1 2011-12-28 00:01:40 <gmaxwell> block X would be any number >= 68544.
2 2011-12-28 00:03:26 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Quit: bitcoinbulletin)
3 2011-12-28 00:03:28 <gavinandresen> (just don't call 68544 a checkpoint....)
4 2011-12-28 00:03:58 marf_away has joined
5 2011-12-28 00:04:22 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: heh, well it's not quite a checkpoint.. any other chain could match that ... so long as it was at least diff 100 by that height. :)
6 2011-12-28 00:04:51 theorbtwo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
7 2011-12-28 00:05:29 <gavinandresen> Seems to me the checkpointing mechanism we have is a whole lot simpler. Downloading headers first is a good idea for other reasons, though, and that is on my TODO list...
8 2011-12-28 00:06:26 theorbtwo has joined
9 2011-12-28 00:06:38 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: well, I'm musing on it because of roconnor's just objection that if checkpoints are _mandatory_ then bitcoin is not decenteralized.
10 2011-12-28 00:07:14 <gmaxwell> I think it's acceptable to point out that checkpoints aren't the only way of addressing those attacks, ... even if they're what actually get used because they're easier.
11 2011-12-28 00:07:17 <gavinandresen> Good thing they're not mandatory, then
12 2011-12-28 00:07:51 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: well, they would be mandatory if they were the only way to stop the blockflooding attack. But they aren't.
13 2011-12-28 00:07:53 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
14 2011-12-28 00:08:58 TD has joined
15 2011-12-28 00:13:05 bitcoinbulletin has joined
16 2011-12-28 00:17:33 rdponticelli has joined
17 2011-12-28 00:19:20 davout has joined
18 2011-12-28 00:24:37 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
19 2011-12-28 00:28:58 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
20 2011-12-28 00:30:15 marf_away has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
21 2011-12-28 00:36:17 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
22 2011-12-28 00:38:33 Cablesaurus has joined
23 2011-12-28 00:38:33 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
24 2011-12-28 00:38:33 Cablesaurus has joined
25 2011-12-28 00:41:04 davout_ has joined
26 2011-12-28 00:42:17 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
27 2011-12-28 00:42:21 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
28 2011-12-28 00:43:41 davout_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
29 2011-12-28 00:49:08 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
30 2011-12-28 00:59:47 lfm has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
31 2011-12-28 00:59:47 storrgie has joined
32 2011-12-28 01:16:05 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
33 2011-12-28 01:16:50 vsrinivas has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
34 2011-12-28 01:16:55 Zarutian has joined
35 2011-12-28 01:23:16 talman has joined
36 2011-12-28 01:24:05 ahihi2_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
37 2011-12-28 01:27:08 talman has quit ()
38 2011-12-28 01:27:21 btc_novice has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
39 2011-12-28 01:33:57 <CIA-100> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * r8882109 / README.md : Update README. - http://git.io/ks6Gcg https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p/commit/8882109efdcc0f3cc98d5a9cccaede82aea47280
40 2011-12-28 01:44:43 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
41 2011-12-28 01:50:24 fooAndBar has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
42 2011-12-28 01:51:57 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
43 2011-12-28 01:52:10 fooAndBar has joined
44 2011-12-28 01:53:26 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
45 2011-12-28 02:04:52 a_meteorite has joined
46 2011-12-28 02:08:13 ahihi2 has joined
47 2011-12-28 02:13:29 CaptainDDL has joined
48 2011-12-28 02:15:28 rdponticelli has joined
49 2011-12-28 02:35:54 eoss has joined
50 2011-12-28 02:56:59 dissipate has joined
51 2011-12-28 02:56:59 dissipate has quit (Changing host)
52 2011-12-28 02:56:59 dissipate has joined
53 2011-12-28 03:01:00 SomeoneWeirdzzzz is now known as SomeoneWeird
54 2011-12-28 03:06:57 lfm has joined
55 2011-12-28 03:17:28 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
56 2011-12-28 03:18:12 <CIA-100> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-exit: booo master * r076053b / (README.md block.js package.json pubkeys.js server.js tx.js): rename bitcoin-p2p into bitcoinjs - http://git.io/mxgZ5A https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-exit/commit/076053b40a41e7987c44b97f835875bbdace2ab2
57 2011-12-28 03:18:12 <CIA-100> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-exit: booo master * rd8f1d96 / server.js : use jshing; make server.js executable - http://git.io/PvkQ_g https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-exit/commit/d8f1d966df6ec38854260936c6e91fd2bcd87d3f
58 2011-12-28 03:18:13 <CIA-100> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-exit: Stefan Thomas master * rb3d07d3 / (README.md block.js package.json pubkeys.js server.js tx.js): Merge pull request #8 from booo/master ... https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-exit/commit/b3d07d372113c384857ad1d3ba00e387f21f4207
59 2011-12-28 03:20:30 wasabi has joined
60 2011-12-28 03:21:48 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
61 2011-12-28 03:22:36 storrgie has quit (Quit: Leaving)
62 2011-12-28 03:29:02 dissipate has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
63 2011-12-28 03:32:29 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
64 2011-12-28 03:32:40 TheSeven has joined
65 2011-12-28 03:34:48 RAWRwins254 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
66 2011-12-28 03:35:59 RAWRwins254 has joined
67 2011-12-28 03:38:42 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
68 2011-12-28 03:40:33 random_cat has joined
69 2011-12-28 03:44:03 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
70 2011-12-28 03:44:30 b4epoche has joined
71 2011-12-28 03:49:44 dissipate has joined
72 2011-12-28 03:52:04 dissipate has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
73 2011-12-28 03:52:52 dissipate has joined
74 2011-12-28 03:58:58 minimoose has joined
75 2011-12-28 04:02:02 theymos has joined
76 2011-12-28 04:03:28 skeledrew has joined
77 2011-12-28 04:07:34 EvanR has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
78 2011-12-28 04:19:56 Diablo-D3 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
79 2011-12-28 04:35:54 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
80 2011-12-28 04:38:01 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
81 2011-12-28 04:41:59 random_cat has joined
82 2011-12-28 04:44:07 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
83 2011-12-28 04:44:58 devrandom has joined
84 2011-12-28 04:56:46 skeledrew has joined
85 2011-12-28 05:03:31 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
86 2011-12-28 05:12:48 ShadowE989 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
87 2011-12-28 05:21:22 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
88 2011-12-28 05:27:09 ShadowE989 has joined
89 2011-12-28 05:33:24 WakiMiko_ has joined
90 2011-12-28 05:34:26 eoss has quit (Quit: Leaving)
91 2011-12-28 05:36:35 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
92 2011-12-28 05:49:57 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
93 2011-12-28 05:55:13 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
94 2011-12-28 05:58:48 etotheipi_ has joined
95 2011-12-28 06:08:25 etotheipi_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
96 2011-12-28 06:12:32 pirateat40 has joined
97 2011-12-28 06:22:48 BlueMatt has joined
98 2011-12-28 06:27:02 dissipate has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
99 2011-12-28 06:39:46 Detritus has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
100 2011-12-28 06:45:03 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
101 2011-12-28 07:01:28 Detritus has joined
102 2011-12-28 07:03:18 Detritus has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
103 2011-12-28 07:06:03 Detritus has joined
104 2011-12-28 07:09:05 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
105 2011-12-28 07:10:02 phantomfake has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
106 2011-12-28 07:10:42 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
107 2011-12-28 07:22:19 wasabi2 has joined
108 2011-12-28 07:24:10 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
109 2011-12-28 07:25:54 phantomfake has joined
110 2011-12-28 07:29:42 pirateat40 has left ()
111 2011-12-28 07:34:37 ahbritto has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
112 2011-12-28 07:41:07 dissipate has joined
113 2011-12-28 07:54:15 finway has joined
114 2011-12-28 07:54:36 <finway> Wow, seems yesterday was a busy talky buggy day.
115 2011-12-28 07:54:43 <finway> ;;bc
116 2011-12-28 07:54:43 <gribble> Error: "bc" is not a valid command.
117 2011-12-28 07:55:40 finway has quit (Client Quit)
118 2011-12-28 07:56:51 b4epoche_ has joined
119 2011-12-28 07:58:21 RazielZ has joined
120 2011-12-28 07:58:43 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
121 2011-12-28 07:58:43 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
122 2011-12-28 08:12:55 ThomasV has joined
123 2011-12-28 08:14:22 ThomasV has quit (Client Quit)
124 2011-12-28 08:14:43 ThomasV has joined
125 2011-12-28 08:23:00 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
126 2011-12-28 08:23:03 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
127 2011-12-28 08:31:57 blue_ has joined
128 2011-12-28 08:34:56 molecular has joined
129 2011-12-28 08:41:07 Fnar has joined
130 2011-12-28 08:47:43 <blue_> hi, the "Previous tx" is the previous transaction of the sender right?
131 2011-12-28 08:49:27 <BlueMatt> you mean on blockexplorer?
132 2011-12-28 08:49:28 Sedra- has joined
133 2011-12-28 08:49:58 <BlueMatt> wumpus: why do all the sends in my wallet say "Sent to IP" in bitcoin-qt?
134 2011-12-28 08:51:06 <CIA-100> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-exit: Stefan Thomas master * rb5d4b63 / (package.json pubkeys.js tx.js): Updates for BitcoinJS 0.2. - http://git.io/CyHJoA https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-exit/commit/b5d4b6301ca4e350a0a9bf8803bf23e4de9a0679
135 2011-12-28 08:51:06 <CIA-100> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-exit: Stefan Thomas master * r7182bc7 / (6 files in 2 dirs): Tabs -> spaces. - http://git.io/P-uhZw https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-exit/commit/7182bc74e7d23037378b12cd8570120cae7730df
136 2011-12-28 08:51:29 <lolcat> I have Tails!
137 2011-12-28 08:52:52 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
138 2011-12-28 08:55:31 skeledrew has joined
139 2011-12-28 09:00:59 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, sounds like a bug
140 2011-12-28 09:01:14 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: I would say so...
141 2011-12-28 09:04:18 abragin has joined
142 2011-12-28 09:04:18 abragin has quit (Changing host)
143 2011-12-28 09:04:18 abragin has joined
144 2011-12-28 09:05:37 <wumpus> BlueMatt: haven't heard of that problem before; since what release?
145 2011-12-28 09:05:49 <BlueMatt> wumpus: nfc, it does on current head
146 2011-12-28 09:05:51 <wumpus> or /commit
147 2011-12-28 09:05:54 <BlueMatt> the wallet is old as balls though
148 2011-12-28 09:07:37 <wumpus> it labels to transaction as sent to ip if transaction map "to" and "from" fields don't have a value
149 2011-12-28 09:07:55 <wumpus> uh wait, that's the other wait around
150 2011-12-28 09:08:07 <BlueMatt> the wallet was created in feb (I think)
151 2011-12-28 09:08:09 <BlueMatt> maybe earlier
152 2011-12-28 09:08:14 <wumpus> *IF* they have a value
153 2011-12-28 09:08:25 <wumpus> what does it say as sender/receiver?
154 2011-12-28 09:08:55 <wumpus> else if (!mapValue["from"].empty() || !mapValue["message"].empty())
155 2011-12-28 09:08:55 <wumpus> {
156 2011-12-28 09:08:55 <wumpus> // Received by IP connection
157 2011-12-28 09:08:56 <BlueMatt> I have a To: (the name of an address) but no from
158 2011-12-28 09:09:27 <wumpus> and thten uses the content of the "from" field as IP address
159 2011-12-28 09:09:53 <BlueMatt> there is no from in the popup of the tx
160 2011-12-28 09:10:28 <wumpus> that's one weird wallet then
161 2011-12-28 09:10:54 <BlueMatt> its been around the block, but its not even encrypted
162 2011-12-28 09:11:07 <BlueMatt> let me get some dumps and see what happens...
163 2011-12-28 09:13:00 <wumpus> yes it'd be interesting to see how it differs from a "normal" wallet on a low level
164 2011-12-28 09:14:47 <BlueMatt> ok, well its gonna take like an hour and a half to remove private info from the dump, but Ill have it in an hour or so...
165 2011-12-28 09:15:03 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
166 2011-12-28 09:16:54 skeledrew has joined
167 2011-12-28 09:18:27 Joric has joined
168 2011-12-28 09:20:39 <blue_> in a Block - what is the "Merkle root" is it the difficulti or is it some kind of Blockchain proof?
169 2011-12-28 09:21:32 <BlueMatt> its the head of a merkle tree of the hashes of the txes in the block
170 2011-12-28 09:21:41 <BlueMatt> see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree
171 2011-12-28 09:21:55 <BlueMatt> its essentially just a hash of the list of txes
172 2011-12-28 09:22:10 <BlueMatt> though it allows for tx pruning
173 2011-12-28 09:22:29 <blue_> but Merkle_tree != Block Hash?
174 2011-12-28 09:23:56 <BlueMatt> no, its part of the header, which is hashed to get block hash
175 2011-12-28 09:24:15 <BlueMatt> the header is what you have to brute-force to get a block hash < target
176 2011-12-28 09:24:23 <BlueMatt> by incrementing nonce
177 2011-12-28 09:25:12 <blue_> ok good
178 2011-12-28 09:25:51 <blue_> the the merkle tree seems to be som kind of hash over the transaktion hashs in the current block?
