1 2012-06-10 00:01:42 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
   2 2012-06-10 00:02:29 paraipan has joined
   3 2012-06-10 00:03:27 sirk3901 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
   4 2012-06-10 00:06:06 JZavala has joined
   5 2012-06-10 00:08:12 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
   6 2012-06-10 00:09:02 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: TheBlueMatt opened pull request 1437 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1437>
   7 2012-06-10 00:09:41 _W_ has quit (Excess Flood)
   8 2012-06-10 00:09:50 _W_ has joined
   9 2012-06-10 00:14:53 devrandom has joined
  10 2012-06-10 00:16:40 DomChan has joined
  11 2012-06-10 00:26:07 toffoo has quit ()
  12 2012-06-10 00:48:53 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  13 2012-06-10 00:58:03 saieko has joined
  14 2012-06-10 01:04:36 meLon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  15 2012-06-10 01:05:01 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  16 2012-06-10 01:05:32 copumpkin has joined
  17 2012-06-10 01:10:00 smtmnyz has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
  18 2012-06-10 01:10:17 smtmnyz has joined
  19 2012-06-10 01:17:29 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
  20 2012-06-10 01:18:04 coinmaster has quit (Quit: coinmaster)
  21 2012-06-10 01:19:39 RastaAssasin has quit ()
  22 2012-06-10 01:28:14 Sh00tF1rst has left ()
  23 2012-06-10 01:30:22 meLon has joined
  24 2012-06-10 01:30:22 meLon has quit (Changing host)
  25 2012-06-10 01:30:22 meLon has joined
  26 2012-06-10 01:36:31 wasabi2 has joined
  27 2012-06-10 01:38:41 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
  28 2012-06-10 01:44:10 setkeh has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  29 2012-06-10 01:44:39 setkeh has joined
  30 2012-06-10 01:47:25 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  31 2012-06-10 01:51:29 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  32 2012-06-10 01:55:52 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@pool-96-226-236-130.dllstx.fios.verizon.net|brwyatt
  33 2012-06-10 01:56:39 DomChan has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  34 2012-06-10 01:59:13 agricocb has joined
  35 2012-06-10 02:00:00 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  36 2012-06-10 02:03:58 t7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  37 2012-06-10 02:07:36 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
  38 2012-06-10 02:12:52 gfinn has joined
  39 2012-06-10 02:13:03 Shaded has quit (Quit: Shaded)
  40 2012-06-10 02:13:40 mmoya has joined
  41 2012-06-10 02:17:44 Bwild has joined
  42 2012-06-10 02:28:57 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
  43 2012-06-10 02:33:11 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  44 2012-06-10 02:33:31 bolapara has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  45 2012-06-10 02:37:26 bedouin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  46 2012-06-10 02:37:45 bedouin has joined
  47 2012-06-10 02:38:21 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  48 2012-06-10 02:39:32 devrandom has joined
  49 2012-06-10 02:41:25 Z0rZ0rZ0r has joined
  50 2012-06-10 02:42:06 caedes has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  51 2012-06-10 02:49:15 bolapara has joined
  52 2012-06-10 02:49:33 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
  53 2012-06-10 02:49:40 [7] has joined
  54 2012-06-10 02:49:50 agricocb has joined
  55 2012-06-10 02:52:34 agricocb has quit (Client Quit)
  56 2012-06-10 02:58:21 bolapara has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  57 2012-06-10 03:08:08 Z0rZ0rZ0r has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  58 2012-06-10 03:08:48 Z0rZ0rZ0r has joined
  59 2012-06-10 03:10:43 cheguan has joined
  60 2012-06-10 03:13:16 rlifchitz has joined
  61 2012-06-10 03:13:16 rlifchitz has quit (Changing host)
  62 2012-06-10 03:13:16 rlifchitz has joined
  63 2012-06-10 03:25:21 cheguan has quit ()
  64 2012-06-10 03:36:12 Shaded has joined
  65 2012-06-10 03:36:12 Slix` has joined
  66 2012-06-10 03:37:18 Shaded has quit (Client Quit)
  67 2012-06-10 03:50:57 Lexa has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
  68 2012-06-10 04:04:08 <matt2011> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86318.0
  69 2012-06-10 04:04:13 <matt2011>  http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/bestblocks.html
  70 2012-06-10 04:04:14 <matt2011> related?
  71 2012-06-10 04:04:51 Sh00tF1rst has joined
  72 2012-06-10 04:05:00 toffoo has joined
  73 2012-06-10 04:05:49 <Diablo-D3> that post is two days old, and we're on block 183818 now....
  74 2012-06-10 04:06:21 <Diablo-D3> so he should have been on 183530 or so
  75 2012-06-10 04:06:51 <Diablo-D3> so yeah, his numbers check out
  76 2012-06-10 04:06:55 <Diablo-D3> something is wrong with his client
  77 2012-06-10 04:07:52 Slix` has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  78 2012-06-10 04:11:58 Sh00tF1rst has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
  79 2012-06-10 04:14:57 Sh00tF1rst has joined
  80 2012-06-10 04:16:40 Jezzz has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  81 2012-06-10 04:20:11 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  82 2012-06-10 04:20:38 JZavala has joined
  83 2012-06-10 04:39:52 Shaded has joined
  84 2012-06-10 04:40:42 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: thanks for the clarification.
  85 2012-06-10 04:44:38 <midnightmagic> Diablo-D3: I was stuck on an older-ish block last night with 0.6.2; I would have stayed to debug it but my miners were all basically halted, so I hurried up to 0.6.99 as of last night and corrected it.  0.6.2 couldn't -rescan on my wallet either.
  86 2012-06-10 04:45:02 <Diablo-D3> weird
  87 2012-06-10 04:50:27 _W_ has quit (Excess Flood)
  88 2012-06-10 04:50:35 _W_ has joined
  89 2012-06-10 04:51:08 Sh00tF1rst has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  90 2012-06-10 04:53:59 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
  91 2012-06-10 05:00:17 Sh00tF1rst has joined
  92 2012-06-10 05:02:15 da2ce7 has joined
  93 2012-06-10 05:02:34 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
  94 2012-06-10 05:12:58 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  95 2012-06-10 05:36:33 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
  96 2012-06-10 05:36:40 O2made has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
  97 2012-06-10 05:36:47 Graet has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  98 2012-06-10 05:37:27 wizkid057 has joined
  99 2012-06-10 05:39:13 <weex> is there a calculator of confirmation risk somewhere? $X => n confirmations for y% risk.
 100 2012-06-10 05:41:12 pecket has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 101 2012-06-10 05:46:52 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 102 2012-06-10 05:47:53 <nanotube> it'd be hard to quantify the risk <->tx value relationship
 103 2012-06-10 05:48:59 pickett has joined
 104 2012-06-10 05:50:11 O2made has joined
 105 2012-06-10 05:51:41 Shaded has quit (Quit: Shaded)
 106 2012-06-10 05:55:42 <weex> well there's some relationship between cost to 51% attack per unit time so i thought that could be used
 107 2012-06-10 05:56:22 Shaded has joined
 108 2012-06-10 05:56:32 <weex> maybe its too easy for such a tool to miscalculate risk?
 109 2012-06-10 06:00:41 <weex> i see satoshi did it for q, the % of the network controlled by the attacker
 110 2012-06-10 06:01:48 <nanotube> yes but there's a precise mathematical relationship between fraction of hash power, and probability of success
 111 2012-06-10 06:01:58 <nanotube> not so much between value of tx, and attacker's motivation :)
 112 2012-06-10 06:02:20 <nanotube> and hash power
 113 2012-06-10 06:02:20 <weex> good point
 114 2012-06-10 06:02:46 <nanotube> but you could do some heuristic-based measure, that would probably be "interesting" :)
 115 2012-06-10 06:03:14 <weex> what i'd like to say is if you're selling a house, here's how many confirmations should be ok
 116 2012-06-10 06:05:21 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 117 2012-06-10 06:07:04 <TuxBlackEdo> well if you are selling a house via bitcoins and signing over the title, i am pretty sure that you could wait for 1 days worth of confirmations before closing escrow
 118 2012-06-10 06:09:17 <nanotube> also - you know the name of the guy, and where he lives :D
 119 2012-06-10 06:09:42 <nanotube> so if there's a doublespend... you are not sol.
 120 2012-06-10 06:18:50 <weex> i'm going to wait for 7 confirmations just to be sure
 121 2012-06-10 06:24:10 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 122 2012-06-10 06:28:56 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 123 2012-06-10 06:38:36 wasabi1 has joined
 124 2012-06-10 06:40:57 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 125 2012-06-10 06:46:47 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 126 2012-06-10 06:47:29 copumpkin has joined
 127 2012-06-10 06:54:04 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 128 2012-06-10 06:55:00 wizkid057 has joined
 129 2012-06-10 06:55:57 Shaded has quit (Quit: Shaded)
 130 2012-06-10 07:04:40 Shaded has joined
 131 2012-06-10 07:14:57 Shaded has quit (Quit: Shaded)
 132 2012-06-10 07:20:40 pecket has joined
 133 2012-06-10 07:22:55 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 134 2012-06-10 07:25:39 RazielZ has joined
 135 2012-06-10 07:28:16 sacredchao has joined
 136 2012-06-10 07:40:46 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
 137 2012-06-10 07:45:52 coinmaster has joined
 138 2012-06-10 07:49:26 molecular has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 139 2012-06-10 07:50:35 molecular has joined
 140 2012-06-10 08:06:59 abragin has joined
 141 2012-06-10 08:09:56 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 142 2012-06-10 08:10:28 copumpkin has joined
 143 2012-06-10 08:14:15 Sh00tF1rst has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 144 2012-06-10 08:21:59 Sh00tF1rst has joined
 145 2012-06-10 08:29:18 someone42 has joined
 146 2012-06-10 08:30:06 da2ce7 has joined
 147 2012-06-10 08:32:21 JFK911 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 148 2012-06-10 08:32:31 JFK911 has joined
 149 2012-06-10 08:38:11 <TuxBlackEdo> hello anyone alive here?
 150 2012-06-10 08:40:06 PK has joined
 151 2012-06-10 08:41:12 Turingi has joined
 152 2012-06-10 08:45:51 Motest003 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 153 2012-06-10 08:46:38 Prattler has joined
 154 2012-06-10 08:46:43 Motest003 has joined
 155 2012-06-10 08:47:38 Sh00tF1rst has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 156 2012-06-10 08:56:07 Sh00tF1rst has joined
 157 2012-06-10 08:58:08 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 158 2012-06-10 08:59:18 username57913 has joined
 159 2012-06-10 09:02:48 Sh00tF1rst has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 160 2012-06-10 09:20:08 da2ce7 has joined
 161 2012-06-10 09:21:15 Sh00tF1rst has joined
 162 2012-06-10 09:22:14 archevety has joined
 163 2012-06-10 09:22:59 <archevety> I get "amp;" in labels with qt GUI, does anyone know how to fix?
 164 2012-06-10 09:26:04 <archevety> seems like it's only a problem in the swedish version
 165 2012-06-10 09:27:18 <archevety> found the faults
 166 2012-06-10 09:27:44 <archevety> there are &amp;amp; in some translations
 167 2012-06-10 09:28:08 <archevety> is there a reason why or is this a fault?
