1 2012-01-06 00:00:17 <luke-jr> today
   2 2012-01-06 00:00:21 <luke-jr> it's been going up for a week now
   3 2012-01-06 00:00:37 <sipa> yay for speculative bubbles
   4 2012-01-06 00:00:48 <luke-jr> dunno, it might be real this time
   5 2012-01-06 00:00:54 <sipa> who knows :)
   6 2012-01-06 00:01:05 <TD> probably anticipation of the tv show?
   7 2012-01-06 00:01:26 <BlueMatt> heh, for some reason I doubt that
   8 2012-01-06 00:01:43 <BlueMatt> who is going to google (and buy) a random-seeming fake-seeming currency on a soap?
   9 2012-01-06 00:02:06 <BlueMatt> or more likely yahoo search judging by the average watcher of soaps...
  10 2012-01-06 00:03:56 <CIA-100> bitcoin: p2k * r337322720005 ecoinpool/apps/ecoinpool_mysql_replicator/src/mycouch_replicator.erl: Unique Replicator Trigger Names http://tinyurl.com/7vl6mhg
  11 2012-01-06 00:04:37 <TD> i think it's technically a legal drama rather than a soap
  12 2012-01-06 00:04:44 <TD> and good question
  13 2012-01-06 00:05:11 <TD> apparently this show often bases its plotlines on current affairs. it has ~12 million viewers. so if you assume some of them are also interested in current affairs, and take 1% of that
  14 2012-01-06 00:05:22 <TD> then it's still some non-trivial number of people finding out for the first time
  15 2012-01-06 00:05:29 <BlueMatt> mmm, thats true...
  16 2012-01-06 00:05:30 <TD> that said, it's all just speculation isn't it
  17 2012-01-06 00:05:50 <TD> people think it might lead to new buyers, so they buy
  18 2012-01-06 00:05:51 danbri has joined
  19 2012-01-06 00:06:00 <TD> new buyers don't care what the price is because it's just a proxy currency
  20 2012-01-06 00:06:50 <BlueMatt> but I would assume the % that buy  after googling is very, very low...but then again I have no clue
  21 2012-01-06 00:07:15 <BlueMatt> (seems to me like most non-highly-technical users wont buy bitcoins, usually)
  22 2012-01-06 00:07:22 theorb has joined
  23 2012-01-06 00:07:30 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  24 2012-01-06 00:07:36 <BlueMatt> but it would be interesting to actually know...
  25 2012-01-06 00:07:40 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
  26 2012-01-06 00:07:51 caedes_ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
  27 2012-01-06 00:08:46 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r6b79417f8edb gentoo/net-p2p/ (5 files in 2 dirs): net-p2p/bitcoin{-qt,d}: add 0.4.3_rc1 and 0.5.0.3_rc1 (bitcoin-qt only) http://tinyurl.com/7tm65pq
  28 2012-01-06 00:08:55 <BlueMatt> oh, well speculation always runs rampant in a market like bitcoin where liquidity is very low...
  29 2012-01-06 00:09:50 <TD> it runs rampant in markets where liquidity is high too
  30 2012-01-06 00:10:01 <TD> i don't think you can have any kind of object that's a proxy for other kinds without speculation on the proxies value
  31 2012-01-06 00:10:05 <BlueMatt> heh, ok speculation always controls price...
  32 2012-01-06 00:12:05 <TD> hmm
  33 2012-01-06 00:12:09 <TD> c++ trivia question (i forgot)
  34 2012-01-06 00:12:16 <TD> what happens if you use vector::back() on an empty vector
  35 2012-01-06 00:13:26 <BlueMatt> undefined, according to msdn
  36 2012-01-06 00:13:51 <JFK911> that's the problem with c++, everything works differently according to who made your tools
  37 2012-01-06 00:13:52 <TD> at least msdn is kind enough to say it's undefined
  38 2012-01-06 00:13:55 <CIA-100> bitcoin: p2k * r6cba277ecc1f ecoinpool/apps/ecoinpool_mysql_replicator/src/mycouch_replicator.erl: Another Fix http://tinyurl.com/885zebo
  39 2012-01-06 00:14:13 <TD> ms always had thorough docs
  40 2012-01-06 00:14:23 <BlueMatt> yea, msdn is pretty good
  41 2012-01-06 00:14:25 <TD> cplusplus.com doesn't mention this case at all
  42 2012-01-06 00:14:26 <JFK911> true
  43 2012-01-06 00:14:34 <JFK911> people who bitch about how windows works, didn't read.
  44 2012-01-06 00:14:38 <TD> so for https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/blob/pay_to_script_hash/src/script.cpp#L1451
  45 2012-01-06 00:14:50 <TD> is it possible to have a scriptSig that pushes nothing onto the stack at all?
  46 2012-01-06 00:14:53 <TD> probably that won't get mined, right
  47 2012-01-06 00:15:12 <TD> sorry, never mind. i mean will it get excluded by other checks
  48 2012-01-06 00:15:21 caedes_ has joined
  49 2012-01-06 00:15:29 <TD> empty scripts pass EvalScript, AFAICT.
  50 2012-01-06 00:15:58 <luke-jr> TD: are you OK with the direction this is going? the plan with this version is that Bitcoin 2.0 will eliminate scriptPubKey entirely, and replace it with a script hash
  51 2012-01-06 00:16:24 <TD> i kind of like bitcoin v1.0
  52 2012-01-06 00:16:43 <TD> ok, never mind. i don't think it's possible to reach line 1473 with an empty stackCopy
  53 2012-01-06 00:16:50 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  54 2012-01-06 00:16:54 <Backburn2> all this talk of forking is getting me hot
  55 2012-01-06 00:16:59 <luke-jr> 2.0 won't be for years, but if we're heading that direction, I do plan to stop mining non-P2SH scriptPubKeys when clients migrate
  56 2012-01-06 00:17:10 <gavinandresen> TD: yup, the OP_HASH will fail in the second EvalScript before then
  57 2012-01-06 00:17:19 <TD> yeah
  58 2012-01-06 00:18:29 <TD> luke-jr: bitcoin 2.0 is probably going to be like xml vs html, if it ever exists at all
  59 2012-01-06 00:18:41 <luke-jr> TD: it's inevitable.
  60 2012-01-06 00:18:46 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr maintree * ra95dc02f6701 gentoo/net-p2p/ (5 files in 2 dirs): Merge branch 'master' into maintree http://tinyurl.com/6whejgg
  61 2012-01-06 00:18:59 <TD> yeah, like the year of desktop linux ;)
  62 2012-01-06 00:19:09 <TD> old+crappy > new+cool+incompatible
  63 2012-01-06 00:19:11 <luke-jr> TD: Bitcoin 1.0 *cannot* scale.
  64 2012-01-06 00:19:36 * BlueMatt loves pay to script hash because it lets us continue to use address  to communicate where to send while still allowing people to use custom scripts all over the place
  65 2012-01-06 00:20:16 <BlueMatt> s/allowing people to use custom scripts all over the place/allowing TD to get rid of constant addresses, or atleast get the same result/
  66 2012-01-06 00:20:57 <TD> i still think it's a minor optimization designed for soon-to-be-outmoded forms of interaction, but ok, whatever. i made my case several times already :)
  67 2012-01-06 00:21:28 <TD> anyway, i guess i'd have to think whether all the contracts still work with spender-provides-script
  68 2012-01-06 00:21:30 <luke-jr> TD: it certainly isn't the only thing planned for Bitcoin 2.0 :P
  69 2012-01-06 00:21:36 <TD> ugh
  70 2012-01-06 00:21:57 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: can we focus on bitcoin 1.0 first?
  71 2012-01-06 00:22:22 <gavinandresen> Yes, there's still a lot to do before I'd call any bitcoin software "1.0"
  72 2012-01-06 00:22:41 danbri has joined
  73 2012-01-06 00:22:55 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: yes, but before tolerating P2SH, I want to be sure the direction is OK :P
  74 2012-01-06 00:23:06 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: not referring to software
  75 2012-01-06 00:23:11 <luke-jr> Bitcoin is the protocol :P
  76 2012-01-06 00:23:54 <CIA-100> bitcoin: p2k * r034fc8eaf054 ecoinpool/apps/ecoinpool/priv/main_db_workers.json: Workers Filter Function Added http://tinyurl.com/6w9kzy2
  77 2012-01-06 00:24:05 <lianj> the protocol also says script length is an var_int … :D
  78 2012-01-06 00:25:28 <BlueMatt> can I ask what people prefer for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/454 -keepnode or replace -addnode ?
  79 2012-01-06 00:25:37 <gavinandresen> The block size is the only really hard limit I see to scaling up, and I bet if we thought hard we could come up with backwards-compatible schemes to get around it.
  80 2012-01-06 00:25:51 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I'd do keepnode for purity, but I don't strongly care either way
  81 2012-01-06 00:26:15 * jgarzik writes a luke-jr bot.  It has two tasks:  complain about the oppression of tonal bigots, and complain about bitcoin 1.0 scaling
  82 2012-01-06 00:26:34 <luke-jr> jgarzik: you forgot reminding you to merge coinbaser daily.
  83 2012-01-06 00:26:42 <jgarzik> ;)
  84 2012-01-06 00:26:58 <gavinandresen> Seems to me addnode should be persistent.
  85 2012-01-06 00:27:22 <luke-jr> IMO, making it -addnode implies a bugfix, and -keepnode implies a new feature
  86 2012-01-06 00:27:47 <makomk> Was -addnode intended for bootstrapping?
  87 2012-01-06 00:27:55 <luke-jr> makomk: I think so.
  88 2012-01-06 00:28:02 <TD> gavinandresen: in CTransaction::AreInputsStandard, nUnused is indeed now entirely unused ;)
  89 2012-01-06 00:28:18 <luke-jr> lol
  90 2012-01-06 00:28:23 watson787 has joined
  91 2012-01-06 00:28:25 <TD> gavinandresen: also i think _here_ as opposed to before, it is possible to call back() on an empty stack
  92 2012-01-06 00:28:47 <TD> gavinandresen: if somebody gives you a tx with an empty scriptSig that connects to a p2sh txout, after EvalScript is run stack will be empty but you'll try reading the last element
  93 2012-01-06 00:28:47 <BlueMatt> makomk: hence why I originally went with keepnode, but I dont feel too strongly either way, so I just figured Id ask and if anyone had a strong preference, Id just go with that one (hopefully to get it merged...)
  94 2012-01-06 00:29:18 <gavinandresen> TD:  good catch, I'll add a unit test and fix.
  95 2012-01-06 00:29:25 <TD> thanks
  96 2012-01-06 00:30:04 <luke-jr> I'd like to rephrase BlueMatt's question:
  97 2012-01-06 00:30:18 <luke-jr> Is "keepnode" a bugfix, that I should backport to 0.4 and 0.5 when it gets merged? ;)
  98 2012-01-06 00:30:41 <luke-jr> (if so, then it should be called "addnode"; if not, I'd prefer "keepnode")
  99 2012-01-06 00:31:09 <gmaxwell> makomk: an addr.txt file is better for bootstrapping.
 100 2012-01-06 00:31:18 <BlueMatt> someone has to have a somewhat-strong opinion...
 101 2012-01-06 00:31:24 <gmaxwell> The fact that keepnode isn't addnode is pretty counter-intutive.
 102 2012-01-06 00:31:40 <gavinandresen> I strongly agree.  There.
 103 2012-01-06 00:31:48 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: … with which name? :P
 104 2012-01-06 00:31:58 <gavinandresen> (I don't really, but I'll pretend if it helps)
 105 2012-01-06 00:32:18 <gmaxwell> Perhaps addnode should be changed to 'bootstrap', and keepnode should become addnode?  (or stay keepnode and addnode should go away)
 106 2012-01-06 00:32:39 * luke-jr delegates the decision to sipa
 107 2012-01-06 00:32:58 <gmaxwell> I don't see a real reason to backport this, however.
 108 2012-01-06 00:33:00 <luke-jr> somehow it seems to fit in with sipa's role :P
 109 2012-01-06 00:33:01 <BlueMatt> if addnode becomes bootstrap, addnode nodes should have their connection dropped after we get connected to the network
 110 2012-01-06 00:33:23 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: they do — eventually. :)
 111 2012-01-06 00:34:00 <gavinandresen> I say make addnode do what 99.8% of people will think it does when they see it:  adds a node (persistently) to the connection list.
 112 2012-01-06 00:34:03 <BlueMatt> or just get addnode nodes added to pnAddrSeed
 113 2012-01-06 00:34:07 <TD> gavinandresen: CTransaction::ClientConnectInputs now also has a dead nUnused
 114 2012-01-06 00:34:23 <luke-jr> if we do keepnode, I'm going to change wiki pages s/add/keep/, which is not backward compatible
 115 2012-01-06 00:34:24 <luke-jr> :P
 116 2012-01-06 00:34:29 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: yea, thats what keepnode does, and thats what people will think it will do.
 117 2012-01-06 00:34:39 <gavinandresen> Is there a reasonbly-easy-to-use tool to find dead code/vars in C++ ?
 118 2012-01-06 00:34:40 <luke-jr> let's just go with addnode and move on
 119 2012-01-06 00:34:48 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: usually GCC warns I think O.o
 120 2012-01-06 00:34:54 <luke-jr> it *can* at least
 121 2012-01-06 00:35:04 <gmaxwell> we may overload some nodes that are being frequently addnoded right now though. ::shrugs:: but okay.
 122 2012-01-06 00:35:05 <TD> gavinandresen: gcc can do it
 123 2012-01-06 00:35:11 * BlueMatt is replacing addnode if no one complains
 124 2012-01-06 00:35:15 <TD> gavinandresen: -Wwarn-unused or something like that
 125 2012-01-06 00:35:17 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: hmm, that might be a good point
 126 2012-01-06 00:35:33 <TD> i suspect there is a lot of dead code in bitcoin
 127 2012-01-06 00:35:42 <BlueMatt> TD: dont think that works if its ie in a header
 128 2012-01-06 00:35:45 <luke-jr> there's an API in there that nobody uses yet
 129 2012-01-06 00:35:46 <BlueMatt> extern variable
 130 2012-01-06 00:35:53 btc_novice has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 131 2012-01-06 00:35:53 <TD> right
 132 2012-01-06 00:35:59 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: extern stuff is by definition always used ;)
 133 2012-01-06 00:36:14 <luke-jr> by the magic "unknown external plugin"
 134 2012-01-06 00:37:26 <TD> gavinandresen: what are the slashes in /P2SH/ for ?
 135 2012-01-06 00:38:05 <gavinandresen> To make the string a little longer-- I was worried just P2SH was short enough somebody would worry about false positives
 136 2012-01-06 00:38:20 <gavinandresen> (PayToScriptHash seemed too long....)
 137 2012-01-06 00:38:44 <gmaxwell> TD: lcov is your friend.
 138 2012-01-06 00:39:44 <gmaxwell> It's great when you get jenkins to run your lcov tests, e.g. https://mf4.xiph.org/jenkins/job/opus-coverage/ws/coverage/index.html  then you can see when someone just added a buch of code that isn't getting run by your basic built time sanity tests.
 139 2012-01-06 00:40:23 <gmaxwell> Also, I've found a fair number of bugs from going "wtf isn't this line getting executed‽"
 140 2012-01-06 00:40:42 <gmaxwell> "Oh, because there is a bug ten lines up"
 141 2012-01-06 00:43:42 <gavinandresen> mmmm....   there's no way to put a #pragma inside a #define, is there?   IMPLEMENT_SERIALIZE defines some variables that are usually unused....
 142 2012-01-06 00:44:33 <gavinandresen> ... then again, there are only 23 IMPLEMENT_SERIALIZEs....
 143 2012-01-06 00:44:36 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 144 2012-01-06 00:44:41 user_ has joined
 145 2012-01-06 00:45:12 <k9quaint> ok, what ever mouse button you guys have been clicking, keep it up
 146 2012-01-06 00:45:19 <k9quaint> BTC price has recovered :)
 147 2012-01-06 00:45:30 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 148 2012-01-06 00:45:36 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: done, -addnode removed
 149 2012-01-06 00:47:43 <TuxBlackEdo> since #bitcoin is being flooded by newbies i had to come here
 150 2012-01-06 00:47:51 <TuxBlackEdo> and i wanted to ask gavinandresen a question
 151 2012-01-06 00:47:57 <BlueMatt> k9quaint: what, you dont have access to the  btcPrice++; button?
 152 2012-01-06 00:48:14 <makomk> gavinandresen: yeah, -Wall is a bit spammy as a result...
 153 2012-01-06 00:48:42 <gmaxwell> TuxBlackEdo: it always happenes when the price changes. :(
 154 2012-01-06 00:48:42 <edcba> ;;bc,mtgox
 155 2012-01-06 00:48:43 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":7.22,"low":5.65291,"avg":6.24092784,"vwap":6.287750074,"vol":191829,"last_all":7,"last_local":7,"last":7,"buy":7,"sell":7.03488}}
 156 2012-01-06 00:48:44 <BlueMatt> TuxBlackEdo: thats what happens when the price goes up...
 157 2012-01-06 00:49:30 <gavinandresen> TuxBlackEdo: the answer is eleven.
 158 2012-01-06 00:49:32 <TuxBlackEdo> gavinandresen, what would you do if someone big like valve would update steam with a mining screen saver in an attempt to take over the bitcoin network
 159 2012-01-06 00:49:42 <TuxBlackEdo> i always wondered that
 160 2012-01-06 00:49:44 Raccoon has joined
 161 2012-01-06 00:49:46 <Raccoon> remind me, how many unique bitcoin addresses are algorithmically possible?  mind, i'm not talking about the bit-length of an address or key, but how many unique addresses the algorithm is capable of producing.
 162 2012-01-06 00:50:23 <TuxBlackEdo> like in an attempt to launch multiple double spending attacks against all existing bitcoin businesses like mtgox/tradehill and others
 163 2012-01-06 00:50:32 <gavinandresen> TuxBlackEdo: that seems unlikely, but I'd certainly make some noise about how they were stealing from their users.
 164 2012-01-06 00:50:52 <k9quaint> bluematt: its a private variable :(
 165 2012-01-06 00:50:56 <TuxBlackEdo> hm ok, that's all i wanted to ask /me disappears into lurker mode again
 166 2012-01-06 00:52:39 osmosis has joined
 167 2012-01-06 00:53:10 <k9quaint> if valve did that, I would hack into steam and sub my workerID in for theirs :)
 168 2012-01-06 00:53:59 <k9quaint> then I would split the BTC with gavin so he wouldn't complain about the theft :P
 169 2012-01-06 00:54:28 <BlueMatt> have fun pulling that one off...
 170 2012-01-06 00:54:44 <Raccoon> ...
 171 2012-01-06 00:54:59 <k9quaint> if Sony did it, it would be a cinch :P
 172 2012-01-06 00:55:15 <BlueMatt> ouch...
 173 2012-01-06 01:02:14 <enquirer> and it's no brainer to hack sony
 174 2012-01-06 01:02:55 <k9quaint> I don't think one can even call it hacking anymore
 175 2012-01-06 01:04:35 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: what pragma?
 176 2012-01-06 01:05:03 <luke-jr> a lot are probably available as __attribute__
 177 2012-01-06 01:05:33 <gavinandresen> #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored
 178 2012-01-06 01:05:59 <gavinandresen> ... an assert() that will get optimized out is an easier workaround.  What is __attribute__ ?
 179 2012-01-06 01:06:24 <luke-jr> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Variable-Attributes.html
 180 2012-01-06 01:06:43 <luke-jr> I especially like __attribute__ ((deprecated)) :P
 181 2012-01-06 01:06:53 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 182 2012-01-06 01:07:06 <gmaxwell> the pragma diagnostic stuff is really only usable in 4.6+ IIRC.
