1 2012-08-12 00:02:05 JStoker has quit (Excess Flood)
  2 2012-08-12 00:04:54 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  3 2012-08-12 00:09:17 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
  4 2012-08-12 00:12:10 caedes_ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
  5 2012-08-12 00:20:22 JStoker has joined
  6 2012-08-12 00:22:36 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
  7 2012-08-12 00:23:00 spq has joined
  8 2012-08-12 00:26:53 stalled has joined
  9 2012-08-12 00:27:59 t7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 10 2012-08-12 00:31:19 toffoo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 11 2012-08-12 00:31:46 ByteUnits has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 12 2012-08-12 00:39:29 upb has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 13 2012-08-12 00:39:36 Shalom_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 14 2012-08-12 00:39:49 asuk has quit (Quit: EvoSurge - Free & Premium IRC Bouncers on Demand - http://evosurge.com/)
 15 2012-08-12 00:40:11 luke-jr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 16 2012-08-12 00:40:16 npouillard has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 17 2012-08-12 00:40:18 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 18 2012-08-12 00:40:18 Mad7Scientist has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 19 2012-08-12 00:40:19 midnightmagic has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 20 2012-08-12 00:40:22 luke-jr has joined
 21 2012-08-12 00:40:40 Shalom_ has joined
 22 2012-08-12 00:40:43 dub has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 23 2012-08-12 00:40:43 jrmithdobbs has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 24 2012-08-12 00:40:44 darkskiez has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 25 2012-08-12 00:40:56 dstien has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 26 2012-08-12 00:41:14 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 27 2012-08-12 00:41:34 dub has joined
 28 2012-08-12 00:43:18 darkskiez has joined
 29 2012-08-12 00:43:21 mmoya has joined
 30 2012-08-12 00:43:51 Mad7Scientist has joined
 31 2012-08-12 00:43:56 midnightmagic has joined
 32 2012-08-12 00:44:15 jrmithdobbs has joined
 33 2012-08-12 00:44:57 dstien has joined
 34 2012-08-12 00:47:52 upb has joined
 35 2012-08-12 00:47:53 upb has quit (Changing host)
 36 2012-08-12 00:47:53 upb has joined
 37 2012-08-12 00:49:36 npouillard has joined
 38 2012-08-12 00:55:32 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 39 2012-08-12 00:57:41 phantomcircuit has joined
 40 2012-08-12 01:09:48 AlexWaters has joined
 41 2012-08-12 01:10:09 AlexWaters has quit (Client Quit)
 42 2012-08-12 01:10:18 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 43 2012-08-12 01:11:44 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 44 2012-08-12 01:12:03 MC-Eeepc has joined
 45 2012-08-12 01:15:08 caedes_ has joined
 46 2012-08-12 01:17:09 ByteUnits has joined
 47 2012-08-12 01:24:20 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 48 2012-08-12 01:29:32 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 49 2012-08-12 01:31:50 <jaxtr> bitcoin is awesome++
 50 2012-08-12 01:32:58 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 51 2012-08-12 01:33:09 MC-Eeepc has joined
 52 2012-08-12 01:33:46 RainbowDashh is now known as Poni_
 53 2012-08-12 01:36:07 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Take my advice. I don't use it anyway)
 54 2012-08-12 01:38:12 enquirer has quit (Quit: back soon)
 55 2012-08-12 01:39:55 Poni_ is now known as RainbowDashh
 56 2012-08-12 01:41:39 toffoo has joined
 57 2012-08-12 01:54:14 caedes_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 58 2012-08-12 01:54:37 danbri has joined
 59 2012-08-12 01:59:26 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 60 2012-08-12 02:07:57 hnz_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 61 2012-08-12 02:10:49 <coingenuity> ATTENTION: IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED A PRIVATE MESSAGE WITH A LINK TO http://tinyurl.com/bunnyxxxxx DO NOT DOWNLOAD THIS APPLICATION
 62 2012-08-12 02:13:35 hnz_ has joined
 63 2012-08-12 02:13:52 da2ce760 has joined
 64 2012-08-12 02:16:48 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 65 2012-08-12 02:21:51 da2ce760 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 66 2012-08-12 02:27:23 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 67 2012-08-12 02:28:53 skeledrew has joined
 68 2012-08-12 02:31:20 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 69 2012-08-12 02:33:12 da2ce7_d is now known as da2ce7
 70 2012-08-12 02:33:53 d4de has joined
 71 2012-08-12 02:33:53 d4de has quit (Changing host)
 72 2012-08-12 02:33:53 d4de has joined
 73 2012-08-12 02:36:13 RainbowDashh has joined
 74 2012-08-12 02:42:01 denisx has joined
 75 2012-08-12 02:42:56 denisx_ has joined
 76 2012-08-12 02:46:22 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 77 2012-08-12 02:46:22 denisx_ is now known as denisx
 78 2012-08-12 02:56:58 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 79 2012-08-12 03:01:15 Karmaon has joined
 80 2012-08-12 03:01:15 Karmaon has quit (Changing host)
 81 2012-08-12 03:01:15 Karmaon has joined
 82 2012-08-12 03:03:38 Goilio has joined
 83 2012-08-12 03:06:40 Z0rZ0rZ0r has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 84 2012-08-12 03:07:33 Z0rZ0rZ0r has joined
 85 2012-08-12 03:20:15 localhost has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 86 2012-08-12 03:23:57 localhost has joined
 87 2012-08-12 03:31:13 skeledrew has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 88 2012-08-12 03:32:05 Cablesaurus has joined
 89 2012-08-12 03:33:06 skeledrew has joined
 90 2012-08-12 03:43:00 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
 91 2012-08-12 03:43:07 TheSeven has joined
 92 2012-08-12 03:43:14 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 93 2012-08-12 03:51:39 enquirer has joined
 94 2012-08-12 03:51:40 enquirer has quit (Client Quit)
 95 2012-08-12 03:52:16 Goilio has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 96 2012-08-12 03:53:22 enquirer has joined
 97 2012-08-12 03:57:47 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 98 2012-08-12 04:32:28 eoss has joined
 99 2012-08-12 04:32:28 eoss has quit (Changing host)
100 2012-08-12 04:32:28 eoss has joined
101 2012-08-12 04:47:42 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
102 2012-08-12 04:51:30 setkeh has quit (Quit: Love Linux ?? and Sharing Experience ?? Come Join us on Freenode at #linuxdistrocommunity)
103 2012-08-12 04:51:42 setkeh has joined
104 2012-08-12 04:52:13 breakfastchimp has joined
105 2012-08-12 04:53:02 Maged has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
106 2012-08-12 05:02:35 Maged has joined
107 2012-08-12 05:20:12 Fanquake has joined
108 2012-08-12 05:21:05 bitllc has joined
109 2012-08-12 05:24:34 breakfastchimp has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
110 2012-08-12 05:24:35 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
111 2012-08-12 05:24:46 RainbowDashh has joined
112 2012-08-12 05:29:53 Goilio has joined
113 2012-08-12 05:32:10 AlexWaters has joined
114 2012-08-12 05:32:29 phantomcircuit has quit (Quit: Leaving)
115 2012-08-12 05:33:13 eoss has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
116 2012-08-12 05:35:14 breakfastchimp has joined
117 2012-08-12 05:38:03 Fanquake has left ()
118 2012-08-12 05:38:31 <weex> blockchain.info's beginners faq says if a transaction hasn't been confirmed that it's reversible. afaik, once a transaction has been broadcast and reached all the miners it's effectively irreverisble.
119 2012-08-12 05:38:46 <weex> block or no.
120 2012-08-12 05:40:08 <weex> i don't even know why i'm post this here...but i thought i had a question
121 2012-08-12 05:42:44 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
122 2012-08-12 05:43:59 <[Tycho]> Hello.
123 2012-08-12 05:44:11 <luke-jr> weex: a miner can reverse it
124 2012-08-12 05:44:52 breakfastchimp has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
125 2012-08-12 05:46:21 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: IceChat - Keeping PC's cool since 2000)
126 2012-08-12 05:46:30 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: do coders dream of sheep()?)
127 2012-08-12 05:46:52 Diablo-D3 has joined
128 2012-08-12 05:55:15 danbri has joined
129 2012-08-12 05:59:39 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
130 2012-08-12 06:03:32 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
131 2012-08-12 06:22:57 <weex> ok, since now there is a question, a miner could reverse it but they'd need to be notified and cooperate AND solve the next block with a transaction that spends the inputs elsewhere, right?
132 2012-08-12 06:24:46 <Diablo-D3> 51% attack.
133 2012-08-12 06:26:51 <weex> do i have to preface all my questions with "except in the case of a 51% attack,"?
134 2012-08-12 06:28:01 sgornick has joined
135 2012-08-12 06:28:24 <weex> maybe just this one
136 2012-08-12 06:42:45 sirk390 has joined
137 2012-08-12 06:52:50 Marf has joined
138 2012-08-12 06:58:08 phantomcircuit has joined
139 2012-08-12 07:21:19 <luke-jr> weex: you don't need a 51% attack to reverse a transaction without any confirmations
140 2012-08-12 07:33:21 RazielZ has joined
141 2012-08-12 07:36:32 Erdon has joined
142 2012-08-12 07:39:20 JStoker has quit (Excess Flood)
143 2012-08-12 07:50:27 <gmaxwell> What luke says. Just because a transaction has been broadcast doesn't mean the miners will mine it instead of some other transaction that conflicts with it, even if they're not dishonest.
144 2012-08-12 07:51:11 ovidiusoft has joined
145 2012-08-12 07:51:30 <gmaxwell> For example, say you send a txn with too little fee for some miners, but then you send another transaction that conflicts with the first, but with a non-trivial fee. Miners that rejected the first would likely accept the second.
146 2012-08-12 07:53:54 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
147 2012-08-12 07:54:58 RazielZ has joined
148 2012-08-12 07:58:14 RainbowD_ has joined
149 2012-08-12 08:00:33 RainbowDashh has quit (Disconnected by services)
150 2012-08-12 08:00:33 RainbowD_ is now known as RainbowDashh
151 2012-08-12 08:00:43 noagendamarket has joined
152 2012-08-12 08:04:26 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
153 2012-08-12 08:04:50 RazielZ has joined
154 2012-08-12 08:04:53 JStoker has joined
155 2012-08-12 08:06:22 danbri has joined
156 2012-08-12 08:13:53 phma has joined
157 2012-08-12 08:15:09 phantomcircuit has quit (Quit: Leaving)
158 2012-08-12 08:18:44 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
159 2012-08-12 08:28:20 Goilio has quit ()
160 2012-08-12 08:30:30 <weex> so part of evaluating whether a new transaction will be confirmed is to compare its fee vs. the fee distribution of recently confirmed transactions
161 2012-08-12 08:31:38 <gmaxwell> That idea is pretty weak.
