1 2012-09-05 00:01:02 AlexWaters has joined
   2 2012-09-05 00:03:40 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
   3 2012-09-05 00:07:23 ErnestoJuarell has quit (Quit: Leaving)
   4 2012-09-05 00:25:56 iocor has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
   5 2012-09-05 00:31:56 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
   6 2012-09-05 00:43:53 lady_awk has joined
   7 2012-09-05 01:03:47 Joric has quit ()
   8 2012-09-05 01:14:16 Detritus has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
   9 2012-09-05 01:14:41 denisx has joined
  10 2012-09-05 01:15:41 balrog has joined
  11 2012-09-05 01:20:08 shhh has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  12 2012-09-05 01:22:32 MBS has quit (Excess Flood)
  13 2012-09-05 01:23:51 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  14 2012-09-05 01:24:40 Detritus has joined
  15 2012-09-05 01:24:57 vigilyn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  16 2012-09-05 01:25:05 MBS has joined
  17 2012-09-05 01:25:46 onefourone has joined
  18 2012-09-05 01:30:56 vampireb has joined
  19 2012-09-05 01:31:03 vampireb has quit (Client Quit)
  20 2012-09-05 01:31:32 vampireb has joined
  21 2012-09-05 01:36:11 maqr has quit (Quit: bbl)
  22 2012-09-05 01:44:55 <denisx> is leveldb a replacement for bdb?
  23 2012-09-05 01:45:05 <denisx> what happens when I build without leveldb?
  24 2012-09-05 01:45:11 <sipa> then you use bdb
  25 2012-09-05 01:45:16 pnicholson has joined
  26 2012-09-05 01:47:43 <sipa> the split-off bdb code is untested though
  27 2012-09-05 01:48:04 <freewil> will 0.7 use leveldb by default?
  28 2012-09-05 01:48:31 <copumpkin> if bitcoin uses bdb for looking up hashes, is it using the btree method or the hashtable one?
  29 2012-09-05 01:48:39 <sipa> copumpkin: btree
  30 2012-09-05 01:48:46 <copumpkin> that seems suboptimal
  31 2012-09-05 01:48:46 <sipa> freewil: 0.7 has no leveldb
  32 2012-09-05 01:48:57 <freewil> sipa, so probably 0.8, maybe 0.9?
  33 2012-09-05 01:49:02 <copumpkin> but I guess it isn't bad either
  34 2012-09-05 01:49:02 <sipa> hopefully 0.8
  35 2012-09-05 01:49:11 <gavinandresen> copumpkin: jgarzik experimented with using hashtable, and got no performance gain
  36 2012-09-05 01:49:11 <sipa> copumpkin: hashtable has more space overhead
  37 2012-09-05 01:49:23 <sipa> also incompatible with iterating
  38 2012-09-05 01:49:39 <copumpkin> yeah, I wouldn't have expected a performance gain
  39 2012-09-05 01:49:47 <copumpkin> but I would expect it to be more space efficient, at least
  40 2012-09-05 01:49:50 <copumpkin> odd that it isn't
  41 2012-09-05 01:50:06 <sipa> hashtables need a fill factor <0.9 or so to be efficient
  42 2012-09-05 01:50:08 <gavinandresen> could just be more work went into optimizing btree...
  43 2012-09-05 01:50:08 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: Im assuming you saw (and there isnt a explicit permission) for github commit status api?
  44 2012-09-05 01:50:23 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: yes.  So how do we turn that on?
  45 2012-09-05 01:50:45 <gavinandresen> (I get an oauth token, then.... do something with it?)
  46 2012-09-05 01:50:46 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: I have no idea what permissions it would fall under, but BitcoinPullTester would need those...
  47 2012-09-05 01:51:10 <jgarzik> if I understand leveldb correctly, stuff should be packed much more optimally than BDB during checkpointing
  48 2012-09-05 01:51:13 <copumpkin> yeah, bdb people almost never recommend hash over btree
  49 2012-09-05 01:51:13 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: it would be easier if there was a permission in bitcoin/bitcoin admin settings that said "commit status api access" or similar, though I doubt it...
  50 2012-09-05 01:51:29 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: (otherwise I have to actually set up oauth for pull-tester... :( )
  51 2012-09-05 01:51:31 <jgarzik> BDB is index-page-at-a-time (or whatever you call non-leaf pages)
  52 2012-09-05 01:51:32 mologie has joined
  53 2012-09-05 01:51:38 <jgarzik> but leveldb rewrites into optimal form
  54 2012-09-05 01:51:40 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: BitcoinPullTester is a github user?
  55 2012-09-05 01:51:43 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: yes
  56 2012-09-05 01:51:46 <sipa> jgarzik: leveldb is much more compact than bdb
  57 2012-09-05 01:51:54 <denisx> thanks to snappy?
  58 2012-09-05 01:51:59 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: other option: wait and see if the @github guys respond to my tweet to add the feature
  59 2012-09-05 01:52:03 <sipa> denisx: no
  60 2012-09-05 01:52:06 <jgarzik> thanks to what I just said :)
  61 2012-09-05 01:52:19 <denisx> ;)
  62 2012-09-05 01:52:28 <sipa> jgarzik: the coin database is a bit over 100MB in leveldb, and close to 160 in BDB
  63 2012-09-05 01:52:38 <jgarzik> leveldb packs into optimal chunks (~4MB per chunk) at checkpoint time
  64 2012-09-05 01:52:41 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: I'll take a peek at the admin interface.  Reading the docs, it looked like I'd create an oauth token, then give that to the PullTester script.
  65 2012-09-05 01:52:51 <jgarzik> each chunk is a separate file
  66 2012-09-05 01:52:51 <sipa> jgarzik: and that is including a bloom filter, even
  67 2012-09-05 01:53:25 <jgarzik> my only worry is that storing random hashes might mean leveldb's design implies a lot of chunk rewriting
  68 2012-09-05 01:53:35 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: I believe you can do it that way, yes...but the pull tester stuff isnt setup to do oauth (you can just use basic http auth over https and use all the available access of a given user)
  69 2012-09-05 01:53:36 <jgarzik> since hashes will spread records out across all chunks
  70 2012-09-05 01:53:40 <sipa> jgarzik: well, far fewer writing than bdb
  71 2012-09-05 01:53:44 <sipa> *less
  72 2012-09-05 01:54:03 <jgarzik> hopefully
  73 2012-09-05 01:54:04 <sipa> the whole database gets rewritten many times over
  74 2012-09-05 01:54:15 <jgarzik> (you've tested this more than I have, so I'll defer to your knowledge)
  75 2012-09-05 01:54:47 * gavinandresen wonders what a github 'deploy key' is for....
  76 2012-09-05 01:55:03 <gmaxwell> Yea, if you push the button you just get an open form.. no info.
  77 2012-09-05 01:55:35 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  78 2012-09-05 01:55:44 <sipa> gmaxwell: it's a key that grants access to a single repository instead of a whole user
  79 2012-09-05 01:55:55 <sipa> eh gavinandresen: ^
  80 2012-09-05 01:56:05 <BlueMatt> wait...what?
  81 2012-09-05 01:56:06 <sipa> (i googled 'github deploy key', second result)
  82 2012-09-05 01:56:29 <denisx> ultrapune is based on 0.6.x?
  83 2012-09-05 01:56:35 <BlueMatt> ahh
  84 2012-09-05 01:56:37 <BlueMatt> for git
  85 2012-09-05 01:56:42 <sipa> denisx: it's rebased on git head
  86 2012-09-05 01:57:21 <sipa> well, maybe not the last 2 or 3 commits
  87 2012-09-05 01:59:09 <sipa> denisx: where do you get that?
  88 2012-09-05 01:59:15 rdponticelli has joined
  89 2012-09-05 01:59:53 <gmaxwell> when someone doesn't pull tags the versions generated at compile look a bit weird.
  90 2012-09-05 01:59:58 <denisx> sipa: never mind, my mistake
  91 2012-09-05 02:00:18 <sipa> gmaxwell: it should always pull the tags in the history of what is being fetches
  92 2012-09-05 02:00:32 <gavinandresen> sipa: ACK.  I'm just fuzzy on how github uses deploy keys versus oauth tokens versus http authentication, and too tired right now to try to figure it out.
  93 2012-09-05 02:02:49 cheako has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  94 2012-09-05 02:03:02 <sipa> jgarzik: actually, not sure it's actually less writing; maybe it's just less random seeking
  95 2012-09-05 02:05:12 elkingrey has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  96 2012-09-05 02:05:37 <sipa> jgarzik: here is what the coin database looks like after 193k blocks: http://pastebin.com/FGfb1pnq
  97 2012-09-05 02:05:50 <sipa> the file numbers give an idea of how much was re-written
  98 2012-09-05 02:05:57 <jgarzik> sipa: that's what I would suspect.  more rewriting traffic, much less seeking.
  99 2012-09-05 02:06:40 cheako has joined
 100 2012-09-05 02:07:09 <jgarzik> quite fast strategy, if leveldb behaves like my cheap python clone, pagedb...  there's just the logfile, then a bunch of read-only, mmap-able chunks.
 101 2012-09-05 02:09:08 <jgarzik> fast and efficient :)
 102 2012-09-05 02:10:03 <sipa> near the end of the chain, leveldb was writing at around 21MB/s here on average
 103 2012-09-05 02:10:26 <sipa> now trying the same with bdb
 104 2012-09-05 02:13:31 <jgarzik> since bdb's pages are smaller, it rewrites leaf nodes less often.  larger pages (chunks) mean more likely to be rewritten.
 105 2012-09-05 02:13:55 <denisx> util.cpp: In function 'void FileCommit(FILE*)':
 106 2012-09-05 02:13:55 <denisx> util.cpp:1102: error: 'fdatasync' was not declared in this scope
 107 2012-09-05 02:14:47 <jgarzik> so the question is whether bdb internal node rewriting exceeds leveldb chunk rewriting
 108 2012-09-05 02:15:06 <jgarzik> and whether or not that matters, if leveldb does so much better with post-checkpoint seeking
 109 2012-09-05 02:15:46 <sipa> jgarzik: very rough benchmark result: i think bdb's total amount of written data is comparable
 110 2012-09-05 02:15:47 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: *OrphanTx does not need protection, but reading accounting entries etc. from BDB does.  the latter is, however, much lower priority as you note in the original audit response.
 111 2012-09-05 02:16:12 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: as it's just on-disk -> memory corruption being detected
 112 2012-09-05 02:16:21 <sipa> denisx: you'll need to replace it with fsync, if fdatasynch doesn't exist
 113 2012-09-05 02:16:36 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: I think it's nice to say "hey, your db is corrupted" rather than just crash.  leads to nicer bug reports.
 114 2012-09-05 02:16:45 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: no one advocates _continuing_ under such conditions, obviously
 115 2012-09-05 02:16:49 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: I was playing with recovering from on-disk corruption tonight, bdb is REALLY picky....
 116 2012-09-05 02:17:15 * sipa likes leveldb's "assume process will just get killed" philosophy
 117 2012-09-05 02:17:37 <gavinandresen> e.g. my db48_dump -r   invariably dumps core on a one-byte-corrupted wallet.dat  (-R, "aggressive recovery", works)
 118 2012-09-05 02:18:50 <gavinandresen> I think the right transition strategy away from bdb might be to do what db_dump -R does, and then parse the resulting dumpfile into leveldb
 119 2012-09-05 02:18:53 <sipa> jgarzik: i'll try to have better numbers soon, but seems BDB actually may do more writing (in number of written bytes)
 120 2012-09-05 02:19:38 <sipa> gavinandresen: importing a possibly corrupt database sounds like a recipe for stuck nodes
 121 2012-09-05 02:19:58 <gavinandresen> sipa: I'm only talking about the wallet
 122 2012-09-05 02:20:09 <sipa> oh, i wouldn't use leveldb for wallets
 123 2012-09-05 02:20:17 <sipa> overkill and messy
 124 2012-09-05 02:20:33 <gavinandresen> ok, transitioning away from bdb to whatever the replacement is....
 125 2012-09-05 02:20:51 <sipa> right
 126 2012-09-05 02:21:01 <sipa> for wallets that's probably the better strategy
 127 2012-09-05 02:21:06 <gavinandresen> RE: overkill and messy?  if we're using leveldb anyway, why would it be either overkill or messy?
 128 2012-09-05 02:21:28 <sipa> mostly the fact that it would turn wallet.dat into wallet/
 129 2012-09-05 02:21:45 <gavinandresen> I don't want to reinvent leveldb's nice "assume process will just get killed" way of doing things
 130 2012-09-05 02:22:04 <sipa> agree, but an entire directory per wallet...
 131 2012-09-05 02:22:16 <sipa> if we're always loading it entirely into memory anyway
 132 2012-09-05 02:22:44 <sipa> and we're talking about files that are almost always smaller than the smallest amount of data leveldb ever rewrites
 133 2012-09-05 02:23:01 * jgarzik already looked into that...
 134 2012-09-05 02:23:25 <sipa> i started writing a "logdb" once that's really just a log of writes and erases
 135 2012-09-05 02:23:29 <jgarzik> better for wallet.dat to be a flat file of our own design, separate from environment
 136 2012-09-05 02:23:33 <sipa> with a checksum per write-block
 137 2012-09-05 02:23:39 <jgarzik> yep, something like that
 138 2012-09-05 02:24:12 <jgarzik> plenty of examples in the filesystem world
 139 2012-09-05 02:24:22 <gavinandresen> okey doke.  I don't really care how it is implemented, as long as it is robust.
 140 2012-09-05 02:24:39 MBS has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 141 2012-09-05 02:25:00 <gavinandresen> and we'll use protocol buffers!  So it is extensible!
 142 2012-09-05 02:25:31 iih3ro has joined
 143 2012-09-05 02:25:33 <gavinandresen> (and we have more dependencies!  Dependencies, yay!)
 144 2012-09-05 02:26:03 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: progress? :)
 145 2012-09-05 02:26:57 <sipa> jgarzik: with BDB i see around 13MB/s
 146 2012-09-05 02:27:07 <sipa> but it also takes almost twice as long
 147 2012-09-05 02:27:31 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: new wallet file format, no new dependencies
 148 2012-09-05 02:27:52 <sipa> i know too little about BDB's implementation, but how they manage to need more writes than leveldb is beyond me :)
 149 2012-09-05 02:28:30 <jgarzik> sipa: bdb page == 4096 bytes.  tons more pages to manage, than leveldb's chunks.
 150 2012-09-05 02:29:16 <jgarzik> (or it might be 8192 bytes... you get the picture)
 151 2012-09-05 02:29:16 <sipa> yes, clearly
 152 2012-09-05 02:29:41 <sipa> but i would expect more smaller pages to be more efficient in terms of required disk bandwidth
 153 2012-09-05 02:29:59 <jgarzik> b+tree node insertions require a lot of rewriting (though that depends on your checkpoint interval()
 154 2012-09-05 02:30:39 <denisx> sipa: remember that most disks today have 4k blocks
 155 2012-09-05 02:31:35 Guest47180 has joined
 156 2012-09-05 02:31:45 <jgarzik> bdb's writes are 4k-aligned, so you're not looking at COW or anything
 157 2012-09-05 02:31:49 <jgarzik> ditto filesystem blocks
 158 2012-09-05 02:31:58 <jgarzik> er
 159 2012-09-05 02:32:00 <jgarzik> RMW
 160 2012-09-05 02:33:18 <sipa> RMW?
 161 2012-09-05 02:34:02 <denisx> read-modify-write
 162 2012-09-05 02:34:36 <jgarzik> sipa: read-modify-write.  on a modern disk with 4K sectors, updating a 512-byte "sector" involves reading from hard drive (internally, in the disk firmware), updating 512 bytes of the 4K block, and then writing the 4K block.
 163 2012-09-05 02:35:01 <kjj_> particularly on WD drives that still lie about their sector size
 164 2012-09-05 02:35:05 <jgarzik> ATA "API" is still 512-byte blocks, even if underlying is larger.
 165 2012-09-05 02:35:25 <jgarzik> kjj_: not at all.  this is all documented in the standards.
 166 2012-09-05 02:35:38 <jgarzik> it's just logical API vs. physical implementation
 167 2012-09-05 02:35:51 <jgarzik> ATA's IDENTIFY DEVICE data gives you the full picture.
 168 2012-09-05 02:36:14 <kjj_> plenty of WD drives lie about their sector size, causing problems for 4k-aware OSs, like Linux
 169 2012-09-05 02:36:19 <denisx> jgarzik: no, some harddisks lie about their physical blocksize
 170 2012-09-05 02:36:42 <kjj_> there are angry rants about the problem on the web
 171 2012-09-05 02:37:09 <jgarzik> denisx: I've not seen any evidence of this, sorry
 172 2012-09-05 02:37:35 <denisx> jgarzik: challenge accepted! ;)
 173 2012-09-05 02:38:23 <jgarzik> these false claims resurface every year for past 5+ years
 174 2012-09-05 02:38:25 <kjj_> http://johannes-bauer.com/linux/wdc/?menuid=3
 175 2012-09-05 02:38:42 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 176 2012-09-05 02:39:04 <denisx> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=222520
 177 2012-09-05 02:39:19 <denisx> in freebsd hey hardcoded some disks to 4k
 178 2012-09-05 02:39:25 <denisx> they
 179 2012-09-05 02:39:55 <jgarzik> kjj_: outdated info.  that is long since addressed.
 180 2012-09-05 02:39:57 Guest47180 is now known as MBS
 181 2012-09-05 02:40:01 MBS has quit (Changing host)
 182 2012-09-05 02:40:01 MBS has joined
 183 2012-09-05 02:40:11 <jgarzik> denisx: yes, some hard drives had to be quirk'd
 184 2012-09-05 02:40:25 <denisx> jgarzik: but I must admit, maybe the problem was that there was no way to give that information to the upper layers
 185 2012-09-05 02:41:50 fiesh has joined
 186 2012-09-05 02:42:32 <kjj_> meh.  it looks to me like it will continue to be a problem for at least 5 more years, even if the drives coming off the line today (or last year) do it right
 187 2012-09-05 02:43:46 <denisx> and only microsoft did the right thing: setting the alignment of partitions to 2MB
 188 2012-09-05 02:49:55 <jgarzik> fsck and parted have been lying around partitions 4k/8k-aligned for years, regardless of what the disk reports
 189 2012-09-05 02:49:58 <jgarzik> anyway
 190 2012-09-05 02:50:37 <jgarzik> the relevant question for bitcoin:  our keys tend to include hashes... what is the most optimal storage method for key/value records with random key distribution?
