1 2012-01-31 00:00:04 <etotheipi_> yup, that sounds right...
2 2012-01-31 00:00:18 <splatster> So what do I do with the makefile
3 2012-01-31 00:00:38 <etotheipi_> splatster, however "include" usually refers to header files... you need the libraries
4 2012-01-31 00:00:46 <etotheipi_> I would expect it to be somewhere like /opt/local/lib/cryptopp
5 2012-01-31 00:00:55 <etotheipi_> look for a .so file
6 2012-01-31 00:01:03 <etotheipi_> (assuming mac/osx uses .so files)
7 2012-01-31 00:01:03 torsthaldo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
8 2012-01-31 00:02:10 <splatster> libcryptopp.a?
9 2012-01-31 00:02:30 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
10 2012-01-31 00:02:34 <etotheipi_> that's close
11 2012-01-31 00:02:52 <etotheipi_> that could be used to static-compile cryptopp into the app
12 2012-01-31 00:03:16 <etotheipi_> (which would require changing the makefile quite a bit, but is possible if that's the only option
13 2012-01-31 00:03:47 knotwork has joined
14 2012-01-31 00:03:59 <etotheipi_> it will be libcryptopp.*
15 2012-01-31 00:04:05 <etotheipi_> what are the others in there?
16 2012-01-31 00:04:36 <splatster> that's the only one with libcryptopp in it
17 2012-01-31 00:05:01 <etotheipi_> go back to opt local and type "find . | grep libcryptopp"
18 2012-01-31 00:05:18 <etotheipi_> and also "find . | grep libcrypto++"
19 2012-01-31 00:07:00 baz has quit (Quit: Leaving)
20 2012-01-31 00:07:45 <splatster> nothing much
21 2012-01-31 00:08:31 <etotheipi_> are you sure it's installed? did you only install some kind of cryptopp-dev package? (the package isn't very useful without a shared-object file)
22 2012-01-31 00:08:55 <splatster> sudo port install libcryptopp
23 2012-01-31 00:09:10 copumpkin has joined
24 2012-01-31 00:09:14 theorb has joined
25 2012-01-31 00:10:27 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
26 2012-01-31 00:10:39 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
27 2012-01-31 00:11:57 poiuh has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
28 2012-01-31 00:14:20 cronopio has quit (Quit: leaving)
29 2012-01-31 00:16:03 <splatster> Ok I don't know what to do anymore
30 2012-01-31 00:17:06 <etotheipi_> you just need a little bit more help from someone with more osx experience than me
31 2012-01-31 00:17:25 bobke_ has joined
32 2012-01-31 00:17:54 bobke has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
33 2012-01-31 00:18:00 poiuh has joined
34 2012-01-31 00:18:59 wirehead has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
35 2012-01-31 00:19:17 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
36 2012-01-31 00:19:25 <splatster> *facepalm*
37 2012-01-31 00:19:29 <splatster> I'm so stupid
38 2012-01-31 00:19:45 b4epoche has joined
39 2012-01-31 00:19:52 <splatster> it's in the cppForSwig directory
40 2012-01-31 00:20:08 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
41 2012-01-31 00:20:23 <makomk> gmaxwell: when there are extra bytes in a script that cause the OP_CODESEPARATOR to get missed because it's now inside a push, the transaction's not going to validate because contrary to your FUD earlier BIP 17 doesn't reverse the change splitting scriptSig and scriptPubKey - the scriptSig is pre-concatatenated as <stuff that'd be in scriptSig> OP_CODESEPARATOR <stuff that'd be in scriptPubKey>.
42 2012-01-31 00:21:06 <splatster> etotheipi_: knowing that, what should I do?
43 2012-01-31 00:21:09 ThomasV has joined
44 2012-01-31 00:21:16 <gmaxwell> makomk: It's not fud I was going of the conversation in the channel. ::shrugs::
45 2012-01-31 00:21:42 wirehead has joined
46 2012-01-31 00:21:50 <gmaxwell> makomk: I see, so it's atomic there. You could make trouble but only for yourself.
47 2012-01-31 00:22:09 <etotheipi_> splatster, I think there's a decent shot this will work, and I'll even consider doing swig-execution on my build-system only and check-in the resultant files... that will remove a build step for everyone (except me)
48 2012-01-31 00:22:43 <etotheipi_> until then, I think you just need to collaborate with someone else who knows OSX to figure out where that library is, and how to modify the makefile to use it
49 2012-01-31 00:23:18 <splatster> didn't you see what I said above?
50 2012-01-31 00:23:21 <splatster> I found it
51 2012-01-31 00:23:39 <etotheipi_> wait... what's in the cppForSwig directory?
52 2012-01-31 00:23:51 <splatster> cryptopp
53 2012-01-31 00:23:57 <etotheipi_> what's the filename
54 2012-01-31 00:23:58 <etotheipi_> ?
55 2012-01-31 00:24:16 <splatster> It's a folder
56 2012-01-31 00:24:24 <etotheipi_> splatster, that's part of the checkin
57 2012-01-31 00:24:30 <gmaxwell> Someone want to take a guess at the fees for this txn?
58 2012-01-31 00:24:31 <gmaxwell> https://blockexplorer.com/tx/7b3cb56b11507c45930825af4bb5aecfc6904840834cea86413743af0066fe4f
59 2012-01-31 00:24:38 <etotheipi_> it's uncompiled code... it's not even used for linux compiling... only windows
60 2012-01-31 00:24:46 <gmaxwell> It was actually advertised, so I don't think it's an example of doofus laundering.
61 2012-01-31 00:24:49 <splatster> Ohh
62 2012-01-31 00:24:51 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
63 2012-01-31 00:25:03 bobke_ is now known as bobke
64 2012-01-31 00:25:25 <gmaxwell> I'm concerned that some of these strangly big fee transactions may be indicating a bug in someone's wallet code.
65 2012-01-31 00:25:41 <gmaxwell> (not that the fee is bigger than several of the inputs here)
66 2012-01-31 00:25:45 <etotheipi_> hopefully not mine!
67 2012-01-31 00:26:53 <gmaxwell> In particular, the fee is a weird value (non-round), and yet there appears to be a change tx out.
68 2012-01-31 00:27:48 <etotheipi_> perhaps the fees are a good place to dump my sub-0.0001 balances
69 2012-01-31 00:27:56 <etotheipi_> let the miners deal with it :)
70 2012-01-31 00:27:56 <splatster> etotheipi_: .so = .dylib on os x
71 2012-01-31 00:28:23 <etotheipi_> splatster, okay! so what was the full path the the .dylib?
72 2012-01-31 00:28:29 <etotheipi_> oooh, "dy_lib"
73 2012-01-31 00:28:36 <etotheipi_> makes way too much sense
74 2012-01-31 00:29:31 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: reference client used to do that and people whined. I still think it's a good idea.
75 2012-01-31 00:29:49 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: maybe as a [x] keep the change option.
76 2012-01-31 00:30:03 <makomk> gmaxwell: also, it's actually important to BIP 17 that OP_CODESEPARATOR needs to be executed in order for the hash to validate, otherwise you could do nasty tricks with IF.
77 2012-01-31 00:30:09 <etotheipi_> splatster, in line 13 in the makefile, you need to add a flag to tell the compiler where to look for libcryptopp: it will look something like -L/opt/local/lib/
78 2012-01-31 00:30:09 <splatster> damn it was libcryptopp.a not libcryptopp.dylib
79 2012-01-31 00:30:27 <etotheipi_> I thought you said you found a dylib file?
80 2012-01-31 00:30:36 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
81 2012-01-31 00:30:47 <splatster> it was for libcrypto.dylib
82 2012-01-31 00:30:52 <etotheipi_> oh
83 2012-01-31 00:31:12 <gmaxwell> makomk: hmph. So yea, thats the issue there. The reason we stopped depending on OP_CODESEPARATOR and split execution was because of nasty tricks (OP_RETURN) like thatâ how many are we missing still?.
84 2012-01-31 00:31:58 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
85 2012-01-31 00:32:34 <userjj> if i was a miner and look here, i'll vote for bip16,
86 2012-01-31 00:32:38 <userjj> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2SH_Votes
87 2012-01-31 00:32:42 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: when bitcoind adds a fee, it starts coin selection from scratch
88 2012-01-31 00:32:52 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it's possible the coins it selects this time don't actually need the whole fee
89 2012-01-31 00:33:23 <gmaxwell> There is no way for it to conclude it needs a 22btc fee though.
90 2012-01-31 00:33:40 <luke-jr> makomk: OP_CODESEP does need to be executed, but even if it didn't, there's no tricks you could do
91 2012-01-31 00:33:42 <gmaxwell> (unless there is something I'm missing)
92 2012-01-31 00:33:52 <splatster> ok now the linker errors are gone
93 2012-01-31 00:34:01 <splatster> but this is still here:
94 2012-01-31 00:34:03 <splatster> $ make swig
95 2012-01-31 00:34:04 <makomk> gmaxwell: there can't be any nasty tricks - once you hit the OP_CODESEPARATOR it marks the position in scriptSig, if anyone modifies the part of scriptSig beyond that point the hash won't verify, and we're guaranteed to be executing code at that point because OP_CODESEPARATOR was executed.
96 2012-01-31 00:34:14 <splatster> g++ -shared -lcryptopp -lpthread UniversalTimer.o BinaryData.o BtcUtils.o BlockObj.o BlockObjRef.o BlockUtils.o EncryptionUtils.o CppBlockUtils_wrap.o -o ../_CppBlockUtils.so
97 2012-01-31 00:34:14 <splatster> ld: library not found for -lcryptopp
98 2012-01-31 00:34:15 <splatster> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
99 2012-01-31 00:34:16 <luke-jr> makomk: if it's inside an OP_IF, there has to be an OP_ENDIF too, and that OP_ENDIF would need to be part of the hash
100 2012-01-31 00:34:16 <splatster> make: *** [swig] Error 1
101 2012-01-31 00:34:35 ThomasV has joined
102 2012-01-31 00:34:36 <makomk> luke-jr: actually, I'm not sure there does have to be one.
103 2012-01-31 00:35:12 <etotheipi_> splatster, that's the problem... there is usually a libcryptopp.so somewhere, and you usually supply the path as part of that line through the -L option
104 2012-01-31 00:35:14 <luke-jr> makomk: there does.
105 2012-01-31 00:35:23 <etotheipi_> perhaps try using -L with the path to libcryptopp.a
106 2012-01-31 00:35:41 <makomk> Ah, you're right: "if (!vfExec.empty()) return false;"
107 2012-01-31 00:35:59 <etotheipi_> splatster, in fact, if that's what I think it is... it might be a simple extra flag to declare static linking (which is usually what .a is for)
108 2012-01-31 00:36:32 <makomk> Obviously Satoshi was quite cautious about this.
109 2012-01-31 00:39:02 <etotheipi_> splatster, I just looked it up, and it might actually work...
110 2012-01-31 00:39:18 <splatster> not making any sort of difference as of now
111 2012-01-31 00:39:43 <etotheipi_> to vastly simplify at the expense of being stupid... just copy the libcryptopp.a to the cppforswig dir
112 2012-01-31 00:39:52 <etotheipi_> then we don't have to mess with any Makefile options
113 2012-01-31 00:40:08 <etotheipi_> I just want to see if htat works
114 2012-01-31 00:40:11 <makomk> gmaxwell: the only way it can fail is if it's dependent on the environment left over by the previous unverified script, and BIP 17 doesn't really leave any new ways to do that by accident.
115 2012-01-31 00:40:24 <splatster> ok
116 2012-01-31 00:40:26 <splatster> one sec
117 2012-01-31 00:40:42 MrTiggr has joined
118 2012-01-31 00:41:58 <makomk> gmaxwell: You could possibly create a contrived scenario with a buggy script that used the alt stack and conditionals which was exploitable on BIP 17 but not any alternatives, but a slightly less contrived version without the alt stack would be broken everywhere.
119 2012-01-31 00:42:03 <splatster> nope
120 2012-01-31 00:43:01 <luke-jr> makomk: huh?
121 2012-01-31 00:45:28 <makomk> luke-jr: I seem to recall that the alt stack doesn't get carried over in some of the alternatives. It'd take the receipient creating a truely bizarrely written script for that to be useful though.
122 2012-01-31 00:45:44 <luke-jr> makomk: it doesn't get carried over in any
123 2012-01-31 00:46:08 <luke-jr> makomk: and the hashed script would need to access the alt stack for that to do anything interesting in BIP 17
124 2012-01-31 00:47:57 <makomk> Yeah, it would, which makes it more of a contrived scenario than any kind of real risk.
125 2012-01-31 00:48:19 storrgie has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
126 2012-01-31 00:48:45 <makomk> Anyway, I should go sleep.
127 2012-01-31 00:53:54 <splatster> etotheipi_: pass this on to Joric when he gets back on. He might be able to take us another step closer.
128 2012-01-31 00:54:03 <etotheipi_> sounds good
129 2012-01-31 00:54:10 storrgie has joined
130 2012-01-31 00:56:18 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
131 2012-01-31 00:58:48 splatster has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
132 2012-01-31 01:01:37 <etotheipi_> general question: what are the benefit of Tonal Bitcoins? All I see is a lot of confusion, and me figuring out how to install extra fonts on the users' computers
133 2012-01-31 01:03:14 <gmaxwell> genjix has fucked up yet again, quoting me (anonymously) in the process.
134 2012-01-31 01:03:18 <gmaxwell> http://bitcoinmedia.com/cathartic-progress/
135 2012-01-31 01:03:45 <gmaxwell> He apparently doesn't understand bitcoin well enough to know that hashpower can't vote on pretty much any of the protocol rules.
136 2012-01-31 01:04:19 <gmaxwell> Hey dipshit, when you read this in the logs, go correct your post so you stop misinforming your readers on this point.
137 2012-01-31 01:04:44 <etotheipi_> this is really bad... I feel like the ultimate downfall of Bitcoin could be the devs imploding
138 2012-01-31 01:05:06 <gmaxwell> â in particular, if the developers issued software which validated BIP16/BIP17 and the bitcoin users all adopted it, any miner which validated a BIP16/17 invalid transaction would simply stop existing from the perspective of the users.
139 2012-01-31 01:05:10 <poiuh> bitcoin is the best
140 2012-01-31 01:05:28 <etotheipi_> it wouldn't be the first time that an open source project suffered dramatic consequences due to developer disagreements
141 2012-01-31 01:05:32 <gmaxwell> Even if they have umpteen gazillion yottahash.
142 2012-01-31 01:05:32 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
143 2012-01-31 01:05:45 <etotheipi_> the difference is... Bitcoin can't just "fork" (I mean, it most literally can, but it won't succeed)
144 2012-01-31 01:06:08 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: I don't think there is substantial developer disagreement on anything, go look at luke's table.
145 2012-01-31 01:06:19 <etotheipi_> where is it?
146 2012-01-31 01:06:30 <etotheipi_> and to be fair... all I've heard is substantial disagreement
147 2012-01-31 01:06:51 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: you should be on it too, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2SH_Votes
148 2012-01-31 01:07:19 sacarlson has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
149 2012-01-31 01:07:38 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, I am honored to be invited to vote on it, but I have no understanding of any of the proposals to be able to distinguish them
150 2012-01-31 01:07:44 <gmaxwell> (I tried to beg off of it, fwiw, but luke is using a reasonably-informed-technical-folks criteria, you qualify I think)
151 2012-01-31 01:07:50 <etotheipi_> (except for the OP_EVAL=skynet comment... that felt pretty accurate)
152 2012-01-31 01:08:37 <poiuh> tempest in a teacup
153 2012-01-31 01:08:55 <etotheipi_> wow, interesting to see how much everyone has turned against OP_EVAL
154 2012-01-31 01:09:06 <etotheipi_> considering how close it was to implementation
155 2012-01-31 01:09:52 <poiuh> the change seems to add significant value to bitcoin... if i were betting tho on a prediction market, i dont see the miners approving it because they dont use multi-sig and from their view the regret of a destablizing change isn't worth it.. game theory
156 2012-01-31 01:10:05 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: Absent a less skynetish option I'd still support it. (I guess that means I really should be weak by that criteria?)
157 2012-01-31 01:10:13 <poiuh> i favor the change.. but the miners arent seeing demand from their "customers" for it, so they dont want to change
158 2012-01-31 01:10:32 <gmaxwell> poiuh: nah, dunno where you're getting that from.
159 2012-01-31 01:10:50 <gmaxwell> poiuh: most people mining are just not well informed/ aren't even aware. We don't communicate well.
160 2012-01-31 01:10:58 <etotheipi_> I'll tell you one thing... once any kind of multi-sig is implemented... I'm going to on the ball with two-factor-auth...
161 2012-01-31 01:11:39 <poiuh> hidebound reactionaries who dont want to embrace the future!
162 2012-01-31 01:11:58 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, I don't remember if I ever got an answer or not... do you know if alternate hashcodes are "non-standard" or completely disabled?
163 2012-01-31 01:12:11 <etotheipi_> I have some other things I want to see implemented, that are much easier with this hashcodes
164 2012-01-31 01:12:13 <poiuh> the change is ingenious.. a reliable multisig is significant added capability to bitcoin
165 2012-01-31 01:12:16 barmstrong has joined
166 2012-01-31 01:12:22 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: so go mark yourself there as no on No P2SH ever and leave the rest blank if you don't want to have an opinion?
167 2012-01-31 01:12:40 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: I think they'd fail isstandard, yes.
168 2012-01-31 01:12:47 <theymos> I'd probably prefer an OP_EVAL-like solution over 16 or 17 if I was sure it was safe. One idea I had was to require users of OP_EVAL to specify the maximum number of sigops used by the serialized script. Then you could always predict the max number of sigops in the tx. Would this be enough?
169 2012-01-31 01:12:48 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: whats your interest there?
170 2012-01-31 01:13:25 <gmaxwell> theymos: you couldn't tell if they violated that or not without actually going in and executing the script and then finding out the bad news.
171 2012-01-31 01:13:26 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, I'm interested to start buyer-seller escrow handling into Armory....
172 2012-01-31 01:13:55 <theymos> gmaxwell: Then the tx would be rejected and you wouldn't have done more sigops than the maximum specified.
173 2012-01-31 01:13:57 <etotheipi_> make no mistake... it would need quite a bit of planning and hand-holding to get it "right," but I want to do it
174 2012-01-31 01:14:56 <etotheipi_> isn't there a way to implement a "global" script-op counter that increments on every op-code, regardless of whether it's inside another script? kind of sandboxing the script engine
175 2012-01-31 01:15:07 <gmaxwell> theymos: right but it limits different execution engine styles, because they all have to be able to execute in that manner where they cut out. (e.g. I would expect this to limit JIT compilation, for example)
176 2012-01-31 01:15:15 <etotheipi_> if that counter ever reaches x, it stops and returns invalid
177 2012-01-31 01:15:23 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: you can do that only if you presuppose a very particular execution style.
178 2012-01-31 01:15:28 <poiuh> at some point, the script will simply need to append a machine-checkable proof that it can be eecuted in linear time
179 2012-01-31 01:15:29 JimRogers has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
180 2012-01-31 01:16:01 <gmaxwell> poiuh: we have that with script as is. because it doesn't have anything that could keep it from otherwise. And part of not doing OP_EVAL is keeping it that way.
181 2012-01-31 01:17:03 <gmaxwell> theymos: I'd point out that with limitations in place OP_EVAL is hardly more expresive than BIP16/BIP17 ... it's really only exciting in full skynet mode. :-/
182 2012-01-31 01:17:20 <poiuh> a proof-carrying script allows you to have arbitrary complexity in the script
183 2012-01-31 01:18:07 <gmaxwell> poiuh: yea great now you just have to have all implementations correctly and reliably create and read the proofs.. plus the overhead of sending the proof... on a protocol we're we're absolutely trying to shave every byte.
184 2012-01-31 01:18:37 <poiuh> this is good because you might want to post a bounty for solving some difficult optimization problem (for instance, intel wants to optimize some instruction, they offload it to the bitcoin cloud to solve the problem)
185 2012-01-31 01:18:51 <gmaxwell> poiuh: you don't need to do this inside transactions.
186 2012-01-31 01:18:58 <theymos> gmaxwell: Yeah, it's probably more than the system needs and too much of a risk. The idea interests me, though. Maybe it can be done in the next version of Script.
187 2012-01-31 01:19:28 <gmaxwell> poiuh: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/why_hash_locked
188 2012-01-31 01:19:31 <poiuh> shaving bytes.. unfortunately it doesn't work at webscale unless you can get a super-polynomial reduction in size
189 2012-01-31 01:19:42 <gmaxwell> theymos: yes, I'd like to keep it as an idea for the future for sure.
190 2012-01-31 01:20:29 roconnor has joined
191 2012-01-31 01:20:55 <poiuh> intel doesn't know the answer to the optimization problem ahead of time
192 2012-01-31 01:21:04 <poiuh> so they want the bitcoin supercomputer to solve it for them
193 2012-01-31 01:21:26 <gmaxwell> poiuh: Thats not how bitcoin works.
194 2012-01-31 01:21:53 <gmaxwell> poiuh: and please read my why_hash_locked, you can do payment contingent on computation without putting crazy stuff in script.
195 2012-01-31 01:21:59 <poiuh> zero-knowledge proof is very useful here
196 2012-01-31 01:23:10 <gmaxwell> poiuh: There is a super-linear function mapping chain size/complexity relative to Kryder's Law/Moore's Law to bitcoin's decentralization. We don't actually know this function, but it's reasonable to assume that fairly modest changes in
197 2012-01-31 01:23:11 <poiuh> but that is just a roundabout way of embedding the criteria in the script
198 2012-01-31 01:23:20 <gmaxwell> the cost of maintaining the chain may have big decentralization impacts.
199 2012-01-31 01:23:35 <gmaxwell> It's in the interest of all bitcoin users to maintain very high decenteralization.
200 2012-01-31 01:23:47 <poiuh> indeed
201 2012-01-31 01:24:08 <gmaxwell> Because all real nodes must completely validate the scripts, it's super important to keep the complexity and size low.
202 2012-01-31 01:24:45 <gmaxwell> Soâ e.g. doing the hash locked thing to tie payment to an external zero-knowledge proof is good... because it just makes nodes do a hash operation which is very cheap.
203 2012-01-31 01:25:02 <gmaxwell> Actually having them walk through some big proof, even if its in P time, is not a good idea.
204 2012-01-31 01:25:34 sacarlson has joined
205 2012-01-31 01:25:38 <poiuh> in the future there will be some pruning function that chops the base of the tree off (based on some pseudo hashpower-voting process)
206 2012-01-31 01:26:17 <gmaxwell> Hmph anyone know where the paper is that proves PSPACE â IP ? I should link it from there.
207 2012-01-31 01:26:57 <gmaxwell> poiuh: probably, but it would still have to be _deeply_ burried at that point so there was no ambiguity of the identity of the real chain.
208 2012-01-31 01:27:18 <gmaxwell> I'd want the whole process to include things like publication in newspapers and such. probably a year lag at a minimum.
209 2012-01-31 01:29:17 <gmaxwell> poiuh: but ignore the storage cost.. runtime bandwidth and cpu still cost, and we want there to be as many full nodes as we can have. If we outpace computer scaling then we'll lose decentralization... and without that bitcoin is kind of pointless.
210 2012-01-31 01:29:22 Wack0 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
211 2012-01-31 01:29:42 <poiuh> youre right
212 2012-01-31 01:29:47 jondoe has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
213 2012-01-31 01:30:23 Wack0 has joined
214 2012-01-31 01:31:57 minimoose has joined
215 2012-01-31 01:32:22 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, I updated BIP 0010, do you mind looking at it and verifying it matches what you were expecting? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0010
216 2012-01-31 01:32:52 <poiuh> gmaxwell is a genius
217 2012-01-31 01:33:01 <poiuh> this zero knowledge proof scheme is awesome
218 2012-01-31 01:34:03 <theymos> "But we don't trust each other at all, and because we're computer geeks we have no friends who can act as trusted mediators." LOL
219 2012-01-31 01:35:09 osmosis has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
220 2012-01-31 01:35:14 <poiuh> yeah zkp is great.. i would like to see intel offload their next chip optimization problem onto the bitcoin cloud
221 2012-01-31 01:35:57 <poiuh> miners could switch between bounties and standard mining depending on the prices
222 2012-01-31 01:38:03 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
223 2012-01-31 01:41:17 <copumpkin> amiller: how do I interpret http://blockchain.info/double-spends ?
