1 2012-06-21 00:00:31 <gavinandresen> programming would be a lot more fun if time-to-fix-a-bug was a constant instead of an exponential function
2 2012-06-21 00:01:07 <gmaxwell> depends on the constant. ;)
3 2012-06-21 00:01:31 <gavinandresen> just about any constant would be better than "might take 2 minutes, might take 2 weeks..."
4 2012-06-21 00:01:47 <sipa> let's define this constant to be log(-1)
5 2012-06-21 00:01:56 <sipa> = an imaginary pie
6 2012-06-21 00:01:58 <BlueMatt> programming would be a lot more fun if bugs didnt exist
7 2012-06-21 00:02:25 <gavinandresen> fixing easy bugs is fun and rewarding.
8 2012-06-21 00:03:01 <sipa> fixing hard bugs is exhausting
9 2012-06-21 00:03:12 <sipa> (though also rewarding...)
10 2012-06-21 00:03:17 <gmaxwell> I like pie.
11 2012-06-21 00:03:21 <gavinandresen> mmmm, pie.
12 2012-06-21 00:03:24 <TuxBlackEdo> I like turtles
13 2012-06-21 00:03:26 <TuxBlackEdo> sorry
14 2012-06-21 00:03:28 <sipa> Pie is GOOOOOOOD.
15 2012-06-21 00:03:29 <TuxBlackEdo> i'll see myself out
16 2012-06-21 00:03:31 <gavinandresen> mmmm, chocolate turtles
17 2012-06-21 00:04:09 <sipa> GRRRR
18 2012-06-21 00:04:12 <gavinandresen> Usually after I fix a hard bug I feel like I'm an idiot for not seeing the problem sooner
19 2012-06-21 00:04:12 * sipa goes nuts
20 2012-06-21 00:04:27 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: s/Usually/always/ at least for me
21 2012-06-21 00:04:52 <sipa> the txindex is written, there is not a single abort present, and it cannot be read
22 2012-06-21 00:05:23 <BlueMatt> skipped the commit?
23 2012-06-21 00:05:37 <sipa> even if there is no commit, it should be read
24 2012-06-21 00:05:50 <gavinandresen> Then there are the really hard bugs that turn out to be completely out of your control (I found a bug in Irix's select() once upon a time, that was fun....)
25 2012-06-21 00:06:01 <sipa> plus, i didn't touch any database code at all...
26 2012-06-21 00:06:37 <BlueMatt> sipa: is it in the same thread?
27 2012-06-21 00:06:42 <sipa> irrelevant
28 2012-06-21 00:07:11 <BlueMatt> nevermind, ignore me
29 2012-06-21 00:07:23 <sipa> the dbenv code only keeps one real database handle open anyway
30 2012-06-21 00:07:29 <gmaxwell> apparently snprintf is too ultraninja for the developers of this tool.
31 2012-06-21 00:07:43 <gavinandresen> I'm running at sxpl36324kqv5k6c.onion:7095 but just 3 connections so far
32 2012-06-21 00:07:48 <gmaxwell> as are null terminations.
33 2012-06-21 00:08:39 <sipa> i give up :(
34 2012-06-21 00:08:56 <sipa> i change some code that changes the filenames where blocks are written to
35 2012-06-21 00:09:03 <sipa> and suddenly the most basic database code fails
36 2012-06-21 00:12:58 <sipa> and undoing the patch does fix it
37 2012-06-21 00:13:47 t7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
38 2012-06-21 00:23:05 da2ce759 is now known as da2ce7
39 2012-06-21 00:24:59 dvide has quit ()
40 2012-06-21 00:25:24 dvide has joined
41 2012-06-21 00:26:15 <galambo> when was the last time someone built bitcoin in windows
42 2012-06-21 00:26:21 <galambo> natively
43 2012-06-21 00:26:37 <sipa> Diapolo does so, i believe
44 2012-06-21 00:30:25 <genjix> amiller: your authenticated data structure is a specialisation of the one proposed in that paper that offers those big-O times you listed
45 2012-06-21 00:31:39 <genjix> so in the paper they use a merkle tree, but then you add the red-black balancing
46 2012-06-21 00:31:57 <genjix> is there a reason for that?
47 2012-06-21 00:33:47 <sipa> to prevent unbalancing
48 2012-06-21 00:34:14 <genjix> why though?
49 2012-06-21 00:34:43 <sipa> as attackers could try to construct transactions whose txids make the tree become listlike, and have O(n) characteristics
50 2012-06-21 00:35:07 <sipa> or addresses, or whatevrr you're indexing on
51 2012-06-21 00:35:13 <genjix> aha
52 2012-06-21 00:37:00 <gmaxwell> This was the killer problem when I was talking about this some time ago for namecoin, I didn't know how to prevent the unbalancing. There are actually a couple ways to do it, however.
53 2012-06-21 00:37:20 <genjix> im not too familiar with namecoin actually :p
54 2012-06-21 00:37:40 <gmaxwell> well namecoin has a worse problem than bitcoin.
55 2012-06-21 00:38:04 <D34TH> ^
56 2012-06-21 00:38:09 <genjix> limited domains?
57 2012-06-21 00:38:09 <gmaxwell> In order to do a secure name lookup you need the whole chain. There is no way to do a "SPV" namecoin node.
58 2012-06-21 00:38:19 <genjix> i see
59 2012-06-21 00:38:30 <gmaxwell> because the single most interesting lie to tell about domain names is "NXDOMAIN".
60 2012-06-21 00:38:31 <D34TH> also all domains will go bad
61 2012-06-21 00:38:57 att has quit (Quit: Leaving)
62 2012-06-21 00:39:10 <gmaxwell> So in order to have a lite resolver for namecoin you need to way to return an NXDOMAIN that can't be faked.
63 2012-06-21 00:39:55 toffoo has joined
64 2012-06-21 00:40:38 <gmaxwell> But if you had a tree-of-currently-registered-names that was committed you could do this. But then what happens when people start registering aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa0 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa1? etc. the tree becomes unbalanced and costly to update.
65 2012-06-21 00:41:36 <gmaxwell> in any case, the balancing stuff fixes that.
66 2012-06-21 00:42:06 <genjix> you could also penalise domains depending on how much they unbalance the tree
67 2012-06-21 00:42:23 <genjix> so for instance with mempool txs in bitcoin, the fee is a cost for using up this limited resource
68 2012-06-21 00:42:54 <genjix> maybe the fee should be dependant on how much gasoline your computer has left for storing txs (require more fees as mempool fills up)
69 2012-06-21 00:43:22 <genjix> but then i dont know the security risks of giving deferential treatment to certain txs (or domains in this case)
70 2012-06-21 00:44:53 <gmaxwell> You could, but this is harder to do in other contexts... and as you say, deferential treatment is questionable and gets complicated with renewals.
71 2012-06-21 00:45:21 <gmaxwell> Doing some kind of balanced tree pretty much solves that without the weird side effects.
72 2012-06-21 00:45:28 <gmaxwell> The downside is just complexity.
73 2012-06-21 00:51:01 <amiller> genjix, the one i implemented was based on an earlier paper that i found to be a bit clearer and simpler
74 2012-06-21 00:52:32 <amiller> in the general paper the choice of balancing is basically left open, and presumably any choice is going to be roughly equivalent to red black
75 2012-06-21 00:53:29 <amiller> "It is also trivial to convert a 2-3 tree into a Search DAG if one wants to support efï¬cient updates (as in [22])" is as specific as the general paper gets
76 2012-06-21 00:53:38 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I use the various decompositions regularly; while I agree it's not meant for direct human consumption, it is currently the only useful way to see that information, and when a tool for humans to see it is some day written, it shouldn't need to reimplement it
77 2012-06-21 00:53:39 <genjix> yeah that paper was like "you can do this, or you do this, but maybe you want to do this... or this"
78 2012-06-21 00:54:03 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: and without ANY decompositions, there are various software use-cases that become impossible again
79 2012-06-21 00:54:35 <amiller> genjix, roughly, any of the options boil down to the same basic behavior
80 2012-06-21 00:54:42 <sipa> luke-jr: the suggestion is to add a decodetransaction or decodescript RPC call that allows the same
81 2012-06-21 00:54:47 <sipa> luke-jr: but works generally
82 2012-06-21 00:55:04 <amiller> for example red black trees are isomorphic to 2-3 trees and to 2-4 trees (just copied that from wikipedia but worked it out once msyelf earlier as well)
83 2012-06-21 00:55:11 <sipa> with parallel RPC, such a method can be non-blocking, so calling it many times shouldn't hurt too much
84 2012-06-21 00:55:35 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I don't think people should be forced to rely on third-party sites like blockchain.info (which doesn't disassemble P2SH correctly!) or blockexplorer.com (which is slow if not down)
85 2012-06-21 00:58:11 <amiller> "Doing some kind of balanced tree pretty much solves that without the weird side effects." one weird side effect in particular is that you can be ddos'd up to the point of your worst-case tolerance
86 2012-06-21 00:58:16 <genjix> amiller: hmm so could you use this scheme with a byzantine fault tolerant system and maintain a global transaction view without the need for a blockchain?
87 2012-06-21 00:58:16 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: replacing decompositions with multiple RPC calls brings back the original problems they were meant to solve; it was nice to not have to patch my bitcoind with dumpblock anymoreâ¦
88 2012-06-21 00:58:26 <amiller> if you can rely on the tree never exceeding log N, then you can always bail out after a log N traversal
89 2012-06-21 00:58:42 <amiller> whereas if the protocol permits up to log N, then an SPV client could easily be led by the untrusted helper to waste a lot of time
90 2012-06-21 00:59:00 <amiller> sorry, whereas if the protocol permits up to N, i mean above
91 2012-06-21 00:59:10 <luke-jr> sipa: additional RPC calls add a ton of overhead
92 2012-06-21 00:59:22 <amiller> genjix, yes that's right, the blockchain itself is actually a secondary datastructure, rather than the primary one.
93 2012-06-21 00:59:29 <amiller> it's really all about the unspent coins db, not the blockchain
94 2012-06-21 00:59:32 <sipa> luke-jr: if you're doing tons, you can probably implement the decomposition too
95 2012-06-21 00:59:38 <luke-jr> sipa: I shouldn't have to.
96 2012-06-21 01:00:01 <luke-jr> also, not all the info is available
97 2012-06-21 01:00:14 <sipa> such as?
98 2012-06-21 01:00:24 <luke-jr> the pubkey being redeemed by the input
99 2012-06-21 01:01:10 <sipa> well, i don't feel strongly about it
100 2012-06-21 01:01:23 <sipa> i do like the idea of providing decomposition functionality in general
101 2012-06-21 01:01:23 <luke-jr> anyhow, if decompositions get reverted, I'll basically need to give up on ever using vanilla bitcoind
102 2012-06-21 01:01:49 maqr has joined
103 2012-06-21 01:02:05 eoss has joined
104 2012-06-21 01:02:05 eoss has quit (Changing host)
105 2012-06-21 01:02:05 eoss has joined
106 2012-06-21 01:02:40 <amiller> genjix, my favorite paper of this bunch, the 'Persistent Authenticated Datastructure' one, is kind of a combination of the blockchain and the unspent coins db
107 2012-06-21 01:02:48 <amiller> in that it stores the history as well as the current view
108 2012-06-21 01:02:58 <galambo> hooray
109 2012-06-21 01:03:00 <galambo> awww
110 2012-06-21 01:03:06 <amiller> this is important for byzantine consensus becasue the algorithm relies on being able to validate forks if they occurred in the past
111 2012-06-21 01:03:28 <amiller> a miner who truly discards all his history except the current state, won't be able to change his mind and validate a proposed fork
112 2012-06-21 01:03:54 <amiller> a compromise in between storing all the history and storing none of the history is to store a sliding window of history
113 2012-06-21 01:04:23 <amiller> at least as far back as you're willing to tolerate forks
114 2012-06-21 01:04:28 <gmaxwell> amiller: then you get a really awesome outcome where causing a parition for some finite length ends the currency forever.
115 2012-06-21 01:04:36 <amiller> in a byzantine consensus protocol there's typically a 'hard decision' threshold
116 2012-06-21 01:04:52 <amiller> and the proofs are all about there being negligible probability of any two contrary decisions among the correct processes
117 2012-06-21 01:05:47 <amiller> i've done a whole bunch of reading into distributed systems literature and i'm trying to write up a better proof of bitcoin as a byzantine consensus algorithm than the one in the bitcoin.pdf
118 2012-06-21 01:05:53 <gmaxwell> (partition or generating conflicting forks, of courseâ whatever is cheaper for you, long partitions get expensive because people will tend to manually heal them)
119 2012-06-21 01:06:15 <amiller> in particular, the bitcoin whitepaper seems to consider that the message delays are zero, whereas bounded message delays (possibly unknown bounds) are half of the challenge
120 2012-06-21 01:06:49 <genjix> amiller: i'm interested in byzantine systems too
121 2012-06-21 01:07:09 <genjix> what piques my interest is that wikipedia lists bitcoin as one, but i'm not sure that it is.
122 2012-06-21 01:07:33 <amiller> ben laurie says it's not too
123 2012-06-21 01:07:42 <amiller> byzantine systems have a ton of variation in the model
124 2012-06-21 01:07:43 <gmaxwell> amiller: hm? it doesn't assume message delays are zero but without specifying one you can't put an upper bound on the time to consistency.
125 2012-06-21 01:08:10 <amiller> there are only like four papers that talk about anonymous networks, where the processes aren't necessarily known ahead of time
126 2012-06-21 01:08:10 <genjix> but i think it would be possible to make a byzantine currency if you assume that the people at the start will always be a part of this system and never leave
127 2012-06-21 01:08:21 <genjix> the bitcoin blocks are like lockins for the system state
128 2012-06-21 01:09:01 <genjix> however i am studying more about these systems
129 2012-06-21 01:09:05 <amiller> the only case i have a tentative proof for is in a model in which you know N, the total hash power of the network, and Î, a maximum bound for message delay
130 2012-06-21 01:09:25 <amiller> if you don't know either N or Î, i don't think it's possible
131 2012-06-21 01:10:00 <amiller> i'm trying to look at what happens when you know one but not the other, but it's difficult
132 2012-06-21 01:10:20 <genjix> well i know that original paper totally changed everything
133 2012-06-21 01:10:26 <amiller> http://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm88.pdf this is a good paper to start with, it won a dijkstra award recently
134 2012-06-21 01:10:28 <gmaxwell> amiller: if you don't know the delay you must take infinity to be the time to consistency.
135 2012-06-21 01:10:29 <genjix> because they were able to make one simplification
136 2012-06-21 01:10:50 <amiller> gmaxwell, that isn't true, the model of Partial Synchrony is when there is a bound but you don't know what it is
137 2012-06-21 01:11:08 <amiller> the protocol is successful if the time to consistency is related to that bound, but you just don't have to 'bake it in' to the protocol
138 2012-06-21 01:11:32 maqr has quit (Quit: derp)
139 2012-06-21 01:11:39 <amiller> http://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/podc89.pdf also this paper was probably the most fun to read of all
140 2012-06-21 01:11:45 <amiller> it's more like a story / post mortem
141 2012-06-21 01:11:46 <galambo> does berkeley db in bitcoin need pthreads
142 2012-06-21 01:11:47 <genjix> 36 pages
143 2012-06-21 01:12:08 <genjix> galambo: no but it's a good idea to have it enabled
144 2012-06-21 01:12:12 <galambo> e:\program files aux\mingw\bin\../lib/gcc/mingw32/4.7.0/../../../../include/pthread.h:585:24: error: conflicting declaration 'typedef struct ptw32_handle_t pthread_t'
145 2012-06-21 01:12:27 <genjix> yeah there's a fix for that
146 2012-06-21 01:12:30 <gmaxwell> amiller: I think you can proove bitcoin meets this criteria when a majority of hashpower is within a Πradius that it is consistent in λ*Πtime. with some high probability.
147 2012-06-21 01:12:32 <genjix> google bitcoin and that error
148 2012-06-21 01:13:16 <gmaxwell> s/proove/prove/ (proofs by cows: prooove)
149 2012-06-21 01:13:29 twobitcoins has quit (Quit: Leaving)
150 2012-06-21 01:13:38 <amiller> gmaxwell, best i've been able to get is N β
151 2012-06-21 01:14:15 <galambo> appreciate it genjix
152 2012-06-21 01:14:21 <genjix> nw
153 2012-06-21 01:16:13 <amiller> slightly more precise: N β k where 'high probability' is 1 - e^-k which i know is what you meant
154 2012-06-21 01:16:32 <galambo> i've already accepted im never going to get the gui to build like this :/
155 2012-06-21 01:17:09 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
156 2012-06-21 01:18:27 twobitcoins has joined
157 2012-06-21 01:19:19 danbri_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
158 2012-06-21 01:20:42 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: your gist seems to ignore txn_prio refactoring⦠any reason why?
159 2012-06-21 01:22:28 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: also seems to be ignoring the fact that it is impossible to reasonably infer transaction fee policies
160 2012-06-21 01:22:41 Vitas has joined
161 2012-06-21 01:22:46 Vitas has quit (2!~kvirc@ip4-95-82-130-77.cust.nbox.cz|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
162 2012-06-21 01:24:04 yellowhat_ has joined
163 2012-06-21 01:25:53 yellowhat_ has quit (Client Quit)
164 2012-06-21 01:26:37 yellowhat has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
165 2012-06-21 01:29:23 AntKinGTube has quit (Quit: Leaving)
166 2012-06-21 01:30:26 danbri has joined
167 2012-06-21 01:30:49 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I actually figured out a way to do that, I think.
168 2012-06-21 01:31:19 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ?
169 2012-06-21 01:32:40 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you watch the memory pool for the highest fee transactions that _fail_ to get included in blocks (but which you think are acceptable). This should give a reliable indication absent near universal targeted blocking of transactions, and I think we're allowed to be lossy in that case. (Also, if you add the criteria that they eventually get included it reduces that further)
170 2012-06-21 01:33:04 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: O.O
171 2012-06-21 01:33:08 <luke-jr> that sounds reasonable!
