1 2012-01-23 00:01:37 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2 2012-01-23 00:02:09 Graet_ is now known as catfish
3 2012-01-23 00:02:27 catfish is now known as graet2
4 2012-01-23 00:02:34 graet2 is now known as Graet2
5 2012-01-23 00:04:20 marf_away has joined
6 2012-01-23 00:05:47 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Quit: bitcoinbulletin)
7 2012-01-23 00:09:25 theorb has joined
8 2012-01-23 00:09:48 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
9 2012-01-23 00:10:03 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
10 2012-01-23 00:10:25 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r990bb4a99426 cgminer/adl.c: Set iSize for thermal device enum first. http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/cpuminer/cgminer.git/commitdiff/990bb4a994261fb0aca8a6bd1b324a3007583207
11 2012-01-23 00:12:19 JZavala has joined
12 2012-01-23 00:15:29 bitcoinbulletin has joined
13 2012-01-23 00:21:49 Detritus has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
14 2012-01-23 00:22:43 phungi_ has joined
15 2012-01-23 00:22:53 phungi_ is now known as phungus
16 2012-01-23 00:31:51 Rabbit67890-ipad has joined
17 2012-01-23 00:32:47 Detritus has joined
18 2012-01-23 00:34:44 spq has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
19 2012-01-23 00:35:18 Guest72576 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
20 2012-01-23 00:36:03 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
21 2012-01-23 00:43:48 BurtyBB has joined
22 2012-01-23 00:47:21 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
23 2012-01-23 00:47:40 BurtyBB is now known as BurtyB
24 2012-01-23 00:51:42 has joined
25 2012-01-23 00:53:55 spq has joined
26 2012-01-23 00:57:03 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
27 2012-01-23 00:59:19 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Take my advice. I don't use it anyway)
28 2012-01-23 01:00:57 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
29 2012-01-23 01:02:29 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
30 2012-01-23 01:03:22 <roconnor> gmaxwell: ping
31 2012-01-23 01:05:37 <gmaxwell> pong
32 2012-01-23 01:05:51 <roconnor> gmaxwell: can you mine testnet for a few seconds?
33 2012-01-23 01:05:55 <gmaxwell> sure.
34 2012-01-23 01:06:07 <gmaxwell> is there a txn I should check my memory pool for first?
35 2012-01-23 01:06:29 <roconnor> yes, but I don't know how to identify it, by address sent to?
36 2012-01-23 01:06:30 sacarlson has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
37 2012-01-23 01:06:54 <gmaxwell> roconnor: if you look at list transactions or your logs you should be able to tell me the txn id?
38 2012-01-23 01:07:02 <roconnor> my logs?
39 2012-01-23 01:07:32 <sipa> ~/.bitcoin/testnet/debug.log
40 2012-01-23 01:07:36 <sipa> if you use the satoshi client
41 2012-01-23 01:08:12 <roconnor> oh, that's where all that stuff goes
42 2012-01-23 01:10:02 <gmaxwell> roconnor: well, while you're looking I did one block.
43 2012-01-23 01:10:41 <roconnor> ah that worked
44 2012-01-23 01:18:47 [\\\] is now known as imsaguy
45 2012-01-23 01:24:54 tonykay has joined
46 2012-01-23 01:25:42 sacarlson has joined
47 2012-01-23 01:26:39 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
48 2012-01-23 01:27:56 tonykay has quit (Client Quit)
49 2012-01-23 01:28:06 wirehead` has joined
50 2012-01-23 01:29:09 Rabbit67890-ipad has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
51 2012-01-23 01:29:52 Rabbit67890-ipad has joined
52 2012-01-23 01:32:53 BGL has joined
53 2012-01-23 01:33:46 Cablesaurus has joined
54 2012-01-23 01:33:46 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
55 2012-01-23 01:33:46 Cablesaurus has joined
56 2012-01-23 01:35:12 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: In retrospect, I wanted it to be clear that payout was 1 satoshi less, so I'm glad it worked out that way. There's a clear 49.9999999.. which is easy for a newb to see and go "huh.."
57 2012-01-23 01:35:57 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: yes, would have been better if you'd just not included those transactions.
58 2012-01-23 01:35:59 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
59 2012-01-23 01:36:20 <gmaxwell> As a result, if you count up the exiting bitcoin minus the lost you get a pretty weird number.
60 2012-01-23 01:36:59 Ahimoth_ has joined
61 2012-01-23 01:37:02 * Diablo-D3 counts up gmaxwell's sins instead
62 2012-01-23 01:37:12 Ahimoth has quit (Disconnected by services)
63 2012-01-23 01:37:17 Ahimoth_ is now known as Ahimoth
64 2012-01-23 01:37:37 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: sin is periodic and continious, you'll be counting for a long time.
65 2012-01-23 01:37:50 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: argh!
66 2012-01-23 01:37:53 <sipa> LOL
67 2012-01-23 01:38:19 <midnightmagic> Sin is an illusion anyway, so let someone count up my invisible ambiguous naughties.
68 2012-01-23 01:38:37 <gmaxwell> Enough tangents.
69 2012-01-23 01:39:08 <sipa> i cosi{gn,ne} that
70 2012-01-23 01:39:41 <midnightmagic> second
71 2012-01-23 01:40:12 <Diablo-D3> midnightmagic: no one cares about your ambiguous naughties.
72 2012-01-23 01:40:18 <sipa> midnightmagic: nice one :)
73 2012-01-23 01:43:53 <midnightmagic> Diablo-D3: ಠ_ಠsecond i said!
74 2012-01-23 01:44:34 <Diablo-D3> I wish I knew what the fuck that was supposed to be
75 2012-01-23 01:47:25 userjjj has quit (Quit: Leaving)
76 2012-01-23 01:49:34 SomeoneWeirdzzzz is now known as SomeoneWeird
77 2012-01-23 02:10:08 da2ce7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
78 2012-01-23 02:11:31 baz has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
79 2012-01-23 02:15:38 <roconnor> putting the signature for the transaction inside the pubScript is very difficult and possible infeasible.
80 2012-01-23 02:17:15 <luke-jr> ?
81 2012-01-23 02:18:17 <roconnor> I want to test the signature removeing part of signature verification
82 2012-01-23 02:22:55 da2ce7 has joined
83 2012-01-23 02:38:30 <Mad7Scientist> bitcoin is sitting here crashed it crashing from me attaching gdb what do I do
84 2012-01-23 02:38:54 <gmaxwell> gdb just freezes it.. if you detach it should continue.
85 2012-01-23 02:39:13 <Mad7Scientist> some threads became status "t" in htop
86 2012-01-23 02:39:29 <Mad7Scientist> it crashed SIGSEGV
87 2012-01-23 02:39:40 <Mad7Scientist> gmaxwell, http://dpaste.com/691863/
88 2012-01-23 02:39:45 <Mad7Scientist> http://dpaste.com/691864/
89 2012-01-23 02:41:05 userll has joined
90 2012-01-23 02:42:40 <Mad7Scientist> well :/ is it worth investigating the crash
91 2012-01-23 02:50:48 MoPac has quit (Quit: Au revoir)
92 2012-01-23 02:52:52 <Mad7Scientist> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
93 2012-01-23 02:52:52 <gribble> Error: "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is not a valid command.
94 2012-01-23 02:56:28 Rabbit67890-ipad has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
95 2012-01-23 02:56:40 <Mad7Scientist> no support?
96 2012-01-23 02:56:48 <Mad7Scientist> :(
97 2012-01-23 03:02:04 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
98 2012-01-23 03:04:01 darkmethod has joined
99 2012-01-23 03:08:23 wirehead` has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
100 2012-01-23 03:10:47 userll has quit (Quit: Leaving)
101 2012-01-23 03:11:00 <BlueMatt> Mad7Scientist: those are the most useless backtraces ever...
102 2012-01-23 03:11:08 <BlueMatt> what version? os? bitcoin-qt or d?
103 2012-01-23 03:12:07 dan__ has joined
104 2012-01-23 03:14:49 b4epoche_ has joined
105 2012-01-23 03:14:52 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
106 2012-01-23 03:14:52 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
107 2012-01-23 03:18:10 <gmaxwell> I'm happy to have produced a P2SH supporting block now: https://blockexplorer.com/rawblock/0000000000000ac720f9373d1dcd00ad353c79ff49908a930b42681bbd92e1cd
108 2012-01-23 03:18:32 <gmaxwell> Gavin, Thanks for merging forestv's getmemorypool patch. :)
109 2012-01-23 03:19:54 <Mad7Scientist> BlueMatt, Linux QT 0.5.2
110 2012-01-23 03:20:05 <Mad7Scientist> I thought a crash was worth looking in to
111 2012-01-23 03:20:12 <Mad7Scientist> I don't really know what I'm doing
112 2012-01-23 03:20:28 <Mad7Scientist> I started this because of the I/Q on ~/.bitcoin/ freeze up problem
113 2012-01-23 03:20:32 <gmaxwell> Mad7Scientist: how did you invoke gdb?
114 2012-01-23 03:20:35 <unicron> is there a list of which way pools are voting?
115 2012-01-23 03:20:38 <gmaxwell> did you give it the path to the binary?
116 2012-01-23 03:20:40 <Mad7Scientist> I/O
117 2012-01-23 03:20:51 <Mad7Scientist> no I didn't I just did attach <PID>
118 2012-01-23 03:21:01 <gmaxwell> ah, thats why you didn't get any symbol names.
119 2012-01-23 03:21:19 <gmaxwell> you need to do gdb /path/to/bitcoin/bitcoin -p <PID>
120 2012-01-23 03:21:34 <Mad7Scientist> I geuss it's the file command
121 2012-01-23 03:21:39 <Mad7Scientist> (once gdb is opened)
122 2012-01-23 03:21:43 <gmaxwell> sadly that output is useless. I've tried attaching gdb several times now, and it doesn't crash it here.
123 2012-01-23 03:22:07 <Mad7Scientist> I was stopping and starting it in gdb then it just crashed
124 2012-01-23 03:22:36 <lianj> gmaxwell: the first output of the first tx?
125 2012-01-23 03:22:38 <gmaxwell> symbol-file IIRC. maybe it's just file.
126 2012-01-23 03:22:48 <Mad7Scientist> Is there a way to load the file while gdb is still open?
127 2012-01-23 03:22:53 <gmaxwell> lianj: no the p2sh vote is in the coinbase.
128 2012-01-23 03:23:01 <lianj> oh ok :D
129 2012-01-23 03:23:07 <gmaxwell> Mad7Scientist: symbol-file I think.
130 2012-01-23 03:23:20 <Mad7Scientist> yeah
131 2012-01-23 03:24:03 <lianj> is there a p2sh tx on blockexplorer yet?
132 2012-01-23 03:24:19 <Mad7Scientist> (gdb) symbol-file /home/rep/stuff/prg/bitcoin-0.5.2-linux/bin/32/bitcoin-qt
133 2012-01-23 03:24:27 <Mad7Scientist> Reading symbols from /home/rep/stuff/prg/bitcoin-0.5.2-linux/bin/32/bitcoin-qt...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
134 2012-01-23 03:25:49 <gmaxwell> lianj: no, because p2sh supporting miners are not mining them currently.
135 2012-01-23 03:26:08 <gmaxwell> (only failing to mine invalid ones)
136 2012-01-23 03:26:33 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: are we really distributing stripped binaries that sucks. Do you have an unstripped one we can use for symbols?
137 2012-01-23 03:26:51 <lianj> hm, but i want a tx as fixture for my tests ^^ thanks anw
138 2012-01-23 03:28:24 <Mad7Scientist> I want to compile bitcoin
139 2012-01-23 03:28:35 <Mad7Scientist> I tryped qmake and that was not correct
140 2012-01-23 03:28:37 <Mad7Scientist> I am on Gentoo
141 2012-01-23 03:29:22 <gmaxwell> Mad7Scientist: see the readme file.
142 2012-01-23 03:30:25 <Mad7Scientist> So I should use Qt creator?
143 2012-01-23 03:31:57 <Mad7Scientist> the readme file just says run qmake
144 2012-01-23 03:32:07 <Mad7Scientist> without any arguments
145 2012-01-23 03:32:42 <gmaxwell> it .. what?
146 2012-01-23 03:33:20 <Mad7Scientist> prints the help as many programs do
147 2012-01-23 03:33:32 <Mad7Scientist> when run without any arguments
148 2012-01-23 03:33:38 dwon has joined
149 2012-01-23 03:34:33 <Mad7Scientist> Ahh I was in the src/src directory
150 2012-01-23 03:36:27 <dwon> Hmm. There's no v0.5.2 tag at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
151 2012-01-23 03:36:49 <gmaxwell> dwon: correct, it's in the stable repository.
152 2012-01-23 03:37:44 <Mad7Scientist> db_cxx.h not found. I assume the path to /usr/include/db4.x/ has to be added somewhere
153 2012-01-23 03:38:28 <gmaxwell> On gentoo, yes.
154 2012-01-23 03:38:33 <Mad7Scientist> I have 6 versions of db installed
155 2012-01-23 03:38:45 <gmaxwell> yes, because you run gentoo.
156 2012-01-23 03:38:47 <dwon> gmaxwell: What "stable repository"? I went to http://bitcoin.org/, I clicked "get the source code", and cloned that. And there's a v0.5.1 tag there.
157 2012-01-23 03:38:55 <Mad7Scientist> But I don't know which version I should use
158 2012-01-23 03:39:10 <Mad7Scientist> is it the 4x series?
159 2012-01-23 03:39:52 <gmaxwell> dwon: https://gitorious.org/+bitcoin-stable-developers/bitcoin/bitcoind-stable the forks for minor revisions on old versions are there.
160 2012-01-23 03:39:53 <Mad7Scientist> ok for debian it says db-4.8 ...
161 2012-01-23 03:40:23 <gmaxwell> Mad7Scientist: just not 5.x so long as you want compatiblity with the binaries.
162 2012-01-23 03:40:35 <dwon> gmaxwell: That's really, really confusing.
163 2012-01-23 03:43:31 <CIA-76> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * rd85b1ba / (2 files in 2 dirs): Shorten debug status line, fix kernel for layered vectors - http://git.io/pv0idA https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/commit/d85b1ba456c4a1c75c760075cf1c0f325eb818c1
164 2012-01-23 03:46:17 <Mad7Scientist> oh heck
165 2012-01-23 03:46:40 <Mad7Scientist> it appears the Makefile that qmake made does not specify any optimizations in CFLAGS
166 2012-01-23 03:46:55 <gmaxwell> Hm?
167 2012-01-23 03:47:08 <gmaxwell> are you sure you're not just looking at the linker line?
168 2012-01-23 03:47:20 dissipate has joined
169 2012-01-23 03:47:20 dissipate has quit (Changing host)
170 2012-01-23 03:47:20 dissipate has joined
171 2012-01-23 03:48:19 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yea, unstripped binaries are something like 50M iirc
172 2012-01-23 03:48:22 <Mad7Scientist> I did source /etc/make.conf to set CFLAGS
173 2012-01-23 03:48:34 <Mad7Scientist> deleted the Makefile
174 2012-01-23 03:48:35 <BlueMatt> and no, there are no unstripped releases afaik (though I usually use them when Im debugging)
175 2012-01-23 03:48:36 <Mad7Scientist> ran qmake
176 2012-01-23 03:48:45 <Mad7Scientist> looked at the makefile. No optimizations.
177 2012-01-23 03:49:09 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: they should be posted too as part of the build process.
178 2012-01-23 03:49:18 <BlueMatt> should be
179 2012-01-23 03:49:48 <BlueMatt> is there no way to build a map of offset -> function that can be examined afterwards?
180 2012-01-23 03:50:04 <BlueMatt> s/no way/no easy way/
181 2012-01-23 03:50:21 <gmaxwell> yes, using objcopy.
182 2012-01-23 03:50:25 <Mad7Scientist> I see all the defines at the top of the Makefile. Can I edit one line that will change both CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS ?
183 2012-01-23 03:50:52 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/866721/how-to-generate-gcc-debug-symbol-outside-the-build-target
184 2012-01-23 03:50:56 <Mad7Scientist> neverminde I see it includes $(DEFINES)
185 2012-01-23 03:51:24 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: nice, Ill look into getting it into 0.6
186 2012-01-23 03:57:28 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
187 2012-01-23 03:58:06 [7] has joined
188 2012-01-23 04:01:35 <roconnor> etotheipi_: ping
189 2012-01-23 04:01:50 <etotheipi_> roconnor, ack
190 2012-01-23 04:02:00 <etotheipi_> err... how do I respond to ping?
191 2012-01-23 04:02:08 <gmaxwell> ICMP ECHO REPLY
192 2012-01-23 04:02:13 <roconnor> RST
193 2012-01-23 04:02:28 <roconnor> etotheipi_: ("_TXDIST_") (magicBytes) (base58Txid) (varIntTxSize)
194 2012-01-23 04:02:38 <roconnor> what is base58Txid and varIntTxSize
195 2012-01-23 04:02:54 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: does that qmake crap manage to make a binary without stack protector enabled and other useful paranoid?
196 2012-01-23 04:03:03 da2ce7 has joined
197 2012-01-23 04:03:16 <etotheipi_> the transaction that has all the txIn scripts replaced with the txOut scripts of the prev txs... hash that
198 2012-01-23 04:03:28 <etotheipi_> so it's a transaction ID, but of a modified tx
199 2012-01-23 04:03:40 <roconnor> your example has a very short hash
200 2012-01-23 04:03:47 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: how would I know?
201 2012-01-23 04:03:48 <etotheipi_> since you don't have sigs yet, you can't determine the real Tx ID
202 2012-01-23 04:03:54 <etotheipi_> oh yeah, sorry.. it's truncated
203 2012-01-23 04:04:07 <etotheipi_> 8 bytes, I believe
204 2012-01-23 04:04:26 <roconnor> etotheipi_: if you get some time this week, I'd would be nice to fully specify your format in BIP 0010
205 2012-01-23 04:04:26 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: you were the only person obviously around that has been building binaries for other people to use?
206 2012-01-23 04:04:30 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I see no mentions of stack protector in the g++ calls from qmake?
207 2012-01-23 04:04:37 <BlueMatt> s/?//
208 2012-01-23 04:04:38 <etotheipi_> and it's base58 to distinguish it from a real Tx ID which is usually in hex
209 2012-01-23 04:04:46 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: bleh!
210 2012-01-23 04:04:49 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: so Id assume it has those things disabled...
211 2012-01-23 04:04:53 <etotheipi_> roconnor, I'd like to iron out BIP 0010...
212 2012-01-23 04:04:59 <BlueMatt> (or default, which, on ubuntu, is enabled iirc)
213 2012-01-23 04:05:06 <BlueMatt> not sure about mingw
214 2012-01-23 04:05:07 <etotheipi_> so I'd be happy to work on it with you
215 2012-01-23 04:05:11 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: yea, it's enabled on ubuntu, nowhere else.
216 2012-01-23 04:05:12 <roconnor> oh okay
217 2012-01-23 04:05:26 <etotheipi_> roconnor, something to think about
218 2012-01-23 04:05:28 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: its all built on ubuntu, question is does the mingw ubuntu g++ enable it or not
219 2012-01-23 04:05:34 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: I'll happly look at what you do there and yell at you about it!
220 2012-01-23 04:05:40 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: hmmmmm!
221 2012-01-23 04:05:40 <etotheipi_> I don't know if it goes in a separate BIP, but I think it needs to go in a bip
222 2012-01-23 04:05:52 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, I know you will! I don't need to invite you to know that :)
223 2012-01-23 04:05:56 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I could tell from looking at the binary .. but meh.
224 2012-01-23 04:06:16 <etotheipi_> roconnor, here's my thought about expanding BIP 10
225 2012-01-23 04:06:40 <etotheipi_> BIP 0010 is about assisting with the SPENDING of a multi-sig TxOut
226 2012-01-23 04:06:49 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: the hardening stuff is also only in the mingw makefile
227 2012-01-23 04:06:57 <BlueMatt> s/mingw/unix/
228 2012-01-23 04:07:12 <BlueMatt> so its not on in win32 bitcoind either
229 2012-01-23 04:07:29 <etotheipi_> roconnor, but if you are talking about a buyer-seller contract, with buyer and seller each putting up 10-20% of purchase price as a kind of "deposit" on the tx... then there needs to be a way for both parties to buy into the exact same tx
230 2012-01-23 04:07:29 <gmaxwell> hmph. It doesn't work on some platforms, but I'm pretty sure it works on mingw32.
231 2012-01-23 04:08:10 <etotheipi_> you can't send the tx separately, what if one person sends their money to the 2-of-2 address, then the other one backs out and/or disappears
232 2012-01-23 04:08:16 Runnigan has joined
233 2012-01-23 04:08:38 <Runnigan> Hi, I keep getting this error when trying to do bitcoind commands:
234 2012-01-23 04:08:42 <etotheipi_> but that means that one person needs to be able to prepare such a contract
235 2012-01-23 04:08:49 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: essentially if you want a secure bitcoin environment, go use bitcoind on linux
236 2012-01-23 04:08:55 <Runnigan> error: You must set rpcpassword=<password> in the configuration file: /root/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf
237 2012-01-23 04:09:18 <Runnigan> I've set the rpcpassword though, so don't know what I'm missing
238 2012-01-23 04:09:27 <etotheipi_> roconnor, BIP 0010 allows just as easily as spending a multi-sig tx, the capability to collect signatures for such a contract-entry transaction
239 2012-01-23 04:09:31 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: sure sure. But the security paranoia crap isn't for the the user, it's for everything else. Because if a lot of windows bitcoin users get 0wned up then thats bad for all bitcoin users.
240 2012-01-23 04:09:36 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: if you feel like looking them up, please do and add them to the relevant makefiles...
241 2012-01-23 04:09:36 <TuxBlackEdo> Runnigan, you are running this in root?
242 2012-01-23 04:09:47 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: yea, I'll figured it out. Thanks for giving it a look.
243 2012-01-23 04:09:58 <etotheipi_> but one person still has to prepare it, which means they need to get an address from the other person, and a change address too, so they know how to prepare outputs
244 2012-01-23 04:10:11 <TuxBlackEdo> Runnigan, try "nano -w ~/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf"
245 2012-01-23 04:10:22 <TuxBlackEdo> instead of /root/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf
246 2012-01-23 04:10:49 <etotheipi_> so that was a verbose way of saying... might want to add some kind of address exchange to BIP 0010 to help with the *creation* of multi-sig contracts, not just spending
247 2012-01-23 04:10:56 <Runnigan> ok..
248 2012-01-23 04:11:28 <TuxBlackEdo> Runnigan, or you can try ./bitcoind --rpcpassword=test
249 2012-01-23 04:12:07 <Runnigan> ok just did it
250 2012-01-23 04:12:13 <TuxBlackEdo> worked?
251 2012-01-23 04:12:31 <Runnigan> I got this
252 2012-01-23 04:12:33 <Runnigan> "Warning: To use bitcoind, you must set rpcpassword=<password> in the configuration file: /root/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf If the file does not exist, create it with owner-readable-only file permissions."
253 2012-01-23 04:12:48 wtfman[away] is now known as wtfman
254 2012-01-23 04:12:49 <etotheipi_> roconnor, did that make sense?
255 2012-01-23 04:13:11 <TuxBlackEdo> Runnigan, chmod 700 /root/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf
256 2012-01-23 04:13:37 <TuxBlackEdo> i mean
257 2012-01-23 04:13:41 <TuxBlackEdo> Runnigan, chmod 400 /root/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf
258 2012-01-23 04:13:49 <etotheipi_> although... maybe this is solved with using alternate hashcodes...
259 2012-01-23 04:14:09 <roconnor> etotheipi_: yes
260 2012-01-23 04:14:36 <roconnor> like in https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_3:_Assurance_contracts
261 2012-01-23 04:15:05 wtfman is now known as wtfman[away]
262 2012-01-23 04:15:10 <Runnigan> I got: "chmod: cannot access `/root/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf': No such file or directory "
263 2012-01-23 04:15:56 <TuxBlackEdo> Runnigan, echo "rpcpassword=test">/root/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf
264 2012-01-23 04:16:25 <etotheipi_> roconnor, are the other hashcodes disabled?
265 2012-01-23 04:16:33 <josephcp> (after you get it running, you probably shouldn't be running services as root...)
266 2012-01-23 04:16:53 <Runnigan> ok did it
267 2012-01-23 04:17:22 <etotheipi_> if the other hashcodes are not accepted in the network, then a temp solution will be needed
268 2012-01-23 04:18:08 <Runnigan> some progress, I got a new error: "error: couldn't connect to server"
269 2012-01-23 04:18:48 <josephcp> did you first stop all existing bitcoin daemons, then re-run "bitcoind -daemon"?
270 2012-01-23 04:18:49 <Runnigan> so I assume I have to start the daemon
271 2012-01-23 04:18:51 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
272 2012-01-23 04:19:09 <Runnigan> no I didn't
273 2012-01-23 04:19:10 <josephcp> actually just run "bitcoind" first and then open a new terminal window
274 2012-01-23 04:19:23 JRWR has joined
275 2012-01-23 04:19:24 <josephcp> and type bitcoind --rpcpassword=test getinfo"
276 2012-01-23 04:19:36 <josephcp> err "bitcoind --rpcpassword=test getinfo" in the new terminal window
277 2012-01-23 04:19:45 <TuxBlackEdo> you dont need the " --rpcpassword=test"
278 2012-01-23 04:19:49 <TuxBlackEdo> yes josephcp
279 2012-01-23 04:19:51 <josephcp> oh right
280 2012-01-23 04:19:55 <josephcp> localhost
281 2012-01-23 04:20:19 <TuxBlackEdo> you should be able to just do: bitcoind getinfo
282 2012-01-23 04:22:40 <TuxBlackEdo> josephcp, you can run bitcoind in a screen session if you got the screen package installed: screen -dmS wallet bitcoind
283 2012-01-23 04:23:11 <josephcp> yeah i love screen ;-)
284 2012-01-23 04:23:29 <josephcp> but i usually run it in a daemon because i juggle too many screen sessions as is haha
285 2012-01-23 04:25:31 wirehead` has joined
286 2012-01-23 04:39:24 <etotheipi_> do non-standard hashcodes cause validation failure right now?
287 2012-01-23 04:39:48 <etotheipi_> or are they treated like non-std tx: if they appear in the blockchain they're alright, but no one will relay/mine them
288 2012-01-23 04:39:55 <etotheipi_> ?
289 2012-01-23 04:40:00 inlikeflynn has quit ()
290 2012-01-23 04:41:48 <josephcp> do you mean opcode?
291 2012-01-23 04:42:03 <etotheipi_> no, using something other than SIGHASH_ALL
292 2012-01-23 04:42:04 <josephcp> because i wanted to check that sometime too
293 2012-01-23 04:42:27 <josephcp> ooooh
294 2012-01-23 04:43:06 <josephcp> i don't remember any sort of restriction on it when i was going through the code but i can't say for sure
295 2012-01-23 04:44:02 <etotheipi_> well, the multi-sig stuff I'm looking at right now would get dramatically simpler with these alternate hashcodes... I'm wondering if they are usable, or will be any time soon
296 2012-01-23 04:45:55 [Tycho] has joined
297 2012-01-23 04:46:04 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
298 2012-01-23 04:46:28 <josephcp> i'm not sure exactly what you're thinking about w.r.t sighash codes, but i know when i've thought about alternate uses of sighash, remainder coins are sometimes a stumbling block for me
299 2012-01-23 04:47:08 <josephcp> splitting them and such i mean, is this for BIP_0010?
