1 2012-07-18 00:03:05 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
   2 2012-07-18 00:04:36 asuk has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
   3 2012-07-18 00:04:45 maaku has joined
   4 2012-07-18 00:06:05 drizztbsd has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
   5 2012-07-18 00:06:58 denisx_ has joined
   6 2012-07-18 00:06:59 denisx has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
   7 2012-07-18 00:07:00 denisx_ is now known as denisx
   8 2012-07-18 00:07:28 tg has joined
   9 2012-07-18 00:07:28 denisx has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  10 2012-07-18 00:07:30 denisx_ has joined
  11 2012-07-18 00:12:50 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  12 2012-07-18 00:13:46 <amiller> bah, 51% is a red herring, it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to think of an attacker as being a 'fraction' of the network running continuously
  13 2012-07-18 00:15:13 <gmaxwell> amiller: if you think of them outside you can say 100% then ;)
  14 2012-07-18 00:15:35 <amiller> i think the way to go is to start with a bounded cost adversary
  15 2012-07-18 00:15:39 <gmaxwell> of course, good luck catching up on a multi month dig back with only a minor advantage...
  16 2012-07-18 00:15:42 <gmaxwell> see ya in 20 years.
  17 2012-07-18 00:15:43 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: why doesn't it make sense?
  18 2012-07-18 00:15:56 <amiller> lets say i raised a kickstarter fund to fuck with bitcoin
  19 2012-07-18 00:16:08 <amiller> i'm going to collect $40,000 so i can raise enough money to wind the clocks back a day
  20 2012-07-18 00:16:11 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: because the fact that some "attacker" could dig 2 years back in 20 years assuming everything constant and only a 1% advantage is .. not interesting.
  21 2012-07-18 00:16:18 <amiller> and i tell everyone that if they ever spent any bitcoins during that day
  22 2012-07-18 00:16:27 <amiller> that they should create a bunch of signed transactions that 'reclaim' their coins to float as double spends
  23 2012-07-18 00:17:02 <amiller> so one person breaks the clock open by unwinding a day, but _everyone_ can potentially benefit from abusing it when it happens
  24 2012-07-18 00:17:11 <amiller> not everyone obviously but _anyone_
  25 2012-07-18 00:17:17 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: um, you still need to control a percentage of the network, not following
  26 2012-07-18 00:17:59 <amiller> for a period of time, i would control a percentage of the network
  27 2012-07-18 00:18:05 <amiller> like why not assume that an attacker can get spot price hashes
  28 2012-07-18 00:18:17 toffoo has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  29 2012-07-18 00:18:36 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: because standing up all that hardware that quickly and getting it all working correctly and efficiently  is not as easy as you seem to think?
  30 2012-07-18 00:18:48 <amiller> it's plausible though
  31 2012-07-18 00:18:53 <jrmithdobbs> so if you did anything other than continuing using it, you'd be an idiot
  32 2012-07-18 00:19:02 <jrmithdobbs> and complete idiots tend to not have that much money
  33 2012-07-18 00:19:07 <jrmithdobbs> so the whole thing is moot
  34 2012-07-18 00:19:30 Dyaheon has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
  35 2012-07-18 00:19:41 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: you stand to make more money from the hardware for legit uses than you would from pushing the time around
  36 2012-07-18 00:20:10 <jrmithdobbs> the only attacker this models is known as the "troll" / "griefer" and those people do not dump that kind of cash into their projects.
  37 2012-07-18 00:20:13 sytse has joined
  38 2012-07-18 00:20:46 <amiller> i think that's making too much assumption about the range of attacker behaviors
  39 2012-07-18 00:20:51 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: either way, for the time of the attack you still have to control 51%, there's no way around that, even if it's only for a short period you're still 51% of the network for that period
  40 2012-07-18 00:21:04 toffoo has joined
  41 2012-07-18 00:21:31 <D34TH> bluematt: its official i murdered maaku's vagrant
  42 2012-07-18 00:21:35 <D34TH> sadface
  43 2012-07-18 00:22:20 <amiller> sure, perhaps for that short period you're 80% of the network so you do your attack rapidly
  44 2012-07-18 00:22:32 <amiller> it's not like anyone knows what portion you are, if you're working in silence
  45 2012-07-18 00:22:55 Nesetalis has joined
  46 2012-07-18 00:22:57 <jrmithdobbs> um, 80% is still at least 51% not following.
  47 2012-07-18 00:22:58 <amiller> it's plausible to me that someone could rent the hardware to pull off a 6 block rewind
  48 2012-07-18 00:23:02 graingert has joined
  49 2012-07-18 00:23:11 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: in what universe?
  50 2012-07-18 00:23:11 <amiller> sorry, i mean the attacker may be 80% of the netork
  51 2012-07-18 00:23:30 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: because you're not describing ours
  52 2012-07-18 00:23:49 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: 80% of the network right now would run you (guestimate) at lest several hundred k
  53 2012-07-18 00:24:15 <amiller> you don't think i could rent that much processing power very briefly
  54 2012-07-18 00:24:26 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: not the kind you need, no
  55 2012-07-18 00:24:30 Dyaheon has joined
  56 2012-07-18 00:24:39 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: because the hardware doesn't exist on a mass scale in any stable platform
  57 2012-07-18 00:24:52 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: like I said, you underestimate the effort
  58 2012-07-18 00:24:57 <amiller> is that a property of our universe or just a quirk of economics right now
  59 2012-07-18 00:25:15 <jrmithdobbs> and I'm sorry, re-did the math, several million, not hundred k
  60 2012-07-18 00:25:32 <amiller> it's not the rate, it's how long you borrow it for
  61 2012-07-18 00:26:30 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: someone still has to actually be in possession of these machines and they don't exist outside of people already using it for bitcoin and some cases of password hash brute forcing services (but most of those aren't using gpus that would be overly helpful for bitcoin)
  62 2012-07-18 00:26:38 <jrmithdobbs> I don't think you could even find it on the black market, no
  63 2012-07-18 00:28:32 DaQatz has joined
  64 2012-07-18 00:28:40 <BlueMatt> hmm...for bloom filters, I suppose for pay-to-pubkey the node applying the filter should turn that pubkey into an address and check that against the filter?
  65 2012-07-18 00:29:04 <BlueMatt> D34TH: how?
  66 2012-07-18 00:29:18 <D34TH> literally all i can say is it just broke
  67 2012-07-18 00:29:48 <BlueMatt> reset and retry :)
  68 2012-07-18 00:30:35 <D34TH> i had to reclone it
  69 2012-07-18 00:30:52 <D34TH> the script pooped its self
  70 2012-07-18 00:32:33 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  71 2012-07-18 00:34:05 genjix has left ()
  72 2012-07-18 00:34:41 graingert_ has joined
  73 2012-07-18 00:34:58 denisx_ has quit (Quit: denisx_)
  74 2012-07-18 00:37:06 graingert has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  75 2012-07-18 00:37:28 <amiller> jrmithdobbs, your explanation suggests that attack viability doesn't depend just on bitcoin but about the lack of similar equipment used for anything else, so maybe that's the hidden parameter
  76 2012-07-18 00:40:12 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: not at all
  77 2012-07-18 00:40:33 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: you assume that renting equipment for a short period of time for attack is even a profitable model
  78 2012-07-18 00:40:51 <amiller> like if hashing hardware was useful for anything else, then it would be easier to spot-price and bitcoin would be more vulnerable to a bursty attack
  79 2012-07-18 00:41:05 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: it's not in this case, it'd be very hard to spend as much bitcoin as you did on renting the hardware within your timeframe even with your ridiculous 80% number
  80 2012-07-18 00:42:00 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: your attack is not profitable, therefore it falls into the troll/griefer model and bitcoin has grown enough that that is not a significant risk due to the cost involved
  81 2012-07-18 00:42:18 <jrmithdobbs> I really don't see how you're not following that?
  82 2012-07-18 00:42:31 <amiller> if you can pull off a finney attack, you can borrow a bunch of bitcoins, buy a boat, then rewind the clock and return the bitcoins
  83 2012-07-18 00:42:37 <amiller> that's just a simple counter example
  84 2012-07-18 00:42:44 <jrmithdobbs> it's not true though
  85 2012-07-18 00:42:54 <jrmithdobbs> because you'd get fucking arrested and the boat removed from your possession
  86 2012-07-18 00:43:21 <jrmithdobbs> crypto currencies don't magically make criminal fraud laws disappear?!
  87 2012-07-18 00:43:43 <jrmithdobbs> so the moment you add phys assets to the equation your attack falls apart because that means being immediately caught.
  88 2012-07-18 00:45:19 Fanquake has joined
  89 2012-07-18 00:45:26 <amiller> no because you have a plausible deniability and you can't associate the person with the boat to the bitcoin attacker
  90 2012-07-18 00:45:27 <MC-Eeepc> ive had quite enough of the laws of men
  91 2012-07-18 00:45:30 <MC-Eeepc> hence bitcoin
  92 2012-07-18 00:45:33 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  93 2012-07-18 00:45:45 <amiller> if the blockchain gets rewound, anyones bitcoins could be disrupted
  94 2012-07-18 00:45:46 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: tell that to the enron guys
  95 2012-07-18 00:45:48 * jrmithdobbs rolleyes
  96 2012-07-18 00:46:18 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: well, enjoy your fantasy world
  97 2012-07-18 00:46:48 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: just know that it is fantasy, no matter how you convince yourself otherwise.
  98 2012-07-18 00:47:00 <amiller> you're missing the point
  99 2012-07-18 00:47:04 <jrmithdobbs> no, you are
 100 2012-07-18 00:47:18 <jrmithdobbs> you don't have a point based in reality, it's become quite clear.
 101 2012-07-18 00:53:16 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 102 2012-07-18 00:57:24 Ferroh has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 103 2012-07-18 00:57:44 gjs278 has joined
 104 2012-07-18 00:58:29 <galambo_> how does one rewind the block chain
 105 2012-07-18 00:58:45 <Fanquake> one doesn't
 106 2012-07-18 00:58:56 <amiller> it would be unreasonably expensive to do so
 107 2012-07-18 00:59:06 <galambo_> no its impossible
 108 2012-07-18 00:59:16 <amiller> isn't that the same thing
 109 2012-07-18 00:59:20 <galambo_> impossible defined to be not allowed by the rules of the netwrok
 110 2012-07-18 00:59:50 <SomeoneWeird> it is actually allowed
 111 2012-07-18 01:00:15 <SomeoneWeird> if the chain forks far enough back, then the new one is released and longer than the current one, it will take over as the primary chain
 112 2012-07-18 01:00:41 Ferroh has joined
 113 2012-07-18 01:02:07 <galambo_> thats only happened one time on the network that i know of
 114 2012-07-18 01:02:40 <amiller> so if a rewind attack reverses a transaction, then any transaction descending from that transaction won't be in the new chain
 115 2012-07-18 01:03:15 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
 116 2012-07-18 01:03:17 <amiller> but that's a risk you subject yourself to if you don't wait for 6 blocks
 117 2012-07-18 01:03:30 <amiller> if you wait for 6 blocks, i think the cost of a 6 block rewind is implausible
 118 2012-07-18 01:03:39 <gmaxwell> galambo_: it 'happens' from the perspective of a third party observer almost every day.. when a older-to-you orphan block ends up winning.
 119 2012-07-18 01:04:12 <galambo_> not on the scale amiller is talking about
 120 2012-07-18 01:04:16 <gmaxwell> and yea, if you wait enough block then it becomes infinitesmal.
 121 2012-07-18 01:04:21 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 122 2012-07-18 01:05:06 <amiller> or prohibitively expensive, which may be equivalent
 123 2012-07-18 01:06:06 <galambo_> but even then
 124 2012-07-18 01:06:19 <galambo_> that is not "rewinding" time or rewriting history
 125 2012-07-18 01:07:13 <gmaxwell> galambo_: er. yes it is.
 126 2012-07-18 01:07:40 <gmaxwell> txn that looked final to you are undone and a new history appears.
 127 2012-07-18 01:08:01 <SomeoneWeird> galambo_, yeah, so its not 'impossible'
 128 2012-07-18 01:08:17 <amiller> and it's not "unlikely" either in some sense, because it's not a random event
 129 2012-07-18 01:08:18 <gmaxwell> I believe we managed a 3 block reorg, at least from the perspective of older clients, as a result of BIP16 stupid miners a couple months ago.
 130 2012-07-18 01:08:20 <amiller> it's "expensive"
 131 2012-07-18 01:08:23 <galambo_> are orphan blocks stored in the blockchain??
 132 2012-07-18 01:08:31 <galambo_> so yeah its impossible
 133 2012-07-18 01:08:32 <gmaxwell> galambo_: yes.
 134 2012-07-18 01:08:52 <galambo_> thats the point of having unpruned nodes
 135 2012-07-18 01:08:55 twobitcoins has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 136 2012-07-18 01:09:02 <gmaxwell> ...
 137 2012-07-18 01:09:09 <gmaxwell> You sound confused. Pruning has nothing to do with this.
 138 2012-07-18 01:09:30 <gmaxwell> Blocks which are orphaned are not part of the effective history of bitcoin. They do nothing. (and pruning has nothing to do with orphan blocks)
 139 2012-07-18 01:10:10 <galambo_> why does the client store orphan blocks
 140 2012-07-18 01:10:20 <gmaxwell> galambo_: because the blockchain file is append only.
 141 2012-07-18 01:10:39 <galambo_> thats a design decision not a fact of life
 142 2012-07-18 01:11:00 <gmaxwell> Removing them would require an atomic update between the blockfile and the indexes (which can't be done with seperate blockfile and indexes) and would create a huge amount of IO just to reduce storage by a percent or so.
 143 2012-07-18 01:11:36 <gmaxwell> galambo_: You said "why does the client store orphan blocks" not "why is it a fact of life that the client must", to which I would have responded "it isn't"
 144 2012-07-18 01:11:59 <gmaxwell> galambo_: I'm not sure if it's intended but you're coming across as fairly hostile right now, I don't see the justification for it.
 145 2012-07-18 01:12:31 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
 146 2012-07-18 01:13:07 <galambo_> its not possible for you to tell other's clients that you didn't buy the boat
 147 2012-07-18 01:13:09 <galambo_> thats the point
 148 2012-07-18 01:14:00 <D34TH> bluematt: broke forever
 149 2012-07-18 01:14:06 <D34TH> am sad
 150 2012-07-18 01:14:31 <gmaxwell> galambo_: It is— at least within a small block depth horizon, with greatly increasing costs thereafter. This is why the reference client waits until a transaction is burried six deep before labling it confirmed.
 151 2012-07-18 01:15:53 <gmaxwell> Reorganizations which rewrite history at the one block depth happen with some regularity. Two have happened naturally too. We've seen at least one at depth three resulting from special case circumstances, but not malice.
 152 2012-07-18 01:16:06 <amiller> so the first rule of bitcoin must be plausible deniability for involvement in a fork that wasn't your fault. if you accept a bitcoin payment for something, and the network makes a partition, then it's your problem not the other person's
 153 2012-07-18 01:16:54 <gmaxwell> amiller: ultimately you're responsible to pay the people you've promised to pay.
 154 2012-07-18 01:16:58 <galambo_> there is no "rewind attack" because the other clients would add the valid transactions you tried to erase to the new fork
 155 2012-07-18 01:17:26 <amiller> but if all my bitcoins got stolen out from under me, i can't repay you
 156 2012-07-18 01:17:29 <gmaxwell> galambo_: They cannot add the transactions if a conflicting transaction has already made it into the chain.
 157 2012-07-18 01:17:33 <amiller> you could hold me morally responsible to i suppose
 158 2012-07-18 01:17:49 <gmaxwell> (under the new history)
 159 2012-07-18 01:18:10 <gmaxwell> damn, that BIP16 invalid txn is _still_ getting mined from time to time.
 160 2012-07-18 01:18:58 <amiller> i'd just go bankrupt
 161 2012-07-18 01:21:25 Pinion has joined
 162 2012-07-18 01:21:39 <gmaxwell> http://blockchain.info/block-index/202136 < four block orpahan sidechain.
 163 2012-07-18 01:21:49 Pinion is now known as Guest67513
 164 2012-07-18 01:22:20 zooko has joined
 165 2012-07-18 01:23:16 <gmaxwell> http://blockchain.info/block-index/202851 < and another one
 166 2012-07-18 01:23:52 <gmaxwell> http://blockchain.info/block-index/202136 < and another one
 167 2012-07-18 01:24:05 <galambo_> ok what about it
 168 2012-07-18 01:24:51 <gmaxwell> Thats it, thats the only ones however, and none longer.
 169 2012-07-18 01:25:23 <gmaxwell> galambo_: they're all incidents where your node would have observed four blocks of history being rewritten.
 170 2012-07-18 01:25:27 <amiller> it's definitely true that the chance of a long orphan occurring outside of an attack or a network partition is infinetesimally small
 171 2012-07-18 01:25:56 <galambo_> thats not history being rewritten
 172 2012-07-18 01:26:05 <galambo_> and there is a longer one
 173 2012-07-18 01:26:08 <galambo_> 53 blocks
 174 2012-07-18 01:26:20 <gmaxwell> yes, but that was a case where the software was intentionally fixed.
 175 2012-07-18 01:26:22 <galambo_> and according to gavin history was not rewritten there either
 176 2012-07-18 01:27:00 <galambo_> and that case is the only time history has been rewritten that i know of
 177 2012-07-18 01:27:02 <gmaxwell> galambo_: what block is txn d4dacc15c3b19ce4dadbc6c5e560ac29d9fd938257e83c76b75aba14925ef65b in then?
 178 2012-07-18 01:28:05 <galambo_> you really want to argue about coinbase tx?
 179 2012-07-18 01:28:09 <galambo_> bye
 180 2012-07-18 01:28:25 <gmaxwell> Where is the hostility coming from?
 181 2012-07-18 01:29:12 <gmaxwell> I believe there actually is a mined double spend now, from something finney attacking dice. But I don't know the txn id.
 182 2012-07-18 01:29:58 <gmaxwell> In any case, it's simply not true. I've double spent the hell out of testnet for example.
 183 2012-07-18 01:30:31 <gmaxwell> (er, the claim that it's _impossible_ is what is simply not true)
 184 2012-07-18 01:30:37 <gmaxwell> Wanna see me take 10k TNBTC away from luke?
 185 2012-07-18 01:30:52 <amiller> it's called the finney attack when you just get a single block ahead, and try to take advantage of someone who accepts payments with 1 confirm?
 186 2012-07-18 01:31:08 <amiller> or with no confirm
 187 2012-07-18 01:31:24 <gmaxwell> amiller: finny attacks are generally referring to the no confirm case.
 188 2012-07-18 01:31:37 <gmaxwell> Basically "wait until you solve a block with a conflicting txn, then make the original txn"
 189 2012-07-18 01:31:44 <gmaxwell> "then announce the conflict"
 190 2012-07-18 01:31:56 <gmaxwell> though if you do this enough we can get blocks with both sides.
 191 2012-07-18 01:32:41 Guest67513 has quit (Quit: Has quit)
 192 2012-07-18 01:33:40 <zooko> That reminds me that I saw photos of Hal Finney in his reduced state yesterday.
 193 2012-07-18 01:34:03 <gmaxwell> :(
 194 2012-07-18 01:34:06 <zooko> https://plus.google.com/photos/106252056071954352880/albums/5765139204847566705
 195 2012-07-18 01:34:11 <amiller> oh no
 196 2012-07-18 01:34:21 <zooko> He can use his eyes.
