1 2012-01-14 00:00:14 <luke-jr> https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/51decbe12f05d32f13b455852e139d6c3c5ef82e <-- can you get any simpler?
  2 2012-01-14 00:00:37 <Diablo-D3> so luke
  3 2012-01-14 00:00:39 <Diablo-D3> you still didnt explain
  4 2012-01-14 00:00:54 <Diablo-D3> why did you call my commit to DM, which is my project to do whatever I want, "troll"
  5 2012-01-14 00:01:09 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
  6 2012-01-14 00:02:44 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  7 2012-01-14 00:03:04 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: itstooez opened issue 756 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/756>
  8 2012-01-14 00:05:43 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr checkhashverify * r51decbe12f05 bitcoind-personal/src/ (script.cpp script.h): DRAFT: OP_CHECKHASHVERIFY http://tinyurl.com/6ndypez
  9 2012-01-14 00:05:44 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr checkhashverify * r7eaeb09350a8 bitcoind-personal/src/script.cpp: DRAFT: OP_CHECKHASHVERIFY with hash specified http://tinyurl.com/6t6y8f3
 10 2012-01-14 00:08:27 theorb has joined
 11 2012-01-14 00:08:30 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 12 2012-01-14 00:08:42 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
 13 2012-01-14 00:08:59 devrandom has joined
 14 2012-01-14 00:21:17 eoss has joined
 15 2012-01-14 00:21:17 eoss has quit (Changing host)
 16 2012-01-14 00:21:17 eoss has joined
 17 2012-01-14 00:23:05 da2ce7 has quit (2!~da2ce7@gateway/tor-sasl/da2ce7|Remote host closed the connection)
 18 2012-01-14 00:23:09 wasabi1 has joined
 19 2012-01-14 00:24:57 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 20 2012-01-14 00:25:44 bobke has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 21 2012-01-14 00:26:23 bobke has joined
 22 2012-01-14 00:30:41 zeiris has joined
 23 2012-01-14 00:31:00 tower has joined
 24 2012-01-14 00:35:17 [Tycho] has joined
 25 2012-01-14 00:52:17 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 26 2012-01-14 00:53:01 enquirer has joined
 27 2012-01-14 00:59:40 iocor_ has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 28 2012-01-14 01:02:34 AAA_awright_ is now known as AAA_awright
 29 2012-01-14 01:03:20 occulta has joined
 30 2012-01-14 01:04:06 iocor has joined
 31 2012-01-14 01:05:26 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 32 2012-01-14 01:05:27 pavel_ has joined
 33 2012-01-14 01:05:52 b4epoche_ has joined
 34 2012-01-14 01:06:20 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 35 2012-01-14 01:06:20 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 36 2012-01-14 01:07:08 enquirer has joined
 37 2012-01-14 01:07:08 da2ce7 has joined
 38 2012-01-14 01:07:52 dlb76 has joined
 39 2012-01-14 01:09:32 eoss has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 40 2012-01-14 01:10:08 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 41 2012-01-14 01:15:31 luke-jr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 42 2012-01-14 01:22:39 luke-jr has joined
 43 2012-01-14 01:26:38 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 44 2012-01-14 01:32:14 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 45 2012-01-14 01:33:39 Rabbit67890-ipad has joined
 46 2012-01-14 01:35:29 devrandom has quit (Quit: leaving)
 47 2012-01-14 01:38:42 OneFixt_ is now known as OneFixt
 48 2012-01-14 01:43:54 cronopio has quit (Quit: leaving)
 49 2012-01-14 01:44:46 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr signmessage_gui * rd677377706db bitcoind-personal/ (12 files in 4 dirs): Bitcoin-Qt signmessage GUI http://tinyurl.com/8a2ftt7
 50 2012-01-14 01:44:47 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr coinbaser * r39414c..05c9a7 bitcoind-personal/src/ (bitcoinrpc.cpp init.cpp main.h main.cpp): (5 commits) http://tinyurl.com/3lrgdkn
 51 2012-01-14 01:46:41 <Rabbit67890-ipad> Really juke dash jr
 52 2012-01-14 01:47:25 <Rabbit67890-ipad> I always except to find evil when I see your name and I see a git commit :3
 53 2012-01-14 01:48:03 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 54 2012-01-14 01:48:18 enquirer has joined
 55 2012-01-14 01:53:54 userkk has joined
 56 2012-01-14 01:54:42 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr coinbaser * r6a90f5..2e10e7 bitcoind-personal/src/ (bitcoinrpc.cpp init.cpp main.h main.cpp): (6 commits) http://tinyurl.com/3lrgdkn
 57 2012-01-14 01:55:09 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 58 2012-01-14 02:00:25 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 59 2012-01-14 02:10:07 sacarlson has joined
 60 2012-01-14 02:14:10 heoa has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 61 2012-01-14 02:14:39 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr force_send * r21bcd03dd5af bitcoind-personal/src/ (bitcoinrpc.cpp main.cpp main.h noui.h wallet.cpp wallet.h): Don't automatically include fees via JSON-RPC, and (with undocumented -nosafefees option) allow forcing them to send with under the 'minimum' http://tinyurl.com/6n3q5jz
 62 2012-01-14 02:14:41 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr force_send * re2ab31dafa0c bitcoind-personal/src/ (bitcoinrpc.cpp db.cpp init.cpp main.cpp main.h noui.h): Accept automatic fees up to new "maxtxfee" parameter http://tinyurl.com/7fma4rf
 63 2012-01-14 02:14:48 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr force_send * r5c2fc9ede103 bitcoind-personal/src/main.cpp: Accept any transaction (fee-free or even non-standard) from myself http://tinyurl.com/6lon2ox
 64 2012-01-14 02:14:49 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr force_send * r0d0622a9aa92 bitcoind-personal/src/ (bitcoinrpc.cpp wallet.cpp wallet.h): Refactor maxtxfee and -nosafefees slightly to work together http://tinyurl.com/767689p
 65 2012-01-14 02:14:55 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
 66 2012-01-14 02:22:34 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 67 2012-01-14 02:22:49 OneFixt has joined
 68 2012-01-14 02:23:16 OneFixt is now known as Guest36634
 69 2012-01-14 02:25:05 Guest36634 has quit (Changing host)
 70 2012-01-14 02:25:05 Guest36634 has joined
 71 2012-01-14 02:25:25 Guest36634 is now known as OneFixt
 72 2012-01-14 02:34:14 Rabbit67890-ipad has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 73 2012-01-14 02:34:24 Rabbit67890-ipad has joined
 74 2012-01-14 02:36:37 userkk has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 75 2012-01-14 02:38:17 Herbert has joined
 76 2012-01-14 02:39:15 luke-jr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 77 2012-01-14 02:39:26 dvide has quit ()
 78 2012-01-14 02:41:37 TripleSpeeder has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 79 2012-01-14 02:47:06 Maged has quit (Disconnected by services)
 80 2012-01-14 02:49:07 Maged has joined
 81 2012-01-14 02:52:23 Maged has quit (Disconnected by services)
 82 2012-01-14 02:52:32 Maged__ has joined
 83 2012-01-14 02:52:39 Maged__ is now known as Maged
 84 2012-01-14 02:59:05 Maged has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 85 2012-01-14 03:00:21 <CIA-100> bitcoin: David Joel Schwartz rpc_keepalive * rc3ec6e260886 bitcoind-personal/src/ (bitcoinrpc.cpp net.cpp net.h): support multi-threaded RPC http://tinyurl.com/7mhrkof
 86 2012-01-14 03:00:22 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr rpc_keepalive * r49ddd16dfe76 bitcoind-personal/src/bitcoinrpc.cpp: Implement ThreadSafeRPC and ThreadUnsafeRPC system to allow specific parts to be made thread-safe http://tinyurl.com/7f3u922
 87 2012-01-14 03:00:24 <CIA-100> bitcoin: David Joel Schwartz rpc_keepalive * rab345cab5e5c bitcoind-personal/src/bitcoinrpc.cpp: correct support for HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1, including the proper use of keep alives http://tinyurl.com/6llb7u4
 88 2012-01-14 03:00:30 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr rpc_keepalive * r7cf5b2a365a9 bitcoind-personal/src/bitcoinrpc.cpp: Allow at least CreateNewBlock (in getwork) to run in parallel with other JSON-RPC requests http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/commitdiff/7cf5b2a365a91e58cb27430ee4012d893726e511
 89 2012-01-14 03:02:30 luke-jr has joined
 90 2012-01-14 03:09:18 imsaguy is now known as drimsaguy
 91 2012-01-14 03:10:43 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 92 2012-01-14 03:14:11 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
 93 2012-01-14 03:14:23 TheSeven has joined
 94 2012-01-14 03:14:37 drimsaguy is now known as imsaguy
 95 2012-01-14 03:19:52 <CIA-100> bitcoin: various next-test * rc9fb1d..b24e6e bitcoind-personal/ (33 files in 6 dirs): (16 commits) http://tinyurl.com/7vr93zh
 96 2012-01-14 03:20:23 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 97 2012-01-14 03:20:40 enquirer has joined
 98 2012-01-14 03:30:00 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 99 2012-01-14 03:31:04 rdponticelli_ has quit (Quit: I'm, gone.)
100 2012-01-14 03:31:44 onelineproof has joined
101 2012-01-14 03:32:18 minimoose has joined
102 2012-01-14 03:34:04 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
103 2012-01-14 03:37:27 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
104 2012-01-14 03:38:39 Rabbit67890-ipad has quit (Read error: No route to host)
105 2012-01-14 03:38:55 Rabbit67890-ipad has joined
106 2012-01-14 03:41:22 terrytibbs has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
107 2012-01-14 03:41:22 kobier has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
108 2012-01-14 03:44:49 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
109 2012-01-14 03:47:13 terrytibbs has joined
110 2012-01-14 03:56:08 rdponticelli has joined
111 2012-01-14 04:04:02 copumpkin has joined
112 2012-01-14 04:04:23 Rabbit67890-ipad has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
113 2012-01-14 04:11:56 Cablesaurus_ has quit (Quit: If you think nobody cares, try missing a few payments)
114 2012-01-14 04:15:46 <diki> are the importprivkey,dumpprivkey and so on rpc commands available in 0.5.1?
