1 2011-12-01 00:01:38 mizerydearia has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
   2 2011-12-01 00:02:37 mizerydearia has joined
   3 2011-12-01 00:03:02 slush has joined
   4 2011-12-01 00:04:03 theorb has joined
   5 2011-12-01 00:04:15 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
   6 2011-12-01 00:04:22 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
   7 2011-12-01 00:07:02 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
   8 2011-12-01 00:07:34 tower has joined
   9 2011-12-01 00:09:40 forrestv has quit (Quit: Coyote finally caught me)
  10 2011-12-01 00:10:47 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  11 2011-12-01 00:12:07 forrestv has joined
  12 2011-12-01 00:16:28 pumpkin has joined
  13 2011-12-01 00:17:10 freewil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  14 2011-12-01 00:19:52 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  15 2011-12-01 00:25:58 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
  16 2011-12-01 00:32:37 btc_novice has left ()
  17 2011-12-01 00:58:03 gavinandresen has joined
  18 2011-12-01 01:01:51 Beremat has joined
  19 2011-12-01 01:08:16 <graingert> sipa: can I see yonder thesis?
  20 2011-12-01 01:08:19 cronopio has quit (Quit: leaving)
  21 2011-12-01 01:14:00 crazy_imp has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  22 2011-12-01 01:14:57 pumpkin is now known as copumpkin
  23 2011-12-01 01:15:51 crazy_imp has joined
  24 2011-12-01 01:16:50 storrgie has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  25 2011-12-01 01:21:35 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
  26 2011-12-01 01:27:02 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
  27 2011-12-01 01:28:42 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r0305f60 / (2 files):
  28 2011-12-01 01:28:42 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Merge pull request #667 from laanwj/homeaddricons
  29 2011-12-01 01:28:42 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Make home and addressbook icon more consistent with other toolbar icons - http://git.io/YGdvDg
  30 2011-12-01 01:31:10 mizerydearia has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  31 2011-12-01 01:31:22 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * ra7120a3 / (9 files in 2 dirs):
  32 2011-12-01 01:31:22 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Merge pull request #666 from nobled/secstrings
  33 2011-12-01 01:31:22 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Implement an mlock()'d string class for storing passphrases - http://git.io/H9abAw
  34 2011-12-01 01:33:16 bitcoiner has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 3.6.24/20111103063747])
  35 2011-12-01 01:33:45 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: interesting how an actual consensus turns into "no consensus" at your single whim, with nobody given a chance to respond.
  36 2011-12-01 01:34:34 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46925
  37 2011-12-01 01:34:38 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: you're also forgetting to merge coinbaser, which has far more consensus and testing than getmemorypool ever did since before 0.5 was feature-frozen, not to mention a number of other pull requests I see ready to go
  38 2011-12-01 01:35:51 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: 50% support there. What are you expecting? 100%?
  39 2011-12-01 01:36:10 <luke-jr> I suppose for that particular patch it *might* adversely affect the 50% that don't want it, but USUALLY that's not the case.
  40 2011-12-01 01:38:18 <luke-jr> I'm not sure there's any case where you *really* want the current behaviour though.
  41 2011-12-01 01:38:23 mizerydearia has joined
  42 2011-12-01 01:38:32 <luke-jr> I suppose a "automatically just include a fee if it's under X" might be a good compromise.
  43 2011-12-01 01:39:46 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: if you expect 100%, then no feature should EVER be added.
  44 2011-12-01 01:39:47 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I think the prepare- and then commit- transaction approach would be much better.  It would kill more birds with fewer stones.
  45 2011-12-01 01:39:53 <gavinandresen> Not that I have anything against birds.
  46 2011-12-01 01:39:59 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  47 2011-12-01 01:40:26 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that approach would best be done with a session-oriented protocol; ie, not JSON-RPC
  48 2011-12-01 01:40:27 <gavinandresen> I don't expect 100%, I expect rough consensus.  50% ain't that.
  49 2011-12-01 01:40:29 Workbench has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  50 2011-12-01 01:40:47 <luke-jr> otherwise, you'll end up with locked coins that never get released
  51 2011-12-01 01:40:47 <gavinandresen> mmm.  JSON-RPC is what we got.
  52 2011-12-01 01:40:54 <luke-jr> 50% should be good enough for most cases.
  53 2011-12-01 01:41:04 <gavinandresen> And it would be "prepare and lock for N time"
  54 2011-12-01 01:42:32 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  55 2011-12-01 01:43:30 Workbench has joined
  56 2011-12-01 01:43:31 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
  57 2011-12-01 01:46:41 wolfspraul has joined
  58 2011-12-01 01:47:40 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: coinbaser definitely has a rough consensus, and no adverse behaviour for people who don't use it
  59 2011-12-01 01:48:55 <doublec> wouldn't prepare and lock for N time be vulnerable to malicious users locking a sites wallet? By cancelling out at the "do you want to pay X" stage repeatedly?
  60 2011-12-01 01:49:16 <doublec> I like luke-jr's approach - it's one I proposed and is used in solidcoin iirc
  61 2011-12-01 01:50:12 devrandom has joined
  62 2011-12-01 01:50:16 <luke-jr> doublec: otoh, the lock/commit approach can emulate mine if there's a "cancel" method too
  63 2011-12-01 01:50:42 <luke-jr> but lock/commit/cancel requires much more invasive low-level changes
  64 2011-12-01 01:51:05 <doublec> luke-jr: true, as long as the programmer doesn't make an error. Explicit lock/unlock is prone to mistakes.
  65 2011-12-01 01:52:33 <luke-jr> in either case, Gavin's request for a backward compatible "just accept any fee" is reasonable
  66 2011-12-01 01:52:50 <luke-jr> unfortunately, I need to make a NEW pull request for that since he closed the existing one
  67 2011-12-01 01:52:53 <luke-jr> can't just append it
  68 2011-12-01 01:53:36 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  69 2011-12-01 01:53:58 tower has joined
  70 2011-12-01 01:54:43 <gavinandresen> fine, I re-opened it.
  71 2011-12-01 01:56:13 slush1 has joined
  72 2011-12-01 02:00:42 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
  73 2011-12-01 02:15:02 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  74 2011-12-01 02:22:14 peck has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  75 2011-12-01 02:36:46 copumpkin has joined
  76 2011-12-01 02:39:49 nn has joined
  77 2011-12-01 02:41:12 <nn> so, is it still true that bitcoin doesn't use DNS in proxy mode? (reg. tor error msg.)
  78 2011-12-01 02:43:36 <luke-jr> nn: still? until very recently, the main bitcoin clients didn't use DNS at all
  79 2011-12-01 02:49:29 slush1 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
  80 2011-12-01 02:53:49 lfm has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
  81 2011-12-01 02:54:32 <cjdelisle> hahaha bitcoin gives up your ipee
  82 2011-12-01 02:55:07 <cjdelisle> that's pretty funny since it spams verisign's logs with every node's addr even if they try to use tor
  83 2011-12-01 02:56:46 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: hm? if you use the socks stuff it shouldn't do that.
  84 2011-12-01 02:56:54 <gmaxwell> Did you check or are you guessing?
  85 2011-12-01 02:57:22 graingert has left ()
  86 2011-12-01 03:00:57 <cjdelisle> wild guess
  87 2011-12-01 03:01:15 <cjdelisle> based on what nn said
  88 2011-12-01 03:02:45 <nn> I was quoting Santoshi apparently, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=8e13bb91e22a18c715c984cf6759025a&topic=26651.msg334716#msg334716
  89 2011-12-01 03:04:50 somuchwin2 has joined
  90 2011-12-01 03:05:40 somuchwin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  91 2011-12-01 03:08:36 lfm has joined
  92 2011-12-01 03:09:21 wasabi3 has joined
  93 2011-12-01 03:10:37 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
  94 2011-12-01 03:12:38 <gmaxwell> it's not that it "doesn't use DNS in proxy mode" its that it normally makes requests to IPs rather than names, because the p2p protocol (and IRC) communicate IP addresses to the nodes.
  95 2011-12-01 03:13:04 <gmaxwell> Tor's triggers a warning when apps connect to IPs rather than names because it's usually a sign of DNS leaks.
  96 2011-12-01 03:13:23 <gmaxwell> All that said, it might be prudent to validate that the 'new' DNSeed stuff didn't create an actual DNS leak.
  97 2011-12-01 03:13:26 <luke-jr> technically it "is": it's not using Tor for DNS
  98 2011-12-01 03:13:35 <luke-jr> Bitcoin is using its own p2p protocol for its "DNS"
  99 2011-12-01 03:13:52 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I'm sure it did.
 100 2011-12-01 03:14:03 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: there's no way to do DNS lookups over SOCKS
 101 2011-12-01 03:14:16 <luke-jr> if you upgraded to SOCKS 5 you could *connect by DNS name*
 102 2011-12-01 03:14:19 <luke-jr> but no way to get the IP back
 103 2011-12-01 03:14:45 <gmaxwell> Right but do we use dnsseed mode when the proxy is enabled?
 104 2011-12-01 03:15:04 <luke-jr> why not?
 105 2011-12-01 03:15:38 <gmaxwell> ha. Because of the DNS leak there.
 106 2011-12-01 03:16:18 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 107 2011-12-01 03:18:11 <nn> you guys are out of control, bitcoin aint anonymous for shit. you mean you haven't checked for DNS leaks?
 108 2011-12-01 03:18:14 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 109 2011-12-01 03:18:34 <nn> NOW you're telling me?
 110 2011-12-01 03:19:10 devrandom has joined
 111 2011-12-01 03:19:43 <luke-jr> nn: Bitcoin isn't supposed to be anonymous, idiot
 112 2011-12-01 03:19:45 <gmaxwell> nn: Tone down the attitude.
 113 2011-12-01 03:20:50 <gmaxwell> Moreover, the only thing that dnsseed could leak is that you've started bitcoin— not anything about what you're doing with it.
 114 2011-12-01 03:21:02 <gmaxwell> And yes, people have checked, but its a new feature.
 115 2011-12-01 03:21:56 <gmaxwell> If you're actually in a situation where dns leaks would matter then you're a fool if you haven't made them impossible by blocking them locally.
 116 2011-12-01 03:22:23 <gmaxwell> Tons of applications have them... and they're closed completely in proper distributions for anonymity like tails.
 117 2011-12-01 03:22:30 <nn> I'm just saying, you might be putting innocent people in harms way by the current illusion of bitcoins being anonymous with tor.
 118 2011-12-01 03:23:22 <gmaxwell> As I mentioned, the only thing it would potentially leak is that you started bitcoin.
 119 2011-12-01 03:23:32 <nn> And your IP?
 120 2011-12-01 03:23:41 <gmaxwell> What about your IP?
 121 2011-12-01 03:23:51 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 122 2011-12-01 03:24:03 [7] has joined
 123 2011-12-01 03:24:06 <nn> Having bitcoin do a DNS lookup, not through tor, would reveal your true IP?
 124 2011-12-01 03:24:13 <gmaxwell> It would leak that someone at your IP started bitcoin, thats it.
 125 2011-12-01 03:24:31 <gmaxwell> (e.g. like downloading bitcoin software not via tor)
 126 2011-12-01 03:25:10 <nn> That's already a lot, if you ask me.
 127 2011-12-01 03:25:35 stalled has joined
 128 2011-12-01 03:26:15 <nn> However, bitcoin _should_ be anonymous though, philosophically speaking? Isn't that part of the beauty of it? Cause if it's not "free," then who's controlling it...