179 2011-12-28 09:27:01 Joric_ has joined
180 2011-12-28 09:27:02 Joric_ has quit (Changing host)
181 2011-12-28 09:27:02 Joric_ has joined
182 2011-12-28 09:27:02 Joric_ has quit (Client Quit)
183 2011-12-28 09:27:30 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
184 2011-12-28 09:27:38 <BlueMatt> exactly
185 2011-12-28 09:27:59 <blue_> :) ty
186 2011-12-28 09:28:38 <BlueMatt> np
187 2011-12-28 09:30:53 davout has joined
188 2011-12-28 09:36:01 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
189 2011-12-28 09:37:34 davout has joined
190 2011-12-28 09:39:13 <blue_> Is there a maximum of transaktions in a single block?
191 2011-12-28 09:39:59 <BlueMatt> no, but current clients limit blocksize to X MB
192 2011-12-28 09:40:11 <BlueMatt> though that would eventually be removed if it because a limiting factor
193 2011-12-28 09:40:47 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
194 2011-12-28 09:41:01 <blue_> are you a developer from the Bitcoins team?
195 2011-12-28 09:41:10 <ThomasV> do current clients accept a mined block or arbitrary size?
196 2011-12-28 09:41:27 <BlueMatt> ThomasV: huh?
197 2011-12-28 09:41:45 <BlueMatt> blue_: not really, though last time I checked I think I had like the 4th or 5th most commits...
198 2011-12-28 09:42:03 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
199 2011-12-28 09:42:30 <ThomasV> BlueMatt: the blocksize limit is only for mining, is it not?
200 2011-12-28 09:42:54 dr_win has joined
201 2011-12-28 09:43:14 <BlueMatt> ThomasV: I thought it was enforced by the net code, but Im not 100% sure, its been a long time
202 2011-12-28 09:43:20 <blue_> :D
203 2011-12-28 09:43:25 <ThomasV> I am not sure either
204 2011-12-28 09:43:41 <ThomasV> but I think there are past blocks with very large number of tx
205 2011-12-28 09:43:51 <BlueMatt> yea, but no where near the 10 MB limit
206 2011-12-28 09:43:58 <BlueMatt> (is it 10 or 100)
207 2011-12-28 09:44:07 <BlueMatt> I can never remember the actual limit, but its a power of 10
208 2011-12-28 09:44:25 <ThomasV> what is the current average block size?
209 2011-12-28 09:44:35 <BlueMatt> there was a page that calculated that
210 2011-12-28 09:44:44 <BlueMatt> not like I would ever remember where why how
211 2011-12-28 09:44:55 <ThomasV> I mean approximately
212 2011-12-28 09:45:19 <BlueMatt> nfc anymore
213 2011-12-28 09:45:19 Joric has joined
214 2011-12-28 09:45:27 <blue_> hm it would take more time to find such a big thing -so you would start over and over to much i guess
215 2011-12-28 09:46:01 <BlueMatt> blue_: #5 according to bitcoin.org, but # commits really means nothing...
216 2011-12-28 09:46:12 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
217 2011-12-28 09:46:31 <blue_> kay
218 2011-12-28 09:46:59 <BlueMatt> just means I have no life and can write small fixes all day long
219 2011-12-28 09:47:07 <BlueMatt> :)
220 2011-12-28 09:49:11 <SomeoneWeird> fuuu, anyone have experience with android rooting?
221 2011-12-28 09:49:28 * BlueMatt does on the sgii, but its very phone-specific...
222 2011-12-28 09:50:16 <SomeoneWeird> yeah i just tried rooting my xoom, wont go past the boot logo now :'(
223 2011-12-28 09:50:41 <BlueMatt> ouch
224 2011-12-28 09:50:47 <BlueMatt> can you boot into recovery from adb?
225 2011-12-28 09:50:58 <BlueMatt> or otherwise
226 2011-12-28 09:51:48 <SomeoneWeird> yeh i can
227 2011-12-28 09:52:38 <SomeoneWeird> and it comes up with it when i do adb devices too
228 2011-12-28 09:52:43 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
229 2011-12-28 09:52:50 <BlueMatt> so adb reboot recovery and reflash?
230 2011-12-28 09:53:14 <SomeoneWeird> oo
231 2011-12-28 09:53:32 <SomeoneWeird> what do i reflash with?
232 2011-12-28 09:53:33 <SomeoneWeird> lol
233 2011-12-28 09:54:38 <BlueMatt> a rom zip?
234 2011-12-28 09:54:51 <SomeoneWeird> mm
235 2011-12-28 09:54:55 <SomeoneWeird> may as well flash ICS then
236 2011-12-28 09:54:58 <BlueMatt> or does android stock recovery not have the zip flash option?
237 2011-12-28 09:55:07 <BlueMatt> (is that a custom recovery-only feature?)
238 2011-12-28 09:55:15 <BlueMatt> Im not really that experienced (as you can see...)
239 2011-12-28 09:55:59 <SomeoneWeird> no idea
240 2011-12-28 09:56:17 <BlueMatt> ;;later tell gavinandresen if you get the chance, can you write/copy stuff about op_eval to the wiki's script page (and maybe make an OP_EVAL page) https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script
241 2011-12-28 09:56:17 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
242 2011-12-28 09:56:33 <SomeoneWeird> ok so i put it into its recovery mode
243 2011-12-28 09:56:38 <BlueMatt> well how did you flash it to begin with?
244 2011-12-28 09:56:40 <SomeoneWeird> now theres an android with a warning symbol
245 2011-12-28 09:56:42 <SomeoneWeird> i didn't
246 2011-12-28 09:56:47 <SomeoneWeird> havn't
247 2011-12-28 09:56:48 <BlueMatt> so why is it not booting?
248 2011-12-28 09:56:53 <BlueMatt> odin?
249 2011-12-28 09:57:01 ThomasV has joined
250 2011-12-28 09:57:04 <SomeoneWeird> trying to root it
251 2011-12-28 09:57:14 <BlueMatt> does xoom have sgii-style pre-recovery flash tool like oding on the sgii?
252 2011-12-28 09:57:23 <SomeoneWeird> oding?
253 2011-12-28 09:57:33 <BlueMatt> how were you rooting it, software hack, kernel flash, rom flash?
254 2011-12-28 09:58:09 <SomeoneWeird> oh
255 2011-12-28 09:58:12 <SomeoneWeird> kernel flash i think
256 2011-12-28 09:58:20 <SomeoneWeird> http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1010568
257 2011-12-28 09:58:25 <SomeoneWeird> i was following that
258 2011-12-28 09:59:45 <BlueMatt> oh, software exploit...
259 2011-12-28 09:59:52 <BlueMatt> well I have nfc what to do on the xoom
260 2011-12-28 09:59:53 <SomeoneWeird> oh
261 2011-12-28 09:59:59 <BlueMatt> isnt there a xoom irc chan on here?
262 2011-12-28 10:00:03 <SomeoneWeird> mm, thanks anyway
263 2011-12-28 10:00:16 <SomeoneWeird> oh look there is, ahh
264 2011-12-28 10:01:43 <BlueMatt> anyone have the link to that 49.999... btc-generating block?
265 2011-12-28 10:01:52 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: ?
266 2011-12-28 10:01:54 <BlueMatt> wasnt that you?
267 2011-12-28 10:02:57 <lolcat> BlueMatt: Has the injection happened allready? Oo
268 2011-12-28 10:03:11 <lfm> The one where they didnt claim the whol 50 btc? ya I can get it
269 2011-12-28 10:03:13 <BlueMatt> nvm, found it
270 2011-12-28 10:03:17 <BlueMatt> lolcat: ?
271 2011-12-28 10:03:19 <BlueMatt> http://blockexplorer.com/block/0000000000004c78956f8643262f3622acf22486b120421f893c0553702ba7b5
272 2011-12-28 10:03:47 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
273 2011-12-28 10:03:51 <lolcat> BlueMatt: I heard rumors of a block injection
274 2011-12-28 10:04:04 <epscy> !ticker
275 2011-12-28 10:04:08 <BlueMatt> lolcat: meaning?
276 2011-12-28 10:04:13 <epscy> !ticker
277 2011-12-28 10:04:14 <gribble> Best bid: 4.11, Best ask: 4.112, Bid-ask spread: 0.002, Last trade: 4.1121, 24 hour volume: 34681, 24 hour low: 3.962, 24 hour high: 4.18888
278 2011-12-28 10:04:22 <lolcat> BlueMatt: They falsely injected a block into the chain
279 2011-12-28 10:04:31 <lolcat> Or where going to
280 2011-12-28 10:04:33 <BlueMatt> and how would one do that?
281 2011-12-28 10:04:44 <BlueMatt> you mean like add another block in the middle of the chain?
282 2011-12-28 10:05:19 <BlueMatt> that would mean you would need a sha256 collision, which so far no known collisions have been found, so have fun brute forcing for the next million and a half years
283 2011-12-28 10:05:21 Joric has quit ()
284 2011-12-28 10:06:01 IamDeadSexC is now known as imsaguy
285 2011-12-28 10:06:29 Cory has joined
286 2011-12-28 10:07:03 <lolcat> Inject it to the end of the chain I pressume?
287 2011-12-28 10:07:11 <BlueMatt> isnt that called mining?
288 2011-12-28 10:07:35 <lolcat> I don't know, haven't relly looked into it. I found out tenebrix was much easier to mine
289 2011-12-28 10:07:40 <lfm> theres one ... oh and theres another one
290 2011-12-28 10:07:42 skeledrew has joined
291 2011-12-28 10:08:16 * BlueMatt is very confused
292 2011-12-28 10:08:44 <lfm> (blocks added to the end of the chain)
293 2011-12-28 10:08:51 <epscy> real men inject a new genesis block
294 2011-12-28 10:08:52 <BlueMatt> that is called mining?
295 2011-12-28 10:09:13 <BlueMatt> so, uh people are coming up with a new name for mining?
296 2011-12-28 10:09:28 <lolcat> BlueMatt: I see your point, I guess I should not listen to random irc rumors then
297 2011-12-28 10:10:01 <lfm> lolcat duh
298 2011-12-28 10:10:24 <lolcat> lfm: I usually trust people on irc
299 2011-12-28 10:10:33 <BlueMatt> its possibly something new, but if they are injecting blocks into the end of the chain, I believe that is called mining ;)
300 2011-12-28 10:10:33 <wumpus> haha you're in for a world of pain
301 2011-12-28 10:10:34 <lolcat> It is great for buying drugs for instance
302 2011-12-28 10:10:45 <lolcat> wumpus: whom?
303 2011-12-28 10:10:54 <wumpus> lolcat: if you usually trust people on irc
304 2011-12-28 10:10:58 <BlueMatt> heh
305 2011-12-28 10:11:07 <BlueMatt> buying drugs online is always a good idea
306 2011-12-28 10:11:07 <lolcat> wumpus: I've been on irc for at least two years
307 2011-12-28 10:11:58 <lfm> you guy drugs for bitcoins?
308 2011-12-28 10:12:03 <lfm> buy
309 2011-12-28 10:12:19 <epscy> your gay for drugs and bitcoins?
310 2011-12-28 10:12:44 <BlueMatt> yea, getting drugs shipped to you in the mail is always a safe idea...
311 2011-12-28 10:12:55 <epscy> i guess bitcoin prostituition had to start at some point
312 2011-12-28 10:13:19 <mcorlett> BlueMatt: I hope to see what you just said quoted on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
313 2011-12-28 10:13:32 <BlueMatt> mcorlett: add it
314 2011-12-28 10:13:51 <BlueMatt> mcorlett: atleast its more incontext than the one on the bitcoin page there already...
315 2011-12-28 10:13:59 <lfm> if he trust irc people he might as well
316 2011-12-28 10:14:10 <lolcat> lfm: Nah, paypal
317 2011-12-28 10:14:12 <mcorlett> Ha!
318 2011-12-28 10:14:17 <BlueMatt> http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Bitcoin
319 2011-12-28 10:14:19 <BlueMatt> bottom of the page
320 2011-12-28 10:14:47 <lolcat> BlueMatt: What is wrong with receiving drugs in the mail? It beats risking to get killed by a drug dealer
321 2011-12-28 10:14:53 <lfm> no need for a condom if you pay with bitcoins
322 2011-12-28 10:15:03 <BlueMatt> lolcat: there are no good ways to buy drugs, they all suck
323 2011-12-28 10:15:12 <lolcat> BlueMatt: But drugs doesn't
324 2011-12-28 10:15:15 <BlueMatt> though I do live in a college dorm, so...
325 2011-12-28 10:15:43 <lolcat> I tried making a living selling haitian slaves for bitcoins, unfortnuatly I didn't make to many sales.
326 2011-12-28 10:15:51 <BlueMatt> anyway, Im off
327 2011-12-28 10:15:55 <BlueMatt> gnight all
328 2011-12-28 10:16:07 <lfm> who paid 171.79869184 btc in fee for one txn anyway?
329 2011-12-28 10:16:23 <lolcat> lfm: thats a lot
330 2011-12-28 10:17:04 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
331 2011-12-28 10:17:10 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
332 2011-12-28 10:18:11 <lfm> Block #157235 2011-12-12 16:57:45
333 2011-12-28 10:21:04 [Tycho] has joined
334 2011-12-28 10:23:32 skeledrew has joined
335 2011-12-28 10:24:27 Turingi has joined
336 2011-12-28 10:27:41 <epscy> probably mtgox messing about again
337 2011-12-28 10:28:18 <lfm> Im thinking it more likley some miner playing around paying him,self
338 2011-12-28 10:37:06 <lfm> there some weird extranonce stuff in that same block
339 2011-12-28 10:39:21 <lolcat> extranonce?