 183 2012-01-06 01:07:13 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 184 2012-01-06 01:08:01 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: if you could prove that it couldn't produce all of them, you would have proven a weakness in the hashing algorithim.
 185 2012-01-06 01:08:36 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: so how many do you say is all-of-the
 186 2012-01-06 01:08:37 <Raccoon> the
 187 2012-01-06 01:08:48 <Raccoon> there's an "m" on my keyboard somewhere
 188 2012-01-06 01:08:51 <luke-jr> …
 189 2012-01-06 01:08:51 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: 'all of them' would be the complete space of addresses, 2^160.
 190 2012-01-06 01:10:09 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I'd like to avoid compiler-specific extensions if possible, and I hate #ifdefs.
 191 2012-01-06 01:10:15 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: when you figure the inputs of the hash algorithms are of fixed-size...
 192 2012-01-06 01:10:29 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: yes, bigger than the outputs though...
 193 2012-01-06 01:10:40 <gmaxwell> The number of actually possible valid addresses is _probably_ smaller due to internal collisions in the hash but thats not proven.
 194 2012-01-06 01:10:42 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: probabilistically, you cant generate all the hash space of addresses
 195 2012-01-06 01:14:18 torsthaldo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 196 2012-01-06 01:16:03 <sipa> BlueMatt: last time i looked, keepnode was quite a bit of code, no?
 197 2012-01-06 01:16:27 Kolky has quit (Quit: Bye bye!)
 198 2012-01-06 01:16:32 <sipa> i don't mind replacing addnode if it doesn't add too much complexity
 199 2012-01-06 01:16:55 freewil has joined
 200 2012-01-06 01:17:10 <sipa> luke-jr: i don't consider keepnode replacind addnode a bugfix, it changes well defined behaviour
 201 2012-01-06 01:17:46 <BlueMatt> sipa: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/454
 202 2012-01-06 01:18:16 <BlueMatt> sipa: also, you missed the complaints period...
 203 2012-01-06 01:18:59 <gmaxwell> hah
 204 2012-01-06 01:21:33 minimoose has joined
 205 2012-01-06 01:22:45 <BlueMatt> sipa: do you feel strongly enough that I should change it...
 206 2012-01-06 01:23:40 <gmaxwell> I think he's saying it shouldn't be backported.
 207 2012-01-06 01:24:01 <BlueMatt> well that I agree with
 208 2012-01-06 01:24:12 <gmaxwell> Which was what I said too, though more weakly.
 209 2012-01-06 01:24:34 <BlueMatt> ok, so replace addnode but dont backport, sounds good to me
 210 2012-01-06 01:25:08 <luke-jr> whatever :p
 211 2012-01-06 01:26:05 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: what's the math on how many bitcoin addresses would have to be assigned (ever) before a collision could be intentionally made in N amount of time/hashrate
 212 2012-01-06 01:26:11 <Raccoon> la birthday attack
 213 2012-01-06 01:27:10 <BlueMatt> Raccoon: a lot...
 214 2012-01-06 01:28:57 <lianj> 2**160 ?
 215 2012-01-06 01:29:12 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: see wikipedia. The number of 'days' is 2^160.  Or skip the math— In a space of N if you have sqrt(N) random elements, you have a 50% chance of a random collision between some pair.
 216 2012-01-06 01:29:34 <Raccoon> BlueMatt: even with known entropy of early and existing client pseudo random generators/
 217 2012-01-06 01:30:41 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: no such thing.
 218 2012-01-06 01:31:17 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 219 2012-01-06 01:31:22 <gmaxwell> bitcoin has a strong random pool. It takes data from a number of sources that contain actual randomness.
 220 2012-01-06 01:32:22 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 221 2012-01-06 01:33:29 <Raccoon> so 2^80 keys generated TOTAL (between bitcoin transactions + attack generated keys) before a 50% likliness of collision
 222 2012-01-06 01:33:52 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: even the early windows clients?
 223 2012-01-06 01:34:07 <gmaxwell> Yes. And in that case your collission might just be two attack keys.
 224 2012-01-06 01:34:22 <Raccoon> right
 225 2012-01-06 01:34:51 <Raccoon> but from then on, every-other key generated will expect a collision
 226 2012-01-06 01:35:47 <Raccoon> how far in before 1 in 100 keys expect a collision, or 1 in 1 million
 227 2012-01-06 01:36:15 <gmaxwell> Do I look like wolfram alpha? Go use the formulas from wikipedia.
 228 2012-01-06 01:36:24 <gmaxwell> :)
 229 2012-01-06 01:36:26 <Raccoon> since you should be able to easily hash a million keys per second?
 230 2012-01-06 01:36:47 <gmaxwell> Sures, thats not very fast.
 231 2012-01-06 01:36:50 user_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 232 2012-01-06 01:36:51 <Raccoon> i'm curious why only 2^160 was chosen
 233 2012-01-06 01:37:32 <Raccoon> how many keys per second should a souped up machine expect?
 234 2012-01-06 01:37:37 <gmaxwell> ? 1e6*86400*365./2^160.
 235 2012-01-06 01:37:37 <gmaxwell> %1 = 2.1577806821751675365552117255190817928 E-35
 236 2012-01-06 01:37:48 <lianj> how you mean 'chosen'?
 237 2012-01-06 01:38:08 <Raccoon> chosen in design
 238 2012-01-06 01:38:10 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: to keep addresses managably small while allowing for a check value to protect against errors.
 239 2012-01-06 01:38:23 <lianj> Raccoon: so why ripemd-160 was chosen?
 240 2012-01-06 01:38:41 <Raccoon> sure, why ripemd-160 instead of 256 or 1024
 241 2012-01-06 01:39:04 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: good luck transmitting a 1024 bit address to anyone.
 242 2012-01-06 01:39:11 <lianj> hehe
 243 2012-01-06 01:39:22 <gmaxwell> You couldn't even share them on irc without running into the maximum message lenghts all the time.
 244 2012-01-06 01:39:23 <Raccoon> digital currency is done digitally
 245 2012-01-06 01:39:34 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: sure you could. easily
 246 2012-01-06 01:39:37 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: also, I think you're not thinking rationally about the numbers.
 247 2012-01-06 01:40:26 <gmaxwell> It's generally accepted that e.g. 128 bit complexity is secure against all brute force attacks on classical computers based on a simple physical argument:
 248 2012-01-06 01:40:31 <lianj> gmaxwell: irc has a line limit of less than 128 chars?
 249 2012-01-06 01:40:42 <Raccoon> 1024/6 = 171 chrs, 1024/7 = 147 chrs
 250 2012-01-06 01:40:57 <gmaxwell> 512 IIRC
 251 2012-01-06 01:41:05 <Raccoon> IRC has a length limit of 512 including nick/addr.  so 450 reasonably
 252 2012-01-06 01:41:34 <lianj> yea, so they all would fit on irc. but true, that wasnt the point though
 253 2012-01-06 01:41:48 <Raccoon> <gmaxwell> It's generally accepted that e.g. 128 bit complexity is secure against all brute force attacks on classical computers based on a simple physical argument:
 254 2012-01-06 01:41:57 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: that's with a target of ONE (1)
 255 2012-01-06 01:41:58 <gmaxwell> To increment a optimally (physical limit) efficiency counter on a non-reversable classical computer from 0-2^128-1 requires something like 240 MT of TNT worth of energy, and thats not even doing any useful computation like generating addresses, storing them, and looking them up.
 256 2012-01-06 01:42:02 <Raccoon> not a birthday attack
 257 2012-01-06 01:42:31 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: yes, but it would apply to a birthday attack of 128 bit complexity, and of course thats all ignoring the enormous storage costs.
 258 2012-01-06 01:42:35 <BlueMatt> Raccoon: but generating addresses slows down very quickly when you have to check each one against 1 million others
 259 2012-01-06 01:42:50 edcba has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 260 2012-01-06 01:42:54 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: storage is cheap :p
 261 2012-01-06 01:43:01 <BlueMatt> not that cheap
 262 2012-01-06 01:43:06 <BlueMatt> nor that fast
 263 2012-01-06 01:43:10 <Raccoon> you wouldn't store the attack addresses either
 264 2012-01-06 01:43:20 <Raccoon> beyond a buffer que
 265 2012-01-06 01:43:26 <ryannathans> whats this about?
 266 2012-01-06 01:44:12 <Raccoon> so how many addresses can be generated per second?
 267 2012-01-06 01:44:16 <gmaxwell> It's OT gibberish.
 268 2012-01-06 01:44:38 <Raccoon> 2^30 per second?
 269 2012-01-06 01:44:44 <BlueMatt> not nearly that
 270 2012-01-06 01:44:52 <gmaxwell> Generated by _what_?
 271 2012-01-06 01:44:57 <BlueMatt> especially not if you are checking each against 100 million other addresses
 272 2012-01-06 01:45:00 edcba has joined
 273 2012-01-06 01:45:15 <Raccoon> just saying generated
 274 2012-01-06 01:45:16 <gmaxwell> You were talking a million before, now a billion?
 275 2012-01-06 01:45:24 <Raccoon> lookup is easy with a hash/rainbow table
 276 2012-01-06 01:45:34 <gmaxwell> No, it really isn't.
 277 2012-01-06 01:45:45 <Raccoon> you convert the bitcoin block history into a binary tree
 278 2012-01-06 01:46:02 <BlueMatt> of huge size
 279 2012-01-06 01:46:06 <Raccoon> so
 280 2012-01-06 01:46:08 <gmaxwell> Why are you talking about bitcoin?
 281 2012-01-06 01:46:18 <gmaxwell> You were just talking about attacking a set of 2^80 addresses.
 282 2012-01-06 01:46:19 <Raccoon> we have huge mining groups
 283 2012-01-06 01:46:45 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: how many bitcoin addresses have ever been generated to date?
 284 2012-01-06 01:47:05 <Raccoon> with money put on them
 285 2012-01-06 01:47:24 <tcatm> IIRC around 700k
 286 2012-01-06 01:47:28 <Raccoon> so *circulated to date
 287 2012-01-06 01:47:31 <ryannathans> at any time or still on them
 288 2012-01-06 01:47:37 <tcatm> with about 160k unique identities
 289 2012-01-06 01:48:13 <Raccoon> so about 2^20 addresses circulated?
 290 2012-01-06 01:48:33 * BlueMatt reads "Warner Bros. pushing movie delays from 28 to 56 days for Netflix, Redbox and Blockbuster?" as "Warner Bros. continues to fail to understand piracy and might encourage it further"
 291 2012-01-06 01:48:56 <ryannathans> currently i dont see anything wrong with our current 'address' system, however, i do see a nessasary change down the road as technology advances and more people start taking up bitcoin and the use of digital currencies
 292 2012-01-06 01:49:03 <Raccoon> what's the math if 2^80 means 50% chance of collision PER new address generated, if 2^20
 293 2012-01-06 01:49:29 <Raccoon> 50/60 ?
 294 2012-01-06 01:49:32 <gmaxwell> ryannathans: the system already accomidate it.
 295 2012-01-06 01:49:56 <ryannathans> gmaxwell: whats the next adress system planned?
 296 2012-01-06 01:49:59 <gmaxwell> ryannathans: you'd obviously have to update client to generate and accept the new addresses, but the system will process them.
 297 2012-01-06 01:50:08 <ryannathans> yup im aware
 298 2012-01-06 01:50:17 <gmaxwell> ryannathans: it's not, because credible people don't share your concern right now.
 299 2012-01-06 01:50:52 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: please stop wasting my time if you won't even go pull the formulas from wikipedia.
 300 2012-01-06 01:51:14 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: wikipedia doesnt mention applied math toward these conclusions
 301 2012-01-06 01:51:23 <gmaxwell> (or can't bother to calculate log2() on your own)
 302 2012-01-06 01:51:27 cyphur has joined
 303 2012-01-06 01:51:36 <ryannathans> so credible people are not concerned they will ever need to change the address hash regardless of how technology advances or how many people use bitcoin
 304 2012-01-06 01:51:38 <gmaxwell> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem#Calculating_the_probability
 305 2012-01-06 01:51:56 <Raccoon> but if 2^80 addresses were in circulation, there would be a 50% chance any new address created would cause a collision.
 306 2012-01-06 01:52:01 <cyphur> sheez I goto sleep for 6 hours and the price jumps a dollar
 307 2012-01-06 01:52:04 <ryannathans> it's not an issue now and im aware of that, one day there will need to be a change
 308 2012-01-06 01:52:07 <gmaxwell> ryannathans: no, the system is designed to accomidate upgrades. (and e.g. inclues a 256 bit hash OP_CODE)
 309 2012-01-06 01:52:08 <Raccoon> 2^79 addresses were in circulation, there would be a 25% chance any new address created would cause a collision.
 310 2012-01-06 01:52:22 <Raccoon> 2^78 addresses were in circulation, there would be a 12.5% chance any new address created would cause a collision.
 311 2012-01-06 01:52:23 <gmaxwell> ryannathans: but you can't plan for a change when there _currently_ is no reason for one.
 312 2012-01-06 01:52:37 <ryannathans> gmaxwell: yeah, is kinda what im saying
 313 2012-01-06 01:52:39 <Raccoon> 2^20 addresses were in circulation, there would be a 0.833333% chance any new address created would cause a collision.
 314 2012-01-06 01:52:54 <Raccoon> so about 1 in 100 new addresses creates a collision
 315 2012-01-06 01:52:57 <gmaxwell> nah, you're off in space.
 316 2012-01-06 01:53:04 <gmaxwell> I'm ignoring you now.
 317 2012-01-06 01:53:05 <ryannathans> mmm space
 318 2012-01-06 01:53:38 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: i'm pretty sure that at least 20 people in this channel share the same birthdate.
 319 2012-01-06 01:53:39 <cyphur> hey guys
 320 2012-01-06 01:53:48 <cyphur> whats volatility been like for the last few hours?
 321 2012-01-06 01:54:04 <ryannathans> orgasmic
 322 2012-01-06 01:54:11 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: I have no clue what you're calculating, but I'm sure its not what you think you're calculating. :)
 323 2012-01-06 01:54:13 <nanotube> cyphur: check bitcoincharts.com
 324 2012-01-06 01:54:24 <ryannathans> i"m off, got a plane to get ready for
 325 2012-01-06 01:54:27 <cyphur> yeah Im looking at it
 326 2012-01-06 01:54:33 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: I think you're confusing the count of people vs count of days.
 327 2012-01-06 01:54:38 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: I'm sure I'm calculating the weakness of bitcoin address space
 328 2012-01-06 01:54:46 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: you're failing to do so.
 329 2012-01-06 01:55:00 <Raccoon> i'm sure i'm not
 330 2012-01-06 01:55:02 <nanotube> Raccoon: look up the birthday paradox math
 331 2012-01-06 01:55:13 <Raccoon> nanotube: no need to
 332 2012-01-06 01:55:16 <BlueMatt> cyphur: thats fairly ot, maybe ask on #bitcoin-otc ?
 333 2012-01-06 01:55:16 <cyphur> someones peoples comments are interesting as well though
 334 2012-01-06 01:55:17 <nanotube> k
 335 2012-01-06 01:55:44 b4epoche_ has joined
 336 2012-01-06 01:56:50 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 337 2012-01-06 01:56:50 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 338 2012-01-06 02:00:28 <Raccoon> i still think my math looks good, unfortunately
 339 2012-01-06 02:00:39 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: what you're actually asking isn't a 'birthday paradox' question, e.g. you have 2^20 in a space of 2^160. What is the chance that adding one more collides? It's 2^20/2^160 since the selection is uniform or 7.17e-43.
 340 2012-01-06 02:02:03 <gmaxwell> Intutively stated— you have 2^160 possible values, and 2^20 are 'bad'. The odds of getting a bad one with one selection is just the portion of the bad in the space.
 341 2012-01-06 02:02:40 <cyphur> oh sheez I only just realised I was typing in bitcoin-dev
 342 2012-01-06 02:02:43 <cyphur> sorry about that guys :)
 343 2012-01-06 02:03:11 <BlueMatt> cyphur: np
 344 2012-01-06 02:03:25 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: and this really should move into #bitcoin, it's not development related.
 345 2012-01-06 02:03:32 <gmaxwell> I'll respond to you there if you show up there.
 346 2012-01-06 02:04:11 <Raccoon> what if i wanted to develop efficient attack code
 347 2012-01-06 02:04:24 cyphur has left ()
 348 2012-01-06 02:04:46 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: if you're so convinced you can do this, there are 400k bitcoins waiting for you on some mtgox address. have fun.
 349 2012-01-06 02:05:31 <Raccoon> btw, what is 7.17e-43 in base 2?
 350 2012-01-06 02:06:06 <gmaxwell> π
 351 2012-01-06 02:06:26 <Raccoon> 2^??
 352 2012-01-06 02:06:41 <BlueMatt> 2^pi
 353 2012-01-06 02:07:00 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: 2^-140 or so.
 354 2012-01-06 02:07:43 <gmaxwell> (well not 'or so')
 355 2012-01-06 02:08:47 <Raccoon> so you're saying odds of hitting a 'bad' value are 2^(space-bad) %?
 356 2012-01-06 02:08:53 <Raccoon> er
 357 2012-01-06 02:08:56 <Raccoon> 1 in
 358 2012-01-06 02:09:10 <Raccoon> that just seems unreasonable
 359 2012-01-06 02:09:35 <roconnor> Raccoon: with 2^20 addresses in circulate each new address has a 0.00000000000000009% of colliding.
 360 2012-01-06 02:09:48 <roconnor> er
 361 2012-01-06 02:09:50 <roconnor> wait
 362 2012-01-06 02:09:55 <roconnor> even that isn't true
 363 2012-01-06 02:12:39 <roconnor> more like 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000007%
 364 2012-01-06 02:14:24 xenland has joined
 365 2012-01-06 02:15:36 theymos has joined
 366 2012-01-06 02:17:38 <gmaxwell> roconnor: right. 43 of dem there zeerros.
 367 2012-01-06 02:17:50 marf_away has joined
 368 2012-01-06 02:18:07 <roconnor> Raccoon: stick to playing the lottery
 369 2012-01-06 02:18:09 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 370 2012-01-06 02:18:18 <gmaxwell> heh
 371 2012-01-06 02:18:51 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: thats why I've been so dismissive. The actual figures are mindbogglingly tiny.
 372 2012-01-06 02:19:29 <lianj> "i won the address collision lottery and all i got was a 0.00001 btc address"
 373 2012-01-06 02:19:41 <gmaxwell> hah
 374 2012-01-06 02:19:59 <gmaxwell> I wish it were easier, I could have better vanity addresses!
 375 2012-01-06 02:21:09 <k9quaint> how can something so tiny boggle something so large as your mind?
 376 2012-01-06 02:21:45 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: does it help the its reciprocal is enormous?
 377 2012-01-06 02:22:24 <k9quaint> so if I stand on my head it will blow my mind
 378 2012-01-06 02:24:46 <roconnor> gmaxwell: you can have DrGoss's address
 379 2012-01-06 02:25:58 <gmaxwell> I have some okay ones, such as 1AGMAXWELLayCyS1vkLXEszESHEcB3LWqa
 380 2012-01-06 02:34:14 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
 381 2012-01-06 02:42:39 * roconnor likes it when code comes together nicely.
 382 2012-01-06 02:43:58 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 383 2012-01-06 02:49:20 kiba` has joined
 384 2012-01-06 02:51:07 kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 385 2012-01-06 02:52:09 copumpkin has joined
 386 2012-01-06 02:57:43 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
 387 2012-01-06 02:57:47 wasabi4 has joined
 388 2012-01-06 03:00:18 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 389 2012-01-06 03:12:50 Cablesaurus has joined
 390 2012-01-06 03:12:51 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
 391 2012-01-06 03:12:51 Cablesaurus has joined
 392 2012-01-06 03:22:13 <amiller> roconnor, are you working on a haskell bitcoin?
