1 2011-12-20 00:01:09 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
   2 2011-12-20 00:01:45 minimoose has joined
   3 2011-12-20 00:02:14 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
   4 2011-12-20 00:02:34 TDL__ has joined
   5 2011-12-20 00:02:51 darkee has quit (!~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
   6 2011-12-20 00:02:56 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
   7 2011-12-20 00:06:14 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
   8 2011-12-20 00:06:17 theorb has joined
   9 2011-12-20 00:06:30 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
  10 2011-12-20 00:11:56 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
  11 2011-12-20 00:11:57 Kolky has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  12 2011-12-20 00:14:20 int0x27h has joined
  13 2011-12-20 00:15:01 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
  14 2011-12-20 00:15:12 <genjix> any idea what this linker error means? http://privatepaste.com/e7aaee1a48
  15 2011-12-20 00:20:36 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
  16 2011-12-20 00:20:59 eoss has joined
  17 2011-12-20 00:20:59 eoss has quit (Changing host)
  18 2011-12-20 00:20:59 eoss has joined
  19 2011-12-20 00:22:14 JZavala has joined
  20 2011-12-20 00:26:03 <vsriniva1> hm,  dlclose() is in libdl on glibc systems? or in libc?
  21 2011-12-20 00:31:06 <genjix> justmoon's talk http://bitcoinmedia.com/eurobit-stefan-thomas-bitcoinjs
  22 2011-12-20 00:33:10 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #140: STILL FAILING in 58 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/140/
  23 2011-12-20 00:33:23 <BlueMatt> oh bullshit
  24 2011-12-20 00:34:42 molecular has joined
  25 2011-12-20 00:34:51 int0x27h has quit (Quit: bye)
  26 2011-12-20 00:37:49 dooglus has joined
  27 2011-12-20 00:40:20 int0x27h has joined
  28 2011-12-20 00:45:06 <BlueMatt> ;;later tell gavinandresen did you ever upload that qt build anywhere?
  29 2011-12-20 00:45:06 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  30 2011-12-20 00:45:07 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
  31 2011-12-20 00:46:39 copumpkin has joined
  32 2011-12-20 00:57:01 <dooglus> I'm trying to increase the size of my wallet.dat's keypool.  I run 'bitcoind -daemon -keypool=1000 but it didn't appear to create extra keys.  nothing in the logs, and the wallet.dat didn't grow.  Is this expected behaviour?
  33 2011-12-20 00:58:25 <Diablo-D3> dooglus: did you create a new transaction?
  34 2011-12-20 00:58:49 <dooglus> Diablo-D3: I didn't
  35 2011-12-20 00:59:03 <Diablo-D3> I think it'll only gen on first new transaction
  36 2011-12-20 00:59:12 <dooglus> Diablo-D3: ok, thanks
  37 2011-12-20 00:59:25 makomk has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  38 2011-12-20 00:59:52 <dooglus> Diablo-D3: I think it would be better to do it on startup, or I might shut down without making a new transaction, back up the wallet, and think I'm safe
  39 2011-12-20 01:02:36 <Diablo-D3> well, for most people, the creation of new transactions is only done once, on a brand new wallet
  40 2011-12-20 01:02:45 <Diablo-D3> so why are you backing up a wallet that has nothing in it
  41 2011-12-20 01:03:05 <Diablo-D3> I could be wrong about when its generated, though
  42 2011-12-20 01:05:22 <dooglus> Diablo-D3: it's an old wallet, with funds
  43 2011-12-20 01:05:45 <dooglus> I used to back it up regularly, but released today that I hadn't for quite a while - more than 100 transactions worth, probably
  44 2011-12-20 01:05:58 <dooglus> so wanted to increase the pool size, to avoid future disaster
  45 2011-12-20 01:06:32 <dooglus> Diablo-D3: I think you may have mis-typed there - new transactions are created whenever you make a payment...
  46 2011-12-20 01:06:55 eoss has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  47 2011-12-20 01:07:04 <Diablo-D3> most people dont change the pool size on existing wallets
  48 2011-12-20 01:07:34 <Diablo-D3> and no, I didnt mistype, why fill the pool until someone makes a new transaction.
  49 2011-12-20 01:12:25 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: genjix * r69ba60bbcd27 / (configure.ac include/bitcoin/Makefile.am src/Makefile.am): --enable-berkdb -> --enable-bdb http://tinyurl.com/7dv42b4
  50 2011-12-20 01:12:26 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: genjix * r888df5197f81 / (4 files in 3 dirs): Updated postgresql_blockchain for recent changes to blockchain interface. http://tinyurl.com/77nwo83
  51 2011-12-20 01:14:40 <BlueMattBot> Yippie, build fixed!
  52 2011-12-20 01:14:40 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #141: FIXED in 40 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/141/
  53 2011-12-20 01:14:48 <BlueMatt> took long enough
  54 2011-12-20 01:14:59 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoind-Sanitytest build #117: FAILURE in 13 sec: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoind-Sanitytest/117/
  55 2011-12-20 01:15:06 <BlueMatt> bullshit
  56 2011-12-20 01:15:28 <dooglus> Diablo-D3: because I want to have a backup before risking lost funds, not after.  If I wait until after receiving funds to back up, I risk losing the funds if the disk crashes between transaction and backup
  57 2011-12-20 01:16:04 <Diablo-D3> dooglus: ask gavin
  58 2011-12-20 01:16:18 <Diablo-D3> or maybe BlueMatt or gmaxwell knows
  59 2011-12-20 01:16:23 <BlueMatt> knows what?
  60 2011-12-20 01:16:47 <Diablo-D3> bluematt: when is the pool filled, at wallet.dat creation or at first transaction?
  61 2011-12-20 01:16:59 <Diablo-D3> dooglus: btw, if your wallet.dat already exists, it might not actually get bigger
  62 2011-12-20 01:17:06 <BlueMatt> used to be first transaction, but now its both
  63 2011-12-20 01:17:20 <BlueMatt> (someone lost coins because of it)
  64 2011-12-20 01:17:25 <Diablo-D3> dooglus: berkeleydb file size does not reflect the size of the data in it
  65 2011-12-20 01:17:33 <BlueMatt> (like a very serious quantity of coins iirc)
  66 2011-12-20 01:18:37 <Diablo-D3> blueMatt: yeah, I can see that
  67 2011-12-20 01:19:06 dissipate has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  68 2011-12-20 01:31:36 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  69 2011-12-20 01:37:56 jgarzik has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  70 2011-12-20 01:38:02 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  71 2011-12-20 01:38:26 jgarzik has joined
  72 2011-12-20 01:39:01 jgarzik is now known as Guest10831
  73 2011-12-20 01:45:02 Sze has left ()
  74 2011-12-20 01:47:45 <BlueMatt> wumpus: ping
  75 2011-12-20 01:48:38 <wumpus> BlueMatt: pong
  76 2011-12-20 01:49:37 <BlueMatt> wumpus: have a sec? I wondered if you had any further objections to #593 and/or what your current opinion was?
  77 2011-12-20 01:49:51 <wumpus> let's see
  78 2011-12-20 01:50:07 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  79 2011-12-20 01:51:57 MobiusL has joined
  80 2011-12-20 01:53:36 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
  81 2011-12-20 02:01:49 caedes_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  82 2011-12-20 02:04:13 <wumpus> yeah :/
  83 2011-12-20 02:04:53 <wumpus> why the newrecipientallowed bit in sendcoinsdialog?
  84 2011-12-20 02:05:41 <BlueMatt> so that you cant add a new recipient while the confirm dialog is open
  85 2011-12-20 02:06:02 <BlueMatt> ie click confirm, open url, url shouldnt be added
  86 2011-12-20 02:08:51 <wumpus> makes sense
  87 2011-12-20 02:09:04 <wumpus> well apart from that no comments on the code
  88 2011-12-20 02:09:27 <BlueMatt> since when does bitcoin have comments? ;)
  89 2011-12-20 02:09:38 <wumpus> hehe
  90 2011-12-20 02:10:04 <BlueMatt> I was under the impression we had some odd compiler flags set that make compile fail with comments...oh well
  91 2011-12-20 02:10:08 <wumpus> maybe we should first introduce this as an option, and not yet make it default, so people can test it
  92 2011-12-20 02:10:32 <BlueMatt> I dunno, URL support is a REALLY important feature imo
  93 2011-12-20 02:10:35 <wumpus> I'm still worried about the security implications of this
  94 2011-12-20 02:10:55 <wumpus> browsers are insecureland
  95 2011-12-20 02:11:15 <BlueMatt> yea, but everything is pretty closely checked after it gets input
  96 2011-12-20 02:11:25 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ping
  97 2011-12-20 02:13:01 <BlueMatt> wumpus: the thing is, bitcoin usability doubles with url support, and if its optional no one will turn it on...
  98 2011-12-20 02:13:16 <BlueMatt> wumpus: it also encourages people to set up their systems the right way
  99 2011-12-20 02:13:27 <BlueMatt> instead of idiots using signmessage and such to do accounting
 100 2011-12-20 02:16:41 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: bloop.
 101 2011-12-20 02:16:51 <wumpus> I agree with you
 102 2011-12-20 02:16:56 <wumpus> I think it's a great thing
 103 2011-12-20 02:17:18 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: do you feel like reading through #593 and beating on it for a bit?
 104 2011-12-20 02:17:55 <BlueMatt> wumpus: I agree that browsers are insecure land, but the thing is, with desktop financial software, we have to assume that there are other processes which are just as evil and insecure
 105 2011-12-20 02:17:59 <wumpus> but I'm sure people will try to abuse it from all angles as soon as it exists
 106 2011-12-20 02:18:10 <BlueMatt> so though I agree, and it makes attacking easier...
 107 2011-12-20 02:20:06 <BlueMattBot> Yippie, build fixed!
 108 2011-12-20 02:20:06 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoind-Sanitytest build #118: FIXED in 1 hr 2 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoind-Sanitytest/118/
 109 2011-12-20 02:22:56 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 110 2011-12-20 02:25:20 <wumpus> great
 111 2011-12-20 02:25:24 sneak has joined
 112 2011-12-20 02:27:01 <BlueMatt> that is a jenkins fixed, not build fixed...
 113 2011-12-20 02:33:27 abbe has quit (Quit: Heroes die once, Cowards live longer!)
 114 2011-12-20 02:33:53 <wumpus> but your approach would be "release it, enable it by default, then see if it holds up" ? (not that I see a better alternative)
 115 2011-12-20 02:35:59 abbe has joined
 116 2011-12-20 02:36:49 <BlueMatt> true, but thats the point of both rc times and pull requests
 117 2011-12-20 02:37:08 <BlueMatt> it gives a chance for people to read through it, make sure its safe, beat on it, and then release as alpha
 118 2011-12-20 02:38:16 EPiSKiNG- has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 119 2011-12-20 02:39:14 <wumpus> btw:  on_sendButton_clicked copies the list of recipients to a local variable before showing the confirmation; even without fNewRecipientAllowed it does nothing to add recipients while the confirmation dialog is shown? (or do I see this wrong, it's late)
 120 2011-12-20 02:39:57 EPiSKiNG- has joined
 121 2011-12-20 02:40:56 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 122 2011-12-20 02:40:57 <BlueMatt> it might be, but it would still be better to not show up behind the confirm dialog imo
 123 2011-12-20 02:45:36 <wumpus> ah yes 
 124 2011-12-20 02:52:38 <wumpus> btw, thanks for re-adding "start on system startup", interesting to see it doesn't depend on qt at all
 125 2011-12-20 02:53:22 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 126 2011-12-20 02:56:53 Guest10831 has quit (Changing host)
 127 2011-12-20 02:56:53 Guest10831 has joined
 128 2011-12-20 02:56:55 Guest10831 is now known as jgarzik
 129 2011-12-20 02:57:19 <BlueMatt> heh, yea, did that because gavin was complaining that upgrading from wx to qt results in wx still autostarting at startup...
 130 2011-12-20 02:57:27 <BlueMatt> (as wx isnt removed)
 131 2011-12-20 02:57:34 <wumpus> ,                                                        
 132 2011-12-20 02:58:27 <wumpus> yeah, it solves an issue that was there for a while. I had tried to find a way to make qt programs start at window system startup, but hadn't noticed the current implementation wasn't even dependent on wx
 133 2011-12-20 02:58:53 <wumpus> (as it was in the gui cpp)
 134 2011-12-20 02:59:07 <BlueMatt> heh, yea, it would be nice if qt had a nice way to register url handling with the os, autostart, etc
 135 2011-12-20 02:59:13 <BlueMatt> but I guess that just falls out of scope...
 136 2011-12-20 03:01:32 <wumpus> yes it sort of falls out of scope of a pure ui library, though they also have networking and file access libraries, so it wouldn't be so strange 
 137 2011-12-20 03:01:33 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
 138 2011-12-20 03:01:54 <BlueMatt> meh, whatever
 139 2011-12-20 03:02:54 <wumpus> btw I think it's nonsense to distinguish between bitcoin-qt and bitcoind in the client id, they both use the satoshi core so should be treated the same on the network
 140 2011-12-20 03:03:02 <wumpus> (re luke-jr)
 141 2011-12-20 03:03:10 <BlueMatt> I think everyone but luke thinks that...
 142 2011-12-20 03:03:37 <wumpus> heh
 143 2011-12-20 03:07:20 <gmaxwell> I think gavin managed to make him happy.
 144 2011-12-20 03:09:28 <BlueMatt> howd he do that?
 145 2011-12-20 03:12:39 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 146 2011-12-20 03:12:52 <gmaxwell> changed it from bitcoin-qt to satoshi. Apparently luke was holding the position that 'bitcoin-qt' was a lie.
 147 2011-12-20 03:13:03 <BlueMatt> wtf?
 148 2011-12-20 03:13:09 <gmaxwell> And that being vague was superior to lying.
 149 2011-12-20 03:13:28 <BlueMatt> its the same damn...oh whatever
 150 2011-12-20 03:13:43 <gmaxwell> yea, my thought too. A reasonable compromise in any case.
 151 2011-12-20 03:14:02 <gmaxwell> and I think it did highlight that we ought to be using RFC 2119 words in BIPs.
 152 2011-12-20 03:14:05 <BlueMatt> yea, bitcoin-qt/satoshi same thing...
 153 2011-12-20 03:14:17 <BlueMatt> yea, definitely
 154 2011-12-20 03:14:36 EPiSKiNG- has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 155 2011-12-20 03:17:39 <wumpus> yes satoshi is a good choice
 156 2011-12-20 03:18:24 phungus is now known as Mr_HotDog
 157 2011-12-20 03:19:07 <gmaxwell> well, I'm not keen, because it increases the satoshi mistique ever so slightly but ::shrugs::
 158 2011-12-20 03:20:02 EPiSKiNG- has joined
 159 2011-12-20 03:21:25 <wumpus> nah, you're right but, mystique or not, he originally made the thing so deserves credit
 160 2011-12-20 03:22:31 Mr_HotDog is now known as phungus
 161 2011-12-20 03:22:51 <sipa> ok, c++ question; i have the following code: { map[ip] = id; printf("%i\n", map[ip]); } ... the number printed is 0 instead of id
 162 2011-12-20 03:22:59 <sipa> any reason why that can be?
 163 2011-12-20 03:24:30 <roconnor> sipa: threads
 164 2011-12-20 03:24:31 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 165 2011-12-20 03:24:45 [7] has joined
 166 2011-12-20 03:25:09 <sipa> roconnor: in that case it would be indeterminstic
 167 2011-12-20 03:25:13 <sipa> it's consistently always 0
 168 2011-12-20 03:25:25 <roconnor> is id 0
 169 2011-12-20 03:25:27 <phantomcircuit> sipa, on linux?
 170 2011-12-20 03:25:42 <sipa> roconnor: no
 171 2011-12-20 03:25:43 <sipa> phantomcircuit: yes
 172 2011-12-20 03:25:54 <phantomcircuit> gcc initializes int to 0 always
 173 2011-12-20 03:26:16 <phantomcircuit> bitcoin assumes that all over the place
 174 2011-12-20 03:26:16 <sipa> ...
 175 2011-12-20 03:26:21 <roconnor> what is %i  Probably some size issue
 176 2011-12-20 03:26:23 <gmaxwell> ...
 177 2011-12-20 03:26:34 <sipa> it's just a number put into an std::map
 178 2011-12-20 03:26:38 <sipa> and it's not there afterwards
 179 2011-12-20 03:26:51 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: for _static_, which is defined that way by the C/C++ standards.
 180 2011-12-20 03:27:09 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, first or second line?
 181 2011-12-20 03:27:14 <phantomcircuit> gcc does it for all ints
 182 2011-12-20 03:27:22 <phantomcircuit> im not sure about bitcoin actually
 183 2011-12-20 03:27:24 <gmaxwell> No sir it does not.
 184 2011-12-20 03:27:41 <gmaxwell> I'll make you a demo, one sec.
 185 2011-12-20 03:28:13 <wumpus> no, only for static ints, not those on the stack
 186 2011-12-20 03:28:27 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, http://codepad.org/73YOlMpO
 187 2011-12-20 03:28:30 <wumpus> those are not initialized at all so have some fun value
 188 2011-12-20 03:28:35 <roconnor> what woudl happen if ip was negative?
 189 2011-12-20 03:28:37 <gmaxwell> yea, you fail.
 190 2011-12-20 03:29:06 <sipa> ok, there was a mistake in my operator<
 191 2011-12-20 03:29:08 <sipa> sigh
 192 2011-12-20 03:29:10 <wumpus> sipa: weird; what happens if you assign the result of map[ip] to a temporary int and print that?
 193 2011-12-20 03:29:21 <wumpus> uh ok so your map was broken
 194 2011-12-20 03:29:22 <wumpus> :P
 195 2011-12-20 03:29:27 <sipa> no, my ip was :)
 196 2011-12-20 03:30:53 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, lol i rigged it codepad specifically initializes to 0
 197 2011-12-20 03:31:09 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, however dynamically allocated ints are always initialized to 0 by gcc
 198 2011-12-20 03:31:13 <phantomcircuit> which is what was happening
 199 2011-12-20 03:31:20 <gmaxwell> No, they really aren't.
 200 2011-12-20 03:31:34 <phantomcircuit> try it
 201 2011-12-20 03:32:21 <phantomcircuit> maybe it's just random chance
 202 2011-12-20 03:32:52 <gmaxwell> Yes, its just random chance and that the stack is normally prefilled with zeros.
 203 2011-12-20 03:33:27 <phantomcircuit> hmm
 204 2011-12-20 03:33:32 <sipa> std::deque::size() returns -1
 205 2011-12-20 03:33:35 <sipa> is that normal?
 206 2011-12-20 03:33:35 <phantomcircuit> heap allocation
 207 2011-12-20 03:33:58 <phantomcircuit> sipa, no
 208 2011-12-20 03:34:02 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: the heap is also undefined when you use it, except if you use calloc. malloc recycles free memory.
 209 2011-12-20 03:35:28 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: http://pastebin.mozilla.org/1413205
 210 2011-12-20 03:35:47 <phantomcircuit> oh
 211 2011-12-20 03:35:49 <phantomcircuit> sorry
 212 2011-12-20 03:35:54 <phantomcircuit> i meant when you call new
 213 2011-12-20 03:35:54 <gmaxwell> (higher optimization levels remove the behavior in _this_ case because the compiler constifies everything)
 214 2011-12-20 03:36:17 <phantomcircuit> new int() seems to always return a pointer to a 0 int
 215 2011-12-20 03:36:19 <gmaxwell> New depends on the constructor of the object. I dunno what C++ does there for int.
 216 2011-12-20 03:36:25 <wumpus> calling new doesn't initialize the memory to zeros either does it ?
 217 2011-12-20 03:36:25 <phantomcircuit> probably version specific
 218 2011-12-20 03:36:38 <gmaxwell> That may be defined that way or not. I'm not c++ clueful, alas.
 219 2011-12-20 03:36:40 <wumpus> ints are not initialized by c++ automatically in structs/objects
 220 2011-12-20 03:36:53 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, i obviously wouldn't count on it, but it seems to always return 0
 221 2011-12-20 03:37:06 <wumpus> depends on the compiler, don't rely on it
 222 2011-12-20 03:37:33 <sipa> wumpus: you know that? std::deque::size() returns -1
 223 2011-12-20 03:37:39 <wumpus> if anything, it's generally better to be explicit
 224 2011-12-20 03:37:40 <sipa> is that possible?
 225 2011-12-20 03:37:43 <wumpus> sipa: nope :o
 226 2011-12-20 03:38:19 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: if it actually is undefined like the stack ones are then the compiler can do awesome optimizations on code that depends on it.. like removing the code entirely.
 227 2011-12-20 03:38:33 * sipa valgrinds
 228 2011-12-20 03:38:51 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: anyways, what bitcoin depends on is that statics are initilized... and thats true and required by the standard.
 229 2011-12-20 03:40:17 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, well my version of gcc atleast is always returning 0 for new int()
 230 2011-12-20 03:40:19 <phantomcircuit> who knows
 231 2011-12-20 03:40:31 <wumpus> phantomcircuit: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7546620/operator-new-initializes-memory-to-zero
 232 2011-12-20 03:40:41 <wumpus> new int() always returns 0, new int doesn't
 233 2011-12-20 03:40:56 <wumpus> because the () acts as initialization expression for the int
 234 2011-12-20 03:40:57 <BlueMatt> am I allowed to tell people off for constantly +1ing #415? ie can we agree that github is NOT the place to post comments that contain only "+1"
 235 2011-12-20 03:41:18 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: see the stack example I gave you.. it would be really easy to _think_ it did, but it doesn't really.
