1 2012-02-02 00:00:03 <gmaxwell> This is another justification for delaying the announcment.. don't start the orgy until the node is current.
   2 2012-02-02 00:00:14 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Leaving)
   3 2012-02-02 00:01:02 <gmaxwell> I bet a lot of the potential nodes try connecting to it shortly after the announcement and fail because it's already full too.
   4 2012-02-02 00:03:06 MobiusL has joined
   5 2012-02-02 00:03:30 Ahimoth has joined
   6 2012-02-02 00:04:33 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: also— that node is still not current with the blockchain. :(
   7 2012-02-02 00:04:52 <gmaxwell> height=135052 now
   8 2012-02-02 00:07:03 <XMPPwocky> genjix: damn you
   9 2012-02-02 00:07:19 <XMPPwocky> libbitcoin's ebuild depends on new versions of boost
  10 2012-02-02 00:07:24 <XMPPwocky> which depend on a new version of GCC
  11 2012-02-02 00:07:50 <XMPPwocky> which, as gcc always does, takes forever to compile
  12 2012-02-02 00:08:28 <luke-jr> O.o
  13 2012-02-02 00:09:45 theorb has joined
  14 2012-02-02 00:10:10 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  15 2012-02-02 00:10:25 <makomk> gmaxwell: actually you really do only need 51% so long as you're willing to wait 24 hours or more, though there's obviously a risk someone will notice the drop in hash rate.
  16 2012-02-02 00:10:26 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
  17 2012-02-02 00:10:45 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: slow vm or bad peers?
  18 2012-02-02 00:11:21 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: slow IO most likely.
  19 2012-02-02 00:11:47 <gmaxwell> makomk: yea, see my or statement you can outrun OR isolate.
  20 2012-02-02 00:12:12 <gmaxwell> (though if you isolate you'll still need to mine enough blocks to trigger their confirmation.
  21 2012-02-02 00:12:17 <gmaxwell> )
  22 2012-02-02 00:12:53 <makomk> You seemed to be saying an attacker would need *much* more than 50%, which isn't true even if they don't isolate.
  23 2012-02-02 00:12:58 marf_away has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
  24 2012-02-02 00:13:35 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yep
  25 2012-02-02 00:13:40 <gmaxwell> 15:01 < gmaxwell> You could _either_ outrun (>>50%), or isolate for >24 hours and not outrun.
  26 2012-02-02 00:14:25 <gmaxwell> makomk: you have to do a split >24 hours back if you try to outrun, meaning you start at a one day disadvantage and need to overtake.
  27 2012-02-02 00:14:57 <gmaxwell> hm. you're right sorry, I'm incorrect.
  28 2012-02-02 00:15:29 <makomk> Yeah, the timestamps on the appropriate part of your attack chain when you release it just need to be over 24 hours old.
  29 2012-02-02 00:16:24 <makomk> Which means it needs to have forked away from the main chain over 24 hours ago as of the point of release but that's all.
  30 2012-02-02 00:16:30 barmstrong has joined
  31 2012-02-02 00:17:29 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
  32 2012-02-02 00:17:34 <makomk> Anyway,I was on my way to bed so...
  33 2012-02-02 00:17:38 <gmaxwell> night!
  34 2012-02-02 00:17:48 agricocb has joined
  35 2012-02-02 00:19:46 BurtyB has joined
  36 2012-02-02 00:27:54 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  37 2012-02-02 00:38:26 BTC_Bear has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
  38 2012-02-02 00:38:42 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
  39 2012-02-02 00:39:29 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  40 2012-02-02 00:40:58 poiuh has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  41 2012-02-02 00:41:33 poiuh has joined
  42 2012-02-02 00:43:40 BTC_Bear has joined
  43 2012-02-02 00:44:04 copumpkin has joined
  44 2012-02-02 00:46:13 BTC_Bear has quit (Client Quit)
  45 2012-02-02 00:48:09 ThomasV_ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
  46 2012-02-02 00:53:53 eldentyrell has joined
  47 2012-02-02 00:56:14 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
  48 2012-02-02 00:56:16 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  49 2012-02-02 00:58:50 usermkk has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  50 2012-02-02 01:00:11 Stove has joined
  51 2012-02-02 01:02:46 eoss has joined
  52 2012-02-02 01:02:46 eoss has quit (Changing host)
  53 2012-02-02 01:02:46 eoss has joined
  54 2012-02-02 01:12:14 Stove has quit ()
  55 2012-02-02 01:19:27 roconnor has joined
  56 2012-02-02 01:22:21 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
  57 2012-02-02 01:26:18 Ahimoth has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  58 2012-02-02 01:26:26 Ahimoth has joined
  59 2012-02-02 01:43:05 h4ckm3 has joined
  60 2012-02-02 01:43:45 JFK911_ is now known as JFK911
  61 2012-02-02 01:48:11 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
  62 2012-02-02 02:06:54 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: mcandre opened issue 793 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/793>
  63 2012-02-02 02:07:49 sacarlson has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  64 2012-02-02 02:09:29 JZavala has joined
  65 2012-02-02 02:10:20 Przemo has joined
  66 2012-02-02 02:11:23 egecko has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
  67 2012-02-02 02:13:03 egecko has joined
  68 2012-02-02 02:25:19 sacarlson has joined
  69 2012-02-02 02:28:43 zeiris has joined
  70 2012-02-02 02:30:18 Joric has quit ()
  71 2012-02-02 02:41:10 BTC_Bear has joined
  72 2012-02-02 02:47:25 h4ckm3 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  73 2012-02-02 02:48:19 <luke-jr> I'd like to finish off https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2SH_Votes -- who's still missing on it?
  74 2012-02-02 02:49:10 <midnightmagic> By the way, someone asked what a good well-run open source project looks like: good example is Tahoe LAFS.
  75 2012-02-02 02:49:22 <midnightmagic> That is one of the more highly-process-driven projects I personally have ever observed.
  76 2012-02-02 02:49:46 <midnightmagic> (Successfully process-driven, I might add. Not everyone is capable of pulling it off.)
  77 2012-02-02 02:49:51 b4epoche_ has joined
  78 2012-02-02 02:49:55 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: It also has a very narrow focus, so I expect it's difficult to have conflicting goals.
  79 2012-02-02 02:51:25 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  80 2012-02-02 02:51:25 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
  81 2012-02-02 02:51:52 cryptoxchange has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  82 2012-02-02 02:51:57 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I'm not sure what you mean by that.
  83 2012-02-02 02:52:26 Przemo has left ()
  84 2012-02-02 02:53:21 cryptoxchange has joined
  85 2012-02-02 02:54:49 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: No one is trying to convert Tahoe-LAFS into a distributed currency. It's easier to use a rigorous process when you're actually all trying to accomplish mostly the same things.
  86 2012-02-02 02:54:52 poiuh has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  87 2012-02-02 02:58:22 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: By that definition, all other open source projects don't apply; however, the process itself applies. Strongly test-driven process is applied in all the more successful projects I can personally observe.
  88 2012-02-02 02:58:23 cryptoxchange has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  89 2012-02-02 02:58:48 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  90 2012-02-02 02:59:42 cryptoxchange has joined
  91 2012-02-02 03:00:53 cryptoxchange has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  92 2012-02-02 03:01:18 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: I suspect you misunderstood me.
  93 2012-02-02 03:02:06 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: I wasn't special casing distributed currency. There are people trying to turn bitcoin into distributed file storage. Or trying to use it to promote alternative number systems, for example.
  94 2012-02-02 03:02:23 cryptoxchange has joined
  95 2012-02-02 03:02:41 <NxTitle> well namecoin can already be considered distributed data storage
  96 2012-02-02 03:02:45 <NxTitle> though not much data
  97 2012-02-02 03:02:51 <gmaxwell> Sure sure.
  98 2012-02-02 03:03:26 <gmaxwell> I don't know that much about tahoe other than it generates an awful lot of noise compared to the amount of actual usage it gets.
  99 2012-02-02 03:03:51 <NxTitle> tahoe seems interesting, however is it one single network?
 100 2012-02-02 03:03:58 <NxTitle> or do you have to privately run your own network?
 101 2012-02-02 03:04:11 <gmaxwell> (I don't mean that in a negative way— the communication is a good thing, but we simply don't have anyone doing that kind of communication for us)
 102 2012-02-02 03:04:16 <NxTitle> it looks very similar to freenet
 103 2012-02-02 03:05:24 <gmaxwell> NxTitle: it's more like NFS (or AFS or CODA) but with better security and robustness properties.
 104 2012-02-02 03:05:31 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I think you have my position slightly incorrect ;)
 105 2012-02-02 03:06:24 <NxTitle> would people be pissed if I just put "yes" for every box in the table for everyone? :P
 106 2012-02-02 03:06:27 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: hah you've said before that the _only_ reason you used bitcoin was to promote Tonal. I suspect thats an exaggeration, but not a complete one. :)
 107 2012-02-02 03:06:28 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I don't see Bitcoin as a vehicle to promote Tonal, but as a method of providing Tonal with a currency.
 108 2012-02-02 03:06:34 <gmaxwell> oh!
 109 2012-02-02 03:06:41 <NxTitle> what's Tonal?
 110 2012-02-02 03:06:44 <gmaxwell> I'd missed that distinction.
 111 2012-02-02 03:06:47 * NxTitle oh no advertising
 112 2012-02-02 03:07:23 <gmaxwell> NxTitle: Tonal is a complete alternative to decimal.
 113 2012-02-02 03:07:32 <NxTitle> ohh right
 114 2012-02-02 03:07:36 <NxTitle> that thing
 115 2012-02-02 03:10:28 splatster has joined
 116 2012-02-02 03:11:31 <splatster> etotheipi_: I am going to try using Joric's build procedure and see if it will work on os x 10.7.2
 117 2012-02-02 03:11:40 phungus is now known as phungio
 118 2012-02-02 03:11:45 phungi is now known as phungus
 119 2012-02-02 03:16:04 <etotheipi_> splatster, great, please do
 120 2012-02-02 03:16:58 <splatster> 10.7 has a different UI than 10.6 so who know what will happen
 121 2012-02-02 03:17:11 XMPPwocky has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 122 2012-02-02 03:17:15 <etotheipi_> splatster, also send me an address... toss you a BTC for your efforts ;)
 123 2012-02-02 03:17:44 <splatster> Send it when I launch Armory :)
 124 2012-02-02 03:17:53 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 125 2012-02-02 03:18:08 <etotheipi_> sipa, you sent me a message about the deterministic wallets, but I didn't totally understand the issue
 126 2012-02-02 03:18:17 <splatster> I'll also try and bundle it up so it has the icon and it can be easily distributed.
 127 2012-02-02 03:18:55 MrTiggr has joined
 128 2012-02-02 03:21:22 <etotheipi_> splatster, cool
 129 2012-02-02 03:22:02 <splatster> I hope you donated to Joric because I never thought I would see those screenshots he posted
 130 2012-02-02 03:24:37 <sipa> etotheipi_: it's very minor
 131 2012-02-02 03:24:58 <etotheipi_> haha, yes I did
 132 2012-02-02 03:25:02 user__ has joined
 133 2012-02-02 03:25:09 <etotheipi_> I was very impressed to see those screenshots
 134 2012-02-02 03:25:14 <sipa> etotheipi_: but privkey[n+1] = (H(pubkey[n]) ^ C) * privkey[n], right?
 135 2012-02-02 03:25:17 <etotheipi_> I thought it was never going to happen
 136 2012-02-02 03:25:39 <sipa> etotheipi_: someone who gets access to the wallet can determine C from two subsequent privkeys
 137 2012-02-02 03:26:11 SomeoneWeirdzzzz is now known as Someoneweird
 138 2012-02-02 03:26:40 <etotheipi_> sipa, if someone has access to two private keys has the wallet
 139 2012-02-02 03:26:50 <etotheipi_> or one of them...
 140 2012-02-02 03:26:52 poiuh has joined
 141 2012-02-02 03:27:08 <sipa> in your application, it's not a problem
 142 2012-02-02 03:27:13 <etotheipi_> I mean, I think the scenario you are talking about is already game over
 143 2012-02-02 03:27:18 <sipa> because that always means they can just C itself already
 144 2012-02-02 03:27:53 <splatster> etotheipi_: I ran into some errors.  Have those patches been pushed to master yet?
 145 2012-02-02 03:28:05 <sipa> but if you want to make your wallet indet again, that is probably because you want it to diverge in the future, so that it cannot be stolen forever without you knowing, right?
 146 2012-02-02 03:28:27 <etotheipi_> sipa, what does indet mean?
 147 2012-02-02 03:28:31 <sipa> indeterminstic
 148 2012-02-02 03:28:51 <etotheipi_> I don't have non-deterministic wallets, so I never thoguht about that
 149 2012-02-02 03:29:15 <sipa> basically, if the scheme allows to find C from two privkeys, you are not able to completely remove the determinstic sequence from it
 150 2012-02-02 03:29:29 <gmaxwell> sipa: also surprising consequences from dumpprivkey
 151 2012-02-02 03:30:09 <sipa> it's a very minor issue indeed, but i think i'm going to switch to a scheme where C is inside the hash function
 152 2012-02-02 03:30:24 <roconnor> gmaxwell: hey is there any sane way of deploying an improvement in the OP_CHECKMULTISIG count from 20 to something resonable in case it is statically determinable what the number of operations will be?
 153 2012-02-02 03:30:41 <etotheipi_> sipa, next time I upgrade my wallet version, I will consider your recommendation
 154 2012-02-02 03:30:42 <sipa> roconnor: BIP16 does?
 155 2012-02-02 03:30:58 <roconnor> sipa: only inside the internal script.
 156 2012-02-02 03:31:13 <sipa> right, of course
 157 2012-02-02 03:31:23 <sipa> as long as the opcode is OP_CHECKMULTISIG, there is no way around that
 158 2012-02-02 03:31:26 <luke-jr> roconnor: yes and no
 159 2012-02-02 03:31:28 <splatster> etotheipi_: "libtool: for architecture: x86_64 file: algebra.o has no symbols" and many other messages like that
 160 2012-02-02 03:31:45 <roconnor> sipa: huh?
 161 2012-02-02 03:31:48 <luke-jr> roconnor: BIP 17's solution is to avoid that op, and use your script :p
 162 2012-02-02 03:32:01 <etotheipi_> sipa, or rather, let me know what you do to modify it and I'll do it too... there's no reason not to change it, besides the transient writing a version-conversion script
 163 2012-02-02 03:32:08 <roconnor> luke-jr: ya, but it would be good if bitcoin didn't suck so much.
 164 2012-02-02 03:32:11 <etotheipi_> it's a bit easier for you
 165 2012-02-02 03:32:47 <sipa> etotheipi_: in particular, i'm thinking about privkey[n] = SHA256(C | SHA512(C | type | n)) * rootkey
 166 2012-02-02 03:33:00 <luke-jr> roconnor: there's a long list of things to change when we fork the blockchain ;)
 167 2012-02-02 03:33:43 <sipa> gmaxwell: hmm?
 168 2012-02-02 03:33:49 <etotheipi_> sipa, seems like overkill.... (what is type, and n?)
 169 2012-02-02 03:33:58 <sipa> n is from privkey[n]
 170 2012-02-02 03:34:21 <etotheipi_> splatster, I don't even know what libtool is
 171 2012-02-02 03:34:22 <sipa> and if you're going to do two hashes anyway, better do it HMAC-style and prevent whatever the designers of HMAC tried to prevent
 172 2012-02-02 03:34:44 <etotheipi_> sipa, fair enough
 173 2012-02-02 03:34:52 <splatster> I think I need to wipe my system
 174 2012-02-02 03:35:17 <etotheipi_> sipa, is the public key part of that equation?
 175 2012-02-02 03:35:21 <sipa> no
 176 2012-02-02 03:35:53 <sipa> that's a possible alternative of course, use pubkey[n] instead of n inside the hash
 177 2012-02-02 03:37:26 <etotheipi_> ahh... I actually like that better (just n) because it means you can calculate the private keys really fast
 178 2012-02-02 03:37:42 <sipa> indeed, random-access and parallellizable
 179 2012-02-02 03:38:45 <sipa> it's just gmaxwell's original scheme really
 180 2012-02-02 03:38:48 <sipa> but with a double hash
 181 2012-02-02 03:38:59 <etotheipi_> ahh... I never actually read gmaxwell's scheme
 182 2012-02-02 03:39:48 <etotheipi_> wait, what is "type" again?
 183 2012-02-02 03:39:54 <sipa> he also pointed me to why a type is useful: to have several chains inside the same wallet
 184 2012-02-02 03:39:59 eoss has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 185 2012-02-02 03:40:06 <sipa> e.g. all publically usable addresses, and all change adresses
 186 2012-02-02 03:40:24 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 187 2012-02-02 03:40:25 <etotheipi_> why do you need to separate change addresses?
 188 2012-02-02 03:40:32 <sipa> so you can create a watch-only wallet for the public address, but not let someone see what you do after receiving coins
 189 2012-02-02 03:40:39 <sipa> you know what a change address is?
 190 2012-02-02 03:41:20 <etotheipi_> I don't understand (and I assume you're just talking about a new address for receiving change outputs...?)
 191 2012-02-02 03:41:27 <sipa> yes
 192 2012-02-02 03:41:42 <sipa> see, i create a wallet for my shop
 193 2012-02-02 03:41:56 <sipa> it has two chains in it; C1 and C2
 194 2012-02-02 03:42:08 <sipa> (with type=1 and type=2)
 195 2012-02-02 03:42:33 <sipa> wait...
 196 2012-02-02 03:43:00 <sipa> gmaxwell: they need a separate rootkey and/or C as well, no?
 197 2012-02-02 03:43:58 eldentyrell has quit (Quit: eldentyrell)
 198 2012-02-02 03:44:05 <sipa> right, of course
 199 2012-02-02 03:44:07 <gmaxwell> Indeed, could be accomplished with seperate C just as well as the type.
 200 2012-02-02 03:44:21 <gmaxwell> (er, not just as well, but wrt the watch case, thats required)
 201 2012-02-02 03:45:08 <gmaxwell> I think when I wrote up the original scheme I hadn't yet thought of hiding the change from the website... only allowing it to avoid using those addresses.
 202 2012-02-02 03:45:48 <etotheipi_> I still have no idea what's going on
 203 2012-02-02 03:45:56 <etotheipi_> why do you need a separate chain for addresses?
 204 2012-02-02 03:46:06 <sipa> you have a webshop
 205 2012-02-02 03:46:06 <etotheipi_> *for change addresses?