224 2012-01-31 01:41:22 <copumpkin> does the second one mean it was accepted?
225 2012-01-31 01:41:42 <amiller> yeah, the first one was in a block that became orphaned
226 2012-01-31 01:41:48 <copumpkin> yeah
227 2012-01-31 01:41:57 <copumpkin> but the second one seems disturbing?
228 2012-01-31 01:41:59 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
229 2012-01-31 01:43:07 <poiuh> maybe someone had 2 clients running with the same wallet
230 2012-01-31 01:43:25 <amiller> well the two spends were a month apart
231 2012-01-31 01:43:35 <amiller> http://blockchain.info/block-height/155181
232 2012-01-31 01:43:42 <amiller> here's a view of the two alternate blocks for 155181
233 2012-01-31 01:44:12 <amiller> you can see that one of them has no next block
234 2012-01-31 01:44:24 <copumpkin> OH
235 2012-01-31 01:44:25 devrandom has joined
236 2012-01-31 01:44:30 <copumpkin> I see
237 2012-01-31 01:44:32 <amiller> there's like a branch
238 2012-01-31 01:44:44 <amiller> 155179, then there are two versions of 155180, two versions of 155181, and then only one version of 155182
239 2012-01-31 01:44:47 <copumpkin> yeah, nevermind
240 2012-01-31 01:45:05 <amiller> so for a while there were two blocks worth of fork
241 2012-01-31 01:45:11 <amiller> what i'm not sure of is what happens to those transactions
242 2012-01-31 01:45:24 <amiller> like if they saw the tx in one of the blocks but then the block is canceled
243 2012-01-31 01:45:28 <amiller> does the tx continue to get relayed
244 2012-01-31 01:45:43 <copumpkin> it'd be unfortunate if not
245 2012-01-31 01:46:03 DaQatz has joined
246 2012-01-31 01:46:16 <amiller> well it must be the case that it doesn't in some cases, because there was a valid transaction in a block that became orphaned
247 2012-01-31 01:46:19 <amiller> and it never got put in a later block
248 2012-01-31 01:48:31 osmosis has joined
249 2012-01-31 01:48:34 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
250 2012-01-31 01:49:21 <theymos> Miners put orphaned transactions back in the memory pool, but they don't relay it again.
251 2012-01-31 01:53:19 pingdrive has joined
252 2012-01-31 01:53:34 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
253 2012-01-31 01:55:35 sneak has joined
254 2012-01-31 01:55:36 sneak has quit (Changing host)
255 2012-01-31 01:55:36 sneak has joined
256 2012-01-31 01:56:02 [1]wirehead has joined
257 2012-01-31 01:56:18 wirehead has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
258 2012-01-31 01:58:37 splatster has joined
259 2012-01-31 01:59:21 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
260 2012-01-31 01:59:36 <amiller> i'm still trying to trace through exactly what happened to that transaction, i don't quite follow yet
261 2012-01-31 02:03:40 * roconnor didn't realize the CIA developed bitcoin
262 2012-01-31 02:04:24 <pingdrive> pretty much
263 2012-01-31 02:08:06 <amiller> so if that transaction was orphaned, and left in the miner's memory pool, when would it be removed from the memory pool?
264 2012-01-31 02:12:44 <amiller> roconnor, did you write the EcDsaSecp256k1, the sha256, and the ripemd implementations in Purecoin
265 2012-01-31 02:14:06 <roconnor> amiller: yes
266 2012-01-31 02:14:13 <roconnor> do you need licence to them?
267 2012-01-31 02:14:29 <amiller> not atm
268 2012-01-31 02:14:43 <amiller> i imagine that's quite useful though
269 2012-01-31 02:15:02 <amiller> i've learned a ton from following your code
270 2012-01-31 02:15:24 <roconnor> good, that was the point
271 2012-01-31 02:15:39 <roconnor> warning though, it isn't entirely correct yet
272 2012-01-31 02:16:31 <amiller> also really enjoyed the 3 part talk you gave with bas spitters
273 2012-01-31 02:16:42 <roconnor> :)
274 2012-01-31 02:31:24 wumpus has quit ()
275 2012-01-31 02:31:39 wumpus has joined
276 2012-01-31 02:31:41 jandd has joined
277 2012-01-31 02:31:42 Insti has joined
278 2012-01-31 02:31:47 roconnor has joined
279 2012-01-31 02:31:53 rlifchitz has joined
280 2012-01-31 02:32:08 BlueMattBot has joined
281 2012-01-31 02:32:34 sshirokov has joined
282 2012-01-31 02:32:36 CaptainDDL has joined
283 2012-01-31 02:36:01 SomoneWeirdzzzz is now known as SomeoneWeird
284 2012-01-31 02:36:29 tcatm has joined
285 2012-01-31 02:36:29 parus has joined
286 2012-01-31 02:36:30 tcatm has quit (Changing host)
287 2012-01-31 02:36:30 tcatm has joined
288 2012-01-31 02:36:51 iz has joined
289 2012-01-31 02:37:55 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: gavin noted that "I've also been wondering if it is time to remove the IRC bootstrapping
290 2012-01-31 02:37:55 <BlueMatt> mechanism" in his latest email, you want to respond?
291 2012-01-31 02:39:42 <gmaxwell> Yes, I guess I should.
292 2012-01-31 02:39:57 * BlueMatt doesnt feel like it, plus you would probably do a much better job
293 2012-01-31 02:40:38 <gmaxwell> poiuh: Zero knowledge contingent payments are not my invention, though I don't know where anyone else wrote about them. I'm pretty sure satoshi had them in mind as a possible use of bitcoin when it wrote it.
294 2012-01-31 02:40:42 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I would use more words.
295 2012-01-31 02:41:50 poiuh has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
296 2012-01-31 02:42:40 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yea, that
297 2012-01-31 02:45:34 EPiSKiNG- has joined
298 2012-01-31 02:53:00 <BlueMatt> were those tor fixes for nolisten if tor pushed in 0.5.2?
299 2012-01-31 02:56:41 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
300 2012-01-31 02:58:59 poiuh has joined
301 2012-01-31 03:02:30 Habbie has joined
302 2012-01-31 03:03:51 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: thanks.
303 2012-01-31 03:03:53 <gmaxwell> posted
304 2012-01-31 03:05:45 dan__ has joined
305 2012-01-31 03:07:21 hexTech has quit (Quit: -)
306 2012-01-31 03:07:52 <gmaxwell> (and hey, I included code with my post)
307 2012-01-31 03:10:24 <BlueMatt> nice
308 2012-01-31 03:13:09 poiuh has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
309 2012-01-31 03:14:30 <BlueMatt> does irc go over the proxy?
310 2012-01-31 03:15:32 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
311 2012-01-31 03:20:18 Clown- has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
312 2012-01-31 03:21:29 has joined
313 2012-01-31 03:25:09 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
314 2012-01-31 03:25:23 TheSeven has joined
315 2012-01-31 03:26:06 barmstrong has joined
316 2012-01-31 03:27:05 BlueMatt_ has joined
317 2012-01-31 03:27:40 BlueMatt has quit (Disconnected by services)
318 2012-01-31 03:27:42 BlueMatt_ is now known as BlueMatt
319 2012-01-31 03:32:00 userjj has quit (Quit: Leaving)
320 2012-01-31 03:34:38 BLZNGPNGN has joined
321 2012-01-31 03:35:42 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: IceChat - Keeping PC's cool since 2000)
322 2012-01-31 03:42:21 poiuh has joined
323 2012-01-31 03:42:40 <poiuh> wheres the secret bitcoin chan
324 2012-01-31 03:42:47 BlueMatt_ has joined
325 2012-01-31 03:43:03 BlueMatt has quit (Disconnected by services)
326 2012-01-31 03:43:04 BlueMatt_ is now known as BlueMatt
327 2012-01-31 03:43:14 <gmaxwell> I'd like any feedback people here have about this message: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61922.msg723476#msg723476
328 2012-01-31 03:44:24 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
329 2012-01-31 03:46:04 <splatster> gmaxwell: Reading...
330 2012-01-31 03:47:33 <Graet> phew, once again gmaxwell the voice of reason - good work :)
331 2012-01-31 03:50:19 <splatster> Good read
332 2012-01-31 03:50:52 <roconnor> gmaxwell: I think it is an election
333 2012-01-31 03:51:15 <roconnor> sort of
334 2012-01-31 03:53:14 <etotheipi_> is Joric here?
335 2012-01-31 03:53:18 <roconnor> gmaxwell: if a super-majorityâ even 100%â of the current miners decide that the subsidy should be 50 BTC forever then the original bitcoin is destroyed because there isn't sufficent power to secure the "real" network. and the only viable network is the 50 BTC forever network
336 2012-01-31 03:53:32 <gmaxwell> roconnor: Some bitcoin users might decide to use elections to help them make decisions about what software they'll runâ if they want to subject themselves to the benefits and costs of that kind of decision makingâ but bitcoin itself? It's not, as I point out, you can't change the rules by having more miners.
337 2012-01-31 03:53:58 <gmaxwell> roconnor: nah, you've just created an enormous economic incentive to switch sides (or get into the mining business).
338 2012-01-31 03:54:12 <roconnor> ya, you could be right
339 2012-01-31 03:54:51 <gmaxwell> roconnor: what you're suggesting implies that there is some big moat around being a miner. Maybe that someday becomes true? if so.. yea, we'll lose our autonomy and maybe it will then really be controled by some closed clique of miners. But thats not the vision at least.
340 2012-01-31 03:55:24 <roconnor> gmaxwell: heh, well as you know, that's clique of miners is what I expect the future of bitcoin to be.
341 2012-01-31 03:56:23 * pingdrive ^
342 2012-01-31 03:56:29 <roconnor> gmaxwell: so what happens to all the users that refuse to adopt BIP 16?
343 2012-01-31 03:56:33 <gmaxwell> It's not an inevitability. It will be up to the users of bitcoin. (and I hope to continue to remind people of this to reduce that consolidation)
344 2012-01-31 03:56:50 <roconnor> gmaxwell: under the assumption that BIP 16 "passes"
345 2012-01-31 03:57:08 <gmaxwell> roconnor: BIP16 still validates under the old rules. They can't participate in BIP16 transaction, but .. nothing much. Unless they're mining.
346 2012-01-31 03:57:51 Cablesaurus has joined
347 2012-01-31 03:57:51 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
348 2012-01-31 03:57:51 Cablesaurus has joined
349 2012-01-31 03:57:53 mizerydearia has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
350 2012-01-31 03:58:10 <gmaxwell> roconnor: I also don't believe such users actually exist. Ignoring people who are exagerating their true positions because open decision making encourages doing so, I don't see that kind of opposition to it.
351 2012-01-31 03:58:17 <roconnor> oh right, miners refuse to accept thier bizarre conflicing BIP 16 transactions.
352 2012-01-31 03:58:45 <roconnor> (in the unlikely case they want to spend a transaction that happens to look like a BIP 16 transaction)
353 2012-01-31 03:58:56 <BlueMatt> paraipan: your comment is wrong
354 2012-01-31 03:58:59 <BlueMatt> flat out wrong
355 2012-01-31 03:59:20 <paraipan> yea
356 2012-01-31 03:59:22 <paraipan> so ?
357 2012-01-31 03:59:33 <paraipan> it's what think
358 2012-01-31 03:59:46 <BlueMatt> first of all "Pool owners have the biggest incentives to keep the network running smoothly"
359 2012-01-31 03:59:48 <BlueMatt> really???
360 2012-01-31 03:59:49 <BlueMatt> wtf?
361 2012-01-31 03:59:50 <roconnor> gmaxwell: I guess BIP 16 and 17 are not incompatible then.
362 2012-01-31 03:59:51 <paraipan> post your thinking too
363 2012-01-31 04:00:23 theymos has joined
364 2012-01-31 04:00:24 <gmaxwell> roconnor: Correct. Thoug you'd agree that having both would be quite unfortunate from a perspective of making the code easy to understand and impliment.
365 2012-01-31 04:01:48 <gmaxwell> (Luke agrees with that position too)
366 2012-01-31 04:02:35 <theymos> Nice forum post, gmaxwell. I added a quote from it to the ad rotation. :)
367 2012-01-31 04:03:06 <theymos> "Your bitcoin is secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter a majority of miners, no matter what."
368 2012-01-31 04:03:33 mizerydearia has joined
369 2012-01-31 04:03:35 mizerydearia has quit (Changing host)
370 2012-01-31 04:03:35 mizerydearia has joined
371 2012-01-31 04:05:57 <roconnor> gmaxwell: what happens when BIP 16 gets say 70% mining support; some new clients are deployed, and for whatever reason mining support drops below 50% with a mix of old and new clients?
372 2012-01-31 04:06:36 <BlueMatt> then the miners who push a chain with invalid bip16 txes gets ignore by people who have upgraded and used by those who dont
373 2012-01-31 04:06:39 <BlueMatt> s/dont/havent/
374 2012-01-31 04:06:51 <BlueMatt> the splits would make the network ugly, but...
375 2012-01-31 04:07:33 <etotheipi_> splatster, I just realized what's wrong with the compile I recommended earlier
376 2012-01-31 04:07:41 <splatster> What?
377 2012-01-31 04:08:19 <gmaxwell> 12:38 <@gmaxwell> Moron__: but they aren't safe to use unless a majority of all future hash power enforces the rules.
378 2012-01-31 04:08:19 <etotheipi_> splatster, add libcryptopp.a to the end of the OBJS line (line 7)
379 2012-01-31 04:08:22 <gmaxwell> 12:42 <@gmaxwell> but thats if and only if they deploy code for one of BIP16/BIP17 and the majority of future hashpower deploys the other.
380 2012-01-31 04:08:25 <gmaxwell> roconnor: notice my use of the word future? :)
381 2012-01-31 04:08:39 <gmaxwell> roconnor: yea, kinda sucks. We're using a current majority as a proxy for the future.
382 2012-01-31 04:08:45 <gmaxwell> roconnor: but thats not a promise.
383 2012-01-31 04:09:09 <splatster> etotheipi_: "make: *** No rule to make target `libcryptopp.a', needed by `swig'. Stop."
384 2012-01-31 04:09:12 <gmaxwell> roconnor: presumably interest in not having it all go pearshaped (and the reference client shipping with the functionality) will make that true.
385 2012-01-31 04:09:33 <etotheipi_> splatster, oh that wasn't the right place to put it
386 2012-01-31 04:10:06 <splatster> ok
387 2012-01-31 04:10:10 <etotheipi_> splatster, sorry, undo what you just did... instead add that to line 31 just before CppBlockUtils_wrap.o
388 2012-01-31 04:10:46 <luke-jr> roconnor: Can you verify I represented your position(s) correctly? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2SH_Votes
389 2012-01-31 04:10:50 <splatster> same thing
390 2012-01-31 04:11:13 <etotheipi_> gah
391 2012-01-31 04:12:06 <roconnor> luke-jr: hmm, I think I might prefer to be left off the list if that is okay with you.
392 2012-01-31 04:12:18 <etotheipi_> splatster, same error?
393 2012-01-31 04:12:23 <splatster> yep
394 2012-01-31 04:12:37 <splatster> and when I take that out it gives me the old error
395 2012-01-31 04:12:50 <etotheipi_> uhh... then you put it in the wrong place... put it on the "g++" line, not the "swig" line
396 2012-01-31 04:12:53 <luke-jr> roconnor: it's not for any formal use, just to keep track of where people stand
397 2012-01-31 04:13:10 <roconnor> I think my position is too nuanced to be captured easily
398 2012-01-31 04:13:42 <splatster> i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-g++-4.2: libcryptopp.a: No such file or directory
399 2012-01-31 04:13:42 <splatster> make: *** [swig] Error 1
400 2012-01-31 04:14:12 <luke-jr> roconnor: that's why it's a complicated table? :P
401 2012-01-31 04:14:40 <etotheipi_> splatster, I thought you had copied the .a file to the cppForSwig dir
402 2012-01-31 04:15:07 <roconnor> gmaxwell: thanks
403 2012-01-31 04:15:11 <splatster> I did, but MacPorts got rid of it I think
404 2012-01-31 04:15:39 <etotheipi_> okay, well change it to /opt/local/whatever/libcryptopp.a
405 2012-01-31 04:15:56 has quit (Clown|!Clown@static-87-79-93-140.netcologne.de|Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
406 2012-01-31 04:16:51 <splatster> ld: library not found for -lcryptopp
407 2012-01-31 04:16:51 <splatster> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
408 2012-01-31 04:16:51 <splatster> make: *** [swig] Error 1
409 2012-01-31 04:17:17 <etotheipi_> gah! remove that -lcryptopp ...
410 2012-01-31 04:17:30 <splatster> Woah
411 2012-01-31 04:17:33 <splatster> much worse
412 2012-01-31 04:17:56 <splatster> Maybe about 300 lines of errors
413 2012-01-31 04:18:03 <etotheipi_> okay, nm then
414 2012-01-31 04:18:11 <etotheipi_> undo everything, and wait for someone with more OSX experience :)
415 2012-01-31 04:18:32 <splatster> going to first error
416 2012-01-31 04:18:36 <splatster> Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
417 2012-01-31 04:18:37 <splatster> "_Py_InitModule4_64", referenced from:
418 2012-01-31 04:18:37 <splatster> _init_CppBlockUtils in CppBlockUtils_wrap.o
419 2012-01-31 04:18:37 <splatster> "_PyModule_GetDict", referenced from:
420 2012-01-31 04:18:43 <splatster> _init_CppBlockUtils in CppBlockUtils_wrap.o
421 2012-01-31 04:18:44 <splatster> and a lot more like that
422 2012-01-31 04:18:57 RobinPKR_ has joined
423 2012-01-31 04:18:59 <etotheipi_> oooh, splatster
424 2012-01-31 04:19:04 <etotheipi_> that might be an improvement, actually
425 2012-01-31 04:19:30 <etotheipi_> contrary to what it looks like: it may have actually succeeded... allowing the compiler to move on and hit all the other errors it would've hit before
426 2012-01-31 04:20:00 <etotheipi_> that looks like linker errors against the compiled python module
427 2012-01-31 04:20:01 <splatster> Wait is the system that you compiled those files on 32 or 64 bit?
428 2012-01-31 04:20:15 <etotheipi_> splatster, I didn't give you any compiled modules
429 2012-01-31 04:20:26 <etotheipi_> I only gave you a .py and a .cpp
430 2012-01-31 04:20:32 <etotheipi_> which is what swig produces
431 2012-01-31 04:20:37 <splatster> ok
432 2012-01-31 04:20:38 <etotheipi_> err... *.cxx
433 2012-01-31 04:21:23 <etotheipi_> it looks like it might've succeeded at linking to cryptopp, but the compiling of the swig files I gave you didn't work so well...
434 2012-01-31 04:21:24 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
435 2012-01-31 04:21:24 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
436 2012-01-31 04:21:54 <etotheipi_> just in case: http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptopp-users@googlegroups.com/msg05748.html
437 2012-01-31 04:22:58 <splatster> Different problems
438 2012-01-31 04:23:25 pingdrive has quit (Quit: Leaving)
439 2012-01-31 04:23:32 <etotheipi_> it talks about linking to cryptopp on OSX.... even if what I gave you worked for cryptopp, it's kind of a hack
440 2012-01-31 04:23:39 storrgie has quit (Quit: Leaving)
441 2012-01-31 04:24:14 MrTiggr has joined
442 2012-01-31 04:26:03 <splatster> the symbol "_Py_InitModule4_64" isn't related to cryptopp
443 2012-01-31 04:26:11 <etotheipi_> splatster, I agree...
444 2012-01-31 04:26:22 <splatster> nor is _PyModule_GetDict or _PyCObject_Import or _PyErr_Occurred
445 2012-01-31 04:26:35 <splatster> It's python
446 2012-01-31 04:26:57 <etotheipi_> splatster, I'm going back to the previous problem and trying to make sure it's done right
447 2012-01-31 04:27:11 <etotheipi_> I recognize that this new problem is different
448 2012-01-31 04:27:26 <etotheipi_> on that topic, there might be discussion on this in the forums...
449 2012-01-31 04:27:29 <splatster> Well I will say that almost all the errors are thrown from CppBlockUtils_wrap.o
450 2012-01-31 04:28:04 <etotheipi_> yeah, CppBlockUtils.o should've been compiled with all those symbols, but your system didn't, for some reason
451 2012-01-31 04:28:17 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
452 2012-01-31 04:32:37 b4epoche_ has joined
453 2012-01-31 04:34:24 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
454 2012-01-31 04:34:24 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
455 2012-01-31 04:35:42 epscy has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
456 2012-01-31 04:39:53 bitcoinTrader has joined
457 2012-01-31 04:40:51 bitcoinTrader has left ()
458 2012-01-31 04:45:19 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: can you take the pool ops motivation discussion out of the BIP16/17 thread?
459 2012-01-31 04:47:38 roconnor has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
460 2012-01-31 04:48:06 epscy has joined
461 2012-01-31 04:50:33 <splatster> Why is this such a heated argument?
462 2012-01-31 04:51:16 <splatster> Can someone give me an unbiased summary of each and tell me pros and cons and not yell at me for being stupid/uninformed?
463 2012-01-31 04:53:54 epscy has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
464 2012-01-31 04:54:02 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: sorry, didnt mean to make a side discussion, that comment was just so wrong it had to be pointed out...
465 2012-01-31 04:54:59 <gmaxwell> splatster: I have no idea why anything is heated. I doubt you're stupid.
466 2012-01-31 04:55:06 <luke-jr> splatster: BIP 16 is a quick workaround to a problem with OP_EVAL, by effectively modifying how the entire Bitcoin protocol works in an inconsistent way. BIP 17 just adds a new opcode to accomplish the same thing.
467 2012-01-31 04:55:17 <luke-jr> BIP 16 also allows tweaking the rules more
468 2012-01-31 04:55:29 * BlueMatt facepalms
469 2012-01-31 04:55:40 <luke-jr> but the one case it actually does, is only a long-term problem and has since been solved for BIP 17 too
470 2012-01-31 04:55:47 <BlueMatt> splatster: sadly, at this point I dont think there is anyone qualified to give an unbaised summary
471 2012-01-31 04:56:09 <luke-jr> I agree with gmaxwell that this shouldn't be heated.
472 2012-01-31 04:56:09 <gmaxwell> splatster: backing up a bit... We want people to be able to have secure wallets even when their computers are compromised and we want people to have the freedom to choose complcated rules for the disposition of their own funds.
473 2012-01-31 04:56:42 <gmaxwell> splatster: depending on how we count there have probably been a good two dozen or more specific (and vague) proposals on how to accomplish this end.
474 2012-01-31 04:57:08 <luke-jr> O.O that many?
475 2012-01-31 04:57:20 <splatster> Why must the rules be complicated?
476 2012-01-31 04:57:21 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: if you count things like the OP_CAT multisig.
477 2012-01-31 04:57:57 <luke-jr> splatster: that's why I prefer BIP 17. it's a very simple change.
478 2012-01-31 04:58:14 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: he's referring to my 'freedom to choose comment'
479 2012-01-31 04:58:19 <luke-jr> oh
480 2012-01-31 04:58:33 <gmaxwell> splatster: For example If I want my funds for my charity to be able to be released by the {CEO or 4/5 board members}. I should be able to have an address which embodies this choice.
481 2012-01-31 04:58:39 <splatster> Which one is the simplest that still allows for someone to make a wallet which needs 2 different signatures to be spent?
482 2012-01-31 04:58:42 <luke-jr> splatster: because complicated rules are needed to say "4 of 7 people need to agree to spend money from the corporate wallet"
483 2012-01-31 04:58:42 <gmaxwell> splatster: and people should be able to pay directly into it.
