1 2012-01-08 00:00:25 <k9quaint> what is the model number of the SSD?
  2 2012-01-08 00:00:57 <MC1984> STT fpm64glse
  3 2012-01-08 00:01:06 <gjs278> they already linked it
  4 2012-01-08 00:01:10 <MC1984> its a bit obscure
  5 2012-01-08 00:01:21 <MC1984> its an eeepc
  6 2012-01-08 00:01:40 <MC1984> nice to have 64gb in an eeepc though
  7 2012-01-08 00:01:58 <MC1984> well theres a second 16 gb unit too so its 72gb
  8 2012-01-08 00:03:05 Folklore has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  9 2012-01-08 00:03:40 gruez has joined
 10 2012-01-08 00:04:13 freewil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 11 2012-01-08 00:04:51 user has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 12 2012-01-08 00:04:54 freewil has joined
 13 2012-01-08 00:06:21 Joric has quit ()
 14 2012-01-08 00:06:28 <gruez> is it bad to recompile bitcoin
 15 2012-01-08 00:06:33 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: how many blocks are fetched at a time?
 16 2012-01-08 00:06:34 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 17 2012-01-08 00:06:40 <gruez> and set outbound connections to 125
 18 2012-01-08 00:06:45 <gruez> and not forwarding your ports?
 19 2012-01-08 00:07:05 <gruez> i'm very tempted to do this just so i can easily boost my connection count
 20 2012-01-08 00:08:07 <MC1984> what difference will it make
 21 2012-01-08 00:08:19 BurtyBB has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 22 2012-01-08 00:08:31 theorbtwo has joined
 23 2012-01-08 00:08:36 BurtyBB has joined
 24 2012-01-08 00:10:09 <gruez> MC1984: ?
 25 2012-01-08 00:10:14 <gruez> were you talking to me?
 26 2012-01-08 00:11:10 <MC1984> yes
 27 2012-01-08 00:11:17 <elkingrey> Does anybody know of any instructions I could follow to set up my osCommerce store so that the price of my items in Bitcoins are tied to the Mt. Gox USD exchange rate?
 28 2012-01-08 00:13:14 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: up to 500.
 29 2012-01-08 00:13:27 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: though as the blocks get bigger it won't pull more than 5mb or so.
 30 2012-01-08 00:13:50 <gruez> MC1984: so i get more connections
 31 2012-01-08 00:13:53 <gmaxwell> gruez: boosting your connection could will do you no good. Why would you want to do that?
 32 2012-01-08 00:13:53 <gruez> and faster too
 33 2012-01-08 00:13:55 Joric has joined
 34 2012-01-08 00:13:55 Joric has quit (Changing host)
 35 2012-01-08 00:13:55 Joric has joined
 36 2012-01-08 00:14:03 <gmaxwell> It won't make it any faster at all, it would make it slower.
 37 2012-01-08 00:14:08 <gruez> gmaxwell: i thought more connection = better?
 38 2012-01-08 00:14:25 <gmaxwell> Better for what? Certantly not any faster.
 39 2012-01-08 00:14:25 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 40 2012-01-08 00:14:53 <gmaxwell> And creating a lot of outbound connections takes from the limited number of listening ports on the network as there are only a few thousand listening nodes.
 41 2012-01-08 00:15:12 <gmaxwell> If you want a lot of connections, listen.
 42 2012-01-08 00:16:13 <MC1984> you only really need one connection
 43 2012-01-08 00:16:18 kiba` has joined
 44 2012-01-08 00:16:27 wasabi5 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 45 2012-01-08 00:16:36 <MC1984> txns are cascaded thru the network be every node
 46 2012-01-08 00:16:53 <gruez> gmaxwell: is there a reason why my connection count rises very slowly?
 47 2012-01-08 00:17:04 <luke-jr> http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000001cbd85cc26feae014ac9569bd95354dc2260f9e3e0a4c2946c15f
 48 2012-01-08 00:17:12 <gruez> it used to get to 50 (my limit) in less than 1 minute
 49 2012-01-08 00:17:12 kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 50 2012-01-08 00:17:16 <gruez> now it's 15 minutes
 51 2012-01-08 00:17:21 <gruez> and it's up to 26
 52 2012-01-08 00:17:27 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: what about it?
 53 2012-01-08 00:17:32 <luke-jr> my first block
 54 2012-01-08 00:18:16 <gmaxwell> gruez: there are fewer nodes eagerly connecting to you. And?
 55 2012-01-08 00:18:32 <gmaxwell> gruez: you're making a fundimental error in thinking that having lots of connections improve things substantially for you.
 56 2012-01-08 00:19:23 <doublec> my first block: http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000233334b157d901714baf59e5b9236227b2878844e52244da4195e
 57 2012-01-08 00:19:51 <doublec> sadly I have  no 4 figure blocks
 58 2012-01-08 00:22:00 wasabi3 has joined
 59 2012-01-08 00:22:10 rphlx has left ("Leaving")
 60 2012-01-08 00:22:26 kiba` has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 61 2012-01-08 00:23:35 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Copywight 2007 Elmer Fudd. All wights wesewved.)
 62 2012-01-08 00:26:30 m00p has joined
 63 2012-01-08 00:28:22 spaola has quit (Quit: ne0futur)
 64 2012-01-08 00:33:25 safra has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 65 2012-01-08 00:34:16 gruez has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 66 2012-01-08 00:34:23 spaola has joined
 67 2012-01-08 00:38:10 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 68 2012-01-08 00:38:39 <MC1984> gmaxwell is the log helpful? Do you think download times can be improved on windows as well?
 69 2012-01-08 00:38:58 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 70 2012-01-08 00:41:26 gjs278 has joined
 71 2012-01-08 00:41:39 <gmaxwell> MC1984: I do. It's a bit helpful. e.g. I know your slowness is mostly from validation not transfer. I see that doing transfer and validation concurrently would probably be a help.
 72 2012-01-08 00:42:38 <MC1984> ok
 73 2012-01-08 00:43:02 <MC1984> strange why linux gets such an insane benefit from that patch and windows gets zero though
 74 2012-01-08 00:44:14 <MC1984> like even if you can improve windows, linux download will still be magnitudes faster :/
 75 2012-01-08 00:44:50 <gmaxwell> yes— its likely that most of the remaining problems are windows are still problems on linux.
 76 2012-01-08 00:45:14 <gmaxwell> I'm still working on this subject.. but I have to find problems in worst first order becuase they hide each other. ;)
 77 2012-01-08 00:45:32 <MC1984> thats ok bro just glad i can help
 78 2012-01-08 00:46:41 elkingrey has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 79 2012-01-08 00:53:21 freewil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 80 2012-01-08 01:01:09 Joric has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 81 2012-01-08 01:03:02 <luke-jr> EXTRA EXTRA
 82 2012-01-08 01:03:08 <luke-jr> diki says Satoshi broke SHA256
 83 2012-01-08 01:03:19 <luke-jr> is "skeptical about" it only being used as a checksum in addresses
 84 2012-01-08 01:04:01 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 85 2012-01-08 01:07:17 <copumpkin> huh?
 86 2012-01-08 01:07:48 <Diablo-D3> lol
 87 2012-01-08 01:07:53 <Diablo-D3> diki isnt even a good troll
 88 2012-01-08 01:09:18 Joric has joined
 89 2012-01-08 01:09:57 <luke-jr> [20:05:49] <diki> wizkid057:I have file ranging with ALL my passwords
 90 2012-01-08 01:09:58 <luke-jr> wtf?
 91 2012-01-08 01:12:56 <luke-jr> [20:07:54] <diki> I will probably as a hobby attempt address collision again
 92 2012-01-08 01:13:51 <wizkid057> lol
 93 2012-01-08 01:14:12 <luke-jr> [20:09:15] <diki> theymos once told me the chain had 2(now prolly more) addresses
 94 2012-01-08 01:17:17 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 95 2012-01-08 01:18:59 Cablesaurus has joined
 96 2012-01-08 01:19:00 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
 97 2012-01-08 01:19:00 Cablesaurus has joined
 98 2012-01-08 01:24:43 Daniel0108 has left ("Leaving")
 99 2012-01-08 01:28:36 dvide_ has joined
100 2012-01-08 01:28:42 dvide has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
101 2012-01-08 01:40:39 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: wait...wtf?
102 2012-01-08 01:40:55 <BlueMatt> why the hell did theymos think there are any collisions in the chain???
103 2012-01-08 01:41:31 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: huh?
104 2012-01-08 01:41:40 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: addresses, not collisions
105 2012-01-08 01:41:51 <BlueMatt> wait, the chain has 2 addresses???
106 2012-01-08 01:42:01 <BlueMatt> that statement just makes no damn sense
107 2012-01-08 01:42:11 <gmaxwell> There are duplicate coinbase txn in the chain.
108 2012-01-08 01:42:41 <BlueMatt> oh, now it makes sense
109 2012-01-08 01:42:50 <BlueMatt> but its far off from saying that correctly...
110 2012-01-08 01:43:06 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: nothing diki says makes sense
111 2012-01-08 01:43:17 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: there is a solution to that
112 2012-01-08 01:43:20 <luke-jr> he's mining for address collisions
113 2012-01-08 01:43:28 <BlueMatt> oh god...
114 2012-01-08 01:43:56 <Diablo-D3> oh?
115 2012-01-08 01:43:59 <luke-jr> he's so sure that Satoshi broke SHA256, so he thinks he'll find them
116 2012-01-08 01:44:17 <Diablo-D3> but what does sha256 have to do with addresses?
117 2012-01-08 01:44:40 <luke-jr> :P
118 2012-01-08 01:44:53 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: he sees the base58 function doing double-sha256
119 2012-01-08 01:47:49 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
120 2012-01-08 01:48:15 copumpkin has joined
121 2012-01-08 01:51:19 <Diablo-D3> heh
122 2012-01-08 01:54:21 <diki> lololo
123 2012-01-08 01:54:34 <diki> luke, why in the world are you posting my stuff here?
124 2012-01-08 01:54:37 <diki> so out of context
125 2012-01-08 01:55:56 <diki> I said, that when I asked theymos a few months ago how many addresses total exist in the chain he said 1.7 or 2 million
126 2012-01-08 01:56:10 <diki> whether unique or not, dunno
127 2012-01-08 01:58:24 <BlueMatt> sipa: whats the reason why ReacceptWalletTransactions is necessary?
