1 2011-12-02 00:03:04 AStove has quit ()
2 2011-12-02 00:03:48 theorb has joined
3 2011-12-02 00:04:35 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
4 2011-12-02 00:04:49 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
5 2011-12-02 00:05:44 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, that makes me highly suspicious
6 2011-12-02 00:06:27 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit clearly does not understand volume
7 2011-12-02 00:06:45 <phantomcircuit> lol
8 2011-12-02 00:06:57 <phantomcircuit> WHAT WE LOSE IN SALES WELL MAKE UP IN VOLUME!
9 2011-12-02 00:07:12 <sipa> free * volume = free
10 2011-12-02 00:07:19 <Diablo-D3> exactly
11 2011-12-02 00:07:21 <phantomcircuit> whoooosh
12 2011-12-02 00:07:28 <Diablo-D3> it costs them nothing per transactions
13 2011-12-02 00:07:33 <Diablo-D3> its the big ones that actually do cost them
14 2011-12-02 00:08:09 <phantomcircuit> fedwire charges them per transaction not by amount
15 2011-12-02 00:08:23 <phantomcircuit> so their fee structure is now completely the opposite of what would make sense
16 2011-12-02 00:08:41 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: no
17 2011-12-02 00:08:52 <Diablo-D3> they dont charge them per transaction, they charge them for a bunch of transactions at once
18 2011-12-02 00:11:32 freewil has joined
19 2011-12-02 00:11:32 freewil has quit (Changing host)
20 2011-12-02 00:11:32 freewil has joined
21 2011-12-02 00:15:27 eueueue has joined
22 2011-12-02 00:18:28 pumpkin has joined
23 2011-12-02 00:18:30 wasabi2 has joined
24 2011-12-02 00:19:17 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
25 2011-12-02 00:20:29 pumpkin is now known as copumpkin_
26 2011-12-02 00:21:11 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
27 2011-12-02 00:21:15 copumpkin_ is now known as copumpkin
28 2011-12-02 00:25:35 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
29 2011-12-02 00:33:07 mps has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
30 2011-12-02 00:33:35 E-sense has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
31 2011-12-02 00:33:45 cuqa has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
32 2011-12-02 00:33:49 pasky has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
33 2011-12-02 00:33:55 E-sense has joined
34 2011-12-02 00:33:56 pasky has joined
35 2011-12-02 00:36:11 wolfspraul has joined
36 2011-12-02 00:36:23 theorbtwo has joined
37 2011-12-02 00:37:06 cuqa has joined
38 2011-12-02 00:37:06 cuqa has quit (Changing host)
39 2011-12-02 00:37:06 cuqa has joined
40 2011-12-02 00:37:08 <graingert> !ticker
41 2011-12-02 00:37:09 <gribble> Best bid: 3.07, Best ask: 3.09, Bid-ask spread: 0.02, Last trade: 3.09, 24 hour volume: 61269, 24 hour low: 2.96302, 24 hour high: 3.14
42 2011-12-02 00:40:01 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
43 2011-12-02 00:43:09 toffoo has joined
44 2011-12-02 00:43:09 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
45 2011-12-02 00:44:25 mpr has joined
46 2011-12-02 00:45:30 b4epoche_ has joined
47 2011-12-02 00:45:56 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
48 2011-12-02 00:46:12 wolfspraul has joined
49 2011-12-02 00:46:43 eueueue has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
50 2011-12-02 00:54:21 Kolky has quit (Quit: Bye bye!)
51 2011-12-02 01:05:09 karnac has joined
52 2011-12-02 01:11:44 crazy_imp has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
53 2011-12-02 01:16:16 crazy_imp has joined
54 2011-12-02 01:17:17 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
55 2011-12-02 01:19:44 wasabi has joined
56 2011-12-02 01:20:21 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
57 2011-12-02 01:22:36 dvide has joined
58 2011-12-02 01:23:55 cronopio has quit (Quit: leaving)
59 2011-12-02 01:25:05 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
60 2011-12-02 01:25:27 wolfspraul has joined
61 2011-12-02 01:25:42 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
62 2011-12-02 01:26:27 Neskia has joined
63 2011-12-02 01:27:07 Nesetalis has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
64 2011-12-02 01:31:23 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
65 2011-12-02 01:32:18 Neskia is now known as Nesetalis
66 2011-12-02 01:34:29 MobiusL_ has joined
67 2011-12-02 01:34:40 Lunaqus has joined
68 2011-12-02 01:34:48 <Lunaqus> how do you start a pool?
69 2011-12-02 01:35:12 <gmaxwell> open a faucet and put something under it to catch the water?
70 2011-12-02 01:35:13 <gmaxwell> ;)
71 2011-12-02 01:35:24 <Lunaqus> your funny :P
72 2011-12-02 01:35:34 <gmaxwell> My funny what?
73 2011-12-02 01:35:43 <Lunaqus> lol
74 2011-12-02 01:35:53 <Lunaqus> how do I start a mining pool please?
75 2011-12-02 01:35:54 <gmaxwell> In any case, you use software like pushpoold.
76 2011-12-02 01:36:13 <gmaxwell> And you write a bunch of interface software to handle doing payouts to people.
77 2011-12-02 01:37:50 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
78 2011-12-02 01:39:30 <CIA-100> bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib: Stefan Thomas master * rbbd8680 / build/bitcoinjs-min.js : Build updated. - http://git.io/v_S6HQ https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/commit/bbd86803e664d178470969014bc9269f76477592
79 2011-12-02 01:44:47 skeledrew has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
80 2011-12-02 01:44:59 skeledrew has joined
81 2011-12-02 01:47:05 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
82 2011-12-02 01:47:42 graingert has joined
83 2011-12-02 01:49:09 DontMindMe has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
84 2011-12-02 01:54:42 Bwild has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
85 2011-12-02 01:55:38 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
86 2011-12-02 01:58:14 ByteCoin has joined
87 2011-12-02 01:58:33 <ByteCoin> ;;seen gavinandresen
88 2011-12-02 01:58:33 <gribble> gavinandresen was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 3 hours, 38 minutes, and 16 seconds ago: <gavinandresen> osmosis: I've got some twisted code here: https://github.com/gavinandresen/Bitcoin-protocol-test-harness
89 2011-12-02 01:58:45 vragnaroda is now known as Staatsfeind
90 2011-12-02 01:58:47 wolfspra1l has joined
91 2011-12-02 01:58:52 <ByteCoin> ping gavin?
92 2011-12-02 01:58:56 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
93 2011-12-02 01:59:04 wolfspra1l has quit (Client Quit)
94 2011-12-02 01:59:27 wolfspraul has joined
95 2011-12-02 02:12:13 <luke-jr> Lunaqus: why bother?
96 2011-12-02 02:12:48 <SomeoneWeird> ^^
97 2011-12-02 02:16:29 Bwild has joined
98 2011-12-02 02:18:46 wasabi2 has joined
99 2011-12-02 02:19:54 magn3ts has joined
100 2011-12-02 02:20:08 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
101 2011-12-02 02:22:50 Staatsfeind is now known as vragnaroda
102 2011-12-02 02:26:32 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
103 2011-12-02 02:30:54 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
104 2011-12-02 02:34:31 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
105 2011-12-02 02:35:15 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
106 2011-12-02 02:35:59 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
107 2011-12-02 02:36:37 Turingi has joined
108 2011-12-02 02:37:03 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
109 2011-12-02 02:37:16 graingert has joined
110 2011-12-02 02:38:09 toffoo has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
111 2011-12-02 02:41:48 <phantomcircuit> slush, hey
112 2011-12-02 02:41:48 <phantomcircuit> slush, you around?
113 2011-12-02 02:42:00 dvide_ has joined
114 2011-12-02 02:42:10 dvide has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
115 2011-12-02 02:43:37 <slush> phantomcircuit: yes
116 2011-12-02 02:43:55 <phantomcircuit> slush, could you add intersango to sierrachart?
117 2011-12-02 02:44:05 <slush> is intersango on bitcoincharts?
118 2011-12-02 02:45:03 <slush> phantomcircuit: ^
119 2011-12-02 02:45:47 <phantomcircuit> yes
120 2011-12-02 02:45:56 <slush> phantomcircuit: then it's in the sierra already
121 2011-12-02 02:46:01 <slush> see -s parameter
122 2011-12-02 02:46:11 <phantomcircuit> ah
123 2011-12-02 02:46:23 <phantomcircuit> neat
124 2011-12-02 02:48:14 <slush> phantomcircuit: works?
125 2011-12-02 02:48:31 <slush> phantomcircuit: to be honest, I didn't test it for the last release. But it should work without problems
126 2011-12-02 02:50:56 <ByteCoin> Does anyone know where I could find the proposed standard scripts for multisignature transactions please?
127 2011-12-02 02:52:00 Beremat has quit (Quit: ( www.nnscript.com :: NoNameScript 4.22 :: www.esnation.com ))
128 2011-12-02 02:53:33 <etotheipi_> ByteCoin, I JUST posted to the end of the BIP 0010 thread ...
129 2011-12-02 02:53:44 <phantomcircuit> slush, no idea im on a linux netbook w/o wine
130 2011-12-02 02:53:57 <etotheipi_> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48215.0, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0011
131 2011-12-02 02:54:08 <etotheipi_> (err... BIP 0011 thread)
132 2011-12-02 02:55:00 <etotheipi_> ByteCoin, a few posts from the bottom of the thread, I laid exactly how I believe those multi-sig txs to work, and so far no one told me it's wrong
133 2011-12-02 02:55:20 <etotheipi_> amusingly, I actually based that on a thread I read *from you* back in April
134 2011-12-02 02:56:31 <ByteCoin> I believe your multisignature transactions are unlikely to be correct as they do not deal with the hashes of the public keys.... thanks though..
135 2011-12-02 02:56:47 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
136 2011-12-02 02:56:50 <etotheipi_> ByteCoin, what do you mean?
137 2011-12-02 02:56:59 <ByteCoin> There was a discussion document .. I've lost it.
138 2011-12-02 02:57:03 theymos has joined
139 2011-12-02 02:57:09 <etotheipi_> the proposed standard ONLY includes public-key Multi-sig txs
140 2011-12-02 02:57:14 <etotheipi_> no public key hashes
141 2011-12-02 02:57:31 <ByteCoin> Oh! That's a change from what was being discussed before
142 2011-12-02 02:57:50 dan__ has joined
143 2011-12-02 02:57:51 btginsb has joined
144 2011-12-02 02:57:57 <ByteCoin> Theymos, do YOU know what the standard multisig transactions scripts are?
145 2011-12-02 02:58:04 <btginsb> anyone have experience with mtgox api?
146 2011-12-02 02:58:06 <etotheipi_> there's a bunch of multi-sig transactions I extracted from the testnet that do what you're talking about (uses the hashes, and checks them)... I can link you to them if you want to see them, but they won't be part of the std
147 2011-12-02 02:58:14 <etotheipi_> they're big as hell
148 2011-12-02 02:58:17 <theymos> luke-jr: No, I don't think it should be backported. In case there's something terribly wrong with the anti-DoS measures, it'd be nice to not have the entire network fail.
149 2011-12-02 02:58:31 <theymos> ByteCoin: checkmultisig.
150 2011-12-02 02:59:40 <btginsb> can anyone help with the mtgox api?
151 2011-12-02 03:01:54 <luke-jr> theymos: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53505.0
152 2011-12-02 03:02:04 <luke-jr> btginsb: try #Mtgox maybe
153 2011-12-02 03:02:11 <btginsb> its dead over there
154 2011-12-02 03:02:19 <btginsb> their support sucks
155 2011-12-02 03:03:01 <btginsb> i havent changed any of my code, yet i cant seem to access the api. tried changing accounts, computers, even tethered to my phone to use a diff IP
156 2011-12-02 03:03:27 <luke-jr> btginsb: give em a little more time, they're just waking up
157 2011-12-02 03:03:51 <luke-jr> (well ok, it's actually about noonâ¦)
158 2011-12-02 03:05:18 somuchwin2 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
159 2011-12-02 03:06:25 somuchwin has joined
160 2011-12-02 03:09:30 <phantomcircuit> btginsb, their order listing api was 100% broken for open orders earlier
161 2011-12-02 03:09:34 <phantomcircuit> but i think they fixed it?
162 2011-12-02 03:10:03 <etotheipi_> If anyone else is interested, I extracted all the nonstd scripts from the testnet: https://gist.github.com/1329788, and also laid out the exact stack-state at each opcode evaluation (could be educational): https://gist.github.com/1421550
163 2011-12-02 03:10:45 <btginsb> well the problem is the trading api for me
164 2011-12-02 03:11:00 <phantomcircuit> id suspect they broke lots of stuff
165 2011-12-02 03:11:12 <etotheipi_> all those scripts check public key *hashes* in the multi-sig... but none of them will be standard as far as I know.
