1 2011-12-14 00:00:38 copumpkin has joined
2 2011-12-14 00:02:00 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: genjix * r89370066cf0d /src/ (block.cpp transaction.cpp): ~0u -> std::numeric_limits<uint32_t>::max() http://tinyurl.com/cdjm4ph
3 2011-12-14 00:02:54 aleod has joined
4 2011-12-14 00:04:02 theorbtwo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
5 2011-12-14 00:05:31 theorbtwo has joined
6 2011-12-14 00:09:31 peck has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
7 2011-12-14 00:26:25 peck has joined
8 2011-12-14 00:34:17 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
9 2011-12-14 00:37:54 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
10 2011-12-14 00:38:06 dvide has joined
11 2011-12-14 00:44:38 Kolky has quit (Quit: Bye bye!)
12 2011-12-14 01:01:47 bobke has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
13 2011-12-14 01:16:06 bobke has joined
14 2011-12-14 01:23:45 cronopio has quit (Quit: leaving)
15 2011-12-14 01:24:37 dan__ has joined
16 2011-12-14 01:27:10 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
17 2011-12-14 01:29:38 macintosh264 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
18 2011-12-14 01:36:26 skeledrew has joined
19 2011-12-14 01:36:43 osmosis has joined
20 2011-12-14 01:36:49 dan___ has joined
21 2011-12-14 01:37:11 dan___ has quit (Client Quit)
22 2011-12-14 01:39:22 dan__ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
23 2011-12-14 01:42:43 underscor has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
24 2011-12-14 01:46:10 bobke has quit (Read error: No route to host)
25 2011-12-14 01:47:42 bobke has joined
26 2011-12-14 01:48:11 wasabi3 has joined
27 2011-12-14 01:50:03 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
28 2011-12-14 01:57:58 molecular has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
29 2011-12-14 01:59:20 molecular has joined
30 2011-12-14 02:02:45 jjjrmy has joined
31 2011-12-14 02:02:47 <jjjrmy> Anyone hungry? Buy a snack with Bitcoins: http://giftcoin.net/
32 2011-12-14 02:04:00 DontMindMe has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
33 2011-12-14 02:06:49 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
34 2011-12-14 02:07:05 Backburn has joined
35 2011-12-14 02:07:25 aleod has left ("WHO #bitcoin-discussion")
36 2011-12-14 02:16:50 HaltingState2 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
37 2011-12-14 02:17:36 HaltingState has joined
38 2011-12-14 02:17:36 HaltingState has quit (Changing host)
39 2011-12-14 02:17:36 HaltingState has joined
40 2011-12-14 02:25:26 <jjjrmy> Anyone interested in having their site or product Advertised on www.giftcoin.net
41 2011-12-14 02:28:39 batouzo has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
42 2011-12-14 02:30:01 batouzo has joined
43 2011-12-14 02:30:48 <xenland> jjjrmy: every time you post spam a bitcoin is lost to a scam.
44 2011-12-14 02:30:52 batouzo has quit (Client Quit)
45 2011-12-14 02:31:01 <jjjrmy> xenland: a what?
46 2011-12-14 02:31:14 <xenland> jjjrmy: Huh?
47 2011-12-14 02:31:26 <jjjrmy> xenland: that makes no sense, but okay. It's not spam, I was asking.
48 2011-12-14 02:32:00 <xenland> jjjrmy: How could you be spamming? You can't eat a chat room....
49 2011-12-14 02:32:16 <xenland> jjjrmy: even tho i wouldn't eat spam its not delightful
50 2011-12-14 02:32:18 <jjjrmy> xenland: I was referring people to my site if anyone was interested
51 2011-12-14 02:32:52 <xenland> heh
52 2011-12-14 02:32:54 <xenland> I kid
53 2011-12-14 02:33:57 <xenland> But what i said is true. What all the miners are really doing is crawling the internet to see when people spam to add entropy. When people spam bitcoins are lost tho.... :/
54 2011-12-14 02:34:20 <jjjrmy> xenland: what?
55 2011-12-14 02:34:55 <xenland> seriously look at gaviins github page
56 2011-12-14 02:36:52 graingert has joined
57 2011-12-14 02:37:07 <jjjrmy> xenland: no clue what that is.
58 2011-12-14 02:37:42 <xenland> you know
59 2011-12-14 02:42:04 jjjrmy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
60 2011-12-14 02:43:52 <nanotube> xenland: you mean. :)
61 2011-12-14 02:45:25 <xenland> I was jk'n.... :(
62 2011-12-14 02:45:35 <xenland> hehe
63 2011-12-14 02:48:02 graingert has left ()
64 2011-12-14 02:56:56 theymos has joined
65 2011-12-14 03:01:10 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
66 2011-12-14 03:13:58 Wizzleby has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
67 2011-12-14 03:18:37 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
68 2011-12-14 03:18:40 Wizzleby has joined
69 2011-12-14 03:18:43 justmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
70 2011-12-14 03:19:18 somuchwin has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
71 2011-12-14 03:20:04 somuchwin has joined
72 2011-12-14 03:25:08 sytse has joined
73 2011-12-14 03:28:37 <[Tycho]> Hello, people.
74 2011-12-14 03:30:08 <xenland> ello tycho
75 2011-12-14 03:30:43 semb has joined
76 2011-12-14 03:30:48 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
77 2011-12-14 03:31:06 [7] has joined
78 2011-12-14 03:33:44 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
79 2011-12-14 03:38:28 <JFK911> Tycho
80 2011-12-14 03:38:36 <JFK911> Hi!
81 2011-12-14 03:39:36 t3a has joined
82 2011-12-14 03:40:33 xenland has quit (Quit: Leaving)
83 2011-12-14 03:50:16 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
84 2011-12-14 03:50:42 copumpkin has joined
85 2011-12-14 03:55:30 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
86 2011-12-14 03:59:33 marf_away has joined
87 2011-12-14 04:00:59 <[Tycho]> Is there a tool to export transaction from a wallet ?
88 2011-12-14 04:08:21 aleod has joined
89 2011-12-14 04:10:00 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
90 2011-12-14 04:11:57 dan__ has joined
91 2011-12-14 04:16:36 dissipate_ has joined
92 2011-12-14 04:18:32 talso has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
93 2011-12-14 04:19:21 <midnightmagic> Hey, are the devs considering replacing SHA2 with new hash algos as developed over time by NIST, or is a change only contemplated in the event of a break in SHA2?
94 2011-12-14 04:20:30 <theymos> Probably only if SHA-256 becomes weak.
95 2011-12-14 04:20:59 <midnightmagic> That's what I thought. Someone is claiming that the devs plan on 10-yr cycles and to keep up with advancing SHA standards.
96 2011-12-14 04:21:15 <luke-jr> 10 years wouldn't be unreasonable IMO
97 2011-12-14 04:21:24 <luke-jr> especially at block chain forks
98 2011-12-14 04:22:13 <theymos> Yeah, it might be nice to change things if the chain was forking anyway. SHA-3 should be given at least 5-10 years of scrutiny first, though.
99 2011-12-14 04:22:30 <midnightmagic> why would the chain be forking anyway?
100 2011-12-14 04:22:51 <midnightmagic> like to accommodate new txn types?
101 2011-12-14 04:23:12 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
102 2011-12-14 04:23:38 copumpkin has joined
103 2011-12-14 04:24:01 <theymos> Yeah, or some serious bug. Hopefully it won't happen too often, but it's bound to happen eventually.
104 2011-12-14 04:24:08 <theymos> Satoshi says: "SHA-256 is very strong. It's not like the incremental step from MD5 to SHA1. It can last several decades unless there's some massive breakthrough attack."
105 2011-12-14 04:24:08 RobinPKR_ has joined
106 2011-12-14 04:25:02 <theymos> I think he also said elsewhere that the system would certainly need to be completely redone before this becomes an issue.
107 2011-12-14 04:25:42 <midnightmagic> I wish I were around before Satoshi went quiet.
108 2011-12-14 04:25:48 <midnightmagic> oh well.
109 2011-12-14 04:26:12 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
110 2011-12-14 04:26:12 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
111 2011-12-14 04:26:58 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
112 2011-12-14 04:27:18 <theymos> Oh, actually Satoshi was talking about timestamps. "unsigned int is good until 2106. Surely the network will have to be totally revamped at least once by then."
113 2011-12-14 04:28:06 <midnightmagic> oh.
114 2011-12-14 04:28:38 <midnightmagic> That was the joke he also made right? If anyone finds any signed int, let me know before 2036 and so on?
115 2011-12-14 04:28:48 <theymos> Yes.
116 2011-12-14 04:28:54 <theymos> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=760.msg8413#msg8413
117 2011-12-14 04:29:29 MobiusL has quit (Excess Flood)
118 2011-12-14 04:31:20 MobiusL has joined
119 2011-12-14 04:31:29 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: the chain MUST fork at some point to increase the allowed block size
120 2011-12-14 04:31:39 semb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
121 2011-12-14 04:31:42 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: the plan is to make as many improvements/fixes as possible at that point
122 2011-12-14 04:31:55 <midnightmagic> yikes.
123 2011-12-14 04:31:57 <theymos> Yeah, that'll probably be the next one. Should happen within a year or two.
124 2011-12-14 04:32:34 <luke-jr> theymos: nah, we can delay it with fee increases :P
125 2011-12-14 04:32:36 aleod has left ("PART #bitcoin-discussion :JOIN #bitcoin")
126 2011-12-14 04:32:39 aleod has joined
127 2011-12-14 04:32:51 <luke-jr> also at some point there'll have to be a fork to make Bitcoin scale.
128 2011-12-14 04:32:55 <luke-jr> right now, it won't.
129 2011-12-14 04:33:52 zeiris has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
130 2011-12-14 04:33:58 <theymos> luke-jr: Fees may become non-competative, then. I think the limit should be removed from clients as soon as possible (miners can still enforce their own limit).
131 2011-12-14 04:37:07 <luke-jr> theymos: what limit?
132 2011-12-14 04:37:14 talso has joined
133 2011-12-14 04:37:21 <theymos> Blocksize.
134 2011-12-14 04:37:34 <gmaxwell> Thats nuts.
135 2011-12-14 04:37:45 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin can already grow the chain at 144 mbytes/day.
136 2011-12-14 04:38:10 <theymos> I just want to remove the limit from clients so that miners can determine for themselves how much data they want to handle.
137 2011-12-14 04:38:25 BlueMatt has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
138 2011-12-14 04:38:56 <midnightmagic> i think that is reasonable. I am all about choice. :)
139 2011-12-14 04:39:02 BlueMatt has joined
140 2011-12-14 04:39:22 <gmaxwell> the answer is infinite, so long as the txns have fees. Unless you're quite confidence that the majority will reject a prior block, then you'd be a fool not to build on it even if you think its far too big.
141 2011-12-14 04:40:22 <gmaxwell> moreover, it would mean that I could mine _one_ block and take out ~100% of the nodes, (e.g. by mining a 100gbyte block).
142 2011-12-14 04:41:13 <gmaxwell> I think it's pretty clear that the current software could not keep up with the current maximum size if it was sustained block after block. It doesn't make much sense to permit blocks that would make the nodes fall over.
143 2011-12-14 04:42:10 <luke-jr> I think theymos has a good point.
144 2011-12-14 04:42:24 <luke-jr> so long as miners are enforcing the 1 MB limit, it would take a 50% attack to grow faster
145 2011-12-14 04:43:04 <theymos> Everyone would reject a 100 GB block. The exact limit can be agreed-upon by everyone.
146 2011-12-14 04:43:14 <luke-jr> there might need to be a limit of some sort.
147 2011-12-14 04:43:17 <gmaxwell> But there is no way to communicate about the limit, so you'll easily spin your wheels.
148 2011-12-14 04:43:36 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: limit block growth to 2x the previous largest block
149 2011-12-14 04:44:00 <luke-jr> so the next block could only be 2 MB (for clients) until >1MB blocks get in the main chain
150 2011-12-14 04:44:06 <gmaxwell> That would mean that one weird shorterm run for forever increase the limit.
151 2011-12-14 04:44:09 <luke-jr> and then the next could only grow to 4 MB
152 2011-12-14 04:44:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: only if miners built on it
153 2011-12-14 04:45:09 <theymos> Miners need to keep up on these things. Increases would work like the ongoing OP_EVAL implementation: all miners must upgrade, but clients are OK. (The same "voting" could also be used.)
154 2011-12-14 04:45:36 <gmaxwell> We talked about things like making the limit be 2x the median of the last N, in the past but there were things people said that made me think it was a bad idea.
155 2011-12-14 04:45:58 <gmaxwell> but now I can't remember why.
156 2011-12-14 04:46:13 <gmaxwell> sipa: was it you that cluesticked me over that?
157 2011-12-14 04:46:32 <theymos> Yeah, I don't like automatic adjustment. The max block size should be determined by market forces.
158 2011-12-14 04:46:51 <gmaxwell> automatic adjustment _is_ a market force.
159 2011-12-14 04:47:44 <theymos> The system tries to determine what the supply should be based on previous demand. This isn't as good as having miners decide for themselves what the supply should be.
160 2011-12-14 04:47:48 <gmaxwell> How does this avoid a race to the bottom on fees which would make sufficient hash power unsustainable?
161 2011-12-14 04:48:25 <gmaxwell> theymos: they can create fake demandâ of course, and they can always impose their own lower limits.
162 2011-12-14 04:48:29 <luke-jr> theymos: automatic adjustment could be used for maximums
163 2011-12-14 04:48:33 <luke-jr> theymos: just like difficulty
164 2011-12-14 04:48:52 <luke-jr> theymos: with my concept, the adjustment would only take place as miners willed it
165 2011-12-14 04:49:04 <gmaxwell> But having an automatic limit applied to the protocol can quench some abuses, like DOSing nodes with jumbo blocks that would get orphaned.
166 2011-12-14 04:49:36 <gmaxwell> And it also removes some of the agreement hazard.
167 2011-12-14 04:50:23 <gmaxwell> If we are to actually have a distributed system, then people other than the few big miners have an interest in limiting the block size too.
168 2011-12-14 04:52:30 <theymos> I'm not sure about it. I'll have to think about it more. I remember being very convinced against automatic adjustment before, but I can't remember my specific arguments.
169 2011-12-14 04:53:22 <gmaxwell> I think part of my belief that it was a bad idea was because I was thinking of it as the maximum rather than a maximum maximum.
170 2011-12-14 04:53:37 <gmaxwell> I think it's less objectionable as a maximum maximum.
171 2011-12-14 04:55:16 <theymos> Some other protocol changes I'd like to see: fix the several broken script things; give users the ability to choose from among several different hash algorithms with signing, etc.; add more NOP script commands for future extensibility; calculate difficulty by looking at *all* involved blocks, not just the edges.
172 2011-12-14 04:56:14 <midnightmagic> I don't understand what you mean by "just the edges"?
173 2011-12-14 04:56:24 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: we miss one of the gaps.
174 2011-12-14 04:56:56 <midnightmagic> Just block 2016 right?
175 2011-12-14 04:56:58 <gmaxwell> theymos: there is no clean way to fix that. But we can make miners refuse to extend chains that are borked wrt. that.
176 2011-12-14 04:57:18 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: it makes a weird inflation attack possible if you have a majority of hash power.
177 2011-12-14 04:57:27 <midnightmagic> That's the timewarp bug that namecoin fixed but was a threatened attack.
178 2011-12-14 04:57:43 <gmaxwell> Right.
179 2011-12-14 04:57:49 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: can you?
180 2011-12-14 04:57:49 <midnightmagic> Ah, yes I knew about that. I didn't know what he meant by the "edges" comment.
181 2011-12-14 04:58:14 <theymos> gmaxwell: It seems best to take every block in the interval into account. Then you never have to worry about these tricks.
