1 2012-02-03 00:00:57 <XMPPwocky> then decode is "reverse the list of bytes, pop each byte and add it to an int, then shift the int left"
   2 2012-02-03 00:01:06 <XMPPwocky> oops, for the decode s/left/right/
   3 2012-02-03 00:01:23 * ThomasV asks etotheipi_ 's gf if she can lend him a relativity book
   4 2012-02-03 00:01:29 <XMPPwocky> and we shift the int before adding the next byte (obviously0
   5 2012-02-03 00:03:03 lyspooner has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
   6 2012-02-03 00:05:53 <XMPPwocky> varstr is just ASCII, no unicode malarkey?
   7 2012-02-03 00:09:38 stalled has joined
   8 2012-02-03 00:10:22 <XMPPwocky> http://pastebin.com/846NyVSU woo, varstr
   9 2012-02-03 00:10:24 theorb has joined
  10 2012-02-03 00:10:33 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
  11 2012-02-03 00:10:45 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
  12 2012-02-03 00:11:31 <BlueMatt> XMPPwocky: wow that got bored of latin really quick...
  13 2012-02-03 00:14:10 <XMPPwocky> http://baconipsum.com
  14 2012-02-03 00:14:47 <BlueMatt> ...wow...
  15 2012-02-03 00:15:13 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
  16 2012-02-03 00:16:15 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  17 2012-02-03 00:17:47 <XMPPwocky> BlueMatt: you really can find anything on the internet
  18 2012-02-03 00:18:06 <BlueMatt> yep
  19 2012-02-03 00:19:18 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  20 2012-02-03 00:19:37 <XMPPwocky> hmm
  21 2012-02-03 00:23:14 <Moron__> XMPPwocky: find me a picture of a woman riding a bike on a washing machine eating a lemon
  22 2012-02-03 00:23:38 <Moron__> wearing a gold ring
  23 2012-02-03 00:23:48 <BlueMatt> ...
  24 2012-02-03 00:23:52 <etotheipi_> Moron__, is that a (picture of a woman riding a bike) on top of (a washing machine eating a lemon)?
  25 2012-02-03 00:23:57 <cuqa> did i mention how my bitcoins disappeared?
  26 2012-02-03 00:24:06 <BlueMatt> yes
  27 2012-02-03 00:24:40 <cuqa> k, what a shame that you can never trust another one with login data to the server
  28 2012-02-03 00:24:56 <BlueMatt> yea, kinda, but thats the reality of life...
  29 2012-02-03 00:24:56 <Moron__> no the womans eating the lemon while on a bike, the bikes balanced on the washing machine
  30 2012-02-03 00:25:18 <cuqa> i dont think that he stole them, but he is very good with computers
  31 2012-02-03 00:25:27 <cuqa> so the chance that he got hacked is a bit small too I guess :E
  32 2012-02-03 00:26:01 <cuqa> apparently someone stole his private key files and used them to login at my server
  33 2012-02-03 00:27:22 Tiggr has joined
  34 2012-02-03 00:27:48 Tiggr is now known as Guest59602
  35 2012-02-03 00:28:28 MrTiggr has quit (Disconnected by services)
  36 2012-02-03 00:28:33 Guest59602 is now known as MrTiggr
  37 2012-02-03 00:28:44 d4de has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  38 2012-02-03 00:29:44 <Moron__> i guess u cant find anything on the net :P
  39 2012-02-03 00:30:54 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
  40 2012-02-03 00:31:20 <roconnor> yay I mined a duplicate block
  41 2012-02-03 00:32:15 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  42 2012-02-03 00:32:39 <roconnor> armory seems to take no notice ... which is good I guess
  43 2012-02-03 00:32:53 <etotheipi_> roconnor, haha...
  44 2012-02-03 00:33:06 <roconnor> etotheipi_: did you test this?
  45 2012-02-03 00:33:12 <etotheipi_> roconnor, if the new block is not the tip of the longest chain, nothing will happen
  46 2012-02-03 00:33:28 <roconnor> it is the tip of the longest chain
  47 2012-02-03 00:34:09 <etotheipi_> everytime Armory receives a new block, it inserts it into the header map and figures out what its cumulative depth is... if it's not strictly greater than the current cumulative depth, it's added to the pool but nothign will happen
  48 2012-02-03 00:34:27 <roconnor> ya, but it is a new block
  49 2012-02-03 00:34:33 <roconnor> I just mined it
  50 2012-02-03 00:34:45 <etotheipi_> you just said it was a duplicate?
  51 2012-02-03 00:34:57 <roconnor> well, the coinbase transaction is duplicate I mean
  52 2012-02-03 00:34:59 <etotheipi_> oh, you mean like new, deeper block, but with same hash as another block?
  53 2012-02-03 00:35:05 <etotheipi_> err.. same header hash
  54 2012-02-03 00:35:07 <roconnor> http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/block/0000000013aa9f67da178005f9ced61c7064dd6e8464b35f6a8ca8fabc1ca2cf
  55 2012-02-03 00:35:14 <roconnor> no the transaction for the coinbase is the same
  56 2012-02-03 00:35:18 <roconnor> the block is different
  57 2012-02-03 00:35:22 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
  58 2012-02-03 00:35:23 <roconnor> sorry  for not being clear
  59 2012-02-03 00:35:30 <etotheipi_> gah, and I keep mixing up my own words
  60 2012-02-03 00:35:35 <etotheipi_> okay, duplicate coinbase tx
  61 2012-02-03 00:35:38 <roconnor> yep
  62 2012-02-03 00:35:41 <roconnor> I should have said that
  63 2012-02-03 00:35:47 <etotheipi_> so it has the same tx-hash as one already in the blockchain
  64 2012-02-03 00:35:51 <roconnor> yes
  65 2012-02-03 00:36:29 <etotheipi_> I'm pretty sure Armory will see it already has a tx with that hash and assume that it's a rescan/replay of that tx (and thus ignore it)
  66 2012-02-03 00:36:32 <Moron__> does this mean you could double spend?
  67 2012-02-03 00:36:44 <kinlo> mmmz
  68 2012-02-03 00:36:50 <etotheipi_> just the opposite Moron__ , it means the miner loses the money
  69 2012-02-03 00:36:57 <roconnor> Moron__: well, I'm told it means that I cannot spend this duplicated transaction
  70 2012-02-03 00:36:59 <kinlo> that kind of block is difficult to generate on the mainnet
  71 2012-02-03 00:37:09 <roconnor> Moron__: so I've lost 50 TBTC
  72 2012-02-03 00:37:20 <Moron__> arent you mining in a pool?
  73 2012-02-03 00:37:27 <roconnor> nope
  74 2012-02-03 00:37:29 <roconnor> er
  75 2012-02-03 00:37:30 <Moron__> why not?
  76 2012-02-03 00:37:44 <roconnor> because the difficulty is only 8.883532
  77 2012-02-03 00:37:46 <etotheipi_> roconnor, let me know if you think I should use some kind of other behavior
  78 2012-02-03 00:37:49 <etotheipi_> Moron__, testnet
  79 2012-02-03 00:37:53 <Moron__> oic
  80 2012-02-03 00:38:03 <josephcp> that's happened in block 80something thousand
  81 2012-02-03 00:38:12 <sipa> gmaxwell: i'm doubtful about how completely to implement the coincube idea
  82 2012-02-03 00:38:14 <kinlo> the chance on creating such a block on testnet is one in 8
  83 2012-02-03 00:38:22 <roconnor> etotheipi_: I think ignoring it is fine.
  84 2012-02-03 00:38:33 <kinlo> coz of difficulty 8
  85 2012-02-03 00:38:38 <Moron__> arent testnet btc worthless?
  86 2012-02-03 00:38:43 <sipa> gmaxwell: it sounds like an almost completely new wallet system
  87 2012-02-03 00:38:52 <roconnor> Moron__: depends on if you are testing things or not
  88 2012-02-03 00:38:58 <josephcp> https://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000a4d0a398161ffc163c503763b1f4360639393e0e4c8e300e0caec
  89 2012-02-03 00:39:00 <kinlo> Moron__: exactly, that's why they tested it there
  90 2012-02-03 00:39:24 <kinlo> auch, it happened on mainnet too?
  91 2012-02-03 00:39:27 <josephcp> yep
  92 2012-02-03 00:39:28 <josephcp> twice i think
  93 2012-02-03 00:39:32 <kinlo> that's indeed 50 BTC lost
  94 2012-02-03 00:39:49 <josephcp> here's the second time https://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000743f190a18c5577a3c2d2a1f610ae9601ac046a38084ccb7cd721
  95 2012-02-03 00:40:11 <roconnor> josephcp: thanks for the links!
  96 2012-02-03 00:40:17 <Moron__> do people sell/exchange tbtc?
  97 2012-02-03 00:40:24 <roconnor> this is something that has to be considered when making a new client
  98 2012-02-03 00:40:27 <etotheipi_> Moron__, I'll send you 2000 TBTC right now if you want
  99 2012-02-03 00:40:29 <roconnor> I think mine is broken.
 100 2012-02-03 00:40:35 <kinlo> Moron__: we're not selling, but I can send you if you want
 101 2012-02-03 00:40:46 <kinlo> they are *test* data so they *need* to be worthless
 102 2012-02-03 00:40:47 <josephcp> np
 103 2012-02-03 00:40:52 phantomfake has joined
 104 2012-02-03 00:41:02 <Moron__> i donno how to set my client up for testnet but i think ill decline for now, was just curious
 105 2012-02-03 00:41:08 <etotheipi_> using one of my GPUs at agression=3, I can generate a block about every 4 min
 106 2012-02-03 00:41:10 <josephcp> yeah, i ran across it before when making it a unique primary key tx hash
 107 2012-02-03 00:41:16 <kinlo> just add testnet=1 in the bitcoin.conf file
 108 2012-02-03 00:41:17 <Moron__> if theres a 21 million limit surely the testnet btc must have some kinda value
 109 2012-02-03 00:41:30 <etotheipi_> Moron__, if you normally run "./bitcoin-qt" , you just run "bitcoin-qt -testnet" instead
 110 2012-02-03 00:41:35 <kinlo> but unless you are writing software and want to test, you don't need it
 111 2012-02-03 00:41:40 <BlueMatt> Ive seen people try to trade them, but like 0.01 BTC/1000 TBTC or less
 112 2012-02-03 00:41:41 <roconnor> Moron__: when we run out we will just start testnet over again
 113 2012-02-03 00:41:43 <kinlo> Moron__: not really, the testnet is sometimes reset
 114 2012-02-03 00:41:50 <BlueMatt> but the restarts...
 115 2012-02-03 00:41:59 <Moron__> oh
 116 2012-02-03 00:42:17 <Moron__> so can the normal bitcoin system be reset?
 117 2012-02-03 00:42:25 <roconnor> sort of ish
 118 2012-02-03 00:42:30 <kinlo> yes but that requires everyone to agree on that
 119 2012-02-03 00:42:37 <BlueMatt> yea, but people will reject that and not upgrade their clients
 120 2012-02-03 00:42:40 <BlueMatt> testnet no one cares
 121 2012-02-03 00:42:42 <kinlo> but as people use testnet to test, nobody cares it is reset
 122 2012-02-03 00:42:58 <Moron__> so if someone ammasses a load of btc and tries to abuse the system, people can get together and "agree" to erase them all?
 123 2012-02-03 00:43:06 <kinlo> yes
 124 2012-02-03 00:43:09 <roconnor> Moron__: more or less
 125 2012-02-03 00:43:19 <kinlo> bitcoin is basicly defined by the majority
 126 2012-02-03 00:43:26 <BlueMatt> however, those who disagree will keep going on the old version
 127 2012-02-03 00:43:29 <roconnor> kinlo: more like concencus
 128 2012-02-03 00:43:40 <roconnor> even that isn't entirely right
 129 2012-02-03 00:43:43 <roconnor> more like anarchy
 130 2012-02-03 00:43:51 <Moron__> that seems unfair
 131 2012-02-03 00:44:03 <Moron__> if your rich enough to acquire 90% of the bitcoins, people could just conspire to destroy your wealth
 132 2012-02-03 00:44:22 <kinlo> Moron__:  true
 133 2012-02-03 00:44:28 <roconnor> Moron__: if someone amasses all the bitcoins and makes it useless, people will just use something else, even if it just a reset bitcoin.
 134 2012-02-03 00:44:39 <roconnor> Moron__: reseting testnet doesn't actually kill the old testnet
 135 2012-02-03 00:44:43 <kinlo> Moron__: just like the governement can destroy their currency :)
 136 2012-02-03 00:44:55 <kinlo> Moron__: only thing is that here the majority decides, not a central organ
 137 2012-02-03 00:45:05 <Moron__> oic
 138 2012-02-03 00:45:08 <roconnor> Moron__: reseting testnet just plants a new seed that people can build on.
 139 2012-02-03 00:45:21 <roconnor> it's up to people to decide if they want to use the old testnet or the new one
 140 2012-02-03 00:45:29 <roconnor> or both
 141 2012-02-03 00:45:41 <roconnor> anyone can plant a new bitcoin seed too
 142 2012-02-03 00:46:02 <cuqa> mh, the hacker logged in to my server some mins ago via tor
 143 2012-02-03 00:46:20 d4de has joined
 144 2012-02-03 00:46:38 <roconnor> cuqa: what was the security hole, if you know?
 145 2012-02-03 00:47:03 <luke-jr> kinlo: except the government - not the mob - actually has the authority to do that
 146 2012-02-03 00:47:05 <cuqa> another guy's machine got hacked and rsa keys stolen
 147 2012-02-03 00:48:01 <Moron__> if bitcoin can be reset/reseeded at will, doesnt that mean theres an infinite number of bitcoins in all the seeds
 148 2012-02-03 00:48:15 <roconnor> almost
 149 2012-02-03 00:48:42 <roconnor> there can be at most 2^256 seeds without altering the protocol
 150 2012-02-03 00:49:22 <Moron__> 8so there are 2^256*21 million bitcoins
 151 2012-02-03 00:49:33 <roconnor> (whether 2^256 is close to infinity or not is disputable)
 152 2012-02-03 00:49:53 <josephcp> roconnor: Moron__ is a grandmaster level troll
 153 2012-02-03 00:50:32 <josephcp> FYI
 154 2012-02-03 00:50:38 <roconnor> Moron__: more like 2^256 slightly different currencies.  though well before that point you will start having real hash conflicts.
 155 2012-02-03 00:51:07 <Moron__> oh i just came up with an idea
 156 2012-02-03 00:51:13 <Moron__> the meze grill accepts bitcoins right?
 157 2012-02-03 00:51:24 <Moron__> they should serve a specail meal called "hash potatoes"
 158 2012-02-03 00:51:27 <Moron__> and only accept payment in btc
 159 2012-02-03 00:51:32 <kinlo> roconnor: why;s that?  any change in the genesys block will create a new hash, so a new chain
 160 2012-02-03 00:51:53 <kinlo> roconnor: I'm sure you can change a lot more then just 1 byte in the first block
 161 2012-02-03 00:52:21 <roconnor> kinlo: maybe you are right
 162 2012-02-03 00:52:57 <kinlo> roconnor: have a look at the first block, there is a lot of data in it
 163 2012-02-03 00:53:01 * roconnor turns every coinbase with no transactions into a new genesis block.
 164 2012-02-03 00:53:10 <roconnor> kinlo: I've seen it
 165 2012-02-03 00:56:40 <Moron__> josephcp: i like u ... do u like me?
 166 2012-02-03 00:57:40 copumpkin has joined
 167 2012-02-03 00:57:47 marf_away has joined
 168 2012-02-03 01:00:25 <gmaxwell> sipa: the half measure there would be to just do something compatible with it without actually implementing more than the straight determinstic chain (public+internal)
 169 2012-02-03 01:05:49 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
 170 2012-02-03 01:09:49 <Moron__> has anyone heard of the new virus on the news... you can get it just by opening an email and you dont even need to download anything
 171 2012-02-03 01:09:51 <Moron__> ??
 172 2012-02-03 01:11:28 <BlueMatt> Moron__: yea, a ton of email programs - especially the m$ written ones which have a billion and a half unnecessary and often not perfectly coded features, have security vulnerabilities...
 173 2012-02-03 01:12:04 <gmaxwell> Moron__: GOOD TIMES!
 174 2012-02-03 01:12:25 <BlueMatt> also, the news media rocks
 175 2012-02-03 01:12:32 <Moron__> :) gmaxwell
 176 2012-02-03 01:12:58 <gmaxwell> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodtimes_virus  for people who aren't old enough to remember when an email virus was only a crazy hoax... back when mail was just text)
 177 2012-02-03 01:13:11 <Moron__> oh heh
 178 2012-02-03 01:13:14 <Moron__> yeh...
 179 2012-02-03 01:13:24 <Moron__> we should just get rid of html for email
 180 2012-02-03 01:13:35 <Moron__> its an unnessary and buggy format thats prone to exploits
 181 2012-02-03 01:13:44 <BlueMatt> heh
 182 2012-02-03 01:13:46 <Moron__> i think emails should be in .pdf
 183 2012-02-03 01:13:51 <BlueMatt> heh
 184 2012-02-03 01:13:52 <BlueMatt> yea
 185 2012-02-03 01:14:04 <BlueMatt> I love the pdf standard, its so simple and uncomplicated
 186 2012-02-03 01:14:19 h4ckm3 has joined
 187 2012-02-03 01:14:33 <gmaxwell> because having one turing complete language in our email (js) is less good then two or three (js, ps, and the adobe forms script stuff)
 188 2012-02-03 01:14:57 <BlueMatt> yep
 189 2012-02-03 01:15:58 <Moron__> i cant wait until someone fixes email too
 190 2012-02-03 01:16:08 <Moron__> there needs to be a captcha or something to send an email... cos theres way too much spam
 191 2012-02-03 01:16:47 <BlueMatt> yea, I cant wait for google wave to catch on
 192 2012-02-03 01:16:50 <BlueMatt> oh wait
 193 2012-02-03 01:16:55 <gmaxwell> Moron__: the remote mail server could give you a getwork and require a share in order to accept mail.
 194 2012-02-03 01:17:07 <BlueMatt> heh that would be great
 195 2012-02-03 01:17:54 <Moron__> gmaxwell: why not simply send a private key with a small amount of BTC, like an electronic stamp
 196 2012-02-03 01:18:02 <Moron__> that way you could have 1st class, second class, etc...
 197 2012-02-03 01:18:22 JRWR has joined
 198 2012-02-03 01:18:24 phantomfake has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
 199 2012-02-03 01:18:56 <gmaxwell> Moron__: because you'd also doublespend the private key before they got a chance to use it.
 200 2012-02-03 01:19:14 <Moron__> oh
 201 2012-02-03 01:20:48 <Moron__> how about a protocol change then.... if you wanna send a mail to someone, you could send first a request for a bitcoin address, you then send some btc to the bitcoin address, then you get a reply, and then you send the mail?
 202 2012-02-03 01:21:32 <Moron__> im sure people wont mind spending the equivalent of 0.05 usd to send a mail, and it might incentivise people to actually check their mail
 203 2012-02-03 01:21:40 <Moron__> rather than disregarding most of em
 204 2012-02-03 01:22:22 <roconnor> heh, blockexplorer lists the total TBTC of my transaction as 0
 205 2012-02-03 01:23:41 <gmaxwell> Moron__: because you have to already have bitcoin for that. Anyone can mine. Also processing the bitcoin transaction takes time, and it requires the server to run a client to see the payment.
