1 2012-02-07 00:06:02 Cablesaurus has joined
2 2012-02-07 00:06:02 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
3 2012-02-07 00:06:02 Cablesaurus has joined
4 2012-02-07 00:09:33 splatster has quit (Quit: See ya later)
5 2012-02-07 00:09:57 theorb has joined
6 2012-02-07 00:10:55 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
7 2012-02-07 00:11:07 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
8 2012-02-07 00:12:51 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
9 2012-02-07 00:13:29 zux0r has joined
10 2012-02-07 00:13:39 pirateat40 has joined
11 2012-02-07 00:14:24 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Say What?)
12 2012-02-07 00:18:07 forrestv has joined
13 2012-02-07 00:18:09 <BlueMatt> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/compare/3897a50c2e...f0838d43bb definitely not the most conflict of interest commit Ive ever seen
14 2012-02-07 00:18:52 <BlueMatt> also, I reject to many of the statements in those two articles and firmly believe they should NOT be linked to from bitcoin.org
15 2012-02-07 00:18:59 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
16 2012-02-07 00:22:10 <luke-jr> glad I'm not alone in thinking so
17 2012-02-07 00:22:44 <pirateat40> luke-jr, are you getting attacked?
18 2012-02-07 00:22:47 <luke-jr> pirateat40: yes
19 2012-02-07 00:22:53 <pirateat40> bastards
20 2012-02-07 00:22:57 <luke-jr> pirateat40: want to trace them?
21 2012-02-07 00:23:01 <luke-jr> http://pastebin.com/SxvxAks8
22 2012-02-07 00:23:21 <pirateat40> ok, let me just ping them... one sec
23 2012-02-07 00:24:14 <midnightmagic> What's that, some dumbass modern incarnation of a smurf?
24 2012-02-07 00:24:43 <midnightmagic> Haven't routing manufacturers fixed that problem yet?!
25 2012-02-07 00:24:48 <luke-jr> dunno, but they followed my DNS update
26 2012-02-07 00:25:17 <pirateat40> Oh that's sneaky.
27 2012-02-07 00:27:57 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/16
28 2012-02-07 00:28:01 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: mind ACK'ing that
29 2012-02-07 00:28:02 <midnightmagic> lame, bunch of lame zombie machines. it would require a back-breakin to track them.
30 2012-02-07 00:28:04 <BlueMatt> tcatm: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/16
31 2012-02-07 00:28:57 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: DNS update to point them at the pentagon.
32 2012-02-07 00:29:10 <pirateat40> perfect
33 2012-02-07 00:29:32 <BlueMatt> ;;seen tcatm
34 2012-02-07 00:29:32 <gribble> tcatm was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 1 day, 0 hours, 9 minutes, and 50 seconds ago: <tcatm> You'd still have to fake blocks at a pretty high difficulty.
35 2012-02-07 00:29:36 <midnightmagic> is roadrunner just universally easier to break into or something?
36 2012-02-07 00:29:40 <gmaxwell> "Bad news: Your site is down" "Good news: you control a botnet now"
37 2012-02-07 00:29:45 <tcatm> BlueMatt: ACK
38 2012-02-07 00:30:00 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: done
39 2012-02-07 00:30:04 enquirer has joined
40 2012-02-07 00:30:05 <pirateat40> gmaxwell, very true
41 2012-02-07 00:30:25 <tcatm> Changing bitcoin.org's content without pull requests is a bad idea.
42 2012-02-07 00:30:44 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I missed the merge somehow. I see it now.
43 2012-02-07 00:30:54 <BlueMatt> tcatm: mind reverting it?
44 2012-02-07 00:32:20 <midnightmagic> Hey lookit that, Wei Dai posts on Less Wrong!
45 2012-02-07 00:32:30 <midnightmagic> http://lesswrong.com/user/Wei_Dai/submitted/
46 2012-02-07 00:32:45 <HostFat> I see that you are linking to an "official" facebook page. Can you make the same to a google plus page?
47 2012-02-07 00:33:18 <BlueMatt> who controls content to that fb page?
48 2012-02-07 00:33:33 <tcatm> No idea...
49 2012-02-07 00:33:37 <BlueMatt> (I kinda reject to that being linked as well...)
50 2012-02-07 00:33:40 <HostFat> I don't know, I just see the link on the homepage
51 2012-02-07 00:33:41 <BlueMatt> s/kinda/really/
52 2012-02-07 00:33:44 <HostFat> hahahah
53 2012-02-07 00:34:13 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: oldnews.
54 2012-02-07 00:34:26 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: stillawesome.
55 2012-02-07 00:34:36 <HostFat> I hope that you are giving more attention to the bitcoin source code than the homepage :D
56 2012-02-07 00:34:59 <BlueMatt> tcatm: ACK as in you agree, or ACK as in pong?
57 2012-02-07 00:35:11 <tcatm> ACK as in agreement.
58 2012-02-07 00:35:38 <tcatm> Actually, I'm trying to merge it but github's automerging doesn't work here so I'll have to merge it manually.
59 2012-02-07 00:35:43 <sipa> uhm, can genjix just push to bitcoin.org?
60 2012-02-07 00:35:52 <BlueMatt> apparently
61 2012-02-07 00:36:34 <sipa> he does
62 2012-02-07 00:37:06 <BlueMatt> tcatm: yea, github only half wants to recognize the existence of that branch...nfc why it decided that...
63 2012-02-07 00:37:15 <luke-jr> so Eligius is being DDoS'd be⦠a bunch of lexmark printers -.-
64 2012-02-07 00:37:31 <BlueMatt> I wouldnt actually be surprised
65 2012-02-07 00:37:35 <gmaxwell> hahaha
66 2012-02-07 00:38:02 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: They want to uphold the printer industry monopoly on printing money.
67 2012-02-07 00:38:10 <BlueMatt> heh
68 2012-02-07 00:38:30 paul0 has quit (Quit: paul0)
69 2012-02-07 00:38:51 <tcatm> I can't even figure out how to manually merge that request...
70 2012-02-07 00:38:54 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: www.lexmark.com has address 192.146.101.201
71 2012-02-07 00:38:56 devrandom has quit (Quit: leaving)
72 2012-02-07 00:39:41 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I don't mean their website, I mean their network printers
73 2012-02-07 00:39:46 <luke-jr> phones too apparently
74 2012-02-07 00:39:54 <luke-jr> http://65.196.42.15/ and dell printers
75 2012-02-07 00:39:56 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I was suggesting a new A record for you.
76 2012-02-07 00:40:03 <BlueMatt> tcatm: oh, now Im messing with the repo to see if I can fix it
77 2012-02-07 00:40:13 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ah
78 2012-02-07 00:40:16 <pirateat40> dell is lexmark
79 2012-02-07 00:40:23 <tcatm> BlueMatt: It worked. The auto-mergre button appeared after a few minutes.
80 2012-02-07 00:40:23 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I would, but that's probably illegal somehow
81 2012-02-07 00:40:31 <BlueMatt> tcatm: oh, finally
82 2012-02-07 00:40:32 <gmaxwell> "Dude, you're getting DDOSed"
83 2012-02-07 00:40:51 <BlueMatt> https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin.org/branches <-- no bitcoin media branch, but it exists -->https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin.org/tree/bitcoinmedia
84 2012-02-07 00:40:54 <BlueMatt> wtf github?
85 2012-02-07 00:41:05 <k9quaint> luke-jr: printers are shit as far as security is concerned
86 2012-02-07 00:41:09 <BlueMatt> also, loading commit data never finishes loading
87 2012-02-07 00:41:18 tower has quit (Quit: | ReactOS - The FOSS alternative to MS Windows! | http://www.reactos.org/ | join #ReactOS |)
88 2012-02-07 00:41:32 <lianj> BlueMatt: https://status.github.com/
89 2012-02-07 00:41:45 <BlueMatt> mmm
90 2012-02-07 00:41:54 <pirateat40> Luke we can just take them offline line one by one
91 2012-02-07 00:42:06 <midnightmagic> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRGEnakrx9o
92 2012-02-07 00:42:15 <lianj> hehe just switched to full operation again ^^
93 2012-02-07 00:42:27 <BlueMatt> and yet, not...
94 2012-02-07 00:42:31 <pirateat40> LOL http://screenshotuploader.com/s/01/GMI6knlXa
95 2012-02-07 00:42:33 <BlueMatt> whatever Ill see what happens after a day
96 2012-02-07 00:44:12 <tcatm> So... should we remove the facebook link?
97 2012-02-07 00:44:51 <midnightmagic> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6OB5_mtwyQ and "Hacking MFPs [28C3]" lol. Well, I guess they're making use of the exploits.. that sucks, Luke. Oh well.
98 2012-02-07 00:44:53 <HostFat> you should open an official one
99 2012-02-07 00:44:53 <gmaxwell> tcatm: if we don't know who controls it that sounds super prudent.
100 2012-02-07 00:45:19 <HostFat> you should also open one on G+
101 2012-02-07 00:45:34 pingdrive has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
102 2012-02-07 00:45:53 <tcatm> No, we should focus on making bitcoin.org more useful.
103 2012-02-07 00:46:07 pingdrive has joined
104 2012-02-07 00:46:17 <HostFat> so, connecting with commond social network is bad? just asking ...
105 2012-02-07 00:46:22 <HostFat> common*
106 2012-02-07 00:46:25 <pirateat40> ok i fixed that one
107 2012-02-07 00:46:33 <tcatm> Anyone care to make a pull request removing the link while I'm figuring out why bitcoin.org is not updating? (Looks like some caching issue at github...)
108 2012-02-07 00:46:35 <pirateat40> next
109 2012-02-07 00:46:35 <gmaxwell> HostFat: in terms of time spent I think it shouldn't be a priority.
110 2012-02-07 00:46:43 tower has joined
111 2012-02-07 00:46:44 <BlueMatt> it is if we dont know who is controlling it and may start posting about bitcoin's connection to child porn tomorrow
112 2012-02-07 00:47:03 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: Download bitcoin 6.0 deluxe now!
113 2012-02-07 00:47:17 <BlueMatt> that too
114 2012-02-07 00:47:34 <pingdrive> well its prolly someone who hates eligius or someone who is testing for future attacks on pools
115 2012-02-07 00:47:38 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: Flaming DEATH bomb.
116 2012-02-07 00:47:43 <HostFat> gmaxwell: ok :) , but if you find someone that you trust, and if he has free time ... you should consinder this possibility
117 2012-02-07 00:50:18 <HostFat> there is this link on the facebook page: http://www.bitcoinblogger.com/
118 2012-02-07 00:50:28 <HostFat> so I think that the owner is the same
119 2012-02-07 00:50:47 <luke-jr> HostFat: with porn on it
120 2012-02-07 00:50:52 <HostFat> hahaha
121 2012-02-07 00:50:55 * luke-jr votes to get rid of it
122 2012-02-07 00:51:12 <tcatm> Make a pull-request so we all can ACK on it.
123 2012-02-07 00:51:13 <HostFat> anyway, you can see it here: http://www.facebook.com/bitcoins?sk=info
124 2012-02-07 00:51:36 iocor has joined
125 2012-02-07 00:52:03 Moron__ has quit ()
126 2012-02-07 00:52:04 <gmaxwell> HostFat: In judginging someone's trustworthness I'd personally have a hard time getting past the fact that they use facebook or g+ ... but thats why people don't put me in charge of such things. ;)
127 2012-02-07 00:53:34 <ultra_> luke-jr: what's wrong with a little legal porn?
128 2012-02-07 00:53:44 <HostFat> you should consider facebook/g+ as the "engine" to spread bitcoin word, anything else :)
129 2012-02-07 00:54:17 <HostFat> anyway, it isn't a big thing
130 2012-02-07 00:54:34 <BlueMatt> they use godaddy as a host, I automatically dont trust them
131 2012-02-07 00:54:45 btc_novice has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
132 2012-02-07 00:55:33 anubis1 has left ()
133 2012-02-07 00:55:45 <BlueMatt> wait, who runs intersango?
134 2012-02-07 00:55:57 <BlueMatt> heh, the facebook page is controlled by genjix
135 2012-02-07 00:56:05 <BlueMatt> (and bitcoinblogger)
136 2012-02-07 00:56:06 <HostFat> hehehe
137 2012-02-07 00:56:31 <sipa> access to bitcoin/bitcoin.org: MT, alex, altamic, genjix, + core devs
138 2012-02-07 00:56:38 <sipa> who is altamic?
139 2012-02-07 00:56:54 <BlueMatt> nfc
140 2012-02-07 00:57:06 <gmaxwell> 0_o
141 2012-02-07 00:57:19 <BlueMatt> look for a name on a commit
142 2012-02-07 00:57:25 <tcatm> He was a regular in this channel in 2010.
143 2012-02-07 00:57:35 <BlueMatt> "Michelangelo Altamore"
144 2012-02-07 00:58:55 <HostFat> can you give more visibility to the language translations ?
145 2012-02-07 00:59:31 * BlueMatt wouldnt be against linking to transifex
146 2012-02-07 00:59:49 <BlueMatt> under "get involved" or smth
147 2012-02-07 00:59:54 <HostFat> something like: "Help to translate Bitcoin project to many other languages! LINK: https://www.transifex.net/projects/p/bitcoin/resource/tx/ "
148 2012-02-07 01:00:17 <tcatm> Yes, a "get involved" page is a good idea.
149 2012-02-07 01:00:31 <BlueMatt> link to github + transifex
150 2012-02-07 01:00:40 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
151 2012-02-07 01:00:43 <tcatm> + mailinglist
152 2012-02-07 01:00:50 <BlueMatt> maybe not enough for a full page though
153 2012-02-07 01:00:51 Nicksasa has joined
154 2012-02-07 01:01:32 <tcatm> If it has a few words about what we do at github and how to help with translations?
155 2012-02-07 01:01:50 <BlueMatt> + -dev irc chan
156 2012-02-07 01:01:58 <BlueMatt> actually, thats already there
157 2012-02-07 01:02:11 <tcatm> Yes, but moving it to a seperate page would be good.
158 2012-02-07 01:02:34 <BlueMatt> fine by me
159 2012-02-07 01:02:45 <BlueMatt> anyone want to sign up?
160 2012-02-07 01:02:58 <BlueMatt> (to do the writing)
161 2012-02-07 01:03:07 <tcatm> I think I have started a branch somewhere...
162 2012-02-07 01:05:24 <midnightmagic> i wonder where Michel. went. :-(
163 2012-02-07 01:05:40 <BlueMatt> same place satoshi did
164 2012-02-07 01:05:49 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: You should reinvite him.
165 2012-02-07 01:06:44 <midnightmagic> :-) I'll put his name in the blockchain.
166 2012-02-07 01:06:53 <BlueMatt> heh
167 2012-02-07 01:06:59 <BlueMatt> for some reason I doubt he'll see that
168 2012-02-07 01:07:08 <tcatm> BlueMatt: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/tree/contribute adds a subpage (contribute.html) which can be filled with content easily
169 2012-02-07 01:07:10 <gmaxwell> "What do you mean you didn't feel welcome? We like totally put your name in the blockchain twice and everything"
170 2012-02-07 01:07:13 <midnightmagic> "altamic come back okay" -> burn 0.01
171 2012-02-07 01:07:15 <BlueMatt> email him https://github.com/altamic
172 2012-02-07 01:07:29 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
173 2012-02-07 01:07:34 <sipa> gmaxwell: how do you mean you've never been at alpha centauri?
174 2012-02-07 01:08:22 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: wait, you've never space traveled? damn you need to try that
175 2012-02-07 01:08:25 <gmaxwell> "But the coinbase said beware the jaguar!" "Oh that, it's just a preamble"
176 2012-02-07 01:08:39 <HostFat> another idea: can you add something like a blockchain clock / dynamic value ( something simple ) on the homepage?
177 2012-02-07 01:08:50 barmstrong has joined
178 2012-02-07 01:09:03 <HostFat> it should be really simple, but it need to change
179 2012-02-07 01:09:15 <HostFat> the block number is already a good idea
180 2012-02-07 01:09:34 <BlueMatt> tcatm: cool, but remove the other three or so dev links already on the main page first (IMHO)
181 2012-02-07 01:09:42 <tcatm> Can't be added easily.
182 2012-02-07 01:09:50 <tcatm> @HostFat
183 2012-02-07 01:11:04 <tcatm> BlueMatt: Yep. I don't have much time for it, though :/
184 2012-02-07 01:11:05 userhf has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
185 2012-02-07 01:11:40 <BlueMatt> mmm, alright
186 2012-02-07 01:11:58 HostFat is now known as Host|Away
187 2012-02-07 01:12:03 <Host> Away!~Joozero@2-224-111-132.ip170.fastwebnet.it|good night :)
188 2012-02-07 01:12:25 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
189 2012-02-07 01:12:33 khalahan has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
190 2012-02-07 01:15:01 khalahan has joined
191 2012-02-07 01:16:42 pumpkin has joined
192 2012-02-07 01:16:58 enquirer has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
193 2012-02-07 01:17:45 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
194 2012-02-07 01:17:46 pumpkin is now known as copumpkin
195 2012-02-07 01:20:49 OneFixt has joined
196 2012-02-07 01:22:04 splatster has joined
197 2012-02-07 01:23:14 <BlueMatt> ooo, french court ordered lenovo to pay back the cost of windows licenses to a group who didnt want them, cheaper linux laptops here we come
198 2012-02-07 01:24:10 denisx_ has joined
199 2012-02-07 01:25:18 <sipa> ... in france
200 2012-02-07 01:25:41 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
201 2012-02-07 01:25:41 denisx_ is now known as denisx
202 2012-02-07 01:26:24 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: TheBlueMatt opened pull request 16 on bitcoin/bitcoin.org <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/16>
203 2012-02-07 01:27:05 <BlueMatt> sipa: it can be used as precedent anywhere in the eu
204 2012-02-07 01:29:14 <sipa> except the eu countries don't have precedent law :)
205 2012-02-07 01:29:52 Hunner_ is now known as Hunner
206 2012-02-07 01:31:36 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I had this notion that if I bought a lenovo and then rejected the license they'd refund me the windows rather than take the cost of referbing a post consumer used good..
