1 2012-01-30 00:00:01 pingdrive has quit (Quit: Leaving)
   2 2012-01-30 00:00:01 <Diablo-D3> SATOSHI!
   3 2012-01-30 00:00:10 <Diablo-D3> you know, satoshi even has his own kamen rider
   4 2012-01-30 00:00:15 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
   5 2012-01-30 00:00:28 <Diablo-D3> Kamen Rider OOOs
   6 2012-01-30 00:00:36 <Diablo-D3> his belt even holds three giant bitcoins
   7 2012-01-30 00:00:52 <Moron__> luke-jr: are you telling me theres gonna be this huge problem every time theres a potential change in the protocol?
   8 2012-01-30 00:01:03 <sipa> i hope not
   9 2012-01-30 00:01:52 <k9quaint> reminds me a bit of the old unix wars
  10 2012-01-30 00:01:59 <genjix> BlueMatt: seemed like people were starting to hate them.
  11 2012-01-30 00:02:16 <BlueMatt> genjix: mmm, ok I just wondered I have no preference
  12 2012-01-30 00:02:51 <Moron__> whether we like it or not BlueMatt, arent the lines between technical and political being blurred
  13 2012-01-30 00:02:55 <genjix> justmoon suggested the ability to call informal gatherings which is kind of cool and less rigid
  14 2012-01-30 00:02:59 <Moron__> even a slight change to the protocol will affect thousands of users
  15 2012-01-30 00:03:05 <BlueMatt> Moron__: they shouldnt be
  16 2012-01-30 00:03:05 <luke-jr> Moron__: there's a huge problem because BIP 16 has problems
  17 2012-01-30 00:03:20 <BlueMatt> Moron__: there are several people who have done a shitton to move the discussion from technical to political
  18 2012-01-30 00:03:23 <luke-jr> Moron__: BIP 17 should have no problem gaining consensus
  19 2012-01-30 00:04:00 * BlueMatt votes we have a discussion on a specified date to hash out this p2sh crap.  Get some poolops in here and hash this shit out
  20 2012-01-30 00:04:15 <sipa> neither bip16 nor bip17 should have problems reaching consensus, imho
  21 2012-01-30 00:04:16 <BlueMatt> at the end vote and everyone agrees to give up and go with the consensus
  22 2012-01-30 00:04:28 <sipa> but i do not want both
  23 2012-01-30 00:04:44 <BlueMatt> I agree, either one is better than nothing
  24 2012-01-30 00:04:59 <BlueMatt> but this has been turned into a political shitstorm and neither is gonna be accepted
  25 2012-01-30 00:05:00 poiuh has joined
  26 2012-01-30 00:05:05 <etotheipi_> I disagree with that statement
  27 2012-01-30 00:05:22 <etotheipi_> the biggest threat to the Bitcoin network right now is not attackers, 51% miners... it's this discussion
  28 2012-01-30 00:05:30 <sipa> inded
  29 2012-01-30 00:05:32 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I think if people behind BIP 16 get behind BIP 17, things can change almost overnight
  30 2012-01-30 00:05:45 genjix has left ()
  31 2012-01-30 00:05:53 <etotheipi_> we could very easily introduce a Bitcoin-killing bug into the network with any of these proposals
  32 2012-01-30 00:05:58 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: I think if people behind BIP 17 get behind BIP 16, things can change almost overnight
  33 2012-01-30 00:06:07 <etotheipi_> (maybe extreme... but we know how fragile Bitcoin is, PR-wise)
  34 2012-01-30 00:06:09 <BlueMatt> etotheipi_: absolutely
  35 2012-01-30 00:06:13 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: except BIP 16 has real reasons why not to adopt it
  36 2012-01-30 00:06:21 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: except BIP 17 has real reasons why not to adopt it
  37 2012-01-30 00:06:27 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: no, it doesn't.
  38 2012-01-30 00:06:33 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: no, it doesn't.
  39 2012-01-30 00:06:37 <luke-jr> there was one far-stretch reason, but Gavin solved it
  40 2012-01-30 00:06:39 <Moron__> etotheipi_: cant we just start bitcoin 2 if we fuck up this one?
  41 2012-01-30 00:06:45 <BlueMatt> there was one far-stretch reason, but Gavin solved it
  42 2012-01-30 00:07:11 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: troll
  43 2012-01-30 00:07:15 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: troll
  44 2012-01-30 00:07:21 <luke-jr> /ignore BlueMatt
  45 2012-01-30 00:07:23 <etotheipi_> I just don't want to see anything rushed for any reason...
  46 2012-01-30 00:07:27 <BlueMatt>  /ignore luke-jr
  47 2012-01-30 00:07:41 <poiuh> mang
  48 2012-01-30 00:07:47 <etotheipi_> (I just wish I had participated in all the technical discussion before now...)
  49 2012-01-30 00:07:53 <Moron__> behave kiddies
  50 2012-01-30 00:08:04 <CIA-97> bips: genjix master * rbd3808c / bip-0020.md : BIP 0020 - URI scheme with x notation - http://git.io/VieycA https://github.com/genjix/bips/commit/bd3808c4ca96313f8d194b828cd6b0579fc74a58
  51 2012-01-30 00:08:04 <CIA-97> bips: genjix master * r6a5b4f3 / bip-0021.md : URI scheme sans x notation - http://git.io/IvpRnA https://github.com/genjix/bips/commit/6a5b4f3b080815c1ddff881e7a8491f5acca4fab
  52 2012-01-30 00:08:19 <sipa> luke-jr: you may have your preference, and i respect it, but you shiould be able to see that there are people preferring BIP16 too
  53 2012-01-30 00:08:34 <BlueMatt> meh, I dont care what luke-jr says anymore, literally every word Ive heard from him in the past weeks has been either blatantly false or an exaggeration
  54 2012-01-30 00:08:48 <Diablo-D3> JESUS WILL SAVE YOU
  55 2012-01-30 00:08:50 <sipa> and maybe their point of view is worth considering
  56 2012-01-30 00:08:55 * Diablo-D3 is turned into a pdf and printed out.
  57 2012-01-30 00:09:24 <Diablo-D3> actually, you know what
  58 2012-01-30 00:09:35 <Diablo-D3> for the next week, Im just going to yell like cave johnson
  59 2012-01-30 00:09:40 <Diablo-D3> and say awesome shit
  60 2012-01-30 00:10:11 * Diablo-D3 sips a glass of lemonade. While its on fire.
  61 2012-01-30 00:11:07 <etotheipi_> I do have to agree, right or wrong, luke-jr is intransigent about his point of view.... he may very well be right, but he doesn't recognize that there are other points of view outside of what he's decided on already
  62 2012-01-30 00:11:26 <Diablo-D3> dude, luke keeps banning me for promoting my religion :<
  63 2012-01-30 00:11:30 <Diablo-D3> fucking catholic church
  64 2012-01-30 00:11:32 <etotheipi_> (and I'm not saying anyone is right, I'm just offering my outsider perspective)
  65 2012-01-30 00:12:08 <luke-jr> sipa: the difference is, I prefer nothing over BIP 16.
  66 2012-01-30 00:12:25 <luke-jr> because BIP 16 has actual problems
  67 2012-01-30 00:12:56 <sipa> please accept that that is only your own opinion
  68 2012-01-30 00:14:00 <Moron__> :/
  69 2012-01-30 00:14:12 <luke-jr> sipa: that's what I'm saying :p
  70 2012-01-30 00:14:29 luke-jr has joined
  71 2012-01-30 00:14:40 <etotheipi_> whoa, you can do that?
  72 2012-01-30 00:14:52 <sipa> BlueMatt: not helping
  73 2012-01-30 00:14:53 <etotheipi_> who's the mod of the channel?
  74 2012-01-30 00:14:53 <BlueMatt> yea, and can (and will) ban him if he keeps talking
  75 2012-01-30 00:14:54 <Diablo-D3> you know whats strange as fuck?
  76 2012-01-30 00:14:59 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I'll be sure to bring up your abuse of power next time I talk to sirius
  77 2012-01-30 00:14:59 <Diablo-D3> watching an anime in japanese
  78 2012-01-30 00:15:03 <Diablo-D3> then watching it in english
  79 2012-01-30 00:15:04 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: have fun
  80 2012-01-30 00:15:10 <BlueMatt> etotheipi_: a bunch of people
  81 2012-01-30 00:15:11 <Diablo-D3> the english op is in english... and done by the same band.
  82 2012-01-30 00:15:13 <luke-jr> sipa: AFAIK, nobody holds the position that nothing at all is better than BIP 17
  83 2012-01-30 00:15:16 <Diablo-D3> seriously, its like fffffffff
  84 2012-01-30 00:15:41 <BlueMatt> etotheipi_: /msg ChanServ access #bitcoin-dev list
  85 2012-01-30 00:16:03 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  86 2012-01-30 00:16:11 <theymos> luke-jr: roconnor and Mike Hearn think that nothing is better than either proposal, IIRC.
  87 2012-01-30 00:16:44 <Diablo-D3> theymos: you mean BIP 9000?
  88 2012-01-30 00:16:54 <Diablo-D3> the "bip 16 and 17 sucks, lets do nothing" proposal
  89 2012-01-30 00:17:10 <Diablo-D3> I support BIP 9000.
  90 2012-01-30 00:17:13 <luke-jr> theymos: not the same thing
  91 2012-01-30 00:17:20 <BlueMatt> who, who has any reasonable authority to comment, (aside from luke) supports 17 over 16?
  92 2012-01-30 00:18:21 JZavala has joined
  93 2012-01-30 00:19:13 <Diablo-D3> bluematt: thats the thing
  94 2012-01-30 00:19:15 <Diablo-D3> we have three options
  95 2012-01-30 00:19:19 <Diablo-D3> do nothing, 16, 17.
  96 2012-01-30 00:19:29 <BlueMatt> yea, some people support do nothing, some 16, and luke 17
  97 2012-01-30 00:19:39 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: roconnor has made more positive noises around 17 than 16 as he thought it easier to implement in his code.
  98 2012-01-30 00:19:39 <Diablo-D3> of all the people with reasonable authority, most are supporting nothing
  99 2012-01-30 00:19:46 <k9quaint> I support doing the salsa
 100 2012-01-30 00:19:52 <sipa> luke-jr: my possibly-biased summary of what opinions exist: 1) people who agree with both, but prefer BIP17 for aesthetic/cleanness reasons (several people on the forum) 2) people who agree with both but prefer BIP16 because of minor technical reasons (Gavin eg) 3) people who actively prefer BIP16 for aesthetic reasons (justmoon) 4) you who ways that BIP16 has technical problems
 101 2012-01-30 00:19:56 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ok, fair enough
 102 2012-01-30 00:20:16 <sipa> s/ways/says/
 103 2012-01-30 00:20:52 storrgie has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 104 2012-01-30 00:21:06 <CIA-97> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * rd28bcc7cbead eloipool/jsonrpcserver.py: JSONRPCHandler: Set _LPTask to True for NELH-quirk LP clients, so they're cleaned up properly http://tinyurl.com/8yozeet
 105 2012-01-30 00:21:08 <CIA-97> bitcoin: p2k * ra69c0cec5cd4 ecoinpool/ (10 files in 3 dirs): Coinbasing for Aux Chains http://tinyurl.com/7o3hn6s
 106 2012-01-30 00:21:14 <BlueMatt> ok, fair enough, roconnor might prefer 17 over 16, so that makes 2
 107 2012-01-30 00:21:27 <BlueMatt> I suppose at least I think roconnor has valid arguments
 108 2012-01-30 00:21:29 <Diablo-D3> 16 is unsafe anyhow
 109 2012-01-30 00:21:33 <Diablo-D3> it cant be implemented
 110 2012-01-30 00:21:37 <sipa> Diablo-D3: ...?
 111 2012-01-30 00:21:38 <BlueMatt> 1 person with valid arguments supports bip 17
 112 2012-01-30 00:21:47 <Diablo-D3> that doesnt mean 17 is superior
 113 2012-01-30 00:22:02 <Diablo-D3> I still support neither should ever be considered for implementation ever.
 114 2012-01-30 00:22:13 <Diablo-D3> more complexity its almost always wrong.
 115 2012-01-30 00:22:22 <Diablo-D3> especially with things that might lead to security issues
 116 2012-01-30 00:22:31 <sipa> oh rght, 5) people who think this is going too fast and right now neither BIP16 or BIP17 should be adopted
 117 2012-01-30 00:22:33 <Diablo-D3> neither 16 nor 17 have proven there are no security flaws.
 118 2012-01-30 00:22:40 <Diablo-D3> sipa: thats still 1.
 119 2012-01-30 00:22:42 <theymos> Diablo-D3: You think multisig is not necessary, or long addresses will be sufficient?
 120 2012-01-30 00:22:53 <Diablo-D3> theymos: multisig isnt necessary.
 121 2012-01-30 00:23:06 <Diablo-D3> Im not saying there isnt an effective replacement for long addresses....
 122 2012-01-30 00:23:16 <Diablo-D3> but are we sure we need one?
 123 2012-01-30 00:23:22 <Diablo-D3> no one has given an argument on why thats bad
 124 2012-01-30 00:23:24 <sipa> i think multisig is the one single place where bitcoin can shine over any other currency system ever created
 125 2012-01-30 00:23:39 <sipa> multisig / complex transactions
 126 2012-01-30 00:24:00 <gmaxwell> I do too— what else allows for a _zero trust_ escrow? Nothing. At best you have to trust the state to excute your escrow agreement.
 127 2012-01-30 00:24:04 <CIA-97> bips: genjix master * rc39fc50 / (bip-0020.md bip-0021.md): tcatm supports BIP 0021 not BIP 0020. claims he did not support BIP 0020 ... https://github.com/genjix/bips/commit/c39fc5053359cf62030caab05f8519fba8a611c5
 128 2012-01-30 00:24:39 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 129 2012-01-30 00:24:43 <Diablo-D3> complex transactions are bad, however.
 130 2012-01-30 00:24:56 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: nothing allows for zero trust escrow
 131 2012-01-30 00:25:31 <Diablo-D3> yeah what luke said
 132 2012-01-30 00:25:36 <sipa> Diablo-D3: there may be downsides to particular implementations of complex transactions, but don't you agree they hold some very interesting possibilities? (like A-OR-(B-AND-C) transactions)
 133 2012-01-30 00:25:37 <Diablo-D3> people will always try to fuck over other people
 134 2012-01-30 00:25:44 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: in bitcoin you trust the bitcoin system to execute your rules, but that trust is decenteralized.
 135 2012-01-30 00:25:45 <Diablo-D3> sipa: no.
 136 2012-01-30 00:25:56 <Diablo-D3> I dont think that has a place IN bitcoin
 137 2012-01-30 00:26:04 <Diablo-D3> it has a place alongside bitcoin, imo
 138 2012-01-30 00:26:08 bitcoinbulletin has joined
 139 2012-01-30 00:26:12 <sipa> then you and i fundamentally disagree about what bitcoin can be :)
 140 2012-01-30 00:26:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: you trust the escrow party to be fair
 141 2012-01-30 00:26:37 <Diablo-D3> I believe it can be an atomic crytographically secured transactional logging system.
 142 2012-01-30 00:26:54 <Diablo-D3> multisig systems make such systems overcomplex.
 143 2012-01-30 00:27:34 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: so you want to drop scripting system entirely?
 144 2012-01-30 00:27:40 <Diablo-D3> yes.
 145 2012-01-30 00:27:46 <gmaxwell> sipa: more importantly he and satoshi disagree.
 146 2012-01-30 00:27:58 <Diablo-D3> satoshi isnt here to defend himself, gmaxwell
 147 2012-01-30 00:27:59 <BlueMatt> mmm
 148 2012-01-30 00:28:06 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: you can't do things like that externally to the system, alas. Not without introducing more tursted parties.
 149 2012-01-30 00:28:10 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
 150 2012-01-30 00:28:15 <Diablo-D3> I believe Im taking the satoshi side of this, bitcoin is largely finished in implementation.
 151 2012-01-30 00:28:30 <sipa> i beg to differ
 152 2012-01-30 00:28:31 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: trusted doesnt exactly mean what you think it does.
 153 2012-01-30 00:28:39 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: all that functionality is already there in the protocol!
 154 2012-01-30 00:28:44 <sipa> i do not believe satoshi thinks the current codebase is finished at all
 155 2012-01-30 00:28:46 <luke-jr> BIP 17 is clearly more in line with Satoshi's design
 156 2012-01-30 00:28:49 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: except its not.
 157 2012-01-30 00:28:51 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: die
 158 2012-01-30 00:28:56 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: Yes. It is.
 159 2012-01-30 00:28:57 <Diablo-D3> otherwise we wouldnt be arguing this, it'd already work.
 160 2012-01-30 00:29:11 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: it _does_. On testnet we have escrow transactions.
 161 2012-01-30 00:29:33 <Diablo-D3> the only protocol that wouldnt be a fuckup would be a multisig that would have exactly one rule
 162 2012-01-30 00:29:59 <etotheipi_> Diablo-D3, why would satoshi design the system with an expansive scripting system, hashcodes, locktimes, etc... if he didn't agree that they should be used?
 163 2012-01-30 00:30:16 <Diablo-D3> etotheipi_: because he may have made a slight mistake.
 164 2012-01-30 00:30:40 <Diablo-D3> what stops people from, say, porting lisp to the scripting system?
 165 2012-01-30 00:30:43 <gmaxwell> thousands of lines of code.. oops didn't mean to add this _half_ of the design.
 166 2012-01-30 00:30:45 <Diablo-D3> bam, security flaw.
 167 2012-01-30 00:30:54 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: the scripting system isnt turing complete.
 168 2012-01-30 00:31:00 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: not that we know of.
 169 2012-01-30 00:31:11 <graingert> no can be proven
 170 2012-01-30 00:31:15 <gmaxwell> It's pretty easy to be pretty confident about that.
 171 2012-01-30 00:31:21 d1scordian_ has joined
 172 2012-01-30 00:31:25 <Diablo-D3> yes, but how not turing is it?
 173 2012-01-30 00:31:31 luke-jr has joined
 174 2012-01-30 00:31:32 <graingert> context free?
 175 2012-01-30 00:31:35 <Diablo-D3> is it possible to do something that wasnt intended?
 176 2012-01-30 00:31:39 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: go away troll
 177 2012-01-30 00:31:43 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: that was 100% true
 178 2012-01-30 00:31:49 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: s/stupid and false/stupid or false/
 179 2012-01-30 00:31:50 <Diablo-D3> prove that every possible input cannot cause unintended behavior.
 180 2012-01-30 00:31:56 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: it wasn't stupid either
 181 2012-01-30 00:32:00 <BlueMatt> very much so
 182 2012-01-30 00:32:02 <luke-jr> no u
 183 2012-01-30 00:32:03 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: BlueMatt made a good call. I hope he continues to do that when you're over the top. :-/
 184 2012-01-30 00:32:04 <BlueMatt> it wasnt an argument
 185 2012-01-30 00:32:05 <roconnor> BlueMatt: I don't prefer bip 17 or 16; at the moment I consider them roughly equal;  I was impressed how simple bip 17 is to implement.
 186 2012-01-30 00:32:12 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I'm not over the top.
 187 2012-01-30 00:32:21 <graingert> gmaxwell: details?
 188 2012-01-30 00:32:24 <Diablo-D3> blueMatt: ban luke until he pulls his head out of his ass.
 189 2012-01-30 00:32:25 <BlueMatt> roconnor: fair enough, at least you are making arguments
 190 2012-01-30 00:32:33 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: meh, I hate banning
 191 2012-01-30 00:32:39 <luke-jr> BlueMatt is abusing power, plain and simple
 192 2012-01-30 00:32:39 <Diablo-D3> just do it.
 193 2012-01-30 00:32:44 <copumpkin> you can ban me if you want
 194 2012-01-30 00:32:48 <copumpkin> if you need to relieve some tension
 195 2012-01-30 00:32:51 <BlueMatt> copumpkin: for what?
 196 2012-01-30 00:32:55 <Diablo-D3> sure, bluematt is abusing power when both I and gmaxwell signed off on it.
 197 2012-01-30 00:32:56 <Diablo-D3> bwhahaha.
 198 2012-01-30 00:33:03 <copumpkin> BlueMatt: just as a scapegoat
 199 2012-01-30 00:33:06 <gmaxwell>  /kb copumpkin existing
 200 2012-01-30 00:33:09 <BlueMatt> copumpkin: uh...
 201 2012-01-30 00:33:25 <copumpkin> you know, all the conflict between BIP 16 and 17 is copumpkin's fault somehow, so he needs banning :)
 202 2012-01-30 00:33:26 <midnightmagic> Diablo-D3: Well, you are a bit of a poo-disturber. :)
 203 2012-01-30 00:33:27 <luke-jr> I suppose nanotube could deal with BlueMatt
 204 2012-01-30 00:33:39 <Diablo-D3> midnightmagic: not at all, I merely end shit before it starts.
 205 2012-01-30 00:33:41 <copumpkin> anyway, it was just a suggestion
 206 2012-01-30 00:33:50 <graingert> guys guys, chill the fuck out
 207 2012-01-30 00:34:01 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: last I checked sirius hasnt been on irc in many months, nanotube is the only one who can add/remove ops in #bitcoin-dev
 208 2012-01-30 00:34:10 <midnightmagic> Diablo-D3: You don't end shit! You start it all the time, that's why I think you're such a lovably plushie.. :)
 209 2012-01-30 00:34:11 <BlueMatt> (which, btw, should probably be fixed)
 210 2012-01-30 00:34:17 <BlueMatt> (maybe add gavin or jgarzik)
 211 2012-01-30 00:34:22 <theymos> Probably what Satoshi would have done is pick a good solution, sneak the code in, and barely mention it. That's what he did for the sigop limits, IsStandard, other changes to Script...
 212 2012-01-30 00:34:24 * copumpkin hugs everyone and asks them kindly to get along
 213 2012-01-30 00:34:42 <gmaxwell> In any case. Jeez luke, you do yourself a disservice when you exagerate your positions. It makes people miss the good arguments you do make.
 214 2012-01-30 00:34:49 <BlueMatt> theymos: yea, satoshi wasnt much of a pr person...
 215 2012-01-30 00:34:54 * midnightmagic hugs you too copumpkin.
 216 2012-01-30 00:35:00 d1scordian has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 217 2012-01-30 00:35:00 d1scordian_ is now known as d1scordian
 218 2012-01-30 00:35:02 * BlueMatt joins the group hug
 219 2012-01-30 00:35:04 <gmaxwell> theymos: if only gavin had agreed to add that sentence for luke... :(
 220 2012-01-30 00:35:05 <copumpkin> midnightmagic: you might mess up my tie!
 221 2012-01-30 00:35:14 <midnightmagic> it's okay! I have a lint brush!
 222 2012-01-30 00:35:14 <copumpkin> :P
 223 2012-01-30 00:35:19 <copumpkin> oh thank god
 224 2012-01-30 00:35:22 * gmaxwell joins hug in order to conceal stabbing
 225 2012-01-30 00:35:32 <copumpkin> luke-jr: want in?
 226 2012-01-30 00:35:35 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: then we wouldn't have the better BIP 17
 227 2012-01-30 00:35:41 <copumpkin> there's room for at least one more in here
 228 2012-01-30 00:36:03 luke-jr has joined
 229 2012-01-30 00:36:06 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: Some things are more important than a better technical solution. Like being able to live with each other.
 230 2012-01-30 00:36:12 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I'm logging this btw
 231 2012-01-30 00:36:16 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: hey, that time it wasn't needed.
 232 2012-01-30 00:36:24 <copumpkin> BlueMatt: dammit, it's really awkward when you kick someone while hugging other people
 233 2012-01-30 00:36:25 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: I am too, and there are public logs
 234 2012-01-30 00:36:26 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: why? the channel has public logs.
 235 2012-01-30 00:36:43 <midnightmagic> triangulation means the public logs can't be edited without detection.
 236 2012-01-30 00:36:46 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: maybe, but we have a better technical solution now
 237 2012-01-30 00:37:04 <luke-jr> nanotube is logging this, too
 238 2012-01-30 00:37:09 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: no but they can be randomly bolded to encourage your favored misreading apparently. :-/
 239 2012-01-30 00:37:17 <BlueMatt> I think there are atleast 20 people in here logging right now
 240 2012-01-30 00:37:27 <luke-jr> plenty of witnesses of your abuse
 241 2012-01-30 00:37:35 <BlueMatt> sure, lets go with that
 242 2012-01-30 00:37:38 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Don't worry, the only people reading that who matter didn't take it that way. And anyone who did, who cares what they think?
 243 2012-01-30 00:37:53 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: what does it matter? the majority is clearly now "Why do anything at all? I like yogurt"
 244 2012-01-30 00:38:01 * nanotube is about to go afk for some food... hope someone will fill me in on wtf is going on :)
 245 2012-01-30 00:38:06 <nanotube> when i come back
 246 2012-01-30 00:38:08 * midnightmagic is pro-yoghourt.
 247 2012-01-30 00:38:11 <luke-jr> nanotube: BlueMatt is abusing his power to kick me
 248 2012-01-30 00:38:22 * BlueMatt is anti-yogurt, just to be that guy
 249 2012-01-30 00:38:24 theorbtwo has joined
 250 2012-01-30 00:38:35 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I'm not so sure about the majority beign that
 251 2012-01-30 00:39:13 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it's hard to tell, maybe I'm being pessimistic, but there certantly are many who are responding that way.
 252 2012-01-30 00:39:35 <gmaxwell> I wouldn't quite put money on all P2SH being dead now, but I'm close to it.
 253 2012-01-30 00:39:43 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: and you think it'd be better or worse if I published BIP 18?
 254 2012-01-30 00:39:48 * midnightmagic is pro KEFIR.
 255 2012-01-30 00:39:50 Staatsfeind has joined
 256 2012-01-30 00:40:11 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: It might be better? Because it would show that this isn't as unresolvable as some people are making it out to be?
 257 2012-01-30 00:40:12 * BlueMatt is pro-keef
 258 2012-01-30 00:40:52 <theymos> I have no doubt that it'll get in eventually. If miners remain totally resistent, clients can be made to do the verification as well.
 259 2012-01-30 00:40:59 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: yeah, but then we'd be stuck with the inferior solution :/
 260 2012-01-30 00:41:28 <sipa> perfect is the enemy of the good
 261 2012-01-30 00:41:39 <Staatsfeind> luke-jr: Which solution would Jesus favor?
 262 2012-01-30 00:42:04 <gmaxwell> Staatsfeind: I really don't wecome religious goading of luke in here, if thats the angle you're going to take.
 263 2012-01-30 00:42:07 <midnightmagic> I think Jesus would tip over the tables at most Bitcoin-accepting businesses..
 264 2012-01-30 00:42:21 <luke-jr> Staatsfeind: Jesus would work a miracle and rewrite it on every install <.<
 265 2012-01-30 00:42:28 <midnightmagic> LOL
 266 2012-01-30 00:42:30 <midnightmagic> well done.
 267 2012-01-30 00:42:57 <midnightmagic> Where's Art when you need him anyway..
 268 2012-01-30 00:42:59 <gmaxwell> Jesus could turn water into wine, but could he convert whine into code.
 269 2012-01-30 00:43:04 <luke-jr> haven't heard from Art in a while
 270 2012-01-30 00:43:17 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: hey, I've written code for (almost) all of this!
 271 2012-01-30 00:43:46 <luke-jr> only thing holding back the CHECKMULTISIG counting fix is people here are too busy with drama to read and comment on my draft -.-
 272 2012-01-30 00:43:48 * BlueMatt joins luke in missing ArtForz
 273 2012-01-30 00:44:00 <luke-jr> (that and cdhowie's miner proxy is bugging with Eloipool…)
 274 2012-01-30 00:44:06 <BlueMatt> what, bitcoin too mainstream for Art?
 275 2012-01-30 00:44:12 <midnightmagic> He pops in and says a few words to me from time to time, but he should really not have gone anywhere. He was a particular moderating force of reason that I miss. Art come back k?
 276 2012-01-30 00:44:34 <gmaxwell> Perhaps Art is really responsible for the 115% PPS payers! dum dum dum
 277 2012-01-30 00:44:42 <luke-jr> lol
 278 2012-01-30 00:44:52 <luke-jr> so anyone up for reviewing my scripts yet?
 279 2012-01-30 00:44:59 <gmaxwell> that must be their diabolical plan: get >50% and drive the difficulty to 1 via timewarp, then there is no problem paying 115% pps.
 280 2012-01-30 00:45:00 <luke-jr> http://pastebin.com/uKAkQvLm
 281 2012-01-30 00:45:08 <theymos> A while ago he told me that Bitcoin was eating up too much of his time, and he was backing off. Too bad.
 282 2012-01-30 00:45:28 <midnightmagic> theymos: sad face.
 283 2012-01-30 00:45:43 <gmaxwell> theymos: too much time? it's not like he was building bitcoin chips.. oh wait.
 284 2012-01-30 00:45:43 <BlueMatt> shame
 285 2012-01-30 00:46:09 <BlueMatt> Art was mining on asics while people were still making money on cpu mining
 286 2012-01-30 00:46:09 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: He stopped that early on and went straight to fpga.
 287 2012-01-30 00:46:14 <BlueMatt> (ok not quite, but close)
 288 2012-01-30 00:46:29 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: I know. Thats what he gets for using 180nm.
 289 2012-01-30 00:46:37 <gmaxwell> Cheapskate. ;o)
 290 2012-01-30 00:46:45 <sipa> wow... after investing $50k in it
 291 2012-01-30 00:46:52 <gmaxwell> hehe
 292 2012-01-30 00:46:55 MrTiggr has joined
 293 2012-01-30 00:47:10 <midnightmagic> And complaining day after day how much shit-work it was to solder it all himself. :)
 294 2012-01-30 00:47:26 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: yea, well, its true.
 295 2012-01-30 00:48:01 <gmaxwell> If anyone actually enjoys doing that kind of crap, I'm sure you can find plenty of people who'd be glad to pay you just over cost to build something like that.