 206 2012-02-03 01:24:13 <gmaxwell> (for mining the server would just proxy to some pool)
 207 2012-02-03 01:25:08 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 208 2012-02-03 01:26:26 SomeoneWeirdzzzz is now known as SomeoneWeird
 209 2012-02-03 01:26:43 <Moron__> i see we now have wallet encryption built into the client
 210 2012-02-03 01:26:44 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 211 2012-02-03 01:26:45 <Moron__> thats good i think
 212 2012-02-03 01:26:52 <Moron__> but do you think one day we will have blockchain encryption?
 213 2012-02-03 01:27:29 <luke-jr> …
 214 2012-02-03 01:27:30 <luke-jr> why?
 215 2012-02-03 01:28:02 <Moron__> well, some people might not wanna advertise to the world that theyre sending 10btc to their friend halfway across the globe :)
 216 2012-02-03 01:28:31 <luke-jr> that's how bitcoin works
 217 2012-02-03 01:28:45 <Moron__> oh
 218 2012-02-03 01:28:59 <luke-jr> http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/stable.git/commitdiff/c11e2b8679e13f739a58faf2a3439d4aaed24364
 219 2012-02-03 01:29:07 <luke-jr> ^ very much appreciate review of this backport
 220 2012-02-03 01:29:11 <luke-jr> it wasn't pretty
 221 2012-02-03 01:29:43 <BlueMatt> meh, that might not be worth backporting...
 222 2012-02-03 01:35:03 Turingi has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 223 2012-02-03 01:47:42 Ahimoth_ has joined
 224 2012-02-03 01:49:39 malaimo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 225 2012-02-03 01:49:40 Ahimoth has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 226 2012-02-03 01:51:58  has quit (Clown|!~clown@static-87-79-93-140.netcologne.de|Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 227 2012-02-03 01:53:03 Ahimoth_ is now known as Ahimoth
 228 2012-02-03 02:00:20 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
 229 2012-02-03 02:07:14 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 230 2012-02-03 02:07:29 sacarlson has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 231 2012-02-03 02:08:54 JZavala has joined
 232 2012-02-03 02:09:00 <sipa> Moron__: the point of the blockchain is exactly that everyone can verify it
 233 2012-02-03 02:09:17 <sipa> why would you want to encrypt it? you should not put personally identifiable information in it
 234 2012-02-03 02:09:36 <sipa> well, except homomorphic encryption maybe
 235 2012-02-03 02:11:20 <Moron__> eww no, i dont agree with that kinda behaviour
 236 2012-02-03 02:11:24 mortikia has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 237 2012-02-03 02:11:40 <gmaxwell> Moron__: see the section on private in bitcoin pdf. 10. I think.
 238 2012-02-03 02:12:03 <gmaxwell> If you use your addresses carefully you're not advertising your activities.
 239 2012-02-03 02:13:09 <sipa> gmaxwell: even just having two chains already implies several pools
 240 2012-02-03 02:13:51 <gmaxwell> sipa: :-/
 241 2012-02-03 02:14:18 <sipa> possible of course, but i like how the current implementation so nicely integrates with the current system, and already provides at least some of the possible benefits of determinstic wallets
 242 2012-02-03 02:20:04 malaimo has joined
 243 2012-02-03 02:20:09 <XMPPwocky> so if a Bitcoin client gets a block (ignoring checkpoints) that's lower in height than one it already has, does the client keep that block?
 244 2012-02-03 02:20:29 <roconnor> when does bitcoins 32-bit clock overflow again?
 245 2012-02-03 02:21:15 <gmaxwell> XMPPwocky: yes, subject to the orphan flooding protection.
 246 2012-02-03 02:21:23 <sipa> $ date --date "@$((2**32-1))"
 247 2012-02-03 02:21:23 <sipa> Sun Feb  7 07:28:15 CET 2106
 248 2012-02-03 02:21:39 <roconnor> thanks
 249 2012-02-03 02:22:25 <XMPPwocky> gmaxwell: but if there's a checkpoint after it, it just gets silently dropped?
 250 2012-02-03 02:22:33 <JFK911> then what?  transition to a 33 bit clock?
 251 2012-02-03 02:23:17 <gmaxwell> JFK911: no.. just make sure the wrap is handled okay.
 252 2012-02-03 02:24:10 <BlueMatt> the wrap is gonna have some ugly code
 253 2012-02-03 02:24:20 <BlueMatt> (not that I think bitcoin will make it to 2106, but...)
 254 2012-02-03 02:24:52 <gmaxwell> it's not like the timestamp is actually used in many places.
 255 2012-02-03 02:25:32 <BlueMatt> where is it used? blocks, ...?
 256 2012-02-03 02:25:53 theymos has joined
 257 2012-02-03 02:26:06 <sipa> just have a int64 GetTimeOf(uint32 t) that interprets it as the 2^32*n+t which is closest to the current date
 258 2012-02-03 02:26:22 sacarlson has joined
 259 2012-02-03 02:26:26 <sipa> well, not in blocks of course
 260 2012-02-03 02:27:21 <roconnor> Is that before or after the last statoshi is distributed?
 261 2012-02-03 02:27:32 <gmaxwell> before
 262 2012-02-03 02:27:46 <gmaxwell> (most likely)
 263 2012-02-03 02:27:47 <sipa> probably before
 264 2012-02-03 02:27:49 <sipa> indeed
 265 2012-02-03 02:28:56 <da2ce7> BlueMatt: prob by then we will have had a hard fork of the chain and have fixed all of the unclean ness.
 266 2012-02-03 02:29:02 <gmaxwell> a very disruptive break in computing power might put bitcoin ahead of schedule due to clamping.. but it would have to be bogglingly massive to move the time by 40 years. :)
 267 2012-02-03 02:29:45 <BlueMatt> da2ce7: yep, probably
 268 2012-02-03 02:29:50 <da2ce7> gmaxwell: or timewarp.
 269 2012-02-03 02:30:20 <gmaxwell> nah.
 270 2012-02-03 02:30:30 <roconnor> gmaxwell: more likely timewarping
 271 2012-02-03 02:30:34 <roconnor> opps
 272 2012-02-03 02:30:37 <roconnor> I'm way too slow
 273 2012-02-03 02:31:06 <sipa> when is the intended last satoshi subsidy?
 274 2012-02-03 02:31:17 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: you dont think we will have to hard fork at some point before 2106?
 275 2012-02-03 02:31:44 <sipa> 2140, right
 276 2012-02-03 02:32:21 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: we would probably if computing power increased enough to move the subsidy from 2140 to before 2106!
 277 2012-02-03 02:32:36 <BlueMatt> heh, yep
 278 2012-02-03 02:33:21 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 279 2012-02-03 02:33:24 <sipa> so, 104 instead of 138 years, that means a growth of 138/104 per two weeks
 280 2012-02-03 02:33:26 <gmaxwell> I expect if bitcoin (or its economic direct successor) was still used int 2100 the granularity would have also been increased.
 281 2012-02-03 02:33:49 <sipa> no, per 104/138*2 weeks
 282 2012-02-03 02:34:00 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 283 2012-02-03 02:34:16 <sipa> so a growth of 2.7% per day
 284 2012-02-03 02:34:51 <da2ce7> it would be fun to develop the 'bitcoin after hardfork' and do a few tests with hardforks on the testnet.
 285 2012-02-03 02:35:57 * sipa deems 104 years of yearly hashpower growth of 1789400% unrealistic
 286 2012-02-03 02:36:26 <BlueMatt> that does seem a bit much
 287 2012-02-03 02:36:33 <BlueMatt> that said, you never know...
 288 2012-02-03 02:37:56 <gmaxwell> the aliens give us all quantum computers one day, and the we need to square the difficulty to catch up.
 289 2012-02-03 02:41:57 <da2ce7> well that isn't that much...
 290 2012-02-03 02:48:40 <theymos> On the Hardfork Wishlist wiki page, it says "This changes would involve converting old blocks: uint64_t for timestamp field in blocks." Can you just interpret version-1 timestamps differently from version-2?
 291 2012-02-03 02:49:15 <roconnor> theymos: nope because currently version 2 blocks are interpreted exactly as version 1 blocks
 292 2012-02-03 02:49:37 <theymos> That's stupid and should be fixed.
 293 2012-02-03 02:49:40 <gmaxwell> oh well then we just put the rest of the timestamp there. done.
 294 2012-02-03 02:49:51 <gmaxwell> theymos: it's compatible. hurrah.
 295 2012-02-03 02:50:53 <theymos> Are tx versions also ignored? If so, that could be used as a nice flag for BIP 16 stuff instead of using templates.
 296 2012-02-03 02:51:06 <roconnor> theymos: AFAIU all version numbers are ignored
 297 2012-02-03 02:51:44 <sipa> also, even if they were not ignored, you can't introduce a backward-compatible upgrade using them
 298 2012-02-03 02:51:53 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: gavinandresen opened issue 794 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/794>
 299 2012-02-03 02:53:05 <theymos> Not backward-compatible, but new nodes would be able to distinguish between the two formats easily.
 300 2012-02-03 03:07:52 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
 301 2012-02-03 03:08:09 TheSeven has joined
 302 2012-02-03 03:11:47 <sipa> theymos: not backward-compatible == hardfork
 303 2012-02-03 03:12:10 Moron__ has quit ()
 304 2012-02-03 03:16:06 <theymos> I know. I was talking about extending the timestamp, which will require a hardfork anyway. It seems best to do this by updating the block version number and then treating old version-1 blocks differently than version-2 blocks. However, if version-2+ blocks are currently allowed, this scheme isn't going to work.
 305 2012-02-03 03:18:05 <roconnor> theymos: on testnet I use random version numbers
 306 2012-02-03 03:19:42 phantomfake has joined
 307 2012-02-03 03:20:44 <theymos> Seems best IMO to start discouraging non-standard versions now and rejecting them later.
 308 2012-02-03 03:21:57 <roconnor> theymos: I think you are right, I think BIP 16 / 17 would be better if they also required transaction version 2 or higher.
 309 2012-02-03 03:22:03 <sipa> theymos: Gavin was thinking about something like that, iirc
 310 2012-02-03 03:23:23 <sipa> actually, we could retroactively introduce the rule "if only the lower 8 bits of the version number differ, the block/tx format is identical, and only previously-valid things are made invalid"
 311 2012-02-03 03:23:54 <sipa> as currently all version numbers are accepted, this rule on itself only makes previously-valid things invalid, causing no fork
 312 2012-02-03 03:25:39 <sipa> gmaxwell, roconnor, theymos: what do you think about that?
 313 2012-02-03 03:26:12 <roconnor> I'm confused by it
 314 2012-02-03 03:26:25 <theymos> Yeah, I don't understand what you mean.
 315 2012-02-03 03:26:39 <sipa> ok
 316 2012-02-03 03:26:53 <sipa> so assume we want to fix the problem that version numbers are ignored
 317 2012-02-03 03:27:15 <sipa> the question raises: what does a client need to do when it encounters a block or tx with a version it does not know about
 318 2012-02-03 03:27:54 <sipa> two possibilities exist: interpret it as the highest version it does understand, or assume it will not be valid it all
 319 2012-02-03 03:28:18 <sipa> for the change introduced by BIP16 or BIP17, you want the former behaviour
 320 2012-02-03 03:28:28 <sipa> if you do a hardfork, you want the latter behaviour
 321 2012-02-03 03:28:53 <roconnor> a good start would be having BIP 16 / 17 use version numbers
 322 2012-02-03 03:28:57 <sipa> so i propose splitting the version number into two parts: a major version (the high bits) and a minor version (the low 8 bits)
 323 2012-02-03 03:29:10 <theymos> Ah, I like that idea. Adds some flags for BIP16-type things, but still allows for hardfork stuff.
 324 2012-02-03 03:29:40 <sipa> if only the minor number is increased, a client is allowed (and required) to interpret it as the highest version it does know about
 325 2012-02-03 03:29:52 <sipa> if the major number is increased, a client must reject it
 326 2012-02-03 03:30:04 <roconnor> sipa: at first glance it sounds good
 327 2012-02-03 03:30:50 <sipa> as currently all version numbers are accepted, this rule on itself only makes previously-valid things invalid (the major version update requirement), thus it can be done without a hardfork
 328 2012-02-03 03:33:50 <sipa> so together with BIP16/BIP17 this means changing the version number to 0x0002, and also not intepreting transactions with version 0x0001 as BIP16/BIP17 enabled
 329 2012-02-03 03:34:34 <theymos> Seems very elegant to me. Might even satisfy Luke.
 330 2012-02-03 03:35:04 <roconnor> hashtypes are also an issue
 331 2012-02-03 03:36:16 <roconnor> sipa: BIP it
 332 2012-02-03 03:36:47 <sipa> one thing to think about is the interaction of blocks and transactions
 333 2012-02-03 03:38:08 <sipa> i'd say there is only one version number space, and the version number of a block cannot be lower than the highest version used by one of its transactions
 334 2012-02-03 03:38:33 cuqa has left ()
 335 2012-02-03 03:39:31 <theymos> The blocks are going to get rejected due to invalid transactions anyway, so using up a version number in the block seems pointless. Tying them together like that would only offer a small shortcut in verification.
 336 2012-02-03 03:40:17 <sipa> yes, but it does allow backward-compatible updates to the block rules that do not require a corresponding update in the transaction versions
 337 2012-02-03 03:40:39 <sipa> and it prevents needing to keep two sets of version-number-rules with possibly strange interactions
 338 2012-02-03 03:40:49 <luke-jr> does it still execute the scripts?
 339 2012-02-03 03:40:54 <sipa> ?
 340 2012-02-03 03:41:12 Tycale_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 341 2012-02-03 03:41:44 <luke-jr> sipa: if the version is changed, do the scripts still execute?
 342 2012-02-03 03:41:51 Tycale has joined
 343 2012-02-03 03:41:55 <sipa> the minor version or the major one?
 344 2012-02-03 03:42:01 <luke-jr> right now I mean
 345 2012-02-03 03:42:15 <luke-jr> (I'd prefer a 16-bit major + 16-bit minor fwiw)
 346 2012-02-03 03:43:20 <luke-jr> either way, using version like this would IMO move me from "Very weak" on BIP 16 to "Yes" (with Prefer still BIP 17, which could also have a similar version rule if adopted)
 347 2012-02-03 03:43:57 <roconnor> I agree with luke-jr, it is a big improvement.
 348 2012-02-03 03:44:12 <TuxBlackEdo> yep much better
 349 2012-02-03 03:44:16 <theymos> Yeah, I'd love to see this.
 350 2012-02-03 03:44:21 * sipa BIPs
 351 2012-02-03 03:44:25 <luke-jr> jgarzik: (#794) nobody was talking about hashespersec
 352 2012-02-03 03:44:40 <roconnor> it fixes to some extent some backwards compatibility issues.
 353 2012-02-03 03:44:48 <splatster> etotheipi_: Anything new in terms of build procedure for OS X? I still can't get it working
 354 2012-02-03 03:45:04 <luke-jr> sipa: would you prefer to make it part of BIP 18, or just a minor revision to BIP 16?
 355 2012-02-03 03:45:16 <sipa> i think it needs to be a BIP on itself
 356 2012-02-03 03:45:22 <roconnor> really this BIP should be done first
 357 2012-02-03 03:45:30 <luke-jr> wouldn't it replace BIP 16?
 358 2012-02-03 03:45:30 <roconnor> make sure there is suffiecent mining support
 359 2012-02-03 03:45:36 <sipa> luke-jr: no
 360 2012-02-03 03:45:38 <roconnor> then do BIP16 or BIP 17
 361 2012-02-03 03:46:10 <luke-jr> sipa: so the BIP is "only apply BIP 16 when version = 2"?
 362 2012-02-03 03:46:12 <luke-jr> O.o
 363 2012-02-03 03:46:15 * luke-jr is confused
 364 2012-02-03 03:46:18 <sipa> wait
 365 2012-02-03 03:46:24 <roconnor> when version >= 2
 366 2012-02-03 03:46:29 <sipa> there are two independent changes here
 367 2012-02-03 03:46:50 <theymos> I suggest including in the BIP that clients should start discouraging and then later rejecting blocks with strange major versions.
 368 2012-02-03 03:46:51 <luke-jr> oh, you're talking about the major/minor split
 369 2012-02-03 03:46:52 <sipa> 1) the behaviour updates implied by BIP16, BIP17 or this version policy
 370 2012-02-03 03:47:12 <sipa> 2) the "soft" blockchain split that is require by all three
 371 2012-02-03 03:48:35 <sipa> i'd prefer a) BIP16 and BIP17 to do a minor modification "these new style transactions require a minor tx version of 0x0002" and b) have the voting adapted so it reflects both the change to the version number policy as the change by BIP16 or BIP17
 372 2012-02-03 03:49:22 <luke-jr> sounds good to me
 373 2012-02-03 03:49:36 <luke-jr> want me to update BIP 17, or will you do that?
 374 2012-02-03 03:49:43 <roconnor> sipa: version 2 or greater?
 375 2012-02-03 03:49:52 <luke-jr> or maybe I should just wait until BIP 16 is updated and Withdraw 17
 376 2012-02-03 03:49:53 <sipa> roconnor: indeed, or greater
 377 2012-02-03 03:50:11 <theymos> sipa: It probably is easiest and safest to tie the versions together, especially if minor versions are 16 bytes and you don't need to worry about wasting values.
 378 2012-02-03 03:50:12 <sipa> luke-jr: i think this proposal needs to be formally made into a BIP first
 379 2012-02-03 03:50:51 <luke-jr> theymos: you are genius btw
 380 2012-02-03 03:51:01 <theymos> Why?
 381 2012-02-03 03:51:05 <luke-jr> theymos: for suggesting this
 382 2012-02-03 03:51:10 <theymos> This is sipa's idea.
 383 2012-02-03 03:51:13 <luke-jr> oh
 384 2012-02-03 03:51:21 <luke-jr> I already knew sipa was genius though
 385 2012-02-03 03:51:45 <sipa> theymos: what about this: the block is allowed to be of a higher minor version than the transactions in it; it simply means the minor did not perform the validation required by the higher minor version
 386 2012-02-03 03:51:50 <sipa> this replaces voting
 387 2012-02-03 03:51:52 <sipa> AND
 388 2012-02-03 03:52:00 <sipa> *miner
 389 2012-02-03 03:52:18 <luke-jr> O.o
 390 2012-02-03 03:52:28 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: It's a dud! It's a dud! It's a du...)
 391 2012-02-03 03:52:34 <theymos> That seems too complex to me.
 392 2012-02-03 03:52:53 <sipa> It looks extremely elegant to me.
 393 2012-02-03 03:53:01 <sipa> (but maybe a bridge too far)
 394 2012-02-03 03:54:14 <theymos> It doesn't seem right to me that the miner would ignore instructions in a tx that it can't or won't understand.
 395 2012-02-03 03:54:30 <sipa> theymos: that is what is going to happen anyway
 396 2012-02-03 03:55:05 <sipa> if BIP16/BIP17 are enabled right now as soon as 55% minors support it, the other 45% will create blocks which did not do the validation required by BIP16/17
 397 2012-02-03 03:55:27 <luke-jr> sipa: no, the other 45% will ignore due to IsStandard
 398 2012-02-03 03:55:40 <theymos> Yeah, you're right about that. I wasn't thinking about it in the right way.
