1 2012-09-04 00:05:01 is now known as balrog|!~balrog@discferret/developer/balrog|balrog
2 2012-09-04 00:05:46 Tiggr has quit (Changing host)
3 2012-09-04 00:05:46 Tiggr has joined
4 2012-09-04 00:06:04 Tiggr is now known as MrTiggr
5 2012-09-04 00:06:44 EPiSKiNG- has joined
6 2012-09-04 00:19:51 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
7 2012-09-04 00:22:30 Zarutian has joined
8 2012-09-04 00:25:34 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
9 2012-09-04 00:25:49 minimoose has joined
10 2012-09-04 00:27:41 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
11 2012-09-04 00:33:04 Motest003 has joined
12 2012-09-04 00:33:41 Raccoon` has joined
13 2012-09-04 00:36:05 Raccoon has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
14 2012-09-04 00:36:33 Raccoon` is now known as Raccoon
15 2012-09-04 00:48:41 MrTiggr is now known as darwintiggr
16 2012-09-04 00:48:49 <Luke-Jr> btctrader22: moving real coins is pretty safe to do with custom code; it's accepting coins that's risky
17 2012-09-04 00:49:23 Maged has quit (Disconnected by services)
18 2012-09-04 00:49:31 Maged_ has joined
19 2012-09-04 00:49:50 Maged_ is now known as Maged
20 2012-09-04 00:50:11 JudgeTheDude has joined
21 2012-09-04 00:50:12 <btctrader22> it looks like using the CWallet code directly, even if used on a tmp copy of wallet.dat actually corrupts the original wallet.dat file. ugh.
22 2012-09-04 00:50:26 <Luke-Jr> that being said, one of the biggest services (MtGox) uses completely custom code
23 2012-09-04 00:50:51 <btctrader22> I'm starting to understand why now that I look at the client codebase.
24 2012-09-04 00:51:00 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
25 2012-09-04 01:03:29 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
26 2012-09-04 01:03:57 JudgeTheDude has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
27 2012-09-04 01:06:08 <gmaxwell> btctrader22: you absolutely can not have multiple things concurrently accessing wallet.dat (e.g. your tool plus a running client). Or any of the other database files, but this is due to bdb, not bitcoin's code.
28 2012-09-04 01:07:50 <btctrader22> gmaxwell: All I do is create a CWallet("someotherfile.dat"). One would expect the original wallet.dat to be left alone. Wrong assumption. I'm going to specify a separate, blank datadir. Hopefully this'll behave.
29 2012-09-04 01:08:30 <gmaxwell> btctrader22: it has nothing to do with the wallet.dat file and everything to do with the shared datbase enviroment. Yes, it'll behave with a seperate datadir.
30 2012-09-04 01:09:03 <gmaxwell> you may have also corrupted your blockchain while doing that, so if your node gets stuck then that may be why.
31 2012-09-04 01:09:30 <btctrader22> gmaxwell: not true. I straced my min-program who does nothing except CWallet wallet("somefile.dat"). It opens wallet.dat (the original one) RDWR
32 2012-09-04 01:12:28 <sipa> i suppose either bdb opens it because the database env refers to it, or the code mentionds wallet.dat explicitly still somewhere
33 2012-09-04 01:13:05 <sipa> only init.cpp refers to it explicitly though
34 2012-09-04 01:13:15 <gmaxwell> btctrader22: Hm. Thats interesting; but if it was _just_ limited to wallet.dat that would just be an accident of which database files were currently flushed at the time. And if you did do any writing it would start opening database logs too and probably stomp on itself.
35 2012-09-04 01:13:26 <btctrader22> sipa: the former I expect. The code that explictly refers to wallet.dat is never called by my code (I checked).
36 2012-09-04 01:13:59 <btctrader22> Let me rewire my code to operate in a blank datadir. I expect it'll behave better. Still ... ouch.
37 2012-09-04 01:14:00 <sipa> well, seems very normal that it at least verifies that the state of the log corresponds to the state of the wallet file
38 2012-09-04 01:14:34 <sipa> ... except that we dissociate wallet.dat from the database environment at shutdown
39 2012-09-04 01:15:11 <btctrader22> sipa: mmmh. When I specify CWallet wallet("somefile.dat"), I naively assumed that this was not going to use other, shared files to work with it.
40 2012-09-04 01:15:31 <sipa> well there is no choice but to open the database environment
41 2012-09-04 01:15:40 <gmaxwell> btctrader22: yea, thats not how bdb works, unfortunately. Everything in a shared database enviroment is fair game.
42 2012-09-04 01:15:40 <sipa> if you're opening a database
43 2012-09-04 01:15:54 <gmaxwell> "Blame oracle"
44 2012-09-04 01:16:06 <btctrader22> blame choosing bdb
45 2012-09-04 01:16:07 <sipa> yup
46 2012-09-04 01:16:24 <sipa> heresy! one shall not blame Satoshi for poor coding decisions!
47 2012-09-04 01:16:31 one_zero has joined
48 2012-09-04 01:16:33 <sipa> (btw, we're moving away from BDB)
49 2012-09-04 01:17:03 <gmaxwell> btctrader22: BDB is very well respected software, and anything we'd consider as an alternative didn't exist at the time. ::shrugs::
50 2012-09-04 01:17:04 denisx_ has joined
51 2012-09-04 01:17:11 <btctrader22> I keep doing that it seems :). yeah, I know about leveldb. But that uses a ton of log files as well, so I'm not sure how it'll sole this specific issue.
52 2012-09-04 01:17:35 <sipa> btctrader22: it doesn't have a shared environment though
53 2012-09-04 01:17:36 <btctrader22> gmaxwell: linking into that fat ugly thing just to serilaz a hashtable is plain old sad.
54 2012-09-04 01:17:41 <gmaxwell> btctrader22: well, we don't intend on using leveldb for the wallet.
55 2012-09-04 01:17:45 <btctrader22> *serialize
56 2012-09-04 01:18:08 <gmaxwell> btctrader22: eacept that bitcoin doesn't just use it to seralize a hash table, but whatever, it certantly doesn't use most of it.
57 2012-09-04 01:18:45 <sipa> a hashtable continuously being synchronized to disk in an atomic fashion without inconsistent state
58 2012-09-04 01:18:58 <sipa> i guess that's about what leveldb does
59 2012-09-04 01:19:00 <sipa> quickly
60 2012-09-04 01:19:22 <gmaxwell> Yea, the atomic transaction support w/ recovery is important.
61 2012-09-04 01:19:22 <btctrader22> the not-heavy data (wallet and the like) could have been serialized as plain old ASCII, to the joy of all. Heavy stuff (blockchain would have benefited from a smarter, simpler serialziation mechanism)
62 2012-09-04 01:19:47 <sipa> smarter+simpler? like what?
63 2012-09-04 01:19:49 <btctrader22> Yeah, leveldb is a great choice for the blockchain data.
64 2012-09-04 01:20:18 <gmaxwell> Getting atomic transactions with crash recovery can't really be done simply. I think leveldb is about as simple as you go for that.
65 2012-09-04 01:20:35 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
66 2012-09-04 01:20:35 denisx_ is now known as denisx
67 2012-09-04 01:21:26 <btctrader22> I'd have gone custom personally, given the specifics of how the blockchain works. In particular, it's append only, and the atomicity it super simple to handle.But agreed, leveldb is probably what's best for this.
68 2012-09-04 01:21:39 <gmaxwell> It is _not_ append only.
69 2012-09-04 01:21:45 <btctrader22> the blockchain ?
70 2012-09-04 01:21:58 <btctrader22> I'm missing something here.
71 2012-09-04 01:21:59 <gmaxwell> The chainfiles themselves are, yes, but those are just directly seralized already. It does not use BDB for them.
72 2012-09-04 01:22:30 <btctrader22> Oh, you mean the TX index ?
73 2012-09-04 01:22:40 <sipa> the tx index is the problem
74 2012-09-04 01:22:51 <btctrader22> Why is that not append only ?
75 2012-09-04 01:23:00 <sipa> because txouts are getting spent
76 2012-09-04 01:23:06 <gmaxwell> (the blockchain files itself is just seralized as [capture][length][blockdata] in files that are appened only. No bdb or whatever.
77 2012-09-04 01:23:07 rdponticelli has joined
78 2012-09-04 01:23:07 <sipa> you have to mark them spent
79 2012-09-04 01:23:16 <sipa> so they don't get spent again :)
80 2012-09-04 01:23:19 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
81 2012-09-04 01:23:42 <sipa> also, blkindex.dat is horribly inefficient at that
82 2012-09-04 01:23:51 RainbowDashh has joined
83 2012-09-04 01:24:02 <gmaxwell> And you have to do so in a way that allows you to consistently apply all or none changes, so you don't get txn spent on a fork, but reorg to a fork where they aren't spent and end up stuck when you refuse to let them get spent later.
84 2012-09-04 01:24:16 <btctrader22> Yeah ... my gut feeling is that this specific bit can be cheaply recomputed on the fly from the blockchain, and all you need in the tx index is an offset, but then ... I don't understand how the satoshi client works, so I'm probly talking outof my ass.
85 2012-09-04 01:24:32 <gmaxwell> haha
86 2012-09-04 01:24:45 <sipa> recomputing on the fly would basically mean rescanning the whole blockchain again
87 2012-09-04 01:24:48 <sipa> if you don't store it
88 2012-09-04 01:25:21 <sipa> right now, blkindex.dat uses 12 bytes per transaction output, to remember where it got spent
89 2012-09-04 01:25:26 <sipa> 1 bit would have sufficed
90 2012-09-04 01:27:08 <btctrader22> bitcoin-qt -checklevel=6 =checkblock=0 -debug ... any idea how many days before I'm sure by blockchain is whole ?
91 2012-09-04 01:27:26 <sipa> syncing from scratch from the network?
92 2012-09-04 01:27:41 <gmaxwell> he's asking about a checkblock run.
93 2012-09-04 01:27:43 <sipa> checklevel is just for checking the already-existing database at startup
94 2012-09-04 01:27:51 <btctrader22> sipa:nope. All chain is here. Just checking my shennaningans haven't corrupted it.
95 2012-09-04 01:28:01 <sipa> less than an hour
96 2012-09-04 01:28:07 <gmaxwell> depends on your computer... assuming you're not one of the poor sobs with truecrypt on a usb stick it'll take under an hour.
97 2012-09-04 01:28:07 <btctrader22> kay.
98 2012-09-04 01:28:33 <btctrader22> lol. nope. SSD, no encryption.
99 2012-09-04 01:29:01 <gmaxwell> (encryption itself isn't a problem, but it appears that truecrypt in particular slays random io performance)
100 2012-09-04 01:29:44 <btctrader22> back to that "we need to mark the TX as spent" business. That doesn't seem to change the structure of the file itself .. it's just flipping a bit in a file ... a seek an a write. Again, not convinced that using a full DB layer for this makes nay sense.
101 2012-09-04 01:29:46 <sipa> i think leveldb really never does random I/O
102 2012-09-04 01:30:23 <gmaxwell> sipa: perhaps it'll help there too.. certantly reducing the sheer volume will help.
103 2012-09-04 01:30:42 <btctrader22> anyways, I'll just shut up about this until I understand better how the whole thing works
104 2012-09-04 01:30:54 <gmaxwell> btctrader22: it needs to be possible to do a whole bunch of these operations scattered about randomly in an atomic manner, in the presence of the risk of unclean shutdowns.
105 2012-09-04 01:31:27 <sipa> btctrader22: applying a block means reading the state of the previous outputs, marking them spent, adding the new transaction oututs to the database, and changing the last connected block
106 2012-09-04 01:31:46 <sipa> at many points that can fail, and you must be sure that it either applies entirely or not at all
107 2012-09-04 01:32:03 <midnightmagic> block reverify corrects any falsely marked spends?
108 2012-09-04 01:32:22 <btctrader22> i'll take you guys word for it (for now <grin>)
109 2012-09-04 01:32:28 <sipa> midnightmagic: what is block reverify?
110 2012-09-04 01:32:39 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
111 2012-09-04 01:33:15 <midnightmagic> -checkblocks=0
112 2012-09-04 01:33:19 <btctrader22> block check run just completed. less than 10mn.
113 2012-09-04 01:33:32 <sipa> midnightmagic: oh, not at all
114 2012-09-04 01:33:38 <sipa> it just does some consistency checks
115 2012-09-04 01:33:53 <sipa> even level 6 doesn't verify signatures, for example
116 2012-09-04 01:34:02 <midnightmagic> sipa: What happens if a tx is marked spent erroneously (assuming there is actually something in there which is marked so and not calclated on-the-fly)
117 2012-09-04 01:34:08 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: if you want to correct a corrupted index you need to delete them and loadblock your block files.
118 2012-09-04 01:34:18 <sipa> if it finds an error, it tries to reorg away from it
119 2012-09-04 01:34:19 <midnightmagic> whoahhh
120 2012-09-04 01:34:24 <sipa> but if the block is corrupted, forget it
121 2012-09-04 01:34:32 <sipa> it's really stupid actually
122 2012-09-04 01:35:01 <midnightmagic> so all this crazy corruption I've been seeing could potentially have marked stuff spent which was not?
123 2012-09-04 01:35:15 <sipa> it may very well be
124 2012-09-04 01:35:18 <midnightmagic> and there's no way to reverify this without rebuilding the entire block chain?
125 2012-09-04 01:35:30 <sipa> not in the current codebase
126 2012-09-04 01:36:15 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: pretty sure the first time you posted those corruption logs I said that you were missing a transaction and needed to blow away and rebuild.
127 2012-09-04 01:36:17 <btctrader22> ahah. and now I am in GetDataDir, and lo! there ain't no SetDataDir. darn, darn, darn
128 2012-09-04 01:36:36 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
129 2012-09-04 01:36:42 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Yes and I did. But I'd thought that spent tx were recalculated each time a new block came in.
130 2012-09-04 01:36:52 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Not marked independently..!
131 2012-09-04 01:37:41 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: So I'd believed that a merkle tree was broken somehow or corrupted, not that there was extra storage space allocated just to help tx spends along. :)
132 2012-09-04 01:37:43 <btctrader22> ahah. mapArgs. we have a global.
133 2012-09-04 01:38:02 <midnightmagic> i seem to recall i knew this once.
134 2012-09-04 01:38:07 * midnightmagic puts down the whisky
135 2012-09-04 01:38:36 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: ah, no, er it would be very very slow if it didn't have a tranasction index to consult to validate incoming blocks. :)
136 2012-09-04 01:39:04 <midnightmagic> I grok a tx index to help dive into the blockchain.
137 2012-09-04 01:39:17 <midnightmagic> I just thought it was cryptographically validated right back to beneration each time.
138 2012-09-04 01:39:23 <midnightmagic> er.. generation.
139 2012-09-04 01:39:32 <sipa> oh hell no
140 2012-09-04 01:39:51 <midnightmagic> lol I thought that's why it was so damned slow.
141 2012-09-04 01:39:56 <sipa> only amiller would come up with something like that
142 2012-09-04 01:40:07 <gmaxwell> 0_o, no, your own client has precomputed that result, effectively. Otherwise bitcoin validation workload would tend to exptime.
143 2012-09-04 01:40:50 <midnightmagic> lol well I appreciate your correcting a huge misconception of mine. I no longer have any trepidation of a utxo working set. We're already basically doing that anyway.
144 2012-09-04 01:40:50 <gmaxwell> if you like, you can imagine that it is doing that; but its implementation uses memoization to turn it to log(n) timeish instaead of exptime.
145 2012-09-04 01:42:10 <midnightmagic> onward and upward.
146 2012-09-04 01:42:29 <sipa> wow, batch block connection doesn't help shit on leveldb
147 2012-09-04 01:43:02 <sipa> it is 6s slower...
148 2012-09-04 01:43:08 <sipa> *faster
149 2012-09-04 01:44:46 <btctrader22> here's another thought about blockchain corruption : as it grows (much) large, corruption *will* occur. unavoidable past a certain size. instead of relying on atomicity property of the db layer, I think a properly engineered client should leverage the p2p nature of bitcoin to ensure integrity. it'd be more efficient, more robust and more scalable. like some sort of distributed raid.
150 2012-09-04 01:44:52 <btctrader22> *larger
151 2012-09-04 01:45:22 <sipa> btctrader22: you want to talk to amiller
152 2012-09-04 01:45:47 <btctrader22> never heard of him. what's he up to ?
153 2012-09-04 01:46:10 <sipa> he's thinking about schemes were all data necessary to do verification is authenticated in a merkle-tree like way, allowing nodes without any storage to still fully validate
154 2012-09-04 01:46:23 <sipa> (by requesting data from untrusted but cheap storage)
155 2012-09-04 01:46:56 <btctrader22> not a bad idea ... are you guys not believers ?