 191 2012-09-05 02:51:07 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
 192 2012-09-05 02:51:08 <jgarzik> kyotocabinet's method of one-huge-hash-table (16MB?) + leaf nodes might be more optimal than leveldb or bdb
 193 2012-09-05 02:51:37 <jgarzik> of course leveldb gets close to that, for its first level
 194 2012-09-05 02:51:59 <jgarzik> but leveldb's key sorting does not buy us anything
 195 2012-09-05 02:52:53 <kjj_> honestly, a straight up dead simple binary tree should be more or less balanced
 196 2012-09-05 02:54:04 <kjj_> build the tree down to n bits and sort each leaf.  increase n any time a leaf gets too big
 197 2012-09-05 02:56:40 <kjj_> you could even give each leaf two pointers, one to a sorted list, and one to a list of newly-added-not-yet-sorted keys
 198 2012-09-05 02:56:52 <jgarzik> it's not a question of balance, but of minimal seeks and disk traffic.  sufficient internal nodes recreates bdb's b+trees
 199 2012-09-05 02:57:31 <jgarzik> and we really don't care about sorting, except as it applies to the direct-key-lookup algorithm
 200 2012-09-05 02:57:52 <kjj_> right.
 201 2012-09-05 02:58:54 <kjj_> if you keep n big enough, iterating an unsorted list is close enough (in practice) to iterating a sorted list
 202 2012-09-05 03:00:29 <jgarzik> interestingly, with our data, I've thought about time-sorted.  We often are more likely to want recent data.  Therefore:  append to an unsorted list, and reverse-linear search.
 203 2012-09-05 03:00:30 <kjj_> still, having a tree with pointers to lists with pointers to the actual data is a reasonably efficient system, and dead simple.
 204 2012-09-05 03:01:13 <jgarzik> leveldb is basically a big first-level list, with pointers to a list of sorted records
 205 2012-09-05 03:01:32 <kjj_> well, is that really true though?  I'd want test it.  could easily turn out that recency is merely more memorable than random
 206 2012-09-05 03:02:12 <jgarzik> it is generally true:  TX's spend more-recent TX's
 207 2012-09-05 03:02:30 <jgarzik> but that's obviously dependent on many factors, and may change
 208 2012-09-05 03:02:51 <jgarzik> as long as we have HungerCoins and SD though, it is Very True ;)
 209 2012-09-05 03:03:24 <kjj_> fuck 'em.
 210 2012-09-05 03:04:13 <jgarzik> hehehe
 211 2012-09-05 03:04:24 <jgarzik> if we want a performant implementation it matters ;)
 212 2012-09-05 03:04:36 <kjj_> nothing against either of those sites, but there is no reason to bend the protocol or the client to their needs alone
 213 2012-09-05 03:07:43 Z0rZ0rZ0r_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 214 2012-09-05 03:08:41 <kjj_> I would think that just about any index for keys should fit in RAM and be good enough
 215 2012-09-05 03:09:28 <kjj_> unless we are thinking about people with HUGE key lists
 216 2012-09-05 03:11:31 <jgarzik> kjj_: that is the data in the blockchain.  if you don't want a slow client, you _must_ deal with it.  it is unrealistic to ignore them, sadly.
 217 2012-09-05 03:12:51 <kjj_> I thought that we were talking about wallets.  are you talking about indexing blocks/transactions by key/address?
 218 2012-09-05 03:16:05 Maged has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.88.2 [Firefox 14.0.1/20120713134347])
 219 2012-09-05 03:16:52 <jgarzik> kjj_: blocks and transactions from the public blockchain must be indexed
 220 2012-09-05 03:17:08 <jgarzik> kjj_: current those indices are stored in BDB
 221 2012-09-05 03:17:14 <jgarzik> *currently
 222 2012-09-05 03:17:22 <kjj_> right
 223 2012-09-05 03:17:50 spammytrap2 has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
 224 2012-09-05 03:17:50 spammytrap has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
 225 2012-09-05 03:18:13 <kjj_> actually, the two level thing I said earlier might be decent for that too.
 226 2012-09-05 03:19:01 <kjj_> at least for random access.  the worst case shouldn't be horrible.  but I don't think the best case will be much better because it'll have to head back to disk to pull the leaf list often
 227 2012-09-05 03:20:05 <kjj_> but unless you store the index as a linked list, any other scheme will require a disk hit going from block n to block n+1, most of the time.
 228 2012-09-05 03:21:00 <kjj_> and we already have a structure with the blocks in (nearly) chronological order, so that's pointless.
 229 2012-09-05 03:23:37 Z0rZ0rZ0r_ has joined
 230 2012-09-05 03:23:43 CodesInChaos has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 231 2012-09-05 03:25:03 denisx_ has joined
 232 2012-09-05 03:25:07 <kjj_> simplicity is a beautiful thing, and a tree of lists is about as simple as it gets.  robust too
 233 2012-09-05 03:26:52 DaQatz has quit (Quit: leaving)
 234 2012-09-05 03:26:59 <kjj_> easy to check and fix.  all operations are done from bottom up, so in the event of a crash, you still have the correct old structure, plus some garbage that can be collected after a reference count
 235 2012-09-05 03:27:21 DaQatz has joined
 236 2012-09-05 03:27:35 prahanormal has joined
 237 2012-09-05 03:28:08 <kjj_> not prone to fragmentation either, since the lists can have predictable sizes and holes will be quickly re-used
 238 2012-09-05 03:28:51 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 239 2012-09-05 03:28:51 prahanormal has quit (Client Quit)
 240 2012-09-05 03:28:51 denisx_ is now known as denisx
 241 2012-09-05 03:29:08 prahanormal has joined
 242 2012-09-05 03:29:11 prahanormal has quit (Client Quit)
 243 2012-09-05 03:32:21 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 244 2012-09-05 03:35:46 RainbowDashh has joined
 245 2012-09-05 03:37:49 <jgarzik> kjj_: I think you understand the problem, yes
 246 2012-09-05 03:37:53 Smooblush has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 247 2012-09-05 03:37:59 <jgarzik> big index, keys are hashes
 248 2012-09-05 03:38:15 <jgarzik> some lookups are for old data, but most are for recent data
 249 2012-09-05 03:38:30 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 250 2012-09-05 03:38:39 [7] has joined
 251 2012-09-05 03:38:49 Gladamas has quit (Quit: BBL)
 252 2012-09-05 03:39:00 <kjj_> for recent stuff, you could keep a circular buffer in addition to the regular indexes
 253 2012-09-05 03:41:18 <kjj_> the problem is that you don't know in advance which index will be faster, if you are starting from a hash
 254 2012-09-05 03:42:18 <jgarzik> yep
 255 2012-09-05 03:42:29 <kjj_> but that could be dynamic.  check the recent stuff first, and keep track of hits/misses
 256 2012-09-05 03:42:53 <jgarzik> basically a cache in front of the database, at that point
 257 2012-09-05 03:42:57 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
 258 2012-09-05 03:42:59 <kjj_> then try to figure out how much recent stuff to keep based on expected value
 259 2012-09-05 03:44:22 <kjj_> that's probably too much effort for the devs though, in exchange for too little performance for the users
 260 2012-09-05 03:44:23 pnicholson has quit (Quit: pnicholson)
 261 2012-09-05 03:45:39 <jgarzik> kjj_: nothing is too much effort, for an additional 0.5% ;p
 262 2012-09-05 03:46:37 maaku has joined
 263 2012-09-05 03:47:01 <kjj_> ok, 4k blocks.  32 bit block IDs.
 264 2012-09-05 03:47:12 pnicholson has joined
 265 2012-09-05 03:48:42 <kjj_> a list block has 64 pointers to other blocks and covers 6 bits of index space
 266 2012-09-05 03:49:47 <kjj_> the blocks pointed to are either more list blocks, with the next 6 bits, or a list of up to ~63 offsets into the block file(s)
 267 2012-09-05 03:50:49 <kjj_> set a high water mark, when a list hits it, build 64 new lists and a new tree block, update pointers, mark orphaned blocks available
 268 2012-09-05 03:51:59 <kjj_> maybe reserve a special value for empty.  because the first N bits of a block hash are always zero, the structure will be a bit wasteful without special cases
 269 2012-09-05 03:52:17 <jgarzik> yeah, and if it's a disk format that requires _updating_, you have to consider half-finished disk writes etc.  that's why most formats wind up as rewrite-then-invalidate, writing [re]written data to new blocks for safe commit to media
 270 2012-09-05 03:52:56 <jgarzik> updating is space efficient but not reliable
 271 2012-09-05 03:53:23 <kjj_> to a large extent, this is already safe for failed IO
 272 2012-09-05 03:53:52 <jgarzik> one must also be cognizant of 4K alignment issues, due to hard drive block sizes as discussed above
 273 2012-09-05 03:54:16 <jgarzik> a 1K write is really RMW
 274 2012-09-05 03:54:25 <kjj_> yup, that's why I'm quoting 4096 bits for everything, and why you can only get 6 bits in a tree block and 63 (or less) entries in a list block
 275 2012-09-05 03:55:48 yyhyyhyyhyyhyyhy has joined
 276 2012-09-05 03:56:23 yyhyyhyyhyyhyyhy has quit (Client Quit)
 277 2012-09-05 03:57:22 <osmosis> need link to ubuntu ppa for bitcoin dev
 278 2012-09-05 03:58:17 <kjj_> https://launchpad.net/~bitcoin/+archive/bitcoin  ?
 279 2012-09-05 03:59:51 <dooglus> amiller: http://www.satoshidice.com/ itself lists 'biggest winners' - the biggest payout is 1070 BTC for a 100 BTC bet on 'lessthan 6000'
 280 2012-09-05 04:00:21 dooglus has quit (Quit: leaving)
 281 2012-09-05 04:00:32 dooglus has joined
 282 2012-09-05 04:00:33 dooglus has quit (Changing host)
 283 2012-09-05 04:00:33 dooglus has joined
 284 2012-09-05 04:05:56 <amiller> dooglus, the operators of the site have a "trapdoor" in the form of the secrets, right?
 285 2012-09-05 04:06:14 <jgarzik> meh
 286 2012-09-05 04:06:17 <kjj_> no
 287 2012-09-05 04:06:23 <jgarzik> CDataStream is quite unfriendly to sendfile(2)
 288 2012-09-05 04:06:50 <amiller> er, that wasn't the right word to use
 289 2012-09-05 04:07:01 <amiller> someone who knows the secrets can generate winning transactions
 290 2012-09-05 04:07:27 <amiller> and the winning transactions generated that way are indistinguishable from any other winning transaction placed properly
 291 2012-09-05 04:09:20 <gmaxwell> amiller: or losing, yes.
 292 2012-09-05 04:10:00 <gmaxwell> I suppose you could say that they are distinguishable by virtue of their increased winning/losingness.
 293 2012-09-05 04:10:14 <amiller> if someone actually won at the $64k level, i would expect there to be a surprise race condition
 294 2012-09-05 04:10:29 <amiller> and two transactions suddenly show up at the $64k level
 295 2012-09-05 04:11:12 <gmaxwell> hm? it's not a finite pool lottery
 296 2012-09-05 04:11:14 <amiller> only the first one would win, right?
 297 2012-09-05 04:11:21 <gmaxwell> No.
 298 2012-09-05 04:11:49 <amiller> i read that the bet is changed after each round, but maybe rounds mean 'a day'?
 299 2012-09-05 04:14:17 <kjj_> I'm pretty sure that all of the secrets have been published encrypted
 300 2012-09-05 04:15:03 <amiller> suppose i were able to steal their secret for the current $64k
 301 2012-09-05 04:15:09 <amiller> would i be able to win once, or unlimited times?
 302 2012-09-05 04:15:36 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 303 2012-09-05 04:15:53 <kjj_> http://satoshidice.com/secrets.php
 304 2012-09-05 04:16:01 <kjj_> read that page before you speculate any further
 305 2012-09-05 04:18:47 <amiller> i've read that page several times but still don't understand what the conditions are for winning, i'm probably just making a mistake though
 306 2012-09-05 04:19:42 <gmaxwell> your transaction wins if its hmac(secret,txnid)<target for the target given by the address you paid.
 307 2012-09-05 04:19:50 <amiller> "Each bet transaction that comes in is assigned to the secret key of the current day"
 308 2012-09-05 04:20:38 <amiller> how are the addresses published
 309 2012-09-05 04:20:39 <dooglus> amiller: there's a single file listing all the secrets for many years to come, yes
 310 2012-09-05 04:21:32 <dooglus> amiller: anyone with that file can test whether a transaction is a winner before transmitting it.  they can't "generate winning bets", but they can avoid sending losing bets
 311 2012-09-05 04:22:34 <dooglus> meh - gotta go - out of gas
 312 2012-09-05 04:22:45 <gmaxwell> dooglus expertly splits hairs on that point. try-n-check is a perfectly acceptable algorithim, especially for things with such good odds. :P
 313 2012-09-05 04:23:01 <kjj_> no, the secrets are encrypted
 314 2012-09-05 04:23:32 <gmaxwell> kjj_: ... To _you_ they are, yes. Not to the site operator.
 315 2012-09-05 04:23:42 <kjj_> right
 316 2012-09-05 04:24:15 <kjj_> I'm saying that there is no way for a person to calculate their bet in advance and avoid sending losers
 317 2012-09-05 04:25:15 <gmaxwell> kjj_: the site operator can happily do this.
 318 2012-09-05 04:25:19 <jrmithdobbs> who cares if the site operator always wins
 319 2012-09-05 04:25:28 <jrmithdobbs> which they will
 320 2012-09-05 04:25:34 <amiller> because the site operator can feign foul play
 321 2012-09-05 04:25:42 <gmaxwell> ("anyone with that file", that file being the preimages for their committed secrets.)
 322 2012-09-05 04:25:58 <gmaxwell> amiller: foul play?
 323 2012-09-05 04:26:35 <amiller> what do you think would happen if someone actually won 64k
 324 2012-09-05 04:26:45 <kjj_> I think they'd be very happy
 325 2012-09-05 04:26:50 <amiller> there'd probably be only one winner at a time, right? it's pretty rare
 326 2012-09-05 04:27:01 <amiller> and they'd pay out 64k i guess
 327 2012-09-05 04:27:11 <gmaxwell> Either the site shuts down and fails to pay (bankrupt), or they'd just pay it and life would go on.
 328 2012-09-05 04:27:24 <amiller> what if there wasn't one winner at a time
 329 2012-09-05 04:27:46 <gmaxwell> oh "we got hacked, see, 100 64k winning bets at once!"
 330 2012-09-05 04:28:00 <amiller> yeah.
 331 2012-09-05 04:29:09 <jrmithdobbs> it just amazes me that people throw money at that crap
 332 2012-09-05 04:29:13 <jrmithdobbs> technical discussion aside
 333 2012-09-05 04:29:20 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: I like to dream that they don't.
 334 2012-09-05 04:29:29 <gmaxwell> Except I know they do, not only that— they write bots to play it.
 335 2012-09-05 04:29:51 <gmaxwell> And they have elaborate ways of failing at math which make them think that some strategy or another makes it positive expectation for them.
 336 2012-09-05 04:29:53 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i like to dream that the constitution is actually adhered to too
 337 2012-09-05 04:29:57 <jrmithdobbs> dreams are gr8 like that
 338 2012-09-05 04:30:38 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: ya, the whole thing reminds me of that liquidcoin thing
 339 2012-09-05 04:30:45 <jrmithdobbs> heh
 340 2012-09-05 04:34:15 B0g4r7__ has joined
 341 2012-09-05 04:35:56 <jgarzik> double bleh
 342 2012-09-05 04:36:03 <jgarzik> ThreadSocketHandler2 is an ugly prehistoric piece of shite
 343 2012-09-05 04:36:31 <amiller> i guess the next question is why is satoshidice doing an "IPO"
 344 2012-09-05 04:36:38 <jgarzik> (that's the guts of the P2P select engine)
 345 2012-09-05 04:36:46 <kjj_> so they can handle bigger bets
 346 2012-09-05 04:37:13 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: gotta scam as much money from as many sides as possible
 347 2012-09-05 04:37:17 <jrmithdobbs> amiller: that seems pretty obvious
 348 2012-09-05 04:37:25 <freewil> see: facebook
 349 2012-09-05 04:37:49 B0g4r7_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 350 2012-09-05 04:38:09 <freewil> people were actually willing to pay 42.50 per share
 351 2012-09-05 04:38:12 <freewil> so hey why not?
 352 2012-09-05 04:39:07 <jrmithdobbs> maybe i'm just a cynical asshole tho ;p
 353 2012-09-05 04:52:51 freewil has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 354 2012-09-05 04:56:35 spammytrap has joined
 355 2012-09-05 04:56:40 spammytrap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 356 2012-09-05 04:57:57 spammytrap has joined
 357 2012-09-05 04:58:20 Maccer has quit (Excess Flood)
 358 2012-09-05 04:59:48 <edcba> shouldn't bitcoin exchanges requires some security certification ?
 359 2012-09-05 04:59:53 arij_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 360 2012-09-05 05:01:36 <copumpkin> who would require it?
 361 2012-09-05 05:02:12 <gmaxwell> their customers' of course.
 362 2012-09-05 05:02:21 <copumpkin> I wish :)
 363 2012-09-05 05:02:49 spammytrap2 has joined
 364 2012-09-05 05:03:34 <edcba> just make a list of approved exchanges it may be enough to pressure existing ones to get it
 365 2012-09-05 05:05:00 <Optimo> that would be nice
 366 2012-09-05 05:05:48 <doublec> who would be the approver and what would happen to them if they get it wrong?
 367 2012-09-05 05:06:19 <jrmithdobbs> horrible idea
 368 2012-09-05 05:06:24 <Optimo> mtgox shoulda been done crowdsource ideas- that ship has sailed I think
 369 2012-09-05 05:06:35 <edcba> i imagined requiring doing something verifiable
 370 2012-09-05 05:07:16 <jrmithdobbs> and what certification would you require? because the honest truth is that most of them are pretty much "give us enough money and you get certified"
 371 2012-09-05 05:07:30 <doublec> right. like "Mcafee security", etc.
 372 2012-09-05 05:07:30 <jrmithdobbs> actually, scratch that, practically all of them
 373 2012-09-05 05:07:44 <edcba> yeah i know that problem
 374 2012-09-05 05:08:03 <gmaxwell> scratch that, all of them, although the enough money may also involve audits that you pay to pass but also do some good in the process.
 375 2012-09-05 05:08:16 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: iso 27xx is ... interesting
 376 2012-09-05 05:08:40 <edcba> couldn't we find some rules that would benefit security that everybody could check ?
