1 2012-05-17 00:05:47 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: RainbowDashh)
2 2012-05-17 00:10:37 shadders has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
3 2012-05-17 00:15:23 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
4 2012-05-17 00:20:07 <Matt_von_Mises> So I'm looking at the script interpreter. Basically the input script is run and then the output script is run with the stack leftover from the input script. The input script basically gives parameters to the output script to verify.
5 2012-05-17 00:20:34 <Matt_von_Mises> Seems pretty simple to me.
6 2012-05-17 00:23:47 <phantomcircuit> now implement
7 2012-05-17 00:24:04 shadders has joined
8 2012-05-17 00:25:02 <Matt_von_Mises> THe only problem with the implementation is there are loads of the instructions.
9 2012-05-17 00:25:24 <luke-jr> Matt_von_Mises: many are disabled, so you can skip them
10 2012-05-17 00:25:46 <luke-jr> (enabling them requires a hardfork, which is likely to include a lot of other changes too, so no point doing it now)
11 2012-05-17 00:25:59 <Matt_von_Mises> Does the wiki page give correct information on which ones are disabled? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script
12 2012-05-17 00:26:05 <luke-jr> I'd double-check it
13 2012-05-17 00:26:09 <luke-jr> and if it's wrong, correct it
14 2012-05-17 00:26:28 <Matt_von_Mises> OK.
15 2012-05-17 00:33:49 <Matt_von_Mises> Looks like all these ones are disabled? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script.cpp#L267
16 2012-05-17 00:36:35 <Matt_von_Mises> Wiki is fine.
17 2012-05-17 00:37:17 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
18 2012-05-17 00:44:20 <Matt_von_Mises> My goodness. Looking at all these codes I see I'm up for a daunting task.
19 2012-05-17 00:45:57 <Matt_von_Mises> At least some of them do similar things.
20 2012-05-17 00:51:46 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
21 2012-05-17 00:59:12 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
22 2012-05-17 00:59:54 <jine> Gosh, In a minute this block hits 1 hour. The entire network is unlucky? :D
23 2012-05-17 01:00:01 <jine> I need confirmations goddamit :D
24 2012-05-17 01:00:24 <Graet> lol
25 2012-05-17 01:00:51 <Graet> doin my best to confirm it for you jine :P
26 2012-05-17 01:01:14 <jine> So do I.
27 2012-05-17 01:01:14 <jine> ;)
28 2012-05-17 01:01:21 <Graet> hehe :D
29 2012-05-17 01:02:02 <nanotube> ;;bc,tslb
30 2012-05-17 01:02:02 <gribble> Time since last block: 1 hour, 1 minute, and 18 seconds
31 2012-05-17 01:02:38 <jine> nanotube: Did you see my previous post in -otc regarding GPG-register with gribble?
32 2012-05-17 01:04:11 <nanotube> jine: hmmm maybe. :) remind me again what was up?
33 2012-05-17 01:04:40 <nanotube> ah, problem creating encrypted otp
34 2012-05-17 01:05:15 <jine> Exacly.
35 2012-05-17 01:05:20 <nanotube> would you please try eauth again (let's go to -foyer or #gribble), and i'll check log to see whatsup
36 2012-05-17 01:05:50 <jine> Well I'm authed, i just wanted to create a new gpg-identity for Bitlc.net
37 2012-05-17 01:06:00 <jine> ;;ident
38 2012-05-17 01:06:00 <gribble> You are identified as user jine, with GPG key id 5500CE1E2AC9B78F, and key fingerprint 03482206C0D71A94A0E303C25500CE1E2AC9B78F.
39 2012-05-17 01:06:02 <nanotube> ah... so you were trying eregister?
40 2012-05-17 01:06:03 <luke-jr> How is bitcoind distributed for Mac? or is it not?
41 2012-05-17 01:06:06 <jine> nanotube: Exactly
42 2012-05-17 01:06:07 <nanotube> for a new user and key?
43 2012-05-17 01:06:09 <jine> Yes.
44 2012-05-17 01:06:10 <TD> has anyone used bit-pay before?
45 2012-05-17 01:06:12 <nanotube> hmm, what key jine
46 2012-05-17 01:06:14 <luke-jr> or better question: how *should* bitcoind be distributed for Mac?
47 2012-05-17 01:06:26 <nanotube> TD: i've used it once to pay for something. it worked. :)
48 2012-05-17 01:06:37 <TD> nanotube: is the page supposed to reload or notice once the tx is broadcast?
49 2012-05-17 01:06:45 <TD> i paid to the given address and the web page is surprisingly ..... static
50 2012-05-17 01:06:49 <jine> nanotube: BDDC7A4E296D8BB1
51 2012-05-17 01:06:49 <TD> but it doesn't actually say it'll do anything
52 2012-05-17 01:07:09 <nanotube> TD: hmm i don't recall.
53 2012-05-17 01:07:13 <TD> ok
54 2012-05-17 01:07:21 <TD> it's got a countdown
55 2012-05-17 01:07:30 <nanotube> jine: ah, no encryption subkey on that key.
56 2012-05-17 01:08:11 <jine> Ah, is it a requirement? I thought it encrypted with my pub-key
57 2012-05-17 01:08:35 <jine> Lets create one then.
58 2012-05-17 01:08:46 <TD> ah ha
59 2012-05-17 01:08:49 <TD> yes it does do something
60 2012-05-17 01:08:58 <nanotube> jine: the standard setup is a master signing key, and an encryption subkey.
61 2012-05-17 01:08:58 <TD> it's just slow to notice new transactions. either that or tx propagation time has gone up a lot
62 2012-05-17 01:09:17 <jine> nanotube: Yeah, i know. I just didn't thought it required the subkey :)
63 2012-05-17 01:09:20 <TD> i think the current code doesn't build on OS X
64 2012-05-17 01:09:39 <nanotube> (though it's possible to go into guru-mode and make the master key both sign and encrypt, there is iirc a crafted plaintext attack on that)
65 2012-05-17 01:09:41 <TD> where is build.h supposed to come from ?
66 2012-05-17 01:10:24 <luke-jr> TD: err, we have OS X releases for Bitcoin-Qt at least
67 2012-05-17 01:10:34 <TD> Sleep() is not defined
68 2012-05-17 01:10:36 <TD> in sync.cpp
69 2012-05-17 01:10:51 <luke-jr> oh that
70 2012-05-17 01:10:56 <luke-jr> yeah, I reported that earlier
71 2012-05-17 01:11:07 <luke-jr> [17:17:35] <luke-jr> sync.h is missing an include util.h (for Sleep)
72 2012-05-17 01:11:33 <jine> nanotube: Generatin''.. :)
73 2012-05-17 01:11:43 <nanotube> jine: ok :)
74 2012-05-17 01:12:55 <TD> the build.h thing is also an issue
75 2012-05-17 01:13:13 <TD> it's supposed to be produced by the build system. i ran qmake and then used xcode
76 2012-05-17 01:13:18 <TD> perhaps that procedure is out of date
77 2012-05-17 01:13:42 <luke-jr> TD: well, I'm going to be cross-compiling on Ubuntu anyway
78 2012-05-17 01:13:52 <luke-jr> the question I have is, do we put bitcoind inside the .app or what?
79 2012-05-17 01:14:06 <TD> hmm
80 2012-05-17 01:14:26 <TD> daemons might make more sense as a macport or something
81 2012-05-17 01:14:40 <TD> not sure if a gui-less daemon really fits on OS X. ideally there'd be a pref pane or something for it
82 2012-05-17 01:14:44 <TD> but then why not just run the gui app
83 2012-05-17 01:17:24 <Karmaon> who hosts the forum
84 2012-05-17 01:17:26 <Karmaon> bitcointalk
85 2012-05-17 01:17:50 <TD> magicaltux does i think
86 2012-05-17 01:18:43 <luke-jr> I don't see bitcoind in the current Mac builds, so I guess I can omit it
87 2012-05-17 01:18:58 <luke-jr> Karmaon: theymos runs it, with hosting from MagicalTux
88 2012-05-17 01:19:38 barmstrong has joined
89 2012-05-17 01:20:28 <jine> ;;eregister Bitlc.net BDDC7A4E296D8BB1
90 2012-05-17 01:20:29 <Karmaon> thanks
91 2012-05-17 01:20:32 <gribble> Request successful for user Bitlc.net, hostmask jine!jine@jine.be. Get your encrypted OTP from http://bitcoin-otc.com/otps/BDDC7A4E296D8BB1
92 2012-05-17 01:20:39 <jine> Tyvm gribble
93 2012-05-17 01:21:00 <jine> (and nanotube!)
94 2012-05-17 01:21:15 <jine> ;;rate nanotube 10
95 2012-05-17 01:21:16 <gribble> Rating entry successful. Your rating for user nanotube has changed from 8 to 10.
96 2012-05-17 01:21:26 <jine> ;;rating nanotube
97 2012-05-17 01:21:26 <gribble> Error: "rating" is not a valid command.
98 2012-05-17 01:21:32 <jine> ;;rate nanotube
99 2012-05-17 01:21:32 <gribble> (rate <nick> <rating> [<notes>]) -- Enters a rating for <nick> in the amount of <rating>. Use optional <notes> field to enter any notes you have about this user. <nick> must be the user's GPG-registered username, Your previously existing rating, if any, will be overwritten.
100 2012-05-17 01:21:38 <jine> Whatever
101 2012-05-17 01:22:29 <Karmaon> ;;rate gribble 999
102 2012-05-17 01:22:29 <gribble> Error: For identification purposes, you must be identified via GPG to use the rating system.
103 2012-05-17 01:22:33 t7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
104 2012-05-17 01:22:34 <Graet> ;;getrating nanotube
105 2012-05-17 01:22:34 Diablo-D3 has joined
106 2012-05-17 01:22:36 <gribble> User nanotube, created on Mon Nov 8 10:14:09 2010. Cumulative rating 531, from 157 total ratings. Received ratings: 157 positive, 0 negative. Sent ratings: 159 positive, 2 negative. Details: http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=nanotube Currently authenticated from hostmask nanotube!~nanotube@unaffiliated/nanotube
107 2012-05-17 01:22:45 <luke-jr> is there a reason you guys are doing #bitcoin-otc games in #bitcoin-dev ?
108 2012-05-17 01:23:03 <jine> luke-jr: No, i started it, and I'm sorry :)
109 2012-05-17 01:23:25 <luke-jr> np, was just curious
110 2012-05-17 01:24:50 <luke-jr> devrandom: you should just put faketime in the original image imo :p
111 2012-05-17 01:26:15 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
112 2012-05-17 01:26:25 <TD> qtipcserver also doesn't compile
113 2012-05-17 01:26:27 * TD gives up for the night
114 2012-05-17 01:26:30 <Diablo-D3> I have to admit I like the new sync bar
115 2012-05-17 01:30:13 <Karmaon> is magicaltux in japan?
116 2012-05-17 01:30:36 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
117 2012-05-17 01:31:02 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
118 2012-05-17 01:31:04 <Diablo-D3> yes
119 2012-05-17 01:31:39 <luke-jr> Karmaon: he's searching for Satoshi
120 2012-05-17 01:31:41 <luke-jr> :p
121 2012-05-17 01:32:45 <Karmaon> he is satoshi
122 2012-05-17 01:34:28 <MagicalTux> ssssshh
123 2012-05-17 01:34:37 <luke-jr> o.o he's alive
124 2012-05-17 01:34:42 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
125 2012-05-17 01:34:46 <luke-jr> MagicalTux: how's QBitcoin coming along? anything public yet? :p
126 2012-05-17 01:35:01 <luke-jr> the wiki still sez 2011 for first release <.<
127 2012-05-17 01:35:01 <Karmaon> MagicalTux: i sent you a pm
128 2012-05-17 01:35:06 <MagicalTux> luke-jr: I'll be able to resume work after june
129 2012-05-17 01:35:11 <luke-jr> MagicalTux: neat
130 2012-05-17 01:35:28 <TuxBlackEdo> MagicalTux, when will mtgox have a namecoin exchnage?
131 2012-05-17 01:35:37 <luke-jr> MagicalTux: is MtGox using QBC Core, or something completely independent?
132 2012-05-17 01:35:51 <luke-jr> TuxBlackEdo: LOLOL
133 2012-05-17 01:36:33 b4epoche has joined
134 2012-05-17 01:36:42 <MagicalTux> luke-jr: ported QBC core in PHP
135 2012-05-17 01:37:41 <luke-jr> O.O
136 2012-05-17 01:38:04 * luke-jr thought the other guy was joking who said MtGox's bitcoin client was PHP <.<
137 2012-05-17 01:38:21 <luke-jr> doesn't that leak like crazy?
138 2012-05-17 01:38:22 <MagicalTux> :D
139 2012-05-17 01:38:26 <MagicalTux> doesn't leak at all
140 2012-05-17 01:38:28 <MagicalTux> and works multithread
141 2012-05-17 01:38:29 * luke-jr always has memory leaks in long-term PHP code
142 2012-05-17 01:38:37 <MagicalTux> it's not a long term bitcoin client
143 2012-05-17 01:38:37 <luke-jr> didn't know PHP even supported threading
144 2012-05-17 01:38:58 * luke-jr doesn't see how you can receive without a long-term client
145 2012-05-17 01:39:36 <jgarzik> receiving is easy... you have a list of public keys, and you watch blocks for TXs with those public keys
146 2012-05-17 01:39:50 <luke-jr> jgarzik: watching blocks requires long-term client?
147 2012-05-17 01:40:08 <luke-jr> (by "long-term" I mean not "run for the request duration then exit")
148 2012-05-17 01:42:30 <devrandom> luke-jr: agreed
149 2012-05-17 01:42:36 devrandom has quit (Quit: leaving)
150 2012-05-17 01:43:22 <nanotube> jine: :)
151 2012-05-17 01:43:45 <Matt_von_Mises> I looked on the wiki for QBitcoin and it says "this version is planned for mid-january 2011"
152 2012-05-17 01:44:30 <TuxBlackEdo> classic goxxing
153 2012-05-17 01:44:46 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
154 2012-05-17 01:44:54 JZavala has joined
155 2012-05-17 01:46:31 Matt_von_Mises has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
156 2012-05-17 01:48:12 <luke-jr> 3.3 MB 08efab4511a415c0c0d7379bbe90a8cda207c03b801c1cb97158240858468f30 bin-osx-bdb-4.8.30.tbz2
157 2012-05-17 01:57:18 etotheipi_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
158 2012-05-17 01:57:31 minimoose has joined
159 2012-05-17 02:02:11 <luke-jr> 37 KB 009494e944a5ed54ca611e9eff6361e0d3e85411d9013d9558514dd8011b2fd0 bin-osx-miniupnpc-1.6.tbz2
160 2012-05-17 02:07:37 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: rebroad opened pull request 1326 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1326>
161 2012-05-17 02:29:08 xenland has joined
162 2012-05-17 02:40:01 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
163 2012-05-17 02:40:11 [7] has joined
164 2012-05-17 02:48:26 <gmaxwell> I noticed that we're not using stack-protector with the mingw builds. We probably should be. (I'm not sure if relro/pie works on mingw but if so we should do that oo)
165 2012-05-17 02:49:27 <gmaxwell> ... though I noticed this while trying to fix a library I work onâ where fstack-protector is giving me problems with mingw32 â it ends up adding a dependency on libssp-0.dll, which wouldn't really be a problem for bitcoin, but it's annoying for my other package.
166 2012-05-17 02:49:34 one_zero has joined
167 2012-05-17 02:49:42 <gmaxwell> Anyone aware of any history w/ fstack-protector and mingw on bitcoin?
168 2012-05-17 02:52:41 DamascusVG has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
169 2012-05-17 03:00:36 DamascusVG has joined
170 2012-05-17 03:14:14 DamascusVG has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
171 2012-05-17 03:16:55 barmstrong has joined
172 2012-05-17 03:18:00 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
173 2012-05-17 03:21:52 eian has quit (Quit: Leaving)
174 2012-05-17 03:22:07 Slix` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
175 2012-05-17 03:34:05 luke-jr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
176 2012-05-17 03:36:55 luke-jr has joined
177 2012-05-17 03:39:17 copumpkin has joined
178 2012-05-17 03:41:15 word has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
179 2012-05-17 03:42:15 DamascusVG has joined
180 2012-05-17 04:01:19 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
181 2012-05-17 04:01:51 copumpkin has joined
182 2012-05-17 04:03:21 osmosis has joined
183 2012-05-17 04:05:59 localhost has joined
184 2012-05-17 04:06:41 <jgarzik> Here is a C++/Boost demo program, which appends a line of text to a gzip-compressed file: https://gist.github.com/2716209
185 2012-05-17 04:07:00 <jgarzik> is there anyone online that can build and test this program on Windows/mingw?
186 2012-05-17 04:07:24 <jgarzik> even building on mingw, without testing, would be useful
187 2012-05-17 04:12:38 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
188 2012-05-17 04:17:03 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
189 2012-05-17 04:20:04 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: it builds...
190 2012-05-17 04:21:42 <gmaxwell> (e.g. in fedora 17 with mingw32* installed, i686-w64-mingw32-g++ -O2 -Wall -g -o boostgz.exe boostgz.cc /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libboost_iostreams-gcc47-mt-1_48.dll.a builds it
191 2012-05-17 04:33:27 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
192 2012-05-17 04:35:27 word has joined
193 2012-05-17 04:36:40 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: thanks
194 2012-05-17 04:37:02 <jgarzik> that means using zlib stuffs does not require an additional link target in Windows
195 2012-05-17 04:37:45 <gmaxwell> yea, it picks up the dependency somehow... I guess via boost.
196 2012-05-17 04:38:09 <jgarzik> yep
197 2012-05-17 04:38:36 <gmaxwell> wine reports it needs, libbz2-1.dll, libstdc++-6.dll, zlib1.dll, and boost_iostreams-gcc47-mt-1_48.dll
198 2012-05-17 04:38:45 <jgarzik> peers.dat is on average 80%+ compressible with zlib
199 2012-05-17 04:39:17 <gmaxwell> Hm. thats a little surprising.
