1 2012-03-06 00:06:02 barmstrong has joined
2 2012-03-06 00:15:30 blumenkraft has quit (Quit: KVIrc KVIrc Equilibrium 4.1.3, revision: 5988, sources date: 20110830, built on: 2011-11-24 12:34:38 UTC http://www.kvirc.net/)
3 2012-03-06 00:16:04 chao has joined
4 2012-03-06 00:21:10 asuk has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
5 2012-03-06 00:22:09 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
6 2012-03-06 00:24:43 blumenkraft has joined
7 2012-03-06 00:25:08 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
8 2012-03-06 00:26:32 spawn- has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
9 2012-03-06 00:28:30 chao has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
10 2012-03-06 00:36:38 <someONEEE> BlueMatt: Great review Markus & Gavin. Thanks a lot once again!
11 2012-03-06 00:36:54 <sipa> review of what?
12 2012-03-06 00:37:05 <someONEEE> http://omegataupodcast.net/2011/03/59-bitcoin-a-digital-decentralized-currency/
13 2012-03-06 00:37:22 pingdrive has joined
14 2012-03-06 00:37:22 <someONEEE> Markus reviews Gavin about bitcoin
15 2012-03-06 00:37:50 <sipa> i've heard it before, i believe
16 2012-03-06 00:38:01 <BlueMatt> yea, its pretty old
17 2012-03-06 00:38:08 <BlueMatt> I just remember it being good, so I always recommend it
18 2012-03-06 00:38:21 <phantomcircuit> review?
19 2012-03-06 00:38:24 <phantomcircuit> you mean interview
20 2012-03-06 00:38:25 <BlueMatt> interview
21 2012-03-06 00:38:44 <someONEEE> Yea, confused
22 2012-03-06 00:41:38 archo47 has quit ()
23 2012-03-06 00:43:27 darkskiez has quit (Quit: Client exiting)
24 2012-03-06 00:43:52 darkskiez has joined
25 2012-03-06 00:51:00 Ahimoth has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
26 2012-03-06 00:54:40 Ahimoth has joined
27 2012-03-06 00:56:41 gavinandresen has joined
28 2012-03-06 00:57:45 pingdrive has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
29 2012-03-06 00:58:56 pingdrive has joined
30 2012-03-06 00:59:51 pingdrive has quit (Client Quit)
31 2012-03-06 01:01:04 imsaguy is now known as coingenuityOFFIC
32 2012-03-06 01:01:22 josephcp has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
33 2012-03-06 01:01:31 coingenuityOFFIC is now known as nanotubeOFFICIAL
34 2012-03-06 01:01:55 nanotubeOFFICIAL is now known as [\\\]
35 2012-03-06 01:02:54 topi` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
36 2012-03-06 01:03:18 blumenkraft is now known as |tpocra|
37 2012-03-06 01:03:25 josephcp has joined
38 2012-03-06 01:08:12 topi` has joined
39 2012-03-06 01:08:39 [\\\] is now known as [\\\\\\\\\\\\\\]
40 2012-03-06 01:08:55 ziglir has joined
41 2012-03-06 01:09:49 Syncloader has joined
42 2012-03-06 01:11:38 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
43 2012-03-06 01:13:00 yebyen has joined
44 2012-03-06 01:13:14 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
45 2012-03-06 01:16:24 da2ce7 has joined
46 2012-03-06 01:17:31 asuk has joined
47 2012-03-06 01:21:57 asuk has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
48 2012-03-06 01:25:37 da2ce7 is now known as 2!~da2ce7@gateway/tor-sasl/da2ce7|da2ce7
49 2012-03-06 01:34:09 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
50 2012-03-06 01:40:21 Clipse has joined
51 2012-03-06 01:42:43 JRWR has joined
52 2012-03-06 01:49:38 JRWR has quit (Disconnected by services)
53 2012-03-06 01:49:50 JRWR has joined
54 2012-03-06 01:56:29 _h4ckm3 is now known as h4ckm3
55 2012-03-06 01:56:36 JRWR has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
56 2012-03-06 02:01:34 sacarlson has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
57 2012-03-06 02:07:52 SomeoneWeirdzzzz is now known as SomeoneWeird
58 2012-03-06 02:08:30 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
59 2012-03-06 02:12:10 rasengan has joined
60 2012-03-06 02:13:44 bodom has joined
61 2012-03-06 02:17:50 asuk has joined
62 2012-03-06 02:19:37 splatster has joined
63 2012-03-06 02:19:37 sacarlson has joined
64 2012-03-06 02:22:29 asuk has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
65 2012-03-06 02:23:58 paraipan has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
66 2012-03-06 02:25:04 paraipan has joined
67 2012-03-06 02:25:45 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
68 2012-03-06 02:33:29 sytse has joined
69 2012-03-06 02:35:15 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
70 2012-03-06 02:35:22 barmstrong has joined
71 2012-03-06 02:38:24 ej has joined
72 2012-03-06 02:38:35 ej_ has joined
73 2012-03-06 02:39:20 ej__ has joined
74 2012-03-06 02:39:38 da2ce7 has joined
75 2012-03-06 02:41:24 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
76 2012-03-06 02:43:01 ej_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
77 2012-03-06 02:43:01 ej has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
78 2012-03-06 02:43:12 e02 has joined
79 2012-03-06 02:43:12 e02 has quit (Client Quit)
80 2012-03-06 02:44:07 ej__ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
81 2012-03-06 02:46:30 <Raccoon> so which flags or .conf values do I want, so to run bitcoind as a local json server?
82 2012-03-06 02:47:14 <doublec> Raccoon: bitcoind does a local json server automatically
83 2012-03-06 02:47:20 <doublec> Raccoon: no flad needed
84 2012-03-06 02:47:33 <Raccoon> well, what port then?
85 2012-03-06 02:47:39 <Raccoon> and what's the username and password?
86 2012-03-06 02:48:10 <doublec> Raccoon: port is 8332, username and password are what you used in the bitcoin.conf file
87 2012-03-06 02:48:15 has quit (tpocra|!~blumenkra@gateway/tor-sasl/blumenkraft|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
88 2012-03-06 02:48:53 <BlueMatt> it wont start without a un/pw combo specified
89 2012-03-06 02:48:54 <doublec> Raccoon: in rpcuser and rpcpassword entries
90 2012-03-06 02:48:57 <BlueMatt> or is just pw required?
91 2012-03-06 02:49:01 <doublec> just pw I think
92 2012-03-06 02:49:02 <Raccoon> could you give me an example of a very secure .conf with each config explicit? (not just default)
93 2012-03-06 02:49:21 <Raccoon> i don't want to leave any doors open for remote access
94 2012-03-06 02:49:25 has joined
95 2012-03-06 02:49:28 <Raccoon> or unauthorized remote access
96 2012-03-06 02:49:29 <BlueMatt> rpcallowip=theipwhohasaccess (IIRC)
97 2012-03-06 02:49:37 <BlueMatt> and rpcuser=secureu/n
98 2012-03-06 02:49:42 <BlueMatt> and rpcpassword=securep/w
99 2012-03-06 02:49:44 <BlueMatt> that it
100 2012-03-06 02:49:58 <Raccoon> plain text?
101 2012-03-06 02:50:21 <luke-jr> it will only bind localhost if you leave out rpcallowip
102 2012-03-06 02:50:37 <Raccoon> ok
103 2012-03-06 02:50:38 <luke-jr> also, nobody expects null rpcuser
104 2012-03-06 02:50:53 <luke-jr> just make rpcpassword like 594 characters
105 2012-03-06 02:50:59 <Raccoon> nobody expects?
106 2012-03-06 02:52:13 <gmaxwell> though leave weird symbols out of your rpcuser/password or it'll not work like expected due to escaping.
107 2012-03-06 02:52:22 <Raccoon> does bitcoind look for bitcoind.conf in the same folder as the binary in windows?
108 2012-03-06 02:52:51 <BlueMatt> best way: a server with only bitcoind, and a frontend proxy which handles access. In order to pay, it sends you a text and expects a response containing a one-time-password before it will send anything :)
109 2012-03-06 02:52:51 <Raccoon> or bitcoin.conf and/or some other location
110 2012-03-06 02:52:53 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I want to put a smiley in my rpcuser! âº
111 2012-03-06 02:55:23 <BlueMatt> (and while you are at it, add one of 100 other auth mechanisms in front before it will send any coins
112 2012-03-06 02:55:25 <BlueMatt> )
113 2012-03-06 02:56:35 <BlueMatt> oh, and bip16 multisig txes
114 2012-03-06 02:56:51 <BlueMatt> (but you're gonna want to implement that yourself)
115 2012-03-06 02:57:23 sacarlson has joined
116 2012-03-06 02:57:46 <BlueMatt> and dont connect the server to the internet until you want to send
117 2012-03-06 02:57:59 <Raccoon> # server=1 tells Bitcoin to accept JSON-RPC commands.
118 2012-03-06 02:58:08 <BlueMatt> and never let it connect to the internet, but instead just manually sneakernet txes backand forth
119 2012-03-06 02:58:10 <Raccoon> is server=1 by default?
120 2012-03-06 02:58:14 <BlueMatt> I think you get the point...
121 2012-03-06 03:01:42 <luke-jr> not bip16
122 2012-03-06 03:01:43 <luke-jr> bip16
123 2012-03-06 03:01:45 <luke-jr> bip17
124 2012-03-06 03:02:35 <BlueMatt> whatever gets mining power
125 2012-03-06 03:05:23 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
126 2012-03-06 03:05:42 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: Is there any command that can be entered into a config that immediately terminates the process? such as DIE
127 2012-03-06 03:05:50 <Raccoon> or DIE=1
128 2012-03-06 03:05:59 <BlueMatt> stop
129 2012-03-06 03:06:03 <BlueMatt> if you mean rpc command
130 2012-03-06 03:06:07 <BlueMatt> otherwise SIGTERM
131 2012-03-06 03:06:16 <Raccoon> SIGTERM for windows?
132 2012-03-06 03:06:28 <BlueMatt> rpc stop
133 2012-03-06 03:09:51 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
134 2012-03-06 03:13:09 <luke-jr> neither SIGTERM nor RPC stop are immediate terminationâ¦
135 2012-03-06 03:13:12 Nesetalis has joined
136 2012-03-06 03:13:31 <BlueMatt> they are immediately clean
137 2012-03-06 03:14:49 <sneak> hi
138 2012-03-06 03:17:12 sgstair has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
139 2012-03-06 03:17:44 sgstair has joined
140 2012-03-06 03:18:28 spawn-982 has joined
141 2012-03-06 03:18:44 spawn-982 is now known as spawn-
142 2012-03-06 03:19:07 word_ has joined
143 2012-03-06 03:19:50 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
144 2012-03-06 03:23:21 word has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
145 2012-03-06 03:27:35 <nanotube> howdy sneak
146 2012-03-06 03:29:50 <sneak> hiya
147 2012-03-06 03:30:04 <sneak> what can i do with 200btc
148 2012-03-06 03:30:25 <sneak> also: http://gizmodo.com/5889806/faux-loko-the-diy-drink-i-shouldnt-be-telling-you-about/gallery/1
149 2012-03-06 03:32:20 copumpkin has joined
150 2012-03-06 03:32:48 da2ce7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
151 2012-03-06 03:34:48 da2ce7 has joined
152 2012-03-06 03:42:12 draco49 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
153 2012-03-06 03:43:48 <nanotube> sneak: well... you could ... buy anything you want that costs < 200btc. ;) or you could speculate on the markets... or you could give them away (if you go this route, be sure to choose me as the recipient :D) ...
154 2012-03-06 03:43:53 <nanotube> is there anything in particular you're looking for?
155 2012-03-06 03:45:24 <Raccoon> ok. so besides nolisten=1, what other options will be necessary to clamp down bitcoin/bitcoind so that it only connects to a single specified node?
156 2012-03-06 03:45:42 <freewil> noirc=1
157 2012-03-06 03:45:44 <luke-jr> nobrains=1
158 2012-03-06 03:45:52 <Raccoon> ?
159 2012-03-06 03:46:03 <gmaxwell> freewil: noirc is now the default.
160 2012-03-06 03:46:06 <gmaxwell> (in 0.6+)
161 2012-03-06 03:46:12 <luke-jr> that's what she said.
162 2012-03-06 03:46:17 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: irc is going away now?
163 2012-03-06 03:46:27 <nanotube> Raccoon: -connect=someipaddress
164 2012-03-06 03:46:37 <gmaxwell> No, it's just disabled by default. It's staying available.
165 2012-03-06 03:46:38 <luke-jr> Raccoon: IRC gets bitcoin flagged by some ISPs
166 2012-03-06 03:46:39 <freewil> did all the options change to positives as well (irc=1) ?
167 2012-03-06 03:46:49 <luke-jr> freewil: all options are now only positives
168 2012-03-06 03:46:52 <Raccoon> nanotube: if it's disabled by default, it becomes useless soon.
169 2012-03-06 03:46:58 <sipa> you can use both as of 0.6
170 2012-03-06 03:46:59 <Raccoon> and eventually killed off
171 2012-03-06 03:47:00 <luke-jr> no*=1 just gets rewritten as *=0
172 2012-03-06 03:47:17 <freewil> k
173 2012-03-06 03:47:25 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: no... it can hang around as an option for people to turn on should it be required for some reason.
174 2012-03-06 03:47:51 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: his point is that if only people who need it use it, there won't be anyone for them to connect ot
175 2012-03-06 03:47:55 <Raccoon> what about nodns=1 ?
176 2012-03-06 03:47:59 draco49 has joined
177 2012-03-06 03:48:18 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: sure there will. Some people will continue to run itâ I have nodes that are post that code that still run it for that purpose.
178 2012-03-06 03:48:30 <Raccoon> nodnsseed=1 ?
179 2012-03-06 03:48:38 <sipa> Raccoon: +-dns is about whether dns lookups are permitted in -addnode, -connect, ...
180 2012-03-06 03:49:01 <sipa> nodnsseed disables dns seeding indeed
181 2012-03-06 03:49:19 <luke-jr> dnsseed=0
182 2012-03-06 03:49:20 <Raccoon> why is dns seeding prefered over IRC seeding?
183 2012-03-06 03:49:21 <luke-jr> ;)
184 2012-03-06 03:49:35 <Raccoon> it's harder for ISPs to pin down IRC seeding than it is DNS seeding
185 2012-03-06 03:49:36 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: because IRC is mostly useless.
186 2012-03-06 03:49:41 <gmaxwell> No. It's far easier.
187 2012-03-06 03:49:54 <Raccoon> ISPs directly handle DNS records
188 2012-03-06 03:50:00 <Raccoon> they would have to actively filter IRC
189 2012-03-06 03:50:09 <phantomcircuit> Raccoon, lol they often do
190 2012-03-06 03:50:10 <gmaxwell> And, in fact, IRC has actually been blocked by ISPs before.
191 2012-03-06 03:50:26 <Raccoon> arbitrary port blocking
192 2012-03-06 03:50:40 <gmaxwell> (I mean the specific IRC we useâ quite a few times because its confused with a botnetâ it also gets bitcoin users nastygrams from some providers)
193 2012-03-06 03:50:45 <luke-jr> Raccoon: ISPs are checking for IRC protocol and emailing people warnings of virus infection
194 2012-03-06 03:51:00 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: what ISPs complain about IRC?
195 2012-03-06 03:51:02 pickett has joined
196 2012-03-06 03:51:06 <Raccoon> huh.
197 2012-03-06 03:51:09 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: AT&T mobility, for example.
198 2012-03-06 03:51:28 <Raccoon> ATT doesn't like any persistant connection me thinks
199 2012-03-06 03:51:31 <gmaxwell> We don't connect on an "arbitrary port". Blocking 6667, or blocking one domain name and one IP address block the IRC seeding just fine.
200 2012-03-06 03:51:57 <luke-jr> besides, abusing IRC for seeding p2p is an evil hack
201 2012-03-06 03:51:58 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: open something besides 6667 then.
202 2012-03-06 03:52:03 <gmaxwell> And as I said before, IRC seeding isn't very usefulâ the overwhelming majority of nodes on IRC aren't actually reachable.
203 2012-03-06 03:52:06 <Raccoon> SSL 9876
204 2012-03-06 03:52:39 <gmaxwell> IRC is also a centeralized point of observationâ anyone monitoring lfnet can get good statistics on anyone running bitcoin.
205 2012-03-06 03:52:48 <Raccoon> indeed.
206 2012-03-06 03:52:55 <Raccoon> (that's what i've been doing :)
207 2012-03-06 03:53:01 <gmaxwell> well too bad for you then.
208 2012-03-06 03:53:05 <Raccoon> :(
209 2012-03-06 03:53:12 <Raccoon> just the /lusers cmd anyway
210 2012-03-06 03:53:29 <sipa> running a dns seed also gives a lot of statistics ;)
211 2012-03-06 03:53:35 <Raccoon> nice to see how people get excited and load bitcoin
212 2012-03-06 03:53:41 <gmaxwell> Though it's been crap stats for a long time anyways, nodes with nolisten didn't connect anyways.
213 2012-03-06 03:53:48 pingdrive has joined
214 2012-03-06 03:53:56 <Raccoon> only 0.0000002% of nodes use nolisten
215 2012-03-06 03:54:15 <Raccoon> defaults are defaults
216 2012-03-06 03:54:31 <gmaxwell> In any case, the default is now not to use IRC.
217 2012-03-06 03:54:38 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
218 2012-03-06 03:54:52 <Raccoon> are there options to specify irc server, port, channel?
219 2012-03-06 03:54:55 TheSeven has joined
220 2012-03-06 03:55:01 <sipa> no
221 2012-03-06 03:55:19 <Raccoon> are there options to specify dns seed address?
222 2012-03-06 03:55:36 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: you can addnodeâ which is even better than that.
223 2012-03-06 03:55:50 <Raccoon> addnode assumes a node is live
224 2012-03-06 03:56:02 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: you do know that bitcoin exchanges addresses with other bitcoin peers, right?