166 2011-12-02 03:11:18 <upb> no worries, atleast we have the cool new ui design
167 2011-12-02 03:12:41 <phantomcircuit> lold
168 2011-12-02 03:13:23 <theymos> etotheipi_: Those TOALTSTACK ones are IIRC smaller than checkmultisig for multi-sig address transactions.
169 2011-12-02 03:15:28 <etotheipi_> theymos, do you mean less bytes-per-script? I was more concerned with actual opcodes-per-script because I'm concerned about complexity
170 2011-12-02 03:16:16 <theymos> Yes, fewer bytes. I'm not sure that a checkmultisig solution would have fewer opcodes, either.
171 2011-12-02 03:16:47 <etotheipi_> even if you count 20-opcodes-per-OP_CHECKMULTISIG I think it's less
172 2011-12-02 03:17:29 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: I wouldn't worry so much about the opcodes as much as the signature/hash operations.
173 2011-12-02 03:17:35 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
174 2011-12-02 03:17:48 [7] has joined
175 2011-12-02 03:17:53 <etotheipi_> the OP_CHECKMULTISIG is remarkably simple... you just dump the public keys and sigs in there... the ones that I linked from testnet are 40+ OPCODES
176 2011-12-02 03:18:29 <gmaxwell> Presumably in some future where the computing time of evaluting scripts mattered someone could write something to JIT scripts into native code... and require higher fees on unusual scripts that can't be jitted or don't match a previously cached jit template.
177 2011-12-02 03:18:37 <etotheipi_> are the scripts that I posted evaluated more efficiently than the OP_CHECKMULTISIG scripts?
178 2011-12-02 03:18:38 <gmaxwell> 'simple'
179 2011-12-02 03:19:03 <gmaxwell> You're ignoring the several million cpu cycles required by carefully tuned code to validate a signature.
180 2011-12-02 03:19:32 <theymos> etotheipi_: checkmultisig is clearly better for public keys, but it's hard to use it with addresses.
181 2011-12-02 03:19:45 <etotheipi_> how am I ignoring it? I recognize that's slow... but no matter how you construct the 2-of-3 tx, you're going to have to verify 2 or 3 signatures
182 2011-12-02 03:20:29 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: because the rest of the opcodes are ~irrelevant compared to that (assuming a sufficiently efficient implementation)
183 2011-12-02 03:21:20 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, I see what's going on here... I was concerned more about the max-opcodes-per-block limit... not the evaluation speed: I figured the evaluation speed would be identical because both script types have the same number of sigs to verify
184 2011-12-02 03:21:42 <etotheipi_> ...unless the implementations are different
185 2011-12-02 03:21:46 <gmaxwell> theymos: you really shouldn't be using it with addresses in any case. If someone didn't give you the exact transaction template they probably won't reconize it as belonging to them.
186 2011-12-02 03:22:05 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: oh. I'm sorry for misunderstanding you.
187 2011-12-02 03:23:02 <etotheipi_> no worries, I wasn't clear
188 2011-12-02 03:23:33 <etotheipi_> I was just reading a post about the max op-codes per block, and I assumed everyone else was on the same wavelength
189 2011-12-02 03:23:34 <theymos> gmaxwell: Is the current plan to do this stuff using OP_EVAL?
190 2011-12-02 03:24:19 <gmaxwell> Yes. Well, thats gavin's grand plan. I'm not sure what the status of the support is for that in the broader community.
191 2011-12-02 03:24:22 <gmaxwell> I like it.
192 2011-12-02 03:24:29 <theymos> I also like it.
193 2011-12-02 03:25:20 <gmaxwell> I also like that it moves the bulk of many kinds of complicated scripts to the inputâ which can always be pruned right away.
194 2011-12-02 03:25:34 <etotheipi_> I'm working on a client that will handle/detect/construct the M-of-N-using-OPCHECKMULTISIG transactions... OP_EVAL is a lot harder to support
195 2011-12-02 03:26:05 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: once you can validate it, I don't see why its any harder. â and if you can't validate it, you won't be able to be a full node on a network that uses it.
196 2011-12-02 03:26:07 <theymos> The opcode counting method could be changed for OP_EVAL input if that's a problem. Count everything but signatures as 0.01 or something.
197 2011-12-02 03:26:17 <gmaxwell> theymos: that was part of the planâ I thought.
198 2011-12-02 03:26:27 <theymos> Oh, I hadn't heard about that.
199 2011-12-02 03:26:32 <gmaxwell> well, not that specific change but changing the counting.
200 2011-12-02 03:26:53 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, it's because I have to implement the new op-code and [controlled] recusion in the scripting engine...
201 2011-12-02 03:27:06 <etotheipi_> I guess it's not THAT bad, but it's not trivial
202 2011-12-02 03:27:19 <luke-jr> theymos: would you also object to a modified backport of the orphan-flood fix which has the client-ban code removed?
203 2011-12-02 03:27:36 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: not really terrible on the scale of everything else you need to get right.
204 2011-12-02 03:27:56 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, except that everything else I need to get right is already implemented... OP_EVAL is not
205 2011-12-02 03:28:05 <theymos> luke-jr: Backporting should be avoided unless it's likely to be a serious problem.
206 2011-12-02 03:28:25 <luke-jr> theymos: without the fix, it leaves the client open to attack
207 2011-12-02 03:28:35 <etotheipi_> I finished my scripting engine months ago... and I don't have to touch it to support OP_CHECKMULTISIG
208 2011-12-02 03:28:43 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: yes. But thats true of any change or improvement, I hope you recognize that that line of thinking has somewhat poisonous conclusions.
209 2011-12-02 03:28:59 <theymos> luke-jr: Then it should be backported.
210 2011-12-02 03:29:49 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: e.g. that there can't be any improvements _at all_ no mater how significant, because other people will need to do some work.
211 2011-12-02 03:29:50 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, I know what you are saying... my issue is that I want to provide support for OP_CMS in my client, and it seems easier to me than OP_EVAL which I plan to do later
212 2011-12-02 03:30:57 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: It sounds fairly likely that the OP_EVAL will eventually become the norm. You can get ahead of thatâ or you can do something a bit easier now, but have to do it over against later.
213 2011-12-02 03:31:14 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, I'm not convinced of that at all
214 2011-12-02 03:31:32 <etotheipi_> but I haven't been on the bleeding edge of this thought-train, though
215 2011-12-02 03:31:53 <etotheipi_> I was under the impression that OP_CHECKMULTISIG was somewhat complimentary to OP_EVAL
216 2011-12-02 03:32:08 <gmaxwell> I think the storage argument alone will strongly discourage the use of any transaction output scripts which are not either classic standard transactions or OP_EVAL.
217 2011-12-02 03:32:15 osmosis has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
218 2011-12-02 03:32:38 <etotheipi_> obviously, there is redundancy in what they can do, but OP_EVAL does not allow one to detect their own transactions easily
219 2011-12-02 03:32:47 <gmaxwell> (because it closes a lot of 'stuffing random data in the blockchain' issues)
220 2011-12-02 03:32:50 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: sure it does.
221 2011-12-02 03:32:54 <etotheipi_> if what you were saying was true, I would expect Gavin to forego BIP 0011
222 2011-12-02 03:33:02 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: you can detect your transactions because you provided the address.
223 2011-12-02 03:33:21 <etotheipi_> (yeah, that's a bad argument)
224 2011-12-02 03:33:32 <gmaxwell> Whats a bad argument?
225 2011-12-02 03:33:39 <etotheipi_> err.. my argument about Gavin
226 2011-12-02 03:34:00 <gmaxwell> oh.
227 2011-12-02 03:34:50 <theymos> I'm a little surprised that OP_EVAL wasn't in the original design. It really simplifies things.
228 2011-12-02 03:35:23 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: I'd strongly caution against implenting any client that 'detects' transactions as IsMine that it didn't prototype that it can't currently satisify.
229 2011-12-02 03:35:38 <gmaxwell> theymos: it's comforting that not _everything_ was thought of.
230 2011-12-02 03:36:07 <gmaxwell> theymos: but yes, it would have been better of OP_EVAL was the only kindâ then you could have made the output scripts have very tight size limits.
231 2011-12-02 03:36:37 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, I'm not entirely convinced ... but I'll think about it
232 2011-12-02 03:37:32 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
233 2011-12-02 03:37:35 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: It seems that a lot of people think that there is some bijection between private keys and addresses... and thats not really the case even now. (e.g. the same private key could have a different address if used in point compressed form)
234 2011-12-02 03:37:57 <etotheipi_> in fact... if deterministic wallets are ever going to be the norm... then OP_EVAL *guarantees* that you must have CONSTANT backup of your wallet... or you lose access to all the OP_EVAL txs that you created since you last backed up
235 2011-12-02 03:37:58 <gmaxwell> Really you should think of addresses as short forms for a output script that the reciever is sure to understand.
236 2011-12-02 03:38:09 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: that isn't true at all.
237 2011-12-02 03:38:35 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: you can determinsitically generate your OP_EVAL addresses the same way as you determinstically generate anythign else.
238 2011-12-02 03:39:07 <etotheipi_> I know what address *I* used, but how do I know all the other addresses that were part of the script?
239 2011-12-02 03:39:41 <gmaxwell> You have to provide them. But if you don't have them you already can't identify the transaction as something you could potentially ever spend.
240 2011-12-02 03:39:47 <etotheipi_> I have no way to tell that I have a piece of a multi-sig OP_EVAL script unless I specifically save the subscript that was used to create it
241 2011-12-02 03:40:45 <gmaxwell> You still don't otherwise, unless you want your client to be trivially vulnerable to flooding attackes where I generate B or (impossible and etotheipi_)
242 2011-12-02 03:41:16 <etotheipi_> with OP_CHECKMULTI sig, you don't have to play games, you know you can identify transactions that involve you -- maybe you don't think that's a significant benefit ... but for a client developer like me it matters
243 2011-12-02 03:41:25 <gmaxwell> You're incorrect.
244 2011-12-02 03:42:05 <gmaxwell> Again, I can start making all my transactions pay to B or (0 and etotheipi_). The transactions don't involve you, but if you try to sniff for ones that do you will.
245 2011-12-02 03:42:09 <gmaxwell> er will think they do.
246 2011-12-02 03:42:49 <gmaxwell> And even if you find one that involves youâ you have no clue how to spend it.
247 2011-12-02 03:43:24 <gmaxwell> It might involve you but you don't know who the other parties are. Unless you've configured themâ and if you've configured them, then you can generate the OP_EVAL addresses determinstically.
248 2011-12-02 03:44:54 <etotheipi_> okay, I'm going to have to sleep on this one, because I'm going to have to ponder what you're saying
249 2011-12-02 03:44:58 <gmaxwell> Okay!
250 2011-12-02 03:45:21 <etotheipi_> but I recognize there are valuable points in there... but I can't grok it at the moment
251 2011-12-02 03:46:09 <gmaxwell> I'll be glad to discuss it later too. I've spent a while pondering this, and I think I'm pretty confident at this point that it's a sane position.
252 2011-12-02 03:46:18 <gmaxwell> but who knows. :)
253 2011-12-02 03:46:23 <etotheipi_> what is Gavin's take on it?
254 2011-12-02 03:46:46 <etotheipi_> have you had this discussion with him? I only ask because he's the one supporting upgrading to OP_CMS
255 2011-12-02 03:47:31 <gmaxwell> There was a thread on the list where someone basically made (in a much louder form) the argument that you won't know which txn are yours. And I think it was finally accepted that this wasn't sure.
256 2011-12-02 03:47:41 <gmaxwell> The reason for supporting OP_CMS is that its a good fast solution.
257 2011-12-02 03:47:49 <gmaxwell> Right now OP_EVAL will require massive miner upgrades.
258 2011-12-02 03:47:55 <etotheipi_> btw, gmaxwell -- I never said I was assuming I could spend txs that involve me... I'm just collecting them -- I know better than to assume I can spend them
259 2011-12-02 03:48:13 <gmaxwell> Whereas OP_CMS can be done pretty much right away.
260 2011-12-02 03:48:20 <etotheipi_> fair enough
261 2011-12-02 03:48:46 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: but it's quite tricky there. If you display them to the user you will create vulnerabilties... where I send the users txns that they have no hope of ever spending.
262 2011-12-02 03:49:37 <gmaxwell> Maybe you've figured out some UI solutions that would make that okay, I don't know.