 399 2012-02-03 03:56:07 <sipa> luke-jr: if you assume they are all running the satoshi client with unmodified isstandard rules, yes
 400 2012-02-03 03:56:24 <luke-jr> sipa: most are.
 401 2012-02-03 03:56:27 <sipa> i know
 402 2012-02-03 03:56:35 <sipa> so in practice, you are right
 403 2012-02-03 03:59:51 <theymos> With this new info in the chain, Bitcoin could alert miners (not shutting down, of course) when a large percentage of recent blocks have higher minor versions. This'd help speed up deployment of new rules.
 404 2012-02-03 04:00:02 JRWR has quit (Quit: BTC Welcome: 19QtYzmENUmqRhvjEvHsz785rqZ5RRcZG4)
 405 2012-02-03 04:00:26 b4epoche_ has joined
 406 2012-02-03 04:00:28 <luke-jr> theymos: Gavin already has an alert function
 407 2012-02-03 04:00:41 <theymos> That can't be targeted at miners, though.
 408 2012-02-03 04:00:53 <luke-jr> o i c
 409 2012-02-03 04:01:08 <sipa> you could also have a rule that makes the client favor blocks with a higher version number - though i'm not sure this is entirely safe
 410 2012-02-03 04:01:16 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 411 2012-02-03 04:01:17 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 412 2012-02-03 04:02:56 <theymos> I think that'd only be safe if it applied to versions <= versions the client knows about.
 413 2012-02-03 04:03:01 gribble has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 414 2012-02-03 04:03:27 gribble has joined
 415 2012-02-03 04:03:53 nanotube has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 416 2012-02-03 04:04:30 <sipa> a block with version 0x0001 and transaction of version 0x0002 in it, is still invalid to clients which support version 0x0002 if the 0x0002 transactions in it fail the stronger validation
 417 2012-02-03 04:05:43 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 418 2012-02-03 04:06:23 [7] has joined
 419 2012-02-03 04:08:30 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 420 2012-02-03 04:09:49 nanotube has joined
 421 2012-02-03 04:14:00 <jgarzik> luke-jr: gavin said in the issue, quote, "I think hashespersec should be greater than zero, also..."
 422 2012-02-03 04:14:40 <luke-jr> oh, missed that
 423 2012-02-03 04:14:52 <luke-jr> "generate" : true, <-- he's right?
 424 2012-02-03 04:15:29 <sipa> hmm, how about including the supported major/minor block/tx version in the protocol version?
 425 2012-02-03 04:15:39 <sipa> that could be done in another BIP, though
 426 2012-02-03 04:17:20 Cablesaurus has joined
 427 2012-02-03 04:17:21 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
 428 2012-02-03 04:17:21 Cablesaurus has joined
 429 2012-02-03 04:18:39 * luke-jr looks forward to reading sipa's BIP :>
 430 2012-02-03 04:19:21  has joined
 431 2012-02-03 04:24:29 <nanotube> luke-jr: well, even if generate=true, client doesn't start mining until it has all the blocks. we don't know whether client had all blocks at the time that getinfo was executed.
 432 2012-02-03 04:27:41 RobinPKR_ has joined
 433 2012-02-03 04:29:24 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 434 2012-02-03 04:29:24 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
 435 2012-02-03 04:39:35 Clipse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 436 2012-02-03 04:51:25 * sipa thinks about how clients should behave during an upgrade period
 437 2012-02-03 04:52:11 Disposition has joined
 438 2012-02-03 04:54:03 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 439 2012-02-03 04:55:25 devrandom has joined
 440 2012-02-03 04:57:34 JRWR has joined
 441 2012-02-03 05:03:09 JimRogers has left ()
 442 2012-02-03 05:09:18 <sipa> the only way i see is having the rules for each minor version be of the form: (if blocktime<X, minorV>Y is identical to minorV=Y)
 443 2012-02-03 05:09:19 JRWR has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 444 2012-02-03 05:16:07 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 445 2012-02-03 05:22:38 Clipse has joined
 446 2012-02-03 05:48:40 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 447 2012-02-03 05:50:41 lolcat___ is now known as lolcat}
 448 2012-02-03 06:07:24 lyspooner has joined
 449 2012-02-03 06:07:47 lyspooner has quit (Client Quit)
 450 2012-02-03 06:14:34 ThomasV has joined
 451 2012-02-03 06:20:00 XMPPwocky has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 452 2012-02-03 06:23:41 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 453 2012-02-03 06:24:22 <sipa> https://raw.github.com/gist/1728493/111c3dcfc89bc75d764990832ca153a92139f441/gistfile1.txt
 454 2012-02-03 06:49:29 h4ckm3 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 455 2012-02-03 06:50:26 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 456 2012-02-03 06:50:38 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
 457 2012-02-03 06:51:12 Rabbit67890 has joined
 458 2012-02-03 06:53:55 mortikia has joined
 459 2012-02-03 06:55:05 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 460 2012-02-03 06:56:58 devrandom has joined
 461 2012-02-03 06:57:43 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 462 2012-02-03 06:58:10 copumpkin has joined
 463 2012-02-03 06:59:31 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 464 2012-02-03 07:04:38 MrTiggr has joined
 465 2012-02-03 07:07:38 gronager has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 466 2012-02-03 07:16:42 onelineproof has joined
 467 2012-02-03 07:19:53 RazielZ has joined
 468 2012-02-03 07:20:12 poiuh has joined
 469 2012-02-03 07:23:28 dr_win has joined
 470 2012-02-03 07:27:39 bill_stickers has joined
 471 2012-02-03 07:27:50 poiuh has quit ()
 472 2012-02-03 07:28:29 shaktirob has joined
 473 2012-02-03 07:28:39 shaktirob has quit (Client Quit)
 474 2012-02-03 07:29:30 shargalarg has joined
 475 2012-02-03 07:31:18 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 476 2012-02-03 07:31:45 barmstrong has joined
 477 2012-02-03 07:34:39 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 478 2012-02-03 07:35:14 copumpkin has joined
 479 2012-02-03 07:42:22 paul0 has joined
 480 2012-02-03 07:47:50 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 481 2012-02-03 07:49:42 MrTiggr has joined
 482 2012-02-03 07:51:27 onelineproof has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 483 2012-02-03 07:56:26 ultra has quit (Quit: leaving)
 484 2012-02-03 08:03:32 gronager has joined
 485 2012-02-03 08:12:32 b4epoche_ has joined
 486 2012-02-03 08:12:42 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 487 2012-02-03 08:13:25 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 488 2012-02-03 08:13:25 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 489 2012-02-03 08:18:04 Clipse has quit (Quit: Clipse)
 490 2012-02-03 08:20:52 splatster has quit (Quit: HOLY SHIT!!!)
 491 2012-02-03 08:24:27 ThomasV has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 492 2012-02-03 08:24:30 marf_away has joined
 493 2012-02-03 08:30:10 ahihi2 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 494 2012-02-03 08:34:06 ahihi2 has joined
 495 2012-02-03 08:35:35 erle- has joined
 496 2012-02-03 08:39:52 Clipse has joined
 497 2012-02-03 08:40:28 bill_stickers has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 498 2012-02-03 08:52:32 Rabbit67890 has quit (Quit: Rabbit67890)
 499 2012-02-03 08:58:49 ahihi2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 500 2012-02-03 08:58:58 ahihi2 has joined
 501 2012-02-03 09:01:23 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 502 2012-02-03 09:10:54 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 503 2012-02-03 09:22:38 ovidiusoft has joined
 504 2012-02-03 09:24:43 larsivi has joined
 505 2012-02-03 09:26:58 onelineproof has joined
 506 2012-02-03 09:27:54 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 507 2012-02-03 09:31:14 m00p has joined
 508 2012-02-03 09:34:17 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.3 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 509 2012-02-03 09:40:17 molecular has joined
 510 2012-02-03 09:41:11 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 511 2012-02-03 09:42:25 da2ce7 has joined
 512 2012-02-03 09:42:42 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 513 2012-02-03 09:47:04 wirehead has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 514 2012-02-03 09:52:41 onelineproof has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 515 2012-02-03 09:54:58 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 516 2012-02-03 10:11:54 booo has joined
 517 2012-02-03 10:15:14 wirehead has joined
 518 2012-02-03 10:24:39 m00p has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 519 2012-02-03 10:40:30 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 520 2012-02-03 10:45:18 cuqa has joined
 521 2012-02-03 10:45:32 <cuqa> hey, anyone know who is owner of this address ?
 522 2012-02-03 10:45:33 <cuqa> http://blockchain.info/address/e349bc52c931a910d9876c559383aaeacadab850
 523 2012-02-03 10:47:48 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneWeirdzzzz
 524 2012-02-03 10:48:58 <Eliel> cuqa: looks very much like the wallet address for some pool somewhere.
 525 2012-02-03 10:49:01 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 526 2012-02-03 10:49:15 <cuqa> yup, thats for sure
 527 2012-02-03 10:49:53 <Eliel> you could probably estimate the pool hashrate by counting the 50BTC from the last 2 weeks.
 528 2012-02-03 10:50:20 <Eliel> but it doesn't look like a small pool, nor a new one
 529 2012-02-03 10:50:58 <cuqa> right, good idea
 530 2012-02-03 10:51:36 <Eliel> hmm... the pool looks to be getting blocks at around 1 per hour.
 531 2012-02-03 10:52:20 <Eliel> that leaves basically 3 options, deepbit, slush and btcguild.
 532 2012-02-03 10:52:35 <Graet> my guess is mining.cz - but hey
 533 2012-02-03 10:52:45 <Graet> ie slush
 534 2012-02-03 10:52:58 TD has joined
 535 2012-02-03 10:53:47 TD has quit (Client Quit)
 536 2012-02-03 10:54:36 safra has joined
 537 2012-02-03 10:54:45 TD has joined
 538 2012-02-03 10:55:39 safra has quit (Client Quit)
 539 2012-02-03 10:56:10 seco has quit (Quit: seco)
 540 2012-02-03 10:58:35 ThomasV has joined
 541 2012-02-03 10:59:07 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 542 2012-02-03 11:03:41 <Eliel> cuqa: ok, verified it, it's slush's pool's address. The coinbases in the blocks clearly identify the pool.
 543 2012-02-03 11:03:48 sacarlson has joined
 544 2012-02-03 11:03:54 <Eliel> so, mining.cz as Graet said.
 545 2012-02-03 11:03:57 <cuqa> thx
 546 2012-02-03 11:04:19 <cuqa> ok thought me that, because its via tor
 547 2012-02-03 11:04:38 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
 548 2012-02-03 11:07:18 dwon has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 549 2012-02-03 11:10:01 iocor has joined
 550 2012-02-03 11:11:13 osmosis has joined
 551 2012-02-03 11:15:59 wasabi has joined
 552 2012-02-03 11:17:19 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 553 2012-02-03 11:20:22 paraipan has joined
 554 2012-02-03 11:21:41 <shargalarg> lua based script engine?
 555 2012-02-03 11:22:56 occulta has joined
 556 2012-02-03 11:23:18 danbri has joined
 557 2012-02-03 11:27:25 <sipa> ?
 558 2012-02-03 11:35:11 MrTiggr has joined
 559 2012-02-03 11:39:59 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 560 2012-02-03 11:51:25 ovidiusoft has joined
 561 2012-02-03 11:53:34 merde has quit ()
 562 2012-02-03 11:57:54 shargalarg is now known as shargs
 563 2012-02-03 11:58:25 merde has joined
 564 2012-02-03 12:03:16 eldentyrell has joined
 565 2012-02-03 12:06:15 merde has quit ()
 566 2012-02-03 12:23:59 b4epoche_ has joined
 567 2012-02-03 12:24:58 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 568 2012-02-03 12:24:59 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 569 2012-02-03 12:25:37 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 570 2012-02-03 12:26:28 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 571 2012-02-03 12:27:37 merde has joined
 572 2012-02-03 12:29:17 MrTiggr has joined
 573 2012-02-03 12:31:02 OneFixt has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 574 2012-02-03 12:41:16 OneFixt has joined
 575 2012-02-03 12:44:18 Moron__ has joined
 576 2012-02-03 12:49:27 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.3 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 577 2012-02-03 12:51:12 stalled has joined
 578 2012-02-03 12:55:47 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 579 2012-02-03 12:57:21 Joric has joined
 580 2012-02-03 13:00:06 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 581 2012-02-03 13:03:13 marf_away has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
 582 2012-02-03 13:03:45 edcba has quit (Read error: error:1408F10B:SSL routines:SSL3_GET_RECORD:wrong version number)
 583 2012-02-03 13:24:19 da2ce7 has joined
 584 2012-02-03 13:28:54 dwon has joined
 585 2012-02-03 13:33:31 booo has joined
 586 2012-02-03 13:34:05 minimoose has joined
 587 2012-02-03 13:35:23 Guest87815 has joined
 588 2012-02-03 13:35:53 Guest87815 has quit (Client Quit)
 589 2012-02-03 13:36:15 datagutt_ has joined
 590 2012-02-03 13:36:21 datagutt_ has quit (Changing host)
 591 2012-02-03 13:36:21 datagutt_ has joined
 592 2012-02-03 13:38:35 erle- has joined
 593 2012-02-03 13:40:55 cdecker has joined
 594 2012-02-03 13:44:56 cdecker has quit (Client Quit)
 595 2012-02-03 13:45:15 eldentyrell has quit (Quit: eldentyrell)
 596 2012-02-03 13:45:31 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
 597 2012-02-03 13:45:43 TheSeven has joined
 598 2012-02-03 13:52:52 user__ has joined
 599 2012-02-03 13:53:35 malaimo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 600 2012-02-03 13:58:26 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 601 2012-02-03 14:02:09 user__ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 602 2012-02-03 14:03:29 stalled has joined
 603 2012-02-03 14:14:44 theorb has joined
 604 2012-02-03 14:16:04 slush has joined
 605 2012-02-03 14:16:35 theorbtwo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 606 2012-02-03 14:16:54 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
 607 2012-02-03 14:28:52 vsrinivas has joined
 608 2012-02-03 14:29:25 <vsrinivas> i've heard that bitcoind 0.6-notyet doesn't support solo mining via getwork; is this the case?
 609 2012-02-03 14:30:51 occulta has joined
 610 2012-02-03 14:35:26 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 611 2012-02-03 14:36:01 <luke-jr> sipa: FWIW, something is wrong with the new address stuff I think; been testing it on Eligius, but it crashed overnight and corrupted addr.dat
 612 2012-02-03 14:37:05 <sipa> hmm, Gavin also reported a segfault with it; i'll look into it
 613 2012-02-03 14:37:50 iocor has joined
 614 2012-02-03 14:38:12 JRWR has joined
 615 2012-02-03 14:38:47 iocor has quit (Client Quit)
 616 2012-02-03 14:43:36 datagutt_ is now known as datagutt
 617 2012-02-03 14:44:30 <luke-jr> sipa: it seems to have corrupted wallet.dat possibly too fwiw
 618 2012-02-03 14:47:48 <sipa> that seems strange
 619 2012-02-03 14:50:18 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 620 2012-02-03 14:50:51 graingert has joined
 621 2012-02-03 14:52:33 ovidiusoft has joined
 622 2012-02-03 14:53:03 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 623 2012-02-03 14:53:34 hexTech has joined
 624 2012-02-03 14:56:37 iocor has joined
 625 2012-02-03 14:57:54 <shargs> tyranadon
 626 2012-02-03 14:59:12 copumpkin has joined
 627 2012-02-03 15:00:16 <luke-jr> sipa: I accidentally the corrupt files :<
 628 2012-02-03 15:00:34 <luke-jr> I am running in gdb now
 629 2012-02-03 15:01:22 <sipa> https://gist.github.com/1728493
 630 2012-02-03 15:05:20 <luke-jr> "Clients ignore blocks and transaction with major version numbers they do not know about, and use the rules associated with the highest minor version they know about, not higher than that of the block or transaction."
 631 2012-02-03 15:05:28 <jgarzik> heh
 632 2012-02-03 15:05:29 <luke-jr> do not understand the second part
 633 2012-02-03 15:05:37 <jgarzik> Mr. Libcoin is dodging gmaxwell's questions now
 634 2012-02-03 15:05:41 <jgarzik> confidence--
 635 2012-02-03 15:06:56 <sipa> jgarzik: i had a private e-mail conversation with him today - turns out his code is far from thread safe
 636 2012-02-03 15:07:03 <luke-jr> "* should validate unmined transactions with version X.Z using the rules of version X.[min(Z,Y)]."
 637 2012-02-03 15:07:15 <luke-jr> ^ only for Z >= Y ?
 638 2012-02-03 15:07:23 <luke-jr> (in which case, min is redundant)
 639 2012-02-03 15:07:23 <sipa> no
 640 2012-02-03 15:07:44 <luke-jr> oh ok, I think I get it now…
 641 2012-02-03 15:08:21 <luke-jr> sipa: so version 2 would be valid with pre-P2SH transactions too?
 642 2012-02-03 15:08:31 <sipa> yes
 643 2012-02-03 15:09:08 <luke-jr> :/
 644 2012-02-03 15:09:45 <sipa> new versions cannot make previously-valid things invalid
 645 2012-02-03 15:09:59 <luke-jr> no?
 646 2012-02-03 15:10:04 <luke-jr> isn't that the whole point?
 647 2012-02-03 15:10:21 <sipa> you can't -- doing so would require a hard fork
 648 2012-02-03 15:10:40 <luke-jr> no, only making previously-invalid things valid would
 649 2012-02-03 15:10:50 <sipa> oh
 650 2012-02-03 15:10:53 <sipa> miswritten!
 651 2012-02-03 15:11:10 <sipa> i mean they can only make previously-valid things invalid
 652 2012-02-03 15:11:43 <luke-jr> I was thinking of version==2 being a P2SH marker, and only allowing P2SH while the old-style continued to use version==1
 653 2012-02-03 15:12:43 <sipa> and what about transactions that are valid when interpreted as P2SH, and invalid using the old rules?
 654 2012-02-03 15:12:49 <sipa> which is probably all of them
 655 2012-02-03 15:13:53 <sipa> wait
 656 2012-02-03 15:14:08 <sipa> you are right, you could define version 2 to be P2SH only
 657 2012-02-03 15:16:36 <sipa> however, that would imply that any further update to the script language is done in a way that is compatible with P2SH
 658 2012-02-03 15:16:54 <luke-jr> with your current BIP, yes
 659 2012-02-03 15:17:07 <sipa> i don't think there is another way
 660 2012-02-03 15:17:16 <luke-jr> perhaps there are really 3 categories needed: major, minor, and alternative?
 661 2012-02-03 15:17:36 <luke-jr> ie, if version 3 isn't supported, fall back to version 1
 662 2012-02-03 15:18:02 <sipa> right, turn the minor-version space into a tree instead of a list
 663 2012-02-03 15:18:06 occulta has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 664 2012-02-03 15:18:10 gronager has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 665 2012-02-03 15:18:11 <luke-jr> 8-bits major (are we really going to hardfork over 255 times?), 8-bits minor, 16-bits alternative?
 666 2012-02-03 15:18:35 <sipa> that's only moving the problem
 667 2012-02-03 15:18:40 <luke-jr> ?