172 2012-06-21 01:33:37 <gmaxwell> ::nods::
173 2012-06-21 01:33:47 <gmaxwell> "Thats why they pay me the big bucks"
174 2012-06-21 01:33:58 <luke-jr> gmaxwell++
175 2012-06-21 01:34:52 <luke-jr> http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html suggests bitcoin.org controls the network more than Gavin <.<
176 2012-06-21 01:34:56 <gmaxwell> On my todo is figuring out how I'm going to capture that data and then derive a probability of time to mining as a function of fee.
177 2012-06-21 01:35:48 <gmaxwell> what the heck is getting counted as vulnerable there?
178 2012-06-21 01:36:16 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: whatever Gavin mentioned on 0.6.3rc1 thread
179 2012-06-21 01:37:27 <luke-jr> https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=88734
180 2012-06-21 01:37:28 <gmaxwell> hm. Are you not counting 0.6.99 nodes as fixed?
181 2012-06-21 01:37:35 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: they're "testing"
182 2012-06-21 01:37:55 <gmaxwell> ah okay.
183 2012-06-21 01:37:57 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: if you scroll down, there's a textarea with the different versions and their verdicts
184 2012-06-21 01:39:01 thesheff17 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
185 2012-06-21 01:44:33 enquirer has joined
186 2012-06-21 01:47:11 genjix has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
187 2012-06-21 01:48:37 eoss has quit (Quit: Leaving)
188 2012-06-21 01:49:02 <gmaxwell> There are shades of this in some people's zinger 'attacks' against bitcoin: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2647
189 2012-06-21 01:52:43 <Graet> lol
190 2012-06-21 01:56:28 UukGoblin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
191 2012-06-21 01:56:41 UukGoblin has joined
192 2012-06-21 01:57:40 Karmaon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
193 2012-06-21 01:59:17 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
194 2012-06-21 01:59:32 random_cat__ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
195 2012-06-21 01:59:32 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
196 2012-06-21 01:59:45 khalahan has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
197 2012-06-21 01:59:49 khalahan_ has joined
198 2012-06-21 02:02:02 Karmaon has joined
199 2012-06-21 02:02:22 Wack0 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
200 2012-06-21 02:02:55 Karmaon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
201 2012-06-21 02:03:15 Karmaon has joined
202 2012-06-21 02:03:33 galambo has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
203 2012-06-21 02:04:03 Wack0 has joined
204 2012-06-21 02:04:18 MrTiggr has joined
205 2012-06-21 02:05:19 random_cat__ has joined
206 2012-06-21 02:11:04 maaku has joined
207 2012-06-21 02:14:30 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
208 2012-06-21 02:15:02 copumpkin has joined
209 2012-06-21 02:17:22 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
210 2012-06-21 02:17:36 <luke-jr> btw, any idea what proto 60000 with "" UA is? O.o
211 2012-06-21 02:20:16 Ummon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
212 2012-06-21 02:26:01 twmz has joined
213 2012-06-21 02:29:59 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
214 2012-06-21 02:31:34 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
215 2012-06-21 02:31:42 <midnightmagic> can I ask whether it's normal to see regular "WARNING: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade." errors?
216 2012-06-21 02:31:46 graingert has joined
217 2012-06-21 02:31:54 <Graet> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88734.20
218 2012-06-21 02:31:56 <Graet> :(
219 2012-06-21 02:32:16 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: it's not.
220 2012-06-21 02:32:43 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I've now seen it.. perhaps three times in total.
221 2012-06-21 02:32:53 <midnightmagic> bitcoind -daemon -noirc is how I start it usually.
222 2012-06-21 02:33:27 <midnightmagic> I was running 0.6.99 post 0.6.3 upgrade warning.
223 2012-06-21 02:33:47 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: Any thoughts about the minimum fee to not be considered zero in gavin's stuff. You're the only miner I know that has a really low value there. My concern is that people will think "moar money == good" and set it to zero, and make it easy for txn with 1e-8 fees to flood out all the free txn.
224 2012-06-21 02:34:41 <doublec> midnightmagic: I saw that today
225 2012-06-21 02:34:43 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ?
226 2012-06-21 02:35:01 <midnightmagic> It was stuck on block 185514.
227 2012-06-21 02:35:05 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: well you get that message when other nodes are claiming to be ahead of you.
228 2012-06-21 02:35:09 <doublec> mine was 185398
229 2012-06-21 02:35:25 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: what version are you on?
230 2012-06-21 02:35:53 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: 0.6.99 perhaps.. a week after 0.6.3 was released and you were telling everyone to upgrade to 0.6.3.
231 2012-06-21 02:36:02 <midnightmagic> so.. origin/master.
232 2012-06-21 02:36:10 <gmaxwell> Graet: "Meh" on that. It's getting called a serious vulnerability in part because of the preferences of the person who reported it. I wouldn't have called it that on my own, and it's of a class of DOS attacks that have been discussed in public before.
233 2012-06-21 02:36:23 <doublec> 0.6.3 hasn't been released yet has it?
234 2012-06-21 02:36:35 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: did it recover on is own?
235 2012-06-21 02:36:40 <midnightmagic> err..
236 2012-06-21 02:36:57 <luke-jr> doublec: rc1 has
237 2012-06-21 02:37:00 <midnightmagic> wait was 0.6.3 the one you were telling everyone to upgrade to or 0.6.2?
238 2012-06-21 02:37:05 <midnightmagic> must've been post-0.6.2.
239 2012-06-21 02:37:08 <gmaxwell> 0.6.2
240 2012-06-21 02:37:10 <doublec> right, I knew about the rc
241 2012-06-21 02:37:38 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: No, it was stuck stuck, no recovery. I'm rebuilding against origin/master as of a few seconds ago in the hope that will helps.
242 2012-06-21 02:37:52 <luke-jr> Graet: I've tagged 0.4.7rc3, 0.5.6rc3, and 0.6.0.9rc1 in git, with the fix
243 2012-06-21 02:38:08 <Graet> well gmaxwell we need some (oh god again) standards - so ppls opinions have some meaning
244 2012-06-21 02:38:34 <Graet> if a dev announcves a serious vuln - it shouldnt be a "matter of opinion"
245 2012-06-21 02:39:00 <midnightmagic> hrm. still stuck on 185514.
246 2012-06-21 02:39:11 <luke-jr> Graet: well, it's always a matter of opinion
247 2012-06-21 02:39:12 <gmaxwell> Graet: it's a cpubusyness DOS that requires an attacker to connect to the victim and stay connected while sending data.
248 2012-06-21 02:39:17 <luke-jr> the question is whose opinion, I suppose
249 2012-06-21 02:39:20 <doublec> midnightmagic: I ended up redownloading the block chain
250 2012-06-21 02:39:28 <gmaxwell> Graet: to some people thats serious, to other people its totally boring.
251 2012-06-21 02:39:34 <midnightmagic> doublec: that's what I had to do last time. :-(
252 2012-06-21 02:40:05 <Graet> so there is no discussion on vulnerabilty level among the devs, you all choose what you think is and isnt a vuln? - sorry i'm no coder but this dont make sense
253 2012-06-21 02:40:16 <luke-jr> Graet: no, vuln is objective
254 2012-06-21 02:40:24 <luke-jr> the degree of how serious is more subjective
255 2012-06-21 02:40:42 eoss has joined
256 2012-06-21 02:40:44 <Graet> so there can be no consensus before announcements are made?
257 2012-06-21 02:41:06 <Graet> its just one opinion against another - doesnt seem so "proffessional" to me...
258 2012-06-21 02:41:09 <midnightmagic> InvalidChainFound ! :-) How exciting!
259 2012-06-21 02:41:15 <Graet> for want of abetter word
260 2012-06-21 02:41:16 <gmaxwell> no, it was discussed. But what do you want? We want people to report things, we want them to not call developers liars and say they're covering up things, we want to be conservative in how we want people so people who are exposed don't take no action.
261 2012-06-21 02:41:27 <midnightmagic> InvalidChainFound: current best=00000000000003d20998 height=185514 work=361330329362000531868
262 2012-06-21 02:41:46 <Graet> like i said in myu post, the previuos way was better
263 2012-06-21 02:41:48 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: ohh. Did you start that node from some download?
264 2012-06-21 02:41:54 <gmaxwell> Graet: the previous was very serious.
265 2012-06-21 02:42:21 <gmaxwell> This is not.
266 2012-06-21 02:42:35 <gmaxwell> Or at least not the same kind of serious.
267 2012-06-21 02:42:42 <Graet> my understanding is RC is not production, but that anouncement (and the scare it put into my miners taht contacted me about it) makes me feel i should be updating to a testin
268 2012-06-21 02:42:49 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Hrm.. originally this particular blockchain was from.. mm.. the sourceforge.net download I believe, and then rebuilt on another machine via downloading. And then that bitcoind was halted, and the blk* files scp'd over to this machine, and this machine caught up further via more block downloads.
269 2012-06-21 02:42:52 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
270 2012-06-21 02:43:00 <luke-jr> Graet: it's only RC because not many people have tested it
271 2012-06-21 02:43:03 <doublec> my "safe mode" issue happened when my computer crashed. I restarted and I got that message and no new blocks
272 2012-06-21 02:43:08 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: And just now, I did nothing to rebuild the block chain, as I was hoping the new version could just recover, as suggested in the error message.
273 2012-06-21 02:43:09 <Graet> thats great gmaxwell but how does anyone not privvy know the difference?
274 2012-06-21 02:43:10 <doublec> I assumed something got corrupted
275 2012-06-21 02:43:12 <luke-jr> Graet: we expect to rename it to final and publish on bitcoin.org ASAP
276 2012-06-21 02:43:27 <luke-jr> Graet: but doing so before some public testing is dangerous
277 2012-06-21 02:43:40 <gmaxwell> Graet: and, moreover, while I said it wouldn't have been described as that if it were purely up to meâ I don't disagree with it.
278 2012-06-21 02:43:40 <midnightmagic> doublec: this is really exciting. :-)
279 2012-06-21 02:43:46 <Graet> exactly luke - it is testing, testing in myunderstanding should NOT be used in production
280 2012-06-21 02:44:00 <gmaxwell> Graet: you can use it in non-critical production.
281 2012-06-21 02:44:07 <doublec> midnightmagic: bitcoin has some new fangled thing where when you stop bitcoind it stops quickly but the blockcain files are tied to the database log files
282 2012-06-21 02:44:14 <Graet> sig
283 2012-06-21 02:44:14 <doublec> midnightmagic: so you can't just copy them
284 2012-06-21 02:44:16 <Graet> h
285 2012-06-21 02:44:19 <Graet> nm
286 2012-06-21 02:44:21 * luke-jr agrees the vulnerability shouldn't have been mentioned in public yet, FWIW.
287 2012-06-21 02:44:24 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: yea, _when_ did you copy it?
288 2012-06-21 02:44:24 <Graet> you dont want to undestand
289 2012-06-21 02:44:27 <doublec> midnightmagic: unless you use '-detachdb' or something
290 2012-06-21 02:44:36 * Graet wanderrs off and does something useful
291 2012-06-21 02:44:44 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: a few weeks ago. hang on I can get you an actual timestamp.
292 2012-06-21 02:44:55 <gmaxwell> Graet: I understand what you're saying. But I think you're wrong.
293 2012-06-21 02:45:04 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: 2012-06-09 01:03
294 2012-06-21 02:45:08 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it doesn't matter in this case. There isn't anything to keep secret.
295 2012-06-21 02:45:16 <midnightmagic> so that would have been around the time that I rebuilt a bitcoind.
296 2012-06-21 02:45:22 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: ah, then the node you copied it fromâ what version was that?
297 2012-06-21 02:45:22 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: PM
298 2012-06-21 02:45:49 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: let's see.. v0.6.1-364-g11f73c7-dirty-beta
299 2012-06-21 02:46:16 <Graet> this shit needs to be handled better
300 2012-06-21 02:46:27 <Graet> how is the pool op mailing list coming?
301 2012-06-21 02:46:32 <midnightmagic> Graet: Best way to get it handled better is to contribute my good man. :)
302 2012-06-21 02:46:51 <Graet> tell me how i can....
303 2012-06-21 02:47:52 <midnightmagic> Graet: Well, you can identify what it is that should be handled better, and try to help push things towards that. Without something constructive t work with, there doesn't seem to be a huge incentive if they might just be doing it wrong all over again in your view, right?
304 2012-06-21 02:47:58 <Graet> if i'm given info i will happily distribute it among pool operators so we know wtf is going on without having to read hours of -dev and mailing list unrelated stuff
305 2012-06-21 02:48:05 <luke-jr> Graet: never got a reply from the guy Gavin emailed to set it up IIRC
306 2012-06-21 02:48:28 <Graet> 1 a standard for what devs anopunce as "critical vuln" so its not opinion - mentione that
307 2012-06-21 02:48:59 <midnightmagic> Graet: How specifically would you define that?
308 2012-06-21 02:49:25 <luke-jr> I have 3 levels of vulns:
309 2012-06-21 02:49:30 <luke-jr> err, 2
310 2012-06-21 02:49:38 <midnightmagic> My opinion is that "critical vuln" means "someone can take all your money"
311 2012-06-21 02:49:44 <luke-jr> not-so-serious: DoS + Fake Conf
312 2012-06-21 02:49:54 <Graet> midnightmagic, on a scale of 1 to 10 1 being trivial 10 being critical
313 2012-06-21 02:50:07 <luke-jr> serious: Theft, Exposure, Netsplit, and Unknown
314 2012-06-21 02:50:21 <Graet> midnightmagic, yes and someone elses might be different thats why we need a standard
315 2012-06-21 02:50:23 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: Can take your money, or Can shut the network down with ~O(1) work.
316 2012-06-21 02:50:24 <midnightmagic> Graet: ... then what's the difference between level 2 and level 3? So many of those choices is going to be back to opinion again, wouldn't you agree?
317 2012-06-21 02:50:28 <luke-jr> Graet: 1-to-10 scale would be very hard to make objective
318 2012-06-21 02:50:55 <luke-jr> Graet: did you see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CVEs ?
319 2012-06-21 02:50:58 <Graet> well some sort of scale that works , companoes that ajnnounce vulnerbilities seem to be able to work out a scale..../
320 2012-06-21 02:51:03 <gmaxwell> and sometimes these levels depend on what you're doing. A bug that makes your node get stuck on a fork might be "take all your money" or it might just be a boring DOS depending on how youre using bitcoin.
321 2012-06-21 02:51:13 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I'm not even really that concerned about the network shutting down as long as we all agree that the network is in fact shut down at block X.
322 2012-06-21 02:51:26 <gmaxwell> Graet: we describe it specifically in the announcement "Fixed a serious denial-of-service attack that could cause the
323 2012-06-21 02:51:29 <gmaxwell> bitcoin process to become unresponsive"
324 2012-06-21 02:51:52 <gmaxwell> Why do you want a scale when we tell you specifically how bad it is?
325 2012-06-21 02:51:56 <Graet> and really i dont care about a scale i want to know that if one dev annopunces something as critical at least there is some concensus that it is actually critical
326 2012-06-21 02:51:58 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: "directly" take my money. As in, get my node to sign it away into someone else's wallet. :) Or otherwise force the money out of my control via, for example, an exploit that works remotely.
327 2012-06-21 02:52:22 <midnightmagic> Graet: So what you really want is consensus in an open-source project development team?
328 2012-06-21 02:52:28 <gmaxwell> Graet: I told you that I don't disagree with what was said. Are you going to insist on lying?
329 2012-06-21 02:52:33 <Graet> yes the testing version fixed . so come test, everyonme else is vulnerabl;e to a undisclose level of vulnerability\
330 2012-06-21 02:52:52 <Graet> me lying>
331 2012-06-21 02:52:52 <Graet> ?
332 2012-06-21 02:53:04 <gmaxwell> I would not have put that much attention on it if I was the only person in the world, but I do not disagree.
333 2012-06-21 02:53:39 <Graet> midnightmagic, for Bitcoin to go forward I firmly believe we ned some standards, vulnerability levels is a standard i would push for strongly
334 2012-06-21 02:53:44 <Graet> rather than opinions
335 2012-06-21 02:54:00 <gmaxwell> Graet: we disclosed the level concretely.
336 2012-06-21 02:54:14 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: he's just frustrated. If you're at the repeating yourself stage, there's a breakdown in communication and nobody's going to move past the speedbump. Now, about my stuck bitcoin node.. :-D
337 2012-06-21 02:54:17 <luke-jr> Graet: did you see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CVEs ?
338 2012-06-21 02:54:44 <doublec> midnightmagic: how soon did you do the the blockchain copy after shutting the bitcoind down?
339 2012-06-21 02:54:44 <Graet> oh god, but you gm,said you did not consider it critical - this to me shows lack of consensus. and let me scroll up didnt you sa itw as another devs opinion?
340 2012-06-21 02:54:56 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: soâ try checkblocks=0 with the level cranked up.
341 2012-06-21 02:55:01 <Graet> i tried to mleave before
342 2012-06-21 02:55:04 <midnightmagic> doublec: after the process was gone from the process table.
343 2012-06-21 02:55:27 <doublec> midnightmagic: were you using a bitcoin version that requires datachdb for the copy to work?
344 2012-06-21 02:55:38 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: okay!
345 2012-06-21 02:55:52 <midnightmagic> doublec: I don't know. The copy originally did work, and everything was fine for a few weeks.
346 2012-06-21 02:55:57 <gmaxwell> Graet: I don't think any cpu sucking DOS attack is critical, at least so long as it isn't something O(1) for the attacker.
347 2012-06-21 02:55:59 <midnightmagic> or appeared to work anyway..
348 2012-06-21 02:56:13 <TuxBlackEdo> gmaxwell, wanna ban the scammer pming everyone in #bitcoin?
349 2012-06-21 02:56:18 <gmaxwell> TuxBlackEdo: name?
350 2012-06-21 02:56:27 <TuxBlackEdo> alexmm (peek into #bitcoin)
351 2012-06-21 02:56:30 <doublec> midnightmagic: see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88734.msg978187#msg978187
352 2012-06-21 02:56:32 <Graet> yes gmaxwell thankis for agreeing with me that different devs opinions dont count as there is no consensus on vuln levels...
353 2012-06-21 02:56:40 * Graet tries to wander off agasin
354 2012-06-21 02:56:56 <midnightmagic> okay thanks for the pointer.
355 2012-06-21 02:57:08 <gmaxwell> Graet: Also, I seem to have not recieved your support payments. You might want to get in touch with your accounts payable department.