484 2012-01-31 04:58:52 <gmaxwell> splatster: They're all equally powerful in that respect.
485 2012-01-31 04:59:06 <luke-jr> splatster: BIP 17 is easily the simplest.
486 2012-01-31 04:59:07 <splatster> Holy shit I don't think I've ever gotten this many highlights so fast
487 2012-01-31 04:59:10 <luke-jr> lol
488 2012-01-31 04:59:23 <gmaxwell> BIP12 went much further but the general belief is that it was too powerful a tool.
489 2012-01-31 04:59:30 <gmaxwell> As I joked earlier, BIP12 == Skynet.
490 2012-01-31 04:59:47 <gmaxwell> (The fictional AI in the terminator movies that enslaved mankind)
491 2012-01-31 04:59:55 <luke-jr> I wouldn't mind BIP 12. I'd just miss the opportunity to change more rules when deploying it
492 2012-01-31 05:00:05 <luke-jr> like pubkey extraction etc
493 2012-01-31 05:00:33 <gmaxwell> BIP12 may comeback someday. Who knows. We seem to be screwing up the politics on the much narrower change. :(
494 2012-01-31 05:01:12 FellowTraveler has joined
495 2012-01-31 05:02:01 has joined
496 2012-01-31 05:02:08 <luke-jr> splatster: I say BIP 17 is simpler, but *if it didn't change other script rules*, BIP 16 would probably be simpler to implement *for Bitcoin-Qt*, the most-used client right now
497 2012-01-31 05:02:13 <luke-jr> just to clarify that
498 2012-01-31 05:02:14 <splatster> I think there should be between 1 and a certain number of valid keys capable of signing a transaction from a specific address and based on that wallet itself, a certain number of those keys would be required.
499 2012-01-31 05:02:33 <luke-jr> splatster: these P2SH solutions allow any complexity just as easily
500 2012-01-31 05:02:57 <gmaxwell> splatster: from an enduser perspected everything being discussed is absoltely equal. They'd all have the same functionality. The differences are technical, technical-aesthetic, and security paranoia related.
501 2012-01-31 05:03:07 <poiuh> the hash of the redeeming script.. what if you want to use the same redeeming script multiple times. is the hash alreay known? or does the hash include the whole tx
502 2012-01-31 05:03:21 <luke-jr> poiuh: the redeeming script isn't secret
503 2012-01-31 05:03:31 <gmaxwell> poiuh: you can reuse it. It's just like paying to the same address multiple times.
504 2012-01-31 05:03:49 <gmaxwell> Before the first time the pubkey isn't known, after that .. it is. But you can still use it.
505 2012-01-31 05:03:51 <luke-jr> poiuh: the redeeming script is expected to do any pubkey/signature verification
506 2012-01-31 05:04:02 <poiuh> i c
507 2012-01-31 05:05:56 <splatster> If BIP17 is implemented, who gets seen as a misbehaving node, what happens to the two sets of nodes' blockchains, and how anything with the new OP_insertoperationhere(s) look to an older client? What about for BIP16?
508 2012-01-31 05:06:17 <luke-jr> splatster: old clients cannot send/receive P2SH under any conditions
509 2012-01-31 05:06:30 <poiuh> the redeeming script should have some added operations each time, to ensure privacy. so that ppl cant data-mine the hashes
510 2012-01-31 05:06:38 <splatster> Not even relay?
511 2012-01-31 05:06:41 <splatster> not verify?
512 2012-01-31 05:07:04 <luke-jr> poiuh: you'll want to replace the pubkey in the redeeming script
513 2012-01-31 05:07:10 <luke-jr> splatster: correct
514 2012-01-31 05:07:31 <splatster> So all of the newer clients/their blocks and TXs are seen as misbehaving to any old client?
515 2012-01-31 05:07:35 <luke-jr> no
516 2012-01-31 05:07:41 <luke-jr> they are all seen as always-valid
517 2012-01-31 05:08:14 <splatster> So how do the old clients respond to the new stuff?
518 2012-01-31 05:08:18 <luke-jr> worst case scenario, an *old client* sees *1 confirmation* for a false transaction
519 2012-01-31 05:08:25 <poiuh> its good from a privacy pov to use a script hash. that way you dont tip your hand as to what type of payout scheme is going on. in fact, everyone should start using the script hash instead of the standard pubkey thing so that all tx's are masked
520 2012-01-31 05:08:42 <luke-jr> but that attack would be super-expensive, and best practice is to wait for 4-6 confirms
521 2012-01-31 05:09:03 <luke-jr> poiuh: you have to reveal the script when you spend
522 2012-01-31 05:09:13 <poiuh> sure later on
523 2012-01-31 05:09:47 <poiuh> gives you some time in between various stages of a transaction to protect yourself
524 2012-01-31 05:10:07 <luke-jr> I suppose script secrecy could be a good thing for law enforcement
525 2012-01-31 05:11:00 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
526 2012-01-31 05:11:13 MC1984 has joined
527 2012-01-31 05:17:08 MBS is now known as imsaguy4
528 2012-01-31 05:17:21 imsaguy4 is now known as MBS
529 2012-01-31 05:30:15 <poiuh> http://www.mendeley.com/research/a-simple-publicly-verifiable-secret-sharing-scheme-and-its-application-to-electronic-voting/
530 2012-01-31 05:30:49 FellowTraveler has left ()
531 2012-01-31 05:32:49 <poiuh> in the future there will be inputless transactions
532 2012-01-31 05:33:15 <poiuh> ppl will share secrets offline, and the last user in the chain will be able to redeem the whole thing
533 2012-01-31 05:34:43 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
534 2012-01-31 05:35:15 MC1984 has joined
535 2012-01-31 05:35:32 <poiuh> if anyone double spends, another user can reveal the secret and quash the spender
536 2012-01-31 05:35:51 <poiuh> it all becomes private ledgers, enforceable by the threat of revealing the secret
537 2012-01-31 05:36:31 <josephcp> that doesn't work for financial transactions because you can still double spend
538 2012-01-31 05:36:45 <josephcp> give one signed chain to one person and another to a second
539 2012-01-31 05:37:17 <josephcp> neither has an assurance that there is no double spending without a broadcast to all parties
540 2012-01-31 05:38:10 <josephcp> i can definitely see it working for voting though, because there is a single end expiration state where everything is synchronized
541 2012-01-31 05:38:39 <poiuh> all the parties involved have the ability to verify every output (but that information is on a need-to-know basis, it's not published to the whole network)
542 2012-01-31 05:39:03 <poiuh> that is, dont accept a promise unless you have the ability to verify every other output from tha tsource.. he would give you the key privately
543 2012-01-31 05:39:33 <josephcp> yes but it's still open to double spending attacks because it's on a need-to-know basis
544 2012-01-31 05:39:47 <poiuh> youd get cliques of knowledge..
545 2012-01-31 05:40:34 <josephcp> would you be confident enough to receive $1000 in exchange for selling goods with such a system?
546 2012-01-31 05:40:34 <poiuh> as long as the dependent outputs later in the chain remain within the clique, the network at large doesn't need to know
547 2012-01-31 05:40:42 <josephcp> if you didn't know the buyer?
548 2012-01-31 05:41:18 <poiuh> sure why not, id have the key to decrypt every output from the buyer
549 2012-01-31 05:41:33 <poiuh> but random guy whose monitoring bitcoin traffic wouldn't
550 2012-01-31 05:42:06 <josephcp> but you don't have any assurance that the buyer didn't already spend the coins to someone else, this system is unworkable for unknown/untrusted parties
551 2012-01-31 05:42:09 <poiuh> dirty/private money would circulate among a trusted clique...
552 2012-01-31 05:42:33 <josephcp> trusted cliques don't build global economies
553 2012-01-31 05:42:35 <poiuh> the prerequisite before transacting with someone is that they give you the key privately to verify every transaction theyve made
554 2012-01-31 05:42:48 <josephcp> but you don't KNOW every transaction they've made is my point
555 2012-01-31 05:43:02 <poiuh> the block chain has every transaction
556 2012-01-31 05:43:17 <poiuh> in this case you can hide the amount and destination from the public
557 2012-01-31 05:43:50 <josephcp> yes the moment you broadcast on the blockchain, your example says you don't have to broadcast transactions
558 2012-01-31 05:45:01 <poiuh> this is an entirely different scheme from bitcoin.. the blockchain contains encrypted messages consisting of (input, destination, amount)
559 2012-01-31 05:45:43 <poiuh> before accepting payment from someone, he gives you the keys to decrypt all the transactions this one depends on
560 2012-01-31 05:45:56 <poiuh> apply recursively...
561 2012-01-31 05:46:21 <josephcp> doesn't work because you can send the key to two people
562 2012-01-31 05:46:36 <josephcp> unless you use the other person's pubkey, but then hey you've just reinvented bitcoin
563 2012-01-31 05:46:55 <poiuh> after a while, huge portions of the chain would be known to everyone, but people who want to remain private would still be able to
564 2012-01-31 05:47:05 <poiuh> you're supposed to send the key to multiple people
565 2012-01-31 05:48:47 <poiuh> as a bitcoin user, you dont need to verify evey transaction in the network. just the ones your incoming payments depend on
566 2012-01-31 05:49:07 <gmaxwell> poiuh: non-inflation is a general interest to all users.
567 2012-01-31 05:49:22 <poiuh> which means you dont have to have any knowledge about those non-dependent transactions.. they can be hidden from you entirely!
568 2012-01-31 05:49:32 <gmaxwell> thats like saying the fed printing money isn't an issue to dollar users, you just need to worry if your own dollars are counterfet. :)
569 2012-01-31 05:49:43 <josephcp> hidden from you => open to attack from double spending
570 2012-01-31 05:49:55 <poiuh> nah
571 2012-01-31 05:50:02 <josephcp> there is no way around this fact
572 2012-01-31 05:50:05 <poiuh> you only need the details of a transaction if your inputs depend on it
573 2012-01-31 05:50:10 <poiuh> very simple
574 2012-01-31 05:50:33 <poiuh> gmaxwell: not sure what you mean.. the supply is determined by the # of blocks
575 2012-01-31 05:51:04 <poiuh> you can have 0 information about any tx, but sitll konw exactly how many bitcoins there are
576 2012-01-31 05:51:10 <gmaxwell> (also because of split/merge the data you'd need to decrypyt a single coin is exponential)
577 2012-01-31 05:51:36 <gmaxwell> poiuh: no, you can't. Say I have 5 bitcoin I pay both you and josephcp. (giving each the history independantly and in secret)
578 2012-01-31 05:51:46 <gmaxwell> poiuh: so then I've created 5 more from thin air.
579 2012-01-31 05:52:05 <gmaxwell> this conversation should move to #bitcoin btw. I'm also in there.
580 2012-01-31 05:52:13 <josephcp> good point
581 2012-01-31 05:52:20 <poiuh> gmaxwell: josephcp would not accept such a tx, because you already gave him a copy of the one you sent to me
582 2012-01-31 05:52:38 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
583 2012-01-31 05:52:56 <poiuh> you would not be able to append more than 1 tx in a single block
584 2012-01-31 05:53:12 <gmaxwell> poiuh: #bitcoin (I won't respond here)
585 2012-01-31 05:53:45 RazielZ has joined
586 2012-01-31 05:53:52 knotwork has joined
587 2012-01-31 06:00:13 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
588 2012-01-31 06:04:29 epscy has joined
589 2012-01-31 06:09:15 nhodges has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
590 2012-01-31 06:09:57 epscy has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
591 2012-01-31 06:11:06 ThomasV has joined
592 2012-01-31 06:13:39 nhodges has joined
593 2012-01-31 06:20:32 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Relax, its only ONES and ZEROS!)
594 2012-01-31 06:25:33 Cablesaurus has joined
595 2012-01-31 06:25:34 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
596 2012-01-31 06:25:34 Cablesaurus has joined
597 2012-01-31 06:26:13 epscy has joined
598 2012-01-31 06:26:57 jondoe has joined
599 2012-01-31 06:28:55 upb has quit (Changing host)
600 2012-01-31 06:28:55 upb has joined
601 2012-01-31 06:32:03 epscy has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
602 2012-01-31 06:32:42 jondoe has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
603 2012-01-31 06:42:17 Clipse has quit (Quit: Clipse)
604 2012-01-31 07:06:22 epscy has joined
605 2012-01-31 07:09:31 marf_away has joined
606 2012-01-31 07:10:09 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
607 2012-01-31 07:22:59 <ThomasV> sipa: 24h average seems to be screwed at bitcoincharts
608 2012-01-31 07:42:56 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
609 2012-01-31 07:44:13 Backburn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
610 2012-01-31 07:44:36 Diablo-D3 has joined
611 2012-01-31 07:46:48 Backburn has joined
612 2012-01-31 08:00:08 Turingi has joined
613 2012-01-31 08:00:08 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
614 2012-01-31 08:00:08 Turingi has joined
615 2012-01-31 08:01:40 Joric has joined
616 2012-01-31 08:04:21 dan__ has quit (Quit: dan__)
617 2012-01-31 08:05:17 <poiuh> more coins
618 2012-01-31 08:06:19 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
619 2012-01-31 08:08:27 TheSeven has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
620 2012-01-31 08:09:20 TheSeven has joined
621 2012-01-31 08:10:27 Joric has joined
622 2012-01-31 08:10:28 Joric has quit (Changing host)
623 2012-01-31 08:10:28 Joric has joined
624 2012-01-31 08:14:56 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
625 2012-01-31 08:20:28 flok has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
626 2012-01-31 08:20:51 RazielZ has joined
627 2012-01-31 08:21:16 poiuh has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
628 2012-01-31 08:21:49 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
629 2012-01-31 08:23:42 larsivi has joined
630 2012-01-31 08:23:43 Disposition has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
631 2012-01-31 08:25:07 ovidiusoft has joined
632 2012-01-31 08:30:21 zeiris has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
633 2012-01-31 08:34:46 da2ce7 has joined
634 2012-01-31 08:35:20 sacarlson has joined
635 2012-01-31 08:39:17 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
636 2012-01-31 08:40:39 splatster has quit (Quit: I Rock Co. Kaine)
637 2012-01-31 08:45:11 b4epoche_ has joined
638 2012-01-31 08:46:22 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
639 2012-01-31 08:46:22 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
640 2012-01-31 08:56:10 zeiris has joined
641 2012-01-31 08:58:57 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
642 2012-01-31 09:00:10 iocor has joined
643 2012-01-31 09:00:25 <Joric> does 0.5.99 support getblockbycount ?
644 2012-01-31 09:01:40 <Joric> theymos mentions this thread on the blockexplorer https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=724.0
645 2012-01-31 09:02:40 <Joric> was it considered unecessary or potentially dangerous?
646 2012-01-31 09:03:11 Kolky has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
647 2012-01-31 09:14:24 Ken` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
648 2012-01-31 09:15:27 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
649 2012-01-31 09:15:32 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
650 2012-01-31 09:15:36 _Fireball has joined
651 2012-01-31 09:19:08 Joric has joined
652 2012-01-31 09:19:08 Joric has quit (Changing host)
653 2012-01-31 09:19:08 Joric has joined
654 2012-01-31 09:22:05 Nick_ has joined
655 2012-01-31 09:22:30 Nick_ is now known as Guest32696
656 2012-01-31 09:23:21 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: No route to host)
657 2012-01-31 09:26:05 larsivi has joined
658 2012-01-31 09:26:34 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
659 2012-01-31 09:27:03 molecular has joined
660 2012-01-31 09:32:42 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
661 2012-01-31 09:35:32 Joric has joined
662 2012-01-31 09:35:33 Joric has quit (Changing host)
663 2012-01-31 09:35:33 Joric has joined
664 2012-01-31 09:37:27 has quit (Clown|!Clown@static-87-79-93-140.netcologne.de|Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
665 2012-01-31 09:38:53 booo has joined
666 2012-01-31 09:40:21 jondoe has joined
667 2012-01-31 09:44:11 ThomasV has joined
668 2012-01-31 09:45:25 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
669 2012-01-31 09:45:49 has joined
670 2012-01-31 10:02:01 iocor has joined
671 2012-01-31 10:05:55 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
672 2012-01-31 10:09:41 <sipa> ThomasV: what's wrong with it?
673 2012-01-31 10:10:37 <ThomasV> sipa: I see 6.12 usd as 24h average for mtgox
674 2012-01-31 10:11:02 <ThomasV> it should be lower
675 2012-01-31 10:11:03 <Joric> no it's 5.50668
676 2012-01-31 10:11:05 <sipa> eh, that's not my data
677 2012-01-31 10:11:31 <ThomasV> Joric: where do you see that?
678 2012-01-31 10:11:40 <Joric> mtgox com
679 2012-01-31 10:11:43 <ThomasV> UI am talking about http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/
680 2012-01-31 10:11:51 MrTiggr has joined
681 2012-01-31 10:12:09 <Joric> omg it's all red
682 2012-01-31 10:12:30 <ThomasV> it looks like averages are lagging
683 2012-01-31 10:13:06 <Joric> where's that 7.22 came from i haven't seen it for two weeks already
684 2012-01-31 10:14:28 jondoe has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
685 2012-01-31 10:14:45 _Fireball has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
686 2012-01-31 10:16:44 TD has joined
687 2012-01-31 10:19:15 booo has joined
688 2012-01-31 10:21:13 <tcatm> ThomasV, Joric: It's calculated from the last 30d so it matches the mini chart
689 2012-01-31 10:21:30 <ThomasV> tcatm: it used to be 24h, no?
690 2012-01-31 10:21:40 <tcatm> yes
691 2012-01-31 10:21:52 <Joric> maybe it looked too scary
692 2012-01-31 10:22:16 <ThomasV> then why don't you move it to the right, with the 30d data
693 2012-01-31 10:24:08 <tcatm> ?
694 2012-01-31 10:24:19 <da2ce7> hello all :)
695 2012-01-31 10:30:00 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: phants opened issue 789 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/789>
696 2012-01-31 10:30:57 RazielZ has quit ()
697 2012-01-31 10:49:21 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
698 2012-01-31 10:51:58 <tcatm> ThomasV: like so?
699 2012-01-31 10:55:02 <ThomasV> tcatm: idk
700 2012-01-31 10:55:05 _Fireball has joined
701 2012-01-31 10:55:29 <ThomasV> tcatm: changes are confusing
702 2012-01-31 10:55:44 <ThomasV> it was better before
703 2012-01-31 10:56:06 <tcatm> It's always better before ;)
704 2012-01-31 10:56:30 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
705 2012-01-31 10:56:46 <ThomasV> yes, but this time it's real
706 2012-01-31 10:57:10 <ThomasV> you're making changes without notice, I think it confuses a lot of people
707 2012-01-31 10:57:34 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
708 2012-01-31 10:58:37 <tcatm> I don't think notices would help much. At least they didn't help in the past because people who are confused usually aren't reading them.
709 2012-01-31 11:02:08 pickett has joined
710 2012-01-31 11:03:37 iocor has joined
711 2012-01-31 11:05:43 osmosis has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
712 2012-01-31 11:06:53 danbri has joined
713 2012-01-31 11:08:39 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
714 2012-01-31 11:09:34 occulta has joined
715 2012-01-31 11:12:50 <marf_away> yeah new bitcoincharts is bad
716 2012-01-31 11:13:03 <marf_away> its more difficult to see the action
717 2012-01-31 11:13:12 <marf_away> not its allways red...
718 2012-01-31 11:13:20 <marf_away> becaouse of 30 avaerage
719 2012-01-31 11:13:23 <marf_away> thats useless
720 2012-01-31 11:13:31 <marf_away> @tcatm
721 2012-01-31 11:16:15 RazielZ has joined
722 2012-01-31 11:18:32 <tcatm> What about those people who would prefer to see a more long term view of prices?
723 2012-01-31 11:19:15 <da2ce7> tcatm: high transaction volume in USD at any price... it is more inportant that extanges are very proffitable.
724 2012-01-31 11:20:01 <da2ce7> the price isn't all that inportant for bitcoins health... what is more inportant it liquidity.
725 2012-01-31 11:20:04 <da2ce7> *is
726 2012-01-31 11:20:40 <Eliel> yep, although, unless the different market players start holding smaller amounts, that's difficult to fix.
727 2012-01-31 11:21:03 <marf_away> ok make it optional tcatm
728 2012-01-31 11:21:03 <marf_away> ;D
729 2012-01-31 11:21:09 <Eliel> so, I'd expect the price to go up along with liquidity.
730 2012-01-31 11:22:07 Backburn has quit ()
731 2012-01-31 11:22:10 <tcatm> So... 60s averages?
732 2012-01-31 11:22:49 <marf_away> or make a poll
733 2012-01-31 11:22:54 <marf_away> what the users want
734 2012-01-31 11:23:39 <da2ce7> tcatm: why not do the price of the last tx over the 10 min avg max tx volume. but that is a bit of work to do.
735 2012-01-31 11:23:39 <tcatm> Users don't know what they want :)
736 2012-01-31 11:23:53 <tcatm> da2ce7: ???
737 2012-01-31 11:24:21 <tcatm> Can you write that using LaTeX math or something more easily parseable?
738 2012-01-31 11:24:26 agricocb has joined
739 2012-01-31 11:25:06 <da2ce7> say if over the last 10min's the average largest tx are 100 bitcoins; then display the price of the last tx that was over 100btc.
740 2012-01-31 11:25:29 <marf_away> good idea
741 2012-01-31 11:25:48 <tcatm> Except it could very well be change...
742 2012-01-31 11:26:29 <marf_away> i think he talks about exchanges
743 2012-01-31 11:26:40 <marf_away> price of last big trade of mtgox
744 2012-01-31 11:26:42 <marf_away> and so on
745 2012-01-31 11:27:55 <da2ce7> last 10min max trades of the last 24 hours, and use the avg as the last trade to eclipce.
746 2012-01-31 11:28:22 <da2ce7> so you would have 144 max trades, and take the average of those.
747 2012-01-31 11:28:51 <tcatm> average price, volume., weighted, ...?
748 2012-01-31 11:29:14 [1]wirehead is now known as wirehead
749 2012-01-31 11:29:28 <da2ce7> you are taking the 'last' of the last signifant trade in volume.
750 2012-01-31 11:30:10 <da2ce7> that on average will update every 10 min... but maybe longer.
751 2012-01-31 11:30:14 <da2ce7> or quicker.
752 2012-01-31 11:31:55 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
753 2012-01-31 11:36:30 <tcatm> 24h averages are back
754 2012-01-31 11:40:17 <gjs278> ;;bc,mtgox
755 2012-01-31 11:40:18 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":5.58275,"low":5.426,"avg":5.496252882,"vwap":5.499613471,"vol":29997,"last_all":5.52454,"last_local":5.48448,"last":5.48448,"buy":5.48468,"sell":5.48645}}
756 2012-01-31 11:40:23 <gjs278> ;;bc,info
757 2012-01-31 11:40:24 <gribble> Error: "bc,info" is not a valid command.
758 2012-01-31 11:40:32 <gjs278> ;;bc,help
759 2012-01-31 11:40:32 <gribble> Alias bc,24hprc, Alias bc,altprofit, Alias bc,avgprc, Alias bc,bcm, Alias bc,bitpenny, Alias bc,blockdiff, Alias bc,blocks, Alias bc,bounty, Alias bc,btceur, Alias bc,btcgbp, Alias bc,btcguild, Alias bc,btcrub, Alias bc,btcto, Alias bc,calc, Alias bc,calcd, Alias bc,channels, Alias bc,convert, Alias bc,deepbit, Alias bc,diff, Alias bc,diffchange, Alias bc,eligius, Alias bc,estimate, Alias (2 more messages)
760 2012-01-31 11:41:28 _Fireball has quit (Quit: HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <-)
761 2012-01-31 11:41:50 <da2ce7> tcatm: we need a site that has a set of offline 'bitcoin js tools' such like: min private key to full key; private key to bitcoin address; getting a bitcoin address from a private key; generating a private key from a string.
