1 2012-09-07 00:11:27 MadSweeney has quit (Quit: MadSweeney)
2 2012-09-07 00:18:17 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
3 2012-09-07 00:25:10 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
4 2012-09-07 00:26:52 agricocb has joined
5 2012-09-07 00:27:30 guruvan has joined
6 2012-09-07 00:30:52 one_zero has joined
7 2012-09-07 00:31:57 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
8 2012-09-07 00:37:10 paraipan has joined
9 2012-09-07 00:47:12 agricocb has joined
10 2012-09-07 00:48:26 Clipse has joined
11 2012-09-07 00:48:27 Clipse has quit (Changing host)
12 2012-09-07 00:48:27 Clipse has joined
13 2012-09-07 00:54:33 Isis has joined
14 2012-09-07 00:54:53 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
15 2012-09-07 00:55:05 <Isis> Anyone awake?
16 2012-09-07 00:55:12 <sipa> no
17 2012-09-07 00:55:48 <Isis> Ahh ok, guess I'll come back later then ;)
18 2012-09-07 00:56:24 <BlueMatt> its only 9 east-coast
19 2012-09-07 00:56:34 <Isis> Anyways, i've got a quick question about multisig
20 2012-09-07 00:57:13 <Isis> Which BIP ended up being implemented? 016, 017, something else or is it still up for debate? I found a lot of talk, but never did see which one made it in.
21 2012-09-07 00:57:19 firstclassfunc has joined
22 2012-09-07 00:57:21 <sipa> 16
23 2012-09-07 00:58:13 <Isis> Ok great. I'm working on OpenPay and decided to use multi-sig to solve an architectural problem, but wasn't sure which was the right one.
24 2012-09-07 00:58:47 <freewil> is that related to OpenTransactions
25 2012-09-07 00:59:37 <Isis> No
26 2012-09-07 00:59:54 <Isis> OpenPay is a system to allow you to use Bitcoin anywhere visa/mastercard are accepted.
27 2012-09-07 01:00:31 <freewil> is it a bitcoin-funded prepaid card?
28 2012-09-07 01:01:40 <Isis> No, give me a sec I'll go into me depth. Just need to get the kids off my lap ;)
29 2012-09-07 01:01:56 <freewil> sounds interesting
30 2012-09-07 01:04:14 <Isis> Ok so the goal with OpenPay is to have eventually get an IIN (Issuer Identification Number) and folks to self issue EMV compatible cards denominated in bitcoins.
31 2012-09-07 01:04:50 <Isis> However since an IIN is a royal pain and a lot of paperwork there is a magstripe card option and that's what I'm working on right now.
32 2012-09-07 01:05:37 <freewil> are those standards that you have to comply with under some regulations
33 2012-09-07 01:05:48 maqr has quit (Quit: derp)
34 2012-09-07 01:06:02 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
35 2012-09-07 01:06:03 <freewil> and what is magstripe
36 2012-09-07 01:06:03 <Isis> Industry standards, yes
37 2012-09-07 01:06:40 <Isis> Open your wallet, take out your payment card, look on the back. If it has a little black stripe that you use to swipe it then it's a magstripe.
38 2012-09-07 01:07:10 <Isis> If it has a little chip, or it's one of those tap & pay cards then it's likely EMV.
39 2012-09-07 01:07:21 <Isis> Could have both on the same card as well.
40 2012-09-07 01:07:46 <Isis> Ok so back to the idea behind the OpenPay magstripe option...
41 2012-09-07 01:09:10 <Isis> The magstripe is used to "enroll" the card. Basically the number is used as a seed for a private key. When you swipe your card at a merchant who accepts open pay they would create a transaction and sign it using that key...
42 2012-09-07 01:09:29 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
43 2012-09-07 01:09:30 <Isis> However, that's dangerous since you're letting someone else have access to your private key.
44 2012-09-07 01:10:11 <gmaxwell> Isis: what you're describing, from a momentary impression, sounds like a really bad idea.
45 2012-09-07 01:10:37 <gmaxwell> Key management is a serious problem that bitcoin dances around by intending you to use each address only once.
46 2012-09-07 01:11:18 <gmaxwell> Having a persistant private key burned into a card is bad from that perspective, even ignoring the whole kettle of fish that comes from using it on a potentially hostile third party controlled terminal for signing.
47 2012-09-07 01:12:05 <Isis> So what I'm working on is using n of multisig. Now the merchant can craft the transaction using the card key, push it to a side network where it's picked up by a signing application (you control) and the additional signature is added assuming criteria you have set are met.
48 2012-09-07 01:12:19 <gmaxwell> If you're going to have something that has none of bitcoin's security qualities (having to trust an untrustworthy terminal), why accept bitcoin's flaws? direct bitcoin transactions take a long time to become irreversable.
49 2012-09-07 01:13:18 <gmaxwell> Isis: er, why would you use multisig for that?? just get an ID off the card, and send the transaction to the signing application.
50 2012-09-07 01:14:37 <Isis> How would the gateway know where to send it? The signing app needs to be controlled by the user or his/her agent.
51 2012-09-07 01:14:39 <freewil> if the merchant crafts the transaction whos to say it will be a multisig application?
52 2012-09-07 01:14:51 <freewil> couldnt they just use your private key and send it to themselves
53 2012-09-07 01:15:04 <gmaxwell> Isis: the gateway gets the destination off the card.
54 2012-09-07 01:15:04 <freewil> s/application/transaction
55 2012-09-07 01:15:34 MC1984 has joined
56 2012-09-07 01:15:51 <Isis> I'm not trying to issue a card here, I'm talking about re-using some existing random card in your wallet.
57 2012-09-07 01:16:36 <gmaxwell> Isis: and? so? the information on that card would constitute the destination.
58 2012-09-07 01:17:55 <BlueMatt> oh...fun ton of processes "blocked for more than 120 seconds" in __mutex_lock_common.isra.5+0xff/0x164 ...
59 2012-09-07 01:18:16 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
60 2012-09-07 01:18:30 <Isis> The information on the card is just a seed to generate a predictable key. It's one piece of a bigger puzzle.
61 2012-09-07 01:19:12 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
62 2012-09-07 01:19:38 <gmaxwell> Isis: What you're describing is both insecure and unnecessary. It would be very unwise to use the very-not-secret-at-all information on a payment card as a bitcoin private key. And once you've already stipuated there existing some signing agent, you don't need to.
63 2012-09-07 01:20:21 <gmaxwell> I'm also confused by this idea that you can't get cards made but you can write arbritary software for the payment terminal?
64 2012-09-07 01:21:42 <Isis> I didn't say we can't get cards made. I said I don't care to.
65 2012-09-07 01:22:35 t7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
66 2012-09-07 01:22:38 <Isis> It's not meant to be centrally controlled
67 2012-09-07 01:22:56 <gmaxwell> Well you described it as a 'royal pain', which just seemed odd compared to totally replacing the terminal with something that operates very differently; but it was an aside.
68 2012-09-07 01:22:59 <Isis> Just a very simple way of getting bitcoins into meatspace without a controlling org.
69 2012-09-07 01:24:53 <gmaxwell> Isis: In any case, you still haven't gotten me past the points I raised: this architecture sounds entirely insecure, as you're depending on an untrusted device to write the transaction and sign it., and unnecessarily complex: once you have an external signing 'something' there is no need to have a bitcoin signing key on the card at all. It could simply be keying data that lets you route the message to the 'something' for it to do the signing
70 2012-09-07 01:26:07 <Isis> That's true, so let's call it that for now.
71 2012-09-07 01:26:16 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
72 2012-09-07 01:26:20 <gmaxwell> Because bitcoin transactions are inherently irreversable they need to have different security standards than payment cards to begin with. I'm generally skeptical that something magstripe only would be viable for direct bitcoin payments; even assuming the above is all sorted out.
73 2012-09-07 01:29:03 <Isis> That may be true, but at present they dont. Someone has your privkey, they have all your funds. Simple as that right?
74 2012-09-07 01:29:24 <Isis> Multisig on your inputs means they would need to compromise n keys.
75 2012-09-07 01:29:44 vigilyn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
76 2012-09-07 01:30:59 <Isis> Therefore, card as predictable key. Then a random one stored on an signing app, on for instance your phone. A third and final key stored at home on your computer, or with a service provider. This way if one becomes lost or stolen you only need 2 of the 3 others to keep access to your money.
77 2012-09-07 01:31:47 <gmaxwell> ...
78 2012-09-07 01:32:09 <Isis> Of course that does mean all of your inputs need to be multisig. But it should be trivial to create a listener that handles that.
79 2012-09-07 01:32:25 <gmaxwell> I'm not sure how I can be any more clear.
80 2012-09-07 01:32:47 <Isis> You are clear, I just don't think we're on the same page.
81 2012-09-07 01:33:13 <gmaxwell> You've apparently gone down a cognative rut on this. Multisig is a fine thing, it doesn't help you. There is absolutely no need or value in storing a bitcoin signing key on the magstripe.
82 2012-09-07 01:33:33 copumpkin has joined
83 2012-09-07 01:33:47 <Isis> Whats the difference if it's a magstripe card or a paperwallet?
84 2012-09-07 01:34:25 <gmaxwell> The information on the magstripe could arbritrate access to those other things which could do the actual signing just fine without using it as a source of signing at all.
85 2012-09-07 01:34:48 <gmaxwell> (and with the virtue of making the resulting transactions 1/3rd smaller)
86 2012-09-07 01:34:58 <Isis> So what you're saying is that as a private key it's a bad idea right?
87 2012-09-07 01:35:13 <Isis> But using it as an account identifier is fine?
88 2012-09-07 01:35:20 <gmaxwell> (and also making 'key' management easier because you wouldn't need tmo move funds to change cardsâ you'd just tell your signer(s) about the new one)
89 2012-09-07 01:35:48 <Isis> Thats true.
90 2012-09-07 01:36:17 <gmaxwell> Isis: thats probably also not fine, but for different reasons. At least it gets it down to one unfine thing instead of two. Thats probably unfine because, of course, is so trivially stolen, and the conventional use of it would put it in position to be stolen.
91 2012-09-07 01:36:37 <Isis> Problem is that if your signing key is compromised, I'm thinking bitcoinica here, you're just as hosed.
92 2012-09-07 01:37:17 <gmaxwell> Isis: the difference is that you're not constantly exposing that to potentially hostile parties at all times.
93 2012-09-07 01:38:31 vampireb_ has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
94 2012-09-07 01:42:04 <Isis> The problem is one of centralization. With 1 key, 1 sig even if it's stored in 10 different places you are exposed because that key once compromised provides 100% access to your funds.
95 2012-09-07 01:42:31 <Isis> Conversely if the key is lost, you lose all access to your funds permanently.
96 2012-09-07 01:43:35 <Isis> I semi-agree that using the card as a private key would be a bad idea if that was all there was to the system, but it's not.
97 2012-09-07 01:44:09 <freewil> yeah im somewhat confused here, not sure how having a key on a card and another key signing a transaction is less secure than just 1 key
98 2012-09-07 01:44:14 <gmaxwell> even with 'otherthing' Doing so adds nothing to the system, and it hurts it by making key management harder.
99 2012-09-07 01:44:26 <freewil> unless you think giving away access to that one key on the card will give the user a false sense of security
100 2012-09-07 01:45:12 <gmaxwell> freewil: because it makes key management harder. You think your card might have been copied. But you're not sure. You don't swap out to a new card because doing so requires changing your payment addresses and moving all your funds.
101 2012-09-07 01:45:31 <Isis> That could be automated though.
102 2012-09-07 01:45:40 <Isis> And it's also expected.
103 2012-09-07 01:45:44 <jrmithdobbs> freewil: failures of most crypto systems are failures of key management, complicating key management is never desirable
104 2012-09-07 01:45:57 <freewil> thats why you have the other signing device
105 2012-09-07 01:46:06 <freewil> you expect the key on the card to be compromised/copied
106 2012-09-07 01:46:07 <gmaxwell> it adds absolutely _zero_ value, it reduces security by making key management harder, it forces you to have the transaction handled directly by the untrusted terminal, etc.
107 2012-09-07 01:46:26 <Isis> Where do you place your trust?
108 2012-09-07 01:46:38 <jrmithdobbs> Isis: ideally? in the math.
109 2012-09-07 01:46:41 <gmaxwell> It results in bitcoin transactions that will be about 1/3rd larger typically; which will be more expensive to get confirmed.
110 2012-09-07 01:46:51 <jrmithdobbs> Isis: and that's not trust.
111 2012-09-07 01:47:00 <Isis> Gotta trust someone somewhere. And frankly I trust Joe's Liquor and Gas down the street a whole lot more than some service in Singapore.
112 2012-09-07 01:47:10 <gmaxwell> regarding:
113 2012-09-07 01:47:11 <gmaxwell> 18:35 < Isis> The problem is one of centralization. With 1 key, 1 sig even if it's stored in 10 different places you are exposed because that key once compromised provides 100% access to your funds.
114 2012-09-07 01:47:34 <gmaxwell> thats orthorgonal. use multisig, great! ... but that doesn't have anything to do with whats on the card.
115 2012-09-07 01:48:36 <gmaxwell> The card does not count as an effective second factor for multisig because you are constantly exposing the private data to parties that could trivially copy it. So then you're back to, say, phone+desktop and fine enough.
116 2012-09-07 01:49:07 <gmaxwell> So use the card to arbritrate access to those signing agents (if you dare), and have them do their signing.
117 2012-09-07 01:49:07 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: what kind of card? i don't see it in the scrollback and it's pretty important to the conversation
118 2012-09-07 01:49:19 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: er. Perhaps you shouldn't look.
119 2012-09-07 01:49:23 <Isis> Except how do you initiate the transaction.
120 2012-09-07 01:49:37 <Isis> We're just talking a standard track 2 magstripe.
121 2012-09-07 01:49:40 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: please tell me "card" != "usb key with priv keys on it"
122 2012-09-07 01:49:51 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: no, think dumber.
123 2012-09-07 01:50:00 <Isis> No card = look in wallet
124 2012-09-07 01:50:09 <Isis> Find one with a magstripe
125 2012-09-07 01:50:17 <gmaxwell> Isis: er, exactly how you were thinking of doing it before. Except it isn't a bitcoin key.
126 2012-09-07 01:50:18 <Isis> Use numbers on magstripe to generate a privkey
127 2012-09-07 01:50:44 <jrmithdobbs> jesus fuck
128 2012-09-07 01:50:45 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
129 2012-09-07 01:50:48 <jrmithdobbs> magstripe? are you idiots?
130 2012-09-07 01:50:49 <Isis> ???
131 2012-09-07 01:51:07 <Isis> What's with the vulgar language and name calling?
132 2012-09-07 01:51:08 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: you're right. I shouldn't have.
133 2012-09-07 01:51:34 Motest031 has joined
134 2012-09-07 01:51:36 <Isis> It would be used as 1 key in an n of m multisig. I'm just not seeing the problem here.
135 2012-09-07 01:51:39 <gmaxwell> Isis: It's deserved, frankly. I've been trying to be polite. You have no business working on this, as far as I can tell.
136 2012-09-07 01:51:42 <jrmithdobbs> Isis: warranted gut reaction.
137 2012-09-07 01:52:00 <jrmithdobbs> Isis: if you don't understand why, you have no business working on this.
138 2012-09-07 01:52:01 <Isis> Ok fair enough, but I am so please enlighten me.
139 2012-09-07 01:52:40 <jrmithdobbs> Isis: because it allows any reader to impersonate the authorized user indistinguishably and indefinitely
140 2012-09-07 01:53:03 <gmaxwell> :-/ Well, I've been trying to. But I don't know what else to say. The magstripe cards are not an acceptable security measure; they work for credit cards because of the enormous infrastructure and policy around them.
141 2012-09-07 01:53:35 Motest003 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
142 2012-09-07 01:53:36 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i'd say they *don't* work for cc, as has been proven by all the shims and fake atm machines
143 2012-09-07 01:53:41 <Isis> Which buys them absolutely nothing because the card can be trivially changed, and is only one piece of a multisig transaction. So let's try this again.
144 2012-09-07 01:53:44 <gmaxwell> (in particular: the credit processing industry puts 99% of the liability for theft on the merchants)
145 2012-09-07 01:54:08 <gmaxwell> Isis: if it buys them nothing then simply remove it from the picture.
146 2012-09-07 01:54:23 <jrmithdobbs> Isis: no let's not, anything with magstrip that's not some novel system which can arbitrarily rewrite it's own magstripe and only provide the signed txn via the magstripe is so retardedly flawed it's not worth considering.
147 2012-09-07 01:55:34 <gmaxwell> Isis: there is a symmetry hereâ a thing which if compromised provides no value to the attacker must also provide no security value when uncompromised.
148 2012-09-07 01:56:14 <gmaxwell> Adding an additional key to a multisig is not free, it complicates key management, and it results in larger transactions. It should only be done if the additional key increases security, which in this case it doesn't.
149 2012-09-07 01:57:03 <Isis> It provides both security and recoverability. But the multisig needs to be on the txinputs.
150 2012-09-07 01:57:16 <gmaxwell> It does not do these things.
151 2012-09-07 01:57:29 <gmaxwell> If it can recover the coins, then its sufficient to steal them.
152 2012-09-07 01:57:33 <Isis> If I have my wallet on my phone and I lose my wallet, I have now lost all my bitcoins, correct?
153 2012-09-07 01:57:46 <gmaxwell> Isis: if you have no backups of the key data.
154 2012-09-07 01:58:18 <gmaxwell> Good thing that backing up is _far_ cheaper than multisig.
155 2012-09-07 01:58:22 <Isis> If however all the tx's recieved were multisig n of m, then I can use my other factors to recover my coins.
156 2012-09-07 01:58:37 <Isis> Yes but in the real world people don't back up.
157 2012-09-07 01:59:07 <Isis> Not only that but if you backup you need to secure the backup, otherwise you have another one of your key management issues.
158 2012-09-07 01:59:07 <gmaxwell> Isis: you're not making any sense. A backup is _strictly_ simpler than additional keys for multisign.
159 2012-09-07 02:00:16 <Isis> You ever know anyone that lost family photos because they lost their phone? Same thing, people in general don't backup. Yes you're right it's better and cheaper, but it still doesn't generally occur.
160 2012-09-07 02:00:54 <gmaxwell> Then they won't have a viable second factor. You can't recover a multisig without knowing _all_ of the original public keys in any case.
161 2012-09-07 02:00:59 <gmaxwell> lets go back to how this whole thing works. Because I suspect it fails in so many broad ways that talking about the details is a waste of time.
162 2012-09-07 02:01:32 <gmaxwell> So I walk into Joe's bait shop and buy a pound of shrimp for 0.1 BTC. I want to pay him. What happens next?