 296 2012-01-30 00:48:17 <midnightmagic> I enjoy it..
 297 2012-01-30 00:48:31 <imsaguy> or just hire some kids in china to do it for you for pennies
 298 2012-01-30 00:48:46 <BlueMatt> now thats just f'd up
 299 2012-01-30 00:48:53 <k9quaint> thats how I hash
 300 2012-01-30 00:49:01 <k9quaint> I have kids in china do the integer math for me
 301 2012-01-30 00:49:19 <BlueMatt> heh
 302 2012-01-30 00:49:28 <BlueMatt> probably isnt too expensive either
 303 2012-01-30 00:49:31 <k9quaint> I mean, they are doing math already right?
 304 2012-01-30 00:49:59 <gmaxwell> Speaking of hardware—  anyone want one of these: http://www.febo.com/pages/soekris/  ready to go turn-key with the gpsdo and all?  I'm assembling two right now, but if other people want really good stratum 1 ntp clocks I could have more made.
 305 2012-01-30 00:50:07 <BlueMatt> "Kids all over China stopped learning regular math yesterday, and are now only learning to do SHA rounds)
 306 2012-01-30 00:50:12 <BlueMatt> s/)/"/
 307 2012-01-30 00:50:17 <midnightmagic> whoah! I want to run a stratum 1!
 308 2012-01-30 00:50:39 <midnightmagic> And I've ben eyeing up a soekris for a while, but what about the raspberry pi?
 309 2012-01-30 00:50:58 <lianj> "Drop the signatures, since there's no way for a signature to sign itself." how can a signature be there anyway? doesn't signature_hash take the prev_tx output script in place of its input for making the signature hash?
 310 2012-01-30 00:51:02 <midnightmagic> Oh, I see.. that's a special one.
 311 2012-01-30 00:51:04 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: the soekris board is very special, because the cpu has a cycle accurate timer for the GPIO pins.
 312 2012-01-30 00:51:07 <CIA-97> bitcoin: p2k * r6c68c36a0b25 ecoinpool/apps/ecoinpool/ (5 files in 2 dirs): Improvements for MM Coinbaser http://tinyurl.com/8a4y8hs
 313 2012-01-30 00:51:08 <CIA-97> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r54a7d5121aa3 eloipool/jsonrpcserver.py: Ignore extra newlines preceding HTTP request http://tinyurl.com/7k65ogu
 314 2012-01-30 00:52:16 <sipa> by the way, in ECDSA is *is* possible to create a keypair + message + signature, where the message contains the pubkey
 315 2012-01-30 00:52:22 <luke-jr> lianj: it's from an older bitcoin codebase ;)
 316 2012-01-30 00:52:45 <luke-jr> sipa: O.o;;
 317 2012-01-30 00:53:01 <luke-jr> you mean the sig?
 318 2012-01-30 00:53:02 <lianj> luke-jr: the thought of prev_tx output in there?
 319 2012-01-30 00:53:09 <roconnor> sipa: why wouldn't that be possible
 320 2012-01-30 00:53:20 <sipa> roconnor: circular logic?
 321 2012-01-30 00:53:47 <gmaxwell> sipa: pubkey, or signature?
 322 2012-01-30 00:53:49 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 323 2012-01-30 00:53:54 <roconnor> sipa: I create a key pair; make a message with the public key; sign the message.
 324 2012-01-30 00:53:56 <sipa> oh bah, the signature i mean
 325 2012-01-30 00:53:57 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: How much money should I send you? :-D
 326 2012-01-30 00:54:01 <roconnor> ah
 327 2012-01-30 00:54:36 <roconnor> sipa: can you put that into the testnet blockchain?
 328 2012-01-30 00:54:41 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: okay, if there is interest I'll bother figuring that out! :) I already had all the parts for two except for the soekris boards, so I don't actually know. They're not terribly expensive.
 329 2012-01-30 00:55:11 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 330 2012-01-30 00:55:16 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: especially if I my haggling with people in china for parts is still as good as it was when I bought the last set of gpsdos. :)
 331 2012-01-30 00:55:28 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: If it doesn't involve surface-mount soldering, all I need is the parts. :)
 332 2012-01-30 00:55:33 <luke-jr> sipa: but can you make a message+sig+sig where the message contains both sigs?
 333 2012-01-30 00:55:35 <sipa> roconnor: the messages encoded by bitcoin signatures never include a signature, so it's not really meaningful
 334 2012-01-30 00:56:05 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: What frequency is the PPS from the gps on that?
 335 2012-01-30 00:56:08 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: yea, it does— but I have a friend doing that. Though it's only a little.
 336 2012-01-30 00:56:16 <roconnor> sipa, oh right
 337 2012-01-30 00:56:24 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 338 2012-01-30 00:56:32 <sipa> luke-jr: i don't think so
 339 2012-01-30 00:56:51 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: the GPS puts out a 10MHZ clock referenced to UTC, which the clock board upconverts to 33mhz and that runs the system. Then there is a pps signal which disambiguates which cycle of the 10mhz waveform is the start of the second.
 340 2012-01-30 00:57:05 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: then the serial stream actually names the second.
 341 2012-01-30 00:57:14 <sipa> gmaxwell: cool project
 342 2012-01-30 00:57:37 <luke-jr> sipa: care to review http://pastebin.com/uKAkQvLm ?
 343 2012-01-30 00:57:59 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: http://www.slipperybrick.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/swatch_007.jpg
 344 2012-01-30 00:58:34 <poiuh> [20-byte-hash-value] shall be the push-20-bytes-onto-the-stack opcode (0x14) followed by exactly 20 bytes.
 345 2012-01-30 00:58:39 <poiuh> it's 21 bytes then?
 346 2012-01-30 00:59:21 <lianj> luke-jr: ? all my tests break if i take (script_sig + script_pubkey).remove_signatures as the script_code input for signature_hash. they pass again if its only script_pubkey (from the prev_tx output)
 347 2012-01-30 01:00:28 <luke-jr> lianj: ?
 348 2012-01-30 01:00:30 <roconnor> luke-jr: why not use CheckMultiSig, or are you trying to get around the ridiculous op counting stuff?
 349 2012-01-30 01:00:41 <luke-jr> roconnor: right, this solves the one benefit BIP 16 had over BIP 17
 350 2012-01-30 01:00:48 <sipa> luke-jr: i think your 2-of-3 scheme works with just sigC being correct
 351 2012-01-30 01:00:55 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 352 2012-01-30 01:01:04 <roconnor> luke-jr: what benefit was that?
 353 2012-01-30 01:01:19 <luke-jr> roconnor: over 1000 multisig inputs per block
 354 2012-01-30 01:02:14 <luke-jr> sipa: OP_VERIFY should ensure sigA or sigB is correct in that case
 355 2012-01-30 01:02:28 <sipa> luke-jr: ok, indeed
 356 2012-01-30 01:02:44 <roconnor> do we have an OP_LEQ?
 357 2012-01-30 01:02:56 * roconnor looks around for his code
 358 2012-01-30 01:02:57 <sipa> so this would mean simply outlawing CHECKMULTISIG in BIP17, luke-jr?
 359 2012-01-30 01:03:03 <sipa> and working around it
 360 2012-01-30 01:03:06 <luke-jr> sipa: not outlawing, just ignoring
 361 2012-01-30 01:03:30 <luke-jr> you'd still want it for N-of-20 cases, for example
 362 2012-01-30 01:03:36 <sipa> right
 363 2012-01-30 01:03:58 <roconnor> ah
 364 2012-01-30 01:04:03 <roconnor> OP_LESSTHANOREQUAL
 365 2012-01-30 01:04:09 <sipa> but creators of transactions will not be inclined to use the workaround instead of checkmultisig, will they?
 366 2012-01-30 01:05:21 <luke-jr> sipa: the redeemer specifies the script
 367 2012-01-30 01:05:22 <lianj> luke-jr: trying to figure out why checksig fails at roconnor's tx http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/tx/2a303a4a64da5bf6a44e6f4de98e13b8f4f6bbdba66d6f9168f2daf72d60610c input 0
 368 2012-01-30 01:06:00 <sipa> luke-jr: the script is fixed by the one you creates the txout
 369 2012-01-30 01:06:04 <sipa> *who
 370 2012-01-30 01:06:30 <theymos> The fee schedule could be adjusted to disincentivize having many "calculated sigops" in a transaction.
 371 2012-01-30 01:06:43 <luke-jr> sipa: with BIP17, the CHECK*SIG is in the scriptSig
 372 2012-01-30 01:06:54 <sipa> luke-jr: i know
 373 2012-01-30 01:07:02 sacarlson has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 374 2012-01-30 01:07:04 <sipa> luke-jr: but the hash of the script is in the txout
 375 2012-01-30 01:07:07 <roconnor> luke-jr: <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG OP_SWAP <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG OP_ADD ... OP_SWAP <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG OP_ADD OP_n OP_GREATERTHANOREQUAL
 376 2012-01-30 01:07:21 <luke-jr> sipa: and the hash of the script is created by the person who will inevitably redeem it
 377 2012-01-30 01:07:27 <roconnor> luke-jr: not that I disagree with your ideas; I'm just throwing out another.
 378 2012-01-30 01:07:36 <sipa> luke-jr: right, so that person determines the script
 379 2012-01-30 01:07:45 <luke-jr> roconnor: for n-of-3?
 380 2012-01-30 01:07:52 <luke-jr> sipa: right, the recipient :p
 381 2012-01-30 01:07:53 <roconnor> luke-jr: for n-of-m
 382 2012-01-30 01:08:03 <sipa> luke-jr: and that person has no incentive to use the workaround over checksig?
 383 2012-01-30 01:08:04 Moron__ has quit ()
 384 2012-01-30 01:08:24 <roconnor> luke-jr: with my ... filled in with nothing you get n-of-3
 385 2012-01-30 01:08:28 <luke-jr> sipa: their cost
 386 2012-01-30 01:09:16 occulta has joined
 387 2012-01-30 01:09:40 Staatsfeind has left ()
 388 2012-01-30 01:10:12 <luke-jr> roconnor: genius :D
 389 2012-01-30 01:10:43 <roconnor> luke-jr: basically it adds up the number of valid signatures and checks that the sum is at least n
 390 2012-01-30 01:10:44 <luke-jr> … except then you check all 3 sigs even if you don't need to
 391 2012-01-30 01:10:51 <luke-jr> :/
 392 2012-01-30 01:10:57 <sipa> luke-jr: i once described a general boolexpr-to-bitcoin-script translation scheme
 393 2012-01-30 01:11:05 <Diablo-D3> erm
 394 2012-01-30 01:11:10 <Diablo-D3> you need to check all 3 sigs, dont you?
 395 2012-01-30 01:11:15 <roconnor> luke-jr: blame bitcoin's stupid anti-dos mechanism.
 396 2012-01-30 01:11:31 <roconnor> for making clients do extra work
 397 2012-01-30 01:11:45 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: my 2-of-3 script skipped the 3rd if the first 2 were valid
 398 2012-01-30 01:12:15 <Diablo-D3> can sigs be ever "never valid"?
 399 2012-01-30 01:12:35 <Diablo-D3> or is there no way to check?
 400 2012-01-30 01:13:46 <Diablo-D3> because if it can be checked, technically "two valid, one never valid" should be rejected
 401 2012-01-30 01:13:47 <roconnor> Diablo-D3: data that is too short will never be a valid signature
 402 2012-01-30 01:13:51 <roconnor> such as OP_0
 403 2012-01-30 01:14:07 <roconnor> I guess a resonable implementation would see this immedately
 404 2012-01-30 01:14:18 * roconnor checks to see if his is resonable
 405 2012-01-30 01:14:45 <roconnor> ya, if decode sigcode fails for me then the verifySignature isn't executed
 406 2012-01-30 01:14:49 <sipa> gavin was talking about disencouraging/non-isstandarding() transactions with non-real-signatures or non-real-pubkeys on the expected places
 407 2012-01-30 01:15:01 <roconnor> luke-jr: so checking failing signatures is almost free
 408 2012-01-30 01:15:15 <roconnor> luke-jr: so that is fine
 409 2012-01-30 01:16:01 <luke-jr> roconnor: but you need to add a dummy item to the stack, defeating the benefit…
 410 2012-01-30 01:17:20 <Diablo-D3> roconnor: yeah but
 411 2012-01-30 01:17:25 <Diablo-D3> luke is claiming his will go if 2 are valid
 412 2012-01-30 01:17:29 <roconnor> luke-jr: I thought the befinit was not doing unnecessary work to verify signatures
 413 2012-01-30 01:17:32 <Diablo-D3> even if 2 are valid, the third still needs to fail properly
 414 2012-01-30 01:17:42 <roconnor> *benefit
 415 2012-01-30 01:18:07 <luke-jr> roconnor: I mean the benefit of your N-of-M script, which was a byte shorter
 416 2012-01-30 01:18:16 <luke-jr> or was it just the ease of being able to compute any N-of-M?
 417 2012-01-30 01:18:22 <poiuh> sup
 418 2012-01-30 01:18:27 <roconnor> luke-jr: I was thinking ease
 419 2012-01-30 01:18:37 <roconnor> luke-jr: and hopefully shorter
 420 2012-01-30 01:19:12 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 421 2012-01-30 01:19:25 <luke-jr> hmm
 422 2012-01-30 01:19:35 <luke-jr> roconnor: easier to BIPify at least :D
 423 2012-01-30 01:19:56 <roconnor> this is in some sense a ridiciouls BIP
 424 2012-01-30 01:20:10 <roconnor> the problem is that the anti-DOS stuff is too stupid.
 425 2012-01-30 01:20:45 <roconnor> er
 426 2012-01-30 01:20:47 <roconnor> wait
 427 2012-01-30 01:20:52 <roconnor> is this built into the core rule set?
 428 2012-01-30 01:21:01 <roconnor> or is just a network relay problem?
 429 2012-01-30 01:21:36 <luke-jr> ?
 430 2012-01-30 01:22:12 <sipa> roconnor: which rule are you talking about, exactly?
 431 2012-01-30 01:22:19 Clipse has joined
 432 2012-01-30 01:22:26 <roconnor> Is the OP_CHECKMULTISIG counting as 20 part of network relay rules or part of core verificiation rules?
 433 2012-01-30 01:22:43 <theymos> Core.
 434 2012-01-30 01:23:00 <roconnor> too bad
 435 2012-01-30 01:23:11 <sipa> both, actually
 436 2012-01-30 01:23:21 <sipa> per transaction it is a network relay rule
 437 2012-01-30 01:23:23 <roconnor> it should count as less if you can statically verify that it will do less because an OP_n preceeds it.
 438 2012-01-30 01:23:31 <sipa> per block is is a block validation rule
 439 2012-01-30 01:23:42 <sipa> roconnor: that is what BIP16 does
 440 2012-01-30 01:24:06 <roconnor> BIP16 has a different counting rule?
 441 2012-01-30 01:24:25 Lexa has joined
 442 2012-01-30 01:25:00 twobitcoins has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 443 2012-01-30 01:25:04 <roconnor> ugh
 444 2012-01-30 01:25:06 <roconnor> it does
 445 2012-01-30 01:25:45 <poiuh> biptaculous
 446 2012-01-30 01:26:00 sacarlson has joined
 447 2012-01-30 01:26:59 <sipa> roconnor: that is one of the advantages BIP16 has, imho
 448 2012-01-30 01:27:14 <sipa> and luke is now trying to compensate for that in BIP17 by working around checkmultisig
 449 2012-01-30 01:27:43 <roconnor> sipa: no denying BIP16 is a hack though
 450 2012-01-30 01:27:56 <sipa> sure it so
 451 2012-01-30 01:27:58 <sipa> sure it is
 452 2012-01-30 01:28:16 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 453 2012-01-30 01:30:28 <poiuh> bippity boppity boop
 454 2012-01-30 01:31:43 eoss has joined
 455 2012-01-30 01:31:43 eoss has quit (Changing host)
 456 2012-01-30 01:31:43 eoss has joined
 457 2012-01-30 01:32:07 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 458 2012-01-30 01:34:44 <poiuh> bop
 459 2012-01-30 01:41:06 minimoose has joined
 460 2012-01-30 01:41:39 jondoe has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 461 2012-01-30 01:47:21 <poiuh> http://www.betabeat.com/2012/01/27/silk-road-secret-website-where-you-can-buy-drugs-is-hiring/ - Silk Road, Secret Website Where You Can Buy Drugs, Is Hiring
 462 2012-01-30 01:48:58 SomeoneWeirdzzzz is now known as SomeoneWeird
 463 2012-01-30 01:49:33 <BlueMatt> "that came to light after Gawker’s Adrian Chen announced you could buy any drug imaginable"
 464 2012-01-30 01:49:46 <BlueMatt> really, no one had ever heard of silk road before gawker?
 465 2012-01-30 01:49:48 <BlueMatt> thats bullshit
 466 2012-01-30 01:51:19 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: a lot of the mass media makes more sense if you insert (to me) "that came to light (to me) after Gawker’s Adrian Chen announced"
 467 2012-01-30 01:51:43 <BlueMatt> heh, ok but thats the opposite of the point of media, but ok
 468 2012-01-30 01:52:06 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I think the essence of that field is that you pretend everyone in the world cares and knows about the same stuff as you. .. then a darwinian process selects for reporters who are actually representative.
 469 2012-01-30 01:52:29 <k9quaint> I think it selects against them
 470 2012-01-30 01:52:57 <gmaxwell> If you happen to be non-representative (e.g. you have _the slightest clue_ about the subject at hand) it won't make sense without the "(to me)", because the reporters never have a clue.
 471 2012-01-30 01:53:11 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: representative of their readers, not reality.
 472 2012-01-30 01:53:48 <k9quaint> I subscribe to playboy for the pictures, not the articles
 473 2012-01-30 01:54:14 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yea, media needs to actually ask experts more...
 474 2012-01-30 01:54:38 <BlueMatt> there should be a rule at major publications that each reporter needs to get at least 3 people who know wtf they are talking about to ack articles before they can be published
 475 2012-01-30 01:55:32 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: They also should be required to disclose transacripts of their interview. They're terribly about selectively quoting.
 476 2012-01-30 01:55:41 <BlueMatt> that too
 477 2012-01-30 01:55:48 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 478 2012-01-30 02:01:09 <CIA-97> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r7bcda9a28fca cgminer/ (adl.c adl.h): Pass the correct GPU from the menu to the adl code. http://tinyurl.com/829yzhl
 479 2012-01-30 02:01:10 <CIA-97> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * rb861d8d8016c eloipool/jsonrpcserver.py: Refactor JSONRPCHandler task scheduling, so that there is (almost) always *some* task scheduled http://tinyurl.com/7ngx5fa
 480 2012-01-30 02:13:04 baz has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 481 2012-01-30 02:13:18 <copumpkin> have things calmed down in here?
 482 2012-01-30 02:13:33 <BlueMatt> I believe so
 483 2012-01-30 02:13:36 <luke-jr> copumpkin: no, BlueMatt is still here
 484 2012-01-30 02:13:42 <luke-jr> can't be calm with him around it seems
 485 2012-01-30 02:13:43 <BlueMatt> apparently not
 486 2012-01-30 02:17:56 <BTC_Bear> Ok, just to clarify. Can we go over this one more time?   A > B,   B > A,   A ≠ B,   0 <> (A or B)  OR (A and B) >< 0 ?  Is an XOR possible?  :)
 487 2012-01-30 02:18:51 <sipa> what is >< ?
 488 2012-01-30 02:19:00 <sipa> and what is your question, actually?
 489 2012-01-30 02:19:27 <BlueMatt> I think A is BIP 16 and B is BIP 17
 490 2012-01-30 02:19:58 <BTC_Bear> I was just trying to lighten the tension, it means nothing.
 491 2012-01-30 02:20:02 <copumpkin> :)
 492 2012-01-30 02:20:03 <sipa> ok :)
 493 2012-01-30 02:20:09 * copumpkin solves BTC_Bear's system of inequalities
 494 2012-01-30 02:20:14 * copumpkin asplodez
 495 2012-01-30 02:20:30 <sipa> { A > B, B > A, A ≠ B } is unsolvable :(
 496 2012-01-30 02:20:31 storrgie has joined
 497 2012-01-30 02:20:48 <copumpkin> it's insolvable even without the A != B
 498 2012-01-30 02:20:49 <BlueMatt> A > B, B > A is unsolvable
 499 2012-01-30 02:20:57 <sipa> damn, duh!
 500 2012-01-30 02:21:09 <Diablo-D3> not true
 501 2012-01-30 02:21:12 <BlueMatt> otoh, 42 works
 502 2012-01-30 02:21:17 <Diablo-D3> theres some languages that it can be done.
 503 2012-01-30 02:21:25 <gmaxwell> Can A and B be vectors?
 504 2012-01-30 02:21:32 <BlueMatt> its 42
 505 2012-01-30 02:21:33 <gmaxwell> What space is this in?
 506 2012-01-30 02:21:37 <gmaxwell> Is it a proper metric space?
 507 2012-01-30 02:21:39 <BlueMatt> 42
 508 2012-01-30 02:21:42 <Diablo-D3> lol gmaxwell can do it
 509 2012-01-30 02:21:44 <copumpkin> in any strict order, that's impossible
 510 2012-01-30 02:21:51 <copumpkin> if it's >= it works fine
 511 2012-01-30 02:22:06 <Diablo-D3> copumpkin: nope.
 512 2012-01-30 02:22:07 <AAA_awright> It's not an empty set?
 513 2012-01-30 02:22:23 * luke-jr throws BIP 18 at BTC_Bear
 514 2012-01-30 02:22:47 <copumpkin> Diablo-D3: it's one of the axioms of a strict partial order: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_partial_order#Strict_and_non-strict_partial_orders
 515 2012-01-30 02:24:09 <Diablo-D3> copumpkin: yes, and Im saying that only applies to specific forms of math.
 516 2012-01-30 02:24:11 user_ has joined
 517 2012-01-30 02:24:29 <copumpkin> hmm
 518 2012-01-30 02:24:58 <copumpkin> may I have a counterexample then? or are you thinking of 754? :)
 519 2012-01-30 02:25:07 <BlueMatt> its 42, god
 520 2012-01-30 02:25:14 <sipa> Diablo-D3: and copumpkin already excluded those by requiring > and < to be a strict order
 521 2012-01-30 02:25:22 <sipa> BlueMatt wins
 522 2012-01-30 02:25:25 * Diablo-D3 shrugs
 523 2012-01-30 02:25:30 <copumpkin> order theory tries to axiomatize the usual ordering relations in a similar way that algebra axiomatizes common operations
 524 2012-01-30 02:25:30 <Diablo-D3> copumpkin: go look it up on wikipedia
 525 2012-01-30 02:25:54 <copumpkin> ...
 526 2012-01-30 02:26:06 <luke-jr> roconnor: any reason to use >= instead of OP_EQUAL?
 527 2012-01-30 02:27:24 <copumpkin> see, this is why I like constructive logic
 528 2012-01-30 02:27:33 <copumpkin> you're required to provide a witness if you make a claim of existence
 529 2012-01-30 02:27:41 <copumpkin> classical logic allows you to say "yo, one exists, find it yourself"
 530 2012-01-30 02:27:52 <copumpkin> (usually with more of an argument in support of one existing, granted)
 531 2012-01-30 02:29:42 <roconnor> luke-jr: I think OP_EQUALVERIFY is likely better
 532 2012-01-30 02:29:51 <Diablo-D3> copumpkin: I am not a search engine, however.
 533 2012-01-30 02:29:58 <Diablo-D3> theres strange forms of math that exist
 534 2012-01-30 02:30:01 <roconnor> luke-jr: it just means you *need* to OP_0 out extra signatures if you have them, which is probably for the best
 535 2012-01-30 02:30:08 <Diablo-D3> even basic rules like that do not work there
 536 2012-01-30 02:30:15 <sipa> copumpkin: just nod and smile
 537 2012-01-30 02:30:15 <Diablo-D3> I suspect they exist to summon ancient dark gods.
 538 2012-01-30 02:30:30 <copumpkin> lol
 539 2012-01-30 02:30:34 <copumpkin> fair enough :)
 540 2012-01-30 02:30:39 <luke-jr> roconnor: yeah, saves blockchain space
 541 2012-01-30 02:30:48 <Diablo-D3> just because I didnt bookmark them doesnt mean they dont exist
 542 2012-01-30 02:30:50 * copumpkin will one day study the ancient dark god-summoning forms of strange math
 543 2012-01-30 02:31:01 <copumpkin> for now I am but a student of wordly math
 544 2012-01-30 02:50:35 h4ckm3 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 545 2012-01-30 02:50:50 jondoe has joined
 546 2012-01-30 02:51:51 BLZNGPNGN has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 547 2012-01-30 02:53:21 eoss has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 548 2012-01-30 02:57:36 dissipate_ has joined
 549 2012-01-30 03:08:04 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 550 2012-01-30 03:09:26 ThomasV_ has joined
 551 2012-01-30 03:16:45 Diablo-D3 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 552 2012-01-30 03:17:14 Diablo-D3 has joined
 553 2012-01-30 03:19:10 b4epoche_ has joined
 554 2012-01-30 03:20:49 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 555 2012-01-30 03:20:49 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 556 2012-01-30 03:22:39 user_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 557 2012-01-30 03:24:49 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 558 2012-01-30 03:25:03 [7] has joined
 559 2012-01-30 03:27:02 ThomasV_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 560 2012-01-30 03:32:16 anubis1 has joined
 561 2012-01-30 03:41:31 torsthaldo has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 562 2012-01-30 03:44:15 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 563 2012-01-30 03:46:06 ThomasV_ has joined
 564 2012-01-30 03:46:48 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: No route to host)
 565 2012-01-30 03:47:47 Nicksasa has joined
 566 2012-01-30 03:51:10 hexx has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 567 2012-01-30 04:11:38 niggaholdthat has joined
 568 2012-01-30 04:12:10 <niggaholdthat> Hey guys, anyone here developed code around bitcoind's jsonrpc interface?
 569 2012-01-30 04:12:18 <niggaholdthat> I need help :(
 570 2012-01-30 04:12:30 <splatster> I haven't but I'll give it a shot :)
 571 2012-01-30 04:12:44 <BlueMatt> "Ask, dont ask to ask"
 572 2012-01-30 04:12:46 <niggaholdthat> Okay, this might be general bitcoin related but - why does bitcoind not reflect my transactions?
 573 2012-01-30 04:12:54 <sipa> "reflect" ?
 574 2012-01-30 04:12:57 <niggaholdthat> hmm
 575 2012-01-30 04:13:14 <niggaholdthat> I've sent two  bitcoins to an address generated by bitcoind, it has been a few hours, and bitcoind getbalance does not show anything
 576 2012-01-30 04:13:31 <splatster> what is the address?
 577 2012-01-30 04:13:37 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: try listtransactions
 578 2012-01-30 04:13:39 <splatster> Details, my friend, details.
 579 2012-01-30 04:13:45 <sipa> look up the address on blockchain.info
 580 2012-01-30 04:13:55 <niggaholdthat> listtransactions shows 0
 581 2012-01-30 04:14:02 <niggaholdthat> http://blockexplorer.com/q/getreceivedbyaddress/19y3ijpZ5bUnihYVo86gtzssM3EtpE6Mwt <- I sent 1.1 to this address
 582 2012-01-30 04:14:24 <sipa> blockexplorer only shows transactions that were included in the block chain
 583 2012-01-30 04:14:32 <sipa> if they were, you'd certainly see them in your client as well
 584 2012-01-30 04:14:41 <sipa> try blockchain.info, it also shows pending transactions
 585 2012-01-30 04:14:48 <luke-jr> sipa: it shows it on BBE
 586 2012-01-30 04:15:08 <niggaholdthat> is it possible for a transaction to be pending at the same moment blockexplorer shows some value?
 587 2012-01-30 04:15:18 <nanotube> niggaholdthat: run getinfo, see what your blockcount is.
 588 2012-01-30 04:15:24 <luke-jr> >_<
 589 2012-01-30 04:15:29 <luke-jr> blockchain.info shows firstbits
 590 2012-01-30 04:15:43 <splatster> niggaholdthat: What is the address you sent the 2 bitcoins to?
 591 2012-01-30 04:16:04 <BlueMatt> who runs blockchain.info?
 592 2012-01-30 04:16:13 <niggaholdthat> splatster, I sent two bitcoins in total, 1.1 to that addr, and .9 to a friend's bitcoind setup, I will not be posting his address just in case
 593 2012-01-30 04:16:36 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: PiUK
 594 2012-01-30 04:16:44 <splatster> you could PM it to me or someone else
 595 2012-01-30 04:16:45 <BlueMatt> is that a nick???
 596 2012-01-30 04:16:48 <luke-jr> …yes
 597 2012-01-30 04:16:50 <niggaholdthat>     "blocks" : 163743,
 598 2012-01-30 04:16:57 <BlueMatt> ;;seen PiUK
 599 2012-01-30 04:16:57 <gribble> PiUK was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 7 hours, 11 minutes, and 54 seconds ago: <piuk> ignore that - my mistake
 600 2012-01-30 04:17:08 <BlueMatt> mmm
 601 2012-01-30 04:17:28 <splatster> niggaholdthat: you're missing a number of blocks i think
 602 2012-01-30 04:17:34 <splatster> current block is 164479
 603 2012-01-30 04:17:37 <niggaholdthat> how long does that usually take?
 604 2012-01-30 04:17:42 <nanotube> ;;bc,blocks
 605 2012-01-30 04:17:43 <gribble> 164479
 606 2012-01-30 04:17:45 <nanotube> yea
 607 2012-01-30 04:17:46 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: 0.5.2?
 608 2012-01-30 04:17:49 <niggaholdthat> fuark that's a lot of blocks
 609 2012-01-30 04:17:54 <niggaholdthat> luke-jr .4
 610 2012-01-30 04:18:03 <splatster> ;;calc 164479 - 163743
 611 2012-01-30 04:18:03 <gribble> 736
 612 2012-01-30 04:18:06 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: could be a while
 613 2012-01-30 04:18:12 <luke-jr> actually
 614 2012-01-30 04:18:13 <splatster> you are missing 736 blocks
 615 2012-01-30 04:18:19 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: 0.4. what?
