1 2012-10-11 00:00:04 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2 2012-10-11 00:00:23 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3 2012-10-11 00:03:36 lggr has joined
4 2012-10-11 00:03:59 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
5 2012-10-11 00:04:58 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
6 2012-10-11 00:07:00 Diablo-D3 has joined
7 2012-10-11 00:10:43 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
8 2012-10-11 00:13:08 arij has joined
9 2012-10-11 00:13:31 arij is now known as Guest39342
10 2012-10-11 00:14:05 lggr has joined
11 2012-10-11 00:14:43 Guest39342 has quit (Changing host)
12 2012-10-11 00:14:43 Guest39342 has joined
13 2012-10-11 00:14:48 Guest39342 is now known as arij
14 2012-10-11 00:15:17 roconnor has joined
15 2012-10-11 00:20:31 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
16 2012-10-11 00:23:17 lggr has joined
17 2012-10-11 00:24:12 Ferroh has joined
18 2012-10-11 00:24:53 one_zero has joined
19 2012-10-11 00:27:05 balrog has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
20 2012-10-11 00:29:28 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
21 2012-10-11 00:33:18 <gavinandresen> sipa: my linux-qt kvm build does not match my lxc build: see https://gist.github.com/3869370
22 2012-10-11 00:33:18 gfinn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
23 2012-10-11 00:33:20 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
24 2012-10-11 00:33:20 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
25 2012-10-11 00:33:36 lggr has joined
26 2012-10-11 00:33:44 balrog has joined
27 2012-10-11 00:35:32 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
28 2012-10-11 00:35:33 paraipan has joined
29 2012-10-11 00:35:47 rdponticelli has joined
30 2012-10-11 00:40:21 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
31 2012-10-11 00:42:44 lggr has joined
32 2012-10-11 00:44:52 gfinn has joined
33 2012-10-11 00:46:42 D34TH has quit (Quit: Leaving)
34 2012-10-11 00:49:52 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
35 2012-10-11 00:49:54 andrew_wmf has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
36 2012-10-11 00:50:11 andrew_wmf has joined
37 2012-10-11 00:50:33 slush1 has joined
38 2012-10-11 00:50:35 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
39 2012-10-11 00:53:16 lggr has joined
40 2012-10-11 00:54:48 EPiSKiNG- has joined
41 2012-10-11 00:55:46 Joric has quit ()
42 2012-10-11 00:59:23 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
43 2012-10-11 01:02:31 lggr has joined
44 2012-10-11 01:08:49 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
45 2012-10-11 01:11:47 lggr has joined
46 2012-10-11 01:15:17 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
47 2012-10-11 01:16:59 <devrandom> Luke-Jr: ok
48 2012-10-11 01:18:35 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
49 2012-10-11 01:21:18 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
50 2012-10-11 01:21:48 lggr has joined
51 2012-10-11 01:22:37 eoss has joined
52 2012-10-11 01:27:53 Eslbaer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
53 2012-10-11 01:28:24 yellowhat1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
54 2012-10-11 01:28:31 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
55 2012-10-11 01:28:39 toffoo_ has joined
56 2012-10-11 01:28:58 Z0rZ0rZ0r has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
57 2012-10-11 01:31:58 lggr has joined
58 2012-10-11 01:35:50 tower has quit (Disconnected by services)
59 2012-10-11 01:36:02 tower has joined
60 2012-10-11 01:37:17 toffoo_ is now known as toffoo
61 2012-10-11 01:37:56 * jgarzik wonders what is everybody's favorite "requires M-of-N to decrypt" technology?
62 2012-10-11 01:37:59 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
63 2012-10-11 01:41:11 lggr has joined
64 2012-10-11 01:41:51 forsetifox has quit (Quit: Page closed)
65 2012-10-11 01:45:56 quijibo has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
66 2012-10-11 01:48:50 <amiller> jgarzik, tahoe-lafs ftw
67 2012-10-11 01:48:56 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
68 2012-10-11 01:50:22 <slush1> Luke-Jr: honestly, instead of spreading some bullshits about stratum like in https://github.com/luke-jr/bfgminer/blob/stratum/README , you should not include stratum to bfgminer at all.
69 2012-10-11 01:50:28 <slush1> "Stratum is a protocol designed to reduce resources for mining pools at thecost of keeping the miner in the dark and blindly transferring his miningauthority to the pool" - - what the hell is this
70 2012-10-11 01:51:23 lggr has joined
71 2012-10-11 01:52:31 quijibo has joined
72 2012-10-11 01:57:09 maaku has joined
73 2012-10-11 01:57:34 djoot has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
74 2012-10-11 01:57:43 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
75 2012-10-11 01:57:48 KIDC has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
76 2012-10-11 01:58:24 djoot has joined
77 2012-10-11 01:59:25 djoot has quit (Changing host)
78 2012-10-11 01:59:25 djoot has joined
79 2012-10-11 02:00:35 lggr has joined
80 2012-10-11 02:07:43 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
81 2012-10-11 02:09:07 <Luke-Jr> slush1: the truth
82 2012-10-11 02:10:17 <slush1> Luke-Jr: as I said many times, I'm quite tired with your holy war. Let's do your GBT, I have NO problem with it. Just please stop spreading FUD about other alternatives.
83 2012-10-11 02:10:45 lggr has joined
84 2012-10-11 02:12:56 sgravina has joined
85 2012-10-11 02:16:34 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
86 2012-10-11 02:17:08 forsetifox has joined
87 2012-10-11 02:19:46 lggr has joined
88 2012-10-11 02:23:14 quijibo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
89 2012-10-11 02:26:31 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
90 2012-10-11 02:27:51 <gmaxwell> slush1: Luke's position is a bit overstated, but relative to using GMP other mining protocols are rather opaque and don't provide the same degree of informed consent. (though they save bandwidth!)
91 2012-10-11 02:28:17 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
92 2012-10-11 02:29:02 <slush1> gmaxwell: his one-sided view is exactly what is irritating me
93 2012-10-11 02:29:11 <gmaxwell> Development time sure isn't free, but it would be nice if pools offered bothâ and people in the community can work on conving miners that they should be sanity checking the work being issued to them.
94 2012-10-11 02:29:20 skeledrew has joined
95 2012-10-11 02:29:53 <gmaxwell> slush1: Luke tends to take extreme positions in arguments; sometimes he successfully 'moves the middle' in his direction, other times it makes everyone want to die. :(
96 2012-10-11 02:29:54 lggr has joined
97 2012-10-11 02:30:43 <slush1> gmaxwell: nobody gave me a real argument why is not possible to "sanity check" blocks produced by pool, instead of bloating mining protocol
98 2012-10-11 02:31:26 <slush1> there's really not more information then can be found in block explorer hour later
99 2012-10-11 02:31:30 <gmaxwell> slush1: Because the non-GMP protocols don't allow much in the way of sanity checking except prevout reversion (e.g. cutting back the chain to mine a fork)
100 2012-10-11 02:31:54 <slush1> that's not true
101 2012-10-11 02:31:59 <gmaxwell> an hour later is after the fact and can't reasonably be used to retarget miners to other pools; and some large pools hide their blocks.
102 2012-10-11 02:31:59 <slush1> coinbase is visible in stratum
103 2012-10-11 02:32:09 <gmaxwell> slush1: the coinbase but not the transactions.
104 2012-10-11 02:32:29 <gmaxwell> Checking the coinbase doesn't do much unless you do coinbase epayments.
105 2012-10-11 02:32:31 <slush1> how can pool mine fork when coinbase is visible in mining jobs?
106 2012-10-11 02:33:11 <slush1> I still don't see any possible, "useful" and real attack vector by hiding transaction hashes from miners
107 2012-10-11 02:33:16 <gmaxwell> local work generation was a good oppturnity to get more miners and pools using a more transparent mining protocol as a side effect... and luke is rightly frustrated that the hopes there are frustrated by stratum.
108 2012-10-11 02:33:34 <gmaxwell> slush1: er. ... What the heck does seeing the coinbase have to do with mining a fork.
109 2012-10-11 02:33:47 <slush1> gmaxwell: hm, blockheight in coinbase?
110 2012-10-11 02:34:09 <slush1> well, it is still not enforced now, but it will be most likely in few months
111 2012-10-11 02:34:15 <gmaxwell> slush1: you don't need to see the blockhight for that, you can track the prevhash. BFGminer does this already in fact.
112 2012-10-11 02:34:31 <slush1> that's another argument, yes
113 2012-10-11 02:34:44 <slush1> please, I'm asking for real, what attack vector is possible?
114 2012-10-11 02:34:56 <slush1> Except delaying transaction processing, maybe
115 2012-10-11 02:35:28 <slush1> fact that pool is mining fork is already visible in all existing protocols
116 2012-10-11 02:35:33 <gmaxwell> slush1: Oh simple, people can continue to mining at height X while the network is on height X+n in order to mine blocks that reverse the main networks transactions.
117 2012-10-11 02:35:54 graham1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
118 2012-10-11 02:36:12 <gmaxwell> You can also mine a bound to losing fork at any height without cutting back.
119 2012-10-11 02:36:14 <slush1> ok, but how visibility of transactions in job definition help this?
120 2012-10-11 02:36:23 sgravina has quit (Quit: sgravina)
121 2012-10-11 02:36:51 <slush1> the *real* difference between gbt and stratum is that stratum provide only merkle branch, not full transaction list
122 2012-10-11 02:36:52 <gmaxwell> Say I'm McCracker and I've linnode and managed to seize a big pool there completely, as well as network isolate mtgox.
123 2012-10-11 02:36:58 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
124 2012-10-11 02:37:07 <slush1> gmaxwell: ok. how gbt help in this?
125 2012-10-11 02:37:11 <slush1> if pool is compromised?
126 2012-10-11 02:37:15 <gmaxwell> I'll explain.
127 2012-10-11 02:38:23 <gmaxwell> I can then make that pool mine 6 blocks of conflicted transactions to make a bogus fork to get mtgox to accept my funds.. etc. okay. So what GBT allows here is for the miner to consult independant sources of the current network state (local bitcoind, random bitcoin peers, other pools they mine with in parallel) to find out if the work they're given is conflicted by the view of the rest of the network.
128 2012-10-11 02:38:46 <gmaxwell> Then they could switch their mining to some other place (another pool, solo, etc) until it clears up.
129 2012-10-11 02:39:07 <slush1> gmaxwell: isn't comparing prevhash and block height enough?
130 2012-10-11 02:39:11 <gmaxwell> And Luke is actually implementing features like this, so it's not just pure theory masterbation.
131 2012-10-11 02:39:20 <slush1> how can pool mine "secret" blocks with correct prevhash?
132 2012-10-11 02:39:58 <slush1> 6 block of conflicted transactions means that prevhas in current mining job is different than last prevhash in every other source
133 2012-10-11 02:40:00 <gmaxwell> slush1: no, because you don't have to cut back. E.g. you are mining normally, and then instead of following the network you branch off on a fork. This happens naturally sometimes, and it's not a sign of misconduct.
134 2012-10-11 02:40:02 lggr has joined
135 2012-10-11 02:40:35 <gmaxwell> Its only a sign of misconduct when its reversing transactions in other forks (esp if they're longer)
136 2012-10-11 02:40:40 <slush1> that's normal orphan block, I know
137 2012-10-11 02:41:10 <slush1> s/I know/I think/
138 2012-10-11 02:41:16 <gmaxwell> Right.
139 2012-10-11 02:42:04 <gmaxwell> And sometimes orphan races can be several blocks long. We've had four deep, though that was weird and due to a difference in enforced rules (P2SH). I think the larges totally normal one I've seen is 2. (maybe 3? I don't recall)
140 2012-10-11 02:42:28 <slush1> ok, I need to re-read this again
141 2012-10-11 02:43:22 <MC1984> wobulation is a word
142 2012-10-11 02:43:57 <gmaxwell> Nowâ GBT isn't a magic bullet; without matching detection software, and using it ... it only makes it easier to collect data after the fact. E.g. if a pool issues some weird work that never make it into a block you can't do that block explorer after the fact check of what was going on.. but GBT with logging would make it possible.
143 2012-10-11 02:44:08 <gmaxwell> But thats a narrower improvement.
144 2012-10-11 02:44:10 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
145 2012-10-11 02:44:17 <slush1> " if the work they're given is conflicted by the view of the rest of the network." - I don't know about specific algorithm, but you're generally saying that miner need complete list of hashes to do this, correct?
146 2012-10-11 02:45:20 <slush1> well, "mining on the block that never make it into a block" is another story, but it is not an attack, right?
147 2012-10-11 02:46:15 <gmaxwell> slush1: they need the hashes (and connecting fragments) for any transactions they're going to check. This might not be all of them. But sure, to completely check you need all (up to about 4000 maximum). But for example, I could see miners actually only checking that transactions they're personally interested in are included and switching pools based on which ones are including their own txns.
148 2012-10-11 02:46:48 <slush1> yes, it is *possible*, of course
149 2012-10-11 02:46:52 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
150 2012-10-11 02:46:54 <slush1> but it is not a prevention for attack
151 2012-10-11 02:46:56 <gmaxwell> slush1: It could be an attempted attack. For example. If a pool is hopping a proportional pool as a proxy it would throw out a wad of the other pools work right when that pool began a round and stop.
152 2012-10-11 02:47:09 <gmaxwell> (thats wrt not a successful block)
153 2012-10-11 02:47:30 <gmaxwell> I think thats an attack but it only rarely produces blocks.. finny attacks can also only rarely produce blocks.
154 2012-10-11 02:48:09 fiesh has joined
155 2012-10-11 02:48:19 <gmaxwell> E.g. you attempt to reverse a transaction for just a brief timeâ in the window of it being accepted by a vendor and the network extending the vendors payment twice (when you probably won't get longer anymore)
156 2012-10-11 02:48:56 <gmaxwell> so this is something that could go on for months an only rarely be successful; it would be much more obvious from auditing GBT data.
157 2012-10-11 02:49:25 <slush1> i probably don't get it. maybe I'm stupid or tired. or both
158 2012-10-11 02:49:30 <gmaxwell> Though I admit I'm getting into a corner case there.. The normal "whats in this block, and is it reversing transactions which I think belong in the chain" is the more important thing.
159 2012-10-11 02:49:47 <gmaxwell> slush1: We can talk tomorrow if you like. This stuff is subtle in any case.
160 2012-10-11 02:50:32 <slush1> let me sumarize what you said, I need something to think about:
161 2012-10-11 02:50:32 lggr has joined
162 2012-10-11 02:50:55 roconnor has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
163 2012-10-11 02:52:43 <slush1> a) some of corner cases will rarely be mined, because of some condition. Well, if the attack is based on coinbase, prevhash or whatever, it is still visible. If it is based on transaction list (which is hidden in stratum), then miners will see these broadcasted, but failed blocks as orphans in the network, so they can check that this block has been produced, but it is invalid in some way.
164 2012-10-11 02:53:27 <slush1> b) there are some standard cases where pool can produce fork and revert transactions, but it is based on prevhash, which is visible in source data
165 2012-10-11 02:53:51 <slush1> where I did mistake?
166 2012-10-11 02:54:15 meLon has joined
167 2012-10-11 02:55:18 <slush1> I'm pragmatic man and I need real example, where miners need to see transaction list NOW while mining, otherwise it will destroy bitcoin network.
168 2012-10-11 02:55:23 <gmaxwell> Couple points: Orphans don't propagate. Nodes only forward their best block. The only time a node hears an orphan is when its peers thought it best. and thats even assuming that you send them to the network at all: if you're going after mtgox or whatever you'll only give them to them.
169 2012-10-11 02:56:11 <gmaxwell> And the attack is over, and the coins are all stolen before people see them after the fact. Especially since if it wasn't their node that found the block there is no reason they have to be able to reconize it.
170 2012-10-11 02:56:26 <slush1> gmaxwell: why not implement notification feature to miners that they'll report block parameters which meet target difficulty?
171 2012-10-11 02:56:38 <slush1> then every miner, but not propagated block will be visible
172 2012-10-11 02:56:44 <gmaxwell> E.g. you could have the coinbase paying a different pubkey for every miner. Good luck identifying a block you worked on, but someone else solved.
173 2012-10-11 02:56:45 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
174 2012-10-11 02:57:55 <gmaxwell> Thats been discussed for detecting pool op payout cheating. I don't see how, in this case, it would work: because you can't tell if someone is lying and saying they have slush work and it's really btcguild work.