300 2012-01-23 04:47:46 <etotheipi_> more generally, it is for *creation* of multisig transactions that require inputs from multiple parties
301 2012-01-23 04:48:23 <etotheipi_> but since BIP 0010 proposes how to *spend* multi-sig tx's, it's probably appropriate to include the creation side, too
302 2012-01-23 04:49:02 <etotheipi_> it seems to me that the parties not creating the tx need to send the exact coinage to a new address to be used for this purpose
303 2012-01-23 04:49:54 <etotheipi_> so if I need to contribute 1.284 BTC to this tx but someone else is preparing the tx and doesn't always want to have to get a change address for me... I just 1.284 BTC to a new address, and then give them that address to use as the input
304 2012-01-23 04:49:56 <josephcp> yeah, exactly remainder coins are tricky ;-)
305 2012-01-23 04:50:42 <josephcp> and since sighash is for the entire transaction from what i understand, you can't have sighash_anyone can pay for one output and sighash_single for another or whatever
306 2012-01-23 04:51:00 <etotheipi_> it adds an extra tx to the network... and actually, if thye are sending the address they might as well send a change address too
307 2012-01-23 04:51:25 <etotheipi_> you can't have different sighashes for the outputs, but you can for the inputs
308 2012-01-23 04:51:38 <josephcp> yeah, this is why i think having really long escrowed addresses for now is a good solution and we can call it a day :-P
309 2012-01-23 04:51:52 <josephcp> oh really?
310 2012-01-23 04:51:59 <etotheipi_> well that's what I want to address in BIP 0010
311 2012-01-23 04:52:30 <etotheipi_> josephcp, I'm fairly confident that's true... but what do I know ? :)
312 2012-01-23 04:52:49 <etotheipi_> it's certainly, semantically possible
313 2012-01-23 04:52:56 <josephcp> haha, well i'll defer to you on that, i haven't spent enough time on the code
314 2012-01-23 04:53:22 <etotheipi_> the hashcode is part of the sig, and only identifies what parts of the tx were signed
315 2012-01-23 04:53:33 <josephcp> so question, i was going to spend some time on this later, but if someone already knows the answer, is deisabled opcodes still allowed if someone else signs the block or is the entire block rejected
316 2012-01-23 04:53:37 <josephcp> like OP_CAT
317 2012-01-23 04:53:39 <etotheipi_> so each sig could, strictly speaking, use a different hashcode.... but I don't know if the network would consider it valid
318 2012-01-23 04:54:10 <etotheipi_> disabled op-codes mean that the tx/block will be rejected
319 2012-01-23 04:54:38 <josephcp> so it'd require an explicit big-fat fork? lame.
320 2012-01-23 04:54:40 <etotheipi_> non-disabled simply means they can be valid if they appear in a block, but no standard client will relay or mine them
321 2012-01-23 04:54:54 <CIA-76> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r57bbcb8 / src/main/resources/DiabloMiner.cl : Fix up how loops are done - http://git.io/zo6dyw https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/commit/57bbcb8762500d56f8be3d02661b94d142deb548
322 2012-01-23 04:54:54 <josephcp> oh, but it'd still be accepted if it's in a block?
323 2012-01-23 04:54:58 <etotheipi_> *non-disabled-but-non-standard
324 2012-01-23 04:55:08 <etotheipi_> josephcp, that's correct
325 2012-01-23 04:55:17 <etotheipi_> apparently Eligius pool will mine non-std tx for people
326 2012-01-23 04:55:32 <etotheipi_> you can prepare such a tx, and you can send it to Eligius to mine it for you
327 2012-01-23 04:56:06 <josephcp> yeah i know that's the case for non-standard transactions, but i wasn't sure if it was the case as well for disabled opcodes
328 2012-01-23 04:56:35 <etotheipi_> although that begs the question: you create a non-std TxOut script... which will usually require a non-std TxIn script... will that non-std Tx be propagated? or do you have to send that to Eligius, too?
329 2012-01-23 04:57:19 <etotheipi_> disabled op-codes really mean disabled... 99.99% of nodes out there will flat out reject any tx or block that uses those disabled codes
330 2012-01-23 04:57:28 <josephcp> i think non-standard txins are rejected by most, i don't know how eligius treats it
331 2012-01-23 04:57:29 <etotheipi_> it wouldn't even be a fork... .well it would be your personal little fork
332 2012-01-23 04:58:29 <josephcp> yeah that's what i thought about disabled opcodes :-(
333 2012-01-23 04:58:41 <josephcp> brb
334 2012-01-23 04:59:04 shadders has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
335 2012-01-23 04:59:05 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
336 2012-01-23 05:03:06 Graet2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
337 2012-01-23 05:20:41 <Mad7Scientist> 260MB of resident memory to compile bitcoin is being used bi g++
338 2012-01-23 05:20:45 <Mad7Scientist> 400MB virt
339 2012-01-23 05:21:25 <gmaxwell> Mad7Scientist: yes, so? welcome to c++.
340 2012-01-23 05:21:41 <BlueMatt> wow thats pretty good, are you sure thats all youre using?
341 2012-01-23 05:22:02 <luke-jr> lol
342 2012-01-23 05:22:39 <luke-jr> in seriousness tho, that's because GCC never free()s
343 2012-01-23 05:22:52 <BlueMatt> really, never?
344 2012-01-23 05:23:00 <luke-jr> not by default, AFAIK
345 2012-01-23 05:23:08 <Mad7Scientist> jason_spirit_reader.cpp 460MB virt on g++
346 2012-01-23 05:23:08 <BlueMatt> damn
347 2012-01-23 05:23:16 <BlueMatt> Mad7Scientist: wait for main or rpc
348 2012-01-23 05:23:23 <luke-jr> try with --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param ggc-min-heapsize=32768
349 2012-01-23 05:23:32 <luke-jr> that will enable garbage collection
350 2012-01-23 05:23:33 <Mad7Scientist> oh crap
351 2012-01-23 05:23:42 <Mad7Scientist> Would gcc-2.95 use less memory?
352 2012-01-23 05:23:50 <luke-jr> Mad7Scientist: it probably wouldn't compile
353 2012-01-23 05:23:55 <luke-jr> try with --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param ggc-min-heapsize=32768
354 2012-01-23 05:24:02 <luke-jr> note that will make it slower ofc
355 2012-01-23 05:24:29 <Mad7Scientist> Is that because of bugs or lack of features in that older gcc
356 2012-01-23 05:24:34 <gmaxwell> Yes.
357 2012-01-23 05:24:34 <luke-jr> both
358 2012-01-23 05:24:51 <luke-jr> also, stuff compiled with GCC 2.95 won't run on any modern system
359 2012-01-23 05:24:53 <gmaxwell> Probably? Absolutely positively wouldn't, no probably about it.
360 2012-01-23 05:25:06 <Mad7Scientist> If the latter then is 2.95 not C99 compliant?
361 2012-01-23 05:25:21 <gmaxwell> Mad7Scientist: This is not C software this is C++ software.
362 2012-01-23 05:25:26 <luke-jr> Mad7Scientist: LOL
363 2012-01-23 05:25:32 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, are alternate hashcodes "non-standard" or completely "disabled"?
364 2012-01-23 05:25:33 <Mad7Scientist> oh that's right!
365 2012-01-23 05:25:33 <luke-jr> Mad7Scientist: GCC 4.7 isn't C99 compliant yet
366 2012-01-23 05:25:49 <Mad7Scientist> I'm still thinking in the C only world
367 2012-01-23 05:26:04 <Mad7Scientist> lol is anything C99 compliant? This is like the web browser world
368 2012-01-23 05:26:15 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: wait, whats up with new gccs?
369 2012-01-23 05:26:16 <Mad7Scientist> nothing is every fully compliant
370 2012-01-23 05:26:18 <luke-jr> GCC is close enough IMO
371 2012-01-23 05:26:19 <BlueMatt> oh, old gccs
372 2012-01-23 05:26:29 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: not just old, ancient
373 2012-01-23 05:26:40 <BlueMatt> yea
374 2012-01-23 05:26:47 <Mad7Scientist> I should add some swap over NFS to speed this up
375 2012-01-23 05:26:58 <luke-jr> â¦
376 2012-01-23 05:26:59 * BlueMatt -> uhhh, something
377 2012-01-23 05:27:07 <luke-jr> distcc
378 2012-01-23 05:27:08 <josephcp> just add more ram or something
379 2012-01-23 05:27:12 <Mad7Scientist> would my 512MB ram and 1G swap be enough?
380 2012-01-23 05:27:19 <josephcp> ram is so cheap
381 2012-01-23 05:27:22 <luke-jr> Mad7Scientist: are you sane?
382 2012-01-23 05:27:24 <luke-jr> josephcp: not always
383 2012-01-23 05:27:26 Runnigan has quit (Quit: Page closed)
384 2012-01-23 05:27:33 <luke-jr> josephcp: sometimes, adding RAM is impossible
385 2012-01-23 05:27:43 JRWR has quit (Quit: "If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable." ~Louis D. Brandeis)
386 2012-01-23 05:28:05 <Mad7Scientist> I am not the kind that likes to have new hardware all the time
387 2012-01-23 05:28:10 <josephcp> yeah but in nearly all realistic cases in this situation :-P
388 2012-01-23 05:28:27 <etotheipi_> Mad7Scientist, you can get 16 GB of DDR3 RAM now for about $75
389 2012-01-23 05:28:39 <luke-jr> josephcp: not really
390 2012-01-23 05:28:41 <Mad7Scientist> I can hardly believe that
391 2012-01-23 05:28:56 <luke-jr> josephcp: my N900 will only ever have 256 MB RAM
392 2012-01-23 05:29:10 <Mad7Scientist> and Intel 815 512MB
393 2012-01-23 05:29:15 <josephcp> hence the caveat of "realistic cases in this situation" ;-)
394 2012-01-23 05:29:25 <luke-jr> josephcp: N900 is quite realistic
395 2012-01-23 05:29:35 <luke-jr> I probably need to upgrade bitcoind on it
396 2012-01-23 05:29:41 <etotheipi_> Mad7Scientist, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226293
397 2012-01-23 05:29:45 <Mad7Scientist> It bohters me how software is so wasteful of system resources now
398 2012-01-23 05:29:51 <etotheipi_> I've seen deals go as low as $60
399 2012-01-23 05:30:11 <luke-jr> Mad7Scientist: me too, but what are you going to do? rewrite everything?
400 2012-01-23 05:30:13 <Mad7Scientist> (yet they still manage to make it work on embedded systems with 500MHz and 128MB of ram)
401 2012-01-23 05:30:17 <luke-jr> â¦
402 2012-01-23 05:30:27 <luke-jr> Mad7Scientist: you don't do much embedded development, do you?
403 2012-01-23 05:30:31 <josephcp> yeah but running full blow bitcoind on an N900 isn't a usual use case ;-)
404 2012-01-23 05:30:39 <Mad7Scientist> Just use old versions of software.
405 2012-01-23 05:30:41 <luke-jr> josephcp: ofc it is
406 2012-01-23 05:30:54 <luke-jr> Mad7Scientist: are you asking for wrath?
407 2012-01-23 05:30:54 <josephcp> luke-jr: haha, then we can disagree on that ;-)
408 2012-01-23 05:31:05 <Mad7Scientist> I don't do any embedded devolpment excetp for my lego toy (8 bit 16k ram)
409 2012-01-23 05:31:08 <luke-jr> josephcp: also, we're not talking about running, we're talking about compiling
410 2012-01-23 05:31:28 <luke-jr> Mad7Scientist: come back when you have a bitcoin client on it
411 2012-01-23 05:31:38 <josephcp> well you'd compile on that platform to run on that platform, oh well, i don't want to disagree with you about this, i think we're actually in agreement
412 2012-01-23 05:31:45 <luke-jr> :p
413 2012-01-23 05:32:01 * luke-jr tells his N900 to compile bitcoin-qt 0.5.2
414 2012-01-23 05:32:04 shadders has joined
415 2012-01-23 05:32:09 <josephcp> hehehe
416 2012-01-23 05:32:19 MrTiggr has joined
417 2012-01-23 05:32:30 <josephcp> with full blown QT!? O NOES
418 2012-01-23 05:32:36 <luke-jr> ⦠of course
419 2012-01-23 05:32:41 <luke-jr> I run KDE 4.7
420 2012-01-23 05:33:10 <Mad7Scientist> QT is much more CPU friendly than gtk2 by like 5x it feels like
421 2012-01-23 05:33:10 <luke-jr> >>> Emerging (1 of 2) net-p2p/bitcoin-qt-0.5.2 from bitcoin
422 2012-01-23 05:33:19 Graet_ has joined
423 2012-01-23 05:33:29 <luke-jr> Portage is so slow on eMMC
424 2012-01-23 05:33:41 <josephcp> lol i bet
425 2012-01-23 05:33:43 <doublec> luke-jr: do you build on device?
426 2012-01-23 05:33:47 <luke-jr> doublec: yes
427 2012-01-23 05:33:52 <luke-jr> doublec: with distcc
428 2012-01-23 05:33:53 <luke-jr> <.<
429 2012-01-23 05:34:10 JRWR has joined
430 2012-01-23 05:34:11 <doublec> luke-jr: are you using the default maemo OS on the device? Or another distro?
431 2012-01-23 05:34:18 <luke-jr> doublec: Gentoo
432 2012-01-23 05:34:29 <doublec> luke-jr: any links to getting gentoo running on it?
433 2012-01-23 05:34:34 <doublec> luke-jr: I have a N900 sitting doing nothing
434 2012-01-23 05:34:49 <luke-jr> the usual install steps mostly work, just add my n900 overlay :P
435 2012-01-23 05:38:29 da2ce7 has joined
436 2012-01-23 05:41:13 EPiSKiNG- has joined
437 2012-01-23 05:47:17 runeks has joined
438 2012-01-23 05:49:39 dissipate has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
439 2012-01-23 05:52:29 dissipate has joined
440 2012-01-23 05:53:36 <Mad7Scientist> It must have been like half hour since this 450MB virt thing and the CPU time on cc1plus is only 4 minutes
441 2012-01-23 05:53:38 <Mad7Scientist> swaplocked
442 2012-01-23 05:54:30 dissipate_ has joined
443 2012-01-23 05:54:35 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?)
444 2012-01-23 05:56:22 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.3 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
445 2012-01-23 05:57:27 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60229.0 < people are doing more completely stupid idiot things which attack bitcoin as a side effect.
446 2012-01-23 05:57:54 dissipate has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
447 2012-01-23 06:00:23 <cjdelisle> the scaling inadaquacy is not his fault
448 2012-01-23 06:00:44 <cjdelisle> and all this "attack" talk is distracting us from trying to fix the underlying problem IMO
449 2012-01-23 06:01:17 <gmaxwell> ...
450 2012-01-23 06:01:23 <gmaxwell> He's spouting gibberish cjdelisle
451 2012-01-23 06:03:00 <cjdelisle> you mean the post, I agree that it is not effective as a voting system but one of the great things about this world is we have the right to be wrong.
452 2012-01-23 06:04:32 <josephcp> oh god that was long. he's just converting strings into a bitcoin address
453 2012-01-23 06:04:43 <josephcp> that's his entire proposal
454 2012-01-23 06:05:03 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: It's not just wrong, it's also full of technbabble gibberish, e.g. where he proposes to solve all problems via statistical Godel-like secure-but-not-perfect global Turing Machine
455 2012-01-23 06:05:29 <cjdelisle> yeap
456 2012-01-23 06:05:40 <gmaxwell> josephcp: yes, and it stops there. (1) Convert strings to addresses, (2) ???? (3) Mindmap quantum utopia.
457 2012-01-23 06:05:54 <cjdelisle> you don't have to like it or agree with it, it doesn't even have to be sane for you to be tollerant
458 2012-01-23 06:06:02 <josephcp> yeah lol, i thought i was missing something
459 2012-01-23 06:06:11 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: I have a right to be intollerant of nonsense.
460 2012-01-23 06:07:22 <_W_> reality is that bitcoin is useful for a lot of tangential things, and people will take advantage of the network that is there for such issues that are unrelated to transfering value.
461 2012-01-23 06:07:32 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: And â we _do_ have effective anti-spamming remedies which are currently working quite well, but that doesn't mean that we don't have to be vigilant about stupid shit that would cause people to call for their removal.
462 2012-01-23 06:08:11 JRWR has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
463 2012-01-23 06:08:13 <gmaxwell> _W_: we have a system for doing most of those things which does not aversely impact bitcoin at allâ it's called merged mining.
464 2012-01-23 06:08:22 <_W_> the only thing you can do is make sure that any tangential thing also transfers value at least equivalent to the cost to the network
465 2012-01-23 06:08:25 <cjdelisle> I agree that there should be rules to prevent malicious spamming
466 2012-01-23 06:08:42 <_W_> gmaxwell, ah
467 2012-01-23 06:09:09 <cjdelisle> But if I want to log the state of my little dns tree once a week or once a day and I'm willing to pay for it, that should not be considered spam IMO.
468 2012-01-23 06:09:35 <gmaxwell> _W_: merged mining allows a miner to attach as much data as you want, via as many alternative systems as they want â with O(1) cost (32 byte) to bitcoin.
469 2012-01-23 06:10:05 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: yes, in fact it should be. Bitcoin is not data storage it's value transfer. I run a bitcoin node and your little DNS bullshit costs me disks space and computation.
470 2012-01-23 06:10:25 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Kano * ra1cd9defbaf2 cgminer/api.c: Return an error if using ADL API commands when it's not available http://tinyurl.com/6mhvj9c
471 2012-01-23 06:10:27 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Kano * r2e16d5e5439d cgminer/README: Add more explanation of JSON format and the 'save' command http://tinyurl.com/7hdgt5t
472 2012-01-23 06:10:28 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r7ac4b7806f3a cgminer/ (README api.c): Merge pull request #89 from kanoi/master http://tinyurl.com/83yttew
473 2012-01-23 06:10:34 <gmaxwell> I give freely of my disk space and computation in order to track the locations of all the bitcoins in order to trust the system, but that doesn't include using the system as a data dump.
474 2012-01-23 06:11:04 <gmaxwell> It's completely reasonable that the users of bitcoin can and will do whatever they can to keep the amount of data storage to a minimum.
475 2012-01-23 06:11:14 <josephcp> the only thing that might stop this is if an alt datadump blockchain was started though
476 2012-01-23 06:11:41 <josephcp> but it won't matter ultimiately because the quantity of data right now is too small to bother making one i guess
477 2012-01-23 06:12:25 <josephcp> i bet only like 2 or 3 people have used the "voting system"...
478 2012-01-23 06:12:33 <gmaxwell> josephcp: yea. Right now it's mostly a non-issue. My concern is primarly that this stuff doesn't gain popularity and they we'd have lots of users insisting to remove the anti DOS fee rules.
479 2012-01-23 06:12:34 <cjdelisle> I suppose it makes no difference that the same logging of "spam" transactions is what might root the unspent tx trees which will solve the scaling inadaquacy itself
480 2012-01-23 06:12:58 <josephcp> yeah, i understand. i think a reasonable tack to take is to encourage these people to use testnet for now?
481 2012-01-23 06:13:20 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: all this spam stuff is creating additional unspendable txn, so in fact the proposed scaling improvements don't help in the face of it.
482 2012-01-23 06:13:34 <gmaxwell> josephcp: absolutely. And potentially namecoin for somethings.
483 2012-01-23 06:13:53 <gmaxwell> If they want to publish a unique key value pair.. thats what namecoin is for.
484 2012-01-23 06:14:28 <cjdelisle> I'm happy with the anti-DoS toll and I'm happy to pay it, what bothers me is the thought that someone might add heuristics to trap my transactions and drop them or worse "discourage" blocks which mine them.
485 2012-01-23 06:14:44 <josephcp> yeah good point namecoin would work a lot better for what he was doing
486 2012-01-23 06:15:01 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: then you should also oppose spam too. Because the less spam, the more lose the heuristics can be.
487 2012-01-23 06:15:27 <josephcp> although it still doesn't take into account the many years of thought/papers that people put into an electronic voting system, verification risks etc
488 2012-01-23 06:15:51 <gmaxwell> josephcp: yea, POW blockchains are useless for voting. .. unless you want an election of computing power.
489 2012-01-23 06:15:59 <gmaxwell> If you want an election of people they don't help.
490 2012-01-23 06:16:56 <cjdelisle> I see bitcoin as primarily a notary system, anything that needs noterization can get it from the bitcoin swarm and the fact that bitcoin is the soverign currency for noterization is one thing that gives it real value.
491 2012-01-23 06:17:30 <josephcp> cjdelisle: the problem is that the cost of bitcoins transactions discounted to present value is below cost. 0.0005 bitcoins is a subsidized price
492 2012-01-23 06:17:52 <josephcp> if bitcoin gets big i mean
493 2012-01-23 06:17:56 <cjdelisle> hmm
494 2012-01-23 06:18:00 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: the notary usage doesn't require any of this persistant storage stuff.
495 2012-01-23 06:18:33 <josephcp> and if you WANTED to do that you can create nonstandard transactions, i mean this is sortof the wrong way to go about it :-P
496 2012-01-23 06:18:57 <cjdelisle> I can trivially do it with standard transactions
497 2012-01-23 06:20:02 <cjdelisle> And we could say: ok guys, if you want something noterized, give the hash to this network and pay some bitcoin (smaller amount than a tx fee) and *one* tx will end up in the chain.
498 2012-01-23 06:20:36 <cjdelisle> but that is self defeating because the "pay some bitcoin" part adds just as much crap anyway
499 2012-01-23 06:20:52 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: write a txn which is all fee, so it can be pruned and have the network give you back the tree fragment connecting it.
500 2012-01-23 06:21:23 <cjdelisle> I'm perfectly happy with that as a solution
501 2012-01-23 06:21:46 JRWR has joined
502 2012-01-23 06:21:50 <cjdelisle> I've said all along, I want to tread softly but I don't want to get into alt-alt-currencies like MNC
503 2012-01-23 06:22:01 <gmaxwell> plus some little rpc call in bitcoin that takes the message and the seralized fragment and validates that its there.
504 2012-01-23 06:22:05 <josephcp> oh yeah good point, you can do sends of 0.00 bitcoins with fees right?
505 2012-01-23 06:22:12 <gmaxwell> Well there is no persistant storage â assuming pruning.
506 2012-01-23 06:22:38 <cjdelisle> for me, this was never about bitcoinfs, I just need branch prevention
507 2012-01-23 06:22:58 <gmaxwell> Yea, if it doesn't require persistant storage then I don't give a shit.
508 2012-01-23 06:23:02 <josephcp> yeah but the block is signed with the txout it hink
509 2012-01-23 06:23:23 <josephcp> so it'd serve for some signature/notary purposes
510 2012-01-23 06:23:23 <gmaxwell> 0_o
511 2012-01-23 06:23:30 <gmaxwell> oh right sure.
512 2012-01-23 06:23:30 <josephcp> ?
513 2012-01-23 06:23:49 <gmaxwell> This would create an instantly prunable transaction.
514 2012-01-23 06:24:09 <josephcp> yeah so the db index of current bitcoins wouldn't have it at all
515 2012-01-23 06:24:46 <josephcp> it still would have network spam and block spam currently though :-P
516 2012-01-23 06:24:49 <gmaxwell> Well it would right now because we don't prune, but thats okay. It's just an improvement to prune those.
517 2012-01-23 06:24:52 <josephcp> but not as much of an evil i guess
518 2012-01-23 06:25:15 <gmaxwell> josephcp: an acceptable cost to create something where there isn't persistant storage.
519 2012-01-23 06:25:16 <cjdelisle> now is there a way that I can pay someone at random where the payer has no way to control who the payee is? paying the miner means miners can hold transactions until they strike a block and keep the change..
520 2012-01-23 06:25:36 <josephcp> yeah haha
521 2012-01-23 06:25:41 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
522 2012-01-23 06:25:43 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: I'm not following you there.
523 2012-01-23 06:25:47 darkee has joined
524 2012-01-23 06:26:04 <josephcp> cjdelisle: i'm writing code for that right now
525 2012-01-23 06:26:10 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: you'd want to pay the miner â it reduces the number of open transactions in the network when you do that.
526 2012-01-23 06:26:39 <josephcp> well it'd serve your purpose if i can surmise what you think...
527 2012-01-23 06:26:43 imsaguy is now known as [\\\]
528 2012-01-23 06:26:53 <josephcp> what exactly are you asking
529 2012-01-23 06:26:54 <cjdelisle> The only risk of paying the miner is the miner might make these transactions himself
530 2012-01-23 06:27:21 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: ΩηαÏ αÏε ÏοÏ
 Ïαλκινγ  αÏοÏ
ϧ
531 2012-01-23 06:27:34 <gmaxwell> (try again, but in sensible this time?)
532 2012-01-23 06:27:49 <nanotube> gmaxwell: that was "what are you talking about". quite readable :)
533 2012-01-23 06:27:54 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
534 2012-01-23 06:28:06 <cjdelisle> suppose that for every domain you reg, it costs 100 times the average transaction fee in the last block, a miner could just create a transaction claiming a billion domains and paying himself.
535 2012-01-23 06:28:11 <gmaxwell> nanotube: ! you read greek!
536 2012-01-23 06:28:26 <josephcp> what
537 2012-01-23 06:28:36 <nanotube> heh so i do. i don't understand real greek though. but i can read greek-translit :)
538 2012-01-23 06:28:59 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: yup. A notary is not a name registration system. Namecoin is what you want.
539 2012-01-23 06:29:46 <cjdelisle> I don't want anyone to have to buy namecoin to get domains.
540 2012-01-23 06:30:14 <josephcp> i'm still not following
541 2012-01-23 06:30:33 <josephcp> can you give a specific use case as an example?
542 2012-01-23 06:30:43 <gmaxwell> nanotube: I have some key on my keyboard mapped to 'modeswitch' and a mapping for all the keys to greek.
543 2012-01-23 06:30:52 <cjdelisle> the problem with namecoin is you have to buy it and then you have some on hand and then it's like a pyrimid scheme type thing
544 2012-01-23 06:31:04 <nanotube> cjdelisle: so you are thinknig of making a dns system built inside the bitcoin blockchain, rather than an altchain?
545 2012-01-23 06:31:11 <nanotube> something like http://privwiki.dreamhosters.com/wiki/Bitcoin_DNS_System_Proposal ?
546 2012-01-23 06:31:15 <josephcp> gmaxwell: oh wow i thought that was like a copy+paste :-P
547 2012-01-23 06:31:18 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: you pay it back to the people running the namecoin network (the miners) so it's all closed loop.
548 2012-01-23 06:31:57 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
549 2012-01-23 06:32:05 <cjdelisle> nanotube: no, I want to be as light on bitcoin as possible, I really don't want to fill the chain with crap.
550 2012-01-23 06:32:06 <nanotube> gmaxwell: hehe cute. so you type a lot of greek, then? :)
551 2012-01-23 06:32:33 <gmaxwell> nanotube: well, for math, you run out of letters pretty quickly...