182 2011-12-14 04:58:21 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: We can, except you hate it because it depends on being more anal about some timestamps. :)
183 2011-12-14 04:58:30 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: no.
184 2011-12-14 04:58:44 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: being more anal doesn't help.
185 2011-12-14 04:58:45 <gmaxwell> theymos: yes but there is no way to deploy that without creating a universal flag day.
186 2011-12-14 04:59:01 <theymos> I was talking about stuff to change after a fork.
187 2011-12-14 04:59:02 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it does if the attacker doesn't have a majority hash power, it doesn't if they do.
188 2011-12-14 04:59:11 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: and Tycho would need to be in on it, and he has no reaosn to be
189 2011-12-14 04:59:29 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: if the attacker doesn't have a majority hash power, none of this matters at all
190 2011-12-14 05:00:21 <luke-jr> the existing time limits are sufficient
191 2011-12-14 05:00:31 <luke-jr> the problem only exists when those limits are ignored
192 2011-12-14 05:00:36 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: ::shrugs:: you can mine a weird block on that position and dork up the difficutly a little.
193 2011-12-14 05:00:53 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: not significantly, no.
194 2011-12-14 05:02:07 <gmaxwell> Fair enough.
195 2011-12-14 05:02:31 <gmaxwell> though I do agree that it would be good to fix, too bad there is no way to do it in a compatble way. :(
196 2011-12-14 05:03:00 dan__ has quit (Quit: dan__)
197 2011-12-14 05:06:22 <theymos> Different subject: Someone recently reported to me something they believed to be a critical bug in Bitcoin. This person is unreliable, their report was vague, and it doesn't seem to me that it's a problem, so I just told them to email bitcoin-security. Apparently they didn't, though, so I'll mention it here just in case:
198 2011-12-14 05:06:22 <theymos> "The wallets generated on the Windows version of the Bitcoin client are at risk for being compromised. They are generated based on pseudo-random data found in the Windows registry. They can easily be compromised just by knowing the make and model of the computer it was generated on. This needs to be patched immediately."
199 2011-12-14 05:06:22 <theymos> He's talking about Bitcoin's use of HKEY_PERFORMANCE_DATA as seed, which *does* seem to be unusual, though it seems like fine seed to me. What do you think?
200 2011-12-14 05:09:40 <aleod> I'm not familiar with the code, but maybe bitcoin should use CryptGenRandom or the OpenSSL random seed function instead?
201 2011-12-14 05:10:03 <cjdelisle> if that's the only random seed, it sounds wrong to me.. it doesn't sound like as much of a disaster as he suggests but IMO CryptGenRandom should be used.
202 2011-12-14 05:10:10 Mad7Scientist has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
203 2011-12-14 05:10:29 <gmaxwell> IIRC it used multiple sources on windows, including its own timing loop.
204 2011-12-14 05:10:32 dan__ has joined
205 2011-12-14 05:10:38 dan__ has quit (Client Quit)
206 2011-12-14 05:10:39 <cjdelisle> But very often these things will get seeds from a bunch of places, libevent does the same, so getting random material from something like that is not wrong.
207 2011-12-14 05:11:21 <gmaxwell> oh...
208 2011-12-14 05:11:28 <gmaxwell> wumpus: around?
209 2011-12-14 05:11:30 <theymos> That plus the internal counter is the only source Bitcoin uses. It replaces /dev/urandom.
210 2011-12-14 05:11:54 * gmaxwell cries
211 2011-12-14 05:11:57 * gmaxwell cries
212 2011-12-14 05:11:58 * gmaxwell cries
213 2011-12-14 05:12:01 <gmaxwell> fuck fuck fuck
214 2011-12-14 05:12:12 <gmaxwell> wx bitcoin removed the timing loops.
215 2011-12-14 05:12:14 <gmaxwell> er qt
216 2011-12-14 05:12:26 <copumpkin> wat?
217 2011-12-14 05:12:26 Internet13 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
218 2011-12-14 05:12:57 <luke-jr> if it were a problem, wouldn't we have seen address collisions by now?
219 2011-12-14 05:13:00 <gmaxwell> I'm pretty sure there used to be more rand_adds in the UI.
220 2011-12-14 05:13:15 <theymos> Oh, I was looking at the old code... Sorry for not reporting this privately. It looked very unreliable to me.
221 2011-12-14 05:13:18 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: nah, because the registry shit is probably machine uniqueâ but it can be stolen.
222 2011-12-14 05:13:45 <gmaxwell> well, I'm going off memory _I know_ there was some random sources in the UI... which are apparently not there anymore.
223 2011-12-14 05:13:51 <luke-jr> why aren't we using generic OpenSSL seeds?
224 2011-12-14 05:14:07 <cjdelisle> roll your own security = :(
225 2011-12-14 05:14:10 <gmaxwell> We are, but iirc it doesn't have a system entropy source on windows.
226 2011-12-14 05:14:19 <gmaxwell> if it does then there is no issue.
227 2011-12-14 05:14:37 <theymos> gmaxwell: Right. It uses /dev/urandom on Linux, but on Windows it relies on the program to provide seed.
228 2011-12-14 05:15:30 <luke-jr> /dev/urandom is no good too
229 2011-12-14 05:15:44 <gmaxwell> it's fine.
230 2011-12-14 05:16:15 <aleod> /dev/urandom might not work great in virtual machines iirc. I could be wrong
231 2011-12-14 05:16:42 <luke-jr> aleod: or any servers, really
232 2011-12-14 05:16:59 <gmaxwell> so.. okay, qt killed a significant source of randomness, but there appear to be other ones.
233 2011-12-14 05:17:33 Internet13 has joined
234 2011-12-14 05:17:35 * luke-jr wonders if Linux's entropy source is only the kb/mouse now
235 2011-12-14 05:17:37 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it's a cryptographic prng seeded with at worst 100 bits per second of real randomness.
236 2011-12-14 05:17:48 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: no the timer feeds it.
237 2011-12-14 05:17:57 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: many systems don't *have* 100 bits per second of real entropy
238 2011-12-14 05:18:02 <luke-jr> â¦
239 2011-12-14 05:18:05 <luke-jr> how could a timer?
240 2011-12-14 05:18:06 <gmaxwell> (though it's pretty much timer + keyboard + mouse)
241 2011-12-14 05:18:16 <luke-jr> timers are predictable
242 2011-12-14 05:18:33 <cjdelisle> many systems don't *have* 100 bits per second of real entropy <-- blah blah blah angels on a pin
243 2011-12-14 05:18:34 Mad7Scientist has joined
244 2011-12-14 05:18:37 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it takes the low order bit of the number of cpucycles run between timer events, it's a reasonable random source (e.g. would pass all the diehard tests)
245 2011-12-14 05:19:00 <luke-jr> ⦠1 bit isn't much
246 2011-12-14 05:20:11 <luke-jr> my desktop seems to get entropy about once every 3-8 seconds
247 2011-12-14 05:20:37 <luke-jr> Eligius Su seems to get it much more often
248 2011-12-14 05:20:40 <copumpkin> just read from the microphone ^_^
249 2011-12-14 05:20:42 <gmaxwell> in any case this is a stupid tangent, we need to determine if that report is a real issue.
250 2011-12-14 05:20:55 <luke-jr> copumpkin: I was going to suggest wifi garbage
251 2011-12-14 05:21:29 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: we should make the user draw a picture :D
252 2011-12-14 05:21:40 <cjdelisle> IMO I'd pull in libevent just to have access to a multi-seed random generator which has had real review (used on tor).
253 2011-12-14 05:21:47 <gmaxwell> Stop.
254 2011-12-14 05:21:52 <gmaxwell> Potential security hole.
255 2011-12-14 05:21:55 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: libevent is crap
256 2011-12-14 05:21:57 <copumpkin> or you could really freak people out by turning on their webcams, telling the users to turn all the lights out, and amplifying the resulting image a lot
257 2011-12-14 05:21:59 <gmaxwell> What we shoule do is blah blah.
258 2011-12-14 05:22:02 <copumpkin> ;)
259 2011-12-14 05:22:04 <cjdelisle> â¦
260 2011-12-14 05:22:08 <gmaxwell> Can someone figure out wtf this is:
261 2011-12-14 05:22:08 <gmaxwell> ./util.cpp: RAND_screen();
262 2011-12-14 05:22:10 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: libevent is the cause of the one major bug in pushpool
263 2011-12-14 05:22:12 * copumpkin stops making brilliant suggestions
264 2011-12-14 05:22:14 gavinandresen has joined
265 2011-12-14 05:22:21 <gmaxwell> I don't see that symbol anywhere in the bitcoin source.
266 2011-12-14 05:22:38 <luke-jr> "The RAND_screen() function is available for the convenience of Windows programmers. It adds the current contents of the screen to the PRNG. For applications that can catch Windows events, seeding the PRNG by calling RAND_event() is a significantly better source of randomness. It should be noted that both methods cannot be used on servers that run without user interaction."
267 2011-12-14 05:22:43 <aleod> it's in openssl
268 2011-12-14 05:22:52 <gmaxwell> whew.
269 2011-12-14 05:22:55 <aleod> nm, misread
270 2011-12-14 05:22:56 <gmaxwell> okay. world not over.
271 2011-12-14 05:23:30 * luke-jr wonders how much entropy the screen has for Windows users who like everything maximized.
272 2011-12-14 05:23:35 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: Bitcoin-qt managed to remove some of the random pool sources in bitcoin, theymos got a report of someone freaking out saying there was no randomness.
273 2011-12-14 05:23:39 <gavinandresen> I was about to pop in and mention that... they did post to the bitcoin-security list, but I didn't send it through to the bigger list because it was a satoshi-bitcoin-specific issue
274 2011-12-14 05:23:55 <gavinandresen> (I forwarded to the other core satoshi client developers instead)
275 2011-12-14 05:23:55 <luke-jr> "RAND_event() collects the entropy from Windows events such as mouse movements and other user interaction. It should be called with the iMsg, wParam and lParam arguments of all messages sent to the window procedure. It will estimate the entropy contained in the event message (if any), and add it to the PRNG. The program can then process the messages as usual."
276 2011-12-14 05:24:06 <luke-jr> ^ should add RAND_event
277 2011-12-14 05:25:12 <gavinandresen> RAND_screen() is called at startup, then HKEY_PERFORMANCE_DATA is periodically added (on Windows)
278 2011-12-14 05:25:40 <gavinandresen> If somebody wants to measure how much entropy is actually gathered, that'd be spiffy....
279 2011-12-14 05:28:01 <luke-jr> oh, HKEY_PERFORMANCE_DATA changes?
280 2011-12-14 05:28:21 <gavinandresen> Yes, I believe it is a very-high-frequency counter
281 2011-12-14 05:28:36 <doublec> luke-jr: what is the libevent issue that causes a bug in pushpool?
282 2011-12-14 05:28:57 <gavinandresen> (but it is late and I meant to be asleep a while ago so I'm probably misremembering what I read yesterday)
283 2011-12-14 05:29:02 <luke-jr> doublec: it doesn't clean up sockets closed by the http client
284 2011-12-14 05:29:08 <luke-jr> doublec: when libevent functions as http server
285 2011-12-14 05:29:23 <gmaxwell> bitcoin also adds the TSC to the pool frequently.
286 2011-12-14 05:29:45 <gmaxwell> Okay, I'm not worried about this being a pratical problem anymore. It should probably be improved, it doesn't appear urgent.
287 2011-12-14 05:30:07 <gavinandresen> send me email if y'all decide there is an issue with insufficient entropy.
288 2011-12-14 05:30:07 <doublec> luke-jr: I thought pushpool used libcurl, not libevent's http client stuff
289 2011-12-14 05:30:12 <luke-jr> doublec: so every longpoll, pushpool wastes time generating work for N long-since-disconnected clients, and only then do the connections close properly
290 2011-12-14 05:30:19 <gavinandresen> ... or better, submit a patch...
291 2011-12-14 05:30:20 <luke-jr> doublec: libcurl is the client-side, not server-side
292 2011-12-14 05:30:24 <gmaxwell> For a minute I was freaking out because all the UI randomness sources I remember vanished, and I was thinking the registery key was ~static.
293 2011-12-14 05:30:27 <luke-jr> [00:27:31] <luke-jr> doublec: when libevent functions as http server
294 2011-12-14 05:30:30 <doublec> ah right, I see what you're saying
295 2011-12-14 05:30:48 <luke-jr> doublec: also, those sockets pile up in the kernel, and eventually overflow it
296 2011-12-14 05:30:53 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
297 2011-12-14 05:31:11 Burgundy has joined
298 2011-12-14 05:31:14 <theymos> Why not use the Windows Crypto API to get the randomness? I looked for other programs that used HKEY_PERFORMANCE_DATA, and I couldn't find any.
299 2011-12-14 05:33:30 * luke-jr wonders where QCA::Random gets its entropy from
300 2011-12-14 05:35:17 <cjdelisle> https://github.com/libevent/libevent/blob/master/arc4random.c#L142 <-- there's the libevent/tor method
301 2011-12-14 05:35:49 <cjdelisle> looks like they have a number of ways in linux but only CryptGenRandom() in winx
302 2011-12-14 05:37:46 <gmaxwell> https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git/blob/HEAD:/src/common/crypto.c#l2392 < the code in Tor proper
303 2011-12-14 05:39:35 <cjdelisle> that looks nicer even than libevent's
304 2011-12-14 05:40:57 <gmaxwell> I'd suggest just taking the code from tor and adding it in addtion to what we have, it's compatibly licensed and has no doubt seen a lot of auditing.
305 2011-12-14 05:41:31 <sipa> gmaxwell: not sure about the block size discussion
306 2011-12-14 05:42:32 <gmaxwell> It also might be useful to add back in UI randomness hooks.
307 2011-12-14 05:43:09 Litt has joined
308 2011-12-14 05:43:55 <sipa> what pops up right now: if there is some rule that uses past statistics to determine what is acceptable, a miner may want to add dummy txs until the tx rate is as high as he can sustain, driving less capable miners out of the market
309 2011-12-14 05:43:56 BurtyBB has joined
310 2011-12-14 05:46:05 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
311 2011-12-14 05:46:07 <luke-jr> sipa: that isn't a problem for my proposal
312 2011-12-14 05:46:15 <luke-jr> (it doesn't care how many tx there are)
313 2011-12-14 05:49:25 <sipa> sure, there are other solutions, like letting miners decide
314 2011-12-14 05:49:58 wasabi2 has joined
315 2011-12-14 05:51:33 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
316 2011-12-14 05:55:06 RazielZ has joined
317 2011-12-14 06:02:38 BurtyBB has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
318 2011-12-14 06:04:27 BurtyB has joined
319 2011-12-14 06:07:26 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
320 2011-12-14 06:10:19 <gmaxwell> I think it needs to have a property that a low hash power trouble maker can't cause regular nodes to start accepting blocks that will DOS the heck out of them.
321 2011-12-14 06:11:20 <gmaxwell> It should also not gratuitously assist a race to the bottom that destroys bitcoin's decenteraliztion by leaving it so only a few very large mining nodes can afford to validate anything.
322 2011-12-14 06:14:15 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ⦠it does?
323 2011-12-14 06:16:10 <gmaxwell> What does?
324 2011-12-14 06:16:28 <gmaxwell> That was aspirational, not a description of any proposal.
