1 2012-01-13 00:00:28 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, urandom is pretty much useless it's so slow
   2 2012-01-13 00:00:40 <phantomcircuit> i personally
   3 2012-01-13 00:01:11 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: there are lots of things its useful for... just not useful for zeroizing disks. :)
   4 2012-01-13 00:01:18 <sipa> 8.9MiB/s here
   5 2012-01-13 00:02:06 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, xD
   6 2012-01-13 00:02:09 <phantomcircuit> you caught me
   7 2012-01-13 00:02:20 <lianj> phantomcircuit: try shred
   8 2012-01-13 00:02:30 <phantomcircuit> shred is slow as well
   9 2012-01-13 00:02:38 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: I use dmcrypt to mount the disk with aes + /dev/urandom as a key.
  10 2012-01-13 00:02:40 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  11 2012-01-13 00:02:42 <gmaxwell> and fill with /dev/zero
  12 2012-01-13 00:02:45 <gmaxwell> quite fast
  13 2012-01-13 00:02:51 <phantomcircuit> openssl enc -aes-256-ofb -kfile /dev/random -in /dev/zero -out /dev/sda
  14 2012-01-13 00:03:13 <gmaxwell> sadly, mine is probably faster— good luck getting aes-ni support in openssl. :)
  15 2012-01-13 00:03:40 <phantomcircuit> it already has it
  16 2012-01-13 00:03:47 <phantomcircuit> you just have to change the engine
  17 2012-01-13 00:04:38 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: I had a lot of trouble actually getting it to work six monthsish ago.
  18 2012-01-13 00:07:47 theorb has joined
  19 2012-01-13 00:08:12 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  20 2012-01-13 00:08:27 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
  21 2012-01-13 00:12:16 wasabi3 has joined
  22 2012-01-13 00:14:07 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  23 2012-01-13 00:17:17 [Tycho] has joined
  24 2012-01-13 00:17:45 <denisx> sipa: awake?
  25 2012-01-13 00:17:52 <sipa> yes
  26 2012-01-13 00:17:57 <denisx> sipa: cool
  27 2012-01-13 00:18:35 <denisx> sipa: you could draw a bar in your network hash rate stats to show how fast the network should be to meet the actual difficulty
  28 2012-01-13 00:19:04 <sipa> the current difficulty is already shown?
  29 2012-01-13 00:19:16 <sipa> the red line
  30 2012-01-13 00:19:18 minimoose has joined
  31 2012-01-13 00:19:19 Kolky has quit (Quit: Bye bye!)
  32 2012-01-13 00:19:35 <sipa> they are matched
  33 2012-01-13 00:20:02 topace has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
  34 2012-01-13 00:20:14 <denisx> I don't get it
  35 2012-01-13 00:20:25 topace has joined
  36 2012-01-13 00:20:38 Guest47664 is now known as Cryo
  37 2012-01-13 00:20:40 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
  38 2012-01-13 00:20:42 <sipa> you see the red line on the chart, right?
  39 2012-01-13 00:20:46 <denisx> yes
  40 2012-01-13 00:20:52 Cryo has quit (Changing host)
  41 2012-01-13 00:20:52 Cryo has joined
  42 2012-01-13 00:21:16 <sipa> that shows the difficulty, and also (when comparing to the numbers on the left) the hash rate it ideally corresponds with
  43 2012-01-13 00:22:40 <denisx> ah, we are talking of different things
  44 2012-01-13 00:22:50 <denisx> I meant the one on http://bitcoincharts.com/
  45 2012-01-13 00:23:05 <sipa> ah
  46 2012-01-13 00:23:27 <gmaxwell> denisx: sipa is talking about http://bitcoin.sipa.be/
  47 2012-01-13 00:23:40 <denisx> gmaxwell: yeah, already on it
  48 2012-01-13 00:24:35 <denisx> nice stats!
  49 2012-01-13 00:24:52 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  50 2012-01-13 00:26:07 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
  51 2012-01-13 00:26:54 imsaguy has joined
  52 2012-01-13 00:26:57 Mad7Scientist has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  53 2012-01-13 00:27:39 da2ce7 has quit (2!~da2ce7@gateway/tor-sasl/da2ce7|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  54 2012-01-13 00:27:57 <sipa> denisx: added the difficulty to the one on bitcoincharts as well
  55 2012-01-13 00:28:01 <sipa> i hope it doesn't confuse
  56 2012-01-13 00:28:35 <denisx> that was fast!
  57 2012-01-13 00:28:38 <denisx> I like it!
  58 2012-01-13 00:29:30 <denisx> the green line is the one with the longer average?
  59 2012-01-13 00:33:12 user__ has joined
  60 2012-01-13 00:34:22 Mad7Scientist has joined
  61 2012-01-13 00:34:51 user__ has quit (Client Quit)
  62 2012-01-13 00:36:26 topace has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
  63 2012-01-13 00:37:09 topace has joined
  64 2012-01-13 00:38:41 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  65 2012-01-13 00:42:01 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
  66 2012-01-13 00:45:19 <devrandom> luke-jr: I have not been able to clone the gitorious repo all day... git clone just hangs after about 9MB downloaded
  67 2012-01-13 00:46:57 <devrandom> luke-jr: never mind, seems to be working now
  68 2012-01-13 00:53:22 gronager has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
  69 2012-01-13 00:54:37 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen getmininginfo * r025d495481f2 bitcoind-personal/src/ (5 files): Remove broken Visual C++ makefile.vc, and removed annoying HEADERS= list from other makefiles http://tinyurl.com/7ghtota
  70 2012-01-13 00:54:43 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr getmininginfo * r6950bb6200cb bitcoind-personal/src/bitcoinrpc.cpp: Add new "getmininginfo" JSON-RPC method, with mining-only fields moved out of "getinfo" http://tinyurl.com/84rrd8d
  71 2012-01-13 00:54:44 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr getmininginfo * r340f0876eabc bitcoind-personal/src/ (bitcoinrpc.cpp main.cpp main.h): collect more info on tx pooling and block finding for getmininginfo http://tinyurl.com/6vkczcy
  72 2012-01-13 00:57:28 BlueMatt has joined
  73 2012-01-13 00:57:46 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: waiting on keepnode fix to rebuild next-test again :p
  74 2012-01-13 00:58:12 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: yea, I could have sworn I had tested it...
  75 2012-01-13 00:58:17 <luke-jr> ;)
  76 2012-01-13 00:58:23 <BlueMatt> In fact I /KNOW/ I built it
  77 2012-01-13 00:58:43 <BlueMatt> but I suppose Im just a dumbass...or my memory is going...
  78 2012-01-13 00:59:03 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  79 2012-01-13 00:59:04 <luke-jr> >_<
  80 2012-01-13 00:59:13 wasabi2 has joined
  81 2012-01-13 00:59:23 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  82 2012-01-13 00:59:30 <luke-jr> src/net.cpp:1381:77: error: invalid initialization of reference of type ‘CService&’ from expression of type ‘std::vector<CAddress>’
  83 2012-01-13 00:59:31 gronager has joined
  84 2012-01-13 01:00:48 <BlueMatt> yea
  85 2012-01-13 01:00:57 dstien_ has joined
  86 2012-01-13 01:01:27 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  87 2012-01-13 01:01:27 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  88 2012-01-13 01:02:15 jarpiain_ has joined
  89 2012-01-13 01:02:36 ByronJoh1son has joined
  90 2012-01-13 01:02:47 brocktic1 has joined
  91 2012-01-13 01:03:00 gmaxwell_ has joined
  92 2012-01-13 01:03:12 Moredrea1 has joined
  93 2012-01-13 01:03:40 devrandom has joined
  94 2012-01-13 01:04:44 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
  95 2012-01-13 01:05:03 asherkin_ has joined
  96 2012-01-13 01:05:08 gmaxwell has quit (Disconnected by services)
  97 2012-01-13 01:05:50 gmaxwell_ is now known as gmaxwell
  98 2012-01-13 01:07:47 JStoker_ has joined
  99 2012-01-13 01:08:02 JStoker_ is now known as JStoker
 100 2012-01-13 01:08:02 asherkin_ is now known as asherkin
 101 2012-01-13 01:09:41 magn3ts_ has joined
 102 2012-01-13 01:09:52 magn3ts_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 103 2012-01-13 01:13:47 da2ce7 has joined
 104 2012-01-13 01:14:54 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
 105 2012-01-13 01:15:04 Fnar has joined
 106 2012-01-13 01:17:58 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 107 2012-01-13 01:18:04 sneak has joined
 108 2012-01-13 01:18:04 sneak has quit (Changing host)
 109 2012-01-13 01:18:04 sneak has joined
 110 2012-01-13 01:23:52 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 111 2012-01-13 01:24:19 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 112 2012-01-13 01:29:27 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Kamil Domanski * re4cee05d67f0 gentoo/net-p2p/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-9999.ebuild: net-p2p/libbitcoin-9999: changed src_prepare http://tinyurl.com/73d69jb
 113 2012-01-13 01:29:29 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Kamil Domanski * rd5dc44230dc5 gentoo/ (12 files in 5 dirs): Merge branch 'master' of gitorious.org:bitcoin/gentoo http://tinyurl.com/7h96j9y
 114 2012-01-13 01:29:43 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * rbfeb4593682c /include/bitcoin/bitcoin.hpp: bitcoin.hpp: removed include of bdb backend because installation of this file is conditional http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/libbitcoin.git/commitdiff/bfeb4593682c040fabf580f5abab4dd9bc36a991
 115 2012-01-13 01:29:44 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * ra565a62c89cc / (11 files in 7 dirs): Merge branch 'master' of gitorious.org:libbitcoin/libbitcoin http://tinyurl.com/6wepgrc
 116 2012-01-13 01:31:42 topace has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
 117 2012-01-13 01:31:53 topace has joined
 118 2012-01-13 01:32:10 topace has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 119 2012-01-13 01:42:58 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 120 2012-01-13 01:55:58 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 121 2012-01-13 02:01:08 roconnor has joined
 122 2012-01-13 02:06:18 Gnaffel has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 123 2012-01-13 02:10:47 sacarlson has joined
 124 2012-01-13 02:11:18 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 125 2012-01-13 02:12:27 devrandom has joined
 126 2012-01-13 02:20:07 eldentyrell has joined
 127 2012-01-13 02:23:36 DaQatz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 128 2012-01-13 02:24:02 DaQatz has joined
 129 2012-01-13 02:24:16 dvide_ has quit ()
 130 2012-01-13 02:24:50 Karmaon has joined
 131 2012-01-13 02:30:45 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 132 2012-01-13 02:34:48 pigeons has joined
 133 2012-01-13 02:39:44 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * r98cb4b236f31 /include/bitcoin/types.hpp: 8-bit port number? ooops... http://tinyurl.com/7dpzmhu
 134 2012-01-13 02:39:44 TripleSpeeder has joined
 135 2012-01-13 02:41:39 eldentyrell has quit (Quit: eldentyrell)
 136 2012-01-13 02:42:00 eldentyrell has joined
 137 2012-01-13 02:42:40 eldentyrell has quit (Client Quit)
 138 2012-01-13 02:42:43 Herbert has quit (3!~kvirc@ppp-93-104-137-47.dynamic.mnet-online.de|Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 139 2012-01-13 02:43:53 eldentyrell has joined
 140 2012-01-13 02:49:40 EPiSKiNG- has joined
 141 2012-01-13 02:52:17 ByronJoh1son is now known as ByronJohnson
 142 2012-01-13 02:52:18 eldentyrell has quit (Quit: eldentyrell)
 143 2012-01-13 02:56:04 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 144 2012-01-13 02:57:17 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: ok, keepnode rebased
 145 2012-01-13 02:58:26 <BlueMatt> oops, missed one thing
 146 2012-01-13 03:13:40 wasabi1 has joined
 147 2012-01-13 03:13:56 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 148 2012-01-13 03:14:02 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 149 2012-01-13 03:15:25 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: ok, should be good
 150 2012-01-13 03:15:34 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 151 2012-01-13 03:16:55 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 152 2012-01-13 03:17:26 [7] has joined
 153 2012-01-13 03:31:31 Wizzleby has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 154 2012-01-13 03:36:30 Wizzleby has joined
 155 2012-01-13 03:44:03 jacobwg has joined
 156 2012-01-13 03:47:50 wizkid057 is now known as out!~wizkid057@c-71-226-219-178.hsd1.nj.comcast.net|wizkid057
 157 2012-01-13 03:48:09 pavel has joined
 158 2012-01-13 03:51:58 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 159 2012-01-13 03:54:40 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 160 2012-01-13 03:57:48 pickett has joined
 161 2012-01-13 04:01:30 osmosis has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 162 2012-01-13 04:04:04 osmosis has joined
 163 2012-01-13 04:07:05 b4epoche_ has joined
 164 2012-01-13 04:08:01 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 165 2012-01-13 04:08:01 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 166 2012-01-13 04:12:47 egecko has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
 167 2012-01-13 04:14:06 wasabi3 has joined
 168 2012-01-13 04:15:08 <devrandom> BlueMatt: I'm building 0.5.2... I hear you are too?
 169 2012-01-13 04:15:45 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 170 2012-01-13 04:17:42 <luke-jr> devrandom: BlueMatt did days ago :P
 171 2012-01-13 04:18:00 copumpkin has joined
 172 2012-01-13 04:18:09 <devrandom> luke-jr: but he didn't publish his signature in the usual place?
 173 2012-01-13 04:18:59 pavel has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 174 2012-01-13 04:22:14 <luke-jr> dunno
 175 2012-01-13 04:23:40 rdponticelli has joined
 176 2012-01-13 04:23:49 JimRogers has joined
 177 2012-01-13 04:26:40 jacobwg has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 178 2012-01-13 04:26:51 egecko has joined
 179 2012-01-13 04:29:16 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 180 2012-01-13 04:30:47 pavel has joined
 181 2012-01-13 04:33:44 roconnor has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 182 2012-01-13 04:37:07 wizkid057 has quit (Disconnected by services)
 183 2012-01-13 04:37:30 wizkid057_ has joined
 184 2012-01-13 04:50:39 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
 185 2012-01-13 05:02:09 jarpiain_ is now known as jarpiain
 186 2012-01-13 05:07:01 <devrandom> luke-jr, BlueMatt: 0.5.2 signature uploaded - https://github.com/bitcoin/gitian.sigs/tree/master/0.5.2/devrandom
 187 2012-01-13 05:07:12 kiba has joined
 188 2012-01-13 05:07:22 <devrandom> and a second build matched the first
 189 2012-01-13 05:07:30 <kiba> I heard luke-jr issued solidcoin some DMCA takedown
 190 2012-01-13 05:09:19 <kiba> I hate the fucking drama that circulate around bitcoin these days
 191 2012-01-13 05:09:25 hexTech has joined
 192 2012-01-13 05:14:34 wasabi1 has joined
 193 2012-01-13 05:14:34 barmstrong has joined
 194 2012-01-13 05:16:21 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 195 2012-01-13 05:21:43 btc_novice has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 196 2012-01-13 05:21:46 <gmaxwell> kiba: thats kinda ot for #bitcoin-dev
 197 2012-01-13 05:21:52 <gmaxwell> This is a drama free zone™.
 198 2012-01-13 05:22:07 <luke-jr> lol
 199 2012-01-13 05:22:37 gmaxwell has quit (Changing host)
 200 2012-01-13 05:22:38 gmaxwell has joined
 201 2012-01-13 05:25:03 toffoo has quit ()
 202 2012-01-13 05:35:20 <BlueMatt> devrandom: I havent built 0.5.2, only 0.5.2rc1, though it got renamed to final, so no I never got around to uploading my sigs
 203 2012-01-13 05:35:32 <BlueMatt> devrandom: Ill probably do that tomorrow
 204 2012-01-13 05:38:22 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 205 2012-01-13 05:39:58 WakiMiko has joined
 206 2012-01-13 05:41:59 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: would the version affect the sigs at all?
 207 2012-01-13 05:48:53 Transisto has joined
 208 2012-01-13 05:48:59 Transisto has quit (Client Quit)
 209 2012-01-13 05:50:12 pigeons has left ()
 210 2012-01-13 05:51:53 coingenuity has left ()
 211 2012-01-13 05:52:09 Transisto has joined
 212 2012-01-13 05:54:19 <nanobyte> Have a good one, thanks for the interesting read
 213 2012-01-13 05:54:28 nanobyte has quit ()
 214 2012-01-13 05:59:42 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 215 2012-01-13 06:00:36 luke-jr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 216 2012-01-13 06:02:34 luke-jr has joined
 217 2012-01-13 06:06:33 Karmaon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 218 2012-01-13 06:08:09 Karmaon has joined
 219 2012-01-13 06:08:39 pavel has quit (Disconnected by services)
 220 2012-01-13 06:08:59 luke-jr has joined
 221 2012-01-13 06:09:01 pavel_ has joined
 222 2012-01-13 06:16:56 JimRogers has quit (Quit: JimRogers)
 223 2012-01-13 06:38:05 osmosis has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 224 2012-01-13 06:50:22 the_batman has joined
 225 2012-01-13 06:54:10 Visalleras has joined
 226 2012-01-13 06:59:32 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 227 2012-01-13 06:59:37 hexTech has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 228 2012-01-13 07:00:14 enquirer has joined
 229 2012-01-13 07:01:57 RobinPKR has joined
 230 2012-01-13 07:02:52 devrandom has joined
 231 2012-01-13 07:07:42 Transisto has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 232 2012-01-13 07:07:52 RazielZ has joined
 233 2012-01-13 07:08:47 Transisto has joined
 234 2012-01-13 07:11:37 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 235 2012-01-13 07:14:33 enquirer has joined
 236 2012-01-13 07:15:23 wasabi3 has joined
 237 2012-01-13 07:17:31 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 238 2012-01-13 07:19:46 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 239 2012-01-13 07:21:26 enquirer has joined
 240 2012-01-13 07:24:27 marf_away has joined
 241 2012-01-13 07:24:58 sacarlson has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 242 2012-01-13 07:36:30 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 243 2012-01-13 07:46:28 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 244 2012-01-13 07:47:45 gronager has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 245 2012-01-13 07:54:18 glisignoli has joined
 246 2012-01-13 07:56:00 <glisignoli> Evening! I have a quick question. I'm running bitcoind and just trying to get my head around how it works. Does it create a "wallet" to store my bitcoins in, or do I have to already have a wallet and tell bitcoind what it is?