200 2012-05-17 04:39:51 <gmaxwell> (I mean, the ipv6 encoding must pad it up a good bit.. but still)
201 2012-05-17 04:40:03 <jgarzik> so bdb or non-bdb, you're blipping close to 1MB of data to disk periodically. in terms of bytes-written in a 10 minute window, CAddrDB probably writes more than other bitcoin sources
202 2012-05-17 04:40:19 <jgarzik> lotta empty buckets would be my guess
203 2012-05-17 04:40:36 <gmaxwell> yea, but older nodes will fill those up... making the savings go away.
204 2012-05-17 04:40:36 <jgarzik> 32-bit ints with less than 8 bits used
205 2012-05-17 04:41:07 <jgarzik> agree the savings will probably diminish
206 2012-05-17 04:41:19 <gmaxwell> there probably isn't a great need to write it more than a couple times a day..
207 2012-05-17 04:41:35 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: would you like an addrman addr.dat from a matureish node?
208 2012-05-17 04:41:55 <jgarzik> the thread that calls DumpAddresses() does a sleep(100000)
209 2012-05-17 04:42:49 RazielZ has joined
210 2012-05-17 04:42:54 <jgarzik> but some other source seems to trigger it more frequently than every 1666 minutes
211 2012-05-17 04:43:08 * jgarzik wonders about threadus interruptus somewhere
212 2012-05-17 04:43:28 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: did you just say interrupt a thread? bad jgarzik
213 2012-05-17 04:43:49 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
214 2012-05-17 04:43:52 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: nah, too lazy to write a patch to make it work
215 2012-05-17 04:44:23 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: my current solution is more optimal than BDB even without gzip, so no big deal
216 2012-05-17 04:45:20 <jgarzik> current HEAD serializes entire CAddrman to a single, huge BDB key/value database record
217 2012-05-17 04:46:55 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
218 2012-05-17 04:47:31 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: what is the byte size of that mature addr.dat?
219 2012-05-17 04:47:38 <jgarzik> octet count
220 2012-05-17 04:47:52 <gmaxwell> oh, you don't want it in 9 bit bytes??
221 2012-05-17 04:48:03 <jgarzik> ;)
222 2012-05-17 04:48:31 <gmaxwell> one here is 4153344 octets.
223 2012-05-17 04:48:52 <gmaxwell> might shrink if I vacuum it with dbdump
224 2012-05-17 04:50:16 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: any easy way to view the size of the 'addrman' value in there?
225 2012-05-17 04:50:42 <gmaxwell> lemme shut down the node and dbdump it.. the big record should be obvious.
226 2012-05-17 04:52:46 <gmaxwell> well, there is one line in the dump file that has 1426038 hex characters... (the rest have two dozen or so)
227 2012-05-17 04:54:07 <gmaxwell> hm, no my editor can't count.
228 2012-05-17 04:54:20 <gmaxwell> oh yes it can.
229 2012-05-17 04:55:05 <jgarzik> ok, so that's the amount of data a node currently shoves to disk periodically
230 2012-05-17 04:55:25 <jgarzik> *amount of address data
231 2012-05-17 04:56:21 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
232 2012-05-17 04:56:52 copumpkin has joined
233 2012-05-17 04:57:03 * luke-jr notes that even if a library is being pulled in anyway (by some other lib you use), you still want to explicitly link to it if you use it
234 2012-05-17 05:00:50 <jgarzik> luke-jr: not if lib A internally includes lib B, no
235 2012-05-17 05:02:10 <gmaxwell> I assume we already have a zlib (ugh) dependency from the png icons.
236 2012-05-17 05:02:38 <jgarzik> openssl too
237 2012-05-17 05:02:45 <gmaxwell> Though for some reason we've been fortunate enough to escape people insisting we rebuild for every weekly zlib remote code vulnerability.
238 2012-05-17 05:03:07 <luke-jr> 37 KB 009494e944a5ed54ca611e9eff6361e0d3e85411d9013d9558514dd8011b2fd0 bin-osx-miniupnpc-1.6.tbz2
239 2012-05-17 05:03:27 <luke-jr> err
240 2012-05-17 05:03:33 <luke-jr> alreayd did that one <.<
241 2012-05-17 05:03:41 <luke-jr> 76 KB d3c460a55983f33d2892dbb6240293bbb12f3055f0c67333c5930b4d3e2b6a24 bin-osx-zlib-1.2.6.tbz2 <-- new one
242 2012-05-17 05:11:30 <luke-jr> rebuilt miniupnpc, and it seems to be making deterministic properly
243 2012-05-17 05:11:37 <luke-jr> even if the cross-compiler itself isn't.
244 2012-05-17 05:22:20 ThomasV has joined
245 2012-05-17 05:22:55 <gmaxwell> awesome, 30MiB of the chain is SatoshiDice, tycho's spamming has some competition!
246 2012-05-17 05:23:56 <luke-jr> >_<
247 2012-05-17 05:23:59 <luke-jr> at least they pay fees?
248 2012-05-17 05:24:39 <gmaxwell> Yea, 36.8 BTC so far in fact.
249 2012-05-17 05:27:22 <gmaxwell> If we assume 40k full nodes thats about 1.1 TB of data... to represent a bunch of silly people losing their money.
250 2012-05-17 05:27:49 <gmaxwell> They could have just sent the money to the well known bitcoin eater address and saved a bunch of time and storage.
251 2012-05-17 05:27:56 <Diablo-D3> lol
252 2012-05-17 05:29:06 <ThomasV> if they pay fees then they are useful
253 2012-05-17 05:29:46 <ThomasV> it's good to see the fee/generation ratio increase
254 2012-05-17 05:29:53 <gmaxwell> The operator has made 108 btc profit. or about 8.5e11 BTC per byte they added to the global storage under the 40k assumption.
255 2012-05-17 05:30:20 <gmaxwell> er 8.5e-11 (obviously)
256 2012-05-17 05:30:25 <ThomasV> lol
257 2012-05-17 05:31:17 <gmaxwell> Well, at least the txns tend to be fairly prunable on the dice side.
258 2012-05-17 05:31:25 <gmaxwell> (not so much on the customer side)
259 2012-05-17 05:31:30 Phoebus has joined
260 2012-05-17 05:32:18 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
261 2012-05-17 05:32:20 phungi has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
262 2012-05-17 05:33:08 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
263 2012-05-17 05:49:18 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
264 2012-05-17 05:51:25 b4epoche has joined
265 2012-05-17 05:53:59 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
266 2012-05-17 05:55:54 bitcoiner has joined
267 2012-05-17 05:55:59 bitcoiner has quit (Changing host)
268 2012-05-17 05:55:59 bitcoiner has joined
269 2012-05-17 06:09:01 Karmaon has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
270 2012-05-17 06:09:12 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
271 2012-05-17 06:12:01 bitcoiner has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.88.2 [Firefox 12.0/20120420145725])
272 2012-05-17 06:14:50 Ahimoth_ has joined
273 2012-05-17 06:16:26 Ahimoth has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
274 2012-05-17 06:16:26 Ahimoth_ is now known as Ahimoth
275 2012-05-17 06:17:08 Diablo-D3 has joined
276 2012-05-17 06:18:01 peper has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
277 2012-05-17 06:19:00 peper has joined
278 2012-05-17 06:21:27 RainbowDashh has joined
279 2012-05-17 06:43:58 dvide has joined
280 2012-05-17 06:56:18 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
281 2012-05-17 07:00:40 Bigpiggy01Mining has quit ()
282 2012-05-17 07:04:22 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
283 2012-05-17 07:06:02 Turingi has joined
284 2012-05-17 07:12:31 winterblack has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
285 2012-05-17 07:14:44 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: jddebug opened issue 1327 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1327>
286 2012-05-17 07:41:20 Ragnarok752 has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
287 2012-05-17 07:46:35 Ragnarok752 has joined
288 2012-05-17 07:47:51 Ragnarok752 has quit (Changing host)
289 2012-05-17 07:47:51 Ragnarok752 has joined
290 2012-05-17 07:55:58 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
291 2012-05-17 07:56:40 toffoo has quit ()
292 2012-05-17 07:59:35 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
293 2012-05-17 08:01:02 roomservice has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
294 2012-05-17 08:02:30 RazielZ has joined
295 2012-05-17 08:04:04 Graet has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
296 2012-05-17 08:06:20 Graet has joined
297 2012-05-17 08:06:50 roomservice has joined
298 2012-05-17 08:08:21 rdponticelli_ has joined
299 2012-05-17 08:09:31 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
300 2012-05-17 08:09:41 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
301 2012-05-17 08:09:50 RazielZ has joined
302 2012-05-17 08:11:01 talpan has joined
303 2012-05-17 08:13:58 danbri has joined
304 2012-05-17 08:17:10 Joric has joined
305 2012-05-17 08:30:17 tcatm has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
306 2012-05-17 08:30:32 tcatm has joined
307 2012-05-17 08:30:32 tcatm has quit (Changing host)
308 2012-05-17 08:30:32 tcatm has joined
309 2012-05-17 08:36:23 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
310 2012-05-17 08:36:29 sirk390 has joined
311 2012-05-17 08:36:33 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
312 2012-05-17 08:36:54 copumpkin has joined
313 2012-05-17 08:37:13 mmoya has joined
314 2012-05-17 08:39:48 BurtyB has joined
315 2012-05-17 08:41:23 ThomasV has joined
316 2012-05-17 08:44:49 Clipse has joined
317 2012-05-17 08:46:05 t7 has joined
318 2012-05-17 08:51:19 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
319 2012-05-17 09:06:38 stalled has joined
320 2012-05-17 09:12:30 fpgaminer has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
321 2012-05-17 09:13:27 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
322 2012-05-17 09:13:49 RazielZ has joined
323 2012-05-17 09:15:33 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
324 2012-05-17 09:16:08 fpgaminer has joined
325 2012-05-17 09:18:31 _Fireball has joined
326 2012-05-17 09:22:18 graingert has joined
327 2012-05-17 09:23:55 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
328 2012-05-17 09:24:29 molecular has joined
329 2012-05-17 09:24:47 Diablo-D3 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
330 2012-05-17 09:25:42 drizztbsd has joined
331 2012-05-17 09:25:59 drizztbsd has quit (Changing host)
332 2012-05-17 09:25:59 drizztbsd has joined
333 2012-05-17 09:27:46 Diablo-D3 has joined
334 2012-05-17 09:28:16 m00p has joined
335 2012-05-17 09:28:58 datagutt has joined
336 2012-05-17 09:30:17 m00p has quit (Client Quit)
337 2012-05-17 09:33:34 Diablo-D3 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
338 2012-05-17 09:34:02 Diablo-D3 has joined
339 2012-05-17 09:35:59 Snapman is now known as Snapman[afkers]
340 2012-05-17 09:40:33 skeledre1 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
341 2012-05-17 09:43:25 sirk390 has joined
342 2012-05-17 09:47:42 Guest30328 has joined
343 2012-05-17 09:49:40 drizztbsd has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
344 2012-05-17 09:52:12 PK has joined
345 2012-05-17 09:54:58 tcatm has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
346 2012-05-17 09:55:14 tcatm has joined
347 2012-05-17 09:55:14 tcatm has quit (Changing host)
348 2012-05-17 09:55:14 tcatm has joined
349 2012-05-17 09:57:18 drizztbsd has joined
350 2012-05-17 09:57:18 drizztbsd has quit (Changing host)
351 2012-05-17 09:57:18 drizztbsd has joined
352 2012-05-17 10:00:06 BeTep has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
353 2012-05-17 10:00:12 Detritus has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
354 2012-05-17 10:00:16 <ronaz> j/b 31
355 2012-05-17 10:02:05 <sipa> ?
356 2012-05-17 10:02:45 Detritus has joined
357 2012-05-17 10:03:12 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
358 2012-05-17 10:04:53 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
359 2012-05-17 10:05:59 b4epoche has joined
360 2012-05-17 10:06:15 PK has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
361 2012-05-17 10:08:42 <ronaz> i do that a lot. keyboard on my lap and browsing through channels.
362 2012-05-17 10:08:56 Stellar has joined
363 2012-05-17 10:12:13 graingert_ has joined
364 2012-05-17 10:14:07 graingert has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
365 2012-05-17 10:16:42 <SomeoneWeird> Guys in your opinion, what's the best way to auth against an api?
366 2012-05-17 10:17:48 <freewil> using an hmac of the request is nice and simple
367 2012-05-17 10:17:54 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: laanwj opened pull request 1329 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1329> || ahf opened pull request 1328 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1328>
368 2012-05-17 10:18:23 <SomeoneWeird> hmm
369 2012-05-17 10:20:10 <freewil> you can then require a nonce in the request and include that as part of the hmac
370 2012-05-17 10:20:25 <freewil> then that same request cant be used again
371 2012-05-17 10:20:31 <freewil> a new hmac would have to be generated
372 2012-05-17 10:22:18 <SomeoneWeird> basically what i was thinking is that each user gets an id and a secret key
373 2012-05-17 10:22:38 <SomeoneWeird> on each request they post the id, along with a hash of their secret key and the requested url
374 2012-05-17 10:22:49 paraipan has joined
375 2012-05-17 10:23:13 <SomeoneWeird> which means that the secret key doesnt get transferred, and that if thats intercepted it can only be used for that 1 url
376 2012-05-17 10:23:51 <freewil> yeah thats pretty much what hmac is
377 2012-05-17 10:24:16 <sipa> SomeoneWeird: hmac is really a hash with a shared secret key
378 2012-05-17 10:24:28 <SomeoneWeird> ahah alright, cool
379 2012-05-17 10:24:31 <sipa> and it more secure than just hashing the key and the data together
380 2012-05-17 10:24:39 <SomeoneWeird> hmm
381 2012-05-17 10:25:12 <freewil> if you add in the nonce concept then even if the request is intercepted it cant be used again even for just that one url
382 2012-05-17 10:25:18 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
383 2012-05-17 10:25:49 <freewil> because whoever interecepted it would have to use a new nonce with a higher value and would need to know the secret key
384 2012-05-17 10:26:02 <SomeoneWeird> right, and whats the best way to generate/validate nonces?
385 2012-05-17 10:26:09 * SomeoneWeird doesnt do a lot of crypto coding
386 2012-05-17 10:26:12 ivan\ has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
387 2012-05-17 10:26:23 <freewil> i would just use an int, recommend the user start with 0
388 2012-05-17 10:26:26 <sipa> SomeoneWeird: use the date/time, plus a random number
389 2012-05-17 10:26:31 <freewil> and then they have to send an ever incrementing value
390 2012-05-17 10:26:42 <freewil> what sipa said is better
391 2012-05-17 10:26:43 <sipa> meh, that requires statefulness
392 2012-05-17 10:27:08 <freewil> amen sipa
393 2012-05-17 10:27:16 <sipa> here's the hmac implementation i wrote for use in deterministic wallets: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/blob/cfb185adf4617bc5db8385be5a40cdb228864c17/src/hmac.cpp
394 2012-05-17 10:27:23 ahf has joined
395 2012-05-17 10:27:31 <ahf> Hi
396 2012-05-17 10:28:37 <SomeoneWeird> so how do i verify that it hasn't been used before and is only for that request?
397 2012-05-17 10:29:45 erle- has joined
398 2012-05-17 10:30:38 <sipa> because you never generate the same nonce twice
399 2012-05-17 10:30:55 <freewil> you would have to store the hash after each request/response and check if it's been used before each one
400 2012-05-17 10:31:02 <sipa> meh
401 2012-05-17 10:31:35 <sipa> if the timestamp is in there with millisec precision, and you add a 32-bit or 64-bit random number to it, the chance for a repeated nonce are almost zero
402 2012-05-17 10:32:00 <freewil> sipa: the concern is though if someone intercepts the request and tries to send it again
403 2012-05-17 10:32:03 <sipa> but maybe you just want oauth?
404 2012-05-17 10:32:48 <SomeoneWeird> not sure, trying to work out the best method
405 2012-05-17 10:33:20 <SomeoneWeird> basically the api is gunna be paid access, so I want a way thats simple to use, but still secure against intercepts and stuff
406 2012-05-17 10:33:47 <freewil> i would use the nonce concept, store the hashes and SSL ontop of that
407 2012-05-17 10:34:08 <SomeoneWeird> yeah sounds like the way to go
408 2012-05-17 10:36:37 <sipa> i'd use oauth
409 2012-05-17 10:37:26 <sipa> if it's for a website that provides an API service, at least
410 2012-05-17 10:38:51 <SomeoneWeird> SaaS
411 2012-05-17 10:39:08 <SomeoneWeird> so yeah
412 2012-05-17 10:42:11 graingert_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
413 2012-05-17 10:42:32 graingert has joined
414 2012-05-17 10:46:40 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
415 2012-05-17 10:47:28 RainbowDashh has joined
416 2012-05-17 10:48:45 Ragnarok752 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
417 2012-05-17 10:50:49 TuxBlackEdo is now known as vegeta
418 2012-05-17 10:50:58 vegeta is now known as TuxBlackEdo
419 2012-05-17 10:51:11 tcatm has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
420 2012-05-17 10:51:26 tcatm has joined
421 2012-05-17 11:00:12 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: fanquake opened pull request 1330 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1330>
422 2012-05-17 11:01:41 Clipse has joined
423 2012-05-17 11:08:13 Ragnarok752 has joined
424 2012-05-17 11:11:49 RazielZ has joined
425 2012-05-17 11:12:19 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
426 2012-05-17 11:12:30 graingert has joined
427 2012-05-17 11:12:31 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
428 2012-05-17 11:17:18 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
429 2012-05-17 11:24:25 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
430 2012-05-17 11:48:59 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
431 2012-05-17 11:52:28 ivan\ has joined
432 2012-05-17 11:55:59 Ragnarok752 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
433 2012-05-17 11:56:05 Davincij15 has quit ()
434 2012-05-17 11:58:00 davout has joined
435 2012-05-17 11:58:07 Joric has quit ()
436 2012-05-17 11:58:08 <davout> hey there
437 2012-05-17 11:58:42 <davout> is it possible/logical that "getinfo" and "getbalance '*' 1" report different balances ??