163 2012-09-07 02:02:00 rdponticelli has joined
164 2012-09-07 02:02:02 skeledrew has quit (Quit: Instantbird 1.3a1pre -- http://www.instantbird.com)
165 2012-09-07 02:02:03 <Isis> Tell him it's an open pay transaction, swipe card.
166 2012-09-07 02:02:16 <Isis> Card is hashed to a pub/priv key pair.
167 2012-09-07 02:02:20 skeledrew has joined
168 2012-09-07 02:02:30 <Isis> A blockchain query for that pair is executed
169 2012-09-07 02:02:38 <Isis> well actually just for the pubkey
170 2012-09-07 02:02:56 <Isis> A transaction is crafted from the unspent txouts.
171 2012-09-07 02:03:21 <Isis> Transaction is sent to the OpenPay network
172 2012-09-07 02:03:36 <gmaxwell> okay, then he unilateraly steals all your funds tomorrow using the information he saved and you're not sure who did it.
173 2012-09-07 02:03:53 <Isis> Your signing app on your phone, at your service provider etc. Provides the additional sigs.
174 2012-09-07 02:03:57 <gmaxwell> stop.
175 2012-09-07 02:04:04 <gmaxwell> lets go back now.
176 2012-09-07 02:04:06 <gmaxwell> 18:56 < Isis> A blockchain query for that pair is executed
177 2012-09-07 02:04:13 <gmaxwell> If there is more signing, then this isn't possible.
178 2012-09-07 02:04:26 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: tomorrow? he could do it on the spot while displaying that he only charged 0.1
179 2012-09-07 02:04:36 <gmaxwell> The key on the cardâ if its just one component in a multisignâ can't give him the address.
180 2012-09-07 02:05:02 <Isis> Hmm thats interesting, are you sure?
181 2012-09-07 02:05:20 <Isis> That moots the whole design if true.
182 2012-09-07 02:05:21 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: he potentially waits so you won't know who did it and won't even be able to prosecute. He can even wait until he sees several other txn go by and hit weeks later.
183 2012-09-07 02:05:36 <gmaxwell> Isis: I'm absolutely sure.
184 2012-09-07 02:06:14 <jrmithdobbs> Isis: yes that's absolutely correct
185 2012-09-07 02:06:22 <gmaxwell> Isis: let me suggest something that is just has horribly insecure, fundimentally but at least would 'work'.
186 2012-09-07 02:06:57 <Isis> Sure
187 2012-09-07 02:07:15 <jrmithdobbs> oh goody, gmaxwell's hypotheticals are always entertaining ;p
188 2012-09-07 02:07:18 <lianj> is wp right that the magnetic stripe has 495 bits of storage?
189 2012-09-07 02:07:30 <Isis> Depends on the track
190 2012-09-07 02:07:36 <lianj> all of them
191 2012-09-07 02:07:37 <jrmithdobbs> and encoding method
192 2012-09-07 02:07:59 <jrmithdobbs> and any error correction used
193 2012-09-07 02:08:04 <jrmithdobbs> (which is a must)
194 2012-09-07 02:08:22 <gmaxwell> Isis: he reads the data on the card. Builds a keypair from it, but it's not a bitcoin key. It's just a key pair: GregPub, GregPriv. Using that data he sends a message requesting the payment to the okpay network: "GregPub: Pay Joe 1.0 BTC"--signed GregPriv.
195 2012-09-07 02:09:10 <gmaxwell> the network then routes the message to my signing agent(s), who have identified themselves by also producing GregPriv signed messages. They produce the transaction for Joe and send it back to him.
196 2012-09-07 02:10:45 <gmaxwell> Of course, it's still insecure, but at least it would work. It doesn't have quite as many key management problems, and also doesn't bloat the transactions with an extra highly insecure (due to exposure) key.
197 2012-09-07 02:11:02 <Isis> The reductionist in me says this is essentially the same thing, but yes I see the difference.
198 2012-09-07 02:11:17 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: can't you easily fix that by making him send it signed by JoePriv? Then you can display the signing fingerprint (or similar), which should be ideally visibly display at the cash register, on the mobile device which actually does all the real signing?
199 2012-09-07 02:11:45 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: display JoePub as a QR code at the cash register, that verifies the request came from the merchant
200 2012-09-07 02:11:48 <Isis> You can get around that by having another auth step before signing such as an sms message.
201 2012-09-07 02:11:52 <gmaxwell> well it removes some praticle issues (easier to rotate the auth keys, avoids making even larger txn)
202 2012-09-07 02:11:59 <jrmithdobbs> Isis: no. more auth steps are bad.
203 2012-09-07 02:12:11 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: if you're displaying a QR code you can just eliminate the whole magstripe thing to begin with.
204 2012-09-07 02:12:33 <Isis> Assuming the cash register knows WTF a QR code is, most don't.
205 2012-09-07 02:12:35 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i'm aware, i'm just saying that would actually secure the system and make it fairly sane
206 2012-09-07 02:12:43 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: have him display a QR code saying "PAY ME THIS, remit payment to X" you read it, pay, etc.
207 2012-09-07 02:12:43 <jrmithdobbs> but the magstripe card still adds practically nothing
208 2012-09-07 02:13:07 <gmaxwell> Isis: and it knows how to make keypairs from data on magstripes? :P
209 2012-09-07 02:13:14 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: but you wouldn't ever have to share the priv key at least
210 2012-09-07 02:13:55 <Isis> The gateway software would, yes.
211 2012-09-07 02:14:21 <Isis> But yeah it's a trivial difference to create it as a bitcoin signing key vs just a private message signing key.
212 2012-09-07 02:14:29 <jrmithdobbs> Isis: i'm not understanding the benefit of the magstripe card at all, even in this fixed scenario
213 2012-09-07 02:14:38 <jrmithdobbs> Isis: why do you think it's useful?
214 2012-09-07 02:14:43 <Isis> What country are you in jrmithdobbs?
215 2012-09-07 02:14:50 <jrmithdobbs> the us
216 2012-09-07 02:15:21 <Isis> Imagine going to your local 7/11 and swiping a card and walking out with whatever. That's the benefit.
217 2012-09-07 02:15:38 <gmaxwell> I'm sure both jrmithdobbs and I get how desirable it is to replicate the expirence of credit card payment, but I'm pretty sure you can't viably do that.
218 2012-09-07 02:15:52 <jrmithdobbs> not how you've proposed, anyways
219 2012-09-07 02:16:16 <Isis> Elaborate jr?
220 2012-09-07 02:16:19 <jrmithdobbs> I think it could be done sanely with an evp-ish system, but good luck with that in the states thanks to the banks lobbying against security
221 2012-09-07 02:16:30 <gmaxwell> right, not with a magstripe card at leastâ a evp smartcard and a special terminal, yes.. perhaps.
222 2012-09-07 02:16:49 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: not even that special, just a terminal with some modified firmware
223 2012-09-07 02:17:52 <gmaxwell> Or even with a normal card and the right kind of antifraud agreements that put most of the liability on the merchant, as happens with regular card processing.. sure.
224 2012-09-07 02:18:08 <jrmithdobbs> i'm not comfortable endorsing such a system as that
225 2012-09-07 02:18:18 <gmaxwell> meh. I said viable, I didn't say good.
226 2012-09-07 02:18:20 <jrmithdobbs> because that system has shown to be a massive failure, imho
227 2012-09-07 02:18:46 <gmaxwell> It's a huge success, everyone uses it. It's gawdy and has tons of externalized costs, and is hugely profitable for all involved. :P
228 2012-09-07 02:18:52 <jrmithdobbs> but maybe i'm biased (says the man whose cards have been revoked like 10 times in 2 years due to compromised readers in stores and similar)
229 2012-09-07 02:19:19 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i'll rephrase, a massize failure for the consumer.
230 2012-09-07 02:19:28 <jrmithdobbs> it's fine for everyone else involved, sure ;p
231 2012-09-07 02:19:37 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: I just had a card hijacked myself.. bank calls me up "um. You're not buying dozens of plane tickets in sao paulo are you?"
232 2012-09-07 02:19:58 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: we had a local (good) resturaunt get beiged boxed
233 2012-09-07 02:20:09 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: and I mean that literally. a beige box on the hard line
234 2012-09-07 02:20:27 <jrmithdobbs> took them months to figure it out
235 2012-09-07 02:21:10 <DBordello> Any expected problems with large wallets? Mine is pushing 12MB
236 2012-09-07 02:21:15 <gmaxwell> With normal magstripe systems anyone who swipes your card can immitate you and rob it blind. This isn't pure failure due to agressive automated fraud detection and contracts that put most of the liability of disputes squarely on the parties in a position to copy the card.
237 2012-09-07 02:21:31 <gmaxwell> DBordello: how'd you manage that?
238 2012-09-07 02:21:45 <DBordello> gmaxwell, I imagine lots of new addresses
239 2012-09-07 02:22:21 <gmaxwell> DBordello: in any case, no... though the software does get slower if there are a uberton of addresses in the wallet. but tens of thousands appear to work okay.
240 2012-09-07 02:22:45 <DBordello> gmaxwell, I haven't observed any issues
241 2012-09-07 02:23:05 <DBordello> 1600 accounts, not that many I guess
242 2012-09-07 02:23:23 <kjj_> I've heard people complain that the blockchain download is slow if they move a big wallet to a new computer (or get a corrupt chain file)
243 2012-09-07 02:24:43 <gmaxwell> kjj_: hm. I tested a while back and the chain download was the same speed with 10,000 addresses in the wallet as 100. Maybe I needed more addresses than that or we broke something.
244 2012-09-07 02:25:08 * jgarzik wonders if we need the optimization where one stores a keypair with a height (or date)
245 2012-09-07 02:25:16 <jgarzik> don't check them, if block < keypair date
246 2012-09-07 02:25:41 <kjj_> the last guy that I heard from personally had a wallet.dat that was over 100 MB
247 2012-09-07 02:27:27 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: it would be prudent, the spv clients do this to huge success.
248 2012-09-07 02:27:37 <Isis> Ok guys, thanks for the conversation. Lots of food for thought. I'll be back in a bit.
249 2012-09-07 02:27:40 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: we should probably revise the privkey dump format to allow including the date if we do that.
250 2012-09-07 02:30:03 <kjj_> most of the stall when importing a private key is rechecking the entire chain, isn't it?
251 2012-09-07 02:30:10 meLon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
252 2012-09-07 02:33:54 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
253 2012-09-07 02:34:38 <gmaxwell> kjj_: all of it.
254 2012-09-07 02:34:42 nsh has joined
255 2012-09-07 02:35:15 <kjj_> having the block chain indexed by output address would fix that too, I guess.
256 2012-09-07 02:35:46 <kjj_> but adding a "created on" field to the WIF would be cheaper in dev time
257 2012-09-07 02:36:28 <jrmithdobbs> Isis: please tell me you haven't already fleeced money out of venture captalists or similar to implement this. Please.
258 2012-09-07 02:37:19 <gmaxwell> kjj_: there isn't really any development required for an address index, we don't have one because of the space required and because it's not _needed_ currently.
259 2012-09-07 02:39:10 <jrmithdobbs> Isis: that was a serious question, btw, no matter how poorly phrased.
260 2012-09-07 02:41:02 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
261 2012-09-07 02:41:58 fiesh has joined
262 2012-09-07 02:44:10 danbri has joined
263 2012-09-07 02:55:04 nsh has quit (Changing host)
264 2012-09-07 02:55:04 nsh has joined
265 2012-09-07 03:02:57 puddinpop has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
266 2012-09-07 03:07:59 Z0rZ0rZ0r_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
267 2012-09-07 03:09:40 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
268 2012-09-07 03:10:17 copumpkin has joined
269 2012-09-07 03:19:33 <Isis> Sorry jr was AFK
270 2012-09-07 03:19:39 <Isis> Only money in this is mine.
271 2012-09-07 03:20:10 <Isis> Search OpenPay on the bitcointalk forums, you'll see how the idea has been evolving.
272 2012-09-07 03:20:44 Isis is now known as Isis_AFK
273 2012-09-07 03:21:21 <Isis_AFK> bbiab gotta put the kids to bed. Would love to discuss how to make the general concept work, ideas are always helpful.
274 2012-09-07 03:21:42 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
275 2012-09-07 03:23:37 Z0rZ0rZ0r_ has joined
276 2012-09-07 03:24:57 nsh- has joined
277 2012-09-07 03:27:37 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
278 2012-09-07 03:33:02 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
279 2012-09-07 03:33:11 [7] has joined
280 2012-09-07 03:35:19 Smooblush has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
281 2012-09-07 03:38:52 rdponticelli has joined
282 2012-09-07 03:39:25 RainbowDashh has joined
283 2012-09-07 03:42:08 Maged has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
284 2012-09-07 03:42:36 Maged_ has joined
285 2012-09-07 03:42:54 Maged_ is now known as Maged
286 2012-09-07 03:48:55 JZavala has joined
287 2012-09-07 03:52:36 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
288 2012-09-07 03:52:57 RainbowDashh has joined
289 2012-09-07 03:53:46 guruvan_ has joined
290 2012-09-07 03:54:12 guruvan- has joined
291 2012-09-07 03:54:28 snapattack has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
292 2012-09-07 03:57:02 copumpkin is now known as R-Money
293 2012-09-07 03:57:42 guruvan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
294 2012-09-07 03:57:44 guruvan- is now known as guruvan
295 2012-09-07 03:58:56 rdponticelli has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
296 2012-09-07 04:08:08 <freewil> is there any info (link?) about Gavin's presentation he gave to the CIA?
297 2012-09-07 04:09:45 <kjj_> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6652.msg251755#msg251755
298 2012-09-07 04:10:12 <freewil> great thanks kjj_
299 2012-09-07 04:12:19 Maged has quit (Disconnected by services)
300 2012-09-07 04:12:26 Maged_ has joined
301 2012-09-07 04:12:44 Maged_ is now known as Maged
302 2012-09-07 04:15:54 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
303 2012-09-07 04:16:32 Isis_AFK is now known as Isis
304 2012-09-07 04:16:37 <Isis> I'm back
305 2012-09-07 04:19:38 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
306 2012-09-07 04:21:51 <jrmithdobbs> Isis: did you see my question earlier?
307 2012-09-07 04:22:16 <jrmithdobbs> 21:30 < jrmithdobbs:#bitcoin-dev> Isis: please tell me you haven't already fleeced money out of venture captalists or similar to implement this. Please.
308 2012-09-07 04:22:29 Transfuta has joined
309 2012-09-07 04:27:44 <Isis> Yes did you see my answer earlier?
310 2012-09-07 04:28:21 <Isis> [21:13] <Isis> Only money in this is mine.
311 2012-09-07 04:28:22 <Isis> [21:14] <Isis> Search OpenPay on the bitcointalk forums, you'll see how the idea has been evolving.
312 2012-09-07 04:35:12 Maged has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
313 2012-09-07 04:35:59 Maged has joined
314 2012-09-07 04:42:49 coingenuity has joined
315 2012-09-07 04:42:55 y-tell-me-y has joined
316 2012-09-07 04:44:44 <Isis> its quiet in here
317 2012-09-07 04:52:06 Isis has quit (Quit: Leading.)
318 2012-09-07 04:58:33 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
319 2012-09-07 05:19:10 Joric has joined
320 2012-09-07 05:26:46 Fnar has joined
321 2012-09-07 05:27:42 nsh has joined
322 2012-09-07 05:30:44 nsh- has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
323 2012-09-07 05:31:12 firstclassfunc has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
324 2012-09-07 05:35:32 <Graet> yes
325 2012-09-07 05:37:03 arij has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
326 2012-09-07 05:44:02 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
327 2012-09-07 05:44:21 tonikt has joined
328 2012-09-07 05:45:10 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
329 2012-09-07 05:45:20 tonikt has joined
330 2012-09-07 05:45:29 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
331 2012-09-07 05:52:53 <gmaxwell> "The sharks with frickinâ GPUs attached to their heads will overheat and die."
332 2012-09-07 05:54:04 drazak_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
333 2012-09-07 05:55:34 <gmaxwell> amiller: thats an excellent post by the way.
334 2012-09-07 05:55:46 <gmaxwell> (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99631.msg1166787#msg1166787)
335 2012-09-07 05:56:17 <gmaxwell> I sometimes whine that you've gone off all academic navel gazing on me, but I think you're really talking about the important questions there in a way that I wish more people would.
336 2012-09-07 05:57:20 <gmaxwell> amiller: I'd also add, if you do any analysis along the mining as a commodity lines that commodity mining doesn't necessarily mean totally indifferent miners.
337 2012-09-07 05:57:26 one_zero has left ()
338 2012-09-07 05:57:48 drazak_ has joined
339 2012-09-07 05:59:17 <amiller> thank you!
340 2012-09-07 05:59:31 <gmaxwell> amiller: For example, the mining agent software that luke maintains (BFGminer) imposes varrious validity checks on the work its being asked to do. A miner could refused to 'swollow its own tail'â to do work that would overwrite work it did a while ago, or work involving suspect timestamps, etc.. An economically rational miner might happily sell out his computing time, but the fair price for usage that looks like an attack would probably be
341 2012-09-07 05:59:33 <amiller> fwiw i hope you stay grumpy, i find it motivating, and it's kinda necessary
342 2012-09-07 05:59:47 <gmaxwell> (though I don't know how you could reason about that concretely)
343 2012-09-07 06:00:39 ThomasV has joined
344 2012-09-07 06:00:52 <kjj_> gmaxwell: does it hop to a secondary work source if the first feeds it garbage?
345 2012-09-07 06:02:07 <gmaxwell> (in theory that kind of bullshit detection could potentially go into silicon in next gen mining asics: perhaps individually us miners might not be altruistic enough to not defect, but putting good behavior in silicon might be an economically efficient way to precommit to honesty)
346 2012-09-07 06:02:38 <gmaxwell> kjj_: I don't know if it just warns now or if it currently switches away, it's only a fairly recent thing. It certantly could be made to switch away.
347 2012-09-07 06:03:08 <kjj_> that would require much smarter ASICs than anything currently existing
348 2012-09-07 06:03:15 coblee has quit (Quit: coblee)
349 2012-09-07 06:03:42 <kjj_> I just saw BFG recently. haven't been keeping up with mining technology since I started p2pcoin
350 2012-09-07 06:04:25 <kjj_> it looks really cool, so when I get some time I'll probably work on switching p2pcoin over to it. phoenix had some advantages early on, but I think they've dried up now
351 2012-09-07 06:04:54 coblee has joined
352 2012-09-07 06:05:08 <gmaxwell> kjj_: there are no asics currently existing. :P (at least as far as anyone has proven). It would be quite easy to keep a list of prev headers and prev timestamps and refuse to cut back our own chain without at least a power off first.
