1 2012-03-18 00:00:18 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2 2012-03-18 00:01:58 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
3 2012-03-18 00:05:36 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
4 2012-03-18 00:06:08 sneak has joined
5 2012-03-18 00:06:08 sneak has quit (Changing host)
6 2012-03-18 00:06:08 sneak has joined
7 2012-03-18 00:06:15 h4ckm3 has quit (Disconnected by services)
8 2012-03-18 00:06:40 h4ckm3 has joined
9 2012-03-18 00:07:09 h4ckm3 has quit (Disconnected by services)
10 2012-03-18 00:07:14 denisx has joined
11 2012-03-18 00:07:28 h4ckm3 has joined
12 2012-03-18 00:07:49 h4ckm3 has quit (Disconnected by services)
13 2012-03-18 00:08:01 _h4ckm3 has joined
14 2012-03-18 00:08:35 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened pull request 946 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/946>
15 2012-03-18 00:11:45 bitfoo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
16 2012-03-18 00:14:52 germanMNY has joined
17 2012-03-18 00:19:51 OneFixt_ is now known as OneFixt
18 2012-03-18 00:21:28 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
19 2012-03-18 00:25:15 machine2 has joined
20 2012-03-18 00:33:44 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
21 2012-03-18 00:33:59 germanMNY has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.4)
22 2012-03-18 00:35:37 localhost has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
23 2012-03-18 00:38:30 <luke-jr> we should probably have a plan in case someone has a 0day BIP16 network splitter
24 2012-03-18 00:39:06 Raccoon has quit (Excess Flood)
25 2012-03-18 00:39:18 localhost has joined
26 2012-03-18 00:39:23 Raccoon has joined
27 2012-03-18 00:41:52 bitcoin has joined
28 2012-03-18 00:42:13 <bitcoin> can i get configuration support here
29 2012-03-18 00:42:42 <k9quaint> bitcoin: you are already properly configured
30 2012-03-18 00:43:13 <bitcoin> just installed bitcoind and it cant find the bitcoin.conf file
31 2012-03-18 00:44:21 <freewil> bitcoin, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Running_Bitcoin#Bitcoin.conf_Configuration_File
32 2012-03-18 00:44:50 _h4ckm3 is now known as h4ckm3
33 2012-03-18 00:45:44 <luke-jr> bitcoin: what version?
34 2012-03-18 00:45:45 <bitcoin> thx. i tried changing pat with bitcoind conf= but it won't change. Keep looking in /root/.bitcoin
35 2012-03-18 00:46:29 <bitcoin> 0.5.3
36 2012-03-18 00:48:38 bitvampire has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
37 2012-03-18 00:49:50 <bitcoin> should I try #bitcoin
38 2012-03-18 00:51:14 <k9quaint> bitcoin: no, that would be bad
39 2012-03-18 00:51:32 <k9quaint> there is a conversation involving the bible and hitler in there right now, stay away :|
40 2012-03-18 00:51:51 <bitcoin> yes I saw that very scary
41 2012-03-18 00:52:19 <k9quaint> I am trying to figure out how to segway into politics
42 2012-03-18 01:01:07 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: the plan for that is get clients to upgrade to bip16 supporting code.
43 2012-03-18 01:01:25 <luke-jr> lol
44 2012-03-18 01:01:37 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: i c
45 2012-03-18 01:02:11 <gmaxwell> I meanâ I think it's the best that can be done other beyond having a supermajority of hash power, which we do.
46 2012-03-18 01:02:15 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
47 2012-03-18 01:02:32 <gmaxwell> (or at leastâ we do if people weren't confused into thinking it was just a vote and were putting that in their coinbase without the support)
48 2012-03-18 01:02:57 <luke-jr> FWIW, 0.3.23.eligius: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69225.0
49 2012-03-18 01:06:59 userjgg has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
50 2012-03-18 01:21:51 userjgg has joined
51 2012-03-18 01:27:16 <mcorlett> Could an attacker with 51% or more of the network extort miners, and say, for example, "send 40 BTC from your next block to address X, or I won't mine on top of it"?
52 2012-03-18 01:27:50 <mcorlett> ("send" as in "include in the generation transaction")
53 2012-03-18 01:27:50 <[Tycho]> Yes.
54 2012-03-18 01:27:51 <gjs278> an attacker with 51% could literally kill you for bitcoins
55 2012-03-18 01:28:23 bitvampire has joined
56 2012-03-18 01:28:30 marf_away has joined
57 2012-03-18 01:33:45 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
58 2012-03-18 01:35:05 <mcorlett> gmaxwell: Is there consensus as to when you will be announcing the fix publicly?
59 2012-03-18 01:35:44 <jrmithdobbs> mcorlett: it's already available
60 2012-03-18 01:36:16 <mcorlett> jrmithdobbs: Is that so? Where can I find it?
61 2012-03-18 01:37:28 <jrmithdobbs> in 0.5.3.1 and 0.6.0rc4?
62 2012-03-18 01:37:46 <mcorlett> Those are compiled. I want the source.
63 2012-03-18 01:37:54 <jrmithdobbs> um
64 2012-03-18 01:38:07 <jrmithdobbs> all builds are done based off what's in github, so if there are binaries the source is already available.
65 2012-03-18 01:38:14 <nanotube> jrmithdobbs: that's not the case.
66 2012-03-18 01:38:19 <nanotube> in this particular case
67 2012-03-18 01:38:31 <nanotube> it seems they've built the fixed binaries without pushing the source of the fix to github
68 2012-03-18 01:38:34 <nanotube> for 'extra protection'
69 2012-03-18 01:38:46 <nanotube> so mcorlett poses a valid question
70 2012-03-18 01:38:49 <nanotube> afaik
71 2012-03-18 01:38:52 <jrmithdobbs> err wtf
72 2012-03-18 01:39:14 <jrmithdobbs> whose cockimamey idea was that crap? you mean i'm building vulnerable verions?
73 2012-03-18 01:39:34 <mcorlett> jrmithdobbs: Yes to the latter question.
74 2012-03-18 01:39:47 <mcorlett> (Only Windows + Qt, though.)
75 2012-03-18 01:40:00 <mcorlett> bitcoind and Qt on Mac/Linux are safe.
76 2012-03-18 01:40:00 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: if you're building for windowsâ¦
77 2012-03-18 01:40:32 <jrmithdobbs> i'm aware
78 2012-03-18 01:41:14 <gmaxwell> nanotube: 0.6.0rc4 is on github.
79 2012-03-18 01:41:34 <jrmithdobbs> i thought so, cause the version got bumped last pull i did so the error message would go away
80 2012-03-18 01:41:43 <nanotube> gmaxwell: ah ok, so it's just the 0.5.3.1 that's missing?
81 2012-03-18 01:41:57 <gmaxwell> 0.5.3.1 is not simply because the only fix in that version is the relevant one.
82 2012-03-18 01:42:16 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: someone building 0.6.0rc4 from git will not get the fix
83 2012-03-18 01:42:21 <jrmithdobbs> it was this wasn't it?
84 2012-03-18 01:42:28 <jrmithdobbs> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/901
85 2012-03-18 01:42:46 <mcorlett> I thought so as well, but that's pretty old.
86 2012-03-18 01:42:56 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: we're not discussing the specifics right now.
87 2012-03-18 01:44:13 <luke-jr> ;;tell jrmithdobbs FYI, building 0.6.0rc4 from git will *not* get the fix
88 2012-03-18 01:44:19 <luke-jr> did that work?
89 2012-03-18 01:44:44 <luke-jr> ;;echo jrmithdobbs: FYI, building 0.6.0rc4 from git will *not* get the fix
90 2012-03-18 01:44:44 <gribble> jrmithdobbs: FYI, building 0.6.0rc4 from git will *not* get the fix
91 2012-03-18 01:44:50 <jrmithdobbs> 20:43 [Freenode] [gribble(~gribble@unaffiliated/nanotube/bot/gribble)] luke-jr wants me to tell you: FYI, building 0.6.0rc4 from git will *not* get the fix
92 2012-03-18 01:45:01 <luke-jr> guess so
93 2012-03-18 01:46:31 <jrmithdobbs> so you're not providing a fix to anyone that doesn't run official binaries? that seems kind of backwards.
94 2012-03-18 01:47:14 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: all Windows users run official binaries, no?
95 2012-03-18 01:48:10 splatster has quit (Quit: splatster)
96 2012-03-18 01:48:47 <freewil> HN: "Bitcoin devs conspire to steal Windows users' bitcoins" ;)
97 2012-03-18 01:52:52 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: ever used gitian before?
98 2012-03-18 01:54:14 <jrmithdobbs> no because it doesn't work on a platform i'm willing to install
99 2012-03-18 01:54:37 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: you're not willing to run ubuntu in a VM? tisk tisk.
100 2012-03-18 01:54:50 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: to be fair, most motherboards won't support that setup :p
101 2012-03-18 01:54:56 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i'm not willing to run ubuntu on anything an employer doesn't force me to
102 2012-03-18 01:57:09 loktigon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
103 2012-03-18 01:57:16 PsiliPharm has joined
104 2012-03-18 01:57:17 loktigon has joined
105 2012-03-18 01:59:53 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
106 2012-03-18 02:17:59 <devrandom> luke-jr: I had experienced flakiness with backing images before, but if they work well we could use that
107 2012-03-18 02:18:19 <luke-jr> odd, never had problems with it here, so long as the backing img didn't change
108 2012-03-18 02:18:53 <devrandom> it was years ago...
109 2012-03-18 02:19:20 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
110 2012-03-18 02:22:17 Cherothald has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
111 2012-03-18 02:26:13 andytoshi has joined
112 2012-03-18 02:26:15 xenland has joined
113 2012-03-18 02:29:06 sepacol has joined
114 2012-03-18 02:31:42 sepacol is now known as sepacorn
115 2012-03-18 02:33:45 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
116 2012-03-18 02:33:45 loktigon has quit ()
117 2012-03-18 02:34:23 loktite has joined
118 2012-03-18 02:35:03 SomeoneWeirdzzzz is now known as SomeoneWeird
119 2012-03-18 02:36:06 Cherothald has joined
120 2012-03-18 02:37:10 loktite is now known as loktight
121 2012-03-18 02:39:23 DBordello has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
122 2012-03-18 02:41:18 <doublec> github is already tagged, shouldn't the fix be inthere?
