1 2012-07-31 00:02:09 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2 2012-07-31 00:05:56 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
3 2012-07-31 00:06:44 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
4 2012-07-31 00:07:11 AlexWaters1 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
5 2012-07-31 00:10:29 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
6 2012-07-31 00:10:48 MiningBuddy has joined
7 2012-07-31 00:14:19 Obsi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
8 2012-07-31 00:14:48 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
9 2012-07-31 00:15:11 MiningBuddy has joined
10 2012-07-31 00:15:54 Obsi has joined
11 2012-07-31 00:18:11 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
12 2012-07-31 00:20:00 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
13 2012-07-31 00:27:11 sgornick has joined
14 2012-07-31 00:31:55 osmosis has joined
15 2012-07-31 00:36:40 phma has joined
16 2012-07-31 00:36:43 ThomasV has joined
17 2012-07-31 00:40:16 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
18 2012-07-31 00:41:54 MiningBuddy has joined
19 2012-07-31 00:42:39 skeledrew has quit (Quit: Instantbird 1.2a1pre -- http://www.instantbird.com)
20 2012-07-31 00:42:55 skeledrew has joined
21 2012-07-31 00:44:13 drizztbsd has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
22 2012-07-31 00:45:55 phungi has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
23 2012-07-31 00:46:03 sgstair has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
24 2012-07-31 00:46:09 sgstair has joined
25 2012-07-31 00:49:01 Lolcust has quit (Quit: Nap time)
26 2012-07-31 00:50:33 phungi has joined
27 2012-07-31 00:52:57 Lolcust has joined
28 2012-07-31 00:58:45 AlexWaters has joined
29 2012-07-31 01:00:12 makomk has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
30 2012-07-31 01:00:19 makomk has joined
31 2012-07-31 01:00:29 bitcoinbulletin has joined
32 2012-07-31 01:02:08 copumpkin has quit (Disconnected by services)
33 2012-07-31 01:02:48 pumpkin has joined
34 2012-07-31 01:08:27 agricocb has joined
35 2012-07-31 01:10:19 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
36 2012-07-31 01:10:19 <galambo> /j #litecoin
37 2012-07-31 01:10:40 MiningBuddy has joined
38 2012-07-31 01:11:44 <Eliel> (in case someone is awake and interested, strange things are going on at btc-e, currently at $22, been jumping between $10 and $50 for a while now)
39 2012-07-31 01:14:22 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
40 2012-07-31 01:15:25 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
41 2012-07-31 01:18:47 MiningBuddy- has joined
42 2012-07-31 01:21:33 MiningBuddy has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
43 2012-07-31 01:22:46 sytse has joined
44 2012-07-31 01:23:35 <extor> Should I withdraw my btc?
45 2012-07-31 01:23:47 <gmaxwell> I would.
46 2012-07-31 01:36:32 <poop_> anyone know what's going on at btc-e?
47 2012-07-31 01:46:41 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: requested by [sleep])
48 2012-07-31 01:50:33 <ThomasV> is it even possible to withdrax bitcoins from btc-e now?
49 2012-07-31 01:50:46 <ThomasV> *withdraw*
50 2012-07-31 01:53:23 <luke-jr> probably not, BTC-E is a fraud
51 2012-07-31 01:54:11 <luke-jr> plus, that kind of behaviour on any exchange would most likely indicate someone stole an account with a lot of USD and they want to launder it out in BTC
52 2012-07-31 01:54:30 <luke-jr> or hacked the USD balance on it
53 2012-07-31 01:55:09 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: the latter sounds more likely now due to the volumes of USD involved (looking like $1m USD)
54 2012-07-31 01:56:07 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: or was this some grand plan to get the users of bitcoinica whole again? :)
55 2012-07-31 01:56:40 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I'm not sure that's fair to phantomcircuit :|
56 2012-07-31 01:57:26 <gmaxwell> I was kidding if that wasn't clear, the context is that phantomcircuit previously found security holes in btce.
57 2012-07-31 02:01:58 eoss has joined
58 2012-07-31 02:10:22 MiningBuddy has joined
59 2012-07-31 02:12:32 SuperSonicSound has joined
60 2012-07-31 02:13:40 MiningBuddy- has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
61 2012-07-31 02:19:02 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
62 2012-07-31 02:19:12 [7] has joined
63 2012-07-31 02:25:08 minimoose has joined
64 2012-07-31 02:30:47 <Ferroh> in other news, Zhou Tong contacts mysterious chinese millionaire, who pays back bitcoinica losses in full out of the kindess of his heart
65 2012-07-31 02:31:04 <Ferroh> Zhou Tong stalkers subside.
66 2012-07-31 02:31:48 <Ferroh> gmaxwell, but havent you seen the IRC logs that link phantomcircuit to zhou tong!
67 2012-07-31 02:32:15 <gmaxwell> I'm sorry for going OT eariler.
68 2012-07-31 02:32:21 <Ferroh> phantomcircuit is zhou tong!
69 2012-07-31 02:32:24 <Ferroh> the moon landing was faked!
70 2012-07-31 02:35:13 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
71 2012-07-31 02:38:06 Perlboy has quit (Quit: exit(0))
72 2012-07-31 02:45:23 Perlboy has joined
73 2012-07-31 02:51:53 ThomasV has joined
74 2012-07-31 02:54:27 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
75 2012-07-31 03:10:18 <jgarzik> MemPool.add(04552ab1db27859a), poolsz 1840
76 2012-07-31 03:10:18 <jgarzik> ChainDb: height 191622, block 000000000000076b892483f7c33fe7e44b577ec2f2a5f1bf9df71952a1184578
77 2012-07-31 03:10:18 <jgarzik> MemPool: blk.vtx.sz 1024, neverseen 320, poolsz 1136
78 2012-07-31 03:10:19 <jgarzik> MemPool.add(546b301553e68ad6), poolsz 1137
79 2012-07-31 03:10:27 <jgarzik> heh, 1024.
80 2012-07-31 03:10:35 <gmaxwell> probably a luke block
81 2012-07-31 03:10:40 <jgarzik> I wonder if that's a [Tycho] block
82 2012-07-31 03:10:47 Maccer has quit (Excess Flood)
83 2012-07-31 03:10:52 <jgarzik> does luke create a bunch of neverseen tx's?
84 2012-07-31 03:11:17 <jgarzik> (neverseen == in a block, but not found in memory pool)
85 2012-07-31 03:11:52 <gmaxwell> ?P?J?????mm3????ab??n??b?U?K??]???s??L?R????????????EclipseMC: Aluminum Falcons 1?
86 2012-07-31 03:12:29 <gmaxwell> thats the coinbase.
87 2012-07-31 03:18:28 Guest42555 has joined
88 2012-07-31 03:19:14 Ukto has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
89 2012-07-31 03:19:21 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
90 2012-07-31 03:19:43 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
91 2012-07-31 03:19:44 MiningBuddy has joined
92 2012-07-31 03:20:18 makomk has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
93 2012-07-31 03:20:26 makomk has joined
94 2012-07-31 03:20:45 agricocb has joined
95 2012-07-31 03:20:57 agricocb has quit (Changing host)
96 2012-07-31 03:20:57 agricocb has joined
97 2012-07-31 03:22:23 MiningBuddy- has joined
98 2012-07-31 03:25:46 MiningBuddy has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
99 2012-07-31 03:28:01 rdponticelli has joined
100 2012-07-31 03:28:17 BTCHero is now known as BTCHer0
101 2012-07-31 03:34:37 Maccer has joined
102 2012-07-31 03:36:30 MiningBuddy has joined
103 2012-07-31 03:38:58 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
104 2012-07-31 03:40:08 MiningBuddy- has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
105 2012-07-31 03:43:38 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
106 2012-07-31 03:50:34 BTCHer0 is now known as btchero
107 2012-07-31 03:51:07 btchero is now known as BTCHero
108 2012-07-31 03:55:57 malaimo_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
109 2012-07-31 03:57:21 copumpkin has joined
110 2012-07-31 03:59:56 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
111 2012-07-31 04:05:52 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
112 2012-07-31 04:06:09 MiningBuddy has joined
113 2012-07-31 04:11:34 comboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
114 2012-07-31 04:11:40 comboy has joined
115 2012-07-31 04:16:36 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
116 2012-07-31 04:20:42 wasabi has joined
117 2012-07-31 04:21:16 wasabi1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
118 2012-07-31 04:27:42 MiningBuddy- has joined
119 2012-07-31 04:29:10 sytse has joined
120 2012-07-31 04:30:35 MiningBuddy has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
121 2012-07-31 04:30:39 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
122 2012-07-31 04:37:23 malaimo has joined
123 2012-07-31 04:39:27 MiningBuddy- has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
124 2012-07-31 04:40:11 MiningBuddy has joined
125 2012-07-31 04:42:47 klrkrzq has joined
126 2012-07-31 04:42:51 wasabi2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
127 2012-07-31 04:44:06 wasabi1 has joined
128 2012-07-31 04:44:28 SuperSonicSound has quit (Quit: Leaving)
129 2012-07-31 04:44:58 <klrkrzq> Hello developers! I was hoping to have someone clarify something on the development side of bitcoin for me. I am attempting to work with bitcoind using bitcoin-python, and can't figure out where to put the python source files after a build so that I can import the bitcoinrpc namespace for the python commands to work. Any one out there use this? (rocking ubuntu 12.04
130 2012-07-31 04:48:39 klrkrzq has quit (Quit: Page closed)
131 2012-07-31 04:49:02 semb has joined
132 2012-07-31 04:54:55 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
133 2012-07-31 04:55:34 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
134 2012-07-31 04:55:40 MiningBuddy has joined
135 2012-07-31 05:00:51 MC-Eeepc has joined
136 2012-07-31 05:07:39 MiningBuddy- has joined
137 2012-07-31 05:11:09 MiningBuddy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
138 2012-07-31 05:20:37 Mobius_ is now known as MobiusL
139 2012-07-31 05:29:13 Joric has joined
140 2012-07-31 05:31:54 Marf has joined
141 2012-07-31 05:34:42 Guest42555 is now known as Ukto
142 2012-07-31 05:35:03 iddo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
143 2012-07-31 05:40:40 zevus has joined
144 2012-07-31 05:41:00 <zevus> getting the same thing again, tons of log spam about getblocks
145 2012-07-31 05:41:32 <zevus> one person from 190062, one person from 190562, one person from 189562, for hours
146 2012-07-31 05:51:17 word has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
147 2012-07-31 05:51:33 <zevus> one was 217.170.246.49
148 2012-07-31 05:53:59 <zevus> 07/31/12 05:48:49 getblocks 189562 to 00000000000004c10d0a limit 500
149 2012-07-31 05:53:59 <zevus> 07/31/12 05:48:49 getblocks stopping at limit 190061 000000000000058fb676
150 2012-07-31 05:53:59 <zevus> 07/31/12 05:48:49 getblocks 190062 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
151 2012-07-31 05:53:59 <zevus> 07/31/12 05:48:49 getblocks stopping at limit 190561 0000000000000080f628
152 2012-07-31 05:54:00 <zevus> 07/31/12 05:48:49 trying connection 147.229.13.218:8333 lastseen=2.5hrs
153 2012-07-31 05:54:00 <zevus> 07/31/12 05:48:49 getblocks 190562 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
154 2012-07-31 05:54:00 <zevus> 07/31/12 05:48:49 getblocks stopping at limit 191061 00000000000001cdd4db
155 2012-07-31 05:54:01 <zevus> 07/31/12 05:48:50 getblocks 189562 to 00000000000004c10d0a limit 500
156 2012-07-31 05:54:01 <zevus> 07/31/12 05:48:50 getblocks stopping at limit 190061 000000000000058fb676
157 2012-07-31 05:54:02 <zevus> 07/31/12 05:48:50 getblocks 190062 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
158 2012-07-31 05:54:02 <zevus> 07/31/12 05:48:50 getblocks stopping at limit 190561 0000000000000080f628
159 2012-07-31 05:54:03 <zevus> 07/31/12 05:48:50 getblocks 118850 to 00000000000007cf5590 limit 500
160 2012-07-31 05:54:03 <zevus> 07/31/12 05:48:50 getblocks stopping at limit 119349 0000000000007df357eb
161 2012-07-31 05:55:17 <zevus> log should show the IP requesting the blocks, that way i dont have to use tcpkill on every connection that is receiving data
162 2012-07-31 05:58:42 <zevus> 196.215.204.76 , 4.253.62.56
163 2012-07-31 06:04:54 zevus has quit (Quit: Leaving)
164 2012-07-31 06:07:52 semb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
165 2012-07-31 06:18:02 <midnightmagic> jgarzik, gmaxwell: luke last I understood runs next-test which has an option -acceptnonstdtxn: it's possible those are just tx which your clients reject.