 168 2012-06-10 09:29:02 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 169 2012-06-10 09:34:23 sirk390 has joined
 170 2012-06-10 09:35:00 Graet has joined
 171 2012-06-10 09:35:51 da2ce7 has joined
 172 2012-06-10 09:39:21 silp has joined
 173 2012-06-10 09:39:32 archevety has quit (Quit: Lämnar)
 174 2012-06-10 09:40:09 wasabi2 has joined
 175 2012-06-10 09:40:56 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 176 2012-06-10 09:41:16 silpee has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 177 2012-06-10 09:41:33 t7 has joined
 178 2012-06-10 09:43:28 ThomasV_ has joined
 179 2012-06-10 09:44:37 talpan has joined
 180 2012-06-10 09:48:13 DamascusVG has quit (Quit: I Quit - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p97zsQ51Rw)
 181 2012-06-10 09:50:03 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 182 2012-06-10 10:01:59 erle- has joined
 183 2012-06-10 10:03:21 setkeh has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 184 2012-06-10 10:03:40 setkeh has joined
 185 2012-06-10 10:03:48 olp has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 186 2012-06-10 10:09:10 DamascusVG has joined
 187 2012-06-10 10:09:10 DamascusVG has quit (Changing host)
 188 2012-06-10 10:09:10 DamascusVG has joined
 189 2012-06-10 10:09:12 ThomasV_ has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 190 2012-06-10 10:09:27 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 191 2012-06-10 10:10:26 wizkid057 has joined
 192 2012-06-10 10:17:03 abragin has quit ()
 193 2012-06-10 10:20:04 _Fireball has joined
 194 2012-06-10 10:24:18 Lexa has joined
 195 2012-06-10 10:26:37 dvide has quit ()
 196 2012-06-10 10:27:41 Joric has joined
 197 2012-06-10 10:52:17 paraipan has joined
 198 2012-06-10 10:55:01 setkeh has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 199 2012-06-10 10:55:14 setkeh` has joined
 200 2012-06-10 11:04:52 datagutt has joined
 201 2012-06-10 11:07:32 MiningBuddy- has joined
 202 2012-06-10 11:07:54 MiningBuddy has quit (Disconnected by services)
 203 2012-06-10 11:07:57 MiningBuddy- is now known as MiningBuddy
 204 2012-06-10 11:08:42 toffoo has quit ()
 205 2012-06-10 11:16:23 epscy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 206 2012-06-10 11:16:59 epscy has joined
 207 2012-06-10 11:17:11 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 208 2012-06-10 11:19:18 mcorlett has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 209 2012-06-10 11:19:53 mndrix has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 210 2012-06-10 11:21:44 mndrix has joined
 211 2012-06-10 11:23:24 mcorlett has joined
 212 2012-06-10 11:25:01 MobiusL has joined
 213 2012-06-10 11:36:36 hnz has joined
 214 2012-06-10 11:37:40 setkeh` is now known as setkeh
 215 2012-06-10 11:42:03 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 216 2012-06-10 11:42:33 wizkid057 has joined
 217 2012-06-10 12:13:23 tower has quit (Disconnected by services)
 218 2012-06-10 12:13:39 tower has joined
 219 2012-06-10 12:17:14 Diapolo has joined
 220 2012-06-10 12:20:52 Sh00tF1rst has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 221 2012-06-10 12:22:22 Prattler has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 222 2012-06-10 12:29:22 rdponticelli has joined
 223 2012-06-10 12:30:37 mmoya has joined
 224 2012-06-10 12:40:02 da2ce7 has joined
 225 2012-06-10 12:44:51 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 226 2012-06-10 12:45:30 Diapolo has left ()
 227 2012-06-10 12:45:40 Joric has quit ()
 228 2012-06-10 12:48:09 graingert has joined
 229 2012-06-10 13:05:04 <xorgate> why won't bitcoind let me see a tx that's not part of my wallet?
 230 2012-06-10 13:05:38 <sipa> you mean gettransaction?
 231 2012-06-10 13:05:52 <xorgate> yeh i take a random tx from blockexplorer but it gives me an error
 232 2012-06-10 13:06:04 <sipa> 0.7 allows gettransaction for blockchain and mempool transactions
 233 2012-06-10 13:06:19 <sipa> in earlier versions it's strictly for wallets
 234 2012-06-10 13:06:35 <xorgate> i see, i updated the windows client a few days ago
 235 2012-06-10 13:06:47 <sipa> 0.7 is not yet released
 236 2012-06-10 13:07:08 <xorgate> right ok makes sense thanks
 237 2012-06-10 13:08:29 <xorgate> it's not that i *need* to see them i'm just getting my feet wet in programming some automation
 238 2012-06-10 13:08:47 sacredchao has quit (Quit: leaving)
 239 2012-06-10 13:09:45 sacredchao has joined
 240 2012-06-10 13:21:14 Joric has joined
 241 2012-06-10 13:31:50 yellowhat has joined
 242 2012-06-10 13:34:44 <[7]> annoying bitcoin-qt is annoying
 243 2012-06-10 13:36:28 <[7]> oh, and does sendfrom with account "" behave the same way as sendtoaddress? i.e. is the latter redundant?
 244 2012-06-10 13:37:04 <[7]> and what's the deal with addmultisigaddress? does it serve any purpose these days?
 245 2012-06-10 13:38:08 <[7]> IIUC that's related to BIP16?
 246 2012-06-10 13:38:16 <[7]> the wiki says "Currently only available on testnet", is that outdated?
 247 2012-06-10 13:38:23 <sipa> yes
 248 2012-06-10 13:38:41 <sipa> sendfrom with account "" is the same as sendtoaddress yes
 249 2012-06-10 13:38:58 <sipa> addmultisigaddress creates a multisig address
 250 2012-06-10 13:39:42 <sipa> and it's mostly BIP12, but the actual protocol level implementation is specified in BIP16 indeed
 251 2012-06-10 13:40:08 <[7]> anyway, now that BIP16 is active on the production network, this isn't testnet-only any more contrary to what the wiki says?
 252 2012-06-10 13:40:40 <sipa> yes and no
 253 2012-06-10 13:40:48 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@pool-96-226-236-130.dllstx.fios.verizon.net|brwyatt
 254 2012-06-10 13:40:53 <sipa> you can create realnet multisig addresses
 255 2012-06-10 13:40:59 <sipa> you can send to them
 256 2012-06-10 13:41:25 <sipa> and you can spend when all keys related to a multisig address are in one wallet
 257 2012-06-10 13:41:34 <sipa> which obviously defeats the purpose
 258 2012-06-10 13:42:25 <sipa> but it shows that the protocol level changes are done, what is left is client-side transaction negotiation between the different parties in a multisig
 259 2012-06-10 13:45:53 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 260 2012-06-10 13:48:41 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 261 2012-06-10 13:49:24 wizkid057 has joined
 262 2012-06-10 13:51:19 <[7]> hm, apparently there are incoming and outgoing accounts, and only the incoming ones are shown by listaccounts?
 263 2012-06-10 13:51:51 <[7]> with incoming accounts I mean accounts containing owned addresses, and outgoing accounts are accounts containing addresses of third parties
 264 2012-06-10 13:52:34 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@pool-96-226-236-130.dllstx.fios.verizon.net|brwyatt
 265 2012-06-10 13:53:11 <luke-jr> sipa: BIP13, not BIP12 :p
 266 2012-06-10 13:56:47 Joric has quit ()
 267 2012-06-10 13:57:05 <graingert> do multisig addresses still use the first few bytes of sha256 at the end for validation?
 268 2012-06-10 13:57:15 <graingert> if so why not switch to a sensible CRC
 269 2012-06-10 13:57:49 <luke-jr> because it's TOO LATE :p
 270 2012-06-10 13:58:06 <graingert> really? nobody uses the addresses yet
 271 2012-06-10 13:58:24 <graingert> and it never hits the underlying network
 272 2012-06-10 13:58:45 <graingert> luke-jr: it all gets stripped it's only a user facing fanciness
 273 2012-06-10 13:59:18 <luke-jr> yes we do
 274 2012-06-10 13:59:35 <graingert> really who's used them?
 275 2012-06-10 13:59:46 <luke-jr> me
 276 2012-06-10 13:59:51 <graingert> anyone else?
 277 2012-06-10 14:00:10 <BlueMatt> several sites already accept p2sh addresses
 278 2012-06-10 14:00:18 <luke-jr> 3P14159f73E4gFr7JterCCQh9QjiTjiZrG and 31igiusSdShicXmGAbJHNJuit1rzuJYKzF
 279 2012-06-10 14:00:27 <BlueMatt> I believe blockchain.info does?
 280 2012-06-10 14:00:29 <sipa> i would love sensible scheme, with base32 address encoding and crc30 checksums
 281 2012-06-10 14:00:32 <graingert> accept?
 282 2012-06-10 14:00:48 <sipa> but i prefer not introducing YET ANOTHER encoding
 283 2012-06-10 14:00:51 <luke-jr> and like sipa says, the checksum is the least of the problems with addresses
 284 2012-06-10 14:01:03 <graingert> fair enough
 285 2012-06-10 14:01:08 <BlueMatt> s/accept/use for something where if you changed everyone's addresses you would cause problems/
 286 2012-06-10 14:01:20 <graingert> well it would only change p2sh
 287 2012-06-10 14:01:22 <graingert> addresses
 288 2012-06-10 14:01:49 <graingert> and it would be possible to convert between them
 289 2012-06-10 14:02:17 <graingert> either way it's clear a sensible scheme would make more sense
 290 2012-06-10 14:02:27 <luke-jr> for example, it would be nice if the version bytes were really useful
 291 2012-06-10 14:02:38 <graingert> and better do it now while it's just blockchain.info and luke-jr that get affected
 292 2012-06-10 14:02:48 <nanotube> haha
 293 2012-06-10 14:02:51 <luke-jr> graingert: and every 0.6 user
 294 2012-06-10 14:03:07 <graingert> luke-jr: who've never used p2sh
 295 2012-06-10 14:03:13 <luke-jr> who will someday.
 296 2012-06-10 14:03:28 <[7]> but I think we agree that those will get more, not less, over time
 297 2012-06-10 14:03:29 <graingert> but they'll need to upgrade anyway to do negotiation
 298 2012-06-10 14:03:29 <someone42> the first few bytes of sha256 isn't a bad error detection code
 299 2012-06-10 14:03:41 <luke-jr> graingert: nonsense
 300 2012-06-10 14:03:53 <luke-jr> they're not necessarily going to receive
 301 2012-06-10 14:03:58 <luke-jr> but sending is necessary
 302 2012-06-10 14:04:19 <graingert> people don't seem that adverse to upgrading
 303 2012-06-10 14:04:29 <graingert> it's in goddamn beta
 304 2012-06-10 14:04:38 <graingert> that's what beta is for
 305 2012-06-10 14:04:39 <someone42> as far as error detection codes go, using a cryptographic hash is nearly optimal
 306 2012-06-10 14:04:41 <luke-jr> people might be willing to use 0.8 to get the benefits of P2SH themselves - but a lot less likely if it means everyone paying them must also use 0.8
 307 2012-06-10 14:05:06 <sipa> someone42: wrong
 308 2012-06-10 14:05:21 <sipa> it is the best against attackers, yes
 309 2012-06-10 14:05:24 p0s has joined
 310 2012-06-10 14:05:45 <sipa> but it is far from the best against random transmission errors
 311 2012-06-10 14:06:14 <sipa> something that crcs give hard quantified guarantees against
 312 2012-06-10 14:06:15 <graingert> luke-jr: old and "new style" addresses would still be operational
 313 2012-06-10 14:06:52 <graingert> and I'm sure someone would backport it
 314 2012-06-10 14:06:56 <luke-jr> <.<
 315 2012-06-10 14:07:15 <sipa> i do not want another type of addresses
 316 2012-06-10 14:07:38 <someone42> sipa: oh, i see; sha256 only gives you a probabilistic guarantee
 317 2012-06-10 14:07:49 <sipa> exactly
 318 2012-06-10 14:08:07 <sipa> it's not better than any random function
 319 2012-06-10 14:08:15 <BlueMatt> graingert: if you can show that the chance of address corruption is somehow too high to be reasonable, sure, but if your only argument is, it would be cooler if we... then I really see no reason to change anything?