123 2012-03-18 02:41:30 <doublec> oops responding to old log
124 2012-03-18 02:42:35 <terry> how do i switch languages in 0.6
125 2012-03-18 02:42:36 <doublec> I assumed 886401 was the fix
126 2012-03-18 02:43:55 sepacorn has quit ()
127 2012-03-18 02:44:40 <luke-jr> terry: it's an OS thing
128 2012-03-18 02:45:02 <terry> p.s. the swedish translation is terrible
129 2012-03-18 02:45:18 <luke-jr> so improve it
130 2012-03-18 02:45:30 <terry> i value my time far too much
131 2012-03-18 02:45:51 <terry> if you're going to force me to use that terrible one, at least give me an option to change it back to english
132 2012-03-18 02:46:22 h4ckm3 has quit (Disconnected by services)
133 2012-03-18 02:46:39 _h4ckm3 has joined
134 2012-03-18 02:47:43 <terry> mmmmm
135 2012-03-18 02:47:44 <terry> -lang
136 2012-03-18 02:56:26 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
137 2012-03-18 02:57:09 splatster has joined
138 2012-03-18 02:57:27 granger has joined
139 2012-03-18 03:01:31 granger is now known as graniger
140 2012-03-18 03:03:08 graniger has quit ()
141 2012-03-18 03:03:53 t7 has joined
142 2012-03-18 03:04:31 DBordello has joined
143 2012-03-18 03:04:31 DBordello has quit (Changing host)
144 2012-03-18 03:04:31 DBordello has joined
145 2012-03-18 03:04:47 shrebs has joined
146 2012-03-18 03:05:34 minimoose has joined
147 2012-03-18 03:06:10 PsiliPharm has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
148 2012-03-18 03:06:14 OneFixt has joined
149 2012-03-18 03:10:46 PsiliPharm has joined
150 2012-03-18 03:11:40 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: ali1234 opened pull request 947 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/947>
151 2012-03-18 03:13:07 npouillard has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
152 2012-03-18 03:16:52 shrebs has quit ()
153 2012-03-18 03:17:33 burusta has joined
154 2012-03-18 03:18:42 a_meteorite has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
155 2012-03-18 03:23:32 PsiliPharm has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
156 2012-03-18 03:24:03 burusta is now known as stomf
157 2012-03-18 03:24:13 npouillard has joined
158 2012-03-18 03:24:22 a_meteorite has joined
159 2012-03-18 03:25:51 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
160 2012-03-18 03:26:27 [7] has joined
161 2012-03-18 03:28:02 userjgg has quit (Quit: Leaving)
162 2012-03-18 03:31:26 da2ce7 has joined
163 2012-03-18 03:32:34 wood has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
164 2012-03-18 03:33:45 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
165 2012-03-18 03:36:50 bitcoin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
166 2012-03-18 03:37:45 wood has joined
167 2012-03-18 03:41:25 minjin_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
168 2012-03-18 03:42:12 forsetifox_ has joined
169 2012-03-18 03:42:18 minjin has joined
170 2012-03-18 03:43:30 forsetifox has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
171 2012-03-18 03:43:37 stomf has quit ()
172 2012-03-18 03:44:19 chripchi has joined
173 2012-03-18 03:46:08 chripchi is now known as rapalop
174 2012-03-18 03:46:25 forsetifox_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
175 2012-03-18 03:46:37 forsetifox has joined
176 2012-03-18 03:47:19 rapalop is now known as chripchi
177 2012-03-18 03:49:45 twmz has quit (Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com)
178 2012-03-18 03:50:12 twmz has joined
179 2012-03-18 03:53:21 bitvampire has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
180 2012-03-18 03:54:07 DBordello has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
181 2012-03-18 03:55:35 forsetifox has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
182 2012-03-18 03:56:00 minjin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
183 2012-03-18 03:59:34 forsetifox_ has joined
184 2012-03-18 04:02:01 bitvampire has joined
185 2012-03-18 04:05:53 rasengan has quit (Quit: reboot)
186 2012-03-18 04:06:24 imsaguy has joined
187 2012-03-18 04:07:55 bnmorgan has left ()
188 2012-03-18 04:08:22 zeiris has quit (Quit: Changing server)
189 2012-03-18 04:12:31 rasengan has joined
190 2012-03-18 04:14:14 Guest44966 has joined
191 2012-03-18 04:14:38 andytoshi has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
192 2012-03-18 04:16:13 g2x3k has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
193 2012-03-18 04:18:11 andytoshi has joined
194 2012-03-18 04:20:50 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
195 2012-03-18 04:21:09 sytse has joined
196 2012-03-18 04:22:44 phungus has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
197 2012-03-18 04:23:36 phungus has joined
198 2012-03-18 04:24:35 bitvampire has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
199 2012-03-18 04:26:27 forsetifox has joined
200 2012-03-18 04:27:40 forsetifox_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
201 2012-03-18 04:31:32 t7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
202 2012-03-18 04:31:57 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
203 2012-03-18 04:33:45 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
204 2012-03-18 04:39:09 DBordello has joined
205 2012-03-18 04:39:09 DBordello has quit (Changing host)
206 2012-03-18 04:39:09 DBordello has joined
207 2012-03-18 04:48:25 <luke-jr> devrandom: btw, it's a real pain to gitian-build private code
208 2012-03-18 04:48:43 DBordello has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
209 2012-03-18 05:02:14 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day)
210 2012-03-18 05:03:10 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
211 2012-03-18 05:07:55 ThomasV has joined
212 2012-03-18 05:14:37 <Diablo-D3> goddamnit newegg
213 2012-03-18 05:14:40 <Diablo-D3> I dont care if its sunday
214 2012-03-18 05:14:44 <Diablo-D3> why is my new toy not here yet
215 2012-03-18 05:20:22 forsetifox_ has joined
216 2012-03-18 05:21:50 forsetifox has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
217 2012-03-18 05:23:10 <devrandom> luke-jr: say more?
218 2012-03-18 05:23:42 <luke-jr> devrandom: gitian seems to assume it can pull from some public git repo
219 2012-03-18 05:24:24 <luke-jr> devrandom: to do builds of private code, I need to edit the .yml to a 10.0.2.2 location, on-target in while it's apting, ssh-keygen, and ssh-copy-id to the host
220 2012-03-18 05:26:46 phungus has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
221 2012-03-18 05:27:17 phungus has joined
222 2012-03-18 05:28:18 forsetifox_ is now known as forsetifox
223 2012-03-18 05:33:22 <devrandom> luke-jr: you can publish it internally with https: instead of git+ssh:
224 2012-03-18 05:33:45 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
225 2012-03-18 05:35:17 <luke-jr> devrandom: only if I install/run a webserver with signed SSL key etc
226 2012-03-18 05:39:35 Raccoon has quit (Excess Flood)
227 2012-03-18 05:40:05 Raccoon has joined
228 2012-03-18 05:43:08 fpgaminer has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
229 2012-03-18 05:43:17 fpgaminer has joined
230 2012-03-18 05:43:19 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
231 2012-03-18 05:45:35 <devrandom> luke-jr: I have to go, but we can figure it out later
232 2012-03-18 05:46:30 forsetifox_ has joined
233 2012-03-18 05:46:55 pingdrive has quit (Quit: Leaving)
234 2012-03-18 05:47:15 forsetifox has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
235 2012-03-18 05:50:38 forsetifox_ is now known as forsetifox
236 2012-03-18 05:56:56 chripchi is now known as swardl
237 2012-03-18 05:57:37 swardl has quit ()
238 2012-03-18 05:59:18 stax- has joined
239 2012-03-18 06:00:35 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
240 2012-03-18 06:24:12 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
241 2012-03-18 06:31:30 pickett has joined
242 2012-03-18 06:33:45 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
243 2012-03-18 06:50:15 Rabbit67890 has joined
244 2012-03-18 07:08:01 forsetifox has quit (Quit: Page closed)
245 2012-03-18 07:22:02 splatster has quit (Quit: splatster)
246 2012-03-18 07:23:28 Rabbit67890-0 has joined
247 2012-03-18 07:23:36 <ThomasV> 85.214.124.168 found 3 consecutive blocks..
248 2012-03-18 07:25:47 <midnightmagic> maybe that's art
249 2012-03-18 07:25:54 <Rabbit67890-0> yeah
250 2012-03-18 07:26:16 <ThomasV> why would art not take transactions?
251 2012-03-18 07:26:36 Rabbit67890 has quit (Disconnected by services)
252 2012-03-18 07:26:43 Rabbit67890-0 is now known as Rabbit67890
253 2012-03-18 07:27:02 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
254 2012-03-18 07:27:07 yellowhat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
255 2012-03-18 07:27:13 <Rabbit67890> i dont know?
256 2012-03-18 07:27:23 <Rabbit67890> ask art if he does?
257 2012-03-18 07:27:26 <midnightmagic> oh that ip doesn't do txn?
258 2012-03-18 07:27:30 <midnightmagic> that's not art then
259 2012-03-18 07:27:38 <[Tycho]> It's MM
260 2012-03-18 07:28:12 dvide has joined
261 2012-03-18 07:32:21 <midnightmagic> ... Wolfgang M. Schmitt..
262 2012-03-18 07:33:12 word has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
263 2012-03-18 07:33:45 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
264 2012-03-18 07:50:08 traviscj has joined
265 2012-03-18 07:50:37 <midnightmagic> [Tycho]: are you MM? :)
266 2012-03-18 07:50:52 <Rabbit67890> oh wow.
267 2012-03-18 07:50:58 <Rabbit67890> i just downloaded that....
268 2012-03-18 07:53:52 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
269 2012-03-18 07:55:46 <SomeoneWeird> cee eye aye
270 2012-03-18 07:55:47 traviscj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
271 2012-03-18 07:58:01 da2ce7 has joined
272 2012-03-18 07:58:39 <Cory> MM?
273 2012-03-18 07:58:53 <Graet> MAssive Miner :P
274 2012-03-18 07:58:58 <Graet> Mystery Miner
275 2012-03-18 07:59:16 <Graet> anything lese rthat fits with twilight zone music :P
276 2012-03-18 07:59:37 <Cory> Oh, right.
277 2012-03-18 07:59:41 <Graet> else*
278 2012-03-18 07:59:45 <Graet> ;)
279 2012-03-18 08:00:31 <da2ce7> Graet: has your pool been hit by the MM?
280 2012-03-18 08:00:43 <Graet> hit?
281 2012-03-18 08:01:20 <Graet> http://blockchain.info/blocks/85.214.124.168
282 2012-03-18 08:01:24 <da2ce7> I don't know... dosn't it use a IP of a pool to release it's blocks?
283 2012-03-18 08:01:37 <Graet> uses that ip
284 2012-03-18 08:01:50 <Graet> a lot have been sent thru deepbit afaik
285 2012-03-18 08:01:51 <da2ce7> it has about 50% hashing speed...
286 2012-03-18 08:02:03 <Graet> 50% of what?
287 2012-03-18 08:02:22 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
288 2012-03-18 08:02:31 <da2ce7> of the last 18 blocks
289 2012-03-18 08:02:52 <da2ce7> well slightly less than 50%
290 2012-03-18 08:03:04 <Cory> About 15% over the last 100.
291 2012-03-18 08:03:14 <da2ce7> hmm... wow.
292 2012-03-18 08:03:16 <Graet> it has about 15% of the hashrate according to the experts
293 2012-03-18 08:03:16 <Cory> Probably similar for last 1000.
294 2012-03-18 08:03:24 <da2ce7> that is a massive chunk of mining power.
295 2012-03-18 08:03:31 <Graet> indeed
296 2012-03-18 08:03:40 <Cory> It is. And it's slowing down confirmations.
297 2012-03-18 08:03:58 _h4ckm3 is now known as h4ckm3
298 2012-03-18 08:03:58 <Graet> a *lot* of ppl are worried and rumors and misinformation abound
299 2012-03-18 08:04:02 <Graet> as usual...
300 2012-03-18 08:04:11 <da2ce7> hmm...
301 2012-03-18 08:04:50 <Cory> How long has 85.214.124.168 been finding a significant percentage of the blocks?
302 2012-03-18 08:04:53 <da2ce7> providing the MM continues to mine on the chain... and dosn't carry out any 51% attack... well then we don't have any _real_ issues.