156 2012-09-04 01:47:16 <sipa> i think it may have some performance issues :)
157 2012-09-04 01:47:29 <sipa> that said, it sounds very interesting and i'm looking forward to see it evolve
158 2012-09-04 01:47:46 <sipa> but that doesn't mean i'm convinced it's the most viable future
159 2012-09-04 01:51:08 Motest031 has joined
160 2012-09-04 01:52:23 Motest003 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
161 2012-09-04 01:52:29 <btctrader22> ok. dumpwallet works. I got all my TX's hash out and looks like my original files haven't been molested. It is possible !
162 2012-09-04 01:52:54 <sipa> hmm, leveldb offers built-in checksums
163 2012-09-04 01:53:25 <sipa> i wonder whether they are just used per key/value pair, or are used protect the structure too
164 2012-09-04 01:53:26 <btctrader22> sipa: that is good, but then, what do you do when the checksum fails ?
165 2012-09-04 01:54:45 <sipa> tell the user the database is corrupted, and he may want to start over, offer a yes/no button, and if pressed no, sarcastically tell the user that that is not really an option
166 2012-09-04 01:55:46 Evilmax has joined
167 2012-09-04 01:56:06 <btctrader22> sipa: start over is always possible, modulo re-downloading everything.
168 2012-09-04 01:56:11 <btctrader22> so, my findings are that it seems to be possible to use *some* functionality of the bitcoin codebase as a library, provided you are very careful.
169 2012-09-04 01:57:10 <btctrader22> also, there does indeed seem to be some init stuff needed. On exit, I get a crash in _run_exit_handlers -> CDBEnv::Shutdown -> some boost mutex thingie
170 2012-09-04 01:58:03 <btctrader22> _exit ftw
171 2012-09-04 01:59:08 <btctrader22> yay! it works. now onto makewallet
172 2012-09-04 01:59:57 Obsi has joined
173 2012-09-04 02:07:13 cheako has quit (Quit: Client exiting)
174 2012-09-04 02:07:28 cheako has joined
175 2012-09-04 02:08:03 rdponticelli_ has joined
176 2012-09-04 02:08:25 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
177 2012-09-04 02:12:40 <arij> iw ill pay for a satoshi dice clone
178 2012-09-04 02:12:47 <arij> pm me
179 2012-09-04 02:13:05 <arij> it just needs two addresses
180 2012-09-04 02:13:32 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
181 2012-09-04 02:14:57 <sipa> btctrader22: yes, but not starting over is often not an option
182 2012-09-04 02:16:49 * Luke-Jr glares at arij
183 2012-09-04 02:17:57 <Luke-Jr> woohoo, I get about 8 kH/s using libgcrypt for CPU mining
184 2012-09-04 02:18:38 <arij> its just for me
185 2012-09-04 02:19:05 <arij> :/
186 2012-09-04 02:22:09 <sipa> arij: i don't think many developers here are fan of satoshiDICE; if you want to pay someone to create a clone for you, you can ask of course, but try #bitcoin-otc or the forums, not here
187 2012-09-04 02:22:56 <Luke-Jr> (of course, you might get better reception anywhere if it doesn't need to be a SD clone, but can be an equivalent gambling site without the DDoS)
188 2012-09-04 02:23:37 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Quit!)
189 2012-09-04 02:23:51 Evilmax has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
190 2012-09-04 02:24:45 theymos has joined
191 2012-09-04 02:25:09 BlueMatt has joined
192 2012-09-04 02:27:56 Evilmax has joined
193 2012-09-04 02:31:38 <sipa> Luke-Jr: also libgcrypt CPU mining... what CPU?
194 2012-09-04 02:32:39 <Luke-Jr> sipa: i5-2400
195 2012-09-04 02:33:14 <sipa> sounds mildly unimpressive
196 2012-09-04 02:33:20 <Luke-Jr> :p
197 2012-09-04 02:33:30 <Luke-Jr> sipa: trying to build a *simple* test case for libblkmaker
198 2012-09-04 02:34:10 <sipa> there we go, 9m53s for importing 193k blocks, with database checksum checking enabled
199 2012-09-04 02:34:46 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
200 2012-09-04 02:37:35 Raccoon has quit ()
201 2012-09-04 02:39:05 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
202 2012-09-04 02:39:54 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
203 2012-09-04 02:43:45 fiesh has joined
204 2012-09-04 02:44:48 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
205 2012-09-04 02:45:56 <btctrader22> sounds mildly unimpressive :p
206 2012-09-04 02:46:15 <sipa> haha
207 2012-09-04 02:46:51 <arij> sipa: what do you mean an eqivalent without the ddos
208 2012-09-04 02:47:44 <sipa> arij: Luke-Jr said that; and he is referring to the fact that there are ways to have a gambling service like SD which doesn't put as much load on the blockchain as SD does
209 2012-09-04 02:47:59 <arij> oh
210 2012-09-04 02:48:33 <Luke-Jr> arij: Bitcoin doesn't work well with unbalanced load right now; better to have deposits and withdrawls
211 2012-09-04 02:48:44 <arij> i see
212 2012-09-04 02:49:17 <Luke-Jr> unbalanced with reference to transaction volume vs real human users
213 2012-09-04 02:49:45 <Luke-Jr> (iow, while it's much less than VISA in raw transaction counts, it's HUGE in percentages)
214 2012-09-04 02:53:04 copumpkin has joined
215 2012-09-04 03:02:03 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
216 2012-09-04 03:04:14 EPiSKiNG- has joined
217 2012-09-04 03:08:11 Z0rZ0rZ0r_ has joined
218 2012-09-04 03:10:34 Z0rZ0rZ0r__ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
219 2012-09-04 03:16:51 AlexWaters has joined
220 2012-09-04 03:19:38 ivan\\ is now known as ivan\
221 2012-09-04 03:22:03 jargon has joined
222 2012-09-04 03:24:07 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
223 2012-09-04 03:31:29 jargon has quit (Quit: leaving)
224 2012-09-04 03:37:52 [7] has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
225 2012-09-04 03:38:23 RainbowDashh has joined
226 2012-09-04 03:39:18 Snoozingbolt has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
227 2012-09-04 03:39:50 TheSeven has joined
228 2012-09-04 03:41:36 d4de has quit (Quit: I can't tell the difference between Halloween and Christmas, because OCT31 = DEC25)
229 2012-09-04 03:50:05 arij has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
230 2012-09-04 03:57:16 rdponticelli_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
231 2012-09-04 04:04:25 galambo has joined
232 2012-09-04 04:15:35 egecko has joined
233 2012-09-04 04:22:49 egecko has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
234 2012-09-04 04:23:13 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
235 2012-09-04 04:23:58 Motest031 has quit ()
236 2012-09-04 04:24:26 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
237 2012-09-04 04:25:44 ovidiusoft has joined
238 2012-09-04 04:33:00 B0g4r7__ has joined
239 2012-09-04 04:34:19 LolcustBackup has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
240 2012-09-04 04:35:00 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: davidfg4 said 2 hours, 58 minutes ago in #reddit-mlp: your quit message is really long)
241 2012-09-04 04:35:11 olp has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
242 2012-09-04 04:35:26 B0g4r7_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
243 2012-09-04 04:35:38 RainbowDashh has joined
244 2012-09-04 04:36:02 RainbowDashh has quit (Changing host)
245 2012-09-04 04:36:02 RainbowDashh has joined
246 2012-09-04 04:41:38 olp has joined
247 2012-09-04 04:47:05 devrandom has quit (Quit: leaving)
248 2012-09-04 04:47:59 devrandom has joined
249 2012-09-04 04:49:45 Mango-chan has joined
250 2012-09-04 04:49:46 Mango-chan has quit (Changing host)
251 2012-09-04 04:49:46 Mango-chan has joined
252 2012-09-04 04:51:17 dust-otc has joined
253 2012-09-04 05:05:46 Mango-chan has quit ()
254 2012-09-04 05:26:47 RazielZ has joined
255 2012-09-04 05:29:49 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
256 2012-09-04 05:36:03 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
257 2012-09-04 05:36:20 RazielZ has joined
258 2012-09-04 05:48:47 eb3kk has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
259 2012-09-04 05:50:52 TD has joined
260 2012-09-04 05:50:52 TD has quit (Client Quit)
261 2012-09-04 05:56:47 coderrr has quit (Quit: Terminated with extreme prejudice - dircproxy 1.0.5)
262 2012-09-04 05:58:31 Obsi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
263 2012-09-04 05:59:00 coderrr has joined
264 2012-09-04 06:03:56 ThomasV has joined
265 2012-09-04 06:04:09 Marf has joined
266 2012-09-04 06:13:53 dvide has joined
267 2012-09-04 06:17:37 yellowhat has left ()
268 2012-09-04 06:23:00 tonikt has joined
269 2012-09-04 06:28:14 LolcustBackup has joined
270 2012-09-04 06:33:51 coingenuity is now known as merkur
271 2012-09-04 06:35:21 merkur is now known as coingenuity
272 2012-09-04 06:35:39 RainbowD_ has joined
273 2012-09-04 06:36:01 RainbowD_ has quit (Changing host)
274 2012-09-04 06:36:01 RainbowD_ has joined
275 2012-09-04 06:37:33 Clipse has quit (Quit: Clipse)
276 2012-09-04 06:37:34 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
277 2012-09-04 06:37:34 RainbowD_ is now known as RainbowDashh
278 2012-09-04 06:37:52 skeledrew1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
279 2012-09-04 06:38:27 skeledrew has joined
280 2012-09-04 06:40:42 darwintiggr is now known as MrTiggr
281 2012-09-04 06:43:35 Diablo-D3 has joined
282 2012-09-04 06:48:01 yellowhat has joined
283 2012-09-04 06:51:23 root2 has quit ()
284 2012-09-04 06:55:59 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
285 2012-09-04 06:57:35 Clipse has joined
286 2012-09-04 06:57:35 Clipse has quit (Changing host)
287 2012-09-04 06:57:35 Clipse has joined
288 2012-09-04 06:57:45 <Diablo-D3> http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz
289 2012-09-04 06:58:03 <Diablo-D3> this is how I did: http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/85031537.jpg
290 2012-09-04 06:59:22 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
291 2012-09-04 06:59:58 copumpkin has joined
292 2012-09-04 07:02:09 btctrader22 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
293 2012-09-04 07:03:38 RainbowDashh is now known as spammytrap
294 2012-09-04 07:06:32 spammytrap has quit (Quit: <NAME> said 2 hours, 58 minutes ago in <CHANNEL>: your quit message is really long)
295 2012-09-04 07:07:04 RainbowDashh has joined
296 2012-09-04 07:08:37 RainbowDashh has quit (Changing host)
297 2012-09-04 07:08:37 RainbowDashh has joined
298 2012-09-04 07:11:15 Evilmax has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
299 2012-09-04 07:11:17 TD has joined
300 2012-09-04 07:11:34 ThomasV has joined
301 2012-09-04 07:12:48 kreal has joined
302 2012-09-04 07:15:39 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
303 2012-09-04 07:18:16 Evilmax has joined
304 2012-09-04 07:18:48 Arnavion has quit (Quit: ==kimi ni nante okureba ii no==)
305 2012-09-04 07:19:26 kreal has quit (Quit: leaving)
306 2012-09-04 07:19:41 kreal has joined
307 2012-09-04 07:19:43 osxorgate has joined
308 2012-09-04 07:22:08 sirk390 has joined
309 2012-09-04 07:33:14 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
310 2012-09-04 07:34:51 Garret\ has joined
311 2012-09-04 07:45:13 Diablo-D3 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
312 2012-09-04 07:46:07 Fnar has quit (Quit: Client exiting)
313 2012-09-04 07:46:17 Fnar has joined
314 2012-09-04 07:46:41 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
315 2012-09-04 07:51:54 aq83 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
316 2012-09-04 07:53:08 Diablo-D3 has joined
317 2012-09-04 07:53:33 aq83 has joined
318 2012-09-04 07:54:49 just4dos has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
319 2012-09-04 08:00:03 Fnar has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
320 2012-09-04 08:01:24 <sturles> Jill Stein for president!
321 2012-09-04 08:01:32 <sturles> How come I never heard of her?
322 2012-09-04 08:02:37 <Diablo-D3> shes the green candidate this year
323 2012-09-04 08:04:08 <freewil> http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=8102
324 2012-09-04 08:05:39 <ThomasV> Dr. Jill Stein
325 2012-09-04 08:20:21 tonikt2 has joined
326 2012-09-04 08:21:40 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
327 2012-09-04 08:28:59 <edcba> so why does she deserve that ?
328 2012-09-04 08:30:18 <Diablo-D3> deserve what?
329 2012-09-04 08:30:27 <edcba> to be president
330 2012-09-04 08:31:36 tonikt has joined
331 2012-09-04 08:35:03 tonikt2 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
332 2012-09-04 08:35:45 <sturles> edcba: Try the quiz Diablo-D3 linked to.
333 2012-09-04 08:37:31 <edcba> i don't have the right to vote in usa...
334 2012-09-04 08:40:40 tonikt has quit (Quit: Leaving)
335 2012-09-04 08:41:18 <Diablo-D3> edcba: okay lemme screw your head on straight
336 2012-09-04 08:41:19 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
337 2012-09-04 08:41:23 <Diablo-D3> a) the quiz is anonymous
338 2012-09-04 08:41:34 <Diablo-D3> b) no one deserves to be president, but we deserve a better one
339 2012-09-04 08:42:08 BurtyB has joined
340 2012-09-04 08:42:21 <_dr> do you really think a new president can still save your country?
341 2012-09-04 08:42:43 <_dr> without meaining to be offensive, i think it's just better to let it fail
342 2012-09-04 08:43:02 <Diablo-D3> _dr: if its a president who will charge congress for gross violation of every crime we have laws for? yes
343 2012-09-04 08:44:21 <_dr> i really hope such a thing would be an option, but honestly i think the structures in place will prevent that from ever happening
344 2012-09-04 08:45:19 balrog has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
345 2012-09-04 08:45:47 Garret\ has left ()
346 2012-09-04 08:46:42 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
347 2012-09-04 08:47:05 <_dr> but then again, i'm probably biased by the extrinsic media view of your country. in the last X years there hasn't been any good news in the press about america in europe (certainly not 100% true, but the trend)
348 2012-09-04 08:47:19 <_dr> of your -> on your
349 2012-09-04 08:48:07 <edcba> i don't see how america affected positively europe recently
350 2012-09-04 08:48:33 <edcba> i mean more positively than before
351 2012-09-04 08:49:03 Raccoon has joined
352 2012-09-04 08:49:27 <_dr> not about affecting something, the news in general. any news about the usa we get around here is: mass shooting, corporate crimes, guy shot because we was trying to video-tape a cop, etc.
353 2012-09-04 08:49:58 ThomasV has joined
354 2012-09-04 08:50:05 <edcba> obama taking down reddit
355 2012-09-04 08:50:11 <_dr> :-)
356 2012-09-04 08:51:54 balrog has joined
357 2012-09-04 08:54:27 <Luke-Jr> [08:40:12] <CIA-45> bitcoin: Michael Gronager * ra1a0fe779654 libcoin/ (19 files in 10 dirs): Added SQLite dependency - libcoin is moving towards exclusive use of SQLite instead of various key value pair databases like bdb and leveldb http://tinyurl.com/c2p7s96 <-- fail
358 2012-09-04 08:54:44 <sturles> How many got shot in New York because the Police couldn't aim at that guy?
359 2012-09-04 08:55:04 <sturles> In Norway the police has fired one shot in 2012.
360 2012-09-04 08:55:06 <sturles> Total.
361 2012-09-04 08:55:21 <sturles> (Training excluded.)
362 2012-09-04 08:55:54 <sturles> They don't need to fire sixteen times to shoot someone.
363 2012-09-04 08:56:22 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
364 2012-09-04 08:56:36 RainbowDashh has joined
365 2012-09-04 08:57:34 RainbowDashh has quit (Changing host)
366 2012-09-04 08:57:34 RainbowDashh has joined
367 2012-09-04 08:58:54 <_dr> hardly a fair comparison
368 2012-09-04 08:59:47 <_dr> if citizens in the us were not allowed to carry a firearm, police wouldn't have to be so trigger-happy i guess
369 2012-09-04 09:00:10 has_many has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
370 2012-09-04 09:00:13 <edcba> that's not the problem i guess
371 2012-09-04 09:01:18 gjs278 has joined
372 2012-09-04 09:03:38 has_many has joined
373 2012-09-04 09:04:43 <Luke-Jr> _dr: how silly, crime is far lower when citizens are armed
374 2012-09-04 09:05:46 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
375 2012-09-04 09:05:56 <Luke-Jr> _dr: thankfully, the US (in theory) doesn't have the same kind of "super-class" where police are considered above citizens (in fact, any citizen has the authority to make arrests)
376 2012-09-04 09:06:41 <_dr> i believe you, it's just what the media reports over here in the last years has become very biased against the us
377 2012-09-04 09:07:09 <Luke-Jr> _dr: even the US media nonsense is biased against the US
378 2012-09-04 09:07:20 <Luke-Jr> but media is worthless, so..