 236 2011-12-20 03:41:52 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, yeah i never assume things are initialized
 237 2011-12-20 03:42:38 <phantomcircuit> sipa, btw std::map::operator[] will call the default constructor for T when you access an element that does not yet exist
 238 2011-12-20 03:42:46 <phantomcircuit> it's pretty annoying actually
 239 2011-12-20 03:42:48 <sipa> phantomcircuit: i know that
 240 2011-12-20 03:43:19 <wumpus> BlueMatt: thanks for letting me know about that pull request at all, didn't even know it had a qt gui now
 241 2011-12-20 03:43:26 <luke-jr> wumpus: client id is not FOR the network, it's for HUMANS
 242 2011-12-20 03:43:35 <BlueMatt> wumpus: which one?
 243 2011-12-20 03:43:35 b4epoche_ has joined
 244 2011-12-20 03:43:41 <wumpus> 415
 245 2011-12-20 03:43:46 <BlueMatt> ah
 246 2011-12-20 03:43:48 <AAA_awright> BlueMatt: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/415 ?
 247 2011-12-20 03:43:54 <BlueMatt> AAA_awright: yea
 248 2011-12-20 03:44:32 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 249 2011-12-20 03:44:33 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 250 2011-12-20 03:45:01 <wumpus> luke-jr: humans shouldn't care either whether you're running the UI or a daemon
 251 2011-12-20 03:46:05 <luke-jr> wumpus: it's for statistics. like saying X% runs Bitcoin-Qt, X% runs bitcoind, X% runs Spesmilo, etc
 252 2011-12-20 03:46:07 <wumpus> I'd argue for revealing as little about the software you're running as possible, except what's needed for protocol versioning
 253 2011-12-20 03:46:16 <luke-jr> wumpus: in any case, bitcoind claiming to be bitcoin-qt is just wrong
 254 2011-12-20 03:46:22 <luke-jr> fine, then leave it null :p
 255 2011-12-20 03:46:24 phungus is now known as Mr_HotDog
 256 2011-12-20 03:46:34 <wumpus> yes I agree with that, but both returning "satoshi" is fine
 257 2011-12-20 03:46:56 <luke-jr> yes, that's what my patch did (mainly)
 258 2011-12-20 03:47:03 <luke-jr> but Gavin refuses to merge it
 259 2011-12-20 03:47:28 <luke-jr> (it also allows me to -D PUBLIC_CLIENT_NAME or such to get the full version)
 260 2011-12-20 03:48:21 <BlueMatt> can I get some agreement that github is NOT the place to post a +1?
 261 2011-12-20 03:48:34 Mr_HotDog is now known as phungus
 262 2011-12-20 03:49:35 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: GitHub posts should at the minimum contribute a "someone gave me a binary to test this with, and it worked for me" IMO
 263 2011-12-20 03:49:55 <BlueMatt> agreed
 264 2011-12-20 03:50:01 m00p has joined
 265 2011-12-20 03:50:26 <BlueMatt> anyone have any complaints to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/415#issuecomment-3214053 ?
 266 2011-12-20 03:51:10 <luke-jr> well, some things don't require 10 minutes to test IMO, but it gets the point across either way
 267 2011-12-20 03:51:23 <BlueMatt> meh, close enough
 268 2011-12-20 03:52:46 <BlueMatt> awww, I was only #4/91 in my compsci class...damn
 269 2011-12-20 03:52:56 <BlueMatt> oh well, guess I should have gone to class
 270 2011-12-20 03:53:10 <upb> yeah, remember that you are studying for your own good
 271 2011-12-20 03:53:32 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 272 2011-12-20 03:53:33 <upb> i forgot that too many times when in uni )
 273 2011-12-20 03:54:54 BlueMatt has joined
 274 2011-12-20 03:55:16 <BlueMatt> anyone else have problems with gnome refusing to switch focus between windows until you logout/in?
 275 2011-12-20 03:55:40 <phantomcircuit> no
 276 2011-12-20 03:56:20 * BlueMatt needs to switch from ubuntu to sonething useful...
 277 2011-12-20 03:56:48 <phantomcircuit> ha
 278 2011-12-20 03:56:52 <phantomcircuit> you're using gnome 3?
 279 2011-12-20 03:56:54 <phantomcircuit> fool
 280 2011-12-20 03:56:57 <BlueMatt> no, gnome2
 281 2011-12-20 03:56:58 <phantomcircuit> :X
 282 2011-12-20 03:57:03 <BlueMatt> Im on 11.04
 283 2011-12-20 03:57:04 <phantomcircuit> unity?
 284 2011-12-20 03:57:06 <phantomcircuit> ah
 285 2011-12-20 03:57:06 <BlueMatt> no
 286 2011-12-20 03:57:09 <phantomcircuit> not a fool
 287 2011-12-20 03:57:10 <phantomcircuit> :)
 288 2011-12-20 03:57:14 <BlueMatt> refused to upgrade to unity
 289 2011-12-20 03:57:47 <BlueMatt> anyone use mint debian?
 290 2011-12-20 03:59:43 gjs278 has joined
 291 2011-12-20 04:00:25 <luke-jr> GNOME sucks
 292 2011-12-20 04:01:58 <rjk2> isnt Mint like simplified ubuntu
 293 2011-12-20 04:02:05 <rjk2> in other words fail
 294 2011-12-20 04:02:16 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: you are on gentoo with which kde version?
 295 2011-12-20 04:02:36 <luke-jr> 4.7
 296 2011-12-20 04:02:44 <luke-jr> rjk2: Mint is Ubuntu with proprietary crap by default
 297 2011-12-20 04:02:48 <BlueMatt> rjk2: mint debian is based on debian-testing so rolling release, which is why Im looking at it
 298 2011-12-20 04:02:55 <BlueMatt> so not ubuntu-based
 299 2011-12-20 04:05:21 weather has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 300 2011-12-20 04:06:40 weather has joined
 301 2011-12-20 04:13:40 [Tycho] has joined
 302 2011-12-20 04:17:33 Backburn has joined
 303 2011-12-20 04:18:57 RobinPKR_ has joined
 304 2011-12-20 04:21:05 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 305 2011-12-20 04:21:05 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
 306 2011-12-20 04:23:41 <sipa> bitcoin seeder v0.1 is up and running at seedtest.bitcoin.sipa.be
 307 2011-12-20 04:23:58 <BlueMatt> sipa: what desktop do you run again?
 308 2011-12-20 04:24:12 <BlueMatt> sipa: also, nice!
 309 2011-12-20 04:24:16 <BlueMatt> is the code up anywhere?
 310 2011-12-20 04:24:38 <sipa> bitcoin-seeder repo in github
 311 2011-12-20 04:24:45 <sipa> BlueMatt: none, for the moment
 312 2011-12-20 04:24:56 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 313 2011-12-20 04:25:16 <sipa> it's currently crawling with 100 threads simultaneously
 314 2011-12-20 04:25:17 <BlueMatt> meant gnome/kde/xfce/etc
 315 2011-12-20 04:25:22 <sipa> xmonad
 316 2011-12-20 04:25:27 <sipa> -> 2% cpu on my vps
 317 2011-12-20 04:25:34 <BlueMatt> nice
 318 2011-12-20 04:25:50 * BlueMatt will probably switch sometime before I go back to school...
 319 2011-12-20 04:26:31 <BlueMatt> (to both a new desktop environment and sipa's new dnsseed)
 320 2011-12-20 04:26:55 <midnightmagic> sipa: what's the purpose of bitcoin-seeder?
 321 2011-12-20 04:27:20 <sipa> midnightmagic: specialized DNS server that crawls the network, and returns a random set of good nodes at each invocation
 322 2011-12-20 04:28:38 <rjk2> sort of a weighted round robin?
 323 2011-12-20 04:29:14 <sipa> not weighted
 324 2011-12-20 04:29:19 <sipa> and not round
 325 2011-12-20 04:29:50 <nanotube> and it's not a bird either
 326 2011-12-20 04:31:04 <jgarzik> sipa: source code anywhere that I may browse?
 327 2011-12-20 04:31:10 <midnightmagic> https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin-seeder.git
 328 2011-12-20 04:31:35 devrandom has quit (Quit: leaving)
 329 2011-12-20 04:32:15 * midnightmagic slowly grovels backwards through..  7 levels of function to find what the actual test is for node "good"ness. :)
 330 2011-12-20 04:33:21 <sipa> jgarzik: sure, and feel free to comment
 331 2011-12-20 04:33:37 <sipa> (except "needs moar comments!!!111")
 332 2011-12-20 04:33:40 <rjk2> could you add weight to nodes that have good uptime and connectivity?
 333 2011-12-20 04:33:56 <rjk2> or do you insist on it being random
 334 2011-12-20 04:33:57 <sipa> rjk2: no, i only report nodes that have good uptime and commectivity
 335 2011-12-20 04:34:02 <rjk2> ok :)
 336 2011-12-20 04:34:26 denisx has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 337 2011-12-20 04:34:35 denisx has joined
 338 2011-12-20 04:36:08 <midnightmagic> looks like nodes can get banned for all kinds of infarctions sipa
 339 2011-12-20 04:36:25 * Diablo-D3 bans THE WHOLE INTERWEBS
 340 2011-12-20 04:36:31 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: as they should
 341 2011-12-20 04:36:52 <sipa> midnightmagic: yes, intentionally
 342 2011-12-20 04:36:56 <midnightmagic> i make no judgements, i'm just adding to sipa's comment above re: uptime and connectivity
 343 2011-12-20 04:37:05 <midnightmagic> yes, clearly it's on purpose.
 344 2011-12-20 04:37:16 <sipa> if a node reports a bad version, i don't want to retry connecting to it for a month ;)
 345 2011-12-20 04:37:24 <midnightmagic> in other words, I'm filling in some additional information for people who aren't reading the code right now.
 346 2011-12-20 04:37:25 <sipa> chances are small it will upgrade
 347 2011-12-20 04:37:31 <BlueMatt> heh, no sipa is just such a bad yet talented coder that he wrote in a ton of checks without intending them...
 348 2011-12-20 04:38:05 <rjk2> lol
 349 2011-12-20 04:38:11 <Diablo-D3> uh
 350 2011-12-20 04:38:20 <midnightmagic> whoah, there are a lot of people who are stuck on older versions and/or are choosing to stay on the versions that satoshi last touched..
 351 2011-12-20 04:38:42 <midnightmagic> MIN_VERSION is your seeder is 40000
 352 2011-12-20 04:38:58 <midnightmagic> what version does that correspond to?
 353 2011-12-20 04:38:59 * BlueMatt sets dnsseed.bluematt.me minversion to 0.3.24
 354 2011-12-20 04:39:03 <BlueMatt> 0.4
 355 2011-12-20 04:39:03 <Diablo-D3> midnightmagic: yes and we have a right to bannindate them
 356 2011-12-20 04:39:17 <midnightmagic> Diablo-D3: And your reason is?
 357 2011-12-20 04:39:59 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: nodes with the pre-.24 anti-flooding logic are terrible peers for new nodes, since they'll randomly hang up while feeding the chain.
 358 2011-12-20 04:40:16 <Diablo-D3> midnightmagic: we need a reason?
 359 2011-12-20 04:40:24 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: so?
 360 2011-12-20 04:40:52 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: they slow down initial syncup for new nodes.
 361 2011-12-20 04:40:53 <midnightmagic> Diablo-D3: If you are capricious and without reason, then you are the reason to trust the network less.
 362 2011-12-20 04:40:58 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: That's it?
 363 2011-12-20 04:41:03 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: its actually >0.3.20 && < 0.3.23 iirc
 364 2011-12-20 04:41:18 <gmaxwell> <=.23 no?
 365 2011-12-20 04:41:25 <gmaxwell> .24 was basically that fix.
 366 2011-12-20 04:41:36 <BlueMatt> oh, yea <=.23
 367 2011-12-20 04:41:42 <Diablo-D3> midnightmagic: no, you asked whats my reason on saying we have a right to ban nodes
 368 2011-12-20 04:41:42 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: not slightly, but enormously.
 369 2011-12-20 04:41:48 <Diablo-D3> midnightmagic: thats a nonsensical question
 370 2011-12-20 04:41:52 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: ignore Diablo-D3's he's a troll.
 371 2011-12-20 04:42:05 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: I am not, and I was here long before you.
 372 2011-12-20 04:42:17 <cjdelisle> heh you have the right to ban nodes and they have the right to lie about their version, it's like a 1 line patch :P
 373 2011-12-20 04:42:26 * BlueMatt actually likes Diablo-D3's overzealous banning, the world would be a better place if we banned everyone we didnt like/who didnt agree with us
 374 2011-12-20 04:42:35 <BlueMatt> s/would be a better place/would seem like a better place
 375 2011-12-20 04:42:36 * gmaxwell bans Diablo-D3 
 376 2011-12-20 04:42:38 <BlueMatt>  /
 377 2011-12-20 04:42:41 <Diablo-D3> bah
 378 2011-12-20 04:42:50 <midnightmagic> Diablo-D3: Your english words imply that there is a reason, not just that you have a capricious right to ban random people. However, if you are saying you have no reason, then that is answer enough.
 379 2011-12-20 04:43:19 <Diablo-D3> midnightmagic: my words imply there might be a reason, yes
 380 2011-12-20 04:43:35 <Diablo-D3> that doesnt mean I had a reason in mind when I said it, but, usually, yes, people have reasons
 381 2011-12-20 04:43:41 <Diablo-D3> not everyone is awesome, sadly.
 382 2011-12-20 04:43:43 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I'm familiar with D3. :) I guess I haven't been talking enough in here to keep his mind fresh as to who I am. :)
 383 2011-12-20 04:44:07 <Diablo-D3> no, I remember you
 384 2011-12-20 04:44:11 <Diablo-D3> I think gmaxwell forgot you
 385 2011-12-20 04:44:19 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: it's also the case that there are some mild security weaknesses in sufficiently old nodes that might adversely impact the perception of bitcoin. E.g. the showing/fowarding txn that multispend the same input.
 386 2011-12-20 04:44:38 <gmaxwell> ... I have not, hell, I'm the one always telling people where the missing bitcoin went.
 387 2011-12-20 04:44:56 <Diablo-D3> btw
 388 2011-12-20 04:45:08 <Diablo-D3> why arent we just routinely banning nodes that are older than, say, 1 year?
 389 2011-12-20 04:45:09 <midnightmagic> Diablo-D3: :-P
 390 2011-12-20 04:45:21 <Diablo-D3> just to force consistent upgrade behavior
 391 2011-12-20 04:45:24 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: because there simply is no reason to.
 392 2011-12-20 04:45:31 <gmaxwell> upgrades aren't a good thing, really, except when they are.
 393 2011-12-20 04:45:32 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: even if it impacts the security?
 394 2011-12-20 04:45:53 <gmaxwell> if people upgraded like sheep at every version ... it would make bitcoin a centeralized system effectively.
 395 2011-12-20 04:46:06 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: nothing has been bad enough to cause gavin to send an alert...
 396 2011-12-20 04:46:11 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: You're talking about wallet encryption too, right? So here's the issue. merged-mining patches from vince currently don't cleanly apply to #head bitcoin. There are some of us who are stuck on the older version without doing some significant effort to seamlessly merge those patches.
 397 2011-12-20 04:46:42 <gmaxwell> then nag vince.
 398 2011-12-20 04:46:46 <midnightmagic> and vince appears to have gone silent.
 399 2011-12-20 04:46:53 <gmaxwell> goodbye namecoin
 400 2011-12-20 04:46:57 <midnightmagic> codewise at least.
 401 2011-12-20 04:47:02 <rjk2> sucks
 402 2011-12-20 04:47:27 <Diablo-D3> heh
 403 2011-12-20 04:49:07 <midnightmagic> Ah, looks like he posted two notes on Dec 16 in the namecoin forum. One-liners.
 404 2011-12-20 04:50:41 <midnightmagic> http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2387#p2387
 405 2011-12-20 04:51:14 <midnightmagic> so, nevermind. My information was a few days old..
 406 2011-12-20 04:51:38 <luke-jr> http://paste.pocoo.org/show/523374/
 407 2011-12-20 04:53:16 Fnar has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 408 2011-12-20 04:53:34 <midnightmagic> i guess i'll just have to fake my reported version then.
 409 2011-12-20 04:54:14 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: ... because what?
 410 2011-12-20 04:54:32 <midnightmagic> otherwise i get punished by bitcoin-seeder
 411 2011-12-20 04:54:36 wasabi has joined
 412 2011-12-20 04:54:48 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: ... What version are you?
 413 2011-12-20 04:55:03 <jrmithdobbs> you really need to upgrade to .3.24
 414 2011-12-20 04:55:06 <jrmithdobbs> seriously
 415 2011-12-20 04:55:20 <midnightmagic> .. hrm..   looks like an early 0.3.24 version.
 416 2011-12-20 04:55:40 int0x27h has quit (Changing host)
 417 2011-12-20 04:55:40 int0x27h has joined
 418 2011-12-20 04:55:40 <luke-jr> …
 419 2011-12-20 04:55:47 <midnightmagic> jrmithdobbs: this is the part where you explain why
 420 2011-12-20 04:55:48 <gmaxwell> As far as being 'punished'. It doesn't matter if you're listed in the seeder or not.
 421 2011-12-20 04:55:50 <luke-jr> he needs to upgrade to 0.4.2 :P
 422 2011-12-20 04:56:10 <gmaxwell> And I'm super confused there because 0.4 was out long before the merged mining patches.
 423 2011-12-20 04:56:14 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: 0.3.x is unmaintained, and have some issues
 424 2011-12-20 04:56:14 huk has joined
 425 2011-12-20 04:56:24 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: ya seriously
 426 2011-12-20 04:56:43 dvide has quit ()
 427 2011-12-20 04:56:43 <midnightmagic> nothing's in it right now, it's just a blank miner that forwards on coins automatically to some other places.
 428 2011-12-20 04:57:00 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: vince's MM stuff is lame anyhow
 429 2011-12-20 04:57:03 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 430 2011-12-20 04:57:39 <midnightmagic> luke-jr: the ones explained above right?  the flood-control hangups, no wallet encryption, and forwarding double-output txn right?
 431 2011-12-20 04:57:59 <jrmithdobbs> the first and last are fairly important
 432 2011-12-20 04:59:05 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: use my MM stuff :P
 433 2011-12-20 04:59:24 <jrmithdobbs> but if you're just one of "those guys" that'll attach an unpatched xp box to the internet for max masochism
 434 2011-12-20 04:59:27 <jrmithdobbs> go right ahead
 435 2011-12-20 04:59:29 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 436 2011-12-20 04:59:56 <midnightmagic> luke-jr: lol I made an effort to merge in your stuff the other day but I couldn't track down the specific branches and patches to do it. But I've already asked you about it twice, so I didn't want to bug you a third time. Because that would suggest I'm extra-lazy. ha ha.. really it's just a time thing, honest.
 437 2011-12-20 05:00:22 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: perhaps you shouldn't be running a mining node then, if you can't bother to maintain your software.
 438 2011-12-20 05:00:25 <luke-jr> I must have missed it :P
 439 2011-12-20 05:00:34 <gmaxwell> I've heard there are some people who run zero fee pools.
 440 2011-12-20 05:00:45 <midnightmagic> jrmithdobbs: yeah..  good analogy. "own my entire home network" vs. "might forward on scary-looking txn that hurt perception, and hang-up on newbs."
 441 2011-12-20 05:01:11 <gmaxwell> (zero fee pools.. with merged mining in fact...)
 442 2011-12-20 05:01:20 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I have been watching very carefully all the issues I can as they come out. So far, I see no security implications for myself nor my miners.
 443 2011-12-20 05:01:28 <jrmithdobbs> midnightmagic: for now. i'm pretty sure the flooding issue could probably be exploited by someone bored enough to cause your node to dos itself
 444 2011-12-20 05:01:35 HaltingState has joined
 445 2011-12-20 05:01:44 HaltingState has left ()
 446 2011-12-20 05:01:58 <jrmithdobbs> midnightmagic: there's also a few other dos related issues that have been improved greatly just due to code cleanup
 447 2011-12-20 05:02:25 <midnightmagic> yes, I'ma ware of them. pools that then have my IP connected to payouts, pools that can be dos'd which my miners then have to failover around, pools that then punish me for failing away from them and back because they went down due to dos.
 448 2011-12-20 05:02:32 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 449 2011-12-20 05:02:54 <jrmithdobbs> what
 450 2011-12-20 05:04:11 <midnightmagic> meanwhile I get screwed by latency, have to QoS my huge mining traffic, and etc ad nauseum. i have enough hashrate to solo, and will for the foreseeable future. pool mining is contrary to the nature of the currency.
 451 2011-12-20 05:04:23 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: Eligius doesn't punish at least :P
 452 2011-12-20 05:04:32 Fnar has joined
 453 2011-12-20 05:04:56 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: it's pretty sad when I'm suggesting that pools are _superior_ to solo because you don't give a shit about keeping your software up to date.