 247 2012-01-13 07:57:51 <gmaxwell> glisignoli: bitcoin creates a wallet for you (stored in wallet.dat) when you start it.
 248 2012-01-13 08:02:56 <glisignoli> gmaxwell: Ah ok. Yep I see that now (in ~/.bitcoin). So When I do "bitcoin getnewaddress" that generates a new address for me to send bitcoins to?
 249 2012-01-13 08:03:08 <gmaxwell> Correct.
 250 2012-01-13 08:03:18 <glisignoli> excellent
 251 2012-01-13 08:03:32 <glisignoli> So how do the different accounts work?
 252 2012-01-13 08:03:36 <gmaxwell> Make sure to make periodic backups of your wallet (backwallet command).
 253 2012-01-13 08:03:48 <gmaxwell> glisignoli: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Accounts_explained
 254 2012-01-13 08:03:55 <glisignoli> Ah thanks!
 255 2012-01-13 08:06:55 eldentyrell has joined
 256 2012-01-13 08:10:28 <luke-jr> glisignoli: the accounts are merely a client-side abstraction for convenience
 257 2012-01-13 08:11:28 <glisignoli> ah ok cool
 258 2012-01-13 08:12:07 <glisignoli> One more question, is there a command to check for new incomming transaction?
 259 2012-01-13 08:12:15 <glisignoli> I don't know if thats correct or now
 260 2012-01-13 08:12:24 <glisignoli> or can I only check my balance?
 261 2012-01-13 08:13:03 <luke-jr> listtransactions
 262 2012-01-13 08:13:19 <glisignoli> ah awesome
 263 2012-01-13 08:13:28 <glisignoli> ok I think that will be enough to get me going for now
 264 2012-01-13 08:18:37 b4epoche_ has joined
 265 2012-01-13 08:19:34 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 266 2012-01-13 08:19:35 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 267 2012-01-13 08:22:00 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 268 2012-01-13 08:22:32 copumpkin has joined
 269 2012-01-13 08:23:17 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 270 2012-01-13 08:23:21 luke-jr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 271 2012-01-13 08:23:38 luke-jr has joined
 272 2012-01-13 08:24:07 larsivi has joined
 273 2012-01-13 08:24:08 molecular has joined
 274 2012-01-13 08:26:43 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 275 2012-01-13 08:35:37 abragin has joined
 276 2012-01-13 08:35:37 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 277 2012-01-13 08:35:37 abragin has joined
 278 2012-01-13 08:50:38 gronager has joined
 279 2012-01-13 08:52:01 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
 280 2012-01-13 08:54:28 <UukGoblin> piuk hasn't replied to email
 281 2012-01-13 08:58:04 hexTech has joined
 282 2012-01-13 09:09:39 ThomasV_afk is now known as ThomasV
 283 2012-01-13 09:10:54 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 284 2012-01-13 09:11:11 molecular has joined
 285 2012-01-13 09:43:58 devrandom has joined
 286 2012-01-13 09:52:15 traviscj has joined
 287 2012-01-13 09:54:29 hexTech has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 288 2012-01-13 09:57:06 hexTech has joined
 289 2012-01-13 10:05:53 enquirer_ has joined
 290 2012-01-13 10:05:53 enquirer_ has quit (Excess Flood)
 291 2012-01-13 10:06:38 Joric has joined
 292 2012-01-13 10:07:04 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 293 2012-01-13 10:07:35 darkee has joined
 294 2012-01-13 10:08:16 enquirer has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 295 2012-01-13 10:10:19 darkee has joined
 296 2012-01-13 10:13:20 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 297 2012-01-13 10:19:41 eldentyrell has quit (Quit: eldentyrell)
 298 2012-01-13 10:21:33 erle- has joined
 299 2012-01-13 10:27:27 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 300 2012-01-13 10:27:33 sneak has joined
 301 2012-01-13 10:27:33 sneak has quit (Changing host)
 302 2012-01-13 10:27:33 sneak has joined
 303 2012-01-13 10:40:22 wizkid057_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 304 2012-01-13 10:43:15 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 305 2012-01-13 10:45:33 wizkid057 has joined
 306 2012-01-13 10:45:50 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 307 2012-01-13 10:49:03 heoa has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 308 2012-01-13 10:52:08 Zarutian has joined
 309 2012-01-13 10:52:18 booo has joined
 310 2012-01-13 11:04:07 slush has joined
 311 2012-01-13 11:04:33 MobiusL has joined
 312 2012-01-13 11:10:04 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 313 2012-01-13 11:12:38 iocor has joined
 314 2012-01-13 11:16:08 wizkid057_ has joined
 315 2012-01-13 11:19:20 wizkid057 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 316 2012-01-13 11:19:59 wizkid057 has joined
 317 2012-01-13 11:20:22 wizkid057_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 318 2012-01-13 11:22:36 slush has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 319 2012-01-13 11:40:54 darkee is now known as !~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|darkee
 320 2012-01-13 11:41:54 Tuxavant has quit (Quit: Disconnecting from stoned server.)
 321 2012-01-13 11:42:00 Tuxavant has joined
 322 2012-01-13 11:42:16 BGL has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 323 2012-01-13 11:46:30 hexTech has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 324 2012-01-13 11:47:52 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 325 2012-01-13 12:05:39 diki has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 326 2012-01-13 12:06:04 diki has joined
 327 2012-01-13 12:13:04 BGL has joined
 328 2012-01-13 12:17:39 plutonic has joined
 329 2012-01-13 12:24:05 <Eliel> glisignoli: about getnewaddress, it does give you a new unused address, however, it doesn't create it on the spot. Instead, it takes an address from a reserve of 100 addresses, gives you that and replaces the reserve address with a new one it just generated.
 330 2012-01-13 12:24:49 <Eliel> glisignoli: this is to allow backuped wallets to have some future proofing so you don't need to take a new backup every time you give out an address.
 331 2012-01-13 12:29:38 b4epoche_ has joined
 332 2012-01-13 12:30:22 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 333 2012-01-13 12:30:22 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 334 2012-01-13 12:37:28 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 335 2012-01-13 12:38:42 MobiusL has joined
 336 2012-01-13 12:40:48 ovidiusoft has joined
 337 2012-01-13 12:42:45 vigilyn2 has joined
 338 2012-01-13 12:43:48 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 339 2012-01-13 12:43:57 heoa has joined
 340 2012-01-13 12:45:37 vigilyn has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 341 2012-01-13 12:46:11 vigilyn2 is now known as vigilyn
 342 2012-01-13 12:50:38 booo has joined
 343 2012-01-13 13:03:36 rdponticelli has joined
 344 2012-01-13 13:04:13 heoa has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 345 2012-01-13 13:08:10 Diablo-D3 has joined
 346 2012-01-13 13:21:08 iocor_ has joined
 347 2012-01-13 13:21:42 iocor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 348 2012-01-13 13:24:15 plutonic has quit (Quit: plutonic)
 349 2012-01-13 13:25:05 minimoose has joined
 350 2012-01-13 13:25:05 Guest10021 has joined
 351 2012-01-13 13:28:31 dvide has joined
 352 2012-01-13 13:30:09 Guest10021 has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
 353 2012-01-13 13:30:23 datagutt_ has joined
 354 2012-01-13 13:33:50 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
 355 2012-01-13 13:34:05 OneFixt_ has joined
 356 2012-01-13 13:34:19 Nick_ has joined
 357 2012-01-13 13:34:30 sgstair has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 358 2012-01-13 13:34:41 Nick_ is now known as Guest74515
 359 2012-01-13 13:34:48 sgstair has joined
 360 2012-01-13 13:34:49 ForceMajeure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 361 2012-01-13 13:35:59 ForceMajeure has joined
 362 2012-01-13 13:36:26 ForceMajeure is now known as Guest20821
 363 2012-01-13 13:36:56 rdponticelli_ has joined
 364 2012-01-13 13:37:26 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 365 2012-01-13 13:37:46 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 366 2012-01-13 13:37:47 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 367 2012-01-13 13:41:05 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 368 2012-01-13 13:42:03 hexTech has joined
 369 2012-01-13 13:50:47 rdponticelli has joined
 370 2012-01-13 13:51:24 rdponticelli_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 371 2012-01-13 13:54:00 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 372 2012-01-13 13:54:50 darkee has joined
 373 2012-01-13 14:01:05 vigilyn has left ("Leaving")
 374 2012-01-13 14:06:01 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
 375 2012-01-13 14:10:52 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 376 2012-01-13 14:15:51 datagutt_ is now known as datagutt
 377 2012-01-13 14:18:37 wasabi1 has joined
 378 2012-01-13 14:20:02 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 379 2012-01-13 14:22:47 roconnor has joined
 380 2012-01-13 14:23:26 <helo> Eliel: that's not entirely correct iirc... it only generates new addresses once you run out of pre-generated ones, at which point it refills the pool
 381 2012-01-13 14:23:50 antix has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 382 2012-01-13 14:25:29 gavinandresen has joined
 383 2012-01-13 14:27:04 <gmaxwell> helo: Thats not correct. It continually generates addresses to keep the pool full when it can*.
 384 2012-01-13 14:27:20 <gmaxwell> *[can is subject to the wallet being unlocked, if you're using wallet encryption]
 385 2012-01-13 14:27:41 <gmaxwell> helo: if it did not then you'd constantly be at risk of data loss.
 386 2012-01-13 14:28:12 <gmaxwell> (because you might backup one key before it did it's refill and then the next key you go wouldn't be in your backup)
 387 2012-01-13 14:28:48 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 388 2012-01-13 14:31:47 antix has joined
 389 2012-01-13 14:32:27 pavel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 390 2012-01-13 14:34:08 heoa has joined
 391 2012-01-13 14:40:32 <helo> so when you revert to your backup the new ones that were generated since the backup are lost, but that's ok since they were never shown?
 392 2012-01-13 14:41:32 heoa has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 393 2012-01-13 14:42:01 AAA_awright has joined
 394 2012-01-13 14:43:11 heoa has joined
 395 2012-01-13 14:45:14 Hunner has joined
 396 2012-01-13 14:45:35 <helo> it would be nice if the client could keep track of which pool addresses were created after the last backup, and display a warning when giving out addresses that haven't been backed up
 397 2012-01-13 14:46:06 <gmaxwell> correct.
 398 2012-01-13 14:46:27 <gmaxwell> helo: thats hard, because it could only work if you only used backupwallet as your backup method.
 399 2012-01-13 14:46:45 <gmaxwell> If you backed up the wallet file directly it wouldn't know
 400 2012-01-13 14:56:12 JimRogers has joined
 401 2012-01-13 14:57:27 heoa has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 402 2012-01-13 15:01:32 Guest20821 is now known as ForceMajeure
 403 2012-01-13 15:01:48 ForceMajeure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 404 2012-01-13 15:02:16 ForceMajeure has joined
 405 2012-01-13 15:04:01 gronager has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 406 2012-01-13 15:09:01 heoa has joined
 407 2012-01-13 15:10:31 Cablesaurus has joined
 408 2012-01-13 15:10:32 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
 409 2012-01-13 15:10:32 Cablesaurus has joined
 410 2012-01-13 15:12:03 <gavinandresen> Is the CIA bot really slow or was it turned off?  I pulled into master a while ago...
 411 2012-01-13 15:17:30 heoa has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 412 2012-01-13 15:27:25 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 413 2012-01-13 15:29:35 cronopio has joined
 414 2012-01-13 15:39:46 gronager has joined
 415 2012-01-13 15:44:49 torsthaldo has joined
 416 2012-01-13 15:51:09 <nanotube> see, if gribble was still doing the whole feed, you'd have seen it :)
 417 2012-01-13 15:57:34 jacobwg has joined
 418 2012-01-13 16:01:59 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 419 2012-01-13 16:04:29 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Download IceChat at www.icechat.net)
 420 2012-01-13 16:06:35 sacarlson has joined
 421 2012-01-13 16:07:00 jacobwg has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
 422 2012-01-13 16:07:04 da2ce7 has joined
 423 2012-01-13 16:07:08 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
 424 2012-01-13 16:08:24 copumpkin has joined
 425 2012-01-13 16:10:58 wasabi2 has joined
 426 2012-01-13 16:11:52 antix has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 427 2012-01-13 16:13:20 james has joined
 428 2012-01-13 16:13:32 antix has joined
 429 2012-01-13 16:13:38 james is now known as Guest40341
 430 2012-01-13 16:14:48 torsthaldo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 431 2012-01-13 16:23:06 heoa has joined
 432 2012-01-13 16:23:50 da2ce7 has quit (2!~da2ce7@gateway/tor-sasl/da2ce7|Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
 433 2012-01-13 16:36:26 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 434 2012-01-13 16:41:57 b4epoche_ has joined
 435 2012-01-13 16:43:02 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 436 2012-01-13 16:43:02 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 437 2012-01-13 16:56:52 <helo> what if some group decided to use bitcoin for an election? each person receives a private/public keypair with 0.00500001 (1 satoshi for vote, 0.005 for fee) btc to spend to the address representing the person they are voting for
 438 2012-01-13 16:57:47 <helo> obviously devs would discourage this as it would contribute to blockchain bloat
 439 2012-01-13 16:58:58 <Diablo-D3> helo: it'd be easier to just use an altchain for that
 440 2012-01-13 16:59:39 <helo> wouldn't hashpower/visibility be a problem?
 441 2012-01-13 16:59:55 <helo> anyone can get on bitcoin's network and grab the blockchain to verify anything
 442 2012-01-13 17:00:02 <UukGoblin> helo, what about intimidation, someone could easily force you to vote for someone
 443 2012-01-13 17:00:09 <Diablo-D3> helo: not quite
 444 2012-01-13 17:00:15 <Diablo-D3> helo: if you require merged mining, its fine
 445 2012-01-13 17:00:21 <helo> UukGoblin: nobody would be able to tell who anyone else voted for, so you could say you voted for whoever
 446 2012-01-13 17:00:47 is4tomj has joined
 447 2012-01-13 17:01:17 <lianj> bitcoin is not anonymous to that extend
 448 2012-01-13 17:01:21 <helo> the public keys of all accounts that were given out to voters could be published in a central place
 449 2012-01-13 17:01:53 <helo> it would be pretty difficult to tell who everyone voted for, but it might be possible to figure out who some voted for
 450 2012-01-13 17:01:55 <Diablo-D3> helo: a bitcoin-like system can be used for this
 451 2012-01-13 17:01:57 <UukGoblin> people could run DPI to check who voted who
 452 2012-01-13 17:02:02 <Diablo-D3> but what you'd do is hand out preloaded wallet.dats
 453 2012-01-13 17:02:07 <Diablo-D3> that have exactly one key in it
 454 2012-01-13 17:02:11 <Diablo-D3> and 1 votecoin
 455 2012-01-13 17:02:23 <helo> how could you get bitcoin miners to merge-mine it?
 456 2012-01-13 17:02:33 <helo> what incentive would be in it for them?
 457 2012-01-13 17:02:34 <Diablo-D3> have the "vote machines" merge mine it.
 458 2012-01-13 17:02:34 <UukGoblin> helo, also, if public keys were published, an intimidator could force you to show him what key you got
 459 2012-01-13 17:02:41 <Diablo-D3> helo: merged mining isnt about incentive
 460 2012-01-13 17:02:48 <Diablo-D3> lets say I merged mine btc and nmc
 461 2012-01-13 17:02:48 <helo> UukGoblin: hmm good point
 462 2012-01-13 17:02:55 <Diablo-D3> my card does 400 mhash
 463 2012-01-13 17:03:03 <Diablo-D3> 400 mhash goes to btc, 400 mhash goes to nmc
 464 2012-01-13 17:03:06 <UukGoblin> and I'm not sure why a chain is needed there at all
 465 2012-01-13 17:03:26 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: it technically isnt, but it'd allow a confirmed cryptographically signed vote.
 466 2012-01-13 17:03:51 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, you could just as well give people keys and get them to submit votes to a central server
 467 2012-01-13 17:03:53 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin is a cyrpto logging system.
 468 2012-01-13 17:03:58 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: true, but the problem is
 469 2012-01-13 17:03:59 <Diablo-D3> people dont
 470 2012-01-13 17:04:05 <Diablo-D3> they go to physical places and vote on machines
 471 2012-01-13 17:04:09 <Diablo-D3> instead of just doing it over the internet
 472 2012-01-13 17:04:14 <Diablo-D3> Im thinking big picture here
 473 2012-01-13 17:04:18 <helo> so either let people vote at a central location with voting machines, or let them vote at home (or abroad)
 474 2012-01-13 17:04:19 <lianj> which is a good thing
 475 2012-01-13 17:04:32 <Diablo-D3> lianj: nope, the machines are broken
 476 2012-01-13 17:04:38 <Diablo-D3> they do not verify anything
 477 2012-01-13 17:04:45 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, I was thinking about an internet-only voting system that would have all the properties of physical systems, and figured it's either very hard or impossible
 478 2012-01-13 17:04:51 <Diablo-D3> they dont verify the person is the person, they dont verify that they didnt vote somewhere else earlier
 479 2012-01-13 17:04:57 <Diablo-D3> they dont even protect the integrity of the votes
 480 2012-01-13 17:04:57 <lianj> most voting machines are broken aswell, even worse
 481 2012-01-13 17:05:05 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: its not impossible
 482 2012-01-13 17:05:12 is4tomj has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 483 2012-01-13 17:05:14 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 484 2012-01-13 17:05:22 <Diablo-D3> use a centralized authority that sends a physical key out
 485 2012-01-13 17:05:31 <Diablo-D3> and then type the number into a browser
 486 2012-01-13 17:05:33 <Diablo-D3> it is use once
 487 2012-01-13 17:05:51 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, how do you prevent someone with a gun from forcing your vote?
