa> they are something between the spender and the receiver, and nobody else needs it to verify the integrity of the transaction
729 2011-11-28 18:22:42 <Edward_Black> Well, as you might know, it's not Bitcoin's chain I want add comments to ;~)
730 2011-11-28 18:22:44 <sipa> b) why does it need to be to a particular address?
731 2011-11-28 18:23:02 <sipa> right, you do what you want of course, but i don't consider it the best solution
732 2011-11-28 18:23:53 <Edward_Black> Because I want the comment to "stick" to that particular address, but I also want there to be a mechanism for parties to agree to "mark that comment as no longer relevant"
733 2011-11-28 18:24:23 <Edward_Black> If there was a way to send a custom TX to a specific address that would only be spendable after both sender and reciever agree, that would be trivial to do
734 2011-11-28 18:24:50 <sipa> if the TX is custom, it won't be just "to a specific address" anymore
735 2011-11-28 18:25:36 <Edward_Black> Oh, ok, and that is a strict limit of the scripting logic employed, right ?
736 2011-11-28 18:25:46 <sipa> it's a matter of terminology
737 2011-11-28 18:26:14 <sipa> an address corresponds to a) an identifier for a public key and b) a specific template for a transaction output script
738 2011-11-28 18:26:50 <sipa> if you call any transaction that requires the use of a particular key as being "to that address", then you may be right, but it's not possible in general anyway
739 2011-11-28 18:27:48 cyberdo has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
740 2011-11-28 18:28:53 <luke-jr> any objections to an IRC bot that inserts the last thing it sees in coinbases?
741 2011-11-28 18:30:14 <Edward_Black> I propose a better idea (originally proposed by Lolcust), make an aucton in BTC where visitors of a page will be able to bid on what phrase to insert into blockchain, and submit their own phrases to the auction (also for BTC)
742 2011-11-28 18:30:25 <Edward_Black> More cryptocoins for your pool that way
743 2011-11-28 18:31:08 <luke-jr> that's more difficult :o
744 2011-11-28 18:31:17 <Edward_Black> But profitable
745 2011-11-28 18:32:08 <Edward_Black> it is of course mildly amusing to have random chunks of our discussions immortalized like that, but with Lol's proposal, you will actually get compensated for the labor
746 2011-11-28 18:34:12 talso has joined
747 2011-11-28 18:34:13 <Edward_Black> users pay to submit, and pool in additional coins for every submission (you can "bid" on your own phrase, too), and the most profitable phrase gets carried into the blockchain. The auction "ends" every time the pool finds a new block (which immortalizes the previous winner), the pool caches the current winning phrase for inclusion in next block
748 2011-11-28 18:34:37 <Edward_Black> and people proceed to fight each other with BTC for which phrase will become immortal after that
749 2011-11-28 18:35:22 <Edward_Black> And you know what is the beauty of it ? The lower is BTC price, the more coins you will get from silliness like this, so consider it a really odd hedging strategy :~)
750 2011-11-28 18:35:30 <luke-jr> XD
751 2011-11-28 18:36:49 <luke-jr> problem is, right now I'll do it free of charge and nobody much is interested
752 2011-11-28 18:37:54 <Edward_Black> Because it is not very interesting to immortalize random IRC chat chunks ?
753 2011-11-28 18:38:36 <luke-jr> on demand, not from IRC :P
754 2011-11-28 18:39:21 <Edward_Black> Ah, so you "take comissions" ?
755 2011-11-28 18:39:21 <Edward_Black> Hm, I'll keep that in mind
756 2011-11-28 18:41:04 <luke-jr> no, I just take suggestions :P
757 2011-11-28 18:41:16 <luke-jr> if there's no reason NOT to include it, it goes in
758 2011-11-28 18:42:08 <Edward_Black> Well, people might be afraid of your harsh judgement ;~)
759 2011-11-28 18:42:18 <sipa> you have permission from all people that may be logged?
760 2011-11-28 18:42:39 cocktopus is now known as ghostopus
761 2011-11-28 18:42:54 <Edward_Black> I thought this channel is logged and displayed publicly as matter of policy...
762 2011-11-28 18:43:04 btc_novice has joined
763 2011-11-28 18:43:10 ghostopus is now known as cocktopus
764 2011-11-28 18:44:03 <sipa> he may not need to legally (ianal), but i'd prefer not to have comments i make eternalized without context in the block chain
765 2011-11-28 18:44:54 <Edward_Black> Yeah, that might end up hillariously wrong.