 377 2012-09-05 05:08:44 <jrmithdobbs> it's not total bullshit but it's effectiveness depends entirely on how the processes are defined which is done by the implementing party
 378 2012-09-05 05:08:56 olp has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 379 2012-09-05 05:09:18 <doublec> edcba: users would ignore them anyway. They'll still go with cheapest rate, most volume, etc.
 380 2012-09-05 05:09:37 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i've been interviewing too many security/compliance people lately, can you tell? (I want to kill most of them.)
 381 2012-09-05 05:09:40 <edcba> cheapest and more scammy ? :)
 382 2012-09-05 05:09:50 <gmaxwell> I mean, heck people happily gave non-trivial amounts of funds to BS&T.
 383 2012-09-05 05:10:03 <doublec> exactly
 384 2012-09-05 05:10:09 <jrmithdobbs> bs&t?
 385 2012-09-05 05:10:20 <gmaxwell> pirate's black hole for bitcoin
 386 2012-09-05 05:10:30 <jrmithdobbs> oh
 387 2012-09-05 05:11:24 <edcba> some rule that could be verifiable : requiring having multiple servers from different providers
 388 2012-09-05 05:11:31 olp has joined
 389 2012-09-05 05:11:52 <edcba> to store wallets
 390 2012-09-05 05:12:11 <jrmithdobbs> edcba: basically, the short version is: if anyone could actually do that effectively, noone would waste their time doing it specifically for bitcoin exchanges because we're kinda talking nobel prize type stuff ;p
 391 2012-09-05 05:12:16 <edcba> and possibly not on same server than frontend :)
 392 2012-09-05 05:14:34 <edcba> ok i have an easier 'certification' : a blogger surveys exchanges about their security procedures :)
 393 2012-09-05 05:15:20 one_zero has left ()
 394 2012-09-05 05:15:34 <jrmithdobbs> edcba: they get called biased and liars for pointing out the issues
 395 2012-09-05 05:15:34 <edcba> then do a nice table with hearts and skulls
 396 2012-09-05 05:16:00 <jrmithdobbs> edcba: or if involving tux, threatened with legal action
 397 2012-09-05 05:16:23 <jrmithdobbs> (i'm being a bit facetious, but not entirely.)
 398 2012-09-05 05:17:19 <jrmithdobbs> that also gives you the age old problem of who's policing the police/etc
 399 2012-09-05 05:17:35 <edcba> no i don't mean a police
 400 2012-09-05 05:17:46 <edcba> i want a disclosure/transparency
 401 2012-09-05 05:17:54 <jrmithdobbs> i don't literally mean police either.
 402 2012-09-05 05:18:10 <edcba> just verifiable facts
 403 2012-09-05 05:18:21 <jrmithdobbs> but you still need a way to verify the integrity/good faith of the reviewers
 404 2012-09-05 05:18:29 <edcba> else a scammer may just be the most secure too
 405 2012-09-05 05:18:52 <jrmithdobbs> edcba: i think you're starting to see how hard this is ;p
 406 2012-09-05 05:19:33 <jrmithdobbs> because that's a good point. What happens if the site appears secure, but the owner disappears with the funds? Are the reviewers liable for not vetting properly and recomending the services?
 407 2012-09-05 05:19:53 <jrmithdobbs> it's complicated and people are dicks ;p
 408 2012-09-05 05:20:03 someone42_ has joined
 409 2012-09-05 05:20:04 olp has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 410 2012-09-05 05:20:09 <edcba> at least you know it was a scammer and not a security problem :)
 411 2012-09-05 05:20:47 <kjj_> why would the reviers be liable?  did anything happen to Moody's or S&P when they rubber stamped all that garbage for the last couple of decades?
 412 2012-09-05 05:20:58 <jrmithdobbs> edcba: and you'll still have the lolbertarians on the cesspool known as the bitcoin forums calling for the reviewer's head.
 413 2012-09-05 05:21:23 someone42 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 414 2012-09-05 05:21:35 <jrmithdobbs> edcba: which brings us to another fun issue, why would anyone want to be a reviewer when they'll never get anything out of it but libel and threats?
 415 2012-09-05 05:22:05 <jrmithdobbs> which leaves you with incompetent reviewers, which compromises the whole system
 416 2012-09-05 05:22:53 someone42_ is now known as someone42
 417 2012-09-05 05:31:28 Maccer has joined
 418 2012-09-05 05:34:07 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 419 2012-09-05 05:35:17 <kjj_> jgarzik: I posted my tree/list idea in dev&tech.  we'll see if anyone has comments
 420 2012-09-05 05:36:16 <jrmithdobbs> kjj_: mailling list, i don't think anyone actually reads that forum except luke
 421 2012-09-05 05:37:11 <kjj_> Gavin does too, from time to time.
 422 2012-09-05 05:37:51 ovidiusoft has joined
 423 2012-09-05 05:43:47 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
 424 2012-09-05 05:45:14 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 425 2012-09-05 06:01:41 olp has joined
 426 2012-09-05 06:05:29 <amiller> p2pool is really great
 427 2012-09-05 06:07:46 <amiller> gmaxwell, i wonder if you could cut out a step, where you use your fee to purchase shares from a pool
 428 2012-09-05 06:10:23 <amiller> that way the burden of 'validation' would actually be on the people who send transactions with fees
 429 2012-09-05 06:11:16 TD has joined
 430 2012-09-05 06:12:52 Joric has joined
 431 2012-09-05 06:13:54 maaku has joined
 432 2012-09-05 06:15:10 Fnar has joined
 433 2012-09-05 06:17:12 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 434 2012-09-05 06:18:41 spammytrap2 is now known as Scootalooo
 435 2012-09-05 06:18:49 Scootalooo has quit (Changing host)
 436 2012-09-05 06:18:50 Scootalooo has joined
 437 2012-09-05 06:21:04 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
 438 2012-09-05 06:21:35 RainbowDashh has joined
 439 2012-09-05 06:24:46 gjs278 has joined
 440 2012-09-05 06:25:22 Gladamas has joined
 441 2012-09-05 06:33:08 skeledrew has joined
 442 2012-09-05 06:37:34 Luke-Jr has quit (Excess Flood)
 443 2012-09-05 06:37:57 Luke-Jr has joined
 444 2012-09-05 06:43:29 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 445 2012-09-05 06:43:30 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: <NAME> said 2 hours, 58 minutes ago in <CHANNEL>: your quit message is really long)
 446 2012-09-05 06:55:12 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 447 2012-09-05 07:00:24 ThomasV has joined
 448 2012-09-05 07:01:35 galambo_ has joined
 449 2012-09-05 07:02:20 galambo has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 450 2012-09-05 07:04:18 osmosis has joined
 451 2012-09-05 07:04:56 Marf has joined
 452 2012-09-05 07:07:18 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 453 2012-09-05 07:12:53 sirk390 has joined
 454 2012-09-05 07:15:59 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 455 2012-09-05 07:24:15 RainbowDashh has joined
 456 2012-09-05 07:26:42 edcba has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 457 2012-09-05 07:27:06 gjs278 has joined
 458 2012-09-05 07:27:08 edcba has joined
 459 2012-09-05 07:28:43 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 460 2012-09-05 07:29:26 gjs278 has joined
 461 2012-09-05 07:32:23 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 462 2012-09-05 07:34:21 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 463 2012-09-05 07:38:36 tonikt has joined
 464 2012-09-05 07:42:01 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 465 2012-09-05 07:50:06 gjs278 has joined
 466 2012-09-05 07:50:58 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 467 2012-09-05 08:03:41 Obsi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 468 2012-09-05 08:18:19 t7 has joined
 469 2012-09-05 08:20:59 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 470 2012-09-05 08:40:01 <t7> is there a tool to construct a wallet from public and private key pairs?
 471 2012-09-05 08:40:36 <weex> t7: you have pairs and want to import them?
 472 2012-09-05 08:41:08 <weex> with bitcoind you just --importprivkey <private_key>
 473 2012-09-05 08:41:12 <t7> no i have paper backups thought, but i dont know how to actually use them if the worst came to the worst
 474 2012-09-05 08:41:20 <edcba> btw if someone knows how to convert MS ecdsa keypairs to openssl...
 475 2012-09-05 08:41:42 <t7> MS microsoft?
 476 2012-09-05 08:41:45 <edcba> yes
 477 2012-09-05 08:41:47 Joric_ has joined
 478 2012-09-05 08:41:48 Joric_ has quit (Changing host)
 479 2012-09-05 08:41:48 Joric_ has joined
 480 2012-09-05 08:41:53 <weex> t7: yeah you can import the privkey to bitcoind
 481 2012-09-05 08:41:54 <edcba> crypto api
 482 2012-09-05 08:41:57 <t7> .net or something?
 483 2012-09-05 08:42:00 <edcba> same
 484 2012-09-05 08:42:11 <edcba> but yes ultimately .net
 485 2012-09-05 08:42:14 <weex> or you can import it to blockchain.info/wallet if you're comfortable with web-based for the amounts on them
 486 2012-09-05 08:42:43 <weex> either way you only do the private key and the client can create the address from that
 487 2012-09-05 08:42:46 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 488 2012-09-05 08:43:08 <t7> but there are lots of public addresses for each private key
 489 2012-09-05 08:43:33 <weex> oh
 490 2012-09-05 08:43:45 <weex> you're talking about a deterministic wallet?
 491 2012-09-05 08:43:56 <weex> like a seed and a bunch of addresses generated from that?
 492 2012-09-05 08:44:13 <weex> how did you create your paper backup? what program?
 493 2012-09-05 08:44:22 <t7> pen and paper
 494 2012-09-05 08:44:42 <edcba> lol
 495 2012-09-05 08:45:09 <weex> i'm not aware of that program :P
 496 2012-09-05 08:46:24 Joric_ has quit (Client Quit)
 497 2012-09-05 08:47:01 <edcba> but yes a deterministic wallet would be better
 498 2012-09-05 08:47:12 <edcba> give a password and generates a bunch of keys
 499 2012-09-05 08:47:30 <edcba> instead of storing all the keys
 500 2012-09-05 08:47:33 <weex> i'm not sold on the idea
 501 2012-09-05 08:47:49 <t7> edcba: yeah but then 1 password = all your keys
 502 2012-09-05 08:47:52 <edcba> it's a bit weaker than what we have now
 503 2012-09-05 08:48:09 <t7> pretty much everything that makes bitcoin easier makes it less secure
 504 2012-09-05 08:48:17 <edcba> but it's a *lot* more convenient
 505 2012-09-05 08:48:19 <weex> i would use https://github.com/weex/addrgen
 506 2012-09-05 08:48:27 <weex> minimal python address generator
 507 2012-09-05 08:48:30 <weex> you can read the code
 508 2012-09-05 08:48:38 <edcba> especially since you can go to a friend house and use your wallet from there
 509 2012-09-05 08:49:50 <t7> does that load openssl ok on windows?
 510 2012-09-05 08:50:04 <weex> it should
 511 2012-09-05 08:50:17 <weex> i didn't have to do anything special beyond install python for it to work
 512 2012-09-05 08:50:21 <weex> python from python.org i think
 513 2012-09-05 08:51:07 <t7> and openssl i presume
 514 2012-09-05 08:51:17 <t7> unless python comes with...
 515 2012-09-05 08:51:22 <edcba> python has ctypes by default ?
 516 2012-09-05 08:51:25 <t7> in which case why dont they wrap it
 517 2012-09-05 08:52:25 <t7> hows the business going weex?
 518 2012-09-05 08:55:10 <weex> i can't complain
 519 2012-09-05 08:55:23 <weex> and who would listen if i did :P
 520 2012-09-05 08:55:59 <t7> the internet
 521 2012-09-05 08:56:22 <weex> the whole thing? yikes.
 522 2012-09-05 08:56:34 <t7> some of it atleast
 523 2012-09-05 08:58:18 <weex> here's 24 hours of mtgoxlive in time lapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WirESL6wea4
 524 2012-09-05 08:59:13 Muis has quit (Quit: Ik ga weg)
 525 2012-09-05 09:00:25 has_many has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 526 2012-09-05 09:03:02 has_many has joined
 527 2012-09-05 09:03:08 andyrossy has joined
 528 2012-09-05 09:03:22 <andyrossy> hey, question, a miner uses "getwork" to find out what to do, how does a miner submit work? which RPC?
 529 2012-09-05 09:03:24 <t7> what am i looking at
 530 2012-09-05 09:03:29 <t7> looks pretty stable
 531 2012-09-05 09:05:55 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 532 2012-09-05 09:12:35 danbri has joined
 533 2012-09-05 09:14:16 <Marf> weex
 534 2012-09-05 09:14:21 <Marf> now of a hole year
 535 2012-09-05 09:14:21 <Marf> ;)
 536 2012-09-05 09:20:19 <weex> Marf: check back in 364 days
 537 2012-09-05 09:20:36 <Marf> no
 538 2012-09-05 09:20:40 <Marf> you go back in time
 539 2012-09-05 09:20:40 <Marf> ;D
 540 2012-09-05 09:21:10 <weex> whoever has the order book for 1 year, pm me with a link
 541 2012-09-05 09:21:36 <weex> also trade data and if you can throw gold and oil prices in there please do
 542 2012-09-05 09:22:07 <Marf> search the forum
 543 2012-09-05 09:22:14 <Marf> someone posted the data i think
 544 2012-09-05 09:22:35 <Marf> he recorded all the mtgox socket streamdata
 545 2012-09-05 09:23:49 freewil has joined
 546 2012-09-05 09:24:30 <weex> ok, i'll get right on that
 547 2012-09-05 09:30:29 <Eliel> sipa: this leveldb version is noticeably faster. I'll let you know how much the whole sync took when it's done but I started it around 40 minutes ago and it's already at block 156000.
 548 2012-09-05 09:31:09 <Eliel> I think bdb version took around 3 hours total.
 549 2012-09-05 09:31:47 <Marf> but last blocks are the slowones
 550 2012-09-05 09:31:52 <Marf> not the frst 150k
 551 2012-09-05 09:32:13 <Eliel> Marf: of course. it took well over an hour to get to this point with the bdb version.
 552 2012-09-05 09:33:00 yellowhat has quit ()
 553 2012-09-05 09:33:10 <Eliel> also, it was clearly IO limited at that point already. with leveldb, it still looks CPU limited.
 554 2012-09-05 09:38:15 Diablo-D3 has joined
 555 2012-09-05 09:40:15 ErnestoJuarell has joined
 556 2012-09-05 09:41:09 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 557 2012-09-05 09:46:09 paraipan has joined
 558 2012-09-05 09:47:50 Karmaon_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 559 2012-09-05 09:48:47 Karmaon has joined
 560 2012-09-05 09:48:48 Karmaon has quit (Changing host)
 561 2012-09-05 09:48:48 Karmaon has joined
 562 2012-09-05 09:52:29 <doublec> andyrossy: also getwork
 563 2012-09-05 09:53:06 <andyrossy> ty
 564 2012-09-05 09:53:41 <doublec> np. submission passes the data in the first parameter of getwork.
 565 2012-09-05 09:55:35 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 566 2012-09-05 10:00:55 SomeoneWeird has quit (Excess Flood)
 567 2012-09-05 10:03:38 Guest23051 has joined
 568 2012-09-05 10:04:05 [Tycho] has joined
 569 2012-09-05 10:05:51 Maccer has quit (Excess Flood)
 570 2012-09-05 10:06:38 toffoo has quit ()
 571 2012-09-05 10:09:22 ThomasV has joined
 572 2012-09-05 10:13:22 olp has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 573 2012-09-05 10:18:11 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 574 2012-09-05 10:23:31 gjs278 has joined
 575 2012-09-05 10:23:42 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 576 2012-09-05 10:24:27 olp has joined
 577 2012-09-05 10:27:08 <MC-Eeepc> could bitcoin have its own anonymity network layer instead of leeching off tor?
 578 2012-09-05 10:28:17 <MC-Eeepc> or atleast work out ways that bitcoin could give back to tor
 579 2012-09-05 10:28:37 <MC-Eeepc> automated exit nodes that people can send coins to for it to look after itself
 580 2012-09-05 10:29:28 olp has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 581 2012-09-05 10:30:06 <freewil> why reinvent the wheel
 582 2012-09-05 10:31:56 olp has joined
 583 2012-09-05 10:32:09 <MC-Eeepc> so that the fate of one project isnt tied to another
 584 2012-09-05 10:32:21 gjs278 has joined
 585 2012-09-05 10:32:41 <MC-Eeepc> tors problem is almost no one has the balls to run exit nodes
 586 2012-09-05 10:33:07 <MC-Eeepc> i wonder if exits could be setup anonymously and paid anon with bitcoin
 587 2012-09-05 10:35:21 <ersi> MC-Eeepc: Of course. You could buy a VPS with bitcoins and set it up there with no strings attached probably
 588 2012-09-05 10:36:06 olp has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 589 2012-09-05 10:36:15 <MC-Eeepc> yes, but in a more automated manner somehow
 590 2012-09-05 10:36:50 <MC-Eeepc> so like people can just throw BTC at an sddress and it just happens
 591 2012-09-05 10:37:07 <MC-Eeepc> sounds like a job for those bitcoin agents things that no one ever tried
 592 2012-09-05 10:38:17 <ersi> I mean, it's doable
 593 2012-09-05 10:38:48 <ersi> You'd probably have to negotiate some deal with a provider for them to have an address which you deposit to that either doesn't change or get replaced on some site or whatever
 594 2012-09-05 10:39:03 Titanium has joined
 595 2012-09-05 10:39:31 <MC-Eeepc> na, ideally DC hosting tor exits should not know they are hosting tor exits
 596 2012-09-05 10:40:09 <ersi> who said anything about saying that it's a tor node?
 597 2012-09-05 10:40:21 <ersi> durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
 598 2012-09-05 10:42:10 <MC-Eeepc> maybe someone should try and get torserver.net to take BTC
 599 2012-09-05 10:42:23 <MC-Eeepc> they seem to do exactly what i describe
 600 2012-09-05 10:43:10 <MC-Eeepc> i bet the forum community could sustain one node between themselves, its $20 a month apparently
 601 2012-09-05 10:43:37 <MC-Eeepc> would be nice to fund one exit as restitution for taking advantage of hidden services
 602 2012-09-05 10:43:41 <Eliel> MC-Eeepc: no reason to bundle anonymity layer with bitcoin by default. Anyone using Bitcoin through tor is running a tor node anyway so that means tor network gets a contribution as well.
 603 2012-09-05 10:44:08 <MC-Eeepc> relays are 10 a penny
 604 2012-09-05 10:44:16 <MC-Eeepc> exits are where tor is struggling
 605 2012-09-05 10:44:29 Maccer has joined
 606 2012-09-05 10:44:53 <Eliel> MC-Eeepc: there's a completely within tor-mode in the works for bitcoin that doesn't need the exit nodes.