 206 2012-02-02 03:46:18 <sipa> you want to be able to show a partner your income
 207 2012-02-02 03:46:51 <sipa> so you give them a watch-only wallet with the chain you use to generate the payment addresses your shop gives to clients
 208 2012-02-02 03:47:06 <sipa> all other addresses come from another chain
 209 2012-02-02 03:47:36 <sipa> if someone has access to that other chain (even just the pubkeys) they now what you're doing with the money
 210 2012-02-02 03:47:42 <sipa> now
 211 2012-02-02 03:47:46 TheSeven has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 212 2012-02-02 03:48:15 <sipa> know
 213 2012-02-02 03:48:27 <gmaxwell> Or even, forget the partner: You put the 'watch only' wallet on the webshop itself so it can generate new addresses for customers safely. But you don't want someone who has compromised the shop site to learn more than the absolute minimum about where those funds went after you got them.
 214 2012-02-02 03:48:47 TheSeven has joined
 215 2012-02-02 03:49:02 <sipa> oh nice one; that was the use case you had in mind when writing the proposal, i assume?
 216 2012-02-02 03:49:27 <gmaxwell> sipa: Yes.
 217 2012-02-02 03:50:08 <gmaxwell> That was my fundimental motivation behind type-2. Because the FSF asked me how they could give private donation addresses to people without putting their wallet online.
 218 2012-02-02 03:50:56 <roconnor> luke-jr: I guess if the miners maintain the old MUTLISIG check until the fixed clients are well deployed, it could be deployed that way perhaps.
 219 2012-02-02 03:52:01 <gmaxwell> The other reason, which may not apply to armory.. is that if the wallet is destroyed and recovered— we very much want to know which transactions were automatic change and which were direct payments, even if you happen to sometimes be paying funds to your own addresses.
 220 2012-02-02 03:52:20 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, on that last point, I already have that covered
 221 2012-02-02 03:52:31 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: How so?
 222 2012-02-02 03:52:40 <etotheipi_> if you use armory, you'll notice that I identify change addresses reliably, even on sent-to-self
 223 2012-02-02 03:52:51 <sipa> how so?
 224 2012-02-02 03:52:55 <etotheipi_> because the change address is always the one with the higher index
 225 2012-02-02 03:53:06 <gmaxwell> erp.
 226 2012-02-02 03:53:23 <sipa> that makes it visible to someone with a watch-only wallet
 227 2012-02-02 03:53:26 <etotheipi_> arguably, you have to have the transaction history to determine that... but you should have that anyway
 228 2012-02-02 03:53:31 <gmaxwell> oh you mean in the send to self case.. ok gotcha.
 229 2012-02-02 03:53:36 <sipa> (which is something that you sometimes want)
 230 2012-02-02 03:53:56 <etotheipi_> I forget how, but I was able to always determine the change address on every tx in Armory
 231 2012-02-02 03:54:00 <etotheipi_> as long as it involved my wallet
 232 2012-02-02 03:54:39 <etotheipi_> so here's my thought... everything you just said can be achieved with one upgrade to what I do in Armory:  a setting on the wallet that allows me to specify a different wallet for change outputs
 233 2012-02-02 03:54:58 <etotheipi_> when you talk about different chains, you might as well just be talking about different wallets
 234 2012-02-02 03:55:03 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: you may not have the transaction history e.g. if you've had multiple wallets/chains and removed some though. (e.g. deleteprivatekey). But it's true, you can figure it out from the history if you have it and smart index handling in the send to self case.
 235 2012-02-02 03:55:14 Moron__ has quit ()
 236 2012-02-02 03:55:44 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, everytime an address is requested, it gets the next unused index.... the same for th change addresses
 237 2012-02-02 03:56:22 <etotheipi_> did I miss something?  I feel like it's not hard to meet that criteria
 238 2012-02-02 03:57:02 <gmaxwell> I'm not sure what you're asking.
 239 2012-02-02 03:57:04 <sipa> etotheipi_: do you understand the use case of hiding change addresses from a watch-only wallet?
 240 2012-02-02 03:57:12 <etotheipi_> (sorry, I didn't mean that in an arrogant way... I"m just trying to figure out if my naive implementation fails to solve this problem in some cases?)
 241 2012-02-02 03:57:17 <etotheipi_> sipa, yes
 242 2012-02-02 03:57:33 <gmaxwell> Your naive (two wallet) thing sounds like solves it, yes.
 243 2012-02-02 03:57:40 <etotheipi_> sipa, I see exactly what you guys are saying, and I recognize the issue
 244 2012-02-02 03:57:44 <sipa> if the change address is always the one with the higher index in the chain, it is visible to everyone with a watch-only wallet
 245 2012-02-02 03:57:59 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 246 2012-02-02 03:58:01 <etotheipi_> sipa, and that's why I was saying, I could add a setting to send all change outputs to a different wallet
 247 2012-02-02 03:58:09 <gmaxwell> The other case where change seperation matters wrt the webshop case is— you very much don't want to have the webshop and the a send use the same address due to unlucky timing.
 248 2012-02-02 03:58:22 <gmaxwell> But, likewise, thats solve with 'two wallets' case.
 249 2012-02-02 03:58:32 copumpkin has joined
 250 2012-02-02 03:58:34 <sipa> right, two wallets would do it
 251 2012-02-02 03:58:49 <sipa> but the logic for presenting it in a ledger-style becomes somewhat more complicated then
 252 2012-02-02 03:58:49 <etotheipi_> I was envisioning that in a boss-employee system, the boss would generate one wallet for each register, and distribute the watching-only copies
 253 2012-02-02 03:59:14 <etotheipi_> sipa, agreed
 254 2012-02-02 03:59:26 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: yea, but then boss sends funds from a register and uses the address for the next customer in line as the change.. confusion happens.
 255 2012-02-02 03:59:47 <sipa> so i believe just having two chain codes, one for "public" addresses and one for "internal" addresses per wallet is exactly the solution
 256 2012-02-02 03:59:59 <etotheipi_> interesting discussion
 257 2012-02-02 04:00:13 <etotheipi_> I'll think about how I would implement this
 258 2012-02-02 04:00:56 <etotheipi_> I don't fully appreciate (yet) the complications of moving from my current system to this...
 259 2012-02-02 04:00:56 abbe has quit (Quit: Heroes die once, Cowards live longer!)
 260 2012-02-02 04:00:59 <sipa> you don't lose anything by splitting it up, except 36 bytes (extra chain code, and extra counter)
 261 2012-02-02 04:01:09 <sipa> even if not used
 262 2012-02-02 04:01:23 <gmaxwell> little extra computation to precalculate for the watching lookahead.
 263 2012-02-02 04:02:04 <etotheipi_> doesn't this cause issues for balance/auditing by someone with a watching-only wallet?
 264 2012-02-02 04:02:15 <etotheipi_> it seems that every outgoing transaction will look bigger than it actually is
 265 2012-02-02 04:02:18 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: give them a deluxe watching-only wallet.
 266 2012-02-02 04:02:29 <gmaxwell> (one that has both chain codes)
 267 2012-02-02 04:02:56 <gmaxwell> Both lets you see the real ledger. One lets you generate future addresses but only see incoming funds.
 268 2012-02-02 04:03:10 <sipa> a watching-only wallet with only the public chain, and the same ledger-view logic would just see every outgoing transaction disappear fully as a send-to-somewhere
 269 2012-02-02 04:03:37 <etotheipi_> right
 270 2012-02-02 04:03:58 <etotheipi_> if I'm giving that wallet to them for the purpose of not letting them see what I do with the change, they also can't see how much change was made
 271 2012-02-02 04:04:10 <gmaxwell> They can see the income.
 272 2012-02-02 04:04:11 <sipa> exactly
 273 2012-02-02 04:04:19 <etotheipi_> so the actual value of each transaction is obfuscated (only outgoing transactions)
 274 2012-02-02 04:04:21 <sipa> as they can't distinguish real outputs and change outputs
 275 2012-02-02 04:04:36 <etotheipi_> I'm seeing that as a problem
 276 2012-02-02 04:04:42 <gmaxwell> Then don't do that.
 277 2012-02-02 04:04:47 user__ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 278 2012-02-02 04:04:49 <gmaxwell> Let them see it all, if it's a problem.
 279 2012-02-02 04:04:50 <etotheipi_> :)
 280 2012-02-02 04:05:00 <gmaxwell> There are usecases where it is— and usecases where it isn't.
 281 2012-02-02 04:05:05 <sipa> you can have them see it all, if you like - just give both chains
 282 2012-02-02 04:05:08 <etotheipi_> fair enough... I just wanted to make sure I understand
 283 2012-02-02 04:05:14 <sipa> i like this
 284 2012-02-02 04:06:58 blomqvist has joined
 285 2012-02-02 04:07:41 <gmaxwell> sipa: we should also have the ability to flag a wallet so that it only ever pulls addresses from the internal side.  So you don't accidentaly hit getnewaddress and get some address a customer is about to pay to.
 286 2012-02-02 04:08:27 <sipa> what about an optional arg to getnewaddress?
 287 2012-02-02 04:08:36 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, how does that happen?
 288 2012-02-02 04:08:52 <etotheipi_> if only one person is using one wallet, then there shouldn't be overlap like that
 289 2012-02-02 04:09:00 <gmaxwell> webshop use case.
 290 2012-02-02 04:09:37 <gmaxwell> The webshop has the minimal watching wallet to generate payment addresses for customers. You have a full client with the full wallet.
 291 2012-02-02 04:10:26 <gmaxwell> If your full wallet software is unaware that there is a remote address generator, it might.
 292 2012-02-02 04:11:00 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, I don't see why two people would ever use the same wallet at the same time... if I give one wallet to one employee to use, I'll generate a different wallet for myself to use
 293 2012-02-02 04:11:02 <sipa> sounds like you want the ability to have N chains in a wallet
 294 2012-02-02 04:11:24 <sipa> and we're back to maybe rather wanting separate wallets
 295 2012-02-02 04:11:38 <gmaxwell> sipa: maybe.. or as etotheipi_ says.. more wallets. But I want to be able to spend from a collection at once.. not keep them seperate.
 296 2012-02-02 04:11:46 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 297 2012-02-02 04:11:47 <gmaxwell> I think seperate wallets should never comingle inputs.
 298 2012-02-02 04:11:56 <gmaxwell> and I think this case it's okay to comingle inputs.
 299 2012-02-02 04:12:05 <etotheipi_> well whether it's separate chains or separate wallets is immaterial... one can be made to look like the other, depending on how the interface is designed
 300 2012-02-02 04:12:32 <sipa> gmaxwell: so, one inner chain, one public chain, and N alternate chains
 301 2012-02-02 04:12:43 devrandom has joined
 302 2012-02-02 04:12:45 <sipa> from the alt chains, no address is ever automatically pulled
 303 2012-02-02 04:12:46 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 304 2012-02-02 04:12:47 <etotheipi_> I just imagine that as the business owner, you would be very interested to deconflict the financial activity of each person... no two people should ever generate from the same wallet
 305 2012-02-02 04:12:53 <sipa> but you can give it to webshops
 306 2012-02-02 04:13:35 <gmaxwell> sipa: you could also give alternate chains to business partners who make regular payments to you.
 307 2012-02-02 04:14:09 <etotheipi_> I've had in mind, all along... that you could use watching-only wallets to simply maintain channels between people who exchange money frequently
 308 2012-02-02 04:14:31 <etotheipi_> that I would have one watching-only wallet exchange with my mother, another one with my girlfriend, etc
 309 2012-02-02 04:14:47 <poiuh> and your wife!
 310 2012-02-02 04:14:48 <etotheipi_> and the balance behind those wallets would not be important, only seeing what transactions had been made
 311 2012-02-02 04:14:50 <poiuh> baddum pum
 312 2012-02-02 04:15:16 <etotheipi_> (errr... the balance would really not be important, only the ledger)
 313 2012-02-02 04:15:32 <poiuh> cool
 314 2012-02-02 04:15:41 <gmaxwell> "generate mailslot"
 315 2012-02-02 04:15:50 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: When the chips are down, well, the buffalo is empty)
 316 2012-02-02 04:16:02 <etotheipi_> I was actually ready to promote that idea with Armory, but it was kind of weird to have such a wallet on the main display with some arbitrary balance... I think I want a separate interface (or info stream) for that
 317 2012-02-02 04:17:36 Katniss has joined
 318 2012-02-02 04:17:48 <gmaxwell> well.. I think you don't want it as a seperate wallet. .. it's just part of one wallet .. and you can assign a default label to all those addresses.. on the remote side it's an address book entry, which autoincrements.
 319 2012-02-02 04:18:46 <etotheipi_> as far as I'm concerned, we're talking about the same thing... you use a one root key but a different chaincode for each "channel", I use different both for each channel
 320 2012-02-02 04:19:23 <gmaxwell> I think what sipa is thinking of is using a metachain to come up with both for all.
 321 2012-02-02 04:19:27 <etotheipi_> an interface could be designed that makes both schemes look identical, except for having to backup a 32 more bytes for each "channel"
 322 2012-02-02 04:19:34 <gmaxwell> This way adding channels doesn't bugger your full backups.
 323 2012-02-02 04:20:07 <poiuh> nice
 324 2012-02-02 04:20:11 <etotheipi_> I don't understand... whne you create a new chain, you're going to have to backup that chaincode
 325 2012-02-02 04:20:18 <gmaxwell> Nope.
 326 2012-02-02 04:20:28 <gmaxwell> You come up with the chaincodes/root keys determinstically.
 327 2012-02-02 04:20:37 <sipa> haha!
 328 2012-02-02 04:20:56 <gmaxwell> H(big secret+chain_id) = {root,chaincode}
 329 2012-02-02 04:21:06 <sipa> if you want your alt chains to automatically see incoming payments, you probably want something pretty much like the current keypool
 330 2012-02-02 04:21:19 <sipa> but a keypool per alt chain, but possibly much smaller
 331 2012-02-02 04:21:26 <gmaxwell> Yes.
 332 2012-02-02 04:21:28 <etotheipi_> so multidimensional determinism
 333 2012-02-02 04:21:32 <etotheipi_> determinism^2
 334 2012-02-02 04:22:18 <gmaxwell> sipa: The reason you want seperate root&chaincodes for each chain is so that if you start giving away chanins they aren't obviously linked on their face. It's not like its computationally costly or anything.
 335 2012-02-02 04:22:42 <etotheipi_> I guess the only concern is that now *all* your wallets are compromised at once
 336 2012-02-02 04:23:04 <etotheipi_> but again, same debate as random-vs-deterministic addresses
 337 2012-02-02 04:23:15 <sipa> if not, you'll have several wallets on the master computer
 338 2012-02-02 04:23:24 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: this doesn't replace multiple wallets— but for true multiple wallets, I think we'd want to provide complete isolation.. e.g. no ability to use inputs in common though the normal UI.
 339 2012-02-02 04:23:46 <sipa> this simplifies something else
 340 2012-02-02 04:23:58 <sipa> the entire select-coins-for-more-anonimity issue
 341 2012-02-02 04:24:13 <sipa> an advanced client interface could let you select which chains to use inputs from
 342 2012-02-02 04:24:33 <sipa> far more manageable than showing the user the individual addresses
 343 2012-02-02 04:25:59 <gmaxwell> I'm not opposed to that kind of feature— but I think for that purpose hard seperated multiple wallets are better.  Though it should result in nice behavior for auto-selection.
 344 2012-02-02 04:26:15 <gmaxwell> e.g. all things equal auto selection should prefer to pull from one chain.
 345 2012-02-02 04:26:25 <etotheipi_> it sounds like there's applications for both
 346 2012-02-02 04:26:29 <gmaxwell> There are.
 347 2012-02-02 04:26:45 <etotheipi_> the wallets should have the ability to create multiple chains, but there's still situations you'll be using different wallets
 348 2012-02-02 04:27:07 <sipa> of course
 349 2012-02-02 04:27:16 <sipa> your personal wallet vs your business wallet, i can imagine
 350 2012-02-02 04:27:29 <gmaxwell> I would think of chains more like bitcoinds accounts.. while seperate wallets are really seperate.
 351 2012-02-02 04:27:42 <sipa> bingo
 352 2012-02-02 04:28:15 <sipa> what about, with the root root key, you can generate new chains
 353 2012-02-02 04:28:15 RobinPKR has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 354 2012-02-02 04:28:21 <sipa> but they are really just accounts
 355 2012-02-02 04:28:37 <sipa> and their root key / chain code, is derived from the root root key + name of the account
 356 2012-02-02 04:28:47 <gmaxwell> No, sadly.. :(
 357 2012-02-02 04:29:00 <gmaxwell> Because if you delete your wallet .. "oh shit, what was that account called..."
 358 2012-02-02 04:29:18 <sipa> if you delete your wallet, you're screwed...
 359 2012-02-02 04:29:21 RobinPKR has joined
 360 2012-02-02 04:29:33 <gmaxwell> you delete it, recover from a backup before you created the account
 361 2012-02-02 04:29:48 <gmaxwell> what should happen then is you should see account "8" appear... with txn in it...
 362 2012-02-02 04:30:25 <gmaxwell> and then you can rename it to whatever the right thing is.. though I guess it breaks down a bit if you did inter account transfers.. alas.. those are lost.
 363 2012-02-02 04:30:34 <gmaxwell> (backup backup backup)
 364 2012-02-02 04:31:03 <gmaxwell> but still .. much better to have the ledgers screwed up than to have actually lost the money in those cases.
 365 2012-02-02 04:31:23 <gmaxwell> And there is no way to solve the interior transfer dataloss except via frequent backups.
 366 2012-02-02 04:31:33 <gmaxwell> (AND THIS IS ANOTHER REASON WE NEED THE OOPSWALLET! :) )
 367 2012-02-02 04:31:52 dissipate has joined
 368 2012-02-02 04:32:54 <luke-jr> roconnor: that's a good idea
 369 2012-02-02 04:34:04 <sipa> ok, so new accounts draw from the pool of chains
 370 2012-02-02 04:34:41 <gmaxwell> That also suggests that each chain should have public/internal sides.
 371 2012-02-02 04:35:10 Mqrius has joined
 372 2012-02-02 04:36:15 <sipa> i was more thinking about one special chain for internal addresses
 373 2012-02-02 04:36:33 <sipa> but i guess for anonimity purposes, you better keep them entirely separate
 374 2012-02-02 04:36:39 <gmaxwell> easier on the keypool. Downside is that there will be more account balance damage if you lose data.
 375 2012-02-02 04:37:06 <gmaxwell> also if I want to give a complete-watcher access to some account (public+internal), they need to be seperate.