438 2012-05-17 12:01:52 stalled has joined
439 2012-05-17 12:02:49 t7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
440 2012-05-17 12:03:04 one_zero has quit ()
441 2012-05-17 12:07:43 Davincij15 has joined
442 2012-05-17 12:09:08 shadders has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
443 2012-05-17 12:20:25 TD has joined
444 2012-05-17 12:20:54 Joric has joined
445 2012-05-17 12:21:35 ivan\ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
446 2012-05-17 12:22:38 shadders has joined
447 2012-05-17 12:23:30 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
448 2012-05-17 12:24:33 ivan\ has joined
449 2012-05-17 12:26:03 TD_ has joined
450 2012-05-17 12:29:41 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
451 2012-05-17 12:29:42 TD_ is now known as TD
452 2012-05-17 12:32:54 shadders has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
453 2012-05-17 12:35:42 minimoose has joined
454 2012-05-17 12:36:49 <davout> is it possible/logical that "getinfo" and "getbalance '*' 1" report different balances ??
455 2012-05-17 12:42:18 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
456 2012-05-17 12:42:19 bobke has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
457 2012-05-17 12:42:47 O2made has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
458 2012-05-17 12:43:49 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: RainbowDashh)
459 2012-05-17 12:44:21 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
460 2012-05-17 12:46:56 shadders has joined
461 2012-05-17 12:47:49 O2made has joined
462 2012-05-17 12:50:25 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
463 2012-05-17 12:51:38 bobke has joined
464 2012-05-17 12:52:03 ThomasV has joined
465 2012-05-17 12:53:44 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
466 2012-05-17 13:04:20 agricocb has joined
467 2012-05-17 13:10:44 <TD> anyone got any idea of where to link this page from? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Securing_online_services
468 2012-05-17 13:14:17 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
469 2012-05-17 13:17:37 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
470 2012-05-17 13:25:27 <gmaxwell> TD: Don't link it, it understates the bitcoin risk.
471 2012-05-17 13:25:36 <TD> how so
472 2012-05-17 13:27:11 <gmaxwell> Starting with the first sentence, ", in Bitcoin the risk is entirely theoretical and has yet to be observed in the wild" â The mybitcoin money loss was claimed to be a result of accepting unconfirmed transactions through their shopping cart interface. And we observed quite a few duplicate input transactions circulating on the network which older nodes would display as forever unconfirmed which could have been used for that kind of attack.
473 2012-05-17 13:28:33 <gmaxwell> TD: please also read http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/248.pdf Which specifically criticizes the 'bitcoin developers' for overstating bitcoin transaction security due to claims you made on the FAQ page on the wiki.
474 2012-05-17 13:30:24 drizztbsd has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
475 2012-05-17 13:30:40 <TD> the mybitcoin case was very, very far from clear. the whole murkyness around that means it's hard to conclude anything. i think scam is a far more likely explanation. and yes, there have been double spending transactions observed. what i mean is that no credible merchant has come forward and said "I lost money because of THIS double spend right here"
476 2012-05-17 13:30:49 <TD> so i think it's totally fair to say the risk to merchants of that is very low
477 2012-05-17 13:30:56 <TD> not zero! that's why it's covered on the page
478 2012-05-17 13:31:00 <TD> if the risk was zero why even mention it ?
479 2012-05-17 13:31:07 <TD> interesting paper though.
480 2012-05-17 13:31:08 drizztbsd has joined
481 2012-05-17 13:31:08 drizztbsd has quit (Changing host)
482 2012-05-17 13:31:08 drizztbsd has joined
483 2012-05-17 13:31:10 * TD will read it shortly
484 2012-05-17 13:32:19 <luke-jr> makomk: shh
485 2012-05-17 13:32:42 drizztbsd has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
486 2012-05-17 13:33:17 drizztbsd has joined
487 2012-05-17 13:34:36 <gmaxwell> TD: Retrospectively, if was a normal user and read that page I got ripped off I would research more and conclude that it overtly lied to me to make bitcoin sound safer than it was, because it make such an absolute statement when many people do believe that people have been exploited in that way.
488 2012-05-17 13:34:47 <gmaxwell> For the actual text "For merchants shipping things immediately, like digital downloads, measuring the propagation of a transaction across the network and waiting until most nodes have reported it is probably good enough. This allows you to accept the payment within seconds. Whilst there's a higher risk of transaction reversal here, the attack is still expensive and the attacker cannot choose the timing of the attack. Therefore watching out fo
489 2012-05-17 13:35:45 <gmaxwell> I don't agree with this recoomendation. For the first point the software to 'measuring the propagation of a transaction' doesn't exist todayâ and the of person who needs this FAQ entry is probably not going to write it.
490 2012-05-17 13:36:05 <TD> some people believe _one_ operation _may_ have been exploited in that way, but that belief is based only on the assertions of somebody who then immediately vanished and could not be located at all
491 2012-05-17 13:36:06 <gmaxwell> Also, it fails to make it clear that it's recommending creating a fresh payment address right before the transaction.
492 2012-05-17 13:36:09 <Eliel> TD: about the mybitcoin case, there were some messages in threads I found reading the past messages of the BitcoinATM guy that lead me to believe that mybitcoin really was emptied with a double-spend attack.
493 2012-05-17 13:36:24 <Eliel> on bitcointalk
494 2012-05-17 13:36:35 <TD> Eliel: which ones?
495 2012-05-17 13:36:47 <Eliel> messages from before mybitcoin went offline
496 2012-05-17 13:36:56 <TD> gmaxwell: actually the latest bitcoinj will let you measure that :-) but yes, the page has some recommendations that require software that does not exist (like the supervisor)
497 2012-05-17 13:37:04 <gmaxwell> TD: it isn't only based on that assertion, it's also based on the fact that at the time there were a large number of high value repeated input never-confirmable transactions circulating on the network.
498 2012-05-17 13:37:07 <TD> gmaxwell: i think it's still worth discussing them
499 2012-05-17 13:38:47 <TD> i remember people asking at the time which re-orgs were reversing the spends
500 2012-05-17 13:38:55 <gmaxwell> It also sound like listening to make sure nodes have heard the transaction is a defense against the finney attack. It is not. Nor is the finny attack expensive.
501 2012-05-17 13:39:03 <TD> as i think they said they were waiting for at least one block, right?
502 2012-05-17 13:39:12 <Eliel> TD: I think it was these threads: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=32807.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33020.msg415098#msg415098
503 2012-05-17 13:39:38 <gmaxwell> TD: There wasn't reorgs needed to reverse the spends. According to nanotube (IIRC) they accepted zero confirm transactions on their shopping cart interface.
504 2012-05-17 13:39:48 <TD> it's not expensive? once you find a mined block you have to make a payment to an address that you've already been issued.
505 2012-05-17 13:40:06 <TD> unless you're finding mined blocks all the time (a major pool operator) that means there will be significant delays between when you start an order and when you complete it
506 2012-05-17 13:40:57 <luke-jr> TD: or unless you can buy a mined block within 10 minutes on average
507 2012-05-17 13:41:08 <gmaxwell> TD: The block you mine pays your coins to yourself. You just need to be able to automate the entire order process to fire off as soon as you mine a block. The GPUMAX service allows anyone to purchase hashing power on bitcoin on demand.
508 2012-05-17 13:41:41 <TD> the process of starting an order issues you an address. you can't mine the block without an address from the merchant
509 2012-05-17 13:41:45 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I think TD's point is that merchants can require payment within 2 minutes of creating a new address
510 2012-05-17 13:41:56 <TD> yes. when i used bitpay yesterday the invoice had a 15 minute countdown
511 2012-05-17 13:42:08 <TD> unless i can mine a block on demand, pretty much, i wouldn't be able to outrun the expiration of the invoice
512 2012-05-17 13:42:12 <luke-jr> 15 minutes is probably good enough if GPUMAX remains < 25%
513 2012-05-17 13:42:30 <gmaxwell> TD: (1) I pointed out above that the recommendation text did not at all make the fresh address assumption clear, (2) You don't actually have to do that.
514 2012-05-17 13:42:47 <luke-jr> oh wait
515 2012-05-17 13:43:14 <gmaxwell> TD: say I have a single 10 BTC input. I start working on a block with a txn to send that 10BTC to myself. I don't know anything about my victims addresses.
516 2012-05-17 13:43:21 <luke-jr> well, merchants can check the inputs to their transactions and demand confirmations on those
517 2012-05-17 13:44:04 <gmaxwell> When I find a block my script rapidly places an order on your site for a 1BTC song. It uses that same 10BTC input. As soon as you've started the download, I announce the block.
518 2012-05-17 13:44:34 <gmaxwell> The block reverses the announced transaction, even if it was well forwarded.
519 2012-05-17 13:45:00 <gmaxwell> My loss is only the increase in the chance of being orphaned.
520 2012-05-17 13:45:57 <gmaxwell> Fresh addresses are good, but they're good against isolation attacks, not finney attacks.
521 2012-05-17 13:46:16 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: hey
522 2012-05-17 13:46:25 <TD> ok, good point
523 2012-05-17 13:46:29 <Diablo-D3> how hard is it to get a large number of IPs in unique subnets?
524 2012-05-17 13:46:47 <TD> you mean with a botnet?
525 2012-05-17 13:47:24 <Diablo-D3> no
526 2012-05-17 13:47:38 <Diablo-D3> not proxied either
527 2012-05-17 13:47:51 <Diablo-D3> although mass cheap VPSes seems to be the only way
528 2012-05-17 13:48:06 <gmaxwell> "For merchants that are shipping physical goods you probably don't have to worry. Reversing a transaction gets harder and harder with time. After only one hour it becomes computationally infeasible to reverse a Bitcoin transaction. Inserting a small delay before shipping isolates you from this risk entirely. " < this needs to tell you that you actually have to check again before shipping. :)
529 2012-05-17 13:48:13 <gmaxwell> (otherwise it's great)
530 2012-05-17 13:48:16 <TD> well, you could use tor
531 2012-05-17 13:48:43 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
532 2012-05-17 13:49:38 <luke-jr> tor = proxy
533 2012-05-17 13:49:55 <gmaxwell> "For automated trading platforms that may pay out some other currency in response to Bitcoin deposits, you should also delay payment for a short time until reversal becomes infeasible." ---> "I did what it said, I waited!" "How many confirms?" "Huh? I waited 10 seconds." (that advice is not sufficiently hardened against users doing only what you tell them)
534 2012-05-17 13:50:04 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: yeah, but thats only good for torred bitcoins
535 2012-05-17 13:50:16 <Diablo-D3> what I was thinking about is a possible attack where a single node pretends to be ALL nodes
536 2012-05-17 13:50:59 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: that's Gavin's "sybil attack"
537 2012-05-17 13:51:08 rdponticelli_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
538 2012-05-17 13:51:09 <TD> right now i wouldn't want anyone without a good understanding of bitcoin to run a trading platform
539 2012-05-17 13:51:10 <Diablo-D3> ahh.
540 2012-05-17 13:51:19 <TD> i guess it can have a "not for n00bs" warning at the top :-)
541 2012-05-17 13:51:21 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: at least Im thinking along the right paths
542 2012-05-17 13:51:29 <gmaxwell> And while I generally agree that reorg attacks are normally costlyâ there are some situations that make reorg attacks less costly... so we should be careful.
543 2012-05-17 13:52:42 <luke-jr> it would be interesting to declare the generation void on blocks that had competitors before being built on top of
544 2012-05-17 13:52:55 <luke-jr> but I guess there's a lot of forking potential in that
545 2012-05-17 13:53:17 <gmaxwell> E.g. a bank site that accepted at 1 confirm and didn't notice reversals could be exploited every few days using the natural forks formed from orphaning.
546 2012-05-17 13:53:23 <luke-jr> (that is, if you reorg, you're guaranteed to lose the generation on the blocks you made)
547 2012-05-17 13:53:26 molecular has quit (Quit: Leaving)
548 2012-05-17 13:53:33 <TD> gmaxwell: this is a good paper
549 2012-05-17 13:53:43 <TD> though it's interesting they only seem to focus on timing attacks
550 2012-05-17 13:53:49 <helo> gmaxwell: that attack you just detailed is called 'finney'?
551 2012-05-17 13:54:09 <gmaxwell> helo: where you mine a block and then quickly buy something before announcing? yes.
552 2012-05-17 13:54:10 <helo> with the 10btc for a download
553 2012-05-17 13:54:14 rdponticelli has joined
554 2012-05-17 13:54:21 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
555 2012-05-17 13:55:07 <nanotube> gmaxwell: indeed, i only used the mybitcoin shopping cart once for a small transaction with some site, but my funds became available within a couple seconds, as soon as i sent the transaction. which leads me to believe that mybitcoin accepted 0conf tx - at least for small tx.
556 2012-05-17 13:55:19 <TuxBlackEdo> you know if the goverment really wanted to screw up bitcoin they could ask steam to push a global update which includes a mining screen saver.. this program would mine until a retarget and then desert the bitcoin network leaving everyone with impossible to solve difficulty, miners leave, value drops, bitcoin will need a hard fork... rinse and repeat.
557 2012-05-17 13:55:42 <gmaxwell> I used to be less concerned about it, but I think GPUmax has made quite a bit more achivable. In theory you have to only outlay a bit over 50 BTC, which you'll mostly get back from the block solution..
558 2012-05-17 13:55:57 <helo> i think they could just use their new cracking facility to do that themselves
559 2012-05-17 13:56:22 <TD> gmaxwell: assuming nobody else mines the same block whilst you're interacting with the merchant
560 2012-05-17 13:56:27 <TD> but yes
561 2012-05-17 13:56:54 <gmaxwell> TD: yes, but the probability of that is easy to model and is small if you can complete the transaction in a few seconds.
562 2012-05-17 13:56:55 <TD> gpumax does make it a lot more feasible. we used to talk about "black market mining rigs" but i suppose the sale of arbitrary shares makes the black-marketness irrelevant. nobody knows what you're doing with the shares
563 2012-05-17 13:57:06 <TD> ok
564 2012-05-17 13:57:13 <TD> i wrote the wiki page in question :) i'll go back and try to improve it later
565 2012-05-17 13:57:20 <TD> need to push a new gmail release now ...
566 2012-05-17 13:57:33 <luke-jr> TD: when will GMail be open source? :p
567 2012-05-17 13:57:43 <TD> get back to me on that one :-)
568 2012-05-17 13:57:49 <gmaxwell> GPUMax claims to have some protection against being used for attack... but it's not clear to me what they do. I know they can't prevent it from being used for finney attacks, though they might be able to block it being used for deep reorgs.
569 2012-05-17 13:57:54 <TD> some stuff we developed for it is open source actually
570 2012-05-17 13:58:20 <gmaxwell> td: Okay, you should read though the rest of that paper when you have a chance. :)
571 2012-05-17 13:58:41 * TD was scan reading it
572 2012-05-17 13:58:56 <TD> i think it's covering solutions that were discussed last year at least, but in a more thorough way
573 2012-05-17 13:58:57 <TuxBlackEdo> it's funny that people try to find weakness in the code, when it's weakness could just be human. murphy's law. bitcoin's next big problem won't be a sybil attack or even some double spend attack, it will be some random steam/adobe/microsoft update which will just screw up bitcoin's difficulty.. won't even take that long and nobody will care (and the government will say, "sorry we just needed to do it because it was a terrorist projec
574 2012-05-17 13:58:57 <TuxBlackEdo> t")
575 2012-05-17 13:59:23 Maccer has quit (Excess Flood)
576 2012-05-17 13:59:27 <TuxBlackEdo> it won't be a sophisticated attack
577 2012-05-17 13:59:33 <gmaxwell> I think they focus on timing attacks because the text you wront on our FAQ made a big deal about listening for conflicting txns making you safe to accept unconfirmeds. (I've since removed that and replaced it with more conservative text)
578 2012-05-17 13:59:43 molecular has joined
579 2012-05-17 14:00:13 <gmaxwell> TuxBlackEdo: having higher difficulty alone doesn't hurt bitcoin.
580 2012-05-17 14:00:15 <TuxBlackEdo> i will bet you the first attack that actually will hurt bitcoin's reputation of stability and security won't be a sophisticated attack
581 2012-05-17 14:00:54 <TuxBlackEdo> gmaxwell, higher difficulty and then leave on a retarget
582 2012-05-17 14:02:34 <TuxBlackEdo> just like when it was more profitable to mine namecoins and a lot of people switched to mining nmc and selling it for btc, turns out when they left on the retarget it almost took 1-2 months for the difficulty to drop
583 2012-05-17 14:02:41 <TuxBlackEdo> same attack could be made against bitcoin
584 2012-05-17 14:03:08 <TuxBlackEdo> and there's no protection against it (other then the 4x difficulty increase limit)
585 2012-05-17 14:03:13 <TD> gmaxwell: well, good to know i successfully trolled somebody into doing useful research :-)
586 2012-05-17 14:04:55 DamascusVG has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
587 2012-05-17 14:05:41 <TD> gmaxwell: done at the ETH, cool. i'll have to invite those guys along to the next bitcoin meetup in zurich
588 2012-05-17 14:05:49 <gmaxwell> TD: unforunately the research caused some mass media to report that bitcoin is less secure than previously thought!
589 2012-05-17 14:06:11 * TD shrugs
590 2012-05-17 14:06:44 <TD> the original "wait for a bunch of announcements" plan came from satoshi himself, didn't it
591 2012-05-17 14:07:00 Maccer has joined
592 2012-05-17 14:07:05 <TD> it's useful to know that the conflict alerts are important
593 2012-05-17 14:09:39 copumpkin has joined
594 2012-05-17 14:11:26 <TuxBlackEdo> and don't think the government won't force steam/adobe/microsoft to push a mining client, previous presidents have said they would use "any means necessary" to combat a threat
595 2012-05-17 14:12:30 <TuxBlackEdo> especially since you are taking about the implications of bitcoin (a new currency) which could be framed as a threat
596 2012-05-17 14:13:10 ThomasV has joined
597 2012-05-17 14:13:33 gavinandresen has joined
598 2012-05-17 14:19:06 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
599 2012-05-17 14:21:17 b4epoche has joined
600 2012-05-17 14:22:07 phungi has joined
601 2012-05-17 14:25:20 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
602 2012-05-17 14:25:30 <helo> that would overheat some people's machines, and raise their power bills... surely the government would just use their own hardware
603 2012-05-17 14:26:15 <TuxBlackEdo> if you are playing video games, you will be expecting 100% gpu usage anyways
604 2012-05-17 14:26:24 DamascusVG has joined
605 2012-05-17 14:27:27 <TuxBlackEdo> plus it wouldn't be forver, just long enough to get it to a couple of retargets and then the software would auto destruct
606 2012-05-17 14:27:44 Joric has quit ()
607 2012-05-17 14:28:30 <TuxBlackEdo> if anything, this needs to be recognized as a weakness of bitcoin, even if it seems unlikely
608 2012-05-17 14:29:57 <gmaxwell> TuxBlackEdo: what you're saying doesn't make a lot of sense.