175 2012-10-11 02:58:06 <gmaxwell> 19:42 < slush1> b) there are some standard cases where pool can produce fork and revert transactions, but it is based on prevhash, which is visible in
176 2012-10-11 02:58:07 <slush1> there are up to 10 miners which keeps 99% of mining stuff. If people are so concerned about not propagated blocks (blocks kept by pool, which is waiting to some block with special parameters), this is quite easy to achieve even without native support in mining protocol
177 2012-10-11 02:58:46 <gmaxwell> No you don't have to do anything weird with prevhash to make a fork, you have to do weird things with prevhash to cut back on the chain.. But if the fork starts _now_ it looks like a normal block race.
178 2012-10-11 02:59:01 optimator has joined
179 2012-10-11 02:59:51 <gmaxwell> slush1: the attacker who has compromised the pool is just redirecting the work to their own poolserver daemon which is only feeding the isolated victim nodes. There is no way to make those blocks visible except if the miners demand them from the pool.
180 2012-10-11 03:00:00 lggr has joined
181 2012-10-11 03:00:05 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
182 2012-10-11 03:01:16 <slush1> as well as miners are going to check their transactions against some external (not provided by the pool) interface, they can report to that external service that they found block candidate
183 2012-10-11 03:01:26 <slush1> well, we're talking about really corner cases.
184 2012-10-11 03:02:28 <gmaxwell> This doesn't help them _stop_ attacking. Hours later we might have enough data to know your pool was compromised and used to rip off hundreds of merchants. But then the attacks are done, you're out of business but the damage is done â to the merchants and to bitcoin's reputation.
185 2012-10-11 03:02:37 <slush1> afaik no merchant should rely on single block confirmation, so most of these corner cases won't work in real world, unless more pools will be hijacked in same time
186 2012-10-11 03:02:49 <gmaxwell> Except they do.
187 2012-10-11 03:03:17 <slush1> well, we should compute the cost of such prevention and potential damage
188 2012-10-11 03:03:19 <gmaxwell> And you can do more than single block confirmations if the attacker can isolate the merchant, via exploiting their network or using a botnet to run a zillion sybil nodes.
189 2012-10-11 03:03:30 <slush1> there's still a chance that earth will be destroyed tomorrow
190 2012-10-11 03:03:51 <gmaxwell> slush1: I think an interesting point is that you don't have to have all miners doing this stuff to get a degree of protection.
191 2012-10-11 03:04:20 <slush1> I'm sure some miners will be using GBT. For example these on p2pool :)
192 2012-10-11 03:04:23 <gmaxwell> E.g. some random couple percent doing it become watchdogs. enabling responses that might cut the attack short enough to mitigate the damage.
193 2012-10-11 03:04:39 <gmaxwell> slush1: sure, but that doesn't help when the crackers get your pool.
194 2012-10-11 03:04:43 <slush1> I know
195 2012-10-11 03:04:57 <slush1> because I really don't think there's *real* risk in all cases you mention
196 2012-10-11 03:05:01 <gmaxwell> It would need to be some miners on every large pool to have a protective effect.
197 2012-10-11 03:05:28 <gmaxwell> slush1: fine, let me control the transaction set for your pool for a week. I will sucessfully, with consense, rob a site.
198 2012-10-11 03:05:34 <gmaxwell> er, consent.
199 2012-10-11 03:06:01 <gmaxwell> hm. need to figure out how to do that without causing you orphans.
200 2012-10-11 03:06:04 <slush1> this is interesting. Can you describe for me how?
201 2012-10-11 03:06:08 <gmaxwell> (an attacker doesn't care)
202 2012-10-11 03:06:09 <slush1> hehe
203 2012-10-11 03:06:25 tower has joined
204 2012-10-11 03:06:33 <slush1> an attacker doesn't care, but I have quite sophisticated monitoring
205 2012-10-11 03:06:45 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
206 2012-10-11 03:06:48 <slush1> and users definitely care!
207 2012-10-11 03:06:48 <gmaxwell> slush1: I'd just do 1 confirm reversals on sites that accept 1 confirm transactions, there are a bunch of them.
208 2012-10-11 03:06:59 <slush1> they will see lot of orphans or very long round
209 2012-10-11 03:07:05 <slush1> (as orphans will be filtered out)
210 2012-10-11 03:07:11 <gmaxwell> right I'm just pointing out that if it were a test it would need to be without orphans but an attacker isn't so constrained.
211 2012-10-11 03:07:33 <slush1> honestly, accepting 1 confirmation transactions is not recommended, it is mentioned on many places.
212 2012-10-11 03:07:40 <gmaxwell> and yea, perhaps it'll trip your monitoring; but thats like assuming you can't be hacked: it might be true, but we shouldn't have the system's security depend at all on your security.
213 2012-10-11 03:08:14 <slush1> I think *now* we're talking about real things. It is really no easy to "hijack the pool" unless operator or users are completely blind
214 2012-10-11 03:08:27 <gmaxwell> slush1: TD goes around recommending it ::shrugs:: I agree but people do it. of course, if I get you and btcguld and deepbit I have a majority and can fork without falling behind.
215 2012-10-11 03:09:09 optimator_ has joined
216 2012-10-11 03:09:25 AlexWaters has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
217 2012-10-11 03:09:25 <gmaxwell> Keep in mind that the bitcoin economy is many millions of dollars now. 'easy' is relative. The major complication is that attacks that steal bitcoins destroy those bitcoin's value.
218 2012-10-11 03:09:48 AlexWaters has joined
219 2012-10-11 03:09:49 lggr has joined
220 2012-10-11 03:10:03 <slush1> I understand that and I'm taking poolop job very seriously.
221 2012-10-11 03:10:11 <gmaxwell> But this consolidation does make it harder to reason about bitcoin's security: bitcoin is secure if single attackers don't control lots of hashpower (the attacks are very powerful if they have a super majority)
222 2012-10-11 03:10:34 <gmaxwell> Well can the attacker get a super majority? Well. He can if he wants to hold three people at gunpoint.
223 2012-10-11 03:11:04 <gmaxwell> And I believe you take it seriously, or we wouldn't be having this conversation? Is that universally true? will it be true a year from now?
224 2012-10-11 03:11:16 <gmaxwell> (I mean not youâ but some other pool a year from now?)
225 2012-10-11 03:11:20 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
226 2012-10-11 03:12:40 <gmaxwell> ;;ticker
227 2012-10-11 03:12:41 <gribble> Best bid: 12.00467, Best ask: 12.07999, Bid-ask spread: 0.07532, Last trade: 12.05001, 24 hour volume: 25377, 24 hour low: 11.80686, 24 hour high: 12.19
228 2012-10-11 03:12:44 <gmaxwell> ;;bc,blocks
229 2012-10-11 03:12:45 <gribble> 202755
230 2012-10-11 03:13:25 <Graet> i think it would be as easy for an attacker to hold devs at gunpoint as it would pool operators in different countries - is this a really valid or an extreme corner case?
231 2012-10-11 03:13:39 <gmaxwell> Blowing up a 121 million dollar system by taking four computer geeks at gunpoint sounds pretty vulnerable, even though I agree that it's a little bit of a movie-plot threat. :P
232 2012-10-11 03:13:47 <gmaxwell> s/four/three or for/
233 2012-10-11 03:14:05 <gmaxwell> Graet: holding the devs at gunpoint doesn't do much, unless you can do it for weeks.
234 2012-10-11 03:14:24 <slush1> gmaxwell: can we calculate real cost of such attack?
235 2012-10-11 03:14:27 <gmaxwell> Graet: and we've discussed this and intentionally avoided creating a situation where it would do anything: we don't want to be held at gunpoint!
236 2012-10-11 03:14:28 quijibo has joined
237 2012-10-11 03:14:30 <slush1> I mean - gun attack to pool op?
238 2012-10-11 03:14:31 <Graet> but about as likely (outside of cinema)
239 2012-10-11 03:14:44 <MC1984> im slightly asspained youre all in the same juristiction
240 2012-10-11 03:14:44 <slush1> How quick bitcoin network repair from it? I think pretty quickly
241 2012-10-11 03:15:26 <Graet> for my pool you would need to locate at least 5 people some in au, some in us some in eu
242 2012-10-11 03:15:35 <gmaxwell> slush1: these attacks don't cause anything to 'repair' technically, I mean the network is perfectly happy to reorg and erase a ton of transactions and blow away peoples wallets and leave vendors bankrupt. It wouldn't blink an eye.
243 2012-10-11 03:15:36 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
244 2012-10-11 03:15:55 <slush1> even if there'll be an attack and me, Graet, Eleuthria and Tycho will be dead, it will take few hours to people realize that something is wrong
245 2012-10-11 03:16:03 <gmaxwell> But _trust_ in the network that did that? that might be irreparable.
246 2012-10-11 03:16:48 <gmaxwell> slush1: but if doing crazy things with pools make miners _turn off_ or switch to non crazy pools then the attack is less likely to happen in the first place.
247 2012-10-11 03:16:56 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
248 2012-10-11 03:16:57 <slush1> actually ponzi schemes like pirateat40 are much bigger threat to the bitcoin project
249 2012-10-11 03:17:11 <slush1> but well - there's no cryptographical defense, so let's ignore it :)
250 2012-10-11 03:17:23 rdponticelli has joined
251 2012-10-11 03:17:28 <gmaxwell> slush1: All threats are threats. But that there is some other oneâ which I fought against to the extent I was able!â doesn't excuse ignoring other ones.
252 2012-10-11 03:18:29 <gmaxwell> and I'm less sure of the overall risk of pirateat40: the victims mostly blame themselves, and as wrong as that is, it diverts the negative attention from bitcoin itself somewhat.
253 2012-10-11 03:18:58 <gmaxwell> Plus those things happen outside of bitcoin: it's likely pirateat40 was just another front for a much larger non-bitcoin ponzi scheme that got shut down at the same time.
254 2012-10-11 03:18:59 quijibo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
255 2012-10-11 03:19:03 <slush1> well, I think that I get your point now. But I'm still not convinced that the difference in "sanity checks" between GBT and Stratum is so big that it excuse higher running cost of GBT
256 2012-10-11 03:19:07 <gmaxwell> While these technical attacks are 'unique' to bitcoin.
257 2012-10-11 03:19:44 wizkid057 has quit (Quit: brb!)
258 2012-10-11 03:20:06 <gmaxwell> slush1: Well I think thats the core of the debate really. Luke has already invested significant time eating development costs for GBT... so the only question left there is bandwidth... which can be mitigated greatly through client side rolling.
259 2012-10-11 03:20:07 <slush1> that "business" of pirateat40 affected all of us, at least because price bumping heavily between 15$-8$
260 2012-10-11 03:20:12 lggr has joined
261 2012-10-11 03:20:48 <slush1> that's also about trust - "well, you see, that crypto stuff is volatile as hell, don't put money into it!"
262 2012-10-11 03:21:48 <gmaxwell> slush1: it's not clear to me what role he had in the exchange rate fluctuations. (people were arguing for months that he was creating stability!) And we have had significant volitility absent him in any case. ::shrugs:: I don't intend to argue this though, I agree he was bad.
263 2012-10-11 03:22:06 <gmaxwell> But right now when someone looks at bitcoin they can askâ ignoring the speculative economicsâ is it technically sound.
264 2012-10-11 03:22:27 dvide has quit ()
265 2012-10-11 03:22:31 <slush1> same people who give him hundreds of thousands bitcoins? :)
266 2012-10-11 03:22:54 <gmaxwell> And the answer to this is that bitcoin is based on a byzantine consensus algorithim which provides security so long as attackers can't locally overpower the network. And the consolidation of hashing power in pools makes it really hard to say we can be sure that an attacker can't.
267 2012-10-11 03:23:28 <gmaxwell> someone argued to me once, for example, that all major pools could be run by one person and we wouldn't know.
268 2012-10-11 03:23:40 quijibo has joined
269 2012-10-11 03:23:50 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
270 2012-10-11 03:23:53 <gmaxwell> I'd like to be able to point to totally distributed sanity checking in most of the contributing miners and say "this is why pools themselves _can't_ be a threat"
271 2012-10-11 03:24:12 <gmaxwell> slush1: no.. hah _not_ the same people.
272 2012-10-11 03:25:07 <gmaxwell> I'd also take a bet against him having 'hundreds of thousands of bitcoin' the figures people used on the forums came from _guessing_ which addresses were his based on activity time and then assuming all their activity was payouts and multiplying it by 14.
273 2012-10-11 03:25:23 wizkid057 has joined
274 2012-10-11 03:25:24 <gmaxwell> (but thats another aside)
275 2012-10-11 03:26:49 <gmaxwell> I've got to run. Good talking!
276 2012-10-11 03:27:10 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
277 2012-10-11 03:29:36 lggr has joined
278 2012-10-11 03:29:52 Impaler_ has joined
279 2012-10-11 03:33:44 Impaler has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
280 2012-10-11 03:34:11 <MC1984> That, and because of the bailiffs who have bought title to your other self's business debts. They are waiting for you in Jupiter system with warrants and headsuckers to extract your private keys."
281 2012-10-11 03:34:33 <MC1984> the future of bitcoin
282 2012-10-11 03:34:44 freakazoid has joined
283 2012-10-11 03:35:24 DerCoin has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
284 2012-10-11 03:35:54 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
285 2012-10-11 03:38:41 <slush1> gmaxwell: thanks for the talk, I was AFK and I have to go sleep now
286 2012-10-11 03:38:59 lggr has joined
287 2012-10-11 03:42:09 <slush1> although I don't think that pure technical attacks are somewhat real, the concern that pool ops can become a target of some attack to overtake the network *is* real.
288 2012-10-11 03:42:35 <slush1> I don't think that it is so much real and not now, because network is still pretty small.
289 2012-10-11 03:42:51 <slush1> But as far as there'll be few bilions $$$ in market cap...
290 2012-10-11 03:43:00 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
291 2012-10-11 03:43:04 <slush1> gn
292 2012-10-11 03:43:08 TheSeven has joined
293 2012-10-11 03:45:30 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
294 2012-10-11 03:48:22 lggr has joined
295 2012-10-11 03:54:52 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
296 2012-10-11 03:57:23 lggr has joined
297 2012-10-11 03:59:45 ThomasV_ has joined
298 2012-10-11 04:03:49 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
299 2012-10-11 04:06:09 CluckCreek has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
300 2012-10-11 04:07:14 lggr has joined
301 2012-10-11 04:07:35 JZavala has joined
302 2012-10-11 04:12:47 B0g4r7__ has joined
303 2012-10-11 04:13:34 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
304 2012-10-11 04:14:10 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
305 2012-10-11 04:14:52 Impaler has joined
306 2012-10-11 04:15:50 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
307 2012-10-11 04:15:51 B0g4r7__ is now known as B0g4r7
308 2012-10-11 04:16:15 lggr has joined
309 2012-10-11 04:18:52 Impaler_ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
310 2012-10-11 04:21:18 <Evilmax> c'è qualche italiano? mi contatti in pvt per favore
311 2012-10-11 04:23:11 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
312 2012-10-11 04:25:58 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
313 2012-10-11 04:26:25 lggr has joined
314 2012-10-11 04:26:34 Impaler has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
315 2012-10-11 04:28:52 skeledrew1 has joined
316 2012-10-11 04:30:08 wizkid057 has quit (Quit: reboot...)