 197 2012-07-18 01:34:27 <zooko> He can use his eyes to input to a computer.
 198 2012-07-18 01:34:34 <zooko> With which he can write messages, slowly.
 199 2012-07-18 01:34:49 BurtyBB has joined
 200 2012-07-18 01:35:31 <gmaxwell> This explains the shortness of his emails. :(
 201 2012-07-18 01:36:15 abracadabra has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 202 2012-07-18 01:36:31 <zooko> I received one email from him, which I consider an honor.
 203 2012-07-18 01:36:39 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 204 2012-07-18 01:37:00 phantomcircuit has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 205 2012-07-18 01:37:06 comboy has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 206 2012-07-18 01:37:49 mtve has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 207 2012-07-18 01:37:50 B0g4r7_ is now known as B0g4r7
 208 2012-07-18 01:38:24 comboy has joined
 209 2012-07-18 01:38:28 <gmaxwell> I talked to him a lot back in 2004
 210 2012-07-18 01:38:28 mtve has joined
 211 2012-07-18 01:38:47 <zooko> I meant one recently,. since he lost the use of his hands.
 212 2012-07-18 01:39:15 DamascusVG has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 213 2012-07-18 01:39:15 Ahimoth has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 214 2012-07-18 01:39:36 DamascusVG has joined
 215 2012-07-18 01:39:38 <gmaxwell> He's actually still active online in some places.
 216 2012-07-18 01:39:53 DamascusVG has quit (Changing host)
 217 2012-07-18 01:39:53 DamascusVG has joined
 218 2012-07-18 01:40:17 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 219 2012-07-18 01:40:29 <gmaxwell> but always one sentence emails. e.g. He commented on an IETF thread related to cryptographic sillyness on an audio codec I was working on.
 220 2012-07-18 01:40:36 osmosis has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 221 2012-07-18 01:41:21 phantomcircuit has joined
 222 2012-07-18 01:41:36 Nicksasa has joined
 223 2012-07-18 01:41:43 RV___ has joined
 224 2012-07-18 01:41:44 gjs278 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 225 2012-07-18 01:41:50 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 226 2012-07-18 01:41:58 abracadab has joined
 227 2012-07-18 01:42:23 abracadab has quit (Changing host)
 228 2012-07-18 01:42:23 abracadab has joined
 229 2012-07-18 01:42:34 Ahimoth has joined
 230 2012-07-18 01:42:37 Dyaheon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 231 2012-07-18 01:42:41 Ahimoth has quit (Changing host)
 232 2012-07-18 01:42:41 Ahimoth has joined
 233 2012-07-18 01:42:52 OneEyed has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 234 2012-07-18 01:42:52 wereHamster has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 235 2012-07-18 01:42:52 makomk has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 236 2012-07-18 01:43:13 Dyaheon has joined
 237 2012-07-18 01:43:42 Silverion has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 238 2012-07-18 01:43:42 jarpiain has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 239 2012-07-18 01:44:20 jarpiain has joined
 240 2012-07-18 01:44:42 jarpiain is now known as Guest27267
 241 2012-07-18 01:44:47 TimothyA has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 242 2012-07-18 01:45:06 mtve has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 243 2012-07-18 01:45:27 npouillard has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 244 2012-07-18 01:45:28 makomk has joined
 245 2012-07-18 01:45:29 mtve has joined
 246 2012-07-18 01:45:34 stalled has joined
 247 2012-07-18 01:45:51 TimothyA1 has joined
 248 2012-07-18 01:45:53 OneEyed has joined
 249 2012-07-18 01:46:09 wereHamster has joined
 250 2012-07-18 01:47:05 npouillard has joined
 251 2012-07-18 01:51:35 lordcirth has joined
 252 2012-07-18 01:52:55 <lordcirth> I'm trying to build Armory, and I'm getting an error that it can't find libpython2.7.a . I think its bc mine is in .../lib64/..., but how to fix?
 253 2012-07-18 01:53:22 <lordcirth> I tried symlinking it, btw
 254 2012-07-18 01:53:25 <phantomcircuit> are you building it as a 64 bit binary?
 255 2012-07-18 01:53:28 <phantomcircuit> -m64
 256 2012-07-18 01:53:46 <lordcirth> phantomcircuit: I don't think so, how do I? On other distros I haven't had to
 257 2012-07-18 01:54:16 <phantomcircuit> i dont know that just seems likely
 258 2012-07-18 01:54:24 <phantomcircuit> where exactly is libpython2.7.a
 259 2012-07-18 01:54:32 <phantomcircuit> also .a is for static linking
 260 2012-07-18 01:54:34 <lordcirth> phantomcircuit: /usr/lib
 261 2012-07-18 01:54:43 <phantomcircuit> i would think they would be using .so for dynamic linking
 262 2012-07-18 01:55:35 <lordcirth> phantomcircuit: Where do I put the "-m64"? I tried "make -m64 swig"
 263 2012-07-18 01:56:14 <phantomcircuit> oh it's swig
 264 2012-07-18 01:56:16 <phantomcircuit> yeah uh...
 265 2012-07-18 01:56:18 * phantomcircuit hides
 266 2012-07-18 01:56:33 <gmaxwell> zooko: I wish you hand't linked that, and I wish — knowing what it was— I had thought to not click it.  Arguably it's should be uplifting to see pictures of him working around his disease (and still managing to get out on an adventure) but that perspective is failing me.
 267 2012-07-18 01:57:17 <lordcirth> phantomcircuit: You don't know swig very well? Neither do I. Don't really know what it is, actually.
 268 2012-07-18 01:58:11 <phantomcircuit> it's so you can have c code which is easily callable from python and various other interpreted languages
 269 2012-07-18 01:58:24 <phantomcircuit> writting a custom plugin for each would be very time consuming
 270 2012-07-18 01:58:33 <phantomcircuit> however swig is pretty notoriously ornery about stuff
 271 2012-07-18 01:58:34 <phantomcircuit> so
 272 2012-07-18 01:58:35 <phantomcircuit> yeah
 273 2012-07-18 01:58:40 <phantomcircuit> enjoy
 274 2012-07-18 01:58:43 <luke-jr> who is Hal Finney?
 275 2012-07-18 01:59:42 <luke-jr> name sounds familiar, but I probably know him by an online nick
 276 2012-07-18 02:00:28 <copumpkin> I think he's Hal on the forum
 277 2012-07-18 02:00:41 <copumpkin> I was poking around ancient threads with satoshi and Hal was talking to him I think
 278 2012-07-18 02:00:59 <doublec> Hal also worked on a proof of work system
 279 2012-07-18 02:01:12 <doublec> http://web.archive.org/web/20080229154639/rpow.net/theory.html
 280 2012-07-18 02:01:31 <gmaxwell> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_%28cypherpunk%29
 281 2012-07-18 02:01:36 <gmaxwell> RPOW was pretty neat.
 282 2012-07-18 02:04:23 <copumpkin> ALS :(
 283 2012-07-18 02:05:09 <gmaxwell> It's the fake disease you'd make up to scare people, except that it actually exists...
 284 2012-07-18 02:05:34 <jgarzik> hrm.  I could have sworn Finney sent me a PM on the forum, but no record exists.  Maybe he replied to a message of mine somewhere.  /me finds some satoshi PMs in there that I didn't know existed, whee
 285 2012-07-18 02:06:26 <doublec> apparently Hal received the first transaction ever spent on the bitcoin network
 286 2012-07-18 02:06:47 <jgarzik> yep
 287 2012-07-18 02:07:18 Icoin has quit (Quit: Icoin)
 288 2012-07-18 02:07:34 <MC-Eeepc> he was diagnosed in 2009 and is in that chair already?
 289 2012-07-18 02:08:04 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: I think thats not actually unusual for ALS. Everyone knows about hawking, but hawking was super unusual.
 290 2012-07-18 02:08:28 <MC-Eeepc> poor bastard
 291 2012-07-18 02:08:41 <gmaxwell> See also, http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ab/dying_outside/
 292 2012-07-18 02:08:41 Pasha is now known as Cory
 293 2012-07-18 02:09:28 <MC-Eeepc> long has it annoyed me that really useful people get fucked up or die early or something
 294 2012-07-18 02:10:22 <MC-Eeepc> while some lardass lives to 98 smoking and chugging beers
 295 2012-07-18 02:10:35 <lordcirth> phantomcircuit: Do you think that Armory actually needs 32bit only, or just needs help finding it?
 296 2012-07-18 02:10:55 <phantomcircuit> lordcirth, im pretty sure it actually needs 64bit
 297 2012-07-18 02:11:01 <phantomcircuit> it loads the entire blockchain into memory
 298 2012-07-18 02:11:13 <phantomcircuit> currently that is approaching the limits of 32bit binaries virtual memory space
 299 2012-07-18 02:11:38 gjs278 has joined
 300 2012-07-18 02:12:09 <gmaxwell> Every once in a while I'll encounter someone mentioned in the biography of some long dead awesome person who died prematurely, like Feynman, Asimov, or Sagan and struggle a bit with the dissonance that many of their contemporaries are not dead.
 301 2012-07-18 02:15:01 Detritus is now known as `
 302 2012-07-18 02:15:15 ` is now known as Detritus
 303 2012-07-18 02:16:34 <lordcirth> phantomcircuit: Good point. I just linked the file it needed to /usr/lib64/libpython2.7.so
 304 2012-07-18 02:17:09 <lordcirth> phantomcircuit: And its now fine. It is of course, giving me other errors now, but they are far more comprehensible
 305 2012-07-18 02:18:46 <lordcirth> phantomcircuit: And.. it works!
 306 2012-07-18 02:19:11 <phantomcircuit> i'd be careful that sort of problem is indicative of alpha software
 307 2012-07-18 02:19:18 <phantomcircuit> building bitcoin used to be like that
 308 2012-07-18 02:19:25 <phantomcircuit> now it's only kind of annoying
 309 2012-07-18 02:19:51 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
 310 2012-07-18 02:20:00 TheSeven has joined
 311 2012-07-18 02:20:03 <lordcirth> phantomcircuit: Armory is alpha. I couldn't get it working at all on Gentoo
 312 2012-07-18 02:22:17 <zooko> gmaxwell: yeah, it looks horrible because his mouth is hanging open.
 313 2012-07-18 02:22:31 <zooko> But I thought it was better to share that link than not to.
 314 2012-07-18 02:22:37 <MC-Eeepc> damn he is on the books with a cryo company too
 315 2012-07-18 02:22:53 <MC-Eeepc> i was reading a pdf about transhumanism yesterday
 316 2012-07-18 02:22:54 <gmaxwell> zooko: I thought it made it look like he was super excited about everything.
 317 2012-07-18 02:23:02 <zooko> Hal was probably the second person to run the Bitcoin software, assuming Satoshi is only one person.
 318 2012-07-18 02:23:22 <zooko> And, he's the developer of one of Bitcoin's predecessors -- RPoW, I think it was.
 319 2012-07-18 02:23:54 <MC-Eeepc> i just looked at a link for that but it was 404
 320 2012-07-18 02:24:08 <zooko> Maybe I'm confusing two different things. One is Reusable Proof of Work, which I'm pretty sure was Hal Finney, and the other is this way to use IBM Trusted Computing modules to provide clients owned by many different end users with some assurance that the servers are behaving correctly according to some protocol...
 321 2012-07-18 02:24:25 <zooko> And, yeah, old time cypherpunk and major contributor to PGP, too.
 322 2012-07-18 02:25:03 <zooko> gmaxwell: I know what you mean about those biographies.
 323 2012-07-18 02:25:16 <zooko> You know Alan Turing could have easily lived til today.
 324 2012-07-18 02:25:52 <zooko> And I recently heard an interview with Ronald Coase, who was born in 1910.
 325 2012-07-18 02:25:57 BurtyB2 has joined
 326 2012-07-18 02:25:58 <zooko> http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/05/coase_on_extern.html
 327 2012-07-18 02:26:20 <MC-Eeepc> what happened with turing really pissed me off when i found out
 328 2012-07-18 02:26:33 <zooko> Yeah. Fucking dark ages.
 329 2012-07-18 02:26:42 <MC-Eeepc> pretty sure the uk govt only apologised for it in 2009
 330 2012-07-18 02:26:51 <zooko> People who are our contemporaries today -- grandparents, professors, random acquaintances, were born in the fucking dark ages and some of them didn't make it out.
 331 2012-07-18 02:27:34 <MC-Eeepc> makes you wonder what special people got steamrolled into oblivion today, compared to the future
 332 2012-07-18 02:27:34 <zooko> Of course, I'll probably be saying that about the 2010's in a few decades. I hope.
 333 2012-07-18 02:28:18 <MC-Eeepc> hey are you that guy with the triangle thing
 334 2012-07-18 02:28:40 <zooko> Yeah.
 335 2012-07-18 02:28:54 <MC-Eeepc> oh cool
 336 2012-07-18 02:29:02 <MC-Eeepc> sorry we broke your triangle bro
 337 2012-07-18 02:29:04 igetgames has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 338 2012-07-18 02:29:06 <zooko> Heh heh heh
 339 2012-07-18 02:29:15 <zooko> Do you contribute to namecoin?
 340 2012-07-18 02:29:37 BurtyBB has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 341 2012-07-18 02:30:06 igetgames has joined
 342 2012-07-18 02:30:09 <MC-Eeepc> na
 343 2012-07-18 02:30:36 <MC-Eeepc> i watch and i bitch about creeping centralisation, thats about what i do
 344 2012-07-18 02:30:38 <zooko> Oh. Well it's not too late to start! Go contribute some docs or something. ☺
 345 2012-07-18 02:31:06 <galambo_> do you want to contribute to a project
 346 2012-07-18 02:31:33 <MC-Eeepc> me?
 347 2012-07-18 02:32:43 <MC-Eeepc> i think given recent events its obvious something like namecoin is needed
 348 2012-07-18 02:32:53 <MC-Eeepc> but it had some problems last time i heard
 349 2012-07-18 02:33:26 <galambo_> yeah but do you care enough about the bitcoin idea to contribute
 350 2012-07-18 02:34:01 freewil has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 351 2012-07-18 02:34:16 <MC-Eeepc> i dont code
 352 2012-07-18 02:34:25 <MC-Eeepc> i advocate it when i can though
 353 2012-07-18 02:34:29 <galambo_> what centralization are you worried abo9ut then?
 354 2012-07-18 02:34:54 <galambo_> mining pools?
 355 2012-07-18 02:34:58 imsaguy2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 356 2012-07-18 02:35:02 <MC-Eeepc> for a start
 357 2012-07-18 02:37:07 <galambo_> unfortunately bitcoin seems to be too small to write in features that make life hard for pools
 358 2012-07-18 02:37:18 abracadab is now known as abracadabopoulos
 359 2012-07-18 02:37:30 <MC-Eeepc> i was complaining yesterday about how bitcoin went from running on hardware that has 40 years of widespread dissemination (x86)
 360 2012-07-18 02:37:43 <MC-Eeepc> to hardware that largely doesnt even exist yet
 361 2012-07-18 02:38:05 <galambo_> fpgas have existed for a while
 362 2012-07-18 02:38:34 <MC-Eeepc> the asics
 363 2012-07-18 02:38:35 <galambo_> the largest user of them is the defence industry
 364 2012-07-18 02:39:02 <MC-Eeepc> at the same time its obvious that the move to asic was inevitable and desirable
 365 2012-07-18 02:39:32 <galambo_> what asics?
 366 2012-07-18 02:39:47 <MC-Eeepc> BFLs and stuff
 367 2012-07-18 02:40:13 <MC-Eeepc> i want a small expresscard mining asic i can plug into my laptop
 368 2012-07-18 02:40:58 <galambo_> oh you mean that ones in development by the "mod chip" guy in missouri? the one named in a federal lawsuit vs directv?
 369 2012-07-18 02:41:04 imsaguy has joined
 370 2012-07-18 02:41:11 <galambo_> that bfl?
 371 2012-07-18 02:41:27 <MC-Eeepc> dunno
 372 2012-07-18 02:42:19 freewil has joined
 373 2012-07-18 02:42:42 <lianj> you complain about that direction but want an expresscard mining asic?
 374 2012-07-18 02:43:52 <galambo_> http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=359881&mode=threaded&pid=2335613
 375 2012-07-18 02:44:01 <galambo_> i wonder if this guy is going to figure out how to fab an asic
 376 2012-07-18 02:44:22 <MC-Eeepc> i thought i made it clear i am conflicted
 377 2012-07-18 02:44:56 <MC-Eeepc> i also worry that the number of seperate zero trust copies of the blockchain tends to 1 over time
 378 2012-07-18 02:45:31 <MC-Eeepc> or atleast a small enough set of entities that could conspire or be coerced
 379 2012-07-18 02:46:05 <MC-Eeepc> they might even peer directly with each other and refuse to hand out the blockchain to any unofficial machines
 380 2012-07-18 02:46:13 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: there are varrious ideas that I expect will make those concerns moot.
 381 2012-07-18 02:46:17 <MC-Eeepc> and then we have card networks again
 382 2012-07-18 02:46:46 <MC-Eeepc> i hope so gmaxwell
 383 2012-07-18 02:47:25 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: For example, I can construct a proof of treachery for a given blockchain—  I gather up a set of tree fragements which prove two transactions are in the chain at varrious points.. And then I show them to you and you can tell (without trusting me) that they conflict.
 384 2012-07-18 02:48:23 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: If nodes automatically generate, propagate, and accept such proofs— then only _one_ honest node needs to have every observed some instance of cheating for all future nodes to potentially discover it. (because the proof is small, and so its existance is hard to stifle)
 385 2012-07-18 02:49:05 <gmaxwell> Likewise trees of unspent transactions will enable full validation by nodes that haven't seen (and don't store) the history.
 386 2012-07-18 02:49:26 <MC-Eeepc> sounds great
 387 2012-07-18 02:49:55 <MC-Eeepc> you need to make a white paper titled proof of treachery for sure
 388 2012-07-18 02:50:17 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 389 2012-07-18 02:50:27 <gmaxwell> hah
 390 2012-07-18 02:51:18 <MC-Eeepc> doesnt it amount to a form of lossy compression though, i mean someone somewhere must still have the full chain, and it is and can only ever be the ultimate record right
 391 2012-07-18 02:52:30 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: No, no one has to. (though they should and I expect would, especially so long as we don't do moronic things with the maximum block size)
 392 2012-07-18 02:53:17 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: once a transaction is complete you don't need to know about it anymore, except to convince someone who wasn't around in the past that the whole system isn't just lies— that the rules were really followed all along.
 393 2012-07-18 02:53:22 <MC-Eeepc> so the chain really does have competely redundant data in it right now, from an absolute zero trust perspective
 394 2012-07-18 02:54:06 <gmaxwell> But the proof-of-trechery stuff should do an adequate job of that for the most part, at least once the system is big enough that people will trust that the proofs would have been created in the past if the rules were ever broken
 395 2012-07-18 02:54:56 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: well at the moment seeing the whole chain is the only way to be confident that the rules weren't broken... if you're not willing to trust that there isn't a massive conspiracy of bitcoin users (or just bugs in the software) already.