 607 2012-09-05 10:44:53 <MC-Eeepc> if i had a forum account i would post a straw poll about funding a community exit node
 608 2012-09-05 10:45:18 <MC-Eeepc> wat
 609 2012-09-05 10:45:34 <MC-Eeepc> how does it talk to the rest of the network then
 610 2012-09-05 10:46:43 <Eliel> one node running in both tor-mode and public mode is enough.
 611 2012-09-05 10:47:23 da2ce7_d2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 612 2012-09-05 10:47:43 <MC-Eeepc> so such a dual mode node effectively becomes a bitcoin specific exit node?
 613 2012-09-05 10:47:44 iocor has joined
 614 2012-09-05 10:47:44 <Eliel> that'd be the equivalent of a bitcoin-specific tor-exit node :P
 615 2012-09-05 10:48:26 <MC-Eeepc> lol well problem fixed
 616 2012-09-05 10:49:54 <MC-Eeepc> i still think torserver.net should take btc with a unique BTC address for each exit they run
 617 2012-09-05 10:49:59 <MC-Eeepc> so anyone can chip in
 618 2012-09-05 10:52:58 <MC-Eeepc> ok so they do already take BTC
 619 2012-09-05 10:53:25 <MC-Eeepc> i just assumed they didnt
 620 2012-09-05 10:53:39 <MC-Eeepc> i assumed no one has ever heard of bitcoin, that seems to be changing
 621 2012-09-05 10:54:12 <MC-Eeepc> Total Received	1,498.7201101 BTC
 622 2012-09-05 10:54:14 <MC-Eeepc> gaddamn
 623 2012-09-05 11:02:32 <Eliel> :D
 624 2012-09-05 11:29:24 TD has joined
 625 2012-09-05 11:33:39 olp has joined
 626 2012-09-05 11:45:47 <Eliel> sipa: hmm... interesting. the sync with this leveldb version looked to be going faster at first but in the end it seems it hasn't really been faster. Although, I'd best check how long it took with the bdb version to be sure my memory is working right.
 627 2012-09-05 11:48:53 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 628 2012-09-05 11:48:54 darksk1ez has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 629 2012-09-05 11:49:21 darksk1ez has joined
 630 2012-09-05 11:50:51 <Eliel> sipa: ok, scratch that, it took 5 hours with the bdb version.
 631 2012-09-05 11:56:44 slush has joined
 632 2012-09-05 12:01:58 darksk1ez has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 633 2012-09-05 12:07:18 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 634 2012-09-05 12:07:51 CluckCreek has joined
 635 2012-09-05 12:10:05 shhh has joined
 636 2012-09-05 12:11:35 Smooblush has joined
 637 2012-09-05 12:11:43 Smooblush has quit (Client Quit)
 638 2012-09-05 12:12:35 Smooblush has joined
 639 2012-09-05 12:13:37 Muis has joined
 640 2012-09-05 12:20:35 Guest23051 has quit (Changing host)
 641 2012-09-05 12:20:35 Guest23051 has joined
 642 2012-09-05 12:21:24 Guest23051 is now known as someoneweird
 643 2012-09-05 12:32:01 rdponticelli has joined
 644 2012-09-05 12:33:37 datagutt has joined
 645 2012-09-05 12:37:10 Evilmax has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 646 2012-09-05 12:41:48 vampireb has quit (Quit: leaving)
 647 2012-09-05 12:42:02 vampireb has joined
 648 2012-09-05 12:42:46 agricocb has joined
 649 2012-09-05 12:43:06 gjs278 has joined
 650 2012-09-05 12:44:30 mcorlett has quit ()
 651 2012-09-05 12:45:39 dvide has joined
 652 2012-09-05 12:46:40 darksk1ez has joined
 653 2012-09-05 12:51:26 darksk1ez has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 654 2012-09-05 12:51:43 <MC-Eeepc> this seems to have slowed down rather a lot now
 655 2012-09-05 12:52:12 someone42 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 656 2012-09-05 12:53:32 agricocb has left ()
 657 2012-09-05 12:55:22 justinm001 has joined
 658 2012-09-05 12:55:24 <justinm001> hi
 659 2012-09-05 12:56:00 <justinm001> would it be possible.. to have a feature in the normal client were it locks BTC in the wallet for a set time ?
 660 2012-09-05 12:56:25 <justinm001> to prevent ppl with no will power.. like myself.. to stop spending it
 661 2012-09-05 12:56:41 Joric has joined
 662 2012-09-05 12:56:43 <justinm001> I know it sounds kind of stupid... but i am serious :P
 663 2012-09-05 12:59:15 <CluckCreek> Yes, I think scripts would make that possible.
 664 2012-09-05 12:59:42 <TD> lol
 665 2012-09-05 12:59:53 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 666 2012-09-05 12:59:57 darksk1ez has joined
 667 2012-09-05 13:00:34 <TD> i think it's possible to implement using nLockTime and a multi-sig transaction with a third party, but it'd be kind of annoying to set up
 668 2012-09-05 13:00:59 <TD> a better approach is probably to have a friend or partner sign up for a notification service so they get informed if you spend the money
 669 2012-09-05 13:01:06 <TD> then they can help you work through your problems / guilt trip you
 670 2012-09-05 13:01:19 <justinm001> its not so much money problems
 671 2012-09-05 13:01:22 <justinm001> more the other way
 672 2012-09-05 13:01:31 <justinm001> were i got lots of btc and tend to gamble...
 673 2012-09-05 13:01:36 <justinm001> sometimes it works out realy well
 674 2012-09-05 13:01:43 <justinm001> othertimes its not.. thus :)
 675 2012-09-05 13:01:46 someoneweird has quit (Excess Flood)
 676 2012-09-05 13:02:08 <TD> ah
 677 2012-09-05 13:02:22 <justinm001> anyways if anyone has any suggestions.. would be interested to here.. and how many it would cost to implement for me
 678 2012-09-05 13:02:25 <TD> i still think multi-sig is the solution
 679 2012-09-05 13:02:29 <justinm001> how many BTC i mean
 680 2012-09-05 13:02:35 <TD> so you'd have coins that require more than one person to spend
 681 2012-09-05 13:02:39 SomeoneWeird has joined
 682 2012-09-05 13:02:43 <justinm001> hmmmm
 683 2012-09-05 13:02:45 <justinm001> not bad
 684 2012-09-05 13:02:47 <TD> if you really need to spend the money / want to spend it on something legitimate, they'd just sign for you
 685 2012-09-05 13:03:00 <TD> if you are trying to spend it on gambling they wouldn't sign and you couldn't move the money
 686 2012-09-05 13:03:01 <justinm001> is that available at the moment ?
 687 2012-09-05 13:03:02 SomeoneWeird is now known as Guest48018
 688 2012-09-05 13:03:09 <TD> sort of. it's partly implemented. there's no way to do it in the gui
 689 2012-09-05 13:03:32 <justinm001> so how would it work
 690 2012-09-05 13:03:42 <justinm001> i wana spend 100btc
 691 2012-09-05 13:03:45 <justinm001> 1 sign it
 692 2012-09-05 13:03:50 <justinm001> then how does the other person sign it ?
 693 2012-09-05 13:03:51 <TD> that's what still has to be figured out. at the protocol level it's easy enough. it's more the gui that needs design
 694 2012-09-05 13:04:07 <TD> probably the way it'd work is you'd click spend, fill out the payment as normal
 695 2012-09-05 13:04:14 <TD> now instead of it immediately going through (being broadcast), it'd generate a file
 696 2012-09-05 13:04:24 <TD> you can then get that file to the other person (your trusted partner)
 697 2012-09-05 13:04:28 <TD> like, via email
 698 2012-09-05 13:04:48 <TD> they open it and review what the spend does. then if they agree to it, they click "confirm", it gets signed and then they broadcast it for you
 699 2012-09-05 13:04:51 <TD> there's a problem with this though
 700 2012-09-05 13:04:59 <TD> which is that the second person only sees a set of addresses
 701 2012-09-05 13:05:10 <justinm001> i do like the idea of that
 702 2012-09-05 13:05:14 <justinm001> but might be overkill for this
 703 2012-09-05 13:05:16 <TD> they don't actually know who/what will receive the money. they'd have to trust you, and that defeats the point - presumably you can't be trusted
 704 2012-09-05 13:05:25 <TD> (btw this is all needed for security reasons anyway)
 705 2012-09-05 13:05:25 <justinm001> that would be good for things were 2 ppl the btcs
 706 2012-09-05 13:05:37 <justinm001> in my case tho
 707 2012-09-05 13:05:47 <TD> it's going to be implemented no matter what to handle cases like multiple business partners who have a business account, 2-factor signing of coins, other security systems
 708 2012-09-05 13:05:48 <justinm001> i am protecting myself.... from myself :P
 709 2012-09-05 13:06:02 <TD> we need to solve identity in the bitcoin network first
 710 2012-09-05 13:06:04 <justinm001> so some type of "lock" would be good
 711 2012-09-05 13:06:17 <TD> so people can see/handle some kind of useful identifier instead of an address.
 712 2012-09-05 13:06:27 <justinm001> locks the btc or transactiosn until X time passerf
 713 2012-09-05 13:06:31 <TD> if you just want to tie up money for a time period, a bit of custom software can do that for you, yes
 714 2012-09-05 13:06:43 <TD> you still need a trusted partner but they'd only have to get involved if you want to undo the time-locking early
 715 2012-09-05 13:07:04 <TD> but i don't see why that'd help you stop gambling. once your money becomes available again, you'd still have the temptation to gamble
 716 2012-09-05 13:07:18 <TD> honestly i don't think this has a technical fix. you may just need to get professional help. a gambling addiction can be quite dangerous
 717 2012-09-05 13:07:30 <justinm001> hehe nah nah its nothing like that
 718 2012-09-05 13:07:47 <kjj_> justinm001: just set up an offline wallet
 719 2012-09-05 13:08:00 Guest48018 has quit (Changing host)
 720 2012-09-05 13:08:01 Guest48018 has joined
 721 2012-09-05 13:08:07 <TD> yeah if you have a way to time-lock a physical object that can work
 722 2012-09-05 13:08:21 <justinm001> hmm
 723 2012-09-05 13:08:25 <kjj_> doesn't have to be a time lock, it just needs to be annoying to get to
 724 2012-09-05 13:08:29 <justinm001> not a bad idea at all
 725 2012-09-05 13:08:45 <kjj_> generate a key pair, print the private key.  send money to the address of that key
 726 2012-09-05 13:09:02 <kjj_> then store the paper key in an inconvenient, but safe, place
 727 2012-09-05 13:09:06 <TD> that's true
 728 2012-09-05 13:09:10 <kjj_> actually, several copies, several safe places
 729 2012-09-05 13:09:11 <justinm001> i was just hopinh to have it more intergrated with btc wallet
 730 2012-09-05 13:09:16 <justinm001> fotr educational purposes
 731 2012-09-05 13:09:28 <justinm001> so i can learn basic cofing
 732 2012-09-05 13:09:31 <justinm001> codinh
 733 2012-09-05 13:09:37 <justinm001> gggr
 734 2012-09-05 13:09:43 <justinm001> coding
 735 2012-09-05 13:10:13 <kjj_> like c++ hacking the client coding, or scripting?
 736 2012-09-05 13:11:29 <justinm001> anyways long story short.... anyone want to try setup a lock system using 0.6.3 client where you put specify X BTC gets locked for Y time
 737 2012-09-05 13:11:39 * justinm001 will pay BTC
 738 2012-09-05 13:11:53 <justinm001> but also... i'd like to learn how you are doing it aswell
 739 2012-09-05 13:12:29 <TD> how much coding do you already know?
 740 2012-09-05 13:12:37 <TD> bitcoin is a complex system. it's not really a beginners project
 741 2012-09-05 13:12:48 <kjj_> heh.  that's for sure
 742 2012-09-05 13:12:51 <justinm001> pretty good at perl, php
 743 2012-09-05 13:12:52 <TD> you can do it with java and bitcoinj BUT it requires you to know what you're doing, and using presently unused features of the protocol
 744 2012-09-05 13:13:02 <justinm001> if the gui was in perl.. i'd be able to do it myselgf
 745 2012-09-05 13:13:11 <justinm001> but i dont no any c/c++
 746 2012-09-05 13:13:13 <TD> transactions have a field called nLockTime
 747 2012-09-05 13:13:30 <TD> you can set it to a timestamp or block number. the transaction won't confirm until that time has passed.
 748 2012-09-05 13:13:41 <TD> however, it will stay in the memory pool and block double spends
 749 2012-09-05 13:13:53 <TD> so - the money can still be "spent" but only to recipients who accept zero-confirmation transactions
 750 2012-09-05 13:14:13 <freewil> TD, is that a possible DoS vector? having a really far-in-future nLockTime?
 751 2012-09-05 13:14:14 <kjj_> TD: is that field currently enforced?
 752 2012-09-05 13:14:22 <TD> the field should work
 753 2012-09-05 13:14:57 <justinm001> hmm
 754 2012-09-05 13:15:32 <justinm001> so when i recieve a trans i can set the field >?
 755 2012-09-05 13:15:38 rdponticelli has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 756 2012-09-05 13:15:44 jdnavarro has joined
 757 2012-09-05 13:15:50 <TD> freewil: it might be. i don't remember if there are any limits on mempool size. sipa?
 758 2012-09-05 13:16:03 <TD> freewil: i mean, the mempool implementation needs a lot of love in general to allow it to scale
 759 2012-09-05 13:16:14 <TD> justinm001: no, when you create a transaction
 760 2012-09-05 13:16:16 rdponticelli has joined
 761 2012-09-05 13:16:17 <kjj_> justinm001: no, you'd need to send to yourself
 762 2012-09-05 13:16:18 <TD> justinm001: you'd spend the money back to yourself
 763 2012-09-05 13:16:24 <justinm001> ah ok
 764 2012-09-05 13:16:38 <TD> freewil: looking at the code i don't see anywhere that mempool size is limited
 765 2012-09-05 13:16:39 <kjj_> or, convince whoever is sending to you to set it
 766 2012-09-05 13:16:51 <freewil> is the mempool ever written to disk
 767 2012-09-05 13:16:54 <justinm001> so i'd send 10btc and flag it to only confirm in 6 days or something ?
 768 2012-09-05 13:17:03 <kjj_> right
 769 2012-09-05 13:17:31 <justinm001> and then i recieve it but it will have 0 confrms until the 6 day ?
 770 2012-09-05 13:17:41 <TD> freewil: no
 771 2012-09-05 13:17:43 <justinm001> that sounds perferct
 772 2012-09-05 13:17:49 <TD> justinm001: correct
 773 2012-09-05 13:17:56 <sipa> TD: orphan transactions are limited, but the mempool isn't, afaics
 774 2012-09-05 13:17:56 <TD> justinm001: if you want to play with this, do it all on the testnet first
 775 2012-09-05 13:18:11 <TD> sipa: we should probably fix that. i agree, it seems mempool could just bloat up until the nodes run out of memory
 776 2012-09-05 13:18:14 <justinm001> cool thanks :)
 777 2012-09-05 13:18:48 <TD> justinm001: php/perl won't be the best languages to try this project in. it really needs to be either java or c++, i think
 778 2012-09-05 13:18:56 <justinm001> any sites u guys recommend that have info about thr flag stuff ?
 779 2012-09-05 13:18:59 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 780 2012-09-05 13:19:26 darksk1ez has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 781 2012-09-05 13:19:29 <freewil> wiki/bitcointalk/bitcoin.stackoverflow.com
 782 2012-09-05 13:19:46 <justinm001> TD ya :( also why i wanted to do it with client so i can play with c/c++
 783 2012-09-05 13:19:51 <justinm001> thanks
 784 2012-09-05 13:20:33 <TD> justinm001: as far as i know, nobody has ever used this field
 785 2012-09-05 13:20:38 <TD> justinm001: so don't expect to find any documentation about it
 786 2012-09-05 13:20:51 <TD> ... another reason why it'd be tricky if you don't have a good knowledge of java or c++
 787 2012-09-05 13:21:00 darksk1ez has joined
 788 2012-09-05 13:21:05 <TD> justinm001: look in the bitcoin c++ for nLockTime
 789 2012-09-05 13:21:44 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 790 2012-09-05 13:21:44 <justinm001> so nlocktime is the field ? or something else
 791 2012-09-05 13:22:09 <TD> nLockTime is the field in the CTransaction class that controls when a transaction becomes confirmable
 792 2012-09-05 13:22:32 <justinm001> ah cool
 793 2012-09-05 13:22:43 <justinm001> so ultimately i'd want in the gui
 794 2012-09-05 13:22:43 <TD> look in main.h function CTransaction::IsFinal
 795 2012-09-05 13:22:49 <TD> one step at a time
 796 2012-09-05 13:22:55 <TD> try locking up some coins on the testnet first
 797 2012-09-05 13:22:55 <justinm001> true true :P
 798 2012-09-05 13:23:02 <TD> with a hacked up c++ codebase
 799 2012-09-05 13:23:10 <TD> then look at the gui code and you should be able to "cargo cult" most of it
 800 2012-09-05 13:24:33 paraipan has joined
 801 2012-09-05 13:26:18 <justinm001> ok found the nlocktime
 802 2012-09-05 13:28:25 Marf has joined
 803 2012-09-05 13:28:33 Arnavion has joined
 804 2012-09-05 13:29:13 da2ce7 has joined
 805 2012-09-05 13:30:36 <justinm001> oh im getting it i think.. slowly..
 806 2012-09-05 13:34:05 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 807 2012-09-05 13:35:15 paraipan has joined
 808 2012-09-05 13:40:19 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 809 2012-09-05 13:41:11 imsaguy2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 810 2012-09-05 13:43:16 copumpkin has joined
 811 2012-09-05 13:47:54 Arnavion has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 812 2012-09-05 13:49:08 <justinm001> hmm
 813 2012-09-05 13:50:07 djoot has quit (Quit: leaving)
 814 2012-09-05 13:50:20 thermoman has joined
 815 2012-09-05 13:50:38 <justinm001> so im trying to compile now.. :P
 816 2012-09-05 13:50:39 <justinm001> main.h:40:2: error: invalid preprocessing directive #static
 817 2012-09-05 13:50:49 <justinm001> ive installed all the stuff the doc mentions
 818 2012-09-05 13:51:25 <sipa> no idea where that comes from, but "#static" is nowhere in the source code
 819 2012-09-05 13:51:39 <edcba> i'd say line 40 from main.h
 820 2012-09-05 13:51:54 <sipa> there's a "static" there, but no "#static"
 821 2012-09-05 13:51:59 <Diablo-D3> erm
 822 2012-09-05 13:52:02 <thermoman> is 0.6.3 downwards-compatible with 0.3.24? i want to upgrade 0.3.24 to latest stable release. i'm now using GUI at all but only RPC and i need to know if i have to change my code. is there a document describing incompatible modofications to the RPC protocol?