 393 2012-01-06 03:26:01 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 394 2012-01-06 03:26:31 watson787 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 395 2012-01-06 03:28:26 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 396 2012-01-06 03:31:00 <copumpkin> amiller: he is
 397 2012-01-06 03:31:27 <amiller> i'm still searching for it and can't find any trail
 398 2012-01-06 03:32:47 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
 399 2012-01-06 03:32:58 TheSeven has joined
 400 2012-01-06 03:36:20 <MC1984> so the address space is like 2^160
 401 2012-01-06 03:36:42 <MC1984> shouldnt someone write some shit about the number of atoms in the universe and get it over with
 402 2012-01-06 03:36:52 <BlueMatt> heh
 403 2012-01-06 03:38:59 <MC1984> remains to be seen how quantum computation changes things though
 404 2012-01-06 03:39:13 <MC1984> i herd theyre good at factoring, whatever the hell that is
 405 2012-01-06 03:44:20 <nanotube> herd factoring eh :)
 406 2012-01-06 03:51:02 <gmaxwell> MC1984: it doesn't remain to be seen.
 407 2012-01-06 03:51:44 <MC1984> care to expand on that
 408 2012-01-06 03:51:50 <gmaxwell> MC1984: at best you get a general speedup of sqrt(n) on non-linear search. And thats a tight bound.
 409 2012-01-06 03:51:55 <gmaxwell> MC1984: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover%27s_algorithm
 410 2012-01-06 03:51:57 <BlueMatt> when quantum computers with the ability to calculate on enough bits are created, bitcoin transactions are trivially stealable
 411 2012-01-06 03:52:17 <MC1984> in english
 412 2012-01-06 03:52:21 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: if it's physically possible to construct QC's that large.
 413 2012-01-06 03:52:29 <BlueMatt> exactly
 414 2012-01-06 03:52:44 <gmaxwell> MC1984: hash functions lose half their bits of effective security, at worse, if you're able to build QC's that big.
 415 2012-01-06 03:53:05 <MC1984> only half?
 416 2012-01-06 03:53:12 <gmaxwell> MC1984: which is one of the motivations behind switching to hash's of double size in more recent years.
 417 2012-01-06 03:53:14 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: but ecdsa loses more iirc?
 418 2012-01-06 03:53:23 <gmaxwell> Yes, ecdsa loses more.
 419 2012-01-06 03:54:17 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: oddly enough you can implement QC resistant signatures as a script if you're sufficiently crazy (well, the size limits might not allow it), and then pay to scripthash them.
 420 2012-01-06 03:54:33 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: thats true...
 421 2012-01-06 03:54:50 <gmaxwell> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport_signature)
 422 2012-01-06 03:55:25 <MC1984> ok so ecdsa is pretty fucked
 423 2012-01-06 03:55:28 <gmaxwell> MC1984: yea, only half. So 256 bit hashes become 128 bit ones.
 424 2012-01-06 03:55:36 <gmaxwell> MC1984: well, no. Not quite.
 425 2012-01-06 03:55:56 <MC1984> how many bits does bitcoin use
 426 2012-01-06 03:56:29 <gmaxwell> MC1984: you still need to build a honking big QC machine. like 4kilobits to crack ecdsa with a few billion operations or something like that.
 427 2012-01-06 03:56:35 <luke-jr> anyone know how to oprofile a specific thread?
 428 2012-01-06 03:56:55 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: hm .. no.
 429 2012-01-06 03:57:23 EPiSKiNG- has joined
 430 2012-01-06 03:57:28 <gmaxwell> MC1984: if you google around there is a nice paper giving estimates of QC complexity for ecc cracking.
 431 2012-01-06 03:57:58 <MC1984> ok
 432 2012-01-06 03:58:20 <gmaxwell> It's enormous enough that we may eventually discover that its not possible to build quantum systems that big (because of noise breaking coherence)
 433 2012-01-06 03:59:26 <gmaxwell> It's hard to even ask the question because we're so far away from it.. We can build systems with like 1 or 2 bits and do a couple operations. Nothing like the quantum Turing machine that exist in mathematicians dreams. :)
 434 2012-01-06 04:00:11 <gmaxwell> also, if you use one shot addresses, your pubkey isn't exposed until right when you spend, which limits the attack exposure.
 435 2012-01-06 04:03:29 xenland has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 436 2012-01-06 04:03:34 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: please help :<
 437 2012-01-06 04:03:37 <luke-jr> https://github.com/luke-jr/cgminer/commit/a8f742d58a445f3cd61b814489cbdd2d0602e56c
 438 2012-01-06 04:03:47 <luke-jr> I can't figure out why, but this makes cgminer eat a lot of CPU time
 439 2012-01-06 04:03:59 <luke-jr> profilers tell me it's in gpuminer_thread, but I barely touched it
 440 2012-01-06 04:04:43 <MC1984> gmaxwell duly noted
 441 2012-01-06 04:05:09 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: darn you, I'm watching a movie right now.
 442 2012-01-06 04:05:17 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: LOL, while arguing
 443 2012-01-06 04:05:58 <gmaxwell> had it on pause for a minute for drinks and such.
 444 2012-01-06 04:06:27 c_k has quit (Quit: brb)
 445 2012-01-06 04:07:03 c_k has joined
 446 2012-01-06 04:10:34 dissipate has joined
 447 2012-01-06 04:10:44 dissipate has quit (Changing host)
 448 2012-01-06 04:10:44 dissipate has joined
 449 2012-01-06 04:14:39 B0g4r7_ has joined
 450 2012-01-06 04:17:50 Nicksasa has joined
 451 2012-01-06 04:18:39 DontMindMe2 has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
 452 2012-01-06 04:21:54 nmat has joined
 453 2012-01-06 04:21:58 nmat has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 454 2012-01-06 04:31:53 wizkid057 is now known as wizkid057|sleep
 455 2012-01-06 04:35:24 RobinPKR_ has joined
 456 2012-01-06 04:37:11 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 457 2012-01-06 04:37:12 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
 458 2012-01-06 04:45:16 dissipate has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 459 2012-01-06 04:46:21 Crshman has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 460 2012-01-06 04:54:18 sniktron has joined
 461 2012-01-06 05:02:23 tower has quit (Quit: | ReactOS - The FOSS alternative to MS Windows! | http://www.reactos.org/ | join #ReactOS |)
 462 2012-01-06 05:02:27 <BlueMatt> did anyone else see the "Bitcoin - An Analysis" talk at 28c3?
 463 2012-01-06 05:04:17 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 464 2012-01-06 05:04:42 enquirer has joined
 465 2012-01-06 05:06:29 yorick has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 466 2012-01-06 05:09:11 yorick has joined
 467 2012-01-06 05:11:36 <plato> BlueMatt: nope, what's that?
 468 2012-01-06 05:11:57 <BlueMatt> a poorly-researched analysis of bitcoin that was presented at the ccc
 469 2012-01-06 05:12:21 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
 470 2012-01-06 05:12:40 btc_novice has joined
 471 2012-01-06 05:13:31 <BlueMatt> quite a few things he did were smart and cool, but then he had quite a few arguments that had no arguments and were just false statements
 472 2012-01-06 05:13:50 <BlueMatt> s/he/they/
 473 2012-01-06 05:14:04 <TuxBlackEdo> BlueMatt, personally i think if you look like you are in your late 20s you shouldn't be balding
 474 2012-01-06 05:14:06 <TuxBlackEdo> :)
 475 2012-01-06 05:14:33 <BlueMatt> TuxBlackEdo: ?
 476 2012-01-06 05:14:38 <BlueMatt> oh...
 477 2012-01-06 05:14:38 <BlueMatt> yea
 478 2012-01-06 05:14:47 <TuxBlackEdo> :D
 479 2012-01-06 05:14:50 btc_novice has quit (Client Quit)
 480 2012-01-06 05:16:49 <BlueMatt> if you are going to do a presentation analyzing bitcoin, you should bother to see if anyone else has done previous research before you make false statements...
 481 2012-01-06 05:16:57 <luke-jr> game over for Coiledcoin
 482 2012-01-06 05:17:33 <BlueMatt> heh wtf makomk?>
 483 2012-01-06 05:18:25 <luke-jr> that was fun
 484 2012-01-06 05:20:43 <copumpkin> TuxBlackEdo: that seems like a completely irrelevant statement about the talk
 485 2012-01-06 05:21:03 roconnor has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 486 2012-01-06 05:21:45 tower has joined
 487 2012-01-06 05:21:55 <TuxBlackEdo> yeah it's all i could think about -_-
 488 2012-01-06 05:23:40 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: need to have a panel at a bitcoin conference which reviews bitcoin talks elsewhere and where the participants talk about their favorite misinformation
 489 2012-01-06 05:24:25 <BlueMatt> yea, though its just really sad when two professors come out with blatantly false information that they would know was false if they just used google...
 490 2012-01-06 05:25:09 <diki> the bitcoin client's transaction details which are viewed by double-clicking on a transaction has a bug
 491 2012-01-06 05:25:19 <diki> the field which displays the information is editable
 492 2012-01-06 05:25:25 <BlueMatt> tell wumpus
 493 2012-01-06 05:25:30 dissipate has joined
 494 2012-01-06 05:28:45 <wumpus> huh, sounds like a minor bug indeed, doesn't make sense to edit it though, changes won't propagate back to the transactions
 495 2012-01-06 05:29:07 <luke-jr> wumpus: is "About Qt" a bugfix?
 496 2012-01-06 05:30:18 <wumpus> dunno, it helps with diagnostics ("what version of qt did you build against")
 497 2012-01-06 05:31:10 <luke-jr> wumpus: do you want it backported to 0.5.x?
 498 2012-01-06 05:31:33 <wumpus> it can't hurt anything, a pure ui-feature.. so, yes
 499 2012-01-06 05:32:07 <luke-jr> k
 500 2012-01-06 05:32:11 <wumpus> it's completely outside bitcoin versioning I guess...
 501 2012-01-06 05:33:33 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: unfortunately new areas are fertile ground for people to spout nonsense, since there isn't an established community to call them out on it.
 502 2012-01-06 05:33:38 <BlueMatt> wow they cant even google to find firstbits...
 503 2012-01-06 05:33:52 <wumpus> diki: heh I just reproduced that, it's funny
 504 2012-01-06 05:34:23 WakiMiko_ has joined
 505 2012-01-06 05:34:33 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I found it via some Bitcoin promotion saying firstbits was going to  be in the next version
 506 2012-01-06 05:34:37 <luke-jr> I'm like "wtf, never heard of"
 507 2012-01-06 05:35:14 WakiMiko has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 508 2012-01-06 05:35:20 elkingrey has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 509 2012-01-06 05:35:45 <BlueMatt> they clearly didnt ask anyone for input who knew something about bitcoin, they ask if firstbits is a DoS attack with no purpose...
 510 2012-01-06 05:35:51 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: whats this with firstbarf?
 511 2012-01-06 05:35:58 <gmaxwell> oh hah they saw the firstbits transactions.
 512 2012-01-06 05:36:24 <gmaxwell> Well, yea, they're pretty obnoxious, but geesh.
 513 2012-01-06 05:36:46 <BlueMatt> ok, to be fair, firstbits IS a DoS attack, but seriously google to figure out whats going on...
 514 2012-01-06 05:36:55 <wumpus> it's very hip to pretend that you found "vulnerabilities" in bitcoin, even if they were known for ages and don't really affect much...
 515 2012-01-06 05:37:06 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: It's not an intentional one at least.
 516 2012-01-06 05:37:16 <BlueMatt> exactly
 517 2012-01-06 05:37:54 * BlueMatt ponders paying to go to hacker conferences where people are presenting things on bitcoin and asking "Did you do any research or do you just enjoy spouting bullshit???"
 518 2012-01-06 05:38:02 <gmaxwell> wumpus: we have this problem with wikipedia. "researchers" who publish absolute gibberish.  E.g. they are constantly discovering that recently created articles have fallen enormously in quality an approiateness of subject matter.
 519 2012-01-06 05:38:03 <BlueMatt> just to see how the "researchers" respond..
 520 2012-01-06 05:38:11 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I just 51%'d CoiledCoin FWIW
 521 2012-01-06 05:38:24 <gmaxwell> "Yea, no shit. We delete or improve the crap but it takes time, so the most recent is always bad."
 522 2012-01-06 05:38:33 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: heh...
 523 2012-01-06 05:39:22 <BlueMatt> "even though the claim its anonymous" who the fuck who had any sanity claimed bitcoin is anonymous????
 524 2012-01-06 05:39:30 <BlueMatt> s/the/they/
 525 2012-01-06 05:39:31 <wumpus> gmaxwell: yes that's very typical, they just don't understand how the filter works and look at the unfiltered information
 526 2012-01-06 05:40:29 <wumpus> BlueMatt: claiming "they" claim something isn't decent research anyway, it's more like gossip
 527 2012-01-06 05:40:50 <gmaxwell> Weasel words.
 528 2012-01-06 05:40:52 <BlueMatt> exactly
 529 2012-01-06 05:40:54 <gmaxwell> Some people say.
 530 2012-01-06 05:41:10 <wumpus> yes, manipulative weasel words
 531 2012-01-06 05:41:10 <gmaxwell> And indeed, some people say bitcoin is anonymous. We call these people idiots.
 532 2012-01-06 05:42:05 <gmaxwell> I'll give you an experiment. Join #bitcoin at a random time, and say "bitcoin is anonymous!" and count the seconds before people pile on explaining that its not.
 533 2012-01-06 05:42:17 <wumpus> then again, it's good that people are attacking the bitcoin protocol from all directions, that's the only way to find real vulnerabilities... but please find real ones :-)
 534 2012-01-06 05:42:39 <gmaxwell> wumpus: yea, but good work is hard.
 535 2012-01-06 05:42:51 <gmaxwell> Vomiting up your initial impressions is easy.
 536 2012-01-06 05:42:58 <gmaxwell> Good work has the risk of a null result.
 537 2012-01-06 05:43:04 <nanotube> luke-jr: what's coiledcoin?
 538 2012-01-06 05:43:08 <gmaxwell> Which no one wants to publish.
 539 2012-01-06 05:43:09 * BlueMatt goes to join #bitcoin to see...
 540 2012-01-06 05:43:10 <wumpus> agreed, it IS very hard
 541 2012-01-06 05:43:13 <BlueMatt> NO CHEATING
 542 2012-01-06 05:43:19 <doublec> nanotube: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56675.0
 543 2012-01-06 05:43:33 <doublec> nanotube: luke-jr merge mined it and attacked it
 544 2012-01-06 05:43:51 <gmaxwell> asymmetric difficulty. fail power.
 545 2012-01-06 05:43:51 <doublec> luke-jr: so are you going to do the same with the other alt coins?
 546 2012-01-06 05:43:57 <luke-jr> doublec: undecided.
 547 2012-01-06 05:44:07 <luke-jr> doublec: let's see how this goes
 548 2012-01-06 05:44:28 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Never put off till tomorrow, what you can do the day after tomorrow)
 549 2012-01-06 05:44:41 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 550 2012-01-06 05:45:19 <gmaxwell> oh it's not asym. it's factor of two clamped. Actually thats pretty good considering the reduced time.
 551 2012-01-06 05:46:24 <luke-jr> doublec: tbh, if I realized makomk was behind CoiledCoin, I'd have talked to him about it first
 552 2012-01-06 05:46:29 <luke-jr> but I didn't really look at the names
 553 2012-01-06 05:47:26 <gmaxwell> Pretty good trial by fire there.
 554 2012-01-06 05:47:28 osmosis has joined
 555 2012-01-06 05:47:43 <gmaxwell> wtf it had btc-e support already?
 556 2012-01-06 05:47:53 <luke-jr> yeah
 557 2012-01-06 05:47:54 <gmaxwell> That really does make it sound like a scam.
 558 2012-01-06 05:47:57 <diki> got some cash off of it
 559 2012-01-06 05:48:51 <nanotube> luke-jr: haha nice
 560 2012-01-06 05:49:11 <nanotube> gmaxwell: in the thread, mako says he was as surprised as anyone that btc-e added support for it so soon
 561 2012-01-06 05:49:41 <wumpus> it's probably very easy for them to support additional chains
 562 2012-01-06 05:49:43 <gmaxwell> yea, kinda interesting when you have decenteralized scamming.
 563 2012-01-06 05:50:05 <gmaxwell> e.g. where you get a system that is a scam, but with all of the agents operating independantly and mostly honestly.
 564 2012-01-06 05:50:08 <wumpus> more trade is better if you are an exchange, so quickly adding new hot chains somehow is rational
 565 2012-01-06 05:50:50 <wumpus> heh
 566 2012-01-06 05:50:57 <gmaxwell> that chat thing on btc-e is kinda embarassing.
 567 2012-01-06 05:51:15 AnonymousUser001 has joined
 568 2012-01-06 05:51:20 <gmaxwell> (I don't mean right now, but in general— it's like listening to an xbox video game most of the time)
 569 2012-01-06 05:51:20 AnonymousUser001 has left ()
 570 2012-01-06 05:51:31 <wumpus> yes a casino chat 
 571 2012-01-06 05:54:59 ryannathans has left ()
 572 2012-01-06 05:55:07 <luke-jr> I think BTC-E disabled CLC deposits
 573 2012-01-06 05:56:21 <gmaxwell> The exchange price graph there is kinda funny.
 574 2012-01-06 05:56:36 <gmaxwell> "whoppie, new cryptocoin.. ohh.. pooft"
 575 2012-01-06 05:57:43 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: your gitian script is fucked up
 576 2012-01-06 05:57:44 <BlueMatt> "error: 503 while accessing https://git.gitorious.org/+bitcoin-stable-developers/bitcoin/bitcoind-stable.git/info/refs"
 577 2012-01-06 05:58:00 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I haven't changed it O.o
 578 2012-01-06 05:58:09 <BlueMatt> have you ever tested it?
 579 2012-01-06 05:58:14 <luke-jr> I can't  use gitian
 580 2012-01-06 05:58:24 <BlueMatt> ok, so its always had a bad url...
 581 2012-01-06 05:58:54 kiba` is now known as kiba
 582 2012-01-06 06:00:03 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: didn't you build it before?
 583 2012-01-06 06:00:08 <luke-jr> also, that URL responds to me
 584 2012-01-06 06:00:16 <BlueMatt> no
 585 2012-01-06 06:00:19 <BlueMatt> is it a private url?
 586 2012-01-06 06:00:23 <luke-jr> no
 587 2012-01-06 06:00:25 <luke-jr> 200 OK
 588 2012-01-06 06:02:45 sniktron has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 589 2012-01-06 06:03:11 <wumpus> diki: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/746
 590 2012-01-06 06:04:23 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: laanwj opened pull request 746 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/746>
 591 2012-01-06 06:07:04 b4epoche_ has joined
 592 2012-01-06 06:07:59 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 593 2012-01-06 06:08:00 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 594 2012-01-06 06:10:32 B0g4r7__ has joined
 595 2012-01-06 06:13:17 B0g4r7_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 596 2012-01-06 06:24:06 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: hmm, nfc why I got a 503, maybe gitorious was overloaded...anyway it appears to be working now
 597 2012-01-06 06:24:17 <luke-jr> >_<
 598 2012-01-06 06:25:47 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 599 2012-01-06 06:29:11 BurtyB has joined
 600 2012-01-06 06:33:52 wasabi4 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 601 2012-01-06 06:37:03 imsaguy is now known as [\\\]
 602 2012-01-06 06:39:56 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 603 2012-01-06 06:40:51 wasabi3 has joined
 604 2012-01-06 06:45:57 devrandom has joined
 605 2012-01-06 06:46:10 zeiris has quit (Quit: segfault)
 606 2012-01-06 06:47:31 zeiris has joined
 607 2012-01-06 06:48:56 phantomfake has joined
 608 2012-01-06 06:52:45 gfinn has joined
 609 2012-01-06 06:52:53 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: linux build http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29653426/bitcoin-0.5.2rc1.tar.bz2
 610 2012-01-06 06:53:38 wasabi3 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 611 2012-01-06 06:53:53 <BlueMatt> (gitian signed)
 612 2012-01-06 06:54:06 <BlueMatt> (and yes you can verify it without gitian...)