609 2012-05-17 14:30:06 <TuxBlackEdo> what part?
610 2012-05-17 14:30:32 <gmaxwell> Every part. For one, increasing the difficulty doesn't break bitcoin, it's alread two million times higher than when we started.
611 2012-05-17 14:30:59 <TuxBlackEdo> what if it were a billion times higher?
612 2012-05-17 14:31:05 <gmaxwell> Secondly that the goverment would engage in some kind of crazy unlawful technical attack against Bitcoin.
613 2012-05-17 14:31:43 <gmaxwell> (As a harmed party I'd certantly want to be a party to the resulting civil suit)
614 2012-05-17 14:31:55 <TuxBlackEdo> if the government sees bitcoin as a threat a president will say "we will combat these threats to our currency by any means necessary"
615 2012-05-17 14:31:55 <gmaxwell> Thirdly, that all the desktops everwhere would make it a 'billion times higher' â they wouldn't.
616 2012-05-17 14:32:16 <gmaxwell> Forthly, that it would only take a couple of retargetsâ the change is clamped.
617 2012-05-17 14:32:53 <TuxBlackEdo> same with namecoin, and it had a retarget lasting 2-3months IIRC
618 2012-05-17 14:33:09 <gmaxwell> TuxBlackEdo: if they'd declare bitcoin unlawful your threat isn't the technical attack, it's the outlawing. Even outlaws have no use for outlaw currency, and bitcoin's security requires conspicious resource expendature.
619 2012-05-17 14:33:31 <TuxBlackEdo> that retarget lasted so long because it got multiplied x4 because it was more profirable to mine nmc rather then btc
620 2012-05-17 14:33:35 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell sipa jgarzik TD: I've got a scary commit that needs lots of review
621 2012-05-17 14:33:53 <gavinandresen> https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/8b666b866d94a1538fc88c53ffd2e43c7e156f77
622 2012-05-17 14:33:53 <TD> the best kind ....
623 2012-05-17 14:34:18 <TD> good idea!
624 2012-05-17 14:34:53 <gavinandresen> It is actually a variation on code Satoshi sent me a year ago....
625 2012-05-17 14:35:26 <TuxBlackEdo> gmaxwell, like i said, presidents have said they would combat threats "by any means necessary", if it means forcing a company to push a malicious update it can and will be done
626 2012-05-17 14:36:03 <gmaxwell> TuxBlackEdo: _wooosh_ (the point flying over your head)
627 2012-05-17 14:36:10 <neofutur> TuxBlackEdo: and then'more people will move to linuxif they want to use or mine bitcoin ?
628 2012-05-17 14:36:13 <ageis> https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/8b666b866d94a1538fc88c53ffd2e43c7e156f77
629 2012-05-17 14:36:18 <ageis> oops sry
630 2012-05-17 14:36:18 <neofutur> wheres the problem ?
631 2012-05-17 14:36:45 <TuxBlackEdo> gmaxwell, i think i heard you say this before "if the US makes it illegal, it doesn't make it illegal anywhere"
632 2012-05-17 14:36:48 <gmaxwell> TuxBlackEdo: bitcoin can't really survive being outlawed in major nations, the technical attack is moot.
633 2012-05-17 14:37:05 <gmaxwell> TuxBlackEdo: you've certantly not heard me saying that.
634 2012-05-17 14:37:11 DamascusVG has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
635 2012-05-17 14:37:18 <gmaxwell> You've heard me say "even outlaws have little use for outlaw currency"
636 2012-05-17 14:37:56 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I was contemplating that you could continue to check twice and assert on disagreement as a test of the initial commitâ but since invalid signatures are uncommon I don't know that its a useful test.
637 2012-05-17 14:40:04 <TuxBlackEdo> yes but lets say hypothetically that the US does outlaw bitcoin but this event starts the straisand effect. Then the US government frames bitcoin as a global thread and vows to disrupt the bitcoin network by any means necessary.. All I am saying is that an attack doesn't have to be sophisticated like a sybil/finney attack
638 2012-05-17 14:40:12 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: So, weird situation: New TXN comes inâ node validates it before the memory pool. Cosmic ray flips a bit and the validation fails. Later a block is mined with that transaction. Cached failure means we'll never reconverge with the network.
639 2012-05-17 14:40:40 <TuxBlackEdo> s/thread/threat
640 2012-05-17 14:40:53 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: cache is cleared once an hour, though....
641 2012-05-17 14:41:39 <gavinandresen> I was thinking of reports of "bitcoin has a memory leak" writing that code, though, not cosmic rays
642 2012-05-17 14:41:47 <gmaxwell> TuxBlackEdo: they don't have to be sophicated like a crazy compromise every computer attack either. They just have to catch some miners, gather them up on stage and shoot them in the head. (Or more realistically put them in prison). Don't hypothize weird technical attacks when boring things will do.
643 2012-05-17 14:41:48 PK_ has joined
644 2012-05-17 14:42:36 <TuxBlackEdo> gmaxwell, i am just thinking back to the sony trojan horse and how nobody even remembers that today
645 2012-05-17 14:42:48 <TD> gavinandresen: you could pre-allocate the cache at startup
646 2012-05-17 14:43:11 <TD> gavinandresen: that avoids the case where on very constrained the system the caches grows and makes the system start thrashing
647 2012-05-17 14:43:37 <TD> but is this the best way to solve it?
648 2012-05-17 14:43:46 <gavinandresen> TD: very memory-constrained systems might want to run with -maxsigcachesize=500
649 2012-05-17 14:43:52 <TD> can't you just check when validating a block of the tx was in the memory pool and if so, assume the signatures are valid?
650 2012-05-17 14:43:58 jgarzik has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
651 2012-05-17 14:45:36 <gavinandresen> The big advantage of doing it way down at the CKey::Verify level is I have more confidence it is always correct
652 2012-05-17 14:45:40 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: so the locking here will probably frustrate future multithreaded signature validation.
653 2012-05-17 14:46:14 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: ... then future multithreaded signature validation can modify to have a per-thread cache....
654 2012-05-17 14:47:11 <gavinandresen> and actually, the lock isn't held during the expensive ECDSA_verify bit
655 2012-05-17 14:47:30 jgarzik has joined
656 2012-05-17 14:47:35 jgarzik has quit (Changing host)
657 2012-05-17 14:47:35 jgarzik has joined
658 2012-05-17 14:48:23 <gavinandresen> TD: the miner advantages to caching at this low level is it works for transactions/blocks that you create yourself and put into your own mined blocks, works if you're getting hit with a lot of validatemessage requests, etc.
659 2012-05-17 14:48:32 <gavinandresen> ^miner^minor
660 2012-05-17 14:49:17 <TD> that's true
661 2012-05-17 14:49:57 <TuxBlackEdo> think about how easy it is for the US government to force verisign to close down '.com's, it would not be insane to think they couldn't also force a big company (adobe/steam) to release a mining program to the masses... call it government cyber warfare against bitcoin to protect a nation's currency
662 2012-05-17 14:51:05 <TuxBlackEdo> the great thing is that it wouldn't even need to run on people's computers forever, just enough to cause a couple retargets and then leave the network.
663 2012-05-17 14:51:47 <gavinandresen> Satoshi's suggested version and comments: https://gist.github.com/5a4fe622536d19264cba
664 2012-05-17 14:54:57 <TD> maybe comment what the std::pair<bool,bool> is (or use a real struct) in return type of GetSigCache
665 2012-05-17 14:55:43 <TD> i'm not sure about the hourly cache clearance
666 2012-05-17 14:56:16 <TD> what if a node starts to rely on the performance win of the cache. ie somebody pushes its resource allocation down to the observed resource usage ... after an hour the performance might suddenly drop and the node tips over the edge
667 2012-05-17 14:56:35 <TD> same for when it gets full
668 2012-05-17 14:56:49 <TD> i wonder what the overhead of an lru cache would be here
669 2012-05-17 14:57:10 * jgarzik would build a small history class, which contains a map & a time-sorted vector. new TX's are added to map and pushed into vector. old TX's are shifted out the back. somewhat like LRU, except more time-based.
670 2012-05-17 14:57:20 <jgarzik> TXs get into a block, then they can be removed too.
671 2012-05-17 14:57:49 <jgarzik> set the history size at X (either number of TXs, or amount of memory used). class automatically prunes older stuff.
672 2012-05-17 14:58:17 <TD> bbiab
673 2012-05-17 14:58:23 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
674 2012-05-17 14:59:25 <gavinandresen> RE: LRU class: I like going for the simplest possible thing that will work unti it is shown not to work.
675 2012-05-17 15:00:21 <gavinandresen> RE: clearing the cache once an hour: I'm not sure about that, either....
676 2012-05-17 15:00:57 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: the simplest would be a fixed side preallocated buffer which is circularly utilized and searched with a linear scan. But then is has a potentially unbounded lifetime.
677 2012-05-17 15:01:07 <gavinandresen> Also RE: history class: one of the purposes of a signature cache is to prevent possible DoS exploits that involve asking bitcoind to verify a bunch of signatures....
678 2012-05-17 15:01:41 <jgarzik> history class solves that problem. it's simply a cache that is bounded by time.
679 2012-05-17 15:01:51 <jgarzik> (or number of TXs, if you choose that bound)
680 2012-05-17 15:02:00 <gavinandresen> ... so I'd prefer to keep the cache policy unpredictable, so an attacker has to generate as many unique signatures as they're asking to verify. So they lose....
681 2012-05-17 15:02:54 <jgarzik> <shrug> pick your bound, byte size, number of TXs, time, whatever
682 2012-05-17 15:03:27 <jgarzik> 20MB works just as well as "2000 TXs" or "1 hour"
683 2012-05-17 15:03:35 <jgarzik> (though I think satoshi's 1 hour is quite short)
684 2012-05-17 15:04:35 <gmaxwell> "I switch between generating bad signatures which are cheap and flush your cache; and reusing real ones after the cache is flushed"
685 2012-05-17 15:04:54 DamascusVG has joined
686 2012-05-17 15:05:07 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: bad signatures trigger the DoS peer ban
687 2012-05-17 15:05:22 <gmaxwell> Right. duh, nevermind!
688 2012-05-17 15:06:01 <gavinandresen> is there a cheap way of generating insecure-but-valid ECDSA sigs?
689 2012-05-17 15:06:45 <gavinandresen> actually.... I think there is.
690 2012-05-17 15:09:47 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
691 2012-05-17 15:13:18 DamascusVG has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
692 2012-05-17 15:13:36 Davincij15 has quit ()
693 2012-05-17 15:17:55 Clipse has quit (Quit: Clipse)
694 2012-05-17 15:18:36 Clipse has joined
695 2012-05-17 15:22:49 davout has joined
696 2012-05-17 15:23:19 <davout> is it just me or is this : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82175 a massive bug ?
697 2012-05-17 15:24:03 <davout> basically, getbalance (apparently used by getinfo) and getbalance '*' 1 report (vastly) different amounts....
698 2012-05-17 15:24:44 <gmaxwell> sipa: dunno if you say the comment I left on #1315 but I'm seeing a high rate of forced pull from a small number of peers.
699 2012-05-17 15:26:40 davout_ has joined
700 2012-05-17 15:27:17 Diapolo has joined
701 2012-05-17 15:27:18 <davout> anyone ?
702 2012-05-17 15:27:35 <gmaxwell> davout: I can't make sense of whats being said there.
703 2012-05-17 15:27:48 <gmaxwell> Start with the first post.
704 2012-05-17 15:27:50 <davout> in the forum thread ?
705 2012-05-17 15:27:51 <Diapolo> hello everyone
706 2012-05-17 15:27:57 <gmaxwell> "The correct value should be the one that getbalance yields."
707 2012-05-17 15:28:05 <davout> ok
708 2012-05-17 15:28:08 <gmaxwell> there are two getbalance calls there.
709 2012-05-17 15:28:08 <gmaxwell> $ ./bitcoin getbalance '*' 0
710 2012-05-17 15:28:09 <gmaxwell> 1810.91340447
711 2012-05-17 15:28:09 <gmaxwell> $ ./bitcoin getbalance '*' 1
712 2012-05-17 15:28:11 <gmaxwell> 1776.64506472
713 2012-05-17 15:28:16 <davout> yeah
714 2012-05-17 15:28:16 <gmaxwell> Both look reasonable.
715 2012-05-17 15:28:19 <davout> the correct value
716 2012-05-17 15:28:48 <davout> that should appear when doing getinfo and getbalance (without additional args) should be equal to getbalance '*' 1
717 2012-05-17 15:29:01 <davout> (balance of all combined accounts with one conf minimum)
718 2012-05-17 15:29:06 <davout> right ?
719 2012-05-17 15:29:31 <davout> the problem is that it's absolutely not the value that getbalance reports when it's called without parameters
720 2012-05-17 15:29:43 <gmaxwell> It's more complicated than 'one conf minimum' due to the IsMine check.
721 2012-05-17 15:29:46 <davout> does it make better sense now ?
722 2012-05-17 15:30:24 <davout> yes, does that mean the behaviour is correct ? am i missing something ?
723 2012-05-17 15:30:28 * Eliel is quite curious why getbalance without arguments would report much smaller balance than with '*'
724 2012-05-17 15:30:54 <gmaxwell> I believe that '*' actually skips the ismine check. Though I'm a bit surprised to see it give a /larger/ number as a result.
725 2012-05-17 15:31:07 <davout> well, look at the last post
726 2012-05-17 15:31:19 <davout> calling getbalance '' 1 (default account)
727 2012-05-17 15:31:37 <davout> yields the value that i think is correct, (ie. not the one that getinfo reports)
728 2012-05-17 15:31:48 <davout> this is driving me nuts
729 2012-05-17 15:32:09 <davout> my database says the bitcoin client should have a much larger balance than what getinfo reports
730 2012-05-17 15:32:28 <gmaxwell> the getinfo result seems to have changed a large amount between posts.
731 2012-05-17 15:32:47 <davout> yeah, it's instawallet's wallet, there's lots of activity, that's why it changes fast
732 2012-05-17 15:33:30 <gmaxwell> In any case, I am not surprised to see them return different amounts. I am surprised that '*' is the bigger amount.
733 2012-05-17 15:34:10 <davout> according to what I've read, getbalance '*' 1 and getbalance should report strictly equal amounts
734 2012-05-17 15:34:18 <davout> also seems quite logical
735 2012-05-17 15:34:31 <gmaxwell> Well, I think what you read was wrong. There is a comment in the code that says that, and I'm pretty sure that it's wrong.
736 2012-05-17 15:34:50 <gmaxwell> (I make no comment on it being _logical_)
737 2012-05-17 15:35:14 <davout> agreed, logic and common sense are not always relevant
738 2012-05-17 15:35:17 <gmaxwell> the normal getbalance (no arguments) does a computationally expensive accounting for unconfirmed change.
739 2012-05-17 15:35:20 <davout> however, reading the help output
740 2012-05-17 15:35:25 <gmaxwell> The getbalance '*' does not.
741 2012-05-17 15:35:27 <davout> getbalance [account] [minconf=1]
742 2012-05-17 15:35:34 <davout> If [account] is not specified, returns the server's total available balance.
743 2012-05-17 15:36:34 <gmaxwell> davout: Yes, but say you have a single 10000 btc input. You spend 1 btc, producing a transaction with 9999 BTC in change to you and 1 BTC out. What should your balance be? The transaction is not yet confirmed.
744 2012-05-17 15:36:52 <gmaxwell> There isn't room in the margins of the help to explain all the vulgatities of whats going on behind the scenes.
745 2012-05-17 15:37:32 <davout> ok, so you're saying that the behaviour is normal ?
746 2012-05-17 15:37:52 <gmaxwell> no no, I can't explain your behavior. I'm saying it being somewhat weird is normal.
747 2012-05-17 15:38:12 <davout> oh yeah, I'm used at some bitcoin weirdness, definitely
748 2012-05-17 15:38:22 <gmaxwell> What I don't get is that my understanding would make getbalance '*' smaller because it doesn't do the recursive validation.
749 2012-05-17 15:38:25 <davout> believe me, I've been digging around this one for a couple of days now
750 2012-05-17 15:38:44 <davout> i'm simply saying that I'm reasonably sure that there's a nasty bug somewhere in getbalance
751 2012-05-17 15:39:03 <gmaxwell> E.g. In my hypothetical case I expect getbalance '*' to ruturn 0 and getbalance to return 9999.
752 2012-05-17 15:39:09 <davout> i see
753 2012-05-17 15:39:19 <davout> the information i have are basically the following
754 2012-05-17 15:39:24 <davout> * bitcoind
755 2012-05-17 15:39:51 <davout> * a mysql db of everything that goes in and out of the aforementioned bitcoind (modulo what i manually send to cold storage)
756 2012-05-17 15:40:05 <davout> mysql says that getbalance '*' 1 is correct
757 2012-05-17 15:40:26 <davout> (which for this matter equals getbalance '' 1 since i'm not using the accounts system at all)
758 2012-05-17 15:41:17 DamascusVG has joined
759 2012-05-17 15:41:33 <Eliel> sounds like it'd be worth figuring out which inputs are the "stuck" ones.
760 2012-05-17 15:42:50 <gmaxwell> getbalance '' 1 also does not do the IsMine() check.