166 2012-07-31 06:21:19 agricocb has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
167 2012-07-31 06:21:54 agricocb has joined
168 2012-07-31 06:24:00 PhantomSpark has joined
169 2012-07-31 06:27:30 CodesInChaos has joined
170 2012-07-31 06:30:04 ovidiusoft has joined
171 2012-07-31 06:35:07 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
172 2012-07-31 06:36:28 RedEmerald has left ()
173 2012-07-31 06:38:20 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: I didn't make the block either ;P
174 2012-07-31 06:41:44 <midnightmagic> ah
175 2012-07-31 06:42:52 sirk390 has joined
176 2012-07-31 06:47:16 pusle has joined
177 2012-07-31 06:57:49 CodesInChaos has joined
178 2012-07-31 07:09:20 osxorgate has joined
179 2012-07-31 07:12:12 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
180 2012-07-31 07:15:12 elkingrey has joined
181 2012-07-31 07:20:46 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
182 2012-07-31 07:21:16 elkingrey has quit (Quit: Leaving)
183 2012-07-31 07:34:28 iddo has joined
184 2012-07-31 07:37:23 Maged has joined
185 2012-07-31 07:40:41 BGL has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
186 2012-07-31 07:46:05 raad287__ has joined
187 2012-07-31 07:46:23 raad287__ has quit (Client Quit)
188 2012-07-31 07:50:54 danbri has joined
189 2012-07-31 07:52:01 drizztbsd has joined
190 2012-07-31 07:53:21 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
191 2012-07-31 07:53:27 extor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
192 2012-07-31 07:53:48 extor has joined
193 2012-07-31 07:57:43 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
194 2012-07-31 07:58:13 MC-Eeepc has joined
195 2012-07-31 08:00:45 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
196 2012-07-31 08:08:07 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
197 2012-07-31 08:13:19 sytse has joined
198 2012-07-31 08:13:57 danbri has joined
199 2012-07-31 08:24:17 dvide has quit ()
200 2012-07-31 08:28:54 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
201 2012-07-31 08:28:57 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
202 2012-07-31 08:29:03 agath has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
203 2012-07-31 08:35:38 MC-Eeepc has joined
204 2012-07-31 08:36:16 da2ce772 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
205 2012-07-31 08:36:54 [\\\] has joined
206 2012-07-31 08:44:39 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
207 2012-07-31 08:44:47 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
208 2012-07-31 08:45:02 skeledrew has joined
209 2012-07-31 08:45:15 molecular has joined
210 2012-07-31 08:46:42 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
211 2012-07-31 08:46:47 Turingi has joined
212 2012-07-31 08:48:29 RazielZ has joined
213 2012-07-31 08:51:04 jurov is now known as away!vvgsxg@84.245.71.31|jurov
214 2012-07-31 08:52:46 jdnavarro has joined
215 2012-07-31 08:54:50 da2ce7 has joined
216 2012-07-31 08:57:11 Clipse-b has joined
217 2012-07-31 08:57:23 Clipse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
218 2012-07-31 08:59:04 t7 has joined
219 2012-07-31 09:01:58 mmoya has joined
220 2012-07-31 09:02:23 darkee is now known as !~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|darkee
221 2012-07-31 09:06:53 alksjd has joined
222 2012-07-31 09:09:44 toffoo has quit ()
223 2012-07-31 09:10:47 TD has joined
224 2012-07-31 09:11:08 pusle has quit ()
225 2012-07-31 09:12:45 PK has joined
226 2012-07-31 09:14:02 da2ce7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
227 2012-07-31 09:21:02 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
228 2012-07-31 09:29:05 datagutt has joined
229 2012-07-31 09:40:49 zyb has joined
230 2012-07-31 09:40:53 Maged has quit (Disconnected by services)
231 2012-07-31 09:40:59 Maged_ has joined
232 2012-07-31 09:41:12 Maged_ is now known as Maged
233 2012-07-31 09:48:09 tonikt has joined
234 2012-07-31 10:03:13 makomk has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
235 2012-07-31 10:03:18 kjj_ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
236 2012-07-31 10:05:33 alksjd has quit (Quit: Page closed)
237 2012-07-31 10:08:04 random_cat__ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
238 2012-07-31 10:17:01 zyb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
239 2012-07-31 10:17:03 da2ce7 has joined
240 2012-07-31 10:17:24 Maged has quit (Disconnected by services)
241 2012-07-31 10:17:30 Maged_ has joined
242 2012-07-31 10:17:44 Maged_ is now known as Maged
243 2012-07-31 10:17:54 makomk has joined
244 2012-07-31 10:21:13 random_cat__ has joined
245 2012-07-31 10:22:27 danbri_ has joined
246 2012-07-31 10:22:44 _Fireball has joined
247 2012-07-31 10:23:44 Maged has quit (Disconnected by services)
248 2012-07-31 10:23:50 Maged_ has joined
249 2012-07-31 10:24:04 Maged_ is now known as Maged
250 2012-07-31 10:24:07 Animazing has left ()
251 2012-07-31 10:24:09 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
252 2012-07-31 10:26:33 kjj_ has joined
253 2012-07-31 10:27:46 sacredchao has quit (Disconnected by services)
254 2012-07-31 10:29:41 da2ce7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
255 2012-07-31 10:29:52 danbri has joined
256 2012-07-31 10:31:33 da2ce7 has joined
257 2012-07-31 10:31:51 danbri_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
258 2012-07-31 10:31:52 Z0rZ0rZ0r has joined
259 2012-07-31 10:34:06 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
260 2012-07-31 10:34:19 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
261 2012-07-31 10:40:09 cande has joined
262 2012-07-31 10:56:23 Fanquake has joined
263 2012-07-31 11:06:34 LuaKT has joined
264 2012-07-31 11:19:24 dooglus has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
265 2012-07-31 11:25:45 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
266 2012-07-31 11:26:40 dooglus has joined
267 2012-07-31 11:27:28 rdponticelli has joined
268 2012-07-31 11:30:01 Maged_ has joined
269 2012-07-31 11:30:01 Maged has quit (Disconnected by services)
270 2012-07-31 11:30:15 Maged_ is now known as Maged
271 2012-07-31 11:35:00 MC-Eeepc has joined
272 2012-07-31 11:38:10 cande has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
273 2012-07-31 11:38:31 cande has joined
274 2012-07-31 11:45:53 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
275 2012-07-31 11:50:28 zyb has joined
276 2012-07-31 11:50:30 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
277 2012-07-31 11:53:09 sytse has joined
278 2012-07-31 11:56:22 MC-Eeepc has joined
279 2012-07-31 12:00:01 agricocb has joined
280 2012-07-31 12:00:01 agricocb has quit (Changing host)
281 2012-07-31 12:00:01 agricocb has joined
282 2012-07-31 12:04:58 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: got the same one (guess you could guess from the bluematt.me note in the second sentence), and yea, I was planning on responding with uhhh...no
283 2012-07-31 12:06:11 CodesInChaos has joined
284 2012-07-31 12:10:45 osxorgate has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
285 2012-07-31 12:11:01 osxorgate has joined
286 2012-07-31 12:12:01 <sipa> strange, i did not see such a mail
287 2012-07-31 12:12:21 Maged has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
288 2012-07-31 12:12:39 <sipa> gmaxwell: the entropy coders you said you guys implemented... arithmetic/range encoding ones?
289 2012-07-31 12:13:04 zyb has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
290 2012-07-31 12:13:21 zyb has joined
291 2012-07-31 12:13:40 Maged has joined
292 2012-07-31 12:15:48 <BlueMatt> interesting...the site his email is from is http://technetlaw.com/
293 2012-07-31 12:16:08 minimoose has joined
294 2012-07-31 12:19:16 Fanquake has left ()
295 2012-07-31 12:19:54 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
296 2012-07-31 12:22:27 darkee has joined
297 2012-07-31 12:24:59 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
298 2012-07-31 12:25:52 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
299 2012-07-31 12:30:47 darkee is now known as !~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|darkee
300 2012-07-31 12:31:46 da2ce7 has joined
301 2012-07-31 12:35:48 <gmaxwell> sipa: Yes, multisymbol range coders which write out a byte at a time (which tends to be moderately faster on cpu implementations than binary arithmetic coders)
302 2012-07-31 12:35:51 <gmaxwell> http://git.xiph.org/?p=opus.git;a=blob;f=celt/entdec.c (.h has most of the api docs)
303 2012-07-31 12:35:55 <gmaxwell> http://git.xiph.org/?p=daala.git;a=blob;f=src/entdec.c
304 2012-07-31 12:36:48 <gmaxwell> (the latter being the one for the video codec which lowers the coding effiency for speed reasons, also limits cdfs to 16 entries because we plan on making the searches in its decoding SIMD)
305 2012-07-31 12:42:24 Maged has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
306 2012-07-31 12:42:44 <sipa> gmaxwell: i see; i implemented an arithmetic coder once, but heavily based on code i found in ffmpeg
307 2012-07-31 12:43:11 <sipa> it only supported binary inputs, no cdf
308 2012-07-31 12:44:19 <sipa> i suppose it can be a lot faster if you do not need to break up a symbol with a limited number of possibilities into several binary ones
309 2012-07-31 12:45:09 <sipa> but i'm not sure how to keep track of the probabilities then
310 2012-07-31 12:51:41 <gmaxwell> Binary coders make varrious kinda of trivial adaptation easier, for sure. But e.g. when you _know_ the model in advance, it's not that hard to write functions to spit out probablities. For multimedia coding we have a lot of zero-mean laplace distributed variables, so there is only one parameter.
311 2012-07-31 12:51:49 <gmaxwell> s/kinda/kinds of/
312 2012-07-31 13:00:50 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
313 2012-07-31 13:01:33 <sipa> hmm, i see
314 2012-07-31 13:04:56 <gmaxwell> In opus all the models are static because for audio coding you seldom have enough data for useful adaptation. For daala there are functions that build cdfs on the fly based on past state.
315 2012-07-31 13:05:22 one_zero has quit ()
316 2012-07-31 13:09:25 galambo has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
317 2012-07-31 13:09:34 galambo has joined
318 2012-07-31 13:19:50 mmoya has joined
319 2012-07-31 13:32:30 inlikeflynn has quit ()
320 2012-07-31 13:34:56 inlikeflynn has joined
321 2012-07-31 13:35:31 copumpkin has quit (Disconnected by services)
322 2012-07-31 13:35:32 pumpkin is now known as copumpkin
323 2012-07-31 13:35:59 pumpkin has joined
324 2012-07-31 13:36:23 cande has quit (Quit: Lämnar)
325 2012-07-31 13:38:28 Maged has joined
326 2012-07-31 13:46:14 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
327 2012-07-31 13:52:41 pnicholson has joined
328 2012-07-31 13:52:54 D34TH has joined
329 2012-07-31 14:06:39 zyb has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
330 2012-07-31 14:16:51 <Lolcust> Respected gentlemen, I have a question: In a hypothetical altchain where the "message opdrop" trick is allowed, redeeming a "to scripthash" BIP 0016 transaction would be only possible if you don't oppdrop anything into the redeeming tx (or alternatively oppdrop a certain pre-agreed pattern precisely), right ?
331 2012-07-31 14:20:45 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
332 2012-07-31 14:23:16 p0s has joined
333 2012-07-31 14:24:21 <sipa> Lolcust: there is nothing illegal about message opdrop (though i don't want to encourage it), except that it is nonstandard
334 2012-07-31 14:24:58 <Lolcust> That I understand. By allowed I mean "accepted as standard by majority of miners"
335 2012-07-31 14:25:13 <sipa> Lolcust: for the rest, the current bip16 redemption requires the txout script to be exactly OP_HASH160 [scripthash] OP_EQUAL
336 2012-07-31 14:25:51 <sipa> so if you'd prepend an opdrop in front of it, it would no longer be considered a BIP16 redemption
337 2012-07-31 14:26:03 Tykling has joined
338 2012-07-31 14:26:07 <Lolcust> Awesome
339 2012-07-31 14:26:36 <sipa> that said, in an altcoin (especially a hypothetical one) there is no reason why BIP16 would need to work exactly the same way
340 2012-07-31 14:26:37 <Lolcust> Thanks sipa
341 2012-07-31 14:27:07 <sipa> but if i were to design an altcoin now, its txout scripts would just be a single scripthash
342 2012-07-31 14:32:56 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
343 2012-07-31 14:37:13 tower has joined
344 2012-07-31 14:37:42 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
345 2012-07-31 14:45:16 sytse has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
346 2012-07-31 14:45:57 sytse has joined
347 2012-07-31 14:49:14 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
348 2012-07-31 14:51:46 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: heh, good
349 2012-07-31 14:52:13 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: no response from the UoMD peep here, especially after I sent gmaxwell's question ("do you have permission to work on non-consenting users?")
350 2012-07-31 14:53:19 <BlueMatt> I cant say I really want to discourage research, because learning more about the network as it functions in the real world is always good, but putting their node in dnsseed is just too far
351 2012-07-31 14:53:27 <BlueMatt> s/research/them/
352 2012-07-31 14:53:37 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
353 2012-07-31 14:53:52 <jgarzik> yeppers
354 2012-07-31 14:56:33 <gmaxwell> Yea, research is _excellent_. Compromising the system's behavior to expirement on non-consenting users.. not so much. :)
355 2012-07-31 14:56:53 <sipa> well said :)
356 2012-07-31 14:56:56 aq83 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
357 2012-07-31 14:57:50 aq83 has joined
358 2012-07-31 14:58:13 <gmaxwell> Although, to be honest, the fact that we consider this concerning suggests we've probably made the dnsseed a little too critical.
359 2012-07-31 14:58:35 iddo has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
360 2012-07-31 14:58:46 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: by "we" you mean "TD"
361 2012-07-31 14:58:47 * jgarzik runs
362 2012-07-31 14:59:08 <gmaxwell> :) I'm pretty sure that absent TD the answer would still be _hell no_ :)
363 2012-07-31 14:59:30 <sipa> i think it would be better if there were more (trusted?) people running seeds, but not have the client(s) query all of them
364 2012-07-31 14:59:52 <BlueMatt> I think we should use a DHT!
365 2012-07-31 14:59:53 * BlueMatt runs
366 2012-07-31 15:00:07 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: and then we can use a DHT to store seeds for the DHT.
367 2012-07-31 15:00:19 <sipa> it's just DHT's all the way down!
368 2012-07-31 15:00:21 iddo has joined
369 2012-07-31 15:00:21 <BlueMatt> yea!
370 2012-07-31 15:00:35 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
371 2012-07-31 15:01:09 <gmaxwell> peer rotation, better decisions on who blocks are pulled from, etc would all make this less critical.
372 2012-07-31 15:01:15 <sipa> indeed
373 2012-07-31 15:02:43 <Lolcust> Well, while I'm here, I don't quite get why they need their node in dns seed. If their goal is just to collect data, they could do it just fine by running several good nodes on VPSes.