762 2012-01-31 11:42:14 <da2ce7> or a trusted https website that you can use them from.
763 2012-01-31 11:42:30 <da2ce7> (no private data getting sent over the interent)
764 2012-01-31 11:42:59 <sipa> please don't advocate https sites for dealing with private keys
765 2012-01-31 11:43:05 <sipa> they should never leave your own system
766 2012-01-31 11:44:05 <da2ce7> sipa: I agree.. however for a 1 btc casascis coin it is 'ok' secuirty; as you would import the key as a 'sweep address'
767 2012-01-31 11:44:14 <tcatm> A few shell scripts operating on stdin/out should work.
768 2012-01-31 11:44:35 <tcatm> scripts/commands
769 2012-01-31 11:44:48 <Joric> da2ce7, https://www.bitaddress.org
770 2012-01-31 11:44:53 <UukGoblin> why does blockexplorer show a single transaction with multiple inputs as multiple entries in the address's ledger view? http://blockexplorer.com/address/1FGNrRbpWkqwYz9rWXR8UD2boHVfkLgeQg
771 2012-01-31 11:45:44 <Joric> da2ce7, note 'Enter Private Key (any format)'
772 2012-01-31 11:45:54 <da2ce7> ya cool
773 2012-01-31 11:46:10 <da2ce7> hmmm there is a bug in my windows... it take forever to load https pages...
774 2012-01-31 11:46:12 <da2ce7> :S
775 2012-01-31 11:46:21 <da2ce7> very werid
776 2012-01-31 11:46:45 <da2ce7> only when i visit them the first time tho...
777 2012-01-31 11:47:23 <UukGoblin> da2ce7, slow connection to Certificate Authority?
778 2012-01-31 11:47:52 <sipa> why would you need to communicate with the CA?
779 2012-01-31 11:48:28 <da2ce7> sipa: to check for revoked certs.
780 2012-01-31 11:48:29 <UukGoblin> to check the signature of a certificate?
781 2012-01-31 11:48:53 <UukGoblin> although, maybe not
782 2012-01-31 11:48:53 <sipa> UukGoblin: everything needed is included in the the https server's response
783 2012-01-31 11:48:58 <UukGoblin> yeah, revokes
784 2012-01-31 11:49:09 <sipa> up to a certificate by a CA that you trust
785 2012-01-31 11:49:13 <sipa> but revokes, indeed
786 2012-01-31 11:49:54 * da2ce7 dosn't like google chrome, it uses the built-in windows cert infranstructure.
787 2012-01-31 11:50:05 <sipa> shouldn't it?
788 2012-01-31 11:50:07 <da2ce7> and the built in proxy... I think i shall move to firefox.
789 2012-01-31 11:50:32 <sipa> CA handling is something that should be done centralized by the OS, imho, instead of each application separatelky
790 2012-01-31 11:50:45 <Joric> i'd say it's also slower than firefox despite all commercials
791 2012-01-31 11:50:48 <da2ce7> sipa: sure; except I kinda trust mozilla more than msoft.
792 2012-01-31 11:51:09 <sipa> da2ce7: then maybe you should use a different OS :)
793 2012-01-31 11:51:13 <da2ce7> and I cannot be botherd in going throogh all the CA...
794 2012-01-31 11:51:36 <da2ce7> bah... windows on desktop; linux on server is how I roll.
795 2012-01-31 11:55:51 ovidiusoft has joined
796 2012-01-31 11:58:00 <Joric> i find some logical fallacies in your security system
797 2012-01-31 12:02:05 BLZNGPNGN has joined
798 2012-01-31 12:03:42 BLZNGPNGN has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
799 2012-01-31 12:04:49 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
800 2012-01-31 12:05:58 Litt has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
801 2012-01-31 12:07:11 Joric has quit ()
802 2012-01-31 12:09:25 iocor has joined
803 2012-01-31 12:10:32 iocor has quit (Client Quit)
804 2012-01-31 12:12:17 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
805 2012-01-31 12:16:17 rdponticelli has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
806 2012-01-31 12:18:23 rdponticelli has joined
807 2012-01-31 12:19:53 pentarh has joined
808 2012-01-31 12:20:25 <pentarh> hello. looking for java developer for writing lightweight namecoin client
809 2012-01-31 12:25:11 dwon has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
810 2012-01-31 12:27:14 rdponticelli_ has joined
811 2012-01-31 12:27:50 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
812 2012-01-31 12:32:37 sje has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
813 2012-01-31 12:33:16 d4de has joined
814 2012-01-31 12:33:16 d4de has quit (Changing host)
815 2012-01-31 12:33:16 d4de has joined
816 2012-01-31 12:35:27 dwon has joined
817 2012-01-31 12:39:02 sje has joined
818 2012-01-31 12:39:52 <sje> is this a known problem (just did git pull): "/usr/include/boost/interprocess/detail/transform_iterator.hpp:57:15: error: reference âm_valueâ cannot be declared âmutableâ [-fpermissive]"
819 2012-01-31 12:40:32 <sje> from bitcoin github
820 2012-01-31 12:42:25 iocor has joined
821 2012-01-31 12:43:15 rdponticelli_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
822 2012-01-31 12:44:49 <sje> nm - just boost ver
823 2012-01-31 12:45:38 rdponticelli has joined
824 2012-01-31 12:55:49 b4epoche_ has joined
825 2012-01-31 12:57:29 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
826 2012-01-31 12:57:29 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
827 2012-01-31 12:57:39 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
828 2012-01-31 12:58:39 iocor has joined
829 2012-01-31 13:02:29 rdponticelli_ has joined
830 2012-01-31 13:02:56 rdponticelli has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
831 2012-01-31 13:03:29 d4de has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
832 2012-01-31 13:07:29 roconnor has joined
833 2012-01-31 13:09:13 Moron__ has joined
834 2012-01-31 13:10:17 philibert has joined
835 2012-01-31 13:12:54 erle- has joined
836 2012-01-31 13:13:55 philibert has quit (Client Quit)
837 2012-01-31 13:14:54 user__ has joined
838 2012-01-31 13:23:09 rdponticelli has joined
839 2012-01-31 13:24:11 rdponticelli_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
840 2012-01-31 13:24:50 paul0 has joined
841 2012-01-31 13:26:38 Graet has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
842 2012-01-31 13:27:41 roconnor has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
843 2012-01-31 13:29:47 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
844 2012-01-31 13:30:01 Guest7197 has joined
845 2012-01-31 13:31:31 Guest7197 has quit (Client Quit)
846 2012-01-31 13:31:46 datagutt_ has joined
847 2012-01-31 13:32:00 iocor has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
848 2012-01-31 13:32:23 iocor has joined
849 2012-01-31 13:33:00 booo has joined
850 2012-01-31 13:33:58 Graet has joined
851 2012-01-31 13:34:15 Graet is now known as Guest95238
852 2012-01-31 13:34:35 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
853 2012-01-31 13:34:52 Guest95238 is now known as Graet2
854 2012-01-31 13:35:39 iocor has quit (Client Quit)
855 2012-01-31 13:37:54 Graet2 has quit (Client Quit)
856 2012-01-31 13:41:14 minimoose has joined
857 2012-01-31 13:41:44 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
858 2012-01-31 13:45:38 rdponticelli has joined
859 2012-01-31 13:45:50 MobiusL has joined
860 2012-01-31 13:59:09 Xunie has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
861 2012-01-31 14:02:16 paul0 has quit (Quit: paul0)
862 2012-01-31 14:04:00 occulta has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
863 2012-01-31 14:04:40 occulta has joined
864 2012-01-31 14:05:37 iocor has joined
865 2012-01-31 14:11:06 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
866 2012-01-31 14:13:52 danbri has joined
867 2012-01-31 14:17:32 poiuh has joined
868 2012-01-31 14:17:46 cdecker has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
869 2012-01-31 14:17:46 BCBot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
870 2012-01-31 14:20:24 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
871 2012-01-31 14:20:40 agricocb has joined
872 2012-01-31 14:21:57 poiuh has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
873 2012-01-31 14:24:55 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
874 2012-01-31 14:28:20 davex__ has joined
875 2012-01-31 14:31:59 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
876 2012-01-31 14:38:08 cdecker has joined
877 2012-01-31 14:38:23 MrTiggr has joined
878 2012-01-31 14:43:23 booo has joined
879 2012-01-31 14:49:49 justmoon has joined
880 2012-01-31 14:49:49 justmoon has quit (Changing host)
881 2012-01-31 14:49:49 justmoon has joined
882 2012-01-31 14:50:25 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
883 2012-01-31 14:57:55 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
884 2012-01-31 14:58:48 BCBot has joined
885 2012-01-31 14:59:22 davex__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
886 2012-01-31 14:59:38 davex__ has joined
887 2012-01-31 14:59:53 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
888 2012-01-31 15:03:29 agricocb has joined
889 2012-01-31 15:03:38 agricocb has quit (Changing host)
890 2012-01-31 15:03:38 agricocb has joined
891 2012-01-31 15:06:24 <helo> it depends what you do with it... for google sites with really heavy javascript chrome seems to be faster (duh)
892 2012-01-31 15:08:13 iocor has joined
893 2012-01-31 15:08:29 paul0 has joined
894 2012-01-31 15:10:23 jondoe has joined
895 2012-01-31 15:10:24 <gmaxwell> go go grarpamp further strenghtening my heuristic that anyone who says "DHT" is clueless.
896 2012-01-31 15:11:46 <cjd> DHT the cloud dood
897 2012-01-31 15:15:20 jondoe has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
898 2012-01-31 15:19:40 <davex__> does the default pushpoold example-cfg.json need to be modified in order to avoid the "JSON parse failed" error?
899 2012-01-31 15:21:22 <davex__> or else the libjansson version i have just doesn't like it
900 2012-01-31 15:21:32 ferroh has joined
901 2012-01-31 15:22:01 dissipate_ has joined
902 2012-01-31 15:23:00 <dissipate_> can someone explain what the hell this proposal is about? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0016
903 2012-01-31 15:23:55 <sipa> dissipate_: it a proposed implementation for BIP 13
904 2012-01-31 15:24:56 <dissipate_> BIP 13??
905 2012-01-31 15:25:01 <dissipate_> it says BIP 16
906 2012-01-31 15:25:10 <sipa> dissipate_: read my sentence
907 2012-01-31 15:25:22 <sipa> BIP16 is a proposed implementation for BIP13
908 2012-01-31 15:25:51 <ferroh> So, has BIP16 been running on testnet for a while?
909 2012-01-31 15:26:04 <sipa> ferroh: for anyone using git head, yes
910 2012-01-31 15:26:06 <ferroh> What I don't understand is what the big rush is to get this implemented on the productio network.
911 2012-01-31 15:26:09 <ferroh> *production
912 2012-01-31 15:26:24 <ferroh> For how long has it been on testnet?
913 2012-01-31 15:26:30 <dissipate_> whatever this thing is, it sounds pretty damn complicated.
914 2012-01-31 15:26:57 <dissipate_> some kind of scripting language to determine how some chain of transactions should take place??
915 2012-01-31 15:27:02 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
916 2012-01-31 15:27:04 <sipa> dissipate_: we already have that
917 2012-01-31 15:27:14 <sipa> bitcoin is built around a scripting language
918 2012-01-31 15:27:46 <ferroh> dissipate_: The big feature we're currently missing (in my opinion), is that we don't have multikey transactions -- where multiple keys are needed to spend coins. BIP16 (or BIP17) will give us that.
919 2012-01-31 15:27:51 <sipa> sending money means creating a script that says "only the owner of address X can spend this coin" (simplified)
920 2012-01-31 15:27:52 <dissipate_> sipa, so what the hell is this thing?
921 2012-01-31 15:28:11 <sipa> redeeming money means proving that you own that address
922 2012-01-31 15:28:37 <dissipate_> sipa, how is that different from the way things are now? you sign coins over to another address
923 2012-01-31 15:28:53 <ferroh> dissipate_: One of the things that multikey transactions allow for, is the much safer use of online wallets, because the online wallet operator can't spend your coins without having all the keys (which he doesn't).
924 2012-01-31 15:28:58 gfinn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
925 2012-01-31 15:29:17 <ferroh> dissipate_: What sipa is saying, is that we already have scripting -- BIP16 extends the abilities of the scripting language.
926 2012-01-31 15:30:10 <sipa> dissipate_: note that multisig transactions also already exist, you can create coins that need multiple signature to be spent, but they are not convenient
927 2012-01-31 15:30:37 <sipa> dissipate_: what BIP13 does is define an address type that says "i send this coin to anyone who can provide a valid script whose hash is X"
928 2012-01-31 15:30:56 <dissipate_> ferroh, interesting. sounds good!
929 2012-01-31 15:31:33 <sipa> dissipate_: BIP16 and BIP17 are technical implementations to provide the pay-to-script functionality defined in BIP13
930 2012-01-31 15:32:15 <dissipate_> sipa, how would they get the script that has that hash?
931 2012-01-31 15:32:24 <sipa> they don't
932 2012-01-31 15:32:34 <sipa> if i want you to pay to let's say me and my mother
933 2012-01-31 15:32:40 <sipa> i know that script already
934 2012-01-31 15:32:44 <sipa> and i just give you its hash
935 2012-01-31 15:33:14 <dissipate_> at what point does the script get executed?
936 2012-01-31 15:33:20 gavinandresen has joined
937 2012-01-31 15:33:53 <sipa> dissipate_: when i redeem the coin
938 2012-01-31 15:34:00 Clipse has joined
939 2012-01-31 15:34:52 <dissipate_> sipa, the script runs on all the clients?
940 2012-01-31 15:35:25 <sipa> yes
941 2012-01-31 15:37:14 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
942 2012-01-31 15:37:30 <dissipate_> scalability issues are coming to mind
943 2012-01-31 15:38:04 p0s has joined
944 2012-01-31 15:38:07 <ferroh> dissipate_: the scripts are really limited, and don't run on thin clients.
945 2012-01-31 15:38:13 <dissipate_> could a bitcoin client running on a standard desktop handle a billion 'pay to scripts'?
946 2012-01-31 15:38:43 <sipa> the only cpu-intensive part is verifying signatures
947 2012-01-31 15:38:54 <sipa> a typical desktop can do about 1000 per second of those
948 2012-01-31 15:39:07 _W_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
949 2012-01-31 15:39:24 booo has joined
950 2012-01-31 15:39:48 <dissipate_> sipa, if bitcoin became as large as just the stock market, those desktops would be overwhelmed.
951 2012-01-31 15:39:49 jondoe has joined
952 2012-01-31 15:40:00 <gmaxwell> STOP
953 2012-01-31 15:40:05 <sipa> then those desktops shouldn't run full clients
954 2012-01-31 15:40:13 <gmaxwell> dissipate_: Bitcoin _already_ has scripting exactly as described here.
955 2012-01-31 15:40:21 <gmaxwell> dissipate_: P2SH isn't changing that at all.
956 2012-01-31 15:40:44 gfinn has joined
957 2012-01-31 15:40:52 <gmaxwell> All it changes is when the detailed content of the script is provided. When a payment is made, or when the payment is redeemed.
958 2012-01-31 15:41:02 <gmaxwell> dissipate_: See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script
959 2012-01-31 15:42:20 <gmaxwell> The execution of these scripts is very computationally cheap compared to signature validations. They aren't in and of themselves a major scaling concern, and even if they wereâ they're already a deeply rooted part of the system.
960 2012-01-31 15:43:19 <gmaxwell> As Sipa says, if your system can't scale to running a full zero-trust validating node then you can run a lite client (like multibit) or a thin client (like electrum) and not do that, but thats unrelated to BIP16.
961 2012-01-31 15:47:06 <dissipate_> gmaxwell, that's great. how is anyone going to be able to interpret something like this transaction: http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/tx/9b8cf14991f5b401d4356bbf2e11f5f3bb5221bbd947b8be4cf600f5492f974d
962 2012-01-31 15:48:13 <gmaxwell> dissipate_: interpret it for what purpose? The system itself already knows how to obey the rules there.
963 2012-01-31 15:49:06 <luke-jr> to clarify, BIP 16 isn't changing whether scripts are used, but it IS changing *how* scripts are used/interpreted fundamentally
964 2012-01-31 15:49:12 vsrinivas has joined
965 2012-01-31 15:49:25 <dissipate_> gmaxwell, seems pretty opaque to me
966 2012-01-31 15:49:32 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
967 2012-01-31 15:49:43 <sipa> dissipate_: which script are you talking about?
968 2012-01-31 15:50:47 <dissipate_> sipa, any of them. how is anyone looking at these things going to tell what the heck is going on?
969 2012-01-31 15:51:01 <gmaxwell> Oh you're talking about the input script? Thats just 'opaque' because block explorer isn't bothering to decode it.
970 2012-01-31 15:51:17 <sipa> dissipate_: they are perfectly clear to me :)
971 2012-01-31 15:51:36 <sipa> gmaxwell: no, what you see IS the decoded scriptSig
972 2012-01-31 15:52:55 <sipa> it contains two pushes, both of which are shown as hex
973 2012-01-31 15:54:37 datagutt_ is now known as datagutt
974 2012-01-31 15:54:40 <lianj> http://test.bitcoin.interesthings.de/script/f4267e963657e4f891acad0afa5d956d2e651091aaedbaa46d5b6879e9b14533:0 :)
975 2012-01-31 15:54:57 _W_ has joined
976 2012-01-31 15:55:53 <gmaxwell> dissipate_: in any case, it's no less clear than any random ordinary transaction you can pick. (e.g. https://blockexplorer.com/tx/edd34b56fa04c656b3a117a546ee8106a09a1e6ede4681ec377498522daa4ab0 )
977 2012-01-31 15:58:10 davex__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
978 2012-01-31 16:02:20 <lianj> hm, i would why bbe shows 6451042 OP_DROP though, i get 626f62 OP_DROP :|
979 2012-01-31 16:02:58 copumpkin has joined
980 2012-01-31 16:03:12 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: Page closed)
981 2012-01-31 16:03:26 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
982 2012-01-31 16:03:50 <lianj> [6451042].pack("I") => "bob\x00"; ["626f62"].pack("H*") => "bob"
983 2012-01-31 16:05:54 knotwork has joined
984 2012-01-31 16:08:07 <lianj> http://paste.pocoo.org/show/ZcC7zOvEAcNzIceAnQe6/
985 2012-01-31 16:15:08 JRWR has joined
986 2012-01-31 16:15:43 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
987 2012-01-31 16:16:32 JRWR has quit (Client Quit)
988 2012-01-31 16:16:57 JRWR has joined
989 2012-01-31 16:17:05 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
990 2012-01-31 16:18:39 torsthaldo has joined
991 2012-01-31 16:20:22 Graet has joined
992 2012-01-31 16:20:50 MobiusL has joined
993 2012-01-31 16:23:20 Guest32696 is now known as Nicksasa
994 2012-01-31 16:25:51 Cablesaurus has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
995 2012-01-31 16:26:33 knotwork has joined
996 2012-01-31 16:32:48 ThomasV has joined
997 2012-01-31 16:37:38 dissipate_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
998 2012-01-31 16:42:02 slush has joined
999 2012-01-31 16:43:10 danbri has joined
1000 2012-01-31 16:43:19 b4epoche has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
1001 2012-01-31 16:46:24 b4epoche has joined
1002 2012-01-31 16:46:38 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1003 2012-01-31 16:48:18 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1004 2012-01-31 16:50:29 pentarh has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1005 2012-01-31 16:58:34 sje has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1006 2012-01-31 16:59:39 poiuh has joined
1007 2012-01-31 17:04:17 Turingi has joined
1008 2012-01-31 17:05:05 MobiusL has joined
1009 2012-01-31 17:12:21 cdecker has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1010 2012-01-31 17:12:34 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1011 2012-01-31 17:12:48 sacarlson has joined
1012 2012-01-31 17:13:20 Nesetalis has quit (Quit: <+shponka> how does one scissor with four people <+shponka> hypercube tribadism)
1013 2012-01-31 17:14:37 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1014 2012-01-31 17:16:36 Clipse has quit (Quit: Clipse)
1015 2012-01-31 17:19:30 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1016 2012-01-31 17:19:30 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1017 2012-01-31 17:22:19 vigilyn2 has joined
1018 2012-01-31 17:22:58 Turing_i has joined
1019 2012-01-31 17:22:59 iocor has joined
1020 2012-01-31 17:23:05 JRWR has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1021 2012-01-31 17:23:11 dr_win_ has joined
1022 2012-01-31 17:24:24 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1023 2012-01-31 17:24:41 bobke_ has joined
1024 2012-01-31 17:24:50 gavinandresen has joined
1025 2012-01-31 17:24:51 JFK911_ has joined
1026 2012-01-31 17:24:56 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: what's the difference between Weak and Very weak? O.o
1027 2012-01-31 17:25:19 p0s- has joined
1028 2012-01-31 17:25:19 gmaxwell has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1029 2012-01-31 17:25:54 iocor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1030 2012-01-31 17:26:20 upb__ has joined
1031 2012-01-31 17:27:54 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1032 2012-01-31 17:28:10 pusle has joined
1033 2012-01-31 17:30:04 paul0_ has joined
1034 2012-01-31 17:30:29 Turing_i has quit (Changing host)
1035 2012-01-31 17:30:29 Turing_i has joined
1036 2012-01-31 17:30:30 gavinandresen has quit (Changing host)
1037 2012-01-31 17:30:30 gavinandresen has joined
1038 2012-01-31 17:30:32 p0s- has quit (Changing host)
1039 2012-01-31 17:30:32 p0s- has joined
1040 2012-01-31 17:30:51 BeTep has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1041 2012-01-31 17:30:51 mtve has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1042 2012-01-31 17:30:51 bitfoo has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1043 2012-01-31 17:30:51 wood has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1044 2012-01-31 17:30:51 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1045 2012-01-31 17:30:51 paul0 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1046 2012-01-31 17:30:51 dirus has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1047 2012-01-31 17:30:52 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1048 2012-01-31 17:30:52 p0s has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1049 2012-01-31 17:30:52 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1050 2012-01-31 17:30:52 nanotube has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1051 2012-01-31 17:30:52 dr_win has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1052 2012-01-31 17:30:52 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1053 2012-01-31 17:30:52 nameless has quit (!~root@mindjail.subluminal.net|Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1054 2012-01-31 17:30:52 jgarzik has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1055 2012-01-31 17:30:52 vigilyn has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1056 2012-01-31 17:30:52 BGL has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1057 2012-01-31 17:30:52 paul0_ is now known as paul0
1058 2012-01-31 17:30:52 wood has joined
1059 2012-01-31 17:30:52 gjs278 has joined
1060 2012-01-31 17:30:53 upb has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1061 2012-01-31 17:30:53 Turingi has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1062 2012-01-31 17:30:53 bobke has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1063 2012-01-31 17:30:53 JFK911 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1064 2012-01-31 17:30:53 therealnanotube has joined
1065 2012-01-31 17:30:59 therealnanotube has quit (Changing host)
1066 2012-01-31 17:30:59 therealnanotube has joined
1067 2012-01-31 17:31:01 bitfoo has joined
1068 2012-01-31 17:31:15 pickett has joined
1069 2012-01-31 17:31:23 paraipan has joined
1070 2012-01-31 17:31:57 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneWeirdzzzz
1071 2012-01-31 17:32:04 cdecker has joined
1072 2012-01-31 17:32:06 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1073 2012-01-31 17:32:34 weather has joined
1074 2012-01-31 17:32:56 gmaxwell has joined
1075 2012-01-31 17:33:57 BlueMatt has joined
1076 2012-01-31 17:35:21 nameless has joined
1077 2012-01-31 17:35:23 danbri has joined
1078 2012-01-31 17:35:30 <ferroh> luke-jr: Similar to the difference between strong and very strong, I imagine.