761 2012-05-17 15:43:33 <davout> i created this wallet by importing a massive amount of private keys into it
762 2012-05-17 15:43:39 <davout> approx 150k
763 2012-05-17 15:43:43 <gmaxwell> davout: do users mine to some of these wallets?
764 2012-05-17 15:43:48 <davout> yes
765 2012-05-17 15:43:57 <davout> but that's ok it's handled at the app level
766 2012-05-17 15:44:04 <davout> i see your point
767 2012-05-17 15:44:15 wah_java has joined
768 2012-05-17 15:44:18 <gmaxwell> well the code for handling it looks somewhat wrong.
769 2012-05-17 15:44:22 <gavinandresen> davout: see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/172
770 2012-05-17 15:44:23 <davout> but the amount of mined funds in the wallet cannot account for the massive delta
771 2012-05-17 15:44:31 <gavinandresen> (may or may not be relevant)
772 2012-05-17 15:44:35 <davout> handling what ?
773 2012-05-17 15:44:44 wah_java has quit (Changing host)
774 2012-05-17 15:44:44 wah_java has joined
775 2012-05-17 15:44:44 <gavinandresen> davout: never mind, I see you already found that issue....
776 2012-05-17 15:44:53 <gmaxwell> davout: GetAccountBalance's handing of generated coin.
777 2012-05-17 15:44:57 wahjava has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
778 2012-05-17 15:44:58 <davout> haha yes, i already begged you :)
779 2012-05-17 15:45:44 wah_java is now known as wahjava
780 2012-05-17 15:45:53 welterde has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
781 2012-05-17 15:46:18 <davout> the big difference i'm seeing in reported balances cannot be accounted for solely by the fact that some generations might be immature
782 2012-05-17 15:46:27 <davout> (let me just confirm that with my DB)
783 2012-05-17 15:47:03 <davout> couldn't there be some sort of subtle bug with the IsMine() and imported private keys ?
784 2012-05-17 15:48:50 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
785 2012-05-17 15:48:54 <gmaxwell> Ah. I see how that might work.
786 2012-05-17 15:48:56 davout_ is now known as davout
787 2012-05-17 15:49:11 <davout> howso ?
788 2012-05-17 15:49:58 DamascusVG has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
789 2012-05-17 15:50:47 <Eliel> davout: can you identify the set of outputs that aren't being counted in the balance?
790 2012-05-17 15:50:53 <Eliel> is it stable?
791 2012-05-17 15:50:58 <gmaxwell> getbalance '*' doesn't do the IsMine() stuff in order to account for changeâ but it doesn't have to because it trusts the transaction entry's net-Received figures.
792 2012-05-17 15:51:00 <davout> Eliel: how can i do that ?
793 2012-05-17 15:51:25 <Eliel> davout: hmm... I guess it'd require patched bitcoind.
794 2012-05-17 15:51:32 Turingi has joined
795 2012-05-17 15:51:32 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
796 2012-05-17 15:51:32 Turingi has joined
797 2012-05-17 15:51:39 <davout> gmaxwell: i don't really see what you mean
798 2012-05-17 15:51:44 <davout> brb
799 2012-05-17 15:52:53 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
800 2012-05-17 15:58:09 welterde has joined
801 2012-05-17 16:04:35 <sipa> gmaxwell: rebroad's comment makes sense
802 2012-05-17 16:05:16 <gmaxwell> davout: my current best guess it that you have imported keys which had previous traffic on them.
803 2012-05-17 16:05:39 <gmaxwell> davout: and the change is not being accounted for by getbalance because your node can't tell that its change.
804 2012-05-17 16:06:09 <gmaxwell> or something of that ilk.
805 2012-05-17 16:06:24 <gmaxwell> (It's sort of hard without actually having such a wallet in front of me)
806 2012-05-17 16:08:01 <gmaxwell> sipa: for some reason my mental model of that commit had it also checking the inv size.
807 2012-05-17 16:11:21 Ragnarok752 has joined
808 2012-05-17 16:13:15 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
809 2012-05-17 16:14:40 Joric has joined
810 2012-05-17 16:14:44 drizztbsd has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
811 2012-05-17 16:15:02 DamascusVG has joined
812 2012-05-17 16:15:23 drizztbsd has joined
813 2012-05-17 16:15:23 drizztbsd has quit (Changing host)
814 2012-05-17 16:15:23 drizztbsd has joined
815 2012-05-17 16:19:45 davout_ has joined
816 2012-05-17 16:20:05 <jgarzik> inline void Sleep(int64 n) { boost::thread::sleep(boost::get_system_time() + boost::posix_time::milliseconds(n>315576000000LL?315576000000LL:n)); }
817 2012-05-17 16:20:09 <jgarzik> really?
818 2012-05-17 16:20:19 seco has joined
819 2012-05-17 16:20:21 <jgarzik> that's #ifdef !WIN32, too
820 2012-05-17 16:20:30 <jgarzik> what about.... #define Sleep sleep
821 2012-05-17 16:20:32 <jgarzik> sheesh
822 2012-05-17 16:20:40 agath has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
823 2012-05-17 16:20:41 <davout_> gmaxwell: that's what happened
824 2012-05-17 16:21:01 agath has joined
825 2012-05-17 16:21:29 <jgarzik> 05/17/12 16:12:25 Flushed 11702 addresses to peers.dat 70ms
826 2012-05-17 16:21:29 <jgarzik> 05/17/12 16:14:05 Flushed 11704 addresses to peers.dat 86ms
827 2012-05-17 16:21:30 <jgarzik> 05/17/12 16:15:45 Flushed 11708 addresses to peers.dat 84ms
828 2012-05-17 16:21:30 <jgarzik> 05/17/12 16:17:25 Flushed 11708 addresses to peers.dat 86ms
829 2012-05-17 16:21:48 <jgarzik> sipa: ^^ DumpAddresses() seems to be called rather frequently
830 2012-05-17 16:21:52 <davout_> but the change is probably not the explanation since i exported all the keys, imported them in the destination client, and finally made a transaction from the old client spending everything to a new address generated on the new client
831 2012-05-17 16:22:13 davout has left ()
832 2012-05-17 16:22:29 <jgarzik> sipa: more frequently than Sleep(100000) might suggest
833 2012-05-17 16:22:29 davout_ is now known as davout
834 2012-05-17 16:22:29 davout has quit (Changing host)
835 2012-05-17 16:22:29 davout has joined
836 2012-05-17 16:23:02 <Diapolo> jgarzik: I added 2 comments here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/768e5d52fb295b000940f6a806c3d4bfc3e4f54d
837 2012-05-17 16:23:19 <davout> and even if I was missing the change TXes I don't see how that could lead to different reported balances for getbalance and getbalance '*' 1
838 2012-05-17 16:24:26 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
839 2012-05-17 16:25:09 <sipa> jgarzik: every 100s
840 2012-05-17 16:25:30 <sipa> i guess every 300s is fine as well
841 2012-05-17 16:26:20 <jgarzik> sipa: is Sleep() measured in milliseconds or something? hmmmm
842 2012-05-17 16:26:59 <jgarzik> bleh, what an annoying unit usage
843 2012-05-17 16:27:11 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: roques opened pull request 1331 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1331>
844 2012-05-17 16:27:12 <Diapolo> jgarzik: will you add code to remove the old addr.dat? Seems it stays in the datadir currently.
845 2012-05-17 16:27:46 <jgarzik> sipa: DumpAddresses() writes > 1MB at each call, both before and after my patch
846 2012-05-17 16:28:03 <jgarzik> Diapolo: so... can you be talked into making a pull req that fixes win32? :)
847 2012-05-17 16:28:34 <Diapolo> sure that are things I'm able to do :) no crazy protocol stuff ^^
848 2012-05-17 16:29:16 talpan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
849 2012-05-17 16:31:12 <davout> anyone have an idea why bitcoind reports vastly different balances when i use getbalance and getbalance '*' 1 ?
850 2012-05-17 16:31:14 twmz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
851 2012-05-17 16:31:44 Cory has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
852 2012-05-17 16:33:20 <sipa> jgarzik: or keep a counter of modified addrman records
853 2012-05-17 16:33:33 <seco> lurking around the blockchain i wonder if that guy owning this address runs a bitcoin-qt with only one receiving address in the wallet, or tries to spam somehow the chain: http://blockchain.info/address/1VayNert3x1KzbpzMGt2qdqrAThiRovi8
854 2012-05-17 16:33:48 <sipa> seco: deepbit
855 2012-05-17 16:34:30 <seco> meh; is there a wikipage of known cases how blockchain got spammed in the past, and probably listnings of punishments or something like that?
856 2012-05-17 16:34:45 <sipa> davout: there is a difference between those; a very early github issue even
857 2012-05-17 16:34:57 <sipa> but i can't remember exactly
858 2012-05-17 16:35:28 <davout> sipa: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/172
859 2012-05-17 16:35:31 <jgarzik> sipa: good idea
860 2012-05-17 16:35:45 <jgarzik> Diapolo: thanks!
861 2012-05-17 16:35:56 * seco finds behavior of some network-participants just bad
862 2012-05-17 16:36:01 <davout> sipa: i'm encountering an issue that looks like this on instawallet's wallet
863 2012-05-17 16:36:13 <Diapolo> jgarzik: you're welcome
864 2012-05-17 16:36:48 <davout> the balance reported by getinfo/getbalance differs greatly from the one reported if i do getbalance '*' 1
865 2012-05-17 16:37:15 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Diapolo opened pull request 1332 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1332>
866 2012-05-17 16:37:26 <davout> if i do a listaccounts the reported balance for account '' matches what i have in the associated DB
867 2012-05-17 16:37:43 <davout> but the balance reported by getinfo is like 1000 BTC off
868 2012-05-17 16:38:05 * jgarzik has been thinking about sites that must manage a large number of keys, like instawallet
869 2012-05-17 16:38:38 agricocb has joined
870 2012-05-17 16:38:41 <gavinandresen> I was hoping one of those large-number-of-keys sites would invest in some engineering effort and submit patches ....
871 2012-05-17 16:38:46 <jgarzik> it becomes cumbersome to scan each new block for transactions associated with keys in wallet X
872 2012-05-17 16:38:49 <davout> haha
873 2012-05-17 16:38:56 <jgarzik> so I like the concept of "hot and cold keys"
874 2012-05-17 16:39:22 <davout> yea, my plan is to make instawallet evolve into a site where private keys are inferred from the URL
875 2012-05-17 16:39:39 <davout> so virtually any instawallet URL is a valid wallet
876 2012-05-17 16:39:43 <jgarzik> scan for activity on cold keys once every X blocks (144?), rather than once every block or TX via the map in RAM
877 2012-05-17 16:40:04 <davout> jgarzik: what are you calling "cold keys" exactly ?
878 2012-05-17 16:40:35 <Eliel> I'd guess addresses unlikely to receive coins.
879 2012-05-17 16:40:37 <jgarzik> davout: a site-defined policy, e.g. "a key that was generated > 24 hours ago, and has not seen any activity in 24 hours"
880 2012-05-17 16:41:01 <jgarzik> if you generate new address for each transaction, you wind up with a -ton- of addresses that are unlikely to be used again
881 2012-05-17 16:41:14 <jgarzik> those are cold keys, after their primary website use is done
882 2012-05-17 16:41:23 <davout> yea, that's more of a pruning/archiving issue i reckon
883 2012-05-17 16:41:26 <jgarzik> yes
884 2012-05-17 16:41:33 <davout> i really like the create a key from the URL
885 2012-05-17 16:41:35 <jgarzik> right now the bitcoin client does not prune etc.
886 2012-05-17 16:41:45 <davout> therefore there's just no limit on the number of wallets
887 2012-05-17 16:41:52 <davout> when a client connects on a wallet URL
888 2012-05-17 16:42:12 <jgarzik> larger sites IMO should be using a key-server
889 2012-05-17 16:42:15 <davout> the backend computes the address, shows the related balance, and monitors for incoming TXes while the client is online
890 2012-05-17 16:42:17 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: rebroad opened pull request 1333 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1333>
891 2012-05-17 16:42:39 <jgarzik> something that does nothing but generate keys: (a) retrieves a public key for use on a website, (b) sends associated private key into secure storage
892 2012-05-17 16:42:51 <jgarzik> that way the website may generate new addresses, but never touches private keys
893 2012-05-17 16:43:02 <jgarzik> sipa's HD stuff does similar things
894 2012-05-17 16:43:28 <jgarzik> I really should write up a mailing list post about large sites and bitcoin key management
895 2012-05-17 16:44:14 <davout> i couldn't agree more
896 2012-05-17 16:44:16 <jgarzik> bitcoin architecture does permit secure separation between money-handling website and wallet/blockchain backend.
897 2012-05-17 16:44:22 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
898 2012-05-17 16:44:34 <davout> it would relieve me of a lot of stress :)
899 2012-05-17 16:44:37 <jgarzik> you don't _have_ to store private keys in bitcoind at all, to run a secure site that generates new payment addresses
900 2012-05-17 16:44:48 Cory has joined
901 2012-05-17 16:44:48 <davout> yep
902 2012-05-17 16:45:25 <davout> i still have my reported-balances-are-completely-fucked-up problem
903 2012-05-17 16:45:40 <jgarzik> for larger sites, bitcoind must become what BlueMatt's CBlockStore does internally: essentially create a blockchain server, and handle key management and payment management externally.
904 2012-05-17 16:46:26 <davout> yea, but that must also fit in a good procedure framework when multiple people are supposed to be able initiate payments
905 2012-05-17 16:46:32 <jgarzik> bitcoind need only (a) watch for public key activity and (b) accept raw transactions from external source
906 2012-05-17 16:46:48 <jgarzik> then the site's database software can generate payments, using secure access to private keys
907 2012-05-17 16:46:59 <jgarzik> no single wallet to get hacked and stolen
908 2012-05-17 16:47:21 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: rebroad reopened pull request 1305 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1305>
909 2012-05-17 16:47:47 <davout> if anyone feels like solving a riddle : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82175.0
910 2012-05-17 16:49:55 <Diapolo> jgarzik: What about adding a boost remove in CAddrDB::CAddrDB() for the old addr.dat, maybe with if (exists)?
911 2012-05-17 16:51:04 <jgarzik> Diapolo: my only worry there is downgrading. I don't see a burning need to delete it... might come in handy if you back down to an older version
912 2012-05-17 16:51:45 danbri_ has joined
913 2012-05-17 16:52:04 <jgarzik> sipa: yeah we could DumpAddresses() every 300 seconds... gmaxwell had suggested something on the order of several hours instead
914 2012-05-17 16:52:10 <Diapolo> jgarzik: That should be no problem, when that one is missing, a new addr.dat will be created, right?
915 2012-05-17 16:52:20 <jgarzik> sipa: which makes a certain amount of sense
916 2012-05-17 16:52:40 <jgarzik> Diapolo: yes
917 2012-05-17 16:53:17 <jgarzik> Diapolo: over time, fewer people will even know addr.dat existed. the less code in current bitcoin spend dealing with old-bitcoin formats, the better.
918 2012-05-17 16:53:45 <jgarzik> time is the best janitor
919 2012-05-17 16:53:51 <jgarzik> or entropy
920 2012-05-17 16:57:29 <gavinandresen> I vote for leaving the old addr.dat, and telling people who notice/care they can delete it.
921 2012-05-17 16:57:52 <jgarzik> yep
922 2012-05-17 16:57:59 <gavinandresen> the percentage of people affected will become smaller and smaller over time, assuming bitcoin is successful.
923 2012-05-17 16:58:05 <gavinandresen> if bitcoin is not successful, then I don't care.
924 2012-05-17 16:58:40 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
925 2012-05-17 16:58:49 ovidiusoft has joined
926 2012-05-17 17:00:41 MobiusL has joined
927 2012-05-17 17:04:56 setkeh is now known as SETKEHS-CAT
928 2012-05-17 17:12:44 <davout> can anyone point me a direction to diagnose why my bitcoind is reporting vastly different balances depending on whether i query it with "getbalance" and "getbalance '*' 1" ?
929 2012-05-17 17:14:03 <forrestv> davout, perhaps you have orphaned transactions?
930 2012-05-17 17:14:40 <forrestv> i'm not actually sure about the semantics.. but one may include orphaned transactions and the other might not?
931 2012-05-17 17:15:08 _Fireball has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
932 2012-05-17 17:16:07 <davout> no, i don't have orphans
933 2012-05-17 17:16:36 <davout> i did 'listtransactions '*' 100000000'
934 2012-05-17 17:16:49 <davout> grepping 0-conf transactions
935 2012-05-17 17:20:55 * Eliel suggests hacking the code to printf the outputs it's counting while it does so.
936 2012-05-17 17:21:20 Guest30328 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
937 2012-05-17 17:21:21 <Eliel> perhaps not a good idea to run that on the production server though. A copy of the wallet would probably do fine on another system.
938 2012-05-17 17:22:12 <Eliel> you kind of need to know the outputs that are making the difference for any meaningful debug :)
939 2012-05-17 17:22:19 <davout> so i'd printf outs
940 2012-05-17 17:22:31 <davout> into a couple of files
941 2012-05-17 17:22:35 <davout> and diff them out
942 2012-05-17 17:22:41 <Eliel> pretty much
943 2012-05-17 17:22:43 <davout> sounds like a plan
944 2012-05-17 17:22:46 <gavinandresen> yes, do what Eliel says.
945 2012-05-17 17:23:17 <davout> wouldn't that be a little impractical with IW's wallet ? (like +150k keys)
946 2012-05-17 17:23:29 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
947 2012-05-17 17:23:35 <gavinandresen> yes, you'll notice I didn't volunteer to help you figure out what's going on....
948 2012-05-17 17:24:19 <Eliel> well, I suppose you could also try subsets of that wallet to see which addresses are the problem addresses :)
949 2012-05-17 17:24:21 <davout> gavinandresen: hah, i did notice, but i can't really expect anyone to solve *my* problems, can i
950 2012-05-17 17:24:40 <davout> no it's cool i'll do the outputs printf thing
951 2012-05-17 17:24:43 <Eliel> that doesn't require code changes :)
952 2012-05-17 17:24:52 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: That Sleep hack is my misdeedâ unfortunately boost's sleep doesn't if the sleep spans 2038, which was causing wallet unlocks with far future times to lock again instantly.