225 2012-03-06 03:56:12 <Raccoon> we don't even need dns seed with addnode
226 2012-03-06 03:56:23 <Raccoon> is what you're saying
227 2012-03-06 03:56:27 rasengan has quit (Quit: brb)
228 2012-03-06 03:56:29 <gmaxwell> Correct.
229 2012-03-06 03:56:33 <sipa> that is why it is a seed
230 2012-03-06 03:56:38 <sipa> an entry point
231 2012-03-06 03:56:44 <Raccoon> exactly.
232 2012-03-06 03:56:46 Joric has joined
233 2012-03-06 03:56:46 Joric has quit (Changing host)
234 2012-03-06 03:56:46 Joric has joined
235 2012-03-06 03:57:00 <Raccoon> i'm looking for options for private trust networks
236 2012-03-06 03:57:17 <gmaxwell> Then use addnode.
237 2012-03-06 03:57:32 <Raccoon> so ircserver/ircport/ircchannel/ircchannelpass and dnsseedaddr
238 2012-03-06 03:57:39 <Raccoon> please
239 2012-03-06 03:57:41 <gmaxwell> No.
240 2012-03-06 03:57:45 <Raccoon> Please
241 2012-03-06 03:57:50 <gmaxwell> It doesn't make any sense.
242 2012-03-06 03:58:01 <Raccoon> it doesn't make sense to use hard coded values
243 2012-03-06 03:58:07 <gmaxwell> I would NAK such a patch even if you were to bother writing one.
244 2012-03-06 03:58:15 <Raccoon> :(
245 2012-03-06 03:58:18 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: use addnode.
246 2012-03-06 03:58:24 <Raccoon> no such node
247 2012-03-06 03:58:27 <gmaxwell> You can have many addnodes.
248 2012-03-06 03:58:29 <sipa> -dnsseedserver= would be *exactly* the same as addnode
249 2012-03-06 03:58:35 <Raccoon> nodes change
250 2012-03-06 03:58:50 <Raccoon> sipa: untrue
251 2012-03-06 03:58:53 <gmaxwell> ...
252 2012-03-06 03:58:54 <gmaxwell> hahah
253 2012-03-06 03:58:57 <sipa> it would do a dns lookup, and add the result
254 2012-03-06 03:58:59 <k9quaint> why are you arguing with a raccoon?
255 2012-03-06 03:59:04 <k9quaint> they don't even have opposable thumbs
256 2012-03-06 03:59:07 <Raccoon> seed.mtgox.com is not the same as 123.123.123.123
257 2012-03-06 03:59:11 <Raccoon> for example
258 2012-03-06 03:59:13 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: because he ate my garbage!
259 2012-03-06 03:59:27 <sipa> Raccoon: so?
260 2012-03-06 03:59:29 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: you can addnode a domain name.
261 2012-03-06 03:59:35 <Raccoon> k9quaint: actually, raccoons are the only non-primate with opposable thumbs.
262 2012-03-06 03:59:35 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: get to the trash can earlier if you don't want him eating your dinner
263 2012-03-06 03:59:47 * k9quaint googles
264 2012-03-06 03:59:52 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: that grabs more than 1 node?
265 2012-03-06 03:59:55 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: oh great, now we're subscribed to raccoon facts.
266 2012-03-06 04:00:28 <sipa> Raccoon: addnode only grabs one, true
267 2012-03-06 04:00:30 <k9quaint> raccoons do not have opposable thumbs
268 2012-03-06 04:00:34 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: it should retry until it connects, and as soon as it connects it will request more from that one.
269 2012-03-06 04:00:42 <sipa> so addnode the somain name 20 times
270 2012-03-06 04:00:46 <sipa> done
271 2012-03-06 04:01:00 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: could you at least let it spam all dns entries
272 2012-03-06 04:01:09 <gmaxwell> 'spam'?
273 2012-03-06 04:01:15 <Raccoon> if you don't feel that a unique named option is necessary
274 2012-03-06 04:01:27 <Raccoon> yes, spam. connect all at once
275 2012-03-06 04:01:31 <sipa> even dns seeds return only a random subset
276 2012-03-06 04:01:34 <luke-jr> I agree that addnode should try to connect to all results.
277 2012-03-06 04:01:42 <Raccoon> dns seed returns a random "subset"
278 2012-03-06 04:01:43 <BlueMatt> it does
279 2012-03-06 04:01:45 <Raccoon> ie, more than one
280 2012-03-06 04:01:58 <BlueMatt> addnode will try all of the ips in the dns result
281 2012-03-06 04:01:59 <sipa> it does?
282 2012-03-06 04:02:02 <luke-jr> cool
283 2012-03-06 04:02:05 <Raccoon> BlueMatt: will it?
284 2012-03-06 04:02:08 <BlueMatt> (but doesnt continue trying after it gets 1 connection)
285 2012-03-06 04:02:13 <luke-jr> o
286 2012-03-06 04:02:17 <luke-jr> :/
287 2012-03-06 04:02:31 <gmaxwell> Thats what I said above! it will keep trying until it connects.
288 2012-03-06 04:02:39 <Raccoon> so adddnsseed=
289 2012-03-06 04:02:42 <BlueMatt> sorry, I only read like 2 lines
290 2012-03-06 04:02:49 <BlueMatt> (playing assassins creed)
291 2012-03-06 04:03:05 <k9quaint> BlueMatt: that's why you don't know enough about raccoons to participate in this discussion
292 2012-03-06 04:03:08 <sipa> Raccoon: how would that be different from addnode?
293 2012-03-06 04:03:14 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: Are you going to keep repeating the same request after we told you it would be the same?
294 2012-03-06 04:03:15 <BlueMatt> k9quaint: uh...ok
295 2012-03-06 04:03:22 <Raccoon> sipa: as described above.
296 2012-03-06 04:03:31 <Raccoon> addnode only tries one at a time then quits
297 2012-03-06 04:03:33 <sipa> please restate it
298 2012-03-06 04:03:40 <Raccoon> doesn't even make multiple dns lookups
299 2012-03-06 04:03:43 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: NO. Addnode tries until it connects.
300 2012-03-06 04:03:44 <sipa> no, it adds all
301 2012-03-06 04:04:00 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: that until is 'bad'.
302 2012-03-06 04:04:06 <sipa> and then makes sure it gets a connection
303 2012-03-06 04:04:10 <Raccoon> it should try until nodes = 8
304 2012-03-06 04:04:20 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: thats all DNS seed does too. It doesn't keep connecting to things once its done.
305 2012-03-06 04:04:21 the_batman has joined
306 2012-03-06 04:04:45 <sipa> Raccoon: the normal mechanism for getting connections runs as well
307 2012-03-06 04:04:51 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: DNS seed doesn't open multiple concurrent connections at once?
308 2012-03-06 04:04:56 <gmaxwell> No.
309 2012-03-06 04:05:12 <sipa> DNS seeding is seeding
310 2012-03-06 04:05:32 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: DNS seed only provides a single node, then drops to rumoring?
311 2012-03-06 04:05:33 <sipa> it just adds some entries to the table of known addresses
312 2012-03-06 04:05:44 <Raccoon> that creates a very un-meshy network
313 2012-03-06 04:05:48 <gmaxwell> ....
314 2012-03-06 04:06:02 <sipa> it doesn't influence how connections are made
315 2012-03-06 04:06:13 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: both addnode and dnsseed add connections to the table of available hosts.
316 2012-03-06 04:06:36 <BlueMatt> you sure addnode does?
317 2012-03-06 04:06:41 <Raccoon> Z connects to A, hears about B C D E F G and H, and now both A and Z are conneced to B C D E F G and H
318 2012-03-06 04:06:57 <gmaxwell> The regular connection process comes in and tries connecting from the table one at a time. (addnode expedites that to make sure it connects to one if it can)
319 2012-03-06 04:07:18 <sipa> Raccoon: nodes forward addr packets they don't use themsrlves
320 2012-03-06 04:07:19 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: well, it didâ you might have broken that. :)
321 2012-03-06 04:07:33 <Raccoon> sipa: first and foremost?
322 2012-03-06 04:07:33 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
323 2012-03-06 04:07:50 <k9quaint> shouldn't your node be A? instead of Z?
324 2012-03-06 04:07:52 <sipa> Raccoon: they just add them to a table
325 2012-03-06 04:07:56 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: Im not sure either way, I was just asking... but yea, might very well have
326 2012-03-06 04:08:18 <sipa> so everyone knows about some
327 2012-03-06 04:08:22 <sipa> almost
328 2012-03-06 04:08:33 <Raccoon> it's a small confined space, as opposed to DNS seed
329 2012-03-06 04:08:40 * sipa needs slerp
330 2012-03-06 04:08:45 <Raccoon> where DNS seed is widely random
331 2012-03-06 04:08:54 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
332 2012-03-06 04:09:14 <sipa> Raccoon: do you know where dns seeds get their data?
333 2012-03-06 04:09:26 <Raccoon> from every client that someone double clicks
334 2012-03-06 04:09:40 <BlueMatt> sipa: meh, its only 5 am, you can sleep when you're dead
335 2012-03-06 04:09:58 <sipa> double clicks?
336 2012-03-06 04:10:13 <Raccoon> meaning, everyone that starts their bitcoin client.
337 2012-03-06 04:10:21 <sipa> yes
338 2012-03-06 04:10:39 <sipa> exactly the same way nodes forward addresses
339 2012-03-06 04:10:45 <Raccoon> DNS Seed contains a world record of nodes
340 2012-03-06 04:10:55 <Raccoon> bitcoin rumoring only contains a small isolated group
341 2012-03-06 04:10:56 <Joric> i'm trying to implement blockchain scanner here https://github.com/joric/pyblockchain it's easy to collect all coins received by a certain address, but how to calculate all sent coins?
342 2012-03-06 04:10:59 pingdrive has quit (Quit: Leaving)
343 2012-03-06 04:11:15 <Raccoon> after a while of rumoring, that group becomes a cliq
344 2012-03-06 04:11:27 <Raccoon> new blood is needed from DNS Seed
345 2012-03-06 04:11:32 <sipa> Raccoon: no evidence for that
346 2012-03-06 04:12:12 <sipa> Joric: all sent coins what?
347 2012-03-06 04:12:51 <sipa> transactions do not have a 'from' address
348 2012-03-06 04:13:04 <nanotube> well, they have inputs...
349 2012-03-06 04:13:14 <Joric> sipa, i want to calculate all coins sent/received to/from a certain address
350 2012-03-06 04:14:06 <sipa> if i have txout A at address X and txout B at address Y
351 2012-03-06 04:14:38 <sipa> and my transaction C consumes A and B, what is its from address?
352 2012-03-06 04:14:54 <sipa> both X and Y?
353 2012-03-06 04:14:59 pickett has joined
354 2012-03-06 04:15:08 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: what is the command to enable IRC?
355 2012-03-06 04:15:15 <Raccoon> noirc=0 or irc=1
356 2012-03-06 04:15:26 <sipa> in 0.6, both
357 2012-03-06 04:15:45 <sipa> before, only irc=1
358 2012-03-06 04:16:34 <Raccoon> before it was noirc=1
359 2012-03-06 04:16:41 <Raccoon> since IRC was on by default
360 2012-03-06 04:16:49 <gmaxwell> ::facepalm::
361 2012-03-06 04:17:00 <gmaxwell> No, noirc=1 never _enabled_ IRC.
362 2012-03-06 04:17:11 <Raccoon> i know that.
363 2012-03-06 04:17:17 <Raccoon> ::facepalm::
364 2012-03-06 04:17:21 <gmaxwell> But you could enable it with irc=1 if it was disabled.
365 2012-03-06 04:17:44 <gmaxwell> (e.g. via wallet settings or if you had noirc=1 in the config and set irc=1 on the commandline)
366 2012-03-06 04:17:59 <Raccoon> are these 'no'* options, smart?
367 2012-03-06 04:18:05 <Joric> -irc -noirc -irc=0 -irc=1 -noirc=0 -noirc=1
368 2012-03-06 04:18:26 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: compared to some people.
369 2012-03-06 04:18:29 <Joric> what about --
370 2012-03-06 04:18:44 <Raccoon> i mean, does each have an opposing sibling?
371 2012-03-06 04:18:58 <Raccoon> nolisten/listen
372 2012-03-06 04:19:30 <Joric> --enable-noirc
373 2012-03-06 04:19:31 <Raccoon> and stop pissing off the person who's writing bitcoin.conf document
374 2012-03-06 04:21:26 splatterbot has joined
375 2012-03-06 04:22:33 <BlueMatt> we have bitcoin.conf documentation?
376 2012-03-06 04:22:47 <Raccoon> if you allow me to write it without being harassed
377 2012-03-06 04:23:05 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: we already do, on the wiki.
378 2012-03-06 04:23:23 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: you even stated the wiki is inaccurate and dangerous
379 2012-03-06 04:23:23 <BlueMatt> mmm
380 2012-03-06 04:23:27 <k9quaint> thats more like the scratchings of a deranged animal than documentation
381 2012-03-06 04:24:08 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: it has a bunch of example boilerplate which is not generally usefulâ but I'm failing to see any indication that anything you write would be less dangerous!
382 2012-03-06 04:24:16 [\\\\\\\\\\\\\\] is now known as imsaguy
383 2012-03-06 04:24:20 <k9quaint> althought it is infinitely better than my wiki, which states "Abandon all hope ye who depend on this code."
384 2012-03-06 04:24:41 <freewil> Raccoon, there is this... https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Running_Bitcoin#Sample_Bitcoin.conf
385 2012-03-06 04:24:50 <Raccoon> freewil: already looking at it.
386 2012-03-06 04:25:00 <freewil> ok, just saying its there - certainly could be updated
387 2012-03-06 04:25:21 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
388 2012-03-06 04:25:34 <Raccoon> i'm finding that 'could' is a hard bargon
389 2012-03-06 04:25:46 pickett has joined
390 2012-03-06 04:27:18 <freewil> are there any new rpc commands since 0.5.2?
391 2012-03-06 04:28:14 <Raccoon> gmaxwell: btw, the -conf=path switch doesn't behave as expected, in that, it shouldn't assume the application path unless %appdata%\ is specified.
392 2012-03-06 04:28:26 <Raccoon> most other applications assume the working directory
393 2012-03-06 04:28:42 <Raccoon> *application "data" path
394 2012-03-06 04:30:08 <Raccoon> there's no simple way to plop a config file in the same directory as the .exe, without specifying the absolute path
395 2012-03-06 04:30:08 <freewil> yeah that is rather odd, not sure if it checks the current directory first or not, but you can specify an absolute path
396 2012-03-06 04:30:23 <Raccoon> it doesn't check the current directory.
397 2012-03-06 04:30:32 <freewil> what if you do -conf=./bitcoin.conf
398 2012-03-06 04:30:38 <Raccoon> tried .\
399 2012-03-06 04:31:03 <freewil> windows? try forward slash
400 2012-03-06 04:31:16 <Raccoon> i'll try.
401 2012-03-06 04:32:03 <Raccoon> no love
402 2012-03-06 04:32:32 <Raccoon> created a test bitcoin.conf with the line "xyzzy" to raise error when loaded
403 2012-03-06 04:33:03 gfinn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
404 2012-03-06 04:33:17 LightRider has joined
405 2012-03-06 04:33:29 <freewil> i think -datadir actually behavevs as expected
406 2012-03-06 04:33:41 <Raccoon> so the current behavior of -conf=path makes it difficult to make bitcoin portable
407 2012-03-06 04:33:49 LightRider has quit (Client Quit)
408 2012-03-06 04:34:04 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
409 2012-03-06 04:34:05 <freewil> if you stick bitcoin.conf in the same directory as the datadir (as by default) you can just do -conf=.bitcoin
410 2012-03-06 04:34:18 <freewil> ... i mean -datadir=.bitcoin
411 2012-03-06 04:34:20 <Raccoon> will -datadir= affect the behavior -conf= i wonder
412 2012-03-06 04:34:42 pickett has joined
413 2012-03-06 04:35:02 <Raccoon> what about -datadir=.
414 2012-03-06 04:36:20 RobinPKR_ has joined
415 2012-03-06 04:36:24 <Raccoon> ok, that works.
416 2012-03-06 04:37:22 <Raccoon> -datadir does affect the default path for -conf
417 2012-03-06 04:37:31 <freewil> so -conf= is just relative from the datadir
418 2012-03-06 04:37:51 <Raccoon> eg -datadir=.\ -conf=foo.conf will read foo.conf sitting next to the .exe
419 2012-03-06 04:38:44 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
420 2012-03-06 04:38:44 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
421 2012-03-06 04:39:24 <Raccoon> still would be nice if bitcoin checked for bitcoin.conf sitting next to bitcoin.exe, so a portable (USB) copy of bitcoin doesn't require a Windows Shortcut
422 2012-03-06 04:39:45 <Raccoon> inadvertantly clicking the .exe will create a risidual mess on the host machine
423 2012-03-06 04:40:48 <freewil> if you want to put it on a usb, stick the exe in a subfolder, and make a batch or ps script to run it with the proper args
424 2012-03-06 04:41:04 <Raccoon> a shortcut works too.
425 2012-03-06 04:44:27 gfinn has joined
426 2012-03-06 04:44:39 <luke-jr> [23:39:31] <Raccoon> inadvertantly clicking the .exe will create a risidual mess on the host machine <-- inadvertantly clicking a .exe always gets the response of "don't do that"
427 2012-03-06 04:45:00 <Raccoon> luke-jr: generally no.