 396 2012-07-18 02:55:43 <lordcirth> gmaxwell: But in order for a node to notice, it would have to keep a copy of the latest TX along each path, so it could compare
 397 2012-07-18 02:55:44 <MC-Eeepc> ah so zero trust isnt really zero, just very small
 398 2012-07-18 02:56:05 <MC-Eeepc> this is my problem, i tend to think in absolute terms when it comes to the important stuff
 399 2012-07-18 02:56:07 hnz has joined
 400 2012-07-18 02:56:19 <lordcirth> MC-Eeepc: You always have to trust something, even if only 2+2=4
 401 2012-07-18 02:57:07 <MC-Eeepc> i would sure like it to be mathematically impossible for shenanigans to occur while still keeping every aspiration people have for the systems usability
 402 2012-07-18 02:57:31 <gmaxwell> lordcirth: it would have just had to have the unspent txn set
 403 2012-07-18 02:57:36 <lordcirth> MC-Eeepc: I'm afraid we have to settle for "astronomically improbable"
 404 2012-07-18 02:57:40 <gmaxwell> lordcirth: e.g. been a full validating node.
 405 2012-07-18 02:57:48 rdponticelli has joined
 406 2012-07-18 02:57:50 <MC-Eeepc> yes lol
 407 2012-07-18 02:57:52 <gmaxwell> Which currently takes on the order of 100mbytes storage if fully pruned.
 408 2012-07-18 02:57:59 <lordcirth> gmaxwell: well, unspent is what I meant by "latest"
 409 2012-07-18 02:58:36 <MC-Eeepc> how compressible is the chain by normal means
 410 2012-07-18 02:58:48 <gmaxwell> lordcirth: with respect to trust, it might be better to say "audibility". There is nothing opaque in a full node. Either the source enforces the rules or it doesn't.
 411 2012-07-18 02:58:52 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: it's not.
 412 2012-07-18 02:59:12 <MC-Eeepc> i thought text was really compressible
 413 2012-07-18 02:59:49 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: yes? And?
 414 2012-07-18 02:59:54 <lianj> btw, why cant you ask the network for old txs directly? only getdata the block they are in seems to work.
 415 2012-07-18 03:00:06 <gmaxwell> oh you've mistaken the 'raw' stuff emitted by blockexporer for something actually raw.
 416 2012-07-18 03:00:32 <gmaxwell> No, the blockchain is a binary datastructure. There isn't any text in it (Except little bits people put in the coinbase from time to time)
 417 2012-07-18 03:00:43 <MC-Eeepc> coughluke
 418 2012-07-18 03:01:10 <gmaxwell> lianj: because if txn are pruned the nodes may not have them.
 419 2012-07-18 03:01:21 <MC-Eeepc> so if i went and put my chain thru winrar now i would be disappointed?
 420 2012-07-18 03:01:41 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: the index file shrinks a fair bit IIRC, but the chain itself, not much.
 421 2012-07-18 03:01:52 zooko has left ("ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)")
 422 2012-07-18 03:01:57 <MC-Eeepc> damn
 423 2012-07-18 03:01:59 <lianj> gmaxwell: but they send it to me if i aks them for the block they are in
 424 2012-07-18 03:02:12 <lordcirth> MC-Eeepc: You'll be disappointed if u use Winrar for much of anything. Use 7zip
 425 2012-07-18 03:02:25 <MC-Eeepc> you cant replicate the chain to a brand new node properly with this pruning stuff can you
 426 2012-07-18 03:02:35 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: correct.
 427 2012-07-18 03:02:55 PiZZaMaN2K has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 428 2012-07-18 03:03:08 <MC-Eeepc> how do new nodes get up to speed then, with mass pruning
 429 2012-07-18 03:03:25 <lianj> is pruning new? enabled by default in the client now?
 430 2012-07-18 03:03:48 <gmaxwell> lianj: No, it doesn't 'exist' yet. (well there are trial implementations)
 431 2012-07-18 03:03:52 <MC-Eeepc> if not from a handful of king nodes with the full chain, who might decide to stop handing it out
 432 2012-07-18 03:04:01 <lianj> gmaxwell: ok, thanks
 433 2012-07-18 03:04:44 <lianj> gmaxwell: so why doesnt the current client answer for old getdata txs?
 434 2012-07-18 03:04:45 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: better keep a copy then!   But more seriously, once tree commitments to unspent transactions are done it won't matter because you'll be able to start a new node midchain.
 435 2012-07-18 03:05:14 da2ce7 has joined
 436 2012-07-18 03:05:28 <gmaxwell> lianj: Because thats just how it works— I always 'ass'u'me'd' it was because of the assumption that it shouldn't be expected to work because of eventual pruning.
 437 2012-07-18 03:05:31 <MC-Eeepc> i would infact try to maintain a full chain for as long as practicable
 438 2012-07-18 03:06:01 <lianj> gmaxwell: oh, ha!
 439 2012-07-18 03:06:20 <MC-Eeepc> my mian hope is that HDD capacities start going up again and storage costs can keep up with a full chain in the future
 440 2012-07-18 03:06:32 <lordcirth> MC-Eeepc: If home PC's and servers all kept the full chain, and pruning was just for mobile, that would work well
 441 2012-07-18 03:06:38 <MC-Eeepc> lazy assholes have been at 3TB for ages
 442 2012-07-18 03:06:42 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: well, please stay around to argue against massive increases to the maximum block size then.
 443 2012-07-18 03:06:50 <gmaxwell> So long as the maximum size is small it's a non-issue.
 444 2012-07-18 03:07:12 <MC-Eeepc> whats the argument for and against that, its 1MB right now right
 445 2012-07-18 03:07:23 Guest27267 is now known as jarpiain
 446 2012-07-18 03:08:00 <gmaxwell> Changing it is a hard fork, it would break the mandatory rules and would have to be adopted by all users.
 447 2012-07-18 03:08:07 <MC-Eeepc> block size cap would have to be lifted if txn volume ever demanded it right
 448 2012-07-18 03:08:39 <MC-Eeepc> or perhaps the invisible hand would take care of it......
 449 2012-07-18 03:08:56 <gmaxwell> The argument for is to increase the maximum rate of confirmed transactions. The argument against is damaging decentralization by increasing the cost of running a full node.  (and if done in advance of real demand— increasing dos attack exposure)
 450 2012-07-18 03:08:57 Z0rZ0rZ0r has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 451 2012-07-18 03:09:21 Z0rZ0rZ0r has joined
 452 2012-07-18 03:09:52 lordcirth has quit (Quit: bye all)
 453 2012-07-18 03:10:31 <gmaxwell> Also— argument against it: if there is no competition for space, there will eventually be nothing to pay for network security. Argument for: If there aren't enough txn processed transactions would have to be rather costly to pay for security. (e.g. the argument there goes both ways)
 454 2012-07-18 03:10:31 <MC-Eeepc> one would hope by then the cost of storing and mining 1mb blocks would be so marginal that lifting the cap would be ok
 455 2012-07-18 03:10:46 <gmaxwell> Not just storing, but network... validation, etc.
 456 2012-07-18 03:11:17 <MC-Eeepc> well morres law affects everything, storage bandwidth cpu etc
 457 2012-07-18 03:11:26 <gmaxwell> And sure. Increasing 1MB to ... 2mb .. not too alarming. Increasing it to 1GB? well, I think that would basically make bitcoin a worthless thing because it would remove the decenteralization.  So it's a difficult question.
 458 2012-07-18 03:11:38 <MC-Eeepc> everything gets its order of magnitude, its all gravy
 459 2012-07-18 03:11:40 slush has joined
 460 2012-07-18 03:11:49 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: storage actually grows by a faster law... unfortunately communications bandwidths tend to grow slower.
 461 2012-07-18 03:12:20 <MC-Eeepc> yeah
 462 2012-07-18 03:12:51 <MC-Eeepc> pressure on ISPs is immense
 463 2012-07-18 03:12:56 Optimo has quit (Quit: Optimo)
 464 2012-07-18 03:13:11 <MC-Eeepc> i had 150kbit with my first cabble modem
 465 2012-07-18 03:13:21 <MC-Eeepc> now its 10024
 466 2012-07-18 03:13:50 <MC-Eeepc> and thats 10x slower than the top one
 467 2012-07-18 03:13:57 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 468 2012-07-18 03:14:17 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 469 2012-07-18 03:14:34 <MC-Eeepc> gigabyte blocks is pretty far out there though, thats basically world txn volume right
 470 2012-07-18 03:14:57 <MC-Eeepc> i remember when a megabyte was a lot on 33kbit......
 471 2012-07-18 03:16:13 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: right— but if you take the cap off, then miners can happily pump the blocksize up to push marginal competition out of business. And we end up with everyone having to use fully SPV nodes, and distributed but nearly centeralized control.
 472 2012-07-18 03:16:16 <gmaxwell> So care is required.
 473 2012-07-18 03:16:36 <MC-Eeepc> oh yeah for sure
 474 2012-07-18 03:16:44 <MC-Eeepc> uncapping the blocks is suicide
 475 2012-07-18 03:16:46 <gmaxwell> And a lot of bitcoiners are a bit too over eager, in my view, to rush to scaling bitcoin directly when often we'd be better served by secondary systems.
 476 2012-07-18 03:17:08 <MC-Eeepc> bumping the cap up in a sensible manner is ok though
 477 2012-07-18 03:17:27 <gmaxwell> E.g. I think people and bitcoin itself would be better served by using bitcoin-backed OpenTransactions or Ripple for small fast transactions.
 478 2012-07-18 03:17:44 <gmaxwell> but those things are effectively non-existant today.
 479 2012-07-18 03:18:06 <gmaxwell> Easier to crank the size when blocks fill up.
 480 2012-07-18 03:18:23 <MC-Eeepc> oh the settlement network argument
 481 2012-07-18 03:18:28 <MC-Eeepc> that always makes me a bit sad
 482 2012-07-18 03:18:57 <gmaxwell> Why? people want properties bitcoin can't provide.  E.g. you don't want to stand in front of a soda machine for a hour just to get one confirm.
 483 2012-07-18 03:19:08 <MC-Eeepc> i know
 484 2012-07-18 03:19:22 <gmaxwell> The kind of small increases in maximum size that would be harmless don't cure us of the need of settlement networks in any case.
 485 2012-07-18 03:19:42 bitfoo has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
 486 2012-07-18 03:19:55 <MC-Eeepc> just kind of feels like layers of abstraction is what wwe have now with an impenetrable global finacial system
 487 2012-07-18 03:20:09 <MC-Eeepc> of which what normal people see is the card reader in the shop
 488 2012-07-18 03:20:28 <gmaxwell> Then its important to make smart decisions with those systems too. Fortunately bitcoin provides a good point of comparison.
 489 2012-07-18 03:20:46 <gmaxwell> If the payment systems are too untrustworthy— use bitcoin directly.
 490 2012-07-18 03:20:49 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin was never meant to replace physical in store transactions
 491 2012-07-18 03:20:56 <Diablo-D3> it was meant to replace the banking system
 492 2012-07-18 03:21:00 <MC-Eeepc> i just have this principle i would like to see which is always endeavouring to keep the edge of the actualy network as close to the user as possible
 493 2012-07-18 03:21:09 <MC-Eeepc> maybe its misinformed
 494 2012-07-18 03:21:23 sytse has joined
 495 2012-07-18 03:22:07 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: But the 'network' need not be just one part. I think bitcoin can be the solid foundation behind a broader decenteralized digital currency ecosystem... with other parts filling in the things bitcoin cannot.
 496 2012-07-18 03:22:35 <MC-Eeepc> yeah youre right
 497 2012-07-18 03:22:50 <MC-Eeepc> im just being absolutist
 498 2012-07-18 03:22:56 <gmaxwell> If you insist bitcoin does everything, you'll find we suffer from it not doing it well. Make everyone use bitcoin directly: they'll use web wallets— which have worse security and centeralization properties than whatever you'd get from a bitcoin + OT or Ripple.
 499 2012-07-18 03:23:04 <MC-Eeepc> just dont want to see bitcoin itself become cloistered
 500 2012-07-18 03:24:00 Fanquake has left ()
 501 2012-07-18 03:24:03 <gmaxwell> I know that I've seen other projects I'm involved with suffer because people crap on them because they can do a broader set of things than the things they do well, and people who want to be critical tend to pick corner usecases.
 502 2012-07-18 03:24:38 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 503 2012-07-18 03:24:59 <MC-Eeepc> do you think zero conf txn could work well for low value sales
 504 2012-07-18 03:25:08 <MC-Eeepc> like the proverbal vending machine
 505 2012-07-18 03:25:29 <MC-Eeepc> cos mounting a double spend for chocolate seems stupid
 506 2012-07-18 03:25:39 <MC-Eeepc> and actual txns propagate almost instantly
 507 2012-07-18 03:25:46 TimothyA1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 508 2012-07-18 03:25:59 <MC-Eeepc> fruad would happen, but hten so does shoplifting and companies factor it into the cost
 509 2012-07-18 03:26:01 <gmaxwell> "It depends" .. a vending machine, only if there are cameras or if the markup is great enough that you can trivally pass on any reasonable cost of theft.
 510 2012-07-18 03:26:41 <MC-Eeepc> there is always theft and fraud
 511 2012-07-18 03:26:50 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: basically you can attempt the attack with every spend... you won't always be successful, but when you are you can get a discount.
 512 2012-07-18 03:27:17 <gmaxwell> so there need to be a least _some_ cost put on the attacker— risk of a security camera catching them. Just like there is with shoplifting.
 513 2012-07-18 03:27:25 <MC-Eeepc> exactly
 514 2012-07-18 03:27:47 <MC-Eeepc> then for higher value txns, a sliding scale of confirmations comes in
 515 2012-07-18 03:27:47 <gmaxwell> Otherwise some not very criminally minded may do it just for the lulz...
 516 2012-07-18 03:27:57 <MC-Eeepc> up to 6 confs for near absolute trust
 517 2012-07-18 03:28:10 <gmaxwell> For online things where people could basically automate exploiting you thats perhaps another matter.
 518 2012-07-18 03:28:26 <MC-Eeepc> i think there could maybe be a really decent sized economy based on zero confs
 519 2012-07-18 03:28:54 <MC-Eeepc> just like there is on CC which has a fraud rate too
 520 2012-07-18 03:29:09 maaku has joined
 521 2012-07-18 03:29:58 <gmaxwell> The bigger problem with that is simply that people won't understand it. E.g. for a vending machine, with security cameras around.. yea, fine.  But you do the same thing on a website accessible from tor... where people can also get change back / withdraws / or refunds in btc... and you'll wake up broke with no recourse.
 522 2012-07-18 03:30:23 <MC-Eeepc> yeah nightmare
 523 2012-07-18 03:31:30 <gmaxwell> (for the vending machine.. single thefts.. you pass on the costs.. someone empties the machine, you use the security cameras and catch them; or at least the risk of that stops it from happening in the first place)
 524 2012-07-18 03:31:38 <MC-Eeepc> how about waiting for confs from a new address at first, but then a trust relationship is built up with that address, which then becomes your "account" with that site, until they let you purchase with zero confs
 525 2012-07-18 03:32:05 <MC-Eeepc> fraud will still happen, but greatly reduced prob
 526 2012-07-18 03:32:18 <gmaxwell> I'm not fond of systems like that. Past performance does not indicate future results. 'Identity' must be cheap— otherwise you intimidate new users.
 527 2012-07-18 03:32:37 <MC-Eeepc> im going to use ebay as a counter there
 528 2012-07-18 03:32:38 <gmaxwell> So people will just have a farm of maturing identities ... when a new one matures you burn an old one.
 529 2012-07-18 03:33:10 <gmaxwell> Ebay makes identity more costly by tying to bank accounts, but people totally do exploit ebay that way and the reversability of CC txns there backstops it...
 530 2012-07-18 03:34:17 <MC-Eeepc> hm
 531 2012-07-18 03:34:33 <MC-Eeepc> the zero conf problem
 532 2012-07-18 03:34:46 <MC-Eeepc> a main barrier to direct commerce with bitcoin
 533 2012-07-18 03:35:19 <MC-Eeepc> how about a second merge mined chain with really fast blocks
 534 2012-07-18 03:35:32 <MC-Eeepc> like that one with 10 second blocks but with less scammy
 535 2012-07-18 03:35:47 <gmaxwell> "We call it p2pool"
 536 2012-07-18 03:36:11 <MC-Eeepc> ok maybe doesnt scale to worldwide retail
 537 2012-07-18 03:36:21 <MC-Eeepc> fuck this is annoying me
 538 2012-07-18 03:36:22 imsaguy is now known as imsaguy2
 539 2012-07-18 03:36:54 <MC-Eeepc> desperately i try to keep bitcoin touching the actual POS terminal
 540 2012-07-18 03:37:13 <gmaxwell> Blockchain proof of non-double spending systems, at least sigular world wide ones, all "don't scale".. because there is no information hiding (By necessity and design!)
 541 2012-07-18 03:37:33 <nanotube> you could just use some third-party payment processor for POS...
 542 2012-07-18 03:37:41 <gmaxwell> If I have to know about a young boy's soda pop purchase in china.. ell that has limits.
 543 2012-07-18 03:37:49 <MC-Eeepc> yeah and then we have fees and shit
 544 2012-07-18 03:37:50 <nanotube> though then you're getting back to visa et al.
 545 2012-07-18 03:37:56 <MC-Eeepc> doesnt bitpay take like 3%
 546 2012-07-18 03:38:34 <MC-Eeepc> all mining will have to be supported from fees in the future, and then you put merchant fees on top
 547 2012-07-18 03:38:35 <nanotube> 1% for bitcoins direct, 3% for bitcoins -> usd automatic conversion
 548 2012-07-18 03:38:55 <MC-Eeepc> meanwhile paypal and visa drop to 1% because they could have the entire time they just didnt want to
 549 2012-07-18 03:39:22 <gmaxwell> "mission accomplished"
 550 2012-07-18 03:39:38 <MC-Eeepc> not really
 551 2012-07-18 03:39:54 <MC-Eeepc> i dont like bitcoin cos i want my huge store to pay less card fees
 552 2012-07-18 03:40:03 <gmaxwell> Keep in mind that bitcoin doesn't exist in a vacuum. It may well be the case that most of the benefit that bitcoin provides to mankind is competative pressure against everything else— making them a bit more like bitcoin.
 553 2012-07-18 03:40:27 <gmaxwell> competitive*
 554 2012-07-18 03:44:02 spaola has joined
 555 2012-07-18 03:44:13 <MC-Eeepc> that would be something
 556 2012-07-18 03:44:34 <MC-Eeepc> one thing visa and paypal and friends is sorely lacking is competition
 557 2012-07-18 03:44:47 <gmaxwell> Well there you go.
 558 2012-07-18 03:45:11 <MC-Eeepc> all the better for it to be an amorphous entity that cannot be sued or legislated inot submission by bought politicians
 559 2012-07-18 03:45:11 <gmaxwell> And not just paypal.  The whole idea of goverment sponsored currencies needs competition.
 560 2012-07-18 03:45:46 <gmaxwell> Gold is a piss poor replacement— because it can't be used online except via scripts that are less trustworthy than dollars.
 561 2012-07-18 03:46:19 <MC-Eeepc> gold was only ever a settlement currency
 562 2012-07-18 03:46:53 <MC-Eeepc> was good for backing the paper scrip, but hey not anymore
 563 2012-07-18 03:47:02 <MC-Eeepc> just keepa printing
 564 2012-07-18 03:47:41 <MC-Eeepc> yes government paper scrip is a mass delusion on the order of religion
 565 2012-07-18 03:48:48 <MC-Eeepc> im asspained cos i was shocked at how much my latest weekly grocercy shop cost, i underestimated by like £20
 566 2012-07-18 03:49:08 <MC-Eeepc> and its because things have gone up but also my currency is debased since 2008
 567 2012-07-18 03:49:27 <MC-Eeepc> and i cannot save anywhere over the rate of inflation
 568 2012-07-18 03:49:46 <MC-Eeepc> my money is losing value, where is that value going
 569 2012-07-18 03:49:51 freewil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 570 2012-07-18 03:51:41 <midnightmagic> Actually Alan Turing may not have been so persecuted nor had such a terrible life after all.