 616 2012-01-30 04:18:33 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: 0.4.3 will be faster
 617 2012-01-30 04:18:42 <luke-jr> and is the only 0.4.x people should use right now
 618 2012-01-30 04:18:44 <niggaholdthat> the bitcoin daemon exists in a folder called /bitcoin-0.4.0-linux/
 619 2012-01-30 04:18:47 <niggaholdthat> so I assume 0.4.0
 620 2012-01-30 04:18:54 <luke-jr> ancient, and has security flaws
 621 2012-01-30 04:18:57 <luke-jr> upgrade to 0.4.3 asap
 622 2012-01-30 04:18:59 <niggaholdthat> jesus
 623 2012-01-30 04:19:15 <splatster> 0.5.2 is the latest
 624 2012-01-30 04:19:23 <niggaholdthat> which is recommended?
 625 2012-01-30 04:19:33 <sipa> 0.4.3 or 0.5.2
 626 2012-01-30 04:19:48 <niggaholdthat> I should be good if I just download the binary of those versions right?
 627 2012-01-30 04:19:50 <niggaholdthat> no recompiling
 628 2012-01-30 04:19:57 <sipa> niggaholdthat: are you using the gui, or bitcoind?
 629 2012-01-30 04:19:58 <BlueMatt> yea
 630 2012-01-30 04:19:59 <luke-jr> http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/bitcoind-0.4.3/ <-- 0.4.3 binaries from BlueMatt
 631 2012-01-30 04:20:06 <niggaholdthat> sipa: bitcoind, running this off my linode
 632 2012-01-30 04:20:18 <niggaholdthat> luke-jr thanks, I will look into it
 633 2012-01-30 04:20:30 <niggaholdthat> are there any major changes I need to know about? new conf settings, compatibility etc
 634 2012-01-30 04:20:42 RobinPKR_ has joined
 635 2012-01-30 04:20:52 <sipa> the difference between 0.4 and 0.5 is mostly the gui that changed
 636 2012-01-30 04:20:57 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: 0.4.3 has the exact same features as 0.4.0
 637 2012-01-30 04:21:04 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: and it will be that way for all 0.4.x
 638 2012-01-30 04:21:04 <niggaholdthat> oh. I don't use the gui, so I should be using 0.4.3?
 639 2012-01-30 04:21:06 <CIA-97> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r09184720c293 cgminer/ (main.c miner.h util.c): As share submission is usually staggered, and delays can be costly, submit shares without delay even when --net-delay is enabled. http://tinyurl.com/6sdkww9
 640 2012-01-30 04:21:35 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: basically, the first two numbers of versions tell you what features are supported
 641 2012-01-30 04:21:48 <sipa> niggaholdthat: well, is there any reason not to use 0.5.2?
 642 2012-01-30 04:22:03 <luke-jr> 0.5.2 gets you a performance boost
 643 2012-01-30 04:22:09 <niggaholdthat> sipa that is what I am wondering myself :p
 644 2012-01-30 04:22:13 <luke-jr> oh right, 0.4.3 does too <.<
 645 2012-01-30 04:22:20 <niggaholdthat> heh
 646 2012-01-30 04:22:33 <niggaholdthat> I notice in the title "Old versions harm the network and your security"
 647 2012-01-30 04:22:37 <niggaholdthat> is this the case for 0.4.3?
 648 2012-01-30 04:22:43 OneFixt has quit ()
 649 2012-01-30 04:22:56 <BlueMatt> 0.4.2 isnt old
 650 2012-01-30 04:23:00 <BlueMatt> s/2/3/
 651 2012-01-30 04:23:01 OneFixt has joined
 652 2012-01-30 04:23:06 <niggaholdthat> oh right
 653 2012-01-30 04:23:11 <niggaholdthat> the 3rd digit denotes the version?
 654 2012-01-30 04:23:17 <luke-jr> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61125.msg721613#msg721613
 655 2012-01-30 04:23:23 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: 3rd digit denotes bugfixes
 656 2012-01-30 04:23:26 <sipa> 0.4.2 and 0.4.3 were relased after 0.5.0
 657 2012-01-30 04:23:31 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 658 2012-01-30 04:23:31 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
 659 2012-01-30 04:23:37 <luke-jr> 0.4.3 and 0.5.2 were released at the same time ;)
 660 2012-01-30 04:23:39 <sipa> but just use 0.5.2
 661 2012-01-30 04:23:46 <niggaholdthat> the 4 and the 5 denote what? gui fixes?
 662 2012-01-30 04:23:54 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: feature set
 663 2012-01-30 04:24:08 dissipate_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 664 2012-01-30 04:24:12 <niggaholdthat> okay that makes sense
 665 2012-01-30 04:25:51 <niggaholdthat> okay, so switching over to 0.4.3 for bitcoind still doesn't change the problem with the lack of blocks being downloaded - or does it?
 666 2012-01-30 04:26:02 storrgie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 667 2012-01-30 04:27:30 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: it should
 668 2012-01-30 04:28:48 <niggaholdthat> thank you, I will give it an shot
 669 2012-01-30 04:29:09 <sipa> niggaholdthat: did your system crash some time ago?
 670 2012-01-30 04:29:16 <sipa> or did bitcoind not close cleanly?
 671 2012-01-30 04:29:31 <niggaholdthat> I kill -9'd bitcoind because it kept hanging
 672 2012-01-30 04:29:38 <sipa> ah
 673 2012-01-30 04:29:49 <niggaholdthat> would that be a big issue for block downloading?
 674 2012-01-30 04:29:57 <niggaholdthat> I assumed  bitcoind would resume downloading the blocks once restarted
 675 2012-01-30 04:29:59 <luke-jr> it could be
 676 2012-01-30 04:30:07 <sipa> it should, but there may be an unresolved issue
 677 2012-01-30 04:30:17 <sipa> where the block chain file gets in a corrupted state
 678 2012-01-30 04:30:17 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 679 2012-01-30 04:31:43 <niggaholdthat> thanks
 680 2012-01-30 04:32:14 pickett has joined
 681 2012-01-30 04:32:23 <niggaholdthat> also, is there a reason the bitcoind server takes some time to start up? I noticed even with 0.4.3 "bitcoind getinfo" results in no response from server right after restarting
 682 2012-01-30 04:32:31 <sipa> niggaholdthat: could you paste a few pages of what your debug.log contains?
 683 2012-01-30 04:32:33 <niggaholdthat> I mean, "couldn't connect to server"
 684 2012-01-30 04:32:34 <sipa> the bottom
 685 2012-01-30 04:32:45 <sipa> yes, the rpc server isn't started until all block info is loade
 686 2012-01-30 04:32:46 <sipa> d
 687 2012-01-30 04:33:17 <niggaholdthat> https://www.privatepaste.com/download/01008374fc
 688 2012-01-30 04:33:23 <BlueMatt> I love how flash tries to cache movies while they are playing
 689 2012-01-30 04:33:42 <BlueMatt> deletes a tmp file and keeps the file open so that you have to grab the file from /proc/procid/fd/...
 690 2012-01-30 04:33:45 <niggaholdthat> is there anyway to get the rpc server to start before the blockinfo? or does this not even make sense
 691 2012-01-30 04:34:06 <sipa> niggaholdthat: it's a safety measure
 692 2012-01-30 04:34:19 <niggaholdthat> now I'm getting a bunch of these: ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
 693 2012-01-30 04:34:20 <sipa> otherwise you could see incomplete info
 694 2012-01-30 04:34:24 <niggaholdthat> ah, okay
 695 2012-01-30 04:34:24 <sipa> oh, good
 696 2012-01-30 04:34:35 <sipa> that means block syncing is continuing
 697 2012-01-30 04:34:39 <niggaholdthat> I'm guessing that means the missing blocks are downloading
 698 2012-01-30 04:34:40 <niggaholdthat> ah okay
 699 2012-01-30 04:34:53 <niggaholdthat> another question - is it necessary for older blocks to be downloaded or kept on the server?
 700 2012-01-30 04:34:59 <sipa> yes, for now
 701 2012-01-30 04:35:08 <niggaholdthat> disk space is cheap but I'd rather avoid doing so
 702 2012-01-30 04:35:09 <niggaholdthat> okay
 703 2012-01-30 04:37:06 <niggaholdthat> root[~/test/btc/]$ time ./bitcoind getinfo > /dev/null
 704 2012-01-30 04:37:06 <niggaholdthat> real    0m9.390s
 705 2012-01-30 04:37:10 MrTiggr has joined
 706 2012-01-30 04:37:15 <niggaholdthat> why does it take so long to getinfo? :(
 707 2012-01-30 04:37:24 <BlueMatt> is this 0.5.3?
 708 2012-01-30 04:37:28 <BlueMatt> s/3/2/
 709 2012-01-30 04:37:31 <niggaholdthat> 0.4.3
 710 2012-01-30 04:37:36 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: it's downloading blocks
 711 2012-01-30 04:37:42 <luke-jr> and bitcoind is very lock-happy
 712 2012-01-30 04:37:55 <BlueMatt> yea, bitcoin just locks alot
 713 2012-01-30 04:37:58 <niggaholdthat> so after catching up with the blocks, does this still happen?
 714 2012-01-30 04:38:03 <luke-jr> not as badly
 715 2012-01-30 04:38:08 * BlueMatt takes this opporunity to point out that cblockstore isnt as lock-happy
 716 2012-01-30 04:38:17 <BlueMatt> (slightly)
 717 2012-01-30 04:38:26 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: but it's not in next-test cuz you said it's not ready
 718 2012-01-30 04:38:35 <BlueMatt> yea, theres a few things to work out
 719 2012-01-30 04:38:38 <BlueMatt> well, only really one
 720 2012-01-30 04:38:44 <sipa> which is?
 721 2012-01-30 04:38:46 <BlueMatt> theres some nasty perf bug hiding
 722 2012-01-30 04:38:52 <sipa> ah, that one
 723 2012-01-30 04:38:58 <BlueMatt> from one tmpfs node to another it can be almost 25%
 724 2012-01-30 04:39:04 <niggaholdthat> how do larger websites handle this? I understand abstracting bitcoind's functionality to avoid relying on it for everything, but this isn't as easy when you need to get your balance
 725 2012-01-30 04:39:22 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: you probably don't want to run bitcoind on a website
 726 2012-01-30 04:39:42 <sipa> niggaholdthat: getinfo is not really a problem during stable operation
 727 2012-01-30 04:39:59 <sipa> just while downloading blocks, bitcoind indeed really gets sloppy
 728 2012-01-30 04:40:01 <luke-jr> if you're just accepting payments, keep your bitcoin client offline, and generate X addresses every week or month to refill the webserver's address db
 729 2012-01-30 04:41:04 <CIA-97> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r5a14ec53c88b cgminer/ (adl.c adl.h main.c): Add a --dev-reorder option to only reorder devices according to PCI Bus ID when requested. http://tinyurl.com/7gy8bmb
 730 2012-01-30 04:41:05 <CIA-97> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rba74fe56600d cgminer/main.c: Clear adl on exiting after probing values since it may attempt to overclock. http://tinyurl.com/7gfd6or
 731 2012-01-30 04:41:21 <niggaholdthat> yeah, for accepting payments I have a ton of pregenerated addresses
 732 2012-01-30 04:41:29 <niggaholdthat> but I want to process transactions as well
 733 2012-01-30 04:44:21 traviscj has joined
 734 2012-01-30 04:46:21 <luke-jr> ah
 735 2012-01-30 04:48:28 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
 736 2012-01-30 04:48:35 ThomasV_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 737 2012-01-30 04:49:37 <roconnor> etotheipi_: what is your source of randomness for signature generation?
 738 2012-01-30 04:49:50 <etotheipi_> crypto++ PRNG
 739 2012-01-30 04:50:01 <etotheipi_> which claims to pull from all sorts of sources from your system
 740 2012-01-30 04:50:06 <etotheipi_> I don't remember the details, though
 741 2012-01-30 04:50:08 <roconnor> ok
 742 2012-01-30 04:50:16 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: be careful with that.
 743 2012-01-30 04:50:52 <gmaxwell> A couple of bits of non-randomness can leak the private key if the private key is reused enough times.
 744 2012-01-30 04:51:07 <CIA-97> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rc9404f4d1190 cgminer/adl.c: Make sure to set virtual adapters if --dev-reorder is not enabled or device numbers don't match. http://tinyurl.com/7nzljmu
 745 2012-01-30 04:51:28 <etotheipi_> my understanding is that the crypto++ RNG is as good as any
 746 2012-01-30 04:51:44 <etotheipi_> but i'm surely interested to hear evidence otherwise
 747 2012-01-30 04:51:56 <etotheipi_> I'm looking it up, now
 748 2012-01-30 04:52:22 <gmaxwell> I think I'm a fan of the scheme ed25519 uses.
 749 2012-01-30 04:53:02 <gmaxwell> the 'private key' goes through SHA512, left half is the private key. Right half is a secret hashed with the message to create the per signature random value.
 750 2012-01-30 04:53:07 <niggaholdthat> how does blockexplorer get balances really fast? is it their network connection?
 751 2012-01-30 04:53:27 <sipa> niggaholdthat: probably cached in their database
 752 2012-01-30 04:53:30 <gmaxwell> Hm? blockexplorer is pretty slow.
 753 2012-01-30 04:54:04 <niggaholdthat> it updates faster than bitcoind/bitcoin-qt on my desktop
 754 2012-01-30 04:54:23 <luke-jr> not if you leave them running 24/7
 755 2012-01-30 04:54:50 <gmaxwell> niggaholdthat: 0_o you should see new transactions long before they're on blockexplorer, assuming like luke says, you leave them running.
 756 2012-01-30 04:55:31 <niggaholdthat> if I leave it running 24/7, does it notice my transactions faster than usual or something?
 757 2012-01-30 04:56:09 <gmaxwell> niggaholdthat: assuming you are current with the blockchain you will normally see transactions within a second of so of them being sent, prior to them even being mined.
 758 2012-01-30 04:57:19 <etotheipi_> http://bygreencn.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/a-survey-of-pseudo-random-number-generators/
 759 2012-01-30 04:57:26 <poiuh> cools
 760 2012-01-30 04:57:49 <niggaholdthat> hmm. so would it make sense to leave bitcoind running for a long time before I run my application live?
 761 2012-01-30 04:57:56 <niggaholdthat> so that transactions are more instant
 762 2012-01-30 04:58:31 <etotheipi_> "[Crypto++ PRNG] is suitable for all cryptographic purposes including generating keys and IVs."
 763 2012-01-30 04:58:54 <sipa> niggaholdthat: you just need the block chain
 764 2012-01-30 04:59:04 <sipa> niggaholdthat: once you have that, everything is pretty much instantaneously
 765 2012-01-30 04:59:13 <sipa> but catching up can take some time
 766 2012-01-30 05:01:58 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 767 2012-01-30 05:04:44 <niggaholdthat> the balance has been reflected! thanks, guys.
 768 2012-01-30 05:04:53 <niggaholdthat> I will continue optimizing my use of bitcoind, thank you for all your help
 769 2012-01-30 05:11:13 <CIA-97> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r3de7c7f9c29d cgminer/util.c: Stop advertising midstate support until it's fixed. http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/cpuminer/cgminer.git/commitdiff/3de7c7f9c29d9007cb102e7b994c672d7b9c740e
 770 2012-01-30 05:14:13 <BlueMatt> can we move the constant cgminer commits to #bitcoin-mining
 771 2012-01-30 05:14:18 <BlueMatt> or just out of #bitcoin-dev
 772 2012-01-30 05:15:08 <sipa> ack
 773 2012-01-30 05:15:33 <BlueMatt> Ive tried it before but luke went crazy
 774 2012-01-30 05:16:13 <BlueMatt> well mostly because of his personal bitcoind repo
 775 2012-01-30 05:17:50 <sipa> that shouldn't be here either
 776 2012-01-30 05:17:57 <sipa> i don't mind bitcoin-stable here, though
 777 2012-01-30 05:18:05 <luke-jr> sipa: why are you going along with his trolling?
 778 2012-01-30 05:18:37 <BlueMatt> bitcoind-stable can stay, I dont understand why a personal bitcoin fork should be here...
 779 2012-01-30 05:18:40 <sipa> i don think all updates to anyone's personal branches should be listed here
 780 2012-01-30 05:18:47 <sipa> it's just not interesting
 781 2012-01-30 05:18:49 <luke-jr> it is
 782 2012-01-30 05:19:43 <sipa> well, i disagree
 783 2012-01-30 05:20:03 <BlueMatt> why do you always have to disagree and make a big deal of everything luke?
 784 2012-01-30 05:20:25 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: you're destroying bitcoin!
 785 2012-01-30 05:20:37 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: you're the troll making a big deal of ON-TOPIC commits
 786 2012-01-30 05:20:48 <BlueMatt> meh, whatever
 787 2012-01-30 05:20:58 <gmaxwell> about 3/4 of the commit messages that hit the channel have me wondering wtf I'm seeing that for.
 788 2012-01-30 05:21:05 <sipa> same
 789 2012-01-30 05:21:20 <sipa> who owns this channel?
 790 2012-01-30 05:21:22 <BlueMatt> yea, but if luke's gonna make literally everything political...meh
 791 2012-01-30 05:21:32 <BlueMatt> nanotube: ping
 792 2012-01-30 05:21:45 <BlueMatt> ;;seen nanotube
 793 2012-01-30 05:21:45 <gribble> nanotube was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 1 hour, 3 minutes, and 59 seconds ago: <nanotube> yea
 794 2012-01-30 05:21:45 * luke-jr notes BlueMatt tried this troll months ago too
 795 2012-01-30 05:22:09 <nanotube> pong?
 796 2012-01-30 05:22:14 <luke-jr> a lot of discussions here don't relate to me either; is that a reason to censor them?
 797 2012-01-30 05:22:26 <BlueMatt> nanotube: can you reenable the commits coming from the bitcoin repo in the rss bot?
 798 2012-01-30 05:22:27 <luke-jr> nanotube: BlueMatt was abusing his ops earlier
 799 2012-01-30 05:22:50 <luke-jr> nanotube: and now he's trying to reopen an ancient resolved argument
 800 2012-01-30 05:22:53 <BlueMatt> yea, I kicked you a few times because you made statements that were blatantly false or stupid
 801 2012-01-30 05:22:56 <luke-jr> yet another
 802 2012-01-30 05:23:04 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: liar, you just outright abused it
 803 2012-01-30 05:23:05 <BlueMatt> oh god...wtf?
 804 2012-01-30 05:23:08 <nanotube> >_<
 805 2012-01-30 05:23:14 <luke-jr> nanotube has logs
 806 2012-01-30 05:23:23 <BlueMatt> I kicked you twice, get over it...
 807 2012-01-30 05:23:27 <gmaxwell> omg. where is the garden hose?
 808 2012-01-30 05:23:41 <BlueMatt> anyway, nanotube can you reenable commit messages, Im about to turn off and ban the CIA bot
 809 2012-01-30 05:23:44 <BlueMatt> (if you dont mind)
 810 2012-01-30 05:23:47 <nanotube> ;;give garden hose to gmaxwell
 811 2012-01-30 05:23:47 * gribble gives garden hose to gmaxwell
 812 2012-01-30 05:23:48 <luke-jr> 3x
 813 2012-01-30 05:24:03 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: see, he's threatening to abuse it more
 814 2012-01-30 05:24:07 <luke-jr> nanotube*
 815 2012-01-30 05:24:16 <sipa> well at least i'm in favor
 816 2012-01-30 05:24:22 <luke-jr> the CIA "argument" was resolved months ago
 817 2012-01-30 05:24:31 <BlueMatt> omg luke, make an argument stop crying abuse for everything?
 818 2012-01-30 05:24:40 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: you're the one making arugments
 819 2012-01-30 05:24:46 <nanotube> ok guys... to keep the dev channel full of wonderful devvy goodness, and barren of useless crap that nobody will want to read in the future... let's talk about this in #bitcoin-dev-meta :)
 820 2012-01-30 05:24:59 <BlueMatt> sounds good
 821 2012-01-30 05:25:26 BlueMatt has joined
 822 2012-01-30 05:31:50 Joric has joined
 823 2012-01-30 05:38:34 CIA-97 has left ()
 824 2012-01-30 05:39:23 <BlueMatt> damn
 825 2012-01-30 05:39:24 <BlueMatt> too short
 826 2012-01-30 05:39:40 <TuxBlackEdo> blow the whistle
 827 2012-01-30 05:39:47 <nanotube> BlueMatt: dump the 'if you have a question'
 828 2012-01-30 05:40:00 <nanotube> BlueMatt: people who read irc topic, also know to just ask :)
 829 2012-01-30 05:40:05 <nanotube> people who don't know to ask, don't read topic
 830 2012-01-30 05:40:12 <nanotube> so that bit is falling on deaf ears anyway :)
 831 2012-01-30 05:40:25 <BlueMatt> ok, there done
 832 2012-01-30 05:41:55 <TuxBlackEdo> can i ask a question?
 833 2012-01-30 05:42:01 <luke-jr> no
 834 2012-01-30 05:42:03 <TuxBlackEdo> never mind
 835 2012-01-30 05:42:09 <sipa> yes, if you do not ask to aks one :)
 836 2012-01-30 05:43:28 jondoe has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 837 2012-01-30 05:45:17 <nanotube>  ;;kick anyone who asks to ask a question. :P
 838 2012-01-30 05:47:01 <luke-jr> ;;kick gribble
 839 2012-01-30 05:47:01 <gribble> Error: You don't have the #bitcoin-dev,op capability. If you think that you should have this capability, be sure that you are identified before trying again. The 'whoami' command can tell you if you're identified.
 840 2012-01-30 05:47:05 <luke-jr> no fun
 841 2012-01-30 05:47:45 <splatster> ;;tell gribble [kick gribble]
 842 2012-01-30 05:47:45 <gribble> Error: You don't have the #bitcoin-dev,op capability. If you think that you should have this capability, be sure that you are identified before trying again. The 'whoami' command can tell you if you're identified.
 843 2012-01-30 05:47:51 <splatster> aww
 844 2012-01-30 05:48:00 <gribble> Do you guys think I'm stupid?
 845 2012-01-30 05:48:16 <splatster> haha
 846 2012-01-30 05:51:01 <nanotube> ;;kick gribble
 847 2012-01-30 05:51:01 <gribble> Error: I cowardly refuse to kick myself.
 848 2012-01-30 05:54:46 <lianj> ;;join 0
 849 2012-01-30 05:54:46 <gribble> Error: You don't have the admin capability. If you think that you should have this capability, be sure that you are identified before trying again. The 'whoami' command can tell you if you're identified.
 850 2012-01-30 05:56:39 <splatster> ;;kick [echo $randomNick]
 851 2012-01-30 05:56:39 <gribble> Error: You don't have the #bitcoin-dev,op capability. If you think that you should have this capability, be sure that you are identified before trying again. The 'whoami' command can tell you if you're identified.
 852 2012-01-30 05:57:10 <splatster> nanotube: do ;;kick [echo $randomNick]
 853 2012-01-30 05:57:24 <luke-jr> ;;roulette
 854 2012-01-30 05:57:24 <gribble> *click*
 855 2012-01-30 05:57:32 * luke-jr hands the gun to BlueMatt
 856 2012-01-30 05:57:51 <splatster> ;;tell gribble [roulette]
 857 2012-01-30 05:57:51 <gribble> Error: You just told me, why should I tell myself?
 858 2012-01-30 05:58:08 <etotheipi_> haha, you guys are crazy
 859 2012-01-30 05:58:16 <nanotube> ok guys, save that for #bitcoin-games or something :)
 860 2012-01-30 05:58:22 <luke-jr> #yandere
 861 2012-01-30 05:58:46 <splatster> can you op me on #bitcoin-games?
 862 2012-01-30 05:58:53 <splatster> for like 1 minute
 863 2012-01-30 05:59:06 <splatster> so i can do ;;kick [echo $randomNick]
 864 2012-01-30 06:01:01 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 865 2012-01-30 06:03:12 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
 866 2012-01-30 06:09:09 dissipate_ has joined
 867 2012-01-30 06:22:02 RazielZ has joined
 868 2012-01-30 06:23:14 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 869 2012-01-30 06:25:00 * BlueMatt remembers betting btcs on gribble roulette games :)
 870 2012-01-30 06:27:11 <nanotube> BlueMatt: it's still possible ;)
 871 2012-01-30 06:27:16 <BlueMatt> anyone have anything they are itching to merge to test #bitcoin-commits
 872 2012-01-30 06:27:19 Cablesaurus has joined
 873 2012-01-30 06:27:20 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
 874 2012-01-30 06:27:20 Cablesaurus has joined
 875 2012-01-30 06:27:27 <BlueMatt> nanotube: meh, thats back when a btc was worth pretty much nothing
 876 2012-01-30 06:27:37 <BlueMatt> (well short of a dollar)
 877 2012-01-30 06:28:04 <BlueMatt> sipa: ?
 878 2012-01-30 06:28:26 <nanotube> heh
 879 2012-01-30 06:29:44 <gmaxwell> nanotube: says the guy who controls the rng!
 880 2012-01-30 06:30:27 <nanotube> haha
 881 2012-01-30 06:31:05 <gmaxwell> my plan for extreme profit is to buy random.org and then use it to exploit the gambling sites that use it for their rng.
 882 2012-01-30 06:31:54 <BlueMatt> heh
 883 2012-01-30 06:32:07 <BlueMatt> thats some careful manipulation there
 884 2012-01-30 06:32:28 <nanotube> haha nice idea
 885 2012-01-30 06:32:32 <gmaxwell> (I know this sounds stupid, but I know for a fact that there were several bitcoin gambling sites using it because I talked them out of it)
 886 2012-01-30 06:33:09 <BlueMatt> oh wow thats bad
 887 2012-01-30 06:33:51 <gmaxwell> random.org basically encourage it too, with their FAQ about why their randomness is superior.
 888 2012-01-30 06:34:34 <BlueMatt> I can understand the reason for using random.org | pseudorandom data | more psudeorandom data
 889 2012-01-30 06:34:45 <BlueMatt> to get some nice randomness, but just random.org...wtf?
 890 2012-01-30 06:35:12 <BlueMatt> though I suppose if you have two pseudorandom sources |d you probably dont need random.org anyway
 891 2012-01-30 06:36:33 <gmaxwell> if you're using a cryptographically strong prng with even the slighest bit of random/secure input then it doesn't matter to have anything more.
 892 2012-01-30 06:36:44 <gmaxwell> If someone can invert SHA-256 they can do more profitable things than win at your poker.
 893 2012-01-30 06:37:00 <BlueMatt> yea, but if you have two not great prngs then | helps a ton
 894 2012-01-30 06:38:15 <BlueMatt> isnt there some theorum on that?
 895 2012-01-30 06:38:20 copumpkin is now known as scamcoin51
 896 2012-01-30 06:39:08 <BlueMatt> sorry, ofc not OR, XOR
 897 2012-01-30 06:39:11 <BlueMatt> that was dumb
 898 2012-01-30 06:39:12 scamcoin51 is now known as copumpkin
 899 2012-01-30 06:39:41 <gmaxwell> I figured you just didn't have a ⊕ key like me.
 900 2012-01-30 06:39:49 <Diablo-D3> stop that!
 901 2012-01-30 06:39:52 <BlueMatt> heh
 902 2012-01-30 06:39:53 <Diablo-D3> this isnt a lisp machine!
 903 2012-01-30 06:40:06 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: I actually modeled my keymap off one, in fact.
 904 2012-01-30 06:40:14 <Diablo-D3> goddamnit!
 905 2012-01-30 06:40:22 <BlueMatt> what did you replace for ⊕
 906 2012-01-30 06:40:22 <gmaxwell> a symbolics keyboard.
 907 2012-01-30 06:40:24 <Diablo-D3> no commander keyboard for you!
 908 2012-01-30 06:40:47 <Diablo-D3> you know what I dont like?
 909 2012-01-30 06:40:54 <Diablo-D3> it has a hyper modifier, it has a space key
 910 2012-01-30 06:41:00 <Diablo-D3> but pressing hyper-space does nothing.
 911 2012-01-30 06:41:08 <gmaxwell> http://world.std.com/~jdostale/kbd/SpaceCadet3.jpeg  ⊕ is greek-6 for me.
 912 2012-01-30 06:41:18 <BlueMatt> heh, nice
 913 2012-01-30 06:41:26 <gmaxwell> left-control is greek (capslock is left control)
 914 2012-01-30 06:41:44 <Diablo-D3> lol you swapped control?
 915 2012-01-30 06:42:00 <BlueMatt> damn, thats nice
 916 2012-01-30 06:42:05 <gmaxwell> †‡ are my greek-1/2 like the keyboard there but most of my number greeks are different.
 917 2012-01-30 06:42:05 <Diablo-D3> Ive been thinking about swapping esc with something
 918 2012-01-30 06:42:36 <Diablo-D3> (swapping esc with control or capslock == the vim equivilent of emacs keymaps)
 919 2012-01-30 06:42:39 <gmaxwell> http://people.xiph.org/~greg/xmodmap.txt  < there is my modmap, I've also got a custom compose map.
 920 2012-01-30 06:42:46 Clipse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 921 2012-01-30 06:42:49 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: man
 922 2012-01-30 06:42:55 <Diablo-D3> I swap middle with thumb on my g5 mouse
 923 2012-01-30 06:43:03 <Diablo-D3> I go into windows, and wonder why I cant middle click on shit
 924 2012-01-30 06:43:48 <gmaxwell> (that stupid webserver isn't serving that file as utf-8 for some reason)
 925 2012-01-30 06:44:11 <BlueMatt> thats a poorly-configured webserver
 926 2012-01-30 06:44:14 <BlueMatt> or just an old one
 927 2012-01-30 06:44:17 <Diablo-D3> needs more BOM
 928 2012-01-30 06:45:01 <gmaxwell> just has a lot of legacy stuff, if I fix it, it'll probably break something.