374 2012-07-31 15:03:04 <Joric> it would be nice perhaps if blockchain could be downloaded a bit faster, m-key? yeah it that would be great
375 2012-07-31 15:04:02 <jgarzik> what gmaxwell said :)
376 2012-07-31 15:04:13 <jgarzik> we need to rotate away from hosts provided by the seeds as soon as feasible
377 2012-07-31 15:04:27 <BlueMatt> also, we already have a mechanism for doing that
378 2012-07-31 15:05:05 <sipa> just rotating peers would already help a lot
379 2012-07-31 15:05:24 <sipa> i've done some experiments with that, including some simulations
380 2012-07-31 15:05:45 <gmaxwell> Lolcust: who knows, they may be misguided. They may be trying already but want more traffic than they're getting.
381 2012-07-31 15:05:50 <BlueMatt> rotating in general would be really nice, but the rotate away from dnsseed-hosts should be a 50 char change, no?
382 2012-07-31 15:06:36 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I don't think we should do so stupidly... to rotate away from a working host only to spend a lot of time connected to unhealthy ones isn't good.
383 2012-07-31 15:06:56 <Lolcust> gmaxwell a VPS capable of running a BTC node can be procured for ~1-3 USD/month. They should be able to increase the amount of traffic they get by just breeding more research nodes.
384 2012-07-31 15:07:04 <jgarzik> hum. pynode is stuck again (due to known reasons -- lack of chain reorg support). It's a good thing I just made IBD really fast! ;)
385 2012-07-31 15:07:27 * jgarzik is surprised at how often orphans occur on mainnet
386 2012-07-31 15:07:34 <sipa> my plan was to implement (though i haven't done so already) a mechanism that after waiting some time (say a few minutes, perhaps randomized a bit) on a semaphore "lock", create a new connection anyway, and as soon as it connects, have it replace another random connection we already have
387 2012-07-31 15:07:44 Davincij has quit ()
388 2012-07-31 15:07:51 <jgarzik> makes me want to set up some special public nodes, that __don't__ do block verification, but instead rapidly distributed blocks to all connected clients
389 2012-07-31 15:08:00 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: agreed, I was just responding to what jgarzik said...though I do think we should rotate away from them, just maybe not with fOneShot-style right away
390 2012-07-31 15:08:10 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: see luke's block-preview pull.
391 2012-07-31 15:08:19 <sipa> the chances for choosing the peer to disconnect would be proportional to (time_already_connected)^(-0.8)
392 2012-07-31 15:08:54 <sipa> with some extra weighting to decrease disconnection chances of nodes that have provided you with (many) good blocks
393 2012-07-31 15:08:57 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: in terms of sipa's metric we'd pre-start them with a poorer score.
394 2012-07-31 15:09:46 WannaBeGeekster has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
395 2012-07-31 15:10:15 <BlueMatt> well, still downloading more actively from all peers would help a lot in here anyway (dont we already put a negative bias on dnsseeds so that we start trying other nodes after the first addr set?)
396 2012-07-31 15:10:19 Davincij15 has joined
397 2012-07-31 15:10:21 <sipa> absolutely
398 2012-07-31 15:10:42 <gmaxwell> the fact that we pin the ibd to the first peer (~always a DNS one) is unfortunate.
399 2012-07-31 15:10:44 <sipa> dnsseeds get a 4-7 day penalty, iirc
400 2012-07-31 15:10:59 WannaBeGeekster has joined
401 2012-07-31 15:11:00 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yep
402 2012-07-31 15:11:40 WannaBeGeekster has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
403 2012-07-31 15:12:19 BGL has joined
404 2012-07-31 15:12:51 * jgarzik would love to peer selection based on useful metrics like "fastest to give me blocks" rather than "first one we connected to"
405 2012-07-31 15:13:13 <jgarzik> maybe rotate getblocks through each peer, measuring response, and slowly arriving at the best peer
406 2012-07-31 15:13:35 WannaBeGeekster has joined
407 2012-07-31 15:13:50 <sipa> optimal peer selection for IBD is fundamentally different from peer selection for good steady-state network behavior
408 2012-07-31 15:13:57 <sipa> imho
409 2012-07-31 15:14:09 <jgarzik> agreed
410 2012-07-31 15:14:11 <gmaxwell> maybe get N peers up before ibd.. then get the first N blocks one at a time? Then start fetching from the fastest?
411 2012-07-31 15:14:29 <jgarzik> sipa: hence "getblocks" rather than "getdata"
412 2012-07-31 15:14:30 <BlueMatt> just buffering blocks + sending getblocks to all reasonably-fast peers would work and be far simpler
413 2012-07-31 15:14:36 <jgarzik> if you are sending getblocks, it's IBD
414 2012-07-31 15:14:47 <jgarzik> or at least high volume sync
415 2012-07-31 15:14:58 <BlueMatt> s/getblocks/getdata/
416 2012-07-31 15:15:52 <sipa> further in the future, i expect that you'd do IBD from specialized archive nodes, and that normal network nodes simply do not provide old blocks
417 2012-07-31 15:15:58 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: for steady state network behavior great care has to be taken to prevent partitioning. E.g. if you only connect to the fastest peers... europe and north america will partition. :)
418 2012-07-31 15:16:10 <sipa> these archive nodes could just as well be http
419 2012-07-31 15:16:59 <jgarzik> wishing for a future where IBD is Somebody Else's Problem does not help for much today ;)
420 2012-07-31 15:17:05 <sipa> sure
421 2012-07-31 15:18:24 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: yep, thats why the first step of buffering blocks was already implemented
422 2012-07-31 15:24:59 gavinandresen has joined
423 2012-07-31 15:26:34 t7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
424 2012-07-31 15:28:31 zyb has joined
425 2012-07-31 15:29:16 t7 has joined
426 2012-07-31 15:30:35 Raziel_ has joined
427 2012-07-31 15:33:15 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
428 2012-07-31 15:36:34 pusle has joined
429 2012-07-31 15:36:39 <MC-Eeepc> isnt it bad to get all the blocks from one peer
430 2012-07-31 15:36:53 <MC-Eeepc> what if someone is a duck and serves a bullshit chain for fun
431 2012-07-31 15:37:06 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: thats pretty much harmless.
432 2012-07-31 15:37:21 <BlueMatt> then you get bullshit for a while until you switch nodes when a new block comes out
433 2012-07-31 15:37:22 <gavinandresen> ... and expensive for the duck
434 2012-07-31 15:37:42 <MC-Eeepc> oh
435 2012-07-31 15:37:47 <gmaxwell> when the network solves another block you'll get it from a good peer, then get the missing blocks.. then see it's higher sum diff and you'll reorg.
436 2012-07-31 15:37:49 <gavinandresen> They'd have to have a bullshit chain that has valid proof-of-work
437 2012-07-31 15:38:11 <BlueMatt> or you'd just disconnect from them pretty quick
438 2012-07-31 15:38:32 <sipa> a bullshit chain with valid proof-of-work isn't hard
439 2012-07-31 15:38:40 osxorgate has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
440 2012-07-31 15:38:52 <sipa> a bullshit chain with valid proof-of-work and more work than the real chain is :)
441 2012-07-31 15:40:10 <MC-Eeepc> ok
442 2012-07-31 15:40:36 <MC-Eeepc> well maybe it could pull blocks in a rotating fashion amongs connected peers
443 2012-07-31 15:40:42 <jgarzik> sipa: how does ultraprune handle a 1000-block reorg? keeps last-N full blocks?
444 2012-07-31 15:40:47 <MC-Eeepc> so as not to suck gigabytes out of one guy....
445 2012-07-31 15:40:55 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: yes
446 2012-07-31 15:41:02 <sipa> jgarzik: for now it keeps all blocks, and undo info for all blocks as well
447 2012-07-31 15:41:02 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: if the reorg is > N, you're screwed
448 2012-07-31 15:41:05 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: it keeps undo logs.
449 2012-07-31 15:41:13 <jgarzik> ok
450 2012-07-31 15:41:41 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: thats not the case with the current code... though if you want space saving it would be if you dropped undo logs past some height.
451 2012-07-31 15:41:58 <gavinandresen> disk space is cheap
452 2012-07-31 15:42:00 <BlueMatt> oh, I thought that was implemented...anyway wasnt that the plan?
453 2012-07-31 15:42:10 Raziel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
454 2012-07-31 15:42:26 <jgarzik> indeed
455 2012-07-31 15:42:35 <sipa> BlueMatt: that was the original plan yes, but right now, i think the code is more interesting because of the speedup it gives :)
456 2012-07-31 15:42:45 <BlueMatt> fair enough
457 2012-07-31 15:42:47 <sipa> but implementing pruning will be trivial
458 2012-07-31 15:42:48 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: it's designed to accommodate that at least. As gavin says, disk space is cheap.. the bigger improvement is also locality.
459 2012-07-31 15:43:22 zyb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
460 2012-07-31 15:43:22 word has joined
461 2012-07-31 15:43:36 <gmaxwell> one of the insights that I got out of ultra prune is that that txout tree commitment proposal should potentially also commit undo logs.
462 2012-07-31 15:43:43 <jgarzik> the locality is mainly needed for the indices
463 2012-07-31 15:43:56 <jgarzik> I don't see much reason to delete serialized block data
464 2012-07-31 15:44:03 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: ultraprune is 'all index'.
465 2012-07-31 15:44:24 <sipa> except for reorg, serve, and rescan, the block data itself is never used
466 2012-07-31 15:44:25 <gmaxwell> It doesn't need to use the blocks for validation.
467 2012-07-31 15:45:55 <jgarzik> that's fine -- as long as the block data stays there in blk????.dat
468 2012-07-31 15:46:45 <gmaxwell> It also breaks the block data out into many files.
469 2012-07-31 15:46:54 <sipa> right now, in a single file per block, but i'm going to change that into one file per few hundred blocks or so
470 2012-07-31 15:46:55 <jgarzik> that's silly
471 2012-07-31 15:47:35 <jgarzik> that's yucky
472 2012-07-31 15:47:38 <sipa> ?
473 2012-07-31 15:47:41 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: it lets the filesystem do its job and makes it easier to share storage between nodes.
474 2012-07-31 15:47:55 <gmaxwell> also makes running nodes without archive data easier.
475 2012-07-31 15:48:12 <sipa> the only problem with that is that you have 1/2-filesystem-block waste per block
476 2012-07-31 15:48:32 <jgarzik> have actually written a kernel filesystem, I'm skeptical
477 2012-07-31 15:48:50 <jgarzik> not sure running nodes without archive data is high on satoshi client's mission list
478 2012-07-31 15:48:58 <jgarzik> full node + client node is a full plate already
479 2012-07-31 15:49:49 <sipa> explain me what disadvantage 100 MB blk000X files has over 2 GB blk000X files?
480 2012-07-31 15:49:56 <jgarzik> it would be interesting to create a pynode mode that had no block data. request undo data over the network, to handle reorgs.
481 2012-07-31 15:50:08 <gavinandresen> they're not compatible with existing tools that understand blk000X files
482 2012-07-31 15:50:17 <sipa> they will be
483 2012-07-31 15:50:38 <sipa> (except that there are fewer blocks per file)
484 2012-07-31 15:50:51 <jgarzik> sipa: from a filesystem perspective, probably more disk seeks. bigger directories. more wasted space, as you just noted.
485 2012-07-31 15:51:01 <gavinandresen> oh, you're just making the max size smaller than 2GB? Fine, then.
486 2012-07-31 15:51:01 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: that's awesome btw, that's exactly how I planned to store the chain in the client I ended up abodoning when I got to script parser stage due to time constraints ;p
487 2012-07-31 15:51:17 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: bitcoinj implementation does that
488 2012-07-31 15:51:21 <sipa> i don't care about 2 KiB wasted space per 100 MB
489 2012-07-31 15:51:26 <jgarzik> sipa: probably well within noise range
490 2012-07-31 15:51:31 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: throw PrunedException(hash), which gets picked up and requested
491 2012-07-31 15:51:40 <sipa> and yes, directories become larger and slower, but the files in them are almost never accessed
492 2012-07-31 15:52:08 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: and you don't need to readdir() to access the contents any ways so real performance doesn't suffer
493 2012-07-31 15:52:16 <sipa> exactly
494 2012-07-31 15:52:56 <sipa> gavinandresen: i'm quite sure i can reduce storage of blocks as well, by designing a more compact serialization, but i chose not to, as that would mean breaking more compatibility, and for those for whom storage space is an issue, it already provides pruning anyway
495 2012-07-31 15:54:42 <gmaxwell> sipa: hm. How does your current layout handle getheaders load?
496 2012-07-31 15:55:22 <sipa> gmaxwell: good question, let me check
497 2012-07-31 15:55:38 <sipa> gmaxwell: served from RAM
498 2012-07-31 15:55:50 CCCP has quit (Quit: leaving)
499 2012-07-31 15:57:52 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: I'd take it a step further and build the indexes with hardlink trees instead of bdb/etc but that's a portability nightmare ;p
500 2012-07-31 15:58:17 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: the only index that ultraprune requires is a txid -> coins map
501 2012-07-31 15:58:33 t7 has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.88-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.0.17/2009122204])
502 2012-07-31 15:58:35 <sipa> or do you mean the block index? i'm thinking about storing that just in a flat file
503 2012-07-31 15:58:45 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: I mean the block index
504 2012-07-31 15:58:47 <sipa> (though it is a small BDB file now)
505 2012-07-31 15:59:41 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: if you keep every block as a single file (I really don't see a problem with that how it's used so long as it's split up sanely, we already have a hashed value to use to build the dir structure), you can have a separate hardlink tree based on height that's just hardlinks back into the tree
506 2012-07-31 16:00:05 <sipa> meh
507 2012-07-31 16:00:07 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: I'm now waiting for jgarzik to stab you.
508 2012-07-31 16:00:16 <gmaxwell> plus you want offsets.
509 2012-07-31 16:00:18 <jrmithdobbs> i abuse the crap out of my fses ok
510 2012-07-31 16:00:19 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
511 2012-07-31 16:00:49 <jrmithdobbs> (I've actually run production systems based on similar designs, it works a lot better than you'd think at first glance)
512 2012-07-31 16:01:01 <jrmithdobbs> also has benefit of letting fs cache layer do all the heavy lifting for you
513 2012-07-31 16:01:50 <gmaxwell> I'm very much a plan of 'middle' solutions. Going all the way to making the FS do all work has issues, pure blob mode has issues.. hopefully something in the middle evades the bulk of them.