428 2012-03-06 04:45:40 <Raccoon> at least not hackeresque applications
429 2012-03-06 04:46:32 <Raccoon> and bitcoin by nature wants to be portable
430 2012-03-06 04:50:11 splatterbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
431 2012-03-06 04:50:32 splatterbot has joined
432 2012-03-06 04:53:20 splatterbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
433 2012-03-06 04:53:55 <egecko> you could just check out the code and tweak it for yourself =]
434 2012-03-06 04:57:01 rasengan has joined
435 2012-03-06 05:04:20 word_ is now known as word
436 2012-03-06 05:04:27 num1 has joined
437 2012-03-06 05:05:26 splatterbot has joined
438 2012-03-06 05:05:31 splatterbot has quit (Changing host)
439 2012-03-06 05:05:31 splatterbot has joined
440 2012-03-06 05:06:44 Joric has quit ()
441 2012-03-06 05:20:32 luke-jr has quit (otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
442 2012-03-06 05:20:52 vigilyn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
443 2012-03-06 05:22:17 luke-jr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
444 2012-03-06 05:29:24 luke-jr has joined
445 2012-03-06 05:30:04 luke-jr has joined
446 2012-03-06 05:32:27 word has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
447 2012-03-06 05:35:00 splatterbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
448 2012-03-06 05:38:02 luke-jr has quit (otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
449 2012-03-06 05:39:12 luke-jr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
450 2012-03-06 05:40:43 word has joined
451 2012-03-06 05:40:43 word has quit (Changing host)
452 2012-03-06 05:40:43 word has joined
453 2012-03-06 05:41:16 vigilyn has joined
454 2012-03-06 05:49:16 luke-jr has joined
455 2012-03-06 05:50:04 luke-jr has joined
456 2012-03-06 05:58:12 vragnaroda has quit (Quit: leaving)
457 2012-03-06 06:00:31 asuk has joined
458 2012-03-06 06:01:18 mrsy has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
459 2012-03-06 06:01:34 mrsy has joined
460 2012-03-06 06:06:10 da2ce7 has joined
461 2012-03-06 06:07:55 OneFixt_ has joined
462 2012-03-06 06:11:03 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
463 2012-03-06 06:11:15 OneFixt_ is now known as OneFixt
464 2012-03-06 06:14:06 Joric has joined
465 2012-03-06 06:16:07 ThomasV has joined
466 2012-03-06 06:16:42 splatterbot has joined
467 2012-03-06 06:18:06 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: A day without sunshine is like .... night)
468 2012-03-06 06:19:52 Cablesaurus has joined
469 2012-03-06 06:19:52 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
470 2012-03-06 06:19:52 Cablesaurus has joined
471 2012-03-06 06:21:50 Joric_ has joined
472 2012-03-06 06:23:22 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
473 2012-03-06 06:30:11 splatterbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
474 2012-03-06 06:30:42 splatterbot has joined
475 2012-03-06 06:34:14 Syncloader has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
476 2012-03-06 06:34:58 Joric_ is now known as Joric
477 2012-03-06 06:41:58 libcoin has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
478 2012-03-06 06:46:31 splatterbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
479 2012-03-06 06:47:04 splatterbot has joined
480 2012-03-06 06:51:16 splatterbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
481 2012-03-06 06:51:38 splatterbot has joined
482 2012-03-06 07:17:36 swulf-- has joined
483 2012-03-06 07:19:18 swulf--1 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
484 2012-03-06 07:31:55 swulf--1 has joined
485 2012-03-06 07:34:15 swulf-- has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
486 2012-03-06 07:39:29 libcoin has joined
487 2012-03-06 07:51:03 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
488 2012-03-06 08:09:31 d4de_ has joined
489 2012-03-06 08:09:31 d4de_ has quit (Changing host)
490 2012-03-06 08:09:31 d4de_ has joined
491 2012-03-06 08:09:57 ThomasV has joined
492 2012-03-06 08:10:15 ThomasV has quit (Client Quit)
493 2012-03-06 08:11:05 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
494 2012-03-06 08:13:08 d4de_ is now known as d4de
495 2012-03-06 08:16:03 the_batman has quit (Quit: DEFENDING THE CITY)
496 2012-03-06 08:19:32 copumpkin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
497 2012-03-06 08:20:02 copumpkin has joined
498 2012-03-06 08:36:11 swulf--1 is now known as swulf--
499 2012-03-06 08:40:56 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
500 2012-03-06 08:45:17 Joric_ has joined
501 2012-03-06 08:45:17 Joric_ has quit (Changing host)
502 2012-03-06 08:45:17 Joric_ has joined
503 2012-03-06 08:47:08 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
504 2012-03-06 08:49:39 Joric_ has quit (Client Quit)
505 2012-03-06 08:54:22 ageis has quit (Quit: http://ageispolis.net)
506 2012-03-06 08:54:51 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
507 2012-03-06 08:55:09 ageis has joined
508 2012-03-06 09:13:10 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
509 2012-03-06 09:16:41 da2ce7 has joined
510 2012-03-06 09:18:09 splatster has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
511 2012-03-06 09:22:06 splatterbot has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
512 2012-03-06 09:22:24 larsivi has joined
513 2012-03-06 09:25:26 imsaguy has quit ()
514 2012-03-06 09:27:56 sje has joined
515 2012-03-06 09:33:51 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
516 2012-03-06 09:57:04 marf_away has joined
517 2012-03-06 10:11:27 <Raccoon> Upon connecting to the RPC, I receive:
518 2012-03-06 10:11:29 <Raccoon> {"result":null,"error":{"code":-32700,"message":"Parse error"},"id":null}
519 2012-03-06 10:11:54 <Raccoon> any idea why it's sending this error and closing the connection?
520 2012-03-06 10:15:16 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well)
521 2012-03-06 10:17:05 cande has joined
522 2012-03-06 10:26:34 cande has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
523 2012-03-06 10:30:24 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
524 2012-03-06 10:32:37 booo has joined
525 2012-03-06 10:55:04 upb has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
526 2012-03-06 10:55:10 upb has joined
527 2012-03-06 10:55:10 upb has quit (Changing host)
528 2012-03-06 10:55:10 upb has joined
529 2012-03-06 10:55:10 phantomfakeBNC has quit (Quit: changing servers)
530 2012-03-06 11:02:20 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
531 2012-03-06 11:14:09 MrTiggr has joined
532 2012-03-06 11:20:47 dvide has joined
533 2012-03-06 11:26:40 iocor has joined
534 2012-03-06 11:28:35 RazielZ has joined
535 2012-03-06 11:48:03 <sipa> Raccoon: what are you sending?
536 2012-03-06 11:52:18 draco49 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
537 2012-03-06 11:56:53 pickett has joined
538 2012-03-06 11:58:31 draco49 has joined
539 2012-03-06 11:58:42 molecular has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
540 2012-03-06 12:01:32 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
541 2012-03-06 12:05:41 iocor has joined
542 2012-03-06 12:09:23 Dyaheon has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
543 2012-03-06 12:09:55 Dyaheon has joined
544 2012-03-06 12:12:55 Joric has joined
545 2012-03-06 12:12:55 Joric has quit (Changing host)
546 2012-03-06 12:12:55 Joric has joined
547 2012-03-06 12:13:02 molecular has joined
548 2012-03-06 12:15:14 <Joric> why scriptSig length is different here http://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/1043eb5c8b85764358f21127ed51de772db594222d650be07b45f3a9c68bdc78 and here http://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/c6dbae4c8ca97a746030b390441cdfc750218a20b07d29b56f07b157cdc0bbd3 ? it's from the same address
549 2012-03-06 12:17:59 <riush> Joric: the first one spends a hash160 (address) output, the other one a pubkey output
550 2012-03-06 12:20:11 Graet is now known as Graet2
551 2012-03-06 12:20:22 <riush> (to spend a pubkey output you only need the signature, to spend an address output, you need to provide the pubkey as well)
552 2012-03-06 12:23:50 <sipa> unfortunately :)
553 2012-03-06 12:24:15 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
554 2012-03-06 12:44:09 Z0rZ0rZ0r has joined
555 2012-03-06 12:52:17 <zeiris> Z0rZ0rZ0r: how do you feel about fat bees and phages?
556 2012-03-06 12:57:47 cande has joined
557 2012-03-06 13:01:44 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
558 2012-03-06 13:06:00 p0s has joined
559 2012-03-06 13:07:27 Zarutian has joined
560 2012-03-06 13:07:43 Zarutian has quit (Client Quit)
561 2012-03-06 13:08:13 Zarutian has joined
562 2012-03-06 13:08:19 JRWR has joined
563 2012-03-06 13:09:26 cande has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
564 2012-03-06 13:11:53 erle- has joined
565 2012-03-06 13:15:05 <Z0rZ0rZ0r> zeiris: The Z0r has always been strong with the bees (so I heard)
566 2012-03-06 13:31:17 bodom has quit (Read error: No route to host)
567 2012-03-06 13:35:17 splatster has joined
568 2012-03-06 13:35:23 JRWR has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
569 2012-03-06 13:36:26 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
570 2012-03-06 13:37:14 pickett has joined
571 2012-03-06 13:39:55 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
572 2012-03-06 13:40:51 swulf-- has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
573 2012-03-06 13:41:50 gwillen has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
574 2012-03-06 13:43:41 pickett has joined
575 2012-03-06 13:44:32 gwillen has joined
576 2012-03-06 13:46:03 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
577 2012-03-06 13:46:21 agricocb has joined
578 2012-03-06 13:48:05 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
579 2012-03-06 13:48:18 OneFixt has joined
580 2012-03-06 13:52:04 TD has joined
581 2012-03-06 13:53:51 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
582 2012-03-06 13:57:24 <Zarutian> h'lo. I am in the mood to discuss chain joining and splitting and electronic rights (the same kind of right as water right or other usage right)
583 2012-03-06 14:01:35 <Zarutian> joining of chains is pretty easy to specify in a bitcoin-esque protocol: just have the field pointing to previous block (by cryptohash) accept more than one hash.
584 2012-03-06 14:02:07 <Zarutian> there is a problem. It is easily spotted and hopefully as easily corrected/countered.
585 2012-03-06 14:02:28 sje has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
586 2012-03-06 14:03:11 <Zarutian> the problem is: which of the chains have priority over the others regarding acceptable order of transactions
587 2012-03-06 14:03:55 <Zarutian> one solution to that is to have the highest priority chain pointed to first then the next and so on.
588 2012-03-06 14:03:56 <tcatm> Why would you want to join chains that way (effectivly creating a tree)?
589 2012-03-06 14:04:49 <Zarutian> tcatm: allow for temporal partioning among other such reasons
590 2012-03-06 14:06:49 <tcatm> There are very good arguments to have only one valid longest chain at all times and that's a very fundamental design decision for Bitcoin. Why change it?
591 2012-03-06 14:07:02 <Zarutian> currently, the bitcoin protocol assumes a single time domain (you could think of a time domain as space few lightseconds across.
592 2012-03-06 14:07:26 <Zarutian> )
593 2012-03-06 14:09:30 gfinn has joined
594 2012-03-06 14:09:31 storrgie has joined
595 2012-03-06 14:10:02 <Zarutian> the arguments to only have one vaild longest chain is to reach consensus on the order of transactions and to make it computational-power hard to disrupt that consensu, no?
596 2012-03-06 14:10:48 <Zarutian> s/su,/sus,/
597 2012-03-06 14:10:54 <tcatm> The order is not that important, but the information that transaction occured and was valid is.
598 2012-03-06 14:12:02 <Zarutian> the order of "did transaction a spend this output of transaction c before transaction b did or vice versa" is important.
599 2012-03-06 14:12:42 <tcatm> Yes, but it's implicit because transactions in the wrong order would be invalid.
600 2012-03-06 14:13:24 <tcatm> Many transaction can happen independent of each other, too.
601 2012-03-06 14:13:37 <Zarutian> yes, indeed
602 2012-03-06 14:14:58 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
603 2012-03-06 14:15:35 <Zarutian> so, what is preventing a chain of blocks containing transactions to be joined to another block chain so long as the transactions in the chains do not conflict?
604 2012-03-06 14:16:03 libcoin has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
605 2012-03-06 14:16:24 <Zarutian> (arbitration can be done by aforesaid priority assignment of cryptohash-pointers to previous blocks)
606 2012-03-06 14:16:39 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
607 2012-03-06 14:17:41 <tcatm> In a way that's already possible now when chainsplits occur. Weaker chains will have all their transactions invalidated and validated again in newer blocks.
608 2012-03-06 14:18:33 storrgie has quit (Quit: Leaving)
609 2012-03-06 14:18:46 <Zarutian> all transactions except coinbase&fee transactions, no?
610 2012-03-06 14:19:02 denisx has joined
611 2012-03-06 14:19:18 marf_away has joined
612 2012-03-06 14:19:57 <tcatm> Yes. Well, let's assume all coins are mined. That simplifies the problem a little. Very old coinbases can cause a lot of trouble when invalidated.
613 2012-03-06 14:20:51 Z0rZ0rZ0r has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
614 2012-03-06 14:20:58 <Zarutian> as in turn those coinbases invalidate transactions spending txn-outs from those coinbase txns
615 2012-03-06 14:22:57 <Zarutian> the foundation of bitcoin's security/trust is based on the premise that an attacker gains more from playing along rather than not
616 2012-03-06 14:23:33 <Zarutian> (if the attacker has less that 51% hashrate of the network)
617 2012-03-06 14:24:08 <Tykling> Is there somewhere I can get a feed of EUR trades at mtgox, the purpose is to calculate an average EUR price for the last hour ? a webservice or something would be ideal
618 2012-03-06 14:25:09 <tcatm> Tykling: Realtime or historic?
619 2012-03-06 14:25:51 <tcatm> Maybe this will help you: http://bitcoincharts.com/about/markets-api/
620 2012-03-06 14:26:46 <Tykling> tcatm: realtime I guess, so if I have to sell some coins, I know what the average mtgox EUR price over the last hour has been
621 2012-03-06 14:26:57 <Zarutian> lets say an coalition of attackers (current nation states are good contenders for that role) want to take control of a cryptocurrency such as bitcoin. They spend a lot of resources building, servicing and powering specialized supercomputers. (Basicly ASIC miners on steriods). Sounds plausible?
622 2012-03-06 14:27:13 <tcatm> Tykling: telnet bitcoincharts.com 27007 and grep for mtgoxEUR
623 2012-03-06 14:28:19 <Tykling> tcatm: oh that is just awesome, just what I needed, thanks!
624 2012-03-06 14:28:21 <tcatm> Zarutian: That's no new scenario. In fact, it has come up many times over the last years.
625 2012-03-06 14:28:50 <Zarutian> such setup can used to deny "unauthorized" transactions.
626 2012-03-06 14:29:34 fimpfimp has joined
627 2012-03-06 14:29:41 <[eval]> speaking of ASICs, i got an e-mail from largecoin saying they're selling 25 "Integrated Mining Units" at USD $30K
628 2012-03-06 14:30:10 <tcatm> If you permanently control > 51% of the computational power you turn bitcoin into a centralised bank, yes.
629 2012-03-06 14:30:28 <[eval]> the "LargeCoin C200" fits in 1U of rackspace, ships by july 31, and free shipping... 20GH/s
630 2012-03-06 14:30:32 <[eval]> hrm
631 2012-03-06 14:30:38 <[eval]> that's $1.5/MH/s
632 2012-03-06 14:30:46 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
633 2012-03-06 14:31:28 <Zarutian> tcatm: so it basicly comes down to the race on who will make the first replicator to turn the solar system into a matrioska computer calculating hashes of cryptocurrency blocks.
634 2012-03-06 14:32:33 <Zarutian> tcatcm: the likely hood that current nation states want to do that increases as cryptocurrencies gain legimaticy in the minds of people, incorrect?
635 2012-03-06 14:33:04 <tcatm> I'm confident that people building such a large computer would use it or other purposes than bitcoin mining.
636 2012-03-06 14:37:02 <Zarutian> depends on if someone starts, over tor and or i2p, an pie-in-the-face prediction market. (Want to lower the smugness and self satisfaction of a politican or celeb you particualary do not like? add to their pot. Want to get some cash? Predict when and where they will get aforesaid pie in the face.)
637 2012-03-06 14:39:02 <tcatm> In that case: Feed that computer a stream of all internet packets and have it figure outo who will throw a pie when and where and prevent that.
638 2012-03-06 14:40:29 <Zarutian> that is the thing, it is hard to predict.
639 2012-03-06 14:41:05 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneWeirdzzzz
640 2012-03-06 14:41:06 <Zarutian> hell a celeb could predict exactly and hire someone to do the deed to them.
641 2012-03-06 14:42:02 Turingi has joined
642 2012-03-06 14:43:36 <tcatm> Anyway, your suggestion was changing the structure of the "blockchain", not preventing >51% attacks.
643 2012-03-06 14:43:46 <Zarutian> back to chain joining, splitting and electronic usage-rights
644 2012-03-06 14:43:58 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
645 2012-03-06 14:44:37 mrsy has quit (Quit: leaving)
646 2012-03-06 14:45:13 <Zarutian> making an >51% attack harder is one of the things that structure change could help with
647 2012-03-06 14:46:54 <Zarutian> lets say we have two blockchains, b1 and b2.
648 2012-03-06 14:47:23 <Zarutian> b1 is the usual global one while b2 is one local to a country or geographic region
649 2012-03-06 14:49:35 <Zarutian> txns in the b2 can clear relative to b2 and blocks in b1 prior to b2's split before an >51% attacker attacking b1 can stall them
650 2012-03-06 14:50:07 <sipa> parse error
651 2012-03-06 14:50:10 <Zarutian> and even a 51% attacker cant block all b1 blocks
652 2012-03-06 14:50:49 <Zarutian> sipa: request for pointing out syntax ambigiouty
653 2012-03-06 14:52:10 <tcatm> You can use UTF8 here and thus all those symbols used in maths and computer science are available :)
654 2012-03-06 14:52:23 <sipa> ÊouÊ oÊ pooÆ
655 2012-03-06 14:53:13 <sipa> Zarutian: ok, parse succeeded, but it's still a bit confusing :)
656 2012-03-06 14:53:31 <sipa> transactions in b2 can clear relative to b2?
