1 2012-09-09 00:00:15 <MC-Eeepc> Luke-Jr
2 2012-09-09 00:00:40 <MC-Eeepc> you did a big paste
3 2012-09-09 00:00:46 <MC-Eeepc> thats naughty
4 2012-09-09 00:02:13 <Eliel> MC-Eeepc: o.O
5 2012-09-09 00:03:25 <Eliel> 5 lines is about the limit of what's acceptable to paste directly to an IRC channel.
6 2012-09-09 00:03:38 <Eliel> more than that, pastebin or similar it is.
7 2012-09-09 00:09:53 graingert has joined
8 2012-09-09 00:15:01 balrog has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
9 2012-09-09 00:16:26 olp has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
10 2012-09-09 00:21:32 Gladamas_laptop has joined
11 2012-09-09 00:22:17 balrog has joined
12 2012-09-09 00:26:22 <denisx> hmm, I have the feeling that the 100% cpu usage in bitcoind{bitcoin-msghand} is this old bug again
13 2012-09-09 00:26:55 <denisx> because now it is 1 block/s at 100% were it was 80% for 20 blocks/s before
14 2012-09-09 00:27:28 MadSweeney has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
15 2012-09-09 00:27:28 <stamit> ;;echo hello
16 2012-09-09 00:27:29 <gribble> hello
17 2012-09-09 00:28:19 balrog has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
18 2012-09-09 00:29:07 <Eliel> denisx: blocks are getting bigger, so takes more time and effort per block.
19 2012-09-09 00:31:53 testnode9 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
20 2012-09-09 00:34:59 <sipa> denisx: which block are you at now, and which block were you at before?
21 2012-09-09 00:36:57 <denisx> sipa: 196233
22 2012-09-09 00:37:30 <sipa> 100% cpu usage is completely expected there; it's doing signature verification
23 2012-09-09 00:37:57 <denisx> sipa: I thought this is now multithreaded?
24 2012-09-09 00:38:08 <denisx> or is this not in git right now?
25 2012-09-09 00:39:51 <sipa> right now it is in my branch
26 2012-09-09 00:40:00 <sipa> which commit/version are you using?
27 2012-09-09 00:40:29 <denisx> I did a pull some hours ago
28 2012-09-09 00:41:18 <denisx> pulling now
29 2012-09-09 00:41:28 <sipa> bitcoin reports it commit/build id in debug.log at startup
30 2012-09-09 00:43:45 sgornick has joined
31 2012-09-09 00:45:17 justmoon has joined
32 2012-09-09 00:47:07 theymos has joined
33 2012-09-09 00:47:13 <denisx> Bitcoin version v0.7.0.0-unk-beta (Sep 8 2012, 20:08:05)
34 2012-09-09 00:47:38 <theymos> Can anyone tell me the accurate PGP public key fingerprint of Stefan Thomas (justmoon)?
35 2012-09-09 00:47:50 <justmoon> theymos: one second :)
36 2012-09-09 00:48:18 <justmoon> D16E 7B04 42B9 F02E 0660 C094 C947 3700 A4B0 8BF3
37 2012-09-09 00:49:31 <theymos> Thanks. I'd like someone else to confirm, though, just in case your account has been compromised.
38 2012-09-09 00:49:49 Mad7Scientist has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
39 2012-09-09 00:50:16 <denisx> is it not signed?
40 2012-09-09 00:50:18 Gladamas_laptop has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
41 2012-09-09 00:50:29 OpenOcean has joined
42 2012-09-09 00:50:37 <theymos> No.
43 2012-09-09 00:51:02 OpenOcean is now known as Mad7Scientist
44 2012-09-09 00:52:40 <denisx> sipa: getblocks 196411 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
45 2012-09-09 00:52:42 <denisx> whats that?
46 2012-09-09 00:55:07 <justmoon> theymos: the only people who come to mind who can confirm my PGP key are the Ogrr.com staff, I've been communicating with PGP with them
47 2012-09-09 00:55:26 <justmoon> I can prove access to weusecoins.com, bitcoinjs.org and ownership of the respective bitcoin addresses if that helps?
48 2012-09-09 00:55:58 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
49 2012-09-09 00:56:30 rdponticelli has joined
50 2012-09-09 00:57:40 <sipa> denisx: some node requesting a block list from you
51 2012-09-09 00:58:33 <sipa> justmoon: seems your leveldb port to mingw required C++0x
52 2012-09-09 00:58:49 <sipa> justmoon: i had to change few things to make it compile with the ancient gcc used in gitian
53 2012-09-09 00:59:23 <justmoon> sipa: cool, thanks - the native win32 port I'm working on won't require C++0x
54 2012-09-09 00:59:29 <sipa> oh, good!
55 2012-09-09 00:59:33 <justmoon> don't think I'll get it done before the conf though :/
56 2012-09-09 00:59:40 <sipa> no worries
57 2012-09-09 00:59:52 <sipa> by the way... chrome uses leveldb, no?
58 2012-09-09 01:00:01 <sipa> so the code must already exist?
59 2012-09-09 01:03:59 <justmoon> yes, there's an env_chromium.cc and chromium has a platform_file_win.cc
60 2012-09-09 01:04:46 balrog has joined
61 2012-09-09 01:04:48 <sipa> ic
62 2012-09-09 01:06:12 <justmoon> it's mostly done, the test suite passes save for some random bug that happens sometimes, I wanna take my time testing it before I start proclaiming success
63 2012-09-09 01:06:28 coblee has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
64 2012-09-09 01:06:45 AEonCIpher has joined
65 2012-09-09 01:10:45 <sipa> great, thanks
66 2012-09-09 01:14:08 AlexWaters has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
67 2012-09-09 01:19:10 dvide has quit ()
68 2012-09-09 01:24:25 toffoo has joined
69 2012-09-09 01:27:09 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
70 2012-09-09 01:27:22 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
71 2012-09-09 01:29:29 Cablesaurus has joined
72 2012-09-09 01:30:54 Gladamas_laptop has joined
73 2012-09-09 01:34:46 vigilyn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
74 2012-09-09 01:36:21 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
75 2012-09-09 01:40:10 coblee has joined
76 2012-09-09 01:50:53 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
77 2012-09-09 01:51:50 paraipan has joined
78 2012-09-09 01:51:58 Motest031 has joined
79 2012-09-09 01:52:29 Motest003 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
80 2012-09-09 01:53:02 AlexWaters has joined
81 2012-09-09 01:57:03 da2ce7_d2 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
82 2012-09-09 01:57:24 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
83 2012-09-09 01:57:46 da2ce724 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
84 2012-09-09 01:58:04 paraipan has joined
85 2012-09-09 02:02:43 da2ce7 has joined
86 2012-09-09 02:19:00 djoot has quit (Quit: leaving)
87 2012-09-09 02:22:13 coblee has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
88 2012-09-09 02:23:08 ZenInTexas has quit (Quit: ZenInTexas)
89 2012-09-09 02:23:44 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
90 2012-09-09 02:24:43 ZenInTexas has joined
91 2012-09-09 02:31:31 djoot has joined
92 2012-09-09 02:31:32 djoot has quit (Changing host)
93 2012-09-09 02:31:32 djoot has joined
94 2012-09-09 02:39:34 graingert has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
95 2012-09-09 02:39:55 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
96 2012-09-09 02:40:16 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
97 2012-09-09 02:41:35 Gladamas_laptop has quit (Quit: switching wireless networks)
98 2012-09-09 02:42:39 fiesh has joined
99 2012-09-09 02:46:39 Gladamas_laptop has joined
100 2012-09-09 02:51:59 da2ce7_d has joined
101 2012-09-09 02:54:04 Gladamas_laptop_ has joined
102 2012-09-09 02:54:48 Gladamas_laptop has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
103 2012-09-09 02:55:56 <amiller> lol
104 2012-09-09 02:55:56 [\\\] has joined
105 2012-09-09 02:56:06 <amiller> i've been stressing out about how to calculate the price per bitcoin
106 2012-09-09 02:56:16 <amiller> vs price per hash
107 2012-09-09 02:56:30 <amiller> i should just divide the total amount of bitcoins earned in each block to the expected number of hashes needed to compute it
108 2012-09-09 02:56:36 <amiller> obviously that is the price of a bitcoin
109 2012-09-09 02:56:40 <amiller> in work
110 2012-09-09 02:57:03 Karmaon_ is now known as Karmaon
111 2012-09-09 02:58:18 Gladamas_laptop has joined
112 2012-09-09 03:00:48 Gladamas_laptop_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
113 2012-09-09 03:10:17 <gmaxwell> amiller: oh boy, you should stick to computer science, because it sounds like you're falling down a common economic rathole.
114 2012-09-09 03:11:09 <gmaxwell> Unless you want to argue that if I took the hope diamond smashed it to a billion pieces, wrapped it in the monoa lisa, and then had the pope piss out the fire that the resulting muck would we worth a hundred million per gram... :P
115 2012-09-09 03:14:42 slush has joined
116 2012-09-09 03:15:47 <amiller> it's a pretty simple argument about equilibrium
117 2012-09-09 03:16:13 <amiller> if the expected bitcoins earned per block are much greater than the cost to produce them, then it's worth buying more gpus
118 2012-09-09 03:16:32 <amiller> equilibrium is when the price of a bitcoin matches the cost of a block
119 2012-09-09 03:17:05 <gmaxwell> amiller: right but you can't look to the cost of a hash to determine the price. Thats like looking at my smashed diamond muck and calling it valuable.
120 2012-09-09 03:17:43 <amiller> eh, don't worry, i'm not interested in observing anything or determining anything...
121 2012-09-09 03:18:59 <amiller> well i take that back, i'm willing to make a prediction and test it on evidence, based on what i just said, i should be able to take two charts from blockchain.info, divide them, and see a flat line
122 2012-09-09 03:19:18 <amiller> well it won't be a flat line because i know speculation's changed and we've already seen three generations of mining tech
123 2012-09-09 03:21:38 root2 has quit ()
124 2012-09-09 03:26:50 Maccer has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
125 2012-09-09 03:27:16 justmoon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
126 2012-09-09 03:30:58 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
127 2012-09-09 03:31:07 [7] has joined
128 2012-09-09 03:33:53 Smooblush has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
129 2012-09-09 03:41:19 BTCTrader has quit (Quit: BTCTrader)
130 2012-09-09 03:43:01 <jrmithdobbs> errr, is that rumor about rms true?
131 2012-09-09 03:43:38 <lianj> which?
132 2012-09-09 03:44:09 <jrmithdobbs> https://twitter.com/kragen/status/244634678747873280
133 2012-09-09 03:44:13 <jrmithdobbs> that one
134 2012-09-09 03:44:34 <amiller> http://pastebin.com/TCZy568K this is the abstract for his talk posted on the conference site
135 2012-09-09 03:45:14 <amiller> i don't think richard stallman has talked about currency before, so it seems like this will be a new performance specifically for bitcoin
136 2012-09-09 03:46:19 <lianj> feels like ron paul pushing bitcoin
137 2012-09-09 03:48:06 <jrmithdobbs> has anyone comitted to recording the talks this time?
138 2012-09-09 03:48:24 <jrmithdobbs> because i'm a little confused what he's going to talk about, this isn't really his area
139 2012-09-09 03:50:08 <gmaxwell> "Good news: after months of searching we finally found someone sufficiently more pigheaded than the average bitcoiner that they'll probably survive talking at the conference"
140 2012-09-09 03:51:27 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: RMS leaves his area of expertise pretty often
141 2012-09-09 03:52:16 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: RMS has been listed up top on http://bitcoin2012.com/ for a while now
142 2012-09-09 03:52:46 * Luke-Jr wonders when Bitcoin became part of the free software movement; seems it's mostly accidental overlap
143 2012-09-09 03:53:02 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: ya that's where my confusion comes from ;p
144 2012-09-09 03:54:26 <amiller> i think the big difficulty with RMS is that he says "Free as in Freedom, Free as in Beer" meaning you can still sell it, but no one's really figured out how to practice it
145 2012-09-09 03:54:30 <amiller> bitcoin is agoric free software
146 2012-09-09 03:54:38 Gladamas_laptop_ has joined
147 2012-09-09 03:55:46 Gladamas_laptop has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
148 2012-09-09 03:55:56 Gladamas_laptop_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
149 2012-09-09 03:58:39 <amiller> i really like his talks, so i'm excited if there will be new material
150 2012-09-09 03:59:36 <gmaxwell> I predict he doesn't get to the talk because he enounters someone as immovable as him and then some kind of criticality excursion event happens and the world ends.
151 2012-09-09 04:04:43 <phantomcircuit> jrmithdobbs, they will be recorded iirc by professionals
152 2012-09-09 04:04:51 <phantomcircuit> professional maybe iono
153 2012-09-09 04:06:00 <phantomcircuit> also
154 2012-09-09 04:06:03 <phantomcircuit> lol @ gmaxwell
155 2012-09-09 04:06:05 <doublec> I'm surprised he's promoting bsd licensed software
156 2012-09-09 04:07:01 <phantomcircuit> doublec, something tells me.. https://gitorious.org/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/blobs/master/LICENSE
157 2012-09-09 04:08:27 <doublec> oh right. must learn to seperate bitcoin the project from bitcoin the implementation
158 2012-09-09 04:09:08 <Luke-Jr> doublec: that's wumpus's fault ;)
159 2012-09-09 04:14:26 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
160 2012-09-09 04:15:08 <gmaxwell> doublec: RMS doesn't have any problem with BSD licensed software. He recommended xiph.org use BSD for vorbis (the early betas we're GPL), specifically because it would improve things if non-free stuff used the format too.
161 2012-09-09 04:15:40 <gmaxwell> I imagine he'd take a similar position on the bitcoin reference implementation, if not a lot of the tools people build above it.
162 2012-09-09 04:16:17 <gmaxwell> (er well, to be clear, if you were to ask RMS about this you should be clear which BSD license you mean, or you'd end up down an advertising clause rathole)
163 2012-09-09 04:18:03 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: especially if you think advertising clauses are a-ok, have a feeling that wouldn't end well at all
164 2012-09-09 04:18:56 <jgarzik> AFAIK, RMS's default position has been "MIT/X11, if GPL is off the table"
165 2012-09-09 04:19:15 <jgarzik> but that was years ago, maybe he's changed his mind and likes BSD now
166 2012-09-09 04:20:10 <jrmithdobbs> it is something i've never really seen a written response from him about: wonder how he feels about people that *explicitly* use the 4 clause bsd license to prevent code from getting gpl'ed
167 2012-09-09 04:20:25 <jrmithdobbs> (doesn't happen very often anyways)
168 2012-09-09 04:20:44 freakazoid has joined
169 2012-09-09 04:21:27 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: i think he "likes" the 2 clause form, iirc
170 2012-09-09 04:21:50 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: <NAME> said 2 hours, 58 minutes ago in <CHANNEL>: your quit message is really long)
171 2012-09-09 04:23:34 <gmaxwell> only the four clause would cause an issue with him, but he'll make you be specific to be clear that he doesn't approve of the four clause, even though almost no one does anymore.
172 2012-09-09 04:24:39 <jgarzik> RMS loves specificity, that is certain ;p
173 2012-09-09 04:25:10 * jgarzik has spoken at events with RMS before, and he inevitably, pedantically reminds someone about "GNU/Linux"
174 2012-09-09 04:26:10 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: and everyone in the room groans and wants to punch him in the face ;p
175 2012-09-09 04:26:16 * Luke-Jr reminds jgarzik that RMS is right about "GNU/Linux"
176 2012-09-09 04:26:17 <Luke-Jr> ;)
177 2012-09-09 04:26:32 <stamit> need to switch kernel
178 2012-09-09 04:27:04 * jgarzik ignores the trolls, and continues implementing "fStrictMiner" mode for bitcoind
179 2012-09-09 04:27:25 ThomasV has joined
180 2012-09-09 04:27:40 <jrmithdobbs> oh, am i the only one that that triggers that reaction? ha
181 2012-09-09 04:27:58 <sipa> jgarzik: what's that?
182 2012-09-09 04:28:00 <stamit> no
183 2012-09-09 04:29:35 * Luke-Jr wonders if RMS is still banned from LKML
184 2012-09-09 04:30:09 <jgarzik> sipa: wait for the Exciting Pull Request... coming soon to a github theatre near you!
185 2012-09-09 04:30:45 * sipa assumes: require correct coinbase height if blockversion==2 ?
186 2012-09-09 04:30:50 <Luke-Jr> sipa: my guess would be "reject the submitblock call if version==2 and block height missing or wrong"
187 2012-09-09 04:31:20 <Luke-Jr> which any sensible miner is going to disable, since it makes far more sense to just warn and still get the $500
188 2012-09-09 04:31:55 <sipa> hopefully fixing his software to create correct blocks is easier than disabling that check
189 2012-09-09 04:32:01 <sipa> but that's wishful thinking :)
190 2012-09-09 04:32:04 <Luke-Jr> sipa: I'm doing both ;)
191 2012-09-09 04:32:21 <Luke-Jr> I don't want to lose $500 if there's a bug and I don't have to.