 929 2012-01-30 06:45:27 <BlueMatt> mmm, yep its always the legacy stuff that breaks things like that
 930 2012-01-30 06:45:30 <Diablo-D3> TAKE IT APART!
 931 2012-01-30 06:54:23 wirehead has joined
 932 2012-01-30 06:59:47 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 933 2012-01-30 07:08:27 <sipa> etotheipi_: where is the specification for you determinstic wallets?
 934 2012-01-30 07:12:20 <BlueMatt> well #bitcoin-commits works
 935 2012-01-30 07:12:30 <BlueMatt> though with color that is really annoying
 936 2012-01-30 07:18:59 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 937 2012-01-30 07:19:34 dr_win has joined
 938 2012-01-30 07:21:11 <copumpkin> I don't often agree with luke-jr, but the smackdown in this thread has me cheering: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57437.msg721297#msg721297
 939 2012-01-30 07:21:42 <copumpkin> "No Bitcoin is not free because it doesn't allow me to not include a copyright text and because I say so. So there mr smarty pants!"
 940 2012-01-30 07:22:19 <BlueMatt> damn, thats well done
 941 2012-01-30 07:22:25 <BlueMatt> well done luke-jr
 942 2012-01-30 07:22:30 <copumpkin> "No Bitcoin is not free because it doesn't allow me to not include a copyright text and because I say so. So there mr smarty pants!"
 943 2012-01-30 07:22:36 <copumpkin> whoops sorry
 944 2012-01-30 07:22:51 Joric has quit (Quit: Joric)
 945 2012-01-30 07:24:57 <splatster> That's funny
 946 2012-01-30 07:26:13 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 947 2012-01-30 07:26:26 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: I'm thinking unbanning him was a mistake. Or rather, pointing out that he was unbanned a while ago was a mistake.
 948 2012-01-30 07:27:04 <copumpkin> is CoinHunter actually RealSolid?
 949 2012-01-30 07:27:10 <copumpkin> or just someone else in the project?
 950 2012-01-30 07:28:19 <sipa> i doubt there is anyone else in the project
 951 2012-01-30 07:28:23 <gmaxwell> hahah
 952 2012-01-30 07:28:51 <gmaxwell> Yes, he's realsolid. There was some claim that he wasn't but he screwed up his sockpuppetry at some point.
 953 2012-01-30 07:29:08 <copumpkin> lol
 954 2012-01-30 07:29:12 <copumpkin> he really doesn't seem very bright
 955 2012-01-30 07:29:21 <copumpkin> it's interesting how these cranks develop followings
 956 2012-01-30 07:29:23 <gmaxwell> dude is a genius.
 957 2012-01-30 07:29:33 <copumpkin> there was a guy much like this in the jailbroken iphone community a while back
 958 2012-01-30 07:30:04 <gmaxwell> I think he's been very valuable to me personally. His success has caused me to seriously reevaluate how much weight I give to "well, other people think its okay".
 959 2012-01-30 07:30:44 <gmaxwell> His project is like an expirement in how untrustworthy you could make a cryptocurrency and still have at least a few people trust it, and the answer is apparently pretty darn untrustworthy.
 960 2012-01-30 07:31:01 <TuxBlackEdo> what would call long poll to send new work?
 961 2012-01-30 07:31:05 <sipa> but he fixed the 51% problem!
 962 2012-01-30 07:31:16 <sipa> TuxBlackEdo: ?
 963 2012-01-30 07:31:20 <TuxBlackEdo> new included transactions in the blockheader?
 964 2012-01-30 07:31:22 b4epoche_ has joined
 965 2012-01-30 07:31:36 <TuxBlackEdo> but that would mean long poll would send new work all the time, no?
 966 2012-01-30 07:31:39 <sipa> new block
 967 2012-01-30 07:31:47 <gmaxwell> sipa: yes, by providing a perpetual 51% attack which he is the perpetrator of, hardcoded into the system !
 968 2012-01-30 07:32:08 <TuxBlackEdo> yeah but long polling doesn't send new work only when there is a new block, does it?
 969 2012-01-30 07:32:11 <sipa> he just introduced a 0.01% problem along the way ;)
 970 2012-01-30 07:32:23 <gmaxwell> haha
 971 2012-01-30 07:32:33 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 972 2012-01-30 07:32:34 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 973 2012-01-30 07:32:36 <copumpkin> sipa: it's okay cause everyone knows rich people are more trustworthy
 974 2012-01-30 07:32:40 <copumpkin> omg it's b4epoche
 975 2012-01-30 07:32:46 <copumpkin> I guess he's probably idle
 976 2012-01-30 07:33:13 <gmaxwell> If you look at the forum, he's been pretty successful in using bounties to spread negative comments about bitcoin.
 977 2012-01-30 07:33:37 <copumpkin> yeah, I was going to write an article at some point about how this kind of phenomenon arises
 978 2012-01-30 07:33:43 <TuxBlackEdo> long polling sends new work to the miners only for new blocks?
 979 2012-01-30 07:33:58 <TuxBlackEdo> doesn't look like it from my mining logs
 980 2012-01-30 07:34:06 <gmaxwell> (thread here: http://solidcointalk.org/topic/270-bitcoin-collapse-bounty-reclaim/)
 981 2012-01-30 07:34:19 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: I think it's probably more powerful when your cult prints its own money.
 982 2012-01-30 07:34:23 poiuh has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 983 2012-01-30 07:34:38 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: probably the only thing more powerful is when the cult saves its members from eternal damnnation.
 984 2012-01-30 07:35:19 <sipa> panem et circenses also seemed to have worked in the past
 985 2012-01-30 07:35:40 <gmaxwell> They also have a secret bitcoin mining pool for attacking bitcoin.
 986 2012-01-30 07:35:45 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: in the iphone world there was no money involved, but still a large chunk of the community rallied behind a guy who was effectively a crank with little to no skill of his own, because he was the "little guy". Despite the fact that on the whole, the jailbreak developers themselves were the "little guy", next to Apple. This guy was littler, and was portraying the jailbreak devs as the corrupt
 987 2012-01-30 07:35:45 <copumpkin>  establishment, and people followed him for it
 988 2012-01-30 07:36:19 <copumpkin> he eventually imploded under the weight of his own lies and dropped out of the community
 989 2012-01-30 07:36:54 <gmaxwell> "I want to believe"
 990 2012-01-30 07:38:46 <copumpkin> I'm not really sure what people want to believe in this kind of situation though. In the iphone situation, people complained that the existing jailbreak devs weren't transparent enough, so in some sense there was an opportunity in the "market" for popularity, and he started a venture that exploited that hole. In the case of bitcoin, there really isn't much lacking except for technical issues that most
 991 2012-01-30 07:38:46 <copumpkin>  people don't actually understand anyway
 992 2012-01-30 07:39:20 * copumpkin shrugs
 993 2012-01-30 07:41:18 <gmaxwell> nah, I think thats not true. The respectable/trustworthy bitcoin people don't communicate in all communication channels.
 994 2012-01-30 07:41:28 <gmaxwell> e.g. what respectable bitcoin person posts on facebook or on twitter?
 995 2012-01-30 07:41:29 <niggaholdthat> Anyone know if there is any way to get the latest transactions after a certain amount of time with bitcoind? I'd imagine after a large number of transactions that parsing the entirety of "listtransactions" would be a waste of time
 996 2012-01-30 07:41:51 <niggaholdthat> I noticed listtransactions provides a unix timestamp but no way to handle data using that timestamp
 997 2012-01-30 07:42:11 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: hah, fair enough :) I tweet about bitcoin every so often and zooko does too, but neither of us are actually involved in the development
 998 2012-01-30 07:42:55 <gmaxwell> (or have TV shows, or publish in academic journals or..)
 999 2012-01-30 07:42:58 <gmaxwell> lots of vacuums.
1000 2012-01-30 07:43:03 <copumpkin> yep
1001 2012-01-30 07:43:08 <copumpkin> I don't think he really fills those though
1002 2012-01-30 07:46:28 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you around? I've gotten access to the solidcoin bitcoin attacking pool and I want to see if its whats doing the withholding attack on you.
1003 2012-01-30 07:48:58 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1004 2012-01-30 07:49:05 <copumpkin> interesting, http://www.hcrypt.com/
1005 2012-01-30 07:50:02 marf_away has joined
1006 2012-01-30 07:50:09 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: made uninteresting: "shapeCPU (concept and implementation) is patented material (German patent pending, amtl. Az. 10 2011 012 328.8). Use is restricted to educational purposes."
1007 2012-01-30 07:50:25 <copumpkin> yeah
1008 2012-01-30 07:50:30 <gmaxwell> yea.. more technology which will go 20 years before people will useit.
1009 2012-01-30 07:50:46 <copumpkin> actually
1010 2012-01-30 07:50:55 <copumpkin> the library isn't
1011 2012-01-30 07:50:58 <copumpkin> http://www.hcrypt.com/scarab.html
1012 2012-01-30 07:51:12 <copumpkin> it's MIT-licensed
1013 2012-01-30 07:53:39 <copumpkin> we need roconnor to translate that quickly to haskell
1014 2012-01-30 07:53:49 <copumpkin> our resident clean haskell crypto implementer
1015 2012-01-30 07:54:15 weex has left ()
1016 2012-01-30 07:55:55 <gmaxwell> indeed, xor, multiply, and full and half add. hmph. How do you do that? snazzy.
1017 2012-01-30 07:56:39 <gmaxwell> I fear my number theory kungfu won't best strong enough to follow that.
1018 2012-01-30 07:57:16 <copumpkin> I imagine it'd be easier to follow if the math was unobfuscated by mpz_blahblabhalbha
1019 2012-01-30 07:57:42 <dissipate_> wow, hcrypt sounds pretty damn interesting
1020 2012-01-30 07:57:53 <dissipate_> does that run on custom hardware?
1021 2012-01-30 07:57:57 ovidiusoft has joined
1022 2012-01-30 07:58:59 <gmaxwell> oy, lattice based crypto / poly rings on ideal lattices. trying to understand NTRU already broke my brain
1023 2012-01-30 08:04:48 <cjd> I think that's kind of the point of asymmetric crypto, if it was easy to comprehend then we could algebraicly solve a sig varification algo for the signing key
1024 2012-01-30 08:04:58 <cjd> *verification
1025 2012-01-30 08:05:00 <gmaxwell> cjd: haha.
1026 2012-01-30 08:05:30 <gmaxwell> cjd: not so, go look at my beloved lamport signatures. If you accept one way functions they are trivial and intutive.
1027 2012-01-30 08:07:25 <cjd> Very nice. I recognize one way functions as being "truely" secure because it would require an unmanagable amount of state to reverse them.
1028 2012-01-30 08:08:30 <cjd> I can't see the same kind of security in regular crypto systems. They appear to rely on our inability to deal with discrete periodic functions very well.
1029 2012-01-30 08:10:14 <gmaxwell> Yea.. I'm a real fan of lamport. It's the only asymmetric crypto which I could really explain to random family members and have them _really_ understand it and trust it for the right reasons.
1030 2012-01-30 08:11:53 <cjd> it is sad that the keys are huge because one time signature is acceptable where the entire world sees each message since you can chain them
1031 2012-01-30 08:12:05 <cjd> s/since/so/
1032 2012-01-30 08:13:56 splatster has quit (Quit: I look in the mirror, my only opponent)
1033 2012-01-30 08:18:24 <TuxBlackEdo> lol gmaxwell
1034 2012-01-30 08:18:39 <TuxBlackEdo> i went to that solicointalk link you were talking about
1035 2012-01-30 08:18:50 <TuxBlackEdo> those guys were paid 20 solidcoins each
1036 2012-01-30 08:19:14 <TuxBlackEdo> for the "Bitcoin Collapse Bounty"
1037 2012-01-30 08:19:23 <TuxBlackEdo> that's like 0.15 bitcoins
1038 2012-01-30 08:19:33 <TuxBlackEdo> per person talking badly about bitcoin
1039 2012-01-30 08:19:54 <TuxBlackEdo> that's like $1?
1040 2012-01-30 08:22:43 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1041 2012-01-30 08:25:27 larsivi has joined
1042 2012-01-30 08:27:18 Joric has joined
1043 2012-01-30 08:28:43 <gmaxwell> hm I wonder how much smaller you could make lamport signatures by applying a tree over the message bits.
1044 2012-01-30 08:29:44 <gmaxwell> e.g. if the messages bits have a run 0000  then you could disclose the the 1 side with a single hash.
1045 2012-01-30 08:30:53 <gmaxwell> e.g. if you have for each bit a 1 and 0 secret. And then a 1 and 0 public part. Then construct simple binary hash trees of the 1 and 0 pubic parts. which utimately hash up to one top public value.
1046 2012-01-30 08:32:51 <cjd> hmm
1047 2012-01-30 08:32:55 <gmaxwell> even just doing one level.. 00,01,10,11 .. 50% of the time you'd save transmitting one hash on the public side.
1048 2012-01-30 08:33:27 <cjd> oh btw, I thought of another way to prevent holding the entire chain
1049 2012-01-30 08:33:31 <gmaxwell> (this is all assuming the 'Short public key' style of usage)
1050 2012-01-30 08:34:16 <cjd> store the header and a bit field where each set bit represents an unspent tx then when someone wants to spend money, make them provide the tx and the hash branch
1051 2012-01-30 08:34:25 <cjd> *unspent tx output
1052 2012-01-30 08:35:01 <cjd> then each tx occupies 1 bit
1053 2012-01-30 08:35:16 <cjd> err each output occupies 1 bit
1054 2012-01-30 08:35:55 marf_away has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
1055 2012-01-30 08:36:26 sacarlson has joined
1056 2012-01-30 08:36:42 gjs278 has joined
1057 2012-01-30 08:37:50 <sipa> cjd: and how does this depend on secret information?
1058 2012-01-30 08:38:04 erle- has joined
1059 2012-01-30 08:38:24 <cjd> re how to prevent holding the entire chain/
1060 2012-01-30 08:38:25 <cjd> ?
1061 2012-01-30 08:38:51 <cjd> no secrets, it's just that if a block doesn't have any of your money in it, you forget it
1062 2012-01-30 08:39:27 <cjd> and if someone spends money, you make them show you the block and you check your bitfield to make sure the output it wasn't already spent
1063 2012-01-30 08:40:01 cryptoxchange has joined
1064 2012-01-30 08:40:02 cryptoxchange has quit (Changing host)
1065 2012-01-30 08:40:02 cryptoxchange has joined
1066 2012-01-30 08:41:34 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1067 2012-01-30 08:42:53 pickett has joined
1068 2012-01-30 08:44:42 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Flowdalic opened issue 788 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/788>
1069 2012-01-30 08:45:23 k9quaint has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1070 2012-01-30 08:45:38 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1071 2012-01-30 08:45:55 AAA_awright has joined
1072 2012-01-30 08:46:23 ByronJohnson has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1073 2012-01-30 08:46:53 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1074 2012-01-30 08:47:32 ByronJohnson has joined
1075 2012-01-30 08:47:38 TD has joined
1076 2012-01-30 08:48:02 dissipate_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1077 2012-01-30 08:50:22 pickett has joined
1078 2012-01-30 08:50:48 MagicalTux has quit (Quit: Bye, see you later!)
1079 2012-01-30 08:51:35 MT`AwAy has joined
1080 2012-01-30 08:51:42 MT`AwAy is now known as Guest39695
1081 2012-01-30 08:52:31 darkee has joined
1082 2012-01-30 08:53:35 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1083 2012-01-30 08:55:05 sneak has joined
1084 2012-01-30 08:55:05 sneak has quit (Changing host)
1085 2012-01-30 08:55:05 sneak has joined
1086 2012-01-30 08:55:08 Joric has quit ()
1087 2012-01-30 08:56:49 k9quaint has joined
1088 2012-01-30 08:57:52 Guest39695 is now known as MagicalTux
1089 2012-01-30 08:57:55 MagicalTux has quit (Changing host)
1090 2012-01-30 08:57:55 MagicalTux has joined
1091 2012-01-30 08:58:23 epscy has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1092 2012-01-30 08:59:13 TD_ has joined
1093 2012-01-30 09:02:12 epscy has joined
1094 2012-01-30 09:02:38 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1095 2012-01-30 09:03:11 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1096 2012-01-30 09:03:12 TD_ is now known as TD
1097 2012-01-30 09:03:20 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1098 2012-01-30 09:08:29 Ken` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1099 2012-01-30 09:09:47 larsivi has joined
1100 2012-01-30 09:23:46 Guest76802 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1101 2012-01-30 09:25:38 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1102 2012-01-30 09:25:44 lolcat has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1103 2012-01-30 09:26:11 molecular has joined
1104 2012-01-30 09:33:23  has joined
1105 2012-01-30 09:35:51 UukGoblin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1106 2012-01-30 09:36:12 BurtyBB has joined
1107 2012-01-30 09:36:12 HobGoblin has joined
1108 2012-01-30 09:36:22 HobGoblin is now known as Guest97178
1109 2012-01-30 09:37:33 Joric has joined
1110 2012-01-30 09:38:23 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 251 seconds)
1111 2012-01-30 09:38:56 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1112 2012-01-30 09:43:53 Guest97178 has quit (Changing host)
1113 2012-01-30 09:43:53 Guest97178 has joined
1114 2012-01-30 09:44:05 Guest97178 is now known as UukGoblin
1115 2012-01-30 09:45:34 khalahan- has joined
1116 2012-01-30 09:52:00 khalahan- is now known as khalahan_
1117 2012-01-30 09:53:14 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1118 2012-01-30 10:15:18 maqr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1119 2012-01-30 10:39:45 booo has joined
1120 2012-01-30 10:42:34 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1121 2012-01-30 10:49:22 Joric has quit ()
1122 2012-01-30 11:17:45 MrTiggr has joined
1123 2012-01-30 11:21:54 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1124 2012-01-30 11:23:41 iocor has joined
1125 2012-01-30 11:23:42 rdponticelli_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1126 2012-01-30 11:25:35 RazielZ has joined
1127 2012-01-30 11:28:14 Joric has joined
1128 2012-01-30 11:30:11 marf_away has joined
1129 2012-01-30 11:30:44 sje has joined
1130 2012-01-30 11:30:45 sje has quit (Changing host)
1131 2012-01-30 11:30:45 sje has joined
1132 2012-01-30 11:43:29 b4epoche_ has joined
1133 2012-01-30 11:44:33 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1134 2012-01-30 11:44:33 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1135 2012-01-30 11:47:46 user__ has joined
1136 2012-01-30 11:54:08 Internet13 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1137 2012-01-30 11:59:37 Internet13 has joined
1138 2012-01-30 12:03:39 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1139 2012-01-30 12:04:12 Turingi has joined
1140 2012-01-30 12:04:12 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
1141 2012-01-30 12:04:12 Turingi has joined
1142 2012-01-30 12:13:13 Moron__ has joined
1143 2012-01-30 12:14:32 Joric has quit ()
1144 2012-01-30 12:17:11 Internet13 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1145 2012-01-30 12:17:48 Internet13 has joined
1146 2012-01-30 12:20:23 Turingi has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1147 2012-01-30 12:20:41 Turingi has joined
1148 2012-01-30 12:26:42 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1149 2012-01-30 12:32:49 booo has joined
1150 2012-01-30 12:36:11 oww has joined
1151 2012-01-30 12:36:19 oww has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1152 2012-01-30 12:41:21 Joric has joined
1153 2012-01-30 12:43:23 <roconnor> gmaxwell: software is not patentable in Europe.
1154 2012-01-30 12:43:49 <Diablo-D3> * except in germany
1155 2012-01-30 12:46:58 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1156 2012-01-30 12:48:41 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1157 2012-01-30 12:49:40 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1158 2012-01-30 12:50:43 Internet13 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1159 2012-01-30 12:52:12 Joric has quit ()
1160 2012-01-30 12:53:53 oww has joined
1161 2012-01-30 12:53:53 oww has quit (Client Quit)
1162 2012-01-30 12:57:19 Internet13 has joined
1163 2012-01-30 13:00:56 user__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1164 2012-01-30 13:01:20 occulta has joined
1165 2012-01-30 13:02:52 user__ has joined
1166 2012-01-30 13:05:05 hexTech has joined
1167 2012-01-30 13:24:43 Cory has joined
1168 2012-01-30 13:26:59 pingdrive has joined
1169 2012-01-30 13:27:11 krysits has joined
1170 2012-01-30 13:28:36 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1171 2012-01-30 13:30:24 pingdrive has quit (Client Quit)
1172 2012-01-30 13:30:59 poiuh has joined
1173 2012-01-30 13:32:13 datagutt has joined
1174 2012-01-30 13:32:15 datagutt has quit (Changing host)
1175 2012-01-30 13:32:15 datagutt has joined
1176 2012-01-30 13:35:24 poiuh has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1177 2012-01-30 13:38:05 Ken` has joined
1178 2012-01-30 13:52:54 <b4epoche> copumpkin:  the job is keeping me pretty busy
1179 2012-01-30 13:53:58 ovidiusoft has joined
1180 2012-01-30 13:56:40 iocor has joined
1181 2012-01-30 14:06:27 agricocb has joined
1182 2012-01-30 14:06:48 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1183 2012-01-30 14:10:03 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
1184 2012-01-30 14:15:44 occulta has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1185 2012-01-30 14:16:27 occulta has joined
1186 2012-01-30 14:21:37 wasabi1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1187 2012-01-30 14:22:10 gavinandresen has joined
1188 2012-01-30 14:28:01 gp5st has joined
1189 2012-01-30 14:35:03 [eval] has joined
1190 2012-01-30 14:36:29 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1191 2012-01-30 14:43:34 <gavinandresen> Happy Monday everybody.  I need some help thinking about 0.6 release candidates and p2sh deadlines....
1192 2012-01-30 14:44:14 larsivi has joined
1193 2012-01-30 14:53:53 user__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1194 2012-01-30 14:55:12 <[eval]> happy monday :)
1195 2012-01-30 14:56:59 Ummon has joined
1196 2012-01-30 14:58:01 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1197 2012-01-30 14:58:10 <[eval]> it looks like the mining deadline isn't going to be met for p2sh?
1198 2012-01-30 14:59:04 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1199 2012-01-30 14:59:57 krysits has quit ()
1200 2012-01-30 15:00:11 <sipa> gavinandresen: how is support from pool owvers coming?
1201 2012-01-30 15:00:26 <gavinandresen> sipa: http://blockchain.info/p2sh
1202 2012-01-30 15:00:54 <gavinandresen> ... not sure how accurate that is, I don't think Deepbit or Eligius is actually supporting BIP 16
1203 2012-01-30 15:01:36 <sipa> ok, but maybe there are a few who has said they will deploy bip16-enabled code when the real voting period is there?
1204 2012-01-30 15:02:28 iocor has joined
1205 2012-01-30 15:02:30 <gavinandresen> BTC Guild said they were going to support it, but had/has some personal issue that kept them from actually applying the patch
1206 2012-01-30 15:03:10 markus_w1nner has joined
1207 2012-01-30 15:03:24 <[eval]> slush already supports it and tycho has said he'll support it with deepbit once he sees enough support from other pools (trying to be conservative and not exert undue influence)
1208 2012-01-30 15:03:33 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
1209 2012-01-30 15:03:37 <gavinandresen> [eval]: yes, BIP 16 won't meet the first deadline....
1210 2012-01-30 15:03:59 <gavinandresen> ... so my first question is:  how far out to move the deadline?
1211 2012-01-30 15:04:43 <[eval]> the voting period is ~1 week?
1212 2012-01-30 15:04:46 <[eval]> 1000 blocks?
1213 2012-01-30 15:04:52 <gavinandresen> Yes
1214 2012-01-30 15:05:40 markus_wanner has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1215 2012-01-30 15:05:58 <[eval]> then 1 week + the stated/expected time of implementation from the mining pools that say they're on board but haven't yet implemented for whatever reason (like btcguild)
1216 2012-01-30 15:06:14 <gavinandresen> We could switch to a completely floating deadline...  or an "Every two weeks we'll evaluate support"
1217 2012-01-30 15:06:18 <gmaxwell> I suggest you find someone of the too soon crowd and use the time they suggest if it's at all realistic. Then they get the job of defending it to them-prime when that time comes.
1218 2012-01-30 15:06:20 <[eval]> or 2 weeks + that to be on the safe side in case tycho waffles for a while
1219 2012-01-30 15:06:45 <[eval]> that sounds like an even better idea, gavinandresen
1220 2012-01-30 15:06:47 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: the floating deadline will result in never-convergence if too many people are "I'll adopt when it's official"
1221 2012-01-30 15:06:54 <sipa> agree
1222 2012-01-30 15:07:07 <[eval]> every difficulty change, check the previous 2016 blocks (or still 1000 blocks)
1223 2012-01-30 15:07:09 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: that's my fear
1224 2012-01-30 15:07:31 <[eval]> hrm. nm, i agree with gmaxwell.
1225 2012-01-30 15:07:39 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: What are your thoughts? You're the too-rushed person I've talked to the most? What are you looking for?
1226 2012-01-30 15:08:39 <gmaxwell> (Okay, guess he's not around now)
1227 2012-01-30 15:09:00 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1228 2012-01-30 15:09:05 <gmaxwell> I think the people who are concerned that this is over hurried are probably under represented in here.
1229 2012-01-30 15:09:26 <Graet> i'm one
1230 2012-01-30 15:09:56 <Graet> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61429.msg721824#msg721824
1231 2012-01-30 15:10:06 <gavinandresen> That's the other thing I'm wondering:  where to start the conversation.
1232 2012-01-30 15:10:32 <gavinandresen> (where to start/focus:  forums? which subforum? bitcoin-development mailing list?)
1233 2012-01-30 15:11:06 <gavinandresen> So Graet, what do you think?
1234 2012-01-30 15:11:07 user__ has joined
1235 2012-01-30 15:11:10 <helo> would a testnet-dev, with p2sh implemented for testing, satiate too-rushed at some point?
1236 2012-01-30 15:11:41 <gavinandresen> help: ?  what do you mean by testnet-dev?  p2sh works on testnet right now
1237 2012-01-30 15:11:43 <gmaxwell> We have that.
1238 2012-01-30 15:11:53 <gmaxwell> it's call git clone .. bitcoind -testnet .. done.
1239 2012-01-30 15:11:59 <helo> ah ok... cheers
1240 2012-01-30 15:12:00 <Graet> like my post QA
1241 2012-01-30 15:12:29 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: so one thing I think we need is some systematic disclosure of what has been done.
1242 2012-01-30 15:13:02 <gmaxwell> I suspect that Graet is unaware of the unit tests you've written. (or for that matter, I'm not aware of the specific test cases you've run)
1243 2012-01-30 15:13:06 <etotheipi_> sipa, (re: 8 hours ago)  I don't have the full spec for the Armory wallets, but I have the file format documented here:  http://bitcoinarmory.com/index.php/armory-wallet-files
1244 2012-01-30 15:13:38 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: ok, I can post a "State of BIP 16" summary somewhere.
1245 2012-01-30 15:13:45 <helo> i assumed testnet was always running exactly what has been released, so people could use it to see how their stuff would work on the real blockchain
1246 2012-01-30 15:13:46 <Graet> tbh, ths discussion is so scattered and i'm not on the dev list - so i may be missing much :)
1247 2012-01-30 15:14:12 <gavinandresen> Graet: where would you expect the discussion to be centered?
1248 2012-01-30 15:14:18 <gmaxwell> Graet: the presence of bugs here and there is to be expected. That alone isn't evidence of inadequate QA. (Not that I'm discounting your concern- I just don't think it's easy to draw the line between expected and problematic)
1249 2012-01-30 15:14:58 <gmaxwell> helo: This is why P2SH (BIP16) is in git head. Testnet is running what users on testnet run, oftent git head but not always.
1250 2012-01-30 15:15:46 <gmaxwell> (I've also been completely confused about luke complaining that p2sh is in git head with his accusation that gavin is 'forcing' it on people— putting it it hit head is how we get it on testnet)
1251 2012-01-30 15:15:58 <Graet> gavinandresen i dont mind - as long as i can find it and access it easily, just i have seen conversations in many irc chanels and more than a few forum posts ;)
1252 2012-01-30 15:16:57 <sipa> etotheipi_: how do you convert the bytevectors to text?
1253 2012-01-30 15:17:08 <sipa> etotheipi_: for the printable wallet?
1254 2012-01-30 15:17:13 <Graet> gmaxwell from idling in here and reaing and trying to understand (i'm not a coder) i have seen the QA issue raised before, and while most discussion happens in the middle of my night . i try to keep up with whats happening in here and i have seen worrying reorts of bugs
1255 2012-01-30 15:19:03 <gavinandresen> Graet: it is a chronic problem with just about every open source project; writing code is a lot more fun than testing
1256 2012-01-30 15:19:20 <Graet> that i do know :D
1257 2012-01-30 15:19:51 <sipa> is that only a problem in open-source? :)
1258 2012-01-30 15:19:54 <gavinandresen> Graet: if I was a different person I probably would have already formed a not-for-profit organization that figured out how to take bitcoin donations and then (legally) pay somebody to do QA
1259 2012-01-30 15:19:59 <Graet> also coders love to code but not deal with users (something else i noticed) :P
1260 2012-01-30 15:20:30 <gavinandresen> THe "legally" bit is the tricky bit, I have no idea whether the donations would be taxable as income to the organization or if minimum wage laws would apply to the QA people or yada yada yada
1261 2012-01-30 15:20:33 <etotheipi_> sipa, the text on the printable wallet is simply a remapping of hex to another alphabet, intended to be easy[er] to type
1262 2012-01-30 15:21:07 <sipa> i see
1263 2012-01-30 15:21:07 userjj has joined
1264 2012-01-30 15:21:11 <Graet> gavinandresen understandable, i tried to get a nfp going in au and encourage others in other countries to do the same, so we could form a world bidy, but about then price deopped from $25 to crash and interest dwindled, was thinking of trying again soon
1265 2012-01-30 15:21:21 user__ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1266 2012-01-30 15:21:30 <Graet> nfp can pay wages to employees and hire contractors
1267 2012-01-30 15:21:42 <Graet> this is something i have loked into
1268 2012-01-30 15:21:52 <etotheipi_> sipa, each line has 16 bytes + 2 byte checksum for that line, the mapping is: https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory/blob/qtdev/qtdialogs.py#L2607
1269 2012-01-30 15:21:56 traviscj has joined
1270 2012-01-30 15:22:09 Turingi has joined
1271 2012-01-30 15:22:09 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
1272 2012-01-30 15:22:09 Turingi has joined
1273 2012-01-30 15:22:38 <sipa> etotheipi_: also, forget the comment i made yesterday about only using a single 256-bit source of entropy.. you cannot do that if you want a type-2 wallet... there needs to be a some randomizer seed that is public, apart from the private key
1274 2012-01-30 15:22:50 <josephcp> not-for-profits still need to file 1099 paperwork with contractors
1275 2012-01-30 15:23:25 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I set BIP 17's "voting week" for the first week of Feb. Better to not overlap, IMO.