 823 2012-09-05 13:52:04 <Diablo-D3> it looks like someone failed to comment it out
 824 2012-09-05 13:52:26 <thermoman> s/i'm now using GUI/i'm not using GUI/
 825 2012-09-05 13:52:36 <Diablo-D3> thermoman: there isnt any changes to the existing rpc api that'd effect existing code afaik
 826 2012-09-05 13:52:40 <gmaxwell> my guess is that justinm001 set USE_UPNP to something weird?
 827 2012-09-05 13:52:55 <sipa> gmaxwell: i think he made a typo
 828 2012-09-05 13:53:13 <thermoman> Diablo-D3: i would like to have this written down somewhere on the official bitcoin.org website to read :)
 829 2012-09-05 13:53:41 <Diablo-D3> thermoman: sure, but thats not going to happen.
 830 2012-09-05 13:54:28 <justinm001> hmmm
 831 2012-09-05 13:54:34 Arnavion has joined
 832 2012-09-05 13:55:08 <Diablo-D3> thermoman: the only rpc stuff that were broke of that Im aware of were all private patch sets used by large sites
 833 2012-09-05 13:55:10 <thermoman> why is there no changelog included in the tar.gz files?
 834 2012-09-05 13:55:37 <sipa> thermoman: i can't think about any incompatible changes between 0.3.24 and 0.6.3, and we're generally very conservative with changes to RP
 835 2012-09-05 13:55:37 <Luke-Jr> thermoman: I'm not aware of any breaking changes from 0.3.24 to 0.6.3
 836 2012-09-05 13:55:47 <sipa> RPC
 837 2012-09-05 13:55:54 <thermoman> do i really have to read all changelogs of all interim releases in chronological order on sourceforce.net because no changelog in included in the tar file?
 838 2012-09-05 13:55:55 <gmaxwell> thermoman: because the git repository provides the complete log of changes.
 839 2012-09-05 13:56:02 <Luke-Jr> though breaking changes aren't especially avoided either
 840 2012-09-05 13:56:14 <thermoman> gmaxwell: ah ok
 841 2012-09-05 13:56:16 <jgarzik> kjj_: can you whip up some demo code in C++ or python?
 842 2012-09-05 13:57:38 <thermoman> gmaxwell: nevertheless it would be nice to include a CHANGES file in the tar file - it's common practice
 843 2012-09-05 13:57:41 <justinm001> i am trying to play with the nlocktime thing
 844 2012-09-05 13:57:50 <justinm001> just changed the 500000 to todays date + a few mins
 845 2012-09-05 13:57:56 <justinm001> then recompiled
 846 2012-09-05 13:58:03 <sipa> justinm001: why change the 500000?
 847 2012-09-05 13:58:10 <Luke-Jr> thermoman: you might note that 0.7 is right around the corner though, and does have a few minor RPC changes
 848 2012-09-05 13:58:11 <sipa> justinm001: that means an incompatible protocol change
 849 2012-09-05 13:58:28 <thermoman> Luke-Jr: few changes as in incompatible changes?
 850 2012-09-05 13:58:33 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr:  not relative to 0.3.24 as far as I can recall.
 851 2012-09-05 13:58:58 <TD> justinm001: that's not really the right thing to change
 852 2012-09-05 13:58:58 vigilyn has joined
 853 2012-09-05 13:58:59 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: hmm, probably true
 854 2012-09-05 13:59:02 <sipa> justinm001: you mean the 500000000, right?
 855 2012-09-05 13:59:04 <TD> justinm001: you need to change the code that creates transactions
 856 2012-09-05 13:59:14 <Luke-Jr> 0.3.24 is ancient :p
 857 2012-09-05 13:59:23 <thermoman> that's why we want to update :)
 858 2012-09-05 13:59:25 <justinm001> oh..
 859 2012-09-05 13:59:39 <justinm001> i thought i could perhaps just change that to be a current time.. and send a transaction
 860 2012-09-05 13:59:41 <justinm001> see what happens..
 861 2012-09-05 13:59:44 <justinm001> and go from there:P
 862 2012-09-05 13:59:45 <TD> no
 863 2012-09-05 13:59:50 imsaguy has joined
 864 2012-09-05 13:59:51 <justinm001> this is why i was happy to pay one of you ppls to do it heh
 865 2012-09-05 13:59:52 imsaguy has quit (Excess Flood)
 866 2012-09-05 13:59:55 <TD> you need to read the code much more carefully before making such changes
 867 2012-09-05 14:00:19 imsaguy has joined
 868 2012-09-05 14:00:19 imsaguy has quit (Changing host)
 869 2012-09-05 14:00:19 imsaguy has joined
 870 2012-09-05 14:00:28 <edcba> you need to understand bitcoin paper too
 871 2012-09-05 14:00:30 <sipa> actually, thermoman's suggestion is a good one I think; just concatenate the list of changes of every release in a CHANGES file
 872 2012-09-05 14:00:30 imsaguy has quit (Excess Flood)
 873 2012-09-05 14:00:51 danbri has joined
 874 2012-09-05 14:01:04 Arnavion has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 875 2012-09-05 14:01:08 imsaguy has joined
 876 2012-09-05 14:01:20 arij has joined
 877 2012-09-05 14:01:36 imsaguy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 878 2012-09-05 14:01:49 <sipa> justinm001: that 500000000 number is the boundary between which an nLockTime is considered a timestamp or a block number
 879 2012-09-05 14:01:53 imsaguy has joined
 880 2012-09-05 14:02:02 imsaguy has quit (Excess Flood)
 881 2012-09-05 14:02:09 <sipa> and it only occurs in the transaction checking code, which is not what you want to change
 882 2012-09-05 14:02:34 <sipa> justinm001: i'd say first experiment with building the code, make sure you can build a functioning non-modified client
 883 2012-09-05 14:02:36 <justinm001> perhaps ill go through it.. abit slower :P
 884 2012-09-05 14:02:43 imsaguy has joined
 885 2012-09-05 14:02:44 <justinm001> ya thinking that to
 886 2012-09-05 14:02:44 <sipa> and then go look at the wallet code that creates transactions
 887 2012-09-05 14:04:09 <thermoman> sipa: the CHANGES file should then contain changes of *every* release, not only the changes from last release. like the debian_changes file of debian packages
 888 2012-09-05 14:04:17 imsaguy has quit (Excess Flood)
 889 2012-09-05 14:04:18 <Luke-Jr> git log --pretty=tformat:'- %s' --no-merges
 890 2012-09-05 14:04:32 <sipa> thermoman: that's why i said "concatenation"
 891 2012-09-05 14:04:48 imsaguy has joined
 892 2012-09-05 14:04:48 imsaguy has quit (Changing host)
 893 2012-09-05 14:04:48 imsaguy has joined
 894 2012-09-05 14:04:49 imsaguy has quit (Excess Flood)
 895 2012-09-05 14:05:18 <sipa> git commit list is certainly interesting but too detailed for most users, i think
 896 2012-09-05 14:05:27 <thermoman> agreed
 897 2012-09-05 14:05:32 imsaguy has joined
 898 2012-09-05 14:05:33 imsaguy has quit (Changing host)
 899 2012-09-05 14:05:33 imsaguy has joined
 900 2012-09-05 14:06:19 <thermoman> are there any pitfalls or is upgrading straigth forward as in 1) stop 0.3.24 client 2) backup everything 3) start 0.6.3 ?
 901 2012-09-05 14:06:32 <thermoman> 4) pray
 902 2012-09-05 14:06:55 <sipa> it should work, if your database files are clean
 903 2012-09-05 14:07:12 <sipa> recent versions do have stronger integrity checks
 904 2012-09-05 14:07:19 maaku has joined
 905 2012-09-05 14:07:29 <sipa> so there may be slumbering corruptions which cause a recent version to fail loading
 906 2012-09-05 14:07:31 <thermoman> can i check for corruption before starting 0.6.3?
 907 2012-09-05 14:07:39 <sipa> not really
 908 2012-09-05 14:07:50 <sipa> but make a backup, and you're safe
 909 2012-09-05 14:07:56 <thermoman> should i do -rescan with 0.3.24 first?
 910 2012-09-05 14:08:08 <sipa> no
 911 2012-09-05 14:08:21 <sipa> -rescan has almost never been needed since 0.3.21 as it's done automatically at startup when necessary
 912 2012-09-05 14:08:31 <Luke-Jr> sipa: err, not quite
 913 2012-09-05 14:08:55 <sipa> the only case where it's needed is if you manually modify the wallet.dat file with bdb tools
 914 2012-09-05 14:08:59 <Luke-Jr> sipa: in theory maybe, but in practice I've seen transactions get missed
 915 2012-09-05 14:09:12 <sipa> Luke-Jr: yes, that was a GUI problem that got solved by restarting without -rescan too
 916 2012-09-05 14:09:12 <thermoman> me too with 0.3.24
 917 2012-09-05 14:09:33 <ErnestoJuarell> Is there any good open source stuff for getting blockchain stats?
 918 2012-09-05 14:09:47 <thermoman> i hate berkeley DB files ... not only because they perform so badly
 919 2012-09-05 14:09:55 imsaguy is now known as imsaguy2
 920 2012-09-05 14:09:57 <sipa> thermoman: we're moving away from BDB
 921 2012-09-05 14:10:03 <sipa> and you're not alone :)
 922 2012-09-05 14:10:08 <thermoman> haha, nice
 923 2012-09-05 14:10:11 <thermoman> move to what?
 924 2012-09-05 14:10:17 imsaguy2 is now known as imsaguy
 925 2012-09-05 14:10:24 imsaguy is now known as imsaguy2
 926 2012-09-05 14:10:29 <Luke-Jr> LevelDB for indexs, and some custom format for the wallet
 927 2012-09-05 14:10:30 <sipa> LevelDB for blockchain indexes, something custom for wallets probably
 928 2012-09-05 14:10:35 <Luke-Jr> :p
 929 2012-09-05 14:10:45 <thermoman> ;)
 930 2012-09-05 14:11:06 <thermoman> but not in 0.7 i guess
 931 2012-09-05 14:11:12 <sipa> 0.8 probably
 932 2012-09-05 14:11:12 <Luke-Jr> 0.8
 933 2012-09-05 14:11:21 <gmaxwell> 0.8 (AM I TOO LATE AGAIN GUYS?)
 934 2012-09-05 14:11:22 <TD> consider the bitcoinj protocol buffer format?
 935 2012-09-05 14:11:28 <Luke-Jr> lol
 936 2012-09-05 14:11:59 <sipa> TD: i prefer something append-only, which is probably hard with protobuf, no?
 937 2012-09-05 14:12:13 <Luke-Jr> sipa: should be hard
 938 2012-09-05 14:12:18 <Luke-Jr> shouldn't*
 939 2012-09-05 14:12:19 <TD> right. it describes the current state of the wallet, not a log of changes
 940 2012-09-05 14:12:20 <thermoman> starting the 0.3.24 daemon takes ages ... when checking file system stats i see reads of 3 MByte/s ...
 941 2012-09-05 14:12:26 <TD> (in the format we used)
 942 2012-09-05 14:12:44 <Luke-Jr> TD: does the format you used support HD wallets?
 943 2012-09-05 14:12:55 <thermoman> using bitcoin on an external usb hdd is a pain in the ass and not usable ... BDB is so damn slow
 944 2012-09-05 14:12:57 <sipa> nothing supports those yet, Luke-Jr
 945 2012-09-05 14:13:02 <TD> not yet. jim is working on adding encrypted keys and is nearly done, i just need to do another review and merge of his code
 946 2012-09-05 14:13:27 <TD> it is not a perfect fit for bitcoind because it was designed for SPV clients, so transactions have "pools" and stuff like that
 947 2012-09-05 14:13:46 <TD> but it could maybe be evolved in a compatible direction. that said, if you want a log-structured format ...
 948 2012-09-05 14:13:55 <sipa> yeah, i'm more of a fan of a nice standard interchange format for wallets
 949 2012-09-05 14:13:57 <TD> what's the rationale for that btw? you'd have to replay the log on startup?
 950 2012-09-05 14:14:20 <sipa> not needing to rewrite the entire wallet file for every change, little chance for corruption, ...
 951 2012-09-05 14:14:23 <TD> yes, well, it could work quite well as an interchange format
 952 2012-09-05 14:14:50 <TD> yeah, but at the cost of huge wallets taking ages to replay into memory
 953 2012-09-05 14:15:02 <Luke-Jr> TD: they have to be loaded anyway.
 954 2012-09-05 14:15:03 <gmaxwell> and replaying should be little more expensive than a non-append-only-format because for the most part the wallet content doesn't change.
 955 2012-09-05 14:15:34 <TD> i'm thinking about high-traffic websites here like satoshidice or whatever. where you have potentially high tx throughput on a single wallet
 956 2012-09-05 14:15:49 <sipa> well all that happens is adding new transactions to it
 957 2012-09-05 14:15:56 <sipa> and marking some outputs spent
 958 2012-09-05 14:16:01 <TD> yes
 959 2012-09-05 14:17:02 <Luke-Jr> maybe a separate wallet (keys only) and metadata file (comments/txns) would make sense
 960 2012-09-05 14:17:07 <TD> we went for a protobuf format in bitcoinj because we need ~instant startup (people don't really tolerate loading screens on mobile apps). the format reflects that requirement - for instance it allows you to store the public parts of keys alongside the private parts. it's obviously redundant but means there's no need to do the point multiplies at startup
 961 2012-09-05 14:17:28 <thermoman> last question: 0.3.24 and testnet - is this buggy? because blockexplorer says current block count is about 23150 but my 0.3.24 testnet client is at 46722 blocks
 962 2012-09-05 14:17:41 <sipa> thermoman: 0.3.24 was testnet1 or testnet2
 963 2012-09-05 14:17:45 <sipa> 0.6.3 uses testnet3
 964 2012-09-05 14:17:47 <Luke-Jr> thermoman: testnet has been restarted a few times, the current version is only supported by 0.7
 965 2012-09-05 14:17:59 <gmaxwell> sipa: no, 0.7.0 uses testnet3. 0.6.3 uses testnet2
 966 2012-09-05 14:18:12 <gmaxwell> blockexplorer is on testnet3.
 967 2012-09-05 14:18:17 <sipa> gmaxwell: oh really? :o
 968 2012-09-05 14:18:26 <sipa> has 0.6.0 been that long ago...
 969 2012-09-05 14:18:26 <thermoman> so i can't exchange testnet bitcoins between 0.3.24 and 0.6.3, right?
 970 2012-09-05 14:18:44 <gmaxwell> I think 0.3.24 and 0.6.3 are both testnet2.
 971 2012-09-05 14:18:51 <sipa> indeed
 972 2012-09-05 14:18:52 <sipa> just checked
 973 2012-09-05 14:18:53 <gmaxwell> though testnet2 is mostly broken.
 974 2012-09-05 14:19:02 <sipa> right, 0.6.3 has testnet2.2
 975 2012-09-05 14:20:33 <justinm001> ok getting over this now..
 976 2012-09-05 14:20:50 * justinm001 will pay someone make btc client so i can use nlocktime for only certain payments
 977 2012-09-05 14:22:17 <sipa> Luke-Jr: meh about splitting keys and metadata; sounds like a hell to keep synchronized
 978 2012-09-05 14:22:39 <Luke-Jr> sipa: maybe, I didn't give it much thought
 979 2012-09-05 14:23:37 <TD> backups would be more annoying if nothing else
 980 2012-09-05 14:23:53 Arnavion has joined
 981 2012-09-05 14:24:00 <justinm001> surely one of you wants some beeteec's
 982 2012-09-05 14:24:05 <TD> my code just does a serialize to protobuf, save to temp file in same directory, rename over previous
 983 2012-09-05 14:24:17 <TD> justinm001: heh, sorry dude, maybe ask on the forum? most people have their own project
 984 2012-09-05 14:24:27 <justinm001> ok thanks anyways heaps for your help :)
 985 2012-09-05 14:25:32 PhantomSpark has joined
 986 2012-09-05 14:25:32 PhantomSpark has quit (2!~kvirc@pool-71-251-16-25.nycmny.fios.verizon.net|Client Quit)
 987 2012-09-05 14:26:07 PhantomSpark has joined
 988 2012-09-05 14:33:09 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
 989 2012-09-05 14:33:17 Cablesaurus has joined
 990 2012-09-05 14:34:27 <thermoman> what do you mean when you say "testnet was reset"? am i right that different daemon versions use different testnets and all these testnets exist concurrently?
 991 2012-09-05 14:35:19 <jgarzik> thermoman: new genesis block, new pchMessageStart ("magic number" identifying the network, and required for all testnet P2P messages to be understood)
 992 2012-09-05 14:36:01 <jgarzik> older testnet block chain transactions are not recognized as valid
 993 2012-09-05 14:36:22 justinm001 has left ()
 994 2012-09-05 14:37:19 <jgarzik> TD: where is the *.proto file?  (I'm unfamiliar with the bitcoinj source dir)
 995 2012-09-05 14:38:08 <jgarzik> is this it?  http://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/source/browse/core/src/bitcoin.proto
 996 2012-09-05 14:38:19 <jgarzik> trying to look at the wallet file format
 997 2012-09-05 14:46:49 <MC-Eeepc> bonus round
 998 2012-09-05 14:47:02 <MC-Eeepc> why did satoshi go with obscure ecdsa
 999 2012-09-05 14:47:17 <MC-Eeepc> because its Q resistant?
1000 2012-09-05 14:47:20 <Luke-Jr> MC-Eeepc: small signatures
1001 2012-09-05 14:47:28 <sipa> and it is not quantum resistant
1002 2012-09-05 14:47:47 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: how many blocks done?
1003 2012-09-05 14:47:50 <MC-Eeepc> so it was just the sze thing
1004 2012-09-05 14:48:01 <sipa> i believe so; TD corresponded with him about that
1005 2012-09-05 14:48:26 <Luke-Jr> size is pretty important right now
1006 2012-09-05 14:48:36 <MC-Eeepc> sipa 165k
1007 2012-09-05 14:48:44 <sipa> is that good?
1008 2012-09-05 14:49:02 <MC-Eeepc> i think so
1009 2012-09-05 14:49:09 <MC-Eeepc> its stopping and starting all the time
1010 2012-09-05 14:49:32 <Eliel> sipa: strange. this leveldb version appears to be slower in processing the later blocks.