552 2012-01-23 06:32:35 <nanotube> cjdelisle: well, then namecoin is your game ;) it couldn't be any lighter on bitcoin
553 2012-01-23 06:32:44 <nanotube> gmaxwell: ah heh ic
554 2012-01-23 06:32:51 <gmaxwell> Also stuff like this. â â¡â¢°ââ§Ã¶âââ ââ
555 2012-01-23 06:32:56 <cjdelisle> the reason I don't like namecoin is because it is a scam to make you invest
556 2012-01-23 06:33:08 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: it's really not, why did you get that idea?
557 2012-01-23 06:33:10 <josephcp> namecoin isn't a scam
558 2012-01-23 06:33:29 <cjdelisle> I'm not trying to insult the NMC developers, it's just that that is how the structure turns out.
559 2012-01-23 06:33:40 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: the price of registering names in namecoin falls exponentially... storing a bunch of nmc is stupid.
560 2012-01-23 06:33:47 da2ce7 has joined
561 2012-01-23 06:34:30 <cjdelisle> bitcoin is a pyrimid scheme as well, it's just that I am content to have just one scheme because everyone who was going to get rich off of it already has and at this point is is just usefull.
562 2012-01-23 06:34:56 <cjdelisle> as are paper currencies
563 2012-01-23 06:35:29 <cjdelisle> what I'm saying is: lets have just one, that way we don't have to be making any more millionares
564 2012-01-23 06:35:50 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: namecoin hasn't made won't make, can't make any millionares.
565 2012-01-23 06:36:08 <gmaxwell> Which actually sucks, because there is no way to fund e.g. buying a real DNS TLD for it.
566 2012-01-23 06:36:43 <Diablo-D3> damnit
567 2012-01-23 06:36:45 <Diablo-D3> sanity time
568 2012-01-23 06:36:48 darkmethod has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
569 2012-01-23 06:36:52 <Diablo-D3> rotate(0x00000100, 15) ^ rotate(0x00000100, 13) ^ (0x00000100 >> 10)
570 2012-01-23 06:36:55 <Diablo-D3> whats the answer to this
571 2012-01-23 06:37:06 <cjdelisle> rotr or rotl?
572 2012-01-23 06:37:45 <cjdelisle> anyway, from a technical standpoint, nmc is inadaquate for me since everyone needs the whole chain to do anything.
573 2012-01-23 06:37:56 <cjdelisle> *to prove anyhing
574 2012-01-23 06:38:21 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: er
575 2012-01-23 06:38:26 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: but NMC could actually be changed to flip modeâ far more easily that bitcoin could be.
576 2012-01-23 06:38:45 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: go code that, people will probably change to itâ considering that namecoin's developer has vanished.
577 2012-01-23 06:38:47 <josephcp> well.. how else could you design it to work, NMC was designed that way because it works
578 2012-01-23 06:39:20 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: I think rotate in ocl is left
579 2012-01-23 06:39:21 <gmaxwell> josephcp: like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21995.0
580 2012-01-23 06:39:23 dan__ has quit (Quit: dan__)
581 2012-01-23 06:39:52 <cjdelisle> I have the design in my head, I just have to deal with the thorny issue of howto waste a given amount of bitcoin.
582 2012-01-23 06:40:15 <josephcp> gmaxwell: so it's namecoin but with no ownership transfers?
583 2012-01-23 06:40:27 <gmaxwell> 0_
584 2012-01-23 06:40:56 <josephcp> yeah that could work
585 2012-01-23 06:41:00 <josephcp> interesting!
586 2012-01-23 06:41:17 <Diablo-D3> man I wish there was a useful command line calculator I could just throw these into
587 2012-01-23 06:41:33 <cjdelisle> same thing in a little bit more detail: http://btc.pastebay.com/144544
588 2012-01-23 06:41:44 <cjdelisle> unless I made a booboo
589 2012-01-23 06:43:39 wirehead` has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
590 2012-01-23 06:44:03 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
591 2012-01-23 06:44:44 darkee has quit (!~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|Remote host closed the connection)
592 2012-01-23 06:45:00 <Diablo-D3> I find this fucking amazing wolfram alpha cant fucking rotate
593 2012-01-23 06:45:08 darkee has joined
594 2012-01-23 06:46:52 <Diablo-D3> wait
595 2012-01-23 06:46:53 <Diablo-D3> it can
596 2012-01-23 06:46:58 <Diablo-D3> the command, apparently, is rotateleft
597 2012-01-23 06:47:00 <Diablo-D3> what the fuck wa
598 2012-01-23 06:48:26 <cjdelisle> Diablo-D3: http://pastebay.com/302622
599 2012-01-23 06:48:43 <Diablo-D3> er, node.js. _heh_.
600 2012-01-23 06:48:55 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: UH
601 2012-01-23 06:49:03 <Diablo-D3> that doesnt look right
602 2012-01-23 06:49:08 <cjdelisle> I did a few sanity checks to make sure it really was operating on 32 bit numbers
603 2012-01-23 06:49:14 <cjdelisle> because node is weird
604 2012-01-23 06:49:32 <Diablo-D3> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=rotateleft%280x00000100%2C+15%29+^+rotateleft%280x00000100%2C+13%29+^+%280x00000100+%3E%3E+10%29
605 2012-01-23 06:49:38 <cjdelisle> that's left rotate, right rotate will be different
606 2012-01-23 06:50:07 <Diablo-D3> I just double checked the opencl spec, its left
607 2012-01-23 06:50:20 <Diablo-D3> gentype rotate (gentype v, gentype i)
608 2012-01-23 06:50:27 <Diablo-D3> For each element in v, the bits are shifted left by
609 2012-01-23 06:50:27 <Diablo-D3> the number of bits given by the corresponding
610 2012-01-23 06:50:27 <Diablo-D3> element in i (subject to usual shift modulo rules
611 2012-01-23 06:50:27 <Diablo-D3> described in section 6.3). Bits shifted off the left
612 2012-01-23 06:50:27 <Diablo-D3> side of the element are shifted back in from the
613 2012-01-23 06:50:29 <Diablo-D3> right.
614 2012-01-23 06:51:46 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: so WA says its 10.
615 2012-01-23 06:52:00 <Diablo-D3> well, 10 in hex
616 2012-01-23 06:52:28 <Diablo-D3> WA is on drugs, Im using ten, its wrong
617 2012-01-23 06:53:32 <cjdelisle> > console.log(0x800000 ^ 0x200000 ^ 0);
618 2012-01-23 06:53:33 <cjdelisle> 10485760
619 2012-01-23 06:53:55 <cjdelisle> just did them manually on the calculator and plugged in the outputs
620 2012-01-23 06:55:25 <Diablo-D3> wtf wa is fucktarded
621 2012-01-23 06:55:43 <cjdelisle> my number work?
622 2012-01-23 06:56:02 <Diablo-D3> trying
623 2012-01-23 06:56:18 <Diablo-D3> yes =/
624 2012-01-23 06:56:29 <cjdelisle> cools
625 2012-01-23 06:56:48 <cjdelisle> it's 0xA00000 if you like hex
626 2012-01-23 06:56:48 * Diablo-D3 is going to make this fucking kernel smaller if its the last thing he does
627 2012-01-23 06:56:58 <cjdelisle> heh
628 2012-01-23 06:59:25 <Diablo-D3> does nodejs have a way to output hex?
629 2012-01-23 07:00:16 Cablesaurus has joined
630 2012-01-23 07:00:16 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
631 2012-01-23 07:00:16 Cablesaurus has joined
632 2012-01-23 07:00:20 <cjdelisle> I did that in my calculator but maybe...
633 2012-01-23 07:01:27 <cjdelisle> > console.log((0x800000 ^ 0x200000 ^ 0).toString(16));
634 2012-01-23 07:01:27 <cjdelisle> a00000
635 2012-01-23 07:01:42 <Diablo-D3> goddamnit fucking javaism
636 2012-01-23 07:04:30 dissipate_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
637 2012-01-23 07:09:05 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: nodejs hates me
638 2012-01-23 07:09:17 <Diablo-D3> rotate(0x80000000, 25) ^ rotate(0x80000000, 14) ^ (0x80000000 >> 3)
639 2012-01-23 07:10:15 <cjdelisle> same rotate definition?
640 2012-01-23 07:10:22 <Diablo-D3> yeah
641 2012-01-23 07:10:54 <Diablo-D3> 0xf0ffe000 seems to be what its trying to tell me
642 2012-01-23 07:11:53 <cjdelisle> --- negative
643 2012-01-23 07:12:01 <Diablo-D3> yes, but its unsigned int
644 2012-01-23 07:12:02 <cjdelisle> hmm
645 2012-01-23 07:12:11 <cjdelisle> not in node's little mind
646 2012-01-23 07:12:43 Clipse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
647 2012-01-23 07:13:25 <Diablo-D3> its not 0f0002000 either
648 2012-01-23 07:13:28 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
649 2012-01-23 07:13:37 <cjdelisle> http://pastebay.com/302625
650 2012-01-23 07:13:40 <cjdelisle> my mistake
651 2012-01-23 07:13:49 <cjdelisle> hate signed numbers
652 2012-01-23 07:13:58 * cjdelisle lives in the land of uintXX_t
653 2012-01-23 07:14:04 <Diablo-D3> :D
654 2012-01-23 07:14:58 <cjdelisle> btw, some of this stuff is easy to do in C rather than node
655 2012-01-23 07:15:28 <Diablo-D3> probably, but it seems fucktarded I have to write a program to do basic math
656 2012-01-23 07:16:37 <cjdelisle> mhm
657 2012-01-23 07:19:38 <Diablo-D3> apt-get install c-repl
658 2012-01-23 07:19:39 <Diablo-D3> lawlz
659 2012-01-23 07:19:56 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese)
660 2012-01-23 07:22:28 <cjdelisle> ya gotta print to stderr
661 2012-01-23 07:22:40 <cjdelisle> and #include <stdint.h> didn't work for me
662 2012-01-23 07:22:42 <cjdelisle> but cool
663 2012-01-23 07:23:00 <Diablo-D3> I just typed in printf("hi") by itself
664 2012-01-23 07:23:02 <Diablo-D3> and it worked
665 2012-01-23 07:23:09 <cjdelisle> hmm ok
666 2012-01-23 07:23:23 <cjdelisle> > printf("hi");
667 2012-01-23 07:23:23 <cjdelisle> >
668 2012-01-23 07:23:25 <Diablo-D3> er, and \n
669 2012-01-23 07:23:27 <cjdelisle> oh well
670 2012-01-23 07:23:31 <cjdelisle> oic
671 2012-01-23 07:23:44 wirehead has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
672 2012-01-23 07:23:45 <cjdelisle> haha stdout didn't flush
673 2012-01-23 07:24:56 Cablesaurus has joined
674 2012-01-23 07:24:56 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
675 2012-01-23 07:24:56 Cablesaurus has joined
676 2012-01-23 07:26:34 [Tycho] has joined
677 2012-01-23 07:27:34 b4epoche_ has joined
678 2012-01-23 07:28:20 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
679 2012-01-23 07:28:20 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
680 2012-01-23 07:30:21 <CIA-76> bitcoin: L. Grondin * re4865cb7d131 libbitcoin-perl/ (20 files in 5 dirs): master keys and signing overloading http://tinyurl.com/6s2rnr3
681 2012-01-23 07:30:34 <Diablo-D3> int rotate(int x, int y) { return (x << y | (x >> (32 - y))); };
682 2012-01-23 07:30:43 <Diablo-D3> printf("%x\n", rotate(0x80000000,25) ^ rotate(0x80000000, 14) ^ (0x80000000 >> 3));
683 2012-01-23 07:30:43 <Diablo-D3> 10ffe000
684 2012-01-23 07:30:47 <Diablo-D3> so lets see if that works
685 2012-01-23 07:31:55 <Diablo-D3> OH COME ON
686 2012-01-23 07:32:15 <Diablo-D3> WORK DAMNIT
687 2012-01-23 07:34:01 * Diablo-D3 makes sure he has the right number
688 2012-01-23 07:36:04 <cjdelisle> erm
689 2012-01-23 07:36:07 <Diablo-D3> C[0], which is that number.
690 2012-01-23 07:37:30 <cjdelisle> > unsigned int rotate(unsigned int x, unsigned int y) { return (x << y | (x >> (32 - y))); };
691 2012-01-23 07:37:33 <cjdelisle> > printf("%x\n", (rotate(0x80000000,25) ^ rotate(0x80000000, 14) ^ (0x80000000 >> 3)));
692 2012-01-23 07:37:36 <cjdelisle> 11002000
693 2012-01-23 07:37:50 <Diablo-D3> wtf, those should already be signed!
694 2012-01-23 07:40:09 <Diablo-D3> damnit now it works
695 2012-01-23 07:44:10 <Diablo-D3> okay I think this optimization was effective
696 2012-01-23 07:44:29 <Diablo-D3> so maybe those were those missing 100 instructions
697 2012-01-23 07:49:09 <CIA-76> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * re5a1b3c / (2 files in 2 dirs): Added a few more kernel optimizations - http://git.io/y9laLw https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/commit/e5a1b3c2e46114ecd13384215a445dbf7c58580e
698 2012-01-23 07:51:48 wirehead has joined
699 2012-01-23 07:53:47 <Diablo-D3> reboot time
700 2012-01-23 07:53:56 <Diablo-D3> gonna see if kernel analyzer isnt lying out its ass again
701 2012-01-23 08:01:12 RobinPKR has joined
702 2012-01-23 08:01:44 <Diablo-D3> WAAAARGH
703 2012-01-23 08:02:22 <Diablo-D3> 5870: 21 ghr, 1505 alu, 75.22 cycles, 71 cf
704 2012-01-23 08:02:56 <Diablo-D3> 6970: 23 gpr, 1695 alu, 70.60 cycles, 71 cf
705 2012-01-23 08:03:47 <Diablo-D3> vs
706 2012-01-23 08:06:20 <Diablo-D3> newest diapolo
707 2012-01-23 08:06:42 <Diablo-D3> 5870: 21 gpr, 1394 alu, 69.70 cycles, 67 cf
708 2012-01-23 08:06:57 larsivi has joined
709 2012-01-23 08:07:10 <Diablo-D3> 6970: 20 gpr, 1687 alu, 70.29 cycles, 66 cf
710 2012-01-23 08:08:37 <Diablo-D3> SO WHY THE HELL ISNT IT ANY FASTER
711 2012-01-23 08:08:43 <Diablo-D3> GODDAMNIT KERNEL ANALYZER
712 2012-01-23 08:09:12 <cjdelisle> optimizing compiler beat you to it?
713 2012-01-23 08:09:32 <Diablo-D3> no, I shaved off 3 cycles with this shit
714 2012-01-23 08:09:45 <Diablo-D3> but how the fuck is diapolos 100 cycles faster in kernel analyzer
715 2012-01-23 08:09:47 <Diablo-D3> it makes no fucking sense
716 2012-01-23 08:09:55 <cjdelisle> ahh
717 2012-01-23 08:10:20 <Diablo-D3> diapolo calling all the same fucking instructions I am
718 2012-01-23 08:10:32 sktigerjs has joined
719 2012-01-23 08:10:40 <sktigerjs> hey guys
720 2012-01-23 08:11:01 <sktigerjs> any traders here?
721 2012-01-23 08:11:22 sktigerjs has quit (Client Quit)
722 2012-01-23 08:22:00 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
723 2012-01-23 08:26:57 JRWR has quit (Quit: "If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable." ~Louis D. Brandeis)
724 2012-01-23 08:27:16 diki has joined
725 2012-01-23 08:30:18 wirehead` has joined
726 2012-01-23 08:36:21 sacarlson has joined
727 2012-01-23 08:37:53 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
728 2012-01-23 08:41:14 iocor has joined
729 2012-01-23 08:45:46 ovidiusoft has joined
730 2012-01-23 08:47:06 iddo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
731 2012-01-23 08:47:12 iddo has joined
732 2012-01-23 08:47:54 MagicalTux is now known as zz_MagicalTux
733 2012-01-23 08:52:55 erle- has joined
734 2012-01-23 08:55:53 iddo has quit (Changing host)
735 2012-01-23 08:55:53 iddo has joined
736 2012-01-23 09:01:17 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
737 2012-01-23 09:02:23 zz_MagicalTux is now known as MT`AwAy
738 2012-01-23 09:06:38 _Fireball has joined
739 2012-01-23 09:06:47 MT`AwAy is now known as zz_MT`AwAy
740 2012-01-23 09:13:43 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
741 2012-01-23 09:14:45 MobiusL has joined
742 2012-01-23 09:15:14 iocor has joined
743 2012-01-23 09:21:12 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
744 2012-01-23 09:22:13 molecular has joined
745 2012-01-23 09:23:22 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
746 2012-01-23 09:24:24 iocor has joined
747 2012-01-23 09:28:54 dikidera has joined
748 2012-01-23 09:28:58 Zarutian has joined
749 2012-01-23 09:29:31 diki has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
750 2012-01-23 09:37:17 shadders has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
751 2012-01-23 09:37:18 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
752 2012-01-23 09:40:06 shadders has joined
753 2012-01-23 09:40:19 MrTiggr has joined
754 2012-01-23 09:40:28 Graet_ has quit (Excess Flood)
755 2012-01-23 09:42:20 Graet_ has joined
756 2012-01-23 09:45:08 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
757 2012-01-23 09:48:13 luke-jr has quit (otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
758 2012-01-23 09:50:03 luke-jr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
759 2012-01-23 09:50:16 luke-jr has joined
760 2012-01-23 09:52:26 luke-jr has joined
761 2012-01-23 09:59:39 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
762 2012-01-23 10:11:32 marf_away has joined
763 2012-01-23 10:21:11 forests has joined
764 2012-01-23 10:22:31 wirehead` has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
765 2012-01-23 10:29:09 diki has joined
766 2012-01-23 10:29:28 dikidera has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
767 2012-01-23 10:30:26 <CIA-76> bitcoin: p2k * rbcedd91add0d ecoinpool/ (6 files in 5 dirs): Error handling on new user setup http://tinyurl.com/6os4b56
768 2012-01-23 10:33:51 forests has quit (Quit: forests)
769 2012-01-23 10:33:53 danbri has joined
770 2012-01-23 10:47:18 larsig has quit ()
771 2012-01-23 10:49:10 _W_ has quit (Excess Flood)
772 2012-01-23 10:49:28 _W_ has joined
773 2012-01-23 11:01:54 _W_ has quit (Excess Flood)
774 2012-01-23 11:02:08 _W_ has joined
775 2012-01-23 11:02:48 zz_MT`AwAy is now known as MT`AwAy
776 2012-01-23 11:07:14 MT`AwAy is now known as zz_MT`AwAy
777 2012-01-23 11:10:55 RazielZ has joined
778 2012-01-23 11:28:09 seco has quit (Quit: seco)
779 2012-01-23 11:38:55 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
780 2012-01-23 11:39:23 b4epoche has joined
781 2012-01-23 11:40:26 <CIA-76> bitcoin: p2k * rc89ef810109e cgminer/api.c: Fixed API compiling issue on OS X http://tinyurl.com/7apvruz
782 2012-01-23 11:40:28 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r22a1850cbc90 cgminer/api.c: Merge pull request #90 from p2k/master http://tinyurl.com/7xuj96d
783 2012-01-23 11:52:07 GMP has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
784 2012-01-23 11:54:06 Joric has joined
785 2012-01-23 11:55:03 Joric has quit (Client Quit)
786 2012-01-23 11:58:58 Joric has joined
787 2012-01-23 12:00:27 Clipse has joined
788 2012-01-23 12:02:13 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
789 2012-01-23 12:05:58 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
790 2012-01-23 12:06:46 <Joric> to whom it may concern :) i added cryptography https://github.com/joric/pywallet
791 2012-01-23 12:07:57 <Joric> it is actually just 25000+ rounds of sha512, not 25000+ rounds of aes
792 2012-01-23 12:09:30 <Joric> just a few rounds sha512(passphrase + salt), then we're using 0-31 as the aes key, 32-48 as iv
793 2012-01-23 12:12:46 runeks has quit (Quit: Leaving)
794 2012-01-23 12:13:04 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
795 2012-01-23 12:15:56 <Joric> simple example: http://pastebin.com/XWibUePh
796 2012-01-23 12:16:47 Cherothald has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
797 2012-01-23 12:17:43 Joric has quit ()
798 2012-01-23 12:17:58 TuxBlackEdo has left ("Leaving")
799 2012-01-23 12:18:03 TuxBlackEdo has joined
800 2012-01-23 12:18:38 iocor has joined
801 2012-01-23 12:21:45 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
802 2012-01-23 12:22:10 iocor has quit (Client Quit)
803 2012-01-23 12:22:25 Cherothald has joined
804 2012-01-23 12:22:34 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
805 2012-01-23 12:48:52 larsivi has joined
806 2012-01-23 12:59:45 <Internet13> Ãû
807 2012-01-23 13:03:59 Joric has joined
808 2012-01-23 13:04:31 zz_MT`AwAy is now known as MT`AwAy
809 2012-01-23 13:04:51 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
810 2012-01-23 13:05:16 danbri has joined
811 2012-01-23 13:09:15 MT`AwAy is now known as zz_MT`AwAy
812 2012-01-23 13:15:41 toffoo has quit ()
813 2012-01-23 13:16:26 <Joric> etotheipi_, i added encrypted wallets support this morning https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34028.100
814 2012-01-23 13:23:31 sje has joined
815 2012-01-23 13:23:31 sje has quit (Changing host)
816 2012-01-23 13:23:31 sje has joined
817 2012-01-23 13:24:28 toffoo has joined
818 2012-01-23 13:29:18 ovidiusoft has joined
819 2012-01-23 13:29:35 dwon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
820 2012-01-23 13:31:30 BTC_Bear has quit (hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
821 2012-01-23 13:33:09 paraipan has joined
822 2012-01-23 13:33:56 datagutt has joined
823 2012-01-23 13:39:09 Joric has quit ()
824 2012-01-23 13:43:16 [Tycho] has joined
825 2012-01-23 13:43:42 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
826 2012-01-23 13:43:54 minimoose has joined
827 2012-01-23 13:44:18 shadders has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
828 2012-01-23 13:46:43 zz_MT`AwAy has quit (Excess Flood)
829 2012-01-23 13:48:10 Graet_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
830 2012-01-23 13:48:16 MT`AwAy has joined
831 2012-01-23 13:48:19 MT`AwAy is now known as Guest48511
832 2012-01-23 13:50:22 MrTiggr has joined
833 2012-01-23 13:50:36 shadders has joined
834 2012-01-23 13:50:52 Graet_ has joined
835 2012-01-23 13:50:56 Joric has joined
836 2012-01-23 13:51:45 Guest48511 is now known as MagicalTux
837 2012-01-23 13:51:47 MagicalTux has quit (Changing host)
838 2012-01-23 13:51:47 MagicalTux has joined
839 2012-01-23 13:54:01 gavinandresen has joined
840 2012-01-23 13:58:46 <TuxBlackEdo> morning gavinandresen
841 2012-01-23 13:58:52 <gavinandresen> good morning
842 2012-01-23 13:59:07 <TuxBlackEdo> hehe it's just me and the lead bitcoin dev... my dreams have come true
843 2012-01-23 14:01:13 <Joric> you wish
844 2012-01-23 14:02:16 <gavinandresen> You should dream bigger
845 2012-01-23 14:02:25 <Joric> i wrote python code for decrypting wallets https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34028.100
846 2012-01-23 14:03:07 <Joric> thought there will be 25k aes rounds but it was only sha512 :)
847 2012-01-23 14:05:28 <Joric> pretty fast, even with pure python
848 2012-01-23 14:05:54 <Joric> assuming sha512 is native )
849 2012-01-23 14:06:48 <gavinandresen> [Tycho] : If I personally guaranteed that if a problem with p2sh made your pool mine an invalid block (up to, say, 10 blocks), would you be willing to deploy it sooner?
850 2012-01-23 14:07:28 <ThomasV> Joric: why don't you use slowaes?
851 2012-01-23 14:07:40 <[Tycho]> Actually I didn't planned to deploy p2sh.
852 2012-01-23 14:07:40 sacarlson has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
853 2012-01-23 14:07:57 <gavinandresen> Why not?
854 2012-01-23 14:08:02 <Joric> ThomasV, huh? look closer
855 2012-01-23 14:08:16 <[Tycho]> It looks like a bad solution to me.
856 2012-01-23 14:08:32 <ThomasV> Joric: oh sorry
857 2012-01-23 14:08:42 <gavinandresen> Well then why haven't you been posting to the forums or bitcoin-development explaining your position?
858 2012-01-23 14:08:49 <gavinandresen> ... or suggesting something better?
859 2012-01-23 14:08:50 <[Tycho]> But, of course, I'll deploy it if voting will show 55%+ of expected support.
860 2012-01-23 14:09:17 <[Tycho]> I told my opinion to you, luke and slush.
861 2012-01-23 14:09:21 <gavinandresen> I'm disappointed that you haven't been participating in the process, and are now are just saying "no"
862 2012-01-23 14:09:49 <gavinandresen> Yes, you have said you don't like that the script is serialized, which I don't understand
863 2012-01-23 14:10:05 <gavinandresen> (since scripts are serialized in every single tx message)
864 2012-01-23 14:10:14 <[Tycho]> The thing I don't like most is the "special case".
865 2012-01-23 14:10:24 <ThomasV> hey gavinandresen; I heard that the next version of bitcoin will support bitcoin: URIs ; is that true?
866 2012-01-23 14:10:34 <gavinandresen> But the special case is what makes it much safer than a more general solution
867 2012-01-23 14:10:39 agricocb has joined
868 2012-01-23 14:11:02 <gavinandresen> ThomasV: ask wumpus, he's Mr. Bitcoin GUI.
869 2012-01-23 14:11:03 <[Tycho]> (btw, I don't understand your phrase about guarantee)
870 2012-01-23 14:11:29 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: I'm saying that if there is a problem with p2sh and your pool mined a block that got orphaned, I would reimburse you for the lost revenue
871 2012-01-23 14:11:37 <ThomasV> wumpus: are you Mr. Bitcoin: URI ?
872 2012-01-23 14:11:43 <gavinandresen> ... because I am confident that the p2sh solution is safe and secure
873 2012-01-23 14:11:46 <Joric> you should hire the apple guy
874 2012-01-23 14:11:47 <Eliel> [Tycho]: did you read this thread yet? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60433.0
875 2012-01-23 14:11:57 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: at this moment I think that the best way is to support plain multisig and long-address multisigs before continuing to pay-to-scripts.
876 2012-01-23 14:12:09 <[Tycho]> Eliel: no.
877 2012-01-23 14:12:23 <wumpus> ThomasV: yes
878 2012-01-23 14:12:31 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: ok. I think it is wrong of you to use your position as the biggest pool operator to go against the general consensus.
879 2012-01-23 14:12:45 <[Tycho]> There is NO general consensus.
880 2012-01-23 14:12:50 <ThomasV> wumpus: what are the bitcoin: URI specs that will be supported?
881 2012-01-23 14:13:02 <[Tycho]> I see only ONE pool mining votes for p2sh currently. How do you call this a "consensus" ?
882 2012-01-23 14:14:05 <gavinandresen> Consensus among developers and users-- see luke's pool in the mining pools, thread, for example
883 2012-01-23 14:14:07 <[Tycho]> If there were at least some part of pools, then I would consider re-thinking my position.