162 2012-08-12 08:31:54 <gmaxwell> Because there are transactions which are confirmed because of invisible agreements with miners.
163 2012-08-12 08:32:01 <gmaxwell> (or are the miner's own transactions).
164 2012-08-12 08:32:13 <gmaxwell> Instead its better to look at txn which are waiting _without_ being confirmed.
165 2012-08-12 08:32:34 <gmaxwell> (but are otherwise valid)
166 2012-08-12 08:33:07 <weex> well besides the fact that they may conflict with other waiting transactions
167 2012-08-12 08:33:12 <weex> input-wise
168 2012-08-12 08:33:39 <gmaxwell> normal software just drops those.
169 2012-08-12 08:34:22 <gmaxwell> (and yes, you wouldn't want to consider those— but thats why I said 'but otherwise valid' a doublespend (against the chain or the current mempool) isn't considered valid)
170 2012-08-12 08:35:28 <weex> i guess part of the question is if miners are likely with their custom software to drop low fee transactions even from their memory pools
171 2012-08-12 08:36:25 <gmaxwell> Well the reference software does that— for a sufficient definition of low fee.
172 2012-08-12 08:38:57 <weex> ok, i have no further questions your honor
173 2012-08-12 08:39:00 Mobius_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
174 2012-08-12 08:43:14 Mobius_ has joined
175 2012-08-12 08:51:32 Karmaon has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
176 2012-08-12 08:51:56 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
177 2012-08-12 08:52:23 one_zero has joined
178 2012-08-12 08:52:44 molecular has joined
179 2012-08-12 09:00:49 Turingi has joined
180 2012-08-12 09:04:08 tonikt has joined
181 2012-08-12 09:30:51 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
182 2012-08-12 09:38:04 aq has quit (2!~kvirc@chello080109197142.2.graz.surfer.at|Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
183 2012-08-12 09:38:31 aq83 has joined
184 2012-08-12 09:39:28 sirk390 has joined
185 2012-08-12 09:46:39 <Ferroh> gmaxwell, Syntax error: unexpected '('.
186 2012-08-12 09:47:23 <Ferroh> I dont think english permits nesting parenthesis :)
187 2012-08-12 09:47:31 <sipa> ?
188 2012-08-12 09:47:42 <Ferroh> he put brackets within brackets :)
189 2012-08-12 09:47:53 <Ferroh> then again I guess it doesn't permit ":)" emoticons
190 2012-08-12 09:48:02 <ersi> [] <- brackets
191 2012-08-12 09:48:11 <Ferroh> parenthesis
192 2012-08-12 09:48:17 <ersi> Hm, or is that {}
193 2012-08-12 09:48:38 <ersi> ┐(￣ー￣)┌
194 2012-08-12 09:48:49 <Ferroh> they are both "brackets"
195 2012-08-12 09:48:53 <Ferroh> [] are square brackets
196 2012-08-12 09:48:56 <Ferroh> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket#Types
197 2012-08-12 09:49:24 <sipa> if you're idling in this channel, one can expect you to be able to parse context fre grammars
198 2012-08-12 09:49:30 <sipa> free
199 2012-08-12 09:50:32 <Ferroh> Apparently chinese and japanese use square bracket + parenthesis comination abominations: 【 】
200 2012-08-12 09:51:03 <Ferroh> Not sure if you can see those though.
201 2012-08-12 09:51:55 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
202 2012-08-12 09:52:05 <Ferroh> *combination
203 2012-08-12 09:53:13 <weex> i can and they're awesome
204 2012-08-12 09:54:32 <gmaxwell> I like ⟦ and ⟧
205 2012-08-12 09:54:55 <gmaxwell> ≪≫     < and those.
206 2012-08-12 09:55:08 <Ferroh> I can't see ⟦ and ⟧ :(
207 2012-08-12 09:55:09 LuaKT has joined
208 2012-08-12 09:55:09 LuaKT has quit (Changing host)
209 2012-08-12 09:55:09 LuaKT has joined
210 2012-08-12 09:55:42 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
211 2012-08-12 09:55:59 RazielZ has joined
212 2012-08-12 09:56:06 <Ferroh> ≪and yes, you wouldn't want to consider those— but thats why I said 'but otherwise valid' a doublespend 【 against the chain or the current mempool 】 isn't considered valid≫
213 2012-08-12 09:56:08 <Ferroh> ^^ FTFY
214 2012-08-12 10:01:04 mmoya has joined
215 2012-08-12 10:04:38 datagutt has joined
216 2012-08-12 10:05:49 Detritus has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
217 2012-08-12 10:06:30 Detritus has joined
218 2012-08-12 10:22:52 iocor has joined
219 2012-08-12 10:46:48 TD has joined
220 2012-08-12 10:48:06 da2ce760 has joined
221 2012-08-12 10:51:01 da2ce760 is now known as da2ce787
222 2012-08-12 10:54:03 t7 has joined
223 2012-08-12 10:55:47 justmoon has joined
224 2012-08-12 11:00:03 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
225 2012-08-12 11:03:42 mndrix has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
226 2012-08-12 11:03:43 faraday__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
227 2012-08-12 11:03:43 terry has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
228 2012-08-12 11:05:49 pickett has joined
229 2012-08-12 11:11:35 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
230 2012-08-12 11:12:28 RazielZ has joined
231 2012-08-12 11:13:03 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
232 2012-08-12 11:16:20 da2ce787 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
233 2012-08-12 11:18:56 da2ce751 has joined
234 2012-08-12 11:20:46 da2ce751 has quit (Excess Flood)
235 2012-08-12 11:21:27 Fanquake has joined
236 2012-08-12 11:22:01 Fanquake has quit (Client Quit)
237 2012-08-12 11:24:25 d4de has joined
238 2012-08-12 11:25:08 faraday__ has joined
239 2012-08-12 11:26:52 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
240 2012-08-12 11:26:54 toffoo has quit ()
241 2012-08-12 11:33:04 mndrix has joined
242 2012-08-12 11:33:54 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
243 2012-08-12 11:36:10 graingert has joined
244 2012-08-12 11:37:25 O2made has joined
245 2012-08-12 11:37:36 O2made has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
246 2012-08-12 11:40:57 pickett has joined
247 2012-08-12 11:47:56 _flow_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
248 2012-08-12 11:57:09 Z0rZ0rZ0r has quit (Disconnected by services)
249 2012-08-12 11:57:12 Z0rZ0rZ0r1 has joined
250 2012-08-12 11:57:32 Z0rZ0rZ0r has joined
251 2012-08-12 11:57:52 Z0rZ0rZ0r1 has quit (Client Quit)
252 2012-08-12 11:58:49 Zarutian has joined
253 2012-08-12 11:59:51 _flow_ has joined
254 2012-08-12 12:11:21 d1234 has joined
255 2012-08-12 12:16:54 Ferroh has quit (Quit: *poof*)
256 2012-08-12 12:17:59 graingert has left ()
257 2012-08-12 12:18:10 graingert has joined
258 2012-08-12 12:19:32 danbri has joined
259 2012-08-12 12:22:57 danbri_ has joined
260 2012-08-12 12:23:37 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
261 2012-08-12 12:27:41 D34TH has joined
262 2012-08-12 12:28:25 rdponticelli has joined
263 2012-08-12 12:35:13 danbri_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
264 2012-08-12 12:35:23 phma has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
265 2012-08-12 12:35:58 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
266 2012-08-12 12:36:05 dvide has quit ()
267 2012-08-12 12:36:26 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
268 2012-08-12 12:40:14 bitllc has joined
269 2012-08-12 12:40:25 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
270 2012-08-12 12:41:10 d1234_ has joined
271 2012-08-12 12:41:57 d1234 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
272 2012-08-12 12:47:05 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
273 2012-08-12 12:48:08 RazielZ has joined
274 2012-08-12 12:52:11 sirk390 has joined
275 2012-08-12 12:55:51 xorgate has quit (Quit: Take it easy)
276 2012-08-12 12:57:39 xorgate has joined
277 2012-08-12 13:11:15 Tycale has quit (Quit: Cya)
278 2012-08-12 13:13:00 eoss has joined
279 2012-08-12 13:13:00 eoss has quit (Changing host)
280 2012-08-12 13:13:00 eoss has joined
281 2012-08-12 13:19:13 one_zero has quit ()
282 2012-08-12 13:22:38 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
283 2012-08-12 13:26:57 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
284 2012-08-12 13:27:21 bitllc has joined
285 2012-08-12 13:32:27 danbri has joined
286 2012-08-12 13:33:12 ehash has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
287 2012-08-12 13:34:00 ehash has joined
288 2012-08-12 13:37:06 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
289 2012-08-12 13:37:43 RazielZ has joined
290 2012-08-12 13:45:07 d1234_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
291 2012-08-12 13:46:50 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
292 2012-08-12 13:55:15 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
293 2012-08-12 13:55:48 MC-Eeepc has joined
294 2012-08-12 14:05:17 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
295 2012-08-12 14:07:53 danbri has joined
296 2012-08-12 14:12:07 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
297 2012-08-12 14:21:09 slush1 has joined
298 2012-08-12 14:21:49 Zarutian has joined
299 2012-08-12 14:23:56 noagendamarket has quit (Quit: Leaving)
300 2012-08-12 14:24:35 justmoon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
301 2012-08-12 14:32:02 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
302 2012-08-12 14:36:04 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
303 2012-08-12 14:46:13 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
304 2012-08-12 14:48:02 slush2 has joined
305 2012-08-12 14:50:31 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
306 2012-08-12 14:54:44 Zarutian has joined
307 2012-08-12 15:00:10 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
308 2012-08-12 15:03:09 iocor has joined
309 2012-08-12 15:05:10 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
310 2012-08-12 15:09:39 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
311 2012-08-12 15:10:46 ASukharev3318 has joined
312 2012-08-12 15:13:05 Nesetalis has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
313 2012-08-12 15:24:35 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
314 2012-08-12 15:31:38 danbri has joined
315 2012-08-12 15:33:39 slush2 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
316 2012-08-12 15:36:34 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
317 2012-08-12 15:38:44 slush1 has joined
318 2012-08-12 15:42:51 bakh has joined
319 2012-08-12 15:42:59 sirk390 has joined
320 2012-08-12 15:51:08 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
321 2012-08-12 15:57:03 Zarutian has joined
322 2012-08-12 15:57:23 vigilyn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
323 2012-08-12 16:01:23 Zarutian has quit (Client Quit)
324 2012-08-12 16:05:28 enquirer has quit (Quit: back soon)
325 2012-08-12 16:09:39 roconnor has joined
326 2012-08-12 16:10:20 iocor has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
327 2012-08-12 16:13:31 iocor has joined
328 2012-08-12 16:16:22 Joric has joined
329 2012-08-12 16:17:16 Karmaon_ has joined
330 2012-08-12 16:17:16 Karmaon_ has quit (Changing host)
331 2012-08-12 16:17:16 Karmaon_ has joined
332 2012-08-12 16:18:09 vigilyn has joined
333 2012-08-12 16:22:48 Marf has joined
334 2012-08-12 16:34:14 theorbtwo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
335 2012-08-12 16:45:13 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
336 2012-08-12 16:46:46 bitllc has joined
337 2012-08-12 16:47:16 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
338 2012-08-12 16:52:12 tonikt2 has joined
339 2012-08-12 16:53:00 tonikt has quit (Quit: Leaving)
340 2012-08-12 16:57:42 <iocor> which repo should I use for bitcoin from git?