 613 2012-01-06 06:57:24 wasabi2 has joined
 614 2012-01-06 06:57:29 mcorlett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 615 2012-01-06 07:03:12 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 616 2012-01-06 07:07:29 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 617 2012-01-06 07:18:29 pycke2 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 618 2012-01-06 07:25:52 dissipate has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 619 2012-01-06 07:26:30 dvide has quit ()
 620 2012-01-06 07:27:35 <justmoon> looking for clean-looking example bitcoin 0.5.1 or later screenshot (any os)
 621 2012-01-06 07:28:41 <BlueMatt> whats the difference between 0.5.1 and 0.5?
 622 2012-01-06 07:28:54 <justmoon> 0.5 is fine too
 623 2012-01-06 07:29:08 <justmoon> i used 0.5.1 as in "current release or later"
 624 2012-01-06 07:32:20 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 625 2012-01-06 07:32:47 copumpkin has joined
 626 2012-01-06 07:33:02 <justmoon> anyone?
 627 2012-01-06 07:33:05 <justmoon> 1 BTC bounty
 628 2012-01-06 07:33:44 <luke-jr> justmoon: O.o
 629 2012-01-06 07:33:48 <justmoon> (can't take one myself because I run xface on cygwin-x, so mine is a weird windows/linux hybrid)
 630 2012-01-06 07:33:57 <luke-jr> oh, fullscreen?
 631 2012-01-06 07:33:59 <luke-jr> not just the window?
 632 2012-01-06 07:34:03 <justmoon> just the window
 633 2012-01-06 07:34:21 <justmoon> but with window decoration if poss.
 634 2012-01-06 07:34:26 <Diablo-D3> well
 635 2012-01-06 07:34:32 <Diablo-D3> who uses windows lawlz
 636 2012-01-06 07:36:46 <BlueMatt> justmoon: http://i39.tinypic.com/2hye1zq.jpg
 637 2012-01-06 07:37:01 <justmoon> BlueMatt: great, thx
 638 2012-01-06 07:37:04 <justmoon> BlueMatt: address?
 639 2012-01-06 07:37:50 <BlueMatt> justmoon: Ill trade you, ack https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/593 (or be lazy and send it to 1JBMattRztKDF2KRS3vhjJXA7h47NEsn2c )
 640 2012-01-06 07:38:12 <BlueMatt> (obv only ack after testing)
 641 2012-01-06 07:38:59 <justmoon> BlueMatt: you mean test it on my cygwin setup? I wouldn't hold my breath lol :P
 642 2012-01-06 07:39:25 <BlueMatt> justmoon: or build it on linux and test...
 643 2012-01-06 07:40:18 <justmoon> alright, I'll give it a go
 644 2012-01-06 07:40:58 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: second one http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29653426/bitcoin-0.5.2rc1-win32.tar.bz2
 645 2012-01-06 07:41:06 <BlueMatt> (also signed)
 646 2012-01-06 07:41:09 * BlueMatt -> bed
 647 2012-01-06 07:41:49 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 648 2012-01-06 07:52:30 RazielZ has joined
 649 2012-01-06 07:58:03 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 650 2012-01-06 07:58:17 pickett has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 651 2012-01-06 08:05:50 Turingi has joined
 652 2012-01-06 08:07:07 Transisto has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 653 2012-01-06 08:09:45 Transisto has joined
 654 2012-01-06 08:09:46 Transisto has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 655 2012-01-06 08:09:55 Transisto has joined
 656 2012-01-06 08:15:35 theorb has joined
 657 2012-01-06 08:16:06 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 658 2012-01-06 08:16:12 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
 659 2012-01-06 08:17:16 DontMindMe has joined
 660 2012-01-06 08:18:43 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 661 2012-01-06 08:30:56 molecular has joined
 662 2012-01-06 08:34:33 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 663 2012-01-06 08:35:07 copumpkin has joined
 664 2012-01-06 08:45:39 dissipate has joined
 665 2012-01-06 08:45:43 dissipate has quit (Changing host)
 666 2012-01-06 08:45:43 dissipate has joined
 667 2012-01-06 08:49:45 pickett has joined
 668 2012-01-06 08:58:11 ovidiusoft has joined
 669 2012-01-06 09:01:31 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 670 2012-01-06 09:01:47 wasabi2 has joined
 671 2012-01-06 09:04:30 larsivi has joined
 672 2012-01-06 09:17:38 marf_away has joined
 673 2012-01-06 09:24:14 watson787 has joined
 674 2012-01-06 09:25:31 Joric has quit ()
 675 2012-01-06 09:28:32 watson787 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 676 2012-01-06 09:29:53 abragin has joined
 677 2012-01-06 09:29:53 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 678 2012-01-06 09:29:53 abragin has joined
 679 2012-01-06 09:30:52 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 680 2012-01-06 09:33:42 pickett has joined
 681 2012-01-06 09:35:01 erus` has joined
 682 2012-01-06 09:36:30 datagutt has joined
 683 2012-01-06 09:47:27 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 684 2012-01-06 09:53:25 DontMindMe has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 685 2012-01-06 10:01:01 wasabi3 has joined
 686 2012-01-06 10:02:46 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 687 2012-01-06 10:03:13 Clipse has joined
 688 2012-01-06 10:06:40 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 689 2012-01-06 10:19:15 b4epoche_ has joined
 690 2012-01-06 10:19:40 Joric has joined
 691 2012-01-06 10:19:41 Joric has quit (Changing host)
 692 2012-01-06 10:19:41 Joric has joined
 693 2012-01-06 10:20:22 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 694 2012-01-06 10:20:22 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 695 2012-01-06 10:24:00 BurtyB has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 696 2012-01-06 10:24:15 BurtyB has joined
 697 2012-01-06 10:32:21 Fnar has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 698 2012-01-06 10:33:08 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 699 2012-01-06 10:33:35 MC1984 has joined
 700 2012-01-06 10:35:35 p0s has joined
 701 2012-01-06 10:39:27 Ken` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 702 2012-01-06 10:43:30 ovidiusoft has joined
 703 2012-01-06 10:51:16 mcorlett has joined
 704 2012-01-06 10:52:52 dissipate has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 705 2012-01-06 10:54:23 Phoebus has joined
 706 2012-01-06 10:55:00 toffoo has quit ()
 707 2012-01-06 10:55:09 MC1984 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 708 2012-01-06 10:55:40 MC1984 has joined
 709 2012-01-06 10:59:58 da2ce7 has joined
 710 2012-01-06 11:02:54 darkskiez has joined
 711 2012-01-06 11:07:50 Ken` has joined
 712 2012-01-06 11:09:09 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 713 2012-01-06 11:13:11 Joric has joined
 714 2012-01-06 11:13:12 Joric has quit (Changing host)
 715 2012-01-06 11:13:12 Joric has joined
 716 2012-01-06 11:13:46 booo has joined
 717 2012-01-06 11:18:46 chrisb__ has joined
 718 2012-01-06 11:21:59 iocor has joined
 719 2012-01-06 11:23:20 Fnar has joined
 720 2012-01-06 11:31:36 Phoebus_ has joined
 721 2012-01-06 11:32:28 Phoebus has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 722 2012-01-06 11:34:16 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 723 2012-01-06 11:34:31 Ukto has joined
 724 2012-01-06 11:34:38 Ukto has left ()
 725 2012-01-06 11:35:37 Phoebus has joined
 726 2012-01-06 11:36:19 Phoebus_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 727 2012-01-06 11:41:48 Ukto has joined
 728 2012-01-06 11:42:22 <Ukto> anyone familiar with the EXCEPTION: 11DbException, DbEnv::close: Invalid argument,  bitcoin in ProcessMessage() bug? whats causing it?
 729 2012-01-06 11:59:16 erle- has joined
 730 2012-01-06 12:12:55 mcorlett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 731 2012-01-06 12:14:11 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 732 2012-01-06 12:29:29 ThomasV has joined
 733 2012-01-06 12:38:40 b4epoche_ has joined
 734 2012-01-06 12:39:37 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 735 2012-01-06 12:39:37 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 736 2012-01-06 12:39:46 <epscy> !ticker
 737 2012-01-06 12:39:47 <gribble> Best bid: 6.92215, Best ask: 6.9302, Bid-ask spread: 0.00805, Last trade: 6.9303, 24 hour volume: 220833, 24 hour low: 6.06016, 24 hour high: 7.22
 738 2012-01-06 12:42:44 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 739 2012-01-06 12:43:10 copumpkin has joined
 740 2012-01-06 12:43:39 Carmivore has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 741 2012-01-06 12:43:57 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 742 2012-01-06 12:45:47 <makomk> Well, I guess that's the end of Bitcoin clones then.
 743 2012-01-06 12:50:01 Carmivore has joined
 744 2012-01-06 12:51:54 <Ken`> @gold
 745 2012-01-06 12:52:02 <Ken`> oops
 746 2012-01-06 12:54:12 [Tycho] has joined
 747 2012-01-06 12:56:21 random_cat has joined
 748 2012-01-06 13:00:14 mcorlett has joined
 749 2012-01-06 13:01:47 Phoebus has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 750 2012-01-06 13:02:08 chrisb__ has joined
 751 2012-01-06 13:02:21 wasabi2 has joined
 752 2012-01-06 13:03:25 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 753 2012-01-06 13:03:28 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 754 2012-01-06 13:05:01 Drunoober has joined
 755 2012-01-06 13:05:47 Drunoober has left ()
 756 2012-01-06 13:07:30 user has joined
 757 2012-01-06 13:09:22 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 758 2012-01-06 13:11:46 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 759 2012-01-06 13:17:29 pickett has joined
 760 2012-01-06 13:23:31 <UukGoblin> bitstamp is still reporting trade times in the future
 761 2012-01-06 13:23:48 <UukGoblin> about 5 minutes in future
 762 2012-01-06 13:24:39 <Raccoon> so you know exactly when to buy and sell
 763 2012-01-06 13:24:56 <UukGoblin> lol
 764 2012-01-06 13:28:42 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 765 2012-01-06 13:52:22 Detritus has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 766 2012-01-06 13:54:52 Detritus has joined
 767 2012-01-06 14:08:21 finway has joined
 768 2012-01-06 14:09:13 <finway> piuk have a quiestion, If this script was included in the blockchain then validation would fail for new clients during the initial blockchain download.?  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56823.0;topicseen
 769 2012-01-06 14:12:22 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 770 2012-01-06 14:17:51 finway has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 771 2012-01-06 14:18:56 DontMindMe2 has joined
 772 2012-01-06 14:19:21 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 773 2012-01-06 14:19:41 DontMindMe2 has quit (Client Quit)
 774 2012-01-06 14:19:41 minimoose has joined
 775 2012-01-06 14:19:58 DontMindMe2 has joined
 776 2012-01-06 14:23:05 yorick has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
 777 2012-01-06 14:23:30 yorick has joined
 778 2012-01-06 14:26:50 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 779 2012-01-06 14:34:10 user has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 780 2012-01-06 14:34:49 copumpkin has joined
 781 2012-01-06 14:35:19 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 782 2012-01-06 14:37:01 pickett has joined
 783 2012-01-06 14:37:29 abragin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 784 2012-01-06 14:39:02 diki has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 785 2012-01-06 14:39:10 diki has joined
 786 2012-01-06 14:39:36 diki is now known as Guest69311
 787 2012-01-06 14:42:38 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 788 2012-01-06 14:43:28 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 789 2012-01-06 14:44:50 m00p has joined
 790 2012-01-06 14:48:40 m00p has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 791 2012-01-06 14:53:19 enquirer_ has joined
 792 2012-01-06 14:54:30 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 793 2012-01-06 14:55:01 enquirer has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 794 2012-01-06 14:55:10 enquirer_ is now known as enquirer
 795 2012-01-06 14:55:19 roconnor has joined
 796 2012-01-06 14:56:12 Diablo-D3 has joined
 797 2012-01-06 14:58:11 bobke has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 798 2012-01-06 15:03:41 ski_ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 799 2012-01-06 15:05:05 tower has joined
 800 2012-01-06 15:06:08 m00p has joined
 801 2012-01-06 15:06:27 ski_ has joined
 802 2012-01-06 15:06:38 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
 803 2012-01-06 15:13:55 finway has joined
 804 2012-01-06 15:14:36 <finway> So, a new altchain with OP_EVAL born and dead in one day? Interesting...
 805 2012-01-06 15:23:59 <imsaguy2> coiledcoin?
 806 2012-01-06 15:24:37 <finway> yeah, just find out
 807 2012-01-06 15:24:47 <terrytibbs> we should all extend our gratitude to mr. luke-jr
 808 2012-01-06 15:24:56 <Diablo-D3> dude
 809 2012-01-06 15:24:59 <Diablo-D3> Im going to make one
 810 2012-01-06 15:25:09 <Diablo-D3> bitits
 811 2012-01-06 15:25:10 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 812 2012-01-06 15:25:31 <terrytibbs> sounds legit
 813 2012-01-06 15:26:30 <Diablo-D3> crypto keys will involve images of boobs
 814 2012-01-06 15:26:40 <imsaguy2> Diablo-D3: don't forget to premine a couple million
 815 2012-01-06 15:26:58 <Diablo-D3> bwhahaha
 816 2012-01-06 15:27:00 <Diablo-D3> dude
 817 2012-01-06 15:27:02 <Diablo-D3> if I encrypt images
 818 2012-01-06 15:27:03 <Diablo-D3> guess what
 819 2012-01-06 15:27:13 <Diablo-D3> those texture units on your gpu will be suddenly useful again
 820 2012-01-06 15:28:01 merde has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 821 2012-01-06 15:28:49 <finway> mining power is the real power in bitcoin world.
 822 2012-01-06 15:28:55 bobke has joined
 823 2012-01-06 15:29:20 <jgarzik> slush: I like the stratum overlay protocol spec.  Just read it in-depth.  Good stuff.
 824 2012-01-06 15:29:39 <slush> thanks :)
 825 2012-01-06 15:29:50 <imsaguy2> url?
 826 2012-01-06 15:29:55 <slush> stratum.bitcoin.cz
 827 2012-01-06 15:31:01 <imsaguy2> thanks
 828 2012-01-06 15:32:02 <slush> it needs some better homepage, but at this time, it's still under heavy development
 829 2012-01-06 15:32:17 <imsaguy2> meh, the homepage can come later
 830 2012-01-06 15:32:34 merde has joined
 831 2012-01-06 15:33:01 <slush> I tried to install mediawiki on the server, but there is dependency hell, it's pretty old debian...
 832 2012-01-06 15:33:19 pickett has joined
 833 2012-01-06 15:34:14 <imsaguy2> lol
 834 2012-01-06 15:35:57 <jgarzik> as long as the source code is working and the spec is there, who needs a website?  :)
 835 2012-01-06 15:36:58 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 836 2012-01-06 15:37:48 <imsaguy2> jgarzik: well, at some point you have to have somehting that educates new users. word of mouth is good, but you still need documentation :)
 837 2012-01-06 15:39:03 <jgarzik> if the first two are there, and the system is good, people will arise spontaneously to do that work for you
 838 2012-01-06 15:39:35 btc_novice has joined
 839 2012-01-06 15:41:28 <CIA-100> bips: genjix master * rb4281db / bip-0016.md : BIP 0016: Pay to Script Hash by Gavin - http://git.io/Ri5QhA https://github.com/genjix/bips/commit/b4281db71d81a87c2a97bb26fdb325b2d4217189
 840 2012-01-06 15:42:06 [Tycho] has joined
 841 2012-01-06 15:43:12 <slush> well, stratum is mainly for developers, users will come in touch with stratum probably only because of node selection.
 842 2012-01-06 15:43:18 <slush> jgarzik: did you read also the server source code?
 843 2012-01-06 15:45:42 Wizzleby has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 844 2012-01-06 15:46:41 Wizzleby has joined
 845 2012-01-06 15:46:59 <sipa> jgarzik: did you have alook at pull #735 ?
 846 2012-01-06 15:49:17 finway has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 847 2012-01-06 15:50:26 Wizzleby has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 848 2012-01-06 15:50:56 Guest69311 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 849 2012-01-06 15:50:59 Wizzleby has joined
 850 2012-01-06 15:52:40 finway has joined
 851 2012-01-06 15:53:29 user__ has joined
 852 2012-01-06 15:53:32 theorb has joined
 853 2012-01-06 15:54:05 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 854 2012-01-06 15:54:10 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
 855 2012-01-06 15:56:42 <finway> Competetion between Currency  is good!
 856 2012-01-06 15:57:24 <finway> According to Hayek
 857 2012-01-06 16:02:48 user__ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 858 2012-01-06 16:04:02 <jgarzik> sipa: what is CService?  netaddr + port pair?
 859 2012-01-06 16:04:18 <jgarzik> slush: not seen source code yet
 860 2012-01-06 16:04:46 <sipa> jgarzik: yes
 861 2012-01-06 16:04:49 <jgarzik> slush: I like to read API docs first, where possible.  This gives best picture of what service is -supposed- to do.  Sometimes server implementation does not match desired outcome :)
 862 2012-01-06 16:05:25 <finway> So your Bitcoin2.0 needs persuade more than 50% users and miners to support it, or it will die like CLC
 863 2012-01-06 16:05:42 <finway> I hate 2.0
 864 2012-01-06 16:06:09 <slush> jgarzik: agree, finally somebody with reasonable approach.
 865 2012-01-06 16:06:16 <sipa> 2.0 does not exist, no need to hate it
 866 2012-01-06 16:06:47 <slush> jgarzik: I discussed the protocol with main developer of Electrum and he told me that he don't understand any documentation and he wants to see the code
 867 2012-01-06 16:06:57 <slush> and only then he can tell me if he likes my idea or not
 868 2012-01-06 16:07:39 <k9quaint> slush: that is a bad sign
 869 2012-01-06 16:07:51 <slush> k9quaint: don't tell *me* :-)
 870 2012-01-06 16:08:04 ovidiusoft has joined
 871 2012-01-06 16:08:11 <k9quaint> either you are talking with the wrong person, or you can't document a protocol (which bodes ill for designing the method by which two things communicate) :)
 872 2012-01-06 16:08:41 <k9quaint> there is a third possibility
 873 2012-01-06 16:09:01 <k9quaint> it could be that the myans were right, and we are all trapped in a movie with terrible writing
 874 2012-01-06 16:09:05 <jgarzik> slush: heh
 875 2012-01-06 16:09:16 <slush> k9quaint: lol
 876 2012-01-06 16:09:40 <sipa> myans? mayans?
 877 2012-01-06 16:10:46 <sipa> jgarzik: hmm, do you suggest a CSocket, which wraps SOCKET, and contains the connect() logic?
 878 2012-01-06 16:11:03 <slush> well, I still hope that Electrum client will use Stratum backends at some point. I started the project becuase I think it is missing piece of bitcoin infrastructure, but I don't like splitting efforts (like implementing mostly the same code for Electrum backend and for Stratum(
 879 2012-01-06 16:11:07 <slush> ovidiusoft: hi ;)
 880 2012-01-06 16:11:17 <k9quaint> sipa: what is a vowel bewteen people who have slept with your sister :)
 881 2012-01-06 16:11:36 <sipa> that would rewuire a lot of code changes
 882 2012-01-06 16:11:56 <sipa> k9quaint: i have no sister!
 883 2012-01-06 16:12:50 <k9quaint> sipa: that is one of those insults that plays the odds and does well when they are in favor
 884 2012-01-06 16:14:05 <k9quaint> so what did luke do to litecoin?