884 2012-01-23 14:14:14 <wumpus> ThomasV: bitcoin:<address>&amount=<amount>&label=<label>
885 2012-01-23 14:14:19 <gavinandresen> There is definitely consensus a short multisig bitcoin address is needed
886 2012-01-23 14:14:45 <wumpus> ThomasV: it already supports these with 0.5, you can drag such a URL to the client
887 2012-01-23 14:14:50 <ThomasV> wumpus: ok, but in which unist is the amount expressed? I saw some funky stuff on the wiki
888 2012-01-23 14:14:52 <[Tycho]> But how can I agree to p2sh if everyone else is against it ?
889 2012-01-23 14:14:57 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: ok. Three big pools have said they're in the middle of deploying it.
890 2012-01-23 14:14:58 <ThomasV> *units*
891 2012-01-23 14:15:12 <wumpus> ThomasV: it doesn't support the fancy stuff.. just 1.5 for 1.5 BTC
892 2012-01-23 14:15:33 <ThomasV> ah ok; I just want to make Electrum consistent with the official client
893 2012-01-23 14:15:40 <[Tycho]> That's exactly the thing. I don't want to oppose everyone.
894 2012-01-23 14:15:56 <wumpus> ThomasV: so you're the electrum maintainer? nice work!
895 2012-01-23 14:16:21 <ThomasV> yes
896 2012-01-23 14:16:38 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: thanks. I'll be working on helping pools rollout this week, we'll see where we are Feb 1....
897 2012-01-23 14:16:44 <[Tycho]> As for the "security" question: we should either have scripts or no scripts, but only allowing special cases looks very wrong to me.
898 2012-01-23 14:17:06 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: that's a good argument for another day, I think.
899 2012-01-23 14:17:22 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: ... and an even harder argument than short multisig bitcoin addresses, I think
900 2012-01-23 14:18:06 <[Tycho]> As I said yesterday - it's like having a C IDE and compiler that only allows "Hello world" and "factorial" programs to be created. Why bother with compilation then ?
901 2012-01-23 14:18:22 <Eliel> [Tycho]: it's a special case that allows any script to be used if it's used. No special cases within the scripts it supports.
902 2012-01-23 14:18:38 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: it gives a smooth upgrade path
903 2012-01-23 14:18:53 <Eliel> So, if we end up transitioning to that completely, it effectively just becomes protocol
904 2012-01-23 14:19:46 <[Tycho]> Can you elaborate why don't you like to split this upgrade into two consecutive steps ? Like multisigs first and pay-to-scripts second ?
905 2012-01-23 14:20:17 <gavinandresen> Sure-- because it is a TON of work for somebody to get people to upgrade, and I really don't want to do all that work twice
906 2012-01-23 14:20:51 iocor has joined
907 2012-01-23 14:20:55 <Eliel> [Tycho]: doing multisigs first would introduce one more address type that needs to be supported for a long time.
908 2012-01-23 14:21:00 <[Tycho]> They don't have to upgrade for the first step because there is no forking danger there.
909 2012-01-23 14:21:28 <gavinandresen> Sending multisig transactions is useless for people who aren't pool operators if they won't get relayed/mined
910 2012-01-23 14:22:08 <[Tycho]> Eliel: plain multisigs can be used without combined address too, even more clear. And this "one more address type" can be supported easily with pay-to-scripts.
911 2012-01-23 14:22:39 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: convincing some pool ops to upgrade is not so difficult.
912 2012-01-23 14:23:15 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: oh, they'll AGREE to upgrade, but getting them to actually take the time to do it....
913 2012-01-23 14:23:15 iocor has quit (Client Quit)
914 2012-01-23 14:23:24 <Eliel> [Tycho]: It's an usability issue to me, mostly.
915 2012-01-23 14:24:07 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: it's only needs to be included in IsStandard, yes ? Not so complicated.
916 2012-01-23 14:24:14 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: frankly, the changes to support multisignature worry me more than p2sh
917 2012-01-23 14:24:46 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: the real danger with multisig-as-standard is increasing the allowed scriptSig size to create enough room for the signatures
918 2012-01-23 14:25:01 * TuxBlackEdo wonders if this conversation will have an effect on the price of bitcoin
919 2012-01-23 14:25:15 <Joric> it's falling
920 2012-01-23 14:25:30 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: how many can fit there ?
921 2012-01-23 14:25:32 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: I THINK the current fee rules will be enough to prevent people creating bigger transactions just to spam the chain.....
922 2012-01-23 14:25:41 sacarlson has joined
923 2012-01-23 14:25:43 <[Tycho]> TuxBlackEdo: how can it ?
924 2012-01-23 14:25:48 gp5st has joined
925 2012-01-23 14:26:02 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: multisig changes scriptSig max size from 200 bytes to 500 bytes, so 3 signatures+public keys will fit
926 2012-01-23 14:26:22 <gavinandresen> (max "IsStandard" size)
927 2012-01-23 14:26:24 <helo> "Mining pools halt bitcoin development"
928 2012-01-23 14:26:27 <[Tycho]> Is the soft limit or network-enforced limit ?
929 2012-01-23 14:26:32 <[Tycho]> Oh, soft one.
930 2012-01-23 14:26:33 Joric has quit ()
931 2012-01-23 14:26:34 <gavinandresen> yes
932 2012-01-23 14:26:38 Tiggr has joined
933 2012-01-23 14:26:41 Graet_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
934 2012-01-23 14:26:44 shadders has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
935 2012-01-23 14:26:54 MrTiggr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
936 2012-01-23 14:27:04 Tiggr is now known as Guest64553
937 2012-01-23 14:27:04 <[Tycho]> Can it work with pubkeyhashes instead of pubkeys ?
938 2012-01-23 14:27:20 <slush> helo: not all pools :-)
939 2012-01-23 14:27:24 <gavinandresen> That just makes the transaction even bigger....
940 2012-01-23 14:27:27 <[Tycho]> helo: mining pools save bitcoin from development !
941 2012-01-23 14:27:42 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: just asked.
942 2012-01-23 14:29:08 <[Tycho]> Is this what luke-jr created ? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60433.0
943 2012-01-23 14:29:26 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: yes
944 2012-01-23 14:29:37 <Eliel> BIP 17 is luke's suggestion for how to implement it.
945 2012-01-23 14:30:24 <[Tycho]> "OP_0 <signature> OP_PUSHDATA(2 <pubkey1> <pubkey2> 2 OP_CHECKMULTISIG)" - why OP_0 and signature are outside of serialized part ?
946 2012-01-23 14:30:36 <[Tycho]> Oh, I got it.
947 2012-01-23 14:34:53 <[Tycho]> As for the "That means a maximum of 1,000 BIP-17-style multisig inputs per block" part - that's ok. Let people use fees for that, at last :)
948 2012-01-23 14:35:24 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: The seralization is important for a couple reasons, some security warm fuzzies, etc, but most pratically because CHECKMULTISIG counts as 20 in the current rules enforced by every node. Seralizing it hides it, and then P2SH accounts for them correctly, so you don't bump into the 20k sigs limit so quickly.
949 2012-01-23 14:35:45 iocor has joined
950 2012-01-23 14:36:14 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: 1000 inputs is a low fewer transactions than we can currently support :(
951 2012-01-23 14:36:35 <[Tycho]> "low fewer" ?
952 2012-01-23 14:36:57 <Eliel> I think gmaxwell tried to say "a lot fewer"
953 2012-01-23 14:36:59 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: lot fewer. assuming lots of people switch to doing 2-of-2/3 for wallet security you'd be substantially reducing the capacity of bitcoin from the current levels.
954 2012-01-23 14:38:39 <Eliel> that's only a problem if we expect to be hitting those limits very soon.
955 2012-01-23 14:39:06 marf_away has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
956 2012-01-23 14:39:09 marf_away2 has joined
957 2012-01-23 14:39:31 <gavinandresen> Nobody knows how quickly or slowly those limits will be reached.
958 2012-01-23 14:39:40 <gavinandresen> I don't think anybody CAN know, either....
959 2012-01-23 14:39:52 <gmaxwell> Eliel: I'm pretty sure we've had blocks with 1000 inputs.
960 2012-01-23 14:40:53 <Eliel> hmm, true, that is an important point.
961 2012-01-23 14:41:53 <gmaxwell> It means that without the packing there is an incentive to use the old transaction style just from block capacity.
962 2012-01-23 14:41:57 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
963 2012-01-23 14:44:13 <Eliel> I think luke will give up his resistance to BIP 16 if it gets extra wording that states that the goal is to move completely away from old style transactions eventually.
964 2012-01-23 14:44:34 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
965 2012-01-23 14:47:14 <gmaxwell> Eliel: He indicated that he would, I asked him to come up with language. Kind of ironic that his own proposal actually makes moving away from the old style harder by not freeing up the multisig overcounting.
966 2012-01-23 14:48:17 Joric_ has joined
967 2012-01-23 14:48:56 <[Tycho]> 20000 limit is network-enforced ?
968 2012-01-23 14:49:12 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: yes, hard limit
969 2012-01-23 14:49:29 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: it is defined as 1/50'th of the maximum block size
970 2012-01-23 14:50:16 <gavinandresen> Maximum number of inputs we've ever had so far is 1,837 (I just ran a little python code on the block chain)
971 2012-01-23 14:50:48 <Eliel> when was that? sometime in june?
972 2012-01-23 14:51:00 <gavinandresen> ... let me modify my code to spit out the block date...
973 2012-01-23 14:52:56 Joric_ has quit (Client Quit)
974 2012-01-23 14:55:04 iocor has joined
975 2012-01-23 14:57:59 <[Tycho]> That argument about 1000 txes is at least important.
976 2012-01-23 14:58:29 <[Tycho]> Not that I believe we may hit this limit anytime soon, but I know that people are always wrong by thinking that :)
977 2012-01-23 14:58:39 <roconnor> etotheipi_: ping
978 2012-01-23 14:59:09 <gavinandresen> ... wish block explorer let me search by timestamp...
979 2012-01-23 14:59:42 JRWR has joined
980 2012-01-23 14:59:48 booo has joined
981 2012-01-23 14:59:54 <etotheipi_> roconnor, I'm here, but I desperately need to go to work soon
982 2012-01-23 15:00:15 <gavinandresen> According to my tool, block with the most transaction inputs was 2012-01-11 19:29:17 GMT
983 2012-01-23 15:00:26 <etotheipi_> (so please don't nerd snipe me into a 3 hr conversation about alternate hashcodes :))
984 2012-01-23 15:01:26 danbri_ has joined
985 2012-01-23 15:02:26 <roconnor> etotheipi_: I wanted to comment about armory, but let's do it tonight instead
986 2012-01-23 15:02:37 <gavinandresen> There we go, this block has 1,837 inputs: http://blockexplorer.com/block/0000000000000bb3160a09e22a52d6a0a260522b8ca705fc064f1c96a5eac7f6
987 2012-01-23 15:03:02 <etotheipi_> roconnor, sure, I will be around later
988 2012-01-23 15:03:03 <gavinandresen> The other top 49 are here: https://gist.github.com/1663506
989 2012-01-23 15:03:23 <sipa> [Tycho]: to continue with your C compiler analogy: it is like first having C, supporting many kinds of programs, and then adding a rule "the program is allowed to be the single line '#include <filename>', in which case we look there
990 2012-01-23 15:03:25 <etotheipi_> roconnor, btw, no comments are allowed on sending tx, locking outputs, spending your own change, etc... that's all fixed after I find this last bug
991 2012-01-23 15:03:57 <sipa> [Tycho]: as a primitive preprocessor
992 2012-01-23 15:04:06 <etotheipi_> zero-conf handling got a complete, *proper* makeover in Armory
993 2012-01-23 15:04:50 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
994 2012-01-23 15:06:10 <[Tycho]> I don't like being restricted by limits, but it would be funny to see fees finally working :)
995 2012-01-23 15:07:06 <gavinandresen> Re-implementing fee-setting and fee-handling is still high on my TODO list
996 2012-01-23 15:07:46 <gavinandresen> ... that's something I would very much like to talk with you about sometime, [Tycho]
997 2012-01-23 15:08:05 JRWR has quit (Disconnected by services)
998 2012-01-23 15:08:17 JRWR has joined
999 2012-01-23 15:09:02 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1000 2012-01-23 15:09:03 <sipa> gavinandresen: as soon as i get the ip address managing thing done, i plan to redo rejectedtx (to allow non-confirming or conflicting transactions to be retracted)
1001 2012-01-23 15:09:36 <gavinandresen> sipa: great, that will help. They'll show up as "rejected" in the GUI?
1002 2012-01-23 15:09:37 <Eliel> gavinandresen: looking at the transactions in that block, it's pretty clear why there was a huge amoutn of inputs... those transactions are composed of huge amounts of small inputs.
1003 2012-01-23 15:09:46 <gavinandresen> Eliel: yup
1004 2012-01-23 15:09:47 <sipa> gavinandresen: yes, that's the plan
1005 2012-01-23 15:10:51 <[Tycho]> At this moment I'm trying to "support" free TXes as long as possible. I know that some miners want to earn fees, but the possibility of free bitcoin transfers looks to me as very cool and important feature.
1006 2012-01-23 15:11:02 <Eliel> now, the question is, if the limit is hit, will it start by delaying those txs with overblown inputs?
1007 2012-01-23 15:11:22 <[Tycho]> Eliel: those TXes should be non-free, obviously.
1008 2012-01-23 15:11:42 <Eliel> yes, they have pretty hefty fees attached
1009 2012-01-23 15:11:44 <[Tycho]> Also I think that 0.0005 BTC fee is laughable because it's almost zero.
1010 2012-01-23 15:12:03 <sipa> It's mostly symbolic, imho
1011 2012-01-23 15:12:19 <sipa> to prevent people fro; believing bitcoin trqnsqctions qre free
1012 2012-01-23 15:12:30 <Eliel> [Tycho]: the fee size basically sets the minimum transaction size that's practical, so it ought to be pretty low.
1013 2012-01-23 15:12:34 <[Tycho]> I remember the spike in fee revenue when the official client wanted 0.01 for some TXes :)
1014 2012-01-23 15:12:59 <UukGoblin> there's still a lot of txns with 0.01 fee
1015 2012-01-23 15:13:18 <UukGoblin> earned one with 0.20 BTC worth of fees the other day
1016 2012-01-23 15:13:48 <diki> UukGoblin:you found a block?
1017 2012-01-23 15:13:50 <[Tycho]> My nodes are using 0.01 as minimal fee for non-free TXes. Actually I think that 0.01 is pretty small, but at least something to start with.
1018 2012-01-23 15:13:52 <diki> congrats
1019 2012-01-23 15:13:59 <UukGoblin> diki, p2pool.
1020 2012-01-23 15:14:41 <UukGoblin> [Tycho], well, I remember it was lowered to 0.0005 because the price of bitcoin went up like 10-fold at the time
1021 2012-01-23 15:14:59 <UukGoblin> and 30 cents fee for a txns seemed quite high
1022 2012-01-23 15:15:02 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
1023 2012-01-23 15:15:19 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: BIP 17 does not make P2SH-only any more difficult; the multisig overcounting only halves the max transactions per block, and only if everyone uses multisig (that is, not all P2SH require multisigâ¦)
1024 2012-01-23 15:16:31 erle- has joined
1025 2012-01-23 15:16:35 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you're making the mistake of assuming one input per transaction. I think the current mean is like 3-4 inputs.
1026 2012-01-23 15:17:18 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: my point is that BIP 17 does not make the current limits any worse than they already are
1027 2012-01-23 15:18:07 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: The current limit isn't very relevant because no one uses checkmultisig. The purpose of P2SH is to make it easy for everyone to use it, so the limit matters.
1028 2012-01-23 15:18:42 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: that's unrelated to moving to a P2SH-only scheme in the future, though
1029 2012-01-23 15:18:57 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: That threshold needs to be small enough that most people see it as 'basically free', so they don't get angry about being forced to pay it, but still large enough that it really adds up for a spammer.
1030 2012-01-23 15:19:04 <josephcp> everyone copy+pastes addresses anyway, why isn't long multisig addresses implemented first and then this stuff considered later?
1031 2012-01-23 15:19:23 <etotheipi_> josephcp, +1
1032 2012-01-23 15:20:02 <luke-jr> josephcp: perhaps if someone does it, it will be taken more seriously; I don't know if it's practical, though
1033 2012-01-23 15:20:16 <josephcp> i really really dislike the idea of p2sh only
1034 2012-01-23 15:20:25 <luke-jr> https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/6cd6788798f2b0637a730baba22b907b9ec51413 reverts BIP 16 in theory, so you could build on top of that to try
1035 2012-01-23 15:21:04 <gavinandresen> josephcp: ... so write a proposal for long multisig bitcoin addresses and see if you can get majority support.
1036 2012-01-23 15:21:07 <luke-jr> (it does not revert multisig, nor sigop count changes - though the latter is effectively neutered)
1037 2012-01-23 15:22:06 <etotheipi_> gavinandresen, I don't understand, OP_CHECKMULTSIG is already part of the protocol, tested, secure, and provides all the benefits of all these proposals, it's only issue is that it's suboptimal
1038 2012-01-23 15:22:42 <[Tycho]> etotheipi_: it's not yet supported by the client.
1039 2012-01-23 15:22:44 <gavinandresen> etotheipi_: I disagree that it is well-tested already; are there any OP_CHECKMULTISIG transactions in the main chain?
1040 2012-01-23 15:22:58 <[Tycho]> You can only create them as strange TXes.
1041 2012-01-23 15:23:11 <helo> everyone will always copy/paste addresses
1042 2012-01-23 15:23:11 <gavinandresen> etotheipi_: (except for the bogus ones in the infamouse CHECKMULTISIG block)
1043 2012-01-23 15:23:11 <etotheipi_> it's definitely supported by the client, once they are already in a block.... and they're all over the testnet
1044 2012-01-23 15:23:23 <luke-jr> UsQmxuBo5uKPaotZc1jkKyvU1VXu7Gy6ZeaUrunKG7A1UrcP15JLePd26cDXtum <-- length of a 2-of-2 multisig literal-script-address
1045 2012-01-23 15:23:28 <[Tycho]> Also I think that not only long-addresses should be supported, but completely plain multisigs too.
1046 2012-01-23 15:24:07 <[Tycho]> etotheipi_: you still can't create them with the client.
1047 2012-01-23 15:24:08 <etotheipi_> I am mistaken then, with everyone's level of comfort around OP_CHECKMULTISIG... I thought that was basically ready to go, and irritated that we were bypassing it
1048 2012-01-23 15:24:15 <luke-jr> problem with literal-script-addresses: someone can easily craft one that LOOKS like another but isn't.
1049 2012-01-23 15:24:42 <luke-jr> oops, I forgot the checksum on the end; that might help
1050 2012-01-23 15:24:51 sje has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1051 2012-01-23 15:24:53 <etotheipi_> [Tycho],, one of the reasons I made Armory the way I did, was to support multi-sig in general... you can't create any of the proposals right now
1052 2012-01-23 15:25:00 <luke-jr> 49NDZorKZ2RRcmPYMR7xQfajHpX8YcbqipaBUWSko1hxa1jvT6fuNySzW6T8qaxf9tnxf <-- with 4 byte checksum
1053 2012-01-23 15:25:08 <gavinandresen> etotheipi_: I'm more worried about possible spamming/chain bloat with plain CHECKMULTISIG... but still think we should do it
1054 2012-01-23 15:25:34 <[Tycho]> Chain bloat is OK, and spamming should be deferred by fees.
1055 2012-01-23 15:25:36 <etotheipi_> gavinandresen, that's up to you guys... I don't know ALL the details about these proposals
1056 2012-01-23 15:25:51 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: what are you serializing with your examples?
1057 2012-01-23 15:26:05 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: "\xff012345678901234567890012345678901234567890220hhhh"
1058 2012-01-23 15:26:18 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: and that's supposed to represent... what?
1059 2012-01-23 15:26:32 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: 21 bytes per address, plus 2 opcodes for Ns, plus an opcode for CHECKMULTISIG, plus a checksum
1060 2012-01-23 15:26:46 <luke-jr> (it's just for length)
1061 2012-01-23 15:27:00 <gavinandresen> plain multisig needs full public keys, so 33 bytes (compressed) or 65 bytes (uncompressed)
1062 2012-01-23 15:27:20 <gmaxwell> josephcp: long multisig is bad for reasons unrelated to their length. You're effectively accepting script code from random people. Then you get fun stuff like jokers giving you 10kb codes and making you blead txn fees.
1063 2012-01-23 15:27:31 <gavinandresen> ... unless you assume that the person sending the transaction somehow magically knows the public key --> hash mapping.... (bad assumption)
1064 2012-01-23 15:27:42 <josephcp> well you'd hash it like with standard transactions today, weren't there some earlier proposals/examples?
1065 2012-01-23 15:27:56 <gmaxwell> josephcp: !!! thats what p2sh is!
1066 2012-01-23 15:28:04 <josephcp> no it's not
1067 2012-01-23 15:28:07 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, that's a good point
1068 2012-01-23 15:28:07 <gavinandresen> If the public keys are hashed then we're not talking about CHECKMULTISIG any more, but some other transaction type
1069 2012-01-23 15:28:07 <josephcp> well not what i meant
1070 2012-01-23 15:28:19 gfinn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1071 2012-01-23 15:28:19 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1072 2012-01-23 15:28:21 <josephcp> with p2sh you're hashing the transaction string
1073 2012-01-23 15:28:39 <gmaxwell> You're hasing the payment script.
1074 2012-01-23 15:28:42 <josephcp> it's not checking the hash of the keys individiually
1075 2012-01-23 15:28:51 hexTech has joined
1076 2012-01-23 15:28:52 <josephcp> yes payment script
1077 2012-01-23 15:29:06 <etotheipi_> okay, I am partially persuaded... but now I have to go to my real job
1078 2012-01-23 15:29:11 <gavinandresen> Right, I thought luke-jr was giving what addresses would look like in a "just plain CHECKMULTISIG" solution
1079 2012-01-23 15:29:18 <josephcp> gmaxwell: currently single transactions are hash(pubkey), p2sh is hash(script)
1080 2012-01-23 15:29:22 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: multisig can't handle hashes? wtf? O.o
1081 2012-01-23 15:29:26 <[Tycho]> It wasn't quite plain :)
1082 2012-01-23 15:29:36 <gmaxwell> josephcp: I could still give you a 10kb script that way. So then sites will impose their own random size limits to protect themselves, and then you'd generate addresses and find places refusing them.
1083 2012-01-23 15:29:46 random_cat has joined
1084 2012-01-23 15:29:46 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: no, CHECKMULTISIG is plain-old m <pubkeys...> n OP_CHECKMULTISIG
1085 2012-01-23 15:29:57 <josephcp> gmaxwell: my fear is if sha256(ripemd()), general MD-derived hashing is vulnerable
1086 2012-01-23 15:30:01 <gavinandresen> ... where <pubkeys> are each either 33 or 65 bytes long
1087 2012-01-23 15:30:07 <luke-jr> sigh
1088 2012-01-23 15:30:18 <[Tycho]> Yeah, not cool.
1089 2012-01-23 15:30:43 <gmaxwell> josephcp: you're worred about that more than ECDSA bing vulnerable? 0_o
1090 2012-01-23 15:30:45 <josephcp> gmaxwell: under the current scheme it's not vulnerable to THEFT (but vulnerable to destruction) becuase it's secured by both MD-derived schemes AND ECC
1091 2012-01-23 15:30:48 <[Tycho]> Requires you to know pubkeys of your victims.
1092 2012-01-23 15:30:54 <luke-jr> ReZYdLNv1L9PuCe9FM3Z8XsN7QNdz2j5oKuVJG3j7o3ziTT1221sRHo827MXVSciA5LFwcMCnnrZPX9TLyYyXMVnrWEiUPuorv2BRfQT <-- real 2-of-2 multisig -.-
1093 2012-01-23 15:30:59 <josephcp> ECDSA is protected, that's why new coins go to new addresses
1094 2012-01-23 15:30:59 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: IceChat - Keeping PC's cool since 2000)
1095 2012-01-23 15:31:12 <gmaxwell> josephcp: no, ECDSA is vulnerable if you can create collissions of the hash, sadly.
1096 2012-01-23 15:31:13 <josephcp> everyone thinks new addresses is for anonymity, it's not. it's for security
1097 2012-01-23 15:31:22 <josephcp> yeah but it's a LOT harder
1098 2012-01-23 15:31:35 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: my mac does ... interesting... things if I double-click on that address to try to copy/paste it....
1099 2012-01-23 15:31:37 <josephcp> new address => ECDSA pubkey is NOT KNOWN
1100 2012-01-23 15:31:40 <[Tycho]> Mostly I'm thinking about plain multisigs for escrow services, like 2-of-3, not the 2-factor auth.
1101 2012-01-23 15:31:45 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: ?
1102 2012-01-23 15:31:54 <gmaxwell> josephcp: yes, and thats the same thing with p2sh.
1103 2012-01-23 15:32:00 <josephcp> that's why you generate a new address every time...
1104 2012-01-23 15:32:13 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1105 2012-01-23 15:32:15 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: interesting == I double click and it selects the address plus everything on the page above it. No idea why....
1106 2012-01-23 15:32:17 <[Tycho]> Yeah, protection against quantum computers, sort of.
1107 2012-01-23 15:32:30 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: he does have a small point. with p2sh, if you can collide, you can make a script of your own matching it
1108 2012-01-23 15:32:39 <gmaxwell> josephcp: with P2SH you get the same property, except the address is H(pubkey+otherstuff) instead of H(pubkey)
1109 2012-01-23 15:32:41 <josephcp> gmaxwell: chosen prefix collisions are vulnerable with p2sh, not with current
1110 2012-01-23 15:32:42 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: right now, you need to know the ECDSA key too
1111 2012-01-23 15:32:46 booo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1112 2012-01-23 15:32:48 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: NO!
1113 2012-01-23 15:32:51 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you really don't.
1114 2012-01-23 15:33:01 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: if you can collide you can rebind an existing signature.
1115 2012-01-23 15:33:04 <josephcp> you can't do chosen prefix attacks with current bitcoin addresses because the pubkey is protected too
1116 2012-01-23 15:33:31 <josephcp> (this is assuming current hash scheme is vulnerable, which i do admit is a TALL order)
1117 2012-01-23 15:33:46 <gmaxwell> josephcp: the hash _inside_ ECDSA is vulnerable under chosen prefix collisions.
1118 2012-01-23 15:34:15 <gavinandresen> Worrying about chosen prefix of ripemd(sha256()) seems like an unproductive use of time to me
1119 2012-01-23 15:34:16 danbri_ is now known as danbri
1120 2012-01-23 15:34:16 <josephcp> but you won't be able to steal the coins
1121 2012-01-23 15:34:35 <josephcp> but this was an explicit choice in the design that is being removed is my concern
1122 2012-01-23 15:35:00 <gmaxwell> josephcp: If you got the idea that the ecc attack resistance was an explicit choice in the design, you probably got it from me.