317 2012-10-11 04:30:53 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
318 2012-10-11 04:33:02 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
319 2012-10-11 04:34:51 wizkid057 has joined
320 2012-10-11 04:35:15 lggr has joined
321 2012-10-11 04:37:26 juchmis has joined
322 2012-10-11 04:41:05 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
323 2012-10-11 04:42:11 juchmis has quit ()
324 2012-10-11 04:42:40 juchmis has joined
325 2012-10-11 04:43:58 arij has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
326 2012-10-11 04:44:17 lggr has joined
327 2012-10-11 04:50:14 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
328 2012-10-11 04:51:12 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
329 2012-10-11 04:54:18 lggr has joined
330 2012-10-11 05:01:03 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
331 2012-10-11 05:04:15 lggr has joined
332 2012-10-11 05:04:22 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
333 2012-10-11 05:08:27 Arnavion has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
334 2012-10-11 05:08:43 Arnavion has joined
335 2012-10-11 05:11:02 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
336 2012-10-11 05:13:58 lggr has joined
337 2012-10-11 05:17:21 egecko has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
338 2012-10-11 05:20:47 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
339 2012-10-11 05:23:55 lggr has joined
340 2012-10-11 05:24:04 meLon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
341 2012-10-11 05:26:12 egecko has joined
342 2012-10-11 05:26:24 meLon has joined
343 2012-10-11 05:26:24 meLon has quit (Changing host)
344 2012-10-11 05:26:24 meLon has joined
345 2012-10-11 05:30:32 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
346 2012-10-11 05:31:51 harkon has joined
347 2012-10-11 05:33:59 lggr has joined
348 2012-10-11 05:40:40 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
349 2012-10-11 05:43:50 lggr has joined
350 2012-10-11 05:50:13 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
351 2012-10-11 05:52:44 lggr has joined
352 2012-10-11 05:59:12 ThomasV_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
353 2012-10-11 05:59:42 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
354 2012-10-11 06:00:32 harkon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
355 2012-10-11 06:02:14 lggr has joined
356 2012-10-11 06:08:28 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
357 2012-10-11 06:09:05 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
358 2012-10-11 06:11:04 lggr has joined
359 2012-10-11 06:13:30 yellowhat has joined
360 2012-10-11 06:17:32 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
361 2012-10-11 06:20:42 lggr has joined
362 2012-10-11 06:20:50 vigilyn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
363 2012-10-11 06:21:46 EasyAt is now known as EasyAt|
364 2012-10-11 06:27:15 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
365 2012-10-11 06:30:30 lggr has joined
366 2012-10-11 06:33:47 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
367 2012-10-11 06:36:56 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
368 2012-10-11 06:39:09 lggr has joined
369 2012-10-11 06:39:42 ovidiusoft has joined
370 2012-10-11 06:40:55 root2_ has joined
371 2012-10-11 06:44:45 root2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
372 2012-10-11 06:45:01 davout has joined
373 2012-10-11 06:45:02 davout has quit (Changing host)
374 2012-10-11 06:45:02 davout has joined
375 2012-10-11 06:45:03 m00p has quit (Quit: Leaving)
376 2012-10-11 06:46:39 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
377 2012-10-11 06:48:36 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
378 2012-10-11 06:48:47 <jeremias> is there an easy way to get unpsent transactions related to certain bitcoin address
379 2012-10-11 06:48:54 <jeremias> with bitcoind
380 2012-10-11 06:48:58 lggr has joined
381 2012-10-11 06:53:12 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
382 2012-10-11 06:55:32 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
383 2012-10-11 06:57:52 lggr has joined
384 2012-10-11 06:59:03 CodesInChaos has joined
385 2012-10-11 07:03:25 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
386 2012-10-11 07:06:44 lggr has joined
387 2012-10-11 07:07:06 osxorgate has joined
388 2012-10-11 07:10:40 Eslbaer has joined
389 2012-10-11 07:13:27 arij has joined
390 2012-10-11 07:13:44 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
391 2012-10-11 07:13:50 arij is now known as Guest92039
392 2012-10-11 07:14:39 <sipa> jeremias: listunspent
393 2012-10-11 07:15:01 maaku has joined
394 2012-10-11 07:15:18 <jeremias> sipa: thanks, but how do I know which transactions belong to that particular address?
395 2012-10-11 07:15:29 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
396 2012-10-11 07:15:51 BlackPrapor has joined
397 2012-10-11 07:16:14 <jeremias> just iterate through all the unspent transactions, and check if the transaction is there?
398 2012-10-11 07:17:01 lggr has joined
399 2012-10-11 07:20:10 [Tycho] has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
400 2012-10-11 07:21:03 <jeremias> err address
401 2012-10-11 07:23:06 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
402 2012-10-11 07:26:03 lggr has joined
403 2012-10-11 07:28:06 AlexWaters has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
404 2012-10-11 07:28:45 galambo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
405 2012-10-11 07:29:33 Guest92039 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
406 2012-10-11 07:31:24 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
407 2012-10-11 07:31:36 Motest031 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
408 2012-10-11 07:32:05 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
409 2012-10-11 07:32:09 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
410 2012-10-11 07:35:01 lggr has joined
411 2012-10-11 07:35:42 finway has joined
412 2012-10-11 07:38:47 <finway> sipa, i remember you said ultraprune has some issue dealing with large scale of reorg ?
413 2012-10-11 07:41:26 <sipa> gmaxwell, slush1: i'm not sure stratum and electrum should serve the same purpose
414 2012-10-11 07:41:53 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
415 2012-10-11 07:42:50 <sipa> the mining industry is an economy, it will find its own solutions for dealing with scalability, and i don't think "we" need to do it for them
416 2012-10-11 07:44:07 <sipa> with GBT, there is a rich interface for block creation, to the point that we really don't need to expose anything further for special cases
417 2012-10-11 07:45:07 <sipa> that said, i'd like to see more miners move to decentralized block creation (which may, but doesn't have to be something like p2pool)
418 2012-10-11 07:45:19 lggr has joined
419 2012-10-11 07:46:23 Eslbaer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
420 2012-10-11 07:46:32 Eslbaer has joined
421 2012-10-11 07:46:32 Eslbaer has quit (Client Quit)
422 2012-10-11 07:46:43 <sipa> finway: if you pruned a block away that later gets reorgd, you are stuck
423 2012-10-11 07:47:15 <sipa> or rather the client should pop up a big box, and reset from scratch
424 2012-10-11 07:49:44 <finway> sipa, if i'm stuck, can i rest and start again without a full copy of blockchain ?
425 2012-10-11 07:50:15 <sipa> jeremias: i thought there was an improvement that allows specifying the output address in listunpent - not sure if it got in for 0.7.1
426 2012-10-11 07:50:18 <sipa> finway: no
427 2012-10-11 07:51:04 <finway> sipa, i mean ,locally
428 2012-10-11 07:51:26 <sipa> how do you mean?
429 2012-10-11 07:51:41 <finway> can i rest and start again with the help of bitcoin network?
430 2012-10-11 07:51:44 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
431 2012-10-11 07:51:50 <sipa> yes, sure
432 2012-10-11 07:52:04 <sipa> just download all blocks again
433 2012-10-11 07:52:12 <sipa> but that isn't cheao
434 2012-10-11 07:52:57 <finway> oh, i see
435 2012-10-11 07:53:00 <finway> thanks
436 2012-10-11 07:53:02 <sipa> if many people continuously needed to do thst, there'd be a problem for the network
437 2012-10-11 07:55:04 lggr has joined
438 2012-10-11 07:55:06 <UukGoblin> is there a live distro that works with bitcoind?
439 2012-10-11 07:55:21 <UukGoblin> I'm getting libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.11' not found on slax
440 2012-10-11 07:56:34 <finway> sipa, do you have a copy of ultraprune binaries on windows ?
441 2012-10-11 07:57:13 <finway> sipa, does ultraprune got stuck with every reorg ?
442 2012-10-11 07:59:57 osxorgate has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
443 2012-10-11 08:00:20 osxorgate has joined
444 2012-10-11 08:01:17 <sipa> finway: only if you don't have the data for the block being reorgd
445 2012-10-11 08:01:47 <finway> that's much better.
446 2012-10-11 08:02:05 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
447 2012-10-11 08:02:09 <wumpus> UukGoblin: Ubuntu (any version) should work
448 2012-10-11 08:02:24 <sipa> and as pruning isn't implemented right now, tgat should never happen...
449 2012-10-11 08:02:44 <sipa> wumpus: any version >=lucid
450 2012-10-11 08:02:45 BGL has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
451 2012-10-11 08:02:52 <Evilmax> c'è qualche italiano? mi contatti in pvt per favore
452 2012-10-11 08:02:58 <wumpus> sipa: lol, yes
453 2012-10-11 08:03:05 <wumpus> any *somewhat recent* version
454 2012-10-11 08:03:13 <sipa> Evilmax: sorry, english here
455 2012-10-11 08:04:00 <Evilmax> hi sipa
456 2012-10-11 08:04:06 <sipa> i think he asks someone who speaks italian to contact him in private
457 2012-10-11 08:04:12 <Evilmax> i have to ask for arbitrage mothods
458 2012-10-11 08:04:15 <Evilmax> methods
459 2012-10-11 08:04:24 <Evilmax> i don't know them
460 2012-10-11 08:04:49 <Evilmax> yes...it would be very hard to explain that in english
461 2012-10-11 08:04:53 <Evilmax> about arbitrage i mean
462 2012-10-11 08:05:00 <Evilmax> for me
463 2012-10-11 08:05:11 lggr has joined
464 2012-10-11 08:05:17 <Evilmax> and than it is different arbitrage methods from italia
465 2012-10-11 08:05:28 <Evilmax> because banks
466 2012-10-11 08:05:31 <Evilmax> card etc
467 2012-10-11 08:05:50 <Evilmax> i have to move money fast
468 2012-10-11 08:05:51 <wumpus> this is the development channel, trading is off-topic here
469 2012-10-11 08:05:56 <Evilmax> for that, as i move btc
470 2012-10-11 08:06:01 <Evilmax> ah ok
471 2012-10-11 08:06:03 <Evilmax> sorry
472 2012-10-11 08:06:09 <Evilmax> development?
473 2012-10-11 08:06:12 RazielZ has joined
474 2012-10-11 08:06:18 <wumpus> yes, code and stuff, you know...
475 2012-10-11 08:06:21 <Evilmax> i have many questions on development too
476 2012-10-11 08:06:30 <sipa> shoot
477 2012-10-11 08:06:43 <Evilmax> i need a software, free, for trade on sites in automatic
478 2012-10-11 08:06:48 <Evilmax> as i do in forex
479 2012-10-11 08:06:52 <Evilmax> a platform
480 2012-10-11 08:06:57 <sipa> still trading
481 2012-10-11 08:07:00 <wumpus> sigh...
482 2012-10-11 08:07:38 <sipa> here we discuss the development of bitcoin as a currency and network node implementations
483 2012-10-11 08:07:44 <wumpus> I may not have been clear, but I mean development of the bitcoin client and network
484 2012-10-11 08:08:36 <Evilmax> yes
485 2012-10-11 08:08:38 <Evilmax> client
486 2012-10-11 08:08:42 <Evilmax> that i mean
487 2012-10-11 08:08:45 davout has joined
488 2012-10-11 08:08:46 davout has quit (Changing host)
489 2012-10-11 08:08:46 davout has joined
490 2012-10-11 08:08:46 <wumpus> and actual technical discussion about the code and design, not "I need xxx"
491 2012-10-11 08:09:08 <Evilmax> if exist a client that connect trade sites for place automatic orders
492 2012-10-11 08:09:23 davout_ has joined
493 2012-10-11 08:09:45 <sipa> if it wasn't ckear before: it is not about trading here
494 2012-10-11 08:10:06 <Evilmax> ok, sorry again
495 2012-10-11 08:10:54 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
496 2012-10-11 08:13:26 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
497 2012-10-11 08:14:14 lggr has joined
498 2012-10-11 08:17:29 <Evilmax> why my btc client (qt) on opening give me a balance of 123 btc and then it disappared?
499 2012-10-11 08:17:36 <Evilmax> it is a bug of client?
500 2012-10-11 08:17:59 <sipa> yes
501 2012-10-11 08:18:10 <sipa> fixed in 0.7 iirc
502 2012-10-11 08:20:36 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
503 2012-10-11 08:20:57 <wumpus> yes, was fixed already
504 2012-10-11 08:23:26 lggr has joined
505 2012-10-11 08:27:25 egecko has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
506 2012-10-11 08:27:26 BGL has joined
507 2012-10-11 08:29:39 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
508 2012-10-11 08:31:09 t7 has joined
509 2012-10-11 08:32:38 lggr has joined
510 2012-10-11 08:34:05 finway has quit (Quit: Page closed)
511 2012-10-11 08:38:31 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
512 2012-10-11 08:40:29 osxorgate has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
513 2012-10-11 08:40:31 cosurgi has joined
514 2012-10-11 08:41:38 lggr has joined
515 2012-10-11 08:43:43 CrazyMF has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
516 2012-10-11 08:47:35 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
517 2012-10-11 08:50:33 lggr has joined
518 2012-10-11 08:56:11 CodesInChaos has joined
519 2012-10-11 08:56:45 root2_ is now known as root2
520 2012-10-11 08:56:52 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
521 2012-10-11 08:59:46 lggr has joined
522 2012-10-11 09:02:55 PK has joined
523 2012-10-11 09:02:59 darkskiez has quit (Excess Flood)
524 2012-10-11 09:03:36 osxorgate has joined
525 2012-10-11 09:05:30 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
526 2012-10-11 09:07:34 otimm has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
527 2012-10-11 09:09:13 lggr has joined
528 2012-10-11 09:09:59 otimm has joined
529 2012-10-11 09:14:06 darkskiez has joined
530 2012-10-11 09:16:07 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
531 2012-10-11 09:19:33 lggr has joined
532 2012-10-11 09:21:07 TD has joined
533 2012-10-11 09:25:44 kiceek has joined
534 2012-10-11 09:26:21 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
535 2012-10-11 09:29:48 lggr has joined
536 2012-10-11 09:36:08 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
537 2012-10-11 09:39:08 lggr has joined
538 2012-10-11 09:40:47 graingert_ecs has joined
539 2012-10-11 09:45:03 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
540 2012-10-11 09:45:03 kiceek has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
541 2012-10-11 09:47:55 slush1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
542 2012-10-11 09:48:05 kiceek has joined
543 2012-10-11 09:48:05 kiceek has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
544 2012-10-11 09:48:07 lggr has joined
545 2012-10-11 09:54:02 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
546 2012-10-11 09:57:08 lggr has joined
547 2012-10-11 10:00:23 harkon has joined
548 2012-10-11 10:03:51 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
549 2012-10-11 10:06:29 lggr has joined
550 2012-10-11 10:06:50 mmoya has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
551 2012-10-11 10:07:23 mmoya has joined
552 2012-10-11 10:09:27 d4de has joined
553 2012-10-11 10:12:42 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
554 2012-10-11 10:13:08 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
555 2012-10-11 10:13:24 sneak has joined
556 2012-10-11 10:13:25 sneak has quit (Changing host)
557 2012-10-11 10:13:25 sneak has joined
558 2012-10-11 10:15:30 lggr has joined
559 2012-10-11 10:20:41 jdnavarro has joined
560 2012-10-11 10:22:12 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
561 2012-10-11 10:23:49 CodesInChaos has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
562 2012-10-11 10:25:43 lggr has joined
563 2012-10-11 10:31:12 CodesInChaos has joined
564 2012-10-11 10:31:51 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
565 2012-10-11 10:34:51 lggr has joined
566 2012-10-11 10:36:45 guest23 has joined
567 2012-10-11 10:37:34 guest23 has quit (Client Quit)
568 2012-10-11 10:39:26 osxorgate has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
569 2012-10-11 10:41:47 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
570 2012-10-11 10:43:52 lggr has joined
571 2012-10-11 10:49:01 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
572 2012-10-11 10:49:59 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
573 2012-10-11 10:53:10 da2ce723 has joined
574 2012-10-11 10:53:56 lggr has joined
575 2012-10-11 11:00:32 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
576 2012-10-11 11:02:14 harkon has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
577 2012-10-11 11:03:53 drizztbsd has joined
578 2012-10-11 11:04:12 lggr has joined
579 2012-10-11 11:06:53 TD has joined
580 2012-10-11 11:10:06 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
581 2012-10-11 11:13:17 lggr has joined
582 2012-10-11 11:19:27 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
583 2012-10-11 11:19:46 da2ce723 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
584 2012-10-11 11:20:35 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
585 2012-10-11 11:22:25 lggr has joined
586 2012-10-11 11:27:39 graingert_ecs has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
587 2012-10-11 11:29:04 graingert_ecs has joined
588 2012-10-11 11:29:35 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
589 2012-10-11 11:30:06 Eslbaer has joined
590 2012-10-11 11:32:35 lggr has joined
591 2012-10-11 11:33:32 tower has quit (Disconnected by services)
592 2012-10-11 11:33:46 tower has joined
593 2012-10-11 11:34:36 harkon has joined
594 2012-10-11 11:38:38 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
595 2012-10-11 11:38:57 galambo has joined
596 2012-10-11 11:41:38 lggr has joined
597 2012-10-11 11:45:27 da2ce723 has joined
598 2012-10-11 11:48:25 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
599 2012-10-11 11:51:41 lggr has joined
600 2012-10-11 11:53:04 copumpkin has joined
601 2012-10-11 11:53:57 graingert_ecs has left ()
602 2012-10-11 11:57:46 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
603 2012-10-11 11:58:11 graingert_ecs has joined
604 2012-10-11 11:59:42 da2ce723 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
605 2012-10-11 12:01:04 lggr has joined
606 2012-10-11 12:02:31 da2ce779 has joined
607 2012-10-11 12:06:44 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
608 2012-10-11 12:09:48 slush has joined
609 2012-10-11 12:10:14 slush1 has joined
610 2012-10-11 12:10:26 lggr has joined
611 2012-10-11 12:11:13 slush has quit (Client Quit)
612 2012-10-11 12:11:47 slush1 has quit (Client Quit)
613 2012-10-11 12:12:10 slush has joined
614 2012-10-11 12:17:29 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
615 2012-10-11 12:18:38 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
616 2012-10-11 12:20:43 lggr has joined
617 2012-10-11 12:22:53 slush has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
618 2012-10-11 12:23:13 slush has joined
619 2012-10-11 12:23:22 da2ce779 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
620 2012-10-11 12:25:03 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
621 2012-10-11 12:25:24 datagutt has joined
622 2012-10-11 12:25:57 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
623 2012-10-11 12:27:24 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
624 2012-10-11 12:28:06 robocoin has joined
625 2012-10-11 12:29:44 osxorgate has joined
626 2012-10-11 12:30:02 lggr has joined
627 2012-10-11 12:32:15 <gmaxwell> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1872 < would anyone like any other specific tests on this?
