1 2012-01-10 00:00:54 abragin has quit ()
   2 2012-01-10 00:01:45 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
   3 2012-01-10 00:03:31 Jocke_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
   4 2012-01-10 00:06:16 tower has joined
   5 2012-01-10 00:07:51 theorb has joined
   6 2012-01-10 00:08:41 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
   7 2012-01-10 00:08:49 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
   8 2012-01-10 00:10:01 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
   9 2012-01-10 00:11:36 Kolky has quit (Quit: Bye bye!)
  10 2012-01-10 00:16:01 ppr is now known as peper
  11 2012-01-10 00:17:13 oww has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  12 2012-01-10 00:19:40 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
  13 2012-01-10 00:22:01 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  14 2012-01-10 00:22:03 dvide has joined
  15 2012-01-10 00:26:50 tower has joined
  16 2012-01-10 00:29:14 darkmethod has joined
  17 2012-01-10 00:29:43 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
  18 2012-01-10 00:30:04 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  19 2012-01-10 00:30:29 sacarlson has joined
  20 2012-01-10 00:30:43 da2ce7 has joined
  21 2012-01-10 00:32:04 roconnor has joined
  22 2012-01-10 00:37:14 b4epoche_ has joined
  23 2012-01-10 00:37:21 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
  24 2012-01-10 00:37:22 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
  25 2012-01-10 00:38:21 tower has quit (Quit: | ReactOS - The FOSS alternative to MS Windows! | http://www.reactos.org/ | join #ReactOS |)
  26 2012-01-10 00:40:08 tower has joined
  27 2012-01-10 00:42:01 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  28 2012-01-10 00:43:49 hippich_ has joined
  29 2012-01-10 00:46:19 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  30 2012-01-10 00:48:05 btc_novice has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  31 2012-01-10 00:54:36 stalled has joined
  32 2012-01-10 00:55:00 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  33 2012-01-10 01:01:39 marf_away2 has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
  34 2012-01-10 01:05:13 kam1l has joined
  35 2012-01-10 01:05:13 <kam1l> ls
  36 2012-01-10 01:05:20 <kam1l> DERP where am I :P
  37 2012-01-10 01:05:45 <kam1l> luke-jr: you still around? What type of ram do you have on your dedi?
  38 2012-01-10 01:05:57 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: yt?
  39 2012-01-10 01:06:05 <luke-jr> kam1l: … who cares? O.o
  40 2012-01-10 01:06:21 <kam1l> I have 1 gb and just the pool and bitcoind gets it up to around 800mb
  41 2012-01-10 01:06:25 <kam1l> and the mysql ofc
  42 2012-01-10 01:06:54 <k9quaint> I have 16BG
  43 2012-01-10 01:06:56 <sipa> my vps has 1GiB of RAM and runs bitcoind just fine
  44 2012-01-10 01:06:58 <k9quaint> cuz chicks dig RAM
  45 2012-01-10 01:07:08 <kam1l> me too k9 on my PC :P
  46 2012-01-10 01:07:22 <sipa> i do limit the number of connections, though
  47 2012-01-10 01:07:27 <kam1l> ah
  48 2012-01-10 01:07:33 <gmaxwell> kam1l: I think you're reading virtual and not resident.
  49 2012-01-10 01:07:39 <k9quaint> sipa only lets the cool people mine
  50 2012-01-10 01:07:49 * sipa runs no pool
  51 2012-01-10 01:08:22 * k9quaint pees in no pool
  52 2012-01-10 01:08:30 <da2ce7> lol
  53 2012-01-10 01:08:37 <k9quaint> words to live by
  54 2012-01-10 01:09:03 * da2ce7 invites everyone to a naked pool party!!!
  55 2012-01-10 01:09:34 <sipa> ewww, naked pools
  56 2012-01-10 01:09:36 <da2ce7> *n.b. not a serious invitation as I don't own a pool yet.
  57 2012-01-10 01:09:51 hippich_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  58 2012-01-10 01:10:12 <da2ce7> sipa: good point... I much prefer naked people before a naked pool.
  59 2012-01-10 01:10:24 <sipa> depends on certain properties of those people
  60 2012-01-10 01:10:32 <sipa> but that's maybe a bit off topic here
  61 2012-01-10 01:10:33 <k9quaint> the thought of naked bitcoin miners gives me pause
  62 2012-01-10 01:10:42 Ahimoth has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  63 2012-01-10 01:10:42 Ahimoth_ has joined
  64 2012-01-10 01:11:01 Ahimoth_ is now known as Ahimoth
  65 2012-01-10 01:11:46 <k9quaint> wtf...paul ryan drops support for SOPA? did I fall through a wormhole or something?
  66 2012-01-10 01:12:59 <da2ce7> SOPA, makeing the interent safer for everyone! :)
  67 2012-01-10 01:13:18 <da2ce7> it gets rid of those peskey pirates and freespeech.
  68 2012-01-10 01:13:37 <k9quaint> no, it pretty much leaves the Somali pirates untouched
  69 2012-01-10 01:13:57 <k9quaint> piracy and the internet are completely discrete
  70 2012-01-10 01:14:12 <da2ce7> k9quaint: no I mean those so-called 'interent pirates'
  71 2012-01-10 01:14:27 <k9quaint> that term makes no sense
  72 2012-01-10 01:14:44 <sipa> piracy has nothing to do with copyright infringement
  73 2012-01-10 01:14:47 <k9quaint> indeed
  74 2012-01-10 01:14:52 <sipa> the latter does not involve stealing
  75 2012-01-10 01:14:57 <kam1l> what do you guys put your bitcoind max connections to?
  76 2012-01-10 01:15:00 <k9quaint> also true
  77 2012-01-10 01:15:01 <kam1l> do you leave it default?
  78 2012-01-10 01:15:12 <sipa> kam1l: i limit it to 40 on my bitcoind
  79 2012-01-10 01:15:16 <kam1l> kk
  80 2012-01-10 01:15:21 <sipa> it uses quite some buffer memory per connection
  81 2012-01-10 01:15:22 <k9quaint> sipa: you are dangerously well informed
  82 2012-01-10 01:15:49 <sipa> about?
  83 2012-01-10 01:15:55 <da2ce7> sipa: they are stealing the right of the copywrite owners to have exclusive controll over thier works.
  84 2012-01-10 01:16:05 <k9quaint> da2ce7: you cannot steal rights
  85 2012-01-10 01:16:12 <k9quaint> you can grant them, or deny them
  86 2012-01-10 01:16:18 <sipa> da2ce7: i don't think any legislation calls that stealing
  87 2012-01-10 01:16:57 <da2ce7> sipa: maybe they use the term 'copywrite infringement'
  88 2012-01-10 01:17:07 <sipa> yes, that's why i also use that term
  89 2012-01-10 01:18:03 <k9quaint> and its copyright
  90 2012-01-10 01:18:19 <sipa> oh, misread
  91 2012-01-10 01:18:20 <sipa> indeed
  92 2012-01-10 01:18:24 <k9quaint> copyread and copyleft
  93 2012-01-10 01:18:34 * da2ce7 thinks that the distance between the China firewall and the USA dns cripple is quickly getting smaller.
  94 2012-01-10 01:18:37 Internet13 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  95 2012-01-10 01:18:57 <da2ce7> I think that we are going to be soon moving to a while-list interent; insted of a black list.
  96 2012-01-10 01:19:01 <k9quaint> if SOPA passes, I will have to transfer assets to a corporate entity in the Netherlands
  97 2012-01-10 01:19:09 <k9quaint> this will take me about 2 hours
  98 2012-01-10 01:19:36 <k9quaint> then I will transfer the hosting to Europe, this will take several hours if things go well
  99 2012-01-10 01:19:49 <k9quaint> some poor IT guy will lose a tiny fraction of his job
 100 2012-01-10 01:19:57 <da2ce7> where only goverement approvded CA are alloud to make encripted connecttions.
 101 2012-01-10 01:20:25 <k9quaint> da2ce7: is english your first lang?
 102 2012-01-10 01:20:53 <k9quaint> (I need to set my parse filters accordingly)
 103 2012-01-10 01:21:04 <da2ce7> they will make a law where ISP's to drop all encripted data that isn't first signed by CA's that are goveremnt approved.
 104 2012-01-10 01:21:23 <da2ce7> 1st lang, but not very good at it.
 105 2012-01-10 01:21:31 <k9quaint> and I will buy satellite internet or move to a country that isn't owned by China
 106 2012-01-10 01:21:49 hippich_ has joined
 107 2012-01-10 01:21:53 <k9quaint> the US has 300mil people, in the grand scheme of things, they matter less and less
 108 2012-01-10 01:22:57 * da2ce7 wonders how hard would it be to make a TLS version where the connections are first validated by the ISP as to be belonging to a valid CA
 109 2012-01-10 01:22:59 <k9quaint> and by they, I mean all the fucktards who surround me but don't have the common decency to play in traffic on a busy street
 110 2012-01-10 01:23:12 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 111 2012-01-10 01:24:03 <da2ce7> it shouldn't be too hard... that would mean that we could ban (and enforce) all encripted comminication dosn't come from valid CA issued certificates.
 112 2012-01-10 01:24:36 <luke-jr> da2ce7: NO
 113 2012-01-10 01:24:56 <da2ce7> luke-jr: have I missed something?
 114 2012-01-10 01:25:22 <luke-jr> da2ce7: CA model is flawed
 115 2012-01-10 01:25:29 <k9quaint> you can disguise encrypted communication
 116 2012-01-10 01:25:48 <k9quaint> and yes, CA model is an oxymoron
 117 2012-01-10 01:26:38 Internet13 has joined
 118 2012-01-10 01:26:38 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 119 2012-01-10 01:27:08 <da2ce7> k9quaint: what I'm proposeing is developing a proticol where to open a encripted channel; you must have a goverement approved certificate.  So if the goveremnt can list what CA's are trusted... we can make routers that check the hedder of the connection to see if it was made by a valid CA certificate.
 120 2012-01-10 01:27:16 <da2ce7> unless I'm missing something.
 121 2012-01-10 01:27:53 <k9quaint> encode an encrypted channel inside of an unencrypted one, now your protocol is useless
 122 2012-01-10 01:28:04 <sipa> ?
 123 2012-01-10 01:28:27 <da2ce7> k9quaint: well what happens when they ban all commnication that isn't encripted.
 124 2012-01-10 01:28:53 <k9quaint> I encrypt using their protocol, and embed my own protocol in the payload
 125 2012-01-10 01:29:01 <k9quaint> prove that I have not
 126 2012-01-10 01:29:24 <k9quaint> what I am transmitting is logs of radio static from the upper atmosphere
 127 2012-01-10 01:30:22 <sipa> without a pre-shared secret, and they knowing your protocol, they can mitm
 128 2012-01-10 01:30:32 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 129 2012-01-10 01:30:42 <da2ce7> aka, facebook, google, youtube, skype, etc will all work... but p2p or bitcoin will not.
 130 2012-01-10 01:31:08 <cjdelisle> disguise your traffic as skype
 131 2012-01-10 01:31:21 <cjdelisle> which is not hard since skype is disguised as /dev/urandom
 132 2012-01-10 01:32:01 <da2ce7> cjdelisle: yeah... but with propper entroypy encoding, you can detect if you are passing voice or encripted data.
 133 2012-01-10 01:32:26 <da2ce7> I think that it wouldn't be too hard to add a server side skype pluggin that checks that you are not passing random data.
 134 2012-01-10 01:32:36 <gmaxwell> if you don't want high data rate you can hide things undetectably.
 135 2012-01-10 01:32:55 <gmaxwell> <3 <3 perturbed quantization stenography.
 136 2012-01-10 01:33:01 <gmaxwell> er .hahahha
 137 2012-01-10 01:33:18 <gmaxwell> steganography*
 138 2012-01-10 01:33:38 <da2ce7> gmaxwell: well technicaly you need two inderpendant channels, and both you send the data under the noise floor, and cancel out the background to get the data.
 139 2012-01-10 01:33:46 <cjdelisle> One silly idea I kind of like is to hide your handshake with a proof of work problem.
 140 2012-01-10 01:33:47 <da2ce7> so either channel inderpendantly has no data.
 141 2012-01-10 01:33:58 <sipa> da2ce7: data below the noise floor is still detectable
 142 2012-01-10 01:34:01 <k9quaint> gmaxwell and I have already preshared a secret
 143 2012-01-10 01:34:01 <gmaxwell> da2ce7: no no .. hah PQsteg solves that.. its sooo beautiful.
 144 2012-01-10 01:34:13 <gmaxwell> (well, the PQ part doesn't but the wet paper codes do)
 145 2012-01-10 01:34:21 <sipa> gmaxwell: link?
 146 2012-01-10 01:34:28 <cjdelisle> so you need to do like 16 bits of work to decrypt the handshake
 147 2012-01-10 01:34:38 <cjdelisle> which is not a big deal if you're expecting one
 148 2012-01-10 01:34:39 <sipa> k9quaint: with a preshared secret, you can
 149 2012-01-10 01:34:39 <gmaxwell> sipa: have papers access? http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1022435
 150 2012-01-10 01:34:55 <cjdelisle> but if you're a DPI box handling gigabits of packets, not going to happen
 151 2012-01-10 01:35:08 <gmaxwell> (if you don't have access, I have the paper someplace, just ask)
 152 2012-01-10 01:35:11 <da2ce7> sipa: if it is below the noise floor how is it detectible, well assming you are missing random data (noise), with data (encripted data)?
 153 2012-01-10 01:35:15 <k9quaint> sipa: ours is encoded in splatter patterns on each others backs!
 154 2012-01-10 01:35:20 <gmaxwell> da2ce7: see paper.
 155 2012-01-10 01:35:38 <sipa> da2ce7: e.g. deep space communication works using data below the noise floor
 156 2012-01-10 01:36:01 <sipa> they use for example a 5000-bit pseudorandom pattern for a 1, and another one for a 0
 157 2012-01-10 01:36:03 <gmaxwell> da2ce7: though an easy way of understanding it is this. I'm going to write you a message by sending you a picture. Should you attack today or not.
 158 2012-01-10 01:36:21 <sipa> da2ce7: the energy per time for the data is way lower than the energe per time for the space noise
 159 2012-01-10 01:36:23 <gmaxwell> da2ce7: you compute the parity of the message I send you, and if its 0 you don't attack.
 160 2012-01-10 01:36:24 <sipa> at the receiver
 161 2012-01-10 01:36:41 <gmaxwell> da2ce7: I'm not free to flip any bit I want to make the parity correct.
 162 2012-01-10 01:37:11 <gmaxwell> da2ce7: wet paper codes extends this to multibit messages using general block linear error correcting codes.
 163 2012-01-10 01:37:52 <gmaxwell> And the concept of perturbed quantization is that the sender does lossy compression of the cover message (e.g. jpeg) and chooses the bits to flip based on the values that are nearest the quantization thresholds.
 164 2012-01-10 01:38:11 <cjdelisle> that is awesome
 165 2012-01-10 01:38:21 <gmaxwell> so that the noise from the stego may be tens of dB below the quantization noise floor.
 166 2012-01-10 01:39:13 <sipa> gmaxwell: got the paper
 167 2012-01-10 01:39:23 <da2ce7> ok. I really have to go!! Gotta plane to catch!! have fun guys!
 168 2012-01-10 01:39:31 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
 169 2012-01-10 01:39:36 <k9quaint> don't crash it into any of our buildings....
 170 2012-01-10 01:39:40 <k9quaint> damn, he already left
 171 2012-01-10 01:40:13 <gmaxwell> the only attack I'm aware of is that by using a more powerful analysis than the compresson algorithim you might be able to reconstruct a plausable image and find that there is more noise than expected from correct quantization.
 172 2012-01-10 01:40:42 <gmaxwell> But even thats hard to distinguish from an R/D optimizing compressor. (which uses quantization threshold biasing in order to improve compression)
 173 2012-01-10 01:40:43 JZavala has joined
 174 2012-01-10 01:41:16 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 175 2012-01-10 01:41:34 <cjdelisle> they could compress the image more, or scramble the low bits a little bit and it would likely destroy your data
 176 2012-01-10 01:41:58 <sipa> i guess you could do something like only bias the quantization if it is close enough to 0.5
 177 2012-01-10 01:42:27 <gmaxwell> sipa: yes. Right, but for any definition of close enough an attacker with better statistics could find you.
 178 2012-01-10 01:43:08 <gmaxwell> One thought I had is, of course you perform the same reconstruction yourself and only use bits where you are near threshold _and_ the reconstruction isn't that helpful. (mostly avoiding smooth areas)
 179 2012-01-10 01:43:25 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: yes, if they add any distortion the message is destroyed.
 180 2012-01-10 01:44:01 <sipa> e.g. make 0-0.4 always 0, 0.4-0.6 0 or 1 based on whatever you're encoding, 0.6-1.0: always 1
 181 2012-01-10 01:44:01 <cjdelisle> yea if you use ECC to protect it you might be able to get something out of it but they can just distort it more
 182 2012-01-10 01:44:15 <sipa> anyway, indeed, it can always be beaten by better statistics
 183 2012-01-10 01:44:15 zeiris has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 184 2012-01-10 01:44:22 <k9quaint> use ROT26, its uncrackable
 185 2012-01-10 01:44:58 <gmaxwell> sipa: right you can be as tight as you want.. you can also take all the values in the image sort them by nearness to 0.5 and take the best N. where N depends on your message size.
 186 2012-01-10 01:45:17 <gmaxwell> (at least, you can for jpeg.. other formats, not so much sadly)
 187 2012-01-10 01:45:36 <sipa> depending on how little information you need to store, you can theoretically always beat any distortion
 188 2012-01-10 01:45:47 <luke-jr> wow
 189 2012-01-10 01:45:54 <luke-jr> GitHub is ignoring a DMCA takedown
 190 2012-01-10 01:45:54 <kam1l> silly question
 191 2012-01-10 01:45:54 zeiris has joined
 192 2012-01-10 01:45:55 <kam1l> bitcoind
 193 2012-01-10 01:45:59 <gmaxwell> yes.
 194 2012-01-10 01:46:01 <kam1l> does it have to be gen=1 to mine?
 195 2012-01-10 01:46:07 <kam1l> like, through pool
 196 2012-01-10 01:46:12 <sipa> if you want it to my itself, you need gen=1
 197 2012-01-10 01:46:20 <sipa> in any other case, leave it off
 198 2012-01-10 01:46:20 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: hm? they normally require you to file it formally. they did for diablo-d3 when someone put up a closed copy of his miner with a trojan.
 199 2012-01-10 01:46:21 <kam1l> I don't want my server to be trying to generate
 200 2012-01-10 01:46:31 <luke-jr> kam1l: mining on a pool doesn't require a Bitcoin client at all
 201 2012-01-10 01:46:36 <kam1l> haven't gotten a block yet so I don't know if its properly connected
 202 2012-01-10 01:46:52 <kam1l> its using RPC -> json connection between the pool and the client
 203 2012-01-10 01:46:54 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I followed the directions on their website.
 204 2012-01-10 01:47:09 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: now they're claiming they didn't get it, after I had to revise it with an exact link to SC's repo
 205 2012-01-10 01:48:56 <k9quaint> the irony is, if he reverts SC2 to the MIT license, it makes the altcoin stronger
 206 2012-01-10 01:49:00 <gmaxwell> when I checked before they weren't even formally compliant with the dmca and so not elegable for the safe harbor in any case. (you _must_ have a designated agenet registered with the copyright office)
 207 2012-01-10 01:49:15 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: oh you're making trouble for SC? meh..
 208 2012-01-10 01:49:37 <k9quaint> at this point, I think any change to SC2 will improve it
 209 2012-01-10 01:51:11 <k9quaint> if there was some way to partition the mining space, you could do lots of interesting things to defeat the 51% attack
 210 2012-01-10 01:51:19 <k9quaint> oops, mt
 211 2012-01-10 01:51:38 theymos has joined
 212 2012-01-10 01:51:46 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: if you could do that you'd probably not need a block chain consensus at all. Just give one miner each one vote.
 213 2012-01-10 01:51:58 <k9quaint> yes, that was essentially my point
 214 2012-01-10 01:52:28 <gmaxwell> Most of the neat and effective solutions moot the chain entirely— if they actually work you could just use them directly.
 215 2012-01-10 01:52:41 <k9quaint> its the fact that the mining space is essentially random, and thus cannot be effectively partitioned
 216 2012-01-10 01:53:13 <gmaxwell> no, it can be partitioned, just just that the partitions aren't useful because they don't follow trust boundaries.
 217 2012-01-10 01:53:35 <gmaxwell> e.g. you can partition it but not in a way that puts the badguy into one box.
 218 2012-01-10 01:53:39 <k9quaint> well, no partitions map usefully on top of human behavior
 219 2012-01-10 01:53:44 torsthaldo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 220 2012-01-10 01:53:46 <gmaxwell> right.
 221 2012-01-10 01:53:59 <k9quaint> it makes it hard to be a racist, which is very vexing :(
 222 2012-01-10 01:54:08 <gmaxwell> 0_o
 223 2012-01-10 01:54:25 <k9quaint> fucking spaniards and their keepaway style of work cup play
 224 2012-01-10 01:54:34 <k9quaint> burn them with fire
 225 2012-01-10 01:54:36 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 226 2012-01-10 01:54:42 <k9quaint> *world
 227 2012-01-10 01:55:10 * k9quaint might own one or two orange jerseys
 228 2012-01-10 01:56:17 <k9quaint> on the other hand, Klinsman coaching the US team is very interesting
 229 2012-01-10 01:57:12 <kam1l> what does increasing the number of connections for bitcoind do?
 230 2012-01-10 01:57:14 <k9quaint> +n
 231 2012-01-10 01:57:34 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 232 2012-01-10 01:57:40 <k9quaint> past a certain threshold, not much
 233 2012-01-10 01:57:43 <gmaxwell> kam1l: makes it use more memory. :)
 234 2012-01-10 01:57:56 <kam1l> if I have alot of getworks, like tons
 235 2012-01-10 01:57:59 <kam1l> but not many shares
 236 2012-01-10 01:58:03 <kam1l> does that mean its bottlenecking?
 237 2012-01-10 01:58:17 <gmaxwell> what poolserver software are you using?
 238 2012-01-10 01:58:25 <kam1l> pushpool
 239 2012-01-10 01:59:03 <gmaxwell> thats odd. I recommend switching to testnet to test your setup.
 240 2012-01-10 01:59:15 <gmaxwell> (it has a difficulty of 35 so you'll find blocks must faster that way)
 241 2012-01-10 01:59:23 <kam1l> kk
 242 2012-01-10 01:59:24 <kam1l> wil ldo
 243 2012-01-10 01:59:24 <gmaxwell> kam1l: how much hash rate do you have?
 244 2012-01-10 02:00:58 Litt has joined
 245 2012-01-10 02:01:10 <gmaxwell> I also strongly recommend you look at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool  it's equal to or easier to maintain than a pushpool setup, and you some pooling benefits without the weaknesses. (p2pool is effectively solomining but with a zero trust agreement on shared payments)
 246 2012-01-10 02:02:04 <k9quaint> my mind is not yet made up about p2pool
 247 2012-01-10 02:02:12 <kam1l> saying like 85
 248 2012-01-10 02:02:22 <kam1l> turne don testnest
 249 2012-01-10 02:02:23 <kam1l> testnet*
 250 2012-01-10 02:02:38 <kam1l> I think it should be alot more
 251 2012-01-10 02:03:06 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: whats to not make up about it? It can't really get variance as low as centerlized pools... but there isn't much else negative you could say as far as I know.
 252 2012-01-10 02:03:24 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: i haven't put a lot of thought into how to attack it
 253 2012-01-10 02:03:31 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I thought up a new reward scheme for p2pool…
 254 2012-01-10 02:03:39 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 255 2012-01-10 02:04:03 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: it's a blockchain, though somewhat stronger than most because it time locks against the bitcoin chain.