1123 2012-01-23 15:35:09 <josephcp> the only way to maintain it with short addresses is to add in OP_CAT, which I understand is impossible from a systemic perspective
1124 2012-01-23 15:35:33 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: can you confirm the explicit reason for using new addresses regularly is for privacy, and put this to rest? :P
1125 2012-01-23 15:35:39 <josephcp> gmaxwell: i only started looking at bitcoin in detail recently, independently reached :-)
1126 2012-01-23 15:36:08 <gmaxwell> josephcp: well, Satoshi never described it that wayâ I did on the forum and got yelled at over it. :)
1127 2012-01-23 15:36:30 <gmaxwell> josephcp: I think it was an accident. But whatever.
1128 2012-01-23 15:36:36 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: the explicit reason for using new addresses is primarily privacy. Although it is also generally good security practice to not re-use keys if you don't have to, also.
1129 2012-01-23 15:36:40 <josephcp> gmaxwell: oh? interesting, because this perfectly protects against ECDSA being broken
1130 2012-01-23 15:36:55 <gmaxwell> josephcp: I knowâ well, it makes the exposure window very small.
1131 2012-01-23 15:37:11 <josephcp> i mean ECDSA and not MD-hashes
1132 2012-01-23 15:37:17 <gmaxwell> josephcp: in any case, I can steal coins if I can collide the hash.
1133 2012-01-23 15:37:37 <luke-jr> josephcp: not really.
1134 2012-01-23 15:37:47 <luke-jr> josephcp: the moment you try to spend, your pubkey is known
1135 2012-01-23 15:37:48 <gavinandresen> josephcp: If you look at the bigger picture, the REAL vulnerability we're seeing is people getting coins stolen from their private keys getting compromised.
1136 2012-01-23 15:37:49 copumpkin has joined
1137 2012-01-23 15:37:51 copumpkin has quit (Changing host)
1138 2012-01-23 15:37:51 copumpkin has joined
1139 2012-01-23 15:38:13 <josephcp> luke-jr: true, but that's like a 10minute window :-P
1140 2012-01-23 15:38:13 <gavinandresen> josephcp: ... and this whole thing is a reaction to that, so compromising private keys on one device isn't catastrophic.
1141 2012-01-23 15:38:15 <luke-jr> josephcp: at that point, anyone relaying it can redeem
1142 2012-01-23 15:38:35 <josephcp> gavinandresen: i understand, it's just concerning to me, especially if there's wording to add in depreciating current methods in favor of p2sh
1143 2012-01-23 15:38:46 <gmaxwell> josephcp: and we keep that property under P2SH. We're still exposed to hash breaks, but we are in the existing scheme.
1144 2012-01-23 15:38:47 <luke-jr> josephcp: and if ECDSA is broken, you can be certain there will be such people out there
1145 2012-01-23 15:39:00 <josephcp> and if this is causing so much drama, it feels like multisig long addresses would have less controversial issues?
1146 2012-01-23 15:39:13 <gavinandresen> If ECDSA is broken we'll use one of the NOP opcodes to implement a secure replacement
1147 2012-01-23 15:39:17 <josephcp> but i'm new here so i definitely am just stating my concerns and not recommending anything ;-)
1148 2012-01-23 15:39:24 <UukGoblin> sorry to interrupt; can a transaction input spend an output that's in the same block?
1149 2012-01-23 15:39:30 <roconnor> armory protects against compromised private keys due to off-line transactions?
1150 2012-01-23 15:39:31 <gavinandresen> UukGoblin: yes
1151 2012-01-23 15:39:49 <UukGoblin> gavinandresen, that's cool, thanks
1152 2012-01-23 15:39:55 <nathan7> pew pew pew
1153 2012-01-23 15:39:55 <gmaxwell> josephcp: long multisig has other problems as mentioned: it's an extra, new injection point for input that must be parsed, it will be attractive target for trouble makers with 10kb transactions
1154 2012-01-23 15:40:00 <nathan7> I mean, hi earthlings
1155 2012-01-23 15:40:15 <gmaxwell> josephcp: to prevent the 10kb transactions people will impose limits on what they'll pay toâ making them not relably usable.
1156 2012-01-23 15:40:36 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: I'd argue strongly against a general "just serialize the script" type of bitcoin address, by the way
1157 2012-01-23 15:41:08 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: It just seems WAY to juicy a target for a man-in-the-middle who will look for a slightly different script that base58-encodes to something that looks very much like the "real" address
1158 2012-01-23 15:41:09 <luke-jr> biggest problem with "just serialize the script" is the risk of almost-collisions IMO
1159 2012-01-23 15:41:18 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: exactly
1160 2012-01-23 15:41:19 <josephcp> yeah i'm not saying a straight multisig pubkey is a good idea
1161 2012-01-23 15:41:32 <luke-jr> josephcp: that's the only alternative to P2SH
1162 2012-01-23 15:41:37 <gmaxwell> josephcp: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=10697.msg153521#msg153521 on the hash-pubkey security.
1163 2012-01-23 15:41:38 <roconnor> gavinandresen: to prevent 10kb people will discount the trasnaction fee from the payment effectively making the reciepent pay for the transaction fee
1164 2012-01-23 15:41:46 <roconnor> gavinandresen: opps
1165 2012-01-23 15:41:48 <roconnor> that was for gmaxwell
1166 2012-01-23 15:41:58 <josephcp> gmaxwell: thanks for link, i'll read through it
1167 2012-01-23 15:42:01 <gmaxwell> roconnor: assuming that it's that kind of business deal.
1168 2012-01-23 15:42:07 <josephcp> was trying to find it but couldn't find it
1169 2012-01-23 15:43:04 <josephcp> gmaxwell: just read the comment, yeah that was exactly my point!
1170 2012-01-23 15:43:08 <gmaxwell> roconnor: it's also still code that everyone would have to write.
1171 2012-01-23 15:44:03 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: BTW, is there any chance you'd be willing to check that I've got all the BIP16-specific pieces in my revert patch? AFAIK you're the only person who knows all the stuff touched by BIP16⦠https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/6cd6788798f2b0637a730baba22b907b9ec51413
1172 2012-01-23 15:44:23 <gmaxwell> josephcp: p2sh doesn't break that. It might arguably increase the risk of hash breaks (way better than ECC still) butâ if people feel thats dangerous, they could migrate away from using p2sh. though if the hash is vulnerable
1173 2012-01-23 15:44:25 <josephcp> i read your message as something like 'satoshi yelled at you' and was searching all wrong -_-;
1174 2012-01-23 15:44:32 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: (it's not intended to revert any of the BIP16-tied stuff like P2SH framework, sigop counting changes, nor multisig)
1175 2012-01-23 15:44:41 <roconnor> gmaxwell: the code either adds the transaction fee to the sending side or subtracts the fee from the recipient side.
1176 2012-01-23 15:44:44 <josephcp> yeah, hash breaking is my concern
1177 2012-01-23 15:44:45 <gmaxwell> josephcp: we're vunerable all over... simply because I could rebind any signature I've already seen.
1178 2012-01-23 15:45:22 <josephcp> true, but it just feels more risky
1179 2012-01-23 15:45:41 <josephcp> the disagreement is whether it's worth it i guess..
1180 2012-01-23 15:45:43 <luke-jr> josephcp: you know not even MD5 is broken in the way you're talking about, right?
1181 2012-01-23 15:45:56 <josephcp> luke-jr: yes it is, you can do prefix attacks really easily
1182 2012-01-23 15:46:07 <gmaxwell> roconnor: it requires that their front end actually know how to reason about transaction fees. We already see people losing coins because they're so freaked out about the current fee stuff (which can't charge more than 0.05 BTC ever) that they're hacking the software without understand it and losing change.
1183 2012-01-23 15:46:26 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: you missed some code in bitcoinrpc.cpp and unit tests in test/
1184 2012-01-23 15:46:31 <gmaxwell> josephcp: you can create two inputs with chosen prefixes that have the same md5sum.. thats not the weakness here.
1185 2012-01-23 15:46:35 ovidiusoft has joined
1186 2012-01-23 15:46:39 <luke-jr> last I heard, you could craft two sets of data that hashed to the same thingâ¦
1187 2012-01-23 15:46:42 <gmaxwell> josephcp: unless you assume that the attacker is generating your addresses for you.
1188 2012-01-23 15:46:51 <[Tycho]> What's the danger of "almost collisions" ?
1189 2012-01-23 15:46:56 <roconnor> gmaxwell: AFAIU people need to reson about tx fees now.
1190 2012-01-23 15:46:57 toffoo has quit ()
1191 2012-01-23 15:46:59 <roconnor> *reason
1192 2012-01-23 15:47:01 <nathan7> [Tycho]: visual similarity
1193 2012-01-23 15:47:02 <gmaxwell> josephcp: this would still be strong if we used md5â which is, in fact, one of the ways I evaluate this stuff for myself.
1194 2012-01-23 15:47:11 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: people will do a quick check of the address to make sure it's right, and miss the few bytes different
1195 2012-01-23 15:47:16 <nathan7> humans don't check all the digits
1196 2012-01-23 15:47:18 <[Tycho]> nathan7: and how it's worse than addresses ?
1197 2012-01-23 15:47:19 <josephcp> with p2sh you're generating your own outputs, you can send it wherever you want
1198 2012-01-23 15:47:26 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: thanks
1199 2012-01-23 15:47:28 <roconnor> gmaxwell: I personally have no idea what fee I'm supposed to include in the old GUI (is the new one better?)
1200 2012-01-23 15:47:48 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: what luke-jr said. Advantage of current bitcoin addresses is change one bit and the entire hash changes....
1201 2012-01-23 15:48:21 <[Tycho]> But vanitygen allows creating of visually similar one.
1202 2012-01-23 15:48:29 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: ... if a 'long' bitcoin address was just a serialized CScript, then it is much easier to find lookalike bitcoin addresses
1203 2012-01-23 15:48:42 <gmaxwell> no, it' allows matching a couple bytes.. not 'identical except for one character'
1204 2012-01-23 15:48:48 <josephcp> well if you're worried about bits, wouldn't it hypothetically be possible to use some reed-solomon bit-recovery like magic (this would add code though :-( ...)
1205 2012-01-23 15:48:51 <[Tycho]> No, I didn't proposed that.
1206 2012-01-23 15:49:16 <josephcp> i'm being purely theoretical here ;-)
1207 2012-01-23 15:49:18 <gmaxwell> roconnor: none. The system will tell you in the very rare case one is actually needed, and it won't let you go on without providing one.
1208 2012-01-23 15:49:46 <[Tycho]> My thoughts about long-addresses is just like X-of-N and the list of address hashes (if not using current checkmultisig)
1209 2012-01-23 15:49:58 <gmaxwell> roconnor: but RPC users just get it imposed on them, which causes the aformentioned spazzing. .. this is because the 'okay to continue' must block bitcoin's processing.
1210 2012-01-23 15:50:47 <josephcp> [Tycho]: yeah list of address hashes is what I'd be happiest with
1211 2012-01-23 15:50:49 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: M of N isn't the only scheme people wantâ e.g. (A and B) or C is a commonly wanted pattern.
1212 2012-01-23 15:51:17 <[Tycho]> gmaxwell: that too.
1213 2012-01-23 15:51:22 gfinn has joined
1214 2012-01-23 15:51:35 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: btw, the error from addmultisigaddresss w/ an address input is very confusing if the wallet is lockedâ¦
1215 2012-01-23 15:51:43 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: we got into this whole discussion from initially talking about seralizing some boolean logic crap that can be converted into a script... and it was starting to get too complicated.
1216 2012-01-23 15:51:49 <[Tycho]> Sadly list of pubkeys is much less fun, comparing to list of hashes.
1217 2012-01-23 15:52:13 b4epoche_ has joined
1218 2012-01-23 15:52:16 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: and it doesn't have the property of moving the fees directly to the party that specified the complicated ruleset.
1219 2012-01-23 15:52:17 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: it gives an error if the wallet is locked? Should be able to get the public key, that sounds like a bug
1220 2012-01-23 15:52:19 <josephcp> i dunno, i feel like p2sh is more secure than list of pubkeys, that'd be worst case imo
1221 2012-01-23 15:52:21 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1222 2012-01-23 15:52:36 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I get 'no full public key for address â¦'
1223 2012-01-23 15:52:38 <[Tycho]> I think that moving fees is not that important yet.
1224 2012-01-23 15:52:46 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: so you'll always end up with some vendors refusing to process your address because making you produce a simple address is a lot easier than worring about adding the required fees themselves.
1225 2012-01-23 15:52:57 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1226 2012-01-23 15:52:57 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1227 2012-01-23 15:53:21 <roconnor> gmaxwell: I still think the vendors will just pass the fees on to the user; it isn't that hard
1228 2012-01-23 15:53:29 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I had to look into the wallet code to figure out why :P
1229 2012-01-23 15:53:30 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: it's not? a lot of sites charge a flat withdraw fee because they can't be bothered to figure out if one would be needed or not.
1230 2012-01-23 15:53:34 <josephcp> i don't understand the obsession with who pays for transactions, you're exchanging value, people can easily discount it
1231 2012-01-23 15:53:55 <gmaxwell> observed behavior.
1232 2012-01-23 15:54:09 <gmaxwell> People are already acting stupidly in response to fees.
1233 2012-01-23 15:55:11 <josephcp> if you offered to pay for fees via discounts, nobody would complain
1234 2012-01-23 15:55:24 <gmaxwell> roconnor: requires them to actually know the feeâ which isn't just a simple function of the size because the anti-ddos logic uses coin-waiting as 'payment'. This makes most transactions free.
1235 2012-01-23 15:56:20 <luke-jr> How do you actually run the tests? :o
1236 2012-01-23 15:56:34 <josephcp> but the "coin waiting" free tx benefit isn't enough to cover huge transactions anyway, you can just ignore that, no?
1237 2012-01-23 15:56:49 <luke-jr> allow users to opt not to pay fees.
1238 2012-01-23 15:56:55 <gmaxwell> josephcp: there is always a threshold.
1239 2012-01-23 15:57:01 <josephcp> gmaxwell: true
1240 2012-01-23 15:57:06 <luke-jr> then fix the miner accepting algorithm to tolerate a fee paid by recipient
1241 2012-01-23 15:57:22 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: thats a dumb choice. Creating two bad choices isn't the same as having a good choice. :)
1242 2012-01-23 15:57:23 weather is now known as BeTep
1243 2012-01-23 15:57:29 mortikia has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1244 2012-01-23 15:57:35 mortikia has joined
1245 2012-01-23 15:57:43 <josephcp> hehe
1246 2012-01-23 15:57:45 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it's a good choice, whether we have big fees or little fees ;)
1247 2012-01-23 15:57:56 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: p2sh largely has that effect without requring a #@$@#$@ exptime connecting algorithim in the mining pool acceptance.
1248 2012-01-23 15:57:56 <luke-jr> no reason the sender should be forced to pay the fee
1249 2012-01-23 15:58:16 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: perhaps the recipient paying the fee shouldn't care about time
1250 2012-01-23 15:58:50 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1251 2012-01-23 15:58:52 <gmaxwell> (have you tried to ripple up fees? I can't find any way of doing it that isn't exptime on the number of transactions available for consideration)
1252 2012-01-23 15:59:24 <josephcp> ripple up fees?
1253 2012-01-23 15:59:26 <luke-jr> oh, you mean the time to process
1254 2012-01-23 15:59:34 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: we already need to check txn dependencies
1255 2012-01-23 15:59:56 <gmaxwell> josephcp: the idea that if you send me a no-fee payment, and then I respend it with a fee.. if my fee is big enough it should pay for both.
1256 2012-01-23 16:00:04 <josephcp> oh i see
1257 2012-01-23 16:00:17 <luke-jr> no reason we can't say "if the dependencies aren't confirmed, add them to the total size and set their required fee to 0"
1258 2012-01-23 16:00:21 <sipa> gavinandresen: you're using CKeyStore::GetKey() to the pubkey in addmulti..., which fails if the wallet is locked
1259 2012-01-23 16:00:37 <sipa> gavinandresen: CKeyStore::GetPubKey() always works
1260 2012-01-23 16:00:48 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1261 2012-01-23 16:00:52 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
1262 2012-01-23 16:00:57 <gavinandresen> sipa: great, I like 3-character fixes
1263 2012-01-23 16:01:26 <luke-jr> :D
1264 2012-01-23 16:01:26 <josephcp> hehe
1265 2012-01-23 16:02:45 * luke-jr wonders if addmultisigaddress has been tested with multisig addresses for inputs ;)
1266 2012-01-23 16:02:48 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: nah it's messy, because a txn can have multiple parents and multiple chidren, and the fees can be split up multiple ways.
1267 2012-01-23 16:03:10 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: true
1268 2012-01-23 16:03:37 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: (alsoâ we don't even have the parents since we would have dropped them on input, or children because we would have dropped them for lack of the parents.. and if you remove that then there is potentially an OOM dos attack there)
1269 2012-01-23 16:03:57 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: but yea, okay, maybe I exagerated. Solving it optimally is hard, but there might be a simple hack that mostly works in the common case.
1270 2012-01-23 16:03:58 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: addmultisigaddress needs more testing... I've been busy banging on the lower-level support (e.g. fuzzer, unit tests, ...)
1271 2012-01-23 16:04:45 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I can't find docs on how to build/run the tests⦠:/
1272 2012-01-23 16:04:53 psz has joined
1273 2012-01-23 16:04:57 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: make test_bitcoin; ./test_bitcoin
1274 2012-01-23 16:05:14 <gavinandresen> (in the src dir)
1275 2012-01-23 16:05:19 <psz> where i can file bitcoin client's bugs?
1276 2012-01-23 16:05:21 <luke-jr> i c
1277 2012-01-23 16:05:25 <luke-jr> -f makefile.unix ;)
1278 2012-01-23 16:05:29 <gavinandresen> psz: github/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues
1279 2012-01-23 16:05:50 <psz> thanks
1280 2012-01-23 16:06:09 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: where would you expect to find documentation for that? Happy to add it....
1281 2012-01-23 16:06:15 psz has quit (Client Quit)
1282 2012-01-23 16:06:26 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: doc/ dir? :P
1283 2012-01-23 16:06:36 <luke-jr> doc/testing.txt maybe
1284 2012-01-23 16:07:57 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: hmm, seems the src/test/README exists
1285 2012-01-23 16:08:02 <luke-jr> maybe move that?
1286 2012-01-23 16:08:09 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: the best way I came up to optimally make that decision was to take the set of unconfirmed txn, color it to break into dependency groups,
1287 2012-01-23 16:08:13 <luke-jr> /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.5.3/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: cannot find -lboost_unit_test_framework
1288 2012-01-23 16:08:16 <luke-jr> suppose that's my fault
1289 2012-01-23 16:08:37 ptte_ has quit (Quit: Bye)
1290 2012-01-23 16:08:59 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: then for each group let n equal the number of childless transactions, then consider the 2^N mixtures of childless, with all their parents as a single transaction. Accept the mixture which passes the fee rule with the highest N (or highest total fees).
1291 2012-01-23 16:09:41 iocor has joined
1292 2012-01-23 16:10:00 <gmaxwell> (so its exponential in the number of childless transactions in a interconnected group)
1293 2012-01-23 16:10:36 <gmaxwell> Maybe there is some dynamic programming algorithim that solves it, but I didn't see one.
1294 2012-01-23 16:12:26 <luke-jr> I can't see any way to get libboost_unit_test_framework
1295 2012-01-23 16:12:31 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1296 2012-01-23 16:13:19 booo has joined
1297 2012-01-23 16:13:34 sneak has joined
1298 2012-01-23 16:13:34 sneak has quit (Changing host)
1299 2012-01-23 16:13:34 sneak has joined
1300 2012-01-23 16:14:16 K0lky has joined
1301 2012-01-23 16:14:21 Internet13 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1302 2012-01-23 16:15:23 Kolky has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1303 2012-01-23 16:15:40 terrytibbs has quit (Excess Flood)
1304 2012-01-23 16:15:54 semb has joined
1305 2012-01-23 16:16:02 terrytibbs has joined
1306 2012-01-23 16:20:58 Joric has joined
1307 2012-01-23 16:22:44 Internet13 has joined
1308 2012-01-23 16:25:55 <luke-jr> wtf
1309 2012-01-23 16:26:07 <luke-jr> rather, I *have* libboost_unit_test_framework, but ld won't find it -.-
1310 2012-01-23 16:26:08 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: pszturmaj opened issue 776 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/776>
1311 2012-01-23 16:26:45 <roconnor> ERROR: ConnectInputs() : 2f23900356 value in < value out
1312 2012-01-23 16:26:47 <roconnor> ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool() : ConnectInputs failed 2f23900356
1313 2012-01-23 16:26:48 <roconnor> storing orphan tx 2f23900356
1314 2012-01-23 16:26:51 <roconnor> Why store the orphan tx?
1315 2012-01-23 16:27:12 <[Tycho]> roconnor: it may become unorphaned later.
1316 2012-01-23 16:27:56 <gavinandresen> No, that's a bug.
1317 2012-01-23 16:28:05 Guest64553 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1318 2012-01-23 16:28:09 <gmaxwell> yea.. thats a bug. oy. haha
1319 2012-01-23 16:28:12 <[Tycho]> Oh, I didn't read other lines.
1320 2012-01-23 16:28:16 <gmaxwell> roconnor: how'd you find that?
1321 2012-01-23 16:28:16 <gavinandresen> See: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/765 for the fix
1322 2012-01-23 16:28:40 <gavinandresen> (not a new bug, by the way....)
1323 2012-01-23 16:28:56 <luke-jr> oh, it's because someone added it to the makefile wrong -.-
1324 2012-01-23 16:29:01 Nicksasa has joined
1325 2012-01-23 16:29:14 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: is there a reason the makefile is forcing static linking for boost_test_whatever?
1326 2012-01-23 16:29:24 <roconnor> gmaxwell: I'm excersing my ability to hand craft transactions
1327 2012-01-23 16:30:12 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I'm trying to remember.... boost unit test framework behaves differently if statically versus dynamically linked, if I recall correctly
1328 2012-01-23 16:30:19 <Joric> added pycrypto support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34028.msg708668 frankly have no idea why someone would use pure python implementation of AES
1329 2012-01-23 16:30:19 <luke-jr> hmmm
1330 2012-01-23 16:30:36 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: memory fuzzy, but I think if dynamically linked it assumes you've written a main()
1331 2012-01-23 16:30:43 <luke-jr> x.x
1332 2012-01-23 16:30:51 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: if statically linked, it writes the main() for you (which is what we want)
1333 2012-01-23 16:32:31 <luke-jr> wow, that is annoying
1334 2012-01-23 16:32:37 <luke-jr> now I have to build boost twice
1335 2012-01-23 16:34:32 ovidiusoft2 has joined
1336 2012-01-23 16:37:23 Zarutian has joined
1337 2012-01-23 16:38:32 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1338 2012-01-23 16:38:34 nhodges has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1339 2012-01-23 16:38:59 terrytibbs has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1340 2012-01-23 16:38:59 kobier has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1341 2012-01-23 16:40:43 Joric has quit ()
1342 2012-01-23 16:43:45 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: turns out you need to -DBOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK to dynamic link
1343 2012-01-23 16:43:47 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1344 2012-01-23 16:43:49 has quit (Clown|!Clown@static-87-79-93-140.netcologne.de|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1345 2012-01-23 16:44:00 has joined
1346 2012-01-23 16:45:26 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1347 2012-01-23 16:45:33 <CIA-76> bitcoin: various bugfix_shared_boost_test * rca9afa..b985ef bitcoind-personal/src/ (5 files in 3 dirs): (5 commits) http://tinyurl.com/7ljorku
1348 2012-01-23 16:45:57 <luke-jr> ⦠that's actually 1 commit -.-
1349 2012-01-23 16:46:10 iocor has joined
1350 2012-01-23 16:47:14 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened pull request 777 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/777>
1351 2012-01-23 16:48:29 terrytibbs has joined
1352 2012-01-23 16:50:14 ovidiusoft2 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1353 2012-01-23 16:50:24 nhodges has joined
1354 2012-01-23 16:50:46 <gmaxwell> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/686 < missed its target, it should be revised for a (much?) later date or closed.
1355 2012-01-23 16:50:55 <gmaxwell> (thats the testnet difficulty change)
1356 2012-01-23 16:51:25 <gmaxwell> FWIW, there is now some psychoscamcoin with a fixed very low difficulty. Their expirences might be informative for us.
1357 2012-01-23 16:51:33 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1358 2012-01-23 16:51:43 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60026
1359 2012-01-23 16:52:17 <gmaxwell> (I call it psycho because of the very small fixed difficulty, and scam because they're pretty explicit the the chain exists purely for "speculation")
1360 2012-01-23 16:52:23 kobier has joined
1361 2012-01-23 16:53:08 <josephcp> that is insane
1362 2012-01-23 16:53:09 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: RE: pull 686 : yep, I have too much on my plate. Need somebody to be Mr. TestNet ....
1363 2012-01-23 16:53:42 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: can you pull 777 real quick so I can keep working? :P
1364 2012-01-23 16:56:30 <roconnor> josephcp: w
1365 2012-01-23 16:56:31 <roconnor> 28187644882
1366 2012-01-23 16:56:33 <roconnor> MainFrameRepaint
1367 2012-01-23 16:56:34 ovidiusoft2 has joined
1368 2012-01-23 16:56:35 <roconnor> ah oops
1369 2012-01-23 16:56:41 <roconnor> josephcp: why is it insane?
1370 2012-01-23 16:57:31 <nathan7> ..someone explain to me why a liquidcoin would ever have value?
1371 2012-01-23 16:57:32 <josephcp> small fixed difficulty + block reduction of 4% every 1000 blocks
1372 2012-01-23 16:58:17 <josephcp> it's designed to run out of coins as fast as possible
1373 2012-01-23 16:58:41 CryptoX has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1374 2012-01-23 16:59:05 <roconnor> designed to distrubute coins as fast as possible
1375 2012-01-23 16:59:07 <josephcp> and you can't build an honest chain with a small fixed difficulty
1376 2012-01-23 16:59:16 <josephcp> distribute, that's more accurate yeah
1377 2012-01-23 16:59:44 <roconnor> josephcp: I don't see why you can't build an honest chain
1378 2012-01-23 16:59:52 <gmaxwell> roconnor: unbounded bloat, for one. I could personally add something like 60 megabytes/day to that chain.
1379 2012-01-23 17:00:12 <josephcp> you probably only need a small fraction of total capacity if you're only signing your own blocks
1380 2012-01-23 17:00:23 <josephcp> because it won't propogate fast enough
1381 2012-01-23 17:00:38 <gmaxwell> josephcp: it doesn't run 'out' though because it fixes the minimum reward.
1382 2012-01-23 17:00:41 Clown- has joined
1383 2012-01-23 17:00:47 <josephcp> yeah i noticed that
1384 2012-01-23 17:01:07 <josephcp> i like how it says that it's designed for speculation only
1385 2012-01-23 17:01:25 <josephcp> there's something charmingly honest about that
1386 2012-01-23 17:01:26 <josephcp> lol
1387 2012-01-23 17:01:41 has quit (Clown|!Clown@static-87-79-93-140.netcologne.de|Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1388 2012-01-23 17:01:55 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1389 2012-01-23 17:02:39 paraipan has joined
1390 2012-01-23 17:04:32 semb has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1391 2012-01-23 17:05:12 Turingi has joined
1392 2012-01-23 17:06:58 <gmaxwell> In any caseâ its an example of a kind of policy that could be used for testnet.