628 2012-10-11 12:36:35 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
629 2012-10-11 12:38:53 vigilyn has joined
630 2012-10-11 12:39:17 lggr has joined
631 2012-10-11 12:42:41 kiceek has joined
632 2012-10-11 12:42:55 kiceek has left ()
633 2012-10-11 12:45:04 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
634 2012-10-11 12:48:30 lggr has joined
635 2012-10-11 12:54:29 <t7> isnt it time to use C++11 yet?
636 2012-10-11 12:54:37 <t7> BOOST_FOREACH is nasty
637 2012-10-11 12:54:40 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
638 2012-10-11 12:58:51 lggr has joined
639 2012-10-11 13:03:02 agricocb has joined
640 2012-10-11 13:05:36 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
641 2012-10-11 13:05:57 <sipa> t7: as soon as we can switch to recent compilers for every support platform, maybe
642 2012-10-11 13:06:16 <sipa> gitian mingw32 is still on gcc 4.2, for example
643 2012-10-11 13:06:20 <t7> well you can only target compilers that can use boost
644 2012-10-11 13:06:36 <t7> oh i use a newer mingw than that
645 2012-10-11 13:07:03 * t7 has another look at gitian
646 2012-10-11 13:07:22 * t7 thought you meant embedded compilers or something
647 2012-10-11 13:08:10 lggr has joined
648 2012-10-11 13:14:02 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
649 2012-10-11 13:17:35 lggr has joined
650 2012-10-11 13:19:49 gavinandresen has joined
651 2012-10-11 13:22:46 <UukGoblin> http://www.judge.me/
652 2012-10-11 13:22:52 <UukGoblin> pretty cool if only they accepted bitcoins
653 2012-10-11 13:23:17 <UukGoblin> OH NOES
654 2012-10-11 13:23:20 <UukGoblin> THEY DO ACCEPT BITCOIN
655 2012-10-11 13:24:10 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
656 2012-10-11 13:25:06 <wumpus> t7: the problem is that we use a ubuntu lucid image to build in, which doesn't have newer (usable) mingw available. The reason that we use such an old ubuntu is that the linux binaries that are built need to be compatible with a wide range as possible linux distributions...
657 2012-10-11 13:25:09 graingert_ecs has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
658 2012-10-11 13:25:56 <t7> ah I see
659 2012-10-11 13:25:58 <wumpus> t7: of course, building the windows executables could be done in a newer ubuntu virtual image, however, I don't think lucid has any c++11 compilers available even for native linux :)
660 2012-10-11 13:26:29 <UukGoblin> sorry, that's probably not the best channel to post that
661 2012-10-11 13:26:39 <gmaxwell> C++ binary compatiblity (well, heck, source level too) is a sad sad story.
662 2012-10-11 13:27:02 lggr has joined
663 2012-10-11 13:27:11 <wumpus> so, yes, switching to C++11 would be nice, but isn't a priority right now (it's in the same boat as switching to qt 5...)
664 2012-10-11 13:27:38 <wumpus> C++ is a sad story, period
665 2012-10-11 13:29:26 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
666 2012-10-11 13:29:41 <edcba> UukGoblin: what is it for ?
667 2012-10-11 13:30:07 sudog has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
668 2012-10-11 13:30:10 <UukGoblin> edcba, it's an online court for small claims arbitration
669 2012-10-11 13:30:17 <UukGoblin> edcba, legally binding in 146 countries
670 2012-10-11 13:33:14 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
671 2012-10-11 13:35:28 <wumpus> just as compilers were starting to stabilize a bit, some joker adds even more features, making the language even more complex and giving new reasons to break the ABIs all over again
672 2012-10-11 13:36:09 <edcba> so i want to sue you for the socks you didn't send me i go to that site and that will enforce you to send me the socks ?
673 2012-10-11 13:36:23 lggr has joined
674 2012-10-11 13:37:02 <wumpus> by the time people have defined what a C++11 ABI should be, it's time for C++20 :-)
675 2012-10-11 13:38:10 <UukGoblin> edcba, sort of... if both parties agreed to use judge.me for that, then yes
676 2012-10-11 13:38:30 <UukGoblin> edcba, they have a free clause that you can include in your contracts
677 2012-10-11 13:38:51 <UukGoblin> I guess if you're buying socks, it might be awkward for the seller to sign your contract
678 2012-10-11 13:39:28 <edcba> ok so you have to agree using a third party to resolve that
679 2012-10-11 13:39:42 <wumpus> well replace "socks" with "ASIC miner" and you have a good use case
680 2012-10-11 13:40:11 <UukGoblin> http://www.judge.me/online_arbitration#clause
681 2012-10-11 13:40:13 <edcba> i don't see why it requires special legislation
682 2012-10-11 13:40:26 <edcba> only electionic signature
683 2012-10-11 13:41:29 <UukGoblin> edcba, what, for an arbitrator's decision to be legally binding?
684 2012-10-11 13:42:01 <edcba> dunno but anyway if a site can makes a contract with the two parties...
685 2012-10-11 13:42:16 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
686 2012-10-11 13:42:32 one_zero has quit ()
687 2012-10-11 13:42:59 <UukGoblin> edcba, I'm lost, what's your argument again? that anyone could arbitrate like that?
688 2012-10-11 13:43:09 <edcba> yes ?
689 2012-10-11 13:44:13 <edcba> now i wonder if arbitration is a legal term or not at all
690 2012-10-11 13:44:30 <UukGoblin> but their decision wouldn't be legally binding
691 2012-10-11 13:44:41 <edcba> by contract
692 2012-10-11 13:44:56 <UukGoblin> I don't know IANAL
693 2012-10-11 13:45:43 lggr has joined
694 2012-10-11 13:45:45 <edcba> neither do i
695 2012-10-11 13:45:56 <edcba> anyway that looks like a nice service
696 2012-10-11 13:46:14 <edcba> but i wonder if it wouldn't skew over big companies
697 2012-10-11 13:46:34 <UukGoblin> it certainly shouldn't
698 2012-10-11 13:47:02 <edcba> it shouldn't but big company C has choice between arbitrator A and B...
699 2012-10-11 13:48:03 egecko has joined
700 2012-10-11 13:48:28 <edcba> even if both plaintiff and defendant pays, total share of money spent by companies will influence arbitrators
701 2012-10-11 13:49:43 <UukGoblin> you only pay $149.5 per case per side
702 2012-10-11 13:49:56 galambo_ has joined
703 2012-10-11 13:50:19 <TD> UukGoblin: interesting
704 2012-10-11 13:50:22 <TD> UukGoblin: thanks for the link
705 2012-10-11 13:50:36 <TD> now if only we had 2-of-3 dispute mediation framework
706 2012-10-11 13:50:59 <edcba> if C has 1M customers and tells them they need to arbitrate on A
707 2012-10-11 13:51:08 <UukGoblin> TD, they have an API ;-]
708 2012-10-11 13:51:14 <helo> ARRR! BIT RAGE!
709 2012-10-11 13:51:21 * helo casually walks away
710 2012-10-11 13:51:29 <edcba> but then B has better "rate" it will just tell newer customers to arbitrate on B
711 2012-10-11 13:51:45 <edcba> and a lot of revenue will so go to A from B
712 2012-10-11 13:51:54 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
713 2012-10-11 13:52:20 <UukGoblin> A and B being arbitration providers?
714 2012-10-11 13:52:22 <edcba> ie A & B may be incenticived? to give a better arbitration to C
715 2012-10-11 13:52:25 <edcba> yes
716 2012-10-11 13:52:40 <UukGoblin> well
717 2012-10-11 13:52:51 <UukGoblin> I don't know, I guess it might happen
718 2012-10-11 13:52:59 galambo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
719 2012-10-11 13:53:10 <UukGoblin> both should be fair arbitrators though
720 2012-10-11 13:53:11 galambo_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
721 2012-10-11 13:53:35 galambo_ has joined
722 2012-10-11 13:53:37 Motest003 has joined
723 2012-10-11 13:53:41 <edcba> but it's skewed to bad arbitrators
724 2012-10-11 13:53:51 <edcba> since they will end up with more arbitrations
725 2012-10-11 13:54:30 <edcba> so more money...
726 2012-10-11 13:55:09 freakazoid has joined
727 2012-10-11 13:55:10 lggr has joined
728 2012-10-11 13:56:04 <UukGoblin> I'm sure to be legally binding, they must maintain a level of unbiasness (?)
729 2012-10-11 13:56:37 <UukGoblin> I guess if you're selling a large enough item, these guys might be better than ebay
730 2012-10-11 13:57:09 <UukGoblin> ebay fees will be like 3% or sth, if you're selling something worth $10k or more and already have a buyer...
731 2012-10-11 14:01:52 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
732 2012-10-11 14:03:05 osxorgate has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
733 2012-10-11 14:04:43 lggr has joined
734 2012-10-11 14:10:02 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
735 2012-10-11 14:11:01 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
736 2012-10-11 14:11:38 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
737 2012-10-11 14:14:06 lggr has joined
738 2012-10-11 14:14:43 jine has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
739 2012-10-11 14:15:24 jine has joined
740 2012-10-11 14:16:22 <UukGoblin> I've sent an email to butterflylabs asking if they'd sign a judge.me clause
741 2012-10-11 14:16:25 <UukGoblin> :->
742 2012-10-11 14:19:01 osxorgate has joined
743 2012-10-11 14:19:04 jine has quit (Client Quit)
744 2012-10-11 14:21:06 jine has joined
745 2012-10-11 14:21:39 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
746 2012-10-11 14:24:29 lggr has joined
747 2012-10-11 14:30:11 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
748 2012-10-11 14:31:30 <sipa> gavinandresen: pushed my linux sigs
749 2012-10-11 14:32:07 <gavinandresen> sipa: thanks, I'll announce 0.7.1rc1 in a bit (about to start a meeting)
750 2012-10-11 14:32:36 <UukGoblin> I saw 0.7.1rc1 yesterday! ;-]
751 2012-10-11 14:33:19 osxorgate has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
752 2012-10-11 14:34:05 lggr has joined
753 2012-10-11 14:35:20 BlackPrapor has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
754 2012-10-11 14:40:08 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
755 2012-10-11 14:43:41 lggr has joined
756 2012-10-11 14:47:57 MC1984 has joined
757 2012-10-11 14:49:59 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
758 2012-10-11 14:50:39 darkskiez has quit (Excess Flood)
759 2012-10-11 14:53:27 lggr has joined
760 2012-10-11 14:54:49 darkskiez has joined
761 2012-10-11 14:57:21 <Luke-Jr> [13:12:00] <UukGoblin> THEY DO ACCEPT BITCOIN
762 2012-10-11 14:57:26 <Luke-Jr> UukGoblin: I see no evidence of that on their site
763 2012-10-11 14:58:09 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: I wonder about a PoS system that did something like "every transaction includes the hash of the best block when the transaction was written; when a miner creates a block the target is diff / f(sum coin days destroyed from transactions whos commited value is within N blocks on this chain); perhaps that only moves the rational attack behavior back a level though (produce txn for every fork you see)
764 2012-10-11 14:58:48 <UukGoblin> Luke-Jr, "We accept Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover, Paypal and Bitcoin." on http://www.judge.me
765 2012-10-11 14:59:05 * Luke-Jr wonders how he missed that XD
766 2012-10-11 14:59:13 <Luke-Jr> still, doesn't price in Bitcoin :x
767 2012-10-11 15:00:37 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
768 2012-10-11 15:02:55 lggr has joined
769 2012-10-11 15:08:18 att has joined
770 2012-10-11 15:09:57 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
771 2012-10-11 15:12:41 lggr has joined
772 2012-10-11 15:15:26 optimator_ is now known as optimator
773 2012-10-11 15:18:26 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
774 2012-10-11 15:22:01 lggr has joined
775 2012-10-11 15:22:15 maaku has joined
776 2012-10-11 15:25:31 BitcoinBaltar has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
777 2012-10-11 15:25:34 PK has quit (Quit: Leaving)
778 2012-10-11 15:25:46 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
779 2012-10-11 15:26:28 davout_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
780 2012-10-11 15:26:54 davout has joined
781 2012-10-11 15:26:54 davout has quit (Changing host)
782 2012-10-11 15:26:54 davout has joined
783 2012-10-11 15:28:43 slavik03292 has joined
784 2012-10-11 15:29:54 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
785 2012-10-11 15:31:04 <slavik03292> Hey, I'm a PHP dev available for work. I can build pretty much everything and have experience making bitcoin applications
786 2012-10-11 15:31:26 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
787 2012-10-11 15:32:30 lggr has joined
788 2012-10-11 15:38:38 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
789 2012-10-11 15:40:07 <imisor> slavik03292, im interested.. not much of php mut hc-code mostly :)
790 2012-10-11 15:40:14 lggr has joined
791 2012-10-11 15:40:17 <imisor> i kinda hate php ;)
792 2012-10-11 15:42:00 <slavik03292> imisor: why hate PHP?
793 2012-10-11 15:42:16 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
794 2012-10-11 15:43:11 <UukGoblin> slavik03292, http://me.veekun.com/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/
795 2012-10-11 15:43:59 <slavik03292> i love PHP
796 2012-10-11 15:45:51 <imisor> slavik03292, boring scripting language but maybe its just good :D
797 2012-10-11 15:46:01 <imisor> i cando but dont wanna do
798 2012-10-11 15:46:11 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
799 2012-10-11 15:46:15 <slavik03292> boring? how so?
800 2012-10-11 15:46:16 <imisor> i like more of breaking code etc
801 2012-10-11 15:46:24 <slavik03292> i've been coding PHP for 10 years
802 2012-10-11 15:46:24 <imisor> slavik03292, how? ,-)
803 2012-10-11 15:46:34 <imisor> slavik03292, u r a monster
804 2012-10-11 15:46:40 <imisor> or masokist
805 2012-10-11 15:47:12 <slavik03292> not at all, never had any issues
806 2012-10-11 15:50:12 lggr has joined
807 2012-10-11 15:50:52 <UukGoblin> slavik03292, are you looking to volunteer for the good of bitcoin, or are you looking for a paid job?
808 2012-10-11 15:51:41 jdnavarro has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
809 2012-10-11 15:52:34 <slavik03292> UukGoblin: either. I am just as excited about bitcoins as I am about coding :)
810 2012-10-11 15:54:32 TheEslbear has joined
811 2012-10-11 15:54:41 RazielZ has joined
812 2012-10-11 15:56:37 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
813 2012-10-11 15:56:56 <UukGoblin> slavik03292, I have some high-level ideas of p2p projects that could work well with bitcoins
814 2012-10-11 15:57:20 <slavik03292> UukGoblin: tell me more
815 2012-10-11 15:57:21 <UukGoblin> not sure how compatible the ideas are with PHP though... they're more backendy
816 2012-10-11 15:57:32 <slavik03292> PHP is a scripting language
817 2012-10-11 15:57:34 <slavik03292> you can do anything
818 2012-10-11 15:57:37 <UukGoblin> there's a p2p poker idea, there's a p2p social network idea
819 2012-10-11 15:57:58 <UukGoblin> well yeah, but it's sort of mostly-good for websites
820 2012-10-11 15:58:32 Eslbaer has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
821 2012-10-11 15:58:35 <UukGoblin> I had a quite wide idea of a p2p web-of-trust thingy
822 2012-10-11 15:58:52 <UukGoblin> damn I should starting writing all this stuff down in some more consistent way
823 2012-10-11 15:58:59 <slavik03292> heh
824 2012-10-11 15:59:11 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
825 2012-10-11 15:59:26 MiningBuddy has joined
826 2012-10-11 15:59:45 lggr has joined
827 2012-10-11 15:59:59 <slavik03292> UukGoblin: why not just have a poker site on TOR
828 2012-10-11 16:00:26 <UukGoblin> slavik03292, because of scalability
829 2012-10-11 16:00:42 <UukGoblin> and because a single site is prone to charging rake
830 2012-10-11 16:00:47 <sipa> in most cases a centralized approach scales more easily than a decentralized
831 2012-10-11 16:00:57 <sipa> decentralized is not the same thing as distributed
832 2012-10-11 16:01:11 <UukGoblin> nice distinction
833 2012-10-11 16:01:35 <UukGoblin> I'm all for decentralized AND distributed, I guess
834 2012-10-11 16:01:45 <slavik03292> I don't know how secure a decentralized poker system would be
835 2012-10-11 16:02:00 <slavik03292> who seeds the randomizer?