207 2012-02-07 01:31:49 <gmaxwell> Nope. They happily let me refund the whole machine but wouldn't refund windows
208 2012-02-07 01:32:08 <sipa> heh?
209 2012-02-07 01:32:31 <BlueMatt> until you send a very legal-looking letter their way claiming unfair competition and monopolistic practices. I guarantee you they would pay you the 50$ instead of getting sued
210 2012-02-07 01:33:06 <BlueMatt> sipa: ok, not precedent, but I was still under the impression such a ruling could be applied in other eu countries
211 2012-02-07 01:33:08 <gmaxwell> I wondered a bit what would happen if I then ordered 20. Opened them and returned them... but I didn't want to bet tens of thousands of dollars to troll them. :)
212 2012-02-07 01:33:48 userljh has joined
213 2012-02-07 01:33:55 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: how high did you get in the phone-ops chain?
214 2012-02-07 01:34:06 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: btw, your nick evaluates now in my repl
215 2012-02-07 01:34:27 <gmaxwell> Not very, I don't have have much patience for that sort of thing.
216 2012-02-07 01:34:29 <k9quaint> and you should buy one, return, and then buy another, return, and just constantly have a lap top being shipped
217 2012-02-07 01:34:31 <BlueMatt> did you while [ true ]; do echo "let me speak to your manager"; done
218 2012-02-07 01:35:14 <gmaxwell> I did at least some of that. But they were quite eager to give me my money back.. and I knew taking the system back would be costly to them, so I still won
219 2012-02-07 01:35:27 <BlueMatt> meh, fair enough
220 2012-02-07 01:35:45 <gmaxwell> (I ended up buying a used one in any case, which I still ended up paying for windows on, but at least less)
221 2012-02-07 01:35:52 <k9quaint> I just sold my windows key off my laptop
222 2012-02-07 01:37:06 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: they actually have a hidden link to buy laptops without windows, in fact.
223 2012-02-07 01:37:09 <gmaxwell> (now)
224 2012-02-07 01:37:21 <BlueMatt> they only offer it on a very few models (last I checked)
225 2012-02-07 01:37:32 <BlueMatt> mostly old models
226 2012-02-07 01:37:48 <gmaxwell> Correct. Thought not just old models. (well, depends on when you look I guess)
227 2012-02-07 01:38:20 <k9quaint> so ironic, a chinese company being a stickler for IP :P
228 2012-02-07 01:38:35 <BlueMatt> anyway, someone should do a mega-class-action against m$+vendors for monopolistic practices
229 2012-02-07 01:39:03 <BlueMatt> because it really is ridiculous that you are forced to pay the license fee
230 2012-02-07 01:39:07 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: not ironic, kickbacks for engaging in a business practice which has been found unlawful several times.
231 2012-02-07 01:39:24 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: that too
232 2012-02-07 01:39:43 <sipa> BlueMatt: not sure you have a case, unless microsoft somehow forces them not to sell things without windows
233 2012-02-07 01:39:43 <k9quaint> I just don't patronize those vendors
234 2012-02-07 01:40:02 <BlueMatt> sipa: how much you wanna bet that is in the contract with some of them?
235 2012-02-07 01:40:13 <k9quaint> I bet it isnt in the contract
236 2012-02-07 01:40:19 <sipa> BlueMatt: i'd guess it's off the contract :)
237 2012-02-07 01:40:21 <sipa> yeah
238 2012-02-07 01:40:34 <k9quaint> I bet its a nudge and a wink between SVPs
239 2012-02-07 01:40:40 <BlueMatt> Id bet if you get the time to really get to discovery you could find some really nice emails
240 2012-02-07 01:40:40 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: what msft got in trouble for w/ US vendors was writing contracts that charged per system sold regardless of what they shipped on them.
241 2012-02-07 01:41:04 <BlueMatt> you may have a case against eg dell
242 2012-02-07 01:41:05 <k9quaint> lenovo is probaby just being lazy
243 2012-02-07 01:41:43 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
244 2012-02-07 01:42:02 <BlueMatt> someone with a business contract should start a side business of reselling lenovos, etc without windows licenses
245 2012-02-07 01:42:07 <BlueMatt> (Im sure businesses get them)
246 2012-02-07 01:42:15 <BlueMatt> so they can use their own site licenses
247 2012-02-07 01:42:37 <gmaxwell> there is a company that does that (linuxlaptops or something) but their selection is very limited, they can't do CTO systems
248 2012-02-07 01:42:52 <BlueMatt> mmm, thats annoying
249 2012-02-07 01:44:11 <gmaxwell> might be more interesting to see someone buy them, 'unbundle' the windows licenses, and then invite msft to sue them (works best if your company consists of nothing but bored lawyers)
250 2012-02-07 01:44:26 <BlueMatt> that one would be fun
251 2012-02-07 01:45:02 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: sounds like a new business unit for Rambus
252 2012-02-07 01:45:03 <BlueMatt> or start posting the licenses on pirate sites and see if m$ sues them (they are just a code and its not like the company had any eulas with m$ they signed)
253 2012-02-07 01:45:10 <gmaxwell> esp post vernor v autodesk.
254 2012-02-07 01:45:31 <k9quaint> is that the first sale doctrine = software case?
255 2012-02-07 01:45:34 <gmaxwell> yes
256 2012-02-07 01:45:49 <k9quaint> that one warmed my no-no place
257 2012-02-07 01:47:15 <BlueMatt> that one was f'd up
258 2012-02-07 01:54:28 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
259 2012-02-07 01:54:44 sneak has joined
260 2012-02-07 01:54:44 sneak has quit (Changing host)
261 2012-02-07 01:54:44 sneak has joined
262 2012-02-07 01:55:20 Phoebus has quit (Quit: Leaving)
263 2012-02-07 01:56:40 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
264 2012-02-07 02:02:07 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
265 2012-02-07 02:06:26 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: am I reading this correct that in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/30999ec6f9...0b9a05a2bc you changed bitcoind to accept blank users?
266 2012-02-07 02:06:40 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: it always has
267 2012-02-07 02:06:52 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I changed it to not accept blank passwords.
268 2012-02-07 02:07:03 <gmaxwell> (it still accepts blank users"
269 2012-02-07 02:07:03 <BlueMatt> ...
270 2012-02-07 02:07:04 <BlueMatt> wow
271 2012-02-07 02:07:04 <gmaxwell> )
272 2012-02-07 02:07:06 <BlueMatt> ...
273 2012-02-07 02:07:23 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: for a long time, I used blank username on Eligius with a long password
274 2012-02-07 02:07:27 <luke-jr> nobody will ever guess that ;)
275 2012-02-07 02:09:09 <gmaxwell> Blame me if someone is mad that their complicated user with blank password causes them issues. .. but I will not feel very guilty about that.
276 2012-02-07 02:11:04 * BlueMatt gives up on attempts at programming (again)
277 2012-02-07 02:16:15 * k9quaint gives up on having users
278 2012-02-07 02:16:21 <k9quaint> *poof* all bugs = features
279 2012-02-07 02:16:23 * k9quaint wins
280 2012-02-07 02:22:03 <FROTUSCI> cool
281 2012-02-07 02:24:50 phantomfake has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
282 2012-02-07 02:26:08 <luke-jr> http://edgemarcvoiprouters.com/ <-- manuf site of some of the routers DDoSing Eligius -.-
283 2012-02-07 02:26:27 paul0 has joined
284 2012-02-07 02:26:58 phantomfake has joined
285 2012-02-07 02:32:26 phantomfake has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
286 2012-02-07 02:37:05 userljh has quit (Quit: Leaving)
287 2012-02-07 02:44:10 Clipse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
288 2012-02-07 02:46:52 Clipse has joined
289 2012-02-07 02:50:03 pingdrive has quit (Quit: Leaving)
290 2012-02-07 02:50:09 Clipse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
291 2012-02-07 02:51:49 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
292 2012-02-07 02:52:25 barmstrong has joined
293 2012-02-07 02:55:38 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
294 2012-02-07 03:08:11 <JFK911> how are the routers responsible
295 2012-02-07 03:08:15 SomeoneWeirdzzzz is now known as SomeoneWeird
296 2012-02-07 03:09:00 <luke-jr> JFK911: they're originating the DDoS
297 2012-02-07 03:09:13 Clipse has joined
298 2012-02-07 03:09:14 <JFK911> they are giving out machines that tickle your service?
299 2012-02-07 03:09:44 <luke-jr> apparently the company has no security
300 2012-02-07 03:09:49 <JFK911> oh
301 2012-02-07 03:10:15 <cjd> so like someone owned a ton of those voip routers and are using them to send udp rape?
302 2012-02-07 03:10:25 <cjd> or using their webserver?
303 2012-02-07 03:11:05 <JFK911> ive never heard of the company, so i was thinking maybe they are really small, and have the same 19 year old kid as a support rep and firmware developer
304 2012-02-07 03:11:46 <k9quaint> cheap router firmware is notorious for being buggy and insecure
305 2012-02-07 03:11:53 <k9quaint> same with printers
306 2012-02-07 03:12:30 <BlueMatt> contact their host
307 2012-02-07 03:12:45 <cjd> http://www.edgewaternetworks.com/ <-- there's the "real" edgemark, looks like a reseller
308 2012-02-07 03:12:46 <JFK911> maybe the way to the bottom is to get one of the devices, wait for it to be found, and see who tickles it
309 2012-02-07 03:12:48 <k9quaint> root them back, and install the null set as firmware
310 2012-02-07 03:12:53 <JFK911> haha
311 2012-02-07 03:13:19 <cjd> I gather it's their webserver seeing as it's showing a deface page
312 2012-02-07 03:20:03 magn3ts_ has joined
313 2012-02-07 03:21:03 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
314 2012-02-07 03:21:15 TheSeven has joined
315 2012-02-07 03:21:41 barmstrong has joined
316 2012-02-07 03:25:16 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
317 2012-02-07 03:25:27 wereHamster has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
318 2012-02-07 03:26:07 b4epoche has joined
319 2012-02-07 03:27:52 <luke-jr> FWIW, just had a UDP flood from Deepbit's IP too
320 2012-02-07 03:28:00 <luke-jr> so someone is obviously trying to frame them
321 2012-02-07 03:30:20 <BlueMatt> you need to start sending out some spam abuse emails to hosts and hosts of hosts
322 2012-02-07 03:33:25 <luke-jr> random ISPs? :p
323 2012-02-07 03:33:38 <luke-jr> this attack seems to be using an exploit in DD-Wrt for amplification
324 2012-02-07 03:33:38 <NxTitle> luke-jr: are you still being attacked?
325 2012-02-07 03:33:41 <luke-jr> NxTitle: yes
326 2012-02-07 03:33:54 <ultra_> luke-jr: O.o what exploit?
327 2012-02-07 03:33:59 <ultra_> dd-wrt printer?
328 2012-02-07 03:34:08 <luke-jr> ultra_: apparently it has SNMP open to the public
329 2012-02-07 03:34:19 <luke-jr> so they send a request with Eligius's IP forged as the source
330 2012-02-07 03:34:21 <BlueMatt> if an isp is forwarding/accepting packets with spoofed ips, the isp's abuse email needs contacted
331 2012-02-07 03:34:23 <luke-jr> and they all flood Eligius with replies
332 2012-02-07 03:34:57 <NxTitle> is bitcoin.cz still attacking? o.O
333 2012-02-07 03:35:15 <luke-jr> NxTitle: never was I bet
334 2012-02-07 03:35:27 <NxTitle> well it was probably spoofed
335 2012-02-07 03:35:42 Clipse-b has joined
336 2012-02-07 03:35:45 <luke-jr> Deepbit was spoofed last
337 2012-02-07 03:35:45 <ultra_> BlueMatt: how would the ISP tell if they were spoofed ips incoming? O.o
338 2012-02-07 03:36:43 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
339 2012-02-07 03:37:10 splatster has quit (Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com)
340 2012-02-07 03:37:31 <BlueMatt> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_path_forwarding
341 2012-02-07 03:42:40 smickles has joined
342 2012-02-07 03:43:38 wereHamster has joined
343 2012-02-07 03:45:05 phantomfake has joined
344 2012-02-07 03:45:14 <gmaxwell> ultra_: you can tell fairly painfully by tracing the traffic backwards, fortunately monitoring tools like arbor automated that for providers
345 2012-02-07 03:46:39 <ultra_> gmaxwell: you're telling me they'll run arbor on every packet? :p
346 2012-02-07 03:46:44 <k9quaint> if you are getting a serious DoS, that means you did something to piss off assholes
347 2012-02-07 03:46:50 <k9quaint> so, keep it up ;)
348 2012-02-07 03:47:17 <gmaxwell> ultra_: nah, sampled netflow.. there are lots of packets, why bother looking at all of them. :)
349 2012-02-07 03:47:22 <BlueMatt> is it much traffic, or just from odd ips?
350 2012-02-07 03:47:41 <gmaxwell> ultra_: 1:1000 - 1:4000 sampling rates are pretty common.
351 2012-02-07 03:47:47 <ultra_> gmaxwell: sure, but that's not something that can be expected of an ISP automatically as BlueMatt suggested
352 2012-02-07 03:48:05 <BlueMatt> not really, but ips really should be
353 2012-02-07 03:48:23 <gmaxwell> ultra_: er I'm not following you.
354 2012-02-07 03:48:38 <gmaxwell> (1) any ISP with end user connectivity will be using URPF.
355 2012-02-07 03:48:49 <gmaxwell> It's frequently a requirement of peering/transit agreements.
356 2012-02-07 03:49:25 <gmaxwell> (2) anyone with customers who are isps (so they won't be strict-urpfed) will be running something like arbor so they can track back floods.
357 2012-02-07 03:49:57 <ultra_> gmaxwell: well, you pretty much need to be close to backbone to spoof afaik
358 2012-02-07 03:50:43 <gmaxwell> (and arbor is just an automated reporting system that runs on top sampled netflow which is just always running)
359 2012-02-07 03:50:51 da2ce7 has joined
360 2012-02-07 03:52:03 <ultra_> sounds real effective
361 2012-02-07 03:57:03 <gmaxwell> ultra_: What do you say that?
362 2012-02-07 03:58:11 <TuxBlackEdo> hmm
363 2012-02-07 03:58:15 <TuxBlackEdo> i agree
364 2012-02-07 03:58:49 <ultra_> cause if it worked so well, the DDoSer would be gone and not DDoSing luke-jr's home website and shit like he was talking about
365 2012-02-07 04:01:06 ageis has quit (Quit: http://ageispolis.net)
366 2012-02-07 04:02:10 ageis has joined
367 2012-02-07 04:02:51 <gmaxwell> ultra_: you're assuming anyone with the power to do anything about it cares.
368 2012-02-07 04:03:05 <gmaxwell> It's probably just a few hundred mbit/sec.. not enough to catch anyone's attention.
369 2012-02-07 04:05:08 eldentyrell has joined
370 2012-02-07 04:06:31 btc_novice has joined
371 2012-02-07 04:09:09 <FROTUSCI> ?LLL:L
372 2012-02-07 04:09:36 smtmnyz_ is now known as smtmnyz
373 2012-02-07 04:10:03 <ultra_> lol, well if it's enough that it takes out the host without raising any eyebrows that shit is useless....
374 2012-02-07 04:11:29 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
375 2012-02-07 04:13:36 inlikeflynn has quit (Changing host)
376 2012-02-07 04:13:36 inlikeflynn has joined
377 2012-02-07 04:13:40 <ultra_> you'd think they'd have something more effective >.<M
378 2012-02-07 04:17:30 Transformer has joined
379 2012-02-07 04:18:03 <gmaxwell> ultra_: feh, block the target host. Done.
380 2012-02-07 04:18:12 <gmaxwell> You're not much of a BOFH are you?
381 2012-02-07 04:19:38 da2ce7 has quit (2!~da2ce7@gateway/tor-sasl/da2ce7|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
382 2012-02-07 04:19:53 Ferroh has joined
383 2012-02-07 04:20:27 Transformer has left ()
384 2012-02-07 04:20:55 smickles is now known as smickles|idle
385 2012-02-07 04:22:13 agricocb has joined
386 2012-02-07 04:24:27 RobinPKR_ has joined
387 2012-02-07 04:26:05 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
388 2012-02-07 04:26:06 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
389 2012-02-07 04:31:41 <ultra_> gmaxwell: what do you mean block the target host? nullroute them as happened in the eligius case.. and make the DDoS more effective?
390 2012-02-07 04:32:22 <gmaxwell> tada.
391 2012-02-07 04:32:25 <gmaxwell> Problem solved.
392 2012-02-07 04:33:16 <ultra_> lol, I spose :p
393 2012-02-07 04:33:18 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
394 2012-02-07 04:33:42 molecular has joined
395 2012-02-07 04:35:52 has quit (Clown|!~clown@static-87-79-93-140.netcologne.de|Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
396 2012-02-07 04:39:25 smickles is now known as idle!~michael@cpe-071-070-169-083.nc.res.rr.com|smickles
397 2012-02-07 04:49:56 p0ly has joined
398 2012-02-07 04:50:57 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
399 2012-02-07 04:59:08 luke-jr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
400 2012-02-07 04:59:38 phantomfake has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
401 2012-02-07 05:00:57 luke-jr has joined
402 2012-02-07 05:01:10 phantomfake has joined
403 2012-02-07 05:03:02 JRWR has joined
404 2012-02-07 05:05:01 paul0 has quit (Quit: paul0)
405 2012-02-07 05:17:41 gribble has quit (Quit: brb)
406 2012-02-07 05:18:53 gribble has joined
407 2012-02-07 05:20:03 p0ly has quit (Quit: Quitte)
408 2012-02-07 05:21:24 splatster has joined
409 2012-02-07 05:22:41 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
410 2012-02-07 05:24:40 JimRogers has quit (Quit: JimRogers)
411 2012-02-07 05:24:59 MobiusL has joined
412 2012-02-07 05:29:58 osmosis has joined
413 2012-02-07 05:30:06 <midnightmagic> i wonder if there are any legitimate uses of ip spoofing..