 571 2012-07-18 03:51:57 <midnightmagic> And it's possible his death was actually a total, flukey accident.
 572 2012-07-18 03:52:11 <MC-Eeepc> you can actually have your money value stolen without it ever being accosted, amazing really
 573 2012-07-18 03:53:02 <MC-Eeepc> he was convicted of buggery or something, thats bad enough treatment for me
 574 2012-07-18 03:54:02 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 575 2012-07-18 03:54:32 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
 576 2012-07-18 03:54:42 <midnightmagic> galambo_: Also, re: destroying centralized pools, all that needs to be done is to make mining as, or nearly as, profitable to mine "solo" as it is to mine for a pool. i.e. adding p2pool-like services directly to bitcoind.
 577 2012-07-18 03:54:51 RainbowDashh has joined
 578 2012-07-18 03:55:05 <MC-Eeepc> +1
 579 2012-07-18 03:56:07 <galambo_> i don't have any complaints about pools i was just wondering what MC-Eeepc's complaint about "increasing centralization" was refering too
 580 2012-07-18 03:56:23 <MC-Eeepc> many things
 581 2012-07-18 03:56:29 <MC-Eeepc> i just expounded for 2 hours
 582 2012-07-18 03:58:02 ivan\ has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
 583 2012-07-18 03:58:19 <midnightmagic> galambo_: What's this about mod chip guy in missouri? Do you know something I don't about Butterfly Labs?
 584 2012-07-18 04:01:29 freewil has joined
 585 2012-07-18 04:03:01 <midnightmagic> MC-Eeepc: paper scrip isn't a mass delusion IMO. Virtual currencies and the willing to accept numbers in a computer as "money" have shown us that people are willing to ascribe money properties to pretty much anything that satisfies some basic money-like properties. (And cell phone time in Africa, and virtual currencies in China and SL and LR and e-gold where you can't even redeem for real gold etc)
 586 2012-07-18 04:03:54 <MC-Eeepc> but they have no intristic value at all
 587 2012-07-18 04:04:04 <MC-Eeepc> metal backed paper does in theory
 588 2012-07-18 04:04:13 Cablesaurus has joined
 589 2012-07-18 04:04:14 <MC-Eeepc> even bitcoins do, mining htem is fucking hard
 590 2012-07-18 04:04:20 Cablesaurus has quit (Client Quit)
 591 2012-07-18 04:04:36 <MC-Eeepc> paper and digital bank balances can come from nowhere
 592 2012-07-18 04:05:02 <midnightmagic> Why must "money" have an instrinsic value? I'm not really sure bitcoin has an intrinsic value in the usual sense of the term..
 593 2012-07-18 04:05:09 <MC-Eeepc> and often do, yet they ar ascribed actual value, not just used as tokens, thats delusion
 594 2012-07-18 04:05:44 <midnightmagic> You mean paper scrip is ascribed actual instrinsic value?
 595 2012-07-18 04:05:49 <MC-Eeepc> well its money as a wealth sotre and money as medium of exchange
 596 2012-07-18 04:05:57 <MC-Eeepc> different things
 597 2012-07-18 04:06:43 <midnightmagic> Neither of those really describe what my understanding of the term "intrinsic value" is..
 598 2012-07-18 04:07:21 <MC-Eeepc> something that is actually worth what it says it is
 599 2012-07-18 04:07:26 <midnightmagic> A bitcoin on its own, without a friend nearby with which to use a bitcoin, has no value. It's a "hello world" at best.
 600 2012-07-18 04:07:38 <MC-Eeepc> vs something that represents the worth of metal elsewhere that doesnt exist anymore
 601 2012-07-18 04:07:43 <midnightmagic> An educational exercise in mathematics..
 602 2012-07-18 04:08:18 <lianj> midnightmagic: well said
 603 2012-07-18 04:08:35 ivan\ has joined
 604 2012-07-18 04:08:44 <MC-Eeepc> well on one hand bitcoins seem to have an actual worth because how hard they are to make
 605 2012-07-18 04:08:57 <MC-Eeepc> on the other its just data bits, its not worth shit
 606 2012-07-18 04:09:04 <MC-Eeepc> my brain
 607 2012-07-18 04:10:02 <MC-Eeepc> maybe intristic value is wrong to say, i mean effort expended in creating a unit of currency i think
 608 2012-07-18 04:10:14 <nanotube> MC-Eeepc: the key word you're looking for is 'scarcity'
 609 2012-07-18 04:10:28 <MC-Eeepc> yeah there we go
 610 2012-07-18 04:10:39 <nanotube> they can be really easy to create, but controlled by central authority which promises to exercise discretion.
 611 2012-07-18 04:10:42 <midnightmagic> A gold coin can be used as a material for its biologically inert properties when mixed into ceramics, its malleability, its weight, a lump of gold can be melted and used in circuits or electrical connections. Gold as it was in an ancient world had much less of an intrinsic value, and much more of a money-properties value.
 612 2012-07-18 04:10:46 <nanotube> like fiat paper money - very easy and cheap to print.
 613 2012-07-18 04:11:18 <nanotube> it doesn't have to have 'use value' at all. it just has to be 'easy to transact', 'fungible', and 'scarce'.
 614 2012-07-18 04:11:20 <midnightmagic> MC-Eeepc: I believe I understand you re: your use of the term intrinsic.
 615 2012-07-18 04:11:37 <MC-Eeepc> yeah i think my use was wrong
 616 2012-07-18 04:11:57 <midnightmagic> Not wrong, we just understand the word differently.
 617 2012-07-18 04:12:28 <MC-Eeepc> well im probably strictly wrong lol
 618 2012-07-18 04:12:52 <midnightmagic> +1 nanotube, properties useful to the human need for money/currency.
 619 2012-07-18 04:13:12 <MC-Eeepc> i dont buy the argument that bitcoins are simply fiat though
 620 2012-07-18 04:13:32 <MC-Eeepc> they atleast represent n amount of electricity and hardware investment cost
 621 2012-07-18 04:13:46 <nanotube> MC-Eeepc: care for a recommended reading? :)
 622 2012-07-18 04:13:59 <MC-Eeepc> and are backed my maths and not promises of old white men in suits
 623 2012-07-18 04:14:01 <midnightmagic> You know these days how I explain it to people? "You ever see Star Trek? Bitcoin is what they call credits." And suddenly everybody gets it.
 624 2012-07-18 04:14:08 <nanotube> midnightmagic: haha nice
 625 2012-07-18 04:14:19 <MC-Eeepc> lolz
 626 2012-07-18 04:14:39 <nanotube> MC-Eeepc: yes, the algorithmic control is a great feature. but that is orthogonal to 'fiat'.
 627 2012-07-18 04:14:49 <MC-Eeepc> nanotube go for it
 628 2012-07-18 04:15:05 ThomasV has joined
 629 2012-07-18 04:15:07 <nanotube> MC-Eeepc: "money mischief" by milton friedman. :)
 630 2012-07-18 04:16:00 <MC-Eeepc> looks cool
 631 2012-07-18 04:16:12 <MC-Eeepc> now i can find out exactly how zimbabwe happened
 632 2012-07-18 04:16:14 <midnightmagic> MC-Eeepc: Yes, for sure re: electricity and hardware investment cost. That they do, which is why I think bitcoin will never drop below mining cost. Nobody I know of who mines is strictly on the edge of starvation if mining goes south. They can afford to hold out when price drops temporarily below mining costs.
 633 2012-07-18 04:16:28 <midnightmagic> not permanently anyway, barring some kind of catastrophy.
 634 2012-07-18 04:17:30 <MC-Eeepc> mining is still a sideline for most, even those making bank from it
 635 2012-07-18 04:20:42 <MC-Eeepc> Abstruse, theoretical and chiefly for the initiate, the book recycles parts of earlier works by Friedman, who himself suggests here that the general reader might wish to skip a particularly challenging chapter.
 636 2012-07-18 04:20:52 <MC-Eeepc> oh damn maybe i am too dumb for this lol
 637 2012-07-18 04:25:36 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 638 2012-07-18 04:26:04 <nanotube> MC-Eeepc: nah it's pretty straightforward.
 639 2012-07-18 04:26:20 <nanotube> if you have any questions, you can ask the learned audience on #bitcoin :D
 640 2012-07-18 04:27:57 Pinion has joined
 641 2012-07-18 04:28:20 Pinion is now known as Guest52023
 642 2012-07-18 04:28:24 <MC-Eeepc> id rather nail my balls to a plank
 643 2012-07-18 04:28:41 <nanotube> heh
 644 2012-07-18 04:32:44 <midnightmagic> ha ha
 645 2012-07-18 04:32:55 hnz has joined
 646 2012-07-18 04:37:39 PiZZaMaN2K has joined
 647 2012-07-18 04:40:57 Guest52023 has quit (Quit: Has quit)
 648 2012-07-18 04:46:30 guruvan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 649 2012-07-18 04:46:31 guruvan_ is now known as guruvan
 650 2012-07-18 04:52:00 guruvan_ has joined
 651 2012-07-18 04:54:59 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Laptop lid has been shut. D: +PinkiePiee: Game lasted 22374945:16. 00: was day. 22374945:16 was night.)
 652 2012-07-18 05:00:10 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 653 2012-07-18 05:06:41 asoltys has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 654 2012-07-18 05:09:27 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 655 2012-07-18 05:12:37 RainbowDashh has joined
 656 2012-07-18 05:16:46 ZephyrVoid has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.8)
 657 2012-07-18 05:17:02 ZephyrVoid has joined
 658 2012-07-18 05:19:44 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 659 2012-07-18 05:20:33 minimoose has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 660 2012-07-18 05:24:05 RainbowDashh has joined
 661 2012-07-18 05:29:12 maaku has joined
 662 2012-07-18 05:33:00 Rabbit67890 has joined
 663 2012-07-18 05:33:07 RainbowDashh has quit (Disconnected by services)
 664 2012-07-18 05:33:39 RainbowDashh has joined
 665 2012-07-18 05:38:53 devrandom has joined
 666 2012-07-18 05:40:06 ovidiusoft has joined
 667 2012-07-18 05:41:00 MC-Eeepc has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 668 2012-07-18 05:42:05 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Diapolo opened pull request 1607 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1607>
 669 2012-07-18 05:42:28 OneFixt_ has joined
 670 2012-07-18 05:46:13 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 671 2012-07-18 05:46:25 OneFixt_ is now known as OneFixt
 672 2012-07-18 05:49:48 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 673 2012-07-18 05:53:13 Ferroh has quit (Quit: *poof*)
 674 2012-07-18 05:55:05 Ferroh has joined
 675 2012-07-18 05:58:53 leotreasure has joined
 676 2012-07-18 06:02:35 leotreasure has quit (Read error: No route to host)
 677 2012-07-18 06:03:46 leotreasure has joined
 678 2012-07-18 06:04:51 sirk390 has joined
 679 2012-07-18 06:08:41 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 680 2012-07-18 06:11:06 gjs278 has joined
 681 2012-07-18 06:13:35 ThomasV has joined
 682 2012-07-18 06:14:13 Rabbit67890 has quit (Quit: Rabbit67890)
 683 2012-07-18 06:14:14 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Laptop lid has been shut. D: +PinkiePiee: Game lasted 22374945:16. 00: was day. 22374945:16 was night.)
 684 2012-07-18 06:14:45 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
 685 2012-07-18 06:15:21 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 686 2012-07-18 06:16:52 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 687 2012-07-18 06:17:12 leotreasure has joined
 688 2012-07-18 06:17:35 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 689 2012-07-18 06:21:13 leotreasure has quit (Read error: No route to host)
 690 2012-07-18 06:21:16 asuk has joined
 691 2012-07-18 06:21:57 leotreasure has joined
 692 2012-07-18 06:23:26 Icoin has joined
 693 2012-07-18 06:23:51 maaku has joined
 694 2012-07-18 06:24:42 maaku has quit (Client Quit)
 695 2012-07-18 06:25:25 gjs278 has joined
 696 2012-07-18 06:26:37 Joric has quit ()
 697 2012-07-18 06:27:23 leotreasure has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 698 2012-07-18 06:27:54 sytse has joined
 699 2012-07-18 06:29:20 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 700 2012-07-18 06:34:00 CodesInChaos has joined
 701 2012-07-18 06:36:55 toffoo has quit ()
 702 2012-07-18 06:40:15 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 703 2012-07-18 06:49:55 graingert has joined
 704 2012-07-18 06:53:47 iddo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 705 2012-07-18 06:53:50 graingert_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 706 2012-07-18 06:55:41 iddo has joined
 707 2012-07-18 07:07:49 toffoo has joined
 708 2012-07-18 07:10:34 igetgames has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 709 2012-07-18 07:11:17 osxorgate has joined
 710 2012-07-18 07:21:06 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 711 2012-07-18 07:21:55 molecular has joined
 712 2012-07-18 07:28:39 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 713 2012-07-18 07:33:30 tower has joined
 714 2012-07-18 07:34:47 Marf has joined
 715 2012-07-18 07:37:18 phantomcircuit has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 716 2012-07-18 07:44:37 bitllc has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 717 2012-07-18 07:50:09 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: runeksvendsen opened pull request 1608 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1608>
 718 2012-07-18 07:50:22 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 719 2012-07-18 07:51:10 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 720 2012-07-18 07:51:17 MobiusL has joined
 721 2012-07-18 07:51:36 OneFixt has joined
 722 2012-07-18 07:51:52 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 723 2012-07-18 07:55:40 Fanquake has joined
 724 2012-07-18 08:03:44 t7 has joined
 725 2012-07-18 08:04:57 tsche has joined
 726 2012-07-18 08:09:20 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 727 2012-07-18 08:09:28 graingert_ has joined
 728 2012-07-18 08:10:24 <amiller> something has to be doubled somewhere, there's a missing exponential advantage otherwise
 729 2012-07-18 08:10:29 <amiller> here's the sort of thing i want to propose
 730 2012-07-18 08:10:45 <amiller> it's a different way of comparing two forks to decide which one you prefer
 731 2012-07-18 08:11:11 <amiller> you're supposed to start wherever the common forking point is, and take whichever is longer
 732 2012-07-18 08:11:12 graingert has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 733 2012-07-18 08:11:33 <amiller> instead, you could see which one is further along on a sequence like this
 734 2012-07-18 08:12:20 <amiller> first you count up until you find a block with a hash with 1 extra bit of zero than at the fork
 735 2012-07-18 08:12:40 <amiller> then you count up until you see a hash with 2 extra bits
 736 2012-07-18 08:13:10 <amiller> and so on, until you get to the end of both forks
 737 2012-07-18 08:13:24 <amiller> whichever fork got further along wins
 738 2012-07-18 08:14:15 <amiller> it's possible for two forks to be different 'length' but equal, using this comparison
 739 2012-07-18 08:14:46 tsche has joined
 740 2012-07-18 08:18:03 <amiller> someone who wanted to unwind the blockchain would have to pick their fork point, then apply a lot of hash power, and they wouldn't even know how many hashes they'd need because the most uncertainty would be towards the end
 741 2012-07-18 08:19:36 ZephyrVoid has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 742 2012-07-18 08:22:10 gjs278 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 743 2012-07-18 08:27:46 graingert_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 744 2012-07-18 08:32:14 <OneEyed> Mmm, armory tells me my transaction keeps getting rejected, although all inputs are 6-confirmed and I even included a 0.02 BTC fee
 745 2012-07-18 08:33:05 ZephyrVoid has joined
 746 2012-07-18 08:33:13 t7 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 747 2012-07-18 08:33:18 <OneEyed> (it's only a 5 inputs transaction, 2 outputs including change)
 748 2012-07-18 08:33:29 <OneEyed> Any idea of how I can get more information on what's going on?
 749 2012-07-18 08:40:05 CodesInChaos has joined
 750 2012-07-18 08:44:56 igetgames has joined
 751 2012-07-18 08:45:14 jurov is now known as away!ldxjiixv@84.245.71.31|jurov
 752 2012-07-18 08:45:40 igetgames_ has joined
 753 2012-07-18 08:48:38 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 754 2012-07-18 08:49:07 igetgames has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 755 2012-07-18 08:49:14 datagutt has joined
 756 2012-07-18 08:49:26 datagutt is now known as Guest10348
 757 2012-07-18 08:51:49 Guest10348 has quit (Client Quit)
 758 2012-07-18 08:52:19 datagutt_ has joined
 759 2012-07-18 08:52:59 gjs278 has joined
 760 2012-07-18 09:00:01 dooglus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 761 2012-07-18 09:04:58 dooglus has joined
 762 2012-07-18 09:04:59 dooglus has quit (Changing host)
 763 2012-07-18 09:04:59 dooglus has joined
 764 2012-07-18 09:05:09 <epscy> when i do listreceivedbyaddress
 765 2012-07-18 09:05:31 <epscy> i see some addresses that i do not recognise, one says it received over 600 btc
 766 2012-07-18 09:05:41 <epscy> i have never had 600 btc
 767 2012-07-18 09:06:13 <epscy> oh actually nevermind
 768 2012-07-18 09:06:19 <epscy> i know what is going on there
 769 2012-07-18 09:06:30 <ThomasV> epscy: did you create that wallet?
 770 2012-07-18 09:07:44 <epscy> errm yeah, it's my wallet
 771 2012-07-18 09:07:56 <epscy> i think it is just where i sent coins to myself
 772 2012-07-18 09:14:49 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 773 2012-07-18 09:18:08 leotreasure has joined
 774 2012-07-18 09:23:37 <kinlo> does listreceivedbyaddress show the sent-back coins too?
 775 2012-07-18 09:25:01 <kinlo> mmmmz.   that shows my wallet contains much more then it actually contains
 776 2012-07-18 09:26:36 TD has joined
 777 2012-07-18 09:28:52 TD has quit (Client Quit)
 778 2012-07-18 09:29:45 TD has joined
 779 2012-07-18 09:32:27 Fanquake has left ()
 780 2012-07-18 09:36:27 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 781 2012-07-18 09:38:31 drizztbsd has joined
 782 2012-07-18 09:41:39 pickett has joined
 783 2012-07-18 09:45:31 RazielZ has joined
 784 2012-07-18 09:46:14 mmoya has joined
 785 2012-07-18 09:46:32 Raziel_ has joined
 786 2012-07-18 09:47:23 Raziel__ has joined
 787 2012-07-18 09:48:42 Fanquake has joined
 788 2012-07-18 09:50:12 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 789 2012-07-18 09:50:49 ZephyrVoid has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.8)
 790 2012-07-18 09:51:28 Raziel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 791 2012-07-18 09:53:08 Raziel_ has joined
 792 2012-07-18 09:53:23 <epscy> yeah, it makes sense
 793 2012-07-18 09:53:49 <epscy> the whole point is that on the network, you can't tell if two addresses belong to the same wallet
 794 2012-07-18 09:54:58 RazielZ has joined
 795 2012-07-18 09:55:58 <OneEyed> Armory is trying to include the same input twice in a transaction!