1079 2012-01-31 17:36:23 weather is now known as BeTep
1080 2012-01-31 17:36:43 <BlueMatt> what do people think of a prefix to be added to bip 16 to allow extensibility: any variables prefixed with req:... should be considered required and if the client does not understand them, the uri should be considered invalid
1081 2012-01-31 17:37:02 <BlueMatt> that way new incompatible variables can be added and old clients will handle them properly
1082 2012-01-31 17:37:11 <BlueMatt> additionally new variables can be added that arent required easily
1083 2012-01-31 17:37:50 <Eliel> BlueMatt: you mean bip 20/21 I hope.
1084 2012-01-31 17:37:57 dirus has joined
1085 2012-01-31 17:37:59 <BlueMatt> bip 21, sorry
1086 2012-01-31 17:38:33 jgarzik has joined
1087 2012-01-31 17:38:43 Diablo-D3 has joined
1088 2012-01-31 17:38:48 sacarlson has joined
1089 2012-01-31 17:38:54 <user__> luke-jr, devs prefer bip16 right? we have bip 16 and 17. miners wil choose one. so why people are so boring with you?
1090 2012-01-31 17:39:06 jgarzik is now known as Guest44100
1091 2012-01-31 17:39:13 <user__> it's democracy right?
1092 2012-01-31 17:39:15 <gavinandresen> I think I'd prefer something like: &mustuspport=exptime:sendto
1093 2012-01-31 17:39:38 <BlueMatt> ok, however you implement it, I was asking about the idea
1094 2012-01-31 17:39:43 <gavinandresen> I like the idea
1095 2012-01-31 17:40:01 <BlueMatt> then drop the version field (as its not implemented anywhere either)
1096 2012-01-31 17:40:35 <BlueMatt> also, that way support for mustsupport or req or whatever can be added to bitcoin-qt quickly before 0.6 and we dont have to worry about backward compat later (as much)
1097 2012-01-31 17:40:37 p0s- is now known as p0s
1098 2012-01-31 17:40:42 <justmoon> user__, no it's sonocracy - whoever cries loudest wins
1099 2012-01-31 17:41:00 Turing_i is now known as Turingi
1100 2012-01-31 17:41:31 bobke_ is now known as bobke
1101 2012-01-31 17:41:53 <Ukyo> My quick 2c from experience... in this sort of a project, you take those top few people, and let them make the decision, if one person of the few looses, then they need to deal with it
1102 2012-01-31 17:41:58 <ferroh> user__: Actually miners were supposed to vote by Feb 1 (tomorrow), and it looks like there will be no consensus vote, in which case the deadline is being pushed back I assume.
1103 2012-01-31 17:42:08 <user__> justmoon, no. miners wil just look what most devs say, and they prefer bip16
1104 2012-01-31 17:42:10 <Ukyo> thats how many versions of things are formed
1105 2012-01-31 17:42:47 p0s is now known as p0s-
1106 2012-01-31 17:43:12 <gavinandresen> RE: sonocracy: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62037.0
1107 2012-01-31 17:43:33 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1108 2012-01-31 17:43:37 <Ukyo> we are all adults, and while we may have disagreements, someone or some few have the make the ultimate decision for the project.
1109 2012-01-31 17:44:58 <Ukyo> we all want to see bitcoin succeed. It would be a shame to see top developers walk away, any of you/them because the feeling that of being right, and getting passed over
1110 2012-01-31 17:46:00 <user__> i think luke is wrng with his drama, but i think he was own to propose a bip that is not flaw
1111 2012-01-31 17:46:11 <user__> he has
1112 2012-01-31 17:46:16 <user__> own
1113 2012-01-31 17:46:24 <gavinandresen> .... watch the video if you haven't already....
1114 2012-01-31 17:46:42 <user__> and see what miners decide
1115 2012-01-31 17:46:48 <user__> but ok
1116 2012-01-31 17:46:56 <user__> just my opinion
1117 2012-01-31 17:47:05 ThomasV has joined
1118 2012-01-31 17:47:05 ThomasV has quit (Changing host)
1119 2012-01-31 17:47:05 ThomasV has joined
1120 2012-01-31 17:48:06 aCZ-[e] has joined
1121 2012-01-31 17:48:51 <user__> of course i think luke should rethink about his words when posting
1122 2012-01-31 17:50:50 upb__ is now known as upb
1123 2012-01-31 17:50:54 upb has quit (Changing host)
1124 2012-01-31 17:50:54 upb has joined
1125 2012-01-31 17:51:55 iocor has joined
1126 2012-01-31 17:57:04 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1127 2012-01-31 17:57:31 flok has joined
1128 2012-01-31 17:58:26 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: actually, Im not a big fan of mustsupport=a:1;b:2& because it means you now have a variable with multiple variables inside it, which makes it look odd...
1129 2012-01-31 18:01:38 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: ok, then mustsupport=foo&mustsupport=bar ....
1130 2012-01-31 18:02:11 <gavinandresen> (PHP will even put those into an array for you, if I recall correctly)
1131 2012-01-31 18:02:23 <gavinandresen> (which I probably don't)
1132 2012-01-31 18:03:07 <BlueMatt> who uses php to parse uris for bitcoin?
1133 2012-01-31 18:03:34 <BlueMatt> but then you get like mustsupport=foo:2&mustsupport=bar:1
1134 2012-01-31 18:03:42 <BlueMatt> and then you have two variables with the same key...
1135 2012-01-31 18:03:47 <BlueMatt> I dunno it just looks ugly to me
1136 2012-01-31 18:03:54 <gmaxwell> user__: the idea that its just up to the miners is somewhat wrongheaded. Some people have been promoting that idea, I wrote a counter to it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61922.msg723476#msg723476
1137 2012-01-31 18:04:07 <BlueMatt> anyone else have an opinion?
1138 2012-01-31 18:04:33 <BlueMatt> iirc, php has easy access to _GET["foo"]
1139 2012-01-31 18:04:50 <BlueMatt> not really _GET["mustsupport"]["bar"]
1140 2012-01-31 18:04:56 <BlueMatt> I dont think the second is valid
1141 2012-01-31 18:05:05 <BlueMatt> (Im assuming you are talking about webwallets here)
1142 2012-01-31 18:06:03 <BlueMatt> _GET["reqfoo"] works fine, as does _GET["foo"] and you can easily just do if isset(_GET["foo"]) foo = _GET["foo"]; else if isset(_GET["reqfoo"]) foo = _GET["reqfoo"]
1143 2012-01-31 18:06:47 <justmoon> gavinandresen, php will only put it in an array if you send this: mustsupport[]=foo&mustsupport[]=bar
1144 2012-01-31 18:07:05 <justmoon> with what you posted, php will give you $_GET['mustsupport'] == 'bar'
1145 2012-01-31 18:07:05 <gavinandresen> justmoon: ah, thanks, I knew I was forgetting something
1146 2012-01-31 18:07:26 * justmoon feels more ashamed than anything that he knows php
1147 2012-01-31 18:07:38 <justmoon> ;)
1148 2012-01-31 18:08:00 <BlueMatt> same here
1149 2012-01-31 18:08:14 <BlueMatt> (luckily I dont know it as well as you ;) )
1150 2012-01-31 18:08:48 <Eliel> it works, as long as you don't want to do anything too fancy (in conceptual terms) :)
1151 2012-01-31 18:09:04 pingdrive has joined
1152 2012-01-31 18:09:23 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: so: I have a strong opinion that the term "required" is the wrong word to use, and I have the feeling that prefixing the name is the wrong way to express that meta-information, but I don't have a strong opinion about what the right way is.
1153 2012-01-31 18:09:55 <BlueMatt> mmm, fair enough
1154 2012-01-31 18:10:10 <BlueMatt> who actually has serious enough experience to comment on what the right way is?
1155 2012-01-31 18:10:19 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: If pushed, I'd vote to leave the URI scheme as is and when we need versioning then do... something.
1156 2012-01-31 18:10:35 <BlueMatt> that just sounds ugly...
1157 2012-01-31 18:11:07 <gavinandresen> (but the thinking-about-the-future argument does make sense. Kind of too late now, though, we've been shipping a bitcoin with the old URI scheme for a few months....)
1158 2012-01-31 18:11:23 <Ukyo> gavinandresen: yes. php will take the uri and make an array for ppl who wish to use it
1159 2012-01-31 18:12:00 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: yea, hence the backward compat section I just wrote: "As this BIP is written, several clients already implement a bitcoin: URI scheme similar to this one, however usually without the additional "req" prefix requirement. Thus, it is recommended that additional variables prefixed with req not be used in a mission-critical way until a grace period of 6 months from the finalization of this BIP has passed in order to allow client dev
1160 2012-01-31 18:12:01 <BlueMatt> elopers to release new versions, and users of old clients to upgrade."
1161 2012-01-31 18:12:24 <BlueMatt> s/req/whatever way we do it/
1162 2012-01-31 18:13:38 Clipse has joined
1163 2012-01-31 18:14:08 <BlueMatt> what about ?mustimplement:variable=data
1164 2012-01-31 18:14:12 <BlueMatt> is that valid uri?
1165 2012-01-31 18:14:31 <BlueMatt> then you can still get _GET["mustimplement:variable"] or _GET["variable"]
1166 2012-01-31 18:14:46 <BlueMatt> so its still split nicely by uri/l libraries
1167 2012-01-31 18:16:16 <Eliel> BlueMatt: how about just design a completely new version that will use different uri prefix? The current one is "bitcoin:". the new one could be a little different. For example "btc:"
1168 2012-01-31 18:16:41 Lolcust has joined
1169 2012-01-31 18:16:50 <BlueMatt> Eliel: you mean instead of a 6 month grace period
1170 2012-01-31 18:16:55 <Eliel> yes
1171 2012-01-31 18:17:04 <BlueMatt> Eliel: well I have yet to see bitcoin: uris anywhere but one site so I think we are safe enough
1172 2012-01-31 18:17:16 <BlueMatt> that clients will upgrade before its really used
1173 2012-01-31 18:19:00 <helo> what bip is this?
1174 2012-01-31 18:19:19 <Eliel> 21
1175 2012-01-31 18:19:36 gp5st has left ()
1176 2012-01-31 18:20:47 <Ukyo> we could just skip to 42...
1177 2012-01-31 18:20:51 <Ukyo> its the answer to everything :P
1178 2012-01-31 18:21:12 <Ukyo> just make sure you have your towel when its time.
1179 2012-01-31 18:22:04 booo has joined
1180 2012-01-31 18:22:22 <BlueMatt> ok, so I went ahead and did the mustimplement: prefix (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021 ) yea its not ideal, but imho its a pretty simple solution to give use nice forward compat
1181 2012-01-31 18:22:48 <BlueMatt> yea, its not an ideal method, but I cant think of a better way so thats what I think should go in bip 21
1182 2012-01-31 18:26:21 flok has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1183 2012-01-31 18:28:05 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1184 2012-01-31 18:29:43 <BlueMatt> ok, mail about bip 21 sent to mailing list. quoting: "I want to keep the list of
1185 2012-01-31 18:29:44 <BlueMatt> changes from the Bitcoin-Qt implementation to this BIP very, very minimal this late the 0.6 release cycle (I want to get this BIP
1186 2012-01-31 18:29:44 <BlueMatt> finalized and implemented for 0.6, so that at least Bitcoin-Qt will have no version which support OS URI opening with a broken implementation)."
1187 2012-01-31 18:30:32 <BlueMatt> in other words, better solutions/suggestions would be very, very much appreciated very quickly so that I can write a pull request in the next couple days and have bip 21 finalized before bitcoin-qt 0.6 goes on lockdown for 0.6
1188 2012-01-31 18:30:40 <BlueMatt> s/on lockdown/on rc lockdown/
1189 2012-01-31 18:31:16 pingdrive has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1190 2012-01-31 18:37:03 flok has joined
1191 2012-01-31 18:38:36 nullrouten has left ()
1192 2012-01-31 18:41:44 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1193 2012-01-31 18:41:53 JFK911_ is now known as JFK911
1194 2012-01-31 18:44:48 * BlueMatt -> class, please read and comment on the update bip 21 ;)
1195 2012-01-31 18:44:55 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1196 2012-01-31 18:45:25 <torsthaldo> Regarding BIP 0021 / URIs: please specify behaviour for cases where comma is used as the radix point
1197 2012-01-31 18:48:14 <gmaxwell> I think strings with commas in them should be rejected. (sorry for the i18n insensitivity, but attemping to handle them is highly dangerous)
1198 2012-01-31 18:48:52 <tcatm> torsthaldo: undefined ;)
1199 2012-01-31 18:50:10 * luke-jr notes Gavin decided a long time ago that only "." is valid in BTC
1200 2012-01-31 18:52:08 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1201 2012-01-31 18:53:50 sacredchao has joined
1202 2012-01-31 18:53:53 <torsthaldo> okok :)
1203 2012-01-31 18:57:20 BlueMatt-mobile has joined
1204 2012-01-31 18:57:51 <torsthaldo> Testing in bitcoin-qt (0.5.0.1): when I paste "5,77" as the amount I want to send, this gets parsed by the client as "577.00000000".
1205 2012-01-31 18:58:21 <torsthaldo> This behaviour seems potentially very dangerous.
1206 2012-01-31 18:58:30 <torsthaldo> Has this been fixed?
1207 2012-01-31 18:58:57 vigilyn2 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1208 2012-01-31 18:58:57 BlueMatt-mobile has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1209 2012-01-31 18:59:22 <Diablo-D3> torsthaldo: uh, seeing as , is not a valid character in money, Im not sure how you'd think it could parse it any other way
1210 2012-01-31 18:59:41 <torsthaldo> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark#Countries_using_Arabic_numerals_with_decimal_comma
1211 2012-01-31 18:59:48 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: what happens if you put in 5q77? :)
1212 2012-01-31 18:59:55 BlueMatt-mobile has joined
1213 2012-01-31 18:59:58 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: isnt that some of luke's total shit?
1214 2012-01-31 19:00:01 <vsrinivas> gmaxwell: dangerous?
1215 2012-01-31 19:00:01 <gmaxwell> !
1216 2012-01-31 19:00:09 <gmaxwell> vsrinivas: see torsthaldo's comment.
1217 2012-01-31 19:00:24 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: no, follow the wikipedia link you narrowminded american! :)
1218 2012-01-31 19:00:30 <BlueMatt-mobile> Iirc bitcoin-qt handles commas in uris the same way as in other send dialogs
1219 2012-01-31 19:00:35 <torsthaldo> Well, in this case the recipient would recieve a much larger amount than I intended to send.
1220 2012-01-31 19:00:38 <BlueMatt-mobile> What that is, i dont remember
1221 2012-01-31 19:00:44 <vsrinivas> that's just a bug, no?; is there anything basically dangerous about them?
1222 2012-01-31 19:00:45 <Diablo-D3> until OPEC uses commas, I have no reason to switch.
1223 2012-01-31 19:00:58 <gmaxwell> vsrinivas: hows that a bug? thats a correct parse of US style money moneys.
1224 2012-01-31 19:01:14 <Diablo-D3> wait wait wait
1225 2012-01-31 19:01:16 <gmaxwell> Putting the thousands seperator in odd places is normally supported.
1226 2012-01-31 19:01:16 <Diablo-D3> rewind a bit
1227 2012-01-31 19:01:21 <Diablo-D3> torsthaldo: what is your locale set to?
1228 2012-01-31 19:01:33 <vsrinivas> gmaxwell: LC_* exists for this, no?
1229 2012-01-31 19:01:38 <BlueMatt-mobile> The problem with commas in uris is its written by someone whos locale you dont know
1230 2012-01-31 19:01:38 <Diablo-D3> QT may actually convert it properly if your locale is set right
1231 2012-01-31 19:01:56 <Diablo-D3> BlueMatt-mobile: except uris should NOT be human readable.
1232 2012-01-31 19:01:59 <gmaxwell> vsrinivas: Yes, no go back to what we were talking about. A URL that a _SITE_ gives you. How does a site reliably know your locale?
1233 2012-01-31 19:02:06 <Diablo-D3> which is a programming bug.
1234 2012-01-31 19:02:06 <BlueMatt-mobile> And you cant parse with your locale
1235 2012-01-31 19:02:20 <Diablo-D3> this is one of those times where "its a floating point number you dick" is correct behavior
1236 2012-01-31 19:02:23 <BlueMatt-mobile> Diablo-D3 yep hance they should be ignored
1237 2012-01-31 19:02:24 <BlueMatt-mobile> Imho
1238 2012-01-31 19:02:45 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: except it's not a (binary) floating point number. It's a bitcoin amount. :-/
1239 2012-01-31 19:03:00 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: yes, and its a computer use number not a huamn use number
1240 2012-01-31 19:03:05 <Diablo-D3> computers use dots in ALL locales
1241 2012-01-31 19:03:24 <BlueMatt-mobile> Ill add that to the spec after class
1242 2012-01-31 19:03:26 <Diablo-D3> silly humans and your "text"
1243 2012-01-31 19:03:42 * BlueMatt-mobile -> actually class...
1244 2012-01-31 19:03:49 BlueMatt-mobile has quit (Client Quit)
1245 2012-01-31 19:04:06 <Diablo-D3> dear lord, some countries use ` for money commas?
1246 2012-01-31 19:04:12 <Diablo-D3> what the fuck people, its a NUMBER
1247 2012-01-31 19:04:19 <Diablo-D3> its math!
1248 2012-01-31 19:04:29 <Diablo-D3> stop doing that!
1249 2012-01-31 19:04:59 <gmaxwell> In any case, since we don't know the locale in the URL we really need to force a particular behavior. The easiest way to do this is to reject any string with a comma anywhere in it.
1250 2012-01-31 19:05:00 <torsthaldo> When I manually enter the amount "5,77" it gets correctly interpreted as "5.77" this is the obviously intended, obviously correct, safe, sane behaviour.
1251 2012-01-31 19:05:20 <torsthaldo> Not so for copy and paste.
1252 2012-01-31 19:05:23 <Diablo-D3> torsthaldo: "wrong"
1253 2012-01-31 19:05:30 <poiuh> if you share a url with someone, they might have a totally different locale.. the string should be unambiguous
1254 2012-01-31 19:05:38 <Diablo-D3> torsthaldo: if your locale is set to a country that uses commas, then commas will be legit
1255 2012-01-31 19:06:25 <Diablo-D3> thus, if you enter 5,77 with a proper locale set, then it should infact work
1256 2012-01-31 19:06:45 <Diablo-D3> if it doesnt, then yes, its a bug
1257 2012-01-31 19:07:12 <torsthaldo> I'm getting inconsistent behaviour.
1258 2012-01-31 19:07:16 <Diablo-D3> no you're not
1259 2012-01-31 19:07:21 <Diablo-D3> you're giving it inconsistent behavior
1260 2012-01-31 19:07:38 <Diablo-D3> you're telling it you're EN_US but giving it arabic decimal seperators.
1261 2012-01-31 19:07:47 <torsthaldo> Well, right. I'm getting inconsistent results. ^^
1262 2012-01-31 19:07:57 <jrmithdobbs> that's consistent
1263 2012-01-31 19:08:08 <jrmithdobbs> there's no inconsistentancy
1264 2012-01-31 19:08:10 <Diablo-D3> lying to a computer and then bitching it didnt work is pebkac
1265 2012-01-31 19:08:25 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: no, Bitcoin-Qt (and wxBitcoin before it) intentionally ignore locales for BTC
1266 2012-01-31 19:08:25 sacarlson has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1267 2012-01-31 19:08:34 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: are you kidding me?
1268 2012-01-31 19:08:35 <Diablo-D3> thats a bug.
1269 2012-01-31 19:08:35 <luke-jr> no
1270 2012-01-31 19:08:40 <Diablo-D3> qt has a money text box type.
1271 2012-01-31 19:08:42 <luke-jr> Gavin decided only "." is legal for BTC
1272 2012-01-31 19:08:43 <jrmithdobbs> err, i thought the , thing got fixed?
1273 2012-01-31 19:08:52 <jrmithdobbs> really?
1274 2012-01-31 19:08:55 <jrmithdobbs> that's dumb.
1275 2012-01-31 19:08:56 <luke-jr> IIRC
1276 2012-01-31 19:08:57 <Diablo-D3> thats bullshit
1277 2012-01-31 19:09:00 <Diablo-D3> gavinandresen: fix this shit
1278 2012-01-31 19:09:00 <luke-jr> want me to dig out the log? :p
1279 2012-01-31 19:09:06 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: ^
1280 2012-01-31 19:09:08 <luke-jr> â¦
1281 2012-01-31 19:09:13 <luke-jr> I agree with Gavin's decision FWIW.
1282 2012-01-31 19:09:29 <gavinandresen> Bitcoin-Qt allows commas in the money amounts? Sounds like a bug.
1283 2012-01-31 19:09:29 <luke-jr> just because legacy currencies had this inconsistency doesn't mean Bitcoin should
1284 2012-01-31 19:09:31 <jrmithdobbs> of course you do, you're a xenophobe
1285 2012-01-31 19:09:32 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
1286 2012-01-31 19:09:41 <Diablo-D3> gavinandresen: no, Im saying its a bug if it doesnt on locales that have it set
1287 2012-01-31 19:09:56 <Diablo-D3> do not fuck with qt's input boxes.
1288 2012-01-31 19:10:07 <Diablo-D3> inconsistent behavior is bad.
1289 2012-01-31 19:10:27 <justmoon> I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Diablo-D3
1290 2012-01-31 19:10:34 <Diablo-D3> if you're a terrorist, and have your locale set to a terrorist country, then using a terrorist decimal seperator should be legal
1291 2012-01-31 19:10:37 <jrmithdobbs> justmoon: ya, in the same boat
1292 2012-01-31 19:10:39 <jrmithdobbs> heh
1293 2012-01-31 19:10:41 <justmoon> you will cause major havoc for german users if you don't understand comma entry
1294 2012-01-31 19:10:57 <Diablo-D3> justmoon: well, btc doesnt understand anything
1295 2012-01-31 19:11:02 <Diablo-D3> its all handled by qt.
1296 2012-01-31 19:11:07 <Diablo-D3> qt has a locale aware money text box
1297 2012-01-31 19:11:10 <gavinandresen> wxbitcoin used to allow commas in numbers entered, and that was changed to disallow anything but numbers and the decimal point.
1298 2012-01-31 19:11:10 nameless has quit (!~root@mindjail.subluminal.net|Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1299 2012-01-31 19:11:22 <helo> it would be nice if the UI handled conversion of the input value into a float according to the locale
1300 2012-01-31 19:11:22 <gmaxwell> justmoon: be mindful of the multiple discussions here, URL vs -qt.
1301 2012-01-31 19:11:39 <Diablo-D3> yeah, URLs _need_ to be computer input only
1302 2012-01-31 19:11:42 <justmoon> gmaxwell, yeah, I'm noticing I jumped into something I don't fully understand
1303 2012-01-31 19:11:45 <Diablo-D3> that can only ever be "its a floating point number"
1304 2012-01-31 19:11:46 <luke-jr> IMO, it should throw an error rather than just ignore the comma
1305 2012-01-31 19:11:52 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: well
1306 2012-01-31 19:11:56 <justmoon> I'm just saying that a german user should end up being able to use commas everywhere
1307 2012-01-31 19:11:58 <Diablo-D3> it shouldnt even let you type it at that point
1308 2012-01-31 19:11:59 <gmaxwell> helo: careful bitcoin values are not 'float'.
1309 2012-01-31 19:12:02 <justmoon> otherwise you have a major usability issue
1310 2012-01-31 19:12:15 <Diablo-D3> but yes, this is the problem
1311 2012-01-31 19:12:25 <Diablo-D3> you use a locale aware toolkit, then thats it, your choice is made for you
1312 2012-01-31 19:12:27 <helo> yeah... well conversion into some unambiguous value, at least
1313 2012-01-31 19:12:30 <gmaxwell> justmoon: not in URLs because one user can be german the other american.
1314 2012-01-31 19:12:32 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: that's a broken change
1315 2012-01-31 19:12:41 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: woah woah woah
1316 2012-01-31 19:12:42 <Diablo-D3> dude
1317 2012-01-31 19:12:46 <Diablo-D3> URLs are not for people
1318 2012-01-31 19:12:48 <vsrinivas> what was the rationale?