514 2012-07-31 16:02:01 Maged has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
515 2012-07-31 16:02:23 <jrmithdobbs> fair enough
516 2012-07-31 16:02:59 <sipa> s/plan/fan/ ?
517 2012-07-31 16:03:17 <gmaxwell> haha
518 2012-07-31 16:03:19 <gmaxwell> Good decode.
519 2012-07-31 16:04:16 <sipa> 17:55:21 < gmaxwell> plus you want offsets. -> sure you can encode those in device entries in the FS, or as dangling symlink data :p
520 2012-07-31 16:04:34 * sipa ducks
521 2012-07-31 16:04:38 <gmaxwell> xattrs!
522 2012-07-31 16:04:53 * jgarzik sighs loudly :)
523 2012-07-31 16:05:20 <gmaxwell> if you didn't care about compatiblity you'd stick the offset tables at the front of the blockfiles.
524 2012-07-31 16:05:33 * jgarzik ponders going the other way in pynode, and storing everything in a single file. It's the best for de-fragmentation.
525 2012-07-31 16:05:56 <sipa> actually, the current ultraprune code does not ever store a blockfile offset
526 2012-07-31 16:06:00 <jgarzik> single file + prealloc gets you the most optimal, including locality
527 2012-07-31 16:06:02 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: heh, all about options ;p
528 2012-07-31 16:10:19 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
529 2012-07-31 16:11:40 Maged has joined
530 2012-07-31 16:14:00 tonikt has joined
531 2012-07-31 16:18:03 d4de has joined
532 2012-07-31 16:18:04 d4de has quit (Changing host)
533 2012-07-31 16:18:04 d4de has joined
534 2012-07-31 16:20:18 sipa has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
535 2012-07-31 16:23:46 <helo> does the client wait to send a transaction until it has caught up with the network?
536 2012-07-31 16:24:37 <gmaxwell> helo: no.
537 2012-07-31 16:25:09 <gmaxwell> And no reason to, generally. (though if you've been using your wallet multiple places you may have double spent yourself; but delaying won't fix that)
538 2012-07-31 16:25:53 <helo> i didn't think so, but SerajewelKS in #bitcoin is complaining that that seems to be the case
539 2012-07-31 16:26:18 <Ferroh> helo, because bitcoin-qt forces you to wait
540 2012-07-31 16:26:35 <Ferroh> helo, though technically you dont have to if you have a client that doesnt make you wait
541 2012-07-31 16:27:02 <Ferroh> helo, bitcoin-qt doesnt see that you have the bitcoins until the chain is up to date enough, so it doesn't let you spend if your balance is 0.
542 2012-07-31 16:27:48 <helo> Ferroh: in this case the blocks with the coin to send have already been seen
543 2012-07-31 16:28:13 sipa1024 has joined
544 2012-07-31 16:28:13 <Ferroh> then he cant spend them
545 2012-07-31 16:28:23 <Ferroh> it doesnt wait for the last block in the chain
546 2012-07-31 16:28:28 <Ferroh> *can
547 2012-07-31 16:28:30 <Ferroh> CAN spend them
548 2012-07-31 16:28:31 <helo> right
549 2012-07-31 16:28:38 <sipa1024> what was the question?
550 2012-07-31 16:28:41 sipa1024 is now known as sipa
551 2012-07-31 16:28:45 <gmaxwell> Ferroh: the conversation in #bitcoin was claiming that you couldn't spend _after_ the coins existed.
552 2012-07-31 16:28:51 <gmaxwell> Ferroh: and thats not true.
553 2012-07-31 16:28:57 <Ferroh> gmaxwell, right.
554 2012-07-31 16:29:13 <Ferroh> sipa, the question was, does the bitcoin-qt client make you wait until the chain is up to date (all the way up to date) before letting you spend
555 2012-07-31 16:29:31 <sipa> no
556 2012-07-31 16:29:36 <Ferroh> sipa: we know :)
557 2012-07-31 16:29:44 <sipa> good we agree :p
558 2012-07-31 16:30:44 andytoshi has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.7)
559 2012-07-31 16:32:27 Maged has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
560 2012-07-31 16:34:03 jurov is now known as jurov|away
561 2012-07-31 16:35:18 <D34TH> ovh is giving away free dedi;s to twitter followers
562 2012-07-31 16:35:21 <D34TH> i just got one
563 2012-07-31 16:35:21 tonikt has quit (Quit: Leaving)
564 2012-07-31 16:35:25 <D34TH> pretty legit
565 2012-07-31 16:35:44 <luke-jr> D34TH: for life? O.o
566 2012-07-31 16:36:08 <D34TH> http://www.ovh.com/bhs
567 2012-07-31 16:36:20 <D34TH> giving away 125 a day
568 2012-07-31 16:36:33 <D34TH> im on a 100 mbit port
569 2012-07-31 16:36:41 <D34TH> comes with ipv6 also
570 2012-07-31 16:36:50 <luke-jr> D34TH: my point is for how long:P
571 2012-07-31 16:36:53 <luke-jr> probably just 1 month
572 2012-07-31 16:36:55 <D34TH> idk
573 2012-07-31 16:37:18 <Dagger2> comes with _OVH's_ IPv6 implementation, mind
574 2012-07-31 16:37:47 <D34TH> luke-jr, http://www.ovh.com/us/support/termsofservice/Special_Conditions_Betatest_US.pdf
575 2012-07-31 16:38:10 <OneEyed> Dagger2: what do you mean? I've been using IPv6 on OVH for years, and it works just fine
576 2012-07-31 16:38:52 <luke-jr> D34TH: lol, so until they decide to stop
577 2012-07-31 16:38:53 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
578 2012-07-31 16:39:08 <D34TH> 16 gb of ram and i3 2130
579 2012-07-31 16:39:11 <D34TH> not mad
580 2012-07-31 16:39:16 <Dagger2> OneEyed: it's on-link with no routed block, and they don't mention anywhere that your "/64" is actually a section of a /56
581 2012-07-31 16:39:22 <D34TH> 2tb storage
582 2012-07-31 16:39:38 <D34TH> Dagger2, mine says /64
583 2012-07-31 16:40:40 <Dagger2> D34TH: and you'll note that your upstream router isn't inside that /64, which is a bit impossible
584 2012-07-31 16:40:47 <luke-jr> Dagger2: all /64 is part of a /56
585 2012-07-31 16:40:48 <OneEyed> Well, it shows on the ifconfig :)
586 2012-07-31 16:40:59 <luke-jr> Dagger2: sounds pretty standard to me
587 2012-07-31 16:41:01 <OneEyed> inet6 addr: 2001:41d0:1:66b3::1/56
588 2012-07-31 16:41:23 <Dagger2> since the whole point of a router is to let you reach computers that are outside your local subnet. if the router itself is outside your local subnet, you've got a problem
589 2012-07-31 16:41:39 <D34TH> inet6 addr: 2607:5300:60:217::1/64
590 2012-07-31 16:42:50 <Dagger2> luke-jr: the standard would be to take an IP from a /64 on-link, and optionally have a /64 (/56, /48) routed to that IP
591 2012-07-31 16:43:27 <OneEyed> Dagger2: or it could be to use a link-local address to reach your router, as is sometimes done
592 2012-07-31 16:45:28 <Dagger2> OneEyed: ah, true, although that's not what OVH tell you to do. and they still give you no way to get a routed block (and if you ask their support for one, they don't understand what you're on about)
593 2012-07-31 16:45:46 <Dagger2> and they still tell you the wrong subnet size in their admin pages :/
594 2012-07-31 16:47:35 <luke-jr> â¦
595 2012-07-31 16:47:36 <OneEyed> Dagger2: if you need a routed block *and* are ready to jump through hoops, you can re-split your /64 and route part of it, but most stacks assume at some places that the interface is either as large as /64 or is a /128
596 2012-07-31 16:48:28 <Dagger2> OneEyed: you can't, because it's on-link. you have to bridge all your clients onto the link
597 2012-07-31 16:48:42 <luke-jr> sure you can
598 2012-07-31 16:48:47 <OneEyed> Dagger2: yes you can
599 2012-07-31 16:48:57 <Dagger2> (I suppose someone is going to say proxy-NDP at some point)
600 2012-07-31 16:49:01 <OneEyed> No
601 2012-07-31 16:49:05 <Dagger2> (that's fake bridging)
602 2012-07-31 16:49:55 <OneEyed> Oh, I see what you mean, and yes, you'd probably need to proxy ndp in fact :)
603 2012-07-31 16:49:56 <luke-jr> no, proxy NDP is basically the right way to do this. it's not bridging at all.
604 2012-07-31 16:51:14 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
605 2012-07-31 16:51:42 bitllc has joined
606 2012-07-31 16:53:09 <Dagger2> it's not the right way to do this in general (although it is what you're stuck with on OVH)
607 2012-07-31 16:54:04 <Dagger2> "this" being routed networks, such as providing IPv6 to your home network via a VPN
608 2012-07-31 16:56:29 <luke-jr> maybe.
609 2012-07-31 16:56:50 <luke-jr> but technically speaking, ISPs are required to provide end users with /48s ;)
610 2012-07-31 16:56:54 <OneEyed> Or get a provider who gives you IPv6 at home :)
611 2012-07-31 16:57:16 <OneEyed> (in France, we have Free Telecom doing that)
612 2012-07-31 16:57:22 <luke-jr> (for unenforcable definitions of "required")
613 2012-07-31 16:57:43 <OneEyed> (and Free Telecom gives you only a /64 too unfortunately)
614 2012-07-31 16:58:22 <Dagger2> VPN-to-home was just an example. substitute a VM-only network, or anything that requires a routed block of IPs
615 2012-07-31 16:58:37 <Dagger2> OVH screw you over on that front because they don't give you anything :(
616 2012-07-31 16:58:51 <epscy> /64 should be big enough for anybody
617 2012-07-31 16:58:55 <luke-jr> Dagger2: there's no reaosn that requires a routed block
618 2012-07-31 16:59:13 <luke-jr> epscy: /64 is the minimum subnet size
619 2012-07-31 16:59:27 <Dagger2> epscy: my point was that the /64 that OVH "gives you" is not actually given to you. it's on-link
620 2012-07-31 16:59:29 <luke-jr> epscy: ie, insufficient if you even want distinct wifi/LAN
621 2012-07-31 16:59:35 <luke-jr> Dagger2: on-link is still given to you
622 2012-07-31 16:59:44 <luke-jr> even if you don't like the routing protocols being used
623 2012-07-31 16:59:51 <Dagger2> epscy: for instance, let's say you go to work, plug in your laptop, and it gets the IP 10.44.55.66/8
624 2012-07-31 16:59:58 <Dagger2> epscy: does that mean your work has given you 10.0.0.0/8?
625 2012-07-31 17:00:23 <luke-jr> Dagger2: so long as you are free to add other IPs in that subnet, yes
626 2012-07-31 17:00:30 <Dagger2> epscy: what it actually means is that they've given you an IP from *their* 10.0.0.0/8
627 2012-07-31 17:00:45 <OneEyed> Dagger2: so you want to forget IPv6 autoconfiguration altogether?
628 2012-07-31 17:01:14 <OneEyed> If you're throwing in DHCP6, you might as well add NAT6 in this case and your problem is solvedâ¦
629 2012-07-31 17:01:42 <Dagger2> luke-jr: I disagree. the on-link block might be dedicated to you, but it's still your ISP's block -- after all, they're running the router for it
630 2012-07-31 17:02:21 rdponticelli has joined
631 2012-07-31 17:02:24 <luke-jr> Dagger2: so is every router on the internet; you can run your own router for it too!
632 2012-07-31 17:02:46 <Dagger2> OneEyed: no. where did I suggest that?
633 2012-07-31 17:02:58 <OneEyed> Dagger2: you didn't, but I like building straw men :)
634 2012-07-31 17:04:20 <Dagger2> luke-jr: not even sure how to respond to that. most routers on the internet are not even connected to the subnet in question...
635 2012-07-31 17:04:42 <luke-jr> Dagger2: they still route it
636 2012-07-31 17:05:12 <OneEyed> luke-jr: Dagger is right in that: most of the time, you designate one entry point for your network, and the packet has this entry point MAC address as a target
637 2012-07-31 17:08:42 mmoya has joined
638 2012-07-31 17:08:50 <Dagger2> luke-jr: what I meant by "running the router for it" is that they're running the machine that all other machines in the subnet will be using as their default router
639 2012-07-31 17:09:27 <Dagger2> obviously other routers on the internet can't be used as the default router in that subnet, because other routers on the internet aren't *in* that subnet
640 2012-07-31 17:10:48 <luke-jr> Dagger2: ISPs usually do
641 2012-07-31 17:11:06 <luke-jr> Dagger2: your VMs can use your host system for the default route instead ofc
642 2012-07-31 17:12:16 <Dagger2> luke-jr: how would the VMs get incoming packets? what path would they take?