341 2012-08-12 16:57:47 <iocor> gavinandersen?
342 2012-08-12 16:58:18 bitllc has joined
343 2012-08-12 16:58:22 <sipa> iocor: for what?
344 2012-08-12 16:58:29 <iocor> bitcoind
345 2012-08-12 16:58:47 <sipa> if you want to see things gavin is working on, use his repository
346 2012-08-12 16:58:59 <Joric> sipa, http://brainwallet.org/#sign <- pure js implementation
347 2012-08-12 16:59:03 <sipa> if you want to see the current development verion of bitcoin, use bitcoin
348 2012-08-12 16:59:15 <sipa> if you want to use bitcoin, use a release
349 2012-08-12 16:59:20 <iocor> k
350 2012-08-12 16:59:21 <Joric> justmoon doesn't have it
351 2012-08-12 16:59:59 <sipa> Joric: nice
352 2012-08-12 17:04:20 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
353 2012-08-12 17:05:27 iocor has joined
354 2012-08-12 17:07:16 phantomcircuit has joined
355 2012-08-12 17:09:50 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
356 2012-08-12 17:15:07 bakh has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
357 2012-08-12 17:17:32 aq83 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
358 2012-08-12 17:21:16 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
359 2012-08-12 17:22:07 bitllc has joined
360 2012-08-12 17:22:11 MC-Eeepc has joined
361 2012-08-12 17:22:36 Zarutian has joined
362 2012-08-12 17:27:16 d4de has joined
363 2012-08-12 17:27:16 d4de has quit (Changing host)
364 2012-08-12 17:27:16 d4de has joined
365 2012-08-12 17:28:37 vigilyn has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
366 2012-08-12 17:31:24 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
367 2012-08-12 17:32:01 bitllc has joined
368 2012-08-12 17:32:18 theorbtwo has joined
369 2012-08-12 17:35:45 AlexWaters has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
370 2012-08-12 17:36:33 bitllc has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
371 2012-08-12 17:38:29 <sipa> gmaxwell: how did you generate those profile-graphs again?
372 2012-08-12 17:40:51 <gmaxwell> valgrind --tool=callgrind --trace-children=yes  + kcachegrind  to visualize the results.
373 2012-08-12 17:42:07 <sipa> thanks, let me try that myself now :)
374 2012-08-12 17:43:09 Diablo-D3 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
375 2012-08-12 17:44:27 Diablo-D3 has joined
376 2012-08-12 17:48:13 da2ce7_d has joined
377 2012-08-12 17:50:36 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
378 2012-08-12 17:51:21 roconnor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
379 2012-08-12 17:51:37 roconnor has joined
380 2012-08-12 17:51:42 emzic has quit ()
381 2012-08-12 17:54:53 <BlueMatt> + --separate-threads=yes
382 2012-08-12 17:55:25 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
383 2012-08-12 17:55:40 roconnor has joined
384 2012-08-12 17:58:25 <gmaxwell> Oh indeed, though it _should_ work without that.
385 2012-08-12 18:00:56 <sipa> ok, i used a command-line gmaxwell told me earlier after grepping the log
386 2012-08-12 18:01:03 <BlueMatt> well it will work without --trace-children too ;)
387 2012-08-12 18:01:13 <sipa> it also includes --collect-jumps=yes
388 2012-08-12 18:01:30 <sipa> 11 minutes for 100k blocks
389 2012-08-12 18:01:35 <gmaxwell> yea, you don't need collect jumps unless you're looking for detailed branch stats.
390 2012-08-12 18:02:04 <sipa> valgrind cannot deal with binaries produced with --march=native, it seems
391 2012-08-12 18:02:10 <sipa> --march=corei7 works fine though
392 2012-08-12 18:02:24 <BlueMatt> since when is there a difference?
393 2012-08-12 18:02:36 <BlueMatt> or is there now a corei7sandybridge or something
394 2012-08-12 18:03:13 phantomcircuit has quit (Quit: Leaving)
395 2012-08-12 18:03:16 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: probably
396 2012-08-12 18:03:24 <luke-jr> Valgrind emulates the instructions AFAIK
397 2012-08-12 18:03:28 <luke-jr> so that makes sense
398 2012-08-12 18:03:56 <sipa> corei7-avx and core-avx-i also exist
399 2012-08-12 18:05:21 <gmaxwell> sipa: newer valgrind (e.g. whats in svn) is fine with the sandybridge and bulldozer new instructions.
400 2012-08-12 18:05:58 <luke-jr> hmm, I just noticed GCC 4.5, while it lacks corei7-avx, does have a -mavx switch
401 2012-08-12 18:06:02 <luke-jr> I wonder if I should use that
402 2012-08-12 18:09:44 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ever get together that list of stuff to build into 'next'?
403 2012-08-12 18:10:56 BeTep has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
404 2012-08-12 18:12:19 Joric has quit ()
405 2012-08-12 18:16:34 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
406 2012-08-12 18:17:25 agricocb has joined
407 2012-08-12 18:19:59 gfinn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
408 2012-08-12 18:28:42 <sipa> gmaxwell: the overhead from decompressing pubkeys (my compact representation for scripts uses compressed pubkeys for storing to-0x04-pubkey outputs) is responsible for 11% of the time according to callgrind
409 2012-08-12 18:28:52 <sipa> didn't expect it to be that much
410 2012-08-12 18:29:02 <sipa> oh, this was only up to 130k blocks
411 2012-08-12 18:29:08 <sipa> it's probably a lot less afterwards
412 2012-08-12 18:30:18 <gmaxwell> sipa: careful with that, callgrind often over estimates the complexity of easily pipelined instructions and underestimates the complexity of things that touch memory.
413 2012-08-12 18:30:42 <gmaxwell> It's better for algorithmic/controlflow complexity, but it can be a bit distorted.
414 2012-08-12 18:31:02 <luke-jr> …
415 2012-08-12 18:31:10 <gmaxwell> If you want an accurate profile you'll need to use something sampling based (e.g. oprofile), but thats generally a pain.
416 2012-08-12 18:31:43 gfinn has joined
417 2012-08-12 18:33:15 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
418 2012-08-12 18:37:38 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I went through and milestone 0.7ed all the ones I thought still had a good chance of going in, though you'll want to exclude the coinbase height one.
419 2012-08-12 18:37:53 <luke-jr> O.o why?
420 2012-08-12 18:42:57 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: did you consider 1355 once rebased? I had it noted as accepted
421 2012-08-12 18:44:19 <gmaxwell> How important do you think it is? I don't have any real opposition to it, I just didn't even want to consider it until the GMP changes went in.
422 2012-08-12 18:46:46 hnz_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
423 2012-08-12 18:47:49 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: probably not too important, but would be nice to get it for solo miners and p2pool-like things
424 2012-08-12 18:47:55 bitllc has joined
425 2012-08-12 18:47:59 <luke-jr> poolservers can use -blocknotify of course
426 2012-08-12 18:48:30 <luke-jr> I'm just trying to decide to pull it out of next (and into next-test) or leave it be
427 2012-08-12 18:50:03 <BlueMatt> http://vanillawallet.com/ <-- yet another client, bitcoinj based, looks like elecrum's mini interface
428 2012-08-12 18:50:17 <BlueMatt> nice to see more and more clients being developed
429 2012-08-12 18:51:31 <BlueMatt> oh, never-mind, its not oss, shame...
430 2012-08-12 18:54:35 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
431 2012-08-12 18:56:30 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: also: 2) why exclude height-in-coinbase, 3) #1159 is currently excluded from even next-test due to known bugs and conflict with refactor_times, 4) #1583 feels like it should be added to the list
432 2012-08-12 18:57:00 skeledrew has joined
433 2012-08-12 18:58:11 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: Because height-in-coinbase does coinbase voting, and having people mining on it now screws things up if the meaning changes.
434 2012-08-12 18:58:32 <gmaxwell> I don't know if its urgent to leave out though.
435 2012-08-12 18:59:01 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: weird, I totally didn't see prioritisetransaction in the list.
436 2012-08-12 18:59:16 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it's in the current next-test for over a month now; the real problem is that people mining on it don't put the height in the coinbase (since bitcoind isn't making the coinbase) but still use the version
437 2012-08-12 19:00:12 <luke-jr> (and that problem persists until gmp_bip is merged, since it breaks those applications and mandates height-in-coinbase for version==2 explicitly)
438 2012-08-12 19:00:37 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: OK, well then the world won't end if it continues— in the future, you should probably avoid cutting test versions with coinbase voting changes just in case.
439 2012-08-12 19:00:49 toffoo has joined
440 2012-08-12 19:01:13 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: yeah, probably
441 2012-08-12 19:01:34 <gmaxwell> (or mod them to be testnet only or something when pulling)
442 2012-08-12 19:01:58 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: On 1583, sounds good to me, though did you ever come up with anything about gavin's comment on mixing both ignoring fees and the priority changes?
443 2012-08-12 19:02:23 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I responded. Waiting for someone else to answer that :P
444 2012-08-12 19:03:24 <Eliel> would it be possible to somehow create a bitcoin address that is capped on how many coins it can receive in total?
445 2012-08-12 19:03:42 <BlueMatt> no
446 2012-08-12 19:03:48 <sipa> Eliel: no, scripts cannot observe the blockchain status
447 2012-08-12 19:04:25 <gmaxwell> And, more generally ... thats like saying "Can I give my child a name that can only be spoken so many times"
448 2012-08-12 19:04:25 danbri has joined
449 2012-08-12 19:05:26 <gmaxwell> Addresses don't recieve coins... rather people write transactions that say they can be redeemed by particular addresses. Nothing could stop someone from writing that rule as much as they like.