1319 2012-01-31 19:12:49 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt matter what a user is
1320 2012-01-31 19:12:53 <Diablo-D3> the URLs arent for them
1321 2012-01-31 19:12:57 <justmoon> gmaxwell, yeah, urls should be always dot
1322 2012-01-31 19:13:08 <Diablo-D3> computer math only has one form: period, not comma.
1323 2012-01-31 19:13:09 <gmaxwell> vsrinivas: it was aceepting it everywhere so transfer 1,000 BTC was transfering 1.
1324 2012-01-31 19:13:16 <gmaxwell> (even for US locale users)
1325 2012-01-31 19:13:19 <vsrinivas> oh heh!
1326 2012-01-31 19:13:23 <Diablo-D3> yeah thats broken
1327 2012-01-31 19:13:32 <Moron__> why not do away with the point all together
1328 2012-01-31 19:13:35 rdponticelli has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1329 2012-01-31 19:13:35 <Moron__> why not have two values
1330 2012-01-31 19:13:47 <Moron__> ie... 5 BTC 1438000 satoshis
1331 2012-01-31 19:13:49 <gmaxwell> Moron__: I know, we could use tonal!
1332 2012-01-31 19:14:06 <Diablo-D3> FUCK TONAL
1333 2012-01-31 19:14:19 * helo starts pumping tonal rigorously
1334 2012-01-31 19:14:22 <gmaxwell> Numers are hard. Lets replace it with a slider and a face that gets happier the further you turn the knob.
1335 2012-01-31 19:14:31 <Diablo-D3> goddamn fucking catholic choir boy raping nigger owning white trash!
1336 2012-01-31 19:14:34 <gmaxwell> er. s/Numers/Numbers/
1337 2012-01-31 19:15:17 <gavinandresen> FYI everybody: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62068 Testnet chain split scheduled for Feb 15
1338 2012-01-31 19:15:28 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: 0_o do you need a bib for that foam?
1339 2012-01-31 19:15:49 nameless has joined
1340 2012-01-31 19:15:51 <Diablo-D3> I forgot "prostitute raping"
1341 2012-01-31 19:16:15 <Moron__> prostitutes are ok.. leave our choir boys alone :P
1342 2012-01-31 19:16:36 diki has joined
1343 2012-01-31 19:17:09 rdponticelli has joined
1344 2012-01-31 19:17:38 <Moron__> anyway, maybe its time to start using BTC, mBTC, uBTC, satotishis rather than decimal points
1345 2012-01-31 19:17:47 <Moron__> because points insinuate floating point accuracy
1346 2012-01-31 19:18:08 <gavinandresen> gee, if only there was a pull-down menu in the GUI to select the units.....
1347 2012-01-31 19:18:36 TD has joined
1348 2012-01-31 19:18:54 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: just type µ if you want microbtc. Easy.
1349 2012-01-31 19:19:03 <helo> does testnet have consistent hashrate now?
1350 2012-01-31 19:19:22 <gmaxwell> hah. No.
1351 2012-01-31 19:19:25 <gavinandresen> helo: it will have a minimum block creation rate after Feb 15
1352 2012-01-31 19:19:55 * gmaxwell writes a patch to only mine when diff 1 blocks will be accepted.
1353 2012-01-31 19:19:59 <gavinandresen> helo: ... at least 1 block every 20 minutes, assuming somebody is mining with more than a pocket calculator
1354 2012-01-31 19:20:41 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: you trying to be the Testnet Bitcoin Billionaire?
1355 2012-01-31 19:20:52 <Diablo-D3> lol
1356 2012-01-31 19:20:59 <Diablo-D3> ALLLLLLLL THE TESTCOINS
1357 2012-01-31 19:21:03 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1358 2012-01-31 19:22:05 * Graet sets up pocket calculator to mine on
1359 2012-01-31 19:22:39 <Graet> ooh but maybe...the nvidia could finally have a use?
1360 2012-01-31 19:22:45 d4de has joined
1361 2012-01-31 19:23:44 <vsrinivas> anyway. i actually came here for a reason;; while tracing bitcoind's startup on DFly, in a single cycle of 'start bitcoind, answer one getinfo, stop', there were 123,398 read() syscalls, of which 93,000 or so were one page only.
1362 2012-01-31 19:24:31 Joric has joined
1363 2012-01-31 19:24:35 <torsthaldo> Should I file a ticket / bugreport?
1364 2012-01-31 19:24:40 <vsrinivas> the vast majority of those are on the db* files; why page at a time?
1365 2012-01-31 19:24:45 <gmaxwell> vsrinivas: you should see a blockchain sync.. like 23 GiB of one page ish random writes!
1366 2012-01-31 19:24:57 <gmaxwell> vsrinivas: btree lookups, I assume.
1367 2012-01-31 19:25:23 <luke-jr> torsthaldo: you can, but I wouldn't expect comma to be accepted as valid
1368 2012-01-31 19:25:29 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1369 2012-01-31 19:25:32 Lexa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1370 2012-01-31 19:25:39 <vsrinivas> ok, cheers; haven't looked at the read offsets, should do that. but booo, difficult to cluster_read() with page-at-a-time read()s.
1371 2012-01-31 19:25:55 sacarlson has joined
1372 2012-01-31 19:26:17 [eval] is now known as aakselrod
1373 2012-01-31 19:26:18 justmoon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1374 2012-01-31 19:26:34 <gmaxwell> vsrinivas: it would be helpful if you could track this back to the bitcoin code thats causing it. There may well be some really idiotic unneeded lookups.
1375 2012-01-31 19:26:54 <gmaxwell> vsrinivas: unfortunately I haven't found a good way to really profile IO activity back to the bitcoin code which is the root cause of it.
1376 2012-01-31 19:27:19 <vsrinivas> no really great answer, unfortunately... if read()s could be tagged, that'd be great, but...
1377 2012-01-31 19:27:36 <vsrinivas> dtrace might be the right answer;;
1378 2012-01-31 19:27:54 <vsrinivas> also concerning -- 1/5th or so of all syscalls (~100k) were gettimeofday()...
1379 2012-01-31 19:28:08 <gmaxwell> At least gettimeofday should be fast. :)
1380 2012-01-31 19:28:39 <luke-jr> I'd think it's possible to have gdb break on read()
1381 2012-01-31 19:28:46 <Diablo-D3> heh
1382 2012-01-31 19:28:51 Lexa has joined
1383 2012-01-31 19:28:57 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yea, but thats myopic. You can do that 100 times and they all look boring.
1384 2012-01-31 19:29:15 <luke-jr> automate it to dump a backtrace every read() and then count them? :p
1385 2012-01-31 19:29:26 <gmaxwell> I want that 100 million times and then a histogram of the backtrace signatures.
1386 2012-01-31 19:29:30 <gmaxwell> right.
1387 2012-01-31 19:29:38 <torsthaldo> luke-jr: I want bitcoin-qt to throw an error, and NOT transfer sums that are off by the same number of order of magnitude as the number of digits behind the radix point.
1388 2012-01-31 19:29:49 <gmaxwell> oprofile is supposted to be able to do this, but I couldn't get it to work right for it.
1389 2012-01-31 19:30:29 aakselrod is now known as [eval]
1390 2012-01-31 19:30:30 <torsthaldo> (which seems to me to be the current behaviour.)
1391 2012-01-31 19:30:48 <luke-jr> torsthaldo: sounds reasonable
1392 2012-01-31 19:31:10 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I think gdb has some kind of weird Python scripting now
1393 2012-01-31 19:31:26 mtve has joined
1394 2012-01-31 19:31:34 <torsthaldo> say, if I blindly copied some requested amount of an email, and
1395 2012-01-31 19:31:47 <gmaxwell> It does. I've played with it a bit. It would also be possible to create and LDPRELOAD that dumps a backtrace everytime read gets hit.
1396 2012-01-31 19:32:10 <gmaxwell> That would likely be much faster than GDB.
1397 2012-01-31 19:32:13 <luke-jr> torsthaldo: OTOH, what if I put 100,000? That *is* 100000 for English-speaking people
1398 2012-01-31 19:32:29 <luke-jr> torsthaldo: so it might not be completely straightforward
1399 2012-01-31 19:32:34 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: rejecting that at least wouldn't make your day suck.
1400 2012-01-31 19:32:45 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: true, but I bet someone would report that as a bug ;)
1401 2012-01-31 19:33:06 <gmaxwell> people report the direction their toilet watter swirls as a bug.
1402 2012-01-31 19:33:21 <gmaxwell> If the rejection message is helpful it would be minimally harmful. :)
1403 2012-01-31 19:33:46 <luke-jr> good idea
1404 2012-01-31 19:34:28 <luke-jr> actually, Diablo-D3's "just don't let them enter a comma in the first place" is probably best
1405 2012-01-31 19:34:37 <luke-jr> I'd think people would notice that
1406 2012-01-31 19:34:38 <luke-jr> maybe
1407 2012-01-31 19:35:02 <gmaxwell> er.. I don't.
1408 2012-01-31 19:36:29 <Diablo-D3> I said that as a joke.
1409 2012-01-31 19:36:44 <Diablo-D3> qt has locale aware textboxes, we need to use them
1410 2012-01-31 19:37:59 <Ukyo> gavinandresen: hmm, i might have to point 10ghash at testnet to showup gmaxwell :P
1411 2012-01-31 19:38:07 <Ukyo> its all about the testnet e-pen :P
1412 2012-01-31 19:38:36 <gavinandresen> As long as y'all put transactions in your testnet blocks you can play all you like....
1413 2012-01-31 19:38:45 <Ukyo> hehehe
1414 2012-01-31 19:38:46 <gavinandresen> ... although I'd prefer if you waited until after Feb 15
1415 2012-01-31 19:40:32 devrandom has joined
1416 2012-01-31 19:41:00 larsivi has joined
1417 2012-01-31 19:44:01 wasabi1 is now known as wasabii
1418 2012-01-31 19:44:18 wasabii is now known as wasabi2
1419 2012-01-31 19:45:50 wasabi2 has quit (Changing host)
1420 2012-01-31 19:45:50 wasabi2 has joined
1421 2012-01-31 19:52:54 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1422 2012-01-31 19:54:01 Joric has quit (Quit: Joric)
1423 2012-01-31 19:59:36 d4de has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1424 2012-01-31 20:01:05 genjix has joined
1425 2012-01-31 20:01:19 genjix has left ()
1426 2012-01-31 20:01:26 therealnanotube is now known as nanotube
1427 2012-01-31 20:06:42 genjix has joined
1428 2012-01-31 20:07:12 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1429 2012-01-31 20:13:34 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1430 2012-01-31 20:13:42 sacredchao has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1431 2012-01-31 20:14:21 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1432 2012-01-31 20:14:21 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1433 2012-01-31 20:16:58 d4de has joined
1434 2012-01-31 20:20:54 devrandom has joined
1435 2012-01-31 20:20:54 pickett has joined
1436 2012-01-31 20:21:03 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1437 2012-01-31 20:21:51 paraipan has joined
1438 2012-01-31 20:24:48 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1439 2012-01-31 20:25:17 RazielZ has joined
1440 2012-01-31 20:25:23 <diki> genjix:Nice explanation btw in that article
1441 2012-01-31 20:25:50 ovidiusoft has joined
1442 2012-01-31 20:26:01 Lexa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1443 2012-01-31 20:27:14 <sipa> meeting in 40 minutes?
1444 2012-01-31 20:27:39 sacredchao has joined
1445 2012-01-31 20:33:05 Lexa has joined
1446 2012-01-31 20:43:19 <gmaxwell> "
1447 2012-01-31 20:43:26 <gmaxwell> For instance a regulator and the company they are overseeing, should not have a cordial relationship. Or upstream and downstream if they are functioning properly will have a contentious relationship"
1448 2012-01-31 20:43:46 <TuxBlackEdo> ;;bc,tslb
1449 2012-01-31 20:43:47 <gribble> Time since last block: 5 minutes and 8 seconds
1450 2012-01-31 20:43:47 <gmaxwell> Is that why genjix is promoting dispute? Because he thinks it is somehow fundimentally healthy?
1451 2012-01-31 20:43:50 <gmaxwell> :(
1452 2012-01-31 20:44:07 <TuxBlackEdo> i thought it was spelled "fundementally"
1453 2012-01-31 20:44:19 <TuxBlackEdo> actually
1454 2012-01-31 20:44:22 <TuxBlackEdo> i was wrong
1455 2012-01-31 20:44:22 <sipa> not fundamentally?
1456 2012-01-31 20:44:26 <genjix> thanks diki
1457 2012-01-31 20:44:29 <TuxBlackEdo> yep sipa
1458 2012-01-31 20:44:56 <genjix> sipa: yep
1459 2012-01-31 20:45:19 <sipa> etotheipi_: you have some testcases for your determinstic wallets? i'm implementing them in the satoshi client, so preferrably they are compatible
1460 2012-01-31 20:45:47 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: where is the spec for the exact scheme you ended up using? I know I've seen it before.
1461 2012-01-31 20:46:26 <sipa> gmaxwell: privkey[n+1] = (Hash(pubkey[n]) XOR chaincode) * privkey[n]
1462 2012-01-31 20:46:45 <genjix> gmaxwell: yep
1463 2012-01-31 20:46:50 <genjix> like in science
1464 2012-01-31 20:47:14 <sipa> genjix: huh?
1465 2012-01-31 20:47:26 <genjix> i love that attitude where a scientist is proven wrong, and then admits he is wrong after seeing the facts
1466 2012-01-31 20:47:38 <genjix> you never see that in any other field or politics .etc
1467 2012-01-31 20:47:46 <gmaxwell> genjix: science is not an _adversarial_ process.
1468 2012-01-31 20:48:00 <genjix> in some cases it is
1469 2012-01-31 20:48:01 <helo> or in wives
1470 2012-01-31 20:48:03 <sipa> it looks a lot more like politics than science here
1471 2012-01-31 20:48:10 <gmaxwell> genjix: Which journals have you been published in?
1472 2012-01-31 20:48:19 <genjix> for instance gould and dawkins had an adversial relationship
1473 2012-01-31 20:48:54 <genjix> ok, i'm not participating in this drama now if you're going to spew ad homineum arguments
1474 2012-01-31 20:49:01 <sipa> gmaxwell: by the way, gavin came up with the idea for bip16
1475 2012-01-31 20:49:06 <gmaxwell> genjix: things like that are generally the exception,â and where they exist it's because of deep reasons. Adversarial relationships are very costly.
1476 2012-01-31 20:49:46 <genjix> but sometimes seeing their existence is a sign of a healthy system that is functioning
1477 2012-01-31 20:50:02 <gmaxwell> genjix: You're making claims in an area where you don't have expirence, call it an ad homineum for me to point it out if you like. But "this other thing does it" is an argument from authority, false authority absent relevent expirence.
1478 2012-01-31 20:50:09 <genjix> sure we should minimise them where possible, but noting their existence should not always be taken as a sign of a bad omen
1479 2012-01-31 20:50:29 <sipa> it looks to me that if luke hadn't disagreed with bip16, the entire process would have been a lot healthier
1480 2012-01-31 20:50:40 <gmaxwell> genjix: But we should also not manufacture themâ or fail to avoid them where they can be avoided.
1481 2012-01-31 20:50:42 <sipa> and by that i do not mean that luke's arguments are invalid or stupid
1482 2012-01-31 20:51:04 <sipa> i'm only talking about how the entire polarisation between the camps came to be
1483 2012-01-31 20:51:11 <genjix> yep, i think luke had some good points but i like theymos' proposal now the best
1484 2012-01-31 20:51:22 <sipa> well, those camps may be a lot smaller than they look
1485 2012-01-31 20:52:00 <gmaxwell> I think luke's table shows how small things are.
1486 2012-01-31 20:52:38 <genjix> i didnt see mike hearn on there
1487 2012-01-31 20:52:38 <genjix> nor me
1488 2012-01-31 20:53:07 * Eliel can't really see separate camps around here, just individuals.
1489 2012-01-31 20:53:14 <genjix> justmoon, slush, .etc
1490 2012-01-31 20:53:33 <gmaxwell> genjix: what about justmoon?
1491 2012-01-31 20:53:34 <genjix> Eliel: there are no camps, just varying ideas
1492 2012-01-31 20:53:49 <genjix> brb
1493 2012-01-31 20:54:52 * helo disagrees with the disagreement regarding the disagreement
1494 2012-01-31 20:54:55 p0s- is now known as p0s
1495 2012-01-31 20:55:46 p0s is now known as p0s-
1496 2012-01-31 20:55:53 p0s- is now known as p0s
1497 2012-01-31 20:56:13 BlueMatt has joined
1498 2012-01-31 20:56:17 flok has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1499 2012-01-31 20:57:22 flok has joined
1500 2012-01-31 20:57:35 gjs278 has joined
1501 2012-01-31 20:59:06 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: are you planning on pushing 0.6 to release before feb 15 then?
1502 2012-01-31 20:59:20 flok has left ()
1503 2012-01-31 21:00:23 <gmaxwell> Please push sometime a few weeks after so I can be a testnet billionare.
1504 2012-01-31 21:00:26 <gmaxwell> :)
1505 2012-01-31 21:00:36 RobinPKR has joined
1506 2012-01-31 21:00:43 <BlueMatt> heh
1507 2012-01-31 21:01:53 <genjix> vladimir will be the first bitcoin billionaire. he told me so
1508 2012-01-31 21:02:08 Vladimir has joined
1509 2012-01-31 21:02:31 <Vladimir> Hi All!
1510 2012-01-31 21:02:57 <genjix> so there's the -connect deadlock in net.cpp... i think it's a stupid rate limiter for each of the connections
1511 2012-01-31 21:03:06 <genjix> tell me it aint true!
1512 2012-01-31 21:03:23 <genjix> hello bitcoin billionaire
1513 2012-01-31 21:03:56 <edcba> ;;bc,mtgox
1514 2012-01-31 21:03:56 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":5.65,"low":5.426,"avg":5.523497739,"vwap":5.523378219,"vol":42536,"last_all":5.57,"last_local":5.57,"last":5.57,"buy":5.57,"sell":5.60998}}
1515 2012-01-31 21:03:59 <Vladimir> lol, one hundred more bitcoins and I am there...
1516 2012-01-31 21:04:10 p0s is now known as p0s-
1517 2012-01-31 21:04:25 <gmaxwell> Hm? the connect code doesn't take a lock.
1518 2012-01-31 21:04:29 <BlueMatt> genjix: "the connect deadlock"
1519 2012-01-31 21:04:31 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: just got back... yes, I'd like to have a 0.6 rc1 soon
1520 2012-01-31 21:04:32 <BlueMatt> which one?
1521 2012-01-31 21:04:37 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: :(
1522 2012-01-31 21:04:39 <genjix> and the reason i think it rate limits is to keep the connection count constant in a really crude way
1523 2012-01-31 21:04:56 <poiuh> instapay + early warning?
1524 2012-01-31 21:04:56 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: am I allowed to submit pull requests to match bip 21 during rc?
1525 2012-01-31 21:05:27 <BlueMatt> wumpus: why does bitcoin-qt reimplement ParseMoney from util.cpp?
1526 2012-01-31 21:05:30 <gmaxwell> genjix: By deadlock you don't actually mean a deadlock right? You mean that it's slow to connect or something like that?
1527 2012-01-31 21:05:40 <genjix> BlueMatt: "-connect" multi args
1528 2012-01-31 21:05:42 <BlueMatt> wumpus: (its much less confusing if its consistent)
1529 2012-01-31 21:06:46 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: sure, they should be low-risk
1530 2012-01-31 21:06:59 bitfoo has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
1531 2012-01-31 21:07:07 <genjix> it's on the hour at the hour
1532 2012-01-31 21:07:15 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: ok, good. yea thats what Im shooting for (ie just a consensus version of mustimplement essentially)
1533 2012-01-31 21:07:20 graingert has joined
1534 2012-01-31 21:07:21 <BlueMatt> genjix: what is?
1535 2012-01-31 21:07:24 <genjix> guess not many are here because it was so quick
1536 2012-01-31 21:07:34 <genjix> BlueMatt: for meeting
1537 2012-01-31 21:08:01 <gavinandresen> Semi-regular Tuesday at 21:00 UTC meeting.....
1538 2012-01-31 21:08:23 <BlueMatt> genjix: ok, now Im really confused. First of all what deadlock, and what are you talking about wrt -connect? Secondly, I thought the semi-regular meetings were at 2pm est?
1539 2012-01-31 21:08:29 <BlueMatt> (2 hours ago)
1540 2012-01-31 21:08:48 <BlueMatt> oh, I thought they used to be 19 UTC?
1541 2012-01-31 21:08:55 <genjix> ok ~1 hour ago, i was chatting with gavin on PM
1542 2012-01-31 21:09:25 <genjix> and he said a meeting is a good idea, and i agreed. the timing is a bit quick but whatever. so i messaged lots of people.
1543 2012-01-31 21:09:25 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56376.0 says 21:00 UTC
1544 2012-01-31 21:09:39 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: arg, why am I always off...anyway whatever
1545 2012-01-31 21:09:54 <genjix> about the deadlock. don't worry- it's not important right now
1546 2012-01-31 21:10:01 <genjix> i want to know about this BIP 21]
1547 2012-01-31 21:10:07 <BlueMatt> deadlocks are always very important
1548 2012-01-31 21:10:10 <genjix> how is that?
1549 2012-01-31 21:10:30 <gmaxwell> genjix: If there is a deadlock there it would be my biggest priority right now. A lot of people use connect on unattended nodes.
1550 2012-01-31 21:10:40 <genjix> you said you modified it? where? on the wiki?
1551 2012-01-31 21:10:49 <BlueMatt> yea, on the wiki
1552 2012-01-31 21:10:51 Ken` has joined
1553 2012-01-31 21:10:54 <genjix> ok
1554 2012-01-31 21:10:55 <BlueMatt> if you mean bip 21 - coming along nicely, I have like 2 changes to make and then Im waiting on more comments
1555 2012-01-31 21:11:00 <genjix> gmaxwell: sorry i mean spinlock
1556 2012-01-31 21:11:04 <BlueMatt> if you mean deadlock - thats a huge deal
1557 2012-01-31 21:11:24 <genjix> ok best give it to me though because the wiki is non-authoritative
1558 2012-01-31 21:11:34 <BlueMatt> oh, sorry didnt realize that
1559 2012-01-31 21:11:38 <gmaxwell> genjix: Whats the negative behavior you're (whoever?) experiencing?
1560 2012-01-31 21:11:41 <genjix> in fact i was thinking to setup a separate repo because people were changing my edits on there
1561 2012-01-31 21:11:52 <BlueMatt> genjix: one sec, let me make another few changes and Ill send you the diffs
1562 2012-01-31 21:12:10 <gavinandresen> genjix: is BIP 0001 clear on where editing should happen? I think BIP 16 has some minor edits, too
1563 2012-01-31 21:12:12 <genjix> ok
1564 2012-01-31 21:12:31 <genjix> no it isn't. but i was planning to move off the wiki anyway
1565 2012-01-31 21:12:50 <genjix> either that or protect every page
1566 2012-01-31 21:13:01 <tcatm> Git + pull requests for changes :)
1567 2012-01-31 21:13:11 <sipa> ok, so what is the meeting about?
1568 2012-01-31 21:13:28 <genjix> because it becomes a hassle to synchronise them. i'd rather have it auto-generated with a tool (hence choosing the mediawiki syntax for which many tools exist)
1569 2012-01-31 21:13:32 <gavinandresen> I'd like to talk about what to tell the miners who have already deployed BIP 16.
1570 2012-01-31 21:13:41 <gavinandresen> And talk about theymos' proposal for how to proceeed.
1571 2012-01-31 21:14:03 <genjix> ok my stance: i wasn't in strong favour of no change, BIP 16 or BIP 17.
1572 2012-01-31 21:14:09 <BlueMatt> I was under the impression btc-guild was going to implement bip 16 later today and then [Tycho] would do it thereafter as a result
1573 2012-01-31 21:14:11 <genjix> but i am in strong favour of theymos proposal
1574 2012-01-31 21:14:20 <BlueMatt> so then we get >50%
1575 2012-01-31 21:14:28 <genjix> i think it is a great idea.