115 2012-01-14 04:17:31 <diki> damn
116 2012-01-14 04:17:38 <diki> it appears it might not be
117 2012-01-14 04:20:03 booo has joined
118 2012-01-14 04:24:57 wasabi3 has joined
119 2012-01-14 04:26:42 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
120 2012-01-14 04:31:51 kobier has joined
121 2012-01-14 04:33:47 EPiSKiNG- has joined
122 2012-01-14 04:38:35 JZavala has joined
123 2012-01-14 04:39:42 hexTech has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
124 2012-01-14 04:40:55 hexTech has joined
125 2012-01-14 04:41:20 terrytibbs has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
126 2012-01-14 04:41:20 kobier has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
127 2012-01-14 04:43:04 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
128 2012-01-14 04:43:07 luke-jr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
129 2012-01-14 04:43:19 luke-jr has joined
130 2012-01-14 04:47:10 somuchwin has joined
131 2012-01-14 04:47:15 moho has joined
132 2012-01-14 04:48:42 moho has quit (Quit: Leaving)
133 2012-01-14 04:52:22 terrytibbs has joined
134 2012-01-14 04:52:26 devrandom has joined
135 2012-01-14 04:55:57 kobier has joined
136 2012-01-14 05:04:34 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r8006bf2246ac gentoo/net-p2p/ (3 files in 3 dirs): net-p2p/bitcoin{-qt,d}: update 9999 eligius patch http://tinyurl.com/7qzaaxt
137 2012-01-14 05:18:54 b4epoche_ has joined
138 2012-01-14 05:19:46 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
139 2012-01-14 05:19:46 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
140 2012-01-14 05:27:28 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
141 2012-01-14 05:34:37 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
142 2012-01-14 05:35:09 WakiMiko_ has joined
143 2012-01-14 05:37:42 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
144 2012-01-14 05:57:58 pavel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
145 2012-01-14 06:07:28 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
146 2012-01-14 06:07:54 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
147 2012-01-14 06:08:06 hexTech has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
148 2012-01-14 06:08:08 enquirer has joined
149 2012-01-14 06:09:17 devrandom has joined
150 2012-01-14 06:12:47 BurtyB2 has quit (Read error: No route to host)
151 2012-01-14 06:13:03 BurtyB2 has joined
152 2012-01-14 06:19:58 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
153 2012-01-14 06:20:28 Lolcust- has joined
154 2012-01-14 06:33:23 imsaguy is now known as [\\\]
155 2012-01-14 06:42:06 [\\\] is now known as imsaguy
156 2012-01-14 06:55:24 imsaguy is now known as [\\\]
157 2012-01-14 07:12:00 antix has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
158 2012-01-14 07:16:29 [Tycho] has joined
159 2012-01-14 07:27:45 wasabi1 has joined
160 2012-01-14 07:28:10 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
161 2012-01-14 07:34:35 phungus is now known as MarquisDeBitcoin
162 2012-01-14 07:39:46 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
163 2012-01-14 07:42:48 MarquisDeBitcoin is now known as phungus
164 2012-01-14 07:44:46 dwon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
165 2012-01-14 07:46:20 devrandom has joined
166 2012-01-14 07:52:40 erska has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
167 2012-01-14 07:53:16 erska has joined
168 2012-01-14 07:53:28 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
169 2012-01-14 07:55:02 RazielZ has joined
170 2012-01-14 07:55:32 enquirer has joined
171 2012-01-14 07:58:27 Lolcust- has quit (Quit: Nap time)
172 2012-01-14 07:59:00 Lolcust has joined
173 2012-01-14 08:21:22 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
174 2012-01-14 08:21:52 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
175 2012-01-14 08:22:11 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
176 2012-01-14 08:22:20 copumpkin has joined
177 2012-01-14 08:24:15 markus_w1nner has joined
178 2012-01-14 08:26:50 wasabi3 has joined
179 2012-01-14 08:27:29 devrandom has joined
180 2012-01-14 08:27:35 markus_wanner has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
181 2012-01-14 08:28:12 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
182 2012-01-14 08:32:32 hexTech has joined
183 2012-01-14 08:35:52 TripleSpeeder has joined
184 2012-01-14 08:37:15 heoa has joined
185 2012-01-14 08:37:57 marf_away has joined
186 2012-01-14 08:38:35 Herbert has quit (2!~kvirc@ppp-93-104-145-174.dynamic.mnet-online.de|Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
187 2012-01-14 08:38:36 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
188 2012-01-14 08:42:06 Transisto has quit (Read error: No route to host)
189 2012-01-14 08:48:49 da2ce7 has joined
190 2012-01-14 08:52:02 abragin has joined
191 2012-01-14 08:52:02 abragin has quit (Changing host)
192 2012-01-14 08:52:02 abragin has joined
193 2012-01-14 09:05:49 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
194 2012-01-14 09:08:37 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
195 2012-01-14 09:12:04 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
196 2012-01-14 09:12:27 molecular has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
197 2012-01-14 09:12:49 molecular has joined
198 2012-01-14 09:13:42 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
199 2012-01-14 09:19:02 TripleSpeeder has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
200 2012-01-14 09:30:58 b4epoche_ has joined
201 2012-01-14 09:31:51 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
202 2012-01-14 09:31:51 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
203 2012-01-14 09:35:30 devrandom has joined
204 2012-01-14 09:37:32 RobinPKR has joined
205 2012-01-14 09:58:05 Cryo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
206 2012-01-14 09:59:02 da2ce7 has joined
207 2012-01-14 10:02:10 Joric has joined
208 2012-01-14 10:08:24 dvide has joined
209 2012-01-14 10:10:55 Cryo has joined
210 2012-01-14 10:10:55 Cryo has quit (Changing host)
211 2012-01-14 10:10:55 Cryo has joined
212 2012-01-14 10:12:09 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
213 2012-01-14 10:14:12 enquirer has joined
214 2012-01-14 10:20:38 hexTech has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
215 2012-01-14 10:24:52 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
216 2012-01-14 10:27:26 AAA_awright has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
217 2012-01-14 10:46:53 kjj has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
218 2012-01-14 10:47:50 hexTech has joined
219 2012-01-14 11:00:56 kjj has joined
220 2012-01-14 11:03:35 pusle has joined
221 2012-01-14 11:07:33 datagutt has joined
222 2012-01-14 11:07:41 datagutt has quit (Changing host)
223 2012-01-14 11:07:41 datagutt has joined
224 2012-01-14 11:17:27 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
225 2012-01-14 11:17:43 enquirer has joined
226 2012-01-14 11:24:28 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: larsr opened pull request 757 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/757>
227 2012-01-14 11:28:07 wasabi1 has joined
228 2012-01-14 11:30:22 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
229 2012-01-14 11:30:46 erle- has joined
230 2012-01-14 11:31:08 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
231 2012-01-14 11:31:26 enquirer has joined
232 2012-01-14 11:37:02 hexTech has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
233 2012-01-14 11:39:08 osearth has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
234 2012-01-14 11:50:05 hexTech has joined
235 2012-01-14 11:58:26 vigilyn has joined
236 2012-01-14 12:03:58 [Tycho] has joined
237 2012-01-14 12:22:10 hexTech has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
238 2012-01-14 12:24:32 comboy has quit (Quit: http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.)
239 2012-01-14 12:24:59 comboy has joined
240 2012-01-14 12:31:06 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
241 2012-01-14 12:40:08 d4de has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
242 2012-01-14 12:53:45 hexTech has joined
243 2012-01-14 12:55:01 d4de has joined
244 2012-01-14 13:02:09 Turingi has joined
245 2012-01-14 13:03:45 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
246 2012-01-14 13:05:03 enquirer has joined
247 2012-01-14 13:27:43 booo has joined
248 2012-01-14 13:28:56 wasabi3 has joined
249 2012-01-14 13:31:14 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
250 2012-01-14 13:32:05 Joric has quit ()
251 2012-01-14 13:32:12 Joric has joined
252 2012-01-14 13:35:17 storrgie has joined
253 2012-01-14 13:42:12 occulta has joined
254 2012-01-14 13:42:19 b4epoche_ has joined
255 2012-01-14 13:43:01 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
256 2012-01-14 13:43:01 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
257 2012-01-14 13:53:06 TD has joined
258 2012-01-14 13:53:36 ThomasV_ has joined
259 2012-01-14 13:54:22 ThomasV_ has quit (Client Quit)
260 2012-01-14 14:04:35 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
261 2012-01-14 14:06:38 AAA_awright has joined
262 2012-01-14 14:07:53 random_cat has joined
263 2012-01-14 14:13:55 safra has joined
264 2012-01-14 14:14:45 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
265 2012-01-14 14:18:15 enquirer has joined
266 2012-01-14 14:23:12 iocor has joined
267 2012-01-14 14:24:31 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
268 2012-01-14 14:24:48 enquirer has joined
269 2012-01-14 14:40:00 justmoon has joined
270 2012-01-14 14:45:02 <CIA-100> bitcoin: p2k * r11edccae1b6c ecoinpool/ (19 files in 5 dirs): Share Broker; Extended Shares Logging; Encrypt Passwords http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/ecoinpool.git/commitdiff/11edccae1b6c283ab65e2a2fce1846c184ac905a
271 2012-01-14 14:45:25 safra has quit (Quit: Leaving)
272 2012-01-14 14:51:48 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
273 2012-01-14 14:52:03 <luke-jr> anyone else concur that Gavin's post reads "I didn't even read CHV explanations/code at all, I'm just going to troll it with nonsense" ?
274 2012-01-14 14:52:22 enquirer has joined
275 2012-01-14 14:54:24 pavel_ has joined
276 2012-01-14 14:56:54 <[Tycho]> luke-jr: looks like you need more supporters.
277 2012-01-14 14:57:07 <sipa> luke-jr: where did you write about it?
278 2012-01-14 14:57:25 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
279 2012-01-14 14:59:32 <[Tycho]> Why no one is coming up with a normal solution for this problem...
280 2012-01-14 14:59:40 <pusle> so that code was all there was to it? the CHC/CHV proposal can now be compiled and run on the testnet?
281 2012-01-14 15:01:34 finway has joined
282 2012-01-14 15:01:41 <pusle> even I are starting to agree that Luke's solution seems more generic and elegant. But I don't understand the downsides.  Less security? 1 byte larger ?
283 2012-01-14 15:02:36 <pusle> but it's not like templates can't work either. I write vhdl for a living, and that's templates from dusk till dawn
284 2012-01-14 15:02:59 <sipa> there is no doubt it is more elegant
285 2012-01-14 15:03:00 <pusle> That's typical when you have something more abstracted/generic than what you actually wanna do. To limit the power so you don't get into problems
286 2012-01-14 15:03:57 <finway> What about the 2010 July bugs?
287 2012-01-14 15:04:05 <pusle> vhdl people coming from software development usually take a while before they can get the compiler to not go nuts ^^
288 2012-01-14 15:04:10 <finway> anyone knows that?
289 2012-01-14 15:04:14 <sipa> finway: which one?
290 2012-01-14 15:04:35 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: No route to host)
291 2012-01-14 15:04:45 <sipa> OP_CHECKSIG abuse, according to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Incidents ?
292 2012-01-14 15:04:48 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
293 2012-01-14 15:04:57 <finway> Bitcoin used to validate scripts that way, but ArtForz discovered a bug in July of 2010 (the OP_RETURN bug) that allowed anybody to spend anybody else's bitcoins.  It by far Bitcoin's biggest bug and Satoshi's biggest brain-fart.