 376 2012-02-02 04:38:47 <gmaxwell> I dub this system, CoinCube(*): nature's harmonic simultaneous multidimensional wallet    (* http://www.timecube.com/)
 377 2012-02-02 04:39:00 <luke-jr> roconnor: in fact, since 1000 multisig per block isn't even a problem yet, it's possible that preemptively fixing the client rules now could result in a very graceful transition without resorting to manual multisig scripts
 378 2012-02-02 04:39:06 <splatster> etotheipi_: I don't know what I should do.  I'm going to wait until the weekend so I can wipe my drive and start fresh and then hopefully I can get it to run.
 379 2012-02-02 04:39:26 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 380 2012-02-02 04:39:41 <etotheipi_> splatster, maybe you can beg Joric to give you a compiled binary :)
 381 2012-02-02 04:39:49 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: we could also just put a fix that takes effect at height $BIG. ... and tell people to upgrade before that height.
 382 2012-02-02 04:40:25 <splatster> Joric-o, Joric-o, where art thou?
 383 2012-02-02 04:40:31 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: e.g. put it a year out, and use an alert at 11 months and the 12 months minus 1 day targeting clients before the new rule was added.
 384 2012-02-02 04:40:36 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: sure
 385 2012-02-02 04:40:47 <gmaxwell> we could also fix timewarp this way.
 386 2012-02-02 04:40:52 <splatster> Anyone like my reference?
 387 2012-02-02 04:41:16 <gmaxwell> I'd like to say we could reenable opcodes that way.. but no one asking for them is going to do the work to make them trustworthy.
 388 2012-02-02 04:41:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: we could even do hardfork this way potentially
 389 2012-02-02 04:42:11 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yes, but it gets exponentiall harder the more you do—  who would oppose fixing sigops count? no one. Who would oppose something more complicated? well look at bip12/16/17
 390 2012-02-02 04:42:21 <gmaxwell> er exponentially
 391 2012-02-02 04:42:39 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 392 2012-02-02 04:43:22 <gmaxwell> we also can't put in the rule change until the software is done and proven since those clients will need to survive the change too.. e.g. we can't put in a rule to enable OP_CAT in a year now because OP_CAT safty needs to be validated first. :(
 393 2012-02-02 04:43:36 <gmaxwell> at least things like sigops and timewarp are easy to get confidence about.
 394 2012-02-02 04:44:55 <splatster> etotheipi_: Here's a pic if you're wondering what a bundled Armory would look like in the dock: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3533940/Screen%20Shot%202012-02-01%20at%209.35.45%20PM.png
 395 2012-02-02 04:45:38 <etotheipi_> splatster, perfect... that was exactly what I wanted when I got the logo designed
 396 2012-02-02 04:46:10 <etotheipi_> it's not just another circular or square icon
 397 2012-02-02 04:46:11 <splatster> Looks great with the shadow and reflection effects
 398 2012-02-02 04:46:40 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: fair enough
 399 2012-02-02 04:47:19 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: O.o
 400 2012-02-02 04:47:51 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: how can you be against all P2SH and also against no-P2SH? -.-
 401 2012-02-02 04:48:01 <gmaxwell> That node I started earlier today on luke's vps? "connections" : 67,
 402 2012-02-02 04:48:08 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: lol
 403 2012-02-02 04:48:25 <luke-jr> isn't that the exact same number you mentioned your IRC node was at?
 404 2012-02-02 04:48:30 <gmaxwell> Why is there a BIP22 column there?
 405 2012-02-02 04:48:34 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, both implementations could potentially split the blockchain between new clients and old clients
 406 2012-02-02 04:48:37 <phantomcircuit> i dont like that
 407 2012-02-02 04:48:48 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: no they can't… O.o
 408 2012-02-02 04:48:53 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: no they can't.
 409 2012-02-02 04:48:55 devrandom has joined
 410 2012-02-02 04:48:55 <phantomcircuit> i like the basic p2sh idea, but not the current implementations (im not sure it's even possible)
 411 2012-02-02 04:49:02 <gmaxwell> Okay, phantomcircuit just disqualified himself.
 412 2012-02-02 04:49:05 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: you're not allowed to vote until reading them :P
 413 2012-02-02 04:49:05 Bwild has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 414 2012-02-02 04:49:13 <phantomcircuit> i did read them
 415 2012-02-02 04:49:17 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: casa added it; I'm ignoring it :P
 416 2012-02-02 04:49:35 <phantomcircuit> you could easily create a script which is valid against old clients and invalid against new clients
 417 2012-02-02 04:49:48 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: you missed the majority of miners bit
 418 2012-02-02 04:49:52 <sipa> phantomcircuit: that is exactly the intention
 419 2012-02-02 04:50:01 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: those majority of miners will orphan any old miners
 420 2012-02-02 04:50:08 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, the majority of miners makes no difference
 421 2012-02-02 04:50:08 <gmaxwell> (if it didn't do that it wouldn't be a change at all :) )
 422 2012-02-02 04:50:13 <sipa> every p2sh script will be valid to old clients
 423 2012-02-02 04:50:18 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: the old clients will honour the orphaning
 424 2012-02-02 04:50:23 <phantomcircuit> all it takes is enough miners that the old clients dont notice
 425 2012-02-02 04:50:33 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: no, they'll honor the longer chain, doofus.
 426 2012-02-02 04:50:42 Katniss_ has joined
 427 2012-02-02 04:50:53 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: if the majority of miners implement the BIP (required for activation), then the BIP will always orphan the pre-BIP
 428 2012-02-02 04:51:03 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: what you're thinking of wet "enough miners that the old clients dont notice" is what happens if the txn in the new client chain is invalid to old clients.
 429 2012-02-02 04:51:15 <gmaxwell> s/wet/wrt/
 430 2012-02-02 04:51:15 <sipa> now re-read what i last said
 431 2012-02-02 04:51:26 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: since miners tend to dislike having blocks orphaned, they'll all upgrade fairly fast
 432 2012-02-02 04:51:30 <luke-jr> once activation
 433 2012-02-02 04:51:48 <phantomcircuit> fair enough
 434 2012-02-02 04:52:01 <sipa> phantomcircuit: in short: all the BIP does is make certain scripts invalid that were previously valid, and never the other way around
 435 2012-02-02 04:52:08 <gmaxwell> even if they don't _all_ upgrade, it's a non-issue.
 436 2012-02-02 04:52:09 <luke-jr> even if they don't, worse case scenario a bad guy gets 2 confirmations on a fake
 437 2012-02-02 04:52:13 <phantomcircuit> i've been awake for like 36 hours so i probably am thinking in circles
 438 2012-02-02 04:52:20 <luke-jr> >_<
 439 2012-02-02 04:52:42 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: how about sleep and then revise your votes tomorrow? :P
 440 2012-02-02 04:52:54 <phantomcircuit> probably
 441 2012-02-02 04:53:06 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: You know that some studies have shown that doing that has a severly bad impact on life expectancy? :)
 442 2012-02-02 04:53:31 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, i literally cant help it i wont fall asleep anyways
 443 2012-02-02 04:54:03 <BTC_Bear> drink 2 beers and lay down
 444 2012-02-02 04:54:14 <phantomcircuit> alcohol wakes me up
 445 2012-02-02 04:54:23 <phantomcircuit> right upto the point that it doesn't
 446 2012-02-02 04:54:38 Katniss has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 447 2012-02-02 04:55:54 barmstrong has joined
 448 2012-02-02 05:00:09 traviscj has joined
 449 2012-02-02 05:00:58 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: can you go pop off your vote until you've had a nap, lest you inadvertently contribute to confusion? (if after clear minded analysis you reach the same conclusion then great…)
 450 2012-02-02 05:01:19 <phantomcircuit> sure
 451 2012-02-02 05:01:30 roconnor has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 452 2012-02-02 05:02:16 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, how about that
 453 2012-02-02 05:02:46 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: k
 454 2012-02-02 05:03:14 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: if it helps you— BIP22 _does_ have the behavior you were worried about, but I don't think it matters. It's not getting done.
 455 2012-02-02 05:03:29 <gmaxwell> or rather, if its getting done, it not getting done by any of the current development team.
 456 2012-02-02 05:03:59 <luke-jr> BIP 22 could become a nice solution if we didn't want static analysis
 457 2012-02-02 05:04:07 <luke-jr> but if that wasn't the case, we'd use BIP 12
 458 2012-02-02 05:04:22 <gmaxwell> Because we're not taking a @#$#@ hard fork just to add a redundant boolean circuit scripting language inside public keys.
 459 2012-02-02 05:04:33 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: BIP 22 could be tweaked to avoid a hardfork
 460 2012-02-02 05:04:40 <splatster> How is bitcoin-qt bundled for os x
 461 2012-02-02 05:05:09 <splatster> I'm going to take a stab at making a blank template for Joric to pop his compiled source into
 462 2012-02-02 05:05:11 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I'm less than convinced. But regardless. come on.. a completely seperate scripting language inside our scripting language? Yo Dawg. I heard you liked scripts.
 463 2012-02-02 05:05:31 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, lol
 464 2012-02-02 05:05:50 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I just mean the concepts are interesting ;)
 465 2012-02-02 05:05:55 <luke-jr> not that I want to do anything with ti
 466 2012-02-02 05:06:29 <etotheipi_> http://pixelatedgeek.com/2009/02/yo-dawg-i-heard-you-like-macs/
 467 2012-02-02 05:07:09 <splatster> etotheipi_: HAHAH
 468 2012-02-02 05:07:13 <sipa> gmaxwell: it's not such a bad idea i think
 469 2012-02-02 05:07:33 <sipa> but not right now
 470 2012-02-02 05:07:36 <sipa> not in a hurry
 471 2012-02-02 05:07:43 <gmaxwell> I admit I'm mostly turned off both by the fact that its a hardfork maker, and because it's proposer doesn't think this is a problem.
 472 2012-02-02 05:07:53 <luke-jr> if we really needed to replace the language, OP_EVAL or BIP 22 would be a handy way to do it :p
 473 2012-02-02 05:08:07 <luke-jr> but that's not an issue afaik
 474 2012-02-02 05:08:08 <sipa> but a well-redesigned scripting language that works as an expression evaluator instead of a stack language - i'd very much like that
 475 2012-02-02 05:08:36 <gmaxwell> Even with luke suggesting that it can be fixed wrt the forking, I'm not inclined to waste my time thinking about proposals from anyone who would take a hardfork lightly.
 476 2012-02-02 05:08:47 <sipa> haha
 477 2012-02-02 05:08:55 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: he did say he wasn't seriously proposing it
 478 2012-02-02 05:09:09 <lianj> with isstandard templates, i have hard times to call the current scripts a scripting language anymore
 479 2012-02-02 05:09:39 <gmaxwell> lianj: er. you know that isstandard is soft security right? You can still have non-isstandard txn in the blockchain.
 480 2012-02-02 05:09:42 <gmaxwell> (and we do)
 481 2012-02-02 05:09:56 <lianj> but only miners right?
 482 2012-02-02 05:10:13 <sipa> you need a miner to accept it
 483 2012-02-02 05:10:13 <splatster> etotheipi_: Look what I found: http://svn.pythonmac.org/py2app/py2app/trunk/doc/index.html
 484 2012-02-02 05:10:52 <gmaxwell> lianj: Only with the cooperation of miners, which inhibits nonstandard scripts from being used for DOS attacks without completely closing expirementation, even in the mainnet, and without creating a big compatbility issue when more is enabled.
 485 2012-02-02 05:11:29 <luke-jr> lianj: Eligius tolerates anything
 486 2012-02-02 05:11:38 <lianj> luke-jr: so would your nodes accept any valid script i sent them?
 487 2012-02-02 05:11:46 <lianj> ah, nice. thanks!
 488 2012-02-02 05:11:49 <luke-jr> lianj: so long as it doesn't have a ton of sigops
 489 2012-02-02 05:12:03 <gmaxwell> sipa: just need a simple language that lets you describe a directed graphs of CCNOT gates of course.
 490 2012-02-02 05:12:04 <lianj> hehe ok, but good to know
 491 2012-02-02 05:12:12 <etotheipi_> splatster, I knew you'd like that :)
 492 2012-02-02 05:12:32 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you do have some anti-dos checks too.
 493 2012-02-02 05:12:46 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I do?
 494 2012-02-02 05:12:49 XMPPwock1 has joined
 495 2012-02-02 05:12:59 <luke-jr> lianj: note I require fees
 496 2012-02-02 05:13:10 <lianj> aw :(
 497 2012-02-02 05:13:16 <luke-jr> lianj: they're not too expensive
 498 2012-02-02 05:13:25 <luke-jr> 0.00004096 BTC per 512 bytes
 499 2012-02-02 05:13:34 <gmaxwell> lianj: if you're not willing to spend a fraction of a cent on your transaction 0_o
 500 2012-02-02 05:13:47 <gmaxwell> lianj: then I say go away, spammer.
 501 2012-02-02 05:13:52 <lianj> gmaxwell: hehe
 502 2012-02-02 05:14:22 <lianj> (i'm not, just for the record)
 503 2012-02-02 05:14:29 <luke-jr> …
 504 2012-02-02 05:15:20 <cjd> what exactly is the benefit of isStandard() check when not all miners run it?
 505 2012-02-02 05:15:21 <gmaxwell> lianj: but, really, if you're interested in doing something interesting.. talk in here.. not only will eligius probably mine the transaction, but I'll also mine non-spammy interesting stuff, if you don't mind waiting .. a week or so.. :)
 506 2012-02-02 05:15:37 <splatster> etotheipi_: http://svn.pythonmac.org/py2app/py2app/trunk/doc/index.html this will make creating an app bundle simple, just did it actually! (though my Armory isn't properly compiled)
 507 2012-02-02 05:15:57 <gmaxwell> cjd: because it still is quite effective at ratelimiting dosattacky things. And luke has also replaced it with mandatory fees.
 508 2012-02-02 05:16:09 <splatster> Maybe you can pass it off to Joric if I'm not here
 509 2012-02-02 05:16:25 <gmaxwell> cjd: and luke is the only non-trivial miner we're aware of that doesn't apply non-standard (based on looking at the blockchain)
 510 2012-02-02 05:16:28 <cjd> mm I agree with (isStandard() || higherFee)
 511 2012-02-02 05:16:41 <luke-jr> well, if it's really interesting, I'll accept it free too :p
 512 2012-02-02 05:17:10 <luke-jr> but then again… cheap is cheap :P
 513 2012-02-02 05:17:14 <gmaxwell> cjd: it's hard to reason about that though— say someone finds out some script really slows down nodes.. they could easly pay the higher fee to make trouble. At least if it's only luke mining them there won't be many such blocks produced.
 514 2012-02-02 05:17:58 <cjd> indeed, and a good argument for miners being awake and alert since these situations require human intervention
 515 2012-02-02 05:17:59 pingdrive has joined
 516 2012-02-02 05:18:12 <lianj> gmaxwell: thanks, not atm though. but i like that such transactions are not frozen or only available to tinker with by big miners
 517 2012-02-02 05:18:24 <gmaxwell> cjd: luke is awake and alert .. less evidence of that with other miners.
 518 2012-02-02 05:18:33 <cjd> ofc the hippy in me says "let the scripting do as it wants"
 519 2012-02-02 05:18:48 <gmaxwell> lianj: they're available to everyone liberlly on testnet... and available to everyone with a little coperating like coming and asking here.
 520 2012-02-02 05:19:49 <gmaxwell> cjd: we'll get back ot that long term, of course. If you want to see that day come faster... help contribute to software QA, build neat things that use the scripts, etc.
 521 2012-02-02 05:20:07 * luke-jr suggests test cases with the new boost framework
 522 2012-02-02 05:20:36 <luke-jr> if BIP 17 never amounts to anything more, at least I learned that
 523 2012-02-02 05:20:50 <cjd> are we satisfied that there won't be any big surprises w/ the scripting turning into a weird machine?
 524 2012-02-02 05:21:01 <luke-jr> cjd: BIP 12 is Skynet
 525 2012-02-02 05:21:51 <cjd> heh
 526 2012-02-02 05:22:32 <cjd> I wish it was easier for me to understand
 527 2012-02-02 05:22:33 <luke-jr> hey, found the bug lurking in Eloipool's bitcoin node implementation
 528 2012-02-02 05:22:39 dissipate has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 529 2012-02-02 05:22:53 <luke-jr> I was appedning the checksum to the payload, instead of prepending
 530 2012-02-02 05:22:54 <luke-jr> <.<
 531 2012-02-02 05:23:02 <cjd> C++ abstracts away what's really going on such that one simple line is very complex and nuanced (in my experience)
 532 2012-02-02 05:23:31 <luke-jr> cjd: so does C ;)
 533 2012-02-02 05:23:44 <sipa> far less so
 534 2012-02-02 05:23:53 <sipa> imho
 535 2012-02-02 05:23:58 <cjd> +1
 536 2012-02-02 05:24:06 <luke-jr> only because C++ has more in its stdlib
 537 2012-02-02 05:24:18 <luke-jr> IMO
 538 2012-02-02 05:24:21 <sipa> no, because you can overload the assignment operator :P
 539 2012-02-02 05:24:23 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: very far less so in C.
 540 2012-02-02 05:24:28 <luke-jr> sipa: true
 541 2012-02-02 05:24:58 <gmaxwell> You can overload the == operator with something that has side effects. And people do.
 542 2012-02-02 05:25:03 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: well, I guess x86 has multiple types, but from my MIPS background, it's funny how everything is really just a 32-bit int
 543 2012-02-02 05:25:04 <cjd> :(
 544 2012-02-02 05:26:05 pingdrive has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 545 2012-02-02 05:27:42 <etotheipi_> splatster, py2app sounds good.  much like py2exe
 546 2012-02-02 05:27:56 <cjd> I guess my real question is "is there a real benefit to sandboxing the script engine?"
 547 2012-02-02 05:28:37 <luke-jr> …
 548 2012-02-02 05:28:44 <luke-jr> you want to UNsandbox it?
 549 2012-02-02 05:28:49 <gmaxwell> more like seperate out the wallet and sandbox the whole non-wallet part of the node.
 550 2012-02-02 05:28:51 <luke-jr> OP_FOPEN
 551 2012-02-02 05:29:04 pingdrive has joined
 552 2012-02-02 05:29:11 <lianj> luke-jr: that would be great
 553 2012-02-02 05:29:14 <luke-jr> OP_FLASHBIOS
 554 2012-02-02 05:29:16 <cjd> lol
 555 2012-02-02 05:29:43 <gmaxwell> OP_ENDFALSEVACUUM
 556 2012-02-02 05:30:03 <cjd> by sandbox I mean put it into a seperate address space and do fun stuff to make sure nomatter how bad it gets in there, it can't own your wallet
 557 2012-02-02 05:30:30 <lianj> cjd: it cant
 558 2012-02-02 05:30:56 <gmaxwell> cjd: the scripting part is only a fairly modest part of the software— and our scripts are more like fancy config files than program code. All that other stuff that talks to the network is about as risky.