 488 2012-01-13 17:05:54 <Diablo-D3> you can use a bitcoin-like system to synchronize and secure the servers running the system
 489 2012-01-13 17:06:07 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: nothing, that is done in every election
 490 2012-01-13 17:06:14 <UukGoblin> no.
 491 2012-01-13 17:06:15 <Diablo-D3> example: "vote for this guy or you're fired"
 492 2012-01-13 17:06:21 <Diablo-D3> yes, it IS done.
 493 2012-01-13 17:06:25 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, but they can't verify it
 494 2012-01-13 17:06:30 <helo> only if you go into a safe isolated place to vote can they prevent vote-forcing
 495 2012-01-13 17:06:30 <UukGoblin> you can just lie
 496 2012-01-13 17:06:37 <Diablo-D3> if the guy doesnt win, they fire a few people randomly.
 497 2012-01-13 17:06:51 <UukGoblin> pfft.
 498 2012-01-13 17:07:10 <Diablo-D3> idont pfft me, rich people are dangerous terrorists
 499 2012-01-13 17:07:27 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: anyhow, even if they put a gun to my head
 500 2012-01-13 17:07:29 <Diablo-D3> Im one vote
 501 2012-01-13 17:07:31 <Diablo-D3> out of millions
 502 2012-01-13 17:07:43 <Diablo-D3> vote fraud doesnt happen on the small scale
 503 2012-01-13 17:07:48 <Diablo-D3> it happens on the large scale
 504 2012-01-13 17:07:59 <UukGoblin> there's over 2 million north koreans in active military :-)
 505 2012-01-13 17:08:13 <Diablo-D3> like those tens of thousands of al gore votes they found at a bottom of a lake in florida
 506 2012-01-13 17:08:18 <Diablo-D3> thats how you do it.
 507 2012-01-13 17:08:20 <helo> putting up a request for merge-mining if there is no reward given to those who expend the effort to do implement it seems in vain
 508 2012-01-13 17:08:27 devrandom has joined
 509 2012-01-13 17:08:28 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, sure.
 510 2012-01-13 17:08:35 <Diablo-D3> and no
 511 2012-01-13 17:08:41 <Diablo-D3> north korea does not have an active military
 512 2012-01-13 17:08:46 <UukGoblin> no doubt there's lots of bullshit around voting as it is done
 513 2012-01-13 17:08:48 <Diablo-D3> they have a forced slave labor camp.
 514 2012-01-13 17:08:59 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: bullshit will always happen
 515 2012-01-13 17:09:02 <Diablo-D3> the trick is to minimize it.
 516 2012-01-13 17:09:03 <UukGoblin> but you can't duplicate a system that'll have all the theoretical advantages of a physical one
 517 2012-01-13 17:09:15 <Diablo-D3> the physical ELEECTRONIC one has none
 518 2012-01-13 17:09:20 <Diablo-D3> and dont pretend it does.
 519 2012-01-13 17:09:25 <UukGoblin> ah, physical electronic, fine
 520 2012-01-13 17:09:29 <UukGoblin> but that's not vote-from-home
 521 2012-01-13 17:09:37 <Diablo-D3> no, but thats what Im bitching about
 522 2012-01-13 17:09:48 <Diablo-D3> I want that entire system replaced with a cryptographically secured one.
 523 2012-01-13 17:10:00 antix has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 524 2012-01-13 17:10:02 <UukGoblin> ah
 525 2012-01-13 17:10:03 <Diablo-D3> a bitcoin-like system would prevent vote fraud largely.
 526 2012-01-13 17:10:03 <UukGoblin> right
 527 2012-01-13 17:10:18 <UukGoblin> you still don't need bitcoin or chains at all
 528 2012-01-13 17:10:25 <Diablo-D3> even if you tamper with the system, every single vote machine in the US, all hundreds of thousands of them, would already know how someone voted
 529 2012-01-13 17:10:29 <Diablo-D3> see above
 530 2012-01-13 17:10:35 <helo> what if you'd go into the physical voting place, and vote as usual on their machines (which would be running bitcoin), and they'd print out the public key used to place your vote for you to verify later against the blockchain?
 531 2012-01-13 17:10:50 <helo> so it would be exactly as it is now, just verifiable for each individual
 532 2012-01-13 17:10:54 <luke-jr> how about just get rid of voting?
 533 2012-01-13 17:10:58 <Diablo-D3> helo: having reciepts alone would stop a lot of fraud
 534 2012-01-13 17:11:15 <UukGoblin> +1 for luke-jr
 535 2012-01-13 17:11:19 <Diablo-D3> machines currently do not print reciepts, or they dont print useful ones
 536 2012-01-13 17:11:23 <Diablo-D3> -1 luke
 537 2012-01-13 17:11:28 <Diablo-D3> its how our country is ran
 538 2012-01-13 17:11:34 <luke-jr> unfortunately.
 539 2012-01-13 17:11:36 <Diablo-D3> if you want to go live in china, then go ahead, move
 540 2012-01-13 17:11:39 <UukGoblin> helo, there's already good electronic voting systems developed
 541 2012-01-13 17:11:39 <luke-jr> that can change, though!
 542 2012-01-13 17:11:47 <lianj> Diablo-D3: vote by paper
 543 2012-01-13 17:11:54 <luke-jr> vote to end voting!
 544 2012-01-13 17:11:55 is4tomj has joined
 545 2012-01-13 17:11:55 <Diablo-D3> lianj: thats what I recommend people do
 546 2012-01-13 17:11:58 <helo> UukGoblin: where each voter can independantly verify their vote?
 547 2012-01-13 17:12:02 <UukGoblin> helo, yes
 548 2012-01-13 17:12:04 <Diablo-D3> lianj: every place has to offer paper votes in most states
 549 2012-01-13 17:12:07 <Diablo-D3> if they don't, sue
 550 2012-01-13 17:12:27 <helo> UukGoblin: so the ones we use aren't like that because we suck? :)
 551 2012-01-13 17:12:29 <lianj> we have that in germany
 552 2012-01-13 17:12:33 <luke-jr> if you really want voting, at least let people vote per candidate.
 553 2012-01-13 17:12:35 <Diablo-D3> we dont here
 554 2012-01-13 17:12:44 <Diablo-D3> otherwise bush would retroactively not be president
 555 2012-01-13 17:12:58 <UukGoblin> helo, not sure what we use
 556 2012-01-13 17:12:59 <luke-jr> so people can say "I don't like any of these jerks, but I like Obama a whole lot less than the rest" ;)
 557 2012-01-13 17:13:02 <UukGoblin> but quite likely so
 558 2012-01-13 17:13:22 <Diablo-D3> the government keeps saying such a system is unfeasable
 559 2012-01-13 17:13:31 <helo> what would keep someone from bloating up the blockchain with scenarios like this?
 560 2012-01-13 17:13:38 booo has joined
 561 2012-01-13 17:13:41 <Diablo-D3> yet the banking system processes that many transactions a day, every day, all year long.
 562 2012-01-13 17:13:41 <lianj> voting machines have been proven to easily tamper with, thats why german state and other eu states abandoned them
 563 2012-01-13 17:13:49 <helo> seems like starting an altchain would require a lot more work, and wouldn't work well for multiple uses, etc
 564 2012-01-13 17:13:55 <Diablo-D3> lianj: you cant tamper with EVERY SINGLE MACHINE
 565 2012-01-13 17:14:00 <Diablo-D3> which is why you'd run an altchain
 566 2012-01-13 17:14:03 <UukGoblin> helo, I saw one where you got a transparent film with a printout of some random dots, a website would show you some other random dots, and when you put the film over the screen it'd show something to verify your vote
 567 2012-01-13 17:14:11 <Diablo-D3> every single machine would tell every other single machine the entire voting record thus far
 568 2012-01-13 17:14:36 <Diablo-D3> if you tamper with it, it wouldnt matter
 569 2012-01-13 17:14:36 <lianj> Diablo-D3: yes, full ack on a real crypto voting sytem. but most uses ones today are just blackboxes
 570 2012-01-13 17:14:46 <Diablo-D3> lianj: this is what Im bitching about,
 571 2012-01-13 17:14:49 <Diablo-D3> get up to speed ;)
 572 2012-01-13 17:15:01 <luke-jr> on topic…
 573 2012-01-13 17:15:09 <lianj> stop bitching, fix it
 574 2012-01-13 17:15:11 <luke-jr> anything we can do about all this "green address" spam?
 575 2012-01-13 17:15:26 tower has joined
 576 2012-01-13 17:15:29 <UukGoblin> what's "green address"?
 577 2012-01-13 17:16:02 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: MtGox and DeepBit are apparently adding an extra input/output to every transaction to flag "this is from me. you should trust me with 0 confirms"
 578 2012-01-13 17:16:14 theymos has joined
 579 2012-01-13 17:16:15 <helo> where i'm getting at is: how would bitcion handle being perverted for uses such as this?
 580 2012-01-13 17:16:19 <theymos>  /join #bitcoin-otc
 581 2012-01-13 17:17:13 <Diablo-D3> lianj: cant fix it
 582 2012-01-13 17:17:24 <Diablo-D3> people have repeatedly came up with fuck-proof voting machines
 583 2012-01-13 17:17:34 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, ah, cool
 584 2012-01-13 17:17:52 <helo> it seems blockchain bloat is going to happen, and there's nothing that can be done to stop it... miners will just become more fee-hungry over time
 585 2012-01-13 17:18:07 user__jjh has joined
 586 2012-01-13 17:18:15 <UukGoblin> I think what we should do with it is provide a way for a regular user to put whatever data he wants alongside with a transaction and consider it standard practice, rather than spam
 587 2012-01-13 17:18:20 <UukGoblin> imho.
 588 2012-01-13 17:18:23 <helo> right...
 589 2012-01-13 17:18:32 antix has joined
 590 2012-01-13 17:18:39 <UukGoblin> well, imo, it's not that humble.
 591 2012-01-13 17:19:14 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: not in the blockchain
 592 2012-01-13 17:19:20 <UukGoblin> standardizing it would make it less painful.
 593 2012-01-13 17:19:23 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: out-of-band, like email or IM
 594 2012-01-13 17:19:52 Visalleras has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 595 2012-01-13 17:20:20 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 596 2012-01-13 17:20:31 <helo> "keep the blockchain small" vs "let everyone submit things to the blockchain"
 597 2012-01-13 17:21:07 <helo> as long as the latter is possible, the former will not be
 598 2012-01-13 17:21:42 <UukGoblin> if you provide a standardized way to put it, you'll have an easy life of removing it
 599 2012-01-13 17:22:20 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: yes, that's why I'm trying to get signmessage stuff merged…
 600 2012-01-13 17:22:24 <UukGoblin> just prune it like a spent output
 601 2012-01-13 17:22:42 <luke-jr> you send your txn, then copy a base64 string as "proof of payment" to a website or something
 602 2012-01-13 17:22:43 <theymos> Data put in scriptSigs can be pruned immediately without protocol extensions.
 603 2012-01-13 17:22:53 <luke-jr> theymos: not by full nodes
 604 2012-01-13 17:23:08 <theymos> Why?
 605 2012-01-13 17:23:32 <sipa> because full nodes need to be able to provide the entire blockchain to those who ask
 606 2012-01-13 17:23:33 <Joric> i was always wondering how bitcoinj handles blocks they're smaller aren't they
 607 2012-01-13 17:23:38 <sipa> that is how they are defined
 608 2012-01-13 17:24:03 <sipa> you can have almost-full-nodes which verify everything, but do not advertize as NODE_NETWORK, which prune
 609 2012-01-13 17:24:26 <sipa> such an almost-full-node is sufficient for a miner, but the network still needs full nodes
 610 2012-01-13 17:24:58 <sipa> luke-jr: why not just send the transaction itself to the website?
 611 2012-01-13 17:25:30 <sipa> a proof of payment may be useful, but to me, just providing the transaction itself is a far superior solution
 612 2012-01-13 17:25:52 <sipa> (which requires more work still, true)
 613 2012-01-13 17:25:59 Cablesaurus has joined
 614 2012-01-13 17:25:59 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
 615 2012-01-13 17:25:59 Cablesaurus has joined
 616 2012-01-13 17:27:43 <UukGoblin> sipa, imho, whenever someone needs access to a transaction that's pruned by almost-full-nodes, they should just provide it themselves
 617 2012-01-13 17:28:02 <UukGoblin> i.e. if you care about shit you put in blockchain being accessible, you host it yourself
 618 2012-01-13 17:28:10 <sipa> UukGoblin: nobody should ever need access to a pruned transaction
 619 2012-01-13 17:28:21 <sipa> but the protocol cannot live without non-pruning nodes
 620 2012-01-13 17:29:42 <UukGoblin> sipa, I'm thinking of a scenario, "txout1: send 1 BTC to address $foo; txout2: message 'for my new teddy bear'". Then almost-full-nodes prune txout2 and leave txout1 (I'm not actually sure if pruning works based on outputs or txns)
 621 2012-01-13 17:30:12 <theymos> Long-term, I don't think anyone in the network really *needs* to know about very old transactions (older than 10,000 blocks, say). Old nodes know that their chain is correct, and new nodes can figure out which chain is correct using some out-of-band method.
 622 2012-01-13 17:30:29 <UukGoblin> however, one year later, a judge asks, "what was that transaction for", and then you provide your own-hosted info about that transaction to prove a claim, "for my then-new teddy bear"
 623 2012-01-13 17:30:48 <phantomcircuit> basically at somepoint you instruct nodes to simply assume transactions far enough back in the blockchain are valid
 624 2012-01-13 17:30:49 user__jjh has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 625 2012-01-13 17:31:03 <sipa> UukGoblin: of course, for non-protocol-related matters, but that is no problem, you keep the transaction itself, if you are legally obliged to
 626 2012-01-13 17:31:20 <luke-jr> sipa: can you pull https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/755 ?
 627 2012-01-13 17:31:59 <sipa> luke-jr: i'd like gavin's comments on that first
 628 2012-01-13 17:32:18 rdponticelli has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 629 2012-01-13 17:32:19 <luke-jr> sipa: I don't like Gavin forcing people to vote for things they reject.
 630 2012-01-13 17:33:14 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened pull request 755 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/755>
 631 2012-01-13 17:33:36 <luke-jr> that's hardly a vote
 632 2012-01-13 17:34:38 <CIA-100> bitcoin: various explicit_p2sh * redccb1..a1de57 bitcoind-personal/src/ (32 files in 2 dirs): (8 commits) http://tinyurl.com/7mdc392
 633 2012-01-13 17:34:41 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * r45f2dddc7e20 / (2 files in 2 dirs): discovery: IRC talks to us http://tinyurl.com/7lcparu
 634 2012-01-13 17:34:41 <theymos> Which way is [Tycho] voting?
 635 2012-01-13 17:34:47 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * rb7a03c12f6c0 / (development-makefile tests/irc.cpp): IRC discovery unit test http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/libbitcoin.git/commitdiff/b7a03c12f6c0917c6d5f4ca62991c8f69cccad93
 636 2012-01-13 17:34:48 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * rea27aa40d150 /.gitignore: add Eclipse project files to .gitignore http://tinyurl.com/7dfnfk7
 637 2012-01-13 17:35:19 user__ has joined
 638 2012-01-13 17:35:40 rdponticelli has joined
 639 2012-01-13 17:36:02 <luke-jr> theymos: Tycho opposes, but I don't know if he'll bother with coinbase.
 640 2012-01-13 17:36:24 <sipa> luke-jr: i understand your concern, but a) every block without /p2sh/ is a vote against already, and 2) hardly any hasing power comes from unpatched bitcoind's anyway
 641 2012-01-13 17:36:35 <luke-jr> sipa: Gavin is forcing people to add /P2SH/
 642 2012-01-13 17:37:03 <Diablo-D3> what is p2sh?
 643 2012-01-13 17:37:20 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: P2SH is pay-to-script-hash: OP_EVAL and this new '/P2SH/' proposal
 644 2012-01-13 17:37:33 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: OP_EVAL was sane, but not entirely staticly analyzable
 645 2012-01-13 17:37:46 <UukGoblin> oh hang on, there's already voting happening in the blocks?
 646 2012-01-13 17:37:46 <Diablo-D3> OP_EVAL is not sane
 647 2012-01-13 17:37:51 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: this new one is more analyzable, but special-cases a magic script template
 648 2012-01-13 17:37:53 <theymos> It'll be interesting to see whether the development group's decision will actually be defeated by miners. I don't think that's happened before.
 649 2012-01-13 17:37:53 <Diablo-D3> Ive already bitched loudly about it on irc
 650 2012-01-13 17:37:59 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: OP_EVAL was more sane than the new one
 651 2012-01-13 17:38:05 <Diablo-D3> op_eval is not secure.
 652 2012-01-13 17:38:20 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: yes, and Gavin is forcing his decision on people running latest git master
 653 2012-01-13 17:38:20 mcorlett has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 654 2012-01-13 17:38:28 <Diablo-D3> is basically a retardedly designed virtual machine.
 655 2012-01-13 17:38:41 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: then fork the client and make people use yours.
 656 2012-01-13 17:38:43 <Diablo-D3> otherwise, stfu
 657 2012-01-13 17:39:11 <UukGoblin> but but most miners are using pools!
 658 2012-01-13 17:39:22 <sipa> and pools will decide for themselves what they choose
 659 2012-01-13 17:39:51 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, since which commit?
 660 2012-01-13 17:40:04 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: yes, but most CLIENTS run the main branch
 661 2012-01-13 17:40:30 <Diablo-D3> what happens if gavin just adds a patch that rejects blocks after a specific point with op_eval txen
 662 2012-01-13 17:40:33 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: 922e8e2
 663 2012-01-13 17:40:39 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, thanks
 664 2012-01-13 17:40:39 <Diablo-D3> pools no longer matter if they cant make blocks
 665 2012-01-13 17:41:07 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: earlier, for an obsolete vote (OP_EVAL)
 666 2012-01-13 17:43:10 <UukGoblin> hang on, this whole voting stuff seems kinda backwards...
