1 2011-12-07 00:02:22 theorbtwo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2 2011-12-07 00:04:26 theorbtwo has joined
3 2011-12-07 00:11:10 graingert has joined
4 2011-12-07 00:12:04 eoss has joined
5 2011-12-07 00:12:04 eoss has quit (Changing host)
6 2011-12-07 00:12:04 eoss has joined
7 2011-12-07 00:16:02 caedes_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
8 2011-12-07 00:16:25 dan__ has joined
9 2011-12-07 00:19:04 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
10 2011-12-07 00:24:13 traviscj has joined
11 2011-12-07 00:26:30 AlexWaters has joined
12 2011-12-07 00:26:41 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
13 2011-12-07 00:33:34 Wizzleby has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
14 2011-12-07 00:34:05 dan__ has quit (Quit: dan__)
15 2011-12-07 00:34:17 Kolky has quit (Quit: Bye bye!)
16 2011-12-07 00:36:00 Wizzleby has joined
17 2011-12-07 00:38:33 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
18 2011-12-07 00:46:05 ByteCoin has joined
19 2011-12-07 00:48:28 <lianj> http://blockexplorer.com/tx/e411dbebd2f7d64dafeef9b14b5c59ec60c36779d43f850e5e347abee1e1a455 oO
20 2011-12-07 00:49:46 iocor has joined
21 2011-12-07 00:49:48 iocor has quit (Client Quit)
22 2011-12-07 00:52:45 <phantomcircuit> lianj, old DoS attempt
23 2011-12-07 00:53:14 <BlueMatt> lianj: code was added a LONG time ago specifically to prevent that
24 2011-12-07 00:54:31 <lianj> ok, so my client shouldnt support it? :D but it somehow needs to for walking the chain
25 2011-12-07 00:55:56 <phantomcircuit> lianj, anything that's in the blockchain is ok
26 2011-12-07 00:56:06 <phantomcircuit> but your client wont foreward or attempt to put that into a block
27 2011-12-07 00:56:45 <lianj> ah ok
28 2011-12-07 00:57:57 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
29 2011-12-07 00:58:27 <roconnor> phantomcircuit: would Eligius support such a transaction?
30 2011-12-07 00:58:36 <phantomcircuit> roconnor, only with a very large fee
31 2011-12-07 00:58:42 darkee has joined
32 2011-12-07 00:59:15 <[Tycho]> Are you sure about "very large" ?
33 2011-12-07 00:59:40 <roconnor> phantomcircuit: I understand that Eligius's fees are based solely on byte-size
34 2011-12-07 00:59:52 <phantomcircuit> roconnor, yeah i think so
35 2011-12-07 01:00:01 <phantomcircuit> [Tycho], all things being relative
36 2011-12-07 01:01:00 <roconnor> 0.00004096 BTC per 512 bytes times 4 kb is only about 0.00032768
37 2011-12-07 01:01:06 <roconnor> BTC
38 2011-12-07 01:01:22 <[Tycho]> Not so relative.
39 2011-12-07 01:01:30 <lianj> :>
40 2011-12-07 01:01:47 <roconnor> unless I am mistaken
41 2011-12-07 01:02:36 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
42 2011-12-07 01:02:51 MimeNarrator has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
43 2011-12-07 01:03:29 Internet13 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
44 2011-12-07 01:03:42 <roconnor> phantomcircuit: does that particular DOS even work? presumably the OP_CHECKSIG's would quickly exhast the stack in this particular case and quickly fail.
45 2011-12-07 01:03:57 <roconnor> (though clearly you could build a better DOS script)
46 2011-12-07 01:04:45 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
47 2011-12-07 01:04:51 <phantomcircuit> roconnor, i think at the time it did work
48 2011-12-07 01:04:52 <roconnor> hmm
49 2011-12-07 01:05:04 <phantomcircuit> the script code has been simplified since then
50 2011-12-07 01:05:51 MobiusL has joined
51 2011-12-07 01:05:58 copumpkin has joined
52 2011-12-07 01:06:05 <roconnor> I guess that trascation hasn't been redeemed and can't be redeemed
53 2011-12-07 01:06:22 <roconnor> and it currently has no computational overhead at all
54 2011-12-07 01:07:12 <phantomcircuit> correct
55 2011-12-07 01:07:25 <phantomcircuit> well it does for people downloading the blockchain
56 2011-12-07 01:07:32 <phantomcircuit> but that's a one time cost
57 2011-12-07 01:07:38 <roconnor> right
58 2011-12-07 01:07:47 <roconnor> but at least none of the OP_CHECKSIGs are ever run
59 2011-12-07 01:07:55 <phantomcircuit> yeah
60 2011-12-07 01:08:36 <roconnor> poor lost 0.01 BTC
61 2011-12-07 01:09:33 <lianj> poor 4kb
62 2011-12-07 01:10:33 <phantomcircuit> i love how bit-pay.net is porn
63 2011-12-07 01:10:58 Internet13 has joined
64 2011-12-07 01:12:03 crazy_im1 has joined
65 2011-12-07 01:13:54 <phantomcircuit> bleh we need a futures market
66 2011-12-07 01:14:50 crazy_imp has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
67 2011-12-07 01:15:24 <BlueMatt> how is there still not one?
68 2011-12-07 01:15:36 <phantomcircuit> i have no idea
69 2011-12-07 01:15:55 <BlueMatt> how has mtgox not added one yet???
70 2011-12-07 01:16:09 <BlueMatt> it seems like they move (understandably) slower than the bitcoin client
71 2011-12-07 01:16:45 <phantomcircuit> im not sure their software can handle it
72 2011-12-07 01:16:51 <phantomcircuit> it might be able to now actually
73 2011-12-07 01:17:05 * BlueMatt doesnt watch mtgox development much...
74 2011-12-07 01:17:29 <phantomcircuit> yeah
75 2011-12-07 01:17:41 <phantomcircuit> although maybe im wrong and you can
76 2011-12-07 01:17:46 <phantomcircuit> i mean they can
77 2011-12-07 01:18:04 <phantomcircuit> i would do one actually thinking about it
78 2011-12-07 01:20:49 <phantomcircuit> maybe i'll do one that only deals in mtgox coupons
79 2011-12-07 01:20:49 <phantomcircuit> lol
80 2011-12-07 01:25:48 MimeNarrator has joined
81 2011-12-07 01:26:05 <graingert> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/n39ys/its_always_good_to_double_check/
82 2011-12-07 01:30:11 <upb> hum, thats from july
83 2011-12-07 01:36:04 MimeNarrator has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
84 2011-12-07 01:43:22 wolfspraul has joined
85 2011-12-07 01:43:55 ageis has joined
86 2011-12-07 01:45:21 MimeNarrator has joined
87 2011-12-07 01:45:27 <ageis> anyone here who is good with JSON? need some quick help accessing some JSON data which is formatted in a way i haven't seen before...
88 2011-12-07 01:46:35 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
89 2011-12-07 01:46:46 <lianj> dont ask to ask
90 2011-12-07 01:46:59 <graingert> ageis: pastebin
91 2011-12-07 01:47:16 <ageis> graingert: its just here: https://btcex.com/ticker.json
92 2011-12-07 01:47:35 <ageis> so i have the json object in a perl hash
93 2011-12-07 01:47:49 <ageis> and i want just the bid/ask/last prices in USD
94 2011-12-07 01:47:53 <luke-jr> isn't btcex that bad exchange?
95 2011-12-07 01:47:59 <ageis> i'm used to $btcex->{ticker}->{ask}
96 2011-12-07 01:48:12 <ageis> that type of thing
97 2011-12-07 01:48:23 <ageis> but i dont understand this one
98 2011-12-07 01:48:28 <graingert> ageis: in what sense
99 2011-12-07 01:48:29 <luke-jr> ageis: looks like normal JSON to me
100 2011-12-07 01:48:35 <graingert> http://jsonlint.com/
101 2011-12-07 01:48:38 MimeNarrator has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
102 2011-12-07 01:48:40 <graingert> will format it nicely
103 2011-12-07 01:48:54 <graingert> ageis: what information do you want from it?
104 2011-12-07 01:49:08 <luke-jr> try $btcex->[0]->{ask}
105 2011-12-07 01:49:12 <ageis> graingert: bid/ask/lasttradedprice
106 2011-12-07 01:49:18 <ageis> luke-jr: thanks, thats what i was looking for
107 2011-12-07 01:49:21 <luke-jr> ageis: but srsly, if btcex is what I think it is, avoid like the plague
108 2011-12-07 01:49:25 marf_away has joined
109 2011-12-07 01:49:30 <ageis> i was thrown off by the fact that each table didnt have a title
110 2011-12-07 01:49:30 <graingert> ageis: you don't know how to arrays?
111 2011-12-07 01:49:44 <ageis> graingert: i said it would be quick
112 2011-12-07 01:50:01 <graingert> ageis: perl == bleaugh
113 2011-12-07 01:50:04 Workbench_ has joined
114 2011-12-07 01:50:10 <luke-jr> anyhow, I think BtCex was the site that DDoS'd their competitor
115 2011-12-07 01:50:14 <luke-jr> graingert: FAIL
116 2011-12-07 01:50:24 <luke-jr> Perl = YES
117 2011-12-07 01:50:59 <graingert> no
118 2011-12-07 01:51:08 <ageis> luke-jr: no worries, this is all i'm doing http://ageispolis.net/cgi-bin/bitcoin.pl
119 2011-12-07 01:51:18 <ageis> completely harmless and for fun and unnecessary
120 2011-12-07 01:51:29 <graingert> t-t-tables?
121 2011-12-07 01:51:38 <graingert> naw it's fine
122 2011-12-07 01:51:41 <lianj> "SSL certificate problem, verify that the CA cert is OK."
123 2011-12-07 01:51:42 <ageis> graingert why dont you like perl?
124 2011-12-07 01:52:00 <graingert> ageis: it's not as nice as python
125 2011-12-07 01:52:08 <graingert> and python is installed everywhere perl is
126 2011-12-07 01:52:18 <luke-jr> graingert: FALSE
127 2011-12-07 01:52:24 <luke-jr> Python is garbage :D
128 2011-12-07 01:52:25 Workbench has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
129 2011-12-07 01:52:30 <graingert> sigh
130 2011-12-07 01:52:30 <luke-jr> and Perl is installed everywhere
131 2011-12-07 01:52:46 <ageis> it's just more user-friendly
132 2011-12-07 01:52:48 <BlueMatt> can we not discuss religion?
133 2011-12-07 01:52:54 <graingert> LAWL
134 2011-12-07 01:53:03 <graingert> keep it to the block-chain
135 2011-12-07 01:54:05 <graingert> http://search.cpan.org/dist/Inline-Python/Python.pod#Using_the_Inline::Python_Module
136 2011-12-07 01:55:29 <lianj> m(
137 2011-12-07 01:55:34 <graingert> )
138 2011-12-07 01:56:05 <luke-jr> rather use Inline::C :/
139 2011-12-07 01:56:41 <lianj> FFI
140 2011-12-07 01:57:29 <graingert> !google FFI
141 2011-12-07 01:57:30 <gribble> Home - Family Firm Institute (FFI) - The International Body for Family ...: <http://www.ffi.org/>; Foreign function interface - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_function_interface>; Fatal familial insomnia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_familial_insomnia>
142 2011-12-07 01:59:17 <lianj> !g libffi wiki
143 2011-12-07 01:59:18 <gribble> Error: "g" is not a valid command.
144 2011-12-07 01:59:23 <lianj> !google libffi wiki
145 2011-12-07 01:59:24 <gribble> libffi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libffi>; Libffi 3.0.9 - MoxieWiki: <http://moxielogic.org/wiki/index.php?title=Libffi_3.0.9>; Libffi 3.0.10 - MoxieWiki: <http://www.moxielogic.org/wiki/index.php?title=Libffi_3.0.10>
146 2011-12-07 02:00:07 <ageis> here's my script to check if someone's coming from tor or not (exit list query) http://ageispolis.net/cgi-bin/torcheck.pl
147 2011-12-07 02:00:22 Workbench has joined
148 2011-12-07 02:00:51 <graingert> ageis: it would be good if it used GET rather than post
149 2011-12-07 02:01:13 <lianj> why?
150 2011-12-07 02:01:29 <ageis> graingert: hmm, i just ran into that issue with the bitcoin charts..
151 2011-12-07 02:01:33 <ageis> but yes, why
152 2011-12-07 02:01:40 <ageis> oh
153 2011-12-07 02:01:45 <graingert> so I can link to it
154 2011-12-07 02:01:55 <ageis> it already has api and takes args :)
155 2011-12-07 02:01:58 <ageis> ?ip= or ?host=
156 2011-12-07 02:01:59 <graingert> because it doesn't edit a DB backend
157 2011-12-07 02:02:02 <ageis> and with api=1 it will return 0,1,2
158 2011-12-07 02:02:08 <ageis> 2 = error
159 2011-12-07 02:02:18 <graingert> I see well the form should use get then
160 2011-12-07 02:02:49 <ageis> ok
161 2011-12-07 02:02:59 <ageis> here's an example positive result
162 2011-12-07 02:02:59 <ageis> http://ageispolis.net/cgi-bin/torcheck.pl?ip=74.63.212.125
163 2011-12-07 02:03:19 Workbench_ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
164 2011-12-07 02:04:24 <ageis> i'd love if you linked to it actually
165 2011-12-07 02:04:42 <ageis> i wrote it so we could exclude certain suspect clients from btcvps but its not getting used
166 2011-12-07 02:04:48 <graingert> I will if you get rid of the cgi-bin and the .pl
167 2011-12-07 02:05:39 <graingert> http://ageispolis.net/torcheck?q=<ip or host>
168 2011-12-07 02:05:59 <ageis> sure thing
169 2011-12-07 02:07:08 <ageis> just gotta enable scripts in my home dir
170 2011-12-07 02:08:47 <ageis> now it's just serving up the text without the extension
171 2011-12-07 02:08:47 <ageis> hrm
172 2011-12-07 02:08:58 <graingert> django!
173 2011-12-07 02:09:19 <graingert> I'll be honest django is a bit heavy for this :p
174 2011-12-07 02:09:30 <ageis> reinhardt?
175 2011-12-07 02:09:49 <ageis> graingert: would masquerading as .py be suitable to you?
176 2011-12-07 02:09:55 <graingert> no
177 2011-12-07 02:10:01 <graingert> that would be just as bad
178 2011-12-07 02:10:05 <lianj> hihi
179 2011-12-07 02:10:07 <ageis> lol
180 2011-12-07 02:10:29 <graingert> http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
181 2011-12-07 02:10:52 <ageis> i just need help config'ing apache to run this shit
182 2011-12-07 02:11:10 <ageis> i cant just addhandler so all extensionless shit is a script
183 2011-12-07 02:12:10 <ageis> why doesnt it dig my shebang
184 2011-12-07 02:12:46 <BlueMatt> chmod +x ?
185 2011-12-07 02:13:46 <ageis> oo i got dis
186 2011-12-07 02:13:47 <ageis> already tried
187 2011-12-07 02:13:48 <graingert> hang on
188 2011-12-07 02:13:48 <graingert> you can leave the file as a .pl
189 2011-12-07 02:13:48 <graingert> just use a re-write rule
190 2011-12-07 02:13:51 <ageis> ScriptAliasMatch is the answer
191 2011-12-07 02:13:54 <ageis> oh, that too
192 2011-12-07 02:13:59 <ageis> i already use a rewrite rule for www.
193 2011-12-07 02:14:48 <ageis> ScriptAliasMatch ^(/[^/.]*)$ /var/www/htdocs$1
194 2011-12-07 02:15:33 <graingert> I'm glad you correct the right way
195 2011-12-07 02:15:36 <ageis> okay buddy
196 2011-12-07 02:15:39 <graingert> so many people add www. in
197 2011-12-07 02:15:48 <ageis> you're all set
198 2011-12-07 02:15:51 <ageis> http://ageispolis.net/torcheck
199 2011-12-07 02:16:16 <graingert> http://ageispolis.net/torcheck?host=google.com
200 2011-12-07 02:16:22 <ageis> www.no-www.org
201 2011-12-07 02:17:25 <ageis> i hope i've satisfied your purism
202 2011-12-07 02:19:07 <graingert> it would be nice if you could respond
203 2011-12-07 02:19:18 <graingert> ip (host) does not appear to be a Tor exit.
204 2011-12-07 02:19:26 <ageis> no problemo
205 2011-12-07 02:19:43 <ageis> only when a host is supplied?
206 2011-12-07 02:19:50 <ageis> or try to resolve ips as well
207 2011-12-07 02:19:55 <graingert> of course
208 2011-12-07 02:20:04 <ageis> alright
209 2011-12-07 02:20:07 arneis has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
210 2011-12-07 02:20:08 <graingert> and you should detect if I enter a host for ip and an ip for host
211 2011-12-07 02:20:25 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
212 2011-12-07 02:20:29 <graingert> and you're still sending me to http://ageispolis.net/cgi-bin/torcheck.pl
213 2011-12-07 02:20:39 <ageis> ah yes
214 2011-12-07 02:20:53 <graingert> and you should autofwd from the old standard to the new
215 2011-12-07 02:20:58 <ageis> fixed
216 2011-12-07 02:21:40 <ageis> you want method=get
217 2011-12-07 02:21:43 <graingert> Error: DNS query failed or an unexpected response was received.
218 2011-12-07 02:22:54 <graingert> http://ageispolis.net/torcheck?lookup=1&ip=google.com&submit=send the &submit=send isn't needed
219 2011-12-07 02:23:35 <ageis> just input name=submit ?
220 2011-12-07 02:23:44 <ageis> er nix the vale
221 2011-12-07 02:23:45 <ageis> value
222 2011-12-07 02:24:25 <graingert> no idea on this one
223 2011-12-07 02:24:31 <graingert> I've never had the issue
224 2011-12-07 02:24:48 <graingert> I've come up with an idea for a site
225 2011-12-07 02:25:07 <graingert> bitcoinforceit.com
226 2011-12-07 02:25:13 <graingert> similar to bitcoinfaucet
227 2011-12-07 02:25:30 <graingert> but it tries to send bitcoin via the IP method to anyone accessing the site
228 2011-12-07 02:26:00 <ageis> cool
229 2011-12-07 02:26:03 darkee has joined
230 2011-12-07 02:26:12 <BlueMatt> that sounds like way too much effort...
231 2011-12-07 02:26:31 <BlueMatt> set the bitcoin parameters, forward your ports, then go to site...or copy address paste address click go
232 2011-12-07 02:26:59 <graingert> OH GOD NO NAT
233 2011-12-07 02:27:03 <graingert> it ruins all my plans
234 2011-12-07 02:27:15 SomeoneWeirdzzzz is now known as SomeoneWeird
235 2011-12-07 02:27:17 <BlueMatt> force everyone onto ipv6...oh wait bitocin doesnt support ipv6
236 2011-12-07 02:27:23 <graingert> nooa
237 2011-12-07 02:27:42 <graingert> which is worse NAT or Natzis?
238 2011-12-07 02:27:47 <BlueMatt> nat
239 2011-12-07 02:27:54 <BlueMatt> no question about it
240 2011-12-07 02:28:03 <graingert> yep
241 2011-12-07 02:28:05 <lianj> you can punch holes in both of them
242 2011-12-07 02:28:10 <graingert> ohh
243 2011-12-07 02:28:33 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
244 2011-12-07 02:28:36 <graingert> packet rape vs statutory rape?
245 2011-12-07 02:28:47 <BlueMatt> funny thing is nat was invented to prevent isps from keeping us from putting multiple devices on one connection
246 2011-12-07 02:29:08 <graingert> in Birmingham Uni that have a tool to detect NAT
247 2011-12-07 02:29:12 <graingert> and perma ban you
248 2011-12-07 02:29:19 <graingert> they*
249 2011-12-07 02:29:30 wolfspraul has joined
250 2011-12-07 02:29:41 <graingert> so I took my £3k/y elsewhere
251 2011-12-07 02:29:53 <BlueMatt> heh, unc has support pages on how to set up a router, xbox, etc
252 2011-12-07 02:30:29 <graingert> wireless networks were against the room policy
253 2011-12-07 02:30:45 <graingert> but they "promised" not to worry you if it was secure
254 2011-12-07 02:30:51 <graingert> in my old halls
255 2011-12-07 02:31:01 <graingert> they changed the policy after I left
256 2011-12-07 02:31:12 <BlueMatt> heh, around here its like wireless bonanza...have fun finding your ap on the list, it goes on for fucking ever...
257 2011-12-07 02:31:29 <BlueMatt> though there are some clever ones on the list
258 2011-12-07 02:31:41 <graingert> if we make our AP name long enough you can't see it on my flat-mate's mac
259 2011-12-07 02:31:55 <BlueMatt> Bill WI the Science Fi is one of my favorites...
260 2011-12-07 02:32:07 <graingert> our AP name was randomly generated, we then prepend and append the wireless standard to the string
261 2011-12-07 02:33:00 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
262 2011-12-07 02:33:11 HaltingState has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
263 2011-12-07 02:33:26 OneFixt has joined
264 2011-12-07 02:33:41 alanp_ has left ("http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.")
265 2011-12-07 02:33:52 OneFixt is now known as Guest85393
266 2011-12-07 02:34:03 Guest85393 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
267 2011-12-07 02:34:04 HaltingState has joined
268 2011-12-07 02:34:04 HaltingState has quit (Changing host)
269 2011-12-07 02:34:04 HaltingState has joined
270 2011-12-07 02:34:05 <ageis> my parents house/verizon still using WEP
271 2011-12-07 02:34:14 <BlueMatt> heh
272 2011-12-07 02:34:20 <ageis> i had free internet for a while at my apt. due to WEP + backtrack
273 2011-12-07 02:34:26 OneFixt_ has joined
274 2011-12-07 02:34:40 <BlueMatt> nice
275 2011-12-07 02:34:51 <graingert> the trick is to change the admin PW of the router
276 2011-12-07 02:35:02 <ageis> yes
277 2011-12-07 02:35:15 <ageis> they locked me out man, and i regretted not ever going into the router
278 2011-12-07 02:35:22 <BlueMatt> heh, yep...ive done that a few times
279 2011-12-07 02:35:24 <ageis> and i couldnt crack the AP with the best signal
280 2011-12-07 02:35:38 <BlueMatt> well that and the dnstunnel trick for free wifi on those please pay for wifi aps...
281 2011-12-07 02:35:42 <ageis> sooo i had to buy comcast :(
282 2011-12-07 02:36:01 <ageis> although android usb tether held me for a while
283 2011-12-07 02:36:08 <SomeoneWeird> yeah that trick works a charm BlueMatt :)
284 2011-12-07 02:36:28 <BlueMatt> SomeoneWeird: used to use it all the time before the days of me having a 4g data connection to tether on :)
285 2011-12-07 02:36:31 OneFixt_ has quit (Changing host)
286 2011-12-07 02:36:31 OneFixt_ has joined
287 2011-12-07 02:36:41 <BlueMatt> but its still nice in airports sometimes
288 2011-12-07 02:36:55 <SomeoneWeird> heh
289 2011-12-07 02:36:56 OneFixt_ is now known as OneFixt
290 2011-12-07 02:39:20 dvide_ has quit ()
291 2011-12-07 02:39:57 MimeNarrator has joined
292 2011-12-07 02:41:37 <graingert> I didn't think 4g existed yet
293 2011-12-07 02:41:55 <BlueMatt> heh good point
294 2011-12-07 02:42:24 <BlueMatt> fine, unlimited 3.5G tethering
295 2011-12-07 02:42:33 <BlueMatt> well, Id argue 3.75G
296 2011-12-07 02:44:33 <SomeoneWeird> lol
297 2011-12-07 02:46:05 <BlueMatt> anyway, hitting 10mbps down outside is good enough for me
298 2011-12-07 02:46:36 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
299 2011-12-07 02:46:55 wolfspraul has joined
300 2011-12-07 02:47:21 <SomeoneWeird> thats bull
301 2011-12-07 02:47:25 <SomeoneWeird> i dont even get 8mpbs at home
302 2011-12-07 02:47:30 wolfspra1l has joined
303 2011-12-07 02:47:50 <BlueMatt> got it earlier today
304 2011-12-07 02:48:11 <BlueMatt> 20685kbps down
305 2011-12-07 02:48:12 <SomeoneWeird> $?
306 2011-12-07 02:48:16 <BlueMatt> sorry, 10685
307 2011-12-07 02:48:30 <BlueMatt> only 1482kbps up, but meh
308 2011-12-07 02:49:03 <BlueMatt> hey, when you are on sprint you are literally the only one on the network, so wimax is plenty fast ;)
309 2011-12-07 02:50:31 <SomeoneWeird> hahaha
310 2011-12-07 02:50:38 <SomeoneWeird> how much did it cost ya?
311 2011-12-07 02:51:05 <BlueMatt> I dont pay for my service, my parents do ;)
312 2011-12-07 02:51:06 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
313 2011-12-07 02:52:51 <BlueMatt> anyway for unlimited 10mbps data, Id say 70/mo isnt too bad
314 2011-12-07 02:53:11 <BlueMatt> considering I use ~5G/mo
315 2011-12-07 02:54:26 <imsaguy> BlueMatt: have them call and say they have triple AAA
316 2011-12-07 02:54:31 <imsaguy> err, AAA*
317 2011-12-07 02:54:33 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
318 2011-12-07 02:54:36 darkee has joined
319 2011-12-07 02:54:41 <imsaguy> you'll get 12% off
320 2011-12-07 02:54:42 <imsaguy> :-x
321 2011-12-07 02:55:05 <BlueMatt> na, we already get like 15% off of the 70 b/c my dad's company has a sprint contract
322 2011-12-07 02:55:05 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
323 2011-12-07 02:55:36 <SomeoneWeird> hahaha
324 2011-12-07 02:55:44 <SomeoneWeird> how old are you BlueMatt ?
325 2011-12-07 02:55:58 * BlueMatt is a freshman @ unc-ch
326 2011-12-07 02:55:59 <BlueMatt> 18
327 2011-12-07 02:56:07 <SomeoneWeird> i see i see
328 2011-12-07 02:56:12 <BlueMatt> (studying compsci obv)
329 2011-12-07 02:56:25 <SomeoneWeird> hard?
330 2011-12-07 02:56:26 <SomeoneWeird> lol
331 2011-12-07 02:56:47 <SomeoneWeird> im studying dimploma of computer systems engineering & network security
332 2011-12-07 02:56:51 devrandom has joined
333 2011-12-07 02:56:53 <SomeoneWeird> fkin easy -.-
334 2011-12-07 02:57:06 <graingert> I have so much work to do :(
335 2011-12-07 02:57:09 <BlueMatt> easy as shit here too (though I am a freshman so of course it is)
336 2011-12-07 02:57:12 <graingert> 3rd year compsci soton
337 2011-12-07 02:57:27 <imsaguy> Freshman year is a joke
338 2011-12-07 02:57:31 <BlueMatt> yep
339 2011-12-07 02:57:40 <SomeoneWeird> cool
340 2011-12-07 02:57:42 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
341 2011-12-07 02:57:52 <graingert> hence why you're doing gitian and actually doing work for the PPA. And my work for it has been embarrassingly low
342 2011-12-07 02:58:05 <graingert> next time I have spare time is summer
343 2011-12-07 02:58:09 <BlueMatt> heh, well no shame in having shit to do in the real world
344 2011-12-07 02:58:46 <BlueMatt> no christmas break time off?
345 2011-12-07 02:59:30 <SomeoneWeird> what exactly you learning about BlueMatt? trying to figure out whether i should do compscience or just try and get a job
346 2011-12-07 03:00:06 <graingert> nope
347 2011-12-07 03:00:06 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
348 2011-12-07 03:00:17 <graingert> that's reserved for 3 courseworks
349 2011-12-07 03:00:36 <graingert> *cry*
350 2011-12-07 03:00:48 <BlueMatt> graingert: damn, that sucks...
351 2011-12-07 03:00:48 <graingert> graphics, 3yp and scripting group project
352 2011-12-07 03:01:03 <graingert> all would be totally fun on their own
353 2011-12-07 03:02:05 <BlueMatt> SomeoneWeird: afaik compsci is more programming and theory of programming whereas comp eng is more hardware
354 2011-12-07 03:02:28 <BlueMatt> ofc for compsci you need to understand the basics of how the hardware works and vica versa
355 2011-12-07 03:02:54 <SomeoneWeird> yeah
356 2011-12-07 03:03:35 <SomeoneWeird> and, ccna. yay or nay?
357 2011-12-07 03:04:16 <BlueMatt> ccna?
358 2011-12-07 03:04:37 <BlueMatt> cisco certified network ass-holes?
359 2011-12-07 03:04:49 <SomeoneWeird> lol
360 2011-12-07 03:04:56 <SomeoneWeird> sooo, thats a no..?
361 2011-12-07 03:05:31 <BlueMatt> what do you mean by ccna?
362 2011-12-07 03:05:38 <SomeoneWeird> should i get it
363 2011-12-07 03:05:44 <BlueMatt> meh
364 2011-12-07 03:05:50 <BlueMatt> not my place to make a decision
365 2011-12-07 03:05:56 <SomeoneWeird> true,
366 2011-12-07 03:06:00 <BlueMatt> nor do I know the job market for ccnas
367 2011-12-07 03:06:17 <BlueMatt> but hey, it can never hurt right?
368 2011-12-07 03:06:33 <graingert> ask potential employers
369 2011-12-07 03:06:42 <SomeoneWeird> i wanna get into security
370 2011-12-07 03:06:49 <graingert> SomeoneWeird: go to careerer events
371 2011-12-07 03:06:51 <SomeoneWeird> yeah graingert
372 2011-12-07 03:06:54 <graingert> SomeoneWeird: you in the UK?
373 2011-12-07 03:06:57 <SomeoneWeird> nah
374 2011-12-07 03:06:59 <SomeoneWeird> australia
375 2011-12-07 03:07:01 <graingert> dang
376 2011-12-07 03:07:08 <graingert> Soton has an awesome security course
377 2011-12-07 03:07:08 <SomeoneWeird> most people just laugh at me cuz of my age
378 2011-12-07 03:07:32 <gmaxwell> The various certs are useful for geting junior positions generallyâ but I would imagine that at the moment they don't do much because basically all job markets are flooded.
379 2011-12-07 03:07:58 <SomeoneWeird> yep
380 2011-12-07 03:08:01 <BlueMatt> my opinion - for now stay in school as long as possible
381 2011-12-07 03:08:13 <BlueMatt> (unless job market makes a 180)
382 2011-12-07 03:08:24 <gmaxwell> SomeoneWeird: careful wrt security jobs. Outside of contracting gigs (which are few and far between), IT security in many places is basically the designated fallguy. Site gets hacked? No probleâ we have a security person to fire. :)
383 2011-12-07 03:08:39 <SomeoneWeird> true
384 2011-12-07 03:09:16 <SomeoneWeird> already dropped highschool BlueMatt - was a pain in the ass
385 2011-12-07 03:09:18 <graingert> Web Designers stay in school till IE8 hits EOL
386 2011-12-07 03:09:22 <SomeoneWeird> going to tafe (like uni here)
387 2011-12-07 03:09:26 <SomeoneWeird> lol
388 2011-12-07 03:10:01 <BlueMatt> graingert: heh
389 2011-12-07 03:10:11 <BlueMatt> SomeoneWeird: hey, it cant be worse than working
390 2011-12-07 03:10:32 <gmaxwell> dunno about that.. generally you pay to go to school, while you get paid to work.
391 2011-12-07 03:10:35 <gmaxwell> ;)
392 2011-12-07 03:11:26 * BlueMatt pays nothing
393 2011-12-07 03:11:43 <gmaxwell> (thus why I included the word 'generally')
394 2011-12-07 03:11:51 <gmaxwell> So long as thats true, excellent. :)
395 2011-12-07 03:11:54 * BlueMatt is lucky, but hey
396 2011-12-07 03:12:08 somuchwin2 has joined
397 2011-12-07 03:12:11 somuchwin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
398 2011-12-07 03:12:50 <SomeoneWeird> yeah, parents paying for my education too :D
399 2011-12-07 03:12:51 <SomeoneWeird> lol
400 2011-12-07 03:13:20 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: you're already doing the right thing anyways: you're involved in stuff outside of school that you can point to as expirence. This will be a significant competitive advantage vs most of your peers.
401 2011-12-07 03:13:57 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: as long as you write me a recommendation, Im happy ;)
402 2011-12-07 03:14:22 <copumpkin> :O
403 2011-12-07 03:14:22 <gmaxwell> hah.