 129 2011-12-01 03:26:32 <gmaxwell> It sounds like your conflating things there.
 130 2011-12-01 03:26:54 <gmaxwell> What does being anonymous have to do with someone controlling it?
 131 2011-12-01 03:27:33 <nn> Ask anyone who's been put on a non-desirable list (eg. Wikileaks, Hamas), and what happened to their funds.
 132 2011-12-01 03:28:19 <nn> If it's not anonymous, it's not free; and if it's not free, some authority controls it.
 133 2011-12-01 03:28:24 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin doesn't make it possible to freeze people's funds even if you know who they are.
 134 2011-12-01 03:28:28 freewil has joined
 135 2011-12-01 03:28:28 freewil has quit (Changing host)
 136 2011-12-01 03:28:28 freewil has joined
 137 2011-12-01 03:29:53 <gmaxwell> In any case, disclosing that you're running bitcoin probably does not pose any risk wrt that.
 138 2011-12-01 03:29:59 <nn> Knowing who you are as you fund Wikileaks is a problem. I mean, that's obvious. Funders to Wikileaks have been harassed. Funders to democratically elected governments (eg. Hamas) have been charged for funding terrorism and whatnot.
 139 2011-12-01 03:30:01 <luke-jr> nn: no, Bitcoin is not anonymous.
 140 2011-12-01 03:30:27 <gmaxwell> And, as luke pointed out, it sounds like its not possible to make dnsseed work over tor.
 141 2011-12-01 03:30:44 <nn> Anywho, you guys are doing a great job - I suppose you're devs.
 142 2011-12-01 03:30:44 <luke-jr> nn: so don't fund questionable things
 143 2011-12-01 03:31:02 <luke-jr> nn: most of us only want Bitcoin to be used for "clean" purposes
 144 2011-12-01 03:31:31 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin uses weak anonymity to provide conventional privacy. If for some reason you need actual anonymity— thats very hard and no software alone can provide that.
 145 2011-12-01 03:31:38 <nn> luke-jr: but that's the point, who says what's "questionable"? You? Me? the US?
 146 2011-12-01 03:31:53 <luke-jr> nn: whoever you're worried about
 147 2011-12-01 03:32:11 <luke-jr> nn: if you stand firm behind your money transfers, you have nothing to fear :P
 148 2011-12-01 03:32:27 <luke-jr> if you're doing something illegal, you SHOULD be prosecuted
 149 2011-12-01 03:32:33 <luke-jr> take responsibiltiy!
 150 2011-12-01 03:32:48 <nn> luke-jr: I agree.
 151 2011-12-01 03:33:17 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: What if you want to send tithings to the catholic church from Saudi Arabia
 152 2011-12-01 03:33:21 <gmaxwell> ? :)
 153 2011-12-01 03:33:38 <nn> gmaxwell: also ;)
 154 2011-12-01 03:33:51 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ok you win
 155 2011-12-01 03:34:57 <gmaxwell> But yes, bitcoin isn't an anonymity system. It's only anonymous enough to compensate for the fact that the transaction data is all public.
 156 2011-12-01 03:35:20 <nn> I suppose.
 157 2011-12-01 03:36:04 <gmaxwell> So in any case, I think we should probably disable dnsseed if a proxy is in use.. if someone is using a proxy then they may likely want to conceal that they are running bitcoin at all.
 158 2011-12-01 03:36:20 <gmaxwell> but given that.... we're down a useful seeding method...
 159 2011-12-01 03:36:28 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: IMO, just change the default
 160 2011-12-01 03:36:45 <luke-jr> ie, let them explicitly enable it with -dnsseed
 161 2011-12-01 03:36:49 <gmaxwell> What, dnsseed off by default iff you use proxy? That makes sense to me. Yep.
 162 2011-12-01 03:36:51 <nn> what's a DCC CHAT?
 163 2011-12-01 03:37:21 <gmaxwell> A way of getting someone's IP when they're using IRC over tor. ;)
 164 2011-12-01 03:37:27 <luke-jr> nn: someone attempting to crash your IRC client probably
 165 2011-12-01 03:37:31 <gmaxwell> ... it's an IRC chat that goes direct client to client.
 166 2011-12-01 03:37:39 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I've never seen it used legitly :P
 167 2011-12-01 03:37:59 <nn> well, -jcald- just DCC'd me.
 168 2011-12-01 03:38:22 <gmaxwell> in the past when I've known of irc ops who snooped I used it.. these days I just use crypto. hurray for crypto.
 169 2011-12-01 03:38:53 <gmaxwell> I don't know who that is.
 170 2011-12-01 03:39:03 <nn> Don't they have better things to do...
 171 2011-12-01 03:39:07 <gmaxwell> I don't think they're in this channel.
 172 2011-12-01 03:39:16 <nn> No, he's not.
 173 2011-12-01 03:39:32 <Diablo-D3> dongs.
 174 2011-12-01 03:40:03 <nn> Is that all it takes? Make a philosophical argument on wikileaks, and they try to pin you?
 175 2011-12-01 03:40:11 <gmaxwell> nah.
 176 2011-12-01 03:40:30 <gmaxwell> Though going on about anonymity sometimes makes people want to prove a point.
 177 2011-12-01 03:40:37 <nn> Then who is this op?
 178 2011-12-01 03:40:48 <gmaxwell> op?
 179 2011-12-01 03:41:03 <nn> gmaxwell: if he's not in the channel?
 180 2011-12-01 03:41:09 <gmaxwell> Are you in any others?
 181 2011-12-01 03:41:13 <gmaxwell> It could have just been a typo.
 182 2011-12-01 03:42:41 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 183 2011-12-01 03:42:59 <nn> He's not in any of my channels.
 184 2011-12-01 03:44:16 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: really? never been on an irc network with crappy nosey oppers?
 185 2011-12-01 03:44:39 <nn> There are no coincidences... (twilight zone music). Anywho, could be just some douche trying to make a point, yeah.
 186 2011-12-01 03:44:41 <jrmithdobbs> or needed to transfer legitimate backup copies of copyrighted material?
 187 2011-12-01 03:44:42 <jrmithdobbs> heh
 188 2011-12-01 03:45:26 <nn> So, it's a way to transfer files directly? Meaning, it could be a cute little trojan - and revealing my IP?
 189 2011-12-01 03:45:32 <gmaxwell> nn: I've made points before... so I fully sympathize.
 190 2011-12-01 03:45:59 <nn> I'm in an internet cafe with 60 other laptoppers, though so... ;P
 191 2011-12-01 03:46:48 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: I only use FreeNode.
 192 2011-12-01 03:46:57 <jrmithdobbs> freenode's not that old
 193 2011-12-01 03:47:09 <nn> Any way to find this guy?
 194 2011-12-01 03:47:12 <jrmithdobbs> but ya, dcc chat and file transfers used to actually be used for things
 195 2011-12-01 03:47:18 <jrmithdobbs> not really so much any more
 196 2011-12-01 03:47:42 <gmaxwell> I have no confidence that freenode is free of snoops.. but I don't happen to know if it directly so I can pretend its not happening.
 197 2011-12-01 03:48:01 <jrmithdobbs> ya, I just don't care
 198 2011-12-01 03:48:12 <jrmithdobbs> tbqh I'm not worried about the freenode staff since lilo kicked it
 199 2011-12-01 03:48:16 <jrmithdobbs> and I don't care how awful that sounds
 200 2011-12-01 03:49:02 <gmaxwell> ::shrugs:: I've said similar.
 201 2011-12-01 03:49:30 <gmaxwell> The real sin is the IRC protocol— it should make it impossible for IRC operators to snoop invisibly.
 202 2011-12-01 03:50:29 arneis has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 203 2011-12-01 03:50:44 <upb> heh, the whole architecture is not designed with this in mind
 204 2011-12-01 03:51:03 <upb> if you have a server, you can introduce users in every channel and log all traffic of the whole network anyway
 205 2011-12-01 03:52:44 <gmaxwell> upb: but it wouldn't be invisible.
 206 2011-12-01 03:52:56 <gmaxwell> e.g. "Who is that bob guy? /kick"
 207 2011-12-01 03:53:13 <upb> true
 208 2011-12-01 03:53:44 <gmaxwell> of course, traffic analysis is almost as valuable as seeing the cleartext.. but you can only fix so much.
 209 2011-12-01 03:53:54 <gmaxwell> making all IRC channels CBR would have quite high overhead. :)
 210 2011-12-01 03:56:19 nn has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 211 2011-12-01 03:57:37 <cjdelisle> heh
 212 2011-12-01 03:57:46 <cjdelisle> I had no problem wandering around
 213 2011-12-01 03:58:08 <cjdelisle> when I figured out the right nick I got tons of incoming connections too
 214 2011-12-01 03:58:28 <cjdelisle> had 1000 sockets before the isp threw in the towel
 215 2011-12-01 03:58:46 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: whats this?
 216 2011-12-01 03:58:49 GMP has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 217 2011-12-01 03:59:00 <cjdelisle> joining all of the channels in lfnet
 218 2011-12-01 03:59:09 <cjdelisle> using my encoded ip/port as my nick
 219 2011-12-01 03:59:13 <cjdelisle> (in irssi)
 220 2011-12-01 03:59:14 <gmaxwell> you can only join 25.
 221 2011-12-01 03:59:19 <gmaxwell> lfnet limits the joins.
 222 2011-12-01 03:59:24 <cjdelisle> yeap
 223 2011-12-01 03:59:28 <cjdelisle> so I cycled
 224 2011-12-01 03:59:35 graingert has joined
 225 2011-12-01 03:59:37 <gmaxwell> Yea, I have a patch to bitcoin that does this.
 226 2011-12-01 03:59:54 <gmaxwell> the current scheme is likely to cause network partitioning.
 227 2011-12-01 04:00:08 <cjdelisle> had 1000 connections at peak then the dsl modem lost the connection
 228 2011-12-01 04:00:13 <gmaxwell> esp since stable clients are mostly invisible to others.
 229 2011-12-01 04:00:18 * cjdelisle thinks their DPI box got mad
 230 2011-12-01 04:00:40 <cjdelisle> could have been overloaded nat tables but I'm surprised the whole connection would blow up
 231 2011-12-01 04:01:00 <gmaxwell> I'm not.
 232 2011-12-01 04:01:15 <gmaxwell> "session table full— I think I'll just randomly overwrite my memory now.. weeee"
 233 2011-12-01 04:01:22 <cjdelisle> hehehe
 234 2011-12-01 04:01:28 <cjdelisle> wouldn't surprise me
 235 2011-12-01 04:01:47 Cablesaurus has joined
 236 2011-12-01 04:01:47 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
 237 2011-12-01 04:01:47 Cablesaurus has joined
 238 2011-12-01 04:01:50 <cjdelisle> or I guess it would...
 239 2011-12-01 04:02:05 <gmaxwell> what kind of router?
 240 2011-12-01 04:02:09 <graingert> well it won't overwrite randomly
 241 2011-12-01 04:02:21 <graingert> just off the end of the array
 242 2011-12-01 04:02:23 <gmaxwell> I mean most soho boxes.. software testing consists of "light turns green after applying 12vdc"
 243 2011-12-01 04:02:25 <cjdelisle> just a westell dshell thing
 244 2011-12-01 04:02:50 <cjdelisle> openwrt
 245 2011-12-01 04:02:51 <graingert> *currently rolling about in laughter at gmaxwell's comment*
 246 2011-12-01 04:03:35 <cjdelisle> they're nice since you can fire up telnetd on them and monkey around
 247 2011-12-01 04:04:05 <gmaxwell> I'll never forget the time when ... I'd just gotten I new intern in the office and I was telling him what crap this router we had was... and I was at the time dorking around with a tool to generate random packets.