 796 2012-07-18 09:56:36 darkskiez has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 797 2012-07-18 09:56:36 darsk1ez has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 798 2012-07-18 09:56:40 Raziel__ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 799 2012-07-18 09:56:44 <OneEyed> I now understand why bitcoind keeps rejecting the TX :)
 800 2012-07-18 09:58:16 Raziel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 801 2012-07-18 09:59:45 Raziel_ has joined
 802 2012-07-18 10:00:45 Raziel__ has joined
 803 2012-07-18 10:03:46 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 804 2012-07-18 10:04:34 Raziel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 805 2012-07-18 10:04:57 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 806 2012-07-18 10:06:22 Raziel_ has joined
 807 2012-07-18 10:08:45 darkskiez has joined
 808 2012-07-18 10:08:51 darsk1ez has joined
 809 2012-07-18 10:10:10 Raziel__ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 810 2012-07-18 10:11:02 Turingi has joined
 811 2012-07-18 10:11:50 sytse has joined
 812 2012-07-18 10:13:22 Raziel__ has joined
 813 2012-07-18 10:13:28 Z0rZ0rZ0r has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 814 2012-07-18 10:14:28 LuaKT has joined
 815 2012-07-18 10:15:14 RazielZ has joined
 816 2012-07-18 10:16:58 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 817 2012-07-18 10:17:07 Raziel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 818 2012-07-18 10:18:20 Raziel__ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 819 2012-07-18 10:22:46 Fnar has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 820 2012-07-18 10:25:40 Fnar has joined
 821 2012-07-18 10:25:46 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 822 2012-07-18 10:27:01 Raziel_ has joined
 823 2012-07-18 10:30:33 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 824 2012-07-18 10:34:13 Raziel__ has joined
 825 2012-07-18 10:34:31 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 826 2012-07-18 10:36:21 RazielZ has joined
 827 2012-07-18 10:37:24 TimothyA has joined
 828 2012-07-18 10:37:37 Raziel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 829 2012-07-18 10:39:07 Raziel__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 830 2012-07-18 10:41:12 Raziel_ has joined
 831 2012-07-18 10:42:14 Raziel__ has joined
 832 2012-07-18 10:42:22 hnz has joined
 833 2012-07-18 10:45:28 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 834 2012-07-18 10:46:00 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 835 2012-07-18 10:46:39 Raziel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 836 2012-07-18 10:48:30 Raziel_ has joined
 837 2012-07-18 10:50:41 RazielZ has joined
 838 2012-07-18 10:52:14 Raziel__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 839 2012-07-18 10:53:29 Raziel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 840 2012-07-18 10:54:13 MobiusL has joined
 841 2012-07-18 10:55:40 Raziel_ has joined
 842 2012-07-18 10:56:41 Raziel__ has joined
 843 2012-07-18 11:00:18 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 844 2012-07-18 11:00:21 Raziel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 845 2012-07-18 11:00:36 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 846 2012-07-18 11:00:53 leotreasure has joined
 847 2012-07-18 11:03:30 Raziel_ has joined
 848 2012-07-18 11:05:09 RazielZ has joined
 849 2012-07-18 11:05:50 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 850 2012-07-18 11:06:33 Raziel__ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 851 2012-07-18 11:07:54 Raziel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 852 2012-07-18 11:09:58 Raziel_ has joined
 853 2012-07-18 11:13:41 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 854 2012-07-18 11:16:31 davout has joined
 855 2012-07-18 11:16:32 davout has quit (Changing host)
 856 2012-07-18 11:16:32 davout has joined
 857 2012-07-18 11:17:01 p0s has joined
 858 2012-07-18 11:17:07 Raziel__ has joined
 859 2012-07-18 11:18:56 RazielZ has joined
 860 2012-07-18 11:20:46 Raziel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 861 2012-07-18 11:21:52 Raziel__ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 862 2012-07-18 11:22:06 Icoin has quit (Quit: Icoin)
 863 2012-07-18 11:22:21 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 864 2012-07-18 11:23:35 MobiusL has joined
 865 2012-07-18 11:24:41 Raziel_ has joined
 866 2012-07-18 11:25:41 Raziel__ has joined
 867 2012-07-18 11:28:49 CodesInChaos has joined
 868 2012-07-18 11:28:54 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 869 2012-07-18 11:29:37 Raziel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 870 2012-07-18 11:32:19 Raziel_ has joined
 871 2012-07-18 11:33:33 B0g4r7__ has joined
 872 2012-07-18 11:36:02 Raziel__ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 873 2012-07-18 11:36:03 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 874 2012-07-18 11:36:03 B0g4r7__ is now known as B0g4r7
 875 2012-07-18 11:38:03 Raziel__ has joined
 876 2012-07-18 11:39:55 RazielZ has joined
 877 2012-07-18 11:39:57 TimothyA has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 878 2012-07-18 11:41:37 Raziel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 879 2012-07-18 11:42:53 CodeInChaos has joined
 880 2012-07-18 11:43:08 Raziel__ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 881 2012-07-18 11:45:08 Raziel_ has joined
 882 2012-07-18 11:47:08 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 883 2012-07-18 11:49:12 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 884 2012-07-18 11:49:22 CodeInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 885 2012-07-18 11:50:03 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 886 2012-07-18 11:50:34 Raziel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 887 2012-07-18 12:00:40 CodesInChaos has joined
 888 2012-07-18 12:02:10 RazielZ has joined
 889 2012-07-18 12:10:17 one_zero has quit ()
 890 2012-07-18 12:11:40 agricocb has joined
 891 2012-07-18 12:14:00 t7 has joined
 892 2012-07-18 12:15:08 Joric has joined
 893 2012-07-18 12:15:09 Joric has quit (Changing host)
 894 2012-07-18 12:15:09 Joric has joined
 895 2012-07-18 12:21:19 Gnaffel has joined
 896 2012-07-18 12:22:25 rdponticelli has joined
 897 2012-07-18 12:25:45 Gnaffel has quit (Client Quit)
 898 2012-07-18 12:26:03 Gnaffel has joined
 899 2012-07-18 12:27:10 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 900 2012-07-18 12:28:29 Diapolo has joined
 901 2012-07-18 12:28:37 Diapolo has left ()
 902 2012-07-18 12:38:54 t7 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 903 2012-07-18 12:40:25 sgornick has joined
 904 2012-07-18 12:46:04 Turingi has joined
 905 2012-07-18 12:53:38 <OneEyed> Patch submitted against armory code, hopefully more transactions will go out now
 906 2012-07-18 13:03:05 <OneEyed> I have a transaction that appears on blockchain.info but has not been included in a block for almost 1.5 hours. Any way to resubmit it? http://blockchain.info/tx-index/12562190/d327b10a319a3c8c9f203b24308fca7d574892c6fa6a9f4ca0c44a99d15b122d
 907 2012-07-18 13:03:18 <OneEyed> (I have it in armory, so I can get its raw data)
 908 2012-07-18 13:05:49 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 909 2012-07-18 13:12:37 <OneEyed> Oh, need to get bitcoind from git, to get the sendrawtransaction call in
 910 2012-07-18 13:13:00 sytse has joined
 911 2012-07-18 13:27:20 RainbowDashh has joined
 912 2012-07-18 13:27:27 RainbowDashh has quit (Disconnected by services)
 913 2012-07-18 13:27:28 Rabbit67890 has joined
 914 2012-07-18 13:27:59 RainbowDashh has joined
 915 2012-07-18 13:28:17 bitllc has joined
 916 2012-07-18 13:29:07 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 917 2012-07-18 13:29:59 Z0rZ0rZ0r has joined
 918 2012-07-18 13:31:50 Rabbit67890 has quit (Client Quit)
 919 2012-07-18 13:32:43 <OneEyed> Yeah, reinjection with sendrawtransaction worked
 920 2012-07-18 13:35:00 minimoose has joined
 921 2012-07-18 13:38:48 TimothyA has joined
 922 2012-07-18 13:52:08 maaku has joined
 923 2012-07-18 13:59:36 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 924 2012-07-18 13:59:59 drizztbsd has joined
 925 2012-07-18 14:01:08 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 926 2012-07-18 14:08:32 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
 927 2012-07-18 14:09:19 osxorgate has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 928 2012-07-18 14:10:15 Raziel_ has joined
 929 2012-07-18 14:10:23 sgornick has joined
 930 2012-07-18 14:11:45 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 931 2012-07-18 14:13:30 justmoon has joined
 932 2012-07-18 14:14:05 egecko has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
 933 2012-07-18 14:23:15 Raziel_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 934 2012-07-18 14:23:31 RazielZ has joined
 935 2012-07-18 14:24:24 datagutt_ is now known as datagutt
 936 2012-07-18 14:24:28 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: fanquake opened pull request 1609 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1609>
 937 2012-07-18 14:32:59 copumpkin has joined
 938 2012-07-18 14:40:36 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 939 2012-07-18 14:47:54 <justmoon> TD: here?
 940 2012-07-18 14:48:32 <TD> yep
 941 2012-07-18 14:48:41 <justmoon> I finished cross compiling leveldb
 942 2012-07-18 14:48:47 <justmoon> gonna try link it to your branch now
 943 2012-07-18 14:50:55 <TD> awesome
 944 2012-07-18 14:51:57 <jgarzik> TD: did you (or anyone you're aware of) ever do any work on a side chain that could carry data?
 945 2012-07-18 14:52:14 <jgarzik> TD: I'm thinking a chain with bitcoin's strength, but separate so that data doesn't crap up the main chain
 946 2012-07-18 14:52:53 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Laptop lid has been shut. D: +PinkiePiee: Game lasted 22374945:16. 00: was day. 22374945:16 was night.)
 947 2012-07-18 14:54:37 <gmaxwell> kinlo: have you imported any keys?
 948 2012-07-18 14:54:55 <kinlo> gmaxwell: no
 949 2012-07-18 14:55:48 <kinlo> gmaxwell: I just don't get the use of the function, I know very well what's in the wallet, and the balances it shows are spent, so this is some kind of error
 950 2012-07-18 14:55:57 <kinlo> the wallet is still 0.6.2 tough, haven't upgraded yet
 951 2012-07-18 14:56:48 <helo> jgarzik: what would be the incentive (reward) to merge mine the data chain?
 952 2012-07-18 14:57:15 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 953 2012-07-18 14:58:20 <gmaxwell> kinlo: I believe there is a bug there but haven't been able to reproduce it— I was wildly speculating it was related to imported keys where there were txn with not all of the inputs were imported or something like that.
 954 2012-07-18 14:58:40 <gmaxwell> helo: to deflect crazy bulk storage stuff from bitcoin.
 955 2012-07-18 14:58:58 <kinlo> gmaxwell: well, can't give you a copy of the wallet - it's kinda a hot wallet, but if you want me to investigate something for you, feel free to ask
 956 2012-07-18 14:59:34 <gmaxwell> kinlo: can you at least make a backup of it now... so that when someone comes up with something to test we have a victim?
 957 2012-07-18 14:59:52 <kinlo> gmaxwell: I will do so right now
 958 2012-07-18 15:00:21 <helo> gmaxwell: self-interested long term thinking seems pretty scarce... my guess is motivate via greed or gtfo :/
 959 2012-07-18 15:01:25 <kinlo> gmaxwell: kinda scary, very important wallet for me
 960 2012-07-18 15:01:55 <TD> jgarzik: you mean like https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alternative_Chains ?
 961 2012-07-18 15:02:16 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: less blueskys would be just notary service, e.g. see also https://github.com/goblin/chronobit
 962 2012-07-18 15:06:24 <helo> a business could maintain a data chain, and pay miners to include its hashes into their blocks?
 963 2012-07-18 15:06:43 <gmaxwell> helo: but why?
 964 2012-07-18 15:07:20 <gmaxwell> a lot of the demand has jack-squat to do with 'hashes in blocks' — at lot of requests are basically for an anonymous IM network with the same coverage as bitcoin.
 965 2012-07-18 15:08:29 <helo> to widely distribute some data (and a proof of its contents) around the internet?
 966 2012-07-18 15:09:24 <helo> i dunno... i was just trying to think of what would motivate miners to effectively merge mine something that doesn't pay an associated digital currency
 967 2012-07-18 15:09:55 zooko has joined
 968 2012-07-18 15:10:24 <helo> like a data chain
 969 2012-07-18 15:10:51 <sturles> helo: Let each block have a token which can be returned to the business in exchange for bitcoins?
 970 2012-07-18 15:11:26 <sturles> helo: Or traded, of course.  The business can pay a guaranteed amount.
 971 2012-07-18 15:12:37 <helo> i was thinking the business would send bitcoin to the address receiving the bitcoin block reward if the miner included their data chain's hash
 972 2012-07-18 15:13:15 <justmoon> TD: it's running - on windows, no training wheels, downloading the chain - and quick! :D
 973 2012-07-18 15:13:44 <helo> i don't understand how the solving miner could have exclusive access to such a token given that they publish the block's contents
 974 2012-07-18 15:15:32 <gmaxwell> helo: "data (and a proof of its contents)" are entirely different things. We can timestamp unlimited data at zero cost.
 975 2012-07-18 15:20:21 <helo> ahh right... timestamping is cheap.
 976 2012-07-18 15:20:54 <helo> so... does a "data" chain really make sense?
 977 2012-07-18 15:21:44 <helo> transaction data forms a tree from inputs to outputs, that keeps growing down into latter blocks
 978 2012-07-18 15:23:45 <kinlo> gmaxwell: is the data that listreceivedbyaddress returns used to construct new transactions?
 979 2012-07-18 15:23:57 <kinlo> gmaxwell: ie: can I be certain that my wallet is still useable?
 980 2012-07-18 15:25:01 RainbowDashh has joined
 981 2012-07-18 15:25:01 <gmaxwell> kinlo: I don't think there is a _particular_ reason to be concerned there. The balances aren't used to construct the transactions, just the inputs themselves.
 982 2012-07-18 15:25:19 <gmaxwell> helo: I think that what would be more useful is a generic mechenism for POW-payment.
 983 2012-07-18 15:25:56 <kinlo> but isn't receivedbyaddress the one that bypasses the balance management?
 984 2012-07-18 15:26:14 <kinlo> gmaxwell: also note this wallet has a lot of generation tx'es in it, fwiw
 985 2012-07-18 15:27:36 <gmaxwell> helo: for example, I should be able to connect to a full node and say  "My address is 1Beef, give me difficulty .125 work" and it should respond with sign("1beef, here is your .125 getwork--1fullnode")   Then 1fullnode should offer to exchange large numbers of these signed tokens for real bitcoin later.
 986 2012-07-18 15:28:23 <gmaxwell> helo: so I could run my website, storage network, whatever.. and use bitcoin-POW for anti-spam/anti-flooding.. and then later redeem a pile of these low value cupons for bitcoins. (or not, if I don't care)
 987 2012-07-18 15:29:25 <gmaxwell> kinlo: it just doesn't appear to me to account for generated txn at all.
 988 2012-07-18 15:31:11 <kinlo> gmaxwell: listreceivedbyaccount is incorrect too btw
 989 2012-07-18 15:32:30 zooko has quit (Quit: try new improved linux kernel with CONFIG_SMP=n)
 990 2012-07-18 15:32:31 <gmaxwell> yea, I would have told you that one, the generated txn don't show up under accounts.
 991 2012-07-18 15:32:32 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 992 2012-07-18 15:34:51 <kinlo> I don't really use the accounts feature, I just use getinfo to see what's on the wallet, and I use my own database to store the rest
 993 2012-07-18 15:35:08 t7 has joined
 994 2012-07-18 15:35:28 <helo> gmaxwell: nice idea :)
 995 2012-07-18 15:38:25 maaku has joined
 996 2012-07-18 15:40:15 Icoin has joined
 997 2012-07-18 15:40:36 osxorgate has joined
 998 2012-07-18 15:41:37 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 999 2012-07-18 15:43:47 btc123 has joined
1000 2012-07-18 15:44:16 <btc123> how much would it cost in fees to spam the blockchain with a 1MB transaction?
1001 2012-07-18 15:45:37 Diablo-D3 has joined
1002 2012-07-18 15:45:37 <jgarzik> btc123: given that 1MB is the maximum sized block, a million dollars in computer hardware probably
1003 2012-07-18 15:46:24 <btc123> jgarzik,  im talking about just sending a bunch of 1 satoshi transactions over and over
1004 2012-07-18 15:46:32 <btc123> thousands of them
1005 2012-07-18 15:46:58 <btc123> or millions
1006 2012-07-18 15:47:03 <OneEyed> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees
1007 2012-07-18 15:47:05 <jgarzik> btc123: you said "a 1MB transaction", singular.  Do you now mean many transactions?
1008 2012-07-18 15:47:26 <btc123> either or, whatever makes the next block 1MB
1009 2012-07-18 15:47:36 rdponticelli has joined
1010 2012-07-18 15:48:07 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1011 2012-07-18 15:48:14 <btc123> A transaction can be sent without fees if both of these conditions are met: It is smaller than 10 (SI) kilobytes (10.000 bytes). All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
1012 2012-07-18 15:48:31 <OneEyed> 10000 satoshis minimum per transaction if you want a 1 satoshi only transaction to be relayed, not a very good deal
1013 2012-07-18 15:48:35 <btc123> what stops me from doing 1 million of these if i have a lot of bitcoins?
1014 2012-07-18 15:48:47 <btc123> ok so 0.01 BTC then
1015 2012-07-18 15:49:57 d34th has joined
1016 2012-07-18 15:49:57 d34th has quit (Changing host)
1017 2012-07-18 15:49:57 d34th has joined
1018 2012-07-18 15:50:14 <btc123> brb
1019 2012-07-18 15:50:29 maaku has joined
1020 2012-07-18 15:51:36 justmoon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1021 2012-07-18 15:52:17 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1022 2012-07-18 15:53:15 OneFixt has joined
1023 2012-07-18 15:53:30 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1024 2012-07-18 15:59:09 phantomcircuit has joined
1025 2012-07-18 16:01:18 t7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1026 2012-07-18 16:06:50 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1027 2012-07-18 16:08:44 Fanquake has quit (Quit: Fanquake)
1028 2012-07-18 16:10:04 <btc123> so, any answer?
1029 2012-07-18 16:10:39 <btc123> "A transaction can be sent without fees if both of these conditions are met: It is smaller than 10 (SI) kilobytes (10.000 bytes). All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger."
1030 2012-07-18 16:10:40 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: fanquake opened pull request 1610 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1610>
1031 2012-07-18 16:11:18 <btc123> how many 0.01BTC transfers can fit in 10kB?
1032 2012-07-18 16:12:41 sytse has joined
1033 2012-07-18 16:13:11 leotreasure has quit (Quit: leotreasure)
1034 2012-07-18 16:13:45 <OneEyed> btc123: around 45 according to armory rough estimations
1035 2012-07-18 16:13:52 <btc123> looks like 250 bytes for a basic transaction... so thats 40  0.01 BTC transfers for 10kB.... so 0.4 BTC
1036 2012-07-18 16:14:06 <OneEyed> Assuming you start with 0.01 inputs as well, and need no change
1037 2012-07-18 16:14:59 <btc123> ok... so i can send a 10kB transfers all day long that add up to 0.4BTC  for no fees? seems like the blockchain can be DoS'd pretty easily
1038 2012-07-18 16:15:36 <btc123> yes, i'd need a bunch of 0.1 inputs and outputs..
1039 2012-07-18 16:16:12 <nanotube> btc123: it also depneds on input age. see ,,(bc,wiki transaction fees) for fee structure.