1276 2012-01-30 15:23:38 <etotheipi_> sipa, you mean what I refer to as the chaincode?
1277 2012-01-30 15:23:49 <sipa> etotheipi_: in your case, that seed is the chaincode indeed
1278 2012-01-30 15:24:42 <gavinandresen> 1099 paperwork is why I would have to be a different person to actually make a not-for-profit happen....
1279 2012-01-30 15:24:45 <etotheipi_> sipa, I don't see why the chaincode can't be deterministically computed from the private key... the only reason is if you allow users to enter just a private key and they enter something with 8 bits of entropy and then collide with someone else
1280 2012-01-30 15:25:24 <sipa> etotheipi_: well you need the chaincode even if you don't have the private key
1281 2012-01-30 15:25:39 <sipa> for observe-only wallets
1282 2012-01-30 15:25:44 <gmaxwell> sipa: you use 256 bits-> H() to get = private key | chaincode.
1283 2012-01-30 15:26:04 <etotheipi_> sipa, only someone with the watching-only wallet needs it... as long as the chaincode provides zero information about the priv key, it's shouldn't matter where it comes from
1284 2012-01-30 15:26:05 <Graet> whatever 1099 is josephcp - but yes if they are paying they need to keep tax records etc
1285 2012-01-30 15:26:07 <gmaxwell> then you can just give the chaincode to someone to have an observe only.
1286 2012-01-30 15:26:25 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: do you have any remaining objections to BIP 17 now that the sigop limit issue was solved?
1287 2012-01-30 15:26:37 <sipa> if you're going to store both anyway, you may as well generate both from random data
1288 2012-01-30 15:26:50 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: yes, my objections remain the same as they ever were.  I'm not going to continue arguing.
1289 2012-01-30 15:27:00 <BTC_Bear> I've though of a 503 (insert some letter) after the Toys4Tots auction. I just don't know how to do it with out causing a commotion. All the unanswered questions: What we need is a lawyer that take BitCoin hehe
1290 2012-01-30 15:27:18 <BTC_Bear> takes*
1291 2012-01-30 15:27:42 <BTC_Bear> thought*  dam... good morning all
1292 2012-01-30 15:28:37 <sipa> gmaxwell, etotheipi_: i guess i'm talking about how you generate the private key and chaincode; i was arguing that you could do with *only* a 256-bit secret, but that turns the whole thing into a type-1 wallet of course
1293 2012-01-30 15:28:43 <sipa> *not
1294 2012-01-30 15:30:37 <etotheipi_> sipa, not entirely... as long as the program turns around and spits out the resultant chaincode, later, in order to make the watching-only wallet
1295 2012-01-30 15:30:40 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: fine; will you at least respect the BIP 17 voting period, and not try to overlap it?
1296 2012-01-30 15:30:57 jondoe has joined
1297 2012-01-30 15:30:58 <sipa> etotheipi_: never mind
1298 2012-01-30 15:31:21 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I'm going to start a conversation about how voting should be handled, and will go with whatever consensus emerges
1299 2012-01-30 15:31:52 <etotheipi_> gah, I wish I didn't have to go to work...
1300 2012-01-30 15:32:31 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: voting *has* to be handled by pools, due to the nature of the change… if you mean "coinbase alone is fail; you HAVE to merge support to vote", I think everyone agrees on that
1301 2012-01-30 15:32:31 <helo> if bip17 and bip16 are competing, shouldn't the voting periods coincide?
1302 2012-01-30 15:32:44 <luke-jr> helo: what if people want to support both?
1303 2012-01-30 15:32:45 copumpkin has joined
1304 2012-01-30 15:33:06 <luke-jr> ie, "I support P2SH, I don't care how we get it"
1305 2012-01-30 15:33:14 <helo> i didn't know implementing both was being considered
1306 2012-01-30 15:33:29 <luke-jr> helo: not implementing both… not caring which
1307 2012-01-30 15:33:59 <josephcp> then they can have both flags, no?
1308 2012-01-30 15:34:02 <helo> they flip a coin?
1309 2012-01-30 15:34:19 <luke-jr> josephcp: they're not flags
1310 2012-01-30 15:34:29 <luke-jr> josephcp: you have to *actually* support the change
1311 2012-01-30 15:34:37 <luke-jr> helo: then we'll never get anywhere
1312 2012-01-30 15:34:58 Ummon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1313 2012-01-30 15:35:29 <josephcp> yeah i guess it'd be silly to broadcast flags without any guarantee of support
1314 2012-01-30 15:35:54 <sipa> not silly, but very dangerous
1315 2012-01-30 15:36:12 wasabi1 has joined
1316 2012-01-30 15:36:27 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1317 2012-01-30 15:36:48 <josephcp> and i guess it'd be a bad idea to support both at the same time too, huh.
1318 2012-01-30 15:37:00 <luke-jr> josephcp: maybe not, but nobody's tried it
1319 2012-01-30 15:37:10 <luke-jr> long-term, it'd be non-ideal
1320 2012-01-30 15:37:12 <josephcp> sounds like a lot of code shuffling around
1321 2012-01-30 15:37:42 erle- has joined
1322 2012-01-30 15:38:00 <Graet> i thought about using seperate node, so miners could choose, but the ppl that worry about latency, or dont check the enws would skew the result
1323 2012-01-30 15:38:10 p0s has joined
1324 2012-01-30 15:38:19 <helo> awareness of bip16/bip17 in general should increase over time... so whichever has the later voting period might have an advantage
1325 2012-01-30 15:38:34 <luke-jr> I don't know why Gavin is still opposed to BIP 17 at this point. Seems things could proceed a lot easier.
1326 2012-01-30 15:39:08 * luke-jr ponders trying to prepare a backport patchset with both
1327 2012-01-30 15:39:37 <helo> seems like there are two decisions that need to be made... whether to support any form of p2sh, and subsequently which approach to support
1328 2012-01-30 15:40:13 <luke-jr> helo: and how soon
1329 2012-01-30 15:40:32 <luke-jr> a lot of people would rather give this more time
1330 2012-01-30 15:42:54 <helo> if someone doesn't like p2sh in general, they can just not use it themselves... are there founded concerns that p2sh could destroy bitcoin for everybody?
1331 2012-01-30 15:44:19 <gmaxwell> helo: the reciever of funds could choose to not use p2sh, sure.
1332 2012-01-30 15:44:20 <josephcp> helo: well i for one would be 100% behind p2sh if earlier multisig outputs are defined as IsStandard (https://gist.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6f)
1333 2012-01-30 15:44:38 <gmaxwell> josephcp: don't be a "feature terrorist"
1334 2012-01-30 15:44:42 <gmaxwell> Please.
1335 2012-01-30 15:44:54 <Moron__> my vote can be purchased for 5 btc
1336 2012-01-30 15:44:57 <gmaxwell> It's unfair to tie your support to more or less unrelated things.
1337 2012-01-30 15:45:15 <gmaxwell> josephcp: if everyone does that we'll be in complete deadlock. :(
1338 2012-01-30 15:45:21 <josephcp> it's a lot more conservative than adding p2sh features the only difference from the use case is longer addresses
1339 2012-01-30 15:45:38 <josephcp> not exactly "feature terrorism"
1340 2012-01-30 15:46:20 <gmaxwell> josephcp: multisig output as is-standard is not the same as P2S-addresses. There are _many_ differences between P2S-address and P2SH-addresses.
1341 2012-01-30 15:46:57 <josephcp> yes but the end use-case goals overlap, how you get there is different, and yes p2sh does add a LOT more capability (Which i _DO_ like)
1342 2012-01-30 15:47:33 <josephcp> i'm just saying my reservations with p2sh would be gone if that were the case was all :-P
1343 2012-01-30 15:47:39 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
1344 2012-01-30 15:47:50 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1345 2012-01-30 15:48:05 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomoneWeirdzzzz
1346 2012-01-30 15:48:39 knotwork has joined
1347 2012-01-30 15:48:45 <gmaxwell> josephcp: Can you help me understand why enabling something else makes you comfortable with P2SH?
1348 2012-01-30 15:49:08 <gmaxwell> You can already use multisig output transactions today, if you addnode eligius it will mine them.
1349 2012-01-30 15:49:24 booo has joined
1350 2012-01-30 15:49:32 <helo> i'd be in favor of assuming some form of p2sh is going to be implemented at some point, and treat the vote as a selection of which form will be used
1351 2012-01-30 15:49:36 <josephcp> because when everyone uses p2sh addresses it reduces the likelihood that something like that would be included as IsStandard (let alonea  priority)
1352 2012-01-30 15:50:23 <josephcp> it's a social matter of use case fulfillment, rather than a technical problem (which is the approach you're taking believe, i don't disagree with the technical issues)
1353 2012-01-30 15:51:23 <gmaxwell> josephcp: it is indeed the case that non-p2sh multisig would not see much usage longterm, because of block bloat dos attack pressure.
1354 2012-01-30 15:52:14 <gmaxwell> It's a little ironic, in fact—
1355 2012-01-30 15:52:52 <gmaxwell> Luke opposed BIP16 specifically because gavin was unwilling to add a sentence that said non-p2sh style transactions were depricated for new transaction types.
1356 2012-01-30 15:52:54 <josephcp> well i'm not necessarily sure i agree with that, the difference is just a bigger n, it's not a geometric difference
1357 2012-01-30 15:53:05 <josephcp> i understnad the concern 100% though
1358 2012-01-30 15:53:12 <gmaxwell> (The polar opposite of your position, in fact!)
1359 2012-01-30 15:53:23 <josephcp> haha :-)
1360 2012-01-30 15:54:15 <josephcp> either way i'm doing my best not to make this a big deal, which is a difference that you can appreciate
1361 2012-01-30 15:54:18 <gmaxwell> josephcp: It's some factor N on the data that remains post-pruning (e.g. after the log(X) savings from pruning).
1362 2012-01-30 15:54:32 <josephcp> ;-)
1363 2012-01-30 15:55:27 <josephcp> yeah, there is a noticable difference i agree, but i'm just uncomfortable with, to me, sounds like lossy compression (okay that's a bit hyperbolic)
1364 2012-01-30 15:55:53 <gmaxwell> The long term plan for IsStandard() is "return true;" in many people's minds here.
1365 2012-01-30 15:55:56 b4epoche_ has joined
1366 2012-01-30 15:56:38 <cjd> +1
1367 2012-01-30 15:57:09 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1368 2012-01-30 15:57:10 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1369 2012-01-30 15:57:15 <gmaxwell> josephcp: ::srhugs:: we use the same "lossy compression" for ECDSA public keys. Also, if the lossy compression is insecure (H() is subject to preimage attacks) then our signatures are insecure too.
1370 2012-01-30 15:57:30 <josephcp> yeah, i understand, which is why i'm doing my best not to make my point of view to be some kind of super big drama in the forums or whatever
1371 2012-01-30 15:57:55 erle- has joined
1372 2012-01-30 15:58:12 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1373 2012-01-30 15:58:12 <josephcp> still feels like a hack that was all started because OP_XOR or OP_CAT is disabled
1374 2012-01-30 15:59:13 cryptoxchange has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1375 2012-01-30 15:59:21 <gmaxwell> josephcp: nah, the cat style stuff only worked for some transaction types. If we were coding RPN rules in "addresses" we'd still have the malleability problem.
1376 2012-01-30 16:00:05 <gmaxwell> (and the size problem— people say long form addresses are okay but they're talking about 2-of-2 .. add a few more and you're quickly up to 1000 character addresses)
1377 2012-01-30 16:00:54 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1378 2012-01-30 16:02:05 dr_win has joined
1379 2012-01-30 16:02:33 <josephcp> yeah i definitely see where it could be useful :-) i'd just personally would prefer to use standard outputs for escrowed transactions is all, i think this is something we agree to disagree on?
1380 2012-01-30 16:03:27 <gmaxwell> Why haven't you been using them already then?
1381 2012-01-30 16:03:35 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1382 2012-01-30 16:03:39 <gmaxwell> (an earnest question, I'm not just trying to argue)
1383 2012-01-30 16:04:58 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1384 2012-01-30 16:05:01 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1385 2012-01-30 16:05:24 <josephcp> not IsStandard, no consensus on script formats (let alone addresses), i'm not saying it's a usable situation *today*
1386 2012-01-30 16:06:25 <josephcp> but if one of the multiple proposed in August that used OP_HASH160 was added (and address formats were figured out later) I think I would be really happy?
1387 2012-01-30 16:07:01 Ukyo has joined
1388 2012-01-30 16:07:13 nanotube has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1389 2012-01-30 16:07:28 <gmaxwell> josephcp: I guess why I'm asking is— while addnode=eligius is an extra barrier to using this stuff, it's a really small one compared to all of those other issues.
1390 2012-01-30 16:07:30 sacredchao has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1391 2012-01-30 16:08:04 <josephcp> it's a huge barrier from a social adoption perspective, you can't get other people to send you escrowed coins without directly connecting to one pool
1392 2012-01-30 16:08:06 <gmaxwell> josephcp: and with that one additional configuration addition you've been able to use these transactions for about a year, but no one has been doing so.
1393 2012-01-30 16:08:12 <josephcp> so there's no incentive to create the tools to make it work
1394 2012-01-30 16:08:43 traviscj has joined
1395 2012-01-30 16:08:51 <gmaxwell> It's a one line configuration change. The same tool that makes the transactions could easily make the configuration change too.
1396 2012-01-30 16:08:53 sacredchao has joined
1397 2012-01-30 16:09:41 <josephcp> i wouldn't be surprised if more than half of bitcoin's userbase doesn't even know where the configuration files are haha
1398 2012-01-30 16:09:55 <gmaxwell> josephcp: The user doesn't need to know. The author of the tool does.
1399 2012-01-30 16:10:01 <josephcp> and the slow adding to blocks is also lame
1400 2012-01-30 16:10:06 gribble has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1401 2012-01-30 16:10:44 cronopio has joined
1402 2012-01-30 16:11:07 <gmaxwell> Yes, but are you really arguing that having to wait a couple hours right now is what is totally preventing the use of this?
1403 2012-01-30 16:11:43 <gmaxwell> I fear that absent usage, which we could have had all year— the only thing enabling this in IsStandard() would actually permit is DOS attacks. :(
1404 2012-01-30 16:12:31 <josephcp> I think an interesting compromise would be 3 or 4 escrowed outputs as IsStandard, if you want more you have to use p2sh
1405 2012-01-30 16:12:40 <gmaxwell> You say this is important, but save the issues of slow confirmation and the invisible to the user addition of a relay these transactions have been perfectly possible for a year and people simply aren't using them.
1406 2012-01-30 16:12:54 <josephcp> more than 3 is the point where the addreses would be ugly anyway
1407 2012-01-30 16:13:51 <luke-jr> josephcp: correction, I oppose BIP 16 because it fundamentally modifies the entire system in an inconsistent way
1408 2012-01-30 16:13:54 <gmaxwell> josephcp: addresses are ugly with just two, they don't fit on one line in an email anymore and get wrapped so you have to copy and paste in two chunks. I don't think asking services to support 3 address types is desirable.
1409 2012-01-30 16:13:56 <josephcp> i think you're underestimating the psychological barrier of IsStandard, creating non-standard transactions feels sketchy, you're relying on a single pool that might not be able to find a block in one day
1410 2012-01-30 16:14:20 <luke-jr> the inconsistency would be solved if the old system were deprecated, and only supported for backward compatibility
1411 2012-01-30 16:14:34 <gmaxwell> josephcp: it's a new and immature feature. it _should_ feel sketchy. There may be more bugs in checkmultisig than what we've discovered so far.
1412 2012-01-30 16:15:32 <sipa> cgminer doesn't support CPU mining anymore?
1413 2012-01-30 16:15:35 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: my apologizes Luke, I consiered explaining the "inconsistency would be solved" part, I do actually understand why you reached that conclusion (it makes me happy that I understand you!), but I felt it was a tangent.
1414 2012-01-30 16:15:56 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it makes a difference IMO
1415 2012-01-30 16:16:17 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yea, sorry. I made your weirdly reasonable position sound less reasonable.
1416 2012-01-30 16:16:22 bitcoinbulletin has joined
1417 2012-01-30 16:16:36 <luke-jr> sipa: disabled in binaries and by default
1418 2012-01-30 16:16:48 <luke-jr> sipa: --enable-cpumining during configure
1419 2012-01-30 16:16:59 <sipa> configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --enable-cpumining
1420 2012-01-30 16:17:04 <luke-jr> sipa: ./autogen.sh
1421 2012-01-30 16:17:22 <luke-jr> the goal is to get virus detectors off cgminer's back
1422 2012-01-30 16:17:31 <josephcp> yeah, just giving my perspective, <shrug> anyway i have to get going, take care
1423 2012-01-30 16:18:05 <gmaxwell> josephcp: thanks! Its been an interesting discussion.
1424 2012-01-30 16:18:10 <sipa> luke-jr: thanks!
1425 2012-01-30 16:18:31 iocor has joined
1426 2012-01-30 16:18:33 iocor has quit (Changing host)
1427 2012-01-30 16:18:33 iocor has joined
1428 2012-01-30 16:18:41 <gmaxwell> do the virus detectors fire on bitcoin(-qt) itself?
1429 2012-01-30 16:18:50 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: not afaik
1430 2012-01-30 16:18:57 <luke-jr> the problem is trojans like to include cgminer as their payload
1431 2012-01-30 16:19:54 <k9quaint> luke-jr: you need to build in a way to redirect all that hash power to your worker ;)
1432 2012-01-30 16:20:46 <k9quaint> donate the money earned to the cancer society or something
1433 2012-01-30 16:21:10 <luke-jr> ?
1434 2012-01-30 16:21:51 <Ukyo> k9quaint: which one thought.. there are so many.
1435 2012-01-30 16:22:04 <Ukyo> *though
1436 2012-01-30 16:23:01 <k9quaint> hmmm, how to check if you are the result of a virus payload...
1437 2012-01-30 16:23:24 <Ukyo> is your gpu maxed for no reason? heh
1438 2012-01-30 16:23:35 <Graet> or cpu ;)
1439 2012-01-30 16:24:02 <Graet> they arent that fussy, tho the good ones identify and miner on best hardware
1440 2012-01-30 16:24:26 <Ukyo> heh, just package cgminer with dynamic mode -_-
1441 2012-01-30 16:26:38 jewel has joined
1442 2012-01-30 16:31:53 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell suggested I create a table of all the BIP 16 testing that has been done to-date, so I just spent an hour or so doing that:  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0016_QA
1443 2012-01-30 16:32:15 traviscj_ has joined
1444 2012-01-30 16:32:40 <gavinandresen> If you've been testing BIP 16, or you've deployed it (Graet, did I see that your pool is supporting it?) a quick edit/sign-off would be really nice.
1445 2012-01-30 16:33:04 <gavinandresen> I wish I'd done this before, I think it might be a good way of coordinating testing efforts
1446 2012-01-30 16:33:06 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1447 2012-01-30 16:33:19 <Graet> no gavinandresen . i'm from the undecided, not sure its ready group
1448 2012-01-30 16:33:55 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1449 2012-01-30 16:33:59 <gavinandresen> Graet: ok.
1450 2012-01-30 16:34:36 <Ukyo> didn't slush implement already?
1451 2012-01-30 16:34:50 <sipa> he did
1452 2012-01-30 16:35:16 <Graet> but thanls for the wiki page gavinandresen , it might help in my decision :)
1453 2012-01-30 16:35:17 graingert has joined
1454 2012-01-30 16:36:01 <gavinandresen> Graet: no problem, like I said I should have thought of it before....
1455 2012-01-30 16:36:45 <Graet> :)
1456 2012-01-30 16:38:30 JimRogers has joined
1457 2012-01-30 16:38:40 booo has joined
1458 2012-01-30 16:38:44 <gmaxwell> I'm running it on mainnet, but have only mined two blocks with it so far. :) (go go 10GH/s)
1459 2012-01-30 16:40:03 michaelmclees has joined
1460 2012-01-30 16:40:54 <michaelmclees> quick question, it is possible to incorporate a message along with a transaction, encrypted like pgp, so that only the person with the private key to the address you sent money to can decrypt it?
1461 2012-01-30 16:41:09 <gavinandresen> quick answer: not really.
1462 2012-01-30 16:42:04 <michaelmclees> is it possible to incorporate such a function into the client, using the wallet file for private keys, but keeping such messages out of the block chain?
1463 2012-01-30 16:42:57 <michaelmclees> would this not merely be pgp with wallet private keys?
1464 2012-01-30 16:43:09 <gavinandresen> michaelmclees: sure, there's already a sign/verify message API
1465 2012-01-30 16:43:23 pingdrive has joined
1466 2012-01-30 16:43:28 <michaelmclees> oh, i had no idea
1467 2012-01-30 16:43:29 <gavinandresen> (and I think wumpus pulled a patch to add it to some advanced button/tab somewhere in the GUI, too)
1468 2012-01-30 16:43:36 <sipa> michaelmclees: whatever that message is, it does not belong in the block chain
1469 2012-01-30 16:43:53 <cjd> bitcoin keys are ecdsa which doesn't really support encryption
1470 2012-01-30 16:44:10 <sipa> michaelmclees: you're sending it to someone, so you probably know how to communicate with them outside of the blockchain too
1471 2012-01-30 16:44:16 <cjd> ofc it may be possible to hack a key to support it but it's not an afternoon project (at least not for me)
1472 2012-01-30 16:44:37 <sipa> the encryption part is not implemented, but is doable
1473 2012-01-30 16:45:08 <michaelmclees> but if someone smarter than I were to look into it, it would be part of the sign/verify message api?
1474 2012-01-30 16:45:36 <cjd> sign != encrypt
1475 2012-01-30 16:45:50 <michaelmclees> oh, good point
1476 2012-01-30 16:46:32 <cjd> being able to like email someone just knowing a bitcoin addr would be kinda neat but not really that useful
1477 2012-01-30 16:46:42 <cjd> (IMO)
1478 2012-01-30 16:46:45 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: not that I think it should matter, but you know slush doesn't run vanilla 0.3.24 ;)
1479 2012-01-30 16:46:57 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: no vanilla bitcoind can mine on mainnet anymore
1480 2012-01-30 16:47:02 <gmaxwell> sipa: meh, well you can pretty easily. You take the users public key, you make up a random key. You do ECDH using the random key. You tell them the random key's public key, and you use the hash of the ECDH derrived key for encryption.
1481 2012-01-30 16:47:31 <sipa> gmaxwell: yes, i know how :)
1482 2012-01-30 16:47:37 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: right, I'll fix that, he runs a variation on the vinced_mergedmine backport (which is forked from 0.3.24)
1483 2012-01-30 16:48:08 <cjd> gmaxwell: (I gather that was for me) indeed, didn't think of that, it is much easier than I had thought
1484 2012-01-30 16:48:52 <sipa> it's called ECIES, i believe
1485 2012-01-30 16:49:25 <michaelmclees> would the message travel the same way as a transaction?
1486 2012-01-30 16:49:32 <gmaxwell> opps yes, that was for cjd.
1487 2012-01-30 16:49:35 riush has quit (Quit: leaving)
1488 2012-01-30 16:49:36 <sipa> michaelmclees: it shouldn't
1489 2012-01-30 16:49:43 <cjd> that would be evil
1490 2012-01-30 16:49:48 <sipa> well, it could travel along with the transaction
1491 2012-01-30 16:49:54 <sipa> but it should not be part of it
1492 2012-01-30 16:50:27 <cjd> broadcasting a message out to the entire network is DoSish and probably should cost something
1493 2012-01-30 16:50:28 <michaelmclees> what i mean is, would such a scheme allow someone to send millions of large messages that would look like an attack
1494 2012-01-30 16:51:12 d4de has joined
1495 2012-01-30 16:51:13 d4de has quit (Changing host)
1496 2012-01-30 16:51:13 d4de has joined
1497 2012-01-30 16:51:16 <gmaxwell> cjd: our network is a broadcasty network, not really sutiable for this...
1498 2012-01-30 16:52:34 Clipse has joined
1499 2012-01-30 16:52:35 <cjd> indeed, which is why I'm saying that there should be some flood prevention which drops low payment:size ratio transactions in flood conditions
1500 2012-01-30 16:53:34 <gmaxwell> cjd: so I pay myself 1000 BTC and include a 1mb message. ... hard to tune.
1501 2012-01-30 16:53:53 <gmaxwell> Better to make the message forwarding a seperate network so that people who don't care about it aren't obligated to participate.
1502 2012-01-30 16:54:00 <cjd> oh crap I meant low tx_fee:size ratio
1503 2012-01-30 16:54:17 <michaelmclees> if adding an encrypted message meant paying transaction fees, what would be the problem of adding it to the block chain itself?
1504 2012-01-30 16:54:37 nanotube has joined
1505 2012-01-30 16:54:43 <gmaxwell> michaelmclees: because the blockchain itself burdens storage and processing for people far into the future.
1506 2012-01-30 16:55:07 <gmaxwell> michaelmclees: so the proper fees would be quite high. (bitcoin transactions are intentionally structured to be very small)
1507 2012-01-30 16:55:20 <cjd> I think that can be solved but still it costs a lot of people a lot of bandwidth and as far as we know, that can't.
1508 2012-01-30 16:55:54 <michaelmclees> hmm
1509 2012-01-30 16:56:09 <sipa> michaelmclees: the blockchain is massive beats to maintain, that costs a ton to all miners and relaying nodes
1510 2012-01-30 16:56:29 <sipa> michaelmclees: they choose to do so, because they find the idea of what bitcoin allows as a payment system to be useful
1511 2012-01-30 16:56:40 <sipa> or because of financial interests
1512 2012-01-30 16:57:18 <sipa> but putting anything in the chain that is not strictly necessary for the world to be able to verify it, only increases those costs without benefit
1513 2012-01-30 16:57:29 <gmaxwell> We're not even sure if this will scale. You can argue it either way. Sane bitcoiner's should not welcome non-finance data into the system, because that's simply not essential to what bitcoin does and moves us closer to the not-scale result.
1514 2012-01-30 16:58:16 <michaelmclees> if such a thing is kept outside the chain, is there still the dos problem of message propagation?
1515 2012-01-30 16:58:35 <sipa> no
1516 2012-01-30 16:58:47 <sipa> you'd just send it to the receiver himself directly
1517 2012-01-30 16:59:00 gribble has joined
1518 2012-01-30 16:59:00 <michaelmclees> ahh, i didn't know that could be done
1519 2012-01-30 16:59:16 * cjd thinks the future holds someone leasing a satellite transponder and any tx which pays him a few thousand satoshi gets pushed to the satellite and bcasted to thousands of nodes simultaniously.
1520 2012-01-30 16:59:24 <gmaxwell> michaelmclees: there is a feature disabled by default in bitcoin for pay to IP that lets you send a message with it.
1521 2012-01-30 16:59:26 <sipa> michaelmclees: well we have this technology called the internet
1522 2012-01-30 16:59:38 <sipa> it basically allows us to send messages between computers ;)
1523 2012-01-30 16:59:50 <gmaxwell> cjd: So I've gotten quotes in sat bandwidth, it's pretty cheap if you don't want much.
1524 2012-01-30 17:00:00 <cjd> :D
1525 2012-01-30 17:00:02 <gmaxwell> cjd: at least for capacity on C-band transponders.
1526 2012-01-30 17:00:02 <michaelmclees> with that in mind, is adding such a feature into the client a difficult problem to solve?
1527 2012-01-30 17:00:10 <cjd> ahh I see
1528 2012-01-30 17:00:14 <sipa> michaelmclees: no, but agreeing how it should be done is :)
1529 2012-01-30 17:00:22 <cjd> cband is hard to set lots of receivers up for
1530 2012-01-30 17:00:33 <cjd> and the idea is 1 transmitter, many receivers
1531 2012-01-30 17:00:41 <gmaxwell> Yea. :( well, its easy, but you need either a bigger antenna or low data rate.
1532 2012-01-30 17:00:58 <cjd> it will come
1533 2012-01-30 17:01:11 <gmaxwell> cjd: with a big (1.5m) antenna I can easily bit the blockchain in a 10KHz channel that costs only $50/month.
1534 2012-01-30 17:01:42 <cjd> and if we can reliably remove data from the chain then it can double as a very interesting broadcasting service
1535 2012-01-30 17:01:50 <michaelmclees> but why does there need to be agreement on how it is done if it is only the people using it who are affected?