 248 2011-12-01 04:04:46 <gmaxwell> "I bet if I sent this a <types> ICMP REDIRECT FROM <types> itself <types> to <types> itself that it'll blow up. <enter>"
 249 2011-12-01 04:04:59 <gmaxwell> then over the cube walls "greg— did the network just go down?"
 250 2011-12-01 04:05:04 <gmaxwell> oops.
 251 2011-12-01 04:05:13 <cjdelisle> hehehe
 252 2011-12-01 04:05:37 <gmaxwell> It was then hard to explain that I didn't actually expect that to happen even though I _said_ it would happen, it was just hyperbole...
 253 2011-12-01 04:07:33 coblee_ has joined
 254 2011-12-01 04:08:08 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
 255 2011-12-01 04:10:39 coblee has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 256 2011-12-01 04:10:39 coblee_ is now known as coblee
 257 2011-12-01 04:13:23 graingert has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 258 2011-12-01 04:14:36 graingert has joined
 259 2011-12-01 04:15:43 [Tycho] has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 260 2011-12-01 04:16:29 Cablesaurus has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 261 2011-12-01 04:16:38 dan__ has joined
 262 2011-12-01 04:35:53 t3a has joined
 263 2011-12-01 04:43:53 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 264 2011-12-01 04:49:51 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 265 2011-12-01 04:59:28 dan__ has quit (Quit: dan__)
 266 2011-12-01 05:07:54 dan__ has joined
 267 2011-12-01 05:10:38 wasabi has joined
 268 2011-12-01 05:11:02 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 269 2011-12-01 05:14:35 Beremat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 270 2011-12-01 05:17:11 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 271 2011-12-01 05:25:31 wolfspraul has joined
 272 2011-12-01 05:31:46 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
 273 2011-12-01 05:48:41 theymos has joined
 274 2011-12-01 06:00:36 FellowTraveler has joined
 275 2011-12-01 06:00:49 <FellowTraveler> hi all.
 276 2011-12-01 06:02:29 dan__ has quit (Quit: dan__)
 277 2011-12-01 06:09:06 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
 278 2011-12-01 06:11:36 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
 279 2011-12-01 06:23:05 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 280 2011-12-01 06:24:09 dissipate_ has joined
 281 2011-12-01 06:26:02 BurtyB has joined
 282 2011-12-01 06:33:35 RazielZ has joined
 283 2011-12-01 06:37:47 Lexa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 284 2011-12-01 06:45:18 AStove has joined
 285 2011-12-01 06:45:31 osmosis has joined
 286 2011-12-01 06:48:25 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 287 2011-12-01 06:53:56 Lolcust_Backup is now known as Lolcust
 288 2011-12-01 06:58:50 sneak has quit (Quit: leaving)
 289 2011-12-01 06:58:55 [Tycho] has joined
 290 2011-12-01 07:10:47 wasabi2 has joined
 291 2011-12-01 07:12:09 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 292 2011-12-01 07:39:07 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 293 2011-12-01 07:41:29 larsivi has joined
 294 2011-12-01 07:50:37 TD has joined
 295 2011-12-01 07:54:24 AStove has quit ()
 296 2011-12-01 07:54:58 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 297 2011-12-01 08:04:19 HaltingState has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 298 2011-12-01 08:06:15 HaltingState has joined
 299 2011-12-01 08:06:18 iocor has joined
 300 2011-12-01 08:09:12 abragin has joined
 301 2011-12-01 08:09:12 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 302 2011-12-01 08:09:12 abragin has joined
 303 2011-12-01 08:09:53 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 304 2011-12-01 08:10:29 wasabi has joined
 305 2011-12-01 08:12:10 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 306 2011-12-01 08:16:06 _Fireball has joined
 307 2011-12-01 08:21:52 dissipate_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 308 2011-12-01 08:26:15 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 309 2011-12-01 08:26:54 molecular has joined
 310 2011-12-01 08:27:45 PK has joined
 311 2011-12-01 08:31:59 MimeNarrator has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 312 2011-12-01 08:32:42 num1 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 313 2011-12-01 08:35:44 Burgundy has joined
 314 2011-12-01 08:36:54 MimeNarrator has joined
 315 2011-12-01 08:39:23 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 316 2011-12-01 08:41:19 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
 317 2011-12-01 08:48:09 wolfspraul has joined
 318 2011-12-01 08:50:46 wolfspraul has quit (Client Quit)
 319 2011-12-01 08:51:03 wolfspraul has joined
 320 2011-12-01 08:52:22 OneFixt_ has joined
 321 2011-12-01 08:54:33 OneFixt_ has quit (Changing host)
 322 2011-12-01 08:54:33 OneFixt_ has joined
 323 2011-12-01 08:54:37 OneFixt is now known as Guest95587
 324 2011-12-01 08:54:44 OneFixt_ is now known as OneFixt
 325 2011-12-01 08:55:06 Guest95587 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 326 2011-12-01 08:55:38 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 327 2011-12-01 08:59:06 dissipate_ has joined
 328 2011-12-01 09:00:49 iocor has joined
 329 2011-12-01 09:16:48 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 330 2011-12-01 09:25:34 kish has joined
 331 2011-12-01 09:25:37 _Fireball has quit (Read error: No route to host)
 332 2011-12-01 09:25:37 abragin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 333 2011-12-01 09:26:47 _Fireball has joined
 334 2011-12-01 09:27:22 abragin has joined
 335 2011-12-01 09:27:22 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 336 2011-12-01 09:27:23 abragin has joined
 337 2011-12-01 09:29:28 erus` has joined
 338 2011-12-01 09:37:52 <BCBot>  Stats: http://bit.ly/bitcoin-irc-stats
 339 2011-12-01 09:37:59 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 340 2011-12-01 09:40:29 RobinPKR has quit (Quit: RobinPKR)
 341 2011-12-01 09:41:54 ThomasV has joined
 342 2011-12-01 09:42:44 RobinPKR has joined
 343 2011-12-01 09:46:05 Keefe has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 344 2011-12-01 09:48:07 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
 345 2011-12-01 09:51:45 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
 346 2011-12-01 09:52:35 marf_away has joined
 347 2011-12-01 10:00:59 iocor has joined
 348 2011-12-01 10:01:06 iocor has quit (Changing host)
 349 2011-12-01 10:01:06 iocor has joined
 350 2011-12-01 10:01:46 Maged has quit (Disconnected by services)
 351 2011-12-01 10:01:55 Maged_ has joined
 352 2011-12-01 10:02:07 Maged_ is now known as Maged
 353 2011-12-01 10:02:38 Maged has quit (Disconnected by services)
 354 2011-12-01 10:02:46 Maged_ has joined
 355 2011-12-01 10:02:56 Maged_ is now known as Maged
 356 2011-12-01 10:10:12 danbri has joined
 357 2011-12-01 10:28:51 PK has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 358 2011-12-01 10:28:59 PK has joined
 359 2011-12-01 10:41:11 iocor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 360 2011-12-01 10:47:29 Keefe has joined
 361 2011-12-01 10:47:49 Keefe has quit (Changing host)
 362 2011-12-01 10:47:49 Keefe has joined
 363 2011-12-01 10:48:16 Habbie has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 364 2011-12-01 10:48:27 Habbie has joined
 365 2011-12-01 10:51:02 dr_win has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 366 2011-12-01 10:51:28 dr_win has joined
 367 2011-12-01 10:56:32 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
 368 2011-12-01 11:02:02 iocor has joined
 369 2011-12-01 11:02:34 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 370 2011-12-01 11:03:44 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 371 2011-12-01 11:12:23 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 372 2011-12-01 11:12:39 GMP has joined
 373 2011-12-01 11:16:38 MobiusL has joined
 374 2011-12-01 11:16:45 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 375 2011-12-01 11:21:27 larsivi has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
 376 2011-12-01 11:21:56 larsivi has joined
 377 2011-12-01 11:23:49 gjs278 has joined
 378 2011-12-01 11:29:28 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 379 2011-12-01 11:34:35 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 380 2011-12-01 11:35:52 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 381 2011-12-01 11:38:44 gjs278 has joined
 382 2011-12-01 11:43:08 sacarlson has joined
 383 2011-12-01 11:46:23 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 384 2011-12-01 11:51:58 Beremat has joined
 385 2011-12-01 11:53:16 gjs278 has joined
 386 2011-12-01 11:55:47 iocor has joined
 387 2011-12-01 11:56:40 da2ce7 has joined
 388 2011-12-01 11:59:05 wolfspraul has joined
 389 2011-12-01 11:59:54 dissipate_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 390 2011-12-01 12:03:21 Beremat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 391 2011-12-01 12:07:54 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 392 2011-12-01 12:16:14 sipa has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 393 2011-12-01 12:17:11 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 394 2011-12-01 12:18:16 ThomasV has joined
 395 2011-12-01 12:19:52 ahbritto has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 396 2011-12-01 12:23:16 snowing has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 397 2011-12-01 12:31:07 eueueue has joined
 398 2011-12-01 12:31:20 dbitcoin has joined
 399 2011-12-01 12:32:48 tower has joined
 400 2011-12-01 12:44:52 eueueue has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 401 2011-12-01 12:47:06 da2ce7 has joined
 402 2011-12-01 12:48:12 erus` has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 8.0/20111104165243])
 403 2011-12-01 12:49:43 E-sense has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 404 2011-12-01 12:56:35 snowing has joined
 405 2011-12-01 13:04:42 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 406 2011-12-01 13:08:18 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 407 2011-12-01 13:12:45 wasabi2 has joined
 408 2011-12-01 13:14:33 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 409 2011-12-01 13:15:07 datagutt has joined
 410 2011-12-01 13:19:19 slush has joined
 411 2011-12-01 13:23:10 GMP has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 412 2011-12-01 13:28:30 ThomasV has joined
 413 2011-12-01 13:33:31 erle- has joined
 414 2011-12-01 13:33:31 eueueue has joined
 415 2011-12-01 13:56:09 eueueue has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 416 2011-12-01 13:59:28 Edward_Black has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 417 2011-12-01 14:03:37 dvide has quit ()
 418 2011-12-01 14:05:13 b4epoche_ has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 419 2011-12-01 14:07:11 gp5st has joined
 420 2011-12-01 14:08:04 gavinandresen has joined
 421 2011-12-01 14:11:59 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 422 2011-12-01 14:13:46 dvide has joined
 423 2011-12-01 14:13:54 Edward_Black has joined
 424 2011-12-01 14:20:16 Edward_Black has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 425 2011-12-01 14:21:33 diki has quit ()
 426 2011-12-01 14:30:03 TD has joined
 427 2011-12-01 14:31:56 Edward_Black has joined
 428 2011-12-01 14:36:37 ThomasV has joined
 429 2011-12-01 14:45:58 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 430 2011-12-01 14:47:18 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 431 2011-12-01 14:53:33 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 432 2011-12-01 14:56:17 TD has joined
 433 2011-12-01 15:06:43 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 434 2011-12-01 15:12:10 merde has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 435 2011-12-01 15:12:26 merde has joined
 436 2011-12-01 15:16:16 eueueue has joined
 437 2011-12-01 15:22:05 <makomk> By the way, did the issue where you could spam Bitcoin nodes with orphan blocks and bloat their block file ever get fixed?