414 2012-02-07 05:30:28 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: YES
415 2012-02-07 05:30:31 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: ANYCAST.
416 2012-02-07 05:30:42 <gmaxwell> (esp anycast DNS)
417 2012-02-07 05:32:02 <midnightmagic> that's using normal bgp/etc to announce presence.. i mean classic ip spoof smurfers
418 2012-02-07 05:32:22 <gmaxwell> It's useful on the egress side even without anycast ingress.
419 2012-02-07 05:32:32 <cjd> hiding your location
420 2012-02-07 05:32:39 <midnightmagic> and like you say, properly announced anycast won't be filtered by ingress..
421 2012-02-07 05:32:40 vorlov has joined
422 2012-02-07 05:32:57 <cjd> if you own the address, no reason why you can't spoof it from somewhere else
423 2012-02-07 05:32:59 vorlov has left ()
424 2012-02-07 05:33:18 <midnightmagic> cjd: the answer will come back to the "real" location though?
425 2012-02-07 05:33:23 <gmaxwell> I have a cute GSLB solution which works by one node getting your dns request.. then all DNS responders reply with the host near them (on the top of a 80ms clock)... and the first to reach you wins. :)
426 2012-02-07 05:33:54 <gmaxwell> but yea, there is no reason to let edge networks in general spoof... and the vast majority are not.
427 2012-02-07 05:34:23 <midnightmagic> surely a network capable of spoofing, and then doing it, would make the backbone admins a little testy?!
428 2012-02-07 05:34:49 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: meh, why? just don't make my phone ring!
429 2012-02-07 05:34:58 smickles has quit (Quit: rage quit)
430 2012-02-07 05:35:01 <cjd> but ofc everyone (except cable/dsl) allows it because allowing it is easier than blocking it
431 2012-02-07 05:35:03 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I like that, that's a fun idea. Are they time-sync'd to answer simultaneously?
432 2012-02-07 05:35:17 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: yes.
433 2012-02-07 05:35:25 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I used to have my phone ringing, and it sucked. I was angry.
434 2012-02-07 05:35:39 Cablesaurus has joined
435 2012-02-07 05:35:40 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
436 2012-02-07 05:35:40 Cablesaurus has joined
437 2012-02-07 05:35:59 <gmaxwell> cjd: nah, not so. URPF is pretty widely deployed.
438 2012-02-07 05:36:47 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: How do they time-sync? just everybody agrees to only answer at some future time as requested by the origination (queried) dns?
439 2012-02-07 05:37:06 <midnightmagic> "BTW, answer this within five seconds of my timestamp, or don't answer at all.."
440 2012-02-07 05:37:16 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: yes, the master timestamps it and they round up enough to all answer at once.
441 2012-02-07 05:37:41 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Is the delay by some kind of consensus?
442 2012-02-07 05:38:09 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: And why would you need such a thing? lol
443 2012-02-07 05:38:11 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: just configuration. It's pretty easy to set safely enough.
444 2012-02-07 05:38:24 <midnightmagic> Like, you specifically..
445 2012-02-07 05:38:50 <gmaxwell> not me personally, people I've solved problems for.
446 2012-02-07 05:38:58 <midnightmagic> huh!
447 2012-02-07 05:39:15 <midnightmagic> that's a pretty neat mechanism..
448 2012-02-07 05:39:19 <gmaxwell> (When you absoltely positively need to serve traffic from the most close datacenter to the requestors recursive resolver!)
449 2012-02-07 05:40:24 <midnightmagic> i guess even secure dns wouldn't break that sort of thing, because the answer is controlled by the authority at all times anyway
450 2012-02-07 05:40:40 <gmaxwell> Yep.
451 2012-02-07 05:40:56 <midnightmagic> I wonder if any software gets irritated at the multiple responses.. usually that's a sign of a spoof..
452 2012-02-07 05:41:27 <midnightmagic> "Well fuck, these people are doing it on purpose.. back to the drawing board."
453 2012-02-07 05:41:35 <gmaxwell> No. This has been used in production for some very very large sites. (thoug most people do gslb thats a bit less crazy)
454 2012-02-07 05:41:40 <gmaxwell> well right, maybe it caused that. :)
455 2012-02-07 06:07:20 eldentyrell has quit (Quit: eldentyrell)
456 2012-02-07 06:07:27 darkee has joined
457 2012-02-07 06:10:47 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
458 2012-02-07 06:14:32 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Take my advice. I don't use it anyway)
459 2012-02-07 06:16:31 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
460 2012-02-07 06:25:05 Host has quit (Away!~Joozero@2-224-111-132.ip170.fastwebnet.it|)
461 2012-02-07 06:27:18 a_meteorite has quit (Quit: http://bzfx.net/)
462 2012-02-07 06:28:03 a_meteorite has joined
463 2012-02-07 06:29:40 a_meteorite has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
464 2012-02-07 06:31:05 a_meteorite has joined
465 2012-02-07 06:32:34 Cablesaurus has joined
466 2012-02-07 06:32:34 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
467 2012-02-07 06:32:34 Cablesaurus has joined
468 2012-02-07 06:33:06 vragnaroda has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
469 2012-02-07 06:33:43 dwon has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
470 2012-02-07 06:35:39 RazielZ has joined
471 2012-02-07 06:36:01 vragnaroda has joined
472 2012-02-07 06:37:41 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
473 2012-02-07 06:39:19 dwon has joined
474 2012-02-07 06:41:20 vragnaroda has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
475 2012-02-07 06:43:33 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
476 2012-02-07 06:44:28 OneFixt has joined
477 2012-02-07 06:46:02 vragnaroda has joined
478 2012-02-07 06:49:57 num1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
479 2012-02-07 06:51:36 dwon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
480 2012-02-07 06:53:13 Clipse-b has quit (Quit: Clipse-b)
481 2012-02-07 07:03:43 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
482 2012-02-07 07:04:07 onelineproof has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
483 2012-02-07 07:12:03 marf_away has joined
484 2012-02-07 07:12:52 vragnaroda has quit (Quit: leaving)
485 2012-02-07 07:26:07 btc_novice has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
486 2012-02-07 07:33:15 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
487 2012-02-07 07:37:39 b4epoche_ has joined
488 2012-02-07 07:38:35 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
489 2012-02-07 07:38:35 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
490 2012-02-07 07:44:55 chmod755 has joined
491 2012-02-07 07:45:07 <chmod755> hi #bitcoin-dev
492 2012-02-07 07:45:29 <chmod755> I have a problem with my wallet.dat
493 2012-02-07 07:47:12 <chmod755> I had a few orphaned coins and transfer my BTC to another wallet - now it seems that all of my coins are gone
494 2012-02-07 07:48:03 <chmod755> the network has rejected the transactions
495 2012-02-07 07:48:21 <chmod755> how can I access my BTC now?
496 2012-02-07 07:49:18 <chmod755> any ideas?
497 2012-02-07 07:49:47 <chmod755> (is there a tool to fix wallet.dat files?)
498 2012-02-07 07:56:31 justmoon has joined
499 2012-02-07 07:56:32 justmoon has quit (Changing host)
500 2012-02-07 07:56:32 justmoon has joined
501 2012-02-07 07:59:15 larsivi has joined
502 2012-02-07 07:59:18 larsivi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
503 2012-02-07 08:01:48 magn3ts_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
504 2012-02-07 08:03:14 FROTUSCI has quit ()
505 2012-02-07 08:08:26 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
506 2012-02-07 08:08:32 bitfiber has joined
507 2012-02-07 08:16:22 jgarzik has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
508 2012-02-07 08:16:46 jgarzik has joined
509 2012-02-07 08:17:13 jgarzik is now known as Guest86002
510 2012-02-07 08:21:20 sje has joined
511 2012-02-07 08:21:21 sje has quit (Changing host)
512 2012-02-07 08:21:21 sje has joined
513 2012-02-07 08:23:28 num1 has joined
514 2012-02-07 08:24:01 Guest86002 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
515 2012-02-07 08:33:01 blomqvist has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
516 2012-02-07 08:33:48 terrytibbs has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
517 2012-02-07 08:34:47 jeremias has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
518 2012-02-07 08:35:23 nhodges has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
519 2012-02-07 08:35:40 jeremias has joined
520 2012-02-07 08:35:45 echelon has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
521 2012-02-07 08:36:33 Guest86002 has joined
522 2012-02-07 08:36:34 kobier has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
523 2012-02-07 08:37:48 kobier has joined
524 2012-02-07 08:37:55 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
525 2012-02-07 08:39:36 echelon has joined
526 2012-02-07 08:40:08 blomqvist has joined
527 2012-02-07 08:40:31 marf_away has joined
528 2012-02-07 08:41:56 terrytibbs has joined
529 2012-02-07 08:44:28 nhodges has joined
530 2012-02-07 08:44:52 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
531 2012-02-07 08:48:53 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
532 2012-02-07 08:49:31 nhodges has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
533 2012-02-07 08:51:49 jeremias has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
534 2012-02-07 08:51:54 jeremias has joined
535 2012-02-07 08:52:51 nhodges has joined
536 2012-02-07 09:00:07 MrTiggr has joined
537 2012-02-07 09:04:41 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
538 2012-02-07 09:18:45 m00p has joined
539 2012-02-07 09:21:48 <TuxBlackEdo> i know the bitcoin network is vulnurable to the 51% attack, but is that only of new mining power? for example lets say a 40% actively participating pool decides to stop mining to the main blockchain and build a secret (unannounced) forked blockchain, would that senario require less than 51-50% mining power?
540 2012-02-07 09:22:03 <chmod755> bitcoind listaccounts
541 2012-02-07 09:22:03 <chmod755> {
542 2012-02-07 09:22:03 <chmod755> "" : -13580.16125564,
543 2012-02-07 09:22:12 <TuxBlackEdo> chmod755, rescan
544 2012-02-07 09:22:15 <chmod755> my wallet is fucked
545 2012-02-07 09:22:16 <TuxBlackEdo> that's the fix
546 2012-02-07 09:22:21 <chmod755> TuxBlackEdo: didn't work
547 2012-02-07 09:22:22 <TuxBlackEdo> -rescan
548 2012-02-07 09:22:35 <TuxBlackEdo> export private keys maybe?
549 2012-02-07 09:22:43 <chmod755> I tried rescanning and reloading the entire blockchain
550 2012-02-07 09:22:44 <chmod755> k
551 2012-02-07 09:23:21 <chmod755> TuxBlackEdo: do you know how to export the keys?
552 2012-02-07 09:23:47 <edcba> TuxBlackEdo: you need >50% statically
553 2012-02-07 09:23:53 <chmod755> -13k lol, I wish I had 13k
554 2012-02-07 09:24:23 <justmoon> TuxBlackEdo: the 51% is of total mining power, basically randomness favors whoever has more mining power and over time, exponentially so - that's why you need more mining power than everyone else put together to mount an attack and that's where the 51% comes from
555 2012-02-07 09:38:41 <TuxBlackEdo> justmoon, imagine this
556 2012-02-07 09:38:47 <TuxBlackEdo> the bitcoin network is 100ghash
557 2012-02-07 09:38:59 <TuxBlackEdo> and inside the bitcoin network, deepbit is 50ghash
558 2012-02-07 09:39:25 <TuxBlackEdo> to mount a 51 percent attack if i am not deeptbit, I need 51ghash
559 2012-02-07 09:39:30 <TuxBlackEdo> but if i am deepbit
560 2012-02-07 09:39:35 <justmoon> no, you need 101 gh
561 2012-02-07 09:39:52 <justmoon> because the network is 100 ghash, so to outrun it, you need at least 101
562 2012-02-07 09:40:36 <TuxBlackEdo> yes
563 2012-02-07 09:40:37 <TuxBlackEdo> but
564 2012-02-07 09:40:52 <TuxBlackEdo> If I am already 50% of the network
565 2012-02-07 09:41:08 <TuxBlackEdo> i could just decide to pull my mining power and start my own secret blockchain
566 2012-02-07 09:41:20 <chmod755> #OccupyDeepbit WE ARE THE 51%
567 2012-02-07 09:41:31 <justmoon> sure, if you have more mining power than the rest of the network that's the 51% attack
568 2012-02-07 09:41:47 <justmoon> but it can't really be a pool, because if deepbit did that, its miners would start abandoning them
569 2012-02-07 09:41:59 <TuxBlackEdo> why?
570 2012-02-07 09:42:04 <TuxBlackEdo> they could do it secretive
571 2012-02-07 09:42:19 <TuxBlackEdo> it's not like deepbit couldn't keep paying the miners out of pocket
572 2012-02-07 09:42:43 <TuxBlackEdo> think of the 5-10% fee they charge
573 2012-02-07 09:42:45 <justmoon> a 51% attack would be very obvious
574 2012-02-07 09:43:01 <justmoon> there are dozens of people in this channel including myself who are running monitoring that would detect it
575 2012-02-07 09:43:17 <TuxBlackEdo> and what would be the plan?
576 2012-02-07 09:43:32 <justmoon> well, put a message in #bitcoin-mining
577 2012-02-07 09:43:50 <Eliel> and a message on the forums
578 2012-02-07 09:44:01 <Eliel> it'd spread like wildfire.
579 2012-02-07 09:44:49 <justmoon> miners would have to be afraid that even if deepbit "wins" the hashing war that somehow the network will go back to the legitimate chain and they would lose their entire income for the duration of the attack
580 2012-02-07 09:46:46 <TuxBlackEdo> i am sure they could pay out of pocket for days if not months worth of blocks
581 2012-02-07 09:47:04 <TuxBlackEdo> and if they succeed, they wouldn't even have to pay anything
582 2012-02-07 09:47:43 dr_win has joined
583 2012-02-07 09:49:17 <justmoon> pay out of pocket with what? bitcoins?
584 2012-02-07 09:49:54 <justmoon> those would lose a ton of value if the attack succeeded
585 2012-02-07 09:49:59 josephcp has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
586 2012-02-07 09:50:50 da2ce7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
587 2012-02-07 09:50:51 gfinn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
588 2012-02-07 09:51:45 <justmoon> I think a lot of miners hold bitcoins or have bitcoin investments
589 2012-02-07 09:51:55 <justmoon> we *know* that they have money invested in mining hardware
590 2012-02-07 09:52:12 <justmoon> if a 51% attack succeeds, the whole 1-cpu-1-vote idea is called into question
591 2012-02-07 09:52:21 da2ce7 has joined
592 2012-02-07 09:52:35 <justmoon> and there may not be much point in mining anymore - making that expensive mining hardware worthless
593 2012-02-07 09:52:46 <justmoon> and of course, most people try to be ethical
594 2012-02-07 09:52:57 <justmoon> miners started switching away from deepbit when they got over 51%
595 2012-02-07 09:53:11 <justmoon> they didn't even abuse that fact, people switched away just as a precaution
596 2012-02-07 10:01:05 AAA_awright_ is now known as AAA_awright
597 2012-02-07 10:02:31 enquirer has joined
598 2012-02-07 10:02:46 gfinn has joined
599 2012-02-07 10:08:38 MrTiggr has joined
600 2012-02-07 10:09:24 <TuxBlackEdo> justmoon, i think deepbit got pressured into using a higher fee to drive away miners
601 2012-02-07 10:09:38 <justmoon> they didn't raise the fee at that time
602 2012-02-07 10:09:53 <TuxBlackEdo> but it could turn out that deepbit owns BTCGuild as well
603 2012-02-07 10:10:34 <justmoon> point being?
604 2012-02-07 10:10:58 <TuxBlackEdo> all it would take is slush or btc guild to conspire with deepbit
605 2012-02-07 10:11:21 <justmoon> no, again, the pool operators can do what they want, it is the miners that control the actual mining power
606 2012-02-07 10:11:47 <TuxBlackEdo> a 51% attack would not have to last for days and days
607 2012-02-07 10:12:10 <TuxBlackEdo> just long enough to deposit some already gotten btc and then sell it on the market and take a wire
608 2012-02-07 10:12:18 <TuxBlackEdo> then announce the secret blockchain
609 2012-02-07 10:12:36 <TuxBlackEdo> with a earlier payment to yourself
610 2012-02-07 10:12:48 <TuxBlackEdo> instead of to mtgox
611 2012-02-07 10:12:50 <justmoon> so you're suggesting that slush (who I've met in person) would steal money in a public way
612 2012-02-07 10:13:18 <TuxBlackEdo> bitcoin is not at all about trust, is it?
613 2012-02-07 10:13:23 <TuxBlackEdo> there is no trust
614 2012-02-07 10:13:53 <justmoon> it's not that I trust him, it's that I know he's intelligent
615 2012-02-07 10:14:13 <justmoon> and I know who he is - if he stole money publicly, he'd go to jail
616 2012-02-07 10:14:39 <justmoon> and of course if you steal, the stolen money is confiscated and you can be sued for damages
617 2012-02-07 10:14:44 josephcp has joined
618 2012-02-07 10:14:57 <chmod755> ;;gettrust TuxBlackEdo
619 2012-02-07 10:14:57 <gribble> Trust relationship from user chmod755 to user TuxBlackEdo: Level 1: 0, Level 2: 0 via 0 connections. Graph: http://serajewelks.bitcoin-otc.com/trustgraph.php?source=chmod755&dest=TuxBlackEdo
620 2012-02-07 10:15:12 <chmod755> (11:06:45 AM) TuxBlackEdo: there is no trust << yep
621 2012-02-07 10:15:58 darkee has quit (!~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|Remote host closed the connection)
622 2012-02-07 10:16:28 <cjd> one reason a lot of the attacks which are theorized would never work is simply because people (in this channel) are watching
623 2012-02-07 10:16:43 darkee has joined
624 2012-02-07 10:18:54 marf_away has joined
625 2012-02-07 10:19:38 <TuxBlackEdo> only would take 3600btc or 72blocks for the duration of the attack
626 2012-02-07 10:19:50 <TuxBlackEdo> if the attack isnt successful
627 2012-02-07 10:19:59 <TuxBlackEdo> if it took 1 day
628 2012-02-07 10:21:24 <TuxBlackEdo> plus you could short bitcoin while you are doing this because of all the fallout
629 2012-02-07 10:21:27 <justmoon> the cost of the actual blocks doesn't matter so much
630 2012-02-07 10:21:38 <TuxBlackEdo> just to pay off the miners
631 2012-02-07 10:21:47 danbri has joined
632 2012-02-07 10:21:48 <justmoon> what's discouraging is that your pool will be dead afterwards and you'll go to jail
633 2012-02-07 10:22:08 <TuxBlackEdo> just like the mybitcoin founder went to jail?