263 2011-12-02 03:50:06 <etotheipi_> at the moment, I'm getting my code base to recognize them and collect them in memory: I'm not sure exactly what I"m going to do with them, yet, though
264 2011-12-02 03:50:27 <etotheipi_> I definitely see your point about spamming my client with transactions I can't spend
265 2011-12-02 03:51:26 <etotheipi_> I envisioned (your point) that you would only be dealing with multi-sig transactions that you either created yourself, or someone else created that you were expecting to see
266 2011-12-02 03:51:45 <gmaxwell> Once you have some data about txn you know how to get signatures for... then you can easily generate the scripts determinstically. e.g. if you do some kind of create_special_account->add_second_signer->url=to_request_signing;pubkey=foo .. then you can then find the matching txn.
267 2011-12-02 03:53:50 <etotheipi_> okay, I'll think about this... for now I'm going to plow forward with my multi-sig support since no client is doing this yet
268 2011-12-02 03:54:28 <etotheipi_> I'd love to continue this when I'm not so busy trying to get out a first release
269 2011-12-02 03:54:50 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: there are patches to bitcoin to do OP_CMS... of course.
270 2011-12-02 03:55:15 <etotheipi_> yeah, but how do you actually create them and collect signatures?
271 2011-12-02 03:55:28 <etotheipi_> that's the real meat of what I'm doing
272 2011-12-02 03:56:00 <etotheipi_> is efficiently transmitting, signing, and collecting signatures without needing a master's degree in BTC to know what the hell is going on
273 2011-12-02 03:56:39 <etotheipi_> I'm sure there will be an easy upgrade to OP_EVAL when that becomes more relevant
274 2011-12-02 03:56:42 <gmaxwell> hm? the stuff in groffer's patch was easy enough to use (ignoring the lack of a GUI)
275 2011-12-02 03:57:15 <etotheipi_> okay, I'm not familiar with it... but there's a $250 bounty out there for good OP_CMS support right now... it sounds like any current solutions are not sufficient ones
276 2011-12-02 03:57:25 <etotheipi_> maybe it's just because the protocol won't take it yet
277 2011-12-02 03:57:35 <etotheipi_> *err... network won't take it yet
278 2011-12-02 03:57:51 <gmaxwell> Where is this bounty?
279 2011-12-02 03:58:11 <etotheipi_> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48215.0
280 2011-12-02 03:58:47 <theymos> For Bitcoin Block Explorer I was planning on initially displaying 2xxxx addresses and then simplifying to a cannoical 1xxxx or (1xxxx AND 1xxxx) form where/when possible. You think this is correct?
281 2011-12-02 03:59:34 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: someone is just being .. a bit silly about that bounty.
282 2011-12-02 03:59:46 <gmaxwell> Gavin has an implementation, and there is the older one: https://github.com/groffer/bitcoin/blob/escrow/doc/README_escrow.txt
283 2011-12-02 04:01:41 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: Care to explain why you locked my thread on the forum?
284 2011-12-02 04:01:47 screechers has joined
285 2011-12-02 04:02:01 <theymos> What thread?
286 2011-12-02 04:02:13 <gmaxwell> theymos: the is butterfly labs a scam thread.
287 2011-12-02 04:02:36 <gmaxwell> There is plenty of perfectly reasonable and intresting discussion there. Just because a couple people are being argumentative isn't a reason to lock the thread. :-/
288 2011-12-02 04:02:50 <gmaxwell> (it's a reason to tell them to chill out)
289 2011-12-02 04:03:17 <theymos> It is a pretty large thread. Maybe better to start a new one.
290 2011-12-02 04:04:16 <gmaxwell> K.
291 2011-12-02 04:22:43 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: a link in the old thread to the new one would be nice.
292 2011-12-02 04:24:15 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: I got tired of the flaming and bullshit.
293 2011-12-02 04:25:01 <Diablo-D3> dont want me to lock threads? hope and pray my inbox isnt flooded with reported message emails.
294 2011-12-02 04:25:08 <gmaxwell> then cluestick the flamers. I agree the flaming is dumb, but the thread has been interesting overall.
295 2011-12-02 04:25:22 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
296 2011-12-02 04:25:29 <Diablo-D3> why cluebar the flamers when I can cluenuke the thread.
297 2011-12-02 04:25:33 <Diablo-D3> seems to be more efficient.
298 2011-12-02 04:25:54 <gmaxwell> Because there is plenty of perfectly sane discussion going on there.
299 2011-12-02 04:26:17 <Diablo-D3> seriously, a motherfucking mushroom cloud of clue
300 2011-12-02 04:26:20 <Diablo-D3> shaped like a giant penis.
301 2011-12-02 04:26:23 <gmaxwell> And because if you keep that pattern up anyone can kill any thread by dropping a couple argumentative socks in it.
302 2011-12-02 04:26:31 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: honestly
303 2011-12-02 04:26:36 <Diablo-D3> if people are stupid enough to take the bait
304 2011-12-02 04:26:44 <Diablo-D3> the thread deserves being locked
305 2011-12-02 04:27:13 <theymos> It would be better to remove the garbage from the thread, though it's pretty hard when the thread's 70 pages long.
306 2011-12-02 04:27:32 <Diablo-D3> yeah, at 70 pages, its a tad late.
307 2011-12-02 04:27:43 <Diablo-D3> theres maybe 5 pages of salvagable content
308 2011-12-02 04:27:48 <gmaxwell> Thats nonsense.
309 2011-12-02 04:28:08 <gmaxwell> Most of the pages aren't hostile at all. Just regular discussion.
310 2011-12-02 04:28:08 <Diablo-D3> 65 pages of nonsense, yes.
311 2011-12-02 04:28:51 <Diablo-D3> if butterfly labs runs off with all the money, then hire a goddamned lawyer
312 2011-12-02 04:28:57 <Diablo-D3> no amount of forum threads are going to fix it
313 2011-12-02 04:29:01 <gmaxwell> There are many pages of just boing discussion, e.g. like the pictures from Inaba's meeting with them.
314 2011-12-02 04:29:14 vrs has joined
315 2011-12-02 04:29:14 vrs has quit (Changing host)
316 2011-12-02 04:29:14 vrs has joined
317 2011-12-02 04:29:53 <Diablo-D3> theymos: just make gmaxwell a mod already so he shuts up.
318 2011-12-02 04:29:55 karnac has joined
319 2011-12-02 04:30:01 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: hah
320 2011-12-02 04:30:02 <Diablo-D3> if he wants it cleaned up so badly, he can do it
321 2011-12-02 04:30:06 <theymos> You want to be a mod, gmaxwell?
322 2011-12-02 04:30:23 <gmaxwell> Oy. Not really, but that probably qualifies me for it.
323 2011-12-02 04:30:26 <gmaxwell> :)
324 2011-12-02 04:30:31 <Diablo-D3> derp.
325 2011-12-02 04:31:00 <Diablo-D3> btw, this wouldnt be nearly the problem it was if I could retroactively nuke accounts
326 2011-12-02 04:31:03 <c_k> I showed my gf a pic of the device, pointed one of my miners and said "someone says you can get all that in to this little thing for $700 USD", she says "but the pic doesn't show perspective of size" so I show her a pic of the PCB, she says "it sounds like it's all lies"
327 2011-12-02 04:31:03 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: yea, well, if you look at the thread I did try to wade in a bit and discourage the flaming a couple times. Sadly it wasn't that effective.
328 2011-12-02 04:31:08 <c_k> ^ reality
329 2011-12-02 04:31:11 <Diablo-D3> not only the account, but any post they made, and even replies quoting them
330 2011-12-02 04:31:21 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: it never works
331 2011-12-02 04:31:23 <c_k> thats not what I said. I said it's all shit.
332 2011-12-02 04:31:30 <c_k> ok, ^ her correcting me
333 2011-12-02 04:31:52 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: sure it does, sometimes. Depends on the people arguing being fundimentally reasonable though.
334 2011-12-02 04:31:54 <c_k> someone met with butterfly labs?
335 2011-12-02 04:32:09 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: fundementally reasonable people? can I have some of those drugs? they sound fun
336 2011-12-02 04:32:13 <theymos> gmaxwell: You're a mining mod now.
337 2011-12-02 04:32:31 <gmaxwell> c_k: yes. Inaba, operator of the eclipse pool lives about 30 miles from them apparently.
338 2011-12-02 04:32:53 <c_k> gmaxwell: cool, did he get to see one in action?
339 2011-12-02 04:33:14 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: lock thread, unlock thread, delete posts in said thread, I dont care, just have fun
340 2011-12-02 04:35:17 <gmaxwell> c_k: Kinda. He's actually going to be doing some benchmarking but it's been delayed because of problems with their mining software.
341 2011-12-02 04:35:31 <gmaxwell> c_k: he played with one, put it on a power meter, but didn't actually have it mining on his pool.
342 2011-12-02 04:36:57 RobinPKR_ has joined
343 2011-12-02 04:37:09 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
344 2011-12-02 04:39:05 <theymos> gmaxwell: When you clean that thread, you can turn on "quick moderation" in your personal forum settings to easily delete many posts at once.
345 2011-12-02 04:39:17 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
346 2011-12-02 04:39:17 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
347 2011-12-02 04:40:24 <Diablo-D3> I love that feature
348 2011-12-02 04:41:12 <cocktopus> i bet you do
349 2011-12-02 04:48:30 [MobiusL] has joined
350 2011-12-02 04:49:22 btginsb has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
351 2011-12-02 04:49:42 <SomeoneWeird> lol
352 2011-12-02 04:51:26 MobiusL_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
353 2011-12-02 04:53:29 peck has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
354 2011-12-02 04:56:30 peck has joined
355 2011-12-02 04:59:55 [MobiusL] is now known as MobiusL
356 2011-12-02 05:05:16 Burgundy has joined
357 2011-12-02 05:13:29 <Diablo-D3> ;;ticker
358 2011-12-02 05:13:29 <gribble> Best bid: 3.1, Best ask: 3.1011, Bid-ask spread: 0.0011, Last trade: 3.1, 24 hour volume: 69251, 24 hour low: 2.99002, 24 hour high: 3.14
359 2011-12-02 05:20:59 wasabi has joined
360 2011-12-02 05:21:56 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
361 2011-12-02 05:22:32 dissipate_ has joined
362 2011-12-02 05:36:05 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
363 2011-12-02 05:43:39 zooko has joined
364 2011-12-02 06:00:19 screechers has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
365 2011-12-02 06:00:38 wolfspraul has joined
366 2011-12-02 06:04:50 RazielZ has joined
367 2011-12-02 06:06:16 maqr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
368 2011-12-02 06:12:09 maqr has joined
369 2011-12-02 06:14:07 dan__ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
370 2011-12-02 06:16:16 dan__ has joined
371 2011-12-02 06:18:23 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
372 2011-12-02 06:18:47 BurtyB has joined
373 2011-12-02 06:20:17 wasabi1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
374 2011-12-02 06:26:15 dvide_ has quit ()
375 2011-12-02 06:46:23 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
376 2011-12-02 06:51:48 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
377 2011-12-02 06:53:11 osmosis has joined
378 2011-12-02 06:59:45 dissipate_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
379 2011-12-02 07:00:32 dvide has joined
380 2011-12-02 07:01:54 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
381 2011-12-02 07:06:33 AStove has joined
382 2011-12-02 07:08:31 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Pull the pin and count to what?)
383 2011-12-02 07:09:39 davout has joined
384 2011-12-02 07:12:15 osmosis has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
385 2011-12-02 07:18:00 AStove has quit ()
386 2011-12-02 07:19:12 Nesetalis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
387 2011-12-02 07:25:07 osmosis has joined
388 2011-12-02 07:38:09 zeiris has quit (Quit: segfault)
389 2011-12-02 07:38:25 zeiris has joined
390 2011-12-02 07:40:34 dissipate_ has joined
391 2011-12-02 07:42:09 pickett has joined
392 2011-12-02 07:42:12 larsivi has joined
393 2011-12-02 07:43:25 <pickett> priv key in hex format is always 64 characters?
394 2011-12-02 07:52:44 Nesetalis has joined
395 2011-12-02 07:53:10 dan__ has quit (Quit: dan__)
396 2011-12-02 07:56:26 <phantomcircuit> pickett, could be 32 w/o half of the curve
397 2011-12-02 07:57:31 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: private key.
398 2011-12-02 07:57:54 <phantomcircuit> oh
399 2011-12-02 07:57:56 <phantomcircuit> right
400 2011-12-02 07:58:38 <gmaxwell> pickett: a private key is always 256 bits. How that gets represented is ?? to meâ something could base64 encode smaller values and pack the rest with zeros, for example, and end up with less digits.
401 2011-12-02 07:58:50 <gmaxwell> I don't know how any particular representation works.
402 2011-12-02 08:00:10 <pickett> anyone know how to sha256sum a single word in ubuntu?