 885 2012-01-06 16:16:03 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: ignored it. dum dum dum clc isn't litecoin.
 886 2012-01-06 16:16:05 <jgarzik> sipa: that seems logical
 887 2012-01-06 16:16:21 <jgarzik> sipa: for #735 just maybe leave it outside CService
 888 2012-01-06 16:16:40 <sipa> ok, fair enough
 889 2012-01-06 16:17:06 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: (er, I'm not calling you dumb there, the dum dum dum was supposted to be dramatic sound effects like a mystery being revealed— I just realized that could be misunderstood)
 890 2012-01-06 16:17:23 <Diablo-D3> that'd be dun dun dun
 891 2012-01-06 16:17:25 * k9quaint stops crying
 892 2012-01-06 16:17:51 <k9quaint> I didn't know you wrote lisp
 893 2012-01-06 16:18:34 <ovidiusoft> slush: hi :)
 894 2012-01-06 16:21:55 <k9quaint> oh god, I feel so much dumber having read the thread about CLC on the alt currency forums
 895 2012-01-06 16:22:14 <k9quaint> afk while my brain leaks from my ears
 896 2012-01-06 16:27:22 kobier has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 897 2012-01-06 16:28:03 terrytibbs has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 898 2012-01-06 16:28:23 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 899 2012-01-06 16:30:30 <jgarzik> sipa: fundamentally a "socket", speaking generally, encapsulates two CServce's (local and remote addr/port)
 900 2012-01-06 16:30:59 <jgarzik> and "connect" operation occurs on a socket, not an addr/port pair
 901 2012-01-06 16:34:25 kobier has joined
 902 2012-01-06 16:35:01 <makomk> Any pools in here mining using an OP_EVAL capable version of bitcoin?
 903 2012-01-06 16:35:28 Uiuiui has joined
 904 2012-01-06 16:37:04 theorbtwo has joined
 905 2012-01-06 16:38:37 coblee_ has joined
 906 2012-01-06 16:39:30 terrytibbs has joined
 907 2012-01-06 16:40:59 <makomk> Hmmm. It looks like luke-jr is really lucky I don't hold much of a grudge right now.
 908 2012-01-06 16:41:21 <JFK911> why?  can you ruin him?
 909 2012-01-06 16:41:23 coblee has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 910 2012-01-06 16:41:24 coblee_ is now known as coblee
 911 2012-01-06 16:42:34 finway has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 912 2012-01-06 16:42:48 <[Tycho]> makomk: almost. But evaluation is not enabled before 1.02.2012
 913 2012-01-06 16:43:24 <makomk> [Tycho]: don't think it matters.
 914 2012-01-06 16:43:36 <[Tycho]> `why ?
 915 2012-01-06 16:44:08 <[Tycho]> But looks like I'll withdraw this support if no agreement on the future will arise
 916 2012-01-06 16:45:25 coblee_ has joined
 917 2012-01-06 16:48:14 <makomk> [Tycho]: there seems to be a really lovely denial of service attack against OP_EVAL enabled pools and miners that doesn't actually require it to be enabled or even used in the attack.
 918 2012-01-06 16:48:56 <jgarzik> slush: do you ack the "coinbaser" pull request, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/719 ?
 919 2012-01-06 16:49:09 coblee has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 920 2012-01-06 16:49:09 coblee_ is now known as coblee
 921 2012-01-06 16:49:10 <jgarzik> slush: trying to verify that luke-jr is not the only person who wants this
 922 2012-01-06 16:49:13 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: ^^
 923 2012-01-06 16:50:11 <sipa> slush doesn't use generation-based payouts iirc
 924 2012-01-06 16:50:13 b4epoche_ has joined
 925 2012-01-06 16:50:31 <sipa> but maybe is interested in changing?
 926 2012-01-06 16:50:49 <slush> I don't need that, but I don't have anything against that patch
 927 2012-01-06 16:51:36 gavinandresen has joined
 928 2012-01-06 16:51:37 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 929 2012-01-06 16:51:37 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 930 2012-01-06 16:51:45 <makomk> [Tycho]: http://pastebin.ca/2100481 - the sigop counting in the mining code is bugged and can be tricked into mining blocks that will never validate, I think.
 931 2012-01-06 16:52:06 <slush> I'm trying to implement block creation completely outside bitcoind, so I hope that I won't need any patches like this anymore
 932 2012-01-06 16:52:57 altamic has joined
 933 2012-01-06 16:53:41 <makomk> I think the transactions required should pass IsStandard too.
 934 2012-01-06 16:54:22 <[Tycho]> Hmm.
 935 2012-01-06 16:55:32 <makomk> Quite evil; in my tests with testnet in a box it chugs along normally but all the solved blocks are rejected.
 936 2012-01-06 16:56:02 <gavinandresen> That's my backported OP_EVAL patches?
 937 2012-01-06 16:56:11 <gavinandresen> Or something else?
 938 2012-01-06 16:56:28 datagutt has quit (Excess Flood)
 939 2012-01-06 16:56:49 altamic has quit (Client Quit)
 940 2012-01-06 16:56:49 <gavinandresen> (I implemented correct sigop counting for pay-to-script-hash yesterday, haven't backported it yet)
 941 2012-01-06 16:56:50 <makomk> gavinandresen: this is in git head, I still haven't got around to digging up and compiling your patches.
 942 2012-01-06 16:56:57 datagutt has joined
 943 2012-01-06 16:56:58 erus` has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.88 [Firefox 8.0/20111104165243])
 944 2012-01-06 16:58:06 <gavinandresen> makomk: latest code is https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/tree/pay_to_script_hash
 945 2012-01-06 16:58:35 <gavinandresen> It'll be a pull request as soon as I generate and spend and validate a few transactions on testnet
 946 2012-01-06 16:59:20 gp5st has joined
 947 2012-01-06 16:59:44 gp5st has left ()
 948 2012-01-06 17:02:03 <makomk> gavinandresen: ah, I think that fixes it by checking both sigops limits in CreateNewBlock?
 949 2012-01-06 17:02:09 <gavinandresen> yes
 950 2012-01-06 17:02:26 <makomk> Ah good.
 951 2012-01-06 17:02:31 <gavinandresen> (or should, anyway-- I'll test on testnet)
 952 2012-01-06 17:02:44 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 953 2012-01-06 17:04:52 booo has joined
 954 2012-01-06 17:08:26 <gavinandresen> Did somebody generate a really long from-the-genesis-block chain on testnet to play with valid-block spamming?
 955 2012-01-06 17:09:36 pickett has joined
 956 2012-01-06 17:15:17 watson787 has joined
 957 2012-01-06 17:17:07 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 958 2012-01-06 17:19:10 BlueMatt has joined
 959 2012-01-06 17:29:29 erus` has joined
 960 2012-01-06 17:30:34 m00p has joined
 961 2012-01-06 17:30:38 erus` has left ()
 962 2012-01-06 17:32:33 pyckeCH has quit ()
 963 2012-01-06 17:32:54 erle- has joined
 964 2012-01-06 17:39:10 <UukGoblin> hm, is there a list of major (network-rules) changes between 0.3.22 and 0.5.1?
 965 2012-01-06 17:39:29 <UukGoblin> I know the fee was decreased from 0.01 to 0.0005, but looking if there's more stuff like that?
 966 2012-01-06 17:40:20 <sipa> no network rules changed
 967 2012-01-06 17:40:59 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: An attack related to the propagation of a particular kind of never-confirmable transactions was closed.
 968 2012-01-06 17:41:00 <UukGoblin> the fee is something less than a network rule... is that a network standard or sth like that?
 969 2012-01-06 17:41:56 <gavinandresen> what do you mean by "network rules" ?
 970 2012-01-06 17:42:13 <UukGoblin> yeah exactly ;-) not sure myself, stuff like the fee change ;-)
 971 2012-01-06 17:42:27 <[Tycho]> My nodes still use 0.01 as minimal fee.
 972 2012-01-06 17:42:47 <gavinandresen> That would be an "I'm willing to relay transactions that satisfy these properties" rule.  Need a good name for that.... "relay rules" ?
 973 2012-01-06 17:43:19 <gavinandresen> ... and "I'm willing to put transactions that satisfy these rules into blocks I mine" rules.
 974 2012-01-06 17:43:32 <UukGoblin> there'd be relay rules, block-acceptance rules, and "hard" (?) rules
 975 2012-01-06 17:43:39 <gmaxwell> Yea, we've had this discussion before.. also rules that fork and don't fork are different.
 976 2012-01-06 17:43:45 <gavinandresen> Sounds good.
 977 2012-01-06 17:43:58 <gmaxwell> Relay-rules, protocol-rules, and 'bitcoin algorithim' (the part you can't change)
 978 2012-01-06 17:44:06 <gavinandresen> I don't think there is a list of relay or block-acceptance rule changes.  We have been careful not to make any hard rule changes.
 979 2012-01-06 17:44:09 <UukGoblin> mined-block-acceptance and others-block-acceptance
 980 2012-01-06 17:44:49 <UukGoblin> i.e. 1MB blocksize limit would be "bitcoin algorithm" by gmaxwell's terms
 981 2012-01-06 17:45:13 <UukGoblin> (or "hard" rule by mine)
 982 2012-01-06 17:45:27 <UukGoblin> the txn fee would be a relay-rule
 983 2012-01-06 17:45:35 <UukGoblin> well, not necessarily...
 984 2012-01-06 17:45:52 <UukGoblin> there's a difference between relaying, accepting in a self-mined block, and accepting in someone else's block :-P
 985 2012-01-06 17:46:17 jacobwg has joined
 986 2012-01-06 17:48:14 watson787 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 987 2012-01-06 17:49:41 theorb has joined
 988 2012-01-06 17:50:20 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 989 2012-01-06 17:50:34 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
 990 2012-01-06 17:52:34 kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 991 2012-01-06 17:54:44 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 992 2012-01-06 17:56:59 Uiuiui has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 993 2012-01-06 17:58:28 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 994 2012-01-06 17:58:45 theorbtwo has joined
 995 2012-01-06 17:59:19 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 996 2012-01-06 18:09:41 da2ce7 has joined
 997 2012-01-06 18:10:39 B0g4r7_ has joined
 998 2012-01-06 18:10:59 m00p has joined
 999 2012-01-06 18:11:04 exahash has joined
1000 2012-01-06 18:11:56 kiba has joined
1001 2012-01-06 18:13:32 B0g4r7__ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1002 2012-01-06 18:14:27 imsaguy2 is now known as dissipate
1003 2012-01-06 18:14:41 dissipate is now known as imsaguy
1004 2012-01-06 18:15:30 wizkid057 has quit (sleep!~wizkid057@c-71-226-219-178.hsd1.nj.comcast.net|Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1005 2012-01-06 18:17:06 jacobwg has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
1006 2012-01-06 18:17:44 Kolky has joined
1007 2012-01-06 18:18:44 abragin has joined
1008 2012-01-06 18:18:45 abragin has quit (Changing host)
1009 2012-01-06 18:18:45 abragin has joined
1010 2012-01-06 18:25:13 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1011 2012-01-06 18:25:59 abragin has left ()
1012 2012-01-06 18:26:45 Nesetalis has quit (Quit: <+shponka> how does one scissor with four people <+shponka> hypercube tribadism)
1013 2012-01-06 18:29:35 terrytibbs has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1014 2012-01-06 18:29:37 kobier has quit (Write error: Connection reset by peer)
1015 2012-01-06 18:31:30 terrytibbs has joined
1016 2012-01-06 18:36:15 ahihi2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1017 2012-01-06 18:39:06 <gavinandresen> Interesting: transaction spam in another context:  "Regulators might be able to combat this by imposing a fee on traders who introduce excessive messages into the data stream."
1018 2012-01-06 18:39:13 <gavinandresen> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/bloomberg-view-greeces-least-bad-option-trading-and-regulating-at-light-speed-01052012_page_2.html
1019 2012-01-06 18:41:19 kobier has joined
1020 2012-01-06 18:43:55 safra has joined
1021 2012-01-06 18:48:55 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1022 2012-01-06 18:54:35 Nicksasa has joined
1023 2012-01-06 19:01:24 BlueMatt has joined
1024 2012-01-06 19:02:52 m00p has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1025 2012-01-06 19:03:58 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: is http://pastebin.ca/2100481 a real threat? if so, do you have a fix?
1026 2012-01-06 19:05:01 wasabi3 has joined
1027 2012-01-06 19:05:13 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: yes, it is a real threat.
1028 2012-01-06 19:05:40 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: ... and I'm testing the latest pay-to-script-hash code on testnet right now to make sure it isn't vulnerable.
1029 2012-01-06 19:05:57 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: so … fix for OP_EVAL, or shall I just revert OP_EVAL out?
1030 2012-01-06 19:06:03 <gavinandresen> revert OP_EVAL out
1031 2012-01-06 19:06:44 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1032 2012-01-06 19:08:34 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1033 2012-01-06 19:08:52 ahihi2 has joined
1034 2012-01-06 19:14:38 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1035 2012-01-06 19:15:10 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: how is that a threat, as I read it it creates a multisend of 1000xCENT/100 sends to a multisig script which has one pubkey
1036 2012-01-06 19:15:16 <BlueMatt> am I reading it wrong?
1037 2012-01-06 19:15:56 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1038 2012-01-06 19:16:15 vigilyn has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1039 2012-01-06 19:16:21 <makomk> BlueMatt: that transaction exceeds MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS by the old algorithm. No block containing it can possibly be valid.
1040 2012-01-06 19:16:39 <BlueMatt> ahhh, ofc
1041 2012-01-06 19:17:07 MobiusL has joined
1042 2012-01-06 19:17:32 <makomk> Unfortunately, the OP_EVAL version of the mining code doesn't realise this when deciding which transactions to include; it only checks against the new way of computing sigops.
1043 2012-01-06 19:17:47 <BlueMatt> mmm, ok
1044 2012-01-06 19:17:47 <BlueMatt> makes sense then
1045 2012-01-06 19:18:30 <roconnor> BlueMatt: what's the difference between old and "new" methods of counting?
1046 2012-01-06 19:19:38 vigilyn has joined
1047 2012-01-06 19:20:14 <luke-jr> FWIW: Eligius no longer supports OP_EVAL per Gavin's recommendation
1048 2012-01-06 19:20:42 <BlueMatt> good
1049 2012-01-06 19:22:23 Nicksasa has joined
1050 2012-01-06 19:27:29 caedes_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1051 2012-01-06 19:29:42 <makomk> I wonder how long it would've taken for someone to notice that being exploited in the wild, actually.
1052 2012-01-06 19:30:15 <gavinandresen> makomk: it was on my list to fix when we switched from OP_EVAL to pay-to-script-hash....
1053 2012-01-06 19:30:47 <makomk> gavinandresen: yeah, figured as much from the fact you had a fix ready already.
1054 2012-01-06 19:30:58 <gavinandresen> And it couldn't be exploited on main net unless the miner was mining non-standard transactions
1055 2012-01-06 19:31:12 <makomk> Ah, I see. Curious.
1056 2012-01-06 19:32:14 <gavinandresen> makomk: can you generate a malicious transaction or three on testnet right now?
1057 2012-01-06 19:32:39 <gavinandresen> (so I can be lazy and don't have to compile your code...)
1058 2012-01-06 19:33:07 <makomk> OK, done, no idea if they'll get broadcast though.
1059 2012-01-06 19:33:38 <gavinandresen> makomk: thanks.  If I don't see them I'll compile a bitcoind and -connect directly to myself
1060 2012-01-06 19:33:47 <luke-jr> makomk: no hard feelings i hope, I didn't actually realize you were behind Coiledcoin when I started
1061 2012-01-06 19:34:13 <BlueMatt> what was the point of Coiledcoin?
1062 2012-01-06 19:34:22 <makomk> (Also, it looked to me like 1-of-1 multisig transactions *should* in theory pass IsStandard at least in git head.)
1063 2012-01-06 19:34:24 * luke-jr still hasn't figured that out, if it wasn't a scam
1064 2012-01-06 19:35:06 <luke-jr> makomk: testnet shouldn't be checking IsStandard
1065 2012-01-06 19:35:09 <gavinandresen> Does BIP 11 say 1-of-1 isn't IsStandard?  (... goes to look....)
1066 2012-01-06 19:35:34 <makomk> BlueMatt: mostly it was intended as a way to try things based on multi-signature transactions in the wild.
1067 2012-01-06 19:35:45 <luke-jr> IMO, BIPs should not deal with IsStandard…
1068 2012-01-06 19:35:49 <gavinandresen> BIP 11 says m-of-n where n is less than 3.  so 1-of-1 should be IsStandard.
1069 2012-01-06 19:35:58 <luke-jr> IsStandard is a draconian bitcoind rule, not network rules :p
1070 2012-01-06 19:36:14 <luke-jr> makomk: why not just build OP_EVAL-enabled testnet then?
1071 2012-01-06 19:36:21 <gavinandresen> I think it is useful to define cross-implementation "this is how we are going to do it" transaction forms.
1072 2012-01-06 19:36:46 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: sure, but thanks to OP_EVAL/P2SH semantics, it doesn't matter
1073 2012-01-06 19:36:51 <gavinandresen> Because otherwise we'll get fourteen different ways of doing something, and different clients will recognize different forms....
1074 2012-01-06 19:36:58 <luke-jr> so?
1075 2012-01-06 19:37:32 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: sure it matters, if there are three different ways to do a 2-of-3 escrow transaction, and I want my client to have a category of "coins in escrow", then it needs to recognize the transaction form for "2-of-3 escrow"
1076 2012-01-06 19:37:33 <luke-jr> the recipient uses a script the recipient recognizes
1077 2012-01-06 19:39:02 <jgarzik> pay-to-script-hash is really nice
1078 2012-01-06 19:39:07 * jgarzik is studying in depth
1079 2012-01-06 19:39:17 <gavinandresen> If I coded the client to trust that some arbitrary hash is a 2-of-3 escrow then that opens up all sorts of possible nasty hacks
1080 2012-01-06 19:39:36 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: you're missing the part that the recipient chooses what script in the first place
1081 2012-01-06 19:39:49 <luke-jr> so each receiver can make up their own templates and not need to worry about other receivers
1082 2012-01-06 19:39:56 <gavinandresen> 2-of-3 escrow there is no recipient, that's the point
1083 2012-01-06 19:40:17 <gavinandresen> (well, there is no recipient until the escrow completes)
1084 2012-01-06 19:40:19 [eval] has joined
1085 2012-01-06 19:40:22 iocor has joined
1086 2012-01-06 19:40:22 iocor has quit (Changing host)
1087 2012-01-06 19:40:22 iocor has joined
1088 2012-01-06 19:40:28 <luke-jr> good point
1089 2012-01-06 19:40:28 <makomk> Yeah, all three parties need to be able to trust that the transaction does what it's meant to do.
1090 2012-01-06 19:40:36 <gavinandresen> exactly
1091 2012-01-06 19:40:45 <gavinandresen> ... hence the need for some standard way of representing it
1092 2012-01-06 19:41:11 <BlueMatt> it also makes script solving a shitton easier
1093 2012-01-06 19:42:33 <gavinandresen> Yup, digging out the public keys involved, and figuring out how they are involved, is really hard if you have to execute the script to find out.
1094 2012-01-06 19:43:01 <gavinandresen> (and maybe impossible, since you can do bizarre stuff like    CHECKSIG   IF ... do something ELSE ...do something else ENDIF
1095 2012-01-06 19:43:30 <helo> does OP_EVAL not "pay to script hash"?
1096 2012-01-06 19:43:54 <gavinandresen> OP_EVAL is a superset of pay-to-script-hash
1097 2012-01-06 19:44:20 <gavinandresen> or maybe: pay-to-script-hash is OP_EVAL beaten into submission.