294 2012-01-14 15:05:04 enquirer has joined
295 2012-01-14 15:05:26 <sipa> right
296 2012-01-14 15:05:57 <finway> I guess it's   "LSHIFT and RETURN bugs"
297 2012-01-14 15:06:36 <finway> Nobody knows that?
298 2012-01-14 15:07:29 <finway> at least sipa,theymos,luke didn't know that.
299 2012-01-14 15:07:40 <finway> because you all support CHV
300 2012-01-14 15:07:55 <sipa> yes i did, but it's slightly before my time, i didn't know the date
301 2012-01-14 15:08:05 <pusle> "both were fixed by Bitcoin version 0.3.5."
302 2012-01-14 15:08:07 <pusle> it says
303 2012-01-14 15:08:10 <[Tycho]> Hmm, what's finway is doing here ?
304 2012-01-14 15:08:29 <sipa> and only said CHV is more elegant, that doesn't mean i prefer it over the current solution
305 2012-01-14 15:09:58 <pusle> everybody seems to agree the current solution is not viable. so either P2SH or CHV
306 2012-01-14 15:10:14 <sipa> what do you mean by 'current solution' ?
307 2012-01-14 15:10:29 <sipa> (i was referring to /P2SH/)
308 2012-01-14 15:10:44 <pusle> well it's not implemented either
309 2012-01-14 15:10:49 finway_ has joined
310 2012-01-14 15:10:50 <sipa> sure it is
311 2012-01-14 15:10:53 <pusle> so it's not "current"
312 2012-01-14 15:10:58 <pusle> well, it's not live then
313 2012-01-14 15:11:07 <sipa> it's in git head
314 2012-01-14 15:11:13 <pusle> and Luke made code now for CHV?
315 2012-01-14 15:11:18 <sipa> so it seems
316 2012-01-14 15:11:19 <pusle> so they are equal in this regard too?
317 2012-01-14 15:11:26 <pusle> okay
318 2012-01-14 15:11:50 <pusle> CHV will take up more room?
319 2012-01-14 15:11:53 <pusle> is it less secure?
320 2012-01-14 15:12:00 finway has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
321 2012-01-14 15:12:14 <finway_> I'm here to see how this going
322 2012-01-14 15:12:43 finway_ has left ()
323 2012-01-14 15:12:49 finway_ has joined
324 2012-01-14 15:14:50 finway_ has quit (Client Quit)
325 2012-01-14 15:15:21 <UukGoblin> right
326 2012-01-14 15:15:36 finway has joined
327 2012-01-14 15:15:49 <UukGoblin> so in attempt to try to understand all this, I've started to document the whole process of creating, relaying and veryfying transactions - in my way
328 2012-01-14 15:16:04 <UukGoblin> as in, in plain pseudocode, not some shitty english for dummies
329 2012-01-14 15:16:09 ThomasV_ has joined
330 2012-01-14 15:16:10 <UukGoblin> https://github.com/goblin/gbl-btc-doc/blob/master/btc_txn.txt
331 2012-01-14 15:16:23 <UukGoblin> it's still WIP, but comments (and patches!) are always welcome :-)
332 2012-01-14 15:18:02 <sipa> UukGoblin: scriptPubKey does not contain any signature
333 2012-01-14 15:18:10 * pusle spanks his few braincells awake O_o
334 2012-01-14 15:18:11 <sipa> it only contains a script that verifies
335 2012-01-14 15:18:33 <sipa> so it contains the pubkey and OP_CHECKSIG
336 2012-01-14 15:19:12 <UukGoblin> sipa, cool.. thanks, let me see where I got it
337 2012-01-14 15:19:34 Nicksasa has joined
338 2012-01-14 15:20:30 <UukGoblin> ah right, I was just wrong. /me fixes
339 2012-01-14 15:23:05 <finway> jimrandomh:I previously wrote "CODEHASHCHECK is arguably better, but only slightly". After reading Gavin's comment and the linked patch, I take that back. Introducing a non-stack interaction between scriptSig and scriptPubKey is a bad idea and a big deal, much moreso than special-case matching a script is.
340 2012-01-14 15:23:18 <lianj> "how can dst_addr be calculated in blockexplorer without knowing Ak1_pub?" -> from the hash160
341 2012-01-14 15:23:36 <UukGoblin> sipa, fixed, thanks :-)
342 2012-01-14 15:24:02 <finway> jimrandomh bring up the idea of OP_EVAL,  i think it's better than CHV and roconor's what_ever_solution, he compromised.
343 2012-01-14 15:27:33 <UukGoblin> lianj, actually, looks like the Ak1_pub is inside the Ag1::txout1, check my second commit (the fix that sipa said)
344 2012-01-14 15:27:55 pavel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
345 2012-01-14 15:35:39 finway has quit (Quit: Page closed)
346 2012-01-14 15:36:26 [\\\] is now known as imsaguy
347 2012-01-14 15:40:24 imsaguy is now known as [\\\]
348 2012-01-14 15:41:01 MobiusL has joined
349 2012-01-14 15:54:54 <CIA-100> bitcoin: p2k * r5173497d1277 ecoinpool/ (3 files in 3 dirs): Fix For Erlang With SSL Support http://tinyurl.com/7coa6zn
350 2012-01-14 16:09:29 rain has joined
351 2012-01-14 16:09:37 ThomasV_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
352 2012-01-14 16:09:59 rain has left ("Leaving")
353 2012-01-14 16:13:09 caedes_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
354 2012-01-14 16:13:59 user__ has joined
355 2012-01-14 16:14:42 <CIA-100> bitcoin: p2k * rb50a8f16fcec ecoinpool/apps/ (2 files in 2 dirs): SSL Fix Part 2 http://tinyurl.com/74apk9p
356 2012-01-14 16:14:43 <CIA-100> bitcoin: p2k * r746b9d1613eb ecoinpool/apps/ (2 files in 2 dirs): SSL Fix Part 3 http://tinyurl.com/876n67b
357 2012-01-14 16:16:17 davout has joined
358 2012-01-14 16:22:24 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
359 2012-01-14 16:22:26 iz_ is now known as iz
360 2012-01-14 16:25:04 oww has quit (Quit: Leaving)
361 2012-01-14 16:25:13 oww has joined
362 2012-01-14 16:28:45 <roconnor> wait, was it gavin who sepearated the processing of scriptsig and scriptpubkey?
363 2012-01-14 16:28:50 <roconnor> in July 2010?
364 2012-01-14 16:29:13 * roconnor should look at the pre bitcoin 0.3.5 code.
365 2012-01-14 16:31:59 <roconnor> ugh7f7f07
366 2012-01-14 16:32:14 <roconnor> is there a way to quickly find commit 7f7f07 in github?
367 2012-01-14 16:32:15 <sipa> disgusted?
368 2012-01-14 16:32:31 <roconnor> sipa: only disgusted with github at the moment :D
369 2012-01-14 16:33:26 <justmoon> roconnor: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/757f0769d8360ea043f469f3a35f6ec204740446/script.cpp
370 2012-01-14 16:34:01 gfinn has joined
371 2012-01-14 16:34:04 <justmoon> (I happened to be looking at the history of script.cpp and saw the commit id you mentioned ;)
372 2012-01-14 16:34:14 <sipa> roconnor: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/<commitid> works, but you need 7 characters in the id
373 2012-01-14 16:34:47 <roconnor> sipa: hah 7 characters. It is like gavin is mocking me :D
374 2012-01-14 16:34:52 <roconnor> (by providing 6)
375 2012-01-14 16:34:55 <sipa> no... apparently not
376 2012-01-14 16:35:06 <sipa> you need only the *correct* 6 first ones :)
377 2012-01-14 16:35:09 <roconnor> oh good
378 2012-01-14 16:37:20 <roconnor> justmoon: so satoshi made this fix
379 2012-01-14 16:38:09 <justmoon> indeed he did
380 2012-01-14 16:38:28 <roconnor> justmoon: how do I look at the previous script.cpp?
381 2012-01-14 16:38:56 <phantomcircuit> roconnor, do you want to know why this was done?
382 2012-01-14 16:38:57 <phantomcircuit> :)
383 2012-01-14 16:38:59 <sipa> roconnor: there's a link to the parent commit at the top of the page
384 2012-01-14 16:39:00 <roconnor> phantomcircuit: I do
385 2012-01-14 16:39:27 <phantomcircuit> the input script is run first
386 2012-01-14 16:39:43 <phantomcircuit> and input script containing nothing but push 1 return would always be true
387 2012-01-14 16:39:50 <phantomcircuit> so you could spend any output
388 2012-01-14 16:39:52 <roconnor> sipa: where is this link?
389 2012-01-14 16:40:03 <phantomcircuit> thus you need to have 2 functions 1 for inputs 1 for outputs
390 2012-01-14 16:40:24 <roconnor> phantomcircuit: so back then OP_RETURN didn't always fail like it does now?
391 2012-01-14 16:40:35 <justmoon> roconnor: click on the commit comment
392 2012-01-14 16:40:47 <phantomcircuit> OP_RETURN should work in an output script
393 2012-01-14 16:41:16 * sipa begins to understand Script's awkwardness gives such a history
394 2012-01-14 16:41:39 <justmoon> sipa: given* (FTFY)
395 2012-01-14 16:41:55 <justmoon> also here is the full history of script.cpp until the rename: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master/script.cpp
396 2012-01-14 16:42:12 <sipa> justmoon: thanks
397 2012-01-14 16:42:44 <roconnor> wow
398 2012-01-14 16:42:46 <roconnor> look at that
399 2012-01-14 16:42:58 <roconnor> if (!EvalScript(txin.scriptSig + CScript(OP_CODESEPARATOR) + txout.scriptPubKey, txTo, nIn))
400 2012-01-14 16:42:59 <roconnor>             return false;
401 2012-01-14 16:43:15 <roconnor> now wonder OP_CODESEPARATOR is currently useless
402 2012-01-14 16:43:33 <justmoon> lol, that's kinda funny
403 2012-01-14 16:43:34 <roconnor> it was made useless by this change
404 2012-01-14 16:43:40 <sipa> lol
405 2012-01-14 16:43:46 caedes_ has joined
406 2012-01-14 16:43:52 <sipa> that explains a lot, indeed
407 2012-01-14 16:44:08 <roconnor> not that I'm saying this was a bad change
408 2012-01-14 16:44:33 <roconnor> but I didn't realize the evolutionary history leading to this strange scripting system was post publication of the sources.
409 2012-01-14 16:45:00 <sipa> nice find
410 2012-01-14 16:45:34 <justmoon> early bitcoin code had much more flair
411 2012-01-14 16:45:36 <justmoon> example:
412 2012-01-14 16:45:41 <justmoon> / This is why people hate C++
413 2012-01-14 16:45:48 <justmoon> *//
414 2012-01-14 16:46:28 <justmoon> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/98500d70a8cf25af4bab80526fd128ccdc36ceeb#L18L475
415 2012-01-14 16:46:43 <justmoon> imho that comment changed for the worse :P
416 2012-01-14 16:53:37 <roconnor> sipa: I think I might argue that the CodeHashVerify proposal is simply reverting some of the too severe constriction that was imposed by the OP_RETURN fix.