353 2012-09-07 06:05:48 <kjj_> well, right. but I mean it would take ASIC that were very different from the FPGAs we have now, and different (from what I can tell) from the ASICs that are currently in design
354 2012-09-07 06:06:40 <kjj_> I went poking around the BFG code today and the current FPGAs take the midstate, which tells the device almost nothing about the block.
355 2012-09-07 06:07:01 <kjj_> all of the software miners (including openCL) also start from the midstate
356 2012-09-07 06:07:18 <gmaxwell> yep, though its just low speed logic.
357 2012-09-07 06:09:14 <kjj_> I'm not sure it would be possible for the chip to validate anything unless you feed the whole header in.
358 2012-09-07 06:11:14 <kjj_> which would be easy enough, and it would only cost a single round of SHA (the midstate round), which is nothing when you have a chip doing billions per second.
359 2012-09-07 06:12:27 <kjj_> I think that idea will have to wait until the second generation of ASICs though, unless BFL and company are all lying about their production schedules
360 2012-09-07 06:13:03 <gmaxwell> kjj_: right, which would also reduce communication bandwidth. (the header is smaller than the midstate)
361 2012-09-07 06:13:11 <gmaxwell> oh it would, I'm sure.
362 2012-09-07 06:13:31 <gmaxwell> It would need to be a norm in mining software first, I think.
363 2012-09-07 06:13:51 MobiusL has joined
364 2012-09-07 06:13:57 <kjj_> are you sure about the size? I'm pretty sure the midstate is 256 bits
365 2012-09-07 06:14:27 <gmaxwell> IIRC it's 256 bits plus the other half of the header.
366 2012-09-07 06:14:40 <gmaxwell> but maybe I'm being daft, it's not an uncommon occurance.
367 2012-09-07 06:15:21 <kjj_> well, we aren't talking about many bytes in either direction
368 2012-09-07 06:15:43 <gmaxwell> hah true.
369 2012-09-07 06:16:16 <kjj_> midstate is 32 bytes, 256 bits. exactly the same size as the first chunk of the header
370 2012-09-07 06:18:41 <kjj_> oops, the chunk size of SHA-256 is 512 bits, not 256. the midstate is smaller by half
371 2012-09-07 06:20:42 RazielZ has joined
372 2012-09-07 06:21:32 <kjj_> the bigger problem might be in parallelization and registers.
373 2012-09-07 06:42:48 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
374 2012-09-07 06:43:55 nsh- has joined
375 2012-09-07 06:45:06 nsh has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
376 2012-09-07 06:54:35 Smooblush has joined
377 2012-09-07 06:55:20 <gmaxwell> kjj_: there is a four billion to one work reduction before that point, since the number of rounds in a sha256 engine is quite small compared to n*4 billion it should be a non issue.
378 2012-09-07 06:57:20 <gmaxwell> e.g. even if the front end's midstate compression is just a rolled single stage, it only has to produce one output per four billion steps of the inner loop. And so even if that single stage is much slower than the unrolled stages...
379 2012-09-07 06:58:11 <Joric> http://marsweather.com/data it would be cool to use that for gambling :D
380 2012-09-07 07:02:15 osxorgate has joined
381 2012-09-07 07:02:22 Maged has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
382 2012-09-07 07:02:58 Maged has joined
383 2012-09-07 07:04:53 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
384 2012-09-07 07:06:31 gjs278 has joined
385 2012-09-07 07:08:23 sudog has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
386 2012-09-07 07:08:30 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
387 2012-09-07 07:14:21 sudog has joined
388 2012-09-07 07:17:21 Dagger2 has quit (Quit: Quitting)
389 2012-09-07 07:19:04 Dagger2 has joined
390 2012-09-07 07:19:05 Dagger2 has quit (Excess Flood)
391 2012-09-07 07:19:41 Dagger2 has joined
392 2012-09-07 07:20:28 PK has joined
393 2012-09-07 07:24:44 gjs278 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
394 2012-09-07 07:28:35 gjs278 has joined
395 2012-09-07 07:33:51 Smooblush has quit (Quit: Client Quit)
396 2012-09-07 07:35:20 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
397 2012-09-07 07:38:30 yellowhat has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
398 2012-09-07 07:41:49 BitRomney has joined
399 2012-09-07 07:42:13 yellowhat has joined
400 2012-09-07 07:46:51 yellowhat has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
401 2012-09-07 07:47:10 yellowhat has joined
402 2012-09-07 07:47:54 yellowhat has quit (Changing host)
403 2012-09-07 07:47:54 yellowhat has joined
404 2012-09-07 07:52:28 BitRomney is now known as chmod755
405 2012-09-07 07:52:36 yellowhat has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
406 2012-09-07 07:58:08 yellowhat has joined
407 2012-09-07 07:59:16 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
408 2012-09-07 07:59:27 Karmaon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
409 2012-09-07 08:02:15 yellowhat has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
410 2012-09-07 08:03:47 yellowhat has joined
411 2012-09-07 08:03:47 yellowhat has quit (Changing host)
412 2012-09-07 08:03:47 yellowhat has joined
413 2012-09-07 08:04:04 Marf has joined
414 2012-09-07 08:10:19 ThomasV has joined
415 2012-09-07 08:10:43 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
416 2012-09-07 08:15:37 has_many has quit ()
417 2012-09-07 08:25:31 shhh has quit (Quit: [BX] Who ate my nuggets?!)
418 2012-09-07 08:28:44 has_many has joined
419 2012-09-07 08:28:59 has_many has quit ()
420 2012-09-07 08:29:22 has_many has joined
421 2012-09-07 08:30:55 leotreasure has joined
422 2012-09-07 08:32:45 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
423 2012-09-07 08:41:49 Joric_ has joined
424 2012-09-07 08:41:49 Joric_ has quit (Changing host)
425 2012-09-07 08:41:49 Joric_ has joined
426 2012-09-07 08:43:27 Joric_ has quit (Client Quit)
427 2012-09-07 08:43:55 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
428 2012-09-07 08:44:25 R-Money has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
429 2012-09-07 08:45:02 R-Money has joined
430 2012-09-07 08:48:55 nsh- has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
431 2012-09-07 08:49:28 y-tell-me-y is now known as why-tell-me-why
432 2012-09-07 08:50:58 nsh has joined
433 2012-09-07 09:00:37 has_many has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
434 2012-09-07 09:01:22 <Luke-Jr> tcatm: ping
435 2012-09-07 09:01:50 gjs278 has joined
436 2012-09-07 09:02:47 ThomasV has joined
437 2012-09-07 09:04:01 has_many has joined
438 2012-09-07 09:06:41 AEonCIpher has quit (Quit: AEonCIpher)
439 2012-09-07 09:06:45 yellowhat has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
440 2012-09-07 09:11:06 yellowhat has joined
441 2012-09-07 09:11:15 yellowhat has quit (Changing host)
442 2012-09-07 09:11:15 yellowhat has joined
443 2012-09-07 09:18:21 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
444 2012-09-07 09:18:47 nsh has joined
445 2012-09-07 09:24:43 Clipse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
446 2012-09-07 09:24:45 yellowhat has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
447 2012-09-07 09:25:25 yellowhat has joined
448 2012-09-07 09:25:39 yellowhat has quit (Changing host)
449 2012-09-07 09:25:39 yellowhat has joined
450 2012-09-07 09:32:46 why-tell-me-why has quit (Quit: leaving)
451 2012-09-07 09:37:30 nsh- has joined
452 2012-09-07 09:37:34 Joric has joined
453 2012-09-07 09:40:41 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
454 2012-09-07 09:42:17 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
455 2012-09-07 09:42:50 Joric has quit ()
456 2012-09-07 09:45:34 yellowhat has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
457 2012-09-07 09:45:47 nsh- is now known as nsh
458 2012-09-07 09:46:04 nsh has quit (Changing host)
459 2012-09-07 09:46:04 nsh has joined
460 2012-09-07 09:47:45 AEonCIpher has joined
461 2012-09-07 09:49:55 CodesInChaos has joined
462 2012-09-07 09:49:57 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
463 2012-09-07 10:05:38 drizztbsd has joined
464 2012-09-07 10:07:13 tower has joined
465 2012-09-07 10:14:07 gjs278 has joined
466 2012-09-07 10:14:27 leotreasure has quit (Quit: leotreasure)
467 2012-09-07 10:15:48 AEonCIpher has quit (Quit: AEonCIpher)
468 2012-09-07 10:17:02 leotreasure has joined
469 2012-09-07 10:21:57 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
470 2012-09-07 10:33:23 dlb76 has joined
471 2012-09-07 10:33:48 tower has joined
472 2012-09-07 10:38:43 dvide has joined
473 2012-09-07 10:49:31 <MC1984> rc2 seems a bit less responsive than rc1
474 2012-09-07 10:49:47 Joric has joined
475 2012-09-07 10:53:25 <sipa> MC1984: nothing changed that could influence performance, iirc
476 2012-09-07 10:59:49 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
477 2012-09-07 11:02:32 tower has joined
478 2012-09-07 11:04:50 AEonCIpher has joined
479 2012-09-07 11:06:38 toffoo has quit ()
480 2012-09-07 11:08:18 AEonCIpher has quit (Client Quit)
481 2012-09-07 11:12:54 Clipse has joined
482 2012-09-07 11:12:54 Clipse has quit (Changing host)
483 2012-09-07 11:12:54 Clipse has joined
484 2012-09-07 11:13:13 yellowhat has joined
485 2012-09-07 11:13:16 yellowhat has quit (Changing host)
486 2012-09-07 11:13:16 yellowhat has joined
487 2012-09-07 11:19:23 paraipan has joined
488 2012-09-07 11:28:13 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
489 2012-09-07 11:28:41 Clipse has joined
490 2012-09-07 11:28:41 Clipse has quit (Changing host)
491 2012-09-07 11:28:41 Clipse has joined
492 2012-09-07 11:39:53 coingenuity has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
493 2012-09-07 11:42:28 coingenuity has joined
494 2012-09-07 11:42:29 coingenuity has quit (Changing host)
495 2012-09-07 11:42:29 coingenuity has joined
496 2012-09-07 11:45:09 JZavala has joined
497 2012-09-07 11:50:17 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
498 2012-09-07 11:50:53 leotreasure has quit (Quit: leotreasure)
499 2012-09-07 11:51:16 devrandom has joined
500 2012-09-07 12:00:30 stalled has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
501 2012-09-07 12:01:39 Diablo-D3 has joined
502 2012-09-07 12:03:01 AEonCIpher has joined
503 2012-09-07 12:07:16 Marf has quit (Quit: Marf)
504 2012-09-07 12:07:43 Marf has joined
505 2012-09-07 12:11:39 robocoin has joined
506 2012-09-07 12:11:44 robocoin has left ()
507 2012-09-07 12:13:03 t7 has joined
508 2012-09-07 12:13:20 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
509 2012-09-07 12:14:10 RainbowDashh has joined
510 2012-09-07 12:14:49 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 271 seconds)
511 2012-09-07 12:16:01 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
512 2012-09-07 12:20:13 AEonCIpher has quit (Quit: AEonCIpher)
513 2012-09-07 12:22:20 stalled has joined
514 2012-09-07 12:27:08 R-Money is now known as copumpkin
515 2012-09-07 12:28:42 TD has joined
516 2012-09-07 12:30:45 t7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
517 2012-09-07 12:43:23 agricocb has joined
518 2012-09-07 12:53:14 <riush> how did this tx get accepted? shouldn't the min size limit be 100 bytes? http://blockexplorer.com/tx/3a5e0977cc64e601490a761d83a4ea5be3cd03b0ffb73f5fe8be6507539be76c
519 2012-09-07 12:58:29 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
520 2012-09-07 12:59:56 egecko has joined
521 2012-09-07 13:01:09 RainbowDashh has joined
522 2012-09-07 13:06:21 AEonCIpher has joined
523 2012-09-07 13:12:16 Guest50119 has joined
524 2012-09-07 13:13:30 Guest50119 has quit (Client Quit)
525 2012-09-07 13:13:51 datagutt_ has joined
526 2012-09-07 13:14:43 rdponticelli has joined
527 2012-09-07 13:15:18 AEonCIpher has quit (Quit: AEonCIpher)
528 2012-09-07 13:22:23 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
529 2012-09-07 13:25:19 <Joric> "scriptSig":"1" huh
530 2012-09-07 13:27:00 <kjj_> look at what it is trying to redeem
531 2012-09-07 13:27:46 <lianj> lets redeem 0 btc, nice
532 2012-09-07 13:29:18 <lianj> anyhow, the question still stands, shouldnt < 100 bytes tx be dismissed anyway?
533 2012-09-07 13:30:06 <edcba> why < 100 ?
534 2012-09-07 13:30:58 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
535 2012-09-07 13:31:03 <lianj> edcba: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_rules#cite_note-1
536 2012-09-07 13:32:19 Erdon has joined
537 2012-09-07 13:32:39 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: <NAME> said 2 hours, 58 minutes ago in <CHANNEL>: your quit message is really long)
538 2012-09-07 13:33:01 <edcba> transaction
539 2012-09-07 13:33:25 <kjj_> heh, the codes doesn't check minimum transaction size
540 2012-09-07 13:33:38 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
541 2012-09-07 13:34:23 <edcba> ok it's 86 bytes
542 2012-09-07 13:34:46 <edcba> and that rule of 100 bytes seems arbitrary
543 2012-09-07 13:35:40 <lianj> so delete it? if the reference client doesnt check for it
544 2012-09-07 13:36:00 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
545 2012-09-07 13:37:40 <kjj_> hmm. I might not be looking in the right place, but it is CTransaction::CheckTransaction in main.cpp
546 2012-09-07 13:37:56 <kjj_> the only size check I see is that the transaction is less than a million bytes (the max block size)
547 2012-09-07 13:39:19 <lianj> right, the fact that this and other < 100 bytes tx are in the main blockchain already proves that its not checked. wonder why the rule got written in the wiki and if it should be deleted
548 2012-09-07 13:39:54 <sipa> lianj: i believe it once did
549 2012-09-07 13:39:59 <kjj_> the wiki page you are looking at is for tx messages in the network protocol
550 2012-09-07 13:40:01 <sipa> but only as a mempool check
551 2012-09-07 13:40:05 <sipa> so like the current IsStandard()
552 2012-09-07 13:41:04 Diablo-D3 has joined
553 2012-09-07 13:41:10 copumpkin has joined
554 2012-09-07 13:41:17 t7 has joined
555 2012-09-07 13:42:23 Karmaon has joined
556 2012-09-07 13:42:23 Karmaon has quit (Changing host)
557 2012-09-07 13:42:23 Karmaon has joined
558 2012-09-07 13:43:09 has_many has quit ()
559 2012-09-07 13:43:33 has_many has joined
560 2012-09-07 13:46:39 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
561 2012-09-07 13:50:14 rdponticelli has joined
562 2012-09-07 13:50:49 Diablo-D3 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
563 2012-09-07 13:51:44 Motest003 has joined
564 2012-09-07 13:52:16 Motest031 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
565 2012-09-07 13:55:15 tastynaysty has joined
566 2012-09-07 13:56:42 Erdon has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
567 2012-09-07 13:57:19 Diablo-D3 has joined
568 2012-09-07 13:59:51 AEonCIpher has joined
569 2012-09-07 14:03:23 Vinnie_win has quit ()
570 2012-09-07 14:05:04 Turingi has joined
571 2012-09-07 14:06:24 arij has joined
572 2012-09-07 14:09:31 arij has quit (Changing host)
573 2012-09-07 14:09:31 arij has joined
574 2012-09-07 14:11:47 vigilyn has joined
575 2012-09-07 14:12:16 gavinandresen has joined
576 2012-09-07 14:12:35 eoss has joined
577 2012-09-07 14:12:35 eoss has quit (Changing host)
578 2012-09-07 14:12:36 eoss has joined
579 2012-09-07 14:12:39 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
580 2012-09-07 14:13:15 Evilmax has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
581 2012-09-07 14:14:56 gfinn has joined
582 2012-09-07 14:18:56 vampireb has joined
583 2012-09-07 14:22:28 AEonCIpher has quit (Quit: AEonCIpher)
584 2012-09-07 14:23:41 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
585 2012-09-07 14:31:10 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
586 2012-09-07 14:33:00 theorbtwo has joined
587 2012-09-07 14:34:05 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
588 2012-09-07 14:34:20 datagutt_ is now known as datagutt
589 2012-09-07 14:38:15 t7 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
590 2012-09-07 14:42:59 Joric has quit ()
591 2012-09-07 14:44:23 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
592 2012-09-07 14:46:32 Evilmax has joined
593 2012-09-07 14:46:33 Evilmax has quit (Changing host)
594 2012-09-07 14:46:33 Evilmax has joined
595 2012-09-07 14:48:26 PK has quit (Quit: Leaving)
596 2012-09-07 14:51:05 Diapolo has joined
597 2012-09-07 14:55:53 coingenuity has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
598 2012-09-07 14:57:07 coingenuity has joined
599 2012-09-07 14:57:45 <Diapolo> Anyone an idea what that is? "Received CTCP 'VERSION' (to Diapolo) from frigg" I'm really no IRC pro.
600 2012-09-07 14:58:10 <Diapolo> I get it everytime I login since a few days.
601 2012-09-07 14:58:15 <sipa> it means frigg sent a request for your version, and your client probably answered
602 2012-09-07 14:58:18 <edcba> it means you have been hacjer
603 2012-09-07 14:58:21 <edcba> hacked
604 2012-09-07 14:58:22 <sipa> oh please
605 2012-09-07 14:58:48 <sipa> anyone has an idea who owns address http://blockchain.info/address/17jruemRwRU2NKZhN7UgPkNDbiDE7rZ9q7
606 2012-09-07 14:58:51 <sipa> ?
607 2012-09-07 14:59:00 <edcba> ok it means you will be hacked :)
608 2012-09-07 14:59:08 <Diablo-D3> no it doesnt.
609 2012-09-07 14:59:21 <Diablo-D3> frigg is the freenode utility bot
610 2012-09-07 14:59:31 <Diablo-D3> it keeps anonymous statistics of users
611 2012-09-07 14:59:40 <edcba> anonymous :)
612 2012-09-07 14:59:49 <Diapolo> Diablo-D3: thanks for that info ... find it annoying ^^
613 2012-09-07 14:59:49 <edcba> of course we have pseudonyms :)
614 2012-09-07 14:59:50 <Diablo-D3> edcba: yes, because its your fucking client version
615 2012-09-07 14:59:57 <Diablo-D3> Diapolo: read the miotd, its clearly listed
616 2012-09-07 15:00:19 <Diablo-D3> and why would it be annoying? if your client isnt a pile of shit you dont even notice
617 2012-09-07 15:00:30 <Diapolo> It' Pidgin
618 2012-09-07 15:00:35 <Diapolo> +s
619 2012-09-07 15:01:10 <Diablo-D3> why the fuck would you irc with pidgin?