 256 2012-01-10 02:04:06 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: when a block is found, instead of paying the last N people, pay the people with highest N shares
 257 2012-01-10 02:04:27 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: (they then "lose" those shares…)
 258 2012-01-10 02:04:56 <shadders> doesn't it have a much higher stale rate due to p2p latency?
 259 2012-01-10 02:04:58 <luke-jr> additionally, continue to expire excessively old shares
 260 2012-01-10 02:05:11 <luke-jr> shadders: I don't think so?
 261 2012-01-10 02:05:20 <gmaxwell> if people were unusually luck and there was a big pile of high shares, then you'd be discouraged to join
 262 2012-01-10 02:05:32 <gmaxwell> shadders: no. Not the kind of stale you mean.
 263 2012-01-10 02:05:40 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: that's why you expire shares eventually
 264 2012-01-10 02:05:52 <shadders> oh... I always assumed that was what was holding it back from mass uptake... lower mining efficiency...
 265 2012-01-10 02:05:56 OneFixt has joined
 266 2012-01-10 02:06:01 <gmaxwell> shadders: the bitcoin part has excellent latency because you have a bitcoin node right there.
 267 2012-01-10 02:06:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I presume p2pool's block chain has forks and merges?
 268 2012-01-10 02:06:33 OneFixt is now known as Guest81564
 269 2012-01-10 02:06:51 Guest81564 has quit (Changing host)
 270 2012-01-10 02:06:51 Guest81564 has joined
 271 2012-01-10 02:07:07 <gmaxwell> shadders: nah. You _do_ get high stales on the share chain because it has a 10 second mean— but everyone gets high stales on it, and what counts is the relative performance.
 272 2012-01-10 02:07:25 <shadders> it's been ages since I looked at it but I seem to recall thinking there was something in the design that would result in lower income than fast central pool...
 273 2012-01-10 02:07:48 <shadders> gmaxwell: I see... so if everyone uses it there's no disadvatage
 274 2012-01-10 02:07:49 <gmaxwell> The design changed from the original one.
 275 2012-01-10 02:08:33 <shadders> but since it's competing with central pools performance is relative to those as well...
 276 2012-01-10 02:08:36 <gmaxwell> shadders: really big p2pools have the problem of high share difficulty, but you solve that by just breaking up p2pools into smaller ones more like the sizes of current central pools.
 277 2012-01-10 02:08:42 <gmaxwell> shadders: no, its not.
 278 2012-01-10 02:09:04 <gmaxwell> shadders: the share chain is its own thing. Your share being stale for the share chain doesn't make it stale for bitcoin.
 279 2012-01-10 02:09:25 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: fail
 280 2012-01-10 02:09:29 <gmaxwell> So if you did find a block it would still happily be accepted, potentially better than a centeral pool because every p2pool user has a local node.
 281 2012-01-10 02:09:50 <gmaxwell> 2012-01-09 21:03:06.817681 Pool stales: 8% Own: 9±1% Own efficiency: 99±1%
 282 2012-01-10 02:10:17 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: that's because p2pool is small
 283 2012-01-10 02:10:24 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it gets exponentially worse I think
 284 2012-01-10 02:10:25 <gmaxwell> Thats my numbers on p2pool, so it's 98-100 with 95% confidence.
 285 2012-01-10 02:10:33 <shadders> hmm.. can't really argue when I don't know what I'm talking about...
 286 2012-01-10 02:10:35 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: why can't p2pool allow blockchain merges?
 287 2012-01-10 02:10:41 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: the share difficulty goes up linearly.
 288 2012-01-10 02:10:54 sacarlson has joined
 289 2012-01-10 02:11:27 <luke-jr> makomk: I'd really be interested in if my proposal solves CLC's problem btw
 290 2012-01-10 02:11:37 <shadders> simple question then... why isn't it taking bulk market share from centralized pools?
 291 2012-01-10 02:11:43 <k9quaint> the thing I like most about pools is I initiate the conversation and don't need to open ports to the scary scary world
 292 2012-01-10 02:11:48 <gmaxwell> shadders: it's new and immature.
 293 2012-01-10 02:11:52 <luke-jr> shadders: why isn't DeepBit dying?
 294 2012-01-10 02:11:55 <gmaxwell> and it's growing like ganbusters.
 295 2012-01-10 02:12:28 <shadders> it's hardly new... I remember hearing about when I first discovered bitcoin...
 296 2012-01-10 02:12:42 <shadders> what's the hashrate total?  can it be measured?
 297 2012-01-10 02:12:48 <gmaxwell> shadders: a week and a few days ago it had about 13GH.. it has 70GH now.
 298 2012-01-10 02:12:58 <sipa> wow
 299 2012-01-10 02:13:02 <BlueMatt> nice
 300 2012-01-10 02:13:14 <gmaxwell> shadders: it didn't even process transactions until about a month or so ago.
 301 2012-01-10 02:13:24 <gmaxwell> How could anyone really advocate it then?
 302 2012-01-10 02:13:38 <luke-jr> does it support Windows?
 303 2012-01-10 02:13:41 <luke-jr> easily?
 304 2012-01-10 02:14:07 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yes. But windows users are somewhat outside of the ideal market for it.. e.g. you need to run a full bitcoin node and start a program from the commandline.
 305 2012-01-10 02:14:08 <shadders> I thought luke-jr didn't believe windows exists?
 306 2012-01-10 02:14:25 <shadders> or that just java :p
 307 2012-01-10 02:14:27 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 308 2012-01-10 02:14:41 <luke-jr> shadders: shouldn't*
 309 2012-01-10 02:15:15 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: to be fair, something like 40GH of that is three miners right now.
 310 2012-01-10 02:15:32 <k9quaint> the truth comes out!
 311 2012-01-10 02:15:51 <k9quaint> I need to start a pitchfork and torch selling business online
 312 2012-01-10 02:15:53 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: oh...
 313 2012-01-10 02:15:53 <gmaxwell> though the rest is smaller miners.. median of about 1.1 GH or so.
 314 2012-01-10 02:16:01 <BlueMatt> well doesnt it take like 2 percent?
 315 2012-01-10 02:16:10 <gmaxwell> No. Zero fee. You can optionally donate.
 316 2012-01-10 02:16:20 <BlueMatt> oh, ok
 317 2012-01-10 02:16:30 <gmaxwell> Though right now people are donating _to_ p2pool users.
 318 2012-01-10 02:16:40 <BlueMatt> what?
 319 2012-01-10 02:16:46 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: does p2pool currently share the txn fees, or does the block finder keep all?
 320 2012-01-10 02:16:51 <k9quaint> to encourage decentralization
 321 2012-01-10 02:17:00 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: there's a builtin sendmany-to-last-N-shares
 322 2012-01-10 02:17:17 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: shares them .. technically it shares 99.5 percent of the total, with .5 going to the finder to discourage witholding.
 323 2012-01-10 02:17:54 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: then why should I accept any transactions?
 324 2012-01-10 02:18:05 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: so donating just means you dont post your address when you submit a share?
 325 2012-01-10 02:18:15 elkingrey has joined
 326 2012-01-10 02:18:23 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: no, I think it actually does a sendmany
 327 2012-01-10 02:18:29 sacarlson has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 328 2012-01-10 02:18:30 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: hm? you'll get paid for them, though its shared.. and its good for bitcoin. If it became a problem in the future it could require it.
 329 2012-01-10 02:18:48 <luke-jr> but that WOULD be a good idea for a % donation
 330 2012-01-10 02:18:54 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: you can make a http get to the pool and it gives you a sendmany commandline basically.
 331 2012-01-10 02:19:17 <gmaxwell> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool#Donating_to_P2Pool_miners
 332 2012-01-10 02:19:20 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: oh, so people are mining specifically and sending money to the pool?
 333 2012-01-10 02:19:31 <BlueMatt> or just sending coins
 334 2012-01-10 02:20:11 <gmaxwell> just sending coins (well some of the people doing are p2pool users, and it seems some people are just bystanders who want to see it grow)
 335 2012-01-10 02:20:49 <josephcp> from what i understand, that payout function has nothing to do with the way p2pool works though
 336 2012-01-10 02:21:14 <gmaxwell> josephcp: What payout function?
 337 2012-01-10 02:21:23 <josephcp> the donation
 338 2012-01-10 02:21:34 <gmaxwell> josephcp: which donation?
 339 2012-01-10 02:21:45 <josephcp> your link
 340 2012-01-10 02:21:49 <gmaxwell> The 'donate to p2pool author' or the sendmany-to-the-miners?
 341 2012-01-10 02:21:50 <gmaxwell> ah.
 342 2012-01-10 02:22:09 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: also, that reward system I suggested a few mins ago, p2pool could have a builtin "suggest old share expiracy change", with a vote in the p2pool chain ;)
 343 2012-01-10 02:22:13 <gmaxwell> It does— thats computed using the sharechain— it's basically the current reward p2pool would pay out scaled to whatever amount you want to pay.
 344 2012-01-10 02:22:18 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: or heck, builtin polls for ANYTHING :P
 345 2012-01-10 02:22:42 <josephcp> oh yeah looks like it
 346 2012-01-10 02:23:21 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: sounds like a cool idea. It's all in python you know. :)
 347 2012-01-10 02:23:22 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: make all the p2pool config variables, and automate changing them by hashrate poll
 348 2012-01-10 02:23:45 vsrinivas has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 349 2012-01-10 02:23:50 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: yes, but I'm with Eligius until it dies ;p
 350 2012-01-10 02:23:55 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: what you should really do is vote on a bitcoin address which you delegate to choose for you. :)
 351 2012-01-10 02:24:17 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: maybe.
 352 2012-01-10 02:24:24 <luke-jr> yes, then you can instantly decide stuff
 353 2012-01-10 02:24:25 <luke-jr> good idea
 354 2012-01-10 02:24:42 <luke-jr> open the config, set your preferences, then leave it
 355 2012-01-10 02:24:52 <luke-jr> the network adjusts based on the consensus of active configs
 356 2012-01-10 02:24:57 <luke-jr> that'd be pretty cool
 357 2012-01-10 02:25:19 <gmaxwell> Well, delegation would also be good so if I have 8 p2pool instances I don't need to configure all of them.
 358 2012-01-10 02:25:38 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 359 2012-01-10 02:25:39 <luke-jr> even better, if p2pool would segregate itself automatically when people disagree too much
 360 2012-01-10 02:25:48 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: all these things are possible.
 361 2012-01-10 02:25:52 <luke-jr> so miners can set "I prefer 50, but will tolerate down to 25 and up to 75"
 362 2012-01-10 02:25:58 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 363 2012-01-10 02:26:13 <luke-jr> and if the consensus would make it 24, you get split off into a new p2pool, and things recalculate based on that…
 364 2012-01-10 02:26:30 <luke-jr> merging might be difficult tho
 365 2012-01-10 02:27:24 <josephcp> merging wouldn't be that big of a deal if you can mine in "multiple p2pools" at a time ithink?
 366 2012-01-10 02:27:46 <luke-jr> where is Gavin today? x.x
 367 2012-01-10 02:27:49 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: ping
 368 2012-01-10 02:28:14 <gmaxwell> josephcp: sure.
 369 2012-01-10 02:28:20 sacarlson has joined
 370 2012-01-10 02:30:33 Guest81564 is now known as OneFixt
 371 2012-01-10 02:30:35 NickelBot has joined
 372 2012-01-10 02:33:44 osearth has quit (Disconnected by services)
 373 2012-01-10 02:33:50 osearth_ has joined
 374 2012-01-10 02:40:37 knotwork has joined
 375 2012-01-10 02:41:25 <kam1l> if a pool is working (and it uses json-RPC with bitcoind)
 376 2012-01-10 02:41:36 <kam1l> would the command bitcoind getinfo display the current hashrate of the server in total?
 377 2012-01-10 02:41:40 <sipa> no
 378 2012-01-10 02:41:44 <kam1l> didn't think so
 379 2012-01-10 02:41:46 <sipa> it can't know
 380 2012-01-10 02:42:19 <gmaxwell> iirc one of the http headers miners send includes their claimed hashrate. :) but it doesn't use it (I don't think anything does)
 381 2012-01-10 02:43:01 <luke-jr> sipa: well, if it did share targets it could
 382 2012-01-10 02:43:53 <kam1l> hmm, well I have a big fpga farm that my work uses
 383 2012-01-10 02:43:58 <kam1l> and I have a ton of workers for each one
 384 2012-01-10 02:44:07 <kam1l> but I am getting very few shares, yet loads of getworks
 385 2012-01-10 02:44:18 <kam1l> back to the drawing board I guess
 386 2012-01-10 02:45:48 magn3ts has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 387 2012-01-10 02:46:05 <luke-jr> kam1l: solo mining doesn't use ANY shares
 388 2012-01-10 02:46:12 <kam1l> not solo mining
 389 2012-01-10 02:46:16 <kam1l> I have a pushpool pool server setup
 390 2012-01-10 02:46:22 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: he's using pushpool.
 391 2012-01-10 02:46:28 <gmaxwell> kam1l: what kinds of fpgas?
 392 2012-01-10 02:46:29 <kam1l> I have it all running, no errors
 393 2012-01-10 02:46:33 <kam1l> great question
 394 2012-01-10 02:46:37 <kam1l> I don't know, just a co-op student
 395 2012-01-10 02:46:47 <kam1l> this was supposed to be an easy setup :P
 396 2012-01-10 02:46:56 <gmaxwell> How did you manage to get fpga mining working without knowing the FPGA type?
 397 2012-01-10 02:47:04 <kam1l> I didn't setup the miners :P
 398 2012-01-10 02:47:08 <gmaxwell> ah!
 399 2012-01-10 02:47:11 <kam1l> someone who actually knows what hes doing did
 400 2012-01-10 02:47:19 <kam1l> they just told me to get a cheap pool setup
 401 2012-01-10 02:47:29 <gmaxwell> well, they might be broken... or just slower than you were expecting.
 402 2012-01-10 02:47:35 <kam1l> well
 403 2012-01-10 02:47:38 <kam1l> if by slower you mean like
 404 2012-01-10 02:47:43 <kam1l> less than 100 mhash/s
 405 2012-01-10 02:47:43 <gmaxwell> (by broken I mean running at too high a clock rate to work correctly)
 406 2012-01-10 02:47:45 <kam1l> TOTAL
 407 2012-01-10 02:47:53 <kam1l> could be
 408 2012-01-10 02:47:57 <gmaxwell> kam1l: most inexpensive fpgas put out fairly little.
 409 2012-01-10 02:47:58 <kam1l> pushpool gives no errors
 410 2012-01-10 02:48:06 <kam1l> I get tons of getworks
 411 2012-01-10 02:48:18 <kam1l> and like, 1 share a minute
 412 2012-01-10 02:48:32 <gmaxwell> yes, thats suggestive of it just being slow. (or perhaps you don't have it all running?)
 413 2012-01-10 02:49:10 <gmaxwell> in any case, at that rate you'd certantly be better off with p2pool or a traditional centeralized pool like eligius.
 414 2012-01-10 02:49:30 <kam1l> I have alot of workers, making them by hand would be very tedious
 415 2012-01-10 02:49:38 <kam1l> I assumed that each fpga would want its own worker
 416 2012-01-10 02:50:52 <luke-jr> its own work, yes
 417 2012-01-10 02:51:00 <luke-jr> but they can all be on the same pool worker
 418 2012-01-10 02:51:10 <kam1l> really
 419 2012-01-10 02:51:16 <kam1l> I assumed it would bottleneck
 420 2012-01-10 02:51:36 <gmaxwell> it's own worker? meh no you can just point them all at the same address. At least on eligius, god knows if you'd trigger some anti-dos on some other pool but I doubt it.
 421 2012-01-10 02:51:59 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 422 2012-01-10 02:52:05 <gmaxwell> (eligius doesn't even have accounts, you just set the address you want paid as your username and put anything in the password field)
 423 2012-01-10 02:54:41 magn3ts has joined
 424 2012-01-10 02:55:53 <kam1l> well I guess I know where I'm going then
 425 2012-01-10 03:04:20 lfm has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 426 2012-01-10 03:09:22 <luke-jr> where is BlueMatt? -.-
 427 2012-01-10 03:09:25 <luke-jr> and Gavin
 428 2012-01-10 03:09:46 <luke-jr> tcatm: are you around if we get the builds finished tonight?
 429 2012-01-10 03:12:31 finway has joined
 430 2012-01-10 03:12:58 <finway> p2pool is funny,  everybody's solo mining?
 431 2012-01-10 03:13:57 <gmaxwell> finway: yes, basically solomining with a consensus payout, and attempted blocks with the payout spec count as shares to earn you a place in the consensus.
 432 2012-01-10 03:14:41 <finway> What if somebody keep the bingo share?
 433 2012-01-10 03:15:10 <luke-jr> finway: *why*?
 434 2012-01-10 03:15:23 <finway> somebody find a block, and don't share the 50BTCs
 435 2012-01-10 03:16:02 <gmaxwell> finway: same thing that prevent them on any pool.
 436 2012-01-10 03:16:25 <gmaxwell> finway: if you're trying to only pay yourself your work won't credit you for the pool.
 437 2012-01-10 03:16:38 <gmaxwell> you can't change it after the fact because the payout spec is part of the block.
 438 2012-01-10 03:17:12 <finway> That's cool
 439 2012-01-10 03:18:01 <finway> But i think since it's p2p, there's no OP, it's harder to prevent this kind of scam
 440 2012-01-10 03:18:17 <gmaxwell> I think I am king of the moon.
 441 2012-01-10 03:18:20 <gmaxwell> :)
 442 2012-01-10 03:18:37 <finway> heh
 443 2012-01-10 03:18:39 <gmaxwell> finway: there isn't any need for a 'pool op' to prevent that, it's just fundeimentally impossible.
 444 2012-01-10 03:19:02 <gmaxwell> fundamentally too.
 445 2012-01-10 03:19:25 <gmaxwell> And if it were possible, it would also work against central pools, and it's not like they're super able to stop bad behavior with proxies and such existing.
 446 2012-01-10 03:19:38 <gmaxwell> p2pool doesn't have operators but it has developers and users.
 447 2012-01-10 03:20:02 <luke-jr> finway: it works the same way Bitcoin itself deos
 448 2012-01-10 03:20:04 <luke-jr> does*
 449 2012-01-10 03:20:38 <luke-jr> finway: for every valid share, you earn a "point" in the merged-mine blockchain
 450 2012-01-10 03:20:40 <finway> I'll try to understand it.
 451 2012-01-10 03:20:52 <luke-jr> finway: valid shares need to include payments to all the people with points in that blockchain
 452 2012-01-10 03:22:52 <finway> luke-jr: since you're an OP, i think i should stop worrying. :P
 453 2012-01-10 03:23:19 <luke-jr> …
 454 2012-01-10 03:24:22 <gmaxwell> finway: The real problems wit p2pool are that it take a bit more work to setup an run than just using a central pool, and that it can't achieve variance as low, or payout schemes as flexible, plus its less mature than other options.
 455 2012-01-10 03:25:59 <finway> p2pool is the best thing happen to bitcoin in 2011
 456 2012-01-10 03:27:32 <amiller> roconnor, i'd totally recommend taking a look at this set of course notes http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~cis500/current/sf/html/toc.html
 457 2012-01-10 03:28:03 <roconnor> amiller: why is that?
 458 2012-01-10 03:28:24 <amiller> it is a tour through verified programming using Coq basically
 459 2012-01-10 03:28:42 <gmaxwell> **blinks**
 460 2012-01-10 03:28:47 <amiller> i'm going through it for the second time basically
 461 2012-01-10 03:28:51 <luke-jr> finway: let me add it to my list…
 462 2012-01-10 03:29:20 <luke-jr> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57325.0
 463 2012-01-10 03:29:23 <amiller> it's very haskelly, so i think you'd probably get a lot out of it pretty easily... whereas it takes me a lot of difficult thought right now
 464 2012-01-10 03:29:23 <luke-jr> there we go
 465 2012-01-10 03:29:32 <roconnor> amiller: okay, but you gotta read my thesis then: http://r6.ca/Thesis/
 466 2012-01-10 03:29:39 <gmaxwell> amiller: http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/o/O=Connor:Russell.html
 467 2012-01-10 03:30:14 <amiller> oh
 468 2012-01-10 03:30:18 <amiller> quite.
 469 2012-01-10 03:30:29 <copumpkin> roconnor: too many publications
 470 2012-01-10 03:30:30 <gmaxwell> roconnor: I heard about this language you might like, it has a funny name. But it's just french for chicken so it's okay. :)
 471 2012-01-10 03:30:30 finway has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 472 2012-01-10 03:30:39 <roconnor> amiller: ;)
 473 2012-01-10 03:30:56 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 474 2012-01-10 03:31:26 [7] has joined
 475 2012-01-10 03:31:36 finway has joined
 476 2012-01-10 03:32:12 <roconnor> amiller: don't sweat it.  I appreciate it.
 477 2012-01-10 03:32:20 <gmaxwell> hehe
 478 2012-01-10 03:32:57 <finway> I can imagine the scenario:  lots of p2pool variations, the one support 32coins mergeming wins, cause to miners, more is better.
 479 2012-01-10 03:33:02 <finway> Is that right?
 480 2012-01-10 03:33:17 <gmaxwell> finway: what does wins mean?
 481 2012-01-10 03:33:17 <luke-jr> finway: no
 482 2012-01-10 03:33:18 <finway> But the price was defined by NEEDs.
 483 2012-01-10 03:33:50 <finway> "win" mean get most mining power.
 484 2012-01-10 03:34:17 <gmaxwell> finway: it seems that most miners don't care about merged mining, see also Deepbit.
 485 2012-01-10 03:34:47 <finway> Yes, that's odd. I don't get it.
 486 2012-01-10 03:34:58 <gmaxwell> finway: I would expect p2pools to bet geography / network topology scoped more than features in the future but we'll see.
 487 2012-01-10 03:35:27 <gmaxwell> finway: btcguild lost ~no hashrate when it when from 0 fee to 5% fee (pps).
 488 2012-01-10 03:35:53 <roconnor> I'm pretty impressed how well known Coq is.
 489 2012-01-10 03:36:28 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: maybe when the CLC crap cools down, I should do an experiment and announce a 5% fee on Eligius
 490 2012-01-10 03:36:34 <gmaxwell> finway: You may have mistaken Homo mygpumakesmemoniez with Homo economicus
 491 2012-01-10 03:36:34 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: just for a week or smth
 492 2012-01-10 03:36:46 barmstrong has joined
 493 2012-01-10 03:37:01 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: use a signmessage thing to vote for the fee with a default of 5% if you don't get a majority for another option. :)
 494 2012-01-10 03:37:06 <amiller> that's awesome, you've been making some fundamental contributions constructive mathematics since 2005
 495 2012-01-10 03:37:26 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I'm sure it'd end up 0 that way
 496 2012-01-10 03:37:36 <roconnor> amiller: I don't know about fundamental, but I try.
 497 2012-01-10 03:37:39 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: oh, you mean everyone votes 5% by default?
 498 2012-01-10 03:37:43 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yes.
 499 2012-01-10 03:37:46 <luke-jr> hmm
 500 2012-01-10 03:37:56 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: except right now, signmessage is only needed for NMC
 501 2012-01-10 03:38:00 <luke-jr> ie, not many people
 502 2012-01-10 03:38:37 <finway> I guess most miners are lazy, and scam coin does not worth changing... fee too... even nmc too...
 503 2012-01-10 03:39:05 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: though I'd rather you left it alone until p2pool matures enough that you could just make it a p2pool frontend with enough fees to cover the increased stales from having high latency miners on p2pool. I think that would be a more worthwhile way to blow it up.
 504 2012-01-10 03:39:13 <gmaxwell> (well, if indeed it blow it up)
 505 2012-01-10 03:39:24 <gmaxwell> er blows
 506 2012-01-10 03:40:13 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ?
 507 2012-01-10 03:40:20 <gmaxwell> roconnor: extractions from coq are very cool, hard to not remember that.
 508 2012-01-10 03:40:44 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: remember, this is to promote Tonal. I don't plan to destroy Eligius.