 454 2011-12-20 05:04:57 <midnightmagic> luke-jr: Yes, I liked eligius when I had some test hashrate on it. :) what took me away was more hashrate came online, and merged-mining came along.
 455 2011-12-20 05:05:16 <jgarzik> sipa: I'm vaguely tempted to see it in the tree, as a way to spur evolution of libbitcoin
 456 2011-12-20 05:05:17 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: Eligius does merged-mining too :p
 457 2011-12-20 05:05:41 <luke-jr> jgarzik: you're aware there is already an independent C++ implementation named libbitcoin?
 458 2011-12-20 05:05:43 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: You are making a huge unfounded assumption there.
 459 2011-12-20 05:05:50 <gmaxwell> I moved back off solo mining to eligius due to merged mining. The vinced patches/shimdaemon sucked, and I see I made the right decision. :)
 460 2011-12-20 05:05:54 <jgarzik> luke-jr: yes.  don't like it.
 461 2011-12-20 05:05:54 imsaguy is now known as BTC_1
 462 2011-12-20 05:06:07 BTC_1 is now known as BTC__
 463 2011-12-20 05:06:09 <jgarzik> luke-jr: I prefer a natural evolution from Satoshi codebase to a libbitcoin
 464 2011-12-20 05:06:17 <luke-jr> jgarzik: haven't look at it myself, but name conflicts are annoying :p
 465 2011-12-20 05:06:27 <jgarzik> luke-jr: libsatoshi :)
 466 2011-12-20 05:06:37 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: lol ooookay. been drinking tonight or something? usually you're not this vehement over what appears to be a non-technical reason.
 467 2011-12-20 05:06:38 <luke-jr> hah
 468 2011-12-20 05:06:45 BTC__ is now known as imsaguy
 469 2011-12-20 05:07:24 <_W_> the client and daemon crashes on windows when the %appdata%/Bitcoin directory is a symlink (or whatever it's called on windows) that points to somewhere that no longer exist
 470 2011-12-20 05:07:32 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: hm? sorry, I'm perhaps coming off more intense then I actually am. But really, you ought to be in the habbit of upgrading your software or you're going retard the growth and health of bitcoin.
 471 2011-12-20 05:07:35 <jrmithdobbs> midnightmagic: it is a technical reason
 472 2011-12-20 05:07:54 <sipa> jgarzik: "see it in the tree" ?
 473 2011-12-20 05:07:58 <jrmithdobbs> it's the same reason you should patch any other software
 474 2011-12-20 05:08:02 <midnightmagic> jrmithdobbs: Please do enlighten me. Do you have specifics other than what's been mentioned?
 475 2011-12-20 05:08:06 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: right now every block you mine is a vote against OP_EVAL for example, which I hope and doubt you oppose... but unless you feel like getting off your butt and applying the patch...
 476 2011-12-20 05:09:04 <midnightmagic> I do not oppose it.
 477 2011-12-20 05:09:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: speaking of which, did we decide OP_EVAL2 was practical, or do I still want to delay OP_EVAL for key recovery?
 478 2011-12-20 05:09:28 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: an unpatched miner by default opposes it.
 479 2011-12-20 05:09:31 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it's pratical I think.
 480 2011-12-20 05:09:39 <midnightmagic> I am not my miner.
 481 2011-12-20 05:09:57 BlueMatt has joined
 482 2011-12-20 05:10:21 <midnightmagic> Doesn't tycho still run 0.3.x?
 483 2011-12-20 05:10:38 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: Eligius runs a heavily patched 0.3.23 ;)
 484 2011-12-20 05:10:40 <midnightmagic> I thought someone was still going on about refusing to leave satoshi's version due to the issues that kept cropping up with the new code..
 485 2011-12-20 05:11:06 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: that's (one reason why) I'm maintaining 0.4.x
 486 2011-12-20 05:11:14 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: tycho is active here, and will backport stuff to whatever the heck he's running.
 487 2011-12-20 05:11:40 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: I don't really care what version you run, so long as you apply the relevant fixes.
 488 2011-12-20 05:11:54 <gmaxwell> usually the easiest way to do that is to simply run recent versions.
 489 2011-12-20 05:12:22 <gmaxwell> If there are bugs and/or feature gaps in the recent versions then you should keep on the pressure (and support) to get them fixed.
 490 2011-12-20 05:12:39 <jgarzik> sipa: in bitcoin/bitcoin.git/contrib
 491 2011-12-20 05:13:06 <jgarzik> sipa: thus encouraging (a) intra-tree code sharing, and (b) people running the dns seed
 492 2011-12-20 05:14:01 <gmaxwell> hm. if we're going to encourage more people to run seeds, perhaps -dnsseed should take arguments...
 493 2011-12-20 05:16:34 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: Ive always kinda disagreed with the idea of putting a dnsseed server in bitcoin/bitcoin, it just means updates to it take longer
 494 2011-12-20 05:16:46 <BlueMatt> and/or encourages the bitcoin/bitcoin version to be outdated
 495 2011-12-20 05:17:10 <BlueMatt> if its a highly-related project ok, but not if its a separate project like a dnsseed server
 496 2011-12-20 05:17:35 <gmaxwell> hm. it would actually be kinda neat to just have bitcoind itself run one— except for the pesky trouble of binding to port 53.
 497 2011-12-20 05:18:27 <BlueMatt> and the idea of running a dnsseed on a full node codebase...
 498 2011-12-20 05:19:01 <gmaxwell> well. .. along with that— addr rumoring logic needs to be fixed, as a prereq there in any case.
 499 2011-12-20 05:19:15 <BlueMatt> that needs to happen anyway
 500 2011-12-20 05:19:34 <luke-jr> …
 501 2011-12-20 05:19:40 <luke-jr> Bitcoin's p2p protocol already functions as a seed
 502 2011-12-20 05:19:46 <luke-jr> no need for DNS everywhere
 503 2011-12-20 05:19:46 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I think maybe you have the wrong idea. I do watch every issue that is reported. I watch most of the conversation about it. So far I don't really see a pressing broken-ness of the older code.. and I still mine on top of the OP_EVAL.. so..
 504 2011-12-20 05:20:05 <luke-jr> .. actually, this DNS seed thing IS kindof silly if we're running custom sw for it :/
 505 2011-12-20 05:20:19 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: but you'll also mine an invalid op_eval and get yourself split, once op_eval is enforced.
 506 2011-12-20 05:20:44 <midnightmagic> is op_eval enforced?
 507 2011-12-20 05:21:23 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it's not— the custom software gets around the current lack of node sanity checks, can run on VPSs with little memory, and the DNS requests are superior to normal rumoring because you don't need to establish a (resource hungry) connection so you can serve a lot more users with fewer resources.
 508 2011-12-20 05:21:25 <midnightmagic> and if a split is coming, are we going to fix the god-damned 2016th block timewarp bug?
 509 2011-12-20 05:21:54 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: it will be enforced, as of feb 1st in the current patches, but it won't cause a hard split.
 510 2011-12-20 05:22:14 <midnightmagic> what does that mean?
 511 2011-12-20 05:22:14 <gmaxwell> It'll just cause miners that mine or extend blocks with invalid op_eval to get orphaned.
 512 2011-12-20 05:22:33 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: having to run a full node just to aggregate a seed list would be a retarded waste of resources
 513 2011-12-20 05:22:35 <midnightmagic> but aren't I ignoring op_eval? or am I mining it in?
 514 2011-12-20 05:22:38 <gmaxwell> if you don't mine non-standard txn you'll be fine unless someone else does and you extend theirs.
 515 2011-12-20 05:22:59 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: you're ignoring it. And you ignore it if its valid or not.
 516 2011-12-20 05:23:18 <midnightmagic> so I'm not mining invalid op_eval anyway.
 517 2011-12-20 05:23:21 <gmaxwell> (hopefully, unless you're patched to mine non-standard txn, in which case you may include it too)
 518 2011-12-20 05:23:39 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: but you'll extend someone elses block that mined an invalid op_eval.
 519 2011-12-20 05:23:49 <midnightmagic> if it's relayed to me.
 520 2011-12-20 05:23:53 <gmaxwell> yes.
 521 2011-12-20 05:24:19 <midnightmagic> hrm.
 522 2011-12-20 05:24:26 <gmaxwell> and you'll relay them to others.
 523 2011-12-20 05:24:33 <jgarzik> I still think a DNS seed could be much, much more simple
 524 2011-12-20 05:24:37 <midnightmagic> well that's feb 1 then, if it happens at all.
 525 2011-12-20 05:24:45 <jgarzik> just create a "getaddresses" RPC, which returns a random list
 526 2011-12-20 05:24:52 <jgarzik> from bitcoind's address db
 527 2011-12-20 05:25:01 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: first bitcoins address db would have to be sane
 528 2011-12-20 05:25:03 <jgarzik> populate tinydns/BIND
 529 2011-12-20 05:25:07 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: that would be pretty much intolerable crap.
 530 2011-12-20 05:25:08 <BlueMatt> but yea, it could be
 531 2011-12-20 05:25:26 <gmaxwell> most of the addresses returned on long running nodes will be non-working.
 532 2011-12-20 05:25:26 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: then you still have to run a full node
 533 2011-12-20 05:25:44 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: at whiche point you might as well just db_dump addr.dat every 5 minutes
 534 2011-12-20 05:26:41 <jgarzik> no, the address db merely needs the well-discussed pruning that should occur anyway
 535 2011-12-20 05:27:00 <jgarzik> auto-
 536 2011-12-20 05:27:08 <gmaxwell> my addr.dat is .. something like 13 megabytes.. there are only 5k listening nodes.
 537 2011-12-20 05:27:20 <jgarzik> handy DNS seed list is a useful side effect of non-stupid address db maint
 538 2011-12-20 05:27:22 <gmaxwell> oh okay, assuming thats all fixed then sure.
 539 2011-12-20 05:27:23 <sipa> still, my dnsseed actively tries to monitor each good node it knows about
 540 2011-12-20 05:27:27 sacarlson has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 541 2011-12-20 05:27:29 <sipa> a full node doesn't need to do that
 542 2011-12-20 05:27:32 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: would accomplish the same thing as doing it through the rpc is what i'm saying
 543 2011-12-20 05:27:39 Maged has joined
 544 2011-12-20 05:27:43 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: neither are a good idea imho
 545 2011-12-20 05:27:48 <jrmithdobbs> (was the point)
 546 2011-12-20 05:27:51 <gmaxwell> I think it's okay. Diversity is good.
 547 2011-12-20 05:27:55 <gmaxwell> We should have both kinds of seeds.
 548 2011-12-20 05:28:11 <jgarzik> yep
 549 2011-12-20 05:30:38 <midnightmagic> hey looks like a hashrate vote is being taken for op_eval anyway.
 550 2011-12-20 05:30:53 <midnightmagic> that's what you were talking about..
 551 2011-12-20 05:31:26 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: anyways, pruning makes it better but still requires running a full node. that's a lot of ram for a measely dns server
 552 2011-12-20 05:31:38 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: kinda, there is no algorithimic enforcement of it.. the code as written will take effect feb 1st. But the vote is there, so that if its failing to get a majority the date can be postponed.
 553 2011-12-20 05:31:52 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: my seed uses 7MB of memory now
 554 2011-12-20 05:32:06 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: awesome
 555 2011-12-20 05:32:07 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: because we can have >>50% with just three pools which can be manually coordinated, thats adequate.
 556 2011-12-20 05:32:07 <helo> gmaxwell: any idea what the current vote is?
 557 2011-12-20 05:32:24 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: now that's dns server friendly ;p
 558 2011-12-20 05:33:03 <midnightmagic> so..  the votes of the rest of the network are irrelevant. so in essence, 3 people (plus devs) get to decide the future of the network.
 559 2011-12-20 05:33:19 <midnightmagic> are the pools taking a vote of their own users?
 560 2011-12-20 05:33:19 <jrmithdobbs> welcome to the consequences of pools
 561 2011-12-20 05:33:39 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: thats a fault of the community, unfortunately.
 562 2011-12-20 05:34:08 <midnightmagic> so, that's a demonstration of power concentration.
 563 2011-12-20 05:34:13 <phantomcircuit> sipa, seed?
 564 2011-12-20 05:34:19 <gmaxwell> the right criteria for activation is >>50% and two/three pools are necessary and sufficient. :(
 565 2011-12-20 05:34:20 <midnightmagic> and you're worried about how weird txn look in debug.log to new users?
 566 2011-12-20 05:34:25 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin-seeder
 567 2011-12-20 05:34:33 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: er.. in debug.log, hardly.
 568 2011-12-20 05:34:35 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: good stuff
 569 2011-12-20 05:34:43 <sipa> phantomcircuit: integrate network crawler + dns server
 570 2011-12-20 05:34:54 <sipa> *integrated
 571 2011-12-20 05:34:55 <phantomcircuit> sipa, ah
 572 2011-12-20 05:35:00 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: the double input have been used txn have been used to rob people. (well, fools who accept 0-confirm, but still)
 573 2011-12-20 05:35:32 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: there a reason you decided to actually implement dns instead of dump to a couple well known zone formats?
 574 2011-12-20 05:35:36 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: If you're talking about mybitcoin, that looked way more like they just ran off with it, to me.
 575 2011-12-20 05:35:50 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: because i want to return a different result for each query
 576 2011-12-20 05:36:21 <gmaxwell> nah, I've seen the transactions on the network too. They were even showing up on bitcoin charts until it was upgraded.. so you could even convince people that the 0-confirm txn was well propagated. :(
 577 2011-12-20 05:36:21 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: you can do that trivially with any modern dns server
 578 2011-12-20 05:36:55 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: start your patching.
 579 2011-12-20 05:37:09 <jrmithdobbs> ya i might play with it
 580 2011-12-20 05:37:25 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: already looking at it
 581 2011-12-20 05:37:36 <midnightmagic> ... and effective Tycho + someone else deciding to go ahead with op_eval isn't.. a little more worrisome than 0-confirm txn looking weird to newbs?
 582 2011-12-20 05:37:48 traviscj has joined
 583 2011-12-20 05:38:35 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: come on, those are _both_ issues, one doesn't diminish the other. And "not looking weird" but "being useful to rob people"
 584 2011-12-20 05:39:06 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I see tycho+1 guy deciding a change in the network as a farce of a vote. That sort of thing worries me. 0-confirm txn doesn't bother me. And it shouldn't bother you either unless you've specifically seen it used to rob someone.
 585 2011-12-20 05:39:08 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: presumably if there was non-trivial pushback both the devs and pools would back off, but no one seems much opposed to it now in any case.
 586 2011-12-20 05:39:31 <jrmithdobbs> midnightmagic: i've specifically seen it used to rob someone in #bitcoin
 587 2011-12-20 05:39:37 <jrmithdobbs> end of discussion, criteria met
 588 2011-12-20 05:39:41 <midnightmagic> geh, brutal. shades of the testnet reset..
 589 2011-12-20 05:39:54 <midnightmagic> jrmithdobbs: actually not, unless he saw it too.
 590 2011-12-20 05:39:59 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: well, again, fucking fix it. Because I think it's terrible.
 591 2011-12-20 05:39:59 <jrmithdobbs> haha
 592 2011-12-20 05:40:31 RazielZ has joined
 593 2011-12-20 05:40:42 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: I'm not completely sure if what I saw was someone being robbed or someone lying. But it doesn't matter, its a somewhat minor security vulnerability that closes as more nodes are upgraded.
 594 2011-12-20 05:40:49 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Hey man, I'm not saying "don't fix the 0-confirm txn relay" I'm just sitting here wondering why there's even the facade of a vote.
 595 2011-12-20 05:41:05 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: pretty nifty stuff though
 596 2011-12-20 05:41:30 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 597 2011-12-20 05:41:32 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: because we actually need a way of telling for quasisure that people did apply the patch and weren't just saying they would.
 598 2011-12-20 05:42:11 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: and because its a good mechenism to use for the future... when hopefully we won't have this fucked up situation where bitcoin is no longer decenteralized.
 599 2011-12-20 05:42:15 <gmaxwell> :-/
 600 2011-12-20 05:42:16 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: far from finished though; still on TODO: export/import node db to a file, command-line options, comments in the code, some extra configuration options, ...
 601 2011-12-20 05:42:41 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: think it also needs to be able to bootstrap via a --conect=
 602 2011-12-20 05:43:03 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: why not bootstrap via .. dnsseed?
 603 2011-12-20 05:43:11 <jrmithdobbs> having to bootstrap dns seeds off of dns could end badly during catastrophe
 604 2011-12-20 05:43:28 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: just as an option
 605 2011-12-20 05:43:35 vsriniva1 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 606 2011-12-20 05:43:43 <sipa> it actually bootstraps now off BlueMatt's seed...
 607 2011-12-20 05:43:48 <sipa> which seems to work fine
 608 2011-12-20 05:43:52 <jrmithdobbs> ya that's why i mentioned
 609 2011-12-20 05:44:05 <sipa> but if all dns seed are all booting off eachother... we may have a problem
 610 2011-12-20 05:44:17 vsrinivas has joined
 611 2011-12-20 05:44:20 <jrmithdobbs> right, that's all i was saying
 612 2011-12-20 05:46:25 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: like the CAddrInfo stuff
 613 2011-12-20 05:47:04 <sipa> that's what CAddress should be in bitcoin as well
 614 2011-12-20 05:47:28 <sipa> maybe not as complex
 615 2011-12-20 05:47:30 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: sipas got most of the work done on being able to prune addr.dat if you want to clean bitcoin to merge it, heh
 616 2011-12-20 05:47:48 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: no i think that's about what it should be
 617 2011-12-20 05:48:02 <sipa> i'm keeping more statistics now than i actually use
 618 2011-12-20 05:48:08 <phantomcircuit> tcatm, ps bcc is shitting itself
 619 2011-12-20 05:48:27 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: could be useful for reporting
 620 2011-12-20 05:50:13 <helo> the wiki needs to make it easier to find out how to generate encrypted wallet from the get-go...
 621 2011-12-20 05:50:28 <helo> 10 minutes of searching and counting
 622 2011-12-20 05:50:54 <rjk2> maybe cause its so obvious in the gui?
 623 2011-12-20 05:50:57 <rjk2> dunno
 624 2011-12-20 05:51:06 <midnightmagic> uh, for what it's worth, I do fully intend to upgrade asap, i'm not just being an ass..  so thanks for the spirited discussion, it's given me hopefully the motivation to update to luke's merged-mining patches..
 625 2011-12-20 05:52:42 <helo> rjk2: i don't want to encrypt my wallet after it has been saved to my disk... without understanding the specifics of the disk tech that is being used, it's very likely leaking information. seems like a common need to be able to generate a new encrypted wallet directly
 626 2011-12-20 05:53:10 <helo> i guess i could link ~/.bitcoin to /dev/shm, encrypt, and then copy it to disk
 627 2011-12-20 05:53:37 <rjk2> the encrypted wallet overwrites the area where the unencrypted one was initially created, i *think*
 628 2011-12-20 05:53:48 <rjk2> gmaxwell: can you confirm
 629 2011-12-20 05:53:48 <jrmithdobbs> rjk2: it can't
 630 2011-12-20 05:53:56 <jrmithdobbs> i think it "tries" to
 631 2011-12-20 05:53:59 <rjk2> i thought it was something similar to that
 632 2011-12-20 05:54:01 <jrmithdobbs> but that shit doesn't work on any modern fs
 633 2011-12-20 05:54:02 <gmaxwell> rjk2: no. It doesn't.
 634 2011-12-20 05:54:04 <helo> rjk2: what if you're using ssd with wear-leveling, so it tries not to overwrite the same blocks if possible?
 635 2011-12-20 05:54:11 <jrmithdobbs> or there was talk of making it
 636 2011-12-20 05:54:35 Habbie has quit (Quit: kernel update, USN-1311-1)
 637 2011-12-20 05:54:46 <jrmithdobbs> helo: you don't even have to go that far, most fses don't immediately reuse blocks even if rewriting to the same logical place
 638 2011-12-20 05:54:53 <jrmithdobbs> helo: haven't for a decade
 639 2011-12-20 05:54:58 <gmaxwell> helo: if you encrypt a wallet it will retire all the potentially leaked keys in the keypool.
 640 2011-12-20 05:55:02 <helo> so fucked on all fronts
 641 2011-12-20 05:55:17 <gmaxwell> helo: so _presuming_ there are no other bugs, all you do is startup with a new wallet and encrypt it and you're fine.
 642 2011-12-20 05:55:50 <gmaxwell> (any address you get post encrypting will be a born-encrypted address)
 643 2011-12-20 05:55:51 <jrmithdobbs> can't you start with the encrypted wallet flag with no wallet.dat and it'll create it?
 644 2011-12-20 05:56:07 <helo> gmaxwell: so if i open the client, encrypt the wallet, and do a getaddressbyaccount, the address will be from a private key that was never written to disk unencrypted?
 645 2011-12-20 05:56:13 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: no, you have to startup unencrypted, but see above: it doesn't matter. If you start, then encrypt, you'll be all set.
 646 2011-12-20 05:56:15 <helo> ahh good
 647 2011-12-20 05:56:19 <sipa> helo: yes
 648 2011-12-20 05:56:22 <gmaxwell> helo: yep.
 649 2011-12-20 05:56:44 <gmaxwell> This is because sipa is a very smart person and realized that this simply solved the problem even though we can't reliably overwrite on the disk.