643 2012-07-31 17:13:02 <luke-jr> client -> client ISP -> inetrouter -> ⦠-> inetrouter -> OVH -> your network
644 2012-07-31 17:13:17 <luke-jr> client -> client ISP -> inetrouter -> ⦠-> inetrouter -> OVH -> your host -> VM
645 2012-07-31 17:13:52 <Dagger2> see, that "OVH -> your host -> VM" won't actually happen
646 2012-07-31 17:13:57 <luke-jr> yes, it will
647 2012-07-31 17:14:09 <luke-jr> you just need to setup your host as a NDP router
648 2012-07-31 17:14:17 <Dagger2> it'll get to OVH, and then OVH will go "uh, hello VM? what's your MAC address?", and then it fails
649 2012-07-31 17:14:28 <luke-jr> no, because your router advertises the route to it
650 2012-07-31 17:15:17 <Dagger2> it doesn't advertise the route to it... if you're using proxy NDP, it pretends to have that IP, to make it look like the machine is on-link
651 2012-07-31 17:15:25 Cablesaurus has joined
652 2012-07-31 17:15:29 Cablesaurus has quit (Client Quit)
653 2012-07-31 17:15:36 <upb> yup
654 2012-07-31 17:15:38 <luke-jr> sorry, NDP is just another routing protocol
655 2012-07-31 17:15:43 <Dagger2> the problem is that OVH's router, as a result, has to have neighbour entries for *all* your client VMs, not just "your host"
656 2012-07-31 17:15:44 <luke-jr> it just doesn't scale well
657 2012-07-31 17:15:46 mb300sd has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
658 2012-07-31 17:16:00 <luke-jr> yes, NDP only does routing per /128
659 2012-07-31 17:16:17 <luke-jr> but that's more OVH's problem than yours
660 2012-07-31 17:16:18 <Dagger2> if you extended this logic upwards to the entire internet, you'd end up with the result that the entire internet appears to be inside a single subnet, which... would be broken
661 2012-07-31 17:16:21 mb300sd has joined
662 2012-07-31 17:16:24 <luke-jr> since they need to waste more memory on routing tablesw
663 2012-07-31 17:16:32 <luke-jr> [17:10:45] <luke-jr> it just doesn't scale well
664 2012-07-31 17:19:08 <Dagger2> well, it certainly doesn't scale to 2^64 entries, which is how many you'd need to cover the /64 OVH let you use
665 2012-07-31 17:19:16 <Dagger2> which should be a pretty big hint that it's the wrong tool for the job
666 2012-07-31 17:20:17 <luke-jr> well, like I said that's OVH's problem ;)
667 2012-07-31 17:21:12 <upb> the point is that ovh is using a hacky solution you give you ipv6
668 2012-07-31 17:21:18 <upb> why are you defending them luke-jr
669 2012-07-31 17:21:55 <luke-jr> I'm not, I'm playing devil's advocate :P
670 2012-07-31 17:22:24 <upb> why havent you come to ##re anymore btw :P
671 2012-07-31 17:22:26 <upb> hahahaha
672 2012-07-31 17:24:23 <Dagger2> I'd be a lot happier with the concept of NDP as a routing protocol if it let you insert routes to entire blocks in the upstream's routing table, preferably with a significantly longer timeout than is typically used for an NDP cache
673 2012-07-31 17:24:46 <Dagger2> as it stands, it just feels like a hack to deal with clueless upstream providers that can't handle actual routing
674 2012-07-31 17:37:14 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
675 2012-07-31 17:43:11 Maged has joined
676 2012-07-31 17:44:57 sytse has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
677 2012-07-31 17:45:18 RainbowDashh has joined
678 2012-07-31 17:45:24 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
679 2012-07-31 17:58:46 sirk390 has joined
680 2012-07-31 17:59:35 sytse has joined
681 2012-07-31 17:59:49 Zarutian has joined
682 2012-07-31 18:02:16 da2ce7_d has joined
683 2012-07-31 18:05:01 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
684 2012-07-31 18:09:15 44UAADIXG has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
685 2012-07-31 18:09:52 Marf has joined
686 2012-07-31 18:12:45 ZephyrVoid has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
687 2012-07-31 18:25:38 ZephyrVoid has joined
688 2012-07-31 18:36:02 <yellowhat> is this supposed to happen in prodnet? INFO: DNS lookup for dnsseed.bluematt.me failed. INFO: DNS lookup for seed.bitcoin.sipa.be failed.
689 2012-07-31 18:36:10 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
690 2012-07-31 18:36:18 <yellowhat> usign bitcoinj
691 2012-07-31 18:36:31 <yellowhat> usign -> using
692 2012-07-31 18:39:48 <sipa> yellowhat: my dns seed was down, it's up again now
693 2012-07-31 18:40:54 <yellowhat> good to know thanks
694 2012-07-31 18:41:01 tsche has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
695 2012-07-31 18:41:42 tsche has joined
696 2012-07-31 18:43:32 zevus has joined
697 2012-07-31 18:43:42 <zevus> http://nogleg.com/95.154.103.50.txt
698 2012-07-31 18:43:48 <zevus> there, it was just that one person actually
699 2012-07-31 18:44:30 <gmaxwell> thats .. one very confused node.
700 2012-07-31 18:44:52 <gmaxwell> its connectable.
701 2012-07-31 18:45:35 <zevus> i cleared my deny list from the other day & sure enough, there was all the spam again... but that was the only IP that was the same from previous
702 2012-07-31 18:46:04 <zevus> not on my addnode list, just connected randomly i guess
703 2012-07-31 18:46:34 rdponticelli has joined
704 2012-07-31 18:46:39 <zevus> there's a couple hours of that actually
705 2012-07-31 18:46:42 <zevus> that's just the last few mins
706 2012-07-31 18:47:50 sirk390 has left ()
707 2012-07-31 18:48:30 <zevus> well, 45 minutes
708 2012-07-31 18:48:40 <zevus> sure it would have kept on going tho
709 2012-07-31 18:48:54 <zevus> any chance of getting IP listed on getblock requests? heh
710 2012-07-31 18:49:54 agricocb has joined
711 2012-07-31 18:52:25 Ahimoth has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
712 2012-07-31 18:53:40 <zevus> an Octopusnet Personal (VPN I guess) in russia,
713 2012-07-31 18:54:11 BGL has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
714 2012-07-31 18:54:19 <gmaxwell> zevus: we intentionally do not log IPs in order to avoid making bitcoin's logfiles valuable targets for theft.
715 2012-07-31 18:56:17 mmoya has joined
716 2012-07-31 19:00:30 sirk390 has joined
717 2012-07-31 19:02:00 <zevus> aha
718 2012-07-31 19:02:35 <gmaxwell> We're going to add some more stats per peer though, so you'd be able to see the counts incrementing though.
719 2012-07-31 19:03:09 <zevus> in peerinfo? yah, that'd work
720 2012-07-31 19:04:55 Ahimoth has joined
721 2012-07-31 19:05:13 sirk390 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
722 2012-07-31 19:06:48 CodesInChaos has joined
723 2012-07-31 19:07:01 jurov is now known as away!vvgsxg@84.245.71.31|jurov
724 2012-07-31 19:07:40 <zevus> someone already w00tw00ting me =0
725 2012-07-31 19:07:47 bitllc_ has joined
726 2012-07-31 19:07:54 sirk390 has joined
727 2012-07-31 19:08:04 t7 has joined
728 2012-07-31 19:09:13 bitllc has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
729 2012-07-31 19:09:40 <zevus> 07/31/12 19:03:51 getblocks 157476 to 000000000000054e88b6 limit 500
730 2012-07-31 19:09:40 <zevus> 07/31/12 19:03:51 getblocks stopping at limit 157975 0000000000000287eaf2
731 2012-07-31 19:09:40 <zevus> 07/31/12 19:03:56 getblocks 157498 to 000000000000055aa37f limit 500
732 2012-07-31 19:09:40 <zevus> 07/31/12 19:03:56 getblocks stopping at 157552 000000000000055aa37f
733 2012-07-31 19:09:40 <zevus> 07/31/12 19:03:56 getblocks 157498 to 000000000000054e88b6 limit 500
734 2012-07-31 19:09:40 <zevus> 07/31/12 19:03:56 getblocks stopping at limit 157997 00000000000002b33ba7
735 2012-07-31 19:10:00 <zevus> why does it keep requesting before processing? i mean, at least that one is moving..
736 2012-07-31 19:13:21 <gmaxwell> zevus: thats just a normal sync. It only passes a chunk at a time, then the peer processes them and needs more.
737 2012-07-31 19:13:32 <gmaxwell> That just makes sure you're not flooding it.
738 2012-07-31 19:15:09 <zevus> ah
739 2012-07-31 19:16:42 <zevus> can you tell me what the 07/31/12 19:11:14 received getdata (3 invsz) means? instead of just the normal received getdata for: tx or block or w/e?
740 2012-07-31 19:17:17 <zevus> 07/31/12 19:12:10 received getdata (14 invsz)
741 2012-07-31 19:17:17 <zevus> 07/31/12 19:12:11 received getdata for: tx 0ee41b95e820230c35f8
742 2012-07-31 19:17:19 Turingi has joined
743 2012-07-31 19:18:26 <zevus> i see some 30+ too.. my inclination is that it's some peer requesting x amt of tx?
744 2012-07-31 19:19:32 Clipse-b has quit (Quit: Clipse-b)
745 2012-07-31 19:21:37 bitllc_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
746 2012-07-31 19:22:21 bitllc has joined
747 2012-07-31 19:22:42 faraday__ has joined
748 2012-07-31 19:26:00 imsaguy is now known as imsaguy2
749 2012-07-31 19:26:38 Clipse has joined
750 2012-07-31 19:27:49 sirk390 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
751 2012-07-31 19:29:29 BGL has joined
752 2012-07-31 19:31:31 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
753 2012-07-31 19:32:38 bitllc has joined
754 2012-07-31 19:33:22 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
755 2012-07-31 19:34:19 bitllc has joined
756 2012-07-31 19:35:21 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
757 2012-07-31 19:36:20 bitllc has joined
758 2012-07-31 19:37:12 sirk390 has joined
759 2012-07-31 19:41:13 sirk390 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
760 2012-07-31 19:41:28 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
761 2012-07-31 19:41:37 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
762 2012-07-31 19:41:47 sirk390 has joined
763 2012-07-31 19:43:57 bitllc has joined
764 2012-07-31 19:45:10 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
765 2012-07-31 19:45:35 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
766 2012-07-31 19:46:34 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
767 2012-07-31 19:49:23 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
768 2012-07-31 19:50:18 bitllc has joined
769 2012-07-31 19:50:50 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
770 2012-07-31 19:53:02 <zevus> it's doing it again, this time 18873, 189373, 182873, 171373 etc
771 2012-07-31 19:53:27 <zevus> 19:24 to 19:46 = about 40 requests for getblocks 171373 to xx
772 2012-07-31 19:53:46 <zevus> likewise for 186873 and all the other variants
773 2012-07-31 19:53:56 bitllc has joined
774 2012-07-31 19:54:22 mb300sd has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
775 2012-07-31 19:54:22 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
776 2012-07-31 19:56:04 ken has quit (Disconnected by services)
777 2012-07-31 19:56:47 <MC-Eeepc> random question
778 2012-07-31 19:56:55 <MC-Eeepc> could twitter be implemented in a dht
779 2012-07-31 19:57:39 Karmaon has quit (Quit: Deadman's switch)
780 2012-07-31 19:57:50 phantomcircuit has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
781 2012-07-31 19:57:52 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: ---> #twitter
782 2012-07-31 19:58:15 <MC-Eeepc> ??
783 2012-07-31 19:58:29 MobiusL has joined
784 2012-07-31 19:58:43 sirk390 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
785 2012-07-31 19:59:14 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: Wrong channel.
786 2012-07-31 19:59:30 mb300sd has joined
787 2012-07-31 20:00:21 <jgarzik> 07/31/12 19:54:24 getblocks 191717 to 00000000000007e6b019 limit 500
788 2012-07-31 20:00:21 <jgarzik> 07/31/12 19:54:24 getblocks stopping at 191718 00000000000007e6b019
789 2012-07-31 20:00:21 <jgarzik> 07/31/12 19:54:24 received getdata for: block 00000000000007e6b019
790 2012-07-31 20:00:21 <jgarzik> 07/31/12 19:54:24 getblocks 191717 to 00000000000007e6b019 limit 500
791 2012-07-31 20:00:21 <jgarzik> 07/31/12 19:54:24 getblocks stopping at 191718 00000000000007e6b019
792 2012-07-31 20:00:22 <jgarzik> 07/31/12 19:54:24 getblocks 191717 to 00000000000007e6b019 limit 500
793 2012-07-31 20:00:24 <jgarzik> 07/31/12 19:54:24 getblocks stopping at 191718 00000000000007e6b019
794 2012-07-31 20:00:58 <MC-Eeepc> how bureaucratic
795 2012-07-31 20:01:03 <jgarzik> satoshi would yell, but I am tempted to add IP address logging for each command
796 2012-07-31 20:02:21 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: as long as it isn't on by default I don't really think it's terrible. I currently patch my nodes to log more stuff. Alternatively, bitcoin traffic isn't that high... and there is an almost working wireshark dissector.. just grab pcaps. :)
797 2012-07-31 20:03:09 <jgarzik> easier to -logips :)
798 2012-07-31 20:04:46 Ken` has joined
799 2012-07-31 20:04:51 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: perhaps a new logging function that takes the ip as an argument, but only logs it if activated.
800 2012-07-31 20:05:04 sirk390 has joined
801 2012-07-31 20:05:12 <gmaxwell> Could also feed a circular buffer fetchable via RPC/gui.. which could have all the info.
802 2012-07-31 20:06:11 copumpkin is now known as TwoFixt
803 2012-07-31 20:07:07 <zevus> 31.181.104.164 <--- continuously requesting 170372 to 190372, then wrapping back to 170372
804 2012-07-31 20:07:19 Guest73296 has joined
805 2012-07-31 20:07:42 <gmaxwell> zevus: what version does this node claim to run?