657 2012-03-06 14:54:21 <Zarutian> that is a b2 txn can eather point to an b2 txn-out or an b1 txn-out
658 2012-03-06 14:54:46 <sipa> ok
659 2012-03-06 14:55:10 <sipa> and what if a b1 transaction wants to spend a b1 txout that is already consumed by a b2 transaction?
660 2012-03-06 14:55:32 <Zarutian> so long as the b1 txn-out is prior to b2's split.
661 2012-03-06 14:55:43 <sipa> how do you define 'prior'
662 2012-03-06 14:55:46 <Zarutian> sipa: that is one of the problems
663 2012-03-06 14:55:54 <sipa> no, that is *the* problem
664 2012-03-06 14:56:31 <sipa> the chain is a single chain because it needs to be able to order events for which no objective way of ordering them exists
665 2012-03-06 14:57:09 <Zarutian> prior being blocks in b1 that precede a block in b1 that states "b2 splits off from here"
666 2012-03-06 14:57:17 splatster has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
667 2012-03-06 14:57:46 <Zarutian> (preceding blocks meaning as the usual cryptohash pointer following of blocks)
668 2012-03-06 14:58:02 <sipa> b2 splits off from b1?
669 2012-03-06 14:58:19 <sipa> can you spend a preexisting output in both?
670 2012-03-06 14:58:58 <Zarutian> that is the thing. That shouldnt be possible.
671 2012-03-06 14:59:10 <sipa> how do you prevent it?
672 2012-03-06 15:00:12 <Zarutian> by a) declaring in the txn-out that it can be spent in chain b1 or b2 (or other specified chain) or by b) prioritising txns in b1 over those in b2
673 2012-03-06 15:00:31 <Zarutian> (when those chains join back together)
674 2012-03-06 15:01:21 iocor has joined
675 2012-03-06 15:01:32 <Zarutian> myself i am in favour in a) over b)
676 2012-03-06 15:01:59 swulf-- has joined
677 2012-03-06 15:02:35 <Zarutian> as that is not very diffrent from trading btc on a platform such as mtgox
678 2012-03-06 15:02:59 <tcatm> a) So you don't know that b2 will exist in the future but you'd have to declare it so the tx could be spent in b2?
679 2012-03-06 15:03:55 <Zarutian> the splitoffs and joins can be regular and plannable for
680 2012-03-06 15:04:27 <tcatm> How would Satoshi spent his early coins in b2 then?
681 2012-03-06 15:04:28 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
682 2012-03-06 15:05:06 <Zarutian> tcatm: spend it to a txn that states that some of them can be spent in b2
683 2012-03-06 15:05:30 * Zarutian is still condensing the idea from the vapour of inspeficity
684 2012-03-06 15:06:42 <Zarutian> might such a thing as splitting of side chains and rejoining them be worth pursuing? or am I just wasting everyones time here?
685 2012-03-06 15:06:51 <tcatm> So two (or more transactions) for spending in b2. As your original argument included time domains far apart (like lightseconds), why not simple have multiple independent chains in each domain with exchanges within intersections?
686 2012-03-06 15:08:48 <Zarutian> 1) such exchanges are single points of failures 2) tieing the chains together makes it, I think, harder for mounting a >51% attack against eather as such an attack must be amounted agains both
687 2012-03-06 15:09:01 <helo> you could still build a dyson sphere miner and take over all of the chains
688 2012-03-06 15:09:15 <helo> for some values of "could" heh
689 2012-03-06 15:10:04 <Zarutian> 3) possibility of a higher block rate in those side chains.
690 2012-03-06 15:10:06 <tcatm> 1. There can be multiple exchanges. In this scenario probably on multiple planets. That's not really single-point-of-failure.
691 2012-03-06 15:11:02 <tcatm> 3. Higher blockrates do not help at all.
692 2012-03-06 15:13:56 <Zarutian> humm.. I think I will mull on this further at later time.
693 2012-03-06 15:14:25 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
694 2012-03-06 15:15:18 <Zarutian> electronic ?usage?-rights is next on my dicussion agenda if no one objects
695 2012-03-06 15:18:08 <Zarutian> so far, bitcoin only has one kind of an eright. The one of fungible satoshis. Another blockchain called namecoin has the spefic right of assigning names in various (often hierchical) namespaces to values.
696 2012-03-06 15:19:20 <Zarutian> parsable so far?
697 2012-03-06 15:21:19 michaelmclees has joined
698 2012-03-06 15:21:40 <Zarutian> what other kinds do you'all think will exists and might be somewhat usefull?
699 2012-03-06 15:22:01 <sipa> the usage right is a consensus
700 2012-03-06 15:22:14 BlueMatt has joined
701 2012-03-06 15:22:25 <zeiris> The right to cast votes?
702 2012-03-06 15:22:28 <sipa> one could argue that the block chain can be used for data storage, for example
703 2012-03-06 15:22:48 <Zarutian> sipa: it already has been/is used as such.
704 2012-03-06 15:22:54 <helo> distributed blockchain proof-of-work is good at deciding on an ordering of verifiably valid "events"
705 2012-03-06 15:22:54 <sipa> however, far from everyone would agree to this (i don't)
706 2012-03-06 15:23:14 <sipa> Zarutian: there is no way to prevent it
707 2012-03-06 15:23:30 <helo> the important utility of it is that it decides on the /ordering/, and not the validity, i believe
708 2012-03-06 15:23:39 <sipa> Zarutian: but misusing the block may shift costs
709 2012-03-06 15:24:02 <helo> so any application that requires an agreed upon ordering could benefit from a bitcoin-like system
710 2012-03-06 15:24:48 <Zarutian> helo: such as an p2p mmorpg deciding on who has what and so forth?
711 2012-03-06 15:25:13 phantomfakeBNC has joined
712 2012-03-06 15:25:18 phantomfakeBNC has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
713 2012-03-06 15:25:21 <Zarutian> (who being an pubkey in the bitcoin pseudonymity sense)
714 2012-03-06 15:25:25 <helo> probably... or who killed who
715 2012-03-06 15:25:47 <luke-jr> Mezzoflation. Overheated Economy.
716 2012-03-06 15:25:59 <helo> i.e. whose blow struck first
717 2012-03-06 15:26:34 <luke-jr> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFhgfA1G2Uw
718 2012-03-06 15:27:16 <Zarutian> helo: so, it can be used to keep track of that I gave you an access token that certain service expects.
719 2012-03-06 15:29:19 slush has joined
720 2012-03-06 15:30:04 <denisx> my bitcoind says 0x000000000000040d4c99533347bd968580997855c9c849d9a858992ad4d7bf4c is an orphan
721 2012-03-06 15:30:11 <denisx> but block explorer has it listed
722 2012-03-06 15:30:15 <denisx> who do I trust?
723 2012-03-06 15:30:16 michaelmclees has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
724 2012-03-06 15:30:22 <tcatm> denisx: Your client.
725 2012-03-06 15:31:50 <tcatm> denisx: Is your client well connected? What's its blockcount?
726 2012-03-06 15:32:11 <denisx> my client has 23 connections
727 2012-03-06 15:32:25 <denisx> 169904 blocks
728 2012-03-06 15:32:56 <denisx> how would an orphan look like on block explorer?
729 2012-03-06 15:33:19 <sipa> denisx: a 'previous block' link but no 'next block' link, i would assume
730 2012-03-06 15:33:35 <tcatm> Probably not listed at all. I.e. only longest chain listed.
731 2012-03-06 15:33:37 <denisx> but it has a next block link
732 2012-03-06 15:33:47 <denisx> http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000000040d4c99533347bd968580997855c9c849d9a858992ad4d7bf4c
733 2012-03-06 15:33:53 <tcatm> Just trust your client :)
734 2012-03-06 15:34:26 <tcatm> It's well connected and has the right blockcount so unless you are seeing weird transactions there's likely nothing wrong.
735 2012-03-06 15:34:51 <sipa> while the chance that there is something wrong with BBE is reasonable :)
736 2012-03-06 15:36:33 <tcatm> denisx: Does it say "orphaned" in debug.log?
737 2012-03-06 15:37:48 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
738 2012-03-06 15:37:50 copumpkin has joined
739 2012-03-06 15:37:51 <tcatm> Maybe it was orphaned temporarily but its chain still won a few blocks later.
740 2012-03-06 15:37:52 copumpkin has quit (Changing host)
741 2012-03-06 15:37:52 copumpkin has joined
742 2012-03-06 15:38:24 <denisx> tcatm: no
743 2012-03-06 15:39:06 <sipa> SetBestChain: new best=000000000000040d4c99 height=169897 work=255336011434638608514
744 2012-03-06 15:39:09 <sipa> ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
745 2012-03-06 15:39:09 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
746 2012-03-06 15:39:15 <sipa> seems it is not orphaned
747 2012-03-06 15:39:19 <tcatm> My client has that block, too.
748 2012-03-06 15:39:41 <denisx> {
749 2012-03-06 15:39:41 <denisx> "account" : "",
750 2012-03-06 15:39:42 <denisx> "category" : "orphan",
751 2012-03-06 15:39:42 <denisx> "amount" : 50.03200000,
752 2012-03-06 15:39:42 <denisx> "confirmations" : 0,
753 2012-03-06 15:39:43 <denisx> "txid" : "296a6da4f3e5f9d7523c822136b2f5d6e732599be907f17b4bc590325448631f",
754 2012-03-06 15:39:43 <denisx> "time" : 1331044878
755 2012-03-06 15:39:43 <denisx> }
756 2012-03-06 15:39:50 <denisx> this is what my bitcoind says
757 2012-03-06 15:40:03 <tcatm> Oh, so the transaction is orphaned, not the block.
758 2012-03-06 15:40:29 BlueMatt has joined
759 2012-03-06 15:42:12 libcoin has joined
760 2012-03-06 15:43:25 <sipa> denisx: you reported the problem with walletpassphrase giving a type error?
761 2012-03-06 15:43:37 <denisx> sipa: yes
762 2012-03-06 15:43:49 <sipa> see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/916
763 2012-03-06 15:44:42 <luke-jr> FWIW, current P2SH status: BIP16 37% support vs 4% oppose; BIP17 4% support vs 0% oppose
764 2012-03-06 15:45:10 <luke-jr> (Eligius: 3%)
765 2012-03-06 15:47:49 * BlueMatt is having breakfast at 5pm...
766 2012-03-06 15:48:20 fimpfimp has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
767 2012-03-06 15:48:46 <sipa> BlueMatt: you're in europe?
768 2012-03-06 15:48:51 <BlueMatt> for the week
769 2012-03-06 15:48:56 <sipa> ah, where?
770 2012-03-06 15:49:00 <BlueMatt> frankfurt
771 2012-03-06 15:49:03 <sipa> ic
772 2012-03-06 15:49:04 splatster has joined
773 2012-03-06 15:49:20 <denisx> sipa: ok, tested it. the issue can be closed
774 2012-03-06 15:51:22 splatterbot has joined
775 2012-03-06 15:52:05 gavinandresen has joined
776 2012-03-06 15:52:52 <jeremias> bitcoind is returning "Safe mode: WARNING: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."
777 2012-03-06 15:52:55 <jeremias> error
778 2012-03-06 15:52:58 <jeremias> on testnet
779 2012-03-06 15:53:10 <jeremias> what should I do, and how do I avoid this?
780 2012-03-06 15:53:13 <BlueMatt> what? we have an alert?
781 2012-03-06 15:53:21 <luke-jr> jeremias: probably your blockchain is corrupt
782 2012-03-06 15:53:27 <jeremias> hmm
783 2012-03-06 15:53:35 <jeremias> so I need to download it again?
784 2012-03-06 15:53:44 <luke-jr> jeremias: if that is the case, yes
785 2012-03-06 15:53:51 <sipa> jeremias: start it with -checkblocks
786 2012-03-06 15:53:51 <jeremias> blah
787 2012-03-06 15:53:56 <jeremias> sipa: thanks
788 2012-03-06 15:54:03 <sipa> if that doesn't help, yes, redownload...
789 2012-03-06 15:54:05 <gavinandresen> what version? There is a testnet chain split with pre-0.6 code
790 2012-03-06 15:54:49 <luke-jr> I think we're getting corrupt blockchain reports too often⦠anyone feel comfortable writing code to try detecting this case and fixing it (by redownloading the affected block)?
791 2012-03-06 15:54:50 <sipa> oh, i didn't see testnet
792 2012-03-06 15:54:54 <luke-jr> oh
793 2012-03-06 15:55:12 <luke-jr> gavinandresen is the only one who reads :D
794 2012-03-06 15:55:42 <denisx> so what do I now with my orphaned generating transaction?
795 2012-03-06 15:56:49 <gavinandresen> jeremias: to be clear: you need to either upgrade to version 0.6, or do your testing using a testnet-in-a-box environment
796 2012-03-06 15:59:10 <sipa> for BIP30, there is support from deepbit, bitcoin.cz, eclipsemc, eligius, mtred, bitlc, btcmine, ozcoin; no reports from anyone having applied the patch already though
797 2012-03-06 16:00:06 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
798 2012-03-06 16:00:57 imsaguy has joined
799 2012-03-06 16:01:34 booo has joined
800 2012-03-06 16:08:36 <BlueMatt> switchover is the 15th, right?
801 2012-03-06 16:08:37 <luke-jr> sipa: BTCGuild?
802 2012-03-06 16:08:50 <sipa> luke-jr: nothing heard from them
803 2012-03-06 16:19:00 <denisx> so nobody has an idea what I do about this orphaned generation transaction from a valid block?
804 2012-03-06 16:19:09 X-Scale has joined
805 2012-03-06 16:19:59 <Zarutian> densix: chisel it into stone plaque and mount on your wall?
806 2012-03-06 16:22:32 <jeremias> gavinandresen: thanks for the tip, I have 0.5.2
807 2012-03-06 16:22:53 <jeremias> where can i download 0.6?
808 2012-03-06 16:24:00 <gavinandresen> sourceforge.net/projects/Bitcoin/files
809 2012-03-06 16:24:04 <jeremias> found
810 2012-03-06 16:24:06 <jeremias> thanks
811 2012-03-06 16:26:09 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
812 2012-03-06 16:26:27 <jeremias> do I have to do something else after upgrading?
813 2012-03-06 16:27:14 <jeremias> still gives me the same error...
814 2012-03-06 16:30:44 TD has joined
815 2012-03-06 16:35:28 fimpfimp has joined
816 2012-03-06 16:35:43 Detritus has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
817 2012-03-06 16:41:35 <gavinandresen> jeremias: you probably need to re-download the testnet blockchain; remove blk*.dat from your test/ datadir
818 2012-03-06 16:42:04 <sipa> denisx: are you sure the block was accepted?
819 2012-03-06 16:42:48 Graet2 is now known as Graet
820 2012-03-06 16:42:49 <sipa> ok, which block would it be from?
821 2012-03-06 16:43:08 <gavinandresen> sipa: I like the idea of getting MtGox and other big infrastructure sites to upgrade, too
822 2012-03-06 16:43:24 <denisx> sipa: yes
823 2012-03-06 16:43:33 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
824 2012-03-06 16:43:46 <denisx> sipa: http://blockchain.info/block-height/169897
825 2012-03-06 16:44:27 <denisx> but my bitcoind lists another txid than blockchain.com or blockexplorer
826 2012-03-06 16:45:06 <sipa> i think that means you just had a stale block?
827 2012-03-06 16:46:12 <sipa> gavinandresen: good idea
828 2012-03-06 16:46:22 <sipa> gavinandresen: any other suggestions for sites to contact?
829 2012-03-06 16:46:35 <gavinandresen> theymos' blockexplorer
830 2012-03-06 16:46:42 <gavinandresen> piuk's blockchain.info
831 2012-03-06 16:46:53 <gavinandresen> Bit-pay folks
832 2012-03-06 16:46:53 <sipa> i believe piuk already knows :D
833 2012-03-06 16:47:03 <gavinandresen> ... lemme see.... anybody else who handles lots of coins?
834 2012-03-06 16:47:24 iocor has joined
835 2012-03-06 16:47:28 <gavinandresen> (or gets lots of eyeballs)
836 2012-03-06 16:48:03 iocor has quit (Client Quit)
837 2012-03-06 16:48:15 libcoin1 has joined
838 2012-03-06 16:48:29 libcoin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
839 2012-03-06 16:48:32 archo47 has joined
840 2012-03-06 16:49:14 <imsaguy2> gpumax
841 2012-03-06 16:50:31 * luke-jr doesn't care so much about gambling sites
842 2012-03-06 16:50:49 <luke-jr> :p
843 2012-03-06 16:51:18 <imsaguy2> you would if you mined with any amount of sizable hashrate :)
844 2012-03-06 16:55:54 Clipse has joined
845 2012-03-06 17:00:37 <nanotube> gavinandresen: tcatm: by the way, there's no link from bitcoin.org either to shasums.asc, or to the full directory of the release files. this makes in very hard for people to discover that there are checksums and gpg sigs available.
846 2012-03-06 17:01:03 <nanotube> might i suggest adding a link in the download area to "checksums" or to the directory as "all release files" ?
847 2012-03-06 17:01:09 <nanotube> on bitcoin.org
848 2012-03-06 17:02:23 <nanotube> or maybe make the latest version number (0.5.2 currently) in that box be a link to the /files/ section (https://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.5.2/ currently)
849 2012-03-06 17:05:04 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
850 2012-03-06 17:06:32 sacarlson has joined
851 2012-03-06 17:08:36 <Raccoon> Is the RPC service only a one time query connection, or can the connection remain persistant?
852 2012-03-06 17:10:47 <gavinandresen> nanotube: good idea. make a pull request against the bitcoin.org source
853 2012-03-06 17:10:58 <gavinandresen> Raccoon: one-time
854 2012-03-06 17:11:10 <Raccoon> darn.
855 2012-03-06 17:11:32 <Raccoon> so there's no way to receive a notification when a payment is received
856 2012-03-06 17:11:48 <Raccoon> you'd have to hammer the address balance?