128 2012-01-08 01:58:37 <BlueMatt> (wouldnt rescan handle them for the most part?)
129 2012-01-08 02:04:11 <k9quaint> I found an address collision!!!
130 2012-01-08 02:04:18 * k9quaint laughs @ diki
131 2012-01-08 02:04:22 <k9quaint> so slow, loser!
132 2012-01-08 02:08:16 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
133 2012-01-08 02:08:52 marf_away has joined
134 2012-01-08 02:19:34 eoss has joined
135 2012-01-08 02:19:34 eoss has quit (Changing host)
136 2012-01-08 02:19:34 eoss has joined
137 2012-01-08 02:21:22 d4de has joined
138 2012-01-08 02:26:11 b4epoche_ has joined
139 2012-01-08 02:26:56 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
140 2012-01-08 02:26:56 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
141 2012-01-08 02:27:27 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
142 2012-01-08 02:29:39 Folklore has joined
143 2012-01-08 02:30:37 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
144 2012-01-08 02:39:20 d4de has joined
145 2012-01-08 02:44:22 <BlueMatt> ;;later tell sipa whats the reason why ReacceptWalletTransactions is necessary? (wouldnt rescan handle them?)
146 2012-01-08 02:44:22 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
147 2012-01-08 02:44:48 <BlueMatt> ;;later tell sipa also, what is the point of UpdatedTransaction for coinbases, shouldnt those already appear?
148 2012-01-08 02:44:48 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
149 2012-01-08 02:51:34 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
150 2012-01-08 02:55:11 <onelineproof> A bc address is basically RIPEMD160(SHA256(public_key)). The double SHA256 is for the error checking part. Anyone know how to calculate the probability of 2 different public keys having the same RIPEMD(SHA256) ?
151 2012-01-08 02:57:43 <phantomcircuit> onelineproof, nominally it is 2^160
152 2012-01-08 02:57:58 <phantomcircuit> it's almost certainly worse than that due to the limited keyspace
153 2012-01-08 02:58:52 <onelineproof> ok good, and anyway it's recommended to distribute your wealth over multiple keys
154 2012-01-08 02:59:06 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
155 2012-01-08 02:59:12 <BlueMatt> thats for anonymity not for security
156 2012-01-08 02:59:42 <BlueMatt> if someone finds a collision, well I would, as gmaxwell once said (about an unrelated but tangential topic) "wear it as a badge of honor"
157 2012-01-08 03:00:35 <onelineproof> will in case theres a collision or someone finds your private key, it would only get a small fraction of your wealth. You would need many collisions (much less probability) to get all of someones wealth
158 2012-01-08 03:01:24 <phantomcircuit> onelineproof, that would be a linear increase in security
159 2012-01-08 03:01:40 <phantomcircuit> which is an asymetric advantage
160 2012-01-08 03:01:48 <phantomcircuit> but not an algorithmically large one
161 2012-01-08 03:02:03 <onelineproof> i have to think think about that
162 2012-01-08 03:03:22 <onelineproof> P(A ^ B) = P(A)*P(B|A) assuming A and B are independent (keys are generated with independent random seeds)
163 2012-01-08 03:06:12 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Don't push the red button!)
164 2012-01-08 03:09:46 Joric has quit ()
165 2012-01-08 03:18:23 h4ckm3 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
166 2012-01-08 03:20:52 h4ckm3 has joined
167 2012-01-08 03:30:35 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
168 2012-01-08 03:30:49 TheSeven has joined
169 2012-01-08 03:33:37 kiba has joined
170 2012-01-08 03:39:54 Cablesaurus has joined
171 2012-01-08 03:39:55 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
172 2012-01-08 03:39:55 Cablesaurus has joined
173 2012-01-08 03:41:45 terrytibbs has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
174 2012-01-08 03:41:48 kobier has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
175 2012-01-08 03:57:28 Folklore has quit ()
176 2012-01-08 03:59:37 twobitcoins has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
177 2012-01-08 04:01:19 twobitcoins has joined
178 2012-01-08 04:04:59 <roconnor_> what's a const_iterator?
179 2012-01-08 04:05:27 <bd_> roconnor_: STL containers have both a ::iterator and ::const_iterator typedef
180 2012-01-08 04:05:55 <bd_> the idea being, if the container holds type T, the iterator iterates through T&, and the const_iterator through const T&
181 2012-01-08 04:06:08 <bd_> if you have a const somecontainer, then .begin() and friends will return a const_iterator
182 2012-01-08 04:06:17 <bd_> so you then have to use a const_iterator to receive this iterator
183 2012-01-08 04:06:33 <bd_> this is to ensure that you don't modify the (const) container via the non-const iterator
184 2012-01-08 04:06:45 jrmithdobbs has quit (Quit: quit)
185 2012-01-08 04:07:40 <roconnor_> thanks
186 2012-01-08 04:16:31 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
187 2012-01-08 04:23:39 jrmithdobbs has joined
188 2012-01-08 04:32:40 RobinPKR has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
189 2012-01-08 04:32:59 darkmethod has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
190 2012-01-08 04:35:00 <luke-jr> ;;bc,price
191 2012-01-08 04:35:01 <gribble> Next Price Estimate: 8.280012 | Next Price In About 2 days, 16 hours, 47 minutes, and 24 seconds
192 2012-01-08 04:35:29 RobinPKR has joined
193 2012-01-08 04:58:12 booo has joined
194 2012-01-08 05:07:38 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
195 2012-01-08 05:14:22 rdponticelli_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
196 2012-01-08 05:16:27 kobier has joined
197 2012-01-08 05:20:28 wasabi2 has joined
198 2012-01-08 05:22:07 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
199 2012-01-08 05:33:22 storrgie has quit (Quit: Leaving)
200 2012-01-08 05:35:06 WakiMiko_ has joined
201 2012-01-08 05:38:13 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
202 2012-01-08 05:42:03 MC1984 is now known as [GeTRiCHORDiEMiN
203 2012-01-08 05:45:34 [GeTRiCHORDiEMiN is now known as MC1984
204 2012-01-08 05:48:43 BurtyBB has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
205 2012-01-08 05:48:46 BurtyB has joined
206 2012-01-08 05:53:43 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
207 2012-01-08 06:01:22 luke-jr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
208 2012-01-08 06:12:44 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
209 2012-01-08 06:20:55 wasabi3 has joined
210 2012-01-08 06:22:29 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
211 2012-01-08 06:31:58 copumpkin is now known as copumpkin|rottin
212 2012-01-08 06:32:33 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
213 2012-01-08 06:35:48 BurtyB has joined
214 2012-01-08 06:38:00 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
215 2012-01-08 06:38:22 b4epoche has joined
216 2012-01-08 06:42:58 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
217 2012-01-08 06:46:46 luke-jr has joined
218 2012-01-08 06:53:23 Joric has joined
219 2012-01-08 06:53:23 Joric has quit (Changing host)
220 2012-01-08 06:53:23 Joric has joined
221 2012-01-08 06:54:17 dissipate has joined
222 2012-01-08 06:54:17 dissipate has quit (Changing host)
223 2012-01-08 06:54:17 dissipate has joined
224 2012-01-08 06:57:59 zeiris has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
225 2012-01-08 07:02:27 semb has joined
226 2012-01-08 07:04:35 zeiris has joined
227 2012-01-08 07:06:39 wizkid057 is now known as wizkid057|zZz
228 2012-01-08 07:10:05 semb has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
229 2012-01-08 07:14:06 Joric has quit ()
230 2012-01-08 07:58:04 Joric has joined
231 2012-01-08 07:58:04 Joric has quit (Changing host)
232 2012-01-08 07:58:04 Joric has joined
233 2012-01-08 08:07:03 kiba` has joined
234 2012-01-08 08:08:10 kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
235 2012-01-08 08:14:49 theymos has joined
236 2012-01-08 08:19:44 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
237 2012-01-08 08:19:55 molecular has joined
238 2012-01-08 08:21:53 wasabi2 has joined
239 2012-01-08 08:22:10 skeledrew has joined
240 2012-01-08 08:22:43 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
241 2012-01-08 08:23:33 skeledrew has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
242 2012-01-08 08:23:47 dissipate has quit (Quit: Leaving)
243 2012-01-08 08:32:35 Fnar has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
244 2012-01-08 08:32:36 Joric has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
245 2012-01-08 08:35:06 <luke-jr> I'm thinking there shoudl be a way to hide addresses from the receiving address book…
246 2012-01-08 08:39:19 Joric has joined
247 2012-01-08 08:39:19 Joric has quit (Changing host)
248 2012-01-08 08:39:19 Joric has joined
249 2012-01-08 08:45:54 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
250 2012-01-08 08:48:12 abragin has joined
251 2012-01-08 08:48:12 abragin has quit (Changing host)
252 2012-01-08 08:48:12 abragin has joined
253 2012-01-08 09:01:40 GMP has joined
254 2012-01-08 09:12:56 lfm has joined
255 2012-01-08 09:35:24 riush has quit (Quit: Leaving)
256 2012-01-08 09:49:04 Cryo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
257 2012-01-08 09:54:33 Clipse has joined
258 2012-01-08 10:00:01 B0g4r7_ has joined
259 2012-01-08 10:03:05 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
260 2012-01-08 10:03:05 B0g4r7_ is now known as B0g4r7
261 2012-01-08 10:05:58 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
262 2012-01-08 10:06:53 pickett has joined
263 2012-01-08 10:09:42 Turingi has joined
264 2012-01-08 10:14:08 bobke_ has joined
265 2012-01-08 10:17:10 bobke has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
266 2012-01-08 10:22:46 wasabi3 has joined
267 2012-01-08 10:24:27 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
268 2012-01-08 10:25:39 kobier has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
269 2012-01-08 10:37:49 Fnar has joined
270 2012-01-08 10:46:15 merde has quit ()
271 2012-01-08 10:51:15 b4epoche_ has joined
272 2012-01-08 10:52:10 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
273 2012-01-08 10:52:10 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
274 2012-01-08 10:52:25 da2ce7 has joined
275 2012-01-08 10:56:28 kobier has joined
276 2012-01-08 11:04:36 chrisb__ has joined