303 2012-03-18 08:05:00 <Graet> gmaxwell, has made some intelligent foru posts on the subject :)
304 2012-03-18 08:05:07 <Graet> indeed
305 2012-03-18 08:05:41 <Graet> someone made a graph, but i closed the tab this morn
306 2012-03-18 08:06:50 <da2ce7> when the BFL's start comming online... that should give the MM a run for it's hashpower.
307 2012-03-18 08:08:11 <Graet> maybe he already has them...
308 2012-03-18 08:09:52 <Graet> https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2012/03/bitcoin-war-the-first-real-threat-to-bitcoin/ even made the news, found that agin while i was l;ooking for the ngraph :P
309 2012-03-18 08:13:54 <phantomcircuit> Graet, first point is false
310 2012-03-18 08:14:03 <phantomcircuit> thus article was poorly researched
311 2012-03-18 08:14:08 <Graet> i agree
312 2012-03-18 08:14:11 <phantomcircuit> </topic>
313 2012-03-18 08:14:21 <Graet> thus sipporting my earlier statement
314 2012-03-18 08:14:22 <da2ce7> it costs no more to include transactions.
315 2012-03-18 08:14:29 <da2ce7> *close enough to 0
316 2012-03-18 08:14:51 <phantomcircuit> its clearly a pool of some kind
317 2012-03-18 08:14:56 <phantomcircuit> possibly a botnet
318 2012-03-18 08:15:25 * da2ce7 thinks it is a asic team testing their boards...
319 2012-03-18 08:15:58 <da2ce7> there is no way a bot-net _that_ large could excape notice
320 2012-03-18 08:16:02 <SomeoneWeird> possibly
321 2012-03-18 08:16:12 <SomeoneWeird> unless someone developed a zeus module for mining
322 2012-03-18 08:18:36 <Graet> yer watched all this discussion b4, might go do something interesting :)
323 2012-03-18 08:18:46 RazielZ has joined
324 2012-03-18 08:23:34 Rabbit67890-0 has joined
325 2012-03-18 08:25:22 Rabbit67890 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
326 2012-03-18 08:26:25 Fnar has quit (Changing host)
327 2012-03-18 08:26:25 Fnar has joined
328 2012-03-18 08:33:45 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
329 2012-03-18 08:36:41 loktight has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
330 2012-03-18 08:37:10 stax- has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
331 2012-03-18 08:39:37 loktight has joined
332 2012-03-18 08:40:37 loktight has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
333 2012-03-18 08:58:21 Rabbit67890-0 is now known as Rabbit67890
334 2012-03-18 09:02:44 specular has joined
335 2012-03-18 09:03:53 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
336 2012-03-18 09:04:49 da2ce7 has joined
337 2012-03-18 09:05:49 ThomasV has joined
338 2012-03-18 09:12:00 PsiliPharm has joined
339 2012-03-18 09:13:32 <ThomasV> what is the typical margin earned by miners?
340 2012-03-18 09:13:55 <ThomasV> I read 5% somewhere, can't remember where
341 2012-03-18 09:16:42 cande has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
342 2012-03-18 09:24:50 <[Tycho]> Can be VERY different.
343 2012-03-18 09:26:40 erle- has joined
344 2012-03-18 09:28:38 ageis has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
345 2012-03-18 09:29:53 phungus has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
346 2012-03-18 09:30:49 ageis has joined
347 2012-03-18 09:31:08 phungus has joined
348 2012-03-18 09:32:10 slothbag has joined
349 2012-03-18 09:32:42 pusle has joined
350 2012-03-18 09:33:38 cande has joined
351 2012-03-18 09:33:45 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
352 2012-03-18 09:35:03 pusle has quit (Client Quit)
353 2012-03-18 09:49:12 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
354 2012-03-18 09:50:31 <ThomasV> [Tycho]: very different from miner to miner?
355 2012-03-18 09:51:01 <[Tycho]> Yes.
356 2012-03-18 09:51:20 <[Tycho]> Even power cost can vary by many times from place to place.
357 2012-03-18 09:54:03 <ThomasV> it would be nice if tx fees where high enough to account for the difference between mining profitably and mining at a loss
358 2012-03-18 09:54:16 <ThomasV> but we are far from there
359 2012-03-18 09:56:11 <ThomasV> there are on average about 50 transactions per block
360 2012-03-18 09:57:04 <[Tycho]> Yes, transactions are nice.
361 2012-03-18 09:57:12 <ThomasV> if the average fee was 0.05 btc, then a miner that does not include transactions at all would have a 5% loss
362 2012-03-18 09:58:23 <[Tycho]> Depends on the TX size
363 2012-03-18 09:58:32 <[Tycho]> 0.01 per 1000 bytes would be ok
364 2012-03-18 09:59:07 <ThomasV> yes, but tx size is not relevant for what I am talking about
365 2012-03-18 09:59:49 <ThomasV> it's true that large tx have a larger storage cost, but this cost is not supported directly by the miner who eats the fee
366 2012-03-18 10:00:03 <ThomasV> it is supported by the whole network
367 2012-03-18 10:00:24 <[Tycho]> TX size may be important for miners
368 2012-03-18 10:00:39 <ThomasV> only if they reach the block size limit
369 2012-03-18 10:00:51 <ThomasV> and have to choose between transactions
370 2012-03-18 10:00:54 <[Tycho]> No
371 2012-03-18 10:01:07 <ThomasV> why?
372 2012-03-18 10:01:33 <[Tycho]> Usually big TXes contain more inputs and are more difficult to process.
373 2012-03-18 10:01:54 <ThomasV> yes
374 2012-03-18 10:03:10 <ThomasV> you are right
375 2012-03-18 10:04:04 <sipa> ecdsa verification cost or (eternal) storage cost dominates
376 2012-03-18 10:04:12 <ThomasV> but does this difficulty significantly impact cost?
377 2012-03-18 10:04:28 <[Tycho]> ThomasV: yes.
378 2012-03-18 10:05:16 <ThomasV> I thought that once you have verified a tx, the major cost comes from hashing
379 2012-03-18 10:05:31 <sipa> hashing is not a cost
380 2012-03-18 10:05:37 <ThomasV> the tx verification needs to be performed only once
381 2012-03-18 10:05:50 <[Tycho]> There are other things that depend on block size.
382 2012-03-18 10:05:52 <ThomasV> sipa: huh?
383 2012-03-18 10:06:07 <sipa> well, it is, but it is one that is not required by the transaction
384 2012-03-18 10:06:31 <ThomasV> sipa: sure. but that's precisely my point
385 2012-03-18 10:06:34 <sipa> it will happen anyway, at the economically feasible rate
386 2012-03-18 10:07:12 <ThomasV> my point is that it is currently economically meaningful to just hash, and include zero tx in your block
387 2012-03-18 10:07:22 <sipa> sure
388 2012-03-18 10:07:36 <ThomasV> I am wondering how high tx fees have to get in order to change that
389 2012-03-18 10:08:47 <ThomasV> for example, if tx fees were 5% of the reward, would it be enough?
390 2012-03-18 10:11:22 <da2ce7> providing there is no 51% attack... it is a self-correcting system... People will get anoyed with long time to confirm transactions... and will start to include more fees.
391 2012-03-18 10:11:54 <da2ce7> then there is an compeditive advantage to those miners who include transactions... whatever the marginal cost is in verifiying them.
392 2012-03-18 10:13:24 <ThomasV> yes, but currently the competitive advantage is not there
393 2012-03-18 10:14:14 <da2ce7> so that is what we are seeing... people are quite happy to trade low fees for slightly longer verification times.
394 2012-03-18 10:14:17 <ThomasV> I am just trying to estimate what average tx fee is needed for that competitive advantage to exist and to be meaningful
395 2012-03-18 10:14:26 <da2ce7> at some point it will even out.
396 2012-03-18 10:15:18 <da2ce7> ThomasV: I don't think there is a fixed 'cost' to that will make NO block contain only 1 tx... some nodes process the transctions already, so including them in the block is no aditional cost.
397 2012-03-18 10:15:56 <[Tycho]> Sometimes I do 1Tx blocks too :)
398 2012-03-18 10:17:54 <da2ce7> also if pools start not processing transactions... it is likely that the users will hop to a different pool... Because each miner _enjoys_ having very low fee transctions.
399 2012-03-18 10:20:44 <ThomasV> da2ce7: sure, but suppose someone wants to attack the network, trying to slow down transactions. in the current situation, such an attack is profitable, because you can sell your 50btc to pay for your expenses. my question is, what is the amount of fees that is needed so that such an attack is no longer subsidized, but starts to cost
400 2012-03-18 10:21:29 <da2ce7> ThomasV: you are not attacking the network unless you purposely ophan other blocks with a 51% attack.
401 2012-03-18 10:21:45 <da2ce7> there is no 'fair' or 'unfair' play otherwise.
402 2012-03-18 10:22:46 <ThomasV> da2ce7: from a user point of view, someone down transactions can be considered as an attack
403 2012-03-18 10:23:31 Rabbit67890-0 has joined
404 2012-03-18 10:24:03 <da2ce7> ThomasV: no, becasue that user didn't pay for the "attackers" hashing. Rarther the "attacker" (supose it isn't doing a 51% attack), is just adding aditional strength to the network.
405 2012-03-18 10:24:28 <da2ce7> making the users transctions more secure... _once_ they get included in a block.
406 2012-03-18 10:25:39 <ThomasV> yes, if 51% is the only threat that you worry about
407 2012-03-18 10:26:08 Rabbit67890 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
408 2012-03-18 10:27:39 <da2ce7> even if the "attacker" had 99% of the hashing power... the network would be fine... and very secure, providing the "attacker" didn't orphan the 1/100 blocks that the rest of the network finds (that there would be huge compition to get into, thus attracting high fees).
409 2012-03-18 10:27:42 <Graet> luke set the precedent with um coiledcoin or something, mine ALL the blocks but include no txn ;)
410 2012-03-18 10:28:31 <da2ce7> Graet: yes... but he ophaned other blocks...
411 2012-03-18 10:28:31 <da2ce7> so he was doing a 51% attack.
412 2012-03-18 10:28:46 _Fireball has joined
413 2012-03-18 10:29:18 <ThomasV> if you have 51%, nothing prevents you from orphaning blocks
414 2012-03-18 10:30:29 <Graet> he was doing a 100% attack i thought :P
415 2012-03-18 10:32:28 <da2ce7> ThomasV: yes... but what happens if I'm some mad mathamatitian who works out how to do sha256 in one millionth of the time... so I mine the network, (keeping the flaw in sha256 secert), however don't ophan any competing blocks.
416 2012-03-18 10:32:53 <da2ce7> what I'm doing in-fact is just making the network more secure.
417 2012-03-18 10:33:45 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
418 2012-03-18 10:36:51 <ThomasV> da2ce7: the current 'mystery miner' does not seem to be trying to orphan blocks. he mined 171675. then slush mined 171676. then he mined 171677. this means that when slush published his block, he spent his hashing power finding 171677, not to orphan 171676.
419 2012-03-18 10:38:04 <ThomasV> you can see it here: http://www.blockchain.info/blocks
420 2012-03-18 10:38:14 <da2ce7> ThomasV: yes, and the MM has less than 50% anyway. :) so maybe it is just an anon friend of bitcoin.
421 2012-03-18 10:39:42 wood has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
422 2012-03-18 10:39:49 marf_away has joined
423 2012-03-18 10:40:06 <ThomasV> I believe this sequence means that he spent his computing power on 171677 instead of trying to orphan slush's block. but I am not an expert.. perhaps it is possible to merge-mine both tasks?