 438 2011-12-01 15:23:21 magn3ts has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 439 2011-12-01 15:26:18 <kinlo> I don't think you can fix that
 440 2011-12-01 15:26:40 <kinlo> however, you need to mine those blocks, so you need a LOT of hashing power to execute the attack
 441 2011-12-01 15:29:09 <makomk> The problem was/is that it's quite happy to accept really old orphans. As in, back in the difficulty-1 era.
 442 2011-12-01 15:29:58 <UukGoblin> which might be needed in case someone ever produces a longer chain ;-]
 443 2011-12-01 15:30:34 <UukGoblin> actually...
 444 2011-12-01 15:30:36 <luke-jr> no
 445 2011-12-01 15:30:40 <luke-jr> makomk has a point
 446 2011-12-01 15:30:44 Maged has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 447 2011-12-01 15:30:48 <luke-jr> orphans before the last checkpoint should be rejected
 448 2011-12-01 15:31:27 Turingi has joined
 449 2011-12-01 15:31:27 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
 450 2011-12-01 15:31:27 Turingi has joined
 451 2011-12-01 15:31:35 <UukGoblin> if someone built a chain of 200 000 blocks all at difficulty 1, wouldn't it supersede the current one? :-P
 452 2011-12-01 15:31:40 <UukGoblin> must be something wrong with my logic there
 453 2011-12-01 15:31:55 <UukGoblin> or does bitcoin take difficulty into account when calculating "length"?
 454 2011-12-01 15:32:00 <makomk> UukGoblin: it chooses the chain with the most work, not the most blocks.
 455 2011-12-01 15:32:10 <UukGoblin> right
 456 2011-12-01 15:32:17 <UukGoblin> good. ;-]
 457 2011-12-01 15:32:42 <UukGoblin> I got worried there for a sec
 458 2011-12-01 15:33:16 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: bitcoind-based clients also reject things changing blocks before they were released
 459 2011-12-01 15:33:22 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: the hash is hard-coded into them
 460 2011-12-01 15:33:25 <makomk> I'm mostly curious because someone's carrying out a superficially similar spamming attack against Solidcoin, and there might be copycats.
 461 2011-12-01 15:33:53 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, you could still produce a longer chain that starts from the checkpoint
 462 2011-12-01 15:34:05 <UukGoblin> or after the checkpoint
 463 2011-12-01 15:34:28 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: not at diff 1
 464 2011-12-01 15:35:04 <UukGoblin> well...
 465 2011-12-01 15:35:42 <UukGoblin> he can produce a 2-weeks worth of, say, 5 blocks, which will drop the diff down and carry on from there
 466 2011-12-01 15:35:52 <UukGoblin> actually
 467 2011-12-01 15:35:57 <UukGoblin> that'd have to be a bit longer ;-]
 468 2011-12-01 15:36:34 <UukGoblin> but cool, if bitcoin takes amount of work rather than chain length, there's no issue
 469 2011-12-01 15:37:27 <gavinandresen> makomk: see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/534
 470 2011-12-01 15:37:38 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 471 2011-12-01 15:37:57 <gavinandresen> Actually, maybe I should just pull that now....
 472 2011-12-01 15:39:27 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
 473 2011-12-01 15:39:37 copumpkin has joined
 474 2011-12-01 15:40:25 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: reckon that one is a bugfix (and thus for 0.4.x and 0.5.x)?
 475 2011-12-01 15:40:43 <makomk> gavinandresen: ah, neat!
 476 2011-12-01 15:40:56 <gavinandresen> sure, it fixes a potential denial-of-service attack
 477 2011-12-01 15:41:32 <luke-jr> hmm, does it depend on the "anti-DoS" code?
 478 2011-12-01 15:41:39 <luke-jr> I hadn't merged that
 479 2011-12-01 15:46:37 <makomk> gavinandresen: what happens in the case where we do have the previous block, but it's (for example) block #2?
 480 2011-12-01 15:46:51 t3a has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 481 2011-12-01 15:46:53 <luke-jr> rtfs
 482 2011-12-01 15:47:45 <makomk> Ah, that's not what it's targetting.
 483 2011-12-01 15:49:01 <makomk> In practice it appears from the Solidcoin incident that spamming nodes with blocks that we do have the previous block for may still cause enough memory bloat to be disruptive, but that's quite a bit nastier.
 484 2011-12-01 15:49:23 [Tycho] has joined
 485 2011-12-01 15:50:02 <gavinandresen> my pull makes that impossible, because orphan blocks are required to have a plausible amount of proof-of-work
 486 2011-12-01 15:50:03 imsaguy2 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 487 2011-12-01 15:50:28 <gavinandresen> (don't tell the solidcoin guys, though, I don't want them stealing my code)
 488 2011-12-01 15:51:05 <gavinandresen> (not that they would, anyway, because they know I'm a great big fat idiot)
 489 2011-12-01 15:51:40 <makomk> It wouldn't help them anyway ;-). They're being attacked with blocks that are minimum-difficulty, valid, and recent due to a big fat security hole in the trust node stuff.
 490 2011-12-01 15:51:54 <gavinandresen> speaking of which, what HAVE the solidcoin guys been up to recently?  have they done anything worth thinking about doing in bitcoin?
 491 2011-12-01 15:52:31 <makomk> They have a
 492 2011-12-01 15:53:06 <makomk> neat feature for displaying fees before you attempt a transaction, I think.
 493 2011-12-01 15:53:08 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: unlikely.
 494 2011-12-01 15:53:25 imsaguy2 has joined
 495 2011-12-01 15:53:25 imsaguy2 has quit (Changing host)
 496 2011-12-01 15:53:25 imsaguy2 has joined
 497 2011-12-01 15:53:26 <luke-jr> makomk: wxBitcoin always had that
 498 2011-12-01 15:53:33 <luke-jr> and Bitcoin-Qt does too I think
 499 2011-12-01 15:54:22 dbitcoin has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 500 2011-12-01 15:54:23 <makomk> Also, unless I'm misreading this it only checks ComputeMinWork if it doesn't have the block corresponding to hashPrevBlock.
 501 2011-12-01 15:56:32 <gavinandresen> makomk: good catch... let me think a bit....
 502 2011-12-01 15:59:54 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 503 2011-12-01 16:00:26 <gavinandresen> makomk: mapBlockIndex does not contain orphan blocks (mapOrphans does).  So !mapBlockIndex.count(pblock->hashPrevBlock)  will be true for all orphan blocks...
 504 2011-12-01 16:02:39 <gavinandresen> makomk: if the block does build on the best tip-of-chain, then the proof-of-work checks in AcceptBlock will keep bogus blocks from bloating memory or disk.
 505 2011-12-01 16:03:45 <makomk> What happens if it builds on an old but in-chain block?
 506 2011-12-01 16:04:18 <gavinandresen> makomk: how old?
 507 2011-12-01 16:04:33 <gavinandresen> ... if after the last checkpoint, then as long as it has plausible proof-of-work then it is OK.
 508 2011-12-01 16:04:49 <makomk> Block 2, for example.
 509 2011-12-01 16:05:17 <gavinandresen> During initial block download you mean?  Or after you have the whole chain?
 510 2011-12-01 16:05:25 <makomk> After you have the whole chain.
 511 2011-12-01 16:05:29 devrandom has joined
 512 2011-12-01 16:06:35 <gavinandresen> lemme think some more.... and maybe write another unit test....
 513 2011-12-01 16:11:05 <gavinandresen> makomk: I think you might be right-- building on (say) block 2 with difficulty-1 blocks with current timestamps might work.  Another check, to reject blocks that build on blocks before the last checkpoint, might be needed.  I'll write a test.
 514 2011-12-01 16:11:19 <devrandom> gavinandresen: I hear you will be visiting SF bay area, cool...
 515 2011-12-01 16:11:32 <gavinandresen> devrandom: yes, next week.  You out there?
 516 2011-12-01 16:11:53 <devrandom> yup
 517 2011-12-01 16:12:20 <devrandom> in SF actually, but I visit the mountain view campus
 518 2011-12-01 16:12:48 <gavinandresen> devrandom: cool.  I don't have plans for lunch on Wednesday, want to meet?
 519 2011-12-01 16:13:08 <gavinandresen> (I'll be in the city)
 520 2011-12-01 16:13:38 <devrandom> I would love to
 521 2011-12-01 16:19:36 cronopio has joined
 522 2011-12-01 16:20:33 btc_novice has joined
 523 2011-12-01 16:23:45 TD has joined
 524 2011-12-01 16:24:01 gp5st has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 525 2011-12-01 16:24:33 <TD> evening chaps
 526 2011-12-01 16:25:24 nathan7 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 527 2011-12-01 16:26:50 <devrandom> TD: hey there... too bad you are not in town, looks like a bitcoin party
 528 2011-12-01 16:27:05 peck has joined
 529 2011-12-01 16:29:56 <gavinandresen> TD: thanks for the OP_EVAL code review
 530 2011-12-01 16:31:41 nathan7_ has joined
 531 2011-12-01 16:33:28 AStove has joined
 532 2011-12-01 16:35:23 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 533 2011-12-01 16:35:25 Nicksasa has joined
 534 2011-12-01 16:37:04 ThomasV has joined
 535 2011-12-01 16:41:07 nathan7_ has quit (Changing host)
 536 2011-12-01 16:41:07 nathan7_ has joined
 537 2011-12-01 16:41:14 nathan7_ is now known as nathan7
 538 2011-12-01 16:41:32 erus` has joined
 539 2011-12-01 16:44:55 erus`_ has joined
 540 2011-12-01 16:46:14 <UukGoblin> heh, bitcoincharts.com (at 27007) reports trades in future from bitstampUSD
 541 2011-12-01 16:46:26 <UukGoblin> 164237 <+amphipod> Dec01 16:46:14 bitstamp    14.5208 @     3.46       USD
 542 2011-12-01 16:46:36 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 543 2011-12-01 16:46:38 <UukGoblin> the timestamp of this message is in HHMMSS format
 544 2011-12-01 16:46:49 erus`_ is now known as erus`
 545 2011-12-01 16:47:04 <nanotube> it's utc
 546 2011-12-01 16:48:16 <UukGoblin> my timestamp is UTC too
 547 2011-12-01 16:48:54 <UukGoblin> their clock is probably off, it's a ~4 minute difference
 548 2011-12-01 16:54:26 devrandom has joined
 549 2011-12-01 16:55:34 eueueue has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 550 2011-12-01 17:01:35 Lexa has joined
 551 2011-12-01 17:08:42 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 552 2011-12-01 17:18:21 <gavinandresen> TD: I just committed an updated/rebased OP_EVAL pull request, incorporating most of your code review suggestions.
 553 2011-12-01 17:24:27 Cablesaurus has joined
 554 2011-12-01 17:24:27 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
 555 2011-12-01 17:24:27 Cablesaurus has joined
 556 2011-12-01 17:27:11 dvide has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 557 2011-12-01 17:27:19 dvide has joined
 558 2011-12-01 17:33:32 DontMindMe has joined
 559 2011-12-01 17:34:20 caedes_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 560 2011-12-01 17:36:02 eueueue has joined
 561 2011-12-01 17:36:40 Xunie has quit (Quit: Can God microwave a taco so hot that not even *HE* can eat it without burns?)