806 2012-07-31 20:08:05 <zevus> 07/31/12 19:13:27 receive version message: version 60001, blocks=170372, us=5.9.24.81:8333, them=31.181.232.249:8333, peer=31.181.104.164:58054
807 2012-07-31 20:08:16 Guest73296 has left ()
808 2012-07-31 20:08:19 TwoFixt is now known as copumpkin
809 2012-07-31 20:08:32 Guest73296 has joined
810 2012-07-31 20:08:40 <gmaxwell> Interesting that this doesn't match: them=31.181.232.249:8333, peer=31.181.104.164:58054
811 2012-07-31 20:09:00 <zevus> 07/31/12 19:13:27 accepted connection 31.181.104.164:58054
812 2012-07-31 20:09:00 <zevus> 07/31/12 19:13:27 send version message: version 60001, blocks=191712, us=5.9.24.81:8334, them=31.181.104.164:58054, peer=31.181.104.164:58054
813 2012-07-31 20:09:00 <zevus> 07/31/12 19:13:27 receive version message: version 60001, blocks=170372, us=5.9.24.81:8333, them=31.181.232.249:8333, peer=31.181.104.164:58054
814 2012-07-31 20:09:13 sirk390 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
815 2012-07-31 20:09:42 Joric has quit ()
816 2012-07-31 20:09:56 <zevus> another russian ip
817 2012-07-31 20:10:19 phantomcircuit has joined
818 2012-07-31 20:10:26 <gmaxwell> hm. I'd previously blocked that entire /16, wish I'd made a note as to why.
819 2012-07-31 20:10:41 <gmaxwell> It must have been doing something pretty nasty to earn that.
820 2012-07-31 20:10:53 Guest73296 has left ()
821 2012-07-31 20:11:44 Karmaon__ has joined
822 2012-07-31 20:12:37 Karmaon__ has quit (Changing host)
823 2012-07-31 20:12:37 Karmaon__ has joined
824 2012-07-31 20:14:12 sirk390 has joined
825 2012-07-31 20:14:43 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: Why would Satoshi yell about IP logging?
826 2012-07-31 20:15:34 rdponticelli has joined
827 2012-07-31 20:17:01 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
828 2012-07-31 20:18:53 sirk390 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
829 2012-07-31 20:19:23 osmosis has joined
830 2012-07-31 20:19:43 rdponticelli has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
831 2012-07-31 20:20:34 <BlueMatt> anyone know off-hand if we have any non-SIGHASH_ALL in the chain?
832 2012-07-31 20:21:42 Prattler has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
833 2012-07-31 20:21:54 rdponticelli has joined
834 2012-07-31 20:22:20 <zevus> -A INPUT -s 31.181.104.164/16 -j DROP
835 2012-07-31 20:22:26 <zevus> oh oops
836 2012-07-31 20:22:30 <zevus> 31.181.0.0, right?
837 2012-07-31 20:23:04 <zevus> fixed
838 2012-07-31 20:25:02 sirk390 has joined
839 2012-07-31 20:26:24 <zevus> id say 60% of the w00tw00t has been from chinese ip's, about 30% from russian
840 2012-07-31 20:27:25 <zevus> not like anything of value is on that server haha
841 2012-07-31 20:28:01 jandd has left ()
842 2012-07-31 20:28:09 <zevus> well, no more BS getblock requests for now
843 2012-07-31 20:30:58 <zevus> spamhaus has that IP blocked
844 2012-07-31 20:31:00 Maccer has quit (Excess Flood)
845 2012-07-31 20:31:24 <zevus> 31.181.0.0/16 that whole range also
846 2012-07-31 20:32:01 <jgarzik> gavinandresen gmaxwell sipa: any objection to P2P command "getdata" to return any known TX? right now "getdata" will only return a requested TX if it is in mapRelay[].
847 2012-07-31 20:32:12 <jgarzik> This is essential to implementing the other part of "mempool" P2P command
848 2012-07-31 20:32:28 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
849 2012-07-31 20:32:37 Maged has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
850 2012-07-31 20:33:13 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: any known TX from mempool, or any known on disk too?
851 2012-07-31 20:34:02 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I don't see any reason why not to check disk too
852 2012-07-31 20:34:12 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: but mempool is a minimum requirement
853 2012-07-31 20:34:56 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: seems like you might be informed of a TX, then request it, and wind up racing with a block that will remove the requested TX from the mempool
854 2012-07-31 20:35:03 <luke-jr> anyone have any ideas why Eligius's last two blocks would have only had 2 txns? O.o
855 2012-07-31 20:35:22 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: fair enough
856 2012-07-31 20:35:23 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: what is getmempool returning?
857 2012-07-31 20:35:44 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: can I know force you to do unbounded random seeks by requesting txn at random from you?
858 2012-07-31 20:35:44 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: looks like a bunch now
859 2012-07-31 20:36:05 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: you can do that now with old blocks
860 2012-07-31 20:36:09 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: cant you by requesting disks (though its less expensive bw-wise)
861 2012-07-31 20:36:25 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: yes, but the seek to bw ratio isn't anywhere near so bad.
862 2012-07-31 20:36:28 <luke-jr> hrm
863 2012-07-31 20:37:24 Maged has joined
864 2012-07-31 20:37:26 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: <shrug> I'm sure I could come up with just as punishing a seek pattern for blocks
865 2012-07-31 20:37:42 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: understand your point, though
866 2012-07-31 20:37:44 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: the other minor concern I have is creating a dependance on behavior that might go away.
867 2012-07-31 20:38:01 <gmaxwell> (I don't consider these thing killerâ but it's just a lot harder to remove functionality than add it)
868 2012-07-31 20:38:14 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: this is for SPV clients, so I dunno that it will go away
869 2012-07-31 20:38:21 bitllc has joined
870 2012-07-31 20:38:32 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: the main thing is needing to request -recent- TX's, FWIW
871 2012-07-31 20:38:39 <gmaxwell> e.g. pruned nodes won't give completed transactions. If youe get fetches them then pruned nodes will break that.
872 2012-07-31 20:38:50 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: could require it if NODE_NETWORK && protocol version > N
873 2012-07-31 20:39:02 <BlueMatt> ie, if you can provide full blocks, you should also provide txes from those blocks
874 2012-07-31 20:39:28 <gmaxwell> Mempool doesn't bother me at all I think.. though, I suppose it may possibly make unconfirmed transactions more immortal.
875 2012-07-31 20:39:29 <jgarzik> mempool+this behavior definitely requires a protocol bump, or nServices bit
876 2012-07-31 20:39:32 <jgarzik> no question about it
877 2012-07-31 20:39:39 RainbowDashh has joined
878 2012-07-31 20:39:51 <jgarzik> nServices ("I serve SPV clients") might be appropriate
879 2012-07-31 20:40:06 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: for pruned nodes which cant provide blocks, you shouldnt set NODE_NETWORK anyway
880 2012-07-31 20:40:13 <jgarzik> indeed
881 2012-07-31 20:40:15 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: meh. I dunno about that. Offering to serve up historic chain isn't the same as being a random access database for them.
882 2012-07-31 20:40:41 <gmaxwell> eg. you might have the blocks but no historic transaction index... as that index will eventually be huge and you don't need it for block serving.
883 2012-07-31 20:40:41 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: then we rename NODE_NETWORK to NODE_ARCHIVAL
884 2012-07-31 20:40:52 <BlueMatt> the point is old nodes look for that for I can get all blocks from this node
885 2012-07-31 20:41:04 pusle has quit ()
886 2012-07-31 20:41:12 <jgarzik> will SPV clients ever need to see spent TX's?
887 2012-07-31 20:41:16 <gmaxwell> I don't think there is anything we do or need to do that requires random access to the old chain.
888 2012-07-31 20:41:19 <jgarzik> not sure
889 2012-07-31 20:41:22 <jgarzik> but doubtful
890 2012-07-31 20:41:25 <BlueMatt> having a fServesRecentBlocks = NODE_NETWORK || nServices & 0x2
891 2012-07-31 20:41:29 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I don't think so. Except e.g. for crazy contract reasons.
892 2012-07-31 20:42:01 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: agreed, but my point is just that there is no reason to break old nodes for no reason when we should just take another nServices bit
893 2012-07-31 20:42:32 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: Flip that around, we have no reason to offer a service that no one needs and can't depend on being available in the future.
894 2012-07-31 20:43:10 <BlueMatt> do you see a network where we never have archival nodes? or atleast dont have those as pruning becomes bigger?
895 2012-07-31 20:43:15 <gmaxwell> e.g. the spv case doesn't (currently) need spent txn. But in the future if we can't provide those we'll have to stop giving them unspent txn too which we could provide.
896 2012-07-31 20:43:29 <BlueMatt> my point is we can use NODE_NETWORK to indicate we are an archival node as that is what it currently defines
897 2012-07-31 20:43:36 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: Having access to the blockchain is not the same has having random transaction lookup!
898 2012-07-31 20:43:54 <gmaxwell> Right now you can still be a full node network and save hundreds of megs of space by not indexing old transactions!
899 2012-07-31 20:44:14 <gmaxwell> And this, if it were tied to node_network would break that.
900 2012-07-31 20:44:36 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: no objection, although asking for lots of random transactions from disk might be a good DoS, so a limit might make sense
901 2012-07-31 20:44:37 <BlueMatt> true, either way you end up adding another nServices flag, could just add it later when its needed instead of now
902 2012-07-31 20:44:42 pigeons has joined
903 2012-07-31 20:45:37 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: or alternatively, just make this not serve old spent transactions. And if there is a future need for that use the flag to indicate that it can do those too.
904 2012-07-31 20:45:52 <BlueMatt> either way
905 2012-07-31 20:47:25 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
906 2012-07-31 20:49:20 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
907 2012-07-31 20:49:38 <gmaxwell> yea, so, I'm just encouraging being conservative with adding features that require maintaining more state than we currently do.
908 2012-07-31 20:49:56 <gavinandresen> Ignoring old spent sounds like the right thing to do. If you want full history, download the whole chain.
909 2012-07-31 20:50:20 jdnavarro has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
910 2012-07-31 20:50:24 <jgarzik> pull request coming shortly ;)
911 2012-07-31 20:50:52 <sipa> jgarzik: serving from mempool, no prob
912 2012-07-31 20:51:32 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: any philosophical objection to an rpc to lock txouts so when you're doing fun things with raw transactions you don't foot gun?
913 2012-07-31 20:51:33 sytse has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
914 2012-07-31 20:51:34 <sipa> serving random transactions from disk... no need for, and is a huge burden to support later if people start depending on them
915 2012-07-31 20:52:02 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: no, that's a good idea. I was thinking about how to implement it in the shower this morning....
916 2012-07-31 20:52:07 <sipa> (read: ultraprune cannot do that)
917 2012-07-31 20:52:24 <jgarzik> sipa: ultraprune cannot serve unspent tx's?
918 2012-07-31 20:52:31 <sipa> no
919 2012-07-31 20:52:45 <sipa> it doesn't have them, only their outputs
920 2012-07-31 20:53:15 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell sipa : I think 'locked' is a different state from spent/unspent... and might mean Yet Another thing to store in the wallet (txid/nOutput --> lockedTime)
921 2012-07-31 20:53:33 <sipa> (you could load their blocks from disk, if you still have them, but i would not do that unless absolutely needed)
922 2012-07-31 20:54:34 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: Hm! Having a timeout on locks would be useful. (I was mostly thinking of manual unlocks)
923 2012-07-31 20:54:59 <sipa> ahree, locked is different from spent
924 2012-07-31 20:55:01 <jgarzik> before we go too far down the ultraprune road, I think a more clear definition of "full server" versus "pruned server" is needed. Sounds very appropriate to a "bitcoin router" role but clearly has new limitations on behavior heretofor unseen on the network
925 2012-07-31 20:55:14 <gmaxwell> mostly I thought it was important to be able to comment on the lock, so you can say "used in txn 12345"
926 2012-07-31 20:55:30 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: I think it would be manual, but maybe listunspent would return the locked state so you could implement an "unlock after 90 days" or something.
927 2012-07-31 20:55:33 * jgarzik doesn't want ultraprune to impact SPV serving
928 2012-07-31 20:55:37 prahanormal has joined
929 2012-07-31 20:55:59 <sipa> jgarzik: i plan to add an optional txindex to ultraprune later, which restores the ability to lookup transactions
930 2012-07-31 20:56:26 <sipa> jgarzik: the important part is that ultraprune is designed that such an index is not necesary for current normal operation
931 2012-07-31 20:57:00 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: spv serving requires being able to get the old chain to look for txn addressed to you. With some privacy compromise, and an expensive additional index, but a big performance boon spv could instead use by-address lookups. (or even a hd-wallet public chain)
932 2012-07-31 20:57:08 <sipa> and i don't see how it would be limiting to SPV clients
933 2012-07-31 20:57:23 <sipa> to serve chain (pruned or not), you need the block archive
934 2012-07-31 20:57:39 <sipa> you don't need to be able to find arbitrary transactions in them
935 2012-07-31 20:57:55 <zevus> 07/31/12 20:50:42 received getdata (500 invsz)
936 2012-07-31 20:57:55 <zevus> 07/31/12 20:50:43 received getdata (500 invsz)
937 2012-07-31 20:57:57 <zevus> 07/31/12 20:50:45 received getdata (500 invsz)
938 2012-07-31 20:57:57 <zevus> hmm
939 2012-07-31 20:58:27 <jgarzik> if 'getdata' cannot serve unspent TX's (color me disappointed), then I suppose SPV clients would need to 'bloomfilter', then 'mempool', then block-sync to avoid racing with TX's being removed from CTxMemPool...
940 2012-07-31 20:58:57 <sipa> not sure how you imagine things to work
941 2012-07-31 20:59:26 <sipa> imho, an SPV node will send a filter definition, and then ask to send the chain, from some part on
942 2012-07-31 20:59:38 <sipa> and it will receive a filtered version
943 2012-07-31 20:59:52 <sipa> that is, using getdata on blocks
944 2012-07-31 20:59:57 <sipa> not on transactions
945 2012-07-31 20:59:58 phungus has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
946 2012-07-31 21:00:25 <jgarzik> sipa: mempool is a container for transactions, not blocks, and SPV clients will be curious if zero-conf transactions exist that they are interested in
947 2012-07-31 21:00:40 <zevus> how do i limit DL speed? i thought the defaults were pretty slow, but someone is going at 2MB/s right now
948 2012-07-31 21:00:45 <sipa> so? serving transactions from the mempool is not a problem
949 2012-07-31 21:01:05 <zevus> well, upload speed
950 2012-07-31 21:01:09 agricocb has joined
951 2012-07-31 21:01:13 <jgarzik> sipa: if an SPV client is querying mempool at all, they must avoid the following race: 'mempool' returns TX, request TX, block arrives and removes TX from mempool, TX not found.