192 2012-09-09 04:35:19 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
193 2012-09-09 04:42:38 Maccer has joined
194 2012-09-09 04:45:34 arij has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
195 2012-09-09 04:54:08 Motest031 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
196 2012-09-09 05:00:07 ZenInTexas has quit (Quit: ZenInTexas)
197 2012-09-09 05:02:18 B0g4r7_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
198 2012-09-09 05:03:21 B0g4r7_ has joined
199 2012-09-09 05:06:55 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
200 2012-09-09 05:16:23 bonks is now known as lyth0s
201 2012-09-09 05:16:26 lyth0s is now known as bonks
202 2012-09-09 05:26:48 RazielZ has joined
203 2012-09-09 05:40:34 <jrmithdobbs> i'm pretty sure i can buildworld faster than building boost, christ
204 2012-09-09 05:41:12 <xisalty> are you building it for bitcoin ?
205 2012-09-09 05:41:44 <jrmithdobbs> yes, applying a patch that fixes a bug in the unit tests (boost side, not bitcoin side) on openbsd
206 2012-09-09 05:41:51 <jrmithdobbs> so I can make sure my other changes actually work right
207 2012-09-09 05:44:14 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
208 2012-09-09 05:49:23 PhantomSpark has quit (3!~kvirc@pool-71-251-16-25.nycmny.fios.verizon.net|Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
209 2012-09-09 05:50:20 RazielZ has joined
210 2012-09-09 05:58:41 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
211 2012-09-09 05:59:00 Cash2BTC has joined
212 2012-09-09 06:05:18 RainbowD_ has joined
213 2012-09-09 06:06:05 RainbowD_ is now known as RainbowDashh
214 2012-09-09 06:07:10 <jrmithdobbs> very glad i got the unit tests working before giving this to anyone, haha
215 2012-09-09 06:07:20 <jrmithdobbs> basically all the coin selection tests fail
216 2012-09-09 06:08:08 <jrmithdobbs> *** 300 failures detected in test suite "Bitcoin Test Suite"
217 2012-09-09 06:20:17 ZenInTexas has joined
218 2012-09-09 06:20:34 ZenInTexas has left ()
219 2012-09-09 06:23:34 Gladamas has quit (Quit: Changing intranets)
220 2012-09-09 06:23:42 <jrmithdobbs> it's the tests at wallet_tests.cpp lines 107, 146, and 158
221 2012-09-09 06:23:43 <jrmithdobbs> test/wallet_tests.cpp(107): error in "coin_selection_tests": check setCoinsRet.size() == 3 failed [4 != 3]
222 2012-09-09 06:23:47 <jrmithdobbs> test/wallet_tests.cpp(146): error in "coin_selection_tests": check nValueRet == 18 * CENT failed [19000000 != 18000000]
223 2012-09-09 06:23:50 <jrmithdobbs> test/wallet_tests.cpp(158): error in "coin_selection_tests": check nValueRet == 11 * CENT failed [14000000 != 11000000]
224 2012-09-09 06:23:53 <jrmithdobbs> weirdness
225 2012-09-09 06:24:20 JZavala has joined
226 2012-09-09 06:24:34 <jrmithdobbs> anyone have thoughts on that?
227 2012-09-09 06:24:49 <jrmithdobbs> only those 3 fail
228 2012-09-09 06:25:12 Gladamas has joined
229 2012-09-09 06:28:05 c_k has quit (Quit: :))
230 2012-09-09 06:28:12 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
231 2012-09-09 06:28:31 c_k has joined
232 2012-09-09 06:30:12 xisalty has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
233 2012-09-09 06:30:41 RainbowDashh has joined
234 2012-09-09 06:33:57 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
235 2012-09-09 06:38:34 <Cash2BTC> #coshack
236 2012-09-09 06:42:32 molecular has joined
237 2012-09-09 06:48:17 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
238 2012-09-09 06:55:27 da2ce738 has joined
239 2012-09-09 06:57:19 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
240 2012-09-09 06:59:06 TwilightSparklee has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
241 2012-09-09 06:59:17 TwilightSparklee has joined
242 2012-09-09 07:00:40 Erdon has joined
243 2012-09-09 07:01:33 xisalty has joined
244 2012-09-09 07:02:21 AEonCIpher has quit (Quit: AEonCIpher)
245 2012-09-09 07:09:03 Cash2BTC has left ()
246 2012-09-09 07:17:12 antix_ has joined
247 2012-09-09 07:17:32 <phantomcircuit> seems the max resident memory for bitcoind is 680 MB
248 2012-09-09 07:17:38 <phantomcircuit> this is a bitcoind with a huge wallet
249 2012-09-09 07:26:43 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
250 2012-09-09 07:29:23 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
251 2012-09-09 07:32:54 RainbowDashh has joined
252 2012-09-09 07:36:52 tonikt2 has joined
253 2012-09-09 07:37:56 stamit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
254 2012-09-09 07:38:49 tonikt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
255 2012-09-09 07:43:26 tonikt2 is now known as tonikt
256 2012-09-09 07:46:11 ThomasV has joined
257 2012-09-09 07:46:50 a has joined
258 2012-09-09 07:47:13 a is now known as Guest29467
259 2012-09-09 07:47:36 Guest29467 has quit (Client Quit)
260 2012-09-09 07:49:09 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
261 2012-09-09 07:52:19 tower has joined
262 2012-09-09 07:54:31 Erdon has left ("Konversation terminated!")
263 2012-09-09 08:22:50 Evilmax has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
264 2012-09-09 08:33:25 Fnar has joined
265 2012-09-09 08:36:14 babalu has joined
266 2012-09-09 08:36:16 <babalu> hai
267 2012-09-09 08:36:36 <babalu> i have a big problem using php with bitcoind and jsonrpcclient.php
268 2012-09-09 08:36:55 <babalu> Every functio works ok, execpt the sendfrom function
269 2012-09-09 08:37:04 <babalu> that return a 500
270 2012-09-09 08:37:21 <babalu> $transacion = $bitcoin->sendfrom($username, $address, $amount);
271 2012-09-09 08:37:27 <babalu> all is properly set
272 2012-09-09 08:40:47 Evilmax has joined
273 2012-09-09 08:41:30 ThomasV has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
274 2012-09-09 08:54:16 <babalu> done
275 2012-09-09 08:54:27 <babalu> i had just to specific (string (float) ecc
276 2012-09-09 08:58:57 jdnavarro has joined
277 2012-09-09 09:00:37 has_many has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
278 2012-09-09 09:01:27 RainbowD_ has joined
279 2012-09-09 09:01:37 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
280 2012-09-09 09:01:37 RainbowD_ is now known as RainbowDashh
281 2012-09-09 09:01:54 Obsi has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
282 2012-09-09 09:02:41 tonikt2 has joined
283 2012-09-09 09:04:14 has_many has joined
284 2012-09-09 09:06:23 tonikt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
285 2012-09-09 09:12:55 tonikt2 is now known as tonikt
286 2012-09-09 09:16:14 Joric has joined
287 2012-09-09 09:16:35 Obsi has joined
288 2012-09-09 09:18:59 root2 has joined
289 2012-09-09 09:24:35 CodesInChaos has joined
290 2012-09-09 09:30:03 <babalu> init 0
291 2012-09-09 09:30:23 babalu has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
292 2012-09-09 09:32:03 one_zero has joined
293 2012-09-09 09:34:00 jdnavarro has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
294 2012-09-09 09:35:37 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
295 2012-09-09 09:42:17 DamascusVG has quit (Quit: I Quit - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p97zsQ51Rw)
296 2012-09-09 09:43:13 spammytrap has joined
297 2012-09-09 09:43:28 spammytrap is now known as I_EAT_COINBOITS
298 2012-09-09 09:58:46 ThomasV has joined
299 2012-09-09 10:11:33 Smooblush has joined
300 2012-09-09 10:14:06 dooglus has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
301 2012-09-09 10:16:14 MC1984 has joined
302 2012-09-09 10:16:38 rdponticelli has joined
303 2012-09-09 10:23:49 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
304 2012-09-09 10:29:56 xisalty has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
305 2012-09-09 10:43:12 Turingi has joined
306 2012-09-09 10:44:03 Turingi has left ()
307 2012-09-09 10:46:32 xisalty has joined
308 2012-09-09 10:50:18 pusle has joined
309 2012-09-09 10:54:00 pusle has quit (Client Quit)
310 2012-09-09 11:05:59 dooglus has joined
311 2012-09-09 11:09:44 pusle has joined
312 2012-09-09 11:18:35 tastynaysty2 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
313 2012-09-09 11:19:24 Marf has joined
314 2012-09-09 11:23:25 nsh has joined
315 2012-09-09 11:23:30 olp has joined
316 2012-09-09 11:27:57 <olp> What's the approximate release date for the next version of the client?
317 2012-09-09 11:29:14 justmoon has joined
318 2012-09-09 11:29:49 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
319 2012-09-09 11:40:55 MC1984 has joined
320 2012-09-09 11:49:50 theorbtwo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
321 2012-09-09 11:51:35 stamit has joined
322 2012-09-09 11:54:52 theorbtwo has joined
323 2012-09-09 11:55:50 datagutt has joined
324 2012-09-09 11:56:30 kreal_ has joined
325 2012-09-09 11:56:55 kreal has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
326 2012-09-09 11:58:38 kreal_ is now known as kreal
327 2012-09-09 12:01:01 vampireb has joined
328 2012-09-09 12:01:43 form_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
329 2012-09-09 12:02:01 xorgate has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
330 2012-09-09 12:03:35 xorgate has joined
331 2012-09-09 12:03:42 thermoman has left (""Wenn der Rechner versteckt ist, kann er von Hackern auch nicht gefunden werden." Antje Weber, Symantec")
332 2012-09-09 12:13:14 ahihi2 has quit ()
333 2012-09-09 12:22:31 form_ has joined
334 2012-09-09 12:25:39 TD has joined
335 2012-09-09 12:25:43 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
336 2012-09-09 12:41:12 Arnavion has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
337 2012-09-09 12:41:27 Arnavion has joined
338 2012-09-09 12:46:37 testnode9 has joined
339 2012-09-09 13:05:07 senseless has joined
340 2012-09-09 13:10:31 Zarutian has joined
341 2012-09-09 13:15:22 tastynaysty has joined
342 2012-09-09 13:17:26 <wumpus> olp: when no more bugs are found in the rc
343 2012-09-09 13:17:40 <Joric> hehe http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/253/3/c/btc___blockchain_by_lovendahl-d5e7v16.jpg
344 2012-09-09 13:17:58 <wumpus> olp: are you already helping testing? http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.7.0/test/
345 2012-09-09 13:18:28 <Joric> satoshidice share approaches 1,7 Gb
346 2012-09-09 13:18:44 <olp> alright, thanks, I'll test it out
347 2012-09-09 13:19:19 <senseless> i cant believe that people even play that game
348 2012-09-09 13:19:23 <senseless> go play poker or something..
349 2012-09-09 13:19:38 <sipa> Joric: just in blk000*.dat files?
350 2012-09-09 13:21:08 <Joric> sipa, yes, blockchain MB: 1666.6
351 2012-09-09 13:21:23 <Joric> 2285529 transactions total
352 2012-09-09 13:21:59 someone42 has joined
353 2012-09-09 13:22:56 <sipa> i wonder how much remains of that after pruning
354 2012-09-09 13:23:01 <sipa> relatively
355 2012-09-09 13:23:19 <yellowhat> would any core dev be willing to provide escrow for silly bets made on irc and forums? we have a business opportunity here :)
356 2012-09-09 13:25:03 <Joric> yellowhat, better ask otc
357 2012-09-09 13:26:00 <senseless> Anyone have any idea where I might go to find someone who knows python and could code a custom kernel for me?
358 2012-09-09 13:26:09 <senseless> (paing ofc)
359 2012-09-09 13:26:11 <senseless> paying*
360 2012-09-09 13:26:31 <Joric> senseless, custom kernel for what? jgarzik already wrote pynode
361 2012-09-09 13:27:02 <senseless> bfgminer, phoenix, or whatever (bfgminer pref). I need a cuda kernel to get rid of this 100% cpu bug on nvidia.
362 2012-09-09 13:28:07 <senseless> (while mining)
363 2012-09-09 13:34:53 parus_ has quit (Quit: leaving)
364 2012-09-09 13:36:17 parus has joined
365 2012-09-09 13:37:43 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
366 2012-09-09 13:37:45 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
367 2012-09-09 13:38:06 tonikt has joined
368 2012-09-09 13:42:06 PK has joined
369 2012-09-09 13:42:48 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
370 2012-09-09 13:46:01 andrusen has joined
371 2012-09-09 13:48:36 ThomasV has joined
372 2012-09-09 13:49:09 ThomasV has quit (Client Quit)
373 2012-09-09 13:49:20 denisx has joined
374 2012-09-09 13:50:03 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
375 2012-09-09 13:56:04 D34TH has joined
376 2012-09-09 13:56:05 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
377 2012-09-09 13:56:05 D34TH has joined
378 2012-09-09 13:56:08 <denisx> bitcoincharts are down?
379 2012-09-09 13:57:58 <Eliel> sipa: I'd think that after pruning, satoshidice's effect will be close to nonexistent.
380 2012-09-09 13:58:58 <Eliel> sipa: if it isn't then we need something to incentivize people to combine large numbers of very small outputs.
381 2012-09-09 14:00:39 RazielZ has joined
382 2012-09-09 14:01:00 <denisx> does deepbit now use sendtomany?
383 2012-09-09 14:04:25 Raziel_ has joined
384 2012-09-09 14:07:39 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
385 2012-09-09 14:09:35 <MC1984> satoshi dice is just the beginning
386 2012-09-09 14:10:03 olp has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
387 2012-09-09 14:10:11 skeledrew has joined
388 2012-09-09 14:11:01 toffoo has quit ()
389 2012-09-09 14:12:31 <Joric> i wonder how many full nodes will remain
390 2012-09-09 14:12:44 arij has joined
391 2012-09-09 14:12:48 arij has quit (Changing host)
392 2012-09-09 14:12:48 arij has joined
393 2012-09-09 14:20:51 vigilyn has joined
394 2012-09-09 14:23:46 one_zero has quit ()
395 2012-09-09 14:24:43 root2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
396 2012-09-09 14:24:46 tower has quit (Disconnected by services)
397 2012-09-09 14:24:57 tower has joined
398 2012-09-09 14:42:50 pecket has quit (Quit: I'm not stupid. I'm just unlucky when I think.)
399 2012-09-09 14:57:46 eoss has joined
400 2012-09-09 14:57:47 eoss has quit (Changing host)
401 2012-09-09 14:57:47 eoss has joined
402 2012-09-09 15:11:06 variousnefarious has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
403 2012-09-09 15:12:44 variousnefarious has joined
404 2012-09-09 15:18:52 dvide has joined
405 2012-09-09 15:21:34 asiaticax has joined
406 2012-09-09 15:28:05 pecket has joined
407 2012-09-09 15:30:24 DutchBrat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
408 2012-09-09 15:31:07 Evilmax has quit ()
409 2012-09-09 15:31:37 DutchBrat has joined
410 2012-09-09 15:33:44 asiaticax has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
411 2012-09-09 15:37:02 rdponticelli_ has joined
412 2012-09-09 15:37:17 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
413 2012-09-09 15:38:12 asiaticaXXX has joined
414 2012-09-09 15:38:42 sebicas has joined
415 2012-09-09 15:39:03 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
416 2012-09-09 15:39:07 <sebicas> I have a question about orphaned blocks
417 2012-09-09 15:39:10 <sebicas> If you go to http://blockchain.info/
418 2012-09-09 15:39:26 <sebicas> You will see 2 block with 198014 height
419 2012-09-09 15:39:33 <sebicas> Both generated 2 minutes ago
420 2012-09-09 15:39:55 <sebicas> And one is indicated as part of the main chain http://blockchain.info/block-index/279008/000000000000055b3666cf9d1960d3b6002a285b8d1a826929698f5fac69555e
421 2012-09-09 15:40:09 <sebicas> And the other orphaned http://blockchain.info/block-index/279010/000000000000022d5ce9ae1dbdb275ee78e7743abd02ec64b31a93c9597500af
422 2012-09-09 15:40:44 B0g4r7_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
423 2012-09-09 15:40:44 <sebicas> How I can know they determine which one is the correct one?
424 2012-09-09 15:42:15 <sebicas> I meant how I can determine which one is part of the Main chain and which is orphaned
425 2012-09-09 15:42:27 <tcatm> They can't. They guess.
426 2012-09-09 15:42:41 jdnavarro has joined
427 2012-09-09 15:43:19 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
428 2012-09-09 15:43:20 <sebicas> Ahh ok..
429 2012-09-09 15:43:34 <sebicas> So how can I know for sure then?
430 2012-09-09 15:43:50 <sebicas> Waiting for the next block I guess⦠correct?
431 2012-09-09 15:43:58 edcba has joined
432 2012-09-09 15:44:29 <tcatm> Waiting for a few more blocks, yes
433 2012-09-09 15:45:01 <Diablo-D3> Obsi: ITS SUNDAY
434 2012-09-09 15:45:16 <edcba> and there is sun shining !
435 2012-09-09 15:45:19 asiaticaXXX has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
436 2012-09-09 15:45:26 tower has joined
437 2012-09-09 15:45:27 <sebicas> I work every day :)
438 2012-09-09 15:45:39 <edcba> but the sun doesn't shine every day !
439 2012-09-09 15:45:41 <sebicas> How many block do I need to wait to make sure?
440 2012-09-09 15:45:47 <sebicas> Right
441 2012-09-09 15:46:22 <tcatm> Depends. I'd suggest reading the paper :)
442 2012-09-09 15:46:37 <wumpus> 6 is recommended
443 2012-09-09 15:46:40 <sebicas> Ok...