 320 2012-06-10 14:08:21 <sipa> while crcs are effectively better
 321 2012-06-10 14:08:44 <someone42> unfourtunately, crc doesn't really work with base58 :(
 322 2012-06-10 14:08:50 <graingert> BlueMatt: I just think it's the last opportunity to do so
 323 2012-06-10 14:09:00 <BlueMatt> its past the last opportunity
 324 2012-06-10 14:09:04 <graingert> someone42: what
 325 2012-06-10 14:09:04 <sipa> you can construct a base58 crc
 326 2012-06-10 14:09:15 <graingert> BlueMatt: sigh
 327 2012-06-10 14:09:27 <sipa> it'd require some research to get a good one
 328 2012-06-10 14:09:32 <graingert> well next time we need a new address format
 329 2012-06-10 14:09:45 <BlueMatt> hopefully we dont have a next time
 330 2012-06-10 14:10:09 <sipa> graingert: i hope we don't need addresses at all anymore somewhere in the future
 331 2012-06-10 14:10:24 <graingert> sipa: what wizardry are you going for there?
 332 2012-06-10 14:10:31 <graingert> some webfinger protocol?
 333 2012-06-10 14:10:38 <sipa> you'd have uri's and payment descriptor files
 334 2012-06-10 14:10:48 <graingert> I want to send coin to graingert@mtgox.com
 335 2012-06-10 14:10:54 <sipa> that are mailed and sent over the web
 336 2012-06-10 14:11:09 <luke-jr> graingert: that will never be secure decentralized
 337 2012-06-10 14:11:11 <graingert> and https://__bitcoin.mtgox.com/ describes the address
 338 2012-06-10 14:11:17 <sipa> negotiated transactions out of band
 339 2012-06-10 14:11:25 <luke-jr> graingert: there you go inventing new redundant crap
 340 2012-06-10 14:11:30 <sipa> something like that
 341 2012-06-10 14:11:36 <graingert> luke-jr: I'm suggesting that's mental
 342 2012-06-10 14:11:41 <graingert> not suggesting it's a good idea
 343 2012-06-10 14:11:51 <graingert> luke-jr: sipa wants addressless tx
 344 2012-06-10 14:11:55 <luke-jr> at the very least use an existing standard :P
 345 2012-06-10 14:12:20 <graingert> luke-jr: something like libravatar then
 346 2012-06-10 14:12:22 <luke-jr> ie, _bitcoinpay._tcp.mtgox.com
 347 2012-06-10 14:12:40 <graingert> or
 348 2012-06-10 14:12:51 <sipa> https://gist.github.com/1237788
 349 2012-06-10 14:12:54 <graingert> https://mtgox.com/.well_known/bitcoin.json
 350 2012-06-10 14:12:55 <sipa> read that
 351 2012-06-10 14:14:04 <graingert> sipa: go have a look at how browserID does communication and negotiation of keys
 352 2012-06-10 14:14:10 <graingert> sipa: it might be usefull to copy them
 353 2012-06-10 14:14:14 <BlueMatt> where was gavin's one covering taking bitcoin: uris and adding sanity checks/p2sh exchanging among multiple clients/payment processor verification/etc
 354 2012-06-10 14:14:17 Sh00tF1rst has joined
 355 2012-06-10 14:14:18 Sh00tF1rst has quit (Client Quit)
 356 2012-06-10 14:16:04 <graingert> everyone uses http these days
 357 2012-06-10 14:16:21 <graingert> I think you want to go for the minimal setup route
 358 2012-06-10 14:16:34 <BlueMatt> s/http/https/
 359 2012-06-10 14:16:36 <graingert> ie no DNS entries and use existing http/TLS
 360 2012-06-10 14:16:41 <sipa> my mail about bip22 to the ml still hasn't arrived?
 361 2012-06-10 14:16:54 <graingert> BlueMatt everyone uses http
 362 2012-06-10 14:17:00 <graingert> BlueMatt some people also use https
 363 2012-06-10 14:17:03 <graingert> for protocol stuff
 364 2012-06-10 14:17:09 <BlueMatt> graingert: and using http for anything payment-related is stupid
 365 2012-06-10 14:17:14 <BlueMatt> https is ok
 366 2012-06-10 14:17:19 <graingert> of course but not what I was refering to
 367 2012-06-10 14:17:37 <graingert> I was refering to the fact that nobody builds real protocols on top of TCP
 368 2012-06-10 14:17:44 <graingert> they use REST or something
 369 2012-06-10 14:17:51 <sipa> ... except Satoshi
 370 2012-06-10 14:17:54 <graingert> of course
 371 2012-06-10 14:17:57 <graingert> because he's nuits
 372 2012-06-10 14:18:12 <sipa> he was RESTless
 373 2012-06-10 14:18:18 <BlueMatt> anyway, yea, using the existing pki and https or similar existing protocol for payment exchanging will probably be the end result
 374 2012-06-10 14:18:27 <BlueMatt> I dont think anyone wants to reinvent the wheel here
 375 2012-06-10 14:18:28 <graingert> BlueMatt agreed
 376 2012-06-10 14:18:44 <graingert> what about webfinger/WebID/foaf ?
 377 2012-06-10 14:19:02 <graingert> eg webfinger(user@foo.com) -> returns URI for user
 378 2012-06-10 14:19:04 <sipa> anyone got my mail about bip22?
 379 2012-06-10 14:19:08 <graingert> in that document is a PGP key
 380 2012-06-10 14:19:09 <BlueMatt> sipa: no
 381 2012-06-10 14:19:14 <sipa> grmbl
 382 2012-06-10 14:19:15 <graingert> that can sign bitcoin addresses
 383 2012-06-10 14:19:33 <graingert> eg crytpo:publickey
 384 2012-06-10 14:19:47 <graingert> eg: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/
 385 2012-06-10 14:20:01 <BlueMatt> https://gist.github.com/2217885
 386 2012-06-10 14:20:30 <BlueMatt> bitcoin: uri-based stuff
 387 2012-06-10 14:20:40 <luke-jr> [14:09:35] <graingert> https://mtgox.com/.well_known/bitcoin.json <-- this is not a standard
 388 2012-06-10 14:21:23 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: https forces centralization
 389 2012-06-10 14:21:31 <graingert> luke-jr: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5785
 390 2012-06-10 14:21:35 <luke-jr> [14:14:18] <graingert> I was refering to the fact that nobody builds real protocols on top of TCP <-- utter nonsense
 391 2012-06-10 14:21:48 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: and you are suggesting?
 392 2012-06-10 14:22:10 <graingert> luke-jr: sigh s/nobody/very few people/
 393 2012-06-10 14:22:35 <graingert> luke-jr: the vast majority of protocols on the internet is http
 394 2012-06-10 14:22:39 <graingert> luke-jr: eg Twitter
 395 2012-06-10 14:22:44 <graingert> luke-jr: Facebook
 396 2012-06-10 14:22:46 <graingert> SPARQL
 397 2012-06-10 14:22:47 <graingert> etc
 398 2012-06-10 14:22:47 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: server+address pair URIs, where the address is only used to verify the server's key
 399 2012-06-10 14:22:48 <graingert> etc
 400 2012-06-10 14:22:54 <luke-jr> graingert: those aren't protocols
 401 2012-06-10 14:23:01 <luke-jr> graingert: they're websites for idiots
 402 2012-06-10 14:23:22 <graingert> luke-jr: you're a bigot
 403 2012-06-10 14:23:45 <sipa> please people
 404 2012-06-10 14:24:11 <sipa> it's true that these days protocols are typically built on higher level protocols
 405 2012-06-10 14:24:24 <luke-jr> graingert: protocols are things like IMAP4, POP3, SMTP, SNMP, etc
 406 2012-06-10 14:24:26 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: read gavin's gist
 407 2012-06-10 14:24:35 <sipa> since they are easier to get through firewalls, or integrated with browser apps
 408 2012-06-10 14:24:47 <graingert> luke-jr: why isn't the Twitter api a protocol?
 409 2012-06-10 14:24:52 <graingert> because it's a website for idiots
 410 2012-06-10 14:24:56 <graingert> of course
 411 2012-06-10 14:25:32 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: it doesn't address when the central entity isn't trusted
 412 2012-06-10 14:25:34 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 413 2012-06-10 14:25:52 <graingert> use namecoin certificate pinning
 414 2012-06-10 14:26:07 <graingert> to avoid CAs
 415 2012-06-10 14:26:15 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: if you trust no central entity, its impossible
 416 2012-06-10 14:26:22 <graingert> BlueMatt ^
 417 2012-06-10 14:26:25 * luke-jr wonders if Firefox still ships with that Chinese government master cert trusted
 418 2012-06-10 14:26:28 <sipa> namecoin has an interesting approach, but a flawed solution imho
 419 2012-06-10 14:26:38 <luke-jr> ^
 420 2012-06-10 14:26:43 <BlueMatt> you have to trust someone to provide a trusted bitcoin: uri to begin with
 421 2012-06-10 14:26:44 <graingert> \/
 422 2012-06-10 14:26:49 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 423 2012-06-10 14:26:59 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: so that URI should be self-sufficient
 424 2012-06-10 14:27:28 <sipa> but people can tamper with the URI in transit
 425 2012-06-10 14:27:40 <sipa> unless you do it yourself in real life
 426 2012-06-10 14:27:43 <BlueMatt> sipa: hence why you need https/etc for initial transit
 427 2012-06-10 14:27:47 <sipa> indeed
 428 2012-06-10 14:28:07 <BlueMatt> and hence my statement that at some point, you need trust, even if its only in your dns chain
 429 2012-06-10 14:28:14 * luke-jr is thinking the real-life scenario.
 430 2012-06-10 14:28:19 <sipa> but i prefer that solution, but it allows people to use a different transit mechanism if thry do not trust the SSL PKI
 431 2012-06-10 14:28:30 <BlueMatt> (and no, even a well-done namecoin doesnt solve it imho, you need something that everyone uses, not a nice program)
 432 2012-06-10 14:28:31 <sipa> s/but/because/
 433 2012-06-10 14:28:55 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: a reasonably-written Namecoin alternative could be integrated into Bitcoin clients for payments.
 434 2012-06-10 14:28:58 <BlueMatt> anyway, I have to go
 435 2012-06-10 14:29:08 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: yay! lets double bitcoin's size to do payment processing...
 436 2012-06-10 14:29:34 <BlueMatt> and require everyone to have TWO chains in their .bitcoin, because 2g just really isnt enough
 437 2012-06-10 14:30:02 <luke-jr> I said reasonably-written
 438 2012-06-10 14:31:01 <sipa> grr i wonder why my mail doesn't arrive
 439 2012-06-10 14:51:40 wizkid057 is now known as wizkidO57
 440 2012-06-10 14:51:52 wizkidO57 is now known as wizkid057_
 441 2012-06-10 14:52:12 wizkid057_ has quit (Quit: brb)
 442 2012-06-10 14:52:49 wizkid057 has joined
 443 2012-06-10 14:57:36 Jezzz has joined
 444 2012-06-10 14:57:44 Jezzz is now known as Guest4190
 445 2012-06-10 14:58:40 Guest4190 is now known as Jezzz
 446 2012-06-10 14:58:45 Jezzz has quit (Changing host)
 447 2012-06-10 14:58:45 Jezzz has joined
 448 2012-06-10 15:02:44 <luke-jr> [14:45:57] <guruvan> so I have an old wallet - stopped working when I updated to 0.6.2 - I have it up and running again in 0.5.5, but all the balances read 0 - is there any recouse besides reverting to an older backup?
 449 2012-06-10 15:08:11 RainbowDashh has joined
 450 2012-06-10 15:08:43 coinmaster has quit (Quit: coinmaster)
 451 2012-06-10 15:12:52 <BlueMatt> sipa: the largest issue with using https to give the user a bitcoin:address?url-signed-with-address-to-get-payment-target link was the non-repudiation issue
 452 2012-06-10 15:13:02 <BlueMatt> sipa: iirc, no one could come up with a good way to do that
 453 2012-06-10 15:15:25 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 454 2012-06-10 15:17:05 <sipa> explain?
 455 2012-06-10 15:17:14 RainbowDashh has joined
 456 2012-06-10 15:21:28 <BlueMatt> eg I get a link to pay to 1AMAZON from https://amazon.com, I then pay, and then amazon turns around and says "no, you paid the wrong address, I cant send you your product because I didnt actually get the coins"
 457 2012-06-10 15:21:41 <BlueMatt> now I should be able to prove that amazon ripped me off
 458 2012-06-10 15:22:10 elombrozo has joined
 459 2012-06-10 15:22:12 <BlueMatt> by signing the final payment address directly with a pki-trusted cert from https://amazon.com I can do so
 460 2012-06-10 15:23:47 elombrozo is now known as bloodhound
 461 2012-06-10 15:25:06 <sipa> BlueMatt: did you ever read my proposal?