1011 2012-09-05 14:49:56 <sipa> Eliel: what are you syncing from?
1012 2012-09-05 14:49:57 <jgarzik> later blocks are bigger, with more transactions to spend
1013 2012-09-05 14:50:07 <MC-Eeepc> im getting the same vibe as Eliel tbh
1014 2012-09-05 14:50:08 <sipa> if you happen to be connected to a slow peer, IBD will be slow
1015 2012-09-05 14:50:09 <Eliel> sipa: my local bitcoin 0.6.3 node.
1016 2012-09-05 14:50:14 <sipa> ah
1017 2012-09-05 14:50:21 <Eliel> as with the bdb version
1018 2012-09-05 14:50:26 <sipa> really?
1019 2012-09-05 14:50:47 <sipa> that's unexpected
1020 2012-09-05 14:51:16 <MC-Eeepc> maybe windows is handling the writes in a stupid way
1021 2012-09-05 14:51:24 <Eliel> regardless, the bottleneck seems to be CPU somehow
1022 2012-09-05 14:51:26 <Eliel> not IO
1023 2012-09-05 14:51:26 <Luke-Jr> maybe the reads are interfering?
1024 2012-09-05 14:51:29 <Luke-Jr> oh
1025 2012-09-05 14:51:51 <Eliel> it's been nearly fully utilizing one of the cores
1026 2012-09-05 14:52:02 <Eliel> CPU time measure is at 5:40 at the moment.
1027 2012-09-05 14:52:05 <sipa> that's normal, after the last checkpoint
1028 2012-09-05 14:52:17 <Eliel> it's not reached the last checkpoint yet
1029 2012-09-05 14:52:24 <sipa> ah, good!
1030 2012-09-05 14:52:41 <Eliel> 186923 is the block it was processing a moment ago
1031 2012-09-05 14:52:42 <MC-Eeepc> my cpu goes between 30% and 0
1032 2012-09-05 14:53:08 RainbowDashh has joined
1033 2012-09-05 14:53:39 <Eliel> the I/O write bytes and I/O read bytes are at 26.4 GB and 23.5 GB respectively.
1034 2012-09-05 14:53:50 <TD> sipa: did you bring across my change to ProcessBlock to print tx/sec?
1035 2012-09-05 14:53:51 <TD> jgarzik: yes
1036 2012-09-05 14:53:56 <sipa> TD: oh, no
1037 2012-09-05 14:54:01 <sipa> Eliel: well, feel free to benchmark BDB as well
1038 2012-09-05 14:54:10 <sipa> Eliel: s/BDB/git head/
1039 2012-09-05 14:54:11 <TD> sipa: i found it useful (in the later stages of the chain)
1040 2012-09-05 14:54:12 RainbowDashh has quit (Client Quit)
1041 2012-09-05 14:54:24 <TD> MC-Eeepc: yes it was just a size thing
1042 2012-09-05 14:54:39 <TD> MC-Eeepc: though it turned out to be a prescient choice for other reasons. ECC is basically the "next gen" crypto system
1043 2012-09-05 14:54:42 <TD> or current gen, i guess by now
1044 2012-09-05 14:54:54 <Eliel> I guess I can't just switch this version to use BDB with a command line parameter, can I? :)
1045 2012-09-05 14:55:01 <sipa> Eliel: no
1046 2012-09-05 14:55:25 <sipa> i can do a build of git head, or of ultraprune without BDB if you want, though
1047 2012-09-05 14:55:34 <sipa> without leveldb, i mean
1048 2012-09-05 14:55:51 RainbowDashh has joined
1049 2012-09-05 14:56:05 <MC-Eeepc> it seems like it can still chew thru 10blox/sec or so when is not stalled
1050 2012-09-05 14:56:17 <MC-Eeepc> not smooth at all
1051 2012-09-05 14:56:28 <sipa> define stalled?
1052 2012-09-05 14:56:33 <TD> this is your eeepc right?
1053 2012-09-05 14:56:44 <TD> if you aren't on a multi-core machine leveldb may not be any faster or could even be slower
1054 2012-09-05 14:56:48 <MC-Eeepc> not dling blox, 0% cpu
1055 2012-09-05 14:57:00 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: how long do those stalls last?
1056 2012-09-05 14:57:30 <MC-Eeepc> maybe 30 seconds
1057 2012-09-05 14:57:41 jdnavarro has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1058 2012-09-05 14:57:49 <sipa> that feels like the OS blocking to flush to your USB stick
1059 2012-09-05 14:58:35 <MC-Eeepc> yes
1060 2012-09-05 14:58:47 <sipa> well, very little to do about that
1061 2012-09-05 14:59:15 <sipa> Eliel: what hardware are you on?
1062 2012-09-05 15:00:06 <MC-Eeepc> 165k blox 3:45 cpu time 11.5gb i/o write
1063 2012-09-05 15:02:45 <Eliel> sipa: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ for processor and Samsung HD501LJ for HDD
1064 2012-09-05 15:02:51 <MC-Eeepc> does hyperthreading count
1065 2012-09-05 15:02:56 <Eliel> also, Windows XP
1066 2012-09-05 15:04:05 <Eliel> I have a dual boot ubuntu in this system (I think, I haven't booted it up in a long while) so I could test the linux version with the same hardware to see what kind of a difference there is too.
1067 2012-09-05 15:04:42 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1068 2012-09-05 15:04:48 <MC-Eeepc> there was something greg did a whle back which made it lots faster on linux but not windows
1069 2012-09-05 15:05:25 <sipa> that was mostly because it was buggy on linux before that
1070 2012-09-05 15:05:37 <MC-Eeepc> i wonder if it would be optimised for the way certain common filesystems work
1071 2012-09-05 15:05:46 <sipa> leveldb?
1072 2012-09-05 15:06:01 <MC-Eeepc> dunno, suppose
1073 2012-09-05 15:06:08 <MC-Eeepc> in whatever way
1074 2012-09-05 15:06:10 <Eliel> I'm kind of curious though, since it looks like it's CPU bound, not IO bound.
1075 2012-09-05 15:06:45 <Eliel> I still have the BDB version from earlier and it did a complete sync in 5 hours.
1076 2012-09-05 15:06:56 <sipa> when was earlier?
1077 2012-09-05 15:07:00 <Eliel> a week ago
1078 2012-09-05 15:07:08 <sipa> and how long is it been running now?
1079 2012-09-05 15:07:20 <Eliel> 6 hours 15 minutes
1080 2012-09-05 15:07:25 <sipa> very strange
1081 2012-09-05 15:07:27 <MC-Eeepc> wat
1082 2012-09-05 15:08:07 <sipa> Eliel: can you try with a larger chache? -dbcache=150
1083 2012-09-05 15:08:13 <Eliel> BDB version was clearly IO bound.
1084 2012-09-05 15:08:15 <Eliel> I'll try
1085 2012-09-05 15:08:39 <sipa> i think the cache is very important for leveldb, but since my OS cache is large enough, i don't notice anything here
1086 2012-09-05 15:09:33 <Eliel> system cache is listed as around 2GB in task manager
1087 2012-09-05 15:10:08 <Eliel> I did not touch the settings, I just restarted it. It's blazing through the blocks now.
1088 2012-09-05 15:10:27 <MC-Eeepc> ok im gonna pull the stick again and see what happens
1089 2012-09-05 15:10:52 <Eliel> sipa: I think there's some kind of a leak somewhere perhaps.
1090 2012-09-05 15:10:58 <MC-Eeepc> fuck this usb is hot
1091 2012-09-05 15:11:08 <sipa> Eliel: why?
1092 2012-09-05 15:11:18 <Eliel> it's doing 5 blocks per second after restart. I didn't try the dbcache setting yet
1093 2012-09-05 15:11:35 darkee has quit (!~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1094 2012-09-05 15:12:10 <MC-Eeepc> ok stick pulled 1 min ago and bitcoin hasnt crashed yet lol
1095 2012-09-05 15:12:26 <Eliel> before restart it was doing maybe a block every few seconds or so
1096 2012-09-05 15:12:28 ByteUnits has quit (Quit: Imagine that everything you say in your own house, do on the pc/phone, all bankaccount activity is tapped without any courtwarrents or my permission and givven to the (state)media for at least 10 years. Thats Dutch reality justice in 2012; Human rights i)
1097 2012-09-05 15:13:45 <Eliel> I think there's some subtask that takes more and more CPU the longer it syncs.
1098 2012-09-05 15:14:25 <sipa> later blocks are just a lot larger
1099 2012-09-05 15:14:32 <sipa> and the database is larger too at that point
1100 2012-09-05 15:15:04 PiZZaMaN2K is now known as away!~PiZZaMaN2@host-72-2-137-170.csinet.net|PiZZaMaN2K
1101 2012-09-05 15:15:07 <sipa> oh, you just quit and restarted?
1102 2012-09-05 15:15:27 <Eliel> yes
1103 2012-09-05 15:15:36 <Eliel> an it sped up by a factor of 20x or more
1104 2012-09-05 15:15:59 <sipa> weird
1105 2012-09-05 15:17:58 jdnavarro has joined
1106 2012-09-05 15:18:06 theorbtwo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1107 2012-09-05 15:19:41 <MC-Eeepc> ok its rescanning that means it knows it crashed right
1108 2012-09-05 15:19:48 <MC-Eeepc> i think this is fucked up now
1109 2012-09-05 15:20:00 <MC-Eeepc> it said importing blocks from prev database then crashed
1110 2012-09-05 15:20:08 <sipa> hmm, ok
1111 2012-09-05 15:20:15 CodesInChaos has joined
1112 2012-09-05 15:20:15 <sipa> anything in debug.log?
1113 2012-09-05 15:21:54 <MC-Eeepc> Loading block index...
1114 2012-09-05 15:21:54 <MC-Eeepc> Opening LevelDB in E:\blockchain\blktree
1115 2012-09-05 15:21:54 <MC-Eeepc> Opened LevelDB successfully
1116 2012-09-05 15:21:54 <MC-Eeepc> Opening LevelDB in E:\blockchain\coins
1117 2012-09-05 15:21:54 <MC-Eeepc> Opened LevelDB successfully
1118 2012-09-05 15:21:55 <MC-Eeepc> LoadBlockIndex(): last block file = 7
1119 2012-09-05 15:21:57 <MC-Eeepc> LoadBlockIndex(): last block file: CBlockFileInfo(blocks=2964, size=63427819, heights=163725..166688, time=2012-01-25..2012-02-13)
1120 2012-09-05 15:22:00 <MC-Eeepc> LoadBlockIndex(): hashBestChain=0000000000000823caf9  height=166669 date=02/13/12 18:50:55
1121 2012-09-05 15:22:02 <MC-Eeepc> Verifying last 2500 blocks at level 1
1122 2012-09-05 15:22:04 <MC-Eeepc>  block index           41902ms
1123 2012-09-05 15:22:06 <MC-Eeepc> Loading wallet...
1124 2012-09-05 15:22:08 <MC-Eeepc> dbenv.open LogDir=E:\blockchain\database ErrorFile=E:\blockchain\db.log
1125 2012-09-05 15:22:10 <MC-Eeepc> nFileVersion = 70000
1126 2012-09-05 15:22:12 <MC-Eeepc>  wallet                 2355ms
1127 2012-09-05 15:22:13 <BlueMatt> please dont paste that much
1128 2012-09-05 15:22:14 <MC-Eeepc> Rescanning last 2244 blocks (from block 164425)...
1129 2012-09-05 15:22:18 <MC-Eeepc>  rescan                27503ms
1130 2012-09-05 15:22:20 DamascusVG has quit (Quit: I Quit - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p97zsQ51Rw)
1131 2012-09-05 15:23:52 darkee has joined
1132 2012-09-05 15:24:31 MC-Eeepc has joined
1133 2012-09-05 15:25:20 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: anything over 3 lines, use a paste site
1134 2012-09-05 15:27:18 ZephyrVoid has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1135 2012-09-05 15:27:37 <sipa> can you paste it again?
1136 2012-09-05 15:29:28 <MC-Eeepc> assertion failed
1137 2012-09-05 15:29:52 <MC-Eeepc> src/main.cpp
1138 2012-09-05 15:30:03 <MC-Eeepc> line 1177
1139 2012-09-05 15:30:12 gavinandresen has joined
1140 2012-09-05 15:30:15 <MC-Eeepc> i dont even
1141 2012-09-05 15:30:34 <MC-Eeepc> http://pastebin.com/PmixiKaY
1142 2012-09-05 15:32:35 <MC-Eeepc> ok i think i trashed the blockchain that time
1143 2012-09-05 15:37:36 <Eliel> sipa: another strangeness found. now that it hit the last checkpoint, it's still syncing but not showing a progress meter this time. the block count keeps increasing if I use the getinfo command
1144 2012-09-05 15:38:14 <sipa> MC-Eeepc: which assertion?
1145 2012-09-05 15:38:25 <sipa> Eliel: hmm ok, thanks; i'll look into that
1146 2012-09-05 15:39:23 Diapolo has joined
1147 2012-09-05 15:42:52 SphericalCow has joined
1148 2012-09-05 15:45:24 RainbowDashh has joined
1149 2012-09-05 15:45:55 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: A day without sunshine is like .... night)
1150 2012-09-05 15:49:51 Diapolo has left ()
1151 2012-09-05 15:52:09 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1152 2012-09-05 15:56:07 daboolez has joined
1153 2012-09-05 16:00:59 t7 has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.88-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.0.17/2009122204])
1154 2012-09-05 16:01:35 sebicas has joined
1155 2012-09-05 16:01:37 <gavinandresen> wumpus sipa jgarzik gmaxwell : any pull requests or issues that need attention before tagging a 0.7rc2 ?
1156 2012-09-05 16:02:09 <gavinandresen> Only worrisome thing on my list is the valgrind errors on shutdown
1157 2012-09-05 16:03:13 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: go for it
1158 2012-09-05 16:03:45 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I'd rather cut the RC sooner rather than later, even with the valgrind errors on shutdown.
1159 2012-09-05 16:05:15 <gavinandresen> ACK.  I'll bump version numbers, tag and push
1160 2012-09-05 16:06:24 <gavinandresen> ummm... right after I edit the release notes a bit
1161 2012-09-05 16:07:22 <sipa> let's see
1162 2012-09-05 16:08:30 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: uh oh :)
1163 2012-09-05 16:08:34 <sipa> jgarzik: no need for 1786? not sure how serious it is
1164 2012-09-05 16:09:12 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: I'm just adding an Incompatible Changes section at the top with the getmemorypool change, so people are slightly less likely to be surprised
1165 2012-09-05 16:09:23 <jgarzik> sipa: it's needed, but it looks like the first arg should be the only conditional, not the entire call
1166 2012-09-05 16:09:52 <jgarzik> sipa: Windows wants !NULL, contra what some cygwin code implies
1167 2012-09-05 16:09:53 <sipa> doc/Tor.txt still mentions -dnsseed, which was removed
1168 2012-09-05 16:10:20 <jgarzik> I'll respin today, but don't wait on rc2 for that
1169 2012-09-05 16:10:58 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: note some other RPCs were removed as well (these are mentioned in the JSON-RPC section)
1170 2012-09-05 16:11:47 <gavinandresen> sipa: I'll fix doc/Tor.txt
1171 2012-09-05 16:11:52 * jgarzik -> Mexican food
1172 2012-09-05 16:12:56 <sipa> why is the new checkpoint mentioned under RPC changes?
1173 2012-09-05 16:13:45 <gavinandresen> sipa: ACK, moving that to core section
1174 2012-09-05 16:15:00 SphericalCow has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1175 2012-09-05 16:15:10 SphericalCow has joined
1176 2012-09-05 16:16:09 theorbtwo has joined
1177 2012-09-05 16:17:31 ErnestoJuarell has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1178 2012-09-05 16:20:05 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: is there a formal announcement for CVE-2012-4682/4683 yet?
1179 2012-09-05 16:21:24 <gavinandresen> Luke-Jr: no
1180 2012-09-05 16:22:57 <Eliel> these CVEs are popping up with somewhat worrying frequency :P
1181 2012-09-05 16:23:25 <Luke-Jr> Eliel: meh, as long as the easy-major ones are somewhat rare it's ok :p
1182 2012-09-05 16:23:45 <Luke-Jr> on the bright side, they're not *new* vulns, just old ones being discovered
1183 2012-09-05 16:24:25 <Eliel> so, how severe is this one?
1184 2012-09-05 16:24:26 <gavinandresen> i don't think these latest ones qualify as 'major'
1185 2012-09-05 16:24:56 <gavinandresen> run-of-the-mill denial-of-service attack... send a node a few gigabytes of data and you might be able to get it to fill up memory and crash is the most serious
1186 2012-09-05 16:25:13 * Luke-Jr suspects 4682/4683 are just "not worth the time" rather than intentionally withheld for security
1187 2012-09-05 16:25:14 <gavinandresen> (so it crashes and restarts... meh)
1188 2012-09-05 16:25:39 <freewil> yeah as far as bitcoin is concerned i would never qualify a DOS as major
1189 2012-09-05 16:26:11 <sipa> gavinandresen: i feel we should mention the BDB upgrade problem
1190 2012-09-05 16:26:16 <Luke-Jr> freewil: well, if someone exploits it to shut a merchant down, it might be a pain
1191 2012-09-05 16:26:29 <gavinandresen> sipa: there's a BDB upgrade problem?  did we switch versions somewhere?
1192 2012-09-05 16:26:42 <freewil> Luke-Jr, yes but relatively minor issue
1193 2012-09-05 16:27:03 <sipa> gavinandresen: apparently, -detachdb is even necessary when just the minor version of BDB changed
1194 2012-09-05 16:27:16 * Luke-Jr didn't know we changed minor version even <.<
1195 2012-09-05 16:27:34 <sipa> gavinandresen: and for example official linux builds and the PPA use different ones
1196 2012-09-05 16:28:24 <sipa> so we saw a lot of people who used the PPA and wanted to try RC builds, and got errors
1197 2012-09-05 16:28:35 <Luke-Jr> git tells me Windows binaries use the same exact bdb - so if it's occuring there, something else is going on
1198 2012-09-05 16:29:58 <TD> ppa
1199 2012-09-05 16:29:59 <TD> ?
1200 2012-09-05 16:31:00 <gavinandresen> TD: ppa is personal package anarchy, a debian thing....