277 2012-01-08 11:06:37 riush has joined
278 2012-01-08 11:08:57 RazielZ has joined
279 2012-01-08 11:14:44 pycke has joined
280 2012-01-08 11:16:00 dvide_ has quit ()
281 2012-01-08 11:23:18 wasabi2 has joined
282 2012-01-08 11:24:52 iocor has joined
283 2012-01-08 11:25:18 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
284 2012-01-08 11:33:56 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
285 2012-01-08 11:34:31 da2ce7 has joined
286 2012-01-08 11:34:44 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
287 2012-01-08 11:43:54 iocor has joined
288 2012-01-08 11:45:42 iocor has quit (Client Quit)
289 2012-01-08 11:48:44 riush has quit (Quit: Leaving)
290 2012-01-08 11:51:46 marf_away has joined
291 2012-01-08 12:00:05 da2ce7 has quit (2!~da2ce7@gateway/tor-sasl/da2ce7|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
292 2012-01-08 12:05:22 erle- has joined
293 2012-01-08 12:23:48 wasabi3 has joined
294 2012-01-08 12:25:36 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
295 2012-01-08 12:34:49 PK has joined
296 2012-01-08 12:38:37 TD has joined
297 2012-01-08 12:43:38 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
298 2012-01-08 12:44:08 TD has joined
299 2012-01-08 12:46:03 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
300 2012-01-08 12:46:24 datagutt has joined
301 2012-01-08 12:53:20 DontMindMe has joined
302 2012-01-08 12:56:13 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
303 2012-01-08 13:01:05 m00p has joined
304 2012-01-08 13:02:00 chrisb__ has joined
305 2012-01-08 13:02:47 <sipa> ;;later tell BlueMatt ReacceptWalletTransaction is currently indeed subsumed by rescanning, but it is much faster, as it only checks transactions that are already in the wallet... with autorescan we may be able to do without though
306 2012-01-08 13:02:47 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
307 2012-01-08 13:07:33 <sipa> ;;later tell BlueMatt UpdatedTransaction is called for coinbases because those are reported about only after they have at least one confirmation
308 2012-01-08 13:07:34 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
309 2012-01-08 13:18:37 DontMindMe2 has joined
310 2012-01-08 13:18:37 DontMindMe has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
311 2012-01-08 13:31:33 watson787 has joined
312 2012-01-08 13:33:16 watson787 has quit (Client Quit)
313 2012-01-08 13:36:32 [Tycho] has joined
314 2012-01-08 13:55:55 bobke_ is now known as bobke
315 2012-01-08 13:56:00 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
316 2012-01-08 13:56:44 booo has joined
317 2012-01-08 14:08:41 Lexa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
318 2012-01-08 14:15:00 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
319 2012-01-08 14:16:23 Lexa has joined
320 2012-01-08 14:19:13 eoss has joined
321 2012-01-08 14:19:14 eoss has quit (Changing host)
322 2012-01-08 14:19:14 eoss has joined
323 2012-01-08 14:19:24 pickett has joined
324 2012-01-08 14:19:45 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
325 2012-01-08 14:21:13 BlueMatt has joined
326 2012-01-08 14:29:24 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
327 2012-01-08 14:30:56 BlueMatt has joined
328 2012-01-08 14:38:04 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
329 2012-01-08 14:39:03 <Joric> is it possible to cancel transaction sending another one with a higher fee?
330 2012-01-08 14:43:04 BlueMatt has joined
331 2012-01-08 14:47:06 theorbtwo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
332 2012-01-08 14:47:11 theorbtwo has joined
333 2012-01-08 14:50:40 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
334 2012-01-08 14:51:27 BlueMatt has joined
335 2012-01-08 14:53:14 mcorlett has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.88 [Firefox 8.0/20111115183813])
336 2012-01-08 14:57:17 mcorlett has joined
337 2012-01-08 14:58:04 riush has joined
338 2012-01-08 15:02:40 b4epoche_ has joined
339 2012-01-08 15:03:39 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
340 2012-01-08 15:03:39 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
341 2012-01-08 15:07:19 diki has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
342 2012-01-08 15:09:34 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
343 2012-01-08 15:10:53 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
344 2012-01-08 15:11:59 diki has joined
345 2012-01-08 15:12:32 PK has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
346 2012-01-08 15:13:14 danbri_ is now known as danbri
347 2012-01-08 15:22:16 Nesetalis has quit (Quit: <+shponka> how does one scissor with four people <+shponka> hypercube tribadism)
348 2012-01-08 15:24:40 theorb has joined
349 2012-01-08 15:25:14 [Tycho] has joined
350 2012-01-08 15:26:05 Nesetalis has joined
351 2012-01-08 15:26:31 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
352 2012-01-08 15:26:38 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
353 2012-01-08 15:26:45 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
354 2012-01-08 15:28:19 user_ has joined
355 2012-01-08 15:30:21 BlueMatt has joined
356 2012-01-08 15:33:15 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Never put off till tomorrow, what you can do the day after tomorrow)
357 2012-01-08 15:36:53 Xunie has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
358 2012-01-08 15:37:10 copumpkin is now known as rottin!~copumpkin@unaffiliated/pumpkingod|copumpkin
359 2012-01-08 15:39:15 user_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
360 2012-01-08 15:40:27 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
361 2012-01-08 15:42:55 kiba` is now known as kiba
362 2012-01-08 15:43:15 storrgie has joined
363 2012-01-08 15:43:22 sacarlson has joined
364 2012-01-08 15:45:58 user_ has joined
365 2012-01-08 15:46:13 <roconnor_> Joric: in theory, but probably not in practice.
366 2012-01-08 15:46:23 roconnor_ is now known as roconnor
367 2012-01-08 15:51:34 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
368 2012-01-08 15:52:40 Xunie has joined
369 2012-01-08 16:02:32 user_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
370 2012-01-08 16:03:02 imsaguy2 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
371 2012-01-08 16:04:14 imsaguy has joined
372 2012-01-08 16:04:15 imsaguy has quit (Changing host)
373 2012-01-08 16:04:15 imsaguy has joined
374 2012-01-08 16:05:39 twobitcoins has quit (Quit: Leaving)
375 2012-01-08 16:05:52 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
376 2012-01-08 16:06:13 Joric has joined
377 2012-01-08 16:06:25 Joric has quit (Changing host)
378 2012-01-08 16:06:25 Joric has joined
379 2012-01-08 16:12:01 Sedra- has joined
380 2012-01-08 16:12:14 PK has joined
381 2012-01-08 16:14:58 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
382 2012-01-08 16:15:22 enquirer has quit (Quit: back soon)
383 2012-01-08 16:16:03 * roconnor thinks he has CODESEPARATOR implemented now.
384 2012-01-08 16:17:04 * sipa wonders whether it will ever be used
385 2012-01-08 16:17:23 enquirer has joined
386 2012-01-08 16:17:26 <roconnor> well, it sort of seems plausibly useful.
387 2012-01-08 16:17:52 <roconnor> some entity can make one of the necessary signature without having the full script available.
388 2012-01-08 16:19:21 enquirer has quit (Client Quit)
389 2012-01-08 16:19:54 <roconnor> but implementing it in my code is a bit of a pain.  It is the only "context-senstive" operation in the sense that its effect depends on not only the current instruction
390 2012-01-08 16:20:02 <roconnor> but all the remaining instructions as well
391 2012-01-08 16:20:21 enquirer has joined
392 2012-01-08 16:21:45 enquirer has quit (Client Quit)
393 2012-01-08 16:22:00 da2ce7 has joined
394 2012-01-08 16:22:28 enquirer has joined
395 2012-01-08 16:22:58 enquirer has quit (Client Quit)
396 2012-01-08 16:26:04 enquirer has joined
397 2012-01-08 16:26:05 enquirer has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
398 2012-01-08 16:26:58 enquirer has joined
399 2012-01-08 16:27:21 enquirer has quit (Client Quit)
400 2012-01-08 16:27:37 enquirer has joined
401 2012-01-08 16:28:32 enquirer has quit (Client Quit)
402 2012-01-08 16:29:04 enquirer has joined
403 2012-01-08 16:29:52 diki has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
404 2012-01-08 16:41:22 enquirer has quit (Quit: back soon)
405 2012-01-08 16:41:55 enquirer has joined
406 2012-01-08 16:43:54 enquirer has quit (Client Quit)
407 2012-01-08 16:44:07 Diablo-D3 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
408 2012-01-08 16:44:34 enquirer has joined
409 2012-01-08 16:45:55 TD has joined
410 2012-01-08 16:46:01 enquirer has quit (Client Quit)
411 2012-01-08 16:48:41 enquirer has joined
412 2012-01-08 16:51:21 iocor has joined
413 2012-01-08 16:51:28 iocor has quit (Changing host)
414 2012-01-08 16:51:28 iocor has joined
415 2012-01-08 16:55:43 twobitcoins has joined
416 2012-01-08 16:57:24 theorb has joined
417 2012-01-08 16:57:39 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
418 2012-01-08 16:57:40 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
419 2012-01-08 16:57:47 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
420 2012-01-08 16:59:46 Visalleras has joined
421 2012-01-08 17:00:14 imsaguy has joined
422 2012-01-08 17:00:15 imsaguy has quit (Changing host)
423 2012-01-08 17:00:15 imsaguy has joined
424 2012-01-08 17:05:46 wizkid057 is now known as zZz!~wizkid057@c-71-226-219-178.hsd1.nj.comcast.net|wizkid057
425 2012-01-08 17:08:39 enquirer has quit (Quit: back soon)
426 2012-01-08 17:09:37 devrandom has joined
427 2012-01-08 17:10:36 JZavala has joined
428 2012-01-08 17:10:39 magn3ts_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
429 2012-01-08 17:12:49 enquirer has joined
430 2012-01-08 17:20:40 Sedra has joined
431 2012-01-08 17:20:40 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
432 2012-01-08 17:23:05 Sedra- has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
433 2012-01-08 17:26:28 graingert has joined
434 2012-01-08 17:42:03 Carmivore has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
435 2012-01-08 17:48:26 Carmivore has joined
436 2012-01-08 17:55:08 theorb has joined
437 2012-01-08 17:56:48 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
438 2012-01-08 17:57:18 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