444 2012-09-09 15:46:48 <sebicas> Thanks
445 2012-09-09 15:48:44 nsh has joined
446 2012-09-09 15:50:29 form_ is now known as _form
447 2012-09-09 15:51:43 form_ has joined
448 2012-09-09 15:51:53 _form has quit ()
449 2012-09-09 16:00:04 <lianj> how did http://blockexplorer.com/tx/6a26d2ecb67f27d1fa5524763b49029d7106e91e3cc05743073461a719776192 get into the blockchain?
450 2012-09-09 16:00:18 <lianj> its a p2sh, "5121029b6d2c97b8b7c718c325d7be3ac30f7c9d67651bce0c929f55ee77ce58efcf8451ae OP_HASH160 19a7d869032368fd1f1e26e5e73a4ad0e474960e OP_EQUAL"
451 2012-09-09 16:00:35 <lianj> with a inner script of, "1 029b6d2c97b8b7c718c325d7be3ac30f7c9d67651bce0c929f55ee77ce58efcf84 1 OP_CHECKMULTISIG"
452 2012-09-09 16:01:14 <lianj> thats a multisig without signatures, why did it get redeemed?
453 2012-09-09 16:04:20 jdnavarro has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
454 2012-09-09 16:05:37 <lianj> was it mined by a node that didnt understand p2sh and just ran the p2sh script but not its inner script?
455 2012-09-09 16:11:27 PK has quit (London!~PK@217.206.153.73|Quit: Leaving)
456 2012-09-09 16:15:46 <lianj> guess thats the only answer.
457 2012-09-09 16:16:39 <jgarzik> lianj: that definitely happens.. some miners still exist that do not understand p2sh
458 2012-09-09 16:16:58 <jgarzik> TD: anybody put code towards your distributed bond market idea? I was tempted last night
459 2012-09-09 16:17:06 <TD> nope
460 2012-09-09 16:17:30 <jgarzik> https://github.com/jgarzik/pagedb does protocol buffers, and it was surprisingly simple
461 2012-09-09 16:17:37 <jgarzik> seems quite easy to build a p2p app these days
462 2012-09-09 16:18:11 RazielZ has joined
463 2012-09-09 16:18:36 <lianj> jgarzik: bummer, how you would handle it in a node that understands p2sh? with a TX_EXCEPTIONS list?
464 2012-09-09 16:20:01 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
465 2012-09-09 16:21:02 Raziel_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
466 2012-09-09 16:23:07 <jgarzik> lianj: well fwiw the inner script must be standard, otherwise it will not be relayed
467 2012-09-09 16:23:09 <riush> ah, it's only been activated since april
468 2012-09-09 16:23:12 <riush> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1367
469 2012-09-09 16:23:30 <jgarzik> lianj: a zero-sig checkmultisig is valid though, if you find a miner to mine it
470 2012-09-09 16:24:36 <jgarzik> TD: how are bond IPOs handled? I post the chain with 100,000 new-issuer bond messages?
471 2012-09-09 16:24:39 <jgarzik> *post to
472 2012-09-09 16:24:46 <lianj> ah, nBIP16SwitchTime. fancy and ugly. thanks!
473 2012-09-09 16:25:17 <jgarzik> TD: and then a bunch of people all try to spend at the same time? :)
474 2012-09-09 16:25:18 <TD> you just create a tx with a control output. the value of the other inputs/outputs is arbitrary.
475 2012-09-09 16:25:44 <TD> to then "issue" the bond you find a seller (or the seller finds you), and you work together to craft a tx that pays you the money and passes the control output to them.
476 2012-09-09 16:25:47 <TD> that reminds me
477 2012-09-09 16:25:56 <jgarzik> TD: say I'm create 1000 bonds at 1 BTC apiece, to sell to the general public
478 2012-09-09 16:26:04 <jgarzik> TD: what does that look like, in messages? one big tx?
479 2012-09-09 16:26:12 <jgarzik> [*creating
480 2012-09-09 16:26:14 <TD> the change to make transactions with zero-value outputs non standard .... i think we can have our cake and eat if it the rule is changed to >1 zero output is non-standard
481 2012-09-09 16:26:23 <lianj> jgarzik: that cant be true, if the script says it want 1 signature, and you dont pass it, it never evals to true
482 2012-09-09 16:26:45 <TD> you could do 1 big TX to start with, yes.
483 2012-09-09 16:27:08 <jgarzik> if (nKeysCount < 0 || nKeysCount > 20)
484 2012-09-09 16:27:08 <jgarzik> return false;
485 2012-09-09 16:27:09 <jgarzik> if (nSigsCount < 0 || nSigsCount > nKeysCount)
486 2012-09-09 16:27:09 <jgarzik> return false;
487 2012-09-09 16:27:18 <jgarzik> lianj: zero is permitted for either AFAICS
488 2012-09-09 16:28:12 <jgarzik> TD: ...and vin.size==1 and zero output is non-standard?
489 2012-09-09 16:28:31 <lianj> jgarzik: wtf oO. but thanks for clearing that up
490 2012-09-09 16:28:43 <TD> i think a tx with any zero-value outputs is non standard now
491 2012-09-09 16:28:49 <jgarzik> TD: correct
492 2012-09-09 16:29:10 <jgarzik> TD: just saying that we do not want to permit vin.size==1, zero output, if those rules are relaxed
493 2012-09-09 16:29:30 <jgarzik> I need to find the conversation on adding extra data to TX's
494 2012-09-09 16:29:36 <TD> right, sure
495 2012-09-09 16:29:42 <TD> well, actually
496 2012-09-09 16:29:50 <TD> i'm not sure ... i think that'd be ok. if you want to create a tx that is only fee
497 2012-09-09 16:29:54 <TD> then such a construct is useful
498 2012-09-09 16:30:19 <jgarzik> gah the stupid forum search is wholly useful
499 2012-09-09 16:30:41 <jgarzik> a while ago, satoshi, gavin, myself and possibly others had a conversation about adding short bits of data to each TX
500 2012-09-09 16:30:50 <jgarzik> enough to transit a hash, at least
501 2012-09-09 16:31:21 <jgarzik> I _think_ the consensus was to permit anybody to add 32 bytes of arbitrary data, without making the TX non-standard
502 2012-09-09 16:31:43 <jgarzik> i.e. limited OP_DROP type behavior
503 2012-09-09 16:32:29 AEonCIpher has joined
504 2012-09-09 16:32:49 <lianj> jgarzik: hm, doesnt that make multisig totally broken? when you find miners that accept the script even though you didnt pass any sigs?
505 2012-09-09 16:34:07 <jgarzik> lianj: what is broken? it is non-standard and will probably be dropped by clients, sure. but it sounds like a valid script that would evaluate to true unconditionally.
506 2012-09-09 16:34:55 <riush> i think jgarzik means a 0-of-0 multisig script can be valid.. but in our case, a 1-of-1 with a missing sig can't, right?
507 2012-09-09 16:36:06 <jgarzik> Here we go... satoshi on added bytes: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2162.0;all
508 2012-09-09 16:36:27 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
509 2012-09-09 16:38:12 <jgarzik> satoshi even has some suggestions that sipa would dislike :)
510 2012-09-09 16:38:27 <jgarzik> like suggesting unspendable, zero-BTC txout's
511 2012-09-09 16:39:14 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
512 2012-09-09 16:40:22 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?)
513 2012-09-09 16:42:19 Mad7Scientist is now known as Mad6Scientist
514 2012-09-09 16:42:51 Mad6Scientist is now known as Mad7Scientist
515 2012-09-09 16:45:49 copumpkin has joined
516 2012-09-09 16:47:12 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
517 2012-09-09 16:51:10 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: you around?
518 2012-09-09 16:52:32 <jrmithdobbs> trying to figure out what's going on here: http://pastebin.com/ZNtXSgma
519 2012-09-09 16:52:47 <jrmithdobbs> bitcoind seems to work for all p2p/network stuff, but something's funky in the wallet/coin selection code (that I haven't touched)
520 2012-09-09 17:01:20 <jrmithdobbs> actually, here, everything summazired with full output including the git rev it's based off of (after the diff)
521 2012-09-09 17:01:23 <jrmithdobbs> http://pastebin.com/kFjiXui2
522 2012-09-09 17:01:29 <jrmithdobbs> greatly appreciate anyone's thoughts on what would cause that
523 2012-09-09 17:02:09 <jrmithdobbs> ifgnore the [X/XXX] lines that's just tmux buffer stuff
524 2012-09-09 17:11:04 sebicas has quit (Quit: sebicas)
525 2012-09-09 17:21:00 B0g4r7_ has joined
526 2012-09-09 17:24:45 freakazoid has quit (Quit: Leaving)
527 2012-09-09 17:30:48 dust-otc has joined
528 2012-09-09 17:42:43 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
529 2012-09-09 17:44:53 Titanium has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
530 2012-09-09 17:45:44 JZavala has joined
531 2012-09-09 17:47:40 PK has joined
532 2012-09-09 17:52:23 setkeh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
533 2012-09-09 17:53:57 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: unspendable txouts aren't so bad; so long as we can reliably identify them we can exclude them from the txout set.
534 2012-09-09 17:54:13 da2ce7 has joined
535 2012-09-09 17:54:18 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: yes, satoshi also mentioned that in the linked thread
536 2012-09-09 17:54:28 da2ce711 has joined
537 2012-09-09 17:56:22 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
538 2012-09-09 17:56:51 da2ce738 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
539 2012-09-09 17:59:25 denisx has joined
540 2012-09-09 18:00:11 <jgarzik> OP_DROP pull req discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=107503.0
541 2012-09-09 18:02:33 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: Why do you want to shit on bitcoin? Seriously. There are perhaps places for it, because no on has constructed the more approiate mechenisms for all the things that _don't_ belong in it, it'll just get lazy used all over the place.
542 2012-09-09 18:03:16 <gmaxwell> If you were to ask that _after_ we had payment protcols, and after we had a overlay p2p messaging network for connected by non-blockchain usage, my view would be only mildly negative.
543 2012-09-09 18:04:08 <gmaxwell> s/connected by/connected but/
544 2012-09-09 18:05:36 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: it's part of the satoshi design, and people are already inventing non-standard ways to do same
545 2012-09-09 18:06:15 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I have no ideas how to limit it. If you put a tight constraint on the data size people will just generate large volumes of transactions to carry more data, which is not an improvement.
546 2012-09-09 18:06:57 setkeh has joined
547 2012-09-09 18:07:17 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: it's better than sending to a non-existent txout pubkey
548 2012-09-09 18:08:13 <gmaxwell> It's far worse than a great many other alternatives for most of the usage we've seen.
549 2012-09-09 18:09:07 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: every single modern financial transaction system permits some small bits of vendor-specific data to come along for the ride
550 2012-09-09 18:09:37 <jgarzik> it's archaic to prevent that
551 2012-09-09 18:09:58 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: every single modern financial system has ways of properly rate controlling abusive usage, and none of them require perpetual storage on enormous numbers of nodes for their security model.
552 2012-09-09 18:10:56 <gmaxwell> We can't properly control abusive usage because privacy depends on us not distinguishing users.
553 2012-09-09 18:10:58 <jgarzik> existing anti-spam rules continue to work
554 2012-09-09 18:11:34 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: Not sure why you say they work, the chain has basically doubled in size in the last four months. They don't work.
555 2012-09-09 18:11:53 <jgarzik> you want to attach data, you must attach value or fees
556 2012-09-09 18:12:12 <gmaxwell> (doubled in size while we've not had an increase of users)
557 2012-09-09 18:13:02 <OneEyed> Financial systems need to add those small bits, because they cannot easily generate a new account number for every transaction (or every sender), while bitcoin can do that.
558 2012-09-09 18:13:17 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: if you make the fee reasonable enough to discourage the pointless usage and the perpetual bloat it will kill all the things that want to use it.
559 2012-09-09 18:14:15 <jgarzik> OneEyed: no, you still have internal transaction ids... bitcoin exchanges have order numbers, withdrawal ids, etc.
560 2012-09-09 18:14:21 <jgarzik> anyway, baby naptime
561 2012-09-09 18:14:24 <gmaxwell> OneEyed: right, I did dozen ACHs in one day out of my trading account and got a phone call that if I did any more they were going to start charging me per. Bitcoin can't do this.
562 2012-09-09 18:14:29 <jgarzik> discuss on forum :)
563 2012-09-09 18:15:01 <OneEyed> Satoshidice would use it to indicate repayment addresses
564 2012-09-09 18:15:08 <denisx> lolz
565 2012-09-09 18:15:09 <denisx> We had a kernel panic within the MD layer of the linux kernel. Service will be restored within the next 7 days.
566 2012-09-09 18:15:09 <denisx> In the meantime, you could assume the price to be either $0.01 or $100 so we can see some interesting rallies and have fun until you can look at boring numbers again :)
567 2012-09-09 18:16:32 balrog has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
568 2012-09-09 18:17:48 <amiller> jgarzik, this is about adding a constant size (32 bytes, just enough for a hash) field to the current "isStandard" transaction type?
569 2012-09-09 18:17:59 <amiller> and no validation of that data is required
570 2012-09-09 18:20:20 eb3kk has joined
571 2012-09-09 18:23:10 PK has quit (London!~PK@217.206.153.73|Quit: bye)
572 2012-09-09 18:23:24 balrog has joined
573 2012-09-09 18:31:06 Diapolo has joined
574 2012-09-09 18:31:35 rdponticelli_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
575 2012-09-09 18:32:07 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
576 2012-09-09 18:32:47 molecular has joined
577 2012-09-09 18:32:59 Fnar has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
578 2012-09-09 18:35:42 <amiller> ah, at most two 32 byte drops
579 2012-09-09 18:37:21 <Diapolo> Can a core dev tell me, if current merges to Git master are for > 0.7 final or still for the final release of 0.7?
580 2012-09-09 18:39:40 <wumpus> still 0.7 afaik
581 2012-09-09 18:40:15 BTCTrader has joined
582 2012-09-09 18:40:36 <Diapolo> makes sense, I just thought Gavin wanted 0.7rc2 as final that is why I asked.
583 2012-09-09 18:41:55 <wumpus> it'd be nice if the translation updates of the last few days make it into final
584 2012-09-09 18:45:23 <Diapolo> I can't agree more :).
585 2012-09-09 18:46:16 capn_kooc has joined
586 2012-09-09 18:48:12 Evilmax has joined
587 2012-09-09 18:52:13 DaQatz has joined
588 2012-09-09 19:05:42 ThomasV has joined
589 2012-09-09 19:07:25 <amiller> gmaxwell, what's the procedure like for getting miners to mine nonstandard transactions?
590 2012-09-09 19:07:28 <amiller> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Nonstandard_block this is all i could find
591 2012-09-09 19:07:37 <amiller> i thought Luke-Jr was the only one who did that
592 2012-09-09 19:13:03 <gmaxwell> amiller: connect to luke's nodes, send one with a fee of at least 2 crazy-coins. Though it's best to talk to luke to make sure you don't hit any of his private antispam rules. There are other miners that mine non-standard txn apparently but since they haven't identified themselves it's hard to just connect to them.
593 2012-09-09 19:13:29 <amiller> wat
594 2012-09-09 19:14:10 <gmaxwell> (2 crazy-coins == 0.00008192 BTC)
595 2012-09-09 19:14:24 <ne0futur> amiller: see also https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Free_transaction_relay_policy
596 2012-09-09 19:15:14 <ne0futur> mtgox is alway looking for more pools to relay those, participating pools can negociate better mtgox fees
597 2012-09-09 19:15:15 <freewil> crazy coin?
598 2012-09-09 19:15:32 <amiller> ah crazycoin is just a different unit, 'tonal bc' and it's like hex or something
599 2012-09-09 19:15:40 <gmaxwell> right. :P
600 2012-09-09 19:15:46 <amiller> crazycoin = "a peculiar amount of btc"
601 2012-09-09 19:16:05 <freewil> hm ok
602 2012-09-09 19:16:11 <gmaxwell> (I didn't remember the actual value, but I knew it was two of some lukejr unit)
603 2012-09-09 19:16:21 <freewil> i see
604 2012-09-09 19:16:21 <amiller> 1 satanicoin = 0.666 btc
605 2012-09-09 19:16:33 <freewil> im suprised it's not named after some religious figure ;)
606 2012-09-09 19:16:46 <freewil> lol
607 2012-09-09 19:17:19 <amiller> i hope that isn't really considered a healthy way for introducing new useful transactions
608 2012-09-09 19:17:43 B0g4r7_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
609 2012-09-09 19:17:52 <amiller> maybe if jgarzik's forum post began with "Dear Luke Jr" it would make more sense
610 2012-09-09 19:18:19 <gmaxwell> amiller: I think it is.
611 2012-09-09 19:18:25 B0g4r7_ has joined
612 2012-09-09 19:18:49 <gmaxwell> amiller: it's a way to achieve limited use with some effort before having a widespread scalable deployment. Testnet is better but its hard to get people to use it.
613 2012-09-09 19:20:21 <amiller> fair enough - maybe the main point of your response was that jgarzik picked the wrong venue, a pull request to mainclient, but it should have been either a BIP or a 'dear luke rj' post?
614 2012-09-09 19:20:32 Diapolo has left ()
615 2012-09-09 19:21:23 <gmaxwell> amiller: well, we don't need a BIP for a IsStandard change generally.
616 2012-09-09 19:23:32 egecko has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
617 2012-09-09 19:23:46 <edcba> yeah maybe we should introduce some unit as godcoin
618 2012-09-09 19:23:58 <edcba> so maybe we could have more support in USA :)
619 2012-09-09 19:24:35 <edcba> donate 10 godcoins to church !