 462 2012-06-10 15:25:46 <sipa> https://gist.github.com/1237788
 463 2012-06-10 15:25:55 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 464 2012-06-10 15:30:12 <sipa> it results in a notice signed by the payment processor
 465 2012-06-10 15:30:36 <sipa> which is proof the transaction was accepted as payment for a particular order
 466 2012-06-10 15:30:47 <BlueMatt> what is it signed with?
 467 2012-06-10 15:31:29 <sipa> everything :)
 468 2012-06-10 15:31:42 <sipa> eventually the key that was used in the URI
 469 2012-06-10 15:31:53 Zarutian has joined
 470 2012-06-10 15:32:19 <BlueMatt> but there is no method to prove the key used in the uri is held by the payment requestor?
 471 2012-06-10 15:32:19 <sipa> obviously someone can claim that key in the URI they used isn't theirs
 472 2012-06-10 15:32:54 <sipa> the payment descriptor is sigmed by that
 473 2012-06-10 15:33:03 <BlueMatt> thats the problem trying to be solved here ;)
 474 2012-06-10 15:33:16 <sipa> there is no solution to that
 475 2012-06-10 15:33:19 <BlueMatt> ehhh...wow that sentence made no sense...
 476 2012-06-10 15:33:27 <BlueMatt> pki works pretty well for that, actually
 477 2012-06-10 15:33:33 <sipa> of course
 478 2012-06-10 15:33:47 <sipa> if you trust the SSL PKI, there is no problem
 479 2012-06-10 15:34:00 <sipa> but you cannot do that without trust
 480 2012-06-10 15:34:14 <BlueMatt> well ofc not, but you cant really do any of this without trusting /someone/
 481 2012-06-10 15:34:21 <sipa> exactly
 482 2012-06-10 15:34:33 <sipa> well, or a WoT
 483 2012-06-10 15:34:33 <BlueMatt> the point is, 99.999% of people trust the pki, so you can prove that amazon ripped you off
 484 2012-06-10 15:34:39 <BlueMatt> well yea
 485 2012-06-10 15:35:07 <BlueMatt> but you do have to have a final sig from a pki-valid cert
 486 2012-06-10 15:35:52 <sipa> meh, big companies would just publish their descriptor-request-service's key
 487 2012-06-10 15:36:19 <sipa> it'd be on their https website, maybe in DNSSEC-certified entries, ...
 488 2012-06-10 15:36:38 <guruvan> luke-jr:  when I open the broken wallet in 0.5.5 a get a lot of these:
 489 2012-06-10 15:36:39 <sipa> and any number of other ways of publishing they like
 490 2012-06-10 15:36:40 <guruvan> ERROR: FetchInputs() : fc6610b04d mapTransactions prev not found f1f4057e75
 491 2012-06-10 15:36:42 <guruvan> ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool() : FetchInputs failed fc6610b04d
 492 2012-06-10 15:36:42 <BlueMatt> the issue then becomes how to enable key-rotation (esp of smaller sites) in such a way that clients can stil prove an old one
 493 2012-06-10 15:37:08 <sipa> BlueMatt: new key signed by old key :)
 494 2012-06-10 15:37:10 bloodhound has quit ()
 495 2012-06-10 15:37:44 bloodhound has joined
 496 2012-06-10 15:37:45 p0s has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 497 2012-06-10 15:37:52 <sipa> but those keys are entirely unrelated to the transaction keys
 498 2012-06-10 15:37:54 <BlueMatt> sipa: I dont see how that would work in such a way that its enforceable, if a site simply changes their entire key set, claims that they've never had a set of keys, and screws their 5 users out of all their coins, what can I do?
 499 2012-06-10 15:38:06 <BlueMatt> yea, ofc they are
 500 2012-06-10 15:38:08 <sipa> nothing, obviously
 501 2012-06-10 15:38:27 <BlueMatt> but if you use pki-signed certs to sign the final payment info, then there is
 502 2012-06-10 15:39:07 <sipa> or just sign the descriptor uri (including key) with a PKI certified key, you have the same level of trust
 503 2012-06-10 15:40:01 <sipa> but people will just click "yeah, proceed anyway, I want my iPad 7 HD, even if the cerrtificate chain fails"
 504 2012-06-10 15:40:55 JStoker has quit (Excess Flood)
 505 2012-06-10 15:41:55 <BlueMatt> well users clicking "YES, I want to lose all my coins" cant be helped, but there should be a sane method to keep users safe, and users should be encouraged to use it...anyway, yea signing the list of addresses allowed to sign payment request info with pki-trusted certs works too
 506 2012-06-10 15:42:23 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 507 2012-06-10 15:42:24 <BlueMatt> in any case, the point is you should have pki-signing required, not just entirely optional
 508 2012-06-10 15:42:52 JStoker has joined
 509 2012-06-10 15:42:52 <BlueMatt> or at least "If you click yes, you will send coins to someone who cannot be trusted"-type-required
 510 2012-06-10 15:43:31 <luke-jr> great, I can only accept Bitcoins if I pay $500 to Random Centralized Trust Org
 511 2012-06-10 15:43:51 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: startssl
 512 2012-06-10 15:44:23 <BlueMatt> also, thats true to begin with, you have to have a https site, for the most part
 513 2012-06-10 15:44:27 <[7]> hm... what's the deal with keypoolrefill?
 514 2012-06-10 15:44:32 <[7]> what is it good for?
 515 2012-06-10 15:44:38 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: no, you really don't.
 516 2012-06-10 15:44:43 <BlueMatt> [7]: uhh...refilling keypool
 517 2012-06-10 15:44:47 <[7]> I had the impression that bitcoind does that automatically when the wallet is unlocked
 518 2012-06-10 15:44:55 <luke-jr> I'm perfectly comfortable with IM and PGP
 519 2012-06-10 15:45:08 <BlueMatt> [7]: oh, the rpc command...
 520 2012-06-10 15:45:21 <[7]> yes
 521 2012-06-10 15:45:59 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: if you are communicating on-one-on using pgp/etc, you probably dont need to use a fancy use-this-url-to-get-your-dest scheme
 522 2012-06-10 15:46:55 <BlueMatt> [7]: yea, its pretty much entirely redundant
 523 2012-06-10 15:47:52 bloodhound has left ()
 524 2012-06-10 15:50:07 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: you do if addresses are gone
 525 2012-06-10 15:50:58 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: meh, so go to startssl and get a cert there, its free
 526 2012-06-10 15:52:29 finway has joined
 527 2012-06-10 15:53:11 <finway> Hi,devs,let's talk about prunning.
 528 2012-06-10 15:53:29 <finway> I just saw that the blockchain will be 54GB next year.
 529 2012-06-10 15:54:09 <finway> That makes pruning  high priority, right ?
 530 2012-06-10 15:54:40 <BlueMatt> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1405
 531 2012-06-10 15:54:42 <[7]> finway: buy a bigger disk :P
 532 2012-06-10 15:54:59 <[7]> or implement a blockchaind
 533 2012-06-10 15:55:25 <BlueMatt> pruning blkNNNN.dat is quite difficult with the current system, better off implementing spv
 534 2012-06-10 15:55:33 <finway> I find out pruning infeasible.
 535 2012-06-10 15:56:12 <finway> Because every unspent satoshi should link to the coinbase tx.
 536 2012-06-10 15:56:14 <luke-jr> [15:50:11] <finway> I just saw that the blockchain will be 54GB next year. <-- wtf?
 537 2012-06-10 15:56:26 <finway> This is a chain, so we can't prune.
 538 2012-06-10 15:56:29 <BlueMatt> its not infeasible, just difficult
 539 2012-06-10 15:56:50 <finway> luke-jr: bad english.
 540 2012-06-10 15:57:23 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: guessing based on satoshidice, I wouldnt be surprised if, in a year (assuming we dont prune at least blkindex.dat) we hit 50GB
 541 2012-06-10 15:57:36 <finway> [7], good idea, how about take 1 year to catch up the blockchain ?
 542 2012-06-10 15:57:56 <[7]> that just needs a more efficient distribution system
 543 2012-06-10 15:58:32 <finway> distribution is not the problem, verifing is the problem, because "trust nobody", right ?
 544 2012-06-10 15:58:35 <[7]> I'd like if someone would fix the underlying issue that every client (wallet) needs a copy of the blockchain
 545 2012-06-10 15:58:54 <BlueMatt> but pruning blkindex.dat should help a ton, really...if the db doesnt grow too fast, we can keep db lookup times down, and save a ton of disk space
 546 2012-06-10 15:58:56 <[7]> finway: I trust my own servers, but don't want to carry a blockchain around on all of my devices
 547 2012-06-10 15:59:11 <BlueMatt> [7]: see: electrum
 548 2012-06-10 15:59:13 <[7]> so I'd be happy to have just one blockchaind which backs the other clients
 549 2012-06-10 15:59:40 <[7]> BlueMatt: for now I've decided to go with just one central bitcoind + spesmilo or some web interface
 550 2012-06-10 16:00:05 <[7]> kinda of a "private cloud ewallet"
 551 2012-06-10 16:00:20 <[7]> btw, IIUC encrypting a wallet is irreversible? at least until now?
 552 2012-06-10 16:00:21 <BlueMatt> and the stuff you are talking about is coming, both in the satoshi client, and others
 553 2012-06-10 16:00:36 <BlueMatt> yea, it currently is, well its not, but there is no code to do it
 554 2012-06-10 16:00:37 <[7]> BlueMatt: coming, sure, but not there yet :)
 555 2012-06-10 16:01:01 <BlueMatt> iiuc, electrum is doing pretty well
 556 2012-06-10 16:01:02 <finway> What if some big reorg happens,  and the orphan chain clients update, and cost 1 month to redownload the chain ?
 557 2012-06-10 16:01:09 JZavala has joined
 558 2012-06-10 16:01:17 <[7]> i.e. I should make a backup before playing with encryption on my testnet wallet if I don't want to have to regenerate all the test TXNs at some point
 559 2012-06-10 16:01:29 <BlueMatt> [7]: yes
 560 2012-06-10 16:01:37 <[7]> finway: hope they organize into an efficient p2p network :P
 561 2012-06-10 16:01:43 <[7]> bittorrent works well in such situations
 562 2012-06-10 16:01:49 <[7]> so why not bitcoin as well :)
 563 2012-06-10 16:02:04 <BlueMatt> finway: again, fixes are coming, we are probably gonna be pruning blkindex.dat very soon, and spv clients exist
 564 2012-06-10 16:02:33 <finway> BlueMatt, What about blk001.dat ?
 565 2012-06-10 16:02:58 <BlueMatt> [7]: more efficient downloads are on the horizon, but that actually will have little effect on chain sync speed (except in rare cases)
 566 2012-06-10 16:03:47 <BlueMatt> finway: again, thats a pretty difficult thing to do in the current network, we could easily prune it, but as bitcoin stands now, you still need non-pruned nodes to distribute the chain to ibd-ers
 567 2012-06-10 16:04:20 <BlueMatt> finway: its probably better to skip that and just implement spv mode, or use an existing spv client (or something very close to it, which exist)
 568 2012-06-10 16:04:32 slush has joined
 569 2012-06-10 16:06:32 <finway> BlueMatt, I've saw the bitcoin folder size grow from 1.7GB to 2.2GB in a short time, I'm afraid one year later, if some bugs destroy my local blockchain database, how long would it take to redownload the blockchani...
 570 2012-06-10 16:07:09 * BlueMatt bbl
 571 2012-06-10 16:07:12 <finway> I want to support the bitcoin network, but redownloading happens a lot.