450 2012-08-12 19:06:42 <Eliel> gmaxwell: of course. However, there are plenty of valid legal reasons someone would want to be able to refuse a transaction.
451 2012-08-12 19:07:11 <Eliel> that is, not receive the coins.
452 2012-08-12 19:07:11 <BlueMatt> yep, but bitcoin doesnt allow that
453 2012-08-12 19:07:21 <sipa> Eliel: i think the solution is moving to a protocol for negotiating payments instead of just unidirectionally sending them to a pubkey hash
454 2012-08-12 19:07:34 <BlueMatt> what sipa said
455 2012-08-12 19:07:35 <Eliel> sipa: that doesn't remove the issue.
456 2012-08-12 19:07:47 <gmaxwell> Eliel: ... "refuse a transaction" makes no sense at all.
457 2012-08-12 19:07:52 <Eliel> anyone can still send you however much they want if they know your address
458 2012-08-12 19:08:07 <gmaxwell> Eliel: you can refuse transactions all you like by declining to redeem them.
459 2012-08-12 19:08:13 <gmaxwell> The same way you refuse a check.
460 2012-08-12 19:08:14 <sipa> Eliel: that's like someone anonymously dumping coins on your account without you knowing
461 2012-08-12 19:08:46 <sipa> as long as you don't use it, nobody can claim you received it willingly
462 2012-08-12 19:09:53 <luke-jr> even if you do use it :p
463 2012-08-12 19:10:01 <luke-jr> where's that quarantine feature? ;)
464 2012-08-12 19:10:43 <luke-jr> once we have that, add a checkbox to Settings "Automatically accept payments" which, if disabled, quarantines everything until the user clicks Accept (and hides Accept if they click Reject)
465 2012-08-12 19:10:56 PhantomSpark has quit (2!~kvirc@pool-71-251-16-25.nycmny.fios.verizon.net|Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
466 2012-08-12 19:11:13 <Eliel> also, if you could make an address go invalid after a set time has passed, it would simplify wallet software. No need to keep old addresses around forever.
467 2012-08-12 19:11:43 <Eliel> (invalid for receiving, not for sending)
468 2012-08-12 19:11:47 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: so— how horrible would it be to make that call take a fee delta too?  It should still ignore the minfee.. but fee is also used for priorization now.
469 2012-08-12 19:12:16 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: not sure I understand
470 2012-08-12 19:12:20 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: (I was going to respond to gavin that his point was irrelevant— it's by txid, if you don't like the fee, don't call it for that txn)
471 2012-08-12 19:13:31 <luke-jr> change priority by affecting the fee influence rather than the raw priority?
472 2012-08-12 19:13:47 <sipa> Eliel: if we'd move to only accepting transactions directly through some payment protocol (and make scan-blockchain-for-payments-to-me optional), the whole issue with people not knowing whether an address is still valid, or comments for a transaction, or new addresses for each payment/customer would disappear
473 2012-08-12 19:13:53 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: above minfee txns get ordered by their fee per kb now. Say you're getting paid behind the scenes for that txn, you should be able to twiddle its apparent fee too.
474 2012-08-12 19:14:55 <gmaxwell> Eliel: forcing addresses to be single use would have that effect.
475 2012-08-12 19:14:55 <luke-jr> hmm, makes sense
476 2012-08-12 19:15:05 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: can you post that to remind me? ;)
477 2012-08-12 19:15:11 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: (but gavin was still in space there)
478 2012-08-12 19:16:02 <Eliel> sipa: that seems like it'd make trouble for paper wallets.
479 2012-08-12 19:16:21 <luke-jr> btw, since sipa and gmaxwell are both here, can we talk about getting gmp_bip merged? :P
480 2012-08-12 19:16:23 <sipa> Eliel: a paper wallet should contain the key + the txid
481 2012-08-12 19:16:50 <Eliel> gmaxwell: true, that would accomplish most of it. Except, it would not help with unused addresses.
482 2012-08-12 19:17:25 <sipa> Eliel: i'm not arguing for abolishing pay-to-pubkey-hash-via-blockchain, just for having an alternative
483 2012-08-12 19:17:35 <Eliel> gmaxwell: all the exchange sites are bound to be generating loads of unused addresses to store forever.
484 2012-08-12 19:18:15 <sipa> Eliel: in general, imho we should stop calling pubkey hashes "addresses"; sure, every pubkey corresponds to some base58-encoded hash, but calling it an "address" implies that it is acceptable as a tx destination (even when it is not intended to function as one, for example change addresses)
485 2012-08-12 19:19:20 <luke-jr> if someone really wanted to, they could define an address format to include an expiration timestamp <.<
486 2012-08-12 19:19:34 <sipa> luke-jr: i was planning on reviewing the list of pull requests later today
487 2012-08-12 19:20:37 <luke-jr> 16 bits should be enough to have an expiration day
488 2012-08-12 19:21:28 <gmaxwell> Eliel: nothing can help with an unused address. I think you're suffering from a centeralized mental model or something. Go think through what you're asking for but with checks in the place of bitcoin transactions. You can't stop someone from writing checks to your dog.
489 2012-08-12 19:22:45 <gmaxwell> Eliel: someone only needs to keep a key around as long as they've claimed to. If someone tells you the key is good for a day and you send it funds a year later… sucks to be you.
490 2012-08-12 19:23:49 <Eliel> an address format with an expiration date is good enough, actually.
491 2012-08-12 19:24:14 <gmaxwell> Eliel: you can also store 16 million privkey+address pairs per gigabyte.
492 2012-08-12 19:24:33 <gmaxwell> (or infinite, if they're just some determinstic sequence)
493 2012-08-12 19:25:02 <gmaxwell> so e.g. someone wanting to take old addresses offline could still cold storage them efficienctly for recovery if funds are misdirected to them.
494 2012-08-12 19:25:46 <luke-jr> would it be a good idea to prioritize relaying blocks to peers that have relayed you the most in the past?
495 2012-08-12 19:25:54 <luke-jr> assuming they have better interconnections
496 2012-08-12 19:26:10 <amiller> Eliel, your idea is technically feasible at least in concept, the current script language (and the additional limitations in place) aren't sufficient to do it. I'm really hoping someone comes up with an example like that that is compelling enough to justify enhancements to the script environment
497 2012-08-12 19:26:25 just4dos has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
498 2012-08-12 19:26:35 <amiller> presumably bitcoin-script will eventually be powerful enough that you can encode financial instruments that shoot yourself in the foot, if you want
499 2012-08-12 19:27:04 <gmaxwell> amiller: I don't agree that it's usefully feasable, in fact.
500 2012-08-12 19:27:33 <luke-jr> amiller: we've already had an enhancement to the script environment ;)
501 2012-08-12 19:28:24 <gmaxwell> amiller: with extensions you could write a script that couldn't be redeemed after some time (though there are risks connected with that), but that doesn't get what Eliel asked for.
502 2012-08-12 19:28:37 ASukharev3318 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
503 2012-08-12 19:29:08 <Eliel> amiller: an address that is limited in how many coins it can receive would need the public key (or maybe a hash of it) then the maximum amount and the amount would need to be signed with the private key. Then all that's left is support from the network to consider transactions moving too much invalid.
504 2012-08-12 19:29:20 <gmaxwell> sipa: does your compacted serialization also do something to compress repeated scriptpubkey/scriptprivkeys?
505 2012-08-12 19:29:46 <gmaxwell> Eliel: No. That doesn't work.
506 2012-08-12 19:30:50 <gmaxwell> Eliel: transactions exist _independantly_ of the blockchain.
507 2012-08-12 19:30:55 <amiller> gmaxwell, sure it does, he described a rule for validating transactions that depends on the current state of data in the ledger
508 2012-08-12 19:30:56 <iocor> is createrawtransaction meant to do address validity checks?
509 2012-08-12 19:31:26 <gmaxwell> iocor: ha. Open an issue.
510 2012-08-12 19:31:31 <gmaxwell> (yes, it should)
511 2012-08-12 19:31:41 <iocor> it does
512 2012-08-12 19:31:49 <iocor> but it's documentation suggests it does /no/ validity checks
513 2012-08-12 19:31:52 <BlueMatt> Eliel: and when the prev txs have been spent? now pruned nodes have to keep around a list of pubkeys that can no longer be spent to?
514 2012-08-12 19:31:56 <iocor> "Also note that NO transaction validity checks are done; it is easy to create invalid transactions or transactions that will not be relayed/mined by the network because they contain insufficient fees."
515 2012-08-12 19:32:13 <gmaxwell> iocor: address validation is syntatic! it's not talking about syntatic checks.
516 2012-08-12 19:32:24 <iocor> ah ok
517 2012-08-12 19:32:34 <Eliel> BlueMatt: that can be circumvented by including a time limit too.
518 2012-08-12 19:33:56 <luke-jr> iocor: it's in fact impossible to make a transaction with an invalid address ;)
519 2012-08-12 19:34:00 <gmaxwell> amiller: Not just validating a transaction— which blows up the bitcoin model where the chain is only used for timestamping to resolve conflicts— but validating its pubkey script.
520 2012-08-12 19:34:13 <Eliel> gmaxwell: I see no problem. It's a rule for whether or not the tx is includeable in the blockchain.
521 2012-08-12 19:34:30 <gmaxwell> Eliel: the blockchain is not the (non-)existance of a transaction.
522 2012-08-12 19:35:01 <Eliel> gmaxwell: why does that matter?
523 2012-08-12 19:35:10 <gmaxwell> Eliel: transactions exist independantly of the blockchain, just like checks exist independantly of you depoiting them.
524 2012-08-12 19:35:30 <amiller> but transaction validation is relative to the current state of the blockchain
525 2012-08-12 19:35:39 <Eliel> yes, transaction in the blockchain is like a check deposited at a bank. Transaction not deposited is like a transaction not in the blockchain
526 2012-08-12 19:35:40 <luke-jr> amiller: not really, no.
527 2012-08-12 19:36:03 ASukharev3318 has joined
528 2012-08-12 19:36:05 <amiller> for example if a transaction says 'this transaction only invalid until block 10000' then there is a time after which the transaction will never be applied
529 2012-08-12 19:36:11 <gmaxwell> Eliel: No, redeeming a transaction is like depositing a check.