1393 2012-01-23 17:07:14 <gmaxwell> But I doubt anyone technically competent is actually paying attention to how it's working out.
1394 2012-01-23 17:10:19 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1395 2012-01-23 17:10:45 <josephcp> the ultimate troll would be to pre-cpu mine in a cluster for months and then orphan out all the previous transactions
1396 2012-01-23 17:11:06 <josephcp> fixed low difficulty makes it easy to calculate when to pull the trigger
1397 2012-01-23 17:11:42 <josephcp> previous blocks i mean
1398 2012-01-23 17:12:49 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: gavinandresen opened pull request 778 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/778>
1399 2012-01-23 17:16:43 Joric has joined
1400 2012-01-23 17:17:25 Joric has quit (Client Quit)
1401 2012-01-23 17:17:32 ovidiusoft2 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1402 2012-01-23 17:22:10 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * rdc77dce / src/bitcoinrpc.cpp : Fixed addmultisigaddress if looking up public keys from locked wallets. - http://git.io/L7BLJA https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/dc77dce07cd1f528b7bd2b4c9594cd4647866b08
1403 2012-01-23 17:23:29 theorbtwo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1404 2012-01-23 17:24:07 theorbtwo has joined
1405 2012-01-23 17:25:21 Cablesaurus has joined
1406 2012-01-23 17:25:21 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
1407 2012-01-23 17:25:21 Cablesaurus has joined
1408 2012-01-23 17:29:00 <roconnor> josephcp: doesn't that require more than 50% of the hashing power?
1409 2012-01-23 17:29:25 <roconnor> josephcp: or you do mean pre-mining before releasing the genesis block?
1410 2012-01-23 17:29:29 BlueMatt has joined
1411 2012-01-23 17:31:02 <josephcp> pre-mining
1412 2012-01-23 17:31:17 <josephcp> if you had a big mining cluster already it'd be easy because this is CPU
1413 2012-01-23 17:31:45 Joric has joined
1414 2012-01-23 17:31:53 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: the only thing I'm seeing in bitcoinrpc.cpp is multisig/P2SH-related, not BIP16-specific⦠what did you have in mind?
1415 2012-01-23 17:32:12 <josephcp> the way it's organized has a lot of orphan blocks, so you only need a fraction of the mining power
1416 2012-01-23 17:34:28 <BlueMatt> josephcp: what are you claiming?
1417 2012-01-23 17:34:33 ovidiusoft has joined
1418 2012-01-23 17:34:46 <josephcp> BlueMatt: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60026
1419 2012-01-23 17:35:28 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr remove_bip16 * ra1fa59ac44da bitcoind-personal/src/ (9 files in 2 dirs): Remove BIP 16 P2SH support http://tinyurl.com/83c2fyb
1420 2012-01-23 17:35:44 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I had in mind the general notion of a p2sh address. Seems to me the split right now isn't BIP 16 versus 17, it is "Do just raw CHECKMULTISIG now and wait some undetermined length of time for a p2sh solution" versus BIP 16. But maybe I'm biased.
1421 2012-01-23 17:36:34 <BlueMatt> josephcp: so whats the point?
1422 2012-01-23 17:38:44 JRWR has quit (Quit: "If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable." ~Louis D. Brandeis)
1423 2012-01-23 17:39:02 <josephcp> BlueMatt: ??? what's the point regarding what
1424 2012-01-23 17:40:51 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: the delay for P2SH is IMO so that BIP 17 or some unknown better solution can be found. I'm focusing on BIP 17 for now. but you may have a good point; perhaps the SetScriptHash160 should become a generic SetReceiptScript and have that decide whether to hash it or not
1425 2012-01-23 17:40:57 pusle has joined
1426 2012-01-23 17:41:14 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: out of curiosity, if you had it your way, how far off would 0.6 be?
1427 2012-01-23 17:41:42 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1428 2012-01-23 17:41:51 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: I'd like to get a 0.6 release candidate 1 out sometime next week
1429 2012-01-23 17:41:56 <BlueMatt> josephcp: yet another altcoin, at this point altcoins are popping up for no reason, does this one have a reason?
1430 2012-01-23 17:42:11 <sipa> gavinandresen: what do you think about enabling relaying ipv6 addresses (*not* storing them) before actually enabling ipv6 connections?
1431 2012-01-23 17:42:17 torsthaldo has joined
1432 2012-01-23 17:42:18 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: for the love of god can I get some testing on #593 then?
1433 2012-01-23 17:42:30 * BlueMatt continues to offer 1 BTC for anyone who ACKs 593
1434 2012-01-23 17:42:43 <gavinandresen> sipa: I dunno... networking is my weak spot
1435 2012-01-23 17:42:55 <josephcp> scamcoins gonna scam, the way it was designed just looks easy to pre-mine for a blockchain attack
1436 2012-01-23 17:43:06 <luke-jr> sipa: why not connect too?
1437 2012-01-23 17:43:24 <BlueMatt> josephcp: oh, fixed diff ouch...
1438 2012-01-23 17:43:25 <luke-jr> I mean, worst case they're not relayedâ¦
1439 2012-01-23 17:43:26 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: 593 doesn't work on Mac, right?
1440 2012-01-23 17:43:33 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: true(ish)
1441 2012-01-23 17:43:39 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: but then neither do a couple other things
1442 2012-01-23 17:43:52 <BlueMatt> (including starting at startup for the exact same reason as on 593)
1443 2012-01-23 17:44:43 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: I thought one of the alt clients said they figured out how to do it on the mac... anyway, it is wumpus' call as to whether to pull that or not
1444 2012-01-23 17:45:04 <BlueMatt> its not impossible, but you have to do some Obj-C coding and I dont even know the first thing about Obj-C
1445 2012-01-23 17:45:06 <sipa> luke-jr: first, i want a proper addr
1446 2012-01-23 17:45:09 <BlueMatt> wumpus: ?
1447 2012-01-23 17:45:26 <gavinandresen> Yes, wumpus, aka Wladimir, aka Mr Bitcoin QT
1448 2012-01-23 17:45:28 <luke-jr> wumpus seems to be busy lately
1449 2012-01-23 17:45:32 <roconnor> what is 593?
1450 2012-01-23 17:45:33 <sipa> addr.dat management before ipv6 is ena bled in releases
1451 2012-01-23 17:45:39 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: that was a ping to wumpus
1452 2012-01-23 17:45:42 <BlueMatt> ;;seen wumpus
1453 2012-01-23 17:45:42 <gribble> wumpus was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 3 hours, 29 minutes, and 45 seconds ago: <wumpus> ThomasV: so you're the electrum maintainer? nice work!
1454 2012-01-23 17:45:49 <gavinandresen> 593 is full bitcoin: URI support, for windows/linux
1455 2012-01-23 17:45:50 <luke-jr> still waiting for coinbaser mergeâ¦
1456 2012-01-23 17:45:51 <BlueMatt> roconnor: bitcoin: uri support in os
1457 2012-01-23 17:46:29 <luke-jr> 8 months now
1458 2012-01-23 17:46:40 <gavinandresen> I don't like coinbaser.
1459 2012-01-23 17:46:57 <BlueMatt> sipa: relaying without storing? so you relay every addr that comes in, allowing for nice ddos?
1460 2012-01-23 17:47:25 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: then don't use it. -.-
1461 2012-01-23 17:47:35 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers.)
1462 2012-01-23 17:47:36 <wumpus> yes, let's merge it soon
1463 2012-01-23 17:47:39 <luke-jr> it has zero effect on people who don't use it
1464 2012-01-23 17:47:59 <wumpus> bluematt's patch I mean... dunno anything about coinbaser
1465 2012-01-23 17:48:03 <BlueMatt> wumpus: 0.6 is coming as soon as the p2sh crap is dealt with...
1466 2012-01-23 17:48:10 <luke-jr> wumpus: don't forget signmessage; lots of people waiting for that
1467 2012-01-23 17:48:13 <BlueMatt> so sooner rather than later ;)
1468 2012-01-23 17:48:23 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: s/lots of people/luke-jr and his users/
1469 2012-01-23 17:48:33 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: not just.
1470 2012-01-23 17:49:14 <BlueMatt> mostly though
1471 2012-01-23 17:49:29 <BlueMatt> (not to say it doesnt have uses, but its uses are rare if you are doing things "right")
1472 2012-01-23 17:50:04 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: if you're just trolling me by refusing to merge it (which seems to be the case considering you already said you were going to months ago), just say so and I'll give up on it
1473 2012-01-23 17:50:09 booo has joined
1474 2012-01-23 17:50:23 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: things changed. I used to support coinbaser, now I don't give a #@$@#$#@
1475 2012-01-23 17:50:26 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: not to mention merging stubs for it
1476 2012-01-23 17:50:56 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I specifically don't like the part of coinbaser that is "run a command" -- the part that is RPC commands to set what goes in the coinbase I'm OK with
1477 2012-01-23 17:51:11 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: your own eloipool software builds coinbases externally, no?
1478 2012-01-23 17:51:28 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: ... although it seems that there aught to be a RPC command to list the stuff that will be put into the coinbase in addition to a command to add stuff to be put in
1479 2012-01-23 17:51:38 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: "run a command" is the best/easiest solution, and again, only affects those using itâ¦
1480 2012-01-23 17:51:49 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: yes
1481 2012-01-23 17:52:03 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: there is
1482 2012-01-23 17:52:05 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: right, so even you are losing your need for coinbaser.
1483 2012-01-23 17:52:08 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1484 2012-01-23 17:52:39 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: people are "losing their need" because bitcoind keeps stalling on supporting it; we're writing and moving to competing software BECAUSE of this
1485 2012-01-23 17:53:06 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: and Eloipool still has quite some ways before I can deploy it live
1486 2012-01-23 17:53:10 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: Nahâ building the coinbase externally is important for performance and control reasons.
1487 2012-01-23 17:53:24 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: there's no reason bitcoind can't perform reasonably
1488 2012-01-23 17:53:40 <gmaxwell> (and coinbaser _doesn't_ fix the tree update performance⦠)
1489 2012-01-23 17:53:57 <luke-jr> and external coinbaser stuff has inherent bugs because it can't lock the transaction state
1490 2012-01-23 17:54:16 <luke-jr> s/transaction/blockchain/
1491 2012-01-23 17:54:28 <jrmithdobbs> that's an easy fix
1492 2012-01-23 17:54:58 <gavinandresen> Any objections to me pulling https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/765
1493 2012-01-23 17:55:26 <gavinandresen> (never store completely bogus transactions as orphans)
1494 2012-01-23 17:55:36 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: why is "I don't like it" a valid reason to stop a merge of something that others need, and has no effect on those who don' you don't have to use?
1495 2012-01-23 17:55:42 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: why is "I don't like it" a valid reason to stop a merge of something that others need, and has no effect on those who don't enable it?
1496 2012-01-23 17:55:45 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I looked at it, and it didn't scare me. But it also wasn't so trivial that I felt like saying anything positive either.
1497 2012-01-23 17:55:55 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: what about tx replacement?
1498 2012-01-23 17:56:01 <BlueMatt> add an IsFinal() and Ill be happy
1499 2012-01-23 17:56:09 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it _does_ have an effect. It's more code we must maintain for a long time and which could have bugs.
1500 2012-01-23 17:56:11 <BlueMatt> (which ruins the point)
1501 2012-01-23 17:56:21 lyspooner has joined
1502 2012-01-23 17:56:37 lyspooner has quit (Changing host)
1503 2012-01-23 17:56:37 lyspooner has joined
1504 2012-01-23 17:56:47 <roconnor> luke-jr: why do you need coinbaser on the peer network?
1505 2012-01-23 17:56:51 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: when we support tx replacement then we'll test/revisit. I don't believe in coding for "what if"
1506 2012-01-23 17:56:58 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it cannot have bugs affecting people who don't use it, because it's all wrapped in an if()
1507 2012-01-23 17:57:13 <luke-jr> roconnor: what?
1508 2012-01-23 17:57:19 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: ok, but can you add a comment that says // Check this stuff when/if tx replacement is enabled ?
1509 2012-01-23 17:57:30 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: sure
1510 2012-01-23 17:57:32 <roconnor> luke-jr: or rather, why don't people who want coinbaser just grab it from your fork?
1511 2012-01-23 17:57:35 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: we're still libel to maintain the software for those who do.. and "cannot have bugs affecting people who don't use it" is famous last words. :)
1512 2012-01-23 17:57:41 <luke-jr> roconnor: because I don't want to maintain a fork.
1513 2012-01-23 17:57:57 <gmaxwell> roconnor: luke's desire to get stuff merged is a reasonable one...
1514 2012-01-23 17:58:10 <gmaxwell> but for functionality that ~only he will use, and which he won't even be using forever.... Meh.
1515 2012-01-23 17:58:24 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: less maintenance if merged, than if not merged.
1516 2012-01-23 17:58:34 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I'm not the only one using it.
1517 2012-01-23 17:58:47 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you'll probably only ever do one bitcoin update where you need this feature.. a move to .6 ... after that you'll do it externally.
1518 2012-01-23 17:58:54 <roconnor> if there was a patch to an OSS project that only I want, I wouldn't expect it to be merged.
1519 2012-01-23 17:59:06 <gmaxwell> roconnor: at one point in time more people wanted it, times changed.
1520 2012-01-23 17:59:13 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: the goal is to improve bitcoind here, not provide it for my own use.
1521 2012-01-23 17:59:27 <gmaxwell> Luke argues that they changed because it wasn't merged, but I don't think thats true. (it's not true for me at least)
1522 2012-01-23 17:59:37 <roconnor> but I guess I kinda think people should be forking software more often.
1523 2012-01-23 17:59:52 <luke-jr> roconnor: forks are bad, generally.
1524 2012-01-23 18:00:01 <gmaxwell> roconnor: pools are mostly operating really old bitcoins due to the cost of forward porting their hacks. This isn't a great thing.
1525 2012-01-23 18:00:04 <luke-jr> it means the original software is mismanaged.
1526 2012-01-23 18:01:03 <gmaxwell> At least luke publishs his code and tries to get it upstream. Other pool operators keep their changes private. We should reward luke's behavior by leaning towards including itâ but, even with that bias I think coinbaser isn't clearly over the line anymore.
1527 2012-01-23 18:01:42 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1528 2012-01-23 18:01:55 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: what's the external thing you keep referencing for .6?
1529 2012-01-23 18:02:04 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: coinbaser is needed so long as bitcoind has getwork as a desired feature.
1530 2012-01-23 18:02:05 epscy-aka-satosh is now known as epscy
1531 2012-01-23 18:02:25 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: basically, using some other software INSTEAD of bitcoind to make work
1532 2012-01-23 18:02:26 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1533 2012-01-23 18:02:33 <luke-jr> ie, abandoning bitcoind
1534 2012-01-23 18:02:49 <jrmithdobbs> well if that's the plan then coinbaser is now irrelevent
1535 2012-01-23 18:02:53 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: getmemorypool allows 'pool' software to just make the coinbases itself.
1536 2012-01-23 18:03:02 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/149f580c82922a3b79e4e7fd6ed85adcc0522d91#L0R929
1537 2012-01-23 18:03:21 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: it should have been merged back last july when you originally asked though
1538 2012-01-23 18:03:29 <jrmithdobbs> not much point now
1539 2012-01-23 18:03:30 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: this is what poolserverj, p2pool, the erlang thing, and luke's not finished yet python poolserver use.
1540 2012-01-23 18:03:47 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/765#issuecomment-3618479
1541 2012-01-23 18:04:02 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: people still want to use bitcoind for mining
1542 2012-01-23 18:04:07 <gmaxwell> Right, I agree we should have merged it in julyâ though I guess retrospectively I'm glad we didn't.
1543 2012-01-23 18:04:09 <jrmithdobbs> w/e bnc box needs to reboot. fuckin linux maintainers need to stop turning on writing to /proc/pid/mem
1544 2012-01-23 18:04:12 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: if not, getwork should be deprecated entirely
1545 2012-01-23 18:04:18 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r149f580 / (src/main.cpp src/main.h): Only store transactions with missing inputs in the orphan pool. ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/149f580c82922a3b79e4e7fd6ed85adcc0522d91
1546 2012-01-23 18:04:19 <jrmithdobbs> learn the lesson already damn it
1547 2012-01-23 18:04:33 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: and if not for testnet I'd consider submitting a patch to remove getwork.
1548 2012-01-23 18:04:47 <gmaxwell> (you could actually remove a lot of code along with thatâ¦)
1549 2012-01-23 18:05:00 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r5e437f0 / doc/release-process.txt : Merge pull request #764 from luke-jr/update_release_process ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/5e437f05c7e397b79445c84d8d2106f3a66844e4
1550 2012-01-23 18:05:49 <luke-jr> so the decision should be made: is mining a desired feature for bitcoind? if not, deprecate getwork; if so, start merging stuff to make it usable
1551 2012-01-23 18:05:50 <gavinandresen> I'd be ok with deprecating getwork. But only after getting consensus among the mining software folks...
1552 2012-01-23 18:06:04 <luke-jr> ie, coinbaser and JK's optimizations
1553 2012-01-23 18:06:20 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I bet the solo miners will have a problem with it
1554 2012-01-23 18:06:32 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: solo miners can't use stock bitcoin already.
1555 2012-01-23 18:06:37 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: oh?
1556 2012-01-23 18:06:46 <gmaxwell> RPC blocking makes it start to fall over with about 2-3 GH or so.
1557 2012-01-23 18:07:03 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: well, that's fixed by merging the stuff I mentioned are neededâ¦
1558 2012-01-23 18:07:34 _Fireball has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1559 2012-01-23 18:07:41 <luke-jr> next-test performs over 2 times better
1560 2012-01-23 18:07:46 <gavinandresen> RE: solo miners: I like TD's idea of bundling p2pool with the client.
1561 2012-01-23 18:07:55 <BlueMatt> p2pool ftw
1562 2012-01-23 18:07:59 <BlueMatt> all other pools should die
1563 2012-01-23 18:08:03 <gavinandresen> (assuming there's a p2pool that doesn't have all the extra dependencies)
1564 2012-01-23 18:08:07 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: p2pool isn't solo, and not very user friendly
1565 2012-01-23 18:08:18 _Fireball has joined
1566 2012-01-23 18:08:19 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: p2pool doesn't compete with pools as much as it competes with solo mining
1567 2012-01-23 18:08:25 <gmaxwell> Just p2pool with no peers. Tada. solo. ;)
1568 2012-01-23 18:08:27 jrmithdobbs has quit (Quit: quit)
1569 2012-01-23 18:08:28 <BlueMatt> how so?
1570 2012-01-23 18:08:32 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: p2pool can't scale
1571 2012-01-23 18:08:43 <BlueMatt> how so?
1572 2012-01-23 18:08:43 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: nor can it reduce variance significantly
1573 2012-01-23 18:08:47 <gavinandresen> ... so p2pool00 through p2pool99 ....
1574 2012-01-23 18:08:55 <gavinandresen> (IRC couldn't scale, either)
1575 2012-01-23 18:08:56 <gmaxwell> p2pool can't provide pps, and it can't provide very low variance for solo miners.
1576 2012-01-23 18:09:02 <gmaxwell> s/solo/slow/
1577 2012-01-23 18:09:07 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: 50k slow miners will still never find a block :P
1578 2012-01-23 18:09:12 <BlueMatt> how many tiny miners are there?
1579 2012-01-23 18:09:18 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: don't fud, it does reduce variance significantly.
1580 2012-01-23 18:09:22 <BlueMatt> well then use p2pool for significant miners
1581 2012-01-23 18:09:28 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: significant for solo miners, not for the people using pools
1582 2012-01-23 18:09:31 <BlueMatt> and let all the cpu miners use a pool
1583 2012-01-23 18:09:39 <BlueMatt> (isnt that what pools were for to begin with anyway?)
1584 2012-01-23 18:09:59 <gmaxwell> right, what BlueMatt says.
1585 2012-01-23 18:10:10 <luke-jr> then the CPU miners will never get anything ;)
1586 2012-01-23 18:10:38 <BlueMatt> so let them mine on a pool and let the pool die
1587 2012-01-23 18:10:40 <BlueMatt> problem solved
1588 2012-01-23 18:10:42 <luke-jr> anyhow, even with my FPGAs, I'd prefer to avoid p2pool
1589 2012-01-23 18:10:53 <BlueMatt> (because it hurts your business)
1590 2012-01-23 18:10:54 <luke-jr> not enough hashpower
1591 2012-01-23 18:11:11 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I don't make any money from Eligius
1592 2012-01-23 18:11:32 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: at worst p2pool provides the variance of bitcoin with 3.3 second blocks (10 second shares * 3x PPLNS).
1593 2012-01-23 18:11:37 <gavinandresen> I tried p2pool for the first time a couple of weeks ago, and it worked nicely for me (with my measly single, slow GPU)
1594 2012-01-23 18:12:05 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: doesn't that 3x PPLNS size drop as it grows?
1595 2012-01-23 18:12:25 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it's 24h now, 3x PPLNS is the long term plan IIRC.
1596 2012-01-23 18:12:30 cronopio has joined
1597 2012-01-23 18:12:52 <gmaxwell> (it's more like 1.1x PPLNS at the moment)
1598 2012-01-23 18:14:10 <luke-jr> ;;bc,calc 300000
1599 2012-01-23 18:14:11 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 300000 Khps, given current difficulty of 1307728.3606041 , is 30 weeks, 6 days, 16 hours, 36 minutes, and 8 seconds
1600 2012-01-23 18:14:50 <roconnor> ;;bc,calc 1100
1601 2012-01-23 18:14:51 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1100 Khps, given current difficulty of 1307728.3606041 , is 161 years, 47 weeks, 3 days, 18 hours, 5 minutes, and 46 seconds
1602 2012-01-23 18:14:57 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: what was p2pool diff right now?
1603 2012-01-23 18:16:00 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: in any case, which variant of p2pool would you bundle? forrestv's original one? or one of the inevitable forks spawned because they prefer different rules? :p
1604 2012-01-23 18:16:12 <luke-jr> I don't see any real reason to give up on bitcoind supporting mining just yet
1605 2012-01-23 18:17:03 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: no idea, it no longer logs it. but just figure out what it would be for some share of the bitcoin pie. If one p2pool is 25% of the hashrate the p2pool diff would be 1:240th bitcoin's.
1606 2012-01-23 18:17:45 jrmithdobbs has joined
1607 2012-01-23 18:17:45 <gavinandresen> I've said before I think bitcoind tries to be too many things all at once, and specialization is not only inevitable, but a good idea
1608 2012-01-23 18:18:22 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I'd assume that there will eventually be a low dependency C/C++ p2pool implementation (perhaps without some of the management frills of forest's version)
1609 2012-01-23 18:18:32 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: there isn't now.
1610 2012-01-23 18:18:37 <gmaxwell> but not until after p2pool matures.
1611 2012-01-23 18:18:53 <gmaxwell> No, it's still too much of a moving target to worry about a second implementation. And thats fine.
1612 2012-01-23 18:18:57 <luke-jr> so we just stop maintaining solo mining in the meantime?
1613 2012-01-23 18:19:10 <sipa> BlueMatt: relay according to the same rules there are now
1614 2012-01-23 18:19:26 <luke-jr> I don't see how coinbaser + optimizations prevent deprecating mining in the future when p2pool is mature
1615 2012-01-23 18:19:28 <sipa> BlueMatt: but you're right, maybe at least keep a map of what has been forwarded already
1616 2012-01-23 18:19:32 <sipa> BlueMatt: meh
1617 2012-01-23 18:20:16 <sipa> gmaxwell: what's your opinion about enabling relaying of ipv6 addresses before adding actual ipv6 support
1618 2012-01-23 18:20:18 <BlueMatt> sipa: not worth doing imo, I would say you can easily do the forwarding if you store them as well (in an updated addr.dat stuff)
1619 2012-01-23 18:20:21 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * rb8056dc / src/main.cpp : Merge branch 'bugfix_areinpstd' of https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin - http://git.io/_N6W2w https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/b8056dc5d0b10ca31998ef9bd6b4702f47374ae2
1620 2012-01-23 18:20:21 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r9ef5979 / doc/release-process.txt : Merge branch 'master' of github.com:bitcoin/bitcoin - http://git.io/bg5xeA https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9ef59797afa44957be716f8830c23f587e490945
1621 2012-01-23 18:20:30 <BlueMatt> (even before connection support)
1622 2012-01-23 18:22:35 <luke-jr> even if mining is removed in 0.7, it would be nice to tell people who want to run a pool they can just use the latest stable 0.6 release
1623 2012-01-23 18:23:21 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * ra702cea / src/util.cpp : Merge branch 'lockcontention' of https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin - http://git.io/67cBFA https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a702ceaafca55ab665058eae57c1a5a40921b866
1624 2012-01-23 18:24:17 <luke-jr> and since it looks like I'm the only one maintaining the stable versions, that shouldn't be a burden to anyone else
1625 2012-01-23 18:24:21 <gmaxwell> I think what BlueMatt said... if we really can't make the next release with v6 support, then maybe I guess.
1626 2012-01-23 18:25:12 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: what does v6 support have to do with any of this? :P
1627 2012-01-23 18:25:25 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I'm responding to sipa.
1628 2012-01-23 18:25:31 <luke-jr> oh
1629 2012-01-23 18:25:43 <luke-jr> missed that somehow
1630 2012-01-23 18:26:11 <luke-jr> also missed the reason why 0.6 can't wait for IPv6
1631 2012-01-23 18:26:28 <luke-jr> highly unlikely we'll have a RC in a week anyway
1632 2012-01-23 18:26:44 <gmaxwell> sipa: if we're going to move to mostly forwarding nodes we've actually connected⦠without v6 support you can't test v6 nodes.
1633 2012-01-23 18:27:10 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1634 2012-01-23 18:27:16 <sipa> gmaxwell: true, but if the network at least relays, then you can use ipv6 the second an ipv6-enabled client is released
1635 2012-01-23 18:27:26 hexTech has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1636 2012-01-23 18:28:02 <gmaxwell> looks like someone just choked on the compressed public key (see dev list)
1637 2012-01-23 18:28:17 hexTech has joined
1638 2012-01-23 18:28:17 <gmaxwell> sipa: you still can, via AAAA from dnsseed and v6 seenodes.
1639 2012-01-23 18:28:20 <gmaxwell> er seednodes.
1640 2012-01-23 18:28:30 <gmaxwell> and the peers you reach via v6 will all relay v6.
1641 2012-01-23 18:28:33 <sipa> gmaxwell: that is no compressed pubkey
1642 2012-01-23 18:28:33 JRWR has joined
1643 2012-01-23 18:28:47 <gmaxwell> oh. yea, it's a bit long.
1644 2012-01-23 18:30:16 <sipa> anyway, probably indeed best to get addrman finished soon; maybe if it gets enough testing in between, it can maybe make 0.6 still
1645 2012-01-23 18:31:21 Cablesaurus has joined
1646 2012-01-23 18:31:21 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
1647 2012-01-23 18:31:21 Cablesaurus has joined
1648 2012-01-23 18:31:42 <jgarzik> sipa: anybody have an informal ipv6 checklist floating about?
1649 2012-01-23 18:31:57 <gmaxwell> sipa: for DOS resistance I think it would be best to only relay your own v6 address unless you've heard a v6 address from the peer.