325 2011-12-14 06:16:45 <CIA-100> bitcoin: various signmessage_gui * r3765db..a22535 bitcoind-personal/ (28 files in 6 dirs): (12 commits) http://tinyurl.com/3py2g44
326 2011-12-14 06:16:47 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr minfee_modes * rdbbf1d4a48c8 bitcoind-personal/src/ (main.cpp main.h wallet.cpp): GetMinFee takes a mode parameter (GMF_{BLOCK,RELAY,SEND}) instead of fForRelay http://tinyurl.com/cbcjmgk
327 2011-12-14 06:16:48 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr minfee_modes * ra880b29cab0f bitcoind-personal/src/main.cpp: Bugfix: fForRelay should be false when deciding required fee to include in blocks http://tinyurl.com/brpd72r
328 2011-12-14 06:20:11 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
329 2011-12-14 06:22:31 Xunie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
330 2011-12-14 06:22:55 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
331 2011-12-14 06:23:44 BurtyB has joined
332 2011-12-14 06:23:55 <wumpus> huh what entropy collection did bitcoin-qt remove? are you sure about that, you were gathering entropy in the UI instead of the core?!? anyway, windows bitcoind would already have had this problem in this case
333 2011-12-14 06:24:34 <gmaxwell> wumpus: yea.. :-/
334 2011-12-14 06:24:34 <gmaxwell> ui.cpp: RAND_add(&event.m_x, sizeof(event.m_x), 0.25);
335 2011-12-14 06:24:34 <gmaxwell> ui.cpp: RAND_add(&event.m_y, sizeof(event.m_y), 0.25);
336 2011-12-14 06:24:46 <gmaxwell> see ui.cpp: void CMainFrame::OnMouseEvents(wxMouseEvent& event)
337 2011-12-14 06:24:53 <wumpus> I really disapprove of doing that
338 2011-12-14 06:25:30 <wumpus> as that makes the UI different from the daemon
339 2011-12-14 06:25:36 <wumpus> you can never rely on the user moving his mouse
340 2011-12-14 06:25:44 <gmaxwell> It's .. randomness. They're already different in that regard. :)
341 2011-12-14 06:25:59 <gmaxwell> In any case, it wasn't relying on it. It was just an additional source.
342 2011-12-14 06:28:04 dissipate_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
343 2011-12-14 06:30:49 <luke-jr> wumpus: user interaction is one major source of entropy
344 2011-12-14 06:30:52 <wumpus> also looks like a great way to make an UI slow, intercept all user events and do some computation on them
345 2011-12-14 06:31:06 sgstair has quit (Quit: .«UPP»Â.)
346 2011-12-14 06:31:28 dan__ has joined
347 2011-12-14 06:32:36 <EvanR> wumpus: maybe if youre running on a c64
348 2011-12-14 06:32:47 <wumpus> something like (u)random already integrates all kinds of possible randomness sources
349 2011-12-14 06:33:22 <EvanR> the OS and X and etc etc are all huge giant 'intercept all user events and do some computation on them'
350 2011-12-14 06:33:35 <wumpus> there's no need to try to hand-roll everything... and if we want to split the UI and daemon into separate processes eventually anyway
351 2011-12-14 06:33:38 <EvanR> the key here being that events happen vastly more seldom than cpu cycles
352 2011-12-14 06:33:46 <wumpus> yes I know that
353 2011-12-14 06:34:25 <luke-jr> wumpus: Windows has no urandom
354 2011-12-14 06:34:53 <EvanR> windows does have a crypto RNG
355 2011-12-14 06:34:55 <wumpus> it has a crypto API right? how do non-UI programs like openssh do it on windows?
356 2011-12-14 06:35:04 <luke-jr> wumpus: Windows doesn't have OpenSSH :p
357 2011-12-14 06:35:10 <wumpus> yes there is an openssh for windows
358 2011-12-14 06:35:15 <luke-jr> wumpus: GnuPG tells the user to move their mouse around for a bit
359 2011-12-14 06:35:47 Graet has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
360 2011-12-14 06:35:47 <wumpus> fricking lame
361 2011-12-14 06:35:48 <EvanR> hardware sourced entropy isnt necessarily the only way
362 2011-12-14 06:35:48 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
363 2011-12-14 06:36:06 <EvanR> some OS just have a secure pure rng
364 2011-12-14 06:36:21 <EvanR> dunno what windows does
365 2011-12-14 06:36:26 shadders_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
366 2011-12-14 06:36:38 <sipa> gnupg consumes ridiculous amounts of entropy
367 2011-12-14 06:36:46 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr next * r84417e..f654ee bitcoind-personal/ (41 files in 6 dirs): (5 commits) http://tinyurl.com/7fsst7u
368 2011-12-14 06:36:58 sgstair has joined
369 2011-12-14 06:37:35 <EvanR> with a sufficiently large state and combination of rng algorithms, your only security risk is the attacked finding out the state
370 2011-12-14 06:37:47 <EvanR> no 'entropy' needed
371 2011-12-14 06:38:02 <wumpus> but even if that it probably only intercepts the user events and puts them into the entropy, not during the entire run of the program
372 2011-12-14 06:38:02 <gmaxwell> wumpus: I recommended copying the code from tor earlier.
373 2011-12-14 06:38:45 <gmaxwell> wumpus: though I don't think there was any evidence that the WX hooks hurt performance.
374 2011-12-14 06:39:42 <wumpus> I'm not sure either, I also don't feel like measuring it, but I don't really want to intercept user events when not needed for UI purposes
375 2011-12-14 06:40:20 <gmaxwell> Thats fine, I don't think you need to. We should probably add the tor code and call it done.
376 2011-12-14 06:40:34 shadders_ has joined
377 2011-12-14 06:40:35 MrTiggr has joined
378 2011-12-14 06:40:40 <EvanR> accumulating mouse events doesnt have any effect on performance
379 2011-12-14 06:41:38 <EvanR> wumpus: what is your program
380 2011-12-14 06:41:46 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin.
381 2011-12-14 06:41:55 <EvanR> the main client
382 2011-12-14 06:42:03 <gmaxwell> Yes.
383 2011-12-14 06:42:04 <wumpus> using key events would also be cool, so even your passphrase will end up in the random seed :-)
384 2011-12-14 06:42:28 <wumpus> EvanR: yes
385 2011-12-14 06:42:29 <EvanR> c++ nightmare ;)
386 2011-12-14 06:42:35 <EvanR> just reboot
387 2011-12-14 06:42:59 <gmaxwell> wumpus: meh, then I'd want to go audit the random pool stuff and make sure it doesn't keep cleartext inputs around.
388 2011-12-14 06:43:18 <wumpus> yeah exactly
389 2011-12-14 06:44:02 <wumpus> maybe carrieriq could have used that excuse
390 2011-12-14 06:44:06 Graet has joined
391 2011-12-14 06:44:09 <wumpus> 'we only use it to seed our RNG!'
392 2011-12-14 06:45:01 jago25_98 has joined
393 2011-12-14 06:47:15 <wumpus> maybe use the clipboard too for extra effect and the user's microphone
394 2011-12-14 06:47:39 <EvanR> another theoretical thing, RNGs arent designed to be continually reseeded if you want the same statistical guarantees
395 2011-12-14 06:47:52 <EvanR> like, restarting the sequence
396 2011-12-14 06:48:23 <EvanR> maybe you have a special rng, but normally restarting a sequence after like 10 outputs doesnt mean you have sane statistics ;)
397 2011-12-14 06:48:53 <gmaxwell> EvanR: reseeding in this context means a very different thing.
398 2011-12-14 06:48:57 <EvanR> ok
399 2011-12-14 06:48:59 jago25_98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
400 2011-12-14 06:49:56 <gmaxwell> This is a large pool cryptographic rng. When we add seeds we're stirring into the existing pool, it doesn't throw out the old state.
401 2011-12-14 06:51:05 <gmaxwell> You could add 128 bits of real randomness onceâ then add gigabytes of zeros ... while pulling out gigabytes of random data... and still not be able to predict it (unless you can make a serious compromise in the underlying crypto functions it uses).
402 2011-12-14 06:51:42 <EvanR> well it has cryptographic in front of it, so it must be water tight ;)
403 2011-12-14 06:52:07 <cjdelisle> for certain values of "water", it is.
404 2011-12-14 06:53:59 <luke-jr> There
405 2011-12-14 06:54:07 <luke-jr> 'next' and 'next-test' are updated
406 2011-12-14 06:54:31 <EvanR> all this crypto tech and 100% guarantees of everything, and yet all the enemy has to do is scp your wallet while youre out of the room ;)
407 2011-12-14 06:54:53 <gmaxwell> my wallet is encrypted when I'm out of the room.
408 2011-12-14 06:55:24 <EvanR> i havent used those new features
409 2011-12-14 06:55:42 <EvanR> is it user friendly
410 2011-12-14 06:55:59 <EvanR> can i lock myself out of my wallet permanently by forgetting the password
411 2011-12-14 06:57:03 <gmaxwell> yep.
412 2011-12-14 06:57:18 dan__ has quit (Quit: dan__)
413 2011-12-14 06:57:42 <EvanR> dayum ;)
414 2011-12-14 06:58:07 <luke-jr> I recently learned the hard way, that it's also impossible to decrypt a wallet :/
415 2011-12-14 06:58:13 <luke-jr> so it's a one-way street
416 2011-12-14 06:58:25 <EvanR> life is a one way street
417 2011-12-14 06:58:28 <EvanR> its a metaphor
418 2011-12-14 06:58:31 <EvanR> lol
419 2011-12-14 06:58:56 <EvanR> how much did you lose luke-jr
420 2011-12-14 06:59:18 <luke-jr> EvanR: 6300 BTC if I forget the passphrase
421 2011-12-14 06:59:28 <luke-jr> Testnet
422 2011-12-14 06:59:48 <luke-jr> in case I forget, please remind me that it's "a"
423 2011-12-14 06:59:55 <EvanR> oh ok
424 2011-12-14 07:00:58 <EvanR> so how are alzheimers people supposed to manage their crypto
425 2011-12-14 07:01:19 <cjdelisle> write your password on your monitor
426 2011-12-14 07:01:23 <EvanR> lol
427 2011-12-14 07:01:37 <cjdelisle> also make sure to write that it's your bitcoin password so you don't try to use it for email
428 2011-12-14 07:01:57 <CIA-100> bitcoin: various next-test * raeaec8..e9bcdc bitcoind-personal/ (30 files in 5 dirs): (9 commits) http://tinyurl.com/7vr93zh
429 2011-12-14 07:06:54 <luke-jr> [01:59:11] <luke-jr> selling special limited-edition *testnet* BTC at 25 USD a pop
430 2011-12-14 07:17:19 dissipate_ has joined
431 2011-12-14 07:18:41 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
432 2011-12-14 07:19:44 <wumpus> $25 for testnet coins sounds a tad expensive
433 2011-12-14 07:20:19 darkee has joined
434 2011-12-14 07:20:23 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
435 2011-12-14 07:21:22 <gmaxwell> special edition!
436 2011-12-14 07:22:36 <cjdelisle> gold plated with glenn beck's face on each one
437 2011-12-14 07:22:49 <wumpus> oooh super special confidential military-grade testing coins?
438 2011-12-14 07:23:03 <luke-jr> XD
439 2011-12-14 07:23:18 <gmaxwell> For only 1 BTC I will sell you a wallet with 50 _virgin_ unspent TNBTC.
440 2011-12-14 07:24:12 <gmaxwell> Thats a 50 for 1 deal!!! plus you rid your self of dirty nasty recycled bitcoins and get fresh TNBTC.
441 2011-12-14 07:24:24 <luke-jr> For only 55 BTC I will sell you 50 _virgin_ unspent BTC to any address of your choice.
442 2011-12-14 07:24:26 <luke-jr> <.<
443 2011-12-14 07:24:31 <copumpkin> oh wow
444 2011-12-14 07:24:42 <copumpkin> immaculately conceived BTC
445 2011-12-14 07:25:04 <cjdelisle> for a low price of 75BTC, I will send you 70 _virgins_
446 2011-12-14 07:25:13 <cjdelisle> <small>when you're dead</small>
447 2011-12-14 07:26:23 <wumpus> maybe we should move this to -otc :P
448 2011-12-14 07:26:30 <gmaxwell> ohh alerts work on testnet
449 2011-12-14 07:26:39 <gmaxwell> "errors" : "CAlert system test: ver.0.5.1 available"
450 2011-12-14 07:26:59 <wumpus> yes bluematt fixed those yesterday in a 10-minute ninja patch :D
451 2011-12-14 07:27:24 <cjdelisle> reminds me of net-send spam
452 2011-12-14 07:28:00 <wumpus> that's so 90's
453 2011-12-14 07:28:05 <gmaxwell> hm? my testnet node is on week-old-git.
454 2011-12-14 07:28:14 <wumpus> these are cryptographically enchanced!
455 2011-12-14 07:28:20 <cjdelisle> heh
456 2011-12-14 07:28:27 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
457 2011-12-14 07:28:49 <wumpus> gmaxwell: I thought he meant in the UI
458 2011-12-14 07:28:54 <gmaxwell> I have a friend that I mostly talk with via ytalk.
459 2011-12-14 07:29:02 <gmaxwell> ha. ui schmooii.
460 2011-12-14 07:29:05 Graet has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
461 2011-12-14 07:29:44 shadders_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
462 2011-12-14 07:30:07 <cjdelisle> random numbers for sale, generated with military grade algorithms on an offline "air gapped" computer using state of the art battery power supply system
463 2011-12-14 07:31:17 MrTiggr has joined
464 2011-12-14 07:31:24 shadders_ has joined
465 2011-12-14 07:32:17 <wumpus> do you promise to sell it only once so I can use it as a one time pad?
466 2011-12-14 07:33:16 <cjdelisle> once your random numbers are generated, they are overwritten with zeros and a special bit is set to indicate that those zeros are not actually randomly generated zeros
467 2011-12-14 07:34:54 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: hmm, does testnet use a different key?
468 2011-12-14 07:35:10 <gmaxwell> I thought the 'key' was the privkey of the genesis block.
469 2011-12-14 07:35:20 <luke-jr> hmm
470 2011-12-14 07:35:20 <cjdelisle> With the Random Source Patch⢠for Bitcoin, you can insert your new Cryptographically Secure Random Numbers into your bitcoin and be generating stronger coins right away!
471 2011-12-14 07:35:29 <wumpus> hehe
472 2011-12-14 07:35:33 <gmaxwell> or at least thats what I believed from reading the code.
473 2011-12-14 07:35:44 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: true randomness from Random.orgâ¢
474 2011-12-14 07:35:47 <luke-jr> I wonder if you can rebroadcast that testnet alert on mainnet ;)
475 2011-12-14 07:36:21 <wumpus> I'm so happy with my new, stronger, weaponized bitcoin wallet thanks to cjdelisle
476 2011-12-14 07:37:04 <luke-jr> just don't export it!
477 2011-12-14 07:37:15 <luke-jr> except maybe to Iran
478 2011-12-14 07:37:18 <cjdelisle> With these, more random numbers, you will be generating stronger, more secure, more *solid* coins, right away.
479 2011-12-14 07:37:28 <luke-jr> I feel bad for Iran. Everyone's threatening them.
480 2011-12-14 07:37:36 <gmaxwell> ... luke-jr you're naughty.
481 2011-12-14 07:37:38 <luke-jr> â¦
482 2011-12-14 07:37:44 <cjdelisle> â¦
483 2011-12-14 07:37:53 <gmaxwell> the genesis block on testnet appears to have the same pubkey.
484 2011-12-14 07:38:05 <gmaxwell> If I'm not misremembering how that works, then yes you could.
485 2011-12-14 07:38:07 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I dare you.
486 2011-12-14 07:38:46 <gmaxwell> I was arguing against sending an alert!
487 2011-12-14 07:38:47 Graet has joined
488 2011-12-14 07:39:21 <luke-jr> well, if this works, you can argue for no confidence in Gavin having the key <.<
489 2011-12-14 07:39:27 <cjdelisle> are alerts replayable?
490 2011-12-14 07:39:37 <cjdelisle> I mean it makes sense that they should not be
491 2011-12-14 07:39:57 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: define replayable
492 2011-12-14 07:40:07 <cjdelisle> can you send it on testnet again?