953 2012-05-17 17:25:27 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I could have avoided it purely in the unlock code, but I was concerned that other callers of Sleep (now or in the future) would blow up in similar ways.
954 2012-05-17 17:25:27 <davout> thanks gavinandresen and Eliel for the pro-tips ! much appreciated :D
955 2012-05-17 17:25:38 <gavinandresen> davout: the problem probably has something to do with 'change' addresses
956 2012-05-17 17:26:05 <gavinandresen> ... so while you're dumping data you probably want to dump whether or not bitcoin considers each output 'change' or not.
957 2012-05-17 17:26:19 <gmaxwell> (and the fact that Sleep takes ms unlike sleep(3) is certantly not my bad. :) )
958 2012-05-17 17:26:32 <gavinandresen> Sending coins to change addresses might cause confusion, too (wouldn't be surprised if instawallet users used services that did that)
959 2012-05-17 17:26:47 <Eliel> gavinandresen: is there a built in function to print debug data of outputs?
960 2012-05-17 17:27:10 <gavinandresen> Eliel: I don't think so
961 2012-05-17 17:27:27 <davout> i'll try to hack something out
962 2012-05-17 17:28:07 <davout> i might ask if you can take a quick look at my patch in a couple of hours if you're still around to see if i'm actually printfing the right stuff
963 2012-05-17 17:28:24 <gmaxwell> davout: I'd dump all the data each of the functions uses to make a determination, then walk through the steps in each function while looking at the data until I spot the difference. Failing that I'd remove addresses one at a time from the wallet until they agree.
964 2012-05-17 17:28:35 agricocb has joined
965 2012-05-17 17:29:05 <gmaxwell> Once identifying the last address removed that makes them differ I'd look at all its transactions and see whats special about it. (or if there are many, I'd start removing the transactions)
966 2012-05-17 17:29:18 <Diapolo> jgarzik: okay :)
967 2012-05-17 17:29:50 <davout> they're like over 150k txes and addresses in this wallet, i think i can only go for an automated approach
968 2012-05-17 17:30:00 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: that Sleep() is ifdef unix
969 2012-05-17 17:30:05 <davout> like dumping summed outs and diffing
970 2012-05-17 17:30:10 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: just call sleep()
971 2012-05-17 17:30:18 <davout> i assume that's how it works
972 2012-05-17 17:30:26 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: we have a lot of subsecond sleeps through the code.
973 2012-05-17 17:30:33 <davout> getbalance will sum spendable outs, right ?
974 2012-05-17 17:30:44 <gmaxwell> (e.g. a lot of the network code had 100ms / 500 ms sleeps IIRC)
975 2012-05-17 17:30:55 <gmaxwell> But doh on the ifdef unix.
976 2012-05-17 17:32:11 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: sure we can use nanosleep then
977 2012-05-17 17:32:20 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: but as well, most of those sub-second sleeps are bogus
978 2012-05-17 17:32:32 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: the network code is riddled with silly pauses
979 2012-05-17 17:33:01 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: in one loop, we do nothing but sleep for 0.5 seconds, then check fShutdown
980 2012-05-17 17:34:28 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: Agreed. We often have threads that sit around doing nothing but that.
981 2012-05-17 17:35:04 <gavinandresen> I would very much like to see a refactor to use boost::thread and doing proper interruption/join....
982 2012-05-17 17:35:49 <sipa> gavinandresen: ack
983 2012-05-17 17:36:05 <Diapolo> sounds good :)
984 2012-05-17 17:36:58 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: hopefully it actually works.
985 2012-05-17 17:37:05 * gmaxwell isn't a fan of all these boost bugs!
986 2012-05-17 17:37:13 <sipa> that boost::sleep(now + boost::milliseconds(x))... i think that does 2 pointless calls to gettimeofday or similars
987 2012-05-17 17:37:56 <gmaxwell> yea, ever looked at a strace of bitcoin? we're doing an ungodly number of gettimeofdays.
988 2012-05-17 17:38:23 <gmaxwell> Last time I did it it was hard to see any other syscalls. They scrolled off too fast.
989 2012-05-17 17:38:25 <sipa> jgarzik: i suppose writing addrman data once per hour wouldn't hurt either (though maybe do an extra dump dns seeding, or after the gets getaddr return)
990 2012-05-17 17:38:27 SphericalCow has joined
991 2012-05-17 17:38:30 <gavinandresen> we could create a cache and only call gettimeofday if more than N microseconds have ... oh, wait....
992 2012-05-17 17:38:40 <sipa> gavinandresen: lol
993 2012-05-17 17:38:43 <gmaxwell> hahah
994 2012-05-17 17:38:48 <gmaxwell> use the TSC! (ugh)
995 2012-05-17 17:38:49 <gavinandresen> :)
996 2012-05-17 17:39:19 <sipa> gavinandresen: w00t for non-portable code
997 2012-05-17 17:39:32 <Diapolo> Is anyone running an IPv6 node I could try a connect with?
998 2012-05-17 17:40:08 <gmaxwell> sipa: making addrman only run once per hour just has the downside of a little risk of forgetting some of work you did finding good peers when.
999 2012-05-17 17:40:33 <sipa> gmaxwell: what about doing it at every connect?
1000 2012-05-17 17:41:12 <gmaxwell> sipa: what about every successful addition of the node to the good pool so long as it's at least been a minute?
1001 2012-05-17 17:41:32 * gmaxwell fights the overdesign urge and loses
1002 2012-05-17 17:42:01 <sipa> gmaxwell: that will make it write it close to once every minute
1003 2012-05-17 17:42:57 <gavinandresen> I'd vote for writing it once a day or at clean shutdown.
1004 2012-05-17 17:43:25 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: replace that or with and.
1005 2012-05-17 17:43:44 <sipa> gavinandresen is using a mathematical 'or', i think
1006 2012-05-17 17:43:49 <gavinandresen> right, and. Even better if you can write it just before clean shutdown :)
1007 2012-05-17 17:44:01 toffoo has joined
1008 2012-05-17 17:44:04 <sipa> though that will slow down shutdown
1009 2012-05-17 17:44:12 <gavinandresen> how slow is the write?
1010 2012-05-17 17:44:16 <sipa> 50ms
1011 2012-05-17 17:44:22 <gavinandresen> meh.
1012 2012-05-17 17:44:24 <sipa> ;)
1013 2012-05-17 17:44:24 <gmaxwell> 'meh'
1014 2012-05-17 17:45:32 <sipa> i'd say once every 500 updated records, once per day, and at shutdown
1015 2012-05-17 17:45:45 <gmaxwell> I don't like adding more work to shutdown. https://lwn.net/Articles/191059/
1016 2012-05-17 17:46:40 <gmaxwell> Since we have to survive crashes anyways, there is an argument that you should just handle shutdowns by crashing. (BDB makes this less attractive for us, so I don't think we should actually do itâ but the argument has merit and should influence our decisions)
1017 2012-05-17 17:47:25 <sipa> since jgarzik's peers.dat, it shouldn't every get corrupted, and even if it does, it won't bother the user
1018 2012-05-17 17:47:37 <gmaxwell> (the usenix paper linked from there is interesting as I recall)
1019 2012-05-17 17:49:14 sgornick has joined
1020 2012-05-17 17:49:16 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1021 2012-05-17 17:54:49 <sipa> gmaxwell: interesting... crash + recover being faster than shutdown/restart
1022 2012-05-17 17:56:19 <seco> make crash the new shutdown xD xD
1023 2012-05-17 17:56:51 <sipa> where are the DOS days when you could just shut down the computer by pulling the power cable?
1024 2012-05-17 17:57:32 <gmaxwell> sipa: not only that, it means your recovery code actually gets tested.
1025 2012-05-17 17:57:37 <sipa> indeed
1026 2012-05-17 17:57:56 <sipa> it would result in a very stable system, if you can pull it off
1027 2012-05-17 17:57:58 barmstrong has joined
1028 2012-05-17 17:58:46 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: rebroad opened pull request 1334 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1334>
1029 2012-05-17 17:59:24 <gmaxwell> I don't have any hope of doing that in bitcoin due to bdbâ but perhaps if we manage a process split between wallets and the blockchain the wallet side could be crash-only. ... though we'd probably still use bdb there for transaction tracking.
1030 2012-05-17 18:00:38 barmstro_ has joined
1031 2012-05-17 18:00:57 Diapolo has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1032 2012-05-17 18:01:04 <gmaxwell> wumpus: I'm guessing you're not around now? I want to nitpick the out of sync message.
1033 2012-05-17 18:01:30 <gmaxwell> "The displayed information reflects an older state. To get more recent information, the local block chain needs to be synced with the network. This process starts automatically after a network connection is established." is what diapolo has from your suggestion.
1034 2012-05-17 18:01:45 barmstrong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1035 2012-05-17 18:02:18 <gmaxwell> I prefer ""The displayed information may be out of date. Your wallet automatically synchronizes with the Bitcoin network after a connection is established, but this process has not completed yet.", avoiding 'state', 'block chain' and the action phrase 'to get more'. Thoughts? This is all bikeshedding.
1036 2012-05-17 18:10:32 <wumpus> gmaxwell: yes, I also think that's better
1037 2012-05-17 18:10:53 <wumpus> especially avoiding the "block chain" is nice
1038 2012-05-17 18:10:54 danbri_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1039 2012-05-17 18:11:44 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1040 2012-05-17 18:12:01 pecket has joined
1041 2012-05-17 18:13:27 torsthaldo_ has quit (Excess Flood)
1042 2012-05-17 18:13:39 brocktice has joined
1043 2012-05-17 18:13:54 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: rebroad opened pull request 1335 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1335>
1044 2012-05-17 18:14:19 <Eliel> gmaxwell: I'd disagree about that being bikeshedding. It's important to leave unnecessary complexity out of user interfaces.
1045 2012-05-17 18:15:20 osmosis has joined
1046 2012-05-17 18:15:39 torsthaldo has joined
1047 2012-05-17 18:16:13 <wumpus> it's only bikeshedding if it results in long discussions
1048 2012-05-17 18:17:21 <sipa> i personally would try to avoid discussions about whether it is bikeshedding or not
1049 2012-05-17 18:17:26 <Eliel> :D
1050 2012-05-17 18:17:45 <sipa> because metabikeshedding is the ultimate form of it
1051 2012-05-17 18:18:12 <wumpus> hah, metametabikeshedding
1052 2012-05-17 18:20:40 Joric has quit ()
1053 2012-05-17 18:21:33 MC1984 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1054 2012-05-17 18:23:35 Snapman[afkers] is now known as Snapman
1055 2012-05-17 18:24:09 eian has joined
1056 2012-05-17 18:25:30 <eian> I'm connected to 2000 nodes and only half of them are relaying transactions - does this sound right?
1057 2012-05-17 18:27:00 O2made has joined
1058 2012-05-17 18:27:13 <sipa> some may be SPV nodes?
1059 2012-05-17 18:28:04 <eian> I'll need to look into this
1060 2012-05-17 18:28:14 <gavinandresen> I run my nodes with a lower-than-default limitfreerelay
1061 2012-05-17 18:28:42 <gavinandresen> eian: how are you determining whether or not they're relaying transactions?
1062 2012-05-17 18:28:58 <sipa> and why are you connected to 2000 nodes?
1063 2012-05-17 18:29:19 <eian> gavin, I'm storing everything they are sending into a sql database
1064 2012-05-17 18:29:20 <Diablo-D3> heh
1065 2012-05-17 18:29:26 <Diablo-D3> if I could run bitcoin on alpine
1066 2012-05-17 18:29:32 <Diablo-D3> I'd be connected to over 2000 nodes
1067 2012-05-17 18:29:45 <eian> diable, what is alpine?
1068 2012-05-17 18:29:50 <eian> diablo*
1069 2012-05-17 18:29:53 <Diablo-D3> a linux distro
1070 2012-05-17 18:30:31 <gavinandresen> if we get many more people doing the "connect to everybody" then we might need to do something about it....
1071 2012-05-17 18:30:51 <Diablo-D3> gavinandresen: I was going to do it legitimately to provide a p2pool supernode :<
1072 2012-05-17 18:31:05 <eian> gavin, I'm doing research to see if there is collusion on the network
1073 2012-05-17 18:31:27 <eian> part of my masters thesis
1074 2012-05-17 18:31:29 <sipa> eian: the non-relaying nodes, did they connect to you, or did you connect to them?
1075 2012-05-17 18:31:31 <gavinandresen> eian: excellent.
1076 2012-05-17 18:31:34 <eian> I connected to them
1077 2012-05-17 18:32:02 <sipa> hmm, then they can't be SPV
1078 2012-05-17 18:32:35 <eian> I'll have better data available in the next few weeks - the issues I'm seeing may be in my software
1079 2012-05-17 18:34:25 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1080 2012-05-17 18:36:41 b4epoche has joined
1081 2012-05-17 18:37:02 <jgarzik> <gmaxwell> [...] perhaps if we manage a process split between wallets and the blockchain [...]
1082 2012-05-17 18:37:06 <jgarzik> funny, I was just thinking that
1083 2012-05-17 18:37:21 <jgarzik> thinking more about BlueMatt's CBlockStore (besides the awful, misleading name)
1084 2012-05-17 18:37:59 <jgarzik> why not follow BlueMatt's lead on message dispatch... and create a hard [yet internal, initially] separation of "one or more wallet servers" and "blockchain server"
1085 2012-05-17 18:38:31 <sipa> jgarzik: that's the plan
1086 2012-05-17 18:38:32 <jgarzik> and communicate via RPC message (i.e. as it is initially internal only, the RPCs would be simple message classes passed back and forth via memory
1087 2012-05-17 18:38:52 <jgarzik> CBlockStore does not really have a messaging concept
1088 2012-05-17 18:39:09 <sipa> jgarzik: have you looked at the implementation?
1089 2012-05-17 18:39:22 <jgarzik> async signals (interrupts) systems wind up creating a huge interrupt table (ie. CBlockStore's signals stuff)
1090 2012-05-17 18:39:40 <jgarzik> sipa: yes, interrupt hooks, basically -- not RPC messaging
1091 2012-05-17 18:40:41 <sipa> jgarzik: anyway, at least in broad outline that was the plan; it was originally called CHub, as it would be a hub that managed the communication between blockchain, wallets and network
1092 2012-05-17 18:41:00 <jgarzik> if you create 10 wallet servers, each would create an internal RPC_Connection object (analagous to a TCP connection) to the blockchain server
1093 2012-05-17 18:41:26 <sipa> exactly
1094 2012-05-17 18:41:54 <wumpus> well if you have interrupt hooks, and peddle around information in calls instead of directly digging in data structures, it's pretty easy step to rpc
1095 2012-05-17 18:42:15 MC1984 has joined
1096 2012-05-17 18:42:29 <sipa> jgarzik: is your complaint the fact that there are separate signals for each message, instead of one listener for a catch-all message?
1097 2012-05-17 18:43:53 <sipa> (apart from the fact that for now blockstore is also managing the blockstore)
1098 2012-05-17 18:44:08 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1099 2012-05-17 18:44:17 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: laanwj opened pull request 1336 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1336>
1100 2012-05-17 18:45:22 danbri has joined
1101 2012-05-17 18:45:40 <jgarzik> sipa: it tries to do way too much
1102 2012-05-17 18:45:43 <jgarzik> + std::queue<CBlock*> queueCommitBlockCallbacks;
1103 2012-05-17 18:45:43 <jgarzik> + std::queue<std::pair<uint256, uint256> > queueAskForBlocksCallbacks;
1104 2012-05-17 18:45:43 <jgarzik> + std::queue<uint256> queueRelayedCallbacks;
1105 2012-05-17 18:45:43 <jgarzik> + std::queue<CTransaction*> queueCommitTransactionToMemoryPoolCallbacks;
1106 2012-05-17 18:45:43 <jgarzik> + std::queue<uint256> queueTransactionReplacedCallbacks;
1107 2012-05-17 18:45:56 <sipa> huh?
1108 2012-05-17 18:46:12 <wumpus> that's a lot of queues
1109 2012-05-17 18:46:49 <jgarzik> it's not just a lot of queues, it's an example of lumping a large amount of vaguely related activity into a single message dispatcher class
1110 2012-05-17 18:47:10 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1111 2012-05-17 18:47:24 <sipa> where do you see that code?
1112 2012-05-17 18:47:25 <jgarzik> RPC systems do not normally encode _every_ detail about _every_ message into a single class
1113 2012-05-17 18:47:39 <sipa> i replaced that a long time ago by one queue
1114 2012-05-17 18:47:39 <jgarzik> sipa: 6bb36f2343ef5c00666520d3ae84eabf0204f28b
1115 2012-05-17 18:48:32 <sipa> what branch/repository is that in?
1116 2012-05-17 18:50:37 <sipa> since my rewrite it's just std::queue<CBlockStoreCallback*> queueCallbacks;
1117 2012-05-17 18:53:01 <wumpus> btw, talking about async notifications, can someone comment on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1205 ?
1118 2012-05-17 18:53:33 <sipa> wumpus: hmm, i thought i already tested and ACKed it, actually
1119 2012-05-17 18:54:18 <wumpus> nope... only diapolo replied on it afaik
1120 2012-05-17 18:54:51 danbri has joined
1121 2012-05-17 18:55:54 <wumpus> though it could be github lost it, wouldn't been the first time
1122 2012-05-17 18:59:56 _Fireball has joined
1123 2012-05-17 19:00:55 <sipa> wumpus: i remember the wallet and keystore-specific signals used to be in ui_interface as well?