 559 2012-02-02 05:31:07 <cjd> mm
 560 2012-02-02 05:31:20 <cjd> serialize.h is over my head
 561 2012-02-02 05:31:52 <cjd> I read it and I gather it means that he has proven it can't have a buffer overflow as long as the templating engine is sound
 562 2012-02-02 05:32:04 <cjd> but I can't really say much else about it
 563 2012-02-02 05:33:04 <pingdrive> test
 564 2012-02-02 05:33:05 <lianj> sure badly implemented in the wrong language, it could own your wallet :P
 565 2012-02-02 05:33:05 <gmaxwell> cjd: yea, but lurking in some corner (irc code perhaps) there could be something that doesn't use the safe types.
 566 2012-02-02 05:33:33 <cjd> those would be the places to look
 567 2012-02-02 05:33:37 <gmaxwell> cjd: obviously we don't know of anything like that... but thats the kind of paranoia that would justify sandboxing things.
 568 2012-02-02 05:33:54 <gmaxwell> cjd: people have looked. But as you say C++ is so abstract it can be easy to miss subtle things.
 569 2012-02-02 05:34:27 <cjd> ^^^+100
 570 2012-02-02 05:34:33 <gmaxwell> "oh. baz() returns an unsafe type and we append to it inside bar()... even though everything defined in bar() is safe"
 571 2012-02-02 05:34:45 <cjd> cjdns has an option to set rlimit of file descriptors to 0 on startup, which is a hack but it works great on linux.
 572 2012-02-02 05:35:11 <gmaxwell> (and I've personally audited the code for this kind of thing— but fat lot thats worth. I've missed every bug we've committed since I've been paying attention :( )
 573 2012-02-02 05:35:19 <cjd> doesn't make much sense where the money is in the program, but those are the kind of approaches I like.
 574 2012-02-02 05:35:36 <gmaxwell> cjd: have to be careful, sometimes removing privs creates vulnerabilties too.
 575 2012-02-02 05:35:57 <gmaxwell> E.g. code that could _never_ overflow .. overflows because an error that could never happen, happens due to dropping privs.
 576 2012-02-02 05:37:12 <gmaxwell> if the wallet were process seperable it would be totally great to totally sandbox off the network/blockchain code.
 577 2012-02-02 05:37:42 <cjd> hmm
 578 2012-02-02 05:37:53 <gmaxwell> "nothign that talks to the network shares VM with your private keys" would be a warm and fuzzy thing indeed.
 579 2012-02-02 05:38:34 <cjd> I did that in cjdns too because it needs to have a tcp socket for admin
 580 2012-02-02 05:39:00 <gmaxwell> my own personal online wallet is -connect= to a node which runs inside valgrind which valgrind will kill it hit hits anything suspect. (except the things I've excluded because bdb sucks and is not valgrind clean)
 581 2012-02-02 05:39:53 <gmaxwell> Though I probably ought to go through bitcoin and make the memset code also valgrind taint, I bet it loses a lot of sensitivity to use after free because of the custom allocator stuff.
 582 2012-02-02 05:40:20 <cjd> hmm
 583 2012-02-02 05:40:21 <cjd> bdb
 584 2012-02-02 05:40:38 * cjd has learned to be afraid of libraries
 585 2012-02-02 05:41:26 <cjd> ofc /me has done a fair amount of java programming and the people who write apache commons stuff are ...
 586 2012-02-02 05:45:19 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you can kill that VPS account I was using — I've learned what I needed to know from it.
 587 2012-02-02 05:47:05 RazielZ has joined
 588 2012-02-02 05:47:57 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 589 2012-02-02 05:48:43 <midnightmagic> lol, as Bjarne said, "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 590 2012-02-02 05:49:38 <luke-jr> LOL
 591 2012-02-02 05:51:19 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: blown away
 592 2012-02-02 05:51:22 da2ce7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 593 2012-02-02 05:51:40 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: thanks for your help.
 594 2012-02-02 05:51:51 <luke-jr> np
 595 2012-02-02 05:52:21 Maged has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.88 [Firefox 9.0.1/20111220165912])
 596 2012-02-02 05:56:00 pingdrive has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 597 2012-02-02 05:57:19 <splatster> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SgCbuAVsmS8/TPWU5u1GfiI/AAAAAAAACbg/-QVcxLNXYIA/s1600/Yo+Dawg+-+I+Heard+you+like+dreams+%2528Inception%252C+recursive+dreams%2529.jpg
 598 2012-02-02 05:57:37 <splatster> oops maybe not -dev related
 599 2012-02-02 06:02:25 d4de has joined
 600 2012-02-02 06:02:29 da2ce7 has joined
 601 2012-02-02 06:03:12 dissipate has joined
 602 2012-02-02 06:03:17 Katniss_ is now known as Katniss
 603 2012-02-02 06:07:55 theymos has joined
 604 2012-02-02 06:09:49 <midnightmagic> hey gmaxwell, what's the pps source for your future net4501? did you actually buy an HP Z3801A?
 605 2012-02-02 06:09:50 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 606 2012-02-02 06:11:34 darkmethod has joined
 607 2012-02-02 06:12:27 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: I have a couple trimble thunderbolt's. There is an seamingly unbounded supply of new-old-stock of them due to stock piling for cell site deployments.
 608 2012-02-02 06:20:02 dr_win_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 609 2012-02-02 06:22:10 d4de has joined
 610 2012-02-02 06:23:42 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 611 2012-02-02 06:25:08 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I was thinking of getting a couple copernicus modules, as here: http://www.sparkfun.com/products/10923 , PPS length range is 100ns to 500ms.. variable polarity, the works. Looks like the instruction manual is good and detailed too: http://dlnmh9ip6v2uc.cloudfront.net/datasheets/Sensors/GPS/63530-10_Rev-B_Manual_Copernicus-II.pdf
 612 2012-02-02 06:27:18 <gmaxwell> ::nods:: you should look one bay for the vendors with the thunderbolts you can talk them into a complete kit with powered antenna and psu for around $100.. and they contain a very stable oxco, they're much better than justa PPS source.
 613 2012-02-02 06:31:42 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 614 2012-02-02 06:32:57 <c_k> ;win 15
 615 2012-02-02 06:33:39 <midnightmagic> is the timing noise from rs232 sources partly because it's going through a serial driver or something? that is, if I plug my copernicus (since I already have the devboard for it) into it i'll still get relative superior performance (presuming the copernicus can deliver it)?
 616 2012-02-02 06:34:37 <midnightmagic> it would be a fun project.. i have a very unreasonable urge to have accurate time available, even if I don't use it for something that needs it.. :)
 617 2012-02-02 06:37:21 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: do you run a stratum 2 right now? who are you using for your s1 source?
 618 2012-02-02 06:38:46 <gmaxwell> I have a S1 now, but with boring unfancy hardware.. just a pps input.
 619 2012-02-02 06:40:06 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: yes. You should get superior performance from 4501 plus any pps input.. even without the 10mhz clock hack. but it'll be limited somewhat by instability of the local onboard osc (because uncertanty in its timing creates uncertanty in the timing between the pps and the packets)
 620 2012-02-02 06:42:13 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Ah, I understand. You're replacing the crystal entirely..  what happens when GPS is blocked? Does the machine no longer tick?
 621 2012-02-02 06:43:08 <midnightmagic> also, can you give me the link to that sun-based timekeeper idea you had one more time?
 622 2012-02-02 06:43:28 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: it free runs on the very stable OXCO, the specsheet has details on the holdover time.
 623 2012-02-02 06:43:47 <midnightmagic> huh, cool.
 624 2012-02-02 06:44:43 <nathan7> hi midnightmagic
 625 2012-02-02 06:45:03 <gmaxwell> you can also by rubidium atomic clocks for about $35 (0_o) but they're power hungry, and less stable than a GPSDO. (but autonomous, at least until the lamp burns out!)
 626 2012-02-02 06:45:19 <midnightmagic> ha ha!
 627 2012-02-02 06:45:35 <nathan7> I'm being ignored =[
 628 2012-02-02 06:45:53 <midnightmagic> !  no, not at all!  hi nathan7!
 629 2012-02-02 06:45:54 <gribble> Error: "no," is not a valid command.
 630 2012-02-02 06:46:18 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic http://people.xiph.org/~greg/decentralized-time.txt
 631 2012-02-02 06:46:19 <nathan7> How's life, midnightmagic?
 632 2012-02-02 06:46:29 <midnightmagic> I'm switching back and forth between a web browser, and for some reason your note didn't highlight in my irc client.
 633 2012-02-02 06:46:48 <midnightmagic> nathan7: Good, thank you! How are you?
 634 2012-02-02 06:47:06 <midnightmagic> that's the one, thanks gm
 635 2012-02-02 06:47:13 <nathan7> I'm surviving and printing things
 636 2012-02-02 06:47:21 <midnightmagic> printing?
 637 2012-02-02 06:47:26 <nathan7> 3D printing!
 638 2012-02-02 06:47:32 <midnightmagic> awesome! do you have a mendel?
 639 2012-02-02 06:48:11 <midnightmagic> a coworker is getting a mendel with the longer-lasting bearings, but i'm not sure if he's willing to print me off the components
 640 2012-02-02 06:48:15 <nathan7> a Prusa Mendel
 641 2012-02-02 06:48:23 <nathan7> it's a bit of a mix of a v1 and a v2
 642 2012-02-02 06:48:30 <nathan7> pretty much the entire machine was donated to me
 643 2012-02-02 06:49:00 <midnightmagic> that's really awesome. ever since my *other* coworker started printing stuff off, all I can see everywhere is formed solutions to problems.
 644 2012-02-02 06:49:01 <nathan7> I hang out a *lot* in #reprap, for more than a year now
 645 2012-02-02 06:49:22 <nathan7> then I ended up helping out at a build party
 646 2012-02-02 06:49:32 <midnightmagic> build parties!!!
 647 2012-02-02 06:49:51 <nathan7> and then the guy who organised that and I met up in Amsterdam because I needed some stuff from him
 648 2012-02-02 06:50:07 <nathan7> and he's all like "also, here's a bag of printer parts. want them?"
 649 2012-02-02 06:50:26 <midnightmagic> LOL
 650 2012-02-02 06:50:38 <nathan7> and then I helped out at the next build party
 651 2012-02-02 06:50:46 <nathan7> and then at the next, in Köln
 652 2012-02-02 06:50:56 <nathan7> and it was all fun and things [=
 653 2012-02-02 06:51:11 <midnightmagic> we are all just the vehicles for the propagation of the organism that is the reprap
 654 2012-02-02 06:51:27 <midnightmagic> symbiosis
 655 2012-02-02 06:51:49 ThomasV_ has joined
 656 2012-02-02 06:52:58 <nathan7> and prusajr fixes every problem he notices during the build party
 657 2012-02-02 06:53:06 <midnightmagic> wow
 658 2012-02-02 06:53:08 <nathan7> so they're an opportunity to improve the machine
 659 2012-02-02 06:53:27 <nathan7> (the build party crew is ruben-ikmaak, prusajr, Kliment and me)
 660 2012-02-02 06:54:31 <nathan7> I'm just in for the fun =p
 661 2012-02-02 06:54:31 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 662 2012-02-02 06:55:19 <midnightmagic> i have some neighbours i think who would love one or two of them. it would be nice to build a community here.
 663 2012-02-02 06:55:29 <nathan7> you should ask your coworker to print you a set of parts
 664 2012-02-02 06:55:32 <nathan7> or I can print you a set
 665 2012-02-02 06:56:05 <midnightmagic> he said he will do a build party once he gets his set up. apparently he sent off to get them professionally formed: he wants one that doesn't need a lot of valibration
 666 2012-02-02 06:56:19 <nathan7> mhm
 667 2012-02-02 06:56:21 <midnightmagic> $500 CAD
 668 2012-02-02 06:56:29 <midnightmagic> so he's getting the parts super-cheap.
 669 2012-02-02 06:56:43 <nathan7> that's cheap, yes
 670 2012-02-02 06:59:33 <midnightmagic> i'm not sure how he's doing that, i guess the pros have realised that people helping people means everyone wins.
 671 2012-02-02 06:59:55 <nathan7> but that's parts
 672 2012-02-02 07:00:06 <nathan7> we charge €850 to build party participants
 673 2012-02-02 07:00:20 <nathan7> €400 in parts, the rest is to pay three people and drinks and food
 674 2012-02-02 07:00:21 <midnightmagic> everything all together for this fellow was apparently close to $500 CAD.
 675 2012-02-02 07:00:27 <nathan7> (I'm not really paid)
 676 2012-02-02 07:01:00 <nathan7> (but i really enjoy the social interaction)
 677 2012-02-02 07:01:06 b4epoche_ has joined
 678 2012-02-02 07:01:26 <nathan7> *I 
 679 2012-02-02 07:01:48 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 680 2012-02-02 07:01:48 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 681 2012-02-02 07:01:49 * nathan7 hops off, school
 682 2012-02-02 07:01:53 <midnightmagic> cool beans man, you'll have to post some pics of some forms
 683 2012-02-02 07:01:58 <midnightmagic> ttyl
 684 2012-02-02 07:01:59 <nathan7> midnightmagic: see ikmaak.nl
 685 2012-02-02 07:02:05 <nathan7> for build party pics
 686 2012-02-02 07:02:14 <nathan7> it's in Dutch I'm afraid
 687 2012-02-02 07:02:22 * nathan7 really hops off
 688 2012-02-02 07:08:19 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
 689 2012-02-02 07:09:49 JRWR has joined
 690 2012-02-02 07:14:19 unicron has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 691 2012-02-02 07:17:10 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 692 2012-02-02 07:17:35 dissipate has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 693 2012-02-02 07:22:22 JRWR has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 694 2012-02-02 07:23:04 JRWR has joined
 695 2012-02-02 07:32:07 ThomasV_ has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 696 2012-02-02 07:40:56 Katniss has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 697 2012-02-02 07:45:04 splatster has quit (Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com)
 698 2012-02-02 07:49:28 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 699 2012-02-02 08:06:23 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 700 2012-02-02 08:10:04 larsivi has joined
 701 2012-02-02 08:11:08 danbri has joined
 702 2012-02-02 08:18:49 iocor has joined
 703 2012-02-02 08:28:00 Katniss has joined
 704 2012-02-02 08:31:10 <luke-jr> doh, 20 Feb hasn't passed yet? :P
 705 2012-02-02 08:31:37 <Diablo-D3> whats then?
 706 2012-02-02 08:35:52 Joric has joined
 707 2012-02-02 08:37:42 darkmethod has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 708 2012-02-02 08:44:45 ovidiusoft has joined
 709 2012-02-02 08:45:41 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 710 2012-02-02 08:52:15 poiuh has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 711 2012-02-02 08:52:43 poiuh has joined
 712 2012-02-02 08:54:15 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: bitcoin node protocol change
 713 2012-02-02 08:54:50 vsrinivas has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 714 2012-02-02 08:55:10 <Diablo-D3> heh
 715 2012-02-02 09:02:51 iocor has joined
 716 2012-02-02 09:07:32 Prattler has joined
 717 2012-02-02 09:10:50 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 718 2012-02-02 09:11:36 <Prattler> hey, what's the proper way to support p2sh via solo mining? What do I need to do?
 719 2012-02-02 09:12:27 <Eliel> apply a patch to your bitcoind or get the latest git version and run that
 720 2012-02-02 09:13:19 <luke-jr> latest git is BIP 16 tho
 721 2012-02-02 09:13:31 <luke-jr> Prattler: http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/bip17/
 722 2012-02-02 09:13:36 <Prattler> thanks
 723 2012-02-02 09:13:50 <luke-jr> this is BIP 17 week
 724 2012-02-02 09:14:09 * Prattler nods twice in complete agreement
 725 2012-02-02 09:17:04 <Joric> i got a feeling it's a bip 17 month or even an year
 726 2012-02-02 09:18:36 <luke-jr> Joric: well, if we achieve majority quickly, it can even be permanent :P
 727 2012-02-02 09:23:41 molecular has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 728 2012-02-02 09:24:27 molecular has joined
 729 2012-02-02 09:36:26 marf_away has joined
 730 2012-02-02 09:49:00 wirehead has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 731 2012-02-02 09:51:13  has quit (Clown|!Clown@static-87-79-93-140.netcologne.de|Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 732 2012-02-02 09:55:26 gronager has joined
 733 2012-02-02 09:57:02 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 734 2012-02-02 09:57:10 booo has joined
 735 2012-02-02 09:57:30 copumpkin has joined
 736 2012-02-02 09:59:26 wirehead has joined
 737 2012-02-02 10:02:46 coblee_ has joined
 738 2012-02-02 10:05:20 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 739 2012-02-02 10:06:11 coblee has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 740 2012-02-02 10:06:11 coblee_ is now known as coblee
 741 2012-02-02 10:16:06 <epscy> what is BIP 17?
 742 2012-02-02 10:16:14 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 743 2012-02-02 10:16:41 <cjd> luke's counterproposal to bip16
 744 2012-02-02 10:30:39 blomqvist has quit (Quit: blomqvist)
 745 2012-02-02 10:32:54 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 746 2012-02-02 10:33:55 devrandom has joined
 747 2012-02-02 10:34:59 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 748 2012-02-02 10:35:04 abbe has joined
 749 2012-02-02 10:37:39 gribble has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 750 2012-02-02 10:38:06 gribble has joined
 751 2012-02-02 10:40:05 marf_away has joined
 752 2012-02-02 10:57:12 d4de has quit (Quit: I can't tell the difference between Halloween and Christmas, because OCT31 = DEC25)
 753 2012-02-02 11:00:04 erle- has joined
 754 2012-02-02 11:04:07 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 755 2012-02-02 11:07:43 paul0 has joined
 756 2012-02-02 11:07:54 iocor has joined
 757 2012-02-02 11:09:54 RazielZ has joined
 758 2012-02-02 11:12:15 b4epoche_ has joined
 759 2012-02-02 11:12:59 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 760 2012-02-02 11:12:59 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 761 2012-02-02 11:23:18 ivan` has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 762 2012-02-02 11:24:22 MrTiggr has joined
 763 2012-02-02 11:36:11 ivan` has joined
 764 2012-02-02 11:39:41 _sgstair has joined
 765 2012-02-02 11:39:42 sgstair has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 766 2012-02-02 11:39:44 _sgstair is now known as sgstair
 767 2012-02-02 11:51:51 roconnor has joined
 768 2012-02-02 11:53:43 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 769 2012-02-02 11:54:25 Mqrius has left ()
 770 2012-02-02 11:58:33 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 771 2012-02-02 11:59:00 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 772 2012-02-02 12:04:13 Moron__ has joined
 773 2012-02-02 12:07:54 Someoneweird is now known as SomeoneWeird
 774 2012-02-02 12:08:20 merde has joined
 775 2012-02-02 12:09:29 iocor has joined
 776 2012-02-02 12:12:11 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 777 2012-02-02 12:14:58 agricocb has joined
 778 2012-02-02 12:24:35 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
 779 2012-02-02 12:29:30 marf_away has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 780 2012-02-02 12:29:38 marf_away has joined
 781 2012-02-02 12:30:49 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 782 2012-02-02 12:31:03 [7] has joined
 783 2012-02-02 12:36:39 graingert has joined
 784 2012-02-02 12:39:40 somuchwin has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
 785 2012-02-02 12:40:04 marf_away has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 786 2012-02-02 12:40:27 marf_away has joined
 787 2012-02-02 12:44:44 JRWR has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 788 2012-02-02 12:46:39 roconnor has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 789 2012-02-02 12:53:25 graingert has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 790 2012-02-02 12:53:36 graingert has joined
 791 2012-02-02 13:01:10 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 792 2012-02-02 13:17:37 iocor has joined
 793 2012-02-02 13:20:24 user_ has joined
 794 2012-02-02 13:24:01 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 795 2012-02-02 13:24:47 onelineproof has joined
 796 2012-02-02 13:29:29 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 797 2012-02-02 13:32:53 <luke-jr> epscy: P2SH done right; I wrote the BIP, but it came out of community discussion
 798 2012-02-02 13:35:06 iocor has joined
 799 2012-02-02 13:35:13 agricocb has joined
 800 2012-02-02 13:37:08 TD has joined
 801 2012-02-02 13:49:34  has joined
 802 2012-02-02 13:49:43 <ThomasV> naive question: how do I dump the string in a CDataStream ?