 667 2012-01-13 17:43:20 <UukGoblin> why not just miners decide what txns they relay and mine?
 668 2012-01-13 17:43:27 <UukGoblin> let*
 669 2012-01-13 17:43:38 <sipa> UukGoblin: we are introducing a backward-compatible change to the protocol
 670 2012-01-13 17:43:40 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: including invalid ones?
 671 2012-01-13 17:43:48 <sipa> this means that things that used to be valid, become invalid
 672 2012-01-13 17:43:54 nanotube has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 673 2012-01-13 17:44:04 <UukGoblin> sipa, you mean backward-incompatible?
 674 2012-01-13 17:44:08 <sipa> no
 675 2012-01-13 17:44:13 <theymos> Without voting there would be a big mess of incompatible rules.
 676 2012-01-13 17:44:17 <sipa> things that were invalid, remain invalid
 677 2012-01-13 17:44:29 gribble has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 678 2012-01-13 17:44:37 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: old clients will accept everything, so backward compatible
 679 2012-01-13 17:44:42 <sipa> this causes no blockchain split under the condition that a supermajority of miners have expressed their intention to switch to the new rules once deployed
 680 2012-01-13 17:44:57 gribble has joined
 681 2012-01-13 17:45:01 <Diablo-D3> sipa: change your nick, its too close to sopa
 682 2012-01-13 17:45:07 <sipa> Diablo-D3: i was first
 683 2012-01-13 17:45:18 * luke-jr wonders if Eligius has the 30% to stop /P2SH/ right now
 684 2012-01-13 17:45:26 <UukGoblin> wait, which rules is this changing: the accept-in-mined-block, or relay?
 685 2012-01-13 17:45:30 gribble has quit (Excess Flood)
 686 2012-01-13 17:45:33 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: both
 687 2012-01-13 17:45:42 <Diablo-D3> sipa: yes, and so was I, I'm still waiting for royalty checks from Blizzard
 688 2012-01-13 17:45:43 <UukGoblin> oh...
 689 2012-01-13 17:45:44 <luke-jr> nuts, Eligius is only 4%
 690 2012-01-13 17:45:44 cronopio has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 691 2012-01-13 17:45:49 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt stop people from going HEY YOU LIKE DIABLO?
 692 2012-01-13 17:45:53 <Diablo-D3> no, I like nethack, go fuck yourself
 693 2012-01-13 17:45:57 gribble has joined
 694 2012-01-13 17:46:20 <Diablo-D3> http://githire.com/about
 695 2012-01-13 17:46:20 <theymos> luke-jr: What does [Tycho] think about your "CHC" proposal. That seems like the best one to me.
 696 2012-01-13 17:46:26 <Diablo-D3> dear lord, chunky bacon again
 697 2012-01-13 17:46:31 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, I thought even non-standard are accepted-in-mined-blocks?
 698 2012-01-13 17:46:32 <luke-jr> Eligius + Eclipse + BTCMine + BTC Guild would be needed to stop it without Tycho
 699 2012-01-13 17:46:35 * Diablo-D3 HATESES that book, it burns
 700 2012-01-13 17:46:40 <luke-jr> theymos: haven't discussed it with him
 701 2012-01-13 17:46:42 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: yes....
 702 2012-01-13 17:46:43 storrgie has joined
 703 2012-01-13 17:46:46 <Diablo-D3> unless I start my own pool
 704 2012-01-13 17:46:48 <Diablo-D3> DiabloPool
 705 2012-01-13 17:46:53 <Diablo-D3> which would take tycho's over in a heart beat
 706 2012-01-13 17:46:54 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: we're not talking about accepting more
 707 2012-01-13 17:47:01 <Diablo-D3> I'd be the 99%. In a bad way.
 708 2012-01-13 17:47:14 <UukGoblin> are we talking about rejecting some?
 709 2012-01-13 17:47:25 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: yes
 710 2012-01-13 17:47:56 <UukGoblin> so if someone created a P2HS transaction now, before the vote finishes, and it'd become rejected later, wouldn't that cause an insta-chainsplit?
 711 2012-01-13 17:48:10 <theymos> The rules will only apply to new blocks.
 712 2012-01-13 17:48:16 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: no, because the rules for /P2SH/ start at a block #
 713 2012-01-13 17:48:25 nanotube has joined
 714 2012-01-13 17:48:28 <UukGoblin> ah, right
 715 2012-01-13 17:48:35 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: see any more threads that are like LOL LUKE CRUSHED CLC WITH ELIGIUS-BOMB?
 716 2012-01-13 17:48:44 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: also, "P2SH" is a general concept everyone agrees we need; "/P2SH/" is the problem implementation
 717 2012-01-13 17:48:50 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: haven't looked
 718 2012-01-13 17:48:57 <Diablo-D3> well if you find any, pm me
 719 2012-01-13 17:49:08 <Diablo-D3> I nuke them on sight now to keep the trolls to a minimum
 720 2012-01-13 17:49:17 <Diablo-D3> er, only tell me about ones in the mining subforum
 721 2012-01-13 17:49:18 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, oh, right... I was looking at BIP 16, where's /P2SH/ described then?
 722 2012-01-13 17:49:23 <Diablo-D3> anywhere else is out of my jurisdicktion
 723 2012-01-13 17:49:32 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: BIP 16 is /P2SH/
 724 2012-01-13 17:50:24 * UukGoblin reads harder
 725 2012-01-13 17:52:34 Kolky has joined
 726 2012-01-13 17:53:52 <UukGoblin> isn't 15 Feb 2012 a bit early to implement a major change like this? I mean, shouldn't it be a year or so in advance?
 727 2012-01-13 17:54:19 <UukGoblin> ah, actually, maybe it's not as severe because it's backwards-compatible
 728 2012-01-13 17:54:34 hexTech has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 729 2012-01-13 17:54:44 <sipa> under the condition that sufficient mining power is behind it
 730 2012-01-13 17:55:05 <UukGoblin> that could cause stale blocks for the minority of miners I guess
 731 2012-01-13 17:55:16 <UukGoblin> (if it's accepted)
 732 2012-01-13 17:55:22 <sipa> it could, yes
 733 2012-01-13 17:55:43 <UukGoblin> ok, I think I'm beginning to understand it
 734 2012-01-13 17:55:59 <UukGoblin> let me read up what the verification actually does
 735 2012-01-13 17:56:06 <theymos> The features provided by P2SH, OP_EVAL, etc. are pretty important. They allow a lot of new stuff in a backward-compatible way.
 736 2012-01-13 17:56:31 <UukGoblin> yeah, I get that
 737 2012-01-13 17:56:31 Guest74515 is now known as Nicksasa
 738 2012-01-13 17:56:41 <UukGoblin> I'm not yet sure what transactions will have to be rejected
 739 2012-01-13 17:58:03 <theymos> Transactions redeeming scriptPubKeys of the form "OP_HASH160 [20-byte-hash-value] OP_EQUAL" are rejected unless they meet certain extra conditions.
 740 2012-01-13 17:59:11 <UukGoblin> you mean "will be if /P2SH/ is implemented"?
 741 2012-01-13 17:59:19 <theymos> Yes.
 742 2012-01-13 17:59:28 Guest40341 is now known as topace_
 743 2012-01-13 17:59:45 Maged has joined
 744 2012-01-13 18:00:20 <theymos> The old conditions imposed by Script also apply, but some extra restrictions not specified in the script will also be imposed when the scriptPubKey takes that exact form.
 745 2012-01-13 18:01:16 <UukGoblin> hmm I thought OP_EVAL was to allow transactions of the type "Redeemable if 3 out of 5 parties agree"... Will P2SH allow for that too?
 746 2012-01-13 18:01:22 Karmaon has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 747 2012-01-13 18:01:38 <UukGoblin> (among others of course)
 748 2012-01-13 18:02:07 hexTech has joined
 749 2012-01-13 18:02:14 <sipa> UukGoblin: yes, but it is not directly related
 750 2012-01-13 18:02:42 <sipa> p2sh means i can you a short address which represents a simple or complex script, and you can pay to it
 751 2012-01-13 18:02:49 <sipa> without knowing what the script is
 752 2012-01-13 18:02:59 <sipa> effectively making the script transparent to the payer
 753 2012-01-13 18:03:03 <helo> how could someone make the argument that not having /P2SH/ is better than having it? it doesn't sound like another implementation with similar features and security is forthcoming... the /P2SH/ alternative seems to be stagnation
 754 2012-01-13 18:03:25 <sipa> helo: OP_EVAL was an alternative preferred by some
 755 2012-01-13 18:03:36 <helo> without the security though
 756 2012-01-13 18:03:43 ageis has quit (Quit: http://ageispolis.net)
 757 2012-01-13 18:04:22 <helo> i.e.- People That Matter have determined that OP_EVAL is not safe enough, so it's not an alternative
 758 2012-01-13 18:04:38 <theymos> This particular way of doing it is kind of hack. It isn't consistent with how the rest of Script works because no opcode is saying to do this extra stuff.
 759 2012-01-13 18:04:58 <helo> it's not as if OP_EVAL will be integrated if /P2SH/ fails
 760 2012-01-13 18:05:11 ageis has joined
 761 2012-01-13 18:05:26 abragin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 762 2012-01-13 18:05:37 superman2016 has joined
 763 2012-01-13 18:05:45 <sipa> it is absolutely a hack
 764 2012-01-13 18:05:55 <helo> hopefully people who oppose /P2SH/ think there is a clean and safe way to do it that hasn't been thought of
 765 2012-01-13 18:06:06 <sipa> helo: there have been several other proposals
 766 2012-01-13 18:06:16 <sipa> some of them much cleaner
 767 2012-01-13 18:06:19 <theymos> I like luke-jr's CHC proposal here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56969.msg687795#msg687795
 768 2012-01-13 18:07:15 <sipa> yes, if we disregard the half-verification by old nodes, that is probably the best proposal
 769 2012-01-13 18:07:18 devrandom has joined
 770 2012-01-13 18:07:23 <UukGoblin> so how would you create a "redeemable if 3 parties agree" transaction with P2SH?
 771 2012-01-13 18:07:27 abragin has joined
 772 2012-01-13 18:07:28 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 773 2012-01-13 18:07:28 abragin has joined
 774 2012-01-13 18:07:46 <sipa> UukGoblin: you create the necessary script for that, hash it, and send the hash as payment address to the payer
 775 2012-01-13 18:07:58 <theymos> UukGoblin: You'd put the OP_CHECKMULTISIG stuff in the serialized script.
 776 2012-01-13 18:08:01 <sipa> he creates a magic hash script that says "redeemable by a script whose hash is X"
 777 2012-01-13 18:08:07 Joric has quit ()
 778 2012-01-13 18:08:13 <sipa> and when spending, you provide the script plus its arguments
 779 2012-01-13 18:08:42 <UukGoblin> ah, right
 780 2012-01-13 18:08:42 <theymos> Bitcoin can already do multi-sig transactions. You'd just need a really long address (and a new address format) to transmit that info, and the payer would probably need to pay extra fees. These proposals fix those problems.
 781 2012-01-13 18:09:06 <UukGoblin> right, I see
 782 2012-01-13 18:09:25 <UukGoblin> so OP_CHECKMULTISIG is probably non-standard yet?
 783 2012-01-13 18:09:35 <UukGoblin> or am I confusing something badly?
 784 2012-01-13 18:09:44 <Diablo-D3> dude
 785 2012-01-13 18:09:47 <Diablo-D3> Im going to add a patch
 786 2012-01-13 18:09:51 <Diablo-D3> OP_GIVEDIABLOMONEY
 787 2012-01-13 18:09:59 <Diablo-D3> not only does it give me the money of your tx
 788 2012-01-13 18:10:06 <Diablo-D3> it gives me the money of all tx in that block
 789 2012-01-13 18:10:19 <theymos> UukGoblin: It has been non-standard, though maybe it has been made standard recently. There was discussion about that, at least.
 790 2012-01-13 18:10:26 <Diablo-D3> :3
 791 2012-01-13 18:10:27 <UukGoblin> theymos, right.
 792 2012-01-13 18:10:35 <Diablo-D3> oh fuck would that be hilarious
 793 2012-01-13 18:10:40 <Diablo-D3> like, theymos would merge that patch
 794 2012-01-13 18:10:46 <Diablo-D3> and then everyone would be doomed
 795 2012-01-13 18:10:51 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, yes, haha, very funny.
 796 2012-01-13 18:11:08 * sipa didn't know theymos had push access to bitcoin
 797 2012-01-13 18:11:14 <theymos> I don't.
 798 2012-01-13 18:11:24 <Diablo-D3> sipa: he runs the largest pool and is 35% of the hashing power
 799 2012-01-13 18:11:29 <Diablo-D3> I mean "merge into his private branch"
 800 2012-01-13 18:11:32 <Diablo-D3> as in "apply the patch"
 801 2012-01-13 18:11:37 <theymos> I don't run any pool...
 802 2012-01-13 18:11:40 <luke-jr> sipa: my post explains why the half-verification is useless anyway
 803 2012-01-13 18:11:44 <Diablo-D3> er, I mean tycho
 804 2012-01-13 18:11:51 <Diablo-D3> too many names that start with t
 805 2012-01-13 18:12:04 <sipa> luke-jr: i know
 806 2012-01-13 18:12:15 <Diablo-D3> I have to remmeber. [ then t for tycho
 807 2012-01-13 18:12:17 <Diablo-D3> not just t
 808 2012-01-13 18:12:32 <Diablo-D3> theymos just like, runs a forum or something, I dunno
 809 2012-01-13 18:14:36 <UukGoblin> so what's the difference between CHC and P2SH? :-P
 810 2012-01-13 18:15:55 <theymos> The main difference is that CHC uses an opcode to indicate what to check instead of a "script template".
 811 2012-01-13 18:16:03 <Diablo-D3> how the fuck do I tell wine to use linux libraries
 812 2012-01-13 18:18:11 <luke-jr> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=58579.0
 813 2012-01-13 18:18:29 luke-jr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 814 2012-01-13 18:18:45 luke-jr has joined
 815 2012-01-13 18:18:57 <Diablo-D3> http://developer.amd.com/sdks/AMDAPPSDK/downloads/Pages/default.aspx
 816 2012-01-13 18:19:02 <Diablo-D3> click "sdk 2.6 for windows 32"
 817 2012-01-13 18:19:06 <Diablo-D3> wtf AMD
 818 2012-01-13 18:19:35 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: CHC uses a new instruction for new behaviour; P2SH just runs new unexpected behaviour for a specific script
 819 2012-01-13 18:20:51 <UukGoblin> does CHC also require miners to upgrade?
 820 2012-01-13 18:21:01 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: yes, every possible solution does.
 821 2012-01-13 18:21:09 <luke-jr> well, for certain meanings of "require"
 822 2012-01-13 18:21:26 p0s has joined
 823 2012-01-13 18:21:26 <luke-jr> non-upgrading miners will only be affects if they accept "non-standard" transactions, or build on one
 824 2012-01-13 18:21:35 <luke-jr> affected*
 825 2012-01-13 18:21:46 <luke-jr> but in all cases, a majority of miners need to support it
 826 2012-01-13 18:22:33 <UukGoblin> right, so no stale blocks for old solo miners
 827 2012-01-13 18:22:50 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: only if they build on a block with a (now invalid) transaction in it
 828 2012-01-13 18:23:01 <luke-jr> so slightly higher risk of stales, but not notable
 829 2012-01-13 18:23:08 <UukGoblin> so no stale blocks for old solo miners who used official bitcoin versions
 830 2012-01-13 18:23:21 <UukGoblin> (above 0.3.10 of course)
 831 2012-01-13 18:23:39 <UukGoblin> actually
 832 2012-01-13 18:23:51 <UukGoblin> above the one where non-standard got introduced
 833 2012-01-13 18:24:04 <helo> has there been an informal vote of devs to decide between /P2SH/ and CHC?
 834 2012-01-13 18:24:15 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: I think you misunderstood me
 835 2012-01-13 18:24:25 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: two possible cases:
 836 2012-01-13 18:24:33 <luke-jr> 1. you accept non-standard transactions, and these blocks are always invalid
 837 2012-01-13 18:24:43 <luke-jr> 2. you build on someone else's block with non-standard transactions that are now invalid
 838 2012-01-13 18:24:55 <luke-jr> helo: no
 839 2012-01-13 18:25:23 <helo> is there anyone screaming "CHC is terrible, i will stop it in any way possible!"?
 840 2012-01-13 18:25:37 <luke-jr> helo: not that I've heard. Gavin seems to be ignoring it
 841 2012-01-13 18:26:03 <luke-jr> roconnor pointed out a potential flaw regarding OP_IF, but that can be addressed in a formal BIP
 842 2012-01-13 18:26:41 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, oh, right...
 843 2012-01-13 18:28:08 <UukGoblin> rushing anything that fast for a network that mature seems a bit reckless
 844 2012-01-13 18:28:21 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day)
 845 2012-01-13 18:28:33 <helo> if the problems with OP_EVAL lead to postponement/reconsideration (which most agree was a good thing), why can't the same happen with /P2SH/?
 846 2012-01-13 18:29:03 <helo> particularly when it appears that there are solutions that satisfy everyone
 847 2012-01-13 18:29:36 Joric has joined
 848 2012-01-13 18:29:37 Joric has quit (Changing host)
 849 2012-01-13 18:29:37 Joric has joined
 850 2012-01-13 18:29:41 ovidiusoft has joined
 851 2012-01-13 18:30:04 <luke-jr> yet I'm "trying Gavin's patience" somehow…
 852 2012-01-13 18:31:05 <UukGoblin> hopefully he'll count "no" votes as much stronger than lack-of-vote-in-coinbase
 853 2012-01-13 18:31:22 <UukGoblin> bbl
 854 2012-01-13 18:31:28 <UukGoblin> thanks for the info guys
 855 2012-01-13 18:31:59 * luke-jr is actually more worried that SC/CLC trolls will vote for BIP 16 just because he opposes it
 856 2012-01-13 18:32:45 <helo> it kind of seems like OP_EVAL was abandoned out of fear that a "developer split" would create bad PR
 857 2012-01-13 18:32:58 <theymos> I voted for both P2SH and CHC in that forum poll. They both seem acceptable to me, though I prefer CHC somewhat.