766 2011-11-28 18:46:15 <luke-jr> lol
767 2011-11-28 18:46:17 <luke-jr> QOOC
768 2011-11-28 18:56:58 <topi`> bitcoins sent last 24h is around 4 MILLION btc, this is a whopping 50% of total BTC that exists today
769 2011-11-28 18:57:20 <topi`> I wonder what kind of back-and-forth transactions make the bulk of this
770 2011-11-28 18:57:44 <topi`> and how many coins are completely stationary and do not move anywhere
771 2011-11-28 18:57:56 <topi`> (my coins are)
772 2011-11-28 18:58:11 jercos has quit (Quit: Connection reset by beer)
773 2011-11-28 18:59:03 <ThomasV> tcatm: "Latest Price Average Volume" <-- is this really "Average" ?
774 2011-11-28 18:59:19 <ThomasV> http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/
775 2011-11-28 19:00:21 <tcatm> ThomasV: yes, 24h avergage
776 2011-11-28 19:00:46 <ThomasV> tcatm: so you don't show the previous close?
777 2011-11-28 19:01:04 <tcatm> there's not "previous close" anymore
778 2011-11-28 19:01:22 <ThomasV> how confusing
779 2011-11-28 19:01:39 <tcatm> it was pretty arbitary anyway
780 2011-11-28 19:01:54 parus has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
781 2011-11-28 19:01:57 <tcatm> there's just no good way to have a "previous close" with 24/7 markets
782 2011-11-28 19:01:59 <ThomasV> but the bars are still arbitrary
783 2011-11-28 19:02:12 <ThomasV> at least it was consistent
784 2011-11-28 19:02:43 <tcatm> you can still view the raw data used to render the chart
785 2011-11-28 19:06:27 <roconnor> topi`: how many bitcoindays destroyed?
786 2011-11-28 19:06:56 denisx has joined
787 2011-11-28 19:09:15 <eueueue> how to know how many address with any amount of coins already exist?
788 2011-11-28 19:09:54 jercos has joined
789 2011-11-28 19:10:29 <sipa> eueueue: walk the block chain, and tick each address that is identifiable as destination in a txout script
790 2011-11-28 19:11:00 <eueueue> I mean: is there any service that show automatically this info?
791 2011-11-28 19:16:01 [eval] has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
792 2011-11-28 19:17:18 parus has joined
793 2011-11-28 19:18:30 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
794 2011-11-28 19:19:09 eueueue has quit (Quit: Saindo)
795 2011-11-28 19:20:19 dvide has joined
796 2011-11-28 19:22:21 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
797 2011-11-28 19:27:29 cyberdo has joined
798 2011-11-28 19:27:41 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
799 2011-11-28 19:37:45 toffoo has joined
800 2011-11-28 19:44:22 <Diablo-D3> http://www.reddit.com/r/ReverseEngineering/comments/ms4yp/iama_request_fsecure_employee_attempting_to/
801 2011-11-28 19:44:23 <Diablo-D3> oh fuck you
802 2011-11-28 19:48:49 iocor has joined
803 2011-11-28 19:52:42 eueueue has joined
804 2011-11-28 19:52:53 _Fireball has quit (Quit: HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- Like it? Visit #hydrairc on EFNet)
805 2011-11-28 19:56:46 <ThomasV> tcatm: the volume too is 24hourized?
806 2011-11-28 19:58:39 <jgarzik> ThomasV: should be...
807 2011-11-28 19:59:00 <tcatm> ThomasV: yes, but there's a column for 30d volume, too
808 2011-11-28 19:59:52 Kiba has joined
809 2011-11-28 20:11:08 amiller has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
810 2011-11-28 20:16:05 <sipa> jgarzik: in case you still remember: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/tree/joke
811 2011-11-28 20:16:45 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
812 2011-11-28 20:17:49 <ThomasV> how does the bitcoin client encrypt its wallet? with ECC ?
813 2011-11-28 20:18:05 <sipa> ThomasV: AES-256-CBC, with a randomly generated key
814 2011-11-28 20:18:18 <ThomasV> why not ECC ?
815 2011-11-28 20:18:33 <sipa> because it doesn't need assymetric encryption
816 2011-11-28 20:19:18 <ThomasV> yes but it could have used it, becaise it already has elliptic curves implemented
817 2011-11-28 20:19:24 <sipa> no
818 2011-11-28 20:19:30 <ThomasV> why not?