404 2011-12-07 03:14:47 <SomeoneWeird> haha
405 2011-12-07 03:15:16 <SomeoneWeird> yeah, mee too
406 2011-12-07 03:16:34 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: darn, didnt think so...
407 2011-12-07 03:16:44 <gmaxwell> hah, you don't need one yet anyways!
408 2011-12-07 03:17:22 <copumpkin> they like good essays
409 2011-12-07 03:17:24 <BlueMatt> heh, anyway...
410 2011-12-07 03:17:38 <BlueMatt> copumpkin: what employer wants you to submit an essay?
411 2011-12-07 03:17:41 * SomeoneWeird moves conversation to #bitcoin-education
412 2011-12-07 03:17:47 <copumpkin> oh I thought it was about school
413 2011-12-07 03:17:56 <BlueMatt> copumpkin: na, Im already in college
414 2011-12-07 03:17:59 <copumpkin> oh okay
415 2011-12-07 03:18:02 <gmaxwell> but yea, in general the job market across the board seems really screwy right now. My SO is unemployed, and has a pretty reasonable resume. We've looked at some of the folks getting hired over her, and â well crap, people with 15 years expirence doing exactly that jobâ taking a position at what was probably half their last pay. How do you compete with that?
416 2011-12-07 03:18:08 <copumpkin> BlueMatt: where?
417 2011-12-07 03:18:11 <BlueMatt> though I suppose the essay thing is true for grad school
418 2011-12-07 03:18:14 <BlueMatt> copumpkin: unc-ch
419 2011-12-07 03:18:18 <graingert> SO?
420 2011-12-07 03:18:20 <copumpkin> ah ok
421 2011-12-07 03:18:28 <gmaxwell> graingert: my long term girlfriend.
422 2011-12-07 03:18:41 <BlueMatt> heh, interesting way of putting it
423 2011-12-07 03:18:53 <SomeoneWeird> so?
424 2011-12-07 03:18:54 <copumpkin> significant other
425 2011-12-07 03:18:57 <SomeoneWeird> ah
426 2011-12-07 03:18:58 <BlueMatt> not wife?
427 2011-12-07 03:19:36 <copumpkin> some people don't care about marriage :P
428 2011-12-07 03:19:44 <gmaxwell> we reject the necessity of marriage. There are also economic reasons that make it inadvisable.
429 2011-12-07 03:19:50 <BlueMatt> anyway, back to the topic at hand...nat sucks
430 2011-12-07 03:20:00 <SomeoneWeird> lol
431 2011-12-07 03:20:01 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: fair enough
432 2011-12-07 03:20:17 <BlueMatt> well it is how we got on the subject of education, and its marginally more related to bitcoin
433 2011-12-07 03:20:41 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: in germany, its rare to get married pretty much until you have your first child because it means your taxes go up
434 2011-12-07 03:20:49 * BlueMatt always found that funny
435 2011-12-07 03:21:04 <gmaxwell> (if we were normal people we would beâ we've lived together for .. er like 8 years or so)
436 2011-12-07 03:21:25 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: did anything ever come of the jstor business?
437 2011-12-07 03:21:27 <BlueMatt> meh, whats the fun in normality?
438 2011-12-07 03:21:37 <SomeoneWeird> wow, 8 years haha
439 2011-12-07 03:22:03 * SomeoneWeird feels so young compared to everyone
440 2011-12-07 03:22:25 <copumpkin> how old?
441 2011-12-07 03:22:34 <copumpkin> SomeoneWeird: I think BlueMatt is pretty young?
442 2011-12-07 03:22:38 <BlueMatt> 18
443 2011-12-07 03:22:46 * SomeoneWeird is 15
444 2011-12-07 03:22:49 <copumpkin> oh ok
445 2011-12-07 03:23:00 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: yes, Jstor changed their policy and have made a should-be public domain documents available to everyone at no cost. (which they say wasn't due to me, but I'm pretty sure this is not completely true, not that it matters)
446 2011-12-07 03:23:05 <BlueMatt> heh after idling in #ICS-DEV-E4GT (android devs porting ics to e4gt) anything is old, they are all hs students
447 2011-12-07 03:23:08 <BlueMatt> some younger
448 2011-12-07 03:23:12 <gmaxwell> er s/made a/made all/
449 2011-12-07 03:23:24 <graingert> gmaxwell: jstor?
450 2011-12-07 03:23:29 <copumpkin> hey, I used to be involved in the iphone jailbreak community
451 2011-12-07 03:23:33 <copumpkin> most people there are 14
452 2011-12-07 03:23:42 <copumpkin> and "hack" their iphone by changing the theme on springboard
453 2011-12-07 03:23:57 <gmaxwell> graingert: manifesto here: https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6554331
454 2011-12-07 03:24:20 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: that's good! I was afraid they might go after you with an army of lawyers
455 2011-12-07 03:24:39 <SomeoneWeird> hahah true that copumpkin
456 2011-12-07 03:24:53 * BlueMatt was the same
457 2011-12-07 03:25:27 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: Wikimedia UK (of all places) got some threating noises for hosting the resulting documents, but they went away after being laughed at.
458 2011-12-07 03:25:41 <gmaxwell> I never heard a _peep_ except via journalists.
459 2011-12-07 03:25:48 <gmaxwell> Which sincerely surprised me.
460 2011-12-07 03:25:49 <copumpkin> funny
461 2011-12-07 03:25:57 <copumpkin> I guess they realized how indefensible their position would have been?
462 2011-12-07 03:25:58 <gmaxwell> For one, they still haven't figured out how I got the documents.
463 2011-12-07 03:26:05 <copumpkin> it usually doesn't stop large companies
464 2011-12-07 03:26:11 <copumpkin> lots of lawyers > reason
465 2011-12-07 03:26:42 <gmaxwell> And the most concrete claim they could have possibly made was related to e.g. violating some TOS in the process of obtaining the documents (which is a major part of the claims against Aaron).
466 2011-12-07 03:27:28 <copumpkin> yeah
467 2011-12-07 03:27:32 <copumpkin> what's happening with him?
468 2011-12-07 03:30:05 ByteCoin has left ()
469 2011-12-07 03:30:14 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: case is still plodding along, :(
470 2011-12-07 03:31:00 <gmaxwell> I think he has a hearing in January.
471 2011-12-07 03:31:41 <SomeoneWeird> Aaron?
472 2011-12-07 03:33:25 <BlueMatt> ;;google "aaron jstor"
473 2011-12-07 03:33:26 <gribble> JSTOR Statement: Misuse Incident and Criminal Case | JSTOR: <http://about.jstor.org/news-events/news/jstor-statement-misuse-incident-and-criminal-case>; Aaron Swartz Indictment Leading People To... Upload JSTOR ...: <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110721/11122615195/aaron-swartz-indictment-leading-people-to-upload-jstor-research-to-file-sharing-sites.shtml>; Aaron Schwartz and (1 more message)
474 2011-12-07 03:34:16 <SomeoneWeird> what he do?
475 2011-12-07 03:34:35 <SomeoneWeird> ah
476 2011-12-07 03:34:43 <gmaxwell> Downloaded too many scientific papers from a library. ;)
477 2011-12-07 03:35:18 <SomeoneWeird> 0_O
478 2011-12-07 03:35:35 <gmaxwell> (to be fair, he also too the required measures for downloading too many papers: changing mac addresses, opening new guest accounts, and generally sneaking around like a nogoodnick)
479 2011-12-07 03:36:05 <SomeoneWeird> ah
480 2011-12-07 03:36:35 egecko has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
481 2011-12-07 03:36:35 <graingert> gmaxwell: you have no claim against you?
482 2011-12-07 03:37:49 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
483 2011-12-07 03:37:52 <graingert> gmaxwell: this is a good one someone at my UNI spotted: https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6523347/Christian_Union_-_Level_1_Pack_%28EXAMPLE%29.pdf
484 2011-12-07 03:37:59 TheSeven has joined
485 2011-12-07 03:39:19 <gmaxwell> graingert: If they had one, they don't know how to make it. I took a lot of precaution, including meeting with some experienced attorneys in order to basically leave trying to assert copyright over clearly PD documents as the only avenue open to themâ something they'd lose on and embarass themselves in the process.
486 2011-12-07 03:39:49 <SomeoneWeird> so, whys he in trouble? seriously downloading to many papers?
487 2011-12-07 03:40:20 <gmaxwell> SomeoneWeird: the actual charges will be no doubt realted to the required steps, e.g. making up bogus accounts, or hiding a laptop in the library, and not the papers themselves.
488 2011-12-07 03:40:53 <SomeoneWeird> heh
489 2011-12-07 03:41:52 <BlueMatt> the funny part is both mit and jstor agreed that since the documents were not published, just delete them and they can all move on with their lives
490 2011-12-07 03:41:58 <BlueMatt> and then the doj got involved...
491 2011-12-07 03:42:29 <SomeoneWeird> fuck the government
492 2011-12-07 03:42:34 <SomeoneWeird> thats just way over the top
493 2011-12-07 03:42:35 <gmaxwell> I speculate that the DOJ thinks its important to send a message.
494 2011-12-07 03:42:52 <gmaxwell> They're probably missing the detail that the message they're sending is "don't get caught".
495 2011-12-07 03:42:55 <BlueMatt> I find it downright ridiculous
496 2011-12-07 03:42:58 <graingert> gmaxwell: well why are they trying to sue for message sending?
497 2011-12-07 03:43:11 egecko has joined
498 2011-12-07 03:43:25 <graingert> convict*
499 2011-12-07 03:43:31 <gmaxwell> graingert: e.g. they want to discourage other people from trying the same thing. But it's hopeless.
500 2011-12-07 03:43:59 <graingert> now it's all on the web
501 2011-12-07 03:44:49 <gmaxwell> Well, what aaron downloaded is not. Alas. What I posted was only a few tens of thousands of very old documents, carefully selected to try to bait them into a fight they couldn't win.
502 2011-12-07 03:45:32 <graingert> lol
503 2011-12-07 03:46:01 <gmaxwell> I got _thousands_ of emails of support though. The coolest ones e.g. a respected mathematician bragging to me about all the textbooks he shared on edonkey. And this is a kind of slow change in mindset that won't easily stop.
504 2011-12-07 03:47:00 <BlueMatt> well hopefully as some people switch to publishing royalty-free we move forward, but I dont see most unis doing that in the near future (not that they really make any serious $$ from royalties)
505 2011-12-07 03:47:49 magn3ts has joined
506 2011-12-07 03:47:58 <graingert> lol
507 2011-12-07 03:48:00 <graingert> I read that as
508 2011-12-07 03:48:02 <graingert> EdonKey
509 2011-12-07 03:48:12 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: subscriptions are net negative for all unis in fact. many are spending millions per year on journal subscriptions that they don't see a cent from.
510 2011-12-07 03:48:28 <graingert> I have a similar problem with PubLickey
511 2011-12-07 03:48:42 <BlueMatt> mmm, well maybe we will see a change then...
512 2011-12-07 03:48:43 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: it's mostly an intertia thing. People want to publish with the respected names. The respected names (in most fields) are not open access.
513 2011-12-07 03:49:01 <graingert> had a lecture on this on Monday
514 2011-12-07 03:49:03 <BlueMatt> well luckily compsci is moving away from that...
515 2011-12-07 03:49:10 <BlueMatt> (slowly...)
516 2011-12-07 03:49:26 <gmaxwell> ACM is getting battered for that reason.
517 2011-12-07 03:49:41 <roconnor> gmaxwell: did you read about what happened when I tried to publish my Public Domain article in an ACM publication?
518 2011-12-07 03:49:53 <roconnor> gmaxwell: they refused to print it. :O
519 2011-12-07 03:49:54 <BlueMatt> acm?
520 2011-12-07 03:50:07 <roconnor> Association for Computing Machinery
521 2011-12-07 03:50:07 <gmaxwell> ;;google acm
522 2011-12-07 03:50:08 <gribble> Welcome â Association for Computing Machinery: <http://www.acm.org/>; ACM Digital Library: <http://dl.acm.org/>; Academy of Country Music: <http://www.acmcountry.com/>
523 2011-12-07 03:50:11 <BlueMatt> roconnor: did they say specifically that it was because it was pubdom?
524 2011-12-07 03:50:30 <graingert> wait for them to pubblish it, then "loose" it on the bay
525 2011-12-07 03:50:43 <roconnor> BlueMatt: they specifically said since it was on the arXiv it was already published so they didn't need to print it.
526 2011-12-07 03:50:52 <BlueMatt> heh
527 2011-12-07 03:50:53 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: but yes, changes are happening, e.g. https://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/open-access-scholarly-publications-princeton
528 2011-12-07 03:51:01 <roconnor> I said I couldn't transfer copyright to them since I had waived copyright.
529 2011-12-07 03:51:12 <roconnor> then they said since it was on the arXiv it was already published so they didn't need to print it.
530 2011-12-07 03:51:37 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yea I had read an article a while back (like 3-4 months ago) on the subject, not that Im an expert...
531 2011-12-07 03:51:41 <roconnor> Full story: http://r6.ca/blog/20110930T012533Z.html
532 2011-12-07 03:51:56 <gmaxwell> I enjoy the irony that I have to pay like $30/each to download papers I coauthored.
533 2011-12-07 03:52:09 <BlueMatt> heh
534 2011-12-07 03:52:39 <roconnor> It's true that the ACM relicencing terms are fairly permissive, but OTOH they are the most anal about getting an unammended copyright transfer.
535 2011-12-07 03:52:43 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
536 2011-12-07 03:52:46 <gmaxwell> roconnor: from workshop proceedings!
537 2011-12-07 03:52:48 Beremat has quit (Quit: ( www.nnscript.com :: NoNameScript 4.22 :: www.esnation.com ))
538 2011-12-07 03:52:50 <roconnor> yes
539 2011-12-07 03:53:12 <gmaxwell> geeesh.
540 2011-12-07 03:53:14 <roconnor> gmaxwell: ACM gets to keep every proceeding in their digital archive by removing items from proceedings!
541 2011-12-07 03:53:58 <roconnor> Every other publisher I've delt with I've ammended their copyright transfer agreements and the publishers have never complained.
542 2011-12-07 03:54:07 <roconnor> (granted I suspect they never noticed either.)
543 2011-12-07 03:55:03 <gmaxwell> roconnor: You've seen Matt Blaze complaining about the ACM (and IEEE), right?
544 2011-12-07 03:55:17 <gmaxwell> you might want to point him to your adventure.
545 2011-12-07 03:55:48 <gmaxwell> http://www.crypto.com/blog/copywrongs/ (relevant page)
546 2011-12-07 03:57:19 <gmaxwell> oh... I don't read so well, last line of your page.. duur.
547 2011-12-07 03:57:28 wolfspra1l has quit (Quit: leaving)
548 2011-12-07 03:57:38 <roconnor> :)
549 2011-12-07 03:57:47 <roconnor> maybe I should send this to him
550 2011-12-07 04:00:54 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
551 2011-12-07 04:01:12 graingert has left ()
552 2011-12-07 04:11:36 disq has quit (Quit: Disconnecting from stoned server.)
553 2011-12-07 04:11:50 disq has joined
554 2011-12-07 04:11:50 disq has quit (Changing host)
555 2011-12-07 04:11:50 disq has joined
556 2011-12-07 04:12:06 Happy0 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
557 2011-12-07 04:14:21 riush has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
558 2011-12-07 04:14:55 peper has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
559 2011-12-07 04:15:49 peper has joined
560 2011-12-07 04:21:59 darkee has quit (!~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
561 2011-12-07 04:22:31 darkee has joined
562 2011-12-07 04:23:58 slush1 has joined
563 2011-12-07 04:24:59 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
564 2011-12-07 04:26:29 riush has joined
565 2011-12-07 04:30:04 BlueMatt has joined
566 2011-12-07 04:30:35 BlueMatt has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
567 2011-12-07 04:31:44 RobinPKR_ has joined
568 2011-12-07 04:32:25 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
569 2011-12-07 04:32:26 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
570 2011-12-07 04:38:22 theymos has joined
571 2011-12-07 04:41:47 dan__ has joined
572 2011-12-07 04:42:24 roconnor has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
573 2011-12-07 04:57:45 d4de has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
574 2011-12-07 04:57:57 BlueMatt has joined
575 2011-12-07 04:58:10 <BlueMatt> wumpus: ping
576 2011-12-07 04:58:54 hippich has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
577 2011-12-07 05:05:19 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
578 2011-12-07 05:12:09 hippich has joined
579 2011-12-07 05:13:43 d4de has joined
580 2011-12-07 05:13:43 d4de has quit (Changing host)
581 2011-12-07 05:13:43 d4de has joined
582 2011-12-07 05:13:50 dissipate_ has joined
583 2011-12-07 05:14:16 wasabi3 has joined
584 2011-12-07 05:14:16 Lexa has joined
585 2011-12-07 05:16:00 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
586 2011-12-07 05:16:14 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
587 2011-12-07 05:16:41 d4de has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
588 2011-12-07 05:20:44 EPiSKiNG- has joined
589 2011-12-07 05:21:05 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
590 2011-12-07 05:21:49 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
591 2011-12-07 05:23:38 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
592 2011-12-07 05:27:36 wolfspraul has joined
593 2011-12-07 05:31:02 BitMark has joined
594 2011-12-07 05:31:26 <BitMark> running 0.5.0on AWS Linux
595 2011-12-07 05:31:54 <BitMark> getting a error: -rpcssl=1, but bitcoin compiled without full openssl libraries.
596 2011-12-07 05:32:38 <BitMark> anyone else get this error?
597 2011-12-07 05:33:44 t3a_ has joined
598 2011-12-07 05:35:09 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
599 2011-12-07 05:36:27 t3a has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
600 2011-12-07 05:54:14 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
601 2011-12-07 05:56:52 <gmaxwell> Since people were talking about the general subject and I won't have time to work on it more anytime soon, I thought I'd publish this crazy idea ... that some here might find interesting: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53855.msg642768#msg642768
602 2011-12-07 06:05:57 <copumpkin> I like it :)
603 2011-12-07 06:06:13 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
604 2011-12-07 06:06:55 ageis has quit (Quit: http://ageispolis.net)
605 2011-12-07 06:07:30 <theymos> That sounds amazingly cool. I hope someone creates it.
606 2011-12-07 06:07:57 ageis has joined
607 2011-12-07 06:08:10 <copumpkin> nice name ;)
608 2011-12-07 06:09:14 OneFixt_ has joined
609 2011-12-07 06:11:26 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
610 2011-12-07 06:12:26 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
611 2011-12-07 06:13:06 <GMP> i see one potential flaw, centralized file hosting isnt well suited for fast spreading of large files. It could be better for StorJ to operate like torrent tracker, allowing to use standart torrent clients , which passed 10s years of software evolution
612 2011-12-07 06:13:29 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
613 2011-12-07 06:14:50 <gmaxwell> why 'operate like' â the code I wrote for it makes every file a torrent tooâ you can download either way.
614 2011-12-07 06:15:15 <GMP> :)
615 2011-12-07 06:15:25 <gmaxwell> It's basically free to do. The only problem I have with the torrents is that the files are all encrypted with a key stored in the URL that the StorJ instance doesn't see.
616 2011-12-07 06:15:56 <gmaxwell> (so it can't know the content of a file) .. I can't get the torrent client to decrypt the file, so you have to manually decrypt it after the tranfer finishes.. which is kinda ugly.
617 2011-12-07 06:17:10 <gmaxwell> My initial use case that inspired me is that I first contemplated releasing the Jstor files anonymously, but I couldn't figure out how to quickly get thirty some gigs of data seeded in an anonymous way.
618 2011-12-07 06:17:50 <gmaxwell> I spent a few hours but was basically frustrated at every turn. I couldn't get onto freenode via tor to even try to buy some hosting from someone on -otc.
619 2011-12-07 06:18:03 <gmaxwell> So I ended up going another route which turned out much better.
620 2011-12-07 06:19:40 devrandom has joined
621 2011-12-07 06:19:48 Burgundy has joined
622 2011-12-07 06:19:52 ThomasV has joined
623 2011-12-07 06:19:55 <BitMark> what about free net?
624 2011-12-07 06:20:04 <gmaxwell> Ever used freenet?
625 2011-12-07 06:20:14 <BitMark> long ime ago
626 2011-12-07 06:20:18 <theymos> This kind of thing could change the world even more than Bitcoin. It creates a big economic incentive to move toward human-level AI, and it provides a great way of bypassing governments.
627 2011-12-07 06:20:43 <GMP> the whole human-compute, automated-human-assist idea is fantastic! i like it
628 2011-12-07 06:20:49 <gmaxwell> theymos: I think the key point hereâ though its not really my innovationâ is that you can have a system like this _before_ you have human-like AI.
629 2011-12-07 06:21:23 <gmaxwell> (of course the smarter an storj instance is on its own the more profitable it would be)
630 2011-12-07 06:21:24 <theymos> Yeah. The system can be reasonably stupid, but it will keep getting smarter through economic magic.
631 2011-12-07 06:22:00 <BitMark> relevant http://xkcd.com/810/
632 2011-12-07 06:22:50 <gmaxwell> I also like my offhand point that legal-personhood could potentially make these instances legally autonomous.
633 2011-12-07 06:24:29 <theymos> It could even hire lawyers, spokespeople, etc.
634 2011-12-07 06:25:28 <theymos> I posted a 100 BTC bounty for this in the forum topic.
635 2011-12-07 06:26:48 <copumpkin> then you could host JStor files on StorJ
636 2011-12-07 06:26:55 <copumpkin> this is gmaxwell's true intention
637 2011-12-07 06:27:03 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: it was.
638 2011-12-07 06:27:23 <copumpkin> mind if I tweet it?
639 2011-12-07 06:27:29 <gmaxwell> Be my guest.
640 2011-12-07 06:27:53 <gmaxwell> Working on the idea quickly teaches you how brittle software systems are.
641 2011-12-07 06:28:39 <gmaxwell> I was really starting to feel like I had to invent whole new infrastructures to make it possible... it's really easy to scope this into impossibility.
642 2011-12-07 06:28:40 <GMP> the system can operate like huge RAID, where different files have different replication factors, down to 1.xxx and still be reliable, which potentially much more efficient than we have today
643 2011-12-07 06:29:25 <amiller> copumpkin, i spent a long time thinking about what the implications would be of secure program obfuscation
644 2011-12-07 06:29:32 <gmaxwell> GMP: right, you could take any good idea in network storage e.g. stuff from the Tahoe project, and just stick it right in.
645 2011-12-07 06:29:33 <amiller> (which turns out to be proven impossible in general)
646 2011-12-07 06:30:03 <amiller> but if it was you could hide the private keys inside a program and it would only spit out bitcoins when presented with good input
647 2011-12-07 06:30:07 <amiller> it would be like a digital sphynx
648 2011-12-07 06:30:53 <gmaxwell> If trusted boot were a commercial reality the system could have some trust of the host... but really I think I mostly solved that by making children independant entities.. if some end up on crooked hosts.. oh well. Good storj instances will get good reputation like good traders.
649 2011-12-07 06:31:09 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: just run it on an iphone ;)
650 2011-12-07 06:31:13 <gmaxwell> amiller: IBM cryptocard makes it reasonable (thats the 'time/availablity oracle' I mention :) )
651 2011-12-07 06:31:20 <amiller> but without that, the semi-autonomous thing is at best vulnerable to the services that run it
652 2011-12-07 06:31:30 <copumpkin> real trusted boot done right, except when it didn't work
653 2011-12-07 06:31:49 <copumpkin> amiller: proof-carrying code
654 2011-12-07 06:31:57 <copumpkin> type systems are your friend :)
655 2011-12-07 06:32:07 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: a fun read, storj is :)
656 2011-12-07 06:32:37 * jgarzik thought along vaguely similar lines... one should read _Daemon_ by Suarez for full context
657 2011-12-07 06:32:50 <gmaxwell> amiller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_4758 < e.g. for running an oracle, it's a 486 thats tamper resistant which can attest to the code its running.
658 2011-12-07 06:32:58 <jgarzik> a narrowly scripted AI, with ability to pay for things via bitcoin, could be very powerful
659 2011-12-07 06:33:24 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: hah, one of my profs worked on that
660 2011-12-07 06:33:40 <gmaxwell> amiller: I'd have one to play with.. I'd like to run a simple oracle that does blockchain queries and solves hashes .. but they cost about $5k used.. a bit too much for a toy.
661 2011-12-07 06:33:49 <amiller> ahhh
662 2011-12-07 06:33:58 <jgarzik> _Daemon_ presents a greatly expanded version of storj, where humans are paid by the daemon to perform various tasks that may fail / be redundantly verified.
663 2011-12-07 06:34:27 AStove has joined
664 2011-12-07 06:34:42 <gmaxwell> amiller: e.g. you give it a program that says GENERATE_RANDOM_BASED_ON_THIS_PROGRAM=R, if txnX exists in blockchain at least 6 deep return R, otherwise returh SHA256(R). Then you can make one txn conditional on another TXN.
665 2011-12-07 06:35:21 OneFixt_ has quit (Changing host)
666 2011-12-07 06:35:21 OneFixt_ has joined
667 2011-12-07 06:35:26 OneFixt_ is now known as OneFixt
668 2011-12-07 06:35:47 <gmaxwell> amiller: the cryptocard wouldn't store the blockchain itself.. an external pc would also process the script and prove to the oracle all it needed to know. (e.g. by showing it tree fragments and block headers)
669 2011-12-07 06:36:19 <amiller> okay, i follow that
670 2011-12-07 06:36:19 <amiller> i understand how that is similar to the simple bitcoin tx signing wallet you described a while ago
671 2011-12-07 06:36:31 <amiller> it only contains enough information to do the risky signing bit and show the info to the user to confirm it
672 2011-12-07 06:37:00 <gmaxwell> Then you just submit it once.. it fails.. gives you the hash.. now you can make a hash locked transactions which will only be redeemable once the oracle is willing to help.
673 2011-12-07 06:37:48 <gmaxwell> (and because you can pay the oracle for his services, the scripts could be fully turing complete with reasonably big time/space limits)
674 2011-12-07 06:40:02 <amiller> ok good someone already posted about fully homomorphic encryption in the thread
675 2011-12-07 06:41:15 <gmaxwell> amiller: yea, also some from the soup stuff â which I think is only moderately interesting, because I probably don't have 4 billion years to see it produce something neat. ;)
676 2011-12-07 06:41:44 <amiller> well what i'm really interested in is the boundary between obfusacation and homomorphic encryption
677 2011-12-07 06:41:50 <amiller> where homomorphic encryption is proven realizable, obfuscation is proven not
678 2011-12-07 06:41:51 <ThomasV> which thread are you talking about?
679 2011-12-07 06:41:56 <amiller> if you had obfuscation
680 2011-12-07 06:42:00 <amiller> ThomasV, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53855.msg642768#msg642768
681 2011-12-07 06:42:08 <amiller> if you had obfuscation, then you could make the StorJ lifeform
682 2011-12-07 06:42:15 <amiller> completely unreliant on the servers that run it
683 2011-12-07 06:42:32 <amiller> for example if it offers bitcoins to someone
684 2011-12-07 06:42:39 <amiller> under specific conditions
685 2011-12-07 06:42:46 <amiller> well the private keys still have to be kept online
686 2011-12-07 06:43:01 <amiller> i guess your point is that they can be on the trusted card, the 'servers' hosting the rest of the code can be whatever
687 2011-12-07 06:43:15 <amiller> the card _would_ have to be online though in order to process events, is that right?
688 2011-12-07 06:43:22 <gmaxwell> amiller: (though, the storj entities could escrow all the crypto across multiple hostsâ you could still trick it, but its harder)
689 2011-12-07 06:43:40 <amiller> right, you can do the N/M shared keys
690 2011-12-07 06:43:51 <gmaxwell> yea, if you use a piece of 'secure hardware' then it must be online.. upsides and downsides.
691 2011-12-07 06:44:05 <amiller> and you can't do better than that without implying program obfuscation
692 2011-12-07 06:44:09 <GMP> dynamic trusted boot can not be trusted, even relatively new core i7 with integrated memory controller had the same bug, running SMM code from (poisoned) cache, modifying SMRAM. and intel solution to this - hashing SMRAM as well - tells how flawed the whole idea is. static trusted boot can be compromised by hw/mod aw well
693 2011-12-07 06:44:27 <amiller> hmm
694 2011-12-07 06:44:43 <gmaxwell> GMP: there are no absolutes.. but it's like a safe: the safe doesn't stop theives, it slows them down until they can get caught via other means.
695 2011-12-07 06:45:30 <amiller> gmaxwell, do you know how opentransactions works
696 2011-12-07 06:45:36 larsivi_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
697 2011-12-07 06:46:11 <ThomasV> no, the first bitcoin-enabled digital lifeform will be a beggar robot
698 2011-12-07 06:46:19 <gmaxwell> amiller: no / yes, I mean I know it uses Chaum blinded signatures which I know all about as well as the proposals to use them for digital cash.
699 2011-12-07 06:46:49 <gmaxwell> botsnack
700 2011-12-07 06:46:55 <gmaxwell> gribble: botsnack
701 2011-12-07 06:46:56 <amiller> ah okay that's the kind of minor aspect of opentransactions, the more interesting part is that it has a special kind of limited host, really similar to this
702 2011-12-07 06:47:03 <gmaxwell> darning, I forget how to make it beg. :)
703 2011-12-07 06:47:07 <amiller> i'm going to try to explain how to reconcile these architectures
704 2011-12-07 06:47:11 <amiller> ,,feed
705 2011-12-07 06:47:11 <gribble> Feed me... Feed me bitcoins! 1MgD6rah5zUgEGYZnNmdpnXMaDR3itKYzU
706 2011-12-07 06:47:27 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: it was said and thus it is so.
707 2011-12-07 06:47:34 <ThomasV> lol
708 2011-12-07 06:47:44 <amiller> so in opentransactions the 'client' is basically the smart card, it holds the keys
709 2011-12-07 06:48:00 <amiller> but a certain kind of work is delegated to the 'verifier' server, which is equivalent to the host in this case
710 2011-12-07 06:48:10 <amiller> the really important quality of the host is that the stuff it runs is entirely auditable
711 2011-12-07 06:48:28 <amiller> it has to be relied on to do it correctly, to only sign correct messages, but it can do it publicly
712 2011-12-07 06:49:28 <amiller> if it did something wrong, it would be obvious to anyone watching the output feed
713 2011-12-07 06:49:57 <amiller> and if it only produces output by publishing to a DHT so it couldn't reasily give one view of the data to one client and a different view to another
714 2011-12-07 06:50:58 <amiller> in this context, it's about reducing the expectations of the storj host so that the necessary trust in the host is minimal
715 2011-12-07 06:51:42 <gmaxwell> Hm. It still needs something trusted to store its identity however.
716 2011-12-07 06:52:48 <amiller> yes
717 2011-12-07 06:52:53 <amiller> and there's no way to tell if it's spilled its keys
718 2011-12-07 06:52:58 <amiller> so that is something you have to trust it for
719 2011-12-07 06:53:19 TD has joined
720 2011-12-07 06:53:34 <amiller> but double spending would be detectable
721 2011-12-07 06:53:58 <amiller> and forging incorrect output would also be impossible with the proof carrying code
722 2011-12-07 06:54:43 <amiller> oh and i wanted to mention
723 2011-12-07 06:55:01 <amiller> you brought up the n/m thing where you can delegate the duty not just to a single server but to a handful of separate parties with a shared key and a vote
724 2011-12-07 06:55:12 <gmaxwell> Right. Further trust could be had by using secure hardware modules from multiple sources.. Though my head hurts when I try to figure out how you fit acceptable malleability in
725 2011-12-07 06:55:17 <amiller> you could also delegate it to a bitcoin lottery
726 2011-12-07 06:55:34 <gmaxwell> oh?
727 2011-12-07 06:55:43 <amiller> the opentransactions server makes exactly the same claim bitcoin does
728 2011-12-07 06:55:52 <amiller> just it does it by identifying a server that guarantees it
729 2011-12-07 06:56:04 <amiller> if you drew servers at random based on a hash proof of work, then you'd have bitcion
730 2011-12-07 06:56:19 <amiller> the claim i'm talking about of course is that the scriptsig checks out and the input hasn't already been claimed
731 2011-12-07 06:56:34 <gmaxwell> Ah, got it.
732 2011-12-07 06:56:53 <amiller> which is publicly auditable, whether it's in bitcoin or from an opentransactions server
733 2011-12-07 06:57:42 <amiller> the threat model i think is 'greedy, lazy, but risk averse and under public scrutiny'
734 2011-12-07 06:57:46 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
735 2011-12-07 06:58:29 <ThomasV> are there many opentransactions servers?