857 2012-03-06 17:12:05 <gavinandresen> You can get notified whenever there is a new block
858 2012-03-06 17:12:19 <Raccoon> how so?
859 2012-03-06 17:12:35 <gavinandresen> -notifyblock='command to run when there is a new block'
860 2012-03-06 17:12:46 <gavinandresen> (command-line argument to bitcoind)
861 2012-03-06 17:12:59 <Raccoon> i see.
862 2012-03-06 17:13:07 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
863 2012-03-06 17:13:15 <gavinandresen> And since you shouldn't accept payments until they've had X confirmations that should work
864 2012-03-06 17:13:30 <Raccoon> so basically you can work it so something happens when a tx receives so many confirmations
865 2012-03-06 17:13:42 <Raccoon> but no way to send an instant "payment received" message
866 2012-03-06 17:14:15 <gavinandresen> I wrote a patch a while ago to get instant payment notifications, but was never happy enough with it to put it in mainline
867 2012-03-06 17:14:27 <Raccoon> are there other APIs available?
868 2012-03-06 17:14:38 <Raccoon> perhaps Windows Messages
869 2012-03-06 17:15:26 iocor has joined
870 2012-03-06 17:15:26 <nanotube> gavinandresen: good idea. just wanted to ask first if it was a reasonable thing to do :)
871 2012-03-06 17:15:43 <Raccoon> really just wasted a lot of time writing an JSON RPC parser to find it doesn't even support what I wanted to do :p
872 2012-03-06 17:15:59 <gavinandresen> Raccoon: https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/tree/monitorreceived is the out-of-date branch
873 2012-03-06 17:18:53 <luke-jr> Raccoon: you might be interested in https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Wallet_protocol , but it's still pre-BIP and not implemented
874 2012-03-06 17:21:06 <Raccoon> heh "Binary is more efficient to parse and create"
875 2012-03-06 17:21:21 <Raccoon> not if you're not writing in a binary capable language
876 2012-03-06 17:22:06 <sipa> such as?
877 2012-03-06 17:22:20 * sipa knows no such language
878 2012-03-06 17:22:52 <Raccoon> lets say Javascript for simplicity
879 2012-03-06 17:23:41 <Raccoon> definitely not more efficient to parse
880 2012-03-06 17:23:45 <Raccoon> or create
881 2012-03-06 17:25:45 <splatster> Raccoon: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat
882 2012-03-06 17:26:02 <splatster> Actually, everyone should watch that.
883 2012-03-06 17:29:31 <Zarutian> splaster: loved the huge bathduck
884 2012-03-06 17:31:25 <[eval]> i got into the wiki; writing DAC article now. thanks TD and MagicalTux!
885 2012-03-06 17:31:35 <TD> great!
886 2012-03-06 17:31:53 <[eval]> TD: i thought of another place DACs could be useful
887 2012-03-06 17:31:58 <TD> oh?
888 2012-03-06 17:32:07 <[eval]> X prize and similar competitions
889 2012-03-06 17:32:16 draco49 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
890 2012-03-06 17:32:19 agricocb has joined
891 2012-03-06 17:32:25 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
892 2012-03-06 17:33:08 <[eval]> bounties/prizes could work better than single-source vendor selection... the arbitrators in my scheme would be competition judges
893 2012-03-06 17:35:34 <Raccoon> DAC?
894 2012-03-06 17:35:45 <mod6> splatster: funny vid. javascript is insane.
895 2012-03-06 17:35:49 <[eval]> dominant assurance contract. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_3:_Assurance_contracts
896 2012-03-06 17:35:55 Diablo-D3 has joined
897 2012-03-06 17:36:01 <splatster> mod6: Insane is a good way to put.
898 2012-03-06 17:36:38 MrTiggr has joined
899 2012-03-06 17:36:42 <mod6> {} + {} = NaN <= awesome
900 2012-03-06 17:37:01 <Diablo-D3> jesus christ
901 2012-03-06 17:37:05 <Diablo-D3> not the wat talk again
902 2012-03-06 17:37:43 <helo> more whining?
903 2012-03-06 17:38:44 antix has joined
904 2012-03-06 17:39:03 draco49 has joined
905 2012-03-06 17:41:35 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
906 2012-03-06 17:46:53 <TD> [eval]: yeah that sort of thing can work
907 2012-03-06 17:47:23 <TD> [eval]: i like to think about things kickstarter couldn't do, due to overhead or whatever. so the translation example for instance. i think unique apps are the easiest way to convince people about the utility of bitcoin
908 2012-03-06 17:47:46 p0s has joined
909 2012-03-06 17:47:51 p0s has quit (Changing host)
910 2012-03-06 17:47:51 p0s has joined
911 2012-03-06 17:55:58 vigilyn has left ("Leaving")
912 2012-03-06 17:57:09 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
913 2012-03-06 18:05:30 <Raccoon> td: you mean translating documents for people?
914 2012-03-06 18:06:25 <[eval]> TD just quit :P but yeah, there was a discussion yesterday at about 5pm EST about auto-funding page translations using a browser plugin and bitcoin dominant assurance contracts :P
915 2012-03-06 18:06:34 splatterbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
916 2012-03-06 18:07:05 <Raccoon> would be nifty.
917 2012-03-06 18:07:06 splatterbot has joined
918 2012-03-06 18:08:08 <Raccoon> i'd do something like a site where people translate by hand, the translation is critiqued and improved upon by N other users, a translation that receives N votes clears the process and all involved get paid.
919 2012-03-06 18:10:25 <Raccoon> there'd be some basic "by the word" base price, and increasing that bounty encourages better/faster translation.
920 2012-03-06 18:12:19 chrisb__ has joined
921 2012-03-06 18:16:39 machine1 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
922 2012-03-06 18:18:20 splatterbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
923 2012-03-06 18:18:44 splatterbot has joined
924 2012-03-06 18:19:17 splatterbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
925 2012-03-06 18:21:50 ThomasV has joined
926 2012-03-06 18:23:28 pusle has joined
927 2012-03-06 18:24:20 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
928 2012-03-06 18:24:58 splatterbot has joined
929 2012-03-06 18:25:02 machine1 has joined
930 2012-03-06 18:27:47 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
931 2012-03-06 18:33:55 Eliel has quit (Quit: restarting)
932 2012-03-06 18:34:05 Eliel has joined
933 2012-03-06 18:38:20 barmstrong has joined
934 2012-03-06 18:40:18 <[eval]> TD[gone]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Dominant_Assurance_Contracts - let me know if you want anything changed before linking
935 2012-03-06 18:45:43 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
936 2012-03-06 18:54:30 occulta has joined
937 2012-03-06 18:54:55 Z0rZ0rZ0r has joined
938 2012-03-06 18:56:33 <helo> Raccoon: coinworker.com
939 2012-03-06 18:56:39 Turingi has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
940 2012-03-06 19:03:06 ziglir has quit (Read error: No route to host)
941 2012-03-06 19:03:21 ziglir has joined
942 2012-03-06 19:04:36 skeledrew has joined
943 2012-03-06 19:05:35 <Raccoon> interesting
944 2012-03-06 19:07:56 <Raccoon> most listings are too cheap to even be worth it
945 2012-03-06 19:08:44 <Raccoon> for example to earn $10 an hour, you'd have to process 2000 pages of 25 images for content violations each hour
946 2012-03-06 19:09:02 <Raccoon> just can't be done
947 2012-03-06 19:09:05 <splatster> .o rot13 ZOMG
948 2012-03-06 19:09:08 <splatterbot> MBZT
949 2012-03-06 19:09:13 <splatster> oops
950 2012-03-06 19:09:18 <splatster> wrong chan
951 2012-03-06 19:09:20 <Raccoon> heh
952 2012-03-06 19:09:31 <splatster> MBZT!
953 2012-03-06 19:13:04 att has joined
954 2012-03-06 19:17:59 someONEEE has quit (Quit: Page closed)
955 2012-03-06 19:18:28 <[eval]> OTOH, you do get to get paid while looking at porn :P
956 2012-03-06 19:18:36 <[eval]> paid FOR looking at porn, i should say.
957 2012-03-06 19:21:35 Clipse has joined
958 2012-03-06 19:24:54 <[eval]> MagicalTux: there are still wiki spammers operating; now they're putting their spam in their User:Talk sections :/
959 2012-03-06 19:27:46 machine1 has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
960 2012-03-06 19:29:01 bitcoinTrader4OT has joined
961 2012-03-06 19:32:14 machine1 has joined
962 2012-03-06 19:33:49 splatster has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
963 2012-03-06 19:36:06 bitcoinTrader4OT has left ()
964 2012-03-06 19:37:05 machine1 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
965 2012-03-06 19:42:31 Ahimoth has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
966 2012-03-06 19:45:04 machine1 has joined
967 2012-03-06 19:45:23 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
968 2012-03-06 19:52:10 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
969 2012-03-06 19:56:02 <[eval]> if i work on re-enabling tx replacement, should i put the unit tests in their own file or in transaction_tests.cpp?
970 2012-03-06 19:57:05 <gavinandresen> [eval]: whatever floats your boat
971 2012-03-06 19:57:47 <[eval]> ok :) i'm looking over other tests, too, to see where else it might fit. again, no guarantee i'll ever actually accomplish anything (but i'll try).
972 2012-03-06 19:57:51 <[eval]> thanks!
973 2012-03-06 20:02:19 splatster has joined
974 2012-03-06 20:04:38 <luke-jr> [eval]: probably have less trouble rebasing if it's a new file
975 2012-03-06 20:05:35 clowninasack has joined
976 2012-03-06 20:06:02 <sipa> i'm watching stanford's online cryptography course
977 2012-03-06 20:06:17 <sipa> currently just an overview; there seems to be a section on digital cash
978 2012-03-06 20:06:21 <[eval]> luke-jr: thanks, i'll try it that way then.
979 2012-03-06 20:06:28 <sipa> though i believe he's referring to chaumian blinding
980 2012-03-06 20:10:13 clowninasack_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
981 2012-03-06 20:10:14 mrsy has joined
982 2012-03-06 20:17:44 booo has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
983 2012-03-06 20:20:06 clowninasack_ has joined
984 2012-03-06 20:21:55 clowninasack has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
985 2012-03-06 20:29:23 gigavps has joined
986 2012-03-06 20:29:39 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
987 2012-03-06 20:30:32 jimbit has joined
988 2012-03-06 20:30:52 <jimbit> a welcome commitee :)
989 2012-03-06 20:31:23 <sipa> where?
990 2012-03-06 20:31:51 <jimbit> I come with bitcoin issue.... 14 blocks have been solved today (5 in the last 2 hours) by ip 88.6.216.9. but this block finder never allows any transactions into its found blocks
991 2012-03-06 20:32:12 <jimbit> every block has 1 transaction. the 50 gen
992 2012-03-06 20:32:26 <sipa> there is no rule that disallows this
993 2012-03-06 20:32:29 <jimbit> more blocks then deepbit
994 2012-03-06 20:32:46 <sipa> that's worrying...
995 2012-03-06 20:33:10 <gmaxwell> jimbit: please don't worry yourself too much over blockchain.info it's estimates of who solved what blocks are often wildly incorrect.
996 2012-03-06 20:33:27 <BlueMatt> may be a botnet...
997 2012-03-06 20:33:28 <gmaxwell> s/it's/its//
998 2012-03-06 20:33:38 <gigavps> http://blockchain.info/blocks/88.6.216.9
999 2012-03-06 20:33:42 <splatster> gmaxwell: But the similarity between each block is too eerie to ignore.
1000 2012-03-06 20:33:48 <jimbit> well, i dont think it is an aggregation of finders
1001 2012-03-06 20:33:54 <BlueMatt> or just some dumbass...
1002 2012-03-06 20:34:00 <jimbit> because of the '1' transaction each
1003 2012-03-06 20:34:17 <gigavps> some dumbass with a couple Th
1004 2012-03-06 20:34:19 <gmaxwell> In fact, that particular IP it was (incorrectly) reporting 90% of the block at some weeks ago.
1005 2012-03-06 20:34:25 <[eval]> hrm. so i'm looking at CTransaction::IsNewer(const CTransaction& old)... maybe i'm not understanding it, but it looks like it's possible to have some weird effects based on how the last loop is set up
1006 2012-03-06 20:34:32 * splatster almost dropped his comp
1007 2012-03-06 20:34:34 <splatster> Ugh
1008 2012-03-06 20:34:41 <BlueMatt> well, then it may be some blockchain.info internal ip
1009 2012-03-06 20:35:00 <BlueMatt> or maybe just a really, really well peered individual
1010 2012-03-06 20:35:10 <sipa> or a bug :)
1011 2012-03-06 20:35:15 <gigavps> what is the correlation with the IP and 1 transaction in the block then
1012 2012-03-06 20:35:25 <jimbit> gigavps: exactly
1013 2012-03-06 20:35:45 <gigavps> http://blockexplorer.com/ is showing the same
1014 2012-03-06 20:35:52 <BlueMatt> it is eerie, but how about we wait a day before freaking out?
1015 2012-03-06 20:36:06 <jimbit> i am a noob when it comes to understanding the ins and outs of bitcoind, but I can spot suspicious activity
1016 2012-03-06 20:36:17 <gigavps> no on is freaking out, just asking questions
1017 2012-03-06 20:36:24 <gmaxwell> There have always been a fair number of blocks with no txn. You're not comparing this to a baseline.
1018 2012-03-06 20:36:26 <luke-jr> blame GPUMAX
1019 2012-03-06 20:36:29 <luke-jr> <.<
1020 2012-03-06 20:36:42 <jimbit> :)
1021 2012-03-06 20:36:48 roomservice has joined
1022 2012-03-06 20:37:05 machine1 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1023 2012-03-06 20:37:09 <BlueMatt> I say blame firstbits
1024 2012-03-06 20:37:12 <jimbit> not freeking out... just worried about 50k worth of hardware in barn burning 1500$ worth of elec :)
1025 2012-03-06 20:37:33 <splatster> They might start a FIRE!!!!
1026 2012-03-06 20:37:35 <splatster> AHHH!
1027 2012-03-06 20:37:36 <BlueMatt> slightly less relevant, but I like to blame them for everything since it is such a broken and backwards idea
1028 2012-03-06 20:37:53 <luke-jr> well, I'm only half kidding
1029 2012-03-06 20:37:57 <jimbit> splatster: trust me the wires are warm ;)
1030 2012-03-06 20:37:59 <luke-jr> chances are this guy really is using GPUMAX
1031 2012-03-06 20:38:10 <sipa> what is GPUMAX?
1032 2012-03-06 20:38:18 <luke-jr> sipa: a mining proxy that sells to the highest bidder
1033 2012-03-06 20:38:20 <splatster> *facepalm*
1034 2012-03-06 20:38:32 <jimbit> gpumax has not been leasing shares that much today to ahve caused this!
1035 2012-03-06 20:38:40 <gmaxwell> sipa: a place where people are paid 150% PPS :-/
1036 2012-03-06 20:38:52 <jimbit> only about 6 hours worth today
1037 2012-03-06 20:39:01 <jimbit> maybe a little more.
1038 2012-03-06 20:39:10 <splatster> Why would you not include any TXs in a block?
1039 2012-03-06 20:39:17 <splatster> Is there an advantage to doing this?
1040 2012-03-06 20:39:20 RazielZ has joined
1041 2012-03-06 20:39:23 <dub> to kill off the scam chain
1042 2012-03-06 20:39:25 <dub> duh
1043 2012-03-06 20:39:29 <jimbit> to hide all machines from internet until you find a block?
1044 2012-03-06 20:39:34 <gmaxwell> splatster: it happens all the time when a block is simply found quickly.
1045 2012-03-06 20:39:37 <luke-jr> anyone know SolidCoin Mafia's pool IP?
1046 2012-03-06 20:39:58 <pickett> one of the 0 transaction blocks took 25min
1047 2012-03-06 20:39:59 <splatster> gmaxwell: But there are plenty of TXs these blocks could have had.
1048 2012-03-06 20:40:05 <BlueMatt> splatster: dont have to write the code to check txes or even get txes?
1049 2012-03-06 20:40:12 vigilyn has joined
1050 2012-03-06 20:40:53 <splatster> Maybe, just maybe, the person is trying to drive up the difficulty in order to do some weird shit.
1051 2012-03-06 20:41:26 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1052 2012-03-06 20:41:30 <roomservice> interesting, every generated block from this ip is spend to an unique address
1053 2012-03-06 20:42:03 <gmaxwell> I'm pretty sure that IP is just spurrious.
1054 2012-03-06 20:42:12 <helo> more fees for other miners
1055 2012-03-06 20:42:40 ThomasV has joined
1056 2012-03-06 20:42:49 <jimbit> ;;define spurrious
1057 2012-03-06 20:42:49 <gribble> Error: "define" is not a valid command.
1058 2012-03-06 20:42:53 <gmaxwell> Keep in mind, the only reason the blockchain.info ownership assessment is even remotely reliable is because many pools directly identify themselves in the coinbase.
1059 2012-03-06 20:42:54 <jimbit> lol
1060 2012-03-06 20:43:10 <gigavps> could someone predict the next merkel root if they are doing this and find the next block?
1061 2012-03-06 20:44:38 <jimbit> gmaxwell: spurriousness still does not explain the '1' transaction connection to them all
1062 2012-03-06 20:44:48 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1063 2012-03-06 20:45:04 <jimbit> all this blocks are from the same entity
1064 2012-03-06 20:45:11 <gmaxwell> jimbit: You're seeing a connection where I don't think one exists. There have long been miners which aren't processing transactions.
1065 2012-03-06 20:45:25 <jimbit> not one bigger then deepbit!!
1066 2012-03-06 20:46:01 <jimbit> anyway,, i will put on backburner and keep a good eye on it. i guess.
1067 2012-03-06 20:46:02 <gmaxwell> http://blockchain.info/block-index/188443/00000000000005e5c0a67380b7444d421cbc890cb5a6896296474f09dce8bf47
1068 2012-03-06 20:46:17 <roomservice> the network hashrate didn't raise significant today right?