439 2012-01-08 18:00:22 Clipse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
440 2012-01-08 18:01:16 theorbtwo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
441 2012-01-08 18:04:17 abragin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
442 2012-01-08 18:05:56 Visalleras has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
443 2012-01-08 18:06:21 theorbtwo has joined
444 2012-01-08 18:06:23 abragin has joined
445 2012-01-08 18:06:25 abragin has quit (Changing host)
446 2012-01-08 18:06:25 abragin has joined
447 2012-01-08 18:20:05 eoss has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
448 2012-01-08 18:22:30 wasabi1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
449 2012-01-08 18:27:32 diki has joined
450 2012-01-08 18:32:35 datagutt has joined
451 2012-01-08 18:33:14 imsaguy is now known as imsaguy2
452 2012-01-08 18:36:36 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
453 2012-01-08 18:40:12 wizkid057 is now known as wizkid057|afk
454 2012-01-08 18:43:47 m00p has quit (Quit: Leaving)
455 2012-01-08 18:53:42 Visalleras has joined
456 2012-01-08 18:57:42 Turingi has joined
457 2012-01-08 18:58:43 darkee has quit (!~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
458 2012-01-08 18:59:23 Raccoon has left ()
459 2012-01-08 19:11:15 Eisenaxt has joined
460 2012-01-08 19:12:04 darkee has joined
461 2012-01-08 19:14:17 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
462 2012-01-08 19:14:28 b4epoche has joined
463 2012-01-08 19:24:49 zxywvut has joined
464 2012-01-08 19:25:14 da2ce7 has joined
465 2012-01-08 19:32:01 oww has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
466 2012-01-08 19:32:39 oww has joined
467 2012-01-08 19:35:24 theorb has joined
468 2012-01-08 19:35:44 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
469 2012-01-08 19:35:49 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
470 2012-01-08 19:41:37 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
471 2012-01-08 19:42:13 darkee is now known as !~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|darkee
472 2012-01-08 19:42:41 user has joined
473 2012-01-08 19:44:46 user has quit (Client Quit)
474 2012-01-08 19:48:02 minimoose has joined
475 2012-01-08 19:52:30 da2ce7 has joined
476 2012-01-08 19:53:59 wizkid057 is now known as afk!~wizkid057@c-71-226-219-178.hsd1.nj.comcast.net|wizkid057|notafk
477 2012-01-08 19:54:26 wizkid057 is now known as notafk!~wizkid057@c-71-226-219-178.hsd1.nj.comcast.net|wizkid057
478 2012-01-08 19:57:47 pycke has left ()
479 2012-01-08 20:00:29 Lexa has quit (Quit: Lexa)
480 2012-01-08 20:01:17 Eisenaxt has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
481 2012-01-08 20:02:30 pycke has joined
482 2012-01-08 20:06:24 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
483 2012-01-08 20:09:34 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
484 2012-01-08 20:12:10 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
485 2012-01-08 20:13:10 Cablesaurus has joined
486 2012-01-08 20:13:10 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
487 2012-01-08 20:13:10 Cablesaurus has joined
488 2012-01-08 20:13:23 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
489 2012-01-08 20:14:46 m00p has joined
490 2012-01-08 20:15:42 theorbtwo has joined
491 2012-01-08 20:17:05 abragin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
492 2012-01-08 20:17:30 abragin has joined
493 2012-01-08 20:17:30 abragin has quit (Changing host)
494 2012-01-08 20:17:30 abragin has joined
495 2012-01-08 20:20:27 Wack0 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
496 2012-01-08 20:21:16 RichardG has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
497 2012-01-08 20:22:40 eoss has joined
498 2012-01-08 20:22:40 eoss has quit (Changing host)
499 2012-01-08 20:22:40 eoss has joined
500 2012-01-08 20:23:49 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
501 2012-01-08 20:25:22 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
502 2012-01-08 20:26:04 RazielZ has joined
503 2012-01-08 20:28:59 iocor has joined
504 2012-01-08 20:31:19 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
505 2012-01-08 20:32:37 gfinn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
506 2012-01-08 20:36:33 Joric has quit ()
507 2012-01-08 20:39:14 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: genjix * r49f2167b40b4 / (4 files in 3 dirs): Removed using directives from system headers. They should never have: http://tinyurl.com/7d3kkzj
508 2012-01-08 20:40:26 theorbtwo has joined
509 2012-01-08 20:44:01 gfinn has joined
510 2012-01-08 20:44:39 Nicksasa has joined
511 2012-01-08 20:48:05 jgarzik has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
512 2012-01-08 20:48:39 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
513 2012-01-08 20:56:45 dvide has joined
514 2012-01-08 20:57:07 BlueMatt has joined
515 2012-01-08 20:57:54 riush has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
516 2012-01-08 20:58:20 riush has joined
517 2012-01-08 21:15:15 Carmivore has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
518 2012-01-08 21:16:40 imsaguy2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
519 2012-01-08 21:21:23 <graingert> does bitcoin validate blocks between genesis and the latest checkpoint?
520 2012-01-08 21:21:38 Carmivore has joined
521 2012-01-08 21:21:48 <sipa> yes, except for verifying signatures
522 2012-01-08 21:22:06 <graingert> does it usually?
523 2012-01-08 21:22:11 <graingert> does it do anything different
524 2012-01-08 21:22:13 <graingert> basically
525 2012-01-08 21:22:55 <graingert> eg download backwards from the most recent checkpoint
526 2012-01-08 21:23:05 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
527 2012-01-08 21:23:24 <graingert> and assume everything is valid, apart from the hash
528 2012-01-08 21:23:46 <gmaxwell> no, it downloads forward. and validate everything except the ecdsa signatures (because they're computationall expensive)
529 2012-01-08 21:23:54 <sipa> it downloads, oldest to newest, and processes the blocks one by one
530 2012-01-08 21:24:33 <gmaxwell> other than the signature part it's just like getting blocks as they are made.
531 2012-01-08 21:24:43 Carmivore has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
532 2012-01-08 21:24:47 <makomk> There *may* be some circumstance in which it downloads newest-to-oldest, I dunno. That code is a bit...
533 2012-01-08 21:25:08 <sipa> not that i know of
534 2012-01-08 21:25:09 <gmaxwell> makomk: the getblocks call just doesn't work like that.
535 2012-01-08 21:25:15 pycke2 has joined
536 2012-01-08 21:25:58 <gmaxwell> It would actually be good to download backwards: it would remove some DOS vulnerabilties.. But it couldn't validate backwards.
537 2012-01-08 21:26:19 Nicksasa has joined
538 2012-01-08 21:26:26 <makomk> Yeah. It'd end up having to buffer all the blocks and validate them forwards.
539 2012-01-08 21:26:31 <gmaxwell> But as far as I know we'd need some enhancements to the network protocol to do that without losing piplining.
540 2012-01-08 21:27:02 minimoose_ has joined
541 2012-01-08 21:27:14 <roconnor> gmaxwell: does it matter whether headers are downloaded from oldest to newest or newest to oldest?
542 2012-01-08 21:27:16 <gmaxwell> makomk: which would actually be fine because you'd be sure they were okay since they were checkpoint connected. The validation is just zero trust prudence and could wait until the backwards transfer finishes.
543 2012-01-08 21:27:30 <makomk> True.
544 2012-01-08 21:28:05 minimoose has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
545 2012-01-08 21:28:06 minimoose_ is now known as minimoose
546 2012-01-08 21:28:09 <gmaxwell> roconnor: if you have checkpoints a backwards download can never give you the wrong chain unless the checkpoints are wrong.
547 2012-01-08 21:28:27 <roconnor> gmaxwell: and if you don't have checkpoints?
548 2012-01-08 21:28:29 <makomk> Interestingly, I think the circumstances in which things are most likely to become interesting are post-checkpoint. For example: what happens if the node you're doing the block download from has never heard of your current best block?
549 2012-01-08 21:28:30 <gmaxwell> Absent checkpoints the only reason to go backwards is because you'd start with high difficulty blocks which are more expensive to fake.
550 2012-01-08 21:28:45 <gmaxwell> (makes the fake chain DOS much more expensive)
551 2012-01-08 21:29:02 <sipa> makomk: getblocks uses an index of blocks, not just the last one
552 2012-01-08 21:29:17 <roconnor> gmaxwell: I guess you don't know for sure if the newest blocks are more difficult.
553 2012-01-08 21:29:23 <sipa> makomk: it contains hashes of blocks further and further away, exponentially increasing distance
554 2012-01-08 21:29:38 <makomk> Aha, I see.
555 2012-01-08 21:30:01 <gmaxwell> roconnor: I think it would be reasonable to make a client that simply refuses to work if the most recent blocks are not at least difficulty X where X is high enough to make the DOS attack expensive.
556 2012-01-08 21:30:14 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
557 2012-01-08 21:30:28 <gmaxwell> roconnor: if the chain drops in popularity enough to make the client refuse to work, it would be insecure anyways (provide some override switch if you must)
558 2012-01-08 21:30:48 <roconnor> hmm
559 2012-01-08 21:31:10 Carmivore has joined
560 2012-01-08 21:32:09 <gmaxwell> E.g. diff 1000 is probably high enough to make this not-the-cheapest DOS attack... but realistically the chain is not getting back to that without failing.
561 2012-01-08 21:32:49 Nicksasa has joined
562 2012-01-08 21:34:06 <gmaxwell> (hm, maybe 10000, 1000 is only 7GH/s or so )
563 2012-01-08 21:34:22 <roconnor> how big is a header?
564 2012-01-08 21:34:27 <gmaxwell> 80 bytes.
565 2012-01-08 21:35:02 <roconnor> what is the expect number of hashes to produce a difficulty 1 header?
566 2012-01-08 21:35:12 <gmaxwell> roughtly 2^32.
567 2012-01-08 21:35:23 <roconnor> 4 GH?
568 2012-01-08 21:35:23 <sipa> exactly 2^48/65535
569 2012-01-08 21:35:37 <sipa> yes
570 2012-01-08 21:37:57 <roconnor> so it would take around 58 million GH to spam 1 Gigabyte of headers.
571 2012-01-08 21:38:02 <roconnor> at the lowest difficulty
572 2012-01-08 21:38:47 <roconnor> anyone know what the total work done on the longest chain is?