 858 2012-01-13 18:34:10 Joric has quit (Client Quit)
 859 2012-01-13 18:34:39 <luke-jr> helo: IMO, /P2SH/ is even worse
 860 2012-01-13 18:35:09 <luke-jr> wtf, someone actually voted against multi-factor auth entirely?
 861 2012-01-13 18:36:44 TD has joined
 862 2012-01-13 18:40:18 danbri has joined
 863 2012-01-13 18:41:13 user__ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 864 2012-01-13 18:49:04 larsivi has joined
 865 2012-01-13 18:50:13 pusle has joined
 866 2012-01-13 18:50:21 Turingi has joined
 867 2012-01-13 18:51:24 zeiris has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 868 2012-01-13 18:51:59 <UukGoblin> so what's this static verifiability and why do we need it?
 869 2012-01-13 18:52:40 zeiris has joined
 870 2012-01-13 18:53:18 <helo> allows one to put bounds on the computation required to execute a script afaik
 871 2012-01-13 18:53:29 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: my P.S. tried to explain that we don't :P
 872 2012-01-13 18:54:53 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * re09b219dc054 /include/bitcoin/ (network/discovery.hpp network/network.hpp types.hpp): typedef deduplication http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/libbitcoin.git/commitdiff/e09b219dc054ddeae49f532d8f716f5a8076d2eb
 873 2012-01-13 18:55:49 TD_ has joined
 874 2012-01-13 18:57:16 zeiris has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 875 2012-01-13 18:59:05 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 876 2012-01-13 18:59:06 TD_ is now known as TD
 877 2012-01-13 19:06:52 <UukGoblin> right
 878 2012-01-13 19:07:12 <UukGoblin> so this whole thing is basically to have shorter dodgy addressess
 879 2012-01-13 19:07:51 <UukGoblin> ah, ok, but I do see it sometimes useful, maybe
 880 2012-01-13 19:08:54 <luke-jr> dodgy?
 881 2012-01-13 19:16:48 heoa has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 882 2012-01-13 19:18:34 storrgie has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 883 2012-01-13 19:19:33 <edcba> ;;bc,mtgox
 884 2012-01-13 19:19:33 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":6.83333,"low":6.50001,"avg":6.676008988,"vwap":6.679500533,"vol":59838,"last_all":6.53623,"last_local":6.53623,"last":6.53623,"buy":6.56,"sell":6.5798}}
 885 2012-01-13 19:20:31 is4tomj has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 886 2012-01-13 19:20:50 wasabi3 has joined
 887 2012-01-13 19:22:15 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 888 2012-01-13 19:29:01 TD_ has joined
 889 2012-01-13 19:30:58 darkee has quit (Quit: Verlassend)
 890 2012-01-13 19:31:45 caedes_ has joined
 891 2012-01-13 19:31:55 caedes_ has quit (Changing host)
 892 2012-01-13 19:31:55 caedes_ has joined
 893 2012-01-13 19:31:56 cronopio has joined
 894 2012-01-13 19:32:09 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 895 2012-01-13 19:32:29 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: They're the same length as current addresses. But if you had a 3 of 5 escrow, for example, the address would be less than 1/5th the size in p2sh form rather than an alternative.
 896 2012-01-13 19:33:00 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 897 2012-01-13 19:33:00 TD_ is now known as TD
 898 2012-01-13 19:33:48 <BlueMatt> can someone else test https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/454 ?
 899 2012-01-13 19:34:58 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 900 2012-01-13 19:34:59 <gmaxwell> helo: OP_EVAL is unsatisfactory because it makes script turing complete. A very clear major design goal of script was to not be turing complete. There was a feeling for a while that the recursion limits bounded it enough to be acceptable but then more people spoke up
 901 2012-01-13 19:36:16 <gmaxwell> helo: in particular roconnor protested loudly, and he's one of the few people who have been creating a from scratch implementation of the complete system, and he's also an established expert in the field of formally validated software, so his opinions and arguments had a fair amount of weight.
 902 2012-01-13 19:37:33 <gmaxwell> This caused some reevaluation, and P2SH was propose as a safer alternative. I think OP_EVAL would never have been proposed if P2SH had been thought of first.
 903 2012-01-13 19:38:20 <gmaxwell> s/propose/proposed/
 904 2012-01-13 19:40:56 <roconnor> helo: if you what to know why OP_EVAL was bad, you should watch Meredith's recent CCC talk.
 905 2012-01-13 19:42:04 <gmaxwell> roconnor: one piece of weird misinformation I've seen circulating is apparently people think that OP_EVAL was one of the pre-existing but disabled OPcodes. Seems this confusion is partially caused by the fact that its introduction is a non-forking change.
 906 2012-01-13 19:44:01 <roconnor> indeed; as you've said before, it looks more like satoshi when out of his way to not have OP_EVAL
 907 2012-01-13 19:44:12 Karmaon has joined
 908 2012-01-13 19:46:59 user__ has joined
 909 2012-01-13 19:49:55 <UukGoblin> hang /win 25
 910 2012-01-13 19:50:08 <UukGoblin> errm don't hang it, mistyped ;-P
 911 2012-01-13 19:50:18 onelineproof has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 912 2012-01-13 19:50:43 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: BIP 16 is *less* in line with the Script system than OP_EVAL
 913 2012-01-13 19:53:05 is4tomj has joined
 914 2012-01-13 19:55:15 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: OP_EVAL violates what is pretty clearly the most fundimental design objective of script. I'm not one for being too married to principles, but it's wrong to say otherwise.
 915 2012-01-13 19:56:04 <theymos> I was originally thinking that OP_EVAL scripts would be self-contained enough that they couldn't be used for any kind of looping.
 916 2012-01-13 19:57:29 <diki> damn
 917 2012-01-13 19:57:36 sacredchao has joined
 918 2012-01-13 19:57:41 <diki> No matter what I do gcc wont static link...
 919 2012-01-13 19:58:14 <gmaxwell> when it was first suggested came up I thought OP_EVAL wouldn't be able to recurse at all
 920 2012-01-13 19:58:44 <gmaxwell> But then I guess when gavin implemented it there was the question of how to limit that, and 'limited recursion is useful' was suggested.. which is true.
 921 2012-01-13 19:58:55 <gmaxwell> and it sorta oozed in there, at least from my perspective.
 922 2012-01-13 20:00:18 <roconnor> the most important property OP_EVAL violates is the security principle of validate input first and then interpret it.
 923 2012-01-13 20:02:01 PK has joined
 924 2012-01-13 20:03:13 is4tomj1 has joined
 925 2012-01-13 20:03:52 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: BIP 16 violates the entire script
 926 2012-01-13 20:04:59 <luke-jr> since it's not a script, it's a special-case
 927 2012-01-13 20:06:15 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: everything is a special case.
 928 2012-01-13 20:06:22 <luke-jr> nonsense
 929 2012-01-13 20:06:22 <gmaxwell> The existance ofthe alt stack is a special case.
 930 2012-01-13 20:06:29 <gmaxwell> Anyone can pay is a special case.
 931 2012-01-13 20:06:55 <gmaxwell> That checksig runs ECDSA over the (mostly)whole txn as a single opaque opcode is a special case.
 932 2012-01-13 20:07:01 <gmaxwell> None of this is natural law.
 933 2012-01-13 20:07:23 <theymos> Other than checksig, most things in script are pretty consistent, though.
 934 2012-01-13 20:07:55 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: no, it's an opcode
 935 2012-01-13 20:08:10 <luke-jr> checksig is a big too CISC, but it's STILL an opcode
 936 2012-01-13 20:08:33 is4tomj has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 937 2012-01-13 20:09:58 <roconnor> luke-jr: I hope your campagin against P2SH is successful
 938 2012-01-13 20:10:42 <roconnor> as before, it probably comes down to what [Tycho] decides
 939 2012-01-13 20:10:58 <luke-jr> roconnor: I hope I didn't come off too hard against static analysis.
 940 2012-01-13 20:11:23 <roconnor> I have no hard feelings against anyone
 941 2012-01-13 20:11:36 <UukGoblin> is static analysis this "security principle of validate input first and then interpret it."?
 942 2012-01-13 20:11:54 Zarutian has joined
 943 2012-01-13 20:12:13 <roconnor> UukGoblin: more or less.  I sort of rephrased it that way after watching Meredith's talk
 944 2012-01-13 20:12:18 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: yes, static analysis is being able to look at it and say "this break the rule of too complex" before running it
 945 2012-01-13 20:12:31 <luke-jr> though I disagree with it being security-related.
 946 2012-01-13 20:12:51 <UukGoblin> k
 947 2012-01-13 20:12:52 <UukGoblin> damn
 948 2012-01-13 20:12:53 <luke-jr> it's an optimization, that doesn't *practically* help in this case AFAICT
 949 2012-01-13 20:12:58 <UukGoblin> I can't vote until I learn how Script works
 950 2012-01-13 20:13:02 <luke-jr> >_<
 951 2012-01-13 20:13:07 <roconnor> well, maybe I have a bit of hard feelings towards ByteCoin, but I'll get over it
 952 2012-01-13 20:13:11 <luke-jr> lol
 953 2012-01-13 20:13:17 <luke-jr> what did he do?
 954 2012-01-13 20:13:27 <roconnor> I think he gave me the hardest time :D
 955 2012-01-13 20:13:38 <UukGoblin> and I can't learn how script works before voting starts... so... I should vote no to postpone :->
 956 2012-01-13 20:14:10 <roconnor> UukGoblin: I think that is reasonable IMHO.
 957 2012-01-13 20:14:31 <roconnor> UukGoblin: I really think this proposoal is being pushed too fast (in addition to being a bad proposal)
 958 2012-01-13 20:15:00 <roconnor> I'd like to think I'd think it is being pushed too fast even if I thought it was a good proposal.
 959 2012-01-13 20:18:43 <luke-jr> I wish /P2SH/ wasn't so difficult to back out of master -.-
 960 2012-01-13 20:20:40 <UukGoblin> "REPLACE" op_eval with P2SH? :-O
 961 2012-01-13 20:20:45 <UukGoblin> so op_eval is there already?!
 962 2012-01-13 20:24:52 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, won't you break getinfo for people who rely on it?
 963 2012-01-13 20:25:08 <gmaxwell> I've posted a long post on the subject: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=58579.msg690093#msg690093
 964 2012-01-13 20:25:09 <UukGoblin> (with the getmininginfo branch?)
 965 2012-01-13 20:25:44 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: If I've said anything there you believe is counterfactual, please yell at me and I'll fix it.
 966 2012-01-13 20:27:25 <UukGoblin> rotfl @ Nachtwind
 967 2012-01-13 20:27:44 <UukGoblin> gtfo from the technical thread
 968 2012-01-13 20:28:05 <UukGoblin> "I don't like your technical comments because I think you're a bad person"
 969 2012-01-13 20:28:08 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: ?
 970 2012-01-13 20:28:22 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: it only removes 3 things from getinfo, but yes
 971 2012-01-13 20:28:33 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: I originally just deprecated them in getinfo, but jgarzik said to remove them entirely
 972 2012-01-13 20:28:42 <UukGoblin> ah.
 973 2012-01-13 20:28:52 <UukGoblin> well, I don't use it I think ;-)
 974 2012-01-13 20:29:10 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: OK, I'm yelling at yoou
 975 2012-01-13 20:29:30 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I've tried to raise these problems before, multiple times, and gavin is content with ignoring them.
 976 2012-01-13 20:29:37 <luke-jr> so implying I haven't is wrong
 977 2012-01-13 20:29:47 GMP has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 978 2012-01-13 20:29:48 <makomk> UukGoblin: there's a fundamental issue with both P2SH and OP_EVAL where if you can take out enough of the mining nodes that validate it you can attack Bitcoin is some interesting ways. I expect Luke's proposal is the same.
 979 2012-01-13 20:30:20 <makomk> I reported at least one security vulnerability that could do this, which I regret doing now.
 980 2012-01-13 20:30:46 <makomk> The only time Bitcoin should find out about security holes is when someone exploit s them.
 981 2012-01-13 20:30:49 <gmaxwell> makomk: well, you failed to manage to exploit it.
 982 2012-01-13 20:30:52 caedes_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 983 2012-01-13 20:31:01 <makomk> gmaxwell: I didn't try.
 984 2012-01-13 20:31:02 <gmaxwell> Or at least someone failed.
 985 2012-01-13 20:31:11 luke-jr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 986 2012-01-13 20:31:19 <theymos> What security problem was that?
 987 2012-01-13 20:31:21 luke-jr has joined
 988 2012-01-13 20:31:28 <gmaxwell> (because they didn't meet the eligius fee rules)
 989 2012-01-13 20:31:44 <makomk> gmaxwell: intentionally so.,
 990 2012-01-13 20:32:02 <gmaxwell> makomk: I'd, perhaps unfairly, assumed it was you that failed to exploit it because you only bothered to disclose the issue long after you were shipping code that didn't have it.
 991 2012-01-13 20:32:14 <makomk> I seem to recall he blocks payments with lots of duplicate outputs, amoonst other thins?
 992 2012-01-13 20:32:33 <UukGoblin> makomk, I definitely can't agree to that
 993 2012-01-13 20:32:41 <makomk> gmaxwell: I didn't get around to figuring out whether it was actually an issue until shipping fixed code.
 994 2012-01-13 20:32:54 <gmaxwell> theymos: difference in validation code between block validation and mining inclusion decision.
 995 2012-01-13 20:33:18 <gmaxwell> makomk: Okay, fair enough. I apologize for thinking evil of you then!
 996 2012-01-13 20:33:18 bakh_ has joined
 997 2012-01-13 20:33:34 <theymos> gmaxwell: Ah, thanks.
 998 2012-01-13 20:33:41 <makomk> Was changing the transaction validation rules anyway for an unrelated reason. The "fix" I'd used wasn't suitable for Bitcoin.
 999 2012-01-13 20:34:03 <roconnor> gmaxwell: that's a nice post
1000 2012-01-13 20:34:15 <roconnor> gmaxwell: you were very kind to me :)
1001 2012-01-13 20:37:39 <makomk> The only version of my demo exploit I created refuses to run except on testnet. Would be easy to edit out the check... except I was fairly sure it would fail Eligius' criteria for inclusion even if they did and had concluded no-one else really used OP_EVAL. This was undocumented for obvious reasons ;-)
1002 2012-01-13 20:39:09 <UukGoblin> 201620 <@UukGoblin> so op_eval is there already?!
1003 2012-01-13 20:39:55 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: no. I mean, the code exists of course.
1004 2012-01-13 20:40:37 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, but was it on master? before 922e82?
1005 2012-01-13 20:40:44 <UukGoblin> gah
1006 2012-01-13 20:40:45 <UukGoblin> 922e8e
1007 2012-01-13 20:40:55 <gmaxwell> It's been in master but never in released code.
1008 2012-01-13 20:41:07 <UukGoblin> oh!
1009 2012-01-13 20:41:13 <gmaxwell> I'm not looking at the checkout right now so I have no idea where 922e82 is.
1010 2012-01-13 20:41:33 <UukGoblin> 922e8e is "Replace OP_EVAL (BIP 12) with Pay-to-script-hash (BIP 16).
1011 2012-01-13 20:41:45 <gmaxwell> ah, well thats why it's a replace.
1012 2012-01-13 20:42:30 <gmaxwell> also, "op_eval is there" depends on what you mean by is there. The code in master validated OP_EVAL but wouldn't add any of it to the blockchain.
1013 2012-01-13 20:42:52 <UukGoblin> right, ok
1014 2012-01-13 20:43:10 <UukGoblin> I perhaps shouldn't be running master so carelessly ;-)
1015 2012-01-13 20:44:37 <makomk> I thought it validated it, added transactions that used it, and would allow you to make transactions to OP_EVAL addresses, it was just creating them that was disabled.
1016 2012-01-13 20:46:16 <gmaxwell> makomk: no the added transaction part was date-gated.
1017 2012-01-13 20:46:43 <gmaxwell> (Unless I missed somethign shocking!)
1018 2012-01-13 20:46:55 <makomk> Hmmmm. I thought the only date-checked part was fully validating OP_EVAL transactions that were already in a block.
1019 2012-01-13 20:48:18 darkee has joined
1020 2012-01-13 20:52:16 wizkid057 has quit (Disconnected by services)
1021 2012-01-13 20:52:39 wizkid057_ has joined
1022 2012-01-13 20:53:15 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1023 2012-01-13 20:54:18 b4epoche_ has joined
1024 2012-01-13 20:55:08 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1025 2012-01-13 20:55:09 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1026 2012-01-13 20:57:04 enquirer has joined
1027 2012-01-13 20:57:33 RazielZ has joined
1028 2012-01-13 20:59:23 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1029 2012-01-13 21:06:02 ciscoftw has joined
1030 2012-01-13 21:06:04 devrandom has joined
1031 2012-01-13 21:07:04 Joric has joined
1032 2012-01-13 21:07:25 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1033 2012-01-13 21:07:57 enquirer has joined
1034 2012-01-13 21:09:52 <midnightmagic> there are weekly development meetings? where are these held?
1035 2012-01-13 21:10:31 user__ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1036 2012-01-13 21:13:28 abragin has quit ()
1037 2012-01-13 21:13:43 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: here, on tuesdays. 21:00 utc.