 650 2011-12-20 05:56:51 <rjk2> see, they think of everything :)
 651 2011-12-20 05:57:12 <sipa> gmaxwell: can't remember that i came up with that
 652 2011-12-20 05:58:27 Habbie has joined
 653 2011-12-20 05:59:34 <gmaxwell> I think so. I mostly remember feeling stupid for not realizing it myself!
 654 2011-12-20 05:59:52 <gmaxwell> (esp after thinking many times that it sucked that there was no reasonable way to have a wallet born encrypted!)
 655 2011-12-20 06:00:07 <gmaxwell> You're still smart even if I'm wrongfully crediting you. :)
 656 2011-12-20 06:05:12 <helo> hah, that is pretty magical
 657 2011-12-20 06:05:33 <helo> particularly since it only encrypts the private keys, so you can still get addresses without even typing the passphrase
 658 2011-12-20 06:07:59 <gmaxwell> helo: right, thats an important part of the design... means you can keep it encrypted 99% of the time you're _using_ bitcoin.
 659 2011-12-20 06:10:08 <jrmithdobbs> i just don't have a wallet on a listening node
 660 2011-12-20 06:12:23 djoot has quit (Quit: leaving)
 661 2011-12-20 06:13:38 btc_novice has joined
 662 2011-12-20 06:15:23 djoot has joined
 663 2011-12-20 06:15:23 djoot has quit (Changing host)
 664 2011-12-20 06:15:23 djoot has joined
 665 2011-12-20 06:36:50 TDL__ is now known as darkee
 666 2011-12-20 06:39:17 <helo> someone will get a 1BTC donation from me for this in the morning :)
 667 2011-12-20 06:42:36 <genjix> helo: the wiki is editable you know
 668 2011-12-20 06:42:42 <genjix> so go ahead and explain it there
 669 2011-12-20 07:00:32 da2ce7 has joined
 670 2011-12-20 07:02:34 <Mqrius> Where can I check pending transactions? bitcoincharts doesn't seem to be responding
 671 2011-12-20 07:04:51 <phantomcircuit> Mqrius, bitcoinchain.info
 672 2011-12-20 07:05:07 <phantomcircuit> blockchain.info i mean
 673 2011-12-20 07:07:00 <Mqrius> Thanks
 674 2011-12-20 07:08:02 abragin has joined
 675 2011-12-20 07:08:02 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 676 2011-12-20 07:08:02 abragin has joined
 677 2011-12-20 07:13:46 Burgundy has joined
 678 2011-12-20 07:14:16 comboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 679 2011-12-20 07:16:50 comboy has joined
 680 2011-12-20 07:33:20 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 681 2011-12-20 07:33:45 Kireji has joined
 682 2011-12-20 07:35:05 <Kireji> the latest bitcoind version I ran was bitcoin-0.3.24 (on linux/console) I'm upgrading to bitcoin-0.5.1-linux - can I just leave my ~/.bitcoin directory in place and fire up the new client?
 683 2011-12-20 07:35:41 <phantomcircuit> Kireji, backup first just for super safety
 684 2011-12-20 07:35:46 <phantomcircuit> but yes it will just work
 685 2011-12-20 07:36:11 <Kireji> backup, meaning copy all the files in .bitcoin into another area?
 686 2011-12-20 07:37:53 <sipa> Kireji: just wallet.dat
 687 2011-12-20 07:38:33 <Kireji> the blk0001.dat and blkindex.dat are the 800MB - do I delete those or leave them?
 688 2011-12-20 07:38:39 <sipa> leave them
 689 2011-12-20 07:39:06 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 690 2011-12-20 07:39:06 <sipa> otherwise you'll need to download them again
 691 2011-12-20 07:43:02 <MC1984> do it it will be fun
 692 2011-12-20 07:44:26 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 693 2011-12-20 07:47:48 <Kireji> MC1984: badurrr, ok
 694 2011-12-20 07:47:58 <Kireji> ;)
 695 2011-12-20 07:48:15 <MC1984> they made it super fast download now bro, i promise
 696 2011-12-20 07:49:02 <Kireji> what's the total size of .bitcoin directory now?
 697 2011-12-20 07:49:51 <Kireji> I'm assuming all clients still download the whole block chain, as before - is that still how the client works?
 698 2011-12-20 07:50:30 <terrytibbs> Kireji: correct
 699 2011-12-20 07:50:58 <terrytibbs> allchains reports a chain size of about 800mb
 700 2011-12-20 07:51:19 <terrytibbs> that can depend on how many orphan blocks and other nasty stuff they've accumulated over time, though
 701 2011-12-20 07:51:31 <terrytibbs> a clean download would be a tad bit smaller
 702 2011-12-20 07:51:59 <Kireji> kk, thanks
 703 2011-12-20 07:55:21 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 704 2011-12-20 07:56:00 b4epoche has joined
 705 2011-12-20 07:59:55 <Kireji> ok, so where is wallet.dat now?
 706 2011-12-20 08:01:16 <Kireji> without a wallet.dat file, "bitcoind listreceivedbyaddress 0 true" and "bitcoind getbalance" still return results
 707 2011-12-20 08:01:27 <Kireji> but don't seem to access of use my old wallet.dat
 708 2011-12-20 08:02:07 <sipa> wallet.dat is still where it used to be
 709 2011-12-20 08:02:43 <Kireji> :/
 710 2011-12-20 08:05:35 <Kireji> perhaps copying and moveing the file out from unerneighth the running server is not such a good idea
 711 2011-12-20 08:05:41 <Kireji> s/moving/
 712 2011-12-20 08:06:29 <Kireji> it's all good
 713 2011-12-20 08:06:33 <Kireji> it's all there
 714 2011-12-20 08:06:47 <Kireji> thanks all - g'night and happy holiday season
 715 2011-12-20 08:06:49 Kireji has left ()
 716 2011-12-20 08:17:59 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 717 2011-12-20 08:18:11 molecular has joined
 718 2011-12-20 08:22:34 karnac has joined
 719 2011-12-20 08:22:36 karnac has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 720 2011-12-20 08:25:38 gjs278 has joined
 721 2011-12-20 08:26:54 larsivi has joined
 722 2011-12-20 08:32:46 btc_novice has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 723 2011-12-20 08:36:29 sytse has joined
 724 2011-12-20 08:40:27 elkingrey has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 725 2011-12-20 08:48:14 Shaded has quit (Quit: Shaded)
 726 2011-12-20 08:49:48 cronopio has quit (Quit: leaving)
 727 2011-12-20 08:56:31 wasabi2 has joined
 728 2011-12-20 08:57:39 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 729 2011-12-20 09:02:04 da2ce7 has joined
 730 2011-12-20 09:02:08 nr9 has joined
 731 2011-12-20 09:04:48 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 732 2011-12-20 09:06:35 osmosis has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 733 2011-12-20 09:07:48 marf_away has joined
 734 2011-12-20 09:08:06 ThomasV has joined
 735 2011-12-20 09:13:17 RazielZ has joined
 736 2011-12-20 09:24:58 <netxshare> anyone have anyidea why listtransactions would give out data the first time around, but fail the second time?
 737 2011-12-20 09:25:08 <netxshare> I was able to get the txid just fine but now it returns nothing
 738 2011-12-20 09:36:59 osmosis has joined
 739 2011-12-20 09:40:24 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 740 2011-12-20 09:45:12 makomk has joined
 741 2011-12-20 09:45:50 BurtyB has joined
 742 2011-12-20 09:49:11 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 743 2011-12-20 09:49:47 RazielZ has joined
 744 2011-12-20 10:04:21 da2ce7 has joined
 745 2011-12-20 10:09:40 AStove has joined
 746 2011-12-20 10:11:27 nr9 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 747 2011-12-20 10:16:41 <Diablo-D3> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3368539
 748 2011-12-20 10:16:44 <Diablo-D3> NEED MORE KARMA
 749 2011-12-20 10:21:39 RazielZ has quit ()
 750 2011-12-20 10:33:15 datagutt has joined
 751 2011-12-20 10:39:04 roconnor has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 752 2011-12-20 10:39:51 <edcba> there are always a lot of "experts" cited by journalists :)
 753 2011-12-20 10:40:43 <edcba> we had some cyberterrorism expert showing some c++ course in arabic in french television :)
 754 2011-12-20 10:41:06 <edcba> citing it was some terrorism bible or whatever
 755 2011-12-20 10:41:50 <edcba> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/cu5t5/according_to_french_terrorism_expert_roland/
 756 2011-12-20 10:42:45 <edcba> journalists are often quite unprofessional/stupids
 757 2011-12-20 10:45:11 cdecker has joined
 758 2011-12-20 10:46:07 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 759 2011-12-20 10:47:35 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 760 2011-12-20 10:49:59 erus` has joined
 761 2011-12-20 10:51:08 rdponticelli has joined
 762 2011-12-20 10:53:37 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 763 2011-12-20 10:55:15 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
 764 2011-12-20 10:55:31 cdecker has left ()
 765 2011-12-20 11:01:58 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 766 2011-12-20 11:03:06 erle- has joined
 767 2011-12-20 11:07:51 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 768 2011-12-20 11:13:34 RazielZ has joined
 769 2011-12-20 11:15:10 m00p has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 770 2011-12-20 11:21:49 ezezezeze has joined
 771 2011-12-20 11:29:58 ezezezeze has quit ()
 772 2011-12-20 11:31:45 iocor has joined
 773 2011-12-20 11:31:55 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
 774 2011-12-20 11:35:10 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 775 2011-12-20 11:48:18 diki has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 776 2011-12-20 11:57:45 wasabi has joined
 777 2011-12-20 11:59:21 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 778 2011-12-20 12:03:18 Maged has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 779 2011-12-20 12:04:05 Maged has joined
 780 2011-12-20 12:04:47 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 781 2011-12-20 12:04:48 [Tycho] has joined
 782 2011-12-20 12:08:23 b4epoche_ has joined
 783 2011-12-20 12:09:18 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 784 2011-12-20 12:09:18 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 785 2011-12-20 12:17:08 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 786 2011-12-20 12:21:59 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 787 2011-12-20 12:22:05 sneak has joined
 788 2011-12-20 12:25:17 slush has joined
 789 2011-12-20 12:25:30 chrisb__ has joined
 790 2011-12-20 12:26:55 JZavala has joined
 791 2011-12-20 12:34:29 <mcorlett> I've created a nice proof-of-concept script showing how easy it is for entities to accept donations anonymously via Bitcoin, i.e. new address for every user. It's very simple, but neat. Would someone be willing to host a demo of it in action? It's PHP, no dependencies, but needs a connection to a Bitcoin RPC server.
 792 2011-12-20 12:36:15 wolfspraul has joined
 793 2011-12-20 12:47:06 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 794 2011-12-20 12:47:18 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 795 2011-12-20 12:49:33 wolfspraul has joined
 796 2011-12-20 12:55:23 JZavala has joined
 797 2011-12-20 13:02:30 <lianj> why do you need bitcoind rpc?
 798 2011-12-20 13:10:16 <[Tycho]> mcorlett: actually most entities need NOT anonymous donations, that's the problem :)
 799 2011-12-20 13:12:44 abragin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 800 2011-12-20 13:14:45 abragin has joined
 801 2011-12-20 13:14:46 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 802 2011-12-20 13:14:46 abragin has joined
 803 2011-12-20 13:20:26 jarpiain has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 804 2011-12-20 13:20:55 jarpiain has joined
 805 2011-12-20 13:21:21 jarpiain is now known as Guest88796
 806 2011-12-20 13:26:39 justmoon has joined
 807 2011-12-20 13:36:49 Sedra- has joined
 808 2011-12-20 13:40:18 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 809 2011-12-20 14:00:16 <sipa> ;;later tell BlueMatt how many "good" nodes does your seed find?
 810 2011-12-20 14:00:16 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
 811 2011-12-20 14:04:21 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 812 2011-12-20 14:04:27 sneak has joined
 813 2011-12-20 14:04:27 sneak has quit (Changing host)
 814 2011-12-20 14:04:27 sneak has joined
 815 2011-12-20 14:09:56 traviscj has joined
 816 2011-12-20 14:12:22 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 817 2011-12-20 14:16:25 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 818 2011-12-20 14:29:33 molecular has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 819 2011-12-20 14:30:26 da2ce7 has joined
 820 2011-12-20 14:31:57 diki has joined
 821 2011-12-20 14:32:11 [eval] has joined
 822 2011-12-20 14:32:23 diki is now known as Guest21619
 823 2011-12-20 14:33:39 Guest21619 is now known as diki
 824 2011-12-20 14:37:20 TiggrBot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 825 2011-12-20 14:37:21 SuprTiggr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 826 2011-12-20 14:38:36 Turingi has joined
 827 2011-12-20 14:40:50 <helo> no donation address on bitcoin.org?
 828 2011-12-20 14:41:08 <sipa> who do you want to donate to?
 829 2011-12-20 14:41:35 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 830 2011-12-20 14:42:02 <helo> good question... i'd prefer not to have to pick a particular dev, as you're all important :)
 831 2011-12-20 14:42:34 <helo> oh well
 832 2011-12-20 14:42:58 SuprTiggr has joined
 833 2011-12-20 14:46:22 int0x27h_ has joined
 834 2011-12-20 14:46:53 gwillen_ has joined
 835 2011-12-20 14:47:36 talso has joined
 836 2011-12-20 14:48:26 upb has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 837 2011-12-20 14:49:57 tower has quit (Disconnected by services)
 838 2011-12-20 14:50:09 tower has joined
 839 2011-12-20 14:52:05 Cablesaurus has joined
 840 2011-12-20 14:52:05 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
 841 2011-12-20 14:52:05 Cablesaurus has joined
 842 2011-12-20 14:56:25 BurtyBB has joined
 843 2011-12-20 14:59:01 Bwild has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 844 2011-12-20 14:59:55 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 845 2011-12-20 15:03:41 chrisb__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 846 2011-12-20 15:05:04 nutcase has joined
 847 2011-12-20 15:05:05 nutcase has quit (Excess Flood)
 848 2011-12-20 15:05:48 nutcase has joined
 849 2011-12-20 15:05:49 nutcase has quit (Excess Flood)
 850 2011-12-20 15:06:48 nutcase has joined
 851 2011-12-20 15:06:48 nutcase has quit (Excess Flood)
 852 2011-12-20 15:10:12 copumpkin has joined
 853 2011-12-20 15:10:16 p0s has joined
 854 2011-12-20 15:17:42 Bwild has joined
 855 2011-12-20 15:27:46 Wizzleby has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 856 2011-12-20 15:28:09 gp5st has joined
 857 2011-12-20 15:28:13 gp5st has left ()
 858 2011-12-20 15:35:40 Fnar has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 859 2011-12-20 15:36:45 da2ce7 has joined
 860 2011-12-20 15:36:58 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 861 2011-12-20 15:37:56 upb has joined
 862 2011-12-20 15:38:04 upb has quit (Changing host)
 863 2011-12-20 15:38:04 upb has joined
 864 2011-12-20 15:38:24 <[Tycho]> Are there any OP_EVAL TXes in testnet ?
 865 2011-12-20 15:45:18 Wizzleby has joined
 866 2011-12-20 15:45:44 dvide has joined
 867 2011-12-20 15:48:48 Guest88796 is now known as jarpiain
 868 2011-12-20 15:59:09 phantomfake has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 869 2011-12-20 15:59:10 phantomfake_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 870 2011-12-20 16:05:03 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 871 2011-12-20 16:10:38 EvanR-work has joined
 872 2011-12-20 16:18:44 Shaded has joined
 873 2011-12-20 16:19:00 <helo> when sending an amount from a wallet with balances on multiple addresses, what criteria does bitcoin use to select the ones it sends from? addresses age? encryption status? fewest addresses required?
 874 2011-12-20 16:19:40 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 875 2011-12-20 16:20:01 b4epoche has joined
 876 2011-12-20 16:20:24 tower has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 877 2011-12-20 16:20:58 tower has joined
 878 2011-12-20 16:35:51 erus` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 879 2011-12-20 16:39:13 phantomfake has joined
 880 2011-12-20 16:39:15 gavinandresen has joined
 881 2011-12-20 16:40:06 <imsaguy2> helo: its a mess right now
 882 2011-12-20 16:40:27 <sipa> it first tries to use only 6+-confirms
 883 2011-12-20 16:40:36 <sipa> if that doesn't work, it allows 1+-confirms
 884 2011-12-20 16:40:46 <sipa> if that doesn't work, it allows 0-confirms for own txouts
 885 2011-12-20 16:41:04 <sipa> in each attempt, a greedy matching algorithm is used that tries to minimize the number of coins used
 886 2011-12-20 16:44:26 <helo> that is probably good... it would be nice if the client would tell you what your secure (encrypted privkey) and insecure balances are
 887 2011-12-20 16:44:46 <helo> or if you only have secure balances, to alert you if you receive funds to an unencrypted address
 888 2011-12-20 16:45:11 <sipa> that's either 0 or everything
 889 2011-12-20 16:45:38 <sipa> it encrypts all keys when enabling encryption
 890 2011-12-20 16:45:47 <sipa> so there are never unencrypted addresses left
 891 2011-12-20 16:46:46 <helo> but it can't be guaranteed that unencrypted versions of the addresses aren't still on a block device somewhere
 892 2011-12-20 16:46:54 <helo> so there are "less secure" addresses
 893 2011-12-20 16:47:35 <sipa> there is no "unencrypted version of an address"
 894 2011-12-20 16:47:50 <sipa> it's the private keys that are encrypted
 895 2011-12-20 16:47:57 <sipa> and those are not put in the block chain
 896 2011-12-20 16:48:09 <helo> yes, replace that with "addresses from unencrypted keys"
 897 2011-12-20 16:48:23 <helo> err... "unencrypted keys" bah
 898 2011-12-20 16:48:25 <sipa> but you don't have the unencrypted keys anymore
 899 2011-12-20 16:48:59 <sipa> now, there could be keys that previously touched disk in unencrypted form, yes
 900 2011-12-20 16:49:13 <sipa> so an attacker who has a copy of an older wallet may have access to those
 901 2011-12-20 16:49:25 <helo> yes, that is what i'm trying to say :)
 902 2011-12-20 16:50:38 <helo> and bitcoin won't give you addresses from the keys that were previously on disk in unencrypted form, right?
 903 2011-12-20 16:50:56 <sipa> no
 904 2011-12-20 16:51:49 <helo> (quoting gmax earlier) "if you encrypt a wallet it will retire all the potentially leaked keys in the keypool."
 905 2011-12-20 16:52:59 <helo> i took that to mean that if i encrypt my wallet, and then get an address, that address will be from a newly generated key that never touched disk unencrypted
 906 2011-12-20 16:53:18 <gavinandresen> helo:  From the 0.5 release notes:  "If your encrypted wallet.dat may have been copied or stolen, send
 907 2011-12-20 16:53:18 <gavinandresen>  all of your bitcoins to the new bitcoin address."
 908 2011-12-20 16:53:40 <sipa> helo: that is correct
 909 2011-12-20 16:54:34 <helo> so there are some addresses (the ones that have been retired) in the wallet that are less reliably secure than others, that may still receive funds
 910 2011-12-20 16:54:41 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * rbd846c0 / (src/serialize.h src/uint256.h src/util.h): Cleanup: removed dead code, and use C99 typedefs for int64 (supported by all modern c++ compilers) - http://git.io/N-mHSg https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/bd846c0e565ca0db276cb6b7eac7763bebe19b84
 911 2011-12-20 16:54:41 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r26ce92b / (13 files in 2 dirs): Use std::numeric_limits<> for typesafe INT_MAX/etc - http://git.io/IKmqUA https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/26ce92b3526430d4a40b2faccef4facb966d6a0a
 912 2011-12-20 16:54:41 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r9ef7fa3 / (src/key.h src/main.cpp): Code cleanup: use ECDSA_size() instead of fixed 10,000 byte sig buffer, and explicity init static var - http://git.io/blmAUw https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9ef7fa344741cb34ba4e15cff06d61d1c7a74e24
 913 2011-12-20 16:54:42 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r74f5435 / (15 files in 2 dirs): Merge pull request #716 from gavinandresen/cleanup ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/74f5435e104be76cd342a9a196ed4a10b8a7e248
 914 2011-12-20 16:54:42 <sipa> true
 915 2011-12-20 16:55:18 <helo> i'm asking whether the bitcoin client indicates when funds are received by retired addresses vs "safe" addresses
 916 2011-12-20 16:55:19 BlueMatt has joined
 917 2011-12-20 16:55:52 <helo> and if not, how one can determine whether that has happened
 918 2011-12-20 16:56:50 <luke-jr> helo: the client doesn't know the difference
 919 2011-12-20 16:57:53 <helo> how does it avoid giving out addresses that have been retired (pre-encryption)?