 562 2011-12-01 17:38:34 <nanotube> UukGoblin: ah yea probably.
 563 2011-12-01 17:38:55 AlonzoTG has left ()
 564 2011-12-01 17:55:27 <TD> gavinandresen: great!
 565 2011-12-01 17:55:33 <TD> hope it was helpful and not too nitpicky :)
 566 2011-12-01 17:55:59 <TD> devrandom: yeah, enjoy it. wish i could be there. i think there may be another meetup in zurich either in early dec or next year now
 567 2011-12-01 17:57:17 dikidera has joined
 568 2011-12-01 17:57:30 <dikidera> Can someone tell me more about this TX and how it's possible? http://blockexplorer.com/tx/fcd2f712070a895f6a92d5913a3341bcbc15e12a72c3ec44af246291c5ba1d3b#o3
 569 2011-12-01 17:57:43 Kolky has joined
 570 2011-12-01 17:57:45 <dikidera> Afaik, sending 1 satoshi shouldn't be possible
 571 2011-12-01 17:58:12 <TD> there's no limit on how small the payment can be, but you have to provide a fee in order to do it
 572 2011-12-01 17:58:30 <TD> which makes it fairly pointless if you only use a small transaction. in this case the sender paid a fee of 0.02 btc to do that tx
 573 2011-12-01 17:58:59 <TD> (well, unless you find a miner willing to include)
 574 2011-12-01 17:59:02 <Eliel> dikidera: entirely possible for a tx like that to be in the blockchain. As I understand, though, no standard client would accept such a transaction though.
 575 2011-12-01 17:59:26 <dikidera> so what...someone included that in his own block?
 576 2011-12-01 17:59:26 <dikidera> As in he mined it himself to include the tx?
 577 2011-12-01 17:59:28 <Eliel> as in, they would not propagate it nor include it in blocks they're mining.
 578 2011-12-01 17:59:53 <Eliel> dikidera: or alternatively convinced some pool owner to help with it
 579 2011-12-01 17:59:58 <dikidera> Why?
 580 2011-12-01 18:00:01 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 581 2011-12-01 18:00:06 <dikidera> Such a tx is pointless
 582 2011-12-01 18:00:29 <Eliel> well, the amount of txfee paid might mean it's valid though.
 583 2011-12-01 18:00:43 <Eliel> that tx has got 0.0245 in fees
 584 2011-12-01 18:01:27 <Eliel> look at the addresses used. Almost all of them contain a word or acronym of some sort.
 585 2011-12-01 18:02:45 <Eliel> basically, someone claiming loads of addresses for ... what was it called? firstbits?
 586 2011-12-01 18:03:01 <dikidera> firstbits?can you elaborate?
 587 2011-12-01 18:03:50 <Eliel> well, actually, not so sure of firstbits but something similar is my guess.
 588 2011-12-01 18:04:00 <Eliel> wtf and lol seem to be rather common in those addresses
 589 2011-12-01 18:05:00 <Eliel> firstbits (if I remember the name right) is a service that allows you to give it the first few characters of an address and it'll return the first address that was ever seen in the blockchain that starts with those characters
 590 2011-12-01 18:07:08 <Turingi> is it still possible to post transactions to raw keys rather than addresses?
 591 2011-12-01 18:07:17 <Turingi> re
 592 2011-12-01 18:07:19 <Turingi> bitcoinFS
 593 2011-12-01 18:07:28 eueueue has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 594 2011-12-01 18:07:47 <Eliel> Turingi: I would think it is.
 595 2011-12-01 18:07:49 <TD> Turingi: yep
 596 2011-12-01 18:09:13 <Eliel> dikidera: so, the most likely purpose of that mammoth of a transaction is to claim several short firstbits addresses. Speculatively that is. I guess the creator of those addresses expects to sell them for more than that transaction cost.
 597 2011-12-01 18:11:11 ThomasV has joined
 598 2011-12-01 18:11:13 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 599 2011-12-01 18:13:02 <Turingi> is the bitcoin community apprehensive about a more largescale use of prepared transactions (like bitcoinFS)
 600 2011-12-01 18:13:42 <Turingi> it would serve as an interesting globally available and unfalsifiable record set (if the records are old enough)
 601 2011-12-01 18:14:00 <ThomasV> what is bitcoinfs?
 602 2011-12-01 18:14:04 <TD> prepared transactions?
 603 2011-12-01 18:14:22 <TD> if you mean stuffing random files into the block chain, yes the community is "apprehensive" about that
 604 2011-12-01 18:14:31 <Turingi> ThomasV. TD: sending 0.01 BTC to a prepared address or to a prepared key
 605 2011-12-01 18:14:45 <ThomasV> prepared?
 606 2011-12-01 18:14:47 <Turingi> ThomasV: the prepared address or key being some content you want to store
 607 2011-12-01 18:14:47 <TD> because it's abuse. make your own block chain and use merged mining to strengthen it
 608 2011-12-01 18:15:20 <Turingi> ThomasV: the BTC is actually lost, in exchange for making a customized entry in the global block chain
 609 2011-12-01 18:15:24 <TD> you're just hurting bitcoin by trying to abuse it as a filesystem. and you will produce a crappy filesystem too
 610 2011-12-01 18:15:29 wasabi has joined
 611 2011-12-01 18:15:38 <Turingi> the bitcoin client could, however, be modified not to accept these customized addresses
 612 2011-12-01 18:15:49 <ThomasV> great. what is the write latency of your filesystem?
 613 2011-12-01 18:16:22 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 614 2011-12-01 18:16:40 <Turingi> TD: not a crappy filesystem, but a global unfalsifiable registry
 615 2011-12-01 18:16:46 <ThomasV> and how do you remove a file from that filesystem?
 616 2011-12-01 18:16:47 <TD> registry of what?
 617 2011-12-01 18:17:07 <TD> this topic has been discussed many times
 618 2011-12-01 18:17:19 <Turingi> so you could post your ssh pubkeys if there's a protocol (RFC) for that
 619 2011-12-01 18:17:20 <TD> see the forums. if you want to timestamp some content you can send a tx to a hash of that content
 620 2011-12-01 18:17:31 <Turingi> you could use the blockchain to establish a network of trust
 621 2011-12-01 18:17:34 <TD> but doing it on a large scale is a Bad Idea(tm)
 622 2011-12-01 18:17:42 <TD> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alternative_Chains
 623 2011-12-01 18:17:47 <TD> read that to see how you can do it in a better way
 624 2011-12-01 18:18:05 <Turingi> yeah, but alternate blockchains don't have the bitcoin audience
 625 2011-12-01 18:18:37 <TD> that's the whole point. why do you assume bitcoin users care about your filesystem? people who are interested in hosting random content of other people can install your software. merged mining can give you strength, assuming miners care.
 626 2011-12-01 18:18:53 <Turingi> no entity is strong enough to subvert the global chain, at least not in an undetectable way
 627 2011-12-01 18:19:06 <TD> that's absolutely not true
 628 2011-12-01 18:19:17 <TD> anyone who can coerce the top 3 pools can beat the chain, currently. hopefully it'll change in future
 629 2011-12-01 18:19:24 <TD> at any rate, merged mining gives you the ability to have that same strength
 630 2011-12-01 18:19:40 <TD> IF you can convince people your idea is good and they should mine on both (it's free for them, they just have to install your software)
 631 2011-12-01 18:19:41 <Turingi> can an attacker simply replace the blockchain entirely?
 632 2011-12-01 18:19:52 <Turingi> with the current iteration of the client
 633 2011-12-01 18:20:07 <Turingi> you could fix that problem by relying on the current chain as canonical
 634 2011-12-01 18:20:22 <TD> no, but that's not the threat you face. you face the problem of people deleting or re-ordering content transactions (same as bitcoin itself)
 635 2011-12-01 18:21:06 <ThomasV> TD: do you see reasons why large pools would be less influential in the future?
 636 2011-12-01 18:21:28 <TD> i'm hoping eventually something like p2pool would be integrated by gavinandresen into the main client, and documentation would be updated to point people towards using the built-in support
 637 2011-12-01 18:21:53 eueueue has joined
 638 2011-12-01 18:21:54 <gavinandresen> why do I have to do everything....
 639 2011-12-01 18:21:58 <TD> :-)
 640 2011-12-01 18:22:03 <TD> "pulled by"
 641 2011-12-01 18:22:19 <TD> ThomasV: there'll always be large influential miners though.
 642 2011-12-01 18:22:37 <Turingi> technically, someone could subvert bitcoin by subverting the servers that deliver the official client
 643 2011-12-01 18:22:45 <Turingi> if they remain undetected
 644 2011-12-01 18:22:47 <TD> subvert for new users yes
 645 2011-12-01 18:22:58 <gavinandresen> jgarzik has been the "pull stuff relevant to mining" person on the team
 646 2011-12-01 18:22:59 <TD> there is a reproducible build system to try and handle that
 647 2011-12-01 18:23:22 <TD> unfortunately p2pool is a big python app. i guess it'd have to be rewritten in c++ at some point, once stable
 648 2011-12-01 18:27:41 denisx has joined
 649 2011-12-01 18:32:33 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: heh
 650 2011-12-01 18:32:44 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: what issue/pull are people talking about today?
 651 2011-12-01 18:32:49 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 652 2011-12-01 18:33:06 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: luke-jr has been pushing the coinbaser pull.  TD was talking about p2pool...
 653 2011-12-01 18:33:22 <TD> i'm talking about a non-existant pull
 654 2011-12-01 18:33:37 <TD> reimplementing p2pool in c++ and merging with bitcoind would be a big pile of work
 655 2011-12-01 18:33:46 <TD> and it'd need some kind of real website to direct miners there
 656 2011-12-01 18:35:13 <jgarzik> yeah, I hadn't heard about any p2pool-related stuff other than the getmemorypool thing added in 0.5.0
 657 2011-12-01 18:35:40 <jgarzik> coinbaser is a tough call...  I think it will get abused to add crap to the coinbase
 658 2011-12-01 18:35:53 <jgarzik> but we do want to enable merged mining, conservely
 659 2011-12-01 18:35:56 <jgarzik> conversely
 660 2011-12-01 18:36:29 gp5st has joined
 661 2011-12-01 18:36:54 <jgarzik> though I suppose simply creating a block is a big hurdle, at this stage, so block spam isn't as large an issue as it might be theoretically than in practice
 662 2011-12-01 18:37:46 imsaguy2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 663 2011-12-01 18:39:12 <makomk> Someone could probably reuse most of the code from bitcoin when creating blocks; I think that's what the solidcoin spammer did.
 664 2011-12-01 18:40:15 <gmaxwell> makomk: difficulty means computational difficulty.
 665 2011-12-01 18:40:22 imsaguy2 has joined
 666 2011-12-01 18:40:22 imsaguy2 has quit (Changing host)
 667 2011-12-01 18:40:22 imsaguy2 has joined
 668 2011-12-01 18:41:13 <gavinandresen> makomk: I'm testing a fix to the DoSorphans pull, by the way-- I'm pretty sure you're right, it didn't prevent a spammer from sending bogus chains built on very old blocks.
 669 2011-12-01 18:41:14 <makomk> gmaxwell: ah, I see. Still doesn't sound like a huge hurdle; some of the block spam attacks work at difficulty one.