530 2012-08-12 19:36:29 <luke-jr> amiller: transactions cannot say that
531 2012-08-12 19:36:32 <luke-jr> by design
532 2012-08-12 19:36:37 <amiller> why couldn't they?
533 2012-08-12 19:36:58 <luke-jr> (actually, I think they can do that particular direction, but not the other way)
534 2012-08-12 19:37:21 <gmaxwell> Yes, it's not an accident that transactions don't have a maximum time. Otherwise you can get fun incentives to exclude transactions, and fun incentives to reorg them out. And the inability for a one block reorg to be harmless.
535 2012-08-12 19:37:23 <luke-jr> it's theoretically possible that all of us just exchange transactions out-of-band never touching the blockchain
536 2012-08-12 19:37:31 <amiller> i misspoke obviously in my sentence, but the two ways it could go are "valid only until X" or "valid only after X" or "valid only within the interval X through Y"
537 2012-08-12 19:37:44 <gmaxwell> I decoded what amiller was saying there.
538 2012-08-12 19:38:26 <amiller> gmaxwell, that's in the category of financial transactions that shoot yourself in the foot, if someone wants them, i don't see why not
539 2012-08-12 19:38:33 <gmaxwell> Eliel: in any case, just adding a timestamp field to an address client serialization does what you want.
540 2012-08-12 19:39:03 <gmaxwell> amiller: because they promote network instablity, they don't just shoot themselves in the foot.
541 2012-08-12 19:39:27 <gmaxwell> Eliel: and doesn't have any chain interaction at all.
542 2012-08-12 19:39:43 <luke-jr> if there's demand for expiring transactions, we could just say P2SH with length 27 have a timestamp after the version?
543 2012-08-12 19:40:10 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: hm? no you just use a new version for it.
544 2012-08-12 19:40:16 denisx has joined
545 2012-08-12 19:40:19 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: why use a new version?
546 2012-08-12 19:40:34 <gmaxwell> I even thought the URL scheme had an expires time field defined in it already, but I can't seem to find it.
547 2012-08-12 19:40:37 <amiller> gmaxwell, "promote network instability" seems a little too fearful/reactionary, one block reorgs are only harmful if you wait till one-block-before-the-deadline to consider a timed-out-transaction truly expired
548 2012-08-12 19:41:04 <amiller> there are already potential incentives to reorg chains, that's the sort of thing bitcoin is robust to
549 2012-08-12 19:41:24 <amiller> now i totally understand if there's not a compelling enough use to bother with it but that's a different topic than "harms the chain"
550 2012-08-12 19:41:27 just4dos has joined
551 2012-08-12 19:41:56 bitllc has joined
552 2012-08-12 19:42:05 <luke-jr> i4L4w8czybKM5cDPVTPVN3dyeZXHbwgHkDWe <-- dummy address expiring in a week
553 2012-08-12 19:42:29 <gmaxwell> amiller: it's bad for everyone who might want to accept one confirm transactions independantly, as it increases the small theft risk (which they're factoring into their business model). Sure, not the end of the world.
554 2012-08-12 19:42:42 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I like the idea of using bitcoin urls for it more than addresses.
555 2012-08-12 19:42:59 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: easier to be stupid with those :p
556 2012-08-12 19:43:23 <luke-jr> but probably more friendly for receipt
557 2012-08-12 19:43:26 <gmaxwell> it's still easy to be stupid with addresses, ::shrugs:: and the urls allow for more options. Like "pay only this amount".
558 2012-08-12 19:43:27 Ferroh has joined
559 2012-08-12 19:43:43 <amiller> the only nontrivial thing about his suggestion is that it would require an in-blockchain commitment to the sum balance of an address
560 2012-08-12 19:44:07 <amiller> this is something that could work the same way as the coinbase-commitments keyed by address so you can efficiently get a list of all your unspent coins
561 2012-08-12 19:44:38 <amiller> it would need an additional field to include a sum that could be quickly validated
562 2012-08-12 19:45:31 <amiller> so this is a good (well, still not that compelling) reason to support updates to an arbitrary merkle-tree index structure
563 2012-08-12 19:46:56 <gmaxwell> amiller: It's still a fundimental break with how bitcoin works. Today the chain forms a vote on the order of transactions and thats _it_, thats a powerful force but its almost as limited as it can be. Doing that sort of thing extends to 'majority rules' vote to have greater control over transactions.
564 2012-08-12 19:47:54 <gmaxwell> And for Eliel's end use case, it's all irrelevant— e.g. just adding an advisory date or amount, or a single use flag to an address.. which never even hits the block chain is sufficient. (then you just ignore transactions that violate your rules: After all, no system can prevent idiots from burning coin)
565 2012-08-12 19:47:54 <amiller> Today the chains forms a vote on the order of transactions and how quickly they're included. Unchanged.
566 2012-08-12 19:48:04 <luke-jr> amiller: I think to make this change, you will need to fork Bitcoin and get an economic majority to switch to your fork
567 2012-08-12 19:48:21 <gmaxwell> amiller: 'how quickly' is redundant, thats just an element of ordering. :)
568 2012-08-12 19:48:43 <Eliel> luke-jr: not enough demand for that feature, I think :)
569 2012-08-12 19:48:45 <amiller> well consider that block numbers are also logically ordered
570 2012-08-12 19:49:05 <amiller> it's still just ordering, when it comes to whether a tx is in an early block or a later block
571 2012-08-12 19:49:28 <amiller> but if thats your point, then there's no reason why the validity of a transaction shouldn't depend on the block number
572 2012-08-12 19:49:45 <amiller> or on other transactions that modify the balance of an address
573 2012-08-12 19:51:07 <sipa> gmaxwell: no optimization for repeated txout scripts
574 2012-08-12 19:51:19 <gmaxwell> amiller: because doing so makes it impossible to do things like have chains of transactions independant of the blockchain, so long as the parties can be trusted to not double spend. E.g. mintchip, or a non-chain single signing service.
575 2012-08-12 19:51:47 <amiller> gmaxwell, it doesn't make it impossible, this is an opt-in thing since it depends on the rules you ask for in your transaction
576 2012-08-12 19:51:50 <sipa> gmaxwell: but there are not many
577 2012-08-12 19:52:04 <amiller> gmaxwell, you would need to create a transaction to yourself that defines this balance limit and activates it
578 2012-08-12 19:52:50 <gmaxwell> amiller: Thats a point. Perhaps a bigger one is that making transaction validity depend on the txout content is incompatible with redeemer provided scriptpubkey.
579 2012-08-12 19:53:57 <amiller> Well it's still a superset of the current abilities. You could imagine having part of the script provided at the txout and part of the script provided by the redeemer, or arbitrarily interleaved
580 2012-08-12 19:54:18 <amiller> whoever creates the txout gets to define the rules
581 2012-08-12 19:57:13 <amiller> maybe i'll have an easier time collecting a bunch of mostly-useless justifications for beefy-scripts rather than any single must-have functionality :/
582 2012-08-12 19:57:31 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
583 2012-08-12 19:57:32 <gribble> 193588
584 2012-08-12 19:57:36 <gmaxwell> amiller: thats not so bad, because perhaps you can find designs that hit all the usecases at once.
585 2012-08-12 19:57:52 <gmaxwell> amiller: e.g. add this one general mechenism and all these things then work.
586 2012-08-12 19:58:35 <gmaxwell> amiller: though its a bit challenging, you can do _a lot_ basically external to the chain, just with client functionality (or, less desirably, with oracles)
587 2012-08-12 19:58:45 <sipa> gmaxwell: actually, it's worse than i thought; 1995024 unspent txouts, 793281 distict scripts
588 2012-08-12 19:59:05 bitllc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
589 2012-08-12 19:59:28 <gmaxwell> sipa: yea, thats why I asked, I was thinking it was like ... 50% reduction.. I guess a bit less then.
590 2012-08-12 20:00:22 RainbowDashh has joined
591 2012-08-12 20:00:39 <amiller> gmaxwell, i want to add several sections to the wiki but i don't want to embarrass myself, basically i would want a loftier version of the hardfork-wishlist, where i would take proposals that are flawed or poorly defined, but i would at least group them according to the main thing they try to accomplish or the common flaws between them
592 2012-08-12 20:02:01 <sipa> gmaxwell: https://gist.github.com/3334073
593 2012-08-12 20:02:52 <luke-jr> hey, someone actually bought https://www.coindl.com/page/item/121 :p
594 2012-08-12 20:11:30 <sipa> luke-jr: lolwut?
595 2012-08-12 20:11:58 <luke-jr> sipa: hey, it's not a BAD price
596 2012-08-12 20:12:04 <denisx> is the coder from cgminer present?
597 2012-08-12 20:12:10 <luke-jr> though I did set it when BTC was more like $5
598 2012-08-12 20:12:26 <luke-jr> denisx: I maintain BFGMiner (FPGA version of CGMiner)
599 2012-08-12 20:12:41 <sipa> what does BFG stand for, by the way?
600 2012-08-12 20:12:47 <luke-jr> sipa: St. Barbara's FPGA/GPU Miner
601 2012-08-12 20:12:48 <denisx> luke-jr: BigFuckingGun
602 2012-08-12 20:12:52 <TD> hrm
603 2012-08-12 20:13:05 <TD> seems there's no way to be sure that the uploader / seller on coindl is the actual creator of the content
604 2012-08-12 20:13:11 <luke-jr> sipa: after the patron saint of miners and mathematicians
605 2012-08-12 20:13:11 <TD> that makes it a lot less attractive
606 2012-08-12 20:13:13 <denisx> he is using two packets for one requests
607 2012-08-12 20:13:25 <denisx> one for header and one for data, this is lame
608 2012-08-12 20:13:31 <TD> amiller: what do you want to do with beefier scripts? sorry, didn't see the whole convo. still discussing the single-use address thing?
609 2012-08-12 20:13:45 <luke-jr> denisx: http://github.com/luke-jr/bfgminer/issues/new
610 2012-08-12 20:13:58 <luke-jr> denisx: also note that routers can split up packets
611 2012-08-12 20:14:05 <BlueMatt> oh, hey TD is here...anyone want to discuss bloom filter matching algorithm?
612 2012-08-12 20:14:10 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
613 2012-08-12 20:14:47 <luke-jr> TD: is there anything on CoinDL listed by non-creators as far as you know?
614 2012-08-12 20:14:58 <TD> the motivation for having a more complicated matching protocol was so you can filter out any output that contains magic markers, like "BOND"
615 2012-08-12 20:15:10 <TD> luke-jr: how would i know? they could all be legit or all be just freeloaders, for all i know
616 2012-08-12 20:15:17 <TD> i mean, i'm not saying there are any freeloaders
617 2012-08-12 20:15:26 <TD> just that i could be paying any random person
618 2012-08-12 20:15:35 <luke-jr> true
619 2012-08-12 20:15:47 <sipa> TD: is there a use case for such filters?