493 2011-12-14 07:40:13 <wumpus> there are persistent
494 2011-12-14 07:40:16 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: nodes remember them and don't replay them. .. you might be able to modify them in a way that changes the hash but not the signature and break that.
495 2011-12-14 07:40:17 <wumpus> so they appear until they are canclled
496 2011-12-14 07:40:28 <wumpus> or you upgrade to a newer version they don't appear to
497 2011-12-14 07:40:38 <cjdelisle> I see
498 2011-12-14 07:41:22 <wumpus> changes the hash but not the signature? so the hash is not used for the signature?
499 2011-12-14 07:41:56 <cjdelisle> lemme guess, it hashes over the signature
500 2011-12-14 07:41:57 <gmaxwell> wumpus: I don't recall the format, but bitcoin txn are malleable like this, as the signature doesn't cover everything.
501 2011-12-14 07:42:36 <gmaxwell> if so, you might be able to 'replay' an alert and run people out of memory.
502 2011-12-14 07:42:43 <cjdelisle> in which case you use negative numbers and openssl validates it anyway and the hash changes and then haha
503 2011-12-14 07:42:44 <wumpus> right, but you'd assume the signature to cover the message text, otherwise it's quite pointless
504 2011-12-14 07:43:06 <gmaxwell> sure.
505 2011-12-14 07:43:54 <wumpus> ah you want to accumulate similar messages to perform a DDoS
506 2011-12-14 07:44:08 <luke-jr> my point was just that we might be able to broadcast 0.5.1 announcement on mainnet before gavin is done with it :P
507 2011-12-14 07:44:18 <gmaxwell> yes, I know.
508 2011-12-14 07:44:23 <wumpus> I'm not sure it will store the same sequence id multiple times, but if it does, it sounds dangerous
509 2011-12-14 07:44:36 <gmaxwell> Is gavin actually going to do that? we should totally beat him to it. ;)
510 2011-12-14 07:44:53 <gmaxwell> but not by days, but by minutes.
511 2011-12-14 07:45:14 <wumpus> heh
512 2011-12-14 07:45:16 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: well, if we do it now, he'll have to do the real release in minutes to avoid the flood
513 2011-12-14 07:45:21 <luke-jr> <.<
514 2011-12-14 07:45:35 <luke-jr> assuming someone has a way to wake him up
515 2011-12-14 07:45:46 <gmaxwell> which is why we should not.
516 2011-12-14 07:45:55 <lianj> haha aw :(
517 2011-12-14 07:46:06 <gmaxwell> more funny if he's sitting there. "wtfâ½"
518 2011-12-14 07:46:12 <luke-jr> true
519 2011-12-14 07:46:14 <gmaxwell> "but I didn't press enter yet!"
520 2011-12-14 07:46:27 <luke-jr> ok, let's plan on doing it when he's actively on IRC
521 2011-12-14 07:46:37 <luke-jr> nobody ruin the surprise, k?
522 2011-12-14 07:46:46 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
523 2011-12-14 07:46:55 <wumpus> and hope he doesn't read backlogs :p
524 2011-12-14 07:46:55 <gmaxwell> He'll read the backscroll.
525 2011-12-14 07:47:02 <luke-jr> he's not onlineâ¦
526 2011-12-14 07:49:29 <gmaxwell> oh, it's not the same key as the genesis block. .. but its still the same key in testnet.
527 2011-12-14 07:49:41 <luke-jr> >_<
528 2011-12-14 07:50:10 [Tycho] has joined
529 2011-12-14 07:51:52 <gmaxwell> looks like the signature covers the whole thing. which is good.
530 2011-12-14 07:52:22 <cjdelisle> does the hash cover the sig?
531 2011-12-14 07:52:46 <gmaxwell> oh.
532 2011-12-14 07:52:51 <gmaxwell> I think so.
533 2011-12-14 07:53:00 <cjdelisle> heh
534 2011-12-14 07:53:14 <cjdelisle> I wonder just what you can make openssl validate
535 2011-12-14 07:53:21 <[Tycho]> Hmm, I wonder why bitcoin do not delete new transaction if CommitTransaction fails...
536 2011-12-14 07:53:21 <cjdelisle> leading zeros anyone?
537 2011-12-14 07:53:21 <luke-jr> :D
538 2011-12-14 07:53:29 <wumpus> still I don't understand why the alerts are in a map by hash, and not by nID, which is according to gavenandresen an unique id
539 2011-12-14 07:54:41 <gmaxwell> cause thats how everything else works in bitcoin, which isn't a bad reason.
540 2011-12-14 07:55:39 <gmaxwell> yea, so I think there is a mild dos vulnerability here.. where you can mutate the signature and give people more copies of an alert. But how many different values would openssl accept?
541 2011-12-14 07:56:23 <gmaxwell> (the same issue would exist for transactions but they spend inputsâ and the regular DOS rules come into effect, not so for alerts)
542 2011-12-14 07:56:32 <wumpus> well no it's not a bad reason per-ce, but it interacts weirdly with the signature
543 2011-12-14 07:57:02 marf_away has joined
544 2011-12-14 07:57:09 <gmaxwell> if the system had forced the @#$@# signatures into a canonical form it would not be an issue.
545 2011-12-14 07:57:12 <cjdelisle> there are definitely at least 2 possible valid sig representations
546 2011-12-14 07:58:08 <cjdelisle> messing with content before verifying it is not very safe.. I would not hash the sig into the hash, if it's not valid then it's not going in the hashtree anyway
547 2011-12-14 07:58:32 <cjdelisle> err hashmap or whatever..
548 2011-12-14 07:58:37 <wumpus> agreed
549 2011-12-14 07:58:50 <wumpus> it should hash the contents, the same contents verified by the signature
550 2011-12-14 07:59:04 <cjdelisle> copumpkin: how many valid representations are there of a signature?
551 2011-12-14 07:59:04 <wumpus> that'd be pretty much fool-proof
552 2011-12-14 07:59:13 <gmaxwell> means I can flood you with signature validation operations (much slower than hashes), I know we validate in that order now though we could change it.
553 2011-12-14 07:59:14 <cjdelisle> /nod
554 2011-12-14 07:59:35 <cjdelisle> you could still change it
555 2011-12-14 07:59:49 <wumpus> you could simply drop the requests if you receive too many
556 2011-12-14 07:59:55 <gmaxwell> no, then I give you a bad one and you never accept the good alert?
557 2011-12-14 07:59:56 <cjdelisle> you just don't insert into the table until the sig proves valid
558 2011-12-14 08:00:09 <copumpkin> me?
559 2011-12-14 08:00:14 <gmaxwell> right then that doesn't help you mitgate a validation dos.
560 2011-12-14 08:00:31 <cjdelisle> copumpkin: you know something about the openssl sig representation right?
561 2011-12-14 08:00:36 Lexa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
562 2011-12-14 08:00:48 <copumpkin> hmm
563 2011-12-14 08:01:20 <gmaxwell> E.g. if you check the hash firt, I give you a flood of bad signatures and you burn cpu. If you check the signature first, likewise. If the hash covers the sig, then you can check it first and drop duplicates.
564 2011-12-14 08:01:35 <copumpkin> never really looked into that too deeply, and when I did it was for RSA
565 2011-12-14 08:01:41 <gmaxwell> which would all be well and happy except for the non-canonical form.
566 2011-12-14 08:01:45 AStove has joined
567 2011-12-14 08:01:54 <copumpkin> nice thing about the RSA sigs at least is that they don't need the randomized padding
568 2011-12-14 08:02:02 <cjdelisle> gmaxwell: if you store my bad sig hashes, I'll send you gigabytes of them
569 2011-12-14 08:02:09 <copumpkin> although they can have it (the payload describes what kind of padding you have)
570 2011-12-14 08:02:55 <copumpkin> is there a way to make blockexplorer give me more than the largest transactions from the last 300 blocks?
571 2011-12-14 08:02:59 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: well, I can counter that too... but fine. this isn't the worst issue. You can already dos nodes out using address rumoring anyways.
572 2011-12-14 08:03:21 <copumpkin> cjdelisle: but otherwise I don't really know anything, sorry :)
573 2011-12-14 08:03:26 Lexa has joined
574 2011-12-14 08:03:29 <cjdelisle> hmm I was thinking like if it's der encoded, maybe adding some kind of nop bytes will alter a sig without "changing it"
575 2011-12-14 08:03:32 <cjdelisle> ok
576 2011-12-14 08:03:39 <cjdelisle> or leading zeros
577 2011-12-14 08:03:40 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: its der encoded.
578 2011-12-14 08:03:43 <gmaxwell> it starts with 04
579 2011-12-14 08:03:47 <gmaxwell> oh well the key is
580 2011-12-14 08:03:56 <wumpus> huh, if you hash the entire thing you can still sends millions of bad signatures, they wil have different hashes
581 2011-12-14 08:03:57 <gmaxwell> darn, I don't know about the signature.
582 2011-12-14 08:04:14 <copumpkin> the signatures I've seen are usually "raw", but as I said with RSA, there's the whole PKCS whatever padding scheme inside
583 2011-12-14 08:04:23 <wumpus> how will duplicate detection work if you want to flood someone with a lot of invalid signatures which are all different?
584 2011-12-14 08:04:28 <copumpkin> meaning there wasn't a DER wrapper around the signature or anything like that
585 2011-12-14 08:04:46 <copumpkin> but all the usual RSA-isms I'm used to don't apply to your sigs
586 2011-12-14 08:04:48 <gmaxwell> wumpus: ... okay, you've performed a zero trust validation that its past my bedtime via proof of work. Thank you.
587 2011-12-14 08:05:12 <gmaxwell> (I was being idiotic)
588 2011-12-14 08:05:38 <wumpus> :D
589 2011-12-14 08:05:55 <gmaxwell> (too much thinking about block validation where the hash has a special expensive form that can be cheaply checked)
590 2011-12-14 08:06:29 <copumpkin> anyone here have an easily queryable history of large transactions on the block chain? I'm trying to determine the last time one of those 400k+ transactions happened
591 2011-12-14 08:06:31 <wumpus> yes maybe that's the solution, add a proof of work
592 2011-12-14 08:06:52 <copumpkin> it ran off the end of blockexplorer's window of 300 blocks
593 2011-12-14 08:07:07 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: you know those 400k txns are mtgox's right?
594 2011-12-14 08:07:24 <copumpkin> has magicaltux actually confirmed that? cause I asked him and he seemed surprised
595 2011-12-14 08:07:39 <copumpkin> and they appear to have stopped now
596 2011-12-14 08:07:52 <copumpkin> so I was just trying to figure out when they stopped to correlate with something else :)
597 2011-12-14 08:08:05 <gmaxwell> He confirmed control of of ~450k btc at a single address some months ago.
598 2011-12-14 08:08:06 <wumpus> maybe he didn't know he was generating them and he stopped when you notified him
599 2011-12-14 08:08:16 <gmaxwell> I suppose someone should go and trace to see if its mostly the same coin.
600 2011-12-14 08:08:19 <copumpkin> nah, they kept happening for a while afterwards
601 2011-12-14 08:08:28 <gmaxwell> I think people assumed that it was..
602 2011-12-14 08:08:39 <copumpkin> I did too, but I'd prefer to be extra sure :)
603 2011-12-14 08:08:57 <gmaxwell> and have been eagerly waiting to mr. cosmic ray to earn an doctorate in instant-deflation.
604 2011-12-14 08:09:24 <copumpkin> but anyway, does anyone have a record of those megatransactions, just to put my mind at rest? :)
605 2011-12-14 08:09:50 <gmaxwell> (if they were actually using bitcoind at least it checks that it can validate its own txn before sending itâ but god knows what they're using)
606 2011-12-14 08:10:28 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53848.0
607 2011-12-14 08:12:19 <copumpkin> did the original poster mean that he actually saw his withdrawal coming from that?
608 2011-12-14 08:12:32 SuprTiggr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
609 2011-12-14 08:12:59 <copumpkin> because the address he linked to didn't actually send a smaller transaction (which is usually the pattern)
610 2011-12-14 08:13:12 <gmaxwell> who knows... but someone could try to trace that back to the 400k btc that mtgox did demonstrate ownership before.
611 2011-12-14 08:13:55 <copumpkin> yeah, we need more graph analysis tools :)
612 2011-12-14 08:14:09 <copumpkin> but when mtgox demonstrated ownership is also relevant
613 2011-12-14 08:14:26 <copumpkin> since they might have ownership of it due to a massive transaction putting that much coin into mtgox
614 2011-12-14 08:14:28 larsivi has joined
615 2011-12-14 08:14:43 <copumpkin> (still from some single entity owning them)
616 2011-12-14 08:15:08 SuprTiggr has joined
617 2011-12-14 08:16:10 * copumpkin shrugs :) I'm still very curious as to when the movements stopped
618 2011-12-14 08:22:45 nr9 has joined
619 2011-12-14 08:25:13 AStove has quit ()
620 2011-12-14 08:31:25 coblee has quit (Quit: coblee)
621 2011-12-14 08:31:45 TiggrBot has joined
622 2011-12-14 08:32:34 coblee has joined
623 2011-12-14 08:37:38 erus` has joined
624 2011-12-14 08:38:01 OneFixt has joined
625 2011-12-14 08:38:27 OneFixt is now known as Guest99810
626 2011-12-14 08:40:36 Guest99810 has quit (Changing host)
627 2011-12-14 08:40:36 Guest99810 has joined
628 2011-12-14 08:40:45 Guest99810 is now known as OneFixt
629 2011-12-14 08:55:26 nr9 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
630 2011-12-14 09:02:07 arneis has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
631 2011-12-14 09:03:22 kish has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
632 2011-12-14 09:03:42 kish has joined
633 2011-12-14 09:03:49 weather has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
634 2011-12-14 09:04:19 weather has joined
635 2011-12-14 09:19:04 aleod has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
636 2011-12-14 09:23:57 TD has joined
637 2011-12-14 09:25:16 JZavala has joined
638 2011-12-14 09:41:38 coblee has quit (Quit: coblee)
639 2011-12-14 09:42:36 coblee has joined
640 2011-12-14 09:50:09 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
641 2011-12-14 09:57:50 Turingi has joined
642 2011-12-14 10:01:31 davout has joined
643 2011-12-14 10:01:47 iocor has joined
644 2011-12-14 10:02:49 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
645 2011-12-14 10:15:11 zeiris has joined
646 2011-12-14 10:27:05 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
647 2011-12-14 10:27:23 OneFixt has joined
648 2011-12-14 10:27:49 OneFixt is now known as Guest16743
649 2011-12-14 10:29:30 Guest16743 has quit (Changing host)
650 2011-12-14 10:29:30 Guest16743 has joined
651 2011-12-14 10:29:36 Guest16743 is now known as OneFixt
652 2011-12-14 10:39:56 abragin has joined
653 2011-12-14 10:52:09 wasabi3 has joined
654 2011-12-14 10:53:57 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
655 2011-12-14 10:54:02 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
656 2011-12-14 10:57:12 t4nk169 has joined
657 2011-12-14 11:03:39 _Fireball has joined
658 2011-12-14 11:05:22 chrisb__ has joined
659 2011-12-14 11:08:20 iocor has joined
660 2011-12-14 11:08:25 iocor has quit (Changing host)
661 2011-12-14 11:08:25 iocor has joined
662 2011-12-14 11:09:35 RazielZ has joined
663 2011-12-14 11:10:58 Jamesz has joined
664 2011-12-14 11:11:23 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
665 2011-12-14 11:17:20 forrestv has quit (Changing host)
666 2011-12-14 11:17:20 forrestv has joined
667 2011-12-14 11:19:26 Backburn has quit ()
668 2011-12-14 11:19:46 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
669 2011-12-14 11:20:16 davout has joined
670 2011-12-14 11:22:40 AAA_awright has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
671 2011-12-14 11:22:54 AAA_awright has joined
672 2011-12-14 11:26:41 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
673 2011-12-14 11:29:45 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
674 2011-12-14 11:32:56 davout has joined
675 2011-12-14 11:41:27 t4nk169 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
676 2011-12-14 11:43:15 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
677 2011-12-14 11:43:45 t4nk522 has joined
678 2011-12-14 11:44:19 sacarlson has joined
679 2011-12-14 11:44:37 iocor has joined
680 2011-12-14 11:47:29 t4nk522 has quit (Client Quit)
681 2011-12-14 11:47:58 t4nk549 has joined
682 2011-12-14 11:48:48 t4nk549 has quit (Client Quit)
683 2011-12-14 11:49:20 t4nk515 has joined
684 2011-12-14 12:03:39 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
685 2011-12-14 12:14:50 larsivi has joined
686 2011-12-14 12:19:13 Mqrius has joined
687 2011-12-14 12:20:34 <Mqrius> Hmm. I actually need an android app that notifies when block X is reached. That'd be nice...