1536 2012-01-30 17:03:05 <gmaxwell> If the only people using it are you, then why talk to us? just do what you want. :)
1537 2012-01-30 17:03:33 <michaelmclees> so see if it is feasible
1538 2012-01-30 17:04:08 <michaelmclees> see if im not way out in left field with the idea itself
1539 2012-01-30 17:04:35 * cjd is probably going to try scripting the bitfield idea, it's too easy to let go of
1540 2012-01-30 17:06:48 <michaelmclees> thanks guys, im out
1541 2012-01-30 17:07:27 michaelmclees has left ()
1542 2012-01-30 17:08:13 BurtyBB is now known as BurtyB
1543 2012-01-30 17:08:17 sacarlson has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1544 2012-01-30 17:13:23 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1545 2012-01-30 17:16:47 d1scordian has left ()
1546 2012-01-30 17:23:34 pusle has joined
1547 2012-01-30 17:26:05 sacarlson has joined
1548 2012-01-30 17:29:34 pingdrive has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1549 2012-01-30 17:30:37 paul0 has joined
1550 2012-01-30 17:33:54 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1551 2012-01-30 17:40:39 khalahan_ is now known as khalahan
1552 2012-01-30 17:48:13 BlueMatt has joined
1553 2012-01-30 17:49:58 riush has joined
1554 2012-01-30 17:49:58 riush has quit (Changing host)
1555 2012-01-30 17:49:58 riush has joined
1556 2012-01-30 17:52:58 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
1557 2012-01-30 17:58:44 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1558 2012-01-30 18:02:42 maqr has joined
1559 2012-01-30 18:10:38 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: my opinion is that the lack of a clear consensus on 16/17, especially if http://blockchain.info/p2sh is accurate, is enough in my mind to temporarily postpone "official" inclusion of either to provide for the possibility of a more elegant, more universally palatable alternative (be it a descendant of 16 or 17, or something else, or even a quiet reintroduction of 16 in the future when people care about it less)
1560 2012-01-30 18:11:01 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1561 2012-01-30 18:11:30 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: how long do you want to wait?
1562 2012-01-30 18:11:55 <BlueMatt> the only person voting against, according to that site, is eligius
1563 2012-01-30 18:12:06 <BlueMatt> the rest dont care, so you really only need like 2 more pools and you are fine
1564 2012-01-30 18:12:15 Lolcust has joined
1565 2012-01-30 18:12:19 <BlueMatt> I guarantee you most poolops dont care, but are just waiting until its resolved
1566 2012-01-30 18:12:46 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: I once told you that making changes should be done as quickly as possible while the network is young. I still think that. I don't know how to reconcile this with my current opinion that the change should be shelved and development concentrate somewhere else.
1567 2012-01-30 18:13:04 <UukGoblin> ah, vote results. fun.
1568 2012-01-30 18:13:11 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: That's not true. Tycho has said wait. You can't assume the 828 blocks are a "don't care" "vote".
1569 2012-01-30 18:13:36 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1570 2012-01-30 18:13:53 <UukGoblin> I thought "no vote" was "vote against" and this "/nop2sh/" was just for fun
1571 2012-01-30 18:13:54 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: On the other hand, I don't contribute code, so my opinion is only as a miner insomuch as what I do can be said to count towards the network.
1572 2012-01-30 18:14:25 <gavinandresen> Umm... I think Tycho's last post was "I like 17 a tiny bit better but don't really care"
1573 2012-01-30 18:15:01 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: you didn't answer my question, though:  if we wait, how long should we wait?
1574 2012-01-30 18:15:27 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-truth-behind-bip-16-and-17/  Has Tycho's opinion changed then?
1575 2012-01-30 18:15:57 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: 3 months. Or one major other additional featureset. Whichever comes first.
1576 2012-01-30 18:15:58 <UukGoblin> until there's an unanimous decision? ;-D
1577 2012-01-30 18:16:00 traviscj_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1578 2012-01-30 18:16:12 <midnightmagic> UukGoblin: Never. Unanimity is impossible! :)
1579 2012-01-30 18:16:23 <gavinandresen> "but if most people want it (or lured by Gavin), then I'll let it be.
1580 2012-01-30 18:16:23 <gavinandresen> As I said before, I'm not going to oppose the majority."  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61125.msg722260#msg722260
1581 2012-01-30 18:16:25 <UukGoblin> yeah just kidding
1582 2012-01-30 18:16:33 traviscj has joined
1583 2012-01-30 18:16:36 <midnightmagic> :)
1584 2012-01-30 18:17:00 <UukGoblin> poolops should really give their users a chance to cast a vote
1585 2012-01-30 18:17:40 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: Tycho appears to have said, "I don't like the "special case" magic and serialized script form in BIP16,"
1586 2012-01-30 18:17:50 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: yup.
1587 2012-01-30 18:18:30 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1588 2012-01-30 18:19:07 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: ... he isnt' a core developer either, though.  I weigh the opinion of people like roconnor or TD or justmoon or sipa who have actually reimplemented or worked on the core code a lot heavier.
1589 2012-01-30 18:19:37 <UukGoblin> I don't like it either, but I also don't like the easiness with which BIP17 can be stolen until it's live
1590 2012-01-30 18:19:38 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: This is something I have noticed you do, hence my comment re: my code contribution above.
1591 2012-01-30 18:19:45 <gavinandresen> (I missed genjix and etotheipeieiedie)
1592 2012-01-30 18:20:02 <UukGoblin> it's a tough call
1593 2012-01-30 18:20:18 <gavinandresen> What is a tough call?  I think it is easy, or I wouldn't be pushing it
1594 2012-01-30 18:20:41 <UukGoblin> implementing changes that require majority to upgrade
1595 2012-01-30 18:20:45 <gavinandresen> And if Luke hadn't decided to try to derail the process it WOULD have been easy.
1596 2012-01-30 18:20:51 BlueMatt has joined
1597 2012-01-30 18:21:00 <gavinandresen> Speaking of which... what do people think of BIP 20 versus 21?  Anybody besides luke like 20?
1598 2012-01-30 18:21:23 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1599 2012-01-30 18:21:45 <gavinandresen> UukGoblin: agree that requiring a majority is hard.  That's a good thing, overall.
1600 2012-01-30 18:22:26 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: On the other hand, the miners are the ones providing the strength of the network, and if they are competent to grok, or they choose someone competent to trust their hashrate with, ignoring them tends to (and has) alienate(d) them.
1601 2012-01-30 18:23:08 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: did I miss a thread somewhere?  I've been trying pretty hard to listen and respond to concerns/questions/etc....
1602 2012-01-30 18:23:10 <UukGoblin> hmm, don't see much differences between 20 and 21 at a first glance
1603 2012-01-30 18:23:44 <gavinandresen> (although I've felt at times like people are throwing a denial-of-service attack at me)
1604 2012-01-30 18:23:56 <sipa> UukGoblin: 20 supports tonal
1605 2012-01-30 18:24:02 <UukGoblin> gavinandresen, well, I was thinking, in terms of 16/17, why don't you give a user a special hash to pay to... Then the user will query the bitcoin network for that hash, and get a script to pay to in return
1606 2012-01-30 18:24:08 <UukGoblin> sipa, OK, 21 then! ;-)
1607 2012-01-30 18:24:16 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1608 2012-01-30 18:24:29 <sipa> 21 seems to be what is implemented in practice
1609 2012-01-30 18:24:47 <gavinandresen> UukGoblin: .... so both sender and recipient have to be online at the same time?
1610 2012-01-30 18:25:03 <UukGoblin> gavinandresen, y..eah... just a suggestion
1611 2012-01-30 18:25:03 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE
1612 2012-01-30 18:25:21 <UukGoblin> gavinandresen, is that unreasonable to assume that?
1613 2012-01-30 18:25:23 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: awesome, thanks!
1614 2012-01-30 18:25:50 <sipa> UukGoblin: why bother? the redeemer knows how to redeem his own addresses
1615 2012-01-30 18:27:42 <UukGoblin> sipa, well, I was thinking, the sender needs to be online to broadcast the transaction anyway, and in most cases (esp. Point-of-sale) the recipient wants to be online to verify that a transaction was sent
1616 2012-01-30 18:28:08 <BlueMatt> re: 20/21 there were votes put up on the forum a while back (when these things were still being discussed on the forum) and the vote went for 20
1617 2012-01-30 18:28:33 d1scordian_ has joined
1618 2012-01-30 18:28:45 d1scordian_ has left ()
1619 2012-01-30 18:28:54 <gavinandresen> only the implementors should get to vote, in my opinion.
1620 2012-01-30 18:29:14 <BlueMatt> thats fair, I was just commenting
1621 2012-01-30 18:29:23 <sipa> UukGoblin: yes, so?
1622 2012-01-30 18:29:26 <BlueMatt> (ie before there were implementations, the vote was  21)
1623 2012-01-30 18:29:27 <gavinandresen> They're the ones who understand all the issues, end-users will vote for rocket-powered cars that have minibars in them
1624 2012-01-30 18:29:45 <BlueMatt> it was back when the dev forums were mostly devs, not users
1625 2012-01-30 18:29:58 Clipse has joined
1626 2012-01-30 18:30:21 booo has joined
1627 2012-01-30 18:30:51 <UukGoblin> X2X4 bitcoins is just unreadable and hell to support
1628 2012-01-30 18:31:13 <gavinandresen> amen
1629 2012-01-30 18:31:14 <UukGoblin> you'd need special code in each language to process that
1630 2012-01-30 18:31:45 <UukGoblin> tonal stuff should only be done in the View in an MVC app
1631 2012-01-30 18:33:33 <Diablo-D3> GODDAMNI
1632 2012-01-30 18:33:36 <Diablo-D3> AMD IS A CUNT
1633 2012-01-30 18:33:41 <UukGoblin> I'd be inclined to use integer amount though... i.e. 2030000000 instead of 20.3
1634 2012-01-30 18:34:13 <gavinandresen> 2030000000 or 203000000 ?
1635 2012-01-30 18:34:22 <UukGoblin> argh, my eyes
1636 2012-01-30 18:34:27 <UukGoblin> ;-)
1637 2012-01-30 18:34:32 <sipa> QED
1638 2012-01-30 18:34:42 <UukGoblin> yeah
1639 2012-01-30 18:35:09 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: Miners are not end-users. Some miners are competent coders who choose not to participate in the core development team, or are prevented from doing so because of employment contracts.
1640 2012-01-30 18:36:52 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1641 2012-01-30 18:40:00 <midnightmagic> Oooo glitter..
1642 2012-01-30 18:40:02 * midnightmagic is distracted.
1643 2012-01-30 18:40:39 <sipa> ?
1644 2012-01-30 18:43:30 <Diablo-D3> midnightmagic: whats that supposed to mean
1645 2012-01-30 18:45:07 <UukGoblin> oh, and a gramar nazi would want to change 'amount' to 'value'
1646 2012-01-30 18:45:19 <Diablo-D3> also, why the fuck am I humming final countdown
1647 2012-01-30 18:47:13 barmstrong has joined
1648 2012-01-30 18:47:25 <UukGoblin> 'value' or perhaps 'number' or sth.... amount refers to uncountable stuff IIRC
1649 2012-01-30 18:48:28 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1650 2012-01-30 18:49:31 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1651 2012-01-30 18:50:43 larsivi has joined
1652 2012-01-30 18:50:53 Lolcust has joined
1653 2012-01-30 18:51:31 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1654 2012-01-30 18:53:01 Joric has joined
1655 2012-01-30 18:53:39 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1656 2012-01-30 18:54:08 d1scordian_ has joined
1657 2012-01-30 18:54:16 d1scordian_ has left ()
1658 2012-01-30 18:54:42 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, now you've infected me ffs
1659 2012-01-30 18:55:05 <Diablo-D3> see what I mean!
1660 2012-01-30 18:59:21 NickelBot has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1661 2012-01-30 19:01:25 knotwork has joined
1662 2012-01-30 19:02:04 Joric has quit ()
1663 2012-01-30 19:02:20 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1664 2012-01-30 19:03:11 bobke has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1665 2012-01-30 19:03:43 bobke has joined
1666 2012-01-30 19:05:12 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1667 2012-01-30 19:08:20 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
1668 2012-01-30 19:08:20 sacarlson has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1669 2012-01-30 19:08:24 NickelBot has joined
1670 2012-01-30 19:10:02 traviscj has joined
1671 2012-01-30 19:13:06 <[eval]> why is bip 22 the QA for bip 17 on the wiki?
1672 2012-01-30 19:16:27 rdponticelli has joined
1673 2012-01-30 19:17:24 <gavinandresen> RE: BIP 20 versus 21:  http://youtu.be/ZSFDm3UYkeE?t=34m14s  (thanks to midnightmagic!)
1674 2012-01-30 19:17:53 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: When the chips are down, well, the buffalo is empty)
1675 2012-01-30 19:20:39 <TuxBlackEdo> so who would be a poisonous person in this case?
1676 2012-01-30 19:20:40 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I believe I've seen that talk (is it by the SVN people?)
1677 2012-01-30 19:20:49 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: yes
1678 2012-01-30 19:21:58 <gavinandresen> TuxBlackEdo: see http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development ... and see who fits the profile....
1679 2012-01-30 19:22:05 <gmaxwell> Yea, I've seen it — or at least one they gave elsewhere. The biggest thing I got out of it was "hey, wow, other people have issues like this too?"
1680 2012-01-30 19:22:29 [Tycho] has joined
1681 2012-01-30 19:22:33 <gmaxwell> (not wrt bitcoin, when I saw it was before my bitcoin involvement but wrt other projects)
1682 2012-01-30 19:23:00 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1683 2012-01-30 19:23:30 <gavinandresen> The profile being:  unwilling to compromise, sucks up attention/time....
1684 2012-01-30 19:24:09 <gmaxwell> Right. TuxBlackEdo: it's less about 'poisonous' and more about coping with the fact that some participants are strongly net negative.
1685 2012-01-30 19:24:57 <TuxBlackEdo> gmaxwell, so what do you do? what's wrong with excluding people from the development process?
1686 2012-01-30 19:25:58 <gmaxwell> TuxBlackEdo: thats a part of the their solution. But it's a more surprising answer than you might thing— in open development you're usually desperate for help.. so the idea that you'd turn away someone who _wants_ to help is a bit hard to accept sometimes.
1687 2012-01-30 19:26:02 sacarlson has joined
1688 2012-01-30 19:26:52 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: sounds slightly like you and BlueMatt tbh.
1689 2012-01-30 19:27:15 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you should listen to the video.
1690 2012-01-30 19:27:39 <gmaxwell> I think everyone can fall into the pattern of being an unproductive contributor.
1691 2012-01-30 19:27:40 <schilly> gmaxwell: true, but additionally, potential developers are repelled if they see a bad dev communnity. so, a good state of the community attracts more devs.
1692 2012-01-30 19:28:12 BlueMatt has joined
1693 2012-01-30 19:28:13 <gmaxwell> schilly: absolutely, its a tough balance sometimes.
1694 2012-01-30 19:28:28 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I'll try to make time for it later
1695 2012-01-30 19:28:47 gwillen has quit (Changing host)
1696 2012-01-30 19:28:47 gwillen has joined
1697 2012-01-30 19:28:49 <luke-jr> doing like 3 or 4 productive things right now
1698 2012-01-30 19:29:03 <BlueMatt> yay, new network-manager == working wifi (for once in my life)
1699 2012-01-30 19:29:11 <[Tycho]> Hello, devs :)
1700 2012-01-30 19:29:20 <BlueMatt> hi [Tycho]
1701 2012-01-30 19:29:23 <BlueMatt> ;)
1702 2012-01-30 19:29:45 <gavinandresen> howdy [Tycho]
1703 2012-01-30 19:30:09 <[Tycho]> I'm ok. Developing some new useless features.
1704 2012-01-30 19:30:19 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: in the meantime, I think it's fair to say I've been the most compromising party that doesn't give in entirely? ;)
1705 2012-01-30 19:31:21 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you're more compromising than people give you credit for, because they can't remember the compromises because your non-compromises are so much louder. (FWIW, their focus in the video is mostly on non-committers)
1706 2012-01-30 19:31:37 <BlueMatt> [Tycho]: whats your current opinion/plans on p2sh?
1707 2012-01-30 19:32:02 <BlueMatt> oh, in case anyone missed it in the topic, the commit stream has been moved out of here to #bitcoin-commits
1708 2012-01-30 19:34:01 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: your thoughts on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61922.0  (how to move forward with p2sh) would be appreciated, too....
1709 2012-01-30 19:37:59 Cablesaurus has joined
1710 2012-01-30 19:38:00 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
1711 2012-01-30 19:38:00 Cablesaurus has joined
1712 2012-01-30 19:38:05 <BlueMatt> who runs BTC-Guild?
1713 2012-01-30 19:38:17 <[Tycho]> BlueMatt: current plans are to wait for other people and start working on porting it when at least 50% of OTHER miners will "vote" for it. If nothing else happens.
1714 2012-01-30 19:38:35 <BlueMatt> mmm
1715 2012-01-30 19:39:27 <[Tycho]> I think Gavin tried to use Deepbit as convincing force for pushing BIP16 to existence.
1716 2012-01-30 19:40:23 <gavinandresen> I simply worked backwards from "I want this feature" to "this feature needs 50+% hashing power to be safe" to "where will 50+% hashing power come from?"
1717 2012-01-30 19:40:57 <BlueMatt> [Tycho]: ofc he asked you, you sit on the most mingin power
1718 2012-01-30 19:41:02 <gavinandresen> ... and given the power pools have right now over hashing power, asking the big pools was the quickest way forward.
1719 2012-01-30 19:41:06 <BlueMatt> what are btcguild's plans on p2sh?
1720 2012-01-30 19:41:31 <gavinandresen> btc guild says they'll support-- planned on implementing already, but some personal crisis delayed their work
1721 2012-01-30 19:42:10 <BlueMatt> mmm
1722 2012-01-30 19:42:49 <[Tycho]> BlueMatt: there is some explanation is his thread.
1723 2012-01-30 19:43:38 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: where does "I won't accept BIP 17" come into play from "I want this feature"? doesn't BIP 17 get you that? (not arguing, just trying to understand better how to reach a consensus)
1724 2012-01-30 19:44:01 <gavinandresen> sigh....
1725 2012-01-30 19:44:23 <gavinandresen> OK, ONE LAST TIME:  Bitcoin version 0.1 did this to validate scripts:    scriptSig + OP_CODESEPARATOR + scriptPubKey
1726 2012-01-30 19:44:46 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: can you give a link to BBE with such TX ?
1727 2012-01-30 19:44:55 <gavinandresen> Satoshi changed that after the OP_RETURN bug, so the scriptSig and scriptPubKey were evaluated completely seperately
1728 2012-01-30 19:45:26 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: no, there is no such Tx, all standard transactions are/were entirely in the scriptPubKey and OP_RETURN was never exploited on main net
1729 2012-01-30 19:45:51 <BlueMatt> oh, thats what OP_CODESEP is for?
1730 2012-01-30 19:45:55 <BlueMatt> s/is/was/
1731 2012-01-30 19:45:59 <gavinandresen> My fundamental objection to BIP 17 is it reverses that decision, and I agree with roconnor: we dont' understand the script system deeply enough to do that right now
1732 2012-01-30 19:46:04 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: yes
1733 2012-01-30 19:46:06 <gmaxwell> The scriptSig+OP_CODESEPARATOR+scriptPubKey was interior to bitcoin, you can't "see" it.
1734 2012-01-30 19:46:29 <Eliel> you could make OP_CODESEPARATOR do the separation instead?
1735 2012-01-30 19:46:47 <gmaxwell> Eliel: thats what it did!
1736 2012-01-30 19:47:17 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I don't agree that it reverses that decision, but unless you want to discuss that further, I'll just accept this disagreement as-is.
1737 2012-01-30 19:47:49 <gavinandresen> How does it not reverse that decision?  the scriptSig becomes:  <sigs> OP_CODESEPARATOR <stuff that WOULD appear in the scriptPubKey> ????
1738 2012-01-30 19:47:51 <Eliel> gmaxwell: I mean this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60433.msg714924#msg714924
1739 2012-01-30 19:48:25 ovidiusoft has joined
1740 2012-01-30 19:49:10 <BlueMatt> [Tycho]: so when slush+btcguild support bip16, you will too?
1741 2012-01-30 19:49:20 <gmaxwell> Eliel: what happens when I leave extra bytes in a script that make the CODESEPARATOR get missed because it's inside dangling a push?
1742 2012-01-30 19:49:24 <BlueMatt> (its like 50.7% of others)
1743 2012-01-30 19:49:26 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: scriptPubKey remains separate, while maintaining its current role. what scriptSig does is not important to scriptPubKey, just the results it produces (which scriptPubKey checks).
1744 2012-01-30 19:49:43 <gmaxwell> Eliel: which is exactly with the joined method is dangerous, closing all that weirdness is hard.
1745 2012-01-30 19:50:03 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: to maintail the current model you'd need a _third_ execution context I think.
1746 2012-01-30 19:51:32 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: why does scriptSig (provided by redeemer) need to be isolated from scriptSig (provided by redeemer)?
1747 2012-01-30 19:52:06 storrgie has joined
1748 2012-01-30 19:52:17 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: the danger is some weird combination of opcodes that tickles a bug we don't know about.
1749 2012-01-30 19:52:41 <Eliel> gmaxwell: if there's a codeseparator inside a push, it should get ignored. I even refer to that in the text.
1750 2012-01-30 19:52:42 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: all such weird combinations are already possible with the current system
1751 2012-01-30 19:53:07 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: possible but non-standard and, therefore, much less of a worry.
1752 2012-01-30 19:53:31 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: .... and you constantly argue against tightening up the "isstandard" rules....
1753 2012-01-30 19:53:38 <luke-jr> BIP 17 makes a specific subset of things standard
1754 2012-01-30 19:53:56 <gavinandresen> yes, is that fully implemented?
1755 2012-01-30 19:54:10 <luke-jr> yes, that's the 2nd/last commit of the backport
1756 2012-01-30 19:54:31 <gavinandresen> I noticed BIP 17 says you can't use PUSHDATA 2/3/4 for the CHV hash, but didn't notice code that implemented that, for example
1757 2012-01-30 19:54:53 <gavinandresen> (or a unit test for that)
1758 2012-01-30 19:55:08 <luke-jr> it does?
1759 2012-01-30 19:55:13 <luke-jr> I don't know why you couldn't.
1760 2012-01-30 19:55:34 <luke-jr> oh, you mean for the scritp to be standard
1761 2012-01-30 19:55:49 <gavinandresen> "[20-byte-hash-value] shall be the push-20-bytes-onto-the-stack opcode (0x14) followed by exactly 20 bytes."
1762 2012-01-30 19:56:11 torsthaldo has joined
1763 2012-01-30 19:57:21 <luke-jr> yes, that might not be checked.
1764 2012-01-30 19:57:33 * luke-jr ponders why that rule is different from the pay-to-pubkey-hash rule
1765 2012-01-30 19:58:25 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I have no opinion on whether P2SH should allow other push-opcodes there to be standard. Do you prefer either way?
1766 2012-01-30 19:58:41 <gavinandresen> I'm done wasting time on BIP 17
1767 2012-01-30 19:59:08 <luke-jr> it'd be simpler to update the BIP to be neutral like pubkey-hashes, but the Solver could be changed to check it as well
1768 2012-01-30 19:59:11 <luke-jr> ok
1769 2012-01-30 19:59:27 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1770 2012-01-30 20:00:19 <gavinandresen> Luke, first you posted a poll RE: BIP 16 versus 17.  BIP 17 lost.  You ignored it.
1771 2012-01-30 20:00:50 <gavinandresen> Now miners/pools are implementing BIP 16 versus 17; you are the only one supporting BIP 17.
1772 2012-01-30 20:01:10 <gavinandresen> Core developers either have no opinion or support BIP 16
1773 2012-01-30 20:01:28 <gavinandresen> What will it take for you to withdraw BIP 17?
1774 2012-01-30 20:01:59 <gavinandresen> Same questions for BIP 20, by the way....
1775 2012-01-30 20:03:11 <userjj> luke-jr?
1776 2012-01-30 20:03:16 <luke-jr> I disagree with your premises. The poll results were clearly non-useful based on the controls. Miners/pools that have implemented BIP 16 have done so only because you push it, and have lost money as a result; of those, at least some have expressed that they will probably switch to BIP 17 during its vote in a few days; core developers that support BIP 16 are mostly also OK with BIP 17
1777 2012-01-30 20:03:42 <luke-jr> I will withdraw BIP 17 if BIP 16 manages to get a majority of hashpower enforcing it
1778 2012-01-30 20:04:25 <gavinandresen> Ok....    and for BIP 20?  What will it take for you to withdraw support for it?  (I have given no premises for it)
1779 2012-01-30 20:04:28 <luke-jr> I hope that won't happen, since BIP 17 is the clearly superior solution.
1780 2012-01-30 20:04:52 luke-jr has joined
1781 2012-01-30 20:05:00 <luke-jr> nanotube: BlueMatt isn't honouring the lecture
1782 2012-01-30 20:05:07 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1783 2012-01-30 20:05:10 <BlueMatt> "BIP 17 is the clearly superior solution."
1784 2012-01-30 20:05:16 <gavinandresen> I'm just looking for a clear criteria so we can move forward.  If you aren't willing to move forward, then I'll be seeing if there is support to ask you to leave.
1785 2012-01-30 20:05:17 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: BIP 20 is already Final and finished a year ago. per the BIP process, it is Superceded when there is agreement on a replacement
1786 2012-01-30 20:05:38 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I personally think wasting time on BIP 20 at this point is pointless and unfruitful
1787 2012-01-30 20:05:52 <luke-jr> people who have ignored it so far will continue to ignore it, etc
1788 2012-01-30 20:06:26 <luke-jr> I don't know why genjix insisted on digging up the months-old argument
1789 2012-01-30 20:06:51 <luke-jr> my focus is on getting BIP 17 P2SH deployed so we can move on with things
1790 2012-01-30 20:06:58 <gavinandresen> genjix is Mr. Bip Process Person, and I fully support him in that role.  I think he's been doing a nice job.
1791 2012-01-30 20:07:37 <gavinandresen> gotta go, catch y'all later.
1792 2012-01-30 20:07:38 <luke-jr> that's fine, but I don't see any reason to bring up an old useless argument just because it's assigned a number.
1793 2012-01-30 20:07:39 <[Tycho]> What is BIP20 ?
1794 2012-01-30 20:07:44 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: URI Scheme
1795 2012-01-30 20:07:57 <[Tycho]> What's wrong with it ?
1796 2012-01-30 20:08:01 b4epoche_ has joined
1797 2012-01-30 20:08:02 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: it was assigned a BIP number, so now BlueMatt's throwing a fit over it anew
1798 2012-01-30 20:08:02 <BlueMatt> see ya gavinandresen
1799 2012-01-30 20:08:17 <gavinandresen> overly complicated, so everybody but Luke like's BIP 21
1800 2012-01-30 20:08:17 sacarlson has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1801 2012-01-30 20:08:22 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1802 2012-01-30 20:08:32 <BlueMatt> throwing a fit, Im pointing out that bip 20 wasnt agreed upon and thus isnt final
1803 2012-01-30 20:08:45 <Eliel> [Tycho]: basically, BIP20 specifies multiple formats for the bitcoin amount, decimal, hexadecimal, exponential, etc. BIP21 specifies it should be decimal.
1804 2012-01-30 20:08:59 <BlueMatt> I pushed bip 21 so that there is an alternative which is closer to the one which is both implemented in Bitcoin-Qt and was agreed upon a looong time ago
1805 2012-01-30 20:09:05 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1806 2012-01-30 20:09:05 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1807 2012-01-30 20:09:06 <BlueMatt> you are the one who dug up the issue
1808 2012-01-30 20:09:13 <luke-jr> no, I didn't.
1809 2012-01-30 20:09:18 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: bip20 includes tonal B.S.
1810 2012-01-30 20:09:19 <BlueMatt> ok
1811 2012-01-30 20:09:23 <luke-jr> jgarzik: no, it doesn't.
1812 2012-01-30 20:09:28 <[Tycho]> Eliel: that's the only difference ?
1813 2012-01-30 20:09:40 <[Tycho]> Decimal in bitcoins or satoshis ?
1814 2012-01-30 20:10:05 <Eliel> [Tycho]: I didn't actually read it myself but that's the impression I got from the messages on the mailing list.
1815 2012-01-30 20:10:25 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: BTCs
1816 2012-01-30 20:10:52 <UukGoblin> [Tycho], decimal in bitcoins
1817 2012-01-30 20:10:56 <luke-jr> but srsly, we all have better things to do than argue over this again
1818 2012-01-30 20:11:03 <UukGoblin> I was thinking satoshis would be cool too
1819 2012-01-30 20:11:13 <UukGoblin> yeah it's relatively minor
1820 2012-01-30 20:11:16 <luke-jr> Satoshis would be fine for a replacement
1821 2012-01-30 20:11:20 <BlueMatt> yea, lets leave this be
1822 2012-01-30 20:11:26 <UukGoblin> compared to the p2sh war
1823 2012-01-30 20:11:44 <BlueMatt> lets not discuss that either (unless someone has something new to say)
1824 2012-01-30 20:12:25 traviscj has joined
1825 2012-01-30 20:12:29 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1826 2012-01-30 20:13:01 <luke-jr> does ANYONE have a preferece for whether BIP 17 standard scriptPubKey should allow PUSHDATA2/4/etc like the current pubkey-based scriptPubKey, or if it should only allow 1 opcode for the push?
1827 2012-01-30 20:14:08 * BlueMatt takes this opportunity to ask more people to look over https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/771 and beat it
1828 2012-01-30 20:14:15 <BlueMatt> s/beat it/beat on it/
1829 2012-01-30 20:14:21 <Moron__>  p2sh war lol
1830 2012-01-30 20:14:25 dirus has joined
1831 2012-01-30 20:15:21 <Eliel> luke-jr: I like the KISS principle.
1832 2012-01-30 20:15:36 <luke-jr> Eliel: which is simpler? ;)
1833 2012-01-30 20:16:06 marf_away has joined
1834 2012-01-30 20:16:28 <Eliel> just 1 opcode
1835 2012-01-30 20:16:55 <luke-jr> I mean, if we only allow 1 opcode, then we have to check that opcode matches ;)
1836 2012-01-30 20:17:07 <luke-jr> so in a sense, it's simpler to just ignore the opcode used
1837 2012-01-30 20:17:15 <luke-jr> but sure, like I said I don't really care
1838 2012-01-30 20:18:20 <Eliel> there are some small possibilities for getting some runtime compressability out of the blockchain data. The less variations there are for standard transactions, the better it should compress.