1576 2012-01-31 21:14:30 <BlueMatt> link to theymos' proposal?
1577 2012-01-31 21:14:37 <gmaxwell> (sadily I think theymos is unavailable)
1578 2012-01-31 21:14:46 <genjix> BlueMatt: bitcoinmedia.com top article
1579 2012-01-31 21:15:00 <genjix> otherwise it's buried on the forums somewhere.
1580 2012-01-31 21:15:32 <gavinandresen> I strongly feel that we don't need more time to discuss/debate, that there is (and has been) rough consensus
1581 2012-01-31 21:17:12 <gavinandresen> I'd completely support theymos being a reality check on that, though.
1582 2012-01-31 21:17:22 <genjix> why not try theymos idea? :) it would be a good test case for a small thing to learn how to do this in the future.
1583 2012-01-31 21:17:41 <genjix> i called him 'organiser' there, but 'facilitator' is more accurate.
1584 2012-01-31 21:18:20 <gmaxwell> I believe that the most competent people are already burning out on this. Luke is saying that he's going to take a break. Gavin is clearly 'done' with the dispute.
1585 2012-01-31 21:20:49 <BlueMatt> Because I believe we are going to get >50% mining power on bip16 in the next few weeks, I say just continue by rolling a release candidate of 0.6 with bip16 set to start being enforced on March 1st
1586 2012-01-31 21:20:59 <BlueMatt> and then release when we hit 50%+
1587 2012-01-31 21:21:47 <BlueMatt> on an unrelated topic, wumpus said "I like the mustimplement: idea, though I'd recommend a shorter (abbreviated) prefix, to keep URL sizes small for QR codes and such", what do people think is short enough? like mustimpl or mustimp?
1588 2012-01-31 21:21:54 <genjix> that could work too. not against that
1589 2012-01-31 21:22:17 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: "must"? (note: I'm clueless and indifferent to url stuff, for the most part)
1590 2012-01-31 21:23:13 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: if a client sees a variable which is prefixed by mustimplement: and it doesnt know wtf it is, then it should consider the uri invalid and drop it
1591 2012-01-31 21:23:19 <BlueMatt> (optionally notifying the user)
1592 2012-01-31 21:23:40 <BlueMatt> this is designed to give space to improve while being able to tell clients that they really need to follow this or else
1593 2012-01-31 21:23:43 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: oh, I'm not that clueless. I meant how about "must" as the prefix.
1594 2012-01-31 21:23:50 <BlueMatt> oh just must
1595 2012-01-31 21:23:55 <BlueMatt> mmm, that works
1596 2012-01-31 21:24:06 <BlueMatt> I dont really care, Im just asking how short it actually needs to be
1597 2012-01-31 21:24:10 <genjix> future
1598 2012-01-31 21:24:50 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I just suggested must because it was the shortest comprehensable thing. failing that "m" or "r"(required).
1599 2012-01-31 21:25:06 <BlueMatt> I started with req, but gavin didnt like that
1600 2012-01-31 21:25:20 <pusle> gavinandresen: did your fuzzer cause the software to crash sometimes?
1601 2012-01-31 21:25:26 <gavinandresen> pusle: no
1602 2012-01-31 21:25:41 <pusle> okay, good :)
1603 2012-01-31 21:25:59 <genjix> gavinandresen: i hacked your fuzzer to generate blocks so you can build a fake tree
1604 2012-01-31 21:26:09 <gavinandresen> genjix: I saw that, very nice!
1605 2012-01-31 21:26:10 <genjix> then feed your clients the fake blocks
1606 2012-01-31 21:26:28 <genjix> ok cool. it is very crude but works for my purposes
1607 2012-01-31 21:26:36 <gavinandresen> genjix: gotta pull that into my branch. Actually, that's a good question for here: make the fuzzer a branch of bitcoin/bitcoin ?
1608 2012-01-31 21:26:49 b4epoche_ has joined
1609 2012-01-31 21:27:12 <genjix> well i have a bunch of tools but they depend on libbitcoin
1610 2012-01-31 21:27:30 <genjix> so not sure if you'd want those too (dump block, feed block over network) .etc
1611 2012-01-31 21:27:55 <BlueMatt> genjix: whats the official bip git repo?
1612 2012-01-31 21:27:58 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1613 2012-01-31 21:27:59 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1614 2012-01-31 21:28:18 <genjix> BlueMatt: github.com/genjix/bips
1615 2012-01-31 21:28:28 <gavinandresen> genjix: libbitcoin-based tools should live in the libbitcoin tree, I think-- I don't want to get bug reports for code I don't know how to fix
1616 2012-01-31 21:28:31 gjs278 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1617 2012-01-31 21:28:58 <genjix> ok, i could make a fuzzer-tools repo under my project on gitorious
1618 2012-01-31 21:29:39 <genjix> then we could put a link in the github bitcoin readme
1619 2012-01-31 21:29:56 <gavinandresen> We need a code librarian to keep track of what is where; I think mizerydearia was doing that for a while, but it is a thankless, never-ending task
1620 2012-01-31 21:30:02 gjs278 has joined
1621 2012-01-31 21:30:13 <genjix> ah that reminds me
1622 2012-01-31 21:30:29 <BlueMatt> genjix: https://github.com/genjix/bips/pull/1
1623 2012-01-31 21:30:30 <genjix> it would be really useful to have a list of all the groups and projects maintained somewhere
1624 2012-01-31 21:30:44 <genjix> thanks BlueMatt
1625 2012-01-31 21:31:06 <gavinandresen> Definitely. There's a bitcoin implementations page on the wiki, isn't there?
1626 2012-01-31 21:31:32 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: you are the only developer I'm aware of opposed to BIP 17
1627 2012-01-31 21:31:38 <genjix> yeah hmm
1628 2012-01-31 21:31:54 <gavinandresen> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Software#Bitcoin_clients_2
1629 2012-01-31 21:31:56 <genjix> i guess having emails too would be useful
1630 2012-01-31 21:32:31 <genjix> maybe an internal organisation/development wiki
1631 2012-01-31 21:32:50 <genjix> nah forget that idea actually
1632 2012-01-31 21:33:55 <genjix> but right now, it's like to contact various people involves a mixture of skype/irc/jabber/forum pms/email/mailing list
1633 2012-01-31 21:34:21 <gavinandresen> The only other cross-bitcoin-implementation burning issue I have right now is a change I pulled this morning to Testnet
1634 2012-01-31 21:34:55 <gavinandresen> ... which will very likely cause the testnet chain to split on Feb 15'th.
1635 2012-01-31 21:35:02 * sipa wonders again of @bitcoin.ord addresses are possible
1636 2012-01-31 21:35:05 <sipa> .org
1637 2012-01-31 21:35:11 BLZNGPNGN has joined
1638 2012-01-31 21:36:48 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: are you sure 0.6 will make it by feb 15?
1639 2012-01-31 21:36:56 <BlueMatt> even if we push rc1 tomorrow...
1640 2012-01-31 21:37:27 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: meh. Testnet chain split isn't the end of the world, by any stretch of the imagination.
1641 2012-01-31 21:37:38 marf_away has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
1642 2012-01-31 21:38:00 BLZNGPNGN has quit (2!~kvirc@S0106602ad0726c1f.vf.shawcable.net|Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1643 2012-01-31 21:38:14 <sipa> wait, how can you push an rc that will enable bip16 in the future, if you don't know it will be accepted?
1644 2012-01-31 21:38:32 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, so i realized yesterday that one way to reduce the chances of a sybil attack is to improve the code which does tx braodcasts
1645 2012-01-31 21:38:41 <gavinandresen> We won't release a final 0.6 until there's majority support.
1646 2012-01-31 21:38:49 <phantomcircuit> simply adding a random delay would prevent a tx boradcast storm
1647 2012-01-31 21:39:12 h4ckm3 has joined
1648 2012-01-31 21:39:15 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: talk to sipa and gmaxwell, I like to pretend I don't do networking.
1649 2012-01-31 21:39:24 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, lol
1650 2012-01-31 21:39:27 <phantomcircuit> ok
1651 2012-01-31 21:39:41 <phantomcircuit> tl;dr i can make bitcoin effectively sybil proof
1652 2012-01-31 21:40:00 <sipa> phantomcircuit: hmm, i don't see how that helps?
1653 2012-01-31 21:40:06 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I'm failing one of your BIP16 QA's right now because getmemorypool isn't giving me coinbase flags on git head w/ testnet.
1654 2012-01-31 21:40:28 <phantomcircuit> sipa, with each outbound connection you reduce (significantly) the odds that all connections are to the attacker
1655 2012-01-31 21:40:35 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: (I'm looking into it now..)
1656 2012-01-31 21:40:39 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: thanks for testing!
1657 2012-01-31 21:40:51 <phantomcircuit> if you receive a tx from someone you know you dont have to send it to them
1658 2012-01-31 21:41:10 <phantomcircuit> adding random delays will reduce the odds of simultaneous notification
1659 2012-01-31 21:41:15 <phantomcircuit> which actually is fairly common
1660 2012-01-31 21:41:31 <sipa> and what has simultaneous notification to do with sybil attacks?
1661 2012-01-31 21:41:50 <phantomcircuit> nothing it just makes increasing the number of connections expensive
1662 2012-01-31 21:42:10 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: yea, but unless we make upnp way more effective, it's expensive regardless. :(
1663 2012-01-31 21:42:19 Cablesaurus has joined
1664 2012-01-31 21:42:20 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
1665 2012-01-31 21:42:20 Cablesaurus has joined
1666 2012-01-31 21:42:28 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: I think connection roaming would help a lot wrt having more connections without using more sockets.
1667 2012-01-31 21:43:02 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: NEVERMIND. I apparently had an old testnet binary.
1668 2012-01-31 21:43:08 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: phew
1669 2012-01-31 21:43:24 PK has joined
1670 2012-01-31 21:43:28 <Eliel> a sybil attack relies on being able to effectively filter what data you get. I wonder if there's a way to make it impossible to pick and choose like that.
1671 2012-01-31 21:43:42 <BlueMatt> speaking of upnp, for the love of god can someone fix it?
1672 2012-01-31 21:43:54 <BlueMatt> its been known to be broken for a while
1673 2012-01-31 21:43:55 <BlueMatt> ...
1674 2012-01-31 21:44:01 <sipa> i wonder if a simple rule: every minute, disconnect from one outgoing peer; 50% that it is the most recently connected to, 25% the second most, 12.5% the third most, ...
1675 2012-01-31 21:44:07 <sipa> would help the network
1676 2012-01-31 21:44:07 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: aren't you the UPnP expert?
1677 2012-01-31 21:44:07 <BlueMatt> yea, yea I should, anyone else have time?
1678 2012-01-31 21:44:26 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: I wrote it originally, but pretty much havent touched it sense
1679 2012-01-31 21:44:27 <sipa> BlueMatt: everyone expects you to do that
1680 2012-01-31 21:44:31 <BlueMatt> s/sense/since/
1681 2012-01-31 21:44:37 <BlueMatt> :(
1682 2012-01-31 21:44:42 <sipa> gmaxwell, phantomcircuit: opinion? ^
1683 2012-01-31 21:44:50 <BlueMatt> arg, alright after I mail the next bip 21 mail
1684 2012-01-31 21:45:20 <gmaxwell> sipa: sorry testing.
1685 2012-01-31 21:45:27 <BlueMatt> sipa: re: disconnect, great idea, if reconnect had a better chance of doing the right thing...
1686 2012-01-31 21:45:38 <BlueMatt> still, I suppose it would help some
1687 2012-01-31 21:45:58 <gmaxwell> sipa: I'd prefer to always keep at least one peer which is "proven"
1688 2012-01-31 21:46:08 <BlueMatt> but I would like it more if there was logic that said "wow this guy has a chain much longer than anything ive seen, Im gonna keep him"
1689 2012-01-31 21:46:14 <BlueMatt> to figure out if you are under sybil
1690 2012-01-31 21:46:15 <gmaxwell> sipa: by proven I mean it told you about your current best chain.
1691 2012-01-31 21:46:23 <phantomcircuit> sipa, seems like a reasonable way to do it
1692 2012-01-31 21:46:32 <sipa> oh, and disabled during initial download
1693 2012-01-31 21:46:55 <BlueMatt> yea
1694 2012-01-31 21:47:43 <gmaxwell> sipa: basically I think we should take care that the roaming doesn't make your connectivity intermittent.
1695 2012-01-31 21:48:13 <gmaxwell> sipa: I also think it should roam by connecting first and then tossing an excess peer so if you spend 10 minutes getting a connection you're not down all that time.
1696 2012-01-31 21:48:22 <doublec> BlueMatt: do you have a link to the UPnP bug?
1697 2012-01-31 21:48:54 <gmaxwell> doublec: it's pretty straight forward. Pinholes time outâ and our UPNP is single shot.
1698 2012-01-31 21:48:59 <sipa> oh, maybe only disabled if you have let's say 6 or more outgoing connections
1699 2012-01-31 21:49:10 <sipa> *enabled
1700 2012-01-31 21:49:17 has quit (Clown|!~clown@static-87-79-93-140.netcologne.de|Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1701 2012-01-31 21:49:40 <gmaxwell> sipa: that falls out naturally if it works by killing an excess connection. :)
1702 2012-01-31 21:50:00 <BlueMatt> doublec: dont know if it was ever filed officially, but upnp times out and we dont refresh...problem is how often to refresh is very, very murky
1703 2012-01-31 21:50:16 <doublec> ah right
1704 2012-01-31 21:50:18 <BlueMatt> (so it needs some research into how eg utorrent does it)
1705 2012-01-31 21:50:32 <BlueMatt> iirc utorrent spent a lot of time examining this stuff
1706 2012-01-31 21:51:09 * sipa announces he has basic determinstic wallet support implemented
1707 2012-01-31 21:51:39 <BlueMatt> in bitcoin-qt?
1708 2012-01-31 21:51:43 <sipa> in bitcoind
1709 2012-01-31 21:51:53 <sipa> RPC only; i don't touch GUI code
1710 2012-01-31 21:52:01 * luke-jr hugs sipa.
1711 2012-01-31 21:52:04 <BlueMatt> nice
1712 2012-01-31 21:52:15 <BlueMatt> which method did you use?
1713 2012-01-31 21:52:23 <sipa> the same one ar armory
1714 2012-01-31 21:52:27 <sipa> so gmaxwell's type-2
1715 2012-01-31 21:52:29 <BlueMatt> which is?
1716 2012-01-31 21:52:43 <BlueMatt> ooo
1717 2012-01-31 21:52:44 <sipa> it supports watch-only wallets, though that is not implemented
1718 2012-01-31 21:52:51 <BlueMatt> nice
1719 2012-01-31 21:53:02 <BlueMatt> ok, thats really nice
1720 2012-01-31 21:54:02 <gavinandresen> now THAT needs a lot of testing....
1721 2012-01-31 21:54:42 <luke-jr> I'd be more concerned with checking its entropy handling than extensive testing tbh, though it depends on the implementation; but still a major step forward
1722 2012-01-31 21:54:56 <sipa> luke-jr: openssl's entropy pool
1723 2012-01-31 21:55:00 <sipa> like the rest of bitcoin
1724 2012-01-31 21:55:19 <luke-jr> sipa: yeah, but doesn't it do some magic seeding?
1725 2012-01-31 21:55:48 <sipa> no idea really
1726 2012-01-31 21:55:59 <luke-jr> >_<
1727 2012-01-31 21:56:10 <genjix> ok off. cya all.
1728 2012-01-31 21:56:13 genjix has quit (Quit: leaving)
1729 2012-01-31 21:57:16 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: okay, one more testcase down.
1730 2012-01-31 21:57:27 enquirer has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1731 2012-01-31 21:57:48 <gmaxwell> https://blockexplorer.com/testnet/block/00000000040367fcb750b6f064db6955b6c7c6218fb625e3dfed6b5c19c97107
1732 2012-01-31 21:57:58 garyrowe has joined
1733 2012-01-31 21:58:13 <sipa> hello gary
1734 2012-01-31 21:58:46 <garyrowe> hi there - first time on bitcoin IRC - shall lurk for a while
1735 2012-01-31 21:59:01 <sipa> welcome :)
1736 2012-01-31 21:59:18 <garyrowe> heard from genjix that there was a meeting but I guess I missed it
1737 2012-01-31 21:59:28 <BlueMatt> you didnt miss much
1738 2012-01-31 21:59:31 enquirer has joined
1739 2012-01-31 21:59:42 <Eliel> gmaxwell: mad fees there, what does that test?
1740 2012-01-31 21:59:44 <garyrowe> was it about BIP 21?
1741 2012-01-31 21:59:59 <BlueMatt> garyrowe: any comments on the latest version of bip 21 https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021
1742 2012-01-31 22:00:09 <BlueMatt> garyrowe: it was supposed to be about bip16/17
1743 2012-01-31 22:00:10 <tcatm> Are there any patches to discover peers via multicast? Maybe even using IPv6?
1744 2012-01-31 22:00:23 <BlueMatt> but it was like 5 lines on bip 16/17 and a few more on bip 21
1745 2012-01-31 22:00:26 <sipa> tcatm: not that i know of
1746 2012-01-31 22:00:31 <BlueMatt> not that anything major on bip 21 was decided either...
1747 2012-01-31 22:00:37 <garyrowe> bluematt - gimme a mo to take a look
1748 2012-01-31 22:01:39 <gmaxwell> Eliel: that the fees aren't being burned!
1749 2012-01-31 22:02:16 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1750 2012-01-31 22:02:30 <tcatm> sipa: What's the current status of IPv6 in bitcoin? (IIRC you were working on patches?)
1751 2012-01-31 22:04:00 <Eliel> gmaxwell: ah good to see they're not :)
1752 2012-01-31 22:04:49 <garyrowe> bluematt: just looked over the req: proposal (and the other bits and bobs) and it seems fine to me - it's a kludge but it's both readable and obvious which makes it a pragmatic solution
1753 2012-01-31 22:05:16 <BlueMatt> garyrowe: yea, its kinda ugly, but unless someone else comes up with a better idea, I think it should work pretty well
1754 2012-01-31 22:06:00 pusle has quit ()
1755 2012-01-31 22:06:14 <garyrowe> bluematt: was any decision made about BIP 16/17 - just curious since I prefer BIP 17
1756 2012-01-31 22:07:00 <sipa> tcatm: after addrman is merged, IPv6 should be quite close
1757 2012-01-31 22:07:00 <BlueMatt> garyrowe: there wasnt one really
1758 2012-01-31 22:07:01 <helo> is a "watching-only" wallet just a normal wallet with random bits written to the encrypted private key fields?
1759 2012-01-31 22:07:12 <sipa> helo: you could implement it that way, yes
1760 2012-01-31 22:07:17 <BlueMatt> garyrowe: though you can always check out the channel logs on the url in the topic
1761 2012-01-31 22:07:31 <garyrowe> bluematt: oh well - I'm just going to take a look at the channel logs to get myself up to speed... back in a mo
1762 2012-01-31 22:07:47 <tcatm> sipa: cool :)
1763 2012-01-31 22:07:55 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1764 2012-01-31 22:08:06 <sipa> tcatm: i already had a working ipv6 node in september, by the way
1765 2012-01-31 22:08:19 <helo> it would be nice if the client would know not to generate new keys if using a "watching-only" wallet... but that would remove some level of plausible deniability for key recovery under duress
1766 2012-01-31 22:10:26 agricocb has joined
1767 2012-01-31 22:10:27 <tcatm> I also wondered whether RPCs (or even a GUI feature) to list and maybe manually add peers would be useful. I often use a network with a restrictive firewall where finding peers is pretty hard.
1768 2012-01-31 22:10:50 <gmaxwell> tcatm: YES. But we could use a info call first.
1769 2012-01-31 22:10:56 <BlueMatt> addnode was redone, and as a part of that, gmaxwell suggested info call
1770 2012-01-31 22:11:00 <BlueMatt> damn, beat me to it
1771 2012-01-31 22:11:07 <BlueMatt> anyway, but that was never added
1772 2012-01-31 22:11:15 <gmaxwell> yea, I'm lazy. sorry.
1773 2012-01-31 22:11:25 <BlueMatt> heh, welcome to the club
1774 2012-01-31 22:12:03 <gmaxwell> Hey, I did post the IRC changes I have. But since IRC is massively unsexy no one will ever comment. :)
1775 2012-01-31 22:12:13 <tcatm> Well, info should be pretty easy to add.
1776 2012-01-31 22:12:16 <sipa> s/unsexy/volatile/
1777 2012-01-31 22:12:49 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
1778 2012-01-31 22:13:19 erle- has joined
1779 2012-01-31 22:13:55 <garyrowe> bluematt: back again - yeah I didn't miss much did I?
1780 2012-01-31 22:14:12 <BlueMatt> not really
1781 2012-01-31 22:14:31 <BlueMatt> most people are just really tired of talking about it
1782 2012-01-31 22:15:00 <garyrowe> yeah, I can see - these kind of issues sometimes arise and just need to be worked through
1783 2012-01-31 22:15:43 <garyrowe> I'm going to scuttle off now and get back to my MultiBit Merchant project - so much security...
1784 2012-01-31 22:15:43 <sipa> BlueMatt: care to implement a checkbox entry in bitcoin-qt's menu?
1785 2012-01-31 22:15:52 <garyrowe> bye all!
1786 2012-01-31 22:16:01 garyrowe has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1787 2012-01-31 22:16:21 <gmaxwell> sipa: A week or so ago I made some negative sound about scrypt because I was feeling that some of their choices (in particular the use of the salsa20 function) was kind of random.
1788 2012-01-31 22:16:35 <BlueMatt> sipa: you mean for det wallets?
1789 2012-01-31 22:16:37 <sipa> gmaxwell: i remember
1790 2012-01-31 22:16:38 <sipa> BlueMatt: yes
1791 2012-01-31 22:16:39 <gmaxwell> sipa: I went and reread the paper and I take it back.
1792 2012-01-31 22:16:44 osmosis has joined
1793 2012-01-31 22:17:01 <BlueMatt> sipa: first let me figure out how to fix the upnp crap
1794 2012-01-31 22:17:10 <sipa> BlueMatt: by all means, do that first :)
1795 2012-01-31 22:17:17 <BlueMatt> and if my laundry is still going when Im done with that, then probably
1796 2012-01-31 22:17:25 <BlueMatt> otherwise its back to google-interview-studying...
1797 2012-01-31 22:17:34 <sipa> gmaxwell: iirc they argue that the function doesn't really matter much\
1798 2012-01-31 22:17:34 <gmaxwell> (not that it matters, but I was incorrect for thinking thatâ the throughput of the internet computational part is important, and thats about its only important security property according to their proof, the fact that people are able to speed it up a bit isn't a big deal)
1799 2012-01-31 22:18:20 <gmaxwell> Yep.
1800 2012-01-31 22:22:04 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, sipa, http://bitcoinarmory.com/index.php/armory-wallet-files
1801 2012-01-31 22:22:12 <etotheipi_> but that doesn't include the determinism aspect
1802 2012-01-31 22:23:10 occulta has joined
1803 2012-01-31 22:23:24 <sipa> etotheipi_: can you let's say just give root key, chain code (in hex), and a list of the first keys generated using it?
1804 2012-01-31 22:23:50 <etotheipi_> that diagram represents Armory's wallet file version 1.35... I"m thinking of upgrading it for forwards compatibility
1805 2012-01-31 22:23:52 p0s- has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1806 2012-01-31 22:24:15 <etotheipi_> sipa, you're looking for a test case? I can give you an example testnet wallet
1807 2012-01-31 22:24:52 <etotheipi_> with a list of addr/keys
1808 2012-01-31 22:24:58 jondoe has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1809 2012-01-31 22:25:06 <sipa> etotheipi_: yes, i'd like to add a unit test that verifies amonst other things that the generated keys are identicial to your system
1810 2012-01-31 22:25:17 <etotheipi_> sure
1811 2012-01-31 22:26:27 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: seeing that page.. a simple RS code over bytes is pretty easy. Especially if you only need to implement encoding.