379 2012-09-04 09:08:19 sgornick has joined
380 2012-09-04 09:15:40 maqr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
381 2012-09-04 09:18:12 drizztbsd has joined
382 2012-09-04 09:27:55 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
383 2012-09-04 09:29:10 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
384 2012-09-04 09:29:45 copumpkin has joined
385 2012-09-04 09:35:41 datagutt has joined
386 2012-09-04 09:38:19 TD has joined
387 2012-09-04 09:49:33 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
388 2012-09-04 09:52:41 gjs278 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
389 2012-09-04 09:53:00 setkeh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
390 2012-09-04 09:53:25 gjs278 has joined
391 2012-09-04 09:53:57 setkeh` has joined
392 2012-09-04 10:01:23 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
393 2012-09-04 10:02:28 Muis_ is now known as Muis
394 2012-09-04 10:03:37 setkeh` has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
395 2012-09-04 10:04:04 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
396 2012-09-04 10:06:29 gjs278 has joined
397 2012-09-04 10:11:09 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
398 2012-09-04 10:15:27 paraipan has joined
399 2012-09-04 10:15:36 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
400 2012-09-04 10:16:24 gjs278 has joined
401 2012-09-04 10:18:52 kreal has quit ()
402 2012-09-04 10:21:30 spammytrap has joined
403 2012-09-04 10:32:49 RainbowD_ has joined
404 2012-09-04 10:33:16 RainbowD_ has quit (Changing host)
405 2012-09-04 10:33:16 RainbowD_ has joined
406 2012-09-04 10:33:45 RainbowDashh has quit (Disconnected by services)
407 2012-09-04 10:33:46 RainbowD_ is now known as RainbowDashh
408 2012-09-04 10:34:56 _W_ has quit (Excess Flood)
409 2012-09-04 10:35:03 _W_ has joined
410 2012-09-04 10:41:51 maqr has joined
411 2012-09-04 10:42:42 ZephyrVoid has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
412 2012-09-04 10:49:57 jdnavarro has joined
413 2012-09-04 10:50:39 maqr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
414 2012-09-04 10:58:06 RainbowD_ has joined
415 2012-09-04 10:58:12 RainbowDashh has quit (Disconnected by services)
416 2012-09-04 10:58:12 RainbowD_ is now known as RainbowDashh
417 2012-09-04 10:59:29 toffoo has quit ()
418 2012-09-04 11:02:02 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
419 2012-09-04 11:06:58 drizztbsd has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
420 2012-09-04 11:08:45 tower has quit (Disconnected by services)
421 2012-09-04 11:08:57 tower has joined
422 2012-09-04 11:11:57 Graet has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
423 2012-09-04 11:17:28 darksk1ez has quit (Excess Flood)
424 2012-09-04 11:18:04 darksk1ez has joined
425 2012-09-04 11:23:25 Diablo-D3 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
426 2012-09-04 11:23:43 <doublec> getmemorypool is gone in v0.7?
427 2012-09-04 11:23:57 jurov is now known as away!xzbnxup@84.245.71.31|jurov
428 2012-09-04 11:24:20 Diablo-D3 has joined
429 2012-09-04 11:24:30 Graet has joined
430 2012-09-04 11:24:41 Graet_ has joined
431 2012-09-04 11:24:41 Graet_ has quit (Excess Flood)
432 2012-09-04 11:25:11 Graet_ has joined
433 2012-09-04 11:25:11 Graet_ has quit (Excess Flood)
434 2012-09-04 11:25:41 Graet_ has joined
435 2012-09-04 11:25:53 Graet has quit (Quit: Leaving)
436 2012-09-04 11:28:17 Graet_ is now known as Graet
437 2012-09-04 11:28:18 Graet has quit (Changing host)
438 2012-09-04 11:28:18 Graet has joined
439 2012-09-04 11:28:48 <sturles> Luke-Jr: By what statistics? The USA comes out pretty bad e.g. on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country
440 2012-09-04 11:31:28 darksk1ez has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
441 2012-09-04 11:32:00 <sturles> And here: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob-crime-robberies
442 2012-09-04 11:33:28 <Luke-Jr> doublec: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0022
443 2012-09-04 11:34:01 <doublec> Luke-Jr: thanks. has the major pool software update to that?
444 2012-09-04 11:34:27 <doublec> I'm just testing 0.7 on my pool and noticed it was gone
445 2012-09-04 11:34:55 <Luke-Jr> doublec: Eloipool has, IIRC p2k said he was going to update ecoinpool
446 2012-09-04 11:37:11 <sturles> Perhaps the ultimate crime statistics: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita
447 2012-09-04 11:37:15 <Luke-Jr> doublec: I think it should mostly be backward compatible if you just rename the call, maybe need to add an empty params Object
448 2012-09-04 11:39:06 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
449 2012-09-04 11:40:13 iocor has joined
450 2012-09-04 11:40:51 <doublec> I think getmemorypool had a field with the value of the number of generated coins but I didn't see that in the new call from a quick scan
451 2012-09-04 11:41:21 <sturles> Of course a problem with U.S. police is their inability to aim. Recently they had to fire 16(!) times to kill someone pulling up a gun in New York. Close up. And by their inability to aim properly and finish him in one or two shots, they hurt a lot of innocent bystanders.
452 2012-09-04 11:41:21 kreal has joined
453 2012-09-04 11:41:33 <_dr> sturles: table of freedom by country, put together by the department of we know best
454 2012-09-04 11:41:36 <_dr> usa 100%
455 2012-09-04 11:41:37 <_dr> rest 0%
456 2012-09-04 11:41:56 <sturles> Table of freedom per country?
457 2012-09-04 11:41:58 <sturles> Where?
458 2012-09-04 11:43:39 <sipa> doublec: coinbasevalue
459 2012-09-04 11:44:59 <doublec> sipa: ah, I must have missed it, thanks
460 2012-09-04 11:46:58 maqr has joined
461 2012-09-04 11:48:13 ThomasV has joined
462 2012-09-04 11:48:52 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
463 2012-09-04 11:51:31 maqr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
464 2012-09-04 11:53:05 vampireb has joined
465 2012-09-04 11:53:26 darksk1ez has joined
466 2012-09-04 11:53:51 Diablo-D3 has joined
467 2012-09-04 11:54:49 slush has joined
468 2012-09-04 11:58:01 wao has joined
469 2012-09-04 11:58:04 <wao> oh hai.
470 2012-09-04 11:58:29 <wao> is there list of some irc bots supporting bitcoin functions?
471 2012-09-04 11:58:33 <wao> like watch on some wallet
472 2012-09-04 11:59:50 setkeh` has joined
473 2012-09-04 12:00:03 Smooblush has joined
474 2012-09-04 12:00:38 CodesInChaos has joined
475 2012-09-04 12:04:15 Maged has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
476 2012-09-04 12:05:20 Maged has joined
477 2012-09-04 12:05:32 <wao> bbe
478 2012-09-04 12:05:39 <wao> !bbe
479 2012-09-04 12:05:39 <BCBot2`> wao: Error: "bbe" is not a valid command.
480 2012-09-04 12:05:39 <gribble> http://blockexplorer.com
481 2012-09-04 12:05:54 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
482 2012-09-04 12:10:55 <Luke-Jr> _dr: US 100%? must be relative - I don't think anything is 100%
483 2012-09-04 12:12:00 MobiusL has joined
484 2012-09-04 12:16:32 <_dr> i better use a sarcasm xml-tag next time :)
485 2012-09-04 12:20:28 darkee has joined
486 2012-09-04 12:25:52 tonikt has joined
487 2012-09-04 12:26:10 olp has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
488 2012-09-04 12:27:45 copumpkin has left ()
489 2012-09-04 12:27:54 Zarutian has joined
490 2012-09-04 12:29:37 pumpkin has joined
491 2012-09-04 12:31:57 spammytrap is now known as spammytrap2
492 2012-09-04 12:32:04 spammytrap2 is now known as spammytrap
493 2012-09-04 12:33:10 jdnavarro has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
494 2012-09-04 12:35:35 spammytrap2 has joined
495 2012-09-04 12:41:07 pumpkin is now known as copumpkin
496 2012-09-04 12:41:14 drizztbsd has joined
497 2012-09-04 12:41:24 <sipa> TD: benchmarks yesterday: git head: 41m, ultraprune: 19m, leveldb+ultraprune: 10m; batch block connection makes almost no difference
498 2012-09-04 12:41:31 <sipa> (for 193k blocks)
499 2012-09-04 12:45:25 BCBot2 has joined
500 2012-09-04 12:45:40 BCBot2` has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
501 2012-09-04 12:46:12 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
502 2012-09-04 12:47:22 nsh has joined
503 2012-09-04 12:47:54 minimoose has joined
504 2012-09-04 12:49:54 nsh has quit (Changing host)
505 2012-09-04 12:49:54 nsh has joined
506 2012-09-04 12:51:16 BCBot has joined
507 2012-09-04 12:51:40 darkee has joined
508 2012-09-04 12:53:21 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
509 2012-09-04 12:53:42 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: <NAME> said 2 hours, 58 minutes ago in <CHANNEL>: your quit message is really long)
510 2012-09-04 12:53:48 wao has left ()
511 2012-09-04 13:00:16 rdponticelli has joined
512 2012-09-04 13:00:48 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
513 2012-09-04 13:01:24 copumpkin has joined
514 2012-09-04 13:05:32 jdnavarro has joined
515 2012-09-04 13:14:46 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
516 2012-09-04 13:15:40 BNCatDIGISHELL has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
517 2012-09-04 13:17:11 t7 has joined
518 2012-09-04 13:20:32 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
519 2012-09-04 13:21:23 BNCatDIGISHELL has joined
520 2012-09-04 13:24:45 Joric has joined
521 2012-09-04 13:29:28 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
522 2012-09-04 13:30:43 da2ce7_d has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
523 2012-09-04 13:31:55 da2ce7_d has joined
524 2012-09-04 13:32:39 gavinandresen has joined
525 2012-09-04 13:32:41 davout has joined
526 2012-09-04 13:32:41 davout has quit (Changing host)
527 2012-09-04 13:32:41 davout has joined
528 2012-09-04 13:36:23 nsh- has joined
529 2012-09-04 13:38:30 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
530 2012-09-04 13:43:07 t7_ has joined
531 2012-09-04 13:44:11 t7 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
532 2012-09-04 13:44:12 t7_ is now known as t7
533 2012-09-04 13:44:53 one_zero has quit ()
534 2012-09-04 13:46:13 t7 has quit (Client Quit)
535 2012-09-04 13:46:34 t7 has joined
536 2012-09-04 13:48:00 att has joined
537 2012-09-04 13:48:12 maqr has joined
538 2012-09-04 13:49:56 copumpkin has joined
539 2012-09-04 13:52:22 maqr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
540 2012-09-04 14:02:40 nsh- is now known as nsh
541 2012-09-04 14:02:54 nsh has quit (Changing host)
542 2012-09-04 14:02:55 nsh has joined
543 2012-09-04 14:05:31 vampireb_ has joined
544 2012-09-04 14:06:00 denisx has joined
545 2012-09-04 14:09:00 denisx has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
546 2012-09-04 14:09:24 denisx has joined
547 2012-09-04 14:18:19 jine has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
548 2012-09-04 14:18:19 Marf has joined
549 2012-09-04 14:23:11 vigilyn has joined
550 2012-09-04 14:29:56 jine has joined
551 2012-09-04 14:32:02 random_cat_ has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.2)
552 2012-09-04 14:33:30 random_cat has joined
553 2012-09-04 14:36:31 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
554 2012-09-04 14:38:29 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
555 2012-09-04 14:38:36 darksk1ez has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
556 2012-09-04 14:40:40 Aexoden_III is now known as Aexoden
557 2012-09-04 14:42:33 skeledrew has joined
558 2012-09-04 14:45:23 vampireb_ has quit (Quit: leaving)
559 2012-09-04 14:45:32 vampireb_ has joined
560 2012-09-04 14:53:36 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
561 2012-09-04 14:54:21 arij_ has joined
562 2012-09-04 14:56:56 jdnavarro has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
563 2012-09-04 14:57:40 nsh- has joined
564 2012-09-04 14:59:08 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
565 2012-09-04 15:00:40 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
566 2012-09-04 15:09:39 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
567 2012-09-04 15:10:01 dvide has quit ()
568 2012-09-04 15:10:08 rdponticelli has joined
569 2012-09-04 15:10:51 agricocb has joined
570 2012-09-04 15:10:53 <TD> sipa: a 5x speed increase is definitely worth celebrating!
571 2012-09-04 15:11:08 <edcba> depends
572 2012-09-04 15:11:22 <TD> although this is artificial of course. 41m is still way faster than most people see. the bottleneck is now surely the network and the randomness of whether you pick a good peer to sync from
573 2012-09-04 15:11:25 <edcba> if 5x speed on a 1ms operation happening every century...
574 2012-09-04 15:11:32 <TD> 5x faster block chain sync vs git head
575 2012-09-04 15:11:52 <sipa> TD: on my VPS it's much more (even just ultraprune it took close to a day on BDB), now it's finished in less than an hour...
576 2012-09-04 15:12:10 <TD> hmm
577 2012-09-04 15:12:20 <sipa> it horribly slow I/
578 2012-09-04 15:12:21 <TD> yeah when i benchmarked leveldb originally i was seeing more like 90mins for git head+bdb
579 2012-09-04 15:12:22 <sipa> I/O
580 2012-09-04 15:12:32 <jgarzik> FWIW, I noted in IRC the other day that I prefer to merge leveldb first, then ultraprune second
581 2012-09-04 15:12:40 <TD> bdb was 45 mins with no sig checking
582 2012-09-04 15:12:48 <jgarzik> makes for better comparisons and sanity checks, in that order, IMO
583 2012-09-04 15:13:26 olp has joined
584 2012-09-04 15:13:36 <sipa> well, the leveldb code import is identical, but apart from that and a few implementations, the integration in current head and ultraprune are quite independent
585 2012-09-04 15:13:48 <BlueMatt> TD: its only somewhat artificial, keep in mind the block download is entirely sequential, so it would still help the speed people see anyway
586 2012-09-04 15:14:09 <sipa> so if leveldb gets merged first, i'd add a patch to ultraprune that first reverted all changes to core anyway
587 2012-09-04 15:15:39 <TD> presumably at least some of the code is the same (to load the block headers, initialize leveldb, etc)
588 2012-09-04 15:16:32 <sipa> i wrote most of it from scratch, but used your code as a guideline (you're mentioned in the commit)
589 2012-09-04 15:17:28 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
590 2012-09-04 15:18:08 <sipa> jgarzik: so i don't mind doing leveldb first (in fact, if ultraprune would be deemed too experimental for the next release, i still hope leveldb gets in), but for sanity checking... the database changes anyway
591 2012-09-04 15:19:04 <gmaxwell> at least at the moment I would prefer to not release-stage leveldb and ulraprune; I think the have a lot of shared risk and I'd rather take it once rather than twice. They also both have migration cost I'd rather take once rather than twice.
592 2012-09-04 15:19:25 <jgarzik> agreed; I simply feel it is one fewer variables, to compare behavior between vanilla and +leveldb, as the structure of the indexes themselves does not matter.
593 2012-09-04 15:19:51 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: sounds like a strawman; no one AFAIK has proposed separating leveldb and ultraprune by a full release
594 2012-09-04 15:20:49 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: er. Sure; I only commented because sipa just mentioned doing that.
595 2012-09-04 15:20:57 dvide has joined
596 2012-09-04 15:22:08 olp has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
597 2012-09-04 15:22:26 <TD> it's really up to whoever reviews the code
598 2012-09-04 15:22:56 * BlueMatt jumps up and down screaming unit tests repeatedly for 10 minutes
599 2012-09-04 15:23:13 <BlueMatt> :)
600 2012-09-04 15:23:20 <sipa> BlueMatt: every commit in my ultraprune branch has succeeding unit tests here
601 2012-09-04 15:23:34 <BlueMatt> I still want more unit tests...
602 2012-09-04 15:23:54 <sipa> (which is far from enough; whole-program tests like your bitcoinj-based tests does are obviously very welcome)
603 2012-09-04 15:23:59 sgornick has joined
604 2012-09-04 15:25:12 * BlueMatt sees no/few leveldb-specific unit tests anywhere...
605 2012-09-04 15:25:15 RainbowDashh has joined
606 2012-09-04 15:25:35 <TD> do there need to be any?
607 2012-09-04 15:25:43 <TD> leveldb is basically a big hashmap
608 2012-09-04 15:25:50 <gmaxwell> So, whats the plan if we find that leveldb gets corrupted by crashes?