403 2011-12-02 08:00:16 <pickett> i cna only get it to do files
404 2011-12-02 08:01:03 <phantomcircuit> echo "single word"|sha256sum
405 2011-12-02 08:02:26 <upb> echo -n
406 2011-12-02 08:03:11 <pickett> thanks the -n makes it right
407 2011-12-02 08:04:44 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
408 2011-12-02 08:07:19 ahihi2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
409 2011-12-02 08:12:49 TD has joined
410 2011-12-02 08:17:03 ahihi2 has joined
411 2011-12-02 08:20:49 iocor has joined
412 2011-12-02 08:21:05 erus` has joined
413 2011-12-02 08:22:56 b4epoch__ has joined
414 2011-12-02 08:23:06 b4epoche_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
415 2011-12-02 08:24:21 caedes_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
416 2011-12-02 08:27:09 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
417 2011-12-02 08:28:00 molecular has joined
418 2011-12-02 08:30:21 dissipate_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
419 2011-12-02 08:38:51 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
420 2011-12-02 08:39:34 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
421 2011-12-02 08:50:03 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
422 2011-12-02 08:51:26 PK has joined
423 2011-12-02 08:56:41 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
424 2011-12-02 08:59:24 iocor has joined
425 2011-12-02 09:04:29 Nesetalis has quit (Quit: <+shponka> how does one scissor with four people <+shponka> hypercube tribadism)
426 2011-12-02 09:21:03 marf_away has joined
427 2011-12-02 09:22:01 wasabi1 has joined
428 2011-12-02 09:23:33 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
429 2011-12-02 09:23:59 marf_away has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
430 2011-12-02 09:33:01 davout has joined
431 2011-12-02 09:41:09 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
432 2011-12-02 09:42:43 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
433 2011-12-02 09:44:36 wolfspraul has joined
434 2011-12-02 09:47:39 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
435 2011-12-02 09:48:26 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
436 2011-12-02 09:48:48 sytse has joined
437 2011-12-02 09:55:44 GMP has joined
438 2011-12-02 09:56:31 Nesetalis has joined
439 2011-12-02 10:00:21 iocor has joined
440 2011-12-02 10:07:33 slush has joined
441 2011-12-02 10:20:58 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
442 2011-12-02 10:24:34 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
443 2011-12-02 10:32:56 erle- has joined
444 2011-12-02 10:40:55 davout has joined
445 2011-12-02 10:42:00 rdponticelli has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
446 2011-12-02 10:43:50 rdponticelli has joined
447 2011-12-02 10:52:49 iocor has joined
448 2011-12-02 10:59:01 iocor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
449 2011-12-02 10:59:24 TD has joined
450 2011-12-02 11:00:52 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
451 2011-12-02 11:08:28 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
452 2011-12-02 11:08:52 wolfspraul has joined
453 2011-12-02 11:12:23 storrgie has quit (Quit: Leaving)
454 2011-12-02 11:17:49 Nesetalis has quit (Quit: <+shponka> how does one scissor with four people <+shponka> hypercube tribadism)
455 2011-12-02 11:22:28 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
456 2011-12-02 11:22:55 wolfspraul has joined
457 2011-12-02 11:25:16 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
458 2011-12-02 11:26:38 coblee has quit (Quit: coblee)
459 2011-12-02 11:28:31 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
460 2011-12-02 11:30:49 PK has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
461 2011-12-02 11:31:17 PK_ has joined
462 2011-12-02 11:36:12 davout has joined
463 2011-12-02 11:40:54 Nesetalis has joined
464 2011-12-02 11:43:23 coblee has joined
465 2011-12-02 11:45:00 sacarlson has joined
466 2011-12-02 11:45:57 zooko has joined
467 2011-12-02 11:50:22 Beremat has joined
468 2011-12-02 11:50:43 erus` has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 8.0/20111104165243])
469 2011-12-02 11:55:43 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
470 2011-12-02 11:55:57 wolfspraul has joined
471 2011-12-02 12:03:46 Beremat has quit (Quit: ( www.nnscript.com :: NoNameScript 4.22 :: www.esnation.com ))
472 2011-12-02 12:04:00 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
473 2011-12-02 12:05:38 Turingi has joined
474 2011-12-02 12:05:38 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
475 2011-12-02 12:05:38 Turingi has joined
476 2011-12-02 12:06:46 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
477 2011-12-02 12:07:39 wolfspraul has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
478 2011-12-02 12:07:46 wolfspraul has joined
479 2011-12-02 12:07:58 wolfspraul has quit (Client Quit)
480 2011-12-02 12:08:22 wolfspraul has joined
481 2011-12-02 12:12:40 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
482 2011-12-02 12:27:31 PK_ is now known as PK
483 2011-12-02 12:29:55 shawn_ is now known as shawn
484 2011-12-02 12:39:12 b4epoch__ has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
485 2011-12-02 12:39:32 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
486 2011-12-02 12:42:33 ThomasV has joined
487 2011-12-02 12:48:47 davout has joined
488 2011-12-02 12:50:36 chrisb__ has joined
489 2011-12-02 13:00:37 slush has joined
490 2011-12-02 13:01:00 cryptoxchange has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
491 2011-12-02 13:02:27 cryptoxchange has joined
492 2011-12-02 13:05:50 arneis has joined
493 2011-12-02 13:09:11 theorb has joined
494 2011-12-02 13:09:33 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
495 2011-12-02 13:09:44 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
496 2011-12-02 13:14:42 datagutt has joined
497 2011-12-02 13:14:55 datagutt has quit (Changing host)
498 2011-12-02 13:14:55 datagutt has joined
499 2011-12-02 13:15:13 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
500 2011-12-02 13:17:16 zooko has joined
501 2011-12-02 13:20:48 erle- has joined
502 2011-12-02 13:34:43 sytse has joined
503 2011-12-02 13:40:37 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
504 2011-12-02 13:52:04 gavinandresen has joined
505 2011-12-02 13:53:29 AStove has joined
506 2011-12-02 14:19:02 Clipse has joined
507 2011-12-02 14:24:26 wasabi has joined
508 2011-12-02 14:26:30 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
509 2011-12-02 14:31:28 AStove has quit ()
510 2011-12-02 14:34:13 vragnaroda has quit (Quit: /ignore *!*@*)
511 2011-12-02 14:38:32 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
512 2011-12-02 14:43:17 Zarutian has joined
513 2011-12-02 14:43:39 snimpy has joined
514 2011-12-02 14:44:51 <snimpy> ;;bc,diffchange
515 2011-12-02 14:44:52 <gribble> Estimated percent change in difficulty this period | 15.8506564552 % based on data since last change | 18.7570089393 % based on data for last three days
516 2011-12-02 14:45:11 <snimpy> ;;bc,convert
517 2011-12-02 14:45:11 <gribble> Error: invalid syntax (<string>, line 1)
518 2011-12-02 14:45:21 <snimpy> ;;bc,convert
519 2011-12-02 14:45:21 <gribble> Error: invalid syntax (<string>, line 1)
520 2011-12-02 14:45:33 <snimpy> ;;bc,convert eur
521 2011-12-02 14:45:34 <gribble> Error: invalid syntax (<string>, line 1)
522 2011-12-02 14:45:46 <snimpy> ;;ticker
523 2011-12-02 14:45:47 <gribble> Best bid: 3.12464, Best ask: 3.13, Bid-ask spread: 0.00536, Last trade: 3.12464, 24 hour volume: 62452, 24 hour low: 2.9901, 24 hour high: 3.14
524 2011-12-02 14:50:16 zooko has joined
525 2011-12-02 14:51:58 <snimpy> ;;temp
526 2011-12-02 14:51:58 <gribble> Error: "temp" is not a valid command.
527 2011-12-02 14:52:55 <snimpy> ;;bc,diffchange
528 2011-12-02 14:52:56 <gribble> Estimated percent change in difficulty this period | 15.8506564552 % based on data since last change | 18.7570089393 % based on data for last three days
529 2011-12-02 14:53:13 snimpy has quit ()
530 2011-12-02 14:53:33 Detritus has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
531 2011-12-02 14:53:34 snimpy has joined
532 2011-12-02 14:53:38 <snimpy> ;;bc,stats
533 2011-12-02 14:53:40 <gribble> Current Blocks: 155734 | Current Difficulty: 1090715.6800513 | Next Difficulty At Block: 157247 | Next Difficulty In: 1513 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 2 days, 2 hours, 7 minutes, and 27 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1263601.27539856 | Estimated Percent Change: 15.8506564552
534 2011-12-02 14:53:54 <snimpy> ;;bc,stats
535 2011-12-02 14:53:56 <gribble> Current Blocks: 155734 | Current Difficulty: 1090715.6800513 | Next Difficulty At Block: 157247 | Next Difficulty In: 1513 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 2 days, 2 hours, 7 minutes, and 27 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1263601.27539856 | Estimated Percent Change: 15.8506564552
536 2011-12-02 14:54:22 zooko has left ()
537 2011-12-02 14:54:34 <snimpy> ;;bc,xau
538 2011-12-02 14:54:35 <gribble> 1 XAU = 1748.790000000000 USD = 562.311897106 BTC
539 2011-12-02 14:55:10 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
540 2011-12-02 14:55:47 <snimpy> hello
541 2011-12-02 14:55:48 Detritus has joined
542 2011-12-02 14:56:21 copumpkin has joined
543 2011-12-02 14:56:56 iocor has joined
544 2011-12-02 14:57:47 snimpy has quit (Client Quit)
545 2011-12-02 14:58:21 chrisb__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
546 2011-12-02 15:02:06 chrisb__ has joined
547 2011-12-02 15:10:18 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r43ae68b / (src/init.cpp src/net.cpp src/net.h): Merge pull request #654 from TheBlueMatt/dnsseed-thread ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/43ae68b5efb2d7f8c23f64d3efdbd49c9d90aff2
548 2011-12-02 15:11:20 theorb has joined
549 2011-12-02 15:12:22 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
550 2011-12-02 15:12:32 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
551 2011-12-02 15:16:01 Detritus has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
552 2011-12-02 15:16:51 Detritus has joined
553 2011-12-02 15:17:29 b4epoche_ has joined
554 2011-12-02 15:25:39 wasabi1 has joined
555 2011-12-02 15:26:46 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
556 2011-12-02 15:30:45 b4epoche_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
557 2011-12-02 15:32:31 b4epoche_ has joined
558 2011-12-02 15:37:53 Detritus has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
559 2011-12-02 15:38:43 dvide has quit ()
560 2011-12-02 15:40:03 klawd has quit (Quit: leaving)
561 2011-12-02 15:45:18 [Tycho] has joined
562 2011-12-02 15:47:05 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: do you need anything from me to get multisignature/OP_EVAL implemented?
563 2011-12-02 15:47:37 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
564 2011-12-02 15:56:12 <[Tycho]> Hello, gavinandresen. I received your patch.
565 2011-12-02 15:56:31 <[Tycho]> Not tried to apply it yet.
566 2011-12-02 15:57:21 <[Tycho]> So it will accept blocks with OP_EVAL, but will not accept transactions with OP_EVAL as valid ?
567 2011-12-02 15:58:24 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
568 2011-12-02 15:58:32 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: a little more complicated than that...
569 2011-12-02 15:58:46 cronopio has joined
570 2011-12-02 15:59:25 <gavinandresen> It will mine and relay OP_EVAL transactions that are valid under both the old and new interpretation of OP_EVAL.
571 2011-12-02 15:59:39 <slush> gavinandresen: I also received the patch, will need to test it soon. It's pretty complex and incompatible with some of my patches in getwork area, but I think I can solve that
572 2011-12-02 16:00:15 <gavinandresen> If it gets an OP_EVAL transaction that is valid under the old rules but invalid under the NEW rules, then it will NOT mine or relay it. But it will accept them if they appear in already-mined blocks.
573 2011-12-02 16:00:28 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
574 2011-12-02 16:00:48 <gavinandresen> The only way for that to happen is if somebody wanted to try to intentionally split the blockchain.
575 2011-12-02 16:01:00 <gavinandresen> ... which I assume somebody WOULD try, if they can.
576 2011-12-02 16:01:15 <gavinandresen> slush: I've got an alternate patch against 0.3.24 that might apply easier
577 2011-12-02 16:02:04 <slush> gavinandresen: if it is simpler (and it works), I'll appreciate it
578 2011-12-02 16:02:53 <gavinandresen> slush: I'll split out out from the 'vinced merged mining' branch I did for another pool
579 2011-12-02 16:03:15 <slush> great!
580 2011-12-02 16:03:29 <slush> it will help me a lot
581 2011-12-02 16:05:02 <gavinandresen> slush: https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/tree/v0.3.24_op_eval
582 2011-12-02 16:07:40 <slush> gavinandresen: those two commits: "OP_EVAL and m-of-3 standard multisignature support", "Merge commit 'v0.3.24' into v0.3.23_op_eval" ?