1812 2012-01-31 22:26:39 <etotheipi_> I'll be back in 10 minutes... I'll work on that shortly
1813 2012-01-31 22:27:09 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, RS still requires a separate library, and this is a particularly low-volatility storage medium
1814 2012-01-31 22:27:27 <etotheipi_> if HDD byte errors were more common, I'd consider doing it
1815 2012-01-31 22:27:37 <gmaxwell> I think the idea of storing the encrypted seed data on disk using FEC is super sexy.. though because of how disk falures happen... it's kind of a pain. (you'll always use a sector at a time)
1816 2012-01-31 22:27:46 <gmaxwell> s/use/lose/
1817 2012-01-31 22:28:06 <etotheipi_> what is FEC?
1818 2012-01-31 22:28:15 <gmaxwell> Forward error correction.
1819 2012-01-31 22:28:32 markus_w1nner is now known as markus_wanner
1820 2012-01-31 22:28:45 <gmaxwell> (any kind of scheme where you add data that allows the reciever to recover data in the face of errors)
1821 2012-01-31 22:30:01 <gmaxwell> Probably just better to simply repeat the critical data enough times to fill 8kb. 0_o :)
1822 2012-01-31 22:31:38 <sipa> don't hard drives already do error correction internally?
1823 2012-01-31 22:31:58 <vsrinivas> they do. but don't trust hard drives; they have non-zero misdirected read and write rates, for example.
1824 2012-01-31 22:32:11 <vsrinivas> and torn reads and writes do happen (incomplete)
1825 2012-01-31 22:33:07 <gmaxwell> sipa: and actually a lot of interesting errors happen on the unprotected bus to and from the drive..
1826 2012-01-31 22:33:13 <gmaxwell> or in unprotected memory on the drive.
1827 2012-01-31 22:33:35 <gmaxwell> I've certantly observed bitflips on stored media.
1828 2012-01-31 22:34:41 <gmaxwell> (and outright trashed sectors)
1829 2012-01-31 22:34:58 PK has quit (Quit: good night)
1830 2012-01-31 22:35:11 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, I did run into a flipped bit on my blockchain file once
1831 2012-01-31 22:35:27 <etotheipi_> 1.5 million transactions verified successfully, 1 failed
1832 2012-01-31 22:35:36 <etotheipi_> took me a couple hours to figure it out
1833 2012-01-31 22:36:09 <gmaxwell> We had one of those on irc a few weeks ago. Couldn't really convince him his system screwed up.
1834 2012-01-31 22:36:19 <etotheipi_> but that's kind of why I didn't adopt something like RS... the 4 bytes of checksum are plenty given the extremely rare occurance of a bitflip error
1835 2012-01-31 22:37:11 <etotheipi_> I decided simplicity was much more important than accommodating a situation I didn't think was possible
1836 2012-01-31 22:37:33 <gmaxwell> Yea, well, and as I saidâ if there is problems there is a good chance of a misdirected write or corruption that nails the whole sector.
1837 2012-01-31 22:37:37 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: any sane compiler will optimize out static const int hi = 5; if (hi == 5) this is removed;, correct?
1838 2012-01-31 22:37:40 slush has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1839 2012-01-31 22:38:23 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: As you presented that, yes. Sometimes its more subtle.
1840 2012-01-31 22:39:00 mizerydearia has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1841 2012-01-31 22:39:02 <gmaxwell> E.g. if you pass a pointer to the hi it can't. (const only means const through that reference)
1842 2012-01-31 22:39:07 <BlueMatt> in this case its not
1843 2012-01-31 22:39:17 <gmaxwell> Const is kind of a $@#$@ in C/C++ alas.
1844 2012-01-31 22:39:29 <BlueMatt> actually apparently not...
1845 2012-01-31 22:39:48 ThomasV has joined
1846 2012-01-31 22:40:01 <BlueMatt> wtf?
1847 2012-01-31 22:40:44 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, that's why you have paper backups ;)
1848 2012-01-31 22:41:17 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: It's true. But the cost of the machine writing out an extra sector or to is as close to zero as I could imagine.
1849 2012-01-31 22:41:22 <gmaxwell> And .. you know.. users.
1850 2012-01-31 22:42:10 <etotheipi_> well yes, but if you have a full sector hosed, you're probably losing the private key no matter how much RS you have
1851 2012-01-31 22:42:15 <gmaxwell> I assume because you cache the intermediate private keys the wallet file itself is already not super compact.
1852 2012-01-31 22:42:16 mizerydearia has joined
1853 2012-01-31 22:42:39 <etotheipi_> I never put anything into memory until it's written safely to disk
1854 2012-01-31 22:43:14 <etotheipi_> that's part of the reason my PyBtcWallet code is more complicated that you would think you need
1855 2012-01-31 22:43:32 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1856 2012-01-31 22:43:37 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: yea, forget RS. Simply repeat the seed block enough times to fill 8kb (two FS blocks). Encode it with a 64-128 bit capture string, and then a 32-64 bit checksum. Scan the file to capture, check the checksum. If it fails, keep scanning. :)
1857 2012-01-31 22:43:47 <etotheipi_> I batch all file writes/modifies into a buffer, and then write it to main wallet file, then to backup file.... *then* I let the user know the data is avail
1858 2012-01-31 22:43:55 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: tell me how the hell its not optimized out here: https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commit/544b6170ea0203a5aefd53f331abd95994c48e93
1859 2012-01-31 22:44:04 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: ah you have a backup file too?
1860 2012-01-31 22:44:23 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, yeah... it's a two-feet-on-the-floor approach
1861 2012-01-31 22:44:29 <sipa> BlueMatt: optimizing out happens after parsing
1862 2012-01-31 22:44:37 <sipa> and analysing
1863 2012-01-31 22:44:49 <sipa> so you can't call an unexisting function, even in dead code
1864 2012-01-31 22:44:54 <gmaxwell> hah
1865 2012-01-31 22:45:04 <BlueMatt> sipa: but we do elsewhere based on fHaveUPnP
1866 2012-01-31 22:45:06 <etotheipi_> write a flag file identifying I'm about to modify the main wallet file. modify it. delete the flag. a flag to identify you are about ot modify the backup file, then remove that flag
1867 2012-01-31 22:45:23 <BlueMatt> oh, nvm its blank...
1868 2012-01-31 22:45:24 <BlueMatt> damn
1869 2012-01-31 22:45:29 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: yea, so optimizations can never make a difference between syntantically correct and not-syntantically code. Thats forbidden.
1870 2012-01-31 22:45:29 <etotheipi_> no matter which nanosecond the power goes out, you know which file was being modified and potentially corrupt
1871 2012-01-31 22:45:57 <etotheipi_> and since the user never sees any data until all operations complete, it's always safe to restore from the older backup if the main file was corrupted
1872 2012-01-31 22:46:00 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: having two files gives you a lot of storage diversity all on its own.
1873 2012-01-31 22:46:50 <gmaxwell> I'm still fond of the capture sequence I described though. It's how Ogg works, it's always fun to do ogg123 foogame.exe and listen to the music stuffed into the binary.
1874 2012-01-31 22:47:27 enquirer has joined
1875 2012-01-31 22:47:27 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1876 2012-01-31 22:47:29 <sipa> etotheipi_: i'm going to bed soon, PM me here of mail me if you can conjure up a usable test case
1877 2012-01-31 22:48:03 <etotheipi_> sipa, I was just about to put it on dropbox
1878 2012-01-31 22:49:52 <BlueMatt> ok, maybe this will work: can someone test it? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/790
1879 2012-01-31 22:50:58 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: this will correctly update the nodes idea of its own IP address, right?
1880 2012-01-31 22:51:34 enquirer has joined
1881 2012-01-31 22:51:34 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1882 2012-01-31 22:52:18 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: the external ip doesnt matter, if you mean internal ip, that pretty much never changes on any router Ive ever seen
1883 2012-01-31 22:52:18 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: TheBlueMatt opened pull request 790 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/790>
1884 2012-01-31 22:52:23 h4ckm3 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1885 2012-01-31 22:52:25 <BlueMatt> unless you explicitly change it
1886 2012-01-31 22:53:42 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1887 2012-01-31 22:54:12 paul0 has quit (Quit: paul0)
1888 2012-01-31 22:54:47 <etotheipi_> sipa: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1139081/BitcoinShare/sipa_wallet_test/sipa_wallet_test.tar.gz
1889 2012-01-31 22:55:18 enquirer has joined
1890 2012-01-31 22:55:18 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1891 2012-01-31 22:56:08 <sipa> etotheipi_: the formula is privkey[n+1] = Hash(pubkey[n] XOR chaincode) * privkey[n] MOD order, right?
1892 2012-01-31 22:56:16 <Eliel> etotheipi_: you do have a call that forces the OS to write cached data to disk in between those two writes I hope :)
1893 2012-01-31 22:56:31 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1894 2012-01-31 22:56:45 <sipa> oh (Hash(pubkey[n]) XOR chaincode) * privkey[n]
1895 2012-01-31 22:57:29 <etotheipi_> https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory/blob/qtdev/cppForSwig/EncryptionUtils.cpp#L604
1896 2012-01-31 22:57:51 <etotheipi_> "ComputeChainedPrivateKey" is the function that takes the private key + chaincode, produces the next one
1897 2012-01-31 22:58:48 <etotheipi_> Eliel, I wasn't aware there was such a function
1898 2012-01-31 22:58:48 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: woah. I did a checkout of your code a few minutes ago and thats totally not there!
1899 2012-01-31 22:58:58 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1900 2012-01-31 22:59:06 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: fdatasync and friends!
1901 2012-01-31 22:59:31 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: there is a broken repo for you outthere somewhere.
1902 2012-01-31 22:59:32 <vsrinivas> or fsync(). but use carefully.
1903 2012-01-31 22:59:44 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, make sure you look at the qtdev branc
1904 2012-01-31 22:59:58 <sipa> etotheipi_: fe47 ... is the chain code?
1905 2012-01-31 23:00:01 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: ah... I just used the one linked from your post.
1906 2012-01-31 23:00:34 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: and .. I was about to say, the scheme in it appeared to be insecure.
1907 2012-01-31 23:00:36 <etotheipi_> sipa, yes
1908 2012-01-31 23:00:52 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, which one?
1909 2012-01-31 23:01:10 <Eliel> etotheipi_: yes there is. They're quite important. If you don't use it between the writes (and after), the actual writing to disc could be minutes after the code has completed.
1910 2012-01-31 23:01:16 enquirer has joined
1911 2012-01-31 23:01:16 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1912 2012-01-31 23:01:25 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: where it was just repeatedly exponentiating by the chain code.
1913 2012-01-31 23:01:28 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, my first version of the wallets used a single chaincode for all "chain extensions"
1914 2012-01-31 23:01:32 BlueMatt has joined
1915 2012-01-31 23:01:39 h4ckm3 has joined
1916 2012-01-31 23:01:40 <etotheipi_> I decided that was too "linear"
1917 2012-01-31 23:01:50 <etotheipi_> I wasn't aware it was actually insecure
1918 2012-01-31 23:02:06 <etotheipi_> I just assumed it was better to introduce an extra source of entropy into the calc
1919 2012-01-31 23:02:53 <etotheipi_> Eliel, is fsync OS-dependent? do I need a different function for windows and linux?
1920 2012-01-31 23:03:10 <gmaxwell> Why didn't you run pubkey^H(pubkey||chaincode) ?
1921 2012-01-31 23:04:11 enquirer has joined
1922 2012-01-31 23:04:12 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1923 2012-01-31 23:04:47 <Eliel> etotheipi_: I think fsync is libc standard function so it should be the same. However, I have very little experience with Windows coding so I can't say for sure.
1924 2012-01-31 23:05:00 genjix has joined
1925 2012-01-31 23:05:12 <vsrinivas> fsync() isn't C library standard, sorry; part of POSIX.
1926 2012-01-31 23:05:16 genjix has left ()
1927 2012-01-31 23:05:28 <Eliel> vsrinivas: thank you.
1928 2012-01-31 23:05:54 enquirer has joined
1929 2012-01-31 23:05:55 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1930 2012-01-31 23:06:14 enquirer has joined
1931 2012-01-31 23:06:15 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1932 2012-01-31 23:06:34 enquirer has joined
1933 2012-01-31 23:06:35 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1934 2012-01-31 23:06:45 <etotheipi_> using a constant scalar is just DHSS logic... which is secure
1935 2012-01-31 23:06:51 enquirer has joined
1936 2012-01-31 23:06:52 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1937 2012-01-31 23:07:09 <etotheipi_> but are you saying that the accumulation of multiplying by the same scalar accumulates info leakage?
1938 2012-01-31 23:07:11 enquirer has joined
1939 2012-01-31 23:07:12 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1940 2012-01-31 23:07:31 enquirer has joined
1941 2012-01-31 23:07:32 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1942 2012-01-31 23:08:10 <etotheipi_> Eliel, I just realized I'd be doing it in python, which handles OS_dependence for me
1943 2012-01-31 23:08:38 enquirer has joined
1944 2012-01-31 23:08:38 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1945 2012-01-31 23:08:55 enquirer has joined
1946 2012-01-31 23:08:56 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1947 2012-01-31 23:09:15 enquirer has joined
1948 2012-01-31 23:09:27 devrandom has joined
1949 2012-01-31 23:09:31 <etotheipi_> "os.fsync(fd): Force write of file with filedescriptor fd to disk. On Unix, this calls the native fsync() function; on Windows, the MS _commit() function."
1950 2012-01-31 23:09:55 <Diablo-D3> yes, but fsync doesnt quite do that
1951 2012-01-31 23:10:35 <etotheipi_> what about the next line: "If youâre starting with a Python file object f, first do f.flush(), and then do os.fsync(f.fileno()), to ensure that all internal buffers associated with f are written to disk."
1952 2012-01-31 23:11:08 <Diablo-D3> if you're... STARTING with it?
1953 2012-01-31 23:11:12 <Diablo-D3> whats there to flush?
1954 2012-01-31 23:11:59 <Diablo-D3> wtf?
1955 2012-01-31 23:12:02 <Diablo-D3> etotheipi_: that makes no sense
1956 2012-01-31 23:12:06 <Diablo-D3> fsync IS the flush function
1957 2012-01-31 23:12:17 <etotheipi_> Diablo-D3, I'm just going by the python documentation
1958 2012-01-31 23:12:21 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: I'd have to think about it more, but under the prior scheme I think if an attacker too PubN1^PubN2 he'd get one of your future public keys as a result.
1959 2012-01-31 23:12:27 <Diablo-D3> yes, and Im saying python is a pule of fucking shit
1960 2012-01-31 23:12:30 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1961 2012-01-31 23:12:30 splatster has joined
1962 2012-01-31 23:12:39 <Diablo-D3> etotheipi_: read the manpage for fsync though
1963 2012-01-31 23:12:46 <Diablo-D3> it takes a file descriptor
1964 2012-01-31 23:13:17 enquirer has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1965 2012-01-31 23:13:22 <nanotube> well, there is the python write buffer, and the os write buffer.
1966 2012-01-31 23:13:26 <Diablo-D3> if python's f.flush() does not do exactly what it says with that os.fsync usage already, its a liar
1967 2012-01-31 23:13:35 <nanotube> flush flushes the python one, then the fsync flushes the os one
1968 2012-01-31 23:13:36 <Diablo-D3> nanotube: doesn tmatter
1969 2012-01-31 23:13:39 <Diablo-D3> its all C in the end.
1970 2012-01-31 23:13:49 <Diablo-D3> its not flushed until fsync() is called
1971 2012-01-31 23:13:57 <Diablo-D3> ergo, f.flush must call it
1972 2012-01-31 23:14:02 <Diablo-D3> if it doesnt, f.flush does not flush.
1973 2012-01-31 23:14:04 <splatster> etotheipi_: Anything new?
1974 2012-01-31 23:14:16 <etotheipi_> splatster, sorry no...
1975 2012-01-31 23:14:21 random_cat has joined
1976 2012-01-31 23:14:45 <nanotube> Diablo-D3: well, the question of whether flush calls fsync or not, and the desirability thereof, is a separate issue. i'm just pointing out why it may be the case that flush != fsync
1977 2012-01-31 23:15:00 <etotheipi_> does it matter if the file is closed when I call it?
1978 2012-01-31 23:15:10 <Diablo-D3> etotheipi_: yes, you cant call it if it is
1979 2012-01-31 23:15:16 enquirer has joined
1980 2012-01-31 23:15:16 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1981 2012-01-31 23:15:19 <Diablo-D3> it flushes on file close
1982 2012-01-31 23:15:20 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1983 2012-01-31 23:15:41 <Diablo-D3> nanotube: yes, but then you're just making the case for me that python should never be used
1984 2012-01-31 23:15:52 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1985 2012-01-31 23:15:57 <etotheipi_> doesn't flushing on file-close defeat the purpose of this conversation? I wouldn't need to do this if it autoflushes
1986 2012-01-31 23:16:07 enquirer has joined
1987 2012-01-31 23:16:08 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
1988 2012-01-31 23:16:14 <Diablo-D3> etotheipi_: bingo.
1989 2012-01-31 23:16:37 <nanotube> etotheipi_: flush is for when you're not about to close the file.
1990 2012-01-31 23:16:44 <etotheipi_> Eliel, I am closing the file between writes
1991 2012-01-31 23:17:10 <etotheipi_> so that means that I don't actually need to change anything to get the behavior I expected?
1992 2012-01-31 23:17:14 <nanotube> Diablo-D3: hehe the conclusions you draw are up to you.
1993 2012-01-31 23:17:56 <nanotube> etotheipi_: yes, f.write(); f.close() are sufficient. no need to flush in between.
1994 2012-01-31 23:19:27 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1995 2012-01-31 23:19:30 <copumpkin> ooh, gavin's from princeton
1996 2012-01-31 23:19:32 <copumpkin> gavin++
1997 2012-01-31 23:19:36 pingdrive has joined
1998 2012-01-31 23:20:45 enquirer has joined
1999 2012-01-31 23:20:45 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
2000 2012-01-31 23:22:52 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2001 2012-01-31 23:23:24 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: No route to host)
2002 2012-01-31 23:24:09 Nicksasa has joined
2003 2012-01-31 23:24:34 genjix has joined
2004 2012-01-31 23:25:25 enquirer has joined
2005 2012-01-31 23:25:26 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
2006 2012-01-31 23:25:35 genjix has left ()
2007 2012-01-31 23:26:10 cdecker has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2008 2012-01-31 23:26:12 h4ckm3 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2009 2012-01-31 23:26:14 MobiusL has joined
2010 2012-01-31 23:27:18 da2ce7 has joined
2011 2012-01-31 23:27:21 agricocb has joined
2012 2012-01-31 23:28:46 enquirer has joined
2013 2012-01-31 23:28:46 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
2014 2012-01-31 23:29:30 enquirer has joined
2015 2012-01-31 23:29:31 enquirer has quit (Excess Flood)
2016 2012-01-31 23:31:26 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2017 2012-01-31 23:31:52 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
2018 2012-01-31 23:32:41 <sipa> etotheipi_: is Hash256 SHA256 or double-SHA256?
2019 2012-01-31 23:32:54 <etotheipi_> it's double-sha256
2020 2012-01-31 23:34:10 <Moron__> has anyone thought of building a calculator into bitcoin client?
2021 2012-01-31 23:34:38 <splatster> Why?
2022 2012-01-31 23:34:43 <etotheipi_> Moron__, yes
2023 2012-01-31 23:34:53 <Moron__> etotheipi_: did it work?
2024 2012-01-31 23:34:53 <etotheipi_> I was going to add an ECDSA calculator to the developer tools
2025 2012-01-31 23:34:56 <splatster> Calculator for what?
2026 2012-01-31 23:35:01 <etotheipi_> I just haven't gotten around to it, yet
2027 2012-01-31 23:35:08 <Moron__> just like adding and subtracting and multiplying
2028 2012-01-31 23:35:24 <Moron__> i kno, sounds like a bit of a difficult programming task, but maybe if we get someone smart to do it they can figure out an algorithm
2029 2012-01-31 23:35:39 <etotheipi_> it's not actually that difficult... it's just limited in terms of application
2030 2012-01-31 23:36:11 <etotheipi_> if you already have a client written, you already have all those ECC operations implemented already
2031 2012-01-31 23:36:27 <Moron__> i was thinking, we need something more like a till... than a client for business over the counter use
2032 2012-01-31 23:36:40 <Moron__> ie in a shop or something
2033 2012-01-31 23:37:11 poiuh has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2034 2012-01-31 23:37:52 osmosis has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2035 2012-01-31 23:39:07 pingdrive has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2036 2012-01-31 23:40:54 JZavala has joined
2037 2012-01-31 23:41:04 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2038 2012-01-31 23:41:43 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2039 2012-01-31 23:42:56 <sipa> etotheipi_: i can't even reproduce your addresses from the private key
2040 2012-01-31 23:43:05 <sipa> neither with or without byteswap
2041 2012-01-31 23:43:35 <sipa> the 80d1 ... privkey should match the mmPV... address, right?
2042 2012-01-31 23:43:47 <etotheipi_> sipa, shit.... hold on
2043 2012-01-31 23:43:58 <Moron__> what is ecdsa etotheipi_?
2044 2012-01-31 23:44:16 <sipa> Moron__: if you don't know that, you should read up about bitcoin's internals :)
2045 2012-01-31 23:44:17 <josephcp> etotheipi_: Moron__ is a troll FYI
2046 2012-01-31 23:44:34 <Moron__> etotheipi_: no josephcp is a troll
2047 2012-01-31 23:44:38 <josephcp> see?
2048 2012-01-31 23:44:53 <sipa> take it elsewhere, please
2049 2012-01-31 23:45:27 <etotheipi_> sipa, the "root key" on the paper wallet is actually chainIndex=-1
2050 2012-01-31 23:45:38 <sipa> etotheipi_: that's not relevant at this point
2051 2012-01-31 23:45:39 <etotheipi_> I don't know if that helps at all (it's not on the key list)
2052 2012-01-31 23:45:53 pingdrive has joined
2053 2012-01-31 23:46:01 <sipa> i should be able to calculate each key from the previous one, right?
2054 2012-01-31 23:46:54 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
2055 2012-01-31 23:46:56 rdponticelli has joined
2056 2012-01-31 23:47:28 MobiusL has joined
2057 2012-01-31 23:47:30 devrandom has joined
2058 2012-01-31 23:48:01 <etotheipi_> sipa, that's correct
2059 2012-01-31 23:48:56 <etotheipi_> did I accidentally swap the endianness of the key-list?
2060 2012-01-31 23:49:11 <etotheipi_> I know you said you tried it both ways...
2061 2012-01-31 23:50:00 <sipa> etotheipi_: there was a bug in my byteswapper :D
2062 2012-01-31 23:50:19 <sipa> it doesn't work yet, but at least the addresses match the keys
2063 2012-01-31 23:51:03 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
2064 2012-01-31 23:52:16 <etotheipi_> so you needed to swap it then?
2065 2012-01-31 23:52:26 <etotheipi_> it sounds like I botched LE/BE in my key list
2066 2012-01-31 23:52:33 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
2067 2012-01-31 23:52:47 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
2068 2012-01-31 23:53:06 bobke has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2069 2012-01-31 23:53:16 <sipa> no, OpenSSL's bin2bn works on LE data
2070 2012-01-31 23:53:24 <sipa> so i need to swap everything that i feed into it
2071 2012-01-31 23:53:39 <sipa> chaincode.Decode(chainXor.getPtr(), chainXor.getSize(), UNSIGNED);
2072 2012-01-31 23:53:43 <sipa> does that work LE or BE?
2073 2012-01-31 23:55:53 <etotheipi_> I believe it's BE
2074 2012-01-31 23:56:15 <etotheipi_> err definitely BE, described on the crypto++ docs
2075 2012-01-31 23:57:52 _W_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)