620 2012-09-07 15:01:21 <Diablo-D3> go get a real irc client you noob
621 2012-09-07 15:02:12 <Diapolo> Diablo-D3: sometimes you behave like a know-it-all, which I don't like
622 2012-09-07 15:02:15 <sipa> Diapolo: i think xchat is a nice irc client for windows (see www.silverex.org)
623 2012-09-07 15:02:20 <sipa> Diapolo: and ignore Diablo-D3
624 2012-09-07 15:02:53 <Diapolo> sipa: thank's I'll take a look
625 2012-09-07 15:03:08 <Diablo-D3> sipa: erm no
626 2012-09-07 15:03:12 <Diablo-D3> thats exactly what I recommend
627 2012-09-07 15:03:18 t7 has joined
628 2012-09-07 15:03:23 <Diablo-D3> silverex's build of xchat on windows, xchat mainline on linux
629 2012-09-07 15:03:33 <Diablo-D3> the only way we'll ever get a better irc client is if I just code one myself
630 2012-09-07 15:03:35 <Diablo-D3> and fuck that shit
631 2012-09-07 15:03:50 <sipa> the point is certainly not your suggestion, but the way you brind it
632 2012-09-07 15:03:53 <sipa> *bring
633 2012-09-07 15:05:22 <Diablo-D3> yes, Im honest and straight across the board
634 2012-09-07 15:05:25 <Diablo-D3> I dont sugar coat shit
635 2012-09-07 15:05:50 t7 has quit (Client Quit)
636 2012-09-07 15:08:36 TD has joined
637 2012-09-07 15:10:07 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
638 2012-09-07 15:12:19 agricocb has joined
639 2012-09-07 15:16:07 theorbtwo has joined
640 2012-09-07 15:20:40 sneak has joined
641 2012-09-07 15:20:41 sneak has quit (Changing host)
642 2012-09-07 15:20:41 sneak has joined
643 2012-09-07 15:22:49 theorbtwo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
644 2012-09-07 15:22:51 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
645 2012-09-07 15:25:20 MC1984 has joined
646 2012-09-07 15:29:46 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
647 2012-09-07 15:30:21 Zarutian has joined
648 2012-09-07 15:33:30 tower has joined
649 2012-09-07 15:34:35 <lianj> is http://blockexplorer.com/rawblock/000000000000056b1a3d84a1e2b33cde8915a4b61c0cae14fca6d3e1490b4f98 supposed to have the blockheight in coinbase?
650 2012-09-07 15:37:21 <kjj_> yeah, if the version is 2, the coinbase needs to start with the block height
651 2012-09-07 15:37:46 <kjj_> that one looks like it is off by 6. let me take a look at the code
652 2012-09-07 15:37:53 t7 has joined
653 2012-09-07 15:38:13 <lianj> how to unpack the block height
654 2012-09-07 15:38:47 <gmaxwell> Eliel: I'm becoming convinced.
655 2012-09-07 15:38:55 <lianj> "03190403055049994e5afabe6d6d..." but 197657 unsigned int => "19040300"
656 2012-09-07 15:39:20 <sipa> gmaxwell: of?
657 2012-09-07 15:39:47 <kjj_> ahh, hex
658 2012-09-07 15:39:55 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: doesn't eclipse use your poolserver?
659 2012-09-07 15:40:30 <gmaxwell> sipa: Eliel was saying that bitcoin should enforce the correct height in the coinbase for it's own (e.g. getblocktemplate) submitted blocks that have v=2, _now_.
660 2012-09-07 15:40:35 <kjj_> first byye is the number of bytes
661 2012-09-07 15:40:54 <gmaxwell> so that broken miners fail fast. (better to fail right after upgrading software than at some mysterous point months from now)
662 2012-09-07 15:41:40 <lianj> kjj_: i figured that much.. but why. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1526/files#L0R3701
663 2012-09-07 15:42:21 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: that was my original suggestion
664 2012-09-07 15:42:25 <jgarzik> but it got shot down :)
665 2012-09-07 15:43:40 paraipan_ has joined
666 2012-09-07 15:43:48 <lianj> kjj_: why is it a script and the first 0x03 is pushdata of the stripped uint?. or what am i missing
667 2012-09-07 15:44:38 <lianj> irb(main):011:0> Bitcoin::Script.new( ["03190403055049994e5.."].pack("H*") ).chunks.first.ljust(4, "\x00").unpack("I")[0] => 197657 works, but thats wtf
668 2012-09-07 15:44:59 <sipa> lianj: because coinbases do (unfortunately) get parsed for the sigop limit check
669 2012-09-07 15:45:13 <sipa> lianj: and not encoding pushed data in coinbases as scripts could have nasty consequences otherwise
670 2012-09-07 15:45:53 <lianj> sipa: thanks you, that explain it (unfortunately)
671 2012-09-07 15:46:13 <lianj> and why is it not 0x04 for uint?
672 2012-09-07 15:46:23 <sipa> why waste a byte?
673 2012-09-07 15:46:32 t7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
674 2012-09-07 15:46:44 <lianj> so i dont have to add it :P
675 2012-09-07 15:46:54 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
676 2012-09-07 15:46:54 <gmaxwell> lianj: it's required to be in the canonical form, in fact.
677 2012-09-07 15:47:10 <gmaxwell> (did someone update the BIP to make that clear)
678 2012-09-07 15:48:08 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I think "canonical" is a poor word
679 2012-09-07 15:48:34 <kjj_> I think Gavin prefers to call it minimal form
680 2012-09-07 15:48:43 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: "canonical"... to what?
681 2012-09-07 15:48:45 <lianj> gmaxwell: ok, so i dont see it as uint?
682 2012-09-07 15:48:56 <kjj_> but the BIP is being updated, or has been updated, so that the minimal form is the canonical form
683 2012-09-07 15:48:58 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: someone needs to poke genjix to un-freeze BIP 34
684 2012-09-07 15:49:12 <jgarzik> lianj: numbers in scripts are bignums
685 2012-09-07 15:49:22 <jgarzik> lianj: encoded as little endian
686 2012-09-07 15:49:56 <jgarzik> lianj: i.e. MPI format, sans 32 bit size, byte reversed
687 2012-09-07 15:50:17 <jgarzik> lianj: https://github.com/jgarzik/pynode/blob/master/bitcoin/bignum.py
688 2012-09-07 15:50:49 <lianj> "03190403" is not really a number in script terms, just a pushdata of 3 bytes, right?
689 2012-09-07 15:51:22 <sipa> every data element in the script stack is really a bignum
690 2012-09-07 15:52:00 <jgarzik> well, vch-which-may-be-interpreted-as-bignum-depending-on-context
691 2012-09-07 15:52:18 <sipa> right, that
692 2012-09-07 15:52:21 <kjj_> thank god we don't use DER
693 2012-09-07 15:52:31 <lianj> sipa: jgarzik: thanks!
694 2012-09-07 15:52:47 <sipa> kjj_: except for DER being big-endian, there is really very little difference
695 2012-09-07 15:52:49 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
696 2012-09-07 15:53:47 <kjj_> sipa: we can explain cscript serialization in 5 minutes. reading the DER spec is fatal in less time than that
697 2012-09-07 15:54:24 <jgarzik> heh
698 2012-09-07 15:54:28 <kjj_> not to mention the silly type field
699 2012-09-07 15:54:42 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: there are multiple ways to represent the values. There is a unique shortest way. We deem the unique shortest way to be the canonical one. I used the word 'canonical' because there may be other cases where we force things to a canonical form which aren't about shortness.
700 2012-09-07 15:55:03 <gmaxwell> An example of this is in the 'negative' handling for the signatures.
701 2012-09-07 15:55:14 <sipa> by the way, i read blockchain.info patched to use DER signatures now
702 2012-09-07 15:55:37 <sipa> however, i recently found a non-canonical one relayed by them still
703 2012-09-07 15:55:42 <gmaxwell> So the goal is canonical form, in the case of integers the method which is canonical is the shortest expression.
704 2012-09-07 15:55:47 <gmaxwell> sipa: cached JS?
705 2012-09-07 15:56:03 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: this is -your- definition of "canonical" as it is not recorded anywhere considered canonical
706 2012-09-07 15:56:09 <jgarzik> that was my point
707 2012-09-07 15:56:36 <sipa> ok, let's switch to the formulation "The BIP defines are canonical format heights are required to be encoded in"
708 2012-09-07 15:56:46 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: you cannot just say "canonical form" and expect everyone to know precisely what you mean.
709 2012-09-07 15:56:50 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: it's recorded in the source code that enforces it. The BIP is supposted to get fixed but its locked.
710 2012-09-07 15:57:13 <sipa> please guys are you arguing about whether or not canonical can mean contex-dependent? sheesh
711 2012-09-07 15:57:18 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: it is very implicit, and hidden beneath many C++ layers, in the source code that creates it
712 2012-09-07 15:57:32 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: gah, I'm not arguing that its well documented currently.
713 2012-09-07 15:57:43 <jgarzik> sipa: the solution is simple: write somewhere that canonical form is the shortest unique encoding
714 2012-09-07 15:58:08 <sipa> 17:50:27 < sipa> ok, let's switch to the formulation "The BIP defines are canonical format heights are required to be encoded in"
715 2012-09-07 15:58:11 <gmaxwell> Right. We're in agreement.
716 2012-09-07 15:58:23 <sipa> s/are/a/
717 2012-09-07 15:58:50 <sipa> gmaxwell: in fact, i *just* got a reply from ben saying that it's indeed JS cache
718 2012-09-07 15:59:02 <jgarzik> sipa: an odd English formulation that does not really define canonical format ;p
719 2012-09-07 15:59:07 skeledrew has joined
720 2012-09-07 15:59:22 <jgarzik> sipa: "canonical format == the shortest possible encoding"
721 2012-09-07 15:59:37 <sipa> ... can we please stop discussing semantics?
722 2012-09-07 15:59:42 <kjj_> haha
723 2012-09-07 15:59:47 * lianj giggles
724 2012-09-07 16:00:13 <gmaxwell> But is jgarzik's expression of the canonical format rule itself in canonical format?
725 2012-09-07 16:00:41 <sipa> jgarzik: of course the BIP34 should specify what that canonical form means, and afaik, it does; the point here is just that it would just be canonical in the scope of BIP34 and not beyond
726 2012-09-07 16:01:09 <kjj_> sipa: that was one of the reasons that Luke made his pull request that started this whole discussion
727 2012-09-07 16:01:51 <lianj> funny how the code gets around parsing the actual value https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1526/files#L0R1845
728 2012-09-07 16:01:54 <kjj_> we are tolerant of equivalient encodings elsewhere, and the BIP didn't specify, so he felt that this check should be loose too.
729 2012-09-07 16:02:07 <jgarzik> yep
730 2012-09-07 16:02:19 <jgarzik> and then the pull req was closed, after being told it was not "canonical form"
731 2012-09-07 16:02:26 <jgarzik> even though canonical form had not been defined
732 2012-09-07 16:02:33 <sipa> gmaxwell: ben also likes that we're switching to a txout set, disabled the messaging feature for now, and likes the idea of a payment protocol, though he has no time for it now
733 2012-09-07 16:02:44 <gmaxwell> <3
734 2012-09-07 16:03:08 <gmaxwell> Okay, sipa is now the dev team's official emissary.
735 2012-09-07 16:04:00 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: we agreed in the pull req to go change the BIP to make it clear.
736 2012-09-07 16:04:24 <gmaxwell> But it hasn't been done because access control prevents us from doing it.
737 2012-09-07 16:04:49 <gmaxwell> Luke closed the request himself, IIRC, so it's not like anyone talking about it now was overly hasty in getting rid of our trackable item for it.
738 2012-09-07 16:05:22 <jgarzik> sipa: nice
739 2012-09-07 16:06:33 osxorgate has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
740 2012-09-07 16:07:43 <sipa> there's still another DER-encoding offender on the network
741 2012-09-07 16:08:14 <sipa> anyone want to help tracking which software produces ti?
742 2012-09-07 16:09:09 <arij> i have to take a 50 multiple choice question on business information systems, if some one wants to help me i will pay in btc
743 2012-09-07 16:09:14 <gmaxwell> kjj_: okay, I 'm getting ready to stab you on the forum. So perhaps I should cluestick you here before we go around forever on the forum.
744 2012-09-07 16:09:40 <kjj_> ha! ok. what have you got?
745 2012-09-07 16:10:02 <arij> kjj_: me?
746 2012-09-07 16:10:11 <kjj_> arij: no, gmaxwell
747 2012-09-07 16:10:30 <sipa> arij: take it to #bitcoin-otc or the forums
748 2012-09-07 16:10:53 <arij> i did, i just thought the people in here would have knowledge on the subject
749 2012-09-07 16:11:50 <vampireb> study yourself?
750 2012-09-07 16:12:41 <gmaxwell> kjj_: say the timestamps on the real chain (in hours) are [0 .16 .33 .5 .66 ... 3 3.166...] .. I make a bogus fork chain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... A new node connects. I feed him the bogus fork. Under your rules he will never accept the real chain.
751 2012-09-07 16:13:21 <gmaxwell> kjj_: secondly, and more generally any rule that is "only for (anykind of) replacement" automatically means there is a way to make a new and an existing node disagree about the consensus solution.
752 2012-09-07 16:14:13 <sipa> i fail to see what the problem being discussed in that thread is; what does reverse-header fetch not solve?
753 2012-09-07 16:14:24 <kjj_> true, and true. I reject the conclusion you derive from them
754 2012-09-07 16:14:36 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
755 2012-09-07 16:14:54 <gmaxwell> sipa: kjj_ went onto a tangent suggesting a pointless validation rule. I argue that it is pointless _and_ fatal.
756 2012-09-07 16:15:07 <kjj_> I argue that it is neither. :)
757 2012-09-07 16:15:09 <Eliel> gmaxwell: care to link to the suggestion?
758 2012-09-07 16:15:11 <gmaxwell> (though I don't think kjj_ argues that it isn't pointless now?)
759 2012-09-07 16:15:30 <gmaxwell> kjj_: er, lets sort that out then. what purpose does it serve?
760 2012-09-07 16:15:37 <kjj_> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106266.0;all
761 2012-09-07 16:15:52 <gmaxwell> (I thought I settled the pointlessness by pointing out that being honest about the timestamps really buys them nothing)
762 2012-09-07 16:16:18 <kjj_> it prevents nodes from storing and forwarding blocks that have no chance of becoming valid
763 2012-09-07 16:16:53 <gmaxwell> Nodes do not forward blocks which they don't believe are valid.
764 2012-09-07 16:17:03 <kjj_> and it does it in a way that lets the computer spot a block that a human would instantly recognize as bogus
765 2012-09-07 16:17:12 <gmaxwell> kjj_: and regardless ... pointlessly: An attacker could costlessly choose to generate blocks which met that criteria.
766 2012-09-07 16:17:26 <gmaxwell> (e.g. it's akin to requring all coinbases contain the string "greg is god")
767 2012-09-07 16:17:54 <kjj_> the blocks are totally valid, and have the potential to become part of the legitimate chain.
768 2012-09-07 16:18:22 <kjj_> except that the rest of the chain that would make that happen doesn't exist, which you can't determine from the block itself
769 2012-09-07 16:18:41 <gmaxwell> kjj_: Yes, sure. But how is this different from requring greg is god in the coinbase?
770 2012-09-07 16:18:56 <kjj_> reverse header fetch fixes the problem, but only for nodes that implement the protocol using that algorithm
771 2012-09-07 16:19:42 <Graet> greg is satoshi?
772 2012-09-07 16:19:43 <kjj_> the string in the coinbase doesn't change the difficulty rules, the timestamp does
773 2012-09-07 16:19:49 * Graet goes away now
774 2012-09-07 16:20:07 <gmaxwell> kjj_: but as you acknoweldged in the thread, it doesn't make a difference.
775 2012-09-07 16:20:27 <kjj_> gmaxwell: for a hidden chain attack, it makes no difference. for a DOS, it does
776 2012-09-07 16:20:54 Pepsiclone has joined
777 2012-09-07 16:20:54 Pepsiclone has quit (Client Quit)
778 2012-09-07 16:20:58 <kjj_> the point of this isn't to stop an attack that reverts the chain, it is so that nodes can reject blocks that LOOK valid
779 2012-09-07 16:21:09 <kjj_> rather than storing and forwarding them
780 2012-09-07 16:21:48 <gmaxwell> kjj_: under most cases (and ignoring timewarp) it doesn't change the number of blocks they can produce.
781 2012-09-07 16:22:24 <gmaxwell> because the blocks they get for free as a part of the downward adjustment are lost again in the following upward adjustment.
782 2012-09-07 16:22:25 CluckCreek has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
783 2012-09-07 16:22:27 <kjj_> but you can't ignore timewarp. by crafting a few blocks, the DOS attacker can generate many times as many valid-but-unwinnable blocks
784 2012-09-07 16:22:36 <kjj_> they aren't making a chain!
785 2012-09-07 16:23:05 <kjj_> they are making a bogus chain with manipulated timestamps to drive difficulty as low as they can, and then they spin making endless blocks at that point, not moving forward
786 2012-09-07 16:23:08 <gmaxwell> you can't change the acceptable difficulty without making a chain. If you're talking about _orphans_ the difficultly rules and timestamps are totally irrelevant.
787 2012-09-07 16:23:38 <kjj_> well, they do make a chain, but only long enough to trigger a downward difficulty adjustment. from then on, they are all orphans
788 2012-09-07 16:23:46 <gmaxwell> kjj_: they can skip step 1.
789 2012-09-07 16:24:08 <kjj_> except that by skipping step 1, they can only make a quarter or a sixteenth as many blocks
790 2012-09-07 16:24:12 <gmaxwell> NO.
791 2012-09-07 16:24:22 <gmaxwell> They just hand your diff 1 orphans to begin with, no intermediate step.
792 2012-09-07 16:24:45 <kjj_> they can't go lower than the difficulty of the last checkpoint
793 2012-09-07 16:24:47 <gmaxwell> You'll happily collect them waiting for the block that connects them to the genesis so you can evaluate the difficulty rules.
794 2012-09-07 16:25:02 <gmaxwell> Yes you can.