 670 2011-12-01 18:41:46 <gmaxwell> makomk: we can forget those blocks, it's not at all the same problem.
 671 2011-12-01 18:42:00 <gmaxwell> We should probably implement more countermeasures against that general class.
 672 2011-12-01 18:42:20 <makomk> Sorry, doing too many things at once.
 673 2011-12-01 18:42:24 <gmaxwell> So long as the attacker cant make problems in the longest chain— the problem would be a temporary one.
 674 2011-12-01 18:44:15 <luke-jr> jgarzik: the coinbase isn't unlimited.
 675 2011-12-01 18:45:01 larsivi has joined
 676 2011-12-01 18:56:55 <denisx> damn, I can't start the mac bitcoin with -daemon anymore, it crashes with "Bus Error: 10"
 677 2011-12-01 19:00:14 dvide has quit ()
 678 2011-12-01 19:00:18 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 679 2011-12-01 19:02:06 iocor has joined
 680 2011-12-01 19:02:55 <gavinandresen> denisx: bitcoind ?  Works for me....
 681 2011-12-01 19:03:01 chrisb__ has joined
 682 2011-12-01 19:03:51 <makomk> Mac OS X has an unreliable fork(), doesn't it?
 683 2011-12-01 19:04:50 <denisx> gavinandresen: you start the Bitcoin-Qt with -daemon?
 684 2011-12-01 19:05:20 <copumpkin> makomk: unreliable how?
 685 2011-12-01 19:05:21 <gavinandresen> denisx: Oh, Bitcoin-Qt.  No I start that with "open Bitcoin-Qt.app"
 686 2011-12-01 19:05:46 <denisx> gavinandresen: thats not with -daemon, thats the same like a doubleclick
 687 2011-12-01 19:06:22 <gavinandresen> denisx: yup.  Why do you want to run the GUI -daemon?
 688 2011-12-01 19:06:37 <makomk> copumpkin: tends to crash and burn if you're using GUI or desktop-related codde.
 689 2011-12-01 19:06:39 <denisx> gavinandresen: I don't want the gui
 690 2011-12-01 19:07:04 <gavinandresen> denisx: you're not compiling your own bitcoind for the Mac?
 691 2011-12-01 19:07:05 <copumpkin> makomk: oh, that's Cocoa/Carbon that actively spit out a big error message saying don't do it
 692 2011-12-01 19:07:13 <denisx> gavinandresen: no
 693 2011-12-01 19:07:13 <copumpkin> makomk: the OS itself has no issue with it
 694 2011-12-01 19:07:30 <denisx> gavinandresen: in earlier versions it was possible
 695 2011-12-01 19:07:45 <makomk> IIRC the OS has an issue with any kind of forking with threads running or something, can't remember since I don't use it myself.
 696 2011-12-01 19:09:07 <gavinandresen> denisx: I believe you.  It might be broken on all platforms, I'm not sure anybody ever tested GUI -daemon.  Distributing a binary Mac bitcoind is on the TODO list, but is low priority
 697 2011-12-01 19:09:36 <copumpkin> makomk: I've never encountered such an issue, and it's a standard *nix implementation at all the low levels
 698 2011-12-01 19:09:54 <copumpkin> makomk: but if you use the libraries apple endorses, they discourage you from forking
 699 2011-12-01 19:10:19 <copumpkin> regarding threads, their compiler doesn't support thread-local variables in any easy way
 700 2011-12-01 19:10:33 <copumpkin> but that's the only mac OS-specific thing I can think of regarding threads
 701 2011-12-01 19:11:40 <gavinandresen> makomk: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/534 updated.  I moved the checks to check all-blocks-not-building-directly-on-best-block
 702 2011-12-01 19:11:51 <denisx> also on mac the daemon call is deprecated
 703 2011-12-01 19:17:04 eueueue has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 704 2011-12-01 19:21:04 chrisb__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 705 2011-12-01 19:25:33 chrisb__ has joined
 706 2011-12-01 19:28:57 ahbritto has joined
 707 2011-12-01 19:28:57 ahbritto has quit (Changing host)
 708 2011-12-01 19:28:57 ahbritto has joined
 709 2011-12-01 19:36:09 <denisx> jgarzik: is it intentional that you make two calls in pushpoold to valid_auth_hdr for every network?
 710 2011-12-01 19:36:21 <denisx> or is it just a lazy way to get the username again? ;)
 711 2011-12-01 19:37:43 <denisx> getwork
 712 2011-12-01 19:37:51 <denisx> damn you autocorrect
 713 2011-12-01 19:42:41 <forrestv> gavinandresen, if you need a tool to test generating orphan blocks, it could be done very easily by using some of p2pool's modules
 714 2011-12-01 19:43:01 <forrestv> starting an rpc interface trying to generate blocks with a certain template would be a few lines
 715 2011-12-01 19:43:22 <forrestv> (maybe more like 10)
 716 2011-12-01 19:43:25 <gavinandresen> forrestv: thanks, I'll check it out.  Is p2pool on github?
 717 2011-12-01 19:43:48 <forrestv> gavinandresen, yes. https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool
 718 2011-12-01 19:43:59 malaimo has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 719 2011-12-01 19:44:37 malaimo has joined
 720 2011-12-01 19:46:25 <luke-jr> is p2pool free yet?
 721 2011-12-01 19:46:32 <forrestv> luke-jr, yes.
 722 2011-12-01 19:46:38 <luke-jr> what license?
 723 2011-12-01 19:46:42 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 724 2011-12-01 19:47:11 <luke-jr> I don't see one
 725 2011-12-01 19:47:12 <luke-jr> -.-
 726 2011-12-01 19:48:17 dikidera has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 727 2011-12-01 19:48:25 <forrestv> luke-jr, hm. any recommendations?
 728 2011-12-01 19:48:41 <luke-jr> forrestv: BSD?
 729 2011-12-01 19:48:52 <luke-jr> or MIT to match bitcoind maybe
 730 2011-12-01 19:49:26 <denisx> I like BSD
 731 2011-12-01 19:53:29 MimeNarrator has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 732 2011-12-01 19:54:25 MimeNarrator has joined
 733 2011-12-01 19:56:20 eueueu has joined
 734 2011-12-01 20:03:13 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 735 2011-12-01 20:06:21 * luke-jr pokes gavinandresen to merge Bitcoin-Qt signmessage :P
 736 2011-12-01 20:06:34 <gavinandresen> wumpus pulls GUI stuff
 737 2011-12-01 20:07:00 <wumpus> I'm still a bit divided about signmessage
 738 2011-12-01 20:07:10 <luke-jr> wumpus: wtf?
 739 2011-12-01 20:07:26 <luke-jr> what's there to be divided about? >_<
 740 2011-12-01 20:07:32 traviscj has joined
 741 2011-12-01 20:08:50 <helo> use case: you put a deposit address on a billboard (or in a newspaper advertisement), and anyone who can see it can deposit to the address
 742 2011-12-01 20:09:15 <helo> you can't send the product back to them via the bitcoin network obviously, but later they can enter in a signed message into the delivery system to receive their product
 743 2011-12-01 20:09:48 <luke-jr> that sure solves the "waiting for confirmations" problem too :o
 744 2011-12-01 20:10:45 <wumpus> hmm
 745 2011-12-01 20:11:40 * luke-jr ponders if the URI scheme might need an extension for signmessage, so the website can link you to it…
 746 2011-12-01 20:11:41 <wumpus> so you could sign your address and send it?
 747 2011-12-01 20:11:59 <luke-jr> that might be more complex though, since it'd ideally need to give the website the sig back directly
 748 2011-12-01 20:12:08 <luke-jr> wumpus: well, you'd sign more than just your address IMO
 749 2011-12-01 20:12:29 <luke-jr> I always include the current timestamp. Order details (product, etc) make sense too.
 750 2011-12-01 20:13:03 <luke-jr> to automate stuff, the website really needs to provide the message to sign IMO
 751 2011-12-01 20:13:08 <gavinandresen> helo:  I'm not sure I understand that use case.  You sign a message with one of the keys that you used to send to the address on the billboard?
 752 2011-12-01 20:13:10 <wumpus> I keep thinking this makes more sense for a specific application than integrated into the client
 753 2011-12-01 20:13:30 <luke-jr> wumpus: it makes sense for most every application
 754 2011-12-01 20:13:40 <wumpus> it involves so much work at the side of the user if he has to insert all the information into the message himself
 755 2011-12-01 20:13:42 <luke-jr> it proves you paid the bill, not someone else.
 756 2011-12-01 20:13:57 <wumpus> right
 757 2011-12-01 20:14:02 <luke-jr> that's why I was thinking a URI scheme extension might fit
 758 2011-12-01 20:14:16 <luke-jr> even if the user needs to copy and paste the sig back out for now.
 759 2011-12-01 20:14:21 <wumpus> ah I remember what I found wrong with it, it adds a tab, or doesn't it anymore?
 760 2011-12-01 20:14:33 <luke-jr> wumpus: I took that out at your request
 761 2011-12-01 20:14:33 RazielZ has joined
 762 2011-12-01 20:14:49 <wumpus> great, so it's a menu option now?
 763 2011-12-01 20:14:50 <helo> gavinandresen: yes
 764 2011-12-01 20:14:53 <luke-jr> wumpus: now it's only accessible via the menu, or by selecing a Receiving Address on that page and clicking "Sign with"
 765 2011-12-01 20:14:58 <wumpus> right
 766 2011-12-01 20:15:03 <wumpus> much better
 767 2011-12-01 20:15:07 <gavinandresen> helo: ... and how does the user know which addresses were used as inputs for that transaction?
 768 2011-12-01 20:15:17 <helo> gavinandresen: good question :/
 769 2011-12-01 20:15:42 <wumpus> hmm so it's really, really complicated to use
 770 2011-12-01 20:15:48 <luke-jr> perhaps it should also be an option on transactions "Sign with this transaction's source key"
 771 2011-12-01 20:16:00 <luke-jr> wumpus: not complicated for webapps
 772 2011-12-01 20:16:06 <wumpus> maybe the signing should be integrated with the sending itself?
 773 2011-12-01 20:16:10 <luke-jr> which can just tell the user what address they need to sign with
 774 2011-12-01 20:16:18 <luke-jr> wumpus: maybe.
 775 2011-12-01 20:16:40 <wumpus> but yeah otherwise it's kind of impossible to find out ...
 776 2011-12-01 20:16:51 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
 777 2011-12-01 20:16:52 <wumpus> well not impossible but not withing the scope of a UI user :p
 778 2011-12-01 20:16:57 <gavinandresen> "Sign with this address" feels like it too low-level for ordinary users--  "Prove I own this address" or "Prove I sent this transaction" sounds like a better level of abstraction
 779 2011-12-01 20:17:04 <luke-jr> perhaps be able to add two different types to a send: destination/output, and message signature
 780 2011-12-01 20:17:33 <Eliel> yes, it makes more sense as "Prove I sent this"
 781 2011-12-01 20:17:49 <wumpus> yes that'd be better
 782 2011-12-01 20:17:51 <Eliel> although, having to give it a message in that case might feel a bit strange for the user
 783 2011-12-01 20:18:29 ThomasV has joined
 784 2011-12-01 20:18:48 <luke-jr> "Confirm delivery confirmation details"
 785 2011-12-01 20:18:54 <wumpus> well yeah you have to describe who you are in the message otherwise 'I' doesn't make much sense.. it only works to one side though, you could still lie that someone else sent it 
 786 2011-12-01 20:19:03 <helo> so if you send to an address with the "Prove I sent this", it might use some kind of standard identity string that you'd already have entered? name, address, email, phone (whichever checkboxes you fill in)
 787 2011-12-01 20:19:08 <Eliel> or wait, it only proves the message you sign is from you... So yes, it is an intergral part, the message.