836 2012-10-11 16:02:12 <UukGoblin> if implemented properly, for 2 persons, it can be pretty goddamn secure
837 2012-10-11 16:02:16 <gmaxwell> slavik03292: thats the easiest thing to solve.
838 2012-10-11 16:02:35 <fiesh> how do you secure the payout?
839 2012-10-11 16:02:42 <gmaxwell> slavik03292: everyone precommmits to a contributing random value, then everyone discloses their random values and you hash them all.
840 2012-10-11 16:02:42 <UukGoblin> more than 2 players start to have problems with collusion, and that's were a web-of-trust is needed
841 2012-10-11 16:02:51 <slavik03292> if the seed is known, you can see the whole deck
842 2012-10-11 16:02:55 <fiesh> how can the winner be sure to get their winnigs?
843 2012-10-11 16:02:59 <gmaxwell> web-of-vomit.
844 2012-10-11 16:03:04 <UukGoblin> slavik03292, see LibTMCG
845 2012-10-11 16:03:38 <UukGoblin> fiesh, through an arbitrator / oracle
846 2012-10-11 16:04:04 <fiesh> UukGoblin: where rake comes in...
847 2012-10-11 16:04:04 <gmaxwell> slavik03292: sure, I was just pointing out that a secure random value is the easiest problem. 'mental poker' has a fair amount of research.
848 2012-10-11 16:04:09 jdnavarro has joined
849 2012-10-11 16:04:24 <UukGoblin> fiesh, yes, but that rake would only be charged when there's a conflict, not during normal honest game
850 2012-10-11 16:04:34 <slavik03292> someone has to handle the entire deck
851 2012-10-11 16:04:51 <UukGoblin> slavik03292, no, it can all be distributed. Check out LibTMCG.
852 2012-10-11 16:04:54 <fiesh> UukGoblin: agreed, that's an advantage
853 2012-10-11 16:05:21 <helo> if i haven't generated any new transactions, or received any coin, why is wallet.dat's modification time updated when i close bitcoin-qt?
854 2012-10-11 16:05:34 <sipa> helo: it remembers which part of the blockchain it has seen
855 2012-10-11 16:05:45 <sipa> helo: so it knows where to start rescanning, if the blockchain gets updated
856 2012-10-11 16:05:47 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
857 2012-10-11 16:05:47 <slavik03292> interesting, will play
858 2012-10-11 16:05:50 <helo> ahhh, ty
859 2012-10-11 16:05:51 <slavik03292> with it
860 2012-10-11 16:06:16 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, vomit-shmomit. And how are you, anyway? ;-)
861 2012-10-11 16:07:33 <UukGoblin> slavik03292, I've written a small proof of concept to see how much processing power would be needed for a 10-player game.
862 2012-10-11 16:08:58 <UukGoblin> shuffling a deck among 10 players takes 90 seconds on a modern AMD processor, and transfers 80MB of data in total.
863 2012-10-11 16:09:13 lggr has joined
864 2012-10-11 16:09:26 <UukGoblin> (plenty of room for optimisations there, of course, but that's the rough estimate)
865 2012-10-11 16:11:04 <slavik03292> wow
866 2012-10-11 16:11:15 <slavik03292> im looking at the spec and algorithms
867 2012-10-11 16:11:30 <slavik03292> 90 seconds is quite some time
868 2012-10-11 16:11:34 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: Hi! Doing well, and you? Sorry for mocking your web of treachery :P I just find it laughable, in particular, because collusion is not really reliably detectable.
869 2012-10-11 16:12:07 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, I'm good, yeah, got a nice job
870 2012-10-11 16:12:20 <UukGoblin> no worries, I totally agree and always welcome a good mockery or 2
871 2012-10-11 16:12:36 <fiesh> but collusion is never reliably detectable?
872 2012-10-11 16:12:46 <UukGoblin> it's not even reliably detectable on centralized poker sites
873 2012-10-11 16:12:53 GMP has joined
874 2012-10-11 16:12:55 B0g4r7__ has joined
875 2012-10-11 16:13:08 <UukGoblin> that's why I'm mostly hoping for a 1v1 game.
876 2012-10-11 16:13:09 <helo> you can find some statistical evidence that it is likely, but you can't rely on it being true
877 2012-10-11 16:13:21 jdnavarro has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
878 2012-10-11 16:13:25 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: why's it so slow? The way I'd implement it is by homomorphic (composable) encryption of the deck by every player, then cycle all the cards through the players as a mix network.. then have them draw by decrypting cards one by one.
879 2012-10-11 16:13:33 <UukGoblin> shuffling a deck between 2 players only takes 3 seconds and transfers 2MB
880 2012-10-11 16:13:48 <gmaxwell> helo: right statistical evidence isn't really good enough to de-trust a 'friend'.
881 2012-10-11 16:13:54 dvide has joined
882 2012-10-11 16:14:08 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: how does what you're doing work?
883 2012-10-11 16:14:37 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, yup, that's pretty much how it's implemented. It's just there's a lot of encryption, and the way libTMCG works is that only 1 player at a time encrypts the deck, then transfers to every other.
884 2012-10-11 16:15:21 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
885 2012-10-11 16:15:23 <gmaxwell> I guess the encryption is as slow as RSA signing, too. hm.
886 2012-10-11 16:15:24 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
887 2012-10-11 16:15:24 B0g4r7__ is now known as B0g4r7
888 2012-10-11 16:15:57 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, re de-trusting a "Friend", I was more thinking of an automated objective web of trust, with statements like "I've played this many games with this guy and my collusion detection rating showed 2%" - all done automatically and without users' input
889 2012-10-11 16:16:05 <slavik03292> it's nto good for real-time play
890 2012-10-11 16:16:11 <slavik03292> with more than 2 players
891 2012-10-11 16:16:22 <helo> what kind of pruning does ultraprune currently do?
892 2012-10-11 16:16:23 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, my proof-of-concept stub is at https://github.com/goblin/mental_poker_poc
893 2012-10-11 16:16:26 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: past performance doesn't indicate future results, _especially_ if identity is cheap
894 2012-10-11 16:16:41 <UukGoblin> that's why identity shouldn't be cheap
895 2012-10-11 16:17:00 <UukGoblin> one of the important rules of poker is "don't play if you can't afford to lose the entire investment"
896 2012-10-11 16:17:18 <UukGoblin> so it does allow a little slack of trust to cover for the fun
897 2012-10-11 16:17:23 <gmaxwell> of course, if you play under that rule you might as well have a trusted party run the game, enh?
898 2012-10-11 16:17:39 <UukGoblin> kind of, yeah ;-]
899 2012-10-11 16:17:55 <UukGoblin> but still, 1v1 games can be pretty trustable.
900 2012-10-11 16:18:12 <UukGoblin> anything above 1v1 unless you know the players well is a risk
901 2012-10-11 16:18:18 <UukGoblin> can't see any other way to do it
902 2012-10-11 16:18:19 <Luke-Jr> games? O.o
903 2012-10-11 16:18:55 <UukGoblin> yes, games
904 2012-10-11 16:18:59 lggr has joined
905 2012-10-11 16:19:05 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: talking about mental poker. While I don't really get excited by card games, it does make an excellent example of creating trustless algorithims.
906 2012-10-11 16:19:35 <gmaxwell> And the techniques used for mental poker can be used to create cryptographically secure voting, which may someday be very socially important.
907 2012-10-11 16:21:15 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: oh I guess it also does the ZKPs to prove the shuffle is fair? that would use a lot of bandwidth and make it much slower. :P
908 2012-10-11 16:22:03 <gmaxwell> (love how elegant and simple ZKP for random shuffles can be)
909 2012-10-11 16:22:45 arij has joined
910 2012-10-11 16:23:08 arij is now known as Guest81738
911 2012-10-11 16:23:49 Guest81738 has quit (Changing host)
912 2012-10-11 16:23:50 Guest81738 has joined
913 2012-10-11 16:23:54 Guest81738 is now known as arij
914 2012-10-11 16:24:46 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
915 2012-10-11 16:25:00 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, ah yes, correct, forgot about that
916 2012-10-11 16:25:29 pusle has joined
917 2012-10-11 16:26:16 <UukGoblin> and me too, much as I like poker as a game, I'm much more interested in algorithms and maths behind doing it in a distributed way
918 2012-10-11 16:26:23 <UukGoblin> many other games could use similar techniques
919 2012-10-11 16:27:08 <gmaxwell> well lots of games don't need it. 1v1 go, checkers, chess, connect-6, etc are naturally safe. It's only a challenge for games where there is secret randomness.
920 2012-10-11 16:27:19 <UukGoblin> and there's other services that can be built in a decentralized manner using this stuff
921 2012-10-11 16:27:46 <gmaxwell> hm dominoes would be fun.
922 2012-10-11 16:28:15 <UukGoblin> well, for oracles to work, even 1v1 games that you mentioned require stuff like secure timestamping and signing of moves
923 2012-10-11 16:28:28 EasyAt is now known as !~Easy@81.17.31.43|EasyAt
924 2012-10-11 16:28:30 <UukGoblin> that's why I started chronobit
925 2012-10-11 16:28:50 lggr has joined
926 2012-10-11 16:29:15 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: yes, though you can do signed hash chaining of moves; though pretty different techniques!
927 2012-10-11 16:29:22 <UukGoblin> yup
928 2012-10-11 16:29:30 <UukGoblin> it's much simpler than ZKPs and random shuffles
929 2012-10-11 16:29:59 Zarutian has joined
930 2012-10-11 16:30:29 <UukGoblin> (ah, and the time to shuffle can be decreased easily by modifying a 'security' parameter)
931 2012-10-11 16:30:38 <gmaxwell> sure and bandwidth.
932 2012-10-11 16:30:48 <gmaxwell> the zkp is probablistic.
933 2012-10-11 16:30:52 <UukGoblin> yup
934 2012-10-11 16:31:19 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
935 2012-10-11 16:32:19 optimator_ has joined
936 2012-10-11 16:34:26 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
937 2012-10-11 16:35:03 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
938 2012-10-11 16:35:16 <UukGoblin> also curious how feasible it is for decentralised stats collection... i.e. currently google can easily tell how many users searched for 'bitcoin' in the last week. But if the searches were done over something like Gnutella, is there still a way to calculate such statistics?
939 2012-10-11 16:35:40 <UukGoblin> multi-party computation gets increasingly (exponentially, perhaps?) expensive with the number of parties involved
940 2012-10-11 16:36:32 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: you can still sample it, which is (I assume) what google does too.. though it can be harder to get a representative sample.
941 2012-10-11 16:36:36 <UukGoblin> and fabricating stats would probably be pretty easy... unless you wanted to include a Hashcash with each search request
942 2012-10-11 16:36:52 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: same for google.
943 2012-10-11 16:37:09 <UukGoblin> mhm
944 2012-10-11 16:37:09 <gmaxwell> your problem is that you don't really want to measure the number of searches for bitcoin.
945 2012-10-11 16:37:50 <gmaxwell> You want to measure the number of 'organic' or 'honest' or whatever searches, which is a different question and is perhaps unsolvable regardless of the centeralization context.
946 2012-10-11 16:37:53 <UukGoblin> no? my problem is how to collect aggregate statistics of various data in decentralized networks
947 2012-10-11 16:38:11 spq has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
948 2012-10-11 16:38:19 <UukGoblin> without actually exposing individual searches
949 2012-10-11 16:38:28 lggr has joined
950 2012-10-11 16:38:30 <UukGoblin> (as in, keeping them pseudonymous)
951 2012-10-11 16:38:38 spq has joined
952 2012-10-11 16:38:52 <UukGoblin> trying to solve too many problems at once, again, I guess.
953 2012-10-11 16:38:55 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: then just have people report stats; of course they could fake them, but they could also just as easily fake search traffic.
954 2012-10-11 16:39:44 <gmaxwell> kjj_: am I sensing the possiblity of defeating trolls on the internet? Convince them that they can make money by getting people to pay them to troll... and so then they won't sell themselves out by trolling for free?
955 2012-10-11 16:40:07 <UukGoblin> lol, nice idea
956 2012-10-11 16:40:13 <UukGoblin> problem with me is I just like to talk ;-)
957 2012-10-11 16:40:38 <gmaxwell> heh, I was on a tangent, kjj_ pissed off someone promoting PoS on the forum and he demanded payment to continue the discussion.
958 2012-10-11 16:40:44 <UukGoblin> (who's paying for trolling)
959 2012-10-11 16:40:52 <UukGoblin> LOL
960 2012-10-11 16:41:05 <UukGoblin> Point-of-Sale?
961 2012-10-11 16:41:27 <gmaxwell> Proof-of-Stake. An alternative to POW for hash change consensus.
962 2012-10-11 16:41:33 graingert has joined
963 2012-10-11 16:41:40 <gmaxwell> But so far all the proposals have been flawed. :(
964 2012-10-11 16:41:47 <jgarzik> that would be fun. pay to reopen a locked thread ;p
965 2012-10-11 16:41:47 <UukGoblin> oh, that altcoin's still alive?
966 2012-10-11 16:42:10 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: well discussion it in the abstract.
967 2012-10-11 16:42:55 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: tuxblack paid (a donation to gribble) to have someone banned in #bitcoin once. :P (the banned party agreed to the terms so..)
968 2012-10-11 16:43:00 <kjj_> gmaxwell: cunicula pisses me off. reminds me of Feynman's anecdotes with the orthodox jews
969 2012-10-11 16:44:45 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
970 2012-10-11 16:45:00 <gmaxwell> kjj_: I don't really see why there but I'm probably missing context. Though defense via laundry list enumeration of erroneous argument techniques is itself something of an eronious argument technique, which is a little ironic. :P
971 2012-10-11 16:45:57 toffoo has joined
972 2012-10-11 16:46:12 <kjj_> If you talk to academics much, you'll see it. they have their own peculiar definitions that don't match yours, and they only accept proof via peer reviewed journal articles
973 2012-10-11 16:47:54 <gmaxwell> kjj_: I think in that last part of that discussion the disagreement is that basically under _some_ threat models his PoW/PoS is more secure, under others its notâ so it ultimately boils down to a threat model preference and neither of you even bothered discussing threat models.
974 2012-10-11 16:47:59 lggr has joined
975 2012-10-11 16:48:21 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, you clearly got tired of typing 'erroneous' properly in the second part of the previous sentence ;-]
976 2012-10-11 16:48:43 <gmaxwell> Spread spectrum spelling.
977 2012-10-11 16:49:10 <UukGoblin> lulz
978 2012-10-11 16:49:41 <kjj_> I don't think he sees the network as a dynamic thing. he sees that if the world is held constant except that one party gains sufficient hashing power, there is a singularity in their reward
979 2012-10-11 16:50:17 finway has joined
980 2012-10-11 16:50:53 <kjj_> as in, the reward function switches from X*Y when X is <= 0.5, and just Y when X is > 0.5
981 2012-10-11 16:51:12 <UukGoblin> solidcoin!
982 2012-10-11 16:51:44 <kjj_> in my view, if X >= 0.5, we have MUCH bigger problems than that. so much more that there isn't any point in even thinking about solutions
983 2012-10-11 16:52:00 <gmaxwell> kjj_: thats basically my thinking too.
984 2012-10-11 16:52:14 <kjj_> and it isn't like I haven't told him that very thing a hundred times in all of the other threads he's created or crapped up
985 2012-10-11 16:53:44 <gmaxwell> kjj_: there are some interesting questions though... assmuming the bitcoin community is stupid and decaps the maximum block size, what prevents the difficulty from tending to zero as the subsidy goes away?