 920 2011-12-20 16:58:10 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r387c8e3 / (src/util.cpp src/util.h): Merge pull request #673 from mndrix/less-time-data ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/387c8e3c5b1e00c6e9e57bfb069a6bfed09411d9
 921 2011-12-20 16:58:49 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #142: FAILURE in 36 sec: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/142/
 922 2011-12-20 16:58:50 <BlueMattBot> * michael: Only log time samples in debug mode
 923 2011-12-20 16:58:50 <BlueMattBot> * michael: Retain only the most recent time samples
 924 2011-12-20 16:58:51 <BlueMattBot> * gavinandresen: Cleanup: removed dead code, and use C99 typedefs for int64 (supported by all modern c++ compilers)
 925 2011-12-20 16:58:51 <BlueMattBot> * gavinandresen: Use std::numeric_limits<> for typesafe INT_MAX/etc
 926 2011-12-20 16:58:52 <BlueMattBot> * gavinandresen: Code cleanup: use ECDSA_size() instead of fixed 10,000 byte sig buffer, and explicity init static var
 927 2011-12-20 16:59:00 <BlueMatt> wtf?
 928 2011-12-20 16:59:02 <sipa> helo: by removing them from the bool
 929 2011-12-20 16:59:11 <sipa> *pool
 930 2011-12-20 16:59:17 <luke-jr> sigh
 931 2011-12-20 16:59:19 <BlueMatt> heh, who broke the build?
 932 2011-12-20 16:59:36 <luke-jr> Gavin seems to be focussing on "cleanup" before merging the ACK'd features :/
 933 2011-12-20 16:59:49 <luke-jr> I bet that will mean everything has to be rebased
 934 2011-12-20 17:00:01 wasabi2 has joined
 935 2011-12-20 17:00:33 <luke-jr> helo: it never gives out used addresses, pre-encryption or not
 936 2011-12-20 17:00:40 <helo> ahhh, right
 937 2011-12-20 17:00:50 <jgarzik> luke-jr: what pulls have been ACK'd but not merged?
 938 2011-12-20 17:01:24 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 939 2011-12-20 17:01:54 <helo> so it marks all pre-encryption addresses as used... so when it receives funds, it's always going to be to an address that isn't in the pool any longer, and it won't know whether they were removed from the pool
 940 2011-12-20 17:02:38 <helo> s/whether/why/
 941 2011-12-20 17:03:08 <sipa> helo: the pool is the list of addresses marked as 'not used yet'
 942 2011-12-20 17:03:20 <sipa> and when you request a new address from the client, it picks one from that list
 943 2011-12-20 17:03:36 <sipa> when encrypting, that list is emptied, and a new set of pool keys is generated
 944 2011-12-20 17:03:56 <helo> yeah, i think i get it now
 945 2011-12-20 17:03:57 <sipa> (while the actual keys in there remain in your wallet, they are just never returned when asking for a new address)
 946 2011-12-20 17:05:19 <sipa> BlueMatt: i currently have a set of +- 1070 nodes considered 'good' by my seed
 947 2011-12-20 17:05:35 <BlueMatt> sipa: I usually get somewhere around 1500 when things are working well
 948 2011-12-20 17:05:38 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: I broke the build, fixing now...
 949 2011-12-20 17:05:48 <BlueMatt> gavin...
 950 2011-12-20 17:05:52 <sipa> BlueMatt: you include 0.3.24 though, right?
 951 2011-12-20 17:05:59 <BlueMatt> thats true
 952 2011-12-20 17:06:46 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r0e87f34 / src/serialize.h : Include limits, not climints (using std::numeric_limits now) - http://git.io/YY1-Lg https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/0e87f34bed1fac9b2ac2fa2b38c2f2a91b5b6c42
 953 2011-12-20 17:07:05 <gavinandresen> (grumbles about sub-includes not being standardized across compilers....)
 954 2011-12-20 17:09:27 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
 955 2011-12-20 17:10:31 <luke-jr> jgarzik: coinbaser, signmessage_gui, etc
 956 2011-12-20 17:12:16 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Kamil Domanski * r4b7c4f285146 gentoo/net-p2p/libbitcoin/ (Manifest libbitcoin-9999.ebuild): net-p2p/libbitcoin-9999: berkdb use_enable updated http://tinyurl.com/ctku7x6
 957 2011-12-20 17:12:56 <gavinandresen> jgarzik:  I defer to your judgement on coinbaser, I don't care.
 958 2011-12-20 17:13:02 Shaded has quit (Quit: Shaded)
 959 2011-12-20 17:13:11 <gavinandresen> wumpus: I defer to your judgement on signmessage_gui.
 960 2011-12-20 17:13:38 <gavinandresen> (I have no objections to either)
 961 2011-12-20 17:15:19 mcorlett has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 962 2011-12-20 17:18:16 <gmaxwell> sipa: a little troubling that you're finding so few recent nodes. ... I lost track, did anyone ever fix the upnp to re-register?
 963 2011-12-20 17:18:35 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: iirc, no
 964 2011-12-20 17:18:39 <sipa> gmaxwell: ?
 965 2011-12-20 17:18:57 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: thats how many nodes Ive had for months and months
 966 2011-12-20 17:20:13 <gmaxwell> sipa: the upnp is one-shot, this means the pinhole will eventually stop forwarding (when depending on the behavior of the nat device)
 967 2011-12-20 17:20:47 <sipa> uhu, that probably causes a serious loss of connectable nodes
 968 2011-12-20 17:21:48 mcorlett has joined
 969 2011-12-20 17:23:03 * sipa nominates BlueMatt to fix it
 970 2011-12-20 17:23:37 * BlueMatt nominates gmaxwell to fix it as he brought it up and BlueMatt is busy setting up a dnstunnel so that he can get free wifi on his 5 hour flight later today...
 971 2011-12-20 17:23:46 <BlueMatt> (among other things)
 972 2011-12-20 17:26:17 <sipa> ip over dns?
 973 2011-12-20 17:26:22 <BlueMatt> yep
 974 2011-12-20 17:26:44 <BlueMatt> (the paid-for wifi hotspots people put up rarely block dns before you pay, so if you do ip-over-dns you get free wifi)
 975 2011-12-20 17:26:47 <sipa> bit slow, but works nicely :)
 976 2011-12-20 17:27:05 <BlueMatt> yep
 977 2011-12-20 17:27:18 <sipa> i used it before i had data on my cell phone
 978 2011-12-20 17:27:42 <BlueMatt> yep, same here, but it no longer exists on my vps so I need to install it as a cell modem isnt gonna work well on an airplane...
 979 2011-12-20 17:28:28 <sipa> and dns works in a plane? :o
 980 2011-12-20 17:28:39 <BlueMatt> yep, well if you have the inflight wifi stuff
 981 2011-12-20 17:29:07 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: also running a ssh server on tcp 53 sometimes works, and is way better than ssh tunnel
 982 2011-12-20 17:29:10 <gmaxwell> er dns tunnel
 983 2011-12-20 17:29:36 <BlueMatt> mmm, never tried that...that one sounds fun too (but probably easier to do openvpn tunnel on tcp 53...)
 984 2011-12-20 17:29:45 <gmaxwell> This is especially useful because pay wifi portals are just simply broken a lot of the time.
 985 2011-12-20 17:30:02 <BlueMatt> yep, Im counting on that for later...
 986 2011-12-20 17:30:20 <sipa> i found iodine barely usable... just ssh, very slowly
 987 2011-12-20 17:30:47 <sipa> i can't imagine what iodine on an airplane is going to be like...
 988 2011-12-20 17:31:02 <BlueMatt> Ive done it before, it wasnt too terrible, but it wasnt fun
 989 2011-12-20 17:31:11 <BlueMatt> its not like Im gonna use it for anything but irc and ssh anyway
 990 2011-12-20 17:32:24 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 991 2011-12-20 17:33:41 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 992 2011-12-20 17:34:07 BlueMatt_ has joined
 993 2011-12-20 17:38:34 BlueMatt_ is now known as BlueMatt
 994 2011-12-20 17:39:31 <BlueMattBot> Yippie, build fixed!
 995 2011-12-20 17:39:32 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #143: FIXED in 31 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/143/
 996 2011-12-20 17:39:33 <BlueMattBot> gavinandresen: Include limits, not climints (using std::numeric_limits now)
 997 2011-12-20 17:46:49 twobitcoins has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 998 2011-12-20 17:49:49 twobitcoins has joined
 999 2011-12-20 17:51:13 sneak has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1000 2011-12-20 17:52:27 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1001 2011-12-20 17:53:05 sneak has joined
1002 2011-12-20 17:53:06 sneak has quit (Changing host)
1003 2011-12-20 17:53:06 sneak has joined
1004 2011-12-20 17:57:17 <gavinandresen> sipa: I commented on your Bitcoin Script 2.0 gist: https://gist.github.com/1262449
1005 2011-12-20 17:57:36 da2ce7 has quit (2!~da2ce7@gateway/tor-sasl/da2ce7|Remote host closed the connection)
1006 2011-12-20 18:00:17 wasabi has joined
1007 2011-12-20 18:02:18 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Kamil Domanski * r3288087d2395 gentoo/net-p2p/libbitcoin/ (Manifest libbitcoin-0.1.0_alpha1.ebuild): net-p2p/libbitcoin: 0.1.0_alpha1 http://tinyurl.com/c9vc2oe
1008 2011-12-20 18:02:19 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Kamil Domanski * r65c6b4e1314d gentoo/app-crypt/subvertx/ (Manifest subvertx-0.1.0.ebuild): app-crypt/subvertx: 0.1.0 http://tinyurl.com/d9vmjhp
1009 2011-12-20 18:02:21 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1010 2011-12-20 18:05:41 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1011 2011-12-20 18:06:29 erle- has joined
1012 2011-12-20 18:12:47 sytse has joined
1013 2011-12-20 18:13:49 MimeNarrator has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1014 2011-12-20 18:24:43 gwillen_ is now known as gwillen
1015 2011-12-20 18:30:14 MimeNarrator has joined
1016 2011-12-20 18:31:32 BlueMatt has joined
1017 2011-12-20 18:31:45 <BlueMatt> yay, connected over dnstunnel :)
1018 2011-12-20 18:33:02 <sipa> gavinandresen: i believe TD is the expert on those things
1019 2011-12-20 18:33:17 localhost has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1020 2011-12-20 18:36:15 <sipa> BlueMatt: cool
1021 2011-12-20 18:36:19 <sipa> where are you flying?
1022 2011-12-20 18:36:39 <BlueMatt> san fransisco (my dad's parents are out there)
1023 2011-12-20 18:36:47 <sipa> cool
1024 2011-12-20 18:36:55 <sipa> nice city :)
1025 2011-12-20 18:36:59 localhost has joined
1026 2011-12-20 18:37:29 <BlueMatt> yea, probably wont spend too much time in the city, one of my dads parents is in sacramento and the other is in livermore...
1027 2011-12-20 18:37:48 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: good luck, people know to ban domains now
1028 2011-12-20 18:38:11 <sipa> BlueMatt: and where are you now, actually?
1029 2011-12-20 18:38:16 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: well we'll see, ive got plenty to work on even if I dont have internet anyway...
1030 2011-12-20 18:38:23 <BlueMatt> sipa: will by flying out of charlotte
1031 2011-12-20 18:38:30 * sipa google mapses
1032 2011-12-20 18:39:18 ThomasV_ has joined
1033 2011-12-20 18:45:17 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1034 2011-12-20 18:46:08 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: setting something to load at startup isnt an initialization thing imo, its something that happens at runtime?
1035 2011-12-20 18:47:28 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: I think of init.cpp as "all the stuff that has to happen to get bitcoin up and running."  And that includes "... up and running when the window system starts up" in my head.
1036 2011-12-20 18:47:59 ThomasV_ has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1037 2011-12-20 18:49:46 <BlueMatt> doesnt connect in my mind, but its not like it matters...Ill move it
1038 2011-12-20 18:51:19 <BlueMatt> though if I do move it I have to add yet another #include to qt/optionsmodel.cpp...
1039 2011-12-20 18:51:49 <gavinandresen> Speaking of #includes...   I've been sorely tempted to get rid of #include "headers.h"
1040 2011-12-20 18:52:07 <gavinandresen> Is anybody actually using headers.h as it was intended-- to implement precompiled headers?
1041 2011-12-20 18:52:50 <BlueMatt> headers.h should always have been removed
1042 2011-12-20 18:53:04 <BlueMatt> not all files which include it need everything in headers
1043 2011-12-20 18:54:03 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: ok, moved (I dont feel like commenting while running on dns-based internet...)
1044 2011-12-20 18:54:12 <BlueMatt> (well the git push might take a minute...)
1045 2011-12-20 18:54:37 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: did you get my early-Christmas-present email?
1046 2011-12-20 18:55:31 <BlueMatt> let me switch back to a sane vpn-based internet...
1047 2011-12-20 18:55:41 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1048 2011-12-20 18:57:32 BlueMatt has joined
1049 2011-12-20 18:58:10 <wumpus> headers.h should go
1050 2011-12-20 18:58:24 <wumpus> it's ugly to include all headers indiscriminately in all files
1051 2011-12-20 18:58:34 <wumpus> and also slows compile
1052 2011-12-20 18:59:07 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: thanks, will do :)
1053 2011-12-20 18:59:20 <gavinandresen> I've been moving code from .h to .ccp as I change things...
1054 2011-12-20 18:59:23 erus` has joined
1055 2011-12-20 18:59:50 <BlueMatt> nice
1056 2011-12-20 19:00:01 <BlueMatt> (finally some cleanup...
1057 2011-12-20 19:00:01 <BlueMatt> )
1058 2011-12-20 19:01:22 Cablesaurus has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1059 2011-12-20 19:01:50 sacredchao has joined
1060 2011-12-20 19:02:06 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
1061 2011-12-20 19:14:05 sacredchao has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1062 2011-12-20 19:15:50 <gavinandresen> I've run out of reasons NOT to pull OP_EVAL/multisig into 0.6; any objections before I do?
1063 2011-12-20 19:17:35 <BlueMatt> wooo, 0.6 is gonna be a big release :)
1064 2011-12-20 19:18:10 <midnightmagic> wumpus: it takes my 6-core machine less than 5 seconds to compile bitcoin..?
1065 2011-12-20 19:18:36 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: it takes the jenkins vps like 5 minutes...
1066 2011-12-20 19:18:42 <wumpus> midnightmagic: why would your cpu speed interest me? :p
1067 2011-12-20 19:19:07 <midnightmagic> woops..  s/bitcoin/bitcoind/
1068 2011-12-20 19:19:58 Clipse has joined
1069 2011-12-20 19:20:02 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: RE: the anonymity patch, and 0.6 in general:  I want to start moving away from "default answer is NO" towards "as long as it has general support, is well-written, and we can't think of any way it might compromise security/stability, the answer is yes"
1070 2011-12-20 19:20:14 <midnightmagic> wumpus: ah.. you were mentioning compile speed as a motivator for reorg .h.. I agree the reorg is good, I just don't think compile time is much of a reason..
1071 2011-12-20 19:20:21 sacredchao has joined
1072 2011-12-20 19:20:36 <wumpus> exactly gavinandresen... I'm not saying either that we should merge it asap, but I think it's a pretty good pull request and we shouldn't just reject it out of the blue
1073 2011-12-20 19:21:05 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: IMO "as long as there is an audience"
1074 2011-12-20 19:21:09 <wumpus> midnightmagic: we don't all have fast 6-core machines
1075 2011-12-20 19:21:17 <jgarzik> don't wanna pull stuff that has one user (luke-jr!) and that's it
1076 2011-12-20 19:21:17 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: that's a long time. you think header files reorg will fix a 5-minute compile time?
1077 2011-12-20 19:21:21 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: yes, that too.
1078 2011-12-20 19:21:22 <wumpus> jgarzik: agreed
1079 2011-12-20 19:21:33 <wumpus> jgarzik: but if you reject features please do it immediately, and not after 6 months :P
1080 2011-12-20 19:21:50 <wumpus> the guy kept it up to date through a ui change
1081 2011-12-20 19:21:51 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: no, but it will speed it up
1082 2011-12-20 19:22:02 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: well Im not saying no, Im saying be weary of pushing bitcoin's anonimity
1083 2011-12-20 19:22:09 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: if its an option, thats fine with me too
1084 2011-12-20 19:22:17 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: but Id really prefer it to not appear by default...
1085 2011-12-20 19:22:26 <wumpus> yes it's an advanced setting
1086 2011-12-20 19:22:34 <wumpus> as I also said it's too complicated for default users
1087 2011-12-20 19:22:42 <gavinandresen> What is the wording of the advanced setting?
1088 2011-12-20 19:22:55 <gavinandresen> ("coin control" would be better than "anonymity", I think)
1089 2011-12-20 19:23:11 <gavinandresen> (I'm very sympathetic to the "don't promise more than we deliver" argument)
1090 2011-12-20 19:23:11 diki has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1091 2011-12-20 19:23:16 <wumpus> "Enable godmode" 
1092 2011-12-20 19:23:17 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: May I ask which pull request that is?
1093 2011-12-20 19:23:22 <wumpus> yes good name gavinandresen
1094 2011-12-20 19:23:25 <jgarzik> wumpus: RE 6 months, I wasn't referring to any specific commit.  But in particular, sometimes one must wait-and-see before it is apparent whether or not something wants rejecting or accepting
1095 2011-12-20 19:23:44 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: good messaging (re "coin control")
1096 2011-12-20 19:23:46 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/415
1097 2011-12-20 19:23:49 <wumpus> "enable advanced coin control features"
1098 2011-12-20 19:24:21 <midnightmagic> "- select which address(es) to send from, rather than letting the client to chose for you"  WHOAH!!
1099 2011-12-20 19:24:24 <midnightmagic> yes, PLEASE
1100 2011-12-20 19:25:26 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: the "default no" stuff is imo a safe fallback as long as the code is fairly messy and not well abstracted, but we are slowly moving towards better abstraction (CWallet, etc) so default no should shift away over time (IMO)
1101 2011-12-20 19:25:55 <wumpus> gavinandresen: agreed on the "don't overpromise"
1102 2011-12-20 19:27:04 <wumpus> jgarzik: why? one can say immediately wether it would fit in the client or not (if it's purely a code quality issue, that's something else, but that means the requester has to improve the code first)
1103 2011-12-20 19:29:26 <jgarzik> wumpus: see above re "audience"    To give a real world example from past bitcoin history, we may see a wide variety of mining-code changes that would fit in the client... but they may have only a single user and be widely ignored by other miners
1104 2011-12-20 19:29:38 <wumpus> the problem with default no is that you discourage people from contributing
1105 2011-12-20 19:29:57 <wumpus> jgarzik: if it only has a single user I don't see a reason for including it
1106 2011-12-20 19:30:03 <jgarzik> wumpus: or feedback is needed to examine performance claims match submitted request (mining code optimizations) etc.
1107 2011-12-20 19:30:23 <jgarzik> wumpus: yes
1108 2011-12-20 19:30:24 <wumpus> sure, of course you can think of exceptions
1109 2011-12-20 19:30:49 <jgarzik> wumpus: we have a great many exceptions, to the point that making a "accept or reject immediately" rule useless and unproductive
1110 2011-12-20 19:30:58 <wumpus> sigh, whatever...
1111 2011-12-20 19:31:10 <BlueMatt> wumpus: well Ive always fallen in the default no category because at one point or another Ive always felt like someone has been working on cleaning up code, but overtime code cleanup really hasnt happened and Ive softened my tone (a bit)...
1112 2011-12-20 19:31:17 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1113 2011-12-20 19:31:47 <jgarzik> note this is tangential to the "default no" discussion.  not referring to "default no", only "accept or reject immediately"
1114 2011-12-20 19:32:17 <wumpus> jgarzik: I simply meant that remarks like "we don't want advanced anonymity" should be made soon after the pull request was made, can you at least agree with that?
1115 2011-12-20 19:33:11 <wumpus> BlueMatt: agreed
1116 2011-12-20 19:33:29 <gavinandresen> Question for y'all:  I'm reading through pull 415, and I don't like the use of a global variable (sendFromAddressRestriction) to influence the coin selection algorithm.  Seems to me a refactor is in order, but would that be out of scope for the pull request?  Asking the submitter to do that kind of deep refactoring (maybe using boost::bind to pass in a more general coin selection criteria function that could be extended/changed/etc
1117 2011-12-20 19:33:29 <gavinandresen> seems like asking a lot.....
1118 2011-12-20 19:34:13 <sipa> i'm not sure how much you can still ask so much time after the origin request
1119 2011-12-20 19:34:21 <wumpus> I think that's too much to ask
1120 2011-12-20 19:34:28 <wumpus> he made the commit in the style of the current code
1121 2011-12-20 19:34:49 <wumpus> though I agree it's not nice
1122 2011-12-20 19:34:56 <BlueMatt> Im off, Ill see yall later
1123 2011-12-20 19:35:07 <wumpus> this should be a parameter
1124 2011-12-20 19:35:09 <wumpus> later BlueMatt
1125 2011-12-20 19:35:10 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1126 2011-12-20 19:35:12 <wumpus> not a global
1127 2011-12-20 19:35:25 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: you ask the age-old FOSS question ;-)
1128 2011-12-20 19:35:33 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: Linux kernel has not solved this problem, either
1129 2011-12-20 19:36:05 <midnightmagic> mmm..  that patch would be absolutely perfect for namecoin.
1130 2011-12-20 19:36:35 <midnightmagic> there, it matters quite a bit more which names came from where.
1131 2011-12-20 19:37:04 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: ex.:  dev Wang Fu Bar submits a driver enabling hardware and, prior to his appearance, did not work under Linux.  Unfortunately, his driver is x86-specific (not portable), and requires monumental refactoring before it can be accepted.  Plus it reinvents some kernel code (new RAID stack!).