417 2012-01-14 16:54:09 <roconnor> is a loose sense
418 2012-01-14 16:54:12 <roconnor> *in a loose sense
419 2012-01-14 16:55:20 <helo> what degree of blockchain bloat will p2sh/chc lead to?
420 2012-01-14 16:56:41 tomat has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
421 2012-01-14 16:57:44 <justmoon> helo: p2sh/chc both just move the script somewhere else, so neither one significantly changes the size of transactions, but they do move data to the inputs (which are more easily prunable)
422 2012-01-14 16:57:58 <sipa> at least in theory
423 2012-01-14 16:58:06 <justmoon> there are also less inputs at any given time than outputs
424 2012-01-14 16:58:23 <sipa> but for these long-term decisions, theory may be more important than practice
425 2012-01-14 16:59:00 <justmoon> sipa: I advocate full pruning, i.e. storage-less full nodes, but I'm too scared to post it on the forums :P
426 2012-01-14 16:59:38 <sipa> justmoon: i believe once BlueMatt's CBlockStore makes it into bitcoin, we can much more easily experiment with that
427 2012-01-14 17:00:13 <justmoon> sipa: I can already experiment with it just fine in bitcoinjs
428 2012-01-14 17:00:22 <sipa> yeah, sure
429 2012-01-14 17:00:31 <sipa> wait... storage-*less* ?
430 2012-01-14 17:01:02 <TD> hey justmoon
431 2012-01-14 17:01:14 <justmoon> nodes like that would keep the last 1000 blocks or so and block headers as well as additional info about their own transactions
432 2012-01-14 17:01:26 <justmoon> TD: wazzup!
433 2012-01-14 17:01:35 <sipa> justmoon: how can you call that a full node?
434 2012-01-14 17:01:50 <justmoon> sipa: because you don't need any other nodes in the network
435 2012-01-14 17:01:59 <sipa> it cannot verify all transactions?
436 2012-01-14 17:02:30 <justmoon> sipa: take gmaxwell's merkle tree of unspent outputs, add incremental updates block-to-block (I could talk an hours about that alone)
437 2012-01-14 17:03:00 <justmoon> a node submitting a transaction needs to supply the transaction it's spending from, it's merkle branch and the merkle diff for the output
438 2012-01-14 17:03:03 <sipa> ok, so it's last 1000 blocks + db of unspent txouts
439 2012-01-14 17:03:05 <sipa> sure, in that case
440 2012-01-14 17:03:08 <justmoon> nonono
441 2012-01-14 17:03:12 <justmoon> no db of unspent txouts
442 2012-01-14 17:03:23 att has joined
443 2012-01-14 17:03:35 <sipa> ok, that's also a possibility
444 2012-01-14 17:03:54 <justmoon> yes, you trade storage for network traffic
445 2012-01-14 17:03:58 <justmoon> usually a horrible idea
446 2012-01-14 17:03:59 <sipa> but now you've moved part of the block storage to the transaction creators
447 2012-01-14 17:04:05 <justmoon> true
448 2012-01-14 17:04:14 <sipa> not sure i like that :)
449 2012-01-14 17:04:40 <justmoon> well, there are reasons why I haven't posted it
450 2012-01-14 17:04:47 <justmoon> the network traffic is the bigger argument
451 2012-01-14 17:04:48 <sipa> haha
452 2012-01-14 17:04:54 <TD> roconnor: where is that?
453 2012-01-14 17:05:03 <justmoon> basically I came up with it because I wanted to remove the block size limit
454 2012-01-14 17:05:07 <sipa> TD: the code he copy-pasted?
455 2012-01-14 17:05:22 <justmoon> in this mode, the expensive part is transferring the blocks
456 2012-01-14 17:05:36 <luke-jr> pusle: the patch for CHV I wrote *should* work, but I haven't tested it, and it doesn't change any of the client-specific stuff (ie, 3-addresses)
457 2012-01-14 17:05:43 <justmoon> and it is possible to force most of the cost on the miner who initially publishes the block
458 2012-01-14 17:05:47 <TD> oh, i see
459 2012-01-14 17:05:48 <TD> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/757f0769d8360ea043f469f3a35f6ec204740446
460 2012-01-14 17:05:52 <justmoon> whereas the storage costs are mostly externalities
461 2012-01-14 17:05:53 <TD> reverted makefile.unix wx-config -- version 0.3.6
462 2012-01-14 17:05:57 <TD> what a totally useless commit message
463 2012-01-14 17:06:15 <luke-jr> I guess I need to elaborate on Gavin's post…
464 2012-01-14 17:07:30 occulta has joined
465 2012-01-14 17:07:59 <roconnor> Oh man, if only OP_CODESEPARATOR had been disabled in that commit, reimplementing bitcoin would be so much easier.
466 2012-01-14 17:08:02 <justmoon> TD: I originally thought the commit message was due to a problem with the subversion import, but the original svn commit has the same message: http://bitcoin.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/bitcoin?view=revision&revision=119
467 2012-01-14 17:08:16 <roconnor> I have to write so much code just to support that useless operation.
468 2012-01-14 17:09:04 <TD> well, i guess that answers my question about what it was for, given that it's useless
469 2012-01-14 17:09:09 <TD> evolutionary dead end, indeed
470 2012-01-14 17:09:38 <TD> it's surprising that such core parts of the protocol were changing even in 2010
471 2012-01-14 17:09:47 <sipa> i think we can safely declare OP_CODESEPARATOR dead now :)
472 2012-01-14 17:10:26 <TD> the diff is really hard to read
473 2012-01-14 17:11:49 <k9quaint> while you are reimplementing btc, can you do one for me in Lisp too?
474 2012-01-14 17:12:34 <justmoon> if you do one in lisp, can you port it to elisp? I want to have a bitcoin client in my editor
475 2012-01-14 17:12:49 <justmoon> TD: query
476 2012-01-14 17:12:55 <TD> READY>
477 2012-01-14 17:13:13 <justmoon> ?
478 2012-01-14 17:13:33 <TD> you want to query me ?
479 2012-01-14 17:13:42 <k9quaint> TD: repl
480 2012-01-14 17:13:45 <justmoon> lol
481 2012-01-14 17:13:53 <justmoon> I send you a private IRC message
482 2012-01-14 17:13:56 <TD> oh, sorry
483 2012-01-14 17:13:57 <justmoon> also called a query
484 2012-01-14 17:13:59 <justmoon> :P
485 2012-01-14 17:14:51 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * r973c1718f8aa /.gitignore: added netbeans project dir to .gitignore http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/libbitcoin.git/commitdiff/973c1718f8aa3e55b5b7771d1b9c80dc9c7cefbb
486 2012-01-14 17:14:53 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * r316553a66dcc /.gitignore: libbitcoin.pc is a generated file, added to .gitignore http://tinyurl.com/6wymjz2
487 2012-01-14 17:14:55 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * reb50ebf22469 /src/network/handshake.cpp: Merge branch 'master' of gitorious.org:libbitcoin/libbitcoin http://tinyurl.com/7uevdzj
488 2012-01-14 17:15:25 ThomasV_ has joined
489 2012-01-14 17:17:22 <[Tycho]> Hmm, core developers are fighting, is this the end of bitcoin ? :)
490 2012-01-14 17:18:54 <luke-jr> sipa: CHV puts it to good use
491 2012-01-14 17:21:51 <luke-jr> helo: CHV only reduces bloat.
492 2012-01-14 17:26:05 gruez has joined
493 2012-01-14 17:26:22 <gruez> just wondering
494 2012-01-14 17:26:32 <gruez> how much bitcoin users are there?
495 2012-01-14 17:28:24 <marf_away> hard to say
496 2012-01-14 17:28:30 <marf_away> i guess around 100k
497 2012-01-14 17:29:16 <gruez> seriously?
498 2012-01-14 17:29:24 <gruez> there aren't even that many nodes
499 2012-01-14 17:29:37 <marf_away> not every user has a client installed
500 2012-01-14 17:29:45 <marf_away> many use onliewallets
501 2012-01-14 17:29:52 <marf_away> or client is just off
502 2012-01-14 17:30:10 <Joric> there were only about 60k bitcoin nodes noticed since beginning of time
503 2012-01-14 17:30:16 <gmaxwell> marf_away's number doesn't sound insane to me, though it might be lower.
504 2012-01-14 17:30:32 <TD> i think when mtgox database leaked, it had ~50k accounts in it, or something
505 2012-01-14 17:30:37 <gmaxwell> Joric: non-listening clients won't rumor their addresses IIRC.
506 2012-01-14 17:30:47 <TD> i suspect quite a few bitcoin "users" just have accounts at pools and exchanges
507 2012-01-14 17:30:52 <TD> and never use non-web software at all
508 2012-01-14 17:31:47 <sipa> depending on your definition of "user", some may only be running a miner
509 2012-01-14 17:32:19 <gruez> anyone notice, that it's really profitable to mine right now?
510 2012-01-14 17:32:24 <sipa> Joric: my crawler has seen 400k unique addresses up to now (some of which may be fake or bugs)
511 2012-01-14 17:32:36 <gruez> sipa: could be dynamic ip
512 2012-01-14 17:32:43 <Joric> oh
513 2012-01-14 17:32:44 <sipa> gruez: yes, that too
514 2012-01-14 17:32:55 <Joric> i've watched this http://bitcoinstatus.rowit.co.uk
515 2012-01-14 17:34:39 <TD> probably  few hundred thousand people have tried it
516 2012-01-14 17:34:44 <TD> and got bored waiting for the chain to download :)
517 2012-01-14 17:34:59 <Joric> can't blame them
518 2012-01-14 17:36:28 <edcba> i totally don't understand chart labels
519 2012-01-14 17:37:32 <gruez> what's the point of op_eval?
520 2012-01-14 17:37:42 <gruez> seems to be pissing some people off
521 2012-01-14 17:40:30 <roconnor> gruez: to shorten complex bitcoin addresses
522 2012-01-14 17:41:06 <gmaxwell> gruez: please actually read the discussion in the thread that made you ask that.
523 2012-01-14 17:41:35 <roconnor> I think reading threads is a poor way to understand what is going on.
524 2012-01-14 17:41:47 <edcba> shorten or weaken ?
525 2012-01-14 17:41:56 <sipa> shorten
526 2012-01-14 17:42:12 * edcba should read too
527 2012-01-14 17:42:37 <edcba> is that sole purpose ?
528 2012-01-14 17:42:41 <gmaxwell> No.
529 2012-01-14 17:43:02 <gmaxwell> But you should read instead of disrespecting people's time by asking what you could just read about.
530 2012-01-14 17:43:06 <gruez> i read something to do with 2 factor authentication?
531 2012-01-14 17:43:12 <gruez> so people cant steal your wallet?