609 2012-09-04 15:25:52 <BlueMatt> not for leveldb itself, but around bitcoin's leveldb api
610 2012-09-04 15:26:19 <TD> yeah i don't think there's any internal leveldb wrapping api that isn't tested after sipas work. there was indeed that problem in my branch
611 2012-09-04 15:26:52 <TD> gmaxwell: good question. there is a function you can call that tries to repair the db but i don't know what it does - with the migration code i wrote (guess sipa rewrote it), blowing away the txdb directory would cause it to be recreated
612 2012-09-04 15:27:31 <BlueMatt> is the ultraprune+leveldb stuff in the ultraprune pull? I see no test-cases which are really testing the db
613 2012-09-04 15:27:35 <jgarzik> that's indeed the standard question for switching "preferred filesystems" in the kernel as well. the long term plan is to switch away from ext* (currently ext4) to btrfs in distros... but recoverability after crash must be rock solid, including disaster recovery tools
614 2012-09-04 15:27:38 <jgarzik> i.e. fsck
615 2012-09-04 15:27:54 <jgarzik> BDB analogue 'db_recover'
616 2012-09-04 15:27:59 guruvan has joined
617 2012-09-04 15:28:15 <TD> there's no explicit tool to recover a leveldb. it simply isn't supposed to get corrupted by crashes
618 2012-09-04 15:28:29 <TD> given that it's basically the same design bigtable uses and bigtable servers are forcibly terminated in flight all the time, i guess whatever it does works
619 2012-09-04 15:28:42 osxorgate has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
620 2012-09-04 15:28:46 <jgarzik> <TD> leveldb is basically a big hashmap <<-- are you sure? I thought it was a big sorted, chunked data structure
621 2012-09-04 15:28:49 <TD> i recall no cases of db corruption in bigtable that could be traced to crashes
622 2012-09-04 15:28:53 <TD> jgarzik: well yes. i meant in terms of API
623 2012-09-04 15:28:57 <jgarzik> where sorted keys are adjacent
624 2012-09-04 15:29:47 <jgarzik> TD: does leveldb verify checksums on data read from disk?
625 2012-09-04 15:29:47 <TD> right
626 2012-09-04 15:30:10 <jgarzik> TD: i.e. does it do metadata checksumming, data checksumming, or none of the above?
627 2012-09-04 15:30:23 osxorgate has joined
628 2012-09-04 15:30:37 <TD> there is a unit test in the leveldb tree called corruption_test.cc
629 2012-09-04 15:31:11 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: <NAME> said 2 hours, 58 minutes ago in <CHANNEL>: your quit message is really long)
630 2012-09-04 15:31:17 <TD> it does all of the above, as far as i know
631 2012-09-04 15:31:25 <TD> the corruption test randomly scrambles some bytes
632 2012-09-04 15:31:29 <gavinandresen> RE: crash recovery: I think I agree with the paper somebody linked to here a few months ago, arguing that applications should always do a quick&dirty shutdown and always perform recovery at startup.
633 2012-09-04 15:31:38 <TD> and then it checks that the affected records are skipped
634 2012-09-04 15:32:06 <devrandom> hi TD
635 2012-09-04 15:32:08 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: I've seen some early Google papers saying they often do just that
636 2012-09-04 15:32:15 <TD> ok
637 2012-09-04 15:32:20 <TD> so there's a db option called paranoid_checks
638 2012-09-04 15:32:24 <TD> hey devrandom
639 2012-09-04 15:32:25 <gavinandresen> It's a good way to make sure your crash recovery code actually works.
640 2012-09-04 15:32:30 <TD> // If true, the implementation will do aggressive checking of the
641 2012-09-04 15:32:31 <TD> // data it is processing and will stop early if it detects any
642 2012-09-04 15:32:31 <TD> // errors. This may have unforeseen ramifications: for example, a
643 2012-09-04 15:32:31 <TD> // corruption of one DB entry may cause a large number of entries to
644 2012-09-04 15:32:31 <TD> // become unreadable or for the entire DB to become unopenable.
645 2012-09-04 15:32:32 <TD> // Default: false
646 2012-09-04 15:32:54 <TD> struct ReadOptions {
647 2012-09-04 15:32:54 <TD> // If true, all data read from underlying storage will be
648 2012-09-04 15:32:54 <TD> // verified against corresponding checksums.
649 2012-09-04 15:32:54 <TD> // Default: false
650 2012-09-04 15:32:54 <TD> bool verify_checksums;
651 2012-09-04 15:32:57 <TD> so there is the answer
652 2012-09-04 15:33:04 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: that's what pagedb does, in fact: https://github.com/jgarzik/pagedb (I mention this only for academic interest... not suggesting pagedb for bitcoin)
653 2012-09-04 15:33:06 <TD> by default, no. i don't know what kind of performance impact it'd have to enable it
654 2012-09-04 15:33:23 <jgarzik> TD: mainly CPU impact, I would presume?
655 2012-09-04 15:33:36 <TD> yes
656 2012-09-04 15:34:18 olp has joined
657 2012-09-04 15:35:02 <TD> i think "random bytes get scrambled" is not a particularly common failure mode for hard disks unless they're about to die totally
658 2012-09-04 15:35:16 <TD> the process being zapped in the middle of writing seems more common
659 2012-09-04 15:35:38 <TD> and ~all google software is built on the assumption that it can be killed at any time, because that's exactly what our datacenter control system does
660 2012-09-04 15:35:41 <TD> (very regularly)
661 2012-09-04 15:36:22 pnicholson has joined
662 2012-09-04 15:36:47 <jgarzik> yeah, I think I read that in the Chubby paper
663 2012-09-04 15:36:59 <jgarzik> TD: does Google still use Chubby, or something quite like it?
664 2012-09-04 15:37:02 <TD> yes
665 2012-09-04 15:37:08 <jgarzik> cool
666 2012-09-04 15:37:13 <TD> we still use chubby. it has some scalability changes these days
667 2012-09-04 15:37:18 <jgarzik> TD: I have a shitty Chubby clone ;-)
668 2012-09-04 15:37:20 <TD> but it's still the same idea
669 2012-09-04 15:37:23 <TD> heh
670 2012-09-04 15:37:38 <jgarzik> TD: core is still multi-paxos?
671 2012-09-04 15:38:34 <TD> yes. these days there are a lot of proxies in front of it
672 2012-09-04 15:38:40 <sipa> BlueMatt: it's in a separate branch, leveldb+ultraprune, for now
673 2012-09-04 15:38:43 <TD> otherwise the single master would get overloaded
674 2012-09-04 15:38:50 <jgarzik> right
675 2012-09-04 15:39:52 <sipa> TD: i've enabled verify_checksums; no significant impact on IBD speed
676 2012-09-04 15:40:03 <jgarzik> the cache coherence was a surprising property, when I first read the paper. many of us kernel vfs hackers wished that there existed a POSIX-compliant, cache coherence remote network filesystem.
677 2012-09-04 15:40:22 <sipa> TD: it was 2 seconds slower, iirc, which is probably less than the random noise on the measurement anyway
678 2012-09-04 15:40:28 <jgarzik> (obviously chubby's mission is quite different than such a filesystem, just noting...)
679 2012-09-04 15:40:45 <jgarzik> *coherent
680 2012-09-04 15:41:06 <jgarzik> anyway... has anyone done fuzz testing with bitcoin+leveldb?
681 2012-09-04 15:41:19 <jgarzik> or even simple truncate-the-file testing?
682 2012-09-04 15:41:21 Maged has quit (Disconnected by services)
683 2012-09-04 15:41:30 Maged_ has joined
684 2012-09-04 15:41:46 Maged_ is now known as Maged
685 2012-09-04 15:41:48 <sipa> BlueMatt: suggestions for a leveldb-specific unit test?
686 2012-09-04 15:41:57 <sipa> BlueMatt: apart from the tests leveldb itself already has
687 2012-09-04 15:42:03 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: feel free: https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/test-scripts
688 2012-09-04 15:42:44 <BlueMatt> sipa: I was thinking largely simple tests just to put things like the commit/abort stuff through its paces
689 2012-09-04 15:42:56 <sipa> BlueMatt: leveldb has no commit or abort
690 2012-09-04 15:43:00 <sipa> just batch writes
691 2012-09-04 15:43:24 <sipa> TD's code put a layer for transactions on top of it, but ultraprune doesn't need that
692 2012-09-04 15:43:25 <BlueMatt> sipa: yes, but I was under the impression CDB for leveldb wrapped batch writes into such, so it could use testing ;)
693 2012-09-04 15:43:30 <BlueMatt> ah
694 2012-09-04 15:44:24 <TD> i think just killing the process at random times and restarting it might be useful
695 2012-09-04 15:44:43 <sipa> let's see!
696 2012-09-04 15:44:55 <TD> that said, i expect it to reveal no problems unless there is code that does non-batched writes that expects them to be batched (application level issue)
697 2012-09-04 15:46:12 osxorgate has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
698 2012-09-04 15:46:21 <TD> jgarzik: yeah chubby isn't really a filesystem despite the API it exposes
699 2012-09-04 15:46:29 <jgarzik> indeed
700 2012-09-04 15:46:31 <TD> jgarzik: when I was an SRE this fact was reliably the cause of a few outages per year
701 2012-09-04 15:46:33 <TD> :)
702 2012-09-04 15:46:40 <TD> (cluster-level outages only, fortunately)
703 2012-09-04 15:47:46 <TD> i managed to nuke the entire Google Earth service once by doing a "fileutil touch" on a file in chubby. i just wanted to update the modification time. the command worked ... but it turned out to be implemented by simply erasing the contents of the file.
704 2012-09-04 15:48:16 <sipa> outch :)
705 2012-09-04 15:48:18 <jgarzik> rofl
706 2012-09-04 15:48:19 att has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
707 2012-09-04 15:49:00 <jgarzik> TD: I've been meaning to experiment with a scalable design, where bits of the namespace are leased to downstream masters, to distribute the load
708 2012-09-04 15:49:28 <TD> yeah. i think that's a pretty sensible design. it often wished chubby actually worked like that.
709 2012-09-04 15:49:30 <jgarzik> the 'master master' cluster doesnt do much but refer, unless '/' changes
710 2012-09-04 15:49:59 <jgarzik> use some metrics / hueristics to decide when a new downstream master is needed, based on load
711 2012-09-04 15:50:45 <jgarzik> over time, 99% of clients simply 'know' what master/cluster is needed for any given portion of the namespace + their app-specific usage pattern
712 2012-09-04 15:50:55 <TD> yes. that is much like bigtable.
713 2012-09-04 15:51:44 pnicholson has quit (Quit: pnicholson)
714 2012-09-04 15:51:55 <BlueMatt> god...seems like the chrome guys have never tested chrome's battery performance with rc6...it nearly doubles my battery rate...
715 2012-09-04 15:52:04 <TD> did anyone investigate why there are so many duplicate blocks flying around? i see "ERROR: ProcessBlock() : already have block" pretty often in my logs
716 2012-09-04 15:52:26 <BlueMatt> TD: its probably two nodes announcing at nearly the same time
717 2012-09-04 15:52:36 <BlueMatt> (we dont bother to deduplicate requests for blocks when that happens)
718 2012-09-04 15:52:45 <TD> yeah maybe
719 2012-09-04 15:52:54 <sipa> i kinda decided not to touch the IBD sync mechanism again until we implemente reverse-header sync
720 2012-09-04 15:52:59 <BlueMatt> s/nearly the same time/in the same period during which we were processing some message from another node"
721 2012-09-04 15:53:18 <BlueMatt> sipa: heh, oops...
722 2012-09-04 15:53:47 <sipa> BlueMatt: i don't mind others touching it, if there are improvements possible
723 2012-09-04 15:54:32 <sipa> but the only real solution is downloading headers first, and then syncing a known long chain through the block tree
724 2012-09-04 15:54:54 <BlueMatt> that is true
725 2012-09-04 15:55:46 <sipa> ultraprune's database design already allows that, by the way, but header sync is not implemented yet obviously
726 2012-09-04 15:58:10 <MC-Eeepc> oh wow this ultraprune is now synched
727 2012-09-04 15:58:19 <MC-Eeepc> id say that was about 3 days total
728 2012-09-04 15:59:27 <TD> it took you 3 days to sync a block chain with sipas branch?
729 2012-09-04 15:59:46 <sipa> TD: on an EEE pc with datadir on a usb stick, iirc :)
730 2012-09-04 15:59:47 <gmaxwell> WRT: crash recover, the paper gavinandresen mentioned is linked from here: https://lwn.net/Articles/191059/
731 2012-09-04 16:00:01 olp has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
732 2012-09-04 16:01:13 <MC-Eeepc> still a lot faster than normal
733 2012-09-04 16:01:28 <TD> oh
734 2012-09-04 16:03:04 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: i'll soon have a branch that should be even faster (a lot faster in your setting, probably)
735 2012-09-04 16:03:18 <TD> what branch is that?
736 2012-09-04 16:03:35 <BlueMatt> ultraprune+leveldb, Id guess
737 2012-09-04 16:03:40 <sipa> TD: he's currently using ultraprune without leveldb
738 2012-09-04 16:03:57 t7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
739 2012-09-04 16:04:19 <TD> oh
740 2012-09-04 16:05:14 <MC-Eeepc> sipa hit me up when its ready
741 2012-09-04 16:05:36 <MC-Eeepc> is there any way to get a total download time out of logfiles on this or what
742 2012-09-04 16:06:02 <BlueMatt> use -logtimestamps
743 2012-09-04 16:06:09 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
744 2012-09-04 16:06:55 variousnefarious has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
745 2012-09-04 16:07:40 <MC-Eeepc> this is stuck on 1 block remaining now hmmmm
746 2012-09-04 16:08:25 <TD> gavinandresen: the bitcoin price has clearly gone over some kind of threshold. maybe payouts should be lower? or a function of exchange rate?
747 2012-09-04 16:08:49 <copumpkin> TD: the network doesn't know about price
748 2012-09-04 16:09:11 variousnefarious has joined
749 2012-09-04 16:09:20 <sipa> edcba: regarding 5x speed increase; we're talking 41min vs 10 min for syncing the blockchain up to 193k
750 2012-09-04 16:10:48 Cory has joined
751 2012-09-04 16:11:16 <MC-Eeepc> yep pretty well stuck on 1 block remaining
752 2012-09-04 16:11:19 <MC-Eeepc> strange
753 2012-09-04 16:11:22 <MC-Eeepc> it ws synced
754 2012-09-04 16:11:49 <MC-Eeepc> choked on the next produced block?
755 2012-09-04 16:11:54 <sipa> doubtful
756 2012-09-04 16:12:36 <denisx> sipa: can I test it on freebsd with zfs?
757 2012-09-04 16:12:37 Diapolo has joined
758 2012-09-04 16:13:12 iocor has joined
759 2012-09-04 16:13:39 pnicholson has joined
760 2012-09-04 16:14:06 <MC-Eeepc> why has it stopped then
761 2012-09-04 16:14:14 <MC-Eeepc> also i keep losing my peer connections
762 2012-09-04 16:14:38 <sipa> i suspect timeouts?
763 2012-09-04 16:15:04 <sipa> because your node is so slow for processing things, the network threads blocks so long that connections timeout?
764 2012-09-04 16:15:53 <MC-Eeepc> maybe
765 2012-09-04 16:16:02 karipe^ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
766 2012-09-04 16:16:07 <MC-Eeepc> getting a lot of misbehaving IPs in the log
767 2012-09-04 16:16:28 <gmaxwell> 0_o
768 2012-09-04 16:16:39 <gmaxwell> Uh oh.
769 2012-09-04 16:16:46 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: pastebin log please.
770 2012-09-04 16:16:50 <sipa> oooh i get it
771 2012-09-04 16:16:55 <MC-Eeepc> Misbehaving: 176.212.16.27:8333 (0 -> 100) DISCONNECTING
772 2012-09-04 16:16:55 <MC-Eeepc> disconnecting node 176.212.16.27:8333
773 2012-09-04 16:17:05 <TD> that's not very helpful ...
774 2012-09-04 16:17:06 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: I need to know what happens before that.
775 2012-09-04 16:17:12 <sipa> you're using an older ultraprune build that had canonical sig checking enabled
776 2012-09-04 16:17:16 <gmaxwell> oh.