1040 2012-07-18 16:16:12 <gribble> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees | Jun 10, 2012 ... Transaction fees may be included with any transfer of bitcoins from one address to another. At the moment, many transactions are typically ...
1041 2012-07-18 16:16:27 <OneEyed> btc123: don't forget that miners do not have to include every transactions, especially ones without fees
1042 2012-07-18 16:17:20 <OneEyed> But indeed, that might DoS other free transactions
1043 2012-07-18 16:18:30 abracadabopoulos has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1044 2012-07-18 16:18:37 Marf has joined
1045 2012-07-18 16:19:48 <btc123> ok... well what if i send 1 BTC to 1000 addresses?  is that only 0.0005 BTC fee?
1046 2012-07-18 16:20:00 <OneEyed> No, transaction size
1047 2012-07-18 16:20:59 <btc123> unless its under 10kB?
1048 2012-07-18 16:21:18 <btc123> so every 10kB would cost me 0.0005?
1049 2012-07-18 16:21:28 <OneEyed> And it will be approximately 180kB
1050 2012-07-18 16:21:43 zooko has joined
1051 2012-07-18 16:22:20 gavinandresen has joined
1052 2012-07-18 16:22:46 <OneEyed> That is 1.8 BTC in fees alone
1053 2012-07-18 16:22:53 <btc123> by my math... 1MB / 10kB = 100... 100*0.0005 = 0.05BTC for 1MB worth of transactions
1054 2012-07-18 16:23:15 <OneEyed> Where did you see that it was 0.0005 per kilobyte?
1055 2012-07-18 16:23:29 <btc123> A transaction can be sent without fees if both of these conditions are met: It is smaller than 10 (SI) kilobytes (10.000 bytes). All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
1056 2012-07-18 16:23:45 <btc123> this is right on the wiki
1057 2012-07-18 16:24:21 justmoon has joined
1058 2012-07-18 16:24:21 zooko has left ()
1059 2012-07-18 16:24:22 <OneEyed> You wrote "what if i send 1 BTC to 1000 addresses?"
1060 2012-07-18 16:24:48 <OneEyed> So one transaction sending 1 BTC to 1000 addresses (0.001 each) will have a 1.8 BTC fee
1061 2012-07-18 16:24:57 <btc123> ok. let me rephrase.  what if i have a transaction that is 10kB and all outputs are 0.01BTC or larger
1062 2012-07-18 16:25:14 rdponticelli has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1063 2012-07-18 16:26:24 <OneEyed> You know what? I just realized I'm not interested in this conversation, so I'll pass :)
1064 2012-07-18 16:26:26 rdponticelli has joined
1065 2012-07-18 16:26:48 <btc123> so, basically, its possible to spam the blockchain with that criteria?
1066 2012-07-18 16:27:01 <btc123> or either the wiki is wrong
1067 2012-07-18 16:27:07 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1068 2012-07-18 16:27:08 <btc123> which is it?
1069 2012-07-18 16:27:59 <btc123> you're just saying it might not be included in the block right?
1070 2012-07-18 16:28:44 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1071 2012-07-18 16:29:18 <btc123> but, don't these pending transactions also take up space on the network?  or do nodes discard them after a while?
1072 2012-07-18 16:31:59 RainbowDashh has joined
1073 2012-07-18 16:32:10 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1074 2012-07-18 16:32:27 <btc123> what if i make 10GB of zero fee transactions using a modified client?   how long will other nodes pass that data around?
1075 2012-07-18 16:34:45 <jgarzik> btc123: the transactions won't get relayed or mined after the first few, due to anti-spam rules
1076 2012-07-18 16:38:47 d34th has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1077 2012-07-18 16:39:16 CluckCreek has joined
1078 2012-07-18 16:41:26 <btc123> this block is 250kB, and 0.33BTC in fees.... around 7000BTC in outputs...... if i have enough bitcoins, i can replicate the transactions in this block all day and only pay 0.33 right?
1079 2012-07-18 16:41:47 <btc123> http://blockchain.info/block-height/189664
1080 2012-07-18 16:41:58 d34th has joined
1081 2012-07-18 16:41:59 d34th has quit (Changing host)
1082 2012-07-18 16:41:59 d34th has joined
1083 2012-07-18 16:42:50 <helo> btc123: coin that hasn't been moved for a long time doesn't need very high fees. so after you moved it once, it would all be new, and would require higher fees
1084 2012-07-18 16:43:06 <btc123> thats around 72MB a day, still not much
1085 2012-07-18 16:43:22 <btc123> actaully it is alot... 1GB in 2 weeks
1086 2012-07-18 16:44:00 <gavinandresen> spam is limited by the limited amount of two resources:  "old" inputs, and bitcoins.
1087 2012-07-18 16:44:17 <btc123> helo, right.... so if i have say, 100,000BTC... i'd have enough 'old' coins to not worry about that
1088 2012-07-18 16:44:34 <btc123> i guess the question is then... whats the minimum wallet size you need for the attack
1089 2012-07-18 16:45:00 <gavinandresen> If you have 100,000 BTC in 100,000 different inputs you could spam 100,000 1 BTC transactions... but how would you get those in the first place?
1090 2012-07-18 16:45:51 <btc123> $1 million on mtgox? ;)
1091 2012-07-18 16:46:11 <lianj> sure, please go ahead
1092 2012-07-18 16:46:12 <gavinandresen> The default rules are at most 27K worth of free transactions per block
1093 2012-07-18 16:46:51 <gavinandresen> ... which is about 100 free transactions per block.  So 100,000 of them would take 1,000 blocks (about a week) to get into the chain.
1094 2012-07-18 16:46:55 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1095 2012-07-18 16:47:20 <gavinandresen> You're going to make 100,000 1-btc withdrawals from mt gox?  That'll take a while....
1096 2012-07-18 16:47:27 <btc123> gavinandresen:  0.0005 fees aren't a problem
1097 2012-07-18 16:47:46 <gavinandresen> btc123: what's your point?  Fees are too low?
1098 2012-07-18 16:48:52 <gavinandresen> In any case, fixing fees is high on the priority list; see https://gist.github.com/2961409
1099 2012-07-18 16:49:00 <btc123> not at all, just a thought experiment.... im interested in calculating the minimum amount someone would theorietically have to pay to grow the chain by 1GB in a week or two
1100 2012-07-18 16:49:15 osxorgate has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1101 2012-07-18 16:49:23 <btc123> assuming he had a LOT of BTC
1102 2012-07-18 16:49:43 <btc123> and could replicate blocks like 189664... which was 0.33BTC for 250kB
1103 2012-07-18 16:49:53 <gavinandresen> You can't assume miners won't react; many of the big pools have already changed their fee policies in reaction to SatoshiDice transactions
1104 2012-07-18 16:49:58 <drizztbsd> btc123: you can send many btc to satoshidice :P
1105 2012-07-18 16:52:14 <OneEyed> Even non-spammy transactions can take a long time, such as my 108 minutes 50 BTC transaction today: http://blockchain.info/tx-index/12562190/d327b10a319a3c8c9f203b24308fca7d574892c6fa6a9f4ca0c44a99d15b122d
1106 2012-07-18 16:52:51 hnz has joined
1107 2012-07-18 16:53:03 <CluckCreek> What's the correct format for addmultisigaddress? I keep getting type mismatch.
1108 2012-07-18 16:53:28 <gavinandresen> CluckCreek: unix/mac  ?  or windows?
1109 2012-07-18 16:53:42 <CluckCreek> windows
1110 2012-07-18 16:53:46 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1111 2012-07-18 16:53:59 <gavinandresen> no idea, I don't know what the windows quoting rules are
1112 2012-07-18 16:54:02 B0g4r7__ has joined
1113 2012-07-18 16:54:28 <btc123> sure, but just a fun exercise... according to my math it seems like it would be around 50BTC per day to make every block over 250kB and grow the chain 1GB in a month...
1114 2012-07-18 16:54:33 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1115 2012-07-18 16:54:34 B0g4r7__ is now known as B0g4r7
1116 2012-07-18 16:54:58 <sturles> One pool (the usual suspect) sabotages by only including 32 transactions per block.  If that pool finds the next block, then your transaction has to wait for the next to be confirmed.  If there is not enough space, it has to wait for longer.  Etc.
1117 2012-07-18 16:55:22 <gavinandresen> CluckCreek: you have to get ["key","key"] to bitcoind un-scathed.  Linux/mac you do that by enclosing it in single quotes, don't know on windows....
1118 2012-07-18 16:55:40 <btc123> sturles: why wouldn't someone finding a block include as many transactions as possible? is it computationally expensive?
1119 2012-07-18 16:55:47 <OneEyed> sturles: what's the point in doing this for Eligius?
1120 2012-07-18 16:56:04 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1121 2012-07-18 16:56:12 <sturles> Because luke-jr thinks his block propagate faster if they are small, or something.
1122 2012-07-18 16:56:40 <luke-jr> sturles: don't spread FUD please
1123 2012-07-18 16:56:46 <btc123> ahh.. i guess that makes sense
1124 2012-07-18 16:57:06 <sturles> luke-jr: What is fud now?
1125 2012-07-18 16:57:08 <btc123> a 50kb block will move through nodes faster then a 500kb block
1126 2012-07-18 16:57:16 <epscy> btc123: miners have to store the blocks as well
1127 2012-07-18 16:57:20 <luke-jr> btc123: yeah, there's an annoying flaw in the way Bitcoin propagates blocks right now; I'm working on trying to fix that, but in the meantime, we can't afford the orphans
1128 2012-07-18 16:57:33 <epscy> so don't want the block chain growing at a huge rate
1129 2012-07-18 16:57:33 <luke-jr> sturles: claiming it's sabotage
1130 2012-07-18 16:57:53 <sturles> Other pools manges with more transactions and still very few orphans.
1131 2012-07-18 16:57:56 <btc123> sounds fair to me.... i'd make blocks small as possible if i was mining... no incentive to do otherwise..
1132 2012-07-18 16:58:34 <sturles> luke-jr: If everyone kept their blocks to max 32 transactions, transactions would simply not go through.  It would be an effective DOS against Bitcoin.
1133 2012-07-18 16:58:44 <OneEyed> But is the speed of propagation of any importance? I thought the total chain difficulty was looked at
1134 2012-07-18 16:58:51 <luke-jr> OneEyed: yes
1135 2012-07-18 16:59:05 <luke-jr> OneEyed: the longer it takes to propagate, the more likely it's orphaned
1136 2012-07-18 16:59:09 <btc123> OneEyed: if two people find a block within 5 seconds of eachother, the smaller one will win and the bigger one will be ophaned...
1137 2012-07-18 16:59:12 <gavinandresen> btc123: and then you'd cry when you wanted to actually, you know, spend those bitcoins you mined and they take forever to confirm because everybody is mining 0-transaction blocks?
1138 2012-07-18 16:59:14 <btc123> that happens often
1139 2012-07-18 16:59:44 abracadabra has joined
1140 2012-07-18 17:00:26 maaku has joined
1141 2012-07-18 17:00:36 <sturles> I can't see that pattern in the list of orphaned blocks.  No obvious relationship between size and orphan-ness.
1142 2012-07-18 17:00:57 <OneEyed> That's what I was looking at too. I see no pattern either
1143 2012-07-18 17:01:02 Marf has joined
1144 2012-07-18 17:01:06 <btc123> gavinandresen: thats right... it wouldn't be good for the network as a whole... but the reality is that in the free market, a 50BTC reward is more important to miners then network stability because they assume that 'someone else will do it'
1145 2012-07-18 17:01:20 <OneEyed> Look at 189189, where two blocks were orphaned; the largest one of three won for example
1146 2012-07-18 17:01:21 TimothyA has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1147 2012-07-18 17:01:30 <gavinandresen> btc123: if we start to see more few-transaction blocks then I'll be pushing a patch so clients refuse to relay blocks that don't have 'enough' memory-pool transactions in them.
1148 2012-07-18 17:01:40 <gavinandresen> ^more^too many
1149 2012-07-18 17:01:45 * sturles agrees
1150 2012-07-18 17:02:04 B0g4r7__ has joined
1151 2012-07-18 17:02:38 <luke-jr> too bad some people are more interested in spreading FUD and making threats, than trying to actually fix the problem forcing miners to do it
1152 2012-07-18 17:02:46 <midnightmagic> isn't it just market forces at work?
1153 2012-07-18 17:02:49 B0g4r7__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1154 2012-07-18 17:03:02 B0g4r7__ has joined
1155 2012-07-18 17:03:10 <midnightmagic> if it turns out transactions are so expensive, then miners aren't incentivized to mine transactions at current fee schedules.
1156 2012-07-18 17:03:15 <OneEyed> luke-jr: but what is the problem? Do you have any evidence that larger blocks are losing more often than not due to the size of the blocks?
1157 2012-07-18 17:03:18 <sturles> luke-jr: I don't think anyone else have this problem.
1158 2012-07-18 17:03:20 <btc123> OneEyed: interesting example.... im assuming luke-jr has done the analysis and determined smaller blocks don't get orphaned.... otherwise why wouldn't he want to include more transactions?
1159 2012-07-18 17:03:28 <luke-jr> OneEyed: yes; look at the long-term statistics
1160 2012-07-18 17:03:28 <sturles> luke-jr: It is specific to your pool.
1161 2012-07-18 17:03:29 <btc123> *more often the larger ones
1162 2012-07-18 17:03:44 <luke-jr> OneEyed: Eligius also had 6 orphans almost in a row because our blocks were too big
1163 2012-07-18 17:03:54 <midnightmagic> coding around that should be offering the users a more convenient way to both recognise that they aren't paying enough of a fee to entice miners to include their txn, and to pay that fee.
1164 2012-07-18 17:03:55 RainbowD_ has joined
1165 2012-07-18 17:04:04 TimothyA has joined
1166 2012-07-18 17:04:09 <sturles> luke-jr: How do you know it was due to their size?
1167 2012-07-18 17:04:13 <midnightmagic> if eligius sees a 1BTC txn fee, then.. why not?
1168 2012-07-18 17:04:21 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1169 2012-07-18 17:04:21 RainbowD_ is now known as RainbowDashh
1170 2012-07-18 17:04:50 <midnightmagic> punishment is the opposite of incentivize :)
1171 2012-07-18 17:04:57 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1172 2012-07-18 17:04:58 B0g4r7__ is now known as B0g4r7
1173 2012-07-18 17:05:08 <btc123> midnightmagic: 1BTC isn't enough to risk losing 50BTC
1174 2012-07-18 17:05:35 <OneEyed> btc123: non-sense, if your risk of losing 50 BTC is smaller than 2%, then it is enough
1175 2012-07-18 17:05:36 <midnightmagic> btc123: It depends on whether you're already excluding most of everything else. Also, 1BTC for 1 txn isn't what's going to happen. It'll be 20BTC for 20 txn.
1176 2012-07-18 17:05:42 bitllc has joined
1177 2012-07-18 17:05:49 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1178 2012-07-18 17:06:05 <midnightmagic> and miners' eyes will pop and that douchebag who mines empty blocks will lose out
1179 2012-07-18 17:06:20 <midnightmagic> and whoever you are, you are a douchebag, but at least you're confirming older blocks.
1180 2012-07-18 17:06:37 optimo has joined
1181 2012-07-18 17:06:40 <luke-jr> btc123: 1 BTC is enoguh to risk a tiny chance of losing 50 BTC
1182 2012-07-18 17:07:13 <luke-jr> I don't see any significant risk to including 32 transactions
1183 2012-07-18 17:07:14 <btc123> ok, so as OneEyed said... the chance is less then 2% to get ophaned?
1184 2012-07-18 17:07:38 <midnightmagic> btc123: There's no way to calculate it to that level of accuracy.
1185 2012-07-18 17:07:49 <midnightmagic> .. currently. maybe amiller could.
1186 2012-07-18 17:07:52 <luke-jr> btc123: I'd say it gets to 2% around maybe 128-256 transactions, but as midnightmagic said, there's no good way to calculate it
1187 2012-07-18 17:08:45 <OneEyed> Around 1.4% of the blocks have been orphaned recently
1188 2012-07-18 17:08:53 <btc123> is there no way to reliably timestamp blocks so the first one just wins ?
1189 2012-07-18 17:08:55 bitllc has joined
1190 2012-07-18 17:09:04 <OneEyed> btc123: take a "distributed systems 101" class :)
1191 2012-07-18 17:09:13 <midnightmagic> btc123: that would open it up to timestamp futzing.
1192 2012-07-18 17:09:15 <luke-jr> btc123: I have a patch (needs testing!) to relay blocks before checking the transactions in them; that helps a little
1193 2012-07-18 17:09:23 <midnightmagic> btc123: Or rather, that would 'incentivize' timestamp futzing.
1194 2012-07-18 17:09:40 <midnightmagic> luke-jr: Is that in next-test? :-D
1195 2012-07-18 17:09:41 <luke-jr> it would be nice to start the relay before the download has finished too
1196 2012-07-18 17:09:48 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: no, it needs more testing first :P
1197 2012-07-18 17:09:58 <midnightmagic> but that's what next-test is for!
1198 2012-07-18 17:10:00 <luke-jr> as in, more than 1 or 2 nodes confirming it works
1199 2012-07-18 17:10:04 <luke-jr> maybe
1200 2012-07-18 17:10:20 <midnightmagic> lol if we put up with daily crashes, I'm sure we can put up with pre-relay patches.
1201 2012-07-18 17:12:46 <btc123> luke-jr: why don't you just run a few hundred nodes in different countries?? push your block to those first and you'll be almost guaranteed to win
1202 2012-07-18 17:12:47 dvide has quit ()
1203 2012-07-18 17:13:04 <luke-jr> btc123: it doesn't work that way :p
1204 2012-07-18 17:13:23 <luke-jr> I already have a relay that connects to every node it can
1205 2012-07-18 17:13:29 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Laptop lid has been shut. D: +PinkiePiee: Game lasted 22374945:16. 00: was day. 22374945:16 was night.)
1206 2012-07-18 17:14:23 <btc123> how many nodes? over 50%?
1207 2012-07-18 17:16:08 <luke-jr> btc123:     "connections" : 679,
1208 2012-07-18 17:16:19 gasteve has joined
1209 2012-07-18 17:16:19 gasteve has quit (Changing host)
1210 2012-07-18 17:16:19 gasteve has joined
1211 2012-07-18 17:16:37 <sturles> luke-jr: Perhaps that is your problem?  It takes to long time to get the new block out to that many nodes simultaneously?
1212 2012-07-18 17:16:38 <OneEyed> luke-jr: is it interesting to connect to anyone but to other miners?
1213 2012-07-18 17:16:56 <OneEyed> I would have thought that what's important for you is that they start building upon your block to confirm it
1214 2012-07-18 17:17:07 <sturles> luke-jr: Tried to just connect to a few, and let the competing pools do the distribution?