795 2012-09-07 16:25:46 <gmaxwell> (we still have a discussion to have about your proposal being fatal, once we sort out this point)
796 2012-09-07 16:26:15 <kjj_> I totally get the fatal part. and I agree, if aliens invade and cut the earth in half after blowing up all of our comsats, it is indeed fatal
797 2012-09-07 16:26:45 <gmaxwell> It's fatal even without a partition.
798 2012-09-07 16:27:15 <gmaxwell> (and nontrivial internet partitions DO happen, most of asia was disconnected from the rest of the world .. er 4 years ago?)
799 2012-09-07 16:27:20 <gmaxwell> for most of a day.
800 2012-09-07 16:28:08 <kjj_> which would not prevent convergence
801 2012-09-07 16:28:27 <kjj_> unless you got all of asia to run their clocks super fast while disconnected
802 2012-09-07 16:28:31 <gmaxwell> Can we sort out the first point?
803 2012-09-07 16:29:02 <gmaxwell> Do you see what I mean now that I don't have to ramp the difficulty, I can just orphan flood you to begin with?
804 2012-09-07 16:29:23 <kjj_> I'm reading main.cpp right now
805 2012-09-07 16:29:31 <gmaxwell> K. BBIAF.
806 2012-09-07 16:29:43 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
807 2012-09-07 16:29:55 paraipan_ has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
808 2012-09-07 16:30:12 <kjj_> when I was reading it last night, it looked like some of the checks were done before the block was stored
809 2012-09-07 16:30:53 <sipa> there are several stages
810 2012-09-07 16:30:53 <gmaxwell> kjj_: it's true that we don't have the same handling of non-connected orphans.
811 2012-09-07 16:31:07 <sipa> kjj_: sec
812 2012-09-07 16:31:38 <gmaxwell> kjj_: (but that applies equally to your with or with pre-difficulty ramping)
813 2012-09-07 16:31:43 <gmaxwell> er without
814 2012-09-07 16:31:54 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
815 2012-09-07 16:32:01 DiabloD3 has joined
816 2012-09-07 16:32:09 slush has joined
817 2012-09-07 16:32:13 <kjj_> processblocks appears to prevent diff 1 blocks already
818 2012-09-07 16:32:18 <sipa> kjj_: block header format, hash satisfies claimed PoW, vtx count is ok, timestamp is not in future <- those checks are possible without having a chain to the genesis
819 2012-09-07 16:32:56 <gmaxwell> kjj_: It doesn't. (and you can see that it doesn't by virtue of the fact that testnet works. :P )
820 2012-09-07 16:33:28 <kjj_> ComputeMinWork() is called before the part that stores it temporarily
821 2012-09-07 16:33:34 <sipa> oh yes
822 2012-09-07 16:33:50 <kjj_> and computeminwork acts different on testnet
823 2012-09-07 16:38:22 JZavala has joined
824 2012-09-07 16:38:29 <gmaxwell> kjj_: huh? computeminwork doesn't prevent min difficulty blocks. Or, rather it does, but only for log(check_diff)/log(4) * 8 weeks after the checkpoint. It's a weak check that falls down very fast.
825 2012-09-07 16:38:36 AEonCIpher has joined
826 2012-09-07 16:38:58 <gmaxwell> kjj_: okay, but on that point I'll grant you that there is someâ although a smallâ value in confining the timestamps a bit.
827 2012-09-07 16:39:09 <gmaxwell> Now, on to why its fatal. :P
828 2012-09-07 16:39:33 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
829 2012-09-07 16:39:34 <kjj_> keep in mind that I will be arguing the difference between the network and any given node or subset of nodes. :)
830 2012-09-07 16:39:45 <gmaxwell> kjj_: I'm not quite sure where the disconnect on fatal is.
831 2012-09-07 16:40:56 <gmaxwell> kjj_: Okay. Lets try this: Bitcoin is a byzantine consensus system. The one purpose of the core algorithim is to get all honest participants onto a common history eventually. So long as they aren't completely isolated forever... no matter when or in what order they attached, or what pests have been sending them maliciously constructed inputs.
832 2012-09-07 16:41:29 DiabloD3 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
833 2012-09-07 16:41:37 <gmaxwell> A protocol feature that makes it impossible for some subset of nodes to join the consensus on their own is a fatal flaw which could potentially be exploited by the attacker to split the network into paritions that he can spend in both halves.
834 2012-09-07 16:41:55 DiabloD3 has joined
835 2012-09-07 16:43:12 <kjj_> I would argue that an attack to actually do that is very difficult, fixable (by human intervention in some cases), and not worth the cost (in the real world).
836 2012-09-07 16:43:55 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
837 2012-09-07 16:43:58 slush1 has joined
838 2012-09-07 16:44:05 skeledrew has joined
839 2012-09-07 16:44:22 <kjj_> an attacker that has the power to become the exclusive source of blocks for a node already has the power to double spend, once in the main network, and once on the node that he has subverted
840 2012-09-07 16:45:20 <gmaxwell> kjj_: it's not a question of being an exclusive sourceâ it's a question of being the _first_.
841 2012-09-07 16:45:44 <kjj_> that the node won't automatically correct itself seems like a small price to pay to protect the rest of the network from watching a week or a month get overwritten
842 2012-09-07 16:45:55 <gmaxwell> GAH
843 2012-09-07 16:46:02 <gmaxwell> okay. stabbing time.
844 2012-09-07 16:46:23 <kjj_> ha. I consider myself stabbed
845 2012-09-07 16:46:32 <gmaxwell> kjj_: IT DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST THAT. (are you feeling stabbed yet?) THIS IS WHY I HAD THE POINT OF IT ARGUMENT WITH YOU FIRST.
846 2012-09-07 16:46:36 <gmaxwell> :P
847 2012-09-07 16:46:59 <kjj_> but the attacker does have to be the exclusive source, at least during the period when it is "first"
848 2012-09-07 16:47:29 <kjj_> because if it isn't the sole provider, the node will notice that something is up
849 2012-09-07 16:47:31 <gmaxwell> kjj_: he just has to be first. The software pulls the whole chain from the first node it connects to.
850 2012-09-07 16:47:48 <gmaxwell> Once he's seen the attack chain, under your rule, he'll never then reorg onto the real chain.
851 2012-09-07 16:47:53 <kjj_> gmaxwell: THIS software does that. it isn't a protocol rule
852 2012-09-07 16:48:00 <gmaxwell> woah woah
853 2012-09-07 16:48:28 <kjj_> and good point about the rewrite thing. I get confused about the two different issues sometimes too
854 2012-09-07 16:48:30 <gmaxwell> kjj_: if you're going to change the software, implement the reverse header fetch and tada, your protection is then pontless.
855 2012-09-07 16:49:07 <kjj_> but then your algorithm is the protocol, not the protocol we have now.
856 2012-09-07 16:49:39 <sipa> the protocol is loosely-defined, and there are several implementations possible
857 2012-09-07 16:49:53 <sipa> some of those implementations - such as what we have now - have weaknesses
858 2012-09-07 16:50:03 <gmaxwell> kjj_: Worse, under your rule.. once I've exploited some nodesâ wedging them onto my forkâ by virtue of being the first node they've connected to, they're now my zombie agents that help out in wedging further new nodes.
859 2012-09-07 16:50:06 <kjj_> the difference is subtle. but right now, a node can collect blocks in any order and put them together. in your implementation, a block is totally garbage unless it is part of a complete chain
860 2012-09-07 16:50:21 <gmaxwell> kjj_: huh? no...
861 2012-09-07 16:50:26 <kjj_> yes
862 2012-09-07 16:50:38 Diapolo has left ()
863 2012-09-07 16:50:47 <gmaxwell> Nodes can only assemble the chain in order. (they can't apply most of the validation rules without the complete chain)
864 2012-09-07 16:51:17 <kjj_> but they can collect valid blocks that are currently orphans, with the hope that someday they will become un-orphaned
865 2012-09-07 16:51:48 <gmaxwell> kjj_: sure, and under my scheme they could do that to... but if they do, they're stupid, because they could be run out of disk space. So they shouldn't. And they don't have to.
866 2012-09-07 16:52:38 <sipa> case in point: the current implementation does not store orphans to disk
867 2012-09-07 16:52:39 <kjj_> and if they add another timestamp check, they won't do it either
868 2012-09-07 16:52:47 graingert has joined
869 2012-09-07 16:53:18 paraipan has joined
870 2012-09-07 16:53:41 <gmaxwell> kjj_: but then they'll be vulnerable to the attack I'm describing where someone makes a fork that make te real chain look gappy; and they feed it to them before they hear the real chain (because they've been offline or because they're new)
871 2012-09-07 16:54:07 <kjj_> gmaxwell: I don't believe that is possible
872 2012-09-07 16:54:34 <kjj_> because at the point of divergence, the timestamp from the real chain will be within the allowed window
873 2012-09-07 16:54:35 <sipa> kjj_: is that a "not possible" or a "not probable" ?
874 2012-09-07 16:54:48 <gmaxwell> (moreover, they _still_ could be orphan exausted because your timestamp limiting is only helpful close to a checkpoint.)
875 2012-09-07 16:54:49 <kjj_> not possible, but I haven't proved it. I might be wrong
876 2012-09-07 16:54:52 Joric has joined
877 2012-09-07 16:55:23 <sipa> kjj_: ask it this way; does your proposal help against anything that wouldn't be covered by reverse-headers fetch?
878 2012-09-07 16:56:06 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
879 2012-09-07 16:56:21 <kjj_> in the technical sense, no, it only helps with philosophy. but the question is still assuming a monoculture which grows less valid every day
880 2012-09-07 16:57:05 <kjj_> by the way, I have to leave in a few minutes to go interview someone
881 2012-09-07 16:57:46 <gmaxwell> monoculture?
882 2012-09-07 16:57:47 <gmaxwell> wtf.
883 2012-09-07 16:58:18 <kjj_> well, we have some diversity of versions, but pretty much all of bitcoin is running the same software.
884 2012-09-07 16:58:38 <gmaxwell> are we assuming a monoculture by expecting that bitcoin node software checks the lengths of inputs and doesn't let p2p messages overwrite the heap?
885 2012-09-07 16:59:25 <gmaxwell> I'm not making any monoculture assumptions. There is a suggested attack that can fill your memory or disk. It can be avoided by not fetching junk data. I say: Don't fetch junk data.
886 2012-09-07 16:59:50 <gmaxwell> I'm not assuming anyone is running particular software, I'm assuming they fetching in a manner that doesn't let people fill them up with junk.
887 2012-09-07 17:00:00 <kjj_> you think that is what you are saying, but really you are saying "decide which data is junk in one specific way"
888 2012-09-07 17:00:07 <gmaxwell> Just like we assume they don't process p2p message in a way that lets attackers overwrite hte heap.
889 2012-09-07 17:00:49 <gmaxwell> kjj_: there are an infinite number of ways to actually implement it. I gave a concrete example of the algorithim so that people could point out flaws.
890 2012-09-07 17:00:53 <kjj_> changing the rules to allow nodes to reject obviously bogus blocks lets them decide on their own which blocks are junk and which ones are not
891 2012-09-07 17:00:59 <gmaxwell> (otherwise they risk wasiting their time if I constantly shift the details)
892 2012-09-07 17:01:10 agricocb has joined
893 2012-09-07 17:01:28 helo is now known as helo_
894 2012-09-07 17:01:43 <kjj_> shit, gotta run. candidate showed up early
895 2012-09-07 17:01:47 <gmaxwell> K.
896 2012-09-07 17:02:32 <gmaxwell> (and talk about monoculture: Your proposals _only_ value requires the nodes to have constantly updated checkpoints.)
897 2012-09-07 17:03:41 <gmaxwell> (because N*4 weeks after the checkpoint the attacker can spam diff/4^N orphans)
898 2012-09-07 17:07:57 helo_ is now known as helo
899 2012-09-07 17:08:02 leotreasure has joined
900 2012-09-07 17:11:49 RazielZ has joined
901 2012-09-07 17:12:18 <sudog> gmaxwell: You're describing header-only storage of blocks that could be used to track orphans and make decisions about longest-chain. Where would the rest of the block data go?
902 2012-09-07 17:13:13 <gmaxwell> sudog: Hi SUDOG
903 2012-09-07 17:13:38 _W_ has quit (Excess Flood)
904 2012-09-07 17:13:52 <gmaxwell> sudog: you can fetch headers without blocks. So before you fetch blocks you fetch headers and make sure that you actually want the blocks.
905 2012-09-07 17:13:52 _W_ has joined
906 2012-09-07 17:13:53 <sudog> hi, i know, i know.
907 2012-09-07 17:14:02 neofutur has left ()
908 2012-09-07 17:14:18 <sudog> gmaxwell: Do you just advertise that you want body X, or do you know in advance that someone telling you about header X also has body X?
909 2012-09-07 17:14:44 <gmaxwell> sudog: with our current protocol you can assume that all full nodes have all blocks for a chain (e.g. headers) they've advertised for you.
910 2012-09-07 17:15:06 <sudog> gmaxwell: Assumption being that full nodes identify they are full nodes?
911 2012-09-07 17:15:24 <gmaxwell> I'm sure I'm getting dangerously close tempting some DHTite to start blathering... But thats orthorgonal to the core point.
912 2012-09-07 17:15:50 <sudog> gmaxwell: I was just thinking.. what if the reverse-header sync nodes are all just connected to each other and way off to one side in Finland, there's one full node with the Real Data.
913 2012-09-07 17:16:34 <sudog> I guess.. there might have to be a sort of double-advertise then. "I have the header." "Okay now I have the body." ?
914 2012-09-07 17:17:25 <sudog> I'll shout down the DHTite and spare you the effort. :)
915 2012-09-07 17:19:40 <gmaxwell> sudog: RHF itself is _just_ an attack resistant ordering to fetch data in.
916 2012-09-07 17:19:52 <gmaxwell> Thoug it is _also_ more agreeable to other kinds of data distribution.
917 2012-09-07 17:20:03 <eian> distributed systems question: I can't afford a raided disk configuration so I'm running the same code in triplicate on 3 PCs. Everytime I modify my code, I need these machines to run the latest patch. Is there some tool or library that can help? If it helps, my code base is in git...
918 2012-09-07 17:20:32 <eian> I suppose I can write a script or something
919 2012-09-07 17:20:33 <gmaxwell> eian: there are varrious cluster management tools on freshmeat. Start there.
920 2012-09-07 17:21:04 Raziel_ has joined
921 2012-09-07 17:22:10 <eian> what is freshmeat?
922 2012-09-07 17:22:19 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
923 2012-09-07 17:22:21 <eian> Googling it takes me to freecode.com
924 2012-09-07 17:22:40 <sudog> gmaxwell: Oh, so the headers-only thought later on when debating kjj was an unfleshed brainstorm I guess
925 2012-09-07 17:23:53 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
926 2012-09-07 17:25:28 <sudog> gmaxwell: That 50 MB comment is pretty attractive..
927 2012-09-07 17:26:26 AEonCIpher has quit (Quit: AEonCIpher)
928 2012-09-07 17:33:35 Raziel_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
929 2012-09-07 17:34:10 * sudog slowly reaches over and pokes gmaxwell's eyeball
930 2012-09-07 17:34:55 chmod755 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
931 2012-09-07 17:35:07 <gmaxwell> eian: freshmeat == freecode, I guess.
932 2012-09-07 17:35:26 <gmaxwell> eian: the 'batch' ssh tools are pretty popular.
933 2012-09-07 17:35:27 coingenuity has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
934 2012-09-07 17:36:06 da2ce7_d has joined
935 2012-09-07 17:37:01 <gmaxwell> sudog: hm? which unfleshed brainstorm are you referring to?
936 2012-09-07 17:37:12 <Joric> looks like blockchain.info doesn't check transactions very much http://blockchain.info/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX
937 2012-09-07 17:37:15 drizztbsd has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
938 2012-09-07 17:37:34 <Joric> someone just 'spent' all outputs of an ancient address
939 2012-09-07 17:38:15 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
940 2012-09-07 17:38:18 <Joric> even the first address ever
941 2012-09-07 17:38:23 <Joric> reward from block 1
942 2012-09-07 17:39:02 <gmaxwell> Estimated Confirmation time Very Soon
943 2012-09-07 17:39:11 <sudog> gmaxwell: I was curious in minor details of how headers-only nodes would eventually retrieve the bodies of blocks in the event that (for whatever reason) a whole cloud of them are only just connecte to other headers-only-knowing nodes.
944 2012-09-07 17:39:46 <gmaxwell> Yea, the answer to that is "don't have header-only-knowning nodes unless you can answer this question"
945 2012-09-07 17:40:11 <gmaxwell> The header featching stuff I'm talking about doesn't result in header-only-knowning nodes existing. Its just operation reordering.
946 2012-09-07 17:41:26 <Joric> might be a serious security issue for those who uses bci wallet - this address is temporary unavailable for now, bci says no unspent outputs
947 2012-09-07 17:42:01 <gmaxwell> sipa: for your next feat of community relations, please convince blockchain.info to at least have full node level security for transactions it displays.
948 2012-09-07 17:42:46 <sudog> gmaxwell: Yes I realised the two thoughts were divorced based on what you mentioned earlier. Thanks!
949 2012-09-07 17:42:50 <gmaxwell> Lots of people have historically used blockexplorer as a clientless way to check on transactions. I assume they use blockchain.info the same way; it's bad that it displays can't ever possibly be valid transactions without any warning at all.
950 2012-09-07 17:42:58 <gmaxwell> sudog: No problem!
951 2012-09-07 17:43:39 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
952 2012-09-07 17:43:41 <gmaxwell> Joric: oh, did you notice that it seems to believe that it itself is the source of that transaction?
953 2012-09-07 17:44:19 <Joric> gmaxwell, it most probably has been posted from http://blockchain.info/pushtx
954 2012-09-07 17:45:17 <gmaxwell> Joric: so, if you're not the author of this transaction, how the heck did you notice it? :P
955 2012-09-07 17:47:12 <Joric> gmaxwell, transaction editor i wrote uses it as a default address :( should remove all that
956 2012-09-07 17:47:28 <gmaxwell> haha.
957 2012-09-07 17:47:35 <Joric> luckily this address belongs to satoshi, not to me not to pirateat40 or something
958 2012-09-07 17:47:49 AlexWaters has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
959 2012-09-07 17:48:18 <gmaxwell> whats the largest balance? you should write a transaction paying that to the least likelyhood dice address.
960 2012-09-07 17:48:25 <sudog> I wonder how many people try to donate bitcoins to satoshi
961 2012-09-07 17:48:51 <gmaxwell> then we can spam the link around and it will make people aware of the limitations of blockchain.info's display.