620 2012-09-09 19:24:39 <amiller> heh, make it godcoin = zero btc and let them crash their computers with the exchange rate
621 2012-09-09 19:25:00 <edcba> better use fools than having against you
622 2012-09-09 19:25:58 Obsi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
623 2012-09-09 19:26:36 Erdon has joined
624 2012-09-09 19:26:46 usagi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
625 2012-09-09 19:27:18 usagi has joined
626 2012-09-09 19:27:42 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
627 2012-09-09 19:30:51 <amiller> so if i wanted to implement one of TD's BOND contracts, i would need to make a client that identifies luke-jr's node by IP address and/or certificate in order to send the transactions
628 2012-09-09 19:30:53 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
629 2012-09-09 19:31:02 TheSeven has joined
630 2012-09-09 19:32:40 Smooblush has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
631 2012-09-09 19:33:01 <gmaxwell> amiller: certificate??
632 2012-09-09 19:33:13 <gmaxwell> amiller: you'd just hardcode the IP of one. Or use testnet.
633 2012-09-09 19:33:28 <amiller> how do the other mining leaders feel about mining nonstandard transactions
634 2012-09-09 19:33:56 <amiller> is it considered very bad or something that could be gradually adopted if it seems okay when Luke-Jr does it
635 2012-09-09 19:34:16 pusle has quit ()
636 2012-09-09 19:34:41 <gmaxwell> It's just a question of defaults. Non-standardness was implemented when bitcoin was exploited multiple times using undertested transaction forms.
637 2012-09-09 19:38:55 Joric has quit ()
638 2012-09-09 19:39:56 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
639 2012-09-09 19:41:30 setkeh` has joined
640 2012-09-09 19:43:55 setkeh has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
641 2012-09-09 19:45:05 <amiller> gmaxwell, k so a reasonable trajectory would be 1) implement one of TD's exciting bond contracts on testnet, then 2) try to get users for a "contract app" that uses mainnet and also requires a connection to luke-jr (or any other nonstandard miner) 3) encourage other miners to support it too, based on its usefulness and its safety
642 2012-09-09 19:45:42 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: <NAME> said 2 hours, 58 minutes ago in <CHANNEL>: your quit message is really long)
643 2012-09-09 19:45:45 <edcba> the extremly good idea to have a scripting system...
644 2012-09-09 19:46:48 <gmaxwell> amiller: thats one path. Another is do (1) then show it to client maintainers who make it a standard in the reference software.. and then many other miners will pick it up eventually unless they hate it.
645 2012-09-09 19:46:57 <gmaxwell> amiller: and you could do both, of course.
646 2012-09-09 19:47:09 c_k has quit (Quit: :))
647 2012-09-09 19:47:37 D34TH has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
648 2012-09-09 19:48:42 c_k has joined
649 2012-09-09 19:49:06 egecko has joined
650 2012-09-09 19:51:14 <amiller> if it's not yet clear that contracts and smart property are useful and safe, then you just need some op drops http://www.mcnett.com/Op-Drops-Anti-Fog-Lens-Cleaning-System-P329C94.aspx
651 2012-09-09 19:52:11 Obsi has joined
652 2012-09-09 19:52:48 ovidiusoft has joined
653 2012-09-09 19:52:59 <gmaxwell> amiller: in my mind, the question is "is the current improvement justified over the harm", and there will be harm. This will absolutely disincentivize the creation of more efficient ways of doing instant messaging in connection with bitcoin, for example.
654 2012-09-09 19:53:40 <gmaxwell> and when there is no smart contract software written yet at all, it's hard to say the improvement trumps that harm.
655 2012-09-09 19:53:54 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
656 2012-09-09 19:54:09 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
657 2012-09-09 19:54:30 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I'm starting on distributed bonds right now
658 2012-09-09 19:54:34 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: thus, relevant.
659 2012-09-09 19:55:02 <amiller> gmaxwell, i'd agree with that for anything except a constant size addition and worst-case validation
660 2012-09-09 19:55:23 <amiller> gmaxwell, satoshidice is already abusive in this way with or without an extra (prunable) 32 bytes
661 2012-09-09 19:55:42 D34TH has joined
662 2012-09-09 19:55:42 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
663 2012-09-09 19:55:42 D34TH has joined
664 2012-09-09 19:56:05 <gmaxwell> amiller: yes, so must we suffer from the broken window effect or something? Just because there is one abuseive use doesn't mean that more should be enabled if it can be costlessly avoided.
665 2012-09-09 19:56:15 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: oh. Interesting!
666 2012-09-09 19:56:37 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
667 2012-09-09 19:57:26 <amiller> gmaxwell, well 'costlessly avoided' depends on how useful these distributed contracts turn out to be
668 2012-09-09 19:57:46 <amiller> really the problem comes down to transaction fees not yet making too much sense, the question is how much extra to charge for an opdrop, right?
669 2012-09-09 19:57:57 <gmaxwell> amiller: they have zero usefulness when they do not exist; and nonstandardness doesn't prevent implementing the software.
670 2012-09-09 19:58:36 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I was just doing a python version of TD's distributed bonds proposal, initially. Then iterate: (1) check against real world, (2) make changes, (3) goto step #1
671 2012-09-09 19:58:59 <jgarzik> protobuf P2P, hashmap, pretty much as described
672 2012-09-09 19:59:17 <amiller> jgarzik is gonna build a dht!
673 2012-09-09 19:59:28 <jgarzik> sadly yes
674 2012-09-09 19:59:32 <gmaxwell> amiller: it's also more complicated. People want to remove the maximum blocksize limit, so you get an instant tragedy of the commons for blocksize.
675 2012-09-09 19:59:33 <jgarzik> would love to avoid it
676 2012-09-09 19:59:42 <amiller> jgarzik, learn to love it
677 2012-09-09 19:59:44 <amiller> mmm
678 2012-09-09 20:00:00 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: So do itâ you don't need the isstandard change first. And once its working it will inform the exact isstandard change needed.
679 2012-09-09 20:00:32 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I am against changing block size, FWIW. I think the market will properly intervene, bitcoin will reach a steady state where all blocks are 1MB, and the best bidding gets block placement. SatoshiDICE and other data apps automatically solve themselves, once 1MB is normal.
680 2012-09-09 20:00:48 <jgarzik> I think I will be overruled, but that is my position.
681 2012-09-09 20:02:12 <jgarzik> re OP_DROP, every transaction should be permitted X bytes of additional data, as a basic fundamental right.
682 2012-09-09 20:02:34 <jgarzik> like the lack of transaction lifetime determinism, lack of $randomdata is a core flaw
683 2012-09-09 20:02:39 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I wasn't aware of that! Well, thats generally my position too. One reason I'm bloat concerned is that I'm worried that high bloat apps will push us against the 1MB rail prematurely (before there is economic justification for the blockspace market), and this will create popular support for removing the limit; which would ultimately doom bitcoin.
684 2012-09-09 20:02:43 sgornick has joined
685 2012-09-09 20:03:24 <jgarzik> bitcoin exists _because_ of certain constrained limits. money creation is one of them. block space is another.
686 2012-09-09 20:03:35 <jgarzik> that is a fundamental constraint; messing with it massively changes the economics
687 2012-09-09 20:03:41 <gmaxwell> <3
688 2012-09-09 20:04:37 <yellowhat> what i am asking myself? why is this even a problem? im mean, anybody could just slap together a website and publish signed messages that can be looked up by transaction ID if he is looking to attach metadata. can you explain why the blockchain is even needed?
689 2012-09-09 20:04:49 <gmaxwell> In any case, is there a way of achieving the txn binding for the distributed contracts which doesn't increase the storage required for a validating but pruned node that doesn't care about contracts?
690 2012-09-09 20:04:55 Marf has joined
691 2012-09-09 20:05:03 <jgarzik> yellowhat: the block chain is not _needed_ to exchange bitcoins, no.
692 2012-09-09 20:05:19 <amiller> gmaxwell, the op drop payload can be pruned, why not?
693 2012-09-09 20:05:32 <jgarzik> yellowhat: it is just a useful place for untrusted parties to publish transactions, and gain confidence in their timestamp.
694 2012-09-09 20:05:51 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
695 2012-09-09 20:05:57 <jgarzik> amiller: pruned when spent (it's part of the script, after all)
696 2012-09-09 20:06:08 <amiller> pruned before spent too
697 2012-09-09 20:06:42 <gmaxwell> amiller: because then you can no longer prove that your txout database is the right one, I guess.
698 2012-09-09 20:06:52 Motest003 has joined
699 2012-09-09 20:07:17 <amiller> well you can't do that anyway yet, so yes the op_drops would be needed if you're validating with a merkle tree
700 2012-09-09 20:07:29 <gmaxwell> yellowhat: generall you don't need to add metadata, but you may need to add a binding factor. E.g. you want to know _which_ of the external metadata is the official one.
701 2012-09-09 20:07:36 d4ve has joined
702 2012-09-09 20:08:45 <gmaxwell> yellowhat: e.g. you have some coin which is also a bond. You transfer it to someone, changing the metadata in the process. What happens if you publish two sets of metadata to the metadata store? you need a way to know which is the official one.
703 2012-09-09 20:09:25 <gmaxwell> so I do understand the need: though it only needs a hash, not the metadata itself. That was where my off-the-cuff crazy suggestion that we require SHA256(data) meet some criteria. :P
704 2012-09-09 20:09:38 <gmaxwell> Though I'm not sure I see why it can't be in the scriptsig instead.
705 2012-09-09 20:11:07 <amiller> jgarzik, i think you will find that TD's contracts are easy to DDoS and will need a highly customized DHT :/
706 2012-09-09 20:11:21 agricocb has joined
707 2012-09-09 20:12:05 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
708 2012-09-09 20:12:16 <gmaxwell> amiller: at least there is no obvious rational reason to DOS them.
709 2012-09-09 20:12:29 <jgarzik> amiller: problems I see right now: (a) how to support bursty activities, like an IPO (b) how to prevent common DHT attacks, without giving up and simply using the file sharing DHT ;p
710 2012-09-09 20:12:37 <jgarzik> highly customized DHT is a given, sadly
711 2012-09-09 20:12:59 <jgarzik> I'm just doing basic bonds, not even-more-complex pay to policy stuff
712 2012-09-09 20:13:14 <amiller> i think they'll still be really useful and you'll be successful with it
713 2012-09-09 20:13:19 denisx has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
714 2012-09-09 20:13:26 denisx has joined
715 2012-09-09 20:13:34 <amiller> and i don't see any other way to start feeling out what kinds of blockchain validation script support we'd need to make them tougher
716 2012-09-09 20:14:35 ThomasV has joined
717 2012-09-09 20:14:38 <amiller> there's nothing stopping someone from going "BOND "data-that-may-or-may-not-be-a-hash" OP_DROP OP_DROP
718 2012-09-09 20:16:13 <jgarzik> amiller: agreed
719 2012-09-09 20:20:07 darkee has quit (!~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
720 2012-09-09 20:20:46 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
721 2012-09-09 20:21:36 devrandom has joined
722 2012-09-09 20:22:21 Joric has joined
723 2012-09-09 20:22:41 <amiller> jgarzik, i assume you included {0,1,2} opdrops instead of just {0,1} because the example from TD's contracts is like "BOND" "hash" OP_DROP OP_DROP
724 2012-09-09 20:22:57 <amiller> why not just a single op_drop with up to 64 bytes?
725 2012-09-09 20:23:11 <amiller> or even better, up to only 36 to begin with?
726 2012-09-09 20:23:21 <gmaxwell> amiller: gavin suggested that.
727 2012-09-09 20:23:49 <amiller> ah i see, on the github pull req notes
728 2012-09-09 20:24:50 <amiller> lol okay <= 80 bytes.
729 2012-09-09 20:26:24 RazielZ has joined
730 2012-09-09 20:27:25 <amiller> gmaxwell, i don't agree with your point about timestamps being better off in coinbase
731 2012-09-09 20:28:26 <gmaxwell> amiller: why not? it has O(1) scale for an infinite number of users. Thats enormously worse than putting them in transactions.
732 2012-09-09 20:29:06 <amiller> because it requires a separate protocol for propagating information you want included in timestamps to miners
733 2012-09-09 20:29:07 <gmaxwell> er better. :P
734 2012-09-09 20:29:17 <gmaxwell> amiller: we should put it in the protocol, of course.
735 2012-09-09 20:29:17 <amiller> there's no way to pay a fair price and have miners compete to include it
736 2012-09-09 20:29:24 <gmaxwell> the fair price is ~0
737 2012-09-09 20:29:42 <gmaxwell> the value is in keeping the shit out of the blockchain which forever impacts scalablity.
738 2012-09-09 20:29:47 gavinandresen has joined
739 2012-09-09 20:30:41 <gmaxwell> amiller: look at how chronobit works.. every p2p miner can aggregate in timestamps along with their shares, even if they never solve a block.
740 2012-09-09 20:31:14 d4ve has left ()
741 2012-09-09 20:31:50 <gmaxwell> amiller: market pricing is good, but it's not as good as a design that makes something effectively costless so that you don't have to worry about market pricing for it.
742 2012-09-09 20:32:21 <gmaxwell> coinbase timestamps also make it so that timestamps are still fairly priced (~0 in cost) even when there is hot competition for blockchain space.
743 2012-09-09 20:32:55 darkee has joined
744 2012-09-09 20:33:26 <gmaxwell> also avoids creating false competition for blockchain space which would inflate transaction costs above their efficient no-timestamping-usage price.
745 2012-09-09 20:34:38 <amiller> hrm, i guess that does work just as well
746 2012-09-09 20:34:45 <amiller> so you could also do the bond contracts like that
747 2012-09-09 20:35:20 <amiller> anything of the sort TD wants to do could also be done using that chronobit technique, right?
748 2012-09-09 20:35:39 <gmaxwell> amiller: I don't think you can? you still need a way of figuring out which of multiple competing metadata hunks is the true one.
749 2012-09-09 20:38:05 <amiller> gmaxwell, yeah, that's the problem with non-validated metadata whether it's in OP_DROP or anywhere else
750 2012-09-09 20:39:06 <gmaxwell> amiller: in the case of it in OP_DROP its tied to the coin. The coin can only be spent once, so there is only one valid metadata hunk.
751 2012-09-09 20:39:30 olp has joined
752 2012-09-09 20:39:33 <gmaxwell> the bonds thing doesn't use bitcoin for timestamping, it uses bitcoin to control access.
753 2012-09-09 20:40:13 <amiller> hrm, i see, that's why it's in scriptsig rather than scriptpubkey
754 2012-09-09 20:40:42 <gmaxwell> It's in the scriptpubkey, but thats why I was asking if it really needed to be there.
755 2012-09-09 20:42:41 md2k7 has joined
756 2012-09-09 20:42:42 <jgarzik> bonds thing also uses bitcoin for secure, atomic funds transfer
757 2012-09-09 20:43:19 egecko has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
758 2012-09-09 20:43:26 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
759 2012-09-09 20:43:47 <kjj_> jgarzik: do you know how chronobit works?
760 2012-09-09 20:44:59 egecko has joined
761 2012-09-09 20:45:28 <jgarzik> kjj_: never heard of it
762 2012-09-09 20:45:39 senseless has quit (Quit: ircN 8.00 for mIRC (20100904) - www.ircN.org)
763 2012-09-09 20:46:16 <kjj_> oh, shit, sorry. it was gmaxwell that was talking about it earlier, not you
764 2012-09-09 20:48:40 <gmaxwell> kjj_: yes, I know how chronobit works.
765 2012-09-09 20:49:07 <kjj_> does it embed any data in the bitcoin chain?
766 2012-09-09 20:49:16 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: and you should really be aware of things like chronobit if you're going to go around advocating adding more crud to the chain. :P
767 2012-09-09 20:49:25 <gmaxwell> kjj_: it doesn't add any _additional_ data in the chain.
768 2012-09-09 20:49:43 <kjj_> well, does it modify anything? the documentation is kinda sparse
769 2012-09-09 20:50:18 <gmaxwell> kjj_: there is already data added to the chain in the coinbase for mergemining p2pool. So what chronobit does is just adds its hash root to the merged mining root.
770 2012-09-09 20:50:51 <amiller> if distributed bonds rely on the blockchain enforcing a unique successive chunk of metadata, then the only way for that to work is if there's an OP_DROP in the script
771 2012-09-09 20:50:52 <gmaxwell> kjj_: so to validate a chronobit signature you find the relevant bitcoin block, then follow the series of hash tree fragements to the hash you're verifying.
772 2012-09-09 20:50:53 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
773 2012-09-09 20:51:05 <amiller> but it might as well be in the scriptsig rather than the scriptpubkey so you can prune it quicker
774 2012-09-09 20:51:09 <jrmithdobbs> oh hey, people paying attention now
775 2012-09-09 20:51:14 <gmaxwell> amiller: thats what I was saying.
776 2012-09-09 20:51:30 <jrmithdobbs> so i've got bitcoind 'working' at least as p2p/validating client on openbsd
777 2012-09-09 20:51:37 <jrmithdobbs> but seeing some weirdness with test_bitcoin
778 2012-09-09 20:51:41 <amiller> and gmaxwell, in terms of scalability, it does not matter what you add to the blockchain nearly as much as it matters what you add to your utxo sets
779 2012-09-09 20:51:47 <amiller> scriptpubkeys never touch the utxo set
780 2012-09-09 20:51:54 <amiller> er sorry the other way around, scriptsigs never touch the utxo set
781 2012-09-09 20:51:56 <jrmithdobbs> http://pastebin.com/kFjiXui2 ... the commit and my diffs are in the paste along with the 3 (repeated 100 times) assert failures
782 2012-09-09 20:51:56 <sipa> amiller: scriptsigs you mean
783 2012-09-09 20:52:01 <gmaxwell> amiller: welcome to my argument from like an hour ago.