634 2012-02-07 10:22:24 <justmoon> he would have if we knew who he was
635 2012-02-07 10:22:27 <justmoon> we know who the pool ops are
636 2012-02-07 10:30:19 ovidiusoft has joined
637 2012-02-07 10:34:17 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
638 2012-02-07 10:39:16 knotwork has joined
639 2012-02-07 10:39:16 knotwork has quit (Changing host)
640 2012-02-07 10:39:16 knotwork has joined
641 2012-02-07 10:44:27 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
642 2012-02-07 10:58:04 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
643 2012-02-07 10:59:52 booo has joined
644 2012-02-07 11:06:28 iocor has joined
645 2012-02-07 11:06:33 justmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
646 2012-02-07 11:07:07 Guest84384 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
647 2012-02-07 11:08:22 knotwork has joined
648 2012-02-07 11:08:23 knotwork has quit (Changing host)
649 2012-02-07 11:08:23 knotwork has joined
650 2012-02-07 11:10:09 paul0 has joined
651 2012-02-07 11:15:00 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
652 2012-02-07 11:16:16 chmod755 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
653 2012-02-07 11:17:22 knotwork has joined
654 2012-02-07 11:24:37 ovidiusoft has quit (Read error: No route to host)
655 2012-02-07 11:39:05 justmoon has joined
656 2012-02-07 11:39:15 justmoon has quit (Changing host)
657 2012-02-07 11:39:15 justmoon has joined
658 2012-02-07 11:39:21 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
659 2012-02-07 11:40:12 knotwork has joined
660 2012-02-07 11:40:33 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
661 2012-02-07 11:44:17 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
662 2012-02-07 11:45:54 lake_ has joined
663 2012-02-07 11:45:57 paraipan has joined
664 2012-02-07 11:47:56 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
665 2012-02-07 11:49:46 b4epoche_ has joined
666 2012-02-07 11:50:31 Phoebus has joined
667 2012-02-07 11:50:59 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
668 2012-02-07 11:50:59 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
669 2012-02-07 11:52:18 ovidiusoft has joined
670 2012-02-07 11:54:22 dlb76 has joined
671 2012-02-07 12:01:53 molecular has joined
672 2012-02-07 12:03:30 knotwork has joined
673 2012-02-07 12:04:36 Moron__ has joined
674 2012-02-07 12:06:13 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
675 2012-02-07 12:06:21 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
676 2012-02-07 12:06:21 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
677 2012-02-07 12:19:31 darkee has joined
678 2012-02-07 12:20:58 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
679 2012-02-07 12:23:03 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
680 2012-02-07 12:32:00 gfinn has joined
681 2012-02-07 12:33:44 iyov7 has joined
682 2012-02-07 12:37:38 iyov7 has quit (Client Quit)
683 2012-02-07 12:44:18 splatster has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
684 2012-02-07 12:56:43 marf_away has joined
685 2012-02-07 12:57:49 JRWR has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
686 2012-02-07 13:01:30 occulta has joined
687 2012-02-07 13:03:08 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
688 2012-02-07 13:07:18 MobiusL has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
689 2012-02-07 13:07:20 cryptoxchange has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
690 2012-02-07 13:08:40 MobiusL has joined
691 2012-02-07 13:08:45 cryptoxchange has joined
692 2012-02-07 13:15:24 iocor has joined
693 2012-02-07 13:15:24 iocor has quit (Changing host)
694 2012-02-07 13:15:24 iocor has joined
695 2012-02-07 13:17:52 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
696 2012-02-07 13:23:09 sje has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
697 2012-02-07 13:24:06 sje has joined
698 2012-02-07 13:24:17 sje has quit (Changing host)
699 2012-02-07 13:24:17 sje has joined
700 2012-02-07 13:29:39 minimoose has joined
701 2012-02-07 13:30:09 datagutt has joined
702 2012-02-07 13:30:17 datagutt is now known as Guest15120
703 2012-02-07 13:31:51 knotwork has joined
704 2012-02-07 13:32:04 Guest15120 has quit (Client Quit)
705 2012-02-07 13:32:18 datagutt_ has joined
706 2012-02-07 13:32:18 datagutt_ has quit (Changing host)
707 2012-02-07 13:32:18 datagutt_ has joined
708 2012-02-07 13:32:43 sje has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
709 2012-02-07 13:33:33 sacarlson has joined
710 2012-02-07 13:41:10 wizkid057 has joined
711 2012-02-07 13:43:22 wizkid057_ has joined
712 2012-02-07 13:45:27 wizkid057__ has joined
713 2012-02-07 13:45:39 user_ has joined
714 2012-02-07 13:45:44 booo has joined
715 2012-02-07 13:47:00 wizkid057 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
716 2012-02-07 13:47:37 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
717 2012-02-07 13:48:11 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
718 2012-02-07 13:48:49 wizkid057_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
719 2012-02-07 13:52:08 knotwork has joined
720 2012-02-07 13:55:45 has joined
721 2012-02-07 13:58:14 iyov7 has joined
722 2012-02-07 13:59:03 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
723 2012-02-07 14:02:04 agricocb has joined
724 2012-02-07 14:03:00 iocor has joined
725 2012-02-07 14:06:04 btc_novice has joined
726 2012-02-07 14:15:50 lake_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
727 2012-02-07 14:33:58 smickles has joined
728 2012-02-07 14:34:08 wizkid057__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
729 2012-02-07 14:34:50 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
730 2012-02-07 14:36:42 Guest86002 has quit (Changing host)
731 2012-02-07 14:36:42 Guest86002 has joined
732 2012-02-07 14:36:44 Guest86002 is now known as jgarzik
733 2012-02-07 14:36:46 JRWR has joined
734 2012-02-07 14:39:43 enquirer has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
735 2012-02-07 14:45:35 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
736 2012-02-07 14:45:38 copumpkin has joined
737 2012-02-07 14:46:26 knotwork has joined
738 2012-02-07 14:55:32 JRWR has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
739 2012-02-07 14:56:36 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
740 2012-02-07 14:57:05 FROTUSCI has joined
741 2012-02-07 14:57:58 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
742 2012-02-07 14:58:30 knotwork has joined
743 2012-02-07 14:59:42 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
744 2012-02-07 15:02:05 gp5st has joined
745 2012-02-07 15:04:17 Winsome has joined
746 2012-02-07 15:04:21 gp5st has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
747 2012-02-07 15:04:40 Winsome has quit (Client Quit)
748 2012-02-07 15:05:03 gp5st has joined
749 2012-02-07 15:05:15 aguest has joined
750 2012-02-07 15:05:29 <luke-jr> I love how Gavin just ignores problems with his own pullreqs, yet refuses to merge others' which have no problemsâ¦
751 2012-02-07 15:05:33 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
752 2012-02-07 15:06:19 Zarutian has joined
753 2012-02-07 15:06:21 wizkid057 has joined
754 2012-02-07 15:06:45 wizkid057 is now known as Guest79758
755 2012-02-07 15:09:18 aguest has quit (Client Quit)
756 2012-02-07 15:09:32 iocor has joined
757 2012-02-07 15:11:17 knotwork has joined
758 2012-02-07 15:11:44 Guest79758 is now known as wizkid057_lagged
759 2012-02-07 15:12:16 wizkid057_lagged is now known as wizlag057
760 2012-02-07 15:12:19 wizlag057 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
761 2012-02-07 15:14:13 booo has joined
762 2012-02-07 15:17:25 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, did you catch the the not doing the transaction checking introduced a vulnerability? called it
763 2012-02-07 15:17:36 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: ?
764 2012-02-07 15:20:14 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2012/Feb/0
765 2012-02-07 15:20:53 <phantomcircuit> that combined with being the first connection a new node makes could allow you to spend counterfeit coins
766 2012-02-07 15:20:55 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: no, that's not a real problem
767 2012-02-07 15:21:16 <phantomcircuit> with the current initial download logic it is
768 2012-02-07 15:21:24 <phantomcircuit> it's extremely unlikely to be exploited
769 2012-02-07 15:21:27 <phantomcircuit> but it's possible
770 2012-02-07 15:21:39 <luke-jr> no
771 2012-02-07 15:21:47 smickles is now known as smickles|idle
772 2012-02-07 15:21:57 <luke-jr> the download logic mentioned there was fixed in a release before it was posted
773 2012-02-07 15:22:05 gp5st has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
774 2012-02-07 15:22:12 <phantomcircuit> yes and people still join #bitcoin using old clients
775 2012-02-07 15:22:44 <phantomcircuit> that commit was reckless and people did call him on it despite the fd saying otherwise
776 2012-02-07 15:23:00 gp5st has joined
777 2012-02-07 15:24:45 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: so, what's the solution? now there's 4 examples of things merged that shouldn't have been :P
778 2012-02-07 15:24:57 <phantomcircuit> i think you can guess :)
779 2012-02-07 15:24:57 <luke-jr> (and countless examples of things that should be merged, but haven't been)
780 2012-02-07 15:25:49 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: my guesses all seem non-viable. viability is a requirement to a solution
781 2012-02-07 15:26:32 gp5st1 has joined
782 2012-02-07 15:27:20 gp5st has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
783 2012-02-07 15:28:05 p0s has joined
784 2012-02-07 15:28:47 Dyaheon has joined
785 2012-02-07 15:30:16 <Eliel> phantomcircuit: it's only a problem with 0.5 and 0.5.1
786 2012-02-07 15:30:40 <phantomcircuit> im sure there are tons of people still running 0.5 and 0.5.1
787 2012-02-07 15:30:57 <phantomcircuit> the very fact that it was included after people voiced their opposition is a problem
788 2012-02-07 15:30:59 <Eliel> ok, let me look up the stats page for client versions
789 2012-02-07 15:31:18 <luke-jr> ^ examples of why lying about the client/version (currently merged it git master) is a bad idea
790 2012-02-07 15:31:45 <sipa> luke-jr: not being in the form you like it does not make it lying
791 2012-02-07 15:32:26 <luke-jr> sipa: I didn't complain about the form, I complained about the lying
792 2012-02-07 15:32:57 <luke-jr> I don't care about the form.
793 2012-02-07 15:34:09 <Eliel> what is this thing about lying? link?
794 2012-02-07 15:34:29 <luke-jr> sipa: what are your thoughts on the latest? (Gavin breaking non-spammy 'green addresses')
795 2012-02-07 15:35:21 <Eliel> phantomcircuit: there http://bitcoinstatus.rowit.co.uk/
796 2012-02-07 15:35:25 <sipa> luke-jr: which are you talking about now?
797 2012-02-07 15:35:56 <luke-jr> Eliel: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/715
798 2012-02-07 15:36:12 <phantomcircuit> Eliel, that shows at least 199 vulnerable hosts
799 2012-02-07 15:36:13 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
800 2012-02-07 15:36:14 <luke-jr> sipa: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/769
801 2012-02-07 15:36:33 <phantomcircuit> no more like 700
802 2012-02-07 15:37:13 <luke-jr> sipa: also, I posted on the ML when he announced his intent-to-merge
803 2012-02-07 15:37:25 <luke-jr> in more details as to the practical solution it breaks
804 2012-02-07 15:37:27 <sipa> luke-jr: green addresses use spurious pushes?
805 2012-02-07 15:37:40 sytse has quit (Quit: reboot)
806 2012-02-07 15:37:49 <Eliel> phantomcircuit: yes, that's a reasonably small fraction. Also, it's quite difficult to exploit.
807 2012-02-07 15:37:53 <luke-jr> sipa: green addresses right now require you send from a single address; so all merchants supporting it need to transfer funds to that address
808 2012-02-07 15:38:18 <phantomcircuit> Eliel, that's comical given gavin said ages ago that he would be very cautious
809 2012-02-07 15:38:31 <luke-jr> sipa: before pull 769, it was *possible* to replace that with just an extra signature, and then have miners strip that off when making a block
810 2012-02-07 15:39:00 <sipa> luke-jr: the reason for making them non-standard is because a miner could just strip those extra pushes, which would cause much more problems (people not recognizing their own transactions, e.g.)
811 2012-02-07 15:39:26 <luke-jr> sipa: people who send such transactions should expect that
812 2012-02-07 15:39:40 <luke-jr> it has no effect on people sending normal transactions
813 2012-02-07 15:40:16 <sipa> so, your point is that there was another solution, which nobody used, and now becomes impossible, because we fix another issue?
814 2012-02-07 15:40:39 <luke-jr> my point is that it doesn't fix any real issue, and breaks the only known solution to a real issue
815 2012-02-07 15:40:56 molecular has joined
816 2012-02-07 15:42:25 <sipa> but your solution - while better than the current green addresses - still boil down to putting extra data in the block chain
817 2012-02-07 15:42:37 <luke-jr> sipa: no, because miners can/should strip the extra data
818 2012-02-07 15:42:48 <luke-jr> so it's only present for relaying
819 2012-02-07 15:43:06 <sipa> that's even more broken to me
820 2012-02-07 15:43:18 <sipa> it isn't data that should be part of a transaction
821 2012-02-07 15:43:50 <luke-jr> tacking it onto the transaction is the only way to satisfy the requirements of the merchants using it
822 2012-02-07 15:44:14 <sipa> i know, but it isn't the kind of solution one should encourage, imho
823 2012-02-07 15:44:36 <Eliel> I think the best way to do green addresses is to have a side channel that provides the extra signatures.
824 2012-02-07 15:44:40 <sipa> indeed
825 2012-02-07 15:44:46 <luke-jr> they'll do it one way or another; the question is, do we want the bloat to be temporary/stripped, or permanent in the blockchain
826 2012-02-07 15:44:55 <Eliel> a simple DHT would work well. The data isn't needed for more than an hour in any case.
827 2012-02-07 15:45:30 <luke-jr> Eliel: will that work without Silk Road potentially revealing their IP? that seems to be the "use case" they want
828 2012-02-07 15:46:38 <Eliel> alternatively, add the extra signature to go with the transaction somewhere other than scriptSig. It has no business in the script.
829 2012-02-07 15:47:09 <luke-jr> Eliel: nor does it harm there
830 2012-02-07 15:47:16 <luke-jr> provided miners strip it off
831 2012-02-07 15:49:13 att has joined
832 2012-02-07 15:49:41 gp5st1 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
833 2012-02-07 15:50:45 <diki> phantomcircuit:are you the owner of intersango?
834 2012-02-07 15:50:53 <phantomcircuit> diki, cofounder
835 2012-02-07 15:51:00 <diki> isnt that the same?
836 2012-02-07 15:51:28 <diki> anyway, SEPA is still working, right?
837 2012-02-07 15:51:38 <phantomcircuit> yes
838 2012-02-07 15:51:55 <phantomcircuit> diki, we are not an eMoney provider
839 2012-02-07 15:52:04 <phantomcircuit> unlike somepeople
840 2012-02-07 15:52:30 <diki> so 0.65% fee is 0.0065 from a single trade, right?
841 2012-02-07 15:53:21 <phantomcircuit> yes
842 2012-02-07 15:53:49 <phantomcircuit> i was going to build the loyalty program today but instead im having to deal with lloyds being broken
843 2012-02-07 15:54:37 vigilyn has joined
844 2012-02-07 15:56:10 smickles is now known as idle!~michael@cpe-071-070-169-083.nc.res.rr.com|smickles
845 2012-02-07 15:56:56 <diki> Is there any reason why the price is lower there than in other exchanges?
846 2012-02-07 15:58:43 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: thats an interesting thought... but what do you suggest instead.
847 2012-02-07 15:58:48 <FROTUSCI> the bitcoins they sell are refurbished
848 2012-02-07 15:58:52 <gmaxwell> oops I was in scrollbck.
849 2012-02-07 15:59:08 <diki> FROTUSCI:can you rephrase?
850 2012-02-07 15:59:14 <FROTUSCI> j/k hehe
851 2012-02-07 15:59:19 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: if miners strip it then the txn ID will change.
852 2012-02-07 15:59:50 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: so?
853 2012-02-07 16:00:01 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: someone sending transactions with extra data should expect that
854 2012-02-07 16:00:22 <luke-jr> (heck, they can even precalculate the final txnid)
855 2012-02-07 16:00:42 <gmaxwell> also if people do start sending txn like that some miners will mine it.
856 2012-02-07 16:01:01 <luke-jr> that doesn't hurt more than how it is now at least
857 2012-02-07 16:01:04 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: how about this: step 1. block it everywhere. Step 2. make miners strip it. Step 3. permit it again.
858 2012-02-07 16:01:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: why step 1?
859 2012-02-07 16:01:25 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
860 2012-02-07 16:01:34 <gmaxwell> this way laggard upgraders won't accidentally be mining a flood of garbage when the flood starts
861 2012-02-07 16:01:36 b4epoche has joined
862 2012-02-07 16:01:53 <gmaxwell> also gives us time to find better alternatives.
863 2012-02-07 16:02:05 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: the potential 'garbage' is still less than what they have live right now
864 2012-02-07 16:02:17 <luke-jr> right now, we have an extra transaction
865 2012-02-07 16:02:30 <sipa> that can immediately be pruned
866 2012-02-07 16:02:46 <luke-jr> sipa: never for full clients
867 2012-02-07 16:02:54 <gmaxwell> I'm surprised to see you advocating this approach, considering that people have rejected more sane (e.g. signmessage) based solutions simply because they want to pretend they don't know their payments are being made to underground drug markets.