583 2011-12-02 16:07:45 amiller has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
584 2011-12-02 16:09:13 b4epoche_ has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
585 2011-12-02 16:09:58 <gavinandresen> slush: one sec, let me look....
586 2011-12-02 16:10:20 <gavinandresen> slush: ... and let me rebase onto 0.3.24, that should be cleaner
587 2011-12-02 16:15:25 <gavinandresen> slush: hang on, that branch wasn't doing the right thing
588 2011-12-02 16:16:18 <slush> gavinandresen: ok, I'll wait. I still cannot try it soon than next week, so don't hurry
589 2011-12-02 16:17:52 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
590 2011-12-02 16:22:48 wasabi has joined
591 2011-12-02 16:24:40 Maged has joined
592 2011-12-02 16:26:19 wasabi2 has joined
593 2011-12-02 16:26:30 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
594 2011-12-02 16:26:37 amiller has joined
595 2011-12-02 16:26:52 <gavinandresen> slush: rebased into a single commit against v0.3.24 : https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/efe91f8cde42d84540626fc7abaeb89fecaff93f
596 2011-12-02 16:29:12 <slush> great, looks pretty good. Is that extension in coinbase so important? I'm not sure if it don't break merged mining
597 2011-12-02 16:30:00 <gmaxwell> It should be compatible with merged mining, but I don't know if anyone has tested it yet.
598 2011-12-02 16:30:33 <gmaxwell> If its not, then namecoin ought to be fixed.
599 2011-12-02 16:30:44 <gmaxwell> The ability to communicate support with coinbase flags is quite useful.
600 2011-12-02 16:30:58 <sipa> afaik it just uses a substring test?
601 2011-12-02 16:31:18 <gmaxwell> As for importanceâ it's kinda important, you don't want to start accepting the new txn unless a majority (really a super majority) of the mining power is enforcing them, lest you get orphaned.
602 2011-12-02 16:32:07 <gavinandresen> Actually, it is perfectly safe to accept/mine/relay OP_EVAL transactions, as long as they're valid under both new and old rules.
603 2011-12-02 16:32:10 <gmaxwell> Because there are few enough big pools perhaps we can get that confidence today without it.. but the mechenism should still work in case things are more distributed next year.
604 2011-12-02 16:32:31 <gmaxwell> oh. hmph.
605 2011-12-02 16:32:34 <gmaxwell> duh.
606 2011-12-02 16:32:37 <gavinandresen> The dangerous thing is to outright reject blocks that contain OP_EVAL transactions that are valid under old rules, invalid under new.
607 2011-12-02 16:32:49 <gmaxwell> oh right. That.
608 2011-12-02 16:33:57 dan__ has joined
609 2011-12-02 16:34:24 <gmaxwell> In any case, though I was being stupid on the causeâ the net is that if you start fully applying the new behavior without a majority thats bad for your mining success.
610 2011-12-02 16:36:01 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
611 2011-12-02 16:36:51 vragnaroda has joined
612 2011-12-02 16:38:21 davout has joined
613 2011-12-02 16:40:30 MobiusL has joined
614 2011-12-02 16:44:34 [Tycho] has joined
615 2011-12-02 16:46:19 AlexWaters has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
616 2011-12-02 16:46:57 AlexWaters has joined
617 2011-12-02 16:50:39 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
618 2011-12-02 16:53:47 <ByteCoin> Gavin: I believe I have found a good implementation of (a and b) or c transactions which can be redeemed even if a and b are forgotten. Have a look sometime https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48215.msg638042#msg638042
619 2011-12-02 16:56:03 vragnaroda has left ()
620 2011-12-02 16:58:30 btc_novice has joined
621 2011-12-02 17:06:03 dan__ has quit (Quit: dan__)
622 2011-12-02 17:08:56 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
623 2011-12-02 17:10:08 b4epoche_ has joined
624 2011-12-02 17:15:12 b4epoche_ has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
625 2011-12-02 17:16:33 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I presume the new rules include "if it was invalid under the old rules, it isn't valid here either"?
626 2011-12-02 17:17:24 <sipa> luke-jr: yes
627 2011-12-02 17:17:33 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: yes, there is an explicit check, OP_EVAL transactions must evaluate to true if the EVAL is interepreted as a no-op
628 2011-12-02 17:18:11 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: in case you forgot, I was still hoping for a 0.3.23 patch that applies with 'git am' (ie, has git headers)
629 2011-12-02 17:18:26 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I thought I sent you one....
630 2011-12-02 17:18:39 <luke-jr> hmm
631 2011-12-02 17:18:48 <luke-jr> let me check spam/caught
632 2011-12-02 17:18:51 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Leaving)
633 2011-12-02 17:19:23 <luke-jr> does the code automatically do the switch yet?
634 2011-12-02 17:19:49 <gavinandresen> you mean "look for a majority "OP_EVAL" in coinbases?" no
635 2011-12-02 17:20:02 <luke-jr> nothing in spam/caught⦠double-checking inbox
636 2011-12-02 17:20:07 <gavinandresen> I'll resend
637 2011-12-02 17:21:01 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: you made it with `git format-patch', right?
638 2011-12-02 17:21:10 <luke-jr> (a link to a git repo would be fine, too)
639 2011-12-02 17:22:15 <jrmithdobbs> where'd the display for current block go in bitcoin-qt?
640 2011-12-02 17:22:24 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/tree/v0.3.23_op_eval
641 2011-12-02 17:22:29 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: tooltip
642 2011-12-02 17:22:41 <jrmithdobbs> annoying over latent vnc :(
643 2011-12-02 17:22:45 <jrmithdobbs> where's the tooltip at?
644 2011-12-02 17:22:50 <gavinandresen> There is also https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/tree/v0.3.24_op_eval
645 2011-12-02 17:23:03 <gavinandresen> and https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/tree/v0.4.1_op_eval
646 2011-12-02 17:23:49 <cocktopus> jrmithdobbs: bottom right hand corner where the green tick is
647 2011-12-02 17:24:57 MobiusL has joined
648 2011-12-02 17:28:08 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: wtf? :P https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/94677dc539b4603624afc6d82812aa22126083cb#L3L1092
649 2011-12-02 17:28:58 Nicksasa has joined
650 2011-12-02 17:29:20 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: must be gremlins.
651 2011-12-02 17:29:28 abragin has joined
652 2011-12-02 17:29:28 abragin has quit (Changing host)
653 2011-12-02 17:29:28 abragin has joined
654 2011-12-02 17:29:43 <gmaxwell> it's the new 'wave' /0/ style indenting.
655 2011-12-02 17:30:39 ThomasV has joined
656 2011-12-02 17:39:12 <helo> when are miners encouraged to include OP_EVAL in their blocks?
657 2011-12-02 17:40:29 <Eliel> so, how many here tried the osiris p2p forum system yet? Some people appear to have put up a bitcoin forum there too. The system appears to work pretty well.
658 2011-12-02 17:40:58 <Eliel> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46206.0
659 2011-12-02 17:41:19 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: for "maximum automatic fee", does a default of 1 BTC sound reasonable?
660 2011-12-02 17:41:25 <luke-jr> or maybe CENT would be better
661 2011-12-02 17:41:59 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
662 2011-12-02 17:42:57 <gavinandresen> helo: I'm encouraging miners to support OP_EVAL now.
663 2011-12-02 17:43:33 <helo> good
664 2011-12-02 17:43:56 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: ... you mean "have the RPC calls fail if fee would be more than..." ? CENT seems like a reasonable default, with switch to override
665 2011-12-02 17:43:56 <sipa> Unless you're solo mining, you won't know, however
666 2011-12-02 17:43:59 <helo> it will be pretty interesting to see fast it starts appearing
667 2011-12-02 17:44:16 <helo> among solo miners, at least
668 2011-12-02 17:45:15 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: he means but it in blocks
669 2011-12-02 17:46:22 <gavinandresen> Right, I'm encouraging miners to start relaying and mining valid-under-both-old-and-new-rules transactions now. And to express that support by putting "OP_EVAL" in coinbases....
670 2011-12-02 17:46:32 <luke-jr> oh
671 2011-12-02 17:46:45 <luke-jr> I thought it only worked after a certain block time
672 2011-12-02 17:47:07 <ByteCoin> gavinandresen: Are you interested in a (a and b) or c solution in the short term?
673 2011-12-02 17:47:15 <gavinandresen> The after-a-certain-block-time controls when you outright REJECT blocks that contain bogus OP_EVAL transactions.
674 2011-12-02 17:47:40 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: I'm interested.... need to think about your proposal a bit more...
675 2011-12-02 17:48:13 <ByteCoin> gavinandresen: Ok. Just checking you'd seen it.
676 2011-12-02 17:48:43 sytse has joined
677 2011-12-02 17:50:04 <ByteCoin> From the point of view of implementing OP_EVAL 2 of 2 multisignature transactions, I'm presuming that the serialized script that hashes to the address is stored in the wallet in some fashion. Correct?
678 2011-12-02 17:50:08 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: so you're encouraging people to use it, even now when the funds can be stolen easy?
679 2011-12-02 17:52:12 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: no, the RPC call that enables it (addmultisigaddress) is disabled unless you're on -testnet
680 2011-12-02 17:52:40 <gavinandresen> ... so it is "Use it at your own risk until a majority of miners support"
681 2011-12-02 17:54:49 <gavinandresen> OP_EVAL transactions are actually pretty safe, even if the OP_EVAL is interepreted as a no-op
682 2011-12-02 17:56:02 <gavinandresen> ... if you're a little careful not to re-use your keys.
683 2011-12-02 17:58:23 <gavinandresen> I shouldn't say "pretty safe" -- I should say "safer than you might think". Stealing them isn't trivial.
684 2011-12-02 17:58:58 <luke-jr> oh, the address hashes are checked even with NOP?
685 2011-12-02 17:59:18 <gavinandresen> the hash of the redemption script, yes.
686 2011-12-02 17:59:38 <gavinandresen> (and the pubkeys are part of that hash)
687 2011-12-02 18:00:46 AStove has joined
688 2011-12-02 18:01:53 Workbench has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
689 2011-12-02 18:03:21 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
690 2011-12-02 18:04:43 Workbench has joined
691 2011-12-02 18:04:58 <[Tycho]> Hello, gavinandresen.
692 2011-12-02 18:05:13 <gavinandresen> howdy [Tycho]
693 2011-12-02 18:05:36 <[Tycho]> I received your patch recently.
694 2011-12-02 18:05:45 <[Tycho]> So it will accept blocks with OP_EVAL, but will not accept transactions with OP_EVAL as valid ?
695 2011-12-02 18:07:11 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: if it gets an OP_EVAL transaction that is completely 100% valid, then it will accept it, relay it, mine it, etc.
696 2011-12-02 18:07:50 <[Tycho]> Will this block be accepted by other miners ?
697 2011-12-02 18:07:55 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: yes
698 2011-12-02 18:08:10 <[Tycho]> Why ?
699 2011-12-02 18:08:13 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: OP_EVAL is the same as OP_NOP1
700 2011-12-02 18:08:20 <[Tycho]> Cool.
701 2011-12-02 18:09:00 <[Tycho]> So preferred deploying time is until 15.01 ?
702 2011-12-02 18:09:34 <gavinandresen> Preferred deploying time is now.
703 2011-12-02 18:09:55 <[Tycho]> I remember 15.01 mentioned somewhere...
704 2011-12-02 18:10:23 <gavinandresen> That is when I'll run some code to see what percentage of blocks are supporting it
705 2011-12-02 18:11:42 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
706 2011-12-02 18:12:03 <gavinandresen> ... and if most are, then on Feb 1 the rules for one edge case switch, and any miners NOT running the new code AND accepting non-standard transactions would be in danger of not having their blocks accepted.
707 2011-12-02 18:12:49 <gavinandresen> That will also be the signal that it is safe to tell users to start using OP_EVAL transactions.
708 2011-12-02 18:13:35 [eval] is now known as aakselrod
709 2011-12-02 18:15:09 traviscj has joined
710 2011-12-02 18:15:58 _Fireball has joined
711 2011-12-02 18:16:33 aakselrod is now known as [eval]
712 2011-12-02 18:18:51 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: could you double-check my merge for Eligius? I had quite a few conflicts :/
713 2011-12-02 18:19:13 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: sure, happy to
714 2011-12-02 18:19:17 <luke-jr> delta: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/515846/ ; merge: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/515847/
715 2011-12-02 18:20:03 * luke-jr ponders using pOpEvalName for the mapAuxCoinbases keyâ¦
716 2011-12-02 18:20:37 ByteCoin has left ()
717 2011-12-02 18:21:18 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I assumed you'd rip out the put-"OP_EVAL" in the coinbase code I wrote and replace it with your own...