952 2012-07-31 21:01:17 <gmaxwell> zevus: no internal throttling now, alas.
953 2012-07-31 21:01:24 <zevus> 3MB/s
954 2012-07-31 21:01:35 prahanormal has quit ()
955 2012-07-31 21:01:41 <zevus> need netlimiter for ubuntu =/
956 2012-07-31 21:01:44 <sipa> jgarzik: i see
957 2012-07-31 21:01:45 <jgarzik> sipa: given your only-mempool constraint, that induces failures for that race window
958 2012-07-31 21:01:51 Rajesh_ has joined
959 2012-07-31 21:02:10 <sipa> jgarzik: i suppose you could push recently-included mempool transactions to the relay set
960 2012-07-31 21:02:18 <sipa> so they remain servable for a while
961 2012-07-31 21:03:00 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: this isn't hard to avoid though.. start pulling blocks first before paying any attention to mempool.. and sometimes you miss an unconfirmed txn right at the edge. until it gets mined.
962 2012-07-31 21:03:10 phungi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
963 2012-07-31 21:03:58 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: ITYM the reverse
964 2012-07-31 21:04:06 sytse has joined
965 2012-07-31 21:04:26 <jgarzik> <jgarzik> I suppose SPV clients would need to 'bloomfilter', then 'mempool', then block-sync to avoid racing with TX's being removed from CTxMemPool...
966 2012-07-31 21:04:56 <jgarzik> if you mempool first, any missing TX's should be in a block that you request next
967 2012-07-31 21:05:19 <gmaxwell> Ah. Right. That.
968 2012-07-31 21:05:22 <sipa> but getting the mempool first is not very interesting
969 2012-07-31 21:05:36 <sipa> if you're far behind
970 2012-07-31 21:05:57 phungi has joined
971 2012-07-31 21:06:04 <gmaxwell> sipa: so, e.g. multibit never bothers looking at the chain (other than headers) before the birthtime of the wallet.
972 2012-07-31 21:06:21 <gmaxwell> So 'far behind' is perhaps not that interesting.
973 2012-07-31 21:06:40 Rajesh_ has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
974 2012-07-31 21:06:41 <sipa> ok, true
975 2012-07-31 21:06:44 <jgarzik> SPV clients will catch up quickly
976 2012-07-31 21:06:48 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: Whats the driver behind the concern for SPV nodes accessing 0-conf txn?
977 2012-07-31 21:06:57 <jgarzik> especially with bloom filtering making blocks tiny
978 2012-07-31 21:08:17 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: the short version is "it's part of the game" The more technical answer is that existing bitcoin applications do do interesting things in the zero-conf arena, and non-full-node clients will want introspection into that. SPV clients will want to see their SatoshiDice transactions, for example.
979 2012-07-31 21:08:28 Rajesh_ has joined
980 2012-07-31 21:08:53 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: it's just soooo easy to defraud people that way. I would strongly recommend any user facing spv application not show zero confirm transactions at all.
981 2012-07-31 21:09:38 <gmaxwell> e.g. I write a txout paying you 21e6 bitcoin out of thin air. You're totally clueless that it will never possibly be legit.
982 2012-07-31 21:10:09 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: sure, but zero conf exists today, so I don't see any reason to prevent on server side
983 2012-07-31 21:10:29 <jgarzik> people deserve to know if their transactions are making it out
984 2012-07-31 21:10:36 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
985 2012-07-31 21:10:39 <jgarzik> basic transaction freedom IMO :)
986 2012-07-31 21:10:39 sirk390 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
987 2012-07-31 21:10:59 <gmaxwell> No, and I wasn't trying to suggest thatâ
988 2012-07-31 21:11:08 * jgarzik is still on a crusade to limit lifetime of transactions in the memory pool to a network-agreed lifetime
989 2012-07-31 21:11:12 <gmaxwell> All you're describing is useful for network diagnostics in any case.
990 2012-07-31 21:11:15 <jgarzik> (as a related aside)
991 2012-07-31 21:11:20 copumpkin is now known as cointegration
992 2012-07-31 21:11:29 cointegration is now known as copumpkin
993 2012-07-31 21:11:47 * sipa coderives copumpkin
994 2012-07-31 21:11:52 <copumpkin> :O
995 2012-07-31 21:11:57 <copumpkin> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointegration
996 2012-07-31 21:12:08 <gmaxwell> But e.g. the usecase of a spv wallet showing them to regular users isn't a good case, and should be cautioned against. I'd guess only a few percent of bitcoin users are savyy enough about the system where that wouldn't be a significant security problem.
997 2012-07-31 21:12:28 [\\\] is now known as imsaguy
998 2012-07-31 21:12:31 sirk390 has joined
999 2012-07-31 21:13:35 zevus has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1000 2012-07-31 21:13:41 dvide has joined
1001 2012-07-31 21:14:30 RedEmerald has joined
1002 2012-07-31 21:15:28 MBS is now known as coinpumpkin
1003 2012-07-31 21:15:59 <gmaxwell> A funny bitcoin trouble making bot comes to mind.. Connect to *, accept connections from *. Act as a normal node... but when you see a new txout create a txn paying it a million bitcoin from nowhere. Pass it on to your peers.
1004 2012-07-31 21:16:11 <gmaxwell> Full nodes will disconnect you. Eventually you'll only be connected to spv nodes.
1005 2012-07-31 21:16:33 <gmaxwell> All spv users will see insane zero conf payments being made to them anything they get a real payment.
1006 2012-07-31 21:16:33 coinpumpkin is now known as MBS
1007 2012-07-31 21:18:15 <gmaxwell> (and egads, I'm certantly not going to do this, and I'll be really cross if someone does this and I get blamed for it; so please don't)
1008 2012-07-31 21:18:55 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1009 2012-07-31 21:19:03 Rajesh_ has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1010 2012-07-31 21:20:19 Nesetalis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1011 2012-07-31 21:20:47 Rajesh_ has joined
1012 2012-07-31 21:25:09 Maccer has joined
1013 2012-07-31 21:27:08 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1014 2012-07-31 21:27:25 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1015 2012-07-31 21:27:55 Karmaon__ is now known as Karmaon
1016 2012-07-31 21:31:24 Rajesh_ has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1017 2012-07-31 21:33:13 Rajesh_ has joined
1018 2012-07-31 21:34:08 Rajesh_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1019 2012-07-31 21:35:02 jurov is now known as jurov|away
1020 2012-07-31 21:40:03 Matt_von_Mises has joined
1021 2012-07-31 21:40:36 <Matt_von_Mises> Where can I find the DoS-protection code in the bitcoin source code?
1022 2012-07-31 21:40:50 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1023 2012-07-31 21:41:41 <BlueMatt> grep -r -n "DoS" src
1024 2012-07-31 21:41:43 <luke-jr> Matt_von_Mises: all over the place
1025 2012-07-31 21:41:48 <gavinandresen> grep 'DoS' *.cpp *.h <-- mostly in main.cpp
1026 2012-07-31 21:41:58 <luke-jr> git grep DoS
1027 2012-07-31 21:41:59 <luke-jr> :p
1028 2012-07-31 21:42:40 <gavinandresen> grep Misbehaving , too-- that's the code that disconnects/bans misbehaving peers.
1029 2012-07-31 21:42:59 <gavinandresen> There's more subtle DoS prevention, though, like the fee policy
1030 2012-07-31 21:42:59 <Matt_von_Mises> I found those in main.cpp. I'll look over the entire project for them. Thanks.
1031 2012-07-31 21:43:53 mologie has joined
1032 2012-07-31 21:44:13 <gavinandresen> oh, and ComputeMinWork is DoS-prevention, too
1033 2012-07-31 21:44:27 <jgarzik> I wonder if we could synthesize small bits of the network processing, to enable tests
1034 2012-07-31 21:44:40 <gavinandresen> I bet "we" could
1035 2012-07-31 21:44:45 <jgarzik> i.e. write a tiny 'mempool' P2P command test, which simply looks at inputs and outputs
1036 2012-07-31 21:44:46 <BlueMatt> easier - use external tools
1037 2012-07-31 21:44:52 <jgarzik> no need to go beyond processmessage()
1038 2012-07-31 21:45:21 <BlueMatt> and use jenkins to auto-test stuff (oh...)
1039 2012-07-31 21:45:30 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: in terms of txout locking, has your contemplation resulted in anything that would make it easy to also lock all txouts to a particular address? e.g. say address XXX recieves funds for some escrow scheme and you when them locked for it, you don't want a race condition where they accidentally get used by some other txn before you scan and lock again.
1040 2012-07-31 21:45:40 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: yeah it's easier to add a simple pynode script, but It Would Be Nice if test_bitcoin could test P2P a bit
1041 2012-07-31 21:45:48 <jgarzik> even an "it works" test
1042 2012-07-31 21:46:01 paraipan has joined
1043 2012-07-31 21:46:06 <gmaxwell> Perhaps thats "use two wallets", but thats a kind of weak answer until we can easily run two at once off one blockchain. (or even switch easily and safely)
1044 2012-07-31 21:46:16 eoss has joined
1045 2012-07-31 21:46:16 eoss has quit (Changing host)
1046 2012-07-31 21:46:16 eoss has joined
1047 2012-07-31 21:46:38 MC-Eeepc has joined
1048 2012-07-31 21:46:48 <BlueMatt> true, but thats a whole lot easier if you have a ton of abstraction in place (in fact, I even wrote in the beginnings of some big test cases...)
1049 2012-07-31 21:47:01 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: nope, hadn't thought that far ahead. I think most escrow transactions will be outside the wallet's available-to-spend inputs
1050 2012-07-31 21:47:13 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1051 2012-07-31 21:48:33 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: Normally. Though people wanting to quarantine addresses was one of the popular reasons people wanted coin control, and w/ raw txn we're darn close to covering those use cases.
1052 2012-07-31 21:49:05 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I'm pretty sure the RPC interface was an afterthought for CoinControl; the main focus I think is the GUI
1053 2012-07-31 21:49:07 <gavinandresen> quarantine like "I got these coins from someplace shady and don't want to contaminate the rest of my wallet" ?
1054 2012-07-31 21:49:44 <gavinandresen> ^someplace shady^freedom-fighting repressed people whose government might torture me
1055 2012-07-31 21:49:47 <gmaxwell> Or not just shady. Perhaps just public. I got this coin in a public prize and want to give away exactly this coin to to the next prize winner.
1056 2012-07-31 21:50:09 <gavinandresen> I'd say keep that private key out of your main spending wallet....
1057 2012-07-31 21:50:25 <gmaxwell> (At least thats a case that _I've had_, which resulted in my having to go manually edit my wallet to remove the keys)
1058 2012-07-31 21:52:08 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: rawtx + locking covers it fine except for the race condition around first receiving it.
1059 2012-07-31 21:52:29 <gavinandresen> feels like feature-creep to me
1060 2012-07-31 21:52:32 <gmaxwell> Pulling the key out kinda stinks, due to lack of multiple wallet, slowness of imports, etc.
1061 2012-07-31 21:52:37 <gavinandresen> (but I'm often wrong)
1062 2012-07-31 21:52:55 <gmaxwell> This is also why I started off asking if what you were thinking might have supported this as a general case. :)
1063 2012-07-31 21:53:27 <gmaxwell> Because yes, the feature creep sucks. But locking unspent outs you don't have yet sounds to me like a generalization of locking unspent outs.
1064 2012-07-31 21:53:37 <Matt_von_Mises> I see what the code is doing. It wont disconnect from nodes as soon as they misbehave always. It sometimes gives them additional chances under their nDoS score or whatever goes over the limit. Why not just disconnect and ban misbehaving nodes always?
1065 2012-07-31 21:53:43 <jgarzik> grah, github is barfing. git push itself seemed to work, but commits are not showing up on the web.
1066 2012-07-31 21:54:04 <gmaxwell> Matt_von_Mises: because some misbehavior is not a sure sign that the peer is malicious.
1067 2012-07-31 21:54:06 <luke-jr> jgarzik: website?
1068 2012-07-31 21:54:23 <jgarzik> luke-jr: github.com, yes
1069 2012-07-31 21:54:29 <gavinandresen> Matt_von_Mises: because bugs happen, so forgiveness for minor transgressions seemed like the right thing to do.
1070 2012-07-31 21:54:36 <luke-jr> jgarzik: right, I mean - changes to bitcoin.org, or something else?
1071 2012-07-31 21:54:39 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: happens to me all the time for no reason (occasionally it even doesnt fix itself)
1072 2012-07-31 21:54:44 <gavinandresen> Matt_von_Mises: you can run with -banscore=1 to get one-strike-and-your-out behavior
1073 2012-07-31 21:54:48 <jgarzik> luke-jr: changes to jgarzik/bitcoin.git
1074 2012-07-31 21:55:12 <luke-jr> odd
1075 2012-07-31 21:55:50 <Matt_von_Mises> gmaxwell, gavinandresen: Hmm. It would be safe to have that "one-strike-and-your-out behavior" I assume?
1076 2012-07-31 21:55:50 <gmaxwell> Matt_von_Mises: in general DoS is very dangerous. If ever we screw up and some transitive message can trigger it... and attacker could partition the network, replace all your peers with evil ones... or just generally make it all stop working.
1077 2012-07-31 21:56:23 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: your use case feels like a different kind of key to me-- "watch-only, I'll dig up the private key when I need to spend, thank you very much"
1078 2012-07-31 21:56:53 <gmaxwell> indeed! that works too!
1079 2012-07-31 21:57:06 pnicholson has quit (Quit: pnicholson)
1080 2012-07-31 21:57:07 <gmaxwell> That fits much closer.