 803 2012-02-02 13:54:24 smart19885 has joined
 804 2012-02-02 13:54:38 <smart19885> moin moin
 805 2012-02-02 13:55:42 datagutt has joined
 806 2012-02-02 13:55:45 datagutt has quit (Changing host)
 807 2012-02-02 13:55:45 datagutt has joined
 808 2012-02-02 14:00:09 minimoose has joined
 809 2012-02-02 14:07:51 helo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 810 2012-02-02 14:10:53 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 811 2012-02-02 14:11:53 helo has joined
 812 2012-02-02 14:12:07 cande has joined
 813 2012-02-02 14:12:57 m0mchil has joined
 814 2012-02-02 14:14:51 onelineproof has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 815 2012-02-02 14:14:52 datagutt has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 816 2012-02-02 14:14:57 smart19885 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 817 2012-02-02 14:15:52 datagutt has joined
 818 2012-02-02 14:16:09 datagutt has quit (Changing host)
 819 2012-02-02 14:16:09 datagutt has joined
 820 2012-02-02 14:20:41 poiuh has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 821 2012-02-02 14:22:27 JRWR has joined
 822 2012-02-02 14:24:00 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 823 2012-02-02 14:26:10 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 824 2012-02-02 14:26:48 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 825 2012-02-02 14:28:51 danbri has joined
 826 2012-02-02 14:30:10 copumpkin has joined
 827 2012-02-02 14:31:32 marf_away has joined
 828 2012-02-02 14:32:04 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 829 2012-02-02 14:44:23 booo has joined
 830 2012-02-02 14:50:19 sacredchao has joined
 831 2012-02-02 14:54:17 gp5st has joined
 832 2012-02-02 15:00:20 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneWeirdzzzz
 833 2012-02-02 15:02:11 copumpkin is now known as c0w
 834 2012-02-02 15:04:28 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 835 2012-02-02 15:04:36 agricocb has joined
 836 2012-02-02 15:06:47 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.3 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 837 2012-02-02 15:08:41 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 838 2012-02-02 15:08:49 ovidiusoft has joined
 839 2012-02-02 15:14:10 da2ce7 has joined
 840 2012-02-02 15:14:18 iocor has joined
 841 2012-02-02 15:16:50 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 842 2012-02-02 15:18:44 markus_w1nner has joined
 843 2012-02-02 15:20:35 smtmnyz has quit (Quit: quiting)
 844 2012-02-02 15:20:49 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 845 2012-02-02 15:21:36 rdponticelli has joined
 846 2012-02-02 15:22:10 markus_wanner has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 847 2012-02-02 15:22:22 smtmnyz has joined
 848 2012-02-02 15:24:31 b4epoche_ has joined
 849 2012-02-02 15:25:35 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 850 2012-02-02 15:25:35 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 851 2012-02-02 15:30:04 traviscj has joined
 852 2012-02-02 15:30:30 helo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 853 2012-02-02 15:31:11 onelineproof has joined
 854 2012-02-02 15:32:16 helo has joined
 855 2012-02-02 15:32:32 iocor has joined
 856 2012-02-02 15:33:46 agricocb has joined
 857 2012-02-02 15:33:49 agricocb has quit (Changing host)
 858 2012-02-02 15:33:49 agricocb has joined
 859 2012-02-02 15:34:42 seco has joined
 860 2012-02-02 15:40:17 <Joric> did anyone benchmark win32 version of 0.5.2 against 0.5.1?
 861 2012-02-02 15:40:32 <Joric> doesn't seem really faster
 862 2012-02-02 15:43:42 pentarh has joined
 863 2012-02-02 15:44:24 <pentarh> please comment on this namecoin design improvement proposal https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62017.msg727656#msg727656 - it possibly could make namecoin better than bitcoin
 864 2012-02-02 15:44:37 <luke-jr> Joric: if your bottleneck is network, it won't be
 865 2012-02-02 15:46:32 <Joric> yeah sure it's network
 866 2012-02-02 15:46:46 <Joric> it could be... 10 years ago
 867 2012-02-02 15:48:35 <Joric> why the client is so slow in general? because of recalculating all tx hashes?
 868 2012-02-02 15:51:39 <gmaxwell> Joric: haseh are stupidly fast.
 869 2012-02-02 15:51:43 <gmaxwell> er hashes.
 870 2012-02-02 15:51:45 <gmaxwell> Joric: slow _how_ ?
 871 2012-02-02 15:52:13 <gmaxwell> Different kinds of slowness have different causes.
 872 2012-02-02 15:52:16 <Joric> it takes two days to download the blockchain
 873 2012-02-02 15:52:40 <TD> so use multibit
 874 2012-02-02 15:52:49 <TD> or some other lightweight client like electrum
 875 2012-02-02 15:52:50 <gmaxwell> TD: pft.
 876 2012-02-02 15:53:57 <gmaxwell> Joric: I can sync in ~30 minutes to a ramdisk/ non-fsyncing medium. We're not sure of the exact causes of the slowness, though a major part is just due to the use of synchronous random writes.
 877 2012-02-02 15:55:35 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 878 2012-02-02 15:55:50 <gmaxwell> IO traces of the client show it doing about 23GiB of writes during a full sync from 0, most of them random and most synchronous.  This can be fixed, but the exact details aren't clear yet.
 879 2012-02-02 15:56:53 <Eliel> Joric: I hear the libbitcoin version of bitcoind is quite a bit faster with the blockchain download.
 880 2012-02-02 15:56:59 <Joric> did you try libcoin? that phd guy forgot his name did he rewrite something or just copied the code
 881 2012-02-02 15:57:23 <Eliel> Joric: he refactored the code.
 882 2012-02-02 15:57:45 <Eliel> not quite a rewrite but not far :)
 883 2012-02-02 15:57:46 <Joric> so no real job was done whatsoever
 884 2012-02-02 15:57:54 <gmaxwell> Eliel: have you actually compared it?
 885 2012-02-02 15:58:15 <Eliel> gmaxwell: I haven't had time to look at it yet.
 886 2012-02-02 15:58:33 <gmaxwell> I spent about an hour going through it and I can't see why it would be (much) faster.
 887 2012-02-02 15:58:40 <gmaxwell> I haven't actually tested it, I guess I should.
 888 2012-02-02 15:59:19 <Eliel> in the email list he said it's due to removing the inefficiencies associated with threads and locking.
 889 2012-02-02 15:59:27 <gmaxwell> He was speculating.
 890 2012-02-02 15:59:55 <gmaxwell> My instrumentation indicates that we're not spending basically any time waiting on locks during sync.. could be wrong, but I'm doubtful.
 891 2012-02-02 16:00:19 <gmaxwell> Good news there is that if it is as much of an improvement as he said— then I suspect a lot is probably just some stupid bug he fixed accidentally.
 892 2012-02-02 16:00:34 <Eliel> quite likely :)
 893 2012-02-02 16:05:57 Joric_ has joined
 894 2012-02-02 16:05:58 Joric_ has quit (Changing host)
 895 2012-02-02 16:05:58 Joric_ has joined
 896 2012-02-02 16:06:21 agricocb has joined
 897 2012-02-02 16:06:51 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 898 2012-02-02 16:07:06 Joric_ is now known as Joric
 899 2012-02-02 16:08:08 btc_novice has joined
 900 2012-02-02 16:10:16 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
 901 2012-02-02 16:11:25 vigilyn2 has joined
 902 2012-02-02 16:13:38 vigilyn has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 903 2012-02-02 16:13:47 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 904 2012-02-02 16:15:43 <gmaxwell> okay.. I _would_ test it but the cmake fails in a completely opaque way.
 905 2012-02-02 16:17:41 <makomk> libcoin?
 906 2012-02-02 16:17:43 <gmaxwell> yea, this is likely to be effective:
 907 2012-02-02 16:17:43 <gmaxwell> stat("C:/boost/lib64", 0x7fff0db79fd0)  = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
 908 2012-02-02 16:18:22 <gmaxwell> makomk: yes.
 909 2012-02-02 16:18:40 <makomk> Got any errors like "add_subdirectory given source "coinQt" which is not an existing directory"?
 910 2012-02-02 16:19:08 [Tycho] has joined
 911 2012-02-02 16:19:43 <gmaxwell> I was chasing "Could NOT find Boost" first. actually I don't see what one however. It's whining about qt4/qt3/wxWidgets too though.
 912 2012-02-02 16:21:17 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: same problem as me
 913 2012-02-02 16:21:23 <makomk> The latest git fixed "Could NOT find Boost" for me, though I think - at least for me - that message was bogus.
 914 2012-02-02 16:21:40 <luke-jr> it's not looking in /usr/lib
 915 2012-02-02 16:21:44 <luke-jr> everywhere BUT there
 916 2012-02-02 16:21:56 <gmaxwell> makomk: I'm on a pull from a few minutes ago.
 917 2012-02-02 16:22:33 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I see it stat /usr/lib64 and even :
 918 2012-02-02 16:22:33 <gmaxwell> stat("/usr/lib64/libboost_date_time-mt.a", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=137278, ...}) = 0
 919 2012-02-02 16:23:03 <makomk> Interesting. Anyway, you might want to try http://pastebin.ca/2108766 and see if the message about not finding Boost actually matters with that fixed.
 920 2012-02-02 16:26:45 <luke-jr> it didn't for me last time
 921 2012-02-02 16:27:10 <gmaxwell> makomk: nope.. but I removed the boost checks and it appears to still be getting the includes right— perhaps it'll blow up when it links though.
 922 2012-02-02 16:27:26 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: yeah, it does seem to find boost includes during cmake…
 923 2012-02-02 16:29:39 <gmaxwell> I can't understand how he possibly could have made bitcoin _slower_ to build
 924 2012-02-02 16:30:04 <gmaxwell> anyways, I have a binary now.
 925 2012-02-02 16:30:08 <luke-jr> :o
 926 2012-02-02 16:30:27 <onelineproof> you should make bitcoin-qt build on top of bitcoind
 927 2012-02-02 16:32:30 <luke-jr> onelineproof: see also: Spesmilo
 928 2012-02-02 16:33:07 iocor has joined
 929 2012-02-02 16:33:43 lolcat___ has joined
 930 2012-02-02 16:34:29 <gmaxwell> welp. ... it only seems to want to run as an rpc client for me.
 931 2012-02-02 16:35:18 <luke-jr> aha, it's demanding static libs
 932 2012-02-02 16:35:18 <gmaxwell> ah, apparently it only starts as a daemon if you give it no options.
 933 2012-02-02 16:35:37 c0w has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 934 2012-02-02 16:35:52 onelineproof has left ()
 935 2012-02-02 16:36:48 Wack0 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 936 2012-02-02 16:38:05 Crshman has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 937 2012-02-02 16:38:13 Wack0 has joined
 938 2012-02-02 16:38:20 <gmaxwell> oohhh kay.. you can't give it a port number with connect.
 939 2012-02-02 16:38:21 Crshman has joined
 940 2012-02-02 16:38:36 nexes has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 941 2012-02-02 16:38:45 <makomk> I can't figure out how to pass -datadir to it either.
 942 2012-02-02 16:38:52 <gmaxwell> 08:29 < gmaxwell> ah, apparently it only starts as a daemon if you give it no options.
 943 2012-02-02 16:39:04 nexes has joined
 944 2012-02-02 16:39:13 <gmaxwell> makomk: I symlinked .bitcoin from the account I was running it in.
 945 2012-02-02 16:40:33 Turingi has joined
 946 2012-02-02 16:40:33 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
 947 2012-02-02 16:40:33 Turingi has joined
 948 2012-02-02 16:42:09 <makomk> Hmmm, makes sense I guess.
 949 2012-02-02 16:44:02 <gmaxwell> oh I bet he was benchmarking against the code he forked from.
 950 2012-02-02 16:44:28 <gmaxwell> He removed all the secureallocator stuff, so he fixed the mlock behavior as a side effect.
 951 2012-02-02 16:45:42 <TD> right
 952 2012-02-02 16:45:46 <TD> bip 14 implemented in bitcoinj
 953 2012-02-02 16:46:49 <gmaxwell> looks like this is going to be slower than reference. :(
 954 2012-02-02 16:50:27 Nicksasa has joined
 955 2012-02-02 16:50:39 <makomk> I don't think it has the code to skip ECDSA checking for older blocks.
 956 2012-02-02 16:50:48 dr_win has joined
 957 2012-02-02 16:51:06 <luke-jr> what's the purpose of multiple checkpoints? doesn't the last one make the earlier ones useless?
 958 2012-02-02 16:51:31 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: no, because they stop people from feeding bogus forks that will never win.
 959 2012-02-02 16:51:40 <luke-jr> ah
 960 2012-02-02 16:52:11 <Diablo-D3> but I like bogus forks! I call them spoons!
 961 2012-02-02 16:52:15 <gmaxwell> This could be fixed via a better fetching algo (fetch headers backwards along the most plausable chain, then only fetch headers for the winner)
 962 2012-02-02 16:52:22 * Diablo-D3 slurps his soup
 963 2012-02-02 16:52:37 * k9quaint slurps someone elses soup
 964 2012-02-02 16:52:41 <gmaxwell> makomk: yea, it's looking like it's going to take about 2x what the refernce client currently takes.
 965 2012-02-02 16:52:46 <Diablo-D3> k9quaint: kinky.
 966 2012-02-02 16:52:48 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
 967 2012-02-02 16:53:00 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 968 2012-02-02 16:58:16 onelineproof has joined
 969 2012-02-02 17:00:22 larsivi has joined
 970 2012-02-02 17:05:09 p0s has joined
 971 2012-02-02 17:07:36 <gmaxwell> :(  it's now at only 137695 and has taken as long as the reference software does for me.. maybe 3-4x slower.
 972 2012-02-02 17:10:24 marf_away has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
 973 2012-02-02 17:13:51 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 974 2012-02-02 17:22:05 iocor has joined
 975 2012-02-02 17:22:11 Prattler has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 976 2012-02-02 17:23:16 JimRogers has joined
 977 2012-02-02 17:23:51 copumpkin has joined
 978 2012-02-02 17:23:53 copumpkin has quit (Changing host)
 979 2012-02-02 17:23:53 copumpkin has joined
 980 2012-02-02 17:24:31 viscienzo64 has joined
 981 2012-02-02 17:28:30 viscienzo64 has left ()
 982 2012-02-02 17:29:41 darsk1ez has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 983 2012-02-02 17:29:46 onelineproof has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 984 2012-02-02 17:31:40 darsk1ez has joined
 985 2012-02-02 17:36:55 onelineproof has joined
 986 2012-02-02 17:37:11 JRWR has quit (Quit: BTC Welcome: 19QtYzmENUmqRhvjEvHsz785rqZ5RRcZG4)
 987 2012-02-02 17:37:43 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 988 2012-02-02 17:37:46 Prattler has joined
 989 2012-02-02 17:38:48 BlueMatt has joined
 990 2012-02-02 17:38:51 BlueMatt has quit (Changing host)
 991 2012-02-02 17:38:51 BlueMatt has joined
 992 2012-02-02 17:40:43 <gmaxwell> Okay, almost exactly 2x long as the reference client.
 993 2012-02-02 17:40:56 darsk1ez has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 994 2012-02-02 17:42:11 darsk1ez has joined
 995 2012-02-02 17:44:00 <BlueMatt> wait, libcoin is slower than reference?
 996 2012-02-02 17:44:02 <BlueMatt> :*
 997 2012-02-02 17:44:05 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 998 2012-02-02 17:44:08 <BlueMatt> s/:*/:(/
 999 2012-02-02 17:44:26 <BlueMatt> ;;seen genjix
1000 2012-02-02 17:44:27 <gribble> genjix was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 1 day, 19 hours, 48 minutes, and 6 seconds ago: <genjix> ok off. cya all.
1001 2012-02-02 17:45:00 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I don't doubt it's faster than the code he forked from— but at least for me its slower.
1002 2012-02-02 17:45:27 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: he removed all the secure allocator stuff, so I'm guessing the improvement he saw came entirely from the mlock behavior.
1003 2012-02-02 17:45:36 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1004 2012-02-02 17:45:39 <gmaxwell> well, almost entirely.
1005 2012-02-02 17:46:33 pusle has joined
1006 2012-02-02 17:46:47 <BlueMatt> mmm, shame
1007 2012-02-02 17:46:58 <BlueMatt> while you are benchmarking, feel like looking at CBlockStore?
1008 2012-02-02 17:47:07 Backburn has quit ()
1009 2012-02-02 17:47:07 <BlueMatt> ;)
1010 2012-02-02 17:48:02 <gmaxwell> Hey, I looked at it before. But yes, I guess I should again— do you still have the mystery performance loss?
1011 2012-02-02 17:48:19 <BlueMatt> yea, thats pretty much all Im waiting for before I mark the pull ready for merge
1012 2012-02-02 17:48:36 <BlueMatt> or at least ready for full pre-merge analysis
1013 2012-02-02 17:49:24 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: okay, I'll pull it again now and go over it and see if I can find the cause.