 668 2012-02-03 15:18:47 <luke-jr> or 8/12/12 maybe
 669 2012-02-03 15:18:58 <sipa> how does alternative work?
 670 2012-02-03 15:19:21 <luke-jr> if the major.minor.alternative isn't supported, it falls over to major.minor.1
 671 2012-02-03 15:20:18 <luke-jr> major/minor work with your current rules as-is
 672 2012-02-03 15:21:20 <sipa> ok, say we have 0.0.1 (current), 0.0.2 (p2sh), 0.0.3 (p2sh with an improved scripting language)
 673 2012-02-03 15:21:44 <sipa> now comes the time when a real minor update is needed; what rules does 0.1.0 have?
 674 2012-02-03 15:21:51 <forrestv> we're 10GH/s below Bitcoins.lc
 675 2012-02-03 15:21:54 * Eliel wonders if it'd open up any glaring security holes to make old versions just ignore (and silently drop) transactions with version higher than what they support but still accept blocks if all the transactions they can parse in them are correct? Just have them assume that if the block ends up extended, all is fine.
 676 2012-02-03 15:21:57 <forrestv> err, wrong channel :p
 677 2012-02-03 15:22:21 m0mchil has quit (Quit: And boom...)
 678 2012-02-03 15:22:34 <sipa> Eliel: have you read by proposal?
 679 2012-02-03 15:22:43 <Eliel> which one?
 680 2012-02-03 15:22:50 <sipa> https://gist.github.com/1728493
 681 2012-02-03 15:23:31 marf_away has joined
 682 2012-02-03 15:23:42 <Eliel> ah no I didn't. Reading
 683 2012-02-03 15:23:47 <sipa> luke-jr: will you immediately have 0.1.0, 0.1.1 and 0.1.2 ?
 684 2012-02-03 15:25:00 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 685 2012-02-03 15:25:20 <luke-jr> sipa: that would make sense if it's 8/8/16
 686 2012-02-03 15:26:34 Karmaon has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 687 2012-02-03 15:27:20 <sipa> luke-jr: the general problem is that with whatever set of interpreting version numbers you will introduce, you need a way to specify (for old clients) what sequence of older rulesets to use
 688 2012-02-03 15:27:41 Diablo-D3 has joined
 689 2012-02-03 15:28:01 <sipa> which is 0.1.0's predecessor?
 690 2012-02-03 15:29:16 <shargs> cain cain
 691 2012-02-03 15:30:00 <sipa> luke-jr: ok, say 0.1.1 is a successor to 0.0.1, 0.1.2 is a successor to 0.0.2, 0.1.3 is a successor to 0.0.3
 692 2012-02-03 15:30:29 <sipa> now you want to introduce some other change, independent from the scripting language, that is compatible with all three
 693 2012-02-03 15:31:14 <sipa> * all 6
 694 2012-02-03 15:31:30 <sipa> at that point, you need a fourth version number
 695 2012-02-03 15:32:03 occulta has joined
 696 2012-02-03 15:32:20 mcorlett has joined
 697 2012-02-03 15:32:24 <luke-jr> new alternative based on one of the others sounds like a plan; it's not perfect :p
 698 2012-02-03 15:32:32 merde has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 699 2012-02-03 15:33:38 jamescarr has joined
 700 2012-02-03 15:36:23 <Eliel> sipa: I think the following strategy for old clients when they encounter transaction with major version higher than they support could work: when received as lone transaction, just drop them, don't forward, don't mine them. When received in a block, pretend they aren't there and validate the rest of the block.
 701 2012-02-03 15:37:53 merde has joined
 702 2012-02-03 15:37:57 <Eliel> this would allow avoiding blockchain forks just because old clients can't parse things.
 703 2012-02-03 15:38:17 <Eliel> and would keep old clients compatible enough to not force an upgrade immediately.
 704 2012-02-03 15:42:01 <sipa> that way, you don't have semi-verification by old nodes
 705 2012-02-03 15:42:58 Karmaon has joined
 706 2012-02-03 15:44:17 graingert has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 707 2012-02-03 15:45:01 <Eliel> that's not done by old nodes in case of major version change in your spec either.
 708 2012-02-03 15:45:20 <shargs> ok
 709 2012-02-03 15:45:21 graingert has joined
 710 2012-02-03 15:45:22 <Eliel> they just drop the whole block if it contains anything they don't understand
 711 2012-02-03 15:45:57 <sipa> major version update is for changes that cannot be made into something that fits the old rules
 712 2012-02-03 15:46:24 <Eliel> yes, major version update for transactions is what I meant there.
 713 2012-02-03 15:46:40 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
 714 2012-02-03 15:46:41 <Eliel> it won't work for major version update for blocks but for transactions, yes.
 715 2012-02-03 15:47:22 btc_novice has joined
 716 2012-02-03 15:49:13 graingert has quit (Client Quit)
 717 2012-02-03 15:49:25 graingert has joined
 718 2012-02-03 15:49:49 gavinandresen has joined
 719 2012-02-03 15:50:26 paul0 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 720 2012-02-03 15:53:06 gronager has joined
 721 2012-02-03 15:53:46 graingert has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 722 2012-02-03 15:54:15 <gmaxwell> Eliel: what happens when a old version txn spends outputs from a new version txn?
 723 2012-02-03 15:54:40 <gmaxwell> If they ignored the new version txn completely— they'd fail that block under your rules.
 724 2012-02-03 15:56:20 <jamescarr> how hard is it to get started with mining for bitcoins with today's market? I mean, couldn't I just fire up a bunch of EC2 instances and get started?
 725 2012-02-03 15:56:28 <jamescarr> or is the barrier to entry higher now?
 726 2012-02-03 15:56:36 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 727 2012-02-03 15:56:44 <Eliel> gmaxwell: if it ends up in a non-orphaned part of the chain, then accept it.
 728 2012-02-03 15:57:02 <sipa> jamescarr: of course you could, but it would not be profitable
 729 2012-02-03 15:57:04 paul0 has joined
 730 2012-02-03 15:58:16 <jamescarr> how come?
 731 2012-02-03 15:58:39 <sipa> how could it be profitable? if it was, everyone would do it, increasing the difficulty until it isn't
 732 2012-02-03 15:58:41 <gavinandresen> EC2 instances have never been profitable for mining
 733 2012-02-03 15:59:05 <gavinandresen> ... even when bitcoins were selling for 0.5 cents apiece they were not profitable....
 734 2012-02-03 15:59:35 <sipa> with own hardware you have better value for money, so those will always force other ways (e.g. EC2) out of the market
 735 2012-02-03 15:59:46 <jamescarr> I'm guessing I could use a free t1.micro instance, but that wouldn't get me far beyond an initial mine I guess
 736 2012-02-03 15:59:46 <gmaxwell> Eliel: then you're not really validating anything, you're just trusting the longest chain, with a potentially variable lag.
 737 2012-02-03 15:59:48 <gavinandresen> sipa: I think I like your version proposal, although it means there has to be a linear sequence of supported new features.
 738 2012-02-03 15:59:59 <Eliel> gmaxwell: of course, it'd be ideal if the client had code that explicitly tells the user that they ought to upgrade when those transactions start ending up in the chain and not being orphaned by miners.
 739 2012-02-03 16:00:13 booo has joined
 740 2012-02-03 16:00:27 <gmaxwell> Eliel: we have the alert feature, which is different but can serve the same purpose.
 741 2012-02-03 16:00:34 <Eliel> gmaxwell: exactly, the idea is not to validate but rather allow old clients some leeway in upgrading in the case of major transaction upgrade.
 742 2012-02-03 16:00:43 <gmaxwell> Eliel: I think what you're suggesting would fundimentally change the security properties of bitcoin in a negative way.
 743 2012-02-03 16:00:53 <gavinandresen> What is Eliel suggesting?
 744 2012-02-03 16:01:03 danbri has joined
 745 2012-02-03 16:01:18 <sipa> gavinandresen: assume transactions with unknown version are valid
 746 2012-02-03 16:01:24 <sipa> unconditionally
 747 2012-02-03 16:01:25 <gmaxwell> no, even more than that.
 748 2012-02-03 16:01:40 <gavinandresen> Ummm.....
 749 2012-02-03 16:01:41 <gmaxwell> with the response to my question it becomes more generally,  when blocks contain invalid things, just discourage the block until its burried.
 750 2012-02-03 16:01:43 <Eliel> sipa: not unconditionally. They have to end up in the chain
 751 2012-02-03 16:02:17 <gavinandresen> ... so a rogue miner creates a block with an invalid-to-everybody-else-but-unknown-version transaction that does... whatever they like....
 752 2012-02-03 16:02:52 <gmaxwell> Basically it would give all nodes no more security than SPV nodes (or really spv nodes in a world where everyone was a SPV node)
 753 2012-02-03 16:03:33 <gmaxwell> Eliel: Have you seen my rant about how narrow in scope the mining "vote" is?
 754 2012-02-03 16:03:54 <gavinandresen> Yup, if you're willing to let the longest chain always validate everything for you then just be a SPV node and save yourself a lot of block-downloading time
 755 2012-02-03 16:04:02 <Eliel> it takes 51+% of miners accepting the weirdness for it to have practical effects.
 756 2012-02-03 16:04:28 <sipa> Eliel: i create a transaction with version 0.255 today
 757 2012-02-03 16:04:34 <sipa> and everyone will assume it's valid
 758 2012-02-03 16:04:55 <Eliel> sipa: no, it'll be ignored, old clients won't mine them, nor forward.
 759 2012-02-03 16:05:09 <sipa> ok, i pay a miner to put it in a block
 760 2012-02-03 16:05:21 <helo> the block will fail validation won't it?
 761 2012-02-03 16:05:27 <phantomcircuit> helo, no it wont
 762 2012-02-03 16:05:30 <phantomcircuit> that's the problem
 763 2012-02-03 16:05:36 <helo> i see hhe
 764 2012-02-03 16:05:42 <helo> heh
 765 2012-02-03 16:05:56 <Eliel> sipa: other miners will reject the block.
 766 2012-02-03 16:05:58 <gmaxwell> helo: Eliel is proposing changing the rules so that invalid transactions would be accepted if the version was from the future.
 767 2012-02-03 16:06:07 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 768 2012-02-03 16:06:13 <gmaxwell> Eliel: Bitcoin is more secure than just trusting a vote though. For the most part you don't even trust the vote to have the right results (which has a somewhat odd outcome that it makes the vote have the right results)
 769 2012-02-03 16:06:13 <gavinandresen> but just for clients, not for miners?
 770 2012-02-03 16:06:24 <Eliel> yes, not for miners.
 771 2012-02-03 16:06:40 <gmaxwell> Eliel: please see my rant directed towards genjix's claim that bitcoin is run by a majority vote, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61922.msg723476#msg723476
 772 2012-02-03 16:07:41 <sipa> Eliel: i thought that when validating you ignore transactions in blocks with a version you don't know?
 773 2012-02-03 16:08:04 <gmaxwell> I can see the email now "Hello fellow miners, with the upcoming drop to 12.5 BTC/block most of us will be hurting. I propose we apply this patch which will have the following effect:
 774 2012-02-03 16:08:19 <Diablo-D3> oh shit
 775 2012-02-03 16:08:23 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: you know though
 776 2012-02-03 16:08:30 <Diablo-D3> it'd be hilarious to just keep producing 50 btc forever
 777 2012-02-03 16:08:42 <Diablo-D3> mining would end up becoming some sort of industry
 778 2012-02-03 16:08:50 <sipa> it will anyway
 779 2012-02-03 16:08:51 <Diablo-D3> you'd have the entire moon converted into some giant DC
 780 2012-02-03 16:09:08 Joric has joined
 781 2012-02-03 16:09:13 <Graet> latency would be a killer Diablo-D3
 782 2012-02-03 16:09:14 <gmaxwell> Starting at block 630000 your node will add a transaction with version 0.3 which draws from block 0 and rewards you another 12.5 BTC, you will also accept blocks like this."
 783 2012-02-03 16:09:15 <Eliel> gmaxwell: surely that will be block level validation? I'm not suggesting to accept major changes there and just assume valid.
 784 2012-02-03 16:09:48 <sipa> Eliel: ok, so only some rules are allowed to be changed by version numbers
 785 2012-02-03 16:09:50 <sipa> which ones?
 786 2012-02-03 16:09:51 <Eliel> gmaxwell: I'm talking about transaction validation.
 787 2012-02-03 16:09:56 iocor has joined
 788 2012-02-03 16:09:57 <Diablo-D3> pretty sure gmaxwell is just kidding
 789 2012-02-03 16:10:04 <gmaxwell> Eliel: yes, I just proposed an additional transaction.
 790 2012-02-03 16:10:20 Rabbit67890 has joined
 791 2012-02-03 16:10:21 <helo> gmaxwell: nice relativity analogy
 792 2012-02-03 16:10:43 <Eliel> gmaxwell: it breaks the overall block integrity check that makes sure inputs and outputs sum up to acceptable totals.
 793 2012-02-03 16:10:51 graingert has joined
 794 2012-02-03 16:11:07 <Eliel> gmaxwell: or more like, it's double spending
 795 2012-02-03 16:11:11 <gmaxwell> Eliel: you said these txn were not validated, just accepted.
 796 2012-02-03 16:11:46 <Eliel> they can't be even detected as txn if the old client can't tell enough to check that double spends can't occur.
 797 2012-02-03 16:11:56 <gmaxwell> helo: yea, when you get down to it .. thats the fundimental limit we're fighting. I used to use that as an argument why something light bitcoin (a consistent zero trust decenteralized system) was not possible.
 798 2012-02-03 16:12:45 <gmaxwell> Eliel: then we can modify my hypothetical email to make them just spend lost coins. For example, we're aware of several tens of thousands of lost coins...
 799 2012-02-03 16:14:09 <Eliel> gmaxwell: the input part of those txs are old-style so those can be verified.
 800 2012-02-03 16:15:21 <gavinandresen> ... so miners to full validation but clients do some kind of half-validation...
 801 2012-02-03 16:15:44 <gavinandresen> Until they upgrade, then they can do full validation.
 802 2012-02-03 16:16:18 <Eliel> It's an idea. It could very well have some bad hole in it.
 803 2012-02-03 16:16:57 <Eliel> it'd ease the upgrade process if the network rules need changing.
 804 2012-02-03 16:17:07 <Eliel> for some of the rules.
 805 2012-02-03 16:17:22 <cjd> "Warning: The bitcoin in this transaction comes from a transaction which your version cannot completely verify, please upgrade so you can be sure it's valid."
 806 2012-02-03 16:17:35 <gmaxwell> cjd: ::cries:: you're missing the point.
 807 2012-02-03 16:17:47 * cjd wanders in and says stuff :)
 808 2012-02-03 16:17:59 <k9quaint> cjd: you used the wrong font!
 809 2012-02-03 16:18:00 <gmaxwell> As a user of bitcoin I don't just care if txn to me have a valid history, I care that no one else is inflating the currency or robbing other people too.
 810 2012-02-03 16:19:00 <Eliel> sipa: I was basically thinking to restrict this to the scripting system.
 811 2012-02-03 16:19:05 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: to be fair, the 'balance of payments' could be validated even if there are scriptPubKeys you don't understand.
 812 2012-02-03 16:19:49 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 813 2012-02-03 16:19:59 markus_w1nner has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 814 2012-02-03 16:20:01 graingert has joined
 815 2012-02-03 16:20:25 <Eliel> I guess the only hot question it leaves us with is if we can be sure miners couldn't team up to do evil stuff with this.
 816 2012-02-03 16:21:26 <gavinandresen> I still don't understand what "this" is
 817 2012-02-03 16:22:11 <Eliel> I was commenting on sipa's bip predraft
 818 2012-02-03 16:22:26  has quit (Clown|!Clown@static-87-79-93-140.netcologne.de|Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 819 2012-02-03 16:22:36 <Eliel> on how to use the version numbers in blocks and transactions
 820 2012-02-03 16:22:45 <sipa> currently, if i run a bitcoin full node, i *know* that the entire history i am seeing is valid
 821 2012-02-03 16:22:50 <gavinandresen> I have two hot questions about that:  1. will miners agree to go through the whole "express support, upgrade their bitcoinds" again any time soon for it.
 822 2012-02-03 16:23:28 <gavinandresen> And 2. Is it enough-better than the scheme we're using now (strings in the coinbase to express support for new stuff) to justify all that work.
 823 2012-02-03 16:23:51 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 824 2012-02-03 16:24:17 <sipa> the rule change i proposed changes this to "i know that the entire history is valid up to the rules my client supports"
 825 2012-02-03 16:25:32 <gavinandresen> sipa:  but if you think about it, that's not a change.
 826 2012-02-03 16:26:04 <sipa> not really, it just formalizes what is otherwise done ad-hoc
 827 2012-02-03 16:27:38 <gavinandresen> sure.  Like I said, my only real hot question is whether or not it should be a development priority.
 828 2012-02-03 16:27:52 <gavinandresen> ... because there are LOTS of other things to work on
 829 2012-02-03 16:28:09 <sipa> i think it is easy implementation-wise, actually
 830 2012-02-03 16:28:26 <sipa> but i haven't thought too much about that
 831 2012-02-03 16:28:50 * roconnor thinks getting versioning working properly should be #1 priority :)
 832 2012-02-03 16:28:52 <gavinandresen> If by implementation you mean writing the code, then I agree.  Rolling it out to the miners....
 833 2012-02-03 16:29:48 <sipa> gavinandresen: do it at the same time as BIP16?
 834 2012-02-03 16:30:02 <gavinandresen> no, that would be a nightmare.
 835 2012-02-03 16:30:20 <gavinandresen> ... since we're already in the middle of that rollout.
 836 2012-02-03 16:30:32 <shargs> why does 1and1 take 5 years to activate a hosting account
 837 2012-02-03 16:30:52 <gavinandresen> shargs: because they don't accept bitcoin?
 838 2012-02-03 16:30:55 <phantomcircuit> shargs, because chargebacks
 839 2012-02-03 16:31:04 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, you dont know how right you are
 840 2012-02-03 16:31:04 <Eliel> sipa: after thinking some more on my suggestion, I've come to think that what I suggested should only be applied with clients that could be difficult to upgrade fast.
 841 2012-02-03 16:31:13 <phantomcircuit> also "Sorry, but this account information isn't available right now. Please try again later." fuck lloyds
 842 2012-02-03 16:31:20 <phantomcircuit> how are these morons still in business
 843 2012-02-03 16:32:13 <roconnor> gavinandresen: what was your opinion about modifying BIP 16 to require version 2 or higher?
 844 2012-02-03 16:32:31 <shargs> yes it would be better if they took btc
 845 2012-02-03 16:32:52 <luke-jr> in the middle of rolling out BIP 17*
 846 2012-02-03 16:33:05 <phantomcircuit> shargs, screw 1and1 use momentovps.com
 847 2012-02-03 16:33:06 <phantomcircuit> :)
 848 2012-02-03 16:33:20 <gavinandresen> roconnor: if it'll get luke to stop beating a dead horse, sure.
 849 2012-02-03 16:34:13 Rabbit67890 has quit (Quit: Rabbit67890)
 850 2012-02-03 16:34:14 <sipa> now i think about it: i think you only need version 2 on the transaction spending a P2SH
 851 2012-02-03 16:34:20 <sipa> not the one creating it
 852 2012-02-03 16:34:26 <gavinandresen> I was about to ask that.