573 2012-01-08 21:38:48 <gmaxwell> roconnor: yea, thats pretty cheap... divide by the current difficutly and multiply by 50 to get a lower-bound cost in bitcoin to perform the attack.
574 2012-01-08 21:39:31 <sipa> 205805813456846043639 hashes, at block 161288
575 2012-01-08 21:40:01 <gmaxwell> my mind still boggles at this.
576 2012-01-08 21:40:13 * sipa counts digits
577 2012-01-08 21:40:36 zxywvut has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
578 2012-01-08 21:40:38 <roconnor> gmaxwell: 2 304 BTC to spam 1 Gigabyte of headers
579 2012-01-08 21:41:04 <roconnor> gmaxwell: ya it is kinda cheap
580 2012-01-08 21:41:24 <gmaxwell> It sure isn't if you have to use diff 10k though.
581 2012-01-08 21:41:35 <gmaxwell> (or 1000 for that matter)
582 2012-01-08 21:41:54 <sipa> that means 3 TH/s, for 25 months, on average
583 2012-01-08 21:41:55 <roconnor> gmaxwell: it makes me take your proposal more seriously
584 2012-01-08 21:42:01 <sipa> in reality it is 8 TH/s now
585 2012-01-08 21:44:16 <roconnor> gmaxwell: what is the current USD price? about $5
586 2012-01-08 21:44:25 <sipa> $7
587 2012-01-08 21:44:25 <roconnor> so we are talking around $10 000 per gigabyte?
588 2012-01-08 21:44:33 <roconnor> sipa: wow
589 2012-01-08 21:44:41 <roconnor> I'm glad I didn't short BTC
590 2012-01-08 21:54:16 <gmaxwell> huh? 13421772 headers per GB. 1250757.74 diff=1 headers per bitcoin solution. (1024^3/80)/1250757.74*50 = 536.54 BTC forgone income from making the attack.
591 2012-01-08 21:54:21 abragin has quit ()
592 2012-01-08 21:55:44 <gmaxwell> And the attack can be used over and over again, of course.  But at diff 1000 instead of 1 you're taking about 3.7 million dollars rather than 3.7 thousand.
593 2012-01-08 21:57:40 magn3ts has joined
594 2012-01-08 22:00:13 cuqa has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
595 2012-01-08 22:02:40 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
596 2012-01-08 22:03:51 <roconnor> gmaxwell: thanks for correcting me
597 2012-01-08 22:04:40 <copumpkin> so it isn't practical?
598 2012-01-08 22:04:50 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: so what isn't pratical?
599 2012-01-08 22:04:56 <copumpkin> this attack? I just tuned in
600 2012-01-08 22:05:15 <gmaxwell> This isn't something new.
601 2012-01-08 22:05:30 <copumpkin> ah
602 2012-01-08 22:05:58 <roconnor> copumpkin: it costs 3.7 thousand USD in opertunity to flood a client with 1 GB of low difficulty headers
603 2012-01-08 22:06:44 <copumpkin> oh, I see what you mean
604 2012-01-08 22:07:04 <roconnor> well, it can be used to flood all clients
605 2012-01-08 22:07:17 <roconnor> well, all clients that support flooding
606 2012-01-08 22:07:31 <gmaxwell> all clients that don't exclude it with checkpoints and or reverse fetching with a high starting difficulty. :)
607 2012-01-08 22:07:31 <roconnor> I'm not entirely sure what will happen with the exsiting client
608 2012-01-08 22:08:10 <roconnor> oh right the checkpointing will force the initial blocks to be high difficulty
609 2012-01-08 22:08:13 barmstrong has joined
610 2012-01-08 22:08:26 <roconnor> though timewarping might mitigate
611 2012-01-08 22:08:32 <roconnor> to 11 difficult blocks?
612 2012-01-08 22:08:35 <sipa> but clients download entire blocks, not just headers
613 2012-01-08 22:09:12 <sipa> creating valid transactions using the coins generated by your fake chain itself is probably a lot cheaper than extra headers
614 2012-01-08 22:09:51 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Clap on! , Clap off! Clap@#&$NO CARRIER)
615 2012-01-08 22:10:14 <gmaxwell> Right. This whole discussion goes back to a prior discussion where I pointed out that checkpoints limit flooding attacks, and roconnor was quite unhappy that checkpoints were 'required'. I proposed that you could instead do a header only fetch first, thus cutting the data size down enormously
616 2012-01-08 22:10:23 <roconnor> so can we attack the current client by timewarping the difficulty down to 1 using 11 difficult blocks and then continuing with lots of low difficultly blocks?
617 2012-01-08 22:10:39 <gmaxwell> and that you start from recent blocks which you could force to be higher difficulty.
618 2012-01-08 22:11:06 <roconnor> oh wait
619 2012-01-08 22:11:08 <gmaxwell> roconnor: 11 difficult blocks? no.. the difficulty change is clamped to 4x / 0.25x per cycle.
620 2012-01-08 22:11:11 <roconnor> you can only lower diffuclty byso much
621 2012-01-08 22:11:13 <roconnor> right
622 2012-01-08 22:11:46 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
623 2012-01-08 22:12:31 slush has joined
624 2012-01-08 22:13:02 <roconnor> sipa: ya, my hypothetical client will download headers and only download blocks when the alledged chain is provably more difficult than the current most difficult chain
625 2012-01-08 22:13:12 devrandom has joined
626 2012-01-08 22:13:15 <sipa> roconnor: good
627 2012-01-08 22:13:39 <sipa> by the way
628 2012-01-08 22:13:45 <sipa> the starting point of the chain is known
629 2012-01-08 22:14:07 <roconnor> probably
630 2012-01-08 22:14:11 <gmaxwell> it identifies bitcoin vs some other chain with the same rules.
631 2012-01-08 22:14:32 <roconnor> I think I allow any genesis block with the right string in the genesis block
632 2012-01-08 22:14:40 <roconnor> I forget
633 2012-01-08 22:14:51 <sipa> and disregarding the time-lapse bug, each 2016-block-block needs to be two weeks long for the difficulty to remain constant
634 2012-01-08 22:15:29 <roconnor> sipa: okay
635 2012-01-08 22:15:53 <roconnor> sipa: I like where this is going
636 2012-01-08 22:16:47 <sipa> i think a headers-only-phase is quite safe, when done right
637 2012-01-08 22:17:08 <gmaxwell> Given the known start point, and a proposed end point there is a range of allowed difficultyies along the path between them, though it's a pretty broad range.
638 2012-01-08 22:17:59 <roconnor> sipa: it would be a lot easier if the total difficulty were part of the header :/
639 2012-01-08 22:18:40 <roconnor> actually that could be added to the network protocol
640 2012-01-08 22:19:05 <gmaxwell> but there would be no committment to it that way.
641 2012-01-08 22:19:10 <roconnor> nothing wrong with that; the network protocol isn't part of core
642 2012-01-08 22:19:18 <gmaxwell> I claim this diff 1 block is part of a 10 trillion difficulty chain.
643 2012-01-08 22:20:30 <roconnor> gmaxwell: what are we on, block 10000?
644 2012-01-08 22:20:35 <roconnor> block 16000?
645 2012-01-08 22:20:45 <sipa> 161000
646 2012-01-08 22:20:53 <roconnor> oh
647 2012-01-08 22:20:54 <sipa> 161299
648 2012-01-08 22:20:55 <copumpkin> 161299
649 2012-01-08 22:21:00 <gmaxwell> ;;bc,blocks
650 2012-01-08 22:21:01 <gribble> 161299
651 2012-01-08 22:21:06 <sipa> gmaxwell wins
652 2012-01-08 22:21:11 <copumpkin> (:
653 2012-01-08 22:21:26 * gmaxwell mutters something about giving fish vs teaching to fish
654 2012-01-08 22:21:53 storrgie has quit (Quit: Leaving)
655 2012-01-08 22:22:02 <roconnor> gmaxwell: sipa point is that if your 1 diff 10 trillion total difficulty chain is less than 2 hours in the future, then as you start reading the chain backwards you will soon run out of time to complete your 10 trillion difficulty chain
656 2012-01-08 22:22:16 <roconnor> well before 1 GB of headers
657 2012-01-08 22:22:30 <roconnor> because you need to spread your 1 diff blocks out over 2 weeks
658 2012-01-08 22:22:39 <roconnor> (if we ignore the timewrap bug)
659 2012-01-08 22:22:40 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
660 2012-01-08 22:23:18 cuqa has joined
661 2012-01-08 22:23:35 <gmaxwell> hm. thats fair. The peer can tell you some number which, if its too high will end up making you early abort.
662 2012-01-08 22:23:50 <gmaxwell> And if its too low you'll ignore that block for fetching the longest chain.
663 2012-01-08 22:23:59 <roconnor> yep
664 2012-01-08 22:24:10 <roconnor> ... this could stand to be documented more carefully
665 2012-01-08 22:24:13 <roconnor> but it sounds promising
666 2012-01-08 22:24:31 <gmaxwell> The fact that it needs p2p improvement isn't a big deal, we'd need that for reverse fetching in any case.
667 2012-01-08 22:24:50 <gmaxwell> You could fetch backwards now, but it wouldn't be pipelined at all.
668 2012-01-08 22:24:56 <roconnor> actually I'm not 100% certain the total difficulty is needed
669 2012-01-08 22:24:58 <gmaxwell> at least as far as I can tell.
670 2012-01-08 22:25:07 <roconnor> but I think adding it to the network protocol is a good idea anyways
671 2012-01-08 22:25:09 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: No route to host)
672 2012-01-08 22:26:18 <gmaxwell> though perhaps it leads to a more mild DOS attack where you always try to fetch the chain from the highest claim, but then fail at some point after doing a bunch of work, which would be unfortunate even if it doesn't fill your disk.
673 2012-01-08 22:27:27 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
674 2012-01-08 22:28:54 kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
675 2012-01-08 22:30:51 Nicksasa has joined
676 2012-01-08 22:31:36 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: why do you have a single 'bitcoin' package for PPA? -.-
677 2012-01-08 22:31:41 <luke-jr> it should be bitcoin-qt and bitcoind
678 2012-01-08 22:32:02 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: no there are two packages
679 2012-01-08 22:32:08 <BlueMatt> but you upload one source package to build both
680 2012-01-08 22:32:17 <BlueMatt> (which is what you are seeing)
681 2012-01-08 22:33:55 <luke-jr> aha, I have to update after adding the PPA!