1124 2012-05-17 19:01:06 <sipa> it's better now
1125 2012-05-17 19:01:09 <jgarzik> sipa: I was looking at the commits in BlueMatt's pull req #771
1126 2012-05-17 19:01:13 <wumpus> yes
1127 2012-05-17 19:01:38 <sipa> jgarzik: i'm sure the old code is still there, but look at the result :)
1128 2012-05-17 19:01:54 <wumpus> first I simply converted the ui_interface functions to signals, after that, I realized it's better to put them on the object that emits them
1129 2012-05-17 19:02:04 <jgarzik> sipa: in general, callbacks are a huge mess, because callbacks break the wall-of-separation between (say) wallet server's thread and blockchain server's thread
1130 2012-05-17 19:02:46 <sipa> jgarzik: the callbacks are done from blockstore's thread
1131 2012-05-17 19:02:55 <wumpus> yeah, I'm happy I can use qt for interthread message passing
1132 2012-05-17 19:03:07 <jgarzik> sipa: yes... TO which thread?
1133 2012-05-17 19:03:35 <sipa> threads and objects are separate
1134 2012-05-17 19:03:42 <sipa> there is no thread per object
1135 2012-05-17 19:04:09 Zarutian has joined
1136 2012-05-17 19:04:09 <sipa> you just don't want the callback to wallet to happen inside a call that started in block processing
1137 2012-05-17 19:04:20 <sipa> because that flips the order in which locks are acquired
1138 2012-05-17 19:04:30 <sipa> (and results in deadlocks)
1139 2012-05-17 19:04:43 <jgarzik> sipa: you don't want the blockchain server calling a callback, whose callback implementation is wallet code that normally runs in a wallet thread
1140 2012-05-17 19:05:20 <jgarzik> sipa: take a look at RDMA design. set up mailboxes, and do message passing like that
1141 2012-05-17 19:05:38 <sipa> the wallet has no special thread, but its code normally runs from UI or RPC thread
1142 2012-05-17 19:05:54 <sipa> and it can also receive signals from the dispatcher thread
1143 2012-05-17 19:05:55 <jgarzik> sipa: that's beside the point
1144 2012-05-17 19:06:03 <sipa> that's all what happens
1145 2012-05-17 19:06:18 <jgarzik> sipa: callback systems create a mess for threads, especially if you are trying to separate for security
1146 2012-05-17 19:06:58 <sipa> before blockstore, callbacks happened directly and ad-hoc from block processing to wallet
1147 2012-05-17 19:07:04 <sipa> THAT is a problem for threading
1148 2012-05-17 19:07:29 <jgarzik> sipa: nothing I said is an argument for avoiding all change ;-)
1149 2012-05-17 19:07:42 <jgarzik> sipa: obviously the current system wants updating
1150 2012-05-17 19:07:43 <sipa> well, do a better suggestion
1151 2012-05-17 19:08:01 <wumpus> right, the callbacks don't change the distribution of work over threads, it just formalizes/decouples it a bit.. going to full message passing would be even nicer but is a big step
1152 2012-05-17 19:08:04 <jgarzik> sipa: c.f. RDMA design. I'd be happy to code it.
1153 2012-05-17 19:08:15 <jgarzik> that's what we need -- full message passing
1154 2012-05-17 19:08:52 <jgarzik> otherwise the boundaries will continue to be violated as they are today
1155 2012-05-17 19:08:54 <sipa> my only complaint about blockstore right now is that it still does block processing, instead of having the block processing be a signal listener
1156 2012-05-17 19:09:20 <sipa> but that's just one step further (and changing cblockstore's name, as it is not storing any blocks)
1157 2012-05-17 19:10:30 <sipa> but in essence, blockstore is a queue of callbacks, that are handled one by one, and other threads can safely and without risk for deadlocks put messages on the queue
1158 2012-05-17 19:11:04 lianj has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1159 2012-05-17 19:11:14 <wumpus> aren't there any frameworks that could be used to make it easier? does boost have a message passing library? at least not having to hand-roll everything would be a win
1160 2012-05-17 19:11:16 <jgarzik> sipa: you need multiple message queues ("mailboxes" in RDMA parlance), one for blockchain server, one for each wallet server, ...
1161 2012-05-17 19:11:32 lianj has joined
1162 2012-05-17 19:11:39 <sipa> jgarzik: this has nothing to do with communication between wallet and UI/RPC
1163 2012-05-17 19:12:07 <sipa> if you want a messaging system that is general enough that it can help implementing both layers, please
1164 2012-05-17 19:12:17 <wumpus> or we could just switch to erlang :p
1165 2012-05-17 19:12:39 <sipa> and blockstore (the communication between block db, wallets and network) would, imho, then just be a specialization of that
1166 2012-05-17 19:13:40 <sipa> wumpus: haha
1167 2012-05-17 19:15:02 <jgarzik> sipa: where is the latest code, if not #771?
1168 2012-05-17 19:15:18 <jgarzik> maybe you have already fixed the OneBigClassThatDoesEverything issue :)
1169 2012-05-17 19:15:57 <sipa> no
1170 2012-05-17 19:16:00 <sipa> #711
1171 2012-05-17 19:16:10 <sipa> and no, it's still one class that is the dispatcher for everything
1172 2012-05-17 19:16:22 lianj has quit (Changing host)
1173 2012-05-17 19:16:22 lianj has joined
1174 2012-05-17 19:16:54 <sipa> but the dispatcher should deal with all relevant messages in that area, imho
1175 2012-05-17 19:17:06 <sipa> it should not actually contain code to deal with the messages, just pass them along
1176 2012-05-17 19:17:15 <sipa> and that is something it still does, right now
1177 2012-05-17 19:18:08 <sipa> jgarzik: note that cblockstore has been refactored many times over, and maybe the order of transactions in the github page is not the actual logical commit order anymore
1178 2012-05-17 19:18:33 <sipa> eh, #771
1179 2012-05-17 19:20:39 <wumpus> if there are merges involved, the commit order on the github page will be really weird
1180 2012-05-17 19:21:16 <sipa> jgarzik: hmm, if i understand your idea correctly, you end up with a handler thread for every object in the message-passing system (every wallet is one thread, blockchain db is one thread, ...) and you just pass messages between their queues, and they each handle their received messages in order?
1181 2012-05-17 19:21:41 <sipa> that sounds very nice, but hard to combine with signals whose responses need some form of aggregation
1182 2012-05-17 19:22:15 <wumpus> you'd need a combiner abstraction as well
1183 2012-05-17 19:23:45 <sipa> in contrast to that, cblockstore is the handler thread for everything, and the messages come from independent threads outside of the handling system (UI thread, network thread, ...)
1184 2012-05-17 19:24:15 <sipa> but cblockstore does deal with the aggregation of data as well (which is quite simple in our case)
1185 2012-05-17 19:25:11 <sipa> your idea certainly sounds more general, but it may be overkill, imho
1186 2012-05-17 19:26:23 p0s has joined
1187 2012-05-17 19:33:39 wumpus has joined
1188 2012-05-17 19:35:24 p0s has joined
1189 2012-05-17 19:43:12 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1190 2012-05-17 19:54:02 Diapolo has joined
1191 2012-05-17 19:54:17 RazielZ has joined
1192 2012-05-17 19:56:28 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: rebroad opened pull request 1337 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1337>
1193 2012-05-17 19:57:06 <Diapolo> wumpus: nice icon there :)
1194 2012-05-17 20:02:05 t7 has joined
1195 2012-05-17 20:03:34 ThomasV has joined
1196 2012-05-17 20:04:09 Slix` has joined
1197 2012-05-17 20:05:22 barmstro_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1198 2012-05-17 20:05:43 barmstrong has joined
1199 2012-05-17 20:13:38 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1200 2012-05-17 20:13:55 graingert has joined
1201 2012-05-17 20:24:52 elkingrey has joined
1202 2012-05-17 20:25:05 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1203 2012-05-17 20:27:02 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1204 2012-05-17 20:28:06 PK_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1205 2012-05-17 20:28:21 darkee has joined
1206 2012-05-17 20:28:32 PK has joined
1207 2012-05-17 20:31:10 DamascusVG has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1208 2012-05-17 20:31:37 paraipan has joined
1209 2012-05-17 20:36:00 <luke-jr> well, bdb zlib and miniupnpc successfully built for OS X deterministiclyâ¦
1210 2012-05-17 20:36:12 <luke-jr> openssl and libpng giving me trouble tho :/
1211 2012-05-17 20:36:31 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1212 2012-05-17 20:37:10 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: rebroad opened pull request 1338 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1338>
1213 2012-05-17 20:39:47 dbe has joined
1214 2012-05-17 20:41:00 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1215 2012-05-17 20:42:28 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: rebroad opened pull request 1339 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1339>
1216 2012-05-17 20:43:52 <Diapolo> I feel spamed ^^.
1217 2012-05-17 20:44:05 Lolcust has joined
1218 2012-05-17 20:44:34 DamascusVG has joined
1219 2012-05-17 20:44:57 <sipa> to spame is always fun
1220 2012-05-17 20:48:04 rdponticelli_ has joined
1221 2012-05-17 20:48:52 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1222 2012-05-17 20:49:12 <Diapolo> I can't keep up to read rebroads pulls ... I think too much too quick and no one read longer pull reqs.
1223 2012-05-17 20:49:20 <Diapolo> +s
1224 2012-05-17 20:50:13 barmstrong has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1225 2012-05-17 20:52:10 DamascusVG has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1226 2012-05-17 20:52:34 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: rebroad opened pull request 1340 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1340>
1227 2012-05-17 20:52:49 rdponticelli_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1228 2012-05-17 20:53:16 Lolcust has quit (Quit: Nap time)
1229 2012-05-17 20:55:24 rdponticelli has joined
1230 2012-05-17 20:55:58 PK is now known as Dinner!~PK@pdpc/supporter/active/pk|PK_
1231 2012-05-17 20:56:06 Lolcust has joined
1232 2012-05-17 21:02:40 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: rebroad opened pull request 1341 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1341>
1233 2012-05-17 21:05:30 Silverion has joined
1234 2012-05-17 21:06:13 DamascusVG has joined
1235 2012-05-17 21:07:52 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: rebroad opened pull request 1342 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1342>
1236 2012-05-17 21:10:00 RV___ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1237 2012-05-17 21:12:59 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: rebroad opened pull request 1343 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1343>
1238 2012-05-17 21:13:03 Maccer has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1239 2012-05-17 21:14:31 Maccer has joined
1240 2012-05-17 21:16:27 DamascusVG has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1241 2012-05-17 21:19:14 da2ce7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1242 2012-05-17 21:20:33 da2ce7 has joined
1243 2012-05-17 21:23:07 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: rebroad opened pull request 1344 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1344>
1244 2012-05-17 21:24:58 dbe has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1245 2012-05-17 21:25:38 barmstrong has joined
1246 2012-05-17 21:26:42 _Fireball has quit (Quit: HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- *I* use it, so it must be good!)
1247 2012-05-17 21:27:47 DamascusVG has joined
1248 2012-05-17 21:28:52 Maccer has quit (Excess Flood)
1249 2012-05-17 21:29:37 danbri_ has joined
1250 2012-05-17 21:30:38 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1251 2012-05-17 21:30:39 Joric_ has joined
1252 2012-05-17 21:30:40 Joric_ has quit (Changing host)
1253 2012-05-17 21:30:40 Joric_ has joined
1254 2012-05-17 21:31:18 <eian> how are people calculating the aggregate hashing power of the network? Bitcoin charts reports that it is currently 150 petaflops... I'd like to run through the numbers myself to verify this claim
1255 2012-05-17 21:31:41 <sipa> eian: the bitcoin network does 0 flop/s
1256 2012-05-17 21:31:43 Zarutian has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1257 2012-05-17 21:31:59 <eian> What?
1258 2012-05-17 21:32:07 <eian> Did I word that wrong?
1259 2012-05-17 21:32:10 <luke-jr> yes
1260 2012-05-17 21:32:17 <luke-jr> flop = floating-point operation
1261 2012-05-17 21:32:22 <luke-jr> bitcoin is strictly integer, not FP
1262 2012-05-17 21:32:50 <sipa> exactly
1263 2012-05-17 21:32:53 <eian> I'm just trying to validate the claim I keep hearing that bitcoin is the "largest distributed computing project"
1264 2012-05-17 21:33:01 <eian> I'm looking at http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/
1265 2012-05-17 21:33:05 <sipa> it probably is
1266 2012-05-17 21:33:12 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: laanwj opened pull request 1346 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1346> || Diapolo opened pull request 1345 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1345>
1267 2012-05-17 21:33:12 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1268 2012-05-17 21:33:34 <luke-jr> tcatm: wtf?
1269 2012-05-17 21:33:52 yorick has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1270 2012-05-17 21:34:00 PK_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1271 2012-05-17 21:34:21 <sipa> you can assume a particular hardware distribution for the bitcoin network, map the hash speed to iops/s, map that to hardware units, and calculate the flop/s of that combined assumed hardware
1272 2012-05-17 21:34:31 <Diapolo> the gribble links are unusable for me there is always an > appended to the end -_-
1273 2012-05-17 21:34:34 PK_ has joined
1274 2012-05-17 21:34:50 <sipa> Diapolo: what irc client?
1275 2012-05-17 21:34:57 <eian> sipa, feels like a whole bunch of assuming.
1276 2012-05-17 21:35:02 <eian> but thanks
1277 2012-05-17 21:35:06 <sipa> eian: it is
1278 2012-05-17 21:35:14 <eian> I thought there was some way to calculate based on the difficulty
1279 2012-05-17 21:35:32 <sipa> you can calculate the hash rate quite accurately
1280 2012-05-17 21:35:34 <Eliel> eian: unfortunately, the type of calculation is rather different.
1281 2012-05-17 21:35:58 <sipa> but even calculating the iops/s rate is hard
1282 2012-05-17 21:36:02 <eian> Alright, I'll do some reading. I was hoping someone had a formula somewhere I could look at
1283 2012-05-17 21:36:17 <eian> thanks
1284 2012-05-17 21:36:47 <Diapolo> https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=bitcoin-dev&uio=d4
1285 2012-05-17 21:36:51 <eian> wait a minute
1286 2012-05-17 21:36:58 <eian> sipa, are you the guy behind sipa.be?
1287 2012-05-17 21:37:04 <sipa> eian: yes
1288 2012-05-17 21:37:09 <eian> :) cool website
1289 2012-05-17 21:37:21 DamascusVG has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1290 2012-05-17 21:37:45 <sipa> thanks; it's not very maintained though
1291 2012-05-17 21:38:58 Joric_ has quit ()
1292 2012-05-17 21:39:35 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1293 2012-05-17 21:40:32 <Diapolo> sipa: any idea why the web-irc client does this?
1294 2012-05-17 21:40:50 <sipa> no, but try using a real client :)
1295 2012-05-17 21:40:54 Zarutian has joined
1296 2012-05-17 21:40:57 paraipan has joined
1297 2012-05-17 21:41:34 <Diapolo> I don't want to spend time on IRC stuff ^^ just checkin in without any knowledge what IRC is :D.
1298 2012-05-17 21:41:56 <sipa> Diapolo: http://silverex.org has a good one for windows, imho
1299 2012-05-17 21:42:35 <Diapolo> I'm not sure but has pidgin one integrated?
1300 2012-05-17 21:42:47 <sipa> yes, i think so
1301 2012-05-17 21:44:10 <Diapolo> I use that for ICQ, maybe I should try it.
1302 2012-05-17 21:44:23 <sipa> ICQ still exists?
1303 2012-05-17 21:44:29 <Diapolo> sure
1304 2012-05-17 21:44:53 <PiZZaMaN2K> lol yup
1305 2012-05-17 21:45:06 <sipa> i had id 36609172, but didn't use it after 2000-2001 somewhere
1306 2012-05-17 21:45:26 <Eliel> I had an id too but ... I don't even remember it anymore :)
1307 2012-05-17 21:45:26 <sipa> always remembered the number though
1308 2012-05-17 21:45:43 <PiZZaMaN2K> i had 36157453 and still use it lol
1309 2012-05-17 21:45:50 <PiZZaMaN2K> *have
1310 2012-05-17 21:45:50 <PiZZaMaN2K> lol
1311 2012-05-17 21:46:03 <PiZZaMaN2K> sad that i remember the id number lol
1312 2012-05-17 21:46:20 <sipa> around 2000 everyone started switching to msn here
1313 2012-05-17 21:46:44 <sipa> and since some years that's dead too... facebook and gtalk
1314 2012-05-17 21:47:13 <PiZZaMaN2K> well the entire AIM staff was layed off
1315 2012-05-17 21:47:25 <Diapolo> Never in my live I will login to Facebook!
1316 2012-05-17 21:47:29 <PiZZaMaN2K> so my bet is that'll die next
1317 2012-05-17 21:47:51 Diapolo_onPidgin has joined
1318 2012-05-17 21:48:08 <Diapolo_onPidgin> seems to work :D
1319 2012-05-17 21:48:50 <Diapolo_onPidgin> Can someone please open a pull so I can test the gribble links :-P, rebroad?
1320 2012-05-17 21:49:47 <sipa> 23:30:38 <@gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: laanwj opened pull request 1346 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1346> || Diapolo opened pull request 1345 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1345>
1321 2012-05-17 21:50:15 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1322 2012-05-17 21:50:22 <Diapolo_onPidgin> works
1323 2012-05-17 21:50:35 <Diapolo_onPidgin> sipa: thanks
1324 2012-05-17 21:52:53 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
1325 2012-05-17 21:52:56 Diapolo_onPidgin has left ()
1326 2012-05-17 21:53:09 Diapolo_onPidgin has joined
1327 2012-05-17 21:53:21 Diapolo_onPidgin has left ()
1328 2012-05-17 21:53:52 Diapolo_onPidgin has joined
1329 2012-05-17 21:54:06 Diapolo_onPidgin has left ()
1330 2012-05-17 21:54:24 TD has joined
1331 2012-05-17 21:57:19 <Diapolo> seems like I can't connect via SSL what port is standard for ssl and IRC?