 853 2012-02-03 16:34:34 <luke-jr> sipa: so I can put version 1 on a spending to bypass the check? ;)
 854 2012-02-03 16:34:55 <sipa> luke-jr: right :D
 855 2012-02-03 16:34:58 <sipa> thanks for pointing that out
 856 2012-02-03 16:35:17 <roconnor> As I understand the situtation, what we want to do is pass the versioning support BIP first (though sufficent miner concencus) and then go on to pass BIP 16 (or 17).
 857 2012-02-03 16:35:32 b4epoche_ has joined
 858 2012-02-03 16:35:54 <sipa> if they are not being rolled out simultaneously, i think it will be very hard to get version support before BIP16
 859 2012-02-03 16:35:56 <gavinandresen> roconnor: who is "we" ?
 860 2012-02-03 16:36:11 <roconnor> s/we/you
 861 2012-02-03 16:36:33 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 862 2012-02-03 16:36:33 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
 863 2012-02-03 16:36:35 <roconnor> as in you guys
 864 2012-02-03 16:36:48 <roconnor> and s/want/ought
 865 2012-02-03 16:36:50 <roconnor> :)
 866 2012-02-03 16:36:54 <Eliel> luke-jr: that sounds like a borked version system. inputs and outputs obviously need separate versions :)
 867 2012-02-03 16:37:42 <luke-jr> Eliel: I think too late for that
 868 2012-02-03 16:37:51 <gavinandresen> roconnor: sipa's proposal needs lots more thought, in my humble opinion.  In the meantime, bitcoins continue to get stolen....
 869 2012-02-03 16:38:00 <luke-jr> while the txn version could be split into 16-bit input and 16-bit output right now, what if there's differing kinds of inputs?
 870 2012-02-03 16:38:03 <shargs> cool phantomcircuit i shall
 871 2012-02-03 16:38:21 <Eliel> luke-jr: not necessarily, only the output version needs to be specified really. input version can be looked up from the previous txouts
 872 2012-02-03 16:38:32 <luke-jr> it would be trivial to require version==2 on P2SH transactions, and leave the version details for the future
 873 2012-02-03 16:40:04 <roconnor> gavinandresen: okay
 874 2012-02-03 16:40:36 <luke-jr> btw, should spending multisig transactions put the change back into the multisig?
 875 2012-02-03 16:42:07 <Eliel> luke-jr: that's up to the client really I think. Depending on the user's needs.
 876 2012-02-03 16:43:15 marf_away has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 877 2012-02-03 16:43:35 <roconnor> gavinandresen: BTW, do you think that off-line wallets are insuffent to tackle the bitcoins get stolen problem?
 878 2012-02-03 16:43:37 marf_away has joined
 879 2012-02-03 16:44:16 <gavinandresen> roconnor: latest theft was from a mining pool. How are they going to have an offline wallet when they make payouts constantly?
 880 2012-02-03 16:45:26 <roconnor> oh; how would multisig have helped them?
 881 2012-02-03 16:46:00 <roconnor> (though mining pools ought to be sophistcated enought to do multisig themselves right now; they don't need short addresses)
 882 2012-02-03 16:46:07 <roconnor> IIUC
 883 2012-02-03 16:46:25 <gavinandresen> They could mine into a multisig, and subscribe to a wallet protection service that looked for odd transaction patterns
 884 2012-02-03 16:46:27 <roconnor> maybe I don't understand correctly
 885 2012-02-03 16:46:36 <gavinandresen> (for example)
 886 2012-02-03 16:46:47 <gavinandresen> Like emptying the entire wallet all at once....
 887 2012-02-03 16:47:21 gronager has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 888 2012-02-03 16:48:06 <roconnor> gavinandresen: I guess I don't really see how short addresses is needed for that.
 889 2012-02-03 16:48:10 <roconnor> but anyhow
 890 2012-02-03 16:48:32 <roconnor> gavinandresen: thanks for answering my question. :)
 891 2012-02-03 16:48:40 <gavinandresen> roconnor: it's not, but, good decision or bad, the IsStandard multisig changes are bundled with the p2sh stuff
 892 2012-02-03 16:52:25 <shargs> hmmmm
 893 2012-02-03 16:52:30 <shargs> sounds like an inside job
 894 2012-02-03 16:53:25 <shargs> "we got hacked" = "we bought a yacht"
 895 2012-02-03 16:53:45 <Diablo-D3> can I haz yacht? =/
 896 2012-02-03 16:55:54 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
 897 2012-02-03 16:56:04 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 898 2012-02-03 16:56:21 enquirer has joined
 899 2012-02-03 16:57:33 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 900 2012-02-03 16:57:45 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 901 2012-02-03 16:58:04 <phantomcircuit> which pool ?
 902 2012-02-03 16:58:05 JRWR has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 903 2012-02-03 16:58:27 <sipa> btcserv
 904 2012-02-03 16:58:34 <phantomcircuit> facepalm
 905 2012-02-03 16:58:38 <phantomcircuit> <-- FACEPALM
 906 2012-02-03 16:59:05 <copumpkin> is there some way in bitcoin-qt to go back and rename unnamed addresses?
 907 2012-02-03 16:59:28 <copumpkin> oh
 908 2012-02-03 16:59:29 <copumpkin> edit label
 909 2012-02-03 17:03:44 graingert has joined
 910 2012-02-03 17:07:33 imsaguy2 is now known as IMSAguy2
 911 2012-02-03 17:15:47 Matoking has joined
 912 2012-02-03 17:16:11 <Matoking> Bitcoin-qt should minimize to system tray and disappear from taskbar when I minimize it, no?
 913 2012-02-03 17:18:43 att has joined
 914 2012-02-03 17:21:45 <graingert> Matoking: it should close to systray
 915 2012-02-03 17:21:57 <Matoking> But the window stays at the taskbar
 916 2012-02-03 17:22:00 <graingert> Matoking: not minimise to systray, otherwise what's the point of minimize
 917 2012-02-03 17:22:03 <graingert> *close*
 918 2012-02-03 17:22:12 <graingert> you need to enable this in settings
 919 2012-02-03 17:22:35 <Matoking> Hmm
 920 2012-02-03 17:22:46 <Matoking> "Minimize to the tray instead of the taskbar" doesn't seem to work
 921 2012-02-03 17:23:11 <Matoking> It still has the window minimize to the taskbar and the tray
 922 2012-02-03 17:23:30 <marf_away> click on cross
 923 2012-02-03 17:23:38 <marf_away> than it goes in tray
 924 2012-02-03 17:23:59 <Matoking> I think I found a way to fix it though
 925 2012-02-03 17:24:09 <marf_away> yes click on the Cross!!
 926 2012-02-03 17:24:29 <Matoking> That's not what I meant
 927 2012-02-03 17:24:39 <Matoking> I have "Minimize to the tray instead of the taskbar" enabled
 928 2012-02-03 17:24:40 <graingert> minimize to tray is stupid and wrong
 929 2012-02-03 17:24:52 <Matoking> So shouldn't it work that way?
 930 2012-02-03 17:24:56 <marf_away> no
 931 2012-02-03 17:25:05 <marf_away> its about the cross behavior
 932 2012-02-03 17:25:20 <marf_away> minimizing or closing
 933 2012-02-03 17:25:43 <Matoking> Closing works the same way had I that option enabled or not
 934 2012-02-03 17:25:58 <marf_away> hmm
 935 2012-02-03 17:26:02 <marf_away> ok dont know
 936 2012-02-03 17:26:04 <marf_away> ;D
 937 2012-02-03 17:26:32 pusle has joined
 938 2012-02-03 17:26:58 cande has quit (Quit: Lämnar)
 939 2012-02-03 17:28:28 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
 940 2012-02-03 17:29:33 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 941 2012-02-03 17:30:13 erle- has joined
 942 2012-02-03 17:30:18 Zarutian has joined
 943 2012-02-03 17:31:03 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day)
 944 2012-02-03 17:31:22 <jamescarr> so I installed a wallet and it's been synchronizing with the network forever, after an hour it is at 61%
 945 2012-02-03 17:31:24 <jamescarr> is this normal?
 946 2012-02-03 17:31:52 <sipa> unfortunately, yes
 947 2012-02-03 17:31:53 <marf_away> yes
 948 2012-02-03 17:32:03 <marf_away> takes maybe 4-5 h additional!
 949 2012-02-03 17:32:51 <marf_away> last 40% are much slower :/
 950 2012-02-03 17:33:43 [Tycho] has joined
 951 2012-02-03 17:33:57 iddo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 952 2012-02-03 17:34:30 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 953 2012-02-03 17:35:28 Turingi has joined
 954 2012-02-03 17:35:28 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
 955 2012-02-03 17:35:28 Turingi has joined
 956 2012-02-03 17:35:58 [eval] has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 957 2012-02-03 17:37:57 Joric has quit ()
 958 2012-02-03 17:37:58 TradersEdgeDice has joined
 959 2012-02-03 17:41:41 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
 960 2012-02-03 17:45:15 <Matoking> Oh goodie
 961 2012-02-03 17:45:26 <Matoking> Something has changed in the bitcoin repository and now I can't compile it
 962 2012-02-03 17:45:31 BlueMatt has joined
 963 2012-02-03 17:51:39 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 964 2012-02-03 17:53:07 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 965 2012-02-03 17:53:48 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 966 2012-02-03 18:00:59 larsivi has joined
 967 2012-02-03 18:04:33 torsthaldo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 968 2012-02-03 18:08:59 <Matoking> And when I get it to compile, it crashes instantly when I try to run it
 969 2012-02-03 18:09:25 sacarlson has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 970 2012-02-03 18:09:38 <sipa> what error did you get?
 971 2012-02-03 18:10:03 <Matoking> CWintab::OpenCWintab::OpenInvalid parameter passed to C runtime function.
 972 2012-02-03 18:10:03 <Matoking> Invalid parameter passed to C runtime function.
 973 2012-02-03 18:10:03 <Matoking> ************************
 974 2012-02-03 18:10:03 <Matoking> EXCEPTION: 22DbRunRecoveryException
 975 2012-02-03 18:10:03 <Matoking> DbEnv::open: DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery
 976 2012-02-03 18:10:04 <Matoking> C:\Users\Janne\bitcoin-qt-build-desktop-Qt_4_7_4_for_Desktop_-_MinGW_4_4__Qt_SDK__Release\release\bitcoin-qt.exe in Runaway exception
 977 2012-02-03 18:10:05 <Matoking> terminate called after throwing an instance of 'DbRunRecoveryException'
 978 2012-02-03 18:10:05 <Matoking>   what():  DbEnv::open: DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery
 979 2012-02-03 18:10:06 <Matoking> C:\Users\Janne\bitcoin-qt-build-desktop-Qt_4_7_4_for_Desktop_-_MinGW_4_4__Qt_SDK__Release\release\bitcoin-qt.exe exited with code 3
 980 2012-02-03 18:10:12 <luke-jr> sipa: what do you think of replacing the magic template in BIP 16 with if(version == 2) ?
 981 2012-02-03 18:11:13 <sipa> that can't possibly be backward-compatible
 982 2012-02-03 18:11:18 <sipa> you definitely need the script
 983 2012-02-03 18:11:34 <sipa> as in, the prefix and suffix to make it into a script that old versions accept
 984 2012-02-03 18:11:58 <sipa> it IS possible to only have it interpreted as P2SH when it is in a version-2 tx, thought
 985 2012-02-03 18:12:01 <sipa> *though
 986 2012-02-03 18:12:06 <sipa> but i'm not in favor of that
 987 2012-02-03 18:12:09 <luke-jr> sipa: I don't mean get rid of the script, just the new hehaviour
 988 2012-02-03 18:12:35 <luke-jr> err
 989 2012-02-03 18:12:42 <luke-jr> not get rid of it, but make it based on the version==2
 990 2012-02-03 18:13:03 <luke-jr> and only the template passing IsStandard for version==2
 991 2012-02-03 18:13:24 <Matoking> Okay
 992 2012-02-03 18:13:28 <Matoking> Using different data dir worked
 993 2012-02-03 18:13:40 <Matoking> It's most likely Berkeley DB backwards compatibility issues or something
 994 2012-02-03 18:14:11 <Matoking> Okay
 995 2012-02-03 18:15:24 <luke-jr> Matoking: try stopping and starting again
 996 2012-02-03 18:16:12 <Matoking> Anyway
 997 2012-02-03 18:16:13 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 998 2012-02-03 18:16:20 <Matoking> I got the Minimize to the tray instead of the taskbar issue fixed
 999 2012-02-03 18:16:26 <Matoking> As small as it may be
1000 2012-02-03 18:19:07 Suroegin has joined
1001 2012-02-03 18:19:36 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1002 2012-02-03 18:21:35 vragnaroda has joined
1003 2012-02-03 18:21:35 TD has joined
1004 2012-02-03 18:21:41 ThomasV_ has joined
1005 2012-02-03 18:23:41 [eval] has joined
1006 2012-02-03 18:24:10 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Matoking opened pull request 795 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/795>
1007 2012-02-03 18:26:40 Suroegin has quit ()
1008 2012-02-03 18:29:23 <luke-jr> Matoking: I suspect you're going to be asked to rebase that into 1 commit…
1009 2012-02-03 18:29:44 <Matoking> I hate Git
1010 2012-02-03 18:30:04 <sipa> git rebase -i upstream/master
1011 2012-02-03 18:30:11 <luke-jr> sipa: not that simple :p
1012 2012-02-03 18:30:11 <sipa> change all but the first to "fix"
1013 2012-02-03 18:30:13 <sipa> save
1014 2012-02-03 18:31:00 <luke-jr> Matoking: git reset --hard origin/master ; git diff eead6ed2^..a017ec92 | patch -p1 ; git commit -a -c eead6ed2
1015 2012-02-03 18:31:05 <luke-jr> I *think* that will rebase+combine
1016 2012-02-03 18:31:40 <sipa> mine certainly will :)
1017 2012-02-03 18:31:56 <luke-jr> sipa: it'll combine the "Blah" ? :P
1018 2012-02-03 18:32:23 <sipa> ?
1019 2012-02-03 18:33:22 <luke-jr> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/795/commits
1020 2012-02-03 18:33:49 <Matoking> Well now it opened COMMIT_EDITMSG
1021 2012-02-03 18:33:51 <Matoking> This is new
1022 2012-02-03 18:33:56 <luke-jr> O.o
1023 2012-02-03 18:34:12 <luke-jr> just exit as-is
1024 2012-02-03 18:34:16 <luke-jr> it should already be filled in for you
1025 2012-02-03 18:38:10 <makomk> Hmmmm. I don't suppose that the p2pool protocol is documented anywhere?
1026 2012-02-03 18:38:26 <sipa> ask in #p2pool :)
1027 2012-02-03 18:38:38 jacobwg has joined
1028 2012-02-03 18:39:12 <TradersEdgeDice> #bitcoin-otc
1029 2012-02-03 18:41:31 <sipa> you may want to put /join in front of that?
1030 2012-02-03 18:45:11 ivan\ has joined
1031 2012-02-03 18:45:57 etotheipi_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1032 2012-02-03 18:46:54 <Moron__> #gayporn
1033 2012-02-03 18:47:06 <Moron__> ohps
1034 2012-02-03 18:47:09 <Moron__> forgot the /join
1035 2012-02-03 18:47:15 TradersEdgeDice has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1036 2012-02-03 18:47:28 <Matoking> Classy
1037 2012-02-03 18:50:00 <luke-jr> Matoking: did that work? :P
1038 2012-02-03 18:50:08 <Matoking> @luke-jr https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/795/files
1039 2012-02-03 18:50:16 <Matoking> That's what it did :P
1040 2012-02-03 18:50:26 <luke-jr> O.O
1041 2012-02-03 18:51:14 <luke-jr> oooooo
1042 2012-02-03 18:51:26 <Matoking> Also
1043 2012-02-03 18:51:35 <Matoking> Passing a NULL instead of a temporary QWidget may work too
1044 2012-02-03 18:51:46 barmstrong has joined
1045 2012-02-03 18:51:48 <luke-jr> 1 sec
1046 2012-02-03 18:51:51 <Matoking> But the window size and such won't be probably preserved
1047 2012-02-03 18:52:21 iddo has joined
1048 2012-02-03 18:53:29 <luke-jr> git reset --hard origin/master ; git cherry-pick eead6ed2
1049 2012-02-03 18:53:32 <luke-jr> Matoking: ^
1050 2012-02-03 18:54:59 <Matoking> The previous  cherry-pick is now empty, possibly due to conflict resolution. If you wish to commit anyway : git commit --allow-empty otherwise use git reset
1051 2012-02-03 18:56:04 <Matoking> It also appears to be that bitcoin-qt fails to compile yet again
1052 2012-02-03 18:56:43 * luke-jr peers
1053 2012-02-03 18:57:32 <luke-jr> is your origin the mainline git repo?
1054 2012-02-03 18:57:55 <luke-jr> git reset --hard d2291cc ; git cherry-pick eead6ed2
1055 2012-02-03 18:58:49 <cjd> git clean -dxf ??
1056 2012-02-03 18:59:23 <Matoking> Complaining about time-traveling
1057 2012-02-03 18:59:29 <Matoking> Guess I'll force it to commit
1058 2012-02-03 18:59:44 <Moron__> u bad bad man :P
1059 2012-02-03 19:00:12 <Matoking> Holy Batman it seems to have worked
1060 2012-02-03 19:00:15 <Moron__> u shouldnt force them to commit like that, let them do it in their own time...
1061 2012-02-03 19:00:39 <Matoking> Well now everything is all nifty like in one single commit
1062 2012-02-03 19:02:41 <helo> my client apparently has missed a transaction, so my balance doesn't agree with blockexplorer
1063 2012-02-03 19:03:01 <helo> i am synched up though
1064 2012-02-03 19:03:11 <Moron__> have you tried turning off your pc and on agai/
1065 2012-02-03 19:03:13 <Moron__> ?
1066 2012-02-03 19:03:19 <Diablo-D3> helo: quit and run bitcoin-qt --rescan
1067 2012-02-03 19:03:29 <Diablo-D3> it'll take a shitload of time to start up, but it should fix shit
1068 2012-02-03 19:03:45 <Matoking> Aren't balances on Blockexplorer different sometimes due to change addresses that are invisible to BlockexploreR?
1069 2012-02-03 19:04:02 <Diablo-D3> Matoking: not quite.
1070 2012-02-03 19:04:08 <helo> is this not something that needs further investigation?
1071 2012-02-03 19:04:12 <Matoking> "While the last "balance" is the accurate number of bitcoins available to this address, it is likely not the balance available to this person. Every time a transaction is sent, some bitcoins are usually sent back to yourself at a new address (not included in the Bitcoin UI)"
1072 2012-02-03 19:04:24 <Diablo-D3> yes, that.
1073 2012-02-03 19:05:01 * helo gets scared
1074 2012-02-03 19:05:16 <Diablo-D3> helo: like I said, if you think its wrong, do what I said
1075 2012-02-03 19:05:26 <Diablo-D3> it'll take awhile for bitcoin to start back up, but it manually rescans everything
1076 2012-02-03 19:05:45 booo has joined
1077 2012-02-03 19:05:53 <midnightmagic> -rescan doesn't take a long time.