718 2011-12-02 18:21:38 <luke-jr> http://paste.pocoo.org/show/515846/ is probably the clearer one to read
719 2011-12-02 18:21:47 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: yeah, mine is a simple few-liner in init.cpp ;)
720 2011-12-02 18:22:32 <luke-jr> oooh I missed a spot
721 2011-12-02 18:23:14 <luke-jr> ⦠or did I?
722 2011-12-02 18:23:19 * luke-jr stabs git format-patch not working with merges
723 2011-12-02 18:23:33 <luke-jr> ok, this is the 'git diff' http://paste.pocoo.org/show/515853/
724 2011-12-02 18:24:06 <gavinandresen> in the merge Solver() code: what's the ... while (opcode == OP_NOP) loops for?
725 2011-12-02 18:24:24 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: ignoring OP_NOPs entirely, when trying to solve it :P
726 2011-12-02 18:24:30 <luke-jr> that's not part of this merge
727 2011-12-02 18:24:34 <gavinandresen> ah, ok
728 2011-12-02 18:25:32 <[Tycho]> Oh, git gui for macos doesn't accepts .patch files automatically...
729 2011-12-02 18:25:55 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: hmm, is there a chance that will break, with this new stuff?
730 2011-12-02 18:26:23 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: shouldn't, OP_NOP is different from OP_NOP1
731 2011-12-02 18:27:44 * luke-jr observes that with coinbaser, he didn't have to modify the getwork parts at all :p
732 2011-12-02 18:30:01 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: code changes look good to me, but if I were you I'd mine a few blocks on a testnet-in-a-box to make sure it was all working properly.
733 2011-12-02 18:30:12 eueueue has joined
734 2011-12-02 18:30:17 <luke-jr> good idea
735 2011-12-02 18:31:00 <gavinandresen> My 0.3.23-based code had a bug that I didn't find until I tried getwork-mining on testnet-in-a-box...
736 2011-12-02 18:34:57 eueueue has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
737 2011-12-02 18:36:33 eueueue has joined
738 2011-12-02 18:38:17 PK has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
739 2011-12-02 18:38:26 PK_ has joined
740 2011-12-02 18:40:25 <gavinandresen> Anybody have opinions on whether a bug-fix-only 0.5.1 release is worth doing?
741 2011-12-02 18:40:35 <[Tycho]> "gavinandresen: My 0.3.23-based code had a bug" - the one in your patch or earlier ?
742 2011-12-02 18:41:07 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: earlier. I DO try hard to test things thoroughly....
743 2011-12-02 18:42:11 <gavinandresen> Arguments for a 0.5.1 : Fix the black-rollover-tooltips problem. Get the DoS-prevention fix out sooner. And a bunch of translations were updated....
744 2011-12-02 18:44:02 <[Tycho]> Looks like I'll have to do this via command line.
745 2011-12-02 18:44:39 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
746 2011-12-02 18:45:03 Nicksasa has joined
747 2011-12-02 18:45:11 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: is there any plan on fixing 4-byte limit or it will left broken forever ?
748 2011-12-02 18:45:23 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: That OP_EVAL change will go live tomorrow when I restart bitcoind
749 2011-12-02 18:45:48 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: your master branch already has non-fixes, so the stable repo has a 0.5.x branch for 0.5.1
750 2011-12-02 18:47:10 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I don't see any changes that would justify a 0.5->0.6 version bump
751 2011-12-02 18:47:42 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: I'd like to fix that whenever we decide there is an important-enough change to justify a hard block-chain-split.
752 2011-12-02 18:48:13 <[Tycho]> It will be a hard split ? Looks like no one uses those features yet.
753 2011-12-02 18:48:20 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: ... but the only change I can think of right now that would justify a hard block-chain split is un-hard-coding the maximum block size
754 2011-12-02 18:48:32 <imsaguy2> so with the .5 client, there's no way to see the number of connections unless a person does an rpc call, correct?
755 2011-12-02 18:48:46 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: yeah, looking at the delta, none of the bigger stuff is merged yet
756 2011-12-02 18:48:52 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: old clients would reject blocks containing OP_ADD with operands > 4 bytes, so they'd be split off
757 2011-12-02 18:49:19 <[Tycho]> Oh, right.
758 2011-12-02 18:49:25 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: yup, I've been pulling just fixes or small-enough-not-to-be-dangerous changes
759 2011-12-02 18:49:30 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
760 2011-12-02 18:49:31 <gavinandresen> (like icon color changes)
761 2011-12-02 18:49:43 * luke-jr considered the icon thing a fix
762 2011-12-02 18:49:45 <[Tycho]> But someday additional ops should be enabled anyway...
763 2011-12-02 18:49:52 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: agreed. someday....
764 2011-12-02 18:50:13 <luke-jr> the critical block and secure string changes, I wasn't so sure about
765 2011-12-02 18:50:25 <luke-jr> they seem more like refactors with a potential for damage
766 2011-12-02 18:51:06 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: probably the best way to handle it is to do a single block chain fork, changing as many things as possible
767 2011-12-02 18:51:07 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: is there a particular thing you want to do with >4byte operands?
768 2011-12-02 18:51:51 * luke-jr also didn't merge the new translations, but those can't really hurt
769 2011-12-02 18:52:20 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: if you decide to spin a 0.5.1 from master, I'll just rename this branch to 0.5.0.x (and probably drop support for it very soon)
770 2011-12-02 18:52:24 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: not yet. But there is nothing to do with <= 4 byte operands anyway.
771 2011-12-02 18:52:49 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: ok. Right now, as I said, I'm leaning towards doing a 0.5.1 from master
772 2011-12-02 18:53:37 <luke-jr> IMO, there's enough pull requests ready for merging that the ideal path is to merge them and release 0.6.0rc1 ;)
773 2011-12-02 18:53:59 <luke-jr> (and 0.5.1rc1 from the 0.5.x branch, and 0.4.2rc1 from the 0.4.x branch)
774 2011-12-02 18:54:30 <luke-jr> I'm thinking of coinbaser, QR Codes, and Bitcoin-Qt signmessage, specifically
775 2011-12-02 18:54:33 <luke-jr> I'm sure there's more though
776 2011-12-02 18:54:59 TD has joined
777 2011-12-02 18:54:59 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: op_eval....
778 2011-12-02 18:55:05 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: right, OP_EVAL too
779 2011-12-02 18:55:17 * luke-jr thinks OP_EVAL should probably be considered a bugfix only when it goes live.
780 2011-12-02 18:55:47 <gavinandresen> Anybody else have an opinion on a 0.5.1 versus going straight to a 0.6rc1 ?
781 2011-12-02 18:56:33 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: speaking of OP_EVAL, let me know if you need/want me to rebase it against a coinbaser-merged master (it will simplify things)
782 2011-12-02 18:56:54 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: the bigger version steps probably discourage upgrades slightly. This can be good or bad.
783 2011-12-02 18:56:57 Tuxavant_ is now known as Tuxavant
784 2011-12-02 18:57:33 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: any fixes are already in the 0.5.x branch
785 2011-12-02 18:57:48 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: ok-- there seems to be general consensus to pull coinbaser for 0.6, so I'll probably pull it before op_eval and rework the op_eval code to use coinbaser.
786 2011-12-02 18:57:54 <luke-jr> ie, it's not 0.5.1 /or/ 0.6rc1, it's 0.5.1 or both ;P
787 2011-12-02 18:58:17 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I expect the change I made merging it to Eligius will be useful
788 2011-12-02 18:58:33 <luke-jr> in init.cpp, that takes care of the coinbase part entirely
789 2011-12-02 18:58:39 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: yup
790 2011-12-02 19:00:34 eueueue has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
791 2011-12-02 19:02:11 danbri has joined
792 2011-12-02 19:02:29 Herbert has joined
793 2011-12-02 19:02:35 parus has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
794 2011-12-02 19:02:44 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
795 2011-12-02 19:02:49 parus has joined
796 2011-12-02 19:03:29 <[eval]> if op_eval is supported in 0.6, when will it actually be allowed on the network?
797 2011-12-02 19:03:41 <[eval]> when the miners upgrade?
798 2011-12-02 19:04:08 <gavinandresen> it is actually allowed on the network now, but nobody will relay/mine it because it is a non-standard transaction
799 2011-12-02 19:04:12 <gmaxwell> [eval]: the major miners are applying patches with backports.
800 2011-12-02 19:04:31 <gmaxwell> Talking about activitying it on feb 1st, if and only if there is a majority of hashpower with it.
801 2011-12-02 19:04:42 <gavinandresen> The steps are: get the miners to mine it. Then get peers to upgrade so they are relayed....
802 2011-12-02 19:05:14 <gavinandresen> ... all the while experimenting with it on the testnet...
803 2011-12-02 19:05:33 <gavinandresen> ... and finally add support for it in GUIs / web services / etc
804 2011-12-02 19:05:36 <gmaxwell> It may be some time before its really usable due to needing peers that relay it.
805 2011-12-02 19:06:12 <luke-jr> hmm
806 2011-12-02 19:06:16 <[eval]> ok :> thanks!
807 2011-12-02 19:06:28 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I presume the 0.6 version will be live OP_EVAL?
808 2011-12-02 19:06:35 <luke-jr> ie, not the middle-stage we have now
809 2011-12-02 19:07:00 <gavinandresen> I presume that, too.
810 2011-12-02 19:08:38 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: is it wise to use a pindexBlock->nTime instead of a height on that check?
811 2011-12-02 19:08:56 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: you can't make future blocks anyway
812 2011-12-02 19:09:39 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: yes, should be safe.
813 2011-12-02 19:10:39 eueueue has joined
814 2011-12-02 19:10:40 <TD> gavinandresen: that reminds me
815 2011-12-02 19:10:46 <TD> gavinandresen: doesn't feb 1st strike you as a bit aggressive?
816 2011-12-02 19:11:04 <TD> it's safe to assume that by the time a new bitcoind is released, it'll be mid/late december
817 2011-12-02 19:11:08 <TD> people are busy over the christmas season
818 2011-12-02 19:11:10 <gmaxwell> TD: you think? I saw evidence today that it was fine.
819 2011-12-02 19:11:14 <gavinandresen> TD: I was just thinking maybe I was too conservative....
820 2011-12-02 19:11:20 <TD> then that leaves only a few weeks in january
821 2011-12-02 19:11:46 <gmaxwell> Yea. Slush and [Tycho] in the room means that we're done, basically.... assuming it works for them.
822 2011-12-02 19:11:47 <gavinandresen> TD: slush and [Tycho] and luke-jr have all expressed support, as have one or two other pools I've been talking with
823 2011-12-02 19:12:26 <gavinandresen> ... and by 'expressed support' I mean "they're starting to actually get patches and apply them to their patched bitcoinds"
824 2011-12-02 19:12:33 <luke-jr> TD: OP_EVAL is a miner-only update, for the most part
825 2011-12-02 19:12:37 <TD> right
826 2011-12-02 19:13:05 <[eval]> when it's in mainline bitcoind, that means p2pool will support it too?
827 2011-12-02 19:13:06 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: no word from BTCGuild?
828 2011-12-02 19:13:06 <gmaxwell> TD: there isn't even any risk for other miners that don't upgradeâ so long as they currently reject nonstandard txn.
829 2011-12-02 19:13:08 <[Tycho]> I didn't tried to apply it yet, but I'm going to, if it won't cause any problems.
830 2011-12-02 19:13:28 <TD> [Tycho]: what version are you currently running?
831 2011-12-02 19:13:33 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: no, haven't heard from them
832 2011-12-02 19:13:35 <eueueue> the next version will have export/import private key?
833 2011-12-02 19:13:37 <luke-jr> [eval]: p2pool relys on miners to choose what to support
834 2011-12-02 19:13:49 <[Tycho]> TD: I don't know, but I think it may be based on 0.3.X
835 2011-12-02 19:13:58 <luke-jr> â¦
836 2011-12-02 19:14:10 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: you don't maintain your pool codebase in git?
837 2011-12-02 19:14:12 <TD> [Tycho]: do you plan to ever get back on the mainline releases?
838 2011-12-02 19:14:23 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: I'm happy to patch for you if you're comfortable bundling up the code and sending it to me...
839 2011-12-02 19:15:00 <gavinandresen> (I've back-ported to three different releases now so I'm getting pretty good at it)
840 2011-12-02 19:15:14 <[Tycho]> luke-jr: I do.
841 2011-12-02 19:16:25 iocor has joined
842 2011-12-02 19:17:20 iocor has quit (Client Quit)
843 2011-12-02 19:17:22 <[Tycho]> The only thing I don't like about this is that GitX doesn't allows to merge .patch files in GUI
844 2011-12-02 19:17:45 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: GitX won't show you what version you forked?