620 2012-08-12 20:16:34 <TD> sipa: well, obviously, an SPV bond market / fund client, and other things that rely on processing the block chain to identify special outputs
621 2012-08-12 20:17:07 <sipa> but such an output would not be spendable?
622 2012-08-12 20:17:12 <amiller> TD, the truth is I haven't found anything I really want to do with stronger scripts that can't be done satisfactorily with some other mechanism (everything on the contracts wiki page, basically). I sometimes use a hypothetical 'endowed chess tournament' as an example but it's not compelling. Eliel wanted to indicate a 'maximum balance' for an address where transactions are rejected that would increment past that.
623 2012-08-12 20:17:27 <TD> BlueMatt: at any rate, you have to match the filter against *something* and it's not clear to me why matching against fully serialized scripts is better than just each data block in turn
624 2012-08-12 20:17:41 <TD> sipa: "BOND" <message data or hash> 2DROP <pubkey> CHECKSIGVERIFY
625 2012-08-12 20:17:51 <sipa> ah
626 2012-08-12 20:18:02 <BlueMatt> I actually have to say I kinda like the idea of matching only 1) pubkey hash if tx is in the standard form of p2pubkeyhash or pay2pubkey or 2) match p2sh sh...it encourages use of p2sh for non-standard tx types and allows compat for current tx types
627 2012-08-12 20:18:14 <BlueMatt> in terms of matching a flag, Im not a big fan because it encourages chain bloat
628 2012-08-12 20:18:16 <sipa> how do you match an arbitrary bytestring with a bloom filter?
629 2012-08-12 20:18:35 <BlueMatt> if you are gonna use a tx for a flag, you should use a 3rd-party service
630 2012-08-12 20:18:43 <TD> sipa: your desktop/tablet client can now sweep the chain looking for smart property bonds and checking to see which issuers / bonds are delinquent, paying correctly, which are open, so you can arrange sales etc
631 2012-08-12 20:18:46 <amiller> TD, that magic marker thing is another great reason to have a merkle tree structure that supports arbitrary indices
632 2012-08-12 20:18:52 <BlueMatt> sipa: you are always looking up the hash of the input % the size, so you can match anything
633 2012-08-12 20:19:01 <amiller> TD, you would be able to do an untrusted-query to find each and every transaction with 'BOND' in the special flag field
634 2012-08-12 20:19:18 <sipa> BlueMatt: "the size" ?
635 2012-08-12 20:19:26 <TD> of the filter
636 2012-08-12 20:19:27 <BlueMatt> num of bits in the filter
637 2012-08-12 20:20:02 <TD> BlueMatt: yeah, chain bloat is an argument. the main reason i'm designing these things to contain markers+hashes is that you need to strongly link the data to the transaction and pubkey. the actual message itself can be inserted into a kademlia map or a separate chain or something
638 2012-08-12 20:20:12 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
639 2012-08-12 20:20:37 <sipa> BlueMatt: ok, can you elaborate; i'm don't really see what you mean
640 2012-08-12 20:20:54 <TD> BlueMatt: i think hash + short id string isn't particularly abusive for this use case. though it's a judgement call. i doubt things like smart property will ever be so common as to be a serious %age of all txns
641 2012-08-12 20:21:56 <TD> using txid as the key is possible, i guess. it'd mean looking up every single tx to see if it has additional data associated with it
642 2012-08-12 20:22:05 <TD> that may be quite expensive if the hashmap is distributed
643 2012-08-12 20:23:09 <BlueMatt> TD: I agree, and chain bloat is really a minor issue here...but I like to encourage p2sh for other reasons (small output scripts, mostly) as well...and for fancy contract stuff, Im not so sure how much you would do where you both dont have a full node (if you are managing bonds, you would probably want to) or couldn't trust a 3rd-party to provide the info you are looking for
644 2012-08-12 20:23:24 <BlueMatt> (if you are looking for info on a bond, a 3rd-party could probably provide more useful data anyway)
645 2012-08-12 20:24:00 <TD> yes, sure. it may not end up looking like spv clients+exact match bloom filters. it just seemed, that as we're specifying the matching algorithm, we may as well tweak it a little to allow for that in future if need be
646 2012-08-12 20:24:07 <sipa> BlueMatt: wait you just mean match the hash of the entire script? ok, sure, that is what i favor - but that cannot match on arbitrary substrings
647 2012-08-12 20:24:10 <TD> and if not, the cost is low
648 2012-08-12 20:24:22 RainbowDashh has joined
649 2012-08-12 20:24:30 <TD> yeah so P2SH can't be used for everything, all the time, imho
650 2012-08-12 20:24:35 <BlueMatt> sipa: TD wants to match arbitrary substrings, I want to match addresses (incl p2sh and p2pubkey)
651 2012-08-12 20:24:39 <TD> some of the stuff on contracts would be difficult to recast that way, i think
652 2012-08-12 20:24:40 phantomcircuit has joined
653 2012-08-12 20:24:59 <TD> for instance if you're doing bond calculations, you need to be able to see the pubkey of the current owner (ie, in the magic output) to check if it's been receiving payments correctly
654 2012-08-12 20:25:03 <TD> so you know if the issuer is in default or not
655 2012-08-12 20:25:11 <TD> if all you can see is a hash, you can't do that
656 2012-08-12 20:25:39 <TD> *(same for any smart property protocol of course)
657 2012-08-12 20:26:15 enquirer has joined
658 2012-08-12 20:26:19 * BlueMatt goes to read up on how you implement bonds in bitcoin, I havent spent much time with the contracts stuff (though Im probably long overdue)
659 2012-08-12 20:26:20 IveBeenBit has joined
660 2012-08-12 20:28:22 aq83 has joined
661 2012-08-12 20:30:48 <TD> afaik the only writeup is on the forum
662 2012-08-12 20:30:49 <TD> and it's long
663 2012-08-12 20:30:51 <BlueMatt> TD: ok, fair enough, my only question is whether or not there will be cases of spv nodes attempting to do contract work...is much of the contract stuff no out-of-band (and should it not be?)
664 2012-08-12 20:31:02 <TD> yes, it's mostly out of band
665 2012-08-12 20:31:16 <TD> the magic marker thing is a simple way to implement. i don't know if you'd want SPV clients for it or not, in future. quite possibly not.
666 2012-08-12 20:31:25 MobiusLoop has joined
667 2012-08-12 20:31:43 <TD> my thinking was that as you crawl the chain you'd adjust the filter on the connection each time you see a magic output so you can see payments going to the relevant key
668 2012-08-12 20:32:01 <TD> BlueMatt: example - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92421.0
669 2012-08-12 20:32:16 <TD> BlueMatt: it's basically an elaboration of the stuff described here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Smart_Property
670 2012-08-12 20:33:06 <TD> but the marker lets you auto-discover transactions that are particular kinds of property, that's all. otherwise you need to obtain and maintain a separate index from somewhere
671 2012-08-12 20:33:07 <TD> <shrug>
672 2012-08-12 20:33:35 <amiller> TD, the 'merkle tree coinbase commitment' is a general way of making arbitrary filters, and efficiently committing to the results of every filter in each block
673 2012-08-12 20:33:41 <jaxtr> wow that is neat
674 2012-08-12 20:34:03 <TD> amiller: well, it assumes you know the hash of the output you're looking for, no?
675 2012-08-12 20:34:18 <TD> how would you identify all outputs of a particular class with the tree-of-trees approach
676 2012-08-12 20:34:35 <sipa> TD: he means a map indexed by address instead of by txid
677 2012-08-12 20:34:39 Joric has joined
678 2012-08-12 20:34:40 Mobius_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
679 2012-08-12 20:34:41 <amiller> TD, it's necessary for each node to have hashes of its children, but the actual keys themselves do not need to be hashes
680 2012-08-12 20:34:47 <amiller> sipa, no in this case i'm being more general than just addresses
681 2012-08-12 20:34:50 <jaxtr> bitcoin smart property will replace property deeds
682 2012-08-12 20:35:02 <amiller> in particular, while addresses are hashes, keys/indices in the trees do not necessarily need to be hashes
683 2012-08-12 20:35:21 <sipa> no of course you can generalize
684 2012-08-12 20:35:29 <sipa> but at what cost?
685 2012-08-12 20:35:52 phantomcircuit has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
686 2012-08-12 20:35:54 <sipa> my preference is still just a txid->coins map
687 2012-08-12 20:36:26 <sipa> that would allow bootstrapping a validating node without processing the entire block history
688 2012-08-12 20:36:40 <amiller> sipa, if that's true, then it's also true of all the more general uses
689 2012-08-12 20:37:00 <amiller> you don't have to process the entire block history at all, _if_ you're able to select the correct head node - however to know you've selected a valid head node, you must process the entire history
690 2012-08-12 20:37:09 <TD> jaxtr: i wouldn't be so optimistic as to say "will" :)
691 2012-08-12 20:37:15 <amiller> i don't know how else to describe that other than to point out it's the best of both worlds and there's no detriment
692 2012-08-12 20:37:15 <TD> jaxtr: it's just a theoretical idea today.
693 2012-08-12 20:37:23 <TD> jaxtr: actually building a p2p bond market is full of pitfalls
694 2012-08-12 20:37:57 <TD> jaxtr: and needs supporting infrastructure too ....
695 2012-08-12 20:38:02 <sipa> amiller: no of course, without processing the entire history you never have more than SPV-level security
696 2012-08-12 20:38:13 <amiller> sipa, in any case (address,txid)->coins is strictly more useful than just txid->coins because of the ability to find all the spendable outputs for an address
697 2012-08-12 20:38:16 <amiller> but that may have been what you meant
698 2012-08-12 20:38:36 <amiller> i think your point was that it's additional cost to have additional trees/indices beyond that
699 2012-08-12 20:38:41 <iocor> WHEEEEEE
700 2012-08-12 20:38:43 <iocor> I made a transaction
701 2012-08-12 20:38:53 <TD> iocor: with your own implementation?