 509 2012-01-10 03:40:51 <roconnor> gmaxwell: did you see that talk about a PDF parser in Coq?
 510 2012-01-10 03:41:08 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I might let it die, but I won't actively try to destroy it.
 511 2012-01-10 03:41:28 <gmaxwell> roconnor: no.. er.. 0_o as in all of pdf (including the postscript stack based virtual machine?)
 512 2012-01-10 03:41:31 wasabi3 has joined
 513 2012-01-10 03:42:01 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: well I didn't mean that— I'm more referring to bold changes which may have that outcome.
 514 2012-01-10 03:42:32 <roconnor> gmaxwell: at first I didn't think it was a big deal; just a parser; but then he showed how crafted PDF files with loopy xrefs make your desktop file brower busyloop
 515 2012-01-10 03:42:42 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 516 2012-01-10 03:43:02 rdponticelli has joined
 517 2012-01-10 03:43:05 <roconnor> gmaxwell: his coq implemention provably terminates so such behaviour in some sense impossible.
 518 2012-01-10 03:43:48 <gmaxwell> roconnor: a full pdf decoder has two Turing complete languages in it, plus a bunch of behavior that can use infinite cpu or memory.
 519 2012-01-10 03:43:55 <gmaxwell> roconnor: thats pretty cool.
 520 2012-01-10 03:44:30 <amiller> there's a really cool 'godels incompleteness' theorem in coq
 521 2012-01-10 03:44:36 <amiller> it's on some pastebin, i've run into it a bunch of times
 522 2012-01-10 03:44:43 <amiller> maybe i'll find out you wrote it, or at least recognize it
 523 2012-01-10 03:44:48 finway has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 524 2012-01-10 03:44:48 <gmaxwell> amiller: the one written by roconnor ?
 525 2012-01-10 03:44:57 <gmaxwell> hah
 526 2012-01-10 03:45:03 <doublec> isn't that what is thesis was about?
 527 2012-01-10 03:45:24 <amiller> it's the first of two main contributions in it!
 528 2012-01-10 03:46:24 <amiller> er it was this: http://muaddibspace.blogspot.com/2009/10/cantors-diagonalization-proof-in-coq.html
 529 2012-01-10 03:46:59 <amiller> never figured out who Muad`Dib was
 530 2012-01-10 03:47:10 <roconnor> gmaxwell: http://www.reddit.com/r/dependent_types/comments/jm95w/dependent_types_demonstrated_with_a/
 531 2012-01-10 03:47:20 <roconnor> gmaxwell: only the last few minutes are about the PDF parser
 532 2012-01-10 03:47:29 <roconnor> gmaxwell: the rest of the talk is some sort of introduction to coq
 533 2012-01-10 03:54:04 <gmaxwell> amiller: My understanding(/hope) is that roconnor is doing the Haskell implementation of bitcoin as design/precursor to to formally verfied on in coq.
 534 2012-01-10 03:54:28 <amiller> this paper looks like it's the fun-size version of the second part of your thesis http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.1213v2
 535 2012-01-10 03:54:44 <amiller> also +1 for the CC clause in the document.
 536 2012-01-10 03:55:35 <amiller> yeah that would make sense gmaxwell.
 537 2012-01-10 03:56:04 <amiller> i doubt that there would be anything to do wtih bitcoin that's as interesting as constructive real analysis
 538 2012-01-10 03:56:29 lfm has joined
 539 2012-01-10 03:56:36 <amiller> unless you were going to try to formalize 'cryptography' which i've never heard of anyone attepmting
 540 2012-01-10 03:57:14 <amiller> anyway um
 541 2012-01-10 03:57:48 <amiller> i don't have enough practical experience with haskell (or coq for that matter) to know how valuable the haskell implementation is to get into coq
 542 2012-01-10 03:59:07 <amiller> basically what i was considering two options, either 1) port your haskell code to coq, by implementing notations for the subset of haskell you mostly use
 543 2012-01-10 03:59:37 <amiller> 2) implement bitcoin by making notations that let me line up with the layout in the bitcoin wiki
 544 2012-01-10 04:00:13 <amiller> either way i think i'm being distracted too much by the 'scripting language' and not looking at the other aspects of bitcoin
 545 2012-01-10 04:00:42 <gmaxwell> amiller: the documentation in the wiki is _far_ from complete.
 546 2012-01-10 04:01:28 <amiller> yeah
 547 2012-01-10 04:01:32 <lfm> read the source luke
 548 2012-01-10 04:01:44 <luke-jr> no u
 549 2012-01-10 04:01:52 <luke-jr> I just *rewrote* the source
 550 2012-01-10 04:02:01 <luke-jr> an annoying portion of if anyhow
 551 2012-01-10 04:02:20 <luke-jr> https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/pull/69/files
 552 2012-01-10 04:03:15 <amiller> basically you would either have to be modeling either the satoshi implementation, or perhaps a haskell implementation (seems you've chosen haskell), or perhaps just one in coq to begin wtih (that's what i initially thought i would do)
 553 2012-01-10 04:05:38 <amiller> so questions are 1. what's involved in moving from haskell to coq? is there a coq library (a repository of useful lemmas and notations) for working with haskell? 2. at a high level, what do you anticipate would be useful to prove about the specification?
 554 2012-01-10 04:05:39 coblee_ has joined
 555 2012-01-10 04:07:14 <k9quaint> never mucked about with Haskell
 556 2012-01-10 04:07:59 coblee has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 557 2012-01-10 04:07:59 coblee_ is now known as coblee
 558 2012-01-10 04:17:07 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 559 2012-01-10 04:17:16 <k9quaint> I wonder what happened to SAC to trigger so much anger
 560 2012-01-10 04:17:28 <k9quaint> I suspect a pedobear was involved O.o
 561 2012-01-10 04:17:55 paraipan has joined
 562 2012-01-10 04:18:39 <amiller> i guess another question i have roconnor is 3. have you thought of any generalizations of bitcoin that are perhaps simpler to model?
 563 2012-01-10 04:18:53 <amiller> for example opentransactions has a much different architecture than bitcoin
 564 2012-01-10 04:19:22 <amiller> it doesn't have any of the random proof of work stuff, it's not a decentralized currency with anonymous miners
 565 2012-01-10 04:19:33 <amiller> instead it just has servers that sign for it
 566 2012-01-10 04:20:22 <amiller> but the security properties you get are that if the server violates its specification (for example, lending its signature to a double-spend) then the public gets evidence that the spec was violated
 567 2012-01-10 04:20:55 <luke-jr> k9quaint: presumably he was planning to make good money on the scam
 568 2012-01-10 04:21:35 <k9quaint> I think he needs to show us on the doll where the bad man touched him
 569 2012-01-10 04:32:15 RobinPKR_ has joined
 570 2012-01-10 04:33:59 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 571 2012-01-10 04:33:59 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
 572 2012-01-10 04:36:45 DontMindMe2 has joined
 573 2012-01-10 04:37:01 DontMindMe has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 574 2012-01-10 04:37:35 darkmethod has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 575 2012-01-10 04:43:09 <midnightmagic> if you move anything to coq, you can basically expect zero incoming patches from outsiders
 576 2012-01-10 04:43:21 <luke-jr> lol
 577 2012-01-10 04:43:31 <midnightmagic> :-)
 578 2012-01-10 04:44:02 <gmaxwell> as opposed to the absolute flood of haskell contributors?
 579 2012-01-10 04:44:28 <k9quaint> right it in lisp
 580 2012-01-10 04:44:35 <amiller> i don't understand #haskell as a community
 581 2012-01-10 04:44:37 <k9quaint> I will contribute a parenthesis or two
 582 2012-01-10 04:44:37 <amiller> who are they?
 583 2012-01-10 04:44:42 <amiller> i don't think i've ever met one
 584 2012-01-10 04:44:51 <amiller> a haskell developer i mean
 585 2012-01-10 04:45:10 <gmaxwell> amiller: big chunks of them are locked up in trading firms
 586 2012-01-10 04:45:11 <amiller> i've met lisp people on the other hand
 587 2012-01-10 04:45:25 <gmaxwell> they don't actually want haskell code, they just want the kind of people who find haskell attractive.
 588 2012-01-10 04:45:30 <amiller> oh fuck, you know what that means
 589 2012-01-10 04:45:34 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: there are a lot of us who can build useful haskell patches. Even I can do that. :)
 590 2012-01-10 04:45:35 <amiller> gotta liberate 'em
 591 2012-01-10 04:45:38 <amiller> occupy haskell
 592 2012-01-10 04:45:47 <amiller> occupy quants i suppose you mean
 593 2012-01-10 04:46:02 <amiller> hmm
 594 2012-01-10 04:46:05 <luke-jr> Perl is the obvious best choice.
 595 2012-01-10 04:46:09 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: will you fix my xmonad configuration for me then? If I ask for more free coding in #xmonad they're going to start catching on. ;)
 596 2012-01-10 04:46:18 <luke-jr> … if you want a bunch of antisocial jerks contributing
 597 2012-01-10 04:46:39 <luke-jr> mtve: btw, do you have work?
 598 2012-01-10 04:46:50 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: :)
 599 2012-01-10 04:47:01 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Why are you writing in OCaml? :)
 600 2012-01-10 04:47:12 <midnightmagic> ^are^aren't
 601 2012-01-10 04:48:09 <amiller> what an odd project
 602 2012-01-10 04:48:11 <amiller> xmonad is hillarious
 603 2012-01-10 04:48:17 <gmaxwell> It's quite good software.
 604 2012-01-10 04:48:44 <amiller> now i know what powers all the ridiculous multimonitor displays i typically associate with financial engineer silliness
 605 2012-01-10 04:49:18 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Or just switch to dwm, it's easier to patch.
 606 2012-01-10 04:49:55 b4epoche_ has joined
 607 2012-01-10 04:50:04 <amiller> luke-jr, are you the only guy who mines nonstandard tx and weird blocks?
 608 2012-01-10 04:50:10 <luke-jr> amiller: afaik
 609 2012-01-10 04:50:26 <amiller> what's the point? i don't really think i understand what the significance of that is
 610 2012-01-10 04:50:28 <midnightmagic> there used to be a group of miners doing that, who'd all agreed to connect directly to one another.
 611 2012-01-10 04:50:32 <midnightmagic> who knows what happened to them
 612 2012-01-10 04:50:39 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 613 2012-01-10 04:50:40 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 614 2012-01-10 04:51:07 <luke-jr> amiller: dunno, anti-"Gavin is the boss of Bitcoin"? :P
 615 2012-01-10 04:51:23 <amiller> someone's gotta play the devil's advocate
 616 2012-01-10 04:51:29 <luke-jr> I do that pretty well.
 617 2012-01-10 04:51:32 <luke-jr> usually
 618 2012-01-10 04:51:35 <amiller> better you i suppose than the russian mafia or whatever would fill the power gap.
 619 2012-01-10 04:51:44 <gmaxwell> *cough*
 620 2012-01-10 04:52:17 <amiller> lol
 621 2012-01-10 04:52:28 <luke-jr> gmaxwell is part of the p2pool mafia
 622 2012-01-10 04:52:39 <midnightmagic> forrest is russian?
 623 2012-01-10 04:56:06 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: p2pool mafia is benevolent, it pays you to be more decentralized.
 624 2012-01-10 04:56:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: suuuuure
 625 2012-01-10 04:56:58 <gmaxwell> Or else.
 626 2012-01-10 04:57:31 <amiller> carrots not sticks?
 627 2012-01-10 04:57:35 <gmaxwell> (or else, … it doesn't)
 628 2012-01-10 04:57:42 <onelineproof> How do I submit little bugs? Mostly just the make files I had to modify them to make them work properly... (bitcoin-qt.pro & makefile.unix)
 629 2012-01-10 04:58:21 <nanotube> onelineproof: you can post pull requests on github....
 630 2012-01-10 04:58:24 <luke-jr> onelineproof: you shouldn't need to modify them anymore
 631 2012-01-10 04:59:02 <gmaxwell> onelineproof: if your modifications are general (e.g. won't just break it for someone else) create a pull request or just file an issue.  (though I'd bet they aren't… make isn't much of an automated build system)
 632 2012-01-10 04:59:22 <onelineproof> Ok, Ill get to that sometime, I'm just making some custom builds, so I had to change some library/include directories
 633 2012-01-10 04:59:39 <gmaxwell> onelineproof: on what system?
 634 2012-01-10 05:00:27 <onelineproof> on ubuntu... I'm making my own package, which will soon be a custom distro
 635 2012-01-10 05:11:09 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: linux: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29653426/bitcoin-0.4.3rc1.tar.xz win32: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29653426/bitcoin-0.4.3rc1-win32.tar.xz
 636 2012-01-10 05:24:03 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 637 2012-01-10 05:28:43 hippich_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 638 2012-01-10 05:29:46 pickett has joined
 639 2012-01-10 05:34:13 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 640 2012-01-10 05:34:57 WakiMiko_ has joined
 641 2012-01-10 05:35:02 hippich_ has joined
 642 2012-01-10 05:38:18 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 643 2012-01-10 05:49:10 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 644 2012-01-10 05:55:06 pickett has joined
 645 2012-01-10 05:57:25 amiller has quit (Excess Flood)
 646 2012-01-10 05:59:58 amiller has joined
 647 2012-01-10 06:07:27 heoa has joined
 648 2012-01-10 06:10:28 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 649 2012-01-10 06:10:53 jhajduk has joined
 650 2012-01-10 06:12:32 BurtyB has joined
 651 2012-01-10 06:14:32 <heoa> Bug Report with Fresh Ubuntu and no earlier install with Bitcoin: http://pastie.org/3158574
 652 2012-01-10 06:15:08 <heoa> I got bitcoin running as showed there but there is some prob with ~/.bitcoin -folder creation (I got it running after removing the dir)
 653 2012-01-10 06:15:42 <heoa> (sorry totally newbie to bitcoin but there is the procedure what I did, you surely understand better it. Have fun!)
 654 2012-01-10 06:21:27 <heoa> ..or wait, one thing I forgot: I may have done `$ sudo apt-get install bitcoind` before this. Did it intervene with the issue?
 655 2012-01-10 06:22:24 <onelineproof> ya bitcoind probably created the first .bitcoin directory
 656 2012-01-10 06:22:59 <onelineproof> and possibly dynamically linked to a version of libdb that is not compatible with the one bitcoin-qt uses
 657 2012-01-10 06:23:10 <gmaxwell> onelineproof has it.
 658 2012-01-10 06:23:51 <onelineproof> To be safe wallet.dat must be created with the same version of libdb
 659 2012-01-10 06:24:09 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: O.o;;
 660 2012-01-10 06:24:17 <gmaxwell> onelineproof: libdb only goes one direction
 661 2012-01-10 06:24:24 <gmaxwell> you can upgrade but not downgrade.
 662 2012-01-10 06:24:28 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: so is there a reason we can't rename the last ones, and that to 0.5.2 and 0.4.3? :P
 663 2012-01-10 06:24:32 <onelineproof> o ok
 664 2012-01-10 06:25:02 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 665 2012-01-10 06:38:37 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: just remove the sigs and I guess you are fine...
 666 2012-01-10 06:39:16 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: why remove the sigs? O.o
 667 2012-01-10 06:39:22 <luke-jr> is the filename being signed?
 668 2012-01-10 06:39:38 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: because they are at the top level dir and werent in previous versions
 669 2012-01-10 06:39:46 <BlueMatt> (plus its not formatted for gitian as-is)
 670 2012-01-10 06:39:52 <luke-jr> O.o?
 671 2012-01-10 06:40:16 <BlueMatt> its close, but it cant be in a dir
 672 2012-01-10 06:40:20 <BlueMatt> has to be zip
 673 2012-01-10 06:40:25 <luke-jr> sigs being there = bug?
 674 2012-01-10 06:40:26 <BlueMatt> and has to have at least 3 sigs
 675 2012-01-10 06:40:33 <luke-jr> I have no idea what you're talking about.
 676 2012-01-10 06:40:39 <BlueMatt> those are there to verify the files I gave youy
 677 2012-01-10 06:41:06 <BlueMatt> just remove the sigs and make them the form of the previous uploads and you can remove the rc1s
 678 2012-01-10 06:41:36 <luke-jr> ok…
 679 2012-01-10 06:47:19 justmoon has joined
 680 2012-01-10 06:51:32 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 681 2012-01-10 06:57:19 osearth has joined
 682 2012-01-10 06:58:19 justmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 683 2012-01-10 06:58:39 davout has joined
 684 2012-01-10 06:59:54 osearth_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 685 2012-01-10 06:59:59 h4ckm3 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 686 2012-01-10 07:07:06 jhajduk has left ()
 687 2012-01-10 07:07:54 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 688 2012-01-10 07:13:56 h4ckm3 has joined
 689 2012-01-10 07:14:17 jhajduk has joined
 690 2012-01-10 07:14:19 booo has joined
 691 2012-01-10 07:20:56 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 692 2012-01-10 07:23:26 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 693 2012-01-10 07:25:10 RazielZ has joined
 694 2012-01-10 07:42:49 Joric has joined
 695 2012-01-10 07:43:10 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 696 2012-01-10 07:45:34 larsivi has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 697 2012-01-10 07:53:53 chrisb__ has joined
 698 2012-01-10 07:57:30 bobbob has joined
 699 2012-01-10 07:57:46 theorbtwo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 700 2012-01-10 08:00:06 barmstrong has joined
 701 2012-01-10 08:00:37 bobbob has quit (Client Quit)
 702 2012-01-10 08:02:52 theorbtwo has joined
 703 2012-01-10 08:12:21 <barmstrong> hi all, could someone point me toward the code in the official client that checks if a transaction is "valid"?
 704 2012-01-10 08:12:38 <barmstrong> for example I noticed this one has an extra op_nop in it http://blockexplorer.com/tx/5492a05f1edfbd29c525a3dbf45f654d0fc45a805ccd620d0a4dff47de63f90b
 705 2012-01-10 08:12:47 <barmstrong> was not sure if this would still be considered valid
 706 2012-01-10 08:12:54 <barmstrong> but wanted to see how the official client checks
 707 2012-01-10 08:16:15 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 708 2012-01-10 08:16:22 barmstrong has joined
 709 2012-01-10 08:19:45 molecular has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 710 2012-01-10 08:20:22 molecular has joined
 711 2012-01-10 08:21:49 pycke2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 712 2012-01-10 08:29:28 <luke-jr> barmstrong: obviously if it's in the block chain it's valid
 713 2012-01-10 08:29:42 <luke-jr> barmstrong: and a decentralized system has no "official"
 714 2012-01-10 08:30:44 <barmstrong> well there were other transactions that are no longer considered valid
 715 2012-01-10 08:30:44 <barmstrong> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Incidents#OP_CHECKSIG_abuse
 716 2012-01-10 08:30:57 <barmstrong> but are in the main chain
 717 2012-01-10 08:36:50 <heoa> Are there patches for autocompletion, getHashesToAddress -- on commandline?
 718 2012-01-10 08:37:04 <heoa> getAddresses2Hashes
 719 2012-01-10 08:38:37 caedes_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 720 2012-01-10 08:40:15 jhajduk has left ()
 721 2012-01-10 08:41:20 slush has joined
 722 2012-01-10 08:43:40 wasabi1 has joined
 723 2012-01-10 08:43:45 davout has joined
 724 2012-01-10 08:45:35 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 725 2012-01-10 08:52:22 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 726 2012-01-10 08:52:48 copumpkin has joined
 727 2012-01-10 08:52:49 copumpkin has quit (Changing host)
 728 2012-01-10 08:52:49 copumpkin has joined
 729 2012-01-10 08:53:03 abragin has joined
 730 2012-01-10 08:53:04 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 731 2012-01-10 08:53:04 abragin has joined
 732 2012-01-10 08:54:33 elkingrey has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 733 2012-01-10 09:01:37 b4epoche_ has joined
 734 2012-01-10 09:02:30 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 735 2012-01-10 09:02:30 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 736 2012-01-10 09:03:38 slush1 has joined
 737 2012-01-10 09:04:57 ThomasV has joined
 738 2012-01-10 09:05:51 CaptainDDL has joined
 739 2012-01-10 09:10:05 booo has joined
 740 2012-01-10 09:11:38 davout_ has joined
 741 2012-01-10 09:11:47 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 742 2012-01-10 09:12:29 davout has joined
 743 2012-01-10 09:12:41 larsivi has joined
 744 2012-01-10 09:14:38 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 745 2012-01-10 09:14:48 davout_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 746 2012-01-10 09:25:32 iddo has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 747 2012-01-10 09:25:37 iddo has joined
 748 2012-01-10 09:29:02 chrisb__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 749 2012-01-10 09:29:26 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 750 2012-01-10 09:35:21 <onelineproof> So if anyone wants to test my package: http://piratelinux.org/?page_id=2 . It's not focused on bitcoin but does contain some bitcoin functionality. Compatible with Ubuntu and Debian. ISO coming soon.
 751 2012-01-10 09:36:17 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 752 2012-01-10 09:36:22 slush1 has joined
 753 2012-01-10 09:36:40 Nicksasa has joined
 754 2012-01-10 09:40:36 bahk has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 755 2012-01-10 09:41:36 bakh has joined
 756 2012-01-10 09:44:12 wasabi3 has joined
 757 2012-01-10 09:44:33 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 758 2012-01-10 09:46:14 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 759 2012-01-10 09:46:58 <lfm> I have enuf virus already
 760 2012-01-10 09:48:38 theorbtwo has joined
 761 2012-01-10 09:49:48 <cjdelisle> no such thing
 762 2012-01-10 09:53:31 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 763 2012-01-10 09:55:39 theorbtwo has joined
 764 2012-01-10 10:01:32 <cjdelisle> onelineproof: what exactly does it do?
 765 2012-01-10 10:03:05 Carmivore has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 766 2012-01-10 10:04:02 toffoo has quit ()
 767 2012-01-10 10:05:37 Joric has quit ()
 768 2012-01-10 10:07:02 <cjdelisle> nvm interesting, probably would make a nice usb/fat32 thing
 769 2012-01-10 10:07:25 <cjdelisle> syslinux 0wn-highschool-computer
 770 2012-01-10 10:09:33 Carmivore has joined
 771 2012-01-10 10:12:10 sgstair has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 772 2012-01-10 10:12:34 sgstair has joined
 773 2012-01-10 10:13:30 BGL has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 774 2012-01-10 10:15:39 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 775 2012-01-10 10:15:45 gjs278 has joined
 776 2012-01-10 10:17:38 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 777 2012-01-10 10:20:31 <onelineproof> cjdelisle: It's a project for the Pirate Party of Canada. The package installs all the modifications that I will implement into the Custom Distro.
 778 2012-01-10 10:21:02 <cjdelisle> that's pretty cool
 779 2012-01-10 10:21:45 <cjdelisle> you might find this interesting too: https://raw.github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/master/rfcs/Whitepaper.txt
 780 2012-01-10 10:21:49 <onelineproof> You don't have to trust my binaries. On one click with the package manager, all resulting binaries get compiled from source (except for the dependencies which normally come from trusted Ubuntu sources)
 781 2012-01-10 10:22:16 <cjdelisle> it's not ready to be shipped to the world by any means but it's my idea for a better network.
 782 2012-01-10 10:22:30 <cjdelisle> /nod
 783 2012-01-10 10:23:39 <cjdelisle> I'm connected through cjdns to an irc network right now over 3 hops w/ one cjdns node on my computer, one in a vm, one on a server and one on the ircd
 784 2012-01-10 10:24:04 <cjdelisle> it's in the "proof of consept" phase, it still makes some very bad routing decisions from time to time
 785 2012-01-10 10:26:40 <onelineproof> cool. Is it like Tor with hidden services?
 786 2012-01-10 10:27:08 <onelineproof> or like I2P?
 787 2012-01-10 10:27:54 <cjdelisle> like i2p because there's no outproxy
 788 2012-01-10 10:28:30 <cjdelisle> but like freenet in darknet mode because you need permission to connect to someone and connections are made manually through the configuration file.