845 2011-12-02 19:17:52 iocor has joined
846 2011-12-02 19:18:23 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: btw, in case you didn't notice, I also added maxtxfee to that pull req
847 2011-12-02 19:18:29 <luke-jr> (for forced fees)
848 2011-12-02 19:18:53 <[Tycho]> I don't know where I can check the version.
849 2011-12-02 19:19:08 <[Tycho]> I just applied some commits as needed.
850 2011-12-02 19:19:25 <gavinandresen> serialize.h should tell you the version you started with
851 2011-12-02 19:19:41 * luke-jr facepalms.
852 2011-12-02 19:19:52 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: GitX doesn't have 'cherry-pick' either? >_<
853 2011-12-02 19:19:53 <TD> [Tycho]: what do you need? if your local mods were merged in or reimplemented in some other way, would you get back onto mainline release?
854 2011-12-02 19:20:10 <TD> just thinking forward to the next time we want new scripts whitelisted ....
855 2011-12-02 19:20:25 <[Tycho]> Why would I need to get back to the mainline ?
856 2011-12-02 19:20:47 <TD> bitcoin has lots of features that can really make it stand out above other payment systems
857 2011-12-02 19:20:52 <TD> but often they need things activated or whitelisted in the code
858 2011-12-02 19:20:53 <[Tycho]> Mostly my changes are consisting on custom getwork generation and dispatch.
859 2011-12-02 19:21:03 <[Tycho]> *of
860 2011-12-02 19:21:05 <TD> if you track mainline releases, there's no need to do lots of discussions every time new features are added
861 2011-12-02 19:21:13 <TD> you just get them "for free" by upgrading when a new release is out
862 2011-12-02 19:21:20 <TD> hmm, ok
863 2011-12-02 19:21:32 <TD> for example, at some point we'll probably want to reactivate nLockTime
864 2011-12-02 19:21:52 <TD> and replacement of transactions in the memory pool. backporting every such change to your custom branch will just be busywork.
865 2011-12-02 19:22:06 <[Tycho]> Looks like it's 32100
866 2011-12-02 19:22:58 <TD> that's pretty old
867 2011-12-02 19:22:59 <gavinandresen> that was before the src/ rename.....
868 2011-12-02 19:23:12 <[Tycho]> Did 0.3.21 contained sendmany ?
869 2011-12-02 19:23:14 <TD> [Tycho]: what do your custom getwork patches do, exactly?
870 2011-12-02 19:24:01 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: yes, 0.3.21 had sendmany (I had to check it out to see)
871 2011-12-02 19:24:42 <[Tycho]> Also sometimes i'm thinking about implementing my own node from scratch.
872 2011-12-02 19:24:59 <TD> that's a huge pile of work. it's easy to underestimate when you read satoshis code
873 2011-12-02 19:25:13 <TD> but doing it properly involves a really large amount of careful coding. bitcoin was in development for years before satoshi released it
874 2011-12-02 19:25:25 <TD> upgrading to mainline would be the first step, at least :)
875 2011-12-02 19:25:58 <[Tycho]> I don't like the fact that there is only one client available.
876 2011-12-02 19:26:15 <[Tycho]> It's just not "decentralized" enough :)
877 2011-12-02 19:27:07 <TD> haha :) well the software isn't the problem. your reimplementation would have to work very similarly anyway
878 2011-12-02 19:27:13 <TD> the biggest centralization problem we have now is the pools!
879 2011-12-02 19:27:21 <TD> there's only a small number of "voters" who matter
880 2011-12-02 19:27:32 <TD> the original bitcoin designed imagined almost everyone who ran it would be a miner building their own blocks
881 2011-12-02 19:27:36 <TD> variance put an end to it
882 2011-12-02 19:27:58 <[Tycho]> Otherwise it would be harder to push serious updates.
883 2011-12-02 19:28:01 <TD> [Tycho]: have you looked at poolserverj?
884 2011-12-02 19:28:08 <[Tycho]> No, why ?
885 2011-12-02 19:28:24 <TD> i'm just wondering if it can replace your need for custom getwork patches. it scales a lot better than having miners connect directly to bitcoinds
886 2011-12-02 19:28:32 <TD> the algorithms it uses are better
887 2011-12-02 19:28:40 <TD> so you only need 1 bitcoind for many, many users
888 2011-12-02 19:28:47 <[Tycho]> My miner aren't connected directly to bitcoind.
889 2011-12-02 19:28:52 <[Tycho]> *miners
890 2011-12-02 19:29:20 <[Tycho]> Why do you think that my system is considerably worse ?
891 2011-12-02 19:29:34 <TD> it might not be. i'm just trying to figure out what your system is :)
892 2011-12-02 19:29:44 <TD> when your users do a getwork, what do they talk to, exactly?
893 2011-12-02 19:30:02 <[Tycho]> My pool.
894 2011-12-02 19:30:06 <TD> right, i meant software-wise
895 2011-12-02 19:30:10 <[Tycho]> nginx.
896 2011-12-02 19:30:28 <TD> ok. and where does it get the work from .... does an RPC to bitcoind?
897 2011-12-02 19:30:58 <[Tycho]> No, I have binary interface for this.
898 2011-12-02 19:31:20 <TD> ah ok. that's your custom getwork patches?
899 2011-12-02 19:31:28 <[Tycho]> This too.
900 2011-12-02 19:31:59 <TD> the binary interface is because it's faster than json parsing?
901 2011-12-02 19:32:08 <[Tycho]> I'm generating not a singe work at a time, but big batches.
902 2011-12-02 19:32:41 <[Tycho]> Yes. Also to avoid unnecessary connecting overhead.
903 2011-12-02 19:32:46 <TD> i see
904 2011-12-02 19:33:17 <[Tycho]> May be poolserverj is somewhat faster, but I don't think that I need to replace everything.
905 2011-12-02 19:33:34 <[Tycho]> Currently I have LOTS of spare resources.
906 2011-12-02 19:34:01 <TD> right. i think it'd be quite a lot faster actually. i guess most of your cpu cycles go on creating works, still.
907 2011-12-02 19:34:21 <TD> but my line of thinking is more like .... if you can have a solution more efficient than your current one, without any patches, then it's super easy for you to upgrade
908 2011-12-02 19:34:31 <[Tycho]> Most of my core is running on JVM too.
909 2011-12-02 19:34:36 <TD> and that means it's super easy to enable new features in bitcoin, that can do cool things like the contracts, micropayments, etc
910 2011-12-02 19:34:51 <[Tycho]> Why "without any patches" ?
911 2011-12-02 19:35:03 <TD> poolserverj sits in front of a regular, unpatched bitcoind
912 2011-12-02 19:35:07 <TD> (of the latest version)
913 2011-12-02 19:35:11 <TD> and just generates work more efficiently.
914 2011-12-02 19:35:38 <TD> so patches to the c++ aren't needed to get efficiency improvements anymore.
915 2011-12-02 19:35:52 <[Tycho]> Well, I don't think that you can decide if it's generating work more efficiently or not without knowing how i'm doing it.
916 2011-12-02 19:36:01 E-sense has quit (Quit: System.exit(0);)
917 2011-12-02 19:36:55 <[Tycho]> I know that stock bitcoind was really bad at work generation and this caused slush to have many bitcoinds running for each pool node.
918 2011-12-02 19:37:51 <TD> that's what poolserverj fixes
919 2011-12-02 19:38:03 <[Tycho]> The next thing I'm going to improve is the miner-pool protocol. But miner developers avoid this even when I'm offering them considerable rewards.
920 2011-12-02 19:38:05 <TD> bitcoind just generates a work each time a new tx is broadcast in that scheme
921 2011-12-02 19:38:18 <TD> so once every few seconds or so. not a big deal.
922 2011-12-02 19:38:23 <makomk> The catch with poolserverj is IIRC that it has a fixed payout address right now.
923 2011-12-02 19:38:40 <TD> there's at least one big mining pool using it. i forget which. btcguild?
924 2011-12-02 19:38:47 <[Tycho]> makomk: fixed generation affress
925 2011-12-02 19:38:52 <[Tycho]> makomk: fixed generation address ?
926 2011-12-02 19:39:03 <TD> so it's not a proof of concept or anything. i don't know enough about the details to discuss this point specifically.
927 2011-12-02 19:39:22 <makomk> Yeah, the address that the generate goes to is hardcoded in the config.
928 2011-12-02 19:39:28 <TD> ok
929 2011-12-02 19:39:30 <TD> it's just a big java app
930 2011-12-02 19:39:38 <[Tycho]> TD, I don't have such problem, so I'm not considering switching to it.
931 2011-12-02 19:39:39 <TD> if [Tycho]s code is already java, then it should be quite easy to integrate, i'd hope
932 2011-12-02 19:39:57 <[Tycho]> No, my code is not Java, it's just runs on JVM.
933 2011-12-02 19:40:02 <makomk> BTCGuild are using poolserverj, but they've gone PPS now so it doesn't matter that their blocks can be identified.
934 2011-12-02 19:40:15 <[Tycho]> makomk: I can do this with just one line in bitcoind source if I wanted to.
935 2011-12-02 19:40:35 <TD> sure. the goal is to avoid you needing a custom bitcoind
936 2011-12-02 19:40:46 <TD> bitcoin works best if everyone, especially miners, is on the latest version
937 2011-12-02 19:41:02 <TD> so if you can have the same efficiency you have today, or better, but with no custom patches, it makes introducing new features for the community much easier
938 2011-12-02 19:41:17 <TD> there's no need for backports to v 0.3.1 when the current version is 0.5
939 2011-12-02 19:43:14 <[Tycho]> Also I think that serious updates shouldn't happen too often.
940 2011-12-02 19:43:23 <[Tycho]> At least compatibility-breaking ones.
941 2011-12-02 19:43:47 _Fireball has quit (Quit: HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- The professional IRC Client :D)
942 2011-12-02 19:44:39 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: they shouldn't .. but if we need all of N people, and each of the N is 10% like to reject _any_ change because they're too busy to merge now.. then it rapidly becomes impossible to change anything ever.
943 2011-12-02 19:44:39 <[Tycho]> Hope _Fireball will get his stuff ready soon :)
944 2011-12-02 19:46:27 <TD> [Tycho]: most of the changes would be just whitelisting new scripts. not that hard.
945 2011-12-02 19:46:27 theorbtwo has joined
946 2011-12-02 19:46:36 <TD> [Tycho]: but it's still easier if you just download+run (or recompile)
947 2011-12-02 19:47:33 abragin has quit ()
948 2011-12-02 19:47:34 <TD> [Tycho]: look at it another way. running the latest version is a competitive advantage for you. let's say gavin introduces a new script feature that makes Bitcoin more appealing somehow ... maybe more secure (like this one). miners will start to read that by mining on DeepBit they are causing tx delays for anyone who uses the new features. but by switching to $POOL they are making confirmation of those transactions a bit faster
949 2011-12-02 19:47:45 <TD> if they support bitcoin, or want to use those features themselves, they'll be incented to switch to another pool
950 2011-12-02 19:48:01 <TD> if mining on DeepBit is guaranteed to always be working on the latest feature set, there's no need for that
951 2011-12-02 19:48:19 <TD> so because mining on the latest version is a competitive advantage, making it easy to keep up should be worth it
952 2011-12-02 19:48:43 <TD> it doesn't have to mean "zero patches". just making sure you keep rebasing against the latest versions is enough
953 2011-12-02 19:48:44 <[Tycho]> Luckily most of my users aren't reading the forum :)
954 2011-12-02 19:49:53 <[Tycho]> Also, sometimes I'm applying new features as needed.
955 2011-12-02 19:50:37 <TD> it's probably less work for you to forward port your getwork patches than backport features.
956 2011-12-02 19:51:35 <[Tycho]> Currently I'm not declining any "new-type" TXs and not going to.
957 2011-12-02 19:53:44 <gavinandresen> The real pressure to upgrade will come when the GUI supports newfangled bitcoin addresses and always-secure wallets and your users want you to send bitcoins to the newfangled addresses for payouts
958 2011-12-02 19:54:20 <[Tycho]> "newfangled" ?
959 2011-12-02 19:54:52 <gavinandresen> Yes, see BIP 13 -- a new kind of bitcoin address to go with the new OP_EVAL txout type
960 2011-12-02 19:55:48 <gavinandresen> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0013
961 2011-12-02 19:56:31 <gmaxwell> speaking of getwork changes.. is there any motion to get incremental merkle root updating in mainline?
962 2011-12-02 19:56:48 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: patches welcome
963 2011-12-02 19:57:33 <[Tycho]> Installed a new client couple of days ago... Still downloading blocks :)
964 2011-12-02 19:57:34 <gavinandresen> that's not on my priority list, though, and in general I think a solution like poolserverj is a better approach
965 2011-12-02 19:57:43 <gmaxwell> 01:19 < denisx> with the merkletreeupdater my pushpool needs 70µsec for a getwork request
966 2011-12-02 19:58:03 <gmaxwell> I guess he's not around now to bug.