1201 2012-09-05 16:31:23 <TD> we should make the code exit(1) at startup if it detects that it was built by debian :)
1202 2012-09-05 16:32:24 <TD> or more realistically have the binary check its own signature and print a warning at startup about not being supported if the signature doesn't match
1203 2012-09-05 16:32:26 <gavinandresen> sipa: I'll add a "how to upgrade" section that recommends shutdown first on every platform. And run -detachdb, shutdown on Linux
1204 2012-09-05 16:32:37 <Luke-Jr> lol @ anarchy
1205 2012-09-05 16:32:50 <Luke-Jr> and afaik PPA only works on Ubuntu :p
1206 2012-09-05 16:33:04 <TD> debian/ubuntu/whatever
1207 2012-09-05 16:33:13 <gavinandresen> yeah, they all look the same to me
1208 2012-09-05 16:33:25 <Luke-Jr> TD: you're anti-packaging?
1209 2012-09-05 16:33:34 <TD> yes
1210 2012-09-05 16:33:38 hattorihanzo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1211 2012-09-05 16:33:44 <Luke-Jr> explains a bit.
1212 2012-09-05 16:34:21 B0g4r7_ has joined
1213 2012-09-05 16:34:42 <BlueMatt> TD: the ppa is packaged by me
1214 2012-09-05 16:35:02 rdponticelli has joined
1215 2012-09-05 16:35:03 <BlueMatt> TD: though I agree that we should complain if we find we are running the "official" debian/ubuntu packages
1216 2012-09-05 16:35:30 <Luke-Jr> so BlueMatt is just anti-distro :P
1217 2012-09-05 16:36:07 <BlueMatt> depends on the specific one and the specific program
1218 2012-09-05 16:37:15 * Luke-Jr hopes Debian pain is over once they get over 0.3
1219 2012-09-05 16:38:01 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1220 2012-09-05 16:38:02 B0g4r7__ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1221 2012-09-05 16:41:11 <gavinandresen> Can y'all proofread this How to Upgrade for me:  https://gist.github.com/3639513
1222 2012-09-05 16:41:21 vampireb_ has joined
1223 2012-09-05 16:41:48 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: ACK
1224 2012-09-05 16:41:54 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: looks ok to me
1225 2012-09-05 16:42:07 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: or maybe s/How to Upgrade/How to run this RC Version/
1226 2012-09-05 16:42:21 <BlueMatt> if you are on the ppa "How to upgrade" is just apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
1227 2012-09-05 16:43:18 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: ppa users will know that already, though, right?
1228 2012-09-05 16:44:20 <BlueMatt> they should, but maybe "Remember: when switching from a bitcoin compiled with one version of BDB to one compiled with another (this RC is built with a different version than the PPA), you must..."
1229 2012-09-05 16:46:10 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: I'll put something like that in the release announcement, in the "A PPA is available at...." secion
1230 2012-09-05 16:46:26 <BlueMatt> sure
1231 2012-09-05 16:47:59 <gavinandresen> all righty, pushed tag v0.7.0rc2
1232 2012-09-05 16:49:09 <gavinandresen> My gitian-building machine is still broken (dying hard disk, should have a replacement in a few days) so I can't gitian build right now
1233 2012-09-05 16:49:53 <Joric> puik's testing tx comments on me https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40264.msg1159289#msg1159289
1234 2012-09-05 16:50:02 <Joric> are zero output transactions still legit
1235 2012-09-05 16:50:06 <Joric> i hate this thing
1236 2012-09-05 16:51:03 RainbowDashh has joined
1237 2012-09-05 16:51:10 <gavinandresen> zero-value outputs are non-standard in the 0.7 release
1238 2012-09-05 16:51:27 <gavinandresen> ... to discourage using them for stuff like messages
1239 2012-09-05 16:52:04 <Joric> he said 'Should be a while before miners upgrade.'
1240 2012-09-05 16:52:33 <gmaxwell> FWIW, I had no idea he was planning on doing that before suggesting it. It's insane in any case— an unspendable pubkey zero value output is the worst case scalablity wise.
1241 2012-09-05 16:53:41 <gmaxwell> _all_ embedded message are bad, but an OP_DROP in a scriptsig is at least instantly prunable.
1242 2012-09-05 16:54:56 <gmaxwell> This also highlights that fee rules are misaligned because they don't penalize txout set bloat relative to e.g. txn size created by consuming junk inputs.
1243 2012-09-05 16:56:36 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: making it non-standard is a bigger stick than a fee rule change... but I agree, transaction priority ought to take into account number of txin versus txout
1244 2012-09-05 16:57:07 <gavinandresen> so... how do we figure out what the 'right' formula is ?
1245 2012-09-05 16:57:26 <gavinandresen> or do we just give miners a knob they can twiddle ?
1246 2012-09-05 16:58:41 <gavinandresen> mining pools incentives are probably misaligned here, too; their payouts are 50 BTC in, lots of little transactions out
1247 2012-09-05 16:58:45 <gmaxwell> meh. the default has to be right. I'm indifferent to a knob. Consistency is good.
1248 2012-09-05 16:59:20 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: yes, but they're also the one group that doesn't really have to worry about it much.
1249 2012-09-05 17:00:02 * Luke-Jr thinks it'd be giving people an excuse to split up outputs whenever possible :/
1250 2012-09-05 17:00:13 <gmaxwell> I think basically any rule that counts size resulting from scriptpubkey significantly more than size resulting from scriptsig will have basically the desired result.
1251 2012-09-05 17:00:20 ThomasV_ has joined
1252 2012-09-05 17:00:44 ThomasV_ has quit (Client Quit)
1253 2012-09-05 17:01:17 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: might have unintended consequences if people start using 1-of-1 P2SH scriptPubKeys to save a couple bytes
1254 2012-09-05 17:01:46 xorgate has joined
1255 2012-09-05 17:01:59 <gmaxwell> In a future where all major nodes are fully pruning only the txout size matters much for storage. Making it only count scriptpubkey would have unintended results, but e.g. I don't know that a factor of 2 bias would.
1256 2012-09-05 17:03:56 <gmaxwell> e.g. could the scriptpubkey size twice, and adjust the threshold so that 'typical' transactions are about the same under new and old rules.
1257 2012-09-05 17:04:41 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: sounds reasonable, should be really easy to implement
1258 2012-09-05 17:05:20 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: have any bandwidth to figure out what the 'typical' transaction looks like ?
1259 2012-09-05 17:06:33 <gmaxwell> I have airplane time today; I'll see if I can get some chain data dumped before my flight.
1260 2012-09-05 17:06:56 * BlueMatt still prefers a more major rewrite to the prio algo, but I wont bring it up again
1261 2012-09-05 17:07:13 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: flying to Tahiti to spend those sweet bitfloor coins?  (KIDDING, THAT IS A JOKE EVERYBODY)
1262 2012-09-05 17:07:24 <BlueMatt> haha
1263 2012-09-05 17:07:44 * Luke-Jr doesn't get it. something happen with bitfloor?
1264 2012-09-05 17:07:53 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: Got robbed.
1265 2012-09-05 17:07:58 <Luke-Jr> x.x
1266 2012-09-05 17:08:19 <Luke-Jr> I am so glad I'm not in the exchange business.
1267 2012-09-05 17:08:26 <gmaxwell> Ditto.
1268 2012-09-05 17:08:54 <gmaxwell> Flying back from SFO->IAD, so, a reasonably long flight, but not as long as one to tahiti.
1269 2012-09-05 17:10:52 <BlueMatt> someone did chew piuk out on stuffing ascii in a "pubkey" right?
1270 2012-09-05 17:11:09 <Joric> you tell him
1271 2012-09-05 17:11:16 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: Joric asked me to last night and I said I was tired of yelling at people.
1272 2012-09-05 17:11:49 <BlueMatt> ugg...alright, well I already have a reputation for yelling at everyone...might as well keep it up
1273 2012-09-05 17:14:35 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1274 2012-09-05 17:17:19 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1275 2012-09-05 17:17:31 RainbowDashh has joined
1276 2012-09-05 17:19:57 sunshinehappy has joined
1277 2012-09-05 17:19:59 <sunshinehappy> whatare map checkpoints?
1278 2012-09-05 17:20:01 <sipa> BlueMatt: i will send him a mail
1279 2012-09-05 17:22:32 rdponticelli has joined
1280 2012-09-05 17:24:00 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1281 2012-09-05 17:24:55 shhh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1282 2012-09-05 17:26:23 RainbowDashh has joined
1283 2012-09-05 17:29:30 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1284 2012-09-05 17:34:43 slush has joined
1285 2012-09-05 17:35:38 slush has quit (Client Quit)
1286 2012-09-05 17:36:12 denisx has joined
1287 2012-09-05 17:36:42 da2ce7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1288 2012-09-05 17:38:04 da2ce7 has joined
1289 2012-09-05 17:39:46 <sunshinehappy> hi
1290 2012-09-05 17:39:58 <sunshinehappy> does anyone know what map checkpoints are in the satoshi source code?
1291 2012-09-05 17:41:17 Varan has joined
1292 2012-09-05 17:41:44 <gmaxwell> sunshinehappy: _Map_ checkpoints?
1293 2012-09-05 17:41:57 <sunshinehappy> yes I'm not sure what this means
1294 2012-09-05 17:42:21 <gmaxwell> sunshinehappy: what do you mean by the satoshi source code? Do you mean the current reference software; or the software as it was when he went inactive?
1295 2012-09-05 17:42:36 <gmaxwell> sunshinehappy: well, what question are you trying to answer / what problem are you trying to solve?
1296 2012-09-05 17:43:18 <sunshinehappy> im sorry I got it
1297 2012-09-05 17:43:31 <sunshinehappy> it's just a "map" (C++ data structure) of checkpoints
1298 2012-09-05 17:43:38 <sunshinehappy> I thought map was a term of bitcoin which I din't know ..
1299 2012-09-05 17:44:07 <sunshinehappy> it's from bitcoin/src/checkpoints.cpp
1300 2012-09-05 17:45:38 <Varan> Is there an easy way too scan through all the transactions... I found https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88584.0 ... but I dont like to program is C++ .. is there something similar in python or Java?
1301 2012-09-05 17:46:18 <gmaxwell> Varan: What are you trying to accomplish?
1302 2012-09-05 17:46:33 <sunshinehappy> hi Varan there is some python tools but you have to be careful with the berkely db versions,  I don't think I recommnd it..
1303 2012-09-05 17:48:01 <Varan> I would like to put all the transactions in a graph or something ... and see if a tool like gephi can handle it ... see If i can produce a nice visualization
1304 2012-09-05 17:48:24 <sunshinehappy> that would be so cool
1305 2012-09-05 17:48:30 <Varan> So I would like too convert it too a .dot file or something
1306 2012-09-05 17:48:42 djoot has joined
1307 2012-09-05 17:48:53 <Varan> but I have no idea if it would be too heavy for gephi ... maybe take a small time slice
1308 2012-09-05 17:49:14 <Varan> I found this: https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcointools
1309 2012-09-05 17:49:28 <Varan> It looks useable
1310 2012-09-05 17:49:47 ZephyrVoid has joined
1311 2012-09-05 17:49:56 <gavinandresen> Varan: patches welcome if you find bugs
1312 2012-09-05 17:50:09 <Varan> sunshinehappy, yeah I think so ... not sure how usefull it is ... but in my experience graph visualization is cool anyway :)
1313 2012-09-05 17:50:17 djoot has quit (Changing host)
1314 2012-09-05 17:50:17 djoot has joined
1315 2012-09-05 17:50:29 <gmaxwell> certantly graphviz can't handle even a tiny fraction of the transactions. I'm not sure about other tools.
1316 2012-09-05 17:50:30 <gavinandresen> Varan: ... or want to contribute nifty new tools....
1317 2012-09-05 17:51:04 <Varan> gavinandresen, oke :) ... I was wondering how up to date that repo is... like if it still works well with the current blockchain files that bitcoin produces
1318 2012-09-05 17:51:52 <gavinandresen> Varan: should work, but come to think of it I haven't used them since we rolled over from blk0001.dat to blk0002.dat
1319 2012-09-05 17:51:57 <Varan> gmaxwell, I know ... it tried too use graphviz and yed for some research ... it already breaks down if you give it 10k transitions or so
1320 2012-09-05 17:52:08 <Varan> owke
1321 2012-09-05 17:52:27 <Varan> ill give it a try ... I wanted too learn python anyway :)
1322 2012-09-05 17:52:43 <gmaxwell> Varan: yea, or works but you get a image that is 30k pixels by 1k pixels. :P
1323 2012-09-05 17:52:53 <Varan> hehe :P
1324 2012-09-05 17:53:25 <gmaxwell> http://i.imgur.com/w9c4K.png  "oh come on!"
1325 2012-09-05 17:53:35 <Varan> I also found this: http://circos.ca/
1326 2012-09-05 17:54:39 <Varan> looks pretty cool ... but dont think it is well suited to display the blockchain ... my intuition is that you will see some ladders ... bitcoins being broken off into many small pieces
1327 2012-09-05 17:56:12 djoot has quit (Quit: leaving)
1328 2012-09-05 17:56:41 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1329 2012-09-05 17:57:29 djoot has joined
1330 2012-09-05 17:57:29 djoot has quit (Changing host)
1331 2012-09-05 17:57:29 djoot has joined
1332 2012-09-05 18:00:27 ErnestoJuarell has joined
1333 2012-09-05 18:00:50 <sunshinehappy> what are all htose pnSeed numbers about?
1334 2012-09-05 18:00:56 <sunshinehappy> in net.cpp
1335 2012-09-05 18:01:23 <gmaxwell> sunshinehappy: they're peers, used as last resorts if it can't find peers any other way.
1336 2012-09-05 18:01:40 <sunshinehappy> oh who is in there?
1337 2012-09-05 18:02:07 <gmaxwell> sunshinehappy: 500 randomly selected nodes with high uptime the last time they were updated.
1338 2012-09-05 18:02:16 <sunshinehappy> wow
1339 2012-09-05 18:02:28 <Varan> How often is it updated?
1340 2012-09-05 18:02:40 <sunshinehappy> thanks gmaxwell
1341 2012-09-05 18:02:49 <gmaxwell> Varan: every couple releases. We have a stickied issue to update it again before 0.7.0, I think.
1342 2012-09-05 18:03:47 <gavinandresen> yeah, but "we" didn't do that....
1343 2012-09-05 18:03:52 <Varan> Oke nice...
1344 2012-09-05 18:04:23 prahanormal has joined
1345 2012-09-05 18:05:23 <sunshinehappy> I guess you don't ask for consent lol
1346 2012-09-05 18:05:37 <gmaxwell> Hm?
1347 2012-09-05 18:05:45 <sunshinehappy> for putting someones ip in the code
1348 2012-09-05 18:06:01 <gmaxwell> You consent by running a public listening node. :P
1349 2012-09-05 18:06:17 <sunshinehappy> hehe
1350 2012-09-05 18:07:20 shhh has joined
1351 2012-09-05 18:08:34 MrWubbles has joined
1352 2012-09-05 18:08:41 <MrWubbles> Mr Supa wanted me to post this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106018.0
1353 2012-09-05 18:09:11 t7_ has joined
1354 2012-09-05 18:10:31 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1355 2012-09-05 18:11:16 <sunshinehappy> I'm surprised no one has put money in 1F5y5E5FMc5YzdJtB9hLaUe43GDxEKXENJ the test address
1356 2012-09-05 18:12:00 t7_ is now known as t7
1357 2012-09-05 18:12:15 <sunshinehappy> MrWubbles, "evading the law by using a non registered currency" is that bad for all bitcoins sites?
1358 2012-09-05 18:12:30 <MrWubbles> yes
1359 2012-09-05 18:12:36 <sunshinehappy> hm :(
1360 2012-09-05 18:12:45 <MrWubbles> tax evasion hurts everyone
1361 2012-09-05 18:13:03 <sunshinehappy> who is Mr Supa
1362 2012-09-05 18:13:43 <copumpkin> it's supdupajenkins
1363 2012-09-05 18:13:45 <copumpkin> just like MrWubbles
1364 2012-09-05 18:27:46 <Varan> gavinandresen, I'm having trouble running your tools ... It says .. ImportError: No module named _bsddb  .. I think this is a problem with my python ... I have the corresponding packages installed. Do you know how to fix this?
1365 2012-09-05 18:28:40 Scootalooo has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
1366 2012-09-05 18:28:40 spammytrap has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
1367 2012-09-05 18:28:43 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1368 2012-09-05 18:28:45 rdponticelli_ has joined
1369 2012-09-05 18:29:05 <sunshinehappy> Varan, I don't think I had to install a bdb library for python
1370 2012-09-05 18:29:16 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1371 2012-09-05 18:29:27 <sunshinehappy> I thought it came ith a recent version of python
1372 2012-09-05 18:29:32 molecular has joined
1373 2012-09-05 18:29:41 <Varan> hmm... I use arch linux btw...
1374 2012-09-05 18:29:51 <Varan> and everything should be up to date
1375 2012-09-05 18:30:15 rdponticelli_ is now known as rdponticelli
1376 2012-09-05 18:30:52 <amiller> Varan, i set up bitcointools recently and had a good time using it
1377 2012-09-05 18:31:06 <amiller> i ended up installing bsddb3 and changing the imports
1378 2012-09-05 18:31:13 <Varan> oke ...
1379 2012-09-05 18:31:16 <Varan> hmm
1380 2012-09-05 18:31:28 <amiller> i don't know about arch linux but i installed using pip
1381 2012-09-05 18:31:40 <Varan> but ... why do you need to change the import name
1382 2012-09-05 18:32:25 <lianj> pacman -Ss bsddb|grep comm
1383 2012-09-05 18:32:25 <lianj> community/python-bsddb 5.3.0-2
1384 2012-09-05 18:32:26 <lianj> community/python2-bsddb 5.3.0-2
1385 2012-09-05 18:32:38 <Varan> yeah i have those
1386 2012-09-05 18:34:43 <Varan> amiller, i changed the imports but now i get not defined errors
1387 2012-09-05 18:35:22 <amiller> post a gist?
1388 2012-09-05 18:35:52 <Varan> I get this: NameError: global name 'DBNoSuchFileError' is not defined
1389 2012-09-05 18:36:15 <Varan> if i change all the dsddb.db to dsddb3
1390 2012-09-05 18:36:35 pierre` has joined
1391 2012-09-05 18:39:09 prahanormal has quit ()
1392 2012-09-05 18:40:00 RazielZ has joined
1393 2012-09-05 18:41:14 <Varan> I fixed it ... it needs to be from bsddb3.db import *
1394 2012-09-05 18:41:20 <Varan> I forgot the .db
1395 2012-09-05 18:44:49 Obsi has joined
1396 2012-09-05 18:55:42 sirk390 has joined
1397 2012-09-05 19:00:33 denisx has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1398 2012-09-05 19:00:50 denisx has joined
1399 2012-09-05 19:04:27 <Varan> Hmm ... it seems the current version I have of bsddb may not be compatible with the one used in bitcoin
1400 2012-09-05 19:05:02 <Varan> is that possible? ... it says Invalid argument -- BDB2509 the log files from a database environment when trying to open blkindex.dat/main
1401 2012-09-05 19:05:24 Fnar has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1402 2012-09-05 19:13:10 denisx_ has joined
1403 2012-09-05 19:14:10 PiZZaMaN2K is now known as PiZZaMaN2K|away
1404 2012-09-05 19:16:57 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1405 2012-09-05 19:16:57 denisx_ is now known as denisx
1406 2012-09-05 19:22:46 <ErnestoJuarell> getrawtransaction is enough to do blockchain info collecting like finding the balance of an address?