682 2012-01-08 22:34:08 <BlueMatt> yea, that too
683 2012-01-08 22:35:01 pickett has joined
684 2012-01-08 22:37:01 Carmivore has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
685 2012-01-08 22:39:50 * roconnor still has to implement the useless signature filtering
686 2012-01-08 22:42:28 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
687 2012-01-08 22:43:20 sacredchao has joined
688 2012-01-08 22:43:27 Carmivore has joined
689 2012-01-08 22:47:20 copumpkin has joined
690 2012-01-08 22:53:19 da2ce7 has joined
691 2012-01-08 22:56:36 <luke-jr> ;;bc,calcd 9000 1
692 2012-01-08 22:56:36 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 9000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 7 minutes and 57 seconds
693 2012-01-08 22:56:41 <luke-jr> x.x
694 2012-01-08 22:57:30 <sipa> roconnor: hmm?
695 2012-01-08 22:59:05 <roconnor> sipa: when validating a signature the current CODESEPARATOR block (usually the whole block) is inserted into the transaction copy that is being hashed.
696 2012-01-08 22:59:24 <sipa> right
697 2012-01-08 22:59:34 <roconnor> sipa: but before this is done the codeblock is filtered of all occurances of the PUSHDATA {signature} for the signature being checked.
698 2012-01-08 22:59:59 <roconnor> sipa: which is useless because the signatures are almost always in the signature block and not the pubkey block.
699 2012-01-08 23:00:00 <sipa> you've got to love it :)
700 2012-01-08 23:00:06 <slush> "SendMoney() : Error: Transaction creation failed  keypool return 5467"
701 2012-01-08 23:00:09 <slush> Any idea?
702 2012-01-08 23:00:20 <slush> 0.3.24
703 2012-01-08 23:00:34 <roconnor> sipa: and I cant think of any sane case when the signature would be in the same code block as the block running the OP_CHECKSIG.
704 2012-01-08 23:00:57 <sipa> satoshi thought about everything
705 2012-01-08 23:01:04 <sipa> about too much even, it seems
706 2012-01-08 23:01:28 <roconnor> sipa: gavin is right, the signature block ought to only have pushdata in it, since the main stack is the only environment that can be passed to the pubkey code
707 2012-01-08 23:01:37 <luke-jr> makomk: FUD is not a valid counter
708 2012-01-08 23:02:07 <roconnor> sipa: anything else occuring in the signature block is useless computation whose final result could be simulated by a series of pushdatas
709 2012-01-08 23:02:20 <sipa> indeed
710 2012-01-08 23:02:37 <roconnor> sipa: (in prinicple it might be used for compression, but really that isn't something that should be supported)
711 2012-01-08 23:04:46 <roconnor> I think satoshi was a little too enamoured with concatinative languages
712 2012-01-08 23:05:03 <doublec> slush: wallet too fragmented with small amounts so it can't create a big payment?
713 2012-01-08 23:05:17 Visalleras is now known as ushiu
714 2012-01-08 23:05:33 <slush> doublec: yes, there's a lot of unusable 0.000001 addresses, but still a lot of generated addresses with 50 coins
715 2012-01-08 23:05:36 <doublec> slush: happens all the time with alt currencies because amounts tend to be bigger
716 2012-01-08 23:05:46 <roconnor> if all current signatures contain only pushdata, I think we should move to making that part of the standard.
717 2012-01-08 23:05:55 <gmaxwell> slush: the litecoin people have a patch to make it ignore tiny inputs.
718 2012-01-08 23:06:05 <slush> btw this is namecoin...
719 2012-01-08 23:06:17 <doublec> yeah, the namecoin exchange gets it a lot
720 2012-01-08 23:06:25 <slush> ok, so remove addresses with junk amounts will help?
721 2012-01-08 23:06:39 <gmaxwell> or yank that mininput patch out of the litecoin tree.
722 2012-01-08 23:06:44 <doublec> right
723 2012-01-08 23:07:03 <slush> great, thanks :-)
724 2012-01-08 23:07:26 DontMindMe2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
725 2012-01-08 23:07:49 rdponticelli has joined
726 2012-01-08 23:08:03 <luke-jr> [18:01:16] <diki> If possible, I wish to "skip" the work which will produce share below target
727 2012-01-08 23:08:45 <gmaxwell> You and me both buddy, you and me both.
728 2012-01-08 23:08:56 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: but come on, don't defeat my /ignore please.
729 2012-01-08 23:08:57 <graingert> the loading bar should probably integrate with windows and unity loading bars
730 2012-01-08 23:09:22 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: >_<
731 2012-01-08 23:09:47 da2ce7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
732 2012-01-08 23:11:07 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
733 2012-01-08 23:11:08 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
734 2012-01-08 23:11:34 da2ce7 has joined
735 2012-01-08 23:11:48 pickett has joined
736 2012-01-08 23:12:57 PK has quit ()
737 2012-01-08 23:15:01 terrytibbs has joined
738 2012-01-08 23:15:05 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
739 2012-01-08 23:15:52 imsaguy has joined
740 2012-01-08 23:15:53 imsaguy has quit (Changing host)
741 2012-01-08 23:15:53 imsaguy has joined
742 2012-01-08 23:15:57 graingert has joined
743 2012-01-08 23:16:44 imsaguy is now known as imsaguy2
744 2012-01-08 23:16:53 <roconnor> oops, I have to delete the OP_CODESEPARATORs too
745 2012-01-08 23:17:25 toffoo has quit ()
746 2012-01-08 23:19:45 <graingert> OP_STRANGEMACHINE
747 2012-01-08 23:20:36 toffoo has joined
748 2012-01-08 23:20:46 <diki> OP_FREEBLOCK
749 2012-01-08 23:21:06 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
750 2012-01-08 23:21:20 <luke-jr> OP_SPECIALCASE
751 2012-01-08 23:21:23 <luke-jr> <.<
752 2012-01-08 23:21:36 <gmaxwell> OP_SHOW_ME_THE_MONEY
753 2012-01-08 23:21:39 jgarzik has joined
754 2012-01-08 23:22:03 <luke-jr> OP_GIVEMEMONEY
755 2012-01-08 23:22:04 jgarzik is now known as Guest85064
756 2012-01-08 23:22:08 <luke-jr> OP_SATOSHIBACKDOOR
757 2012-01-08 23:22:21 <graingert> all of these OP's need supporting
758 2012-01-08 23:22:31 <da2ce7> oooh OP_FREEBITCOIN
759 2012-01-08 23:22:39 <diki> OP_FASTBLOCK
760 2012-01-08 23:22:41 <graingert> followed by support for first class functions
761 2012-01-08 23:22:48 Guest85064 has quit (Changing host)
762 2012-01-08 23:22:48 Guest85064 has joined
763 2012-01-08 23:22:53 <graingert> urm
764 2012-01-08 23:22:56 <graingert> what
765 2012-01-08 23:22:59 <sipa> OP_X86ASM
766 2012-01-08 23:23:04 <Guest85064> :)
767 2012-01-08 23:23:07 <graingert> (23:18:37) mode (+o Guest85064) by ChanServ
768 2012-01-08 23:23:08 <BlueMatt> OP_SAVE_THE_WHALES
769 2012-01-08 23:23:14 <graingert> !whois Guest85064
770 2012-01-08 23:23:15 <gribble> Jeff Garzik (~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik) has been on server anthony.freenode.net since 03:17 PM, January 08, 2012 (idle for 11 seconds) and is an op on bitcoin-dev and bitcoin.
771 2012-01-08 23:23:18 <BlueMatt> Graet: usually jgarzik
772 2012-01-08 23:23:20 <graingert> IC
773 2012-01-08 23:23:34 <graingert> BlueMatt when did you become Op
774 2012-01-08 23:23:35 <Guest85064> damn handle is reserved if you don't auth w/in 32 sec
775 2012-01-08 23:23:39 <makomk> luke-jr: what FUD?
776 2012-01-08 23:23:45 Guest85064 is now known as jgarzik_wannabe
777 2012-01-08 23:23:48 <BlueMatt> graingert: Ive had OP on here for a long ass time
778 2012-01-08 23:23:58 <graingert> I've been away for so long :(
779 2012-01-08 23:24:00 <da2ce7> OP_LUKE-JR
780 2012-01-08 23:24:07 <diki> lol
781 2012-01-08 23:24:11 <cjdelisle> sounds like Anon
782 2012-01-08 23:24:13 <BlueMatt> graingert: Ive had op on here for like 6 months
783 2012-01-08 23:24:13 <gmaxwell> haha it's funny seeing "@Guest85064"
784 2012-01-08 23:24:17 <graingert> hmm
785 2012-01-08 23:24:22 m00p has joined
786 2012-01-08 23:24:25 <graingert> oh wait this is -dev
787 2012-01-08 23:24:26 * da2ce7 thinks that we should give luke-jr his own OP.
788 2012-01-08 23:24:37 <k9quaint> OP_OR_GASM
789 2012-01-08 23:24:56 <luke-jr> makomk: on the forum
790 2012-01-08 23:25:27 b4epoche_ has joined
791 2012-01-08 23:25:54 <graingert> hard disks are so pricey
792 2012-01-08 23:25:56 <graingert> :(
793 2012-01-08 23:26:02 <BlueMatt> ???
794 2012-01-08 23:26:22 <BlueMatt> s/hard disks/ssds/ ?
795 2012-01-08 23:26:26 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
796 2012-01-08 23:26:26 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
797 2012-01-08 23:26:42 <makomk> luke-jr: what, the fact that half to a third of all Eligius-found blocks I've checked so far share POW with CLC blocks? How's that FUD?
798 2012-01-08 23:26:43 user has joined
799 2012-01-08 23:27:18 <graingert> BlueMatt nope
800 2012-01-08 23:27:31 <graingert> BlueMatt they've been double price since they flooded
801 2012-01-08 23:27:38 <k9quaint> yeah, they are pricey
802 2012-01-08 23:27:40 <BlueMatt> oh, that....yea
803 2012-01-08 23:27:53 <BlueMatt> though they are getting better...