784 2012-09-09 20:52:13 <kjj_> gmaxwell: does chronobit also run a p2p net then?
785 2012-09-09 20:52:16 <amiller> gmaxwell, thank you, i am glad to join the company
786 2012-09-09 20:52:26 <jrmithdobbs> would greatly appreciate anyone's insight into what's causing thos coin selection test failures
787 2012-09-09 20:52:43 <jrmithdobbs> because that looks like a pretty Bad Thing(tm) to me ... and I didn't modify any related code as far as i can tell
788 2012-09-09 20:53:01 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: strange, i don't see what can cause that
789 2012-09-09 20:53:07 <gmaxwell> kjj_: no. Doesn't really need to. the chronobit node you submit to is responsible for giving you the data you need to tell you where you were connected.
790 2012-09-09 20:53:18 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: ya it's weird but very very deterministic
791 2012-09-09 20:53:20 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: I looked briefly last night and didn't see why
792 2012-09-09 20:53:28 <sipa> denisx seemed to have much less trouble getting getting bitcoin to run on BSD
793 2012-09-09 20:53:41 <sipa> was a different flavor maybe, though
794 2012-09-09 20:53:54 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
795 2012-09-09 20:53:59 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: he's working on freebsd, i'm pretty sure my changes are enough to get freebsd working already, i can sync that tree over to my san and test that assertion ;p
796 2012-09-09 20:53:59 <kjj_> gmaxwell: but that means most blocks won't contain anything related to a given timestamp
797 2012-09-09 20:54:07 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: this is openbsd ;p
798 2012-09-09 20:54:58 <sipa> ok
799 2012-09-09 20:55:31 <jrmithdobbs> but everything but the wallet code looks good so far
800 2012-09-09 20:55:47 <gmaxwell> kjj_: yes? so. Your p2p network for getting that data is bitcoin.
801 2012-09-09 20:56:02 <jrmithdobbs> successful IBD, memory pool working, all the rpc stuff i've tested at random is working (including getrawmempool)
802 2012-09-09 20:56:09 OneFixt has joined
803 2012-09-09 20:56:09 <gmaxwell> You need to talk to bitcoin in the first place to make sure the difficulty and timestamps are valid. :P
804 2012-09-09 20:56:28 <kjj_> I'm saying that if I'm running chronobit on my mining nodes, I can only meaningfully timestamp things about four times a year
805 2012-09-09 20:57:14 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: tbqh, most of the problems on openbsd have been related to versions of ports/packages for dependencies (boost 1.42 needs a patch for unit tests to work at all, for instance, and bdb being stuck at 4.6 being the biggest two)
806 2012-09-09 20:57:25 <kjj_> because 99.99% of my coinbases do NOT make it into bitcoin, and I don't think p2pool keeps the full chain around long term
807 2012-09-09 20:58:01 <gmaxwell> kjj_: ... no. You misunderstand.
808 2012-09-09 20:58:29 <kjj_> gmaxwell: I certainly hope I'm misunderstanding something. the question is what?
809 2012-09-09 20:58:37 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: random thought, how much memory is test_bitcoin expected to use? data segment ulimit is currently set to ~2G
810 2012-09-09 20:59:18 <gmaxwell> kjj_: you have a pool of things to stamp. You commit them to your p2pool shares.. Eventually p2pool gets a block. You then collect up the list of things youre stamping and the p2pool shares that connect up to a block... and you return that to the party that requested the timestamp.
811 2012-09-09 20:59:38 <gmaxwell> kjj_: that data plus the bitcoin chain headers is enough for anyone to validate the timestamp.
812 2012-09-09 21:00:48 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell : RE: arbitrary data in the scriptSig instead of scriptPubKey: P2SH plus a standard OP_DROP transaction type does that, and has some very nice properties, I think.
813 2012-09-09 21:01:37 <jrmithdobbs> hrm, bumped data seg to 2G and mem limit to 4G and still no love
814 2012-09-09 21:01:41 Obsi has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
815 2012-09-09 21:01:54 <kjj_> gmaxwell: ahh, ok. they can see the hash of the timestamped data in your p2pool share, and a chain of p2pool shares that build on that share all the way up to a valid bitcoin block
816 2012-09-09 21:01:55 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: yes, p2sh is okay too.
817 2012-09-09 21:01:57 <sipa> i still don't like the idea of encouraging using the blockchain to communicate messages
818 2012-09-09 21:02:04 <sipa> though i do see the need for in some cases
819 2012-09-09 21:02:08 <gmaxwell> kjj_: ding ding.
820 2012-09-09 21:02:40 <gmaxwell> sipa: the only case where I've seen a need described is this bond stuff that only exists as a fantasy now. jgarzik why must you stress me out about non-existing stuff?
821 2012-09-09 21:02:49 <jrmithdobbs> i'll pull out gdb and see if i can figure something out
822 2012-09-09 21:02:58 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: might try valgrind as well?
823 2012-09-09 21:02:59 <gmaxwell> :P
824 2012-09-09 21:04:03 <jgarzik> chronobit is cute but doesn't really solve useful problems
825 2012-09-09 21:04:20 <sipa> well it does one thing, and does it well: timestamping data
826 2012-09-09 21:04:49 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: it solves the "I want to use bitcoin to prove some data existed at some time" problem without increasing the size of the chain at all.
827 2012-09-09 21:05:00 <gmaxwell> and it does it in a very highly scalable way.
828 2012-09-09 21:05:45 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: bond+atomic funds transfer really seems like a bitcoin application
829 2012-09-09 21:06:05 SphericalCow has joined
830 2012-09-09 21:06:09 toffoo has joined
831 2012-09-09 21:06:17 <gmaxwell> Thats one of the things that people will use op_drop for otherwise (and have previously used unspendable pubkeys for)... but doing it the op_drop way stinks because every user using it must add a txn to the chain for everything they want to timestamp.
832 2012-09-09 21:06:56 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: test_bitcoin runs here with 70MiB RES and 225MiB VIRT
833 2012-09-09 21:07:09 <kjj_> gmaxwell: there is no reason why a notary has to use unspendable pubkeys.
834 2012-09-09 21:07:40 <gmaxwell> kjj_: thats simply the laziest way of doing it, so thats what people do.
835 2012-09-09 21:07:44 <kjj_> gmaxwell: the one I wrote a while back used fully spendable private keys
836 2012-09-09 21:08:46 <gmaxwell> kjj_: but then you had to make two transactions per timestamp?
837 2012-09-09 21:09:00 Mad7Scientist is now known as henshowfist
838 2012-09-09 21:09:08 <kjj_> gmaxwell: yeah, 2
839 2012-09-09 21:09:17 <gmaxwell> yea, see, you're still making my case.
840 2012-09-09 21:09:24 <gmaxwell> (well even 1 per is making my case)
841 2012-09-09 21:09:36 <gavinandresen> the way to discourage laziness is fees, in my humble opinion.
842 2012-09-09 21:09:49 <gmaxwell> It's inefficient and creates more pressure on the block chain, increasing the fair price for regular economic transactions.
843 2012-09-09 21:10:07 <sipa> the way to discourage lazyness is by making the right solution the easiest one
844 2012-09-09 21:10:12 <kjj_> yeah, unnecessary. but the transactions to collect fees for the service tend to swamp another one or two transactions
845 2012-09-09 21:10:12 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: fees don't work until we're in a state where there is true pressure on the blockchain for space from regular non-lazy transactions.
846 2012-09-09 21:10:16 <gmaxwell> what sipa said.
847 2012-09-09 21:10:54 <gavinandresen> I don't share sipa's faith that we know the "right" solution
848 2012-09-09 21:11:18 <sipa> well, there is no right solution, i'll admit
849 2012-09-09 21:11:18 <amiller> gmaxwell, you seem to be excluding the only use case that jgarzik actually wants, which is distributed bonds with a single future metadata
850 2012-09-09 21:11:24 <amiller> you just explained to me that you can't do it just with coinbases
851 2012-09-09 21:11:27 <sipa> we don't know how the future will choose to use bitcoin
852 2012-09-09 21:11:32 <kjj_> running chronobit and keeping that chain of shares forever has a cost too. the good part is that the cost is solely on the timestamper
853 2012-09-09 21:11:33 <amiller> you can do it with scriptsigs
854 2012-09-09 21:11:38 henshowfist is now known as Mad7Scientist
855 2012-09-09 21:11:42 <sipa> but we may at least try to help them keeping as many options open
856 2012-09-09 21:11:44 <gmaxwell> amiller: I'm excluding his case because it's currently pure fantasy. If its developed my position will be different.
857 2012-09-09 21:12:03 <kjj_> (or the timestampee)
858 2012-09-09 21:12:06 <sipa> but i really *really* think we need a payment protocol, or at least standardized payment-request and payment-submit format, soon
859 2012-09-09 21:12:20 <jgarzik> I'm hoping to demo bonds at the conference
860 2012-09-09 21:12:22 <gmaxwell> amiller: once its developed I can look at it and say "hey, you could make this p2sh only, and then we don't need to permit the drops in scriptpubkey, which is a big improvement"
861 2012-09-09 21:12:22 <gavinandresen> sipa: agreed
862 2012-09-09 21:12:57 md2k7 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
863 2012-09-09 21:13:06 <gavinandresen> sipa: and I think we're at, or very close, to a state where there is pressure on the blockchain for space
864 2012-09-09 21:13:27 <amiller> gmaxwell, i thought we already agreed that it should be scriptsig only
865 2012-09-09 21:13:31 <kjj_> gavinandresen: on the chain, yes. on a given block, no
866 2012-09-09 21:13:35 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I'm resonably confident that adding perpetual blockchain data is not the right solution when it can be done without doing that absent some additional coding.
867 2012-09-09 21:13:35 ehash has joined
868 2012-09-09 21:13:41 copumpkin has joined
869 2012-09-09 21:13:53 <gmaxwell> amiller: well I don't know because it doesn't exist! :P
870 2012-09-09 21:14:11 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: ok. We could start by making OP_DROP a valid transaction only when wrapped in a p2sh.....
871 2012-09-09 21:14:13 <gmaxwell> kjj_: you don't have to keep a chain of shares forever!
872 2012-09-09 21:14:25 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: does that actually do anything useful for jgarzik?
873 2012-09-09 21:14:25 <gavinandresen> (not valid, standard)
874 2012-09-09 21:14:41 * sipa would prefer not to have OP_DROP a standard transaction type until there is an implemented use case for it
875 2012-09-09 21:14:45 <kjj_> gmaxwell: someone does, or the timestamp becomes unverifiable. either the timestamping service, or the customer
876 2012-09-09 21:15:04 <Luke-Jr> "nonstandard block" wtf? O.o
877 2012-09-09 21:15:15 <gmaxwell> kjj_: ... You _always_ have to keep around that identity of the timestamped thing. So you write the connecting shares into that. This is what chronobit does.
878 2012-09-09 21:15:23 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: yea, I wish I could delete pages on the wiki.
879 2012-09-09 21:15:24 <amiller> sipa, jgarzik is about to embark on the development of this and has apparently put this out there, as his first step on the way, to see if we disagree with his way of going about it
880 2012-09-09 21:15:41 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: jgarzik is already implementing a DHT, seems like the p2sh-hash-to-script mapping could be stored there for anybody to find.
881 2012-09-09 21:15:41 <amiller> i don't think he expects any traction until he has a cool distributed bond to show off and justify it
882 2012-09-09 21:15:50 <kjj_> gmaxwell: that is the share chain, no matter what you call it or where you hide it. it must exist
883 2012-09-09 21:16:29 <gavinandresen> (do you get notified that a new item has been added to the DHT? I know almost nuthin about dhts....)
884 2012-09-09 21:16:43 <amiller> there are publish-subscribe dhts
885 2012-09-09 21:16:55 <gmaxwell> kjj_: It's just a segment of shares between the initial share an the next block, and its held by the timestampee not anyone else.
886 2012-09-09 21:17:00 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: traditional DHT can search. timeout == not found
887 2012-09-09 21:17:06 <Luke-Jr> amiller: Eligius will accept any nonstandard transaction regardless of what it is, provided the fees are paid. I do intend to lock down some obvious "not a good idea" cases at some point tho
888 2012-09-09 21:17:08 <jgarzik> ugly and imprecise
889 2012-09-09 21:17:12 <gmaxwell> kjj_: so the person who wants to prove the timestamping takes all of that cost.
890 2012-09-09 21:17:36 <amiller> jgarzik, you may want to look into something like this http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=1648810
891 2012-09-09 21:18:18 <gavinandresen> ooh! I know, you could brute-force proof-of-work the p2sh address by adding a nonce to the OP_DROP data so it begins 1BOND...
892 2012-09-09 21:18:23 <jgarzik> in general I'm concerned that we close off too many avenues, in the ref client, before people have a chance to experiment
893 2012-09-09 21:18:33 <gmaxwell> kjj_: and there is no timestamping system that avoids that, all you can do is change the amount of data there. But at least that way none of the cost is externalized == externalized costs almost always result in market failure.
894 2012-09-09 21:18:48 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: we have testnet for expirementation which is fully opened up.
895 2012-09-09 21:19:00 <jgarzik> I think have bond information in the TX is quite elegant, as they are both disconnected untrusted AND MUST BE ATOMIC WITH EACH OTHER </allcaps>
896 2012-09-09 21:19:17 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: no offense, but I think you're the #1 person who does that <.<
897 2012-09-09 21:19:20 <jgarzik> you lose atomicity and reliability by separating the two bits of data
898 2012-09-09 21:19:51 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: you'll note that I have not objected to the bond usecase except in saying that it does not exist yet and so how can we add functionality for it when we're not sure of what it would need?
899 2012-09-09 21:19:57 <sipa> gavinandresen: i do see jgarzik's use case, but i wish that using OP_DROP wouldn't be accessible as an easy way to put metadata to the chain before a payment protocol is usable... to avoid OP_DROP becoming the standard way to transfer private transaction metadata
900 2012-09-09 21:19:58 <amiller> so far no one has tried suggesting that an OP_DROP is _insufficient_ for implementing any of TD's things
901 2012-09-09 21:20:15 <gmaxwell> and what's sipa's saying.
902 2012-09-09 21:20:37 <amiller> if jgarzik gets his drops, is there anything else he'd need or would he be able to hit everything on the contracts wiki?
903 2012-09-09 21:20:46 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I suggested making it merged-mined; but I see jgarzik's reason that it can't be
904 2012-09-09 21:20:57 <gmaxwell> My concern is that you add this and there will be no bond usage... but there will be a ton of blockchain instant messaging and other crap. And we really aren't at position where there is true market pressure on blockchain space. Not at all.
905 2012-09-09 21:21:09 <sipa> ^ that
906 2012-09-09 21:21:23 arij_ has joined
907 2012-09-09 21:21:39 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: what if we require bonds to have a proof-of-work, in a way that makes IM impractical?
908 2012-09-09 21:21:52 darkee has quit (!~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
909 2012-09-09 21:22:04 <gavinandresen> the alternate view is that people will start doing stuff like encoding information in satoshi-amounts, and adding extra txouts to transmit that extra information. Which is worse than OP_DROP
910 2012-09-09 21:22:08 <sipa> bitcoin is reusable proof-of-work; you can just as easily say it requires a fee
911 2012-09-09 21:22:08 <gavinandresen> (and is already happening)
912 2012-09-09 21:22:10 <kjj_> ugh. that seems very meta and messy
913 2012-09-09 21:22:37 <sipa> gavinandresen: i got an answer from ben (blockchain.info) by the way
914 2012-09-09 21:22:43 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: and simply sending to invalid pubkeys, which has already been done
915 2012-09-09 21:22:46 <gavinandresen> sipa: I think I saw that.
916 2012-09-09 21:22:48 Obsi has joined
917 2012-09-09 21:22:59 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: ha, did you see my forum post? I did suggest that, but only half seriously
918 2012-09-09 21:23:00 dust-otc has joined
919 2012-09-09 21:23:03 <sipa> gavinandresen: hmm, i thought it was just to me
920 2012-09-09 21:23:25 <gavinandresen> sipa: I'm misremembering, I saw his post to the forums
921 2012-09-09 21:23:35 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: people already do these things, and I think they aren't actually any worse than OP_DROP in scriptpubkey.
922 2012-09-09 21:23:53 arij has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
923 2012-09-09 21:23:54 <gmaxwell> They're confined in space and result in perpetual storage...
924 2012-09-09 21:24:27 <gmaxwell> if anything their inefficiency is a bonusâ absent market pressure for blockchain space nothing else encourages people to be space efficient.
925 2012-09-09 21:24:45 <sipa> gavinandresen: forwarded
926 2012-09-09 21:25:29 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
927 2012-09-09 21:25:30 <Luke-Jr> side note: how about using an extra zero-amount "OP_RETURN <data>" scriptPubKey for the bond?