777 2012-09-04 16:17:17 <gmaxwell> hah
778 2012-09-04 16:17:27 <MC-Eeepc> how much do you want this is a 7mb logfile
779 2012-09-04 16:17:37 <sipa> the last 50 lines
780 2012-09-04 16:19:23 <MC-Eeepc> http://pastebin.com/f8YptJNw
781 2012-09-04 16:19:26 <jgarzik> dammit
782 2012-09-04 16:19:35 * jgarzik broke the build... fixing
783 2012-09-04 16:19:45 <MC-Eeepc> well there are 2 misbehaving things in there but ive seen more
784 2012-09-04 16:20:25 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: yes, what i expected; my fault and already fixed in later code
785 2012-09-04 16:20:33 eian has joined
786 2012-09-04 16:20:46 <MC-Eeepc> alrighty
787 2012-09-04 16:21:02 Smooblush has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
788 2012-09-04 16:22:54 <jgarzik> uh oh
789 2012-09-04 16:23:01 <jgarzik> us4's public node crashed: http://pastebin.com/PZXWfZ3A
790 2012-09-04 16:23:01 <sipa> jgarzik: what did you do?
791 2012-09-04 16:23:26 <sipa> jgarzik: i see that message often, but it doesn't crash
792 2012-09-04 16:24:16 Maged has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
793 2012-09-04 16:24:48 Maged has joined
794 2012-09-04 16:24:56 <jgarzik> sipa: it crashed here. I worry about remote peers triggering uncaught exceptions :/
795 2012-09-04 16:25:01 <jgarzik> that's ThreadMessageHandler
796 2012-09-04 16:25:15 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
797 2012-09-04 16:25:46 <jgarzik> ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
798 2012-09-04 16:25:46 <jgarzik> ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
799 2012-09-04 16:25:55 <jgarzik> ^^ obviously _some_ problems are caught
800 2012-09-04 16:26:07 <sipa> strange
801 2012-09-04 16:26:13 <TD> i've seen that. it must be due to the ping nonce change
802 2012-09-04 16:26:22 <jgarzik> TD: yep, and a bug in the reference impl
803 2012-09-04 16:26:23 <TD> somehow
804 2012-09-04 16:26:29 <jgarzik> known bug
805 2012-09-04 16:26:42 <TD> is that the one that got fixed to do with 0 being uint32 instead of uint64 or something?
806 2012-09-04 16:26:43 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: sorry...jenkins should be back up in a few hours...
807 2012-09-04 16:27:45 <Diapolo> BlueMatt: Good news, indeed!
808 2012-09-04 16:28:11 <sipa> jgarzik: can you let me know when the build is fixed? seems i rebased against master at exactly the wrong time
809 2012-09-04 16:28:12 Tril has left ()
810 2012-09-04 16:28:21 Raccoon` has joined
811 2012-09-04 16:28:27 <jgarzik> sipa: RSN
812 2012-09-04 16:28:42 <jgarzik> building test_bitcoin takes forever for some reason
813 2012-09-04 16:28:58 Tril has joined
814 2012-09-04 16:28:59 <BlueMatt> its bitcoind+test stuff, so its just longer bitcoind...
815 2012-09-04 16:29:31 nsh- is now known as nsh
816 2012-09-04 16:29:32 <BlueMatt> someone wanna finally take a hatchet to bitcoinrpc.cpp?
817 2012-09-04 16:29:37 nsh has quit (Changing host)
818 2012-09-04 16:29:37 nsh has joined
819 2012-09-04 16:29:47 <Diapolo> sipa: Could you take a look at my network-init pulls at least the fixing-stuff one(s) ;)?
820 2012-09-04 16:29:59 <sipa> Diapolo: soon
821 2012-09-04 16:30:32 <Diapolo> Thanks, getting zero feedback is a tad ... counter motivating in the end ^^. Which is no personal critic.
822 2012-09-04 16:30:56 Raccoon has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
823 2012-09-04 16:30:56 Raccoon` is now known as Raccoon
824 2012-09-04 16:31:01 <jgarzik> sipa: ok
825 2012-09-04 16:31:22 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: bitcoinrpc.cpp already hatcheted quite a bit...
826 2012-09-04 16:31:31 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: did you have something specific in mind?
827 2012-09-04 16:32:03 <BlueMatt> oh, hey, it is now...how did I miss that?
828 2012-09-04 16:32:19 * BlueMatt needs to pay more attention
829 2012-09-04 16:32:37 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: jeff slipped in that breaks-all-pull-request change when no one was looking. :P
830 2012-09-04 16:32:53 <Diapolo> Which one was that btw.?
831 2012-09-04 16:33:17 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: heh
832 2012-09-04 16:33:34 <BlueMatt> well done jgarzik
833 2012-09-04 16:34:08 B0g4r7_ has joined
834 2012-09-04 16:34:58 <jgarzik> HTTP server and client still need separating ;p
835 2012-09-04 16:35:39 B0g4r7__ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
836 2012-09-04 16:37:37 setkeh` has quit (Quit: Love Linux ?? and Sharing Experience ?? Come Join us on Freenode at #linuxdistrocommunity)
837 2012-09-04 16:39:13 Marf has joined
838 2012-09-04 16:41:45 setkeh has joined
839 2012-09-04 16:42:49 setkeh has quit (Client Quit)
840 2012-09-04 16:42:58 Clipse has joined
841 2012-09-04 16:42:58 Clipse has quit (Changing host)
842 2012-09-04 16:42:58 Clipse has joined
843 2012-09-04 16:42:59 <jgarzik> CTxMemPool::accept() : accepted 0b80e93e7d (poolsz 3689)
844 2012-09-04 16:43:04 <jgarzik> tx pool is quite large
845 2012-09-04 16:44:09 <sipa> denisx: please do! (branch leveldb+ultraprune on sipa/bitcoin.git)
846 2012-09-04 16:44:17 <BlueMatt> wasnt it >9k at one point?
847 2012-09-04 16:45:23 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: ok, building
848 2012-09-04 16:45:41 pnicholson has quit (Quit: cya later!)
849 2012-09-04 16:45:50 setkeh has joined
850 2012-09-04 16:50:17 setkeh has quit (Client Quit)
851 2012-09-04 16:50:48 setkeh has joined
852 2012-09-04 16:52:20 <sipa> hmm, leveldb needs snappy
853 2012-09-04 16:52:46 <sipa> any gitian-builder expert that knows how to get that available in gitian?
854 2012-09-04 16:52:53 olp has joined
855 2012-09-04 16:53:18 <sipa> especially for windows i suppose that's an extra dependency
856 2012-09-04 16:53:45 <gavinandresen> what is snappy?
857 2012-09-04 16:54:10 <sipa> google's very fast compression library
858 2012-09-04 16:54:21 <BlueMatt> usually: just build with faketime, sometimes also need -j1 forced, sometimes need to do more debugging
859 2012-09-04 16:54:23 MiningBuddy has quit (Quit: ( Quit ))
860 2012-09-04 16:54:38 <sipa> here i just did apt-get install libsnappy-dev :)
861 2012-09-04 16:54:48 <BlueMatt> well that works for linux...
862 2012-09-04 16:54:50 <gmaxwell> sipa: I assume snappy does ~nothing useful for us? Can we just disable it?
863 2012-09-04 16:55:34 <sipa> gmaxwell: maybe, but that will make our leveldb instance incompatible with maybe other programs that exist for interacting with leveldb, and do use compression
864 2012-09-04 16:57:03 <BlueMatt> we are already static linking...
865 2012-09-04 16:57:16 <sipa> exactly because of that
866 2012-09-04 16:57:29 <BlueMatt> oh, you mean the db itself
867 2012-09-04 16:57:32 <BlueMatt> file
868 2012-09-04 16:57:35 <sipa> yes
869 2012-09-04 16:57:37 <TD> i don't think there are any programs that access leveldb directly
870 2012-09-04 16:57:41 <BlueMatt> meh
871 2012-09-04 16:57:44 <sipa> hmm, ok
872 2012-09-04 16:57:50 <TD> given that the db consists almost entirely of random numbers .... i'd simplify by removing it
873 2012-09-04 16:57:53 <TD> though i don't remember this issue
874 2012-09-04 16:58:05 <TD> why do you say it needs snappy?
875 2012-09-04 16:58:39 <sipa> because i get link errors against symbols from libsnappy otherwise
876 2012-09-04 17:00:44 <sipa> hmm, that build script autodetects whether snappy is available
877 2012-09-04 17:03:00 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
878 2012-09-04 17:05:21 <Diapolo> jgarzik: Can you have a look at your last merge in the Github comments.
879 2012-09-04 17:06:44 <BlueMatt> heh, was going to kernel.org for other reasons and saw jgarzik's branch titled "FUSE fs w/ Berkeley DB backend."
880 2012-09-04 17:07:26 guruvan- has joined
881 2012-09-04 17:07:48 <sipa> oh dear
882 2012-09-04 17:14:22 <Diapolo> reminds me of Half-life 1 sipa ^^
883 2012-09-04 17:14:41 ThomasV_ has joined
884 2012-09-04 17:17:53 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #55: ABORTED in 1 hr 21 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/55/
885 2012-09-04 17:21:23 zerogravity has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
886 2012-09-04 17:21:49 slush has joined
887 2012-09-04 17:24:40 ThomasV_ has quit (Quit: Quitte)
888 2012-09-04 17:25:00 ThomasV has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
889 2012-09-04 17:25:26 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
890 2012-09-04 17:25:30 ThomasV has joined
891 2012-09-04 17:25:34 Diapolo has left ()
892 2012-09-04 17:28:13 iocor has joined
893 2012-09-04 17:31:26 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
894 2012-09-04 17:39:12 da2ce7 has joined
895 2012-09-04 17:39:27 da2ce7_d2 has joined
896 2012-09-04 17:41:04 da2ce730 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
897 2012-09-04 17:41:11 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
898 2012-09-04 17:46:44 guruvan- has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
899 2012-09-04 17:46:44 guruvan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
900 2012-09-04 17:51:33 MiningBuddy has joined
901 2012-09-04 17:51:34 MiningBuddy has quit (Changing host)
902 2012-09-04 17:51:34 MiningBuddy has joined
903 2012-09-04 17:53:30 tcatm has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
904 2012-09-04 17:53:47 tcatm has joined
905 2012-09-04 17:53:47 tcatm has quit (Changing host)
906 2012-09-04 17:53:47 tcatm has joined
907 2012-09-04 17:53:54 LuaKT has joined
908 2012-09-04 17:53:54 LuaKT has quit (Changing host)
909 2012-09-04 17:53:54 LuaKT has joined
910 2012-09-04 17:54:40 guruvan has joined
911 2012-09-04 17:55:18 guruvan- has joined
912 2012-09-04 17:59:21 vampireb_ has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
913 2012-09-04 18:01:02 rdponticelli_ has joined
914 2012-09-04 18:01:50 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
915 2012-09-04 18:04:04 rdponticelli_ is now known as rdponticelli
916 2012-09-04 18:05:07 Joric has quit ()
917 2012-09-04 18:06:30 testnode9 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
918 2012-09-04 18:09:13 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
919 2012-09-04 18:10:15 bitcoinz has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
920 2012-09-04 18:11:27 bitcoinz has joined
921 2012-09-04 18:12:07 Smooblush has joined
922 2012-09-04 18:13:31 TD has joined
923 2012-09-04 18:13:37 TD has quit (Client Quit)
924 2012-09-04 18:15:20 Turingi has joined
925 2012-09-04 18:17:58 Smooblush has quit (Quit: Client Quit)
926 2012-09-04 18:18:53 Smooblush has joined
927 2012-09-04 18:23:11 balrog has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
928 2012-09-04 18:23:30 tower has joined
929 2012-09-04 18:28:57 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
930 2012-09-04 18:29:39 molecular has joined
931 2012-09-04 18:30:58 djoot has quit (Quit: leaving)
932 2012-09-04 18:31:57 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
933 2012-09-04 18:34:52 copumpkin is now known as dog
934 2012-09-04 18:35:39 Turingi has left ("Leaving")
935 2012-09-04 18:37:40 djoot has joined
936 2012-09-04 18:37:40 djoot has quit (Changing host)
937 2012-09-04 18:37:40 djoot has joined
938 2012-09-04 18:44:06 sirk390 has joined
939 2012-09-04 18:46:05 maqr has joined
940 2012-09-04 18:46:44 TD has joined
941 2012-09-04 18:50:06 att has joined
942 2012-09-04 18:50:06 JudgeTheDude has joined
943 2012-09-04 18:50:09 leotreasure has joined
944 2012-09-04 18:52:07 madhatt has joined
945 2012-09-04 18:54:24 AlexWaters has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
946 2012-09-04 18:54:55 <BlueMatt> TD: adding a few test-cases to fullverif stuff now: looks like mostly all thats missing is Transaction.verify (aka CheckTransaction) tx.IsFinal and all the MoneyRange stuff
947 2012-09-04 18:54:59 <BlueMatt> ?
948 2012-09-04 18:55:18 <TD> ok
949 2012-09-04 18:55:59 <BlueMatt> do you have any objections to adding those as block test-cases for bitcoindcomparisontool instead of standard test-cases?
950 2012-09-04 18:56:12 <BlueMatt> (they are still run as a part of junit)
951 2012-09-04 18:57:07 JudgeTheDude has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
952 2012-09-04 18:58:32 leotreasure has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
953 2012-09-04 18:59:11 <sipa> TD: mind if i'd just comment the code for detecting snappy out?
954 2012-09-04 18:59:23 <sipa> in build_detect_platform
955 2012-09-04 18:59:26 <TD> why doesn't it work for you ?
956 2012-09-04 18:59:51 <sipa> it works; i have snappy installed, so it builds and links against it
957 2012-09-04 19:00:01 <sipa> but building bitcoin then requires a -lsnappy too
958 2012-09-04 19:00:13 <TD> oh, i see
959 2012-09-04 19:00:27 <TD> i think there is a linker flag that lets you do optional linking
960 2012-09-04 19:00:34 <TD> it's been years since i did this kind of stuff
961 2012-09-04 19:00:37 <TD> sure comment it out for now
962 2012-09-04 19:00:40 <sipa> there is --as-needed
963 2012-09-04 19:00:46 <sipa> or something like that
964 2012-09-04 19:00:59 <sipa> but i'm sure it'll be some work before it works on all platforms
965 2012-09-04 19:01:24 <sipa> so if we decide not to use snappy anyway (it doesn't help), we may as well disable it entirely (for now)
966 2012-09-04 19:01:50 <sipa> though i don't like messing with the leveldb code
967 2012-09-04 19:02:00 <sipa> s/code/source tree/
968 2012-09-04 19:04:32 ZephyrVoid has joined
969 2012-09-04 19:04:59 <TD> ok
970 2012-09-04 19:05:04 <TD> it's already patched for windows anyway
971 2012-09-04 19:05:19 dog is now known as copumpkin
972 2012-09-04 19:08:12 leotreasure has joined
973 2012-09-04 19:11:56 madhatt has quit (Quit: madhatt)
974 2012-09-04 19:29:29 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
975 2012-09-04 19:34:03 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
976 2012-09-04 19:37:30 iocor has joined
977 2012-09-04 19:39:44 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
978 2012-09-04 19:50:42 vampireb_ has joined
979 2012-09-04 19:50:52 vampireb_ has quit (Client Quit)
980 2012-09-04 19:51:11 vampireb_ has joined
981 2012-09-04 19:51:35 vampireb has quit (Disconnected by services)
982 2012-09-04 19:51:42 vampireb_ is now known as vampireb
983 2012-09-04 19:51:54 Diapolo has joined
984 2012-09-04 19:52:26 D34TH has joined
985 2012-09-04 19:52:27 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
986 2012-09-04 19:52:27 D34TH has joined
987 2012-09-04 19:52:35 <Diapolo> Do you guys also gett a message of frigg when login in? That thing spams me everytime I login... with a version message or sth. like that.
988 2012-09-04 19:57:04 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
989 2012-09-04 19:57:52 sirk390 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
990 2012-09-04 19:58:07 shhh has joined
991 2012-09-04 19:58:45 <shhh> does the rpc interface allow multiple clients, and, is that safe ?
992 2012-09-04 19:59:44 <shhh> i mean as long as one would read only the other one doing commands which modify state ?
993 2012-09-04 20:00:10 <sipa> commands are still only processed one at a time
994 2012-09-04 20:00:37 <shhh> ok, no matter how much clients they get queued up and executed in the order they came in ?
995 2012-09-04 20:00:51 <shhh> and if one takes time, the other client hangs there waiting i guess
996 2012-09-04 20:01:28 <sipa> yes
997 2012-09-04 20:01:39 <sipa> there are efforts to gradually reduce that constraint
998 2012-09-04 20:01:59 <sipa> at least the RPC processing happens multithreaded now
999 2012-09-04 20:02:11 <sipa> but the actual execution still needs a global lock for almost all commands
1000 2012-09-04 20:02:22 <jgarzik> each RPC connection runs in a separate thread. however, the threads all take a global lock, as sipa notes.