 789 2012-01-10 10:29:22 <cjdelisle> and unlike any of them because nodes try to route the fastest path instead of trying to bulster security by obfuscation
 790 2012-01-10 10:30:44 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 791 2012-01-10 10:31:24 Carmivore has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 792 2012-01-10 10:33:27 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 793 2012-01-10 10:37:50 Carmivore has joined
 794 2012-01-10 10:38:18 <onelineproof> well ill give it a test some time. I really wanna find a network that is private and fast for file sharing, like torrents. I2P is too damn slow.
 795 2012-01-10 10:38:43 <cjdelisle> if you're on efnet, drop by #cjdns
 796 2012-01-10 10:38:44 lfm has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 797 2012-01-10 10:39:05 <onelineproof> k ill add it to my chat list
 798 2012-01-10 10:39:24 <cjdelisle> you have to get credentials to connect to someone's server and I hope you'll set your own vps or server up to be one of the backbone providers
 799 2012-01-10 10:40:11 <onelineproof> ya once I get to know it...
 800 2012-01-10 10:40:13 <cjdelisle> it's still in rapid development but the biggest thing in my mind is it needs to be fast and that means we need a lot of servers and few dsl/cable connections
 801 2012-01-10 10:40:29 <cjdelisle> yea, once it becomes a little more stable too ;)
 802 2012-01-10 10:44:43 wasabi1 has joined
 803 2012-01-10 10:45:35 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 804 2012-01-10 10:46:20 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 805 2012-01-10 10:47:03 BGL has joined
 806 2012-01-10 11:09:49 RazielZ has joined
 807 2012-01-10 11:12:40 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 808 2012-01-10 11:14:13 edcba_ is now known as edcba
 809 2012-01-10 11:14:32 pickett has joined
 810 2012-01-10 11:15:46 Joric has joined
 811 2012-01-10 11:15:50 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 812 2012-01-10 11:20:36 pickett has joined
 813 2012-01-10 11:21:32 lfm has joined
 814 2012-01-10 11:22:37 Diablo-D3 has joined
 815 2012-01-10 11:28:06 Turingi has joined
 816 2012-01-10 11:28:06 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
 817 2012-01-10 11:28:06 Turingi has joined
 818 2012-01-10 11:29:06 iocor has joined
 819 2012-01-10 11:29:40 Nick_ has joined
 820 2012-01-10 11:29:49 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: No route to host)
 821 2012-01-10 11:30:06 Nick_ is now known as Nicksasa
 822 2012-01-10 11:30:55 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 823 2012-01-10 11:31:13 Nicksasa has joined
 824 2012-01-10 11:34:52 SomeoneWeird has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 825 2012-01-10 11:45:00 wasabi3 has joined
 826 2012-01-10 11:45:07 Guest71076 has joined
 827 2012-01-10 11:45:22 Guest71076 has quit (Changing host)
 828 2012-01-10 11:45:22 Guest71076 has joined
 829 2012-01-10 11:46:12 Guest71076 is now known as SomeoneWeird
 830 2012-01-10 11:47:05 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 831 2012-01-10 11:47:16 marf_away has joined
 832 2012-01-10 11:49:43 kam1l has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 833 2012-01-10 11:56:48 TD has joined
 834 2012-01-10 12:09:56 Joric has quit ()
 835 2012-01-10 12:10:50 chrisb__ has joined
 836 2012-01-10 12:18:12 ovidiusoft has joined
 837 2012-01-10 12:45:17 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 838 2012-01-10 12:51:47 slush1 has joined
 839 2012-01-10 13:00:40 erle- has joined
 840 2012-01-10 13:02:01 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 841 2012-01-10 13:03:43 safra has joined
 842 2012-01-10 13:05:51 rdponticelli has joined
 843 2012-01-10 13:08:18 safra has quit (Client Quit)
 844 2012-01-10 13:09:25 Acciaio has joined
 845 2012-01-10 13:13:12 b4epoche_ has joined
 846 2012-01-10 13:13:51 justmoon has joined
 847 2012-01-10 13:14:22 Joric has joined
 848 2012-01-10 13:14:34 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 849 2012-01-10 13:14:34 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 850 2012-01-10 13:24:17 minimoose has joined
 851 2012-01-10 13:26:36 ThomasV has joined
 852 2012-01-10 13:36:20 datagutt has joined
 853 2012-01-10 13:38:53 [Tycho] has joined
 854 2012-01-10 13:39:45 roconnor has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 855 2012-01-10 13:42:28 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 856 2012-01-10 13:46:23 Acciaio has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 857 2012-01-10 13:46:32 larsivi has joined
 858 2012-01-10 14:01:10 <luke-jr> makomk: oh no, you might actually have to write code! what a nusance!
 859 2012-01-10 14:03:32 <makomk> luke-jr: the problem isn't writing it, the problem is making sure that it behaves sensibly even when someone's trying to attack it, and for that matter figuring out how it should behave. This is rather harder to analyze than Bitcoin.
 860 2012-01-10 14:04:18 <luke-jr> makomk: good thing I'm providing you with such an opportunity to test it
 861 2012-01-10 14:05:21 <makomk> luke-jr: that can only prove that it doesn't have any flaws *that you managed to find and exploit*
 862 2012-01-10 14:06:02 <UukGoblin> can you actually sign forum posts? won't the markup and line endings screw the signature up?
 863 2012-01-10 14:06:32 <luke-jr> well, if you weren't so busy siding with the scammers, you could make it clear that you endorse trying to find flaws in it that might otherwise result in real actual theft
 864 2012-01-10 14:06:47 <copumpkin> lol
 865 2012-01-10 14:07:27 <makomk> luke-jr: I know there's a flaw in it that can result in real actual theft: the 51% attacker can still carry out a double spend. That's probably still unfixable.
 866 2012-01-10 14:07:34 imsaguy has joined
 867 2012-01-10 14:07:36 da2ce7 has joined
 868 2012-01-10 14:09:04 <luke-jr> makomk: you know, I seem to recall suggesting a theoretical solution the other day that would actually make 51% double spends more difficult…
 869 2012-01-10 14:09:38 <makomk> luke-jr: oh? What side effects did this have?
 870 2012-01-10 14:09:59 <UukGoblin> what's CLC?
 871 2012-01-10 14:10:13 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: makomk's scamcoin
 872 2012-01-10 14:10:27 <luke-jr> makomk: none I though of in the brief moment I thought about it
 873 2012-01-10 14:10:47 <luke-jr> gmaxwell seemed to think it wouldn't be viable, but I couldn't understand his reason
 874 2012-01-10 14:11:52 <luke-jr> so you don't need to go digging through logs, I'll summarize it again:
 875 2012-01-10 14:12:26 <luke-jr> if two valid blocks are seen at height X within a 10 minute window, accept the one with the mathematically lower hash
 876 2012-01-10 14:13:19 <makomk> That's, errrm, ...
 877 2012-01-10 14:13:42 <luke-jr> it would certainly be more difficult, at least, for my blocks to always be mathematically lower than the people trying to compete
 878 2012-01-10 14:14:19 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 879 2012-01-10 14:14:20 <makomk> Yeah, I'm just not sure how you could enforce that in the face of chain forks which are more than a single block long.
 880 2012-01-10 14:14:28 <makomk> Which they would be.
 881 2012-01-10 14:14:32 <UukGoblin> fun.
 882 2012-01-10 14:14:45 <luke-jr> makomk: just ignore the longer chain, if it breaks the rule
 883 2012-01-10 14:15:06 <luke-jr> in ordinary cases, that'd probably mean a 2-block chain would lose to a 1-block chain occasionally
 884 2012-01-10 14:15:22 <luke-jr> occasionally = rarer than current orphans
 885 2012-01-10 14:15:36 <makomk> luke-jr: now what happens if I go back in history and create a block at height some time in the past with a lower hash than the existing block there.
 886 2012-01-10 14:15:52 <luke-jr> makomk: that's why you have the requirement that it be received within a 10 minute window
 887 2012-01-10 14:15:58 <makomk> Clients running at the time can obviously tell what happened, but any client that wasn't can't.
 888 2012-01-10 14:16:08 <luke-jr> true
 889 2012-01-10 14:16:35 <luke-jr> I'll leave you to ponder and solve that. ;)
 890 2012-01-10 14:16:37 <luke-jr> bbl
 891 2012-01-10 14:17:50 <makomk> I don't think it is solvable; it's basically the fundamental problem that prevents effective anti-double-spending measures.
 892 2012-01-10 14:18:21 zeiris has quit (Quit: segfault)
 893 2012-01-10 14:18:38 zeiris has joined
 894 2012-01-10 14:24:32 <UukGoblin> so what actually happened? do I understand correctly that luke-jr performed a 51% attack on a merged-mining chain by merged-mining from eligius?
 895 2012-01-10 14:24:43 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: no.
 896 2012-01-10 14:24:48 pickett has joined
 897 2012-01-10 14:25:00 <makomk> UukGoblin: correct, if by "51% attack" you don't actually mean a double-spend.
 898 2012-01-10 14:25:02 <UukGoblin> could I see some neutral information on the subject?
 899 2012-01-10 14:25:10 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: but there's so much FUD, don't bother trying to understand…
 900 2012-01-10 14:25:34 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: nobody is neutral. there's a few scammers and sympathizers, but most people are cool with it
 901 2012-01-10 14:25:35 <makomk> UukGoblin: there should be a post by ArtForz on the forum confirming this.
 902 2012-01-10 14:26:15 <UukGoblin> ok, then from both sides? :->
 903 2012-01-10 14:27:20 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, perhaps you wrote something about the subject somewhere?
 904 2012-01-10 14:27:28 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: I'm mining the heck out of it, using my own hardware. That's all that should matter.
 905 2012-01-10 14:27:46 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: no, a complete writeup in all the details necessary to understand is IMO utterly impossible
 906 2012-01-10 14:27:51 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: many people have tried, and failed
 907 2012-01-10 14:27:53 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, ok
 908 2012-01-10 14:28:06 <luke-jr> and 1-on-1 explaining takes way too long
 909 2012-01-10 14:28:18 <luke-jr> (and even then, often fails)
 910 2012-01-10 14:28:24 <UukGoblin> that'll just help keep the FUD up
 911 2012-01-10 14:28:26 <makomk> luke-jr: come to think of it, is Eligius actually on your own hardware or is it MtGox-owned.
 912 2012-01-10 14:28:37 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 913 2012-01-10 14:28:55 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: much easier to make the point that it's nobody else's business
 914 2012-01-10 14:29:27 <makomk> luke-jr's position is that because all the CLC-related part of mining happens in Eligius' pool software, it's "on his own hardware" and therefore not anyone's business.
 915 2012-01-10 14:29:37 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, I'd disagree, if it really is offensive action you're taking
 916 2012-01-10 14:30:57 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: nobody lost money, and it plays by the network rules; I just have more hashpower.
 917 2012-01-10 14:31:23 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: in the case of SolidCoin, my 'attack' is 100% based on laws and legalities
 918 2012-01-10 14:31:56 <luke-jr> (see https://github.com/solidcoin/solidcoin )
 919 2012-01-10 14:32:06 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, ok a plain question then: could you have performed whatever you did on CLC if you didn't have eligius miners' hashpower?
 920 2012-01-10 14:32:47 <Diablo-D3> are we still fucking discussing this?
 921 2012-01-10 14:33:01 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: dude, you do realize 2 people got banned and 1 person close to it on the forums over this shit, right?
 922 2012-01-10 14:33:03 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, I'm happy to move the question elsewhere
 923 2012-01-10 14:33:04 <Diablo-D3> people are tired of hearing aobut it
 924 2012-01-10 14:33:10 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: there is no proper forum.
 925 2012-01-10 14:33:14 <luke-jr> …
 926 2012-01-10 14:33:14 <Diablo-D3> basically, it boils down to this
 927 2012-01-10 14:33:23 <Diablo-D3> ues, luke used eligius's hash power to merge mine CLC
 928 2012-01-10 14:33:31 <Diablo-D3> no, it didnt effect miners and was not a violation of their trust
 929 2012-01-10 14:33:38 <Diablo-D3> no, luke didnt make any BTC from it
 930 2012-01-10 14:33:49 <Diablo-D3> yes, CLC is utterly fucked because the diff spiked to hell
 931 2012-01-10 14:33:49 <UukGoblin> it doesn't belong to -dev indeed, but it was started here and I couldn't find any sensible info on google, so I kept asking here.
 932 2012-01-10 14:34:02 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: so there, theres all the answers to your questions.
 933 2012-01-10 14:34:08 <makomk> UukGoblin: that's usually how it does start, yeah.
 934 2012-01-10 14:34:33 <luke-jr> sigh
 935 2012-01-10 14:35:16 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: don't start forcing me to spend hours going over this
 936 2012-01-10 14:35:34 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, ok thanks for the heads up, I still have more questions though
 937 2012-01-10 14:35:38 <luke-jr> in fact, I don't have hours
 938 2012-01-10 14:36:21 <UukGoblin> oh great, #bitcoin-politics is +i. :-P
 939 2012-01-10 14:36:23 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: CLC is claiming luke attacked them, luke is trolling them by going along with it
 940 2012-01-10 14:36:28 <luke-jr> [09:23:21] <luke-jr> UukGoblin: I'm mining the heck out of it, using my own hardware. That's all that should matter.
 941 2012-01-10 14:36:57 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: this would only be an issue if CLC had any actual real world value, but it doesnt
 942 2012-01-10 14:37:02 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, are you using ONLY your own hardware?
 943 2012-01-10 14:37:04 <Diablo-D3> no one is buying CLC
 944 2012-01-10 14:37:14 <UukGoblin> I think you can't claim that ever on a p2p network
 945 2012-01-10 14:37:16 <Diablo-D3> its CLC's fault for not having enough hash power to prevent the spike.
 946 2012-01-10 14:37:45 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: basically, when luke joined, he was like 10 times more hash power than the rest of the CLC people combined
 947 2012-01-10 14:37:49 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, no, I think it's a political issue
 948 2012-01-10 14:38:06 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, it's not about money, but trust
 949 2012-01-10 14:38:07 <Diablo-D3> yes, it IS a political issue which directly becomes an offtopic and you will get banned for it issue
 950 2012-01-10 14:38:19 <UukGoblin> 143214 <@UukGoblin> oh great, #bitcoin-politics is +i. :-P
 951 2012-01-10 14:38:23 <Diablo-D3> like I said, 2 people on the forums got banned for it, and 1 person came very close to being the third.
 952 2012-01-10 14:38:23 <UukGoblin> where can I discuss it then?
 953 2012-01-10 14:38:31 <Diablo-D3> there is no where you can discuss it
 954 2012-01-10 14:38:43 <Diablo-D3> on the forums its completely off topic by word of theymos himself.
 955 2012-01-10 14:39:03 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: you can discuss it in the clc irc channel if they have one
 956 2012-01-10 14:39:11 <Diablo-D3> thats it
 957 2012-01-10 14:39:16 <Diablo-D3> thats your only safe place
 958 2012-01-10 14:39:44 m00p has joined
 959 2012-01-10 14:39:56 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, ok, thanks for the info
 960 2012-01-10 14:43:39 wumpus has quit (No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
 961 2012-01-10 14:43:52 wump has joined
 962 2012-01-10 14:44:01 OneFixt_ has joined
 963 2012-01-10 14:44:11 Litt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 964 2012-01-10 14:44:11 smtmnyz has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 965 2012-01-10 14:44:11 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 966 2012-01-10 14:44:12 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 967 2012-01-10 14:44:12 Optimo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 968 2012-01-10 14:44:12 justmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 969 2012-01-10 14:44:12 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 970 2012-01-10 14:44:12 ForceMajeure has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 971 2012-01-10 14:44:13 Tuxavant has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 972 2012-01-10 14:44:13 superman2016 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 973 2012-01-10 14:44:13 wumpus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 974 2012-01-10 14:44:21 mologie has joined
 975 2012-01-10 14:44:21 comboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 976 2012-01-10 14:44:21 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 977 2012-01-10 14:44:22 underscor has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 978 2012-01-10 14:44:25 comboy has joined
 979 2012-01-10 14:44:25 slush has joined
 980 2012-01-10 14:44:31 Litt has joined
 981 2012-01-10 14:44:31 Optimo has joined
 982 2012-01-10 14:44:36 smtmnyz has joined
 983 2012-01-10 14:44:42 epscy has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 984 2012-01-10 14:45:00 Tuxavant has joined
 985 2012-01-10 14:45:01 erle- has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 986 2012-01-10 14:45:01 Detritus has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 987 2012-01-10 14:45:05 Nick__ has joined
 988 2012-01-10 14:45:13 terrytibbs has quit (Excess Flood)
 989 2012-01-10 14:45:14 Detritus has joined
 990 2012-01-10 14:45:15 epscy has joined
 991 2012-01-10 14:45:21 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 992 2012-01-10 14:45:31 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 993 2012-01-10 14:45:41 JFK911 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 994 2012-01-10 14:45:43 ThomasV has joined
 995 2012-01-10 14:46:07 underscor has joined
 996 2012-01-10 14:46:12 Nick__ is now known as 18WAA4WGH
 997 2012-01-10 14:46:15 OneFixt_ has quit (Changing host)
 998 2012-01-10 14:46:15 OneFixt_ has joined
 999 2012-01-10 14:46:16 NickelBot has joined
1000 2012-01-10 14:46:26 erle- has joined
1001 2012-01-10 14:46:26 justmoon has joined
1002 2012-01-10 14:46:31 <dikidera> Just to ask
1003 2012-01-10 14:46:44 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1004 2012-01-10 14:46:47 Nicksasa has quit (Disconnected by services)
1005 2012-01-10 14:46:47 <dikidera> Making new addresses starting with 3, does that mean the max possible addresses also increase?
1006 2012-01-10 14:46:48 OneFixt_ is now known as OneFixt
1007 2012-01-10 14:46:48 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1008 2012-01-10 14:46:53 18WAA4WGH is now known as Nicksasa
1009 2012-01-10 14:49:26 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1010 2012-01-10 14:50:00 Bwild has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1011 2012-01-10 14:52:33 imsaguy has joined
1012 2012-01-10 14:52:33 imsaguy has quit (Changing host)
1013 2012-01-10 14:52:33 imsaguy has joined
1014 2012-01-10 14:52:36 terrytibbs has joined
1015 2012-01-10 14:53:00 helo is now known as beaty_sees
1016 2012-01-10 14:53:15 pickett has joined
1017 2012-01-10 14:53:17 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1018 2012-01-10 14:56:04 [\\\\] is now known as imsaguy2
1019 2012-01-10 14:56:51 pickett has joined
1020 2012-01-10 14:57:52 <gmaxwell> makomk: congrats on comming up with something that sounds like an interesting avenue of research.
1021 2012-01-10 14:58:47 <gmaxwell> makomk: the merge stuff can't be as simple as you through out... e.g. consider if I produce a series is diff=1 1mb blocks parallel to your chain, do I manage to fill your disks?
1022 2012-01-10 14:58:52 hippich_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1023 2012-01-10 14:59:31 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: genjix * r214ba44a2fdd /include/bitcoin/utility/subscriber.hpp: subscriber: No need to copy regsistry stack http://tinyurl.com/88pr5qy
1024 2012-01-10 14:59:32 <gmaxwell> oh you mentioned spam. yea. thats a problem but perhaps not insoluable.
1025 2012-01-10 15:00:33 <gmaxwell> makomk: I've got another one of that ilk but it has problems of a similar class.
1026 2012-01-10 15:00:40 caedes_ has joined
1027 2012-01-10 15:02:47 <makomk> gmaxwell: yeah, it's interesting theoretically but not terribly practical even with the spam problem solved. Protects against luke-jr's attack but can't do anything useful against an attacker that's actually double-spending.
1028 2012-01-10 15:03:20 <gmaxwell> makomk: I don't think that makes it worthless at all.
1029 2012-01-10 15:04:15 <UukGoblin> so in theory, a malicious pool operator can defeat the idea of merged mining new chains?
1030 2012-01-10 15:04:37 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: no, not really. A better way to express this is
1031 2012-01-10 15:05:02 <makomk> gmaxwell: it makes it worthless right now against anything except some theoretical honourable attacker that won't double-spend, because in the current proposal they can effectively nullify the protection and stop other transactions being confirmed again if they do.
1032 2012-01-10 15:05:39 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: that merged mining will not be successful if the net sentiment towards a new chain is neutral or somewhat negative, because merged mining is subject to extreme indifference.
1033 2012-01-10 15:06:19 roconnor has joined
1034 2012-01-10 15:06:30 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: slush, btcguild, or deepbit could indivigually undo the problem here, any of several possible pairs of smaller pools could, any tripplet of a larger set. They aren't however.
1035 2012-01-10 15:07:03 <gmaxwell> makomk: someone can't reverse and respend anything but their own transactions.
1036 2012-01-10 15:07:03 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1037 2012-01-10 15:07:16 <UukGoblin> well, I hope it won't apply to my application...
1038 2012-01-10 15:07:25 <gmaxwell> makomk: and an attacker that won't reverse and respend isn't theoretical.
1039 2012-01-10 15:07:32 <UukGoblin> it probably won't though
1040 2012-01-10 15:07:39 beaty_sees is now known as helo
1041 2012-01-10 15:08:26 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: oh boy. Whats this?
1042 2012-01-10 15:08:59 <makomk> gmaxwell: that's not entirely true... an attacker can reverse (though not respend) other's transactions because I intentionally don't want to allow multiple conflicting transactions in the best chain.
1043 2012-01-10 15:09:19 p0s has joined
1044 2012-01-10 15:09:31 m00p has joined
1045 2012-01-10 15:09:40 <gmaxwell> makomk: There can't be a reversal in that scheme without a respend.
1046 2012-01-10 15:09:44 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, well I was thinking of something nice and easy to get small amounts of data (checksums) into the bitcoin blockchain. That wouldn't actually create an altchain, no verification would take place, so reversing of stuff wouldn't make sense. People don't like my idea either, and hence the worry.
1047 2012-01-10 15:10:09 <gmaxwell> (I switched to using the reverse/respend language because its more clear what a 'double spend' actually involves)
1048 2012-01-10 15:10:44 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: I'd like an altchain (but not a currency) for that. Stuffing data into the blockchain is a terrible idea for the reasons you probably already got blasted with.
1049 2012-01-10 15:11:16 <gmaxwell> It doesn't even really have to be a chain so much as just tree grafts on merged mining.
1050 2012-01-10 15:11:42 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, yeah, something standardized to make merkle trees of users' data to be hashed.
1051 2012-01-10 15:11:43 <makomk> gmaxwell: yes there can be. The chain merging currently requires both sides of the merge to be non-conflicting. If a 51% attacker introduces transactions into their opponents' version of the chain and a conflicting one into their own, the two can't be merged and their chain can grow to overwrite the non-malicious chain.
1052 2012-01-10 15:11:55 <UukGoblin> and just put a root in coinbase's merged-mining area
1053 2012-01-10 15:12:07 <UukGoblin> and actually store the data separately
1054 2012-01-10 15:12:21 <makomk> The reason why I'm conceptually against merging chains with conflicting transactions is because it could probably be used to facilitate a double-spend.
1055 2012-01-10 15:12:28 <gmaxwell> makomk: okay, so the non-attacker just has to take care to not conflict with the attackers chain. No different than normal mining.
1056 2012-01-10 15:12:39 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, but, frankly... if pruning was implemented in bitcoin, it'd be no different to just processing special transactions in bitcoin itself
1057 2012-01-10 15:12:44 <gmaxwell> makomk: I wasn't suggesting that you merge chains with conflicting txn.
1058 2012-01-10 15:13:00 <gmaxwell> makomk: I'm pointing out that there can't existing a conflicting txn without a respend.
1059 2012-01-10 15:13:10 <makomk> gmaxwell: except they can't forsee the future, and tha attacker has no reason to follow this rule themself.
1060 2012-01-10 15:13:37 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: but it's not, and even then— you can't prune until later because you need to see the txn to validate the history for yourself.