1098 2012-01-06 19:44:29 <gavinandresen> neutered
1099 2012-01-06 19:44:34 <gavinandresen> rendered mostly harmless
1100 2012-01-06 19:45:20 <luke-jr> pay-to-script-hash is OP_EVAL
1101 2012-01-06 19:45:52 <luke-jr> current "P2SH" is a magic special-cased alternative to OP_EVAL, to eliminate scriptPubKey in a compatible way instead of extending it
1102 2012-01-06 19:47:04 * BlueMatt takes this opportunity to bug gavinandresen yet again to add OP_NOP1 to the beginning/end
1103 2012-01-06 19:48:37 <gavinandresen> I don't see why special-casing  HASH160 <> EQUAL NOP1   is any better than special-casing HASH160 <> EQUAL
1104 2012-01-06 19:49:06 <gavinandresen> And I can clearly see why it is worse (one byte longer, uses up a NOP opcode)
1105 2012-01-06 19:49:35 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: not special-casing it, but making it the new action
1106 2012-01-06 19:49:50 <makomk> It's slightly more obvious that something magic is going on with the former; the latter looks like a simple easy to understand transaction but does something magic.
1107 2012-01-06 19:49:53 <BlueMatt> because if you have an OP_NOP1 its clearly something that has been added
1108 2012-01-06 19:49:57 <gavinandresen> ?? making what the new action ??  making NOP1 do the OP_EVAL thing?
1109 2012-01-06 19:51:30 <gavinandresen> makomk: is slightly-more-obvious worth the extra byte?  I vote no.
1110 2012-01-06 19:51:47 <BlueMatt> one byte?
1111 2012-01-06 19:51:56 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: making "NOP1" do the new action: run the script
1112 2012-01-06 19:51:56 Guest69311 has joined
1113 2012-01-06 19:51:57 Guest69311 is now known as diki
1114 2012-01-06 19:52:11 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: then you are back at OP_EVAL...
1115 2012-01-06 19:52:15 <luke-jr> exactly
1116 2012-01-06 19:52:19 <BlueMatt> no
1117 2012-01-06 19:53:22 <gavinandresen> yes, no, we had that argument and the consensus is full OP_EVAL is too much for now.
1118 2012-01-06 19:53:34 imsaguy is now known as imsaguy2
1119 2012-01-06 19:54:08 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1120 2012-01-06 19:54:27 rdponticelli has joined
1121 2012-01-06 19:55:18 vigilyn has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1122 2012-01-06 20:03:30 imsaguy2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1123 2012-01-06 20:03:55 imsaguy has joined
1124 2012-01-06 20:03:55 imsaguy has quit (Changing host)
1125 2012-01-06 20:03:55 imsaguy has joined
1126 2012-01-06 20:04:02 imsaguy is now known as imsaguy2
1127 2012-01-06 20:16:09 dvide has joined
1128 2012-01-06 20:17:35 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1129 2012-01-06 20:18:21 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: imo it just comes down to do you want the scripting stuff to be cleaner, or do you want the scripting stuff to save a byte on each txout
1130 2012-01-06 20:18:43 <gavinandresen> HASH160 <> EQUAL looks cleaner to me.
1131 2012-01-06 20:18:46 <BlueMatt> I would say if we are that crazy about bytes, there are other ways to save, so we might as well be consistent
1132 2012-01-06 20:18:57 <luke-jr> special-case is not clean
1133 2012-01-06 20:18:57 <BlueMatt> but its still magic crap
1134 2012-01-06 20:19:19 <gavinandresen> .... and either way is magic crap....
1135 2012-01-06 20:19:22 <luke-jr> except as a "scriptPubKey no longer allowed; this exists only for compatibility"
1136 2012-01-06 20:19:28 <BlueMatt> OP_NOP1 is less magic
1137 2012-01-06 20:19:55 <BlueMatt> if you want to save a byte, make everyone use ptsh and just drop HASH160 + EQUAL
1138 2012-01-06 20:19:59 <gavinandresen> How is it any less magic?  What if I send a HASH <> EQUAL NOP1 NOP1 ?
1139 2012-01-06 20:20:27 <BlueMatt> if a client sees NOP1, it can safely assume something is going on that is above its head
1140 2012-01-06 20:20:30 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: becuase you're adding new behaviour via the defined mechanism for extension
1141 2012-01-06 20:20:34 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: that'll be a good option if/when there is universal support for p2sh
1142 2012-01-06 20:20:35 <luke-jr> not special-casing existing behaviour
1143 2012-01-06 20:21:09 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: you didn't answer my question:  what should the code do if it gets a scriptPubKey that has two NOP1's on the end?
1144 2012-01-06 20:21:41 <BlueMatt> its not a question of what it should do; it should obv ignore the NOP1 and treat it as a non-ptsh tx
1145 2012-01-06 20:21:51 <BlueMatt> its a question of how clean it looks
1146 2012-01-06 20:22:12 <gavinandresen> Again, no wonky NOP-at-the-end looks cleaner to me.
1147 2012-01-06 20:22:23 <luke-jr> …
1148 2012-01-06 20:22:29 <BlueMatt> (also, HASH <> EQUAL NOP1 in your existing implementation should treat it as a non-ptsh, correct?)
1149 2012-01-06 20:22:33 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: that's even worse than gavinandresen's
1150 2012-01-06 20:22:50 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: what is?
1151 2012-01-06 20:22:58 <luke-jr> special-casing it with a NOP1 at the end
1152 2012-01-06 20:23:00 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: yes, the BIP says that the bytes must be exactly:  HASH160 then 0x14 then twenty hash bytes then EQUAL
1153 2012-01-06 20:23:05 <gavinandresen> 23 bytes in all
1154 2012-01-06 20:23:07 <luke-jr> but not treating NOP1 as a new action
1155 2012-01-06 20:23:14 <gavinandresen> First two and last one defines p2sh
1156 2012-01-06 20:23:36 <gavinandresen> No using PUSHDATA4 to push the hash....
1157 2012-01-06 20:24:10 <gavinandresen> I just don't see the reason to make the rules "24 bytes in all, first two must be this, last two must be that...."
1158 2012-01-06 20:24:54 <gavinandresen> And I'd really rather stop arguing over what color to paint this bike shed.  Does it matter?
1159 2012-01-06 20:25:01 <BlueMatt> because, as luke points out, in that way you are extending scripts in the previously-defined method for extension, instead of extending it using some special-case crap
1160 2012-01-06 20:25:23 <luke-jr> OP_EVAL should just have restrictions added…
1161 2012-01-06 20:25:31 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: again, it will be special-case-crap in any case-- the code is going to look for a particular pattern of bytes in the scriptPubKey
1162 2012-01-06 20:25:35 <luke-jr> "script must have been pushed by a simple OP_PUSHDATA" for example
1163 2012-01-06 20:26:01 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: still too hard to prove correctness
1164 2012-01-06 20:26:15 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: then a CODESEP version
1165 2012-01-06 20:26:29 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that's the problme
1166 2012-01-06 20:27:57 <gavinandresen> testnet block with BIP 16 transactions in it, by the way:  http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/block/000000000182cc0764d6c6b2b43a009fc9dc0cb03e9002249e7e865b7189acf8
1167 2012-01-06 20:29:40 zooko has joined
1168 2012-01-06 20:29:56 larsivi has joined
1169 2012-01-06 20:30:04 <BlueMatt> ;;seen gmaxwell
1170 2012-01-06 20:30:04 <gribble> gmaxwell was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 2 hours, 46 minutes, and 4 seconds ago: <gmaxwell> Relay-rules, protocol-rules, and 'bitcoin algorithim' (the part you can't change)
1171 2012-01-06 20:30:23 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: what would you recommend for single-thread profiling?
1172 2012-01-06 20:32:01 Cablesaurus has joined
1173 2012-01-06 20:32:01 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
1174 2012-01-06 20:32:01 Cablesaurus has joined
1175 2012-01-06 20:32:36 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: btw, did you start the 0.5.2 builds?
1176 2012-01-06 20:33:06 <luke-jr> slush: you changed your mind about using coinbaser?
1177 2012-01-06 20:33:10 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: no, been busy arguing with people about issues I thought had already reached consensus
1178 2012-01-06 20:33:17 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: luke-jr asked me that a day ago. I'm not sure, never actually cared to just profile a single thread except via strace (which is actually a useful profiling tool with the -c / -t / etc timing options)
1179 2012-01-06 20:33:56 <luke-jr> slush: would you like to collaborate on eloipool with me? https://gitorious.org/bitcoin/eloipool
1180 2012-01-06 20:35:11 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: gavinandresen opened issue 747 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/747>
1181 2012-01-06 20:36:29 Elwar has joined
1182 2012-01-06 20:38:27 <makomk> gavinandresen: by the way, what exactly made those transactions non-standard anyway?
1183 2012-01-06 20:39:37 <gavinandresen> makomk: CHECKMULTISIG is non-standard for most of the network right now
1184 2012-01-06 20:40:18 <gavinandresen> I'll edit the issue to be more precise, you're right if you're running git head they would be standard
1185 2012-01-06 20:40:51 <makomk> Ah. Did your backports of OP_EVAL not change IsStandard at the same time then?
1186 2012-01-06 20:41:18 exahash has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1187 2012-01-06 20:41:46 <gavinandresen> fine, recent git head OR backported OP_EVAL....
1188 2012-01-06 20:44:30 <makomk> Yeah. Those were the ones I was most worried about; even if nodes without OP_EVAL tried to include the transaction the worst that could happen is that they'd stop processing other transactions IIRC.
1189 2012-01-06 20:45:12 <luke-jr> to clarify: Eligius is no longer treating OP_EVAL special, but is still advertising its support for OP_EVAL in coinbases
1190 2012-01-06 20:50:17 magn3ts_ has joined
1191 2012-01-06 20:50:50 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1192 2012-01-06 20:52:14 RazielZ has joined
1193 2012-01-06 20:52:28 Nesetalis has joined
1194 2012-01-06 20:52:57 sb has joined
1195 2012-01-06 20:54:30 gfinn has joined
1196 2012-01-06 20:59:43 knotwork_ has joined
1197 2012-01-06 21:00:19 NickelBot2 has joined
1198 2012-01-06 21:00:33 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1199 2012-01-06 21:01:48 <slush> luke-jr: I want to implement pool as a service for Stratum server. Feel free to join the effort :). Actually I want to implement pool on top of Twisted, because I have very good experience with longpolling daemon in twisted already
1200 2012-01-06 21:02:16 <luke-jr> no idea what Stratum is, I dislike Twisted, and Eloipool is Python
1201 2012-01-06 21:02:21 b4epoche_ has joined
1202 2012-01-06 21:02:26 NickelBot2 is now known as NickelBot
1203 2012-01-06 21:02:35 <slush> luke-jr: I have improved mining interface already in my mind, which can be even backward compatible with getwork interface with some local proxy on miner side
1204 2012-01-06 21:02:48 <slush> luke-jr: twisted is asynchronous python
1205 2012-01-06 21:02:50 <luke-jr> slush: Eloipool is modular and mostly working
1206 2012-01-06 21:02:55 <slush> luke-jr: and stratum is my project: stratum.bitcoin.cz
1207 2012-01-06 21:02:58 sb has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
1208 2012-01-06 21:03:00 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1209 2012-01-06 21:03:12 <slush> luke-jr: but written with threads, so no significant improvement against my current code
1210 2012-01-06 21:03:24 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1211 2012-01-06 21:03:24 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1212 2012-01-06 21:03:36 <slush> luke-jr: pool does not need to be modular. It must be fast and stable :)
1213 2012-01-06 21:03:45 <luke-jr> slush: it is fast :p
1214 2012-01-06 21:03:56 <luke-jr> the JSON-RPC module is not stable, but everything else seems to be
1215 2012-01-06 21:04:34 <luke-jr> I prefer pure-Python async ;)
1216 2012-01-06 21:05:50 <luke-jr> but the JSON-RPC module in Eloipool right now is just a multithreaded hack
1217 2012-01-06 21:05:58 <luke-jr> I threw it together basically just for testing :p
1218 2012-01-06 21:08:12 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: you can do per-thread stuff in oprofile, see tid profile specification and --separate
1219 2012-01-06 21:08:32 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I tried that and it didn't work
1220 2012-01-06 21:08:39 <slush> luke-jr: I'm reading the code...
1221 2012-01-06 21:08:48 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: is working for me...
1222 2012-01-06 21:09:13 <slush> not bad, but I don't want to use standard getwork interface anyway
1223 2012-01-06 21:09:35 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: watch --interval=1 "opcontrol --dump && opreport -l tid:7819 | head -30 ; opcontrol --reset"
1224 2012-01-06 21:09:44 <luke-jr> slush: so write another module for the interface you want :P
1225 2012-01-06 21:09:56 <luke-jr> slush: the network interface is intentionally abstracted away
1226 2012-01-06 21:10:22 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: that doesn't work
1227 2012-01-06 21:10:44 <slush> luke-jr: what's the licence?
1228 2012-01-06 21:10:56 <luke-jr> slush: I was thinking AGPL. Would that be ok?
1229 2012-01-06 21:11:05 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: it appears to be very poorly written and most of the code ignores it, but its there and is working for me...
1230 2012-01-06 21:11:18 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: huh?
1231 2012-01-06 21:11:44 <BlueMatt> (not your commands obv)
1232 2012-01-06 21:12:25 graingert has joined
1233 2012-01-06 21:12:51 <slush> luke-jr: nice, I'll at least use some code from you, like merkle generation. I'll opensource my code as well.
1234 2012-01-06 21:13:29 <luke-jr> slush: well, I'm more looking to collaborate than for someone to borrow/use my code <.<
1235 2012-01-06 21:14:00 <slush> :)
1236 2012-01-06 21:15:42 graingert has quit (Client Quit)
1237 2012-01-06 21:15:53 <slush> luke-jr: then some more restrictive licence will do the work
1238 2012-01-06 21:15:59 [\\\] is now known as imsaguy
1239 2012-01-06 21:16:02 <luke-jr> slush: you are familiar with the AGPL terms? ;)
1240 2012-01-06 21:16:19 <slush> luke-jr: seriously. I have already concept in my head, after more than year of running pool on current core
1241 2012-01-06 21:16:27 <slush> a little :)
1242 2012-01-06 21:16:34 <luke-jr> what's wrong with Eloipool concept?
1243 2012-01-06 21:18:41 baxter- has joined
1244 2012-01-06 21:18:43 baxter- has quit (Client Quit)
1245 2012-01-06 21:18:54 <slush> luke-jr: don't take it personally, but there's more threads and global variables than expected :)
1246 2012-01-06 21:19:26 <luke-jr> slush: pretty sure all the global variables are in the eloipool.py that I haven't really written yet :P
1247 2012-01-06 21:19:49 <luke-jr> the threads are necessary to utilize multiple cores at all
1248 2012-01-06 21:19:49 <slush> actually it's my bad that I don't understand this type of code
1249 2012-01-06 21:20:01 <slush> luke-jr: if you're familiar with python....
1250 2012-01-06 21:20:09 <slush> ...then you know how much you're wrong ;)
1251 2012-01-06 21:20:20 <luke-jr> I know Python has terrible thread support *right now* ;)
1252 2012-01-06 21:20:26 <luke-jr> I also know it doesn't matter yet
1253 2012-01-06 21:20:33 xenland has joined
1254 2012-01-06 21:20:41 <luke-jr> and that making it single-threaded wouldn't gain anything
1255 2012-01-06 21:20:43 graingert has joined
1256 2012-01-06 21:20:48 graingert has quit (Changing host)
1257 2012-01-06 21:20:48 graingert has joined
1258 2012-01-06 21:21:11 Joric has quit ()
1259 2012-01-06 21:21:22 xenland has left ()
1260 2012-01-06 21:21:57 <slush> the GIL is so deep in the interpreter that I don't think we ever see really parallel interpreter of CPython
1261 2012-01-06 21:21:59 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, cpython has terrible thread support
1262 2012-01-06 21:22:06 <luke-jr> anyhow, the *real* code is strictly in modular components that (in theory) are more or less isolated from each other
1263 2012-01-06 21:22:12 <phantomcircuit> jython (which is terrible) has mediocre thread support
1264 2012-01-06 21:22:12 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: I just said I know that :P
1265 2012-01-06 21:22:16 <phantomcircuit> oh
1266 2012-01-06 21:22:23 <phantomcircuit> im too lazy to read full sentences
1267 2012-01-06 21:22:28 <slush> phantomcircuit: jython is slow as hell
1268 2012-01-06 21:22:39 <phantomcircuit> slush, yeah it's terrible
1269 2012-01-06 21:22:52 <phantomcircuit> its so slow for a ton of reasons
1270 2012-01-06 21:23:09 <luke-jr> also, if it became an issue, I could always port it to C ;p
1271 2012-01-06 21:23:11 <phantomcircuit> not the least of which is that the python interpreter actually compiles to byte code anyways
1272 2012-01-06 21:23:13 <slush> well, then python is de-facto single threaded, why bloat the code with threads? they're only overcomplicating things
1273 2012-01-06 21:23:23 <luke-jr> slush: threads simplify things, actually
1274 2012-01-06 21:23:26 <luke-jr> and don't bloat
1275 2012-01-06 21:23:36 <luke-jr> unless you do one thread per connection
1276 2012-01-06 21:23:36 <phantomcircuit> what are we talking about here?
1277 2012-01-06 21:23:40 wizkid057 has joined
1278 2012-01-06 21:23:41 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: Eloipool
1279 2012-01-06 21:23:45 <phantomcircuit> oh
1280 2012-01-06 21:24:05 <phantomcircuit> thread per connect actually works reasonably well if you can judge how much stack each thread will need in advance
1281 2012-01-06 21:24:09 <slush> luke-jr: did you play with twisted before?
1282 2012-01-06 21:24:18 <phantomcircuit> and of course each connection is truly independent
1283 2012-01-06 21:24:20 <luke-jr> never had a need for it
1284 2012-01-06 21:24:30 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: https://gitorious.org/bitcoin/eloipool
1285 2012-01-06 21:24:33 wizkid057 is now known as sleep!~wizkid057@c-71-226-219-178.hsd1.nj.comcast.net|wizkid057
1286 2012-01-06 21:24:33 <phantomcircuit> twisted is a giant pile of crap
1287 2012-01-06 21:24:36 <phantomcircuit> seriously
1288 2012-01-06 21:24:40 <phantomcircuit> it doesn't even support ipv6
1289 2012-01-06 21:24:43 <luke-jr> wtf
1290 2012-01-06 21:24:56 * luke-jr wonders if Twisted even supports Python3
1291 2012-01-06 21:25:04 <phantomcircuit> i dont think so
1292 2012-01-06 21:25:06 <phantomcircuit> but it might
1293 2012-01-06 21:25:09 <slush> lol "it does not have ipv6, it's a crap"
1294 2012-01-06 21:25:16 <luke-jr> slush: that's totally true
1295 2012-01-06 21:25:27 <luke-jr> it's like not supporting IPv4 in 2000
1296 2012-01-06 21:25:39 <slush> twisted is completely different paradigm than standard python
1297 2012-01-06 21:25:49 <luke-jr> = fail
1298 2012-01-06 21:25:52 <Backburn2> ipv4 address exhaustion this year
1299 2012-01-06 21:25:58 <phantomcircuit> twisted is just a giant ridiculous wrapper around epoll and friends
1300 2012-01-06 21:26:02 <slush> sometimes I think twisted is more like separate language
1301 2012-01-06 21:26:15 <graingert> www.google.co.uk/search?q="it+does+not+have+ipv6%2C+it's+a+crap"
1302 2012-01-06 21:26:52 <luke-jr> slush: you say that as if it's a good thing
1303 2012-01-06 21:27:33 <slush> luke-jr: well, I'm not sure yet. I don't have so much experience with twisted as with standard python
1304 2012-01-06 21:27:39 <slush> but so far I'm really satisfied
1305 2012-01-06 21:27:58 <slush> I'm not surprised that you don't like it, anyway.