1069 2012-03-06 20:46:26 <jimbit> nothing I can do about it now anyway, not like I am going to start selling off hardware or something
1070 2012-03-06 20:47:01 <gmaxwell> roomservice: you can't really reliably measure hashrate changes on a small time scale.
1071 2012-03-06 20:47:24 <jimbit> one from louisana..... this is 14 in one day..
1072 2012-03-06 20:47:30 <luke-jr> where small time scale is anything under 1 month
1073 2012-03-06 20:47:33 <gmaxwell> jimbit: that one is from today too.
1074 2012-03-06 20:47:43 <roomservice> alright, so time will tell thanks
1075 2012-03-06 20:47:54 <jimbit> yes, I bet it is a 1 or 2 minute block..
1076 2012-03-06 20:48:15 <gmaxwell> jimbit: nope.
1077 2012-03-06 20:48:25 bronan has joined
1078 2012-03-06 20:48:26 <gmaxwell> Though a number of your 'mystery' ones were.
1079 2012-03-06 20:48:41 <roomservice> well he just hit again :D
1080 2012-03-06 20:48:57 <jimbit> yes, because someone with about 3000G of power will find blocks quickly ;)
1081 2012-03-06 20:49:12 <copumpkin> this is unsettling
1082 2012-03-06 20:49:21 machine1 has joined
1083 2012-03-06 20:50:15 <jimbit> they are definetly purposly excluding transactions
1084 2012-03-06 20:50:36 <gmaxwell> jimbit: they may just not process free txns.
1085 2012-03-06 20:50:58 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1086 2012-03-06 20:51:41 <jimbit> gmaxwell: common..... are you honestly suggesting that out of 15 blocks found.. ? i sent 100 btc today, and I had to include a fee.....(thru the ui)
1087 2012-03-06 20:51:56 ubnutustudent has joined
1088 2012-03-06 20:52:06 <jimbit> 1 or 2,, even 3.. but 15. no way
1089 2012-03-06 20:52:07 <gmaxwell> jimbit: Your question is not clear to me.
1090 2012-03-06 20:52:21 <gigavps> they just found another block
1091 2012-03-06 20:52:40 <copumpkin> wtf
1092 2012-03-06 20:52:47 <gigavps> 16 now
1093 2012-03-06 20:52:47 <gmaxwell> jimbit: stop. You're not reading what I'm saying. You can't just freak out without a baseline. We know for a fact that there have been many empty blocks in the past. Is this an increase? I don't know. You don't either.
1094 2012-03-06 20:53:24 <jimbit> not freeking out.. just saying that it is clear they are purposly excluding transactions.. that is clear
1095 2012-03-06 20:53:56 <copumpkin> it's a pity blockchain.info doesn't give you an overview of previous days of mined blocks
1096 2012-03-06 20:54:00 <gmaxwell> It's not that simpleâ they could just be using a customized mining code that simply doesn't process transactions.
1097 2012-03-06 20:54:04 <jimbit> out of the last few blocks... even the 1 minuteones... there are hundreds of transactions
1098 2012-03-06 20:54:10 <helo> blocks without transactions aren't too bad... they still add a confirm previous transactions
1099 2012-03-06 20:54:10 <splatster> They are at 16 blocks
1100 2012-03-06 20:54:10 <copumpkin> you can see a big list, but it stops telling you how many transactions were in each in the table
1101 2012-03-06 20:54:15 <splatster> the fuck
1102 2012-03-06 20:54:30 <copumpkin> helo: it's just weird (and unsettling) if that's a single miner
1103 2012-03-06 20:54:33 <copumpkin> which isn't certain, either
1104 2012-03-06 20:54:44 <splatster> What I wouldn't give to have 800 BTC right now.
1105 2012-03-06 20:54:54 <jimbit> splatster: ?
1106 2012-03-06 20:55:14 <splatster> ;;calc 16 * 50
1107 2012-03-06 20:55:14 <gribble> 800
1108 2012-03-06 20:55:32 <splatster> That person/those people now have 800 BTC.
1109 2012-03-06 20:55:45 <jimbit> o, i have plenty.. and thinking of selling some right now
1110 2012-03-06 20:55:49 <helo> and they've invested a lot more than 800BTC in resources to get it
1111 2012-03-06 20:56:12 <splatster> jimbit: You should donate about 100 BTC to me then.
1112 2012-03-06 20:56:30 <splatster> Seeing as you clearly don't need them.
1113 2012-03-06 20:56:36 <jimbit> nope.. just donated a fridge and dishwasher to the wife :)
1114 2012-03-06 20:56:45 <splatster> ugh
1115 2012-03-06 20:57:00 <gigavps> lol donated
1116 2012-03-06 20:57:27 <jimbit> can anyone tell when this started?
1117 2012-03-06 20:57:39 <jimbit> im not good with blockchain info.
1118 2012-03-06 20:58:12 <gigavps> jimbit that IP has only found blocks today
1119 2012-03-06 20:58:18 <gigavps> http://blockchain.info/blocks/88.6.216.9
1120 2012-03-06 20:58:35 <gigavps> first block at 2012-03-06 00:32:34
1121 2012-03-06 20:58:38 <copumpkin> it relayed :P
1122 2012-03-06 20:58:50 <jimbit> that is just today.. is that all of them then?
1123 2012-03-06 20:58:51 <copumpkin> we don't actually know who found it, but it does seem highly correlated
1124 2012-03-06 20:59:24 <jimbit> well, one day doth not make a pattern
1125 2012-03-06 20:59:56 <roomservice> anyone checked if these ip is hosted by deepbit (maybe a new server)?
1126 2012-03-06 21:00:35 <gmaxwell> gigavps: no, I know thats not the case, because I see it it my shell history.
1127 2012-03-06 21:01:07 <gmaxwell> I don't think blockchain.info keeps old data?
1128 2012-03-06 21:01:48 <gmaxwell> (or rather it restates old dataâ I see in my IRC logs discussions about p2pool blocks that were misidentified by which are now correctly identified)
1129 2012-03-06 21:02:15 <roomservice> ok, this ip seems to be dynamic and today it's not the first time he is mining - see this thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=64763.0
1130 2012-03-06 21:02:45 <roomservice> the ip from this thread comes from granada, spain too
1131 2012-03-06 21:03:38 <pickett> someone using someone elses resources to mine
1132 2012-03-06 21:03:55 <gavinandresen> Maybe I'll propose a new network rule: Coinbase from a block with N transactions may only be spent in a block that has at least N/2 (rounded down) transaction in it.
1133 2012-03-06 21:03:58 <jimbit> interesting thread
1134 2012-03-06 21:04:18 <jimbit> I am glad gavinandresen is here.....
1135 2012-03-06 21:04:23 <jimbit> i was hoping you were.
1136 2012-03-06 21:04:30 <dub> 9.Red-88-6-216.staticIP.rima-tde.net not that it means anything but someone has tried to make it look static (fucking SORBS)
1137 2012-03-06 21:05:36 <gavinandresen> Nah, that's a bad rule... lets see, how to punish people for not including "enough" transactions in blocks....
1138 2012-03-06 21:06:07 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1139 2012-03-06 21:06:08 <sipa> gavinandresen: that would just encourage miners to spam-fill their own blocks
1140 2012-03-06 21:06:13 <gavinandresen> yup
1141 2012-03-06 21:06:51 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: if you're worried about this, I think it would be better to require a commitment to the open txn (e.g. to prove you know them).
1142 2012-03-06 21:06:51 <helo> this person could just put enough of their own transactions (between their own addresses), still excluding everyone else
1143 2012-03-06 21:07:12 <gmaxwell> so then failing to mine txn doesn't actually buy you anything.
1144 2012-03-06 21:07:16 <helo> there isn't a way to be sure miners include others transactions
1145 2012-03-06 21:07:24 <luke-jr> prove he's being a jerk, and not just requiring a higher fee.
1146 2012-03-06 21:07:56 <doublec> quick someone do a transaction with a 100 btc fee and see if he picks it up
1147 2012-03-06 21:07:58 <gmaxwell> helo: yes, but you can prove that they're _able_ to mine txn (E.g. not saving space/processing)
1148 2012-03-06 21:08:06 <gmaxwell> doublec: excellent idea. ;)
1149 2012-03-06 21:08:09 <luke-jr> make doublec's txn non-standard and broadcast it to Eligius <.<
1150 2012-03-06 21:08:15 <doublec> hehe
1151 2012-03-06 21:08:15 <gavinandresen> Well, blocks that did not include "enough" transactions from your current memory pool could be discouraged. But I doubt we'd get miners to agree to that.
1152 2012-03-06 21:08:32 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: yea, I can't see that.
1153 2012-03-06 21:08:37 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that'd go against the design of the system
1154 2012-03-06 21:08:48 <luke-jr> it's intentionally designed so miners can choose their own fees
1155 2012-03-06 21:08:50 <gmaxwell> plusâ besides, you going to punish miners that are better at reconizing dos attacks?
1156 2012-03-06 21:08:58 <luke-jr> ^
1157 2012-03-06 21:09:16 <gmaxwell> Any opinions on the coinbase in these blocks?
1158 2012-03-06 21:09:31 <gmaxwell> In any case, if it's a real minerâ perhaps largecoin got prototype hardware running. :)
1159 2012-03-06 21:09:34 <nanotube> jimbit: s/define/dict/ :)
1160 2012-03-06 21:09:51 <doublec> didn't old p2pool's not include transactions at some point?
1161 2012-03-06 21:09:57 <gmaxwell> doublec: sure.
1162 2012-03-06 21:10:12 <doublec> maybe they're running their own private p2pool on old code
1163 2012-03-06 21:10:29 <gmaxwell> and I was pretty darn sure that p2pool txns were counted as that spain address in the pastâ but blockchain.info retroactively corrected their p2pool reporting.
1164 2012-03-06 21:10:41 bytecoin has joined
1165 2012-03-06 21:10:47 <gmaxwell> nah, those don't look like p2pool blocks of any version.
1166 2012-03-06 21:10:58 <sipa> hello bytecoin
1167 2012-03-06 21:11:20 <gmaxwell> Any opinions about the coinbase in those blocks?
1168 2012-03-06 21:11:26 <jimbit> they just got another
1169 2012-03-06 21:11:36 <gmaxwell> In any case, if you want to fretâ I'd suggest https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67507.0 instead.
1170 2012-03-06 21:12:46 bytecoin has quit (Client Quit)
1171 2012-03-06 21:13:11 <luke-jr> anyone want to run pident and see if it can pick up on it?
1172 2012-03-06 21:13:35 OneFixt has joined
1173 2012-03-06 21:14:36 clowninasack has joined
1174 2012-03-06 21:14:58 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: I'm guilty as anybody, but naming things *Coin is getting old....
1175 2012-03-06 21:15:42 <luke-jr> BFL's rig looks like a better deal
1176 2012-03-06 21:15:50 <gigavps> they are
1177 2012-03-06 21:17:28 <roomservice> iam pretty sure university of granada, spain is behind this stuff
1178 2012-03-06 21:17:49 clowninasack_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1179 2012-03-06 21:18:20 <gigavps> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67634.0
1180 2012-03-06 21:19:15 bytecoin has joined
1181 2012-03-06 21:19:37 <bytecoin> hi sipa. Sorry I couldn't reply last time
1182 2012-03-06 21:21:47 <bytecoin> ... am I typing into a void for some reason?....
1183 2012-03-06 21:23:35 <roomservice> just a guess but this company here is building fpga hardware and located where our big miner is: http://www.sevensols.com
1184 2012-03-06 21:30:51 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: largecoin's name is about a year old at least.
1185 2012-03-06 21:31:19 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: ok. They should change it to MegaMiner.
1186 2012-03-06 21:31:41 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: ... or CeePeeYoooooo
1187 2012-03-06 21:31:45 <gavinandresen> or something
1188 2012-03-06 21:31:52 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: what about pidentd?
1189 2012-03-06 21:32:15 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: pident is a blockexplorer clone with AI to detect pools
1190 2012-03-06 21:32:21 <jrmithdobbs> o, some dum bitcoin tard decided to call a tool pident?
1191 2012-03-06 21:32:51 <jrmithdobbs> next blockchain lib will be called libpurple /rolleyes
1192 2012-03-06 21:33:13 <gigavps> another block
1193 2012-03-06 21:33:51 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: that's taken
1194 2012-03-06 21:34:33 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: so's pident
1195 2012-03-06 21:34:37 <jrmithdobbs> or did you miss the joke?
1196 2012-03-06 21:34:45 <luke-jr> I don't know any other pident.
1197 2012-03-06 21:34:59 <jrmithdobbs> http://www.lysator.liu.se/~pen/pidentd/
1198 2012-03-06 21:35:01 machine1 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1199 2012-03-06 21:35:05 <jrmithdobbs> like 2 decades old
1200 2012-03-06 21:35:16 <jrmithdobbs> very prolific software, think it's still the default identd in debian
1201 2012-03-06 21:39:44 <[eval]> is it valid to assume that tx replacement will only be used with nLockTime, and broadcasting non-final versions of transactions without nlocktime means that a version of the transaction you don't actually want committed to the blockchain may get committed?
1202 2012-03-06 21:40:11 <[eval]> (i'm working on unit tests for tx replacement)
1203 2012-03-06 21:40:24 <[eval]> (among other related things)
1204 2012-03-06 21:40:27 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1205 2012-03-06 21:41:52 <bytecoin> [eval] I imagine that broadcasting a non-final version means that you want it committed if the time expires without a replacement coming along.
1206 2012-03-06 21:42:55 <bytecoin> [eval]: But to really know how replacement should work, we should compile all the functionality it is meant to enable
1207 2012-03-06 21:43:46 <[eval]> ok. at a minimum, everything on the contracts page (which would also then enable my dominant assurance contract scheme)
1208 2012-03-06 21:44:22 <[eval]> i'm interested in use cases with nLockTime... basically i'm wondering if there are any cases where it would be used without
1209 2012-03-06 21:44:42 machine1 has joined
1210 2012-03-06 21:45:30 <[eval]> transaction replacement can change the semantics of unconfirmed transactions, which is my biggest concern
1211 2012-03-06 21:46:45 <[eval]> if a transaction is unconfirmed and non-final, that means it can still be changed before it gets included in a block... if there's no nLockTime, then there's no guarantee of anything for the receiver until the transaction is confirmed
1212 2012-03-06 21:46:47 <bytecoin> [eval]: So replacement without nLockTime. What would stop the replaceable transaction being included in the next block? I presume that once a transaction is in a block then it is deemed final even if the sequence number is not maxed out.
1213 2012-03-06 21:47:20 <[eval]> bytecoin: yes, it's final once it's in a block even if the sequence numbers aren't UINT_MAX
1214 2012-03-06 21:47:32 <[eval]> there's nothing that would stop the replaceable transaction from being included
1215 2012-03-06 21:47:52 <bytecoin> [eval]: Ain't necessarily so. If we decide not then perhaps not....
1216 2012-03-06 21:48:20 <[eval]> bytecoin: in that case, we risk chain fork
1217 2012-03-06 21:48:45 <[eval]> if we decide to ignore blocks that have transactions for which we have a later version
1218 2012-03-06 21:49:15 <splatster> 88.6.216.9 is at 17 blocks. :O
1219 2012-03-06 21:50:32 <bytecoin> [eval]: Well we have a similar problem in the situation where transactions are deemed final once they're in a block where a replacement is distributed but someone decides to mine the previous version into the block
1220 2012-03-06 21:51:39 <bytecoin> [eval]: The sequence number actually has to DO something.
1221 2012-03-06 21:52:17 <[eval]> bytecoin: true
1222 2012-03-06 21:53:00 <bytecoin> [eval]: Perhaps clients should ignore blocks which include non-final transactions which have sequence numbers lower than the sequence numbers for the transactions they have in their memory pool... but that's an even better way to split the network...
1223 2012-03-06 21:53:12 <[eval]> that's exactly what i was talking about :P
1224 2012-03-06 21:54:52 roomservice has quit (Quit: Verlassend)
1225 2012-03-06 21:55:49 vigilyn has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1226 2012-03-06 21:55:56 <bytecoin> Well.. I'm unhappy with the whole concept of replacement and nLockTime. I think it would introduce interactions which are hard to understand. Look at us getting our knickers in a twist over having duplicate coinbases!
1227 2012-03-06 21:56:12 gigavps has left ()
1228 2012-03-06 22:01:49 <[eval]> yes, it would... the other alternative to making (some of) those schemes work is to make it so that non-final transactions aren't accepted to the memory pool at all, meaning nlocktime in the future = no tx in memory pool/no broadcast
1229 2012-03-06 22:02:01 <[eval]> lemme see what mike said about why that's important
1230 2012-03-06 22:03:57 <[eval]> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=66521.msg784862#msg784862 <--
1231 2012-03-06 22:05:36 <bytecoin> [eval]:Well, the first thing to fix is something I pointed out ages ago. Lots of interesting contract stuff doesn't work as the signature is included in the hash calculation. You'd need to change that before it's worth looking at anything more substantial
1232 2012-03-06 22:06:15 <bytecoin> [eval]: In fact the signature information shouldn't even make it into the block.
1233 2012-03-06 22:06:19 <bytecoin> It's a waste of space
1234 2012-03-06 22:06:32 pusle has quit ()
1235 2012-03-06 22:06:41 <[eval]> bytecoin: i thought SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY made it so that you don't have to worry about it?
1236 2012-03-06 22:07:39 <bytecoin> [eval]: Point me to a clear explanation of what the SIGHASH options do and I'll have a read. My tentative conclusion is that it's a badly thought out mess
1237 2012-03-06 22:08:09 <[eval]> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_CHECKSIG
1238 2012-03-06 22:08:54 Ahimoth has joined
1239 2012-03-06 22:09:13 <[eval]> i think i've already found a bug in CTransaction::IsNewerThan() anyway
1240 2012-03-06 22:09:18 <[eval]> unless i'm missing something
1241 2012-03-06 22:09:48 <bytecoin> [eval]: Read it. Even if it's an accurate representation of what the code does,it doesn't explain what functionality it implements.