424 2012-03-18 10:40:30 <ThomasV> (I don't know how merged mining works)
425 2012-03-18 10:41:16 <ThomasV> could someone who knows about it confirm?
426 2012-03-18 10:42:56 <da2ce7> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=55600.0
427 2012-03-18 10:43:36 <da2ce7> ThomasV: no... not within the same chain.
428 2012-03-18 10:44:18 <da2ce7> merged mining happens when you have two chains... you insert the root of the 2nd chain into the coinbase of the 1st. (or mykel tree).
429 2012-03-18 10:44:44 <ThomasV> good. that's what I though
430 2012-03-18 10:45:18 <da2ce7> whenever you find a low-enough hash you publish the block you were working on... the Merged Mining chain will look completly differnt to the Bitcoin (or whatever host chain), that is used.
431 2012-03-18 10:46:01 aleod has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
432 2012-03-18 10:46:26 <ThomasV> so we can be reasonably sure this MM is not trying to orphan blocks
433 2012-03-18 10:46:55 <ThomasV> or at least he was not at the time of block 171677
434 2012-03-18 10:50:10 <da2ce7> yes... It seems like the MM isn't atempting to orphan blocks atm... However it dosn't make sence to, unless you have a clear 51% of the network hashing power.
435 2012-03-18 10:50:17 <da2ce7> (you will make less money)...
436 2012-03-18 10:51:10 <theorbtwo> da2ce7: It's also arguable that for most people, you'll get more money making bitcoin not fall apart if you have more then 51%.
437 2012-03-18 10:52:14 <ThomasV> unless your goaal is to make it fall apart :)
438 2012-03-18 10:52:32 <da2ce7> theorbtwo: however at some point it dosn't make sence not to include the higher-fee transactions in you blocks, if you are not looking to make bitocin fall apart.
439 2012-03-18 10:54:10 <ThomasV> even if you are trying to make it fall apart, you would remain covert and act normal until you have 51%
440 2012-03-18 10:54:53 <Graet> why? being out oin the open is causing much discussion and fear
441 2012-03-18 10:55:07 <da2ce7> ThomasV: yes... you would maximize proffits so that you can extract as much money from bitcoin before you distoyed it.
442 2012-03-18 10:55:26 <ThomasV> Graet: so that you can still resell your coins, and fund your hardware
443 2012-03-18 10:55:52 <da2ce7> Graet: is also make people think about possible mitergations, and gives people inpouluse to code aganst an possible attack.
444 2012-03-18 10:56:06 <Graet> if your goal is to destriy bitcoin causing fear and making ppl leave will reduce your hardware costs
445 2012-03-18 10:56:17 Rabbit67890-0 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
446 2012-03-18 10:56:45 wood has joined
447 2012-03-18 10:57:42 <da2ce7> Remember, in-theroy... Users can choose whatever fork they want... if there is a 51% attack, there is nothing wrong with a user forcing his or her client to only accept the chain that deepbit, slush, and others are mining on.
448 2012-03-18 10:58:03 <da2ce7> Also, Pools and other miners are free to choose what chain they mine on... even if it is the shorter chain.
449 2012-03-18 10:58:37 <slothbag> does anyone know if there is a virtual machine image or something like that for building statically linked bitcoin-qt builds? particularly windows builds?
450 2012-03-18 10:59:00 <da2ce7> while it may be possible to have a 51% attack... less "pure" forms of bitcoin can make it much much harder to sustain such an attack.
451 2012-03-18 10:59:25 <ThomasV> da2ce7: good point
452 2012-03-18 11:00:31 skeledrew has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
453 2012-03-18 11:02:30 <TuxBlackEdo> that's pretty cool idea da2ce7
454 2012-03-18 11:02:36 SphericalCow has joined
455 2012-03-18 11:02:37 <TuxBlackEdo> i would like to see this implemented
456 2012-03-18 11:06:24 <TuxBlackEdo> this "choose your own fork" feature would allow fork causing code to be implemented (and would allow the clients to properly push changes to all forked blockchains)
457 2012-03-18 11:07:05 <TuxBlackEdo> i am not sure how it works now, but whatever chain is the longest is the one bitcoin will send transactions to? i might be wrong about that
458 2012-03-18 11:10:04 <da2ce7> from my analysis the security of bitcoin... even when the reward goes down to virtualy 0, reamins good... providing the attacker isn't externaly financaly motiviated.
459 2012-03-18 11:10:18 <da2ce7> *economic analysis.
460 2012-03-18 11:10:53 <da2ce7> I'm convinced that bitcoin is secure from internal attacks (eg, a party financaly motivated to gain bitcoin).
461 2012-03-18 11:12:31 <ThomasV> what is a 15% attack? it's an attack perpertrated by a dyslexic
462 2012-03-18 11:12:52 Turingi has joined
463 2012-03-18 11:13:05 <da2ce7> ThomasV: lawl.
464 2012-03-18 11:18:51 <ThomasV> I think I am going to raise the default fee in Electrum
465 2012-03-18 11:22:20 theorbtwo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
466 2012-03-18 11:23:09 * Eliel wonders if there'd be any point in just having all clients use the signmessage capability to sign each block with the time they received it at?
467 2012-03-18 11:33:14 <Eliel> ... ok no, that'd be trivially easy to flood with false signatures.
468 2012-03-18 11:33:41 <sipa> Eliel: some proof-of-stake schemes depend on that
469 2012-03-18 11:33:45 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
470 2012-03-18 11:45:57 <da2ce7> ThomasV: hey can you please pre-read this post for me... http://pastebin.com/3VvBraD3
471 2012-03-18 11:46:01 PsiliPharm has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
472 2012-03-18 11:46:05 <da2ce7> *also anyone else is welcome to.
473 2012-03-18 11:48:07 <[Tycho]> "Dose the precise order" ?
474 2012-03-18 11:49:06 <ThomasV> da2ce7: you know that there are checkpoints in the blockchain, that are coded in the client
475 2012-03-18 11:49:18 <da2ce7> yes.
476 2012-03-18 11:49:25 <ThomasV> this means that devs are trusted for that
477 2012-03-18 11:49:35 <ThomasV> it relates to what you are saying
478 2012-03-18 11:49:58 <ThomasV> but you are thinking of something more dynamic
479 2012-03-18 11:51:10 <sipa> anyone who does not investigate the sourcecode thoroughly, is trusting the developer of his client
480 2012-03-18 11:51:23 <ThomasV> sure
481 2012-03-18 11:51:32 <da2ce7> first off: I would have every pool and major miner optionally include a cryptographic signature in the blocks that they produce.
482 2012-03-18 11:52:03 <sipa> using which key?
483 2012-03-18 11:52:28 <da2ce7> sipa: dosn't matter... they can choose a 'mining signing key'
484 2012-03-18 11:52:30 <ThomasV> da2ce7: but then bitcoin might become a closed "club"
485 2012-03-18 11:52:43 <ThomasV> being open is nice too
486 2012-03-18 11:52:59 <da2ce7> ThomasV: yes... but all this only comes into play... IF an 51% attack happens.
487 2012-03-18 11:53:28 <ThomasV> you can always pretend one is happening
488 2012-03-18 11:54:06 <da2ce7> ThomasV: no... it is very ovious when an attacker starts ophaning other blocks.. purposely.
489 2012-03-18 11:55:29 <da2ce7> eg... at least the bitcoin client can show a warning: such ash "Warning: none of the last 100 blocks were generated by any of the 'common miners'"
490 2012-03-18 11:55:33 <da2ce7> *as
491 2012-03-18 11:55:57 <sipa> i am not sure that's the responsability of a reference client
492 2012-03-18 11:56:08 <sipa> (but maybe of alternative clients if they wish)
493 2012-03-18 11:56:24 <ThomasV> yes, but the decision should remain with the human, not the clien
494 2012-03-18 11:56:42 <ThomasV> (the decision of not following the longest chain in that case)
495 2012-03-18 11:57:34 <da2ce7> sipa: I don't know the best way for miners to sign their blocks in a standard way... that isn't my expertise... but I do believe it would be a useful feature⦠even if the reference client chooses not to make use of it.
496 2012-03-18 11:58:24 <sipa> some miners do put a 'signature' in their blocks' coinbases
497 2012-03-18 11:58:41 <[Tycho]> Plain signature can be forged
498 2012-03-18 11:58:45 <sipa> (just a marker text, not a signature in the cryptographic sense)
499 2012-03-18 11:59:12 <sipa> an ecdsa signature requires at least 64 bytes
500 2012-03-18 11:59:22 <[Tycho]> Sadly the coinbase TX doesn't allows more inputs, otherwise that would be very easy
501 2012-03-18 11:59:27 <sipa> coinbase space is expensive
502 2012-03-18 11:59:45 <[Tycho]> Just a 0 input from pool's address can work as a signature.
503 2012-03-18 11:59:56 <da2ce7> well whatever way is best... it needs to be cyptographicaly secure.
504 2012-03-18 12:02:48 <[Tycho]> I know some other simple methods, but that would require OOB communication and this is not cool.
505 2012-03-18 12:03:12 slothbag has quit (Quit: I quit!)
506 2012-03-18 12:03:43 <sipa> What is wrong with OOB communication?
507 2012-03-18 12:04:02 <[Tycho]> I don't like it.
508 2012-03-18 12:04:11 <sipa> Do you want to replace the internet with Bitcoin's P2P network? That's not what it was intended for.
509 2012-03-18 12:04:18 <[Tycho]> Yes.
510 2012-03-18 12:04:50 <sipa> I see no reason why, expect "it's already here, we don't need any other infrastructure."
511 2012-03-18 12:04:57 <sipa> *except
512 2012-03-18 12:05:08 TD has joined
513 2012-03-18 12:05:15 <[Tycho]> This too. Also it's secure.
514 2012-03-18 12:05:26 <sipa> It is very unsecure.
515 2012-03-18 12:05:30 <sipa> The whole world can see it.
516 2012-03-18 12:05:43 <[Tycho]> Not in that meaning
517 2012-03-18 12:05:57 <sipa> In what sense is it secure?
518 2012-03-18 12:07:46 <sipa> Eventually you end up with TCP/IP encapsulated in embedded data of bitcoin transactions, and all network traffic ever is recorded in the block chain.
519 2012-03-18 12:07:59 <sipa> (I exaggerate, but that's the ultimum)
520 2012-03-18 12:07:59 <[Tycho]> Why ?
521 2012-03-18 12:08:32 <sipa> You tell me :)
522 2012-03-18 12:09:26 <sipa> My opinion is: the bitcoin p2p should not be used for anything that doesn't require validation by the network.
523 2012-03-18 12:09:29 <sipa> *network
524 2012-03-18 12:12:47 <vragnaroda> That's sensible.
525 2012-03-18 12:13:29 <[Tycho]> People like you stop development of green-address-based systems :)
526 2012-03-18 12:13:55 <sipa> Did I develop such systems?
527 2012-03-18 12:14:06 <sipa> Ah, yes.
528 2012-03-18 12:14:54 <da2ce7> sipa: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=55600.msg807686#msg807686
529 2012-03-18 12:14:57 <da2ce7> that is how I would deal with it.