928 2012-09-09 21:25:44 <Luke-Jr> bonus: non-bond clients can discard it entirely
929 2012-09-09 21:25:47 <jgarzik> absent OP_DROP it encourages people to create unspendable outputs
930 2012-09-09 21:26:09 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: guaranteed-unspendable outputs (eg, starting with OP_RETURN) are a good thing
931 2012-09-09 21:26:16 <Luke-Jr> (assuming 0-value)
932 2012-09-09 21:26:23 tower has quit (Disconnected by services)
933 2012-09-09 21:26:28 <gmaxwell> meh, I don't know that they're a good thing.... less bad than otherwise.
934 2012-09-09 21:26:29 <sipa> gmaxwell: i think creating extra outputs is strictly worse than adding data to existing normal txouts
935 2012-09-09 21:26:35 tower has joined
936 2012-09-09 21:26:42 <jgarzik> yes
937 2012-09-09 21:26:45 <sipa> if they're unspendable, that's even worse
938 2012-09-09 21:26:47 <gavinandresen> Luke-Jr: <data> OP_FALSE I like better...
939 2012-09-09 21:26:50 <jgarzik> correct
940 2012-09-09 21:27:06 <sipa> if they're undetectably unspendable, that's yet worse
941 2012-09-09 21:27:16 <jgarzik> satoshi's idea of SIGHASH_DO_NOT_INDEX addressed this issue.
942 2012-09-09 21:27:16 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: that seems more open to potential exploits IMO; with OP_RETURN, you're guaranteed the rest of the data can't do anything
943 2012-09-09 21:27:21 <kjj_> creating a contract between two different block chains is hard
944 2012-09-09 21:27:36 <gmaxwell> sipa: if they're low/zero value they won't be spent anyways. And even if they're theoretically detectable this doesn't help a UTXO tree implementation.
945 2012-09-09 21:27:38 <amiller> look do we have any mechanism that creates proportional fees for proportional bytes
946 2012-09-09 21:27:38 dust-otc has joined
947 2012-09-09 21:27:43 <amiller> or are we expecting such a mechanism in the future
948 2012-09-09 21:27:52 <gmaxwell> amiller: we already have that.
949 2012-09-09 21:28:02 <jgarzik> SIGHASH_DO_NOT_HASH simply tells you this is guaranteed unspendable, therefore, do not index.
950 2012-09-09 21:28:16 <gavinandresen> ending the scriptPubKey with OP_FALSE is provably unspendable.
951 2012-09-09 21:28:18 <jgarzik> but I dislike unspendable outputs, as _that_ really encourages this worse behavior
952 2012-09-09 21:28:46 Joric has quit ()
953 2012-09-09 21:28:48 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: have you figured out if your bonds stuff would work by only having the drops in
954 2012-09-09 21:28:54 <gmaxwell> P2SH or scriptsig?
955 2012-09-09 21:28:59 <jgarzik> spendable, pruneable is more likely to be associated with funds and therefore relevant to the blockchain
956 2012-09-09 21:29:15 <jgarzik> rather than just IM data
957 2012-09-09 21:29:29 <sipa> jgarzik: unfortunately changing SIGHASH semantics is very hard now...
958 2012-09-09 21:29:52 <jgarzik> sipa: that's OK, unspendable outputs are dumb anyway ;p
959 2012-09-09 21:29:59 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: if you say so, but it's at least more difficult to prove if you consider the potential to have an unclosed OP_IF (I think that was fixed a while back in practice)
960 2012-09-09 21:30:08 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: very tiny outputs will probably never be spent unless we seriously revamp the priority rules to encourage txout set cleaning.
961 2012-09-09 21:30:19 <sipa> jgarzik: eventually it's still a hack to associate non-monetary data with the transaction
962 2012-09-09 21:30:27 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: ...which we should do...
963 2012-09-09 21:30:31 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: we should revamp the priority rules to encourage txout set cleaning.
964 2012-09-09 21:30:35 <sipa> ACK
965 2012-09-09 21:30:39 <jgarzik> sipa: ...which is why we should make it a non-hack... ;p
966 2012-09-09 21:30:44 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: ack
967 2012-09-09 21:30:48 <gmaxwell> then we should do that _first_ before doing things like enabling OP_DROP for anything.
968 2012-09-09 21:30:59 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: perfect is the enemy of good
969 2012-09-09 21:31:09 <jgarzik> not waiting for a "perfect bitcoin" before experimenting
970 2012-09-09 21:31:17 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: go expirement with testnet.
971 2012-09-09 21:31:30 <gavinandresen> yeah, testnet away....
972 2012-09-09 21:31:38 <jgarzik> yes, it will start by default on testnet
973 2012-09-09 21:32:09 <amiller> jgarzik, just to be clear, you aren't expecting or even asking for this to be adopted by reference client until you finish the distributed bonds, right? this is just a preview?
974 2012-09-09 21:32:26 <gmaxwell> And seriously, I can't believe your usecase is worth anything if it can't wait to get a reasonable set of precautionary changes first.
975 2012-09-09 21:32:36 <jgarzik> amiller: not for immediate pushing, no
976 2012-09-09 21:32:43 <jgarzik> amiller: but it is important to start this process now
977 2012-09-09 21:32:45 <amiller> i don't see why it's so difficult to talk about an experimental new feature
978 2012-09-09 21:32:50 <amiller> and explain what it is going to require and how it would work
979 2012-09-09 21:33:06 <amiller> without first having to react to a bunch of terror about how it shouldn't be implemented immediately
980 2012-09-09 21:33:09 <Luke-Jr> amiller: it already can be implemented on testnet
981 2012-09-09 21:33:09 <gavinandresen> amiller: some of us distill our ideas by writing code
982 2012-09-09 21:33:17 <jgarzik> amiller: because otherwise, gmaxwell will insist on further delays six months down the road :)
983 2012-09-09 21:33:26 <jgarzik> yep
984 2012-09-09 21:33:27 <gmaxwell> Er. after having seen jgarzik bludgeon people a couple times about pull requests being for mergable stuff, I was under the impression that he expected this to be pulled right away.
985 2012-09-09 21:33:43 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: no, this should not be pulled right away
986 2012-09-09 21:33:53 <amiller> maybe you should have indicated a roadmap or timeline or something jgarzik
987 2012-09-09 21:33:59 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: but by the time discussion is done, it will be ready state
988 2012-09-09 21:34:20 * gavinandresen slaps jgarzik on the wrist for pull-requesting something not ready to be pulled
989 2012-09-09 21:34:41 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: as far as I could tell you were taking a page from the lukejr negoiations manual with the pull request and forum post on it. :P
990 2012-09-09 21:35:15 <jgarzik> IMNSHO major changes get created as pulls earlier, because discussion is preserved
991 2012-09-09 21:35:26 <jgarzik> ditto forum post, to permit time for discussion
992 2012-09-09 21:35:49 <jgarzik> thus leveldb, ultraprune, ...
993 2012-09-09 21:35:50 <gavinandresen> forum post is entirely appropriate. Maybe we need a way to mark pull requests as "FOR DISCUSSION"
994 2012-09-09 21:35:59 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: pfft, how is anyone supposed to establish that people want a feature if "user ACKs on pullreqs" and "forum threads" are both discouraged?
995 2012-09-09 21:36:31 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: Both gavin and jgarzik have yelled at you for doing exactly that... just saying. :P
996 2012-09-09 21:36:51 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: yes, I'm just saying it's a catch-22 since they also yell at me for implemetning things "nobody else wants"
997 2012-09-09 21:37:11 <gavinandresen> we just like yelling.
998 2012-09-09 21:37:13 <Luke-Jr> lol
999 2012-09-09 21:37:17 <sipa> YELL
1000 2012-09-09 21:37:18 <gavinandresen> I SAID, WE JUST LIKE....
1001 2012-09-09 21:37:25 <gmaxwell> The forum posts means that there is a decent chance of forcing people opposed to doing this to waste a ton of time arguing with people who only understand it as a one sided choice (they only get the potential benefits, not the costs).
1002 2012-09-09 21:37:39 <gmaxwell> Thats really the only beef I have with them.
1003 2012-09-09 21:38:00 TD has joined
1004 2012-09-09 21:38:08 <amiller> that's why you're around to make a first response with "hell no"
1005 2012-09-09 21:38:21 <gavinandresen> discussion in forum threads tends to wander off-topic. Discussion on the mailing list tends to die or never get started....
1006 2012-09-09 21:38:42 wonderous has joined
1007 2012-09-09 21:38:44 <gavinandresen> Discussion here tends to be productive when the right people are here
1008 2012-09-09 21:38:54 <sipa> indeed
1009 2012-09-09 21:38:56 <gmaxwell> Agreed.
1010 2012-09-09 21:39:09 <sipa> maybe we should reinstate those weekly IRC meetings?
1011 2012-09-09 21:39:18 <Luke-Jr> ^
1012 2012-09-09 21:39:24 <gavinandresen> I was just wondering that. Is there a time we can all make regularly?
1013 2012-09-09 21:40:39 <gavinandresen> ... best times for me tend to be east-coast daytime working hours, but I know I'm weird
1014 2012-09-09 21:40:54 <gmaxwell> I'm still waiting to hear if this could be scriptsig/p2sh only. With that revision my complaint mostly reduces to the general 'we really need a payment protocol before enabling any use that would discourage the creation of a payment protocol'
1015 2012-09-09 21:41:01 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: for some reason I thought you were on the west coast.
1016 2012-09-09 21:41:13 <Luke-Jr> I'm usually pretty flexible, but need to do school dropoff/pickup at 1120 and 1820 (1930 Fridays)
1017 2012-09-09 21:41:15 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: nope, massachusetts
1018 2012-09-09 21:41:28 Joric has joined
1019 2012-09-09 21:41:31 <gavinandresen> 19:30 Fridays it is then.
1020 2012-09-09 21:41:35 <gavinandresen> (KIDDING!)
1021 2012-09-09 21:41:45 <sipa> i think my biorhythm has diverged to almost westcoast USA anyway...
1022 2012-09-09 21:41:48 <Luke-Jr> O.o
1023 2012-09-09 21:42:15 <Luke-Jr> oh, I get it ;)
1024 2012-09-09 21:42:25 <sipa> gavinandresen: ok, next one will be from the conference? :)
1025 2012-09-09 21:43:01 <gavinandresen> sipa: sure, I can be on IRC during the conference (I won't be at the conference....)
1026 2012-09-09 21:43:33 <sipa> wait, 19:30 eastcoast is like 4:30 am in london...
1027 2012-09-09 21:43:47 <gmaxwell> my mondays are a cesspool of meetings, friday afternoons I'm cut out Otherwise I can generally slot out an hour any time in east cost working hours, or anytime outside of them.
1028 2012-09-09 21:43:55 <Luke-Jr> sipa: my times are UTC
1029 2012-09-09 21:43:55 <gavinandresen> I was kidding about 19:30 eastcoast
1030 2012-09-09 21:44:37 <Luke-Jr> since I'm sure nobody here wants me to say my availability in Tonal time
1031 2012-09-09 21:44:54 BTCTrader has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1032 2012-09-09 21:45:07 BTCTrader has joined
1033 2012-09-09 21:45:07 BTCTrader has quit (Changing host)
1034 2012-09-09 21:45:07 BTCTrader has joined
1035 2012-09-09 21:47:23 olp has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1036 2012-09-09 21:47:58 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: btw, I'm hoping to know today or tomorrow what the cause of Eligius's invalid blocks is from; just in case it turns out to be a subtle problem with the getblocktemplate output, it might be a good idea to wait on any final 0.7.0 until then (but it's probably VERY unlikely IMO)
1037 2012-09-09 21:48:22 <gavinandresen> afk to feed hungry kids...
1038 2012-09-09 21:48:41 <sipa> gmaxwell: by the way, parallel sig checking seems to work, but has a high overhead right now
1039 2012-09-09 21:48:58 <sipa> gmaxwell: i get a 2x speedup by fully using 4 cores
1040 2012-09-09 21:51:00 <Luke-Jr> :o
1041 2012-09-09 21:51:07 <gmaxwell> sipa: hm. One way to implement would be fully async.. assume the sigs are valid.. and then go back and kill the block and force a reorg if you find out otherwise. That should elimate overhead.. but pretty tricky to implement.
1042 2012-09-09 21:51:09 <Luke-Jr> sipa: any effect on interactivity/
1043 2012-09-09 21:51:20 <sipa> gmaxwell: exactly how it's implemented
1044 2012-09-09 21:51:21 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: ++
1045 2012-09-09 21:51:40 <sipa> the overhead comes from copying the script data to the queue
1046 2012-09-09 21:51:44 <gmaxwell> ha! cool! but .. I'm surprised of the high overhead.. I suppose you're single threading through the cache?
1047 2012-09-09 21:51:51 <gmaxwell> oh. ha.
1048 2012-09-09 21:52:11 <sipa> well, and sync stuff
1049 2012-09-09 21:52:47 <sipa> but there are severel inefficiencies in the implementation
1050 2012-09-09 21:52:56 <sipa> as i keep the transaction to be checked inside the queue
1051 2012-09-09 21:53:18 <sipa> which effectively means a data blowup of #blocksize * avg_number_inputs
1052 2012-09-09 21:53:24 <BlueMatt> oh, you implemented parallel sig checking (again)? nice
1053 2012-09-09 21:53:48 <BlueMatt> just do it in ConnectInputs
1054 2012-09-09 21:53:51 <sipa> adding a queue to keep the block cached and use pointers into that should help a lot
1055 2012-09-09 21:53:52 <BlueMatt> its surprisingly easy there
1056 2012-09-09 21:54:08 <sipa> BlueMatt: ?
1057 2012-09-09 21:54:18 <sipa> obviously, that's where it is done
1058 2012-09-09 21:55:16 <BlueMatt> so why are you queueing txes?
1059 2012-09-09 21:55:31 firelegend has joined
1060 2012-09-09 21:55:45 <sipa> i have a CScriptCheck that represents a script being validated
1061 2012-09-09 21:56:08 <sipa> and contains the txout and txin and whatever is fed to VerifyScript
1062 2012-09-09 21:56:16 <sipa> or VerifySignature, can't remember
1063 2012-09-09 21:56:18 <BlueMatt> oh, heh nvm I was thinking of the code wrong..
1064 2012-09-09 21:56:19 <firelegend> I looked at the example python code of mini private keys, and was able to write my own Java implementation. But is there a min/max limit of mini private key length?
1065 2012-09-09 21:56:34 <sipa> firelegend: ask casascius
1066 2012-09-09 21:56:47 <BlueMatt> oh, I meant thread ConnectInputs entirely, dont just thread VerifyScript
1067 2012-09-09 21:57:12 <Luke-Jr> firelegend: I don't think any regulars here work with "mini private keys"
1068 2012-09-09 21:57:12 <sipa> per-transaction?
1069 2012-09-09 21:57:18 <BlueMatt> but, its no big difference there
1070 2012-09-09 21:57:29 <sipa> BlueMatt: that may help, yes
1071 2012-09-09 21:57:45 <BlueMatt> yea, it ends up being per-tx, but thats no big deal
1072 2012-09-09 21:57:52 <sipa> but i was planning to add some global block cache, which keeps recently seen blocks in memory, with refcounts
1073 2012-09-09 21:58:15 <sipa> and the sig checking could then lock them, and just point into it, instead of needing to copy everything
1074 2012-09-09 21:58:25 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
1075 2012-09-09 21:58:36 <BlueMatt> you could just adapt the code already written: https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commits/parallelsigs...
1076 2012-09-09 21:58:39 <firelegend> Luke-Jr: I had nothing else to do, so I decided to write my own implementation in Java but the wiki article does not state if there is any key lenght limit
1077 2012-09-09 21:59:02 <sipa> BlueMatt: no offence, but i'm not rebasing ultraprune over another major rewrite
1078 2012-09-09 21:59:34 SphericalCow has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1079 2012-09-09 21:59:35 <BlueMatt> no, no I dont want you to
1080 2012-09-09 21:59:50 <BlueMatt> Im just saying use the few commits already there and adapt the how-its-put-in-callbacks stuff to use ultraprune
1081 2012-09-09 22:00:29 <firelegend> I suppose I will limit it between 22 and 30
1082 2012-09-09 22:00:43 <jgarzik> ok, OP_DROP multisig transactions now require a fee
1083 2012-09-09 22:00:45 <jgarzik> pushed
1084 2012-09-09 22:00:52 <jgarzik> good idea, btw
1085 2012-09-09 22:01:57 darkee has joined
1086 2012-09-09 22:02:05 <jgarzik> TD: actively working on distributed bond markets
1087 2012-09-09 22:02:18 <sipa> jgarzik: any idea yet whether having the data in scriptSig or P2SH would work?
1088 2012-09-09 22:02:52 <jgarzik> sipa: scriptSig does not look like it will work
1089 2012-09-09 22:02:56 <jgarzik> sipa: P2SH maybe
1090 2012-09-09 22:03:01 <gmaxwell> ^ I've been resisting nagging; that would substantially change my view.
1091 2012-09-09 22:03:10 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: hm. Why wouldn't it work in scriptsig?
1092 2012-09-09 22:04:02 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1093 2012-09-09 22:04:17 <TD> jgarzik: looking forward to seeing what you come up with
1094 2012-09-09 22:04:38 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: storing it in the output is used for tracking current owner, among other uses
1095 2012-09-09 22:05:23 <jgarzik> TD: just doing an absolutely minimum bond implementation, without pay-to-policy
1096 2012-09-09 22:05:50 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: hm. but can't the scriptsig do that too? You'd just present the unpruned transaction paying you.
1097 2012-09-09 22:06:01 <TD> sure
1098 2012-09-09 22:06:15 <gmaxwell> oh bleh without pay to policy its no better than the crazy colored coin stuff, except with more externalized costs.