1242 2012-03-06 22:10:19 <bytecoin> [eval]: We'd need an explanation of what guarantees each option supplies.
1243 2012-03-06 22:10:34 <[eval]> yeah... guess i should look at the code s'more :P
1244 2012-03-06 22:10:44 <[eval]> on that note, gtg for now
1245 2012-03-06 22:10:55 <bytecoin> Ok.
1246 2012-03-06 22:11:20 <[eval]> i don't think any code has ever made my head hurt as much as bitcoin :P
1247 2012-03-06 22:11:38 <[eval]> but it's neat anyway
1248 2012-03-06 22:12:20 <bytecoin> [eval]:Considering what it's trying to do, the fact that it hurts people's heads is an indicator that it's doing it wrong.
1249 2012-03-06 22:12:52 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1250 2012-03-06 22:14:29 <[eval]> bytecoin: agreed, but i prefer to improve bitcoin rather than proliferate scamcoins :P
1251 2012-03-06 22:15:08 iocor has joined
1252 2012-03-06 22:15:15 <[eval]> ok i really do have to go... i'll think on this more, look at the code and maybe post something on the forum tomorrow about it
1253 2012-03-06 22:15:21 <sipa> bytecoin: did you see my mail?
1254 2012-03-06 22:15:23 tower has quit (Disconnected by services)
1255 2012-03-06 22:15:37 tower has joined
1256 2012-03-06 22:17:13 <sipa> about the deterministic wallet key derivation
1257 2012-03-06 22:19:01 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1258 2012-03-06 22:20:46 hexTech has joined
1259 2012-03-06 22:21:02 <bytecoin> [sipa]: Hi!
1260 2012-03-06 22:21:20 <bytecoin> [sipa]: No I didn't see your mail. On the dev mailing list?
1261 2012-03-06 22:22:39 <bytecoin> Oh and while I'm here, does anyone have an ETA for P2SH?
1262 2012-03-06 22:23:50 <gavinandresen> bytecoin: I asked Tycho today, and he says he can get it done in time so there's more than 55% on March 15'th.
1263 2012-03-06 22:24:04 <gavinandresen> bytecoin: which would mean switchover to full validation on April 1.
1264 2012-03-06 22:24:20 booo has joined
1265 2012-03-06 22:24:30 * bytecoin was particularly hoping for a reply from Gavin. Thanks!
1266 2012-03-06 22:24:58 <gavinandresen> (If I knew it was going to take so long maybe I woulda picked a fight with roconnor and stuck with op_eval..... ah well)
1267 2012-03-06 22:25:37 <bytecoin> I had a pretty good idea that it would turn into a bit of a scrap
1268 2012-03-06 22:26:13 <gavinandresen> Well, lets try to move forward and let bygones be bygones....
1269 2012-03-06 22:26:33 max-ton has joined
1270 2012-03-06 22:26:41 <gavinandresen> ... although I must say I'm not happy that the person who created the scrap is STILL flogging the BIP17 dead horse.
1271 2012-03-06 22:26:55 <bytecoin> Let's hope we have some lovely static analysis to give us some meaningful useful guarantees and stop us wasting all that precious CPU time
1272 2012-03-06 22:28:01 <gavinandresen> justmoon pointed out that BIP16 lets you reconstruct the scriptPubKey from the scriptSig for spent transactions, which is a nice property.
1273 2012-03-06 22:28:36 <nanotube> gavinandresen: hey, we all have our favorite horses. :) let it be. ;)
1274 2012-03-06 22:28:49 max-ton has quit (Client Quit)
1275 2012-03-06 22:28:58 <bytecoin> [gavinandresen]: Hmm.. interesting. Link?
1276 2012-03-06 22:29:18 <gavinandresen> No link, private email. It follows from the strict rules on the byte pattern of BIP16 scriptPubKeys
1277 2012-03-06 22:29:32 <bytecoin> Ok
1278 2012-03-06 22:29:35 <splatster> gavinandresen: I've noticed you mine your own blocks on blockchain.info. What sort of rigs you running?
1279 2012-03-06 22:29:50 <gavinandresen> splatster: the only mining I do is on testnet
1280 2012-03-06 22:30:11 <gavinandresen> Wrestling with hardware is not one of the things I'm good at.
1281 2012-03-06 22:30:17 <splatster> I could've sworn I saw blocks with the name Gavin Anderson on blockexplorer
1282 2012-03-06 22:30:27 <gavinandresen> Must be a secret admirer.
1283 2012-03-06 22:30:44 <gavinandresen> (who can't spell)
1284 2012-03-06 22:30:52 <bytecoin> secret admirer with poor spelling?
1285 2012-03-06 22:31:13 erle- has joined
1286 2012-03-06 22:32:15 <bytecoin> gavinandresen:I'm still interested in taking the signature out of the hash calculation as a prerequisite for enabling contracts... before we start talking about replacement and nLockTime
1287 2012-03-06 22:32:24 neofutur has joined
1288 2012-03-06 22:32:40 <bytecoin> gavinandresen: Any interest in moving in this direction?
1289 2012-03-06 22:32:43 <neofutur> hi all, i m trying to improve simplecoin on https://github.com/neofutur/simplecoin
1290 2012-03-06 22:32:51 <neofutur> comments and pull requests welcome
1291 2012-03-06 22:33:15 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1292 2012-03-06 22:34:10 att has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1293 2012-03-06 22:36:37 stalled has joined
1294 2012-03-06 22:40:36 <gavinandresen> bytecoin: sure... we've still got the 'op_eval trick' where we could hide all sorts of improvements
1295 2012-03-06 22:42:27 ThomasV has joined
1296 2012-03-06 22:42:32 Detritus has joined
1297 2012-03-06 22:48:31 <bytecoin> gavinandresen: Do you have any strong opinions on "taint tracing"?
1298 2012-03-06 22:49:53 eoss has joined
1299 2012-03-06 22:49:53 eoss has quit (Changing host)
1300 2012-03-06 22:49:53 eoss has joined
1301 2012-03-06 22:50:26 <gavinandresen> bytecoin: my gut feeling is it could be good 'security theatre' -- taint tracing a couple of steps from a theft will make people feel better, but the thiefs will just get smarter and work around it.
1302 2012-03-06 22:51:21 <gavinandresen> bytecoin: But it might be worth doing, because it makes people feel better. As long as it is voluntary.
1303 2012-03-06 22:51:55 <splatster> I have seen blockchain.info's dendrogram, but it is hard to click on every single dot.
1304 2012-03-06 22:52:12 <gavinandresen> (something like "Let me know if I get a transaction that is X steps away/X% of the coins from transaction id xyz")
1305 2012-03-06 22:52:25 <gavinandresen> bytecoin: do you have strong feelings about taint tracing?
1306 2012-03-06 22:52:30 <splatster> Couldn't a script be made to mark coins as stolen or having been related to a theft?
1307 2012-03-06 22:52:38 <gmaxwell> splatster: No.
1308 2012-03-06 22:52:46 <splatster> gmaxwell: Why not?
1309 2012-03-06 22:53:29 <bytecoin> gavinandresen: In the taint tracing I have in mind, subscribers would deem themselves not to have been completely paid if a proportion of the coins they had been sent in payment were tainted (in their opinion) So to that extent it would be voluntary or obligatory depending on your point of view!
1310 2012-03-06 22:53:30 <gmaxwell> (Rather, you can do things like thatâ but then we conduct a legit transaction and I declare the coins stolenâ so if you actually do anything with that flag it actually creates a vulnerability)
1311 2012-03-06 22:54:14 eoss has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1312 2012-03-06 22:54:21 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: thats either irrelevant (if almost no one uses it) or obligatory if some people doâ because even if you don't give a @#$@ you don't want someone you pay who does to give you trouble.
1313 2012-03-06 22:54:24 <splatster> gmaxwell: If coins are flagged on a separate site like blockchain.info, then we could trace the coins and try and findo out how the coins got from Hacker to Person.
1314 2012-03-06 22:54:53 <midnightmagic> individual coins are not individually traced. inputs can combine total coins into one, and then there's no way to tell which are stolen and which are the original good ones. so now you've ruined as many coins as were combined in the inputs.
1315 2012-03-06 22:54:58 <gavinandresen> A voluntary "let me know when I get tainted coins" could actually help catch criminals, if people were willing to let The Authorities know who they get tainted coins from.
1316 2012-03-06 22:55:18 <splatster> At least compile a nightly list of addresses that contain or have dealt with stolen coins, and then sites like gox could check that list agains their deposit addresses.
1317 2012-03-06 22:55:18 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: please think that through for a bit and consider how disruptive it would be (and the enormously centeralization problems which arise, because having inconsistent taint lists would be problematic).
1318 2012-03-06 22:55:20 <midnightmagic> voluntary tracing is a much better alternative.
1319 2012-03-06 22:55:28 <gmaxwell> Sure, informative tools are useful.
1320 2012-03-06 22:55:49 <bytecoin> gmawell: The forum suggests that people would be willing to inconvenience themselves somewhat to punish "cheaters". Psychology indicates similar tendencies.
1321 2012-03-06 22:55:58 <midnightmagic> how good do you want voluntary tracing to be? :-) because if it's good, you can start de-anonymizing people.
1322 2012-03-06 22:56:15 <splatster> If a stolen coin makes it, somehow, to a gox deposit addy, then gox could investigate as they should already know who's addy that is and then we can ask the person where they got the coins from and work our way back to the scammer.
1323 2012-03-06 22:56:21 <splatster> s/scammer/hacker/
1324 2012-03-06 22:56:36 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: You're failing on the thinking this through partâ they wouldn't be punishing cheaters they'd be punishing anyone who doesn't punish the same (or a superset) of the cheaters they punish.
1325 2012-03-06 22:57:08 <gmaxwell> So then you have a consistency problem with arriving at a set of cheaters... and you also create a new kind of cheating (falsely claiming a trading partner is a cheater)
1326 2012-03-06 22:57:22 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: I believe I've thought it through and I don't think that having groups of people with differing opinions about the taintedness of coins would be a real problem.
1327 2012-03-06 22:57:32 tower has quit (Disconnected by services)
1328 2012-03-06 22:57:45 tower has joined
1329 2012-03-06 22:57:47 <gmaxwell> (And unlike getting hacked, the false claims are probably much harder to be secure against and be confident that you're secure against)
1330 2012-03-06 22:58:02 <gavinandresen> Well, if Watson Ladd's OP_CHECKEXPSIG opcode really does add strong anonymity, all the taint tracing in the world won't help.
1331 2012-03-06 22:58:16 machine1 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1332 2012-03-06 22:58:37 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: wahoah.. are you considering it?
1333 2012-03-06 22:59:01 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: when there is a better-defined "it" to consider, sure.
1334 2012-03-06 22:59:02 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: Do you remember someone saying "You're either with us or you're against us!". That made sense to a fair number of people didn't it?
1335 2012-03-06 22:59:10 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: So I have the empty set taint list because I am indifferent or clueless. GPUMAX pays me a stack of tainted coins. Now I try to spend them with you and you take my coins but don't credit me because they were tainted. What happens?
1336 2012-03-06 22:59:18 <bytecoin> gavinandresen: Interesting. Link?
1337 2012-03-06 22:59:30 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1338 2012-03-06 22:59:31 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: "We didn't say it couldn't be done, we said don't do it!"
1339 2012-03-06 22:59:36 <midnightmagic> bytecoin: google for OP_CHECKEXPSIG
1340 2012-03-06 22:59:52 <bytecoin> midnightmagic: Tx! Will do
1341 2012-03-06 22:59:57 <gavinandresen> bytecoin: https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=CACsn0cne5An%2BSyKDf9w4o4Secn7C9wqqbG7ff0HB3Dvk-XxHRg%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=bitcoin-development
1342 2012-03-06 23:00:52 pumpkin has joined
1343 2012-03-06 23:01:04 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: You could imagine that someone who tries to mine a block and pay themselves 100BTC instead of 50BTC as producing 100 tainted coins. How does the network treat that?
1344 2012-03-06 23:01:14 <gavinandresen> Again, I think taint tracing will be ineffective, but it could be a good feel-good "I know I'm not going to directly get dirty money" feature.
1345 2012-03-06 23:02:09 clowninasack_ has joined
1346 2012-03-06 23:02:20 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: That sounds a lot like some of OpenTransactions mechanisms. Oooh, how exciting!
1347 2012-03-06 23:02:35 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: we all have agreed to a common set of rulesâ without that agreement the system doesn't work. Fortunately they're hard to change. Following your argument there the taint list becomes part of that set of rules, and its very hard to reason about. Perhaps tomorrow you become unpopular for your political views and most of your coins end up on the taint list.
1348 2012-03-06 23:02:54 <bytecoin> gavinandresen: Thanks for the link. Underwhelmed by the lack of technical content....
1349 2012-03-06 23:03:43 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: hilarious example of tainted coins btw
1350 2012-03-06 23:04:22 <ThomasV> tainted coins is a good spin
1351 2012-03-06 23:04:46 <ThomasV> maybe it will buy us time
1352 2012-03-06 23:04:54 phantomfakeBNC has joined
1353 2012-03-06 23:05:04 clowninasack has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1354 2012-03-06 23:05:10 pumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1355 2012-03-06 23:06:14 <midnightmagic> ThomasV: Time for what?
1356 2012-03-06 23:06:32 * gmaxwell adds 1VayNert3x1KzbpzMGt2qdqrAThiRovi8 to the taint list, after allâ it's a known DOS attacker currently taking up about 27% of the new blockchain space
1357 2012-03-06 23:06:42 <gavinandresen> Good Idea.
1358 2012-03-06 23:06:44 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: That would be an incentive for keeping your political views and your public keys separate. The barrier to the rejection or penalization of tainted coins is merely a lack of an implementation so what you suggest is quite plausible..
1359 2012-03-06 23:06:53 <ThomasV> time before legislators decide to crackdown mtgox
1360 2012-03-06 23:07:07 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: I should have left out that part of the proposal.
1361 2012-03-06 23:07:28 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1362 2012-03-06 23:07:43 machine1 has joined
1363 2012-03-06 23:07:45 <luke-jr> hey, if gavin's on board with tainting 1VayNert, does that mean we can just make 0.6 refuse any transactions from it without a fee? >.>
1364 2012-03-06 23:07:54 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: The key problem is that the taint spread is ~exponential among users who don't enforce it for circulated funds. This means that you must always adopt the most agressive taint position or risk having your own funds become unspendable.
1365 2012-03-06 23:08:12 barmstrong has joined
1366 2012-03-06 23:08:54 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: Yes. I guess I didn't explain how to untaint your coins. You merely have to send the "tainted fraction" of your coins back to the "rightful owner" and then the remaining coins will be deemed untainted.
1367 2012-03-06 23:08:56 <gavinandresen> No, good idea to tainting as a "look, we're doing what we can to help you catch the bad guys" spin
1368 2012-03-06 23:09:15 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: this creates a severe race to the bottomâ I hope that the community is smart enough not to adopt software which creates this outcome in the name of punishing some theif (esp when the punishment is likely to be ineffective).
1369 2012-03-06 23:09:18 <gavinandresen> Tainting 1Vay is a bad idea, Tycho would just change the address.
1370 2012-03-06 23:09:44 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: I disagree or don't understand what you mean... race to the bottom of what?
1371 2012-03-06 23:10:05 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: on a more serious note, what would you think of using "number of transactions from this address" in the priority calculations? so, eg, 1VarNert spam would at least be forced to wait 1 per block
1372 2012-03-06 23:10:08 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: Why would it be ineffective?
1373 2012-03-06 23:10:40 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: great, so I buy something from you and then after you shipped I threaten to falsely claim your payment was really theft. We get the uncertanty of reversals with none of the accountability.
1374 2012-03-06 23:11:02 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1375 2012-03-06 23:11:20 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: integrated WoT?
1376 2012-03-06 23:11:20 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: becaues they'll use GPUMAX to mine a block which takes the tainted coins as fees, or any of any number of workarounds.
1377 2012-03-06 23:11:22 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: not really solving the problem, I think. The real problem is the blockchain download size / startup time, we should fix that.
1378 2012-03-06 23:11:23 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: I didn't say taint tracing was a good thing did I!
1379 2012-03-06 23:11:51 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that's harder :/
1380 2012-03-06 23:12:31 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: The community would police the tainting process... if it were seen to be "corrupt" it would loose support (after hurting innocent people of course)
1381 2012-03-06 23:12:32 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: a quarter off the top of current growth would be a nice improvement even if it doesn't change the past. :(
1382 2012-03-06 23:13:00 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: please stop, you're stressing me out.
1383 2012-03-06 23:13:01 <ThomasV> why is this whole discussion on tainted coins taking place in #bitcoin-dev? I mean, this cannot be added to bitcoin itself, because everyone has their own definition of good and evil
1384 2012-03-06 23:13:52 <bytecoin> ThomasV: People agree on areas in which their ideas of good and evil coincide. It's called civilization.
1385 2012-03-06 23:13:53 <gavinandresen> Sure it could, either a -taint=txid command-line option and/or add/removetainted <txid> RPC command....
1386 2012-03-06 23:14:13 <gavinandresen> ... then a percenttainted in the output of listtransactions....
1387 2012-03-06 23:14:27 machine1 has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1388 2012-03-06 23:14:28 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: block explorer could do that as well
1389 2012-03-06 23:14:38 <ziglir> are you talking about a real-time coin blacklist
1390 2012-03-06 23:14:51 <gavinandresen> Sure; the GUI could even make tainted receive transactions an oozy green color
1391 2012-03-06 23:15:12 <ThomasV> lol
1392 2012-03-06 23:15:30 * gmaxwell checks the calendar
1393 2012-03-06 23:15:30 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: Bitcoin transactions are too traceable not to be effectively reversible if we presuppose everyone is participating in wanting it reversed. Blame Satoshi!