 788 2011-12-01 20:19:47 <wumpus> yes it proves that the sender of the message owns the address/sent the transaction
 789 2011-12-01 20:20:06 <wumpus> it does not prove who the sender is
 790 2011-12-01 20:20:09 <luke-jr> probably the message needs to include the specific txid, at least.
 791 2011-12-01 20:20:20 <luke-jr> since eWallets could reuse the same address for different people
 792 2011-12-01 20:20:29 <wumpus> ok this explains why I kind of had trouble wrapping my head around it :-)
 793 2011-12-01 20:20:49 <Eliel> it's kind of difficult to explain in one sentence :)
 794 2011-12-01 20:20:50 <luke-jr> maybe a standard format is needed for messages too >_<
 795 2011-12-01 20:20:52 <wumpus> hm more complications
 796 2011-12-01 20:21:15 <wumpus> yes that was my point too, if you want to enforce a format to the message you really need to integrate this into some applications, not the generic client
 797 2011-12-01 20:21:17 <luke-jr> YYYY-MM-DD@HH:MM:SS TXID: MESSAGE
 798 2011-12-01 20:21:37 <Eliel> perhaps, send authenticated message attached to this transaction?
 799 2011-12-01 20:21:41 <luke-jr> or I guess txid has a timestamp already
 800 2011-12-01 20:21:43 <Eliel> as the action
 801 2011-12-01 20:21:56 <Eliel> txid would then have to be a part of the message
 802 2011-12-01 20:21:57 <wumpus> well then people will think it is sent with the transaction...
 803 2011-12-01 20:22:17 <luke-jr> "Authorize transaction details" ?
 804 2011-12-01 20:22:22 <wumpus> it's attached cryptographically but not in the normal sense
 805 2011-12-01 20:22:48 <Eliel> wumpus: yes, would need auxiliary p2p network for the messages for it to make sense.
 806 2011-12-01 20:22:51 <wumpus> without turning bitcoin into some kind of messenger/email client (which I'm very much against)
 807 2011-12-01 20:23:01 <Eliel> that would automatically propagate the messages.
 808 2011-12-01 20:23:22 <luke-jr> well, I'm assuming in any case the user gets the signature data as is already
 809 2011-12-01 20:23:46 <Eliel> it would be quite handy though and could be implemented in a secure enough way that only participants in the transaction can read the messages too.
 810 2011-12-01 20:24:02 <luke-jr> let people use something out-of-band to communicate the signature
 811 2011-12-01 20:24:03 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 812 2011-12-01 20:24:11 <luke-jr> like their normal email client, or a website
 813 2011-12-01 20:24:18 <wumpus> right
 814 2011-12-01 20:24:25 <wumpus> there's plenty of secure messaging systems already
 815 2011-12-01 20:25:04 <Eliel> wumpus: it's the integration here that's crucial for usability. You can't achieve near the same level usability messaging through another system.
 816 2011-12-01 20:25:06 Nicksasa has joined
 817 2011-12-01 20:25:16 <wumpus> a p2p messaging system is nice but not a thing bitcoin should strive to be
 818 2011-12-01 20:25:24 <Eliel> then again, it doesn't have the official bitcoin client that has the feature.
 819 2011-12-01 20:25:28 <wumpus> the key to secure software is limiting the scope
 820 2011-12-01 20:25:31 <Eliel> *have to be
 821 2011-12-01 20:26:18 <luke-jr> I like "Authorize transaction details"
 822 2011-12-01 20:26:21 <wumpus> I don't really see that as an issue... you're already communicating some other way if you decide to send someone money
 823 2011-12-01 20:26:30 <luke-jr> then just switch to the Sign Message not-a-tab with the correct address
 824 2011-12-01 20:26:43 <luke-jr> maybe not perfect, but gets the job done for now
 825 2011-12-01 20:26:54 <gmaxwell> wumpus: you want a very different network topology for p2p messaging.
 826 2011-12-01 20:27:09 <wumpus> and then you want to prove that you were the person that sent a certain transaction
 827 2011-12-01 20:27:21 lyspooner has joined
 828 2011-12-01 20:27:25 <wumpus> gmaxwell: yes that's another problem
 829 2011-12-01 20:28:08 <wumpus> luke-jr: yes something like that, though I'd really use a window instead of a not-a-tab
 830 2011-12-01 20:28:25 <luke-jr> wumpus: nothing else uses a window…
 831 2011-12-01 20:28:34 <wumpus> transaction details does
 832 2011-12-01 20:28:36 <luke-jr> that's the beauty of Bitcoin-Qt
 833 2011-12-01 20:28:39 <luke-jr> :/
 834 2011-12-01 20:29:00 <helo> "save proof-of-identity token for later"
 835 2011-12-01 20:29:01 <wumpus> for the core functionality I agree
 836 2011-12-01 20:29:06 <wumpus> but this is just a nice side-feature
 837 2011-12-01 20:29:10 <wumpus> probably rarely used
 838 2011-12-01 20:29:40 <wumpus> if it turns out this is the big thing everyone wants to do with bitcoin we can always move it to a tab 
 839 2011-12-01 20:29:43 <Eliel> gmaxwell: yes, hence it would need to be an auxiliary network
 840 2011-12-01 20:29:51 <luke-jr> wumpus: this is a core functionality thing
 841 2011-12-01 20:30:58 <luke-jr> btw, it would be nice if the connections-meter turned green when it was >=8
 842 2011-12-01 20:31:01 <wumpus> sigh...
 843 2011-12-01 20:31:01 <Eliel> gmaxwell: but I'm reasonably convinced this feature will be very important. Mostly because this would allow very secure messaging with very little trouble.
 844 2011-12-01 20:31:17 <wumpus> luke-jr: yes that'd be nice
 845 2011-12-01 20:31:25 <luke-jr> Eliel: nothing here is meant to be encrypted
 846 2011-12-01 20:31:32 <Eliel> gmaxwell: simpler user interface than email.
 847 2011-12-01 20:31:39 <Eliel> luke-jr: I'm not talking just your feature anymore :P
 848 2011-12-01 20:31:51 <wumpus> oh man, yeah let's add secure messaging, why not file transfer now we're add it, and a vpn routing network to avoid censorship
 849 2011-12-01 20:31:55 <gmaxwell> Eliel: by little trouble you mean for the user... but actually making a decenteralized p2p messaging system has never been done, I believe.
 850 2011-12-01 20:32:26 <luke-jr> wumpus: lol
 851 2011-12-01 20:32:29 <gmaxwell> (there are centeralized ones, e.g. icq used to be decenteralized p2p messaging but that didn't go through firewalls so well)
 852 2011-12-01 20:32:29 <wumpus> gmaxwell: there's tor messenger, it kind of is that
 853 2011-12-01 20:32:51 <gmaxwell> wumpus: true, the thing that uses hidden services for each user.
 854 2011-12-01 20:32:56 <wumpus> yep
 855 2011-12-01 20:33:03 <wumpus> torchat it's called I see
 856 2011-12-01 20:33:39 <Eliel> gmaxwell: well, the only thing that is really needed is the right-click integration for the bitcoin transaction list and that the messaging software can access the bitcoin wallet keys :)
 857 2011-12-01 20:34:02 <Eliel> other than that, it could be separate program :)
 858 2011-12-01 20:34:49 <gmaxwell> Eliel: I'm not talking about where the program is.. I mean you're presupposing a p2p messaging system of a kind which has almost (*torchat excluded) never existed.
 859 2011-12-01 20:35:35 <Eliel> gmaxwell: yes, that's why I'm enthusiastic about the idea. But you're right, it can't start out being integrated deeply into Bitcoin.
 860 2011-12-01 20:36:32 localhost has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 861 2011-12-01 20:36:44 <wumpus> yes I'm not saying it's not a good idea, there's probably a lot of people that would like a secure p2p messaging system, but it's pretty orthagonal to bitcoin
 862 2011-12-01 20:37:40 <wumpus> and when it exists bitcoin could integrate as a plugin or so
 863 2011-12-01 20:37:51 <gmaxwell> Eliel: the torchat thing needs access to the tor hidden services keys too.
 864 2011-12-01 20:38:18 <wumpus> yes, it launches its own tor instance
 865 2011-12-01 20:38:24 <gmaxwell> (because when you connect to someone you must do a signature to prove that you're who you say you are)
 866 2011-12-01 20:39:15 <Eliel> wumpus: orthogonal, yes, I just see great potential with integrating such with bitcoin. If you're going to be keeping a bunch of encryption keys highly secure anyway, might as well just use them for messaging too.
 867 2011-12-01 20:39:19 <wumpus> indeed, as tor has no sender address
 868 2011-12-01 20:39:57 <Eliel> that way, when you give someone a bitcoin address, you're basically also giving them a mailing address at the same time.
 869 2011-12-01 20:40:05 localhost has joined
 870 2011-12-01 20:40:35 <luke-jr> wumpus: sorry. maybe merging QR code generator is easier for now :P
 871 2011-12-01 20:40:48 <wumpus> yes, QR code generator is on the list to be merged
 872 2011-12-01 20:40:58 <luke-jr> well, so was signmessage ;)
 873 2011-12-01 20:41:00 Xunie has joined
 874 2011-12-01 20:41:38 <wumpus> well yeah I'm not against signmessage
 875 2011-12-01 20:42:05 <wumpus> I know it has its uses, I just don't agree with you that it'score functionality :p
 876 2011-12-01 20:42:35 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * reb5fff9 / (13 files in 3 dirs): Moved checkpoints out of main, to prep for using them to help prevent DoS attacks - http://git.io/tW10vw
 877 2011-12-01 20:42:36 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r10fd7f6 / (5 files in 2 dirs): Orphan block fill-up-memory attack prevention - http://git.io/s89-zw
 878 2011-12-01 20:42:37 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r43f20bb / (13 files in 3 dirs):
 879 2011-12-01 20:42:37 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Merge pull request #534 from gavinandresen/DoSorphans
 880 2011-12-01 20:42:37 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Denial-of-service prevention: low-difficulty blocks - http://git.io/RYFb4g
 881 2011-12-01 20:42:40 <Eliel> I think being able to easily prove you made a transaction is one quite crucial feature bitcoin needs to have.
 882 2011-12-01 20:43:17 <wumpus> yes... but it needs to be usable as well
 883 2011-12-01 20:43:29 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: so does that depend on the DoS prevention merge back a while ago?
 884 2011-12-01 20:43:38 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: yes
 885 2011-12-01 20:43:50 <luke-jr> wumpus: better slightly-unusable than impossible IMO
 886 2011-12-01 20:43:59 <luke-jr> wumpus: perfect is the enemy of the good enough
 887 2011-12-01 20:44:14 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: so would you say, I should backport both, or neither? :P
 888 2011-12-01 20:44:22 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: not impossible, just run -server and use RPC commands to sign.......
 889 2011-12-01 20:44:42 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: up to you; I don't have a good sense for how many people are using 0.4.1
 890 2011-12-01 20:44:47 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: RPC is for applications.