1407 2012-09-05 19:24:29 Evilmax has joined
1408 2012-09-05 19:24:57 <MC-Eeepc> omg
1409 2012-09-05 19:25:02 <MC-Eeepc> 4chan now has an API
1410 2012-09-05 19:25:08 <gavinandresen> Varan: yes, that's possible. I think if you run bitcoind -detachdb, then quit a newer bdb will be able to read the older-format-bdb .dat files
1411 2012-09-05 19:25:19 <gavinandresen> ErnestoJuarell: not efficiently, no.
1412 2012-09-05 19:26:31 <ErnestoJuarell> Well not through calls, but by hooking the code into the code where the api call is
1413 2012-09-05 19:26:50 <ErnestoJuarell> I'm supposed to be iterating every transaction of every block right?
1414 2012-09-05 19:27:21 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1415 2012-09-05 19:29:18 Turingi has joined
1416 2012-09-05 19:29:19 <Varan> gavinandresen, oke thanks for the suggestion .. what does -detachdb do? why would this help?... do the tools still work for you?
1417 2012-09-05 19:29:41 <Varan> Maybe this is a problem because arch linux is just a bit too up to date :P
1418 2012-09-05 19:29:48 <gavinandresen> Varan: -detachdb makes shutdown very slow, but makes the .dat files self-contained and compatible between major bdb versions
1419 2012-09-05 19:30:11 <Varan> oke
1420 2012-09-05 19:30:13 <Varan> makes sence
1421 2012-09-05 19:30:24 <Varan> trying ... guess it wil take a while
1422 2012-09-05 19:30:40 <gavinandresen> ErnestoJuarell: ummm, "supposed to be" ?  If you're doing a quick hack, then sure, getting every block then iterating through every transaction in every block works.  But is extremely slow.
1423 2012-09-05 19:31:25 <Eliel> gavinandresen: is there a faster way?
1424 2012-09-05 19:31:43 * Eliel is interested too.
1425 2012-09-05 19:32:17 <ErnestoJuarell> I understand that I should be building a DB, but how would I get that info without traversing?
1426 2012-09-05 19:32:48 <gavinandresen> ErnestoJuarell: you should build a database (which will be very slow) and then lookup from that database.  And use -blocknotify to keep the database up-to-date
1427 2012-09-05 19:32:53 <BlueMatt> Eliel: build a db which links addr/pubkey -> tx(s)
1428 2012-09-05 19:37:45 <ErnestoJuarell> Got a recommended schema?
1429 2012-09-05 19:38:32 <BlueMatt> pubkeyhash -> txid, then you can use txid to look up tx easily using bitcoind/its dbs
1430 2012-09-05 19:45:07 spammytrap2 has joined
1431 2012-09-05 19:45:08 spammytrap has joined
1432 2012-09-05 19:47:10 Maged has joined
1433 2012-09-05 19:47:14 spammytrap2 is now known as Scootalooo
1434 2012-09-05 19:48:28 <Varan> gavinandresen, seems to be work, but now I get another error: https://gist.github.com/3643296 ... any clues?
1435 2012-09-05 19:49:18 <gavinandresen> Varan: dunno
1436 2012-09-05 19:51:33 Scootalooo has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1437 2012-09-05 19:52:11 jdnavarro has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1438 2012-09-05 19:52:15 spammytrap has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1439 2012-09-05 19:54:02 Turingi has left ("Leaving")
1440 2012-09-05 19:55:14 TD has joined
1441 2012-09-05 19:57:33 spammytrap has joined
1442 2012-09-05 19:57:34 spammytrap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1443 2012-09-05 20:00:26 <Varan> maybe it has too do with the fact that it cannot deal with 2 date files
1444 2012-09-05 20:00:32 <Varan> but it is hard to figure out
1445 2012-09-05 20:01:02 <Diablo-D3> Quantum Romneyism: http://www.bash.org/?951317
1446 2012-09-05 20:03:17 Diapolo has joined
1447 2012-09-05 20:04:16 iocor has left ("Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/")
1448 2012-09-05 20:07:52 <Eliel> BlueMatt: how would you detect a reorg? Or will txids that became invalid just return an error?
1449 2012-09-05 20:08:38 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1450 2012-09-05 20:18:16 pusle has joined
1451 2012-09-05 20:19:55 brocktice has quit (Quit: leaving)
1452 2012-09-05 20:20:10 brocktice has joined
1453 2012-09-05 20:20:11 brocktice has quit (Changing host)
1454 2012-09-05 20:20:11 brocktice has joined
1455 2012-09-05 20:22:17 guruvan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1456 2012-09-05 20:22:36 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1457 2012-09-05 20:23:19 RazielZ has joined
1458 2012-09-05 20:23:35 guruvan- has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1459 2012-09-05 20:26:06 <sipa> is rc2 tagged?
1460 2012-09-05 20:28:42 <gavinandresen> sipa: yes
1461 2012-09-05 20:31:56 <sipa> ok, i'll build when i get home
1462 2012-09-05 20:37:53 ErnestoJuarell has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1463 2012-09-05 20:38:38 <sipa> aaaqaaaqqaqaaqqqàqqaqQqq3q
1464 2012-09-05 20:39:42 SphericalCow has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1465 2012-09-05 20:40:44 spammytrap has joined
1466 2012-09-05 20:40:54 spammytrap2 has joined
1467 2012-09-05 20:41:09 jurov is now known as away!xzbnxup@84.245.71.31|jurov
1468 2012-09-05 20:41:25 <Diapolo> sipa: ???
1469 2012-09-05 20:41:28 graingert has joined
1470 2012-09-05 20:43:12 spammytrap2 is now known as Scootalooo
1471 2012-09-05 20:43:28 Scootalooo has quit (Changing host)
1472 2012-09-05 20:43:28 Scootalooo has joined
1473 2012-09-05 20:44:09 <sipa> Diapolo: that was my cell phone, not entirely keyboard-locked, in my pocket...
1474 2012-09-05 20:45:04 <Diapolo> sipa: nice one ^^
1475 2012-09-05 20:47:39 Scootalooo has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
1476 2012-09-05 20:48:56 coingenuity has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1477 2012-09-05 20:48:59 TwilightSparklee has joined
1478 2012-09-05 20:54:24 Obsi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1479 2012-09-05 20:54:43 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1480 2012-09-05 20:56:03 <Diapolo> is it possible to export the addressinfo from peers.dat via a RPC command?
1481 2012-09-05 20:56:05 Varan has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1482 2012-09-05 20:56:45 <BlueMatt> Eliel: I leave such decisions to the implementor ;)
1483 2012-09-05 20:57:02 <BlueMatt> bitcointalk down?
1484 2012-09-05 20:57:23 <MrWubbles> yes
1485 2012-09-05 20:57:28 <MrWubbles> I'm ddosing it with my 56k
1486 2012-09-05 20:57:29 <sipa> Diapolo: i once had a patch that dumped it as a text file
1487 2012-09-05 20:57:38 <sipa> BlueMatt: seems so
1488 2012-09-05 20:58:19 Marf has joined
1489 2012-09-05 20:58:28 <MrWubbles> when I eventually get bored
1490 2012-09-05 20:58:32 <MrWubbles> maybe I'll stop..
1491 2012-09-05 20:59:53 <Diapolo> sipa: too bad :) I would like to know, what is in my list when using Tor
1492 2012-09-05 21:01:49 ErnestoJuarell has joined
1493 2012-09-05 21:04:02 pjorrit has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1494 2012-09-05 21:05:41 pjorrit has joined
1495 2012-09-05 21:06:33 denisx_ has joined
1496 2012-09-05 21:06:38 denisx_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1497 2012-09-05 21:06:50 denisx_ has joined
1498 2012-09-05 21:10:17 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1499 2012-09-05 21:10:17 denisx_ is now known as denisx
1500 2012-09-05 21:16:03 BitcoinBaltar has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1501 2012-09-05 21:16:07 pjorrit has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1502 2012-09-05 21:17:18 <Muis> how can it be that mtgox always goes down at the same time as bitcointalk even though they have different hosting providers?
1503 2012-09-05 21:17:41 <sipa> they're hosted together, no?
1504 2012-09-05 21:17:54 BitcoinBaltar has joined
1505 2012-09-05 21:18:06 pjorrit has joined
1506 2012-09-05 21:18:25 <BlueMatt> wow, if thats not ripe for security vulns I dont know what is...
1507 2012-09-05 21:19:16 pusle has quit ()
1508 2012-09-05 21:19:51 <sunshinehappy> what?
1509 2012-09-05 21:20:12 agricocb has joined
1510 2012-09-05 21:21:36 <MrWubbles> MTGoX is on the same servers as bitcointalk.org
1511 2012-09-05 21:21:48 <MrWubbles> which I'm hitting with 1000 Amazon EC2 instances
1512 2012-09-05 21:22:17 <BlueMatt> MrWubbles: it was funny for the first line, now its not
1513 2012-09-05 21:22:50 <MrWubbles> Welcome to the real world BlueMatt.. life's a bitch!
1514 2012-09-05 21:23:13 <BlueMatt> yes, ddos's exist, but no one believes its you, and your random comments arent funny
1515 2012-09-05 21:23:13 <OneFixt> MrWubbles: please don't keep saying stuff like that unless you want someone to take it seriously eventually
1516 2012-09-05 21:23:58 <MrWubbles> not meant to be funny
1517 2012-09-05 21:24:10 <MrWubbles> I'm tried of being fucked around with
1518 2012-09-05 21:24:12 <MrWubbles> no wub for you
1519 2012-09-05 21:24:18 <OneFixt> so you are admitting to attacking mtgox and would like to be kicked off the bitcoin channels?
1520 2012-09-05 21:24:26 nimdAHK has joined
1521 2012-09-05 21:24:30 <OneFixt> what are you trying to accomplish?
1522 2012-09-05 21:24:33 <MrWubbles> go for it
1523 2012-09-05 21:24:41 <MrWubbles> price drop to $0.01
1524 2012-09-05 21:24:46 <OneFixt> lol
1525 2012-09-05 21:25:35 <BlueMatt> OneFixt: hes trying to get his ip reported to the cops as the ddos'er and to get arrested to waste everyone's time
1526 2012-09-05 21:25:47 <OneFixt> well, i won't stop him
1527 2012-09-05 21:26:46 <sipa> MagicalTux: any idea what's happening?
1528 2012-09-05 21:27:18 <MrWubbles> Tango Down: http://mtgox.com #Operation1CentBitcoins
1529 2012-09-05 21:27:22 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1530 2012-09-05 21:27:42 RazielZ has joined
1531 2012-09-05 21:28:19 <MC-Eeepc> what a putz
1532 2012-09-05 21:28:52 <BlueMatt> MC-Eeepc: meh, Im hungry and not in the mood to look at crap
1533 2012-09-05 21:29:22 * sipa hands BlueMatt a 10kBTC pizza
1534 2012-09-05 21:29:24 <MC-Eeepc> no wub is a putz
1535 2012-09-05 21:29:40 <BlueMatt> sipa: I have to wait another 30 minutes before free pizza :(
1536 2012-09-05 21:29:53 <BlueMatt> but, hey, beggars cant be choosers
1537 2012-09-05 21:29:55 <sipa> 10kBTC isn't what I'd call free :p
1538 2012-09-05 21:29:55 <Diapolo> free pizza? I would wait for sure then ^^
1539 2012-09-05 21:30:14 pjorrit has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1540 2012-09-05 21:30:44 <BlueMatt> sipa: if you're paying its free to me ;) (but, I do actually get free pizza irl...)
1541 2012-09-05 21:30:45 coingenuity has joined
1542 2012-09-05 21:31:30 <Diapolo> hmm, you are the IT-admin for a pizza-service ;)?
1543 2012-09-05 21:32:05 pjorrit has joined
1544 2012-09-05 21:32:12 <BlueMatt> oh, that would be nice...no just a club that gives us pizza
1545 2012-09-05 21:32:22 <BlueMatt> I go for the pizza
1546 2012-09-05 21:36:02 ThomasV has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1547 2012-09-05 21:36:26 ThomasV has joined
1548 2012-09-05 21:39:06 <Diapolo> Just a remainder, we wanted to remove unneeded spaces, tabs and all that stuff before 0.7 final via a script from our source files, guess jgarzik was the one, who will do that?
1549 2012-09-05 21:45:26 Diapolo has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1550 2012-09-05 21:47:40 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1551 2012-09-05 21:47:43 pjorrit has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1552 2012-09-05 21:49:22 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1553 2012-09-05 21:49:36 pjorrit has joined
1554 2012-09-05 21:49:54 usagi has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1555 2012-09-05 21:51:01 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1556 2012-09-05 21:52:08 usagi has joined
1557 2012-09-05 21:56:06 Smooblush has quit (Quit: Client Quit)
1558 2012-09-05 21:56:50 Smooblush has joined
1559 2012-09-05 21:58:49 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1560 2012-09-05 21:59:26 Smooblush has quit (Client Quit)
1561 2012-09-05 21:59:55 arij has quit (Changing host)
1562 2012-09-05 21:59:55 arij has joined
1563 2012-09-05 22:01:23 Smooblush has joined
1564 2012-09-05 22:04:27 puddinpop has joined
1565 2012-09-05 22:06:17 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1566 2012-09-05 22:08:08 sebicas has quit (Quit: sebicas)
1567 2012-09-05 22:10:40 theorb has joined
1568 2012-09-05 22:10:42 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1569 2012-09-05 22:10:56 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
1570 2012-09-05 22:13:30 Luke-Jr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1571 2012-09-05 22:13:50 lodubbio has joined
1572 2012-09-05 22:14:33 agricocb has joined
1573 2012-09-05 22:15:17 lodubbio has quit (Client Quit)
1574 2012-09-05 22:17:48 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1575 2012-09-05 22:22:27 denisx has joined
1576 2012-09-05 22:25:41 shamoon has joined
1577 2012-09-05 22:25:46 <shamoon> do blocks have timestamps?
1578 2012-09-05 22:26:01 <kjj_> yes
1579 2012-09-05 22:27:22 Luke-Jr has joined
1580 2012-09-05 22:28:51 <shamoon> is that the time that the block was solved?
1581 2012-09-05 22:28:54 <shamoon> according to my client?
1582 2012-09-05 22:29:20 <kjj_> it is the time claimed by the miner that hashed it.  the network allows a LOT of slop
1583 2012-09-05 22:30:06 brocktice has quit (Quit: leaving)
1584 2012-09-05 22:30:24 brocktice has joined
1585 2012-09-05 22:32:02 <sipa> shamoon: the timestamp is basically chosen by the miner, but must be later than the median of the past 11 blocks, and not more than 2 hours in the future at the time of accepting it
1586 2012-09-05 22:32:23 <shamoon> intersting
1587 2012-09-05 22:32:34 testnode9 has joined
1588 2012-09-05 22:33:14 iih3ro has quit ()
1589 2012-09-05 22:39:32 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1590 2012-09-05 22:42:07 Karmaon has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1591 2012-09-05 22:46:36 cheako has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1592 2012-09-05 22:46:36 one_zero has joined
1593 2012-09-05 22:46:53 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1594 2012-09-05 22:49:09 Joric has quit ()
1595 2012-09-05 22:51:26 Hunner has joined
1596 2012-09-05 22:51:35 cheako has joined
1597 2012-09-05 22:54:12 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
1598 2012-09-05 22:57:09 Obsi has joined
1599 2012-09-05 23:05:18 jurov is now known as jurov|away
1600 2012-09-05 23:06:55 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: blockchain.info has a deal with Eligius - but I suspended it until they confirm Eligius won't be used to put spam like that in the blockchain
1601 2012-09-05 23:07:22 shhh has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1602 2012-09-05 23:09:52 AlexWaters has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1603 2012-09-05 23:12:21 copumpkin has joined
1604 2012-09-05 23:15:19 t7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1605 2012-09-05 23:15:24 dooglus has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1606 2012-09-05 23:16:13 dooglus has joined
1607 2012-09-05 23:16:14 dooglus has quit (Changing host)
1608 2012-09-05 23:16:14 dooglus has joined
1609 2012-09-05 23:16:55 variousnefarious has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1610 2012-09-05 23:17:22 variousnefarious has joined
1611 2012-09-05 23:18:20 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1612 2012-09-05 23:24:38 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1613 2012-09-05 23:25:04 Evilmax has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1614 2012-09-05 23:26:56 variousnefarious has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1615 2012-09-05 23:27:09 variousnefarious has joined
1616 2012-09-05 23:27:22 DamascusVG has joined
1617 2012-09-05 23:27:23 DamascusVG has quit (Changing host)
1618 2012-09-05 23:27:23 DamascusVG has joined
1619 2012-09-05 23:31:40 Karmaon has joined
1620 2012-09-05 23:31:40 Karmaon has quit (Changing host)
1621 2012-09-05 23:31:40 Karmaon has joined
1622 2012-09-05 23:35:18 RainbowDashh has joined
1623 2012-09-05 23:35:18 RainbowDashh has quit (Changing host)
1624 2012-09-05 23:35:18 RainbowDashh has joined
1625 2012-09-05 23:36:41 prahanormal has joined
1626 2012-09-05 23:37:47 variousnefarious has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1627 2012-09-05 23:37:57 variousnefarious has joined
1628 2012-09-05 23:39:03 prahanormal has quit (Client Quit)
1629 2012-09-05 23:40:34 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1630 2012-09-05 23:41:51 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1631 2012-09-05 23:42:30 tonikt has joined
1632 2012-09-05 23:44:33 sebicas has joined
1633 2012-09-05 23:46:43 variousnefarious has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1634 2012-09-05 23:46:50 variousnefarious has joined
1635 2012-09-05 23:48:12 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1636 2012-09-05 23:49:01 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1637 2012-09-05 23:51:22 Cory has joined
1638 2012-09-05 23:55:06 sunshinehappy has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1639 2012-09-05 23:55:43 Obsi has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1640 2012-09-05 23:56:25 variousnefarious has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1641 2012-09-05 23:56:39 variousnefarious has joined