868 2012-02-07 16:03:28 enquirer has joined
869 2012-02-07 16:04:14 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: we can't force them to use an approach that doesn't meet their requirements
870 2012-02-07 16:04:25 <luke-jr> so the choice from my perspective is spammy or not spammy
871 2012-02-07 16:04:52 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
872 2012-02-07 16:05:08 sytse has joined
873 2012-02-07 16:05:18 <gmaxwell> right now appeneding random data to transactions isn't just spammy (though it's spammy too) but it encourage abuse, because you can add crap to other people's transactions just to implement "omg saved in the blockchain forever" services
874 2012-02-07 16:05:38 skeledrew has joined
875 2012-02-07 16:05:46 <TuxBlackEdo> heh
876 2012-02-07 16:05:58 <sipa> gmaxwell: don't give TuxBlackEdo ideas
877 2012-02-07 16:06:09 <gmaxwell> E.g. evading our current anti-spam behavior by turning every user into a spammer like TuxBlackEdo.
878 2012-02-07 16:06:16 <TuxBlackEdo> ...
879 2012-02-07 16:06:28 <TuxBlackEdo> i did it like 2-3 times
880 2012-02-07 16:06:31 <gmaxwell> hehe
881 2012-02-07 16:06:37 <TuxBlackEdo> x_x
882 2012-02-07 16:07:30 * MrTiggr is away: bai4now
883 2012-02-07 16:07:38 enquirer has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
884 2012-02-07 16:08:12 skeledrew has quit (Client Quit)
885 2012-02-07 16:08:14 * MrTiggr is back (gone 00:00:03)
886 2012-02-07 16:08:22 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
887 2012-02-07 16:08:51 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: better than adding an extra transaction
888 2012-02-07 16:08:54 * MrTiggr is away: bai4now
889 2012-02-07 16:09:05 skeledrew has joined
890 2012-02-07 16:09:30 * MrTiggr is back (gone 00:00:00)
891 2012-02-07 16:09:55 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: ::cries::
892 2012-02-07 16:10:38 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: right now, if people started messing with others' txns, I bet we could get at least some of the bigger pools merge a patch to strip crap
893 2012-02-07 16:10:49 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you'd have to get passed the anti-dos metric if you were using extra transactions.
894 2012-02-07 16:10:57 <FROTUSCI> yamatough
895 2012-02-07 16:10:57 JimRogers has joined
896 2012-02-07 16:11:43 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: they *are* using extra transactions
897 2012-02-07 16:11:52 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: a large txn with a few thousand btc that had not been recently moved could take about 40kbytes of extra data.
898 2012-02-07 16:12:08 <gmaxwell> for free to the spammer.
899 2012-02-07 16:14:40 gp5st has joined
900 2012-02-07 16:15:10 <helo> block_hash/target_hash histogram has slope ~0 because we're way out in the tail of the normal hash distribution?
901 2012-02-07 16:15:18 Turingi has joined
902 2012-02-07 16:15:19 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
903 2012-02-07 16:15:19 Turingi has joined
904 2012-02-07 16:18:24 * luke-jr wonders if Eliel's DHT thing is viable
905 2012-02-07 16:18:50 <edcba> eliel ?
906 2012-02-07 16:19:54 * Eliel <-- right here.
907 2012-02-07 16:19:54 <FROTUSCI> transacticorn
908 2012-02-07 16:22:29 <luke-jr> could we add some kind of signmessage-based message distribution to the protocol, separate from txns?
909 2012-02-07 16:22:56 gavinandresen has joined
910 2012-02-07 16:23:10 <sipa> maybe, but why does the whole world need to know it?
911 2012-02-07 16:23:53 <Eliel> not everyone needs it. So it ought to be disabled by default.
912 2012-02-07 16:24:03 <gmaxwell> sipa: because the whole world knows about transactions.
913 2012-02-07 16:24:15 <luke-jr> sipa: because the people using green addresses insist on not knowing each others servers for stupid reasons
914 2012-02-07 16:24:31 <sipa> what about giving a signed "I, ScamWallet Pro, guarantee that transaction <txid> comes from me and I will not try to double spend it" to the customer when doing the transaction
915 2012-02-07 16:24:45 <sipa> the customer gives that signature to the payee, and voila
916 2012-02-07 16:24:55 <sipa> ok, probably too inconvenient to be actually used... :(
917 2012-02-07 16:25:11 <gmaxwell> Yea, it's not automagic.
918 2012-02-07 16:25:41 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: how can we make such a system spam resistant and more private than greenaddresses?
919 2012-02-07 16:26:23 <gmaxwell> (one problem with greenaddresses is that they totally blow up privacy on on sideâ the alternative can be more attractive by not having that policy)
920 2012-02-07 16:26:37 <gmaxwell> s/policy/problem/
921 2012-02-07 16:26:58 <sipa> gmaxwell: public determinstic key chain for a provider?
922 2012-02-07 16:27:34 <gmaxwell> still blows up privacy. Otherwise ...
923 2012-02-07 16:27:46 <sipa> ok, not much more anonimous, as that too will result in the whole world knowing what comes from which provider
924 2012-02-07 16:27:52 <edcba> Eliel: what dht thing ?
925 2012-02-07 16:28:12 <FROTUSCI> dHT
926 2012-02-07 16:29:57 <gmaxwell> sipa: I guess it's not possible to have both at once. alas. but at least keeping it seperate would make it a little more ephemeral.
927 2012-02-07 16:30:39 erle- has joined
928 2012-02-07 16:30:49 <sipa> it is information that goes from the provider to the payee
929 2012-02-07 16:30:58 <gmaxwell> sipa: your ScamWalletPro solution solves it all.
930 2012-02-07 16:31:16 m00p has joined
931 2012-02-07 16:31:22 <sipa> either that happens via a point-to-point communication between them, or via the customer, or via the whole world
932 2012-02-07 16:31:32 <gmaxwell> You could do both... have the ScamWalletPro method, plus a distribution method.. and you can choose to manually move the sigs (private) or announce them (easy)
933 2012-02-07 16:31:54 <gmaxwell> but the sigs would be the same way either case.
934 2012-02-07 16:32:48 <gmaxwell> e.g. "Send signature to â" with options "everyone" "manual" "http://destination.site/payments.cgi"
935 2012-02-07 16:33:51 <gmaxwell> the last would use a payment protocol to send it, the first would use some flooding network. The middle would just give you an extended "TXNID"
936 2012-02-07 16:34:05 <Eliel> edcba: distribute hash table
937 2012-02-07 16:36:46 <edcba> i know what it is
938 2012-02-07 16:36:52 <edcba> but for what ?
939 2012-02-07 16:37:30 [Tycho] has joined
940 2012-02-07 16:38:01 <luke-jr> hi [Tycho]
941 2012-02-07 16:38:14 <[Tycho]> Hello.
942 2012-02-07 16:38:30 <FROTUSCI> hey
943 2012-02-07 16:38:32 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: someone is trying to frame you FYI
944 2012-02-07 16:39:02 <luke-jr> by flooding Eligius from your IP
945 2012-02-07 16:39:31 <luke-jr> but they did it from slush's IP too, and UDP is spoofable, so I don't think it's you guys
946 2012-02-07 16:47:14 <Eliel> edcba: side channel for signatures that basically do the same thing as green transactions right now.
947 2012-02-07 16:49:18 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
948 2012-02-07 16:49:33 onelineproof has joined
949 2012-02-07 16:49:57 booo has joined
950 2012-02-07 16:51:17 Clown- has joined
951 2012-02-07 16:52:00 has quit (Clown|!~clown@static-87-79-93-140.netcologne.de|Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
952 2012-02-07 16:55:46 JRWR has joined
953 2012-02-07 16:56:43 <[Tycho]> luke-jr: is Eligius unavailable because of this ?
954 2012-02-07 16:58:24 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: yes
955 2012-02-07 16:59:45 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
956 2012-02-07 16:59:56 <[Tycho]> So there is some evil mastermind :)
957 2012-02-07 17:00:11 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
958 2012-02-07 17:00:29 <gavinandresen> Can I play the part of the Brave Hero who rides in and saves the day?
959 2012-02-07 17:01:52 pusle has joined
960 2012-02-07 17:01:58 iyov7 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
961 2012-02-07 17:03:03 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: you have a solution to DDoS? ;)
962 2012-02-07 17:03:05 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened pull request 805 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/805>
963 2012-02-07 17:03:49 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: no, I don't. Darn, I guess i'll have to play the part of an innocent bystander.
964 2012-02-07 17:03:50 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
965 2012-02-07 17:03:58 <gavinandresen> (and hope I don't get shot)
966 2012-02-07 17:06:57 dr_win has joined
967 2012-02-07 17:08:15 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
968 2012-02-07 17:10:47 dr_win_ has joined
969 2012-02-07 17:10:48 dr_win has quit (Read error: No route to host)
970 2012-02-07 17:14:07 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: Can you modify the "Fetch and build inputs" section in doc/release-process.txt as part of your deps-win32.yml change?
971 2012-02-07 17:14:41 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: aha, sure. wish I'd noticed that section before I started :P
972 2012-02-07 17:18:56 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: pushed
973 2012-02-07 17:19:10 <gavinandresen> thanks
974 2012-02-07 17:20:11 <gavinandresen> FYI all: I'll be gitian-building 0.6 release candidate 1 this afternoon, if all goes well I hope to push the tag and upload binaries when it's done.
975 2012-02-07 17:21:09 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: is there a reason behind the hold-up on rpc_keepalive, or just too much for 0.6?
976 2012-02-07 17:22:35 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: "This is quick and dirty code, it may not work for you" does not inspire confidence....
977 2012-02-07 17:22:44 <gavinandresen> (comment at the top of bitcoinrpc.cpp)
978 2012-02-07 17:22:56 iocor has joined
979 2012-02-07 17:23:00 <gavinandresen> And donation addresses in code are inappropriate
980 2012-02-07 17:23:14 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: well, that was before it was merged with my code, and the comment only allows removing it when "accepted into the main distribution"
981 2012-02-07 17:23:16 JRWR has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
982 2012-02-07 17:23:16 <gavinandresen> And has it actually been tested on any non-mining sites that do lots of RPC?
983 2012-02-07 17:24:09 <luke-jr> not sure; I know at least gmaxwell and I tried to break it with flooding other methods
984 2012-02-07 17:24:55 <gavinandresen> The high-level feature it gives is "able to handle more RPC requests per second" ?
985 2012-02-07 17:25:15 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: as well as multiple JSON-RPC connections (with HTTP/1.1 keepalive)
986 2012-02-07 17:25:49 <luke-jr> this is, AIUI, the one "must have" to fix solo mining
987 2012-02-07 17:26:28 <luke-jr> but I might be underestimating the other optimizations
988 2012-02-07 17:26:44 d4de has joined
989 2012-02-07 17:26:46 <gavinandresen> solo mining with more than how many GPUs?
990 2012-02-07 17:27:24 <luke-jr> I don't know the current limitations, just that it's lower than the requirements needed to really solo mine
991 2012-02-07 17:27:36 <luke-jr> (ie, find blocks once a week on average)
992 2012-02-07 17:27:46 <gavinandresen> -- trying to judge risk/benefit here, if the risk is "introduces a new, rare deadlock that makes merchants' sites break" but the benefit is "makes it easier for 0.01% of miners to solo mine" ...
993 2012-02-07 17:28:03 <gavinandresen> then it ain't worth it.
994 2012-02-07 17:28:47 <luke-jr> perhaps it'd be a good idea to find a merchant using bitcoind to test
995 2012-02-07 17:28:56 * luke-jr ponders
996 2012-02-07 17:29:25 copumpkin has joined
997 2012-02-07 17:29:30 Mqrius has joined
998 2012-02-07 17:29:33 <luke-jr> it *shouldn't* have much risk there, since it locks all methods except getwork
999 2012-02-07 17:29:37 <gavinandresen> So, my short answer would be: too risky for 0.6
1000 2012-02-07 17:29:39 <luke-jr> but would be nice to know
1001 2012-02-07 17:29:40 <Mqrius> Does ThomasV have an IRC presence?
1002 2012-02-07 17:29:41 <luke-jr> for sure
1003 2012-02-07 17:29:45 <ThomasV> yes
1004 2012-02-07 17:29:58 <Mqrius> ThomasV: You missed some files in the latest update, for example electrum.py
1005 2012-02-07 17:30:04 <ThomasV> omg
1006 2012-02-07 17:30:16 <ThomasV> will fix asap
1007 2012-02-07 17:30:21 <Mqrius> kay
1008 2012-02-07 17:31:12 <ThomasV> Mqrius: no, there's no electrum.py anymore
1009 2012-02-07 17:31:25 <Mqrius> Oh, it's gui.py now?
1010 2012-02-07 17:31:34 <ThomasV> the executable is called electrum
1011 2012-02-07 17:32:39 <Mqrius> ThomasV: I don't follow. There's no "electrum" in there
1012 2012-02-07 17:32:51 <ThomasV> oh indeed
1013 2012-02-07 17:32:56 <ThomasV> moment
1014 2012-02-07 17:33:25 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: since you don't seem to be merging Coinbaser as a whole for 0.6, and have deferred it so long that probably nobody who needs it will be using bitcoind by 0.7, would you merge setworkaux by itself for 0.6?
1015 2012-02-07 17:33:40 <ThomasV> Mqrius: try now
1016 2012-02-07 17:34:18 <Mqrius> ThomasV: That's better :)
1017 2012-02-07 17:34:59 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: not high enough on my development priorities list to review/test/pull it.
1018 2012-02-07 17:36:40 <Mqrius> ThomasV: Did you fix this floatingpoint bug user "marked" mentioned?
1019 2012-02-07 17:36:43 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: sipa's review and Eligius/EclipseMC/etc test change that at all?
1020 2012-02-07 17:36:50 <ThomasV> Mqrius: yes
1021 2012-02-07 17:36:57 <Mqrius> okay
1022 2012-02-07 17:37:09 <ThomasV> Mqrius: fyi, there's a channel for #electrum
1023 2012-02-07 17:37:15 <Mqrius> Oh right
1024 2012-02-07 17:38:12 datagutt_ is now known as datagutt
1025 2012-02-07 17:38:13 BlueMatt has joined
1026 2012-02-07 17:38:13 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: nope. By the way, what's up with BIP 19?
1027 2012-02-07 17:39:15 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: what about it?
1028 2012-02-07 17:39:18 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1029 2012-02-07 17:39:28 <gavinandresen> you going to do a sample implementation to shake out the bugs?
1030 2012-02-07 17:39:46 <gavinandresen> ... or start a discussion about it on the -dev mailing list?
1031 2012-02-07 17:39:47 <NxTitle> http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=BUB3dygQ
1032 2012-02-07 17:39:54 smickles is now known as smickles|idle
1033 2012-02-07 17:40:02 <luke-jr> I could, but it didn't seem urgent since there's no sigop shortage.
1034 2012-02-07 17:40:07 mcorlett has joined
1035 2012-02-07 17:40:15 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1036 2012-02-07 17:40:33 <luke-jr> IMO makes more sense to wait and see whether BIP 16 or 17 gets adopted on the protocol first, since BIP 19 only needs to be implemented later
1037 2012-02-07 17:41:20 <luke-jr> unless I'm missing something?
1038 2012-02-07 17:41:44 <gavinandresen> sipa and coblee had other ideas on generic transaction forms, kind of wondered why you bothered to write a BIP without talking about it first.
1039 2012-02-07 17:42:27 <luke-jr> we did discuss it here first
1040 2012-02-07 17:42:34 <gavinandresen> ... and a little bothered that nobody seems to be following the BIP 0001 process
1041 2012-02-07 17:44:01 <luke-jr> sorry, I'll try to remember to involve the ML first next time
1042 2012-02-07 17:45:14 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: would you mind marking https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/802 high priority since it is a very, very low-risk security vuln but is a block for 0.6 (IMO), that way it wont get forgotten
1043 2012-02-07 17:45:27 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: it's fixed
1044 2012-02-07 17:45:33 <BlueMatt> oh?
1045 2012-02-07 17:45:40 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: see pull 805
1046 2012-02-07 17:45:44 <BlueMatt> oh, nice
1047 2012-02-07 17:46:44 <BlueMatt> was it tested for determinism?
1048 2012-02-07 17:47:01 booo has joined
1049 2012-02-07 17:47:07 <gavinandresen> I'm building dependencies right now....
1050 2012-02-07 17:47:23 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: the results from my test produced the same output as before I changed it
1051 2012-02-07 17:47:34 <BlueMatt> what does that mean?
1052 2012-02-07 17:47:43 <luke-jr> pre-805 binaries match post-805 binaries
1053 2012-02-07 17:47:53 underscor has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1054 2012-02-07 17:47:59 <BlueMatt> no, was the tar from the deps build deterministic?
1055 2012-02-07 17:48:09 <BlueMatt> answer: no it doesnt even use faketime
1056 2012-02-07 17:48:17 <BlueMatt> follow up: why was it merged/pull-requested?
1057 2012-02-07 17:48:37 <luke-jr> are the middle states supposed to be deterministic?
1058 2012-02-07 17:48:41 <BlueMatt> yes
1059 2012-02-07 17:48:44 <BlueMatt> have to be
1060 2012-02-07 17:48:54 <BlueMatt> (or gitian will complain about different inputs)
1061 2012-02-07 17:48:58 <luke-jr> I would think only the finished binaries that get distributed matter
1062 2012-02-07 17:49:10 <BlueMatt> gitian will still complain
1063 2012-02-07 17:49:26 <luke-jr> how will gitian know? O.o
1064 2012-02-07 17:49:40 <BlueMatt> the input hashes are in the signed file
1065 2012-02-07 17:49:48 <luke-jr> oh
1066 2012-02-07 17:50:33 <luke-jr> so touch every file with a reference date, and use gzip -m I think
1067 2012-02-07 17:50:49 <luke-jr> hmm
1068 2012-02-07 17:50:57 * luke-jr ponders if that would break anything
1069 2012-02-07 17:51:01 iyov7 has joined
1070 2012-02-07 17:51:06 <BlueMatt> usually Im just lazy and do a zip with faketime
1071 2012-02-07 17:51:32 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: why was it merged: because when I went to gitian compile the Windows release a little while ago I was missing dependencies... and we can work out the gitian issues between rc1 and final release
1072 2012-02-07 17:51:34 <luke-jr> ideal would be to strip out all the unnecessary files (.o etc) too
1073 2012-02-07 17:52:14 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: is there a way to tell gitian to not kill the VM after it finishes?