 891 2011-12-01 20:45:16 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: you claimed it was impossible without a GUI, I'm just saying you're wrong.
 892 2011-12-01 20:45:33 <wumpus> which is good, as applications know how to format the messages to be signed
 893 2011-12-01 20:45:34 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: impossible with just Bitcoin-Qt ;)
 894 2011-12-01 20:46:02 <luke-jr> wumpus: so do users, when the website tells them
 895 2011-12-01 20:46:34 <luke-jr> before I put up that Bitcoin-Qt with Signmessage, people were getting stuck with it a lot
 896 2011-12-01 20:53:07 davout has joined
 897 2011-12-01 20:56:02 <Eliel> gavinandresen: for most people it might as well be impossible if it's not in the gui :)
 898 2011-12-01 20:57:12 <gavinandresen> Eliel: yup.  I think I'm with wumpus on this one, though, unless it is easier to use it will basically be impossible anyway, even in the GUI.  And more stuff in the GUI makes the app harder for everybody to use.
 899 2011-12-01 20:57:32 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: the current implementation is already proven to be usable to some degree
 900 2011-12-01 21:02:34 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * rf81ce5b / src/bitcoinrpc.cpp : Speed up RPC authentication (reworked pull from Joel Katz) - http://git.io/CUmBow https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/f81ce5bd6d1008f245a57cb4a1b3c102bacaf530
 901 2011-12-01 21:02:35 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r173efb1 / src/bitcoinrpc.cpp : Merge pull request #670 from gavinandresen/rpcauth_speedup ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/173efb1865e271dede53bcdff7ee2e189df07aa4
 902 2011-12-01 21:03:42 caedes_ has joined
 903 2011-12-01 21:11:07 <denisx> how about adding http://pastebin.com/TFRimLS5 to the CBlock class in main.h and using it in IncrementExtraNonce?
 904 2011-12-01 21:11:40 <denisx> it speeds up the treebuild from O(n2-1) to O(logn)
 905 2011-12-01 21:11:46 <luke-jr> denisx: make a pull request :p
 906 2011-12-01 21:11:50 Clipse has joined
 907 2011-12-01 21:12:34 <makomk> 21:13 <+TimothyA> blk0001.dat is 9GB :|
 908 2011-12-01 21:12:41 <makomk> ^ solidcoin lols.
 909 2011-12-01 21:14:32 <makomk> Has anyone tested the code that's meant to split the block file at 1GB or wherever it is?
 910 2011-12-01 21:15:51 bobke has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 911 2011-12-01 21:17:36 bobke has joined
 912 2011-12-01 21:18:33 <Eliel> solidcoin blockchain is already at 9GB? whoa.
 913 2011-12-01 21:20:05 <makomk> Not exactly. They have a nasty probglem with orphan block spam.
 914 2011-12-01 21:26:30 <copumpkin> wait, solidcoin is still alive?
 915 2011-12-01 21:27:31 <luke-jr> lol
 916 2011-12-01 21:29:18 HaltingState has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 917 2011-12-01 21:29:25 <_Fireball> night
 918 2011-12-01 21:29:37 _Fireball has quit (Quit:  Try HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <-)
 919 2011-12-01 21:29:42 <makomk> That depends on your definitions of "soldicoin" and "alive"
 920 2011-12-01 21:30:38 osmosis has joined
 921 2011-12-01 21:33:01 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 922 2011-12-01 21:33:54 eueueu has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 923 2011-12-01 21:34:28 marf_away has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 924 2011-12-01 21:34:56 denisx has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 925 2011-12-01 21:35:03 denisx has joined
 926 2011-12-01 21:45:15 HaltingState has joined
 927 2011-12-01 21:46:21 amiller has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 928 2011-12-01 21:50:29 HaltingState has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 929 2011-12-01 21:58:42 lyspooner has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 930 2011-12-01 22:02:20 jav__ has joined
 931 2011-12-01 22:03:09 flok has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
 932 2011-12-01 22:05:01 eueueue has joined
 933 2011-12-01 22:14:25 abragin has quit ()
 934 2011-12-01 22:17:52 <[eval]> osmosis: sorry, was testing a little against your bitcoin node (seeing what IP addresses show up in the version message)
 935 2011-12-01 22:18:04 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 936 2011-12-01 22:18:12 <osmosis> np
 937 2011-12-01 22:18:40 <osmosis> let me know if you see anything interesting
 938 2011-12-01 22:18:43 * [eval] is playing around with the protocol a little bit in python (w/twisted)
 939 2011-12-01 22:19:23 <[eval]> i'll put it up eventually but it's really just messing around
 940 2011-12-01 22:19:33 <osmosis> [eval], ive been wanting to play with bitcoin and python as well. can you point me to any starter code?
 941 2011-12-01 22:19:46 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 942 2011-12-01 22:20:16 <gavinandresen> osmosis: I've got some twisted code here: https://github.com/gavinandresen/Bitcoin-protocol-test-harness
 943 2011-12-01 22:20:16 <[eval]> osmosis: i'm staying away from anyone else's code... making mine public domain (specifically, unlicense) so i'm doing clean-room... but i think Abe is in python
 944 2011-12-01 22:20:30 <[eval]> oh yeah, that too!
 945 2011-12-01 22:20:34 <osmosis> gavinandresen, thx
 946 2011-12-01 22:20:35 <[eval]> but i'm still staying away :P
 947 2011-12-01 22:21:18 <osmosis> yah, i was talking with the electrum guys about Abe a bit. they use it
 948 2011-12-01 22:21:26 <[eval]> yep
 949 2011-12-01 22:23:06 <[eval]> i'm writing mainly just a protocol implementation at this point... so i can pass well-formatted messages with ease, and make something similar to transactionradar (but different)
 950 2011-12-01 22:23:10 flok has joined
 951 2011-12-01 22:26:19 etotheipi_ has joined
 952 2011-12-01 22:27:04 <[eval]> and i can experiment with a few other things
 953 2011-12-01 22:27:06 <[eval]> on that note, time to go home
 954 2011-12-01 22:27:25 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 955 2011-12-01 22:30:17 sipa has joined
 956 2011-12-01 22:31:15 eueueue has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 957 2011-12-01 22:32:55 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 958 2011-12-01 22:33:05 E-sense has joined
 959 2011-12-01 22:33:44 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 960 2011-12-01 22:35:12 tower has joined
 961 2011-12-01 22:37:00 <luke-jr> ]later tell theymos opinion for 0.4.x: should I backport the anti-DoS traps?
 962 2011-12-01 22:37:07 <luke-jr> ;;later tell theymos opinion for 0.4.x: should I backport the anti-DoS traps?
 963 2011-12-01 22:37:07 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
 964 2011-12-01 22:40:20 slush has joined
 965 2011-12-01 22:40:38 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
 966 2011-12-01 22:41:56 md2k7 has joined
 967 2011-12-01 22:42:21 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 968 2011-12-01 22:42:27 <md2k7> Can someone explain to me what just happened on the blockchain (blocks 155619, 155620 according to blockexplorer.com)?
 969 2011-12-01 22:42:47 <md2k7> Someone found two blocks in succession and announced the second before the first one?
 970 2011-12-01 22:43:03 <md2k7> How did the second get accepted before the first one, if it is based on it?
 971 2011-12-01 22:43:04 <makomk> Someone's clock is slightly out.
 972 2011-12-01 22:43:33 <md2k7> Oh, so the "time" is actually encoded by the miner in the block?
 973 2011-12-01 22:43:39 <jrmithdobbs> yes
 974 2011-12-01 22:44:00 <md2k7> OK, that explains it... thanks
 975 2011-12-01 22:45:57 Diablo-D3 has joined
 976 2011-12-01 22:46:00 jav__ has quit (Quit: Verlassend)
 977 2011-12-01 22:48:00 PK has quit ()
 978 2011-12-01 22:48:18 <gmaxwell> The time is constrained to be at least 1 second after the median of the last 10 blocks, and no further than 2 hours in the future from any node accepting it.
 979 2011-12-01 22:48:27 <gmaxwell> But other than that, miners can put whatever time they want there.
 980 2011-12-01 22:49:16 graingert has joined
 981 2011-12-01 22:49:45 <graingert> is there any way to bandwith throttle bitcoin-qt ?
 982 2011-12-01 22:49:50 iocor has joined
 983 2011-12-01 22:50:20 <graingert> as I think it might be intermittently consuming all my upstream connection
 984 2011-12-01 22:50:23 vrs has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 985 2011-12-01 22:50:31 <graingert> (can it do that)
 986 2011-12-01 22:51:34 Beremat has joined
 987 2011-12-01 22:51:59 <luke-jr> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53505.0
 988 2011-12-01 22:52:06 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
 989 2011-12-01 22:52:35 HaltingState has joined
 990 2011-12-01 22:52:35 HaltingState has quit (Changing host)
 991 2011-12-01 22:52:35 HaltingState has joined
 992 2011-12-01 22:52:52 <graingert> what are impossible orphan blocks
 993 2011-12-01 22:53:11 <luke-jr> graingert: orphan blocks with like difficulty 1
 994 2011-12-01 22:53:14 <graingert> valid low-difficulty blocks
 995 2011-12-01 22:53:21 <graingert> (maybe built on top of an early part of the block chain)
 996 2011-12-01 22:53:38 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 997 2011-12-01 22:54:10 <graingert> I think an exponential ban would be cool
 998 2011-12-01 22:54:27 <luke-jr> graingert: I am not writing new code. Just backporting or not.
 999 2011-12-01 22:54:31 <graingert> I know
1000 2011-12-01 22:56:34 btc_novice has left ()
1001 2011-12-01 22:58:29 storrgie has joined
1002 2011-12-01 22:58:57 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
1003 2011-12-01 22:59:57 md2k7 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1004 2011-12-01 23:01:44 TD has joined
1005 2011-12-01 23:02:20 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: You would be able to answer this best: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53505.msg637681#msg637681
1006 2011-12-01 23:06:03 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1007 2011-12-01 23:06:19 oww has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1008 2011-12-01 23:06:27 oww has joined
1009 2011-12-01 23:06:52 devrandom has joined
1010 2011-12-01 23:07:18 md2k7 has joined
1011 2011-12-01 23:07:47 davout has joined
1012 2011-12-01 23:11:00 md2k7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1013 2011-12-01 23:18:18 erus` has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 8.0/20111104165243])
1014 2011-12-01 23:19:13 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1015 2011-12-01 23:19:44 zeiris has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1016 2011-12-01 23:20:19 xxxxxxxxxx has joined
1017 2011-12-01 23:20:35 xxxxxxxxxx has left ()
1018 2011-12-01 23:22:24 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1019 2011-12-01 23:24:15 zeiris has joined
1020 2011-12-01 23:25:55 freewil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1021 2011-12-01 23:26:51 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1022 2011-12-01 23:32:39 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1023 2011-12-01 23:33:11 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
1024 2011-12-01 23:33:21 TheSeven has joined
1025 2011-12-01 23:38:18 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1026 2011-12-01 23:40:20 amiller has joined
1027 2011-12-01 23:44:41 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
1028 2011-12-01 23:47:26 graingert has joined
1029 2011-12-01 23:49:52 iocor has joined
1030 2011-12-01 23:53:44 <Diablo-D3> dwolla transactions under $10 are now free
1031 2011-12-01 23:54:15 b4epoche_ has joined