1081 2012-07-31 21:57:33 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1082 2012-07-31 21:57:46 <gmaxwell> though we don't have a 'private key unavailable, go get it from [comment]' state right now, thats pretty much exactly it.
1083 2012-07-31 21:58:25 <luke-jr> I think some people would prefer not to have to store the priv key externally
1084 2012-07-31 21:58:47 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: that it's not really external is just a special case of it being external. :)
1085 2012-07-31 21:59:08 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: "Private key unavailable, Location: Where it normally is" :)
1086 2012-07-31 21:59:24 <luke-jr> <.<
1087 2012-07-31 22:01:38 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
1088 2012-07-31 22:02:34 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1089 2012-07-31 22:04:13 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1090 2012-07-31 22:05:00 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1091 2012-07-31 22:08:34 <midnightmagic> I've been reading this: http://www.gwern.net/Bitcoin%20is%20Worse%20is%20Better but it makes an interesting claim I've never heard before. Gwern says that Satoshi is just an aggregator of prior ideas, and that he came up with no new ideas himself. "The interesting thing is that by even the most generous accounting, all the pieces were in place for at least 8 years before Satoshi's publication[..]"
1092 2012-07-31 22:09:01 <midnightmagic> I thought Satoshi did have a novel idea: specifically, a solution to the double-spend problem of digital cash in a decentralized way?
1093 2012-07-31 22:09:27 <midnightmagic> Was it truly not novel? If not, then what came before?
1094 2012-07-31 22:11:32 <BlueMatt> nothing has been new in computer science for years, its all building on existing research and combining it in novel ways
1095 2012-07-31 22:11:50 <BlueMatt> in fact nothing has been new in research since...ever
1096 2012-07-31 22:12:00 <midnightmagic> That's not true..
1097 2012-07-31 22:12:12 <OneEyed> Just read about Cryptosphere: nice idea (https://github.com/tarcieri/cryptosphere)
1098 2012-07-31 22:12:21 <BlueMatt> everything is just an improvement on something existing (or fixing it)
1099 2012-07-31 22:12:42 <midnightmagic> OneEyed: Looks like a new-generation of the early forms of mojonation. Have you installed it?
1100 2012-07-31 22:12:45 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: if you define combining things as non-contribution then really nothing is new, at least not since formal logic was defined since you can get all of math starting with a few axioms. :)
1101 2012-07-31 22:12:48 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1102 2012-07-31 22:13:39 <OneEyed> midnightmagic: nope, just read about it as I said, it's on the hackernews front page right now
1103 2012-07-31 22:14:02 <BlueMatt> + all computer programs can be defined in a mathematical algorithm (albeit a complicated one), so...
1104 2012-07-31 22:14:05 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: I don't believe anyone previously did anything like 'hashcash to create a vote by proven computation system for byzantine quorum'.
1105 2012-07-31 22:14:07 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: for the sake of effective communication, I am not pedantic about the meaning of "novel." In this case, I mean that there was a never-done-before idea which did not exist prior to Satoshi.
1106 2012-07-31 22:14:08 <OneEyed> And the discussion derailed, of course, about child pornography and how anonymous payments are evilâ¦
1107 2012-07-31 22:14:37 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: and just about everything else around bitcoin was well described (if not actually implemented) by others prior to bitcoin.
1108 2012-07-31 22:14:44 <midnightmagic> OneEyed: idiots argue about that. They've let the propagandists set up a tent city in their minds. :-/
1109 2012-07-31 22:15:03 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: there had absolutely been a number of discussions/papers/etc on various distributed cash things long before satoshi
1110 2012-07-31 22:15:33 Maged has quit (Disconnected by services)
1111 2012-07-31 22:15:36 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Yes; like SHA and digests and hash chains and so on. That much makes sense to me. He built on top of it, but as far as I knew, he did combine them and create a lone novel idea (or two) in a way that never existed before..
1112 2012-07-31 22:15:39 Maged_ has joined
1113 2012-07-31 22:15:54 Maged_ is now known as Maged
1114 2012-07-31 22:15:56 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: But not like Satoshi's ideas. I thought they were novel..
1115 2012-07-31 22:16:03 <BlueMatt> which ones?
1116 2012-07-31 22:16:59 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: The specific type of distributed consensus, plus timestamps, to solve the double-spend problem without a centralized verifying authority.
1117 2012-07-31 22:17:30 <midnightmagic> s/without/without the need for/
1118 2012-07-31 22:17:30 <BlueMatt> I have never heard of pow-for-consensus-to-solve-double-spend before bitcoin, but, then, I probably wouldnt have
1119 2012-07-31 22:17:39 AlexWaters has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1120 2012-07-31 22:17:41 <BlueMatt> pow-for-consensus dunno, probably
1121 2012-07-31 22:17:46 <BlueMatt> for double-spend, dont think so
1122 2012-07-31 22:18:36 <midnightmagic> OneEyed: But I sure hope the idea flies that's for sure.
1123 2012-07-31 22:19:13 <BlueMatt> so, yea, its combining stuff that already exists, but, for a broad definition of combine, you can define just about everything new as combining multiple existing ideas
1124 2012-07-31 22:20:12 <gmaxwell> OneEyed: the cryptoshare thing just sounds like freenet without the benefit of a lot of thought or effort that went into freenet, but with instead an incentive scheme that the text doesn't describe well enough for me to comment on which may or may not be useful.
1125 2012-07-31 22:20:24 <sipa> isn't the blockchain new?
1126 2012-07-31 22:20:45 <BlueMatt> thats part of pow-to-form-consensus-to-solve-double-spend, no?
1127 2012-07-31 22:20:54 <BlueMatt> or a direct result of
1128 2012-07-31 22:21:12 AlexWaters has joined
1129 2012-07-31 22:21:17 <sipa> yes, but using pow for consensus was already described by wei dai, or who was he called, no?
1130 2012-07-31 22:21:25 <gmaxwell> Well it's a step above that. You can have pow-to-form-consensus-to-solve-double-spend then you _combine_ with hashtrees to get an authenticated link listed tied to your computing power voting.
1131 2012-07-31 22:21:35 <BlueMatt> yea, pow-for-consensus sure, but to solve double spend...
1132 2012-07-31 22:21:45 <sipa> indeed
1133 2012-07-31 22:21:56 <BlueMatt> yea
1134 2012-07-31 22:22:02 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1135 2012-07-31 22:22:07 <gmaxwell> In any case, for anyone who say it wasn't original, I say "where is your implementation from before 2009 then?" :)
1136 2012-07-31 22:22:46 <gmaxwell> s/say/says/
1137 2012-07-31 22:23:14 PK has quit ()
1138 2012-07-31 22:23:40 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1139 2012-07-31 22:23:48 <gmaxwell> also, as .. well questionable as we may ultimately decide it, the geometric decline chinese lottery as a bootstrapping mechenism is pure innovation. :)
1140 2012-07-31 22:24:32 <gmaxwell> linear rewards just result in "meh, if it gets popular _then_ I'll adopt it" vs the "oh, I better adopt this in case it gets popular"
1141 2012-07-31 22:25:17 B0g4r7_ has joined
1142 2012-07-31 22:25:29 rdponticelli has joined
1143 2012-07-31 22:25:33 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I'd like to withdraw my question.. I've finished reading his endnotes. "Some flaws can't be removed by the Tor network, like the ability of exit nodes to snoop on traffic (as has been done many times, most memorably during the startup of Wikileaks)"
1144 2012-07-31 22:30:50 bitcoinbulletin has joined
1145 2012-07-31 22:31:06 <gmaxwell> All I can say is that, I can point to mailing list posts where I told off people with arguments that things which bitcoin does were impossible; while in the same month in 2004 having excited email conversations about digital currency with Hal Finney (in the context of RPOW). If Bitcoin were so obvious I would have invented it then. ;)
1146 2012-07-31 22:34:08 mologie has joined
1147 2012-07-31 22:34:35 mmoya has joined
1148 2012-07-31 22:35:55 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1149 2012-07-31 22:37:43 hahuang65 has joined
1150 2012-07-31 22:37:45 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1151 2012-07-31 22:40:49 pumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1152 2012-07-31 22:41:37 copumpkin has joined
1153 2012-07-31 22:42:54 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1154 2012-07-31 22:43:26 semb has joined
1155 2012-07-31 22:43:27 semb has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1156 2012-07-31 22:44:55 maaku has joined
1157 2012-07-31 22:44:59 agricocb has joined
1158 2012-07-31 22:45:24 <maaku> D34TH: "src/qt/transactiondesc.cpp:237:23: error: variable âCTxDB txdbâ has initializer but incomplete type"
1159 2012-07-31 22:45:32 <D34TH> ?
1160 2012-07-31 22:45:40 <maaku> D34TH: you ever get that sorted out?
1161 2012-07-31 22:45:47 <maaku> i found it in the chat logs
1162 2012-07-31 22:45:51 <maaku> running into that problem now
1163 2012-07-31 22:45:51 <D34TH> i complly forgot about it
1164 2012-07-31 22:45:52 <D34TH> lol
1165 2012-07-31 22:46:02 <D34TH> let me go see if i can still get vagrant to boot
1166 2012-07-31 22:46:06 <D34TH> have you patched it?
1167 2012-07-31 22:46:28 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: jgarzik opened pull request 1641 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1641>
1168 2012-07-31 22:48:55 Diablo-D3 has joined
1169 2012-07-31 22:50:27 sneak has joined
1170 2012-07-31 22:50:28 sneak has quit (Changing host)
1171 2012-07-31 22:50:28 sneak has joined
1172 2012-07-31 22:50:54 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: Why would Satoshi yell about IP logging?
1173 2012-07-31 22:51:08 <jgarzik> midnightmagic: privacy
1174 2012-07-31 22:51:17 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: k
1175 2012-07-31 22:51:53 _Fireball has quit (Quit: HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- Po-ta-to, boil em, mash em, stick em in a stew.)
1176 2012-07-31 22:52:11 <luke-jr> jgarzik: did you say we should use a command list command instead of bumping the version?
1177 2012-07-31 22:53:08 <luke-jr> actually, if this is useful for light nodes, it might make better sense as [part of] a service flag
1178 2012-07-31 22:56:13 LuaKT has quit ()
1179 2012-07-31 22:56:34 <D34TH> maaku, the script seems to have broken down
1180 2012-07-31 22:56:46 _flow_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1181 2012-07-31 22:57:41 Maged has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.88.2 [Firefox 14.0.1/20120713134347])
1182 2012-07-31 23:02:16 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
1183 2012-07-31 23:02:45 brwyatt has quit (Quit: leaving)
1184 2012-07-31 23:03:38 brwyatt has joined
1185 2012-07-31 23:05:18 <maaku> sorry D34TH, I ask a question and someone pulls me away
1186 2012-07-31 23:05:19 <maaku> never fails
1187 2012-07-31 23:05:44 <maaku> what's the error you get with the vagrant script?
1188 2012-07-31 23:05:55 <D34TH> patch not found
1189 2012-07-31 23:05:59 <D34TH> its not apt-getting anything
1190 2012-07-31 23:06:09 <D34TH> and i just did a fresh clone
1191 2012-07-31 23:06:31 <maaku> i'll look into that now
1192 2012-07-31 23:06:54 <maaku> the "error: variable âCTxDB txdbâ has initializer but incomplete type" thing was unrelated though
1193 2012-07-31 23:07:08 <jgarzik> luke-jr: yes, I had suggested a new nServices flag in scrollback. That is an option, too. Feel free to vote with a comment :)
1194 2012-07-31 23:07:24 _flow_ has joined
1195 2012-07-31 23:08:24 <maaku> just wondering if you ever fixed that problem since it came up on a google search (I'm encountering it now)
1196 2012-07-31 23:08:35 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1197 2012-07-31 23:08:42 <D34TH> i essentially gave up
1198 2012-07-31 23:13:45 Matt_von_Mises has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1199 2012-07-31 23:18:37 minimoose has joined
1200 2012-07-31 23:29:28 <maaku> D34TH: a fresh checkout seems to be working for me
1201 2012-07-31 23:29:55 <maaku> perhaps something is messed up with your local configuration
1202 2012-07-31 23:29:59 <maaku> are you building on windows?
1203 2012-07-31 23:32:48 <BlueMatt> lol, we clear altstack halfway-through script execution...
1204 2012-07-31 23:34:50 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1205 2012-07-31 23:40:11 <BlueMatt> seems like altstack should be script-part-specific-stack to be more clear
1206 2012-07-31 23:40:21 <BlueMatt> maybe I just never realized it was script-part specific
1207 2012-07-31 23:44:10 one_zero has joined
1208 2012-07-31 23:45:04 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1209 2012-07-31 23:48:08 <sipa> i would have liked them to be swappen in between the two executions
1210 2012-07-31 23:48:39 <sipa> so that the input-provides values end up on the altstack, and you use a pop-altstack instruction to fetch them
1211 2012-07-31 23:49:04 <sipa> that way, the normal stack is available as a normal execution stack during the outputscript evaluation
1212 2012-07-31 23:49:06 gavinandresen has joined
1213 2012-07-31 23:57:42 <luke-jr> sipa: what is your thought re using transaction version to indicate height-in-coinbase, rather than block version?
1214 2012-07-31 23:57:53 <luke-jr> (I think you were gone for the original discussion?)
1215 2012-07-31 23:58:27 <jgarzik> doesn't make sense
1216 2012-07-31 23:58:34 <jgarzik> it is a requirement of the block
1217 2012-07-31 23:58:55 <luke-jr> jgarzik: how so? the coinbase is the transaction
1218 2012-07-31 23:59:05 <jgarzik> coinbase is one special transaction
1219 2012-07-31 23:59:23 <luke-jr> still a transactionâ¦
1220 2012-07-31 23:59:32 <jgarzik> that is tied intimately to the block, with special case rules
1221 2012-07-31 23:59:43 <luke-jr> as it is right now, software A determines the block version, while software B determines the content of the coinbase transaction
1222 2012-07-31 23:59:46 <jgarzik> by, you know, the _height_ we are adding