736 2011-12-07 06:58:31 <jgarzik> my own plans for such a bot were more simple, too: just make something, anything, self-sustaining and capable of communicating with humans via email/IM/SMS/other methods
737 2011-12-07 06:58:47 MobiusL has joined
738 2011-12-07 06:59:05 <jgarzik> I've long wanted a Personal Assistant bot (Siri) that was "difficult to intercept or kill"
739 2011-12-07 06:59:10 <ThomasV> jgarzik: begging is the most simple business model
740 2011-12-07 06:59:23 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: could just be something as simple as a pastebin that takes donations and pays it own hosting bills. Then you lose the credentials to access it. How long will it live?
741 2011-12-07 06:59:54 <jgarzik> yep
742 2011-12-07 07:00:04 <jgarzik> main problem is finding hosting in a non-illegal manner
743 2011-12-07 07:00:19 <jgarzik> APIs are still ad hoc and often site-specific
744 2011-12-07 07:00:35 <gmaxwell> yea... the more uniform api is to hack stuff. 0_o
745 2011-12-07 07:00:40 <jgarzik> ;)
746 2011-12-07 07:01:09 <ThomasV> ... although with email you could create a nigerian scambot
747 2011-12-07 07:01:14 <gmaxwell> (this hadn't escaped me.. but oy..)
748 2011-12-07 07:01:42 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: with the right hosting you could even send enough messages to perhaps tune your messages automatically.
749 2011-12-07 07:02:48 <ThomasV> right == spam complacent?
750 2011-12-07 07:03:06 <gmaxwell> (which is where a lot of the bio-inspired self adapting stuff fails down, people don't grasp the sheer scale of evolution. If you can't do billions of trials then randomized searching of high dimensional spaces just doesn't work)
751 2011-12-07 07:03:14 <gmaxwell> Yes. "bullet proof" I think they call it?
752 2011-12-07 07:03:21 wboy1 has joined
753 2011-12-07 07:03:53 <jgarzik> there are all sorts of ways to scatter small bits of data in odd places, difficult to detect or take down all of them. the problem is with code -- you need to execute code over the data, otherwise you don't have a digital entity at all. And, rightly so, it is difficult to get a remote server to trigger code on yet another remote server, in a way that endlessly continues
754 2011-12-07 07:04:47 <gmaxwell> I could easily make a sandbox .. give it bitcoin and a url and it runs code from the url until the bitcoin runs out.. but what would someone use that for?
755 2011-12-07 07:04:57 <amiller> what about couchapps
756 2011-12-07 07:05:03 <amiller> do you know couchapps
757 2011-12-07 07:05:07 <amiller> basically it's just a keyvalue store
758 2011-12-07 07:05:10 <amiller> you can host http and js off of it
759 2011-12-07 07:05:16 <amiller> but you can also include a .js that does get exeucted by the server
760 2011-12-07 07:05:34 <amiller> in response to certain events, they say its 'map reduce' but really it just means it calls back your code any time there's a PUT
761 2011-12-07 07:05:42 <gmaxwell> oh there you go.. the whole web is your computational matrix.
762 2011-12-07 07:05:48 <gmaxwell> you just need to sucker users into visiting it.
763 2011-12-07 07:05:49 <sneak_> hey everyone
764 2011-12-07 07:05:54 <sneak_> stop writing javascript
765 2011-12-07 07:05:55 <sneak_> seriously, just stop.
766 2011-12-07 07:06:08 <amiller> lol
767 2011-12-07 07:06:12 <jgarzik> if one were to go the illegal route... like with the biological world, there are viruses floating throughout cyberspace. In theory, a narrow AI could intercept and incorporate malware infection practices into itself, by running its own honeypot, and then propagate autonomous code execution platform from there (standard botnetter logic ensues)
768 2011-12-07 07:06:14 <sneak_> unless your code is a GUI, there is no reason for you to be writing it in javascript
769 2011-12-07 07:06:15 <amiller> sneak_, next stop, agda
770 2011-12-07 07:06:15 <sneak_> period
771 2011-12-07 07:06:18 <justmoon> sneak_: ...
772 2011-12-07 07:06:27 <ageis> enuf abstract theorizin
773 2011-12-07 07:06:30 <gmaxwell> sneak_: duh. yea, everyone should stop, instead you should write _java_ and use google web toolkit to conver that to javascript.
774 2011-12-07 07:06:44 <sneak_> gmaxwell: i'd sooner jam fireworks in my ass and squat over a hibachi
775 2011-12-07 07:06:57 <amiller> 5btc bounty.
776 2011-12-07 07:07:11 <gmaxwell> sneak_: okay, instead write in Câ then use emscripten to convert to JS. Done!
777 2011-12-07 07:07:15 <jgarzik> yeah, if you can sucker people into visiting a web page, you've got worker bees aplenty
778 2011-12-07 07:07:29 <amiller> gmaxwell, what about something like heroku
779 2011-12-07 07:07:30 <sneak_> seriously, for serverside code, using javascript is misguided
780 2011-12-07 07:07:32 <amiller> or nodejitsu
781 2011-12-07 07:07:34 <sneak_> write it in a real language
782 2011-12-07 07:07:34 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: XSS protection limits that substantially.
783 2011-12-07 07:07:37 <amiller> i think heroku is all proprietary and closed
784 2011-12-07 07:07:41 <sneak_> use javascript for fucking about with the DOM, and leave it there
785 2011-12-07 07:07:43 <amiller> but that nodejitsu is a little more straightforward
786 2011-12-07 07:07:48 <amiller> basically it just runs on git
787 2011-12-07 07:07:48 <sneak_> node.js is cancer
788 2011-12-07 07:07:55 <amiller> if you have a git repo, the infrastructure can spool up and run the project
789 2011-12-07 07:08:01 <amiller> it's meant to be portable and ephemeral like that
790 2011-12-07 07:08:04 <ThomasV> perhaps the right "matrix" for such a lifeform would be a botnet
791 2011-12-07 07:08:07 <gmaxwell> sneak_: are you an anti-JS rant bot?
792 2011-12-07 07:08:07 <justmoon> sneak_: why? what don't you like about it?
793 2011-12-07 07:08:18 <sneak_> the same things i don't like about php
794 2011-12-07 07:08:30 <sneak_> idiot devs, shitty syntax, === operator
795 2011-12-07 07:08:42 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: soâ I don't think so: here is why. Software, as we create it today is insanely brittle. It's not at all like biology. The slightest thing odd.. and it just fails. Usually completely.
796 2011-12-07 07:08:45 <sneak_> the thought that some syntactic straightjacket can somehow make idiot devs into good devs
797 2011-12-07 07:08:57 <sneak_> basically, "people under 22"
798 2011-12-07 07:09:06 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: so I don't think that adhoc substrates like botnets would support long survival.
799 2011-12-07 07:09:12 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: but commercial services generally do.
800 2011-12-07 07:09:20 <sneak_> maybe even 25
801 2011-12-07 07:09:23 <justmoon> sneak_, by shitty syntax you mean c-like syntax?
802 2011-12-07 07:09:30 <sneak_> no
803 2011-12-07 07:09:35 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: such as amazon aws?
804 2011-12-07 07:09:58 <sneak_> i mean the fact that you have to do if(typeof var !== "undefined" && var !== null)
805 2011-12-07 07:10:13 <sneak_> fac me cocleario vomere
806 2011-12-07 07:10:20 <justmoon> if you write that - you're doing it wrong :)
807 2011-12-07 07:10:21 AStove has quit ()
808 2011-12-07 07:10:32 <sneak_> justmoon: au contraire, if you _don't_ write that, you're doing it wrong.
809 2011-12-07 07:10:47 <gmaxwell> sneak_: many many moons ago, I was given an intern at my job. He didn't know anything about programming. We needed a new inventory management app. I taught him php (er, it was before the zend stuff, a long time ago) and SQL... because those were the easiest tools.
810 2011-12-07 07:10:48 <sneak_> if you don't understand why, you are part of the problem and should stop talking
811 2011-12-07 07:10:52 <justmoon> you're writing javascript as if it's a strongly typed language, it isn't, it's a prototypal language
812 2011-12-07 07:11:07 <sneak_> coffeescript is a step in the right direction
813 2011-12-07 07:11:14 <justmoon> it doesn't matter whether your variable is null or undefined or whatever, what you should care about is whether it's the object you want
814 2011-12-07 07:11:26 <sneak_> but again, if you are using js for anything other than DOM manipulation, you likely have a much better tool for the job available and should not be using javascript
815 2011-12-07 07:11:30 <gmaxwell> sneak_: about a decade later I bumped into him (he reconized me, I had no clue who is was) and he thanked me for teaching him php. He was working as a web developer. I .. still feel guilty about it now.
816 2011-12-07 07:11:33 <justmoon> if (myvar instanceof BlockChainManager) {
817 2011-12-07 07:11:38 <justmoon> ^ use that instead
818 2011-12-07 07:11:48 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: yes, such as AWS.
819 2011-12-07 07:12:04 * sneak_ &
820 2011-12-07 07:12:07 <amiller> if you're not writing in a verified proof language like coq or agda, you might as well just not mention what syntax/language you're using
821 2011-12-07 07:12:08 sneak_ is now known as sneak
822 2011-12-07 07:12:13 sneak has quit (Changing host)
823 2011-12-07 07:12:13 sneak has joined
824 2011-12-07 07:12:17 <gmaxwell> amiller++
825 2011-12-07 07:12:26 <amiller> it's just personal style otherwiswe
826 2011-12-07 07:12:42 <gmaxwell> amiller: well, I dunno, the functional/pattern matching stuff is kind of a different beast from the procedural stuff.
827 2011-12-07 07:12:55 <SomeoneWeird> agda?
828 2011-12-07 07:13:04 <gmaxwell> But within the famlies its just window dressing.
829 2011-12-07 07:13:18 <amiller> gmaxwell, well it's not the functional part that matters
830 2011-12-07 07:13:22 <justmoon> speaking of javascript, I just wrote some: http://www.weusecoins.com/questions.php
831 2011-12-07 07:13:23 <amiller> you could doverified programmning in a procedural language
832 2011-12-07 07:13:27 <justmoon> feedback is very welcome :)
833 2011-12-07 07:13:28 <amiller> there just isn't such an implementation
834 2011-12-07 07:13:32 <amiller> it's easier to do that sort of research in functional
835 2011-12-07 07:13:45 <amiller> the thing that makes it verified programming is that you write your 'specification' in very clear easy to follow language
836 2011-12-07 07:13:53 <amiller> then you write your implementation using whatever shortcuts and hacks and algorithms as necessary
837 2011-12-07 07:13:53 <gmaxwell> amiller: I know. (I use ACSL for some of my own stuff
838 2011-12-07 07:13:55 <gmaxwell> )
839 2011-12-07 07:14:12 <amiller> but you make sure to include the proof (or a sketch of a proof and let the compiler do the rest)
840 2011-12-07 07:14:24 <amiller> but you get a machine checkable proof that your nasty spaghetti logic matches your pristine specification
841 2011-12-07 07:14:30 <amiller> so it matters what language you write your specification in, itdoesn't matter what the implementation is in
842 2011-12-07 07:14:56 <gmaxwell> Though I've found it to be quite challenging to make it work pratically for non-trivial programs. :( thats probably my shortcoming rather than that of the tools.
843 2011-12-07 07:15:01 <amiller> it's an open problem how to reaosnably go about building your implementation along with a proof sketch.
844 2011-12-07 07:15:07 <amiller> it's hard as hell for simple stuff with agda or coq
845 2011-12-07 07:15:34 <amiller> it requires a completely brainrewriting, verified programming is to functional programming what functional programming is to C
846 2011-12-07 07:15:40 <gmaxwell> I tried adding a feature to compcert and gave up.. right away basically.
847 2011-12-07 07:15:59 <amiller> gmaxwell, my friend got to take a course at UMD doing coq proofs for all sorts of things
848 2011-12-07 07:16:03 <amiller> there are some really good papers on it
849 2011-12-07 07:16:08 <gmaxwell> (it doesn't know how to multiply long long â I can store them, and I think it can add them. But I needed multiply too)
850 2011-12-07 07:17:00 <amiller> http://adam.chlipala.net/cpdt/html/Intro.html this being my favorite i think.
851 2011-12-07 07:17:23 <amiller> i need to find someone to talk to who has used coq in 'declarative mode'
852 2011-12-07 07:17:33 <amiller> it's an odd little package in the coq standard library
853 2011-12-07 07:17:42 <gmaxwell> This is the danger sign to most people: "There is no reason to give up the familiar comforts of functional programming when you start writing certified programs"
854 2011-12-07 07:17:47 <gmaxwell> heheh
855 2011-12-07 07:17:52 <amiller> rofl
856 2011-12-07 07:17:52 <amiller> right
857 2011-12-07 07:18:17 <amiller> buckle up.
858 2011-12-07 07:18:22 <copumpkin> :(
859 2011-12-07 07:18:23 <amiller> hold on to your lambdas
860 2011-12-07 07:19:02 <copumpkin> verified programming is to functional programming what functional programming is to C
861 2011-12-07 07:19:04 <copumpkin> I wouldn't say that
862 2011-12-07 07:19:20 <copumpkin> I'm also not a big fan of the coq approach to verified programming, but I don't think the field is all that mature yet
863 2011-12-07 07:19:36 <amiller> i mean that only in one aspect (a hurdle of new thought), not in any other generalizable way
864 2011-12-07 07:19:40 <copumpkin> of the coq approaches, I think cpdt's is the nicer one
865 2011-12-07 07:19:46 dan__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
866 2011-12-07 07:19:53 <gmaxwell> yea, I understood it as "hurdle of new thought".
867 2011-12-07 07:20:31 <copumpkin> I guess it depends on what kind of functional programming you're used to. If you're reasonably well versed in types in haskell and are already used to doing pure FP, moving to verified programming isn't a huge jump
868 2011-12-07 07:20:50 <copumpkin> you need to keep things like termination checks in mind and work out the details of proofs
869 2011-12-07 07:21:09 <copumpkin> and as you get better, develop a taste for representations that simplify proofs
870 2011-12-07 07:21:10 <amiller> i think you're right copumpkin actually
871 2011-12-07 07:21:30 <amiller> being good at haskell means using the type system to do a lot of the work.
872 2011-12-07 07:21:50 <amiller> which essentially is the same process
873 2011-12-07 07:21:51 <copumpkin> if you naively translate haskell to e.g., agda, you'll probably get a working program that looks almost identical (it might not pass the termination checker) but you probably won't be able to prove much about it very easily
874 2011-12-07 07:21:52 <amiller> hm.
875 2011-12-07 07:22:16 <copumpkin> I tried this early on when I was learning agda
876 2011-12-07 07:22:25 <gmaxwell> when using ACSL the biggest problem I have is that when it can't prove something sometimes I can help itâ and sometimes I'm completely lost. "It knows this is 0-8 and that is 8-16.. why can't I make it prove that the sum is <=24â½ or even that the signed integer does not overflow!" or "fantastic, I can prove all the properties I already knew for sure and didn't care about!"
877 2011-12-07 07:23:00 <copumpkin> I took omega, which is a library that gives you a diagonalization procedure for flattening an infinite list of infinite lists in such a way that every element in every list will appear at some finite index in the output
878 2011-12-07 07:23:09 <copumpkin> and translated it more or less verbatim to agda
879 2011-12-07 07:23:20 <copumpkin> then I tried to prove that it behaved as advertised and my head exploded
880 2011-12-07 07:23:20 cronopio has quit (Quit: leaving)
881 2011-12-07 07:23:27 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: omg you disproved cantor!
882 2011-12-07 07:23:33 <amiller> yeah copumpkin
883 2011-12-07 07:23:39 <amiller> that is pretty similar to my experience with coq
884 2011-12-07 07:23:47 <amiller> i would write an elegant program that solves the problem adatped from another functional language
885 2011-12-07 07:23:53 <amiller> and then try to prove things about my program
886 2011-12-07 07:23:55 <amiller> and that is a dead end almost immediately
887 2011-12-07 07:23:59 <copumpkin> yeah
888 2011-12-07 07:24:14 <amiller> so i tried again, now i'm going to build my program out of proofs in the first places
889 2011-12-07 07:24:17 <copumpkin> coq does have a few more "brute force" tools in its tactic approach that let you do that a bit more than agda does
890 2011-12-07 07:24:18 <amiller> and then my head exploded
891 2011-12-07 07:24:30 <copumpkin> meaning that you can get away with bad definitions part of the way
892 2011-12-07 07:24:39 <copumpkin> but having good definitions is still pretty key
893 2011-12-07 07:25:04 <copumpkin> there's also the fact that really basic s
894 2011-12-07 07:25:06 <amiller> there's one paper i liked a lot
895 2011-12-07 07:25:09 <copumpkin> tuff takes quite a bit of work :)
896 2011-12-07 07:25:12 <amiller> it was a verified implementation of dikjstra's algorithm
897 2011-12-07 07:25:17 <amiller> but it went through a process
898 2011-12-07 07:25:28 <amiller> of building the proofs and the code simultaneously
899 2011-12-07 07:25:34 <midnightmagic> i was very sad when dijkstra died
900 2011-12-07 07:25:35 <copumpkin> for example, here's a "simple" proof that there are infinite primes, in agda: https://gist.github.com/1286093
901 2011-12-07 07:25:51 <copumpkin> it doesn't even generate all of them
902 2011-12-07 07:26:00 <copumpkin> :/
903 2011-12-07 07:27:15 <amiller> ugh i can't find it now
904 2011-12-07 07:27:52 <copumpkin> I mostly follow conor mcbride's school of thought when it comes to developing verified programs
905 2011-12-07 07:28:00 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
906 2011-12-07 07:28:33 <copumpkin> that is, that programming is a conversation with the typechecker, and you want to write types that are expressive enough to help you write your algorithms
907 2011-12-07 07:28:54 <copumpkin> he has an example where he writes a sort algorithm that is correct by construction and he doesn't do any explicit "proof" about it
908 2011-12-07 07:29:14 <amiller> link?
909 2011-12-07 07:29:26 <gmaxwell> ... so now that this channel contains the highest density of people who know about verified software that I've ever seen on IRC... (2) where is the verified bitcoin blockchain validator?
910 2011-12-07 07:29:53 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: I think that was part of roconnor's goal in writing purecoin :) he's a big fan of coq
911 2011-12-07 07:29:54 <gmaxwell> (if doublec were around I could claim (3) â he programs in ATS)
912 2011-12-07 07:29:55 * copumpkin giggles
913 2011-12-07 07:30:13 <copumpkin> roconnor's actually written real verified software
914 2011-12-07 07:30:17 <copumpkin> including a real number library for coq
915 2011-12-07 07:30:20 <copumpkin> "real"
916 2011-12-07 07:30:32 <amiller> ooh
917 2011-12-07 07:30:37 <copumpkin> (which is a possibly surprisingly difficult endeavor)
918 2011-12-07 07:31:07 <gmaxwell> ah, I knew roconnor was doing haskell, but I didn't know about it being verified... fine. (4)..
919 2011-12-07 07:31:19 <copumpkin> oh he hasn't done that yet, I don't think
920 2011-12-07 07:31:20 <gmaxwell> We should have a verified bitcoin library by now for sure!
921 2011-12-07 07:31:42 <copumpkin> he often writes a first iteration of verified software in haskell
922 2011-12-07 07:31:48 <copumpkin> (the real number library existed first in haskell)
923 2011-12-07 07:32:03 <copumpkin> (these are "real" real numbers, not like MPFR or arbitrary precision floats)
924 2011-12-07 07:32:08 <gmaxwell> right.
925 2011-12-07 07:32:17 <amiller> gmaxwell, what would be really useful is to have the little bitcoin scripting language replaced with a verifiable one
926 2011-12-07 07:32:21 <copumpkin> amiller: trying to find the slides
927 2011-12-07 07:32:22 <amiller> and also to put more of the bitcoin protocol in the script
928 2011-12-07 07:32:33 <amiller> like how to add up inputs and outputs and check they line up
929 2011-12-07 07:32:47 <amiller> that functionality is outside the script for now but it's obviously possible to put it in there
930 2011-12-07 07:33:08 <gmaxwell> er. you don't want the in the scriptâ since it's of essential interest to everyone to prevent inflation.
931 2011-12-07 07:33:12 <copumpkin> many of his writings are at http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/ and he's on twitter as @pigworker
932 2011-12-07 07:33:19 <copumpkin> http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=690 is a blog post about it in a language he's been working on
933 2011-12-07 07:33:26 <copumpkin> but there were also some slides that explained the technique
934 2011-12-07 07:34:01 <copumpkin> here we go: http://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/~conor/Pivotal.pdf (the transparencies are "his style". he's a pretty good speaker)
935 2011-12-07 07:34:04 <amiller> gmaxwell, well maybe it's enough to just say there's a hash of the verifiable script in the block?
936 2011-12-07 07:34:18 <copumpkin> actually in this case they aren't even transparencies
937 2011-12-07 07:34:19 <jgarzik> speaking of self-sustaining... another thing I would like to see is a distributed GLBSE
938 2011-12-07 07:34:24 <copumpkin> but they usually are, and handwritten
939 2011-12-07 07:34:30 <amiller> he highlights his syntax with crayons
940 2011-12-07 07:34:30 <copumpkin> jgarzik: ooh, me too
941 2011-12-07 07:34:34 <amiller> that is most delightful
942 2011-12-07 07:34:48 <copumpkin> he also has cute pictures in a lot of them, and makes a lot of silly puns
943 2011-12-07 07:34:55 <copumpkin> he's very quirky :P
944 2011-12-07 07:35:09 <copumpkin> just the other day I was reading some code by him that had an infinite stream type
945 2011-12-07 07:35:14 <copumpkin> whose head was called "now"
946 2011-12-07 07:35:17 <copumpkin> and the tail was called "anon"
947 2011-12-07 07:35:23 <copumpkin> (not short for anonymous)
948 2011-12-07 07:35:49 <gmaxwell> amiller: in a parallel distributed system where there was more motiviation to be able to change the rules (and some defined criteria for doing it) you could basically put the whole of the system in the chain, and the software would just be a bootstrapper and interperter.
949 2011-12-07 07:35:54 <jgarzik> each company issuing shares would publish a signed ledger
950 2011-12-07 07:35:59 <amiller> "push views in, don't pull facts out"
951 2011-12-07 07:36:08 <amiller> i understand that!
952 2011-12-07 07:36:27 <amiller> gmaxwell, right on
953 2011-12-07 07:36:58 <copumpkin> amiller: the AVL tree in the agda standard library uses that approach to ensure it's ordered correctly without carrying around many explicit proofs in the structure
954 2011-12-07 07:37:10 <copumpkin> it's remarkably elegant
955 2011-12-07 07:37:20 <jgarzik> share transfers are submitted <somehow>. share transfers published in company ledger are canonical, and describe public keys of shareholders, who may then use said public keys to further transfer shares.
956 2011-12-07 07:37:31 <copumpkin> I say this having tried to implement a more explicit approach to safe AVL trees that did carry around proofs
957 2011-12-07 07:37:40 <copumpkin> and I succeeded but it was an absolute nightmare to maintain the proofs
958 2011-12-07 07:38:08 <copumpkin> jgarzik: do you think something like that could live on top of the existing bitcoin infrastructure?
959 2011-12-07 07:38:08 <jgarzik> in practice, I imagine trusted aggregators would maintain ledger on behalf of clients
960 2011-12-07 07:38:14 <jgarzik> copumpkin: definitely
961 2011-12-07 07:38:23 <jgarzik> copumpkin: well... bits of it, yes :)
962 2011-12-07 07:38:54 <copumpkin> mmm
963 2011-12-07 07:39:12 dan__ has joined
964 2011-12-07 07:39:54 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: anyway, the only thing that worries me about verified implementations of crypto stuff is that I'm not really aware of a particularly good approach to proving facts about difficulty of operations and probabilities (for brute forcing, etc.)
965 2011-12-07 07:40:09 <copumpkin> it's remarkably difficult to talk about nondeterministic things like that
966 2011-12-07 07:40:42 <doublec> gmaxwell: I'm around :) I missed my chance to plug ATS, I'm too slow!
967 2011-12-07 07:40:53 <copumpkin> you'd obviously have to assume that for your notion of difficulty, that something like integer logarithm is difficult
968 2011-12-07 07:41:08 <amiller> this is the most focus i've ever needed to understand a crayon drawing
969 2011-12-07 07:41:10 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
970 2011-12-07 07:41:10 <copumpkin> doublec: I missed a talk by hongwei xi a couple of days ago! I was sad
971 2011-12-07 07:41:10 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: so.. what do you do when verifying a program in the verification depends on something np hard. if (len(factor(bignum))>2){destroy_world();} ?
972 2011-12-07 07:41:16 <amiller> i think this could be very relevant to get through
973 2011-12-07 07:41:21 <amiller> proofs of ordering being essential to even a blockchain verifir
974 2011-12-07 07:41:28 <GMP> yeah, and proof of being NP doesnt mean that there are no 'weak' keys
975 2011-12-07 07:41:30 <gmaxwell> doublec: for some reason my client didn't tabcomplete you.
976 2011-12-07 07:41:36 traviscj has joined
977 2011-12-07 07:41:52 CryptoX has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
978 2011-12-07 07:42:18 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: I didn't quite understand that question. could you rephrase a bit?
979 2011-12-07 07:42:49 <doublec> copumpkin: I saw that talk announced - I'd have like to have seen it too
980 2011-12-07 07:42:52 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: I mean â you're not going to prove that on the spot, it's hardâ so do you just take it as an axiom and confess later? :)
981 2011-12-07 07:43:09 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
982 2011-12-07 07:43:15 CryptoX has joined
983 2011-12-07 07:43:17 traviscj_ has joined
984 2011-12-07 07:43:20 <copumpkin> oh yeah, it's fairly common to assume things you don't want to or don't know how to prove, as long as you have a nice concise statement of what you're assuming
985 2011-12-07 07:43:29 <copumpkin> one common one in something like agda or coq is functional extensionality
986 2011-12-07 07:43:34 <gmaxwell> I think it would be perfectly fine to prove bitcoin taking some things as axioms, e.g. that the hash function is actually a random oracle.
987 2011-12-07 07:43:40 <copumpkin> that if two functions are pointwise equal, that they are actually equal
988 2011-12-07 07:44:01 <amiller> is it known how to work with random oracle model in a proof checker?
989 2011-12-07 07:44:08 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: I meant more that it's difficult to even come up with a statement of what "difficult" means, formally
990 2011-12-07 07:44:43 <jgarzik> has anyone yet created a bitcoin-based mechanical turk?
991 2011-12-07 07:44:45 <amiller> i can imagine claims i'd want to make about like sampling from statistical distributions
992 2011-12-07 07:44:52 <copumpkin> yeah
993 2011-12-07 07:44:59 <copumpkin> those are pretty difficult to talk about
994 2011-12-07 07:45:04 <amiller> i have no idea how i'd even begin expressing that
995 2011-12-07 07:45:18 <gmaxwell> amiller: it doesn't seem conceptually hard if you describe it as permuting an infite set or something like that.. I don't know if that would let you say anything useful about it though.
996 2011-12-07 07:45:39 <gmaxwell> er infinite.
997 2011-12-07 07:46:29 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: the nearest is http://forbitcoin.com/ I think.
998 2011-12-07 07:46:48 <copumpkin> StorJ can use it :D
999 2011-12-07 07:46:56 <gmaxwell> Though I'm surprised someone hasn't just setup a front end on actual mechnical turk that just exchanges and pays amazon.
1000 2011-12-07 07:46:57 traviscj has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1001 2011-12-07 07:46:58 <justmoon> I just bought forbitcoin.com :D
1002 2011-12-07 07:47:01 <amiller> hey if anyone likes to talk about mechanical turk
1003 2011-12-07 07:47:11 <amiller> i just watched this talk today http://www.ted.com/talks/aaron_koblin.html
1004 2011-12-07 07:47:13 dissipate_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1005 2011-12-07 07:47:35 <amiller> there are some clever games with mechanical turk in there
1006 2011-12-07 07:47:42 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: saying things about the difficulty of finding hash collisions, for example
1007 2011-12-07 07:48:02 <copumpkin> might want to appeal to the expected number of tries an attacker would have to make
1008 2011-12-07 07:48:53 <copumpkin> but it's really quite difficult to build those out of first concepts, and there's also the issue that we're working in a logic that most people don't usually think in
1009 2011-12-07 07:48:54 BitMark has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1010 2011-12-07 07:49:17 <copumpkin> (intuitionist logic, not classical, which means that some often intuitive facts from classical logic are no longer provable)
1011 2011-12-07 07:49:42 <gmaxwell> yea... these are usually problems I think about for a minute to figure out if I know where to start on an analytic solution (using dreaded reals!) .. then I just write a simulation and approximate it.
1012 2011-12-07 07:49:56 <copumpkin> yeah :)
1013 2011-12-07 07:50:19 BitMarkNA has joined
1014 2011-12-07 07:50:33 <copumpkin> but even apart from the cryptographic security of an implementation, I'd be quite happy to get a nice partially verified client that is verified to "be good" in more deterministic manners
1015 2011-12-07 07:51:23 <gmaxwell> the cryptographic parts are easy to validate (not in a proof sense) via classic software techniques.. e.g. show they do what they are supposted to do, and nothing else.
1016 2011-12-07 07:51:44 <copumpkin> yeah
1017 2011-12-07 07:52:42 <gmaxwell> (or even use multi-computation, e.g. include three implementations and vote, and prove the judge. ;).. then only prove the crypto stuff can't crash the machine)
1018 2011-12-07 07:53:46 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1019 2011-12-07 07:53:52 gjs278 has joined
1020 2011-12-07 07:53:57 <gmaxwell> justmoon: really?
1021 2011-12-07 07:54:03 <gmaxwell> justmoon: going to do anything neat with it?
1022 2011-12-07 07:56:18 <gmaxwell> justmoon: clicking on .. anything there bring up a "you were about to be ripped off" warning from http://www.fiverrscript.com
1023 2011-12-07 07:56:34 <justmoon> lol
1024 2011-12-07 07:56:34 <amiller> ah finally
1025 2011-12-07 07:56:38 <justmoon> yeah, needs a bit of work
1026 2011-12-07 07:56:47 <justmoon> payment doesn't work currently
1027 2011-12-07 07:56:48 <amiller> www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~schwicht/papers/mod97/fcp.ps
1028 2011-12-07 07:57:00 <amiller> formal correctness proof of dijkstras algorithm a case study
1029 2011-12-07 07:57:50 <justmoon> gmaxwell, suggestions for the site are very welcome - right now I'm just planning to fix the payment and clean it up a bit - will check out the fiverrscript thing
1030 2011-12-07 07:58:29 <gmaxwell> justmoon: I'll be glad to send you my thoughtsâ it seems like a useful service we ought to have.
1031 2011-12-07 07:58:55 <justmoon> exactly, that's why I bought it - it was killing me, such a nice site and the payment hasn't been working for months
1032 2011-12-07 07:59:14 <justmoon> reason was the original developer dropped out
1033 2011-12-07 07:59:54 <gmaxwell> I think thats a probably we'll continue to face... most of the bitcoin community is not big enough (except the exchanges and the biggest pools) to actually support people full time.
1034 2011-12-07 08:00:08 <gmaxwell> So a lot of businesses will start and die from a lack of love.
1035 2011-12-07 08:00:25 <justmoon> yeah - guess the core people will have to buy them all up :P
1036 2011-12-07 08:00:28 <gmaxwell> at least they had the good sense to sell that one instead of just taking it down.
1037 2011-12-07 08:02:05 <justmoon> gmaxwell, did you have a look at: http://www.weusecoins.com/questions.php
1038 2011-12-07 08:02:18 <justmoon> I'm thinking of putting this instead of the privacy/security section
1039 2011-12-07 08:04:10 <gmaxwell> the top questions ranking is a bit weird there.
1040 2011-12-07 08:04:24 <gmaxwell> BDD is a bunch of navel gazing from the perspective of helping people learn to use bitcoin
1041 2011-12-07 08:05:03 <justmoon> yeah, well, that's what you get with community generated content
1042 2011-12-07 08:05:51 <justmoon> I like what it communicates on a meta level - this is what you would find for a community project - far from the polished FAQ you'd have on a corporate website
1043 2011-12-07 08:05:59 <justmoon> do you know what I mean?