1839 2012-01-30 20:19:00 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1840 2012-01-30 20:20:06 <gmaxwell> Eliel: sipa wrote a partial blockchain compressor. Didn't compress scripts however.
1841 2012-01-30 20:20:29 <luke-jr> It's really tempting to just publish BIP 18
1842 2012-01-30 20:20:31 <gmaxwell> but e.g. there is a lot of data you can toss, timestamps restricted by particular rules, hashes which must be the hash of the data which is right there.
1843 2012-01-30 20:21:42 <Eliel> luke-jr: frankly, there's not enough difference between the technical implementations to warrant spending the time on it that is being spent.
1844 2012-01-30 20:22:04 <luke-jr> Eliel: huh? BIP 16 is 10 times the code changes/complexity than BIP 17
1845 2012-01-30 20:22:04 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: publish BIP 18 then.
1846 2012-01-30 20:22:15 RazielZ has joined
1847 2012-01-30 20:22:36 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: at this point, I feel like that would be the lazy option and giving up on Bitcoin early
1848 2012-01-30 20:22:43 <Eliel> luke-jr: I'm saying it still isn't worth all the time.
1849 2012-01-30 20:23:15 <doublec> what is bip 18?
1850 2012-01-30 20:23:43 <luke-jr> doublec: BIP16-compatible alternative to BIP12/16/17 <.<
1851 2012-01-30 20:24:02 <luke-jr> not as ideal as BIP 17 tho
1852 2012-01-30 20:24:12 <doublec> ah, ok
1853 2012-01-30 20:24:17 * Eliel actually likes BIP 18 better than 16 or 17.
1854 2012-01-30 20:25:03 <sipa> what is bip 18?
1855 2012-01-30 20:25:36 <Eliel> luke-jr: are you really going to withhold it now that you've let the cat out of the bag?
1856 2012-01-30 20:27:14 <luke-jr> Eliel: well, I don't want to give up on the more ideal solution that is BIP 17 either
1857 2012-01-30 20:27:29 sacarlson has joined
1858 2012-01-30 20:28:25 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1859 2012-01-30 20:28:36 <marf_away> compromise!!
1860 2012-01-30 20:28:53 <luke-jr> marf_away: BIP 17 is already a compromise
1861 2012-01-30 20:29:08 <marf_away> new compromise!!!
1862 2012-01-30 20:29:14 <marf_away> ;)
1863 2012-01-30 20:29:47 <marf_away> if you half like it and many others to, that would be fine :)
1864 2012-01-30 20:30:41 <luke-jr> marf_away: maybe if BIP 17 fails on Feb 8
1865 2012-01-30 20:30:49 <sipa> Eliel: the non-script data is extremely compressible, actually
1866 2012-01-30 20:31:23 <Eliel> sipa: how much can you shave from the blockchain size with that?
1867 2012-01-30 20:31:23 <marf_away> new hope for progress yeah ;D
1868 2012-01-30 20:31:57 <luke-jr> unfortunately, I think the Feb 8 deadline is a lost cause now
1869 2012-01-30 20:32:13 <luke-jr> BTCGuild isn't changing anything until Feb 9, and Deepbit I presume won't do anything either
1870 2012-01-30 20:32:31 <luke-jr> that's almost defeating already
1871 2012-01-30 20:32:46 <marf_away> and slush is pro bip16?
1872 2012-01-30 20:33:57 <sipa> Eliel: ill run my compressor on the current blockchain to give you an acurate number
1873 2012-01-30 20:34:12 <luke-jr> marf_away: Slush seems to be OK with either
1874 2012-01-30 20:34:13 <sipa> note that it is not seekable... it only allows decompressing the entire chain
1875 2012-01-30 20:34:42 <Eliel> sipa: would it reduce the compression efficiency much to make it seekable?
1876 2012-01-30 20:35:37 <sipa> it currently works by gathering statistics during the compression itself, you could determine those statistics once and make them static
1877 2012-01-30 20:35:44 <sipa> i suppose you'll lose a few %
1878 2012-01-30 20:35:58 jewel has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1879 2012-01-30 20:35:59 <dirus> or you could just dump the dictionary with each seekable spot
1880 2012-01-30 20:36:03 <gmaxwell> Eliel: thats not what you'd do.. you'd decompress it to validate it.. and then write out a summary blob that was compact and seekable (and completely pruned)
1881 2012-01-30 20:36:04 <dirus> depending on how big it is
1882 2012-01-30 20:36:19 <Eliel> gmaxwell: ah true, that sounds better
1883 2012-01-30 20:36:53 <Eliel> oh right, many of hashes must repeat quite often. It might compress very nicely indeed.
1884 2012-01-30 20:37:04 <gmaxwell> I really should dump out all the open transactions and see how compact a straight perfect hash of them is.
1885 2012-01-30 20:37:21 marf_away has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1886 2012-01-30 20:37:48 marf_away has joined
1887 2012-01-30 20:37:54 <Eliel> luke-jr: frankly, I think BIP 17 is a lost cause already.
1888 2012-01-30 20:38:06 marf_away has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1889 2012-01-30 20:38:25 <luke-jr> Eliel: if BTCGuild opposes BIP 17, and Deepbit stands opposed to both, you may be right
1890 2012-01-30 20:39:38 <luke-jr> I'm holding off spending too much more time on this until BTCGuild has looked at the details and decides where they stand.
1891 2012-01-30 20:43:30 <Moron__> about the bip's
1892 2012-01-30 20:43:41 <Moron__> is it purely based on voting power... what if the exchange chose to follow a different chain?
1893 2012-01-30 20:43:47 <Moron__> the=an
1894 2012-01-30 20:43:57 <Moron__> mtgox for example
1895 2012-01-30 20:44:05 <gmaxwell> Moron__: this is whats fundimentally wrong about thinking that there is a _vote_ here. There isn't.
1896 2012-01-30 20:44:17 <gmaxwell> Moron__: the BIPs are both compatible with the old software.
1897 2012-01-30 20:44:21 <luke-jr> Moron__: if miners and exchanges disagree, then the exchange could become vulnerable
1898 2012-01-30 20:44:31 <gmaxwell> Moron__: but they aren't safe to use unless a majority of all future hash power enforces the rules.
1899 2012-01-30 20:44:36 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I'm assuming he means if the exchanges enforce the wrong BIP
1900 2012-01-30 20:44:41 <Moron__> luke-jr: but dont most miners depend on the exchanges to cash out?
1901 2012-01-30 20:44:54 <luke-jr> Moron__: you're assuming Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme -.-
1902 2012-01-30 20:45:02 <luke-jr> Bitcoins are the real cash
1903 2012-01-30 20:45:09 <Moron__> you cant pay electricity in bitcoins
1904 2012-01-30 20:45:17 <luke-jr> I can't?
1905 2012-01-30 20:45:42 <Moron__> not without converting them to fiat
1906 2012-01-30 20:45:53 <gmaxwell> Luke is solar powered IIRC. :)
1907 2012-01-30 20:45:58 <luke-jr> ;)
1908 2012-01-30 20:46:18 <Moron__> but the majority of miners arent?
1909 2012-01-30 20:46:44 <luke-jr> I don't expect any exchange will adopt a proposal until miners do
1910 2012-01-30 20:46:53 <luke-jr> they'd be too vulnerable IMO
1911 2012-01-30 20:47:09 <Moron__> oh, you mean they will loose too much money if theyre wrong?
1912 2012-01-30 20:47:12 <luke-jr> yes
1913 2012-01-30 20:47:36 <gmaxwell> well. they won't lose money... they'll just get stuck at some point.
1914 2012-01-30 20:47:41 <gmaxwell> and get no new blocks.
1915 2012-01-30 20:48:06 <gmaxwell> unless some evil person wanted to spend a few hundred btc for a small chance of screwing with the exchanges head (/pocketbook).
1916 2012-01-30 20:48:40 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it'd make a 50% attack on the exchange a heck of a lot easier
1917 2012-01-30 20:48:46 <gmaxwell> but thats if and only if they deploy code for one of BIP16/BIP17 and the majority of future hashpower deploys the other.
1918 2012-01-30 20:49:09 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: still would cost 300 BTC to get six confirms.. and I'd think they'd notice in the meantime. :)
1919 2012-01-30 20:49:32 <gmaxwell> (then again with those mystery 115% PPS payers and GPUmax, perhaps not _that_ hard to get the hashing)
1920 2012-01-30 20:49:39 <Diablo-D3> almost misread that as "six coffins"
1921 2012-01-30 20:49:56 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: dunno, if an exchange is willing to enforce a BIP w/o a supermajority, they'd already be crazy ;)
1922 2012-01-30 20:49:57 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: secret fema plan to execute all miners.
1923 2012-01-30 20:50:04 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: bingo.
1924 2012-01-30 20:50:38 * Diablo-D3 looks at his paranoid delusions bingo card
1925 2012-01-30 20:50:47 <Diablo-D3> fema check, execute, check, secret, check
1926 2012-01-30 20:50:49 <Diablo-D3> BINGO!
1927 2012-01-30 20:50:56 <gmaxwell> heh
1928 2012-01-30 20:51:55 <sipa> Eliel: 259 MB to 23 MB
1929 2012-01-30 20:52:01 <sipa> Eliel: for the non-script data
1930 2012-01-30 20:52:08 <luke-jr> so anyhow, I'm divided between idealist (BIP 17) and lazy (BIP 18) :/
1931 2012-01-30 20:52:17 <Eliel> that's nice compression. What exactly does it compress?
1932 2012-01-30 20:52:17 <sipa> Eliel: which is unfortunately 721 MB :)
1933 2012-01-30 20:52:30 superman2016 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1934 2012-01-30 20:52:36 <sipa> Eliel: hmm?
1935 2012-01-30 20:52:44 <Eliel> sipa: what data is in the 259 MB?
1936 2012-01-30 20:52:58 <sipa> the block chain, except the scripts
1937 2012-01-30 20:53:12 <sipa> so no coinbases, no txin scripts, no txout scripts
1938 2012-01-30 20:53:55 <luke-jr> sipa: if you wanted to read over the actual content, it's at http://pastebin.com/GUQNJxL3 for now
1939 2012-01-30 20:54:36 superman2016 has joined
1940 2012-01-30 20:55:07 <Eliel> sipa: it should be simple to shave a few bytes off of each standard txout. I mean, they're basically the same static bytes plus a hash. you could save the hash and throw the bytes away and reconstruct from template later.
1941 2012-01-30 20:55:55 <sipa> Eliel: there are lots of interesting possibilities for compressing scripts, including using key recovery to drop the pubkeys entirely
1942 2012-01-30 20:56:18 <gmaxwell> sipa: would it be easy for you to give me some dump of transaction sizes? (just a random subset is fine). I want to make some simulated data to size a perfect hash.
1943 2012-01-30 20:56:39 <sipa> gmaxwell: no problem
1944 2012-01-30 20:56:48 erle- has joined
1945 2012-01-30 20:57:02 <sipa> transaction sizes, so just the size of serialized tx's?
1946 2012-01-30 20:57:18 <sipa> only not-entirely-spend ones?
1947 2012-01-30 20:57:34 <gmaxwell> Yes. E.g. if I were to make a file of open transactions (the summary), how big would the transactions be. The size need not include their hashes.
1948 2012-01-30 20:57:52 <gmaxwell> not-entirely-spent is what I want, but I figure the stats are the same overall.
1949 2012-01-30 20:58:35 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1950 2012-01-30 21:00:13 ThomasV has joined
1951 2012-01-30 21:01:10 traviscj has joined
1952 2012-01-30 21:02:06 superman2016 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1953 2012-01-30 21:04:10 <sipa> gmaxwell: counting
1954 2012-01-30 21:04:14 superman2016 has joined
1955 2012-01-30 21:06:31 pusle has quit ()
1956 2012-01-30 21:06:59 <sipa> gmaxwell: http://pastebin.com/AHedQPnQ
1957 2012-01-30 21:07:06 <sipa> that's all transaction, not just unspent ones
1958 2012-01-30 21:08:57 <gmaxwell> 0_o
1959 2012-01-30 21:08:57 <gmaxwell> 1x 173790 bytes
1960 2012-01-30 21:09:08 <gmaxwell> the reference client won't create ones that big.
1961 2012-01-30 21:11:38 <gmaxwell> hehe.. 4.36 bits of entropy per size.
1962 2012-01-30 21:16:55 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1963 2012-01-30 21:17:50 <sipa> gmaxwell: http://pastebin.com/WmuwypTF (unspent txos)
1964 2012-01-30 21:18:26 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1965 2012-01-30 21:20:41 <gmaxwell> 2,311,778 total unspent.
1966 2012-01-30 21:21:27 <sipa> Dumped block 164610 (2311943 txs, 5357317 txouts, 4064803 txins)
1967 2012-01-30 21:21:37 <sipa> wait, what?
1968 2012-01-30 21:21:40 <sipa> that can't be
1969 2012-01-30 21:21:51 <gmaxwell> sum of your first column in http://pastebin.com/WmuwypTF is 2,311,778
1970 2012-01-30 21:21:52 <sipa> oh, that "txs" number doesn't include coinbases
1971 2012-01-30 21:21:56 <gmaxwell> ah.
1972 2012-01-30 21:23:11 imsaguy has joined
1973 2012-01-30 21:24:42 marf_away has joined
1974 2012-01-30 21:27:11 * gmaxwell shakes his fist at idiots that use Werror
1975 2012-01-30 21:27:39 <cjd> trying to build cjdns?
1976 2012-01-30 21:27:43 <gmaxwell> No.
1977 2012-01-30 21:28:11 <cjd> what's wrong with werror? it keeps idiots from making pull requests which introduce warnings
1978 2012-01-30 21:28:40 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: We be chillin - IceChat style)
1979 2012-01-30 21:29:35 <gmaxwell> cjd: because the warnings change from compiler version to compiler version.
1980 2012-01-30 21:29:49 <gmaxwell> (or arch to arch)
1981 2012-01-30 21:30:01 <luke-jr> always develop with -Werror. never put it in build scripts
1982 2012-01-30 21:30:05 <gmaxwell> I use Werror locally, but don't distribute stuff that uses it.
1983 2012-01-30 21:30:09 <gmaxwell> what luke-jr said.
1984 2012-01-30 21:30:11 paraipan has joined
1985 2012-01-30 21:30:28 genjix has joined
1986 2012-01-30 21:30:36 <cjd> gotchya
1987 2012-01-30 21:30:45 <genjix> hey cjd
1988 2012-01-30 21:30:51 <cjd> howdy
1989 2012-01-30 21:30:52 <genjix> hows cjdns?
1990 2012-01-30 21:31:14 <cjd> 60 nodes responding to ping, 120 unique ip addresses seen
1991 2012-01-30 21:31:28 <sipa> what is cjdns?
1992 2012-01-30 21:31:43 <cjd> not too bad considering every one of them had to actually ask for permission from someone to connect
1993 2012-01-30 21:31:48 <genjix> cjd: i wrote a story on it :) http://bitcoinmedia.com/cjdns-the-new-network-better-than-tor-i2p-and-freenet/
1994 2012-01-30 21:32:07 <cjd> yeap, that was cool
1995 2012-01-30 21:32:09 <cjd> https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/blob/master/rfcs/Whitepaper.md
1996 2012-01-30 21:32:44 <genjix> cjd: have you got a non-technical article style thing about cjdns i can put up?
1997 2012-01-30 21:33:13 <cjd> not really
1998 2012-01-30 21:33:33 <cjd> the whitepaper kind of ossilates between motivation and RFC
1999 2012-01-30 21:33:54 <genjix> yeah but it's really technical and not easy reading
2000 2012-01-30 21:34:16 <cjd> http://static.thefinn93.com/cjdns/map.png <-- that's what the network looks like
2001 2012-01-30 21:34:35 Clown- has joined
2002 2012-01-30 21:35:14 <genjix> nice
2003 2012-01-30 21:35:25 <genjix> ha cool
2004 2012-01-30 21:36:31 <cjd> kind of hoping to do a youtube video at some point which helps people really understand how the switch engine works
2005 2012-01-30 21:37:11 <userjj> genjix: what do y think about theymos words here; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61922.0
2006 2012-01-30 21:37:21 <genjix> cjd: write an article first :) then the youtube can just be a recording of the article
2007 2012-01-30 21:37:27 <cjd> because it has some subtleties which the people working on map making code had to be walked through
2008 2012-01-30 21:37:34 <luke-jr> userjj: it's an ideal that doesn't exist in reality.
2009 2012-01-30 21:37:37  has quit (Clown|!~clown@static-87-79-93-140.netcologne.de|Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2010 2012-01-30 21:37:42 <userjj> i think you could write an artcle about it
2011 2012-01-30 21:38:06 <genjix> userjj: he is kind of right since the original whitepaper 1 cpu = 1 vote
2012 2012-01-30 21:38:22 <genjix> oh nice, he has a good proposal
2013 2012-01-30 21:38:25 <luke-jr> userjj: it would also result in the wrong decision being made
2014 2012-01-30 21:38:35 <genjix> i like that idea a lot
2015 2012-01-30 21:38:52 <genjix> except i'd modify it so ideas need a good majority to pass (like 70%)
2016 2012-01-30 21:39:00 <luke-jr> genjix: 2/3 is ~70% :p
2017 2012-01-30 21:39:01 <userjj> i think only changes like recover lost coins... should be decided by minrrs
2018 2012-01-30 21:39:12 <luke-jr> userjj: recover lost coins can't happen.
2019 2012-01-30 21:39:34 <userjj> i mean this kind of changes
2020 2012-01-30 21:40:07 <userjj> the techical changed should be decided by devs
2021 2012-01-30 21:40:15 <userjj> changes
2022 2012-01-30 21:40:25 <userjj> not by miners
2023 2012-01-30 21:40:31 <luke-jr> userjj: ideally, but reality is miners control it
2024 2012-01-30 21:40:36 <luke-jr> in this case
2025 2012-01-30 21:40:47 <genjix> wumpus: are you wladimir
2026 2012-01-30 21:40:54 <cjd> when it comes down to it, miners make the rules. I won't mine that is absolute.
2027 2012-01-30 21:41:08 <luke-jr> even if Gavin + tcatm forced users to validate, miners don't need to accept the transactions
2028 2012-01-30 21:41:22 BlueMatt has joined
2029 2012-01-30 21:41:35 <genjix> why did you mention gavin and tcatm directly?
2030 2012-01-30 21:41:47 <genjix> whatever.
2031 2012-01-30 21:41:48 <userjj> ok.
2032 2012-01-30 21:41:53 <luke-jr> genjix: Gavin has the power to force it into mainline Bitcoin-Qt, and tcatm the power to publish it on bitcoin.org
2033 2012-01-30 21:42:05 <luke-jr> that will get 90% of the users
2034 2012-01-30 21:42:28 <BlueMatt> why are the chan logs always so far behind?
2035 2012-01-30 21:42:39 * BlueMatt ponders setting up new chatlog server
2036 2012-01-30 21:42:43 <genjix> ok
2037 2012-01-30 21:42:51 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: topic is theymos's proposal to take the decision away from miners
2038 2012-01-30 21:43:01 <genjix> i like theymos proposal
2039 2012-01-30 21:43:02 <luke-jr> we're explaining why that's not really possible
2040 2012-01-30 21:43:02 <BlueMatt> how so? just push 0.6?
2041 2012-01-30 21:43:09 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: that wouldn't work
2042 2012-01-30 21:43:13 <BlueMatt> and watch the "split fireworks"
2043 2012-01-30 21:43:16 <luke-jr> no split
2044 2012-01-30 21:43:16 <BlueMatt> yea, it wouldnt
2045 2012-01-30 21:43:18 <genjix> it solves the transparency issue, and it allows people an informed decision
2046 2012-01-30 21:43:28 <luke-jr> miners just wouldn't have to accept any P2SH transactions
2047 2012-01-30 21:43:52 <BlueMatt> so they just leave them out, dont accept or reject, just leave them out?
2048 2012-01-30 21:44:02 <luke-jr> I think if all the developers sat down until we got a 2/3 consensus, we'd end up with "no change"
2049 2012-01-30 21:44:06 <luke-jr> at least for now
2050 2012-01-30 21:44:26 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: leave them out = reject
2051 2012-01-30 21:44:43 <BlueMatt> yea, but they dont reject blocks with invalid p2sh txes
2052 2012-01-30 21:44:51 <BlueMatt> s/dont/do/
2053 2012-01-30 21:45:01 <luke-jr> they'd have to do that if Gavin+tcatm forced it into 0.6
2054 2012-01-30 21:45:06 <BlueMatt> so they arent rejecting, they are still providing support for just leaving them out
2055 2012-01-30 21:45:18 <luke-jr> they could still reject valid p2sh too
2056 2012-01-30 21:45:25 <luke-jr> ie, orphan blocks using it
2057 2012-01-30 21:45:34 <BlueMatt> yea
2058 2012-01-30 21:45:37 <BlueMatt> sorry
2059 2012-01-30 21:45:46 <luke-jr> I don't think trying to force miners is going to turn out pretty
2060 2012-01-30 21:45:50 theymos has joined
2061 2012-01-30 21:45:51 <BlueMatt> ;;seen 'CDecker
2062 2012-01-30 21:45:51 <gribble> I have not seen 'CDecker.
2063 2012-01-30 21:45:55 <BlueMatt> ;;seen cdecker
2064 2012-01-30 21:45:55 <gribble> cdecker was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 27 weeks, 6 days, 2 hours, 21 minutes, and 23 seconds ago: <cdecker> Near field communication
2065 2012-01-30 21:45:58 <BlueMatt> arg
2066 2012-01-30 21:45:59 <luke-jr> theymos: you missed it!
2067 2012-01-30 21:46:07 <theymos> Missed what?
2068 2012-01-30 21:46:14 <luke-jr> theymos: the whole conversation of your proposal :p
2069 2012-01-30 21:46:17 <genjix> theymos: good job on your idea... i just sent you a PM
2070 2012-01-30 21:46:41 <theymos> Oh, thanks. :) I was just coming in here to see what you guys thought.
2071 2012-01-30 21:46:54 <BlueMatt> you cant really do it
2072 2012-01-30 21:47:05 <Eliel> I expect that as bitcoin community develops, people will eventually end up trusting some developers more than most and those developers will end up being central in the project. At least, that's how I think it works in Open Source projects usually.
2073 2012-01-30 21:47:05 <luke-jr> in the end, we *could* spend another meeting(s) coming to a conclusion, agreeing beforehand to make a single unified recommendation to miners based on it
2074 2012-01-30 21:47:09 <BlueMatt> miners could reject all blocks with p2sh in them and overwrite chain if they are the majority
2075 2012-01-30 21:47:37 <genjix> theymos: chat over pm. this channel is too high traffic for me.
2076 2012-01-30 21:47:39 genjix has left ()
2077 2012-01-30 21:47:41 <luke-jr> Eliel: that's how it is right now, at an extreme :/
2078 2012-01-30 21:48:29 <Eliel> it's a small project still. No way around it.
2079 2012-01-30 21:48:32 <luke-jr> if we had a more diverse ecosystem of developers (ie, not Gavin's way or the highway for merges to a single client), I'm confident BIP 17 would eventually go through
2080 2012-01-30 21:49:16 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: you arent saying anything new, if you have no new ideas (on either side), can we stop discussing bip16/17 in here?
2081 2012-01-30 21:49:21 <BlueMatt> not just luke
2082 2012-01-30 21:49:23 <BlueMatt> but generally?
2083 2012-01-30 21:50:07 <theymos> I'm pretty confident that miners won't contradict the behavior of bitcoin.org binaries.
2084 2012-01-30 21:50:18 <BlueMatt> agreed
2085 2012-01-30 21:50:43 <BlueMatt> but miners who dont will get invalid p2sh txes which they will accept, and as a result the network split will be ugly
2086 2012-01-30 21:50:49 <luke-jr> theymos: if the behaviour is intentionally bypassing their decision, they might
2087 2012-01-30 21:50:52 <BlueMatt> atleast for the first while
2088 2012-01-30 21:51:05 <BlueMatt> their decision looks like bip16 atm
2089 2012-01-30 21:51:12 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: we don't _know_ of anyone but luke that accepts non-standard txn.
2090 2012-01-30 21:51:17 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: no, their decision is *nothing* atm
2091 2012-01-30 21:51:27 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: nvm, good point
2092 2012-01-30 21:51:59 <Moron__> u guys should have built an autoupdate feature to fix this problem before it became one
2093 2012-01-30 21:51:59 <BlueMatt> anyone have any objections if I make a new ircbot which doesnt lag so much and change the chan logs link to the new one (if I leave a link to "old irc logs")
2094 2012-01-30 21:52:14 <BlueMatt> yep, its on the todo ;)
2095 2012-01-30 21:52:22 <BlueMatt> (and the bitcoin ppa sorta is for linux users)
2096 2012-01-30 21:52:31 <luke-jr> Moron__: so the solution is to make Bitcoin more centralized?
2097 2012-01-30 21:52:33 <helo> autoupdate is probably one of the more dangerous ideas
2098 2012-01-30 21:52:51 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
2099 2012-01-30 21:52:53 <BlueMatt> people can always opt out of an autoupdate
2100 2012-01-30 21:53:01 <Moron__> uh cant we do a decentralised autoupdate that people cant opt out of?
2101 2012-01-30 21:53:05 <BlueMatt> but its only there to encourage users to update
2102 2012-01-30 21:53:14 <BlueMatt> decentralized: no, not really
2103 2012-01-30 21:53:17 <BlueMatt> opt out, ofc
2104 2012-01-30 21:53:24 <luke-jr> Moron__: the point is, that having a single client is *already too centralized*
2105 2012-01-30 21:53:50 <gmaxwell> Well, I think we know how to do updates that are acceptable... e.g. the gitian ensemble signing with veto.
2106 2012-01-30 21:54:35 * luke-jr vetos anything forcing BIP 16 ;)
2107 2012-01-30 21:55:54 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: the score system makes is to you can make vetos not powerful enough to be unilateral.
2108 2012-01-30 21:55:57 Cablesaurus has joined
2109 2012-01-30 21:55:57 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
2110 2012-01-30 21:55:57 Cablesaurus has joined
2111 2012-01-30 21:56:44 <gmaxwell> e.g. you might have an allowed range of [-100..20] So you could override 5 people saying publish but not six.. you'd need another person to veto to overcome six.
2112 2012-01-30 21:58:14 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2113 2012-01-30 21:58:33 BlueMatt_ has joined
2114 2012-01-30 21:58:40 <Moron__> so this is more a protocol change than a client change?
2115 2012-01-30 21:59:21 <Moron__> and what will happen to all the other clients like bitcoinJ and the smartphone stuff?
2116 2012-01-30 21:59:37 <gmaxwell> Nothing. It's fully compatible.
2117 2012-01-30 21:59:51 <Moron__> ohh cool u guys are clever!
2118 2012-01-30 22:00:28 <userjj> why not make a list of devs who uderstand bitcoin, and ask if they wan bip 16 r 17 o nothing. so the miners could look the votes and decide
2119 2012-01-30 22:00:37 <userjj> want
2120 2012-01-30 22:01:41 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2121 2012-01-30 22:01:48 BlueMatt_ is now known as BlueMatt
2122 2012-01-30 22:01:55 <userjj> i think a wiki page should be created with devs votes
2123 2012-01-30 22:02:19 <Moron__> isnt that a bit unfair?
2124 2012-01-30 22:02:27 <Moron__> just because you can code doesnt make you an expert on bitcoin
2125 2012-01-30 22:02:41 <gmaxwell> Moron__: he qualified it.
2126 2012-01-30 22:04:44 iocor has joined
2127 2012-01-30 22:04:44 <Moron__> what does qualified mean?
2128 2012-01-30 22:04:55 <Eliel> the "I think"?
2129 2012-01-30 22:05:58 <gmaxwell> "why not make a list of devs _who uderstand bitcoin_"
2130 2012-01-30 22:06:30 <edcba> bitcoin is quite moving :/
2131 2012-01-30 22:06:36 <gmaxwell> Of the people who have patches committed to the reference client in the last six months, I believe only Luke has voiced opposition. (though I might be missing someone)
2132 2012-01-30 22:07:24 <gmaxwell> and holy crap you people need to normalize your git author lines.
2133 2012-01-30 22:07:45 <edcba> still problems with bip 16 ?
2134 2012-01-30 22:09:05 <Moron__> its bitcoin war 1 up here :P
2135 2012-01-30 22:09:05 sacarlson has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2136 2012-01-30 22:09:12 <Moron__> bw1 lol
2137 2012-01-30 22:09:27 baz has joined
2138 2012-01-30 22:15:35 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: that's not veto, that's 80% majority :P
2139 2012-01-30 22:15:58 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it's a veto because you can make negative votes much more powerful than positive ones.
2140 2012-01-30 22:16:20 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: how is it different from 80% majority?
2141 2012-01-30 22:16:39 <gmaxwell> A system which allows one party an absolute veto will be broken as soon as you give one idiot a signing key.
2142 2012-01-30 22:16:57 <gmaxwell> because you can give people negative only votes.
2143 2012-01-30 22:17:45 <luke-jr> edcba: the good news is, the one minor problem with BIP 17 was resolved
2144 2012-01-30 22:17:56 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I see.
2145 2012-01-30 22:19:08 booo has joined
2146 2012-01-30 22:19:33 lyspooner has joined
2147 2012-01-30 22:19:36 <luke-jr> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2SH_Votes <-- developers vote :P
2148 2012-01-30 22:19:46 <luke-jr> hey, looks checkery!
2149 2012-01-30 22:21:16 <Moron__> can i vote?
2150 2012-01-30 22:22:14 <cjd> Moron__: have you had a patch included in bitcoin in the past 6 months?
2151 2012-01-30 22:22:17 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: have you had any reports of totally @#$@#ed up balances from users who got paid twice to two different addresses in the same generation txn?