688 2011-12-14 12:29:23 <t4nk515> ,
689 2011-12-14 12:36:45 p0s has joined
690 2011-12-14 12:37:43 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
691 2011-12-14 12:43:31 <sipa> gmaxwell: pubkeys are not der-encoded - it's an encoding defined by secp iirc
692 2011-12-14 12:44:22 <sipa> gmaxwell: signatures are der encoded (and any ber encoding of them is probably accepted)
693 2011-12-14 12:44:47 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
694 2011-12-14 12:46:57 wolfspraul has joined
695 2011-12-14 12:52:46 TheAncientGoat has joined
696 2011-12-14 13:14:33 datagutt has joined
697 2011-12-14 13:16:41 <SomeoneWeird> use irc and just keep annoying gribble
698 2011-12-14 13:16:45 <SomeoneWeird> Mqrius, ^^
699 2011-12-14 13:17:00 <Mqrius> heya
700 2011-12-14 13:17:25 <SomeoneWeird> ;;bc,blocks
701 2011-12-14 13:17:26 <gribble> 157483
702 2011-12-14 13:18:08 <Mqrius> I sent a transaction in block 157474, but silkroad hasn't processed it yet or something..
703 2011-12-14 13:18:15 <SomeoneWeird> COUGH.
704 2011-12-14 13:18:37 <SomeoneWeird> >.>
705 2011-12-14 13:18:42 <Mqrius> Not buying illegal stuff. I live in the Netherlands :)
706 2011-12-14 13:19:26 <Mqrius> Wonder why it takes so long though
707 2011-12-14 13:21:03 <SomeoneWeird> whats legal that silkroad sels?
708 2011-12-14 13:21:05 <SomeoneWeird> sells*?
709 2011-12-14 13:21:21 <Graet> depende where u live SomeoneWeird
710 2011-12-14 13:21:32 <SomeoneWeird> heh
711 2011-12-14 13:24:10 <Mqrius> Plenty of stuff. It's just a bit cheaper on silk road, occasionally.
712 2011-12-14 13:28:11 <SomeoneWeird> :)
713 2011-12-14 13:29:16 <Mqrius> Hm. Perhaps they send it through their tumbler upon entry? Then it would be 2x6 confirmations? Except that makes no sense at all.
714 2011-12-14 13:31:22 <SomeoneWeird> nah they'd trust their tumbler
715 2011-12-14 13:31:28 <SomeoneWeird> so no reason to add another 6
716 2011-12-14 13:32:59 minimoose has joined
717 2011-12-14 13:36:26 dvide has quit ()
718 2011-12-14 13:37:55 <Mqrius> Hm. Seem to be other people having issues on their forum today too. Guess I'll just wait
719 2011-12-14 13:39:46 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
720 2011-12-14 13:58:33 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
721 2011-12-14 14:01:00 chrisb__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
722 2011-12-14 14:09:48 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
723 2011-12-14 14:12:30 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
724 2011-12-14 14:14:05 chrisb__ has joined
725 2011-12-14 14:18:26 iocor has joined
726 2011-12-14 14:20:23 forbiddenfox has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
727 2011-12-14 14:21:16 gp5st has joined
728 2011-12-14 14:23:55 deepcrusade has joined
729 2011-12-14 14:29:36 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
730 2011-12-14 14:31:38 imsaguy2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
731 2011-12-14 14:33:05 iocor has joined
732 2011-12-14 14:35:11 imsaguy2 has joined
733 2011-12-14 14:35:12 imsaguy2 has quit (Changing host)
734 2011-12-14 14:35:12 imsaguy2 has joined
735 2011-12-14 14:35:54 AStove has joined
736 2011-12-14 14:36:05 iocor has quit (Client Quit)
737 2011-12-14 14:36:32 Diablo-D3 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
738 2011-12-14 14:41:47 Turingi has joined
739 2011-12-14 14:53:17 gp5st has left ()
740 2011-12-14 14:54:00 wasabi2 has joined
741 2011-12-14 14:55:46 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
742 2011-12-14 14:56:19 <[eval]> nlocktime doesn't do anything as far as preventing a spend of an output until a certain time, does it?
743 2011-12-14 14:56:48 <[eval]> is it possible (on prodnet) to send coins to an address that can't be redeemed until a certain block (or time)?
744 2011-12-14 14:58:36 iocor has joined
745 2011-12-14 15:00:11 <sipa> [eval]: yes, via nlocktime?
746 2011-12-14 15:02:13 TD has joined
747 2011-12-14 15:02:49 cronopio has joined
748 2011-12-14 15:03:17 <[eval]> sipa: is nLockTime currently used? if i set an nLockTime, will it be respected?
749 2011-12-14 15:03:26 <TD> [eval]: it isn't available currently
750 2011-12-14 15:03:32 <TD> it needs to be re-activated. then people have to upgrade :(
751 2011-12-14 15:03:47 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
752 2011-12-14 15:03:52 <[eval]> hrm. ok. so i can't give people bitcoins for xmas/hanukkah that they can't spend for 5 years, can i? :(
753 2011-12-14 15:04:08 <TD> not yet. if you know c++ and want to make that possible (along with the contracts it allows), that'd be a great contribution
754 2011-12-14 15:04:12 <TD> the work involves writing tests, mostly
755 2011-12-14 15:04:23 <TD> actually re-activating nLockTime just means deleting a line of code
756 2011-12-14 15:05:19 <sipa> i believe nLockTime is active?
757 2011-12-14 15:05:26 <sipa> transaction replacement isn't
758 2011-12-14 15:05:40 <[eval]> i know c++ to some degree (it's been a long time since i've done anything useful with it and i've never worked on code as complicated as that of bitcoin) but i don't know much about testing :/
759 2011-12-14 15:05:56 * [eval] looks into the code
760 2011-12-14 15:05:57 <epscy> nLockTime?
761 2011-12-14 15:06:04 <sipa> look in main.h
762 2011-12-14 15:06:11 <sipa> in CTransaction::IsFInal
763 2011-12-14 15:06:25 <epscy> how would that work, is it stored the blockchain?
764 2011-12-14 15:06:39 <sipa> yes, it's part of the transaction data
765 2011-12-14 15:06:41 <epscy> cos if it is in the client then surely you could just disable it?
766 2011-12-14 15:06:55 <sipa> and every miner and relaying node in the network checks it
767 2011-12-14 15:07:11 <epscy> how can you ensure every miner will respect it?
768 2011-12-14 15:07:15 <TD> hmm that's true. lock times aren't so useful without tx replacement, imho
769 2011-12-14 15:07:33 <TD> but if all you want to do is write a transaction that becomes valid after time T then i suppose it could work
770 2011-12-14 15:07:35 <[eval]> IsFinal() only seems to look at nSequence
771 2011-12-14 15:07:38 <[eval]> not nLockTime
772 2011-12-14 15:07:39 <epscy> if a miner allowed you to spend it before the lock time would other miners reject that block?
773 2011-12-14 15:07:50 <[eval]> oh that's ctxin
774 2011-12-14 15:08:03 <[eval]> brb gotta do work at work too :(
775 2011-12-14 15:08:26 <sipa> epscy: then that miner is breaking the network rules, and he will (probably) be ignored by "true" miners
776 2011-12-14 15:08:40 <TD> yeah it's validated as part of the block checks
777 2011-12-14 15:08:45 <TD> a block that breaks that rule will be rejected
778 2011-12-14 15:08:52 <epscy> interesting
779 2011-12-14 15:09:06 <epscy> i know the protocol works by consensus
780 2011-12-14 15:09:39 <epscy> but that seems to give the developers a lot of power
781 2011-12-14 15:10:09 <gmaxwell> 07:06 < epscy> if a miner allowed you to spend it before the lock time would other miners reject that block?
782 2011-12-14 15:10:22 <gmaxwell> Not just miners, everyone that validates which is most nodes today.
783 2011-12-14 15:10:26 <TD> the power lies in the hands of [a] people who decide whether or not to switch versions and [b] miners
784 2011-12-14 15:10:34 [Tycho] has joined
785 2011-12-14 15:10:35 merde has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
786 2011-12-14 15:11:00 <TD> if you want to play with lock times, try on the testnet or a private testnet
787 2011-12-14 15:12:03 <epscy> gmaxwell: cool so the transaction would probably not get relayed
788 2011-12-14 15:12:49 <sipa> epscy: it shouldn't be relayed by any full node
789 2011-12-14 15:13:03 <gmaxwell> not just that but all other (full) nodes will ignore the block as if it never happened.
790 2011-12-14 15:14:35 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
791 2011-12-14 15:14:40 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: I have a question about type 2 wallets
792 2011-12-14 15:14:53 <ThomasV> Privatekey(type,n) = Master_private_key + H(n|S|type)
793 2011-12-14 15:14:55 molecular has joined
794 2011-12-14 15:15:30 iocor has joined
795 2011-12-14 15:16:00 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: the result might exceed the allowed range; do I need to use a master private key that has 1 bit less ?
796 2011-12-14 15:16:12 merde has joined
797 2011-12-14 15:16:26 <[eval]> hrm
798 2011-12-14 15:16:30 <sipa> i would assume you do a modulo <fieldorder> afterwards
799 2011-12-14 15:16:42 <sipa> s/fieldorder/grouporder/
800 2011-12-14 15:16:49 <ThomasV> a modulo preserves the key?
801 2011-12-14 15:16:49 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: it's a field add. (or multiply) so it wraps.
802 2011-12-14 15:17:19 <ThomasV> it wraps?
803 2011-12-14 15:17:36 <t4nk515> hellou ppl =)
804 2011-12-14 15:17:45 t4nk515 is now known as hbz
805 2011-12-14 15:18:03 <[eval]> it doesn't look like nLockTime not being expired will actually prevent the transaction outputs from being spent
806 2011-12-14 15:18:23 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: what do you mean, "it wraps"
807 2011-12-14 15:18:35 <sipa> [eval]: no, but it does prevent the transaction from being included in a block
808 2011-12-14 15:18:38 <gmaxwell> [eval]: the outputs can't be mined because the inputs aren't mined yet.
809 2011-12-14 15:19:06 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: it's reduced modulo the group order.
810 2011-12-14 15:19:22 <sipa> [eval]: so you can "spend" it, in a 0-confirm sense, resulting in a new transaction that cannot be placed in a block either
811 2011-12-14 15:20:12 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: I see. but to implement it, I guess I use a normal addition + modulo, right?
812 2011-12-14 15:20:16 <gmaxwell> (and some of the things that you can do with nlocktime depend on being able to write transaction which aren't valid yet which depend on the not valid yet one)
813 2011-12-14 15:20:53 <[eval]> are testnet's rules for nlocktime different from prodnet's?
814 2011-12-14 15:20:58 T_X has joined
815 2011-12-14 15:20:58 <sipa> no
816 2011-12-14 15:20:58 T_X has quit (Changing host)
817 2011-12-14 15:20:58 T_X has joined
818 2011-12-14 15:21:32 <[eval]> so if i test this on testnet, and it works the way i want it to, i can use it on prodnet and it'll work the way it did on testnet... awesome!
819 2011-12-14 15:21:44 <sipa> it should, yes
820 2011-12-14 15:22:39 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
821 2011-12-14 15:31:44 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneWeirdzzzz
822 2011-12-14 15:41:49 Wrz has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
823 2011-12-14 15:46:07 copumpkin has joined
824 2011-12-14 15:46:49 Wrz has joined
825 2011-12-14 15:47:27 molecular has quit (Read error: No route to host)
826 2011-12-14 15:54:59 pumpkin has joined
827 2011-12-14 15:55:56 gavinandresen has joined
828 2011-12-14 15:56:33 <gavinandresen> good morning y'all.
829 2011-12-14 15:56:45 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: I read the chat logs....
830 2011-12-14 15:56:46 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
831 2011-12-14 16:00:03 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
832 2011-12-14 16:03:31 eueueue has joined
833 2011-12-14 16:03:48 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
834 2011-12-14 16:05:47 eueueue has quit (Client Quit)
835 2011-12-14 16:06:00 MobiusL has joined
836 2011-12-14 16:08:52 <[eval]> morning and congrats on block 157500 :>
837 2011-12-14 16:14:44 slush has joined
838 2011-12-14 16:16:55 Burgundy has joined
839 2011-12-14 16:18:34 luke-jr has quit (Excess Flood)
840 2011-12-14 16:18:53 luke-jr has joined
841 2011-12-14 16:18:55 molecular has joined
842 2011-12-14 16:21:50 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
843 2011-12-14 16:23:49 Litt has quit ()
844 2011-12-14 16:23:56 pumpkin is now known as copumpkin
845 2011-12-14 16:24:15 somuchwin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
846 2011-12-14 16:24:37 somuchwin has joined
847 2011-12-14 16:25:17 graingert has joined
848 2011-12-14 16:26:43 molecular has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
849 2011-12-14 16:28:12 hbz has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
850 2011-12-14 16:29:45 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
851 2011-12-14 16:30:21 megatorus has joined
852 2011-12-14 16:30:27 btc_novice has joined
853 2011-12-14 16:42:22 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
854 2011-12-14 16:55:28 erus` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
855 2011-12-14 16:56:25 dissipate_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
856 2011-12-14 16:59:38 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
857 2011-12-14 17:00:06 davout has joined
858 2011-12-14 17:00:24 iocor has joined
859 2011-12-14 17:03:15 abragin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
860 2011-12-14 17:03:16 _Fireball has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
861 2011-12-14 17:04:20 _Fireball has joined
862 2011-12-14 17:04:33 abragin has joined
863 2011-12-14 17:06:08 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
864 2011-12-14 17:09:07 spaola has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
865 2011-12-14 17:12:49 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
866 2011-12-14 17:13:27 Ken` has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
867 2011-12-14 17:14:29 devrandom has joined
868 2011-12-14 17:18:54 megatorus has quit (Quit: Page closed)
869 2011-12-14 17:19:46 darksk1ez has joined
870 2011-12-14 17:22:02 erus` has joined
871 2011-12-14 17:23:43 eueueue has joined
872 2011-12-14 17:24:30 tower has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
873 2011-12-14 17:25:13 <eueueue> Hi, I'm testing bitcoin 0.5.1 rc1 and I have a problem with traslation with portuguese BR
874 2011-12-14 17:25:16 <eueueue> see:
875 2011-12-14 17:25:23 <eueueue> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/860/capturadetelaih.png/
876 2011-12-14 17:25:27 <eueueue> look the menus
877 2011-12-14 17:25:42 <eueueue> start with amp:
878 2011-12-14 17:26:04 <eueueue> and shouldn't
879 2011-12-14 17:26:10 tower has joined
880 2011-12-14 17:26:20 <eueueue> is it a known problem?