1650 2012-01-23 18:32:08 <jgarzik> being sane about dual-stack seems to remain a to-do
1651 2012-01-23 18:32:32 <sipa> jgarzik: i already had a fully functional ipv6 branch before
1652 2012-01-23 18:32:53 user__ has joined
1653 2012-01-23 18:32:55 <jgarzik> sipa: how did you solve dual stack (one client, two parallel network addresses)?
1654 2012-01-23 18:33:12 <sipa> jgarzik: turned addrLocalhost into a vector
1655 2012-01-23 18:33:35 <jrmithdobbs> should be done anyways for multihomed hosts
1656 2012-01-23 18:33:36 <sipa> and depending on a peers source, select the most 'compatible'one
1657 2012-01-23 18:33:48 * jgarzik was thinking about larger issues, such as the potential for two hosts to connect twice to each other and not know it
1658 2012-01-23 18:34:05 <sipa> jgarzik: nice one, didn't think about that
1659 2012-01-23 18:34:11 <sipa> nodes have unique id's
1660 2012-01-23 18:34:27 <sipa> well, not really unqiue, but at least randomly generated
1661 2012-01-23 18:34:37 <sipa> you could use that as a filter to prevent double connections
1662 2012-01-23 18:34:40 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: that's already a problem on multihomed ipv4 nodes now :(
1663 2012-01-23 18:34:46 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: yes
1664 2012-01-23 18:34:58 <jgarzik> though with bitcoin, we must think about the implications of dual-stack being used as an attack vector
1665 2012-01-23 18:35:12 <jrmithdobbs> aye
1666 2012-01-23 18:35:52 <gmaxwell> We should probably revise the normalization code so that it converts toredo and 6to4 into IPv4 addresses for the duplicity check, but thats about all we can reasonable do.
1667 2012-01-23 18:36:41 <sipa> gmaxwell: already done
1668 2012-01-23 18:36:46 <gmaxwell> good.
1669 2012-01-23 18:36:59 <sipa> see CNetAddr::GetGroup() in netbase.h
1670 2012-01-23 18:37:13 d4de has joined
1671 2012-01-23 18:37:53 denisx has joined
1672 2012-01-23 18:38:09 <gmaxwell> What we could just do is try to have 8 v4 connections if we use v4 at all. Then we're not worse off.
1673 2012-01-23 18:38:54 torsthaldo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1674 2012-01-23 18:38:58 <jgarzik> my little one just starting counting today (big day!). I wonder if I should teach her Tonal
1675 2012-01-23 18:39:18 <BlueMatt> haha
1676 2012-01-23 18:39:24 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: congrats
1677 2012-01-23 18:39:53 <luke-jr> jgarzik: of course
1678 2012-01-23 18:40:06 <luke-jr> my children all know tonal
1679 2012-01-23 18:40:27 <helo> days of the week > tonal
1680 2012-01-23 18:40:30 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: You should! math in other bases was considered good education policy at one point (e.g. see "The New Math" by Tom Lehrer) but it blew up too many parents I think. :)
1681 2012-01-23 18:40:34 rdponticelli has joined
1682 2012-01-23 18:40:34 <lianj> jgarzik: in binary?
1683 2012-01-23 18:40:53 <luke-jr> helo: days of the week are the same for tonal
1684 2012-01-23 18:40:54 <lyspooner> luke-jr all ti of your kids?
1685 2012-01-23 18:41:13 <luke-jr> lyspooner: all go
1686 2012-01-23 18:41:27 rdponticelli_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1687 2012-01-23 18:41:28 TD has joined
1688 2012-01-23 18:41:28 <luke-jr> ok fine, not all go know numbers yet <.<
1689 2012-01-23 18:41:28 <helo> i meant "teach your kid the days of the week before tonal"
1690 2012-01-23 18:41:31 <luke-jr> just de
1691 2012-01-23 18:45:08 yorick has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1692 2012-01-23 18:45:45 yorick has joined
1693 2012-01-23 18:47:17 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: if your goal is to just leave mining support unmaintained, and drop it when p2pool matures, how does it hurt to let me maintain it in the meantime?
1694 2012-01-23 18:47:39 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: as gmaxwell pointed out, it's already not usable for solo miners as-is right now, and pools also need the same stuff
1695 2012-01-23 18:48:07 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it's perfectly usable for testnet however.
1696 2012-01-23 18:48:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: and maintaining it won't change that
1697 2012-01-23 18:49:15 <helo> good luck when you get a call from your kid's teacher because they were talking about bongs
1698 2012-01-23 18:49:19 <helo> (re tonal)
1699 2012-01-23 18:49:20 <gmaxwell> meh. it really feels like you're just going to whine about this until everyone else is worn out of arguing and just merges it... thats not good policy. :(
1700 2012-01-23 18:49:26 <gmaxwell> helo: hahahahaha
1701 2012-01-23 18:49:53 <helo> "my allowance is 2 bongs each week"
1702 2012-01-23 18:50:08 <BlueMatt> wait, I want that allowance
1703 2012-01-23 18:50:35 <luke-jr> helo: I am my children's teacher.
1704 2012-01-23 18:50:58 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I agree, I shouldn't *have* to. :P
1705 2012-01-23 18:51:17 <luke-jr> helo: "de bitcoins"
1706 2012-01-23 18:51:52 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1707 2012-01-23 18:54:44 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: BlueMatt: what happens if you add TESTDEFS= to the top of makefile.unix?
1708 2012-01-23 18:54:50 wirehead` has joined
1709 2012-01-23 18:55:35 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr checkhashverify_backport * rfe93a8..c46378 bitcoind-personal/ (466 files in 63 dirs): (8 commits) http://tinyurl.com/6qxmv4r
1710 2012-01-23 18:55:41 devrandom has joined
1711 2012-01-23 19:00:09 p0s has joined
1712 2012-01-23 19:00:42 occulta has joined
1713 2012-01-23 19:05:25 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: adding TESTDEFS= at top makes no difference for me.
1714 2012-01-23 19:06:24 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: iirc there is no way to define a variable in a conditional, IIRC I spent like an hour looking at that problem
1715 2012-01-23 19:06:29 <BlueMatt> (when looking at USE_UPNP stuff)
1716 2012-01-23 19:06:47 alexwaters has joined
1717 2012-01-23 19:06:52 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: the makefile already appends to variables inside conditional
1718 2012-01-23 19:07:05 * luke-jr scratches his head
1719 2012-01-23 19:07:14 <sipa> appending inside a conditional certainly works
1720 2012-01-23 19:07:19 <sipa> defining, no idea
1721 2012-01-23 19:07:22 <BlueMatt> appending does, defining doesnt
1722 2012-01-23 19:07:22 alexwaters1 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1723 2012-01-23 19:07:25 <BlueMatt> (or something like that)
1724 2012-01-23 19:07:30 <BlueMatt> I dont remember exactly
1725 2012-01-23 19:07:32 <luke-jr> gavinandresen just tested "only appending" :/
1726 2012-01-23 19:07:40 <luke-jr> actually hmm
1727 2012-01-23 19:07:46 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: TESTDEFS=-DTESTINGONLY
1728 2012-01-23 19:07:52 * luke-jr wonders if it needs a value
1729 2012-01-23 19:07:58 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: please
1730 2012-01-23 19:10:18 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: ah, the obj/%.o rule is being used, NOT the obj/test/%.o rule
1731 2012-01-23 19:11:07 <luke-jr> crap :/
1732 2012-01-23 19:11:30 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I don't suppose it's acceptable to say "buggy make versions not supported"? :P
1733 2012-01-23 19:11:41 <luke-jr> (or "buggy version? use STATIC=1"
1734 2012-01-23 19:12:07 amiller has quit (Excess Flood)
1735 2012-01-23 19:12:11 <sipa> how is make buggy?
1736 2012-01-23 19:12:23 <luke-jr> sipa: only old versions
1737 2012-01-23 19:12:29 <sipa> ah
1738 2012-01-23 19:12:33 <luke-jr> sipa: apparently part of that is executing the wrong rule here
1739 2012-01-23 19:12:33 <helo> new versions are 100% bug free, finally
1740 2012-01-23 19:12:34 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1741 2012-01-23 19:12:43 <luke-jr> helo: or at least free of this bug ;)
1742 2012-01-23 19:13:04 <gavinandresen> I wonder if we can get rid of the obj/test/%.o rule on all platforms.....
1743 2012-01-23 19:13:06 <sipa> at least apparently
1744 2012-01-23 19:13:17 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: it's used on non-buggy makes :p
1745 2012-01-23 19:13:27 * luke-jr will test if it works without in a min
1746 2012-01-23 19:13:53 amiller has joined
1747 2012-01-23 19:14:31 BlueMatt has joined
1748 2012-01-23 19:14:34 <gavinandresen> Removing obj/test/%.o rule works for makefile.osx on my mac.
1749 2012-01-23 19:15:30 <BlueMatt> devrandom: feature request: side output (ie debug symbols) that gets signed but that can be downloaded separately
1750 2012-01-23 19:19:37 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
1751 2012-01-23 19:21:33 Clown- is now known as |Clown|
1752 2012-01-23 19:22:44 <diki> I've a question about something in the wiki https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Technical_background_of_Bitcoin_addresses
1753 2012-01-23 19:23:15 <diki> it says that generating a sha256 of that public key would result in this 600FFE422B4E00731A59557A5CCA46CC183944191006324A447BDB2D98D4B408
1754 2012-01-23 19:23:29 <diki> I have just for the test, done this, and I didn't get that result
1755 2012-01-23 19:23:38 <diki> perhaps that public key is incorrect?
1756 2012-01-23 19:25:27 <BlueMatt> ;;seen devrandom
1757 2012-01-23 19:25:27 <gribble> devrandom was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 5 days, 16 hours, 37 minutes, and 9 seconds ago: <devrandom> bbl
1758 2012-01-23 19:25:38 <BlueMatt> heh, so much for bbl...
1759 2012-01-23 19:25:46 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: it does seem to "work" here, but doesn't give any way to add TESTDEFS only for test files
1760 2012-01-23 19:26:00 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: to fix old buggy makes, how about putting bitcoind objects back in nogui?
1761 2012-01-23 19:26:12 <luke-jr> or moving obj/test to obj-test
1762 2012-01-23 19:29:32 <gavinandresen> an objtest/ or obj-test/ folder sounds OK to me.
1763 2012-01-23 19:29:51 <gavinandresen> I'd rather not recreate obj/nogui/
1764 2012-01-23 19:30:07 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1765 2012-01-23 19:30:57 <gavinandresen> No harm in -DBOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK in CFLAGS, either, although sooner or later we'll probably want separate flags when compiling test_bitcoin
1766 2012-01-23 19:31:28 <BlueMatt> you could throw it in the $(CXX) ... line, its ugly, but works...
1767 2012-01-23 19:32:55 alexwaters1 has joined
1768 2012-01-23 19:33:08 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I just figured there was a chance it could make other boost stuff weird
1769 2012-01-23 19:33:22 alexwaters has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1770 2012-01-23 19:33:33 <luke-jr> pushed rename to obj-test onto the branch
1771 2012-01-23 19:34:43 random_cat has joined
1772 2012-01-23 19:35:27 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr bugfix_shared_boost_test * r34c69036dae7 bitcoind-personal/src/ (makefile.unix obj-test/.gitignore): Rename src/obj/test to src/obj-test to workaround bug in older GNU Make http://tinyurl.com/746kdv3
1773 2012-01-23 19:37:48 imsaguy2 is now known as TheDealer
1774 2012-01-23 19:40:21 baz has joined
1775 2012-01-23 19:43:33 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1776 2012-01-23 19:44:27 <TuxBlackEdo> thank you for importprivkey
1777 2012-01-23 19:44:34 <TuxBlackEdo> whoever it was
1778 2012-01-23 19:44:49 <TuxBlackEdo> it sure does take a while though
1779 2012-01-23 19:45:30 BlueMatt has joined
1780 2012-01-23 19:46:39 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1781 2012-01-23 19:46:57 JRWR has quit (Quit: "If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable." ~Louis D. Brandeis)
1782 2012-01-23 19:47:39 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: ping
1783 2012-01-23 19:48:03 <BlueMatt> pong(ish)
1784 2012-01-23 19:48:10 <BlueMatt> luke-jr:
1785 2012-01-23 19:48:39 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: you're building test_bitcoin, right?
1786 2012-01-23 19:48:49 <BlueMatt> yea ofc
1787 2012-01-23 19:49:03 <luke-jr> how did it not build before, and build now, without the define? -.-
1788 2012-01-23 19:49:04 <BlueMatt> ooh, no now it has BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK
1789 2012-01-23 19:49:08 <luke-jr> â¦
1790 2012-01-23 19:49:09 <BlueMatt> nvm
1791 2012-01-23 20:01:20 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1792 2012-01-23 20:01:48 occulta has joined
1793 2012-01-23 20:03:01 b4epoche_ has joined
1794 2012-01-23 20:04:34 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1795 2012-01-23 20:04:35 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1796 2012-01-23 20:05:22 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.)
1797 2012-01-23 20:08:02 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1798 2012-01-23 20:09:41 erle- has joined
1799 2012-01-23 20:10:24 larsivi has joined
1800 2012-01-23 20:10:52 <sipa> TuxBlackEdo: you're welcome
1801 2012-01-23 20:11:06 <TuxBlackEdo> yes...?
1802 2012-01-23 20:11:32 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1803 2012-01-23 20:11:37 JRWR has joined
1804 2012-01-23 20:11:39 sneak has joined
1805 2012-01-23 20:11:39 sneak has quit (Changing host)
1806 2012-01-23 20:11:39 sneak has joined
1807 2012-01-23 20:11:39 * sipa wrote importprivkey
1808 2012-01-23 20:11:55 <TuxBlackEdo> oh nice :)
1809 2012-01-23 20:12:15 <devrandom> hey BlueMatt
1810 2012-01-23 20:13:40 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1811 2012-01-23 20:13:50 <devrandom> BlueMatt: anything that is copied to the output dir gets included in the report and therefore is hashed and covered by the signature
1812 2012-01-23 20:14:37 merde has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1813 2012-01-23 20:15:14 merde has joined
1814 2012-01-23 20:15:34 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr checkhashverify_backport * rf89c2d51410b bitcoind-personal/ (96 files in 24 dirs): Merge commit 'v0.4.0' into checkhashverify_backport http://tinyurl.com/7srrjgo
1815 2012-01-23 20:15:35 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr checkhashverify_backport * rcbbc3d959936 bitcoind-personal/ (297 files in 50 dirs): Merge commit 'v0.5.0' into checkhashverify_backport http://tinyurl.com/6wykf9y
1816 2012-01-23 20:15:36 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr checkhashverify_backport * rd869abae648c bitcoind-personal/ (88 files in 11 dirs): Merge commit 'v0.5.1' into checkhashverify_backport http://tinyurl.com/87kswj2
1817 2012-01-23 20:16:14 <luke-jr> devrandom: I think he meant a separate signature.
1818 2012-01-23 20:16:27 <luke-jr> devrandom: so people don't need the debug symbols to verify the executables
1819 2012-01-23 20:17:57 danbri has joined
1820 2012-01-23 20:18:11 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1821 2012-01-23 20:18:19 <devrandom> luke-jr: there doesn't seem to be a need for a separate signature. people can just verify the hashes for the files that they care about, then verify the signature on the report. only the report is signed, not the actual files.
1822 2012-01-23 20:18:49 Flippy125 has joined
1823 2012-01-23 20:20:08 <devrandom> so copy the executable twice into the output dir, once with syms and once stripped, and distribute the stripped one by default
1824 2012-01-23 20:20:29 <devrandom> you'll have hashes for both in the report
1825 2012-01-23 20:21:20 <devrandom> I suppose that introduces a manual step (remove xyz from zip file before uploading)...
1826 2012-01-23 20:23:32 RazielZ has joined
1827 2012-01-23 20:28:03 JRWR has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1828 2012-01-23 20:28:07 coblee has quit (Quit: coblee)
1829 2012-01-23 20:29:04 coblee has joined
1830 2012-01-23 20:29:29 <luke-jr> devrandom: why not the executable once, and the debug symbols separate? O.o
1831 2012-01-23 20:29:42 <luke-jr> (and we already have that manual step)
1832 2012-01-23 20:35:13 <roconnor> diki: did you get an answer to your question?
1833 2012-01-23 20:35:13 <devrandom> luke-jr: that sounds plausible, I haven't tried working with detached debug syms
1834 2012-01-23 20:37:45 pusle has quit ()
1835 2012-01-23 20:42:06 <helo> would anyone be at all interested in a "neuter wallet" feature, which would create a wallet without (or with garbage for) the private keys, suitable for use on an internet-connected/casually-secure machine?
1836 2012-01-23 20:42:37 <helo> for some values of "use"
1837 2012-01-23 20:42:44 <gmaxwell> helo: they'd just go out of sync...
1838 2012-01-23 20:43:07 <gmaxwell> you can neuter by using crypto and setting the key to some long random string.
1839 2012-01-23 20:43:29 <helo> heh, yeah i guess that would be effectively the same
1840 2012-01-23 20:44:56 <helo> for any random sequence in the encrypted privkey area, there is possibly some passphrase that transforms it into a given key
1841 2012-01-23 20:45:03 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1842 2012-01-23 20:45:42 paraipan has joined
1843 2012-01-23 20:46:24 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr checkhashverify * r56dbe07a1f02 bitcoind-personal/src/ (6 files in 2 dirs): Merge branch 'checkhashverify_backport' into checkhashverify http://tinyurl.com/829trva
1844 2012-01-23 20:51:32 Zarutian has joined
1845 2012-01-23 20:57:07 BlueMatt has joined
1846 2012-01-23 21:00:55 wirehead` has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1847 2012-01-23 21:02:31 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1848 2012-01-23 21:04:02 paraipan has joined
1849 2012-01-23 21:05:34 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr remove_bip16 * rfebde31fbd92 bitcoind-personal/src/ (9 files in 2 dirs): Remove BIP 16 P2SH support http://tinyurl.com/786sapx
1850 2012-01-23 21:05:43 <luke-jr> helo: best to implement deterministic keys
1851 2012-01-23 21:06:20 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r2a9b46c / (src/makefile.unix src/obj-test/.gitignore): Merge branch 'bugfix_shared_boost_test' of https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin - http://git.io/lx8SIw https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/2a9b46cf4b93494c487f0a44bf0f8c08fb2bd1b8
1852 2012-01-23 21:06:21 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r3415195 / src/makefile.osx : Support makefile.osx building test_bitcoin with dynamic boost - http://git.io/lBF9NA https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/341519523f2144349a920efee32ebf0dab74e7ac
1853 2012-01-23 21:06:23 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr master * r34c6903 / (src/makefile.unix src/obj-test/.gitignore): Rename src/obj/test to src/obj-test to workaround bug in older GNU Make - http://git.io/HbzxPg https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/34c69036dae7b4be100100cc99eb1dbe32fe1bef
1854 2012-01-23 21:07:06 <luke-jr> testnet miners accept non-std txns, right?
1855 2012-01-23 21:07:21 <gmaxwell> right.
1856 2012-01-23 21:09:46 <luke-jr> http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/tx/6ac20a9a6e53c53f13b4b3e2c17b259faab4b788dff089ca2b98ef14535e66d0
1857 2012-01-23 21:09:47 <luke-jr> there we go
1858 2012-01-23 21:10:35 <helo> deterministic keys... cool idea
1859 2012-01-23 21:11:15 <TD> hmm
1860 2012-01-23 21:14:55 cronopio has quit (Quit: leaving)
1861 2012-01-23 21:17:46 <helo> if only there was some large chunk of persistent randomish data that a restorable seed could be selected from
1862 2012-01-23 21:18:09 <gmaxwell> ...
1863 2012-01-23 21:18:12 <gmaxwell> helo: just save one.
1864 2012-01-23 21:19:01 <helo> it would be fun to select something (or group of somethings) in the blockchain
1865 2012-01-23 21:19:14 <gmaxwell> ... No, that would be stupid.
1866 2012-01-23 21:19:43 <gmaxwell> If you want to be completely insecure just use nothing. Using data available to everyone is the same as using nothing.
1867 2012-01-23 21:20:18 <gmaxwell> (and if you're using an index into public dataâ just use the index, as you'd be no more secure than the index)
1868 2012-01-23 21:20:23 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1869 2012-01-23 21:20:39 <gmaxwell> helo: the sane thing to do is to just have 256 bits or so of ActuallyRandom⢠data. Done.
1870 2012-01-23 21:20:54 <TD> is namecoin dead?
1871 2012-01-23 21:21:06 <luke-jr> TD: no
1872 2012-01-23 21:21:13 <TD> it seems the git repositories did not change for months
1873 2012-01-23 21:21:36 <gmaxwell> that was also true before it got merged mining. ::shrugs::
1874 2012-01-23 21:21:52 <luke-jr> heh
1875 2012-01-23 21:22:04 <helo> if my birthday is 5-27-91, and i select the first pubkey from the last transaction in blocks 5, 37, and 91, concatenate them, and sha them twice for the seed, that's just as secure as just using 5-27-91 for the seed?
1876 2012-01-23 21:22:21 <TD> i was wondering if it was going to support heirarchical namespaces anytime soon
1877 2012-01-23 21:22:31 <helo> i realize this isn't how good security is done...
1878 2012-01-23 21:22:54 <gmaxwell> helo: correct. (presuming that the software faciltitates extracting transactions for this purpose.. I'd just try all of them and all mixtures)
1879 2012-01-23 21:23:21 <gmaxwell> helo: if you want to cook up some private scheme, it has whatever security the entropy of the space of all such schemes has, ... which might be enough but its very hard to reason about.
1880 2012-01-23 21:23:41 <gmaxwell> helo: much better to use just a block of real random data, and then its very easy to reason about.
1881 2012-01-23 21:23:49 <roconnor> helo: to determine how secure generation is you need to count the size of the pool of candidate keys that your adversary will try.
1882 2012-01-23 21:24:25 <luke-jr> first there was password, then passphrases
1883 2012-01-23 21:24:26 <helo> i'm assuming one does not have the leisure of memorizing a long random seed to create a proper deterministic wallet
1884 2012-01-23 21:24:28 <roconnor> or more precisely the probabilty that an attacker will try a particular key.
1885 2012-01-23 21:24:30 iocor has joined
1886 2012-01-23 21:24:31 <luke-jr> next: pass-algorithms!
1887 2012-01-23 21:24:41 <luke-jr> someone make a GUI for build-your-own-algorithm
1888 2012-01-23 21:24:44 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1889 2012-01-23 21:24:54 <luke-jr> helo: no, but it will allow you to backup reasonably
1890 2012-01-23 21:25:25 <roconnor> helo: there are methods for taking arbitrary passphrases and extending them int private keys.
1891 2012-01-23 21:25:31 <roconnor> helo: you should use a method like that.
1892 2012-01-23 21:25:32 <gmaxwell> helo: why are you presuming memorization? thats silly and orthorgonal. But even if you insist, you can memorize a 128 bit secret pretty easily.. just 12 easily remembered random words.
1893 2012-01-23 21:25:33 <helo> luke-jr: we can call it visual studio!
1894 2012-01-23 21:25:49 tower is now known as abtower
1895 2012-01-23 21:26:05 <luke-jr> helo: VS does NOT let you drag and drop algos
1896 2012-01-23 21:26:13 <gmaxwell> roconnor: you really should not do that, user provided passphrases have very low entropy even if you give the user good advice.
1897 2012-01-23 21:26:29 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: what if you took the passphrase, and interpreted every 4 bits as a hash algorithm?
1898 2012-01-23 21:26:42 <roconnor> helo: and you should use diceware to pick your passphrase.
1899 2012-01-23 21:26:48 <gmaxwell> roconnor: there you go.
1900 2012-01-23 21:26:52 <luke-jr> so split it in two pieces
1901 2012-01-23 21:27:03 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it doesn't matter. All that maters is the entropy of the selection space.
1902 2012-01-23 21:27:04 <luke-jr> second half of the password determines hash algorithms to run
1903 2012-01-23 21:27:06 <helo> i just pwgen -sy
1904 2012-01-23 21:27:11 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: no, because the hashes are slower :P
1905 2012-01-23 21:27:28 * Eliel has been wondering for a while now... what problems would there be left with OP_EVAL if it was implemented such that only one OP_EVAL call will actually execute anything per input and if it's found more than once, it's treated as a NOP.
1906 2012-01-23 21:27:30 <luke-jr> if each character is two hash rounds, it'll take time to bruteforce
1907 2012-01-23 21:27:43 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: not very much at all!
1908 2012-01-23 21:28:06 <alexwaters1> luke-jr: is that time relative to current processor speeds?
1909 2012-01-23 21:28:10 <helo> gmaxwell: and how likely someone is to iterate over the selection space
1910 2012-01-23 21:28:24 <gmaxwell> helo: very!
1911 2012-01-23 21:29:00 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: isn't it much slower than just hashing the string once?
1912 2012-01-23 21:29:02 <roconnor> Eliel: the main problem with OP_EVAL IMHO is the scattershot implementation of input validation that Meredith warns us about.
1913 2012-01-23 21:29:05 <gmaxwell> hell we has someone in here a day ago that was redeeming coins sent to SHA256("fuckyou") (fuckyou is pretty much one of the most common passwords. ;) )
1914 2012-01-23 21:30:12 <Eliel> roconnor: sorry, I don't understand. Looks like you're talking in a code I can't decipher.
1915 2012-01-23 21:30:15 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you can make it take millions of iterations, uses choose stupd passphrases. This is why the system should always force two factorâ something you know (password), something you have (seed).
1916 2012-01-23 21:30:20 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
1917 2012-01-23 21:30:28 hexTech has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1918 2012-01-23 21:31:17 <roconnor> Eliel: watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEfedtQVOY
1919 2012-01-23 21:31:25 hexTech has joined
1920 2012-01-23 21:31:49 * roconnor worries about losing the thing he has.
1921 2012-01-23 21:31:58 <gmaxwell> roconnor: make 1000 copies of it.
1922 2012-01-23 21:32:06 <gmaxwell> write it on paper and glue it to your monitor
1923 2012-01-23 21:32:18 <gmaxwell> roconnor: even that is more secure than it not existing! :)
1924 2012-01-23 21:32:28 <roconnor> I guess that isn't a bad idea
1925 2012-01-23 21:32:41 <roconnor> I should printout my encrypted GPG keys
1926 2012-01-23 21:32:58 rdponticelli has joined
1927 2012-01-23 21:33:02 <roconnor> put them in my safe deposit box
1928 2012-01-23 21:33:20 paraipan has joined
1929 2012-01-23 21:34:07 <Eliel> roconnor: what I mean to ask is that why would there be problems left in OP_EVAL if the recursion possibility was taken out of the picture?
1930 2012-01-23 21:35:04 <roconnor> Eliel: because the problem with OP_EVAL is only indirectly releated to recursion.
1931 2012-01-23 21:35:24 <roconnor> the recursion is the big red warning bells
1932 2012-01-23 21:35:30 <jrmithdobbs> recursion is just the most obvious abuse vector
1933 2012-01-23 21:35:54 <roconnor> the real problem is the implication that you cannot do input validation before processing.
1934 2012-01-23 21:36:03 <luke-jr> why is it every time I go to modify bitcoind, I find a bunch of preexisting bugs in it?