1014 2012-02-02 17:49:33 <BlueMatt> thanks a ton
1015 2012-02-02 17:49:38 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: in the meantime go give my utterly trivial listening patch a sanity look.
1016 2012-02-02 17:49:41 <gmaxwell> ;)
1017 2012-02-02 17:50:09 <BlueMatt> yea, I was just about to go do that ;)
1018 2012-02-02 17:50:52 <gmaxwell> I'm really bummed that this refactor thing didn't magically fix things. :(
1019 2012-02-02 17:52:18 <BlueMatt> maybe it'l have more speed hiding under a few minor bugs (like the ecdsa checking thing)
1020 2012-02-02 17:53:48 <gmaxwell> I'd guess a bit, but not the kind of large improvements that I want and think we can get through saner IO behavior. (AFAICT his IO behavior is the same as the reference)
1021 2012-02-02 17:53:51 <Joric> is it possible to wrap disk operations to write from ram using 10 mb blocks or something
1022 2012-02-02 17:54:05 <gmaxwell> Joric: Not trivally.
1023 2012-02-02 17:54:39 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: its much easier when you can split telling other code about new blocks and writing them which you can easily do in eg cblockstore ;)
1024 2012-02-02 17:54:59 <gmaxwell> Joric: the software is updating a database on disk while using that database for lookups.
1025 2012-02-02 17:55:21 <BlueMatt> well you also have to have a memory list of blocks you can do lookups in first
1026 2012-02-02 17:55:57 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: yea, and also handle reverting changes to your in memory database for reorgs.
1027 2012-02-02 17:56:10 imsaguy2 is now known as imsascammer
1028 2012-02-02 17:56:21 imsascammer is now known as imsaguy2
1029 2012-02-02 17:56:28 <BlueMatt> yea...
1030 2012-02-02 17:57:46 <Joric> i just tried ramdrive it speeded up 10-20x
1031 2012-02-02 17:58:01 * BlueMatt always tests on tmpfs
1032 2012-02-02 17:58:03 <gmaxwell> Joric: I think I told you this earlier?
1033 2012-02-02 17:58:22 <BlueMatt> (has several .bitcoin datadirs always mounted on tmpfs ready to go at any time :) )
1034 2012-02-02 17:58:45 <Joric> i only have 2 gb and db weights 1.5 gb so everything else become slow as hell had to cancel it )
1035 2012-02-02 17:58:53 <BlueMatt> oh...
1036 2012-02-02 17:59:02 <gmaxwell> My gut feel is that it may be easier to solve this by just supporting a 'summary file', then have an external tool that can independantly build the summary in a determinstic and trustworthy way from a compressed blockchain. .. as this will also solve runtime storage as well as syncup speed.
1037 2012-02-02 17:59:12 <Joric> it was downloading blocks at 300-400 kb/s
1038 2012-02-02 17:59:25 <gmaxwell> Just make the connecting input stuff check the current database, then if there is no hit it checks the summary file.
1039 2012-02-02 17:59:41 <gmaxwell> (and lookups in the summary file can be basically O(1)ish)
1040 2012-02-02 18:00:40 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: seems like that would take as much work as doing it right in the first place.  re: reorgs: the buffer idea could be used only during initial syncup.  During that time bitcoin should instead of just downloading blocks, download headers first to get the chain, then dl blocks.  This means you dont have to deal with reorgs until you are on disk, and also prevents the fill disk with a ton of orphan chains that start at 0 attacks
1041 2012-02-02 18:00:56 Clipse has joined
1042 2012-02-02 18:01:33 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: hm. point about only using it initially... the buffering really isn't needed at runtime.. but I'm not sure if the bulk updates really solve the problem.
1043 2012-02-02 18:01:45 <gmaxwell> E.g. I don't know if libdb will really batch inserts for index updates.
1044 2012-02-02 18:02:02 <gmaxwell> or if it will just do the same zillion writes per record.
1045 2012-02-02 18:02:23 <BlueMatt> doesnt matter, you can put the updates in a separate thread so the actual block dls dont take as long
1046 2012-02-02 18:02:29 <BlueMatt> s/take as long/block/
1047 2012-02-02 18:02:46 <BlueMatt> (well, ok you would still have to block if you start eating 10gb memory, but...)
1048 2012-02-02 18:02:52 <gmaxwell> Yes but if you can only write out N updates per second you'll eventually get ahead of it and need to block since taking a gig of ram sucks.
1049 2012-02-02 18:02:55 <gmaxwell> right.
1050 2012-02-02 18:03:17 <BlueMatt> still, it would help significantly
1051 2012-02-02 18:03:36 <gmaxwell> It will, just getting the concurrency will help a ton.
1052 2012-02-02 18:03:41 <BlueMatt> yep
1053 2012-02-02 18:04:17 <Joric> multibit downloads headers in first 30 seconds or something it's only 17 mb of them
1054 2012-02-02 18:04:25 <BlueMatt> anyway, thats my next big cblockstore project
1055 2012-02-02 18:04:34 <gmaxwell> Joric: sure, headers are no big deal.
1056 2012-02-02 18:04:35 <BlueMatt> (after 0.7 gets cblockstore to begin with)
1057 2012-02-02 18:04:49 <gmaxwell> though we need to add a protocol feature to help fetch headers backwards.
1058 2012-02-02 18:04:54 <BlueMatt> well, maybe Ill do windows autoupdate first...
1059 2012-02-02 18:04:55 <gmaxwell> (with piplining)
1060 2012-02-02 18:07:08 theorb has joined
1061 2012-02-02 18:07:46 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1062 2012-02-02 18:08:06 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
1063 2012-02-02 18:09:17 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1064 2012-02-02 18:11:12 Moron__ has quit ()
1065 2012-02-02 18:11:21 paul0 has quit (Quit: paul0)
1066 2012-02-02 18:12:03 XMPPwock1 has quit (Quit: Reconnecting)
1067 2012-02-02 18:12:15 XMPPwocky has joined
1068 2012-02-02 18:12:46 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: the addition of the if(nLastRebroadcast) is there a point to that other than a minuscule optimization?
1069 2012-02-02 18:15:19 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1070 2012-02-02 18:16:02 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: No, well Kinda. It prevents it from dropping AddrKnown the first time IsInitialBlockDownload passes. The prior behavior ran it once excessively but it was so soon after startup it had little effect. Running it later caused a whole bunch of redundant addr flooding.
1071 2012-02-02 18:16:21 <gmaxwell> E.g. my change otherwise made a minorly stupid behavior worse, and that prevents this from happening.
1072 2012-02-02 18:17:11 <BlueMatt> mmm, ok
1073 2012-02-02 18:17:16 <BlueMatt> that should have been obvious
1074 2012-02-02 18:19:39 MC1984 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1075 2012-02-02 18:20:33 MC1984 has joined
1076 2012-02-02 18:20:46 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I dont like adding fNoListen to GetMyExternalIP.  it breaks a ton of if (connecting to myself) dont try; logic.  Better would be to add fNoListen to the two places in irc.cpp where addrLocalHost is used and Im pretty sure that covers everything
1077 2012-02-02 18:21:06 <BlueMatt> no, need it in like 3 places in net.cpp too
1078 2012-02-02 18:21:12 <luke-jr> DEBUG:BitcoinLink:Wrong checksum on `verack' message (b'f9beb4d9' vs actual:b'5df6e0e2'); ignoring
1079 2012-02-02 18:21:21 <luke-jr> is `verack' in some cases checksumless too?
1080 2012-02-02 18:21:37 <luke-jr> I suppose if I ignore it until 20 Feb it'll go away… >.>
1081 2012-02-02 18:21:53 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: er.. IRC won't even _run_ if fNoListen is true.
1082 2012-02-02 18:21:59 <BlueMatt> actually one place (maybe), just PushVersion
1083 2012-02-02 18:21:59 <BlueMatt> but its debatable if you want to do that or not
1084 2012-02-02 18:22:10 <BlueMatt> oh, ok nvm so Id say remove that dif
1085 2012-02-02 18:22:11 <BlueMatt> f
1086 2012-02-02 18:22:33 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: whats on 20 feb wrt checksums?
1087 2012-02-02 18:22:49 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: 20 Feb, the bitcoin p2p protocol handshake changes
1088 2012-02-02 18:22:50 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: so, with that GetMyExternalIP nolisten makes a bitcoin node completely invisible to everyone but its peers. Which I think is the expected behavior.
1089 2012-02-02 18:23:02 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: mmm, how did I miss this?
1090 2012-02-02 18:23:11 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: all clients since like 0.3.0 (not sure exactly) automatically change by time
1091 2012-02-02 18:23:17 <luke-jr> it's hidden in a .h
1092 2012-02-02 18:23:22 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: oh, thats old...
1093 2012-02-02 18:23:30 <luke-jr> net.h:        // Version 0.2 obsoletes 20 Feb 2012
1094 2012-02-02 18:23:55 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: it already is
1095 2012-02-02 18:23:58 <BlueMatt> afaict
1096 2012-02-02 18:24:27 d4de has joined
1097 2012-02-02 18:24:27 d4de has quit (Changing host)
1098 2012-02-02 18:24:27 d4de has joined
1099 2012-02-02 18:24:41 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: the only place its passed which isnt already covered is the SendVersion
1100 2012-02-02 18:24:48 <BlueMatt> s/Send/Push/
1101 2012-02-02 18:24:59 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: did we just cros conversations? :)
1102 2012-02-02 18:25:04 <BlueMatt> addrMe, which I dont think is added, but if it is, just send 0.0.0.0
1103 2012-02-02 18:25:12 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I dont think so
1104 2012-02-02 18:25:24 merde has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1105 2012-02-02 18:25:32 <gmaxwell> I have _no_ clue what you're talking about now.
1106 2012-02-02 18:25:46 merde has joined
1107 2012-02-02 18:26:05 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: you say with GetExternalIP returning false if(fNoListen) it becomes invisible, my point is, you dont need that to become invisible
1108 2012-02-02 18:26:10 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: What is passed?
1109 2012-02-02 18:26:16 <BlueMatt> your ip
1110 2012-02-02 18:26:20 <BlueMatt> (to your peers)
1111 2012-02-02 18:26:45 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: you're visible to the external ip services, and for no good reason.
1112 2012-02-02 18:27:29 <BlueMatt> if (addrImAboutToConnectTo == addrMe) dont bother;
1113 2012-02-02 18:27:33 <BlueMatt> (is the reason)
1114 2012-02-02 18:27:52 <gmaxwell> Yes, but that's only one single connection which will instantly fail (no timeout) since you're not listening.
1115 2012-02-02 18:29:21 <BlueMatt> then you are sending addrMe == 127.0.0.1:0 (Im pretty sure) as well
1116 2012-02-02 18:29:37 <BlueMatt> maybe set the ip to 0.0.0.0 and then return false?
1117 2012-02-02 18:29:38 ahihi2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1118 2012-02-02 18:29:44 ahihi2 has joined
1119 2012-02-02 18:29:53 <BlueMatt> though thats bad design...
1120 2012-02-02 18:29:57 <gmaxwell> I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff (even if it takes the normal failure time) for virtue of not having every node announce itself to a couple of centralized services, no?
1121 2012-02-02 18:31:04 <gmaxwell> but yea... 0.0.0.0:0 would be better, because we do that for fUseProxy.
1122 2012-02-02 18:31:12 <gmaxwell> (in the pushversion at least)
1123 2012-02-02 18:31:34 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yea probably, but pushing 0.0.0.0 would be nicer imo
1124 2012-02-02 18:31:49 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: am I reading this right that all bitcoin message checksums will disappear on that date?
1125 2012-02-02 18:31:49 <luke-jr> pushing :: would be best probably?
1126 2012-02-02 18:32:00 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: no, all will have checksums
1127 2012-02-02 18:32:08 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: right now, at least `version' has no checksum
1128 2012-02-02 18:32:29 <BlueMatt> oh, sorry >=, thought it was <
1129 2012-02-02 18:32:40 <BlueMatt> shame, we should drop the checksum alltogether
1130 2012-02-02 18:32:47 <gmaxwell> 0_o
1131 2012-02-02 18:32:48 <luke-jr> TCP checksums don't work
1132 2012-02-02 18:32:56 <gmaxwell> TCP checksum is inadequate.
1133 2012-02-02 18:33:21 <[eval]> because messages can be split over multiple segments?
1134 2012-02-02 18:33:24 <gmaxwell> (go try rsyncing a few TB over the internet.. your ssh connection will eventually drop)
1135 2012-02-02 18:33:29 <luke-jr> I've never seen TCP correct corruption
1136 2012-02-02 18:33:39 <BlueMatt> well we should drop a lot of checksums, ie block message checksums
1137 2012-02-02 18:33:39 <luke-jr> or even detect
1138 2012-02-02 18:33:39 <gmaxwell> [eval]: no, because it's just ones compliment addition mode 65536.
1139 2012-02-02 18:33:45 <[eval]> ah ok
1140 2012-02-02 18:33:50 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I have, there is a nice paper on it too.
1141 2012-02-02 18:33:55 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: no, because we DoS people who send bad blocks
1142 2012-02-02 18:34:08 <luke-jr> err
1143 2012-02-02 18:34:12 <luke-jr> not DoS, anti-DoS/ban
1144 2012-02-02 18:34:32 <gmaxwell> http://www.ir.bbn.com/documents/articles/crc-sigcomm00.ps
1145 2012-02-02 18:34:32 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: meh, as long as its only DoS on like 2 bad blocks its fine
1146 2012-02-02 18:34:32 <luke-jr> we'd need to consider the possibility of corruption in CheckBlock if we removed the message checksum
1147 2012-02-02 18:34:40 <BlueMatt> (if your connection sucks tat bad...)
1148 2012-02-02 18:34:56 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I could see it happening during initial sync
1149 2012-02-02 18:34:59 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: who posts postscript docs?
1150 2012-02-02 18:35:09 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: Real Men™
1151 2012-02-02 18:35:13 <luke-jr> lol
1152 2012-02-02 18:35:32 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: its rare enough that you might drop one peer every once in a while, which is fine for how nice it would be to not do double sha on every message
1153 2012-02-02 18:35:52 <luke-jr> let's put up some BMPs too
1154 2012-02-02 18:35:59 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: the checksum stuff creates a nice way to add authenticated peers too. Provide a secret on each side, and swap the hash for hmac.
1155 2012-02-02 18:36:17 <BlueMatt> well thats true
1156 2012-02-02 18:36:33 <gmaxwell> probably 20 LOC to add that.
1157 2012-02-02 18:37:01 <BlueMatt> probably one LOC to remove the checksums and leave the space there for them so that others can use HMAC
1158 2012-02-02 18:37:10 <gmaxwell> true.
1159 2012-02-02 18:37:34 <gmaxwell> okay. back to my patch.. is PushVersion the only place you think that should be handled?
1160 2012-02-02 18:37:56 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1161 2012-02-02 18:38:06 <gmaxwell> or should getexternalip return 0:0?  (and then the fUseproxy checks can be removed in pushversion)
1162 2012-02-02 18:38:24 <gmaxwell> (well, one of them)
1163 2012-02-02 18:38:28 <BlueMatt> actually, nvm GetMyExternalIP is never called if fUseProxy||fNoListen
1164 2012-02-02 18:38:49 <gmaxwell> Hm. I thought I checked that
1165 2012-02-02 18:38:56 <BlueMatt>     if (fUseProxy || mapArgs.count("-connect") || fNoListen)
1166 2012-02-02 18:38:59 <BlueMatt> net.cpp:1694
1167 2012-02-02 18:39:12 <BlueMatt> so, it doesnt matter
1168 2012-02-02 18:39:25 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/792#issuecomment-3783510
1169 2012-02-02 18:39:43 <gmaxwell> Sure enough.
1170 2012-02-02 18:40:05 ovidiusoft has joined
1171 2012-02-02 18:40:13 <Joric> how do you determine external ip? from other peers?
1172 2012-02-02 18:40:16 <gmaxwell> Though mapArgs.count("-connect") is bogus there.
1173 2012-02-02 18:40:18 iocor has joined
1174 2012-02-02 18:40:26 <gmaxwell> Joric: you shouldn't ask, you won't like the answer.
1175 2012-02-02 18:40:29 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: not -connect implies fNoListen
1176 2012-02-02 18:40:34 <BlueMatt> s/not/no/
1177 2012-02-02 18:40:40 <BlueMatt> though I suppose its redundant
1178 2012-02-02 18:40:43 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: No it doesn't.
1179 2012-02-02 18:40:46 <BlueMatt> hmm?
1180 2012-02-02 18:40:50 <BlueMatt> I could have sworn it did
1181 2012-02-02 18:40:53 <Joric> i used stun for that
1182 2012-02-02 18:41:17 <BlueMatt> I guess I really know nothing about the net code...
1183 2012-02-02 18:41:41 <gmaxwell> I don't think anyone editing it does. The behavior is randomly inconsistent in a bunch of places.
1184 2012-02-02 18:42:16 <BlueMatt> then someone should rip it out and rewrite it :)
1185 2012-02-02 18:42:41 <gmaxwell> Well what behavior do we want?
1186 2012-02-02 18:43:00 <BlueMatt> for what?
1187 2012-02-02 18:43:50 <gmaxwell> In any case... I don't think we should replumb all that functionality for the next release, but I do think the listen thing should go in.
1188 2012-02-02 18:44:03 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: What connectivity options should we be offering.
1189 2012-02-02 18:44:17 <gmaxwell> Should we have "connect" that implies nolisten, etc.
1190 2012-02-02 18:44:30 <BlueMatt> you mean if someone were to rewrite it all?
1191 2012-02-02 18:44:58 <luke-jr> sipa just rewrote the net code…
1192 2012-02-02 18:44:59 <gmaxwell> Right (well, I don't think it needs a complete rewrite), but if we were to change the behavior what should the behavior actually be.
1193 2012-02-02 18:45:35 <BlueMatt> I dunno, up to the implementor, there I have little preference
1194 2012-02-02 18:46:14 <BlueMatt> I think it would be nice to rewrite the net code to use boost::asio or smth
1195 2012-02-02 18:46:27 <BlueMatt> hence why cblockstore moves all the net stuff out of main.cpp
1196 2012-02-02 18:47:10 ThomasV has joined
1197 2012-02-02 18:47:25 <BlueMatt> but that was a really minor afterthought
1198 2012-02-02 18:47:28 <gmaxwell> I actually don't give a shit about api minutia, thats up to whoever sits down and does it.  It's important to know what it should be doing. right now, -connect controls where you connect to, but doesn't change listening except if you have a private IP it will prevent announcements becuase it also doesn't try to get your external IP.