1099 2012-09-09 22:06:22 <jgarzik> it sure seems more convenient implementation wise
1100 2012-09-09 22:06:25 <TD> jgarzik: ppp is for the investment fund stuff
1101 2012-09-09 22:06:33 <TD> so it can wait
1102 2012-09-09 22:06:37 <TD> one comes after the other
1103 2012-09-09 22:06:40 <jgarzik> nod
1104 2012-09-09 22:06:42 <jgarzik> one step at a time
1105 2012-09-09 22:07:19 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: have you seen the colored coin stuff? It adds no blockchain data at all. You agree that coin X is a bond, then you just trace the ownership through.
1106 2012-09-09 22:08:12 <gmaxwell> (with some rules that prevent inflation should the bond coin get mixed)
1107 2012-09-09 22:08:14 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: familiar with the concept yes. haven't seen any implementations.
1108 2012-09-09 22:08:24 <TD> the trick being the "agree that coin x" part
1109 2012-09-09 22:08:28 <jgarzik> indeed
1110 2012-09-09 22:08:31 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: there is one... it's linked in the forum.
1111 2012-09-09 22:09:05 <gmaxwell> TD: you still have to have some way of initially issuing a bond in any bond system, and agreeing on what it means. It's not like bitcoin itself can only let you make a transaction if you also hand over keys to a car. :)
1112 2012-09-09 22:09:05 <Luke-Jr> fun toy: run bitcoind -loadblock=⦠-rpcpassword= <-- loads blocks and quits :D\
1113 2012-09-09 22:09:18 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: hah "feature"
1114 2012-09-09 22:09:21 <jgarzik> for now, bond+tx atomicity make life simple, reliable and secure WRT coin transfer. once I've something running on testnet, I'll be more interested in crazy ideas
1115 2012-09-09 22:10:03 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: well the point is that coin color proposals achieve that without adding data.
1116 2012-09-09 22:10:10 <gmaxwell> Basically the coin itself is the identifier.
1117 2012-09-09 22:10:29 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: with external metadata you have additional reliability problems
1118 2012-09-09 22:10:38 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1119 2012-09-09 22:10:39 <jgarzik> definitely much more complex
1120 2012-09-09 22:11:20 tower has joined
1121 2012-09-09 22:11:28 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: the cost of storing data is _enormously_ increased (by something like 40,000 fold today more in the future) by putting it in the blockchain. You only think you've solved it because you're parasitically externalizing the cost.
1122 2012-09-09 22:11:32 egecko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1123 2012-09-09 22:11:51 <gmaxwell> Plus you've still got an external storage issue in your system.
1124 2012-09-09 22:12:34 <gmaxwell> which you'll ignore with a non-robust DHT thing.. so people will probably still need to keep all the important data themselves to avoid the risk of the dht getting flooded and forgetting it.
1125 2012-09-09 22:12:49 egecko has joined
1126 2012-09-09 22:12:51 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: you are welcome to code this :)
1127 2012-09-09 22:13:05 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I don't have to, people already coded coin coloring.
1128 2012-09-09 22:13:12 <gmaxwell> Which I think is stupid, but for different reasons. :)
1129 2012-09-09 22:13:23 <jgarzik> that's luke-jr-level hair splitting
1130 2012-09-09 22:13:40 <Luke-Jr> ââââ
1131 2012-09-09 22:13:40 <jgarzik> it's nothing like full distributed bond system
1132 2012-09-09 22:13:49 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106449.0 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106373.0
1133 2012-09-09 22:14:16 <TD> i'm entertained by arguments about whether the block chain in future will be very expensive or _very_ expensive
1134 2012-09-09 22:14:31 <TD> i see two expensive things and a few hashes here or there isn't going to make or break the endevour
1135 2012-09-09 22:14:49 <gmaxwell> TD: or ... not expensive at all?
1136 2012-09-09 22:15:18 <gmaxwell> TD: as it is, bitcoin _can't_ be very expensive to run a full node. We'd need a hardfork to make it actually expensive.
1137 2012-09-09 22:16:24 <gmaxwell> Where I'm defining expensive to mean something on the order of "I don't _already_ have the resources to run it 100 years henceforth, at home"
1138 2012-09-09 22:17:00 olp has joined
1139 2012-09-09 22:17:56 <sipa> i'm not so much worried about the size of the blockchain (if it's data that doesn't enter the utxo set anyway), as i'm worried about opening up the blockchain to be used as a messaging platform
1140 2012-09-09 22:18:08 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I'm not sure what you're calling hair splitting, the code is here: https://github.com/killerstorm/bitcoin/tree/cbtc It doesn't address issuing bonds, but once you've done something to issue one it will happily use bitcoin to track ownership.
1141 2012-09-09 22:22:08 <MC1984> blockchain messenger
1142 2012-09-09 22:22:21 <MC1984> wernt we all rather cross with the last dude who tried to do that
1143 2012-09-09 22:22:35 <gmaxwell> MC1984: where are you in this whole discussion? how come I've got to play chicken little. Thats your job!
1144 2012-09-09 22:22:52 <MC1984> watching 5th element
1145 2012-09-09 22:23:21 * gmaxwell dumps MC1984 out of the JOHNNY CAB
1146 2012-09-09 22:23:30 <gmaxwell> (only thing I remember from that movie)
1147 2012-09-09 22:23:31 <TD> sipa: the question is where do you draw the line between "useful script" and "abusive messaging"
1148 2012-09-09 22:23:39 <MC1984> no thats total recall
1149 2012-09-09 22:23:43 <gmaxwell> oh ha!
1150 2012-09-09 22:23:53 <TD> i think stuffing a movie or DNS system into the block chain would count as "abuse" as it really has nothing to do with finance or payments
1151 2012-09-09 22:24:06 <Luke-Jr> Multipass.
1152 2012-09-09 22:24:21 <TD> bond markets and pay-to-policy outputs, even if expensive, aren't abusive to me as they further the goal of having a peer to peer financial system
1153 2012-09-09 22:24:24 <MC1984> MULTIPASS
1154 2012-09-09 22:24:30 <MC1984> milla jojovich DFC
1155 2012-09-09 22:24:47 setkeh has joined
1156 2012-09-09 22:25:23 <gmaxwell> TD: I'd take that definition and extend it a step furtherâ does the system externalized costs (push expense on to disinterested parties) more than necessary?
1157 2012-09-09 22:25:48 <gmaxwell> TD: the colored coin stuff shows that if all you're doing is tracking ownership you can use bitcoin for that without adding any data beyond the ownership changes themselves.
1158 2012-09-09 22:26:22 <gmaxwell> adding data just externalizes a cost: lest to reliably store in your DHT or whatever, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of bitcoin full nodes storing it for you.
1159 2012-09-09 22:26:37 <MC1984> yes moar DHT
1160 2012-09-09 22:27:04 * Luke-Jr wonders how much time bitcoind's peering policies add to block propagation
1161 2012-09-09 22:27:23 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: make a bitcoin backbone and find out
1162 2012-09-09 22:27:27 <Luke-Jr> maybe bitcoind should measure latency and use the lowest-latency links for blocks
1163 2012-09-09 22:27:31 setkeh` has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1164 2012-09-09 22:28:07 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: someplace I made a simple suggestion: keep a list of peers, every time a peer is the first peer to tell you of a block, move it one up in the list.
1165 2012-09-09 22:28:10 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: relay in that order.
1166 2012-09-09 22:28:21 <Luke-Jr> hm
1167 2012-09-09 22:29:40 <MC1984> i said this 2 days ago
1168 2012-09-09 22:30:02 <edcba> gmaxwell: so pools get the best connectivity ?
1169 2012-09-09 22:30:22 <gmaxwell> (alternatively you can have a higher learing rate by moving all the way to the front, and if you do that it's called "move to front" in the field of entropy coding, and for many kinds of non-stationary probablity models gives you a result no worse than a few percent off the best known adaptation)
1170 2012-09-09 22:31:01 * edcba will use the same algorithm to prevent relaying tx with fees to those nodes ! :)
1171 2012-09-09 22:31:03 <kjj_> if you prioritize connections, you should intentionally ditch your worst connection from time to time
1172 2012-09-09 22:31:05 <gmaxwell> edcba: it's not about connectivity, it's about ordering. Nodes who are fast to give you blocks will probably be fast to propagate other blocks, so you feed them first.
1173 2012-09-09 22:31:16 <yellowhat> just set-up a fresh ubuntu laptop. i noticed it in the software center 0.3.24 is offered. feels a bit wrong for me
1174 2012-09-09 22:31:33 <gmaxwell> yellowhat: can you please bug ubuntu to remove that software? it's insecure and unsupported.
1175 2012-09-09 22:31:35 <Luke-Jr> yellowhat: blame your OS
1176 2012-09-09 22:31:51 <Luke-Jr> yellowhat: get Ubuntu to upgrade to 0.4.8 or ditch it
1177 2012-09-09 22:32:02 <kjj_> the PPA is current
1178 2012-09-09 22:32:04 <Luke-Jr> (or 0.6.3, but ⦠that's less likely)
1179 2012-09-09 22:32:31 <yellowhat> i'll file a bug.
1180 2012-09-09 22:33:41 <gmaxwell> kjj_: sipa has a whole peer rotation idea worked up but not implemented yet; he's done simulations and such, and he and I hashed out a whole bunch of corner cases that should be addresses. (e.g. overdesigned, like addrman, but that hasn't burned us yet :P)
1181 2012-09-09 22:34:15 <gmaxwell> kjj_: naively following your advice would be really dangerous.
1182 2012-09-09 22:34:34 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1183 2012-09-09 22:34:43 <kjj_> ditching the worst node would be dangerous?
1184 2012-09-09 22:35:06 <gmaxwell> kjj_: Yes. because, e.g. links that hop between europe and the US are much more likely to be your worst peer... and not just your worst peer, _everyones_ worse peer, because of the speed of light and all.
1185 2012-09-09 22:35:30 RainbowDashh has joined
1186 2012-09-09 22:35:33 <gmaxwell> kjj_: so doing that alone would greatly increase the likelyhood that eu and us would partition, or at least be weakly connected and partition easily if a cable were cut.
1187 2012-09-09 22:37:12 <sipa> iirc, the idea was to add a new connection from time to time, and kick out one connection when it succeeds; the choice for which would be with a probability proportional to time_already_connected ** (-0.8), so the most recent connection has the highest chance of being disconnected
1188 2012-09-09 22:37:31 <sipa> and add to that some score kept per node, modified by relaying blocks quickly
1189 2012-09-09 22:37:34 ZephyrVoid has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1190 2012-09-09 22:38:17 <gmaxwell> The partitioning risk can be addressed by only considering some slots for rotation instead of all of them; so, e.g., that at least some US nodes would be likely to have some EU nodes in the excempted list.
1191 2012-09-09 22:38:19 <sipa> that gives you a nice distribution at any time of some recent peers and some old ones
1192 2012-09-09 22:38:54 <Luke-Jr> IMO, it'd be nice to have 4 groups of nodes (so 2 in each group) and have a group for: lowest latency, highest latency, lowest bandwidth, highest bandwidth
1193 2012-09-09 22:39:27 <sipa> bandwidth is only really relevant during IBD, imho
1194 2012-09-09 22:39:41 <yellowhat> for mobile (or any) client a good objective would be to have at least 1 well-connected node so that the average hop count can go down dramatically.
1195 2012-09-09 22:40:23 <Luke-Jr> maybe instead of "lowest bandwidth" have "continuously rotating"
1196 2012-09-09 22:40:32 <Luke-Jr> sipa: bandwidth is important for block relaying in general IMO
1197 2012-09-09 22:40:38 <denisx> i hate the bitcoind progrssbar, it is only useful when initiallly downloading the blockchain and then never again ;(
1198 2012-09-09 22:40:52 <Luke-Jr> sipa: after we get rid of all the processing delays, upload time will be the sole remaining factor in propagation
1199 2012-09-09 22:40:58 egecko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1200 2012-09-09 22:41:00 <sipa> denisx: imho we should remove it :)
1201 2012-09-09 22:41:05 <Luke-Jr> denisx: I agree, it should just be a block remaining count in text
1202 2012-09-09 22:41:20 <denisx> I liked it the way it was before
1203 2012-09-09 22:41:20 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: for the small amounts of data we transmit measuring latency and bandwidth is effectively the same thing.
1204 2012-09-09 22:41:23 <sipa> or the age of the best block
1205 2012-09-09 22:41:43 setkeh` has joined
1206 2012-09-09 22:41:46 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: blocks aren't small always
1207 2012-09-09 22:41:56 <Luke-Jr> sipa: or both
1208 2012-09-09 22:41:57 <sipa> denisx: before, people thought that quitting the client and restarting would lose progress because of the bar
1209 2012-09-09 22:42:12 MC-Eeepc has joined
1210 2012-09-09 22:42:20 arij_ is now known as arij
1211 2012-09-09 22:42:22 arij has quit (Changing host)
1212 2012-09-09 22:42:22 arij has joined
1213 2012-09-09 22:42:40 <Luke-Jr> also, it would be nice to replace the 99.x% measurement with "5 nines" etc once it gets to 99% ;)
1214 2012-09-09 22:42:43 * sipa announces he's 28 now
1215 2012-09-09 22:42:53 <Luke-Jr> sipa: happy birthday! are you my brother-in-law? :P
1216 2012-09-09 22:43:00 <gmaxwell> sipa: happy birthday.
1217 2012-09-09 22:43:06 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: thats .. an odd question 0_o
1218 2012-09-09 22:43:09 <Luke-Jr> lol
1219 2012-09-09 22:43:12 <denisx> sipa: yes, some people maybe...
1220 2012-09-09 22:43:20 <Luke-Jr> nah, my brother-in-law would have turned 25 or something today
1221 2012-09-09 22:43:56 <sipa> Luke-Jr: without a sister or wife, that is hard
1222 2012-09-09 22:43:59 <Luke-Jr> XD
1223 2012-09-09 22:44:09 setkeh has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1224 2012-09-09 22:44:29 <yellowhat> should i file as a security bug (bug is private and security group will be notified) WRT the old bitcoin version in ubuntu?
1225 2012-09-09 22:44:43 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1226 2012-09-09 22:45:09 <Luke-Jr> yellowhat: nah, it's common knowledge that 0.3.24 is vulnerable to a ton of exploits.
1227 2012-09-09 22:45:24 <sipa> Luke-Jr: i doubt the ubuntu packagers are aware of that
1228 2012-09-09 22:45:34 <Luke-Jr> sipa: maybe, but it's no reason to keep the bug private
1229 2012-09-09 22:45:43 <sipa> ah
1230 2012-09-09 22:46:07 <yellowhat> is there a remote-code execution vuln. in 0.3.24? or "just" DOS attacks?
1231 2012-09-09 22:46:26 <Luke-Jr> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CVEs
1232 2012-09-09 22:46:41 <Luke-Jr> looks like the worse is a Netsplit attack
1233 2012-09-09 22:47:13 <gmaxwell> yellowhat: netsplit attacks allow you to rob people, however.
1234 2012-09-09 22:47:39 <yellowhat> i hope this looks ok: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bitcoin/+bug/1048412
1235 2012-09-09 22:48:14 <sipa> i'd fix the type
1236 2012-09-09 22:48:17 <sipa> *typo
1237 2012-09-09 22:48:22 <sipa> Damnit.
1238 2012-09-09 22:48:40 <yellowhat> which one?
1239 2012-09-09 22:48:59 <sipa> upgrde
1240 2012-09-09 22:49:18 <MC-Eeepc> happy birthday sipa
1241 2012-09-09 22:49:22 <MC-Eeepc> now get back to work
1242 2012-09-09 22:49:37 <sipa> haha :)
1243 2012-09-09 22:50:28 ZephyrVoid has joined
1244 2012-09-09 22:50:29 <edcba> were you 27 yesterday ?
1245 2012-09-09 22:51:19 <sipa> 27.997 something
1246 2012-09-09 22:51:31 <edcba> happy rounding !
1247 2012-09-09 22:51:41 <sipa> thx!
1248 2012-09-09 22:52:47 <edcba> why some CVE have no disclosure ?
1249 2012-09-09 22:53:08 <yellowhat> happy birthday sipa !
1250 2012-09-09 22:53:19 <sipa> yellowhat: btw, i believe the reason for ubuntu not upgrading beyond 0.3.24, is because as of 0.4.0, unit tests fail on some architectures
1251 2012-09-09 22:53:36 <sipa> not that 0.3.24 did work on those, it just didn't have unit tests...
1252 2012-09-09 22:53:43 <yellowhat> i don't have high hopes of ubuntu fixing this quickly: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bitcoin/+bug/1011675 this one is 3 months old and reported the same as mine.
1253 2012-09-09 22:54:13 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1254 2012-09-09 22:54:19 <gmaxwell> yellowhat: if you'd like, you can start a node up with 0.3.24 and I can rob you. Then you can report you were robbed. :P
1255 2012-09-09 22:54:34 <yellowhat> sounds great
1256 2012-09-09 22:54:40 <Luke-Jr> lol
1257 2012-09-09 22:54:43 <sipa> let's do this on testnet
1258 2012-09-09 22:55:04 <sipa> as testnet coins were once exchanged for realnet ones, you can still claim you were robbed
1259 2012-09-09 22:55:11 <Luke-Jr> â¦
1260 2012-09-09 22:55:22 <Luke-Jr> is there a risk to doing it on mainnet? :p
1261 2012-09-09 22:55:33 <gmaxwell> well I was just thinking of sending him some neverconfirmable internal doublespend txn, which I think 0.3.24 will still show.