1332 2012-05-17 21:57:48 <wumpus> freenode uses port 7070 for SSL
1333 2012-05-17 21:58:02 Zarutian_ has joined
1334 2012-05-17 21:58:10 Zarutian has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1335 2012-05-17 21:58:10 Zarutian_ is now known as Zarutian
1336 2012-05-17 21:59:53 dbe has joined
1337 2012-05-17 22:00:47 Diapolo1 has joined
1338 2012-05-17 22:00:54 Diapolo1 has left ()
1339 2012-05-17 22:01:32 Diapolo1 has joined
1340 2012-05-17 22:02:09 <Diapolo1> wumpus: thanks
1341 2012-05-17 22:03:11 Diapolo has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1342 2012-05-17 22:03:27 Diapolo1 has left ()
1343 2012-05-17 22:03:29 Diapolo1 has joined
1344 2012-05-17 22:03:33 Diapolo1 has left ()
1345 2012-05-17 22:03:39 Diapolo1 has joined
1346 2012-05-17 22:03:42 Diapolo1 has left ()
1347 2012-05-17 22:04:09 Diapolo has joined
1348 2012-05-17 22:04:13 moa7 has joined
1349 2012-05-17 22:04:59 <sipa> Diablo-D3: connection problems?
1350 2012-05-17 22:05:19 <sipa> eh
1351 2012-05-17 22:05:33 <sipa> Diapolo: connection problems?
1352 2012-05-17 22:05:46 <moa7> got stuck updating blockchain on block 180380
1353 2012-05-17 22:05:51 <moa7> any ideas?
1354 2012-05-17 22:06:23 DamascusVG has joined
1355 2012-05-17 22:06:36 <Diapolo> sipa: no I switched to IRC via Pidgin and enabled SSL, now everything is fine.
1356 2012-05-17 22:06:37 twmz has joined
1357 2012-05-17 22:07:12 Zarutian has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1358 2012-05-17 22:09:07 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: rebroad opened pull request 1347 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1347>
1359 2012-05-17 22:10:01 <Diapolo> wumpus: Btw. why uses Qt the tag notr on style-sheets? seems weird
1360 2012-05-17 22:10:01 Zarutian has joined
1361 2012-05-17 22:10:03 rebroad has joined
1362 2012-05-17 22:10:13 <rebroad> good evening all
1363 2012-05-17 22:10:17 <rebroad> sorry for all the pull requests...
1364 2012-05-17 22:10:29 <rebroad> although... I am a little confused why some have been closed without discussion
1365 2012-05-17 22:10:56 <rebroad> didn't realise bitcoin on github had become a one person show..
1366 2012-05-17 22:11:09 <Diapolo> hi there
1367 2012-05-17 22:11:12 <rebroad> (unless any discussion was done on here!)
1368 2012-05-17 22:11:53 <rebroad> I do think the renaming of mapAlreadyAskedFor was an important one.. .this bug (referenced here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1347) I think would have been less likely to occur with more intuitive naming.
1369 2012-05-17 22:12:07 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1370 2012-05-17 22:12:44 <gmaxwell> Eliel> gmaxwell: I'd disagree about that being bikeshedding. < It's the Nth post on that topic already. I always feel a little guilty when I'm helpful over minor stuff like that, because it does make discussions go on forever. No worries though, because the guilt never stops me.
1371 2012-05-17 22:12:44 <rebroad> with that name, people think it's ok to map if it's already asked for.. it's not.. it should only be mapped if you are actually still Waiting For the inv in question.
1372 2012-05-17 22:13:01 <Diapolo> I feel crit by the number of pulls ... I don't even want to read all of them :D. Perhaps a bit more serialisation on pull-creation would be helpful.
1373 2012-05-17 22:13:42 <rebroad> Diapolo, crit?
1374 2012-05-17 22:14:23 DamascusVG has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1375 2012-05-17 22:14:31 Maccer has joined
1376 2012-05-17 22:14:44 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1377 2012-05-17 22:15:01 <Diapolo> sorry old WoW-speaking "critically hit" in terms of too much input in a short period of time
1378 2012-05-17 22:16:01 <gmaxwell> rebroad: I think jeff closed a couple that were probably not worth the effort reviewing. Please don't take that as an insultâ your efforts are greatly appreciated.
1379 2012-05-17 22:16:01 <rebroad> Diapolo, ah. I understand... anything I can do to help?
1380 2012-05-17 22:16:16 <rebroad> gmaxwell, i appreciate you saying that
1381 2012-05-17 22:18:36 <rebroad> out of interest.. wha does one need to do to get more involved with the development, e.g. access to helping review issues, etc..?
1382 2012-05-17 22:18:52 luke-jr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1383 2012-05-17 22:19:11 da2ce7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1384 2012-05-17 22:19:32 <gmaxwell> rebroad: even most simple commits I merge take me on the order of half an hour work. I test pulls on multiple nodes (sometimes several at a time though), and I do a reading by stepwise abstraction where I walk through every line of code around the change and write out in english what it did before and after. (and even with doing this I've still screwed up and pulled some mildly broken stuff due to bad assumptions on the code I wasn't looking
1385 2012-05-17 22:19:35 agricocb has joined
1386 2012-05-17 22:20:08 <gmaxwell> rebroad: so when there are a high volume of changes that are mostly minor it's a little taxing.
1387 2012-05-17 22:20:34 da2ce7 has joined
1388 2012-05-17 22:20:40 <rebroad> gmaxwell, well, originally these recent pulls of mine were all in one pull, but people complained that it was too big, so I broke it up... Seems I can't win...
1389 2012-05-17 22:20:50 <gmaxwell> rebroad: I know. :)
1390 2012-05-17 22:21:11 <gmaxwell> rebroad: as far as getting more involvedâ Just hang around and continue to work on things, learn the norms and the projects. Comment on issues, etc. The active group is pretty small, bitcoin isn't a huge codebase.
1391 2012-05-17 22:21:27 luke-jr has joined
1392 2012-05-17 22:22:19 <rebroad> nothing against jeff personally, but is it ok for one developer to close a pull request without any chance for others to ACK or NACK?
1393 2012-05-17 22:22:41 dbe has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1394 2012-05-17 22:22:56 <Diapolo> reborad: I learned that lesson, too ... break up big changes in smaller pulls, use detailed commit-messages, comment on pulls, talk to the devs, ask dumb questions and get in touch with "them" (I'm still to new here to say "us" ^^).
1395 2012-05-17 22:23:01 <rebroad> it is frustating for it to be closed without discussion when I've spent most of today creating them
1396 2012-05-17 22:23:16 <Diapolo> +o
1397 2012-05-17 22:23:54 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1398 2012-05-17 22:24:01 <Diapolo> rebroad: give smaller pulls the chance to get accepted before opening 10 more
1399 2012-05-17 22:24:14 danbri_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1400 2012-05-17 22:24:19 dvide_ has joined
1401 2012-05-17 22:24:26 <rebroad> Diapolo, ah... hmmm. I need to throttle myself you mean :)
1402 2012-05-17 22:24:34 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
1403 2012-05-17 22:25:24 <rebroad> we need a mapAskFor for pulls :)
1404 2012-05-17 22:25:25 dvide has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1405 2012-05-17 22:25:30 <gmaxwell> Yes, a bitâ you have 13 open pulls, twice that of the next person. And thats not because you split stuff upâ you're producing a higher volume of minor changes, _and_ a lot of them have minor nits that keep them from being pulled right away.
1406 2012-05-17 22:26:11 <gmaxwell> I expect that if you keep up participating (and I hope you do) you'll get a better feel for the likely objections and your pulls will be all pullable on the first shot.
1407 2012-05-17 22:26:24 <Diapolo> rebroad: Motivation is a good thing, but give the devs and your pulls a little time to mature, the more they are connected or rely on eachother.
1408 2012-05-17 22:27:10 <rebroad> i do need to understand the nits better....
1409 2012-05-17 22:27:46 SphericalCow has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1410 2012-05-17 22:27:50 <rebroad> it's difficult to tell what the nits are when they get closed without much comment other than "well, i like it like it is"
1411 2012-05-17 22:27:59 <luke-jr> Diapolo: Game over, the user wins.
1412 2012-05-17 22:28:37 * rebroad will stop moaning now
1413 2012-05-17 22:29:08 <luke-jr> [22:20:27] <rebroad> it is frustating for it to be closed without discussion when I've spent most of today creating them <-- ++
1414 2012-05-17 22:29:13 <gmaxwell> rebroad: When you participate for a time you'll figure it out- it's hard to explain it. There is just a feel you get for other people's expectations.
1415 2012-05-17 22:29:59 <luke-jr> rebroad: I find that when I have a lot of pullreqs open, certain people like to close them just for the heck of it
1416 2012-05-17 22:30:08 <gmaxwell> rebroad: and if you have any closed on you like that, come nag in here. It's okay.
1417 2012-05-17 22:30:16 <luke-jr> it's pretty annoying, but can be worked around by simply slowing down development I do
1418 2012-05-17 22:30:41 <rebroad> I guess my pull buffer size is smaller than I'd hoped :) I'm too fast for it :)
1419 2012-05-17 22:30:46 <luke-jr> ie, often I have changes that I defer making simply because I'm waiting for others to get pulled
1420 2012-05-17 22:31:07 <rebroad> anyway, it's good to know where the bottlenecks are
1421 2012-05-17 22:31:23 <rebroad> so i guess this means we need more reviewers and less pullers
1422 2012-05-17 22:31:28 <rebroad> i mean, pull requesters
1423 2012-05-17 22:31:36 <Diapolo> luke-jr: sorry don't understand what you try to tell me :D
1424 2012-05-17 22:34:01 Karmaon has joined
1425 2012-05-17 22:36:07 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1426 2012-05-17 22:36:52 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1427 2012-05-17 22:39:32 <wumpus> <luke-jr> rebroad: I find that when I have a lot of pullreqs open, certain people like to close them just for the heck of it <--- do you have an example?
1428 2012-05-17 22:40:19 <wumpus> I sincerely doubt we're ever closing pull requests 'just for the heck of it'
1429 2012-05-17 22:40:31 <luke-jr> wumpus: not you
1430 2012-05-17 22:42:27 <luke-jr> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/551 might be a pretty undebatable example
1431 2012-05-17 22:43:00 <Diapolo> Is there interest in having a RPC command "getstartuptime" that displays the time a client / node was started? It's already in the new RPC console from wumpus. I have the code, which is pretty simple but don't know if it's of any use RPC-wise.
1432 2012-05-17 22:43:29 <wumpus> why not make the startup time part of getinfo?
1433 2012-05-17 22:43:53 <Diapolo> that's another option,I just thought it could be a nice addition
1434 2012-05-17 22:43:56 <wumpus> I certainly think it can be useful in some cases, for example montioring
1435 2012-05-17 22:44:06 <Diapolo> that's what I had in my mind, too
1436 2012-05-17 22:44:44 <wumpus> but adding a special rpc command for it would be a bit overkill
1437 2012-05-17 22:45:16 <Diapolo> I wanted to call it getstartuptime_dia_did_this at first :D.
1438 2012-05-17 22:45:42 <Diapolo> you are absolutely right btw.
1439 2012-05-17 22:45:57 <Diapolo> will do this tomorrow
1440 2012-05-17 22:48:37 <wumpus> right, next to the start_flight_simulator rpc
1441 2012-05-17 22:48:47 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1442 2012-05-17 22:48:49 jgarzik has left ("Client exiting")
1443 2012-05-17 22:49:00 jgarzik has joined
1444 2012-05-17 22:49:44 <gmaxwell> +1 for getinfo
1445 2012-05-17 22:49:50 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
1446 2012-05-17 22:49:52 <luke-jr> +1 for start_flight_simulator
1447 2012-05-17 22:50:03 rebroad has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1448 2012-05-17 22:50:58 <Diapolo> +1 for go to bed
1449 2012-05-17 22:51:22 <wumpus> later Diapolo
1450 2012-05-17 22:51:33 b4epoche has joined
1451 2012-05-17 22:51:49 wasabi1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1452 2012-05-17 22:51:52 <Diapolo> cu all
1453 2012-05-17 22:51:56 moa7 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1454 2012-05-17 22:52:25 Diapolo has left ()
1455 2012-05-17 22:54:39 PK_ has quit ()
1456 2012-05-17 22:55:50 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1457 2012-05-17 22:59:19 DamascusVG has joined
1458 2012-05-17 22:59:34 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@pool-96-226-236-130.dllstx.fios.verizon.net|brwyatt
1459 2012-05-17 22:59:57 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1460 2012-05-17 23:02:59 <gmaxwell> 15:03 < moa7> got stuck updating blockchain on block 180380
1461 2012-05-17 23:03:14 <gmaxwell> ^ when the peer you're pulling from goes down it will still pulling until the next block.
1462 2012-05-17 23:04:21 <gmaxwell> s/still/stop/
1463 2012-05-17 23:06:38 rebroad has joined
1464 2012-05-17 23:07:55 dwon has joined
1465 2012-05-17 23:09:42 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1466 2012-05-17 23:14:34 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
1467 2012-05-17 23:20:59 <gmaxwell> zhoutong is again blaming the bitcoin reference code for the theft.
1468 2012-05-17 23:21:03 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82260.0
1469 2012-05-17 23:22:32 <splatster> gmaxwell: Here we go...
1470 2012-05-17 23:23:06 <guruvan> " If I have spent enough time on the re-implementation of the bitcoin client, this thing could be prevented."
1471 2012-05-17 23:23:40 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: not sure that's blaming
1472 2012-05-17 23:23:54 <guruvan> not sure it's not either
1473 2012-05-17 23:23:59 <luke-jr> it is true that if he had written his own client, he might have confounded the attackers
1474 2012-05-17 23:24:10 <luke-jr> and been more familiar with Bitcoin himself
1475 2012-05-17 23:30:38 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1476 2012-05-17 23:31:26 andytoshi has joined
1477 2012-05-17 23:31:27 DaSpawn has joined
1478 2012-05-17 23:33:01 <DaSpawn> I am having build problem:
1479 2012-05-17 23:33:07 <DaSpawn> Fresh git pull, make -f makefile.unix, I have all depends installed up to date, make fails:
1480 2012-05-17 23:33:08 <DaSpawn> init.cpp: In function âbool AppInit(int, char**)â:
1481 2012-05-17 23:33:08 <DaSpawn> init.cpp:140: error: â_strnicmpâ was not declared in this scope
1482 2012-05-17 23:33:08 <DaSpawn> make: *** [obj/init.o] Error 1
1483 2012-05-17 23:33:36 <DaSpawn> ubuntu 10.04
1484 2012-05-17 23:34:13 <andytoshi> you have glibc installed?
1485 2012-05-17 23:34:39 <andytoshi> can you try to compile a simple program with strnicmp?
1486 2012-05-17 23:34:43 <andytoshi> one moment, i'll post one..
1487 2012-05-17 23:35:00 <DaSpawn> libc6 is already the newest version.
1488 2012-05-17 23:35:35 <luke-jr> that was just pulled
1489 2012-05-17 23:36:10 <luke-jr> jgarzik: did that actually build for you?
1490 2012-05-17 23:36:43 <luke-jr> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1345/files#L0R17
1491 2012-05-17 23:36:53 <luke-jr> this is #if>>>n<<<def WIN32
1492 2012-05-17 23:40:52 <andytoshi> DaSpawn, try to compile...
1493 2012-05-17 23:40:57 <andytoshi> ... http://pastebin.com/9hehfw2c
1494 2012-05-17 23:41:16 minimoose has joined
1495 2012-05-17 23:41:32 darkee has joined
1496 2012-05-17 23:43:04 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82260.msg906683#msg906683
1497 2012-05-17 23:45:17 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1498 2012-05-17 23:48:08 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: Diapolo: init.cpp:140:103: error: â_strnicmpâ was not declared in this scope
1499 2012-05-17 23:48:15 <gmaxwell> (you guys broke the build)
1500 2012-05-17 23:50:26 <luke-jr> wumpus: ping
1501 2012-05-17 23:53:11 <andytoshi> what was the rationale for commit f4ac41806 ?
1502 2012-05-17 23:53:17 <andytoshi> i have never heard of _strnicmp
1503 2012-05-17 23:53:44 <DaSpawn> trying compile now
1504 2012-05-17 23:54:06 <tcatm> luke-jr: ??
1505 2012-05-17 23:54:14 <luke-jr> tcatm: you run bitcoincharts, no?
1506 2012-05-17 23:54:17 <andytoshi> andytoshi | i have never heard of _strnicmp â codemojo
1507 2012-05-17 23:54:21 <tcatm> luke-jr: yep
1508 2012-05-17 23:54:32 <luke-jr> tcatm: so what's with the bogus "PetaFLOPS" measurement of the miners?
1509 2012-05-17 23:54:35 <gmaxwell> It's strcasecmp in posix land.
1510 2012-05-17 23:54:38 <andytoshi> DaSpawn: the problem is not on your end -- the build is proken
1511 2012-05-17 23:54:52 <DaSpawn> whew, thanks!
1512 2012-05-17 23:54:59 <andytoshi> i did not realize, as i was out of sync by a couple weeks
1513 2012-05-17 23:55:09 <luke-jr> Diapolo was (who knows why) making strcasecmp into _strnicmp on Windows, but put the #define inside an #ifndef WIN32 block instead of an #ifdef WIN32
1514 2012-05-17 23:55:10 <andytoshi> (i like to read every commit, but i only have so much time..)
1515 2012-05-17 23:55:22 <tcatm> luke-jr: It's just for comparision... not really useful but lots of people asked for it ;)
1516 2012-05-17 23:55:24 <DaSpawn> ah, damn windows
1517 2012-05-17 23:55:28 <luke-jr> tcatm: but it's bogus
1518 2012-05-17 23:55:31 <DaSpawn> :)
1519 2012-05-17 23:55:35 <luke-jr> tcatm: you *can't* measure it in FLOPS
1520 2012-05-17 23:55:38 <tcatm> luke-jr: yep.
1521 2012-05-17 23:55:56 <tcatm> It's totally meaningless.
1522 2012-05-17 23:56:02 <luke-jr> >_<
1523 2012-05-17 23:57:11 <tcatm> And yet, it's still a good estimate because it's roughly equal to the FLOPs you'd get if the same amount of hardware was built for floating point calculations.
1524 2012-05-17 23:58:26 <luke-jr> tcatm: depends on the hardware
1525 2012-05-17 23:59:50 <tcatm> "estimate". Bitcoin mining is mostly INTOPS and the ratio of INTOPS per area vs. FLOPS per area is pretty constant no matter what hardware you use.