1061 2012-01-10 15:14:40 <gmaxwell> makomk: Going to the simplest case: If I mine a block with only txn that I control, the attacker can not conflict those.
1062 2012-01-10 15:15:17 <UukGoblin> well, keeping it separate is probably the best solution from political perspective. :->
1063 2012-01-10 15:15:33 Bwild has joined
1064 2012-01-10 15:15:43 <makomk> gmaxwell: True. Which by itself would give everyone else an incentive not to mine anyone else's transactions.
1065 2012-01-10 15:16:12 <gmaxwell> makomk: while an attack was happening, I guess.
1066 2012-01-10 15:17:32 <makomk> Yeah. Except they'd have no way of knowing whether the attack was still going on, whether the attacker had stopped or was just waiting to spring their 51% chain on everyone.
1067 2012-01-10 15:17:47 <gmaxwell> makomk: yea.
1068 2012-01-10 15:19:08 <gmaxwell> makomk: the latecomers decision I think is what fundimentally kills that class of idea, perhaps.
1069 2012-01-10 15:19:24 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1070 2012-01-10 15:20:41 <makomk> Perhaps. Unlike some other solutions you should be able to guarantee the network won't fork persistently, but at the risk of really deep history rewrites...
1071 2012-01-10 15:21:41 JFK911_ is now known as JFK911
1072 2012-01-10 15:25:22 Zarutian has joined
1073 2012-01-10 15:26:11 <UukGoblin> someone should really tell bitstamp (and rock) to fix their clocks. ;-)
1074 2012-01-10 15:29:03 <Diablo-D3> lol
1075 2012-01-10 15:29:09 <Diablo-D3> ntpd like a baws
1076 2012-01-10 15:39:17 dvide has quit ()
1077 2012-01-10 15:41:02 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1078 2012-01-10 15:41:03 Nick__ has joined
1079 2012-01-10 15:41:21 enquirer has joined
1080 2012-01-10 15:41:21 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1081 2012-01-10 15:41:41 enquirer has joined
1082 2012-01-10 15:41:41 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1083 2012-01-10 15:41:43 Nicksasa has quit (Disconnected by services)
1084 2012-01-10 15:41:47 Nick__ is now known as Nicksasa
1085 2012-01-10 15:42:01 enquirer has joined
1086 2012-01-10 15:42:02 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1087 2012-01-10 15:42:21 enquirer has joined
1088 2012-01-10 15:42:21 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1089 2012-01-10 15:42:38 enquirer has joined
1090 2012-01-10 15:42:38 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1091 2012-01-10 15:42:53 enquirer has joined
1092 2012-01-10 15:42:53 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1093 2012-01-10 15:43:07 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1094 2012-01-10 15:43:08 enquirer has joined
1095 2012-01-10 15:43:08 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1096 2012-01-10 15:43:13 Nicksasa has joined
1097 2012-01-10 15:43:25 enquirer has joined
1098 2012-01-10 15:43:26 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1099 2012-01-10 15:43:41 enquirer has joined
1100 2012-01-10 15:43:41 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1101 2012-01-10 15:43:56 enquirer has joined
1102 2012-01-10 15:43:56 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1103 2012-01-10 15:44:11 enquirer has joined
1104 2012-01-10 15:44:11 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1105 2012-01-10 15:44:26 enquirer has joined
1106 2012-01-10 15:44:26 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1107 2012-01-10 15:44:46 enquirer has joined
1108 2012-01-10 15:44:46 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1109 2012-01-10 15:45:06 enquirer has joined
1110 2012-01-10 15:45:06 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1111 2012-01-10 15:45:26 enquirer has joined
1112 2012-01-10 15:45:26 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1113 2012-01-10 15:45:43 enquirer has joined
1114 2012-01-10 15:45:44 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1115 2012-01-10 15:46:52 enquirer has joined
1116 2012-01-10 15:46:53 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1117 2012-01-10 15:47:17 phantomfake has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1118 2012-01-10 15:47:57 enquirer has joined
1119 2012-01-10 15:47:57 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1120 2012-01-10 15:49:05 enquirer has joined
1121 2012-01-10 15:49:06 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1122 2012-01-10 15:50:09 enquirer has joined
1123 2012-01-10 15:50:09 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1124 2012-01-10 15:50:23 [Tycho] has joined
1125 2012-01-10 15:50:26 Nick__ has joined
1126 2012-01-10 15:50:29 enquirer has joined
1127 2012-01-10 15:50:31 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1128 2012-01-10 15:50:39 Nicksasa has quit (Disconnected by services)
1129 2012-01-10 15:50:40 Nick__ is now known as Nicksasa
1130 2012-01-10 15:50:48 copumpkin has joined
1131 2012-01-10 15:55:19 ciscoftw has joined
1132 2012-01-10 15:57:54 <ciscoftw> KNOCK #bitcoind pls send invite, wish to discuss bitcoind (rpc/server) behavior(s)
1133 2012-01-10 15:58:05 <ciscoftw> gd it :(
1134 2012-01-10 15:59:12 <gmaxwell> ciscoftw: there is no #bitcoind
1135 2012-01-10 15:59:22 <gmaxwell> we discuss bitcoind in the regular channels.
1136 2012-01-10 15:59:29 <ciscoftw> no? says invite only...
1137 2012-01-10 16:00:07 <gmaxwell> Presumably to keep people from falling into a pit there.
1138 2012-01-10 16:01:13 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1139 2012-01-10 16:01:23 <ciscoftw> perhaps i should ask it here... my q is this, shouldnt't the bitcoind server report with +1 block to the current solved chain... for example if blockexplorer reports X as current block, bitcoind (./bitcoind getinfo) should report back with its block as x+1?
1140 2012-01-10 16:07:24 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1141 2012-01-10 16:08:37 <gmaxwell> No, iirc they should just agree.
1142 2012-01-10 16:08:54 <gmaxwell> Sometimes blockexplorer will be behind your client however.
1143 2012-01-10 16:10:27 Nicksasa has joined
1144 2012-01-10 16:11:30 booo has joined
1145 2012-01-10 16:12:03 Joric has joined
1146 2012-01-10 16:12:03 Joric has quit (Changing host)
1147 2012-01-10 16:12:03 Joric has joined
1148 2012-01-10 16:14:07 <ciscoftw> gmaxwell: i agree that the client is almost 100% of the time ahead of blockexplorer (by atleast 30secs anyway).. but i could have sworn bitcoind would stay +1 block ahead, and it a valid hash is created by a mining client it would broadcast to network?
1149 2012-01-10 16:14:53 <gmaxwell> ciscoftw: thats not how getinfo works— getinfo reports the position of the existing blocks not the hypothetical block your node may be working on.
1150 2012-01-10 16:15:05 <ciscoftw> anybody have running bitcoind wanna check it out and report back? would be very helpful in understand correct behavoir
1151 2012-01-10 16:15:14 <kinlo> the bitcoin client knows the state of the network
1152 2012-01-10 16:15:20 <ciscoftw> do you have a bitcoind service running, mind checking for me pls?
1153 2012-01-10 16:15:37 <gmaxwell> ciscoftw: I did check.
1154 2012-01-10 16:15:37 <kinlo> if the bitcoin knows something the network doesn't, it must announce it or it will never get distributed
1155 2012-01-10 16:15:56 <ciscoftw> gmaxwell: many thanx, and your service reports the current block aswell?
1156 2012-01-10 16:16:35 <gmaxwell> Yes, my only lack of certanty there was I didn't know what blockexplorer was reporting.
1157 2012-01-10 16:17:28 <ciscoftw> ...well thats like the entire premise of this... can you tell me what block your bitcoind is on this second
1158 2012-01-10 16:17:55 <ciscoftw> blockexplore: 161571
1159 2012-01-10 16:18:04 <kinlo>     "blocks" : 161571,
1160 2012-01-10 16:18:10 <kinlo> that will every client output
1161 2012-01-10 16:18:17 <kinlo> should
1162 2012-01-10 16:18:48 <ciscoftw> alirght :) thanx for helping me out fellas
1163 2012-01-10 16:19:08 <gmaxwell> ciscoftw: I'm curious as to why you're asking.
1164 2012-01-10 16:19:21 <ciscoftw> dont suppose your bitcoind reports "hashespersec"
1165 2012-01-10 16:19:52 <kinlo> no, only those that mine do, but it would be stupid to mine with bitcoind
1166 2012-01-10 16:19:53 <sipa> only for the built-in crippled miner
1167 2012-01-10 16:19:56 <gmaxwell> ciscoftw: thats only reported with the (usless on bitcoin) integrated hashing.
1168 2012-01-10 16:20:30 <kinlo> the build in miner is even not useable if you're on a test network with difficulty 1, too slow to do tests
1169 2012-01-10 16:20:33 <ciscoftw> bitcoind has an integrated mining function :) awesome!!! so people dont mine via rpc?
1170 2012-01-10 16:20:52 <sipa> ciscoftw: satoshi intended everyone to be a miner
1171 2012-01-10 16:20:52 <kinlo> ciscoftw: nobody uses the internal function, it is just too slow
1172 2012-01-10 16:21:05 <sipa> with the advent of gpu mining, it has become worthless
1173 2012-01-10 16:21:33 <ciscoftw> gmaxwell: i stated messing with the bitcoin-dissector, just keeps opening a can or worms for me so to speak... hence these retarded q's about bitcoind
1174 2012-01-10 16:22:07 <gmaxwell> ciscoftw: people mine using RPC miners— external software that uses the getwork rpc call.
1175 2012-01-10 16:22:13 <ciscoftw> yeah, its pretty crazy to look back at hashing power used to created genisus block ~8kH/sec iirc
1176 2012-01-10 16:22:48 <kinlo> is the genesis block actually below any difficulty?
1177 2012-01-10 16:22:48 <gmaxwell> ciscoftw: both computers and the cpuminer software have gotten a lot faster since then. :)
1178 2012-01-10 16:22:53 <ciscoftw> sipa: yeah mining pools are kinda f'ing that up... part of the reason why i left 4monts ago
1179 2012-01-10 16:23:03 <kinlo> I always assumed it would just be hardcoded to be accepted at any difficulty
1180 2012-01-10 16:23:09 <gmaxwell> kinlo: sure. it's a valid block under the normal rules.
1181 2012-01-10 16:23:46 <ciscoftw> i have less than 2000MH/s but i want to help the network, pool'd mining would actually make more sense for me, but like i said -wanna help the network
1182 2012-01-10 16:23:48 <gmaxwell> kinlo: have to test to make sure the system works!
1183 2012-01-10 16:23:57 <gmaxwell> ciscoftw: p2pool my friend, p2pool.
1184 2012-01-10 16:24:03 <kinlo> so satoshi spent days creating a genesis block, while with modern gpu's we can do it in like a few seconds
1185 2012-01-10 16:24:18 <gmaxwell> kinlo: Yes.
1186 2012-01-10 16:24:20 <sipa> ;;bc,calcd 4000 1
1187 2012-01-10 16:24:20 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 4000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 17 minutes and 53 seconds
1188 2012-01-10 16:24:20 <osearth> gmaxwell and ciscoftw are playing Pocket pool again
1189 2012-01-10 16:24:34 <sipa> kinlo: he probably spend not more than half an hour to generate it
1190 2012-01-10 16:24:37 <gmaxwell> ciscoftw: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool
1191 2012-01-10 16:24:58 <gmaxwell> sipa: nah, ever try the old bitcoin software? it was way slower than the current cpu miners.
1192 2012-01-10 16:25:00 <kinlo> he had a good computer then :)
1193 2012-01-10 16:25:12 <kinlo> ;;bc,calcd 8 1
1194 2012-01-10 16:25:12 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 8 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 6 days, 5 hours, 7 minutes, and 50 seconds
1195 2012-01-10 16:25:28 <sipa> that's what, a 386?
1196 2012-01-10 16:25:32 <gmaxwell> I went and measured it a few months back. meh, I'd have to search the logs. but on contemporary hardware it was something like 40kh/s IIRC?
1197 2012-01-10 16:25:43 <kinlo> 40?
1198 2012-01-10 16:25:46 <kinlo> ;;bc,calcd 40 1
1199 2012-01-10 16:25:46 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 40 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 1 day, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 34 seconds
1200 2012-01-10 16:25:53 <kinlo> stil a day :)
1201 2012-01-10 16:26:08 <sipa> i think even in 2009 you easily got 1000 kbps
1202 2012-01-10 16:26:11 <sipa> kH/s
1203 2012-01-10 16:26:15 <gmaxwell> I think 8 is the estimate you get between block 0 and 1.
1204 2012-01-10 16:26:37 <gmaxwell> sipa: not on the old openssl based code.
1205 2012-01-10 16:26:38 <ciscoftw> ...so #bitcoind chan is no exisitant? not reserved for invite only? ...im not missing out on anything in there :)
1206 2012-01-10 16:26:41 <kinlo> sipa: if you had optimized code
1207 2012-01-10 16:27:02 <sipa> ciscoftw: this is the dev channel
1208 2012-01-10 16:28:02 <sipa> the first 10 blocks are each less than 500s apart
1209 2012-01-10 16:28:17 <sipa> which may mean pregeneration...
1210 2012-01-10 16:28:44 <sipa> sorry, some are up to 800s
1211 2012-01-10 16:29:01 <ciscoftw> how could you pregen a block? you need hash from pervious chain
1212 2012-01-10 16:29:11 <gmaxwell> sipa: yea, now that you menion it.
1213 2012-01-10 16:29:23 <sipa> ciscoftw: you can choose the time yourself
1214 2012-01-10 16:29:27 <sipa> timestamp
1215 2012-01-10 16:29:40 <Joric> i used testnet-in-a-box for testing there's default difficulty 0.25
1216 2012-01-10 16:29:41 <ciscoftw> assuming theres no tranactions too?
1217 2012-01-10 16:30:06 <gmaxwell> Joric: thats .. kinda pointless.
1218 2012-01-10 16:30:12 <sipa> ciscoftw: if satoshi was alone, all transaction would have been his own
1219 2012-01-10 16:30:15 <gmaxwell> Joric: a lot of mining code can't really work below diff 1.
1220 2012-01-10 16:30:34 <gmaxwell> Joric: I mean, it'll work, but it won't be any faster.
1221 2012-01-10 16:32:12 onelineproof has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1222 2012-01-10 16:34:06 dikidera has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1223 2012-01-10 16:36:08 diki has joined
1224 2012-01-10 16:43:06 slush1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1225 2012-01-10 16:43:30 slush1 has joined
1226 2012-01-10 16:46:23 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1227 2012-01-10 16:52:01 afmatt has joined
1228 2012-01-10 16:52:53 <afmatt> Hello all - looking for some help getting mining setup on an Amazon GPU cluster similar to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=8405.0 - followed the steps in that thread but something isn't working right.
1229 2012-01-10 16:59:18 Ukto has left ()
1230 2012-01-10 17:01:13 <ciscoftw> afmatt: doesnt he conclude at end of thread that is was a waste of money? ...given it was a free 20dollar giftcard
1231 2012-01-10 17:02:06 <afmatt> Yes he does - but I have access to a few of these "after hours" and want to make use of them :)
1232 2012-01-10 17:02:49 <ciscoftw> good point, if its free, then i suppose why not...
1233 2012-01-10 17:03:58 <ciscoftw> what specifically isnt working, his write up looks pretty good?
1234 2012-01-10 17:04:18 <sipa> ciscoftw: #bitcoin
1235 2012-01-10 17:04:34 <ciscoftw> si si, my bad...
1236 2012-01-10 17:05:11 <afmatt> nah - my bad, talking in two places at once
1237 2012-01-10 17:06:53 slush1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1238 2012-01-10 17:07:11 slush1 has joined
1239 2012-01-10 17:08:40 cdecker has quit (Excess Flood)
1240 2012-01-10 17:08:56 cdecker has joined
1241 2012-01-10 17:09:41 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1242 2012-01-10 17:09:50 slush1 has quit (Client Quit)
1243 2012-01-10 17:10:09 slush has joined
1244 2012-01-10 17:10:17 <midnightmagic> "More worrisome was the observation that arbitrary content can be inserted into a transaction after it has been released to miners, but before it has been included into a block." By anyone?
1245 2012-01-10 17:10:34 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
1246 2012-01-10 17:11:04 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: kinda. There are parts of the txn which aren't covered by the signatures.
1247 2012-01-10 17:11:53 <midnightmagic> right, but after I have a txn sitting in my bitcoind, someone else can come along and modify it?!
1248 2012-01-10 17:12:10 <sipa> it'll stll pay you
1249 2012-01-10 17:12:14 <sipa> but you may not recognize it
1250 2012-01-10 17:12:28 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: if it's in your memorypool then no—
1251 2012-01-10 17:12:38 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: that's what I was asking.
1252 2012-01-10 17:12:39 <gmaxwell> the modified version would get dropped as a double-spend.
1253 2012-01-10 17:12:55 <gmaxwell> but some miner, for example could mine a modified version.
1254 2012-01-10 17:13:11 <midnightmagic> yes, thank you. that's precisely what I was wondering. However, I suppose the mass-connection idea means anyone in between the spender and the miners and just screw around with it.
1255 2012-01-10 17:13:18 <midnightmagic> But I'm glad that once I've got it, it's not mutable.
1256 2012-01-10 17:13:43 <midnightmagic> cause that would suck
1257 2012-01-10 17:15:03 rdponticelli has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1258 2012-01-10 17:16:13 rdponticelli has joined
1259 2012-01-10 17:17:47 Kolky has joined
1260 2012-01-10 17:18:20 osmosis has joined
1261 2012-01-10 17:23:46 <midnightmagic> why couldn't dan put a picture of boobs in there. or an aalib render of some ass or something. :-( lame.
1262 2012-01-10 17:24:37 justmoon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1263 2012-01-10 17:24:54 b4epoche_ has joined
1264 2012-01-10 17:25:49 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1265 2012-01-10 17:25:49 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1266 2012-01-10 17:26:54 <[Tycho]> So first and second sha256 operations are working on different input sizes ?
1267 2012-01-10 17:28:56 <midnightmagic> i think it's just a self-signature issue.
1268 2012-01-10 17:35:39 <[Tycho]> Do anyone knows how many "0" bits should be there for difficulty 1 ?
1269 2012-01-10 17:36:32 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: 8 IIRC
1270 2012-01-10 17:36:42 <[Tycho]> Are you sure ?
1271 2012-01-10 17:36:47 <luke-jr> depends
1272 2012-01-10 17:36:51 <[Tycho]> Why &
1273 2012-01-10 17:36:52 <[Tycho]> ?
1274 2012-01-10 17:37:00 <luke-jr> pool difficulty is different from bitcoind difficulty
1275 2012-01-10 17:37:23 <[Tycho]> Isn't difficulty "1" always "1" ?
1276 2012-01-10 17:37:26 <luke-jr> no
1277 2012-01-10 17:37:30 <[Tycho]> Hmmm.
1278 2012-01-10 17:37:36 <luke-jr> pool difficulty 1 is slightly easier than bitcoind difficulty 1
1279 2012-01-10 17:37:41 <[Tycho]> Did I do something wrong...
1280 2012-01-10 17:38:30 <luke-jr> bitcoind difficulty 1 is 0x00000000ffff0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
1281 2012-01-10 17:38:49 <luke-jr> pool difficulty 1 is 0x00000000fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
1282 2012-01-10 17:39:21 <luke-jr> so that's 64 zero-bits at the start :p
1283 2012-01-10 17:39:45 <luke-jr> note that bitcoind is endian-stupid, so you might be seeing them at the end instead
1284 2012-01-10 17:40:15 <[Tycho]> So those two numbers you posted are with diferfent endiannes ?
1285 2012-01-10 17:41:27 <[Tycho]> I was talking about MSBs
1286 2012-01-10 17:42:27 <[Tycho]> Yes, I remember that I had to "rotate" those hashes to make links for blockexplorer :)
1287 2012-01-10 17:43:32 <[Tycho]> Why bitcoind wants 0x00000000ffff0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 instead of 0x00000000fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ?
1288 2012-01-10 17:44:49 enquirer has joined
1289 2012-01-10 17:44:49 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1290 2012-01-10 17:45:10 enquirer has joined
1291 2012-01-10 17:45:10 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1292 2012-01-10 17:45:25 enquirer has joined
1293 2012-01-10 17:45:25 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1294 2012-01-10 17:45:45 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: because the first one is the "real" difficulty 1, and can be compressed into the block header "bits"
1295 2012-01-10 17:45:55 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: whereas the pool difficulty 1 cannot be represented in blocks
1296 2012-01-10 17:46:28 d4de has joined
1297 2012-01-10 17:46:36 d4de has quit (Changing host)
1298 2012-01-10 17:46:37 d4de has joined
1299 2012-01-10 17:46:49 <[Tycho]> I was just wondering if bitmask checking is enough for miner or full comparison is needed.
1300 2012-01-10 17:47:27 <[Tycho]> Looks like I won't need to check anything except "pool's" difficulty 1 anyway.
1301 2012-01-10 17:47:39 iocor has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
1302 2012-01-10 17:47:54 user_ has joined
1303 2012-01-10 17:47:58 wasabi1 has joined
1304 2012-01-10 17:48:03 iocor has joined
1305 2012-01-10 17:48:45 DontMindMe2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1306 2012-01-10 17:49:14 DontMindMe2 has joined
1307 2012-01-10 17:50:03 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1308 2012-01-10 17:50:52 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1309 2012-01-10 17:56:42 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: there ARE other pool-difficulties
1310 2012-01-10 17:56:52 <luke-jr> BitPenny uses pdiff 8
1311 2012-01-10 17:57:14 <luke-jr> otoh, worst case scenario people get a lot of rejects ;)
1312 2012-01-10 17:57:16 gronager has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1313 2012-01-10 17:57:20 <[Tycho]> I can drop <8 results in software.
1314 2012-01-10 17:57:54 <gmaxwell> yea, the only reason in a mining device I'd worry about diff>1 is if I had a local queue.
1315 2012-01-10 17:58:06 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: yes
1316 2012-01-10 17:58:09 <gmaxwell> Ideally if your local queue overfills you want to take the highest difficulty result.
1317 2012-01-10 17:58:24 <gmaxwell> but .. better to just make the local queue bigger than to include a bunch of comparison logic.
1318 2012-01-10 17:58:26 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: all GPU miners currently only check diff 1 in hardware
1319 2012-01-10 17:58:45 <[Tycho]> What local queue ? Are you talking about inside the chip ?
1320 2012-01-10 17:58:51 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: yes.
1321 2012-01-10 17:59:27 <[Tycho]> I'm not sure if it's needed.
1322 2012-01-10 18:00:12 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: e.g. it's quite possible to have solutions instantly much faster than you can offload them.  Though a queue of just a couple is enough to make that insignificant.
1323 2012-01-10 18:00:51 <[Tycho]> It happens rarely. I'll check statistics.
1324 2012-01-10 18:01:06 gronager has joined
1325 2012-01-10 18:02:05 <makomk> Also, I think a sufficiently long hardware queue is probably cheap enough...
1326 2012-01-10 18:03:37 d4de has joined
1327 2012-01-10 18:04:19 <[Tycho]> It makes things more complicated.
1328 2012-01-10 18:04:43 abragin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1329 2012-01-10 18:04:49 d4de_ has joined
1330 2012-01-10 18:04:59 <[Tycho]> Currently I think that just stopping hashing and rising interrupt output is enough.
1331 2012-01-10 18:05:26 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: and flushing the pipeline? oy
1332 2012-01-10 18:05:30 enquirer has joined
1333 2012-01-10 18:05:30 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1334 2012-01-10 18:05:44 <[Tycho]> But I'll check how frequently second hash in same work can be found within solution retrieving pause.
1335 2012-01-10 18:05:47 enquirer has joined
1336 2012-01-10 18:05:48 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1337 2012-01-10 18:06:39 abragin has joined
1338 2012-01-10 18:06:51 d4de has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1339 2012-01-10 18:07:22 PK has joined
1340 2012-01-10 18:09:05 <makomk> [Tycho]: why would you stop hashing?