986 2012-10-11 16:54:34 <kjj_> gmaxwell: heh. that's just a game of chicken. someone always blinks first
987 2012-10-11 16:55:01 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
988 2012-10-11 16:55:46 <kjj_> assuming that you were trying to imply what I think you are trying to imply, with there being more reward for trying to overturn the current block so that you can get all of those fees, plus the new fees
989 2012-10-11 16:55:48 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: you know I agree with that line of reasoning
990 2012-10-11 16:55:52 maaku has joined
991 2012-10-11 16:55:53 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: but there are counter-incentives
992 2012-10-11 16:55:55 <gmaxwell> kjj_: one though I had was that a system that switched to a PoS mode at low difficulty (even a crappy attack prone version of PoS), would create an incentive to PoW mine more because your PoW mining hardware becomes useless if you go under that threshold. But I don't know how to set the threshold securely.
993 2012-10-11 16:56:09 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: investment in current infrastructure and desire to not see bitcoins lose their value
994 2012-10-11 16:56:32 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: the obvious ones are collusion to impose a cartel maximum size, which is ... an ugly prospect.
995 2012-10-11 16:56:48 <kjj_> in a month or three, the ASICs will rise up and make most of these theories moot
996 2012-10-11 16:56:49 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: its true, but as kjj_ saidâ game of chicken.
997 2012-10-11 16:56:58 <gmaxwell> kjj_: huh? no they won't!
998 2012-10-11 16:56:59 <UukGoblin> ah, block cap
999 2012-10-11 16:57:06 <Eliel_> gmaxwell: why threshold? Why not smooth curve of declining usefulness?
1000 2012-10-11 16:57:12 <gmaxwell> kjj_: the asics make most attackers more powerful too!
1001 2012-10-11 16:57:14 <UukGoblin> block size cap, even
1002 2012-10-11 16:57:25 lggr has joined
1003 2012-10-11 16:57:27 tonikt has joined
1004 2012-10-11 16:57:27 JZavala has joined
1005 2012-10-11 16:57:31 <UukGoblin> I still don't know what to think of it
1006 2012-10-11 16:57:40 <kjj_> gmaxwell: the threat before now-ish is an attacker with the resources to make an ASIC and outmine the honest network
1007 2012-10-11 16:57:55 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: Just consider the distance future when IBR==0, and the network lives or dies by fees alone. Is the block size terribly important? I'd argue not, given future network speeds and storage sizes.
1008 2012-10-11 16:57:56 <kjj_> now, the best that a powerful attacker can do is attempt to catch up to our level
1009 2012-10-11 16:58:08 <jgarzik> the limited resource aspect matters more now, than later
1010 2012-10-11 16:58:12 <gmaxwell> Eliel_: well cunicula's PoW/(PoS) if a ^difficulty term was added could give you that, though I'm not sure that it would be better.
1011 2012-10-11 16:58:29 <jgarzik> it helps encourage efficiency in programmers
1012 2012-10-11 16:58:29 <UukGoblin> ah, actually, 1MB should be enough for everyone
1013 2012-10-11 16:58:30 finway has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1014 2012-10-11 16:58:34 <gmaxwell> Eliel_: you actually want the PoW miners to become _worthless_
1015 2012-10-11 16:58:44 <kjj_> UukGoblin: I prefer 640k
1016 2012-10-11 16:58:53 <UukGoblin> kjj_, too late now
1017 2012-10-11 16:59:16 <slavik03292> is there any interest for a browser based gpg message encryptor?
1018 2012-10-11 16:59:33 <kjj_> slavik03292: I hope not, at least not from people that understand key security
1019 2012-10-11 16:59:47 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I don't really follow your thinking there. Say I'm a miner in the future, wouldn't I be better off to accept lower fees, and the just reduce my power usage so that I'm making a greater total profit than my competition who ignores those transactions?
1020 2012-10-11 16:59:56 <UukGoblin> slavik03292, I believe the relevant javascript libraries should exist already?
1021 2012-10-11 17:00:02 <slavik03292> kjj_: Encryption would happen in the browser, with JS. Nothing transfered to server
1022 2012-10-11 17:00:12 <slavik03292> UukGoblin: I already built the site
1023 2012-10-11 17:00:15 <kjj_> I don't think UukGoblin got the 640k reference
1024 2012-10-11 17:00:26 <slavik03292> UukGoblin: using said libraries
1025 2012-10-11 17:00:32 <jgarzik> assuming average transaction size of 256 bytes, the block size would seem to limit us to ~6.5 transactions-per-second
1026 2012-10-11 17:00:33 <UukGoblin> kjj_, I sure as hell got the Gates reference
1027 2012-10-11 17:00:52 <kjj_> ok, just checking. your response suggested that you thought I was serious
1028 2012-10-11 17:01:13 <UukGoblin> my original 1MB was meant to be a weak parody of 640k ;-)
1029 2012-10-11 17:01:26 <UukGoblin> as in, the "should be enough for everyone" line
1030 2012-10-11 17:01:27 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I think storage and network will be cheap enough that any non-zero fees will be interesting to miners
1031 2012-10-11 17:01:53 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: thats a bit large. I'm not as married to the particular current size as I am to having a serious and meaninngful limit relative to the txn volume and computing power; but I hesitate to admit that simply because the friction against _any_ change is one of the most powerful arguments against a complete uncap.
1032 2012-10-11 17:02:16 <UukGoblin> jgarzik, yes, but it's also because who gets to choose the transactions... There's no threat that a monopolized giant will process and dictate all transactions' rules, as long as there's enough miners around
1033 2012-10-11 17:03:24 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: if so then you have a clear race to the bottom if block size is not constrained; and no mechinism to in-system fund good security. If bitcoin were widely used I would expect people to publically fund good security, but that would likely hose decenteralization ("we'll only fund miners who mine the peoples blocks!")
1034 2012-10-11 17:03:28 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I'd think a hard-cap set to 120% of the median block size over the last N blocks would be good?
1035 2012-10-11 17:03:58 <UukGoblin> only for large N, Luke-Jr
1036 2012-10-11 17:04:12 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1037 2012-10-11 17:04:21 <UukGoblin> but even then - you'd lose predictability
1038 2012-10-11 17:04:27 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: then there is just an incentive to pad your own blocks. to increase the size to the maximum.
1039 2012-10-11 17:04:38 <UukGoblin> atm you can say that x GB of storage will suffice to store all bitcoin transactions up until date y
1040 2012-10-11 17:04:44 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: only works if you have 51%
1041 2012-10-11 17:04:45 <amiller> i think gmaxwell is right, miners and attackers probably want very different hardware
1042 2012-10-11 17:04:59 <amiller> miners in it for the long haul will want very low power consumption, steady production, like a solar powered miner
1043 2012-10-11 17:05:28 TD has joined
1044 2012-10-11 17:05:31 <amiller> an attacker probably wants to rent a turbo charged rig for a day and do something nasty as quickly as possible
1045 2012-10-11 17:05:32 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: no, only if the people doing this have 51% .. basically you're just allowing a virtual cartel a nice collusion mechenism.
1046 2012-10-11 17:05:33 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: that's why I picked median over average ;)
1047 2012-10-11 17:05:43 <gmaxwell> I do realize this.
1048 2012-10-11 17:05:47 <UukGoblin> solar powered? that wouldn't be viable in a lot of places
1049 2012-10-11 17:06:09 TD has quit (Client Quit)
1050 2012-10-11 17:06:11 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: what if going over 100% made you lose some of the fees (where do they go?) hm.. seems like it would have a lot of economically significant parameters to set. :(
1051 2012-10-11 17:06:11 <jgarzik> amiller: sure... but bitcoin is already designed so that mining and building blocks are a bit disconnected
1052 2012-10-11 17:06:23 pusle has quit ()
1053 2012-10-11 17:06:39 <UukGoblin> and you'd lose predictability. ;-]
1054 2012-10-11 17:06:43 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: oh. hm What if going over 100% increased your target diffculty?
1055 2012-10-11 17:07:03 <amiller> UukGoblin, yeah solar powered maybe was misleading there, the point is a low power consumption
1056 2012-10-11 17:07:11 lggr has joined
1057 2012-10-11 17:07:37 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: that makes sense
1058 2012-10-11 17:07:40 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, you mean like "the more transactions you want in a block, the bigger the difficulty"?
1059 2012-10-11 17:07:52 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: over the median size of the last N blocks.
1060 2012-10-11 17:07:54 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: that way, if everyone's doing it, the difficulty adjustments adapt to it
1061 2012-10-11 17:08:07 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: all of these ideas still have the serious flaw that it allows miners to push everyone else out of the validation business.
1062 2012-10-11 17:08:24 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: well, I'd drop the median bit there
1063 2012-10-11 17:08:38 <UukGoblin> well I'm not sure about the median bit...
1064 2012-10-11 17:08:50 <Luke-Jr> could use a fixed value like 1 MB
1065 2012-10-11 17:08:52 <UukGoblin> but if you can mine 1 block that has 200% size and 200% difficulty...
1066 2012-10-11 17:09:00 <gmaxwell> I dunno. Median is a pretty good statistic generally.
1067 2012-10-11 17:09:03 <UukGoblin> you could just as well mine two blocks with 100% size and 100% diff
1068 2012-10-11 17:09:16 <UukGoblin> the more power you have, the more transactions you can include. period.
1069 2012-10-11 17:09:18 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: because you think the nextwork needs more capacity in total.
1070 2012-10-11 17:09:19 <Luke-Jr> then if everyone goes to 1.2 MB, the difficulty can just drop to make 1.2 MB "standard"
1071 2012-10-11 17:09:43 <Eliel_> how about the setting I suggested some time ago? a setting where you can set "I wish to donate X btc/month to keeping bitcoin network secure." and then some kind of algorithm splits that over however many transactions you do per month.
1072 2012-10-11 17:09:49 <gmaxwell> Basically it makes making the change not profitable in the short term, but lets miners adjust the allowed size.
1073 2012-10-11 17:10:09 <Luke-Jr> Eliel_: how do you predict the future? :o
1074 2012-10-11 17:10:17 <Eliel_> Luke-Jr: it's not necessary
1075 2012-10-11 17:10:35 <Eliel_> Luke-Jr: makes little difference if you pay a month late.
1076 2012-10-11 17:10:35 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: the same way all systems control works. :P
1077 2012-10-11 17:11:16 <gmaxwell> You do pure feed forward or some PID controller.
1078 2012-10-11 17:11:18 darkskiez has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1079 2012-10-11 17:11:28 <UukGoblin> well either way, it'll be entirely up to miners to define caps
1080 2012-10-11 17:11:36 <UukGoblin> which is sort of wrong
1081 2012-10-11 17:11:36 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: yes, and thats bad.
1082 2012-10-11 17:12:01 <UukGoblin> cause people who need low caps most are thin clients
1083 2012-10-11 17:12:09 <UukGoblin> and not big fat rigs
1084 2012-10-11 17:12:12 darkskiez has joined
1085 2012-10-11 17:12:29 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: well, I don't know about thin clients there.. but its important that validation stay very widely distributed.
1086 2012-10-11 17:12:41 <gmaxwell> I guess we'd worry about this less if mining itself were better distributed. :(
1087 2012-10-11 17:13:16 <UukGoblin> enter altcoins. ;-P
1088 2012-10-11 17:13:23 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: the reason I said that wrt thin clients: a SPV client doesn't need to recieve whole blocks in any case. But validating nodes, including servers for SPV clients, do.
1089 2012-10-11 17:13:38 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1090 2012-10-11 17:13:40 <UukGoblin> well yeah, semi-thin clients
1091 2012-10-11 17:13:48 <UukGoblin> validating nodes.
1092 2012-10-11 17:13:50 <amiller> petite clients
1093 2012-10-11 17:14:19 <gmaxwell> I wonder if perhaps asic mining hardware could be made cheap enough that it might be a gimmic to make bitcoins more safely salable on paypal/ebay.
1094 2012-10-11 17:14:27 <UukGoblin> actually, well, is "SPV" a client that doesn't validate at all?
1095 2012-10-11 17:14:41 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: validating nodes could always decide not to relay big blocks until 2 confirms
1096 2012-10-11 17:14:49 <kjj_> I find the argument about arbitrary numbers unconvincing, outside of physics
1097 2012-10-11 17:14:52 <gmaxwell> E.g. you buy a mining chip + 10 BTC on ebay for whatever 15 BTC costs.. and because you sent a good you get anti-fraud protection.
1098 2012-10-11 17:15:01 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: doesn't help. :(
1099 2012-10-11 17:15:39 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: miners ought to be privately peering _already_ it's just an artifact now that the performance of validating nodes matters; if that happened people would rapidly setup pro-minerr hubs that have no such issue.
1100 2012-10-11 17:17:23 <gmaxwell> Eliel_: might be interesting for your promote bitcoin donation thing to decide how much to send to transaction fees vs other stuff (e.g. foundation and non-profits) based on some formula on the current difficulty.
1101 2012-10-11 17:17:45 <gmaxwell> Eliel_: e.g. if the difficulty is going up, send funds to other things, if it's going down, send funds to transaction fees.
1102 2012-10-11 17:17:46 lggr has joined
1103 2012-10-11 17:21:13 <gmaxwell> (obviously not in a binary way, just the more the increase/decrease the more the shift)
1104 2012-10-11 17:22:39 <Eliel_> gmaxwell: automatic decision has it's benefits but the user should be able to override if (s)he wants to.
1105 2012-10-11 17:23:10 <gmaxwell> Sure sure...
1106 2012-10-11 17:23:40 <Luke-Jr> sounds like a complex donation option page
1107 2012-10-11 17:23:45 <Eliel_> even so, just getting the setting I suggested into the client would most likely result in lots of ideas on how to develop that further.
1108 2012-10-11 17:24:10 <Luke-Jr> Maybe just have a single "x BTC to donate per month" option, and an Advanced button to micromanage it
1109 2012-10-11 17:24:22 <Luke-Jr> most donors aren't going to want to make those decisions IMO\
1110 2012-10-11 17:24:24 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1111 2012-10-11 17:24:25 <Eliel_> the first version doesn't have to cook your dinner, you know :D
1112 2012-10-11 17:24:39 <Luke-Jr> Eliel_: yeah, but if it can, I'd hide it :P
1113 2012-10-11 17:24:50 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: right. x per month plus "[more options]" which activates spaceship cockpit mode.
1114 2012-10-11 17:25:33 <gmaxwell> Eliel_: so wheres the patch?
1115 2012-10-11 17:25:35 <Luke-Jr> besides, if it has a donate-to-Foundation, there will be an uproar at least today
1116 2012-10-11 17:25:43 lggr has joined
1117 2012-10-11 17:25:54 <Luke-Jr> probably could get that added later easier once people see real results from the Foundation
1118 2012-10-11 17:26:04 <Eliel_> gmaxwell: I haven't done more than a preliminary overview of the code yet :D
1119 2012-10-11 17:26:25 <gmaxwell> I don't think I'd support merging that _today_ without aformentioned results in any case! but I expect it'll make sense in the not too distant future.
1120 2012-10-11 17:27:05 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1121 2012-10-11 17:28:06 t7 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1122 2012-10-11 17:29:07 <Eliel_> I was thinking to add a function or a singleton class object that can be used to calculate the fee if the monthly donation setting is activated.
1123 2012-10-11 17:29:29 <gmaxwell> On another subject, I've been trying to come up with ways of encourging new asic farm deployments to opt for more decenteralized mining options rather than sticking to big pools that they may have more expirence with, but I'm not coming up with a ton of ideas.
1124 2012-10-11 17:30:44 <Eliel_> you remember the decentralized mining idea I brought up some time ago? I've been fleshing it out a bit more. I really think it can solve the too little decentralization problem.
1125 2012-10-11 17:31:22 <Luke-Jr> Eliel_: I think you mean p2p
1126 2012-10-11 17:31:26 <gmaxwell> Eliel_: I still think it solves nothing useful. :(
1127 2012-10-11 17:31:29 <Luke-Jr> ^
1128 2012-10-11 17:31:43 <gmaxwell> We have decenteralized options already having options isn't a problem.
1129 2012-10-11 17:31:48 <gmaxwell> Getting people to use them is.
1130 2012-10-11 17:32:14 <Eliel_> p2pool isn't competitive, really.
1131 2012-10-11 17:32:29 <Eliel_> you need to be an ideologist to use it despite the problems.
1132 2012-10-11 17:32:31 <Luke-Jr> Eliel_: Eligius then
1133 2012-10-11 17:32:31 <gmaxwell> I've though about basically offering to go fly around the US and help people with deployments if they'll use P2pool. But really, unlike GPUs a really big asic farm is just not that much work to deploy.
1134 2012-10-11 17:32:39 <gmaxwell> Eliel_: You're spouting gibberish.