962 2012-09-07 17:48:56 <sudog> I wonder how many public bitcoin addresses satoshi has, and when the last activity on related addresses was.
963 2012-09-07 17:49:05 <Joric> i have to inform piuk this shit may be dangerous
964 2012-09-07 17:49:47 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
965 2012-09-07 17:51:28 osmosis has joined
966 2012-09-07 17:58:34 <Joric> sent
967 2012-09-07 17:59:29 <Joric> he likes fixing bugs more than me, thats for sure
968 2012-09-07 18:01:10 agricocb has joined
969 2012-09-07 18:03:49 <gmaxwell> ha.
970 2012-09-07 18:03:50 <gmaxwell> go it
971 2012-09-07 18:03:52 <gmaxwell> got it
972 2012-09-07 18:05:25 <gmaxwell> Joric: <3
973 2012-09-07 18:05:59 <Joric> first someone sends 10 btc to faucet (default destination) and blames gavin then spends 50 btc from the satoshi address (default source)
974 2012-09-07 18:06:21 <gmaxwell> Joric: :P http://blockchain.info/tx/64d94585c89212b55519b2475581bac415cd60c98ee206e643e09bf53b728b9e
975 2012-09-07 18:06:25 <Joric> no default addresses anymore
976 2012-09-07 18:06:33 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: yes
977 2012-09-07 18:07:17 DiabloD3 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
978 2012-09-07 18:07:55 PhantomSpark has quit (2!~kvirc@pool-71-251-16-25.nycmny.fios.verizon.net|Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
979 2012-09-07 18:08:33 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
980 2012-09-07 18:11:49 <Joric> i sent PM don't want this in forum
981 2012-09-07 18:12:13 <Joric> 'warning! satoshi started spending his btc!' and shit
982 2012-09-07 18:16:30 <Joric> i noticed that trying to fetch unspent outputs
983 2012-09-07 18:16:59 <Joric> didn't send any transactions myself
984 2012-09-07 18:24:30 <Joric> gmaxwell, atatata
985 2012-09-07 18:24:41 DiabloD3 has joined
986 2012-09-07 18:27:33 <andrew_wmf> whats happening?
987 2012-09-07 18:28:03 <andrew_wmf> satoshi coins on the move?
988 2012-09-07 18:28:53 <gmaxwell> andrew_wmf: not much, I just got all the bitcoins: http://blockchain.info/tx/bb0035f8b02f7e716d14a90505ffdf00e4b71a3e6030c41abebf7129915bd42a
989 2012-09-07 18:29:14 AEonCIpher has joined
990 2012-09-07 18:29:16 <Joric> Transaction not found
991 2012-09-07 18:29:19 <Joric> thank god
992 2012-09-07 18:29:35 <andrew_wmf> lol what?
993 2012-09-07 18:29:59 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Holy crap! Did you know RedHat isn't publishing the broken-down source patches for their kernel anymore?
994 2012-09-07 18:30:08 <Joric> http://blockchain.info/charts/output-volume is still borked
995 2012-09-07 18:30:37 <gmaxwell> Joric: it's back now: http://blockchain.info/tx/bb0035f8b02f7e716d14a90505ffdf00e4b71a3e6030c41abebf7129915bd42a
996 2012-09-07 18:30:39 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Early 2011, the patchset was no longer available publically!
997 2012-09-07 18:30:48 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: lol, very nice!
998 2012-09-07 18:30:53 <Joric> the only site i really liked :(
999 2012-09-07 18:31:03 D34TH has joined
1000 2012-09-07 18:31:03 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
1001 2012-09-07 18:31:03 D34TH has joined
1002 2012-09-07 18:31:18 AEonCIpher has quit (Client Quit)
1003 2012-09-07 18:31:24 <andrew_wmf> Estimated BTC Transacted 21,000,000 BTC thats hot
1004 2012-09-07 18:31:27 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1005 2012-09-07 18:32:16 <andrew_wmf> i should start a panic thread. ALL COINS HAVE BEEN SENT TO AFRICA.
1006 2012-09-07 18:32:24 tower has joined
1007 2012-09-07 18:32:30 <Joric> to the ocean rather
1008 2012-09-07 18:33:38 AEonCIpher has joined
1009 2012-09-07 18:33:54 <Joric> if only i could submit a pull request... but I am already in my pyjamas
1010 2012-09-07 18:34:23 <arij> 21miliion btc? how??
1011 2012-09-07 18:34:37 <gmaxwell> arij: the site displays transactions without sanity checking.
1012 2012-09-07 18:34:53 <arij> did you see the fees?
1013 2012-09-07 18:34:59 <gmaxwell> This is the reason you should only trust a full node ... or really only trust a confirmed transaction.
1014 2012-09-07 18:35:14 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1015 2012-09-07 18:35:19 <arij> i dont know how to trust or not trust nodes :)
1016 2012-09-07 18:35:38 AEonCIpher has quit (Client Quit)
1017 2012-09-07 18:36:05 <helo> midnightmagic: redhat should be boycotted for that shit...
1018 2012-09-07 18:39:53 AEonCIpher has joined
1019 2012-09-07 18:40:57 AEonCIpher has quit (Client Quit)
1020 2012-09-07 18:43:38 AEonCIpher has joined
1021 2012-09-07 18:43:57 <gmaxwell> oh, they just fixed it so I can't have 21m btc!
1022 2012-09-07 18:44:42 leotreasure has quit (Quit: leotreasure)
1023 2012-09-07 18:44:58 <Joric> it's still displayed
1024 2012-09-07 18:45:11 AEonCIpher has quit (Client Quit)
1025 2012-09-07 18:45:37 <Joric> but with 0 fees
1026 2012-09-07 18:47:13 AEonCIpher has joined
1027 2012-09-07 18:48:14 AlexWaters has joined
1028 2012-09-07 18:49:07 AEonCIpher has quit (Client Quit)
1029 2012-09-07 18:50:23 Arnavion has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1030 2012-09-07 18:52:46 vampireb has joined
1031 2012-09-07 18:53:14 Arnavion has joined
1032 2012-09-07 18:54:28 <Joric> sending $1m from 1dky to mitt romney would be even more awesome
1033 2012-09-07 18:55:54 <gmaxwell> Joric: oh man.
1034 2012-09-07 18:56:01 piuk has joined
1035 2012-09-07 18:56:05 <gmaxwell> You are much smarer than I am.
1036 2012-09-07 18:58:25 <piuk> how did you do it then gmaxwell? :)
1037 2012-09-07 18:58:27 <Joric> piuk, i'd submit tx validation patch but i'm already in my pyjamas
1038 2012-09-07 18:59:06 <gmaxwell> piuk: you're not validating signature.
1039 2012-09-07 18:59:19 <gmaxwell> (at least via pushtx)
1040 2012-09-07 18:59:41 <gmaxwell> I see that you're now clamping values to be plausable...
1041 2012-09-07 18:59:45 <Joric> piuk, http://blockchain.info/charts/output-volume is also borked
1042 2012-09-07 18:59:54 <gmaxwell> though a transaction that claims more txout than in should be treated as invalid, not clamped.
1043 2012-09-07 19:00:06 <Joric> piuk, i didn't do anything, blame gmaxwell
1044 2012-09-07 19:00:13 <piuk> AcceptToMemoryPool() check signatures? doesn't it
1045 2012-09-07 19:00:21 <piuk> *checks
1046 2012-09-07 19:01:17 <kjj_> is that an overflow, or is it just not checking the values?
1047 2012-09-07 19:01:19 DiabloD3 is now known as Diablo-D3
1048 2012-09-07 19:01:29 <gmaxwell> piuk: sure.
1049 2012-09-07 19:01:30 <piuk> I got an alert telling a tx was negative, I temporarily changed the value to look sensible while I look for the bug
1050 2012-09-07 19:01:33 <yellowhat> good one gmaxwell :)
1051 2012-09-07 19:01:44 <gmaxwell> piuk: these txn aren't accepted by my node.
1052 2012-09-07 19:03:21 <Joric> piuk, did you read PM?
1053 2012-09-07 19:04:06 <piuk> Got it
1054 2012-09-07 19:06:55 <gmaxwell> piuk: I can list all the silly txn I created, but once you have it fixed you should probably go and recheck all the unconfirmeds in the system, because I think it's very likely you have other junk.
1055 2012-09-07 19:08:05 <piuk> I'll clear them out, found the bug.
1056 2012-09-07 19:08:27 <gmaxwell> For our own education and edification, what kind of bug was it?
1057 2012-09-07 19:09:31 <piuk> Calling AcceptToMemoryPool with fCheckInputs false
1058 2012-09-07 19:11:58 Arnavion has quit (Quit: Arnavion)
1059 2012-09-07 19:12:00 JudgeTheDude has joined
1060 2012-09-07 19:12:00 JudgeTheDude has quit (Client Quit)
1061 2012-09-07 19:14:15 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1062 2012-09-07 19:15:54 RazielZ has joined
1063 2012-09-07 19:16:08 devrandom has joined
1064 2012-09-07 19:17:54 dk5 has joined
1065 2012-09-07 19:19:51 Maccer has quit (Excess Flood)
1066 2012-09-07 19:21:56 Arnavion has joined
1067 2012-09-07 19:23:57 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1068 2012-09-07 19:26:40 Turingi has left ("Leaving")
1069 2012-09-07 19:33:54 denisx has joined
1070 2012-09-07 19:35:29 <devrandom> gavinandresen: excellent... (re LXC-inside-VM) I haven't tried that yet
1071 2012-09-07 19:39:25 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1072 2012-09-07 19:41:13 RazielZ has joined
1073 2012-09-07 19:42:16 MBS has quit (Excess Flood)
1074 2012-09-07 19:43:08 dk5 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1075 2012-09-07 19:43:15 AlexWaters has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1076 2012-09-07 19:45:06 vampireb has joined
1077 2012-09-07 19:45:15 agricocb has joined
1078 2012-09-07 19:46:45 Guest46913 has joined
1079 2012-09-07 19:47:00 Guest46913 has quit (Excess Flood)
1080 2012-09-07 19:47:16 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1081 2012-09-07 19:50:15 MBS_ has joined
1082 2012-09-07 19:51:35 Maccer has joined
1083 2012-09-07 19:53:51 RazielZ has joined
1084 2012-09-07 19:59:04 <arij> when is the september announcement?
1085 2012-09-07 20:00:19 piuk has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1086 2012-09-07 20:00:38 tower has quit (Disconnected by services)
1087 2012-09-07 20:00:42 <kjj_> some time in the next 23 days, maybe
1088 2012-09-07 20:00:51 <Joric> in october
1089 2012-09-07 20:00:52 tower has joined
1090 2012-09-07 20:01:37 <Joric> jk i have no idea what is it probably pruning
1091 2012-09-07 20:01:53 <kjj_> pruning seems unlikely given the context
1092 2012-09-07 20:02:21 <gmaxwell> It was me having all the bitcoins, it was announced today.. You missed it?
1093 2012-09-07 20:02:52 <arij> ya
1094 2012-09-07 20:02:55 <arij> send me some
1095 2012-09-07 20:03:09 <Joric> rich ppl never share
1096 2012-09-07 20:03:12 <arij> :(
1097 2012-09-07 20:03:24 <arij> who shares then?
1098 2012-09-07 20:03:28 <arij> poor people?
1099 2012-09-07 20:03:40 <gmaxwell> but then I wouldn't have _all_ of them.
1100 2012-09-07 20:03:47 <arij> yea you and me would
1101 2012-09-07 20:03:48 <arij> together
1102 2012-09-07 20:03:50 <yellowhat> has anyone calculated the EXACT maximum number of bitcoins? afaik, it is slightly below 21M because of rounding issues
1103 2012-09-07 20:03:59 <kjj_> many people have
1104 2012-09-07 20:08:10 <kjj_> it is easy to do in a spreadsheet. 20,999,999.97 690 000
1105 2012-09-07 20:09:24 nsh has joined
1106 2012-09-07 20:09:35 nsh has quit (Changing host)
1107 2012-09-07 20:09:35 nsh has joined
1108 2012-09-07 20:09:37 <kjj_> but that could change by a tiny amount if we decide to expand the field.
1109 2012-09-07 20:10:08 <gmaxwell> kjj_: it's already less than that because some coins have not been brought into existance that could have been.
1110 2012-09-07 20:11:26 <kjj_> ahh, yeah, the duplicate generations
1111 2012-09-07 20:11:43 <gmaxwell> Not only that.
1112 2012-09-07 20:12:39 <kjj_> oh, right, like a block (or a few) with submaximum subsidy
1113 2012-09-07 20:12:47 <kjj_> I think I saw that once
1114 2012-09-07 20:13:38 jine has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1115 2012-09-07 20:15:18 MBS_ is now known as MBS
1116 2012-09-07 20:15:24 MBS has quit (Changing host)
1117 2012-09-07 20:15:24 MBS has joined
1118 2012-09-07 20:15:37 Mad7Scientist has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1119 2012-09-07 20:16:07 OpenOcean has joined
1120 2012-09-07 20:16:32 OpenOcean is now known as Mad7Scientist
1121 2012-09-07 20:19:47 <yellowhat> thanks kjj_
1122 2012-09-07 20:19:49 <kjj_> really, the exact amount isn't something that can be calculated, only the upper bound, and even then, only an approximation of the upper bound, depending on potential future widening of the field
1123 2012-09-07 20:20:34 <kjj_> but at $10+ per, I feel pretty confident that miners will be far less likely to "oops" them in the future
1124 2012-09-07 20:20:45 vampireb has quit (Quit: leaving)
1125 2012-09-07 20:20:59 <yellowhat> and many coins have been "lost" but of course there are multiple interpretations for that.
1126 2012-09-07 20:21:05 <kjj_> and with that, I'm going home to see if I can drink this headache away
1127 2012-09-07 20:21:30 <midnightmagic> helo: I agree. It's as bad as what Apple did to KHTML.
1128 2012-09-07 20:21:31 vampireb has joined
1129 2012-09-07 20:22:36 <yellowhat> btw i have an old armory wallet backup on my other HDD. it would take me at least 30 minutes to get them back and its only 0.07 bitcoins. i would feel terrible if i somehow destroyed them but the time is not exactly worth it
1130 2012-09-07 20:25:08 <helo> yellowhat: don't worry about them, they won't be missed
1131 2012-09-07 20:26:11 <helo> currency destruction is not only permitted, it is encouraged!
1132 2012-09-07 20:26:18 onefourone has joined
1133 2012-09-07 20:27:47 AlexWaters has joined
1134 2012-09-07 20:30:26 <Eliel> yellowhat: it'll be worthwhile once bitcoin is worth $1k per BTC :D
1135 2012-09-07 20:31:03 <helo> that may only be when a loaf of bread costs $1k :/
1136 2012-09-07 20:31:34 <helo> so when a bitcoin is worth 500 loaves of bread!
1137 2012-09-07 20:31:51 <helo> your mouth will water whenever you look at that old drive
1138 2012-09-07 20:32:33 MBS has quit (Excess Flood)
1139 2012-09-07 20:38:51 theorbtwo has joined
1140 2012-09-07 20:39:01 guruvan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1141 2012-09-07 20:39:01 guruvan_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1142 2012-09-07 20:39:16 MBS_ has joined
1143 2012-09-07 20:39:49 toffoo has joined
1144 2012-09-07 20:40:19 slush1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1145 2012-09-07 20:40:21 guruvan has joined
1146 2012-09-07 20:40:45 vampireb_ has joined
1147 2012-09-07 20:43:11 guruvan- has joined
1148 2012-09-07 20:47:08 Diapolo has joined
1149 2012-09-07 20:49:31 edcba has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1150 2012-09-07 20:51:12 edcba has joined
1151 2012-09-07 20:54:40 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1152 2012-09-07 21:00:21 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1153 2012-09-07 21:00:56 gravypod has joined
1154 2012-09-07 21:01:14 gravypod has quit (Client Quit)
1155 2012-09-07 21:01:51 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1156 2012-09-07 21:01:53 Obsi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1157 2012-09-07 21:02:18 Diapolo has left ()
1158 2012-09-07 21:02:36 MBS_ has quit (Excess Flood)
1159 2012-09-07 21:03:45 MBS_ has joined
1160 2012-09-07 21:04:01 MBS_ is now known as MBS
1161 2012-09-07 21:04:03 MBS has quit (Changing host)
1162 2012-09-07 21:04:03 MBS has joined
1163 2012-09-07 21:04:11 nsh has joined
1164 2012-09-07 21:06:27 MadSweeney has joined
1165 2012-09-07 21:09:13 Cory has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1166 2012-09-07 21:10:31 ThomasV has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1167 2012-09-07 21:10:57 ThomasV has joined
1168 2012-09-07 21:12:21 Cory has joined
1169 2012-09-07 21:12:38 eoss has joined
1170 2012-09-07 21:12:38 eoss has quit (Changing host)
1171 2012-09-07 21:12:38 eoss has joined
1172 2012-09-07 21:13:29 PhantomSpark has joined
1173 2012-09-07 21:19:48 toffoo has quit ()
1174 2012-09-07 21:21:05 <Zarutian> taking that into account (destruction of bitcoins due to bad backups, forgetting passphrases and what not) why not redefine the fields the ammount in satoshis to be something similiar to a self-delemitited-number-values (like a positive only verison of wandering number in google's protocolbuffers spec, or like those used in SPKI and other places)? That way we can have ever smaller fractions of a bitcoin without worrying ever again about
1175 2012-09-07 21:21:06 <Zarutian> updating that part of the bitcoin protocol.
1176 2012-09-07 21:22:19 <Luke-Jr> Zarutian: you mean fractions?
1177 2012-09-07 21:22:22 <Luke-Jr> that's a hardfork
1178 2012-09-07 21:24:30 <Zarutian> just an idea when a satoshi buys something like a car or some such equally expensive item.
1179 2012-09-07 21:24:58 <sipa> i don't think any of us will be alive by then
1180 2012-09-07 21:26:23 <Zarutian> who know what the future brings
1181 2012-09-07 21:26:31 <sipa> that's not to say it's a bad idea for when a hardfork does occur
1182 2012-09-07 21:26:38 <sipa> but it's hardly worth doing one for now
1183 2012-09-07 21:27:24 <gmaxwell> Zarutian: the downside of that kind of change is that _all_ software handling bitcoins must use arbritary precision numbers for every value.
1184 2012-09-07 21:27:41 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: not really
1185 2012-09-07 21:27:44 <gmaxwell> in practice what a lot of things would do is just use doubles and all heck would break loose at random.