1132 2011-12-20 19:37:19 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: we don't want said code as-is, and refactoring is a huge effort.
1133 2011-12-20 19:37:28 <jgarzik> what to do?  Good question...
1134 2011-12-20 19:37:59 <sipa> it was Fu Bar code?
1135 2011-12-20 19:38:11 iocor has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
1136 2011-12-20 19:38:21 <sipa> sorry, couldn't resist :)
1137 2011-12-20 19:38:28 <wumpus> gavinandresen: I think you can comment on that; he shouldn't use a global to communicate a transient value from the send coind dialog ui to the core
1138 2011-12-20 19:38:46 <gavinandresen> Added a "how hard would it be" comment....
1139 2011-12-20 19:38:49 <wumpus> gavinandresen: it should pass through the walletmodel at least
1140 2011-12-20 19:39:20 <gavinandresen> I actually refactored SelectCoins a bit way back when for one of my many "decided it wasn't a good idea after all" patches....
1141 2011-12-20 19:39:31 hippich has joined
1142 2011-12-20 19:40:05 <wumpus> he's subverting my "I don't communciate with the core directly from UI classes" by defining an external std::string explicitly 
1143 2011-12-20 19:40:21 <jgarzik> wumpus: that seems like a fair criticism
1144 2011-12-20 19:40:25 <gavinandresen> Restriction on the wallet makes more sense, that would be a reasonable way to do it
1145 2011-12-20 19:40:36 <wumpus> yep
1146 2011-12-20 19:41:03 diki has joined
1147 2011-12-20 19:43:30 Dagger3 is now known as Dagger2
1148 2011-12-20 19:45:10 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * rf06e3e0 / (4 files in 3 dirs): Merge pull request #717 from TheBlueMatt/installerqtupgrade ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/f06e3e0ea6c8da90585a9f0936c390659dcece37
1149 2011-12-20 19:45:12 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Matt Corallo master * rf18a119 / (4 files in 3 dirs): Implement "Start on window system startup" on Win32 + Linux. - http://git.io/IZmNDw https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/f18a119ac057a3256efffb3ec7d131949ccf48d3
1150 2011-12-20 19:46:59 iocor has joined
1151 2011-12-20 19:48:03 _Fireball has joined
1152 2011-12-20 19:48:22 abragin has left ()
1153 2011-12-20 19:48:39 wasabi has joined
1154 2011-12-20 19:53:35 <luke-jr> jgarzik: most things only have one user until merged and released. ;)
1155 2011-12-20 19:54:26 <luke-jr> jgarzik: I don't submit pull requests for things that aren't generally useful.
1156 2011-12-20 19:54:57 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: we really need a higher degree of testing for bitcoin, even though it's 'beta'. Bitcoin is critical financial software with most of the confidence of a currency riding on it.
1157 2011-12-20 19:56:10 dissipate has joined
1158 2011-12-20 19:56:10 dissipate has quit (Changing host)
1159 2011-12-20 19:56:10 dissipate has joined
1160 2011-12-20 19:56:33 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: sure. if you want, feel free to build my next-test branch :P
1161 2011-12-20 19:56:47 <luke-jr> though somehow I seem to be missing out on various things Gavin has been pulling
1162 2011-12-20 19:56:55 <luke-jr> maybe I need to review the pull req list again
1163 2011-12-20 19:57:49 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r5959255 / (27 files in 2 dirs): Merge branch 'op_eval' - http://git.io/cVl4Vw https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/595925592d36fb5d5d34beea3c3e71fca2b6726e
1164 2011-12-20 19:57:57 <sipa> historic moment!
1165 2011-12-20 19:58:37 <luke-jr> OP_EVAL isn't *that* great :P
1166 2011-12-20 19:58:46 <jrmithdobbs> ya it is
1167 2011-12-20 19:58:51 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: Agreed, we need more testing.... but until there is a release candidate with binaries, it is hard to get much testing effort.
1168 2011-12-20 19:58:55 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: you forgot to merge coinbaser first x.x
1169 2011-12-20 19:59:48 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: get the jenkins setup to produce binaries for every build it runs.
1170 2011-12-20 20:00:06 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I think that's BlueMattBot
1171 2011-12-20 20:00:16 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: there is a jenkins plugin called 'promotion' (I think) that can make it publish only builds which pass tests and build everwhere.
1172 2011-12-20 20:00:37 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I wasn't attempting to direct gavin specifically.
1173 2011-12-20 20:00:47 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ?
1174 2011-12-20 20:00:55 <luke-jr> ah
1175 2011-12-20 20:01:23 <jrmithdobbs> needs more hudson
1176 2011-12-20 20:01:27 <jrmithdobbs> <3 hudson
1177 2011-12-20 20:01:33 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: good idea. You willing to make that happen?
1178 2011-12-20 20:01:35 <gmaxwell> I mean "the bitcoin project could do X to address the issue of people not testing bleeding edge stuff".  Although I was hopeful things would get bettwe with the elimination of WX. It's _much_ easier to build now.
1179 2011-12-20 20:01:56 <luke-jr> jgarzik: wtf? why did you close coinbaser? it was ALREADY accepted
1180 2011-12-20 20:02:26 <EvanR-work> im out of date here, what is the master plan regarding the giant blockchain which only expected to grow faster?
1181 2011-12-20 20:02:26 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I'll give it a shot.
1182 2011-12-20 20:02:29 <jgarzik> luke-jr: gavinandresen said "up to jgarzik".  I did not see the already-accepted memo or logic behind such decision.
1183 2011-12-20 20:02:41 <jrmithdobbs> EvanR-work: pruning
1184 2011-12-20 20:02:45 <EvanR-work> whats pruning
1185 2011-12-20 20:03:00 <jrmithdobbs> EvanR-work: you can prune out already spent/checkpointed blocks
1186 2011-12-20 20:03:05 <jrmithdobbs> and just leave the metadata
1187 2011-12-20 20:03:09 <jrmithdobbs> s/blocks/transactions/
1188 2011-12-20 20:03:12 <EvanR-work> which ones are checkpointed?
1189 2011-12-20 20:03:18 <EvanR-work> most of them?
1190 2011-12-20 20:03:22 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: non-NODE_NETWORK nodes can
1191 2011-12-20 20:03:31 <gmaxwell> EvanR-work: I recommend you read the original bitcoin paper, http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf  it's a pretty easy read and covers a lot of core concepts (if not any details...
1192 2011-12-20 20:03:34 <gmaxwell> )
1193 2011-12-20 20:03:39 <EvanR-work> ok
1194 2011-12-20 20:04:14 <luke-jr> jgarzik: whatever, maybe someone will fork with all this bs then.
1195 2011-12-20 20:04:49 <jrmithdobbs> what's wrong with coinbaser?
1196 2011-12-20 20:04:50 <gavinandresen> Personally, I think a mining-pool-only fork of bitcoind is overdue
1197 2011-12-20 20:05:02 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: nak-ing coinbaser doesn't bode well for keeping major miner nodes on the stock protocol.
1198 2011-12-20 20:05:26 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1199 2011-12-20 20:05:42 <gavinandresen> ... but the mining pools don't seem to like to share code much.
1200 2011-12-20 20:05:45 <gmaxwell> E.g. you end up with more of that discussion last night with midnightmagic where his solo mining node is on .23 because he's carring a bunch of mining specific patches.
1201 2011-12-20 20:06:00 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: maybe because they see that those who do (like me/Eligius), it's a waste of effort and time
1202 2011-12-20 20:06:05 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: yes, they don't. Luke does, and we just closed one of his pulls. :)
1203 2011-12-20 20:06:11 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: i don't see a reason not to include coinbaser if it makes you feel better ;p
1204 2011-12-20 20:06:35 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: then again i was saying that should be merged before you even requested it be merged, haha
1205 2011-12-20 20:06:39 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: what pisses me off is that I had the understanding it would be one of the first things merged into 0.6 for a while now
1206 2011-12-20 20:06:46 <luke-jr> and now a complete flop
1207 2011-12-20 20:06:50 <gavinandresen> The needs of mining pools (servicing gazillions of getwork requests) doesn't really match the needs of users or merchants...
1208 2011-12-20 20:07:04 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: might as well remove getwork altogether then
1209 2011-12-20 20:07:10 <gavinandresen> That's tempting.
1210 2011-12-20 20:07:12 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: that's ok where'd my key import/export go
1211 2011-12-20 20:07:17 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: it's true, but they aren't mutually exclusive most of the time. merchants aren't served by a QT GUI.
1212 2011-12-20 20:07:29 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: key import/export actually has real issues blocking it
1213 2011-12-20 20:07:40 <sipa> key import/export was merged
1214 2011-12-20 20:07:48 <sipa> (not wallet import/export though)
1215 2011-12-20 20:07:50 <luke-jr> sipa: O.o
1216 2011-12-20 20:08:01 <EvanR-work> O.o
1217 2011-12-20 20:08:01 <sipa> after 6 months...
1218 2011-12-20 20:08:04 <luke-jr> I would have expected the inverse, since it's the key import/export part with the issues :P
1219 2011-12-20 20:08:09 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: that's very tempting, too.  I'm constantly struggling to figure out where to draw the lines between "core bitcoin" and "everything else"
1220 2011-12-20 20:08:17 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: like I noted in the pull req -- is other major mining operations support this, let's do it
1221 2011-12-20 20:08:18 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: what issues?
1222 2011-12-20 20:08:24 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: messing with history, basically
1223 2011-12-20 20:08:28 <EvanR-work> gavinandresen: is that necessary
1224 2011-12-20 20:08:30 HaltingState has joined
1225 2011-12-20 20:08:34 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: but we don't want to merge "I hope somebody uses it" code
1226 2011-12-20 20:08:35 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: and the more you differentiate this, the more obvious our loss of decentralization becomes. Apparently no one cares so long as their GPUs keep pooping cash (see solidcoin), but its still kinda shocking.
1227 2011-12-20 20:08:37 <EvanR-work> why not just several interoperating different things
1228 2011-12-20 20:08:44 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: oh none of that matters for my use since i restore to empty wallets and rescan
1229 2011-12-20 20:08:49 <EvanR-work> rather than a m&m model
1230 2011-12-20 20:09:02 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I definitely want miners on board WRT upstream bitcoin, as much as possible
1231 2011-12-20 20:09:26 <jrmithdobbs> i think an actual workable solution to the pool problem needs to be found
1232 2011-12-20 20:09:35 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I was using it on my piddly 10gh solo mining, but went back to pool mining _purely_ because maintaining bitcoind for solo mining at a usable scale is something of a burden.
1233 2011-12-20 20:09:35 <jrmithdobbs> as in, a way to de-incintivze it
1234 2011-12-20 20:09:48 <luke-jr> jgarzik: multiple other miners have expressed that they are adopting coinbaser.
1235 2011-12-20 20:09:49 <gmaxwell> (and, of course, eligius uses it— I don't know if anyone else uses it)
1236 2011-12-20 20:10:07 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: the latter is the key point
1237 2011-12-20 20:10:23 <sipa> the question is whether they would
1238 2011-12-20 20:10:24 <jgarzik> luke-jr: post endorsements / references to that pull req then?
1239 2011-12-20 20:10:27 <jgarzik> indeed
1240 2011-12-20 20:11:00 <EvanR-work> solominers, poolminers, gpuminers, thinclients, desktop guis, etc can all be different things
1241 2011-12-20 20:11:09 <jgarzik> there were minor code objections; the main coinbaser objection is will it see any use?  does anybody other than luke-jr actively want coinbaser?
1242 2011-12-20 20:11:10 <EvanR-work> with supporting each others features
1243 2011-12-20 20:11:15 <jrmithdobbs>     "version" : 59900,
1244 2011-12-20 20:11:17 <EvanR-work> without*
1245 2011-12-20 20:11:20 <jrmithdobbs> there. OP_EVAL node online
1246 2011-12-20 20:11:20 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
1247 2011-12-20 20:11:41 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: It's a much bigger burden when there are a lot of unmerged important patches, unfortunately. Each patch is something else to conflict that I'll have to waste time resolving, and then take an outage when I screw it up.
1248 2011-12-20 20:11:55 <gmaxwell> I don't think the request to show support for it is unreasonable.
1249 2011-12-20 20:12:05 <sipa> with OP_EVAL we've seen how hard it is to get miners to upgrade to the latest code
1250 2011-12-20 20:12:13 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: are there other unmerged mining patches I need to look at?
1251 2011-12-20 20:12:26 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: in general, I would prefer to keep up-to-date on mining, to encourage people to use upstream-based code
1252 2011-12-20 20:12:30 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: yes, but many of them don't even exist as pull requests (anymore).
1253 2011-12-20 20:12:53 <luke-jr> Gavin closed a lot of mining optimizations from Joel Katz that I turned into pull requests
1254 2011-12-20 20:12:53 <gmaxwell> some got merged at least, e.g. the duplicate nonce race stuff.
1255 2011-12-20 20:13:02 <jrmithdobbs> the rpc io patches (one of them) is necessary for instance
1256 2011-12-20 20:13:06 <jrmithdobbs> or the thing wont even run
1257 2011-12-20 20:13:18 <jrmithdobbs> once you reach a certain hash/s
1258 2011-12-20 20:13:18 <luke-jr> jgarzik: if it helps, at least slush mentioned he was planning to move to coinbaser on IRC
1259 2011-12-20 20:13:37 <luke-jr> I don't recall where the other miners/poolops discussed it
1260 2011-12-20 20:13:39 <gavinandresen> ... and hence the problem.  I'm sure the rpc io changes work great for mining pools, but did any merchants test it?
1261 2011-12-20 20:13:40 <gmaxwell> The async rpc stuff is important as jrmithdobbs points out, and thats the big class of ones. Since you can't run more than about 2-3gh/s or so directly against bitcoind stock last I checked.
1262 2011-12-20 20:13:42 <sipa> maybe we should (actively, personally) inquire which patches they use
1263 2011-12-20 20:13:52 <luke-jr> doesn't come up searching the forum
1264 2011-12-20 20:13:56 <jrmithdobbs> though, all of the rpc io patches have issues. different ones depending on which patch
1265 2011-12-20 20:13:59 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: async is flawed; threading works fine
1266 2011-12-20 20:14:03 <jgarzik> yes :/
1267 2011-12-20 20:14:06 <jrmithdobbs> so I understand why they've not been merged
1268 2011-12-20 20:14:06 <jgarzik> we need HTTP/1.1
1269 2011-12-20 20:14:11 <jgarzik> async or threaded is a detail
1270 2011-12-20 20:14:11 <gmaxwell> yea, I haven't pushed hard on any of the rpc ones because they all kinda sucked.
1271 2011-12-20 20:14:19 * jgarzik nods noddingly
1272 2011-12-20 20:14:27 <gmaxwell> But one or another is essential for mining at any usable size.
1273 2011-12-20 20:14:32 <jgarzik> yes
1274 2011-12-20 20:14:34 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: ya they worked well enough to where you dont have to do it yourself and not much better
1275 2011-12-20 20:14:54 <jrmithdobbs> one of them actual garbles rpc responses over ~1k
1276 2011-12-20 20:14:56 <jrmithdobbs> heh
1277 2011-12-20 20:15:01 <gmaxwell> also— the RPC throughput _is_ an issue for merchants, but not their biggest and it isn't fixed by these patches.
1278 2011-12-20 20:15:35 <luke-jr> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/568
1279 2011-12-20 20:15:53 <gmaxwell> some of the RPC requests can block for a long time— e.g. try running getinfo on a node with 30 unconfirmed self transactions. It hangs up all rpc to the node for many seconds.
1280 2011-12-20 20:16:23 <gmaxwell> (because it's recursively doing isConfirmed() on all the inputs of every IsMine() transaction)
1281 2011-12-20 20:16:41 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i liked how you could randomly (seemingly) deadlock rpc responses in some cases (think that's fixed now)
1282 2011-12-20 20:17:42 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: thanks, I wasn't aware of that pull. What I was running is some bastard hacked up old shit on top of the prior buggy patch I got from jrmithdobbs.
1283 2011-12-20 20:17:45 <luke-jr> jgarzik: if you're going to merge coinbaser, it needs rebasing on top of OP_EVAL now. if not, I'm just going to abandon it.
1284 2011-12-20 20:18:03 <gavinandresen> So the problem is there is too much to do, too many factions to keep happy (miners, merchants, users) and not enough time to get it all done.  Which has been true for every major project I've ever worked on.
1285 2011-12-20 20:18:04 <luke-jr> (even if it merges cleanly in git, it does need a rebase)
1286 2011-12-20 20:18:11 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: that was *not* my patch ;p
1287 2011-12-20 20:18:17 <jrmithdobbs> even if i brought your attention to it
1288 2011-12-20 20:18:18 <jrmithdobbs> heh
1289 2011-12-20 20:18:21 <jgarzik> luke-jr: coinbaser is OK, with other miner buy-in
1290 2011-12-20 20:18:33 <jgarzik> luke-jr: needs minor revisions, but that is the main sticking point
1291 2011-12-20 20:18:36 chrisb__ has joined
1292 2011-12-20 20:18:46 <sipa> [Tycho]: your opinion about coinbaser?
1293 2011-12-20 20:18:59 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: I said 'got from' because I wasn't sure.
1294 2011-12-20 20:18:59 <[Tycho]> I don't have any.
1295 2011-12-20 20:19:03 <luke-jr> jgarzik: minor revisions?
1296 2011-12-20 20:19:15 <jgarzik> luke-jr: read my comments in the pull req
1297 2011-12-20 20:19:17 <luke-jr> sipa: [Tycho] isn't even using sendmany IIRC :p
1298 2011-12-20 20:19:23 <sipa> ok
1299 2011-12-20 20:19:34 * jgarzik -> poof
1300 2011-12-20 20:19:35 <sipa> i'm not up-to-date about code being used by miners
1301 2011-12-20 20:19:37 <gmaxwell> IIRC there are other pools using coinbaser style payouts. Probably should find out what they think.
1302 2011-12-20 20:19:42 <jgarzik> yes
1303 2011-12-20 20:19:50 <[Tycho]> What's up with coinbaser ?
1304 2011-12-20 20:20:07 <sipa> it's alive!
1305 2011-12-20 20:20:12 <luke-jr> jgarzik: except coinbaser doesn't use exec, it uses popen, which Windows supports :P
1306 2011-12-20 20:20:14 <jrmithdobbs> [Tycho]: lets you do a sendtomany off a coinbase txn
1307 2011-12-20 20:20:32 <jrmithdobbs> [Tycho]: splits based on login in an external app it exec()s
1308 2011-12-20 20:20:35 <jrmithdobbs> s/login/logic/
1309 2011-12-20 20:20:36 <[Tycho]> Why would I have any opinion on it ?
1310 2011-12-20 20:20:45 <jrmithdobbs> because it's only useful to pools?
1311 2011-12-20 20:20:52 * luke-jr notes [Tycho] still doesn't use sendmany <.<
1312 2011-12-20 20:21:09 <[Tycho]> Actually I think that using gen TX for pool payouts is bad.
1313 2011-12-20 20:21:11 * sipa urges [Tycho] once again to do so
1314 2011-12-20 20:22:01 <sipa> gmaxwell: up to 1100 nodes
1315 2011-12-20 20:22:34 <sipa> (note that my criteria are quite strict, 80% uptime, >0.4.0, ...)
1316 2011-12-20 20:23:03 <gmaxwell> sipa: will nodes being full wack your uptime check?
1317 2011-12-20 20:23:14 <jrmithdobbs> think so
1318 2011-12-20 20:23:22 <[Tycho]> If some pool wants do to this, they can apply patch or make changes manually.
1319 2011-12-20 20:23:34 <[Tycho]> But an option to generate for predefined address is nice.
1320 2011-12-20 20:23:49 <sipa> gmaxwell: yes, that's wny i say 80% and not 95%
1321 2011-12-20 20:24:01 <jrmithdobbs> [Tycho]: why is it bad? less space used in the blockchain, all processing offloaded to the pool doing it anyways
1322 2011-12-20 20:24:12 RazielZ has joined
1323 2011-12-20 20:24:14 <gmaxwell> Thats why I was using it. ... because I didn't want to have valuable private keys on the node controling my mining.
1324 2011-12-20 20:24:26 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: 100 block payout delays. Thats the tradeoff.
1325 2011-12-20 20:24:45 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: if anything i see that as a good thing
1326 2011-12-20 20:24:47 <gmaxwell> (120, I guess)
1327 2011-12-20 20:25:01 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: less tiny shit txns start flying around on mtgox volatility that way
1328 2011-12-20 20:25:02 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: sure, I think it's fine, but its still a tradeoff that rational men can disagree on.
1329 2011-12-20 20:25:04 <[Tycho]> jrmithdobbs: space shouldn't matter. It's bad because people will be unable to use such payments for ~20 hours.
1330 2011-12-20 20:25:14 <Graet> 126 if you wait for block to mature and pool to payout ;)
1331 2011-12-20 20:25:27 <jrmithdobbs> Graet: no 120 was correct
1332 2011-12-20 20:25:40 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: someone could do a mixed scheme with coinbaser only for automated payouts.
1333 2011-12-20 20:25:41 <jrmithdobbs> Graet: coinbaser does the payout in the coinbase
1334 2011-12-20 20:25:42 <[Tycho]> 120 for users, 101 for pool.