1215 2012-07-18 17:17:07 guruvan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1216 2012-07-18 17:17:10 guruvan_ is now known as guruvan
1217 2012-07-18 17:17:17 <luke-jr> OneEyed: the core peers directly to the major pools
1218 2012-07-18 17:17:34 guruvan_ has joined
1219 2012-07-18 17:17:58 <OneEyed> luke-jr: so what are the others useful for? Getting as many transactions as possible? :-)
1220 2012-07-18 17:18:19 <btc123> hah
1221 2012-07-18 17:18:31 <luke-jr> OneEyed: more or less :P
1222 2012-07-18 17:18:57 <luke-jr> before I had to add the 32-txn cap, Eligius was confirming more transactions than any other pool on average
1223 2012-07-18 17:19:35 <d34th> so luke-jr: i used coblee's advice to get gitian working but the voodoo failed and i accidentally summoned ice giants but they seem to know what they are doing
1224 2012-07-18 17:19:46 <luke-jr> O.o
1225 2012-07-18 17:19:49 <amiller> i'm frustrated, i have a nice way of showing that a 51% can have a very low chance of success with any attack, but it's assuming that you pick your tolerance like 51% or 54% or 70% and then set e.g. the difficulty, but it feels like that's totally irrelevant now
1226 2012-07-18 17:20:01 da2ce7-desktop has joined
1227 2012-07-18 17:20:07 <amiller> it makes no sense to talk of an attack that's like a sustained indefinite effort
1228 2012-07-18 17:20:23 <optimo> this old troll?
1229 2012-07-18 17:20:42 <btc123> brb
1230 2012-07-18 17:21:23 <d34th> luke-jr: turns out ice giants can linux somewhat well
1231 2012-07-18 17:22:27 <amiller> i think i'm trying to start now by defining an 'attack' as a one time effort with a goal and a limited amount of hashes to spend, so there's a risk of failing/going broke
1232 2012-07-18 17:22:31 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1233 2012-07-18 17:22:32 <amiller> but this is trickier
1234 2012-07-18 17:23:33 <OneEyed> amiller: why? If you have 51% of the computing power, start from the parent of any block you want to cancel, and build your own chain from there. Eventually, you'll get the longest one
1235 2012-07-18 17:23:49 <OneEyed> Wouldn't that work?
1236 2012-07-18 17:25:22 <amiller> for someone just to 'have' 51% of the computing power, indefinitely, makes no sense, it might be possible to have 51% for a week, or 51% for a day, or 51% for 6 minutes if you could afford a burst somehow
1237 2012-07-18 17:26:54 <btc123> hey guys, how likely is it that i can connect to all nodes,  inject a vulnerability, and edit all blockchains simulaneously to change the public key for a large address ? ;)
1238 2012-07-18 17:27:25 <OneEyed> amiller: you don't need it indefinitely; the sooner you start after the block you want to cancel appears, the shorter it will take; in those blocks you can insert whatever new-spend you want (a double spend of what you're cancelling), then once you have the longest chain others will start building on your chain
1239 2012-07-18 17:27:28 graingert has joined
1240 2012-07-18 17:28:16 <OneEyed> amiller: the only point is to invalidate the transactions you want to invalidate by spending their inputs (and sending them to yourself if you want) so that they cannot be included again into the new chain
1241 2012-07-18 17:29:40 <amiller> OneEyed, right, but we should also assume that people wait 6 or so blocks for confirmations, so an attack would require enough hashes to get 6 blocks, and in a short enough time to beat the network to 6 blocks
1242 2012-07-18 17:30:56 <OneEyed> amiller: you don't have to inject your chain right away, that's the beauty of it. You can compute it by your own, and unleash the new chain when it's as long as required.
1243 2012-07-18 17:31:17 <amiller> not really, because that's assuming you have infinite bankroll
1244 2012-07-18 17:31:26 <OneEyed> Why?
1245 2012-07-18 17:33:00 <OneEyed> Let's assume I have 51% now, I start building my own chain right now. I can spend some of my coins, and at the same time include a me->me transaction with those inputs in my alternate chain. When my spends have been confirmed and goods delivered, I release my alternate chain which becomes the longest chain, invalidating all the transactions since I started mining. Most of them will probably get
1246 2012-07-18 17:33:02 <OneEyed> reincluded by miners in new blocks based upon my new chain, but mine won't.
1247 2012-07-18 17:33:31 <amiller> no you're right about how that works but what i'm saying is what does it mean for you to 'have' 51%
1248 2012-07-18 17:34:07 <OneEyed> It means that, for example, for the next 24 hours, I can produce more successive blocks based on the current top of chain than all the other miners together
1249 2012-07-18 17:34:09 <amiller> you can't pay your power bill forever working on a secret fork block
1250 2012-07-18 17:34:14 <helo> maybe an attacker can afford to spend as much as they will make by rewriting the history?
1251 2012-07-18 17:34:52 <helo> not that that's helpful :P
1252 2012-07-18 17:34:58 meLon has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1253 2012-07-18 17:35:41 meLon has joined
1254 2012-07-18 17:35:41 meLon has quit (Changing host)
1255 2012-07-18 17:35:41 meLon has joined
1256 2012-07-18 17:35:56 <OneEyed> Note that I may be able to pay electricity by spending BTC in the primary chain, and those transactions will be cancelled afterwards but I'll have payed my bills :) Of course, I need some BTC upfront, but anyone able to gather this computing power will be able to have this BTC or $ cash as well
1257 2012-07-18 17:35:58 <amiller> sure you could do that for 24 hours, but if you haven't achieved your attack target in 24 hours, your evil attack investors are going to get anxious
1258 2012-07-18 17:37:10 <OneEyed> amiller: if what you're trying to say is that without money upfront you can't launch an attack, sure. But you probabistically don't need an infinite amount of money to do so.
1259 2012-07-18 17:37:17 <btc123> i think the only time a 51% attack could possibly happen is within the next year,... ASICS
1260 2012-07-18 17:37:46 <OneEyed> amiller: you can even get unlucky and not get in front of the official chain for 10 years if others keep finding blocks while you don't, but the probability of that event if you have more computing power is really low
1261 2012-07-18 17:37:57 RainbowDashh has joined
1262 2012-07-18 17:38:11 asoltys has joined
1263 2012-07-18 17:40:04 Cablesaurus has joined
1264 2012-07-18 17:41:22 <amiller> once you begin an attack you're somewhat committed to it, you have to pick a fork point in the past and continue mining at it, otherwise you lose all your work
1265 2012-07-18 17:41:40 ZephyrVoid has joined
1266 2012-07-18 17:41:58 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1267 2012-07-18 17:43:06 d34th has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1268 2012-07-18 17:43:21 terry has joined
1269 2012-07-18 17:43:29 RainbowDashh has joined
1270 2012-07-18 17:46:46 D34TH_ has joined
1271 2012-07-18 17:46:46 D34TH has joined
1272 2012-07-18 17:46:46 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
1273 2012-07-18 17:46:46 D34TH has joined
1274 2012-07-18 17:47:02 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1275 2012-07-18 17:47:03 D34TH_ has quit (Client Quit)
1276 2012-07-18 17:51:27 ThomasV has joined
1277 2012-07-18 17:51:40 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Laptop lid has been shut. D: +PinkiePiee: Game lasted 22374945:16. 00: was day. 22374945:16 was night.)
1278 2012-07-18 17:55:23 pusle has joined
1279 2012-07-18 17:58:05 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1280 2012-07-18 17:59:32 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1281 2012-07-18 17:59:35 denisx has joined
1282 2012-07-18 18:00:09 <sipa> any important things happened the past few days in btcland?
1283 2012-07-18 18:00:18 <optimo> hi sipa
1284 2012-07-18 18:00:30 <optimo> bitcoinica had another problem last week I think
1285 2012-07-18 18:00:36 <copumpkin> sipa: crazy mtgox movements
1286 2012-07-18 18:01:07 <optimo> hi copumpkin ;p
1287 2012-07-18 18:01:10 <sipa> 9.24 :o
1288 2012-07-18 18:01:13 <copumpkin> hey optimo
1289 2012-07-18 18:01:24 <optimo> the price movement has brought me back here mwahaha
1290 2012-07-18 18:01:30 <copumpkin> sipa: close to 300k volume on one day
1291 2012-07-18 18:01:34 <optimo> making monies
1292 2012-07-18 18:01:54 * sipa says hi from Iceland, by the way
1293 2012-07-18 18:01:56 <optimo> someone was speculating the stolen bitcoins were being exchanged but who knows
1294 2012-07-18 18:02:40 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1295 2012-07-18 18:02:47 ThomasV has joined
1296 2012-07-18 18:04:00 <copumpkin> sipa: say hi to jonsi and bjork
1297 2012-07-18 18:05:33 Joric_ has joined
1298 2012-07-18 18:05:33 Joric_ has quit (Changing host)
1299 2012-07-18 18:05:33 Joric_ has joined
1300 2012-07-18 18:07:02 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1301 2012-07-18 18:07:41 p0s has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1302 2012-07-18 18:11:40 RainbowDashh has joined
1303 2012-07-18 18:17:09 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1304 2012-07-18 18:18:11 <yellowhat> sipa: you also missed the hackathon, would have been a great even for you
1305 2012-07-18 18:18:44 Marf has joined
1306 2012-07-18 18:27:30 <sipa> copumpkin: ?
1307 2012-07-18 18:27:52 <copumpkin> sipa: famous icelandic people!
1308 2012-07-18 18:29:56 sirk390 has joined
1309 2012-07-18 18:31:17 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1310 2012-07-18 18:32:31 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1311 2012-07-18 18:33:36 paraipan has joined
1312 2012-07-18 18:33:51 osmosis has joined
1313 2012-07-18 18:34:07 <optimo> meh
1314 2012-07-18 18:34:15 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1315 2012-07-18 18:36:51 <denisx> yellowhat: you were at the hackathon?
1316 2012-07-18 18:40:35 <gmaxwell> sipa: Welcome back. Now go away again until bitcoin is $30 again. ;)
1317 2012-07-18 18:41:50 <CluckCreek> Was there any big news item that would make the price increase recently?
1318 2012-07-18 18:42:05 <optimo> not that I could find
1319 2012-07-18 18:42:06 <denisx> holy fuck, what happend to the BTC exchange rates?
1320 2012-07-18 18:42:13 <optimo> it could just be summertime boredom
1321 2012-07-18 18:42:50 <optimo> anyway, these aren't dev topics
1322 2012-07-18 18:42:52 RazielZ has joined
1323 2012-07-18 18:43:07 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1324 2012-07-18 18:43:09 Diapolo has joined
1325 2012-07-18 18:43:41 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: genjix opened pull request 46 on bitcoin/bitcoin.org <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/46>
1326 2012-07-18 18:46:46 <denisx> sipa: my freebsd client of bitcoin now runs better than the osx version in respect to the 100% problem
1327 2012-07-18 18:47:09 <[Tycho]> sipa: hello ?
1328 2012-07-18 18:47:11 sirk390 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1329 2012-07-18 18:47:25 <lianj> "Confirmed speakers include Richard Stallman, .." ^^
1330 2012-07-18 18:47:29 <denisx> [Tycho]: is your name borrowed from the GoT books?
1331 2012-07-18 18:48:05 <[Tycho]> What it GoT ?
1332 2012-07-18 18:48:17 <denisx> Game of Thrones
1333 2012-07-18 18:48:26 <[Tycho]> Didn't saw that.
1334 2012-07-18 18:48:35 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1335 2012-07-18 18:48:38 sirk390 has joined
1336 2012-07-18 18:48:52 <[Tycho]> I'd rather say that it's from one epic PC game. And no, it's not "Fallout" :)
1337 2012-07-18 18:49:02 ThomasV has joined
1338 2012-07-18 18:49:46 <optimo> Tycho Brahe, astronomer
1339 2012-07-18 18:49:47 <denisx> The is a Lord called Tycho which is a representator of the Iron Bank ;)
1340 2012-07-18 18:49:52 <denisx> there is...
1341 2012-07-18 18:50:12 <Joric_> Richard Stallman's going to give a speech about bitcoins? sweet!
1342 2012-07-18 18:50:18 Joric_ is now known as Joric
1343 2012-07-18 18:50:24 <[Tycho]> No, Tycho Brahe is completely different name from another language.
1344 2012-07-18 18:50:30 <optimo> :)
1345 2012-07-18 18:50:32 <[Tycho]> denisx: funny :)
1346 2012-07-18 18:50:41 <denisx> he is called Tycho Nestoris
1347 2012-07-18 18:51:11 <denisx> http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Tycho_Nestoris
1348 2012-07-18 18:51:18 <[Tycho]> That Tycho was a rampant AI.
1349 2012-07-18 18:51:35 <lianj> Joric: i doubt he speaks about bitcoin. he speaks about his stuff and tries to pull lines between bitcoin
1350 2012-07-18 18:51:49 <[Tycho]> Stallman is evil.
1351 2012-07-18 18:52:07 <Diapolo> AFAIK sipa is off a few days? That's the last thing I remember from a recent talk a few days ago.
1352 2012-07-18 18:52:52 <[Tycho]> Do anyone knows why the GUI client shows transaction time incorrectly, taking block receive time instead ? Is there some reason for this ?
1353 2012-07-18 18:53:35 <luke-jr> dunno, it sounds half bitcoin half libertarian/anarchist :p
1354 2012-07-18 18:53:40 <luke-jr> the speaker roster
1355 2012-07-18 18:55:38 <gmaxwell> Joric_: hm? what abour RMS and bitcoin?
1356 2012-07-18 18:56:13 <Joric> gmaxwell, genjix just posted an update about the bitcoin conference 'Confirmed speakers include Richard Stallman'
1357 2012-07-18 18:56:41 <Joric> here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/46
1358 2012-07-18 18:57:01 <Joric> not very soon, september 15-16
1359 2012-07-18 18:57:48 MC-Eeepc has joined
1360 2012-07-18 18:58:12 <optimo> could be an interesting crowd
1361 2012-07-18 18:59:38 Diapolo has left ()
1362 2012-07-18 18:59:47 <Joric> he will be very mad about not using GPLv3 )
1363 2012-07-18 19:00:06 copumpkin is now known as pessimo
1364 2012-07-18 19:00:10 CodesInChaos has joined
1365 2012-07-18 19:01:18 pessimo is now known as copumpkin
1366 2012-07-18 19:06:44 <jgarzik> Joric: not really.  Stallman's position for decades has been supportive of MIT/X11 style license, if GPL is not chosen.
1367 2012-07-18 19:08:36 sirk3901 has joined
1368 2012-07-18 19:08:37 sirk390 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1369 2012-07-18 19:08:40 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1370 2012-07-18 19:17:14 gjs278 has joined
1371 2012-07-18 19:17:18 Marf has joined
1372 2012-07-18 19:24:56 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1373 2012-07-18 19:25:39 agricocb has joined
1374 2012-07-18 19:25:40 <[Tycho]> Is anyone going to attend the Bitcoin conference in Macau, Nov 2012 ?
1375 2012-07-18 19:27:36 <lianj> hm now that genjix updated his post, i wonder we he didnt say anything about him leaking his github clone of the sourcecode
1376 2012-07-18 19:29:11 word_ has joined
1377 2012-07-18 19:29:22 Guest42555 has joined
1378 2012-07-18 19:29:22 Ukto has quit (Disconnected by services)
1379 2012-07-18 19:29:26 Guest42555 is now known as Ukto
1380 2012-07-18 19:30:29 gfinn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1381 2012-07-18 19:30:30 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1382 2012-07-18 19:31:08 ForceMajeure_ has joined
1383 2012-07-18 19:31:39 HobGobli1 has joined
1384 2012-07-18 19:31:42 paraipan has joined
1385 2012-07-18 19:32:03 theorb has joined
1386 2012-07-18 19:32:47 ras- has joined
1387 2012-07-18 19:33:30 zeiris_ has joined
1388 2012-07-18 19:33:51 ahihi2_ has joined
1389 2012-07-18 19:34:19 brwyatt has joined
1390 2012-07-18 19:34:40 phungie_ has joined
1391 2012-07-18 19:36:37 BeTep has quit (Disconnected by services)
1392 2012-07-18 19:36:50 bonks has quit (Disconnected by services)
1393 2012-07-18 19:36:56 weather has joined
1394 2012-07-18 19:37:20 bonks has joined
1395 2012-07-18 19:38:45 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
1396 2012-07-18 19:39:32 Guest95130 has joined
1397 2012-07-18 19:40:11 da2ce7-desktop has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1398 2012-07-18 19:40:45 weather is now known as BeTep
1399 2012-07-18 19:42:04 RainbowDashh has joined
1400 2012-07-18 19:43:02 gfinn has joined
1401 2012-07-18 19:43:17 mpr has joined
1402 2012-07-18 19:43:41 mpr is now known as Guest29894
1403 2012-07-18 19:45:57 maaku has joined
1404 2012-07-18 19:46:05 ForceMajeure_ is now known as ForceMajeure
1405 2012-07-18 19:47:10 pooler has joined
1406 2012-07-18 19:47:10 knotwork has joined
1407 2012-07-18 19:48:57 kjj_ has joined
1408 2012-07-18 19:52:17 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1409 2012-07-18 19:56:03 mndrix has joined
1410 2012-07-18 19:58:36 sytse has joined
1411 2012-07-18 20:11:40 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1412 2012-07-18 20:12:16 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1413 2012-07-18 20:12:19 MC-Eeepc has joined
1414 2012-07-18 20:14:07 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1415 2012-07-18 20:14:56 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1416 2012-07-18 20:15:42 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1417 2012-07-18 20:15:48 sirk3901 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1418 2012-07-18 20:16:32 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1419 2012-07-18 20:16:46 MiningBuddy has joined
1420 2012-07-18 20:20:17 [\\\] has joined
1421 2012-07-18 20:22:02 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1422 2012-07-18 20:23:46 nejucomo has joined
1423 2012-07-18 20:24:42 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1424 2012-07-18 20:25:10 <nejucomo> I've started bitcoind for the first time. It's syncing the block chain, and mentions orphan blocks.
1425 2012-07-18 20:25:25 <nejucomo> Do nodes store orphan blocks and transmit them? Are they stored indefinitely?
1426 2012-07-18 20:25:41 <kinlo> yes and no
1427 2012-07-18 20:25:55 <kinlo> nodes store them and afaik they do not purge them
1428 2012-07-18 20:26:05 <kinlo> so yes they are (for now) stored indefinitly
1429 2012-07-18 20:26:27 <kinlo> but, no they are not transmitted, the clients only transmit the real chain
1430 2012-07-18 20:26:59 <nejucomo> Then why would my bitcoind be receiving orphans?
1431 2012-07-18 20:27:01 RazielZ has joined
1432 2012-07-18 20:27:09 <kinlo> I do believe you can download an orphan block from a peer if you know the blockhash, but the client won't give that to its peers
1433 2012-07-18 20:27:11 <OneEyed> luke-jr: did you change the TX limit? :) http://blockchain.info/block-index/250083/00000000000000f7c8682c00e0133bd8a3ec3d727026f57f8bb5c2ec3b98f414
1434 2012-07-18 20:27:28 <kinlo> nejucomo: where do you see that?
1435 2012-07-18 20:27:36 <luke-jr> OneEyed: ?
1436 2012-07-18 20:27:46 <nejucomo> ~/.bitcoin/debug.log
1437 2012-07-18 20:28:12 <OneEyed> luke-jr: this is the latest block, it has 0 transactions inside, except the generating one :)
1438 2012-07-18 20:28:24 <luke-jr> OneEyed: what about it?
1439 2012-07-18 20:28:41 <nejucomo> $ grep -i 'ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK' ~/.bitcoin/debug.log | wc -l
1440 2012-07-18 20:28:41 <OneEyed> It's empty, that's it, not even 32 transactions
1441 2012-07-18 20:28:42 <nejucomo> 13324
1442 2012-07-18 20:28:52 <OneEyed> It was a joke, but obviously not a very good one
1443 2012-07-18 20:29:08 <kinlo> nejucomo: it shouldn't transmit those, but it is possible something is wrong
1444 2012-07-18 20:29:45 <nejucomo> kinlo: Is the protocol/mechanism for syncing a block chain in a new node the same as sharing newly mined blocks?