530 2012-03-18 12:14:57 gjs278 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
531 2012-03-18 12:15:27 gjs278 has joined
532 2012-03-18 12:15:27 <sipa> It may be tempting to use it for other purposes, such as simplicity (we have communication with that P2P network anyway) or anonimity (I don't need to disclose the destination, he will receive it anyway in a broadcast network), but I believe better solutions are possible for both.
533 2012-03-18 12:16:15 <TD> this is the meet-in-the-middle pubsub system>?
534 2012-03-18 12:17:33 <da2ce7> TD: it is a system that hopefully will never need to be used.
535 2012-03-18 12:18:01 <sipa> TD: i was arguing with [Tycho] who believes out-of-band communication is "not cool".
536 2012-03-18 12:18:02 <TD> i've thought it might be useful as a way to bootstrap other systems. avoids the need to reimplement peer discovery. but yes, i see the argument against it
537 2012-03-18 12:18:07 <da2ce7> however it would be nice to have... It at least works as a contingency plan
538 2012-03-18 12:27:58 theorbtwo has joined
539 2012-03-18 12:29:30 TD_ has joined
540 2012-03-18 12:31:26 bitvampire has joined
541 2012-03-18 12:33:13 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
542 2012-03-18 12:33:14 TD_ is now known as TD
543 2012-03-18 12:33:45 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
544 2012-03-18 12:34:34 Nicksasa has joined
545 2012-03-18 12:37:07 pusle has joined
546 2012-03-18 12:38:16 Rabbit67890 has joined
547 2012-03-18 12:40:38 theorbtwo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
548 2012-03-18 12:40:41 Cryo has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
549 2012-03-18 12:41:07 xenland has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
550 2012-03-18 12:41:29 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
551 2012-03-18 12:43:08 gjs278 has joined
552 2012-03-18 12:43:09 theorbtwo has joined
553 2012-03-18 12:48:26 Rabbit67890-0 has joined
554 2012-03-18 12:52:02 Rabbit67890 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
555 2012-03-18 12:59:47 iocor has joined
556 2012-03-18 13:00:18 briggle has joined
557 2012-03-18 13:05:02 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
558 2012-03-18 13:11:28 Clipse has joined
559 2012-03-18 13:13:00 bobke_ has joined
560 2012-03-18 13:21:36 att_ has joined
561 2012-03-18 13:21:55 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
562 2012-03-18 13:21:58 FACEFOX has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
563 2012-03-18 13:22:44 machine2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
564 2012-03-18 13:23:18 Rabbit67890-0 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
565 2012-03-18 13:24:31 TD_ has joined
566 2012-03-18 13:25:49 occulta has joined
567 2012-03-18 13:27:03 machine2 has joined
568 2012-03-18 13:27:46 agricocb has joined
569 2012-03-18 13:28:02 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
570 2012-03-18 13:28:03 TD_ is now known as TD
571 2012-03-18 13:28:37 FACEFOX has joined
572 2012-03-18 13:31:11 <[Tycho]> Wow, nice try :) https://blockchain.info/block-index/195353/0000000000000a64d9bffef38ff0d86167a6b8c34a5acc874c878a24fa19daf5
573 2012-03-18 13:31:25 Zarutian has joined
574 2012-03-18 13:32:38 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: ?
575 2012-03-18 13:33:40 <[Tycho]> A non-merged mining block relayed trough my node, containing lots of my free TXes (1VayNert), but in fact not mined by me.
576 2012-03-18 13:33:45 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
577 2012-03-18 13:33:58 <[Tycho]> MM's new tactic ? :)
578 2012-03-18 13:38:15 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
579 2012-03-18 13:42:35 pickett has joined
580 2012-03-18 13:43:56 ThomasV has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
581 2012-03-18 13:48:04 userkggy has joined
582 2012-03-18 13:49:07 tucenaber has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
583 2012-03-18 13:49:27 <vragnaroda> [Tycho]: lol
584 2012-03-18 13:50:13 <kinlo> safe mode is disabling listtransactions, any way to bypass that?
585 2012-03-18 13:50:24 <kinlo> running 0.6.0rc4 on testnet
586 2012-03-18 13:52:43 <sipa> why are you in safe mode?
587 2012-03-18 13:52:58 <kinlo> no idea
588 2012-03-18 13:53:13 <sipa> how many blocks are you at?
589 2012-03-18 13:53:15 <kinlo> just upgraded to 0.6.0rc4, started it, tried listtransactions and it refused
590 2012-03-18 13:53:25 <kinlo> 47967
591 2012-03-18 13:53:27 <sipa> does getinfo report an error?
592 2012-03-18 13:53:30 <kinlo> yes
593 2012-03-18 13:53:35 <sipa> oh, testnet
594 2012-03-18 13:53:39 <kinlo> yes testnet :)
595 2012-03-18 13:53:53 <sipa> yes, possible, people are still mining the old testnet chains
596 2012-03-18 13:54:15 <sipa> if those are longer, the client switches to safe mode
597 2012-03-18 13:54:17 <kinlo> I see blockexplorer is way ahaid of me
598 2012-03-18 13:54:41 <kinlo> so, I just need to wait until my client uses the correct chain?
599 2012-03-18 13:54:54 <kinlo> what's the number of blocks on the testnet on the "main" chain?
600 2012-03-18 13:55:01 <kinlo> ie the chain I must be on with 0.6.x
601 2012-03-18 13:56:22 <sipa> try -connect='ing to me? i have 49967 blocks
602 2012-03-18 13:56:30 <sipa> 80.200.41.155
603 2012-03-18 13:58:05 <kinlo> debug log is now full of errors so that must have done something
604 2012-03-18 13:58:18 <kinlo> reorganize failed
605 2012-03-18 13:58:19 <sipa> show me one
606 2012-03-18 13:58:29 <sipa> can you paste some lines around that error?
607 2012-03-18 13:59:01 <kinlo> http://pastebin.com/Y5gkk5GH
608 2012-03-18 13:59:58 <kinlo> but as the number of blocks it goes back is increasing, doesn't that just mean he's busy orphaning all blocks that are invalid?
609 2012-03-18 14:00:28 <sipa> no, your node received a chain which it considers invalid
610 2012-03-18 14:00:37 <sipa> can you restart with -checkblocks ?
611 2012-03-18 14:00:51 <kinlo> the number of Postponing reconnects is increasing
612 2012-03-18 14:00:54 <kinlo> but I'll restart
613 2012-03-18 14:01:00 <sipa> that's normal, it'll go up to 499
614 2012-03-18 14:01:10 <sipa> but you can stop it
615 2012-03-18 14:02:44 <kinlo> after restaring it with checkblocks it just continues with the same output
616 2012-03-18 14:03:33 tucenaber has joined
617 2012-03-18 14:06:58 underscor has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
618 2012-03-18 14:08:45 coingenuity has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
619 2012-03-18 14:09:20 ThomasV has joined
620 2012-03-18 14:10:02 <kinlo> sipa: any chance on removeprivkey ending up in 0.6.x?
621 2012-03-18 14:10:27 <sipa> kinlo: no
622 2012-03-18 14:10:37 <kinlo> just compared the changes on 0.6, very nice, I can throw away most patches I apply to my bitcoin
623 2012-03-18 14:10:53 <sipa> removeprivkey is
624 2012-03-18 14:10:57 <sipa> quite dangerous
625 2012-03-18 14:11:02 <kinlo> ic
626 2012-03-18 14:11:26 <kinlo> I never used it - but it looked like a normal addition to the other key management functions
627 2012-03-18 14:11:47 <sipa> it's certainly useful in certain cases, but certainly in combination with people using the accounts feature it will almost certainly not do what you want
628 2012-03-18 14:12:10 TD has joined
629 2012-03-18 14:12:13 <sipa> (income from accounts to a removed address is removed, for example, but spendings from that account aren't)
630 2012-03-18 14:12:44 <kinlo> it can indeed become confusing
631 2012-03-18 14:14:01 bitvampire has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
632 2012-03-18 14:14:02 <sipa> i believe i overused the word 'certainly' in that senstence
633 2012-03-18 14:14:05 <sipa> sentence
634 2012-03-18 14:14:45 pecket has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
635 2012-03-18 14:15:03 <kinlo> :p
636 2012-03-18 14:15:39 <sipa> for certain
637 2012-03-18 14:16:28 <sipa> ok, i rebuilt my entire testnet block database; i only have 46722 blocks left myself
638 2012-03-18 14:19:22 pecket has joined
639 2012-03-18 14:20:12 bitvampire has joined
640 2012-03-18 14:20:57 underscor has joined
641 2012-03-18 14:22:22 bitvampire has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
642 2012-03-18 14:25:41 SphericalCow has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
643 2012-03-18 14:27:26 SphericalCow has joined
644 2012-03-18 14:28:26 <kinlo> Postponing 705 reconnects
645 2012-03-18 14:28:45 <kinlo> still reorganizing, way beyond the 499 you said
646 2012-03-18 14:28:51 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
647 2012-03-18 14:29:22 copumpkin has joined
648 2012-03-18 14:29:33 <sipa> I'm trying to think how that is possible - but with the frequent network rule changes on testnet there are many things to consider :)
649 2012-03-18 14:29:49 skeledrew has joined
650 2012-03-18 14:30:01 <kinlo> :)
651 2012-03-18 14:30:21 <sipa> Still, i have now a 0.6.0rc4 node with a testnet chain of 49969 blocks.
652 2012-03-18 14:33:45 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
653 2012-03-18 14:43:29 Guest44966 is now known as g2x3k
654 2012-03-18 14:43:29 g2x3k has quit (Changing host)
655 2012-03-18 14:43:29 g2x3k has joined
656 2012-03-18 14:47:58 tomoj has joined
657 2012-03-18 14:52:08 denisx has joined
658 2012-03-18 15:02:01 terry has quit (Excess Flood)
659 2012-03-18 15:02:19 <tomoj> do the transactions in a block include the standard message header, or do the start at the transaction data format version?
660 2012-03-18 15:02:33 terry has joined
661 2012-03-18 15:02:36 terry is now known as terrytibbs
662 2012-03-18 15:02:50 <sipa> tomoj: 1) no 2) not sure what you mean
663 2012-03-18 15:04:17 <tomoj> at the end of the block where you have a varint and then n transactions, are the transactions exactly the payload from the tx message?
664 2012-03-18 15:04:44 t7 has joined
665 2012-03-18 15:04:48 <sipa> afaik yes
666 2012-03-18 15:05:42 <sipa> the message header is only sent at the start of messages; if the tx is a message, then yes it will be prefixed by a header; if it is part of something else, then that something else is prefixed
667 2012-03-18 15:13:57 JRWR has joined
668 2012-03-18 15:14:57 bitvampire has joined
669 2012-03-18 15:15:05 splatster has joined
670 2012-03-18 15:23:59 Guest84409 has joined
671 2012-03-18 15:27:11 Guest84409 is now known as coingenuity
672 2012-03-18 15:27:28 coingenuity has quit (Changing host)
673 2012-03-18 15:27:28 coingenuity has joined
674 2012-03-18 15:28:39 cande has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
675 2012-03-18 15:33:46 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
676 2012-03-18 15:33:57 bitvampire has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
677 2012-03-18 15:35:00 userkggy has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
678 2012-03-18 15:35:13 bitvampire has joined
679 2012-03-18 15:49:30 userkggy has joined
680 2012-03-18 15:49:32 phantomfakeBNC has quit (Quit: changing servers)
681 2012-03-18 15:54:13 FACEFOX has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
682 2012-03-18 15:54:58 FACEFOX has joined
683 2012-03-18 15:55:48 Diablo-D3 has joined
684 2012-03-18 16:05:52 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneWeirdzzzz
685 2012-03-18 16:08:45 bitvampire has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
686 2012-03-18 16:08:52 Rabbit67890 has joined
687 2012-03-18 16:10:06 Slix` has joined
688 2012-03-18 16:10:48 Joric has joined
689 2012-03-18 16:17:14 Nicksasa has quit (Read error: No route to host)
690 2012-03-18 16:23:18 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
691 2012-03-18 16:26:34 Jamesz has joined
692 2012-03-18 16:27:28 <t7> can i install new windows version over old one?