1078 2012-02-03 19:06:14 <Diablo-D3> yeah it does
1079 2012-02-03 19:06:25 BLZNGPNGN has joined
1080 2012-02-03 19:06:26 <midnightmagic> Define "long time".
1081 2012-02-03 19:06:30 <helo> spoooky
1082 2012-02-03 19:06:31 <sipa> something like 20s
1083 2012-02-03 19:06:32 <midnightmagic> Mine takes a few seconds.
1084 2012-02-03 19:06:33 <Diablo-D3> more than without using it
1085 2012-02-03 19:06:45 <midnightmagic> lol okay by that definition, yes, it takes a long time.
1086 2012-02-03 19:06:48 <Diablo-D3> I have like several thousand tx
1087 2012-02-03 19:06:56 <Diablo-D3> it takes more than it should
1088 2012-02-03 19:08:00 BLZNGPNGN has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1089 2012-02-03 19:08:33 <helo> it's pure luck that i even noticed this in the first place... might others have the same situation but not know?
1090 2012-02-03 19:08:49 <Diablo-D3> noticed what?
1091 2012-02-03 19:08:50 <helo> it appears that the ending balance is correct across my addresses... the transaction was just not shown in the list
1092 2012-02-03 19:08:51 <sipa> helo: did rescan fix it?
1093 2012-02-03 19:09:04 <helo> apparently it did
1094 2012-02-03 19:09:19 <Diablo-D3> heh, thats why its there
1095 2012-02-03 19:09:42 <sipa> did you do anything special ever with that wallet?
1096 2012-02-03 19:09:51 <helo> never
1097 2012-02-03 19:10:11 <helo> received some mining rewards, transferred a little to a couple other addresses
1098 2012-02-03 19:11:01 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1099 2012-02-03 19:11:02 <helo> i guess a big problem would be if my balance was incorrect. presumably i'd still have been able to send it all correctly
1100 2012-02-03 19:11:19 <luke-jr> sipa: I've seen this reported multiple times with generation
1101 2012-02-03 19:11:32 <sipa> was it a generation that was missing?
1102 2012-02-03 19:11:35 <helo> yes
1103 2012-02-03 19:11:51 <Diablo-D3> hrm weird
1104 2012-02-03 19:11:59 <Diablo-D3> I suppose generations arent getting the testing they should
1105 2012-02-03 19:12:02 <helo> luke nailed it immediately when i mentioned in #eligius :)
1106 2012-02-03 19:12:14 <luke-jr> generations really need to be refactored IMO
1107 2012-02-03 19:12:23 <luke-jr> so they appear like normal transactions re address/account/etc
1108 2012-02-03 19:12:54 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1109 2012-02-03 19:12:56 <sipa> agree
1110 2012-02-03 19:13:21 userjht has joined
1111 2012-02-03 19:13:30 <midnightmagic> helo: The worst problems I ever encountered were due to a crashing machine, or a killed bitcoind, and -rescan is my best friend.
1112 2012-02-03 19:13:53 <Diablo-D3> yeah
1113 2012-02-03 19:14:03 <Matoking> Ugh
1114 2012-02-03 19:14:26 <helo> perhaps a sanity check to indicate the need to -rescan might be nice
1115 2012-02-03 19:14:35 <Matoking> Looks like it doesn't want to be compiled right now
1116 2012-02-03 19:15:19 <helo> just running through all of the transactions shown would have indicated a discrepancy with the balance shown
1117 2012-02-03 19:15:20 <sipa> i don't get it
1118 2012-02-03 19:15:31 <sipa> -rescan should not be needed since 0.3.21
1119 2012-02-03 19:15:46 <helo> i've only ever used 0.5+
1120 2012-02-03 19:16:46 <Diablo-D3> sipa: computers that lock up frequently would need it I assume
1121 2012-02-03 19:17:36 * sipa checks code
1122 2012-02-03 19:18:03 DaQatz has joined
1123 2012-02-03 19:18:48 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: there was some code added to automate -rescan when needed though
1124 2012-02-03 19:19:18 * Diablo-D3 shrugs
1125 2012-02-03 19:19:22 <Diablo-D3> maybe it should just be used every time
1126 2012-02-03 19:19:50 <sipa> it is used every time
1127 2012-02-03 19:20:06 <sipa> the wallet stores up to which block it is synced
1128 2012-02-03 19:20:44 <sipa> if that differs from the current head of the block chain in the database, a rescan is done from the last common block on
1129 2012-02-03 19:22:11 <Matoking> Compile error about undefined references about boost functions > Downloaded the newest boost library and extracted it > compiles fine > git stuff > won't compile anymore
1130 2012-02-03 19:24:14 fadd_ has joined
1131 2012-02-03 19:24:42 sgstair has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1132 2012-02-03 19:25:06 sgstair has joined
1133 2012-02-03 19:28:04 erle- has joined
1134 2012-02-03 19:30:52 p0s has joined
1135 2012-02-03 19:38:44 IMSAguy2 is now known as imsaguy2
1136 2012-02-03 19:39:58 theymos has joined
1137 2012-02-03 19:44:33 p0s has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1138 2012-02-03 19:45:59 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1139 2012-02-03 19:47:37 userjht has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1140 2012-02-03 19:50:05 jacobwg has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
1141 2012-02-03 19:51:09 ageis has quit (Quit: http://ageispolis.net)
1142 2012-02-03 19:52:35 dr_win has joined
1143 2012-02-03 19:53:19 ageis has joined
1144 2012-02-03 19:55:17 p0s has joined
1145 2012-02-03 19:55:46 Cablesaurus has joined
1146 2012-02-03 19:55:46 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
1147 2012-02-03 19:55:46 Cablesaurus has joined
1148 2012-02-03 19:56:12 ageis has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1149 2012-02-03 19:56:45 ageis has joined
1150 2012-02-03 19:57:35 BlueMatt has joined
1151 2012-02-03 19:57:35 BLZNGPNGN has quit (2!~kvirc@S0106602ad0726c1f.vf.shawcable.net|Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1152 2012-02-03 20:01:05  has joined
1153 2012-02-03 20:13:27 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1154 2012-02-03 20:17:30 gronager has joined
1155 2012-02-03 20:19:01 RazielZ has joined
1156 2012-02-03 20:33:02 CaptainDDL has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1157 2012-02-03 20:34:17 _Fireball has joined
1158 2012-02-03 20:35:33 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62376.0 < spooky partitioned node.
1159 2012-02-03 20:35:50 <BlueMatt> ooo
1160 2012-02-03 20:35:52 <BlueMatt> yuck
1161 2012-02-03 20:36:25 <gmaxwell> 66 addresses found from DNS seeds  < but he was not getting connected.
1162 2012-02-03 20:36:36 <BlueMatt> wtf???
1163 2012-02-03 20:36:39 <BlueMatt> and irc too
1164 2012-02-03 20:37:13 <gmaxwell> well. the nodes he got from IRC are not listening, according to a commenter there. Unshocking to me.
1165 2012-02-03 20:37:33 <BlueMatt> shocking to me
1166 2012-02-03 20:37:36 <gmaxwell> addnode worked, so he can make outbound connections.
1167 2012-02-03 20:37:39 <BlueMatt> oh, irc
1168 2012-02-03 20:37:50 <gmaxwell> dnsseed .. yea that part is shocking to me.
1169 2012-02-03 20:37:50 <BlueMatt> dnsseed is what scares me
1170 2012-02-03 20:39:07 <sipa> his clock is off
1171 2012-02-03 20:39:20 <sipa> the lastseen of the retrieved nodes is in the future
1172 2012-02-03 20:39:47 <BlueMatt> oh...
1173 2012-02-03 20:39:49 <sipa> by ehm
1174 2012-02-03 20:39:54 <sipa> 7 years :S
1175 2012-02-03 20:40:35 <theymos> You're supposed to get a warning when that happens.
1176 2012-02-03 20:40:51 <BlueMatt> god thats scary that someone from anonymous got a copy of an fbi conference call discussing hackers...
1177 2012-02-03 20:42:24 <cjd> it is somewhat of concern that someone with a clock way off could be sybiled
1178 2012-02-03 20:43:34 <BlueMatt> clock off 7 years...thats just weird...
1179 2012-02-03 20:44:16 <cjd> indeed but if someone owned a few hundred nodes which were patched to allow anyone to connect to them nomatter how far off their clock is ...
1180 2012-02-03 20:44:47 <cjd> not sure what they could get out of it but it's definitely not desirable
1181 2012-02-03 20:45:19 <Moron__> hows it hanging peoplez!
1182 2012-02-03 20:46:21 <cjd> probably "impossible" to attack since so many other stars would have to be aligned
1183 2012-02-03 20:47:05 b4epoche_ has joined
1184 2012-02-03 20:48:06 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1185 2012-02-03 20:48:06 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1186 2012-02-03 20:50:48 <theymos> I wonder if he was also connecting to himself or something. Bitcoin should have given him a warning when it found that none of his peers had the same time.
1187 2012-02-03 20:54:38 <theymos> sipa: Did you post a draft of that version-related BIP anywhere yet?
1188 2012-02-03 20:56:40 <sipa> theymos: https://gist.github.com/1728493
1189 2012-02-03 20:56:51 <theymos> Thanks.
1190 2012-02-03 20:58:03 <Eliel> BlueMatt: it could well be due to insider connections rather than direct hacking skills.
1191 2012-02-03 20:58:54 <BlueMatt> Eliel: probably, either way its scary
1192 2012-02-03 20:59:50 * cjd isn't a member of the fbi or anonymous, isn't too concerned :)
1193 2012-02-03 21:02:26 <Eliel> cjd: I find talking about being a member of anonymous a bit strange though. While there's certainly people who're more involved than others, all you need to do to become involed is... well, become involved.
1194 2012-02-03 21:06:31 <roconnor> BTW, is all this network-time syncing stuff in the standard client really that important or just nonsense?
1195 2012-02-03 21:07:42 <BlueMatt> its important to have a synced clock
1196 2012-02-03 21:07:50 <BlueMatt> how you do it...doesnt matter
1197 2012-02-03 21:08:06 <roconnor> BlueMatt: why does it matter if you are off by a few hours?
1198 2012-02-03 21:08:18 <Eliel> it would be nice if it wouldn't be centrally controlled though, the time.
1199 2012-02-03 21:08:24 <BlueMatt> you may reject blocks incorrectly
1200 2012-02-03 21:08:44 <roconnor> BlueMatt: only for a few hours at most, then you will accept them.
1201 2012-02-03 21:08:52 <cjd> IMO it's one of the most important things
1202 2012-02-03 21:09:01 <theymos> I think you actually need to restart Bitcoin to accept them at the moment.
1203 2012-02-03 21:09:03 <BlueMatt> roconnor: ok, well its important for miners to have good time
1204 2012-02-03 21:09:23 <roconnor> BlueMatt: certainly they have an incentive to have thier block accepted
1205 2012-02-03 21:09:26 <BlueMatt> Eliel: currently it is, but you can see how well tahts working...
1206 2012-02-03 21:09:43 <Eliel> there was this proposal for a nakamoto-chain based decentralized time keeping proposal I read earlier today though :)
1207 2012-02-03 21:09:46 <roconnor> BlueMatt: though I forget what the incentive is for them to give accurate time.
1208 2012-02-03 21:09:47 <Eliel> it looked interesting.
1209 2012-02-03 21:10:05 <cjd> and all of the time metrics are tailored to the timesync, which is why realsolid's change of the 1440 block retarget time was a disaster
1210 2012-02-03 21:10:08 <Eliel> but I think it requires some hardware that's not installed by default.
1211 2012-02-03 21:10:29 <roconnor> cjd: huh?
1212 2012-02-03 21:10:41 <BlueMatt> roconnor: the only incentive is to have blocks within range so that other miners accept them afair
1213 2012-02-03 21:11:56 <roconnor> BlueMatt: by that logic miners should produce time stamps with the earliest valid time, since that is the most likely to be accepted by the most people.
1214 2012-02-03 21:12:06 <BlueMatt> roconnor: yep
1215 2012-02-03 21:12:21 <sipa> almost all well-connected nodes in the network are off by at most a few seconds, i assume
1216 2012-02-03 21:12:22 <BlueMatt> except it would kill diff
1217 2012-02-03 21:12:27 <midnightmagic> It's not scary.
1218 2012-02-03 21:12:44 <gmaxwell> roconnor: the accepted times are pretty sloppy up to two hours in the future will be accepted.
1219 2012-02-03 21:12:54 <gmaxwell> so you just need your clock to be within that.
1220 2012-02-03 21:13:17 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: Why is the recorded phone call scary?
1221 2012-02-03 21:13:48 <gmaxwell> sipa: good catch on the times.
1222 2012-02-03 21:14:17 <gmaxwell> Did -qt break the time notice?
1223 2012-02-03 21:14:47 <gmaxwell> Eliel: oh, I hadn't intended to make that public.
1224 2012-02-03 21:14:47 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: ok, scary might not be the right word, fucked up maybe, but seriously if people can find out info on where the cops are when investigating them, that is very, very fucked up
1225 2012-02-03 21:14:57 <roconnor> BlueMatt: do miners have any incentive to keep difficulty low?  The whole, exchange rate/ difficulty/ hashrate interplay is kinda confusing.
1226 2012-02-03 21:15:10 <sipa> wumpus: does bitcoin-qt give a warning in case the system time looks off?
1227 2012-02-03 21:15:28 <gmaxwell> roconnor: if they drive the difficulty up they'll generate less bitcoin.
1228 2012-02-03 21:15:57 <theymos> The time warning uses the same mechanism as alerts. If alerts work I think the time warning should work.
1229 2012-02-03 21:16:00 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: I don't find it fucked-up. Deliberately delaying trial via in-chambers submission (without defence present) is what's fucked up.
1230 2012-02-03 21:16:34 <BlueMatt> roconnor: if you assume mining power at each pool is static, no, but it gets more complicated as you look to the future.  In the short term they will make less, in the long term they will still make the same % of the total generated bitcoin
1231 2012-02-03 21:16:35 <gmaxwell> I know there _was_ a warning becuase people would whine about it on IRC from time to time when their timezone was wrong but the clock was "right".
1232 2012-02-03 21:16:47 sytse has quit (Quit: leaving)
1233 2012-02-03 21:17:04 <Eliel> gmaxwell: ah, it was yours :D
1234 2012-02-03 21:17:16 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: are you kidding me? you dont see it as a problem if someone is being investigated and they know where the cops are with the investigation so they can run or otherwise change their behavior to avoid being caught?
1235 2012-02-03 21:17:26 <Eliel> gmaxwell: I think it could work well as a replacement for the time algorithm in bitcoin :)
1236 2012-02-03 21:17:45 <gmaxwell> Eliel: nah, requires hardware. .. the time in bitcoin .. is dumb but at least pretty easy to reason about.
1237 2012-02-03 21:18:05 <gmaxwell> (well, and that reasoning says its subject to attack right now, but that can be improved)
1238 2012-02-03 21:18:18 <Eliel> gmaxwell: I wonder if a wlan card would be enough for that :)
1239 2012-02-03 21:18:41 <Moron__> hey guys
1240 2012-02-03 21:18:56 <Moron__> bitcoin has a distributed time stamping system right?
1241 2012-02-03 21:19:17 <BlueMatt> wrong
1242 2012-02-03 21:19:31 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: No, not if the cops are comporting their investigation the way those cops are, no. (Including the use of international telephone chatrooms where people-present are unknown.)
1243 2012-02-03 21:19:33 ivan\ has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
1244 2012-02-03 21:19:38 <Moron__> wrong?
1245 2012-02-03 21:19:52 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: see the "features we need to prevent moronic behavior" on my features page. ;)
1246 2012-02-03 21:20:07 <luke-jr> sipa: didn't like the alternates idea?
1247 2012-02-03 21:20:28 <luke-jr> Moron__: it's possible to make one using merged-mining, but nobody has done it
1248 2012-02-03 21:20:28 <sipa> luke-jr: as i said, it only moves the problem
1249 2012-02-03 21:20:34 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: my point isnt whether it was easy or hard, my point is the cops need to do a better job because they are fucking up there
1250 2012-02-03 21:20:35 <luke-jr> sipa: how so?
1251 2012-02-03 21:20:37 <gmaxwell> Moron__: No, bitcoin uses an agreement protocol which works based on something that resembles distributed time stamping, but it's not quite to say it has one.
1252 2012-02-03 21:20:41 <sipa> luke-jr: i gave you an example
1253 2012-02-03 21:20:50 <sipa> at some point you need an extra version number
1254 2012-02-03 21:21:02 <sipa> yes, 3 may be enough, or 4 may be enough, who knows
1255 2012-02-03 21:21:06 <luke-jr> sipa: you gave me an example of how it's imperfect, not how it doesn't help :p
1256 2012-02-03 21:21:14 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: if you mean https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/features I see no Moronic in cntrol-f
1257 2012-02-03 21:21:26 <Eliel> gmaxwell: the idea of a decentralized space radar based on cheap hardware spread over the globe acting together tickles my curiosity, by the way :D
1258 2012-02-03 21:21:55 <sipa> but i'd rather stick with not putting all optional features independently in the version number, and see it as linear progression
1259 2012-02-03 21:22:08 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I was more polite "Features to avoid inefficient uses of the network "
1260 2012-02-03 21:22:16 <gmaxwell> (notary service)
1261 2012-02-03 21:22:23 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: mmm, yep agreed
1262 2012-02-03 21:22:36 <gmaxwell> Eliel: that part is pure handwaving, I don't think the SNR exists to make it realistic. but ... it was a fun thought.
1263 2012-02-03 21:22:37 <Moron__> gmaxwell: how does this protocol manage to work if everyones in a different timezone?
1264 2012-02-03 21:22:46 <BlueMatt> we just need to have like 5 full-time people working on all these side projects to make bitcoin more efficient ;)
1265 2012-02-03 21:22:49 <gmaxwell> Moron__: people know what timezone they're in.
1266 2012-02-03 21:22:59 ivan\ has joined
1267 2012-02-03 21:23:06 <Moron__> but the client doesnt seem to ask what timezone theyre in?
1268 2012-02-03 21:23:11 <Moron__> is it autodetected somehow?
1269 2012-02-03 21:23:11 <gmaxwell> Eliel: the solar clock part is probably realistic, but lots of engineering would be required to flesh it out.
1270 2012-02-03 21:23:14 Nicksasa has quit (Quit: I'll be back nubs)
1271 2012-02-03 21:23:23 <sipa> Moron__: internally it's just all UTC
1272 2012-02-03 21:23:25 <gmaxwell> Moron__: your computer knows what timezone it's in, just like it knows the current time.
1273 2012-02-03 21:23:25 <luke-jr> sipa: I see it as more of a drafting tool
1274 2012-02-03 21:23:34 <Moron__> oh i c
1275 2012-02-03 21:23:38 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: Not easy or hard: just incorrectly IMO, and interfering with a speedy trial.
1276 2012-02-03 21:24:00 <Moron__> if you persuaded enough people to change the time on their computer... could bitcoin be exploited/messed up somehow?
1277 2012-02-03 21:24:12 <luke-jr> sipa: version==2 'drafts' P2SH; if it doesn't work out, we could use version==3 to 'draft' another incompatible P2SH without breaking the old one etc
1278 2012-02-03 21:24:16 <Moron__> and what happens with daylights saving time?