1935 2012-01-23 21:36:20 <Eliel> if there's no recursion, it's no longer turing complete, or did I understand it completely wrong?
1936 2012-01-23 21:37:11 <jrmithdobbs> there are still lots of other ways it could be abused, many that we've probably not even thought of
1937 2012-01-23 21:37:14 <jrmithdobbs> that's the problem
1938 2012-01-23 21:37:15 <roconnor> Eliel: full turing completness makes input validation undecidable.
1939 2012-01-23 21:37:23 <luke-jr> roconnor: there is no input
1940 2012-01-23 21:37:28 <luke-jr> it's code, nothing more or less
1941 2012-01-23 21:38:08 <copumpkin> the code is input to an evaluator
1942 2012-01-23 21:38:13 <Eliel> so, it'd make the script turing complete even if it can't be used to recurse (and therefore loop)?
1943 2012-01-23 21:38:15 <roconnor> Eliel: the limits on recursion is a form of run-time validation. whether the limit is 1 or 100 iterations.
1944 2012-01-23 21:38:26 <roconnor> Eliel: run-time validation is error prone.
1945 2012-01-23 21:38:40 <roconnor> as even we saw with the initial implemenation if OP_EVAL
1946 2012-01-23 21:39:09 <roconnor> Eliel: you should watch the video
1947 2012-01-23 21:39:15 <roconnor> luke-jr: so should you.
1948 2012-01-23 21:39:50 <roconnor> The video explains the problems even better than I could.
1949 2012-01-23 21:40:03 <copumpkin> the 28c3 one?
1950 2012-01-23 21:40:10 <roconnor> yes
1951 2012-01-23 21:40:11 <copumpkin> oh yeah
1952 2012-01-23 21:40:47 <luke-jr> link?
1953 2012-01-23 21:40:59 <roconnor> luke-jr: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEfedtQVOY
1954 2012-01-23 21:41:12 <roconnor> there are probably other places you can find it
1955 2012-01-23 21:42:51 lyspooner has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.88 [Firefox 8.0.1/20111120135848])
1956 2012-01-23 21:44:24 baz has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1957 2012-01-23 21:47:30 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened issue 779 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/779>
1958 2012-01-23 21:50:09 <Eliel> ah, now I get the issue with OP_EVAL with just 1 evaluation allowed. The outer layer of the the transaction has to be run before you can know what OP_EVAL will be running.
1959 2012-01-23 21:50:25 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: huh? ExtractAddress in script.cpp doesn't care about change addresses
1960 2012-01-23 21:50:45 <roconnor> Eliel: yep
1961 2012-01-23 21:51:18 <Eliel> not from watching the video though, it's from this latest post by Steve to the BIP 17 thread.
1962 2012-01-23 21:51:29 BTC_Bear has joined
1963 2012-01-23 21:51:57 <roconnor> Eliel: oh; sorry I didnt' quite grasp the right response for you. I'm glad you got it in the end though.
1964 2012-01-23 21:52:16 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1965 2012-01-23 21:52:58 rdponticelli has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1966 2012-01-23 21:53:51 <roconnor> Eliel: this means that validation must be scattered throughout the script interpreter ... which is error prone.
1967 2012-01-23 21:54:47 <luke-jr> roconnor: the entire purpose of the script interpreter is validation though
1968 2012-01-23 21:55:32 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr checkhashverify * raa0eea7c6c60 bitcoind-personal/src/ (6 files in 2 dirs): Merge branch 'checkhashverify_backport' into checkhashverify http://tinyurl.com/84l7gtv
1969 2012-01-23 21:56:10 <roconnor> by validation in this context I mean, "is this script safe to execute" where safety is our bounds on resource usage.
1970 2012-01-23 21:57:53 <Eliel> roconnor: still, the video looks interesting so I'm watching it :)
1971 2012-01-23 21:59:43 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1972 2012-01-23 22:02:20 denisx_ has joined
1973 2012-01-23 22:03:43 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1974 2012-01-23 22:03:43 denisx_ is now known as denisx
1975 2012-01-23 22:05:31 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr checkhashverify * r9929acadfab7 bitcoind-personal/src/script.cpp: Support for receiving and redeeming BIP 17 transactions http://tinyurl.com/87jmvbz
1976 2012-01-23 22:08:43 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1977 2012-01-23 22:09:25 paraipan has joined
1978 2012-01-23 22:12:13 Stellar has joined
1979 2012-01-23 22:12:30 baz has joined
1980 2012-01-23 22:13:22 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1981 2012-01-23 22:13:53 vigilyn has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1982 2012-01-23 22:15:27 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr checkhashverify * r1ff62e88c263 bitcoind-personal/src/script.cpp: Support for receiving and redeeming BIP 17 transactions http://tinyurl.com/89tajlk
1983 2012-01-23 22:17:46 <luke-jr> roconnor: I think we already went over why those bounds are not safety concernsâ¦
1984 2012-01-23 22:18:39 copumpkin has joined
1985 2012-01-23 22:25:08 <roconnor> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Incidents#OP_CHECKSIG_abuse
1986 2012-01-23 22:25:28 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr checkhashverify * r5b888b3a0f4f bitcoind-personal/src/ (script.cpp test/rpc_tests.cpp): Support for receiving and redeeming BIP 17 transactions http://tinyurl.com/7fueumu
1987 2012-01-23 22:25:57 JRWR has joined
1988 2012-01-23 22:37:12 <BlueMatt> was Kaminsky's blockchain ascii art in txes or blocks?
1989 2012-01-23 22:37:18 <BlueMatt> s/blocks/coinbases/
1990 2012-01-23 22:37:25 <sipa> txes, afaik
1991 2012-01-23 22:37:37 <sipa> in pubkeyhashes
1992 2012-01-23 22:37:38 _Fireball has quit (Quit: HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- Go on, try it!)
1993 2012-01-23 22:37:43 <roconnor> other people's txes or his own?
1994 2012-01-23 22:39:38 <BlueMatt> his
1995 2012-01-23 22:39:56 JRWR has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1996 2012-01-23 22:44:59 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1997 2012-01-23 22:45:25 <helo> luke-jr: regarding using signmessage to identify payers to a published receiving address... could using the equivalent of ssh pubkey authentication do the same?
1998 2012-01-23 22:45:36 Visalleras has quit (Quit: http://driedleaves.no-ip.org)
1999 2012-01-23 22:45:39 paul0 has joined
2000 2012-01-23 22:45:51 <helo> i suppose ssh pubkey auth is essentially a signmessage
2001 2012-01-23 22:46:51 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2002 2012-01-23 22:47:57 <etotheipi_> roconnor, ping
2003 2012-01-23 22:48:13 slush1 has joined
2004 2012-01-23 22:52:11 eldentyrell has joined
2005 2012-01-23 22:52:16 eldentyrell has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2006 2012-01-23 22:54:10 <roconnor> etotheipi_: ack
2007 2012-01-23 22:54:40 <etotheipi_> finally back from work
2008 2012-01-23 22:55:29 <etotheipi_> roconnor, so you wanted to give Armory feedback
2009 2012-01-23 22:55:58 <roconnor> I triend sending a trasaction in Armory and it sadi something like ripemd160 not found
2010 2012-01-23 22:56:01 <etotheipi_> and then we should talk about BIP 0010...
2011 2012-01-23 22:56:01 <roconnor> *tried
2012 2012-01-23 22:56:18 <etotheipi_> that's bizarre
2013 2012-01-23 22:56:24 <etotheipi_> did it look like a python error or a C++ error?
2014 2012-01-23 22:56:30 <roconnor> it looked like a python error
2015 2012-01-23 22:56:33 <roconnor> let me try again
2016 2012-01-23 22:56:38 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
2017 2012-01-23 22:56:39 <etotheipi_> do you have hashlib installed?
2018 2012-01-23 22:57:05 <roconnor> not that I'm aware of
2019 2012-01-23 22:57:23 <etotheipi_> err... it is part of my python distribution
2020 2012-01-23 22:57:44 <roconnor> well maybe it is
2021 2012-01-23 22:57:51 <etotheipi_> although it seems weird you would get all the way to the Tx-send dialog before finding out you don't have hash functions
2022 2012-01-23 22:58:47 <roconnor> okay I'm copying my receive bitcoin address to the clipboard
2023 2012-01-23 22:58:59 <roconnor> mjEYnP3EitxB9Knxv8AZ3vVwV7AfCwV4rj
2024 2012-01-23 22:59:13 eoss has joined
2025 2012-01-23 22:59:13 eoss has quit (Changing host)
2026 2012-01-23 22:59:13 eoss has joined
2027 2012-01-23 22:59:15 * diki is trying to convert a hash160 to a btc address
2028 2012-01-23 22:59:15 <roconnor> now I'm doing send from wallet
2029 2012-01-23 22:59:20 <diki> the closest I got is 1FupVM34DaqSh7F
2030 2012-01-23 22:59:31 <roconnor> 5 btc
2031 2012-01-23 22:59:32 <roconnor> no comment
2032 2012-01-23 22:59:38 <etotheipi_> diki: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=29416.0
2033 2012-01-23 22:59:42 <roconnor> 0.0005 transaction fee
2034 2012-01-23 22:59:45 <etotheipi_> diki, last image below
2035 2012-01-23 22:59:46 darkee has quit (!~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2036 2012-01-23 22:59:49 <roconnor> send!
2037 2012-01-23 23:00:00 <roconnor> your are about to send
2038 2012-01-23 23:00:03 <roconnor> continue
2039 2012-01-23 23:00:11 <roconnor> enter passphrase
2040 2012-01-23 23:00:16 darkee has joined
2041 2012-01-23 23:00:18 <diki> etotheipi_:that is C++, I am doing this in C
2042 2012-01-23 23:00:18 <roconnor> unlock
2043 2012-01-23 23:00:27 <diki> however by very very unconventional means
2044 2012-01-23 23:00:29 <roconnor> and then Traceback
2045 2012-01-23 23:00:33 <roconnor> etotheipi_: let me paste it
2046 2012-01-23 23:00:41 <etotheipi_> diki... the image at the bottom of that post is language agnostic
2047 2012-01-23 23:00:55 <etotheipi_> it shows EXACTLY how you get from public key to address
2048 2012-01-23 23:01:00 eldentyrell has joined
2049 2012-01-23 23:01:04 eldentyrell has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2050 2012-01-23 23:01:26 <diki> etotheipi_:I am following this guide https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Technical_background_of_Bitcoin_addresses
2051 2012-01-23 23:01:36 <etotheipi_> diki.... the hash160 you have is the 20-byte block on the middle of that image
2052 2012-01-23 23:01:42 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
2053 2012-01-23 23:01:47 <etotheipi_> oh, right, that's my picture there :)
2054 2012-01-23 23:02:22 <etotheipi_> so you have a hash160... attach a network byte (0x00 for main network), hash the 21 bytes, tack on the first 4 bytes of that to the end fo the 21 bytes
2055 2012-01-23 23:02:33 <etotheipi_> convert to base58
2056 2012-01-23 23:02:39 <etotheipi_> roconnor, btw, I'm still paying attention
2057 2012-01-23 23:02:43 <roconnor> etotheipi_: http://paste.org/44233
2058 2012-01-23 23:02:44 <sipa> etotheipi_: regarding compressed pubkeys; if your wallets do not support addresses that refer to compressed public keys, and you do not validate signatures in the block chain, there is no need to implement it
2059 2012-01-23 23:02:45 ahbritto has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2060 2012-01-23 23:02:53 <roconnor> etotheipi_: BRB
2061 2012-01-23 23:03:07 coblee has quit (Quit: coblee)
2062 2012-01-23 23:04:00 <diki> well, before converting to base58 here is where I am at
2063 2012-01-23 23:04:00 <diki> 00010966776006953D5567439E5E39F86A0D273BEEd61967f6
2064 2012-01-23 23:04:21 <jrmithdobbs> wow, 6 months later and you still can't get the endianness right?
2065 2012-01-23 23:04:21 <etotheipi_> roconnor, it seems that your hashlib library does not have ripemd160 support (haven't run into this before)
2066 2012-01-23 23:04:27 <jrmithdobbs> i'm shocked
2067 2012-01-23 23:04:32 <jrmithdobbs> (no I'm not)
2068 2012-01-23 23:04:43 <diki> jrmithdobbs:the guide says NOTHING about endianness
2069 2012-01-23 23:05:02 wirehead has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2070 2012-01-23 23:05:07 <etotheipi_> diki, unfortunately bitcoin is an endianness nightmare... there's no way to avoid dealing with it
2071 2012-01-23 23:05:22 <jrmithdobbs> it's really not that bad once you understand it
2072 2012-01-23 23:05:27 <jrmithdobbs> just backwards
2073 2012-01-23 23:05:42 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2074 2012-01-23 23:06:00 <etotheipi_> jrmithdobbs, endianness itself is not tough to understand, but it seems that half of the protocol uses little, half uses big, and then different systems and libraries use different ones natively
2075 2012-01-23 23:06:07 danbri has joined
2076 2012-01-23 23:06:19 <jrmithdobbs> etotheipi_: i'm just harassing diki because he's been trying to figure out how to make an address since like july
2077 2012-01-23 23:06:31 <etotheipi_> sipa, thanks for that... that's exactly what I needed to know
2078 2012-01-23 23:06:40 <etotheipi_> sipa, I'm glad I don't have to delay anything... I just didn't want to deal with it just yet
2079 2012-01-23 23:06:41 <diki> etotheipi_:hmm, php converts my result above correctly to the address 16UwLL9Risc3QfPqBUvKofHmBQ7wMtjvM
2080 2012-01-23 23:07:07 <etotheipi_> roconnor, http://osdir.com/ml/sage-support/2011-05/msg00068.html
2081 2012-01-23 23:07:10 <luke-jr> just in case anyone's tried to deploy it, I found a bug in CHV backport
2082 2012-01-23 23:08:40 <diki> jrmithdobbs:and no, it is just recently that I have decided to do this
2083 2012-01-23 23:09:16 [Tycho] has joined
2084 2012-01-23 23:11:32 eldentyrell has joined
2085 2012-01-23 23:11:52 Flippy125 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2086 2012-01-23 23:13:38 danbri_ has joined
2087 2012-01-23 23:14:42 <diki> but damn this migraine I have....
2088 2012-01-23 23:14:48 ahbritto has joined
2089 2012-01-23 23:16:15 <etotheipi_> diki, the string you copied above is already in the correct form... it just has to be converted to Base58
2090 2012-01-23 23:16:49 <etotheipi_> https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory/blob/qtdev/armoryengine.py#L394
2091 2012-01-23 23:17:20 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2092 2012-01-23 23:17:27 <etotheipi_> although... that uses python's native big integers, so maybe it's not the best example code if you're not using python
2093 2012-01-23 23:17:34 booo has joined
2094 2012-01-23 23:17:44 <etotheipi_> :w
2095 2012-01-23 23:17:50 <etotheipi_> er...
2096 2012-01-23 23:17:55 <sipa> etotheipi_ looks like a vim user
2097 2012-01-23 23:18:00 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2098 2012-01-23 23:18:07 <etotheipi_> :)
2099 2012-01-23 23:20:15 <diki> etotheipi_:I am converting it
2100 2012-01-23 23:20:18 <diki> I got
2101 2012-01-23 23:20:24 <diki> 1FupVM34DaqSh7F
2102 2012-01-23 23:20:32 <diki> I am obviously doing it wrong somewhere
2103 2012-01-23 23:20:42 <diki> but it's not like the base58 encoding function is mine
2104 2012-01-23 23:20:47 <etotheipi_> I get: 16UwLL9Risc3QfPqBUvKofHmBQ7wMtjvM from my code above
2105 2012-01-23 23:21:02 <etotheipi_> sounds like your base58 converter is bad
2106 2012-01-23 23:21:23 <diki> could be, vanitygen is indeed complex
2107 2012-01-23 23:22:36 hexTech has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2108 2012-01-23 23:22:49 <doublec> just a heads up, the namecoin chain seems to be getting spammed with dust
2109 2012-01-23 23:22:55 <doublec> you'll notice large block sizes recently
2110 2012-01-23 23:23:06 <doublec> I've attempted to contact the developer
2111 2012-01-23 23:23:46 <doublec> eg: http://explorer.dot-bit.org/b/72652554ebe8359deee8cdd561ccabc40977f848da977d2c1c027c085513ba48
2112 2012-01-23 23:25:15 coblee has joined
2113 2012-01-23 23:26:45 alexwaters has joined
2114 2012-01-23 23:27:03 alexwaters1 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2115 2012-01-23 23:27:10 <makomk> gmaxwell: by the way, surely if the underlying hash had a collision attack some uses of both P2SH and OP_EVAL would be vulnerable?
2116 2012-01-23 23:28:25 <sipa> the problem of a hash preimage is inherent to all pay-to-hash-script solutions, including BIP 12 (OP_EVAL), BIP 16 and BIP 17
2117 2012-01-23 23:28:39 <diki> the closest I got was 16UwLL9RisQjzWSEmVgjxTQgCDD7bgxS2
2118 2012-01-23 23:29:38 <lianj> thats what you get for using php :p
2119 2012-01-23 23:29:40 <makomk> sipa: well, yes, obviously this applies to all pay-to-hash-script solutions, but I really do just mean a chosen prefix collision and not a full-blown preimage attack.
2120 2012-01-23 23:29:50 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2121 2012-01-23 23:30:00 <diki> lianj:ugh, php does it just fine
2122 2012-01-23 23:30:04 <diki> I am doing this in C
2123 2012-01-23 23:30:14 <lianj> oh
2124 2012-01-23 23:30:18 <lianj> damn
2125 2012-01-23 23:30:21 <BlueMatt> php, yuck
2126 2012-01-23 23:30:45 <BlueMatt> php takes everything java does wrong and makes it worse
2127 2012-01-23 23:30:57 <diki> works for me
2128 2012-01-23 23:31:02 dissipate has joined
2129 2012-01-23 23:31:05 <diki> cant wait for phpocl :D
2130 2012-01-23 23:31:07 <BlueMatt> works is a relative term
2131 2012-01-23 23:31:31 dr_win has joined
2132 2012-01-23 23:31:32 dissipate has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2133 2012-01-23 23:31:35 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2134 2012-01-23 23:31:48 dr_win has joined
2135 2012-01-23 23:34:15 josephcp has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2136 2012-01-23 23:35:18 e0s_ has joined
2137 2012-01-23 23:35:18 <gmaxwell> makomk: chosen prefix of the kind you have with md5 (where the attacker must make both versions) isn't a problem.
2138 2012-01-23 23:35:22 e0s_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2139 2012-01-23 23:35:30 <diki> and what sucks here is that vanitygen is the only c program IN EXISTENCE that has base58 encoding
2140 2012-01-23 23:35:32 josephcp has joined
2141 2012-01-23 23:36:38 <lianj> cant you port the cpp code?
2142 2012-01-23 23:36:52 <diki> nope
2143 2012-01-23 23:36:53 <makomk> gmaxwell: you sure - what about a 2 out of 3 escrow transaction where the person supplying the 3rd key has copies of the other two?
2144 2012-01-23 23:36:56 <gmaxwell> makomk: arbitrary chosen prefix (e.g. attacker can find some junk to make any prefix match a specific value) would also break our ECDSA, since I could rebind one of your signatures onto a new transaction.
2145 2012-01-23 23:37:13 <makomk> True, I guess.
2146 2012-01-23 23:37:43 <lianj> diki: etotheipi_'s python?
2147 2012-01-23 23:38:05 <diki> not even that
2148 2012-01-23 23:38:18 <diki> the reason is
2149 2012-01-23 23:38:32 <diki> I am not yet familiar with all the bits,byte stuff
2150 2012-01-23 23:38:36 <diki> shifting etc
2151 2012-01-23 23:39:29 <lianj> my ruby, http://paste.pocoo.org/show/bEL8FnngIqg2uWj0PV96/ (which is ported from bitcoinj iirc)
2152 2012-01-23 23:39:50 <etotheipi_> I took the easy way out with python big-integers... it seems that since Base58 is not a clean power of two, it's significantly harder to implement Base58 without big ints
2153 2012-01-23 23:40:24 <etotheipi_> whereas hex and base64 all work out cleanly and can be done with integers smaller than 4 bytes
2154 2012-01-23 23:40:31 <sipa> it was possible, but not how satoshi did this base58
2155 2012-01-23 23:40:56 <etotheipi_> did he use big integers?
2156 2012-01-23 23:41:06 <sipa> yes
2157 2012-01-23 23:41:12 <gmaxwell> you don't need big integers.. you could implement it like a range coder does.
2158 2012-01-23 23:41:21 <sipa> exactly
2159 2012-01-23 23:41:31 <luke-jr> diki: actually, I wrote a generic any-base to any-base convertor in C once
2160 2012-01-23 23:41:33 <gmaxwell> Presumably there is a range coder style implementation which is actually compatible but it might be a little crackheaded to get the carrying right.
2161 2012-01-23 23:42:09 <luke-jr> anyhow, I just finished completing BIP 17 implementing
2162 2012-01-23 23:42:16 <luke-jr> including backports of the validation to 0.3.19+
2163 2012-01-23 23:44:32 marf_away2 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2164 2012-01-23 23:44:54 andrew12 has quit (Quit: Reconnecting)
2165 2012-01-23 23:44:59 andrew12 has joined
2166 2012-01-23 23:45:04 andrew12 has quit (Changing host)
2167 2012-01-23 23:45:04 andrew12 has joined
2168 2012-01-23 23:45:56 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr checkhashverify * r2dde575e218d bitcoind-personal/src/ (6 files in 2 dirs): Merge branch 'checkhashverify_backport' into checkhashverify http://tinyurl.com/82p64jk
2169 2012-01-23 23:45:57 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr checkhashverify * r08724cd44cc3 bitcoind-personal/src/ (script.cpp test/rpc_tests.cpp test/script_P2SH_tests.cpp): Support for receiving and redeeming BIP 17 transactions http://tinyurl.com/783n8ob
2170 2012-01-23 23:51:10 graingert has joined
2171 2012-01-23 23:51:21 <diki> I am extremely close, and base58 fails me
2172 2012-01-23 23:51:35 <graingert> in P2SH, with OP_HASH160 [20-byte-hash-value] OP_EQUAL
2173 2012-01-23 23:51:53 <luke-jr> graingert: that's just BIP16 P2SH
2174 2012-01-23 23:51:55 <graingert> what happens if the 20 byte hash value is a merkle root for blocks of a daughter chain
2175 2012-01-23 23:52:08 <luke-jr> graingert: nothing?
2176 2012-01-23 23:52:15 <sipa> how would you exploit that?
2177 2012-01-23 23:52:21 <graingert> it's a similar way to do merged mining
2178 2012-01-23 23:52:34 <graingert> well it's not merged mining at all
2179 2012-01-23 23:52:46 <graingert> instead of putting the block header in the extranonce
2180 2012-01-23 23:52:52 <graingert> you put it into a transaction
2181 2012-01-23 23:52:56 <luke-jr> graingert: not related to BIP16 or P2SH at allâ¦
2182 2012-01-23 23:53:01 <graingert> not exactly no
2183 2012-01-23 23:53:02 <luke-jr> you can already do that
2184 2012-01-23 23:53:15 <luke-jr> in fact, that was the security hole in MM that I reported to vince, and he fixed in .64
2185 2012-01-23 23:53:19 <graingert> yes I guess you could
2186 2012-01-23 23:53:24 <gmaxwell> and it isn't done because it would cause insecurity.
2187 2012-01-23 23:53:35 <gmaxwell> (and bloat)
2188 2012-01-23 23:53:46 <graingert> I don't see how insecurity
2189 2012-01-23 23:54:05 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
2190 2012-01-23 23:54:13 <graingert> it basically piggy backs the hash power from the main chain
2191 2012-01-23 23:54:13 <gmaxwell> graingert: because the person picking the content of the merged chain wouldn't have any hash power at all (potentially), so there is no motivation in not defecting.
2192 2012-01-23 23:54:24 <graingert> and how would you defect?
2193 2012-01-23 23:54:26 <gmaxwell> graingert: if you're willing to have that why even require hash power.
2194 2012-01-23 23:54:28 <luke-jr> graingert: except the hashpower doesn't back the verified txns
2195 2012-01-23 23:55:05 <makomk> If I'm not mistaken and the issue was what I suspect it is, they wouldn't even have to use their own transactions to do it would they?
2196 2012-01-23 23:55:22 <graingert> the bitcoin block would verify the daughter-chain block
2197 2012-01-23 23:55:29 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2198 2012-01-23 23:56:00 <graingert> and say a rule of the daughter chain is "only the highest paying daughter chain block, in a bitcoin block, would be counted"
2199 2012-01-23 23:56:11 <gmaxwell> graingert: no it wouldn't bitcoin knows nothing about the rules of the 'daughter' so it wouldn't provide any evidence that the rules were followed because the bitcoin block wouldn't be invalidated if they weren't.
2200 2012-01-23 23:56:31 <gmaxwell> Moreover, it would make the 'daughter' completely dependant on bitcoin ... bitcoin txn fees go up, they're SOL.
2201 2012-01-23 23:56:45 <roconnor> etotheipi_: back
2202 2012-01-23 23:56:48 <graingert> yes but the daughter app, would check the blocks in the chain
2203 2012-01-23 23:56:52 <makomk> Since the coinbase is a transaction input and AIUI you can prepend arbitrary data to the start of transaction inputs that aren't mined yet without invalidating the signatures... ouch.
2204 2012-01-23 23:56:59 <gmaxwell> (they'd also have to maintain a copy of the rather large bitcoin chain in addition to their own stuff)
2205 2012-01-23 23:57:02 <roconnor> etotheipi_: I don't understand how you can generate addresses without ripemd160 existing
2206 2012-01-23 23:57:08 <graingert> gmaxwell: true
2207 2012-01-23 23:57:21 <etotheipi_> roconnor, I don't... ripemd160 is part of hashlib module on my computer
2208 2012-01-23 23:57:43 <graingert> gmaxwell: but it would mean you could implement a daughter chain with no hash power
2209 2012-01-23 23:57:58 <etotheipi_> that link I gave you above, showed somethign to do with compiling sage without openssl
2210 2012-01-23 23:57:59 <gmaxwell> graingert: you can already implement systems with no hash power.
2211 2012-01-23 23:58:06 <etotheipi_> I think that hashlib module uses openssl
2212 2012-01-23 23:58:07 <roconnor> etotheipi_: I mean I was able to compute addresses for my wallet
2213 2012-01-23 23:58:17 <roconnor> etotheipi_: and that requires performing a ripemd160
2214 2012-01-23 23:58:18 <graingert> gmaxwell: ?
2215 2012-01-23 23:58:29 <roconnor> etotheipi_: so someone knows how to compute ripemd160
2216 2012-01-23 23:58:30 <graingert> gmaxwell: decentralized?
2217 2012-01-23 23:59:08 <etotheipi_> roconnor, the C++ also does the cacluation
2218 2012-01-23 23:59:34 <etotheipi_> in fact... that's exactly it... the C++ code has it's own ripemd160 from cryptopp (compiled with the rest of Armory)
2219 2012-01-23 23:59:39 <gmaxwell> graingert: just require a fixed difficulty of 0.00001 and let the longest chain win. tada. which has the same bad security properties as your txn binding stuff.
2220 2012-01-23 23:59:51 <roconnor> etotheipi_: ok