 572 2012-06-10 16:07:35 egecko has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 573 2012-06-10 16:07:59 egecko has joined
 574 2012-06-10 16:13:02 ThomasV_ has joined
 575 2012-06-10 16:19:23 ThomasV_ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 576 2012-06-10 16:20:02 <[7]> why is encrypting a wallet such a processing power intensive operation?
 577 2012-06-10 16:22:33 <[7]> hm, or maybe rather disk-intensive operation, causing lots of iowait processor time
 578 2012-06-10 16:23:54 <finway> Is MultiBit running SPV ?
 579 2012-06-10 16:24:25 <[7]> hm... I guess the proper way to tell apart an encrypted or unencrypted wallet is looking for the "unlocked_until" field in getinfo?
 580 2012-06-10 16:25:39 MobiusL has joined
 581 2012-06-10 16:26:49 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 582 2012-06-10 16:29:59 <[7]> oh, and two more questions:
 583 2012-06-10 16:30:14 <[7]> 1. what's the format of the "errors" field in getinfo? plain text? can it contain newlines? or html?
 584 2012-06-10 16:30:34 <[7]> 2. is there a way to figure out what the highest seen block number on the network is through RPC?
 585 2012-06-10 16:31:04 <finway> bitcoind getblockcount
 586 2012-06-10 16:31:27 <[7]> is that the network or local blockchain?
 587 2012-06-10 16:31:37 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 588 2012-06-10 16:31:51 <[7]> I'm looking for a way to figure out how many blocks bitcoind hasn't downloaded yet
 589 2012-06-10 16:32:04 p0s has joined
 590 2012-06-10 16:32:05 p0s has quit (Changing host)
 591 2012-06-10 16:32:06 p0s has joined
 592 2012-06-10 16:33:11 <finway> [7], local
 593 2012-06-10 16:34:17 <[7]> well, bitcoin-qt shows the download progress, so I think bitcoind must have that information somewhere... but it doesn't expose it through RPC?
 594 2012-06-10 16:34:29 <finway> Sure.
 595 2012-06-10 16:35:43 D34TH has joined
 596 2012-06-10 16:37:59 <[7]> what do you think are the odds of getting a patch accepted that adds a field for this?
 597 2012-06-10 16:38:46 <BlueMatt> finway: there is no reason redownloading should happen a lot
 598 2012-06-10 16:39:35 ThomasV_ has joined
 599 2012-06-10 16:39:37 <finway> BlueMatt, i was suggested to redownload the chain when some problem happens.
 600 2012-06-10 16:39:47 <finway> More than once.
 601 2012-06-10 16:40:24 <[7]> and I think I was even suggested to re-download the blockchain from time to time to get .bitcoin back to a sane size
 602 2012-06-10 16:40:58 <finway> [7], re-downloading can save disk space, really ?
 603 2012-06-10 16:41:19 <BlueMatt> [7]: yea, Ive been thinking of looking into pruning orphan blocks from blkNNNN.dat, but I dont see how it would save more than like 20MB
 604 2012-06-10 16:41:40 <[7]> BlueMatt: I'm more concerned of various BDB files growing badly
 605 2012-06-10 16:41:52 <[7]> and apparently there's no way to just rebuild the index without redownloading the chain
 606 2012-06-10 16:41:56 <BlueMatt> finway: thats largely because people are lazy, there should always be a way to fix it...
 607 2012-06-10 16:42:07 <[7]> I think my record was about 6-7GB for .bitcoin so far
 608 2012-06-10 16:42:22 <BlueMatt> [7]: there is, actually
 609 2012-06-10 16:42:25 <finway> BlueMatt, So, the "7. Reclaiming Disk Space" in bitcoin.pdf is difficult,right ?
 610 2012-06-10 16:42:39 <BlueMatt> [7]: db_dump | db_load
 611 2012-06-10 16:42:40 <[7]> well, people always keep telling me "anything wrong with a BDB file? => redownload the chain"
 612 2012-06-10 16:42:58 <[7]> even though I think everything should be rebuildable from blk0001.dat and wallet.dat
 613 2012-06-10 16:43:35 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@pool-96-226-236-130.dllstx.fios.verizon.net|brwyatt
 614 2012-06-10 16:43:38 <BlueMatt> oh, you mean corrupted bdb, well, yea usually you have to redownload (note that with 0.7, you can reimport now)
 615 2012-06-10 16:44:02 <finway> reimport, that's good.
 616 2012-06-10 16:44:23 <finway> Saves the downloading time.
 617 2012-06-10 16:44:37 <[7]> and a lot of network traffic and thus stress on the p2p network
 618 2012-06-10 16:44:49 epscy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 619 2012-06-10 16:45:13 <BlueMatt> it saves time in the first ~100-150k blocks, after that, it saves only some time...
 620 2012-06-10 16:45:36 <[7]> someone wants a sneak preview? :)
 621 2012-06-10 16:45:41 <BlueMatt> s/some time/network/
 622 2012-06-10 16:45:43 <[7]> https://theseven.bounceme.net:8338/ user: webuser, pass: webpass
 623 2012-06-10 16:46:07 <BlueMatt> [7]: that is?
 624 2012-06-10 16:46:24 <BlueMatt> an updated https://github.com/tcatm/bitcoin-js-remote ?
 625 2012-06-10 16:46:28 <[7]> kinda
 626 2012-06-10 16:46:33 <[7]> not updated, but rewritten
 627 2012-06-10 16:46:46 <BlueMatt> nice
 628 2012-06-10 16:46:52 <BlueMatt> took long enough
 629 2012-06-10 16:47:03 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, reimport as in read blk0001.dat instead of a peer?
 630 2012-06-10 16:47:04 * BlueMatt remembers using bitcoin-js-remote as his primary wallet when he first started
 631 2012-06-10 16:47:05 epscy has joined
 632 2012-06-10 16:47:06 <[7]> well, no idea why nobody seemd to care for that long
 633 2012-06-10 16:47:06 <finway> What's this ?
 634 2012-06-10 16:47:08 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: yea
 635 2012-06-10 16:47:11 <phantomcircuit> smart
 636 2012-06-10 16:47:15 <[7]> took me like 3 days to implement what's there currently
 637 2012-06-10 16:47:22 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: -loadblock=file
 638 2012-06-10 16:48:07 <[7]> so I hope to reach feature parity with bitcoind (but not bitcoin-qt, due to lacking RPC functions) within a couple of days
 639 2012-06-10 16:48:17 <BlueMatt> [7]: nice!
 640 2012-06-10 16:48:24 <finway> [7], what's this ?
 641 2012-06-10 16:48:35 <[7]> I call it a "private cloud ewallet"
 642 2012-06-10 16:48:51 <BlueMatt> finway: a web frontend for bitcoind's rpc interface
 643 2012-06-10 16:49:07 <[7]> I'll throw it on github once the most important stuff actually works :)
 644 2012-06-10 16:49:13 <finway> BlueMatt,oh ,like SafeBit
 645 2012-06-10 16:49:35 <finway> But more geeky.
 646 2012-06-10 16:50:32 <finway> [7], nice job.
 647 2012-06-10 16:50:38 <[7]> I'm wondering whether I should try to implement some kind of "simple mode" that attempts to abstract the whole account business like bitcoin-qt does
 648 2012-06-10 16:51:46 <[7]> feel free to play around with it, it's running on testnet :)
 649 2012-06-10 16:51:57 coinmaster has joined
 650 2012-06-10 16:53:30 <[7]> hm, to create a new account, you just do a setaccount on some pre-existing bitcoin address?
 651 2012-06-10 16:53:55 <finway> Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space.  To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash. Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree.  The interior hashes do not need to be stored.
 652 2012-06-10 16:55:17 <BlueMatt> finway: yes, its entirely possible, but some nodes always have to hold the full chain, so that others can download...
 653 2012-06-10 16:56:25 <finway> BlueMatt, the network can't live without un-pruned nodes?
 654 2012-06-10 16:56:29 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 655 2012-06-10 16:57:01 copumpkin has joined
 656 2012-06-10 16:57:05 copumpkin has quit (Changing host)
 657 2012-06-10 16:57:05 copumpkin has joined
 658 2012-06-10 16:57:23 <BlueMatt> in theory, it could-ish, but it requires some heavy changes...
 659 2012-06-10 16:57:24 graingert has joined
 660 2012-06-10 16:58:57 <finway> BlueMatt, i'm interested in it, i'll learn more.
 661 2012-06-10 16:59:19 <finway> Scalability is the last big issue of bitcoin network.
 662 2012-06-10 17:09:08 finway has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 663 2012-06-10 17:14:52 coinmaster has quit (Quit: coinmaster)
 664 2012-06-10 17:15:09 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 665 2012-06-10 17:21:44 mobile has joined
 666 2012-06-10 17:22:21 <mobile> hi
 667 2012-06-10 17:23:01 <mobile> hello
 668 2012-06-10 17:24:09 <mobile> lame
 669 2012-06-10 17:24:21 <mobile> grrr
 670 2012-06-10 17:28:01 bob_ has joined
 671 2012-06-10 17:28:34 <BlueMatt> mobile: people are around, though many people rarely respond to hi...
 672 2012-06-10 17:28:36 bob_ has quit (Client Quit)
 673 2012-06-10 17:32:07 mobile has quit (Quit: My damn controlling terminal disappeared!)
 674 2012-06-10 17:43:42 wasabi1 has joined
 675 2012-06-10 17:44:45 JZavala has joined
 676 2012-06-10 17:45:29 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 677 2012-06-10 17:56:46 dvide has joined
 678 2012-06-10 18:00:41 talpan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 679 2012-06-10 18:01:24 <[7]> there's no way to delete an account, right?
 680 2012-06-10 18:06:12 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 681 2012-06-10 18:07:08 wizkid057 has joined
 682 2012-06-10 18:09:19 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 683 2012-06-10 18:15:03 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 684 2012-06-10 18:21:49 molecular has joined
 685 2012-06-10 18:22:15 <[7]> it's kinda odd that some really basic things can only be done through the UI, but not the RPC interface
 686 2012-06-10 18:23:26 <[7]> the underlying issue here seems to be that if you setaccount an accounts primary address to a different account a new primary address for the old account will be generated
 687 2012-06-10 18:23:28 <luke-jr> [7]: they're really two separate clients :p
 688 2012-06-10 18:24:02 <luke-jr> sharing some core code
 689 2012-06-10 18:24:22 <[7]> which means you just can't get rid of an account without changing labels in bitcoin-qt, which obviously doesn't create a new address for an account that's going empty, but instead evicts the account
 690 2012-06-10 18:24:51 <[7]> is there a point in bitcoind instead generating a new address in this case?
 691 2012-06-10 18:32:34 <[7]> oh, even more fun
 692 2012-06-10 18:32:50 <[7]> it's possible to create address-less accounts by moving funds to nonexistant account names
 693 2012-06-10 18:33:28 <[7]> which means you'll probably have to create an address for that account first to make it show up in bitcoin-qt so you can remove it again
 694 2012-06-10 18:34:20 <[7]> hahaha, no, in that case bitcoin-qt just removes the address, but leaves the account alone
 695 2012-06-10 18:34:57 <[7]> any way you can think of to get rid of such an account? :)
 696 2012-06-10 18:38:24 <someone42> would i be correct in saying that if locktime = 0, any sequence fields are ignored?
 697 2012-06-10 18:43:59 _W_ has quit (Excess Flood)
 698 2012-06-10 18:44:06 _W_ has joined
 699 2012-06-10 18:46:58 minimoose has joined
 700 2012-06-10 18:51:25 <[7]> so private keys basically look like addresses, just a bit longer?
 701 2012-06-10 18:51:28 <[7]> e.g. cQXpCqyoCRdPARsoJ3TNf3zrk4gPNG3UCYNhQRCej7ii6kyxqgEY
 702 2012-06-10 18:52:36 tyn has joined
 703 2012-06-10 18:53:05 <[7]> hm...
 704 2012-06-10 18:53:07 <[7]> importprivkey <bitcoinprivkey> [label]
 705 2012-06-10 18:53:11 <[7]> shouldn't that be [account]?