532 2012-01-14 17:44:09 <gmaxwell> gruez: Yes, roconnor would point out that you could also do that with addresses which are (hundreds of bytes) long, op_eval/p2sh make those addresses the same length as current ones.
533 2012-01-14 17:45:13 <gmaxwell> But thats not the only improvement they make in that cases: They move related TXN fees to the recipent who decided to have a complicated wallet protection scheme, and they move the blockchain storage from the output (which may never be prunable) to the input which always is.
534 2012-01-14 17:45:43 <gmaxwell> So p2sh/op_eval reduce the spam attack liability of accepting more complicated transactions.
535 2012-01-14 17:46:48 Cablesaurus has joined
536 2012-01-14 17:47:01 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
537 2012-01-14 17:47:01 Cablesaurus has joined
538 2012-01-14 17:48:38 <pusle> you mean p2sh/chv? seems hardly anyone want op_eval
539 2012-01-14 17:49:01 <sipa> op_eval allowed for much more than whan people seem to want
540 2012-01-14 17:49:14 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: is there anyplace I can read about bitcoin?
541 2012-01-14 17:49:33 <egecko> start with the white paper shatoshi wrote.
542 2012-01-14 17:49:46 <edcba> ok sorry to make ppl time losses but don't feel obligated to answer ;)
543 2012-01-14 17:49:47 <gmaxwell> :) useful answers to troll questions warms my heart.
544 2012-01-14 17:49:55 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: I am gnawing my mouse ;P
545 2012-01-14 17:50:29 <egecko> and really if you're on -dev, then perhaps you could read the source code :)
546 2012-01-14 17:50:58 <k9quaint> I was gonna play off "shat"oshi, but I am better than that
547 2012-01-14 17:51:26 <[Tycho]> Hmm, number of nodes is declining ?
548 2012-01-14 17:51:50 <k9quaint> I think that is a reflection of the maturation of web services around bitcoin
549 2012-01-14 17:51:54 jacobwg has joined
550 2012-01-14 17:52:51 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: at least as measure by rumored addresses, IRC connections, or connectable listeners.
551 2012-01-14 17:53:48 b4epoche_ has joined
552 2012-01-14 17:53:49 <[Tycho]> People are using web-services, what a shame.
553 2012-01-14 17:54:22 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: it takes about 20 hours to sync up a client now on randomly selected typical-user-hardware.
554 2012-01-14 17:54:24 <edcba> what i don't understand is many(?) ppl don't like the scripting system and propositions like op_eval just 'enhance' it
555 2012-01-14 17:54:47 <edcba> instead of using some new OP for the sole purpose of reducing addresses
556 2012-01-14 17:55:12 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
557 2012-01-14 17:55:12 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
558 2012-01-14 17:55:16 <luke-jr> pusle: I'd prefer OP_EVAL over BIP 16
559 2012-01-14 17:55:19 <gruez> gmaxwell: does blockchain sync faster if you have NAT open?
560 2012-01-14 17:55:25 <gmaxwell> gruez: no.
561 2012-01-14 17:55:39 <gmaxwell> gruez: the time is related to validating the history, not network traffic.
562 2012-01-14 17:56:27 <pusle> luke: really? a full blown programming language embedded in bitcoin? that's whole universe of cans full of worms to find :x
563 2012-01-14 17:57:10 <edcba> and i doubt we really need a new bitcoin security disaster
564 2012-01-14 17:57:15 <gmaxwell> pusle: he wants OP_x86asm
565 2012-01-14 17:57:30 <edcba> even if precedents were user based :)
566 2012-01-14 17:57:42 <[Tycho]> Actually I would prefer using recipient addresses in the sending script for multisig TXes :)
567 2012-01-14 17:57:44 <pusle> why not 6502? :P
568 2012-01-14 17:57:54 <pusle> or! my belowed motorola 68000, best assembly ever! :D
569 2012-01-14 17:58:24 <pusle> lets take that and make it a full 2addy edition. That would roxxx0rez ;)
570 2012-01-14 17:58:26 <egecko> can we get a bitcoin client for the commodore64 too? i'm sure there's at least 1 person who wants that.
571 2012-01-14 17:58:28 <edcba> we need to go more enterprisy we'll just put some java interpreter
572 2012-01-14 17:58:35 <edcba> (or java compatible)
573 2012-01-14 17:58:41 <egecko> java sucks
574 2012-01-14 18:04:19 <luke-jr> pusle: there is ALREADY a full blown programming language in Bitcoin
575 2012-01-14 18:04:27 <gruez> ?
576 2012-01-14 18:04:39 <gruez> orly?
577 2012-01-14 18:04:40 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: OP_MIPS actually
578 2012-01-14 18:04:44 <pusle> O_o
579 2012-01-14 18:04:55 <luke-jr> pusle: Bitcoin as-is, is designed around a scripting language.
580 2012-01-14 18:05:23 hahuang65 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
581 2012-01-14 18:05:39 abragin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
582 2012-01-14 18:05:53 hahuang65 has joined
583 2012-01-14 18:05:57 <Eliel> luke-jr: can it be called full blown if it's not turing complete?
584 2012-01-14 18:06:00 <pusle> luke: can you make a branch and implement your proposal 100% ?  then other developers can see what you really mean and evaluate it against p2sh
585 2012-01-14 18:06:35 <pusle> seems there are much misunderstandings in the forums, and your proposal is evolving too I guess
586 2012-01-14 18:07:01 <Eliel> pusle: OP_EVAL spec is already out there.
587 2012-01-14 18:07:48 abragin has joined
588 2012-01-14 18:07:48 abragin has quit (Changing host)
589 2012-01-14 18:07:48 abragin has joined
590 2012-01-14 18:07:57 <pusle> and almost nobody wants it. So we now have p2sh and maybe chv ?
591 2012-01-14 18:09:42 <Eliel> OP_EVAL makes the script language too full blown :)
592 2012-01-14 18:09:53 <luke-jr> pusle: my branch includes the minimal protocol changes
593 2012-01-14 18:10:00 Litt has joined
594 2012-01-14 18:10:26 <pusle> so anyone can now compile and test it? it's good to go?
595 2012-01-14 18:11:18 <luke-jr> I would suggest making a few minor changes before deploying it.
596 2012-01-14 18:11:30 <luke-jr> ie, making the hash type configurable
597 2012-01-14 18:12:21 <pusle> then it should be easy for the software gurus here to validate your claims and post a definitive answer to this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=58579.40
598 2012-01-14 18:13:12 <roconnor> what does stack.erase(stack.begin()); do?
599 2012-01-14 18:13:26 oww has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
600 2012-01-14 18:14:25 <pusle> Get your shit together or I'll email Dan Kaminsky soon! :D
601 2012-01-14 18:15:17 Visalleras has joined
602 2012-01-14 18:15:56 <luke-jr> roconnor: it deletes the first item on the stack
603 2012-01-14 18:16:13 att has quit (Quit: Leaving)
604 2012-01-14 18:17:49 <luke-jr> roconnor: basically, I'm just throwing the extra data on the head of the stack to avoid adding a new parameter to the function. ideally, it should be refactored to use some kind of "interpretor state" class IMO
605 2012-01-14 18:18:00 <roconnor> yep
606 2012-01-14 18:18:03 <roconnor> I understand now
607 2012-01-14 18:18:44 <luke-jr> (in the meantime, this hack is simple, should work fine, and most importantly doesn't affect the protocol)
608 2012-01-14 18:19:36 att has joined
609 2012-01-14 18:19:41 oww has joined
610 2012-01-14 18:20:11 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
611 2012-01-14 18:20:18 <roconnor> luke-jr: I was confused at first since your code also has P2SH implemented.
612 2012-01-14 18:20:28 <luke-jr> ah
613 2012-01-14 18:20:35 <luke-jr> ripping out BIP 16 really *is* a pain :/
614 2012-01-14 18:20:57 <sipa> you are still changing the semantics of OP_NOP; that's cleaner than a magic script, but it is essentially the same: making old valid things invalid
615 2012-01-14 18:22:13 <roconnor> luke-jr's OP_NOP change does satify the sipa NOP extension principle IIUC
616 2012-01-14 18:22:19 <justmoon> sipa: imho, a preprocessor (p2sh) is clean and an opcode that shuffles code around is what's a hack
617 2012-01-14 18:22:29 <justmoon> sipa: see my post for the full argument: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56969.msg691560#msg691560
618 2012-01-14 18:23:53 <pusle> so it's almost coke vs pepsi?
619 2012-01-14 18:24:02 <luke-jr> roconnor: ?
620 2012-01-14 18:24:52 <luke-jr> justmoon: there's no code shuffling going on
621 2012-01-14 18:25:01 <roconnor> justmoon says ``For example, to implement OP_CODEHASHCHECK we would need to change EvalScript to know about where scriptSig ends and scriptPubKey begins. The scripting language is not meant to be aware of the block chain, it is meant to be a simple, stack-based language.
622 2012-01-14 18:25:05 <sipa> roconnor: it does, i never claimed otherwise
623 2012-01-14 18:25:07 <roconnor> justmoon: I don't think this is true.
624 2012-01-14 18:25:14 <luke-jr> justmoon: and BIP 16 doesn't use preprocessor stuff of any kind
625 2012-01-14 18:25:19 <roconnor> sipa: ya sorry, I misread your comment.
626 2012-01-14 18:25:21 <luke-jr> C doesn't act on its own
627 2012-01-14 18:26:17 <justmoon> roconnor: luke's implementation does it differently, but my point was that the script interpreter would have to be aware that is executing two scripts
628 2012-01-14 18:26:31 <justmoon> roconnor: it's reflected in the vchLastScript hack
629 2012-01-14 18:26:51 <roconnor> justmoon: no more than it already is.
630 2012-01-14 18:27:21 <roconnor> the OP_RETURN fix radically changed the interpreter to run in two phases
631 2012-01-14 18:27:29 <justmoon> roconnor: then whence cometh the vchLastScript?
632 2012-01-14 18:27:31 <roconnor> who share information through the main stack.
633 2012-01-14 18:27:46 <justmoon> exactly
634 2012-01-14 18:27:53 <justmoon> we'd have to essentially reverse that
635 2012-01-14 18:27:55 <roconnor> the CHV adds another state variable to this communication channel
636 2012-01-14 18:28:02 <justmoon> to some extent at least
637 2012-01-14 18:28:19 <justmoon> yeah, I have no problem with that
638 2012-01-14 18:28:22 <roconnor> which is currently hacked to sit on top of the main stack in the proposed implementation.