1279 2012-02-03 21:24:22 Nicksasa has joined
1280 2012-02-03 21:24:25 <midnightmagic> Moron__: Why did you choose that username anyway?
1281 2012-02-03 21:24:31 <gmaxwell> Moron__: UTC doesn't change with daylights saving time.
1282 2012-02-03 21:24:48 <sipa> luke-jr: so you'd need to make each version refer to its basepoint?
1283 2012-02-03 21:24:56 <Moron__> midnightmagic: i donno, people suggested I should pick a username that fits my personality
1284 2012-02-03 21:24:58 <Eliel> gmaxwell: you could also potentially use it as a space radar for tracking things floating about in space near earth & sun :) Although, I don't know how accurate that could be made :)
1285 2012-02-03 21:25:08 <luke-jr> sipa: the 'basepoint' would be the minor versions
1286 2012-02-03 21:25:08 <sipa> luke-jr: X.Y.Z, meaning if you don't know X.Y, use X.Z
1287 2012-02-03 21:25:28 <midnightmagic> Moron__: You are asking questions. You're head and shoulders above a large number of other people who come in here.
1288 2012-02-03 21:25:30 <sipa> unfortunately, that doesn't work, because what if you also don't know X.Z?
1289 2012-02-03 21:25:45 <gmaxwell> Eliel: considering that the _real_ radar for that uses hundreds of thousands of watts.. well hm. the suns output is pretty strong too.
1290 2012-02-03 21:25:48 <luke-jr> sipa: X.Y.Z would mean if you don't know X.Y.Z, try X.Y.1 next
1291 2012-02-03 21:25:52 <Moron__> midnightmagic: uhh, thanks... i think...
1292 2012-02-03 21:26:05 <gmaxwell> Eliel: http://www.afspc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3656
1293 2012-02-03 21:26:17 <midnightmagic> Moron__: Your nickname doesn't suit you IMO.
1294 2012-02-03 21:26:28 <cjd> Moron__: note that some people (/me included) pass over questions coming from people with "funny" nicks because it looks like a trolling attempt.
1295 2012-02-03 21:26:28 <sipa> luke-jr: every time a new proposal is added, you increase the minor version number (just have 2 versions for now)
1296 2012-02-03 21:26:38 <gmaxwell> Eliel: also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Surveillance_System
1297 2012-02-03 21:26:50 <sipa> luke-jr: each of them either builds upon the previous one, or skips it (because it wasn't used or whatever)
1298 2012-02-03 21:27:05 <luke-jr> sipa: problem with just that is, there's no way to "back out" is there?
1299 2012-02-03 21:27:10 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: yea, the cops messed up by using something easy to intercept.  and thats my point, they shouldnt be doing that thats fucked up and scary to some extent.  wrt speedy trial, seriously? who cares? if the kid gets out on bail and they delay 2 months because they want to work on another case that is related I see absolutely nothing wrong with that
1300 2012-02-03 21:27:13 <sipa> luke-jr: how so?
1301 2012-02-03 21:27:17 <Moron__> midnightmagic: i would change it, but ive built up quite a reputation already
1302 2012-02-03 21:27:26 <luke-jr> sipa: because X.Y implies X.(Y-1) for compat
1303 2012-02-03 21:27:39 <sipa> did you read what i say?
1304 2012-02-03 21:27:39 <luke-jr> since old clients will enforce X.(Y-1) rules on X.Y
1305 2012-02-03 21:27:58 <luke-jr> maybe I misunderstood it
1306 2012-02-03 21:28:06 <sipa> (sorry, i'm very tired)
1307 2012-02-03 21:28:12 <luke-jr> I'll reread.
1308 2012-02-03 21:28:18 <sipa> i mean: that is what you want
1309 2012-02-03 21:28:27 <sipa> being able to add new versions
1310 2012-02-03 21:28:42 <sipa> but the ability to skip previously-introduced versions while doing so
1311 2012-02-03 21:28:56 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: Ah, I see. Yes, it is fucked up, now that you have explained that the problem you have is with the cops not using secure channels. A speedy trial is a fundamental precept of justice. If prosecution waits too long, many judges will simply throw the case out.
1312 2012-02-03 21:29:12 <midnightmagic> :)
1313 2012-02-03 21:29:12 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: LOL
1314 2012-02-03 21:29:26 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: yea, speedy trial is very important, but 2 months is not anything to complain about
1315 2012-02-03 21:29:52 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: that fails when you're forced to choose between a 15 minute trial, or "voluntarily" give up your right to speedy trial so you get more time to make your case
1316 2012-02-03 21:29:56 <theymos> sipa: I read your BIP draft and it all looks good to me. Though that X/Y/Z notation is kind of hard to understand.
1317 2012-02-03 21:30:25 <luke-jr> sipa: it sounds workable, but I suspect that leaves you with a lot of never-used versions, and potentially blockchain forks
1318 2012-02-03 21:30:25 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: Yes it is when the submission is in secret and without defence counsel present. That's a huge deal.
1319 2012-02-03 21:30:51 <roconnor> who is under investigation?
1320 2012-02-03 21:30:51 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: ofc it is, if you did it with defense council present then you ruin the whole reason for doing it in the first place
1321 2012-02-03 21:30:57 <luke-jr> sipa: ie, what if I set my version to 0.3.2, but it's valid under 1 rules and not 2 rules?
1322 2012-02-03 21:31:10 <BlueMatt> roconnor: some teen hackers in england, doesnt matter who
1323 2012-02-03 21:31:33 <BlueMatt> roconnor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl3spwzUZfQ&feature=youtu.be
1324 2012-02-03 21:31:47 <roconnor> okay; I just wanted to know what to look up to follow what you guys are talking about
1325 2012-02-03 21:31:50 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: Of course it is a big deal to have the secret submission without defence present to object to his client's rights being trampled, and a judge who allows it?
1326 2012-02-03 21:31:54 <midnightmagic> Is that what you mean?
1327 2012-02-03 21:32:09 <BlueMatt> no, I mean its not a big deal at all
1328 2012-02-03 21:32:12 <BlueMatt> its 2 fucking months
1329 2012-02-03 21:32:33 <BlueMatt> and you also dont know how the judge responded, the guy thought he might only get 6 weeks
1330 2012-02-03 21:32:37 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: Why can't they submit with defence present? It's a secret delay, with judge collusion.
1331 2012-02-03 21:33:03 <midnightmagic> I'm not sure that's even legal.
1332 2012-02-03 21:33:13 <BlueMatt> if the defense were present, then the whole point (which is to delay to catch friends of the defendant) is ruined
1333 2012-02-03 21:33:27 <sipa> luke-jr: the problem is, somehow you need to "encode" in your version number which previous one it builds upon (which should be used if a client doesn't support it)
1334 2012-02-03 21:33:32 sytse has joined
1335 2012-02-03 21:33:58 <sipa> and then you hit the limit of the system, because you have a problem if the client doesn't know that predecessor either
1336 2012-02-03 21:34:12 <sipa> you can solve this, using a fourth number in there
1337 2012-02-03 21:34:27 <sipa> but then you have two possibilities to go back to, but what if the client knows neither?
1338 2012-02-03 21:34:33 <sipa> and so on
1339 2012-02-03 21:34:34 <luke-jr> sipa: unless the previous is always 1?
1340 2012-02-03 21:34:47 <sipa> yes, than you are limiting where you can build upon
1341 2012-02-03 21:34:53 <luke-jr> and if the minor version isn't supported, then you have the current proposal for that
1342 2012-02-03 21:35:02 <sipa> that's possible
1343 2012-02-03 21:35:22 <sipa> but imho you're trying to fix a shortcoming in a too-limited way
1344 2012-02-03 21:35:32 <sipa> and you can't fix it completely
1345 2012-02-03 21:36:01 <sipa> so i think it's just easier to let all versions nicely build upon eachother
1346 2012-02-03 21:36:17 <luke-jr> sipa: perhaps; I'm just thinking version==2 should be P2SH-only, without breaking the ability to step back and revise that decision in the future
1347 2012-02-03 21:36:28 <sipa> i know that's what you want
1348 2012-02-03 21:36:37 <sipa> and i agree it would be neat
1349 2012-02-03 21:37:38 PK has joined
1350 2012-02-03 21:38:21 <sipa> but at some point going that way will hit its limits, and we'll ask... why o why didn't we add a fourth number there
1351 2012-02-03 21:39:11 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: It speaks to the objectivity of the judge. I hope defence raises a huge stink about that once they find out.
1352 2012-02-03 21:40:20 <BlueMatt> how can you possibly claim that delaying a trial for 6-8 weeks to catch coconsiprators is unjust?
1353 2012-02-03 21:40:23 iocor has joined
1354 2012-02-03 21:40:31 <BlueMatt> that bullshit
1355 2012-02-03 21:40:31 <luke-jr> sipa: sounds like "if we might need 4 car seats in the future, we should get a vehicle with only 2 for now even though we can see the immediate need for 3" ;)
1356 2012-02-03 21:41:04 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: does he need to sit in jail for those 6-8 weeks? :p
1357 2012-02-03 21:41:24 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1358 2012-02-03 21:41:28 <BlueMatt> ok, if he does its unjust, but hes a minor there is no way in hell he was denied bail
1359 2012-02-03 21:42:00 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1360 2012-02-03 21:42:10 <luke-jr> minors aren't in the standard justice system in the first place O.o
1361 2012-02-03 21:42:29 <BlueMatt> well Im assuming he was somewhere from 16-2X
1362 2012-02-03 21:42:37 <BlueMatt> probably a minor doesnt really matter either way though
1363 2012-02-03 21:42:49 <cjd> tl;dr criminal justice system dominated by organized crime, Anon pranksters owned them
1364 2012-02-03 21:42:50 <BlueMatt> either way Im assuming bail was posted
1365 2012-02-03 21:43:04 <BlueMatt> cjd: wow, you really didnt read did you?
1366 2012-02-03 21:43:11 <cjd> nope :)
1367 2012-02-03 21:44:48 <ThomasV_> BlueMatt: in BIP21, what is the expected behaviour of the client when a URI has a label?
1368 2012-02-03 21:44:53 Karmaon has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1369 2012-02-03 21:46:04 <BlueMatt> ThomasV_: if the clients has space for it, use that as the destination label.  For a user's security, I would suggest displaying both that label and the address being sent to
1370 2012-02-03 21:46:12 <BlueMatt> if the client doesnt, meh just drop it
1371 2012-02-03 21:46:52 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1372 2012-02-03 21:47:22 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: It sounds as though defence was not permitted to speak against the delay. It's not like the delay itself must be completely explained, and why. But defence deserves to know that a delay was requested by the prosecution, and to object to it. But perhaps this is the case. Perhaps it will be while defence is waiting out in the courtroom. If this is the case, I have no problem with it. But totally secret without a chance
1373 2012-02-03 21:47:28 <midnightmagic> for defence to object.. that's b-s.
1374 2012-02-03 21:47:34 <ThomasV_> BlueMatt: sure, but what is the client supposed to do if he encounters an address for which it already has a label? update it ? only if the user sends the coins?
1375 2012-02-03 21:48:10 <BlueMatt> ThomasV_: undefined ;), but seriously do as you wish
1376 2012-02-03 21:48:55 <ThomasV_> (I mean, if the new label differs from the known one)
1377 2012-02-03 21:50:07 <BlueMatt> undefined
1378 2012-02-03 21:50:27 <BlueMatt> thats a bit too implementation-specific to be defined at the protocol level
1379 2012-02-03 21:51:26 <ThomasV_> BlueMatt: I can imagine how to replace addresses with unambiguous aliases, but this would collide with these labels.. so I don't like them
1380 2012-02-03 21:51:53 <ThomasV_> the problem is that they are URI dependent
1381 2012-02-03 21:52:40 <BlueMatt> if you already have a label, I would assume you ignore the label in the uri
1382 2012-02-03 21:52:46 <BlueMatt> as its an optional field
1383 2012-02-03 21:53:06 <ThomasV_> yeah, that's one option
1384 2012-02-03 21:53:58 <ThomasV_> but if a client has support for aliases, I think it should give priority to the alias over the label
1385 2012-02-03 21:54:11 sytse has joined
1386 2012-02-03 21:54:23 <BlueMatt> i agree, but i would argue that is too implementation-specific to put in the spec
1387 2012-02-03 21:54:33 <ThomasV_> yes
1388 2012-02-03 22:00:59 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: gavinandresen opened issue 796 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/796>
1389 2012-02-03 22:02:28 <ThomasV_> BlueMatt: can I have your feedback on http://ecdsa.org/bitcoin_URIs.html ? (the section called improvement proposals; I rewrote it today, in case you already visited the page)
1390 2012-02-03 22:04:13 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1391 2012-02-03 22:04:33 denisx has joined
1392 2012-02-03 22:04:37 Nicksasa has joined
1393 2012-02-03 22:06:13 <luke-jr> ThomasV_: Why not just use a HTTPS URI and set that up to redirect to a bitcoin: URI of your choice? (aliases)
1394 2012-02-03 22:06:57 bobke has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1395 2012-02-03 22:07:13 <BlueMatt> ThomasV_: the how to configure your browser section should be unnecessary, the client should auto-configure that stuff at in stall time, also I would suggest not telling people to enter it in their browser but to do it system-wide in one way or another
1396 2012-02-03 22:08:01 <Moron__> why is a block generated every 10 minutes... and say... not every 20 seconds? (i remember reading about this ages ago, but i didnt quite understand the reasoning)
1397 2012-02-03 22:08:26 <gmaxwell> Moron__: because the speed of light /(processing) is finite.
1398 2012-02-03 22:08:45 <Moron__> couldnt the difficulty simply be lowered to compensate?
1399 2012-02-03 22:08:46 <helo> i think he is asking why 10 minutes was chosen
1400 2012-02-03 22:08:51 <gmaxwell> also because disk space on SPV nodes is precious.
1401 2012-02-03 22:08:56 <Moron__> oh
1402 2012-02-03 22:09:12 <Moron__> but if it was much lower, it would make transactions confirm quicker right?
1403 2012-02-03 22:09:36 <phantomcircuit> Moron__, no
1404 2012-02-03 22:09:46 <phantomcircuit> it would make the number of transaction confirms quicker
1405 2012-02-03 22:09:52 <phantomcircuit> but not the security they represented
1406 2012-02-03 22:10:00 <Moron__> oh of course
1407 2012-02-03 22:10:08 <phantomcircuit> it gives you more fine grained control
1408 2012-02-03 22:10:11 <phantomcircuit> but that's it
1409 2012-02-03 22:10:12 <gmaxwell> helo: satoshi said 10 minutes was a compromise he picked, weighing security, time till first confirmation, storage, etc. anywhere between 4 and 20 would probably have worked. He picked a number.
1410 2012-02-03 22:10:40 <ThomasV_> luke-jr: because the goal is to define a permanent alias
1411 2012-02-03 22:10:46 <BlueMatt> ThomasV_: re: signed uris: meh, I really dont see the point in making all the infrastructure there it just overcomplicates things for what I see as no benefit.  a.  you shouldnt be posting uris on http sites if you care about security so that deals with signing right there, b. you have to know their public signing address adhead of time which makes it kinda pointless imo
1412 2012-02-03 22:10:52 <gmaxwell> Moron__: a SPV node only needs the block headers, e.g. having 20 seconds would make those nodes need 30x the data.
1413 2012-02-03 22:11:02 <luke-jr> ThomasV_: ?
1414 2012-02-03 22:11:16 <BlueMatt> ThomasV_: also, I agree with luke on the alias thing, that way the aliases are simpler and work across all clients
1415 2012-02-03 22:11:19 <Moron__> hmm
1416 2012-02-03 22:11:24 <gmaxwell> Moron__: and it would incentivize miners to not process transactions because they couldn't process them fast enough to keep up.
1417 2012-02-03 22:11:54 <gmaxwell> Moron__: and it would dillute the hash power due to more nodes mining on useless forks that will never win, just because the speed of light prevented them from hearing the result of the majority clique yet.
1418 2012-02-03 22:12:01 <Moron__> is there any way to speed up the transacting time? or are we stuck with a minumum of 10 minutes?
1419 2012-02-03 22:12:17 <gmaxwell> Moron__: it's not a minimum of 10 minutes.
1420 2012-02-03 22:12:43 <Moron__> maximum of 10 minutes?
1421 2012-02-03 22:12:45 * roconnor tries to imagine a system where a chain isn't needed but instead more and more difficult blocks are made that "reuse" the work done in the previous block.
1422 2012-02-03 22:12:49 <sipa> Moron__: average
1423 2012-02-03 22:12:50 <gmaxwell> the transactions are propagated instantly. In an average of 10 minutes you start getting more evidence that the tranaction won't be reversed, and that evidence keeps increasing forever.
1424 2012-02-03 22:12:54 <Moron__> oh
1425 2012-02-03 22:13:35 <sipa> roconnor: well, in a way, they do reuse it
1426 2012-02-03 22:13:38 <ThomasV_> BlueMatt: aliases are not just supposed to be used in URIs, the idea is that the user should be allowed to type an alias in the client
1427 2012-02-03 22:13:48 <gmaxwell> The reference client doesn't show a transaction as confirmed until its burried 6 deep, — an hour of network computation on average. Which is conservative. .. but changing the block time wouldn't change how long you needed to wait for the same security.
1428 2012-02-03 22:13:56 <sipa> roconnor: in the sense that the difficulty to reverse a transaction grows with each block added
1429 2012-02-03 22:13:57 <roconnor> sipa: right, you'd replace the chain with a block ... that contains the chain :P
1430 2012-02-03 22:14:00 <BlueMatt> ThomasV_: ok, so why are you telling people to put them in uris?
1431 2012-02-03 22:14:12 <roconnor> sipa: the idea would be to do it in constant space.
1432 2012-02-03 22:14:14 <gmaxwell> (except in the case where 0 isn't enough but "0.1" would be)
1433 2012-02-03 22:14:14 <Moron__> it just seems that... i donno... i find it hard to beleive a shop doing an over the counter sale will wait on av3erage 10 minutes... think, if someones buying a high value item like a car...
1434 2012-02-03 22:14:22 <sipa> Moron__: they won't
1435 2012-02-03 22:14:28 <gmaxwell> Moron__: you're confusing cases there though.
1436 2012-02-03 22:14:42 <Moron__> would they use an escrow or something?
1437 2012-02-03 22:14:54 <roconnor> sipa: this would imply an upperbound to the total amount of work representable, but that is perhaps okay.
1438 2012-02-03 22:15:32 <ThomasV_> BlueMatt: I am not; it is just one possibility. but ok, I should make it clearer
1439 2012-02-03 22:15:46 <roconnor> sipa: a lot of work can be represented with the current 256 bit hash, though not to a high degree of precision.
1440 2012-02-03 22:15:58 <BlueMatt> ThomasV_: I would say, for sanity's sake, never put an alias in a uri
1441 2012-02-03 22:16:03 <BlueMatt> only use addresses
1442 2012-02-03 22:16:04 <gmaxwell> Moron__: yes, thats an option. One does not just OTC sell a car. Even when paying in cash the transaction takes time — to fill out paperwork. So what we provide is probably enough, even still, you can use anti-double-spending escrow.
1443 2012-02-03 22:16:15 <gmaxwell> (which is kind of the bitcoin analog of a casheres check)
1444 2012-02-03 22:16:23 <ThomasV_> BlueMatt: why?