 706 2012-06-10 18:53:57 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 707 2012-06-10 18:58:34 user has joined
 708 2012-06-10 18:58:45 <[7]> aarrrrrrgh
 709 2012-06-10 18:58:48 <[7]> seriously...
 710 2012-06-10 18:58:51 <[7]> "RPC error -4: Private key for address mmQDeLtWW6zA8o8pRYR8RouPHJRwUM9KZJ is not known"
 711 2012-06-10 18:59:10 <[7]> why can't it say "wallet is locked", which is the real issue here?
 712 2012-06-10 18:59:53 user has quit (Client Quit)
 713 2012-06-10 19:00:39 <luke-jr> [7]: "label" is an old name for accounts
 714 2012-06-10 19:00:54 <luke-jr> maybe submit a pullreq to fix it, and rebase it for a few months until someone decides to merge it or not
 715 2012-06-10 19:00:56 <luke-jr> <.<
 716 2012-06-10 19:01:39 <[7]> I think I could submit a dozen pullreqs of that kind by now
 717 2012-06-10 19:02:00 * [7] hopes he won't have to file a BIP for these :P
 718 2012-06-10 19:02:15 <luke-jr> sure, but probably want to do it slowly or they might get closed for stupid reasons <.<
 719 2012-06-10 19:02:33 <luke-jr> and if it's all the same thing (replacing label with account in help), just make one doing all of them
 720 2012-06-10 19:02:50 <[7]> nah, it's various different bugs in unimportant strings
 721 2012-06-10 19:03:01 <[7]> and maybe adding one or two things to getinfo
 722 2012-06-10 19:03:24 <xorgate> so i'm talking to bitcoind via the rpc. i wish to call gettransaction, but as stated earlier this will only work for 'foreign' (aka not mine) tx until 0.7.0 . Now i see in github there's already a patch for it, can i just grab master repo and compile, or does something maybe break?
 723 2012-06-10 19:03:56 <luke-jr> xorgate: no, it will only work for your own, until 0.7
 724 2012-06-10 19:04:09 <luke-jr> git master (github) is what will become 0.7
 725 2012-06-10 19:04:23 <luke-jr> but don't expect it to be near the quality of the stable releases
 726 2012-06-10 19:05:12 <xorgate> because it will go through testing first, you mean?
 727 2012-06-10 19:09:22 <BlueMatt> yes
 728 2012-06-10 19:09:38 <BlueMatt> its very poorly tested compared to stable releases
 729 2012-06-10 19:14:42 <[7]> do you think it would be a controversial change to add a call to EnsureWalletIsUnlocked in dumpprivkey?
 730 2012-06-10 19:17:22 <[7]> IMO it's a bug that it isn't there
 731 2012-06-10 19:18:32 [Tycho] has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 732 2012-06-10 19:21:42 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
 733 2012-06-10 19:24:04 <BlueMatt> seems sane to me
 734 2012-06-10 19:24:24 <BlueMatt> does it currently just return some other error if its locked?
 735 2012-06-10 19:25:52 <[7]> BlueMatt: [20:55:38] <[7]> "RPC error -4: Private key for address mmQDeLtWW6zA8o8pRYR8RouPHJRwUM9KZJ is not known"
 736 2012-06-10 19:26:12 <BlueMatt> yea, EnsureWalletIsUnlocked seems much more sane then
 737 2012-06-10 19:26:57 <[7]> that would change the error to "RPC error -13: Error: Please enter the wallet passphrase with walletpassphrase first."
 738 2012-06-10 19:27:13 <BlueMatt> yea
 739 2012-06-10 19:34:11 * luke-jr almost wonders if it should be a flag on the command table
 740 2012-06-10 19:37:21 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
 741 2012-06-10 19:37:58 <BlueMatt> could be...
 742 2012-06-10 19:38:18 <BlueMatt> rpc should be cleaned up anyway...multiple files, etc
 743 2012-06-10 19:43:06 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 744 2012-06-10 19:43:56 <BlueMatt> would be cool to have separate rpc "modules" that communicate with wallet, net, blockchain/mempool, etc
 745 2012-06-10 19:44:18 <BlueMatt> then EnsureWalletIsUnlocked should probably be a flag on walletrpc
 746 2012-06-10 19:44:27 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 747 2012-06-10 19:46:19 coinmaster has joined
 748 2012-06-10 19:46:42 RainbowDashh has joined
 749 2012-06-10 19:47:02 RazielZ has joined
 750 2012-06-10 19:51:05 <[7]> can someone quickly give me a testnet private key that isn't in my wallet?
 751 2012-06-10 19:51:12 <[7]> need to test importing :)
 752 2012-06-10 19:52:07 <luke-jr> 93HCc7NRD4YwiWtPxivynqJuHpDUX5mzkEM8yxUgFbfmLFMbW3K
 753 2012-06-10 19:52:13 <luke-jr> is msawWRJdTxhc9Jqn3keUK3qtuWqwWbGw1q
 754 2012-06-10 19:52:28 <luke-jr> ./vanitygen -T m <-- handy
 755 2012-06-10 19:58:52 RainbowDashh has quit (Disconnected by services)
 756 2012-06-10 19:58:52 RainbowD_ has joined
 757 2012-06-10 19:58:54 RainbowD_ is now known as RainbowDashh
 758 2012-06-10 19:59:48 Diapolo has joined
 759 2012-06-10 20:01:16 tyn has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 760 2012-06-10 20:05:44 Prattler has joined
 761 2012-06-10 20:07:26 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 762 2012-06-10 20:07:30 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 763 2012-06-10 20:12:54 RainbowDashh has joined
 764 2012-06-10 20:16:25 twobitcoins__ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 765 2012-06-10 20:30:14 D34TH has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 766 2012-06-10 20:31:31 <ThomasV_> tcatm: your txlist on bitcoincharts contains very old transactions. are they still being relayed by the network?
 767 2012-06-10 20:36:27 Joric has joined
 768 2012-06-10 20:36:27 Joric has quit (Changing host)
 769 2012-06-10 20:36:27 Joric has joined
 770 2012-06-10 20:37:36 D34TH has joined
 771 2012-06-10 20:37:50 PK has quit ()
 772 2012-06-10 20:39:50 D34TH has quit (Client Quit)
 773 2012-06-10 20:39:59 D34TH has joined
 774 2012-06-10 20:46:31 Motest031 has joined
 775 2012-06-10 20:46:45 <Diapolo> What exactly does this ExitTimeout(), which is created as a thread on Win-Shutdown?
 776 2012-06-10 20:47:29 Motest003 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 777 2012-06-10 20:51:03 p0s has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 778 2012-06-10 20:51:52 Joric_ has joined
 779 2012-06-10 20:52:06 Joric_ has quit (Changing host)
 780 2012-06-10 20:52:06 Joric_ has joined
 781 2012-06-10 20:52:20 <BlueMatt> Im pretty sure it existed back with satoshi.  It seems to imply windows needs additional time before quitting, but I wouldnt know
 782 2012-06-10 20:53:48 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 783 2012-06-10 20:54:23 <BlueMatt> Diapolo: heh, I misunderstood laanwj's comment too, and had started to respond that it may end up making calls to pwalletMain after it has been deleted
 784 2012-06-10 20:54:27 Joric_ has quit (Client Quit)
 785 2012-06-10 20:54:31 <[7]> maybe somehow related to windows trying to kill applications after 20 seconds during shutdown?
 786 2012-06-10 20:56:04 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@pool-96-226-236-130.dllstx.fios.verizon.net|brwyatt
 787 2012-06-10 20:56:12 <BlueMatt> [7]: what?
 788 2012-06-10 20:56:20 <[7]> that exittimeout thing
 789 2012-06-10 20:56:40 <BlueMatt> no, I didnt understand you comment
 790 2012-06-10 20:57:03 <Diapolo> hey there
 791 2012-06-10 20:57:06 <[7]> well, windows gets a bit angry if any given process doesn't terminate within 20 seconds during a system shutdown
 792 2012-06-10 20:57:08 <Diapolo> had no eye on IRC
 793 2012-06-10 20:57:46 <BlueMatt> [7]: ExitTimeout really doesnt appear to be doing anything for that, though...
 794 2012-06-10 20:58:07 <Diapolo> Seems to be an architectural-mess if you ask me ^^.
 795 2012-06-10 20:58:33 <BlueMatt> agreed, but, again, maybe Im the only one who finds calls to uiInterface.* to just be slightly less ugly forms of #ifdef
 796 2012-06-10 20:59:27 <Diapolo> I prefer every simpler or better looking solution ;).
 797 2012-06-10 20:59:43 <Diapolo> But first I have to understand, what's happening ...
 798 2012-06-10 20:59:59 <Diapolo> ExitTimeout does an ExitProcess ...
 799 2012-06-10 21:00:10 <Diapolo> Which process does it exit?
 800 2012-06-10 21:00:11 <BlueMatt> as it stands now, sometimes we call Shutdown directly, sometimes uiInterface.QueueShutdown
 801 2012-06-10 21:00:25 <BlueMatt> for now, Id say ignore ExitTimeout
 802 2012-06-10 21:00:31 <Diapolo> are core and Qt 2 processes?
 803 2012-06-10 21:00:45 Shaded has joined
 804 2012-06-10 21:01:01 <BlueMatt> no, ExitProcess(0); looks, to my untrained-on-windows eye, like the equivalent of exit(0);
 805 2012-06-10 21:01:06 <BlueMatt> which we call on windows anyway, so...?
 806 2012-06-10 21:01:09 kiba has joined
 807 2012-06-10 21:01:38 <BlueMatt> Id assume ExitTimeout was there to work around some windows-specific bug, so Id say just leave it, it shouldnt hurt anything
 808 2012-06-10 21:01:58 <Diapolo> BlueMatt: but if ExitProcess() would exit Bitcoin-Qt it would not log my added "Bitcoin-Qt exited" message, which I can read in debug.log here :D.
 809 2012-06-10 21:02:16 <Diapolo> alright, main problem was, when Shutdown is called, the Qt Gui is simply killed without the chance for a clean shutdown, right?
 810 2012-06-10 21:02:23 <kiba> hey guys
 811 2012-06-10 21:02:29 <kiba> you heard of bitcoinweekly?
 812 2012-06-10 21:02:31 <BlueMatt> as I read it, it will never get to ExitProcess(0);
 813 2012-06-10 21:02:50 <BlueMatt> it only Sleep(50);s before exit(0);, but Sleep(5000); before ExitProcess(0);
 814 2012-06-10 21:03:07 <BlueMatt> Diapolo: yes, but the gui needs to shutdown first
 815 2012-06-10 21:03:37 <Diapolo> perhaps that is a dumb question but GUI = Bitcoin-Qt?
 816 2012-06-10 21:03:43 <BlueMatt> yea
 817 2012-06-10 21:03:46 <Diapolo> alright ^^
 818 2012-06-10 21:04:29 * kiba dreads the blockchain download
 819 2012-06-10 21:04:37 <kiba> why the developers aren't compressing the blockchain yet?
 820 2012-06-10 21:04:37 <BlueMatt> who doesnt?
 821 2012-06-10 21:04:43 <BlueMatt> compressing wont help
 822 2012-06-10 21:04:45 <Diapolo> laanwj said calling QueueShutdown in Shutdown would not work, as the Qt EvenLoop would be gone ...
 823 2012-06-10 21:04:52 <Diablo-D3> compressing actually could help
 824 2012-06-10 21:05:08 <Diablo-D3> but it'd take a custom dictionary compressor
 825 2012-06-10 21:05:11 <BlueMatt> Diapolo: because sometimes QueueShutdown is called first, and then it calls Shutdown to finish
 826 2012-06-10 21:05:25 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: it would help download speed, but not chain sync speed?
 827 2012-06-10 21:05:33 <Diablo-D3> both.
 828 2012-06-10 21:05:36 <kiba> I need to write an article for my magazine
 829 2012-06-10 21:05:42 <kiba> bitcoinweekly is going to come back
 830 2012-06-10 21:05:45 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: how?