340 2011-12-28 10:41:44 <lfm> it looks like it was something to do with yourbtc.net pool shutting down
341 2011-12-28 10:42:05 <lfm> extranonce is the stuff in the coinbase input
342 2011-12-28 10:42:14 blue_ has left ()
343 2011-12-28 10:49:48 <lfm> yourbtc.net pool sez it was shutting down dec 10 but its still running and producing blocks to this day
344 2011-12-28 10:52:18 davout has joined
345 2011-12-28 10:58:59 abragin has quit ()
346 2011-12-28 11:00:45 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
347 2011-12-28 11:01:45 <Graet> lfm they also said they had been asked to remain open to give miners time to move, so urstroter said he would leave it up for a month but no development etc so ~10jan for real
348 2011-12-28 11:02:32 weather has joined
349 2011-12-28 11:06:00 abragin has joined
350 2011-12-28 11:06:39 weather has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
351 2011-12-28 11:06:51 blishchrot has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
352 2011-12-28 11:07:21 gjs278 has joined
353 2011-12-28 11:08:43 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
354 2011-12-28 11:13:44 dedeibel has joined
355 2011-12-28 11:16:26 ThomasV has joined
356 2011-12-28 11:21:30 bobke has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
357 2011-12-28 11:24:53 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
358 2011-12-28 11:25:06 wasabi has joined
359 2011-12-28 11:28:43 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
360 2011-12-28 11:30:22 ThomasV has joined
361 2011-12-28 11:34:21 slush has joined
362 2011-12-28 11:37:40 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
363 2011-12-28 11:40:25 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
364 2011-12-28 11:42:44 bobke has joined
365 2011-12-28 11:50:54 chrisb__ has joined
366 2011-12-28 11:54:39 rdponticelli has joined
367 2011-12-28 11:58:56 dedeibel has left ("Konversation terminated!")
368 2011-12-28 12:02:23 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
369 2011-12-28 12:09:09 <UukGoblin> hm, on http://bitcoin.org/about.html - change "broadcasted" to "broadcast" - it's an irregular verb
370 2011-12-28 12:09:13 b4epoche_ has joined
371 2011-12-28 12:09:47 skeledrew has joined
372 2011-12-28 12:09:50 <UukGoblin> oh, maybe not everywhere now... eh, natlangs.
373 2011-12-28 12:10:12 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
374 2011-12-28 12:10:12 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
375 2011-12-28 12:14:20 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
376 2011-12-28 12:16:55 skeledrew has joined
377 2011-12-28 12:24:33 wasabi2 has joined
378 2011-12-28 12:26:27 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
379 2011-12-28 12:27:48 dissipate has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
380 2011-12-28 12:31:44 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
381 2011-12-28 12:37:44 red_ has joined
382 2011-12-28 12:37:56 skeledrew has joined
383 2011-12-28 12:39:19 Cryo has joined
384 2011-12-28 12:39:34 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
385 2011-12-28 12:41:22 da2ce7 has joined
386 2011-12-28 12:44:43 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
387 2011-12-28 12:53:10 Guest38203 has joined
388 2011-12-28 12:53:32 red_ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
389 2011-12-28 12:53:39 Guest38203 is now known as Cory
390 2011-12-28 12:53:43 Cory has quit (Changing host)
391 2011-12-28 12:56:19 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
392 2011-12-28 12:59:39 a_meteorite has joined
393 2011-12-28 13:01:52 datagutt has joined
394 2011-12-28 13:10:11 skeledrew has joined
395 2011-12-28 13:10:39 JZavala has joined
396 2011-12-28 13:13:33 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
397 2011-12-28 13:17:55 abragin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
398 2011-12-28 13:18:53 graingert has joined
399 2011-12-28 13:19:33 abragin has joined
400 2011-12-28 13:19:33 abragin has quit (Changing host)
401 2011-12-28 13:19:33 abragin has joined
402 2011-12-28 13:19:36 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
403 2011-12-28 13:22:37 ThomasV has joined
404 2011-12-28 13:24:38 TD has joined
405 2011-12-28 13:26:12 ThomasV has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
406 2011-12-28 13:26:20 ThomasV_ has joined
407 2011-12-28 13:27:11 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
408 2011-12-28 13:27:43 ThomasV_ has quit (Client Quit)
409 2011-12-28 13:29:14 paraipan has joined
410 2011-12-28 13:29:49 skeledrew has joined
411 2011-12-28 13:30:36 rdponticelli has joined
412 2011-12-28 13:43:10 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
413 2011-12-28 13:56:16 HaltingState has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
414 2011-12-28 13:57:25 a_meteorite has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
415 2011-12-28 13:58:35 HaltingState has joined
416 2011-12-28 13:58:35 HaltingState has quit (Changing host)
417 2011-12-28 13:58:35 HaltingState has joined
418 2011-12-28 14:05:49 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
419 2011-12-28 14:10:35 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
420 2011-12-28 14:10:48 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
421 2011-12-28 14:11:24 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
422 2011-12-28 14:11:36 a_meteorite has joined
423 2011-12-28 14:14:52 Turingi has joined
424 2011-12-28 14:34:19 PK has joined
425 2011-12-28 14:38:07 <CIA-100> bitcoin: jedi95 * r3fb7c12e82d3 Phoenix-Miner/ (Miner.py minerutil/RPCProtocol.py): Fixed unhandled exception in RPCProtocol. AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'close' http://tinyurl.com/cezebq9
426 2011-12-28 14:39:30 ThomasV has joined
427 2011-12-28 14:41:00 btc_novice has joined
428 2011-12-28 14:45:32 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Never put off till tomorrow, what you can do the day after tomorrow)
429 2011-12-28 14:51:16 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
430 2011-12-28 14:57:17 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
431 2011-12-28 14:57:18 Sedra has joined
432 2011-12-28 14:58:31 iocor has joined
433 2011-12-28 15:00:21 Sedra- has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
434 2011-12-28 15:04:27 theorb has joined
435 2011-12-28 15:05:59 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
436 2011-12-28 15:10:55 p0s has joined
437 2011-12-28 15:13:30 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
438 2011-12-28 15:25:59 wasabi has joined
439 2011-12-28 15:27:49 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
440 2011-12-28 15:28:28 storrgie has joined
441 2011-12-28 15:30:34 merde has joined
442 2011-12-28 15:32:40 skeledrew has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
443 2011-12-28 15:33:03 oww has joined
444 2011-12-28 15:33:29 ThomasV has joined
445 2011-12-28 15:36:06 ThomasV has quit (Client Quit)
446 2011-12-28 15:38:19 ThomasV has joined
447 2011-12-28 15:54:11 da2ce7 has joined
448 2011-12-28 15:54:28 skeledrew has joined
449 2011-12-28 16:00:41 [Tycho] has joined
450 2011-12-28 16:06:07 JZavala has joined
451 2011-12-28 16:07:33 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
452 2011-12-28 16:08:20 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
453 2011-12-28 16:10:48 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
454 2011-12-28 16:12:58 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneWeirdzzzz
455 2011-12-28 16:14:43 theorb has joined
456 2011-12-28 16:15:01 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
457 2011-12-28 16:17:51 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
458 2011-12-28 16:19:27 theorb has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
459 2011-12-28 16:21:03 b4epoche_ has joined
460 2011-12-28 16:21:52 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
461 2011-12-28 16:21:52 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
462 2011-12-28 16:24:54 theorbtwo has joined
463 2011-12-28 16:27:39 <onelineproof> I'm almost done my little wallet reader program. But I noticed that one key had a 31 bit private key instead of 32 bit. Is this a bug or should I take care of this case?
464 2011-12-28 16:27:50 <onelineproof> *byte
465 2011-12-28 16:28:42 Wrz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
466 2011-12-28 16:28:52 Wrz has joined
467 2011-12-28 16:30:30 stalled has joined
468 2011-12-28 16:34:47 Diablo-D3 has joined
469 2011-12-28 16:37:53 <sipa> onelineproof: maybe the first byte is a zero?
470 2011-12-28 16:39:20 <onelineproof> It start's like this 253 22 1 48 130 1 18 2 1 1 4 31
471 2011-12-28 16:39:43 <onelineproof> instead of 253 23 1 48 130 1 19 2 1 1 4 32
472 2011-12-28 16:43:03 <onelineproof> Then it's 31 bytes then 160 129 165 48 129 162 2 1 1 ...
473 2011-12-28 16:43:25 <onelineproof> the normal one is 32 bytes then 160 129 165 48 129 162 2 1 1
474 2011-12-28 16:44:17 erle- has joined
475 2011-12-28 16:44:39 <onelineproof> but pywallet just pretends its 32 bytes and uses the 160 as the 32nd byte
476 2011-12-28 16:45:14 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
477 2011-12-28 16:46:13 <onelineproof> but then when you compute the public key from the private key using elliptic curve point multiplication, the public key you get is not the same as the one that is used (65 bytes)
478 2011-12-28 16:47:38 <onelineproof> but if i treat it as a 31 byte private key then the public keys match, but then the private key to bc format private key converter gives me something that doesn't start with a 5 as usual
479 2011-12-28 16:49:03 Daniel0108 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
480 2011-12-28 16:49:04 theorbtwo has joined
481 2011-12-28 16:51:57 theorbtwo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
482 2011-12-28 16:54:04 theorbtwo has joined
483 2011-12-28 16:54:47 Daniel0108 has joined
484 2011-12-28 16:54:53 <Cryo> sounds like bug.
485 2011-12-28 16:56:39 <gmaxwell> a bug.. in your base 58 decoder.
486 2011-12-28 16:57:05 Daniel0108 has quit (Client Quit)
487 2011-12-28 16:57:23 _Fireball has joined
488 2011-12-28 16:57:34 dr_win has joined
489 2011-12-28 16:58:10 <onelineproof> no my decoder produces the same result as pywallet if I consider the key as a 32 byte key
490 2011-12-28 16:58:36 <Diablo-D3> so your code is almost done
491 2011-12-28 16:59:12 Daniel0108 has joined
492 2011-12-28 16:59:15 <onelineproof> but it's not a correct key pair, I doubt it will be able to sign messages that can be verified
493 2011-12-28 17:01:09 <onelineproof> well unless I get a better solution, I'll just print the message invalid key for that key.
494 2011-12-28 17:02:58 <onelineproof> Also I have another question. Has it been proven that finding the logarithm for elliptic curve points is NP-hard?
495 2011-12-28 17:03:02 TD has joined
496 2011-12-28 17:06:21 <sipa> are you DER decoding the private key data yourself?
497 2011-12-28 17:07:01 <sipa> onelineproof: i don't think it is proven NP-hard, no
498 2011-12-28 17:07:02 <onelineproof> I'm using berkeley db to read the key value pairs in the database
499 2011-12-28 17:08:17 <onelineproof> Then I'm using the methods that pywallet and gavin's bitcointools uses to decode the address and private key
500 2011-12-28 17:12:40 <sipa> using openssl?
501 2011-12-28 17:13:32 <sipa> i think the encoding of private keys is nontrivial, and without fixed-lenth garantees
502 2011-12-28 17:14:40 <sipa> at least, openssl's redundant rncoding
503 2011-12-28 17:14:48 <edcba> i think they still have a max length :)
504 2011-12-28 17:16:12 <Diablo-D3> er
505 2011-12-28 17:16:29 <Diablo-D3> bitselect() is the instruction we're using bfi_int for instead, right?
506 2011-12-28 17:24:06 jrmithdobbs has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
507 2011-12-28 17:26:22 <onelineproof> the 31 byte key should still work fine with the standard client. It's just when you export and treat it as 32 bit, you're not really exporting the private key, and you can't derive the address from it. So maybe pywallet should be careful to not allow such keys.
508 2011-12-28 17:26:59 Daniel0108 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
509 2011-12-28 17:29:48 <sipa> bitcoin 0.6 will support exporting private keys in base59
510 2011-12-28 17:29:54 <sipa> base58
511 2011-12-28 17:30:14 <rjk2> all ur base are belong to bitcoin
512 2011-12-28 17:32:04 Daniel0108 has joined
513 2011-12-28 17:35:16 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
514 2011-12-28 17:37:33 <Cryo> Diablo-D3, when you switched to larger work sizes, is the MH/s supposed to drop? I went from 28Mh/s(-w 32) old version to 14MH/s(-w 128) on the latest version.
515 2011-12-28 17:37:35 theorbtwo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
516 2011-12-28 17:38:10 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: genjix * r05095e49509a / (10 files in 3 dirs): bdb_validate_block: - works on chain blocks but connect_input isnt checking orphan chain yet. - no searching for double spends. http://tinyurl.com/clz5xwg
517 2011-12-28 17:38:12 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: genjix * r70fd97bb58f8 / (11 files in 3 dirs): Streamlined txs_* databases. No more numbered IDs. + double spend check for bdb http://tinyurl.com/c79qk3r
518 2011-12-28 17:38:53 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
519 2011-12-28 17:39:24 <Diablo-D3> Cryo: -w 32 isnt a valid size on AMD to begin with
520 2011-12-28 17:39:33 <Diablo-D3> and what card are you on?
521 2011-12-28 17:39:48 <Cryo> 4670
522 2011-12-28 17:39:53 <Diablo-D3> heh
523 2011-12-28 17:39:58 <Diablo-D3> use whatever size gives you the best speed
524 2011-12-28 17:40:01 <Cryo> yes, anncient
525 2011-12-28 17:40:09 <Cryo> but.. I was listening to what was on the wiki for it.