819 2011-11-28 20:19:35 <sipa> EC can't encrypt by itself, but you can use it to derive a shared secret that can be used for a symmetric cipher like AES anyway
820 2011-11-28 20:20:05 <sipa> look for EC-IEC or ECDH for more information
821 2011-11-28 20:20:20 <sipa> EC-IES, that is
822 2011-11-28 20:21:52 topace has joined
823 2011-11-28 20:22:03 <jgarzik> sipa: don't remember / get the joke
824 2011-11-28 20:22:07 <jgarzik> it's Monday, so...
825 2011-11-28 20:22:12 <roconnor> sipa: presumable there is some sort of EC elgamal?
826 2011-11-28 20:22:23 <sipa> jgarzik: you once told me i could put my phd thesis in a git commit :)
827 2011-11-28 20:22:29 <jgarzik> sipa: ah ;)
828 2011-11-28 20:22:59 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
829 2011-11-28 20:23:08 <roconnor> ``ElGamal encryption can be defined over any cyclic group G'' -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElGamal_encryption
830 2011-11-28 20:24:34 <roconnor> but anyhow, sipa is right; no use using public key crypto on the wallet.
831 2011-11-28 20:25:09 <sipa> it would have been possible, by the way - i even suggested it - as it would allow adding keys to the wallet without unlocking it
832 2011-11-28 20:25:26 <sipa> but that held a risk of an attacker "contaminating" a wallet
833 2011-11-28 20:25:44 <roconnor> ThomasV: bitcoin doesn't directly implement EC; it calls into openssl, and openssl provides symetric encryption functionality.
834 2011-11-28 20:26:01 <roconnor> sipa: how does an attacker contaminate a wallet?
835 2011-11-28 20:26:30 <sipa> if he has write access to your disk, he could add his own keys as reserve keys to your wallet
836 2011-11-28 20:26:32 <gavinandresen> sipa : no second thoughts on making the OP_EVAL bitcoin address 'version' byte 2 on mainnet, 109 (111^2) on testnet ?
837 2011-11-28 20:27:01 <sipa> gavinandresen: yes, i plan to, been a bit busy since returning from the conference
838 2011-11-28 20:27:04 <roconnor> sipa: I don't really see how that harms you.
839 2011-11-28 20:27:11 <ThomasV> sipa: is there something wrong with using assymetric encryption for encrypting one's own wallet?
840 2011-11-28 20:27:15 <upb> Diablo-D3: you work for f-secure ?
841 2011-11-28 20:27:34 <gavinandresen> sipa: I'm committing that change to my OP_EVAL branch.
842 2011-11-28 20:27:42 <Diablo-D3> upb: no
843 2011-11-28 20:27:49 <roconnor> sipa: an attacker can already use xor to potentially change your keys to other keys.
844 2011-11-28 20:27:53 <Diablo-D3> upb: why would you ask that?
845 2011-11-28 20:27:57 <sipa> roconnor: sure, but not to his own
846 2011-11-28 20:28:05 <roconnor> sipa: encryption doesn't ensure integrety
847 2011-11-28 20:28:14 <Diablo-D3> if I worked for a company that makes virus scanners, there would never be another virus ever again
848 2011-11-28 20:28:20 <copumpkin> lol
849 2011-11-28 20:28:28 <sipa> roconnor: and his own keys in your wallet would mean he would get your change
850 2011-11-28 20:28:56 <gavinandresen> roconnor: the attack is: remove all the keypool keys, replace them with known-to-the-attacker keys.
851 2011-11-28 20:28:59 <roconnor> sipa: okay, but still, encryption doesn't ensure integrity
852 2011-11-28 20:29:00 amiller has joined
853 2011-11-28 20:29:15 <roconnor> they can do that right now with AES encrypted wallets (and a bit of luck
854 2011-11-28 20:29:23 <gavinandresen> no, they can't.
855 2011-11-28 20:29:34 <sipa> roconnor: nope - the wallet contains the pubkey unencrypted and the private key encrypted
856 2011-11-28 20:29:51 <sipa> when decrypting, afaik a check is done whether they match
857 2011-11-28 20:31:23 <roconnor> still, as a general rule, encryption doesn't ensure integrity; it isn't designed to stop attacks like this.