967 2011-12-02 19:59:27 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
968 2011-12-02 19:59:55 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
969 2011-12-02 20:02:10 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: so what's wrong with this new address ? What special output script will it require ?
970 2011-12-02 20:03:16 <gmaxwell> Nothing is 'wrong' with it. It has a different output script. (matching the hash of the input script that is allowed to spend it)
971 2011-12-02 20:03:37 RazielZ has joined
972 2011-12-02 20:04:17 <[Tycho]> Don't see any problems then. Also, I'm sending payments via another nodes, not the mining ones.
973 2011-12-02 20:04:18 dan__ has joined
974 2011-12-02 20:04:41 eueueue has quit (Quit: Saindo)
975 2011-12-02 20:04:43 larsivi has joined
976 2011-12-02 20:04:52 Herbert has quit (2!~kvirc@ppp-88-217-98-86.dynamic.mnet-online.de|Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
977 2011-12-02 20:06:00 <gmaxwell> Ah, well, you'll have to update that oneâ and your web interface at some point when people want payments to those addresses.
978 2011-12-02 20:06:03 PK_ has quit (Write error: Broken pipe)
979 2011-12-02 20:06:27 PK has joined
980 2011-12-02 20:11:23 <[Tycho]> Looks a couple of minutes work for m.
981 2011-12-02 20:11:40 <[Tycho]> Just add new version to allowed ones.
982 2011-12-02 20:12:09 <[Tycho]> Also, I really don't think that all nodes running exactly same software version is good for the network.
983 2011-12-02 20:12:41 <gmaxwell> it isn't but the old bitcoin versions are hardly different enough to make a real improvement there.
984 2011-12-02 20:17:00 Herbert has joined
985 2011-12-02 20:17:44 num1 has joined
986 2011-12-02 20:18:34 <[Tycho]> Well, I would prefer another client at all, not the old version :)
987 2011-12-02 20:18:47 <[Tycho]> (not for me, but for some other nodes)
988 2011-12-02 20:19:04 Workbench has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
989 2011-12-02 20:19:29 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: if you're gonna fork, do it right :P
990 2011-12-02 20:19:41 <[Tycho]> No, I'm not going to.
991 2011-12-02 20:19:53 <[Tycho]> Only writing from scratch if even :)
992 2011-12-02 20:20:26 <[Tycho]> Hm, automatic patch applying failed in 5 places. Have to look at it manually.
993 2011-12-02 20:22:15 <luke-jr> wumpus: something's wrong with the build system I think; it isn't recompiling UI changes
994 2011-12-02 20:28:15 wasabi1 has joined
995 2011-12-02 20:29:01 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
996 2011-12-02 20:29:03 <luke-jr> ah
997 2011-12-02 20:29:06 <luke-jr> wumpus: nm, sorry
998 2011-12-02 20:29:24 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
999 2011-12-02 20:36:41 localhost has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1000 2011-12-02 20:38:10 PK is now known as Dinner!~PK@pdpc/supporter/active/pk|PK
1001 2011-12-02 20:39:14 dan__ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1002 2011-12-02 20:39:14 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1003 2011-12-02 20:40:17 localhost has joined
1004 2011-12-02 20:46:31 egecko__ has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
1005 2011-12-02 20:49:25 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1006 2011-12-02 20:49:47 Lunaqus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1007 2011-12-02 20:49:50 phantomfake has joined
1008 2011-12-02 20:51:57 caedes_ has joined
1009 2011-12-02 20:51:57 caedes_ has quit (Changing host)
1010 2011-12-02 20:51:57 caedes_ has joined
1011 2011-12-02 20:53:19 <luke-jr> sipa: sipa/ipv6 seems to need a rebase :x
1012 2011-12-02 21:02:10 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1013 2011-12-02 21:04:18 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: hope that summary I just wrote up is useful
1014 2011-12-02 21:05:00 Workbench has joined
1015 2011-12-02 21:05:10 * luke-jr will be using/testing his next-test branch for now
1016 2011-12-02 21:05:40 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: hmm? summary of what?
1017 2011-12-02 21:06:05 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: stuff ACK'd for 0.6, probably-ready for 0.6, and needing review
1018 2011-12-02 21:06:21 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: based on the pull request list, comments, and manually trying to merge them all
1019 2011-12-02 21:06:34 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I just sent to the -dev list
1020 2011-12-02 21:06:43 Nicksasa has joined
1021 2011-12-02 21:06:49 <gavinandresen> ah, haven't checked email since I just walked back in the door...
1022 2011-12-02 21:06:53 <luke-jr> heh
1023 2011-12-02 21:07:13 <luke-jr> also pushed 'next' and 'next-test' branches to my personal repo
1024 2011-12-02 21:09:53 sneak has joined
1025 2011-12-02 21:09:53 sneak has quit (Changing host)
1026 2011-12-02 21:09:53 sneak has joined
1027 2011-12-02 21:10:12 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: thanks, that is helpful.
1028 2011-12-02 21:10:58 <luke-jr> don't trust my branches though
1029 2011-12-02 21:11:14 <luke-jr> I'm sitting here pondering how I managed to merge OP_EVAL onto coinbaser without doing anything
1030 2011-12-02 21:15:15 <luke-jr> yeah, that failed⦠git apparently is willing to auto-merge that part incorrectly
1031 2011-12-02 21:16:47 IO- has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1032 2011-12-02 21:16:54 eueueue has joined
1033 2011-12-02 21:17:23 IO- has joined
1034 2011-12-02 21:18:13 RichardG has quit (Quit: QUIIIIIIIIIIIIIT)
1035 2011-12-02 21:18:42 MBS has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1036 2011-12-02 21:18:43 jine has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1037 2011-12-02 21:18:43 <luke-jr> aha, gavinandresen⦠you just overwrote the scriptSig after calculating the non-OP_EVAL one⦠>_<
1038 2011-12-02 21:18:51 btginsb has joined
1039 2011-12-02 21:19:13 jine has joined
1040 2011-12-02 21:20:34 RichardG has joined
1041 2011-12-02 21:20:42 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: hmm? pblock->vtx[0].vin[0].scriptSig += CScript() .... etc
1042 2011-12-02 21:20:51 egecko has joined
1043 2011-12-02 21:20:53 <gavinandresen> += is append
1044 2011-12-02 21:20:58 <luke-jr> ah
1045 2011-12-02 21:21:00 <luke-jr> I see
1046 2011-12-02 21:22:46 <btginsb> anyone able to help with a php/API problem?
1047 2011-12-02 21:24:16 Guest22729 has joined
1048 2011-12-02 21:24:37 Guest22729 is now known as MBs
1049 2011-12-02 21:24:40 MBs is now known as MBS
1050 2011-12-02 21:24:46 MBS has quit (Changing host)
1051 2011-12-02 21:24:46 MBS has joined
1052 2011-12-02 21:28:04 wasabi2 has joined
1053 2011-12-02 21:28:58 BurtyB has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1054 2011-12-02 21:29:10 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1055 2011-12-02 21:29:19 BurtyB has joined
1056 2011-12-02 21:29:26 <sipa> ;;later tell luke-jr i'm working on a revised version of ipv6 support, together with some refactoring
1057 2011-12-02 21:29:26 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
1058 2011-12-02 21:29:41 CaptainDDL has quit (Quit: I leave my first mate in charge!)
1059 2011-12-02 21:30:13 <luke-jr> â¦
1060 2011-12-02 21:30:57 <sipa> ah, you're here :)
1061 2011-12-02 21:32:27 RichardG has quit (Quit: QUIIIIIIIIIIIIIT)
1062 2011-12-02 21:32:55 MartianW has joined
1063 2011-12-02 21:33:06 brocktice has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1064 2011-12-02 21:33:44 brocktice has joined
1065 2011-12-02 21:33:45 brocktice has quit (Changing host)
1066 2011-12-02 21:33:45 brocktice has joined
1067 2011-12-02 21:33:49 ferroh has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1068 2011-12-02 21:33:58 RichardG has joined
1069 2011-12-02 21:34:50 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: fixed my 'next' branch
1070 2011-12-02 21:35:05 <luke-jr> (re-merged things)
1071 2011-12-02 21:35:28 MartianW has left ()
1072 2011-12-02 21:38:10 <sipa> luke-jr: you're planning to maintain those -next branches?
1073 2011-12-02 21:39:23 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1074 2011-12-02 21:40:05 RAWRwins254 has quit (Quit: Wow.... Really?!)
1075 2011-12-02 21:40:22 RAWRwins254 has joined
1076 2011-12-02 21:46:46 <luke-jr> sipa: not long-term
1077 2011-12-02 21:47:15 <sipa> ok - i think we need something like that
1078 2011-12-02 21:47:30 <sipa> so it's nice to someone at least starting such branches
1079 2011-12-02 21:47:34 <sipa> *see
1080 2011-12-02 21:47:45 <luke-jr> but I might end up doing it, shrug
1081 2011-12-02 21:47:50 <luke-jr> just not planned, at the moment
1082 2011-12-02 21:48:30 <sipa> ok
1083 2011-12-02 21:51:40 Workbench has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1084 2011-12-02 21:53:36 peck has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1085 2011-12-02 21:54:34 peck has joined
1086 2011-12-02 21:54:40 <luke-jr> k, both 'next' and 'next-test' are fixed
1087 2011-12-02 21:57:23 BGL has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1088 2011-12-02 22:01:23 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1089 2011-12-02 22:04:32 iocor has joined
1090 2011-12-02 22:05:12 zeiris has quit (Quit: segfault)
1091 2011-12-02 22:05:27 zeiris has joined
1092 2011-12-02 22:07:22 eueueue has quit (Quit: Saindo)
1093 2011-12-02 22:09:00 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
1094 2011-12-02 22:11:41 t3a has joined
1095 2011-12-02 22:11:52 ThomasV_ has joined
1096 2011-12-02 22:15:00 traviscj has joined
1097 2011-12-02 22:15:50 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1098 2011-12-02 22:15:51 btginsb has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1099 2011-12-02 22:16:54 ThomasV_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1100 2011-12-02 22:19:27 b4epoche_ has joined
1101 2011-12-02 22:19:29 BGL has joined
1102 2011-12-02 22:21:42 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1103 2011-12-02 22:22:44 caedes_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1104 2011-12-02 22:33:24 traviscj has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1105 2011-12-02 22:35:08 eueueue has joined
1106 2011-12-02 22:35:55 traviscj has joined
1107 2011-12-02 22:38:07 Maged has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1108 2011-12-02 22:39:44 Maged has joined
1109 2011-12-02 22:49:54 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1110 2011-12-02 22:49:59 clr_ has joined
1111 2011-12-02 22:51:10 CaptainDDL has joined
1112 2011-12-02 22:51:13 CaptainDDL has quit (Changing host)
1113 2011-12-02 22:51:13 CaptainDDL has joined
1114 2011-12-02 22:52:16 ThomasV_ has joined
1115 2011-12-02 22:52:45 ThomasV_ has quit (Client Quit)
1116 2011-12-02 22:54:07 gp5st has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1117 2011-12-02 22:54:22 ThomasV_ has joined
1118 2011-12-02 22:55:20 clr__ has joined
1119 2011-12-02 22:55:40 clr_ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1120 2011-12-02 22:56:57 slush has joined
1121 2011-12-02 22:58:23 superman2016 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1122 2011-12-02 23:01:40 dan__ has joined
1123 2011-12-02 23:02:39 Randor has joined
1124 2011-12-02 23:08:53 iocor has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1125 2011-12-02 23:12:16 traviscj has joined
1126 2011-12-02 23:13:02 eueueue has quit (Quit: Saindo)
1127 2011-12-02 23:16:57 dvide has joined
1128 2011-12-02 23:21:22 eoss has joined
1129 2011-12-02 23:21:22 eoss has quit (Changing host)
1130 2011-12-02 23:21:22 eoss has joined
1131 2011-12-02 23:21:37 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1132 2011-12-02 23:24:09 ThomasV_ has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1133 2011-12-02 23:31:34 iocor has joined
1134 2011-12-02 23:32:49 cronopio has quit (Quit: leaving)
1135 2011-12-02 23:38:14 Workbench has joined
1136 2011-12-02 23:43:54 osmosis has joined
1137 2011-12-02 23:51:15 DrHaribo is now known as MintBot
1138 2011-12-02 23:53:37 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
1139 2011-12-02 23:54:17 copumpkin has joined
1140 2011-12-02 23:56:31 MintBot has quit (Quit: leaving)
1141 2011-12-02 23:59:44 PK has quit ()