526 2011-12-28 17:40:12 <Diablo-D3> 32 might actually be valid on that card
527 2011-12-28 17:40:19 <Diablo-D3> Cryo: well
528 2011-12-28 17:40:23 <Diablo-D3> theres a reason its an argument
529 2011-12-28 17:40:29 <Diablo-D3> because it may not be correct for everyone
530 2011-12-28 17:40:37 <Diablo-D3> for almost everyone, its probably -w 256
531 2011-12-28 17:40:44 <Diablo-D3> for most 4000 users, its -w 64
532 2011-12-28 17:40:47 <Cryo> 256 blows up
533 2011-12-28 17:40:57 <Diablo-D3> your card I think has half as many registers
534 2011-12-28 17:41:06 <Diablo-D3> so -w 32 might actually be correct
535 2011-12-28 17:41:11 <Cryo> yes, I was just wondering why the decrease in speed
536 2011-12-28 17:42:21 jrmithdobbs has joined
537 2011-12-28 17:43:51 HaltingState has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
538 2011-12-28 17:44:23 HaltingState has joined
539 2011-12-28 17:44:24 HaltingState has quit (Changing host)
540 2011-12-28 17:44:24 HaltingState has joined
541 2011-12-28 17:45:31 copumpkin has joined
542 2011-12-28 17:47:52 theorbtwo has joined
543 2011-12-28 17:49:59 ThomasV has joined
544 2011-12-28 17:54:59 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
545 2011-12-28 17:58:11 <Diablo-D3> Cryo: registers
546 2011-12-28 17:58:25 <Diablo-D3> if you use too many, the compiler emits code that spills it over to CU local memory
547 2011-12-28 17:58:29 <Diablo-D3> which is slow
548 2011-12-28 17:58:42 <Diablo-D3> you want to use as many, but not more, registers than you have
549 2011-12-28 17:58:54 <graingert> is there a way of probing this from the card?
550 2011-12-28 17:58:58 <Diablo-D3> nope
551 2011-12-28 17:59:06 <graingert> well the compiler knows?
552 2011-12-28 17:59:13 <Diablo-D3> the compiler thinks it knows
553 2011-12-28 17:59:21 <graingert> eh?
554 2011-12-28 17:59:26 <Diablo-D3> its not always right
555 2011-12-28 17:59:35 <graingert> well either way the compiler will limit you
556 2011-12-28 17:59:49 <graingert> if you go above what the compiler thinks it will still spill over?
557 2011-12-28 17:59:58 pirateat40 has joined
558 2011-12-28 18:00:00 <Cryo> cool. I'll show you what happens without a -w
559 2011-12-28 18:00:08 ThomasV has joined
560 2011-12-28 18:00:08 <Diablo-D3> graingert: yes, it has to
561 2011-12-28 18:00:10 <graingert> and if the compiler's value is too high then something bad will happen :p
562 2011-12-28 18:00:17 <Diablo-D3> well
563 2011-12-28 18:00:21 <Diablo-D3> theres no "too high" technically
564 2011-12-28 18:00:29 <Diablo-D3> the program will just not run
565 2011-12-28 18:00:39 <Diablo-D3> there should have never been half register models
566 2011-12-28 18:00:42 <Diablo-D3> theres even a 5xxx that is
567 2011-12-28 18:00:44 <Diablo-D3> its absurd
568 2011-12-28 18:00:53 <graingert> so the only way to work is using the compilers values
569 2011-12-28 18:01:01 devrandom has joined
570 2011-12-28 18:01:14 <graingert> can you probe those?
571 2011-12-28 18:01:16 <Diablo-D3> except opencl cant tell me what the most optimum -w is
572 2011-12-28 18:01:23 <Diablo-D3> theres just no way to do it
573 2011-12-28 18:01:29 <graingert> but the opencl compiler could
574 2011-12-28 18:01:34 <graingert> can you talk to that?
575 2011-12-28 18:01:39 <Diablo-D3> thats still opencl
576 2011-12-28 18:01:42 <Diablo-D3> it cant tell me
577 2011-12-28 18:01:44 <Diablo-D3> theres no api for it
578 2011-12-28 18:01:45 <graingert> can you inspect the code produced?
579 2011-12-28 18:01:53 <Diablo-D3> yes I can, but its all platform specific
580 2011-12-28 18:01:56 <graingert> check for the op code that uses CU memory
581 2011-12-28 18:02:14 <Diablo-D3> its easier to just have the end user try appropriate -ws
582 2011-12-28 18:02:29 <graingert> sure, just wondering if it's technically possible
583 2011-12-28 18:02:48 <Cryo> [12/28/11 12:57:59 PM] Added Radeon HD 4670 (#1) (8 CU, local work size of 128)
584 2011-12-28 18:02:48 <Cryo> [12/28/11 12:57:59 PM] ERROR: [CL_INVALID_WORK_GROUP_SIZE] : OpenCL Error : clEnqueueNDRangeKernel failed: local_size[0] (128) != required local_size[0] (1024)
585 2011-12-28 18:02:48 <Cryo> [12/28/11 12:57:59 PM] ERROR: Failed to queue kernel, error -54
586 2011-12-28 18:03:04 <Cryo> which can catch people (like me) off guard
587 2011-12-28 18:03:27 <graingert> vqit would be useful to have a DB of cards and settings that the mining software could query
588 2011-12-28 18:03:36 <graingert> it*
589 2011-12-28 18:03:36 <Diablo-D3> graingert: if it was possible I would be doing it by now
590 2011-12-28 18:03:43 <Diablo-D3> Cryo: are you on OSX?
591 2011-12-28 18:04:18 <Cryo> yes
592 2011-12-28 18:04:24 <Diablo-D3> goddamnit, thats why
593 2011-12-28 18:04:33 <Diablo-D3> osx's opencl implementation is retarded
594 2011-12-28 18:04:34 <Cryo> inadequate excuse! :)
595 2011-12-28 18:04:36 <Diablo-D3> apple knows it, and doesnt care
596 2011-12-28 18:04:46 <Diablo-D3> its full of bugs, and you're lucky you can mine at all
597 2011-12-28 18:06:11 <Cryo> awww
598 2011-12-28 18:06:16 <Cryo> submit patches!
599 2011-12-28 18:06:22 <Diablo-D3> its osx.
600 2011-12-28 18:06:31 <Diablo-D3> its not open source, no matter what the rumors say
601 2011-12-28 18:13:34 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
602 2011-12-28 18:16:01 gavinandresen has joined
603 2011-12-28 18:25:52 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
604 2011-12-28 18:39:02 predator has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
605 2011-12-28 18:43:59 predator has joined
606 2011-12-28 18:44:56 <TD> devrandom: hey there
607 2011-12-28 18:45:05 <TD> devrandom: will you be able to review pending-tx any time soon?
608 2011-12-28 18:46:58 <graingert> Cryo: you should be mining on a dedicated rig, if at all
609 2011-12-28 18:47:26 Pasha has joined
610 2011-12-28 18:48:07 Cory has quit (Disconnected by services)
611 2011-12-28 18:48:09 Pasha is now known as Cory
612 2011-12-28 18:48:16 Cory has quit (Changing host)
613 2011-12-28 18:48:16 Cory has joined
614 2011-12-28 18:55:35 marf_away has joined
615 2011-12-28 19:07:02 dissipate has joined
616 2011-12-28 19:17:44 Workbench has joined
617 2011-12-28 19:18:36 dissipate has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
618 2011-12-28 19:26:30 dissipate has joined
619 2011-12-28 19:27:40 wasabi2 has joined
620 2011-12-28 19:28:11 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
621 2011-12-28 19:29:32 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
622 2011-12-28 19:32:47 Workbench has quit (Write error: Broken pipe)
623 2011-12-28 19:37:22 <onelineproof> So here's my program: https://github.com/piratelinux/cwallet
624 2011-12-28 19:38:13 <onelineproof> Reads from wallet.dat, prints out the address & private key pairs. Also checks to make sure that the private key correctly corresponds to the public key by doing a multiplication in Elliptic Curve space.
625 2011-12-28 19:40:07 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
626 2011-12-28 19:40:13 HaltingState has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
627 2011-12-28 19:41:14 HaltingState has joined
628 2011-12-28 19:41:15 HaltingState has quit (Changing host)
629 2011-12-28 19:41:15 HaltingState has joined
630 2011-12-28 19:44:48 <devrandom> TD[gone]: yes, today
631 2011-12-28 19:49:56 davex__ has joined
632 2011-12-28 19:56:16 <nanotube> onelineproof: <smallprint>and sends private keys to onelineproof for 'safekeeping'</smallprint> :)
633 2011-12-28 19:57:02 <gmaxwell> nanotube: they're being tested against compromise. You'd be amazed at how many private keys are compromised!
634 2011-12-28 19:57:58 <onelineproof> its 300 lines of source code. Pretty easy to spot attacks.
635 2011-12-28 19:58:30 TD has joined
636 2011-12-28 20:00:13 TD has quit (Client Quit)
637 2011-12-28 20:01:37 <lianj> onefileproof
638 2011-12-28 20:01:44 elkingrey has joined
639 2011-12-28 20:04:10 Workbench has joined
640 2011-12-28 20:06:04 elkingrey has quit (Client Quit)
641 2011-12-28 20:06:05 soap has joined
642 2011-12-28 20:06:35 soap has quit (Changing host)
643 2011-12-28 20:06:35 soap has joined
644 2011-12-28 20:06:47 soap has left ()
645 2011-12-28 20:08:43 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
646 2011-12-28 20:14:54 Workbench has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
647 2011-12-28 20:17:59 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: any comments on my suggested OP_EVAL compromise? (that is, until it's finalized and well-tested, only miners validate it, but do so strictly)
648 2011-12-28 20:18:21 <nanotube> gmaxwell: haha. onelineproof i was jk
649 2011-12-28 20:20:10 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I don't see the advantage. The real danger is a blockchain split.
650 2011-12-28 20:20:35 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that real danger only affects miners, if only miners validate
651 2011-12-28 20:21:28 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that is, worst case scenario, clients see 1 or 2 confirmations reversed on a fake OP_EVAL
652 2011-12-28 20:21:48 <luke-jr> (when the OP_EVAL validating miners overtake the attacking minority)
653 2011-12-28 20:23:08 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
654 2011-12-28 20:25:15 RazielZ has joined
655 2011-12-28 20:26:07 abragin has left ()
656 2011-12-28 20:26:08 dr_win has joined
657 2011-12-28 20:27:51 theorbtwo has joined
658 2011-12-28 20:28:09 wasabi has joined
659 2011-12-28 20:29:45 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
660 2011-12-28 20:30:30 dr_win has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
661 2011-12-28 20:32:54 b4epoche_ has joined
662 2011-12-28 20:33:50 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
663 2011-12-28 20:33:50 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
664 2011-12-28 20:38:54 ByteCoin has joined
665 2011-12-28 20:42:18 soap has joined
666 2011-12-28 20:42:44 soap has quit (Changing host)
667 2011-12-28 20:42:44 soap has joined
668 2011-12-28 20:42:50 soap has left ()
669 2011-12-28 20:44:35 erus` has joined
670 2011-12-28 20:56:16 ByteCoin has left ()
671 2011-12-28 20:56:36 ByteCoin has joined
672 2011-12-28 20:57:08 <ByteCoin> test
673 2011-12-28 20:57:11 ByteCoin has left ()
674 2011-12-28 20:58:54 DingoRabiit has joined
675 2011-12-28 21:04:17 ShadowE989 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
676 2011-12-28 21:04:38 dissipate has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
677 2011-12-28 21:06:01 <roconnor> sipa, luke-jr, gmaxwell, gavinandresen: I'm planning on taking my OP_EVAL complains to the blogosphere. Is this reasonable of me?
678 2011-12-28 21:07:15 <gavinandresen> roconnor: I'd rather you didn't... the number of people in the world who understand OP_EVAL and bitcoin's Script is very small, I think you'll just succeed in spreading FUD
679 2011-12-28 21:07:33 <roconnor> gavinandresen: you've got to stop what you are doing before it is too late
680 2011-12-28 21:07:45 <gavinandresen> OK, describe the worst-case scenario for me
681 2011-12-28 21:08:07 <roconnor> there is an election in a little over 2 weeks and there isn't even a mention of it on the main bitcoin page
682 2011-12-28 21:08:25 Daniel0108 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
683 2011-12-28 21:09:00 <gavinandresen> You're changing the subject-- what is the worst-case scenario if OP_EVAL goes forward as planned?
684 2011-12-28 21:09:30 <doublec> roconnor: you should blog about it and raise awareness
685 2011-12-28 21:09:45 <doublec> roconnor: or a forum thread - discussion is good
686 2011-12-28 21:09:57 <roconnor> worst case is that we are stuck with OP_EVAL forever, which means miners never get the opportinity to implement static analysis of script code ever again.
687 2011-12-28 21:10:36 <roconnor> which means if new DOS attack appear they can be hidden inside OP_EVALs
688 2011-12-28 21:10:40 <gavinandresen> roconnor: huh? Sure they do, they can statically analyze OP_EVAL transactions when they're redeemed. In fact, the OP_EVAL pull DOES statically analyze them (and rejects non-standard txns)
689 2011-12-28 21:10:44 <roconnor> making them harder to twart
690 2011-12-28 21:10:59 TD has joined
691 2011-12-28 21:11:06 <gavinandresen> See the AreInputsStandard() method....
692 2011-12-28 21:11:24 <gmaxwell> roconnor: I don't think gavin has ever heard your objection on static analysis grounds. I heard it but it was basically a single message here.
693 2011-12-28 21:11:36 rdponticelli has joined
694 2011-12-28 21:11:41 <luke-jr> roconnor: how does static analysis help
695 2011-12-28 21:11:43 <luke-jr> ?