1262 2012-09-09 22:55:35 * edcba claims gmaxwell robbed him 1000 btc
1263 2012-09-09 22:55:50 <gmaxwell> For some attacks there is certantly a risk... but there are ones that wouldn't be.
1264 2012-09-09 22:56:02 <sipa> gmaxwell: oh, so easy; forgot about that one!
1265 2012-09-09 22:56:03 <MC-Eeepc> is 0.3 reallt that bad
1266 2012-09-09 22:56:19 <Luke-Jr> MC-Eeepc: yes
1267 2012-09-09 22:56:22 <Luke-Jr> 0.6.0 is too
1268 2012-09-09 22:56:24 * edcba wonder which version last installed...
1269 2012-09-09 22:56:59 <MC-Eeepc> where can i get the first version satoshi released
1270 2012-09-09 22:57:01 <gmaxwell> the forrestv block killing attack isn't transitive.. you could use it to target a new node and fork them at an early block then mine that fork.
1271 2012-09-09 22:57:11 <edcba> 06/08/2010
1272 2012-09-09 22:57:15 <edcba> alright !
1273 2012-09-09 22:57:33 <sipa> edcba: what's that?
1274 2012-09-09 22:57:39 <gmaxwell> Assuming someone around here has some private keys for old old long spent generations, those could be spent in that fork to rob him.
1275 2012-09-09 22:57:43 <edcba> last modification date of my bitcoin.ee
1276 2012-09-09 22:57:43 * forrestv approves of the name :p
1277 2012-09-09 22:57:44 <edcba> xe
1278 2012-09-09 22:57:48 <gmaxwell> Thats probably the best way to demonstrate the netsplit attacks.
1279 2012-09-09 22:57:56 <sipa> edcba: are you serious?
1280 2012-09-09 22:58:00 <edcba> i should remember to update bitcoin client before running it
1281 2012-09-09 22:58:03 <edcba> yes :)
1282 2012-09-09 22:58:04 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: meh, just mine 101 blocks
1283 2012-09-09 22:58:23 <MC-Eeepc> if i ran that forst version, would it connect and work
1284 2012-09-09 22:58:24 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: oh true. at diff 1 thats no biggie.
1285 2012-09-09 22:58:31 <sipa> edcba: 0.3.10 something? :S
1286 2012-09-09 22:58:32 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1287 2012-09-09 22:58:36 <edcba> i don't know
1288 2012-09-09 22:58:43 <Luke-Jr> edcba: at least upgrade to 0.4.7!
1289 2012-09-09 22:58:44 <edcba> and i won't run it to tell you :)
1290 2012-09-09 22:59:13 <edcba> that is not before emptying some folder
1291 2012-09-09 22:59:35 <Luke-Jr> will 0.3.10 even connect to the network anymore?
1292 2012-09-09 22:59:40 <sipa> it should
1293 2012-09-09 22:59:51 <edcba> btw is it safe to upgrade so much versions ?
1294 2012-09-09 22:59:57 <sipa> it should be
1295 2012-09-09 22:59:57 <edcba> is wallet compatible ?
1296 2012-09-09 23:00:00 <sipa> yes
1297 2012-09-09 23:00:05 <Luke-Jr> edcba: backup then it doesn't matter
1298 2012-09-09 23:00:09 <edcba> hmm
1299 2012-09-09 23:00:15 <sipa> of course, backup wallet file
1300 2012-09-09 23:00:27 <Luke-Jr> sipa: I don't trust bdb 4.6->4.8 transition so much ;)
1301 2012-09-09 23:00:36 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: yea, so forrestv at height 30000, then mine 100 blocks from that point. Then spent away at him. cheap attack.
1302 2012-09-09 23:00:51 <gmaxwell> so long as you connect to the node fast enough to forrestv it before it got past 30,000.
1303 2012-09-09 23:00:53 <edcba> even backuping you may end up with lost coins...
1304 2012-09-09 23:01:00 <Luke-Jr> edcba: why?
1305 2012-09-09 23:01:08 <edcba> depending on versions
1306 2012-09-09 23:01:12 <Luke-Jr> â¦
1307 2012-09-09 23:01:50 <edcba> do a tx lose the wallet, no more coins you know :)
1308 2012-09-09 23:02:22 <gmaxwell> edcba: you make a backup right before upgrading, silly. Also... you have to do 100 txn to lose coins.
1309 2012-09-09 23:02:36 <gmaxwell> (well 100 sends + getnewaddresses)
1310 2012-09-09 23:02:43 <edcba> ok but what if my old version don't have the 100 tx thingy ?
1311 2012-09-09 23:03:04 <edcba> and if the new version doesn't like my wallet and send an invalid tx silently ?
1312 2012-09-09 23:03:50 olp has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1313 2012-09-09 23:03:51 <gmaxwell> edcba: your old version not having the pool doesn't matter so long as you backup right before upgrading.
1314 2012-09-09 23:04:22 <Luke-Jr> [22:56:51] <edcba> and if the new version doesn't like my wallet and send an invalid tx silently ? <-- this would be a very absurd bug
1315 2012-09-09 23:04:25 <sipa> edcba: if you're worried about the code sending an invalid transaction silently, you shouldn't run it
1316 2012-09-09 23:04:29 <gmaxwell> if you're paranoid you can step through multiple versions... then you'll be on a path many other people have taken.
1317 2012-09-09 23:04:43 <edcba> Luke-Jr: indeed that seems quite impossible given checks everywhere in addresses
1318 2012-09-09 23:04:57 <gmaxwell> well, it's likely impossible from that cause.
1319 2012-09-09 23:05:09 <Luke-Jr> edcba: addresses aren't used internally anyway
1320 2012-09-09 23:05:20 <gmaxwell> I think it's not impossible due to a bitflip during transaction creation currently.. which is why I freak out whenever I see those 100k btc txouts.
1321 2012-09-09 23:05:24 <Luke-Jr> edcba: how much is in your wallet?
1322 2012-09-09 23:05:29 <edcba> grmbl
1323 2012-09-09 23:05:31 <BlueMatt> hmm...so we didnt actually fix the bip30 stuff in 0.7 yet...that sounds broken
1324 2012-09-09 23:05:37 <edcba> about 200 btc i think :)
1325 2012-09-09 23:05:38 setkeh has joined
1326 2012-09-09 23:05:40 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: huh1?
1327 2012-09-09 23:05:52 setkeh` has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1328 2012-09-09 23:05:55 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: â
1329 2012-09-09 23:05:59 <gmaxwell> edcba: alternatively, just make a new wallet in the new version, and send all your coins there...
1330 2012-09-09 23:06:30 <Luke-Jr> edcba: if it had been less, I might have personally guaranteed it if you tested going straight to 0.4.8rc2 :p
1331 2012-09-09 23:06:35 <Luke-Jr> but 200 BTC is quite a bit
1332 2012-09-09 23:06:48 <BlueMatt> you can still isolate and get a node in ibd stuck using the same attack bip30 was designed to prevent...
1333 2012-09-09 23:06:50 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I'm concerned that this whole university thing has been a bad influence on you; ... drugs are bad, ummkay? :P
1334 2012-09-09 23:07:17 <BlueMatt> ...
1335 2012-09-09 23:07:24 <BlueMatt> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1577
1336 2012-09-09 23:07:49 egecko has joined
1337 2012-09-09 23:07:52 <gmaxwell> oh dear, I'd forgotten all about that because the pull request was closed.
1338 2012-09-09 23:07:56 <BlueMatt> agreed that pull is broken, but we never checkpointed the bip30-invalid blocks and enforced bip30 on everything
1339 2012-09-09 23:08:23 <BlueMatt> ie, the bip30 stuff is still broken
1340 2012-09-09 23:08:23 <gmaxwell> no no you're right. Whatever drugs you're on, I need some, they obviously improve memory.
1341 2012-09-09 23:08:28 <Luke-Jr> lol
1342 2012-09-09 23:08:48 * sipa gives gmaxwell some RAM pills
1343 2012-09-09 23:08:54 <Luke-Jr> the bitcoind BIP30 impl also forbids duplicate txids among non-coinbase too, which is a bug, but irrelevant
1344 2012-09-09 23:08:57 <edcba> Luke-Jr: yeah it would have been 10 btw i'd just take the risk
1345 2012-09-09 23:09:04 <edcba> i wouldn't really bother
1346 2012-09-09 23:09:16 <sipa> Luke-Jr: that was most certainly deliberate
1347 2012-09-09 23:09:31 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: clearly not, I had forgotten until now
1348 2012-09-09 23:10:14 <gmaxwell> The thing bluematt is talking about is that the bip30 enforcement only takes place at some height.. so an IBDing node could be fed a roconner attack prior to that point and get stuck.
1349 2012-09-09 23:10:15 <Luke-Jr> sipa: afaik it was deliberately defined to *not* include non-coinbase txns in the BIP due to pruning concerns
1350 2012-09-09 23:10:30 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: yes, I see that point
1351 2012-09-09 23:10:30 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: it only checks against unspent txn for that reason
1352 2012-09-09 23:10:58 <sipa> Luke-Jr: no, BIP30 explicitly allows duplicate txids, if the previous one was already fully spent before the block it occurs in
1353 2012-09-09 23:11:08 <sipa> Luke-Jr: and that is how it's implemented
1354 2012-09-09 23:11:20 <Luke-Jr> hm, I must have confused it somehow
1355 2012-09-09 23:11:21 <sipa> (and the reason for that is indeed, to not prevent pruning)
1356 2012-09-09 23:11:52 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: you probably just want to pull a modified version of b2667bc86ed7de7aed784ea19c9fcaebaf169179 and 9fa85b81501d131273cc8da7a4775d109f775986
1357 2012-09-09 23:12:30 <sipa> anyway, just adding the BIP30-violating blocks as checkpoint, and enabling the BIP30 check on every non-checkpointed block sounds good to me
1358 2012-09-09 23:13:07 <BlueMatt> (which is what those 2 commits are ;) )
1359 2012-09-09 23:13:24 <Luke-Jr> did BIP 30 specify "starting at X height"? and need updating to reflect this?
1360 2012-09-09 23:13:52 <BlueMatt> it did, but it doesnt need updating
1361 2012-09-09 23:14:10 <BlueMatt> the effect of the code would be the same
1362 2012-09-09 23:14:10 <Luke-Jr> if the spec is changing, it needs to be updatedâ¦
1363 2012-09-09 23:14:37 <sipa> well, the checkpoints prevent any state in which BIP30 becomes violated by enabling the check in any place before the starting height
1364 2012-09-09 23:15:02 <gmaxwell> instead of enforcing bip30 only on non-checkpointed blocks, why not just code in the two exceptions.
1365 2012-09-09 23:15:17 <gmaxwell> Seems simpler... and reduces cause for checkpoint paranoia.
1366 2012-09-09 23:15:18 <Luke-Jr> in fact, it might really deserve a new errata BIP or something, to track vulnerability to that condition
1367 2012-09-09 23:15:38 ZephyrVoid has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1368 2012-09-09 23:15:46 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: I don't think it's BIP material any more than most of our other non-protocol changing dos fixes.
1369 2012-09-09 23:16:00 <gmaxwell> The blocks in the past are done and can't be changed.
1370 2012-09-09 23:16:06 <sipa> it's an implementation issue how we deal with the historic chain
1371 2012-09-09 23:16:07 <Luke-Jr> hmm, true
1372 2012-09-09 23:16:18 <Luke-Jr> but that implementation was specified in the BIP :/
1373 2012-09-09 23:16:26 <sipa> we're not changing it in a way that can cause incompatibilities
1374 2012-09-09 23:16:46 <sipa> Luke-Jr: the BIP specifies how tx-overwriting must be dealt with before the starting height, and that doesn't change
1375 2012-09-09 23:16:48 <gmaxwell> right.
1376 2012-09-09 23:16:52 <gmaxwell> so I think it should do this
1377 2012-09-09 23:16:52 <gmaxwell> if (pindex->nTime > 1331769600)
1378 2012-09-09 23:17:15 <gmaxwell> turns into a !==hash && !==hash check
1379 2012-09-09 23:17:27 <Luke-Jr> "This rule is to be applied to all blocks whose timestamp is after a point in time that is yet to be decided."
1380 2012-09-09 23:17:33 <Luke-Jr> ^ definitely needs updating regardless
1381 2012-09-09 23:17:38 <sipa> agree
1382 2012-09-09 23:17:45 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: yeam and should be updated to say 'except blocks X and Y'
1383 2012-09-09 23:18:03 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1384 2012-09-09 23:18:28 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1385 2012-09-09 23:18:31 <gmaxwell> I'll submit a pull for that if no one else is working on it.
1386 2012-09-09 23:21:50 <sipa> i'm not
1387 2012-09-09 23:22:30 Gladamas has joined
1388 2012-09-09 23:22:40 Gladamas has quit (Client Quit)
1389 2012-09-09 23:22:54 RainbowDashh has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1390 2012-09-09 23:23:40 RainbowDashh has joined
1391 2012-09-09 23:24:04 <gmaxwell> (I'm finding the relevant blocks by just letting it fail...)
1392 2012-09-09 23:25:18 <BlueMatt> there are 4: 91722, 91812, 91842, 91880
1393 2012-09-09 23:25:42 <BlueMatt> actually there are 2, those four include the ones which create the first tx
1394 2012-09-09 23:29:00 ZephyrVoid has joined
1395 2012-09-09 23:33:55 topace has joined
1396 2012-09-09 23:34:47 root2 has joined
1397 2012-09-09 23:36:31 rdponticelli has joined
1398 2012-09-09 23:38:39 <Luke-Jr> InvalidChainFound: invalid block=0000000000000307872e height=197438 work=463673661699243878724 date=09/06/12 00:27:23
1399 2012-09-09 23:38:40 <Luke-Jr> InvalidChainFound: invalid block=00000000000003414be0 height=197701 work=466576439547212368580 date=09/07/12 13:56:05
1400 2012-09-09 23:38:42 <Luke-Jr> InvalidChainFound: invalid block=00000000000006071798 height=197705 work=466622723644858841628 date=09/07/12 14:23:01
1401 2012-09-09 23:38:43 <Luke-Jr> InvalidChainFound: invalid block=000000000000011e6d02 height=197883 work=468682365990126892264 date=09/08/12 19:00:02
1402 2012-09-09 23:39:15 <sipa> found out why, yes?
1403 2012-09-09 23:39:17 <sipa> yet?
1404 2012-09-09 23:42:14 <Luke-Jr> sipa: yes, the coinbase pays too much
1405 2012-09-09 23:42:21 <Luke-Jr> but now I have a timeframe to diff
1406 2012-09-09 23:42:39 <Luke-Jr> also, bitcoind didn't change during that window, so I'd say the likelihood of it being an upstream info problem is small
1407 2012-09-09 23:43:05 <Luke-Jr> (my bitcoind, I mean)
1408 2012-09-09 23:43:21 <sipa> gmaxwell: actually, you can even exclude just based on txid
1409 2012-09-09 23:44:08 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1410 2012-09-09 23:44:50 <Luke-Jr> sipa: that's not safe until height-in-coinbase is permanent
1411 2012-09-09 23:45:12 <sipa> uh, right
1412 2012-09-09 23:46:00 <gmaxwell> well, this is what I have now:
1413 2012-09-09 23:46:01 <gmaxwell> bool fEnforceBIP30 = !((pindex->nHeight==91842 && pindex->GetBlockHash() == uint256("0x00000000000a4d0a398161ffc163c503763b1f4360639393e0e4c8e300e0caec")) ||
1414 2012-09-09 23:46:04 <gmaxwell> (pindex->nHeight==91880 && pindex->GetBlockHash() == uint256("0x00000000000743f190a18c5577a3c2d2a1f610ae9601ac046a38084ccb7cd721")));
1415 2012-09-09 23:46:35 <gmaxwell> the reason I have the height checks in is get to avoid the bignum comparison in most cases, but I think it's safe.
1416 2012-09-09 23:47:02 <sipa> the hash check entails the height check, as long as double-SHA256 isn't broken
1417 2012-09-09 23:47:13 <sipa> so that should be safe
1418 2012-09-09 23:49:44 <Luke-Jr> hmm, based on the timing, I'm not so sure anymore :x
1419 2012-09-09 23:49:52 <Luke-Jr> I haven't changed Eloipool since 09/01
1420 2012-09-09 23:50:10 <Luke-Jr> which could mean it's something to do with some txn/circumstance
1421 2012-09-09 23:50:12 Gladamas has joined
1422 2012-09-09 23:50:49 CodeInChaos has joined
1423 2012-09-09 23:52:44 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1424 2012-09-09 23:55:06 <jrmithdobbs> ok, so, i've verified that my changes are enough to get things working correctly on freebsd with the makefile.unix
1425 2012-09-09 23:55:12 <jrmithdobbs> double checking now that it doesn't break linux
1426 2012-09-09 23:55:16 t7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1427 2012-09-09 23:55:19 <jrmithdobbs> and osx
1428 2012-09-09 23:55:31 <jrmithdobbs> actually no, not osx because i don't want to build boost again, ha
1429 2012-09-09 23:55:45 <jrmithdobbs> (today, anyways)
1430 2012-09-09 23:57:32 <jrmithdobbs> there's something weird, and pretty core, that's breaking those coin selection tests on openbsd and i'm going to have to look into it