356 2012-06-21 02:57:19 <guruvan> gmaxwell: same old skizza today alexmm was shegman earlier
357 2012-06-21 02:57:24 <Graet> havent recieved an invoice
358 2012-06-21 02:57:40 <gmaxwell> K. I'll send, then we can talk about you dictating how annoucnements work. ;)
359 2012-06-21 02:58:11 <Graet> i'm not dictating i'm asking for consensus so that people apart from devs actually havfe a "standard" o go by..
360 2012-06-21 02:58:16 <gmaxwell> Graet: but really, I certantly don't feel that different opinions don't countâ and I'd be the one to know.
361 2012-06-21 02:58:25 <Graet> or know what is being talked about
362 2012-06-21 02:58:38 <Graet> different opinions do count
363 2012-06-21 02:58:44 <Graet> we obviously have some now
364 2012-06-21 02:59:20 <Graet> but as a "developm,ent team" one dev announcing a critical vuln that another thinks is trivial leaves a confud=sed taste in my mouth
365 2012-06-21 02:59:36 MobiusL has joined
366 2012-06-21 02:59:40 rdponticelli has joined
367 2012-06-21 03:00:15 <gmaxwell> Graet: Sorry, we haven't had our borg upgrade yet. But there isn't any conflict here because the announcement describes what the risk isâ so you can decide what that means to you.
368 2012-06-21 03:00:48 <midnightmagic> Graet: given all the crappy open source dev infighting out there, honestly, a difference in opinion with devs actually willing to publically say they have a difference in opinion is pretty awesome in my opinion. :)
369 2012-06-21 03:01:01 <Graet> well like the forum post says , i am uncomfortable with the way it was announced and the concern of the miners on my pool, i feel the previous one was handled better.
370 2012-06-21 03:01:29 <luke-jr> I definitely agree CVE-2012-2459 was handled better
371 2012-06-21 03:01:31 <gmaxwell> The previous issue was much more serious and handling it that way had a high cost.
372 2012-06-21 03:01:48 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: May I ask if you have a blk* download somewhere I can snag? looks like I might have to return back to 173,000 :-(
373 2012-06-21 03:01:51 <luke-jr> Graet: there are reasons this one isn't being handled as well (though I shouldn't disclose why)
374 2012-06-21 03:01:56 <Graet> maybe so gmaxwell . but theres nothing in gavins post that hints to that
375 2012-06-21 03:02:10 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: you don't need one. you can move your existing blockdat and use loadblocks.
376 2012-06-21 03:02:22 <midnightmagic> oh. okay.
377 2012-06-21 03:02:34 <Graet> there is no prior info to big bitcoin "businesses" as there was to the last one, how can I keep up withn all this info to know what opinion to foloowq?
378 2012-06-21 03:02:36 <midnightmagic> things have changed a lot since i last had to debug a problem..
379 2012-06-21 03:02:41 <gmaxwell> Graet: Are we reading the same post? he says its a dos attack.
380 2012-06-21 03:02:48 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
381 2012-06-21 03:03:01 <gmaxwell> Graet: then don't. There isn't any need for you to keep up with this.
382 2012-06-21 03:03:23 <Graet> sorry serious - not "critical"
383 2012-06-21 03:03:29 <Graet> wtf
384 2012-06-21 03:03:50 <Graet> i run 7 bitcoinds and updates to bitcoind ...wtf?
385 2012-06-21 03:03:55 <Graet> fuck it
386 2012-06-21 03:03:56 <Graet> l8rs
387 2012-06-21 03:04:10 <gmaxwell> What harm do you think was caused to you here?
388 2012-06-21 03:04:33 <midnightmagic> holy jesus lookit how fast that's sucking the blocks down.
389 2012-06-21 03:04:55 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: we got a lot faster, so long as your source of blocks is fast.
390 2012-06-21 03:04:58 <midnightmagic> okay.. group hug.
391 2012-06-21 03:05:38 * midnightmagic hugs you.
392 2012-06-21 03:06:21 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: This is great, thanks for the tip. It wouldn't have occurred to me that the blk* can still be mined like that.
393 2012-06-21 03:06:32 RainbowDashh has joined
394 2012-06-21 03:07:35 <Graet> harm caused? none. potential harm ...unknown... it was announced that there is a vulnerability, and in a testing thread. thus telling everything that anyone not on testing version is vulnerable
395 2012-06-21 03:07:59 <midnightmagic> brr.. my house is feeling cold already.. geez I never really remember how much my house now depends almost wholly on my miners for heat.
396 2012-06-21 03:09:50 doublec has quit (Changing host)
397 2012-06-21 03:09:50 doublec has joined
398 2012-06-21 03:10:20 l1l1ll11l11 has joined
399 2012-06-21 03:10:56 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
400 2012-06-21 03:11:08 <luke-jr> Graet: shouldn't your first priority right now be to update your nodes?
401 2012-06-21 03:11:30 <gmaxwell> Graet: I responded to you on the thread.
402 2012-06-21 03:12:22 Wack0 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
403 2012-06-21 03:12:35 <etotheipi_> amiller, gmaxwell: what about super-lite nodes that only want to maintain their own balance and how to spend it: they will *want* to maintain just a list of TxOuts, and be able to verify against the chain -- but if subtrees have the same requirement to remember the history of insertions and deletions, they must track their own past history
404 2012-06-21 03:13:10 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: wtf @ check_status's postâ¦
405 2012-06-21 03:13:20 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Hey will -loadblock= also load orphans and basically replay any reorgs?
406 2012-06-21 03:13:31 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: it should
407 2012-06-21 03:13:38 <midnightmagic> luke-jr: this is so cool!
408 2012-06-21 03:13:43 <luke-jr> lol
409 2012-06-21 03:14:06 <midnightmagic> big improvement in the debug messages by the way, guys. huge. really liking the new version's verbosity.
410 2012-06-21 03:14:07 <etotheipi_> amiller, gmaxwell: and for that matter, they must download their entire history in order to construct their verifiable subtree, rather than just the list of TxOuts
411 2012-06-21 03:14:16 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
412 2012-06-21 03:14:20 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: Yup!
413 2012-06-21 03:14:24 <Graet> indeed luke-jr just calling europe to see if people are awake...
414 2012-06-21 03:14:30 <etotheipi_> strict ordering of TxOuts is not enough, because the tree structure depends on the history of deletions, as well
415 2012-06-21 03:14:46 <amiller> etotheipi_, the difficulty in the scenarios you describe is that you are talking about 'verification' but you're also making some assumptions about trust
416 2012-06-21 03:14:56 <amiller> how does a super lite node _recognize_ the chain, unless he verifies it for himself or trusts a node?
417 2012-06-21 03:15:14 <midnightmagic> +1 amiller
418 2012-06-21 03:15:28 <amiller> if he trusts a node then we need to start there, and if he's verifying it for himself then that's where to start
419 2012-06-21 03:15:50 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: Loadblock was created for some benchmarking but it turned out to be a fantastically useful feature.
420 2012-06-21 03:16:10 <etotheipi_> my question is not about trust: it's about how much data do you need to download to verify your balance/txoutlist against the longest chain of headers
421 2012-06-21 03:16:13 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: once versions with loadblock are widely distributed I'm going to recommend the download sites stop including indexes.
422 2012-06-21 03:16:23 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: this is turning out to be very useful. hopefully it'll correct my node's sad.
423 2012-06-21 03:16:47 <etotheipi_> it seems that to get my own balance for an address, and create a verifiable sub-tree root, I have to download the entire history, not just the TxOuts
424 2012-06-21 03:16:48 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: you didn't by any chance save the node's directory before nuking it?
425 2012-06-21 03:16:50 <amiller> etotheipi_, then take the root hash of the longest chain as your starting point of trust
426 2012-06-21 03:17:17 <amiller> that's the root hash of a merkle tree, and you can fetch your whole balance and verification for M log N effort in total
427 2012-06-21 03:17:19 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I manually copied my wallet.dat to another file, and then moved the blk* into old/ . everything else I left alone.
428 2012-06-21 03:17:42 RainbowDashh has joined
429 2012-06-21 03:17:43 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Am I going to hell now? :-)
430 2012-06-21 03:18:11 <etotheipi_> wait, remind me M and N
431 2012-06-21 03:18:16 <etotheipi_> I already forgot my own terminology
432 2012-06-21 03:18:26 <amiller> M is the number of unspent outputs you can spend, N is the total number of unspent outputs in the current tree
433 2012-06-21 03:19:04 <luke-jr> who has mods on the Development forumâ
434 2012-06-21 03:19:04 <etotheipi_> are we talking about the idea with subtrees creating root-hash-leafs for a master tree?
435 2012-06-21 03:19:21 <etotheipi_> or a simple TxOut tree?
436 2012-06-21 03:19:59 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: jgarzik opened pull request 1494 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1494>
437 2012-06-21 03:19:59 <etotheipi_> (btw, I'm going to start using utxo to refer to unspent-txout)
438 2012-06-21 03:20:55 <amiller> yeah i noticed that in your post, i'll start doing that too until someone else suggests otherwise :p
439 2012-06-21 03:20:58 <etotheipi_> I was thinking about the tree structure I posted: where subtrees are collapsed into a single root, and that is what goes into the master tree
440 2012-06-21 03:21:05 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: hm. if you didn't actually delete the database files you may still end up corrupted.
441 2012-06-21 03:21:34 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: .. which database files? the blk0001 and blkindex files?
442 2012-06-21 03:21:51 <amiller> etotheipi_, i am assuming that there are a number of subtrees and they are all collected into a single root that is stored in the main blockchain (or an alt blockchain that otherwise inherits any important properties)
443 2012-06-21 03:21:52 <etotheipi_> if that's the case, which I believe it should be for security reasons: then you must use a deterministic tree structure
444 2012-06-21 03:22:12 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I don't suppose there's an easy way of saying "load blocks up to block N and then stop" with the -loadblock= is there?
445 2012-06-21 03:22:57 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: not without editing the code.
446 2012-06-21 03:23:04 <midnightmagic> okie dokie.
447 2012-06-21 03:23:12 <midnightmagic> perhaps a future pull request is in order..
448 2012-06-21 03:23:13 <etotheipi_> amiller: oh I am thinking of subtrees as separate objects that are used to populate leaves in the master tree
449 2012-06-21 03:23:21 <etotheipi_> you are considering them just deeper branches of the same tree
450 2012-06-21 03:23:32 <amiller> there's no difference i don't think
451 2012-06-21 03:23:34 <etotheipi_> they are equivalent though
452 2012-06-21 03:23:49 <amiller> it's not just determinism you want, since i am also considering the trees deterministic, but my determinism depends on applying the updates in a canonical ordering, whereas you want to be able to construct the tree based on some subset of trusted data you acquire or generate?
453 2012-06-21 03:23:52 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
454 2012-06-21 03:24:10 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: as far as deletion goesâ backupyour wallet with backup wallet. shut down cleanly. move blk001.dat out of the way. Delete everything except wallet.dat and bitcoin.conf. Then loadblock the blk file from wherever you moved it.
455 2012-06-21 03:24:35 <etotheipi_> you're right, I shouldn't have used "deterministic"
456 2012-06-21 03:24:54 <etotheipi_> I just keep thinking about it that way, because I've never had to care before about how elements were inserted into a tree structure until now
457 2012-06-21 03:24:56 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: I've wanted that before, in order to intentionally create forks, but I just edit the code for it.
458 2012-06-21 03:25:20 <etotheipi_> (well.. except for raw binary trees taking in ordered data... but you know what I mean)
459 2012-06-21 03:26:06 <midnightmagic> oo.. on the 171000s things are slowing down pretty good.
460 2012-06-21 03:26:19 <etotheipi_> so my argument is this: I get on the network and download all my unspent TxOuts: from which I can produce the root of the subtree, which is then O(logN) to verify against the header
461 2012-06-21 03:26:45 <amiller> the header contains the root of the subtree, you don't need to produce it
462 2012-06-21 03:26:52 agricocb has joined
463 2012-06-21 03:27:29 <etotheipi_> header contains the root of the master tree
464 2012-06-21 03:27:32 <amiller> the only reason to produce a root for yourself is if you are not just verifying some data against the longest chain, but you are actually verifying the longest chain as well, incrementally, based on a previous root hash you already know (as a miner or spv client (not supersuperlite) would do)
465 2012-06-21 03:28:45 <amiller> one thing you could do to clarify your example is when you describe a piece of data, note whether you trust it or not
466 2012-06-21 03:29:14 <amiller> you download your unspent txouts, those are untrusted at that point. if you produce a root from some untrusted data, that's also untrusted. The header - is it trusted?
467 2012-06-21 03:29:37 <etotheipi_> amiller: from my diagrams in the original post: I pop onto the network and grab the latest headers, find the longest chain... then I download nodes A, B, and the other two nodes with red boxes
468 2012-06-21 03:30:16 <etotheipi_> now I know what my address's subtree root should look like and know it matches the header
469 2012-06-21 03:30:36 <amiller> you trust the header because it's the longest chain, right?
470 2012-06-21 03:30:57 <etotheipi_> so now I download the set of my current TxOuts from my peers -- but whoops, I can't verify against the subtree root I just verified
471 2012-06-21 03:31:04 <etotheipi_> because I don't know how to construct that subtree
472 2012-06-21 03:31:10 <etotheipi_> yes, longest chian
473 2012-06-21 03:31:58 * luke-jr stabs C
474 2012-06-21 03:32:05 <luke-jr> why does a||b have to be boolean? -.-
475 2012-06-21 03:32:14 skeledrew has joined
476 2012-06-21 03:32:20 <amiller> then you already know the root hash that was in the longest chain. When you download each txouts, you can verify the path from the leaf to the master root
477 2012-06-21 03:32:28 <amiller> the tree has already been constructed if you know its root hash
478 2012-06-21 03:32:35 <luke-jr> A||B should be A if A is true, and B otherwise.
479 2012-06-21 03:32:41 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: agree? :P
480 2012-06-21 03:33:23 <luke-jr> next question: am I allowed to use GCC's ?: extension in bitcoin code?
481 2012-06-21 03:33:32 <etotheipi_> so it becomes part of the protocol to describe the path of the nodes, not just the nodes themselves?
482 2012-06-21 03:33:50 <amiller> that's part of being a merkle tree
483 2012-06-21 03:34:13 <amiller> there's only one valid path from a node to a given root hash
484 2012-06-21 03:34:56 <amiller> the root hash unambiguously describes the entire tree
485 2012-06-21 03:34:59 <etotheipi_> you're saying the the node should provide me all the subtree information
486 2012-06-21 03:35:18 <amiller> yes, a log N sized 'verification object' per item, M log N total
487 2012-06-21 03:35:20 <etotheipi_> I'm saying, I should be able to take my arbitrary list of TxOuts that I know belong to my address, and produce a root
488 2012-06-21 03:35:33 <etotheipi_> and that root is included in the master tree
489 2012-06-21 03:35:51 <etotheipi_> thus, to get my balance, I only download a list of TxOuts
490 2012-06-21 03:36:05 <amiller> so you want M rather than M log N
491 2012-06-21 03:36:09 <etotheipi_> maybe I'm expecting too much
492 2012-06-21 03:36:58 <etotheipi_> yes, because all your nodes pass through the same single root node
493 2012-06-21 03:37:10 <etotheipi_> so you don't need to re-download that branch for every TxOut
494 2012-06-21 03:37:25 <etotheipi_> *subroot... gah need better terminology
495 2012-06-21 03:37:39 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: ...
496 2012-06-21 03:38:02 <amiller> if some of the data is duplicated, like all the shared nodes since your utxo leaves will be near each other - you don't have to redownload the redundant parts, the worst case is still M log N
497 2012-06-21 03:38:07 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yes, A||B is shortcutting has that behavior. And the terinary operator is not a gcc extension!
498 2012-06-21 03:38:17 <gmaxwell> ternary*
499 2012-06-21 03:38:24 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: a ?: b <-- GCC extension
500 2012-06-21 03:38:45 <gmaxwell> oh what the !@#! does that do?
501 2012-06-21 03:39:00 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: a ? a : b , but without evaluating A twice
502 2012-06-21 03:39:06 * gmaxwell looks up.
503 2012-06-21 03:39:20 <gmaxwell> crazy, I.. don't think I knew that. Does it work in MSVC?
504 2012-06-21 03:39:24 <luke-jr> nfc
505 2012-06-21 03:39:38 <luke-jr> I wish it was standard
506 2012-06-21 03:39:38 <etotheipi_> so O(logN) to get the data to verify the subtree root... then O(M) to download and verify that piece
507 2012-06-21 03:39:39 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: SLEEP MODE. <@suborbital> no i filtered out RainbowDashh join quit msgs - appearantly it filtered out everything)
508 2012-06-21 03:39:56 <etotheipi_> so it's O(logN + M)
509 2012-06-21 03:40:05 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: Iff a is something local and the compiler can prove it has no side effects it'll be the same anyways.
510 2012-06-21 03:40:24 <amiller> i'm considering that N is the total number of leaves in the entire thing, not just the subtrees
511 2012-06-21 03:40:31 <amiller> but i agree with what you're saying there in terms of different subtree
512 2012-06-21 03:40:32 <amiller> s
513 2012-06-21 03:40:34 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: well, it's a bug in refactor_times I think
514 2012-06-21 03:40:41 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: so just type foo; foo=a ; a?a:b; ... just as good assuming a returns a primitive type.
515 2012-06-21 03:40:54 <luke-jr> ah
516 2012-06-21 03:40:57 <etotheipi_> amiller: that's where our definitions were different: I never considered the TxOuts to be leaves of the master tree
517 2012-06-21 03:41:04 <luke-jr> unfortunately, it's not local
518 2012-06-21 03:41:06 <etotheipi_> I considered the subtree roots to be the leaves of that tree
519 2012-06-21 03:41:24 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: then you can use a variable to make it so.
520 2012-06-21 03:41:27 <luke-jr> yeah
521 2012-06-21 03:41:29 <luke-jr> just annoying :P
522 2012-06-21 03:41:33 <etotheipi_> thus, you maintain/download/modify you own little list of TxOuts, and then only O(logN) to verify it's correct
523 2012-06-21 03:41:37 <gmaxwell> it's a cute extension.