696 2011-12-28 21:12:00 <roconnor> gmaxwell: I've been refining my uneasy feeling about OP_EVAL over time.
697 2011-12-28 21:12:21 <roconnor> luke-jr: it lets you, for example, count the number of OP_CHECKSIGS before executing anything.
698 2011-12-28 21:12:22 <luke-jr> I don't see how static analysis is better than evaluation with limits.
699 2011-12-28 21:12:37 <roconnor> potentially saving you quite a bit of time
700 2011-12-28 21:12:44 <gmaxwell> roconnor: soâ though I understand your point I'm not sure I follow why its such a concern.
701 2011-12-28 21:12:53 <roconnor> but worse is the lost possiblities of static analysis that I don't know.
702 2011-12-28 21:12:53 <gavinandresen> roconnor: Miners cannot accurately count OP_CHECKMULTISIG today.
703 2011-12-28 21:12:58 <gmaxwell> roconnor: for example, if a txn is hard to analyize but not mined, you can just drop it.
704 2011-12-28 21:13:03 <gavinandresen> (at least not statically)
705 2011-12-28 21:13:09 BlueMatt has joined
706 2011-12-28 21:13:19 <gmaxwell> roconnor: if it is in the chain then you _must_ evaluate it, no matter how hard it is to analyize.
707 2011-12-28 21:13:22 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: you mean with bitcoind's implemetnation they can't
708 2011-12-28 21:13:34 <gmaxwell> (or how hard the returned analysis is)
709 2011-12-28 21:14:10 darkee is now known as !~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|darkee
710 2011-12-28 21:14:15 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I mean if there are arithmetic operations to calculate the m-n in CHECKMULTISIG then miners have to perform those operations to calculate them
711 2011-12-28 21:14:19 <roconnor> gmaxwell: even if it is in the chain, if it has, what is it, more than 20 OP_CHECKSIGS or whaterver, you can immediately drop it.
712 2011-12-28 21:14:36 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: roconnor is one of those third-party implementation developers you're always asking for opinions from
713 2011-12-28 21:14:43 <gavinandresen> I know exactly what roconnor is talking about, and that's part of the reason I've been uncomfortable with arbitrary transactions from the beginning....
714 2011-12-28 21:14:51 <roconnor> gavinandresen: I agree that CHECKMULTISIG is already badly made, but at least you can count the number of CHECKMULTISIGS
715 2011-12-28 21:15:22 <gavinandresen> roconnor: ... but a 1 ... 20 CHECKMULTISIG shouldn't be counted the same as a 1 .. 2
716 2011-12-28 21:15:51 <roconnor> lets not make things worse than they aready are
717 2011-12-28 21:16:15 <gavinandresen> roconnor: I think Script is over-designed for what it needs to accomplish, but I think OP_EVAL's benefits outweigh the extra uckiness.
718 2011-12-28 21:16:18 <roconnor> but even putting asside OP_EVAL for the moment; You are having a mining election on January 15th and you have barely told anyone.
719 2011-12-28 21:16:37 <roconnor> it is burried inside some obscure page on the wiki
720 2011-12-28 21:16:53 <roconnor> The reality is one man is essentially going to decide the fate of OP_EVAL
721 2011-12-28 21:16:56 <roconnor> that tha one man is
722 2011-12-28 21:16:59 <gavinandresen> barely told anyone? I've announced to the forums, to the top miners, to bitcoin-development....
723 2011-12-28 21:16:59 <roconnor> [Tycho]
724 2011-12-28 21:17:02 <luke-jr> roconnor: and that one man knows
725 2011-12-28 21:17:11 <[Tycho]> Hello.
726 2011-12-28 21:17:14 da2ce7 has joined
727 2011-12-28 21:17:27 <roconnor> and all the miners backing him up are totally ignorant of what they are voting for.
728 2011-12-28 21:17:32 DingoRabiit has left ()
729 2011-12-28 21:17:37 * BlueMatt has to agree with roconnor OP_EVAL has moved too fast without enough thought and though its a cool feature, I have to disagree with gavinandresen, I dont think it will come into popular use for a long, long time; delaying it wont make much of a difference
730 2011-12-28 21:18:01 <roconnor> they don't even know that they are voting
731 2011-12-28 21:18:13 <roconnor> gavinandresen: Put it on the main bitcoin page.
732 2011-12-28 21:18:24 <roconnor> in bold
733 2011-12-28 21:18:38 <gavinandresen> What text would you suggest? Maybe "
734 2011-12-28 21:18:52 <gmaxwell> I would point out that IF OP_EVAL were bad (not saying I think it is), we'd have pretty much exactly this situation now. With a bunch of people who don't have strong opinions, and roconnor calling out concerns.
735 2011-12-28 21:18:53 <gavinandresen> "BIP 12 voting is happening February 15!" ???
736 2011-12-28 21:18:56 <doublec> what is the election?
737 2011-12-28 21:18:57 <doublec> link to page?
738 2011-12-28 21:19:15 <roconnor> doublec: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0012
739 2011-12-28 21:19:19 <doublec> thanks
740 2011-12-28 21:19:22 <gmaxwell> So as a matter of procedure, I don't know how to distinguish op_eval is bad vs roconnor is overreacting.
741 2011-12-28 21:19:50 <gmaxwell> I don't think getting a lot of new eyes on this will help. The user functionality OP_EVAL enables is fantastic.
742 2011-12-28 21:20:02 <roconnor> gmaxwell: I agree
743 2011-12-28 21:20:07 <doublec> I knew about the BIP, what's the details of the election?
744 2011-12-28 21:20:14 <doublec> I can't see a mention on the page
745 2011-12-28 21:20:26 <roconnor> but the power of OP_EVAL goes way beyond the functionality we are after, possibly in unknown ways.
746 2011-12-28 21:20:32 <gmaxwell> The number of people outside of this room who are willing to expend the mental energy to even understand the resulting limitations on static analysis when the script code can be generated by a script... .. next to none.
747 2011-12-28 21:20:45 <roconnor> doublec: it's buried in there:
748 2011-12-28 21:20:47 <gavinandresen> doublec: see the Backwards Compatibility section of the BIP
749 2011-12-28 21:20:51 <copumpkin> yay static analysis
750 2011-12-28 21:20:51 <gmaxwell> roconnor: the power of the scripting language _as a whole_ goes _way_ beyond the functionality we are after.
751 2011-12-28 21:20:52 <roconnor> doublec: For case (1), new clients and miners will be coded to interpret OP_EVAL as a no-op until February 1, 2012. Before then, miners will be asked to put the string "OP_EVAL" in blocks that they produce so that hashing power that supports the new opcode can be gauged. If less than 50% of miners accept the change as of January 15, 2012 the rollout will be postponed until more than 50% of hashing power supports OP_
752 2011-12-28 21:20:53 <roconnor> EVAL (the rollout will be rejected if it becomes clear that a majority of hashing power will not be achieved).
753 2011-12-28 21:21:00 <BlueMatt> what is the list of things it enables that arent enabled by just checkmultisig?
754 2011-12-28 21:21:07 <doublec> oh I see what you mean now, thanks
755 2011-12-28 21:21:12 <gmaxwell> roconnor: we deal with the fact that the scripting language is too powerful by having the concept of standard transactions.
756 2011-12-28 21:21:14 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: it enables BIP 13
757 2011-12-28 21:21:16 <roconnor> gmaxwell: yes but the power was tempered before because it was a stack langauge.
758 2011-12-28 21:21:34 ahbritto_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
759 2011-12-28 21:21:44 <gmaxwell> it's still a stack language... but yes, I do know what you're saying.
760 2011-12-28 21:21:46 <roconnor> gmaxwell: the whole concept of a standard transaction undermines the scripting language itself.
761 2011-12-28 21:22:06 <roconnor> I figured it was only there as a temporary measure.
762 2011-12-28 21:22:11 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: yea, which is a fairly minor advantage...
763 2011-12-28 21:22:21 <gavinandresen> roconnor: so I'm confused, do you like having an arbitrary little language there or not?
764 2011-12-28 21:22:27 <gmaxwell> roconnor: yes, it does. For the very reasons you've cited. BUT the standard transaction model allows us to gradually add functionality in the future without changing everyone's software.
765 2011-12-28 21:22:30 <copumpkin> eww arbitrary language
766 2011-12-28 21:22:44 <roconnor> gavinandresen: I like a scripting langauge that is not turing complete by design.
767 2011-12-28 21:22:45 <CIA-100> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r41dc764 / (2 files in 2 dirs): Use whitelist for BFI_INT, should now run on 79xx GCN fine - http://git.io/hIqAyA https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/commit/41dc7645f9cec9fd7a936d7267b48911fdeacffa
768 2011-12-28 21:23:00 <roconnor> not held back by arbitrary recursion limits
769 2011-12-28 21:23:07 <gmaxwell> roconnor: I think scripts are turing complete if you allow them to be unbounded in size.
770 2011-12-28 21:23:16 <copumpkin> roconnor++
771 2011-12-28 21:23:18 <gavinandresen> roconnor: so is there any variation on OP_EVAL that you could like?
772 2011-12-28 21:23:36 <gmaxwell> (so they're just held back by arbitrary size limits rather than recursion ones)
773 2011-12-28 21:24:07 <roconnor> gavinandresen: Not really. Perhaps if there was a way that OP_EVAL scripts could never be manipulated arithemtically by some means (e.g type system) that would satify me because it would become aminable to static alaysis
774 2011-12-28 21:24:08 <gavinandresen> (I like non-turing-complete-by-design too, by the way, as well as 'can be statically analyzed to get time/space bounds before execution')
775 2011-12-28 21:24:10 <gmaxwell> we don't actually need to OP_EVAL script generated code for the BIP purposes.
776 2011-12-28 21:24:18 <gmaxwell> yea, that.
777 2011-12-28 21:24:26 <roconnor> gavinandresen: what i'd rather do is understand what goals OP_EVAL are trying to solve and look for other solutions.
778 2011-12-28 21:24:38 <roconnor> gavinandresen: but wading through that one thread is nearly impossible.
779 2011-12-28 21:25:01 <gmaxwell> roconnor: what OP_EVAL is trying to solve is the recipient specifying the rules to pay him.
780 2011-12-28 21:25:01 <gavinandresen> Here's the goal: I can publish a bitcoin address that isn't insanely long. When you send to that address, the coins require multiple signatures to spend.
781 2011-12-28 21:25:03 <gavinandresen> That's all.
782 2011-12-28 21:25:21 <doublec> have you considered getting it implemented in an alt chain and test it there for a while?
783 2011-12-28 21:25:44 <gmaxwell> (which is IMO how it was worked â except the current system only allows the recipent to specify one kind of payment script)
784 2011-12-28 21:26:19 <roconnor> gavinandresen: clearly we can design something to allow that that isn't OP_EVAL.
785 2011-12-28 21:26:27 <gavinandresen> roconnor: ok...... how?
786 2011-12-28 21:26:32 <roconnor> I'll think about it
787 2011-12-28 21:26:43 <roconnor> sipa and copumpkin will help
788 2011-12-28 21:26:48 <BlueMatt> roconnor: the goal is to allow payment script to be specified post-send, which pretty much means op_eval
789 2011-12-28 21:26:49 <luke-jr> it'll end up being a more limited OP_EVAL IMO
790 2011-12-28 21:26:58 <copumpkin> luke-jr: more limited is a good thing
791 2011-12-28 21:27:13 <luke-jr> copumpkin: then we should discard scripts entirely and hard-code payment methods
792 2011-12-28 21:27:14 <copumpkin> I wouldn't say I know enough about the bitcoin specifics to be useful here
793 2011-12-28 21:27:29 <copumpkin> luke-jr: there's something in between pre-canned and unlimited power
794 2011-12-28 21:28:12 <copumpkin> some of the PL nerds around here like to hang out in that area
795 2011-12-28 21:28:31 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: it's not really post send. You the recipent needs to know the rule before he can create the send-to-script address.
796 2011-12-28 21:29:01 <luke-jr> it enables custom clients on the recipient end that don't require custom senders
797 2011-12-28 21:29:07 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: oops, yea sorry, the goal is to create generic send address
798 2011-12-28 21:29:19 Zarutian has joined
799 2011-12-28 21:30:05 <gmaxwell> roconnor is right though, that this could be done without the expressive power of op_eval.
800 2011-12-28 21:30:22 <Diablo-D3> but all that work ;)
801 2011-12-28 21:30:34 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: can it?
802 2011-12-28 21:30:38 <gavinandresen> I'd be happy with one more op_eval rule-- something like "Only CHECKSIG and CHECKMULTISIG and PUSH opcodes allowed inside OP_EVAL..."
803 2011-12-28 21:31:12 <BlueMatt> we should just add that rule in general to the scripting engine overall...
804 2011-12-28 21:31:19 <roconnor> gmaxwell: I'd like something where the script doesn't come from the stack
805 2011-12-28 21:31:43 <luke-jr> roconnor: that's not practical for the goals
806 2011-12-28 21:31:43 <gavinandresen> The stack is the only thing shared between the scriptSig and the scriptPubKey
807 2011-12-28 21:31:45 <roconnor> something that allows scripts to be statically known
808 2011-12-28 21:31:58 <gavinandresen> Statically known WHEN?
809 2011-12-28 21:32:04 <luke-jr> roconnor: what if the receiver wants some super-complex script for his own purposes?
810 2011-12-28 21:32:12 <gmaxwell> We could add type bits to the stack entries.