1199 2012-02-02 18:47:29 <BlueMatt> anyway, Im off see yall
1200 2012-02-02 18:47:33 <gmaxwell> K.
1201 2012-02-02 18:47:47 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1202 2012-02-02 18:48:13 onelineproof has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1203 2012-02-02 18:49:04 barmstrong has joined
1204 2012-02-02 18:50:33 JimRogers has left ()
1205 2012-02-02 18:59:02 TD has joined
1206 2012-02-02 19:04:01 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1207 2012-02-02 19:05:23 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1208 2012-02-02 19:06:32 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1209 2012-02-02 19:08:29 barmstrong has joined
1210 2012-02-02 19:13:27 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1211 2012-02-02 19:14:41 pickett has joined
1212 2012-02-02 19:17:15 traviscj has joined
1213 2012-02-02 19:19:26 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1214 2012-02-02 19:19:36 JRWR has joined
1215 2012-02-02 19:20:17 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1216 2012-02-02 19:20:51 devrandom has joined
1217 2012-02-02 19:26:36 vigilyn2 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1218 2012-02-02 19:36:45 b4epoche_ has joined
1219 2012-02-02 19:38:02 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1220 2012-02-02 19:38:02 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1221 2012-02-02 19:38:11 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1222 2012-02-02 19:38:17 JimRogers has joined
1223 2012-02-02 19:40:15 vigilyn has joined
1224 2012-02-02 19:45:23 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1225 2012-02-02 19:45:40 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1226 2012-02-02 19:46:53 onelineproof has joined
1227 2012-02-02 19:48:59 m00p has joined
1228 2012-02-02 19:49:47 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
1229 2012-02-02 19:50:00 traviscj has joined
1230 2012-02-02 19:52:25 devrandom has joined
1231 2012-02-02 19:54:08 lyspooner has joined
1232 2012-02-02 19:57:28 Stove has joined
1233 2012-02-02 20:00:31 TD has joined
1234 2012-02-02 20:08:07 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1235 2012-02-02 20:10:41 Clipse has quit (Quit: Clipse)
1236 2012-02-02 20:11:26 ahbritto has joined
1237 2012-02-02 20:11:27 ahbritto has quit (Changing host)
1238 2012-02-02 20:11:27 ahbritto has joined
1239 2012-02-02 20:12:33 barmstrong has joined
1240 2012-02-02 20:22:32 traviscj has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1241 2012-02-02 20:22:49 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1242 2012-02-02 20:25:50 traviscj has joined
1243 2012-02-02 20:27:02 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1244 2012-02-02 20:30:54 booo has joined
1245 2012-02-02 20:35:00 PK has joined
1246 2012-02-02 20:35:51 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1247 2012-02-02 20:36:57 barmstro_ has joined
1248 2012-02-02 20:37:04 barmstro_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1249 2012-02-02 20:37:07 barmstrong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1250 2012-02-02 20:37:24 barmstrong has joined
1251 2012-02-02 20:40:38 dr_win has joined
1252 2012-02-02 20:41:00 Prattler has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1253 2012-02-02 20:43:05 BlueMatt has joined
1254 2012-02-02 20:49:50 Joric has quit ()
1255 2012-02-02 20:50:18 <osmosis> http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2012/Feb/0
1256 2012-02-02 20:50:56 Cablesaurus has joined
1257 2012-02-02 20:50:56 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
1258 2012-02-02 20:50:56 Cablesaurus has joined
1259 2012-02-02 20:51:01 <Diablo-D3> oh goddamnit
1260 2012-02-02 20:52:02 <gmaxwell> osmosis: yes, we know about that post— and as I advised on the other channels you're spamming it in, read the reply.
1261 2012-02-02 20:52:02 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1262 2012-02-02 20:54:37 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1263 2012-02-02 20:55:10 jacobwg has joined
1264 2012-02-02 20:56:57 Prattler has joined
1265 2012-02-02 20:57:36 RazielZ has joined
1266 2012-02-02 20:59:25 <upb> lol @ post author confusing an 'exploit' with a 'vulnerability'
1267 2012-02-02 21:01:31 <lianj> dans answer was oO also
1268 2012-02-02 21:03:35 JRWR has quit (Quit: BTC Welcome: 19QtYzmENUmqRhvjEvHsz785rqZ5RRcZG4)
1269 2012-02-02 21:03:57 bitfoo has joined
1270 2012-02-02 21:08:57 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: you still have to be 51% though?
1271 2012-02-02 21:09:54 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: or isolate a node for 24 hours and then feed it a big wad of blocks. And this isn't a network attack, it's an attack on particuar clients.
1272 2012-02-02 21:10:11 <Diablo-D3> so it only works against rich people?
1273 2012-02-02 21:12:09 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: clients really need to add a big red warning when they detect difficulty drop off anyway
1274 2012-02-02 21:12:33 <PK> btw, is it possible to write a miner that submits all shares but the ones matching the difficulty? In an evil pool-killing way trying to dry a pool out?
1275 2012-02-02 21:12:34 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: only works against 0.5.1, not later. It could allow someone who has either isolated that node for >24 hours and can mine a couple blocks of blocks, or has >50% for >24hours. ... when you have those things you can trick that client into thinking you paid them funds that aren't yours.
1276 2012-02-02 21:12:45 <gmaxwell> PK: search for block withholding.
1277 2012-02-02 21:13:03 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: so its basically a shitty useless attack
1278 2012-02-02 21:13:09 <PK> gmaxwell: I take that as a yes. There is no silverbullet against that, is there?
1279 2012-02-02 21:13:21 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1280 2012-02-02 21:13:32 <gmaxwell> PK: No. Other than the fact that it costs the attacker money, except on PPS pools.
1281 2012-02-02 21:14:10 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: well, it's good that it's fixed, but it's not especially concerning either.
1282 2012-02-02 21:14:37 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: and yes, if nodes were more prudent with things like that... it would be less risky.
1283 2012-02-02 21:15:36 Joric has joined
1284 2012-02-02 21:16:50 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1285 2012-02-02 21:17:45 <cjd> I heard you get 5 solidcoin if you paste a link to a mailing list all over irc
1286 2012-02-02 21:18:51 <gmaxwell> ahhhh.
1287 2012-02-02 21:18:58 <gmaxwell> now that makes sense!
1288 2012-02-02 21:21:43 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1289 2012-02-02 21:21:50 <gmaxwell> it's amazing the amount of #$@#-sucking people will do for ten cents.
1290 2012-02-02 21:27:40 iocor has joined
1291 2012-02-02 21:30:32 jacobwg has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
1292 2012-02-02 21:32:05 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
1293 2012-02-02 21:32:37 <Joric> 5 solidcoin - impressive!
1294 2012-02-02 21:36:49 btc_novice has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1295 2012-02-02 21:41:24 <nanotube> i heard you get a pony.
1296 2012-02-02 21:42:03 maqr has quit (Quit: reboot)
1297 2012-02-02 21:43:10 <helo> but is it a #$@#-sucking pony?
1298 2012-02-02 21:45:00 Turingi has joined
1299 2012-02-02 21:48:06 pusle has quit ()
1300 2012-02-02 21:51:08 <nanotube> helo: don't know about its initial state, but i understand ponies are highly trainable. :)
1301 2012-02-02 21:51:36 dr_win has joined
1302 2012-02-02 21:52:50 <helo> lol
1303 2012-02-02 21:53:05 <ThomasV> hi nanotube
1304 2012-02-02 21:56:24 <nanotube> howdy ThomasV )
1305 2012-02-02 21:56:41 <ThomasV> good
1306 2012-02-02 21:57:46 roconnor has joined
1307 2012-02-02 21:58:19 wirehead has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1308 2012-02-02 22:01:36 <Eliel> PK: there are some ways to try to detect if a miner is doing such an attack.
1309 2012-02-02 22:02:13 <PK> Eliel: yes, but it usually comes at costs of mining speed. Like sending out test work rather than real work.
1310 2012-02-02 22:02:30 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1311 2012-02-02 22:02:34 <Eliel> PK: I mean active ways. They waste a little of the hashpower for each node tested though, so it's not suitable to be used often
1312 2012-02-02 22:03:42 <PK> yea, that's what I meant
1313 2012-02-02 22:04:27 dr_win has joined
1314 2012-02-02 22:05:31 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: ASCII a stupid question, get a stupid ANSI!)
1315 2012-02-02 22:09:04 pentarh has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1316 2012-02-02 22:09:07 Stove has quit ()
1317 2012-02-02 22:09:15 <Eliel> PK: I think it would work pretty well to wait until one of your honest miners finds a block and then immediately push the workunit that produced the block to everyone you want to test. Perhaps delay sending the block out for a few seconds to make it more difficult for them to detect what you're doing.
1318 2012-02-02 22:10:21 <luke-jr> b2a967c Revert to global progress indication (see #753)
1319 2012-02-02 22:10:26 <luke-jr> backport to 0.5?
1320 2012-02-02 22:10:57 <PK> Eliel: might work, yes.
1321 2012-02-02 22:11:00 Moron__ has joined
1322 2012-02-02 22:11:23 onelineproof has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1323 2012-02-02 22:11:40 BlueMatt has joined
1324 2012-02-02 22:11:48 Joric has quit ()
1325 2012-02-02 22:13:27 Prattler has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1326 2012-02-02 22:15:41 marf_away has joined
1327 2012-02-02 22:16:55 <ThomasV> luke-jr: https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tonal_Bitcoin&diff=23284&oldid=23262 <-- huh?
1328 2012-02-02 22:22:04 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1329 2012-02-02 22:23:31 wirehead has joined
1330 2012-02-02 22:28:47 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
1331 2012-02-02 22:34:10 upb has quit (Quit: leaving)
1332 2012-02-02 22:35:25 wtfman[away] is now known as wtfman
1333 2012-02-02 22:35:35 RobinPKR has quit (Quit: RobinPKR)
1334 2012-02-02 22:35:39 sacarlson has joined
1335 2012-02-02 22:35:42 wtfman is now known as wtfman[away]
1336 2012-02-02 22:35:50 cuqa has joined
1337 2012-02-02 22:36:08 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1338 2012-02-02 22:36:29 upb has joined
1339 2012-02-02 22:36:29 upb has quit (Changing host)
1340 2012-02-02 22:36:29 upb has joined
1341 2012-02-02 22:36:32 RazielZ has joined
1342 2012-02-02 22:37:12 paraipan has joined
1343 2012-02-02 22:37:12 RobinPKR has joined
1344 2012-02-02 22:40:08 <cuqa> hey, ive got a problem and got a couple of hundred bitcoins stolen
1345 2012-02-02 22:40:42 <BlueMatt> ouch...
1346 2012-02-02 22:40:45 <cuqa> not sure whats the best way is to retrieve info about the guy who did this transaction
1347 2012-02-02 22:40:47 <cuqa> http://blockexplorer.com/address/1E3PdhC1ARtxkDmq8LmYQeXqXNp2pSfQu3
1348 2012-02-02 22:41:04 <BlueMatt> that would be very difficult
1349 2012-02-02 22:41:16 <BlueMatt> how did they steal the coins?
1350 2012-02-02 22:41:59 <cuqa> it might be that it is someone with access to the server, but not totally sure
1351 2012-02-02 22:42:08 <cuqa> didnt really expect him to do it
1352 2012-02-02 22:42:38 <BlueMatt> hmm, that sucks
1353 2012-02-02 22:43:12 <BlueMatt> well your best bet is to watch the coins and see if they go to an eg mtgox address and see if mtgox will help you, but i doubt (well hope) he wont give that info out without eg a court order
1354 2012-02-02 22:43:35 <luke-jr> cuqa: file a police report
1355 2012-02-02 22:44:32 <cuqa> i try talking to mtgox owner
1356 2012-02-02 22:44:46 <phantomcircuit> cuqa, you're going to need a police report
1357 2012-02-02 22:44:59 <BlueMatt> yea, I really really doubt that info will be given out without an order
1358 2012-02-02 22:45:02 <cuqa> man wtf, I have no idea how he did it
1359 2012-02-02 22:45:13 <cuqa> thing is I receive emails when someone logins in to the server
1360 2012-02-02 22:45:33 <cuqa> also the withdrawal queue does not show fishy activity
1361 2012-02-02 22:45:47 <lianj> hehe the police is gonna hate bitcoin, because there help/clue-less about it :D
1362 2012-02-02 22:45:52 <BlueMatt> did he have access to the actual bitcoind rpc interface?
1363 2012-02-02 22:45:58 <gmaxwell> lianj: its like cash
1364 2012-02-02 22:46:10 <dub> <police> what? you lost your magic internet beans?
1365 2012-02-02 22:46:23 <lianj> dub: right
1366 2012-02-02 22:46:24 <Ferroh> cuqa: #bitcoin-police
1367 2012-02-02 22:46:33 <BlueMatt> heh
1368 2012-02-02 22:46:43 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: except with bonus tracing tools
1369 2012-02-02 22:46:45 <gmaxwell> cuqa: if the person had access to the rpc port and either knew the rpc password or could figure it out.. you're toast.
1370 2012-02-02 22:46:49 <roconnor> hopefully armory will reduce these sorts of problems.
1371 2012-02-02 22:46:53 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: hey, cash has serial numbers too.
1372 2012-02-02 22:46:59 <cuqa> well, I doubt the password could be retrieved
1373 2012-02-02 22:47:10 <ThomasV> roconnor: why?
1374 2012-02-02 22:47:13 <BlueMatt> roconnor: what does armory do to help?
1375 2012-02-02 22:47:15 <gmaxwell> cuqa: could he just read it off the disk?
1376 2012-02-02 22:47:27 <cuqa> also rpcallowip was set to the server only
1377 2012-02-02 22:47:27 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: has type-2 determinstic wallets.
1378 2012-02-02 22:47:37 <gmaxwell> cuqa: if someone was _on_ the server that doesn't help!
1379 2012-02-02 22:47:43 <BlueMatt> mmm, nice, but that wouldnt help in this case...
1380 2012-02-02 22:47:50 <cuqa> yes, but unsure about that
1381 2012-02-02 22:47:57 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: so you can have a special wallet on the web server.. which can generate addresses for payments but can't spend.
1382 2012-02-02 22:48:30 <BlueMatt> oh, well yea if you actually hid the send-required part, but if your web service auto-withdraws...
1383 2012-02-02 22:48:49 <cuqa> man
1384 2012-02-02 22:48:50 <gmaxwell> yea.. well right. can't help you there.
1385 2012-02-02 22:49:21 <cuqa> thing is I received 2 login emails about 30 mins before from that other guy with access
1386 2012-02-02 22:49:27 <gmaxwell> cuqa: seems simple enough— either they did it from on the sever OR there was some exploitable weakness in your cgi stuff.
1387 2012-02-02 22:49:38 <ThomasV> was armory already released?
1388 2012-02-02 22:49:44 <BlueMatt> yea, pretty much
1389 2012-02-02 22:49:57 <BlueMatt> dont know if its beta or alpha...
1390 2012-02-02 22:50:29 <ThomasV> I think it would be good to standardize type 2 wallets across clients
1391 2012-02-02 22:50:46 <roconnor> BlueMatt: off-line transactions
1392 2012-02-02 22:50:52 <BlueMatt> sipa already has a compatible-working client on the satoshi client
1393 2012-02-02 22:50:57 <BlueMatt> roconnor: if its done right, yea
1394 2012-02-02 22:51:11 <BlueMatt> roconnor: but if its done right, it would be that way on current nodes too
1395 2012-02-02 22:51:15 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1396 2012-02-02 22:51:24 <roconnor> BlueMatt: huh?
1397 2012-02-02 22:51:37 unicron_ has joined
1398 2012-02-02 22:51:57 <ThomasV> BlueMatt: compatible in which sense?
1399 2012-02-02 22:52:04 <gmaxwell> I wouldn't be shocked if t-2 detwallets weren't production ready in reference bitcoin before armory was read for widespread use.
1400 2012-02-02 22:52:27 <BlueMatt> roconnor: you mean if a sending webservice is done right, they will copy the list of sends to a second server via sneakernet? yea if its done right, but that is true for current nodes (not just deterministic wallets) too
1401 2012-02-02 22:52:31 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: yes but I don't think we're going to go with the current armory style (though it sounded like etotheipi might be willing to move)
1402 2012-02-02 22:52:55 <BlueMatt> ThomasV: sipa has a testsuite test which imports armory type-2 wallets and tests it
1403 2012-02-02 22:53:18 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: really? what would change?
1404 2012-02-02 22:53:27 <ThomasV> BlueMatt: so it generates the same sequence of keys?
1405 2012-02-02 22:53:46 <BlueMatt> yea
1406 2012-02-02 22:53:52 <cuqa> shit
1407 2012-02-02 22:53:53 <BlueMatt> (i didnt read the file)
1408 2012-02-02 22:53:54 <ThomasV> nice.
1409 2012-02-02 22:54:17 <BlueMatt> just saw that it had a copy of a detwallet in it and was comparing it to a result
1410 2012-02-02 22:54:24 <cuqa> but rpcallowip=12.34.56.78 should disallow any connections except from 12.34.56.78 no?
1411 2012-02-02 22:54:32 <BlueMatt> cuqa: yea
1412 2012-02-02 22:54:33 <ThomasV> I should do that with Electrum; but it will break backward compatibility ..
1413 2012-02-02 22:55:03 <cuqa> so if that is set and it wasnt via an automatic script there is only the chance that he did it via the server directly?
1414 2012-02-02 22:56:45 <ThomasV> cuqa: you are talking about the chance of mtgox being hacked...
1415 2012-02-02 22:57:42 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1416 2012-02-02 22:57:52 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, what "armory-style" are you talking about?
1417 2012-02-02 22:58:00 <etotheipi_> (it seems I got home at the right time!)
1418 2012-02-02 22:58:13 <ThomasV> hi etotheipi_
1419 2012-02-02 22:58:34 gjs278 has joined
1420 2012-02-02 22:58:39 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: privkey[n] = H(pubkey[n-1]) xor C + privkey
1421 2012-02-02 22:58:56 <roconnor> BlueMatt: how can sneakernet be done with the satoshi client?
1422 2012-02-02 22:59:01 <etotheipi_> s/+/*/
1423 2012-02-02 22:59:03 <roconnor> BlueMatt: maybe I'm confused
1424 2012-02-02 22:59:39 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: well whatever notation you want to use for the field operations. +/* or */^
1425 2012-02-02 22:59:40 <BlueMatt> roconnor: a list of sends maybe already in rpc command form that you can just feed in like a bash script
1426 2012-02-02 23:00:04 Cablesaurus has joined
1427 2012-02-02 23:00:04 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
1428 2012-02-02 23:00:04 Cablesaurus has joined
1429 2012-02-02 23:00:13 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, '+' is not correct... it's an ECC multiply
1430 2012-02-02 23:00:25 <etotheipi_> more like '^'
1431 2012-02-02 23:00:43 <etotheipi_> (the non-invertible operation)
1432 2012-02-02 23:01:06 <etotheipi_> anyways... so you're talking about the alternative algorithm that has multiple chaincodes
1433 2012-02-02 23:01:32 <etotheipi_> I'm at least open to updating the determinism algorithm... I implemented wallet versions for a reason
1434 2012-02-02 23:01:35 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: yes, but also the change to index based (which has random access), and the hmac like construction.