1341 2012-01-10 18:09:49 m86 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1342 2012-01-10 18:09:59 <[Tycho]> makomk: to keep winning nonce in the memory.
1343 2012-01-10 18:10:50 <makomk> Hmmmmmm.
1344 2012-01-10 18:10:58 genjix has joined
1345 2012-01-10 18:15:22 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1346 2012-01-10 18:18:19 <Diablo-D3> https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/390086_10150482978333207_79085878206_9014636_699920583_n.jpg
1347 2012-01-10 18:18:55 <[Tycho]> Work reloading should take less than 13 ms, there is not so many chances that new result would be found during that time.
1348 2012-01-10 18:21:48 <diki> Anything is possible
1349 2012-01-10 18:21:55 <diki> I've found money in places where they shouldn't be
1350 2012-01-10 18:22:18 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: at 1gh you would find a share in 13 ms about half a percent of the time.
1351 2012-01-10 18:22:21 <diki> Places where the money would've been discovered fast
1352 2012-01-10 18:23:23 <gmaxwell> (well, thats an estimate I didn't bother calculating it, but its in the order of magnitude)
1353 2012-01-10 18:24:19 <[Tycho]> gmaxwell: each core is less than 1 GH/s, and only one core is paused.
1354 2012-01-10 18:26:39 <[Tycho]> 13 ms is 0.32% of 1 GH/s
1355 2012-01-10 18:26:49 <[Tycho]> But as I said, only one core should be paused.
1356 2012-01-10 18:27:02 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1357 2012-01-10 18:28:05 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: yea, I wasn't trying to argue. it's non-zero small amount. maybe you can squeeze in another core with those saved gates. :)
1358 2012-01-10 18:29:54 rdponticelli has joined
1359 2012-01-10 18:30:24 <[Tycho]> Oh, it's very far from the number of gates for one core :) But makes things A LOT easier.
1360 2012-01-10 18:34:05 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened pull request 752 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/752>
1361 2012-01-10 18:34:58 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1362 2012-01-10 18:36:46 kiba` has joined
1363 2012-01-10 18:38:23 <genjix> is there a single decent / easy to use IRC library for c++?
1364 2012-01-10 18:38:24 kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1365 2012-01-10 18:38:41 <sipa> why?
1366 2012-01-10 18:38:59 <sipa> planning to implement IRC seeding in libbitcoin?
1367 2012-01-10 18:39:25 <luke-jr> heh
1368 2012-01-10 18:39:28 <genjix> no, i want to make a blockexplorer irc bot
1369 2012-01-10 18:39:31 <sipa> ah
1370 2012-01-10 18:39:45 <sipa> (no idea, i've only an irc bot in perl)
1371 2012-01-10 18:39:46 <genjix> but dont want to spend too much time on that :p
1372 2012-01-10 18:39:57 <sipa> *written
1373 2012-01-10 18:40:11 <sipa> meeting is in 2.5h, right?
1374 2012-01-10 18:40:21 <genjix> yeah :)
1375 2012-01-10 18:40:47 <genjix> writing irc bots is so easy in twisted. guess im rolling my own
1376 2012-01-10 18:41:48 <[Tycho]> IRC is not too complicated to implement it.
1377 2012-01-10 18:42:10 TD has joined
1378 2012-01-10 18:43:03 <[Tycho]> Even human being can directly join IRC server and use it :)
1379 2012-01-10 18:43:44 <genjix> yeah i know... just lazy
1380 2012-01-10 18:44:07 <gmaxwell> Every botnet author seems to manage this. ;)
1381 2012-01-10 18:44:13 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: gmaxwell opened issue 753 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/753>
1382 2012-01-10 18:44:18 <[Tycho]> I remember same problems when I was creating my own bot.
1383 2012-01-10 18:44:45 <[Tycho]> Initially I looked at the eggdrop source, but it turned out to be INSANELY complicated.
1384 2012-01-10 18:45:07 <[Tycho]> So I just took ircii and added bot functionality there.
1385 2012-01-10 18:45:29 <Backburn2> gribble is an excellent bot
1386 2012-01-10 18:45:40 <Backburn2> easy to write modules for
1387 2012-01-10 18:48:54 <diki> gmaxwell:how do you propose we do it then?
1388 2012-01-10 18:49:40 larsivi has joined
1389 2012-01-10 18:49:41 Carmivore has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1390 2012-01-10 18:50:55 osmosis has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1391 2012-01-10 18:50:56 barmstrong has joined
1392 2012-01-10 18:51:33 kiba`` has joined
1393 2012-01-10 18:51:34 kiba` has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1394 2012-01-10 18:52:57 heoa has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1395 2012-01-10 18:53:18 <gmaxwell> Is it possible to ignore people on github too?
1396 2012-01-10 18:53:49 <gmaxwell> diki: I created that issue so it's not forgotten, anyone with three braincells can see several ways of addressing it. I didn't propose any because I don't want to impose on whomever fixes it.
1397 2012-01-10 18:54:20 Visalleras has joined
1398 2012-01-10 18:54:58 <gmaxwell> (e.g. don't start from zero— or show the block numbers instead of a percentage, or mesage the rate, scale to a known blockchain download curve and give an ETA, or just show the time difference between now and the most recent block, or whatever, anything _but_ the current behavior)
1399 2012-01-10 18:55:00 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1400 2012-01-10 18:55:21 <luke-jr> I like ETA best
1401 2012-01-10 18:55:42 <luke-jr> it would be better, if it could download and process async
1402 2012-01-10 18:55:50 <luke-jr> the download could be used to provide better time estimates
1403 2012-01-10 18:57:04 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1404 2012-01-10 18:58:34 <gmaxwell> Yea, I like ETA best too, but I think its hardest to implement since you need instrumentation to measure the rate.
1405 2012-01-10 18:58:36 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
1406 2012-01-10 18:59:25 Carmivore has joined
1407 2012-01-10 19:00:27 gronager has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1408 2012-01-10 19:01:11 gronager has joined
1409 2012-01-10 19:03:37 osmosis has joined
1410 2012-01-10 19:04:32 heoa has joined
1411 2012-01-10 19:08:40 SomeoneWeird has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1412 2012-01-10 19:11:48 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1413 2012-01-10 19:12:46 SomeoneWeird has joined
1414 2012-01-10 19:12:49 SomeoneWeird is now known as Guest44674
1415 2012-01-10 19:12:49 kiba`` is now known as kiba
1416 2012-01-10 19:15:47 Zarutian has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1417 2012-01-10 19:17:38 PK is now known as PK|Dinner
1418 2012-01-10 19:18:17 gfinn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1419 2012-01-10 19:26:22 user_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1420 2012-01-10 19:27:36 devrandom has joined
1421 2012-01-10 19:29:55 gfinn has joined
1422 2012-01-10 19:30:22 <diki> Would this help in the gui issue?
1423 2012-01-10 19:30:54 <diki> The loading bar to remain, however the box to contain the <blocks/blocksinchain> number
1424 2012-01-10 19:31:28 <diki> text underneath the ba
1425 2012-01-10 19:31:31 <diki> *bar
1426 2012-01-10 19:36:47 d4de_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1427 2012-01-10 19:36:52 Joric has quit ()
1428 2012-01-10 19:37:15 ciscoftw has quit ()
1429 2012-01-10 19:37:35 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1430 2012-01-10 19:38:38 ovidiusoft has joined
1431 2012-01-10 19:41:58 sacredchao has joined
1432 2012-01-10 19:43:41 PK is now known as Dinner!~PK@pdpc/supporter/active/pk|PK
1433 2012-01-10 19:44:12 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1434 2012-01-10 19:46:31 sneak has joined
1435 2012-01-10 19:46:37 sneak has quit (Changing host)
1436 2012-01-10 19:46:37 sneak has joined
1437 2012-01-10 19:48:45 wasabi3 has joined
1438 2012-01-10 19:49:39 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1439 2012-01-10 19:50:17 pickett has joined
1440 2012-01-10 19:51:12 slush has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1441 2012-01-10 19:56:07 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr master * rebf9065 / src/qt/transactiondesc.cpp : Qt: Show transaction ID in details - http://git.io/qffZvg https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/ebf9065c227860d91c9e304c8a2cb2d62c7c55ef
1442 2012-01-10 19:56:10 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Wladimir J. van der Laan master * rb43eaa5 / src/qt/transactiondesc.cpp : Merge pull request #752 from luke-jr/qt_txnid ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/b43eaa5508e8b81a51796406cf598a7630c1c915
1443 2012-01-10 20:03:08 Zarutian has joined
1444 2012-01-10 20:11:24 Joric has joined
1445 2012-01-10 20:14:29 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1446 2012-01-10 20:15:48 Herbert has joined
1447 2012-01-10 20:18:21 Herbert is now known as 2!~kvirc@ppp-93-104-139-114.dynamic.mnet-online.de|TripleSpeeder
1448 2012-01-10 20:18:40 MartianW has joined
1449 2012-01-10 20:18:40 MartianW has quit (Changing host)
1450 2012-01-10 20:18:40 MartianW has joined
1451 2012-01-10 20:18:40 <MartianW> ?
1452 2012-01-10 20:18:48 MartianW has left ()
1453 2012-01-10 20:19:48 kiba has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1454 2012-01-10 20:19:58 p0s has joined
1455 2012-01-10 20:20:14 kiba has joined
1456 2012-01-10 20:22:20 kiba has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1457 2012-01-10 20:23:26 kiba has joined
1458 2012-01-10 20:25:14 rdponticelli has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1459 2012-01-10 20:25:33 gronager1 has joined
1460 2012-01-10 20:25:33 gronager has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1461 2012-01-10 20:26:10 baxter- has joined
1462 2012-01-10 20:28:31 GMP has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1463 2012-01-10 20:33:18 lyspooner has joined
1464 2012-01-10 20:34:10 kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1465 2012-01-10 20:39:01 jim618 has joined
1466 2012-01-10 20:39:31 jim618 has left ()
1467 2012-01-10 20:42:47 user_ has joined
1468 2012-01-10 20:43:20 <luke-jr> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57734.0
1469 2012-01-10 20:44:05 <genjix> luke-jr: nice one.
1470 2012-01-10 20:44:39 <cjdelisle> nice
1471 2012-01-10 20:45:03 <luke-jr> when Gavin's around, hopefully we can finish up 0.5.2 as well
1472 2012-01-10 20:46:01 <cjdelisle> heh just noticed solidcoin.info is registered with godaddy
1473 2012-01-10 20:46:34 <genjix> nice. godaddy does good domains
1474 2012-01-10 20:46:47 <Backburn2> D:
1475 2012-01-10 20:47:09 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1476 2012-01-10 20:47:21 <luke-jr> genjix: fail
1477 2012-01-10 20:47:31 <genjix> they are one of the better domain registrars
1478 2012-01-10 20:47:39 <luke-jr> genjix: GoDaddy is pro-abuse and pro-SOPA
1479 2012-01-10 20:47:46 <cjdelisle> they're also very good about taking down domains which may infringe on people's copyrights.
1480 2012-01-10 20:47:55 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: even pre-SOPA?
1481 2012-01-10 20:48:12 * genjix that rising feel when you get a response :)
1482 2012-01-10 20:48:20 <cjdelisle> yea, they are pretty well known to have a responsive abuse department
1483 2012-01-10 20:48:33 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: maybe I should send my DMCA takedown to GoDaddy too then
1484 2012-01-10 20:48:53 <genjix> godaddy should make an isp
1485 2012-01-10 20:49:01 <genjix> i would use it
1486 2012-01-10 20:50:44 <genjix> luke-jr: they aren't pro-SOPA. they said so
1487 2012-01-10 20:50:45 RazielZ has joined
1488 2012-01-10 20:51:20 <genjix> godaddy wrote this post where they said they want to protect the internet
1489 2012-01-10 20:51:33 <genjix> also what is wrong with SOPA? copyright should be protected
1490 2012-01-10 20:52:15 <Backburn2> sopa takes away any tpe of due process
1491 2012-01-10 20:52:34 <Backburn2> if insert govt/corportation here doesnt like your website, its gone.
1492 2012-01-10 20:52:57 <luke-jr> genjix: they *are* pro-SOPA.
1493 2012-01-10 20:52:58 <Backburn2> thats contrary to righs of the people in many "free" nations
1494 2012-01-10 20:53:03 <genjix> you obviously dont know anything. there are some smart people thinking about legislation
1495 2012-01-10 20:53:14 <luke-jr> genjix: after a boycott, they no longer *publicly* endorse it
1496 2012-01-10 20:53:17 <genjix> and research shows sopa is a good thing
1497 2012-01-10 20:53:24 <genjix> luke-jr: exactly.
1498 2012-01-10 20:53:44 <diki> 4chan has bday today
1499 2012-01-10 20:53:44 <diki> nice
1500 2012-01-10 20:53:49 <genjix> nice :D
1501 2012-01-10 20:53:52 gavinandresen has joined
1502 2012-01-10 20:54:06 <genjix> ok enough trolling... geez, so easy.
1503 2012-01-10 20:54:10 Visalleras has quit (Quit: http://driedleaves.no-ip.org)
1504 2012-01-10 20:54:15 <sipa> genjix: lol
1505 2012-01-10 20:56:47 tyn has joined
1506 2012-01-10 20:57:46 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1507 2012-01-10 20:58:38 the_batman has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1508 2012-01-10 21:00:38 jim618 has joined
1509 2012-01-10 21:01:07 <genjix> i made a list of things here, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki//10_Jan_2012
1510 2012-01-10 21:01:53 <genjix> lets have that meet then (i got flu though today so i might be a bit slow/incoherent)
1511 2012-01-10 21:02:11 <genjix> so,
1512 2012-01-10 21:02:46 <genjix> this next change with the PayToScript, is it going to bump version to 0.6 or are we already at 0.6 and will have another protocol version bump?
1513 2012-01-10 21:02:46 the_batman has joined
1514 2012-01-10 21:02:56 <sipa> i'd like to add one point: acceptance of compressed pubkeys
1515 2012-01-10 21:03:17 <genjix> because i think bumping to 0.7 is better. that way if miners lose the vote, it gets rolled back to 0.6
1516 2012-01-10 21:03:37 <gavinandresen> Are you talking about the protocol version or the client version?
1517 2012-01-10 21:03:42 <genjix> protocol version
1518 2012-01-10 21:03:46 <gavinandresen> PayToScript doesn't affect the protocol at all
1519 2012-01-10 21:03:46 <sipa> genjix: protocol version is currently 60000, client version is currently 0.5.99
1520 2012-01-10 21:04:00 <genjix> wait, why?
1521 2012-01-10 21:04:09 <genjix> it is a protocol change
1522 2012-01-10 21:04:19 <genjix> since scripts are interpreted in a new way
1523 2012-01-10 21:04:19 <gavinandresen> How so?  Exactly the same bytes go across the network....
1524 2012-01-10 21:04:31 <sipa> gavinandresen: but which bytes are allowed changes
1525 2012-01-10 21:04:32 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr 0.5.x * r98811f6ad476 bitcoind-stable/ (6 files in 5 dirs): Bump version to 0.5.3 http://tinyurl.com/8yry22r
1526 2012-01-10 21:04:34 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr 0.5.x * r83201b12ae10 bitcoind-stable/: Merge branch '0.5.0.x' into 0.5.x http://tinyurl.com/7oxn8zk
1527 2012-01-10 21:04:35 <genjix> yeah but protocol is a bit more than what bytes go over the network
1528 2012-01-10 21:04:45 <genjix> it's also how the clients behave
1529 2012-01-10 21:04:53 <helo> i thought that's exactly what it is
1530 2012-01-10 21:04:58 <sipa> the decision on whether to use old or new behaviour is not determined by the protocol version
1531 2012-01-10 21:05:08 <sipa> but the protocol changes, imho
1532 2012-01-10 21:06:00 <gavinandresen> Ok:  I'll put in an "I don't care what the client or protocol versions are"
1533 2012-01-10 21:06:16 <sipa> hmm, on the other hand, it is more the transaction format that changes
1534 2012-01-10 21:06:21 denisx has joined
1535 2012-01-10 21:06:24 <genjix> ok so can it be 0.6 now and then 0.7 then? that will make much more sense
1536 2012-01-10 21:06:27 <sipa> it is not relevant to partners in the communication
1537 2012-01-10 21:06:31 <genjix> specially when analysing the network traffic
1538 2012-01-10 21:07:03 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: there you are!
1539 2012-01-10 21:07:05 <roconnor> all these version numbers are ignored by the client (and protocol) anyways
1540 2012-01-10 21:07:22 <sipa> roconnor: the protocol version is not ignored
1541 2012-01-10 21:07:48 <roconnor> sipa: I don't know this.
1542 2012-01-10 21:07:57 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: 0.4.3 is ready for upload to SF, and 0.5.2 will be ready as soon as you do a Mac build (and possibly build the Win/Linux to verify BlueMatt's builds)
1543 2012-01-10 21:08:12 <sipa> roconnor: connect with a pre-206 client, and you won't see checksums, e.g.
1544 2012-01-10 21:08:28 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: Mac/Linux 0.4.3 is at http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/bitcoind-0.4.3/ ; you already said you weren't interested in building, so I won't ask you to make a Mac for it
1545 2012-01-10 21:08:35 <roconnor> sipa: ah, interesting
1546 2012-01-10 21:08:52 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: lets talk about satoshi-client-specific-release stuff later
1547 2012-01-10 21:09:16 <genjix> roconnor: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#version
1548 2012-01-10 21:09:23 <luke-jr> ok
1549 2012-01-10 21:09:36 <genjix> sipa: k, go on with compressed pubkeys
1550 2012-01-10 21:09:54 <sipa> i haven't heard any complaints
1551 2012-01-10 21:10:07 <genjix> < sipa> i'd like to add one point: acceptance of compressed pubkeys
1552 2012-01-10 21:10:16 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: re BIP 16, I think it needs to be Rejected or revised clearer
1553 2012-01-10 21:10:20 <roconnor> sipa: aren't compressed keys already accepted?
1554 2012-01-10 21:10:21 <sipa> but compressed pubkeys on the network is a network rule change
1555 2012-01-10 21:10:34 <luke-jr> sipa: it is?
1556 2012-01-10 21:10:46 <makomk> sipa: don't think it is actually?
1557 2012-01-10 21:10:56 <gavinandresen> It was unspecified before
1558 2012-01-10 21:10:59 <sipa> all specifications of the network say that pubkeys are 65 bytes are start with 0x04
1559 2012-01-10 21:11:05 <sipa> we are using other pubkeys
1560 2012-01-10 21:11:12 <sipa> which happen to be supported by older clients even
1561 2012-01-10 21:11:20 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: but it was enabled, so anything not supporting it would have forked
1562 2012-01-10 21:11:31 <sipa> good point
1563 2012-01-10 21:11:39 <sipa> there is compressed pubkey on mainnet
1564 2012-01-10 21:11:52 <luke-jr> seems more like a hidden feature before, to me
1565 2012-01-10 21:11:56 <luke-jr> and a bug in the specifications
1566 2012-01-10 21:11:59 da2ce7 has joined
1567 2012-01-10 21:11:59 <roconnor> sipa: what packets use pubkeys?
1568 2012-01-10 21:12:14 d4de has joined
1569 2012-01-10 21:12:14 d4de has quit (Changing host)
1570 2012-01-10 21:12:14 d4de has joined
1571 2012-01-10 21:12:14 <sipa> roconnor: scriptSigs
1572 2012-01-10 21:12:24 <genjix> it's just an automatic feature of the EC lib in SSL
1573 2012-01-10 21:12:28 <genjix> (i assume)
1574 2012-01-10 21:12:40 <sipa> luke-jr: an unintended, unspecified feature, that all OpenSSL-based clients support probably automatically
1575 2012-01-10 21:12:41 <makomk> I seem to recall that compressed pubkeys even pass IsStandard.
1576 2012-01-10 21:12:46 <sipa> makomk: they do
1577 2012-01-10 21:12:56 <roconnor> sipa: which message type is scriptSigs in?
1578 2012-01-10 21:13:00 <[eval]> TD: i like your assurance contract idea! i bet the same can be used for relaying transactions, too (relay nodes can publish their bitcoin addresses, and stay up as long as they're being funded)
1579 2012-01-10 21:13:11 <sipa> roconnor: tx and block
1580 2012-01-10 21:13:24 <genjix> damn this is why user agents are useful :D
1581 2012-01-10 21:13:33 <da2ce7> Back safe in AUS.
1582 2012-01-10 21:13:34 <luke-jr> genjix: ?
1583 2012-01-10 21:13:47 <genjix> see how much of a minority alternative bitcoin versions (like BitcoinJava) are
1584 2012-01-10 21:13:49 <sipa> anyway, i have heard no complaints, so i guess we can continue rolling out compressed pubkeys?
1585 2012-01-10 21:13:49 <TD> [eval]: thanks. i guess so
1586 2012-01-10 21:13:55 <roconnor> sipa: hmm, I cannot find what you are talking about.
1587 2012-01-10 21:14:06 <TD> sipa: are there any compressed pubkeys on the testnet?
1588 2012-01-10 21:14:10 <roconnor> sipa: I'm looking at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#tx
1589 2012-01-10 21:14:13 <roconnor> and #block
1590 2012-01-10 21:14:18 <sipa> TD: yes, and one on realnet too
1591 2012-01-10 21:14:22 <TD> i see
1592 2012-01-10 21:14:26 <genjix> where is the mainnet compressed pubkey?
1593 2012-01-10 21:14:26 <TD> where is the one on the prodnet?
1594 2012-01-10 21:14:29 <genjix> i never noticed it
1595 2012-01-10 21:14:34 <luke-jr> roconnor: afaik those specs are incomplete
1596 2012-01-10 21:14:41 <TD> i probably have to update bitcoinj to support this
1597 2012-01-10 21:14:48 <roconnor> luke-jr: well, I think sipa's problem is simply a documentation error.
1598 2012-01-10 21:14:49 <gavinandresen> sipa: I vote for pulling soon (I was testing it with p2sh, which is how I confused myself RE: I thought I'd already pulled it)
1599 2012-01-10 21:14:51 <TD> afaik bouncy castle already knows about them so it should be easy
1600 2012-01-10 21:14:52 <genjix> but i'm also using SSL's EC lib like bitcoin
1601 2012-01-10 21:14:58 <roconnor> luke-jr: but I'm hoping to clairfy
1602 2012-01-10 21:15:07 <genjix> so im guessing it's automatic
1603 2012-01-10 21:15:35 <gavinandresen> roconnor: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#Signatures
1604 2012-01-10 21:15:52 <sipa> TD: i've mailed with a specification for an import format for corresponding private keys
1605 2012-01-10 21:16:12 <sipa> -with
1606 2012-01-10 21:16:16 <roconnor> gavinandresen: that would be a documentation error ... I thought I fixed that, but maybe I fixed it elsewhere.
1607 2012-01-10 21:16:18 <TD> yes, i saw that
1608 2012-01-10 21:16:19 localhost has joined
1609 2012-01-10 21:16:35 <luke-jr> genjix: why not GnuTLS yet?
1610 2012-01-10 21:16:47 <gavinandresen> While we're fixing documentation:  does anybody know if OpenSSL accepts any OTHER types of signatures?
1611 2012-01-10 21:16:52 <gavinandresen> (or pubkeys)
1612 2012-01-10 21:16:52 <luke-jr> genjix: AFAIK OpenSSL is still a problem for libbitcoin legally
1613 2012-01-10 21:17:07 <genjix> luke-jr: i can add an exception according to FSF
1614 2012-01-10 21:17:11 <genjix> they said it was fine
1615 2012-01-10 21:17:30 <sipa> gavinandresen: SEC defines three types: 0x00 = point at infinity, 0x02 and 0x03 = compressed, 0x04 = uncompressed
1616 2012-01-10 21:17:38 <genjix> nice
1617 2012-01-10 21:18:05 <makomk> (Random though - unless I'm entirely mistaken, if OP_CAT was enabled would it be possible to securely create transactions paying someone to generate you a P2SH vanity address?)