1044 2011-12-07 08:06:10 <justmoon> but yeah the ranking is weird in some parts :/
1045 2011-12-07 08:06:32 <gmaxwell> Yes, it's generally fairly good.
1046 2011-12-07 08:07:07 <gmaxwell> I think the good business advice is to minimize places to click which don't result in the user giving you money.
1047 2011-12-07 08:07:17 <justmoon> hehe
1048 2011-12-07 08:07:26 <gmaxwell> It's not entirely insane to imagine the user as a monkey that clicks randomly and then pays you when asked. 0_o
1049 2011-12-07 08:08:02 <justmoon> that statement resonates with my experience
1050 2011-12-07 08:08:06 <justmoon> cynical as it may be
1051 2011-12-07 08:08:57 <justmoon> at the same time, i've done well not to underestimate people's intelligence either, it's more a case of - not everybody is an expert at X, so they'll act like non-experts
1052 2011-12-07 08:09:15 <justmoon> anyway, should I launch it like this?
1053 2011-12-07 08:09:17 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1054 2011-12-07 08:09:41 <gmaxwell> so closing my eyes moving my mouse randomly.. then clicking the nearest link it took me 14 click to get to a real place where I'd order if I clicked on amazon.
1055 2011-12-07 08:10:04 <gmaxwell> That sounds like a lot.. but if the site had basically any external links at all I would have been likely to exit the site long before then.
1056 2011-12-07 08:10:14 <gmaxwell> also, the 14 clicks managed to get me logged in.
1057 2011-12-07 08:10:26 <justmoon> hang on, what site are we talking about now?
1058 2011-12-07 08:10:30 <gmaxwell> amazon.com
1059 2011-12-07 08:10:34 <justmoon> oh
1060 2011-12-07 08:10:35 <justmoon> :)
1061 2011-12-07 08:11:06 <gmaxwell> well, it's not really about intelligence.. peoples interest/patience runs out in finite time.. and even smart people get lost in unfamilar pages easily.
1062 2011-12-07 08:11:16 <justmoon> are you saying amazon is something weusecoins should emulate?
1063 2011-12-07 08:11:31 <justmoon> I've pretty much done the opposite and added as many external links as possible :D
1064 2011-12-07 08:11:43 <gmaxwell> hah, no! but doing that has consequences.
1065 2011-12-07 08:12:02 <justmoon> true
1066 2011-12-07 08:12:02 <gmaxwell> e.g. your might make people smarter with the external links.. but less interested in bitcoin.
1067 2011-12-07 08:12:08 osmosis has joined
1068 2011-12-07 08:12:31 <gmaxwell> (though I suppose they're mostly external links to bitcoin stuff)
1069 2011-12-07 08:12:38 <justmoon> I could have the answers pop up in a lightbox instead
1070 2011-12-07 08:12:42 <justmoon> for the top questions at least
1071 2011-12-07 08:14:13 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1072 2011-12-07 08:14:32 <justmoon> also, on the general point - decentralization and this kind of "only one big button" userfriendliness are at odds to some extent
1073 2011-12-07 08:15:08 <justmoon> the most userfriendly thing would be to only tell people how to get a client and then have something built into the client where people can buy coins
1074 2011-12-07 08:15:32 <justmoon> but it would be tough to have that be "fair" towards new startup exchanges
1075 2011-12-07 08:16:12 larsivi has joined
1076 2011-12-07 08:17:12 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1077 2011-12-07 08:18:17 dissipate_ has joined
1078 2011-12-07 08:18:38 wasabi2 has joined
1079 2011-12-07 08:27:54 molecular has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1080 2011-12-07 08:28:39 molecular has joined
1081 2011-12-07 08:37:33 quellhorst has joined
1082 2011-12-07 08:37:50 <quellhorst> whats the best way to get the current bitcoin price so that i can put stuff on a website thats dynamic
1083 2011-12-07 08:38:14 <SomeoneWeird> ;;ticker --last
1084 2011-12-07 08:38:15 <gribble> 3
1085 2011-12-07 08:38:21 <SomeoneWeird> :P
1086 2011-12-07 08:38:27 <SomeoneWeird> scrape it from mtgox or something
1087 2011-12-07 08:39:35 <quellhorst> gribble source is available right?
1088 2011-12-07 08:39:43 <quellhorst> maybe i could look at his internals :P
1089 2011-12-07 08:40:37 <justmoon> quellhorst: https://mtgox.com/api/0/data/ticker.php
1090 2011-12-07 08:41:03 <quellhorst> thanks
1091 2011-12-07 08:41:40 <justmoon> for multiple currencies: https://mtgox.com/api#Methods_API_version_1
1092 2011-12-07 08:50:19 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1093 2011-12-07 08:55:15 c_k has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1094 2011-12-07 08:55:56 c_k has joined
1095 2011-12-07 08:57:18 devrandom has joined
1096 2011-12-07 09:04:43 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1097 2011-12-07 09:05:57 AAA_awright has joined
1098 2011-12-07 09:11:19 iocor has joined
1099 2011-12-07 09:15:02 skeledrew has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1100 2011-12-07 09:15:10 luke-jr has quit (otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1101 2011-12-07 09:16:11 danbri has joined
1102 2011-12-07 09:17:00 luke-jr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1103 2011-12-07 09:17:04 skeledrew has joined
1104 2011-12-07 09:17:59 ahihi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1105 2011-12-07 09:18:19 darkee is now known as !~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|darkee
1106 2011-12-07 09:24:56 ahihi2 has joined
1107 2011-12-07 09:44:55 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1108 2011-12-07 09:45:51 dissipate_ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1109 2011-12-07 09:50:56 ThomasV has joined
1110 2011-12-07 10:00:02 iocor has joined
1111 2011-12-07 10:05:45 marf_away has joined
1112 2011-12-07 10:15:54 [Tycho] has joined
1113 2011-12-07 10:16:36 wasabi3 has joined
1114 2011-12-07 10:18:25 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1115 2011-12-07 10:35:54 ahbritto_ has joined
1116 2011-12-07 10:53:27 slush1 has joined
1117 2011-12-07 10:53:38 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1118 2011-12-07 11:03:12 RazielZ has joined
1119 2011-12-07 11:10:15 iocor has joined
1120 2011-12-07 11:23:03 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1121 2011-12-07 11:27:15 <sneak> what's this about verisons prior to 0.5 harming the network?
1122 2011-12-07 11:29:25 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1123 2011-12-07 11:44:04 sacarlson has joined
1124 2011-12-07 11:48:52 wolfspraul has joined
1125 2011-12-07 11:50:36 <Eliel> sneak: well, old versions don't have the improvements.
1126 2011-12-07 11:53:52 Cory has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1127 2011-12-07 11:53:57 BGL has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1128 2011-12-07 11:57:24 niekie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1129 2011-12-07 11:58:24 <tcatm> quellhorst: telnet bitcoincharts.com 27007 is what gribble uses in #bitcoin-market
1130 2011-12-07 12:01:05 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1131 2011-12-07 12:01:23 Detritus has joined
1132 2011-12-07 12:04:04 dan__ has quit (Quit: dan__)
1133 2011-12-07 12:06:02 sipa has joined
1134 2011-12-07 12:06:47 mega_p2k has joined
1135 2011-12-07 12:12:25 <mega_p2k> hello, I'm trying to implement my own mini block explorer. the getblocks message is troubling me: I got the genesis block + the first 10 blocks and send their hashes through the getblocks message last to first, however I keep getting the same 10 blocks at the beginning of the inv message as a return (do not want). what am I missing?
1136 2011-12-07 12:14:42 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1137 2011-12-07 12:15:07 copumpkin has joined
1138 2011-12-07 12:16:29 Happy0 has joined
1139 2011-12-07 12:16:51 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1140 2011-12-07 12:18:12 sneak has joined
1141 2011-12-07 12:19:37 BGL has joined
1142 2011-12-07 12:22:51 <tcatm> mega_p2k: when using getblocks you should set hashstop to 0 and provide only one blocklocator with the latest hash you know of
1143 2011-12-07 12:24:09 <mega_p2k> tcatm: the blocklocator is a list with a single entry? the specification tells something different, that's why I wonder.
1144 2011-12-07 12:24:40 <tcatm> where's there specification? I don't know of any official one.
1145 2011-12-07 12:24:47 <mega_p2k> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification
1146 2011-12-07 12:25:01 <mega_p2k> looked official enough for me
1147 2011-12-07 12:25:48 <tcatm> it's a public editable wiki :)
1148 2011-12-07 12:26:20 <mega_p2k> it's a bit sad, because it took me hours to figure out an algorithm to get that block locator list...
1149 2011-12-07 12:26:50 <mega_p2k> so this is confirmed, the list should only contain one hash
1150 2011-12-07 12:26:53 <tcatm> so you should edit the wiki once you get it working
1151 2011-12-07 12:27:06 dvide has joined
1152 2011-12-07 12:27:15 <tcatm> not confirmed, but that's what my implementation does to fetch the blockchain
1153 2011-12-07 12:29:32 <mega_p2k> and what happens if I'm on a branch or an orphan block and send in that hash?
1154 2011-12-07 12:31:44 abragin has joined
1155 2011-12-07 12:31:44 abragin has quit (Changing host)
1156 2011-12-07 12:31:44 abragin has joined
1157 2011-12-07 12:31:53 <tcatm> try it :)
1158 2011-12-07 12:32:22 <mega_p2k> it looks like there is no way for the peer to return an error message
1159 2011-12-07 12:34:13 <tcatm> you'll probably get an inv for a new block within the next 20 minutes that you can use to find the correct chain
1160 2011-12-07 12:35:41 <mega_p2k> but then, how to get to the right start hash?
1161 2011-12-07 12:35:58 <mega_p2k> I don't want to load the whole blockchain again
1162 2011-12-07 12:36:25 <mega_p2k> wasn't the idea of the block locator to deal with this problem?
1163 2011-12-07 12:36:45 <mega_p2k> by sending in a list of known blocks and letting the peer decide where to start?
1164 2011-12-07 12:38:04 <tcatm> the new block will know the hash of the previous block
1165 2011-12-07 12:38:35 <mega_p2k> so I step back one by one? not that efficient.
1166 2011-12-07 12:39:48 rdponticelli has joined
1167 2011-12-07 12:41:54 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1168 2011-12-07 12:44:01 <mega_p2k> ok no difference, sent in just my last known hash and still get the first 10 blocks
1169 2011-12-07 12:44:27 <mega_p2k> as if I'm not on the right chain
1170 2011-12-07 12:45:42 <tcatm> what did your message look like?
1171 2011-12-07 12:46:49 <mega_p2k> hex encoded?
1172 2011-12-07 12:46:56 datagutt has joined
1173 2011-12-07 12:47:03 datagutt has quit (Changing host)
1174 2011-12-07 12:47:03 datagutt has joined
1175 2011-12-07 12:47:12 <tcatm> pretty printed ascii if possible :)
1176 2011-12-07 12:47:25 <mega_p2k> mkay...
1177 2011-12-07 12:48:51 molecular has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1178 2011-12-07 12:48:56 <tcatm> but hex is okay, too
1179 2011-12-07 12:49:04 <mega_p2k> this is what it looks like before it passes my serializer/encoder: #btc_getblocks{version=50000, block_locator_hashes=[<<0,0,0,0,44,5,204,46,120,146,60,52,223,135,253,16,139,34,34,26,198,7,108,24,243,173,227,120,164,217,21,233>>], hash_stop = <<0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0>>}
1180 2011-12-07 12:49:17 <SomeoneWeird> 0_O
1181 2011-12-07 12:50:06 <mega_p2k> note that I store hashes in big endian until they get encoded
1182 2011-12-07 12:50:45 mtve has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1183 2011-12-07 12:50:51 <mega_p2k> encoded: 50c3000001000000002c05cc2e78923c34df87fd108b22221ac6076c18f3ade378a4d915e90000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
1184 2011-12-07 12:51:04 larsivi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1185 2011-12-07 12:51:09 larsivi has joined
1186 2011-12-07 12:51:15 Diablo-D3 has joined
1187 2011-12-07 12:52:37 <mega_p2k> maybe there is something wrong with the endianness in my serializer...
1188 2011-12-07 12:53:33 <tcatm> probably, just a second
1189 2011-12-07 12:56:51 AStove has joined
1190 2011-12-07 12:58:47 <mega_p2k> this is odd... it doesn't turn around the hash...
1191 2011-12-07 13:00:12 <mega_p2k> aah got the bug
1192 2011-12-07 13:00:22 <mega_p2k> thanks for opening my eyes
1193 2011-12-07 13:00:44 <tcatm> 50c3000001e915d9a478e3adf3186c07c61a22228b10fd87df343c92782ecc052c000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is what it should look like I think
1194 2011-12-07 13:02:03 <ThomasV> where can I find documentation on tx fees? (other than the wiki page)
1195 2011-12-07 13:02:25 <tcatm> what kind of documentation?
1196 2011-12-07 13:03:13 <ThomasV> how are they computed by the client, and under which conditions are transactions refused
1197 2011-12-07 13:03:55 <tcatm> source code and maybe the commits the changed that. you might also find information on the development mailinglist
1198 2011-12-07 13:07:35 AAA_awright_ has joined
1199 2011-12-07 13:09:16 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1200 2011-12-07 13:11:17 _Fireball has joined
1201 2011-12-07 13:11:25 <mega_p2k> tcatm: yea fixed
1202 2011-12-07 13:11:41 <_Fireball> Hello
1203 2011-12-07 13:12:12 <mega_p2k> tcatm: I can confirm that it works with just sending one hash, now additionally trying to send a list
1204 2011-12-07 13:12:13 <tcatm> mega_p2k: great :)
1205 2011-12-07 13:12:57 <mega_p2k> I'll update the wiki then
1206 2011-12-07 13:13:48 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1207 2011-12-07 13:16:07 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1208 2011-12-07 13:16:58 da2ce7 has joined
1209 2011-12-07 13:17:10 da2ce7 is now known as da2ce7_
1210 2011-12-07 13:17:41 da2ce7_ is now known as da2ce7
1211 2011-12-07 13:19:58 da2ce7 has quit (Client Quit)
1212 2011-12-07 13:23:46 <mega_p2k> tcatm: it looks like sending a list is fine too
1213 2011-12-07 13:24:42 <mega_p2k> experimenting with branches...
1214 2011-12-07 13:25:55 TDL__ has joined
1215 2011-12-07 13:26:52 <mega_p2k> inserted a wrong block, now what happens...
1216 2011-12-07 13:27:06 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1217 2011-12-07 13:27:18 <mega_p2k> just what I expected :)
1218 2011-12-07 13:27:56 <mega_p2k> the peer sent me the blocks beginning with the one right after the last "correct" block
1219 2011-12-07 13:28:13 da2ce7 has joined
1220 2011-12-07 13:28:17 <tcatm> cool. so it actually works like described on the wiki :)
1221 2011-12-07 13:28:19 <mega_p2k> so indeed the list has its purpose
1222 2011-12-07 13:28:22 random_cat has joined
1223 2011-12-07 13:28:24 <mega_p2k> yes it does
1224 2011-12-07 13:28:52 <mega_p2k> now if you just send in a single hash, and it is wrong, the peer will start over at block #1
1225 2011-12-07 13:29:20 <da2ce7> hello allo!
1226 2011-12-07 13:29:54 Insti has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1227 2011-12-07 13:33:55 Insti has joined
1228 2011-12-07 13:35:53 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1229 2011-12-07 13:38:56 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1230 2011-12-07 13:53:42 <mega_p2k> tcatm: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#getblocks
1231 2011-12-07 13:54:03 <mega_p2k> changed the first section and added the notes below
1232 2011-12-07 13:54:12 iocor has joined
1233 2011-12-07 13:57:38 <mega_p2k> everything works like a charm now :)
1234 2011-12-07 13:58:01 minimoose has joined
1235 2011-12-07 14:01:01 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1236 2011-12-07 14:03:06 darkskiez_ has joined
1237 2011-12-07 14:07:17 rdponticelli has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1238 2011-12-07 14:08:19 Cory has joined
1239 2011-12-07 14:09:28 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
1240 2011-12-07 14:10:39 rdponticelli has joined
1241 2011-12-07 14:12:16 <mega_p2k> interesting...
1242 2011-12-07 14:12:37 <mega_p2k> I get one additional inv message pushed after recieving the last requested block
1243 2011-12-07 14:13:10 <mega_p2k> this is probably to detect if more blocks should be requested
1244 2011-12-07 14:16:39 Herodes has joined
1245 2011-12-07 14:17:59 rdponticelli_ has joined
1246 2011-12-07 14:18:27 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1247 2011-12-07 14:20:12 <Herodes> Ok, I'm sure I have a lot of silly question, so I will just ask a simple one, is ther a mediawiki page or somesuch that explains the details about what happens when you start a transaction from within the bitcoin client? For instance, I did a 0.1 BTC transaction now, just to test, and blockexplorer lists the address in question as 'Never used on the network'. I guess it needs to be included in a block for blockexplorer to be abl
1248 2011-12-07 14:20:53 <Herodes> ie. a transaction that's waiting to be included in a block ?
1249 2011-12-07 14:20:54 <tcatm> Herodes: try http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/
1250 2011-12-07 14:21:13 <Herodes> great, thanks-
1251 2011-12-07 14:21:31 <helo> Herodes: yes, all pending valid transactions are included in a block every 10 minutes
1252 2011-12-07 14:21:47 <helo> Herodes: every 10 minutes on average, that is
1253 2011-12-07 14:21:51 <SomeoneWeird> and yes, they need to be in a block for a block explorer to find them Herodes
1254 2011-12-07 14:22:12 <Herodes> Thanks, yes, I could see my transaction on that link, I will bookmark it for future reference as well. Thanks a lot.
1255 2011-12-07 14:22:14 <sipa> and blockexplorer will only know the public key once a coin from that addres sis spent
1256 2011-12-07 14:22:44 <Herodes> right
1257 2011-12-07 14:23:14 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1258 2011-12-07 14:23:42 <Herodes> Ok, but where does bitcoinchars.com/bitcoin get the information from ? Is there some info that's propagated through the 'super nodes' or some such ? I mean, since the transaction I started is not yet in the block chain, it's still available to that site, so they get the info from somewhere ?
1259 2011-12-07 14:24:16 <SomeoneWeird> no supernodes
1260 2011-12-07 14:24:23 <SomeoneWeird> this isnt scamcoin
1261 2011-12-07 14:24:29 <helo> Herodes: all nodes are peers (no super nodes), but yes, the transaction propagates through the public bitcoin network
1262 2011-12-07 14:24:50 <Herodes> there's no bootstrapping through irc for the clients any longer ?
1263 2011-12-07 14:24:58 <SomeoneWeird> there is afaik?
1264 2011-12-07 14:25:01 <cjdelisle> which scamcoin is that? last I checked there was a half dozen of em
1265 2011-12-07 14:25:04 <helo> Herodes: if you modified the bitcoin code, you could have it print out transactions as it sees them before they are included in blocks too
1266 2011-12-07 14:25:10 <SomeoneWeird> all of em cj
1267 2011-12-07 14:25:19 <Herodes> well, i'm just interested in bitcoin, not any scamcoin.
1268 2011-12-07 14:25:20 <SomeoneWeird> helo; it does...
1269 2011-12-07 14:25:29 <SomeoneWeird> Herodes, good choice
1270 2011-12-07 14:25:29 <helo> SomeoneWeird: oh... heh
1271 2011-12-07 14:25:35 <SomeoneWeird> :)
1272 2011-12-07 14:25:49 <helo> Herodes: in that case, if you watch ~/.bitcoin/debug.log you will see every transaction as your node receives it
1273 2011-12-07 14:26:11 roconnor has joined
1274 2011-12-07 14:26:12 <Herodes> helo: right, i was just curious as to where bitcoincharts got their 'low priority transactions' information from. :)
1275 2011-12-07 14:26:22 <SomeoneWeird> or %appdata%\.bitcoin\debug.log
1276 2011-12-07 14:26:35 <Herodes> helo: Thanks, will check debug.log
1277 2011-12-07 14:26:40 <SomeoneWeird> Herodes, i'd presume the 'priority' is todo with the fee
1278 2011-12-07 14:27:35 <SomeoneWeird> ;;ticker --last
1279 2011-12-07 14:27:38 <gribble> 3.00001
1280 2011-12-07 14:27:42 <SomeoneWeird> heh
1281 2011-12-07 14:27:48 <Herodes> Yes, thanks! You are a very helpful bunch here, most appreciated. I will ask more questions if I have some, thanks for your kind replies. Cheers.
1282 2011-12-07 14:28:12 <SomeoneWeird> np
1283 2011-12-07 14:28:32 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1284 2011-12-07 14:28:41 luke-jr has joined
1285 2011-12-07 14:31:56 erus` has joined
1286 2011-12-07 14:33:29 erle- has joined
1287 2011-12-07 14:35:35 iocor has joined
1288 2011-12-07 14:41:31 hippich has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1289 2011-12-07 14:42:17 da2ce7 has joined
1290 2011-12-07 14:44:28 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1291 2011-12-07 14:45:52 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1292 2011-12-07 14:46:16 danbri has joined
1293 2011-12-07 14:48:58 Burgundy has joined
1294 2011-12-07 14:54:31 iocor has joined
1295 2011-12-07 14:55:28 darkskiez__ has joined
1296 2011-12-07 14:57:04 Turingi has joined
1297 2011-12-07 14:57:05 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
1298 2011-12-07 14:57:05 Turingi has joined
1299 2011-12-07 14:57:21 darkskiez_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1300 2011-12-07 14:57:27 mtve has joined
1301 2011-12-07 14:57:59 darkskiez__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1302 2011-12-07 15:00:18 snimpy has quit ()
1303 2011-12-07 15:05:13 darkskiez_ has joined
1304 2011-12-07 15:06:29 gp5st has joined
1305 2011-12-07 15:13:17 <BitMarkNA> running 0.5.0 on AWS Linux
1306 2011-12-07 15:13:22 <BitMarkNA> getting a error: -rpcssl=1, but bitcoin compiled without full openssl libraries.
1307 2011-12-07 15:13:26 <BitMarkNA> anyone else get this error?
1308 2011-12-07 15:13:40 BitMarkNA is now known as BitMark
1309 2011-12-07 15:14:10 BitMark is now known as Guest79349
1310 2011-12-07 15:14:49 Guest79349 has quit (Changing host)
1311 2011-12-07 15:14:49 Guest79349 has joined
1312 2011-12-07 15:15:04 <sipa> Bwild: official binary?
1313 2011-12-07 15:15:09 <sipa> or self compiled?
1314 2011-12-07 15:15:35 <Guest79349> official binary
1315 2011-12-07 15:15:50 <Guest79349> <-- BitMark having nickserv issues
1316 2011-12-07 15:16:03 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1317 2011-12-07 15:16:34 <Guest79349> wget http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/bitcoin/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.5.0/bitcoin-0.5.0-linux.tar.gz?r=http%3A%2F%2Fbitcoin.org%2F&ts=1323227299&use_mirror=hivelocit
1318 2011-12-07 15:16:39 wolfspraul has joined
1319 2011-12-07 15:16:42 <upb> 07 17:15 < Guest79349> wget
1320 2011-12-07 15:16:42 <upb> http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/bitcoin/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.5.0/bitcoin-0.5.0-linux.tar.gz?r=http%3A%2F%2Fbitcoin.org%2F&ts=1323227299&use_mirror=hivelocit
1321 2011-12-07 15:18:33 <Guest79349> nick fixed
1322 2011-12-07 15:18:35 <Guest79349> ack
1323 2011-12-07 15:18:50 <Guest79349> brb
1324 2011-12-07 15:18:56 Guest79349 has quit (Quit: Guest79349)
1325 2011-12-07 15:19:02 BitMarkNA has joined
1326 2011-12-07 15:19:17 darkskiez_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1327 2011-12-07 15:19:24 BitMarkNA has quit (Client Quit)
1328 2011-12-07 15:19:42 wasabi2 has joined
1329 2011-12-07 15:20:30 BitMarkNA has joined
1330 2011-12-07 15:20:52 BitMarkNA has quit (Changing host)
1331 2011-12-07 15:20:52 BitMarkNA has joined
1332 2011-12-07 15:21:07 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1333 2011-12-07 15:21:07 BitMarkNA is now known as BitMark_
1334 2011-12-07 15:21:16 BlueMatt has joined
1335 2011-12-07 15:21:47 mega_p2k has left ()
1336 2011-12-07 15:21:55 <BitMark_> any ideas sipa?
1337 2011-12-07 15:22:27 <sipa> i'd suggest you to recompile it yourself with SSL support
1338 2011-12-07 15:22:41 <BitMark_> was ssl support removed?
1339 2011-12-07 15:22:42 <sipa> but it's strange that the official binary doesn't have it
1340 2011-12-07 15:22:56 <sipa> BlueMatt: do you know anything about that?
1341 2011-12-07 15:23:00 <BitMark_> this worked in 3.24
1342 2011-12-07 15:23:08 <BlueMatt> sipa: what?
1343 2011-12-07 15:23:14 <BlueMatt> since when?
1344 2011-12-07 15:23:31 <sipa> official 0.5 binary seems to lack rpcssl support
1345 2011-12-07 15:23:37 <BlueMatt> hmmm...
1346 2011-12-07 15:23:44 <BlueMatt> does bitcoind have it?
1347 2011-12-07 15:23:50 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1348 2011-12-07 15:23:56 <sipa> BitMark_: just accidentally left out, i think
1349 2011-12-07 15:24:18 <BitMark_> also bitcoind has been taking 100% CPU for the last 6 hours
1350 2011-12-07 15:24:33 <BlueMatt> yep, it was left out, Ill pull req
1351 2011-12-07 15:24:42 <BlueMatt> BitMark_: now that sounds like a more serious bug...
1352 2011-12-07 15:24:46 <BitMark_> why was it removed?
1353 2011-12-07 15:24:51 <BlueMatt> (or is it because of chain download?)
1354 2011-12-07 15:25:03 <sipa> BitMark_: it wasn't removed, it just not compiled in (it's an option at compile time)
1355 2011-12-07 15:25:05 <BlueMatt> just a mixup when redoing gitian build scripts (probably my fault...)
1356 2011-12-07 15:25:13 <BitMark_> i momentarily stopped a 3.24 instance and upgraded it to 0.50
1357 2011-12-07 15:25:21 <sipa> BitMark_: are you downloading the block chain?
1358 2011-12-07 15:25:40 <BitMark_> so it should have had the most recent block chain from the 3.24 instance
1359 2011-12-07 15:25:51 <sipa> hmmm, that sounds wrong
1360 2011-12-07 15:25:55 <BitMark_> this is running on an ec2 micro instance
1361 2011-12-07 15:26:45 <BitMark_> my test net instance had no problems
1362 2011-12-07 15:26:55 <BitMark_> though it it is not using rpcssl
1363 2011-12-07 15:27:28 erle- has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1364 2011-12-07 15:27:37 <BitMark_> can i safely force quit the 0.5.0 instance and restart it with 3.24?
1365 2011-12-07 15:27:39 darkskiez_ has joined
1366 2011-12-07 15:27:52 <BitMark_> force kill i should say
1367 2011-12-07 15:28:21 <sipa> if you didn't use encrypted wallets, it should work
1368 2011-12-07 15:28:30 <BitMark_> k
1369 2011-12-07 15:28:35 erle- has joined
1370 2011-12-07 15:28:50 <sipa> but could you try just removing (or at least renaming) the blkindex.dat and blk00001.dat file, and let them download again in 0.5?
1371 2011-12-07 15:28:51 <BitMark_> do you know if 4.0 official binaries has ssl support?
1372 2011-12-07 15:29:00 btc_novice has joined
1373 2011-12-07 15:29:01 <BitMark_> sure
1374 2011-12-07 15:29:02 <sipa> just to see whether the problem occurs there too
1375 2011-12-07 15:29:22 <BlueMatt> BitMark_: i think they should
1376 2011-12-07 15:29:54 <BlueMatt> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/687
1377 2011-12-07 15:30:45 Happy0 is now known as MiddlePorpoise7
1378 2011-12-07 15:31:22 <sipa> BitMark_: thanks for the bug report already :)
1379 2011-12-07 15:32:06 da2ce7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1380 2011-12-07 15:32:07 <BitMark_> you're welcome
1381 2011-12-07 15:32:17 <BitMark_> wait how long has 5.0 been out?
1382 2011-12-07 15:32:34 <BlueMatt> kinda depressing that no one uses rpcssl...took this long to figure out that we missed rpcssl
1383 2011-12-07 15:32:40 <BlueMatt> s/we/I/
1384 2011-12-07 15:32:59 <BitMark_> am i the first person to encounter this?
1385 2011-12-07 15:33:03 <BlueMatt> afaik
1386 2011-12-07 15:33:24 <BlueMatt> you are the first person Ive heard it from, and Im probably the one who the problem would have been forwarded to
1387 2011-12-07 15:33:25 <BitMark_> i would have thought there were tons of people using rpcssl
1388 2011-12-07 15:33:34 <BlueMatt> I guess not...
1389 2011-12-07 15:33:41 darkskiez_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1390 2011-12-07 15:33:41 <BitMark_> maybe none of them have switched
1391 2011-12-07 15:33:47 <BitMark_> one more question
1392 2011-12-07 15:33:59 <BitMark_> list transactions used to have txid column
1393 2011-12-07 15:34:08 <BitMark_> now it seems its gone
1394 2011-12-07 15:34:28 <BitMark_> address field is also missing
1395 2011-12-07 15:35:46 <BlueMatt> though most rpc connections are on trusted local networks so the problems with mitm are fairly low
1396 2011-12-07 15:35:47 <BlueMatt> not that you shouldnt still be using rpcssl, but whatever
1397 2011-12-07 15:37:21 <sipa> i haven't ever used rpcssl myself, tbh
1398 2011-12-07 15:37:29 <BlueMatt> same here
1399 2011-12-07 15:37:45 <BlueMatt> but then I dont have any servers running bitcoin with a real wallet on them...
1400 2011-12-07 15:38:51 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
1401 2011-12-07 15:39:33 <gmaxwell> I wouldn't trust myself to get the rpcssl config right (or trust that the code implementing it was secure)
1402 2011-12-07 15:39:56 darkskiez_ has joined
1403 2011-12-07 15:40:01 <BitMark_> gmaxwell: how would you run a production bit coin service then?
1404 2011-12-07 15:40:25 <helo> manually upload fresh deposit addresses periodically
1405 2011-12-07 15:40:44 <helo> running a wallet on a server is a baaad idea
1406 2011-12-07 15:40:55 <BitMark_> doesn't the faucet use a bitcoind instance running on ec2?
1407 2011-12-07 15:41:13 <helo> yeah, but it's balance is relatively small
1408 2011-12-07 15:41:25 <BitMark_> is gavin not using ssl for that?
1409 2011-12-07 15:41:41 <gmaxwell> BitMark_: I'm not exactly following what you're saying there. I sure as hell wouldn't give the outside world access to my RPC port. For multi system use I'd run a thin front end on the wallet that used the local rpc.
1410 2011-12-07 15:42:04 <gmaxwell> (then connect from my front ends to that via stunnel or ssh forwarding)
1411 2011-12-07 15:42:35 <BitMark_> why not sshtunnel to bitcoind?
1412 2011-12-07 15:42:48 <BitMark_> oh nevermind
1413 2011-12-07 15:42:54 <BitMark_> d
1414 2011-12-07 15:43:18 <gmaxwell> Why nevermind? that would work too, but I'd generally prefer to expose as little of the wallet as possible. It would depend on that the service is doing.
1415 2011-12-07 15:43:42 <helo> gmaxwell: so your thin front end would be what limits access?
1416 2011-12-07 15:44:06 <BitMark_> is ssh more secure than https?
1417 2011-12-07 15:44:26 <BlueMatt> BitMark_: afaict, listtransactions should still show txid...
1418 2011-12-07 15:44:36 <gmaxwell> e.g. if the service was reciever only I might not connect it to a wallet at all.... I'd give it a couple thousand prefab addresses.
1419 2011-12-07 15:44:40 <Herodes> I want to play with doing some btc transactions programtically, I know I could use testnet for this, but I already have some vacant btc I want to use for this purpose, I'm using linux and bitcoind, and I was just wondering, can I set how many confirmations is required before I can send coins anywhere, like a setting in bitcoin.conf, or do I have to change it in the source code and recompile ?
1420 2011-12-07 15:45:02 <gmaxwell> helo: not allowing connectivity limits access.