1038 2012-01-13 21:13:43 abragin has joined
1039 2012-01-13 21:13:44 abragin has quit (Changing host)
1040 2012-01-13 21:13:44 abragin has joined
1041 2012-01-13 21:13:59 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: here is the report from the last: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki//10_Jan_2012
1042 2012-01-13 21:14:03 <pusle> how about a competition! Unleash the proposals on the testnet and have prizes to those who can find exploits/hacks  ^-^
1043 2012-01-13 21:14:05 abragin has quit (Client Quit)
1044 2012-01-13 21:14:15 <pusle> "Last code standing"
1045 2012-01-13 21:14:20 <midnightmagic> damn, it is regular. I should really be attending. :(
1046 2012-01-13 21:14:27 <gmaxwell> pusle: they've been in use on testnet.
1047 2012-01-13 21:14:45 <gmaxwell> pusle: unfortunately, it's not the attacks you find that matter, it's the ones you miss. :(
1048 2012-01-13 21:14:49 <pusle> okay, who won? :D
1049 2012-01-13 21:15:20 <pusle> well if it sucks so bad, it should be easy to attack it
1050 2012-01-13 21:16:00 <gmaxwell> pusle: I think we're up to four critcial problems discovered in OP_EVAL after everyone though it was done and reviewed.
1051 2012-01-13 21:16:08 <pusle> and perhaps look at chain bloat, ease of use (in practise) as factors to decide a winner if none have security problems
1052 2012-01-13 21:16:10 Visalleras has joined
1053 2012-01-13 21:16:53 <gmaxwell> pusle: The use is identical. The implementation of P2SH is clearly much simpler (OP_EVAL needs a buch of code to prevent it from being horribly insecure)
1054 2012-01-13 21:16:53 <pusle> I was thinking about the two proposed alternatives
1055 2012-01-13 21:17:01 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1056 2012-01-13 21:17:34 <pusle> even I understand a turing complete script system is a bad idea
1057 2012-01-13 21:17:47 <pusle> CODEHASHCHECK vs P2SH
1058 2012-01-13 21:17:47 <gmaxwell> pusle: well, I'm glad you do— go convince luke. :)
1059 2012-01-13 21:17:51 devrandom has joined
1060 2012-01-13 21:17:55 <pusle> are there more alternatives?
1061 2012-01-13 21:18:37 <makomk> The question is, what vulnerabilities did OP_EVAL have that P2SH is fundamentally immune to? They have quite a bit in common...
1062 2012-01-13 21:18:43 <pusle> Seems to me Luke too sees that OP_EVAL needs to be replaced, but with what
1063 2012-01-13 21:18:52 OneFixt_ has quit (Changing host)
1064 2012-01-13 21:18:52 OneFixt_ has joined
1065 2012-01-13 21:19:04 OneFixt_ is now known as OneFixt
1066 2012-01-13 21:19:10 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1067 2012-01-13 21:19:10 <gmaxwell> pusle: CODEHASHCHECK is not an alternative which can be compared to P2SH right now, really.
1068 2012-01-13 21:19:11 <pusle> it sucks that I don't have the skills to get into this properly :/
1069 2012-01-13 21:19:15 <gmaxwell> because no code for it exists.
1070 2012-01-13 21:19:35 OneFixt has joined
1071 2012-01-13 21:19:35 <gmaxwell> makomk: ... er, P2SH doesn't have recursion.
1072 2012-01-13 21:19:48 <gmaxwell> makomk: so the limits bugs don't apply.
1073 2012-01-13 21:19:56 <pusle> luke camp should make one then, or demonstrate in practise why p2sh is a disaster
1074 2012-01-13 21:20:02 OneFixt is now known as Guest43803
1075 2012-01-13 21:20:02 <gmaxwell> And thats a fundimental immunity.
1076 2012-01-13 21:20:05 <roconnor> P2SH has less "shootgun" validation code
1077 2012-01-13 21:20:27 <makomk> That turned out to be an irritating bug but not actually a vulnerability of any kind, as I recall.
1078 2012-01-13 21:20:31 <gmaxwell> And right, the reducntion in validation code is fundimental too, and it's differences in validation code that gave rise to the issue you found makomk.
1079 2012-01-13 21:20:44 <helo> p2sh isn't a disaster, it's just ugly and inelegant afaik
1080 2012-01-13 21:20:46 <pusle> less bloat and pruning seems like benefits to me
1081 2012-01-13 21:20:52 Wizzleby has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1082 2012-01-13 21:21:11 <gmaxwell> makomk: No, IIRC it only wasn't a vulnerability in bitcoind simply because we run with ginormous stacks. (so it ran out of instructions before running out of stack space)
1083 2012-01-13 21:21:42 <gmaxwell> But that says nothing about what it might have been in bitcoind a year from now, or another implementation which had to be bug compatible and thus omit the recursion check.
1084 2012-01-13 21:21:56 Guest43803 has quit (Changing host)
1085 2012-01-13 21:21:56 Guest43803 has joined
1086 2012-01-13 21:22:06 <gmaxwell> Morover, it completely invalidated our belief that "the turing completeness is okay because its constrained by the limited recursion"
1087 2012-01-13 21:22:12 Wizzleby has joined
1088 2012-01-13 21:22:17 Guest43803 is now known as OneFixt
1089 2012-01-13 21:22:45 <pusle> so you can't contain it by simply saying "the stack can max be 16kbyte" or something
1090 2012-01-13 21:22:49 <pusle> if overflow = terminate
1091 2012-01-13 21:22:50 <makomk> Also, P2SH would've had the exact same differences in validation flaw with mining if Gavin hadn't fixed it; that was in common code between the two.
1092 2012-01-13 21:23:52 <gmaxwell> makomk: That one, perhaps, but differences in the validation code (within an implementation or between implementations) could exist at any one of the validation checks, so having fewer of them is a clear advantage
1093 2012-01-13 21:24:04 * pusle be tha low level mofo ^^
1094 2012-01-13 21:24:12 <helo> stackless recursion?
1095 2012-01-13 21:24:53 <gmaxwell> pusle: you can't really do things like that because all implementations have to behave exactly the same or you get forks. So it's very important that it be easy to impose exactly the same rules everywhere, and those rules shouldn't depend on the details of the implementation.
1096 2012-01-13 21:25:13 <gmaxwell> Some implementor should be able to JIT compile script into x86_64 code and still behave exactly as the interperter does.
1097 2012-01-13 21:25:41 <pusle> well, I'm not sure if it would close all "holes" but it would be up to the script maker to see too there wasn't an overflow = invalid script
1098 2012-01-13 21:25:48 <pusle> to
1099 2012-01-13 21:26:05 <pusle> I see your point
1100 2012-01-13 21:26:13 <gmaxwell> whew I didn't want to try to explain that again.
1101 2012-01-13 21:26:23 <pusle> so, anyone smarter than me who can make something elegant everybody is happy with ? :)
1102 2012-01-13 21:26:34 <gmaxwell> We thought we had that.
1103 2012-01-13 21:26:45 <pusle> :&
1104 2012-01-13 21:26:46 <gmaxwell> At least for a period of a few hours we did!
1105 2012-01-13 21:26:51 <pusle> hehe
1106 2012-01-13 21:27:09 <pusle> "<helo> p2sh isn't a disaster, it's just ugly and inelegant afaik"
1107 2012-01-13 21:27:18 <pusle> so there are at least two who are not 100% happy
1108 2012-01-13 21:27:28 <gmaxwell> helo is parroting luke.
1109 2012-01-13 21:27:41 <gmaxwell> (thus the AFAIK)
1110 2012-01-13 21:28:04 <pusle> ah, he is to Luke-jr as Baldrik is to Black Adder? :P
1111 2012-01-13 21:28:05 <gmaxwell> piuk seemed to argue that position on the forum though, so I'll grant you two.
1112 2012-01-13 21:28:20 <UukGoblin> tcatm, looks like I wasn't actually better off sending piuk an email. He still hasn't replied to it, yet he's been active on other threads on the forums.
1113 2012-01-13 21:28:51 user__ has joined
1114 2012-01-13 21:30:01 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1115 2012-01-13 21:30:29 <gmaxwell> pusle: During a prior discussion it was suggested that simply sticking and OP_MAKEITSO  on the end of the P2SH scripts 'fixed' the inelegance luke-jr and piuk are complaining about.
1116 2012-01-13 21:31:09 <gmaxwell> It makes it 'elegant' though it doesn't actually change anything objectively measurable except that it also makes the outputs one byte larger.
1117 2012-01-13 21:31:47 <pusle> if one byte is all he needs to be happy then...
1118 2012-01-13 21:31:50 <gmaxwell> I'd kind of suggested that we do that just to shut up luke-jr, but gavin indicated that he didn't like the idea of bloating every transaction by a byte just to make one person happy.
1119 2012-01-13 21:31:51 <pusle> :)
1120 2012-01-13 21:31:59 <pusle> hehe
1121 2012-01-13 21:32:09 <UukGoblin> well, wouldn't it (MAKEITSO, as well as CHC I think) require the senders of the transaction to know about it?
1122 2012-01-13 21:32:13 <gmaxwell> pusle: but it's not just a byte, its one byte in every output script forever. so it's not like its that easy.
1123 2012-01-13 21:32:36 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: the senders would need to have the behavior sure but that would be programmed in.
1124 2012-01-13 21:32:44 <pusle> I still can't quite follow his complaints
1125 2012-01-13 21:33:06 <pusle> he says it breaks standard transactions
1126 2012-01-13 21:33:10 <gmaxwell> I follow them, but I think they're stupid. Someone who thinks they are not stupid should explain them rather than me.
1127 2012-01-13 21:33:18 <pusle> because you always must evaluate a script , and that's new
1128 2012-01-13 21:33:20 <pusle> ?
1129 2012-01-13 21:33:21 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1130 2012-01-13 21:33:22 <gmaxwell> pusle: no, it breaks the standard 'form'.
1131 2012-01-13 21:33:42 <UukGoblin> regarding a byte, couldn't it replace OP_EQUALVERIFY and/or OP_CHECKSIG?
1132 2012-01-13 21:33:49 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
1133 2012-01-13 21:34:01 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: no because we need to be backwards compatible with existing nodes.
1134 2012-01-13 21:34:09 <UukGoblin> i.e. <scriptHas> OP_CHECKSCRIPTHASH
1135 2012-01-13 21:34:12 <UukGoblin> ah...
1136 2012-01-13 21:34:20 <UukGoblin> but it seems to me we aren't
1137 2012-01-13 21:34:38 <UukGoblin> we're compatible with just some of them
1138 2012-01-13 21:34:50 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: though you could choose to interpert P2SH as replacing OP_EQUAL with OP_MAKEITSO_OR_EQUAL that happens to have the same encoding as OP_EQUAL if that helps you sleep. :)
1139 2012-01-13 21:34:54 <UukGoblin> by the same token I believe we're compatible with 0.3.9
1140 2012-01-13 21:35:14 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: ... no. You don't understand it, bleh. but I'm not sure where your understanding is falling down.
1141 2012-01-13 21:35:34 <UukGoblin> that is correct, I admit, I don't fully understand all this.
1142 2012-01-13 21:36:14 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: it basically looks like a specially constructed hashed locked transaction to older nodes and passes fine. (though it only validates the scripthash not the script itself)
1143 2012-01-13 21:36:19 <pusle> neither do I, but I do care...
1144 2012-01-13 21:36:30 <UukGoblin> we need the majority of hashpower to upgrade, right?
1145 2012-01-13 21:37:15 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: no, we need a majority of hash power for P2SH transactions to be safe, and/or for people who are mining P2SH to not be at risk of being on a smaller end of a fork should a non-p2sh node mine an invalid p2sh transaction.
1146 2012-01-13 21:37:32 <gmaxwell> (perhaps you wouldn't consider that a disagreement? the details are important)
1147 2012-01-13 21:38:25 <pusle> and this can happen, because P2SH is a subset of previous hashing script "possibilities"
1148 2012-01-13 21:38:26 <pusle> ?
1149 2012-01-13 21:38:31 <gmaxwell> P2SH takes transactions that previously all nodes would accept and rejects some of them (ones where the p2sh provided script fails to validate), but doesn't make anything that failed before pass.
1150 2012-01-13 21:38:37 <gmaxwell> pusle: ^ exactly.
1151 2012-01-13 21:38:44 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, I thought that old mining nodes would create stale blocks because they'd be accepting invalid P2SH transactions
1152 2012-01-13 21:39:19 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: just special-casing it with an OP_NOP1 is no better.
1153 2012-01-13 21:39:23 <UukGoblin> just like 0.3.9 would create stale blocks because it'd be accepting invalid overflowed integer transactions
1154 2012-01-13 21:39:26 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: oh, thats what you mean by pre 0.3.9.
1155 2012-01-13 21:39:41 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: yes, they'd be at risk of that, though they're already exposed as you point out.
1156 2012-01-13 21:39:42 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: all solutions require the senders to know they're sending to a scripthash
1157 2012-01-13 21:39:52 DaQatz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1158 2012-01-13 21:40:06 <pusle> couldn't you enforce the new rules for a while before actually start to use P2SH
1159 2012-01-13 21:40:09 DaQatz has joined
1160 2012-01-13 21:40:10 amiller has quit (Excess Flood)
1161 2012-01-13 21:40:22 amiller has joined
1162 2012-01-13 21:40:29 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, ok, I thought P2SH didn't, but that doesn't matter much, actually
1163 2012-01-13 21:40:35 <gmaxwell> pusle: sure, I expect people won't use p2sh for some time.. it'll take a while for support of the new addresses to get deployed.
1164 2012-01-13 21:40:46 <luke-jr> pusle: that's why people are trying to rush it
1165 2012-01-13 21:40:56 <pusle> makes sense
1166 2012-01-13 21:41:04 <gmaxwell> pusle: but when you start enforcing you create the fork risk, which is why you need a majority to start enforcing.
1167 2012-01-13 21:41:26 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, I'd definitely prefer for people to first be ready from their end (i.e. merchants, points of sale, exchanges, etc) before the whole change goes live
1168 2012-01-13 21:41:27 <gmaxwell> (Otherwise the enforcers may be on the minority of a fork created due to a troublemaker mining an invalid p2sh)
1169 2012-01-13 21:41:33 <pusle> but fork would only happen if somebody tried to use script which are now "banned" ?
1170 2012-01-13 21:41:33 <UukGoblin> one month is nowhere near enough
1171 2012-01-13 21:41:41 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: You have it backwards, I think.
1172 2012-01-13 21:42:00 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: it must be firmly established in the chain before all those people can deploy it.
1173 2012-01-13 21:42:01 <pusle> ok
1174 2012-01-13 21:42:14 <luke-jr> I don't have time for this discussion right now, sorry. Keep chatting if you want, but don't complain later that I wasn't here for it ;)
1175 2012-01-13 21:42:42 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: Esp since p2sh transactions won't be fully secure until its clear that there is a perpetual majority of mining power enforcing the rules.
1176 2012-01-13 21:42:56 <pusle> well Luke, you kinda have to articulate how P2SH can be changed to not suck. Just saying "Kill it" won't cut it
1177 2012-01-13 21:43:24 <pusle> in the forums is better than here
1178 2012-01-13 21:43:28 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: (going back to what you said before) no, with p2sh the sender has to know they are sending a p2sh transaction. They'll know this via the use of a '3' address type.
1179 2012-01-13 21:43:44 <gmaxwell> And the body of the address will provide the hash of the script that they're paying to.
1180 2012-01-13 21:43:53 <gmaxwell> Same way '1' types work, but with a different transaction template.
1181 2012-01-13 21:44:34 <UukGoblin> wait... won't that make older nodes unable to validate the transaction?
1182 2012-01-13 21:44:42 <gmaxwell> Nope.
1183 2012-01-13 21:45:21 <UukGoblin> "pay 5 BTC to a 3-address" "ok here's me with my privkey for 3-address, I'm redeeming my 5 BTC" "hey but I'm an old node, wtf is a 3-address?"
1184 2012-01-13 21:45:34 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: ah ha! thats not what a transaction looks like.
1185 2012-01-13 21:45:43 <gmaxwell> the the address version never shows up in the chain at all.
1186 2012-01-13 21:46:01 <gmaxwell> No transaction says "pay 5 BTC to a 1-address"
1187 2012-01-13 21:46:47 <UukGoblin> oh, damn blockexplorer for making it look so :-P
1188 2012-01-13 21:47:26 heoa has joined
1189 2012-01-13 21:47:56 <gmaxwell> instead they say something like
1190 2012-01-13 21:49:15 <gmaxwell> "Take the top element of the stack (provided by the spending txn), duplicate it, hash it (pops it, pushes the hash), check that the hash is equal to <data I pulled from the address> (pops the hash), check that the signature of the spending txn validates with the public key on the stack"
1191 2012-01-13 21:49:31 <gmaxwell> it's a little program in the script language.
1192 2012-01-13 21:49:57 <UukGoblin> and regarding the implementation direction... have everyone who wants to use p2sh (mtgox, points of sale, etc) implement it so that "IF block number is > x AND n blocks below x have /P2SH/ in coinbase THEN we work with P2SH"
1193 2012-01-13 21:50:39 <UukGoblin> (at least n blocks)
1194 2012-01-13 21:50:50 <gmaxwell> I don't think it's being recommended right now that users check for the proof themselves, but the P2SH flag was intended to make that possible.
1195 2012-01-13 21:51:15 <UukGoblin> yeah, just way too early imho, gavin proposed 15 feb 2012!
1196 2012-01-13 21:51:41 <gmaxwell> 15 feb 2012 isn't for mtgox though, it's for mining nodes to start enforcing the rules.
1197 2012-01-13 21:52:10 <gmaxwell> p2sh doesn't mean you're enforcing the rules— it means that you're aware of them and willing to start enforcing them after that date.
1198 2012-01-13 21:52:14 <UukGoblin> ok, yeah, I was aware of the script stuff going on. My point was more about the spending transaction. I thought spending P2SH required something special that old nodes couldn't understand?
1199 2012-01-13 21:52:56 <gmaxwell> To send to or spend from P2SH requires software that understands P2SH. To permit P2SH in the chain works for everyone.