804 2012-01-08 23:27:59 <k9quaint> don't buy any refurbished ones ;)
805 2012-01-08 23:28:07 <graingert> they are very wet
806 2012-01-08 23:28:46 <midnightmagic> "CLC"?
807 2012-01-08 23:28:55 <graingert> CoilCoin?
808 2012-01-08 23:29:28 <k9quaint> makomk: have you checked 3 blocks?
809 2012-01-08 23:30:29 <doublec> midnightmagic: coiledcoin
810 2012-01-08 23:30:29 <midnightmagic> CoilCoin..  heh.. you said "coil"
811 2012-01-08 23:30:35 <midnightmagic> oh you're serious
812 2012-01-08 23:30:54 <doublec> midnightmagic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56675.0
813 2012-01-08 23:31:18 <midnightmagic> so..  does that mean luke is merged-mining more than two chains?
814 2012-01-08 23:31:37 theymos has joined
815 2012-01-08 23:31:40 <doublec> ask luke :)
816 2012-01-08 23:31:47 <makomk> k9quaint: just found the third... the fourth...
817 2012-01-08 23:32:20 <k9quaint> makomk: I was just wondering if it statistically significant or not
818 2012-01-08 23:32:24 wizkid057 is now known as wizkid057|food
819 2012-01-08 23:32:47 <midnightmagic> makomk: Why was coiledcoin murdered?
820 2012-01-08 23:32:48 <makomk> k9quaint: almost certainly not, this is just a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation.
821 2012-01-08 23:33:08 <k9quaint> midnightmagic: it knocked up his sister
822 2012-01-08 23:33:13 <makomk> midnightmagic: this is rather off-topic for -dev
823 2012-01-08 23:33:38 <BlueMatt> makomk: when is #bitcoin-dev on topic?
824 2012-01-08 23:33:46 <midnightmagic> oh sorry I thought I was on #eligius
825 2012-01-08 23:34:06 <k9quaint> CLC shares its POWs with BTC anyway :P
826 2012-01-08 23:34:15 <k9quaint> so its almost like talking about BTC
827 2012-01-08 23:34:24 <makomk> BlueMatt: true, but I try not to piss off the ops too much.
828 2012-01-08 23:34:26 <luke-jr> makomk: implying it is relevant is FUD
829 2012-01-08 23:34:26 <midnightmagic> still, it is related in that merged mining is a topic related to bitcoin, and it means there's mining software capable of >2, in which case the ^2 problem was solved and there's code demonstrating it somewhere. :)
830 2012-01-08 23:34:55 <doublec> midnightmagic: mmpool merge mines 5 hains
831 2012-01-08 23:35:00 <sipa> i think it's on-topic enough here
832 2012-01-08 23:35:00 <doublec> s/hains/chains
833 2012-01-08 23:35:04 <makomk> luke-jr: how so? Some of the forum members seem to consider it relevant.
834 2012-01-08 23:35:15 <BlueMatt> makomk: I have never seen an op kickban anyone for anything less than trolling here...
835 2012-01-08 23:35:22 <luke-jr> makomk: some of the forum members are trying to feed the ignorant with FUD
836 2012-01-08 23:35:45 * midnightmagic is sorry, he really did think he was on #eligius
837 2012-01-08 23:35:57 <makomk> luke-jr: as opposed to your misleading statements which lead people to believe Eligius miners weren't helping mine CLC but didn't actually say that?
838 2012-01-08 23:35:58 <k9quaint> BlueMatt: what if I am a troll, who is currently unemployed, am I trolling? ;-)
839 2012-01-08 23:36:03 <gmaxwell> I really don't want to see more blah blah about makomk's deadcoin in here, if I want that kind of entertainment I can go to the forums.
840 2012-01-08 23:36:21 <luke-jr> makomk: my statements are 100% factual, and leave people with the correct conclusions
841 2012-01-08 23:36:46 <makomk> luke-jr: I'm just explaining how your statements are factual.
842 2012-01-08 23:36:48 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: zombiecoin, they never truly die
843 2012-01-08 23:37:04 <gmaxwell> makomk: a lot of people are still totally clueless about merged mining, and its really hard to get people's heads around it. Even people who are quite smart.
844 2012-01-08 23:37:24 <luke-jr> not just 'a lot' IMO, but 99.99%
845 2012-01-08 23:37:28 <luke-jr> Gavin included
846 2012-01-08 23:37:43 <gmaxwell> (e.g. gavin didn't know merged mining was O(1) on the order the other day, though that might have been a momentary brainfart)
847 2012-01-08 23:37:45 <k9quaint> luke-jr:  99.87% by my calculations, learn to count noob
848 2012-01-08 23:38:10 <luke-jr> under 10 people truly understand merged mining I think
849 2012-01-08 23:38:19 <makomk> gmaxwell: which is how come luke-jr can make statements about his miners not doing *hashing* inolving CLC and make people think their *hash power* wasn't used for it.
850 2012-01-08 23:38:24 <luke-jr> at most 25
851 2012-01-08 23:38:49 <luke-jr> makomk: "hash power" is an undefined abstract concept that has no real meaning
852 2012-01-08 23:39:07 <k9quaint> especially regarding merged mining, which creates a discrete hash space
853 2012-01-08 23:39:46 <luke-jr> explaining how MM works is very much non-trivial and takes time even for experienced Bitcoin developers
854 2012-01-08 23:40:11 <k9quaint> its not *that* hard
855 2012-01-08 23:40:16 baxter- has quit (Quit: Bye!)
856 2012-01-08 23:40:26 <k9quaint> as long as the person doing the explaining actually knows what it is :P
857 2012-01-08 23:40:29 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: it really is hard.
858 2012-01-08 23:40:32 <luke-jr> low-level facts is the easiest way to disspell the FUD from people who try to capitalize on that ignorance
859 2012-01-08 23:40:35 <doublec> is the vote for bip 16 going ahead at the time stated in the proposal?
860 2012-01-08 23:40:36 pavel has joined
861 2012-01-08 23:40:43 <doublec> or is that vote itself a proposal?
862 2012-01-08 23:40:46 <luke-jr> doublec: vote against plz
863 2012-01-08 23:40:52 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: I've had to just give up in #bitcoin some .. people keep getting back to "but I don't want to lose any of my bitcoin hashing"
864 2012-01-08 23:41:11 <doublec> luke-jr: I'm going to add a flag to my pool to allow miners to choose what to vote for
865 2012-01-08 23:41:14 <makomk> Yeah, the low-level details are hard. They're also irrelevant, or at least would be if luke-jr wasn't splitting hairs based on them >.<
866 2012-01-08 23:41:21 <doublec> luke-jr: if they find the block they get to vote in it
867 2012-01-08 23:41:26 <luke-jr> explaining MM in a few paragraphs, to a mass of people, is *impossible*
868 2012-01-08 23:41:46 <doublec> but I'd like to know if it's happening to make it worth the effort of doing
869 2012-01-08 23:41:47 <luke-jr> that's why I said miners can contact me individually if they really need to ask questions beyond the simple "no, you're not responsible for it"
870 2012-01-08 23:41:49 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: #bitcoin is a bad pool to sample from, all the austrian economists will lynch you
871 2012-01-08 23:42:35 <makomk> I think basically all people need to know in that thread is (a) it didn't reduce their Bitcoin/Namecoin income or harm their mining of it and (b) if they were mining on Eligius they were helping you to shut down CLC.
872 2012-01-08 23:42:51 <luke-jr> makomk: (b) is not correctly worded, at least
873 2012-01-08 23:42:55 <makomk> All the technical squabbling about who hashes what is irrelevant.
874 2012-01-08 23:43:02 <luke-jr> no, it isn't.
875 2012-01-08 23:43:28 <luke-jr> Eligius miners were "helping" me shutdown CLC, in the same sense that they are "helping" people launder money
876 2012-01-08 23:43:30 <k9quaint> most people think luke suborned the Eligius hash power
877 2012-01-08 23:43:30 <doublec> luke-jr: voting against is just abstaing, right?
878 2012-01-08 23:43:35 <makomk> OK, a question: if no-one was mining on Eligius, would you have been able to shut down CLC in the way you did?
879 2012-01-08 23:43:45 <doublec> erm, abstaining - that is, not voting
880 2012-01-08 23:43:45 <luke-jr> doublec: I guess; maybe we need an "oppose" flag
881 2012-01-08 23:44:06 <gmaxwell> doublec: luke-jr: for the purpose of the election abstain is oppose.
882 2012-01-08 23:44:16 <luke-jr> makomk: probably. most of the contact I've had has been along the lines of "let me help next time"
883 2012-01-08 23:44:21 <doublec> if I did NO_P2SH then it'd be a vote for it :)
884 2012-01-08 23:44:26 <gmaxwell> doublec: because if abstain/oppose is a majority its not secure.
885 2012-01-08 23:44:36 <luke-jr> doublec: no, because the /s are required ;)
886 2012-01-08 23:44:42 <doublec> are they?
887 2012-01-08 23:44:47 <luke-jr> yes
888 2012-01-08 23:44:48 <doublec> oh I guess they are
889 2012-01-08 23:44:50 <makomk> luke-jr: so the answer is basically "only if you could get people to mine on Eligius". Right.
890 2012-01-08 23:44:54 <theymos> [Tycho]'s statement in the forum thread about you paying miners to solve shares seems like the most correct way of thinking about it to me.
891 2012-01-08 23:45:00 <doublec> vote spec needs to be more defined and advertised widely
892 2012-01-08 23:45:27 <gmaxwell> theymos: likewise.
893 2012-01-08 23:45:28 <luke-jr> makomk: the question isn't exactly fair ;)
894 2012-01-08 23:45:35 <doublec> only if people want it to pass of course
895 2012-01-08 23:45:49 <[Tycho]> Also I wonder why some of those still aren't banned for insults.
896 2012-01-08 23:45:56 <imsaguy2> seriously
897 2012-01-08 23:45:58 <luke-jr> theymos: especially since Eligius is PPS
898 2012-01-08 23:46:10 <luke-jr> theymos: yeah, can the CLC crap be split off the Eligius thread? :P
899 2012-01-08 23:46:12 <imsaguy2> I got a warning for being off topic, yet the people calling me d-bag still post
900 2012-01-08 23:46:17 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: a well founded desire to avoid 'censorship'.