1335 2011-12-20 20:25:51 <sipa> Graet means if the pool first wants the payout, which sends it afterwards to users
1336 2011-12-20 20:26:16 <jrmithdobbs> [Tycho]: you don't actually use coins at 101 do you?
1337 2011-12-20 20:26:17 <Graet> sipa and ppl yes, by coinbaser 120, by pool then payout 126+
1338 2011-12-20 20:26:24 <gmaxwell> Graet: thats orthorgonal to coinbaser though, all generations are like that— coinbaser is actually faster than that.
1339 2011-12-20 20:26:24 <[Tycho]> jrmithdobbs: why not ?
1340 2011-12-20 20:26:58 <[Tycho]> Graet: why 126 ? You don't need to wait for 6 blocks to pay.
1341 2011-12-20 20:27:03 <jrmithdobbs> [Tycho]: because the reason it's artificially bumped to 120 is if something bad happens when you spend at block 101 the resulting reorg could be catastrophic and result in a double spend?
1342 2011-12-20 20:27:17 <jrmithdobbs> and coins disappearing
1343 2011-12-20 20:27:41 <[Tycho]> jrmithdobbs: I mentioned 101 as theoretical mininum.
1344 2011-12-20 20:27:51 <jrmithdobbs> ya i was just asking if you actually used them then
1345 2011-12-20 20:27:57 <Graet> no but my miner needsw to wait for his payout to confirm in his wallet
1346 2011-12-20 20:28:01 <jrmithdobbs> "you" as in deepbit
1347 2011-12-20 20:28:01 <[Tycho]> My coins are passing via another nodes, so there is additional delay.
1348 2011-12-20 20:28:16 <gmaxwell> In any case, it's orthorgonal. Doing _all_ payouts with coinbaser means you can't do instant payouts, but someone could still use coinbaser without doing all payouts with it.
1349 2011-12-20 20:28:29 <jrmithdobbs> aye
1350 2011-12-20 20:28:47 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: not doing instant payouts is a positive imho ;p
1351 2011-12-20 20:28:54 <gmaxwell> Graet: you can happily spend at zero confirms. If you don't trust your pool to not double spend you— sounds like a personal problem!
1352 2011-12-20 20:28:56 <jrmithdobbs> i'm sure [Tycho] would disagree though
1353 2011-12-20 20:29:28 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: I know you think that (and I'm slightly inclined to agree), I don't think we should argue it... because arguing it is pointless. :P
1354 2011-12-20 20:29:30 <Graet> sorry i mentioned it gmaxwell
1355 2011-12-20 20:29:42 <gmaxwell> Graet: you'll never be forgiven.
1356 2011-12-20 20:29:54 <Graet> dw i'm used to that :)
1357 2011-12-20 20:30:45 <[Tycho]> Sometimes I think about messing with gen TX, but there is too few opportunities to make it strange.
1358 2011-12-20 20:30:53 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: 'cause even if you want to keep doing instant payouts, you could still just use coinbaser for users getting timed automatic payouts.
1359 2011-12-20 20:31:18 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: I recommend mining lots of gen tx with exactly the same hash (duplicate coinbases).
1360 2011-12-20 20:31:23 <[Tycho]> By the way, are there any OP_EVAL txes in testnet ?
1361 2011-12-20 20:31:28 <jrmithdobbs> lol yes do it
1362 2011-12-20 20:31:30 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1363 2011-12-20 20:31:32 <[Tycho]> Graet: why ?
1364 2011-12-20 20:31:37 <[Tycho]> gmaxwell: why ?
1365 2011-12-20 20:31:41 <jrmithdobbs> [Tycho]: burns the coins
1366 2011-12-20 20:31:50 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: Deflates bitcoin. More of the total for me! :)
1367 2011-12-20 20:32:02 <jrmithdobbs> [Tycho]: basically a no-op block
1368 2011-12-20 20:32:16 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: yes, there are OP_EVAL transactions in testnet... (I can dig up the blocks if you like)
1369 2011-12-20 20:32:17 b4epoche has joined
1370 2011-12-20 20:32:25 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: yes, please.
1371 2011-12-20 20:32:44 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: I would like to see specs and samples to try constucting them.
1372 2011-12-20 20:33:40 <Graet> my point was using coinbaser to generate to miners wallets they get thier coin in 120 confirms, if a pool pays out say prop a miner waits 120 confirms in pool wallet then sometime b4 funds are sent then generally 6 confirmatios so coinbaser is actually quicker for miners, but its ok i'm wrong :)
1373 2011-12-20 20:34:58 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/tx/f5eb769eff73a4781b600064ac16dff54e039994e7dedb77903a19b5edec1fc7
1374 2011-12-20 20:35:25 <[Tycho]> "OP_NOP1" :)
1375 2011-12-20 20:35:48 <gavinandresen> ... if I could find the testnet wallet I used I could give you a few more examples....
1376 2011-12-20 20:36:22 <gmaxwell> Graet: you're right, not wrong. I guess I misunderstood you. Though the pool could pay users at 101 rather than 120.
1377 2011-12-20 20:36:32 <gmaxwell> (it's a one line change to bitcoind)
1378 2011-12-20 20:36:35 <Graet> yes :) cheers :)
1379 2011-12-20 20:36:46 <Graet> ozcoin pays at 100 :)
1380 2011-12-20 20:36:51 <sipa> and the uyser could spend it at 0
1381 2011-12-20 20:36:59 <sipa> (it's a one line change to bitcoind)
1382 2011-12-20 20:37:02 <Graet> 8could8 but generally dont
1383 2011-12-20 20:37:28 <gmaxwell> Graet: 100 is probably a bad idea, I had problems with that.
1384 2011-12-20 20:37:51 <Graet> we cover the last 20 confs and allow to mature to 120 in wallet ;0
1385 2011-12-20 20:37:51 <gmaxwell> (neighboring nodes rejecting the txn because they hadn't reorged yet, and then the txn gets stuck)
1386 2011-12-20 20:38:01 <Graet> yup
1387 2011-12-20 20:38:11 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: it's a multisignature ?
1388 2011-12-20 20:38:23 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: yes
1389 2011-12-20 20:38:30 kish has left ()
1390 2011-12-20 20:38:52 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/669   for  how to generate your own multisig OP_EVAL transactions using current-as-of-half-an-hour-ago git HEAD
1391 2011-12-20 20:38:58 <luke-jr> IMO sounds like [Tycho]'s objection to coinbaser is basically because he pays for orphan blocks ;)
1392 2011-12-20 20:39:22 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: so go find some pools that don't and get them to adopt it. :)
1393 2011-12-20 20:39:24 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: but more importantly, coinbaser DOES enable you to do what you wanted too: [15:21:22] <[Tycho]> But an option to generate for predefined address is nice.
1394 2011-12-20 20:39:47 <[Tycho]> luke-jr: not depends on paying for invalids.
1395 2011-12-20 20:39:56 <[Tycho]> luke-jr: I can do this without coinbaser too :)
1396 2011-12-20 20:40:10 <sipa> you can do everything without coinbaser
1397 2011-12-20 20:40:11 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: coinbaser payouts are the *only* way to do instant payout safely, if you don't pay orphans
1398 2011-12-20 20:40:17 <sipa> doesn't mean it's useless
1399 2011-12-20 20:40:26 <luke-jr> sipa: not really.
1400 2011-12-20 20:40:28 <[Tycho]> I don't mind if any number of pools will adopt coinbaser.
1401 2011-12-20 20:40:28 <sipa> you can write all transaction in binary and to ECDSA by heart
1402 2011-12-20 20:41:22 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1403 2011-12-20 20:41:42 <luke-jr> sipa: fine, I mean *with bitcoind* :P
1404 2011-12-20 20:41:53 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: so it's a upgrade to the patch you sent me earlier ?
1405 2011-12-20 20:42:53 <[Tycho]> I wonder if there is any faster method to parse hex numbers in PHP. It's so slow...
1406 2011-12-20 20:42:53 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: it is more features than the patch I sent you-- the 0.6 changes let you generate OP_EVAL/multisig transacitons and adds support for BIP 13 (the new bitcoin address format)
1407 2011-12-20 20:43:03 <[Tycho]> Cool.
1408 2011-12-20 20:43:15 <[Tycho]> Looks like I should try this.
1409 2011-12-20 20:43:42 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: Is deepbit generating blocks with the OP_EVAL flag in the coinbase yet?
1410 2011-12-20 20:44:04 <[Tycho]> gmaxwell: with 25% probability yes.
1411 2011-12-20 20:44:13 <gmaxwell> hah. fair enough.
1412 2011-12-20 20:44:23 <luke-jr> new coinbaser pull, if anyone wants to review the rebase and/or comment: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/719
1413 2011-12-20 20:45:05 <luke-jr> or merge it finally (@ gavinandresen, jgarzik)
1414 2011-12-20 20:46:10 <[Tycho]> What's that link saying "enabled%20only%20for%20use%20on%20the%20-testnet%20for%20now" at the pull page ?
1415 2011-12-20 20:47:10 <gavinandresen> Generating OP_EVAL transactions on main net is not safe yet, so it is disabled.
1416 2011-12-20 20:47:30 <gavinandresen> (luke-jr is about to correct me)
1417 2011-12-20 20:47:48 <[Tycho]> addmultisigaddress <'["key","key"]'> - where does third one comes from ?
1418 2011-12-20 20:47:52 <gavinandresen> ....  I mean, SPENDING generated OP_EVAL transactions on main net isn't safe.
1419 2011-12-20 20:47:55 <CIA-100> bitcoin: various coinbaser * ra82613..1c4aab bitcoind-personal/ (42 files in 4 dirs): (26 commits) http://tinyurl.com/3lrgdkn
1420 2011-12-20 20:48:02 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: btw, for your "just redirect all funds to a fixed address", you would use -coinbaser='echo -e "1\n%d\n<YOURADDRESS>"' ;)
1421 2011-12-20 20:48:05 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: spending can wait :)
1422 2011-12-20 20:48:21 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: no, afaik you are right there
1423 2011-12-20 20:48:24 <[Tycho]> luke-jr: calling external apps is slow :)
1424 2011-12-20 20:48:25 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: you get the keys from the extended 'validateaddress' command
1425 2011-12-20 20:48:34 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: there's a fastcgi-equivalent form too ;P
1426 2011-12-20 20:48:43 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: I'm talking about the third one.
1427 2011-12-20 20:49:16 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: does this command accepts 2 and 3 args ?
1428 2011-12-20 20:49:16 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: if you have three, then the syntax is just normal JSON-three-things-in-an-array:  '["key1","key2","key3"]'
1429 2011-12-20 20:49:19 <luke-jr> (that being said, I never had to switch to TCP, since popen was plenty fast)
1430 2011-12-20 20:49:38 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: the description only mentioned two everywhere, so I asked :)
1431 2011-12-20 20:50:37 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: if you want to be strange, just one actually works, too...
1432 2011-12-20 20:50:45 <[Tycho]> "Internal changes so if you own all the public keys of a multisignature transaction" - public, not private ?
1433 2011-12-20 20:51:03 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: yes
1434 2011-12-20 20:51:37 <[Tycho]> Why ?
1435 2011-12-20 20:52:02 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: wait, I mean no--   you need all the private keys
1436 2011-12-20 20:52:08 <gavinandresen> (sorry, distracted)
1437 2011-12-20 20:52:36 <[Tycho]> That's better :)
1438 2011-12-20 20:53:32 <[Tycho]> <'["key","key"]'> is too strict, ["key", ... ] may be more suitable.
1439 2011-12-20 20:53:54 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: any reason dumpblock or equivalent never got merged btw?
1440 2011-12-20 20:54:34 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: no, I was just thinking that getblock fell between the cracks
1441 2011-12-20 20:54:49 genjix has left ()
1442 2011-12-20 20:55:11 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: thanks for your monitoring patch, I based my monitoring node on it :) Partially.
1443 2011-12-20 20:55:29 <sipa> bitcoin.sipa.be runs on that as well :)
1444 2011-12-20 20:55:59 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I think we still have a general consensus that GetMinFee modes are a good idea, too
1445 2011-12-20 20:56:10 BlueMatt-mobile has joined
1446 2011-12-20 20:56:37 <[Tycho]> I wanted to monitor TX queue too.
1447 2011-12-20 20:56:44 <luke-jr> BlueMatt had objected briefly, but IIRC change his objection to only exposing it to users too early (ie, not the internal change that it is)
1448 2011-12-20 20:56:55 <luke-jr> BlueMatt-mobile: did I get that right?
1449 2011-12-20 20:56:59 <luke-jr> (GetMinFee modes)
1450 2011-12-20 20:57:05 <sipa> i don't think anyone seriously object against GetMinFee modes
1451 2011-12-20 20:57:06 <[Tycho]> And then decided to implement blockexplorer functionality :)
1452 2011-12-20 20:57:07 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: you have patches for memorypool monitoring? Have you published that?
1453 2011-12-20 20:57:21 <gmaxwell> What does GetMinFee modes do?
1454 2011-12-20 20:57:26 <sipa> luke-jr: the question is about the policy change
1455 2011-12-20 20:57:43 <[Tycho]> gmaxwell: not for memorypool monitoring, but TXes coming from the network.
1456 2011-12-20 20:57:43 <BlueMatt-mobile> One sec in security luke-jr
1457 2011-12-20 20:57:45 <sipa> gmaxwell: internal cleanup
1458 2011-12-20 20:58:07 <[Tycho]> I think that someone already created getmemorypool patch.
1459 2011-12-20 20:58:07 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: minor refactor; replaces bool fForRelay with enum nMode (relay, accept-to-block, and sending)
1460 2011-12-20 20:58:30 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: hm, yes, I guess that could be used for monitoring.
1461 2011-12-20 20:58:39 <luke-jr> sipa: the policy "change" is just a bugfix, though. the old behaviour was never intended…
1462 2011-12-20 20:58:40 <gmaxwell> (the main purpose is external coinbase generation)
1463 2011-12-20 20:58:51 <[Tycho]> Oh, 27 changed files including 2 completely new ones ! That's a BIG patch :)
1464 2011-12-20 20:58:53 <sipa> luke-jr: the discussion is whether it's intended or not
1465 2011-12-20 20:58:57 BlueMatt has joined
1466 2011-12-20 20:59:06 <luke-jr> sipa: objectively, it wasn't. :p
1467 2011-12-20 20:59:28 <gmaxwell> sipa: if it's intended, fine, then we should change the UI rules too. Though it's pretty easy to show that it wasn't since jgarzik said explicitly in his post announcing the change.
1468 2011-12-20 20:59:36 <sipa> indeed
1469 2011-12-20 20:59:42 <gmaxwell> (I mean, if its intended now)
1470 2011-12-20 21:00:01 <sipa> it's clear it wasn't intended tot some at least
1471 2011-12-20 21:00:12 <gmaxwell> We also have an issue that there is one client actually creating those txns (multibit). But it's doubtful that there is any serious hashpower behind that.
1472 2011-12-20 21:00:13 <sipa> but that's indeed irrelevant, the question is whether we want it now
1473 2011-12-20 21:00:20 <sipa> and i don't object to that changfe
1474 2011-12-20 21:00:52 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: [Tycho] implied the other day that he accepts most anything w/o a fee
1475 2011-12-20 21:00:54 <gmaxwell> though I would be hestitant with any pro-spamming changes, esp after the recent abuse some of the alt chains have had.
1476 2011-12-20 21:01:10 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1477 2011-12-20 21:01:11 <sipa> pro?
1478 2011-12-20 21:01:19 <luke-jr> if 0.0005 BTC base fee matched $25/BTC, then 0.0001 BTC base fee only makes sense with over $100/BTC IMO
1479 2011-12-20 21:01:25 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I thought he had the old standard free txn rules.. e.g. no more than a few kilobytes per block.
1480 2011-12-20 21:01:44 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I think he made it bigger, and doesn't require fees for large txns
1481 2011-12-20 21:01:48 <gmaxwell> sipa: I mean actually making the unintended change officially intended and lowering the client behavir too.
1482 2011-12-20 21:02:20 <sipa> gmaxwell: luke-jr's proposed change set the limit higher - 0.0005 for mining instead of 0.0001
1483 2011-12-20 21:02:25 <[Tycho]> Currently I'm taking up to 50 Kb of free TXes per block. Sometimes up to 200, but rarely.
1484 2011-12-20 21:02:52 <[Tycho]> Only TXes with fee 0.01 or more are considered non-free by me.
1485 2011-12-20 21:03:01 <gmaxwell> sipa: right now I think the effecitive mining limit is probably 0.0005 since people are on old software and when .23 came out people went around and nagged miners to accept the 0.0005.
1486 2011-12-20 21:03:36 <BlueMatt-mobile> luke-jr pretty much, I just want to see a whole fee system redo
1487 2011-12-20 21:03:50 <gmaxwell> Litecoin had to implement new wallet code to ignore small inputs because the mass polution of dust was so bad that the software became unusuable for most users. 0_o
1488 2011-12-20 21:03:55 sacredchao has joined
1489 2011-12-20 21:04:12 <gavinandresen> I want to see the fee-setting system reworked, too.  ANd I agree with gmaxwell, the 0.0001 was set when it looked like BTC prices were headed to $100
1490 2011-12-20 21:04:13 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: small *inputs*?
1491 2011-12-20 21:04:26 <BlueMatt-mobile> Wait wtf how did BlueMatt join this chan?
1492 2011-12-20 21:04:27 <[Tycho]> I remember how fees were good when that new client was released and forced them :)
1493 2011-12-20 21:04:29 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: small outputs into people's wallets. :)
1494 2011-12-20 21:04:35 <BlueMatt-mobile> My laptop is off...
1495 2011-12-20 21:04:38 <sipa> BlueMatt-mobile: evil brother?
1496 2011-12-20 21:04:41 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: 0.0001 BTC was only intentionally set for *relaying* though, not accepting into blocks ;P
1497 2011-12-20 21:04:57 <BlueMatt-mobile> sipa must be...
1498 2011-12-20 21:05:13 <sipa> luke-jr: that's one interpretation, but it's irrelevant
1499 2011-12-20 21:05:17 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: right, and that decision was made because we were worried we'd need another release in a few months because the 0.0005 fee looked too high at $100
1500 2011-12-20 21:05:18 <luke-jr> sipa: it's verbatim
1501 2011-12-20 21:05:19 <sipa> the question is whether we want it now
1502 2011-12-20 21:05:34 <luke-jr> the existing code says "if, and only if, I'm relaying, tolerate 0.0001 BTC base fee; otherwise, require 0.0005 BTC"
1503 2011-12-20 21:05:49 <luke-jr> the bug is that the code actually making the block says "I'm relaying…"
1504 2011-12-20 21:06:03 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: as sipa says, thats irrelevant the question is if we want it.
1505 2011-12-20 21:06:13 <luke-jr> IMO, it's a given that we don't want it now
1506 2011-12-20 21:06:18 <luke-jr> we're nowhere near $100/BTC
1507 2011-12-20 21:06:20 <gmaxwell> I think we don't actually. Complaints about fees have been preetty quiet.
1508 2011-12-20 21:06:27 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: what is the correct base58 representation for this output ? OP_DUP OP_HASH160 5ce6be8588bcdd09376e20eb7c0994ac0b6b1421 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_NOP1
1509 2011-12-20 21:06:47 <BlueMatt-mobile> luke-jr the thing with getminfeemodes is pretty much the only person who will use it before its in cmd params is you...
1510 2011-12-20 21:06:51 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1511 2011-12-20 21:07:01 <BlueMatt-mobile> Everyone else who will already has their client patches
1512 2011-12-20 21:07:04 <BlueMatt-mobile> D
1513 2011-12-20 21:07:14 <luke-jr> BlueMatt-mobile: I also already have my client patched.
1514 2011-12-20 21:07:27 <BlueMatt-mobile> So I see no reason to pull it
1515 2011-12-20 21:07:31 <luke-jr> BlueMatt-mobile: the point is to get the core API change mainlined so all those people can make their change *easier*
1516 2011-12-20 21:07:47 <luke-jr> and it's a step toward having it properly configurable
1517 2011-12-20 21:07:58 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: Umm.... 055ce6be8588bcdd09376e20eb7c0994ac0b6b1421 with 4 checksum bytes converted into base58....
1518 2011-12-20 21:08:00 <BlueMatt-mobile> Meh its alread pretty easy
1519 2011-12-20 21:08:26 <sipa> if it's such an issue: luke-jr, please split off the policy change ("bugfix" as you call it), and there is absolutely no reason not to merge it
1520 2011-12-20 21:08:27 <[Tycho]> Wow, unexpected 0
1521 2011-12-20 21:08:49 <luke-jr> sipa: I can, but is the fix really such an issue?
1522 2011-12-20 21:08:56 <sipa> to me it isn't
1523 2011-12-20 21:09:00 <gmaxwell> sipa: how can the policy change be decided?
1524 2011-12-20 21:09:25 <sipa> but i can't decide on a policy change
1525 2011-12-20 21:09:37 sacredchao has quit (Quit: leaving)
1526 2011-12-20 21:09:41 <gmaxwell> .. cause I don't think anyone (who isn't omg eliminate all fess at least) is really going to argue against it, but I don't even know how to have that discussion.
1527 2011-12-20 21:09:54 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1528 2011-12-20 21:10:10 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: can you make the call: do we want to make the 0.0001 BTC fee "official", or fix it back to 0.0005 BTC as was intented originally?