 831 2012-06-10 21:05:49 <Diablo-D3> Ill probably write a bitcoin impl someday
 832 2012-06-10 21:05:52 <Diablo-D3> Ill show you then
 833 2012-06-10 21:05:53 <kiba> and it's going to take its niche back from bitcoinmagazine.net
 834 2012-06-10 21:05:59 <Diablo-D3> but Im just too busy working on lugh
 835 2012-06-10 21:06:26 <kiba> bitcoinmagazine.net and bitcoinweekly.com have very different focus
 836 2012-06-10 21:06:37 <kiba> bitcoinmagazine is like a party animal and social schemer.
 837 2012-06-10 21:06:59 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: I fail to see how sig verification would be sped up by compression...
 838 2012-06-10 21:07:00 <kiba> it's trying to incentivize people to sign up, tweet them, etc
 839 2012-06-10 21:07:05 <kiba> and bitcoinweekly
 840 2012-06-10 21:07:06 <kiba> is like
 841 2012-06-10 21:07:08 <kiba> ALL SERIOUS
 842 2012-06-10 21:07:28 <Diablo-D3> blueMatt: oh, thats easily sped up by opencl.
 843 2012-06-10 21:07:42 <kiba> bitcoinmagazine starts their content halfway down the screen
 844 2012-06-10 21:07:42 <BlueMatt> ok, and how is that related to compression?
 845 2012-06-10 21:07:57 <kiba> it's like it's not even improtant
 846 2012-06-10 21:08:00 <Diablo-D3> bluematt: we were talking download speed
 847 2012-06-10 21:08:02 <BlueMatt> kiba: cool, but how is this development related?
 848 2012-06-10 21:08:10 <Diablo-D3> it'd also help storage too
 849 2012-06-10 21:08:11 <kiba> BlueMatt: nothing
 850 2012-06-10 21:08:15 <kiba> I am just dissing my competitor
 851 2012-06-10 21:08:23 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Rudd-O opened issue 1438 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1438>
 852 2012-06-10 21:08:28 <Diablo-D3> bluematt: we need a second impl in C anyhow
 853 2012-06-10 21:08:32 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: well, ok, you could speed up disk writing a bit, but...
 854 2012-06-10 21:08:39 <Diablo-D3> so might as well finish up lugh, and build a new lib on it.
 855 2012-06-10 21:08:42 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: on ssds/etc it would probably barely help
 856 2012-06-10 21:08:56 <Diablo-D3> Im not on an ssd, and bitcoin takes like209582309582309580293580 fucking minutes to start
 857 2012-06-10 21:08:59 <BlueMatt> a second full implementation, period, would be nice
 858 2012-06-10 21:09:04 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: tmpfs?
 859 2012-06-10 21:09:11 <Diablo-D3> no
 860 2012-06-10 21:09:16 <Diablo-D3> its fine once its all in cache though
 861 2012-06-10 21:09:19 <Diapolo> BlueMatt: QueueShutdown() sends a quit to the Qt EvenLoop ... that would not trigger our Shutdown()?
 862 2012-06-10 21:09:26 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: it wasnt a question, it was a suggestion ;)
 863 2012-06-10 21:09:31 <Diablo-D3> bluematt: either way
 864 2012-06-10 21:09:38 <Diablo-D3> I like where lugh is going
 865 2012-06-10 21:09:42 <Diablo-D3> I just realized something hilarious
 866 2012-06-10 21:09:49 <Diablo-D3> so, I build this layered stm impl, right?
 867 2012-06-10 21:09:52 <BlueMatt> Diapolo: I was under the impression it called shutdown at some point in the callback...
 868 2012-06-10 21:10:02 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: wtf is lugh?
 869 2012-06-10 21:10:02 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
 870 2012-06-10 21:10:05 <Diablo-D3> I can start transactions while transactions are running, and it just becomes part of the parent transactions
 871 2012-06-10 21:10:15 TD has joined
 872 2012-06-10 21:10:18 <Diablo-D3> bluematt: my base library, sorta like glib and whatnot, but not shit.
 873 2012-06-10 21:10:25 <Diablo-D3> Im tired of people using C worng
 874 2012-06-10 21:10:25 <Diapolo> BlueMatt: I can't seem to find that ... see line 94 bitcoin.cpp
 875 2012-06-10 21:10:29 <Diablo-D3> so Im going to use it right.
 876 2012-06-10 21:10:36 <BlueMatt> you are re-implementing glib???
 877 2012-06-10 21:10:38 * BlueMatt facepalm
 878 2012-06-10 21:10:42 <Diablo-D3> bluematt: no no no
 879 2012-06-10 21:10:45 <Diablo-D3> its just a base library.
 880 2012-06-10 21:10:55 <BlueMatt> because there arent already enough of those
 881 2012-06-10 21:10:57 <Diablo-D3> reimplementing glib wouldnt make any sense, the API is the worst part of it
 882 2012-06-10 21:11:04 <Diablo-D3> no, there actually ISNT enough
 883 2012-06-10 21:11:09 <Diablo-D3> they all do _the same fucking thing_
 884 2012-06-10 21:11:11 <Diablo-D3> and they all do it badly.
 885 2012-06-10 21:11:21 <Diablo-D3> why the fuck didnt they just do it right instead
 886 2012-06-10 21:11:28 <kiba> Diablo-D3: just use ruby
 887 2012-06-10 21:11:37 <Diablo-D3> kiba: fuck you.
 888 2012-06-10 21:11:42 <Diablo-D3> and ruby is balls slow as well
 889 2012-06-10 21:12:12 <kiba> you are sure opininated.
 890 2012-06-10 21:12:15 <Diablo-D3> bluematt: anyhow, so, stm, right? I just realized, since my malloc impl will use my stm impl.... mallocs are now transaction aware.
 891 2012-06-10 21:12:36 <kiba> how about an interview with my magazine, bitcoinweekly.com
 892 2012-06-10 21:12:47 <Diablo-D3> that means if I abort a transaction... it aborts the malloc as well.
 893 2012-06-10 21:12:50 <kiba> about your GLBSE traded company
 894 2012-06-10 21:13:05 <Diablo-D3> kiba: everyone is asking me for an interview.
 895 2012-06-10 21:13:11 coinbuck has joined
 896 2012-06-10 21:13:16 <Diablo-D3> wait until I have an ocean of solar panels in a field somewhere.
 897 2012-06-10 21:13:22 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: transaction'd malloc...that makes sense...
 898 2012-06-10 21:13:43 <Diablo-D3> bluematt: no one fucking does this! and why the fuck is everything so goddamned threaded in shit
 899 2012-06-10 21:13:51 <Diablo-D3> Im almost getting rid of threads.
 900 2012-06-10 21:14:02 <BlueMatt> Diapolo: uhhh...well then its fucked up, it  should call Shutdown
 901 2012-06-10 21:14:16 <Diablo-D3> an app written that uses lugh will be using processes and pipes most of the time
 902 2012-06-10 21:14:24 * kiba is bored
 903 2012-06-10 21:14:27 * kiba should develop more
 904 2012-06-10 21:14:29 <BlueMatt> wump: ping
 905 2012-06-10 21:14:45 <Diablo-D3> the only thread usage will be for stuff where you really do have to share the memory space.
 906 2012-06-10 21:14:47 <Diapolo> BlueMatt: Can you verify this finding? Seems all very weird ...
 907 2012-06-10 21:15:04 <BlueMatt> Diapolo: afaict, you are right, which is very broken
 908 2012-06-10 21:15:18 <Diablo-D3> bluematt: but yeah, lugh + opencl, I probably could do bitcoin 10 times faster
 909 2012-06-10 21:15:31 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 910 2012-06-10 21:15:39 <BlueMatt> doing opencl sig checking, yea, bitcoin would be insanely faster
 911 2012-06-10 21:16:12 <Diablo-D3> but thats far in the future
 912 2012-06-10 21:16:23 <Diablo-D3> I have to go spend a few months writing a malloc impl first
 913 2012-06-10 21:16:23 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: no, no nevermind it does call Shutdown
 914 2012-06-10 21:16:29 <Diablo-D3> tabfail
 915 2012-06-10 21:16:29 <BlueMatt> Diapolo: ^
 916 2012-06-10 21:16:34 <BlueMatt> sorry
 917 2012-06-10 21:16:38 <Diapolo> Diablo-D3 I think reducing fragmentation of used DBs and block-chain file would be a start!
 918 2012-06-10 21:16:52 <Diablo-D3> Diapolo: probably
 919 2012-06-10 21:16:53 <Diapolo> BlueMatt: Where does it do this?
 920 2012-06-10 21:16:58 <Diablo-D3> but I could just write a damned db for this
 921 2012-06-10 21:17:06 tucenaber has quit (Changing host)
 922 2012-06-10 21:17:06 tucenaber has joined
 923 2012-06-10 21:17:06 <BlueMatt> Diapolo: I think using an os that doesnt fragment like fucking shit would fix the problem
 924 2012-06-10 21:17:34 <Diapolo> Well I use a patch, which keeps the block-chain file in one fragment, this helps a little.
 925 2012-06-10 21:17:51 <BlueMatt> Diapolo: (just guessing) when you call the qt quit method, app.exec() returns, allowing it to call Shutdown(NULL); in qt/bitcoin.cpp
 926 2012-06-10 21:18:35 <Diapolo> BlueMatt: I found noui_QueueShutdown() but this is not used with Qt I think ^^.
 927 2012-06-10 21:19:21 <BlueMatt> Diapolo: if I were gonna do this, I would change Shutdown to be if(GUI) uiInterface.QueueShutdown; else FinishShutdown(); and change bitcoin.cpp:293 to FinishShutdown
 928 2012-06-10 21:19:34 <BlueMatt> and remove uiInterface.Shutdown calls everywhere else
 929 2012-06-10 21:19:56 <Diapolo> BlueMatt: you are right, after it return it reaches Shutdown()
 930 2012-06-10 21:22:13 <Diapolo> BlueMatt: FinishShutdown() would be the current Shutdown() right?
 931 2012-06-10 21:22:25 <BlueMatt> yrs
 932 2012-06-10 21:22:27 <BlueMatt> yea
 933 2012-06-10 21:23:17 BurtyBB is now known as BurtyB
 934 2012-06-10 21:23:51 <Diapolo> BlueMatt: and uiInterface.QueueShutdown() should become just Shutdown() ... sounds good.
 935 2012-06-10 21:24:21 <BlueMatt> again, gavin may hate that, but I find uiInterface.QueueShutdown to be barely cleaner than an ifdef
 936 2012-06-10 21:24:51 <Diapolo> Gavin dislikes many things I do so perhaps you should open that pull ^^.
 937 2012-06-10 21:25:11 <BlueMatt> I dont think he'll dislike it more of less from me
 938 2012-06-10 21:25:44 <Diapolo> But Bitcoin-Qt crashing is the worst possibility!
 939 2012-06-10 21:32:13 Slix` has joined
 940 2012-06-10 21:39:08 <Diapolo> BlueMatt: Okay I did the changes, will open a new pull tomorrow it's a little late. Will comment in the ipc thread, too :). Thanks for your input, good work!
 941 2012-06-10 21:39:29 silpee has joined
 942 2012-06-10 21:41:34 Zarutian_ has joined
 943 2012-06-10 21:41:45 hnz has joined
 944 2012-06-10 21:42:32 silp has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 945 2012-06-10 21:42:54 Zarutian has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 946 2012-06-10 21:42:54 Zarutian_ is now known as Zarutian
 947 2012-06-10 21:47:04 _W_ has quit (Excess Flood)
 948 2012-06-10 21:47:11 _W_ has joined
 949 2012-06-10 21:51:32 Diapolo has left ()
 950 2012-06-10 21:57:03 <[7]> left to be implemented: send, sendmany, signmessage, verifymessage, settxfee, addmultisigaddress, sendrawtx, backupwallet, keypoolrefill
 951 2012-06-10 21:57:23 <[7]> I think chances are reasonably good to get that done tomorrow
 952 2012-06-10 21:57:57 <[7]> which means we'll finally have a bitcoind web interface that can deal with wallet encryption soon!