1421 2011-12-07 15:45:35 <BlueMatt> Herodes: please dont send coins around to yourself for no reason on the main chain, it just adds more hdd space requirements for all of us, and that is what testnet is for
1422 2011-12-07 15:45:37 <gmaxwell> Herodes: none, though if you rapidly round trip transactions you'll end up paying fees that exist to discourage you from DDOSing the system.
1423 2011-12-07 15:46:05 <gmaxwell> (and I thought the same thing as BlueMatt there. :) almost replied "Hello blockchain spammer!" to you )
1424 2011-12-07 15:46:21 <Herodes> BlueMatt: ok, got your point. Is there a quick guide how to get started with the testnet?
1425 2011-12-07 15:46:39 <BlueMatt> just start bitcoin with -testnet or add testnet to your bitcoin.conf
1426 2011-12-07 15:46:45 <gmaxwell> start up a copy of bitcoin/bitcoind with -testnet tada! you are started with testnet.
1427 2011-12-07 15:46:45 <helo> aren't the fees supposed to keep people from spamming to the point that it affects bitcoin negatively?
1428 2011-12-07 15:46:49 <BitMark_> Herodes: if you aren't using those btw, i'll take them off your hands :)
1429 2011-12-07 15:46:55 <BitMark_> btc*
1430 2011-12-07 15:47:03 <Herodes> lol, thanks people.
1431 2011-12-07 15:47:24 <helo> i didn't know we were relying on the nice behavior of bitcoin users to keep the system workable
1432 2011-12-07 15:47:33 <sipa> Herodes: i believe the sendcoins rpc call has an option to select the minimal maturity of the inputs used
1433 2011-12-07 15:47:38 <gmaxwell> helo: they're enough to discourage agressive attackers (it appears) but you could still add a bunch of junk if you wanted to waste coin.
1434 2011-12-07 15:47:51 <sipa> Herodes: oh, maybe that;s only in the call for calculating the balance
1435 2011-12-07 15:47:57 <[eval]> rpcssl still works with bitcoind :P
1436 2011-12-07 15:48:08 <BlueMatt> [eval]: wait, really?
1437 2011-12-07 15:48:09 <[eval]> i'm getting my bitcoind from the ppa
1438 2011-12-07 15:48:11 <[eval]> yeah
1439 2011-12-07 15:48:13 <Herodes> thanks, i will do some research into it.
1440 2011-12-07 15:48:13 <BlueMatt> on 0.5?
1441 2011-12-07 15:48:18 <[eval]> 0.5.0
1442 2011-12-07 15:48:21 <BlueMatt> oh, ppa, yea that will have it (I think)
1443 2011-12-07 15:48:22 copumpkin has joined
1444 2011-12-07 15:48:28 <gmaxwell> helo: don't be a twit. Your city stays clean without "relying on the nice behavior" but that doesn't mean you piss on the buildings.
1445 2011-12-07 15:48:30 <BitMark_> [eval]: did you do your own compile?
1446 2011-12-07 15:48:32 <[eval]> ah ok :>
1447 2011-12-07 15:48:34 <BlueMatt> ppa has a different build script than the released versions
1448 2011-12-07 15:48:42 <[eval]> BitMark_: no, i use the PPA BlueMatt put up
1449 2011-12-07 15:48:53 <BitMark_> ppa?
1450 2011-12-07 15:49:03 <BlueMatt> https://launchpad.net/~bitcoin/+archive/bitcoin
1451 2011-12-07 15:49:04 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneWeirdzzzz
1452 2011-12-07 15:49:07 <[eval]> that
1453 2011-12-07 15:49:08 <BlueMatt> for ubuntu users
1454 2011-12-07 15:49:17 <BlueMatt> just add the repo and apt-get install bitcoin[d|-qt]
1455 2011-12-07 15:49:40 <BitMark_> ah
1456 2011-12-07 15:50:00 <BitMark_> can i access that for was ami linux?
1457 2011-12-07 15:50:02 <BlueMatt> the packages are pretty generic though, should work on debian too (well aside from new debians that dont have db4.8, though maybe the oneiric packages would work there...)
1458 2011-12-07 15:50:05 <BitMark_> was*
1459 2011-12-07 15:50:08 <BitMark_> aws*
1460 2011-12-07 15:50:14 <BlueMatt> if its ubuntu, yea
1461 2011-12-07 15:50:28 <BitMark_> it uses yum i think
1462 2011-12-07 15:50:36 <BlueMatt> nope, no good on fedora
1463 2011-12-07 15:50:44 <BlueMatt> oh, the actual amazon linux
1464 2011-12-07 15:50:48 <BlueMatt> well no, unless its dpkg/apt
1465 2011-12-07 15:50:58 <gmaxwell> helo: the bitcoin community saying "dont do pointless things that bloat the chain" is part of the protection tooâ every junk txn we convince an honest person to skip, is an extra junk txn from an attacker we can tolerate.
1466 2011-12-07 15:51:36 <BitMark_> like when i redeemed a zero btw output :)
1467 2011-12-07 15:51:45 <BitMark_> zero btc*
1468 2011-12-07 15:52:08 <cjdelisle> the problem is "everyone needs to know everything", asking people kindly not to insert crap in the chain will only help for a little while
1469 2011-12-07 15:52:24 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: it always helps.
1470 2011-12-07 15:52:31 <cjdelisle> and it also serves to prevent people from experimenting with novel uses of bitcoin
1471 2011-12-07 15:52:42 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: use testnet. or litecoin.
1472 2011-12-07 15:53:24 Daniel0108 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1473 2011-12-07 15:53:29 <cjdelisle> A good example is dns, I recognize that if I were to develop a dns resolver which used the btc chain I would get a lot of pushback from the btc developers
1474 2011-12-07 15:53:44 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: use namecoin. :)
1475 2011-12-07 15:53:54 <cjdelisle> namecoin is not a dns resolver.
1476 2011-12-07 15:54:07 <gmaxwell> It's a chain for resolvers to use.
1477 2011-12-07 15:54:25 <cjdelisle> requiring everyone to download the whole chain to resolve domains is fail
1478 2011-12-07 15:54:37 <[eval]> cjdelisle: you can set up a nameserver based on namecoin
1479 2011-12-07 15:54:41 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: thus https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21995.0
1480 2011-12-07 15:54:42 <[eval]> there are two already!
1481 2011-12-07 15:55:17 <cjdelisle> gmaxwell: yes indeed, I'm the one who rehashed that plan in more detail.
1482 2011-12-07 15:55:47 helo has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1483 2011-12-07 15:55:52 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: in any case, as you know bitcoin doesn't require everyone to know everythingâ we do have light nodes. But the interests of the bitcoin users are maximized if there can be as many nodes as possible for as long as possible, and thats an argument for doing what we can to limit chain growth.
1484 2011-12-07 15:56:45 <cjdelisle> Unfortunately namecoin developers don't seem thrilled about actually implementing it, as a cynic I suggest that they are more interested in mining coins and selling them to people.
1485 2011-12-07 15:56:53 <gmaxwell> so keeping things which aren't about the bitcoin currency out of the chain is importantâ and thats why things like merged mining are good and essentialâ so that people who care about those things can have them without burdening people who care about the currency.
1486 2011-12-07 15:57:06 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: have you actuall talked to them?
1487 2011-12-07 15:57:18 <cjdelisle> Yes
1488 2011-12-07 15:57:30 <cjdelisle> I got in a bunch of arguments as is to be expected and left.
1489 2011-12-07 15:57:42 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: you're incorrect about the mining part at leastâ none of the namecoin developers are miners anymore, they can't beâ the big bitcoin pools are the only namecoin miners now.
1490 2011-12-07 15:58:46 <gmaxwell> (and the namecoin folks decided to accept that fate)
1491 2011-12-07 15:58:48 <cjdelisle> Anyway I believe in one chain because it bulsters privacy and there isn't any needs which btc doesn't fullfill.
1492 2011-12-07 15:59:26 <cjdelisle> Of course there will be "get off my lawn" people but that's what steganography is for =]
1493 2011-12-07 15:59:49 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: except working at all. Seriously, if you force people to accept name chain, and child porn chain, and poker bets chain, just to use the electronic currency people will reject all. What namecoin does is allows people to pick and choose and it has ~no overhead.
1494 2011-12-07 16:00:07 darkskiez__ has joined
1495 2011-12-07 16:00:10 <cjdelisle> anyway the real need for domains is rather small compared to the number of people who want to "park domains"
1496 2011-12-07 16:00:53 <gmaxwell> e.g. why should I have to deal with all this bitcoin crap if I just want DNS? .. why should I have to deal with all this DNS crap if I just want poker bets?
1497 2011-12-07 16:01:25 <cjdelisle> well because you shouldn't need to d/l the whole chain as per your proposal
1498 2011-12-07 16:01:28 <gmaxwell> systems which minimize the parasitic load will have a competative advantage.
1499 2011-12-07 16:02:16 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: yes but you still have to know all that to mine it and to do trust free validation of it.
1500 2011-12-07 16:02:40 darkskiez_ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1501 2011-12-07 16:02:53 <cjdelisle> I built on the proposal and I think that is not true.
1502 2011-12-07 16:03:22 <cjdelisle> because you can prove that the next tree is as valid as the last tree.
1503 2011-12-07 16:03:41 <gmaxwell> only if it only differs in transactions you know how to validate.
1504 2011-12-07 16:03:53 <cjdelisle> indeed
1505 2011-12-07 16:04:20 <cjdelisle> but if you need transactions which are not valid btc transactions then you actually do need another chain.
1506 2011-12-07 16:04:38 <gmaxwell> crazy forking incentive there. plus, it becomes easy to trick any partial validating node to accept hopeless blocks.
1507 2011-12-07 16:04:49 Herodes has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1508 2011-12-07 16:05:02 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: I don't think you can efficiently do e.g. namecoin without txn which arenot bitcoin transactions.
1509 2011-12-07 16:05:36 <gmaxwell> You can hide dataâ of course, but unless you want every resolver to sweep all txn for the hidden data and build their own open domain sets, .. you actually need name transfer control rules.
1510 2011-12-07 16:05:58 <cjdelisle> My thinking is just to use standard bitcoin transactions and whoever sends to the hash of the domain first wins.
1511 2011-12-07 16:06:18 <cjdelisle> it's tollerating invalid data in the chain and resolving around it
1512 2011-12-07 16:06:28 Daniel0108 has joined
1513 2011-12-07 16:06:32 <gmaxwell> How do I transfer the domain to someone else?
1514 2011-12-07 16:07:06 helo has joined
1515 2011-12-07 16:07:06 <cjdelisle> most transactions send to 2 hashes, if one is the domain, the other is the one that has authority over that domain
1516 2011-12-07 16:07:36 <cjdelisle> then just transfer from that hash to grant someone else authority...
1517 2011-12-07 16:07:55 traviscj has joined
1518 2011-12-07 16:07:58 <gmaxwell> How do you expire unused domains?
1519 2011-12-07 16:08:07 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: genjix * r052065e999fb / (3 files in 3 dirs): network_impl -> network. no need for abstract base class when only have single impl and using proactors. http://tinyurl.com/bug82zr
1520 2011-12-07 16:08:07 <cjdelisle> the signed records should be sent over an out of band path.
1521 2011-12-07 16:08:12 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: genjix * rcff376290d59 /README: Merge branch 'master' of gitorious.org:libbitcoin/libbitcoin http://tinyurl.com/bq9e3f2
1522 2011-12-07 16:08:33 <BitMark_> BlueMatt: on my test net instance 5.0 is not giving txid or address from listtransactions
1523 2011-12-07 16:08:51 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1524 2011-12-07 16:08:52 <BitMark_> s
1525 2011-12-07 16:08:57 <cjdelisle> I have not given it a whole lot of thought but it makes sense that if authority is not transferred within a given amount of time, it lapses
1526 2011-12-07 16:09:40 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: this still requires service specific logic to be useful, without inspecting every txn on every resolver, just not validation logic.
1527 2011-12-07 16:09:53 <cjdelisle> indeed
1528 2011-12-07 16:10:10 <BlueMatt> BitMark_: hmmm...Im not running it but afaict the code hasnt changed and it still appears to be pushing txid...if you dont mind recompiling, try to see whats going on in bitcoinrpc.cpp in WalletTxToJSON and in ListTransactions
1529 2011-12-07 16:10:23 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: I can't see how you can securely have nxdomain in that case either.
1530 2011-12-07 16:10:30 Maged has joined
1531 2011-12-07 16:10:50 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: e.g. I'm a malicious peer, you ask me for the first txn with your hash. I sayâ none exists.
1532 2011-12-07 16:10:52 traviscj_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1533 2011-12-07 16:11:00 <BitMark_> i'm not sure my ami instance has everything it needs to do a compile
1534 2011-12-07 16:11:27 <BlueMatt> BitMark_: do you mind testing and seeing if you can duplicate the results on your desktop?
1535 2011-12-07 16:11:39 <BitMark_> yeah let me check
1536 2011-12-07 16:11:45 <cjdelisle> if you build a tx tree which is based on the pay-to hash rather than the hash of the tx, it should be possible to give the 2 nearest hashes, no?
1537 2011-12-07 16:11:49 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: you can't tell that I'm lyingâ you can only hope to keep asking other peers and that they're not all lying to you (fat chance if I'm your ISP or government)
1538 2011-12-07 16:11:58 <BitMark_> can bitcoind talk to an instance of bit coin-qt?
1539 2011-12-07 16:12:13 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: yes but then you require the network to commit to those trees, which is more validation logic.
1540 2011-12-07 16:12:21 Maged has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1541 2011-12-07 16:12:30 <BitMark_> can i run bitcoind list transactions and have it talk to my bit coin-qt instance?
1542 2011-12-07 16:12:53 Litt has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1543 2011-12-07 16:12:58 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: (I'm not saying it can't be solvedâ thats how you solve thatâ I'm saying it can't be solved without adding naming validation logic to the chain. :) )
1544 2011-12-07 16:12:58 <cjdelisle> IMO all of the validation logic should be external to the block chain, all the block chain does it determine who got there first.
1545 2011-12-07 16:13:13 storrgie has joined
1546 2011-12-07 16:13:29 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: I don't think that worksâ because then you can't use the existance of something in the chain as lightweight proof that it is valid given the past history of the chain.
1547 2011-12-07 16:13:52 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: you'd have to personally inspect the chain to make sure that the 'first' was the 'first valid'.
1548 2011-12-07 16:14:10 <BlueMatt> BitMark_: yea, just open bitcoin-qt with -server (IIRC) and bitcoind can rpc call it
1549 2011-12-07 16:14:38 <cjdelisle> I kind of disagree with the idea of regarding something's position in the chain as evidence that it is valid/
1550 2011-12-07 16:15:34 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: e.g. SPV bitcoin nodes (litenodes) have the additional trust over a full nodes, that if something is buried in the chain it is valid. Which is a perfectly reasonable trust, assuming the difficulty is high, the burrying is deep, and that all nodes are validating.
1551 2011-12-07 16:15:45 Litt has joined
1552 2011-12-07 16:16:06 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: i think you're arguing across purposes, if you're not willing to have that kind of trust, then you can'd do conditional validation without seeing all the data.
1553 2011-12-07 16:17:11 <cjdelisle> well anyway you can do validation on things without the miners all validating them if you just don't regard something's existance in the chain as proof ov validity.
1554 2011-12-07 16:18:36 <[eval]> the problem then becomes double-spending, though... if two transactions come out, using the same inputs, one to one output and the other to another output...
1555 2011-12-07 16:18:40 <[eval]> how do you decide which is valid?
1556 2011-12-07 16:18:53 <[eval]> the one you see first may be different than the one someone else sees first
1557 2011-12-07 16:18:54 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: then how do you avoid having to view the whole chain, (or the whole history of a line of transactions, which makes pruning impossible network wide)
1558 2011-12-07 16:19:22 <[eval]> oh i see what you're saying now
1559 2011-12-07 16:19:39 <cjdelisle> if you believe that the last unspent tx tree is valid then you will be able to prove that the next one is as valid.
1560 2011-12-07 16:19:44 <[eval]> maybe
1561 2011-12-07 16:19:56 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: you're beleving positional validity then.
1562 2011-12-07 16:20:04 <gmaxwell> (but just of outputs instead of inputs)
1563 2011-12-07 16:20:15 * BlueMatt believes he has the most borked windows install ever...
1564 2011-12-07 16:20:26 <gmaxwell> and the miners still have to validate in order to update the unspent tx tree.
1565 2011-12-07 16:20:27 <cjdelisle> And you can include a tx tree hash in the source as a lock in which would allow you to disregard everything before it.
1566 2011-12-07 16:20:58 <cjdelisle> (if you are foolish enough to trust developers)
1567 2011-12-07 16:20:58 storrgie has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1568 2011-12-07 16:21:15 storrgie has joined
1569 2011-12-07 16:22:10 <cjdelisle> if a miner didn't have the entire unspent tx tree in ram, he would have to send some wacky api calls to other nodes (perhaps in a DHT) in order to get differences of hashes.
1570 2011-12-07 16:22:10 <gmaxwell> Say I write a txn .. input 0.01 btc. Output 1000000. BTC. ... I write that into a block. The chain doesn't fork because in your model miners don't apply currency rules. I do a couple txn sending the 1000000. to myself .. then eventually give it to you.
1571 2011-12-07 16:22:22 <gmaxwell> How do you know that these are fantasy coins?
1572 2011-12-07 16:23:21 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1573 2011-12-07 16:23:23 <cjdelisle> heh I guess I'm thinking about 2 different things at once because whoever makes the unspent tx tree *would* have to do that checking.
1574 2011-12-07 16:23:33 <cjdelisle> sorry
1575 2011-12-07 16:23:50 <gmaxwell> right, but they just become the miners. :) (if you do the open tree well enough you can drop the historic tree, I agree)
1576 2011-12-07 16:25:08 <cjdelisle> I had an alternative proposal which depended on many different chains all merged with the header chain and it would allow for all nodes to be light but miners would potentially include garbage.
1577 2011-12-07 16:25:15 <cjdelisle> I dropped it after I read yours
1578 2011-12-07 16:25:28 <cjdelisle> But it still manages to confuse me at times.
1579 2011-12-07 16:25:49 <gmaxwell> I'm okay with the idea of 'flipping the chain', but I don't think it helps us avoid the problem of actually needed to know what data you're handling in order to do useful things. Nor does it eliminate the scaling challenege of combining many services into one chainâ though I suppose it makes it less bad.
1580 2011-12-07 16:26:55 <gmaxwell> I think there is a happy mixture in how merged mining lets you make many independant chains that share POW, so applications can live or die on their own, and don't burden non-users.
1581 2011-12-07 16:27:41 <cjdelisle> When you have an unspent tx tree, you don't worry about the size of the chain, you worry about the size of the tree. It's theoretically possible for nobody to hold the entire tree
1582 2011-12-07 16:28:20 <cjdelisle> but you need some api call gymnastics to safely get differences from inserting and removing transactions.
1583 2011-12-07 16:28:35 <gmaxwell> Right, so you gain a log(n) improvement.. maybe, but you gain some new problems. If the tree can have infinite depth, I can intentionally generate transactions that attach infinitely deep along some branch.
1584 2011-12-07 16:29:32 <cjdelisle> That is true with a tree based on the pay-to hash, a tree based on the sha256 of the tx has a limit of 256 depth
1585 2011-12-07 16:31:04 <gmaxwell> so.. yea, with unspent tree you make size log(n) better, but you potentially make updates very expensive (depending on malicious attachment), and you don't reduce the validation costsâ in fact, if you're assuming nodes won't have all the full data (which the size _does_ matter for) you increase validation costs as you have to fetch data for.
1586 2011-12-07 16:32:01 <cjdelisle> yes, you will run into network issues with miners validating transactions by making api calls to whoever has "this part of the tree"
1587 2011-12-07 16:33:54 Maged has joined
1588 2011-12-07 16:34:30 danbri has joined
1589 2011-12-07 16:35:57 nutcase has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1590 2011-12-07 16:37:12 T_X has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1591 2011-12-07 16:37:28 traviscj has joined
1592 2011-12-07 16:40:45 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1593 2011-12-07 16:41:22 BlueMatt has joined
1594 2011-12-07 16:45:24 <BlueMatt> wumpus: ping
1595 2011-12-07 16:47:13 MiddlePorpoise7 is now known as Happy0
1596 2011-12-07 16:50:34 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1597 2011-12-07 16:53:31 erus` has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 8.0/20111104165243])
1598 2011-12-07 16:56:17 marf_away has joined
1599 2011-12-07 16:57:16 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1600 2011-12-07 16:57:33 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1601 2011-12-07 16:59:00 btc_novice has left ()
1602 2011-12-07 17:01:16 BlueMatt has joined
1603 2011-12-07 17:05:28 storrgie has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1604 2011-12-07 17:17:05 iocor has joined
1605 2011-12-07 17:17:43 dan__ has joined
1606 2011-12-07 17:20:22 <wumpus> BlueMatt: pong
1607 2011-12-07 17:20:56 <BlueMatt> wumpus: have any clue about https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/593#issuecomment-3043353 ?
1608 2011-12-07 17:23:16 megatorus has joined
1609 2011-12-07 17:23:27 <gmaxwell> so .. someone reported in #bitcoin this morning that after upgrading to 0.5 he got the resilver shutdown and then it came back and all his transactions were gone.
1610 2011-12-07 17:23:40 <gmaxwell> but the keypool appeared intact because the right address was shown.
1611 2011-12-07 17:23:52 <gmaxwell> he tried restarting with an old versionâ but the transactions were still gone.
1612 2011-12-07 17:23:52 <BlueMatt> did -rescan work?
1613 2011-12-07 17:23:59 <gmaxwell> I recommended a rescanâ and it worked.
1614 2011-12-07 17:24:05 <BlueMatt> wtf?
1615 2011-12-07 17:24:27 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
1616 2011-12-07 17:25:28 <BlueMatt> did he check if txes were spendable?
1617 2011-12-07 17:26:01 <gmaxwell> Didn't ask.
1618 2011-12-07 17:26:03 <gmaxwell> 07:09 < markus> like after creating the new wallet: EnvShutdown exception: DbEnv::close: Invalid argument (22)
1619 2011-12-07 17:26:09 <gmaxwell> I've asked for a copy of his debug log.
1620 2011-12-07 17:26:44 <tcatm> might be related: I noticed that a recent bitcoin-qt wouldn't read an older (unencrypted) wallet, while bitcoind built from the same git commit works fine.
1621 2011-12-07 17:27:03 <wumpus> BlueMatt: good question; I have to think about it a bit, somehow the scroll to bottom action needs to be delayed until the UI is "ready" again
1622 2011-12-07 17:27:25 <BlueMatt> wumpus: damn, I was hoping there was some simple qt callback method that you would know off-hand...
1623 2011-12-07 17:27:39 <BlueMatt> tcatm: odd...
1624 2011-12-07 17:27:49 <wumpus> tcatm: both built against the same berkelydb version?
1625 2011-12-07 17:27:53 * BlueMatt is thinking it might finally be time to move off of bdb...
1626 2011-12-07 17:28:05 <wumpus> heh but to what... sqlite?
1627 2011-12-07 17:28:19 <gmaxwell> gahhhhhh my eeeeyyyeeess
1628 2011-12-07 17:28:20 <jrmithdobbs> anything
1629 2011-12-07 17:28:26 <gmaxwell> er. sorry, did I say that out loud?
1630 2011-12-07 17:28:30 <tcatm> wumpus: I think so. haven't found time to debug it yet
1631 2011-12-07 17:28:31 <BlueMatt> wumpus: our own custom stuff...
1632 2011-12-07 17:28:39 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: hey, at least sqlite is easy as pie to dump/import
1633 2011-12-07 17:28:50 <gmaxwell> Our needs for this stuff are pretty darn simple.
1634 2011-12-07 17:28:54 <BlueMatt> bdb is really good, but for wallets its just making less and less sense
1635 2011-12-07 17:28:59 <wumpus> well even android uses sqlite so it's pretty stable and production-ready at least
1636 2011-12-07 17:29:08 Burgundy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1637 2011-12-07 17:29:13 <BlueMatt> I dont think moving to another db would help at al
1638 2011-12-07 17:29:14 <BlueMatt> l
1639 2011-12-07 17:29:18 <wumpus> bdb is fine for the metadata, for the private keys we should use an append-only file
1640 2011-12-07 17:29:25 <gmaxwell> it also takes a lot of complexity we don't need.
1641 2011-12-07 17:29:29 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: i agree
1642 2011-12-07 17:29:33 <wumpus> there is really no need to store the private keys in a database at all
1643 2011-12-07 17:29:38 <gmaxwell> yea, what wumpus said.
1644 2011-12-07 17:29:48 darkskiez__ has quit (Quit: darkskiez__)
1645 2011-12-07 17:29:55 <BlueMatt> wumpus: yep, that is what I meant by my original comment
1646 2011-12-07 17:29:59 <wumpus> but for stuff like the address book and other mutable transaction/contact metadata it *is* nice
1647 2011-12-07 17:30:07 <BlueMatt> agreed
1648 2011-12-07 17:30:20 <jrmithdobbs> wumpus: for the stuff that can be re-genned at will off the blockchain it's fine imho
1649 2011-12-07 17:30:26 <gmaxwell> for that stuff the other things sqllight offers might actually be useful too.
1650 2011-12-07 17:30:38 <jrmithdobbs> ya but bdb is more than adequate
1651 2011-12-07 17:30:42 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: you can't regen account mapping... comments, etc. :(
1652 2011-12-07 17:31:01 * BlueMatt isnt familiar with what sqlite offers over bdb
1653 2011-12-07 17:31:23 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: it's a full sql92 implementation with referential integrity and everything
1654 2011-12-07 17:31:27 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: so, an assload
1655 2011-12-07 17:32:07 <sipa> the first question is whether we want to support switching to not-completely-loaded-into-memory wallets (and if so, only for txs, or also for keys)
1656 2011-12-07 17:32:25 <BlueMatt> for us, sql isnt gonna add much...
1657 2011-12-07 17:32:33 <wumpus> indices would be nice for some things, but I think bdb can offer those
1658 2011-12-07 17:32:55 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: it could simplify a lot of the db code actually and possibly some of the locking stuff
1659 2011-12-07 17:33:15 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: select txid from transactions where value > 0.5 btc and account not like '%drugs%' order by time limit 1;
1660 2011-12-07 17:33:16 <BlueMatt> non-memory txes would be nice, but non-memory keys doesnt add much
1661 2011-12-07 17:33:27 <BlueMatt> GMP: true...
1662 2011-12-07 17:33:32 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ^
1663 2011-12-07 17:33:38 <jrmithdobbs> but I don't really know how useful, more playing devils advocate tbqh, I could see it being useful down the line and it at least gets rid of the annoying bdb binary compat issues
1664 2011-12-07 17:34:02 <wumpus> but sql is kind of crappy if you have to generate queries and stuff
1665 2011-12-07 17:34:06 <gmaxwell> sipa: I .. don't think non-memory addresses matter.. except for startup time, and we could improve that by loading addresses in the background.
1666 2011-12-07 17:34:07 <BlueMatt> is sqlite binary compat between all versions?
1667 2011-12-07 17:34:22 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: major versions, yes
1668 2011-12-07 17:34:26 <wumpus> isn't most time spent in the block chain processing at startup?
1669 2011-12-07 17:34:31 <sipa> yes
1670 2011-12-07 17:34:34 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: same is true for bdb...
1671 2011-12-07 17:34:35 <wumpus> sqlite is 1 .c file
1672 2011-12-07 17:34:41 <gmaxwell> or .. addr.dat (IPs of other nodes ... oy!)
1673 2011-12-07 17:34:50 <wumpus> which you can just dump it into your project
1674 2011-12-07 17:34:51 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: except sqlite3 has had a stable file format for like 10 years
1675 2011-12-07 17:35:00 <wumpus> at least it used to be
1676 2011-12-07 17:35:02 <BlueMatt> currently bitcoin startup also lags based on your dns server and the dnsseeds
1677 2011-12-07 17:35:21 <gmaxwell> on older nodes we lose many seconds loading addr.dat for some unexplicable reason.
1678 2011-12-07 17:35:21 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: well you do have a point there...
1679 2011-12-07 17:35:25 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: whereas bdb has broken it every 6-9 months for the last 10 years it seems, heh
1680 2011-12-07 17:35:35 <sipa> gmaxwell: except for people like [tycho]
1681 2011-12-07 17:35:38 <jrmithdobbs> (not quite that bad)
1682 2011-12-07 17:35:56 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: dns lookups
1683 2011-12-07 17:36:02 <wumpus> then again, I think switching to an append-only wallet would be great and also very safe, much less potential to mess it up
1684 2011-12-07 17:36:07 <gmaxwell> sipa: yes, but he can afford a couple second startup and to hold a million keys in memory, I think?
1685 2011-12-07 17:36:18 <sipa> gmaxwell: true
1686 2011-12-07 17:36:21 molecular has joined
1687 2011-12-07 17:36:28 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: you see something besides the dns hangs in the addr.dat loading?
1688 2011-12-07 17:36:29 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: nah, it's actually in bdb code most of the time.
1689 2011-12-07 17:36:49 <gmaxwell> (unless I mismeasured it)
1690 2011-12-07 17:36:51 <sipa> so: what about moving the keydb to a append-only human-readable text file?
1691 2011-12-07 17:36:58 <sipa> one line per key
1692 2011-12-07 17:36:59 <BlueMatt> well addr.dat needs to be overhauled anyway...
1693 2011-12-07 17:37:00 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: weird. maybe i made a bad assumption. I did notice that .5 is noticably slower starting up
1694 2011-12-07 17:37:01 <wumpus> the only time the walllet would have to be rewritten is on encryption
1695 2011-12-07 17:37:06 <wumpus> but that happens now anyway
1696 2011-12-07 17:37:09 <BlueMatt> sipa: sounds good to me...
1697 2011-12-07 17:37:13 <wumpus> sipa: yep
1698 2011-12-07 17:37:21 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: how do you handle encryption
1699 2011-12-07 17:37:23 <sipa> reserve keys remain in bdb
1700 2011-12-07 17:37:24 <BlueMatt> wumpus: and the advantage with our own format is overwriting is much easier, and safer...
1701 2011-12-07 17:37:38 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: base64 encoded encrypted private keys on the same line.
1702 2011-12-07 17:37:45 <sipa> gmaxwell: exactly
1703 2011-12-07 17:37:48 <wumpus> yep
1704 2011-12-07 17:37:56 <sipa> i mean: the actual keys are in the keydb.txt file, but which keys are marked reserve, is in bdb
1705 2011-12-07 17:37:57 <wumpus> maybe also add a key identifier to each line?
1706 2011-12-07 17:37:59 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: where do you store the key information?
1707 2011-12-07 17:38:02 <wumpus> or isn't that needed?
1708 2011-12-07 17:38:19 <gmaxwell> e.g. "type addr pubkey encprivkeyblob\n" or something like that?
1709 2011-12-07 17:38:28 <jrmithdobbs> oh so still depend on bdb to actually make use of any of it? where's the gain then?
1710 2011-12-07 17:38:38 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: we need bdb for txs anyway
1711 2011-12-07 17:38:39 <gmaxwell> ah yea, type should stay out to the extent that its mutable.
1712 2011-12-07 17:38:49 <sipa> or some form of db, at least
1713 2011-12-07 17:38:51 <wumpus> yeah no mutable stuff in it
1714 2011-12-07 17:38:55 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: most of the problems Ive seen with bdb are in the encryption process right now
1715 2011-12-07 17:39:02 <wumpus> bdb is fine for the mutable stuff
1716 2011-12-07 17:39:08 <wumpus> if you lose it no problem
1717 2011-12-07 17:39:13 <gmaxwell> sipa: while thinking about this consider the possiblity of generator keys. (e.g. varrious determinsitic generation schemes)
1718 2011-12-07 17:39:19 <wumpus> at least no big problem as in all your money is gone
1719 2011-12-07 17:39:29 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: right but if the encryption keys are stored in the bdb (or whatever db) and the db gets corrupted your keylist.txt is worthless
1720 2011-12-07 17:39:33 <sipa> gmaxwell: yes, the text format would need to leave place for extensions
1721 2011-12-07 17:39:43 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: not at all
1722 2011-12-07 17:39:43 <jrmithdobbs> so i'm trying to understand what's gained by putting them in an appendonly file
1723 2011-12-07 17:39:46 <gmaxwell> wumpus: I think it _is_ a big deal to lose accounts, but its a less big deal.