1394 2012-03-06 23:15:33 <gavinandresen> Then we could add an option to subscribe to trusted 'master taint lists....'
1395 2012-03-06 23:15:37 <ThomasV> I want separate colors for silk road and assasination markets
1396 2012-03-06 23:15:56 <gavinandresen> It all could be done. Not a high priority, in my opinion, I'd rather spend time preventing thefts.
1397 2012-03-06 23:16:02 <bytecoin> gavinandresen: You've got it!
1398 2012-03-06 23:16:24 Z0rZ0rZ0r1 has joined
1399 2012-03-06 23:16:39 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: again I refer to my quote above "We didn't say it couldn't be done, we said don't do it!"
1400 2012-03-06 23:16:50 pingdrive has joined
1401 2012-03-06 23:16:58 <ziglir> gavinandresen: i imagine miners will eventually ge together and have some kind of backchannel agreement on excluding certain suspicious transactions etc
1402 2012-03-06 23:17:08 <ThomasV> we don't do it, but we keep it as a spin
1403 2012-03-06 23:17:22 <gmaxwell> ziglir: if they do that then bitcoin has failed to meet its goals.
1404 2012-03-06 23:17:29 smickles has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1405 2012-03-06 23:17:42 <ziglir> it doesnt sound like a good thing, because no one really has the time to investigate claims properly, and its all political
1406 2012-03-06 23:17:54 <gavinandresen> ziglir: there will always be rebel miners. So excluded transactions just take longer to confirm...
1407 2012-03-06 23:18:03 <gmaxwell> ziglir: because then a single conspiring group is coolaborating to set rules above and beyond the rules of the protocol, and any adopter of the system would have to factor in the uncertanty related to the future agenda of that group.
1408 2012-03-06 23:18:21 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: Think of taint tracing as a way of "regulating" bitcoin. Perhaps we should change bitcoin so taint can't be traced?
1409 2012-03-06 23:18:24 <gavinandresen> I think it'll actually be the opposite: "clean" transactions will confirm extremely quickly, due to extra trust
1410 2012-03-06 23:18:59 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: How about I just keep on reminding people what a terrible idea that sort of proposal is, so then they don't adopt it?
1411 2012-03-06 23:19:08 <bytecoin> Also "subscribe to taint tracing to ensure that you're not supporting child porn, terrorism etc"
1412 2012-03-06 23:19:09 <ThomasV> extremely quickly +- 10 minutes..
1413 2012-03-06 23:19:28 Z0rZ0rZ0r has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1414 2012-03-06 23:19:29 <gavinandresen> No, I mean extremely quick like "network propogation time" quick
1415 2012-03-06 23:19:36 <ThomasV> ah
1416 2012-03-06 23:20:03 asuk has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1417 2012-03-06 23:20:10 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: Yes I have lots of faith that appealing to people's rationality will override their anxiety and desire to conform.
1418 2012-03-06 23:20:17 <ThomasV> I don't think that taint will ever be takein into consideration by miners
1419 2012-03-06 23:20:42 <splatster> 19th recent block by 88.6.216.9
1420 2012-03-06 23:20:44 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: I didn't answer you beforeâ you asked why its a race to the bottomâ it's a race to the bottom because if you don't want to lose your funds you must subscribe to every such list, even obscure ones (so long as you think at least some of your business partners may use it). So you effectively give almost everyone veto over any transaction extending infinitely far into the future.
1421 2012-03-06 23:20:46 <ThomasV> taint can be used to track back the scammer
1422 2012-03-06 23:21:41 <gmaxwell> It's far worse than any kind of chargeback system that exists anywhere, it's untenableâ and highly prone to griefing... I get my hands on some childporn coins and rain them down on every address I know "free coins"...
1423 2012-03-06 23:22:00 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: I doubt it. If your coins are tainted on a minority list then you'd have to evaluate their worth by who subscribes to the list, whether the list is growing etc...
1424 2012-03-06 23:22:04 <doublec> what happens if you receive coins for a service, but later they are tainted due to being discovered that they were part of a theft. Now you're out of pocket with coins people won't accept.
1425 2012-03-06 23:22:22 <bytecoin> doublec: Incentive to spend them?
1426 2012-03-06 23:22:33 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: I agree. that's why it won't work.
1427 2012-03-06 23:23:14 machine1 has joined
1428 2012-03-06 23:23:21 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: If you rain free "childporn" coins on addresses then they would choose never to spend them because of the taint. No problem
1429 2012-03-06 23:23:40 <ThomasV> taint should be seen as a way to find the track of a scammer, but not as a reason to refuse coins
1430 2012-03-06 23:23:40 <bytecoin> The taint attaches to the TxOut not the address
1431 2012-03-06 23:24:15 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: except many of of the people are not subscribing to that list so they don't know and it gets all mixed into their funds and their partners funds... then later they run into problems. So you better adopt all the lists you can find for fear that they become popular in the future.
1432 2012-03-06 23:25:20 <ThomasV> btw, I am the government, and any bitcoin address not linked to your identity will be tainted by me!
1433 2012-03-06 23:25:29 <gmaxwell> and as a theif I'd rapidly give away a couple percent of my stolen coins to discourage people from adopting tainting for them.
1434 2012-03-06 23:25:36 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: Well, you got the tainted coins and mixed them in. So at the cost of a few extra transactions you can send the tainted coins back to the originator and the rest of your coins will be deemed untainted. You loose no coins - just some priority
1435 2012-03-06 23:26:24 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: er. noâ I wasn't the one to recieve the tainted pennys from heaven. You were. And you bought a soda from me. Which I gave you. Now I'm out the soda an the coins.
1436 2012-03-06 23:26:38 <gmaxwell> And you're telling me you don't know and don't care about some childporn list.
1437 2012-03-06 23:27:13 <gmaxwell> I dub this all Bytecoin's kafkacoin proposal.
1438 2012-03-06 23:27:27 <ziglir> if you have a lot of bitcoins, you stand to gain by tainting a significant number of other coins. the value of your own coins increases
1439 2012-03-06 23:28:14 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: In the case you mentioned yes your coins would be deemed tainted and you would only be able to spend them with other people like you who also don't subscribe to that taint-list.
1440 2012-03-06 23:28:17 <ThomasV> kafkacoin is a good concept
1441 2012-03-06 23:28:44 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: I was going to call it "taintcoin" ;-)
1442 2012-03-06 23:29:54 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: noâ I spent them quickly before they made their way onto the actual list (I assume if the list has any kind of due process then you'll be able to move things fast to get ahead of itâ and if it doesn't then thats its own problem).. alternatively, I spent them with you, but then you find you're having a hard time spending them.
1443 2012-03-06 23:30:00 <ThomasV> a kafkacoin is a coin that keeps a history of all the evil sins done by all its owners
1444 2012-03-06 23:30:07 <bytecoin> I don't think it's unfair... You didn't subscribe to the taint-list, you accept tainted coins, you only get to spend them with other people who don't care about that list. It's just another rule that people agree on.
1445 2012-03-06 23:30:23 <gmaxwell> There are basically two stable statesâ where there are no taint lists used by anyone, or where everyone adopts almost all taint lists.
1446 2012-03-06 23:30:37 <ziglir> if you end up spending the suspicious coins, eventually the trail will come back to you. honest merchants who legitimately suspect youre spending stolen coin might report your info. merchants who dont care, would quickly gain a reputation for fencing stolen goods, so that would hurt them as well
1447 2012-03-06 23:31:11 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: when I accept coins from you I don't know who I'm going to spend them with next. You basically destroy the 'fungiblity' property of bitcoin with this.
1448 2012-03-06 23:31:14 Tykling has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1449 2012-03-06 23:31:47 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: It never had that property. We only turned a blind eye to where they came from....
1450 2012-03-06 23:32:17 <ziglir> it could be useful from an informational point of view to track disputed coins, without making a judgement call either way
1451 2012-03-06 23:32:31 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: Don't be an auspie. Cash, gold, whatever are commonly accepted to be fungible, but if you want to be strict about it the atoms have a unique identity.
1452 2012-03-06 23:33:11 <gmaxwell> ziglir: sure, I think it would be neat to know if any coins arrive to me that are mostly on a badlist. (or even N hops away on a bad list, with N something I can set). Maybe I'll ask some difficult questions.
1453 2012-03-06 23:33:25 <gmaxwell> Would make services like GPUMAX a lot harder to use for laundering stolen coins.
1454 2012-03-06 23:33:30 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: I'm not sure what you called me but let's keep it civil. They're commonly accepted to be fungible but they're actually not. Neither is bitcoin
1455 2012-03-06 23:34:00 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: every atom in the universe is unique. You're defining fungiblity in a way that make fungiblity never exist.
1456 2012-03-06 23:34:25 <gmaxwell> Which isn't what anyone intends when they talk about the value and consequences of fungiblity.
1457 2012-03-06 23:34:59 Tykling has joined
1458 2012-03-06 23:35:07 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: If you study enough quantum mechanics you'll be less dogmatic about the uniqueness of pretty well anything.
1459 2012-03-06 23:35:27 <gmaxwell> Sorry for the insult. The argument I believe you are presenting is a kind of strawman which is particularly popular with people with a specific mental illness.
1460 2012-03-06 23:35:54 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: Some electronic cash schemes are truly fungible like Chaum's ecash
1461 2012-03-06 23:36:42 <gmaxwell> No, not reallyâ you're just allowing yourself to be blinded to the history of the transaction. You're still choosing to adopt the position of blindness by using the system. There still _was_ history that got the funds from someone else to you.
1462 2012-03-06 23:37:43 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: Eh? Are you seriously arguing that Chaum's scheme doesn't demonstrate fungibility given some very reasonable assumptions?
1463 2012-03-06 23:37:45 <ThomasV> bytecoin: what would you think of a taint list for addresses that come provably from the silk road?
1464 2012-03-06 23:38:33 denisx has joined
1465 2012-03-06 23:38:39 <gmaxwell> and like your taintcoinâ if the participants in the system decided to only accept payments that came with pedigrees that proved they weren't from tainted sources then it would have the same non-fungable property.
1466 2012-03-06 23:39:04 <bytecoin> ThomasV: I have not bothered to form an opinion.
1467 2012-03-06 23:39:07 <gmaxwell> In both cases you've just added something to the system to create the non-fungiblity (I'll grant that it's easier to add this to bitcoin than Chaum's ecash)
1468 2012-03-06 23:39:22 <ThomasV> bytecoin: why not?
1469 2012-03-06 23:39:34 <jrmithdobbs> why would you blacklist based on previous silk road activity?
1470 2012-03-06 23:39:52 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: Well the system you just described is uninteresting.
1471 2012-03-06 23:39:54 <jrmithdobbs> whose to say the same person is still in control of the privkeys?
1472 2012-03-06 23:39:56 <ThomasV> jrmithdobbs: taint does not mean black list
1473 2012-03-06 23:40:11 tower has quit (Disconnected by services)
1474 2012-03-06 23:40:25 tower has joined
1475 2012-03-06 23:40:26 <jrmithdobbs> ThomasV: so what does it mean in this context?
1476 2012-03-06 23:40:34 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: Ok I take your point....
1477 2012-03-06 23:40:38 <denisx> sipa: so, I did a rescan on my production bitcoind and it did run under a minute and now there is the generation transaction.
1478 2012-03-06 23:40:45 <denisx> so everything is fine again
1479 2012-03-06 23:40:59 <ThomasV> jrmithdobbs: taint can be used to de-anonymise bitcoin
1480 2012-03-06 23:41:33 <ThomasV> it does not have to be a blacklist
1481 2012-03-06 23:43:48 <gmaxwell> If anyone is excited about transaction tracing, I have a hacked up copy of the python tools that dump all the txns from the blockchain and all their inputs/outputs so you can do tracing on the results.
1482 2012-03-06 23:43:52 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: I guess the reason why you would choose to use a truly fungible digital currency and not bother to check the provenance of your coins would be to save effort. But, in that case you want the fungibility to ensure that someone willing to make the effort can't render your coins less valuable. That's why you'd choose to use a properly fungible currency.
1483 2012-03-06 23:43:57 <jrmithdobbs> ThomasV: what's the usefulness outside of ablacklist though?
1484 2012-03-06 23:44:48 JFK911_ has joined
1485 2012-03-06 23:46:05 <ThomasV> jrmithdobbs: you received tainted coins. I am law enforcement. I ask you to tell me who sent them to you, because I try to go back the track
1486 2012-03-06 23:46:07 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: I guess my fundamental point about taint tracing is that it arguably could destroy the fungibility guarantees that bitcoin pretends it has. I'd rather this was acknowledged sooner rather than later as less painful surprise will be experienced!
1487 2012-03-06 23:46:12 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: I hold the position that bitcoin is such a system until someone implements something like tainting (just as chaum ecash would be until someone attached pedigrees). I can understand why someone would not take the same position (and doubt that the disagreement is resolvable).
1488 2012-03-06 23:46:19 JFK911 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1489 2012-03-06 23:47:50 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
1490 2012-03-06 23:47:59 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: I'd make the point that if you tried to introduce pedigrees to a Chaumian system then nobody would adopt it due to the hassle it would entail and the absence of any real functionality.
1491 2012-03-06 23:48:18 <bytecoin> s/real/desired
1492 2012-03-06 23:48:55 <gmaxwell> And I propose that if you try to introduce taint lists to bitcoin you'll encouter the same problem. The functionality provided in both cases is exactly the same, and the cost (the loss of effective fungiblity) is the same.
1493 2012-03-06 23:49:19 <gmaxwell> The technical complexity is lower for bitcoin, because it already makes the tracking easierâ but thats not actually a factor in anyone's decision to adopt it.
1494 2012-03-06 23:51:05 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: With bitcoin we have the situation "This thief has nicked all these bitcoins! Look at him run off with them. There! He's spending some of them! That bastard! Can't anyone do anything to stop him(her)" whereas in a Chaumian currency you have "Oh, someone spent some coins"
1495 2012-03-06 23:51:55 <ziglir> will anyone sell you bitcoin theft insurance
1496 2012-03-06 23:52:15 <ziglir> the free market solution is to keep your coins with a online wallet that insures you against losses
1497 2012-03-06 23:52:21 <gmaxwell> An interesting point is that basically none of the bitcoin theft has reached a particular high standard of evidenceâ Lots of people accused allinvain of lying, and as far as I know he was never willing to prove that he even previously owned the coins that were stolen (e.g. by disclosing one of the old private keys or signmessaging with it)
1498 2012-03-06 23:53:02 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: That is interesting...
1499 2012-03-06 23:53:38 <gmaxwell> In the case of the linnode theft, the bitcoinica 'suspicious transactions' look _nothing_ like the coins stolen from slush and gavinâ in the latter case they were all moved at once to a single address. While the bittcoinica ones were a bunch of randomly sized (though mostly very large) transactions to different addresses.
1500 2012-03-06 23:53:50 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1501 2012-03-06 23:53:59 <ziglir> hmm
1502 2012-03-06 23:54:11 <bytecoin> gmaxwell: Signing a message with the private key would be the proof of ownership of course,
1503 2012-03-06 23:54:22 <gmaxwell> I don't mean to accuse anyone of being dishonestâ only pointing out that the cases we already have are not especially clearcut.
1504 2012-03-06 23:54:56 <bytecoin> Well, just imagine the interesting dynamic taint tracing would add to our discussions!
1505 2012-03-06 23:55:19 <bytecoin> s/taint tracing/taint-tracing
1506 2012-03-06 23:55:20 <ziglir> if you cant afford to lose your bitcoins, you should use an online service that insures you against being hacked... i believe such a service already exists.... some call it a "bank"
1507 2012-03-06 23:55:29 <gmaxwell> Mybitcoin's stolen coins are very widely believed to have been stolen by the operatorâ and the operator of mybitcoin never cooperated with identifying the actual theft transactions (or providing the orphan blocks which would corroborate the double spend claims)
1508 2012-03-06 23:56:44 <ziglir> even with the best possible security features, theres always going to be the mitnick social engineering hacks
1509 2012-03-06 23:57:10 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: you have any idea why scrypt guy decided to precompute estimated run time istead of just dieing off it it's exceeded?
1510 2012-03-06 23:57:19 <bytecoin> Anyway, I must go. I've been waiting for a suitable opportunity to explain my taint tracing idea. Thanks for the discussion!
1511 2012-03-06 23:57:28 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: because it causes annoying as fuck error handling cases
1512 2012-03-06 23:57:29 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: You evil man. :)
1513 2012-03-06 23:57:35 <gmaxwell> bytecoin: Nice talking.
1514 2012-03-06 23:57:55 bytecoin has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1515 2012-03-06 23:57:57 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: making it more determinstic?
1516 2012-03-06 23:58:03 <ziglir> i can see taintcoin being an alternate blockchain.. it would have an exchange rate with btc
1517 2012-03-06 23:58:09 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: does the opposite though
1518 2012-03-06 23:58:22 JFK911 has joined
1519 2012-03-06 23:58:32 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: because if the cpuperf test runs at a context switching heavy moment the estimate is orders of magnitudes off
1520 2012-03-06 23:58:33 Tykling has quit (Excess Flood)
1521 2012-03-06 23:58:47 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: and it'll refuse to decrypt, even though it's the same machine and same params with 2x time on the decrypt op
1522 2012-03-06 23:58:48 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: if you memorize the first cpuperf result though, it does.
1523 2012-03-06 23:59:06 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: you're assuming something that stays running
1524 2012-03-06 23:59:13 <jrmithdobbs> see the problem?
1525 2012-03-06 23:59:18 JFK911_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1526 2012-03-06 23:59:20 <gmaxwell> no, I'm assuming a dotfile.
1527 2012-03-06 23:59:48 <jrmithdobbs> hrm, was wanting to avoid having to save state
1528 2012-03-06 23:59:57 <jrmithdobbs> but i guess that's not really state, it's a per machine semi-constant