811 2011-12-28 21:32:22 <gavinandresen> (and as I said before, that horse has already flown the coop)
812 2011-12-28 21:32:30 <gmaxwell> And then only allow op_eval on entries where the type bits indicate that it was a straight push.
813 2011-12-28 21:32:51 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: why?
814 2011-12-28 21:33:01 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: basically he doesn't want a script to be able to write _code_
815 2011-12-28 21:33:04 <roconnor> gmaxwell: known before EvalScript is called.
816 2011-12-28 21:33:10 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: why not?
817 2011-12-28 21:33:20 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: because if the script can write code you basically can't analyize what it will do without actually running it.
818 2011-12-28 21:33:26 <luke-jr> I want to write a Perl interpreter in Bitcoin.
819 2011-12-28 21:33:43 <roconnor> luke-jr: with OP_EVAL you can (modulo recurison limits)
820 2011-12-28 21:33:47 <gmaxwell> (I mean, you _can_ but it's very difficult to make it work in most cases)
821 2011-12-28 21:34:02 <luke-jr> great, let's do OP_EVAL tomorrow
822 2011-12-28 21:34:07 <gmaxwell> roconnor: to be fair, the recusion limits are severe enough that you _can't_.
823 2011-12-28 21:34:37 <roconnor> true
824 2011-12-28 21:34:40 <roconnor> I take it back
825 2011-12-28 21:34:59 <luke-jr> $(%@$)
826 2011-12-28 21:35:08 <BlueMatt> we do enforce the ie max 20 CHECKSIGs and similar things for multisig inside OP_EVAL right?
827 2011-12-28 21:35:09 <luke-jr> let's make OP_NOP2 be a Perl interpreter then
828 2011-12-28 21:35:14 <luke-jr> ok?
829 2011-12-28 21:35:15 <copumpkin> lol
830 2011-12-28 21:35:22 <roconnor> BlueMatt: I think so
831 2011-12-28 21:35:29 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: yes but you can't strictly enforce that witout actually running it.
832 2011-12-28 21:35:49 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: because some crack ass op_eval could be writing the code for checksigs on it own.
833 2011-12-28 21:35:54 Daniel0108 has joined
834 2011-12-28 21:36:11 <gmaxwell> I think the distinction might not matter because, frankly, running it is going to be as cheap as the static analysis. :)
835 2011-12-28 21:36:22 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yea, but as long as it cuts off at a deterministic spot, meh
836 2011-12-28 21:36:24 <luke-jr> ^
837 2011-12-28 21:36:51 <TD> what is the point of static analysis of scripts?
838 2011-12-28 21:36:59 <gmaxwell> roconnor: the runtime is still linearish in size and strictly bounded.
839 2011-12-28 21:37:18 <gmaxwell> If it weren't, then static analysis would be a lot more important.
840 2011-12-28 21:37:22 <BlueMatt> TD: so you dont have to run it to know if it has too many OP_CHECKSIGs in it
841 2011-12-28 21:37:26 <sipa> anyone can give me an update of the above conversation?
842 2011-12-28 21:37:26 <BlueMatt> but seriously, meh
843 2011-12-28 21:37:42 <roconnor> gmaxwell: okay how about this, OP_BEGINEVALVERIFY yada yada yada OP_ENDEVALVERIFY; takes the script hashes it compares the hash to the top element of the stack and if it matches it pops the stack and runs the script; otherwise fails.
844 2011-12-28 21:37:47 <BlueMatt> sipa: read https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/729 and you are good
845 2011-12-28 21:38:02 <roconnor> While not a serious proposial it probably could be refined into a workable solution
846 2011-12-28 21:38:08 <roconnor> provides the desired behaviour
847 2011-12-28 21:38:13 <roconnor> allows for static analysis
848 2011-12-28 21:38:26 <roconnor> I'm sure I can do better with more than 10 minutes of thinking
849 2011-12-28 21:38:33 <gmaxwell> sipa: roconnor is very concerned that OP_EVAL takes us far too deep into the realm of Turing completeness.
850 2011-12-28 21:38:52 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 253 seconds)
851 2011-12-28 21:38:55 <roconnor> gmaxwell: worse than that, no static analysis
852 2011-12-28 21:38:57 <gmaxwell> sipa: in particular, because code can be the result of script arithemetic, you can't (easily) do static analysis to bound the complexity of a script before actually running it.
853 2011-12-28 21:39:03 <roconnor> gmaxwell: but ya, that too ish
854 2011-12-28 21:39:44 <gmaxwell> roconnor: I mean I could give you a function that figures out if a script ever results from arithemetic (via type-coloring) and in those cases I could return a cost equal to the max length * checksig.
855 2011-12-28 21:40:16 <gmaxwell> roconnor: most op_eval usage is perfectly static analyizable (and all 'standard' usage).
856 2011-12-28 21:40:17 <roconnor> gmaxwell: I'd be satified with that, Though think it is too complicated and errorprone.
857 2011-12-28 21:40:58 * copumpkin retrofits a static analyzer onto his ruby code
858 2011-12-28 21:40:59 <TD> and running it with resource bounds on the interpreter is a problem because ?
859 2011-12-28 21:41:12 <gmaxwell> sipa: more meta-ish. I think roconnor was also expressing concern that this major change is happening with inadequate community oversight.
860 2011-12-28 21:41:32 <roconnor> TD: because you only find that out after wasting a bunch of resources
861 2011-12-28 21:41:44 <gmaxwell> sipa: (I don't share his concern because I believe there is ε people outside of this room who are interested in understanding these issuesâ people just want what op_eval enables)
862 2011-12-28 21:41:50 <copumpkin> TD: resource bounds don't tell you anything about the program other than that it used too much, and sometimes you might have other questions, too
863 2011-12-28 21:42:02 <roconnor> and what copumpkin says
864 2011-12-28 21:42:12 <BlueMatt> what other questions?
865 2011-12-28 21:42:21 <roconnor> there may be all sorts of other useful things to statically analyise, even for operations we haven't yet implemented.
866 2011-12-28 21:42:25 <TD> roconnor: the resources you can waste are limited to what a valid transaction would be able to do
867 2011-12-28 21:42:28 <BlueMatt> as long as its very clearly deterministic as to when it fails (checksig count, etc) you are fine
868 2011-12-28 21:42:31 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: like if it can ever succeed or if it can ever fail.
869 2011-12-28 21:43:01 <copumpkin> BlueMatt: the same reason people want general scriptability, people want general analyzability. There are countless things we haven't thought of yet :P
870 2011-12-28 21:43:02 <TD> that said, i'm not a huge fan of op_eval either, but it's done now.
871 2011-12-28 21:43:09 <BlueMatt> meh, if you spend coins to an undependable address, so what, thats already possible
872 2011-12-28 21:43:10 <roconnor> Anyhow, I just proved above that we can have static analysis and the properties of OP_EVAL that we want
873 2011-12-28 21:43:18 <copumpkin> TD: well, "it's done now" is precisely what roconnor is arguing against
874 2011-12-28 21:43:18 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: e.g. with enough limits on the scripting I can tell you without running a script "this script burns coins" ... I can't identify all such scripts, but I can identify all that burn for purely script reasons.
875 2011-12-28 21:43:21 <roconnor> TD: it isn't done yet.
876 2011-12-28 21:43:28 <luke-jr> roconnor: where?
877 2011-12-28 21:43:56 <roconnor> luke-jr: OP_BEGINEVALVERIFY yada yada yada OP_ENDEVALVERIFY; takes the script hashes it compares the hash to the top element of the stack and if it matches it pops the stack and runs the script; otherwise fails.
878 2011-12-28 21:44:02 rdponticelli has joined
879 2011-12-28 21:44:05 <roconnor> luke-jr: this is just a proof of concecpt
880 2011-12-28 21:44:07 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ok, but who cares if you burn coins, that is already easily possible
881 2011-12-28 21:44:11 <roconnor> not a serious proposal
882 2011-12-28 21:44:37 <luke-jr> roconnor: useful how?
883 2011-12-28 21:44:38 <gavinandresen> roconnor: you actually want a new version of CHECKMULTISIG that takes the <m> pubkeys <n> params as one param serialized in the scriptSig
884 2011-12-28 21:45:14 <gavinandresen> ... then the scriptSig would be <serialized m pubkeys n>, and the scriptPubKey would be DUP HASH160 < > EQUALVERIFY NEW_CHECKMULTISIG
885 2011-12-28 21:45:43 <luke-jr> roconnor: how do I get the property of "custom script to redeem coins, represented by a fixed size address that works in a standard client"?
886 2011-12-28 21:45:47 <roconnor> gavinandresen: I'd put m and n into the scriptsig (at least n, but in practice both). But we cannot change it now ... unless there are no checmultisigs in the mainline network.
887 2011-12-28 21:45:49 <gavinandresen> Easy to static analyze, gives all the use cases we want for right now...
888 2011-12-28 21:46:33 <gavinandresen> ... but not at all expandable in the future. WHich is the other great benefit of OP_EVAL
889 2011-12-28 21:46:45 <roconnor> luke-jr: exactly how OP_EVAL works now. You push the hash onto the stack followed by this proposed OP_BEGINEVALVERIFY ... OP_ENDEVALVERIFY.
890 2011-12-28 21:47:11 <luke-jr> roconnor: your proposal doesn't make sense at all to me
891 2011-12-28 21:47:22 <roconnor> luke-jr: hmm
892 2011-12-28 21:47:40 <gavinandresen> roconnor: yes, I don't understand your proposal either. What is in the scriptSig?
893 2011-12-28 21:48:26 <luke-jr> actually
894 2011-12-28 21:48:30 <roconnor> luke-jr: ah oops maybe I'm mistaken
895 2011-12-28 21:48:57 <roconnor> I think I can get something like this to work
896 2011-12-28 21:49:21 <roconnor> I wish the current proposed OP_EVAL systems was documented somewhere so I could follow it.
897 2011-12-28 21:49:33 <[Tycho]> Also would be nice to add more opcodes :) At least for inner scripts.
898 2011-12-28 21:49:51 * roconnor scans through the thread
899 2011-12-28 21:49:52 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: is there some reason the scriptPubKey couldn't end with OP_CODESEPARATOR <custom script>, and then scriptSig gets "<hash> OP_CHECKEVAL" which compares the <custom script> to <hash>?
900 2011-12-28 21:50:43 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: yes, that is one thing totally unique to OP_EVAL
901 2011-12-28 21:50:56 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: but as long as it isn't supported with OP_EVAL anyway, â¦
902 2011-12-28 21:51:07 <[Tycho]> Not to mention math ops.
903 2011-12-28 21:51:34 <[Tycho]> Other ones that I would like is the TX parameters.
904 2011-12-28 21:51:43 <[Tycho]> As variables/constants.
905 2011-12-28 21:52:44 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: how does the sending-person's bitcoind know what <custom script> to put in the scriptPubKey? The whole point of OP_EVAL is so the sender only needs to know the hash of the script and not the entire serialized script (which will be too big for a QR code, etc)
906 2011-12-28 21:53:09 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: sorry, I have the field names reversed I think
907 2011-12-28 21:54:29 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: got it. OP_CHECKEVAL would check a hash on the top of the stack to the hash of everything in the scriptSig?
908 2011-12-28 21:54:31 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: receiver provides "<whatever> CodeSep <predetermined custom script>", sender provides "<hash of predetermined custom script> CheckLastScriptHash"
909 2011-12-28 21:54:44 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: everything after the last CodeSep
910 2011-12-28 21:54:58 <luke-jr> or maybe put a number on the stack to determine how many CodeSeps to skip backward
911 2011-12-28 21:55:23 <luke-jr> not too familair with how CodeSep works
912 2011-12-28 21:55:41 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: ... by the time the CHECKEVAL runs there won't be stuff on the stack (the scriptSig executes first)
913 2011-12-28 21:55:42 <roconnor> ya sorry my proposal is wrong :(
914 2011-12-28 21:55:45 <roconnor> let me think about it
915 2011-12-28 21:56:03 <roconnor> I'm sure there is some way to proceed without involving arithmetic on code.
916 2011-12-28 21:56:32 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: scriptInput runs first, no?
917 2011-12-28 21:56:33 <gavinandresen> roconnor: I'm sure there is too, and I wish we'd had this conversation two months ago....
918 2011-12-28 21:56:58 <luke-jr> hmm
919 2011-12-28 21:57:08 <luke-jr> maybe scriptSpend and scriptCheck would be better names
920 2011-12-28 21:57:14 <roconnor> gavinandresen: hey, it is not too late too pushback the deadline 2 months on OP_EVAL, then it would be as if we had this discussion two months ago.
921 2011-12-28 21:57:45 <luke-jr> scriptSig/scriptPubKey are too easy to confuse IMO
922 2011-12-28 21:57:52 <gavinandresen> roconnor: that's the cost/benefit: 2 more months of insecure wallets versus "maybe we can come up with a better solution"
923 2011-12-28 21:58:06 <TD> i reject the notion that op_eval scripts are needed for secure wallets
924 2011-12-28 21:58:06 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: wallets are not presently insecure.
925 2011-12-28 21:58:12 <roconnor> go for the 2 month of status quo
926 2011-12-28 21:58:36 <TD> at any rate, unless there's a 2-factor coin implementation ready to go and blocked by lack of OP_EVAL support, it won't be 2 months exactly?
927 2011-12-28 21:58:40 <TD> maybe there is such a site, i don't know
928 2011-12-28 21:59:19 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: oh come on, OP_EVAL isnt gonna get used for months and months anyway
929 2011-12-28 21:59:24 <luke-jr> is there a page with an example OP_EVAL combination I can manipulate?