1135 2012-10-11 17:33:09 <gmaxwell> Eliel_: it has the highest returns of any mining option right now, short of the sketchy >100% pps stuff.
1136 2012-10-11 17:33:24 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1137 2012-10-11 17:33:25 <Eliel_> gmaxwell: the efficiency problem got fixed then?
1138 2012-10-11 17:33:41 <gmaxwell> Yes.
1139 2012-10-11 17:33:59 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: implementing GBT's mutable transactions (ie, adding more) would let decentralized miners add them to gain fees directly
1140 2012-10-11 17:34:08 <MC1984> p2pool really gets people the most payout of any pool now?
1141 2012-10-11 17:34:54 <Eliel_> gmaxwell: then it's just a matter of getting people to know about it and making it as simple to install as possible.
1142 2012-10-11 17:34:57 <gmaxwell> MC1984: yes. There are some fundimental advantages p2pool has wrt orphan rate, as least vs pools which aren't very well managed.
1143 2012-10-11 17:35:23 <MC1984> wow
1144 2012-10-11 17:35:37 <MC1984> an of cource p2pool runs itself
1145 2012-10-11 17:35:49 lggr has joined
1146 2012-10-11 17:35:52 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: p2pool has other risks and costs, of course
1147 2012-10-11 17:36:20 <Luke-Jr> DDoS attacks, 51% attacks, higher host CPU usage, etc
1148 2012-10-11 17:36:54 <MC1984> i that that is p2pool cant sponge up most mining power even with a financial afvantage, its clear that were facing simple rank laziness for why people are still using deepbit and shit
1149 2012-10-11 17:37:10 <MC1984> wow i cant ype in the dark at all
1150 2012-10-11 17:37:45 <Eliel_> yes, with asics coming up soon, if you can get the knowledge out of p2pool's benefits, most asic users might go that way.
1151 2012-10-11 17:38:04 <MC1984> i think this is why i advocate the satoshi client coming with p2pool functionality out of the box
1152 2012-10-11 17:38:05 xorgate has quit (Quit: Take it easy)
1153 2012-10-11 17:38:15 <amiller> p2pool should start a foundation
1154 2012-10-11 17:38:30 <amiller> it's one of the coolest things in the bitcoin ecosystem
1155 2012-10-11 17:38:36 <MC1984> and if not getting this crowd of lazy bastard miners, then getting the next crowd of them by default
1156 2012-10-11 17:40:02 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: that would be too biased toward a pool
1157 2012-10-11 17:40:06 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1158 2012-10-11 17:40:07 xorgate has joined
1159 2012-10-11 17:40:27 agricocb has joined
1160 2012-10-11 17:40:31 <MC1984> coming from you thats hilarious
1161 2012-10-11 17:41:00 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: I never suggested put an Eligius-only miner in bitcoind
1162 2012-10-11 17:41:52 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1163 2012-10-11 17:42:36 <gmaxwell> Fixating on one solution creates systemic risks. while I like p2pool a lot, I don't disagree with luke that we shouldn't promote it to the exclusion of all other options.
1164 2012-10-11 17:45:42 <MC1984> well not to the exclusion
1165 2012-10-11 17:46:11 da2ce7_d has joined
1166 2012-10-11 17:46:12 lggr has joined
1167 2012-10-11 17:46:32 <MC1984> p2pool is a mostly autonomous system though, saying to not be biased towards it is like saying you shouldnt be biased towards one blockchain
1168 2012-10-11 17:46:49 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: p2pool is a pool, mostly like any other
1169 2012-10-11 17:47:05 <MC1984> no its not comparable
1170 2012-10-11 17:47:08 <Luke-Jr> it is
1171 2012-10-11 17:47:23 <MC1984> there are humans running the show behind all of them except p2pool to my knowledge
1172 2012-10-11 17:47:33 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: including p2pool
1173 2012-10-11 17:48:13 <MC1984> no the dev doesnt count for the same reason the devs of bitcoin dont "run" bitcoin
1174 2012-10-11 17:48:13 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1175 2012-10-11 17:48:18 <Luke-Jr> only difference is it runs on miners' machines instead of a server forrestv pays for
1176 2012-10-11 17:48:49 <MC1984> and thats all the difference in the world
1177 2012-10-11 17:48:55 <Luke-Jr> riiight
1178 2012-10-11 17:48:59 <MC1984> what matters is capability, not intent
1179 2012-10-11 17:49:03 <Luke-Jr> reducing the poolop's costs makes it better
1180 2012-10-11 17:50:14 <Eliel_> Luke-Jr: are you saying it doesn't help with the centralization?
1181 2012-10-11 17:50:37 <Luke-Jr> Eliel_: Eligius is no more centralized than p2pool
1182 2012-10-11 17:50:57 <sipa> eligius has decentralized block construction, but centralized payout
1183 2012-10-11 17:51:07 <sipa> p2pool has both decentralized
1184 2012-10-11 17:51:11 <MC1984> i just think perhaps there should be a first run dialogue window saying something like "auto configure mining (p2pool0 or enter pool address here"
1185 2012-10-11 17:52:10 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: I think mining should be kept out of wallets.
1186 2012-10-11 17:52:23 <Luke-Jr> you have to buy specialized hardware for it anyway
1187 2012-10-11 17:53:05 <MC1984> satoshi client should be kept as a full implementation of the latest bitcoin tech
1188 2012-10-11 17:53:27 <MC1984> splitting up functionality and stuff will be done by others, indeed will be encouraged to be done so
1189 2012-10-11 17:53:31 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1190 2012-10-11 17:53:35 <MC1984> which is good
1191 2012-10-11 17:53:57 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: "kept" is the wrong word
1192 2012-10-11 17:54:03 <Luke-Jr> it hasn't worked for mining for quite some time
1193 2012-10-11 17:54:22 <Luke-Jr> and I doubt anyone agrees to keep it a blob of everything
1194 2012-10-11 17:54:26 <MC1984> yeah because there was a lack of tech back then
1195 2012-10-11 17:54:31 <MC1984> but its feasible again now
1196 2012-10-11 17:55:25 <MC1984> in fact i would still like to see an emergency mining function exist in whatever the most used bitcoin software is
1197 2012-10-11 17:55:48 <MC1984> which mines on whatever is available (prob CPU, then some gpus)
1198 2012-10-11 17:56:38 lggr has joined
1199 2012-10-11 17:56:49 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: that's just bloat
1200 2012-10-11 17:57:18 <MC1984> so is block checkpoints
1201 2012-10-11 17:57:21 <Luke-Jr> â¦
1202 2012-10-11 17:57:29 <sipa> block checkpoints require hardly any maintainance
1203 2012-10-11 17:57:31 <Luke-Jr> block checkpoints use like 50 lines of code
1204 2012-10-11 17:57:55 <sipa> mining code for different OSes, different hardware, ... is horrible
1205 2012-10-11 17:58:01 <sipa> not to mention the dependency hell
1206 2012-10-11 17:58:28 <MC1984> could just stick the cpu miner back in for that purposes
1207 2012-10-11 17:58:35 <sipa> ?
1208 2012-10-11 17:58:35 <Luke-Jr> it would make sense to have the installer offer to download a miner, and if one is installed, have Bitcoin-Qt launch/manage it for you; but no more IMO
1209 2012-10-11 17:58:42 <sipa> the cpu mining code was never removed
1210 2012-10-11 17:58:49 <MC1984> emergency mining
1211 2012-10-11 17:58:51 <sipa> (the specially optimized code was, though)
1212 2012-10-11 17:59:16 <MC1984> Luke-Jr thats a good compromise
1213 2012-10-11 17:59:20 <sipa> MC1984: setgenerate true still works
1214 2012-10-11 17:59:39 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: ok, so who is going to spend the time to write this code? :P
1215 2012-10-11 17:59:51 <sipa> Luke-Jr: i like that idea in general, but i'd against making the reference software "favor" some third party software and not others
1216 2012-10-11 18:00:01 <sipa> though if there is some kind of plugin system, ...
1217 2012-10-11 18:00:09 <MC1984> yeah plugins
1218 2012-10-11 18:00:10 <Luke-Jr> sipa: sure; I was thinking of having it launch another EXE and use a standard RPC interface
1219 2012-10-11 18:00:22 <sipa> ok, yes
1220 2012-10-11 18:00:25 <Luke-Jr> plugins might be better, but sounds more complex
1221 2012-10-11 18:01:11 <MC1984> if the cpu miner is still in then the emergency mining could prob be implemented fairly quick?
1222 2012-10-11 18:01:15 vigilyn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1223 2012-10-11 18:01:21 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: define emergency mining
1224 2012-10-11 18:01:27 <Luke-Jr> CPU mining is worthless, no matter what happens
1225 2012-10-11 18:01:30 <MC1984> although with current node count it might not help much
1226 2012-10-11 18:01:39 <Luke-Jr> node count is irrelevant to miners
1227 2012-10-11 18:01:47 <Eliel_> MC1984: it's easy enough to run any miner against bitcoind.
1228 2012-10-11 18:01:54 <Eliel_> a pool isn't needed in between
1229 2012-10-11 18:02:02 <MC1984> i know
1230 2012-10-11 18:02:04 <Luke-Jr> Eliel_: well, not at high hashrates
1231 2012-10-11 18:02:19 <Luke-Jr> Eliel_: for that, bitcoind would need to support coinbasetx or libblkmaker needs to add coinbasevalue
1232 2012-10-11 18:02:33 <Luke-Jr> (the latter of which requires a base58 parserâ¦)
1233 2012-10-11 18:03:06 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1234 2012-10-11 18:03:21 <MC1984> emergency mining is if the standard client detects a prodigious drop off in blockrate and thus hash power for some reason it would start automining on p2pool
1235 2012-10-11 18:03:50 <MC1984> if the drop off is real then all nodes detect it and automine, providing the network some some base level of power against an attacker
1236 2012-10-11 18:03:51 <gmaxwell> MC1984: if you're taking about emergency whatever (which I still think is worthless) you can just solomine.
1237 2012-10-11 18:03:51 <MC1984> maybe
1238 2012-10-11 18:03:52 freakazoid has joined
1239 2012-10-11 18:04:00 <Eliel_> CPU mining would make no difference here.
1240 2012-10-11 18:04:16 <gmaxwell> Beyond a certian expected return solo mining has much more net utility anyways.
1241 2012-10-11 18:04:17 <Luke-Jr> drop off in block rate kills Bitcoin, no matter what CPU miners do
1242 2012-10-11 18:04:32 <Luke-Jr> until the community agrees on some solution to change the rules
1243 2012-10-11 18:04:37 <Eliel_> the difficulty is so high it's like trying to fill a lake with a faucet (counting all nodes cpu mining)
1244 2012-10-11 18:04:51 <MC1984> no as a temporary defence to a temporary attack
1245 2012-10-11 18:05:00 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: it wouldn't be any defense
1246 2012-10-11 18:05:01 <gmaxwell> Which would you prefer, which would improve your life more? A penny or a 1:100000 chance at $1000?
1247 2012-10-11 18:05:19 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: erm, bad example. I'd pick the chance. :P
1248 2012-10-11 18:05:31 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: that was exactly my point!
1249 2012-10-11 18:05:31 <Eliel_> no, just the right example :)
1250 2012-10-11 18:05:35 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: O.o
1251 2012-10-11 18:05:40 <gmaxwell> 10:52 < gmaxwell> Beyond a certian expected return solo mining has much more net utility anyways.
1252 2012-10-11 18:05:48 <Luke-Jr> oh, I get it
1253 2012-10-11 18:05:51 <MC1984> well solo then
1254 2012-10-11 18:05:58 <gmaxwell> If you're cpu mining you're better off net-utility wise solo mining.
1255 2012-10-11 18:06:21 drizztbsd has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1256 2012-10-11 18:06:54 <MC1984> actual full node count is projected to stay stable or decrease as bitcoin adoption increases right?
1257 2012-10-11 18:07:00 lggr has joined
1258 2012-10-11 18:07:05 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: hope not
1259 2012-10-11 18:07:13 <Luke-Jr> we're probably doomed if it doesn't grow
1260 2012-10-11 18:07:15 <gmaxwell> count? It sure shouldn't decrease!
1261 2012-10-11 18:07:27 <gmaxwell> yea, if it the _count_ doesn't grow we're doomed.
1262 2012-10-11 18:07:34 <MC1984> full mining capable nodes i mean
1263 2012-10-11 18:07:39 <gmaxwell> The _share_, I expect to decrease.
1264 2012-10-11 18:08:04 <gmaxwell> But the count better well go up or we'll eventually start failing for purely technical reasons.
1265 2012-10-11 18:08:06 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: nodes don't mine.
1266 2012-10-11 18:08:29 <Luke-Jr> fully verifying nodes must go up
1267 2012-10-11 18:08:57 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: I do kinda wonder if we shouldn't reintroduce solo mining as an exposed feature into the node software but branded as 'play bitcoin lottery' :P
1268 2012-10-11 18:09:22 <MC1984> i just had a vision with 10 million full nodes swiching on cpu mining automatically because someoen has orchestrated some huge mining power attack
1269 2012-10-11 18:09:38 <MC1984> but it probably wouldnt work
1270 2012-10-11 18:09:42 <sipa> ;;bc,diff
1271 2012-10-11 18:09:42 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: maybe! but it needs a warning on power use
1272 2012-10-11 18:09:43 <gribble> 3054627.5269486
1273 2012-10-11 18:09:46 <gmaxwell> MC1984: that wouldn't work, and probably wouldn't matter.
1274 2012-10-11 18:09:57 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: might even discourage people from doing SDice
1275 2012-10-11 18:10:00 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: have it even have a caculator where it tells you the anticipated cost.
1276 2012-10-11 18:10:01 osmosis has joined
1277 2012-10-11 18:10:08 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: yep.
1278 2012-10-11 18:10:24 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: perhaps make it part of the miner integration
1279 2012-10-11 18:10:49 <MC1984> but sdice is populoar because of the good odds on small payouts
1280 2012-10-11 18:10:57 <gmaxwell> e.g. you can type in your power cost and it tells you, "You're entering the lotterly 10 million times per second and it's estimated to cost you $2/month.. and you have a 1 in a million chance of willing 25 bitcoins! this month"
1281 2012-10-11 18:11:00 <sipa> gmaxwell: actually, "Every day: 1/15000 chance to win $500 !!!" doesn't sound too bad
1282 2012-10-11 18:11:07 <gmaxwell> sipa: yea.
1283 2012-10-11 18:11:12 <MC1984> solo cant emulate that except if it used p2pool too
1284 2012-10-11 18:11:30 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: maybe just have the miner integration label change between "Generate Coins" and "Play Bitcoin Lottery" based on expected earnings :p
1285 2012-10-11 18:11:36 <gmaxwell> hahah
1286 2012-10-11 18:12:21 <gmaxwell> Would be better if it had some fun graphical mining visulizatioon ... like the lowest found hash value ticking by updating once per second.
1287 2012-10-11 18:12:38 <gmaxwell> so you're getting 'paid' for mining in terms of amusement. :P
1288 2012-10-11 18:12:44 <Luke-Jr> :p
1289 2012-10-11 18:12:50 <Luke-Jr> if only we had time to kill..
1290 2012-10-11 18:13:00 <gmaxwell> Well, baby steps.
1291 2012-10-11 18:13:28 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1292 2012-10-11 18:13:29 <gmaxwell> merging a fast cpu miner and adding the option back with the odds display would be not too much work.
1293 2012-10-11 18:13:30 <Luke-Jr> yeah, I'd probably have a RPC interface for cgminer|bfgminer today if Qt's stuff wasn't so super-abstracted :<
1294 2012-10-11 18:13:45 <gmaxwell> or yea, doing hat.
1295 2012-10-11 18:14:14 <Luke-Jr> the whole data model abstraction just makes it painful
1296 2012-10-11 18:14:15 <gmaxwell> it wouldn't be hard to drop a copy of cgminer or bfgminer in the distribution install... if there was some shim to activate it without dorking with the cli.
1297 2012-10-11 18:14:29 <Luke-Jr> activating it is easy. making a GUI is hard ;/
1298 2012-10-11 18:15:05 <gmaxwell> I guess bfgminer would be needed, there is no GBT in cgminer, enh? and we'd need external coinbasing for gpu users as getwork is just too slow.