858 2011-11-28 20:31:36 <roconnor> you guys are playing with fire
859 2011-11-28 20:31:56 <sipa> well, i think an attacker having write access to your disk is already a pretty damned situation
860 2011-11-28 20:32:07 <sipa> i don't consider it part of the threat model we defend against
861 2011-11-28 20:32:17 <gavinandresen> yup, you're already screwed. That's why I'm big on multi-device transaction authorization.
862 2011-11-28 20:32:20 <roconnor> so your proposal was rejected for no good reason
863 2011-11-28 20:32:28 <roconnor> too bad
864 2011-11-28 20:33:44 <roconnor> but I guess it doesn't matter too much
865 2011-11-28 20:34:08 <roconnor> gmaxwell's idea of generated multiple keys from a single key seems far more interesting to me :)
866 2011-11-28 20:34:51 chrisb__ has joined
867 2011-11-28 20:34:52 <gmaxwell> The loss of automagic unstealing is unfortunate though.
868 2011-11-28 20:35:14 <roconnor> gmaxwell: what is automagic unstealing?
869 2011-11-28 20:35:42 <gavinandresen> yes, what is automagic unstealing?
870 2011-11-28 20:35:50 <gmaxwell> roconnor: right now if I steal your wallet from 6 months ago (e.g. on a discarded harddisk), and you're a good little bitcoin user and don't reuse addresses.. then I probably stole nothing.
871 2011-11-28 20:36:05 <Eliel> roconnor: if you add an encrypted checksum, you could verify it hasn't been tampered by anyone who doesn't know the password.
872 2011-11-28 20:36:08 <sipa> ThomasV: if you read the above: using assymetric encryption for the wallet has the advantage of filling up the keypool without unlocking, and the disadvantage of being slower and opening a potential vulnerability where an attacker can put his own keys in your wallet
873 2011-11-28 20:36:18 <gmaxwell> and if you suspect a leak you can just drop your keypool and become unstolen fast.
874 2011-11-28 20:36:37 <gmaxwell> Eliel: but then you couldn't add keys!
875 2011-11-28 20:36:43 forbiddenfox has joined
876 2011-11-28 20:36:43 <Eliel> oh true
877 2011-11-28 20:37:05 iocor has joined
878 2011-11-28 20:38:03 <ThomasV> sipa: ok, but I was asking for another client, where AES creates an extra dependency
879 2011-11-28 20:38:23 <roconnor> gmaxwell: the advantages of key generation seem to outweight that loss.
880 2011-11-28 20:38:49 <gmaxwell> you could compose keys for this, using the type-2 scheme or whatever I called it.. e.g. you don't generate a whole key, you just generate a whole new public key and a new half private key. ... and you save all the haves so your wallet still gets unstolen (and still has annoying backup issues). But then you're secure against that key insertion attack, I guess.
881 2011-11-28 20:38:56 <sipa> ThomasV: and again - you can't encrypt using EC itself - you can only use it to derive a session key
882 2011-11-28 20:39:08 <sipa> you would still need AES or something similar for the actual encryption
883 2011-11-28 20:39:10 <gmaxwell> roconnor: yes, I personally think the determinstic behavior is worth the cost. Opinions differ though.
884 2011-11-28 20:39:35 <ThomasV> sipa: I can derive a keypair from the password, no?
885 2011-11-28 20:39:47 <sipa> yes
886 2011-11-28 20:39:50 <sipa> you could
887 2011-11-28 20:39:53 <roconnor> ThomasV: if EC could be used to encrypt, it would only be able to encrypt tiny messages, you need something like cipher-block-chaining to encrypt arbitrarily large data.
888 2011-11-28 20:40:37 <sipa> roconnor: in the ElGamal encryption you need to convert your data to a group element
889 2011-11-28 20:40:50 Happy0 has quit ()
890 2011-11-28 20:40:50 <sipa> i'm not sure how to convert bytes to a point on a curve
891 2011-11-28 20:40:51 <gmaxwell> I think it's inadvisable to let anything other than mostly-random-data near any asymmetric scheme. (e.g. there are awesome chosen ciphertext vulns in RSA).
892 2011-11-28 20:41:37 <roconnor> sipa: g^m for a generator g and a (small) message m
893 2011-11-28 20:42:02 <sipa> roconnor: in a reversible way
894 2011-11-28 20:42:10 <roconnor> ah oops
895 2011-11-28 20:42:34 <sipa> i suppose putting the data in the x coordinate, and using key decompression to find y
896 2011-11-28 20:42:43 <roconnor> that would work half the time :)
897 2011-11-28 20:42:48 <sipa> how so?