1001 2012-09-04 20:02:44 <jgarzik> the lock is only held during RPC execution, and not during network I/O
1002 2012-09-04 20:03:00 sirk390 has joined
1003 2012-09-04 20:05:32 <shhh> sounds good for me
1004 2012-09-04 20:06:13 <shhh> i am using the rawtransaction stuff permanently with a lot of statechanges and need to update a website too, which will ocassionally read balance
1005 2012-09-04 20:06:54 leotreasure has quit (Quit: leotreasure)
1006 2012-09-04 20:12:07 <shhh> i would like to export selectcoins over rpc, maybe it could be useful, shoud i clone it in git so you could maybe merge it back if you want ?
1007 2012-09-04 20:12:37 <shhh> i do not want to do the coinselection most of the time ;) and the fee calculation ...
1008 2012-09-04 20:13:25 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1009 2012-09-04 20:17:33 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1010 2012-09-04 20:18:40 djinni has left ()
1011 2012-09-04 20:18:57 djinni` has left ()
1012 2012-09-04 20:19:11 <gmaxwell> shhh: then why are you using the raw transaction API at all?
1013 2012-09-04 20:20:06 <shhh> because the higherlevel api does not let me select the exact coins
1014 2012-09-04 20:20:41 <shhh> i would patch selectcoins to be able to specify "a coin from this transaction must be included"
1015 2012-09-04 20:20:55 <kjj_> I think he is asking why you need to select them in the first place
1016 2012-09-04 20:20:59 <shhh> so it will be safe to work 0-confirms
1017 2012-09-04 20:21:16 <gmaxwell> shhh: That doesn't make it 'safe' to work with 0-confirms.
1018 2012-09-04 20:21:27 rodgort has left ()
1019 2012-09-04 20:21:40 <kjj_> he wasnt to make an outgoing green address
1020 2012-09-04 20:21:47 <kjj_> er, wants
1021 2012-09-04 20:21:51 <sipa> he wants to do what SD does
1022 2012-09-04 20:21:56 <gmaxwell> shhh: it just shifts the risk of a dead transaction onto the recipents of your funds.
1023 2012-09-04 20:21:59 <shhh> right sipa ;)
1024 2012-09-04 20:21:59 <sipa> payouts taken from the inputs sent
1025 2012-09-04 20:22:16 btctrader22 has joined
1026 2012-09-04 20:22:30 <gmaxwell> shhh: you shouldn't do that, it's bad for bitcoin because it creates a bunch of unnecessary traffic, and also leave your customers exposed to attack.
1027 2012-09-04 20:22:51 <shhh> if i include the bet in the output it will be safe as if it was fake/doublespend it would not be included in the blockchain, and therefore my answer would not be included too
1028 2012-09-04 20:23:13 <sipa> why oh who does suddenly everyone want to create a betting site?
1029 2012-09-04 20:23:35 <gmaxwell> shhh: yea, fantastic, but then you use a child output from that transaction to supply coins for another user's output and they get screwed if some other user produces a conflicing transaction.
1030 2012-09-04 20:23:38 <Eliel> it's the new fad :P
1031 2012-09-04 20:23:39 <jgarzik> <Diapolo> jgarzik: Can you have a look at your last merge in the Github comments. <<-- can you be more specific?
1032 2012-09-04 20:24:09 <gmaxwell> sipa: because existing betting sites displaing (read: potentially fabricating) evidence of enormous income.
1033 2012-09-04 20:24:35 <shhh> gmaxwell, no i wont, i put those childoutputs in my "bank", and wait for them to be confirmed
1034 2012-09-04 20:24:44 <btctrader22> devs against market forces
1035 2012-09-04 20:24:58 <gmaxwell> btctrader22: don't be an idiot.
1036 2012-09-04 20:25:10 <gmaxwell> btctrader22: if there wasn't technology there would be no market at all.
1037 2012-09-04 20:25:30 <sipa> still, he has a point
1038 2012-09-04 20:25:45 <gmaxwell> No, I don't agree that he does.
1039 2012-09-04 20:25:48 <Diapolo> jgarzik: Yes, we now have 2x StartupTime printfs
1040 2012-09-04 20:26:03 <gmaxwell> Go ahead, happily remove the anti-dos code; and bitcoin can just be inoperable for everyone.
1041 2012-09-04 20:26:11 <Diapolo> jgarzik: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/dcb14198bb2b55a673aa27bc5fa036d809556dbe#L0L472
1042 2012-09-04 20:26:33 <gmaxwell> The exact boundary at which the anti-dos behavior activates isn't some golden rule handed down by the flawless hand of the free market; it's a complicated compromise.
1043 2012-09-04 20:27:18 agricocb has joined
1044 2012-09-04 20:27:35 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1045 2012-09-04 20:27:43 <gmaxwell> If someone advocated free market then they should also be demanding that users pick which transactions their nodes process... and a bunch of inconsistent processing rules would make the network much less secure and reliable.
1046 2012-09-04 20:28:51 <shhh> gmaxwell, any point agains putting childoutput in a bank and waiting for it to be confirmed before being put in another output for a differnt user ?
1047 2012-09-04 20:28:59 <shhh> should be safe i guess...
1048 2012-09-04 20:29:03 <btctrader22> you're missing my point. satoshi dice success is a clear indicator of what bitcoin users want to do with the system.
1049 2012-09-04 20:29:16 agricocb has joined
1050 2012-09-04 20:29:20 <btctrader22> devs not being happy about it seems kinda counterproductive to me
1051 2012-09-04 20:29:23 <has_many> "get rich quick"
1052 2012-09-04 20:29:32 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1053 2012-09-04 20:29:44 <shhh> wont get rich, its an experiment here and will be a low user site
1054 2012-09-04 20:29:48 <shhh> but
1055 2012-09-04 20:29:54 <btctrader22> and devs beinggrumpy about satoshi dice gets in the way of bitcoin getting bigger.
1056 2012-09-04 20:30:00 <gmaxwell> btctrader22: As far as I know the 'success' is just BS traffic created to pump the IPO. And regardless, it's activity that consumes enormous transaction load for a tiny number of users; it's not viable.
1057 2012-09-04 20:30:02 <shhh> 0 confirm is just more usable
1058 2012-09-04 20:30:16 <shhh> i hate to wait if i want to play and so do a lot of people
1059 2012-09-04 20:30:17 <btctrader22> we should work out a solution to allow dice-like solution to be feasible without hurting usage.
1060 2012-09-04 20:30:19 <gmaxwell> shhh: well it means your bank can be robbed.
1061 2012-09-04 20:30:28 <amiller> satoshi dice is eating up some of our "startup fund"
1062 2012-09-04 20:30:40 <gmaxwell> ^ that.
1063 2012-09-04 20:30:53 <sipa> btctrader22: that's the point; without intervention, what SD does will cause bitcoin to become less usable for everyone
1064 2012-09-04 20:30:55 <shhh> gmaxwell, my bank could be robbed ? as in if my server was broken into ?
1065 2012-09-04 20:31:08 <gmaxwell> It's basically increasing the cost of running a bitcoin node _enormously_; while the actual usage of bitcoin is not growing enough to support that cost.
1066 2012-09-04 20:31:23 <sipa> btctrader22: of course we'll do what we can, but being grumpy is hopefully because we have a bit better view of the consequences
1067 2012-09-04 20:31:27 agricocb has joined
1068 2012-09-04 20:32:07 <btctrader22> maybe, but I'm not convinced that throttling something like that is necessarily the optimal response.
1069 2012-09-04 20:32:16 yellowhat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1070 2012-09-04 20:32:20 <gmaxwell> shhh: no, it means that people can take back funds they'd lose to youâ selectively only when they lose.
1071 2012-09-04 20:32:59 yellowhat has joined
1072 2012-09-04 20:33:02 <gmaxwell> shhh: the risk can't eliminated without waiting for confirmations before taking _any_ action; all you could hope to do is externalize it by hotpotatoing those inputs off to someone else.
1073 2012-09-04 20:33:02 <sipa> btctrader22: and throttling is also not what is being done
1074 2012-09-04 20:33:59 <Luke-Jr> btctrader22: educating people to not fund DDoS attacks like SD would help
1075 2012-09-04 20:34:23 <shhh> gmaxwell, but if they send an invalid transaction at first it will never be confirmed, how would they stop a valid transaction from being confirmed ?
1076 2012-09-04 20:34:24 <Luke-Jr> btctrader22: as would more developers or paid bounties to get the problems ironed out
1077 2012-09-04 20:34:39 <gmaxwell> And, of course, encouraging people to operate normal sites that don't create tremendous transaction bloat is helpful.
1078 2012-09-04 20:35:05 <gmaxwell> shhh: via a finney attack, or simply broadcasting conflicting transactions directly to many nodes.
1079 2012-09-04 20:35:30 Vinnie_win has joined
1080 2012-09-04 20:35:40 <Vinnie_win> Can someone point me in the direction of understanding what a "share" is in the mining context?
1081 2012-09-04 20:36:00 <sipa> ;;google share site:bitcoin.it
1082 2012-09-04 20:36:01 <gribble> Pooled mining - Bitcoin: <https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Pooled_mining>; Comparison of mining pools - Bitcoin: <https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools>; Mining pool reward FAQ - Bitcoin: <https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_pool_reward_FAQ>
1083 2012-09-04 20:36:18 <Vinnie_win> thanks
1084 2012-09-04 20:36:44 <shhh> gmaxwell, as my bank will have funds closely adjusted i could live with a finney attack
1085 2012-09-04 20:36:55 <Luke-Jr> Vinnie_win: a "block" mined at a higher target
1086 2012-09-04 20:37:09 <gmaxwell> shhh: I don't thikn I understood what you were saying there.
1087 2012-09-04 20:37:09 <shhh> if they put that effort into it, and get a miner involved, congrats, take the coins ;)
1088 2012-09-04 20:37:31 <gmaxwell> shhh: people can just purchase mining via gpumax.
1089 2012-09-04 20:37:33 <Vinnie_win> Luke-Jr: I dont really understand. You mean a found hash collision at a higher difficulty?
1090 2012-09-04 20:37:46 <gmaxwell> shhh: and they don't need a miner involved to just broadcast multiple conflicting versions.
1091 2012-09-04 20:37:48 <sipa> Vinnie_win: we don't look for collisions; we look for a preimage
1092 2012-09-04 20:37:56 <shhh> gmaxwell, would not make much sense for 0.1BTC max bets ... :)
1093 2012-09-04 20:37:59 <sipa> Vinnie_win: and higher target means lower difficulty
1094 2012-09-04 20:38:25 * Vinnie_win googles
1095 2012-09-04 20:38:45 <gmaxwell> shhh: It's O(1) effort to reverse any number of unconfirmed transactions (well, up to the size of the block you generate)
1096 2012-09-04 20:38:49 <sipa> Vinnie_win: a collision is looking for two different inputs with the same hash
1097 2012-09-04 20:38:59 <sipa> Vinnie_win: a preimage is looing for one input that has a given hash
1098 2012-09-04 20:39:13 <Vinnie_win> sipa: So a share is a piece of data which, when hashed, has a certain number of zeroes in the result (defined by the difficulty)
1099 2012-09-04 20:39:21 <sipa> Vinnie_win: yes
1100 2012-09-04 20:39:23 <gmaxwell> shhh: Why not a regular deposit/withdraw site? If you want instant payments you could still do thatâ and you could also accept mtgox codes.
1101 2012-09-04 20:39:33 <sipa> Vinnie_win: it's an almost-valid block
1102 2012-09-04 20:39:42 <Vinnie_win> sipa: How much lower than the difficulty does it go? Is it always 32 bits of zeroes?
1103 2012-09-04 20:39:56 <sipa> Vinnie_win: shares are typically +- difficulty 1
1104 2012-09-04 20:40:07 <sipa> which means 32 bits of zeroes
1105 2012-09-04 20:40:14 <shhh> gmaxwell
1106 2012-09-04 20:40:19 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: some miners can't do less than difficulty 1.
1107 2012-09-04 20:40:24 <sipa> (not exactly though, as difficulty 1 is 0x00000000FFFF0000....)
1108 2012-09-04 20:40:31 <shhh> so one should rob satoshi dice ? ;)
1109 2012-09-04 20:40:55 <Vinnie_win> sipa: I see. So along the way to trying to solve a block, shares are produced according to the distribution of the hash function and they serve as proof that you did work
1110 2012-09-04 20:40:57 Joric has joined
1111 2012-09-04 20:41:04 <sipa> Vinnie_win: exactly
1112 2012-09-04 20:41:26 <Vinnie_win> sipa: I thought that pool servers kept the block contents secret, and only transmitted a partial hash to miners
1113 2012-09-04 20:41:32 <sipa> Vinnie_win: and pools use different formulas to use those shares to determine the distribution of income from shares that match the actual target, and thus result in real income
1114 2012-09-04 20:41:46 <Vinnie_win> sipa: i.e. there's no way for a miner in a pool to produce the solved block when they find a preimage
1115 2012-09-04 20:41:54 <Vinnie_win> sipa: Yes, I"m reading the paper from Meni
1116 2012-09-04 20:42:06 <sipa> Vinnie_win: indeed, most pools only send the header info, and not the transactions used to create it
1117 2012-09-04 20:42:11 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: No. thats not how pool security works. (it might be true in some cases that the miner can't; but thats not what makes it secure)
1118 2012-09-04 20:42:22 <sipa> what gmaxwell says
1119 2012-09-04 20:42:24 <Vinnie_win> What stops a miner from submitting the block themselves, if they solve it
1120 2012-09-04 20:42:39 <sipa> they can
1121 2012-09-04 20:42:42 <kjj_> uh, the coinbase isn't for their wallet, so there is no point
1122 2012-09-04 20:42:44 <sipa> if they had the data
1123 2012-09-04 20:42:44 <Vinnie_win> the address in the header pays the pool operator?
1124 2012-09-04 20:42:53 <sipa> Vinnie_win: not the header, but the coinbase
1125 2012-09-04 20:43:11 <sipa> but indeed, you need to decide the destination of the subsidy before starting to mine
1126 2012-09-04 20:43:23 <sipa> as that is encoded in the block itself, and influences the hash
1127 2012-09-04 20:43:25 <Vinnie_win> I see
1128 2012-09-04 20:43:50 <Vinnie_win> how does p2pool work? Doesn't there need to be a central authority to handle the payouts?
1129 2012-09-04 20:44:07 <sipa> no, it uses a coinbase that pays out everyone
1130 2012-09-04 20:44:14 <sipa> and everyone agrees how that payout should happen
1131 2012-09-04 20:44:28 <sipa> so they can see shares by others that have the correct payouts
1132 2012-09-04 20:44:30 <Luke-Jr> Vinnie_win: it uses PPLNS while adjusting share target to make an effective minimum payout
1133 2012-09-04 20:44:58 <Vinnie_win> How does everyone agree on the same set of transactions to include
1134 2012-09-04 20:45:03 <kjj_> they don't
1135 2012-09-04 20:45:05 <Luke-Jr> they don't need to
1136 2012-09-04 20:45:12 <kjj_> each node has full autonomy except on the coinbase
1137 2012-09-04 20:45:16 <gmaxwell> p2pool uses basically the same consensus algorithim to agree on what the payouts are, and miners then build blocks according to that. Attempted blocks that paid out correctly are accepted by peers as evidence of work, which gets them included in the consensus payout.
1138 2012-09-04 20:45:31 <gmaxwell> er. same consensus algorithim as bitcoin.
1139 2012-09-04 20:45:46 <sipa> meh. gitian build of leveldb failed
1140 2012-09-04 20:45:52 <Vinnie_win> Thanks for enlightening me
1141 2012-09-04 20:45:58 <gmaxwell> The shares form a chain, each extending the last, and the longest valid sharechain is the agreed one.
1142 2012-09-04 20:46:23 copumpkin is now known as john_smith
1143 2012-09-04 20:46:43 john_smith is now known as copumpkin
1144 2012-09-04 20:46:55 yosafbridge has left ()
1145 2012-09-04 20:47:19 <Vinnie_win> is there a doc that explains how p2pool works
1146 2012-09-04 20:48:03 <gmaxwell> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool
1147 2012-09-04 20:48:18 <Vinnie_win> oh...p2pool has its own blockchain ??
1148 2012-09-04 20:48:29 <sipa> yup
1149 2012-09-04 20:48:43 <gmaxwell> 'sharechain' really, but whatever you want to call it. :P
1150 2012-09-04 20:49:07 <Vinnie_win> And all participants see the chain so they can validate the contents of the coinbase of a solved block
1151 2012-09-04 20:51:25 <MC-Eeepc> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability is this page been updated anytime recently
1152 2012-09-04 20:52:13 <gmaxwell> There were a bunch of things added to it that TD fobbed off onto the talk page.