1724 2011-12-07 17:39:56 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: you still get your coins, just not your accounts
1725 2011-12-07 17:40:07 <BlueMatt> and keypool/known addr differentiation
1726 2011-12-07 17:40:12 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: but the key data for encryption is in the fucked db
1727 2011-12-07 17:40:16 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: so how do you decrypt
1728 2011-12-07 17:40:19 <wumpus> gmaxwell: well in that case it's better to switch to sqlite I think.. but that could be done later, private keys are the first priority
1729 2011-12-07 17:40:21 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: reduced risk of things going kablooie. Easier and smaller backups of the most essential data.
1730 2011-12-07 17:40:23 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: no key data would be in the text file
1731 2011-12-07 17:40:27 <BlueMatt> oh, no put the master key in the text file
1732 2011-12-07 17:40:36 <jrmithdobbs> that's what I was asking
1733 2011-12-07 17:40:37 <jrmithdobbs> ha
1734 2011-12-07 17:40:46 <wumpus> the master key is immutable
1735 2011-12-07 17:40:49 <wumpus> so it must be in the text file
1736 2011-12-07 17:41:00 <BlueMatt> no, it can change if you change the password
1737 2011-12-07 17:41:08 <sipa> the mkey record does change indeed if you change the password
1738 2011-12-07 17:41:10 <gmaxwell> You'd rewrite the file on changes.
1739 2011-12-07 17:41:12 <wumpus> but on encryption you re-write the file anyway!
1740 2011-12-07 17:41:18 <wumpus> right
1741 2011-12-07 17:41:26 <wumpus> that's the case now, and will always be the case
1742 2011-12-07 17:41:28 <wumpus> whatever you do
1743 2011-12-07 17:41:30 <sipa> well, you could overwrite old mkey records with ***'s, and add a new one
1744 2011-12-07 17:41:39 <wumpus> no partial overwriting
1745 2011-12-07 17:41:40 <BlueMatt> need ability to write new data ad end, commit to drive, delete old data, commit
1746 2011-12-07 17:41:50 <sipa> wumpus: ok, that's probably better not to go that way
1747 2011-12-07 17:41:54 <gmaxwell> sipa: oh, hey, a log structured thing is fine if we're assuming we're putting it in ram.
1748 2011-12-07 17:42:13 <wumpus> sipa: exactly, we *don't* want a database.. just a log
1749 2011-12-07 17:42:15 <BlueMatt> where is gavin in all of this?
1750 2011-12-07 17:42:19 <jrmithdobbs> cdb might actually be a good choice for this
1751 2011-12-07 17:42:21 <gmaxwell> you could also log the transitions from keypool to in use that way.
1752 2011-12-07 17:42:23 <sipa> BlueMatt: in SF
1753 2011-12-07 17:42:24 <jrmithdobbs> honestly
1754 2011-12-07 17:42:25 <wumpus> gavin is chillin in san fransisco :P
1755 2011-12-07 17:42:30 <BlueMatt> why?
1756 2011-12-07 17:42:34 <BlueMatt> meh, whatever
1757 2011-12-07 17:42:46 <wumpus> logging more stuff to it will make it larger though
1758 2011-12-07 17:43:01 <gmaxwell> yes, but it can be stripped with grep if you want really compact backups.
1759 2011-12-07 17:43:04 <wumpus> I think it's best to keep it minimal, only essential data
1760 2011-12-07 17:43:04 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: because it's a very simple format that hasn't changed in well over a decade but has many of the properties re: lookup times as bdb (it's one shot writing though)
1761 2011-12-07 17:43:11 <sipa> wow, i just got a nigerian scan mail in dutch
1762 2011-12-07 17:43:17 <sipa> *scam
1763 2011-12-07 17:43:19 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: and it converts back and forth from key:value plaintext very easily
1764 2011-12-07 17:43:38 <BlueMatt> sipa: damn
1765 2011-12-07 17:43:56 <wumpus> gmaxwell: as long as it doesn't become huge in its unstripped form
1766 2011-12-07 17:44:07 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: my question wasnt directed at you, but I think if we are going to move off of bdb because its overcomplicated, writing our own would still be easier
1767 2011-12-07 17:44:16 <wumpus> oh no please don't write your own db
1768 2011-12-07 17:44:20 <wumpus> just don't
1769 2011-12-07 17:44:23 devrandom has joined
1770 2011-12-07 17:44:23 <gmaxwell> wumpus: I don't see whyâ logging the transition from pool to real would make every key take two lines rather than one.
1771 2011-12-07 17:44:26 <BlueMatt> not db, text file format
1772 2011-12-07 17:44:34 <wumpus> ok that's fine :)
1773 2011-12-07 17:44:37 <wumpus> sorry I misunderstood
1774 2011-12-07 17:44:52 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: well, i'm saying that cdb might do everything needed without having to write much code
1775 2011-12-07 17:44:58 <wumpus> gmaxwell: then I have no problems with it
1776 2011-12-07 17:45:10 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: does it have an overwrite this data on disk with 000s method?
1777 2011-12-07 17:45:20 <wumpus> text file for private keys is the best idea, it also means people can be creative with storing it
1778 2011-12-07 17:45:27 <BlueMatt> yep
1779 2011-12-07 17:45:28 <gmaxwell> wumpus: e.g. there is one line for the keyâ then later another line for when the key exits the keypool (which might also log which account it was assigned to...)
1780 2011-12-07 17:45:28 <sipa> next question: do we require wallet decrypt to convert to the keydb.dat format?
1781 2011-12-07 17:45:43 <BlueMatt> no
1782 2011-12-07 17:45:44 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: of course not. db generation is one shot. you don't ever "write" to it
1783 2011-12-07 17:45:51 <wumpus> no, we shouldn't require that
1784 2011-12-07 17:45:53 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: you rewrite the whole thing on changes
1785 2011-12-07 17:46:00 <gmaxwell> sipa: it would be better not to.
1786 2011-12-07 17:46:04 <wumpus> just base64 encode the encyrypted thing
1787 2011-12-07 17:46:10 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: then I would say writing our own txt file is easier
1788 2011-12-07 17:46:13 <sipa> i would like to, just to streamline the format
1789 2011-12-07 17:46:27 <BlueMatt> how does it streamline the format?
1790 2011-12-07 17:46:31 <sipa> currently the wallet format is indexex by pubkey, we need to move to index by address
1791 2011-12-07 17:46:43 <sipa> and the encryption format depends on the pubkey, as it uses it as IV
1792 2011-12-07 17:47:01 <sipa> i'd like like it to be addr:privkey lines
1793 2011-12-07 17:47:02 <BlueMatt> wasnt there one codeblock that needed pubkey indexing?
1794 2011-12-07 17:47:02 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: there's methods to convert the whole thing black and forth to key:value plaintext fairly trivially
1795 2011-12-07 17:47:12 <sipa> BlueMatt: not anymore, imho
1796 2011-12-07 17:47:28 <BlueMatt> sipa: I dont think opinions count in a yes/no question...
1797 2011-12-07 17:47:28 <sipa> BlueMatt: i changed that shortly after wallet encryption was merged
1798 2011-12-07 17:47:34 <BlueMatt> sipa: oh, ok
1799 2011-12-07 17:47:40 <gmaxwell> sipa: hm.. is there no need to have the actual pubkey without the decryption key handy?
1800 2011-12-07 17:47:55 <sipa> gmaxwell: i don't think so
1801 2011-12-07 17:48:01 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: there was at the time, but apparently not anymore
1802 2011-12-07 17:48:18 <BlueMatt> ok, so what do we use for IV, Hash(addr)?
1803 2011-12-07 17:48:19 <sipa> gmaxwell: transaction verification is self-contained (all data in the transactions themselves)
1804 2011-12-07 17:48:37 <sipa> and you only need more than an address when signing
1805 2011-12-07 17:48:53 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: there are many advantages to txt file over a db here
1806 2011-12-07 17:48:54 <gmaxwell> yea.. I can't come up with anything.
1807 2011-12-07 17:49:11 <BlueMatt> this is more of a greping though code problem, not discussion problem...
1808 2011-12-07 17:49:24 <sipa> and all CKeyStore calls work based on addresses
1809 2011-12-07 17:49:29 <gmaxwell> well, I'm trying to think of future uses.
1810 2011-12-07 17:49:41 <sipa> gmaxwell: good, we need to consider those as well
1811 2011-12-07 17:49:55 <jrmithdobbs> you could possibly lose ismine() functionality on future txn types
1812 2011-12-07 17:50:03 <jrmithdobbs> if they need the pubkey
1813 2011-12-07 17:50:11 <BlueMatt> GetPubKey is called quite a bit atm...
1814 2011-12-07 17:50:15 <jrmithdobbs> that's all i can think of
1815 2011-12-07 17:50:17 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: you can generate the addr from the pubkey if someone shows you one.
1816 2011-12-07 17:50:47 <BlueMatt> pubkey == pubkey is much faster than addr(pubkey) == addr
1817 2011-12-07 17:51:00 <BlueMatt> (if you are going through a block's worth of txes or more)
1818 2011-12-07 17:51:06 <jrmithdobbs> not that much considering how often it happens really
1819 2011-12-07 17:51:07 <gmaxwell> (I think we're already on the road of ismine() always requring the actual address used in any case, e.g. with opeval txn)
1820 2011-12-07 17:51:19 <sipa> BlueMatt: CKey.GetPubKey, not CKeyStore.GetPubKey, no?
1821 2011-12-07 17:51:40 <BlueMatt> sipa: I see at least one keystore.GetPubKey
1822 2011-12-07 17:51:45 <BlueMatt> script.cpp:1101
1823 2011-12-07 17:51:59 <BlueMatt> yea, only one afaict
1824 2011-12-07 17:52:19 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: it could slow rescan down a *lot* i guess
1825 2011-12-07 17:52:33 <sipa> BlueMatt: of course, when checking ismine on a pay-to-pubkey
1826 2011-12-07 17:52:39 <sipa> that's where you expect it, right?
1827 2011-12-07 17:52:45 <BlueMatt> heh, yep
1828 2011-12-07 17:52:46 <jrmithdobbs> but rescan isn't really expected to be super fast
1829 2011-12-07 17:52:50 <BlueMatt> I had only grepped not read code
1830 2011-12-07 17:53:00 <BlueMatt> so change that line and I guess we are good on current codebase
1831 2011-12-07 17:53:27 <BlueMatt> but yea, that would hurt rescan or chain download if you are really old...
1832 2011-12-07 17:53:49 <BlueMatt> someone feel like -rescaning with that line changed?
1833 2011-12-07 17:54:02 <sipa> shouldn't be a problem
1834 2011-12-07 17:54:06 <sipa> hashing is *fast(
1835 2011-12-07 17:54:09 <BlueMatt> probably not
1836 2011-12-07 17:54:21 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1837 2011-12-07 17:54:48 <sipa> we could still leave the getpubkey in there actually, but not fail when that call fails
1838 2011-12-07 17:55:05 <sipa> i.e., when the wallet is unlocked, do full checking; otherwise do just checking based on address
1839 2011-12-07 17:56:06 <BlueMatt> would need to add the ability to unlock before -rescan starts then
1840 2011-12-07 17:56:15 <gmaxwell> to that I say meh.
1841 2011-12-07 17:56:21 <sipa> it probably doesn't matter a thing
1842 2011-12-07 17:56:30 <BlueMatt> probably not
1843 2011-12-07 17:56:35 <gmaxwell> you're already doing to do a ton of hashes to validate a block..
1844 2011-12-07 17:56:42 <BlueMatt> -rescan should never be useful anymore...
1845 2011-12-07 17:56:45 <gmaxwell> every signature validation, fo example.
1846 2011-12-07 17:57:04 <gmaxwell> doing one more to get an address of pubkey txn isn't a big deal.
1847 2011-12-07 17:57:08 <megatorus> well what's the downside to storing redundant info like pubkey in the text file
1848 2011-12-07 17:57:13 <Diablo-D3> blueMatt: well, you cant remove rescan
1849 2011-12-07 17:57:17 <Diablo-D3> because sometimes shit fucks up
1850 2011-12-07 17:57:21 <BlueMatt> agreed
1851 2011-12-07 17:57:23 <Diablo-D3> and its nice to have a manual sanity check
1852 2011-12-07 17:57:42 <BlueMatt> yea, I dont think it would be a problem in the near future, but it is true that we might need more pubkey-based IsMine stuff in the future...
1853 2011-12-07 17:57:48 <gmaxwell> megatorus: two fold â it gets corrupted and causes weird behavior, two its big and the bloat discourages good backup practices.
1854 2011-12-07 17:58:06 <sipa> gmaxwell: it's not about doing a hash, it's about whether we can do without the pubkey being available
1855 2011-12-07 17:58:19 roconnor has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1856 2011-12-07 17:58:25 <gmaxwell> sipa: but the pubkey is available in payto pubkey txn.
1857 2011-12-07 17:58:30 <gmaxwell> it's in the txn.
1858 2011-12-07 17:58:38 <BitMark_> where is bitcoind on a vanilla osX install?
1859 2011-12-07 17:59:01 <megatorus> gmaxwell: point 1 can be worked with via checksumming etc. point 2 - disk space is cheap. storing a few million pubkeys is cheap.
1860 2011-12-07 17:59:28 <sipa> gmaxwell: right, but currently we already do a hash of that pubkey, to find the key in CKeyStore (which indexes based on address)
1861 2011-12-07 17:59:52 <sipa> the question is whether you do an extra check whether the returned key actually has a corresponding pubkey
1862 2011-12-07 17:59:57 <sipa> and indeed, probably meh
1863 2011-12-07 18:00:08 <BlueMatt> given a OP_EVAL tx and a bitcoin address, can you IsMine()
1864 2011-12-07 18:00:08 <gmaxwell> megatorus: The pubkeys should be quite a bit bigger than the private keys. And dist space is cheap but e.g. storage on archival copies on paper are less so.
1865 2011-12-07 18:00:32 <megatorus> mmm
1866 2011-12-07 18:00:40 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: op_eval txn pay to the address.
1867 2011-12-07 18:00:52 <gmaxwell> (so yes, given an op_eval address you can IsMine())
1868 2011-12-07 18:01:07 <BlueMatt> then I see no problems...
1869 2011-12-07 18:01:20 <gmaxwell> Thats part of the reason to change to addr based indexing.
1870 2011-12-07 18:01:39 devrandom has joined
1871 2011-12-07 18:01:49 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1872 2011-12-07 18:02:47 <gmaxwell> for op_eval the address is the address, the 'pubkey' is the matching script, and the private part is the private data needed to satisify the script.
1873 2011-12-07 18:03:06 <BlueMatt> mmm
1874 2011-12-07 18:03:14 da2ce7 has joined
1875 2011-12-07 18:03:18 <gmaxwell> actually thats kind of an argument for keeping the pubkey in the fileâ it's better to have the unencrypted op-eval script handy, and that fits nicely in addr:pubkey:privkey model.
1876 2011-12-07 18:03:43 <gmaxwell> e.g. because you might want to go and collect the other required signatures before you ask for the wallet key to unlock the local private data.
1877 2011-12-07 18:03:45 Kolky has joined
1878 2011-12-07 18:03:54 <gmaxwell> but you need more than the address to know what you're going to do.
1879 2011-12-07 18:04:26 <BitMark_> BlueMatt: how do I do list transactions on a local bitcoin-qt -server?
1880 2011-12-07 18:04:36 <BitMark_> BlueMatt: on osx ?
1881 2011-12-07 18:04:44 <sipa> BitMark_: bitcoind listtransactions
1882 2011-12-07 18:05:01 <sipa> (bitcoin-qt is no rpc client)
1883 2011-12-07 18:05:02 <BitMark_> sipa: where is bitcoind installed on osx?
1884 2011-12-07 18:05:08 <BlueMatt> BitMark_: there is not bitcoind on osx...
1885 2011-12-07 18:05:13 <BitMark_> ugh
1886 2011-12-07 18:05:19 <sipa> ?
1887 2011-12-07 18:05:24 <BlueMatt> have to call listtransactions from a win32/linux box
1888 2011-12-07 18:05:28 <BlueMatt> sipa: its always been that way...
1889 2011-12-07 18:05:29 <sipa> heh
1890 2011-12-07 18:05:30 gavinandresen has joined
1891 2011-12-07 18:05:32 <sipa> really
1892 2011-12-07 18:05:38 <sipa> gavinandresen: hello
1893 2011-12-07 18:05:39 <BlueMatt> hey, theres a gavin
1894 2011-12-07 18:05:54 BitMark_ is now known as BitMark
1895 2011-12-07 18:06:07 <sipa> we were just brainstorming about possible moving to storing key data in an append-only text file instead of bdb
1896 2011-12-07 18:06:11 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: we were discussing the possibility of moving privkeys out of bdb and into txt
1897 2011-12-07 18:06:17 traviscj has joined
1898 2011-12-07 18:06:59 <BitMark> gavinandresen: do you use rpcssl for the faucet?
1899 2011-12-07 18:07:26 <gmaxwell> BitMark: I really wish I understood why you thought he would.
1900 2011-12-07 18:07:42 <gmaxwell> (in that case I think the wallet and the faucet run on the same host)
1901 2011-12-07 18:07:56 <BitMark> gmaxwell: faucet runs on app engine so thats not possible
1902 2011-12-07 18:08:20 <gmaxwell> ahh.
1903 2011-12-07 18:08:39 <gavinandresen> RE: moving private keys: I'll go read the logs...
1904 2011-12-07 18:08:43 chrisb__ has joined
1905 2011-12-07 18:09:11 <gavinandresen> BitMark: no, the faucet was written before the rcpssl changes, so it actually uses a little python proxy that does the ssl bit
1906 2011-12-07 18:09:35 <BitMark> gavinandresen: ah ok thanks, that makes sense
1907 2011-12-07 18:09:49 <BitMark> gavinandresen: apparently i am the first one to try to do rpcssl with 5.0
1908 2011-12-07 18:10:06 <sipa> (with official binaries)
1909 2011-12-07 18:10:07 <gmaxwell> BitMark: thanks for helping me understand.
1910 2011-12-07 18:10:16 <gavinandresen> BitMark: I saw the bug that the builds weren't -DUSE_SSL... that flag should be removed
1911 2011-12-07 18:10:40 <gmaxwell> 10:04 <@BlueMatt> BitMark_: there is not bitcoind on osx...
1912 2011-12-07 18:10:45 <gmaxwell> ^ why is this, btw?
1913 2011-12-07 18:10:47 chrisb__ has quit (Client Quit)
1914 2011-12-07 18:11:13 <sipa> do we assume all apple fanboys are too afraid of a command-line?
1915 2011-12-07 18:11:28 * BitMark not afraid of command line
1916 2011-12-07 18:11:35 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: no good reason, if somebody felt like modifying the .dmg bundle-upper to put bitcoind in it that'd be spiffy
1917 2011-12-07 18:12:00 Burgundy has joined
1918 2011-12-07 18:12:02 <gmaxwell> (I couldn't care less myself, but people have cropped up looking for it a couple times)
1919 2011-12-07 18:12:20 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: ... I suppose I could have said "Tradition and Laziness!"
1920 2011-12-07 18:12:54 parus has joined
1921 2011-12-07 18:12:57 <megatorus> i think the laziness goes first :)
1922 2011-12-07 18:15:12 <BitMark> gavinandresen: how are things at TruCoin these days?
1923 2011-12-07 18:17:13 <gmaxwell> sipa: wrt the master keyâ what happens when the user does cat old_wallet1.txt old_wallet2.txt > wallet.txt
1924 2011-12-07 18:17:39 <gmaxwell> without crypto it would seem to me that this would just workâ¢. With crypto... errr.
1925 2011-12-07 18:18:06 <BitMark> have each key encrypted individually?
1926 2011-12-07 18:18:23 <gmaxwell> BitMark: they are.
1927 2011-12-07 18:18:34 <BitMark> that sounds horribly inefficient?
1928 2011-12-07 18:18:40 <gmaxwell> Why..?
1929 2011-12-07 18:18:47 <gmaxwell> You need them one at a time.
1930 2011-12-07 18:18:48 <BitMark> just intuition
1931 2011-12-07 18:18:52 <BitMark> padding and such
1932 2011-12-07 18:19:02 <BitMark> space wise
1933 2011-12-07 18:19:23 <gmaxwell> Bad intution.
1934 2011-12-07 18:19:31 <sipa> BitMark: a private key is 32 bytes, exactly two AES256 blocks
1935 2011-12-07 18:19:41 <BitMark> ah so no padding needed
1936 2011-12-07 18:19:48 <BitMark> nice
1937 2011-12-07 18:20:20 <gmaxwell> Even if not, it could have used CTS.
1938 2011-12-07 18:20:22 <gavinandresen> All righty, I read through the logs RE: moving private keys to an append-only text file....
1939 2011-12-07 18:20:41 <BitMark> so why would cating key stores not work with crypto?
1940 2011-12-07 18:21:05 <gmaxwell> BitMark: becuase they're encrypted with a master key. The master key is encrypted with your password. There would be different master keys.
1941 2011-12-07 18:21:09 <sipa> BitMark: you'd have two master keys in the file, and each would only work with some keys
1942 2011-12-07 18:21:14 <gmaxwell> (the master keys facilitate safe password changes)
1943 2011-12-07 18:21:37 <BitMark> could you have a master key entry and then a master key ref on each line?
1944 2011-12-07 18:21:38 <sipa> well, password changes to become harder if we move to append-only test anyway...
1945 2011-12-07 18:22:05 <gmaxwell> sipa: yes, well almost append only, you write the new master key then go and zero out the old one in place.
1946 2011-12-07 18:22:08 <BitMark> or just say all keys after the master key entry belong to that key?
1947 2011-12-07 18:22:19 <gmaxwell> BitMark: no because of changes ^ :)
1948 2011-12-07 18:23:02 <gmaxwell> Making an in-place modification which is only needed to reduce the leakage of old keying data doesn't really violate the most important append only properties.
1949 2011-12-07 18:23:12 <BitMark> if its text it means the keys are stored as base62 or whatever?
1950 2011-12-07 18:23:33 <gmaxwell> BitMark: yes. (well, base 64)
1951 2011-12-07 18:24:17 <sipa> or base58
1952 2011-12-07 18:24:23 <BitMark> whats the space overhead factor of base58?
1953 2011-12-07 18:24:26 lfm_ has joined
1954 2011-12-07 18:24:31 TDL__ is now known as darkee
1955 2011-12-07 18:24:41 <BitMark> two bytes per byte?
1956 2011-12-07 18:24:56 <sipa> 73% efficiency by itself
1957 2011-12-07 18:25:18 <BitMark> ah right not 2:!
1958 2011-12-07 18:25:35 <sipa> but we add 5 bytes (1 version, 4 checksum) before encoding
1959 2011-12-07 18:25:36 <BitMark> and the encrypted keys are stored as base58 as well i assume
1960 2011-12-07 18:25:51 <sipa> those would need another format
1961 2011-12-07 18:26:17 <sipa> no need for it to be readable/transferrable, as encrypted keys are by definiton not intended to be given to others :)
1962 2011-12-07 18:26:26 arneis has joined
1963 2011-12-07 18:26:33 dlb76 has joined
1964 2011-12-07 18:26:44 <sipa> could just be base64 all the way
1965 2011-12-07 18:26:57 <BitMark> 32+5/73%
1966 2011-12-07 18:27:10 <gmaxwell> sipa: I think the address should be in the same form that bitcoin represents it in.
1967 2011-12-07 18:27:15 <sipa> indeed
1968 2011-12-07 18:27:25 <BitMark> 51 bytes per unencrypted key
1969 2011-12-07 18:27:30 <sipa> no point in having a human readable file otherwise
1970 2011-12-07 18:27:45 <sipa> gmaxwell: i'd just define a number of private key formats
1971 2011-12-07 18:28:06 <BitMark> so this has the address as well?
1972 2011-12-07 18:28:07 <sipa> including base58, raw base64, encrypted using certain parameters that are encoded as well, ...
1973 2011-12-07 18:28:19 <sipa> BitMark: the address can be derived from it
1974 2011-12-07 18:28:31 <sipa> actually, multiple addresses can be derived from it
1975 2011-12-07 18:28:47 <sipa> gmaxwell: reminds me: not storing the pubkey would make the format incompatible with compressed pubkeys
1976 2011-12-07 18:29:06 <sipa> unless another solution (like a flag) were explicitly available for that
1977 2011-12-07 18:29:06 <BitMark> sips does anyone use that many to one relationship in the vanity address generators?
1978 2011-12-07 18:29:20 <sipa> BitMark: not that i know of
1979 2011-12-07 18:29:20 <gavinandresen> Seems to me for most users just some randomness (for salt) and a passphrase is what we really want.
1980 2011-12-07 18:30:43 <gavinandresen> I don't like the "import private keys from somebody else" feature-- I DO like the "sweep funds from this private key" feature. I haven't thought hard about what services like mtgox or instawallet might need, though.
1981 2011-12-07 18:31:00 <BitMark> sipa: how many possible addresses does each key have?
1982 2011-12-07 18:31:01 <gmaxwell> sipa: we'd need to code a type for that.. the address would be different in any case.
1983 2011-12-07 18:31:55 <gavinandresen> ... or, in other words, I'm wondering why we store individual private keys anywhere at all.
1984 2011-12-07 18:32:14 <gavinandresen> (Besides Laziness and Tradition)
1985 2011-12-07 18:32:30 <sipa> because we need them to sign transactions?
1986 2011-12-07 18:32:41 <sipa> (i'm sure i'm misunderstanding your question)
1987 2011-12-07 18:32:44 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: Because prudent (e.g. not crazy password only) determinstic wallet solutions have been not smiled on in the past.
1988 2011-12-07 18:32:46 <BitMark> gavinandresen: you're referring the derived key approach?
1989 2011-12-07 18:32:50 <gavinandresen> I'm saying take a passhprase and some salt and derive them in memory when they're needed
1990 2011-12-07 18:33:08 <sipa> ah, sure
1991 2011-12-07 18:33:13 <BitMark> this is going to be good
1992 2011-12-07 18:33:16 * BitMark grabs popcorn
1993 2011-12-07 18:33:21 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: haven't been smiled on by who?
1994 2011-12-07 18:34:07 <gmaxwell> good question. I dunno, I spent a while arguing with BlueMatt about it. I gave up advocating it when every time I did someone crazy would show up and start suggesting password only schemes.
1995 2011-12-07 18:34:28 <gmaxwell> (and frankly I didn't want to be anywhere near that kind of stupidity)
1996 2011-12-07 18:34:36 <sipa> we could have time-limited salts
1997 2011-12-07 18:34:53 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1998 2011-12-07 18:35:19 <sipa> which, when they expire, warn the user that they need to backup their wallet, alle old deterministic keys are explicitly added to the wallet, and a new determinstic source is generated for future keys
1999 2011-12-07 18:35:22 <gavinandresen> sipa: why time-limited?
2000 2011-12-07 18:35:26 <gmaxwell> Regardlessâ you still have a couple of interesting challenges: what about sweep-in keys? what about the need to know addresses (for a functioning wallet) when the password isn't available? (It's bad security to require the passord at all times)
2001 2011-12-07 18:35:49 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: do address the issue that made BlueMatt hate the proposal: the current wallets unsteal themselves.
2002 2011-12-07 18:35:56 <sipa> i agree here
2003 2011-12-07 18:36:31 <sipa> determinstic wallets have tons of usability advantages, but i do not like it that a stolen det wallet remains "stolen"
2004 2011-12-07 18:36:36 <gmaxwell> E.g. if lose a backup in my house.. a year from now the next resident finds it.. if I've been a 'good' bitcoin users who always uses random addresses.. he gets nothing because I've cycled out those keys.
2005 2011-12-07 18:37:00 <sipa> the time limit could be infinite, if the user chooses so, after a warning maybe
2006 2011-12-07 18:37:09 <gmaxwell> (In reality most bitcoin users aren't actually goodâ so I think its arguably moot but there is the argument)
2007 2011-12-07 18:37:36 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: In my half-baked thoughts about all this, I imagine a wallet.dat that has public keys and a private key that is "Use THIS deterministic wallet scheme..."
2008 2011-12-07 18:37:48 dan__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2009 2011-12-07 18:38:02 <sipa> i think determinstic wallets can be integrated nicely in our text format as just another key source
2010 2011-12-07 18:38:07 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: And if you lose your wallet.dat and only have the deterministic wallet salt file (or whatever) then there's a utility you can use to brute-force them
2011 2011-12-07 18:38:21 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: I think deterministic wallets (in some form) should be an option, but I dont like the idea of it as the only option...
2012 2011-12-07 18:38:21 <gmaxwell> Well, I proposed a scheme that solves the "how do you generate the public keys without the password" .. but it uses very slightly novel cryptography.
2013 2011-12-07 18:39:07 <sipa> how about an addr:pubkey:privkey format, where the privkey part can be a determinstic seed value, for multiple keys?
2014 2011-12-07 18:39:08 <gmaxwell> (the type-2 stuff here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=19137.0 )
2015 2011-12-07 18:39:15 <BlueMatt> esp like gmaxwell's suggestion that allows servers to gen addrs without the privkey to spend them
2016 2011-12-07 18:40:06 <gavinandresen> RE: unstealing: I hope in a year we're all using multi-authentication-required keys.. I know I will, assuming all the work to get that done happens.
2017 2011-12-07 18:40:07 <gmaxwell> yea, you'd have two seeds, public seed and private seed (which may be part-password). Just leave the private seed off the webserver. The webserver can generate new keys.
2018 2011-12-07 18:41:00 <BlueMatt> but I actually do think the unstealing stuff is surprisingly advantageous...at least in the case of virus stealing password and wallet, because many times viruses can be slow to upload the stuff they steal (viruses are more often than not haphazardly-coded) and the unstealing stuff might let you get away with at least some of your keys...
2019 2011-12-07 18:41:15 <gmaxwell> hm. does multiauth make the unstealing less of an issue? .. just change your multiauther password every once in a while..
2020 2011-12-07 18:41:48 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I don't disagree that it's "surprisingly advantageous" â I just still work from the theory that data loss is more likely than theft.
2021 2011-12-07 18:41:53 <gavinandresen> I think the multiauth stuff makes all of this less of an issue-- who cares if your private keys are stolen if you get a message on your phone authorizing any spend?
2022 2011-12-07 18:42:36 <sipa> gavinandresen: i don't think we can assume all users are going to rely on a third party for their wallet security
2023 2011-12-07 18:42:37 <gavinandresen> I care more about backup right now... (assuming all the multiauth stuff actually gets done)
2024 2011-12-07 18:42:38 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: I really hate making decisions based on stuff thats not even implemented yet
2025 2011-12-07 18:42:45 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: yet alone in wide use
2026 2011-12-07 18:43:13 <BitMark> whats the default rpcuser?
2027 2011-12-07 18:43:19 <BlueMatt> and knowing the bitcoin community, I agree with sipa, most people wont trust 1/10th of their wallet to any outside party
2028 2011-12-07 18:43:52 <gavinandresen> BitMark: default rpc user is the empty string
2029 2011-12-07 18:43:53 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: that is a very good point, but to make it secure, the amount of data you have to print is...annoying and users are gonna lose that sheet of paper anyway...
2030 2011-12-07 18:44:03 <sipa> i don't mean it's a bad idea- i personally love it, but that shouldn't mean we should disregard security for people who choose not yo use it
2031 2011-12-07 18:44:08 <gmaxwell> it's still orthogonal in any case: even with this grand determinsitic future you'll want the ability to import keys, and the ability to expire old determinstic keys.
2032 2011-12-07 18:44:21 <BlueMatt> yep
2033 2011-12-07 18:44:22 dan__ has joined
2034 2011-12-07 18:44:59 <gmaxwell> sipa: if you support multiple determinstic keys, then just put index-ranges on them or something people could just auto expire old ones when they backupwallet or once a year or whatever.
2035 2011-12-07 18:45:14 <gavinandresen> Am I the only one not excited about importing keys? Seems to me that just encourages bad behavior....
2036 2011-12-07 18:45:29 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2037 2011-12-07 18:45:32 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: yes it does. But it also has good uses.
2038 2011-12-07 18:45:42 <gavinandresen> (sweeping funds from a key into keys you own I like, as I said)
2039 2011-12-07 18:46:07 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: only use I can think of is merging wallets. And supporting multiple wallets seems like a better version of that
2040 2011-12-07 18:46:12 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: you want to keep the sweep key for future automatic sweep in any case.
2041 2011-12-07 18:46:17 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: similar things can be said of just about any new bitcoin change...