524 2012-06-21 03:41:54 RainbowDashh has joined
525 2012-06-21 03:41:55 <etotheipi_> where N is the number of unique TxOut scripts
526 2012-06-21 03:41:58 * luke-jr wonders why C++11 didn't adopt it
527 2012-06-21 03:42:14 <gmaxwell> C++11 doesn't even include all of C99, so ::shrugs::
528 2012-06-21 03:42:20 <luke-jr> O.o
529 2012-06-21 03:42:29 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
530 2012-06-21 03:42:42 <amiller> i don't disagree with that, that's an optimization, it's just that i'm mostly concerned about worst-case behavior. Any protocol involving root hashes is going to be a normative protocol, so miners will need to actually verify every leaf in every subtree.
531 2012-06-21 03:43:20 <etotheipi_> amiller: well they will do that anyway, in either scheme
532 2012-06-21 03:43:28 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I suppose the path of accepting binary ?: leads to the monster that is ?:=
533 2012-06-21 03:43:29 <gmaxwell> including var arrays, which are the most obvious painful gap... though STL containers and such make it less of an issue in C++, it's nice to avoid the heap, esp if you have recursive functions where you can reason about the peak stack usage, but ::shrugs::
534 2012-06-21 03:43:29 <luke-jr> <.<
535 2012-06-21 03:43:51 <etotheipi_> if you define the ordering to be based on a string key (or something like) where [TxOutScript || TxOutInfo]
536 2012-06-21 03:44:03 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: wait, char abc[abclen]; <-- not valid in C++11 still?
537 2012-06-21 03:44:16 <etotheipi_> then it always sorts by TxOut script, and all TxOuts are stored under the same subtree
538 2012-06-21 03:44:17 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
539 2012-06-21 03:44:19 <luke-jr> I bet I've violated that ruleâ¦
540 2012-06-21 03:44:22 Internet13 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
541 2012-06-21 03:44:24 <amiller> etotheipi_, with my definition of N, the worst case is always log N. if instead you consider N to be the number of subtrees, then you need to do log N + log W where W is the worst case for the worst subtree
542 2012-06-21 03:44:31 <etotheipi_> err... that wasn't strictly worded, but I think yo uget it
543 2012-06-21 03:44:45 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yup. Microsoft refuses to implement it, in fact its now being made an optional feature of C. :(
544 2012-06-21 03:45:00 <amiller> etotheipi_, sure i agree, that's exactly the binding i had in mind, well ever since gmaxwell told me you thought of it
545 2012-06-21 03:45:01 <etotheipi_> amiller: that is true: SatoshiDice would encompass that
546 2012-06-21 03:45:06 wizkid057 has joined
547 2012-06-21 03:45:16 <gmaxwell> nevermind that it's bascially just syntatic sugar on alloca which everyone does.
548 2012-06-21 03:45:26 <etotheipi_> on the other hand, all lite-nodes that aren't SatoshiDice will have much smaller trees to deal with
549 2012-06-21 03:45:27 <etotheipi_> :)
550 2012-06-21 03:45:37 <amiller> definitely
551 2012-06-21 03:45:39 Wack0 has joined
552 2012-06-21 03:46:01 <etotheipi_> so I agree with your worst case -- but worst case isn't that bad
553 2012-06-21 03:46:17 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: wtf, why?
554 2012-06-21 03:46:20 <amiller> so how about this [TreeLabel || everything else], so for [TxoutTree || TxOutScript || TxOut Info] will be what the nodes look like in your subtree
555 2012-06-21 03:46:43 <luke-jr> I can't imagine coding without variable arrays anymore :<
556 2012-06-21 03:46:45 <amiller> [VanillaTree || TxHash || Index] would be the subtree we're used to
557 2012-06-21 03:47:08 <amiller> this isn't any different than the 'branches are equivalent to subtrees' notion we agreed on
558 2012-06-21 03:47:24 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: there are people philosophically opposed to dynamic stack alloation because it's 'hard' to be sure there won't be stack overflow. It's a stupid concern because recursive functions have the same risk.
559 2012-06-21 03:47:36 <etotheipi_> the difference is that my interpretation/illustration takes into accound that the data you care about is strictly contained below a single node
560 2012-06-21 03:47:43 <gmaxwell> allocation*
561 2012-06-21 03:48:18 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: well, stack overflows are kindof stupid anyway IMO
562 2012-06-21 03:48:27 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: you're assuming address reuse, and I'd generally oppose infrastructure that encourages itâ because we really lose privacy terribly with extensive reuse.
563 2012-06-21 03:48:43 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: no reason the OS can't just put it at the bottom of the address space and allocate everything else near the top
564 2012-06-21 03:49:15 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: it doesn't "encourage" it... it takes into account that it happens, and you want to be able to be sure that a node gave you all your TxOuts in a verifiable way
565 2012-06-21 03:49:20 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: at best you'd still have to take a slow as heck fault and TLB flush to grow it.
566 2012-06-21 03:49:40 <amiller> etotheipi_, the way you phrased that it's trivially true in my example as well - all the data is strictly contained below the root node. What i think you mean is that it's more efficient in some sense
567 2012-06-21 03:49:45 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: you can be sure you got all your TxOuts in a verifiable way without that!
568 2012-06-21 03:49:48 <amiller> all the things bleow this node are my data, and there is no other data below this root node
569 2012-06-21 03:49:57 Internet13 has joined
570 2012-06-21 03:49:58 <amiller> but that's not important because when you download the tree you just download the bits you want
571 2012-06-21 03:50:02 <etotheipi_> if I sign on with a fresh wallet, and a node says "here's your one TxOut for this address", with a simple tree structure I can verify it's valid but I odn't know that it's all of them
572 2012-06-21 03:50:41 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: and I expect that determinstic wallets, sharable public side chains, and payment protocols will reduce the address reuse in the future. In the long term we want to generally not have regular users handling addresses at all.
573 2012-06-21 03:51:14 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: you sound like you were suffering the confusion that I was suffering when I thought the tree had to have a deterministic order on just the txouts.
574 2012-06-21 03:51:57 <gmaxwell> You don't. You have the peer show you the nodes bracketing where that txout goes and you know you got all the data.
575 2012-06-21 03:52:33 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: I don't understand, how are you envisioning the tree is indexed/keyed?
576 2012-06-21 03:53:21 <gmaxwell> to do lookups by addres we'd need multiple tress, because for validation we must have a tree indexed by transaction id.
577 2012-06-21 03:53:31 ivan\ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
578 2012-06-21 03:53:42 <etotheipi_> (gah, I keep forgetting about that)
579 2012-06-21 03:53:56 ivan\ has joined
580 2012-06-21 03:54:28 dvide has quit ()
581 2012-06-21 03:54:39 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
582 2012-06-21 03:54:57 <etotheipi_> so a tree node basically has keys [TxOutScript || TxOutpoint]
583 2012-06-21 03:55:03 <etotheipi_> so it sorts by script first
584 2012-06-21 03:55:29 <amiller> gmaxwell, would you rather think of it as two trees or as one tree with a key prefix?
585 2012-06-21 03:55:29 <etotheipi_> and then all subsequent TxOuts for a given TxOutScript will be stored below that node
586 2012-06-21 03:56:39 <gmaxwell> amiller: hm!
587 2012-06-21 04:00:15 DamascusVG has joined
588 2012-06-21 04:00:15 DamascusVG has quit (Changing host)
589 2012-06-21 04:00:15 DamascusVG has joined
590 2012-06-21 04:03:08 dr_win has joined
591 2012-06-21 04:03:16 <etotheipi_> can we just agree to use a patricia tree and then this will all be moot? :)
592 2012-06-21 04:05:33 Diablo-D3 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
593 2012-06-21 04:06:37 Diablo-D3 has joined
594 2012-06-21 04:07:36 <etotheipi_> in most cases the "sub-trees" are just degenerate single nodes: but when you ask for such txout lists, you don't know that until you get it and verify it: and if all of those are going through the same tree node anyway (whether it's a tree+subtree or single tree with prefix keys) then you can just maintain a strict list of your TxOuts and keep verifying it against the headers with logN
595 2012-06-21 04:08:28 <amiller> etotheipi_, instead of each node representing a subtree, i like to think of each node as containing the value of the largest leaf element in its left subtree
596 2012-06-21 04:08:58 <amiller> i created a sort of pictorial example in four frames here http://imgur.com/a/KNeq5#0
597 2012-06-21 04:10:04 <etotheipi_> either way, when someone hands you those M (probably =1) TxOuts that they claim belong to you... if it's not actually M=1 you have to retrieve extra information to know how to verify it (the tree structure)
598 2012-06-21 04:10:49 <amiller> if you have to retrieve extra information, thats because the 'someone' didn't give you enough data to prove it yourself
599 2012-06-21 04:11:12 <etotheipi_> or because we picked a tree structure that required extra information that isn't really part of what I need to otherwise maintain my wallet
600 2012-06-21 04:12:17 <etotheipi_> I can concede at any time here: I just have a tough time believing that you guys think it's out of this world, that anyone would ever be hindered by this restriction and it isn't worth picking a more-...deterministic structure
601 2012-06-21 04:13:25 <etotheipi_> (err... how about insert-order-invariant)
602 2012-06-21 04:14:20 <amiller> are there any other kinds of invariance you might also want?
603 2012-06-21 04:14:24 <etotheipi_> I just feel like all arguments are "well no one would use it that way"... well what if it makes sense for someone to use it that way, but can't because of this restriction
604 2012-06-21 04:14:37 <etotheipi_> *makes sense in the future
605 2012-06-21 04:15:09 <amiller> (i'm grateful for the opportunity to talk about the problem, so i'm happy if you don't concede too soon)
606 2012-06-21 04:15:36 <gmaxwell> its important that we don't make privacy a tricky economic tradeoff. If people can save money by throwing away privacy that will be bad for all users.
607 2012-06-21 04:15:44 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin's privacy story is really fragile.
608 2012-06-21 04:16:04 <etotheipi_> amiller: I enjoy this kind of discussion, I'm just surprised that I met with so much resistence to what I thought was a perfectly reasonable requirement
609 2012-06-21 04:16:26 <gmaxwell> and without privacy you get all kinds of distorting effects like "You could and should have node those txns were for child porn! you've committed a crime for not blocking them!"
610 2012-06-21 04:16:56 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: do you see a privacy risk in any of this ?
611 2012-06-21 04:17:24 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: making it much cheaper to use few addresses, by making them O(1) to get the balances of, has an extreme privacy risk.
612 2012-06-21 04:18:06 <amiller> etotheipi_, i guess the explanation for why it's met with resistance is that it _does_ break the simple merkle tree case. I actually do know of a way to do what you ask, but it relies on wickedly homomorphic hash functions
613 2012-06-21 04:18:13 <gmaxwell> (And not that I support child pornâ rather I know lots of things will be called that falsely and there is a risk of the whole system unravling if fungability is hurt in practice)
614 2012-06-21 04:19:21 <amiller> http://www.cse.msstate.edu/~ramkumar/gw-102.pdf
615 2012-06-21 04:19:56 <amiller> one of the other interesting reasons to prefer that sort of insert order invariants is that you can parallelize/distribute updates to the structure
616 2012-06-21 04:20:26 ivan\ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
617 2012-06-21 04:22:14 <amiller> but i don't understand it works
618 2012-06-21 04:23:15 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
619 2012-06-21 04:23:25 <amiller> i don't know if the universal homomorphic encryption result also applies to hash functions rather than the public key protocols?
620 2012-06-21 04:23:38 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: so you want the slightly less efficient structure to make sure that those desire absolute top efficiency won't be seduced into reusing addresses?
621 2012-06-21 04:24:16 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: correct. â and it's not less efficient in the case where there actually is no reuse.
622 2012-06-21 04:24:18 Dyaheon has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
623 2012-06-21 04:24:48 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: but there will always be reuse-- and even if there isn't -- you don't know that until you get the information
624 2012-06-21 04:24:52 <gmaxwell> may be more efficient ultimately, in that case, because we've dropped one design constraint.
625 2012-06-21 04:25:14 <etotheipi_> amiller: interesting point about parallel updating
626 2012-06-21 04:25:29 ivan\ has joined
627 2012-06-21 04:33:01 MysteryBanshee has joined
628 2012-06-21 04:49:48 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
629 2012-06-21 04:50:30 osmosis has joined
630 2012-06-21 04:55:40 <dk5> can public keys in scripts be anything other than 33 or 65 bytes long?
631 2012-06-21 04:56:25 MobiusL is now known as LinuxKernel
632 2012-06-21 04:56:39 LinuxKernel is now known as MobiusL
633 2012-06-21 04:56:42 ThomasV has joined
634 2012-06-21 04:56:47 one_zero has joined
635 2012-06-21 05:09:37 Karmaon has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
636 2012-06-21 05:10:37 graingert has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
637 2012-06-21 05:11:49 graingert has joined
638 2012-06-21 05:16:53 toffoo has quit ()
639 2012-06-21 05:30:54 <sipa> dk5: no
640 2012-06-21 05:31:43 <dk5> sipa: how come in the template matching for output script parsing, anything between 33 and 120 is accepted as a key if OP_PUBKEY(S) is reached?
641 2012-06-21 05:32:39 <dk5> sipa: wouldn't it be safer to check for exactly 33 and 65?
642 2012-06-21 05:32:56 <dk5> sipa: in terms of the length, I mean
643 2012-06-21 05:33:43 <sipa> i bet satoshi just didn't know enough about it
644 2012-06-21 05:34:31 <dk5> sipa: i see. so checking for 33 or 65 only wouldn't screw up script parsing in the future?
645 2012-06-21 05:35:24 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
646 2012-06-21 05:37:13 freewil has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
647 2012-06-21 05:37:27 Backburn_p has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
648 2012-06-21 05:41:03 Karmaon has joined
649 2012-06-21 05:41:13 <luke-jr> dk5: â¦
650 2012-06-21 05:50:09 <dk5> luke-jr: ?
651 2012-06-21 05:52:17 freewil has joined
652 2012-06-21 05:56:04 MysteryBanshee has quit ()
653 2012-06-21 05:56:54 MysteryBanshee has joined
654 2012-06-21 05:59:05 Backburn has joined
655 2012-06-21 06:01:17 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
656 2012-06-21 06:05:42 Backburn has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
657 2012-06-21 06:07:12 danbri_ has joined
658 2012-06-21 06:10:59 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
659 2012-06-21 06:23:22 Backburn has joined
660 2012-06-21 06:30:19 RazielZ has joined
661 2012-06-21 06:40:04 yellowhat has joined
662 2012-06-21 06:53:10 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: SLEEP MODE. <@suborbital> no i filtered out RainbowDashh join quit msgs - appearantly it filtered out everything)
663 2012-06-21 06:55:25 RainbowDashh has joined
664 2012-06-21 06:55:55 topace has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
665 2012-06-21 06:56:17 khalahan_ is now known as khalahan
666 2012-06-21 06:57:18 topace has joined
667 2012-06-21 06:59:35 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
668 2012-06-21 07:03:06 mmoya has joined
669 2012-06-21 07:05:15 topace has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
670 2012-06-21 07:09:22 RainbowDashh has joined
671 2012-06-21 07:17:58 TD has joined
672 2012-06-21 07:20:14 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
673 2012-06-21 07:21:26 sirk390 has joined
674 2012-06-21 07:22:00 topace has joined
675 2012-06-21 07:29:39 danbri_ has quit (Read error: No route to host)
676 2012-06-21 07:32:14 Prattler has joined
677 2012-06-21 07:37:59 tower has quit (Disconnected by services)
678 2012-06-21 07:38:11 tower has joined
679 2012-06-21 07:40:45 danbri has joined
680 2012-06-21 07:41:54 Dyaheon has joined
681 2012-06-21 07:49:07 JZavala has joined
682 2012-06-21 07:52:19 mologie has joined
683 2012-06-21 07:53:15 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
684 2012-06-21 07:54:50 RainbowD_ has joined
685 2012-06-21 07:54:50 RainbowDashh has quit (Disconnected by services)
686 2012-06-21 07:55:36 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
687 2012-06-21 07:55:56 graingert has joined
688 2012-06-21 07:56:23 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
689 2012-06-21 08:07:14 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
690 2012-06-21 08:19:40 graingert has joined
691 2012-06-21 08:19:41 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
692 2012-06-21 08:20:01 RainbowD_ has quit (Quit: SLEEP MODE. <@suborbital> no i filtered out RainbowDashh join quit msgs - appearantly it filtered out everything)
693 2012-06-21 08:20:33 molecular has joined
694 2012-06-21 08:21:53 RainbowDashh has joined
695 2012-06-21 08:23:27 t7 has joined
696 2012-06-21 08:27:42 m00p has joined
697 2012-06-21 08:28:11 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
698 2012-06-21 08:28:34 graingert has joined
699 2012-06-21 08:34:46 mologie has joined
700 2012-06-21 08:36:18 da2ce7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
701 2012-06-21 08:45:31 DamascusVG has quit (Quit: I Quit - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p97zsQ51Rw)
702 2012-06-21 08:54:11 danbri has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
703 2012-06-21 08:54:38 danbri has joined
704 2012-06-21 08:56:01 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
705 2012-06-21 08:57:26 DamascusVG has joined
706 2012-06-21 08:57:26 DamascusVG has quit (Changing host)
707 2012-06-21 08:57:26 DamascusVG has joined
708 2012-06-21 09:16:30 graingert_ has joined
709 2012-06-21 09:18:02 one_zero has quit ()
710 2012-06-21 09:18:04 graingert has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
711 2012-06-21 09:21:46 DamascusVG has quit (Quit: I Quit - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p97zsQ51Rw)
712 2012-06-21 09:24:19 mologie has joined
713 2012-06-21 09:25:17 graingert_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
714 2012-06-21 09:29:01 DamascusVG has joined
715 2012-06-21 09:29:01 DamascusVG has quit (Changing host)
716 2012-06-21 09:29:01 DamascusVG has joined
717 2012-06-21 09:51:09 genjix has joined
718 2012-06-21 10:01:04 dr_win has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
719 2012-06-21 10:01:36 dr_win has joined
720 2012-06-21 10:12:12 <sipa> gmaxwell: the database code does an ss.reserve(10000) when serializing data
721 2012-06-21 10:12:32 <sipa> gmaxwell: which probably avoids reallocating continuously
722 2012-06-21 10:19:39 ovidiusoft has joined
723 2012-06-21 10:24:59 Zarutian has joined
724 2012-06-21 10:25:17 Mobius_ has joined
725 2012-06-21 10:28:30 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
726 2012-06-21 10:30:17 <sipa> oh my... CDB::Read just returns false (as if the data was not found) when it cannot deserialize the value... without any error logging
727 2012-06-21 10:31:05 pickett has joined
728 2012-06-21 10:31:32 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
729 2012-06-21 10:36:54 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
730 2012-06-21 10:38:11 <TuxBlackEdo> what is the best portable windows vpn client?