1435 2012-02-02 23:01:45 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1436 2012-02-02 23:02:30 paraipan has joined
1437 2012-02-02 23:02:37 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: I mentioned that you sounded potentially open to changing.
1438 2012-02-02 23:02:39 <etotheipi_> oh wait, I missed the part about random access
1439 2012-02-02 23:02:39 <roconnor> BlueMatt: Oh I didn't know that
1440 2012-02-02 23:02:43 <roconnor> BlueMatt: what's the format?
1441 2012-02-02 23:02:58 <etotheipi_> what's the algorithm again?
1442 2012-02-02 23:03:35 AAA_awright has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1443 2012-02-02 23:04:09 <BlueMatt> roconnor: you could just put the list of to-be-sent in a db, then every hour or whatever write to a bash file: "#!/bin/bash\nbitcoind -rpcuser=user -rpcpassword=pass sendto...
1444 2012-02-02 23:04:12 <BlueMatt> "
1445 2012-02-02 23:04:17 <gmaxwell> something like privkey[n] = SHA256(C||SHA512(C||n)) * rootkey
1446 2012-02-02 23:04:34 <cuqa> is there a way to figure out if the transaction has made from my server
1447 2012-02-02 23:04:37 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1448 2012-02-02 23:04:40 <cuqa> or maybe someone had the wallet and did it from outside
1449 2012-02-02 23:04:53 <etotheipi_> ooooh, I misunderstood gmaxwell
1450 2012-02-02 23:05:03 <etotheipi_> I still thought you needed the previous key in order to calculate the next one
1451 2012-02-02 23:05:11 <gmaxwell> No.
1452 2012-02-02 23:05:17 <gmaxwell> cuqa: look in the debug log... might see some clues.
1453 2012-02-02 23:05:18 <roconnor> BlueMatt: how do you make off-line signatures?
1454 2012-02-02 23:05:34 AAA_awright has joined
1455 2012-02-02 23:05:46 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: what is C?
1456 2012-02-02 23:06:03 <BlueMatt> roconnor: you have the wallet permanently offline (or, ok on the network but rpc rejected)
1457 2012-02-02 23:06:08 <lianj> cuqa: http://blockchain.info/tx/e266dd4a5aba8c848c2d66016c3716f2e08e8939e605edc4c80cf7643e95c3d3  Relayed by ip 68.58.218.245 (might no be the origin though)
1458 2012-02-02 23:06:18 <roconnor> hmm
1459 2012-02-02 23:06:19 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: the chaining secret. Another 32 byte secret used in addition to the rootkey that lets you generate new public keys without having the private key.
1460 2012-02-02 23:06:27 <XMPPwocky> hey, on the wiki protocol documentation
1461 2012-02-02 23:06:32 <XMPPwocky> for varints
1462 2012-02-02 23:06:34 <XMPPwocky> "0xfd followed by the length as uint16_t
1463 2012-02-02 23:07:00 <XMPPwocky> is that the actual value of the varint, or the length of the int
1464 2012-02-02 23:07:18 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: this allows you to have a key generator on your webserver.. and if its stolen the badguy still can't spend the related coins..
1465 2012-02-02 23:07:29 <cuqa> how accurate is that relayed by ip lianj, u know somethign?
1466 2012-02-02 23:07:37 <lianj> nope
1467 2012-02-02 23:07:38 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: or you could give a copy to a business partner so he could generate addresses for you on his own.
1468 2012-02-02 23:07:50 <gmaxwell> cuqa: it's mostly gibberish
1469 2012-02-02 23:08:00 d4de has joined
1470 2012-02-02 23:08:08 <BlueMatt> cuqa: not very
1471 2012-02-02 23:08:12 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: oh it's what you noted S  in your old forum post
1472 2012-02-02 23:08:13 <lianj> cuqa: its just the node from which blockchain's viewpoint saw it first
1473 2012-02-02 23:08:25 <lianj> *blockchain.info
1474 2012-02-02 23:08:27 <BlueMatt> (unless a block relayed by one of the pools, in which case the block came from that pool)
1475 2012-02-02 23:08:39 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: yes, well SIPA proposed changing to HMAC like construction, which makes sense to me.
1476 2012-02-02 23:08:41 <BlueMatt> s/came/probably came/
1477 2012-02-02 23:08:57 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: what's the difference?
1478 2012-02-02 23:09:27 user_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1479 2012-02-02 23:09:56 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: strength against extension attacks.
1480 2012-02-02 23:10:11 <lianj> cuqa: you must have more logs of the system than just email on login :)
1481 2012-02-02 23:10:23 <ThomasV> what's an extension attack?
1482 2012-02-02 23:10:26 <cuqa> well
1483 2012-02-02 23:10:28 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, I agree with that change, too (this is what I get for not discussing it amongst smart people before implementing it)
1484 2012-02-02 23:10:32 <cuqa> i think i know the reason now
1485 2012-02-02 23:10:43 <cuqa> i said i only got email of login from another user I know
1486 2012-02-02 23:10:53 <cuqa> he said and claimed now someone broke in in his house
1487 2012-02-02 23:10:58 <cuqa> since his bitcoins have gone too
1488 2012-02-02 23:10:58 lolcat___ has quit (Changing host)
1489 2012-02-02 23:10:58 lolcat___ has joined
1490 2012-02-02 23:11:05 PK has quit ()
1491 2012-02-02 23:11:07 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: do you have a link whith that proposal?
1492 2012-02-02 23:11:08 <lianj> cuqa: yikes
1493 2012-02-02 23:11:10 <cuqa> but maybe he just had a trojan
1494 2012-02-02 23:11:12 <cuqa> sick fuck
1495 2012-02-02 23:11:27 <cuqa> but would explain why i received email of his ip
1496 2012-02-02 23:11:32 <lianj> very techy burglar though :D
1497 2012-02-02 23:11:38 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, I'm just procrastinating on updating the wallet file format...
1498 2012-02-02 23:11:47 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: given the Y in H(X) = Y , you can compute Z = H(X+Q) without knowing X.
1499 2012-02-02 23:11:50 <BlueMatt> cuqa: do you not have a bitcoin debug.log
1500 2012-02-02 23:12:00 <cuqa> sure i have
1501 2012-02-02 23:12:18 <BlueMatt> does it not have the send command with the ip logged?
1502 2012-02-02 23:12:21 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: no, we discussed it extensively on IRC a day ago.. I assume sipa will write up his revised views with the meta-chain stuff.
1503 2012-02-02 23:12:40 <XMPPwocky> anyone?
1504 2012-02-02 23:13:24 <gmaxwell> XMPPwocky: I don't understand your question.
1505 2012-02-02 23:13:50 <cuqa> BlueMatt, how would such a line look like?
1506 2012-02-02 23:13:51 <lianj> cuqa: btw, what site/service of yours is affected? or was it only a private wallet?
1507 2012-02-02 23:14:15 <cuqa> pool :/
1508 2012-02-02 23:14:23 <lianj> aw :/
1509 2012-02-02 23:14:29 <etotheipi_> roconnor, speaking of offline wallets, did you get a chance to try them?
1510 2012-02-02 23:14:41 <roconnor> etotheipi_: not yet
1511 2012-02-02 23:14:50 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: ok, let me know.
1512 2012-02-02 23:14:53 <roconnor> etotheipi_: though I did try an offline transaction today
1513 2012-02-02 23:15:02 <roconnor> though it wasn't very off-line :P
1514 2012-02-02 23:15:11 <lianj> ^^
1515 2012-02-02 23:15:12 <etotheipi_> roconnor, haha... at least, I hope it worked
1516 2012-02-02 23:15:34 <XMPPwocky> gmaxwell: varints: wiki says, for example
1517 2012-02-02 23:15:37 <XMPPwocky> 0xfd followed by the length as uint16_t
1518 2012-02-02 23:15:50 <XMPPwocky> and so on for the other values of the first byte
1519 2012-02-02 23:15:57 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: was cblockstore as opaque to your tests as it was to mine?
1520 2012-02-02 23:16:01 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1521 2012-02-02 23:16:03 <gmaxwell> XMPPwocky: yes.
1522 2012-02-02 23:16:04 <XMPPwocky> length = length of the varint?
1523 2012-02-02 23:16:08 <XMPPwocky> or the value
1524 2012-02-02 23:16:22 <gmaxwell> It's the length of a sunrise.
1525 2012-02-02 23:16:23 <lianj> value, 2 bytes in this cas
1526 2012-02-02 23:16:30 <XMPPwocky> lianj: Okay, I assumed to
1527 2012-02-02 23:16:31 <XMPPwocky> *so
1528 2012-02-02 23:16:33 <XMPPwocky> thanks
1529 2012-02-02 23:17:04 <gmaxwell> I don't see how it could be anything else, sorry, I'm dense today I guess.
1530 2012-02-02 23:17:17 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I'm not seeing the cause. bleh.
1531 2012-02-02 23:17:18 <lianj> do not assume, test with fixtures :P
1532 2012-02-02 23:17:20 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: so, an extension attack means the attacker can predict generated public keys if he observed a few of them?
1533 2012-02-02 23:17:27 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yea, im very confused...
1534 2012-02-02 23:17:35 roconnor has joined
1535 2012-02-02 23:17:43 <BlueMatt> (not that Im at all experienced with debugging this kind of thing...)
1536 2012-02-02 23:18:14 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: I don't think it translated into a material attack as far as we know, but it's better to use a construct with known superior security properties.
1537 2012-02-02 23:18:46 <XMPPwocky> lianj: sure, but if I mess up the parser it's hard to debug :P
1538 2012-02-02 23:19:41 <ThomasV> anyway, if there's a reference key generation for type 2 wallets, I will update Electrum to be compatible with it
1539 2012-02-02 23:19:42 <gmaxwell> (not using a hmac construction would probably have enabled an attacker to e.g. figure out your n+bignumber public key from your nth, though bignumber is probably too big to really be a practical problem)
1540 2012-02-02 23:20:18 <ThomasV> heh
1541 2012-02-02 23:20:57 <lianj> XMPPwocky: if youre writing the parser, on the point of parsing the first varint, use the binary packet as input and a json from blockexplorer as output. write the varint method until it passes that first varint value :)
1542 2012-02-02 23:21:56 <lianj> its true though that there a few examples where the varint is higher than a char :/
1543 2012-02-02 23:22:06 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: there will be— but probably not for some weeks. (once sipa figures out what he wants the design ought to be sniff tested by some additional crypto experts)
1544 2012-02-02 23:22:38 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: I tought you were the crypto expert here :)
1545 2012-02-02 23:24:08 <gmaxwell> We're all screwed then! :)
1546 2012-02-02 23:24:11 Clipse has joined
1547 2012-02-02 23:25:00 Bwild has joined
1548 2012-02-02 23:25:49 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
1549 2012-02-02 23:25:53 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: this stuff is subtle, and because its hard to change when widely deployed it's important to get is as perfect as possible. It certantly needs by review by more than a few people.
1550 2012-02-02 23:31:55 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1551 2012-02-02 23:32:14 splatster has joined
1552 2012-02-02 23:32:16 <ThomasV> I know it's hard to change once deployed, but the current situation (newbies losing their wallet.dat almost every day) might be just as bad
1553 2012-02-02 23:32:55 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: I haven't seen any evidence of great urgency needed, am I missing it?
1554 2012-02-02 23:33:34 <ThomasV> well, I am just talking about posts in the newbies forum
1555 2012-02-02 23:34:21 <ThomasV> most users are not capable of performing regular backups
1556 2012-02-02 23:34:25 Lexa has quit (Quit: Lexa)
1557 2012-02-02 23:37:46 <gmaxwell> If there is evidence that there is an urgent issue then perhaps we should set the keypool to 2000 or something like that for the next release.
1558 2012-02-02 23:38:07 <gmaxwell> Doesn't remove the need for regular backups, but it would reduce the exposure somewhat.
1559 2012-02-02 23:38:34 <gmaxwell> And ... oopswallet. damnit.
1560 2012-02-02 23:39:10 <ThomasV> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62310.0;topicseen
1561 2012-02-02 23:39:35 <ThomasV> it begins with "I know I am a retard"
1562 2012-02-02 23:39:52 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1563 2012-02-02 23:40:06 <gmaxwell> bleh.
1564 2012-02-02 23:40:17 <gmaxwell> He's not a retard.
1565 2012-02-02 23:40:31 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1566 2012-02-02 23:40:46 <gmaxwell> Everyone makes mistakes like that from time to time— he was just the unlucky guy the mistake had consequences for.
1567 2012-02-02 23:41:44 <ThomasV> tell him :)
1568 2012-02-02 23:42:55 <ThomasV> there was another similar post 2 days ago, can't find it anymore
1569 2012-02-02 23:43:54 <ThomasV> oh here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61958.0
1570 2012-02-02 23:44:32 <XMPPwocky> gmaxwell: does this look right? http://pastebin.com/AAxp9Nyd
1571 2012-02-02 23:44:41 <ThomasV> that's why I believe the #1 danger is our own mistakes, not attacks
1572 2012-02-02 23:46:07 <BlueMatt> easy thing to do in like 5 lines if we dont feel like further delaying 0.6: popup after first run: "BACKUP YOUR WALLET NOW" and also copying code from backupwallet to bitcoin-qt would take maybe 20 lines
1573 2012-02-02 23:46:52 MrTiggr has joined
1574 2012-02-02 23:47:23 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: thats a good call.
1575 2012-02-02 23:47:29 b4epoche_ has joined
1576 2012-02-02 23:48:29 <ThomasV> here's an idea for a poll: "how many btc did you lose since you started to use bitcoin?"
1577 2012-02-02 23:48:44 <gmaxwell> it wouldn't be much more work to track when the backupwallet function was run and nag when you get 50% through the keypool..
1578 2012-02-02 23:48:56 <BlueMatt> or better yet: "Backup your wallet now! No seriously not on your drive. What, dont believe us? Go google it, people's drives magically fail after they receive their first bitcoins.  Go ahead I can wait.  Seriously, go now. AND BACKUP YOUR DAMN WALLET!"
1579 2012-02-02 23:49:05 <XMPPwocky> BlueMatt: print it out.
1580 2012-02-02 23:49:07 <XMPPwocky> seriously
1581 2012-02-02 23:49:10 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1582 2012-02-02 23:49:10 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1583 2012-02-02 23:49:19 <XMPPwocky> there's a ton of infrastructure for keeping paper safe
1584 2012-02-02 23:49:44 <etotheipi_> XMPPwocky ++
1585 2012-02-02 23:50:28 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: it doesn't have to be annoying.
1586 2012-02-02 23:50:44 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: aww, I think its appropriate.
1587 2012-02-02 23:50:59 <gmaxwell> TLDR.
1588 2012-02-02 23:51:03 <XMPPwocky> implement Shamir's Secret Sharing
1589 2012-02-02 23:51:07 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: :(
1590 2012-02-02 23:51:21 <ThomasV> btw, I gave a casascius bitcoin to my mom. guess what? she lost it.
1591 2012-02-02 23:51:27 <gmaxwell> hahah
1592 2012-02-02 23:51:30 <BlueMatt> heh
1593 2012-02-02 23:51:34 <XMPPwocky> "You need two of these printouts to recover your wallet. Keep them in different places."
1594 2012-02-02 23:51:35 <ThomasV> a physical one
1595 2012-02-02 23:51:49 <gmaxwell> XMPPwocky: they'll just lose one and not the other.
1596 2012-02-02 23:52:02 <XMPPwocky> gmaxwell: two of three
1597 2012-02-02 23:52:09 <XMPPwocky> that's the fun of SSS
1598 2012-02-02 23:52:44 <BlueMatt> the problem is infrastructure for printable wallets takes a lot of effort whereas a popup and backupwallet takes like 30 minutes
1599 2012-02-02 23:52:51 <gmaxwell> XMPPwocky: I think people can reasonably handle keeping a piece of paper secure.. adding complexity just makes people less likely to participate... even if it makes your cryptogeek self excited.
1600 2012-02-02 23:53:11 <XMPPwocky> gmaxwell: the problem's more one of redundancy
1601 2012-02-02 23:53:26 <XMPPwocky> and security
1602 2012-02-02 23:53:28 <etotheipi_> I think the redundancy is much less important with paper
1603 2012-02-02 23:53:39 <XMPPwocky> if you put a passphrase on the wallets
1604 2012-02-02 23:53:47 <etotheipi_> before I put paper backups in Armory, I was always super uncomfortable with digital backups
1605 2012-02-02 23:53:56 <etotheipi_> sure, they work, but how I do know this USB key is going to work next year
1606 2012-02-02 23:54:01 <XMPPwocky> good point
1607 2012-02-02 23:54:04 <etotheipi_> better make a couple backups
1608 2012-02-02 23:54:07 <XMPPwocky> yeah, just 1 paper backup is the best
1609 2012-02-02 23:54:12 <gmaxwell> XMPPwocky: security is mostly a non-issue for a long time. No one is breaking into houses looking for paper wallets.
1610 2012-02-02 23:54:36 <etotheipi_> I can visually verify the integrity of a paper backup, and hide it in a book on my bookshelf
1611 2012-02-02 23:54:43 <gmaxwell> Someday that will be more of an issue, but users will also be a bit more sophicated.
1612 2012-02-02 23:54:50 <XMPPwocky> i'm considering disasters, mostly
1613 2012-02-02 23:54:52 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: then your gf loans out that book.
1614 2012-02-02 23:55:18 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, that's why it's in my general relativity textbook :)  I don't think she'll be touchign that one
1615 2012-02-02 23:55:19 <XMPPwocky> gmaxwell: did that pastebin look like it was doing varints right?
1616 2012-02-02 23:56:13 <gmaxwell> XMPPwocky: looks right, though I didn't actually work through it to see if the byte order was right.
1617 2012-02-02 23:56:26 <XMPPwocky> okay
1618 2012-02-02 23:56:45 <etotheipi_> (btw, my point was not really to hide the paper backup, it was to have one at all)
1619 2012-02-02 23:57:02 <XMPPwocky> it's just "append last byte to a list of them, shift the int left, repeat until int=0"
1620 2012-02-02 23:57:07 <XMPPwocky> (then pad)