930 2011-12-28 21:59:40 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: it won't get used for months and months *after* being deployed
931 2011-12-28 21:59:59 <TD> OP_EVAL is an efficiency improvement
932 2011-12-28 21:59:59 <BlueMatt> thats my point
933 2011-12-28 22:00:31 <TD> so 2-factor coin systems can use CHECKMULTISIG at first, and switch to OP_EVAL later, once it's baked+deployed
934 2011-12-28 22:01:07 <TD> instead of 2-factor addresses, bitcoin:// links can include two keys in them. those links need to be created/handled anyway for ui reasons
935 2011-12-28 22:01:12 <gavinandresen> Anybody have objections to rolling out CHECKMULTISIG standard transactions?
936 2011-12-28 22:01:20 <luke-jr> question: currently, there is an implied OP_CODESEPARATOR between scriptSig and scriptPubKey?
937 2011-12-28 22:01:46 <TD> luke-jr: the two scripts share only the stack, no code.
938 2011-12-28 22:01:53 <TD> luke-jr: so i guess you can say it's "implied" but not exactly.
939 2011-12-28 22:01:57 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: CHECKSIG in a scriptSig makes no sense
940 2011-12-28 22:02:14 <TD> nothing in a scriptSig makes a whole lot of sense beyond data
941 2011-12-28 22:02:23 <gavinandresen> TD: yup....
942 2011-12-28 22:04:26 <TD> which is why doing so is banned by IsStandard
943 2011-12-28 22:04:34 <TD> it's kind of misleading for it to be called scriptSig
944 2011-12-28 22:04:35 <luke-jr> scriptSend=scriptPubKey: {number-of-codeseps-backward} GETSCRIPT HASH160 {20-byte-hash-value} EQUALVERIFY OP_AND2
945 2011-12-28 22:04:36 <luke-jr> scriptRedeem=scriptSig: ...signatures... CODESEP {script}
946 2011-12-28 22:04:40 <TD> it might as well be called initialStack
947 2011-12-28 22:04:45 <luke-jr> make sense?
948 2011-12-28 22:06:01 <luke-jr> OP_AND2 would replace OP_NOP1, so old implementations allow it
949 2011-12-28 22:06:42 <luke-jr> actually, that still has an issue with GETSCRIPT
950 2011-12-28 22:06:46 * TD dislikes all proposed changes to Script
951 2011-12-28 22:07:11 <TD> i think roconnor is making a variant of the argument i made when OP_EVAL was first proposed - changing Script invalidates _all_ the auditing work that's gone into Bitcoin so far
952 2011-12-28 22:07:26 <gavinandresen> I dislike Script in general...
953 2011-12-28 22:08:00 <luke-jr> there's no way to compatibly roll out GETSCRIPT as safe as OP_EVAL currently is
954 2011-12-28 22:08:11 <TD> i like Script. if OP_EVAL had been there since the start, fine, because everyone looking for bugs would have considered it. but it's not been there.
955 2011-12-28 22:08:23 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
956 2011-12-28 22:08:45 <sipa> TD: but your argument is basically "it's too delicate, don't touch it"
957 2011-12-28 22:08:49 <TD> yes
958 2011-12-28 22:08:52 <TD> that is exactly my argument
959 2011-12-28 22:09:04 <TD> or rather, "the cost of touching it is very high"
960 2011-12-28 22:09:25 <TD> imho, a minor efficiency improvement is not worth it. addresses are going to die if i have to kill them off myself
961 2011-12-28 22:09:30 <TD> that leaves the fee issue
962 2011-12-28 22:09:56 <TD> i'd like to make transaction fee calculation recursive across dependencies at some point - miners should include a free dependency to claim the fee on the dependent (today they don't, iirc)
963 2011-12-28 22:10:15 <luke-jr> addresses can never dire
964 2011-12-28 22:10:17 <luke-jr> die*
965 2011-12-28 22:10:17 PK has quit ()
966 2011-12-28 22:10:19 <TD> then senders can simply send a free transaction to the recipient.
967 2011-12-28 22:10:30 <luke-jr> TD is demonstrating Google's evil mindset now ;)
968 2011-12-28 22:10:33 <TD> luke-jr: i mean, in terms of typical usage. obviously the code will stay around for a long time :)
969 2011-12-28 22:10:41 <luke-jr> TD: I mean that too.
970 2011-12-28 22:10:49 <BlueMatt> OP_EVAL pretty much kills addresses for you
971 2011-12-28 22:11:03 <BlueMatt> it makes a simple address form that everyone can use for whatever script you want
972 2011-12-28 22:11:12 <BlueMatt> whether they are user-facing or not
973 2011-12-28 22:11:13 <TD> by "address" i mean "statically provided string exposed to the user encoded in base58"
974 2011-12-28 22:11:16 <sipa> but you don't HAVE to use that
975 2011-12-28 22:11:47 <luke-jr> TD: that is absolutely needed. there is no way to ever get rid of it.
976 2011-12-28 22:12:00 <luke-jr> at least online
977 2011-12-28 22:12:00 <TD> i disagree, but i guess time will tell
978 2011-12-28 22:12:07 <luke-jr> offline, you can hide it in a QRCode
979 2011-12-28 22:12:10 Clipse has joined
980 2011-12-28 22:12:15 <sipa> or in a URL?
981 2011-12-28 22:12:16 <BlueMatt> bitcoin: URLs is as far as we need to go to kill addresses as far as Im concerned
982 2011-12-28 22:12:19 <TD> QRcodes -> also gonna die in the longer term :-)
983 2011-12-28 22:12:24 <TD> might take longer
984 2011-12-28 22:12:30 <luke-jr> sipa: sure, but how are you going to verify the URI?
985 2011-12-28 22:12:40 <sipa> luke-jr: meh, some PKI :p
986 2011-12-28 22:12:52 <sipa> (which may be bitcoin-based)
987 2011-12-28 22:13:03 <TD> anyway
988 2011-12-28 22:13:07 <TD> to circle back around
989 2011-12-28 22:13:15 <luke-jr> sipa: exactly, back to addresses
990 2011-12-28 22:13:16 <TD> there's no harm in delaying OP_EVAL for a while to allow for more baking time
991 2011-12-28 22:13:31 <BlueMatt> now that I agree with
992 2011-12-28 22:13:34 <BlueMatt> slow down OP_EVAL
993 2011-12-28 22:13:38 <gavinandresen> TD: I think you're underestimating how much infrastructure has already been built around "bitcoin address == 30-something base58-encoded characters"
994 2011-12-28 22:13:41 <TD> 2-factor coins need a lot of code to be written (by somebody), and once that code is written it can be switched from OP_CHECKMULTISIG to OP_EVAL quite easily
995 2011-12-28 22:13:50 <luke-jr> IMO, deploying OP_EVAL on miners only gets gavinandresen what he wants, and gets the delay camp what we want.
996 2011-12-28 22:14:16 <BlueMatt> also, the "we have had plenty of eyes on the old engine, dont add OP_EVAL", Id like to see a group formed to pay for a professional code analysis of OP_EVAL
997 2011-12-28 22:14:28 <luke-jr> TD: the problem is that people can't reasonably send to OP_CHECKMULTISIG
998 2011-12-28 22:14:46 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: why just OP_EVAL?
999 2011-12-28 22:14:51 <sipa> just give someone the actual txout script you want them to pay to
1000 2011-12-28 22:14:54 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: yea
1001 2011-12-28 22:15:11 <BlueMatt> well funds concerns, but Id like to see all of bitcoin reviewed on each release
1002 2011-12-28 22:15:13 <sipa> if you use a URI, or a QRcode, or NFC, or a payment descriptor file... that's trivial
1003 2011-12-28 22:15:15 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: as far as paid security audit, I think it should wait until we have a stable core library, and then never touch that library again
1004 2011-12-28 22:15:17 <BlueMatt> (not that we would have the $$$)
1005 2011-12-28 22:15:35 <BlueMatt> never touch a library - yea right
1006 2011-12-28 22:15:48 <luke-jr> relatively never ;)
1007 2011-12-28 22:16:17 <TD> sipa: yeah, having a URI or file include the txout script makes the transition from CHECKMULTISIG -> EVAL quite straightforward, once it's integrated and miners are working on it
1008 2011-12-28 22:16:18 <BlueMatt> switching to cell tether, brb
1009 2011-12-28 22:16:20 <sipa> luke-jr: what if roconnor's bug would actually have caused infinite loops in the execution of the verify, and it had been deployed to minerss even if we delay the rollout... someone getting such a tx in the block chain with help of a miner would instantly kill other miner nodes
1010 2011-12-28 22:16:22 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1011 2011-12-28 22:16:47 <luke-jr> sipa: until we see our hashrate hit 0 and disable it
1012 2011-12-28 22:16:58 <sipa> sure, it won't be long before it is fixed
1013 2011-12-28 22:17:07 <TD> gavinandresen: well, possibly, but the bitcoin ecosystem needs to change quite a bit over the coming years to be competitive anyway - people who deploy today need to keep up. i think it's a fairly minor change to go from "base58 address" to "uri containing a txout script"
1014 2011-12-28 22:17:09 <sipa> but it may be very bad PR
1015 2011-12-28 22:17:12 <luke-jr> sipa: rolling it out to clients means they'll all fork
1016 2011-12-28 22:17:22 BlueMatt has joined
1017 2011-12-28 22:17:31 <luke-jr> miners down for 5 mins is TRIVIAL compared to fork
1018 2011-12-28 22:17:42 <TD> miners down for a while means somebody else can outrun the chain
1019 2011-12-28 22:17:58 <TD> especially if they know which block will cause the failure
1020 2011-12-28 22:18:01 <luke-jr> TD: only if they have equivalent hashpower
1021 2011-12-28 22:18:27 <wumpus> TD: I also don't see a problem with that, as long as there is backward compatibility with old addresses
1022 2011-12-28 22:18:28 SomeoneWeirdzzzz has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1023 2011-12-28 22:18:40 <sipa> it is true that with a supermajority on board of let's say 66% of the mining power, you've only made outrunning the chain 3 times easier
1024 2011-12-28 22:18:43 <luke-jr> TD: clients should refuse to confirm transactions when the network hashrate drops significantly
1025 2011-12-28 22:19:05 <sipa> clients don't confirm transactions... miners do
1026 2011-12-28 22:19:26 <luke-jr> sipa: clients decide when a transaction is boolean-confirmed
1027 2011-12-28 22:19:39 <luke-jr> ie, 6 or 120 deep in the block chain right now
1028 2011-12-28 22:19:41 <sipa> oh, sure
1029 2011-12-28 22:19:51 <luke-jr> they should also require the network be maintaining a reasonable hashrate
1030 2011-12-28 22:20:20 <luke-jr> ie, the last 6 blocks should be within the past 90 minutes
1031 2011-12-28 22:20:34 <luke-jr> I'm about to deploy code on Eligius doing just that.
1032 2011-12-28 22:22:43 <[Tycho]> 6 blocks per 90 minutes ?
1033 2011-12-28 22:22:52 <[Tycho]> That's WAY too fast.
1034 2011-12-28 22:24:09 ahbritto has joined
1035 2011-12-28 22:24:09 ahbritto has quit (Changing host)
1036 2011-12-28 22:24:09 ahbritto has joined
1037 2011-12-28 22:25:12 Lolcust has quit (Quit: Nap time)
1038 2011-12-28 22:26:29 <TD> luke-jr: when inflation halves it's reasonable to assume hash rate will rapidly halve, or more
1039 2011-12-28 22:26:52 <luke-jr> TD: fine, so confirmations will take a long time to confirm then
1040 2011-12-28 22:26:59 <luke-jr> it might be 2 weeks until they do
1041 2011-12-28 22:27:09 <TD> that seems like bitcoin would be broken for two weeks
1042 2011-12-28 22:27:12 <TD> or longer
1043 2011-12-28 22:27:18 <TD> confirmations are pretty core to the whole system
1044 2011-12-28 22:28:03 <TD> i suppose you could provide a heuristic that differs when there's been an inflation change
1045 2011-12-28 22:28:36 <luke-jr> that makes a viable exploit point
1046 2011-12-28 22:28:52 <luke-jr> and people will need to be told "don't trust transactions these next 2 weeks; there's a good chance of attack"
1047 2011-12-28 22:28:58 <luke-jr> might as well leave that in the clients
1048 2011-12-28 22:29:47 <copumpkin> I wish difficulty changes were more fluid somehow
1049 2011-12-28 22:30:07 Lolcust has joined
1050 2011-12-28 22:30:32 <copumpkin> if hash rate halves, it might take more than 2 weeks for difficulty to adjust so we get normal confirmations again?
1051 2011-12-28 22:30:44 <nanotube> TD: it's no, it's reasonable to assume that since the information is known, hash rate will gradually drop as the time approaches, and price will gradually rise
1052 2011-12-28 22:30:51 <nanotube> s/no/not/
1053 2011-12-28 22:31:03 <TD> i disagree but we'll see
1054 2011-12-28 22:31:13 <nanotube> it is imo completely unreasonable to assume that everyone will be taken by surprise by the bounty halving
1055 2011-12-28 22:31:17 <nanotube> that's not the way markets work :)
1056 2011-12-28 22:31:19 <TD> it's not about being taken by surprise
1057 2011-12-28 22:31:31 <TD> your business model is profitable up until a very specific point in time
1058 2011-12-28 22:31:38 <TD> before that point it's rational to mine. after that point, perhaps it's not.