1306 2012-01-06 21:28:10 <helo> (flask is awesome for python web pages)
1307 2012-01-06 21:32:15 safra has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1308 2012-01-06 21:33:46 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: ping
1309 2012-01-06 21:37:18 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: pong
1310 2012-01-06 21:38:19 vsrinivas has joined
1311 2012-01-06 21:40:14 knotwork__ has joined
1312 2012-01-06 21:40:14 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: did you update the PPA?
1313 2012-01-06 21:40:43 <BlueMatt> oh, thanks for the reminder
1314 2012-01-06 21:41:20 <BlueMatt> wait, yea the ppa is on 0.5.1
1315 2012-01-06 21:41:25 <luke-jr> 0.5.2rc1 I mean
1316 2012-01-06 21:41:30 <luke-jr> or does PPA not have RCs?
1317 2012-01-06 21:41:38 <BlueMatt> graingert signed up to manage that
1318 2012-01-06 21:41:45 <luke-jr> ?
1319 2012-01-06 21:41:48 <graingert> hello
1320 2012-01-06 21:41:51 <graingert> eep
1321 2012-01-06 21:42:02 <graingert> *points at dissertation ganttchart*
1322 2012-01-06 21:42:03 <BlueMatt> graingert is the one who wanted an rc ppa, so he does that...
1323 2012-01-06 21:42:06 <BlueMatt> maybe if I get around to it...
1324 2012-01-06 21:42:33 <graingert> I'll be free Summer 2012
1325 2012-01-06 21:42:35 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1326 2012-01-06 21:42:48 knotwork_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1327 2012-01-06 21:42:49 pickett has joined
1328 2012-01-06 21:42:55 knotwork__ is now known as knotwork
1329 2012-01-06 21:43:17 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: can you build 0.5.0.3 and 0.4.3 as well?
1330 2012-01-06 21:44:11 <graingert> luke-jr: there is structure available for those
1331 2012-01-06 21:44:18 <luke-jr> graingert: ?
1332 2012-01-06 21:44:37 <graingert> ie on launchpad
1333 2012-01-06 21:44:59 <graingert> the big "plan" is to get auto builds from github working
1334 2012-01-06 21:45:14 NickelBot has joined
1335 2012-01-06 21:46:07 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: arg, yea when I have the time to reset my branch, Im working now...
1336 2012-01-06 21:46:39 <luke-jr> k
1337 2012-01-06 21:46:53 <luke-jr> graingert: no idea about LP BC stuff
1338 2012-01-06 21:47:24 <graingert> BC = Bitcoin?
1339 2012-01-06 21:48:16 <luke-jr> …yes
1340 2012-01-06 21:51:11 copumpkin is now known as BTC_Boar
1341 2012-01-06 21:51:39 BTC_Boar is now known as copumpkin
1342 2012-01-06 21:54:22 zooko has quit (Quit: bbiab)
1343 2012-01-06 22:00:51 theymos has joined
1344 2012-01-06 22:03:35 <luke-jr> jgarzik: FWIW, here is Eclipse's pool-op on coinbaser (followed by slush, who apparently moved on due to the delay) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46927.msg638500#msg638500
1345 2012-01-06 22:06:40 <slush> luke-jr: but with the eloipool, you don't need this patch anymore, right?
1346 2012-01-06 22:07:27 <luke-jr> slush: correct, this is more for improving bitcoind at this point
1347 2012-01-06 22:07:36 <gmaxwell> My own interest in it has been removed by the fact that I don't think I'll solo anymore without p2pool.
1348 2012-01-06 22:07:57 <luke-jr> also, lately I've thought I might not finish Eloipool if there's nobody to collaborate with
1349 2012-01-06 22:08:00 <luke-jr> too  much time
1350 2012-01-06 22:14:33 safra has joined
1351 2012-01-06 22:16:38 Ahimoth has joined
1352 2012-01-06 22:20:46 <[Tycho]> What's wrong with TX 8fc327a474792108e3c8c05f05e288c84b7458cf2cc73eab5ff25257dc55f767 and why it was stuck ?
1353 2012-01-06 22:21:44 zooko has joined
1354 2012-01-06 22:22:27 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1355 2012-01-06 22:22:37 dikidera has joined
1356 2012-01-06 22:23:49 diki has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1357 2012-01-06 22:25:52 <BlueMatt> [Tycho]: tx isnt on bitcoincharts or bbe
1358 2012-01-06 22:26:14 <[Tycho]> That's why I'm asking :)
1359 2012-01-06 22:26:26 <BlueMatt> has it  been announced?
1360 2012-01-06 22:26:56 <[Tycho]> I'm logging TXes received by my monitoring nodes, but not confirmed for a long time, to find out what's wrong with them.
1361 2012-01-06 22:27:52 <[Tycho]> So it was announced by someone.
1362 2012-01-06 22:27:59 <luke-jr> maybe only to [Tycho]?
1363 2012-01-06 22:28:02 <luke-jr> double spend attempt?
1364 2012-01-06 22:28:23 <[Tycho]> It's a third stuck TX in a couple of weeks.
1365 2012-01-06 22:28:35 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: doesn't your bitcoind log say why?
1366 2012-01-06 22:28:49 <gmaxwell> I put a bet on it using the same input twice.
1367 2012-01-06 22:28:59 <[Tycho]> I think it's accepted in memorypool.
1368 2012-01-06 22:29:18 <[Tycho]> gmaxwell guessed correctly :)
1369 2012-01-06 22:29:30 <[Tycho]> Where did those originate from ?
1370 2012-01-06 22:29:39 <gmaxwell> 01/06/12 04:47:04 sending getdata: tx 8fc327a474792108e3c8
1371 2012-01-06 22:29:39 <gmaxwell> 01/06/12 04:47:04 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool() : CheckTransaction failed
1372 2012-01-06 22:29:49 <[Tycho]> Some online wallet constructor ?
1373 2012-01-06 22:29:56 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: it's someone attempting to attack old clients.
1374 2012-01-06 22:30:05 <[Tycho]> Cool.
1375 2012-01-06 22:30:31 <[Tycho]> All 3 have this in common.
1376 2012-01-06 22:30:39 <[Tycho]> But this one has 3 inputs.
1377 2012-01-06 22:31:18 * BlueMatt doesnt get why, old clients wont accept them in a block...
1378 2012-01-06 22:31:25 <BlueMatt> (IIRC)
1379 2012-01-06 22:32:24 <sipa> flooding memory pool?
1380 2012-01-06 22:32:55 <BlueMatt> no, duplicate inputs
1381 2012-01-06 22:33:53 * roconnor hopes his client rejects it
1382 2012-01-06 22:33:56 <sipa> no, a possible reason to create such transaction is in order flood someoneś memory pool
1383 2012-01-06 22:34:07 <BlueMatt> oh, yea
1384 2012-01-06 22:34:11 <gmaxwell> I've never seen that many of them.
1385 2012-01-06 22:34:12 <[Tycho]> http://savepic.su/1141438.gif
1386 2012-01-06 22:34:37 <BlueMatt> sipa: would need to be more of them though...
1387 2012-01-06 22:34:49 <sipa> what is .su?
1388 2012-01-06 22:34:50 <[Tycho]> How old should be the client ?
1389 2012-01-06 22:34:58 <[Tycho]> sipa: Soviet Union
1390 2012-01-06 22:35:02 <gmaxwell> I suspect there are people accepting 0 confirms (e.g. for otc/forum trades, or maybe some websites) ... and someone is exploting them / attempting to.
1391 2012-01-06 22:36:23 slush has joined
1392 2012-01-06 22:37:03 <jrmithdobbs> ya i've seen them too
1393 2012-01-06 22:38:00 <roconnor> gmaxwell: that sounds clever
1394 2012-01-06 22:39:01 <[Tycho]> So old client will show it as received/unconfirmed ?
1395 2012-01-06 22:39:15 <gmaxwell> Yes. It'll be accepted to memory pool and show as received/unconfirmed.
1396 2012-01-06 22:39:20 <gmaxwell> and relayed.
1397 2012-01-06 22:39:33 <gmaxwell> Newer nodes drop them on ingress.
1398 2012-01-06 22:40:34 <roconnor> I guess telling people that 0 confirm transactions are probably okay wasn't such a hot idea after all.
1399 2012-01-06 22:40:42 <gmaxwell> another possibility is that they're not attacks at all.. but just memory errors in old nodes.
1400 2012-01-06 22:41:07 <gmaxwell> e.g. coinselection gets a bitflip and picks the same input twice.
1401 2012-01-06 22:41:14 <BlueMatt> who ever said that 0 confirm txes are probably ok?
1402 2012-01-06 22:41:24 <BlueMatt> 0 confirm txes can be ok, if you do enough work
1403 2012-01-06 22:41:34 <[Tycho]> I see those from time to time and wondering who creates them.
1404 2012-01-06 22:41:41 <gmaxwell> If you know the counterparty for example, or don't care if you get ripped off.
1405 2012-01-06 22:42:02 <BlueMatt> ok, well yea but in that case, a unconfirmable tx wont matter either
1406 2012-01-06 22:42:19 <BlueMatt> at that point, you might as well take no tx and just an ioweyou
1407 2012-01-06 22:42:20 <gmaxwell> What case?
1408 2012-01-06 22:42:33 <BlueMatt> either one
1409 2012-01-06 22:42:37 <[Tycho]> 0 confirm TXes are almost OK if all inputs are correct, no DS-TXes are known and the TX in question is accepted by my mining nodes.
1410 2012-01-06 22:42:44 <gmaxwell> well, no. I mean, it's easier to do a unconfirmable tx than a finny attack.
1411 2012-01-06 22:42:53 <roconnor> BlueMatt: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Point_of_sale_with_bitcoins_isn.27t_possible_because_of_the_10_minute_wait_for_confirmation #2 kinda vaguely says 0 confirm transactions are okay ... but maybe I was reading too much into it.
1412 2012-01-06 22:42:55 <[Tycho]> I am missing something ?
1413 2012-01-06 22:43:16 <sipa> 23:37:27 <@BlueMatt> who ever said that 0 confirm txes are probably ok?
1414 2012-01-06 22:43:20 <sipa> ---> satoshi
1415 2012-01-06 22:43:26 <gmaxwell> And yes, if you check to see that the txn is propagated (or better, in someone big's memorypool) you're much better off.
1416 2012-01-06 22:43:36 <BlueMatt> sipa: oh...
1417 2012-01-06 22:44:10 <gmaxwell> They _are_ usually okay. I mean, most of my txn are 10 btc or less. If I get finnyed over one of those I'd consider it a badge of honor.
1418 2012-01-06 22:44:11 <BlueMatt> roconnor: no, #2 says if the tx is in big miner's pools, its probably ok, which it is
1419 2012-01-06 22:44:40 <gmaxwell> Though he unconfirmable tx certantly lowers the security ther.
1420 2012-01-06 22:44:50 <[Tycho]> Also I wouldn't expect someone to try outhashing me for some 1-20 amounts conbined.
1421 2012-01-06 22:45:06 <BlueMatt> where the hell is operator<(const CInv& a, const CInv& b) used?
1422 2012-01-06 22:45:37 <sipa> BlueMatt: are CInv's not put in a Set?
1423 2012-01-06 22:45:38 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: w/ finny attack they don't have to try to outhash you.
1424 2012-01-06 22:45:47 <sipa> BlueMatt: i believe they are cached
1425 2012-01-06 22:46:02 <BlueMatt> sipa: oh, god Im a dumbass...
1426 2012-01-06 22:46:42 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: I mine a conflicting txn. wait until I have a block.. give a txn to a shop, they see it in your memory pool. They give me the goods, I tell you about my block...
1427 2012-01-06 22:46:54 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: you reorg onto it and toss the conflicting txn.
1428 2012-01-06 22:46:55 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1429 2012-01-06 22:47:28 <[Tycho]> I don't see a way to do this frequently.
1430 2012-01-06 22:47:39 <gmaxwell> Correct.
1431 2012-01-06 22:48:31 <[Tycho]> So in any way for accepting 0-c TX I would a) limit total amount of BTC/time for all such TXes, b) include some insurance fee.
1432 2012-01-06 22:50:11 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1433 2012-01-06 22:50:20 NickelBot2 has joined
1434 2012-01-06 22:50:25 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1435 2012-01-06 22:50:51 <BlueMatt> [Tycho]: and c) make sure those txes are in the mempool of >50% of mining power
1436 2012-01-06 22:51:00 <BlueMatt> and better to check even more
1437 2012-01-06 22:51:42 <BlueMatt> a) is just for your protection, reasonably you can accept as much as you want as long as you charge enough insurance fees
1438 2012-01-06 22:51:47 <[Tycho]> BlueMatt: that was another proposal - the mining cartel. Slush agrees with me, but many miners won't accept this easily.
1439 2012-01-06 22:52:00 <BlueMatt> [Tycho]: that doesnt mean mining cartel
1440 2012-01-06 22:52:10 <BlueMatt> you just need a way to peer with nodes of other mining pools
1441 2012-01-06 22:52:16 <BlueMatt> (which btw you guys should be doing already...)
1442 2012-01-06 22:52:23 <[Tycho]> Making sure that those txes are going to be in 50+%
1443 2012-01-06 22:52:33 <BlueMatt> that just means you need to peer with them
1444 2012-01-06 22:52:36 NickelBot2 is now known as NickelBot
1445 2012-01-06 22:52:43 <BlueMatt> any peer can determine if you have a tx in mempool
1446 2012-01-06 22:52:52 <[Tycho]> Yes, and publish online list of protected TXes.
1447 2012-01-06 22:53:01 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: if I'm going to rip you off I'll offer to pay as much insurance fee as you want!
1448 2012-01-06 22:53:03 <BlueMatt> why would you do that?
1449 2012-01-06 22:53:08 <gmaxwell> 400% premium on the transaction! :)
1450 2012-01-06 22:53:34 <BlueMatt> [Tycho]: Im not talking about a list of protected txes, that means you cant charge fees
1451 2012-01-06 22:53:56 <BlueMatt> nor am I talking specifically about deepbit doing this, anyone who can peer with pools and wants the be an insurance provider can do this
1452 2012-01-06 22:54:37 <gmaxwell> and yes, for godssake the pools should be peered w/ keepnode.
1453 2012-01-06 22:54:58 <BlueMatt> you are just insuring txes, the receiver of a tx pays you a fee and you agree to pay them the value of the tx if it doesnt get confirmed
1454 2012-01-06 22:55:11 <gmaxwell> otherwise you get fun where you create partitions by getting between the pools and then using one side as the hashing power to get overrun by the other.
1455 2012-01-06 22:55:18 <BlueMatt> that way the receiver can accept txes with 0-c
1456 2012-01-06 22:55:21 <[Tycho]> "mining cartel" assumes failing enemy blocks containing DS attempts.
1457 2012-01-06 22:55:26 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: but pools peering *sounds* scary, and explaining protocols to users is a losing battle :P
1458 2012-01-06 22:55:31 wizkid057 is now known as wizkid057|afk
1459 2012-01-06 22:55:35 <BlueMatt> [Tycho]: dont do that
1460 2012-01-06 22:55:35 kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1461 2012-01-06 22:55:50 <BlueMatt> k9quaint: so dont tell users you are doing it, just do it
1462 2012-01-06 22:56:02 <[Tycho]> BlueMatt: as I said, most understanding miners would be against this.
1463 2012-01-06 22:56:03 <k9quaint> BlueMatt: a tried and true method of PR failure ;)
1464 2012-01-06 22:56:13 <BlueMatt> [Tycho]: tx insurance does not at all involve block reversal
1465 2012-01-06 22:56:22 <BlueMatt> it just means you have to pay if the tx doesnt get confirmed
1466 2012-01-06 22:56:31 <gmaxwell> tx insurance involves monitoring and averaging risks.
1467 2012-01-06 22:57:07 <k9quaint> what about conditional escrow instead of insurance?
1468 2012-01-06 22:57:14 <BlueMatt> k9quaint: miners peering should be done, you can tell people who understand what that means, but going and posting it on the about us page is stupid (as you point out)
1469 2012-01-06 22:57:34 <BlueMatt> k9quaint: as in?
1470 2012-01-06 22:57:46 <k9quaint> BlueMatt: the problem is, when murphy's law strikes, someone points out that 9/11 was an inside job
1471 2012-01-06 22:57:48 <BlueMatt> k9quaint: the problem being solved here is allowing merchants to accept 0-c txes
1472 2012-01-06 22:58:01 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: e.g. anti-double spend service in groffer's patch.
1473 2012-01-06 22:58:20 <BlueMatt> havent read it
1474 2012-01-06 22:58:29 slush has joined
1475 2012-01-06 22:58:40 <k9quaint> BlueMatt: yes, but it depends a lot on the service being provided as to whether escrow or insurance makes sense
1476 2012-01-06 22:58:47 <gmaxwell> Immediate payment: send money from sender to a coin with two parties -
1477 2012-01-06 22:58:47 <gmaxwell> sender and payment observer. The payment observer will only agree to a
1478 2012-01-06 22:58:47 <gmaxwell> single spend of the money, which prevents double spending. Of course,
1479 2012-01-06 22:58:47 <gmaxwell> the receiver has to trust the observer. For protection against observer
1480 2012-01-06 22:58:48 <gmaxwell> failure, additional observers can be added.
1481 2012-01-06 22:59:19 <gmaxwell> e.g. you put a coin in escrow between you and an observer. the vendor trusts the observer to not double spend.
1482 2012-01-06 22:59:31 <gmaxwell> You repay any change from the txn back into the escrow.
1483 2012-01-06 22:59:51 <k9quaint> BlueMatt: if you are going to ship a product in 2 days, then you can allow the process to proceed conditional on the TX being confirmed in a certain period
1484 2012-01-06 22:59:53 <gmaxwell> So you can plunk 100 btc in such a thing and go around buying all the 0-confirm sodapop you want.
1485 2012-01-06 23:00:23 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: sure, in the great many cases that you care high delay before irreversability this all doesn't matter.
1486 2012-01-06 23:00:26 <BlueMatt> send money from sender to a coin how can you send money to a coin?
1487 2012-01-06 23:00:42 <BlueMatt> k9quaint: yea, if you are shipping something, waiting an hour doesnt matter at all
1488 2012-01-06 23:00:55 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: so, the question is how many cases are there low delay (exchanges being the obvious example)
1489 2012-01-06 23:01:10 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: so in other words you just use escrow...
1490 2012-01-06 23:01:19 <gmaxwell> No. ...
1491 2012-01-06 23:01:33 <gmaxwell> I mean, yes it's an escrow txn but the second party is different.
1492 2012-01-06 23:01:33 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1493 2012-01-06 23:01:49 btc_novice has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1494 2012-01-06 23:02:04 <k9quaint> it doesn't map perfectly on the traditional definition of escrow because the money changes hands twice
1495 2012-01-06 23:02:21 <k9quaint> in what he is proposing, it would only do that on failure of the TX
1496 2012-01-06 23:02:33 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I'm going to go shopping tomorrow. I pay 100 BTC into a 2of2{me, bobs-safe-spend-service}= TXN1.  Tomorrow, I want to buy a soda from you, I write a txn that TXN1->you, 1btc, escrow 99btc.
1497 2012-01-06 23:02:43 <gmaxwell> Then I send it to bob, bob signs it.. and I give it to you.
1498 2012-01-06 23:02:57 <gmaxwell> You don't trust me. But you trust bob wouldn't sign a doublespend.
1499 2012-01-06 23:03:03 <gmaxwell> So you give me the soda with zero confirms.