1445 2012-02-03 22:16:39 <BlueMatt> why would you ever use an alias in a uri?
1446 2012-02-03 22:16:44 <roconnor> sipa: even a two-level scheme were a bunch of work can be combined into a superblock after sufficent work is done, would be a big improvement.
1447 2012-02-03 22:16:46 <gmaxwell> Moron__: we should move this talk to #bitcoin some ontopic talk there would be good. :)
1448 2012-02-03 22:17:02 <sipa> #bitcoin? on-topic?
1449 2012-02-03 22:17:07 <BlueMatt> ThomasV_: there is no reason to, and it just makes the security of the uri dependent on yet another system
1450 2012-02-03 22:17:08 <roconnor> sipa: not that I have any idea how to implement such a scheme.
1451 2012-02-03 22:17:17 <sipa> roconnor: yes, it sounds very nice in theory
1452 2012-02-03 22:17:33 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: iff there was a proper payment protocol, it might make sense
1453 2012-02-03 22:17:52 <roconnor> sipa: some sort of computationally hard problem that can be solved in difficult stages.
1454 2012-02-03 22:18:02 <roconnor> sipa: seems plausible that something like that exists.
1455 2012-02-03 22:18:32 <roconnor> sipa: though linking it to the transactions might not be so easy.
1456 2012-02-03 22:18:32 <gmaxwell> roconnor: like.. a POW chain?
1457 2012-02-03 22:19:00 <roconnor> gmaxwell: ya, but there is no way to summerize many blocks.
1458 2012-02-03 22:19:08 <roconnor> in a POW chain
1459 2012-02-03 22:19:15 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: maybe, but I would still say it would be better not to.  The issue is you are always going to be dependent on the webserver serving the uri for security, if you can put the alias on that server, why not do that instead of depending on the security of yet another system
1460 2012-02-03 22:19:33 mcorlett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1461 2012-02-03 22:19:38 <gmaxwell> roconnor: a collection of several blocks togeather is also a summary!
1462 2012-02-03 22:19:51 <roconnor> gmaxwell: only in a trivial sense.
1463 2012-02-03 22:19:58 <gmaxwell> roconnor: or do you mean reducing the redundant information?
1464 2012-02-03 22:20:13 <roconnor> gmaxwell: ya
1465 2012-02-03 22:20:29 <ThomasV_> BlueMatt: because you can dissociate your secure server from the location where you write the uri
1466 2012-02-03 22:20:38 PK has quit ()
1467 2012-02-03 22:20:44 <ThomasV_> it is an advantage
1468 2012-02-03 22:20:51 <BlueMatt> no you cant, if you write the uri in an insecure manner, you are screwed either way
1469 2012-02-03 22:20:54 <gmaxwell> roconnor: there is this general space of ideas, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21995.0  some people are working on formalizing an idea from that area.
1470 2012-02-03 22:21:00 <roconnor> gmaxwell: imagine if a bunch of hashes less that 0x001000... somehow "totaled" into a hash less than 0x00001000...
1471 2012-02-03 22:21:28 <ThomasV_> BlueMatt: not screwed in the same way, because your alias is easy to recognize
1472 2012-02-03 22:21:32 <BlueMatt> s/me@myactualalis.com/me@myactualalias.com/ (where the second one has a cryllic a)
1473 2012-02-03 22:21:49 <BlueMatt> have fun defending from that
1474 2012-02-03 22:22:22 <gmaxwell> roconnor: thats how we choose the longest chain.. I think you're worrying about the wrong aspect of the problem. The important aspect is showing that a summary is correct and trustworthy. Not combining pows to show more work was done?  though maybe I am totally misunderstanding you.
1475 2012-02-03 22:22:34 <BlueMatt> or like s/me@myactualalis.com/me@myactulalias.com/
1476 2012-02-03 22:22:42 <BlueMatt> most people wont see the missing char
1477 2012-02-03 22:22:44 bobke has joined
1478 2012-02-03 22:23:05 <roconnor> gmaxwell: certainly you'd also need to simulatously combine the merkle trees of transactions at the same time the hashes are "totaled"
1479 2012-02-03 22:23:16 <roconnor> gmaxwell: which, frankly seems like an almost impossible requirement.
1480 2012-02-03 22:23:38 <roconnor> that said, math lets you do crazy things
1481 2012-02-03 22:23:46 <roconnor> like homomorphic encryption
1482 2012-02-03 22:23:54 <roconnor> which sounds pretty impossible on the face of it.
1483 2012-02-03 22:23:55 <ThomasV_> BlueMatt: for your email address, do you chose something confusing such as me@myactualalias.com?
1484 2012-02-03 22:24:06 <gmaxwell> It's also not needed though. You can just include summary commitments in every block of the existing chain.
1485 2012-02-03 22:24:16 <BlueMatt> ThomasV_: many, many businesses do
1486 2012-02-03 22:24:29 <BlueMatt> nameofcompanycity.com is far too common
1487 2012-02-03 22:24:42 <roconnor> gmaxwell: a node cannot prove it has the longest chain without keeping all the block( header)s.
1488 2012-02-03 22:24:56 <gmaxwell> roconnor: which are very small.
1489 2012-02-03 22:25:08 <roconnor> gmaxwell: how small are they again?
1490 2012-02-03 22:25:42 <gmaxwell> 401MiB for 100 years of them. (80 bytes each)
1491 2012-02-03 22:26:27 <roconnor> oh wait, I'm wrong, you need more than the block headers to prove your chain is the longest.
1492 2012-02-03 22:26:35 _Fireball has quit (Quit:  HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- The professional IRC Client :D)
1493 2012-02-03 22:27:04 <roconnor> I guess you are right, superblocks solve nothing
1494 2012-02-03 22:27:06 <sipa> you don't
1495 2012-02-03 22:27:06 <gmaxwell> roconnor: it could be invalid which makes it not the longest, but then you fall to the SPV trust model.
1496 2012-02-03 22:27:22 <sipa> you need more to prove that you have the longest *valid* chain
1497 2012-02-03 22:27:28 <roconnor> right
1498 2012-02-03 22:27:47 <gmaxwell> The SPV trust model trusts that people adding to the chain are actually following the rules.. so chain X at height Y is the longest if it appears to be the longest and you have Z more blocks past it.
1499 2012-02-03 22:28:07 <gmaxwell> And thats a reasonable security compromise for constrained devices at least.
1500 2012-02-03 22:28:21 <roconnor> anyhow
1501 2012-02-03 22:28:29 <roconnor> I see now that superblocks solve nothing
1502 2012-02-03 22:28:52 <roconnor> it the the transaction data the is large, and needs to be kept to if you wish to prove that you have a valid chain.
1503 2012-02-03 22:29:03 <roconnor> and superblock do nothing to reduce that
1504 2012-02-03 22:29:41 <gmaxwell> to prove to a non-participant. To existing participants you can assume they've already validate a chain up to some somewhat recent point.
1505 2012-02-03 22:31:50 <egecko> questions.. the "accounts" associated with bitcoin addresses, those have no real implication outside of the bitcoin client do they?  like i could create an account called "foo" and another called "bar" if i wanted to, right?  and since theres no rpc call to create an account, i have to presume that it is just a completely arbitrary label that the bitcoin client tracks to group transactions together?
1506 2012-02-03 22:32:29 <gmaxwell> egecko: yes, it's like notes you make in your checkbook.  $5 for gas, $50 for groceries.
1507 2012-02-03 22:32:39 <ThomasV_> BlueMatt: concerning signatures, the point is not to protect the merchant against an attacker, but to protect the consumer against a malicious merchant
1508 2012-02-03 22:33:06 <BlueMatt> ThomasV_: how does it do that?
1509 2012-02-03 22:33:17 osmosis has joined
1510 2012-02-03 22:33:27 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: ThomasV_ has described this idea before.. you sign the address and publish your signing key far and wide so that a customer can prove he paid you.
1511 2012-02-03 22:33:31 <ThomasV_> merchant uses a single signing address, linked to his reputation
1512 2012-02-03 22:33:40 <gmaxwell> I don't know how that interacts with the URL scheme stuff though.
1513 2012-02-03 22:33:58 <BlueMatt> mm, so you tie reputation to signature...
1514 2012-02-03 22:35:39 paul0 has quit (Quit: paul0)
1515 2012-02-03 22:35:39 <BlueMatt> well I suppose that works then, but ThomasV_ please state that use-case on that page then (and mention that a merchant signing its uris with its own signature for no reason other than "additional security" is completely invalid bs)
1516 2012-02-03 22:35:49 pusle has quit ()
1517 2012-02-03 22:36:00 <ThomasV_> yes, I will do that
1518 2012-02-03 22:36:26 <ThomasV_> I thought it was clear enough
1519 2012-02-03 22:37:37 <BlueMatt> "For example, a merchant may use various receiving addresses to keep track of his incoming orders; if he signs URIs with a unique identity, then his customers will have a proof that they paid him, and not a random address." implies to me that you think that a merchant is capable of distributing his signing address far and wide(er than his customers) which is a very invalid assumption
1520 2012-02-03 22:38:37 <BlueMatt> if the merchant cant secure the transmission channel between its customer and it when distributing uris, then it surely cant secure the distribution channel of its signing address
1521 2012-02-03 22:39:21 eldentyrell has joined
1522 2012-02-03 22:39:35 <ThomasV_> what does this have to do with the security of the channel?
1523 2012-02-03 22:39:54 <Ferroh> Is long polling an issue if you solo mine?
1524 2012-02-03 22:40:29 <BlueMatt> that statement implies (to me) the use-case of a merchant publishing their signing address on their website then expecting that to provide security for uris that they give customers on their website
1525 2012-02-03 22:40:32 <BlueMatt> which is completely invalid
1526 2012-02-03 22:40:38 <BlueMatt> (yet all too common)
1527 2012-02-03 22:40:56 <ThomasV_> BlueMatt: what is a https key?
1528 2012-02-03 22:40:56 eldentyrell has quit (Client Quit)
1529 2012-02-03 22:40:58 <Ferroh> Is mining on a pool with long polling better than solo mining, assuming no variance?
1530 2012-02-03 22:40:58 chrisb__ has joined
1531 2012-02-03 22:41:17 <BlueMatt> ThomasV_: very different because its signed by a trusted their party
1532 2012-02-03 22:41:21 <Ferroh> (and assuming no pool fee)
1533 2012-02-03 22:43:18 <ThomasV_> BlueMatt: this is why it is good to have aliases; they can be hosted by a third party
1534 2012-02-03 22:43:38 <BlueMatt> ???
1535 2012-02-03 22:43:45 <BlueMatt> no, thats why its bad to have aliases
1536 2012-02-03 22:46:17 <ThomasV_> the signing address of a merchant can be an alias hosted by a trusted 3rd party
1537 2012-02-03 22:47:03 <gmaxwell> Ferroh: you can have LP with solo mining.
1538 2012-02-03 22:47:08 <BlueMatt> no, it cant, the signing address of a merchant can be signed by a third party, but an alias to a third party is worse than none at all (as it adds extra dependencies for security)
1539 2012-02-03 22:47:29 <gmaxwell> Ferroh: OR, you can set the maximum work time to 1 second, which is basically the same as LP.
1540 2012-02-03 22:47:31 <Ferroh> gmaxwell: Suppose I don't have a client that can longpoll when I solo mine.
1541 2012-02-03 22:47:50 <Ferroh> oh. but is there an overhead loss if I do that?
1542 2012-02-03 22:48:05 <Ferroh> So I can set max work time to 10 seconds in that case, and then the longpolling difference is very small.
1543 2012-02-03 22:48:06 <ThomasV_> BlueMatt: indeed, it could be signed too
1544 2012-02-03 22:48:12 <BlueMatt> has to be signed
1545 2012-02-03 22:48:15 <gmaxwell> Ferroh: There shouldn't be unless you overload your bitcoin node.
1546 2012-02-03 22:48:31 <Ferroh> okay, thanks :)
1547 2012-02-03 22:48:36 <gmaxwell> (or your miner software is stupid... it should keep working on what its got even if its requesting more)
1548 2012-02-03 22:48:37 <BlueMatt> if its signed, its a cool feature, if its just there its a waste of space, and worse, a false sense of security
1549 2012-02-03 22:48:51 JZavala has joined
1550 2012-02-03 22:49:41 <cjd> +1 false security is bad news
1551 2012-02-03 22:50:17 <ThomasV_> BlueMatt: I agree on that, but some people do not like the centralization involved by a signing authority
1552 2012-02-03 22:50:43 <BlueMatt> "US Government and Military to adopt custom android phones" <-- really it took them this long, wow...
1553 2012-02-03 22:50:54 gp5st has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1554 2012-02-03 22:51:11 <BlueMatt> ThomasV_: very true, hence why I see no immediate purpose unless you start building a wot on it to create a decentralized bbb
1555 2012-02-03 22:51:33 <ThomasV_> bbb?
1556 2012-02-03 22:51:46 <BlueMatt> better business bureau
1557 2012-02-03 22:51:50 <ThomasV_> oh
1558 2012-02-03 22:52:12 <BlueMatt> (which is a cool idea)
1559 2012-02-03 22:54:34 Matoking has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.2 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
1560 2012-02-03 22:55:15 <ThomasV_> BlueMatt: btw, why do you think a merchant cannot simply publish his signing address?
1561 2012-02-03 22:55:25 <ThomasV_> (far and wide)
1562 2012-02-03 22:56:42 <BlueMatt> Ive never seen a system that succeeded in doing that
1563 2012-02-03 22:57:05 <BlueMatt> maybe there is one and im being naive, but ive never seen it work
1564 2012-02-03 22:57:15 <ThomasV_> but why?
1565 2012-02-03 22:57:31 <BlueMatt> and I think because it might work for 1 merchant, but create a false sense of security for a million merchants, I dont think it should be a use-case
1566 2012-02-03 22:57:51 <BlueMatt> merchants are lazy, unless you do a wot thing, they are going to publish their address on their home page
1567 2012-02-03 22:57:56 <BlueMatt> (which is worse than doing nothing)
1568 2012-02-03 22:58:09 <BlueMatt> and I doubt even a significant number of people will copy that address to verify
1569 2012-02-03 22:58:20 <BlueMatt> brb
1570 2012-02-03 22:58:31 <ThomasV_> I don't get it. even on theit webpage google will archive it
1571 2012-02-03 22:59:58 <BlueMatt> you overestimate people's willingness to put in effort to be secure, a proper secure system should need no user-intervention while still keeping the user safe
1572 2012-02-03 23:00:28 <BlueMatt> no user is going to a. look at the signing key, b google the signing key and google for the merchant's previous signing key
1573 2012-02-03 23:00:31 <BlueMatt> and c. compare
1574 2012-02-03 23:00:35 <gmaxwell> ThomasV_: I don't get how you make sure the user knows the signature was with the well known key.
1575 2012-02-03 23:00:37 <BlueMatt> and d. copy/paste it into their clients
1576 2012-02-03 23:01:00 <gmaxwell> If I want to rip a user off I just rotate in a new signing key.. if they catch me .. "oops, was just migrating to a new key"
1577 2012-02-03 23:01:03 <BlueMatt> I doubt many users will do d. let alone a-d
1578 2012-02-03 23:01:16 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: where are the sourceforge states for the bitcoin sig files?
1579 2012-02-03 23:01:33 <BlueMatt> I dont think they are on sf
1580 2012-02-03 23:01:44 <BlueMatt> Ive only ever seen them on the forum
1581 2012-02-03 23:02:17 <BlueMatt> (Im assuming you mean pgp sigs on the file hashes which are on sf?)
1582 2012-02-03 23:02:27 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1583 2012-02-03 23:03:15 <gmaxwell> http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.5.1/bitcoin-0.5.1-win32-setup.exe.asc/stats/timeline
1584 2012-02-03 23:03:20 <gmaxwell> http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.5.1/bitcoin-0.5.1-win32-setup.exe/stats/timeline
1585 2012-02-03 23:03:23 <BlueMatt> (in general if you are using signmessage to try to make something more secure, you are doing something wrong)
1586 2012-02-03 23:03:39 <luke-jr> …
1587 2012-02-03 23:03:58 <BlueMatt> s/try to make something more secure//
1588 2012-02-03 23:04:42 splatster has joined
1589 2012-02-03 23:05:43 splatster has quit (Client Quit)
1590 2012-02-03 23:07:18 jamescarr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1591 2012-02-03 23:09:05 viscienzo64 has joined
1592 2012-02-03 23:11:22 viscienzo64 has left ()
1593 2012-02-03 23:11:58 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1594 2012-02-03 23:12:49 viscienzo64 has joined
1595 2012-02-03 23:12:54 cdecker has joined
1596 2012-02-03 23:14:20 splatster has joined
1597 2012-02-03 23:14:21 viscienzo64 has left ()
1598 2012-02-03 23:16:28 ThomasV_ has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1599 2012-02-03 23:19:57 XMPPwocky has joined
1600 2012-02-03 23:20:01 <XMPPwocky> 9C 7C 00 00 - 31900 (version 0.3.19) 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 - 1 (NODE_NETWORK services) E6 15 10 4D 00 00 00 00 - Mon Dec 20 21:50:14 EST 2010 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 FF FF 0A 00 00 01 20 8D - Recipient address info - see Network Address 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 FF FF 0A 00 00 02 20 8D - Sender address info - see Network Address DD 9D 20 2C 3A B4 57 13 - Node random unique ID 00 - "" sub-versio
1601 2012-02-03 23:20:08 <XMPPwocky> er
1602 2012-02-03 23:20:29 <XMPPwocky> Container({'nonce': 1393780771635895773, 'start_height': 98645, 'timestamp': 1292899814, 'addr_recv': Container({'services': ['NODE_NETWORK'], 'ip': '00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ff ff 0a 00 00 01 ', 'port': 8333}), 'addr_from': Container({'services': ['NODE_NETWORK'], 'ip': '00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ff ff 0a 00 00 02 ', 'port': 8333}), 'version': 31900, 'user_agent': '', 'services': ['NODE_NETWORK']})
1603 2012-02-03 23:21:05 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
1604 2012-02-03 23:21:27 <XMPPwocky> bitkit parsed the packet
1605 2012-02-03 23:21:41 <XMPPwocky> and can modify it and then rebuild it
1606 2012-02-03 23:21:51 att has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1607 2012-02-03 23:22:05 <Moron__> ??
1608 2012-02-03 23:22:24 <Moron__> are u doin sum hax-0ring?
1609 2012-02-03 23:23:20 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
1610 2012-02-03 23:23:45 <XMPPwocky> could be used for that
1611 2012-02-03 23:23:57 booo has joined
1612 2012-02-03 23:23:59 <XMPPwocky> mostly debugging
1613 2012-02-03 23:24:22 <Moron__> :)
1614 2012-02-03 23:24:36 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
1615 2012-02-03 23:24:52 <XMPPwocky> and with genjix's subvertex as the networking part
1616 2012-02-03 23:26:44 Karmaon has joined
1617 2012-02-03 23:31:57 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1618 2012-02-03 23:32:23 wasabi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1619 2012-02-03 23:38:15 marf_away has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1620 2012-02-03 23:38:37 marf_away has joined
1621 2012-02-03 23:47:18 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1622 2012-02-03 23:52:07 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1623 2012-02-03 23:55:30 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1624 2012-02-03 23:58:50 fadd_ is now known as scraches