1074 2012-02-07 17:52:35 <luke-jr> I'd like to check access times to see which files/dirs bitcoin actually needs
1075 2012-02-07 17:52:39 <BlueMatt> no, but if the build fails, it wont kill it and you can export PATH=$PATH:libexec; on-target
1076 2012-02-07 17:52:45 <BlueMatt> to be ssh'd into the vm
1077 2012-02-07 17:53:11 <BlueMatt> ie just add exit 1 in the script somewhere
1078 2012-02-07 17:53:15 Host has joined
1079 2012-02-07 17:53:19 <luke-jr> good idea
1080 2012-02-07 17:53:36 Host is now known as Away!~Joozero@2-224-111-132.ip170.fastwebnet.it|HostFat
1081 2012-02-07 17:53:37 <HostFat> hi
1082 2012-02-07 17:54:11 <HostFat> question: will v0.6 support the same URI features that Electrum has added here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50936.msg735942#msg735942
1083 2012-02-07 17:54:22 <HostFat> is it already supporting them?
1084 2012-02-07 17:54:42 smickles is now known as idle!~michael@cpe-071-070-169-083.nc.res.rr.com|smickles
1085 2012-02-07 17:55:17 <FROTUSCI> cool
1086 2012-02-07 17:55:21 <BlueMatt> we were discussing those features a couple days ago, I argued both of them are not worth implementing
1087 2012-02-07 17:55:29 <HostFat> ah
1088 2012-02-07 17:55:35 <BlueMatt> the signing thing is cool, and could be, but aliases not so much
1089 2012-02-07 17:56:37 <BlueMatt> if you go find the logs, the discussing is somewhat interesting
1090 2012-02-07 17:57:04 <HostFat> I'll give a look, thank you :)
1091 2012-02-07 17:57:32 <HostFat> anyway, do you think that you will make a decision before the next release?
1092 2012-02-07 17:58:02 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1093 2012-02-07 17:58:05 <BlueMatt> I certainly wont be implementing either of those before 0.6
1094 2012-02-07 17:58:10 <BlueMatt> and I doubt anyone else will
1095 2012-02-07 17:59:15 <HostFat> ok
1096 2012-02-07 17:59:16 alex__ has joined
1097 2012-02-07 18:00:14 alex__ has quit (Client Quit)
1098 2012-02-07 18:00:38 underscor has joined
1099 2012-02-07 18:00:44 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: 66f8a64421c1499908687dee4573c20582ed06afaeda2a8e5e0643abe6d5bcbd bitcoin-deps-0.0.1.tbz2
1100 2012-02-07 18:02:47 <luke-jr> e945221b55feece70f3f94b0d80f051f301072fa4bc22b5b51e91c3fbd17b7f4 gitian-inputs/bitcoin-deps-0.0.1.tbz2
1101 2012-02-07 18:03:21 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: sorry, dont have time to build atm, Ill build later today
1102 2012-02-07 18:03:59 <BlueMatt> it is timestamped as it currently sits afaict
1103 2012-02-07 18:05:07 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell did ack the non-default irc change, correct?
1104 2012-02-07 18:05:51 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: Yes. It appears to be okay.
1105 2012-02-07 18:05:58 <gmaxwell> I did two more tests and the world did not end.
1106 2012-02-07 18:06:09 <BlueMatt> ok, just wanted to make sure someone did the research
1107 2012-02-07 18:06:21 <gmaxwell> (well, I mean, I ack the behavior changeâ I didn't actually check gavin's patch)
1108 2012-02-07 18:06:37 <gmaxwell> (hadn't gotten that far yet)
1109 2012-02-07 18:06:48 <BlueMatt> meh, good enough
1110 2012-02-07 18:06:57 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: gmaxwell tested without IRC on a VPS I setup that had never had a bitcoin node on it
1111 2012-02-07 18:07:15 <BlueMatt> yea, I just never heard the full conclusion of the tests
1112 2012-02-07 18:07:38 <gmaxwell> No, not really good enough. Every patch needs actual review, not just of what its supposted to do but of what it does. :)
1113 2012-02-07 18:07:47 <gmaxwell> but it's good enough for now.
1114 2012-02-07 18:08:40 <BlueMatt> well its good enough for me, since I really dont have time to read every commit, I have to settle for reading commitmsgs
1115 2012-02-07 18:08:55 <BlueMatt> (not that me reading commits would help much, but meh)
1116 2012-02-07 18:08:57 booo has joined
1117 2012-02-07 18:09:03 <gmaxwell> If you only have enough time to read one, read the patch. For short patches the patch doesn't take much longer to read. :)
1118 2012-02-07 18:11:57 Diablo-D3 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1119 2012-02-07 18:13:29 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1120 2012-02-07 18:17:18 echelon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1121 2012-02-07 18:18:31 echelon has joined
1122 2012-02-07 18:23:41 booo has joined
1123 2012-02-07 18:23:58 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: OUCH!!!)
1124 2012-02-07 18:28:29 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: btw, is 0.6 going to wait for a bugfix for that chain forking exploit? (i'm not sure anyone has a good solution yet)
1125 2012-02-07 18:29:16 <gavinandresen> the duplicate coinbase might-possibly-be-a-chainforking-exploit-if-you-can-mine-a-bunch-of-blocks thing?
1126 2012-02-07 18:29:44 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: it looks like mining a bunch is likely not required. If it works.
1127 2012-02-07 18:30:14 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: what does it cost the attacker?
1128 2012-02-07 18:30:18 <gmaxwell> (you use your duplicate coinbases to make duplicate transactions. And use the transactions in the reorg to make a mess.
1129 2012-02-07 18:31:01 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: mine two, perhaps three blocksâ with delays in between. And either create a small reorg or take advantage of one.
1130 2012-02-07 18:31:11 NxTitle has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1131 2012-02-07 18:31:17 <gmaxwell> Without actually _trying_ I'm not sure if there aren't constraints that make it harder though.
1132 2012-02-07 18:31:23 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1133 2012-02-07 18:31:39 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: invalidate how many blocks in the reorg?
1134 2012-02-07 18:31:42 <gmaxwell> And consequence is that offline nodes that didn't see the reorg may be willing to follow a chain that online nodes that did will not.
1135 2012-02-07 18:31:46 <gavinandresen> (just one, I assume, would be enough)
1136 2012-02-07 18:32:02 <gmaxwell> Yes. Just one.
1137 2012-02-07 18:32:34 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: roconnor found a way to make the dupe coinbase attack cheap
1138 2012-02-07 18:32:35 <gmaxwell> But since the more restrictive of the nodes are almost certantly going to have more hashpower I'm not currently losing sleep even if its our current worst case understanding.
1139 2012-02-07 18:32:36 <gavinandresen> Seems like a weak attack: you have to reorg yourself, and the most damage you do is to create a split between miners where are/aren't seeing the whole history. BUT... should be fixed
1140 2012-02-07 18:32:52 <BlueMatt> in theory, its not a big deal unless you can reverse it - online nodes following a chain that offline nodes will not
1141 2012-02-07 18:33:05 <gmaxwell> Right.
1142 2012-02-07 18:33:18 <josephcp> i can foresee non-satoshi implementations of bitcoin screwing up with duplicate transaction ids too, it's just so unintuitive
1143 2012-02-07 18:33:29 <josephcp> hashes i mean
1144 2012-02-07 18:33:35 <gmaxwell> I can't currently see how to do that.
1145 2012-02-07 18:33:41 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: if you connect to every node, you can wait to release your attack block until it will cause a blockchain split
1146 2012-02-07 18:34:06 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: the split, however, will resolve.
1147 2012-02-07 18:34:17 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: yes, but it will resolve with clients in inconsistent states
1148 2012-02-07 18:34:27 <gmaxwell> (because the more restrictive nodes have more hash power under reasonable assumptions)
1149 2012-02-07 18:34:28 <luke-jr> and then you just release a transaction that causes a blockchain fork based on that
1150 2012-02-07 18:34:40 <gmaxwell> hm. it could lead to future splits, true, they'd also resolve but yea.
1151 2012-02-07 18:34:54 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: by splitting up the dupe coinbase, you can make each side exclusive
1152 2012-02-07 18:35:27 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: Ah. I'm not aware of that txn pattern.
1153 2012-02-07 18:35:52 <gavinandresen> I nominate luke to figure out how to fix it. Because he didn't like my "discourage blocks" patch.
1154 2012-02-07 18:36:18 <gmaxwell> In any case, all this depends on mining a duplicate coinbase. Which the discourage code, would make into a much lower risk until we work out fixing it better.
1155 2012-02-07 18:40:06 <gmaxwell> Discouraging dupe coinbases makes sense even if we fix reorgs, simply because dupecoinbases allow dupe transactions which may be used abusively to confuse third party code even if our handling is fine (and ours probably isn't, even once once we fix reorgs)
1156 2012-02-07 18:41:23 <gavinandresen> https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/69945318d1130045f5e0424a6e0e5511c0c76d5e if anybody wants to get a head start on discouraging duplicate coinbases....
1157 2012-02-07 18:42:29 JRWR has joined
1158 2012-02-07 18:42:43 <josephcp> that patch ignores the block only if it's at the highest height in the chain?
1159 2012-02-07 18:43:10 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1160 2012-02-07 18:43:27 <gavinandresen> yes, once it is built on it is accepted
1161 2012-02-07 18:44:55 <BlueMatt> "// Never discourage our own blocks" why?
1162 2012-02-07 18:45:09 <BlueMatt> if a user is modifying bitcoin to do stupid things, lets make them not relay their own blocks
1163 2012-02-07 18:45:26 <gavinandresen> Because if you discourage your own blocks it makes testing with -discourageall really hard
1164 2012-02-07 18:46:41 barmstrong has joined
1165 2012-02-07 18:46:48 <BlueMatt> heh, oh ok
1166 2012-02-07 18:47:03 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1167 2012-02-07 18:47:05 iocor has joined
1168 2012-02-07 18:47:59 smickles is now known as smickles|idle
1169 2012-02-07 18:51:18 <sipa> BlueMatt: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/806/files
1170 2012-02-07 18:51:30 <sipa> a bit clearer, imho :)
1171 2012-02-07 18:51:48 <BlueMatt> nice, but why me?
1172 2012-02-07 18:52:04 <sipa> you seem to have added quite some of them :)
1173 2012-02-07 18:52:13 <sipa> and the other relevant people get an email :p
1174 2012-02-07 18:52:13 <BlueMatt> heh, ok that is true
1175 2012-02-07 18:52:25 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: sipa opened pull request 806 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/806>
1176 2012-02-07 18:54:19 <luke-jr> hmm, interesting
1177 2012-02-07 18:55:16 <luke-jr> at no time during bitcoin-qt's gitian build are libz, libpng, or libqrencode accessed :/
1178 2012-02-07 18:55:19 <luke-jr> that seems wrong
1179 2012-02-07 18:55:50 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: sorry, I know you hated the idea of variable prefixes but I wanted to get bip21 out the door before 0.6 starts going into rc, and I saw no better ideas so thats what happened... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/807
1180 2012-02-07 18:56:07 <BlueMatt> does it come out with qrcodes enabled?
1181 2012-02-07 18:57:12 <gavinandresen> good thing to test, I should have binaries ready for sanity testing very soon
1182 2012-02-07 18:57:37 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: dunno, don't got Windoze
1183 2012-02-07 18:57:39 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: TheBlueMatt opened pull request 807 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/807>
1184 2012-02-07 18:58:10 <gavinandresen> wumpus: does bitcoin-qt need a qmake USE_QRCODES or something to be compiled with qr-code support? If it does, can you update the doc/release-process.txt doc?
1185 2012-02-07 18:58:32 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: it does, but I see it in the gitian script already :/
1186 2012-02-07 18:58:53 * luke-jr installs WINE in his Ubuntu VM
1187 2012-02-07 18:59:20 <sipa> gavinandresen: USE_UPNP, USE_QRCODE, USE_SSL, USE_DBUS are defined
1188 2012-02-07 18:59:50 NxTitle has joined
1189 2012-02-07 19:00:10 smickles is now known as idle!~michael@cpe-071-070-169-083.nc.res.rr.com|smickles
1190 2012-02-07 19:00:16 NxTitle is now known as Guest76435
1191 2012-02-07 19:00:19 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1192 2012-02-07 19:00:38 <gavinandresen> sipa: ok, thanks
1193 2012-02-07 19:04:48 Guest76435 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1194 2012-02-07 19:05:23 <sipa> wow, 1228 people on github are watching bitcoin/bitcoin
1195 2012-02-07 19:08:17 <luke-jr> gitian win32 does not support QRcodes
1196 2012-02-07 19:10:12 <Moron__> burp
1197 2012-02-07 19:11:38 <luke-jr> wait
1198 2012-02-07 19:11:45 <luke-jr> I'm testing with 0.5.2 <.<
1199 2012-02-07 19:11:49 <luke-jr> lemme retry with master
1200 2012-02-07 19:13:29 <gavinandresen> 0.6 rc1 binaries ready for sanity testing: https://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.6.0/test/ (Linux/windows, no mac yet)
1201 2012-02-07 19:14:03 <FROTUSCI> woohoo
1202 2012-02-07 19:14:20 * FROTUSCI dl's
1203 2012-02-07 19:17:16 agricocb has joined
1204 2012-02-07 19:20:45 <helo> has nBits ever been the same for two non-adjacent blocks?
1205 2012-02-07 19:21:51 <sipa> huh?
1206 2012-02-07 19:22:17 <sipa> two non-adjecent blocks of 2016 blocks, you mean maybe?
1207 2012-02-07 19:22:34 <luke-jr> helo: not afaik
1208 2012-02-07 19:22:43 <luke-jr> helo: *maybe* early on
1209 2012-02-07 19:23:21 <sipa> well yes, before the difficulty increases above 1
1210 2012-02-07 19:23:33 <helo> sipa: i didn't want to say "has any two blocks had the same nBits", as every block of 2016 has the same nBits... so i settled on the above :)
1211 2012-02-07 19:23:45 <luke-jr> sipa: did it go back down to 1?
1212 2012-02-07 19:24:08 <sipa> no, but there were several blocks of 2016 blocks with difficulty 1
1213 2012-02-07 19:24:24 <luke-jr> those blocks were all adjacent to each other :P
1214 2012-02-07 19:25:18 <helo> hah
1215 2012-02-07 19:25:26 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1216 2012-02-07 19:26:02 <sipa> 8, actually
1217 2012-02-07 19:26:37 <gavinandresen> 0.6rc1 mac build just finished uploading to sourceforge
1218 2012-02-07 19:26:54 <sipa> need gitian builds?
1219 2012-02-07 19:27:53 <gavinandresen> "need" might be too strong a word, but sure, it'd be good to know if the builds can be reproduced
1220 2012-02-07 19:28:10 <gavinandresen> I'm away for an hour or so, be back later.
1221 2012-02-07 19:28:16 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1222 2012-02-07 19:28:54 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1223 2012-02-07 19:35:22 TD has joined
1224 2012-02-07 19:39:06 p0s has joined
1225 2012-02-07 19:40:45 sacarlson has joined
1226 2012-02-07 19:42:24 <wumpus> gavinandresen: seems it is described in build-unix.txt, but indeed not in release process
1227 2012-02-07 19:44:13 <wumpus> hm, gitian.yml and gitian-win32.yml already have USE_QRENCODE=1 embedded by default, why would we explicitly want to mention it?
1228 2012-02-07 19:45:02 <luke-jr> wumpus: nm, it was a problem with me building 0.5.2 tag
1229 2012-02-07 19:46:18 <wumpus> it should be added to readme-qt.rst though...
1230 2012-02-07 19:46:54 <sipa> wumpus: USE_QRENCODE or USE_QRCODE ?
1231 2012-02-07 19:47:04 <sipa> the qt buildfile and the source code use the latter
1232 2012-02-07 19:48:14 <wumpus> yes it's USE_QRCODE
1233 2012-02-07 19:49:29 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1234 2012-02-07 19:56:29 denisx has joined
1235 2012-02-07 19:58:41 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1236 2012-02-07 20:00:41 baz has joined
1237 2012-02-07 20:02:28 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
1238 2012-02-07 20:03:43 larsivi has joined
1239 2012-02-07 20:06:18 * XMPPwocky hacks bitkit
1240 2012-02-07 20:08:20 PK has joined
1241 2012-02-07 20:08:29 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1242 2012-02-07 20:10:38 smickles is now known as smickles|idle
1243 2012-02-07 20:11:09 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1244 2012-02-07 20:11:46 smickles is now known as idle!~michael@cpe-071-070-169-083.nc.res.rr.com|smickles
1245 2012-02-07 20:12:04 sacarlson has joined
1246 2012-02-07 20:13:25 b4epoche_ has joined
1247 2012-02-07 20:14:33 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1248 2012-02-07 20:14:33 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1249 2012-02-07 20:16:56 underscor has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1250 2012-02-07 20:18:44 <XMPPwocky> hey, can someone give me the IP of their bitcoin node?
1251 2012-02-07 20:19:17 <edcba> try 127.0.0.1
1252 2012-02-07 20:19:18 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1253 2012-02-07 20:19:30 <sipa> XMPPwocky: bitcoin.sipa.be
1254 2012-02-07 20:20:49 alex__ has joined
1255 2012-02-07 20:20:50 <XMPPwocky> sipa: thanks
1256 2012-02-07 20:20:57 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1257 2012-02-07 20:21:49 larsivi has joined
1258 2012-02-07 20:22:23 alex__ has quit (Client Quit)
1259 2012-02-07 20:22:33 underscor has joined
1260 2012-02-07 20:23:03 wirehead has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1261 2012-02-07 20:23:24 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1262 2012-02-07 20:26:01 RazielZ has joined
1263 2012-02-07 20:27:07 Guest50325 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1264 2012-02-07 20:27:45 <XMPPwocky> socat -x TCP4-LISTEN:8333 TCP4:217.133.49.52:8333 2>testpackets/session
1265 2012-02-07 20:27:48 <XMPPwocky> \o/
1266 2012-02-07 20:27:59 TripleSpeeder has joined
1267 2012-02-07 20:29:32 <TripleSpeeder> Whats going on? Last block mined 47 minutes ago?