898 2011-11-28 20:43:01 <sipa> define the conversion to always use even y
899 2011-11-28 20:43:02 <roconnor> not every x point has a y point on the curve
900 2011-11-28 20:43:10 <sipa> almost all do, no?
901 2011-11-28 20:43:17 <roconnor> only about half of them
902 2011-11-28 20:43:21 <roconnor> a little less than half
903 2011-11-28 20:43:21 <sipa> really?
904 2011-11-28 20:43:29 <roconnor> yep
905 2011-11-28 20:43:40 <sipa> you must be right
906 2011-11-28 20:43:42 <roconnor> the order of the curve is almost the size of the field
907 2011-11-28 20:43:49 <sipa> there are less than 2^256 valid points on the curve
908 2011-11-28 20:43:52 <roconnor> and every point on the curve has an opposite point
909 2011-11-28 20:44:16 <sipa> ok, fine
910 2011-11-28 20:44:27 <sipa> 255 bits go in the x coordinate, 1 bit in the y coordinate
911 2011-11-28 20:44:47 <roconnor> sipa: I've run key recovery on random inputs and it feels that about half the time I get no keys recovered
912 2011-11-28 20:45:07 <roconnor> sipa: ya, something like this will work I think
913 2011-11-28 20:45:27 <roconnor> maybe
914 2011-11-28 20:46:07 mizerydearia has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
915 2011-11-28 20:46:26 <sipa> anyway - EC isn't intended for bulk data compression :)
916 2011-11-28 20:46:42 forbiddenfox has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
917 2011-11-28 20:47:18 <roconnor> also elgamal double the size of the data when encrypting
918 2011-11-28 20:47:21 <roconnor> *doubles
919 2011-11-28 20:47:35 <ThomasV> roconnor: care to have a look at http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ecc%20encryption&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.116.215%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=FunTTrXFNoGg-AbIxczhDg&usg=AFQjCNFotknd1BshlU1O3pR39H9Wg1D8SA&sig2=wf8K9de5N64Qjidpi4wljg&cad=rja
920 2011-11-28 20:48:31 <ThomasV> is it reasonable to use this method with CBC?
921 2011-11-28 20:49:33 <sipa> ThomasV: really - do not use EC for encryption
922 2011-11-28 20:49:53 <sipa> if you have a need for assymetric encryption of data, use ECDH to derive a shared key, and use that for AES
923 2011-11-28 20:50:02 <sipa> it's much faster and probably safer
924 2011-11-28 20:50:19 <roconnor> what sipa said
925 2011-11-28 20:50:30 <ThomasV> ok, but why?
926 2011-11-28 20:50:46 <ThomasV> what is wrong with it?
927 2011-11-28 20:50:51 <sipa> you can at most encrypt 256 bits of data per encryption
928 2011-11-28 20:51:04 <roconnor> and it is very slow
929 2011-11-28 20:51:21 <sipa> around a millisec for each 256-bit block
930 2011-11-28 20:51:47 <sipa> and it will expand your data
931 2011-11-28 20:52:21 <sipa> and you probably don't need the advantages of separate public/private keys, if you just derive them from a password
932 2011-11-28 20:52:52 <ThomasV> I know, but if I do that I don't need AES
933 2011-11-28 20:53:02 <sipa> it's not worth the effort
934 2011-11-28 20:53:21 <sipa> getting it to work right will be much much more work than just linking to a library that can do AES
935 2011-11-28 20:54:24 <ThomasV> sipa: in python installing the pycrypto library deters users. in contrast, I have a pure python implementation of ecdsa
936 2011-11-28 20:54:39 <ThomasV> that's the reason why
937 2011-11-28 20:54:51 <ThomasV> it would remove a dependency
938 2011-11-28 20:55:02 <sipa> ThomasV: http://code.google.com/p/slowaes/source/browse/trunk/python/aes.py
939 2011-11-28 20:55:30 <ThomasV> sipa: hey, I did not know that one. thanks!