1200 2012-01-13 21:53:52 <gmaxwell> E.g. the software needs to know how to write P2SH style scripts in response to '3' addresses to send to.  And to spend from you need to reconize p2sh style transactions as yours in the chain and know how to write the scripts that spend from them
1201 2012-01-13 21:53:55 <UukGoblin> ok everyone would permit P2SH in the chain, but think they're some dummy transactions that will never be spent
1202 2012-01-13 21:54:12 <UukGoblin> by "everyone" I mean the everyone from "works for everyone"
1203 2012-01-13 21:54:28 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: think they're some dummy transactions that anyone who knows X where H(X)=Y for some Y (the address).
1204 2012-01-13 21:54:42 <gmaxwell> e.g. old nodes think that they are purely hash locked transactions.
1205 2012-01-13 21:54:52 <UukGoblin> yes
1206 2012-01-13 21:55:06 <gmaxwell> New nodes know about the implicit validation of the script contained in X.
1207 2012-01-13 21:55:21 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1208 2012-01-13 21:55:41 <gmaxwell> Luke's complaint (I think) is mostly that that validation is implicit. (though he's blowing up my understanding by saying merely adding an opcode wouldn't make him happy, so now I'm confused again)
1209 2012-01-13 21:56:21 <gmaxwell> We could make it explicit, e.g. OP_MAKEITSO by wasting a byte in the output of every P2SH transaction forever.
1210 2012-01-13 21:56:54 <gmaxwell> Probably two bytes, actually an OP_DUP, otherwise the stack would be empty when it got to makeitso, plus an OP_MAKEITSO
1211 2012-01-13 21:57:11 <UukGoblin> so, let me rephrase again, with Alice, who has 0.3.20, and Bob, who has 0.6.0 with p2sh, as well as 10 BTC on Bob's account which were paid to Bob's 3-address. Could Alice's node accept payment from Bob?
1212 2012-01-13 21:57:22 <UukGoblin> and show it on Alice's balance?
1213 2012-01-13 21:57:49 <gmaxwell> oh. sure. Absolutely. Bob willpay to Alice's 1-address and this will work fine.
1214 2012-01-13 21:58:14 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
1215 2012-01-13 21:58:22 <gmaxwell> Alice will see a txn that has input: some hashlocked crap that validates, output: a regular payment to alice.
1216 2012-01-13 21:58:44 <UukGoblin> would the hashlocked crap validate? :-O
1217 2012-01-13 21:58:54 <gmaxwell> Sure.
1218 2012-01-13 21:59:13 <UukGoblin> let me see...
1219 2012-01-13 21:59:43 <gmaxwell> Bob pushed some stuff (the real input script) onto the stack, then HASH_160 OP_EQUAL.  Alice stops there, and it's all good.
1220 2012-01-13 22:00:09 <gmaxwell> A p2sh validation node would do all that but go further and execute the 'stuff' and only consider the txn good if Bob's txn obeyed the stuff _too_.
1221 2012-01-13 22:02:02 <gmaxwell> Of course, alice couldn't pay bob back— unless bob has a 1-address she can use. And bob couldn't pay alice using p2sh. (duh, she hasn't given him a 3-address)
1222 2012-01-13 22:02:29 jacobwg has joined
1223 2012-01-13 22:02:31 <pusle> Luke is proposing to make the P2SH a new "class" of script, in order to not break the old OP_EVAL ?
1224 2012-01-13 22:02:58 <gmaxwell> pusle: what do you mean by "the old OP_EVAL"?
1225 2012-01-13 22:03:11 <gmaxwell> Are you also laboring under the impression that OP_EVAL was originally part of bitcoin?
1226 2012-01-13 22:03:14 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, right, I'm perhaps missing this thing: What does ScriptSig actually sign?
1227 2012-01-13 22:03:14 <pusle> maybe I don't understand
1228 2012-01-13 22:03:32 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1229 2012-01-13 22:03:36 <UukGoblin> it should... sign... the script... right? ;-)
1230 2012-01-13 22:03:48 <pusle> no, but it seems like Luke thinks OP_EVAL will be broken
1231 2012-01-13 22:03:51 <pusle> coz you limit the rules
1232 2012-01-13 22:03:52 <pusle> right?
1233 2012-01-13 22:04:03 <pusle> so he wants a separate system, with narrower rules
1234 2012-01-13 22:04:06 <pusle> so they are both valid
1235 2012-01-13 22:04:17 <pusle> and then perhaps as time goes by, miners will drop support for OP_EVAL
1236 2012-01-13 22:04:24 <gmaxwell> ha, no. It's the signature provided by the script. :)  The signatures cover all the output side of transaction with the other inputs masked out.
1237 2012-01-13 22:04:24 <pusle> and only have "new script", ie P2SH
1238 2012-01-13 22:04:50 <gmaxwell> pusle: No, you don't understand. OP_EVAL doesn't exist yet either.
1239 2012-01-13 22:04:55 num1 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1240 2012-01-13 22:05:14 <pusle> so what is it that Lukes pool supports today, that will not be supported with this P2SH upgrade?
1241 2012-01-13 22:05:22 <pusle> there must be something he wanna keep?
1242 2012-01-13 22:05:24 <gmaxwell> We originally proposed OP_EVAL as a new feature to solve a need, then people complained OP_EVAL was too dangerous, so we changed to P2SH.
1243 2012-01-13 22:05:48 <pusle> uhm
1244 2012-01-13 22:05:56 <gmaxwell> pusle: Luke's pool is running the older OP_EVAL code— a patch that gavin backported for him.
1245 2012-01-13 22:06:03 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, well OK let's put that aside for a sec, I'll try to come back to it later...
1246 2012-01-13 22:06:09 <pusle> and he likes it so much he wanna keep that?
1247 2012-01-13 22:06:16 num1 has joined
1248 2012-01-13 22:06:16 <gmaxwell> but none of this code has ever been in a release of the bitcoin software.
1249 2012-01-13 22:06:18 <UukGoblin> old nodes won't be able to mine successfully if the change goes live <- correct?
1250 2012-01-13 22:06:21 <pusle> mkay
1251 2012-01-13 22:06:25 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1252 2012-01-13 22:06:25 <UukGoblin> ah, perhaps no
1253 2012-01-13 22:06:35 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: They're fine— so long as they enforce IsStandard or something like it.
1254 2012-01-13 22:06:39 <UukGoblin> cause they won't accept non-standard
1255 2012-01-13 22:06:44 <gmaxwell> Bingo.
1256 2012-01-13 22:07:37 <gmaxwell> If they accept non-standard _and_ if some jackass produces a P2SH script that doesn't actually validate in the P2SH-interior part, and they mine that, then that block will get orphaned.
1257 2012-01-13 22:08:07 <gmaxwell> Though objective testing indicates that ~no one is accepting non-standard TXN except luke.
1258 2012-01-13 22:08:38 <pusle> so then Luke kinda have to get all the other miners to wanna have OP_EVAL too?
1259 2012-01-13 22:08:58 <pusle> if there is to be any point
1260 2012-01-13 22:09:00 <gmaxwell> pusle: if OP_EVAL is to be useful for anyone, as well as the software authors.
1261 2012-01-13 22:09:14 <gmaxwell> and none of the software authors like it, I believe.
1262 2012-01-13 22:09:14 <pusle> mhm
1263 2012-01-13 22:09:36 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, cool, thanks for all the help, and the useful post, too :-)
1264 2012-01-13 22:09:49 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
1265 2012-01-13 22:09:59 <gmaxwell> (by software authors I mean the authors of other client softare)
1266 2012-01-13 22:10:02 <UukGoblin> I'll get some rest, I'll try to understand more of it tomorrow :-)
1267 2012-01-13 22:10:10 <gmaxwell> (I wasn't intending to suggest that luke isn't a software author. :) )
1268 2012-01-13 22:10:33 <pusle> I think you have to make this clear to the miners in the " Bitcoin BIP 16 /P2SH/ is bad, your action is needed!" thread
1269 2012-01-13 22:10:49 <pusle> all of this is something new
1270 2012-01-13 22:10:49 Cablesaurus has joined
1271 2012-01-13 22:10:49 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
1272 2012-01-13 22:10:49 Cablesaurus has joined
1273 2012-01-13 22:11:44 <gmaxwell> I'm saddened by the people who won't even bother to read my post there.
1274 2012-01-13 22:11:47 <pusle> any of the suggestions adds functionality, question is how it's done and how much functionality
1275 2012-01-13 22:11:57 <gmaxwell> I know it was long winded, but hell I actually avoided the technical details.
1276 2012-01-13 22:12:17 <pusle> you have to dumb it down for us others :)
1277 2012-01-13 22:12:40 <gmaxwell> I did dumb it down, my post was long— not complicated.
1278 2012-01-13 22:12:54 <pusle> abstracted then
1279 2012-01-13 22:13:10 <pusle> for a long time now, I thought this is a replacement to something that exists
1280 2012-01-13 22:13:15 <gmaxwell> and I'm currently resisting the urge to respond to Holliday, where he says "I think there are other, better ways to go about "fixing" that issue. "
1281 2012-01-13 22:13:16 <pusle> but that's only true for blocks from Luke's pool
1282 2012-01-13 22:13:25 <forrestv> gmaxwell, you should have included a TOC and headings :P
1283 2012-01-13 22:13:26 <pusle> hehe
1284 2012-01-13 22:13:50 <gmaxwell> with something like "You won't even bother to read what people are saying about the subject enough to know what the subject is, and you expect anyone to give a fuck what you think?"
1285 2012-01-13 22:13:52 <UukGoblin> lol
1286 2012-01-13 22:14:02 <pusle> perhaps not ;)
1287 2012-01-13 22:14:16 <gmaxwell> pusle: it doesn't even exist from luke's pool either.
1288 2012-01-13 22:14:18 <pusle> people are people, don't let that bring you down
1289 2012-01-13 22:14:30 <gmaxwell> pusle: the function doesn't enable itself until mid feburary in the code he was running.
1290 2012-01-13 22:14:40 caedes_ has joined
1291 2012-01-13 22:14:40 caedes_ has quit (Changing host)
1292 2012-01-13 22:14:40 caedes_ has joined
1293 2012-01-13 22:14:40 <pusle> nobody gets the credit they deserve while they are alive :D
1294 2012-01-13 22:14:43 <gmaxwell> and he actually turned it off because of the vulnerability makomk found.
1295 2012-01-13 22:14:52 <pusle> hmpf
1296 2012-01-13 22:14:56 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, I believe if all that you said was correct, this would be also correct?: And no-one other than Bob could send Alice a transaction that'd spend Bob's coins originating from a 3-address?
1297 2012-01-13 22:15:11 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: kinda!
1298 2012-01-13 22:16:01 <UukGoblin> kinda?
1299 2012-01-13 22:16:06 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: If bob had used that address before, then I would know the script related to that address. I could send a txn to alice that alice would accept as valid.  But it would not get mined by the P2SH enforcing miners, because I couldn't makethe P2SH internal part valid (I don't have his private keys)
1300 2012-01-13 22:16:31 <gmaxwell> If bob had not spent from the address before I couldn't even trick alice with a zero confirm txn.
1301 2012-01-13 22:16:56 <gmaxwell> In either case, so long as p2sh miners have a majority of the mining power, the transaction will not confirm/stay confirmed for alice.
1302 2012-01-13 22:16:59 <UukGoblin> don't you have to spend ALL inputs from an address when you make a txn?
1303 2012-01-13 22:17:10 <UukGoblin> ah, no, just all money from an input
1304 2012-01-13 22:17:19 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: No. You have to spend all of an input. But you only use inputs as you need them.
1305 2012-01-13 22:17:23 <gmaxwell> right.
1306 2012-01-13 22:17:47 <gmaxwell> so bob can increase his security in the face of uncertanty about p2sh mining power by using addresses only once.
1307 2012-01-13 22:18:02 <gmaxwell> but he doesn't have to so long as p2sh has a majority going forward.
1308 2012-01-13 22:18:40 <gmaxwell> (an I think your extrapolation there shows you understand it)
1309 2012-01-13 22:19:43 <UukGoblin> (nah, I extrapolated from what you said, and I assumed it was correct; I don't yet fully understand WHY what you said was correct)
1310 2012-01-13 22:19:56 <UukGoblin> (I'll try to get there tomorrow I think)
1311 2012-01-13 22:21:32 <UukGoblin> well, to be precise, I don't get why Alice can validate Bob's input if she doesn't know how Bob got the money in the first place
1312 2012-01-13 22:22:14 marf_away has joined
1313 2012-01-13 22:22:41 user__ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1314 2012-01-13 22:22:46 eoss has joined
1315 2012-01-13 22:22:46 eoss has quit (Changing host)
1316 2012-01-13 22:22:46 eoss has joined
1317 2012-01-13 22:23:05 <UukGoblin> but that's probably hidden somewhere in that script magic
1318 2012-01-13 22:25:39 egecko has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1319 2012-01-13 22:25:45 is4tomj1 has left ()
1320 2012-01-13 22:25:54 egecko has joined
1321 2012-01-13 22:26:57 <the_batman> is there data on the size, demographic, psychographic, and behavioral breakdown of the bitcoin community?
1322 2012-01-13 22:27:29 <helo> fat, white, bipolar, never exercise
1323 2012-01-13 22:27:38 <pusle> hehe, behavioral?
1324 2012-01-13 22:27:40 <midnightmagic> psychographic?
1325 2012-01-13 22:27:41 <the_batman> I'm trying to prepare a business plan and spell out the value for my customer
1326 2012-01-13 22:27:42 <pusle> star trek freak
1327 2012-01-13 22:27:45 <the_batman> I need numbers :\
1328 2012-01-13 22:27:54 <midnightmagic> what's your business?
1329 2012-01-13 22:27:56 <helo> the_batman: bitcoin people are generally technically-minded people
1330 2012-01-13 22:28:18 <the_batman> is there data somewhere?
1331 2012-01-13 22:28:28 <helo> no
1332 2012-01-13 22:28:36 <midnightmagic> are you requesting data from us so you can make money, without telling us anything about what you're doing?
1333 2012-01-13 22:28:47 <the_batman> yep
1334 2012-01-13 22:28:57 <the_batman> I thought you'd sympathize, as this is bitcoin-dev
1335 2012-01-13 22:29:09 <midnightmagic> the software, protocol, methods, mining software, and operation are all open-source.
1336 2012-01-13 22:29:18 <midnightmagic> bitcoin is a democratization of the money system.
1337 2012-01-13 22:29:42 <midnightmagic> I respect you have a business idea.
1338 2012-01-13 22:30:19 <midnightmagic> I wish you the best in implementation. :)
1339 2012-01-13 22:30:31 <the_batman> no you don't lol
1340 2012-01-13 22:30:35 <midnightmagic> I do actually.
1341 2012-01-13 22:30:48 <the_batman> words lie to oneself
1342 2012-01-13 22:30:51 <midnightmagic> Your use of bitcoin represents a growth in the encompassing economy.
1343 2012-01-13 22:30:51 <the_batman> actions speak clearly
1344 2012-01-13 22:31:09 <the_batman> how is there no data?
1345 2012-01-13 22:31:10 <midnightmagic> However, in that sense, I gain only indirectly by participation in your business plan.
1346 2012-01-13 22:31:38 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1347 2012-01-13 22:31:40 <the_batman> so you don't believe in helping people generally unless you directly benefit? hmm
1348 2012-01-13 22:31:46 <the_batman> sounds like
1349 2012-01-13 22:31:47 <the_batman> a sociopath
1350 2012-01-13 22:31:51 <the_batman> read a lot of ayn rand?
1351 2012-01-13 22:32:31 <the_batman> sorry Im grumpy. I need to go procure my morning coffee.
1352 2012-01-13 22:32:37 <midnightmagic> We all benefit by cooperation. In a non-cooperative environment, why would I allow a sociopath to take advantage of my expertise? You are asking me to work for you for free.
1353 2012-01-13 22:32:58 <the_batman> if you give me the data, Ill tell you exactly what my business plan is AND
1354 2012-01-13 22:33:03 <the_batman> Ill even tell you how to execute on it
1355 2012-01-13 22:33:06 <midnightmagic> Ah, and I'm wayyy behind in latency here. I mean no disrespect: I DO wish you well in implementation.
1356 2012-01-13 22:33:26 <midnightmagic> Seriously. I hope your business expands and millions of people find it crucial to their daily lives.
1357 2012-01-13 22:33:35 * the_batman shrug
1358 2012-01-13 22:33:39 <the_batman> Im just trying to do fucking science
1359 2012-01-13 22:33:42 <the_batman> I need data
1360 2012-01-13 22:33:43 * the_batman cries
1361 2012-01-13 22:33:55 <the_batman> I will pay for the data?
1362 2012-01-13 22:33:59 <the_batman> we speaking the same language?
1363 2012-01-13 22:34:29 <the_batman> haha you dont have the data though!!
1364 2012-01-13 22:35:02 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1365 2012-01-13 22:35:02 <copumpkin> the_batman: there is no data because it's pretty hard to collect. The best you could probably do is go through either the forums' user lists and try to infer (or ask) or do the same with bitcoin-otc WOT lists
1366 2012-01-13 22:35:40 <copumpkin> the_batman: you could easily create a census but you might have to give people a tenth of a coin to entice them to participate :P
1367 2012-01-13 22:35:52 <luke-jr> pusle: I did.