1500 2012-01-06 23:03:11 freewil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1501 2012-01-06 23:03:17 <gmaxwell> then I can go shop with k9quaint, and so on..
1502 2012-01-06 23:03:44 <k9quaint> you can call the escrow service: yourbitcoin.com ;)
1503 2012-01-06 23:03:49 knotwork has joined
1504 2012-01-06 23:04:22 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: so, how does that stand up when the merchant and the escrow are in cahootz?
1505 2012-01-06 23:04:31 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: wait, what is TXN1, you just made 2 txes one to you and one to bob?
1506 2012-01-06 23:04:38 * BlueMatt is feeling dense right now...
1507 2012-01-06 23:04:54 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: er, that doesn't matter. You plus the escrow is the problem.
1508 2012-01-06 23:04:57 <k9quaint> BlueMatt: better than feeling diffuse, especially in a stiff breeze
1509 2012-01-06 23:05:49 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: TXN1 is a single output to 2of2{me, bobs-safe-spend-service}.   I buy a soda  TXN1, pay to you 1.0 btc, 2of2{me, bobs-safe-spend-service} 99btc, signed by both me and bob.
1510 2012-01-06 23:06:04 <gmaxwell> two outputs.
1511 2012-01-06 23:06:18 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1512 2012-01-06 23:06:19 <k9quaint> so, bob would never allow double spends, even in the face of merchant failure?
1513 2012-01-06 23:06:46 <BlueMatt> oh, multisig tx...
1514 2012-01-06 23:06:47 <BlueMatt> god
1515 2012-01-06 23:07:03 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: Correct. I mean, a double spend wouldn't help in most cases.
1516 2012-01-06 23:07:14 <dikidera> In what form is a share sent to bitcoin?
1517 2012-01-06 23:07:22 <dikidera> I doubts it's in the form of the actual block hahs
1518 2012-01-06 23:07:24 <dikidera> *hash
1519 2012-01-06 23:07:28 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: plus, if you're using this for in person transactions you punch bluematt if he doesn't give you the soda.
1520 2012-01-06 23:07:52 <BlueMatt> so yea, its just using an insurer who is trusted and signs a tx
1521 2012-01-06 23:08:08 <[Tycho]> I wonder if starting escrow service is fun or not...
1522 2012-01-06 23:08:15 <BlueMatt> yea thats nice if you and the merchant can agree on a trusted 3rd-party
1523 2012-01-06 23:08:16 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: bluematt is very fat, and I am cadaverously thin...I would need some other form of coercion
1524 2012-01-06 23:08:29 <dikidera> [Tycho]:it's not fun
1525 2012-01-06 23:08:30 <BlueMatt> which is hard and forces people to use the service the merchant wants them to
1526 2012-01-06 23:08:47 <k9quaint> sounds like the escrow service is sign, followed by years of nothing ;)
1527 2012-01-06 23:08:51 * BlueMatt perfers the insurer idea, except that its more expensive to merchants...
1528 2012-01-06 23:09:10 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: some things will work better for some things, we should try them all.
1529 2012-01-06 23:09:17 <gmaxwell> And let the best survive.
1530 2012-01-06 23:09:31 <k9quaint> wait until gmaxwell codes it, then come out with EscrowCoin
1531 2012-01-06 23:09:51 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: problem is best surviving is what the merchants want, not what the end-users want, which often conflict...
1532 2012-01-06 23:10:02 <gmaxwell> I expect that for this kind of stuff people will evenually use ripple or OT (or visa) and just settle with bitcoin somewhat frequently. You don't need global confirmation of soda. Thats silly.
1533 2012-01-06 23:10:12 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: haha
1534 2012-01-06 23:10:27 * BlueMatt never sees bitcoin being used for much non-online txes anyway...
1535 2012-01-06 23:10:30 <BlueMatt> s/much/many/
1536 2012-01-06 23:10:36 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1537 2012-01-06 23:11:01 <k9quaint> way to screw up the channel logs with a global replace
1538 2012-01-06 23:11:16 kiba has joined
1539 2012-01-06 23:11:51 <BlueMatt> heh
1540 2012-01-06 23:12:19 * BlueMatt -> dinner (maybe he'll think better when he's not hungry...)
1541 2012-01-06 23:14:12 <dikidera> BlueMatt:Is it possible to reverse a block hash to a block header?
1542 2012-01-06 23:14:28 <dikidera> Or simply put, reverse what is done in this python script here https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithm
1543 2012-01-06 23:15:15 <theymos> No. Hashes can't be reversed.
1544 2012-01-06 23:17:32 eoss has joined
1545 2012-01-06 23:17:33 eoss has quit (Changing host)
1546 2012-01-06 23:17:33 eoss has joined
1547 2012-01-06 23:18:43 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1548 2012-01-06 23:19:55 <TuxBlackEdo> theymos, depends on how big the input is. Rainbow tables can "reverse" a hash
1549 2012-01-06 23:20:03 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
1550 2012-01-06 23:20:32 <luke-jr> makomk: if anyone claims to have lost actual confirmed CLC, I am calling that person a liar.
1551 2012-01-06 23:22:20 <phantomcircuit> CLC?
1552 2012-01-06 23:23:09 <makomk> phantomcircuit: Coiledcoins. Shortest-lived altchain so far. Took about 12 hours before Luke Jr 51%ed it.
1553 2012-01-06 23:24:12 <luke-jr> makomk: in another conversation, we decided to stop using the term 51%, and I would appreciate it if you also did not. to some people, 51% implies double-spending and other theft
1554 2012-01-06 23:24:31 <theymos> luke-jr: What did you do with the alt coins you generated?
1555 2012-01-06 23:24:42 <luke-jr> theymos: horde.
1556 2012-01-06 23:24:59 vigilyn has joined
1557 2012-01-06 23:25:43 <luke-jr> theymos: want some?
1558 2012-01-06 23:26:06 <theymos> No. I was just wondering whether you sold them and put the profits back into the pool.
1559 2012-01-06 23:26:13 <makomk> luke-jr: I wasn't part of that conversation as far as I remember, and people really ought to know there's a lot more to having 51% of the hash power than being able to double spend.
1560 2012-01-06 23:26:39 <luke-jr> makomk: the point is that I didn't do any of the damaging things people assume "51%" means
1561 2012-01-06 23:26:59 <gmaxwell> makomk: well, go look at the forum and it's clear that people keep talking about deep reversals, double spending, theft, etc.
1562 2012-01-06 23:27:15 <luke-jr> theymos: that was my original plan, but I decided the people losing out that way were the would-be victims, not the scammers
1563 2012-01-06 23:27:26 <gmaxwell> The DOS potential of >50% is not really on anyone's minds (or the market manipulation potential for that matter)
1564 2012-01-06 23:27:37 <luke-jr> theymos: I asked BTC-e to reverse the little I did trade.
1565 2012-01-06 23:28:01 zooko has joined
1566 2012-01-06 23:28:10 <gmaxwell> theymos: the problem there is that the buyers end up with rapidly devaulating coins... and if they bought them at all it's only because they didn't know what you knew. Not exactly fair trading.
1567 2012-01-06 23:29:08 <theymos> Yeah, that's a reasonable point.
1568 2012-01-06 23:29:55 <makomk> gmaxwell: it ought to be, though; it's an obvious avenue of attack for a well-financed attacker.
1569 2012-01-06 23:30:29 <theymos> Attacks like these would be much less likely on chains that are actually useful in some way. Then the coins would have some potential of becoming valuable someday, and all miners would have a large incentive to save coins and make them more valuable by not attacking the network and protecting against other attackers.
1570 2012-01-06 23:30:42 <knotwork> those so called victims seem mostly to be wannabe-scammers themselves, sicne they dont seem to be buying the coins on the basis of actually using them to purchase spaceships or magic swords i na game or anything else, they just hope to find a bigger sucker later
1571 2012-01-06 23:30:49 <gmaxwell> makomk: absolutely. But part of pointing out whats going on here is to help raise awareness of that.
1572 2012-01-06 23:31:27 <knotwork> it would be nice to have a whoel bunch of pretty much worthless coins to be able to have a nice trading game with without all the wanna make fiat coming into it
1573 2012-01-06 23:31:33 <gmaxwell> knotwork: it's possible to be a party to a scam without ill intent.. common in chain mail pyramid schemes, people don't realize that eventually someone will have to stop adding dollars to envelopes.
1574 2012-01-06 23:31:46 pickett has joined
1575 2012-01-06 23:32:37 * roconnor doesn't quite understand how alt-chains are any more of a scam than bitcoin itself.
1576 2012-01-06 23:33:08 <luke-jr> knotwork: true
1577 2012-01-06 23:33:17 <sipa> roconnor: depends on their intentions
1578 2012-01-06 23:33:36 <luke-jr> roconnor: they don't add anything new
1579 2012-01-06 23:33:49 <gmaxwell> roconnor: and (believed) chances of success.
1580 2012-01-06 23:33:49 <makomk> theymos: the problem is really the existence of people with an interest in competing non-cryptocurrency institutions.
1581 2012-01-06 23:34:21 <roconnor> gmaxwell: if bitcoin is ulitmately unsuccessful, does that mean it was a scam?
1582 2012-01-06 23:34:29 <theymos> roconnor: Bitcoin is usually just as good or better from a technical perspective, so the other chains only really exist for "getting rich quick".
1583 2012-01-06 23:34:30 <makomk> Everyone with an investment in Bitcoins has an incentive not to attack it in this way, obviously.
1584 2012-01-06 23:34:52 <sipa> nonetheless, they can be interesting
1585 2012-01-06 23:35:09 <gmaxwell> roconnor: if bitcoin is unsucessful, almost all of the alts would be too as they are just bitcoin with no changes except the genesis or fairly trivial changes.
1586 2012-01-06 23:35:17 <roconnor> theymos: I suspect that most people who claim that have a conflict of interest.
1587 2012-01-06 23:35:17 <gmaxwell> (and bitcoin's network effect is pretty big)
1588 2012-01-06 23:35:55 <gmaxwell> So if bitcoin is sucessful they also won't be very successful, again since they don't add almost anything.
1589 2012-01-06 23:36:03 toffoo has joined
1590 2012-01-06 23:36:15 <roconnor> gmaxwell: sounds like something someone who got onto the bitcoin bandwangon early would say.
1591 2012-01-06 23:36:30 <gmaxwell> so basically I'm drawing a distinction between $I_dont_know and $I_can't_tell
1592 2012-01-06 23:36:49 <gmaxwell> roconnor: nah, I mean I used bitcoin early but lost interest and lost the coins. I don't have a big horse in that race.
1593 2012-01-06 23:36:56 <sipa> if a chain is started with "hey let's try this to see how it goes" -> not a scam imho
1594 2012-01-06 23:36:57 booo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1595 2012-01-06 23:37:02 <gmaxwell> (and, in fact, I have a _lot_ more litecoin than bitcoin)
1596 2012-01-06 23:37:28 <roconnor> sipa: do you have an opinion on litecoin style POW and bitcoin style POW?
1597 2012-01-06 23:38:04 <sipa> roconnor: that's using scrypt() ?
1598 2012-01-06 23:38:11 <roconnor> sipa: correct
1599 2012-01-06 23:38:20 <gmaxwell> roconnor: It's .. almost unfair to call it scrypt.
1600 2012-01-06 23:38:21 <roconnor> sipa: really my question is about SHA vs scrypt
1601 2012-01-06 23:38:32 <roconnor> gmaxwell: why is that?
1602 2012-01-06 23:38:40 <sipa> my fear about scrypt is that it makes it too attractive for botnets
1603 2012-01-06 23:38:43 <gmaxwell> They're using only 128kb of dynamic ram in the scrypt. This means it doesn't get a lot of the gate inflation properties scrypt was intended to have.
1604 2012-01-06 23:38:57 <roconnor> gmaxwell: oh
1605 2012-01-06 23:39:04 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: supposedly they fixed it
1606 2012-01-06 23:39:08 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1607 2012-01-06 23:39:28 <gmaxwell> roconnor: more than that hurt the PC performance too much due to cache thrashing when running in 'hidden' mode. :-/
1608 2012-01-06 23:39:57 <knotwork> ah so its *designed* for botnets eh
1609 2012-01-06 23:40:03 <gmaxwell> roconnor: and already LTC can not be mined profitably by anyone paying for power. (It's pretty close to bitcoin cpu mining in unprofitablity)
1610 2012-01-06 23:40:10 <Eliel> hmm? I'm not noticing any impact really from the litecoin miner I'm running myself.
1611 2012-01-06 23:40:17 <knotwork> so, again, *designed* for botnets
1612 2012-01-06 23:40:22 <gmaxwell> Eliel: yes, by design.
1613 2012-01-06 23:40:41 <gmaxwell> If they used e.g. 40mbytes of ram, which is what you need to get the full scrypt paper properties... then you'd apparently notice.
1614 2012-01-06 23:40:46 <Eliel> ah, I got what you said backwards. :)
1615 2012-01-06 23:41:06 <knotwork> wow so a major scam by the botnet operators hahah
1616 2012-01-06 23:41:11 <Eliel> yes... nothing would stay in the cache from anything else over task switches.
1617 2012-01-06 23:41:20 <gmaxwell> roconnor: so I worry that the lack of gpu mining just means that a targeted hardware attack would be an even bigger relative jump.
1618 2012-01-06 23:41:28 gfinn has joined
1619 2012-01-06 23:41:30 <gmaxwell> And intel-mic will quite likely be their gpu anyways.
1620 2012-01-06 23:41:46 <gmaxwell> knotwork: well, I think its been an interesting expirement.
1621 2012-01-06 23:41:59 <gmaxwell> knotwork: the outcome is one that you could have called…
1622 2012-01-06 23:42:02 <knotwork> no sign any major botnets actually use it?
1623 2012-01-06 23:42:08 <makomk> gmaxwell: yeah, I'd tend to agree about LTC etc and dedicated hardware.
1624 2012-01-06 23:42:24 <gmaxwell> sure, there are botnets thats presumably why its power unprofitable.
1625 2012-01-06 23:42:43 <gmaxwell> Also, there is a single miner with >50% (though not by much) control of their hashpower. (proved it with signmessage!)
1626 2012-01-06 23:43:08 <gmaxwell> and thats even given the fact that that there are pools, and that there aren't gpus.
1627 2012-01-06 23:43:16 <knotwork> awesome. so the project to support botnet operators is proceeding much better so far than the plan to support open source development
1628 2012-01-06 23:43:20 <gmaxwell> Which sort of invalidates the claim that gpus were responsible for bitcoin power consolidation.
1629 2012-01-06 23:43:41 booo has joined
1630 2012-01-06 23:43:49 <knotwork> I guess we should make an open source botnet
1631 2012-01-06 23:43:57 <knotwork> :)
1632 2012-01-06 23:43:59 <gmaxwell> or at least, if gpus did cause it — then botnets would have anyways.
1633 2012-01-06 23:44:47 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
1634 2012-01-06 23:44:51 <Eliel> the lack of established supercomputers made of radeon cards is probably what helped keep bitcoin safe for the time of the biggest threat.
1635 2012-01-06 23:45:21 <k9quaint> the lack of the concept of a cybercurrency being worth something is what protected it
1636 2012-01-06 23:45:40 <gmaxwell> also fun:
1637 2012-01-06 23:45:41 <gmaxwell> 857M	/home/gmaxwell/.litecoin/
1638 2012-01-06 23:45:47 booo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1639 2012-01-06 23:46:17 <gmaxwell> the faster blockchain combined with blindly copying the bitcoin anti-dos rules without scaling for the relative lack of value has caused tremendous bloating.
1640 2012-01-06 23:46:19 booo has joined
1641 2012-01-06 23:46:32 <gmaxwell> Which is an interesting validation that we've done something right with the anti-dos in bitcoin.
1642 2012-01-06 23:46:43 <Eliel> k9quaint: that too, of course.
1643 2012-01-06 23:47:06 booo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1644 2012-01-06 23:47:10 <Eliel> k9quaint: but now that it's starting to be recognised as worth something.
1645 2012-01-06 23:47:19 <gmaxwell> The whole "it's better to cooperate than defect" is much more powerful when there is only one major one.
1646 2012-01-06 23:47:25 booo has joined
1647 2012-01-06 23:47:50 <k9quaint> and you can use both meanings of "defect" in that sentence (at least so far with the altcoins) :)
1648 2012-01-06 23:48:32 <gmaxwell> the other interesting thing is how often altchains seem to have changed something (usually really simple constant changes) and managed to expose themselves as a result.
1649 2012-01-06 23:48:33 <Eliel> true, it being valuable also protects against abusers.
1650 2012-01-06 23:48:46 <gmaxwell> (or failed to change something, e.g. not scaling the dos rules)
1651 2012-01-06 23:48:59 <gmaxwell> a lot of these things are really poorly done— e.g. not even changing out the bitcoin dnsseeds or seednodes.
1652 2012-01-06 23:49:11 <Eliel> bitcoin's design really is very good.
1653 2012-01-06 23:49:29 minimoose has joined
1654 2012-01-06 23:49:43 <k9quaint> or doing merged mining on day one...
1655 2012-01-06 23:49:54 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1656 2012-01-06 23:49:56 <Diablo-D3> dongs.
1657 2012-01-06 23:49:58 <gmaxwell> yea, well, we didn't have proof that would fail until now.
1658 2012-01-06 23:50:12 <Diablo-D3> what failed?
1659 2012-01-06 23:50:33 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: launching a coin is not easy
1660 2012-01-06 23:50:55 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: launching one well isn't at least.
1661 2012-01-06 23:50:55 <makomk> There's actually an annoying amount of fiddly technical changes involved in launching an altcoin.
1662 2012-01-06 23:51:05 <k9quaint> even a perfect clone of BTC would require work and cooperation
1663 2012-01-06 23:51:12 eoss has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1664 2012-01-06 23:51:24 <Eliel> gmaxwell: not necessarily proof that merged mining on day one is a bad idea. But proof that not securing committed pools before launch is a bad idea.
1665 2012-01-06 23:51:38 <gmaxwell> Eliel: right— merged mining without doing $something.
1666 2012-01-06 23:52:07 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1667 2012-01-06 23:52:13 <k9quaint> there is a very sticky first move problem with cryptocoins
1668 2012-01-06 23:53:04 comboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1669 2012-01-06 23:54:17 <Eliel> makomk: I think CLC still has a chance, unless you give up on it.
1670 2012-01-06 23:54:42 <GMP> hi. anyone seen/made a script to generate test blockchain, reasonably fast? I need to perform some scalability tests, 4TB, 4G transactions, memory mapped file access performance, mapping strategy for 32bit mode etc. Im about to use actual chain, replicated/changed, but that may leave some corner cases untested...
1671 2012-01-06 23:55:22 comboy has joined
1672 2012-01-06 23:55:30 <GMP> 4GB^
1673 2012-01-06 23:56:18 <cjdelisle> you'd have to generate "fake" transactions too
1674 2012-01-06 23:56:37 <cjdelisle> some of which are predictable, others not so much
1675 2012-01-06 23:56:38 danbri has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1676 2012-01-06 23:57:25 <cjdelisle> + you'd have to mod the bitcoin engine to accept blocks with absolutely no proof of work because even with difficuly 1 it would be unfeasible
1677 2012-01-06 23:57:34 comboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1678 2012-01-06 23:57:55 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: yea, remove the test, short circuit the nonce search.
1679 2012-01-06 23:58:05 <gmaxwell> then the nonce is always 0s and always valid.
1680 2012-01-06 23:58:17 <gmaxwell> probably only two or three lines changed, but I've never done it.
1681 2012-01-06 23:58:35 <cjdelisle> and insert a bunch of realish looking transactions
1682 2012-01-06 23:58:56 <GMP> im testing performance of building full index, my own implementation, all checks are off already
1683 2012-01-06 23:59:43 <cjdelisle> hmm like a hashtable of unspent scripts?