1618 2012-01-10 21:18:09 <sipa> signatures are DER encoded, but someone noted before that any BER encoding is accepted
1619 2012-01-10 21:18:17 <roconnor> gavinandresen: it is unclear if 0x00 is a valid public key.  It shouldn't be, but someone should double check.
1620 2012-01-10 21:18:32 <genjix> roconnor: who cares. black hole pubkey
1621 2012-01-10 21:18:39 <roconnor> sipa: actuall OpenSSL doesn't follow DER
1622 2012-01-10 21:18:49 <roconnor> sipa: http://r6.ca/blog/20111119T211504Z.html
1623 2012-01-10 21:18:57 <luke-jr> genjix: you can, but it would still be incompatible with people wanting to use it in GPL etc
1624 2012-01-10 21:19:02 <sipa> roconnor: indeed, i remember that they used some trick for singed/unsigned
1625 2012-01-10 21:20:15 <roconnor> sipa: there are sigs (on testnet?) that use "negative" numbers
1626 2012-01-10 21:20:23 <roconnor> maybe it was mainnet
1627 2012-01-10 21:20:25 <roconnor> I forget
1628 2012-01-10 21:20:26 <roconnor> somewhere
1629 2012-01-10 21:20:31 <roconnor> what a pain
1630 2012-01-10 21:20:43 <TD> devrandom: poke
1631 2012-01-10 21:20:51 <gavinandresen> Well, if somebody who understands DER/BER and openssl's implementation much better than me would like to think hard about what implementations should/shouldn't accept and write it up that would be spiffy
1632 2012-01-10 21:20:53 <sipa> anyway, it seems the entire "specification"for what are valid sigs and pubkeys is set by OpenSSL's implementation
1633 2012-01-10 21:21:06 <genjix> yeah lol
1634 2012-01-10 21:21:27 <gmaxwell> sipa: this is a bad thing— its not like most applications care as much about it changing as bitcoin does.
1635 2012-01-10 21:21:32 <gavinandresen> Discouraging transactions that play games with encodings would be a very good idea, I think.
1636 2012-01-10 21:22:30 pycke2 has joined
1637 2012-01-10 21:22:47 <genjix> what about discouraging coinbases outside of predefined values?
1638 2012-01-10 21:22:55 <sipa> why?
1639 2012-01-10 21:23:09 <sipa> gavinandresen: they should be simply made invalid, imho - but that requires some coordination with a supermajority of miners
1640 2012-01-10 21:23:09 <genjix> well if we compress pubkeys to avoid blockchain bloat
1641 2012-01-10 21:23:37 <genjix> why not discourage custom coinbases. people put all kinds of long ass messages in there
1642 2012-01-10 21:23:45 <luke-jr> genjix: they can't.
1643 2012-01-10 21:23:53 <gavinandresen> coinbases are 100 bytes max
1644 2012-01-10 21:23:59 <sipa> genjix: i don't care about max 98 bytes of bloat per 10 minutes
1645 2012-01-10 21:24:01 <gmaxwell> genjix: maximum size of the coinbase is small.
1646 2012-01-10 21:24:17 <genjix> ok
1647 2012-01-10 21:24:29 <gmaxwell> And most of the 'crap' now is merged mining committments which are O(1) at least.
1648 2012-01-10 21:24:59 <makomk> Besides, if we discouraged custom coinbases how could we signal P2SH support?
1649 2012-01-10 21:25:24 <genjix> allow that one alone
1650 2012-01-10 21:25:56 <makomk> A hypothetical successor to P2SH?
1651 2012-01-10 21:26:00 <roconnor> genjix: *lol*
1652 2012-01-10 21:26:07 <sipa> i see no reason to limit coinbases
1653 2012-01-10 21:26:13 <genjix> ok
1654 2012-01-10 21:27:14 <sipa> gavinandresen: any further ACK required on pubkey compression? otherwise i pull
1655 2012-01-10 21:27:22 <roconnor> luke-jr: if you really want to throw a wrench into th P2SH proposal you should put P2SH in your coinbase, but not actually support it.
1656 2012-01-10 21:27:27 <gavinandresen> sipa:  go for it
1657 2012-01-10 21:27:43 <sipa> genjix: next agenda point
1658 2012-01-10 21:27:56 <genjix> btw i didnt look over changes too thoroughly yet, but it seems the changes are: new sig ops count/solver which is in ConnectInputs, and new script eval
1659 2012-01-10 21:28:05 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Pieter Wuille master * rafcf6f9 / (8 files in 2 dirs): Merge pull request #649 from sipa/comprpubkey ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/afcf6f974f5c0746db5526b0c209c7db0f5dbe0b
1660 2012-01-10 21:28:16 <genjix> i was thinking to make a quick bullet list of changes for people to examine
1661 2012-01-10 21:28:30 tyn has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1662 2012-01-10 21:28:32 <genjix> for people interested in how the new works
1663 2012-01-10 21:28:41 <gavinandresen> genjix: new VerifySignature, but the guts of EvalScript go back to pre-op-eval state.
1664 2012-01-10 21:29:46 <genjix> yep, so is that all really? seems relatively straightforward
1665 2012-01-10 21:30:08 <genjix> (apart from the RPC stuff and so on)
1666 2012-01-10 21:30:18 bakh_ has joined
1667 2012-01-10 21:30:33 <gavinandresen> genjix: I'm testing a refactoring of ConnectInputs that moves some of the tests for txn validity to before the ECDSA signature checks, so denial-of-service is less possible
1668 2012-01-10 21:30:47 <genjix> nice.
1669 2012-01-10 21:30:59 <genjix> i like how you refactored the code into FetchInputs and ConnectInputs
1670 2012-01-10 21:31:27 <gavinandresen> ConnectInputs() does way too many things.....
1671 2012-01-10 21:32:29 <gavinandresen> What's the PayToScript -> Payscr? agenda item?  Suggested rename?
1672 2012-01-10 21:32:46 <TD> sipa: hey, any idea which tx on mainnet has compressed pubkeys?
1673 2012-01-10 21:32:47 <genjix> ah yeah, just got tired typing PayToScript all the time
1674 2012-01-10 21:32:54 <genjix> Payscript or something sounds nicer
1675 2012-01-10 21:32:56 <sipa> TD: searching
1676 2012-01-10 21:32:59 <genjix> not a big deal though
1677 2012-01-10 21:33:03 <gmaxwell> P2SH
1678 2012-01-10 21:33:07 <genjix> sipa: yeah that tx would be really nice
1679 2012-01-10 21:33:17 <genjix> gmaxwell: hah yeah cool
1680 2012-01-10 21:33:24 <genjix> P2SH
1681 2012-01-10 21:33:31 <luke-jr> need to give it a distinct name
1682 2012-01-10 21:33:40 <luke-jr> separate from the general concept
1683 2012-01-10 21:33:43 <gavinandresen> bruce
1684 2012-01-10 21:33:47 <genjix> :D
1685 2012-01-10 21:33:51 <genjix> haha
1686 2012-01-10 21:33:53 <gmaxwell> (which somehow my mind parses as 'PUSH')
1687 2012-01-10 21:34:18 <gmaxwell> People are going to call it '3-addresses' or something like that regardless of what we call it.
1688 2012-01-10 21:34:24 <luke-jr> lol
1689 2012-01-10 21:34:38 <luke-jr> so are we going to discuss /P2SH/ or not?
1690 2012-01-10 21:34:54 <genjix> luke-jr: ? sure
1691 2012-01-10 21:34:57 <sipa> genjix, TD: http://blockchain.info/tx-index/13401517/94af4607627535f9b2968bd1fbbf67be101971d682023d6a3b64d8caeb448870?show_adv=yes
1692 2012-01-10 21:35:01 <genjix> tyty!
1693 2012-01-10 21:35:05 <TD> thanks
1694 2012-01-10 21:35:37 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: last I heard, you weren't going to support it unless we pinkie-swore in the BIP that Bitcoin 2.0 got rid of scriptPubKey entirely.
1695 2012-01-10 21:35:49 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: exactly.
1696 2012-01-10 21:35:50 iddo has quit (Changing host)
1697 2012-01-10 21:35:50 iddo has joined
1698 2012-01-10 21:35:57 b4epoche_ has joined
1699 2012-01-10 21:36:07 <luke-jr> I think special-casing a magic script like proposed in BIP 16 only ever makes sense as a backward compatible way of abolishing scriptPubKey entirely.
1700 2012-01-10 21:36:15 <genjix> why not call then input_script and output_script lol. i always get confused with the 2
1701 2012-01-10 21:36:16 <gavinandresen> I don't think it is a good idea to put "this is what is going to happen at some unspecified point in the future" into BIPs-- what do other people think?
1702 2012-01-10 21:36:40 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1703 2012-01-10 21:36:40 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1704 2012-01-10 21:36:41 <genjix> gavinandresen: maybe this? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork_Wishlist
1705 2012-01-10 21:36:53 <TD> um, what's wrong with scriptPubKey
1706 2012-01-10 21:36:54 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: rather, "This change formally deprecates scriptPubKey (now), and all future development should assume it will go away in the future."
1707 2012-01-10 21:36:55 <gmaxwell> I think people here have mostly said that would be the intention if we were doing bitcoin2.0 today— but hell, who knows what the future brings.
1708 2012-01-10 21:37:43 <sipa> i prefer seeing BIP 16 as adding a possibility
1709 2012-01-10 21:37:47 <luke-jr> obviously if there's some major problem in a year, a future BIP can deprecate BIP 16 and revive scriptPubKey :p
1710 2012-01-10 21:37:56 <TD> could you guys please stop screwing with the protocol?
1711 2012-01-10 21:37:58 <luke-jr> sipa: adding a possibility, would mean a new opcode with a new function
1712 2012-01-10 21:38:09 <luke-jr> not special-casing a specific template
1713 2012-01-10 21:38:13 <midnightmagic> uh..  what the hell debug flag is it so I can see the commands themselves invoked? (gmake)
1714 2012-01-10 21:38:21 <genjix> TD: i think this is maybe the last major change (the P2SH)
1715 2012-01-10 21:38:43 <luke-jr> genjix: unlikely :P
1716 2012-01-10 21:38:49 <roconnor> I agree with TD
1717 2012-01-10 21:38:54 <gavinandresen> I agree with TD
1718 2012-01-10 21:38:56 <roconnor> doing nothing is better than P2SH
1719 2012-01-10 21:39:00 <TD> i think once you open the "hey let's improve the protocol" can of worms, there's no end in sight
1720 2012-01-10 21:39:04 <gavinandresen> I disagree with roconnor
1721 2012-01-10 21:39:15 <roconnor> contradition!!
1722 2012-01-10 21:39:17 <roconnor> :D
1723 2012-01-10 21:39:24 <genjix> TD: yeah well, bitcoin has an inevitable future as a bloated standard
1724 2012-01-10 21:39:40 <gmaxwell> genjix: there are worse fates.
1725 2012-01-10 21:39:54 <gmaxwell> (like being too unimportant for anyone to care to add bloat)
1726 2012-01-10 21:40:00 <gavinandresen> roconnor: would you support getting rid of OP_IFDUP?
1727 2012-01-10 21:40:01 <genjix> sure
1728 2012-01-10 21:40:11 erle- has joined
1729 2012-01-10 21:40:23 <gavinandresen> (we can mess with the protocol to make it smaller, too....)
1730 2012-01-10 21:40:25 <roconnor> gavinandresen: not really
1731 2012-01-10 21:40:35 <roconnor> gavinandresen: unless there are no instances of OP_IFDUP right now
1732 2012-01-10 21:40:37 <genjix> one thing though that would be nice is an informal 'gentlemen's agreement' on basic fee rules for the mempool
1733 2012-01-10 21:40:37 <roconnor> and we move quickly
1734 2012-01-10 21:41:06 briareus has joined
1735 2012-01-10 21:41:06 briareus has quit (Changing host)
1736 2012-01-10 21:41:06 briareus has joined
1737 2012-01-10 21:41:10 <TD> removing opcodes would result in attackers being able to split the chain out from underneath merchants who did not upgrade
1738 2012-01-10 21:41:12 <gmaxwell> genjix: there is one such agreement embedded in the software, perhaps not the right one— and perhaps not one people are following.
1739 2012-01-10 21:41:13 <genjix> like the current fee rules are hairy and likely to be ignored by most (i dont understand the rationale behind a lot of it)
1740 2012-01-10 21:41:41 <gavinandresen> TD: it'd have to be "support removed in blocks after time X" and mining pools would have to express support etc
1741 2012-01-10 21:42:15 <gavinandresen> If we were lucky, there would be no blocks mined with the unsupported feature before the deadline
1742 2012-01-10 21:42:33 <gmaxwell> genjix: I feel like I undestand the rules and their rationale.  Fundimentally they're using still-coins as a payment for transactions precisely because still-coins is what you don't have if you're DOS attacking.
1743 2012-01-10 21:42:55 <gmaxwell> genjix: I think anything with that behavior is going to be similarly complicated, though perhaps multiple systems would meet that goal.
1744 2012-01-10 21:43:02 _Fireball has joined
1745 2012-01-10 21:43:05 <da2ce7> TD, we insert those opcodes on purpose to make a forced split.
1746 2012-01-10 21:43:08 <gavinandresen> Ok, sounds like luke-jr is alone in wanting wording in the BIP RE: scriptPubKey.
1747 2012-01-10 21:43:10 <da2ce7> so it will fail hard.
1748 2012-01-10 21:43:22 <da2ce7> ** in the alt-chain.
1749 2012-01-10 21:43:30 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: does not
1750 2012-01-10 21:43:32 <genjix> well i use a circular buffer and slow it filling up as it gets near the end
1751 2012-01-10 21:43:54 <TD> i continue to believe the core protocol doesn't need fixing
1752 2012-01-10 21:43:59 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: would you be happier with something more vague. Like "current developers think that P2SH transactions are the way of the future" or something?
1753 2012-01-10 21:44:02 <luke-jr> sounds like TD and roconnor agree that "doing nothing is better than P2SH"
1754 2012-01-10 21:44:04 * roconnor agrees with TD
1755 2012-01-10 21:44:27 <gavinandresen> Can we not have that argument AGAIN?  I've got to go in about 10 minutes...
1756 2012-01-10 21:44:30 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: no, because /P2SH/ as written only makes sense if it deprecates scriptPubKey
1757 2012-01-10 21:44:59 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: as we discussed, and I think you accepted— we can't deprecate any thing until P2SH is widely deployed and proven.
1758 2012-01-10 21:45:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: nonsense
1759 2012-01-10 21:45:24 <gmaxwell> I personally think we would eventually deprecate non-p2sh but it might be years before the 1form addresses are gone.
1760 2012-01-10 21:45:25 <luke-jr> we just can't remove it
1761 2012-01-10 21:45:43 <sipa> genjix: anything else on the agenda?
1762 2012-01-10 21:45:49 <genjix> nope
1763 2012-01-10 21:45:51 <luke-jr> …
1764 2012-01-10 21:45:53 <gmaxwell> sort of a meaningless depreciation then— it's not like we're a standards body here.
1765 2012-01-10 21:45:53 <luke-jr> lots on the agenda
1766 2012-01-10 21:46:11 <luke-jr> addmultisigaddress cases, Fuzzing tool(s), Finishing up 0.4.3 and 0.5.2
1767 2012-01-10 21:46:12 <sipa> luke-jr: bring up a topic, then
1768 2012-01-10 21:46:16 <luke-jr> and other topics relates to P2SH
1769 2012-01-10 21:46:24 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: BIP is a standards process
1770 2012-01-10 21:46:30 <genjix> what is fuzzing tools?
1771 2012-01-10 21:46:33 <luke-jr> nfc
1772 2012-01-10 21:46:35 <gavinandresen> Fuzzing tools:  I want a protocol-level fuzzer.  Anybody already written one?
1773 2012-01-10 21:46:44 <da2ce7> luke-jr: I don't think that we can ever get rid of 1form addresses...
1774 2012-01-10 21:46:57 <luke-jr> da2ce7: we can phase them out (deprecate them)
1775 2012-01-10 21:47:05 <gmaxwell> I've run zzuf on the bitcoin network connections did nothing interesting, presumably due to the checksums on messages. :)
1776 2012-01-10 21:47:11 <makomk> We can make clients not generate new ones.
1777 2012-01-10 21:47:16 Carmivore has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1778 2012-01-10 21:47:17 <gavinandresen> RE: fuzzing: https://gist.github.com/1525448
1779 2012-01-10 21:47:23 <sipa> 1form address will remain as identifiers for keypairs; we can deprecate them as direct payment option
1780 2012-01-10 21:47:25 <da2ce7> we can re-implment them I guess - but people need to still be able to spend coins sent to them anytime.
1781 2012-01-10 21:47:26 <luke-jr> da2ce7: eventually everyone will NEED to upgrade for "Bitcoin 2.0", so support for them can be removed at that point
1782 2012-01-10 21:47:31 <makomk> gmaxwell: yeah, I think it may silently ignore anything that fails checksumps or is otherwise invalid.
1783 2012-01-10 21:47:33 <gmaxwell> has anyone tried advancing their clocks on some nodes past the checksum flagday yet?
1784 2012-01-10 21:47:50 <sipa> genjix: good idea
1785 2012-01-10 21:48:05 <genjix> gmaxwell: super
1786 2012-01-10 21:48:08 <roconnor> gmaxwell: what is checksum flagday?
1787 2012-01-10 21:48:11 <genjix> gavinandresen: super
1788 2012-01-10 21:48:18 <gmaxwell> makomk: the people in this room don't control all clients.
1789 2012-01-10 21:48:19 tyn has joined
1790 2012-01-10 21:48:41 <TD> he means the day when the "version" message protocol changes
1791 2012-01-10 21:48:58 <gmaxwell>         // Version 0.2 obsoletes 20 Feb 2012
1792 2012-01-10 21:48:58 <gmaxwell>         if (GetTime() > 1329696000)
1793 2012-01-10 21:48:59 <gmaxwell>         {
1794 2012-01-10 21:49:09 <sipa> gmaxwell: unable to connect
1795 2012-01-10 21:49:14 <makomk> gmaxwell: From my playing-around it probably breaks compatibility with nodes that disagree on the value of the flag, but I've no idea what non-Satoshi clients do.
1796 2012-01-10 21:49:16 <sipa> which is expected
1797 2012-01-10 21:49:36 <genjix> btw what happens when the block timestamp expires?
1798 2012-01-10 21:49:37 <gmaxwell> sipa: have you made sure two new nodes connect?
1799 2012-01-10 21:49:41 <genjix> i know it's a long way off
1800 2012-01-10 21:49:48 <sipa> gmaxwell: trying that now
1801 2012-01-10 21:50:04 <genjix> at minimum it's relying on some UB
1802 2012-01-10 21:50:16 <gmaxwell> sipa: I expect that this is already tested but ... good to be prudent, if everything is going to die in a month we need to know now. :)
1803 2012-01-10 21:50:27 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: so we can sell?
1804 2012-01-10 21:50:32 <makomk> (Yes, this was Yet Another CLC Change. It effectively hardcodes the flag to true.)
1805 2012-01-10 21:50:32 <gmaxwell> hahah
1806 2012-01-10 21:50:36 <roconnor> gmaxwell: is this checksum change on the wiki?
1807 2012-01-10 21:51:31 <genjix> gavinandresen: a bitcoin fuzzer would be so useful for all implementations and network health. the way i test blocks is by overriding hash_block_header and returning different hardcoded hashes based on the block nonce (which i use as an ident)
1808 2012-01-10 21:51:48 <gmaxwell> roconnor: I didn't add it there, did you?   Everything I know about bitcoin I know from reading the source, this channel, and Satoshi's writing.
1809 2012-01-10 21:51:58 <genjix> that way i take the first 500 blocks and i design a tree and then send them to the blockchain service
1810 2012-01-10 21:52:36 <luke-jr> [16:44:50] <gmaxwell>         if (GetTime() > 1329696000)
1811 2012-01-10 21:52:40 <genjix> roconnor: the wiki is good for starting out, but the satoshi implemenation is the read dox
1812 2012-01-10 21:52:43 <luke-jr> ^ is that guaranteed to be the same time for everyone?
1813 2012-01-10 21:53:04 <sipa> gmaxwell: works
1814 2012-01-10 21:53:29 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: nope.
1815 2012-01-10 21:53:39 Carmivore has joined
1816 2012-01-10 21:53:45 <genjix> btw you know those stats about active bitcoin versions, i wonder how many of those old ones actually make txs
1817 2012-01-10 21:53:45 <luke-jr> so we'll probably have some issues for a few hours?
1818 2012-01-10 21:53:48 <makomk> luke-jr: that's local time, so no, but in theory it shouldn't affect already-established connections.
1819 2012-01-10 21:54:00 <gmaxwell> But it only impacts new connections, so ±network clock skew around that time new nodes may have some poblems.
1820 2012-01-10 21:54:13 <sipa> yes, everything after verack is safe
1821 2012-01-10 21:54:13 <luke-jr> so impact will mainly hit people who start their clients around that time
1822 2012-01-10 21:54:17 <gmaxwell> (especially if their clock is wrong)
1823 2012-01-10 21:54:31 <genjix> use the time in util.cpp
1824 2012-01-10 21:54:39 <gmaxwell> might make sense to have some nodes establish that listen to the new protocol early.
1825 2012-01-10 21:54:48 <genjix> GetAdjustedTime()
1826 2012-01-10 21:55:01 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: and use the DNS seeds to ensure they're available?
1827 2012-01-10 21:55:04 magn3ts has quit (Disconnected by services)
1828 2012-01-10 21:55:09 <luke-jr> is it possible to support BOTH protocols?
1829 2012-01-10 21:55:15 <gmaxwell> No.
1830 2012-01-10 21:55:17 <makomk> genjix: that only makes a difference once the node's established some connections.
1831 2012-01-10 21:55:21 <gmaxwell> (I think not at least)
1832 2012-01-10 21:55:32 <genjix> true
1833 2012-01-10 21:55:41 <gmaxwell> The change is basically adding the checksum to the version messages... we already upgrade to the new protocol based on that.
1834 2012-01-10 21:55:50 <sipa> well, you could make the checksum optional for version and verack
1835 2012-01-10 21:55:51 <genjix> ok well i think we covered everything
1836 2012-01-10 21:55:57 <gavinandresen> I can live with a few people with incorrect clocks having trouble connecting for a few hours.
1837 2012-01-10 21:55:58 <gmaxwell> sipa: thanks for testing that.
1838 2012-01-10 21:56:20 <sipa> gavinandresen: agree
1839 2012-01-10 21:56:33 <makomk> Hmmmm. I think blkmond will be unable to connect after the flag time.
1840 2012-01-10 21:56:34 <gavinandresen> And any attempted 'fix' would almost certainly be higher risk.
1841 2012-01-10 21:56:55 briareus has left ()
1842 2012-01-10 21:57:18 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: since we are silent on incoming connections, we can guess what version based on what we receive?
1843 2012-01-10 21:57:18 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: running a connected few nodes with the new protocol early and old protocol late sounds pretty safe to me, but not something you need to worry about.
1844 2012-01-10 21:57:46 <sipa> luke-jr: sounds possible
1845 2012-01-10 21:58:04 <sipa> but i'm not sure it's worth the effort
1846 2012-01-10 21:59:57 rdponticelli has joined
1847 2012-01-10 21:59:58 <makomk> By the way, how much of this stuff did Satoshi actually document before vanishing?
1848 2012-01-10 22:00:15 onelineproof has joined
1849 2012-01-10 22:00:18 <osearth> hard to say details are sketchy
1850 2012-01-10 22:00:50 <osearth> definately demanded strippers at farewell party be paid in BTC
1851 2012-01-10 22:02:15 <edcba> ;;bc,mtgox
1852 2012-01-10 22:02:15 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":6.89,"low":6.001,"avg":6.399402367,"vwap":6.383421343,"vol":115147,"last_all":6.495,"last_local":6.495,"last":6.495,"buy":6.49684,"sell":6.53556}}
1853 2012-01-10 22:02:28 <gavinandresen> makomk: satoshi didn't document
1854 2012-01-10 22:02:49 onelineproof has left ()
1855 2012-01-10 22:02:58 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1856 2012-01-10 22:03:10 onelineproof has joined
1857 2012-01-10 22:03:23 <makomk> gavinandresen: that's what I thought.