702 2012-08-12 20:38:56 <sipa> amiller: indeed, they just have different use cases
703 2012-08-12 20:38:58 <iocor> no
704 2012-08-12 20:39:01 <iocor> using bitcoind
705 2012-08-12 20:39:07 <iocor> and all kinds of rpc and magic
706 2012-08-12 20:39:20 <BlueMatt> TD: he means the new raw tx creation api in bitcoind rpc
707 2012-08-12 20:39:36 <TD> well, congrats anyway :)
708 2012-08-12 20:39:40 <BlueMatt> TD: well, ok, the other question is what is the cost of matching any arbitrary data in a script? obviously not much, so maybe that is the way to go
709 2012-08-12 20:40:09 <BlueMatt> the only issue I have there, is that I generally dont like having to put two elements in the filter for each key I have
710 2012-08-12 20:40:19 <BlueMatt> (p2pubkey + p2pubkeyhash + p2sh + ...)
711 2012-08-12 20:40:19 <TD> BlueMatt: yeah. that was my thinking. rather than match the whole script match each data chunk. it'll boil down to almost the same thing in 99% of cases and might open up options in future, if we need them
712 2012-08-12 20:40:21 <amiller> TD, sipa, to answer the question about 'and at what cost' though with trees-of-trees, the simple answer is that not every transaction has to update an entry in every index, transactions that update multiple indices could be required to have extra fees
713 2012-08-12 20:40:39 <amiller> TD, so a normal transaction wouldn't put anything in the 'extra flag' field, but BOND transactions would
714 2012-08-12 20:40:59 <TD> BlueMatt: you only need to include all of them if you're syncing shared wallets. otherwise you know which forms you've given out
715 2012-08-12 20:41:04 <amiller> then at every block, you have the root pointer to a tree of all the bond transactions, for easy usage by bond-aware spvs
716 2012-08-12 20:41:31 <amiller> s/all the bond transactions/all active bonds
717 2012-08-12 20:41:40 <TD> BlueMatt: also consider how you can identify payments that involve your key, but which you aren't told about ahead of time
718 2012-08-12 20:41:46 <BlueMatt> TD: thats what sipa said, but though that sounds great in theory, keeping track of that, especially in a library like bitcoinj, where the giving out is higher level than the bloom filter creation, would be pretty difficult
719 2012-08-12 20:42:11 <TD> BlueMatt: eg, consider a dispute mediator. he wishes to maintain an index of all transactions he may be asked to mediate, but doesn't necessarily want other parties to have to tell him all the keys involved beforehand
720 2012-08-12 20:42:32 <iocor> http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/tx/b1575e7e7768204876a8d131dd580a04c92ea06b3fbdbd8c1d21d45631e36d79
721 2012-08-12 20:42:33 <iocor> this is me
722 2012-08-12 20:42:35 <TD> BlueMatt: well, yes. i did make that point around the time of the p2sh introduction :) i was told, well, wallets will contain scripts
723 2012-08-12 20:43:09 <TD> BlueMatt: but yeah. in the end bloom filters can contain multiple elements though, so, it's not a huge deal.
724 2012-08-12 20:43:26 <TD> BlueMatt: the wallet can contain a filter in its serialized form that is added to when new keys/scripts are added
725 2012-08-12 20:43:31 <TD> so the cost of building it is amortized
726 2012-08-12 20:43:37 <TD> (not that building is expensive)
727 2012-08-12 20:43:52 <sipa> amiller: rigt, but your argument that a (address,txid)-> map is strictly more useful is not true; you cannot use such a map for validating transactions, so that means that commitmemt to a merkle root of such a map would not allow an SPV-security-level but validating node to bootstrap without downloading the entire chain
728 2012-08-12 20:44:22 <BlueMatt> TD: Im not worried about the cost of building, but I dont like giving each peer a filter 3x the size it needs to be...that said, they are so small to begin with, Im not sure its worth complaining about
729 2012-08-12 20:44:24 <amiller> sipa, why not?
730 2012-08-12 20:44:35 <TD> BlueMatt: you could munge them all into one filter, no?
731 2012-08-12 20:44:41 <sipa> amiller: you need to be able to lookup by txid for validation
732 2012-08-12 20:44:49 <amiller> if you have txid don't you also have address?
733 2012-08-12 20:44:50 <BlueMatt> TD: ?
734 2012-08-12 20:44:54 <sipa> amiller: no
735 2012-08-12 20:45:14 <amiller> oh. well i originally thought of them as two separate trees where you'd need both, i forget who convinced me otherwise
736 2012-08-12 20:45:16 <TD> BlueMatt: they are just containing hashes. so for each key you could just add the 3 hashes to the same filter (of the same size) and tolerate the higher fp rate
737 2012-08-12 20:45:26 <BlueMatt> TD: yes, it would be one filter, but it would be much larger than it would be with only one element/key (assuming constant fp rate)
738 2012-08-12 20:45:32 <TD> right
739 2012-08-12 20:45:38 <TD> ok, then we're agreeing without realizing :)
740 2012-08-12 20:45:42 <BlueMatt> yep
741 2012-08-12 20:46:15 <sipa> amiller: lookup-by-address (or by-script-hash in general) is what you need for serving a light node that does not have any block data but wants to rescan the chain
742 2012-08-12 20:46:29 <sipa> amiller: lookup-by-txid is what you need for validation
743 2012-08-12 20:46:50 <sipa> (as txn refer to the txid of the prevouts they consume)
744 2012-08-12 20:47:11 <amiller> simple way of stating the goals of al merkle tree based proposals: just by using a single trusted block, and with access to an untrusted lookup-by-hash service (like a kademlia DHT, or your own hard drive if you're storing everything), you can efficiently perform every relevant validation/lookup task in bitcoin
745 2012-08-12 20:47:28 <sipa> sure
746 2012-08-12 20:47:39 <BlueMatt> TD: hmm...well, ok I guess you've convinced me, Ill redo the branches tonight...next issue is doing blocks-as-tx-hash-vectors instead of blocks-as-tx-vectors...
747 2012-08-12 20:47:44 <amiller> that statement is hopefully inclusive of everything TD wants as wel
748 2012-08-12 20:48:20 <sipa> amiller: and there is no problem in keeping a separate address based map of course, and committing to that as well
749 2012-08-12 20:48:25 <TD> BlueMatt: yeah a CMerkleBlock, effectively
750 2012-08-12 20:48:38 <sipa> but i hope that somewhere in the future, we don't need something like that
751 2012-08-12 20:49:24 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #9: STILL FAILING in 1 hr 2 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/9/
752 2012-08-12 20:49:31 <amiller> sipa, by that do you mean you imagine an alternative? or just that hopefully it's not necessary?
753 2012-08-12 20:50:59 <sipa> amiller: in a hypothetical future where transactions are just sent from sender to receiver of the coins, and the receiver is responsible for getting it in the block chain (maybe via a third party), there is no need to rescan the chain to watch it for transactions that credit any of your keus
754 2012-08-12 20:51:04 nukethewhales has joined
755 2012-08-12 20:51:45 <IveBeenBit> I just got the bitcoin-qt client. What is the "sign message" good for? Also, is there a link to the client documentation somewhere?
756 2012-08-12 20:52:10 <gmaxwell> IveBeenBit: it's used to prove ownership of an address.
757 2012-08-12 20:52:24 <BlueMatt> TD: yep
758 2012-08-12 20:52:29 <sipa> IveBeenBit: it is for signing messages with your addresses (mostly to prove that you are the owner of one); if you don't know ot, you don't need it
759 2012-08-12 20:53:18 enquirer has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
760 2012-08-12 20:53:22 <sipa> *it
761 2012-08-12 20:53:52 <amiller> sipa, i assume when you say 'rescan the chain' you don't actually mean to rescan the chain, but rather to get the desired outcome of rescanning the chain without having to actually do so
762 2012-08-12 20:54:03 <sipa> amiller: yes, indeed
763 2012-08-12 20:54:32 welterde has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
764 2012-08-12 20:55:04 <IveBeenBit> OK thank. I've only been using the blockchain.info wallet so far. I figure it's time for me to get a "real" wallet.
765 2012-08-12 20:56:59 aq83 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
766 2012-08-12 21:03:20 vigilyn has joined
767 2012-08-12 21:03:49 phantomcircuit has joined
768 2012-08-12 21:05:30 phantomcircuit has quit (Client Quit)
769 2012-08-12 21:11:57 pusle has joined
770 2012-08-12 21:15:26 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
771 2012-08-12 21:15:41 RainbowDashh has joined
772 2012-08-12 21:22:51 <bonks> Hey could someone tell me what caused this error in qt? http://i.imgur.com/UuhJm.png
773 2012-08-12 21:23:40 <sipa> it means that it tries to open a database file that doesn't exist
774 2012-08-12 21:23:52 <bonks> But what caused it
775 2012-08-12 21:24:11 <bonks> It worked fine yesterday, didn't shutdown my computer, opened this morning and that's waht I see
776 2012-08-12 21:24:26 <sipa> can you paste the last hundred lines or so of debug.log?
777 2012-08-12 21:24:27 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
778 2012-08-12 21:25:16 <bonks> top or bottom?
779 2012-08-12 21:25:23 <sipa> bottom
780 2012-08-12 21:26:38 <bonks> sipa: PM'd
781 2012-08-12 21:26:43 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
782 2012-08-12 21:27:15 <bonks> Not sure if there is private info so I can PM to others if requested
783 2012-08-12 21:27:23 Prattler has joined
784 2012-08-12 21:27:24 <sipa> no private info in there
785 2012-08-12 21:27:52 RainbowDashh has joined
786 2012-08-12 21:28:11 <sipa> did you touch the data directory in any way?
787 2012-08-12 21:28:47 <bonks> Not since the initial sync
788 2012-08-12 21:28:53 <bonks> Where I created a link for the wallet
789 2012-08-12 21:29:11 Cablesaurus has joined
790 2012-08-12 21:33:08 Internet13 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
791 2012-08-12 21:33:53 <bonks> sipa: Anything meaningful in that log?
792 2012-08-12 21:34:34 <bonks> I wonder if it didn't unlock when I closed the client last night
793 2012-08-12 21:34:40 <bonks> The data dir still has the .lock file
794 2012-08-12 21:35:25 enquirer has joined
795 2012-08-12 21:35:37 <sipa> my guess is that the client didn't shutdown correctly, or that the data in it somehow changed, and the wallet is still referring to log files that don't exist in the directory
796 2012-08-12 21:35:46 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
797 2012-08-12 21:36:50 Nesetalis has joined
798 2012-08-12 21:36:53 <bonks> could I delete certain files to sort of rollback without removing my blockchain?