1153 2012-09-04 20:52:28 <gmaxwell> (perhaps I shouldn't complain, I'm certantly guilty of that myself :P )
1154 2012-09-04 20:52:50 <sipa> last change seems to be at july 28
1155 2012-09-04 20:53:17 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1156 2012-09-04 20:55:49 <MC-Eeepc> fairly recent
1157 2012-09-04 20:56:10 <sipa> TD wanted to update the page, afaik
1158 2012-09-04 20:56:28 <TD> yes
1159 2012-09-04 20:56:42 <sipa> leveldb's makefile insists on using -std=c++0x for windows
1160 2012-09-04 20:56:53 <sipa> i wonder why
1161 2012-09-04 20:57:10 <sipa> (gitian's gcc doesn't support that yet, ancient beast)
1162 2012-09-04 20:58:13 <Luke-Jr> (future gccs probably won't support that either, since it's c++11 :p)
1163 2012-09-04 20:59:01 <shhh> why does bitcoins makefile.unix have -ldl ?
1164 2012-09-04 20:59:12 toffoo has joined
1165 2012-09-04 20:59:30 <shhh> libdl == linux only
1166 2012-09-04 20:59:42 sgornick has joined
1167 2012-09-04 21:00:13 <sipa> patches welcome, but linux is currently the only maintained platform for which makefile.unix is used
1168 2012-09-04 21:01:15 <shhh> oh i see, i can do solaris and free/openbsd have it running there
1169 2012-09-04 21:01:22 <MC-Eeepc> Vector76 attack
1170 2012-09-04 21:01:22 <MC-Eeepc> Also referred to as a one-confirmation attack, is a combination of the race attack and the Finney attack such that a transaction that even has one confirmation can still be dobule-spent.
1171 2012-09-04 21:01:27 <MC-Eeepc> FUCK
1172 2012-09-04 21:02:18 <sipa> shhh: afaik 0.7.0rc1 compiles without problems on some bsd at least
1173 2012-09-04 21:02:45 <gmaxwell> shhh: libdl is not 'linux only', e.g. it's how you get dlopen in solaris oo.
1174 2012-09-04 21:02:46 <shhh> sipa, does not on freebsd and openbsd, had to remove -ldl :)
1175 2012-09-04 21:03:50 ZephyrVoid has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1176 2012-09-04 21:08:53 <Luke-Jr> shhh: you can be the new BSD maintainer! :P
1177 2012-09-04 21:08:56 Marf has joined
1178 2012-09-04 21:09:03 <Luke-Jr> shhh: hint: there's some code commented because it needs testing on BSD first
1179 2012-09-04 21:10:39 <shhh> Luke-Jr, there is a macosx maintainer already ? i could do that too ;)
1180 2012-09-04 21:11:16 <Luke-Jr> shhh: Mac != BSD
1181 2012-09-04 21:11:33 <shhh> luke, got osx here, and earn my money on it
1182 2012-09-04 21:11:42 <shhh> osx is closer to freebsd as you might think ;)
1183 2012-09-04 21:11:52 <sipa> gavin is OSX maintainer currently
1184 2012-09-04 21:12:06 darksk1ez has joined
1185 2012-09-04 21:12:18 <shhh> i see, maybe i can look into the osx stuff which was done, some things should be recycleable for freebsd
1186 2012-09-04 21:13:06 <Luke-Jr> shhh: I'm aware of the myth that OSX and FreeBSD are closely related.
1187 2012-09-04 21:13:09 toffoo has quit ()
1188 2012-09-04 21:13:52 <sipa> well OSX and BSD are definitely more closely related than any other combination of two platforms from the list (Windows,Linux,OSX,BSD)
1189 2012-09-04 21:14:30 <sipa> let's keep it at that
1190 2012-09-04 21:14:48 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1191 2012-09-04 21:15:20 toffoo has joined
1192 2012-09-04 21:15:29 * Luke-Jr thinks Linux and BSD are closer, but meh
1193 2012-09-04 21:17:31 ZephyrVoid has joined
1194 2012-09-04 21:19:35 ThomasV has joined
1195 2012-09-04 21:30:37 jurov is now known as jurov|away
1196 2012-09-04 21:30:54 att has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1197 2012-09-04 21:31:16 <shhh> actually OSX is more closely related to older versions of freebsd
1198 2012-09-04 21:31:51 <shhh> atleast from the unixish side of things , the mach side is a different story
1199 2012-09-04 21:32:14 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1200 2012-09-04 21:32:32 edcba_ has joined
1201 2012-09-04 21:33:01 <Luke-Jr> shhh: older versions, as in before it was FreeBSD at all ;)
1202 2012-09-04 21:33:21 <shhh> no, as in FreeBSD 4
1203 2012-09-04 21:33:22 <Luke-Jr> you could just as well say FreeBSD is based on OSX
1204 2012-09-04 21:33:30 <shhh> but they retrofitted a lot of things
1205 2012-09-04 21:33:57 <shhh> OSX is not based on FreeBSD , its mach and FreeBSD used for its unix compatibility layer
1206 2012-09-04 21:34:28 <shhh> the BSD part runs as task inside the mach kernel
1207 2012-09-04 21:36:26 edcba has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1208 2012-09-04 21:37:21 <shhh> one can even patch the bsd part runtime by using mach_write on the bsd task to modify its memory ;)
1209 2012-09-04 21:37:38 Marf has quit (Quit: Marf)
1210 2012-09-04 21:40:27 Karmaon_ has joined
1211 2012-09-04 21:40:27 Karmaon_ has quit (Changing host)
1212 2012-09-04 21:40:27 Karmaon_ has joined
1213 2012-09-04 21:40:47 Karmaon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1214 2012-09-04 21:41:02 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1215 2012-09-04 21:46:09 slavik0329 has joined
1216 2012-09-04 21:46:27 ovidiusoft has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1217 2012-09-04 21:52:07 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1218 2012-09-04 21:53:10 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1219 2012-09-04 21:54:52 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: https://github.com/blog/1227-commit-status-api
1220 2012-09-04 21:55:13 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1221 2012-09-04 21:55:57 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: nice, does gavinandresen wanna hook BitcoinPullTester up with whatever permissions are required to set that flag?
1222 2012-09-04 21:56:53 <BlueMatt> or can you do that?
1223 2012-09-04 21:57:15 Diapolo has left ()
1224 2012-09-04 21:58:50 LuaKT has quit ()
1225 2012-09-04 21:59:10 dvide has quit ()
1226 2012-09-04 22:01:39 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I _think_ anyone who can commit can create an auth.
1227 2012-09-04 22:02:02 <BlueMatt> well, BitcoinPullTester cant ;)
1228 2012-09-04 22:02:54 <gmaxwell> Right, I'm looking.
1229 2012-09-04 22:04:11 <sipa> \o/ leveldb windows gitian build
1230 2012-09-04 22:04:44 <sipa> BlueMatt: how hard would it be to make the gitian windows build start using that more recent g++?
1231 2012-09-04 22:05:01 <sipa> wumpus said something about a more recent one being available in another packages
1232 2012-09-04 22:05:26 <BlueMatt> not very, would have to s/i586-mingw32msvc-/w64-something.../ and upgrade to 12.04, but that shouldnt be bad
1233 2012-09-04 22:05:55 <BlueMatt> i686-w64-mingw32- is what it is on my system
1234 2012-09-04 22:06:04 <sipa> right, moving to 12.04 is not a problem for the windows builds
1235 2012-09-04 22:06:08 <BlueMatt> yep
1236 2012-09-04 22:06:34 <sipa> right now i had to manually hack some leveldb-win code, as it relied on -std=c++0x
1237 2012-09-04 22:08:15 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: hmm...it may only be possible to limit it further with oath...which Im much too lazy to set up for pull tester...you are welcome to do that part if you want (Ill send you the script)
1238 2012-09-04 22:08:52 <gmaxwell> it looks like the oauth stuff is required to use the api at all.
1239 2012-09-04 22:09:03 <BlueMatt> its not (but they want you to think it is)
1240 2012-09-04 22:09:11 <BlueMatt> you can use regular http auth if you are lazy
1241 2012-09-04 22:10:13 edcba_ is now known as edcba
1242 2012-09-04 22:10:17 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: hm. bleh. I'd prefer to not leave my own authentication keys online for it to run either. Kinda annoying.
1243 2012-09-04 22:11:44 <BlueMatt> yea...
1244 2012-09-04 22:15:06 <gmaxwell> maybe it's possible to authorize an account with only that? I don't have permissions to see those setting on the bitcoin repo, I think.
1245 2012-09-04 22:15:27 <BlueMatt> yea, that would be best, I think...have to ask gavinandresen
1246 2012-09-04 22:16:25 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1247 2012-09-04 22:16:26 copumpkin has joined
1248 2012-09-04 22:18:04 ThomasV has joined
1249 2012-09-04 22:31:43 slush has joined
1250 2012-09-04 22:35:21 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1251 2012-09-04 22:35:24 iocor has joined
1252 2012-09-04 22:36:51 ThomasV has joined
1253 2012-09-04 22:37:18 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/builds/ultraprune/0.7.0rc1-81-g33a92bf/
1254 2012-09-04 22:37:29 <sipa> (no guarantees)
1255 2012-09-04 22:37:54 <MC-Eeepc> whats different in this one
1256 2012-09-04 22:38:11 <sipa> leveldb instead of bdb, mostly
1257 2012-09-04 22:38:15 <sipa> and some bugfixes
1258 2012-09-04 22:38:34 <MC-Eeepc> so this is ldb and ultraprune?
1259 2012-09-04 22:38:39 <sipa> yes
1260 2012-09-04 22:42:36 <MC-Eeepc> welp its downloading
1261 2012-09-04 22:42:44 eoss has joined
1262 2012-09-04 22:42:45 eoss has quit (Changing host)
1263 2012-09-04 22:42:45 eoss has joined
1264 2012-09-04 22:45:30 yellowhat has quit (Changing host)
1265 2012-09-04 22:45:30 yellowhat has joined
1266 2012-09-04 22:46:54 <MC-Eeepc> seems like this database work is going faster than expected
1267 2012-09-04 22:48:10 meLon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1268 2012-09-04 22:49:37 <shhh> how is the txid generated ?
1269 2012-09-04 22:49:58 <sipa> it's the double-SHA256 of the tx data
1270 2012-09-04 22:50:02 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1271 2012-09-04 22:52:12 <shhh> so if one would want his txid to have a specific criteria he could just do slight variations of txdata
1272 2012-09-04 22:52:29 <sipa> what criteria?
1273 2012-09-04 22:52:33 elkingrey has joined
1274 2012-09-04 22:52:40 <gmaxwell> sipa: stop helping the spammer.
1275 2012-09-04 22:52:41 <gmaxwell> :P
1276 2012-09-04 22:52:55 meLon has joined
1277 2012-09-04 22:52:59 meLon has quit (Changing host)
1278 2012-09-04 22:52:59 meLon has joined
1279 2012-09-04 22:53:01 <gmaxwell> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1783 < bleh
1280 2012-09-04 22:53:08 <shhh> i just thought that dice site might cheat
1281 2012-09-04 22:53:25 <sipa> shhh: they use a secret that's revealed afterwards
1282 2012-09-04 22:53:32 agricocb has joined
1283 2012-09-04 22:53:45 <shhh> yeah they have it
1284 2012-09-04 22:53:52 <shhh> so the know if a txid would win or loose
1285 2012-09-04 22:54:05 <sipa> yes
1286 2012-09-04 22:54:09 <sipa> of course
1287 2012-09-04 22:54:25 <sipa> gmaxwell: yes, i'm afraid of that when people go mass-upgrading to 0.7.0
1288 2012-09-04 22:54:26 <shhh> therefore they could have a box with a client sitting somewere generating tx hashes until one "wins", and only if it wins send it off
1289 2012-09-04 22:54:28 <shhh> ;)
1290 2012-09-04 22:54:41 <sipa> shhh: i don't see how that helps
1291 2012-09-04 22:54:44 <gmaxwell> shhh: sure, or loses.
1292 2012-09-04 22:55:06 <sipa> shhh: it's those that do not have the secret that need to create a transaction that wins
1293 2012-09-04 22:55:10 <sipa> and they don't know the secret
1294 2012-09-04 22:55:29 <sipa> so they can't try multiple tx's
1295 2012-09-04 22:55:51 <shhh> sipa, the satoshi guy have the secret, so they could cheat their own site ? ;)
1296 2012-09-04 22:55:57 <shhh> thus maximize their winnings
1297 2012-09-04 22:56:00 <sipa> what would be the point?
1298 2012-09-04 22:56:09 <sipa> they'd have to pay to gains or losses to themself
1299 2012-09-04 22:56:30 <shhh> they wont loose if they have the secret ?!
1300 2012-09-04 22:56:47 <sipa> i have no idea what you're getting at
1301 2012-09-04 22:57:01 <sipa> you're saying that the quizmaster can always win his own game
1302 2012-09-04 22:57:03 <sipa> Duhh.
1303 2012-09-04 22:57:24 * gmaxwell imagines shhh sitting alone in a padded room, with a penny.. muttering HEADS I WIN, TAILS I WIN. and flipping the coin while laughing manically.
1304 2012-09-04 22:57:24 <shhh> they claim its proveable that they do not cheat their users
1305 2012-09-04 22:57:37 <amiller> they also try to steer people to a particular item
1306 2012-09-04 22:57:41 <sipa> shhh: afterwards, yes
1307 2012-09-04 22:57:44 <amiller> the biggest payoff one
1308 2012-09-04 22:57:49 <sipa> shhh: they could cheat for one day
1309 2012-09-04 22:57:52 <amiller> that would be the only one to try to win at
1310 2012-09-04 22:57:59 <sipa> and i guess that afterwards they'd be out of business
1311 2012-09-04 22:58:04 <shhh> sipa, they could cheat forever ...
1312 2012-09-04 22:58:12 <sipa> how so?
1313 2012-09-04 22:58:33 <sipa> yes they can create as many winning bets as they want against their own system
1314 2012-09-04 22:58:36 <sipa> who cares?
1315 2012-09-04 22:58:54 <sipa> that is in no way cheating its users
1316 2012-09-04 22:59:05 <gmaxwell> Or losing, for that matter.
1317 2012-09-04 22:59:14 <gmaxwell> Which might be cheating their investors but not the users.
1318 2012-09-04 22:59:21 <sipa> (except nicer statistics to show, but they might already be doing that now)
1319 2012-09-04 22:59:47 <shhh> Guest73506:50 versus 51:49 can be a lot of money
1320 2012-09-04 22:59:55 <shhh> argh
1321 2012-09-04 22:59:56 <gmaxwell> There are some fun things; e.g. they could use the malleability of transactions to convert winners to losers.
1322 2012-09-04 23:00:05 <gmaxwell> but that would leave evidence.
1323 2012-09-04 23:00:24 <gmaxwell> they could also simply guess which users won't notice and then simply not pay some of those.
1324 2012-09-04 23:03:38 <shhh> looks like someone is already trying to trick them , they just had a lot of 0.001 bets on "less than 1" , still unconfirmed ...
1325 2012-09-04 23:03:45 <shhh> ;)
1326 2012-09-04 23:05:11 ThomasV has joined
1327 2012-09-04 23:05:24 <sipa> why is that an attack?
1328 2012-09-04 23:05:30 <sipa> sounds more like a fool...
1329 2012-09-04 23:06:11 <shhh> because its an hour ago and all those 50 something transactions are not included in the blockchain
1330 2012-09-04 23:06:15 <shhh> 4 of them are
1331 2012-09-04 23:06:16 <shhh> hehe
1332 2012-09-04 23:06:19 <sipa> so?
1333 2012-09-04 23:07:06 <gmaxwell> shhh: a number (who knows how many?) miners and nodes won't relay or mine those transactions.
1334 2012-09-04 23:07:32 <gmaxwell> There are patches floating around to block them, and some people run them. Some who aren't blocking them entirely deprioritize them.
1335 2012-09-04 23:07:33 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1336 2012-09-04 23:08:05 <shhh> i see
1337 2012-09-04 23:08:47 <shhh> is that really a good solution ? filtering or depriorzing selected payments ?
1338 2012-09-04 23:08:57 <gmaxwell> No, its not.
1339 2012-09-04 23:09:09 <gmaxwell> But, the world is full of adhoc solutions.
1340 2012-09-04 23:09:38 <gmaxwell> It doesn't have to be completely effective to help improve transaction processing time for the bulk of regular transactions that actually _care_ about their processing time.
1341 2012-09-04 23:10:30 <gmaxwell> My personal preference is to depriortize based on repeated address use, so that implicitly standing relationships that repeat addresses are treated with the lower priority they probably need.
1342 2012-09-04 23:10:39 <gmaxwell> But I think I'm roughly alone on that one.
1343 2012-09-04 23:10:45 <doublec> why is repeated address use bad?
1344 2012-09-04 23:11:02 <doublec> I'm surprised they don't do a deal with a friendly miner and just relay their transactions through them
1345 2012-09-04 23:11:24 <gmaxwell> doublec: hm, it's not _bad_
1346 2012-09-04 23:11:38 <gmaxwell> You don't understand me at all if you're thinking in terms of good and bad.