2042 2011-12-07 18:46:36 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: printed bitcoins
2043 2011-12-07 18:47:00 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: export plus sweep is what you want for printed bitcoins, and I have no problems with both of those
2044 2011-12-07 18:47:06 <sipa> i'd like to design a grand unified key format that supports all: raw keys, encrypted keys, determinstic keys, ...
2045 2011-12-07 18:47:07 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: for example, I have some public bitcoin addresses which are well known (because of their use on 'billboards'). I don't want to spend those inputs because they aren't private. So I dug the keys out of my wallet and set them aside. Some day when I do want to use them I'd want to import them (though an automatic sweep would probably be fine)
2046 2011-12-07 18:47:37 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I'd imagine a sweep-import would just be a regular key with a special type that means "autosweep anything you see at this address"
2047 2011-12-07 18:47:47 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: whats the difference between import and sweep if we prevent any imported keys from getting change?
2048 2011-12-07 18:47:58 <BlueMatt> well aside from auto-taking coins
2049 2011-12-07 18:48:32 <gavinandresen> sweep is one-time, the private key doesn't need to be saved on disk
2050 2011-12-07 18:48:39 <gmaxwell> e.g. type:addr:private: sweep-pubkey:1deadbeef:cafebabe
2051 2011-12-07 18:48:39 <BitMark> BlueMatt: accidental double spends
2052 2011-12-07 18:49:13 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: you think that one time sweep is what people want? what happens when more funds are (accidentally?) sent to that address?
2053 2011-12-07 18:49:14 <BitMark> gavinandresen: what if the key receives more btc in the future?
2054 2011-12-07 18:49:28 <gavinandresen> ... and what BitMark said, it makes double-spends a lot more likely
2055 2011-12-07 18:49:43 <gmaxwell> it does. automatic doublespendomatch.
2056 2011-12-07 18:49:48 <gavinandresen> BitMark: then you sweep again. Set up an RSS alert at blockexplorer or something.......
2057 2011-12-07 18:50:11 <sipa> why not just keep the key in that case?
2058 2011-12-07 18:50:16 <BitMark> gavinandresen: should we save a set of swept keys?
2059 2011-12-07 18:50:19 <gmaxwell> The mtgox import keeps sweeping ... horse â barn on the double spend front. :)
2060 2011-12-07 18:50:41 <BlueMatt> didnt we merge that double spend ui update thing that (IIRC) sipa did a while back?
2061 2011-12-07 18:50:46 <gmaxwell> â oh I have that one too.
2062 2011-12-07 18:50:50 <sipa> BlueMatt: no
2063 2011-12-07 18:50:53 <BlueMatt> oh...
2064 2011-12-07 18:50:58 <BlueMatt> why not?
2065 2011-12-07 18:51:11 <sipa> never agreed on its wanted behaviour
2066 2011-12-07 18:51:13 <gavinandresen> yeah, what's up with that?
2067 2011-12-07 18:51:37 <BlueMatt> well if we merged that, then double spends are just shown to user as such and I dont think they are a big deal, without it users are confused...
2068 2011-12-07 18:51:38 <sipa> i guess it's one of those things i need to re-implement now that i have time ;)
2069 2011-12-07 18:52:28 <gavinandresen> Speaking of time... I'm thinking we need to release a 5.0.1rc1 soon. Maybe when I get back early next week....
2070 2011-12-07 18:52:31 devrandom has joined
2071 2011-12-07 18:52:39 <BlueMatt> what changed?
2072 2011-12-07 18:53:02 <BlueMatt> nevermind, stupid question
2073 2011-12-07 18:53:06 <sipa> gavinandresen: 0.5.1rc1 you mean?
2074 2011-12-07 18:53:16 <sipa> or 0.5.0.1?
2075 2011-12-07 18:53:25 <gavinandresen> 0.5.1
2076 2011-12-07 18:53:32 <gavinandresen> I think
2077 2011-12-07 18:53:45 <gavinandresen> I don't actually care what the number is....
2078 2011-12-07 18:54:02 <sipa> i think we need at least a somewhat consistent version numbering scheme
2079 2011-12-07 18:54:10 <BlueMatt> yay chrome approach
2080 2011-12-07 18:54:20 <gavinandresen> OK. you're in charge of release numbering.
2081 2011-12-07 18:54:21 <sipa> ok, let's release bitcoin 17
2082 2011-12-07 18:54:34 <gavinandresen> but my favorite number is 11
2083 2011-12-07 18:54:39 erus` has joined
2084 2011-12-07 18:54:42 <BlueMatt> arent we at 18 yet, oh wait no, we get a new version whenever a code change takes place
2085 2011-12-07 18:54:49 <BlueMatt> actually screw versions, lets just report the git commit
2086 2011-12-07 18:54:49 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin version x6b88c087247aa2f07ee1c5956b8e1a9f4c7f892a70e324f1bb3d161e05ca107b
2087 2011-12-07 18:55:06 <gavinandresen> Good Idea.
2088 2011-12-07 18:55:17 <justmoon> you guys should a double sha256 hash of the git commit
2089 2011-12-07 18:55:18 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: then we'll get people twiddling their patches to get funny names.
2090 2011-12-07 18:55:36 <sipa> justmoon: but but... that limits the version number space!
2091 2011-12-07 18:55:43 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: heh, actually I would find that kinda funny
2092 2011-12-07 18:55:46 ahbritto_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
2093 2011-12-07 18:55:57 <justmoon> sipa: well, we're just gonna have to finish the client before we run out then!
2094 2011-12-07 18:55:59 <gavinandresen> We could require proof-of-work for versions....
2095 2011-12-07 18:56:04 <sipa> gavinandresen: LOL
2096 2011-12-07 18:56:09 <BlueMatt> heh
2097 2011-12-07 18:56:16 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: a long time back I made some reddit post where I explained how to use hashes do to a coin flip over the internet....
2098 2011-12-07 18:56:29 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: and I searched for a clever hash value. and I was really sad that no one noticed.
2099 2011-12-07 18:56:30 * sipa thinks producing functioning code works as proof-of-work
2100 2011-12-07 18:56:37 <gmaxwell> (I'd find the post, but reddit is down)
2101 2011-12-07 18:57:22 <BlueMatt> sipa: no way, code that gets merged should be a function of the computer the programmer had, not the programmer's skill
2102 2011-12-07 18:57:37 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: heh
2103 2011-12-07 18:57:54 <BitMark> sipa: could there be a captcha solving base block chain?
2104 2011-12-07 18:58:18 <justmoon> is there anything on the horizon that the original client will have a lightweight mode like bitcoinj? is there a patch out there?
2105 2011-12-07 18:58:18 _Fireball has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2106 2011-12-07 18:58:19 <gmaxwell> BitMark: alas, no, captchas fail the easy to verify requirement.
2107 2011-12-07 18:58:20 abragin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2108 2011-12-07 18:58:27 <BitMark> ah right
2109 2011-12-07 18:58:33 <BlueMatt> justmoon: sory of...
2110 2011-12-07 18:58:39 <BlueMatt> not really
2111 2011-12-07 18:58:48 <BitMark> gmaxwell: at least in a decentralized fashion
2112 2011-12-07 18:59:03 _Fireball has joined
2113 2011-12-07 18:59:11 <sipa> gavinandresen: major:0 (untouched until beta), minor:5 (updated on each significant functional change), revision:1 (updated for each release that has non-functional changes, and set to 99 before merging for next minor)
2114 2011-12-07 18:59:37 <lfm_> set to 9999 for patch numbers
2115 2011-12-07 18:59:43 <justmoon> gavinandresen, would you accept a semilightweight patch? do you think multibit is secure?
2116 2011-12-07 19:00:00 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: based on the time it takes us to release previous releases, we need to start now to get #686 in before jan 1
2117 2011-12-07 19:00:10 <BlueMatt> ;)
2118 2011-12-07 19:00:29 abragin has joined
2119 2011-12-07 19:00:29 abragin has quit (Changing host)
2120 2011-12-07 19:00:29 abragin has joined
2121 2011-12-07 19:00:30 <BitMark> bitcoin smiling seagull jello 2012
2122 2011-12-07 19:00:32 <BlueMatt> hey, we could give the bitcoin community a christmas present...
2123 2011-12-07 19:00:39 <gavinandresen> justmoon: I'll accept any patch where there's general consensus that it is a good idea that doesn't make bitcoin less secure or stable.
2124 2011-12-07 19:00:50 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: Linus loves to make full releases on Thanksgiving Day and/or Christmas Day
2125 2011-12-07 19:00:56 <gavinandresen> justmoon: I haven't looked hard at multibit....
2126 2011-12-07 19:00:59 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: kernel hackers routinely grumble about it
2127 2011-12-07 19:01:03 dan___ has joined
2128 2011-12-07 19:01:17 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: well since we only have one kernel hacker here, we probably wont get too much grumbling ;)
2129 2011-12-07 19:01:32 <BitMark> gavinandresen: have you seen the list transactions output from 5.0 yet?
2130 2011-12-07 19:01:44 <jgarzik> well its mainly a function of whether or not you mind ignoring family for software ;)
2131 2011-12-07 19:01:47 <lfm_> If you need more grumbling Ill volunteer
2132 2011-12-07 19:01:49 <justmoon> gavinandresen, but the mode as such is considered secure enough for general use?
2133 2011-12-07 19:01:49 <jgarzik> some do, some don't
2134 2011-12-07 19:01:54 <gmaxwell> mind? prefer!
2135 2011-12-07 19:02:01 <jgarzik> see :)
2136 2011-12-07 19:02:04 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: agreed
2137 2011-12-07 19:02:19 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: fine, we can release on christmas eve, happy?
2138 2011-12-07 19:02:24 <jgarzik> hehe
2139 2011-12-07 19:02:26 <justmoon> gavinandresen, any worries about if too many people switch to semilightweight, the network might have load issues?
2140 2011-12-07 19:02:45 <BlueMatt> justmoon: I do, very much...
2141 2011-12-07 19:02:45 <gavinandresen> justmoon: yes, that is a worry
2142 2011-12-07 19:02:56 <justmoon> hmm
2143 2011-12-07 19:03:06 <sipa> if that is an issue we need to overcome it
2144 2011-12-07 19:03:13 <gmaxwell> justmoon: this is one reason I don't currently think it should be an option in the default client, it should be a seperate client (perhaps that has some common code)
2145 2011-12-07 19:03:22 <gavinandresen> BitMark: did listtransactions change with the 0.5 release? File a bug with 0.4 versus 0.5 differences....
2146 2011-12-07 19:03:23 <sipa> we can't expect the entire network to remain entirely built up out of full nodes
2147 2011-12-07 19:03:31 <BlueMatt> sipa: absolutely
2148 2011-12-07 19:03:34 <gmaxwell> so at least you can give a clear message "foo client is not good for the network, please run bar client nodes too"
2149 2011-12-07 19:03:48 <gmaxwell> (should problems arise)
2150 2011-12-07 19:03:55 <BitMark> gavinandresen: were txid and address fields supposed to have been removed, i.e. is their absence a bug?
2151 2011-12-07 19:04:14 <jgarzik> sipa: should a client be accepting connections at all, if it's not relaying blocks/txs and has a useful block history?
2152 2011-12-07 19:04:17 <BlueMatt> if we clean up the net code a bit and we can get 20 devs running 1000+ connection supernodes than its not a big problem...
2153 2011-12-07 19:04:23 <justmoon> gmaxwell, let's call it lightcoin - oh wait, that might be confusing a little bit :P
2154 2011-12-07 19:04:24 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: no
2155 2011-12-07 19:04:33 <lfm_> BitMark: I'd say yes
2156 2011-12-07 19:04:37 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: isnt that what fNodeNetwork or whatever its called is
2157 2011-12-07 19:04:38 <sipa> jgarzik: probably not
2158 2011-12-07 19:04:52 dan__ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2159 2011-12-07 19:04:52 dan___ is now known as dan__
2160 2011-12-07 19:04:53 <BlueMatt> (clients currently dont connect to bitcoinj nodes, do they?)
2161 2011-12-07 19:05:05 <BlueMatt> and if they make an outgoing connection to one, they just drop it
2162 2011-12-07 19:05:15 <gmaxwell> heh echo "Heads we go to the movie. Tails we go to the park. 358410" |sha256sum
2163 2011-12-07 19:05:28 <justmoon> gavinandresen, I'm feeling considerable pressure to put *some* lightweight client on weusecoins - multibit seems fairly solid, but I don't like UI too much, so I'm holding off for now
2164 2011-12-07 19:05:56 <BitMark> justmoon: pressure from who?
2165 2011-12-07 19:06:08 <marf_away> noobs
2166 2011-12-07 19:06:16 <marf_away> that dont wanne wait 12 h
2167 2011-12-07 19:06:21 <BlueMatt> isnt multibit bitcoinj?
2168 2011-12-07 19:06:42 <justmoon> BitMark, people who are doing advertising for bitcoin - I want weusecoins to be the best intro and if people are starting to say it isn't, I'm not doing my job
2169 2011-12-07 19:06:50 <BitMark> justmoon: which endpoints does multi bit use?
2170 2011-12-07 19:06:50 <c_k> BlueMatt: no I don't think so
2171 2011-12-07 19:06:52 <justmoon> BlueMatt, it is
2172 2011-12-07 19:06:57 <justmoon> BitMark, bitcoin network
2173 2011-12-07 19:06:59 <BlueMatt> ok, which is it?
2174 2011-12-07 19:07:00 <c_k> oh, it is?
2175 2011-12-07 19:07:08 <justmoon> yes it is
2176 2011-12-07 19:07:09 <jgarzik> IMNSHO there should be a preferred bitcoin client available in android market
2177 2011-12-07 19:07:18 <BlueMatt> well it has com/google/bitcoin in it, so Id say yea...
2178 2011-12-07 19:07:20 <jgarzik> [semi-]lightweight
2179 2011-12-07 19:07:29 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: there is, its based on bitcoinj
2180 2011-12-07 19:07:39 <BlueMatt> "Bitcoin Wallet"
2181 2011-12-07 19:07:55 <BitMark> would gavin ever deign to bless another client?
2182 2011-12-07 19:07:59 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: really? I searched last night and couldn't find anything bitcoin-related. Will look again...
2183 2011-12-07 19:08:01 gavinandresen has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2184 2011-12-07 19:08:25 <justmoon> BitMark, not lightly, but that's precisely why he's the one I'm asking :)
2185 2011-12-07 19:08:31 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: http://code.google.com/p/bitcoin-wallet/ https://market.android.com/details?id=de.schildbach.wallet&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEsImRlLnNjaGlsZGJhY2gud2FsbGV0Il0.
2186 2011-12-07 19:08:39 larsivi has joined
2187 2011-12-07 19:09:01 <gmaxwell> multibit seems to be heavily oriented around shipping images of private keys. :(
2188 2011-12-07 19:09:06 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: not idea, but works for the most part...
2189 2011-12-07 19:09:14 <BitMark> would any of the core team ever bless an android client
2190 2011-12-07 19:09:15 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: wait, it does what?
2191 2011-12-07 19:09:29 <BlueMatt> BitMark: its an open network, blessings dont mean much...
2192 2011-12-07 19:09:57 <BitMark> BlueMatt: re: jgarzik: IMNSHO there should be a preferred bitcoin client available in android market
2193 2011-12-07 19:10:19 <BlueMatt> heh, touche
2194 2011-12-07 19:10:20 <BitMark> maybe jgarzik would bless an android client
2195 2011-12-07 19:10:35 * jgarzik is finding several hits now, searching from desktop. Dunno what's up w/ the phone. Found an MtGox Live app, too.
2196 2011-12-07 19:10:57 <BlueMatt> I think andreas' one is the only one which actually is a bitcoin client
2197 2011-12-07 19:11:00 <gmaxwell> I can't find the multibit source on the site.
2198 2011-12-07 19:11:20 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: https://github.com/jim618/multibit/
2199 2011-12-07 19:11:25 <BitMark> the bitcoinlabs one was able to sign its own txes but never got finished
2200 2011-12-07 19:11:27 <justmoon> gmaxwell, that was a question at the conference, the author said it's because the site is for end users
2201 2011-12-07 19:11:33 <BlueMatt> oh, hey "MultiBit is a desktop bitcoin client, powered by bitcoinj"
2202 2011-12-07 19:11:39 <justmoon> gmaxwell, but that he'd fix it - guess he didn't
2203 2011-12-07 19:11:57 <BlueMatt> he linkes to https://github.com/jim618/multibit/wiki but not https://github.com/jim618/multibit/
2204 2011-12-07 19:11:58 <justmoon> BlueMatt, what you didn't believe me??? ;)
2205 2011-12-07 19:12:09 <BlueMatt> justmoon: no but I did get two responses at once...
2206 2011-12-07 19:12:12 <gmaxwell> justmoon: I think I had previously advised someone that it looked like a scam for that reason. Doh (though perhaps it was another sourceless client)
2207 2011-12-07 19:12:29 <BitMark> BlueMatt: https://github.com/bitcoin-labs/bitcoin-mobile-android
2208 2011-12-07 19:12:38 <justmoon> gmaxwell, heh
2209 2011-12-07 19:13:05 <BlueMatt> BitMark: mmm
2210 2011-12-07 19:13:22 <jgarzik> gah, I hate Java projects. pieces of the same functional logic are artificially broken up and spread across a dozens of directories
2211 2011-12-07 19:13:43 * BlueMatt agrees
2212 2011-12-07 19:13:46 <BitMark> BlueMatt: remains unfinished though
2213 2011-12-07 19:13:49 <jgarzik> a million 20-line files
2214 2011-12-07 19:13:58 <BitMark> jgarzik: is Scala any better?
2215 2011-12-07 19:14:01 * BlueMatt hates his programming class because they force that very thing
2216 2011-12-07 19:14:30 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: people try to impose the same style on C projects too.
2217 2011-12-07 19:15:00 <BitMark> do we prefer everything in one file like rpc.cpp?
2218 2011-12-07 19:15:10 <gmaxwell> I recently expunged some skype code that was an 80 line file where the only statement was memcpy(x,y,sizeof());.
2219 2011-12-07 19:15:13 <jgarzik> c.f. Knuth's _Literate Programming_
2220 2011-12-07 19:15:25 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2221 2011-12-07 19:15:36 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: since when do you work for skype?
2222 2011-12-07 19:15:43 <gmaxwell> BitMark: I think most people would agree that there is a level of division that makes sense. Most people wouldn't agree what that level is.
2223 2011-12-07 19:15:44 <jgarzik> C header files can get bad like that sometimes. 100 lines of copyright header, one line of code.
2224 2011-12-07 19:15:44 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: also...WTF?
2225 2011-12-07 19:15:52 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I don't but they contribute code to a project I work on.
2226 2011-12-07 19:16:12 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: since when does skype support oss codecs?
2227 2011-12-07 19:16:43 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: for the last two years that they've been working on creating one with us @ xiph.org!
2228 2011-12-07 19:17:25 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: mmm, well hey lets hope m$ doesnt kill that when they find out...
2229 2011-12-07 19:18:43 <gmaxwell> MS has actually been pretty helpful since the acquisition, but we'll see.
2230 2011-12-07 19:19:05 <gmaxwell> (there are a lot of complicated politics involved)
2231 2011-12-07 19:19:07 * BlueMatt was joking...
2232 2011-12-07 19:19:18 <cjdelisle> the problem with Java (more specifically maven) is that it has a directory structure for the project: src/main/java/org/.../ and it rebuilds that directory structure in every single module
2233 2011-12-07 19:19:22 <BlueMatt> m$ contributes to some oss projects...just not as many
2234 2011-12-07 19:20:24 <luke-jr> BitMark: don't empower Gavin with a blessing.
2235 2011-12-07 19:20:33 <BlueMatt> ouch
2236 2011-12-07 19:21:07 <cjdelisle> and as per the usual, java people have no interest in improving on it, they would rather announce that it is perfect and plug ears and sing.
2237 2011-12-07 19:21:14 <BitMark> luke-jr: from who should an android client seek a blessing?
2238 2011-12-07 19:21:28 <luke-jr> BitMark: Google. They run the app store.
2239 2011-12-07 19:22:53 devrandom has joined
2240 2011-12-07 19:23:01 <BitMark> luke-jr: should jgarzik get his wish? re: jgarzik: IMNSHO there should be a preferred bitcoin client available in android market
2241 2011-12-07 19:23:04 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: oh, I was exaggerating ... it's was only 50 lines: https://git.xiph.org/?p=opus.git;a=blob;f=silk/resampler_private_copy.c;h=8e7a976e19505053771b88d9db3e93ce01d1ba45
2242 2011-12-07 19:23:25 <luke-jr> BitMark: that's up to the Android Market.
2243 2011-12-07 19:23:52 <BitMark> luke-jr: i thinkn he was referring to receiving a preference from bitcoin.org
2244 2011-12-07 19:24:05 <luke-jr> BitMark: bitcoin.org should strive for neutrality.
2245 2011-12-07 19:24:17 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: hah
2246 2011-12-07 19:24:37 <luke-jr> BitMark: it should list every client that has a working stable version
2247 2011-12-07 19:24:44 <BlueMatt> who cares, its not something that is gonna happen in the near future anyway...
2248 2011-12-07 19:24:52 <BitMark> luke-jr: do you run 5.0 anywhere?
2249 2011-12-07 19:25:25 <BlueMatt> s/5.0/0.5/
2250 2011-12-07 19:26:17 <luke-jr> BitMark: there is no 5.0
2251 2011-12-07 19:26:30 <BitMark> luke-jr: 0.5.0?
2252 2011-12-07 19:26:32 <luke-jr> I use Bitcoin-Qt 0.5 on my desktop PC.
2253 2011-12-07 19:26:36 <luke-jr> well
2254 2011-12-07 19:26:38 <luke-jr> pre-0.6
2255 2011-12-07 19:26:46 <luke-jr> "next-test"
2256 2011-12-07 19:26:50 <BitMark> k
2257 2011-12-07 19:27:14 <luke-jr> my pool runs heavily patched 0.3.23
2258 2011-12-07 19:27:24 <BitMark> do you use the listtransactions call anywhere?
2259 2011-12-07 19:27:29 <luke-jr> on my pool
2260 2011-12-07 19:27:39 <luke-jr> with patches to fix it up a bit
2261 2011-12-07 19:27:49 <BitMark> luke-jr: is running an old version like that detrimental to the network?
2262 2011-12-07 19:27:56 <luke-jr> BitMark: unpatched, yes
2263 2011-12-07 19:28:23 <luke-jr> BitMark: hence why I maintain bitcoind 0.4.x
2264 2011-12-07 19:28:42 <luke-jr> (and to a much lesser extent, 0.3.20 through 0.3.24)
2265 2011-12-07 19:28:53 <BlueMatt> isnt it fixed in .24?
2266 2011-12-07 19:28:58 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: ?
2267 2011-12-07 19:29:02 <BitMark> maintain?
2268 2011-12-07 19:29:03 <BlueMatt> the connection-dropping thing
2269 2011-12-07 19:30:07 <luke-jr> BitMark: I backport fixes from master to 0.4.x, and release bugfix-only 0.4.x versions
2270 2011-12-07 19:30:21 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I think so
2271 2011-12-07 19:30:31 <BitMark> luke-jr: whats wrong with 0.5.x?
2272 2011-12-07 19:30:40 <luke-jr> BitMark: the unknown.
2273 2011-12-07 19:30:59 <luke-jr> BitMark: I also plan to release a 0.5.1 once 0.6.0 is out
2274 2011-12-07 19:31:17 <luke-jr> (along with 0.4.2)
2275 2011-12-07 19:31:22 <BitMark> luke-jr: at what point will unsolvable integration issues prevent back ports?
2276 2011-12-07 19:31:24 da2ce7 is now known as buttpirate
2277 2011-12-07 19:31:38 <luke-jr> BitMark: that is why I *don't* maintain wxBitcoin ;)
2278 2011-12-07 19:32:17 <luke-jr> BitMark: ideally, it would be nice if more developers did bugfixes correctly, so "backporting" wouldn't be necessary
2279 2011-12-07 19:32:22 <luke-jr> ie, I'd just merge the fix
2280 2011-12-07 19:32:55 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2281 2011-12-07 19:33:23 <luke-jr> [12:51:25] <jcpham> miners have done 1.5mil+ shares now <-- lol
2282 2011-12-07 19:34:07 <BitMark> luke-jr: whats lol?
2283 2011-12-07 19:34:13 <luke-jr> â¦
2284 2011-12-07 19:34:15 <BitMark> luke-jr: forgive my ignorance
2285 2011-12-07 19:34:38 <luke-jr> BitMark: you need 1.5 mil shares to solve every block, more or less.
2286 2011-12-07 19:34:51 <luke-jr> so saying miners have done 1.5 mil shares is a gross understatement
2287 2011-12-07 19:35:28 <BitMark> luke-jr: is that from otc?
2288 2011-12-07 19:35:34 <luke-jr> -mining
2289 2011-12-07 19:36:10 <buttpirate> hmm, luke-jr what do you mean?
2290 2011-12-07 19:36:24 <luke-jr> â¦
2291 2011-12-07 19:38:02 molecular has joined
2292 2011-12-07 19:39:55 megatorus has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2293 2011-12-07 19:40:57 <BitMark> so i saw running bitcoind 0.3.24
2294 2011-12-07 19:41:13 <BitMark> then i upgraded to 0.5.0
2295 2011-12-07 19:41:26 <BitMark> cpu is constant pegged at 100%
2296 2011-12-07 19:41:33 <BitMark> any ideas luke?
2297 2011-12-07 19:41:52 <luke-jr> BitMark: pull out the debugger!
2298 2011-12-07 19:41:57 <BitMark> s/saw/was/
2299 2011-12-07 19:42:02 PK has joined
2300 2011-12-07 19:42:08 <BitMark> dbugger?
2301 2011-12-07 19:42:16 <Eliel> maybe the generate setting is turned on?
2302 2011-12-07 19:42:19 <BitMark> this is vanilla 0.5.0 binaries
2303 2011-12-07 19:42:37 <Eliel> check bitcoind.conf and the configuration dialog.
2304 2011-12-07 19:42:50 <gmaxwell> BitMark: is it still syncing up.
2305 2011-12-07 19:42:55 <luke-jr> BitMark: what's using CPU? bitcoin-qt or Xorg?
2306 2011-12-07 19:43:08 <BitMark> bitcoind on aws ami instance
2307 2011-12-07 19:43:32 <Eliel> Bitmark: if you run "bitcoind getinfo" what does it say for block count?
2308 2011-12-07 19:43:56 <BitMark> Eliel: error: -rpcssl=1, but bitcoin compiled without full openssl libraries.
2309 2011-12-07 19:44:06 <BitMark> i will relaunch without ssl i guess
2310 2011-12-07 19:46:58 <BitMark> error: couldn't connect to server
2311 2011-12-07 19:47:16 skeledrew has joined
2312 2011-12-07 19:47:57 buttpirate has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2313 2011-12-07 19:49:19 <BitMark> the database log files are now taking up 1.3GB
2314 2011-12-07 19:50:55 Joric has joined
2315 2011-12-07 19:50:57 <gmaxwell> BitMark: they'll go away when you restart.
2316 2011-12-07 19:51:05 <gmaxwell> BitMark: sounds like you deleted the blockchain?
2317 2011-12-07 19:51:13 <BitMark> nope
2318 2011-12-07 19:51:26 <BitMark> just upgraded to 0.5.0 and started
2319 2011-12-07 19:51:32 <gmaxwell> well, the only reason the db logs should be big is if its resyncing the whole chain.
2320 2011-12-07 19:51:33 PK_ has joined
2321 2011-12-07 19:51:38 PK has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2322 2011-12-07 19:51:41 <luke-jr> BitMark: you're supposed to stop the old version first!
2323 2011-12-07 19:51:46 <gmaxwell> hah
2324 2011-12-07 19:52:02 <BitMark> i did stop the old version
2325 2011-12-07 19:52:13 PK_ is now known as PK
2326 2011-12-07 19:54:14 <BitMark> k renaming database dir
2327 2011-12-07 19:54:58 <gmaxwell> what? why are you doing that?
2328 2011-12-07 19:55:00 <sipa> not while the application is runnning, i hope?
2329 2011-12-07 19:55:13 <sipa> and really, just delete it, if you safely exited
2330 2011-12-07 19:55:14 <BitMark> sipa: nope it was stopped
2331 2011-12-07 19:55:33 <gmaxwell> it will delete itself on the next restart iirc.. all but the most recent logfile.
2332 2011-12-07 19:55:37 <BitMark> i use initctl to stop bitcoind
2333 2011-12-07 19:55:44 <BitMark> maybe i have that setup wrong?
2334 2011-12-07 19:55:59 <gmaxwell> sometimes it takes a while to shut down.
2335 2011-12-07 19:56:07 da2ce7 has joined
2336 2011-12-07 19:58:01 <BitMark> i can use # to comment out lines in bitcoin.conf right?
2337 2011-12-07 20:00:10 <BitMark> http://pastebin.com/Q33pEkTU
2338 2011-12-07 20:02:34 Edward_Black has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2339 2011-12-07 20:02:51 osmosis has joined
2340 2011-12-07 20:02:53 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2341 2011-12-07 20:04:30 <Eliel> BitMark: looks fine to me. It might use 100% cpu for a while until it's resynced the blockchain.
2342 2011-12-07 20:05:14 <gmaxwell> It's normal to use 100% cpu while syncing (the syncing is either disk or cpu limited depending on your system)
2343 2011-12-07 20:05:29 <BitMark> Eliel: its not able to use the block chain database left behind by 0.3.24?
2344 2011-12-07 20:07:11 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
2345 2011-12-07 20:08:06 <gmaxwell> BitMark: it should, this is why I was confused before.
2346 2011-12-07 20:08:17 <gmaxwell> BitMark: you didn't delete anything during the upgrade?
2347 2011-12-07 20:08:22 <BitMark> nope
2348 2011-12-07 20:08:48 <BitMark> i was pretty sure i waited for the bitcoind process finished before starting the upgraded bitcoind
2349 2011-12-07 20:09:29 <gmaxwell> BitMark: what block number is getinfo returning right now?
2350 2011-12-07 20:09:54 <BitMark> gmaxwell: error: couldn't connect to server
2351 2011-12-07 20:10:16 <gmaxwell> whats currently at the end of your debug log?
2352 2011-12-07 20:10:23 <gmaxwell> tail -f ~/.bitcoin/debug.log
2353 2011-12-07 20:11:25 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2354 2011-12-07 20:11:51 <BitMark> http://pastebin.com/bP2V4kyr
2355 2011-12-07 20:12:27 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: looks like multibit has jumped the fee sharkâ it lowered itself to 0.0001 "to match bitcoin .4"
2356 2011-12-07 20:13:13 <BitMark> oh it might be dying and initctl is restarting it
2357 2011-12-07 20:14:01 <gmaxwell> EXCEPTION: 11DbException
2358 2011-12-07 20:14:02 <gmaxwell> Db::put: Invalid argument
2359 2011-12-07 20:14:02 <gmaxwell> bitcoin in ProcessMessage()
2360 2011-12-07 20:14:07 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: nice one.
2361 2011-12-07 20:14:11 <gmaxwell> yea.. thats what it looks like.
2362 2011-12-07 20:14:17 rjk2 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2363 2011-12-07 20:14:24 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: too bad almost no miners actually use that buggy code.
2364 2011-12-07 20:15:40 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2365 2011-12-07 20:15:59 rjk2 has joined
2366 2011-12-07 20:16:25 random_cat has joined
2367 2011-12-07 20:16:42 Edward_Black has joined
2368 2011-12-07 20:16:59 ThomasV has joined
2369 2011-12-07 20:17:01 <BitMark> ok now i am running without initctl
2370 2011-12-07 20:19:59 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: this actually explains some complaints about stuck txn in #bitcoin in the last week. ::sigh::
2371 2011-12-07 20:20:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: using MultiBit?
2372 2011-12-07 20:20:53 <gmaxwell> yes.
2373 2011-12-07 20:21:42 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2374 2011-12-07 20:22:58 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2375 2011-12-07 20:24:22 RazielZ has joined
2376 2011-12-07 20:26:28 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2377 2011-12-07 20:27:04 dan__ has quit (Read error: No route to host)
2378 2011-12-07 20:27:53 dan__ has joined
2379 2011-12-07 20:28:33 dan__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2380 2011-12-07 20:28:44 dan__ has joined
2381 2011-12-07 20:30:35 <BitMark> terminate called after throwing an instance of 'DbRunRecoveryException'
2382 2011-12-07 20:30:36 <BitMark> what(): DbTxn::abort: DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery
2383 2011-12-07 20:30:56 <BitMark> dang initctl was hiding this from me the whole time
2384 2011-12-07 20:31:38 <BitMark> any tips on resolving this?