881 2011-12-14 17:28:15 <eueueue> anyone?
882 2011-12-14 17:28:58 Litt has joined
883 2011-12-14 17:30:49 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
884 2011-12-14 17:31:26 Ken` has joined
885 2011-12-14 17:32:18 cronopio has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
886 2011-12-14 17:33:26 eueueue has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
887 2011-12-14 17:34:02 cronopio has joined
888 2011-12-14 17:42:49 megatorus has joined
889 2011-12-14 17:48:22 TheAncientGoat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
890 2011-12-14 17:50:29 PK_ has joined
891 2011-12-14 17:52:09 PK_ is now known as PK
892 2011-12-14 17:57:26 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
893 2011-12-14 17:58:00 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
894 2011-12-14 18:05:06 iocor has joined
895 2011-12-14 18:12:06 larsivi has joined
896 2011-12-14 18:14:31 ThomasV has joined
897 2011-12-14 18:17:03 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
898 2011-12-14 18:20:12 <ThomasV> tcatm: bitcoincharts is broken?
899 2011-12-14 18:21:56 <tcatm> ThomasV: what's wrong?
900 2011-12-14 18:23:08 <luke-jr> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-December/046136.html
901 2011-12-14 18:26:53 superman2016 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
902 2011-12-14 18:27:05 superman2016 has joined
903 2011-12-14 18:32:23 localhost has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
904 2011-12-14 18:32:53 <ThomasV> tcatm: graphs not updating
905 2011-12-14 18:32:59 <tcatm> which graphs?
906 2011-12-14 18:33:11 <ThomasV> http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg2ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv
907 2011-12-14 18:33:48 <tcatm> could be
908 2011-12-14 18:34:17 <tcatm> I don't have access to a graphical browser here.
909 2011-12-14 18:34:40 arneis has joined
910 2011-12-14 18:35:07 <ThomasV> tcatm: it's been so for about 6 hours now
911 2011-12-14 18:36:04 localhost has joined
912 2011-12-14 18:38:11 superman2016 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
913 2011-12-14 18:38:39 superman2016 has joined
914 2011-12-14 18:39:06 superman2016 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
915 2011-12-14 18:39:23 eueueue has joined
916 2011-12-14 18:39:35 superman2016 has joined
917 2011-12-14 18:39:38 <eueueue> Hi, not complete translation is a bug?
918 2011-12-14 18:40:06 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
919 2011-12-14 18:40:06 <eueueue> I see Portuguese BR is incomplete. How can I help?
920 2011-12-14 18:41:48 <gavinandresen> eueueue : translations are done using Transifex (website)
921 2011-12-14 18:41:48 <luke-jr> eueueue: clone git and start translating?\
922 2011-12-14 18:42:04 <tcatm> ThomasV: I'll try rebuilding the database
923 2011-12-14 18:42:11 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: not sure that fixes eueueue's bug
924 2011-12-14 18:42:17 <gavinandresen> https://www.transifex.net/projects/p/bitcoin/
925 2011-12-14 18:42:26 <eueueue> Sorry, I'm newbie. Any easy way to help translating
926 2011-12-14 18:42:28 <eueueue> ha ok
927 2011-12-14 18:42:30 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: somehow he's seeing HTML in the menus
928 2011-12-14 18:42:45 <eueueue> will see the site
929 2011-12-14 18:42:53 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: yes, I know, I opened an issue about that'
930 2011-12-14 18:44:10 <wumpus> <source>&Copy to Clipboard</source>
931 2011-12-14 18:44:10 <wumpus> <translation>&amp; Copie para a área de transferência do sistema</translation>
932 2011-12-14 18:44:21 <wumpus> yes, there's certainly something wrong in the BR translation
933 2011-12-14 18:44:35 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
934 2011-12-14 18:45:43 <wumpus> almost all of the translations are prefixed with &amp and a space
935 2011-12-14 18:46:09 <gavinandresen> Ah, nice, the testnet CAlert message cleared itself
936 2011-12-14 18:46:20 <wumpus> good
937 2011-12-14 18:46:31 <luke-jr> does Transifex let us add strings of not-yet-merged -- maybe even not-yet-written -- stuff, so we can preemptively get translations?
938 2011-12-14 18:46:53 <gavinandresen> I should have set a quicker expiration time, so gmaxwell et al weren't tempted to broadcast it on the main net....
939 2011-12-14 18:46:54 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: "cleared"?
940 2011-12-14 18:47:03 <luke-jr> oh, they expire? :/
941 2011-12-14 18:47:04 <gavinandresen> CAlerts are sent with an expiration time
942 2011-12-14 18:47:12 <luke-jr> nuts
943 2011-12-14 18:47:42 <gavinandresen> Yes, they have "relay until" and "completely expire" times.
944 2011-12-14 18:48:04 <wumpus> luke-jr: I think so, if you upload a ts with those strings (though do mind that Qt translations have a context as well which should also be right)
945 2011-12-14 18:48:24 <luke-jr> wumpus: well, a ts implies the code is written :P
946 2011-12-14 18:49:00 <wumpus> well maybe the management interface allows adding strings too, I don't know, never seen taht
947 2011-12-14 18:49:40 <luke-jr> wow, 27k lines of diff if I run lupdate on next-test
948 2011-12-14 18:50:02 <luke-jr> 25k on master :o
949 2011-12-14 18:50:31 <wumpus> yes, I don't think lupdate is used for the languages; the ts files come from transifex
950 2011-12-14 18:51:14 <luke-jr> â¦
951 2011-12-14 18:52:20 <wumpus> which probably has a slightly different xml formatting
952 2011-12-14 18:52:36 <luke-jr> even still, the en ts is outdated by 1.5k lines
953 2011-12-14 18:53:04 <wumpus> the en ts is only used to fill in some strings, it is not meant to be complete
954 2011-12-14 18:53:24 <wumpus> (ie, to make plurals work)
955 2011-12-14 18:53:25 <luke-jr> well then what's the source for Transifex?
956 2011-12-14 18:53:29 <wumpus> ask tcatm
957 2011-12-14 18:54:03 <luke-jr> also, I didn't mean incomplete.
958 2011-12-14 18:54:09 <luke-jr> I meant not in sync with the code
959 2011-12-14 18:54:27 <luke-jr> ie, missing strings
960 2011-12-14 18:54:49 <wumpus> yes for en that doesn't matter, it is supposed to skip most strings
961 2011-12-14 18:54:56 <wumpus> for the other languages that's not supposed to be the case though
962 2011-12-14 18:59:21 diki has joined
963 2011-12-14 18:59:46 <diki> I don't suppose I need to compile a shit ton of things for mingw64(windows) in order to use pdcurses and stuff
964 2011-12-14 18:59:47 <diki> ?
965 2011-12-14 19:00:13 <diki> Cause mingw32 has a small mingw-get, for stuff
966 2011-12-14 19:00:25 <diki> but mingw64 does not look like it has such a feature
967 2011-12-14 19:09:04 <wumpus> why use mingw64 at all?
968 2011-12-14 19:09:41 <diki> to compile x64 apps?
969 2011-12-14 19:09:56 <diki> or rather, minerd which provides 1.2 kilohashes more under x64
970 2011-12-14 19:10:05 <diki> and I mean native x64 compiled code
971 2011-12-14 19:10:09 tower has quit (Quit: | ReactOS - The FOSS alternative to MS Windows! | http://www.reactos.org/ | join #ReactOS |)
972 2011-12-14 19:10:10 <diki> for litecoin etc
973 2011-12-14 19:10:28 <wumpus> yeah just noticed most people are fine and dandy with 32bit apps on 64 bit windows
974 2011-12-14 19:11:08 <diki> hmm
975 2011-12-14 19:11:19 <diki> maybe I can use gcc's --host switch and start from there
976 2011-12-14 19:11:24 <diki> --host/target
977 2011-12-14 19:11:33 ForceMajeure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
978 2011-12-14 19:12:25 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
979 2011-12-14 19:12:40 DaQatz has quit (Quit: leaving)
980 2011-12-14 19:13:11 superman2016 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
981 2011-12-14 19:13:32 superman2016 has joined
982 2011-12-14 19:15:45 tower has joined
983 2011-12-14 19:15:50 mits9 has joined
984 2011-12-14 19:15:56 DaQatz has joined
985 2011-12-14 19:16:58 eueueue has quit (Quit: Saindo)
986 2011-12-14 19:21:56 molecular has joined
987 2011-12-14 19:26:54 <tcatm> ThomasV: does it work onw?
988 2011-12-14 19:27:54 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
989 2011-12-14 19:28:46 <ThomasV> tcatm: yes
990 2011-12-14 19:28:50 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
991 2011-12-14 19:31:13 megatorus has quit (Quit: Page closed)
992 2011-12-14 19:32:29 theorbtwo has joined
993 2011-12-14 19:33:40 DaQatz has joined
994 2011-12-14 19:34:11 Kolky has joined
995 2011-12-14 19:34:24 K0lky has joined
996 2011-12-14 19:34:24 K0lky has quit (Client Quit)
997 2011-12-14 19:42:22 dan__ has joined
998 2011-12-14 19:45:59 superman2016 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
999 2011-12-14 19:46:59 superman2016 has joined
1000 2011-12-14 19:56:15 wasabi3 has joined
1001 2011-12-14 19:57:36 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1002 2011-12-14 20:00:19 chrisb__ has joined
1003 2011-12-14 20:00:41 ahbritto_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1004 2011-12-14 20:01:36 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1005 2011-12-14 20:01:36 theorb has joined
1006 2011-12-14 20:01:45 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
1007 2011-12-14 20:10:28 Shaded has joined
1008 2011-12-14 20:10:34 <Shaded> Does Nefario use IRC?
1009 2011-12-14 20:11:33 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1010 2011-12-14 20:11:54 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1011 2011-12-14 20:13:13 <graingert> !seen nefario
1012 2011-12-14 20:13:13 <gribble> nefario was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 17 weeks, 2 days, 17 hours, 23 minutes, and 10 seconds ago: <nefario> payup
1013 2011-12-14 20:13:13 <TiggrBot> I havent seen {0}
1014 2011-12-14 20:15:48 kjj has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1015 2011-12-14 20:19:57 eueueue has joined
1016 2011-12-14 20:21:40 erle- has joined
1017 2011-12-14 20:28:35 iocor has joined
1018 2011-12-14 20:28:36 RazielZ has joined
1019 2011-12-14 20:31:07 kjj has joined
1020 2011-12-14 20:31:10 iocor has quit (Client Quit)
1021 2011-12-14 20:32:32 iocor has joined
1022 2011-12-14 20:33:04 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1023 2011-12-14 20:39:22 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1024 2011-12-14 20:40:27 phantomfake has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1025 2011-12-14 20:48:27 iocor has joined
1026 2011-12-14 20:48:27 iocor has quit (Changing host)
1027 2011-12-14 20:48:27 iocor has joined
1028 2011-12-14 20:49:21 <luke-jr> tcatm: so⦠any hints on checking the status of translations, and that your translation site is up to date?
1029 2011-12-14 20:56:07 copumpkin is now known as dynamicfish
1030 2011-12-14 20:58:27 <sipa> a statically typed dynamicfish?
1031 2011-12-14 20:58:39 * dynamicfish stares blankly at sipa
1032 2011-12-14 21:00:28 dynamicfish is now known as copumpkin
1033 2011-12-14 21:03:14 topace has quit (Quit: http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.)
1034 2011-12-14 21:03:21 topace has joined
1035 2011-12-14 21:04:10 imsaguy has joined
1036 2011-12-14 21:06:42 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1037 2011-12-14 21:06:54 OneFixt has joined
1038 2011-12-14 21:07:20 OneFixt is now known as Guest62566
1039 2011-12-14 21:13:11 eueueue has quit (Quit: Saindo)
1040 2011-12-14 21:14:27 copumpkin is now known as classtype-typeda
1041 2011-12-14 21:15:37 classtype-typeda is now known as copumpkin
1042 2011-12-14 21:17:58 da2ce7 has joined
1043 2011-12-14 21:19:55 ThomasV has joined
1044 2011-12-14 21:24:33 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1045 2011-12-14 21:27:33 <ThomasV> tcatm: apparently your database has a gap in may
1046 2011-12-14 21:28:14 <ThomasV> well, for mtgox
1047 2011-12-14 21:29:14 <luke-jr> I think script.cpp:ExtractAddressInner has a bug. Can someone confirm? It returns true even if the opcode doesn't have the address/keyâ¦
1048 2011-12-14 21:30:14 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1049 2011-12-14 21:31:15 da2ce7 has joined
1050 2011-12-14 21:36:16 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: you mean "returns true even if the keystore doesn't...." ?
1051 2011-12-14 21:37:13 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I'm assumign the keystore == NULL scenario
1052 2011-12-14 21:37:26 <luke-jr> and a script starting with something besides the key/hash
1053 2011-12-14 21:37:52 <gavinandresen> Hmm? vSolutions are only solutions for the standard scripts
1054 2011-12-14 21:38:14 <gavinandresen> Solver() returns false if it gets a script that doesn't match one of the standard templates
1055 2011-12-14 21:39:20 <gavinandresen> ... so item.first will always be either OP_PUBKEY or OP_PUBKEYHASH. Well, until the OP_EVAL patch is pulled....
1056 2011-12-14 21:39:28 Diablo-D3 has joined
1057 2011-12-14 21:39:42 plutonic has joined
1058 2011-12-14 21:39:49 <gavinandresen> It would be clearer if there was another else that did an assert("error..." == 0) or something
1059 2011-12-14 21:43:34 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: so you're saying 100% of cases where ExtractAddress is called, cannot reproduce this particular bug?
1060 2011-12-14 21:43:47 <luke-jr> but ExtractAddress is technically not a private symbol.. ;)
1061 2011-12-14 21:44:36 <gavinandresen> I'm saying that unless you have modified Solver(), that bug will not happen.
1062 2011-12-14 21:44:49 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: Solver() isn't called in ExtractAddress
1063 2011-12-14 21:44:59 <luke-jr> wait
1064 2011-12-14 21:45:01 <luke-jr> nm
1065 2011-12-14 21:45:15 <luke-jr> ah well
1066 2011-12-14 21:45:26 <luke-jr> can at least remove the FOREACH to be clear :P
1067 2011-12-14 21:46:11 <gavinandresen> ExtractAddress changes with the multisignature changes
1068 2011-12-14 21:46:23 <luke-jr> ok, so then it WILL be a bug? :P
1069 2011-12-14 21:46:32 <gavinandresen> ... because there may be more than one signature to extract....
1070 2011-12-14 21:46:34 <luke-jr> but does it make sense to use ExtractAddress on a multisig? :/
1071 2011-12-14 21:46:49 <luke-jr> right, ExtractAddress assumes there is only one though
1072 2011-12-14 21:47:11 <phantomcircuit> ThomasV, bitcoincharts has been modified to reflect trades which were reversed
1073 2011-12-14 21:47:17 <gavinandresen> https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/blob/op_eval/src/script.cpp#L1445
1074 2011-12-14 21:47:35 <luke-jr> ah
1075 2011-12-14 21:47:54 <gavinandresen> So: bug fixed.
1076 2011-12-14 21:48:12 <gavinandresen> Wait, no: not-a-bug, but fixed anyway.
1077 2011-12-14 21:49:04 <cjdelisle> not-a-bug, but fixed anyway :)
1078 2011-12-14 21:49:56 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1079 2011-12-14 21:50:25 <luke-jr> theoretical, but not practical, bug
1080 2011-12-14 21:52:20 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1081 2011-12-14 21:53:02 _Fireball has quit (Quit: HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- In tests, 0x09 out of 0x0A l33t h4x0rz prefer it :))
1082 2011-12-14 21:54:02 da2ce7 has joined
1083 2011-12-14 21:56:28 osmosis has joined
1084 2011-12-14 21:57:28 theymos has joined
1085 2011-12-14 21:58:25 ThomasV has joined
1086 2011-12-14 21:58:27 ThomasV has quit (Changing host)
1087 2011-12-14 21:58:27 ThomasV has joined
1088 2011-12-14 22:01:53 <da2ce7> luke-jr: you arround?