1347 2012-09-04 23:11:44 <gmaxwell> :(
1348 2012-09-04 23:11:59 ErnestoJuarell has joined
1349 2012-09-04 23:12:07 <doublec> well by "depriortize" I'm assuming those are "less good"
1350 2012-09-04 23:12:17 <doublec> or less important
1351 2012-09-04 23:12:23 <sipa> no, rather "less interested in priority"
1352 2012-09-04 23:12:25 <doublec> I'm wondering why repeated address use is an indicator of that
1353 2012-09-04 23:12:50 <sipa> also, i do think repeated address use should be discouraged, but that's quite independent from this issue
1354 2012-09-04 23:13:01 <doublec> or is it just that the services your interested in de-prioritzing do that
1355 2012-09-04 23:13:01 <gmaxwell> Repeated address reuse generally indicates that either there is a standing relationship (fast confirmations aren't needed), OR that the communications between parties are one-way (again, fast confirmations are not needed)
1356 2012-09-04 23:13:24 <doublec> ok, thanks
1357 2012-09-04 23:15:00 <shhh> gmaxwell, will still be just a workaround, they could just generate a new address for every pageview of the website ?
1358 2012-09-04 23:15:11 <fiesh> isnt's satoshi dice susceptible to a Finney attack? It immedaitely tells if an, even unconfirmed, transaction has won or lost, no?
1359 2012-09-04 23:15:20 <gmaxwell> Another way of looking at it is that, absent meaningful feesâ we'd like to give all the currently active users equal access to the available capacity. You normally can't tell if two txn are the same person or not, but when there is address reuse people are voluntarily telling you that they're the same partys.
1360 2012-09-04 23:15:45 <sipa> makes sense
1361 2012-09-04 23:15:48 <gmaxwell> shhh: sure but I don't think they would? why would they? They'd still get confirmed, it would just tend to take a bit longer, filling in slack space in the capacity.
1362 2012-09-04 23:16:50 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: by the way, what was your hardware again, and how fast is it going?
1363 2012-09-04 23:16:56 <shhh> gmaxwell, if they still get confirmed it makes sense, if they wont get confirmed at all ...
1364 2012-09-04 23:17:09 <doublec> gmaxwell: that's a good explanation, thanks
1365 2012-09-04 23:17:34 <fiesh> hmm no that doesn't help actually, don't think it is
1366 2012-09-04 23:17:37 <gmaxwell> I don't propose it as a way to "fight dice"â I don't care to fight it, I don't dislike it fundimentally or anything like thatâ I just want to mitigate the harm on all the other users. And I expect that the operator would support that too.
1367 2012-09-04 23:17:58 <sipa> fiesh: since they use the coins sent to them in payouts, a finney attack would also invalidate the payouts you got
1368 2012-09-04 23:18:11 <fiesh> sipa: yes, just realized that myself, thanks
1369 2012-09-04 23:18:11 <sipa> (and probably payouts of others too...)
1370 2012-09-04 23:18:13 <shhh> gmaxwell, actually dice might improve things midterm ...
1371 2012-09-04 23:18:36 <gmaxwell> shhh: it does not.
1372 2012-09-04 23:18:56 <MC-Eeepc> atom 1.6 2gb rams
1373 2012-09-04 23:18:58 one_zero has joined
1374 2012-09-04 23:19:08 <shhh> then something is fundamently flawed if it cant cope with it
1375 2012-09-04 23:19:18 <MC-Eeepc> its going about 25k blocks since you posted the link
1376 2012-09-04 23:19:20 <gmaxwell> shhh: nonsense.
1377 2012-09-04 23:19:40 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: and storage is on a USB stick?
1378 2012-09-04 23:19:52 <MC-Eeepc> yes, slow as shit usb stick
1379 2012-09-04 23:20:36 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: to minimize impact of network delays, you can try to -addnode or -connect to a known fast node
1380 2012-09-04 23:20:40 <gmaxwell> shhh: is democracy fundimentally flawed if it can't surivive every voter being assassinated by ninjas? Why not? No amount of smart ballot design can stop ninja stars. A system is more than its most simple technical rules.
1381 2012-09-04 23:21:16 <amiller> what's the largest size payout that satoshi dice has ever made?
1382 2012-09-04 23:21:36 <gmaxwell> amiller: who knows?
1383 2012-09-04 23:21:37 <sipa> shhh: i assume you're referring to "the load SD generates forces the software to be improved" ?
1384 2012-09-04 23:22:21 <MC-Eeepc> i dont think network delays are slowing me down
1385 2012-09-04 23:22:41 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: maybe not
1386 2012-09-04 23:22:45 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: hows it going now? Faster than the prior attempt?
1387 2012-09-04 23:23:04 <midnightmagic> +1 ninjas and pirates
1388 2012-09-04 23:23:08 * midnightmagic is sorry for that one
1389 2012-09-04 23:23:14 <MC-Eeepc> seems to be i think
1390 2012-09-04 23:23:23 <MC-Eeepc> cant really remember what it was doing last time
1391 2012-09-04 23:23:25 Maged has quit (Disconnected by services)
1392 2012-09-04 23:23:30 <gmaxwell> amiller: I should clarify my who-knows. That stats thread probably has the largest transaction... but it's not clear what it means: as shhh pointed out before, they could just have been playing themselves.
1393 2012-09-04 23:23:32 <MC-Eeepc> seems to be about 20 blox second atm
1394 2012-09-04 23:23:33 Maged_ has joined
1395 2012-09-04 23:23:50 Maged_ is now known as Maged
1396 2012-09-04 23:24:05 <sipa> I just synced 193k blocks from the internet (from a fixed fast node, though) in 23 minutes
1397 2012-09-04 23:24:19 <amiller> they're probably putting most of their effort into playing against themselves at the highest value
1398 2012-09-04 23:24:26 <sipa> so even in that setting, the network delay *outweighs* importing time
1399 2012-09-04 23:24:40 <sipa> (as doing the same from a local disk took 10 minutes)
1400 2012-09-04 23:25:06 <gmaxwell> amiller: there was a very odd statistical difference in the payoff rates of large vs small bets previously.. that appeared to go away after people pointed it out and said wtf.
1401 2012-09-04 23:25:23 Obsi has joined
1402 2012-09-04 23:25:51 <gmaxwell> amiller: dooglus said he was wondering at one point if they weren't intentionally losing against themselves to make the service look more attractive.
1403 2012-09-04 23:26:10 <amiller> then why don't they lose to themselves at the highest level
1404 2012-09-04 23:27:12 <MC-Eeepc> you shouldnt beckmark it to 193k
1405 2012-09-04 23:27:28 <MC-Eeepc> that relies on the checkpoint doesnt it
1406 2012-09-04 23:27:39 <MC-Eeepc> checkpoints are merely a necessary evil
1407 2012-09-04 23:27:54 <sipa> yes, but afterwards the speed is dominated by sig checking
1408 2012-09-04 23:28:07 <gmaxwell> which is interesting and all, but not the stuff being changed here.
1409 2012-09-04 23:28:08 <sipa> so there isn't much the benchmark anymore
1410 2012-09-04 23:28:29 <MC-Eeepc> so cpu bound instead of i/o bound?
1411 2012-09-04 23:28:42 <gmaxwell> (and plus sigchecking is artifically slow at the moment because it's single threaded and synchronous with other activity)
1412 2012-09-04 23:29:05 <MC-Eeepc> my cpu usage was about zero for the last 50k blox last time
1413 2012-09-04 23:29:06 <sipa> indeed, parallel sigchecking may make things a lot more interesting
1414 2012-09-04 23:29:25 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: in your case it's most certainly IO bound
1415 2012-09-04 23:29:43 <MC-Eeepc> for sure
1416 2012-09-04 23:30:02 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1417 2012-09-04 23:30:06 <sipa> gmaxwell: i wonder whether we'll even need the no-sig-check-before-checkpoint rule when all CPUs are fully quadcore and we add Hal's improved ECDSA code
1418 2012-09-04 23:30:26 <sipa> the sig check time would be very close to raw import time without sigchecking
1419 2012-09-04 23:30:29 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1420 2012-09-04 23:30:53 <MC-Eeepc> theres no way to use the crypto logic on newer chips for ecdsa right
1421 2012-09-04 23:30:56 <gmaxwell> I don't think we will.. dunno. My impression was that we mostly got it because we were sort of grasping at why it was slow and it was all gavin found at first that helped at all.
1422 2012-09-04 23:31:07 <gavinandresen> RE: sigchecking: I bet it'd be easy to write a -spotchecksigs=n argument, to only check (probabilistically) 1-out-of-n accepted-in-the-blockchain signatures. I might even use that myself....
1423 2012-09-04 23:32:10 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: yea, thats really what I think we should do. And really we could default it to something like 1:1000 and not make any visible impact but have the certificational strength that all particiants are really checking with high probablity.
1424 2012-09-04 23:32:12 <gavinandresen> actually, -spotchecktransactions is what we want, just assume the whole transaction is valid
1425 2012-09-04 23:33:02 <gavinandresen> 1:10 would give 10x speedup, that would be a good place to start. Might want some special cases, like always check the coinbase
1426 2012-09-04 23:33:03 <sipa> well, if you accept transactions, you probably want sigchecks a few levels deep in the ancestry of incoming transactions
1427 2012-09-04 23:33:30 <sipa> and if you mine, you probably want to check everything
1428 2012-09-04 23:33:38 <gmaxwell> ah, you mean for recent blocks too. meh. I'd rather go in the direction of provisional acceptance in that case.
1429 2012-09-04 23:33:55 <gmaxwell> E.g. you accept right away, but check in the background, then retrospectively reject the block if it fails.
1430 2012-09-04 23:34:08 <gavinandresen> I meant in the case of catching up from the last checkpoint. Transactions on the wire aught to be checked before relaying
1431 2012-09-04 23:34:08 <gmaxwell> So long as you can catch up eventually then they all get checked.
1432 2012-09-04 23:34:28 <gavinandresen> Smarter relaying code aught to be written, though...
1433 2012-09-04 23:34:54 * sipa has long since wondered whether 'aught' is english, and whether it means the same thing as 'ought'
1434 2012-09-04 23:34:56 <gavinandresen> e.g. use transaction priority and fees to throttle transaction relaying
1435 2012-09-04 23:35:39 <gavinandresen> hey, wow, it is ought....
1436 2012-09-04 23:35:46 <gavinandresen> aught is something completely different!
1437 2012-09-04 23:36:06 <gavinandresen> I ought to have known that
1438 2012-09-04 23:36:09 <ErnestoJuarell> How would I got about getting this kind of data? http://blockchain.info/address/1BD1BFcK3tuA48u7Bu2CAdCm8acfAubbQY?format=json
1439 2012-09-04 23:36:11 <MC-Eeepc> aught means nothing
1440 2012-09-04 23:36:18 <MC-Eeepc> zero
1441 2012-09-04 23:36:21 <ErnestoJuarell> directly from the chain
1442 2012-09-04 23:36:35 <midnightmagic> MC-Eeepc: Or "anything".
1443 2012-09-04 23:36:50 <MC-Eeepc> sipa whats your expected benefit from adding leveldb
1444 2012-09-04 23:36:55 <gmaxwell> ErnestoJuarell: getrawtransaction <txid> 1
1445 2012-09-04 23:37:01 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: in your case: a lot
1446 2012-09-04 23:37:19 <gavinandresen> ErnestoJuarell: ... but you'll need an index of <address> to <txid>
1447 2012-09-04 23:37:34 <gavinandresen> ErnestoJuarell: or you'll need to iterate over every transaction in every block.
1448 2012-09-04 23:37:44 <ErnestoJuarell> so those sites analyzed the blockchain and built a db?
1449 2012-09-04 23:37:49 <gavinandresen> yup
1450 2012-09-04 23:38:07 <sipa> gavinandresen: after ultraprune/leveldb are out of the way, i want to split off a coins.* and blktree.* (and potentially) mempool.* from main, and then do reverse-headers sync (sync blocktree instead of blocks, and then have a process fetch blocks along the best known chain through the tree)
1451 2012-09-04 23:38:18 <gavinandresen> sipa: excellent!
1452 2012-09-04 23:38:58 <midnightmagic> ErnestoJuarell: The "relayed by" is something which requires universal connectivity, or a nearly-perfect map of the network.
1453 2012-09-04 23:39:24 <sipa> gavinandresen: i think that will simplify a lot (like preview relaying, and parallel sigchecking)
1454 2012-09-04 23:39:27 <midnightmagic> .. which of course is going to piss some people off who will then work hard to frustrate your efforts. :)
1455 2012-09-04 23:39:36 <sipa> as processing of blocks can happen in stages in separate threads
1456 2012-09-04 23:39:39 <gavinandresen> I have been eavesdropping on gmaxwell's concerns about blockchain stability, though. I think ideally we'd have a "for miners" fork and a "for users" fork. And a library in between.
1457 2012-09-04 23:39:43 mologie has joined
1458 2012-09-04 23:40:26 <sipa> i like the "turbo edition" nomenclature
1459 2012-09-04 23:40:28 <gavinandresen> (when I say miners I really mean solo miners and pools)
1460 2012-09-04 23:41:28 <gmaxwell> we could, if we wanted to be paternalistic enough, disable getwork and getblocktemplate... though I don't know that it would be required.
1461 2012-09-04 23:41:46 <MC-Eeepc> sipa what is it about my case that should benefit so much?
1462 2012-09-04 23:41:53 osmosis has joined
1463 2012-09-04 23:41:57 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: you have horrible I/O
1464 2012-09-04 23:42:17 <MC-Eeepc> ldb is good for shit storage?
1465 2012-09-04 23:42:17 <sipa> (which I guess in this setting is a compliment, because it makes you a very interesting test case)
1466 2012-09-04 23:42:36 <sipa> quite good; but BDB is terrible at I/O whatsoever :)
1467 2012-09-04 23:42:38 <gmaxwell> It seems to perform a lot less IO for a given amount of work, compared to BDB.
1468 2012-09-04 23:43:02 <eian> can somone hit me with jgarzik's py node github project?
1469 2012-09-04 23:43:06 <MC-Eeepc> this usb benchmarked at like 3mbs sequential and like 0.1mbs 4k random
1470 2012-09-04 23:43:12 <gmaxwell> https://github.com/jgarzik/pynode
1471 2012-09-04 23:43:15 <eian> thanks
1472 2012-09-04 23:44:06 <MC-Eeepc> oh incase youre interested ive accidentally knockd the drive out of the port about 3 times now, and it didnt corrupt the db
1473 2012-09-04 23:44:07 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: is that 3 megabyte per second, 3 megabit per second, 3 mebibyte per second, 3 millibitsecond?
1474 2012-09-04 23:44:20 <MC-Eeepc> MB
1475 2012-09-04 23:44:20 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: that's indeed very interesting to know!
1476 2012-09-04 23:44:47 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: it seems LevelDB does a lot more sequential writing than BDB
1477 2012-09-04 23:45:10 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
1478 2012-09-04 23:45:11 <gribble> 197247
1479 2012-09-04 23:45:33 <MC-Eeepc> 50k blox now
1480 2012-09-04 23:46:43 <sipa> i did a full sync from network here in 45 minutes now
1481 2012-09-04 23:47:23 <MC-Eeepc> are there efficiencies to gain on the network side
1482 2012-09-04 23:47:32 <BlueMattBot> Yippie, build fixed!
1483 2012-09-04 23:47:33 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #56: FIXED in 6 hr 28 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/56/
1484 2012-09-04 23:47:37 <sipa> mostly parallellizing things
1485 2012-09-04 23:47:45 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: yup, â though mostly not for you.
1486 2012-09-04 23:48:09 <gmaxwell> your problems sound purely IO related, but people with sane storage need network improvements next.
1487 2012-09-04 23:48:50 <MC-Eeepc> im only running it on this for shits and giggles
1488 2012-09-04 23:49:03 <gmaxwell> not getting stuck until the next block would help everyone though... and better load balancing would allow us to add rate limiting, which would make some people much happier.
1489 2012-09-04 23:49:13 <MC-Eeepc> useful to have some edge cases for testing eh
1490 2012-09-04 23:50:22 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: i really like you ripping out the USB stick from the computer :)
1491 2012-09-04 23:51:13 Clipse has joined
1492 2012-09-04 23:51:14 Clipse has quit (Changing host)
1493 2012-09-04 23:51:14 Clipse has joined
1494 2012-09-04 23:51:17 <MC-Eeepc> lol im just bumping it with my hand and shit is disconnecting
1495 2012-09-04 23:51:23 <MC-Eeepc> shitty port
1496 2012-09-04 23:53:49 <MC-Eeepc> when it gets to 100k ill do it again
1497 2012-09-04 23:54:10 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1498 2012-09-04 23:57:22 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)