1186 2012-09-07 21:27:58 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: wxBitcoin/bitcoind never handled more than 2 digits precision until last year
1187 2012-09-07 21:28:08 <sipa> sure it did
1188 2012-09-07 21:28:12 <sipa> not visibly
1189 2012-09-07 21:28:30 <sipa> but its core (not the GUI) used every digit of precision that was always available
1190 2012-09-07 21:28:30 t7_ has joined
1191 2012-09-07 21:28:32 <Luke-Jr> OK, so *wallets* would need to implement it :P
1192 2012-09-07 21:28:33 <Zarutian> as I am in habit of doing when float or doubles are mentioned: do not use them if you do not know the dangers of using them.
1193 2012-09-07 21:28:35 <Luke-Jr> but not *all* software
1194 2012-09-07 21:29:05 <gmaxwell> there are also some weird DOS attacks that get potentially created. E.g. what happens if I send you 0.[10megs of data]e-100000000000000 bitcoins?
1195 2012-09-07 21:29:26 <Luke-Jr> lol
1196 2012-09-07 21:29:29 <sipa> well, all validation software would need to be upgraded to support the extra precision, but for a hardfork that must happen anyway
1197 2012-09-07 21:29:35 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: that's what the size limits are for
1198 2012-09-07 21:30:06 <gmaxwell> Zarutian: sure sure, good habbit. but it's not universal. and its not even easy to avoid in all cases. It's not just 'don't use double' is 'your largest primitive integer type isn't big enough either'.
1199 2012-09-07 21:31:40 nsh has quit (Changing host)
1200 2012-09-07 21:31:40 nsh has joined
1201 2012-09-07 21:31:44 jine has joined
1202 2012-09-07 21:32:05 <Zarutian> gmaxwell: it is just that I have sadly too often seen code where floats or doubles where used because the programmer didnt know better and thought the would behave like decimal fractions
1203 2012-09-07 21:33:30 <Zarutian> s/the would/they would/
1204 2012-09-07 21:34:30 <sipa> when we ever need extra digit, i propose adding another 64-bit value that represents multiples of 1/17133532416000000000 of a satoshi
1205 2012-09-07 21:35:01 <sipa> dividable by 10^9, 2^17, and all numbers from 1 to 26
1206 2012-09-07 21:35:05 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1207 2012-09-07 21:35:36 <helo> so we would only need enough precision divide the entirety of the earth's resources into small-enough pieces
1208 2012-09-07 21:35:53 <helo> until we start mining asteroids
1209 2012-09-07 21:35:55 <Joric> when we all will be filthy rich
1210 2012-09-07 21:36:00 <sipa> so you could exactly encode 1/17 BTC :p
1211 2012-09-07 21:36:03 <sudog> And then floating point lib disagreements as to how to perform arithmetic... On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Zarutian is not suggesting the use of doubles or floats.
1212 2012-09-07 21:36:06 <Luke-Jr> sipa: why not just a denominator?
1213 2012-09-07 21:36:39 <sipa> Luke-Jr: too many pitfalls; but i wouldn't mind reading a well though-out proposal for those
1214 2012-09-07 21:37:04 <Zarutian> sudog: completely against using them for money or stuff that requires more precesion and accuracy than doubles and floats provide
1215 2012-09-07 21:37:05 <Luke-Jr> sipa: not worth the effort as unnecessary as it is right now IMO
1216 2012-09-07 21:37:14 <sipa> Luke-Jr: agree :)
1217 2012-09-07 21:37:41 <Luke-Jr> Zarutian: that's never the case for Bitcoin..
1218 2012-09-07 21:37:58 <sudog> Zarutian: You are saying semi-arbitrary precision defined by either a known binary representation format or some form of string value, correct?
1219 2012-09-07 21:38:34 <Luke-Jr> I wish C had some nice proper support for fixed-point numbers
1220 2012-09-07 21:38:53 * Zarutian me2's with Luke-Jr
1221 2012-09-07 21:39:06 <sudog> Luke-Jr: lol for god's sake don't go into ##c and say that.
1222 2012-09-07 21:39:10 <fiesh> gmp is not so bad
1223 2012-09-07 21:39:15 jine has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1224 2012-09-07 21:39:22 <sipa> meh
1225 2012-09-07 21:39:40 <Luke-Jr> gmp != C
1226 2012-09-07 21:39:40 <sipa> C's philosophy is being assembly with syntactic sugar
1227 2012-09-07 21:40:22 <Zarutian> btw is there a processor with "interupt-on-(under-/over-)flow" kind of feature?
1228 2012-09-07 21:40:31 <sudog> sipa: lol for god's sake don't go into ##c and say that.
1229 2012-09-07 21:41:59 <gmaxwell> hah what sudog said. :P
1230 2012-09-07 21:42:13 <gmaxwell> Thinking of C as a fancy macro assembler results in a lot of invalid C code.
1231 2012-09-07 21:42:29 <Luke-Jr> sipa: C is nothing like assembly!
1232 2012-09-07 21:42:33 <gmaxwell> esp violations of the aliasing rules
1233 2012-09-07 21:43:03 <Luke-Jr> besides, fixed-point *is* syntatic sugar :P
1234 2012-09-07 21:43:17 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: I dunno so much about that. You can do one pass transliteration of pre-ansi C pretty much directly to PDP-11 code asm, thats how the DMR compiler worked pretty much.
1235 2012-09-07 21:43:40 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: well, look at types
1236 2012-09-07 21:43:54 <Luke-Jr> one pass C-to-anything works in general because it's processed in order
1237 2012-09-07 21:44:08 <Luke-Jr> but anyhow types⦠assembly generally only has a single type
1238 2012-09-07 21:44:16 <Luke-Jr> C abstracts that into N+N
1239 2012-09-07 21:44:40 <Zarutian> gmaxwell: without expansion in line count? (one C statements becomes servral PDP-11 asm instructions)
1240 2012-09-07 21:45:03 neofutur has joined
1241 2012-09-07 21:45:06 <Zarutian> Luke-Jr: what type is that? the machine word?
1242 2012-09-07 21:45:12 <neofutur> announcing https://github.com/Trasp/GoxCLI
1243 2012-09-07 21:45:20 <Luke-Jr> Zarutian: right
1244 2012-09-07 21:45:21 <neofutur> sponsored by mtgox, developped by trasp
1245 2012-09-07 21:45:28 <neofutur> more or less a goxsh adapted to api v1 and multi currency + shell api to use it as a backend
1246 2012-09-07 21:45:48 <Luke-Jr> neofutur: does it support TBC?
1247 2012-09-07 21:45:50 <neofutur> comments, bug reports, pull requests . . welcome
1248 2012-09-07 21:45:54 Lolcust has joined
1249 2012-09-07 21:46:06 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: it's possible to build an ansi C conformant compiler that only has a single sized type.
1250 2012-09-07 21:46:11 <Luke-Jr> btw, announcements like that are more fitting for #bitcoin
1251 2012-09-07 21:46:12 <neofutur> probably not, that was not in the feaure list I gave to trasp
1252 2012-09-07 21:46:38 <gmaxwell> e.g. you can have sizeof(char)==sizeof(short)==sizeof(int)==sizeof(long)==sizeof(void*)
1253 2012-09-07 21:46:49 <gmaxwell> and a conformant ansi c program will run on that system.
1254 2012-09-07 21:46:53 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: maybe, but we have C11 now
1255 2012-09-07 21:47:21 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: its the same for C11, though because of long long, the one size to rule them all would need to be 64 bit. :P
1256 2012-09-07 21:48:06 jine has joined
1257 2012-09-07 21:48:11 <Zarutian> gmaxwell: if one gets an arch with word addressing with 64 bit words then I wont complain.
1258 2012-09-07 21:48:24 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: and while registers only have a single type, the original C types map directly to the MOV instructions on PDP11. This makes more sense when everything gets loaded and stored between statements. :P
1259 2012-09-07 21:48:54 <Zarutian> (I really dont like wastages done due to memory alignments of datatypes)
1260 2012-09-07 21:48:56 <sudog> gmaxwell: Yikes. sizeof(void*) == 1 would be a horrible machine to work on. :)
1261 2012-09-07 21:49:16 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1262 2012-09-07 21:49:16 <sipa> i believe long is required to be at least 32 bits, no?
1263 2012-09-07 21:49:25 <Luke-Jr> yes
1264 2012-09-07 21:49:37 <gmaxwell> sudog: octasic's DSPs are bit addressable. 0_0
1265 2012-09-07 21:49:38 <Zarutian> sudog: may I introduce you to the PIC16 family of MCUs from Microchip?
1266 2012-09-07 21:50:09 <Zarutian> wait? sizeof() returns the size in bits?
1267 2012-09-07 21:50:09 <gmaxwell> tms320c55 doesn't has char==short==int==int16.
1268 2012-09-07 21:50:36 <Luke-Jr> Zarutian: no
1269 2012-09-07 21:50:39 <gmaxwell> Zarutian: multples of char.
1270 2012-09-07 21:51:50 ErnestoJuarell has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1271 2012-09-07 21:56:55 * sudog shudders
1272 2012-09-07 21:56:59 <sudog> quiet, quiet!
1273 2012-09-07 21:57:27 <sudog> When it gets to the smaller pieces, I'll just stick to asm. Atmels are really great to work with, and surprisingly their assembler tools are okay to use.
1274 2012-09-07 21:57:37 copumpkin has joined
1275 2012-09-07 21:57:42 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1276 2012-09-07 21:57:44 * sudog still has an STK-501
1277 2012-09-07 21:59:55 <Zarutian> yebb only forth comes close to the code density of well written asm in my opinion
1278 2012-09-07 22:03:22 vampireb_ has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1279 2012-09-07 22:03:57 nsh has joined
1280 2012-09-07 22:15:30 <sudog> Zarutian: The LHC grid computing network has all its scientific libs in fortran
1281 2012-09-07 22:19:28 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1282 2012-09-07 22:19:56 <MC1984> gavinandresen
1283 2012-09-07 22:20:07 <MC1984> just pulled rc2 up from system tray
1284 2012-09-07 22:20:10 <MC1984> bitcoin not responding
1285 2012-09-07 22:20:33 <MC1984> well its sipas thing based on rc2, dont know if thats relevant
1286 2012-09-07 22:21:01 Karmaon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1287 2012-09-07 22:21:18 <sipa> are there still things being written to debug.log?
1288 2012-09-07 22:22:27 Karmaon has joined
1289 2012-09-07 22:22:27 Karmaon has quit (Changing host)
1290 2012-09-07 22:22:27 Karmaon has joined
1291 2012-09-07 22:22:57 <MC1984> yes its responding now
1292 2012-09-07 22:23:11 <MC1984> stops responding for a whie, doesnt crash
1293 2012-09-07 22:23:58 <MC1984> just clicked help menu, not responding....
1294 2012-09-07 22:24:15 jine has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1295 2012-09-07 22:27:04 <MC1984> wait, process prio was on low for some reason
1296 2012-09-07 22:27:29 <MC1984> ok ill test some more before reporting bullshit again
1297 2012-09-07 22:29:06 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1298 2012-09-07 22:32:16 eoss has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1299 2012-09-07 22:32:41 shamoon has joined
1300 2012-09-07 22:32:53 <shamoon> transactions don'e have time, except for the block time, correct?
1301 2012-09-07 22:33:19 <sipa> correct
1302 2012-09-07 22:33:40 <shamoon> so no transaction (within a block) can have been said to have occured before another, yes?
1303 2012-09-07 22:33:56 <sipa> within one block, transactions are ordered
1304 2012-09-07 22:34:01 <sipa> and order is important
1305 2012-09-07 22:34:08 <shamoon> hmm
1306 2012-09-07 22:34:09 <sipa> (a later one can spend outputs of an earlier one)
1307 2012-09-07 22:34:16 <shamoon> what's the significance of ordering?
1308 2012-09-07 22:34:21 <sipa> ^
1309 2012-09-07 22:34:37 <shamoon> gotchaa
1310 2012-09-07 22:34:41 <shamoon> so how do i know the order?
1311 2012-09-07 22:34:51 <shamoon> is that just the order that is returned by bitcoind?
1312 2012-09-07 22:34:55 <sipa> yes
1313 2012-09-07 22:35:05 <sipa> if you use getblock, they are returned in order
1314 2012-09-07 22:35:16 <shamoon> with the first one being newest or oldest?
1315 2012-09-07 22:35:19 vampireb has joined
1316 2012-09-07 22:35:30 jine has joined
1317 2012-09-07 22:35:33 <sipa> first=oldest, last=newest
1318 2012-09-07 22:36:02 <shamoon> what i get differs slightly from https://blockchain.info/block-index/236556/00000000000003144851969fcac6b3ce9aba32ac74abea897cf94663035e0446
1319 2012-09-07 22:36:34 <sipa> how so?
1320 2012-09-07 22:37:00 <shamoon> i have 00fb as the oldest
1321 2012-09-07 22:37:05 <shamoon> they have 150
1322 2012-09-07 22:37:50 <sipa> seems they swap the order
1323 2012-09-07 22:37:57 <shamoon> not just the swap
1324 2012-09-07 22:38:05 <shamoon> looking at their lowest one
1325 2012-09-07 22:38:07 <shamoon> bottom
1326 2012-09-07 22:38:14 <shamoon> it's 150XXXXX
1327 2012-09-07 22:38:29 <shamoon> my first one is 00fb, then 0540, THEN 150XXX
1328 2012-09-07 22:38:41 <sipa> the non-coinbase transactions are swapped
1329 2012-09-07 22:39:52 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1330 2012-09-07 22:40:08 OneFixt has joined
1331 2012-09-07 22:42:26 <tastynaysty> I just started learning about bitcoins. I had a few introductory questions. Bitcoind is the command line tool that I would use if I ever wanted to make my own wallet and transact bitcoins myself correct? If so where is the best place to look for bitcoind documentation
1332 2012-09-07 22:42:41 <shamoon> you can also use bitcoin-qt tastynaysty
1333 2012-09-07 22:42:44 <shamoon> if you're just getting started
1334 2012-09-07 22:42:58 <shamoon> bitcoind is the command line program to directly interact with bitcoin running on your computer
1335 2012-09-07 22:43:18 <sipa> bitcoind is exactly both the server, and the client to interact with it
1336 2012-09-07 22:43:30 <sipa> bitcoin-qt is a server + integrated GUI
1337 2012-09-07 22:43:46 <tastynaysty> ok so bitcoind includes the code that actually allows you to transact bitcoins?
1338 2012-09-07 22:43:53 <sipa> ye
1339 2012-09-07 22:43:59 <sipa> it's a P2P node + wallet
1340 2012-09-07 22:44:16 <Luke-Jr> tastynaysty: bitcoind is really intended as an API platform for services and webapps
1341 2012-09-07 22:44:21 <tastynaysty> fantastic that explains so much, do you have any resources you can recommend for becoming familiar with those technologies
1342 2012-09-07 22:44:22 <Luke-Jr> tastynaysty: Bitcoin-Qt is the end user app
1343 2012-09-07 22:44:35 <tastynaysty> luke thank you i am interestined in building software to interact with bitcoins
1344 2012-09-07 22:44:45 <shamoon> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_Calls_list has been my best friend
1345 2012-09-07 22:44:48 <Luke-Jr> tastynaysty: it really depends on how deep you want to go
1346 2012-09-07 22:44:54 <shamoon> tastynaysty: that will give you the best guide, IMHO
1347 2012-09-07 22:44:55 Obsi has joined
1348 2012-09-07 22:45:01 <Luke-Jr> low-level Bitcoin is very different from the high-level presented to users/API
1349 2012-09-07 22:45:02 <tastynaysty> awesome!
1350 2012-09-07 22:45:13 AEonCIpher has joined
1351 2012-09-07 22:45:21 <tastynaysty> is there a place luke that you know that sums up the limitations of the high level apis?
1352 2012-09-07 22:45:39 <Luke-Jr> probably that API Calls list is a good place to start, if you want to work at a high level
1353 2012-09-07 22:45:47 <shamoon> tastynaysty: i think that API call list is a good bet
1354 2012-09-07 22:45:48 <shamoon> for high level
1355 2012-09-07 22:45:50 <sipa> the high level API will present you with a balance, and the ability to send sums of values to addresses
1356 2012-09-07 22:45:57 <tastynaysty> that is very useful i think the high level api is praobly all i would need
1357 2012-09-07 22:46:00 <sipa> potentially, multiple balances for separate accounts
1358 2012-09-07 22:46:28 <sipa> on a lower level, bitcoin does not have anything similar to balances; it's just coins that are assigned to addresses, that are merged, split, and reassigned
1359 2012-09-07 22:46:43 <sipa> in almost all cases, that brings a complexity you do not want to deal with
1360 2012-09-07 22:46:47 AEonCIpher has quit (Client Quit)
1361 2012-09-07 22:46:52 <tastynaysty> ok yah i think that i would definitely use the hiogh level apis, i have no interest in dealing with memory
1362 2012-09-07 22:47:08 <sipa> memory?
1363 2012-09-07 22:47:31 <tastynaysty> im assuming when you say addresses you are talking to pointers in memory space
1364 2012-09-07 22:47:34 <sipa> no
1365 2012-09-07 22:47:38 <sipa> bitcoin addresses
1366 2012-09-07 22:47:41 <tastynaysty> oh, so to be clear
1367 2012-09-07 22:47:57 <jrmithdobbs> "i have no interest in dealing with memory" -- Everything wrong with modern "programmers"
1368 2012-09-07 22:48:02 <tastynaysty> the high level api allows you to transact bit coins, i could receive bitcoins from a user using my site
1369 2012-09-07 22:48:08 <sipa> sure
1370 2012-09-07 22:48:47 t7_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1371 2012-09-07 22:48:51 <tastynaysty> fantastic, jrmit, there are different kinds of programmers, i like to develop things quickly and that are usually not very sensitive to performance demands where the return on features is more important to me than optimizing performance
1372 2012-09-07 22:48:53 <sipa> the typical way of doing it is: for every payment you want to receive, request a new bitcoin address from the API, give it to a customer, and watch for payments to that address
1373 2012-09-07 22:49:05 catery has joined
1374 2012-09-07 22:49:14 <catery> testing 1 2 3
1375 2012-09-07 22:49:16 <tastynaysty> thank you sipa
1376 2012-09-07 22:49:32 <tastynaysty> you have all been really really helpful this is a responsive chat to say the least!@
1377 2012-09-07 22:50:03 JZavala has joined
1378 2012-09-07 22:50:04 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: meh; knowledge of low-level operations is good, even when you're dealing with high-level stuff, but that doesn't mean that there are no tasks that aren't better solved on a higher abstraction level
1379 2012-09-07 22:50:27 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: i know. just being flippant
1380 2012-09-07 22:51:08 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: been dealing with too many incompetent java programmers lately. you know, the kind where the IT staff have to explain how the garbage collector works and what the different classifications/generations mean ;p
1381 2012-09-07 22:51:21 <sipa> haha
1382 2012-09-07 22:51:26 <sipa> that's something else of course
1383 2012-09-07 22:51:30 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: that actually happened. last week.