731 2012-06-21 10:38:22 <TuxBlackEdo> openvpn, right?
732 2012-06-21 10:44:52 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
733 2012-06-21 10:46:37 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
734 2012-06-21 10:51:03 darkski3z has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
735 2012-06-21 10:55:05 <sipa> gmaxwell: no idea how i got the 18 minute figure for blockchain loading to 172k, but not I do it consistently in 20
736 2012-06-21 10:55:13 <sipa> *now
737 2012-06-21 11:01:54 m00p has joined
738 2012-06-21 11:04:10 SphericalCow has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
739 2012-06-21 11:04:51 datagutt has joined
740 2012-06-21 11:08:20 Ferroh has joined
741 2012-06-21 11:13:17 agricocb has joined
742 2012-06-21 11:13:53 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
743 2012-06-21 11:14:08 RainbowDashh has joined
744 2012-06-21 11:14:37 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
745 2012-06-21 11:14:53 RainbowDashh has joined
746 2012-06-21 11:19:30 <TD> good afternoon
747 2012-06-21 11:19:48 <TD> sipa: yeah but it's the next 10k that kill you ....
748 2012-06-21 11:23:04 slush has joined
749 2012-06-21 11:26:02 Prattler has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
750 2012-06-21 11:27:47 danbri_ has joined
751 2012-06-21 11:28:21 danbri has quit (Read error: No route to host)
752 2012-06-21 11:30:23 <Habbie> TuxBlackEdo, i'd say openvpn, yes - assuming the server is compatible
753 2012-06-21 11:32:03 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
754 2012-06-21 11:36:25 mmoya has joined
755 2012-06-21 11:40:41 <sipa> TD: up to 172k was my "standard" test that always used to take +- 30 minutes on this machine
756 2012-06-21 11:48:53 freewil has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
757 2012-06-21 11:53:20 TheSeven has joined
758 2012-06-21 11:55:33 Backburn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
759 2012-06-21 11:56:21 Backburn has joined
760 2012-06-21 11:58:00 rdponticelli has joined
761 2012-06-21 11:59:58 freewil has joined
762 2012-06-21 12:02:02 Ummon has joined
763 2012-06-21 12:06:52 Internet151 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
764 2012-06-21 12:07:33 bobke has joined
765 2012-06-21 12:09:01 dvide has joined
766 2012-06-21 12:09:57 Guest10394 has joined
767 2012-06-21 12:11:26 da2ce7 has joined
768 2012-06-21 12:11:27 enquirer_ has joined
769 2012-06-21 12:15:44 enquirer has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
770 2012-06-21 12:15:53 enquirer_ is now known as enquirer
771 2012-06-21 12:16:20 dvide has quit ()
772 2012-06-21 12:19:09 dvide has joined
773 2012-06-21 12:22:10 zeiris has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
774 2012-06-21 12:22:20 zeiris has joined
775 2012-06-21 12:23:48 Internet151 has joined
776 2012-06-21 12:39:26 drizztbsd has joined
777 2012-06-21 12:41:06 enquirer_ has joined
778 2012-06-21 12:42:33 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
779 2012-06-21 12:44:16 enquirer has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
780 2012-06-21 12:44:21 enquirer_ is now known as enquirer
781 2012-06-21 12:44:30 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
782 2012-06-21 12:44:35 [7] has joined
783 2012-06-21 12:46:24 Dyaheon has quit ()
784 2012-06-21 12:50:02 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Diapolo opened pull request 1495 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1495>
785 2012-06-21 12:53:33 <t7> windows has vpn client built in....
786 2012-06-21 12:53:42 <t7> i use it erryday
787 2012-06-21 12:57:32 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
788 2012-06-21 12:59:43 minimoose has joined
789 2012-06-21 13:09:00 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
790 2012-06-21 13:13:18 guest42 has joined
791 2012-06-21 13:13:36 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
792 2012-06-21 13:16:21 ThomasV has joined
793 2012-06-21 13:17:27 darkskiez has joined
794 2012-06-21 13:17:27 darkskiez has quit (Changing host)
795 2012-06-21 13:17:27 darkskiez has joined
796 2012-06-21 13:29:18 p0s has joined
797 2012-06-21 13:31:12 saieko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
798 2012-06-21 13:31:29 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
799 2012-06-21 13:34:36 darsk1ez has joined
800 2012-06-21 13:34:57 da2ce7 has joined
801 2012-06-21 13:41:40 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
802 2012-06-21 13:46:22 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
803 2012-06-21 13:48:49 Prattler has joined
804 2012-06-21 13:53:17 Ummon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
805 2012-06-21 13:53:17 Ummon has joined
806 2012-06-21 13:54:40 d4de has joined
807 2012-06-21 13:54:40 d4de has quit (Changing host)
808 2012-06-21 13:54:40 d4de has joined
809 2012-06-21 14:00:08 tyn has joined
810 2012-06-21 14:01:51 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
811 2012-06-21 14:01:58 minimoose has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
812 2012-06-21 14:04:14 danbri_ has quit (Read error: No route to host)
813 2012-06-21 14:05:17 copumpkin has joined
814 2012-06-21 14:06:03 saieko has joined
815 2012-06-21 14:10:05 setkeh has quit (Quit: Time For a World Without Govorment Internet Interfearence)
816 2012-06-21 14:10:57 TD has joined
817 2012-06-21 14:12:07 guest42 has left ()
818 2012-06-21 14:14:40 Smoovious has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
819 2012-06-21 14:15:09 setkeh has joined
820 2012-06-21 14:15:21 Smoovious has joined
821 2012-06-21 14:15:48 setkeh has quit (Client Quit)
822 2012-06-21 14:16:05 danbri has joined
823 2012-06-21 14:18:48 setkeh has joined
824 2012-06-21 14:20:25 Ummon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
825 2012-06-21 14:23:25 egecko has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
826 2012-06-21 14:24:37 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
827 2012-06-21 14:25:46 root2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
828 2012-06-21 14:27:54 minimoose has joined
829 2012-06-21 14:32:09 Zarutian has joined
830 2012-06-21 14:33:05 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
831 2012-06-21 14:34:10 d4de has joined
832 2012-06-21 14:40:58 ThomasV has joined
833 2012-06-21 14:42:02 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
834 2012-06-21 14:44:16 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
835 2012-06-21 14:45:28 Diapolo has joined
836 2012-06-21 14:46:39 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
837 2012-06-21 14:49:14 genjix has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
838 2012-06-21 14:53:36 phungi has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
839 2012-06-21 14:57:16 tyn has joined
840 2012-06-21 14:57:47 phungus has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
841 2012-06-21 15:00:42 Diapolo has left ()
842 2012-06-21 15:01:25 phungus has joined
843 2012-06-21 15:01:30 danbri has quit (Read error: No route to host)
844 2012-06-21 15:04:12 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
845 2012-06-21 15:05:13 MC1984 has joined
846 2012-06-21 15:06:03 <copumpkin> is there a planned schedule for the next public release?
847 2012-06-21 15:06:50 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
848 2012-06-21 15:11:31 Prattler has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
849 2012-06-21 15:12:38 danbri has joined
850 2012-06-21 15:15:01 genjix has joined
851 2012-06-21 15:20:08 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: Never, just to upset you.
852 2012-06-21 15:20:15 <copumpkin> :)
853 2012-06-21 15:20:55 <gmaxwell> What do you mean by next public release? 0.6.3 or 0.7.0?
854 2012-06-21 15:26:58 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
855 2012-06-21 15:27:21 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
856 2012-06-21 15:27:22 <gribble> 185595
857 2012-06-21 15:27:48 paraipan has joined
858 2012-06-21 15:30:08 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: how is your node doing?
859 2012-06-21 15:30:45 <gmaxwell> no-detach seems to be causing a fair amount of trouble for people.
860 2012-06-21 15:41:26 danbri has quit (Read error: No route to host)
861 2012-06-21 15:43:00 l1l1ll11l11 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
862 2012-06-21 15:43:33 graingert has joined
863 2012-06-21 15:49:54 danbri has joined
864 2012-06-21 15:51:48 <luke-jr> tcatm: bitcoincharts feed down?
865 2012-06-21 15:54:11 <luke-jr> hmm
866 2012-06-21 15:56:14 D34TH has joined
867 2012-06-21 15:57:46 t7 has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.88.2 [Firefox 14.0/20120612164001])
868 2012-06-21 16:03:33 danbri has quit (Read error: No route to host)
869 2012-06-21 16:08:57 leotreasure has joined
870 2012-06-21 16:09:42 TD has joined
871 2012-06-21 16:10:28 makomk has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
872 2012-06-21 16:13:00 devrandom has joined
873 2012-06-21 16:14:41 danbri has joined
874 2012-06-21 16:14:53 t7 has joined
875 2012-06-21 16:16:00 phungi has joined
876 2012-06-21 16:28:31 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
877 2012-06-21 16:32:47 l1l1ll11l1 has joined
878 2012-06-21 16:33:39 makomk has joined
879 2012-06-21 16:34:40 jimbit_ has joined
880 2012-06-21 16:37:19 agricocb has joined
881 2012-06-21 16:39:37 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
882 2012-06-21 16:39:46 genjix has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
883 2012-06-21 16:39:53 cdecker has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
884 2012-06-21 16:40:41 andytoshi has joined
885 2012-06-21 16:49:37 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I fell asleep last night. I'll go look and let you know.
886 2012-06-21 16:50:10 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,stats
887 2012-06-21 16:50:11 <gribble> Current Blocks: 185596 | Current Difficulty: 1726566.5591935 | Next Difficulty At Block: 187487 | Next Difficulty In: 1891 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 54 minutes, and 59 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1516483.96210358 | Estimated Percent Change: -12.167651225
888 2012-06-21 16:50:21 <midnightmagic> "blocks" : 185596, <-- looks good, the error is also cleared.
889 2012-06-21 16:50:26 <jgarzik> very tired of BDB problems
890 2012-06-21 16:50:34 <jgarzik> let's just invent our own db ;)
891 2012-06-21 16:50:44 <sipa> we are getting aggravated
892 2012-06-21 16:50:54 <TD> leveldb!!
893 2012-06-21 16:50:55 <sipa> jgarzik: leveldb ?
894 2012-06-21 16:50:56 <TD> but not for wallets
895 2012-06-21 16:51:00 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: oh, now .. finally you're where everyone else was a few months ago! :)
896 2012-06-21 16:52:06 <luke-jr> lol
897 2012-06-21 16:52:07 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: the -loadblock= appears to have worked even with the borked blk* files.
898 2012-06-21 16:52:19 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: SLEEP MODE. <@suborbital> no i filtered out RainbowDashh join quit msgs - appearantly it filtered out everything)
899 2012-06-21 16:52:22 <midnightmagic> please for the love of god don't redo a database engine.
900 2012-06-21 16:52:37 <sipa> for the wallets we just may
901 2012-06-21 16:53:13 <luke-jr> wallets don't need a db engine
902 2012-06-21 16:53:15 <midnightmagic> there's a reason why nobody builds their own database engine.
903 2012-06-21 16:53:17 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: for wallets it wouldn't be a 'database engine'. It's just an append only log.
904 2012-06-21 16:55:29 <TD> bitcoinj just saves a protocol buffer
905 2012-06-21 16:55:38 <TD> if you want a db ..... well, do what fireduck did and fork the damn thing :)
906 2012-06-21 16:56:07 <jgarzik> my main issue is LSN hackery
907 2012-06-21 16:56:18 <jgarzik> BDB just wasn't built for all the copying-around-databases that our users do
908 2012-06-21 16:56:24 <sipa> indeed
909 2012-06-21 16:57:45 * jgarzik wonders if leveldb's data files are endian safe, can be copied across machines, etc., etc.
910 2012-06-21 16:58:04 <jgarzik> less strictly tied to one specific environment, IOW
911 2012-06-21 16:58:07 <gmaxwell> our use case is screwed up at many levels. "Hi, we're going to stick your database into the normative part of a distributed algorithim with tens of millions of dollars behind it operating consistently everywhere, not just also failing to lose or corrupt data. Oh, and technically unsophicated users are going to dork around with it at random." I can only imagine the screaming the would result.
912 2012-06-21 16:58:15 <TD> bitcoin itself is LE only, right
913 2012-06-21 16:58:24 <TD> you can copy them around. but i'd not suggest using leveldb for a wallet
914 2012-06-21 16:58:47 <gmaxwell> TD: making bitcoin work on BE shouldn't be that enormous of an effort, just no one has done it yet.
915 2012-06-21 16:59:13 <gmaxwell> If anyone has a burning desire to work on it, I have a dual-G5 PPC machine with debian-testing on it that I'd be glad to hand shells out on.
916 2012-06-21 17:00:35 Nolybab has joined
917 2012-06-21 17:00:40 <gmaxwell> (didn't think so)
918 2012-06-21 17:01:38 <Nolybab> well i'm back, but i've decided i don't want to invest in fpga or any mining hardware (for those who remember my earlier questions)--btw: sorry if i'm interrupting any important conversations.
919 2012-06-21 17:01:57 <sipa> gmaxwell: luke started a endian-safe version
920 2012-06-21 17:02:01 <sipa> but he didn't get too fa iirc
921 2012-06-21 17:02:17 <gmaxwell> I think the way it fails is amusing...
922 2012-06-21 17:02:23 <gmaxwell> rejects the genesis block.
923 2012-06-21 17:02:38 <sipa> at least it fails early :)
924 2012-06-21 17:02:48 osmosis has joined
925 2012-06-21 17:03:10 <Nolybab> so what i decided i want to do is buy 3 no-transaction blocks, with a special message embedded in coinbase: representing base58 encoded json string, and the coins deposited into the account i specify, anyone can help with this?
926 2012-06-21 17:03:20 <jgarzik> I looked into making bitcoin endian-safe too
927 2012-06-21 17:03:35 <jgarzik> got as far as changing the serialization routines -- a big part of the task, but did not get farther
928 2012-06-21 17:03:49 <gmaxwell> Nolybab: people could but .. meh. thats kind of anti-social.
929 2012-06-21 17:03:59 <Nolybab> actually it's not
930 2012-06-21 17:04:05 <Nolybab> it's part of a mad scheme i have
931 2012-06-21 17:04:15 <Nolybab> very social, very beneficial if i can make it work
932 2012-06-21 17:04:23 <Nolybab> but i require pure satoshi :)
933 2012-06-21 17:04:47 <midnightmagic> ...
934 2012-06-21 17:04:59 RainbowDashh has joined
935 2012-06-21 17:04:59 <gmaxwell> Nolybab: "no transactions" and embeding extra data sounds fairly parasitic... all those users who would carry around your useless-to-them data would prefer you processed some of their transactions.
936 2012-06-21 17:05:02 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
937 2012-06-21 17:05:17 <Nolybab> only 3 blocks in the grand scheme of things
938 2012-06-21 17:05:18 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
939 2012-06-21 17:05:22 <Nolybab> and i'm willing to pay a premium
940 2012-06-21 17:05:29 <Nolybab> up front
941 2012-06-21 17:05:36 <Nolybab> and wait patiently
942 2012-06-21 17:05:46 <Nolybab> and if i must forgo the no-transaction requirement, then no problem
943 2012-06-21 17:05:46 <midnightmagic> Nolybab: will you pay with paypal?
944 2012-06-21 17:05:58 <Nolybab> midnightmagic, yes i will pay with paypal
945 2012-06-21 17:06:05 graingert has joined
946 2012-06-21 17:06:09 <Nolybab> hell, i'd send cash to someone with reputation
947 2012-06-21 17:06:12 <midnightmagic> Nolybab: I'm sorry, that was a cruel thing to say on my part.. :)
948 2012-06-21 17:06:37 <Nolybab> <<missed the cruelty reference
949 2012-06-21 17:06:40 graingert_ has joined
950 2012-06-21 17:06:47 <Nolybab> so anyone can help me?
951 2012-06-21 17:06:56 <gmaxwell> Nolybab: What are you trying to do, anyways?
952 2012-06-21 17:07:30 <TuxBlackEdo> Nolybab, why in the coinbase?
953 2012-06-21 17:07:30 graingert_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
954 2012-06-21 17:07:45 <TuxBlackEdo> Nolybab, why not just transactions with the publickey as your message?
955 2012-06-21 17:07:59 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
956 2012-06-21 17:09:11 <Nolybab> @gmaxwell: it's involved to explain, and i'm preparing a white paper with another associate at the time to describe it. i realize it will take time to get the blocks, so i'm starting that early. i know the basic data i need embedded, and want to keep it to a minumum...
957 2012-06-21 17:09:53 <midnightmagic> Nolybab: In #bitcoin-otc, unregistered scammers often offer to pay with paypal, but the paypal accounts they use are often stolen, or the users will themselves reverse the charges immediately.
958 2012-06-21 17:09:54 <gmaxwell> Nolybab: if you're interested in your paper not being BS you'd be wise to discuss it with someone who is pretty familar with bitcoin.
959 2012-06-21 17:10:19 <Nolybab> @tuxblackedo, because i understand that coinbase: can be set to anything upon the generation of the block...in this where satoshi encoded his message: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
960 2012-06-21 17:10:30 genjix has joined
961 2012-06-21 17:10:35 graingert has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
962 2012-06-21 17:10:54 BCBot has joined
963 2012-06-21 17:10:55 <Nolybab> @gmaxwell, i understand that
964 2012-06-21 17:11:11 <gmaxwell> Nolybab: if you're looking to do time committments or such there are already systems for that: E.g. https://github.com/goblin/chronobit
965 2012-06-21 17:11:22 <Nolybab> but regardless, even if for no other reason that numismatic interest, i'd like 3-blocks thus encoded
966 2012-06-21 17:11:32 RainbowD_ has joined
967 2012-06-21 17:11:32 RainbowDashh has quit (Disconnected by services)
968 2012-06-21 17:11:45 root2 has joined
969 2012-06-21 17:11:52 <Nolybab> @gmaxwell, but can i get a clean block wtih no transactions? is it possible?