1089 2011-12-14 22:02:38 <da2ce7> well anyway; I wanted to weigh in on the 'human remembreable bitcoin address' debate...
1090 2011-12-14 22:02:50 <luke-jr> â¦
1091 2011-12-14 22:02:57 <luke-jr> why does that mean pinging me?
1092 2011-12-14 22:03:15 <da2ce7> why don't we just send coins to a namecoin address?? since we are useing compadible private keys...
1093 2011-12-14 22:03:22 <da2ce7> *name coin name-coin.
1094 2011-12-14 22:04:32 <luke-jr> da2ce7: wtf does that have to do with anything?
1095 2011-12-14 22:04:37 <da2ce7> why you; well it seems (from following the decussion on the mailing list) that you have your head in the clearest position of the lot.
1096 2011-12-14 22:04:49 <da2ce7> well there is no binding or anything...
1097 2011-12-14 22:05:06 <da2ce7> just lookup the namecoin address; then send your coins to the owner of that address.
1098 2011-12-14 22:05:11 <da2ce7> *record.
1099 2011-12-14 22:05:35 cronopio has quit (Quit: leaving)
1100 2011-12-14 22:05:37 <da2ce7> as namecoin and bitcoin are compadible.
1101 2011-12-14 22:05:41 <sipa> use namecoin as dns resolver if you like
1102 2011-12-14 22:05:53 <sipa> don't if you don't
1103 2011-12-14 22:06:08 <da2ce7> no need for a bitcoin address; just use the address of the namecoin -namecoin... or whatever it's name is :P
1104 2011-12-14 22:06:08 <luke-jr> â¦
1105 2011-12-14 22:07:57 <sipa> da2ce7: btw, justmoon found a way to make the bloom filter idea viable
1106 2011-12-14 22:08:07 <sipa> using two filters
1107 2011-12-14 22:08:09 <da2ce7> oh great!
1108 2011-12-14 22:08:11 <da2ce7> :)
1109 2011-12-14 22:08:29 <helo> so someone registers a namecoin address where a value is your bitcoin address
1110 2011-12-14 22:08:51 <luke-jr> sipa: what bloom filter idea?
1111 2011-12-14 22:09:16 <da2ce7> helo: no not even that... a specal namecoin 'name-coin' is used as the owniship token for any namecoin record.
1112 2011-12-14 22:09:21 skeledrew has quit (Quit: Instantbird 1.2a1pre)
1113 2011-12-14 22:09:46 <da2ce7> we can just send bitcoin's to public key of that specal 'name-coin'
1114 2011-12-14 22:10:32 <da2ce7> no need to define any record dns at all... we only need a globaly unique string... that namecoin provides.
1115 2011-12-14 22:10:47 Fnar has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1116 2011-12-14 22:12:19 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1117 2011-12-14 22:13:34 PK has quit ()
1118 2011-12-14 22:13:41 extor has joined
1119 2011-12-14 22:19:01 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1120 2011-12-14 22:21:42 ForceMajeure has joined
1121 2011-12-14 22:22:12 phantomfake has joined
1122 2011-12-14 22:23:10 Fnar has joined
1123 2011-12-14 22:24:56 <luke-jr> da2ce7: while I'm polite and cooperative with namecoin, I oppose the concept, and wouldn't want to encourage wider adoption.
1124 2011-12-14 22:25:33 <cjdelisle> the concept of dns or the concept of an alternative currency to bitcoin?
1125 2011-12-14 22:25:51 <da2ce7> oh ok. i quite like the namecoin concept
1126 2011-12-14 22:25:54 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: the concept of DNS beyond the reach of court orders
1127 2011-12-14 22:26:21 <helo> i kind of like the concept of money beyond the reach of court orders
1128 2011-12-14 22:26:36 <helo> surely money can do anything DNS could do
1129 2011-12-14 22:26:37 <gmaxwell> Namecoin isn't beyond the reach of court orders. Namecoin makes the courts go after _people_ where lawful process can be upheld, instead of mucking with systems where there is no one with the standing to make sure lawful process is followed.
1130 2011-12-14 22:26:39 <da2ce7> oh; philosophically dislike namecoin
1131 2011-12-14 22:26:50 <luke-jr> helo: money has no effect on people other than the holder
1132 2011-12-14 22:27:06 <theymos> I like the idea, but I think Namecoin could have been done a lot better. I don't think the current system's economic model or technology will scale.
1133 2011-12-14 22:27:07 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: you can't physically take a NMC address from someone
1134 2011-12-14 22:27:14 <cjdelisle> What about DDoS or death threats? Should dns not be immune to those?
1135 2011-12-14 22:27:28 <gmaxwell> The situation we have today allowed unelected government employees broad power to muck with people without providing for any due process or remedy for error.
1136 2011-12-14 22:27:35 <luke-jr> btw, someone was talking about implementing dynamic DNS with namecoin block chain the other dayâ¦
1137 2011-12-14 22:27:45 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: no, but you physically put the person with that NMC address in jail if they disobey the orders of a court.
1138 2011-12-14 22:27:54 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: that won't fix the domain
1139 2011-12-14 22:28:01 <da2ce7> if you can prove it....
1140 2011-12-14 22:28:15 <gmaxwell> If someone wants to go to jail over their dns name, then great. Thats a balance.
1141 2011-12-14 22:28:17 <da2ce7> namecoin is a great way to provide names for TOR hidden services
1142 2011-12-14 22:28:46 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it's not a solution
1143 2011-12-14 22:29:09 random_cat has joined
1144 2011-12-14 22:29:24 <da2ce7> luke-jr: I'm like any non-violent technology; namecoin is a usefull technology that helps people.
1145 2011-12-14 22:29:32 <da2ce7> *well; if used.
1146 2011-12-14 22:29:34 <luke-jr> I suppose you could argue the domain will expire eventuallyâ¦
1147 2011-12-14 22:29:46 <gmaxwell> It will, of course.
1148 2011-12-14 22:29:47 <cjdelisle> I like the consept of a DNS root which is resistant to terrorist attacks and cyber-warfare, but I don't like the idea of an alternative currency to support it.
1149 2011-12-14 22:30:08 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: implement a better alternative ;)
1150 2011-12-14 22:30:16 <luke-jr> also, solve squatters while you're at it :P
1151 2011-12-14 22:30:28 <da2ce7> cjdelisle: the currecny is just to make sure that names are not too cheap; and so that they are not all parked.
1152 2011-12-14 22:30:42 <luke-jr> da2ce7: they ARE too cheap.
1153 2011-12-14 22:30:49 <luke-jr> and most parked
1154 2011-12-14 22:30:50 <da2ce7> any limited resource (good names), should have a cost.
1155 2011-12-14 22:30:53 <cjdelisle> I intend on implementing something which uses the bitcoin chain for authority and an external system for getting the information.
1156 2011-12-14 22:31:06 <theymos> Yeah, I'd like DNS to use Bitcoin. Then the DNS service wouldn't have to worry about currency issues, and Bitcoin would get some "inherent value".
1157 2011-12-14 22:31:14 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: because you want bitcoin to fail.
1158 2011-12-14 22:31:28 <cjdelisle> lol gmaxwell :)
1159 2011-12-14 22:31:34 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: NOT the bitcoin chain
1160 2011-12-14 22:32:09 <da2ce7> theymos: I just non't like the idea of sticking all the dns info into the blockchain; but I guess that we _could_ use OP_EVAL for that...
1161 2011-12-14 22:32:14 <cjdelisle> It's not as if it would add anything to the bitcoin chain which wouldn't be there already if people had to spend btc to get a domain.
1162 2011-12-14 22:32:39 <cjdelisle> "sticking all the dns info into the blockchain" <-- Agreed, that is a very bad idea
1163 2011-12-14 22:32:49 <gmaxwell> theymos: merged mining creates that benefit for miningâ now, if namecoin is successful, people can lose interest in bitcoin mostly and bitcoin may still be immune to attack. Thats a very important improvement.
1164 2011-12-14 22:33:29 <cjdelisle> gmaxwell: has invested in namecoin and doesn't want a dns system which doesn't use his pyrimid scheme :P
1165 2011-12-14 22:33:34 <cjdelisle> see I can point fingers too
1166 2011-12-14 22:33:35 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: sure it would, because there isn't a 1:1 mapping between btc transactions and purchases.
1167 2011-12-14 22:33:42 <theymos> gmaxwell: Yeah, merged mining is a big improvement. That's when I stopped thinking Namecoin was doomed and started thinking it might be (unfortunately) good enough to succeed, even though it is not as good as I'd like it.
1168 2011-12-14 22:33:45 <luke-jr> cjdelisle could make it so you have to declare <output of at least N value> to represent the name, and if you spend that, you transfer the coin. ;)
1169 2011-12-14 22:34:07 <luke-jr> and your client would need to be careful to never spend it accidentally (by using a custom script?)
1170 2011-12-14 22:34:34 <cjdelisle> That's my basic thinking, making lookups fast is the hard part
1171 2011-12-14 22:34:40 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: Except your allegation there is a question of factâ I own a grand total of 150 nmc at the moment (maybe 200 depending on when luke pays out). I don't really give a shit about it, what I don't want is hundreds of gigs of naming database data in the open transactions of bitcoin, causing the premature loss of decenteralization.
1172 2011-12-14 22:34:45 <cjdelisle> and it's the part which the nmc people have refused to consider
1173 2011-12-14 22:34:49 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: just keep a hash of all names?
1174 2011-12-14 22:35:25 <cjdelisle> I would like a general purpose solution which allows for fast lookups and validations of names and of bitcoin transactions.
1175 2011-12-14 22:35:33 <theymos> A DNS chain without a currency could be a constant 10,000 blocks long (or whatever). DNS names expire, so you don't need to keep a full history.
1176 2011-12-14 22:35:50 <cjdelisle> That would be very nice since it would give speed to both BTC and name lookups
1177 2011-12-14 22:35:56 <gmaxwell> theymos: namecoin already allows that much, â it has fixed expiration for that reason.
1178 2011-12-14 22:36:10 <gmaxwell> they just haven't implemented the pruning crap.
1179 2011-12-14 22:36:31 <theymos> gmaxwell: Doesn't it still have to keep track of old unspent currency transactions like Bitcoin does?
1180 2011-12-14 22:36:31 <luke-jr> theymos: why use blocks?
1181 2011-12-14 22:36:50 <theymos> luke-jr: Keeping track of ordering is useful with DNS.
1182 2011-12-14 22:37:00 <luke-jr> theymos: no, you just need the current state
1183 2011-12-14 22:37:07 <gmaxwell> theymos: yes, but you don't need to if you're just a zero trust resolver and not a miner.
1184 2011-12-14 22:37:23 <gmaxwell> (and like bitcoin you do just need open txn if you're pruned)
1185 2011-12-14 22:37:46 <theymos> gmaxwell: That's a good point. What's the fixed expiration time in Namecoin?
1186 2011-12-14 22:37:47 <luke-jr> and the Bitcoin block chain tracks where that magic output gets transferred ;)
1187 2011-12-14 22:38:08 <gmaxwell> theymos: 12000 blocks I think.
1188 2011-12-14 22:38:47 <cjdelisle> Oh, +1 benefit of having names integrated in btc is that you can know who you're sending to.
1189 2011-12-14 22:38:48 <luke-jr> IMO, a DNS based on Bitcoin could be implemented with only a "current state of all names" record in the MM table
1190 2011-12-14 22:38:53 <luke-jr> ie, no chain
1191 2011-12-14 22:39:08 <Diablo-D3> no it cant
1192 2011-12-14 22:39:12 <Diablo-D3> you need previous work to prove future work
1193 2011-12-14 22:39:15 <luke-jr> nope.
1194 2011-12-14 22:39:20 <Diablo-D3> yup.
1195 2011-12-14 22:39:23 <gmaxwell> "current state of all names" for .com is like 100gigs of data. doesn't work so well if having to keep the whole thing is the only way to have it work securely though.
1196 2011-12-14 22:39:37 <gmaxwell> (thats fine for mining, but I'm talking about a resolver)
1197 2011-12-14 22:39:49 <Diablo-D3> dude
1198 2011-12-14 22:39:52 <cjdelisle> That's because NMC is fail
1199 2011-12-14 22:39:53 <Diablo-D3> by the time namecoin wins
1200 2011-12-14 22:39:55 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: a resolver already needs the entire state for DNS
1201 2011-12-14 22:39:59 <Diablo-D3> 100gb will be nothing
1202 2011-12-14 22:40:00 <Diablo-D3> I mean fuck
1203 2011-12-14 22:40:05 <cjdelisle> lol
1204 2011-12-14 22:40:07 <Diablo-D3> I can buy tablets and cell phones with like 64 now
1205 2011-12-14 22:40:15 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: no, thus recursive resolvers. (which can be secure with DNSSEC too)
1206 2011-12-14 22:40:23 <cjdelisle> ^lol
1207 2011-12-14 22:40:57 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: obviously only the root level is in the name-state
1208 2011-12-14 22:41:01 <gmaxwell> (I'm not saying DNSSEC is puppies and flowers, but unless NMC gets a way to do lite resolvers, its not even as good)
1209 2011-12-14 22:41:05 <luke-jr> those have DNSSEC+NS records
1210 2011-12-14 22:41:24 <cjdelisle> I really like gmaxwell's proposal to build a hash tree from transactions which have not been spent yet, that should be integratable into the 0trust resolver.
1211 2011-12-14 22:41:39 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: thats why I proposed it.
1212 2011-12-14 22:41:46 <cjdelisle> DNSSEC is brilliant -- except for the small problem that it doesn't work.
1213 2011-12-14 22:42:15 <luke-jr> ok, Bitcoin-based DNSSEC replacement :P
1214 2011-12-14 22:42:19 <cjdelisle> And it won't work until the DNSSEC people stop taking every critique as a personal attack.
1215 2011-12-14 22:42:41 <cjdelisle> I like your thinking luke
1216 2011-12-14 22:42:51 TD has joined
1217 2011-12-14 22:43:01 <Diablo-D3> DNSSEC can be implemented without the DNSSEC people anyhow
1218 2011-12-14 22:43:10 <Diablo-D3> once they release a spec, thats it, game over
1219 2011-12-14 22:43:16 <luke-jr> each root-level domain would have: serial(only goes up), output controlling it (txnid+index), signing key, and NS records
1220 2011-12-14 22:43:48 <luke-jr> verification would only allow changing the control-output if it was spent in the Bitcoin chain, and only to an output of the transaction it was spent to
1221 2011-12-14 22:43:52 <gmaxwell> again, if you stuff this stuff into bitcoin directly you increase the chance that both failâ we have severe danger of outgrowing our ability to stay decenteralized. Ideally, the naming cand currency should be seperate but interoperable with shared security.. so that you can scale it by keeping nodes seperate.
1222 2011-12-14 22:44:02 <luke-jr> serial could be reset to 0 only when changing control-output
1223 2011-12-14 22:44:04 <cjdelisle> I would like to, in so far as possible, keep everything out of the bitcoin chain.
1224 2011-12-14 22:44:09 <luke-jr> otherwise only validates upward
1225 2011-12-14 22:44:12 abragin has quit ()
1226 2011-12-14 22:44:16 <Diablo-D3> I agree with gmaxwell
1227 2011-12-14 22:44:27 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin just isnt designed for generic data storage
1228 2011-12-14 22:44:34 <Diablo-D3> ie, btc isnt an "app" for the bitcoin chain.