1858 2012-01-10 22:04:01 <sipa> fortunately the code is so easy to read *COUGH*
1859 2012-01-10 22:04:10 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: can you get the Mac build started so it's ready for tonight?
1860 2012-01-10 22:04:18 <luke-jr> of 0.5.2
1861 2012-01-10 22:05:08 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: sorry, I don't think I'll have time tonight
1862 2012-01-10 22:05:23 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: anybody sanity tested Matt's builds yet?
1863 2012-01-10 22:05:31 <gmaxwell> sipa: meh, documentation is irrelevant if it doesn't match the code in any case. ::shrugs::
1864 2012-01-10 22:05:41 <gmaxwell> (at least for anything which would be a forking change)
1865 2012-01-10 22:05:43 <roconnor> sipa: if (opcode > OP_16 && ++nOpCount > 201)
1866 2012-01-10 22:05:47 <roconnor> sipa: ez
1867 2012-01-10 22:05:48 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: yes
1868 2012-01-10 22:06:01 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: supposedly no improvement on Windows speed-wise, though
1869 2012-01-10 22:07:12 tyn has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1870 2012-01-10 22:08:39 <roconnor> sipa gmaxwell: BTW, is there any (known) security purpose to including the script into the transaction being signed?
1871 2012-01-10 22:09:30 <gmaxwell> roconnor: I assume you're asking about scriptpubkey?
1872 2012-01-10 22:09:43 <roconnor> Um ... maybe
1873 2012-01-10 22:10:12 <roconnor> the stuff after the last OP_CODESEPARATOR
1874 2012-01-10 22:10:39 <roconnor> (or the whole verification script if no OP_CODESEPARATOR)
1875 2012-01-10 22:12:39 BurtyBB has joined
1876 2012-01-10 22:13:48 <TD> huh?
1877 2012-01-10 22:13:55 <TD> signatures have to cover outputs in the standard case
1878 2012-01-10 22:13:59 <TD> for obvious reasons
1879 2012-01-10 22:14:13 <luke-jr> makomk: should I offer 50k CLC to whoever finds a good, practical solution?
1880 2012-01-10 22:14:15 <TD> do you mean something else ?
1881 2012-01-10 22:14:36 <jrmithdobbs> whats clc?
1882 2012-01-10 22:14:38 <roconnor> TD: the "current" output script is placed into the input script before signing or verifying.
1883 2012-01-10 22:14:42 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: makomk's scamcoin
1884 2012-01-10 22:15:01 <jrmithdobbs> oic
1885 2012-01-10 22:16:00 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1886 2012-01-10 22:16:03 <TD> oh, i see. i think that's just an artifact of the implemenation
1887 2012-01-10 22:16:13 <TD> the contents of the script are covered implicitly by the prevout hash anyway
1888 2012-01-10 22:16:24 <sipa> it sounds to me like satoshi somehow wanted to be extra sure
1889 2012-01-10 22:16:48 <roconnor> heh, he really goes out of his way for this artifact
1890 2012-01-10 22:17:23 <helo> luke-jr: what's your clc balance now?
1891 2012-01-10 22:17:32 <luke-jr> helo: about 50k
1892 2012-01-10 22:17:38 <TD> well, the scriptSig input has to be set to something
1893 2012-01-10 22:18:13 <TD> whether it would work just as well, if it was empty ...
1894 2012-01-10 22:20:57 <roconnor> TD: that is what I was debating
1895 2012-01-10 22:21:10 <TD> i think it would
1896 2012-01-10 22:21:36 <TD> i have a feeling this part of the code evolved quite significantly over time
1897 2012-01-10 22:21:43 <roconnor> TD: you get the interesting property where you could use the same signature for multiple coins in the same transactions if the coins have identical verification scripts.
1898 2012-01-10 22:21:49 <sipa> i think TD's reason is correct: the inputs are already covered via the prevout
1899 2012-01-10 22:21:52 <TD> hence the (apparently useless) code that attempts to delete signatures before running checksig
1900 2012-01-10 22:22:01 <gavinandresen> that'd be my guess-- two different implementations, he never got rid of the old one...
1901 2012-01-10 22:22:11 <roconnor> TD:
1902 2012-01-10 22:22:13 <TD> and the impossible to use OP_CODESEPARATOR
1903 2012-01-10 22:22:13 <roconnor> oops
1904 2012-01-10 22:22:50 baxter- has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1905 2012-01-10 22:22:54 baxter- has joined
1906 2012-01-10 22:23:06 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1907 2012-01-10 22:23:09 <roconnor> oh, so this property of including the hash of the input transaction really does render OP_CODESEPARATOR useless then?
1908 2012-01-10 22:23:23 <baxter-> back
1909 2012-01-10 22:23:32 <sipa> roconnor: i wouldn't dare saying for sure
1910 2012-01-10 22:24:05 <roconnor> except for maybe when used in conjunction with csAnyoneCanPay?  ... even then
1911 2012-01-10 22:24:35 exc_ess has joined
1912 2012-01-10 22:26:10 jim618 has left ()
1913 2012-01-10 22:27:01 <TD> as far as i can tell, OP_CODESEPARATOR is useless
1914 2012-01-10 22:27:18 <TD> i couldn't find any scenario in which it can be deployed
1915 2012-01-10 22:27:39 <TD> i think it must date from a time when the code worked differently
1916 2012-01-10 22:27:41 <roconnor> right with AnyoneCanPay it could plausibly play a role
1917 2012-01-10 22:27:42 <luke-jr> TD: any?
1918 2012-01-10 22:27:54 <roconnor> oh wait
1919 2012-01-10 22:27:56 <roconnor> not even then
1920 2012-01-10 22:28:01 <makomk> Well, I guess it's probably not like Satoshi documented any of this.
1921 2012-01-10 22:28:06 <luke-jr> was there a problem with the OP_CODESEPARATOR-based pay-to-script-hash?
1922 2012-01-10 22:28:07 <roconnor> the entire input script is still implicilty in the hash
1923 2012-01-10 22:28:26 <TD> i'm talking about the existing protocol. i haven't thought about proposed variants on it
1924 2012-01-10 22:28:31 <roconnor> I've got to rename this function of mine.  This is the second time it has tripped me up
1925 2012-01-10 22:29:13 <midnightmagic> makomk: either 1) he thought that only people who could read the source should be working on it, or 2) he didn't think he had time to document it. Maybe 3) He probably never thought he would ever have to leave.
1926 2012-01-10 22:29:15 <roconnor> luke-jr: there was one feature it didn't support, but neither does P2SH.
1927 2012-01-10 22:29:22 <roconnor> luke-jr: it is more complex than P2SH.
1928 2012-01-10 22:29:41 <luke-jr> roconnor: from a design perspective, it is simpler
1929 2012-01-10 22:29:51 <roconnor> luke-jr: and it was less backwards compatible
1930 2012-01-10 22:29:52 <luke-jr> admittedly, maybe not in bitcoind implementation
1931 2012-01-10 22:30:00 <luke-jr> no, it was 100% backwards compatible…
1932 2012-01-10 22:30:00 <roconnor> than P2SH
1933 2012-01-10 22:30:18 <roconnor> luke-jr: it still involved making a new OP_CODEHASH operator
1934 2012-01-10 22:30:31 <luke-jr> roconnor: that's fine, that's what the OP_NOP1+ is for
1935 2012-01-10 22:30:39 baxter- has quit (Quit: Bye!)
1936 2012-01-10 22:30:46 <roconnor> well, it's still not 100% backwards compatible
1937 2012-01-10 22:30:50 <luke-jr> yes it is :P
1938 2012-01-10 22:30:52 <makomk> midnightmagic: the source only documents what, not why.
1939 2012-01-10 22:30:58 <luke-jr> so long as OP_CODEHASH does something sensible
1940 2012-01-10 22:31:24 <roconnor> luke-jr: you should put CODEHASH in your coinbase
1941 2012-01-10 22:31:48 <midnightmagic> makomk: it's true. I've long complained that the reasoning behind this or that decision is one of the main problems with open source projects. netbsd is very similar in this regard, but at least there, core's insides are still writing code. :(
1942 2012-01-10 22:31:55 <luke-jr> nah, someone needs to write up a formal proposal for it first
1943 2012-01-10 22:32:01 <midnightmagic> reasoning => lack of documented reasoning
1944 2012-01-10 22:32:04 <roconnor> luke-jr: true
1945 2012-01-10 22:34:08 <luke-jr> roconnor: the new opcode should: 1) peek the top 2 stack items; for the topmost, use it as a number of how many OP_CODESEPs backward to hash the code of; then compare that with the 2nd-top stack item and fail the transaction if it doesn't match
1946 2012-01-10 22:34:25 <sipa> luke-jr: not analyzable
1947 2012-01-10 22:34:31 <luke-jr> success is defined by the stack being unmodified (net result: it was an OP_NOP)
1948 2012-01-10 22:34:34 <luke-jr> sipa: yes it is
1949 2012-01-10 22:34:45 <luke-jr> sipa: at no point is a stack item executed
1950 2012-01-10 22:34:59 <sipa> you need to execute code to know which number is going to end up on the stack
1951 2012-01-10 22:35:11 <sipa> and that determines which code block is executed in the subcontext
1952 2012-01-10 22:35:26 <luke-jr> hmm
1953 2012-01-10 22:35:32 <luke-jr> well, the op doesn't execute any code
1954 2012-01-10 22:35:50 cdecker is now known as cdecker|afk
1955 2012-01-10 22:36:08 <luke-jr> and it doesn't matter which code block it hashes, until you run it
1956 2012-01-10 22:36:25 <luke-jr> I mean, if you could predict the exact result without running it, we'd never run anything…
1957 2012-01-10 22:36:43 <sipa> it's not about knowing the outcome of the execution
1958 2012-01-10 22:36:52 <roconnor> luke-jr: by how many OP_CODESEPs backward to hash the code of; you mean look an the nth item in the new codehash stack.
1959 2012-01-10 22:36:56 <sipa> it is about knowing (or at least having a safe upper bound) on what is going to be executed
1960 2012-01-10 22:37:00 <roconnor> luke-jr: other than that it seems reasonable.
1961 2012-01-10 22:37:02 <luke-jr> since it's just hashing and comparing an ALREADY EXECUTED block of code…
1962 2012-01-10 22:37:28 <sipa> oh
1963 2012-01-10 22:37:35 <sipa> i may have misread your idea
1964 2012-01-10 22:37:57 <luke-jr> sipa: the idea is that all the code remains in the scripts normally, and the new op just checks the hash of some code that's already executed
1965 2012-01-10 22:38:27 <roconnor> luke-jr: it seems to satify the sipa NOP extension principle.  or was it the gmaxwell NOP extension principle.
1966 2012-01-10 22:39:22 <sipa> ehm my principle was that something replacing OP_NOPx should not have any effect except for possibly making the evaluation fail
1967 2012-01-10 22:39:32 <roconnor> sipa: right, thats the one
1968 2012-01-10 22:39:44 <luke-jr> sipa: which is true in this case; success has a net zero effect
1969 2012-01-10 22:39:53 <luke-jr> sipa: failure aborts the script as failure
1970 2012-01-10 22:40:04 <roconnor> sipa: any *visible* effect ...
1971 2012-01-10 22:40:27 <roconnor> the new code manipulates a new codehash stack, but it isn't visible to the old code, so it is okay.
1972 2012-01-10 22:40:28 eldentyrell has joined
1973 2012-01-10 22:40:42 <sipa> roconnor: indeed
1974 2012-01-10 22:40:44 <luke-jr> roconnor: it doesn't have to. I don't like that implementation of it :P
1975 2012-01-10 22:40:53 <luke-jr> hashing every code block onto a stack = lame
1976 2012-01-10 22:41:00 <roconnor> luke-jr: consider this a specification
1977 2012-01-10 22:41:05 <roconnor> luke-jr: implementations can do what they want
1978 2012-01-10 22:41:08 lyspooner has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.88 [Firefox 8.0.1/20111120135848])
1979 2012-01-10 22:41:22 <luke-jr> the specification doesn't care if it uses a codehash stack :P
1980 2012-01-10 22:41:26 <roconnor> luke-jr: In Haskell the naive code won't even do the hashing if it is never needed.
1981 2012-01-10 22:41:47 <roconnor> luke-jr: yes, but you need to be careful how OP_CODESEPARATOR interacts with OP_IF
1982 2012-01-10 22:41:56 <luke-jr> I don't see how that matters
1983 2012-01-10 22:42:09 <roconnor> luke-jr: because OP_IF can skip over OP_CODESEPARATORS
1984 2012-01-10 22:42:29 <luke-jr> roconnor: I'm assuming the OP_CODESEPARATOR stuff is static ;)
1985 2012-01-10 22:42:31 <roconnor> luke-jr: so if you syntatically analaize the OP_CODESEPARATORS you can find code that was never executed.
1986 2012-01-10 22:43:00 unknown- has joined
1987 2012-01-10 22:43:02 <roconnor> luke-jr: so evil miners could fake out your check and steal your $$$
1988 2012-01-10 22:43:41 <luke-jr> hmm
1989 2012-01-10 22:43:49 <roconnor> describing it with a codehash stack is the simplest way of describing a safe method of implementing this idea
1990 2012-01-10 22:43:52 <luke-jr> so you mean we don't want static analysis on the codeseps?
1991 2012-01-10 22:44:12 <luke-jr> I suppose non-Haskell implementors could just store positions on a stack…
1992 2012-01-10 22:44:24 <roconnor> luke-jr: yep
1993 2012-01-10 22:44:28 Joric has quit ()
1994 2012-01-10 22:44:50 eldentyrell has quit (Client Quit)
1995 2012-01-10 22:45:13 <luke-jr> hmm
1996 2012-01-10 22:46:12 <luke-jr> what would stop me from doing <magic check script> CODESEP PUSHTRUE if the OP_CODEHASHCHECK is looking 2 back? :/
1997 2012-01-10 22:46:33 <luke-jr> maybe it should just be "last CODESEP in scriptSig until end of scriptSig"
1998 2012-01-10 22:46:49 <luke-jr> instead of allowing a numeric value to choose which part
1999 2012-01-10 22:47:03 <roconnor> luke-jr: that would be fine I think
2000 2012-01-10 22:47:16 <roconnor> that was one of my variants
2001 2012-01-10 22:47:30 PK has quit ()
2002 2012-01-10 22:47:53 <roconnor> it's simpler but perhaps less flexible.
2003 2012-01-10 22:48:09 <roconnor> simple is good though
2004 2012-01-10 22:49:25 <luke-jr> well, if the flexibility is always risky, no need for it
2005 2012-01-10 22:49:43 abragin has left ()
2006 2012-01-10 22:49:59 wasabi1 has joined
2007 2012-01-10 22:50:12 <roconnor> luke-jr: did you see that CCC talk by Meridith on Weird Machines in protocols?
2008 2012-01-10 22:50:23 <luke-jr> no
2009 2012-01-10 22:50:56 <roconnor> She sort of explains why OP_EVAL was a dangerous proposal.
2010 2012-01-10 22:51:38 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2011 2012-01-10 22:51:45 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2012 2012-01-10 22:52:03 <luke-jr> someone I've never heard of?
2013 2012-01-10 22:52:04 <copumpkin> roconnor: that's the one I kept telling people to watch a few days ago!!
2014 2012-01-10 22:52:12 <roconnor> copumpkin: yes
2015 2012-01-10 22:52:19 <copumpkin> luke-jr: Len Sassaman's wife?
2016 2012-01-10 22:52:23 <TuxBlackEdo> link/
2017 2012-01-10 22:52:24 <TuxBlackEdo> ?
2018 2012-01-10 22:52:27 <luke-jr> copumpkin: who?
2019 2012-01-10 22:52:32 <copumpkin> lol ok
2020 2012-01-10 22:52:44 <roconnor> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_Sassaman
2021 2012-01-10 22:54:01 <roconnor> Len and Dan and Meridith kinda destroyed the X.509 infrastructure by playing different impelemenations against each other.
2022 2012-01-10 22:54:10 <sipa> he worked at my university!
2023 2012-01-10 22:54:22 <cjdelisle> Cause of death: pwnd
2024 2012-01-10 22:54:36 <copumpkin> cjdelisle: not sure that's the official one
2025 2012-01-10 22:54:50 <copumpkin> plus, lrn2spel
2026 2012-01-10 22:54:53 <copumpkin> it's pwnt
2027 2012-01-10 22:54:54 <Diablo-D3> [05:46:48] <roconnor> She sort of explains why OP_EVAL was a dangerous proposal.
2028 2012-01-10 22:54:59 <Diablo-D3> its dangerous probably why I said it was
2029 2012-01-10 22:55:10 <Diablo-D3> it borderlines on a competent logic language.
2030 2012-01-10 22:55:27 <copumpkin> Diablo-D3: we've all been saying it, but it's nice to have a major figure chime in at a major conference about why you don't want that sort of thing
2031 2012-01-10 22:55:46 <Diablo-D3> true
2032 2012-01-10 22:55:50 <Diablo-D3> also, a woman?
2033 2012-01-10 22:55:53 <Diablo-D3> I'd bone that.
2034 2012-01-10 22:55:55 <copumpkin> lol
2035 2012-01-10 22:56:08 <Diablo-D3> seriously, female geeks? totally my thing
2036 2012-01-10 22:56:10 <copumpkin> cryptowoman
2037 2012-01-10 22:56:14 <copumpkin> the new superhero
2038 2012-01-10 22:56:54 <Diablo-D3> yeah, but undoing her bra one handed still turns her on.
2039 2012-01-10 22:57:42 <roconnor> sipa: you are in Leuven?
2040 2012-01-10 22:58:06 <edcba> wtf suicide ?
2041 2012-01-10 22:58:17 <edcba> why the guy did suicide ?
2042 2012-01-10 22:58:18 <sipa> roconnor: yes
2043 2012-01-10 22:58:23 <Diablo-D3> who suicided?
2044 2012-01-10 22:58:25 <copumpkin> edcba: not sure anyone really knows
2045 2012-01-10 22:58:26 num1 has joined
2046 2012-01-10 22:58:31 <copumpkin> also, the verb is usually to commit suicide
2047 2012-01-10 22:58:51 * edcba only commits code sorrt
2048 2012-01-10 22:58:53 <edcba> sorry
2049 2012-01-10 22:59:32 _Fireball has quit (Quit:  Try HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <-)
2050 2012-01-10 23:00:04 <sipa> roconnor: not at COSIC though
2051 2012-01-10 23:00:07 <copumpkin> it must be pretty shitty to have your spouse commit suicide
2052 2012-01-10 23:01:07 <Diablo-D3> okay, Im going to make a horrible horrible joke
2053 2012-01-10 23:01:10 <Diablo-D3> avert your eyes now
2054 2012-01-10 23:01:14 * copumpkin averts
2055 2012-01-10 23:01:26 * roconnor ignores
2056 2012-01-10 23:01:29 <Diablo-D3> "if only I gave him that blowjob he wanted, maybe he wouldnt have...."
2057 2012-01-10 23:01:33 <gmaxwell> bleh
2058 2012-01-10 23:01:38 <gmaxwell> thats stupid.
2059 2012-01-10 23:01:43 <Diablo-D3> dont worry, I feel bad about saying it
2060 2012-01-10 23:01:59 <Diablo-D3> but yeah, I understand geeks who do it
2061 2012-01-10 23:02:04 <gmaxwell> no no, you should feel bad because it was stupid not because it was poor taste.
2062 2012-01-10 23:02:06 <Diablo-D3> I just dont understand why they do it to themselves
2063 2012-01-10 23:02:08 <copumpkin> yeah, I feel like the marginal benefit from making that wasn't enough to justify the cost to your soul in hell
2064 2012-01-10 23:02:16 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: it was both.
2065 2012-01-10 23:02:23 <gmaxwell> Poor taste would be "Patterson reported that her husband's death was a suicide? _Of course_ she did!"
2066 2012-01-10 23:02:28 <edcba> i don't care for offensive but it wasn't much funny
2067 2012-01-10 23:02:31 <Diablo-D3> I mean, seriously, Im a geek, I hate people
2068 2012-01-10 23:02:34 <copumpkin> :)
2069 2012-01-10 23:02:36 * copumpkin hugs Diablo-D3 
2070 2012-01-10 23:02:40 <edcba> gmaxwell: this one is better :)
2071 2012-01-10 23:02:42 <Diablo-D3> but Im not going to kill myself over it
2072 2012-01-10 23:02:47 <Diablo-D3> Im going to kill everyone else over it.
2073 2012-01-10 23:03:41 <edcba> anyway eval is a security disaster everywhere that exists
2074 2012-01-10 23:04:17 <[eval]> i am not
2075 2012-01-10 23:04:23 * copumpkin slaps [eval] 
2076 2012-01-10 23:04:42 <edcba> just op eval and you'll see !
2077 2012-01-10 23:04:49 <[eval]> hah!
2078 2012-01-10 23:05:22 * edcba gives one of his btc addr to [eval] in private...
2079 2012-01-10 23:05:47 * [eval] does absolutely nothing with it
2080 2012-01-10 23:05:58 da2ce7 has joined
2081 2012-01-10 23:06:15 * edcba thinks [eval] should be renamed [nop]
2082 2012-01-10 23:06:23 <roconnor> [nop1]
2083 2012-01-10 23:06:23 [eval] is now known as [nop1]
2084 2012-01-10 23:06:33 copumpkin is now known as [eval]
2085 2012-01-10 23:06:38 [eval] has quit (Disconnected by services)
2086 2012-01-10 23:06:42 <[nop1]> woops
2087 2012-01-10 23:06:43 <edcba> haha
2088 2012-01-10 23:06:44 [nop1] is now known as [eval]
2089 2012-01-10 23:06:46 <[eval]> ;)
2090 2012-01-10 23:07:00 pumpkin has joined
2091 2012-01-10 23:07:02 <pumpkin> lol that's some hardcore ghosting you have there
2092 2012-01-10 23:07:08 <[eval]> lol
2093 2012-01-10 23:07:08 <edcba> :)
2094 2012-01-10 23:07:08 pumpkin is now known as copumpkin
2095 2012-01-10 23:07:09 <[eval]> wb
2096 2012-01-10 23:07:12 <[eval]> ok, i'm off
2097 2012-01-10 23:11:15 user_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2098 2012-01-10 23:16:13 ali1234 has joined
2099 2012-01-10 23:18:45 ali1234 has left ()
2100 2012-01-10 23:20:02 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
2101 2012-01-10 23:23:37 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2102 2012-01-10 23:28:43 da2ce7 has joined
2103 2012-01-10 23:29:54 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2104 2012-01-10 23:31:09 darkee has joined
2105 2012-01-10 23:34:12 slush has joined
2106 2012-01-10 23:34:42 jhajduk has joined
2107 2012-01-10 23:35:39 bakh_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2108 2012-01-10 23:36:17 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
2109 2012-01-10 23:36:22 danbri has joined
2110 2012-01-10 23:45:43 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2111 2012-01-10 23:49:41 dikidera has joined
2112 2012-01-10 23:49:44 diki has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2113 2012-01-10 23:52:40 toffoo has joined
2114 2012-01-10 23:52:57 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
2115 2012-01-10 23:57:45 <amiller> so you were talking about the mlp talk
2116 2012-01-10 23:57:53 <amiller> she made this one point about 'length fields' that had me confused
2117 2012-01-10 23:58:27 <amiller> like a netstring for example, "5:hello"
2118 2012-01-10 23:59:06 <amiller> her point could be interpreted one of two ways, 1. that strings with length fields like that are context-free,   or 2. that they're technically not context free, but they're 'deterministic context-sensitive' and they're generally OK