901 2012-01-08 23:46:32 rphlx has joined
902 2012-01-08 23:46:39 <imsaguy2> a bunch of crap I think.
903 2012-01-08 23:46:46 <makomk> theymos: I don't think even luke-jr was arguing that, because it'd make redirecting your pool to carry out a Bitcoin double spend not an abuse of your pool members.
904 2012-01-08 23:46:50 <theymos> luke-jr: I'm not willing to split it. It seems to me related to the general subject of Eligius. A mining mod can do it if they want.
905 2012-01-08 23:47:15 * midnightmagic is mortified to have lit the match
906 2012-01-08 23:47:34 <luke-jr> makomk: it wouldn't be. that would be wrong, but not because of the pool.
907 2012-01-08 23:47:35 <gmaxwell> imsaguy2: if you're too trigger happy on punting people with opposing views just because they get emotional you'll lose useful viewpoints. ::shrugs::
908 2012-01-08 23:47:38 <theymos> makomk: I don't think that would be an abuse of pool members.
909 2012-01-08 23:47:49 <doublec> luke-jr: why not just openly say what chains you're merge mining (if any) and clear it up completely. then the discussion will go away.
910 2012-01-08 23:47:56 <imsaguy2> gmaxwell: a logical debate doesn't need name calling.
911 2012-01-08 23:47:58 <gmaxwell> theymos: it would be an abuse of the bitcoin network, but not the pool members.
912 2012-01-08 23:47:59 <imsaguy2> there is a difference.
913 2012-01-08 23:48:13 <doublec> or merge into a discussion on the ethics I guess. which could be a tar pit.
914 2012-01-08 23:48:15 <luke-jr> doublec: because that means I need to explain what merged mining is?
915 2012-01-08 23:48:38 <luke-jr> doublec: it's hard enough with just namecoin
916 2012-01-08 23:48:40 <gmaxwell> doublec: because people don't #$@ understand merged mining at all. Thats why eclipsemc, for example, has a 'don't merged mine' for me switch, and why we get people on irc saying they use deepbit because they don't want namecoins.
917 2012-01-08 23:48:43 <k9quaint> what if a pool operator did not offer merged mining, but constructed the blocks to take advantage of it?
918 2012-01-08 23:49:00 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: does their switch actually do anything?
919 2012-01-08 23:49:03 <doublec> heh, I wonder if they actually honour the switch
920 2012-01-08 23:49:15 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it doesn't give you nmc!
921 2012-01-08 23:49:18 <imsaguy2> the switch just gives the pool op the nmc
922 2012-01-08 23:49:19 <midnightmagic> k9quaint: That happens a lot I think
923 2012-01-08 23:49:21 <luke-jr> k
924 2012-01-08 23:49:52 <luke-jr> it would be stupid to actually deny the merged chain the ability to use the POW
925 2012-01-08 23:49:54 <Eliel> makomk: the pool members could put a stop to it by abandoning the pool by the masses, but I wouldn't call it abusing the pool members.
926 2012-01-08 23:50:07 <k9quaint> Eliel: indeed
927 2012-01-08 23:50:20 <k9quaint> to me, it is just offering less service, not a breach of contract
928 2012-01-08 23:50:35 <makomk> Eliel: and I'm just trying to explain the details in a way that's more... informative than luke-jr's slightly misleading comments.
929 2012-01-08 23:50:44 <k9quaint> if you actually want the merge mined coins, you can go to a pool that gives them to you
930 2012-01-08 23:50:55 <luke-jr> makomk: except in practice, you're creating/helping the scammers FUD people
931 2012-01-08 23:50:59 <gmaxwell> Eligius appears to have gained a bit of hash rate since this, fwiw.
932 2012-01-08 23:51:19 <imsaguy2> gmaxwell: I've reprioritiezed my pool list
933 2012-01-08 23:51:19 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: irony++;
934 2012-01-08 23:51:43 <theymos> luke-jr: Maybe the controversy would be helped if you wrote a precise agreement between you and pool members. It seems that some pool members (or maybe just observers...) think that the pool is some sort of democratic organization.
935 2012-01-08 23:51:44 <imsaguy2> I wanted to be able to say "I mine there" for when "they" want the "miners' opinions"
936 2012-01-08 23:52:09 <imsaguy2> theymos: I suggested that in the thread already
937 2012-01-08 23:52:10 <luke-jr> theymos: it is.
938 2012-01-08 23:52:20 <imsaguy2> people don't read it well enough
939 2012-01-08 23:52:37 <midnightmagic> I would be very irritated to learn my hasrate was contributing to the meltdown of another blockchain without my explicit permission.. But perhaps that's just me. :)
940 2012-01-08 23:53:13 <doublec> on the other hand some people would find that an attractive option for a pool
941 2012-01-08 23:53:22 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: you prove my point on how easy it is to misunderstand MM :P
942 2012-01-08 23:53:24 <Eliel> makomk: I think what you want to say is "pool members can vote against the behauviour by not mining on Eligius" while luke is trying to convey "miners weren't adversely affected in any way". Both are true but since most people are confused about merged mining, it's difficult for most to understand those can both be true.
943 2012-01-08 23:53:25 <doublec> based on some comments I've seen
944 2012-01-08 23:53:43 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: another blockchain that— if it does anything at all— undermines the credability of bitcoin? ::shrugs::
945 2012-01-08 23:53:57 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Informed consent and all that
946 2012-01-08 23:54:15 <makomk> Eliel: I actually quoted and agreed with his comment saying that miners weren't adversely affected earlier in the thread.
947 2012-01-08 23:54:16 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: informed consent doesn't work fast enough to catch a newly born chain with no preannouncement though.
948 2012-01-08 23:54:23 ushiu has quit (Quit: http://driedleaves.no-ip.org)
949 2012-01-08 23:54:29 <midnightmagic> luke-jr: I grasp merged mining, based on what I've heard in here, better than gavin.
950 2012-01-08 23:54:41 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Permission in advance for that sort of thing.
951 2012-01-08 23:54:49 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: understanding is more than just a grasp :p
952 2012-01-08 23:54:56 <k9quaint> getting upset about this is like getting upset about math
953 2012-01-08 23:54:59 <roconnor> coiledchain has to specifically be designed to support merged mining?
954 2012-01-08 23:55:03 <k9quaint> DAMNIT!, why must 2 + 2 = 4?
955 2012-01-08 23:55:10 <gmaxwell> roconnor: sure, thats how merged mining works.
956 2012-01-08 23:55:13 <roconnor> or rather to be suppored by merged mining
957 2012-01-08 23:55:16 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: the relation between Eligius miners and CLC, is the same as the relation between Eligius miners and Joe Drugdealer's money laundering
958 2012-01-08 23:55:24 * da2ce7 perfers to buy bitcoins (and namecoins) by solving shares from a pool that acts moraly.
959 2012-01-08 23:55:24 <midnightmagic> luke-jr: Only if you filter words to mean something different than what was clearly intended..
960 2012-01-08 23:55:49 <midnightmagic> luke-jr: No, because with one there is a choice, and with another there isn't. To deny the choice is to take advantage.
961 2012-01-08 23:55:51 <roconnor> so if you don't wan't luke-jr to be attacking your chain, you can simply design yourself to not be supported by his merged mining protocol.
962 2012-01-08 23:55:58 <luke-jr> da2ce7: stopping a scam is moral.
963 2012-01-08 23:56:13 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: um, there is certainly a choice with both
964 2012-01-08 23:56:16 <roconnor> problem solved
965 2012-01-08 23:56:18 <roconnor> :)
966 2012-01-08 23:56:23 <gmaxwell> roconnor: sure. And people who were considering merged mining were warned that if no one had interest in mining their merged chain they'd be _more_ vulnerable than not merged.
967 2012-01-08 23:56:47 <doublec> roconnor: I think the discussion has moved away from "was it right to attack" to "was it right to use pool resources"
968 2012-01-08 23:56:54 <da2ce7> however a chain that only has the OP_EVAL as valid tx so we can more-fully test it out dose sound like a usefull experement tho.
969 2012-01-08 23:56:55 <luke-jr> makomk: more importantly, why have you not taken any action to make CLC resistant to my mining?
970 2012-01-08 23:57:06 <imsaguy2> da2ce7: that's what testnet is for
971 2012-01-08 23:57:11 <gmaxwell> I mean, it's not like luke gets absolute say here. There are at least three other people who could choose _alone_ to undo luke, and a great many more who could do so in cooperation.
972 2012-01-08 23:57:29 <imsaguy2> the chain technically isn't dead
973 2012-01-08 23:57:34 <imsaguy2> htye could pick it up where it is now
974 2012-01-08 23:57:50 <makomk> luke-jr: do I look like Sisyphus?
975 2012-01-08 23:57:57 <da2ce7> imsaguy2: 1. test net | 2. new chain of low value | 3. enable in bitcoin.
976 2012-01-08 23:58:02 <da2ce7> to me it is a progression.
977 2012-01-08 23:58:40 <imsaguy2> perhaps, but #2 should never be considered anything more than temporary, because once it has proven op_eval one way or the other, it has satisified its purpose
978 2012-01-08 23:58:54 <midnightmagic> Since the equipment is partially paid-for by MagicalTux, or at least supported-by (assuming nothing has changed since the last time I checked,) would he have given informed consent to the realisation of a >50% attack?
979 2012-01-08 23:59:13 <imsaguy2> ...
980 2012-01-08 23:59:13 <gmaxwell> da2ce7: if you just want a chain for testing then setup something for testing. By creating a currently you're feeding a cycle of pumpanddumpers who are bored with bitcoin because it's too big for them to control it.
981 2012-01-08 23:59:20 <luke-jr> makomk: who?
982 2012-01-08 23:59:49 <Eliel> "Sisyphus was a king punished in Tartarus by being cursed to roll a huge boulder up a hill in Greek mythology."
983 2012-01-08 23:59:54 <gmaxwell> da2ce7: creating a new currency for every feature is just not scalable.
984 2012-01-08 23:59:54 <makomk> Precisely.
985 2012-01-08 23:59:56 <da2ce7> makomk: why did you choose mm if existing pools can so quickly (and cheaply) dominate it?