1229 2011-12-14 22:44:37 easyat has joined
1230 2011-12-14 22:44:39 <Diablo-D3> its the primary and only user
1231 2011-12-14 22:44:46 <Diablo-D3> nmc leeching off btc the way it does is acceptable.
1232 2011-12-14 22:44:51 <luke-jr> oh, the root-level domains also each have signed-with-output-key(serial + NS records)
1233 2011-12-14 22:44:52 <cjdelisle> My ideal is to have just a regular transaction which pays to 2 keys, one is the hash of the name and the other is the key which controls that record.
1234 2011-12-14 22:44:58 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt harm btc, but it provides the needed security
1235 2011-12-14 22:45:18 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: yeah, but you still need to store 9 billion GB of trash in the chain
1236 2011-12-14 22:45:19 <luke-jr> and the current-state "block" would go in the merged-mining table like namecoin blocks do
1237 2011-12-14 22:45:34 <luke-jr> miners and resolvers then only need to keep the latest current-state
1238 2011-12-14 22:45:51 <theymos> gmaxwell: Is your proposal to include the root hash of a hash tree of all unexpired domain transactions in the NMC block header? That sounds pretty good.
1239 2011-12-14 22:46:01 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: no, that destroys bitcoins
1240 2011-12-14 22:46:14 <cjdelisle> why is that?
1241 2011-12-14 22:46:24 <gmaxwell> theymos: yes. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21995.0 bytecoin has written more about similar ideas.
1242 2011-12-14 22:46:31 <Diablo-D3> you know
1243 2011-12-14 22:46:39 <Diablo-D3> Im actually wondering if bitcoin is worth it
1244 2011-12-14 22:46:43 <Diablo-D3> too many people just dont get it
1245 2011-12-14 22:47:40 <cjdelisle> So you expect every node to keep the entire chain forever?
1246 2011-12-14 22:47:55 <cjdelisle> Like we're never going to get beyond the "everyone knows everything" phase?
1247 2011-12-14 22:48:24 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: no
1248 2011-12-14 22:48:35 <Diablo-D3> we need a COW data storage system
1249 2011-12-14 22:48:54 <Diablo-D3> that uses bitcoin-like storage methodology but doesn't require the data stored itself to prove the chain
1250 2011-12-14 22:49:20 <cjdelisle> so if not every node needs to hold the whole chain, what is the risk of having a bunch of transactions for domains?
1251 2011-12-14 22:49:28 <Diablo-D3> which then it becomes a two part solution, a foocoin chain that is somewhat normal and then asymetric COW block storage and retrieval
1252 2011-12-14 22:49:32 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1253 2011-12-14 22:49:50 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: no, they need the whole chain, they DONT need the data stored that is proved by the chain
1254 2011-12-14 22:50:32 <cjdelisle> Ok so imagine I started a dns system but I didn't want to make an alternative currency
1255 2011-12-14 22:50:41 <cjdelisle> you buy a domain by sending btc
1256 2011-12-14 22:50:56 <cjdelisle> so every time someone buys a domain, that creates a btc transaction
1257 2011-12-14 22:51:02 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: no
1258 2011-12-14 22:51:06 <Diablo-D3> because you think btc is a currency
1259 2011-12-14 22:51:07 <Diablo-D3> its not
1260 2011-12-14 22:51:09 AStove has quit ()
1261 2011-12-14 22:51:16 <Diablo-D3> its a crypto token system
1262 2011-12-14 22:51:34 <cjdelisle> ok well then I guess everyone is using it wrong
1263 2011-12-14 22:51:42 BlueMatt has joined
1264 2011-12-14 22:51:43 <Diablo-D3> technically yes, they are
1265 2011-12-14 22:51:48 <Diablo-D3> they're not buying "bitcoins"
1266 2011-12-14 22:51:54 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1267 2011-12-14 22:52:01 <Diablo-D3> they're buying crypto tokens that are proven unique
1268 2011-12-14 22:52:27 <cjdelisle> What is the point of differentiating?
1269 2011-12-14 22:52:42 <cjdelisle> Are you arguing that everyone who uses bitcoin needs to get offa your lawn?
1270 2011-12-14 22:52:54 <Diablo-D3> no, Im saying learn how the fuck bitcoin works before commenting.
1271 2011-12-14 22:53:06 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1272 2011-12-14 22:53:16 <Diablo-D3> satoshi was merely a tad clever when he made the crypto tokens the currency "paper" itself.
1273 2011-12-14 22:53:39 <cjdelisle> TIL this will never ever work without making the transactions look *exactly* like innocent transactions
1274 2011-12-14 22:54:14 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: and then it becomes very expensive to run, because you can't have special validation rules for it.
1275 2011-12-14 22:54:23 <Diablo-D3> transactions in bitcoin are not transactions in the sense of money, its a transaction in the sense of distributed concurrent database design
1276 2011-12-14 22:54:30 <gmaxwell> All this goes away if its a parallel system with shared pow work...
1277 2011-12-14 22:54:38 <Diablo-D3> (which, somewhat ironically, you can implement the first using the second)
1278 2011-12-14 22:55:25 <cjdelisle> yea, it is kind of crappy that you need a whole validation infrastructure external to the system but that's the situation we have
1279 2011-12-14 22:55:34 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: well this is what Im saying
1280 2011-12-14 22:55:45 <Diablo-D3> lets say I build a COW data storage system
1281 2011-12-14 22:55:56 <Diablo-D3> ie, a non-posix file system, or a kv store, or whatever
1282 2011-12-14 22:56:10 <Diablo-D3> the chain doe snot need to store the data stored in the store
1283 2011-12-14 22:56:24 <Diablo-D3> it only needs to store a unique identifier that can prove/be proven by the data.
1284 2011-12-14 22:56:43 <cjdelisle> like a DHT where entries are proven valid by having their hashes/sigs included in the chain?
1285 2011-12-14 22:56:49 <Diablo-D3> yes, kind of
1286 2011-12-14 22:56:58 <cjdelisle> That's basicly what I'm proposing.
1287 2011-12-14 22:56:58 <Diablo-D3> but the DHT hashes happen to be very bitcoin like in construction.
1288 2011-12-14 22:57:40 <Diablo-D3> and, reversely, you cant produce datacoins (or whatever it ends up being named) BEFORE you have data to store
1289 2011-12-14 22:57:49 <Diablo-D3> so you cant _buy_ them
1290 2011-12-14 22:57:58 <cjdelisle> do a transaction in bitcoin which and use that to prove that a piece of data in a DHT is valid.
1291 2011-12-14 22:58:10 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: thats sort of hacked up
1292 2011-12-14 22:58:18 <Diablo-D3> Im implying we dont hijack the bitcoin system directly
1293 2011-12-14 22:58:46 <Diablo-D3> although, yes, such a design could have alt chain shit like nmc does
1294 2011-12-14 22:58:57 <Diablo-D3> it makes it harder for OTHER people to use it though if the chain isnt intended to be public
1295 2011-12-14 22:59:03 <cjdelisle> But there seem to be 2 objections, #1 is that the DNS police will make bitcoin illegal or something (asif anyone really cares about some backwater alt DNS) and the other is that somehow this infomration will take up huge space in the chain.
1296 2011-12-14 22:59:14 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: well
1297 2011-12-14 22:59:20 <luke-jr> http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=377 <-- my proposal
1298 2011-12-14 22:59:25 <Diablo-D3> DNS is rather a fucked situation
1299 2011-12-14 22:59:27 <Diablo-D3> Im thinking generically
1300 2011-12-14 23:00:04 <cjdelisle> I agree with your idea of storing as little as possible in the chain, the idea of using the chain is just for timestamping really..
1301 2011-12-14 23:00:11 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: The primary challenge DHT systems have is that they're often promoted by idiots who have no clue about their applications, properties, or limitations. I'm sure lots of fine proposals get ignored because they're impossible to distinguish from the latest crazy fool-fad.
1302 2011-12-14 23:00:13 <Diablo-D3> so you could store, say, a 2gb file in storecoin, but it just takes an 200 byte header or whatever in the chain
1303 2011-12-14 23:00:15 eoss has joined
1304 2011-12-14 23:00:16 eoss has quit (Changing host)
1305 2011-12-14 23:00:16 eoss has joined
1306 2011-12-14 23:00:36 <Diablo-D3> you dont have to have the 2gb file revision (its still a COW store) to prove the chain
1307 2011-12-14 23:00:39 <Diablo-D3> just the 200 byte header
1308 2011-12-14 23:00:55 <cjdelisle> /nod
1309 2011-12-14 23:01:09 <cjdelisle> so you have a decentralized database without central authority
1310 2011-12-14 23:01:13 <cjdelisle> re a DNS
1311 2011-12-14 23:01:16 <Diablo-D3> yes
1312 2011-12-14 23:01:20 <Diablo-D3> the DNS records themselves are just a file
1313 2011-12-14 23:01:38 <Diablo-D3> although the problem now is most DNS records are probably as big as the chain record
1314 2011-12-14 23:02:09 <Diablo-D3> BUT
1315 2011-12-14 23:02:15 <Diablo-D3> no one says you need a record _per domain_
1316 2011-12-14 23:02:35 <cjdelisle> Couldn't you mess with other people's records if you didn't?
1317 2011-12-14 23:02:43 <Diablo-D3> no, you'd have a record per owner
1318 2011-12-14 23:02:48 <cjdelisle> oh ic
1319 2011-12-14 23:02:52 <Diablo-D3> ie "bitcoin account address" in bitcoin terms
1320 2011-12-14 23:03:02 <Diablo-D3> since, lets face it, most domains are owned by a handful of squatters
1321 2011-12-14 23:03:07 <cjdelisle> per owner per update?
1322 2011-12-14 23:03:13 <cjdelisle> that makes a lot of sense
1323 2011-12-14 23:03:27 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1324 2011-12-14 23:03:30 <Diablo-D3> which makes it doubly great since you can locally blacklist owners you dont like
1325 2011-12-14 23:03:41 JFK911_ has joined
1326 2011-12-14 23:03:58 <cjdelisle> well that's kind of crappy if "you" means "an isp"
1327 2011-12-14 23:04:06 <Eliel> cjdelisle: are you basically suggesting adding a generalized notary service in the blockchain by including the root-hash of a merkle tree in there?
1328 2011-12-14 23:04:21 <cjdelisle> something like that
1329 2011-12-14 23:04:23 Kolky has quit (Quit: Bye bye!)
1330 2011-12-14 23:04:25 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: well, "you" would be, say, me
1331 2011-12-14 23:04:28 <Diablo-D3> I own three or four domains
1332 2011-12-14 23:04:38 <Diablo-D3> all would share the same data block
1333 2011-12-14 23:04:39 JFK911_ has quit (Client Quit)
1334 2011-12-14 23:04:42 <cjdelisle> /nod
1335 2011-12-14 23:04:43 * luke-jr ignores the idiot who just posted to the bitcoin-dev ml
1336 2011-12-14 23:04:44 JFK911 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1337 2011-12-14 23:05:03 * cjdelisle checks mail to see who the idiot is :D
1338 2011-12-14 23:05:22 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1339 2011-12-14 23:05:23 <Diablo-D3> each revision would be the "same" block (old revisions eventually garbage collected), but have forever known records
1340 2011-12-14 23:05:25 <Diablo-D3> er
1341 2011-12-14 23:05:29 <Diablo-D3> forever known records in the chain
1342 2011-12-14 23:05:55 <Diablo-D3> and since btc-type addresses are anonymous, its not like we know who owns what
1343 2011-12-14 23:06:05 <Diablo-D3> so you can do whatever the fuck you want
1344 2011-12-14 23:06:11 <Diablo-D3> just dont be a douchebag and bloat the chain
1345 2011-12-14 23:06:45 <luke-jr> please don't encode it as an address x.x
1346 2011-12-14 23:06:59 BlueMatt has joined
1347 2011-12-14 23:07:01 <luke-jr> just do an OP_DROP in a regular txn you make
1348 2011-12-14 23:07:10 <luke-jr> if you're going to add a notary-hash
1349 2011-12-14 23:07:14 <cjdelisle> That makes some sense
1350 2011-12-14 23:07:26 <luke-jr> obviously put it in your scriptSig or change output
1351 2011-12-14 23:07:32 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: I didnt say its encoded as an address
1352 2011-12-14 23:07:39 <Diablo-D3> Im just using similar terms
1353 2011-12-14 23:07:39 <luke-jr> of a txn you'd be doing anyway
1354 2011-12-14 23:07:58 <Diablo-D3> like, nmc currently does a revision record PER FQDN
1355 2011-12-14 23:08:02 <Diablo-D3> thats fucking absurd
1356 2011-12-14 23:08:18 <Diablo-D3> especially when you have domains that have like 9000 subdomains (which, indecently, includes root domains like .com)
1357 2011-12-14 23:08:24 <Diablo-D3> do not want
1358 2011-12-14 23:08:49 <cjdelisle> I'd be happy to implement it with OP_DROP to protect against it bloating out the tree of unspent transactions with unspendable txns. Ofc the reason for making it look normal is because of the risk of angry miners refusing to include the transactions for whatever reason.
1359 2011-12-14 23:09:04 <cjdelisle> bb later
1360 2011-12-14 23:09:11 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: well, my way
1361 2011-12-14 23:09:17 <Diablo-D3> I wouldnt pollute bitcoin
1362 2011-12-14 23:09:22 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: FYI, http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=377 is probably *the* best solution for names
1363 2011-12-14 23:09:42 <Diablo-D3> I'd just, like, not mine it at all in the strictest since and include, say, the most recent btc block's name
1364 2011-12-14 23:09:59 <Diablo-D3> er, strictest sense
1365 2011-12-14 23:10:15 <Diablo-D3> so whoever references the newest valid btc block wins the pissing contest
1366 2011-12-14 23:10:27 <luke-jr> â¦
1367 2011-12-14 23:10:47 <Diablo-D3> on top of having a smaller hash, I mean
1368 2011-12-14 23:10:55 btc_novice has left ()
1369 2011-12-14 23:11:51 DaQatz has joined
1370 2011-12-14 23:11:59 <Diablo-D3> diff could be something simple like rounds of pbkdf2 required
1371 2011-12-14 23:12:55 <Diablo-D3> so do x rounds, and then keep running more rounds until you hit a low looking hash
1372 2011-12-14 23:13:22 <Diablo-D3> although thats if you dont want multitransactional rounds, ie, how bitcoin itself works
1373 2011-12-14 23:13:28 <Diablo-D3> s/rounds/blocks/
1374 2011-12-14 23:13:47 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1375 2011-12-14 23:14:27 da2ce7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1376 2011-12-14 23:18:00 <luke-jr> [18:11:22] <imsaguy> I'm gonna put an old celeron on it to mine it myself
1377 2011-12-14 23:18:46 Guest62566 has quit (Changing host)
1378 2011-12-14 23:18:46 Guest62566 has joined
1379 2011-12-14 23:18:50 Guest62566 is now known as OneFixt
1380 2011-12-14 23:28:58 wolfspraul has joined
1381 2011-12-14 23:30:02 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1382 2011-12-14 23:32:45 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1383 2011-12-14 23:33:54 JFK911 has joined
1384 2011-12-14 23:36:36 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1385 2011-12-14 23:40:09 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1386 2011-12-14 23:40:25 erus` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1387 2011-12-14 23:50:36 DontMindMe2 has joined
1388 2011-12-14 23:51:23 DaQatz has joined
1389 2011-12-14 23:51:52 <midnightmagic> Diablo-D3: Why is it insane?
1390 2011-12-14 23:53:29 copumpkin has joined
1391 2011-12-14 23:54:59 davex__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1392 2011-12-14 23:59:06 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1393 2011-12-14 23:59:28 <Diablo-D3> midnightmagic: context