2385 2011-12-07 20:33:30 <BitMark> is my only solution to redownload the blockchain?
2386 2011-12-07 20:33:44 <gmaxwell> BitMark: this might be a side effect of your prior shutdown before the upgrade not being clean.. which might require that yes.
2387 2011-12-07 20:33:50 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2388 2011-12-07 20:33:53 <BitMark> k
2389 2011-12-07 20:33:54 <gmaxwell> You could use a http download of it rather than syncing off the network.
2390 2011-12-07 20:35:56 <jgarzik> May I assume bitcoinj can fully function as a wallet at this point -- creating new transactions, storing keys, bootstrapping fresh block chain, monitoring block chain for updates?
2391 2011-12-07 20:36:32 <jgarzik> the repo itself makes it difficult to judge overall status
2392 2011-12-07 20:37:26 localhost has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2393 2011-12-07 20:37:29 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: yes
2394 2011-12-07 20:37:49 <BlueMatt> sadly TD is TD[gone], though devrandom might also know more
2395 2011-12-07 20:38:15 * jgarzik wonders about phantomcircuit's client WRT above questions, too
2396 2011-12-07 20:38:21 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: tnx
2397 2011-12-07 20:39:28 PK has quit ()
2398 2011-12-07 20:39:39 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, downloads block/transactions very quickly
2399 2011-12-07 20:39:41 <phantomcircuit> that's about it
2400 2011-12-07 20:39:58 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: anyone done a good python wallet client yet?
2401 2011-12-07 20:40:09 <phantomcircuit> i dont think so
2402 2011-12-07 20:40:13 <luke-jr> jgarzik: MultiBit seems to be a fully functional client built on BitcoinJ
2403 2011-12-07 20:40:15 <sipa> electrum's in python, right?
2404 2011-12-07 20:40:16 * jgarzik has been pondering gmaxwell's/mine/others bot idea
2405 2011-12-07 20:40:26 <jgarzik> luke-jr: but I despise Java, which is a problem ;-)
2406 2011-12-07 20:40:31 <luke-jr> jgarzik: me too!
2407 2011-12-07 20:40:43 <luke-jr> jgarzik: where you been lately btw? haven't seen you around much
2408 2011-12-07 20:40:58 <jgarzik> luke-jr: werkin for a livin
2409 2011-12-07 20:41:03 localhost has joined
2410 2011-12-07 20:41:05 <luke-jr> hehe
2411 2011-12-07 20:41:17 <luke-jr> Bitcoin price crash seems to slow development a bit >_<
2412 2011-12-07 20:41:53 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: bot idea?
2413 2011-12-07 20:42:11 topace has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2414 2011-12-07 20:42:17 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: StorJ, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53855.msg642768#msg642768
2415 2011-12-07 20:42:22 <BitMark> luke-jr: correlation does not prove causation :)
2416 2011-12-07 20:42:40 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I had the same idea a year ago (sans the storage-specific angle), as did author Daniel Suarez
2417 2011-12-07 20:43:47 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: mmm, interesting
2418 2011-12-07 20:45:46 <luke-jr> BitMark: I know it's causal for me at least.
2419 2011-12-07 20:46:28 <BitMark> luke-jr: so your faith in bitcoin has diminished somewhat as well then?
2420 2011-12-07 20:46:39 * BlueMatt was never in it for the money, the start college thing is what killed it...
2421 2011-12-07 20:46:42 <gmaxwell> the only point about the storage part is that it gives it a reason to exist.. e.g. some cause that would actually earn it its survival.
2422 2011-12-07 20:46:57 <gmaxwell> (well, and that was the problem I started with)
2423 2011-12-07 20:47:06 <jgarzik> yeah
2424 2011-12-07 20:47:42 <BitMark> well my introduction to bitcoin was eerily similar to a drug induced euphoric high
2425 2011-12-07 20:47:49 <gmaxwell> and yea.. a full node would make that harder.. can't put a full node in a small vps.
2426 2011-12-07 20:47:56 <BitMark> i imagine for a lot of devs this was the case
2427 2011-12-07 20:48:06 <BitMark> maybe they all crashed near the same time
2428 2011-12-07 20:48:13 <BitMark> including me
2429 2011-12-07 20:48:29 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: makes it easier to identify the bot from other random network nodes too
2430 2011-12-07 20:49:08 <jgarzik> it is also fun to think about "bot rights", as in, assigning private property rights to a bot
2431 2011-12-07 20:49:29 <BitMark> the bot doesn't own bitcoins
2432 2011-12-07 20:49:56 <BitMark> merely controls the keys necessary to reassign assignment rights of bit coins to other keys
2433 2011-12-07 20:50:04 <gmaxwell> It would be a fun legal stunt to find a jurisdiction where a corporation could be maximally human free. I don't have a pet lawyer that does tha area of law.
2434 2011-12-07 20:50:20 <jgarzik> find some state (Nevada?) or country that permits anonymous owners
2435 2011-12-07 20:50:31 <gmaxwell> (but I wonder if in some places you can't remove humans from the picture by having a circular chain of company ownership)
2436 2011-12-07 20:50:40 <BitMark> make two trusts that own eachother
2437 2011-12-07 20:50:44 <cjdelisle> yes
2438 2011-12-07 20:50:45 <jgarzik> yep
2439 2011-12-07 20:50:51 <gmaxwell> e.g. companties can own other companies so... yea..
2440 2011-12-07 20:51:10 <cjdelisle> DeBeers is setup that way IIRC
2441 2011-12-07 20:51:28 [Tycho] has joined
2442 2011-12-07 20:51:42 <ageis> a diamond is forever
2443 2011-12-07 20:51:43 <gmaxwell> yea, so if there isn't a hidden gotcha then an autonoymous bot could in fact have legal rights on its own. 0_o
2444 2011-12-07 20:52:22 <BitMark> i'm sure there is a hidden gotcha
2445 2011-12-07 20:52:25 <gmaxwell> gee.. all those scifi authors wasted a lot of time writing about the struggle for rights for AI when we have that long before AI.
2446 2011-12-07 20:52:27 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: you started implementing it yet?
2447 2011-12-07 20:52:37 topace has joined
2448 2011-12-07 20:53:01 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: you got a lot of exposure cause a friend of mine with a crapload of twitter followers retweeted my tweet about it, by the way :P
2449 2011-12-07 20:53:03 <BitMark> and the bot would merely control the digital signatures for signatory authority of the corp
2450 2011-12-07 20:53:10 <jgarzik> property owners can be compelled to show up in court
2451 2011-12-07 20:53:24 <jgarzik> so you cannot send the CEO or legal counsel in some circumstances
2452 2011-12-07 20:53:24 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: I wrote a bunch of code for the file storage service part, but when I got around to figuring out how to do the hosting support scripting ... I was reminded by how terribly brittle software is.. and started inventing programming languages, which is a very bad sign. (then other projects pulled me off)
2453 2011-12-07 20:53:38 <copumpkin> oh I love inventing programming languages
2454 2011-12-07 20:53:50 <copumpkin> mostly for the sake of their type systems though
2455 2011-12-07 20:54:12 <BitMark> the corp owns the bought
2456 2011-12-07 20:54:17 <BitMark> bot*
2457 2011-12-07 20:54:23 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I was thinking one level deeper... trying to pick a useful bytecode execution engine for the bot. then, the bot's "brain" would be any code written in any programming language complying with bot's api
2458 2011-12-07 20:54:39 <jgarzik> some useful yet small bytecode engine
2459 2011-12-07 20:54:47 <copumpkin> proof-carrying code could ensure the code meets standards ;)
2460 2011-12-07 20:54:54 * copumpkin keeps trying to inject type systems into the conversation
2461 2011-12-07 20:55:13 <jgarzik> small enough to work well on a VPS, say. of course... you could go the native code route, and assume (post-bootstrap) that the bot can compile itself for any target
2462 2011-12-07 20:56:34 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I'd expected part of the hosting instructions should be basic instructions for building there.
2463 2011-12-07 20:57:08 <luke-jr> BitMark: no, I just can't justify the time it takes :P
2464 2011-12-07 20:57:22 <luke-jr> BitMark: so I'm back to "minimal required to promote Tonal"
2465 2011-12-07 20:57:37 Turingi has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2466 2011-12-07 20:57:47 <BitMark> i thought you switched to dozenal?
2467 2011-12-07 20:57:51 <luke-jr> no.
2468 2011-12-07 20:58:06 <luke-jr> I get along fine with Dozenal users, but I stick to Tonal
2469 2011-12-07 21:01:02 Joric has quit ()
2470 2011-12-07 21:01:05 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: indeed, though I was hoping to automate as much of that as possible. after permission is secured, the bot injects itself.
2471 2011-12-07 21:02:05 <jgarzik> parrotcode looks like a tempting bytecode engine
2472 2011-12-07 21:02:11 <cjdelisle> hmm a self replicating bot which searches for storage and processing power?
2473 2011-12-07 21:02:18 <jgarzik> dunno how small it can be made
2474 2011-12-07 21:02:34 <cjdelisle> it sounds like you want to develop something between the bonzi buddy and conficker
2475 2011-12-07 21:02:40 <BitMark> umm so i just ran 0.5.0 with the block chain from http://eu1.bitcoincharts.com/blockchain/blockchain-2011-12-07.tar and it still crashed
2476 2011-12-07 21:02:54 <BitMark> terminate called after throwing an instance of 'DbRunRecoveryException'
2477 2011-12-07 21:02:54 <BitMark> what(): DbEnv::txn_checkpoint: DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery
2478 2011-12-07 21:03:04 skeledrew has joined
2479 2011-12-07 21:03:04 <terrytibbs> tcatm: how do you make those blockchain backups?
2480 2011-12-07 21:03:25 <jgarzik> cjdelisle: the point is to do everything legally, with permission and cooperation from customers and providers. ref thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53855.msg642768#msg642768 if you missed the latest proposal
2481 2011-12-07 21:03:40 <cjdelisle> thx
2482 2011-12-07 21:03:55 <gmaxwell> BitMark: delete the db log directories at the same time.
2483 2011-12-07 21:04:03 <jgarzik> strictly speaking, writing malware is much easier than this task!
2484 2011-12-07 21:04:04 <jgarzik> :)
2485 2011-12-07 21:04:07 <BitMark> i did
2486 2011-12-07 21:04:31 <BitMark> mved .bitcoin/ .bitcoin_old
2487 2011-12-07 21:04:48 <BitMark> then copied over wallet.dat to the new .bitcoin/ dir
2488 2011-12-07 21:05:18 <jgarzik> anyway, rebooting, back after fsck
2489 2011-12-07 21:05:22 jgarzik has quit (Quit: Client exiting)
2490 2011-12-07 21:07:30 <BlueMatt> BitMark: uh oh, does your wallet.dat look sane on bitcointools
2491 2011-12-07 21:07:39 <BlueMatt> and do you have a wallet backup?
2492 2011-12-07 21:07:39 <BitMark> k i am starting bitcoind with just the two block chain files
2493 2011-12-07 21:08:02 <BitMark> my wallet only has 0.005 in it from the faucet so i am not worried
2494 2011-12-07 21:08:08 <BlueMatt> oh, ok
2495 2011-12-07 21:08:34 <gmaxwell> omg 0.005 btc lost forever!
2496 2011-12-07 21:08:55 <gmaxwell> if you can't recover it, toss it out on the forums as a price for people who feel like extracting the key. ;)
2497 2011-12-07 21:09:00 <BitMark> i'll give you the wallet file
2498 2011-12-07 21:09:00 <BlueMatt> ohhH NOESSS
2499 2011-12-07 21:09:09 * BlueMatt wants 0.005 btc
2500 2011-12-07 21:11:10 <BitMark> BlueMatt: how hard is it to build 0.5.0 with your ssl patch on amazon linux?
2501 2011-12-07 21:11:29 <BlueMatt> gonna take you a while to get together the deps...
2502 2011-12-07 21:11:41 <BlueMatt> I suggest downloading the ppa deb file and unzipping it (its just a tar)
2503 2011-12-07 21:11:44 <BitMark> i was afraid of that
2504 2011-12-07 21:11:54 <BlueMatt> as well as getting the necessary libs from other ubuntu packages
2505 2011-12-07 21:13:08 <BitMark> was ssl removed from 0.4.0?
2506 2011-12-07 21:13:24 <BlueMatt> dont think so
2507 2011-12-07 21:13:58 <BitMark> luke-jr: do you do builds of you 0.4.0 bugfixes?
2508 2011-12-07 21:13:58 <BitMark> ?
2509 2011-12-07 21:14:10 <luke-jr> BitMark: Gavin did for 0.4.1
2510 2011-12-07 21:14:24 <BitMark> did he publish it somewhere?
2511 2011-12-07 21:15:04 <luke-jr> yes
2512 2011-12-07 21:15:12 <luke-jr> it's on the download site
2513 2011-12-07 21:15:33 tower has joined
2514 2011-12-07 21:16:40 <luke-jr> http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.4.1/
2515 2011-12-07 21:18:59 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2516 2011-12-07 21:19:23 <BitMark> ok who wants this possibly corrupted wallet file with 0.005 btc in it
2517 2011-12-07 21:20:19 <BitMark> luke-jr: thanks for the link
2518 2011-12-07 21:21:08 <terrytibbs> BitMark: upload it somewhere
2519 2011-12-07 21:21:11 <terrytibbs> i'll take a crack at it
2520 2011-12-07 21:21:20 <BitMark> where shall i upload it?
2521 2011-12-07 21:21:38 <terrytibbs> your favorite filesharing website!
2522 2011-12-07 21:21:43 <terrytibbs> mediafire?
2523 2011-12-07 21:22:16 <BlueMatt> megaupload
2524 2011-12-07 21:22:22 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2525 2011-12-07 21:22:42 wasabi2 has joined
2526 2011-12-07 21:22:47 <BitMark> is there one that works from a linux command line?
2527 2011-12-07 21:22:57 <BlueMatt> your personal ftp share?
2528 2011-12-07 21:22:58 <luke-jr> wgetpaste!
2529 2011-12-07 21:22:59 <luke-jr> <.<
2530 2011-12-07 21:23:26 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: https://twitter.com/#!/zooko/status/144526810317721600
2531 2011-12-07 21:24:14 <gmaxwell> :) zooko has showed up here before.
2532 2011-12-07 21:24:27 <copumpkin> yep, I knew he was interested in bitcoin
2533 2011-12-07 21:24:30 <BlueMatt> wuala also takes bitcoin...
2534 2011-12-07 21:24:32 <copumpkin> I just poked him about your idea
2535 2011-12-07 21:24:33 <gmaxwell> so there, the agents can buy distributed storage from them. :)
2536 2011-12-07 21:27:48 jgarzik has joined
2537 2011-12-07 21:28:09 jgarzik has quit (Changing host)
2538 2011-12-07 21:28:09 jgarzik has joined
2539 2011-12-07 21:32:40 MobiusL has joined
2540 2011-12-07 21:35:03 <terrytibbs> BitMark's wallet, there's 0.005BTC belonging to one of those privkeys: http://pastebin.com/tmZzrcjy
2541 2011-12-07 21:35:16 <terrytibbs> first come first serve
2542 2011-12-07 21:35:38 <BitMark> is it indeed corrupt?
2543 2011-12-07 21:36:05 <terrytibbs> doesn't seem so, no
2544 2011-12-07 21:36:10 <terrytibbs> fool!
2545 2011-12-07 21:36:11 <BitMark> sigh oh well
2546 2011-12-07 21:37:20 <Happy0> xD
2547 2011-12-07 21:37:20 <gmaxwell> block explorer is being super slow for me
2548 2011-12-07 21:39:01 <[eval]> it's fine for me
2549 2011-12-07 21:40:06 <terrytibbs> here it is
2550 2011-12-07 21:40:07 <terrytibbs> 2514428442e325f491f1028a59bbf42979c4cea5be6548bbeb5bf83d67070e11
2551 2011-12-07 21:40:23 <gmaxwell> I redeemed it.
2552 2011-12-07 21:40:27 <gmaxwell> BitMark: give me a new address? :)
2553 2011-12-07 21:41:08 <BitMark> 1GAABqQ1oa2ESqoMSZ6AThMVK3ZmjyC645
2554 2011-12-07 21:41:39 <cjdelisle> you guys are fast, I was here
2555 2011-12-07 21:41:41 <cjdelisle> cat ./wallet.txt | grep '"addr": "' | sed 's/.*": "\(.*\)",.*$/http:\/\/blockexplorer.com\/q\/addressbalance\/\1/'
2556 2011-12-07 21:42:27 <terrytibbs> cjdelisle: it could only realistically be in the "names" object
2557 2011-12-07 21:42:42 <terrytibbs> afaik those are the only addresses exposed to the user
2558 2011-12-07 21:42:53 <gmaxwell> BitMark: coins returned. :)
2559 2011-12-07 21:43:00 <BitMark> thanks
2560 2011-12-07 21:43:20 <cjdelisle> ahh I see
2561 2011-12-07 21:43:24 <BitMark> did that come straight from that output?
2562 2011-12-07 21:43:33 <gmaxwell> BitMark: No, If I'd thought about it a bit more I would have asked first and use sent it directly. :)
2563 2011-12-07 21:44:01 erle- has joined
2564 2011-12-07 21:44:14 <BitMark> no biggie from my point of view
2565 2011-12-07 21:44:18 <gmaxwell> obviously. ;)
2566 2011-12-07 21:44:35 <gmaxwell> (I had fun racing to redeem it)
2567 2011-12-07 21:45:07 <terrytibbs> ha
2568 2011-12-07 21:47:52 <BitMark> oh right if you already had redeemed it⦠what was i thinking
2569 2011-12-07 21:48:33 <gmaxwell> BitMark: well, I could have attempted to double spend it.
2570 2011-12-07 21:48:45 <BitMark> ah indeed
2571 2011-12-07 21:49:18 <gmaxwell> though the redeption probably got good propagation.. that only really works when the first txn doesn't propagate.
2572 2011-12-07 21:49:53 <BitMark> interesting honeypot alarm system possibility tere
2573 2011-12-07 21:50:08 <BitMark> leave unencrypted wallet.dat files on all your sensitive servers
2574 2011-12-07 21:50:41 <[eval]> ooh
2575 2011-12-07 21:50:43 <[eval]> brilliant
2576 2011-12-07 21:50:48 <BitMark> then if those ever get spent you know you have been comprimised
2577 2011-12-07 21:50:58 HaltingState has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2578 2011-12-07 21:51:24 <terrytibbs> i like it
2579 2011-12-07 21:52:22 <terrytibbs> ~/disregard/wallet.dat?
2580 2011-12-07 21:52:39 <BlueMatt> or just ~/.bitcoin/wallet.dat
2581 2011-12-07 21:52:45 <cjdelisle> someone who's attacking a sensitive system would likely leave it alone, esp. if it's not a huge amount, if their mark is not aware of the attack they can just get it later after their main work is finished.
2582 2011-12-07 21:55:45 <BlueMatt> comments on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/593 ?
2583 2011-12-07 21:55:58 schilly has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2584 2011-12-07 21:56:23 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2585 2011-12-07 21:56:47 RazielZ has joined
2586 2011-12-07 21:57:01 schilly has joined
2587 2011-12-07 21:58:12 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2588 2011-12-07 21:58:27 tower has joined
2589 2011-12-07 22:08:06 helo has quit (Quit: leaving)
2590 2011-12-07 22:08:15 <BitMark> k this is weird
2591 2011-12-07 22:08:59 <BitMark> 0.5.0 running on my local gives txid and address in results of listtransactions
2592 2011-12-07 22:09:22 <BitMark> on my linux VPS txid and address are missing
2593 2011-12-07 22:09:37 <BlueMatt> same build?
2594 2011-12-07 22:11:06 <BitMark> my local is osX lion
2595 2011-12-07 22:11:14 <BitMark> VPS is amazon linux
2596 2011-12-07 22:11:30 <BitMark> local is green install
2597 2011-12-07 22:11:48 <BitMark> VPS is installed over prior 0.3.24 install
2598 2011-12-07 22:12:38 <BlueMatt> green install?
2599 2011-12-07 22:12:49 <BlueMatt> but on vps you said you just cleared ~/.bitcoin anyway, right?
2600 2011-12-07 22:12:52 <BitMark> once i can send btc to my VPS running 0.4.1 i will let you know
2601 2011-12-07 22:12:58 <BitMark> i have two VPS
2602 2011-12-07 22:13:06 <BitMark> one for test net and one for real net
2603 2011-12-07 22:13:52 <BitMark> i did upgrade on test net first then tried to two the same upgrade on real net which failed as you can see
2604 2011-12-07 22:13:59 <BlueMatt> well have you tried clearing ~/.bitccoin on the one with the non-txid?
2605 2011-12-07 22:14:28 ByronJohnson has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2606 2011-12-07 22:14:33 <BitMark> can't do that for now as the testnet VPS is being used by our staging site
2607 2011-12-07 22:15:00 <BlueMatt> well afaict the code should always print txid...
2608 2011-12-07 22:15:07 <BlueMatt> nfc whats going on
2609 2011-12-07 22:16:59 <jgarzik> wow. Parrot VM truly delivers on its claim of small size.
2610 2011-12-07 22:17:27 <jgarzik> and that should run just about any bitcoin client, regardless of language
2611 2011-12-07 22:19:26 semb has joined
2612 2011-12-07 22:20:31 <BitMark> any for on when the test net reset will happen?
2613 2011-12-07 22:21:29 <BlueMatt> none planed afaik
2614 2011-12-07 22:21:36 ByronJohnson has joined
2615 2011-12-07 22:22:40 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2616 2011-12-07 22:24:15 MobiusL has joined
2617 2011-12-07 22:26:48 semb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2618 2011-12-07 22:27:56 <gmaxwell> BitMark: I think the plan now isn't to reset it, just to change its rules with the next major release.
2619 2011-12-07 22:28:07 <BitMark> ah ok
2620 2011-12-07 22:28:19 <gmaxwell> BitMark: need a block mined?
2621 2011-12-07 22:28:26 <BitMark> nah
2622 2011-12-07 22:28:57 <BlueMatt> is gmaxwell actually getting into the testnet mining for btc business?
2623 2011-12-07 22:29:00 <BitMark> but i can call you when i do?
2624 2011-12-07 22:30:44 <gmaxwell> BitMark: sure.
2625 2011-12-07 22:30:50 <BitMark> sweet
2626 2011-12-07 22:31:06 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I'm all set, I just haven't figured out a good way of automating the switch on payment. ::shrugs::
2627 2011-12-07 22:31:33 <BlueMatt> heh
2628 2011-12-07 22:32:10 <gmaxwell> I figure I'll wait until the demand is >0 to bother. :)
2629 2011-12-07 22:32:54 <BlueMatt> always a good idea...
2630 2011-12-07 22:38:49 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2631 2011-12-07 22:40:17 <_Fireball> Bye
2632 2011-12-07 22:40:22 _Fireball has quit (Quit: I love my HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <-)
2633 2011-12-07 22:40:29 <sipa> ehm, bye
2634 2011-12-07 22:42:59 eoss has joined
2635 2011-12-07 22:42:59 eoss has quit (Changing host)
2636 2011-12-07 22:43:00 eoss has joined
2637 2011-12-07 22:44:36 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2638 2011-12-07 22:44:40 abragin has quit ()
2639 2011-12-07 22:48:29 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2640 2011-12-07 22:51:50 skeledrew has joined
2641 2011-12-07 22:56:36 ThomasV has joined
2642 2011-12-07 22:57:49 marf_away has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
2643 2011-12-07 23:03:35 danbri has quit (Read error: No route to host)
2644 2011-12-07 23:04:13 danbri has joined
2645 2011-12-07 23:05:21 AStove has quit ()
2646 2011-12-07 23:05:46 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
2647 2011-12-07 23:07:53 t3a_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2648 2011-12-07 23:10:20 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2649 2011-12-07 23:10:23 <devrandom> jgarzik: yes, bitcoinj does support all that (modulo any bugs)
2650 2011-12-07 23:12:38 gp5st has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2651 2011-12-07 23:12:41 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2652 2011-12-07 23:13:25 SomeoneWeirdzzzz is now known as SomeoneWeird
2653 2011-12-07 23:23:07 Burgundy has joined
2654 2011-12-07 23:26:23 qwebirc89566 has joined
2655 2011-12-07 23:28:09 mega_p2k has joined
2656 2011-12-07 23:29:27 roconnor has joined
2657 2011-12-07 23:29:38 <mega_p2k> hi, it's me again. just found out that the getheaders message has the same payload as the getblocks message, but this isn't reflected in the wiki. I'm going to change that soon after my tests succeed.
2658 2011-12-07 23:29:51 <copumpkin> roconnor: we were just talking about a verified bitcoin implementation last night and thought of you ;)
2659 2011-12-07 23:30:05 <roconnor> :)
2660 2011-12-07 23:30:09 <copumpkin> roconnor: you know any work on verifying crypto properties of "hardness" or even good approaches to stating such properties?
2661 2011-12-07 23:30:28 <roconnor> copumpkin: I only know vague thoughts of my own
2662 2011-12-07 23:30:41 <copumpkin> the nondeterminism is annoying to deal with
2663 2011-12-07 23:30:50 <copumpkin> what are your thoughts?
2664 2011-12-07 23:31:02 <gmaxwell> e.g. how do you write a proof that says the chain will converge to the version supported with the most computing power.
2665 2011-12-07 23:31:36 <roconnor> that if you work in a calculus that only allows poly-time functions, then it would be consistent to assume hashes are one-way even though they are clearly not.
2666 2011-12-07 23:31:55 <roconnor> gmaxwell: that doesn't sound like a crypto problem; :D
2667 2011-12-07 23:31:59 <copumpkin> or even something like procedure F is at least as hard as a preimage attack on X
2668 2011-12-07 23:32:28 <gmaxwell> No, its notâ I mean given you take the hash being a random oracle as an axiom, if would be interesting to show that the software will converge.
2669 2011-12-07 23:32:36 <roconnor> copumpkin: something like that is probably formalizable one way or another.
2670 2011-12-07 23:32:52 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: yeah, I'm mostly curious about how you'd even _state_ that something is a random oracle
2671 2011-12-07 23:33:03 <copumpkin> without talking about distributions and ugly things like that
2672 2011-12-07 23:33:17 <roconnor> gmaxwell: how is convergence related to hashing? I think I'm misunderstanding something
2673 2011-12-07 23:33:27 dan__ has quit (Quit: dan__)
2674 2011-12-07 23:33:53 <gmaxwell> roconnor: e.g. making a statements about the proof of work algorithims in terms of computing power.
2675 2011-12-07 23:34:34 <roconnor> oh I see
2676 2011-12-07 23:34:40 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
2677 2011-12-07 23:34:51 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: a random oracle picks a (deterministic) random permutation of an infinite list.
2678 2011-12-07 23:35:17 <roconnor> formalize satoshi's claims in his whitepaper that you actually need 50% of the hashing power rollback the chain (with high probability
2679 2011-12-07 23:35:51 <gmaxwell> roconnor: right.
2680 2011-12-07 23:35:59 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: even that seems tricky to state :)
2681 2011-12-07 23:36:17 <gmaxwell> but not just the claim but that the software actually achieves that.
2682 2011-12-07 23:36:28 <roconnor> I'm sure this can be done at the very least by how a mathematican would do it.
2683 2011-12-07 23:36:41 <roconnor> It'd be cool to find a clever way to do it.
2684 2011-12-07 23:36:52 <gmaxwell> roconnor: such a statement might even be powerful enough to find the difficulty bug (which I think would be a publishable result)
2685 2011-12-07 23:37:00 <copumpkin> so I guess you'd consider bijective Nat -> Nat functions as your random oracle?
2686 2011-12-07 23:37:18 <roconnor> gmaxwell: which bug, the one with the time differencing being wrong?
2687 2011-12-07 23:37:43 <gmaxwell> roconnor: right, that it computes the difficulty against 2016 blocks and leaves a gap out.
2688 2011-12-07 23:38:20 <gmaxwell> making it possible for someone lying about the times (but within the rules) to dork up the difficulty.
2689 2011-12-07 23:38:27 <roconnor> well, it was obviously a bug; though it was less obvious how to exploit it; and even the exploit isn't entirely interesting since it requires a 50% attack which is already known to break the system.
2690 2011-12-07 23:38:58 <copumpkin> I'm trying to think of how you'd proceed if you were handed a Nat <-> Nat bijection :)
2691 2011-12-07 23:39:12 <gmaxwell> ::nods:: but the whitepaper doesn't just say "50% all bets are off" it says "50% can do these finite number of terrible things"
2692 2011-12-07 23:39:28 <gmaxwell> a new terrible thing is certantly interesting.
2693 2011-12-07 23:39:51 <gmaxwell> In any case, it would be really neat if that property could be discovered by very high level statements about the promises of the system.
2694 2011-12-07 23:40:10 erus` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2695 2011-12-07 23:40:12 <gmaxwell> e.g. that a >50% attacker can't inflate the supply of bitcoin.
2696 2011-12-07 23:40:50 <mega_p2k> (off topic:) I've confirmed that getheaders is the same as getblocks with just different replies. I'm updating the protocol specification wiki page.
2697 2011-12-07 23:41:35 <copumpkin> it seems like I'd want some sort of a weak bijection, with an irrelevant inverse that I can't access, otherwise I could trivially pull it out and "attack" the system with it in my proofs
2698 2011-12-07 23:41:59 <roconnor> the worst thing IMHO about formalizing stuff like this is the implicit assumption that Hashing is injective when it is clearly not.
2699 2011-12-07 23:42:21 <roconnor> to do it properly you have to start talking about poly time computable, etc.
2700 2011-12-07 23:42:36 <copumpkin> roconnor: a lot of existing formal proofs already do that though
2701 2011-12-07 23:43:31 <sipa> damn, judging by the terminlogy used here i assumed this was #haskell-blah
2702 2011-12-07 23:43:35 <roconnor> copumpkin: formal formal proofs?
2703 2011-12-07 23:43:38 <copumpkin> lol
2704 2011-12-07 23:43:44 <copumpkin> roconnor: nah, paper formal proofs (of security)
2705 2011-12-07 23:43:46 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: taking that that list that the oracle is permuting is infinite might allow you to show that the searches take infinite time on average perhaps?
2706 2011-12-07 23:44:13 <gmaxwell> (for the inverse)
2707 2011-12-07 23:45:17 <copumpkin> well, I was talking more from a practical standpoint in the sense that your infinite permutation can be stated as a bijective function on the naturals, but a bijective function is really just a pair of functions (the function and its inverse), and I really don't want to know what its inverse is, just that it exists
2708 2011-12-07 23:45:44 <copumpkin> but maybe I'm going about this the wrong way
2709 2011-12-07 23:50:22 mc_mac has joined
2710 2011-12-07 23:50:54 lianj has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
2711 2011-12-07 23:51:03 mpr has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2712 2011-12-07 23:51:08 lianj has joined
2713 2011-12-07 23:51:21 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
2714 2011-12-07 23:52:58 lolcat has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2715 2011-12-07 23:53:36 lolcat has joined
2716 2011-12-07 23:56:37 <copumpkin> roconnor: to keep the algorithm simple and elegant, how about lamport signatures
2717 2011-12-07 23:56:45 <roconnor> huh?
2718 2011-12-07 23:56:47 mega_p2k has left ()
2719 2011-12-07 23:56:49 <roconnor> what algorithm?
2720 2011-12-07 23:56:53 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
2721 2011-12-07 23:57:01 <copumpkin> just fooling around with how to state and prove difficulty properties
2722 2011-12-07 23:58:09 <copumpkin> we can abstract it out and say that lamport takes a random oracle (hash function) as input and returns something else (and I still need to figure out what form that would take)
2723 2011-12-07 23:58:26 <copumpkin> now, how do we state that the generated signature is "hard" to break? :)
2724 2011-12-07 23:58:54 <gmaxwell> it's pretty easy to intutively see lamport's security (assuming a random oracle), dunno how hard it would be to prove.
2725 2011-12-07 23:58:58 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2726 2011-12-07 23:59:16 <copumpkin> yeah, that's where I keep getting hung up
2727 2011-12-07 23:59:29 <copumpkin> it's a clean scheme which is why I picked it to get my feet wet
2728 2011-12-07 23:59:50 <copumpkin> and I feel it probably wouldn't be too hard to prove, once we figure out how to state it's hard :)