970 2012-06-21 17:12:04 <Nolybab> i know highly improbable, but surely someone can hash one out
971 2012-06-21 17:12:13 <Nolybab> an sign it for me :)
972 2012-06-21 17:12:47 <jgarzik> a positive report on block propagation, possibly, with v0.6.3rc1: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88302.msg979403#msg979403
973 2012-06-21 17:13:26 <drizztbsd> when do you release 0.6.3?
974 2012-06-21 17:13:26 <midnightmagic> Nolybab: you should talk to the gpumax people. I'm pretty sure they could arrange such a thing.
975 2012-06-21 17:13:30 RainbowD_ is now known as RainbowDashh
976 2012-06-21 17:13:44 <Nolybab> how do i find gpumax?
977 2012-06-21 17:14:44 dvide has quit ()
978 2012-06-21 17:15:27 <Nolybab> i found their IRC channel, thx :)
979 2012-06-21 17:15:43 <drizztbsd> what is gpumax? :P
980 2012-06-21 17:16:27 PK has joined
981 2012-06-21 17:16:32 <jgarzik> gpumax is for renting mining power
982 2012-06-21 17:16:50 <jgarzik> though nefarious things about gpumax's use cases and ownership have been alleged
983 2012-06-21 17:16:55 <Nolybab> brb
984 2012-06-21 17:19:59 <Eliel> Nolybab: one of the mining pools might be willing to take this on too, if you ask around.
985 2012-06-21 17:20:14 <midnightmagic> Nolybab: So the idea would be for you to either build, or find, a pool service which would be willing to create the empty blocks for you. Then set up a gpumax contract and point gpumax at it until you havyour three blocks.
986 2012-06-21 17:20:25 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
987 2012-06-21 17:21:03 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: Meh. Until there's actual evidence, or people have specific complaints, who cares eh.
988 2012-06-21 17:22:36 <midnightmagic> drizztbsd: gpumax is a mining block who is willing to point their mining effort at a reputable pool in return for payment. So the idea is, you pay gpumax to point their hashrate somewhere, and you get the benefit of the mining. They take payment in.. bitcoins I think. The gpumax miners take payment, usually higher than actual mining return would be, and you get to point the hashrate somewhere specific.
989 2012-06-21 17:23:24 <jgarzik> To each his own... On the Internet in the bitcoin world, things tend to smell funny (mybitcoin.com) and not follow basic logic, then explode "unexpectedly."
990 2012-06-21 17:23:29 <drizztbsd> who pay gpumax to use a specific pool?
991 2012-06-21 17:23:39 <jgarzik> bitcoinica "unexpectedly" explodes
992 2012-06-21 17:24:11 <jgarzik> there is never hard evidence before the explosion
993 2012-06-21 17:24:13 <midnightmagic> drizztbsd: People were using it at the beginning of fresh PPS blocks with the idea being they'd be disproportionately rewarded if the block showed up early.
994 2012-06-21 17:25:12 <midnightmagic> drizztbsd: Some people allege that it can be used to exchange "dirty" bitcoins for fresh ones, if you're willing to accept a 20% loss or whatever the gpumax premium is.
995 2012-06-21 17:26:03 <midnightmagic> drizztbsd: As far as I'm aware, there has been no evidence that actual dirty bitcoins have been paid out to gpumax miners. Of course, I'm not paying much attention these days.. so..
996 2012-06-21 17:26:17 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
997 2012-06-21 17:27:11 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: How did mybitcoin not follow basic logic?
998 2012-06-21 17:28:33 <jgarzik> midnightmagic: users of mybitcoin.com did not: mysterious owner of a mysterious company, no third party auditing of legal, financial or technical setup, no real guarantees that the owner would not simply run off with the money, with zero recourse.
999 2012-06-21 17:28:43 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1000 2012-06-21 17:29:39 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: third-party auditing is overrated. it's tough to provide real-world evidence of services designed to be as anonymous as possible.
1001 2012-06-21 17:31:01 RainbowDashh has joined
1002 2012-06-21 17:31:03 <midnightmagic> yeah, bitcoinica's weird post-explosion stuff was odd, and the acrimony makes me happy I never had an account there.
1003 2012-06-21 17:31:12 leotreasure has quit (Quit: leotreasure)
1004 2012-06-21 17:31:13 <midnightmagic> at least not one with money in it.
1005 2012-06-21 17:33:21 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1006 2012-06-21 17:33:43 Backburn has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1007 2012-06-21 17:34:25 <jjjx> Why is there such concern about 'dirty' bitcoins anyway?
1008 2012-06-21 17:34:37 <jjjx> I would imagine that all paper money for example, is tainted with some awful transaction.
1009 2012-06-21 17:34:47 <jjjx> Is this just to help with forensics?
1010 2012-06-21 17:37:07 agricocb has joined
1011 2012-06-21 17:39:54 jimbit_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1012 2012-06-21 17:44:53 dvide has joined
1013 2012-06-21 17:45:19 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, i think that unexpectedly needs bold quotes "unexpectedly"
1014 2012-06-21 17:48:35 <Nolybab> no help there
1015 2012-06-21 17:52:12 <gavinandresen> we should start an anonymous pool to predict the next "unexpected" disaster. I think I'd put my money on GLBSE
1016 2012-06-21 17:52:19 <jgarzik> ;)
1017 2012-06-21 17:52:20 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1018 2012-06-21 17:52:38 <gavinandresen> (but don't tell anybody that, I don't want the GLBSE fans to be mad at me)
1019 2012-06-21 17:52:39 jjjx has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1020 2012-06-21 17:54:50 <genjix> i tried warning nefario about that
1021 2012-06-21 17:55:27 <midnightmagic> Nolybab: they're not willing to let you buy shares against a blank pool for 3 blocks?
1022 2012-06-21 17:55:52 <Nolybab> they say it's a DDOS attack on the system
1023 2012-06-21 17:55:57 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: awesome.
1024 2012-06-21 17:56:03 <Nolybab> that my idea is a big FU to the whole community
1025 2012-06-21 17:56:16 <gavinandresen> I might be wrong, I don't know nuthin about running stock markets.
1026 2012-06-21 17:56:20 <midnightmagic> Nolybab: Whoever said that isn't taking into account the fact that any valid blocks are making the system stronger.
1027 2012-06-21 17:56:30 <Nolybab> and i'm willing to pay a premium
1028 2012-06-21 17:56:39 <gavinandresen> empty blocks are antisocial
1029 2012-06-21 17:56:45 <midnightmagic> Nolybab: Most private miners would likely be willing to help you.
1030 2012-06-21 17:56:50 <Nolybab> i know gavin, from one perspective
1031 2012-06-21 17:56:54 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: Perhaps, but they still make the system stronger.
1032 2012-06-21 17:56:54 <Nolybab> i'm only talking about 3 blocks
1033 2012-06-21 17:57:04 <Nolybab> and there is a madness to my method
1034 2012-06-21 17:57:19 <Nolybab> you see, BTC are not setup to efficiently work with micro or nano-transactions
1035 2012-06-21 17:57:28 <Nolybab> i have an idea that may help in that regard
1036 2012-06-21 17:57:35 <Nolybab> but i cannot pollute the blockchain
1037 2012-06-21 17:57:41 <midnightmagic> Nolybab: Gavin's the lead developer for the bitcoin source code. :)
1038 2012-06-21 17:58:08 <Nolybab> i know midnight, which is why i'm glad he's here...he can kill my idea right now, or at least consider my proposal
1039 2012-06-21 17:58:27 <Nolybab> see beyond the 'obvious' to see what this may mean to the future
1040 2012-06-21 17:58:50 <Nolybab> someday there has to be a transition from 'mining based' to transaction based BitCoin economy
1041 2012-06-21 17:58:56 <Nolybab> hows that going to happen?
1042 2012-06-21 17:59:22 <gavinandresen> if your idea can work with non-empty blocks then great. If not, the danger is your idea becomes wildly popular and "just 3 blocks" becomes 100 people times "just 3 blocks"
1043 2012-06-21 17:59:24 <midnightmagic> Nolybab: when the transaction fees exceed the value of the mining block reward. :)
1044 2012-06-21 18:00:15 <gavinandresen> Nolybab: we were talking about that yesterday, see https://gist.github.com/2961409
1045 2012-06-21 18:00:24 <Nolybab> i understand, i have been following that
1046 2012-06-21 18:00:36 <Nolybab> but even you yourself stated that BTC was NOT for micro or nano-transactions
1047 2012-06-21 18:00:54 <Nolybab> supernodes are one proposal on the table, i see that for scalability and visa level transactions
1048 2012-06-21 18:01:07 <Nolybab> but how to enable true micro and nano-transactions, down to the satoshi level?
1049 2012-06-21 18:01:09 <Nolybab> that's what i'm working on
1050 2012-06-21 18:01:15 <gavinandresen> cool!
1051 2012-06-21 18:01:21 <Nolybab> and it requires (at least in my mind) virgin blocks
1052 2012-06-21 18:01:52 <Nolybab> with some base58 encoded JSON in the coinbase when the block is generated
1053 2012-06-21 18:01:55 <gavinandresen> I bet the clever people here could figure out how to make it work with slutty blocks.
1054 2012-06-21 18:02:27 <Nolybab> gavin, what backs a fork?
1055 2012-06-21 18:02:40 <Nolybab> nothing...same as BTC, just the proof-of-work
1056 2012-06-21 18:02:43 <Nolybab> right?
1057 2012-06-21 18:02:50 <gavinandresen> you mean like a knife and fork?
1058 2012-06-21 18:02:55 <gavinandresen> oh, chain fork
1059 2012-06-21 18:03:08 <phantomcircuit> lol
1060 2012-06-21 18:03:33 <Nolybab> but what i'm talking about is similar to backing a fork with actual BTC
1061 2012-06-21 18:03:43 <gavinandresen> ultimately, consensus of majority hashing power backs a fork.
1062 2012-06-21 18:03:48 <Nolybab> only way to get new 'coins' into the economy is to inject BTC
1063 2012-06-21 18:03:48 <phantomcircuit> Nolybab, that doesn't really work because you still need everybody who is accepting/sending the micro transactions to have all those blocks
1064 2012-06-21 18:04:00 <Nolybab> phantom, i have some ideas on how to handle that
1065 2012-06-21 18:04:28 <phantomcircuit> gonna need more than ideas
1066 2012-06-21 18:04:30 <Nolybab> but to keep it simple
1067 2012-06-21 18:04:31 genjix has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1068 2012-06-21 18:04:33 <phantomcircuit> it's very much non trivial :)
1069 2012-06-21 18:04:48 <Nolybab> i just want to buy the 3 blocks
1070 2012-06-21 18:04:55 genjix has joined
1071 2012-06-21 18:04:56 <Nolybab> get some special json embedded
1072 2012-06-21 18:05:10 * phantomcircuit goes back to constructing abominations of systems administration
1073 2012-06-21 18:05:12 <Nolybab> i know it will take time. my intent is not malignant
1074 2012-06-21 18:05:28 <Nolybab> i am also buyin 100 BTC to use as bounties to help me with some small side-projects that are related
1075 2012-06-21 18:05:53 <Nolybab> it's only going to get harder to do what i propose...so i want to do it now while it's still possible at all
1076 2012-06-21 18:05:59 <Nolybab> just 3 measley blocks
1077 2012-06-21 18:06:12 <Nolybab> and i'm willing to pay a premium
1078 2012-06-21 18:06:36 <phantomcircuit> just convince a miner to mine your crazy blocks
1079 2012-06-21 18:06:50 <midnightmagic> Nolybab: there are a lot of people with 20GH or more who might help you personally. If you provide the bitcoind against which you want them to mine, and as long as you pay in bitcoin, I'm certain some would take you up on the offer. Just make it simple for them, and make sure the pool/bitcoind you build is set and ready to go.
1080 2012-06-21 18:07:21 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1081 2012-06-21 18:07:46 <midnightmagic> Nolybab: and be prepared for wait a while for the blocks to be successfully mined. :)
1082 2012-06-21 18:07:54 <Nolybab> i understand it could take a while
1083 2012-06-21 18:08:09 <Nolybab> maybe i am just mad...maybe i don't need virgin blocks
1084 2012-06-21 18:08:18 <Nolybab> i'm just obsessed with that white whale now
1085 2012-06-21 18:08:21 <midnightmagic> Nolybab: great, set it up and let us know. :)
1086 2012-06-21 18:08:57 darksk1ez has joined
1087 2012-06-21 18:08:57 <Nolybab> midnight: set it up with who?
1088 2012-06-21 18:09:00 darksk1ez has quit (Changing host)
1089 2012-06-21 18:09:01 darksk1ez has joined
1090 2012-06-21 18:09:18 <Eliel> Nolybab: I'm getting the feeling your idea is to start an alt chain and back it's value with bitcoin to get it started.
1091 2012-06-21 18:09:25 <Nolybab> exactly eliel
1092 2012-06-21 18:09:35 <midnightmagic> Nolybab: build the poll/bitcoind which will hand out work to miners, and create those three blocks. If you build it and are willing to pay, people will mine against it.
1093 2012-06-21 18:09:47 <midnightmagic> s/poll/pool/
1094 2012-06-21 18:09:48 <Nolybab> and on my side, i'm going to develop a distributed database that supports nano and micro transactions of virtual goods
1095 2012-06-21 18:09:58 <Eliel> if that's so, what's the json in coinbase for? any regular transaction should do fine.
1096 2012-06-21 18:10:21 genjix has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1097 2012-06-21 18:10:23 fpgaminer has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1098 2012-06-21 18:10:24 <Nolybab> eliel, the json is to encode a 'contract' of the worth of my 'currencies' relative to BTC
1099 2012-06-21 18:10:30 <Nolybab> and version
1100 2012-06-21 18:10:34 <Nolybab> and realm, and a few other things
1101 2012-06-21 18:10:56 <Nolybab> but basically, 1BTC = 100000000 satoshi = 10000 copper = 1000 gold, etc type thing
1102 2012-06-21 18:11:17 <Nolybab> in such a way, various 'classes' of virtual goods can be backed by satoshi
1103 2012-06-21 18:11:39 <Eliel> Nolybab: ok, so, what's the benefit you'd get from getting that into a coinbase rather than a regular transaction?
1104 2012-06-21 18:11:46 <Nolybab> satoshi is like fundamental unit of virtual goods (digital super-strings), a digital alchemists dream :)
1105 2012-06-21 18:11:59 <Nolybab> the benefit is that transactions will/can be pruned
1106 2012-06-21 18:12:13 <Eliel> Nolybab: that applies to coinbases too.
1107 2012-06-21 18:12:35 <Nolybab> oh, then maybe i need to rethink what i'm doing
1108 2012-06-21 18:12:37 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1109 2012-06-21 18:12:43 <Nolybab> maybe i missunderstand something
1110 2012-06-21 18:12:47 fpgaminer has joined
1111 2012-06-21 18:13:14 <Eliel> only spent transactions will be pruned.
1112 2012-06-21 18:13:29 <Eliel> but even so, it'll remain verifiable that they were in the chain if you keep the transaction data.
1113 2012-06-21 18:13:36 wizkid057 has joined
1114 2012-06-21 18:13:52 <Nolybab> well these particular BTC would be backing the 'micro-economy'
1115 2012-06-21 18:14:08 <Nolybab> so they would not be able to be traded without someone finding evidence in the blockchain
1116 2012-06-21 18:14:54 <Nolybab> hard to explain...but i am pretty sure i know what i want and that it will get the results i need
1117 2012-06-21 18:15:22 <Nolybab> anyway i just need to find someone that will do this for me
1118 2012-06-21 18:15:28 <Nolybab> willing to pay a premium, as i said
1119 2012-06-21 18:15:37 <luke-jr> coinbases can be pruned basically immediatley
1120 2012-06-21 18:15:47 <gavinandresen> good idea. Seems like it could just be a well-known public key with unspent coins associated with it (unspent outputs won't get pruned)
1121 2012-06-21 18:15:54 <Nolybab> well then where can i store the data? where did satoshi store his idea?
1122 2012-06-21 18:16:07 <Nolybab> exactly gavin
1123 2012-06-21 18:16:24 <gavinandresen> sign the data with the private key associated with the public key(s), and publish the signature on a ssl-protected web page.
1124 2012-06-21 18:16:30 <Eliel> Satoshi's idea is stored in the bitcoin community and the software I think.
1125 2012-06-21 18:16:32 <luke-jr> Nolybab: I haven't been paying attention, but the general place for storing data is the merged mining tree
1126 2012-06-21 18:16:55 <Nolybab> i don't need a lot of data stored
1127 2012-06-21 18:17:01 <Nolybab> less than 1k should suffice
1128 2012-06-21 18:17:12 <Eliel> you can't fit 1k into the coinbase
1129 2012-06-21 18:17:33 <Eliel> I think the limit was somewhere around 100 bytes.
1130 2012-06-21 18:17:41 <gavinandresen> "I hereby certify that I control NanoTransaction address 1nano...." Then anybody can check nanotransaction.com to find out which address(es) are backing, and check the bitcoin blockchain for whether or not the backing is spent.
1131 2012-06-21 18:17:53 <Nolybab> so i would put the data in the erged mining tree then? is 1k too much? maybe i should shoot for .5k? i can probably manage that.
1132 2012-06-21 18:18:02 <midnightmagic> backing to me, only seems worth it if these can in fact be redeemed.
1133 2012-06-21 18:18:17 <midnightmagic> i never understood those gold-trading sites where you couldn't actually take delivery of the gold you owned.
1134 2012-06-21 18:18:24 <Eliel> Nolybab: you'd put a hash of the data in the merged mining tree
1135 2012-06-21 18:18:26 <midnightmagic> or LR. I don't understand LR at all.
1136 2012-06-21 18:18:41 <luke-jr> midnightmagic++
1137 2012-06-21 18:19:19 <Eliel> then you'd save the data as well as the merkle-paths leading to the hash of your data.
1138 2012-06-21 18:19:36 <Eliel> and you could prove that data existed at the time that block was made.