693 2012-03-18 16:27:50 Someguy123 is now known as Someguy123[afk]
694 2012-03-18 16:28:40 <tcatm> t7: yes
695 2012-03-18 16:28:56 <t7> i swear i managed to crash bitcoin-qt before
696 2012-03-18 16:29:01 <t7> just using rpc command
697 2012-03-18 16:29:06 <t7> commands*
698 2012-03-18 16:29:09 DBordello has joined
699 2012-03-18 16:29:09 DBordello has quit (Changing host)
700 2012-03-18 16:29:09 DBordello has joined
701 2012-03-18 16:29:26 abracadabra has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
702 2012-03-18 16:30:58 mrsy has quit (Quit: leaving)
703 2012-03-18 16:31:07 Karmaon_ has joined
704 2012-03-18 16:31:19 abracadab has joined
705 2012-03-18 16:31:43 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
706 2012-03-18 16:31:44 abracadab is now known as abracadabra
707 2012-03-18 16:32:24 Karmaon has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
708 2012-03-18 16:33:46 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
709 2012-03-18 16:34:11 aleod has joined
710 2012-03-18 16:35:20 BlueMatt has joined
711 2012-03-18 16:36:26 Karmaon_ has quit (Changing host)
712 2012-03-18 16:36:27 Karmaon_ has joined
713 2012-03-18 16:37:03 Karmaon_ is now known as Karmaon
714 2012-03-18 16:37:44 Karmaon is now known as justinBieber
715 2012-03-18 16:37:56 justinBieber is now known as Karmaon
716 2012-03-18 16:44:50 Cablesaurus has joined
717 2012-03-18 16:44:50 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
718 2012-03-18 16:44:50 Cablesaurus has joined
719 2012-03-18 16:46:12 Cablesaurus has quit (Client Quit)
720 2012-03-18 16:48:26 <t7> whats the advantage of litecoin's mining method?
721 2012-03-18 16:48:36 imsaguy has quit (Read error: No route to host)
722 2012-03-18 16:48:43 Jamesz has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
723 2012-03-18 16:50:09 <forrestv> t7, botnets are more profitable
724 2012-03-18 16:50:11 pickett has joined
725 2012-03-18 16:50:20 imsaguy has joined
726 2012-03-18 16:50:44 <t7> im not sure if thats a good thing or not
727 2012-03-18 16:51:25 <t7> i mean it should be pretty easy to trace a botnet owner if he set up a mining pool
728 2012-03-18 16:51:26 word has joined
729 2012-03-18 16:51:26 word has quit (Changing host)
730 2012-03-18 16:51:26 word has joined
731 2012-03-18 16:51:32 <t7> he/she
732 2012-03-18 16:59:38 Joric has quit ()
733 2012-03-18 17:00:09 Cablesaurus has joined
734 2012-03-18 17:00:09 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
735 2012-03-18 17:00:09 Cablesaurus has joined
736 2012-03-18 17:01:34 <Slix`> What's litecoin?
737 2012-03-18 17:05:50 Someguy123[afk] is now known as Someguy123
738 2012-03-18 17:08:41 Turing_i has joined
739 2012-03-18 17:09:42 BurtyBB has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
740 2012-03-18 17:13:56 Turing_i has quit (Quit: Leaving)
741 2012-03-18 17:16:36 JRWR has quit ()
742 2012-03-18 17:17:32 loktight has joined
743 2012-03-18 17:26:42 ferroh has joined
744 2012-03-18 17:28:15 forsetifox has joined
745 2012-03-18 17:29:57 Cryo has joined
746 2012-03-18 17:29:57 Cryo has quit (Changing host)
747 2012-03-18 17:29:57 Cryo has joined
748 2012-03-18 17:33:46 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
749 2012-03-18 17:43:17 DBordello has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
750 2012-03-18 17:45:54 <andytoshi> Slix`: litecoin is an alternate blockchain that uses the scrypt hashing method for proof-of-work
751 2012-03-18 17:46:09 <andytoshi> it is a much more difficult hash and does not give advantage to GPU's
752 2012-03-18 17:46:25 <andytoshi> the goal is to improve decentralization by not requiring massive hardware setups to mine
753 2012-03-18 17:46:56 <andytoshi> but OTOH, deliberately avoiding the use of specialized hardware, weakens the network power
754 2012-03-18 17:46:57 freewil has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
755 2012-03-18 17:47:21 <andytoshi> a further difference is that the blocks come more often (2.5 min IIRC, versus 10 minutes with bitcoin)
756 2012-03-18 17:47:32 <andytoshi> so it may also be better-suited to quick transactions that do not need heavy security
757 2012-03-18 17:47:58 <andytoshi> though IMHO 2.5 mins is still too long for most POS applications
758 2012-03-18 17:48:11 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
759 2012-03-18 17:50:06 loktite has joined
760 2012-03-18 17:50:39 loktight has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
761 2012-03-18 17:50:46 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
762 2012-03-18 17:52:31 theorbtwo has joined
763 2012-03-18 17:58:12 andytoshi has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
764 2012-03-18 17:59:34 Tuxavant has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
765 2012-03-18 18:05:42 att_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
766 2012-03-18 18:15:53 ternit has joined
767 2012-03-18 18:16:29 freewil has joined
768 2012-03-18 18:16:57 <luke-jr> Slix`: what andytoshi got wrong is that scrypt does NOT avoid the use of specialized hardware, only commodity hardware
769 2012-03-18 18:17:20 <luke-jr> Slix`: Litecoin is basically just another scam-coin
770 2012-03-18 18:17:22 <Diablo-D3> nothing can avoid the use of special hardware
771 2012-03-18 18:17:26 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: exactly
772 2012-03-18 18:17:40 <Diablo-D3> infact, the harder you make it, the more special hardware looks better
773 2012-03-18 18:17:42 <Diablo-D3> ALSO
774 2012-03-18 18:17:46 <Diablo-D3> scrypt is NOT anti-gpu
775 2012-03-18 18:17:53 <Diablo-D3> which was the original selection criteria
776 2012-03-18 18:21:20 <tomoj> dns seeding is just sending addr reqs to hardcoded hostnames?
777 2012-03-18 18:21:58 Rabbit67890 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
778 2012-03-18 18:22:22 <gmaxwell> tomoj: Yes, though the queried names run special nameservers that return known good nodes. The only purpose of seeding is to find out some nodes when you known none, bootstrapping.
779 2012-03-18 18:23:36 <gmaxwell> tomoj: Once you get one good node you can learn of more. There is also a set of a few hundred nodes baked into the software used as a last resort, but it falls out of date quickly, so if it depended only on that getting connected would take a long time.
780 2012-03-18 18:24:01 <tomoj> pnSeed?
781 2012-03-18 18:26:01 bitbybit has joined
782 2012-03-18 18:26:43 <gmaxwell> Yes.
783 2012-03-18 18:27:21 <tomoj> thanks
784 2012-03-18 18:29:54 bitbybit has quit (Client Quit)
785 2012-03-18 18:33:17 ageis has quit (Quit: http://ageispolis.net)
786 2012-03-18 18:33:46 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
787 2012-03-18 18:39:06 Tulio has joined
788 2012-03-18 18:41:15 ageis has joined
789 2012-03-18 18:41:17 ageis has quit (Excess Flood)
790 2012-03-18 18:41:29 tomoj has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
791 2012-03-18 18:42:27 ageis has joined
792 2012-03-18 18:45:31 ferroh has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
793 2012-03-18 18:46:49 ageis has quit (Quit: http://ageispolis.net)
794 2012-03-18 18:54:34 ageis has joined
795 2012-03-18 18:55:07 Slix` has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
796 2012-03-18 19:01:56 Slix` has joined
797 2012-03-18 19:03:22 pecket has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
798 2012-03-18 19:07:17 denisx has joined
799 2012-03-18 19:15:50 ThomasV has joined
800 2012-03-18 19:16:53 pecket has joined
801 2012-03-18 19:21:20 dwon has joined
802 2012-03-18 19:33:46 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
803 2012-03-18 19:41:11 eoss has joined
804 2012-03-18 19:41:11 eoss has quit (Changing host)
805 2012-03-18 19:41:11 eoss has joined
806 2012-03-18 19:50:00 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
807 2012-03-18 19:50:38 darkee has joined
808 2012-03-18 19:53:30 <kinlo> any idea when 0.6 is about to be released? :)
809 2012-03-18 19:56:54 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
810 2012-03-18 20:00:27 <BlueMatt> soon
811 2012-03-18 20:00:53 <BlueMatt> theres only one outstanding issue afaik
812 2012-03-18 20:06:43 Raccoon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
813 2012-03-18 20:08:46 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Pull the pin and count to what?)
814 2012-03-18 20:27:28 forsetifox has quit (Quit: Page closed)
815 2012-03-18 20:33:46 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
816 2012-03-18 20:42:14 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I see quite a few actually
817 2012-03-18 20:42:58 <BlueMatt> which ones?
818 2012-03-18 20:43:09 <BlueMatt> there was discussion of making 0.6rc4 final before it was even built
819 2012-03-18 20:43:16 <luke-jr> 947, 946, 936, 926, and it'd be nice to see 931 in
820 2012-03-18 20:44:18 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
821 2012-03-18 20:44:37 <BlueMatt> 947: ok, that wasnt there when it was built, and isnt a regression, but yea should go in; 946: doesnt matter in the slightest; 936: not a regression; 926: already merged a while ago; 931: meh
822 2012-03-18 20:45:53 <luke-jr> s/926/928
823 2012-03-18 20:46:23 <BlueMatt> the only issue I know of doesnt have a ticket and is another reorging large chains issue
824 2012-03-18 20:46:40 <BlueMatt> 928: meh, not a regression
825 2012-03-18 20:47:00 <luke-jr> non-regression bugs are important too :p
826 2012-03-18 20:47:04 <BlueMatt> we've really been ignoring the regressions only rule for 0.6rcs because weve been in rc so long, but we are nearing the end, so...
827 2012-03-18 20:47:13 <BlueMatt> I would really prefer to follow it a bit more
828 2012-03-18 20:47:24 <luke-jr> no idea where you get that rule from
829 2012-03-18 20:47:31 Nesetalis has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
830 2012-03-18 20:47:38 <BlueMatt> weve always had that rule, or had had it on previous releases
831 2012-03-18 20:47:57 <luke-jr> bugfixes only makes sense. regressions only doesn't.
832 2012-03-18 20:48:21 <BlueMatt> simple bugfixes and regressions was the idea
833 2012-03-18 20:48:29 <BlueMatt> not complicated bugfixes unless they fix important bugs
834 2012-03-18 20:48:39 <luke-jr> IIRC all those were simple
835 2012-03-18 20:48:39 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
836 2012-03-18 20:49:04 <BlueMatt> I dont see why 928 has three commits for one line...