639 2012-01-14 18:28:26 <justmoon> I just think it's less clean than p2sh
640 2012-01-14 18:29:03 <pusle> so how about security?  P2SH vs CHV
641 2012-01-14 18:29:37 <pusle> which one has the most states and "dark corners"
642 2012-01-14 18:30:04 <justmoon> pusle: CHV changes the most complex function in bitcoin, so p2sh wins that one
643 2012-01-14 18:30:10 <luke-jr> justmoon: not at all
644 2012-01-14 18:30:15 <luke-jr> CHV is simple and straightforward
645 2012-01-14 18:30:24 <justmoon> luke-jr: no argument from me
646 2012-01-14 18:30:28 <luke-jr> P2SH changes the whole process significantly
647 2012-01-14 18:30:35 <justmoon> that I disagree with
648 2012-01-14 18:30:39 <Eliel> can someone outline the most significant differences between p2sh and chv?
649 2012-01-14 18:30:40 <luke-jr> ugh, stop calling it p2sh… all these are p2sh
650 2012-01-14 18:30:55 <pusle> but if P2SH is more restricted and less powerful, then it should also be more safe?
651 2012-01-14 18:31:06 <luke-jr> Eliel: I'm not sure there's anything in common
652 2012-01-14 18:31:13 <luke-jr> pusle: it's not
653 2012-01-14 18:31:35 <luke-jr> pusle: CHV just adds a simple new opcode; BIP 16 adds a whole new program flow
654 2012-01-14 18:31:38 att has quit (Quit: Leaving)
655 2012-01-14 18:31:48 <roconnor> luke-jr: P2SH basically only allows pay to signature hash; while CHV allows for that plus some other stuff.  The names are resonably appropriate.
656 2012-01-14 18:32:21 <luke-jr> pay-to-script-hash describes OP_EVAL, BIP 16, and CHV
657 2012-01-14 18:32:46 <luke-jr> Eliel: BIP 16 evaluates code from the stack, like OP_EVAL
658 2012-01-14 18:32:54 <luke-jr> Eliel: CHV just checks code that has already been executed
659 2012-01-14 18:33:00 <luke-jr> (the normal way)
660 2012-01-14 18:33:50 <pusle> roconnor? Luke is correct on all counts?
661 2012-01-14 18:33:56 * pusle don't really know shit ^^
662 2012-01-14 18:34:18 <roconnor> pusle: what is more restricted and what is more powerful is somewhat a matter of opinion
663 2012-01-14 18:34:41 <pusle> ok
664 2012-01-14 18:35:11 <pusle> but Gavins claims should be possible to confirm or refute based on the code by Luke
665 2012-01-14 18:35:38 <Eliel> luke-jr: BIP 16 isn't an actual opcode so I'm not sure if you could really say that it executes code from stack.
666 2012-01-14 18:35:43 <roconnor> I can review gavin's claims now that I think I understand luke-jr's code
667 2012-01-14 18:35:57 <luke-jr> pusle: indeed, I can't believe Gavin actually read my code…
668 2012-01-14 18:36:01 <pusle> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=58579.40
669 2012-01-14 18:36:05 <luke-jr> Eliel: it does, though.
670 2012-01-14 18:36:06 <pusle> roconnor: please do :)
671 2012-01-14 18:36:40 <Eliel> luke-jr: and even if it does, why would that be bad, exactly?
672 2012-01-14 18:36:44 <roconnor> pusle: thread comment #46?
673 2012-01-14 18:37:01 <luke-jr> Eliel: iff the scriptPubKey matches the magic template, then instead of executing scriptPubKey it does its own validation including executing the top stack item left by scriptSig
674 2012-01-14 18:37:07 <pusle> roconnor: yes and see #55
675 2012-01-14 18:37:27 att has joined
676 2012-01-14 18:38:10 <roconnor> pusle: okay; scriptSig and scriptPubKey are not concatinated;  Gavin's comment appears to be based on either puik misrepresentation of luke-jr's proposal or a earlier version of luke-jr's proposal.
677 2012-01-14 18:38:11 jacobwg has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
678 2012-01-14 18:38:48 <luke-jr> I've only implemented CHV once, FWIW.
679 2012-01-14 18:38:51 <roconnor> pusle: I don't know which of BIP 16 and CHV's implemenations are more likely to have a subtle bug.
680 2012-01-14 18:39:43 <pusle> roconnor: please make a post with your opinions and perhaps include the git link again
681 2012-01-14 18:39:58 <roconnor> pusle: I don't think I will do that.
682 2012-01-14 18:40:06 <pusle> lol, why not ? :P
683 2012-01-14 18:40:45 <roconnor> then I become responsible for whatever the fallout is
684 2012-01-14 18:40:55 <luke-jr> >_<
685 2012-01-14 18:41:08 <luke-jr> roconnor: isn't the good of Bitcoin worth it? :P
686 2012-01-14 18:41:29 <pusle> skilled people have to get into this, or it's just Gavin vs Luke. Both seems to have some ego issues...
687 2012-01-14 18:41:53 <roconnor> pusle: only a few weeks ago it was roconnor vs Gavin, and both seemed to have some ego issues
688 2012-01-14 18:41:59 <luke-jr> lol
689 2012-01-14 18:42:00 <pusle> hehe
690 2012-01-14 18:42:11 <luke-jr> I don't really care what happens, so long as it isn't BIP 16 :P
691 2012-01-14 18:42:13 <pusle> remember, most people who care about bitcoin are like me
692 2012-01-14 18:42:21 <pusle> and we really need all of you to give your views
693 2012-01-14 18:42:31 <pusle> you, the guys with the skills!
694 2012-01-14 18:42:34 <pusle> luke
695 2012-01-14 18:42:36 <pusle> gavin
696 2012-01-14 18:42:39 <pusle> roconnor
697 2012-01-14 18:42:43 <pusle> gmaxwell
698 2012-01-14 18:42:44 <pusle> etc
699 2012-01-14 18:42:45 <pusle> etc
700 2012-01-14 18:42:48 <pusle> the more the better
701 2012-01-14 18:42:49 <roconnor> sipa
702 2012-01-14 18:42:51 <pusle> yes
703 2012-01-14 18:42:52 <roconnor> justmoon, TD
704 2012-01-14 18:43:03 <pusle> right, MOAR! :)
705 2012-01-14 18:43:13 <roconnor> what Does Artzfort (sp?) think?
706 2012-01-14 18:43:14 <justmoon> yeah, ping everybody you trolls -_-
707 2012-01-14 18:43:15 <pusle> if I had the skills I would too
708 2012-01-14 18:43:22 <roconnor> he is the best at cracking bitcoin.
709 2012-01-14 18:43:25 <pusle> but since I don't I have to appeal to you out there ...
710 2012-01-14 18:43:50 <luke-jr> mtve!
711 2012-01-14 18:44:15 <luke-jr> I do think ArtForz should be asked, actually
712 2012-01-14 18:44:25 <luke-jr> after a proper explanation of everything
713 2012-01-14 18:44:29 <luke-jr> where is he?
714 2012-01-14 18:44:31 <luke-jr> :p
715 2012-01-14 18:44:41 <pusle> yes, so who are his buddy on here?
716 2012-01-14 18:45:12 <roconnor> pusle: anyhow, my opinion is that both P2SH and CHV are about equal, and both are somewhat worse than doing nothing, and both are infinitely better than OP_EVAL.
717 2012-01-14 18:45:17 <justmoon> ;;seen ArtForz
718 2012-01-14 18:45:18 <gribble> ArtForz was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 30 weeks, 3 days, 20 hours, 24 minutes, and 32 seconds ago: <ArtForz> eternal beta. hah, satoshi is secretly a google employee!
719 2012-01-14 18:45:31 <justmoon> roconnor: agreed
720 2012-01-14 18:45:41 <roconnor> pusle: more importantly I think changing the core protocol is being pushed too fast
721 2012-01-14 18:45:42 <pusle> okay, so it is coke vs pepsi
722 2012-01-14 18:45:42 <luke-jr> roconnor: you seriously think we don't need *some* kind of P2SH (generic)
723 2012-01-14 18:45:49 <pusle> I do know some people really hate pepsi
724 2012-01-14 18:45:53 <pusle> I guess Luke? ;)
725 2012-01-14 18:45:54 <pusle> hehe
726 2012-01-14 18:45:57 <luke-jr> I hate Pepsi and Coke.
727 2012-01-14 18:45:58 <justmoon> I would like to see a more mature implementation of CHV
728 2012-01-14 18:46:01 <luke-jr> But I hate Coke more.
729 2012-01-14 18:46:19 <luke-jr> justmoon: yeah, I definitely agree more time would make things better
730 2012-01-14 18:46:30 <luke-jr> I only drafted CHV because BIP 16 is so bad
731 2012-01-14 18:46:50 <pusle> most seems to think the difference is small
732 2012-01-14 18:46:52 <justmoon> how would the CHECKSIG counting look with CHV - no change needed correct?
733 2012-01-14 18:47:11 <pusle> Luke: You have to make a proper implementation so people can compile and run it
734 2012-01-14 18:47:13 <luke-jr> justmoon: CHV doesn't change any behaviours except OP_NOP1
735 2012-01-14 18:47:23 <justmoon> so that would be Pro: Less of a change and Con: We can't do the more precise CHECKSIG counting that BIP 16 allows
736 2012-01-14 18:47:24 <pusle> only then will CHV be a contender against P2SH
737 2012-01-14 18:47:32 <luke-jr> pusle: the problem is, BIP 16 code is in the way of user-facing changes
738 2012-01-14 18:47:45 <luke-jr> pusle: and Gavin's made it very difficult to remove BIP 16
739 2012-01-14 18:48:10 <luke-jr> justmoon: hmm? CHV doesn't require *any* change to CHECKSIG counting
740 2012-01-14 18:48:12 <pusle> If BIP16 is so bad, I'm sure you have the motivation to make a good CHV implementation :)
741 2012-01-14 18:48:28 <luke-jr> pusle: I could do so very easily, if BIP 16 weren't in the way
742 2012-01-14 18:48:58 <pusle> from the limited skills I have , I would say I am actually leaning towards CHV as the cleanest...but both are hacky according to 3rd party people
743 2012-01-14 18:49:01 <justmoon> luke-jr: yes, but BIP 16 changes checksig counting for the better - it looks at the last opcode before the CHECKMULTISIG and if it's a OP_1 to OP_16 it uses that instead of the 20 upper bound
744 2012-01-14 18:49:22 <pusle> luke: can't you revert and start from before BIP16 was added?
745 2012-01-14 18:49:41 <luke-jr> justmoon: wait, BIP 16 is actually changing the rules for the evaluated code?
746 2012-01-14 18:49:42 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr signmessage_gui * r21df4531579b bitcoind-personal/ (12 files in 4 dirs): Bitcoin-Qt signmessage GUI http://tinyurl.com/7ay4omw
747 2012-01-14 18:50:01 <luke-jr> pusle: no, because of how Gavin did it
748 2012-01-14 18:50:02 <justmoon> luke-jr: only the checksig counting anti-DoS rules
749 2012-01-14 18:50:10 <luke-jr> pusle: it's not a simple revert
750 2012-01-14 18:50:11 <pusle> O_o
751 2012-01-14 18:50:12 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
752 2012-01-14 18:50:34 <luke-jr> justmoon: in any case, miners could enforce stricter counting
753 2012-01-14 18:50:47 <justmoon> luke-jr: on their own blocks you mean?