1139 2012-06-21 18:19:52 <Nolybab> basically, consider this: let's say i have two realms, and one realm makes satoshi-emeralds (10/BTC), and another realm makes satoshi-essence (10/BTC), i could create a magic amulet from those two ingredients, and they would have intrinsic BTC value PLUS any value afforded them in their respective properties within the 'game'
1140 2012-06-21 18:20:31 <luke-jr> Nolybab: if you're using Bitcoins in a game, you should be careful to avoid any random factors or you may trigger anti-gambling laws
1141 2012-06-21 18:20:53 <Nolybab> but that item would be less valuable than if i took a satoshi-ruby (100/BTC) and combined it with satoshi-essence (10/BTC)...
1142 2012-06-21 18:21:31 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: SLEEP MODE. <@suborbital> no i filtered out RainbowDashh join quit msgs - appearantly it filtered out everything)
1143 2012-06-21 18:21:41 <Nolybab> and the properties would not be as high for those virtual goods that are of less intrinsic value...and we create new virtual goods in combination of satoshi combining various virtual goods (e.g. put together silk cloth and silk thread for example)
1144 2012-06-21 18:22:57 <Nolybab> but the key is that 'each' virtual good is created as an indice in a distributed hypergraph, and we're able to trade BTC backed virtual goods at the micro- and nano-levels (for instance, consider 'liking' someone as giving them somewhere between 1--5 satoshi) as rewards for social networking and gaming
1145 2012-06-21 18:23:12 <Nolybab> tell me to shutup if i'm taking too much bandwidth
1146 2012-06-21 18:23:56 <gavinandresen> "liking" wouldn't involve the bitcoin blockchain at all, would it? How are those microtransactions verified, is there a central server?
1147 2012-06-21 18:24:12 <Nolybab> no it wouldn't gavin
1148 2012-06-21 18:24:16 <Nolybab> no central server
1149 2012-06-21 18:24:21 <Nolybab> distributed hypergraph
1150 2012-06-21 18:24:29 <Nolybab> even virtual good images distributed
1151 2012-06-21 18:24:32 <gavinandresen> distributed hypergraph means nothing to me
1152 2012-06-21 18:24:33 <Nolybab> collectively
1153 2012-06-21 18:24:37 <Nolybab> graph database
1154 2012-06-21 18:24:50 <Nolybab> only edges connect vertice domains instead of just two vertices
1155 2012-06-21 18:24:57 <Nolybab> and edges connect other edges
1156 2012-06-21 18:25:12 <gavinandresen> okey dokey.
1157 2012-06-21 18:25:36 <Nolybab> again, just tell me to shutup when you get tired of reading me
1158 2012-06-21 18:25:36 sacredchao has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1159 2012-06-21 18:25:38 <Nolybab> but consider this:
1160 2012-06-21 18:25:46 <Nolybab> i have a micro-economy based on BTC
1161 2012-06-21 18:26:03 <Nolybab> in my economy, when i put in 1 BTC, i can generate 100,000,000 satoshi, for example, or 1,000 gold, etc
1162 2012-06-21 18:26:14 <Nolybab> these become atomic at this point
1163 2012-06-21 18:26:29 <gavinandresen> sorry, I mean "I look forward to reading your whitepaper". My knee-jerk reaction is lots of people have tried and failed to create secure distributed databases. They usually fail when an attacker mounts a Sybil and other DoS attack.
1164 2012-06-21 18:26:31 <Nolybab> only way is to 'recycle' them back into satoshi, destroying any object properties (vertice dropped from DB)
1165 2012-06-21 18:26:50 <Nolybab> this is based upon limited trust between nodes :)
1166 2012-06-21 18:27:11 <Nolybab> but at any time, someone could pull out, by just transferring their wealth out into BTC
1167 2012-06-21 18:27:16 <Nolybab> that's the purpose of the frozen blocks
1168 2012-06-21 18:27:18 sacredchao has joined
1169 2012-06-21 18:27:23 <luke-jr> Nolybab: if you have something interesting you want merged-mined, ping me when it's ready
1170 2012-06-21 18:27:36 <Eliel> Nolybab: you're being overly general in what you're describing. It won't be understandable unless you put together one whole example. A whole load of different examples with no ties with each other isn't going to be understandable.
1171 2012-06-21 18:27:39 <Nolybab> i need help with the code and bitcoind build luke-jr
1172 2012-06-21 18:27:49 <luke-jr> Nolybab: then I expect you'll never get anywhere.
1173 2012-06-21 18:28:01 <Nolybab> drat
1174 2012-06-21 18:28:13 <luke-jr> everyone coding has a lot of stuff they already want to code, generally
1175 2012-06-21 18:28:18 <Nolybab> so i need to isntall eclipse for C++ and hope it's like riding a bike
1176 2012-06-21 18:28:30 <Nolybab> been 15+ years since i worked with c/c++
1177 2012-06-21 18:28:33 <luke-jr> I just use a text editor, but whatever.
1178 2012-06-21 18:28:55 <Nolybab> well i already have eclipse isntalled, just need the c++ extensions
1179 2012-06-21 18:28:58 <luke-jr> Nolybab: well, 15+ years since is better than never done
1180 2012-06-21 18:29:15 <Nolybab> true, true luke
1181 2012-06-21 18:29:45 <luke-jr> Nolybab: if you just need help with getting bitcoind to compile, I'm sure you might get some advice here though
1182 2012-06-21 18:29:52 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
1183 2012-06-21 18:29:55 TheSeven has joined
1184 2012-06-21 18:29:57 <luke-jr> but probably the first step will always be 1) Use Linux
1185 2012-06-21 18:29:58 <Nolybab> i can compile, i just don't know where to start changing
1186 2012-06-21 18:30:12 <Nolybab> and i don't want to have to completely figure out every class file
1187 2012-06-21 18:30:25 <Nolybab> so i'll take a look and check back with any questions
1188 2012-06-21 18:30:29 <luke-jr> k
1189 2012-06-21 18:30:41 <Nolybab> everyone knwos what i'm trying to do, so if anything occurs to you, please just hit me up with some advice
1190 2012-06-21 18:30:42 <Nolybab> thanks all!
1191 2012-06-21 18:30:52 * luke-jr doesn't. :p
1192 2012-06-21 18:30:56 <Nolybab> and if this works, it will be good for BitCoin
1193 2012-06-21 18:31:13 <Nolybab> but i suppose everyone thinks their ideas are good for bitcoin
1194 2012-06-21 18:31:22 <luke-jr> there's a lot of ideas good for Bitcoin
1195 2012-06-21 18:31:23 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1196 2012-06-21 18:31:30 <luke-jr> just not enough coders and time to implement them all
1197 2012-06-21 18:32:21 <Nolybab> just one last thing, and then i'll leave
1198 2012-06-21 18:32:49 <Nolybab> instead of going all out 'white paper', i'm going to try to write up my plan enough to solicit some early feedback
1199 2012-06-21 18:32:53 * luke-jr doesn't think anyone is rushing you to leave :p
1200 2012-06-21 18:32:57 <Nolybab> i'll work my way up to white paper
1201 2012-06-21 18:33:11 <Nolybab> i need to clearly describe what i need to do, so that i can get help doing it
1202 2012-06-21 18:33:15 <luke-jr> cool, I personally think fullblown whitepapers are too long a read anyhow ;)
1203 2012-06-21 18:33:54 <Eliel> Nolybab: keep it short but complete enough that people can get the gist of it.
1204 2012-06-21 18:33:59 <Nolybab> i can probably do 90--100% of the code myself, but also will have 100BTC to help with side dev/prototype projects for proof of concept
1205 2012-06-21 18:34:05 <Nolybab> i will be as concise as possible
1206 2012-06-21 18:34:58 <Nolybab> and thanks for at least discussing it with me
1207 2012-06-21 18:36:36 <Nolybab> btw: anyone have the link for bitcoind source? also, why bitcoind and not cgminer or something?
1208 2012-06-21 18:36:48 <Nolybab> i will have to research what bitcoind is
1209 2012-06-21 18:38:10 danbri_ has joined
1210 2012-06-21 18:38:41 <Nolybab> nvm. i see
1211 2012-06-21 18:38:44 danbri has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1212 2012-06-21 18:41:24 <helo> dood... best of luck to you
1213 2012-06-21 18:41:35 <Nolybab> thanks helo
1214 2012-06-21 18:44:41 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: xanatos opened pull request 1496 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1496>
1215 2012-06-21 18:44:57 <gavinandresen> Nolybab: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L3277 is the code you'd want to hack.
1216 2012-06-21 18:46:03 <Nolybab> one more question: do i really need 'virgin' blocks without transactions?
1217 2012-06-21 18:47:28 <gmaxwell> Why would you?
1218 2012-06-21 18:47:48 <Nolybab> well, i think it's because all future transactions included in the block
1219 2012-06-21 18:47:51 <Nolybab> will reference the block
1220 2012-06-21 18:48:00 <gavinandresen> if all you want to do is set aside some bitcoins to back microtransactions that will be traded using another system, then no, certainly not.
1221 2012-06-21 18:48:25 <Nolybab> it's not just setting them aside though...in my mind
1222 2012-06-21 18:48:52 <Habbie> Nolybab, we can't judge whether you need virgin blocks - you seemed to think you do :)
1223 2012-06-21 18:48:57 <Habbie> Nolybab, write up that summary!
1224 2012-06-21 18:48:59 <Nolybab> yeah, i think i do
1225 2012-06-21 18:49:07 <Nolybab> i will work on it...again, thanks for entertaining me
1226 2012-06-21 18:49:13 <Nolybab> i have a lot of work this weekend
1227 2012-06-21 18:49:14 <gmaxwell> Nolybab: transactions don't reference blocks, they reference the immediately prior transaction.
1228 2012-06-21 18:49:38 <Nolybab> sorry, that's what i mean gmaxwell...so all those transactions are bound to that block
1229 2012-06-21 18:49:39 <gmaxwell> I can't fathom a reason why having transactions in the block would hurt anything you're doing.
1230 2012-06-21 18:49:45 <Nolybab> well, consider this
1231 2012-06-21 18:49:52 <Nolybab> let's say we had to 'liquidate' the virtual economy
1232 2012-06-21 18:50:10 <Nolybab> then the entire block could theoretically be 'pruned' with no external dependencies
1233 2012-06-21 18:50:37 <Nolybab> external as in transactions outside the micro-economy of that particular block
1234 2012-06-21 18:50:48 <Nolybab> maybe i'm missunderstanding something, this is why i need to write upt he summary
1235 2012-06-21 18:50:49 <gmaxwell> Nolybab: you don't control other people's pruning regardless. Right now nothing is pruned by anyone.
1236 2012-06-21 18:51:00 <Nolybab> i know, but it's like the idea of atomicity
1237 2012-06-21 18:51:07 <gmaxwell> This isn't making any sense.
1238 2012-06-21 18:51:25 <gmaxwell> Pruning is by transaction, it's not atomic. And a whole block can never be completely pruned.
1239 2012-06-21 18:51:45 <gmaxwell> (because the chain thereafter depends on that link, if nothing else)
1240 2012-06-21 18:51:53 <Nolybab> ok, let's say i have a block with transactions
1241 2012-06-21 18:52:30 <Nolybab> let's say transaction 1 from A to B
1242 2012-06-21 18:52:34 leotreasure has joined
1243 2012-06-21 18:52:40 <Nolybab> and transaction 2 from C to D
1244 2012-06-21 18:53:12 <Nolybab> nvm
1245 2012-06-21 18:53:15 <Nolybab> it isn't making any sense
1246 2012-06-21 18:53:32 <gmaxwell> transactions are indivigually prunable. Thats why they're arranged in a hash tree instead of hashed directly.
1247 2012-06-21 18:53:51 <gmaxwell> I suspect you need to go try writing some codeâ not just a description, you're thinking in abstractions 10 layers too high and they're clouding your understanding.
1248 2012-06-21 18:54:13 <Nolybab> gmaxwell, that is sound advice
1249 2012-06-21 18:54:20 <Nolybab> i'll figure out how to get on the testnet
1250 2012-06-21 18:54:36 <gmaxwell> Good. Thats what its for.
1251 2012-06-21 18:54:41 <Nolybab> generate a test block, right? then try to start hacking the thing
1252 2012-06-21 18:55:48 <leotreasure> hello, i've been trying to compile the bitcoin daemon on github following build-unix.txt and found a dependency that needed changing for Ubuntu server: libdb4.8++-dev -> libdb++-dev
1253 2012-06-21 18:55:54 <gmaxwell> Nolybab: sounds fine.
1254 2012-06-21 18:56:18 <gmaxwell> leotreasure: if you want to be backwards compatible with the binaries we ship it really does need libdb4.8.
1255 2012-06-21 18:56:37 <Habbie> leotreasure, what version of ubuntu server?
1256 2012-06-21 18:56:42 <gmaxwell> If you don't care about compatible files (wallet, database, etc) then you can use other ones.
1257 2012-06-21 18:56:59 <gmaxwell> Habbie: 12.04 LTS doesn't ship 4.8 anymore it appears.
1258 2012-06-21 18:57:07 <leotreasure> 12.04
1259 2012-06-21 18:57:11 <Habbie> my 12.04 does
1260 2012-06-21 18:57:16 <luke-jr> leotreasure: you can get 4.8 in the bitcoin PPA
1261 2012-06-21 18:57:18 <gmaxwell> though libdb 5 appears to regress performance without twiddling.
1262 2012-06-21 18:59:00 <gavinandresen> sipa: my torhs branch node running as a hidden service is stuck at 8 outgoing connections; is that expected?
1263 2012-06-21 19:00:16 <leotreasure> i couldn't find libdb4.8++-dev - but thanks i've worked out the package is called libdb4.8-dev
1264 2012-06-21 19:00:16 danbri has joined
1265 2012-06-21 19:00:17 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: you mean you don't yet have any incoming connections?
1266 2012-06-21 19:00:32 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: yes
1267 2012-06-21 19:00:36 danbri_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1268 2012-06-21 19:01:25 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: is your node synced up yet? (I'm asking because it won't advertise itself until its synced up, which may be one reason why you don't have any incoming)
1269 2012-06-21 19:01:47 <gavinandresen> yes, it's caught up on blocks (wasn't when I started, though)
1270 2012-06-21 19:01:48 dr_win has joined
1271 2012-06-21 19:02:20 <leotreasure> what would i need upnp support for?
1272 2012-06-21 19:02:39 <gmaxwell> hm. I wish there was an easy way to check to see if my node knows of your node.. you might be connected to every known hidden service node already.. or your inbound could be broken for some reason.
1273 2012-06-21 19:02:44 <Habbie> leotreasure, for punching a hole in your NAT router
1274 2012-06-21 19:02:58 <gmaxwell> leotreasure: to allow your node to recieve inbound connections when behind nat without configuration.
1275 2012-06-21 19:03:55 <leotreasure> thanks, so probably not a good thing to start off with
1276 2012-06-21 19:03:56 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: we need those RPC commands to report on connected peers....
1277 2012-06-21 19:07:07 <gmaxwell> I don't think my HS (v4+HS) test node has any hidden service connections right now, because the only onion in my log is the addaddr for myself.
1278 2012-06-21 19:07:35 <Habbie> 'known hidden service nodes' is a hardcoded list?
1279 2012-06-21 19:07:41 <gavinandresen> "test node" : running on -testnet ?
1280 2012-06-21 19:07:54 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: no no, not testnet. Though I should do that with testnet too.
1281 2012-06-21 19:08:06 <gmaxwell> I guess whats happening there is it filled up its out with v4 peers and the onion address isn't getting flooded anywhere.
1282 2012-06-21 19:08:46 <gmaxwell> Habbie: no, I mean known to the node itself. There are probably only a couple proper hidden service nodes now, the functionality was just merged.
1283 2012-06-21 19:09:08 <Habbie> ah :)
1284 2012-06-21 19:09:11 <Habbie> just curious
1285 2012-06-21 19:09:12 <Habbie> thanks :)
1286 2012-06-21 19:09:32 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: thats probably also the issue for you, I bet all your peers are IPv4 ones via tor?
1287 2012-06-21 19:10:20 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: yes, probably
1288 2012-06-21 19:11:16 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I could try addnoding you to see if it picks you up. Though we'd really need a third node to validate that relaying worked.
1289 2012-06-21 19:11:47 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: I'm sxpl36324kqv5k6c.onion:7095
1290 2012-06-21 19:11:56 <gmaxwell> k. testing
1291 2012-06-21 19:13:17 <gavinandresen> that seemed to work: them=b4ymclq6qeh4um3q.onion:8333
1292 2012-06-21 19:13:18 <gmaxwell> 06/21/12 19:09:27 send version message: version 60001, blocks=185617, us=b4ymclq6qeh4um3q.onion:8333, them=sxpl36324kqv5k6c.onion:7095, peer=sxpl36324kqv5k6c.onion:7095
1293 2012-06-21 19:13:22 <gmaxwell> yea...
1294 2012-06-21 19:13:28 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1295 2012-06-21 19:13:43 <gavinandresen> I feel so... covert
1296 2012-06-21 19:14:04 leotreasure has joined
1297 2012-06-21 19:14:07 <gmaxwell> okay, so your inbound works. it just seems that its filling up with v4 hs nodes.. thats probably fine for now. It'll get better when we have some HS seeds hardcoded.
1298 2012-06-21 19:16:02 maqr has joined
1299 2012-06-21 19:17:54 <Nolybab> new to github here...noticed there is a 'clone in windows' button...how is this different than a fork or branch? also, which branch do i want to fork/clone? just the integration/staging tree? please advise
1300 2012-06-21 19:18:55 <Habbie> 'clone in windows' passes stuff to the github windows client
1301 2012-06-21 19:19:07 <Habbie> which may be useful if you're not experienced with git yet
1302 2012-06-21 19:19:17 <Habbie> their mac client is great - i believe the windows client is the same
1303 2012-06-21 19:19:44 <D34TH> windows client could be a bit quicker, its kinda laggy
1304 2012-06-21 19:20:04 <Nolybab> i will start there, thx, and gavin or gmaxwell, which branch do you recommend that I start with, knowing what i'm trying to do? just work off the latest?
1305 2012-06-21 19:21:28 <gavinandresen> latest (master) is what I'd use.