837 2012-03-18 20:49:14 molecular has joined
838 2012-03-18 20:49:31 <luke-jr> Eliel: yeah, might want to squash that one ⦠:p
839 2012-03-18 20:49:32 <BlueMatt> 931 absolutely isnt a bugfix...
840 2012-03-18 20:49:45 <BlueMatt> nor is 936
841 2012-03-18 20:49:49 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: yeah, that's why I listed it on the end as a "nice to have"
842 2012-03-18 20:49:50 <BlueMatt> 936 is additional features
843 2012-03-18 20:49:59 <luke-jr> no, 936 is BIP compliance fix
844 2012-03-18 20:50:08 <BlueMatt> thats not a bugfix
845 2012-03-18 20:50:12 <BlueMatt> thats additional features
846 2012-03-18 20:50:13 <Eliel> BlueMatt: because I don't know how to remove commits from a pullreq and I changed it :P
847 2012-03-18 20:50:22 <BlueMatt> git rebase -i upstream/master
848 2012-03-18 20:50:23 <luke-jr> Eliel: just push --force
849 2012-03-18 20:50:28 <BlueMatt> then push -f
850 2012-03-18 20:52:05 <Eliel> ok, I'll see how that works. Thank you.
851 2012-03-18 20:52:24 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
852 2012-03-18 20:54:01 JZavala has joined
853 2012-03-18 20:54:36 <Eliel> BlueMatt: it says "fatal: Needed a single revision" to the rebase.
854 2012-03-18 20:54:55 Nesetalis has joined
855 2012-03-18 20:55:31 <luke-jr> Eliel: git reset --hard master ; git cherry-pick 02ace7e ; git push --force
856 2012-03-18 20:55:32 <BlueMatt> do you not have upstream as a branch?
857 2012-03-18 20:55:47 <Diablo-D3> apparently not
858 2012-03-18 20:55:51 <Diablo-D3> use git flow goddamnit
859 2012-03-18 20:55:53 <BlueMatt> git branch add https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git upstream; git fetch upstream
860 2012-03-18 20:56:12 pickett has joined
861 2012-03-18 20:56:15 <Eliel> I just pulled that from the repo I forked :) I'm very close to a beginner with git.
862 2012-03-18 20:56:17 <BlueMatt> sorry, git remote add ...
863 2012-03-18 20:56:55 <Diablo-D3> erm
864 2012-03-18 20:57:02 <Diablo-D3> he should already have upstream as a remote
865 2012-03-18 20:57:23 <Diablo-D3> unless he github forked it and then cloned his own repo
866 2012-03-18 20:57:36 <Eliel> Diablo-D3: yes, that's what I did.
867 2012-03-18 20:57:42 <BlueMatt> which is what most people do
868 2012-03-18 20:58:20 <Diablo-D3> I dunno, I havent been doing that lately
869 2012-03-18 20:58:29 <Diablo-D3> Ive been doing natural github latel
870 2012-03-18 20:59:10 <Diablo-D3> er
871 2012-03-18 20:59:16 <Diablo-D3> Ive been doing natural git latel
872 2012-03-18 20:59:51 <Diablo-D3> which is, ultimately, never commit into master, use cronjob to sync origin master (which is upstream) into local master
873 2012-03-18 20:59:54 <Eliel> can I somehow throw the last 3 commits out, make the change again and then push?
874 2012-03-18 21:00:03 <Eliel> luke-jr: that doesn't seem to work.
875 2012-03-18 21:00:08 <Diablo-D3> and then only commit to my own branch (named develop)
876 2012-03-18 21:00:19 <Diablo-D3> and since my repos are public, anyone can merge my changes
877 2012-03-18 21:00:55 <Eliel> luke-jr: none of those commands changes anything it seems.
878 2012-03-18 21:01:04 <Diablo-D3> http://caspar.adterrasperaspera.com/cgit/libmowgli-2.git/?h=develop
879 2012-03-18 21:01:05 <BlueMatt> Eliel: git remote add upstream https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git; git fetch upstream; git rebase -i upstream/master
880 2012-03-18 21:01:06 <Diablo-D3> like for example
881 2012-03-18 21:01:07 <BlueMatt> git push -f
882 2012-03-18 21:01:08 <Diablo-D3> vs
883 2012-03-18 21:01:13 <Diablo-D3> http://git.atheme.org/libmowgli-2/
884 2012-03-18 21:02:32 <devrandom> luke-jr: I think you can just deploy http: for git internally, no additional admin overhead. you can also skip git completely and just deploy your code as an input.
885 2012-03-18 21:02:40 aleod has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
886 2012-03-18 21:02:49 <devrandom> hi BlueMatt
887 2012-03-18 21:02:55 <Eliel> BlueMatt: all of my 3 commits are still there after that rebase.
888 2012-03-18 21:03:24 <BlueMatt> hi devrandom
889 2012-03-18 21:03:44 <BlueMatt> Eliel: you have to change the rebase command list once it pulls up your editor
890 2012-03-18 21:03:56 <BlueMatt> ie change a line to begin with f to merge that commit into the previous one
891 2012-03-18 21:03:58 Cablesaurus has joined
892 2012-03-18 21:03:58 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
893 2012-03-18 21:03:58 Cablesaurus has joined
894 2012-03-18 21:04:02 <BlueMatt> and r to reword a commitmsg
895 2012-03-18 21:04:35 <Eliel> ah, ok, now it works. Thank you.
896 2012-03-18 21:05:26 <Eliel> ok, now it's just one commit.
897 2012-03-18 21:07:35 <devrandom> BlueMatt: do you need any gitian sigs from me?
898 2012-03-18 21:08:31 <BlueMatt> 0.6.0rc4 only has two, so that would be helpful (though make sure you rebuild qt-win32 first)
899 2012-03-18 21:09:04 <BlueMatt> qt-win32 isnt deterministic, but it actually doesnt turn out to matter because the bitcoin output is deterministic even with the variances in qt-win32 output
900 2012-03-18 21:09:50 <devrandom> ok
901 2012-03-18 21:09:51 <userkggy> BlueMatt: what is the issue that still need to be fixed for 0.6 final release?
902 2012-03-18 21:11:49 bitvampire has joined
903 2012-03-18 21:11:54 <BlueMatt> if you get too far behind on a fork you sometimes cant catch up
904 2012-03-18 21:13:11 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
905 2012-03-18 21:14:03 forsetifox has joined
906 2012-03-18 21:25:57 forsetifox has quit (Quit: Page closed)
907 2012-03-18 21:26:29 loktite has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
908 2012-03-18 21:28:21 forsetifox has joined
909 2012-03-18 21:29:53 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
910 2012-03-18 21:31:44 pusle has quit ()
911 2012-03-18 21:33:46 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
912 2012-03-18 21:34:12 iocor has joined
913 2012-03-18 21:35:57 darkskiez has joined
914 2012-03-18 21:38:54 <devrandom> BlueMatt: what is bitcoin-deps?
915 2012-03-18 21:39:13 bitvampire has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
916 2012-03-18 21:39:40 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: pulled all the deps other than qt and boost into one zip
917 2012-03-18 21:39:49 <BlueMatt> its gitian-descriptors/deps-win32.yml
918 2012-03-18 21:39:55 <BlueMatt> but I think its only required for win32
919 2012-03-18 21:40:48 DBordello has joined
920 2012-03-18 21:40:48 DBordello has quit (Changing host)
921 2012-03-18 21:40:48 DBordello has joined
922 2012-03-18 21:41:12 <devrandom> BlueMatt: I have to go, will look at it tonight
923 2012-03-18 21:41:23 <BlueMatt> alright, see ya
924 2012-03-18 21:46:12 <DBordello> Within the last couple of days my 0.60rc2 (and rc4) windows QT clients freeze at startup. The GUI immediately becomes unresponse. I don't see anything unusual in debug.log. Any thoughts?
925 2012-03-18 21:47:31 <ageis> 0.5.3 corrupted my wallet, glad i had a backup
926 2012-03-18 21:49:29 <BlueMatt> ageis: more info?
927 2012-03-18 21:49:54 <BlueMatt> DBordello: you dont happen to be able to compile with DEBUG_LOCKORDER, do you?
928 2012-03-18 21:50:02 bitvampire has joined
929 2012-03-18 21:50:06 <DBordello> BlueMatt, I did not. I grab the binary from a thread post
930 2012-03-18 21:50:14 <BlueMatt> which thread?
931 2012-03-18 21:50:33 <DBordello> Gavin
932 2012-03-18 21:50:42 <DBordello> It was from source forge
933 2012-03-18 21:50:45 <BlueMatt> mmm, yea
934 2012-03-18 21:51:08 <BlueMatt> but you're not set up to compile?
935 2012-03-18 21:51:24 <sipa> ageis: define "corrupted my wallet"
936 2012-03-18 21:51:32 <DBordello> BlueMatt, that is correct, not on windows anyways
937 2012-03-18 21:51:32 <sipa> ageis: which version did you use before?
938 2012-03-18 21:51:42 <ageis> sipa: 0.5.2
939 2012-03-18 21:51:52 <ageis> sipa: error message saying that
940 2012-03-18 21:51:55 <DBordello> it is obviously just the GUI freezing. If I leave it running (unresponsive), but send coins, the next time I start it, the balance is updated
941 2012-03-18 21:52:21 <sipa> DBordello: which OS?
942 2012-03-18 21:52:31 <DBordello> sipa, Windows 7 x64
943 2012-03-18 21:52:38 <DBordello> Also, debug.log continues to update
944 2012-03-18 21:52:50 <sipa> and rc4 still has that problem?
945 2012-03-18 21:53:19 <DBordello> yes
946 2012-03-18 21:53:30 <DBordello> Bitcoin version 0.6.0.4-beta
947 2012-03-18 21:53:56 <DBordello> My hunch is that it is the "warning" that is being displayed, since that is the only thing that changed recently
948 2012-03-18 21:55:15 <DBordello> I just started with a clean data dir: http://imgur.com/Yg4KH
949 2012-03-18 21:55:17 <DBordello> after reezing
950 2012-03-18 21:55:19 Slix` has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
951 2012-03-18 21:55:53 Zero has joined
952 2012-03-18 21:56:19 Zero is now known as Guest1819
953 2012-03-18 21:57:19 Guest1819 has quit (Client Quit)
954 2012-03-18 22:00:53 deoxxa has joined
955 2012-03-18 22:02:38 <deoxxa> how should i go about setting up a service that accepts bitcoin as payment? i'm relatively competent with programming (see https://github.com/deoxxa/) so i'm not afraid of putting something together myself, but i'm guessing there's a pretty standard way of going about it.
956 2012-03-18 22:03:41 _Fireball has quit (Quit: I love my HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <-)
957 2012-03-18 22:04:53 <DBordello> Anythoughts on how to debug my "freezing" windows client?
958 2012-03-18 22:05:19 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
959 2012-03-18 22:07:53 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
960 2012-03-18 22:09:50 <freewil> deoxxa, if you want to use node, there is a bitcoin module
961 2012-03-18 22:10:01 <freewil> deoxxa, https://github.com/jb55/node-bitcoin
962 2012-03-18 22:11:17 bitvampire has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
963 2012-03-18 22:11:23 <deoxxa> node is good
964 2012-03-18 22:12:00 <deoxxa> how do i go about actually accepting payments, though?