1368 2012-01-13 22:35:55 <copumpkin> and there'd be no way to determine if the information is correct
1369 2012-01-13 22:36:52 <UukGoblin> well, actually, the beginning of bitcoin was one example when I DIDN'T want to help people
1370 2012-01-13 22:37:04 <UukGoblin> I'm normally OK helping them and sharing knowledge
1371 2012-01-13 22:37:31 <UukGoblin> but when difficulty was low, every new person on board had an impact on the difficulty, thereby decreasing my income in bitcoins
1372 2012-01-13 22:37:52 <UukGoblin> so not only did I have nothing to gain from helping them, I WAS LOSING by doing it
1373 2012-01-13 22:38:03 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1374 2012-01-13 22:38:08 <copumpkin> UukGoblin: well, it's a bit like the hoarding & deflation argument though
1375 2012-01-13 22:38:10 <the_batman> bah
1376 2012-01-13 22:38:17 <the_batman> Ill just make up some numbers
1377 2012-01-13 22:38:18 <the_batman> ;)
1378 2012-01-13 22:38:20 <copumpkin> if you don't encourage people to use it, your coins will be worthless
1379 2012-01-13 22:38:43 <UukGoblin> copumpkin, yeah, the plan then was to make as much coins as possible before they become valuable
1380 2012-01-13 22:38:46 <copumpkin> the_batman: it's not that we're being unhelpful. There really is no data. How would you expect us to have any? has anyone asked for your age, gender, or location at any time in this community?
1381 2012-01-13 22:38:52 <UukGoblin> with minimal risk
1382 2012-01-13 22:39:24 <UukGoblin> the_batman, yeah, collecting such data would be hard, you'd need statisticians and willing and honest participants
1383 2012-01-13 22:39:38 <midnightmagic> UukGoblin: Art had an interesting solution to that. Maintain a competitive, technological edge, and full disclosure otherwise.
1384 2012-01-13 22:39:44 <UukGoblin> even then, I wish you luck proving your test results weren't biased
1385 2012-01-13 22:40:07 <UukGoblin> midnightmagic, yeah well, he's good at what he's doing
1386 2012-01-13 22:40:28 darkee has joined
1387 2012-01-13 22:40:28 <UukGoblin> midnightmagic, when he played with his gfx cards, I was only beginning to deploy onto rackspace VPSes
1388 2012-01-13 22:40:41 <copumpkin> the_batman: there's also the issue of the fact being that people are a lot more willing to put in "Free work" for projects that aren't self-serving. People are quite happy to submit patches to open-source projects, but even if they could fix proprietary software, I doubt there'd be nearly as much of an effort to do that
1389 2012-01-13 22:40:42 <midnightmagic> UukGoblin: If I could tell my highschool self what was coming, I would probably be an engineer today because of examples like Art..
1390 2012-01-13 22:40:55 <UukGoblin> when I bought my gfx cards, he already played with some fpgas
1391 2012-01-13 22:40:57 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: figure out why BIP 16 sucks yet?
1392 2012-01-13 22:41:06 <copumpkin> the_batman: helping an open project makes you feel warm and fuzzy in side. Helping someone else make money makes you feel used
1393 2012-01-13 22:41:11 <copumpkin> *inside
1394 2012-01-13 22:41:20 <midnightmagic> UukGoblin: When was your first graphics card? I seem to remember you asking for help setting some of them up.
1395 2012-01-13 22:41:43 <UukGoblin> copumpkin, I second that!
1396 2012-01-13 22:42:06 <UukGoblin> midnightmagic, OK, maybe he didn't have fpgas JUST then ;-)
1397 2012-01-13 22:42:17 <luke-jr> hmm, I suppose if BIP 16 *does* go live, I could just block such transactions entirely… :p
1398 2012-01-13 22:42:36 <UukGoblin> midnightmagic, hard to say... I think around dec 2010?
1399 2012-01-13 22:43:04 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, no, what I did figure, is that I feel it's way too fast to have it implemented
1400 2012-01-13 22:43:20 pusle has quit ()
1401 2012-01-13 22:43:32 <UukGoblin> although I might be wrong even there...
1402 2012-01-13 22:43:32 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: that too, but the design is flawed…
1403 2012-01-13 22:43:46 <midnightmagic> UukGoblin: He was talking about manually-built pick&place machinery at one point, and right then I realised I was at least a year of careful study away from that level of design.. and there would be no catching up.
1404 2012-01-13 22:44:46 <UukGoblin> midnightmagic, actually, I remember talking to him about it. But I was like, "yeah we're thinking of maybe learning to build a pick&place machine at some point in future", when he was like "Yeah this and that is better because of X, and I tried Y twice but it sucks"
1405 2012-01-13 22:45:47 TD has joined
1406 2012-01-13 22:45:52 <midnightmagic> lol that was you talking to him about that?
1407 2012-01-13 22:45:52 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, I feel I'll have to understand Script better before I can judge that
1408 2012-01-13 22:45:55 <midnightmagic> awesome
1409 2012-01-13 22:46:38 <UukGoblin> yup, I've been here for a while ;-)
1410 2012-01-13 22:48:29 <midnightmagic> Well I knew that part.. I'd forgotten completely who the other person he was talking to, was.
1411 2012-01-13 22:48:30 <luke-jr> O.O!
1412 2012-01-13 22:49:10 <luke-jr> I think OP_CODEHASHCHECK is in fact *already* supported, if I'm reading script.cpp right…
1413 2012-01-13 22:49:53 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, what's it called?
1414 2012-01-13 22:49:58 <luke-jr> OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY
1415 2012-01-13 22:50:11 <luke-jr> lemme see if I can get an example script for it
1416 2012-01-13 22:51:39 <theymos> checksigverify just does checksig and marks the script invalid if it fails.
1417 2012-01-13 22:52:24 <riush_> is there any more detailed explanation of CHC than this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56969.msg687795#msg687795
1418 2012-01-13 22:52:34 <riush_> perhaps with an example script ;)
1419 2012-01-13 22:53:15 <luke-jr> theymos: exactly
1420 2012-01-13 22:53:39 PK has quit ()
1421 2012-01-13 22:54:05 <theymos> luke-jr: How could that be used for this? (I'm pretty sure it can't be.)
1422 2012-01-13 22:54:39 <luke-jr> theymos: 1 min, writing up examples
1423 2012-01-13 22:55:01 tower has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1424 2012-01-13 22:55:39 <theymos> I don't think scriptSigs are actually hashed at all in the checksig hash (and OP_CODESEPARATOR is therefore useless), so I don't think it can work.
1425 2012-01-13 22:57:06 <luke-jr> ...signatures... {code signature} {code pubkey} OP_CODESEPARATOR 2 [pubkey1] [pubkey2] [pubkey3] 3 OP_CHECKMULTISIG
1426 2012-01-13 22:57:08 <luke-jr> OP_IF OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_IF OP_CHECKSIG OP_ENDIF OP_ENDIF
1427 2012-01-13 22:57:17 <luke-jr> potentially a bit big size-wise, but 100% compatible with current code…
1428 2012-01-13 22:57:29 <luke-jr> also requires an intermediate key (which can be discarded)
1429 2012-01-13 22:58:12 <luke-jr> theymos: why not?
1430 2012-01-13 22:58:40 <luke-jr> I guess that extra key might harm some use cases… hmm
1431 2012-01-13 22:58:50 <theymos> I could be wrong, but I don't think that scriptSigs are ever "covered" by signatures.
1432 2012-01-13 22:58:59 <sipa> roconnor: you can probably comment on luke-jr's idea here
1433 2012-01-13 22:59:17 <roconnor> ya, I'm trying to understand it
1434 2012-01-13 22:59:33 <roconnor> are those two lines the scriptSig and scriptPubKey respectively?
1435 2012-01-13 22:59:40 <luke-jr> OP_CODESEPARATOR saves the current position in pbegincodehash
1436 2012-01-13 22:59:42 <luke-jr> yes
1437 2012-01-13 23:00:10 <luke-jr> OP_CHECKSIG checks everything from the last OP_CODESEPARATOR onward against the signature+pubkey on the stack
1438 2012-01-13 23:00:23 <roconnor> luke-jr: unfortunately, not exactly
1439 2012-01-13 23:00:46 <luke-jr> roconnor: ?
1440 2012-01-13 23:01:03 <roconnor> OP_CHECKSIG will check everything in from the last OP_CODESEPARATOR *in the particular script fragment* or the entire script fragment if there is no OP_CODESEPARATOR.
1441 2012-01-13 23:01:24 <roconnor> where there are two script fragments: the sigScript and the pubkeyScript
1442 2012-01-13 23:01:26 <luke-jr> oh, so it can't cross the scriptSig-to-scriptPubKey boundary?
1443 2012-01-13 23:01:30 <roconnor> nope
1444 2012-01-13 23:01:30 <luke-jr> lame
1445 2012-01-13 23:01:33 <roconnor> yes
1446 2012-01-13 23:01:41 <luke-jr> sounds utterly useless too (OP_CHECKSIG)
1447 2012-01-13 23:01:49 <roconnor> the only thing that crosses the scriptSig-scriptPubKey boundary at the moment is the main stack
1448 2012-01-13 23:02:24 <roconnor> luke-jr: I think the current understanding of OP_CHECKSIG is that the way it manipulates the scripts during verification is pointless
1449 2012-01-13 23:02:46 <roconnor> so I have to write a lot of difficult code that has no purpose :(
1450 2012-01-13 23:07:19 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1451 2012-01-13 23:09:01 <roconnor> that said, this is my understanding of how it works.  I have examined the code carefully, but I don't claim that I have a perfect understanding.
1452 2012-01-13 23:09:28 <roconnor> so you should double check my claim.
1453 2012-01-13 23:10:28 <copumpkin> roconnor: when's the follow-up to that blog post on shortest paths coming? :)
1454 2012-01-13 23:11:23 <roconnor> ya, It turns out it isn't really faster to use eliminants :(
1455 2012-01-13 23:11:33 <roconnor> as far as I could tell
1456 2012-01-13 23:12:01 <roconnor> which is too bad because there are faster algorithms if you want to find shortest paths between two particular points.
1457 2012-01-13 23:12:02 <copumpkin> probably still an interesting read :)
1458 2012-01-13 23:15:09 <luke-jr> roconnor: well, it does at least promote OP_CODEHASHCHECK from "good solution" to "bugfix"… :p
1459 2012-01-13 23:15:30 Visalleras has quit (Quit: pues no me imaginaba que el dilber fuera handaluzistáni)
1460 2012-01-13 23:15:41 <roconnor> OP_CODEHASH does turn OP_CODESEPARATOR into a useful operator.
1461 2012-01-13 23:17:11 <luke-jr> OP_CHECKSIG seems to be trying to do what CHC is intended to do IMO
1462 2012-01-13 23:17:20 <roconnor> though we are still stuck with the useless work done in CHECKSIG
1463 2012-01-13 23:17:24 jacobwg has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
1464 2012-01-13 23:17:36 <theymos> Script seems full of bugs like this, which is why I'm not *too* upset about P2SH making it a little worse. Hopefully some day Script will be totally redone.
1465 2012-01-13 23:17:58 <luke-jr> if Gavin has any real problems with CHC, I wish he'd say them
1466 2012-01-13 23:18:34 <roconnor> I think his claim is that CHC is more complicated than P2SH
1467 2012-01-13 23:18:41 <luke-jr> looks far simpler
1468 2012-01-13 23:18:51 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
1469 2012-01-13 23:19:04 <roconnor> well you need to add a new codehash stack (or something)
1470 2012-01-13 23:19:06 da2ce7 has joined
1471 2012-01-13 23:19:11 <luke-jr> just store the last OP_CODESEP position in another variable that survives the script end/start, then make a new op fixing OP_CHECKSIG and using a hash rather than sig
1472 2012-01-13 23:19:16 <sipa> theymos: agrew
1473 2012-01-13 23:19:18 <sipa> agree
1474 2012-01-13 23:19:47 <luke-jr> very simple compared to recursively evaluating stuff
1475 2012-01-13 23:20:03 <roconnor> P2SH isn't recursively evaluting stuff
1476 2012-01-13 23:20:06 <sipa> script is already too messed up for making it clean; my priorities are ease of specification and implementation
1477 2012-01-13 23:20:34 <luke-jr> roconnor: it's doing one level of evaluation
1478 2012-01-13 23:21:02 <luke-jr> the only thing difficult about CHC, is backing out BIP 16
1479 2012-01-13 23:21:27 <theymos> CHC doesn't have a new stack.
1480 2012-01-13 23:21:48 <luke-jr> it could, but not securely IMO
1481 2012-01-13 23:21:48 <roconnor> theymos: you either need a new stack or a new state variable.
1482 2012-01-13 23:22:13 <ciscoftw> what nonce does bitcoin use solving for a valid hash... it increments by one, but what/where does the starting nonce come from? (computed from my private key)?
1483 2012-01-13 23:22:17 <roconnor> adding a stack lets you do more, but maybe nothing useful.
1484 2012-01-13 23:22:25 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
1485 2012-01-13 23:23:50 <gmaxwell> ciscoftw: it just starts at zero with typical mining software—
1486 2012-01-13 23:24:07 <gmaxwell> ciscoftw: but the candidate block you're trying to solve is different from the candidate block someone else is trying to solve.
1487 2012-01-13 23:24:18 <ciscoftw> i understand this...
1488 2012-01-13 23:24:22 <gmaxwell> (you're trying to solve one that pays you, they're trying to solve a version of it that pays them)
1489 2012-01-13 23:24:26 <gmaxwell> K.
1490 2012-01-13 23:24:34 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1491 2012-01-13 23:24:52 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: genjix * r7715b734ff54 /src/network/handshake.cpp: hardcoded regex being incorrect should not fail silently. http://tinyurl.com/89utd83
1492 2012-01-13 23:25:23 <ciscoftw> i figured my/the nonce was somthing crazy... but everyone starts at 1 (assuming there're using bitcoind)
1493 2012-01-13 23:25:37 localhost has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1494 2012-01-13 23:28:25 <ciscoftw> like in the example of the wiki, for "proof_of_work" (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work) i tired it using a standard hashcalc, but i cant follow the example as they've described it... -thus confusing me regarding the nonce that the actual bitcoind service uses :( any info/explanation would be most helpful
1495 2012-01-13 23:29:19 localhost has joined
1496 2012-01-13 23:30:11 <riush_> ciscoftw, the nonce is only used so the hash of the whole block changes - incrementing the nonce and recalculating the block hash is what you do when you mine
1497 2012-01-13 23:30:19 <ciscoftw> gd it :( ..i was using quotes " " as part of the text string... nm, thanks for your responce gmaxwell
1498 2012-01-13 23:30:56 devrandom has joined
1499 2012-01-13 23:31:14 <ciscoftw> riush: thanx, i was thinking there was somthing else to the nonce besides "x+1"
1500 2012-01-13 23:31:49 <roconnor> luke-jr: more importantly, I think this whole process needs to be slowed down.
1501 2012-01-13 23:31:57 <luke-jr> roconnor: fine with me
1502 2012-01-13 23:32:44 bakh_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1503 2012-01-13 23:35:01 da2ce7 has joined
1504 2012-01-13 23:35:11 riush has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1505 2012-01-13 23:35:25 riush_ is now known as riush
1506 2012-01-13 23:36:47 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1507 2012-01-13 23:36:58 dwon has joined
1508 2012-01-13 23:41:24 <ciscoftw> "On the other hand, I am concerned that someone with a vested interest in killing Bitcoin - government, banks, whatever - will pull a luke-jr and DOS the network.  We might have to throw a lot of money to miners to stop it." ..what happen Luke?
1509 2012-01-13 23:41:50 <luke-jr> ciscoftw: sounds like a troll
1510 2012-01-13 23:42:39 RobinPKR_ has joined
1511 2012-01-13 23:42:52 BurtyB2 has joined
1512 2012-01-13 23:42:56 AAA_awright_ has joined
1513 2012-01-13 23:42:57 <ciscoftw> you werent "testing" something and DOS'ed some mining pool or somthing?
1514 2012-01-13 23:43:01 OneFixt_ has joined
1515 2012-01-13 23:43:06 Nick_ has joined
1516 2012-01-13 23:43:27 Nick_ is now known as Guest72191
1517 2012-01-13 23:43:31 JimRogers_ has joined
1518 2012-01-13 23:43:35 Maged has quit (Disconnected by services)
1519 2012-01-13 23:43:41 <ciscoftw> probley stupid q's but your a dev for bitcoin right?
1520 2012-01-13 23:43:45 Maged_ has joined
1521 2012-01-13 23:43:54 Maged_ is now known as Maged
1522 2012-01-13 23:44:21 <ciscoftw> your not Satoshi are you Luke?
1523 2012-01-13 23:45:02 Synix has joined
1524 2012-01-13 23:45:15 OneFixt_ has quit (Changing host)
1525 2012-01-13 23:45:15 OneFixt_ has joined
1526 2012-01-13 23:45:16 ForceMajeure_ has joined
1527 2012-01-13 23:45:31 rdponticelli_ has joined
1528 2012-01-13 23:46:06 Cablesaurus_ has joined
1529 2012-01-13 23:46:40 Ken`_ has joined
1530 2012-01-13 23:46:45 iz_ has joined
1531 2012-01-13 23:46:48 <Diablo-D3> theymos: dude
1532 2012-01-13 23:46:50 <Diablo-D3> you there?
1533 2012-01-13 23:47:13 OneFixt has quit (Disconnected by services)
1534 2012-01-13 23:47:16 Nicksasa has quit (Disconnected by services)
1535 2012-01-13 23:47:24 Guest72191 is now known as Nicksasa
1536 2012-01-13 23:47:25 TD has joined
1537 2012-01-13 23:48:19 Dagger3 has joined
1538 2012-01-13 23:49:08 theymos_ has joined
1539 2012-01-13 23:49:08 kam1l has quit ()
1540 2012-01-13 23:52:19 Sedra- has joined
1541 2012-01-13 23:52:20 Zarutian_ has joined
1542 2012-01-13 23:52:55 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
1543 2012-01-13 23:52:57 Zarutian_ is now known as Zarutian
1544 2012-01-13 23:52:57 JimRogers_ is now known as JimRogers
1545 2012-01-13 23:53:02 theymos_ is now known as theymos
1546 2012-01-13 23:53:27 ciscoftw has quit ()
1547 2012-01-13 23:53:36 MC1984 has joined
1548 2012-01-13 23:58:22 <luke-jr>  2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
1549 2012-01-13 23:59:00 MagicalTux has joined
1550 2012-01-13 23:59:00 h4ckm3 has joined
1551 2012-01-13 23:59:01 Joric has quit ()