1306 2012-06-21 19:22:56 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1307 2012-06-21 19:24:38 <luke-jr> Nolybab: note, unless you really need to, I wouldn't modify bitcoind at all
1308 2012-06-21 19:24:47 <luke-jr> and just link into blocks via the merged mining chain
1309 2012-06-21 19:25:01 <luke-jr> but I don't know what you're doing really
1310 2012-06-21 19:25:36 <leotreasure> i can't compile bitcoin - getting error about db_cxx.h
1311 2012-06-21 19:25:48 <luke-jr> leotreasure: you need to set DB_INCLUDE_PATH in the make command
1312 2012-06-21 19:25:55 <luke-jr> BDB_INCLUDE_PATH*
1313 2012-06-21 19:26:13 <leotreasure> ok thanks luke-jr
1314 2012-06-21 19:35:41 <leotreasure> luke-jr: i'm struggling to find my path i thought it would be /usr/include/
1315 2012-06-21 19:35:54 <luke-jr> /usr/include/db4.8 is standard
1316 2012-06-21 19:36:25 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1317 2012-06-21 19:36:38 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1318 2012-06-21 19:36:48 <leotreasure> i only have two header files in the include directory
1319 2012-06-21 19:38:19 <leotreasure> is this correct?: make -f makefile.unix BDB_INCLUDE_PATH=/usr/include
1320 2012-06-21 19:38:46 <luke-jr> â¦no
1321 2012-06-21 19:39:04 <luke-jr> did you install bdb++ headers?
1322 2012-06-21 19:39:20 <leotreasure> i don't think so
1323 2012-06-21 19:39:44 <Nolybab> hmmm...it's not as simple as just download and compile...there's like 7 things one has to download/install/compile...MinGW, Perl, wxWidgets, OpenSSL, Berkley DB, Boost, Jam, miniUPnPc, etc...seriously?
1324 2012-06-21 19:43:12 <Habbie> Nolybab, are you on windows?
1325 2012-06-21 19:43:25 <Habbie> Nolybab, because getting all those dependencies on linux is trivial
1326 2012-06-21 19:45:05 <jgarzik> luke-jr: that thread-getwork patch floating around is definitely thread-UNsafe
1327 2012-06-21 19:45:11 <leotreasure> i'm a bit confused - does db4.8 Berkeley DB 4.8 not include the headers?
1328 2012-06-21 19:45:18 <jgarzik> luke-jr: I just tried to thread either getwork and/or getmemorypool
1329 2012-06-21 19:45:31 <jgarzik> getmemorypool had a minor improvement on the submit side, but nothing on the CreateNewBlock side
1330 2012-06-21 19:46:59 RazielZ has joined
1331 2012-06-21 19:50:21 <Nolybab> well, time to fire up ubuntu :)
1332 2012-06-21 19:54:02 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1333 2012-06-21 19:55:07 OneFixt has joined
1334 2012-06-21 19:56:26 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1335 2012-06-21 19:57:45 TheSeven has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1336 2012-06-21 19:58:31 <leotreasure> ok so i think i may have broken my bdb by accidentally installing 5
1337 2012-06-21 19:58:48 <leotreasure> is there anyway i can undo the damage with apt-get?
1338 2012-06-21 20:00:53 <leotreasure> going to sleep will try again tomorrow
1339 2012-06-21 20:01:37 leotreasure has quit (Quit: leotreasure)
1340 2012-06-21 20:04:03 egecko has joined
1341 2012-06-21 20:04:42 Raziel_ has joined
1342 2012-06-21 20:05:50 l1l1ll11l1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1343 2012-06-21 20:08:03 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1344 2012-06-21 20:10:23 Prattler has joined
1345 2012-06-21 20:20:34 Diapolo has joined
1346 2012-06-21 20:23:12 danbri has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1347 2012-06-21 20:23:14 danbri_ has joined
1348 2012-06-21 20:26:17 agricocb has joined
1349 2012-06-21 20:29:01 danbri has joined
1350 2012-06-21 20:30:10 danbri_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1351 2012-06-21 20:30:54 <Nolybab> l8tr
1352 2012-06-21 20:30:58 Nolybab has left ()
1353 2012-06-21 20:31:08 ThomasV has joined
1354 2012-06-21 20:31:13 l1l1ll11l1 has joined
1355 2012-06-21 20:34:05 genjix has joined
1356 2012-06-21 20:36:00 maaku has joined
1357 2012-06-21 20:37:42 Guest10394 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1358 2012-06-21 20:41:08 Diapolo has left ()
1359 2012-06-21 20:41:32 mmoya has joined
1360 2012-06-21 20:45:35 <PK> the listtransactions rpc commands returns not very useful results if you transfer money from your own address to another address in the same wallet. I sent 10 BTC from A to B, it listed twice B with 5 send and 5 receive. It never mentions A. I have no way to figure out from where the money comes from.
1361 2012-06-21 20:48:26 danbri_ has joined
1362 2012-06-21 20:49:04 danbri has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1363 2012-06-21 20:49:54 <genjix> PK: are you going to stadtflucht?
1364 2012-06-21 20:49:58 <genjix> in wien
1365 2012-06-21 20:50:14 <genjix> ;;later tell theymos acdaf1d722a03fde2c63f15ab4bc4389005eb1f9651814b7386fd7cab3f527ab is causing BE to not work
1366 2012-06-21 20:50:14 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
1367 2012-06-21 20:50:54 <PK> genjix: I don't know about it.
1368 2012-06-21 20:51:12 <genjix> PK: your name is on it: https://metalab.at/wiki/Stadtflucht5
1369 2012-06-21 20:51:31 <genjix> https://metalab.at/wiki/Benutzer:Pk
1370 2012-06-21 20:51:34 <genjix> is that you
1371 2012-06-21 20:53:01 <PK> no, just another "imposter". 2 out of 5 times I log in to freenode I have to ghost someone.
1372 2012-06-21 20:53:25 <genjix> ah kk
1373 2012-06-21 20:56:06 danbri has joined
1374 2012-06-21 20:56:39 danbri_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1375 2012-06-21 21:09:24 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1376 2012-06-21 21:09:26 jurov is now known as away!aktooj@84.245.71.31|jurov
1377 2012-06-21 21:10:47 TD has joined
1378 2012-06-21 21:11:39 <rdponticelli> So, now I can accept incoming connections through tor?
1379 2012-06-21 21:11:53 <rdponticelli> Is it merged in git-head already?
1380 2012-06-21 21:13:16 <gmaxwell> rdponticelli: it is not merged yet, but it's easily added. More testers would hasten merging it!
1381 2012-06-21 21:13:29 gjs278 has joined
1382 2012-06-21 21:13:36 danbri has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1383 2012-06-21 21:13:37 danbri_ has joined
1384 2012-06-21 21:13:38 <rdponticelli> Ok, I'll take a look
1385 2012-06-21 21:13:47 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1386 2012-06-21 21:13:59 <gmaxwell> (you can add .patch onto a github pull request to get a git am-able patch out of it)
1387 2012-06-21 21:14:18 <rdponticelli> gmaxwell: yes, thanks :)}
1388 2012-06-21 21:14:49 wizkid057 has joined
1389 2012-06-21 21:15:01 <gmaxwell> IIRC the hideen services patch needs a minor manual merge in the unit tests.
1390 2012-06-21 21:15:40 <rdponticelli> gmaxwell: It's everything in github?
1391 2012-06-21 21:16:14 danbri has joined
1392 2012-06-21 21:17:02 Ummon_ has joined
1393 2012-06-21 21:17:42 <gmaxwell> Hm?
1394 2012-06-21 21:18:54 <luke-jr> I'm rebuilding next-test atm
1395 2012-06-21 21:20:24 danbri_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1396 2012-06-21 21:21:26 <gmaxwell> bleh, I misunderstood what you were asking when you asked about the logical and. I thought you asked if it was shortcutting because you were asking about the terinary operator at the same time. :-/
1397 2012-06-21 21:21:53 <gmaxwell> Sorry to have mislead you. (when I saw your commit, I was thinking 'what the heck, we just talked about this')
1398 2012-06-21 21:22:54 <luke-jr> O.o?
1399 2012-06-21 21:23:55 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: the a||b
1400 2012-06-21 21:26:38 PK has quit ()
1401 2012-06-21 21:28:08 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: you didn't mislead me
1402 2012-06-21 21:28:13 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: care to pull #1490 ? :p
1403 2012-06-21 21:28:16 <gmaxwell> oh okay.
1404 2012-06-21 21:29:03 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: done.
1405 2012-06-21 21:30:03 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: rather, you confirmed what I suspected was the bug before I even looked into it
1406 2012-06-21 21:37:48 <gmaxwell> http://bitcoinstatus.rowit.co.uk/versions.html < an increase in .3.23 nodes?? people turning on old clients?
1407 2012-06-21 21:40:58 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I prefer my own chart. it looks the same to me :P
1408 2012-06-21 21:41:15 <luke-jr> http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/branches.html
1409 2012-06-21 21:41:35 <gmaxwell> yours doesn't graph over time.
1410 2012-06-21 21:41:39 <luke-jr> :p
1411 2012-06-21 21:41:51 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: more importantly, IMO⦠Eligius found a block just now
1412 2012-06-21 21:41:54 <luke-jr> I happened to be watching
1413 2012-06-21 21:42:13 <gmaxwell> and you learned?
1414 2012-06-21 21:42:18 <luke-jr> the local bitcoind took 12 seconds to check it over before it even got out of the local system
1415 2012-06-21 21:42:39 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: what is your local bitcoind running? does it have the signature cache?
1416 2012-06-21 21:42:49 <luke-jr> next-eligius, 0.6.0.x-based
1417 2012-06-21 21:42:54 <gmaxwell> It's hard to understate what a big speedup it is for some operations.
1418 2012-06-21 21:42:55 <luke-jr> no, I was considering backporting that
1419 2012-06-21 21:42:59 <gmaxwell> You should.
1420 2012-06-21 21:43:21 <gmaxwell> without it almost all of getmemorypool's time is spent validating signatures (at least on nodes that handle transactions)
1421 2012-06-21 21:43:51 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1422 2012-06-21 21:44:48 <midnightmagic> 12 seconds, jesus
1423 2012-06-21 21:44:56 Prattler has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1424 2012-06-21 21:44:56 devrandom has joined
1425 2012-06-21 21:46:44 Karmaon has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1426 2012-06-21 21:47:13 Karmaon has joined
1427 2012-06-21 21:47:43 <Eliel> luke-jr: 12 seconds? how many transactions?
1428 2012-06-21 21:48:37 imsaguy is now known as not-me
1429 2012-06-21 21:48:45 not-me is now known as imsaguy
1430 2012-06-21 21:50:13 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1431 2012-06-21 21:52:25 Apexseals has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1432 2012-06-21 21:55:30 <luke-jr> Eliel: 32
1433 2012-06-21 22:01:43 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1434 2012-06-21 22:04:10 davex__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1435 2012-06-21 22:05:37 Maccer has quit (Excess Flood)
1436 2012-06-21 22:07:52 l1l1ll11l11 has joined
1437 2012-06-21 22:08:16 l1l1ll11l1 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1438 2012-06-21 22:08:42 root2 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1439 2012-06-21 22:10:05 eoss has joined
1440 2012-06-21 22:10:06 eoss has quit (Changing host)
1441 2012-06-21 22:10:06 eoss has joined
1442 2012-06-21 22:14:21 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: amiller: an interesting point with all this txout tree stuff is that if you join the network late and just trust that the history is correct based on the headers, any other node who has witnessed a rule violation in the past can prepare a small message which you would take to be conclusive proof of a rule violation and then ignore that chain.
1443 2012-06-21 22:15:06 <gmaxwell> e.g. if someone doublespends I just take the conflicting transactions out and the segments connecting them to the chain... and show them to you. And without trusting me you can now ignore the entire child chain past that point.
1444 2012-06-21 22:15:48 m00p has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1445 2012-06-21 22:17:08 <gmaxwell> This fits nicely with the Satoshi comment "It takes advantage of the nature of information being easy to spread but hard to stifle" ... it would be safe to late-join a txout tree chain, because if there is only a single other honest node in the world who was around long enough to wittness the cheating, he could still tell you and it would be as good as if you saw it yourself.
1446 2012-06-21 22:18:08 Raziel_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1447 2012-06-21 22:18:39 copumpkin has joined
1448 2012-06-21 22:18:48 Turingi has joined
1449 2012-06-21 22:18:48 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
1450 2012-06-21 22:18:48 Turingi has joined
1451 2012-06-21 22:21:29 <gmaxwell> (this is akin to the provable doublespend alert stuff we talked about before, but applied to blocks)
1452 2012-06-21 22:22:26 jurov is now known as jurov|away
1453 2012-06-21 22:23:24 root2 has joined
1454 2012-06-21 22:25:36 Clipse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1455 2012-06-21 22:25:40 <luke-jr> I really don't understand why #1245 hasn't been pulled yet.
1456 2012-06-21 22:26:42 Clipse has joined
1457 2012-06-21 22:33:22 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1458 2012-06-21 22:33:48 AntKinGTube has joined
1459 2012-06-21 22:34:21 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened pull request 1497 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1497>
1460 2012-06-21 22:36:09 RainbowDashh has joined
1461 2012-06-21 22:36:47 sytse has joined
1462 2012-06-21 22:37:16 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1463 2012-06-21 22:37:29 Maccer has joined
1464 2012-06-21 22:41:40 <midnightmagic> I want to help some local Makerspace people to give away some prizes at the local makerspace. I would like to give them something they can laser-etch, which can then be spent into a wallet. I was considering spending into a wallet key and then exporting it from my wallet. Is this how Casacius does his bitcoin coins?
1465 2012-06-21 22:41:57 <midnightmagic> (empty wallet, destroyed afterwards)
1466 2012-06-21 22:42:26 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: SLEEP MODE. <@suborbital> no i filtered out RainbowDashh join quit msgs - appearantly it filtered out everything)
1467 2012-06-21 22:42:47 <genjix> midnightmagic: a printed item of cheap btc value which 'contains' a private key
1468 2012-06-21 22:42:54 <genjix> i.e not worth the time/effort to fake
1469 2012-06-21 22:44:23 <midnightmagic> genjix: exactly. I was thinking of spending like .. 0.25BTC or 0.5BTC into a half-dozen or so and then passing the exported keys to the makerspace people so they can etch them into tokens and be given out as prizes.
1470 2012-06-21 22:46:08 <midnightmagic> the codes seem large and unwieldy though
1471 2012-06-21 22:47:42 <midnightmagic> maybe a qr code would be better..
1472 2012-06-21 22:52:46 RainbowDashh has joined
1473 2012-06-21 22:52:55 MiningBuddy has joined
1474 2012-06-21 22:53:15 Prattler has joined
1475 2012-06-21 22:54:06 Apexseals has joined
1476 2012-06-21 22:56:02 MiningBuddy- has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1477 2012-06-21 22:59:59 <Eliel> gmaxwell: that double spend thing, do you mean a case where someone put the two spends both in the same txout tree?
1478 2012-06-21 23:07:04 eoss has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1479 2012-06-21 23:09:39 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1480 2012-06-21 23:09:44 darksk1ez has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1481 2012-06-21 23:13:25 eoss has joined
1482 2012-06-21 23:14:30 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
1483 2012-06-21 23:15:31 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: doublec opened pull request 1498 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1498>
1484 2012-06-21 23:16:59 <gmaxwell> Eliel: Correct.
1485 2012-06-21 23:17:26 <gmaxwell> Eliel: say you're using the txout tree stuff in order to not have seen the prior history of the network, but still do ongoing validation.
1486 2012-06-21 23:17:59 <gmaxwell> Eliel: you trust the tree you have because it's committed in the chainâ but how do you know the chain doesn't contain lies? especially if lots of other nodes are semi-full like you?
1487 2012-06-21 23:18:40 <gmaxwell> And my observation is that you can be sure that the chain doesn't contain lies because any node that discovers a lie can trivially prove the lie to everyone, even nodes that didn't see the history.
1488 2012-06-21 23:19:10 <gmaxwell> And so if there is software implemented to do that then there is no incentive to lie, you can't even trick future nodes.
1489 2012-06-21 23:21:02 Diablo-D3 has joined
1490 2012-06-21 23:21:52 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1491 2012-06-21 23:22:17 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1492 2012-06-21 23:31:27 <Eliel> gmaxwell: that sounds quite useful, if it works for all potential lies... I guess it should work.
1493 2012-06-21 23:33:23 <Eliel> gmaxwell: I was initially thinking nodes could store their own transactions and the merkle paths to them but then I realized the merkle paths will change too often for it to be useful to save them..
1494 2012-06-21 23:33:33 <gmaxwell> It can work for any lie that is purely a function of the state of the chain. The only thing I think think it doesn't work for is the timestamps from the future rule.
1495 2012-06-21 23:33:37 t7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1496 2012-06-21 23:33:52 <gmaxwell> Eliel: yea, they could do that but as you note.. they'd have to constantly update it or lose it forever.
1497 2012-06-21 23:33:52 BeTep has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1498 2012-06-21 23:34:11 andytoshi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1499 2012-06-21 23:34:17 weather has joined
1500 2012-06-21 23:34:18 andytoshi has joined
1501 2012-06-21 23:35:07 <Eliel> so, you could push storage of the individual transactions to individual wallets but mining nodes would need to keep the whole merkle tree, no way around it.
1502 2012-06-21 23:35:13 <gmaxwell> But I think it's not so bad.. everyone has an interest in tracking the open transactionsâ the inability to fake them it what prevents inflation. And nodes can do full validation using untrusted parties for bulk storage.
1503 2012-06-21 23:35:36 sirk390 has left ()
1504 2012-06-21 23:35:38 <gmaxwell> Eliel: they wouldn'tâ they just couldn't mine txn that they couldn't get the tree for, and they'd have to be able to _get_ the tree for anything that did get mined.
1505 2012-06-21 23:36:06 <gmaxwell> But a simple rule addresses this: Don't forward a new block that you're not prepared to prove you validated by providing all the data that you needed to do so.
1506 2012-06-21 23:36:19 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1507 2012-06-21 23:38:07 weather is now known as BeTep
1508 2012-06-21 23:38:43 <Eliel> that works but, I was more focusing on keeping the possibility of having offline wallets :) that would require some nodes to keep up to date merkle trees (or at least branches leading to the transactions)
1509 2012-06-21 23:50:47 Mobius_ is now known as MobiusL
1510 2012-06-21 23:52:34 maaku has joined