799 2012-08-12 21:37:37 <sipa> deleting files will not help, if the problem is a missing file
800 2012-08-12 21:38:19 <bonks> ok i'm gonna try load the wallet on my laptop
801 2012-08-12 21:39:35 roconnor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
802 2012-08-12 21:40:23 roconnor has joined
803 2012-08-12 21:40:57 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
804 2012-08-12 21:41:16 roconnor has joined
805 2012-08-12 21:41:42 bitbarron has joined
806 2012-08-12 21:43:18 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
807 2012-08-12 21:44:27 paraipan has joined
808 2012-08-12 21:47:48 <bonks> What the hell, error occurs on my laptop too
809 2012-08-12 21:47:53 <bonks> Maybe it's my wallet?
810 2012-08-12 21:48:22 <sipa> yes, that's what i tell you: the wallet file refers to logs that do not exist on the place where you are opening it
811 2012-08-12 21:48:32 <bonks> Oh
812 2012-08-12 21:48:48 <bonks> What do I do? I have some backups of the wallet
813 2012-08-12 21:48:57 <sipa> you can try a backup
814 2012-08-12 21:49:05 <sipa> but i'd like to know what happened to cause this
815 2012-08-12 21:49:24 <bonks> Beats me, I didn't do anything different
816 2012-08-12 21:49:38 <sipa> you said the wallet was linked somewhere?
817 2012-08-12 21:49:38 <bonks> Unless it's my new SSD drive which I've had for a week
818 2012-08-12 21:49:55 sirk390 has joined
819 2012-08-12 21:50:06 <bonks> yeah the %appdata%/Bitcoin/wallet.dat links to a truecrypt container drive
820 2012-08-12 21:50:14 <bonks> to T:\Wallets\wallet.dat
821 2012-08-12 21:50:29 <sipa> only the wallet?
822 2012-08-12 21:50:34 <bonks> Yes
823 2012-08-12 21:50:44 <BlueMatt> thats asking for trouble...
824 2012-08-12 21:51:00 <BlueMatt> (also, that doesnt provide security)
825 2012-08-12 21:51:04 <bonks> I've done this for like 5 months without an issue
826 2012-08-12 21:51:13 Internet13 has joined
827 2012-08-12 21:51:14 <BlueMatt> (you would have to, at a minimum, include the database dir and all db log files)
828 2012-08-12 21:51:27 <bonks> BlueMatt: it provides convenience so I can load the volume/wallet on different computers
829 2012-08-12 21:51:30 <sipa> did you ever start bitcoin without the container being active?
830 2012-08-12 21:51:32 <bonks> Not simultaneously
831 2012-08-12 21:51:36 <sipa> ah!
832 2012-08-12 21:51:45 <bonks> sipa: No because bitcoind-qt.exe is on the same container
833 2012-08-12 21:52:01 <luke-jr> doublec: are you rebasing cjdns?
834 2012-08-12 21:52:09 <sipa> bonks: did you access the wallet-in-the-container from different computers?
835 2012-08-12 21:52:24 <bonks> sipa: yes but not simultaneously
836 2012-08-12 21:52:40 <bonks> I'm either on my desktop or laptop, never both
837 2012-08-12 21:52:41 <sipa> well that explains: the log files are still on the previous computer where you used the wallet
838 2012-08-12 21:53:14 <sipa> and i suppose you didn't exit bitcoin cleanly there
839 2012-08-12 21:53:16 <bonks> But but.. I didn't use my laptop since friday (it's a work laptop)
840 2012-08-12 21:53:21 <sipa> hmm
841 2012-08-12 21:53:23 <sipa> ok
842 2012-08-12 21:53:27 <bonks> And the wallet/client been working on my desktop all weekend
843 2012-08-12 21:54:46 <bonks> So what are my options? use a backup wallet with current files in data dir?
844 2012-08-12 21:54:57 <bonks> rescan? delete data dir and start from scratch?
845 2012-08-12 21:55:10 <sipa> rescanning and deleting the data dir won't help
846 2012-08-12 21:55:24 <bonks> Oh right the issue is the wallet
847 2012-08-12 21:55:26 <sipa> try a backup
848 2012-08-12 21:55:31 <bonks> Ok trying..
849 2012-08-12 21:55:33 <sipa> you can just replace the wallet file
850 2012-08-12 21:55:40 denisx has joined
851 2012-08-12 21:55:43 <sipa> (though keep the one you have now, just for sure)
852 2012-08-12 21:56:09 <bonks> OHHH MOTHR F...
853 2012-08-12 21:56:19 <bonks> I created a T:\Backups\Wallets which moved my link
854 2012-08-12 21:56:33 <bonks> I think I know the problem :/
855 2012-08-12 21:59:16 <bonks> DOH, it was my fault, I forgot earlier today I was backing up some configs and created a Backup dir for them and moved the Wallets dir into the Backup dir forgetting not only did the Wallets dir include all backups but also the linked wallet.dat
856 2012-08-12 21:59:21 * bonks is ashamed
857 2012-08-12 22:00:01 <sipa> :)
858 2012-08-12 22:01:35 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
859 2012-08-12 22:02:54 <bonks> Ok great, sending some coins finally. Thanks sipa for your time
860 2012-08-12 22:06:38 [Tycho] has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
861 2012-08-12 22:12:22 phantomcircuit has joined
862 2012-08-12 22:14:05 quijibo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
863 2012-08-12 22:14:25 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
864 2012-08-12 22:16:23 t4ls0 has joined
865 2012-08-12 22:16:26 QbY has joined
866 2012-08-12 22:16:38 talso has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
867 2012-08-12 22:17:08 <QbY> is it possible with bitcoind to have it output each transaction it sees?  (we want to create a database similar to that on block chain.info of transactions)
868 2012-08-12 22:17:13 [Tycho] has joined
869 2012-08-12 22:17:23 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
870 2012-08-12 22:17:37 RainbowDashh has joined
871 2012-08-12 22:17:58 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
872 2012-08-12 22:17:59 <[Tycho]> Oh, found a block just 0.006362 seconds later than getting inv of concurrent one :(
873 2012-08-12 22:18:06 roconnor has joined
874 2012-08-12 22:18:40 <sipa> QbY: 0.7 will have a getrawtransaction that works for all transactions (not just wallet ones)
875 2012-08-12 22:19:26 <QbY> sipa: cool.  any idea on how to do it now?  would like something i could just constantly have streaming in.
876 2012-08-12 22:20:03 <sipa> QbY: the obvious way would be to just dump the database, or implement the P2P protocol and request them
877 2012-08-12 22:20:40 <QbY> blk0001.dat?
878 2012-08-12 22:21:04 <sipa> blk00001.dat is a binary concatenation of block files
879 2012-08-12 22:21:20 <bonks> May I suggest adding a more meaningful error when the wallet.dat file can't be found or the link is bad. Thanks :D
880 2012-08-12 22:21:21 <sipa> blkindex.dat contains the offsets in that file for each transaction
881 2012-08-12 22:21:59 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
882 2012-08-12 22:22:19 <QbY> ok
883 2012-08-12 22:22:21 Ahimoth has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
884 2012-08-12 22:22:42 <QbY> dumb question sipa sorry.  but .dat is what format?
885 2012-08-12 22:23:11 <sipa> it is a BDB database file
886 2012-08-12 22:24:42 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
887 2012-08-12 22:25:14 Ahimoth has joined
888 2012-08-12 22:31:17 nsh has joined
889 2012-08-12 22:36:03 <luke-jr> QbY: blkindex.dat is BDB; blkNNNN.dat is raw data
890 2012-08-12 22:36:29 sgornick has joined
891 2012-08-12 22:36:42 <luke-jr> QbY: that won't have unconfirmed txns tho
892 2012-08-12 22:37:18 eoss has joined
893 2012-08-12 22:37:18 bonks has quit (Excess Flood)
894 2012-08-12 22:37:25 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
895 2012-08-12 22:37:46 <QbY> luke-jr: ok.  i think confirmed is all we need.  short of writing our own client, there's nothing we can do for streaming current transactions
896 2012-08-12 22:38:21 <luke-jr> …
897 2012-08-12 22:38:52 <luke-jr> it's not much harder to write a p2p client if you're already interpreting transactionsw
898 2012-08-12 22:39:26 bonks has joined
899 2012-08-12 22:39:59 quijibo has joined
900 2012-08-12 22:41:22 slush1 has joined
901 2012-08-12 22:41:29 tonikt2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
902 2012-08-12 22:45:00 <jaxtr> ok
903 2012-08-12 22:46:28 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
904 2012-08-12 22:49:51 aq83 has joined
905 2012-08-12 22:50:58 nukethewhales has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
906 2012-08-12 22:54:44 wereHamster has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
907 2012-08-12 22:54:59 cl has joined
908 2012-08-12 22:58:39 pusle has quit ()
909 2012-08-12 22:59:04 fpgaminer has joined
910 2012-08-12 23:00:10 cl has quit (Quit: Page closed)
911 2012-08-12 23:04:41 d4de has joined
912 2012-08-12 23:06:00 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
913 2012-08-12 23:09:42 lumie has joined
914 2012-08-12 23:13:18 LuaKT has quit ()
915 2012-08-12 23:17:48 dvide has joined
916 2012-08-12 23:22:08 graingert has joined
917 2012-08-12 23:23:01 quijibo has quit ()
918 2012-08-12 23:25:57 <doublec> luke-jr: yes, I'll get onto it
919 2012-08-12 23:26:19 <jgarzik> rofl
920 2012-08-12 23:26:24 <jgarzik> does ReactOS actually work now?
921 2012-08-12 23:31:32 <luke-jr> who knows ;)
922 2012-08-12 23:36:12 <[Tycho]> :)
923 2012-08-12 23:36:17 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
924 2012-08-12 23:36:58 <[Tycho]> It works for many years already. Depends on what do you want to run there.
925 2012-08-12 23:37:08 <[Tycho]> Stable release is expected in 3 months.
926 2012-08-12 23:38:28 quijibo has joined
927 2012-08-12 23:39:26 <[Tycho]> We wanted to use ReactOS for bitcoin POS, but it was needed in 1-2 months, not 3...
928 2012-08-12 23:42:01 enquirer has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
929 2012-08-12 23:43:11 <SomeoneWeird> 'stable'?
930 2012-08-12 23:44:20 <[Tycho]> "Stable"
931 2012-08-12 23:45:37 <SomeoneWeird> heh,
932 2012-08-12 23:46:24 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
933 2012-08-12 23:46:35 Joric has quit ()
934 2012-08-12 23:46:43 <[Tycho]> ?
935 2012-08-12 23:48:44 bitbarron has left ("Leaving")
936 2012-08-12 23:49:34 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
937 2012-08-12 23:53:32 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
938 2012-08-12 23:54:30 phantomcircuit has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)