1268 2012-02-07 20:30:47 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1269 2012-02-07 20:32:44 <phantomcircuit> TripleSpeeder, well within statistical variance
1270 2012-02-07 20:32:50 <sipa> ;;bc,probd [calc 1000000*[bc,nethash]] 47m
1271 2012-02-07 20:32:53 <gribble> Error: There's really no reason why you should have underscores or brackets in your mathematical expression. Please remove them.
1272 2012-02-07 20:33:10 <sipa> ;;calc 1000000*[bc,nethash]
1273 2012-02-07 20:33:10 <gribble> 9954538293
1274 2012-02-07 20:33:17 <sipa> ;;bc,probdf
1275 2012-02-07 20:33:18 <gribble> Error: "bc,probdf" is not a valid command.
1276 2012-02-07 20:33:18 <sipa> ;;bc,probd
1277 2012-02-07 20:33:18 <gribble> (bc,probd <an alias, at least 2 arguments>) -- Alias for "math calc 1-exp(-$1*1000 * [seconds $*] / (2**32* $2))".
1278 2012-02-07 20:34:00 <sipa> nanotube: what am i doing wrong? :)
1279 2012-02-07 20:34:16 <TripleSpeeder> Hope you're right. Still i'm scared somethings going on here :-(
1280 2012-02-07 20:34:59 <sipa> TripleSpeeder: an hour is not uncommon
1281 2012-02-07 20:35:04 <Eliel> ;;bc,probd 9954538293 47m
1282 2012-02-07 20:35:05 <gribble> Error: There's really no reason why you should have underscores or brackets in your mathematical expression. Please remove them.
1283 2012-02-07 20:35:22 <Eliel> ;;bc,probd 9954538293 47
1284 2012-02-07 20:35:22 <gribble> Error: There's really no reason why you should have underscores or brackets in your mathematical expression. Please remove them.
1285 2012-02-07 20:35:29 <sipa> ;;bc,probd [calc 1000000*[bc,nethash]] 47 min
1286 2012-02-07 20:35:30 <gribble> Error: There's really no reason why you should have underscores or brackets in your mathematical expression. Please remove them.
1287 2012-02-07 20:35:34 <TripleSpeeder> Okay :-) Never noticed such long times before...
1288 2012-02-07 20:35:42 <sipa> ;;seconds 47m
1289 2012-02-07 20:35:43 <gribble> 2820
1290 2012-02-07 20:35:47 <Eliel> no underscores or brackets in my expression :P
1291 2012-02-07 20:36:23 <sipa> ;;calc 1-exp(-[bc,nethash]*1000000000*[seconds 47m] / (2**32*$2))
1292 2012-02-07 20:36:24 <gribble> Error: invalid syntax (<string>, line 1)
1293 2012-02-07 20:36:39 wirehead has joined
1294 2012-02-07 20:36:42 <Eliel> you forgot to replace $2
1295 2012-02-07 20:37:39 <sipa> ah!
1296 2012-02-07 20:37:46 <BTC_Bear> math calc uses precision, i believe
1297 2012-02-07 20:37:49 <sipa> ;;bc,prob [calc 1000000*[bc,nethash]] 47m
1298 2012-02-07 20:37:50 <gribble> 0.991238813431
1299 2012-02-07 20:38:19 <sipa> ;;calc 1/(1-[bc,prob [calc 1000000*[bc,nethash]] 47m])
1300 2012-02-07 20:38:20 <gribble> 114.142221208
1301 2012-02-07 20:38:24 <diki> That's a nice probability. I like it!
1302 2012-02-07 20:38:33 <Eliel> now, what do these numbers mean? :)
1303 2012-02-07 20:38:36 <sipa> TripleSpeeder: once every 114 blocks, it takes over 47 minutes
1304 2012-02-07 20:38:52 <TripleSpeeder> Hehe, nice math :)
1305 2012-02-07 20:38:54 <diki> Eliel:it's a secret ;)
1306 2012-02-07 20:39:55 * Eliel wonders how close to that the reality is.
1307 2012-02-07 20:40:45 RazielZ has joined
1308 2012-02-07 20:41:14 ivan\ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1309 2012-02-07 20:41:29 mcorlett has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1310 2012-02-07 20:42:16 <Graet> and whose reality ;)
1311 2012-02-07 20:42:21 <Graet> an hour now :)
1312 2012-02-07 20:42:51 <sipa> ;;calc 1/(1-[bc,prob [calc 1000000*[bc,nethash]] 1h])
1313 2012-02-07 20:42:52 <gribble> 423.190859077
1314 2012-02-07 20:43:40 <TripleSpeeder> What was the longest break we had so far in the blockchain?
1315 2012-02-07 20:44:17 <gmaxwell> TripleSpeeder: it's a bit hard to tell accurately because the timestamps are not all accurate.
1316 2012-02-07 20:44:35 BlueMatt has joined
1317 2012-02-07 20:44:43 <Eliel> Graet: the actual block times as measured from the blocks that make up the blockchain. I don't know whos reality to label that :P
1318 2012-02-07 20:44:51 <Graet> :D
1319 2012-02-07 20:44:52 <TripleSpeeder> ;-)
1320 2012-02-07 20:45:12 <gmaxwell> TripleSpeeder: e.g. a block with a timestamp 2 hours in the future did not always take two hours. :)
1321 2012-02-07 20:45:31 <TripleSpeeder> hmm
1322 2012-02-07 20:45:52 <sipa> longest delay between two blocks is over a day
1323 2012-02-07 20:46:18 <Eliel> Graet: of course, depending on who you are, the exact times you first see any given block can vary quite a bit :)
1324 2012-02-07 20:46:21 <gmaxwell> sipa: and since the difficulty has been greater than 1?
1325 2012-02-07 20:46:34 <gmaxwell> sipa: it's no fair to count back when it was 1 because the system couldn't adapt below 1.
1326 2012-02-07 20:46:39 <sipa> agree
1327 2012-02-07 20:46:52 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1328 2012-02-07 20:46:59 <Graet> lol Eliel true :)
1329 2012-02-07 20:47:39 danbri has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1330 2012-02-07 20:47:45 <Graet> be interesting to see the level of panic if it were to take 24 hours between blocks :P
1331 2012-02-07 20:47:49 danbri has joined
1332 2012-02-07 20:47:50 <luke-jr> maybe Eligius isn't the only pool to be DDoS'd
1333 2012-02-07 20:47:51 <luke-jr> ?
1334 2012-02-07 20:48:18 <luke-jr> BTCServ, ozcoin, and Eligius all down pretty much
1335 2012-02-07 20:48:21 darkee has joined
1336 2012-02-07 20:48:35 <Graet> ozcoin isnt down from ddos tho :)
1337 2012-02-07 20:48:42 <BlueMatt> is eligius down from the ddos?
1338 2012-02-07 20:48:44 <sipa> gmaxwell: 6 hours; Sun Aug 15 23:53:59 UTC 2010
1339 2012-02-07 20:49:01 <gmaxwell> thats not fair either.
1340 2012-02-07 20:49:09 <gmaxwell> Thats the return bug fix.
1341 2012-02-07 20:49:21 <Eliel> ok, happened pretty fast.
1342 2012-02-07 20:49:23 danbri has quit (Excess Flood)
1343 2012-02-07 20:49:39 <gmaxwell> (er, value overflow, sorry)
1344 2012-02-07 20:49:48 <sipa> ok, next one is 2.3 hours: Thu Oct 13 08:40:50 UTC 201
1345 2012-02-07 20:49:53 <sipa> 2011
1346 2012-02-07 20:50:02 <gmaxwell> Okay, I can't temember an incident from then.
1347 2012-02-07 20:50:03 <sipa> not too long ago, actually
1348 2012-02-07 20:50:12 <TripleSpeeder> Yep, not soo long ago.
1349 2012-02-07 20:50:13 <Eliel> 2.3 hours... that's quite some waiting
1350 2012-02-07 20:50:17 danbri has joined
1351 2012-02-07 20:50:18 <sipa> ;;calc 1/(1-[bc,prob [calc 1000000*[bc,nethash]] 2.3h])
1352 2012-02-07 20:50:19 <gribble> Error: '2.3h' is not a valid argument.
1353 2012-02-07 20:50:41 <sipa> ;;calc 1/(1-[bc,prob [calc 1000000*[bc,nethash]] 138m])
1354 2012-02-07 20:50:45 <gribble> 999999.999971
1355 2012-02-07 20:51:16 <Eliel> ok... I don't think I'm quite buying that one as pure chance.
1356 2012-02-07 20:51:17 <sipa> someone playing with timestamps
1357 2012-02-07 20:51:32 <gmaxwell> sipa: actually I know that block that was some eligius weirdness I think.
1358 2012-02-07 20:52:04 <gmaxwell> (IIRC, it actually confused his payout algorithims because he also got the block right after it and it had an earlier timestamp)
1359 2012-02-07 20:52:11 <Eliel> sipa: what are the blocks right before and after that one?
1360 2012-02-07 20:52:23 <gmaxwell> at least if its the one I'm thinking of.
1361 2012-02-07 20:53:03 <Eliel> perhaps you can get some bounds on the real time for the block from those.
1362 2012-02-07 20:53:12 <Graet> lol i remember that gmaxwell
1363 2012-02-07 20:54:26 <BlueMatt> ;;later tell genjix ok, probably last one and a very minor one at that (just a clarification) https://github.com/genjix/bips/pull/4
1364 2012-02-07 20:54:26 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
1365 2012-02-07 20:55:18 ivan\ has joined
1366 2012-02-07 20:55:55 <gmaxwell> It should probably worry me that I know things about specific interesting blocks. At least I don't remember their heights.
1367 2012-02-07 20:57:09 <[Tycho]> :)
1368 2012-02-07 20:57:25 <BlueMatt> hey, at least someone is paying attention to individual blocks
1369 2012-02-07 20:57:27 <nanotube> sipa: bc,probd takes three args (hashrate, difficulty, and time). bc,prob takes two args (hashrate, and time)
1370 2012-02-07 20:57:36 <[Tycho]> I like some blocks.
1371 2012-02-07 20:57:41 <sipa> nanotube: thanks, realized it already :)
1372 2012-02-07 20:57:44 <[Tycho]> But mostly I'm interested in strange TXes.
1373 2012-02-07 20:57:53 booo has joined
1374 2012-02-07 20:58:22 <sipa> actually
1375 2012-02-07 20:58:56 <sipa> ;;bc,probd [calc 2**32/600/1000] 1h 1
1376 2012-02-07 20:58:56 <gribble> Error: There's really no reason why you should have underscores or brackets in your mathematical expression. Please remove them.
1377 2012-02-07 20:59:08 <BlueMatt> heh
1378 2012-02-07 20:59:09 <nanotube> sipa: ah yea, caught up on the scrollback :)
1379 2012-02-07 20:59:12 <nanotube> also, time last.
1380 2012-02-07 20:59:18 <sipa> ;;bc,probd [calc 2**32/600/1000] 1 1h
1381 2012-02-07 20:59:18 <gribble> 0.997521247823
1382 2012-02-07 20:59:29 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: yes
1383 2012-02-07 20:59:36 <sipa> ;;calc 1/(1-[bc,probd [calc 2**32/600/1000] 1 1h])
1384 2012-02-07 20:59:36 <gribble> 403.38846309
1385 2012-02-07 20:59:47 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: in response to?
1386 2012-02-07 20:59:53 <luke-jr> [15:42:01] <BlueMatt> is eligius down from the ddos?
1387 2012-02-07 20:59:54 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: oh, nvm
1388 2012-02-07 21:00:00 <BlueMatt> damn that sucks
1389 2012-02-07 21:00:38 <luke-jr> I think it's just the datacenter's null routing of our IPs tho
1390 2012-02-07 21:00:40 <luke-jr> at this point
1391 2012-02-07 21:01:08 <BlueMatt> damn
1392 2012-02-07 21:02:20 <[Tycho]> Yeah, I hate nullrouting.
1393 2012-02-07 21:02:32 <[Tycho]> Otherwise there would be no problems with DDoS.
1394 2012-02-07 21:03:28 <BlueMatt> what?
1395 2012-02-07 21:05:05 <luke-jr> today's headlines: Tycho is OK with DDoSing his pool
1396 2012-02-07 21:05:07 <luke-jr> :p
1397 2012-02-07 21:05:23 <BlueMatt> yep, everyone go ddos deepbit
1398 2012-02-07 21:05:41 <luke-jr> "Tycho is OK with DDoSing his pool; blames datacenter"
1399 2012-02-07 21:05:57 <BlueMatt> heh
1400 2012-02-07 21:06:05 * gmaxwell considers the tranaction volume revelation and ...
1401 2012-02-07 21:06:20 <BlueMatt> who will fund the cash?
1402 2012-02-07 21:06:22 <gmaxwell> "In soviet russia, pool dosses you"
1403 2012-02-07 21:06:26 <luke-jr> LOL
1404 2012-02-07 21:07:01 <luke-jr> "no problems with DDoS." -Tycho ;)
1405 2012-02-07 21:07:38 <BlueMatt> lets get this ddos going, who knows botnet ops?
1406 2012-02-07 21:07:48 <luke-jr> when I finally see Gavin in person, I owe him a brownie for the nice test suite
1407 2012-02-07 21:09:42 ivan\ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1408 2012-02-07 21:11:13 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1409 2012-02-07 21:11:39 d4de has joined
1410 2012-02-07 21:11:40 d4de has quit (Changing host)
1411 2012-02-07 21:11:40 d4de has joined
1412 2012-02-07 21:12:06 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1413 2012-02-07 21:12:16 sacarlson has joined
1414 2012-02-07 21:12:58 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1415 2012-02-07 21:13:44 <TD> ah nice
1416 2012-02-07 21:13:52 <TD> somebody contributed wallet tx completion to bitcoinj
1417 2012-02-07 21:13:57 <TD> the api is shaping up quite nicely
1418 2012-02-07 21:15:25 <sipa> "completion" ?
1419 2012-02-07 21:15:36 <TD> you create a Transaction object and add some outputs of whatever form you want
1420 2012-02-07 21:15:45 <TD> then you give it to the wallet which adds inputs and a change output if necessary
1421 2012-02-07 21:15:53 <BlueMatt> nice
1422 2012-02-07 21:15:57 <sipa> sounds clean
1423 2012-02-07 21:16:03 <luke-jr> +
1424 2012-02-07 21:16:19 * BlueMatt wishes bitcoind had a nice api...
1425 2012-02-07 21:16:24 <TD> makes it a lot easier to create multi-sends and should make it easy to experiment with contracts
1426 2012-02-07 21:16:30 <TD> though right now the script editor api is pretty woeful
1427 2012-02-07 21:19:57 <FROTUSCI> TD=bitcoin master
1428 2012-02-07 21:20:19 <sipa> gmaxwell, Eliel: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/blocklen.txt
1429 2012-02-07 21:20:29 <XMPPwocky> woo, fixed a nasty set of bugs
1430 2012-02-07 21:20:40 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: please check https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/808
1431 2012-02-07 21:25:28 <XMPPwocky> http://xmppwocky.net/bitkit/.git works- parses all packets (well, all those I captured in a session)
1432 2012-02-07 21:25:29 ivan\ has joined
1433 2012-02-07 21:25:33 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened pull request 808 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/808>
1434 2012-02-07 21:25:42 <XMPPwocky> only thing left to do is to test building
1435 2012-02-07 21:26:13 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: feel like making the qt build deterministic?
1436 2012-02-07 21:26:30 <FROTUSCI> icelandic members of parliament nominate bradley manning for nobel peace prize: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29077
1437 2012-02-07 21:27:31 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: that's beyond me
1438 2012-02-07 21:28:11 agricocb has joined
1439 2012-02-07 21:31:43 * XMPPwocky goes forth and prods bitcoind
1440 2012-02-07 21:34:23 <gmaxwell> sipa: http://people.xiph.org/~greg/theory-vs-practice.png
1441 2012-02-07 21:35:26 <sipa> still matches quite well
1442 2012-02-07 21:35:36 <gmaxwell> Yep.
1443 2012-02-07 21:35:39 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1444 2012-02-07 21:36:12 paraipan has joined
1445 2012-02-07 21:36:36 <Eliel> gmaxwell: what does that graph show?
1446 2012-02-07 21:36:40 <gmaxwell> actually, because of the gap thing, is our lambda really 600 seconds?
1447 2012-02-07 21:36:42 <FROTUSCI> SPV is completely secure. the cost of a successful double-spend against an spv node is almost identical to the cost of the same attack against a full node. you should wait at least until confirms * coinbase-value > amount
1448 2012-02-07 21:36:58 <gmaxwell> Eliel: distribution of block gaps according to the chain vs the expected pdf.
1449 2012-02-07 21:37:25 <sipa> gmaxwell: since the hash speed has been rising on average, lambda is less than 600s
1450 2012-02-07 21:37:36 <gmaxwell> true enough.
1451 2012-02-07 21:38:41 <sipa> i could cross-reference (hey i'm watching a police series) that data with my hash speed estimates, to get block durations normalized by their expected lambda
1452 2012-02-07 21:39:42 ivan\ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1453 2012-02-07 21:40:19 <XMPPwocky> so, SPV basically just watches the blockchain until it sees a TX coming to it, then asks for the TX of the input, and so on until coinbase?
1454 2012-02-07 21:42:02 <XMPPwocky> (a TX coming to one of its addresses)
1455 2012-02-07 21:42:23 <TD> no
1456 2012-02-07 21:42:31 <TD> SPV clients use difficulty as a proxy for validity
1457 2012-02-07 21:42:40 <TD> they assume that if a transaction makes it into the best chain, it is valid
1458 2012-02-07 21:43:04 <TD> SPV clients can't do anything with pending transactions except display them with the caveat that they may be bogus. bitcoinj additionally can count how many peers announced the tx
1459 2012-02-07 21:43:11 <XMPPwocky> ah
1460 2012-02-07 21:43:22 <TD> but if somebody is entirely in control of your internet connection, that obviously doesn't help
1461 2012-02-07 21:43:24 <XMPPwocky> does anything do what I described?