940 2011-11-28 20:55:46 <sipa> that will probably still be massively faster than EC
941 2011-11-28 20:55:55 <roconnor> heh
942 2011-11-28 20:55:58 <roconnor> probably
943 2011-11-28 20:55:58 <ThomasV> yeah
944 2011-11-28 20:56:10 <ThomasV> I should have looked for that first
945 2011-11-28 20:56:19 <ThomasV> sorry for the trouble
946 2011-11-28 20:57:02 gp5st has left ()
947 2011-11-28 20:57:50 BurtyB has joined
948 2011-11-28 21:05:45 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
949 2011-11-28 21:16:43 Xunie has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
950 2011-11-28 21:18:45 danbri has joined
951 2011-11-28 21:19:03 tcatm has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
952 2011-11-28 21:20:27 tcatm has joined
953 2011-11-28 21:20:27 tcatm has quit (Changing host)
954 2011-11-28 21:20:27 tcatm has joined
955 2011-11-28 21:28:42 Xunie has joined
956 2011-11-28 21:34:37 erle- has joined
957 2011-11-28 21:35:42 tcatm has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
958 2011-11-28 21:37:56 tcatm has joined
959 2011-11-28 21:37:56 tcatm has quit (Changing host)
960 2011-11-28 21:37:56 tcatm has joined
961 2011-11-28 21:42:31 shurdeek has joined
962 2011-11-28 21:44:26 shurdeek has left ()
963 2011-11-28 21:49:23 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
964 2011-11-28 21:49:40 OneFixt has joined
965 2011-11-28 21:49:55 denisx has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
966 2011-11-28 21:49:57 denisx_ has joined
967 2011-11-28 21:50:02 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
968 2011-11-28 21:50:06 OneFixt is now known as Guest9420
969 2011-11-28 21:50:50 Guest9420 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
970 2011-11-28 21:51:06 OneFixt_ has joined
971 2011-11-28 21:52:34 dvide has quit ()
972 2011-11-28 21:54:03 OneFixt_ has quit (Changing host)
973 2011-11-28 21:54:03 OneFixt_ has joined
974 2011-11-28 21:54:08 OneFixt_ is now known as OneFixt
975 2011-11-28 21:56:41 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
976 2011-11-28 21:57:24 OneFixt has joined
977 2011-11-28 21:57:50 OneFixt is now known as Guest14665
978 2011-11-28 21:59:18 Guest14665 has quit (Changing host)
979 2011-11-28 21:59:18 Guest14665 has joined
980 2011-11-28 21:59:29 Guest14665 is now known as OneFixt
981 2011-11-28 22:06:22 eueueue has quit (Quit: Saindo)
982 2011-11-28 22:15:55 PK has quit ()
983 2011-11-28 22:18:53 denisx_ has quit (Quit: denisx_)
984 2011-11-28 22:34:01 mizerydearia has joined
985 2011-11-28 22:43:17 freewil has joined
986 2011-11-28 22:43:17 freewil has quit (Changing host)
987 2011-11-28 22:43:17 freewil has joined
988 2011-11-28 22:44:27 marf_away has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
989 2011-11-28 22:52:11 dugdunn has joined
990 2011-11-28 22:52:54 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
991 2011-11-28 23:05:01 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
992 2011-11-28 23:05:35 Beremat has joined
993 2011-11-28 23:09:08 AStove has quit ()
994 2011-11-28 23:12:42 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
995 2011-11-28 23:12:56 OneFixt has joined
996 2011-11-28 23:13:22 OneFixt is now known as Guest82058
997 2011-11-28 23:13:23 oww has joined
998 2011-11-28 23:14:52 ejones has quit (Quit: ~ check out mininrigs.com ~)
999 2011-11-28 23:15:56 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
1000 2011-11-28 23:20:01 Guest82058 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1001 2011-11-28 23:20:17 OneFixt_ has joined
1002 2011-11-28 23:22:01 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1003 2011-11-28 23:23:48 Transisto has joined
1004 2011-11-28 23:27:04 marf_away has joined
1005 2011-11-28 23:31:56 chrisb__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1006 2011-11-28 23:32:40 chrisb__ has joined
1007 2011-11-28 23:33:07 toffoo has quit ()
1008 2011-11-28 23:33:28 agricocb has joined
1009 2011-11-28 23:34:42 OneFixt_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1010 2011-11-28 23:34:56 OneFixt_ has joined
1011 2011-11-28 23:40:25 pumpkin has joined
1012 2011-11-28 23:40:49 OneFixt_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1013 2011-11-28 23:40:59 OneFixt_ has joined
1014 2011-11-28 23:43:25 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1015 2011-11-28 23:44:49 chrisb__ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1016 2011-11-28 23:50:06 denisx has joined
1017 2011-11-28 23:51:53 dugdunn has quit ()
1018 2011-11-28 23:53:05 danbri has joined
1019 2011-11-28 23:54:26 freewil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1020 2011-11-28 23:59:16 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)