1445 2012-07-18 20:29:59 <nejucomo> Could there be a difference in protocol and you are thinking of mining instead of syncing?
1446 2012-07-18 20:30:30 <kinlo> there are differences, newly mined blocks are pushed, old blocks are pulled
1447 2012-07-18 20:31:02 <nejucomo> Is there a page describing the blockchain sync protocol? How does my fresh node know which blocks to pull?
1448 2012-07-18 20:31:24 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1449 2012-07-18 20:31:58 <luke-jr> OneEyed: it's pretty common
1450 2012-07-18 20:32:23 <OneEyed> Yeah, probably, it's the first time I see one (I wasn't interested in bitcoin tech until a few days ago)
1451 2012-07-18 20:32:42 Maccer has joined
1452 2012-07-18 20:32:59 <maaku> OneEyed: there's a rather large mining network that is not relaying transactions
1453 2012-07-18 20:34:16 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: conference in Macau?  Sounds like fun!  I should find someone to sponsor my plane ticket... ;)
1454 2012-07-18 20:34:19 rdponticelli has joined
1455 2012-07-18 20:34:39 sgornick has joined
1456 2012-07-18 20:34:43 <jgarzik> we should take up a collection and get gavin on a plane to London in September
1457 2012-07-18 20:34:48 <maaku> OneEyed: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67634.0
1458 2012-07-18 20:34:53 <jgarzik> it's a shame that core devs are excluded due to lack of speaker funding
1459 2012-07-18 20:34:58 <jgarzik> that's who you'd want to speak
1460 2012-07-18 20:35:03 <nejucomo> maaku: Do you have links to evidence? What would be the motivation?
1461 2012-07-18 20:35:29 <maaku> nejucomo: motivation? no clue
1462 2012-07-18 20:35:38 <OneEyed> maaku: thanks, reading
1463 2012-07-18 20:36:13 <nejucomo> That subnetwork still provides consensus service, but transactions take longer. True/False?
1464 2012-07-18 20:36:17 <luke-jr> nejucomo: probably to avoid being part of the bitcoin network
1465 2012-07-18 20:36:22 <nejucomo> longer to propagate.
1466 2012-07-18 20:36:43 <maaku> the going theory was that it's a bot net, but really no one knows
1467 2012-07-18 20:36:48 <nejucomo> luke-jr: They must be part of the network to receive and send blocks.
1468 2012-07-18 20:37:51 unred2 has joined
1469 2012-07-18 20:39:26 <denisx> there are bitcoins for more then 800 million dollars out there?
1470 2012-07-18 20:39:41 moartr4dez has joined
1471 2012-07-18 20:43:02 <moartr4dez> any plans to change bitcoind to stop allowing empty blocks?
1472 2012-07-18 20:43:19 <moartr4dez> just had a nother at 189698
1473 2012-07-18 20:44:12 MC-Eeepc has joined
1474 2012-07-18 20:45:04 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1475 2012-07-18 20:45:18 nejucomo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1476 2012-07-18 20:46:54 nejucomo has joined
1477 2012-07-18 20:47:12 <moartr4dez> guess not
1478 2012-07-18 20:47:25 <moartr4dez> seems like there should be some minimum... 100 tx etc...
1479 2012-07-18 20:47:44 <luke-jr> moartr4dez: miners being able to freely exclude transactions is a fundamental part of the design
1480 2012-07-18 20:47:45 <Karmaon> moartr4dez, what are you thinking?!
1481 2012-07-18 20:47:48 <OneEyed> moartr4dez: did you read the thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67634.0 (which is pretty interesting)?
1482 2012-07-18 20:48:02 <luke-jr> moartr4dez: and what are miners supposed to do when there's no transactions? twiddle their thumbs
1483 2012-07-18 20:48:04 <moartr4dez> heh I started
1484 2012-07-18 20:48:23 <moartr4dez> well I guess it won't matter by 2140 (when block reward disappears
1485 2012-07-18 20:48:25 <Karmaon> luke-jr, wait for satoshi dice players
1486 2012-07-18 20:48:28 <moartr4dez> ... and the TX fees become all important
1487 2012-07-18 20:48:33 <moartr4dez> so I won't worry about it heh
1488 2012-07-18 20:48:36 * moartr4dez slaps forehead.
1489 2012-07-18 20:48:42 * Karmaon facepalms
1490 2012-07-18 20:49:43 <moartr4dez> I guess for the time being then we have to allow leaches like 98.163.231.30
1491 2012-07-18 20:50:19 <moartr4dez> err leeches
1492 2012-07-18 20:51:12 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Hard work pays off in the future, laziness pays off now)
1493 2012-07-18 20:51:47 <denisx> meine adresse: 19c4bA6qHLjnWgYQmS9VuqwHuNT6jR5Atz
1494 2012-07-18 20:52:52 <denisx> ops, fc
1495 2012-07-18 20:56:00 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1496 2012-07-18 20:57:07 pusle has quit ()
1497 2012-07-18 20:57:20 rdponticelli has joined
1498 2012-07-18 21:00:50 maaku has joined
1499 2012-07-18 21:01:15 justmoon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1500 2012-07-18 21:02:59 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1501 2012-07-18 21:07:19 agricocb has joined
1502 2012-07-18 21:07:28 ahihi2_ is now known as ahihi2
1503 2012-07-18 21:08:33 toffoo has quit ()
1504 2012-07-18 21:09:21 davout has joined
1505 2012-07-18 21:09:21 davout has quit (Changing host)
1506 2012-07-18 21:09:21 davout has joined
1507 2012-07-18 21:12:59 gasteve has quit (Quit: gasteve)
1508 2012-07-18 21:18:16 eoss has joined
1509 2012-07-18 21:18:16 eoss has quit (Changing host)
1510 2012-07-18 21:18:16 eoss has joined
1511 2012-07-18 21:20:57 unred2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1512 2012-07-18 21:21:04 egecko has joined
1513 2012-07-18 21:21:24 unred2 has joined
1514 2012-07-18 21:30:45 egecko_ has joined
1515 2012-07-18 21:33:24 egecko has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1516 2012-07-18 21:34:07 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1517 2012-07-18 21:34:57 <midnightmagic> lianj: Is there presentation of evidence somewhere that he did it himself?
1518 2012-07-18 21:37:02 <lianj> yes. like 5 in the first 28 pages
1519 2012-07-18 21:41:46 <midnightmagic> .. that's odd.
1520 2012-07-18 21:42:36 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1521 2012-07-18 21:44:15 <lianj> what? that he leaked the source containing the api code to public AFTER the hack happed (but annonce it exists before)? very odd
1522 2012-07-18 21:44:32 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1523 2012-07-18 21:47:39 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1524 2012-07-18 21:48:01 <denisx> moartr4dez: 2140 I would my miner set to pause when there is no TX to put into a block
1525 2012-07-18 21:48:19 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1526 2012-07-18 21:48:20 <nejucomo> Is this a known data corruption bug in message processing? http://codepad.org/8HuAOGPq
1527 2012-07-18 21:49:09 <lianj> midnightmagic: for me cat .git/logs/HEAD and tar -jtvf bit.tar.bz2 | head -n1 is enought to prove it. but there is another story about an encoded annonce of that file on a pastebin, that when decoded gives the exact same file.
1528 2012-07-18 21:49:17 RazielZ has joined
1529 2012-07-18 21:49:18 maaku has joined
1530 2012-07-18 21:49:37 * nejucomo wonders if this host is now pwned.
1531 2012-07-18 21:50:08 <lianj> nejucomo: suuure ;) dont you think its way simpler that he was it..
1532 2012-07-18 21:50:12 <midnightmagic> that the source w/ the api code was leaked at all. that doesn't make any sense. ah well, clearly i haven't been paying attention much.
1533 2012-07-18 21:50:24 <midnightmagic> lianj: you're wumpus right?
1534 2012-07-18 21:50:59 <lianj> no
1535 2012-07-18 21:51:04 <midnightmagic> oh sorry.
1536 2012-07-18 21:51:07 <lianj> np
1537 2012-07-18 21:51:15 <Joric> 'bad design, flawed code' intersango must be flawless
1538 2012-07-18 21:52:12 <lianj> anyway genjix was the guy who made it public, and that only after the hack
1539 2012-07-18 21:52:43 <lianj> and also going from api key to lastpass is a long stretch
1540 2012-07-18 21:54:36 * midnightmagic grovels slowly through the endless forum drivel to try to find out more.. why oh why do people feel the need to comment when it adds nothing useful.
1541 2012-07-18 21:54:46 <lianj> i guess he had legit access to the github repo, but not to leak it. and then say it was public all along and anyone could find this api->lastpass relation easily
1542 2012-07-18 21:56:35 <Joric> the youngest ought to be the most responsible/smart guy of all the company
1543 2012-07-18 21:56:42 <midnightmagic> it..  was public all along?
1544 2012-07-18 21:57:17 <lianj> midnightmagic: http://pastebin.com/htzdAJGF but it never was made public. althoug if decode his file you end up with the same he linked in his post. and that one contains his git reflogs with his name
1545 2012-07-18 21:57:25 <lianj> he did clone it
1546 2012-07-18 21:57:44 <lianj> at least, that the simplest answer
1547 2012-07-18 21:58:00 dvide has joined
1548 2012-07-18 21:59:48 <lianj> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93074.msg1029233#msg1029233 and the pages before/after that talk a bit about it
1549 2012-07-18 22:00:43 coingenuity has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1550 2012-07-18 22:00:50 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
1551 2012-07-18 22:01:43 Guest71311 has joined
1552 2012-07-18 22:01:46 <midnightmagic> oh, thanks. :)
1553 2012-07-18 22:02:35 <lianj> weird storyline huh?
1554 2012-07-18 22:02:55 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1555 2012-07-18 22:02:59 RainbowD_ has joined
1556 2012-07-18 22:03:08 OneEyed has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1557 2012-07-18 22:04:03 Guest71311 has quit (Changing host)
1558 2012-07-18 22:04:03 Guest71311 has joined
1559 2012-07-18 22:05:05 RainbowD_ is now known as RainbowDashh
1560 2012-07-18 22:05:14 Guest71311 is now known as coingenuity
1561 2012-07-18 22:05:34 LuaKT has quit ()
1562 2012-07-18 22:08:14 <midnightmagic> lianj: very weird.
1563 2012-07-18 22:10:53 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1564 2012-07-18 22:11:04 <lianj> and saying "..  it was not taken advantage of until many users had access to the sourcecode in a recent leak: url" that turns out to be a file he packed himself and first showed up in this post. is like wtf
1565 2012-07-18 22:11:38 <cccp_> it was on reddit before
1566 2012-07-18 22:11:47 <cccp_> well, at least there
1567 2012-07-18 22:12:08 HobGobli1 is now known as UukGoblin
1568 2012-07-18 22:12:35 UukGoblin has quit (Changing host)
1569 2012-07-18 22:12:35 UukGoblin has joined
1570 2012-07-18 22:13:09 <lianj> but why did he pack it himself? is it a long shot to think he did upload it too?
1571 2012-07-18 22:14:11 tower has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1572 2012-07-18 22:15:32 tower has joined
1573 2012-07-18 22:17:37 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1574 2012-07-18 22:18:22 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1575 2012-07-18 22:18:35 B0g4r7__ has joined
1576 2012-07-18 22:18:43 Turingi has joined
1577 2012-07-18 22:19:15 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1578 2012-07-18 22:19:34 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1579 2012-07-18 22:19:46 B0g4r7__ is now known as B0g4r7
1580 2012-07-18 22:21:47 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1581 2012-07-18 22:25:39 agricocb has joined
1582 2012-07-18 22:25:41 maaku has joined
1583 2012-07-18 22:31:16 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1584 2012-07-18 22:34:05 copumpkin has joined
1585 2012-07-18 22:35:32 Xqr has joined
1586 2012-07-18 22:35:38 Detritus has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1587 2012-07-18 22:35:49 <Xqr> Anyone in here have experience with deepbit api?
1588 2012-07-18 22:38:19 <Xqr> in particular, can you access the public stats through the api? or is it only available on the website?
1589 2012-07-18 22:38:49 <sturles> lianj: Why do you think he packed it himself?
1590 2012-07-18 22:39:21 <sturles> lianj: Don't you think he would at least have changed the username if he packed it himself?
1591 2012-07-18 22:43:00 <upb> or he thought one step further and packed it under his own username since he knew how implausible it would be :)
1592 2012-07-18 22:44:54 Xqr has quit ()
1593 2012-07-18 22:45:13 Detritus has joined
1594 2012-07-18 22:51:37 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1595 2012-07-18 22:52:02 <nejucomo> Why does this no input transaction transfer a value that's not exactly 50 BTC? http://blockchain.info/tx-index/12598733/660529aa21e5b13a51bcd8f05124f5f441af3f255ae0263e6db0d462af971d51
1596 2012-07-18 22:52:15 brwyatt is now known as 1way!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
1597 2012-07-18 22:52:53 <nejucomo> Is this the right place for noobie-ish protocol questions, or should I head over to #bitcoin?
1598 2012-07-18 22:53:11 davout has joined
1599 2012-07-18 22:53:11 davout has quit (Changing host)
1600 2012-07-18 22:53:12 davout has joined
1601 2012-07-18 22:53:18 ThomasV has joined
1602 2012-07-18 22:54:56 <weex> nejucomo: the extra are miners fees
1603 2012-07-18 22:55:49 davout has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1604 2012-07-18 22:57:57 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Laptop lid has been shut. D: +PinkiePiee: Game lasted 22374945:16. 00: was day. 22374945:16 was night.)
1605 2012-07-18 23:03:04 <nejucomo> weex: Thanks.
1606 2012-07-18 23:03:08 Gnaffel has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1607 2012-07-18 23:03:26 <nejucomo> Oh, the sum of transaction fees within that block?
1608 2012-07-18 23:04:05 sytse has joined
1609 2012-07-18 23:06:20 <Joric> where i can get a history of difficulty in numeric values? http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ only has charts
1610 2012-07-18 23:06:25 jurov is now known as jurov|away
1611 2012-07-18 23:07:44 <midnightmagic> sturles: No, I don't think that. People are careless about these things all the time. People think they're smart about stuff, but most people really aren't.
1612 2012-07-18 23:08:05 <luke-jr> Joric: the block chain…
1613 2012-07-18 23:10:12 <Joric> luke-jr, is it constant for the 2 week period or it varies
1614 2012-07-18 23:12:59 <Joric> i'll try to modify https://github.com/joric/pyblockchain
1615 2012-07-18 23:13:52 <weex> nejucomo: yup
1616 2012-07-18 23:15:29 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1617 2012-07-18 23:17:36 <Joric> seems constant
1618 2012-07-18 23:21:34 <lianj> Joric: http://blockexplorer.com/q/nethash
1619 2012-07-18 23:22:12 <luke-jr> hmm
1620 2012-07-18 23:22:37 <luke-jr> it would be interesting if there was a way to "hash" the blockchain
1621 2012-07-18 23:23:08 <luke-jr> such that similar blockchains had the same prefix, and child blockchains could be determined etc
1622 2012-07-18 23:23:17 <luke-jr> but were otherwise unique per blockchain
1623 2012-07-18 23:23:49 <Joric> lianj, whoa didn't know about that data
1624 2012-07-18 23:25:31 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1625 2012-07-18 23:26:00 <nejucomo> luke-jr: Here's a start: https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=fuzzy+hash
1626 2012-07-18 23:26:34 <copumpkin> or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locality-sensitive_hashing
1627 2012-07-18 23:27:17 <copumpkin> luke-jr: pick the first bit of every block hash and cat them together :)
1628 2012-07-18 23:27:27 <nejucomo> We'd want one for the use case of long identical prefixes and short divergences near the end.
1629 2012-07-18 23:27:39 <luke-jr> copumpkin: I'd think you'd need something to ensure total work was similar too
1630 2012-07-18 23:27:47 one_zero has joined
1631 2012-07-18 23:27:52 <copumpkin> total work?
1632 2012-07-18 23:28:08 <luke-jr> and you'd need to be more specific for the end of the blockchain
1633 2012-07-18 23:28:08 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1634 2012-07-18 23:28:18 <luke-jr> so the bit selection would probably need to be logarithmic
1635 2012-07-18 23:28:21 <copumpkin> well, then increase the number of bits near the end
1636 2012-07-18 23:29:15 <copumpkin> pick 2 bits per block ;)
1637 2012-07-18 23:30:01 <copumpkin> it's really just a probabilistic indicator. Have false positives but not false negatives, or something likethat
1638 2012-07-18 23:30:16 <luke-jr> IMO we'd want at least 32 bits on the very last block
1639 2012-07-18 23:30:29 <copumpkin> depends how much certainty you want, really
1640 2012-07-18 23:30:35 <luke-jr> copumpkin: also, you'd pick the last bit, not the first (it's always 0)
1641 2012-07-18 23:30:39 <copumpkin> the suffix of bits will be fairly unique
1642 2012-07-18 23:30:46 <copumpkin> oh yeah, same idea though
1643 2012-07-18 23:30:55 <luke-jr> copumpkin: I'm thinking something that an attacker would have a hard time faking
1644 2012-07-18 23:31:03 <copumpkin> oh, I see
1645 2012-07-18 23:31:05 Xqr has joined
1646 2012-07-18 23:31:13 <copumpkin> I thought it was purely for lookup purposes
1647 2012-07-18 23:31:46 <[Tycho]> Xqr: hello.
1648 2012-07-18 23:31:54 maaku has joined
1649 2012-07-18 23:31:58 <Xqr> Hi tycho
1650 2012-07-18 23:32:18 <[Tycho]> Xqr: which stats do you want to get ?
1651 2012-07-18 23:32:23 <Xqr> I'm new to the whole bitcoin scene, but think I've seen your names on the forum
1652 2012-07-18 23:32:29 <Xqr> https://deepbit.net/stats
1653 2012-07-18 23:33:23 <[Tycho]> So you need the whole table with your own results there ?
1654 2012-07-18 23:33:42 <Xqr> was wondering if it was available yeah
1655 2012-07-18 23:34:02 <Xqr> to calculate EPS essentially
1656 2012-07-18 23:34:07 <[Tycho]> I was planning to make it available as CSV, but this is not released yet.
1657 2012-07-18 23:34:15 <[Tycho]> EPS ? What is it ?
1658 2012-07-18 23:34:23 <Xqr> earnings per share
1659 2012-07-18 23:34:42 B0g4r7__ has joined
1660 2012-07-18 23:35:32 <[Tycho]> Sorry, this data is not available trough API yet.
1661 2012-07-18 23:36:29 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1662 2012-07-18 23:37:34 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1663 2012-07-18 23:37:34 B0g4r7__ is now known as B0g4r7
1664 2012-07-18 23:38:40 <Xqr> alrighty
1665 2012-07-18 23:45:13 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1666 2012-07-18 23:46:47 <[Tycho]> Tips and tricks: you can request this page for any unix time since pool's launch.
1667 2012-07-18 23:47:11 <[Tycho]> (obey request ratelimits just in case)
1668 2012-07-18 23:47:41 phantomcircuit has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1669 2012-07-18 23:48:37 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1670 2012-07-18 23:54:29 maaku has joined
1671 2012-07-18 23:59:22 Z0rZ0rZ0r has quit (Quit: Wheeeee)