1059 2011-12-28 22:31:51 <nanotube> TD: consider the liquidation value of the hardware
1060 2011-12-28 22:31:57 <nanotube> if you wait until the cutoff
1061 2011-12-28 22:31:58 <TD> so you wait until that point then, when you no longer make enough to pay for your costs, you switch it off.
1062 2011-12-28 22:32:00 <nanotube> and then run to dump your hw
1063 2011-12-28 22:32:03 <nanotube> you'll get peanuts
1064 2011-12-28 22:32:13 <nanotube> so it would make sense to try to dump the hw before to get good prices
1065 2011-12-28 22:32:14 <TD> who says you dump your hardware? perhaps it has no resale value by that point
1066 2011-12-28 22:32:16 <nanotube> or... better prices
1067 2011-12-28 22:32:28 <TD> bitcoin mining is still pretty tiny relative to the overall gpu market
1068 2011-12-28 22:32:31 <nanotube> well, if it is bitcoin mining asics, maybe. but general purpose gpus
1069 2011-12-28 22:32:33 <nanotube> have value
1070 2011-12-28 22:32:51 <nanotube> anyway, we'll see. care to specify and make a little bet, TD ? :)
1071 2011-12-28 22:32:51 <TD> alright. so consider the halving after 2012
1072 2011-12-28 22:33:00 <TD> by which point everyone will be using asics, perhaps :)
1073 2011-12-28 22:34:03 <BlueMatt> wumpus: ping
1074 2011-12-28 22:34:10 <nanotube> ;;bc,halfreward
1075 2011-12-28 22:34:10 <gribble> Estimated time of bitcoin block reward halving: Wed Dec 12 15:11:00 2012 | Time remaining: 50 weeks, 0 days, 0 hours, 40 minutes, and 0 seconds
1076 2011-12-28 22:34:21 <BlueMatt> while everyone is one, can I get some acks on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/593
1077 2011-12-28 22:34:35 * BlueMatt feels about as strongly about that as gavinandresen does about OP_EVAL...
1078 2011-12-28 22:34:46 <nanotube> TD: if we're talking asics... then there's incentive to dump the hw even earlier
1079 2011-12-28 22:34:51 <BlueMatt> plus it helps TDs goal of making addresses non-user-facing
1080 2011-12-28 22:34:53 <nanotube> because you expect hw prices to plummet even more
1081 2011-12-28 22:34:54 <TD> BlueMatt: awesome :)
1082 2011-12-28 22:35:23 <BlueMatt> TD: luke wrote the original way back for bitcoin-wx...
1083 2011-12-28 22:35:24 <TD> nanotube: alright, maybe so. i guess we'll see. no bets :) who knows what btc is worth in a year ...
1084 2011-12-28 22:36:11 <nanotube> TD: well, we can denominate the bet in USD if you wish. :)
1085 2011-12-28 22:36:20 <nanotube> (payable in btc-equivalent at the time)
1086 2011-12-28 22:36:53 <nanotube> i'm only talking about some trivial amount, like $5-10, for fun's sake :)
1087 2011-12-28 22:36:56 <TD> oh alright. let's say $20 on difficulty halving within 2 weeks of the inflational transition
1088 2011-12-28 22:37:01 <nanotube> no pressure if you don't want.
1089 2011-12-28 22:37:44 <nanotube> you mean, that the last change in difficulty before the transition, will be > 50%, to be precise/
1090 2011-12-28 22:37:46 <nanotube> ?
1091 2011-12-28 22:38:00 <TD> the first change in difficulty after
1092 2011-12-28 22:38:13 <nanotube> ah ok
1093 2011-12-28 22:39:20 <nanotube> ok, i'll buy that. $20 payable in bitcoin at exchange rate at the time, as per the largest exchange at the time. i pay you if the first diffchange after block 210k is greater in magnitude than -50%, you pay me if it is less?
1094 2011-12-28 22:40:22 <BlueMatt> yea because you guys are gonna remember this at that point...
1095 2011-12-28 22:40:45 <TD> i'm betting it will be >= 50% as half the hash power drops out. though now i think about it, there's no reason to believe that. how much hash power drops out depends entirely on miners costs. i know a guy who thinks it'll be 100%, right
1096 2011-12-28 22:40:59 <TD> because every miner will be marginal by that time
1097 2011-12-28 22:41:04 <nanotube> BlueMatt: i write down all my bets :)
1098 2011-12-28 22:41:14 <TD> but i don't mind the spirit, if we can remember :)
1099 2011-12-28 22:41:19 <nanotube> BlueMatt: speaking of which, i have one coming up, on mtgox still being alive in 2012 :)
1100 2011-12-28 22:41:24 <BlueMatt> plus the possibility of the world not existing at that point, why bet past 2012?
1101 2011-12-28 22:41:32 <nanotube> BlueMatt: lol
1102 2011-12-28 22:41:36 eoss has joined
1103 2011-12-28 22:41:36 eoss has quit (Changing host)
1104 2011-12-28 22:41:36 eoss has joined
1105 2011-12-28 22:41:38 <BlueMatt> ;)
1106 2011-12-28 22:41:46 davex__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1107 2011-12-28 22:42:26 <nanotube> TD: well, so do we have a bet, so i should write it down, or do we not? ;)
1108 2011-12-28 22:42:57 * BlueMatt would bet on <=50%, because he hopes mining is subsidized by bit bitcoin players at that point
1109 2011-12-28 22:43:02 <BlueMatt> though in a year, probably not...
1110 2011-12-28 22:43:04 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: your "full URI support" would perk my interest more if it was actually full (ie, added support for all amounts)
1111 2011-12-28 22:43:22 <TD> i hereby bet nanotube $20 in btc, as per the largest exchange at the time, that difficulty will drop by >= 50% in the first difficulty transition after the inflational halving
1112 2011-12-28 22:43:28 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: Im not touching that discussion with a 10 foot pole
1113 2011-12-28 22:43:36 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: just sayingâ¦
1114 2011-12-28 22:43:53 <BlueMatt> TD: I has the logs
1115 2011-12-28 22:43:54 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: pissing on others' code isn't a good way to get support for your own
1116 2011-12-28 22:44:22 <BlueMatt> hey, the amount of code in that pull that was actually written by you is like 10 lines
1117 2011-12-28 22:44:34 <sipa> TD: you sneaky one, obviously 20$ will be worth shit at the time, and everyone will be using chinese yuan!
1118 2011-12-28 22:44:42 <TD> haha
1119 2011-12-28 22:44:44 <nanotube> i hereby confirm said bet with TD. see you in december 2012. :)
1120 2011-12-28 22:44:54 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I wasn't talking about that at all :P
1121 2011-12-28 22:45:08 <sipa> nanotube, TD: this is recorded in my logs
1122 2011-12-28 22:45:12 <BlueMatt> sipa: are you kidding me? everyone will be using bitcoins at that point
1123 2011-12-28 22:45:23 <nanotube> sipa: mine as well, and gribble's :)
1124 2011-12-28 22:45:30 <BlueMatt> and mine
1125 2011-12-28 22:45:32 <helo> everyone will probably be scared as hell about how things will go down at the halving, and bail on bitcoin
1126 2011-12-28 22:45:46 <luke-jr> s/hell/helo
1127 2011-12-28 22:45:59 * helo got told!
1128 2011-12-28 22:46:03 <nanotube> helo: or, everyone will be buying them up in anticipation of the drastic reduction in monetary inflation.
1129 2011-12-28 22:46:41 <nanotube> luke-jr: error, unterminated 's' command.
1130 2011-12-28 22:46:50 <BlueMatt> heh
1131 2011-12-28 22:48:52 <helo> i hope that is the case... people seem pretty skittish and illogical when the prospect of uncertainty comes up
1132 2011-12-28 22:49:08 * nanotube writes down bet.
1133 2011-12-28 22:49:59 _Fireball has quit (Quit: HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- Now with extra fish!)
1134 2011-12-28 22:50:25 <iddo> bitcoin 0.5.1 in windows doesn't delete old (0.4) bitcoin.exe when installing bitcoin-qt.exe, is this a bug? (risky to keep old bitcoin.exe with wallet encryption bug)
1135 2011-12-28 22:52:02 <iddo> i mean when installing 0.5.1 to same default dir where 0.4 was
1136 2011-12-28 22:52:28 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1137 2011-12-28 22:58:00 BlueMatt has joined
1138 2011-12-28 22:58:16 bushing has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1139 2011-12-28 22:59:10 <BlueMatt> iddo: its half-fixed in master
1140 2011-12-28 22:59:22 <BlueMatt> now 0.4 wont autostart if you install 0.5.1
1141 2011-12-28 22:59:28 <BlueMatt> s/0.5.1/master/
1142 2011-12-28 23:01:57 bushing has joined
1143 2011-12-28 23:01:59 <TD> BlueMatt: could you get p2k to do the mac support again?
1144 2011-12-28 23:02:00 <iddo> hmm also i can only install if i explicitly run it as admin, and then startmenu shortcuts are of admin so cannot be seen
1145 2011-12-28 23:02:12 <TD> i just took a look at what it involves. apple did it quite differently :(
1146 2011-12-28 23:02:18 <luke-jr> iddo: install 0.4.2 :P
1147 2011-12-28 23:02:20 <TD> it looks painful and involves objective-c coding
1148 2011-12-28 23:02:26 <TD> (objective-c++)
1149 2011-12-28 23:03:14 <BlueMatt> iddo: that is a bug in the nsis build then, it should do a uac prompt automatically
1150 2011-12-28 23:03:15 <BlueMatt> TD: p2k?
1151 2011-12-28 23:03:22 <TD> the guy who did the "improve mac experience" patches
1152 2011-12-28 23:03:25 <BlueMatt> TD: yea, I saw the same thing and gave up
1153 2011-12-28 23:03:30 <TD> there is already an os x specific icon handler file
1154 2011-12-28 23:03:32 <TD> not sure what it does
1155 2011-12-28 23:04:16 <BlueMatt> does p2k have a freenode nick?
1156 2011-12-28 23:04:23 <TD> no clue
1157 2011-12-28 23:04:59 <TD> https://github.com/p2k/bitcoin-qt
1158 2011-12-28 23:05:02 <BlueMatt> Ill tweet him
1159 2011-12-28 23:05:32 <TD> sigh
1160 2011-12-28 23:05:33 bushing has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1161 2011-12-28 23:05:38 <TD> i miss the days when people put their email addresses on things
1162 2011-12-28 23:05:42 <BlueMatt> agree
1163 2011-12-28 23:05:46 * BlueMatt hates twitter
1164 2011-12-28 23:06:13 <BlueMatt> but I hate emailing from a commit email, it just seems wrong...
1165 2011-12-28 23:06:17 bushing has joined
1166 2011-12-28 23:08:41 <TD> i think the difference is, on macos you don't need the IPC
1167 2011-12-28 23:08:53 <TD> i think if the app is already running it's delivered direct to the event loop
1168 2011-12-28 23:09:15 <BlueMatt> mmm, well thats nice, but really annoying to everyone who coded an app using the every-other-os way of doing things...
1169 2011-12-28 23:09:46 <TD> yeah
1170 2011-12-28 23:10:15 <BlueMatt> oh well, its the standard apple mode - if it wasnt specifically coded for oxs, it shouldnt be used on osx...
1171 2011-12-28 23:10:22 <BlueMatt> well I guess only for gui apps
1172 2011-12-28 23:10:29 <BlueMatt> server apps they love them some unix
1173 2011-12-28 23:10:54 Daniel0108 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1174 2011-12-28 23:11:16 <TD> in fairness to apple, their approach does make more sense, i guess. if you assume only gui apps want to handle urls
1175 2011-12-28 23:12:09 <TD> Qt should handle it relaly
1176 2011-12-28 23:12:27 <BlueMatt> agreed on both counts
1177 2011-12-28 23:12:58 * BlueMatt searched for qt url-handlers first, but alas they dont appear to exist (despite the QUrl type)
1178 2011-12-28 23:14:24 Daniel0108 has joined
1179 2011-12-28 23:16:25 btc_novice has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1180 2011-12-28 23:17:13 dissipate has joined
1181 2011-12-28 23:17:19 jav__ has joined
1182 2011-12-28 23:17:29 btc_novice has joined
1183 2011-12-28 23:17:52 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1184 2011-12-28 23:18:56 chrisb__ has joined
1185 2011-12-28 23:22:05 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1186 2011-12-28 23:29:15 wasabi2 has joined
1187 2011-12-28 23:29:35 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1188 2011-12-28 23:31:19 wasabi has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1189 2011-12-28 23:31:42 BlueMatt has joined
1190 2011-12-28 23:33:09 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rf67111da2d09 cgminer/Makefile.am: Include API examples in distribution tarball. http://tinyurl.com/c2logm7
1191 2011-12-28 23:34:33 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1192 2011-12-28 23:35:01 XX01XX has joined
1193 2011-12-28 23:35:10 <roconnor> luke-jr: would a new operation to push hash of the signature script be adequate?
1194 2011-12-28 23:35:56 <roconnor> luke-jr: wait, I need to think about this more
1195 2011-12-28 23:37:31 da2ce7 has joined
1196 2011-12-28 23:38:12 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1197 2011-12-28 23:39:44 random_cat has joined
1198 2011-12-28 23:42:02 Kolky has joined
1199 2011-12-28 23:42:27 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1200 2011-12-28 23:48:12 marf_away has joined
1201 2011-12-28 23:49:44 XX01XX has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1202 2011-12-28 23:56:44 jav__ has quit (Quit: Verlassend)