1384 2012-09-07 22:51:45 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: I will never forget that man saying "what is eden?"
1385 2012-09-07 22:52:03 catery has left ()
1386 2012-09-07 22:52:11 AEonCIpher has joined
1387 2012-09-07 22:52:27 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: i had to google that now, actually; though i was aware that java used a generational collector
1388 2012-09-07 22:52:42 <tastynaysty> jrmit: hey i learned to code in c++ in the early 90's i know all about not having garbage collectors do my work for me, but at the same time i feel those things are becoming more and more relegated to the realm of things that I need to understand but I will rarely use
1389 2012-09-07 22:53:47 * sipa wonders if anyone wants to play detective: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106461.0
1390 2012-09-07 22:54:23 <gmaxwell> I found out one of my more clueful C coder friends was also very java clueful. This surprised me. Then he solved our problem by discovering it was a JVM bug and wrote a tool to rewrite the bytecode to work around the JVM bug... and I was no longer surpised. A low level ninja is a low level ninja in any language.
1391 2012-09-07 22:54:51 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: ya this is a guy that's been doing java code professionaly for more than a decade, it's forgivable for most people ;p
1392 2012-09-07 22:54:56 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: only one?
1393 2012-09-07 22:55:09 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: (also a pretty awesome testament to our IT team that we actually *could* explain it to him.)
1394 2012-09-07 22:55:11 <Diablo-D3> or am I not a friend? :<
1395 2012-09-07 22:55:20 AEonCIpher has quit (Client Quit)
1396 2012-09-07 22:55:35 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: well I've never seen you do anything impressively ubergeek in C or Java. :P
1397 2012-09-07 22:55:50 AEonCIpher has joined
1398 2012-09-07 22:56:01 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: only because I think thats technically wrong
1399 2012-09-07 22:56:03 <Diablo-D3> not because I cant do it
1400 2012-09-07 22:56:28 <Diablo-D3> code should be as simple as it should be, but no simpler
1401 2012-09-07 22:56:58 <tastynaysty> thts like saying you should aim for the center
1402 2012-09-07 22:57:19 <Joric> i tried to use bitcoinj, everything was so... object oriented and incapsulated it was awful
1403 2012-09-07 22:57:23 <shamoon> sipa: is the first transaction returned in a block always the coinbase?
1404 2012-09-07 22:57:27 AEonCIpher has quit (Client Quit)
1405 2012-09-07 22:57:28 <sipa> shamoon: yes
1406 2012-09-07 22:57:33 <Diablo-D3> tastynaysty: kind of.
1407 2012-09-07 22:57:35 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106461.0 < anyone have any guesses?
1408 2012-09-07 22:57:39 <jrmithdobbs> Joric: eh, that's not fair, bitcoinj is laid out pretty well for java code
1409 2012-09-07 22:57:57 AEonCIpher has joined
1410 2012-09-07 22:58:10 <Diablo-D3> tastynaysty: the other line that goes with that one is "you have to be twice as clever to debug something, so if you write something as clever as possible by definition you cannot debug it"
1411 2012-09-07 22:59:10 <sipa> gmaxwell: i guess i could extract all prevout addresses, and google them
1412 2012-09-07 22:59:17 shamoon has left ()
1413 2012-09-07 22:59:47 AEonCIpher has quit (Client Quit)
1414 2012-09-07 23:00:17 AEonCIpher has joined
1415 2012-09-07 23:00:26 <gmaxwell> sipa: well one of them paid an address that is now using the dice thing.
1416 2012-09-07 23:00:37 <sipa> yes, i noticed that
1417 2012-09-07 23:00:44 <sipa> and one got payed by 1Vaynert
1418 2012-09-07 23:00:44 <Diablo-D3> I dunno if Im going to finish lugh though
1419 2012-09-07 23:00:52 <Diablo-D3> I hate writing exceedingly ugly C
1420 2012-09-07 23:01:08 <gmaxwell> sipa: oh. hm. perhaps tycho could pass along an email then.
1421 2012-09-07 23:01:13 <Diablo-D3> once you start throwing in a complete high performance STM impl plus a malloc impl that uses it
1422 2012-09-07 23:01:14 <Diablo-D3> well
1423 2012-09-07 23:01:16 agricocb has joined
1424 2012-09-07 23:01:17 <Diablo-D3> its pretty ugly
1425 2012-09-07 23:02:05 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
1426 2012-09-07 23:02:48 AEonCIpher has quit (Client Quit)
1427 2012-09-07 23:04:18 RainbowDashh has joined
1428 2012-09-07 23:05:14 firstclassfunc has joined
1429 2012-09-07 23:05:20 firstclassfunc has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1430 2012-09-07 23:05:34 <gmaxwell> sipa: it might be interesting to look for the _first_ such transaction in the chain.
1431 2012-09-07 23:05:39 firstclassfunc has joined
1432 2012-09-07 23:05:48 firstclassfunc has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1433 2012-09-07 23:05:50 <gmaxwell> with the ratioale that its likely to be the developer of the software.
1434 2012-09-07 23:06:10 firstclassfunc has joined
1435 2012-09-07 23:07:07 MBS has quit (Excess Flood)
1436 2012-09-07 23:07:16 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1437 2012-09-07 23:07:57 firstclassfunc has quit (Changing host)
1438 2012-09-07 23:07:57 firstclassfunc has joined
1439 2012-09-07 23:08:27 firstclassfunc has left ()
1440 2012-09-07 23:09:21 <denisx> had no problems with bitcoind 0.7rc1 on freebsd so far, switching to rc2
1441 2012-09-07 23:09:58 <sipa> denisx: good
1442 2012-09-07 23:10:24 <jrmithdobbs> i keep meaning to make sure it builds/runs correctly on openbsd
1443 2012-09-07 23:10:47 <sipa> gmaxwell: looking
1444 2012-09-07 23:11:46 Guest73553 has joined
1445 2012-09-07 23:13:12 <Luke-Jr> denisx: can you test the thread naming code?
1446 2012-09-07 23:13:48 <denisx> Luke-Jr: tell me more about it
1447 2012-09-07 23:13:56 <Luke-Jr> denisx: it's commented out
1448 2012-09-07 23:14:03 <denisx> in rc2?
1449 2012-09-07 23:14:06 <Luke-Jr> yes
1450 2012-09-07 23:14:11 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1451 2012-09-07 23:14:13 <denisx> Luke-Jr: ok, where is it?
1452 2012-09-07 23:14:21 <Luke-Jr> src/util.cpp
1453 2012-09-07 23:14:25 <Luke-Jr> #elif 0 && (defined(__FreeBSD__) || defined(__OpenBSD__))
1454 2012-09-07 23:14:54 <denisx> Luke-Jr: pthread_set_name_np(pthread_self(), name);
1455 2012-09-07 23:14:55 <denisx> this one?
1456 2012-09-07 23:15:00 <Luke-Jr> yes
1457 2012-09-07 23:15:04 <Luke-Jr> just remove the 0 && from the elif
1458 2012-09-07 23:15:09 Maccer has quit (Excess Flood)
1459 2012-09-07 23:15:22 <denisx> Luke-Jr: ok, what will change then?
1460 2012-09-07 23:15:33 <denisx> the name in top?
1461 2012-09-07 23:15:34 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: that should work according to the openbsd docs at least
1462 2012-09-07 23:15:41 <Luke-Jr> in theory, you should see the names in a debugger
1463 2012-09-07 23:15:47 <Luke-Jr> or top if it shows threads individually maybe
1464 2012-09-07 23:16:03 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: also ps with H
1465 2012-09-07 23:16:06 tower has joined
1466 2012-09-07 23:16:06 <denisx> Luke-Jr: in top you can turn it on to show single threads
1467 2012-09-07 23:16:08 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: yes, but (someone) thought it should be tested before being included
1468 2012-09-07 23:16:25 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: as long as that string is null terminated it'll work
1469 2012-09-07 23:16:50 <denisx> ok, now in top everything is named "bitcoind{bitcoind}"
1470 2012-09-07 23:16:53 <denisx> several times
1471 2012-09-07 23:17:00 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: I'm sure it will, which is why it'd be nice to get it tested so it can be enabled
1472 2012-09-07 23:17:02 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: been functional since ~2007 (once again, openbsd)
1473 2012-09-07 23:17:10 <Luke-Jr> denisx: try the ps H thing
1474 2012-09-07 23:17:15 MC1984 has joined
1475 2012-09-07 23:17:23 <jrmithdobbs> denisx: ps auxHwww
1476 2012-09-07 23:17:30 <jrmithdobbs> denisx: or hit H in top
1477 2012-09-07 23:17:40 <denisx> jrmithdobbs: I did the H thingy in top
1478 2012-09-07 23:18:25 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: that should work on netbsd too btw
1479 2012-09-07 23:18:26 <denisx> it does not build
1480 2012-09-07 23:18:27 <denisx> util.cpp: In function 'void RenameThread(const char*)':
1481 2012-09-07 23:18:27 <denisx> util.cpp:1291: error: 'pthread_set_name_np' was not declared in this scope
1482 2012-09-07 23:18:36 <sipa> gmaxwell: obviously i do need to enable the pre-checkpoint sig checking...
1483 2012-09-07 23:18:41 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: and mir and dragonfly
1484 2012-09-07 23:19:18 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: i don't think that if defined(__OpenBSD__)) || __FreeBSD__ is "right" is what I'm saying ;p
1485 2012-09-07 23:19:29 <Luke-Jr> denisx: check for #include <pthread_np.h> somewhere at the top of the file
1486 2012-09-07 23:19:37 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: pullreq welcome
1487 2012-09-07 23:19:56 <Luke-Jr> denisx: or rather, add one
1488 2012-09-07 23:20:37 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: i'll test on openbsd as soon as repo syncs
1489 2012-09-07 23:20:43 <denisx> Luke-Jr: much better
1490 2012-09-07 23:21:53 <jrmithdobbs> ugh, frogot, that's why i haven't tested this, don't want to install boost, heh
1491 2012-09-07 23:22:34 <denisx> seems to work
1492 2012-09-07 23:22:43 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: 1.42 is new enough, right?
1493 2012-09-07 23:22:44 <denisx> one thread is named bitcoind{bitcoin-opencon} now
1494 2012-09-07 23:22:49 <jrmithdobbs> (if you remember)
1495 2012-09-07 23:23:18 <gmaxwell> sipa: I googled the addresses being spent from for each of your txn.. nothing.
1496 2012-09-07 23:23:40 <denisx> tested on freebsd 8.3 STABLE
1497 2012-09-07 23:24:24 Guest73553 is now known as MBS
1498 2012-09-07 23:24:28 MBS has quit (Changing host)
1499 2012-09-07 23:24:28 MBS has joined
1500 2012-09-07 23:25:20 <jrmithdobbs> doesn't build on openbsd
1501 2012-09-07 23:25:29 <jrmithdobbs> netbase.cpp:87: error: 'AI_ADDRCONFIG' was not declared in this scope
1502 2012-09-07 23:25:35 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1503 2012-09-07 23:26:03 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: that AI_ADDRCONFIG is linux-specific i believe
1504 2012-09-07 23:26:28 <sipa> hmm, though OSX has it too
1505 2012-09-07 23:26:31 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: is there some list of basic "make build on *bsd" list somewhere?
1506 2012-09-07 23:26:48 shamoon has joined
1507 2012-09-07 23:26:53 <shamoon> how do i know the value of a coinbase transaction?
1508 2012-09-07 23:26:58 <jrmithdobbs> had to force override CXXFLAGS to get that far (since boost includes are in /usr/local/include/boost)
1509 2012-09-07 23:27:13 <sipa> shamoon: what do you mean by "value of a transaction" ?
1510 2012-09-07 23:27:20 <shamoon> well...
1511 2012-09-07 23:27:28 ThomasV has joined
1512 2012-09-07 23:27:33 <shamoon> https://gist.github.com/3b77471e3bba7889b2a4
1513 2012-09-07 23:27:35 <shamoon> i have that as a vin
1514 2012-09-07 23:27:42 <shamoon> how do i know that that's worth 50 BTC?
1515 2012-09-07 23:27:58 <jrmithdobbs> denisx: what steps you have to take to get it building on freebsd?
1516 2012-09-07 23:28:04 <sipa> gmaxwell: 37b9d2e119bdcb3444520af4c3b471d8daa83174b877b882a3592e808d90c859
1517 2012-09-07 23:28:08 <Luke-Jr> shamoon: you don't.
1518 2012-09-07 23:28:11 <jrmithdobbs> CXXFLAGS='-g -O2 -I./ -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/include/boot' gmake -f makefile.unix USE_UPNP= bitcoind
1519 2012-09-07 23:28:15 <Luke-Jr> shamoon: at least not just from that
1520 2012-09-07 23:28:15 <shamoon> the vout tells me there's a transaction (float(50.02430195)), but how do i know that the bounty is 50?
1521 2012-09-07 23:28:27 <shamoon> not 50.01?
1522 2012-09-07 23:28:28 <denisx> jrmithdobbs: I have a modified makefile
1523 2012-09-07 23:28:31 <Luke-Jr> shamoon: don't use floats.
1524 2012-09-07 23:28:41 <Luke-Jr> sigh
1525 2012-09-07 23:28:43 <jrmithdobbs> denisx: got a diff somewhere?
1526 2012-09-07 23:28:49 <shamoon> i'm not
1527 2012-09-07 23:28:52 <shamoon> it's just a vardump
1528 2012-09-07 23:28:53 <shamoon> for now
1529 2012-09-07 23:28:57 <shamoon> so i can see how things work
1530 2012-09-07 23:29:28 <jrmithdobbs> heh openbsd's modified warning stuff really really really really hates boost
1531 2012-09-07 23:29:35 <jrmithdobbs> (in gcc, i mean)
1532 2012-09-07 23:29:37 <Luke-Jr> denisx: jrmithdobbs: it'd be awesome if you guys could put together a pullreq to fix BSD in mainline; I don't use BSD myself, but let me know if I can help
1533 2012-09-07 23:30:00 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: ya, it's been something i've been meaning to do for over a year, it's been a hectic time for me ;p
1534 2012-09-07 23:30:12 <shamoon> Luke-Jr: this is before i have my wrappers / helpers to use 64 bit ints
1535 2012-09-07 23:31:01 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: but i got the irs off my back at least, earlier today, so maybe this weekend ... can't be more effort than it was to get mosh building on openbsd
1536 2012-09-07 23:31:30 <jrmithdobbs> (I do not endorse the use of mosh and do not present that it is safe, usable, etc, please don't take the above to mean i do)
1537 2012-09-07 23:31:57 <denisx> jrmithdobbs: http://pastebin.com/fNf6x22g
1538 2012-09-07 23:32:03 <denisx> jrmithdobbs: diff it yourself ;)
1539 2012-09-07 23:32:14 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: nah, probably 99% of the effort is cleaning up the hacks so it doesn't break Linux ;p
1540 2012-09-07 23:32:41 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: tbqh doing it right needs autotools
1541 2012-09-07 23:32:50 <jrmithdobbs> (or to move bitcoind to build by cmake)
1542 2012-09-07 23:33:32 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: autotools would be awesome, but nobody seems to be interested in doing it (or maintaining it)
1543 2012-09-07 23:33:58 <Luke-Jr> IIRC someone made one a year ago, but it was on the last release at the time and stale to git - and they didn't care to update it :<
1544 2012-09-07 23:35:50 Greee has joined
1545 2012-09-07 23:36:35 Maccer has joined
1546 2012-09-07 23:36:52 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1547 2012-09-07 23:37:06 <jrmithdobbs> denisx: can you please diff it against makefile.unix? your whitespace changes make the diff useless
1548 2012-09-07 23:37:10 <gmaxwell> sipa: I've found nothing from that transaction. :(
1549 2012-09-07 23:37:18 <jrmithdobbs> denisx: diff -u makefile.unix Makefile
1550 2012-09-07 23:37:20 shamoon has left ()
1551 2012-09-07 23:37:42 <jrmithdobbs> (probably caused by cutting/pasting from shell)
1552 2012-09-07 23:38:11 <jrmithdobbs> oh wait, always forget about -w
1553 2012-09-07 23:39:00 <denisx> jrmithdobbs: I know, I know
1554 2012-09-07 23:39:11 netxshare has joined
1555 2012-09-07 23:39:15 <denisx> ok
1556 2012-09-07 23:40:12 netxshare has left ("...")
1557 2012-09-07 23:41:16 <denisx> jrmithdobbs: ok, give me some minutes
1558 2012-09-07 23:41:22 <denisx> I try to reduce the diff first
1559 2012-09-07 23:42:05 <jrmithdobbs> denisx: thanks, looks like most of your changes revolve around trying to fight against using gmake ;p
1560 2012-09-07 23:42:14 <sipa> gmaxwell: want the list of >7000 more txids?
1561 2012-09-07 23:42:30 <gmaxwell> sipa: sure.
1562 2012-09-07 23:42:48 <gmaxwell> I'm gonna get banned from google again.
1563 2012-09-07 23:44:53 <Eliel> what'll they ban you for?
1564 2012-09-07 23:45:17 <gmaxwell> Eliel: they'll ban you for using their site automatically.
1565 2012-09-07 23:46:08 <freewil> gmaxwell, how are you still alive without being plugged in?
1566 2012-09-07 23:46:22 <gmaxwell> for example, if you decide to choose a location for an event by having google maps route the path from every person to every candidate location so you can minimize mean drivetime.
1567 2012-09-07 23:46:37 <gmaxwell> yea.. thats gets you banned. :P
1568 2012-09-07 23:46:45 <Eliel> :D
1569 2012-09-07 23:47:24 <Eliel> try making it happen slower? :P
1570 2012-09-07 23:48:49 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: no it doesn't..
1571 2012-09-07 23:49:03 <Luke-Jr> you just have to use their API
1572 2012-09-07 23:56:27 Joric has quit ()
1573 2012-09-07 23:57:28 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i'm so used to sorry.google.com popping up randomly i wouldn't even notice, ha
1574 2012-09-07 23:57:29 <denisx> jrmithdobbs: http://pastebin.com/J4TxLjSY
1575 2012-09-07 23:57:45 <denisx> jrmithdobbs: did not change much though
1576 2012-09-07 23:57:59 <denisx> I reduced too much ;)
1577 2012-09-07 23:59:15 <jrmithdobbs> denisx: thanks, i'll see if i can figure out what's needed for openbsd