754 2012-01-14 18:50:51 <luke-jr> justmoon: yes
755 2012-01-14 18:51:10 <sipa> the actual Pro: in general of BIP16 vs. CHV is a) soft-verification by old nodes (which may be a non-issue) and b) the ability to do upgrades to the scripting language
756 2012-01-14 18:51:26 <sipa> so far, b) is only used to have a more strict CHECKSIG checking, i believe
757 2012-01-14 18:51:33 <justmoon> sipa: yes
758 2012-01-14 18:51:34 <luke-jr> sipa: no, we lose t he ability to do upgrades if we deploy BIP16 now
759 2012-01-14 18:51:51 <luke-jr> once BIP16 is deployed, the rules are fixed
760 2012-01-14 18:52:10 <justmoon> well the rules are already fixed
761 2012-01-14 18:52:21 <justmoon> BIP16 represents a one-time rule upgrade possibility
762 2012-01-14 18:52:30 <luke-jr> and it's not being used in any significant way
763 2012-01-14 18:52:35 <justmoon> yes
764 2012-01-14 18:52:49 <justmoon> well, semisignificant I guess
765 2012-01-14 18:53:30 <luke-jr> technically speaking, miners *could* be stricter on CHECKSIG counts
766 2012-01-14 18:53:37 <pusle> I think next time there is a change, it will be even more hard to reach consensus so we better get this one right :&
767 2012-01-14 18:53:45 <sipa> luke-jr: for accepting to their memory pools, sure
768 2012-01-14 18:53:50 <sipa> luke-jr: but not when verifying blocks
769 2012-01-14 18:54:09 <luke-jr> sipa: for verifying blocks, it has the same effect as adding BIP16 or CHV
770 2012-01-14 18:54:21 <luke-jr> sipa: that is, so long as a supermajority agree, it's safe
771 2012-01-14 18:54:31 <justmoon> luke-jr: no, bip16's rules are for block verification (MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS limit)
772 2012-01-14 18:54:40 <roconnor> hmm, BIP 0016 would be a good opportinuty to make some simplifications; like making OP_CODESEPARATOR illegal in the deserialized code.
773 2012-01-14 18:54:47 Zarutian has joined
774 2012-01-14 18:54:48 <sipa> roconnor++
775 2012-01-14 18:54:57 <luke-jr> roconnor: better to just Reject BIP 16 and do something sane
776 2012-01-14 18:55:03 <justmoon> lol, that might actually be an argument against BIP 16
777 2012-01-14 18:55:04 <roconnor> this proposal should be delayed
778 2012-01-14 18:55:14 <justmoon> now everyone will come forward with their wish list for a script change
779 2012-01-14 18:55:20 <sipa> justmoon: haha
780 2012-01-14 18:55:21 <justmoon> (as in verification rules changes)
781 2012-01-14 18:55:31 <roconnor> justmoon: it is a golden opportunity for that
782 2012-01-14 18:55:40 <sipa> let's just create an entirely new and sane scripting language, and use that in bip 16!
783 2012-01-14 18:55:40 <luke-jr> roconnor: I think Gavin's made it clear he won't tolerate much delays, unfortunately. :<
784 2012-01-14 18:55:45 <justmoon> roconnor: not if we take into account that this is supposed to land in a few weeks
785 2012-01-14 18:55:58 <roconnor> sipa:  it is tempting
786 2012-01-14 18:56:34 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
787 2012-01-14 18:56:37 <roconnor> justmoon: well, I never though doing this in a few weeks was a good idea :D
788 2012-01-14 18:56:40 <roconnor> *thought
789 2012-01-14 18:56:52 <luke-jr> if anyone has a solution to the trojan problem without any kind of P2SH, that would buy us time…
790 2012-01-14 18:57:02 <luke-jr> AIUI, that's Gavin's main rush
791 2012-01-14 18:57:03 <pusle> Luke: you have 1 month to make the CHV code mean and lean. You GO girl! ^-^
792 2012-01-14 18:57:33 <sipa> on the other hand, roconnor, thanks to you, we've talked and discussed and invented more the past few weeks about it than all time before than :)
793 2012-01-14 18:57:44 <sipa> *that
794 2012-01-14 18:57:49 <justmoon> word.
795 2012-01-14 18:58:05 <sipa> ").correctGrammar();
796 2012-01-14 18:58:18 <Eliel> luke-jr: there was someone working on doing multisig with ecdsa magic. Would work without any code changes.
797 2012-01-14 18:58:24 <Eliel> in bitcoin core that is
798 2012-01-14 18:58:43 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: the 'main rush' is that this is all step zero. Realistically you're looking at a solid 6 months to a year _AFTER_ a p2sh solution is deployed before people are using it at any scale.
799 2012-01-14 18:58:55 <justmoon> sipa: Syntax Error in line 1, char 1, unmatched "
800 2012-01-14 18:58:58 <luke-jr> Eliel: got a link?
801 2012-01-14 18:59:12 <sipa> justmoon: i'm sure i once typed a dangling " here before :)
802 2012-01-14 18:59:22 <Eliel> I'll see if I can find it again.
803 2012-01-14 18:59:24 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I know that, but if the primary motivation for P2SH goes away, we can buy time to get it done and tested well
804 2012-01-14 18:59:25 * justmoon opens chat log archives
805 2012-01-14 18:59:27 <justmoon> :P
806 2012-01-14 18:59:30 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: since people who process payments will need to upgrade and change their software to get 3-address support.
807 2012-01-14 18:59:57 <luke-jr> whether we rush or not, BIP16 is not the answer.
808 2012-01-14 19:00:23 <sipa> one question i have now is that in both the case of /P2SH/ (can we please call it magicscript or bip16 instead?) and CHV, is how *will* we do a script language upgrade afterwards
809 2012-01-14 19:00:57 <justmoon> sipa: we don't, scripting language upgrade will be a forking change
810 2012-01-14 19:00:58 <roconnor> sipa: I'll try calling it BIP16 from now on
811 2012-01-14 19:00:59 <luke-jr> sipa: the only way to do a script language upgrade with both BIP16 and CHV, is by adding OP_EVAL of some form
812 2012-01-14 19:01:03 <gmaxwell> sipa: add a NOP at the end of the magicscript.
813 2012-01-14 19:01:10 <luke-jr> or fork the block chain
814 2012-01-14 19:01:13 <justmoon> yeah I guess OP_EVAL is an option too
815 2012-01-14 19:01:13 <sipa> gmaxwell: bleh
816 2012-01-14 19:01:25 <justmoon> -"I guess"
817 2012-01-14 19:01:31 <sipa> because that is one thing that OP_EVAL allowed us in a very sane way
818 2012-01-14 19:01:41 <Eliel> luke-jr: you remember the 2 of 2 thing casascius was planning for the more valuable coins he's making? those with two private keys from different parties.
819 2012-01-14 19:02:00 <gmaxwell> Eliel: non-solution.
820 2012-01-14 19:02:10 <justmoon> sipa: recall my point that I like P2SH because it gives us time to work on a well thought-out OP_EVAL one day
821 2012-01-14 19:02:12 <luke-jr> Eliel: but does that produce sane sized addresses?
822 2012-01-14 19:02:21 <Eliel> luke-jr: yes
823 2012-01-14 19:02:29 <luke-jr> Eliel: compatible with existing code?
824 2012-01-14 19:02:30 <Eliel> they look just like normal bitcoin addresses.
825 2012-01-14 19:02:31 <sipa> Eliel: i believe EC fiddling is not the answer for that; it is what the scripting language was intended for
826 2012-01-14 19:02:35 <gmaxwell> Eliel: splitting a private key like that still requires the whole private key to be in one persons hands to sign. That one person has the trojan. Game over.
827 2012-01-14 19:03:02 dwon has joined
828 2012-01-14 19:03:25 <luke-jr> sipa: as a temporary solution, it could buy time
829 2012-01-14 19:03:26 <Eliel> gmaxwell: ah yes, that part it can't shield from.
830 2012-01-14 19:03:36 <sipa> justmoon: right, we can still do OP_EVAL of course
831 2012-01-14 19:03:38 <gmaxwell> Eliel: whole point of the split wallet security, pretty much.
832 2012-01-14 19:03:49 <luke-jr> hm
833 2012-01-14 19:04:12 <justmoon> sipa: so that would be my answer to that, let's do CHV or BIP16 now, and OP_EVAL when we are ready with our list of changes and plenty of testing
834 2012-01-14 19:04:13 <Eliel> gmaxwell: limiting the exposure helps though. Although, it's not ideal.
835 2012-01-14 19:04:16 <gmaxwell> wallet encryption was buying time.
836 2012-01-14 19:04:41 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: on that note, have you heard of anyone lose their wallet since then?
837 2012-01-14 19:04:47 <gmaxwell> Eliel: no, it really buys nothing over wallet encryption— worse it would result in people electing services to be the key joiner and we'll get more mybitcoins.
838 2012-01-14 19:04:55 <sipa> justmoon: then we get the static analysis argument again of course
839 2012-01-14 19:05:17 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: not sure I heard anyone lose their wallets before then, at least not with substantial amounts, ::shrugs::
840 2012-01-14 19:05:27 <luke-jr> sipa: maybe, but by then there might be enough to 1) know static analysis is useless for certain, and 2) new functionality is worth the loss
841 2012-01-14 19:05:48 <sipa> luke-jr: maybe, indeed
842 2012-01-14 19:05:52 <gmaxwell> But the risk vs conventional banking is real even if some of the thefts so far have not been.
843 2012-01-14 19:08:12 <justmoon> sipa: it is possible to do OP_EVAL with static analysis if you don't need to execute the result of calculations, for example you could use an execute bit - we've been over all the ideas
844 2012-01-14 19:08:35 <sipa> yes, indeed
845 2012-01-14 19:08:56 dwon has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
846 2012-01-14 19:09:27 <gmaxwell> It makes me sad that the fix to the op_return stuff seperated the execution. I'd wondered before why it didn't work that way.
847 2012-01-14 19:10:15 <sipa> and it was satoshi himself who changed that behaviour?
848 2012-01-14 19:10:23 <roconnor> gmaxwell: learning about how bitcoin was before OP_RETURN has really lowered my opinion of bitcoin.
849 2012-01-14 19:10:24 <justmoon> sipa: yes
850 2012-01-14 19:10:38 <justmoon> roconnor: in what way?
851 2012-01-14 19:11:01 <justmoon> sipa: or rather, he committed it
852 2012-01-14 19:11:05 mtrlt has joined
853 2012-01-14 19:11:08 <roconnor> justmoon: clearly bitcoin was not as well thought out before it was released as I had imagined.