965 2012-03-18 22:12:16 <deoxxa> hm, "go about" must be my subconscious phrase of the day
966 2012-03-18 22:12:33 <freewil> deoxxa, you will want to create a unique address that you can use to link to a single transaction
967 2012-03-18 22:12:42 <freewil> you can use the getnewaddress api call
968 2012-03-18 22:12:57 <deoxxa> ah i see
969 2012-03-18 22:13:17 <deoxxa> so i give the customer that address, then as soon as it hits a certain balance they get their product?
970 2012-03-18 22:13:30 bitvampire has joined
971 2012-03-18 22:13:36 <deoxxa> that makes sense
972 2012-03-18 22:13:42 <word> well, depending on what the product is
973 2012-03-18 22:13:46 <freewil> deoxxa, right, but you want to wait until the transaction gets to a minimum confirmation number to prevent double-spending attacks
974 2012-03-18 22:13:48 <word> you might want to wait for confirms
975 2012-03-18 22:13:56 <freewil> which is usually 6
976 2012-03-18 22:14:18 <deoxxa> it'd probably be something like a subscription service
977 2012-03-18 22:14:22 <word> if it's a service like giving them access to something, as long as they can't hurt it, you could give access right away and just cut them off if the confirms don't pan out
978 2012-03-18 22:14:24 <deoxxa> no physical goods
979 2012-03-18 22:14:25 <deoxxa> yeah
980 2012-03-18 22:14:29 <deoxxa> that's what i'm thinking
981 2012-03-18 22:14:31 h4ckm3 has quit (Disconnected by services)
982 2012-03-18 22:14:50 <deoxxa> how long does the first notification take generally?
983 2012-03-18 22:14:53 17SAATCJI has joined
984 2012-03-18 22:14:54 <word> but you'll want the process to be automated so you don't have to audit loads
985 2012-03-18 22:15:15 <word> first notification?
986 2012-03-18 22:15:24 <deoxxa> well, first confirmation thing
987 2012-03-18 22:15:45 <deoxxa> how long after them sending sweet, sweet BC do i first find out?
988 2012-03-18 22:15:47 <word> well blocks happen around every 10 minutes
989 2012-03-18 22:15:59 <deoxxa> ah cool
990 2012-03-18 22:16:03 <word> but i think you get notified of transactions sooner
991 2012-03-18 22:16:07 <sipa> the transaction should appear almost instantly (seconds)
992 2012-03-18 22:16:08 <freewil> you should receive the transaction almost instantly with 0 confirms
993 2012-03-18 22:16:09 <deoxxa> oh even better
994 2012-03-18 22:16:18 <deoxxa> that works well then
995 2012-03-18 22:16:20 <sipa> but for various reasons, that can fail
996 2012-03-18 22:16:31 <sipa> you will certainly get it at its first confirmation
997 2012-03-18 22:16:43 <sipa> which should be within the hour but often sooner
998 2012-03-18 22:16:56 <sipa> after that, one extra confirmation per on average 10 minutes
999 2012-03-18 22:17:02 <sipa> until infinity
1000 2012-03-18 22:18:01 <word> idk if this will work right for a subscription service, but opencart has an extension to use bitpay so it'd just be another payment method
1001 2012-03-18 22:18:38 <word> the point being, look around before you start writing code to make sure you don't reinvent the wheel. :)
1002 2012-03-18 22:20:20 <luke-jr> devrandom: http involves admin overhead
1003 2012-03-18 22:21:00 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
1004 2012-03-18 22:21:01 <gribble> 171786
1005 2012-03-18 22:21:49 Dyaheon has quit ()
1006 2012-03-18 22:23:07 <deoxxa> how do i test bitcoin transactions?
1007 2012-03-18 22:23:48 <word> test?
1008 2012-03-18 22:24:28 <Graet> send bitcoins to me :)
1009 2012-03-18 22:24:47 <Graet> i'll confirm for you that it works :)
1010 2012-03-18 22:24:48 <luke-jr> deoxxa: -tesntet
1011 2012-03-18 22:24:50 <luke-jr> -testnet *
1012 2012-03-18 22:24:58 <deoxxa> well, testing this not-quite-a-thing web service
1013 2012-03-18 22:25:19 <Graet> ahh ok
1014 2012-03-18 22:25:32 <dwon> So I just read BIP 30: "Blocks are not allowed to contain a transaction whose identifier matches that of an earlier, not-fully-spent transaction in the same chain. "
1015 2012-03-18 22:25:58 <dwon> Why not just say that blocks are not allowed to have the same coinbase as a previous block? Then you wouldn't impose additional storage requirements.
1016 2012-03-18 22:26:49 <dwon> are there duplicate coinbases in the block chain already?
1017 2012-03-18 22:26:51 <sipa> dwon: it would require keeping all coinbases forever
1018 2012-03-18 22:27:04 <sipa> dwon: which is reasonable, but unnecessary
1019 2012-03-18 22:27:24 <luke-jr> sipa: well, to be fair, it *could* have specified "coinbases only"
1020 2012-03-18 22:27:39 <sipa> luke-jr: no need for a special case
1021 2012-03-18 22:27:44 <dwon> sipa: I think it's more likely that more unspent transactions will hang around than coinbases.
1022 2012-03-18 22:28:07 <dwon> actually I could *make* a bunch of low-value unspent transactions right now, forcing everyone to keep these around forever.
1023 2012-03-18 22:28:09 <sipa> this way it also protect against derived transactions from existing duplicate coinbases with 0 effort
1024 2012-03-18 22:28:14 <dwon> at least, if it was coinbases, I'd need hashing power
1025 2012-03-18 22:28:53 <sipa> dwon: sure, but the priority here was a solution that was easy to implement, so that it would be uncontroversial and a fast upgrade was possible
1026 2012-03-18 22:28:57 <sipa> i believe that succeeded
1027 2012-03-18 22:29:39 <luke-jr> sipa: it's impossible to make derived txns from existing dupes
1028 2012-03-18 22:30:09 <sipa> how so?
1029 2012-03-18 22:30:18 <sipa> (are they all spent?)
1030 2012-03-18 22:30:25 <dwon> sipa: I don't really buy that excuse. The TLS renegotiation vulnerability was far worse than this, and the solution still wasn't rushed.
1031 2012-03-18 22:31:14 Dyaheon has joined
1032 2012-03-18 22:32:35 <sipa> dwon: so, your argument is that disallowing duplicate coinbases would also solve the problem? sure, but BIP30 is easier to implement and protects against more
1033 2012-03-18 22:33:41 <dwon> my argument is that coinbases can't be created at arbitrary rates by an attacker, unlike unspent transactions
1034 2012-03-18 22:33:46 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
1035 2012-03-18 22:34:07 <sipa> dwon: yes, i never argued with that, but why does that matter?
1036 2012-03-18 22:34:07 <luke-jr> sipa: because once the txn is replaced by a dupe, it can't be used as an input
1037 2012-03-18 22:35:01 <sipa> luke-jr: it could be, and then rolled back; but that would require a rollback to a point before the dupe was mined, which is indeed for all practical purposes impossible
1038 2012-03-18 22:35:07 <sipa> so yes, that is not a very strong argument
1039 2012-03-18 22:35:15 <sipa> still, i prefer the simplicity of the patch
1040 2012-03-18 22:36:25 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1041 2012-03-18 22:36:41 <dwon> ... "the simplicity of the patch". The thing that disturbs me the most is that a lot of people in here seem to think of the Satoshi bitcoind and the bitcoin protocol as the same thing.
1042 2012-03-18 22:37:08 <sipa> it is currently the only fully-validating client i know of
1043 2012-03-18 22:37:29 <sipa> and this is a change that only affects fully validating clients
1044 2012-03-18 22:38:12 JRWR has joined
1045 2012-03-18 22:38:17 JRWR has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1046 2012-03-18 22:38:25 <sipa> by the way, there is another proposal as well, to include the block height in the coinbase, as a protocol rule; implicitly guaranteeing uniqueness
1047 2012-03-18 22:38:32 17SAATCJI is now known as h4ckm3
1048 2012-03-18 22:38:54 <sipa> but that would be harder to roll out quickly, as people use coinbases for various things already
1049 2012-03-18 22:39:08 <dwon> sipa: That really would be the best thing. Is it likely to happen?
1050 2012-03-18 22:39:12 <sipa> yes
1051 2012-03-18 22:39:16 <sipa> but not immediately
1052 2012-03-18 22:39:24 <dwon> Ah, okay, so BIP 30 could become a moot point when it does.
1053 2012-03-18 22:39:50 <sipa> indeed
1054 2012-03-18 22:40:06 <dwon> ok, I'm done whining, then. :)
1055 2012-03-18 22:40:19 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1056 2012-03-18 22:42:13 SphericalCow has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1057 2012-03-18 22:42:31 forsetifox has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1058 2012-03-18 22:42:34 briggle has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1059 2012-03-18 22:44:22 bitvampire has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1060 2012-03-18 22:45:23 forsetifox has joined
1061 2012-03-18 22:46:16 graingert has joined
1062 2012-03-18 22:49:24 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1063 2012-03-18 22:52:17 denisx has joined
1064 2012-03-18 22:55:57 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: sipa opened pull request 948 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/948>
1065 2012-03-18 22:59:11 Slix` has joined
1066 2012-03-18 23:01:06 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: laanwj opened pull request 949 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/949>
1067 2012-03-18 23:04:32 Z0rZ0rZ0r1 has joined
1068 2012-03-18 23:05:59 Z0rZ0rZ0r has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1069 2012-03-18 23:09:04 Raccoon has joined
1070 2012-03-18 23:10:34 Ken` has joined
1071 2012-03-18 23:13:52 specular has quit ()
1072 2012-03-18 23:17:08 larsivi_ has joined
1073 2012-03-18 23:17:12 larsivi_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1074 2012-03-18 23:17:21 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1075 2012-03-18 23:18:18 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1076 2012-03-18 23:26:01 cande has joined
1077 2012-03-18 23:29:42 chao has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1078 2012-03-18 23:33:46 <gmaxwell> Attn Windows Bitcoin GUI users: There is a potential security hole fixed by 0.5.3.1 / 0.6.0rc4. PLEASE UPGRADE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0
1079 2012-03-18 23:43:13 Eleuthria has joined
1080 2012-03-18 23:43:23 Eleuthria has left ()
1081 2012-03-18 23:45:39 cande has quit (Quit: Lämnar)
1082 2012-03-18 23:48:59 bitvampire has joined
1083 2012-03-18 23:51:25 bitvampire has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1084 2012-03-18 23:53:07 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1085 2012-03-18 23:55:01 bitvampire has joined
1086 2012-03-18 23:55:05 <etotheipi_> sipa, gmaxwell, did the wallet encryption change in 0.6.0? i.e. I wrote a tool for decrypting and extracting keys that seems to work 0.5.X wallets, but not 0.6
1087 2012-03-18 23:56:00 cosurgi has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1088 2012-03-18 23:56:16 <sipa> etotheipi_: maybe it is not compatible with compressed pubkeys?
1089 2012-03-18 23:57:54 bitvampire has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1090 2012-03-18 23:58:16 Tulio has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1091 2012-03-18 23:59:14 <etotheipi_> hmmm
1092 2012-03-18 23:59:17 <etotheipi_> that's a very good point
1093 2012-03-18 23:59:42 userkggy has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)