2152 2012-01-30 22:22:50 gavinandresen has joined
2153 2012-01-30 22:22:57 paul0 has quit (Quit: paul0)
2154 2012-01-30 22:24:04 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: no, I've seen it combined myself in that case
2155 2012-01-30 22:24:11 <luke-jr> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0017_QA <-- almost all red gone :P
2156 2012-01-30 22:24:24 <luke-jr> mostly green when Eligius finds a block
2157 2012-01-30 22:25:06 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/txlist/#2d3006cf1e16cb9f4097894fdaa0739c66d38eb9e0356be3fd8daf63810cf375
2158 2012-01-30 22:25:11 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.)
2159 2012-01-30 22:25:34 <gavinandresen> ... I rounded amounts less than 0.0011 to 0.0011 (because eleven is my favorite number)
2160 2012-01-30 22:25:54 <gavinandresen> (and I like the idea of rewarding p2pool users)
2161 2012-01-30 22:26:56 <Cory> And we <3 you, Gavin.
2162 2012-01-30 22:27:11 <nathan7> Lala
2163 2012-01-30 22:27:20 <nathan7> How's the bitcoinverse?
2164 2012-01-30 22:27:28 sacarlson has joined
2165 2012-01-30 22:28:00 <helo> bit-chin!
2166 2012-01-30 22:28:59 <lyspooner> dumb questions: how does the 0.5.2 client determine which coins to send?  why is this choice the current choice?
2167 2012-01-30 22:29:46 <luke-jr> lyspooner: partly random
2168 2012-01-30 22:29:51 <gmaxwell> lyspooner: it uses a pretty smart algorithim which tries to minimize the transaction size subject to using only inputs with >=6 confirms, failing that >=1 confirm (or your own txn).
2169 2012-01-30 22:30:17 <gmaxwell> lyspooner: unfortunately thats probably not the ideal objective, so though it's smart in doing what it does.. what it does is somewhat the wrong thing.
2170 2012-01-30 22:30:27 * nathan7 hands helo a muffin
2171 2012-01-30 22:30:40 <helo> om
2172 2012-01-30 22:30:56 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2173 2012-01-30 22:31:44 <lyspooner> gmaxwell: how does the algorithm find the minimize transaction size?  is this trivial?  and why is this somewhat the wrong thing?
2174 2012-01-30 22:31:59 <helo> fewest inputs?
2175 2012-01-30 22:32:15 <helo> oh nm
2176 2012-01-30 22:32:24 Cablesaurus has joined
2177 2012-01-30 22:32:25 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
2178 2012-01-30 22:32:25 Cablesaurus has joined
2179 2012-01-30 22:32:58 <userjj> luke-jr, the ps2h votes page should have a link on bip 16/17 pages
2180 2012-01-30 22:33:20 <gmaxwell> lyspooner: no, it's not trivial it's a knapsack problem solver which uses an iterated approximate solution. I think it's in wallet.cpp
2181 2012-01-30 22:33:38 <gmaxwell> lyspooner: it will, however, use an exact input if there is one.
2182 2012-01-30 22:33:38 <lyspooner> ok, that's what i was looking for
2183 2012-01-30 22:33:40 <lyspooner> thanks
2184 2012-01-30 22:34:21 <lyspooner> shouldn't the objective function and constraints be based on the needs of the user?  doesn't seem that hard to configure differently based on the user's needs
2185 2012-01-30 22:34:32 <gmaxwell> 0_o
2186 2012-01-30 22:34:33 <lyspooner> i want all old coins to be used first
2187 2012-01-30 22:34:37 <lyspooner> or something
2188 2012-01-30 22:34:53 <helo> irrelevant to almost all users, so not part of the client, imo
2189 2012-01-30 22:35:18 <gmaxwell> for pretty much any set of reasonable constraints the optimal solution is usually an NP HARD problem.
2190 2012-01-30 22:35:37 <luke-jr> userjj: only if miners decide to go along with it IMO
2191 2012-01-30 22:35:58 <gmaxwell> The solver in there now is built around a particular kind of objective function. It's not easy to just replace it.
2192 2012-01-30 22:36:24 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: is it fair if I list you as 12=no, 16=yes, 17=weak ? or do you prefer no-p2sh over 17?
2193 2012-01-30 22:36:31 <lyspooner> maximize transactions size? :/
2194 2012-01-30 22:36:48 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: as much as I run my mouth, I don't think I deserve a say on such a table.
2195 2012-01-30 22:36:52 erle- has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2196 2012-01-30 22:37:15 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: IMO, it's not about earning a say, but being competent to make an informed decision
2197 2012-01-30 22:37:37 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: as much as I dislike your decision, you're certainly competent
2198 2012-01-30 22:37:39 <etotheipi_> lyspooner, if you are interested in alternatives... I implemented an adjustable SelectCoins algorithm in Armory
2199 2012-01-30 22:37:50 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: You should have a make no change ever column too.
2200 2012-01-30 22:38:01 erle- has joined
2201 2012-01-30 22:38:02 <gmaxwell> (I think it would be pretty much all no)
2202 2012-01-30 22:38:07 <lyspooner> etothepi, that sounds nice, i will have a look.
2203 2012-01-30 22:38:11 <gmaxwell> but I think that would be surprising to some people.
2204 2012-01-30 22:38:57 <etotheipi_> lyspooner, the core is a SelectCoins-solution-scoring method, and then I produce a couple dozen reasonable solutions for all different things (with some random choices) and pick the highest scoring one
2205 2012-01-30 22:39:03 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: also, you should qualifiy if you mean support right _now_ vs _after baking_.
2206 2012-01-30 22:39:10 <luke-jr> baking?
2207 2012-01-30 22:39:20 <etotheipi_> you adjust the scoring method to decide whether you want to optimizing anonymity, or tx size/fee
2208 2012-01-30 22:39:28 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: giving the code time to mature.
2209 2012-01-30 22:40:00 <lyspooner> optimizing anonymity? do you have literature please
2210 2012-01-30 22:40:05 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: I'm skeptical of that approach. You have 2^inputs possible choices, you're only going to sample a very small set.
2211 2012-01-30 22:40:19 <gmaxwell> lyspooner: not literature is needed. Optimizing anonymity means don't link unlink addresses.
2212 2012-01-30 22:40:22 <etotheipi_> my bad for being vague... it's not finding an optimal solution
2213 2012-01-30 22:40:36 <etotheipi_> it's just deciding what should be prioritized in the selectcoin-scoring
2214 2012-01-30 22:41:21 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: I think we've talked about this before.. at least some of your candidates come from more intellegent solvers right? they're not all random subset right?
2215 2012-01-30 22:41:22 <etotheipi_> using less inputs (linking addresses), and having equal-precision outputs (making recip & change undistinguishable) are part of that optimization
2216 2012-01-30 22:41:39 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, that's correct... there's a dozen or so solutions that are deterministic
2217 2012-01-30 22:41:40 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: IMO, voting as if it's mature is best, since even if we go based on these votes, we still need deployment time and such
2218 2012-01-30 22:41:55 <etotheipi_> then I have some deterministic solutions that are tweaked randomly
2219 2012-01-30 22:42:31 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you should say so explicitly. Simply because there are some people who might say "I support BIP16/BIP17 but today is too soon, in two months" or whatever. and I think that a lot of $random_users don't know that.
2220 2012-01-30 22:42:34 <etotheipi_> the goal was to apply a solution for each possible "geometry" of unspent outputs... and if the scoring algorithm is good, it will pick the "right" one for this application
2221 2012-01-30 22:42:38 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: so between No/Weak / Yes/Prefer, would you say BIP 17 is…?
2222 2012-01-30 22:42:46 <luke-jr> I added that
2223 2012-01-30 22:44:43 <gmaxwell> I'm No for BIP12 and do nothing, Prefer for 16  Yes 17 (assuming maturity that I don't feel 17 has now), No for do nothing. I think.
2224 2012-01-30 22:46:24 <Moron__> whats wrong with bip12?
2225 2012-01-30 22:46:55 <gmaxwell> Moron__: too powerful.
2226 2012-01-30 22:47:11 <Moron__> powerful?
2227 2012-01-30 22:47:16 splatster has joined
2228 2012-01-30 22:47:23 <luke-jr> Moron__: a few months testing wouldn't be enough
2229 2012-01-30 22:47:28 <gmaxwell> Yes. BIP12 == Skynet.
2230 2012-01-30 22:49:11 <etotheipi_> err.... apply a whole bunch of simple, easy-to-code, dumb solutions... one of them will be good :)
2231 2012-01-30 22:49:33 <splatster> etotheipi_: Anyone able to compile it yet?
2232 2012-01-30 22:50:38 <etotheipi_> splatster, haha not that I've heard of
2233 2012-01-30 22:50:44 Ahimoth_ has joined
2234 2012-01-30 22:51:07 Ahimoth has quit (Disconnected by services)
2235 2012-01-30 22:51:10 Ahimoth_ is now known as Ahimoth
2236 2012-01-30 22:51:43 <Moron__> etotheipi_: what does ur name mean?
2237 2012-01-30 22:51:49 <etotheipi_> e-to-the-i-pi
2238 2012-01-30 22:52:04 <luke-jr> …
2239 2012-01-30 22:52:05 <etotheipi_> Moron__, what does your name mean?
2240 2012-01-30 22:52:08 <Moron__> oh is that a maths equation?
2241 2012-01-30 22:52:12 <etotheipi_> :)
2242 2012-01-30 22:52:21 * nathan7 awards etotheipi_ a muffin
2243 2012-01-30 22:52:26 <Moron__> im not sure yet :)
2244 2012-01-30 22:52:39 <gavinandresen> I never realized you were e to the i pi before!
2245 2012-01-30 22:53:01 <splatster> I can finally say your name in my head now
2246 2012-01-30 22:53:17 <helo> i wondered where you were going with etotheeyeeyeyedie earlier heh
2247 2012-01-30 22:53:41 <BlueMatt> oh, e to the pi, wow
2248 2012-01-30 22:53:42 <gmaxwell> oh etotheipi_? He comes around periodically.
2249 2012-01-30 22:53:51 <JFK911> BlueMatt: not e to the pi.
2250 2012-01-30 22:54:03 <JFK911> i, pi is something different.
2251 2012-01-30 22:54:16 <BlueMatt> oh, sorry didnt see the i
2252 2012-01-30 22:54:22 <gmaxwell> ... but he's always the negative one in a discussion.
2253 2012-01-30 22:54:33 <JFK911> haha
2254 2012-01-30 22:54:41 <BlueMatt> oh wow
2255 2012-01-30 22:54:44 <BlueMatt> math puns
2256 2012-01-30 22:55:07 <etotheipi_> lol
2257 2012-01-30 22:55:13 <gmaxwell> A series of comments taylored to this channel.
2258 2012-01-30 22:55:13 <etotheipi_> I didn't realize that went past so many people :)
2259 2012-01-30 22:55:32 <nathan7> *tailored
2260 2012-01-30 22:55:47 <gmaxwell> nathan7: no.
2261 2012-01-30 22:55:52 <etotheipi_> haha, gmaxwell
2262 2012-01-30 22:55:55 <nathan7> No?
2263 2012-01-30 22:55:57 <gmaxwell> No.
2264 2012-01-30 22:55:59 <nathan7> oh
2265 2012-01-30 22:56:00 <etotheipi_> taylor series
2266 2012-01-30 22:56:01 <nathan7> a pun
2267 2012-01-30 22:56:05 <nathan7> wonderful
2268 2012-01-30 22:56:08 <BlueMatt> though to be fair, etotheipi_ isnt always that negative, he is really quite complex
2269 2012-01-30 22:56:20 <nathan7> I think this is a sign I need to go sleep
2270 2012-01-30 22:56:21 <luke-jr> etotheipi_ confuses me
2271 2012-01-30 22:56:23 <gmaxwell> (the reason e^πi is negative 1 is obvious if you look at the taylor series expansion of it)
2272 2012-01-30 22:56:44 <etotheipi_> BlueMatt, etotheionehalfpi would be complex... but I haven't seen him around
2273 2012-01-30 22:57:00 <BlueMatt> etotheipi_: heh
2274 2012-01-30 22:57:06 <luke-jr> etotheipi_: what's the underscore for>
2275 2012-01-30 22:57:09 <gmaxwell> I fear we've diverged.
2276 2012-01-30 22:57:14 ThomasV has joined
2277 2012-01-30 22:57:17 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: hey, better than bip16/17 discussions
2278 2012-01-30 22:57:35 <etotheipi_> apparently someone else already has etotheipi.
2279 2012-01-30 22:57:35 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: a continued zero. -1.00000__
2280 2012-01-30 22:57:41 <cdecker> @BlueMatt: you were looking for me?
2281 2012-01-30 22:57:58 <BlueMatt> cdecker: oh, I was wondering why the channel logs always seem to be like an hour behind?
2282 2012-01-30 22:57:58 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, btw I update BIP 0010 logic in my code... it's not ridiculously bloated
2283 2012-01-30 22:58:08 <cdecker> Just a sec
2284 2012-01-30 22:58:08 <BlueMatt> cdecker: I always use them to catch up on the current discussion...
2285 2012-01-30 22:58:26 <etotheipi_> but it works, so I'll update the BIP and send it out to the mailing list so we can have more BIP-related controversy
2286 2012-01-30 22:58:42 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: oh, it does what I wanted now?
2287 2012-01-30 22:58:48 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, yes
2288 2012-01-30 22:58:50 <cdecker> You're right, timestamps are behind, but they are up to the second
2289 2012-01-30 22:58:55 <gmaxwell> \O/
2290 2012-01-30 22:59:01 <cdecker> I even saw our last two lines
2291 2012-01-30 22:59:11 <cdecker> It's just that I have specified GMT as timezone
2292 2012-01-30 22:59:17 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, I just gotta do a few last tests, then it will be committed as a permanent part of armory
2293 2012-01-30 23:00:06 <luke-jr> etotheipi_: what are your votes for no-p2sh, BIP 12, BIP 16, and BIP 17; choices: No/Weak / Yes/Prefer
2294 2012-01-30 23:00:32 <luke-jr> assumign you've read them by now
2295 2012-01-30 23:00:33 <etotheipi_> luke-jr, unfortunately, I don't have a position... I haven't been deeply enough involved to understand the minutae of the implementations
2296 2012-01-30 23:00:41 <BlueMatt> cdecker: hmm, usually when I check it is behind at least a minute
2297 2012-01-30 23:00:49 <luke-jr> etotheipi_: strictly on protocol changes, not implementation
2298 2012-01-30 23:00:56 <cdecker> Well the minute is explained by a cache hit
2299 2012-01-30 23:01:06 <BlueMatt> (which is, sadly, the attention span of an irc channel)
2300 2012-01-30 23:01:11 <cdecker> It should never be more than 5 minutes however
2301 2012-01-30 23:01:15 ivan` has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2302 2012-01-30 23:01:16 <BlueMatt> cdecker: so send nocache or something?
2303 2012-01-30 23:01:26 <cdecker> Would you prefer if I removed the cache?
2304 2012-01-30 23:01:30 <etotheipi_> luke-jr, I misspoke... I don't much about them other that I'd like something so I can integrate it into Armory and do two-factor-auth
2305 2012-01-30 23:01:31 <etotheipi_> :)
2306 2012-01-30 23:01:51 <BlueMatt> cdecker: I dont care, Im just asking because it would be nice to see up-to-the second logs instead of stale ones
2307 2012-01-30 23:02:02 <cdecker> Can be done
2308 2012-01-30 23:02:03 <BlueMatt> or am I doing something wrong?
2309 2012-01-30 23:02:10 <BlueMatt> (aside from refreshing)
2310 2012-01-30 23:02:12 <luke-jr> etotheipi_: so you don't care as long as it's *some* p2sh? last person who said that interpreted it as No,Weak,Weak,Weak :p
2311 2012-01-30 23:02:32 <BlueMatt> cdecker: actually, last line I see (even after refreshing is BlueMatt	cdecker: I always use them to catch up on the current discussion...)
2312 2012-01-30 23:02:54 <cdecker> I'll just reduce the cache timeout to a few seconds
2313 2012-01-30 23:03:03 <BlueMatt> nice, thanks
2314 2012-01-30 23:03:04 <etotheipi_> luke-jr, my stance is *anything* that enables multi-sig responsibly, isn't rushed, and doesn't break the network... that doesn't imply any support for any particular proposal :)
2315 2012-01-30 23:03:07 <cdecker> Keeping it just against too many simultanous hits
2316 2012-01-30 23:03:27 <BlueMatt> thats fair, I dont want you to remove your whole cache
2317 2012-01-30 23:03:30 <etotheipi_> for now, I'm just voting "abstain"
2318 2012-01-30 23:03:31 <luke-jr> etotheipi_: yeah, "Weak" is defined as "better than nothing"
2319 2012-01-30 23:04:52 poiuh has joined
2320 2012-01-30 23:05:37 <cdecker> BlueMatt: cache reduced,you should now be able to see up to the second logs :D
2321 2012-01-30 23:05:59 poiuh has quit (Client Quit)
2322 2012-01-30 23:06:06 poiuh has joined
2323 2012-01-30 23:06:13 <BlueMatt> cdecker: thanks a ton
2324 2012-01-30 23:06:15 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2325 2012-01-30 23:07:04 <cdecker> Glad to help
2326 2012-01-30 23:07:07 <cdecker> Bye ^^
2327 2012-01-30 23:08:05 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2328 2012-01-30 23:08:16 sacarlson has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2329 2012-01-30 23:09:55 ivan` has joined
2330 2012-01-30 23:16:54 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: might be useful to log people who might be expected care but don't give a crap too.
2331 2012-01-30 23:18:00 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: maybe
2332 2012-01-30 23:20:38 <splatster> lol
2333 2012-01-30 23:20:42 <splatster> oops
2334 2012-01-30 23:20:44 <luke-jr> lol
2335 2012-01-30 23:20:57 <poiuh> bitcoinsters
2336 2012-01-30 23:21:33 <splatster> iFail, by Apple.
2337 2012-01-30 23:21:34 <etotheipi_> splatster, so are there any other options for Armory on OSX?
2338 2012-01-30 23:21:42 <etotheipi_> maybe if I build binaries... it will work with wine?  :)
2339 2012-01-30 23:22:00 <splatster> Wine is not all that great
2340 2012-01-30 23:22:03 <poiuh> http://nsa22.casimages.com/img/2012/01/30/120130012249873529.jpg
2341 2012-01-30 23:22:28 <etotheipi_> splatster, I know... i"m just trying to think what else to do... I don't know a thing about OSX, so I would be even less successful than you guys
2342 2012-01-30 23:22:33 <gmaxwell> poiuh: bitcoin developers?
2343 2012-01-30 23:23:35 <splatster> I think swig has been the major source of problems
2344 2012-01-30 23:23:58 <etotheipi_> are there any other ways to combine C++ and python?
2345 2012-01-30 23:24:04 <etotheipi_> ones that are better-suited to OSX?
2346 2012-01-30 23:24:21 <splatster> Not that I know of
2347 2012-01-30 23:25:05 knotwork has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2348 2012-01-30 23:25:06 <splatster> I will see what I can acomplish with xcode
2349 2012-01-30 23:25:10 NickelBot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2350 2012-01-30 23:26:59 sacarlson has joined
2351 2012-01-30 23:28:14 <jrmithdobbs> etotheipi_: yes, you write an individual python module that wraps it
2352 2012-01-30 23:28:35 <jrmithdobbs> etotheipi_: it's exponentially more work but will also function exponentially better ;p
2353 2012-01-30 23:28:59 <jrmithdobbs> swig is an abomination
2354 2012-01-30 23:28:59 <etotheipi_> jrmithdobbs, I don't understand
2355 2012-01-30 23:29:38 <jrmithdobbs> etotheipi_: you manually create a python module that wraps the c/c++ code's functionality in a sane way, instead of jamming into what swig thinks python wants it to look like
2356 2012-01-30 23:30:14 <etotheipi_> jrmithdobbs, are you suggesting simply reimplementing the C++ code in python?
2357 2012-01-30 23:30:18 <jrmithdobbs> no
2358 2012-01-30 23:30:31 <phantomcircuit> poiuh, the fuck
2359 2012-01-30 23:30:37 <luke-jr> ctypes?
2360 2012-01-30 23:30:41 <etotheipi_> oh...
2361 2012-01-30 23:30:47 <jrmithdobbs> i'm suggesting writing a python module, just like swig autogenerates, except instead of usuing swig's autogenerated module actually write the module
2362 2012-01-30 23:30:57 <etotheipi_> got it
2363 2012-01-30 23:31:11 <jrmithdobbs> etotheipi_: swig always leads to a world of unusable pain
2364 2012-01-30 23:31:16 <jrmithdobbs> is the short version
2365 2012-01-30 23:31:16 <luke-jr> PySide has something
2366 2012-01-30 23:31:36 <etotheipi_> jrmithdobbs, so far I have no problems whatsoever on the two platforms I use:  Win 7 and Linux
2367 2012-01-30 23:32:02 <etotheipi_> I didn't realize OSX would be a completely different beast
2368 2012-01-30 23:32:10 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
2369 2012-01-30 23:32:15 <splatster> Swig is the problem
2370 2012-01-30 23:32:18 <splatster> swig sucks
2371 2012-01-30 23:32:21 <etotheipi_> so...
2372 2012-01-30 23:32:24 <splatster> especially on os x
2373 2012-01-30 23:32:37 <etotheipi_> well swig only generations the CppBlockUtils_wrap.cxx and CppBlockUtils.py
2374 2012-01-30 23:32:46 <etotheipi_> perhaps I can pass both of those to you
2375 2012-01-30 23:32:52 <poiuh> coolboon
2376 2012-01-30 23:32:55 <etotheipi_> or check them in as part of the project...?
2377 2012-01-30 23:33:06 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2378 2012-01-30 23:33:25 <etotheipi_> is it swig itself that is failing?  or the modules it produces?
2379 2012-01-30 23:33:28 <splatster> Not sure...  You can try just sending me those two compiled files and where to put them
2380 2012-01-30 23:33:46 <splatster> "make swig" doesn't work
2381 2012-01-30 23:34:01 <etotheipi_> splatster, "make swig" encapsulates the entire build process!
2382 2012-01-30 23:34:02 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2383 2012-01-30 23:34:07 <jrmithdobbs> etotheipi_: probably a combination of both
2384 2012-01-30 23:34:11 <jrmithdobbs> etotheipi_: knowing swig
2385 2012-01-30 23:34:36 <etotheipi_> well I'll try it... I'll put my swig-generated files in dropbox...
2386 2012-01-30 23:35:04 <splatster> If all of your code is in python, then there won't (shouldn't) be any problems.
2387 2012-01-30 23:35:27 <poiuh> cools mcrools
2388 2012-01-30 23:35:58 <splatster> So you might try making a completely python distro
2389 2012-01-30 23:36:04 <splatster> and let us take a hack at it
2390 2012-01-30 23:36:09 <etotheipi_> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1139081/CppBlockUtils_wrap.cxx and http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1139081/CppBlockUtils.py
2391 2012-01-30 23:36:21 <splatster> where do they go?
2392 2012-01-30 23:36:22 <etotheipi_> splatster, I did have that, PyBtcEngine
2393 2012-01-30 23:36:28 <etotheipi_> it had pure-python ECDSA
2394 2012-01-30 23:36:33 <etotheipi_> slow-as-dirt, but it worked :)
2395 2012-01-30 23:36:35 agricocb has joined
2396 2012-01-30 23:37:01 <etotheipi_> put the cxx file in the cppForSwig dir (part of the compilation), and then put hte .py in the root directory next to ArmoryQt.py
2397 2012-01-30 23:37:02 <splatster> where do those files need to go?
2398 2012-01-30 23:37:02 Moron__ has quit ()
2399 2012-01-30 23:37:05 <splatster> oh ok
2400 2012-01-30 23:37:22 <etotheipi_> but the makefile will have to be modified to skip the swig command
2401 2012-01-30 23:37:45 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2402 2012-01-30 23:38:14 <etotheipi_> splatster, before you do this, make sure you do a git pull...
2403 2012-01-30 23:38:37 <splatster> oh so i need to clear everything out first?
2404 2012-01-30 23:38:40 <etotheipi_> and hten it looks like you only need to comment out the "CppBlockUtils_wrap.cxx:" line in the Make file
2405 2012-01-30 23:39:11 <etotheipi_> ehh.. just try it and see what happens
2406 2012-01-30 23:39:27 knotwork has joined
2407 2012-01-30 23:39:28 knotwork has quit (Changing host)
2408 2012-01-30 23:39:28 knotwork has joined
2409 2012-01-30 23:39:49 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2410 2012-01-30 23:41:43 lyspooner has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.88 [Firefox 8.0.1/20111120135848])
2411 2012-01-30 23:42:23 <splatster> there are multiple places with CppBlockUtils_wrap
2412 2012-01-30 23:42:28 <splatster> which lines please
2413 2012-01-30 23:42:31 <userjj> luke-jr, what is the difference between prefdr and yes?
2414 2012-01-30 23:42:38 <userjj> prefer
2415 2012-01-30 23:42:46 <luke-jr> userjj: if you got to pick, which one it'd be :P
2416 2012-01-30 23:42:59 <userjj> ok
2417 2012-01-30 23:43:57 <splatster> etotheipi_: Comment out ever line with "CppBlockUtils_wrap" in it?
2418 2012-01-30 23:45:13 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
2419 2012-01-30 23:45:36 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2420 2012-01-30 23:45:49 <etotheipi_> no... just two lines
2421 2012-01-30 23:45:59 <splatster> which two?
2422 2012-01-30 23:46:08 <etotheipi_> the ones with the wrap file as the first line, and the line below it
2423 2012-01-30 23:46:13 <splatster> and is it the entire lines?
2424 2012-01-30 23:46:19 <etotheipi_> yup
2425 2012-01-30 23:46:43 <splatster> 61 and 62?
2426 2012-01-30 23:46:43 <etotheipi_> (lines 61 and 62)
2427 2012-01-30 23:46:46 <etotheipi_> :)
2428 2012-01-30 23:46:47 <splatster> oh ok
2429 2012-01-30 23:47:47 <splatster> PTOPP -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS  -lcryptopp -lpthread UniversalTimer.cpp
2430 2012-01-30 23:47:47 <splatster> UniversalTimer.cpp:1: error: bad value (native) for -march= switch
2431 2012-01-30 23:47:47 <splatster> UniversalTimer.cpp:1: error: bad value (native) for -mtune= switch
2432 2012-01-30 23:47:47 <splatster> make: *** [UniversalTimer.o] Error 1
2433 2012-01-30 23:48:03 <splatster> forget what I did for that last time
2434 2012-01-30 23:48:21 <etotheipi_> can't help you with that
2435 2012-01-30 23:48:37 <splatster> OH SHIT!!! It's compiling!
2436 2012-01-30 23:48:43 <splatster> no errors yet
2437 2012-01-30 23:48:54 <splatster> This is history in the making!
2438 2012-01-30 23:49:03 <splatster> damn
2439 2012-01-30 23:49:08 <etotheipi_> looks like jrmithdobbs might get a piece of the [small] bounty for this...
2440 2012-01-30 23:49:12 <splatster> ld: library not found for -lcryptopp
2441 2012-01-30 23:49:12 <splatster> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
2442 2012-01-30 23:49:12 <splatster> make: *** [swig] Error 1
2443 2012-01-30 23:49:21 <etotheipi_> splatster, that's okay
2444 2012-01-30 23:49:22 <etotheipi_> it's progress
2445 2012-01-30 23:49:47 <splatster> I did think of you just sending me the compiled files
2446 2012-01-30 23:49:48 <etotheipi_> that is a completely different problem, now, unrelated to swig
2447 2012-01-30 23:50:11 <etotheipi_> splatster, see if you can find where cryptopp libraries are stored on your system
2448 2012-01-30 23:50:28 <etotheipi_> you might have to add a -L/usr/lib/cryptopp flag to the compile opts, or something similar
2449 2012-01-30 23:51:04 <splatster> looks like I don't have crtptopp
2450 2012-01-30 23:51:12 <splatster> I thought I installed it
2451 2012-01-30 23:51:48 <etotheipi_> splatster, you may have installed it, but the Makefile is setup with a static path to where it expects the libraries to be... may be different on OSX
2452 2012-01-30 23:53:28 <splatster> found libcrypto.dylib in my macports directory
2453 2012-01-30 23:53:34 <splatster> is that what I need?
2454 2012-01-30 23:53:42 <etotheipi_> sounds different
2455 2012-01-30 23:53:58 <etotheipi_> 99.9% positive that the library will either have "cryptopp" or "crypto++" in the name
2456 2012-01-30 23:54:46 Turingi has joined
2457 2012-01-30 23:54:47 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
2458 2012-01-30 23:54:47 Turingi has joined
2459 2012-01-30 23:55:05 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2460 2012-01-30 23:55:20 <splatster> I think it's the same
2461 2012-01-30 23:55:48 <etotheipi_> cryptopp and crypto++ are basically the same
2462 2012-01-30 23:55:54 <etotheipi_> but obviously "crypto" is a pretty generic term
2463 2012-01-30 23:56:17 Turingi has joined
2464 2012-01-30 23:56:17 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
2465 2012-01-30 23:56:17 Turingi has joined
2466 2012-01-30 23:57:04 traviscj has joined
2467 2012-01-30 23:57:51 dirus has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2468 2012-01-30 23:58:10 <etotheipi_> booyah!  I updated all the BIP 0010 code to support gmaxwell's suggestion... and it all works!  I think I'll be ready for alpha soon :)
2469 2012-01-30 23:58:16 Fnar has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2470 2012-01-30 23:58:16 dirus has joined
2471 2012-01-30 23:58:26 <etotheipi_> (offline tx signing/broadcast)
2472 2012-01-30 23:58:36 Fnar has joined
2473 2012-01-30 23:59:53 <splatster> Found it!
2474 2012-01-30 23:59:58 <splatster> "/opt/local/include/cryptopp"