854 2012-01-14 19:11:39 <justmoon> roconnor: well, trying to plan everything in advance is a good way to make sure your software *never* comes out
855 2012-01-14 19:11:44 <roconnor> true
856 2012-01-14 19:12:02 dwon has joined
857 2012-01-14 19:12:11 <roconnor> but I think it is poor to sell bitcoin as a viable currency system, even today.
858 2012-01-14 19:12:31 <luke-jr> roconnor: it's fixable
859 2012-01-14 19:12:46 <sipa> i believe the implementation and design details are hardly relevant to how succesfull it could be as a currency
860 2012-01-14 19:13:00 <roconnor> maybe
861 2012-01-14 19:13:22 <luke-jr> roconnor: however, these things are part of why I reject clones are scams so easily
862 2012-01-14 19:13:31 <luke-jr> because if they REALLY wanted to compete, they'd fix this crap
863 2012-01-14 19:14:16 <sipa> an alt chain doesn't need to compete if its purpose is to test the viability of a particular change
864 2012-01-14 19:14:25 <luke-jr> I think I should have left names out of my P2SH poll
865 2012-01-14 19:14:44 <luke-jr> sipa: such an alt chain should be a testnet, not a clone with a name/market
866 2012-01-14 19:14:51 <sipa> as long as they don't mislead people into thinking they will replace bitcoin
867 2012-01-14 19:15:00 <luke-jr> too many people are voting for BIP16 just because I associated it with Gavin
868 2012-01-14 19:15:14 <luke-jr> leaving out names might have forced people to make a decision based on tech
869 2012-01-14 19:15:30 <sipa> voting will leave the decision to those who are least informed
870 2012-01-14 19:15:34 <justmoon> or based on which solution's name sounds best
871 2012-01-14 19:15:36 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you can't know that, perhaps they read my posts and were convinced? :-/
872 2012-01-14 19:15:52 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: well, we know the poll results are meaningless from the control options :p
873 2012-01-14 19:15:56 <pusle> very few are capable of making an informed decision on this on their own
874 2012-01-14 19:16:02 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: though your "I like mudkips" options indicate .. yea.
875 2012-01-14 19:16:05 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: and the comments seem to mostly be saying "I'll just trust Gavin"
876 2012-01-14 19:16:08 <roconnor>             case OP_RETURN:
877 2012-01-14 19:16:09 <roconnor>             {
878 2012-01-14 19:16:11 <roconnor>                 pc = pend;
879 2012-01-14 19:16:12 <roconnor>             }
880 2012-01-14 19:16:14 <roconnor> heh
881 2012-01-14 19:16:16 <roconnor> old bitcoin code is so funny
882 2012-01-14 19:16:22 <roconnor> in retrospect
883 2012-01-14 19:16:31 <sipa> haha
884 2012-01-14 19:16:45 <justmoon> In retrospect it becomes clear that hindsight is definitely overrated!
885 2012-01-14 19:16:55 <justmoon> - ALFRED E. NEUMAN, Mad Magazine
886 2012-01-14 19:17:13 davout has joined
887 2012-01-14 19:17:17 <roconnor> //
888 2012-01-14 19:17:18 <roconnor> // Script is a stack machine (like Forth) that evaluates a predicate
889 2012-01-14 19:17:19 <roconnor> // returning a bool indicating valid or not. There are no loops.
890 2012-01-14 19:17:21 <roconnor> //
891 2012-01-14 19:17:32 p0s has joined
892 2012-01-14 19:17:37 <sipa> if only it had remained a stack machine
893 2012-01-14 19:17:45 <sipa> and scriptSig only contained pushes
894 2012-01-14 19:17:45 <gmaxwell> roconnor: Still a remarkable system— e.g. that it had script at all. even if there were some gaffs initially. :)
895 2012-01-14 19:17:55 <roconnor> gmaxwell: ya, I guess that is true
896 2012-01-14 19:18:19 <roconnor> gmaxwell: or at least that is the flip side.
897 2012-01-14 19:18:53 <sipa> exactly, i think Satoshi's vision that scripting would be useful and was possible in this system, is far more important than any design or implementation flaw he did
898 2012-01-14 19:19:07 <gmaxwell> I think it's clear enough that if he'd took a step back on the scope we wouldn't have had those issues. But we'd be far poorer with it.
899 2012-01-14 19:19:28 <roconnor> gmaxwell: right, that is the two sides
900 2012-01-14 19:19:47 <luke-jr> at least he didn't embed Java.
901 2012-01-14 19:19:49 * luke-jr ducks
902 2012-01-14 19:20:03 <roconnor> luke-jr: or put javascript into browsers
903 2012-01-14 19:20:45 <roconnor> or put javascript into PDF
904 2012-01-14 19:21:11 <roconnor> my god, there could have been javascript in bitcoin
905 2012-01-14 19:21:14 <gmaxwell> I guess it's also evidence that he couldn't have reasonable done anything more. The complexity was just at the level where he was making mistakes.
906 2012-01-14 19:21:37 <gmaxwell> roconnor: yea, you've not had this thought excercise— how many awful things were _not_ done?
907 2012-01-14 19:26:28 wereHamster has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
908 2012-01-14 19:27:37 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
909 2012-01-14 19:28:57 storrgie has quit (Quit: Leaving)
910 2012-01-14 19:31:38 wasabi1 has joined
911 2012-01-14 19:32:07 wereHamster has joined
912 2012-01-14 19:32:49 wasabi3 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
913 2012-01-14 19:33:51 justmoon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
914 2012-01-14 19:34:04 wereHamster has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
915 2012-01-14 19:35:06 wereHamster has joined
916 2012-01-14 19:35:20 user__ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
917 2012-01-14 19:35:27 gavinandresen has joined
918 2012-01-14 19:36:22 wereHamster has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
919 2012-01-14 19:39:47 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * ra007ea39b8ca / (3 files in 3 dirs): discovery: we are joining a channel http://tinyurl.com/6uqh6gv
920 2012-01-14 19:44:15 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: Did I miss something in your CHV code that prevents somebody from creating transactions that are valid for new clients but invalid for old?
921 2012-01-14 19:45:55 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that's one of those "the problem just isn't there" things ;)
922 2012-01-14 19:46:02 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: if it succeeds, it has a NOP effect
923 2012-01-14 19:46:06 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: if it fails, it aborts
924 2012-01-14 19:46:17 <gavinandresen> Really?  What would this do:  OP_CODESEP OP_1  :  OP_DROP <hash of OP_1> OP_EQUAL
925 2012-01-14 19:46:28 <gavinandresen> (where : is the scriptSig/ScriptPubKey separator)
926 2012-01-14 19:46:43 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: same thing it currently does…?
927 2012-01-14 19:46:44 <gavinandresen> ... under the old and new rules.
928 2012-01-14 19:46:54 <luke-jr> you didn't use the new instruction at all there
929 2012-01-14 19:47:13 <gavinandresen> Right, but the new EvalScript puts a codehash on the front of the stack
930 2012-01-14 19:47:22 <luke-jr> and then pulls it off
931 2012-01-14 19:47:34 <gavinandresen> What pulls it off?
932 2012-01-14 19:47:40 <luke-jr> EvalScript, for scriptPubKey
933 2012-01-14 19:48:05 <luke-jr> admittedly, a better implementation would replace the 'stack' parameter with a full 'interpretor state'
934 2012-01-14 19:48:09 <gavinandresen> EvalScript(OP_CODESEP OP_1) leaves what on the stack?
935 2012-01-14 19:48:31 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: at the beginning of EvalScript(OP_DROP <hash of OP_1> OP_EQUAL), only {1}
936 2012-01-14 19:49:06 <luke-jr> if (!stack.empty()) { vchLastScript = stack.front(); stack.erase(stack.begin()); }
937 2012-01-14 19:49:17 wereHamster has joined
938 2012-01-14 19:49:36 <gavinandresen> EvalScript is called twice-- once for the scriptSig and once for the scriptPubKey, yes?
939 2012-01-14 19:49:51 <luke-jr> yes
940 2012-01-14 19:49:53 <gavinandresen> And the only state shared between them is the stack after evaluating scriptSig
941 2012-01-14 19:50:12 <luke-jr> currently, and with this implementation, yes
942 2012-01-14 19:50:13 <gavinandresen> yes?
943 2012-01-14 19:50:28 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
944 2012-01-14 19:50:37 Nicksasa has joined
945 2012-01-14 19:50:50 <gavinandresen> Ok.  So after evaluating the scriptSig: OP_CODESEP OP_1 the state of the stack is.....  <code hash> OP_1  for new implementation, right?
946 2012-01-14 19:51:13 <luke-jr> after EvalScript(scriptSig) completes, and before EvalScript(scriptPubKey) begins, yes
947 2012-01-14 19:51:51 <luke-jr> then when EvalScript(scriptPubKey) begins, before it executes, it pulls vchLastScript off the stack
948 2012-01-14 19:51:53 <gavinandresen> So if the scriptPubKey is OP_DROP <hash of OP_1> OP_EQUAL, that will FAIL on old software but succeed on new.
949 2012-01-14 19:52:16 <luke-jr> no, because when scriptPubKey executes, <code hash> has already been removed
950 2012-01-14 19:52:22 <gavinandresen> ... and that is a pretty big problem, because any merchants that haven't upgraded their software will reject the new blockchain
951 2012-01-14 19:52:43 <gavinandresen> <code hash> is removed by what?
952 2012-01-14 19:52:52 <luke-jr> [14:44:36] <luke-jr> if (!stack.empty()) { vchLastScript = stack.front(); stack.erase(stack.begin()); }
953 2012-01-14 19:53:04 <luke-jr> https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/51decbe12f05d32f13b455852e139d6c3c5ef82e#L0R248
954 2012-01-14 19:53:48 <gavinandresen> Comments in your code would be nice, by the way....
955 2012-01-14 19:55:50 <luke-jr> good idea
956 2012-01-14 19:56:33 merde has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
957 2012-01-14 19:56:57 <gavinandresen> Changing the semantics of EvalScript seems... wrong to me.  At the very least, your change woud break a bunch of unit tests.
958 2012-01-14 19:58:23 <luke-jr> would it be better, to add a new parameter to the function?
959 2012-01-14 19:58:47 <luke-jr> I suppose I could refactor the stack into a general "interp state" class, but that would use more lines of code, which you seem to dislike in the past
960 2012-01-14 19:59:07 <gavinandresen> So calling EvalScript with the scriptPubKey on new clients, if there is no CHV in the scriptPubKey an extra item is put on the front of the stack just before EvalScript ends.... that seems exploitable to me, too
961 2012-01-14 20:00:33 <gavinandresen> Frankly, I don't want to spend more time tweaking CHV or anything like it-- /P2SH/ is perfectly fine, and has well-defined semantics that we've already spent the time tweaking and thinking about.
962 2012-01-14 20:00:46 user_ has joined
963 2012-01-14 20:01:02 merde has joined
964 2012-01-14 20:05:28 wump has quit (No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)