1529 2011-12-20 21:10:18 <[Tycho]> Sadly this new patch uses CBase58Data :(
1530 2011-12-20 21:10:20 <gmaxwell> The forums aren't the right place— as they won't attract well informed views. Most miners (where this actually matters) won't care because its so trivially changed.
1531 2011-12-20 21:11:33 <sipa> luke-jr: not entirely correct - 0.0005 is the intended and implemented policy, with 0.0001 being accepted by the network as well
1532 2011-12-20 21:11:34 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r781c06c / (src/main.cpp src/main.h src/wallet.cpp): Merge pull request #677 from luke-jr/minfee_modes ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/781c06c0f534913321a415a4fb64a60734e43101
1533 2011-12-20 21:11:46 <luke-jr> I guess that answers that
1534 2011-12-20 21:11:47 <gavinandresen> (tired of talking about it, sue me...)
1535 2011-12-20 21:11:49 <luke-jr> LOL
1536 2011-12-20 21:11:53 <sipa> your policy change with limit that acceptance of 0.0001 to only relaying
1537 2011-12-20 21:12:05 <gmaxwell> :)
1538 2011-12-20 21:12:25 <sipa> gavinandresen: lol
1539 2011-12-20 21:12:28 <[Tycho]> Why there is so much duplicated code in switch(nVersion) of IsValid() ?
1540 2011-12-20 21:12:42 <sipa> [Tycho]: because i'm not lazy enough
1541 2011-12-20 21:13:10 <sipa> clarity, really
1542 2011-12-20 21:14:01 * [Tycho] is going to backport it :)
1543 2011-12-20 21:15:19 * luke-jr ponders making a pullreq for stdint.h :P
1544 2011-12-20 21:15:19 sacredchao has joined
1545 2011-12-20 21:15:31 <sipa> luke-jr: please do
1546 2011-12-20 21:15:42 dissipate has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1547 2011-12-20 21:15:57 Diablo-D3 has joined
1548 2011-12-20 21:16:22 <gavinandresen> hmmm.... http://stackoverflow.com/questions/126279/c99-stdint-h-header-and-ms-visual-studio
1549 2011-12-20 21:17:20 <sipa> that's probably the reason it's not yet used
1550 2011-12-20 21:18:29 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1551 2011-12-20 21:18:29 BlueMatt-mobile has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1552 2011-12-20 21:19:26 <luke-jr> "As an update to this: MSVC 2010 now includes stdint.h"
1553 2011-12-20 21:19:34 <luke-jr> also, do we even support MSVC?
1554 2011-12-20 21:22:27 <[Tycho]> What is the proposed process for redeeming multisig TXes that you don't have all the keys for ?
1555 2011-12-20 21:24:12 AAA_awright has joined
1556 2011-12-20 21:25:31 comboy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1557 2011-12-20 21:25:38 BlueMatt-mobile has joined
1558 2011-12-20 21:29:08 iocor has joined
1559 2011-12-20 21:43:13 BlueMatt-mobile has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1560 2011-12-20 21:43:26 BlueMatt-mobile has joined
1561 2011-12-20 21:44:26 fsabnj has joined
1562 2011-12-20 21:44:32 fsabnj has quit (Client Quit)
1563 2011-12-20 21:45:31 Cherothald has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1564 2011-12-20 21:47:42 BlueMatt-mobile has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1565 2011-12-20 21:53:02 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: there is no proposed process for gathering transaction signatures yet...
1566 2011-12-20 21:54:36 <[Tycho]> But how you expect it to work, generally ?
1567 2011-12-20 21:55:18 <gavinandresen> Depends on if "it" is third-party escrow or "it" is multi-device-authentication....
1568 2011-12-20 21:55:38 <[Tycho]> Escrow.
1569 2011-12-20 21:55:53 <luke-jr>  58 files changed, 526 insertions(+), 442 deletions(-)
1570 2011-12-20 21:55:57 <[Tycho]> "multi-device" is like a hardware smart key ?
1571 2011-12-20 21:56:26 <gavinandresen> multi-device is "ask my mobile phone to authorize transactions I start from my computer wallet"
1572 2011-12-20 21:56:44 <gavinandresen> (I don't think people will buy separate hardware smart keys)
1573 2011-12-20 21:57:04 <[Tycho]> Depends on the signature formats allowed.
1574 2011-12-20 21:57:24 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen stdint * r781c06c0f534 bitcoind-personal/src/ (main.cpp main.h wallet.cpp): Merge pull request #677 from luke-jr/minfee_modes http://tinyurl.com/7zb7okh
1575 2011-12-20 21:57:25 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr stdint * r21d9f3678160 bitcoind-personal/ (58 files in 4 dirs): Use standard C99 (and Qt) types for 64-bit integers http://tinyurl.com/7tgysj4
1576 2011-12-20 21:57:44 <[Tycho]> There are smart smart cards that can be used with some digital money, but not compatible with bitcoin, i suppose.
1577 2011-12-20 21:58:53 <[Tycho]> About escrow - do you expect third party to reveal their private key for redeeming or to unfold this transaction to a next one ?
1578 2011-12-20 21:59:33 <[Tycho]> Or something like exchanging half-redeemed TX over the network...
1579 2011-12-20 21:59:55 <gavinandresen> I was looking for a forum post I had about escrow....
1580 2011-12-20 22:00:02 XX01XX has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1581 2011-12-20 22:00:15 <gavinandresen> And private keys should always stay private, so you'd send half-signed transactions across the network
1582 2011-12-20 22:00:19 molecular has joined
1583 2011-12-20 22:00:24 <gavinandresen> ... and get back signatures
1584 2011-12-20 22:01:05 <[Tycho]> Would be nice to implement possibility for pre-agreed escrow fee :)
1585 2011-12-20 22:01:14 <[Tycho]> Or may be scripting already allows this.
1586 2011-12-20 22:02:14 <gmaxwell> https://github.com/groffer/bitcoin/blob/db47c86abecdee76bf000bbc93c7722599d6e15e/doc/README_escrow.txt  < groffer's patch should be a source of inspiration here.
1587 2011-12-20 22:02:19 wasabi2 has joined
1588 2011-12-20 22:02:31 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: you just refuse to sign txns that don't pay out like you think they should.
1589 2011-12-20 22:02:58 <gmaxwell> e.g. if the deal was 'if I sign this, you pay me X' then just don't sign unless that criteria is met by the txn.
1590 2011-12-20 22:03:07 <gavinandresen> Ah, there it is:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=39471.msg595325#msg595325
1591 2011-12-20 22:03:28 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: thanks.
1592 2011-12-20 22:03:57 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1593 2011-12-20 22:04:21 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: * 9ef7fa3 Code cleanup: use ECDSA_size() instead of fixed 10,000 byte sig buffer, and explicity init static var
1594 2011-12-20 22:04:24 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: is this a bugfix?
1595 2011-12-20 22:04:25 <[Tycho]> Someone should tell theymos that it's not NOP anymore :)
1596 2011-12-20 22:04:57 <gavinandresen> Well, it is a NOP until 50% of the network agrees...
1597 2011-12-20 22:06:01 <gavinandresen> ... but yes, it'd be nifty if blockexplorer showed op_eval properly
1598 2011-12-20 22:06:11 <helo> what % agrees currently?
1599 2011-12-20 22:09:09 <[Tycho]> At least it's a special NOP :)
1600 2011-12-20 22:09:37 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: ?
1601 2011-12-20 22:10:34 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: There's no bug, 10,000 is a lot bigger than ECDSA_size()....
1602 2011-12-20 22:10:37 <midnightmagic> and what window is being used to calculate the 50% part?
1603 2011-12-20 22:10:48 <luke-jr> oh, ECDSA_size is constant?
1604 2011-12-20 22:10:52 <luke-jr> k
1605 2011-12-20 22:11:46 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: do you care if/how OP_EVAL gets merged into 0.4.x?
1606 2011-12-20 22:11:48 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: as I mentioned— there isn't any machine enforcement of this coinbase poll.. so its whatever you want it to be.
1607 2011-12-20 22:12:18 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: presumably gavin will just pick some metric and people will protest if they don't think it's reasonable.
1608 2011-12-20 22:12:32 <rjk2> luke-jr: taking one for the team, and maintaining bitcoin-wx for us? ;-)
1609 2011-12-20 22:12:39 <luke-jr> rjk2: not wxBitcoin, no.
1610 2011-12-20 22:12:42 <luke-jr> rjk2: just bitcoind 0.4.x
1611 2011-12-20 22:12:49 <rjk2> ah ok
1612 2011-12-20 22:12:54 <luke-jr> rjk2: if you want to take wxBitcoin, I can help with that.
1613 2011-12-20 22:13:07 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: no, I saw the q re: the current hashrate put to OP_EVAL, and I was just curious what the window size of blocks is that the calculation is being derived from. like is it last-10, last-100.. etc.
1614 2011-12-20 22:13:08 <gavinandresen> I plan on taking a look at the number of blocks that have coinbases with OP_EVAL in them from... oh, I dunno, Jan 14-Jan15
1615 2011-12-20 22:13:09 <rjk2> i don't do gui :/
1616 2011-12-20 22:13:21 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: thanks.
1617 2011-12-20 22:14:34 <gavinandresen> helo: I don't know what % have OP_EVAL in them, if you have an up-to-date blockchain you can run https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcointools/blob/master/search_coinbases.py   to see
1618 2011-12-20 22:15:09 <helo> ahh, thanks :)
1619 2011-12-20 22:16:40 Wrz has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1620 2011-12-20 22:16:49 Wrz has joined
1621 2011-12-20 22:17:28 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr 0.4.x * r027d149352bc bitcoind-stable/src/main.cpp: Bugfix: fForRelay should be false when deciding required fee to include in blocks http://tinyurl.com/d2tqfh2
1622 2011-12-20 22:19:32 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1623 2011-12-20 22:20:05 * justmoon wonders if the blockchain would be best stored in a mmap-ed file given that the only operation you ever do it are append and truncate (indexes and meta data would still be in hashtables/btrees of course)
1624 2011-12-20 22:20:42 Wrz has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1625 2011-12-20 22:21:04 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1626 2011-12-20 22:21:31 <luke-jr> justmoon: too big
1627 2011-12-20 22:23:33 <justmoon> luke-jr: split it?
1628 2011-12-20 22:23:59 Wrz has joined
1629 2011-12-20 22:24:02 <luke-jr> justmoon: won't help
1630 2011-12-20 22:24:12 <luke-jr> justmoon: there's 4 GB of address space at most, realistically
1631 2011-12-20 22:24:43 <justmoon> I don't follow - are you saying it's impossible to store more than 4 GB of data on the file system?
1632 2011-12-20 22:24:54 <justmoon> oh I'm an idiot
1633 2011-12-20 22:24:56 <justmoon> you mean mmap
1634 2011-12-20 22:24:56 <luke-jr> justmoon: it's impossible to mmap more than 4 GB
1635 2011-12-20 22:24:59 <justmoon> right
1636 2011-12-20 22:25:05 <luke-jr> without 64-bit
1637 2011-12-20 22:25:06 <justmoon> so you swap it in and out as needed?
1638 2011-12-20 22:25:11 <luke-jr> why?
1639 2011-12-20 22:25:24 <justmoon> you mean why use mmap at all?
1640 2011-12-20 22:26:12 <luke-jr> yes
1641 2011-12-20 22:26:36 <justmoon> mmap is basically the lazy man's database :)
1642 2011-12-20 22:27:02 <justmoon> the idea of putting it in a file is to reduce overhead in terms of the size
1643 2011-12-20 22:28:46 <justmoon> I might give it a try, but yeah it would be 64-bit only
1644 2011-12-20 22:29:43 <midnightmagic> mmap access is for speed and convenience..
1645 2011-12-20 22:30:29 <vsrinivas> well, and good use of the page cache.
1646 2011-12-20 22:31:17 <vsrinivas> justmoon: you'd need to be careful to not tie it to the machine formats.
1647 2011-12-20 22:31:21 da2ce7 has joined
1648 2011-12-20 22:32:09 <justmoon> vsrinivas: hmm, the content of the files would be standard bitcoin binary format - so you already have to worry about keeping the same endian etc. if you're going to send it out straight from mmap-ed memory
1649 2011-12-20 22:33:49 <vsrinivas> ok. if its just mmaping the file, that should be fine.
1650 2011-12-20 22:37:25 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr minute_new_work * r475d8f3e5700 bitcoind-personal/src/rpc.cpp: Create new work at least once a minute, and as often as every 15 seconds when we have new transactions http://tinyurl.com/btxo46u
1651 2011-12-20 22:38:07 chrisb__ has joined
1652 2011-12-20 22:38:39 rjk2 has quit (Quit: Over and out)
1653 2011-12-20 22:38:51 rjk2 has joined
1654 2011-12-20 22:40:08 BlueMatt has joined
1655 2011-12-20 22:43:36 <[Tycho]> BTW, why generations with identical coinbase would be invalid ?
1656 2011-12-20 22:43:46 sacredch1o has joined
1657 2011-12-20 22:44:02 sacredchao has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1658 2011-12-20 22:44:07 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: they aren't invalid. ... but only one of the N are spendable.
1659 2011-12-20 22:44:32 <justmoon> [Tycho]: same coinbase = same hash, so you can address the other ones
1660 2011-12-20 22:44:35 <justmoon> can't*
1661 2011-12-20 22:44:40 <justmoon> god, one day I will learn to type
1662 2011-12-20 22:44:46 <midnightmagic> wasn't mystery miner using a weird coinbase?
1663 2011-12-20 22:45:17 <[Tycho]> gmaxwell: why exactly ?
1664 2011-12-20 22:45:39 <[Tycho]> Same coinbase, but different outputs.
1665 2011-12-20 22:45:51 <midnightmagic> ah
1666 2011-12-20 22:46:03 <justmoon> ah, that's different
1667 2011-12-20 22:46:06 <[Tycho]> midnightmagic: no.
1668 2011-12-20 22:46:21 <kinlo> [Tycho]: you can have the same output too, especially if you use poolserverJ with a fixed payout address for example
1669 2011-12-20 22:46:23 _Fireball has quit (Quit:  HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- *I* use it, so it must be good!)
1670 2011-12-20 22:46:37 <Diablo-D3> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zJWA3Vo6TU
1671 2011-12-20 22:46:41 <Diablo-D3> new and improved shufflebot
1672 2011-12-20 22:46:42 chrisb__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1673 2011-12-20 22:47:02 <BlueMatt> wow wifi at 10000 feet is laaaaagy
1674 2011-12-20 22:47:11 <[Tycho]> midnightmagic: anyone can make weird coinbases, just like luke did.
1675 2011-12-20 22:47:18 <[Tycho]> And like merged mining does.
1676 2011-12-20 22:47:39 <midnightmagic> [Tycho]: so the type of coinbase MM used was still unique
1677 2011-12-20 22:47:52 <[Tycho]> midnightmagic: AFAIR it was just longer.
1678 2011-12-20 22:48:00 <justmoon> BlueMatt: did your free internet getting scheme work?
1679 2011-12-20 22:48:03 <midnightmagic> hrm interesting
1680 2011-12-20 22:49:30 <BlueMatt> oh well, guess Ill just have to program the whole time :)
1681 2011-12-20 22:49:33 <BlueMatt> justmoon: :):)
1682 2011-12-20 22:50:08 da2ce7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1683 2011-12-20 22:50:48 <justmoon> BlueMatt: have fun then! :D - I never get anything done when I try to work while traveling, but I still try every time, lol
1684 2011-12-20 22:52:22 <BlueMatt> justmoon: na, Im usually pretty good if Im programming on flights
1685 2011-12-20 22:52:52 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1686 2011-12-20 22:52:56 <justmoon> BlueMatt: in that case, hf!
1687 2011-12-20 22:53:41 sacredch1o has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1688 2011-12-20 22:55:02 sacredchao has joined
1689 2011-12-20 22:55:08 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: any reason why dnsseed.unitedminers.com wasn't added?
1690 2011-12-20 22:56:18 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: gavin objected due to little-known runner of the dnssed, plus now the unitedminers pool is down (has been for a month+)
1691 2011-12-20 22:56:41 eoss has joined
1692 2011-12-20 22:56:41 eoss has quit (Changing host)
1693 2011-12-20 22:56:41 eoss has joined
1694 2011-12-20 22:56:41 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: i c, though I noted the DNS seed is still operative
1695 2011-12-20 22:57:52 <CIA-100> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * r2089dd9 / lib/rpc/meta.js : Added loading whole RPC modules. Much nicer stack traces! - http://git.io/HIgHJg https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p/commit/2089dd94fe632fbdb9e139193ce58dfc6fa4395d
1696 2011-12-20 22:57:52 <CIA-100> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * rc30f6a2 / lib/blockchain.js : Fixed bug with side chain blocks affecting double spend index. - http://git.io/l8EPJQ https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p/commit/c30f6a2679ae25a440dc2a2bd653748469068a94
1697 2011-12-20 22:57:53 <CIA-100> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * rd18e278 / (4 files in 3 dirs): Misc. fixes and cosmetic changes related to block chain download. - http://git.io/4AsCMQ https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p/commit/d18e278b200289a7a244491f25b7345e8eab0541
1698 2011-12-20 22:57:53 <CIA-100> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * r35776ed / lib/settings.js : Updated DNS seeds to same as original client. - http://git.io/7nJc4w https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p/commit/35776ed1c8437a339f8c60a10fbd81b23949e49c
1699 2011-12-20 22:59:01 <BlueMatt> yea, not sure whats going on over there...you can try to figure it out he went by IO-
1700 2011-12-20 22:59:01 <BlueMatt> and runs some nevada-based it company
1701 2011-12-20 23:00:39 Rabbit67890 has joined
1702 2011-12-20 23:00:45 <justmoon> would geo-targeting be a feature or a bug in a dns seed?
1703 2011-12-20 23:00:45 <Rabbit67890> join bitcoin-mining
1704 2011-12-20 23:02:26 <gmaxwell> justmoon: bug but not an severe one.
1705 2011-12-20 23:03:25 <gmaxwell> the network ought to be nearly random wired or you can create topological attacks (partitioning). But even if the seeds are pro-partitioning, it won't last.
1706 2011-12-20 23:05:29 <justmoon> k, I figured as much
1707 2011-12-20 23:05:30 <gmaxwell> justmoon: nothing in bitcoin is latency sensitify enough for geo-targeting to make an improvement either.
1708 2011-12-20 23:05:31 EvanR-pissed has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1709 2011-12-20 23:05:40 <justmoon> agreed
1710 2011-12-20 23:06:24 <CIA-100> bips: genjix master * rd0c2d53 / bip-0010.md : My mistake. Apologies Alan Reiner (etotheipi) ... https://github.com/genjix/bips/commit/d0c2d53a56bb48cd75ec8280dc296019a3dd5e6c
1711 2011-12-20 23:06:27 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1712 2011-12-20 23:07:28 EvanR-pissed has joined
1713 2011-12-20 23:08:54 devrandom has joined
1714 2011-12-20 23:12:04 rjk2 has quit (Quit: Over and out)
1715 2011-12-20 23:14:21 rjk2 has joined
1716 2011-12-20 23:15:21 cryptoxchange has joined
1717 2011-12-20 23:17:22 wasabi2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1718 2011-12-20 23:17:45 justmoon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1719 2011-12-20 23:25:34 AAA_awright_ has joined
1720 2011-12-20 23:25:55 OneFixt_ has joined
1721 2011-12-20 23:25:58 wasabi has joined
1722 2011-12-20 23:26:03 da2ce7 has joined
1723 2011-12-20 23:27:08 b4epoche_ has joined
1724 2011-12-20 23:27:26 Rabbit67890_ has joined
1725 2011-12-20 23:27:28 erus`_ has joined
1726 2011-12-20 23:27:58 erus`_ has quit (Client Quit)
1727 2011-12-20 23:28:03 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1728 2011-12-20 23:28:03 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1729 2011-12-20 23:28:23 Rabbit67890 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1730 2011-12-20 23:28:23 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1731 2011-12-20 23:28:23 upb has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1732 2011-12-20 23:28:23 Rabbit67890_ is now known as Rabbit67890
1733 2011-12-20 23:28:43 ByronJohnson has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1734 2011-12-20 23:29:03 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1735 2011-12-20 23:29:03 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1736 2011-12-20 23:29:30 upb has joined
1737 2011-12-20 23:29:51 AStove has quit ()
1738 2011-12-20 23:32:31 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1739 2011-12-20 23:32:47 wasabi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1740 2011-12-20 23:33:03 b4epoche has joined
1741 2011-12-20 23:35:43 wasabi has joined
1742 2011-12-20 23:35:53 ByronJoh1son has joined
1743 2011-12-20 23:36:00 ByronJoh1son has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1744 2011-12-20 23:40:24 ByronJohnson has joined
1745 2011-12-20 23:42:21 denisx has joined
1746 2011-12-20 23:42:33 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1747 2011-12-20 23:44:59 denisx has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1748 2011-12-20 23:45:33 denisx has joined
1749 2011-12-20 23:45:51 eoss has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1750 2011-12-20 23:54:58 BlueMatt has joined
1751 2011-12-20 23:55:11 jm9000 has joined
1752 2011-12-20 23:55:46 comboy has joined