1462 2012-02-07 21:43:42 <TD> no because it's insufficient. you can prove the outputs being spent exist, but not that they weren't already spent
1463 2012-02-07 21:43:46 <FROTUSCI> yeah if youre surrounded its just as bad.. anyone can feed you false information with no risk of contradiction
1464 2012-02-07 21:43:52 <FROTUSCI> same with full nodes
1465 2012-02-07 21:44:08 <TD> full nodes can be surrounded and lose "nothing" because they can check tx validity for themselves
1466 2012-02-07 21:44:11 <TD> you can dos them
1467 2012-02-07 21:44:25 <TD> but you can't make them believe you have coins you don't
1468 2012-02-07 21:44:34 <XMPPwocky> ah, I see
1469 2012-02-07 21:44:36 <gmaxwell> 15:40 < FROTUSCI> wait talk about reduction in security.. SPV offers very little security
1470 2012-02-07 21:44:48 bitfiber has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1471 2012-02-07 21:45:10 <XMPPwocky> so, the bitcoin security bug recently basically reduced all nodes to the security of SPV?
1472 2012-02-07 21:45:11 <FROTUSCI> TD, yeah i mean, what can happen is someone spends legitimate coin, feeds confirmations, then rejoins the network, which has already outpaced the bogus confirms... so its a double spend
1473 2012-02-07 21:45:15 <FROTUSCI> i was wrong gmaxwell
1474 2012-02-07 21:45:24 ivan\ has joined
1475 2012-02-07 21:45:47 <TD> FROTUSCI: that attack can be detected unless you can match the networks speed, in which case you don't need to surround the node
1476 2012-02-07 21:45:59 <TD> FROTUSCI: whilst no client (afaik) checks for it, you can spot that blocks are coming in way slower than they should
1477 2012-02-07 21:46:11 <TD> FROTUSCI: and tell the user to not engage in any trade until things are back to normal
1478 2012-02-07 21:46:13 <FROTUSCI> ie, in the case where a node is isolated, you spend legitimate coins, which the network will not be storing
1479 2012-02-07 21:46:23 att has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1480 2012-02-07 21:46:53 <TD> well, if a node is cut off from the miners, those spends won't accumulate any confirmations
1481 2012-02-07 21:46:54 <FROTUSCI> yeah TD.. isolation is equal thread to any node spv or full imo
1482 2012-02-07 21:47:23 <FROTUSCI> do spv nodes wait for confirmations?
1483 2012-02-07 21:47:41 <FROTUSCI> well the user should wait..
1484 2012-02-07 21:47:46 <TD> right
1485 2012-02-07 21:47:55 <TD> it's up to the user. there are all kinds of flexible risk analysis one can do
1486 2012-02-07 21:47:59 <FROTUSCI> yeah
1487 2012-02-07 21:48:00 <TD> confirmations are just one signal
1488 2012-02-07 21:48:05 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1489 2012-02-07 21:48:12 <TD> i think eventually bitcoin users will get a lot more nuanced about risk
1490 2012-02-07 21:48:27 <TD> eg, zero conf transaction from a user with a known good history will be OK
1491 2012-02-07 21:48:33 <FROTUSCI> it costs 50 btc per confirmation (at the current difficulty). so if your amount is less than confirms * 50 you are more than safe...
1492 2012-02-07 21:49:03 <FROTUSCI> attaker would have to spend more than he gets\
1493 2012-02-07 21:49:06 <TD> bitcoinj lets you quickly calculate the average/estimated number of hashes done on a transaction, as well as finding the number of confirmations
1494 2012-02-07 21:49:18 <TD> because ultimately you care about cost of attack, and "work done" is a closer proxy for that than blocks
1495 2012-02-07 21:49:32 <sipa> not on an absolute scale
1496 2012-02-07 21:49:35 <FROTUSCI> yeah TD.. i think double-spend alerts will let ppl have confidence in instant payment (for reasonable amounts anyway)
1497 2012-02-07 21:49:45 <sipa> computation power increases, does making the cost of hash decrease over time
1498 2012-02-07 21:50:01 * helo likes to wait log(amount, 10) confirms
1499 2012-02-07 21:50:02 <TD> yeah but it's much more stable than blocks :)
1500 2012-02-07 21:50:25 <helo> maybe less than base 10 heh
1501 2012-02-07 21:50:29 <FROTUSCI> yeah the whole premise of bitoin's security is in the cost of mounting an attack
1502 2012-02-07 21:50:46 <FROTUSCI> so if the amount you accept is less than the attacker's cost, you are cool
1503 2012-02-07 21:51:17 PK has quit ()
1504 2012-02-07 21:51:20 <FROTUSCI> ie, no one would send you 6 false confirms for a lousy 10 btc
1505 2012-02-07 21:51:30 <TD> right
1506 2012-02-07 21:53:41 <sipa> TD: you could use hashes to estimate an equivalent-blocks-cost
1507 2012-02-07 21:54:06 <sipa> basically just hashes_since_tx_in_block / hashes_per_block
1508 2012-02-07 21:54:08 <TD> you mean if you define your unit of confidence as "Jan 2012 blocks" or something
1509 2012-02-07 21:54:41 <TD> that formula is basically the same as just counting blocks, modulo difficulty transition points
1510 2012-02-07 21:55:11 d4de has joined
1511 2012-02-07 21:55:54 <sipa> it has the same scale as blocks, but is as stable as counting hashes
1512 2012-02-07 21:56:14 <XMPPwocky> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63008.0 Bitkit's protocol works! give it a clone and try it out
1513 2012-02-07 22:01:58 ThomasV has joined
1514 2012-02-07 22:04:50 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/808#issuecomment-3857579
1515 2012-02-07 22:04:56 <BlueMatt> so, no
1516 2012-02-07 22:05:20 JRWR has quit (Quit: BTC Welcome: 19QtYzmENUmqRhvjEvHsz785rqZ5RRcZG4)
1517 2012-02-07 22:06:01 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: my version is at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29653426/bitcoin-deps-0.0.2.tbz2
1518 2012-02-07 22:08:08 <TD> XMPPwocky: cool!
1519 2012-02-07 22:08:19 <TD> XMPPwocky: there have been a few libraries like that though - not sure if you looked at them beforehand
1520 2012-02-07 22:08:29 <XMPPwocky> TD: the protocol's just the start
1521 2012-02-07 22:08:42 <BlueMatt> how many python bitcoin half-clients do we have now?
1522 2012-02-07 22:08:43 <XMPPwocky> it's also easily modifiable for BIPs
1523 2012-02-07 22:09:12 <BlueMatt> (not to say more isnt better, but still)
1524 2012-02-07 22:09:29 <XMPPwocky> BlueMatt: well, I'm not trying to be a client
1525 2012-02-07 22:10:29 <gmaxwell> sipa: robust non-linear regression on that data gives me lambda=487.2544. The fit is stupid close.
1526 2012-02-07 22:10:31 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: bleh
1527 2012-02-07 22:11:44 <BlueMatt> XMPPwocky: Ive seen a few of those, anyway, looks cool, always nice to have more implementations where people think through the network rules as they code
1528 2012-02-07 22:12:12 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1529 2012-02-07 22:12:32 sacarlson has joined
1530 2012-02-07 22:12:33 <XMPPwocky> BlueMatt: for example: one thing I'll probably do pretty quickly is a net protocol-to-JSON translator
1531 2012-02-07 22:12:35 justmoon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1532 2012-02-07 22:12:39 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: is bz2 deterministic to begin with?
1533 2012-02-07 22:12:55 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: yes
1534 2012-02-07 22:13:00 <gmaxwell> bz2 should be.
1535 2012-02-07 22:13:08 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: so long as you use --mtime
1536 2012-02-07 22:13:16 * BlueMatt knows nothing about bz2, I was just asking
1537 2012-02-07 22:13:29 <luke-jr> but that's for tar anyway
1538 2012-02-07 22:14:16 theorb has joined
1539 2012-02-07 22:14:22 pusle has quit ()
1540 2012-02-07 22:14:37 <XMPPwocky> for example: imagine a node that spoke both JSON and Satoshi's protocol
1541 2012-02-07 22:14:38 <jrmithdobbs> bz2 is deterministic, yes
1542 2012-02-07 22:14:48 <XMPPwocky> you could write a client /entirely in javascript/
1543 2012-02-07 22:15:27 <BlueMatt> have you seen bitcoinjs?
1544 2012-02-07 22:15:35 <BlueMatt> but seriously, it looks cool
1545 2012-02-07 22:15:44 <sipa> XMPPwocky: look at bitcoinjs :p
1546 2012-02-07 22:16:05 theorbtwo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1547 2012-02-07 22:16:09 <XMPPwocky> sipa: that's node.js
1548 2012-02-07 22:16:23 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
1549 2012-02-07 22:16:33 <XMPPwocky> oh, I see, does the same thing
1550 2012-02-07 22:19:02 ThomasV has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1551 2012-02-07 22:19:42 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1552 2012-02-07 22:24:49 ivan\ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1553 2012-02-07 22:26:17 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1554 2012-02-07 22:30:57 ivan\ has joined
1555 2012-02-07 22:31:35 gp5st has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1556 2012-02-07 22:33:19 FROTUSCI has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1557 2012-02-07 22:37:17 [Tycho] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1558 2012-02-07 22:40:04 agricocb has joined
1559 2012-02-07 22:45:32 <makomk> gavinandresen: I don't think not building on the latest block like in https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/69945318d1130045f5e0424a6e0e5511c0c76d5e will work reliably?
1560 2012-02-07 22:46:04 <gavinandresen> makomk: why not?
1561 2012-02-07 22:46:36 <makomk> What happens if there are transactions in the memory pool that are dependent on transactions in that block?
1562 2012-02-07 22:46:39 barmstrong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1563 2012-02-07 22:46:48 barmstrong has joined
1564 2012-02-07 22:47:07 <gavinandresen> excellent question!
1565 2012-02-07 22:47:28 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1566 2012-02-07 22:47:39 <luke-jr> also, any block you make will be rejected by everyone else by default
1567 2012-02-07 22:49:00 <gavinandresen> makomk: probably better to discourage when you hear the block announced... just pretend you didn't hear it....
1568 2012-02-07 22:49:32 <makomk> Well, I'd tend to favour pretending it's not the best chain, but that might be what you mean.
1569 2012-02-07 22:50:08 <gavinandresen> makomk: yes, essentially.
1570 2012-02-07 22:50:37 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: discouraging will only work if a majority of the network agrees on the to-be-discouraged rules
1571 2012-02-07 22:51:42 <gavinandresen> makomk: actually, I think my patch would do the right thing, because it just causes a normal re-organize to happen if a 'better' block comes along than the one that is being discouraged
1572 2012-02-07 22:52:08 <luke-jr> ah
1573 2012-02-07 22:52:22 <gavinandresen> ... and the reorganize code does all the right things with transactions in the memory pool that depend on blocks that are part of the losing, reorganized chain
1574 2012-02-07 22:53:42 <gavinandresen> (doesn't matter if the "better" block is one that we mined or somebody else)
1575 2012-02-07 22:53:48 <sipa> i assume that will be correct indeed
1576 2012-02-07 22:54:06 <makomk> Yes, the code should correctly reject the invalid blocks that would be generated.
1577 2012-02-07 22:56:25 <makomk> Also, once someone mines a block and we're not discouraging the latest block anymore, then everything should return to normal. Except I think an attacker could stop anyone using the block discouragement code from mining the next block, which is kind of a big hole.
1578 2012-02-07 22:56:33 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1579 2012-02-07 22:56:33 ivan\ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1580 2012-02-07 22:57:57 <gavinandresen> makomk: hmm? how would an attacker stop them from mining the next block? If more than 50% of the network agrees on the 'discourage' rules, then usually the attacker will lose.
1581 2012-02-07 22:58:37 ivan\ has joined
1582 2012-02-07 22:58:41 <makomk> Suppose discouraged block A comes along and it contains transaction B, then the attacker sends a transaction C that spends one of the outputs of B and has a nice tempting fee.
1583 2012-02-07 22:58:52 <gmaxwell> Discouragement is soft security. It's there to make varrious bits of troblemaking very unlikely/hard/impratical... and can allow us to get resistance to things where a hard rule would be unsafe to deploy.
1584 2012-02-07 22:59:24 <gavinandresen> makomk: ... then the miners move B from the discouraged block to a block they mine. What's the issue?
1585 2012-02-07 22:59:35 <makomk> If my mental model of the code after your patch is correct, the nodes supporting discouragement would think they could include C in their block without moving B over.
1586 2012-02-07 23:00:09 d4de has joined
1587 2012-02-07 23:00:09 d4de has quit (Changing host)
1588 2012-02-07 23:00:09 d4de has joined
1589 2012-02-07 23:02:07 <sipa> if block A contains tx B, then discouraged block C containing B building on A comes along, i suppose B is removed from the memory pool? it shouldn't be
1590 2012-02-07 23:02:13 <gavinandresen> makomk: that code definitely needs more review/testing. And if you'd like to volunteer to write a patch for the duplicate coinbase problem, that'd be spiffy.
1591 2012-02-07 23:03:18 copumpkin has joined
1592 2012-02-07 23:04:02 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1593 2012-02-07 23:04:13 <gavinandresen> I'm about to leave, but before I do, release notes for 0.6 could use review (did I forget anything big?) : https://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.6.0/test/
1594 2012-02-07 23:04:47 <sipa> the case is quete specific: a block contains a coinbase tx whose id is identical to a previous contains, which was partially but not completely spent
1595 2012-02-07 23:04:54 <sipa> quite
1596 2012-02-07 23:05:03 <sipa> s/contains/coinbase/ he
1597 2012-02-07 23:05:18 Clipse has joined
1598 2012-02-07 23:05:21 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: not notes realted, but you should post signatures.
1599 2012-02-07 23:05:55 <makomk> gavinandresen: the duplicate coinbase problem is a pain. I have a fair idea how I'd handle it if starting from scratch, either with a new chain or a second Bitcoin implementation, but retrofitting a fix is...
1600 2012-02-07 23:06:44 <gmaxwell> makomk: it's trivally to fix if you don't have to be compatible.
1601 2012-02-07 23:07:01 <gmaxwell> makomk: include the height or the prev block hash as the txin for the coinbase transaction.
1602 2012-02-07 23:07:21 <gmaxwell> then geting a duplicate is finding a sha256 collision. :)
1603 2012-02-07 23:07:49 <makomk> Well, yeah. (Features that didn't make the CDC final cut, number mumblewurble, you know the drill.)
1604 2012-02-07 23:08:15 <makomk> I believe SolidCoin 2 may actually do that, interestingly enough.
1605 2012-02-07 23:11:09 <TripleSpeeder> I'm having a hard time understanding the meaning/differences of mapTransactions and mapNextTx.... Anyone feeling bored and trying to give me a short explanation?
1606 2012-02-07 23:11:52 <gavinandresen> I'm out for tonight, email or gribble me if you have comments on the 0.6 release notes
1607 2012-02-07 23:11:58 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1608 2012-02-07 23:12:09 <TripleSpeeder> okay, that was an answer :-)
1609 2012-02-07 23:12:22 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1610 2012-02-07 23:12:24 <sipa> TripleSpeeder: mapTransactions maps transaction ideas to the transactions in the memory pool
1611 2012-02-07 23:12:29 <TripleSpeeder> (just kidding ;-)
1612 2012-02-07 23:12:40 <sipa> TripleSpeeder: mapNextTx says which txout was spent by which txin
1613 2012-02-07 23:12:49 <sipa> s/ideas/ids/
1614 2012-02-07 23:13:25 sacarlson has joined
1615 2012-02-07 23:13:26 <TripleSpeeder> And when exactly are transactions moved from memory to disk database?
1616 2012-02-07 23:13:39 <sipa> when they are found in a block
1617 2012-02-07 23:13:42 <sipa> they are not moved
1618 2012-02-07 23:13:51 <sipa> they are just deleted from the pool when they are seen in a block
1619 2012-02-07 23:14:06 <TripleSpeeder> ah, because the block contains them anyway?
1620 2012-02-07 23:14:12 <sipa> indeed
1621 2012-02-07 23:15:36 <TripleSpeeder> So, i am trying to find all tx inputs for an incoming transaction. No problem as long as the inputs are already in the blockchain, i can just get them via ReadFromDisk.
1622 2012-02-07 23:16:02 <TripleSpeeder> But i think there are cases when also the inputs of a TX are not yet confirmed. right?
1623 2012-02-07 23:16:08 <sipa> indeed
1624 2012-02-07 23:16:12 <sipa> check mapTransactions
1625 2012-02-07 23:16:15 <sipa> and the disk
1626 2012-02-07 23:17:30 <TripleSpeeder> So, if i have the COutPoint i should just be able to do sth like
1627 2012-02-07 23:17:32 <TripleSpeeder> if (mapNextTx.count(outpoint))
1628 2012-02-07 23:17:44 <TripleSpeeder> pTxPrev = mapNextTx[outpoint].ptx;
1629 2012-02-07 23:18:02 <TripleSpeeder> and i have the transaction that contains the input that i am searching
1630 2012-02-07 23:19:57 * TripleSpeeder rebuilds bitcoind to give it a try...
1631 2012-02-07 23:22:28 splatster has joined
1632 2012-02-07 23:28:42 <XMPPwocky> ::ffff:46.137.14.163 50.115.42.39 - [07/Feb/2012:15:12:22 +0000] "GET /pma/scripts/setup.php HTTP/1.1" 404 345 "-" "ZmEu"
1633 2012-02-07 23:29:04 <XMPPwocky> skript kiddies appear to be scanning the forums
1634 2012-02-07 23:31:00 Moron__ has quit ()
1635 2012-02-07 23:31:30 vorlov has joined
1636 2012-02-07 23:31:39 vorlov has left ()
1637 2012-02-07 23:38:35 phantomfake has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1638 2012-02-07 23:40:42 phantomfake has joined
1639 2012-02-07 23:41:57 hexTech has joined
1640 2012-02-07 23:49:32 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)