 953 2012-06-10 21:58:32 rdponticelli has joined
 954 2012-06-10 21:58:56 <[7]> 700 lines of JS, 400 lines of HTML and 300 lines of python so far
 955 2012-06-10 21:59:18 <[7]> so I'd guess the whole thing will be like 2000 lines when it's finished
 956 2012-06-10 21:59:25 <sipa> nice
 957 2012-06-10 21:59:51 <[7]> the python stuff being the web server + rpc proxy
 958 2012-06-10 22:01:20 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 959 2012-06-10 22:04:31 enquirer_ has joined
 960 2012-06-10 22:04:37 ThomasV_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 961 2012-06-10 22:05:55 enquirer_ is now known as enquirer
 962 2012-06-10 22:07:02 coinmaster has quit (Quit: coinmaster)
 963 2012-06-10 22:09:15 <[7]> does bitcoin actually encrypt the private keys with the passphrase?
 964 2012-06-10 22:09:33 <sipa> no, they are encrypted with a master key
 965 2012-06-10 22:09:53 <[7]> ah, that explains why changing the passphrase is so much faster than initially encrypting a wallet
 966 2012-06-10 22:09:58 <sipa> and the master key is encrypted with a key that is derived from the passphrase
 967 2012-06-10 22:10:01 <[7]> the latter of which quite literally takes ages
 968 2012-06-10 22:10:13 <sipa> mostly bdb sillyness
 969 2012-06-10 22:10:16 <[7]> yeah
 970 2012-06-10 22:10:33 <[7]> I observed >100MB of write traffic scattered all over the place while encrypting a 500KB wallet
 971 2012-06-10 22:10:40 <tcatm> ThomasV: Probably not.
 972 2012-06-10 22:11:20 <BlueMatt> sipa: I thought we used checkpoints now? shouldnt that keep the writes way below 100M?
 973 2012-06-10 22:11:24 <BlueMatt> or is bdb just /that/ bad?
 974 2012-06-10 22:11:32 <[7]> this was with 0.6.2 btw
 975 2012-06-10 22:11:57 <sipa> BlueMatt: my logdb branch creates a new wallet *instantly*
 976 2012-06-10 22:12:11 <BlueMatt> which one is that again?
 977 2012-06-10 22:12:19 <sipa> while it can take *seconds* now with bdb wallets
 978 2012-06-10 22:12:41 <sipa> logdb = append-only key-value store for wallets
 979 2012-06-10 22:12:48 <BlueMatt> hmm...yea we do checkpoint it...wow bdb sucks
 980 2012-06-10 22:12:57 <BlueMatt> sipa: ah, yea...I cant wait for that
 981 2012-06-10 22:13:07 * [7] tries an experiment
 982 2012-06-10 22:13:34 <sipa> bdb is just overengineered for what we need
 983 2012-06-10 22:13:39 <[7]> wow, ctrl+c on the console just segfaulted bitcoin-qt 0.6.2
 984 2012-06-10 22:13:49 <BlueMatt> [7]: yep, its always done that
 985 2012-06-10 22:14:18 ThomasV_ has joined
 986 2012-06-10 22:14:33 <BlueMatt> sipa: yea...though 100MB writes for 500K in data seems excessive no matter what kind of engineering you have...
 987 2012-06-10 22:14:42 <sipa> we.really don't need multi-process multi-database nested synchronized atomic and guaranteed recoverable transactions
 988 2012-06-10 22:14:58 <BlueMatt> yea...
 989 2012-06-10 22:15:07 twobitcoins has joined
 990 2012-06-10 22:15:35 <BlueMatt> and we certainly dont need to have wallet in the same dbenv as txdb
 991 2012-06-10 22:15:45 <sipa> indeed
 992 2012-06-10 22:16:29 <[7]> hahaha
 993 2012-06-10 22:16:36 <[7]> with eatmydata wallet encryption happens almost instantly
 994 2012-06-10 22:16:47 <sipa> eatmydata?
 995 2012-06-10 22:17:12 <BlueMatt> "This package contains a small LD_PRELOAD library (libeatmydata) and a couple of helper utilities designed to transparently disable fsync and friends (like open(O_SYNC)"
 996 2012-06-10 22:17:35 <BlueMatt> heh, I wonder how fast chain download goes with that
 997 2012-06-10 22:17:46 <[7]> heh, should I try? :)
 998 2012-06-10 22:17:53 <phantomcircuit> that seems vaguely like a bad idea...
 999 2012-06-10 22:18:05 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, it's not a whole lot faster
1000 2012-06-10 22:18:09 <phantomcircuit> same thing with tmpfs
1001 2012-06-10 22:18:17 _Fireball has quit (Quit:  Try HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <-)
1002 2012-06-10 22:18:25 <[7]> phantomcircuit: it's a perfectly fine idea for removing annoyances while playing with UI stuff on testnet :P
1003 2012-06-10 22:18:28 <phantomcircuit> you get from 0-125k faster
1004 2012-06-10 22:18:32 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: vaguely? seems like a whole lote worse idea than vaguely...
1005 2012-06-10 22:18:33 <phantomcircuit> but after that it's cpu bound
1006 2012-06-10 22:18:33 <sipa> interesting
1007 2012-06-10 22:19:02 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: ah...makes sense, too much sig verification...someone should thread that
1008 2012-06-10 22:19:24 <[7]> BlueMatt: sig verification... wait... shouldn't that work well on GPUs? :)
1009 2012-06-10 22:19:25 * BlueMatt wonders how fast threading it would be, with dispatchers to a few worker threads
1010 2012-06-10 22:19:29 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, really the right way to do it is a pipeline with threads
1011 2012-06-10 22:19:33 <BlueMatt> [7]: that would work too
1012 2012-06-10 22:19:41 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: thats what I was thinking...
1013 2012-06-10 22:19:44 <phantomcircuit> the problem is the network protocol doesn't have anyway to hint what the next 500 blocks are
1014 2012-06-10 22:19:54 <BlueMatt> yes it does
1015 2012-06-10 22:19:59 <phantomcircuit> so you'd end up calling the uh i forget getblocks? getdata?
1016 2012-06-10 22:20:02 <phantomcircuit> something like that a lot
1017 2012-06-10 22:20:04 <BlueMatt> getblocks
1018 2012-06-10 22:20:19 <BlueMatt> we already call it a lot...
1019 2012-06-10 22:20:38 <sipa> we do a getdata for every block anyway
1020 2012-06-10 22:20:41 <BlueMatt> see: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1233 which does block buffering...
1021 2012-06-10 22:20:55 <BlueMatt> (and handles requesting block lists earlier)
1022 2012-06-10 22:21:00 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, right so the basic issue is you'd end up calling getblocks a whole lot more
1023 2012-06-10 22:21:10 <BlueMatt> no you wouldnt...
1024 2012-06-10 22:21:13 <phantomcircuit> right now it's requested every 500 blocks in initial download mode
1025 2012-06-10 22:21:29 <phantomcircuit> the only way to keep the pipeline full would be to request it more often
1026 2012-06-10 22:21:32 <BlueMatt> I thought we were talking about threading signature verification...
1027 2012-06-10 22:21:39 <phantomcircuit> other wise every 500 blocks you have rtt latency from the network
1028 2012-06-10 22:22:02 <BlueMatt> see that pull request, it does it-ish
1029 2012-06-10 22:22:02 <[7]> one rtt every 500 blocks is probably fine if it runs async from the cpu bound stuff
1030 2012-06-10 22:22:07 <phantomcircuit> we are :)
1031 2012-06-10 22:22:10 <BlueMatt> and keeps the pipeline perfectly full...
1032 2012-06-10 22:22:49 sgornick has joined
1033 2012-06-10 22:23:15 <[7]> what does settxfee do btw? IIUC it sets just the *minimum* fee, right?
1034 2012-06-10 22:23:23 <phantomcircuit> correct
1035 2012-06-10 22:23:28 <phantomcircuit> right so
1036 2012-06-10 22:23:32 <phantomcircuit> thread calling getblocks
1037 2012-06-10 22:23:40 <[7]> i.e. it's kinda pointless to call it at all
1038 2012-06-10 22:23:41 <phantomcircuit> threads verifying transactions in returned blocks
1039 2012-06-10 22:23:57 <phantomcircuit> thread connecting blocks with verified transactions to blockchain
1040 2012-06-10 22:24:05 <phantomcircuit> inb4crash
1041 2012-06-10 22:24:08 <BlueMatt> yea, I didnt do the second split (yet)
1042 2012-06-10 22:24:24 <BlueMatt> well, I had in a previous version, but I havent ported it again, yet
1043 2012-06-10 22:26:17 <BlueMatt> because the initial checks are so short, you fill the pipe really easily, the network is really fast compared to actual disk commits
1044 2012-06-10 22:27:45 minimoose has joined
1045 2012-06-10 22:30:32 <phantomcircuit> depends on the disk but yeah for conventional spinning rust you're going to get 100 IOPS tops if you're the only thing running
1046 2012-06-10 22:31:32 <BlueMatt> yea, on fast disks/really fast cpus (or before last checkpoint, were we dont do sig verification) its pretty quick
1047 2012-06-10 22:32:56 ThomasV_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1048 2012-06-10 22:34:21 <BlueMatt> so you may not be able to keep the buffer full, but Ive only tested it very thoroughly downloading over lan
1049 2012-06-10 22:34:49 <BlueMatt> benchmarks over WAN arent very useful, so Ive just tested it, not really benched it or run it too much
1050 2012-06-10 22:35:51 <Diablo-D3> this is why god invented apachebench
1051 2012-06-10 22:36:10 <Diablo-D3> DoSing victims into fucking craters for over 9000 years
1052 2012-06-10 22:44:26 coinbuck has quit (Quit: coinbuck)
1053 2012-06-10 22:46:45 eoss has joined
1054 2012-06-10 22:46:45 eoss has quit (Changing host)
1055 2012-06-10 22:46:45 eoss has joined
1056 2012-06-10 22:48:38 Z0rZ0rZ0r has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1057 2012-06-10 23:05:11 <TD> i'd think the primary bottleneck right now on chain download speed is if you accidentally get connected to a slow node
1058 2012-06-10 23:05:16 <TD> this is what i see with bitcoinj anyway
1059 2012-06-10 23:05:38 <TD> we randomly pick some nodes from a DNS peer, and sometimes those nodes serve up blocks at 4-5 per second or something pathetic like that. normally means they are downloading the chain themselves
1060 2012-06-10 23:05:50 <TD> coding to avoid them isn't that hard. it just isn't done yet
1061 2012-06-10 23:06:29 <bayleef> So, what up with these 'VerifySignature failed' things? Is this supposed to resolve itself at some point?
1062 2012-06-10 23:06:38 <BlueMatt> hmm...cant say I see that often, but then I end up benchmarking mostly on lan anyway...in any case, the satoshi client really, really needs to be able to handle that better
1063 2012-06-10 23:06:50 <BlueMatt> (it currently just suffers through it during ibd which...sucks)
1064 2012-06-10 23:10:24 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1065 2012-06-10 23:11:49 O2made has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1066 2012-06-10 23:13:20 agricocb has joined
1067 2012-06-10 23:16:52 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1068 2012-06-10 23:17:16 graingert_ has joined
1069 2012-06-10 23:19:58 graingert has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1070 2012-06-10 23:20:54 Apexseals has joined
1071 2012-06-10 23:23:14 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1072 2012-06-10 23:26:56 rdponticelli has joined
1073 2012-06-10 23:30:49 rdponticelli_ has joined
1074 2012-06-10 23:31:24 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1075 2012-06-10 23:33:06 rdponticelli_ is now known as rdponticelli
1076 2012-06-10 23:38:07 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1077 2012-06-10 23:40:46 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1078 2012-06-10 23:45:57 da2ce7 has joined
1079 2012-06-10 23:46:30 wasabi2 has joined
1080 2012-06-10 23:46:52 meLon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1081 2012-06-10 23:47:43 matt2011 has quit (K-Lined)
1082 2012-06-10 23:47:44 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1083 2012-06-10 23:57:16 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)