1299 2012-10-11 18:15:26 <Luke-Jr> right
1300 2012-10-11 18:15:29 <gmaxwell> (well, maybe not.. a single gpu will still work I guessâ I'm used to running dozens. :P )
1301 2012-10-11 18:15:44 <Luke-Jr> I guess with bitcoind integration, we could just tell bitcoind to provide the payout script
1302 2012-10-11 18:15:45 <MC1984> you guys serious about this
1303 2012-10-11 18:15:55 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: except that probably we don't have time for it
1304 2012-10-11 18:15:56 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: p2pool asks over rpc.
1305 2012-10-11 18:16:05 <MC1984> i like it lol
1306 2012-10-11 18:16:08 <gmaxwell> MC1984: what luke said.
1307 2012-10-11 18:16:09 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: doh, I guess that's an obvious solution
1308 2012-10-11 18:16:36 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: wait no; that only gets an address
1309 2012-10-11 18:16:41 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: address requires base58 parser
1310 2012-10-11 18:16:51 lggr has joined
1311 2012-10-11 18:16:59 <Luke-Jr> base58 parsing is⦠not practical without yet another annoying dep?
1312 2012-10-11 18:17:01 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: you can get a pubkey too.. (p2pool used to do that)
1313 2012-10-11 18:17:09 <Luke-Jr> oh? O.o
1314 2012-10-11 18:17:14 <Luke-Jr> how?
1315 2012-10-11 18:17:19 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: yea verifyaddress
1316 2012-10-11 18:17:23 <Luke-Jr> aha
1317 2012-10-11 18:18:24 <gmaxwell> I guess we made a mistake in not realizing the 'small scale mining is not a bad lottery' a year ago. :( oh well.
1318 2012-10-11 18:18:50 arij_ has joined
1319 2012-10-11 18:18:52 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I wonder if we can ask Diapolo to make the GUI?
1320 2012-10-11 18:18:54 arij has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1321 2012-10-11 18:19:07 <Luke-Jr> not sure how familiar he is with mining tho
1322 2012-10-11 18:19:28 <gmaxwell> I don't think this needs _too_ much gui at least.
1323 2012-10-11 18:19:52 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: well, it'd be nice to be able to add other servers and see the results from each device etc
1324 2012-10-11 18:20:17 <Luke-Jr> but I guess we could start with a mere Bitcoin-systray icon
1325 2012-10-11 18:20:34 <Luke-Jr> like my BFL demo a while back did <.<
1326 2012-10-11 18:21:00 <Luke-Jr> (before I made BFGMiner, I hacked a BFL-based miner into Bitcoin-Qt)
1327 2012-10-11 18:21:40 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: just something that did the interfacing and gave basic stats (hashrate and lottery odds) would be a good start.
1328 2012-10-11 18:21:52 <Luke-Jr> oh! I just remembered I might have actually done a BFGMiner port of that
1329 2012-10-11 18:22:04 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1330 2012-10-11 18:22:17 <gmaxwell> Bonus would be a cost estimator, but it would require a table of efficiency values.
1331 2012-10-11 18:23:00 <Luke-Jr> yep - https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/compare/eligius_miner
1332 2012-10-11 18:23:09 <Luke-Jr> obviously would need cleanup and change to solo
1333 2012-10-11 18:23:11 <gmaxwell> (nice thing is that formula gives you a dimensionless ratio. Foo currency per kwh * returns = foo currency per month for any foo.
1334 2012-10-11 18:23:14 <gmaxwell> )
1335 2012-10-11 18:23:20 <Luke-Jr> and I think it didn't work on Windows for some reason
1336 2012-10-11 18:23:21 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1337 2012-10-11 18:26:30 lggr has joined
1338 2012-10-11 18:27:59 <Luke-Jr> anyhow, bbl
1339 2012-10-11 18:32:05 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1340 2012-10-11 18:33:56 Diablo-D3 has joined
1341 2012-10-11 18:33:58 paraipan has joined
1342 2012-10-11 18:36:20 lggr has joined
1343 2012-10-11 18:38:01 t7 has joined
1344 2012-10-11 18:39:05 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1345 2012-10-11 18:40:45 Belkaar has joined
1346 2012-10-11 18:42:35 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1347 2012-10-11 18:44:13 optimator has joined
1348 2012-10-11 18:44:57 optimator_ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1349 2012-10-11 18:46:09 lggr has joined
1350 2012-10-11 18:49:36 D34TH has joined
1351 2012-10-11 18:49:37 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
1352 2012-10-11 18:49:37 D34TH has joined
1353 2012-10-11 18:51:37 CodesInChaos has joined
1354 2012-10-11 18:52:40 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1355 2012-10-11 18:52:46 rdponticelli has joined
1356 2012-10-11 18:54:51 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1357 2012-10-11 18:55:04 molecular has joined
1358 2012-10-11 18:56:22 lggr has joined
1359 2012-10-11 18:56:46 D34TH has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1360 2012-10-11 18:56:54 andrew_wmf has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1361 2012-10-11 18:57:06 andrew_wmf has joined
1362 2012-10-11 19:00:53 eroot has joined
1363 2012-10-11 19:02:47 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1364 2012-10-11 19:06:14 lggr has joined
1365 2012-10-11 19:08:26 <amiller> it's _always_ safer to wait longer or to wait for more blocks, right
1366 2012-10-11 19:08:40 <amiller> like there's transitivity, it never becomes more likely to suffer a double-spend if you wait longer rather than quicker
1367 2012-10-11 19:09:11 <kjj_> more blocks on top of the transaction is always good, yes
1368 2012-10-11 19:09:53 ThomasV_ has joined
1369 2012-10-11 19:10:29 MobiusL has joined
1370 2012-10-11 19:11:06 ThomasV_ has quit (Client Quit)
1371 2012-10-11 19:11:29 ThomasV has joined
1372 2012-10-11 19:11:44 ThomasV has quit (Changing host)
1373 2012-10-11 19:11:44 ThomasV has joined
1374 2012-10-11 19:12:06 <gmaxwell> amiller: well I could construct silly examples where you're moving the risk to someone else.
1375 2012-10-11 19:12:10 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1376 2012-10-11 19:12:46 <gmaxwell> e.g. someone pays you and you think they may double spend, and you want to pay someone else, and know they'll trust you and you don't care about breaking that trust... you could spend fast to make the issue not your problem.
1377 2012-10-11 19:12:47 <amiller> hmm, right, if your decision is to pass on the risk to someone else then you're safer the faster you do it... the "hot potato" model
1378 2012-10-11 19:13:43 <gmaxwell> But it's not a reduction of the risk, just an externalization of it.
1379 2012-10-11 19:14:13 tazirt3 has joined
1380 2012-10-11 19:14:26 <amiller> i found a ton a economics papers discussing the relationship (equivalence?) between uncertainty and delay, beginning with Keren and Roelofsma http://alexandria.tue.nl/repository/freearticles/622255.pdf
1381 2012-10-11 19:15:18 <amiller> also i noticed that there's an explicit axiom of "transitivity" that rational models are based on, basically if you prefer A to B, and B to C, then you prefer A to C
1382 2012-10-11 19:15:38 guruvan- has quit (Write error: Connection reset by peer)
1383 2012-10-11 19:15:38 guruvan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1384 2012-10-11 19:15:38 rdponticelli has quit (Write error: Connection reset by peer)
1385 2012-10-11 19:15:39 paraipan has quit (Write error: Connection reset by peer)
1386 2012-10-11 19:15:39 mykhal has quit (Write error: Connection reset by peer)
1387 2012-10-11 19:15:39 xIsalty has quit (Write error: Connection reset by peer)
1388 2012-10-11 19:15:39 random_cat has quit (Write error: Connection reset by peer)
1389 2012-10-11 19:15:39 gfinn has quit (Write error: Connection reset by peer)
1390 2012-10-11 19:16:04 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1391 2012-10-11 19:16:27 lggr has joined
1392 2012-10-11 19:19:17 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1393 2012-10-11 19:19:39 MobiusL has joined
1394 2012-10-11 19:19:57 random_cat has joined
1395 2012-10-11 19:21:25 MobiusL has left ()
1396 2012-10-11 19:21:54 MobiusL has joined
1397 2012-10-11 19:21:54 MobiusL has quit (Changing host)
1398 2012-10-11 19:21:54 MobiusL has joined
1399 2012-10-11 19:22:22 MobiusL has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1400 2012-10-11 19:22:49 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1401 2012-10-11 19:24:26 <amiller> maybe there should be a little tool that helps you calculate the ideal number of blocks to wait for
1402 2012-10-11 19:24:53 <sipa> that would require knowing the chance for a double-spend attempt?
1403 2012-10-11 19:25:24 MobiusL has joined
1404 2012-10-11 19:25:24 MobiusL has quit (Changing host)
1405 2012-10-11 19:25:24 MobiusL has joined
1406 2012-10-11 19:26:20 <amiller> that's a tough to answer question isn't it
1407 2012-10-11 19:26:31 lggr has joined
1408 2012-10-11 19:26:49 MobiusL has quit (Client Quit)
1409 2012-10-11 19:27:07 <sipa> i certainly don't have a clue about how i'd calculate that
1410 2012-10-11 19:27:11 <amiller> i wonder what's the state-of-the-art in insurance counseling
1411 2012-10-11 19:27:36 <amiller> double spend attempts are a bit like black-swan events (at least currently!)
1412 2012-10-11 19:27:49 <sipa> what are black-swan events?
1413 2012-10-11 19:27:52 gfinn has joined
1414 2012-10-11 19:28:08 mykhal has joined
1415 2012-10-11 19:29:45 <amiller> black-swans are events that have a large impact, are very rare or surprising when they occur, and tend to be viewed in hindsight much differently than leading up to it
1416 2012-10-11 19:30:37 <amiller> (it's a trendy finance term i read about once, ymmv)
1417 2012-10-11 19:31:09 <amiller> "it is rationalized by hindsight, as if it could have been expected; that is, the relevant data were available but unaccounted for in risk mitigation programs"
1418 2012-10-11 19:32:18 <sipa> i think the only way to calculate double-spend risk, is by having a large amount of data to analyse :)
1419 2012-10-11 19:32:52 D34TH has joined
1420 2012-10-11 19:33:14 MobiusL has joined
1421 2012-10-11 19:33:14 MobiusL has quit (Changing host)
1422 2012-10-11 19:33:14 MobiusL has joined
1423 2012-10-11 19:33:29 <sipa> like how life insurance companies charge: using statistics about the age at which people die
1424 2012-10-11 19:34:19 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1425 2012-10-11 19:34:39 <sipa> it's not like they have an accurate enough physical model of reality to calculate how old people will become, they just observe and hope there are not too many hidden variables :)
1426 2012-10-11 19:35:01 <gmaxwell> sipa: it's more than that.
1427 2012-10-11 19:35:25 <sipa> sure, i suppose they use medical data
1428 2012-10-11 19:35:27 <gmaxwell> If the hidden variables are well distributed and you have _many_ customers the resulting systemic risk averages out and trends to the the aveage.
1429 2012-10-11 19:35:35 <sipa> right, that
1430 2012-10-11 19:35:39 <gmaxwell> so they only need to get the mean right.
1431 2012-10-11 19:36:19 lggr has joined
1432 2012-10-11 19:37:19 <amiller> how does a reasonable person go about shopping for insurance? surely discriminating customers are what keep the market competitive... how should a bright young bitcoin merchant (i.e., not necessarily gavin's grandma, although she may be very wise with insurance) decide how many blocks to wait for and how much protection to get
1433 2012-10-11 19:37:20 andrew_wmf has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1434 2012-10-11 19:37:42 andrew_wmf has joined
1435 2012-10-11 19:37:55 rdponticelli has joined
1436 2012-10-11 19:38:10 Motest003 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1437 2012-10-11 19:38:52 Motest003 has joined
1438 2012-10-11 19:38:59 <amiller> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Confirmation is there a canonical guide that's better than this
1439 2012-10-11 19:40:30 jdnavarro has joined
1440 2012-10-11 19:41:15 <sipa> i've once considered adding another measure for confirmation: the expected number of hashes since the transaction has been in the chain, divided by the expected hashing speed of the network
1441 2012-10-11 19:41:30 <sipa> which gives you a value expressed in time units
1442 2012-10-11 19:42:12 <sipa> i suppose you should correct for the chance that the blocks gets reorganised away
1443 2012-10-11 19:42:29 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1444 2012-10-11 19:43:07 <sipa> wow, this was a very hard bug to find... my Unserialize function for CTxInUndo called Serialize for one of its fields...
1445 2012-10-11 19:43:24 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1446 2012-10-11 19:43:51 <sipa> which at some point caused an uninitialized value to be restored in a reorg, which triggered an assert when that transaction got spen
1447 2012-10-11 19:44:58 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1448 2012-10-11 19:46:35 lggr has joined
1449 2012-10-11 19:49:24 <jgarzik> sipa: what are the ultraprune merge blockers at this point? what would explode if we pulled the branch right now?
1450 2012-10-11 19:49:34 <sipa> i hope nothing
1451 2012-10-11 19:50:05 <sipa> i'd like to have consistency checks implemented
1452 2012-10-11 19:50:12 <sipa> but that could as well happen afterwards
1453 2012-10-11 19:50:34 <freewil> it looks like getwork is broken if you have 0 blocks
1454 2012-10-11 19:50:35 <jgarzik> polishing is better done in bitcoin/master
1455 2012-10-11 19:50:45 <jgarzik> with everybody beating on it
1456 2012-10-11 19:50:51 <sipa> jgarzik: one point of discussion maybe, currently, i have the block tree db in blktree/*, the coin db in coins/* and the blocks & undo data in blocks/*
1457 2012-10-11 19:50:54 <gmaxwell> freewil: it won't let you mine if you don't have peers.
1458 2012-10-11 19:51:05 <sipa> this means it's incompatible with -reindex, as the block files moved
1459 2012-10-11 19:51:07 <freewil> gmaxwell, im trying to mine using testnet-box
1460 2012-10-11 19:51:13 <freewil> gmaxwell, so i only have 1 peer
1461 2012-10-11 19:51:20 <gmaxwell> freewil: that should work.
1462 2012-10-11 19:51:24 <jgarzik> sipa: do you mean three leveldb's, or one leveldb with three namespaces in the keys?
1463 2012-10-11 19:51:42 <freewil> gmaxwell, getwork just returns Bitcoin is downloading blocks...
1464 2012-10-11 19:51:46 <sipa> jgarzik: 2 leveldb's, blocks contains block files in the same format as we have now
1465 2012-10-11 19:52:02 <sipa> coindb and blktree are entirely separate databases
1466 2012-10-11 19:52:04 <freewil> gmaxwell, i cant get cgminer to connect and setgenerate true doesnt seem to be doing anything
1467 2012-10-11 19:52:21 <gmaxwell> freewil: oh you have to be above the highest checkpoint to be out of initial.
1468 2012-10-11 19:52:29 <jgarzik> sipa: As -reindex is not yet upstream, it does not exist, for the purposes of an ultraprune merge
1469 2012-10-11 19:52:38 <sipa> jgarzik: no, but it's a very useful feature
1470 2012-10-11 19:52:39 <jgarzik> sipa: -reindex is post-merge polish on my part
1471 2012-10-11 19:52:46 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1472 2012-10-11 19:52:57 <jgarzik> sipa: you're always welcome to pull it into #ultraprune ;p
1473 2012-10-11 19:53:04 <freewil> gmaxwell, so is there a testnet checkpoint i need?
1474 2012-10-11 19:53:05 <sipa> and standardizing on a directory layout that precludes -reindex from ever being useful, may not be the best idea
1475 2012-10-11 19:53:13 <sipa> jgarzik: so that's why it may need discussion
1476 2012-10-11 19:53:34 <gmaxwell> freewil: at height 500ish.
1477 2012-10-11 19:53:41 <freewil> bah
1478 2012-10-11 19:53:56 <gmaxwell> freewil: whats the issue?
1479 2012-10-11 19:54:11 <jgarzik> -reindex should know the directory layout and just Do The Right Thing... which sounds like removing blktree/ and coins/ and the undo data in blocks/
1480 2012-10-11 19:54:12 <sipa> jgarzik: basically the question is: do we want to be able to have users convert at upgrade without an additional 3 GB of storage
1481 2012-10-11 19:54:25 <freewil> gmaxwell, i guess i just need to get the first 500 blocks now
1482 2012-10-11 19:54:32 <sipa> jgarzik: right, they can be moved of course
1483 2012-10-11 19:54:35 <jgarzik> sipa: what about an upgrade util?
1484 2012-10-11 19:54:41 <jgarzik> bitcoin-firstrun.exe
1485 2012-10-11 19:54:53 <sipa> jgarzik: which would also be linked against BDB
1486 2012-10-11 19:54:59 <jgarzik> yep
1487 2012-10-11 19:55:05 <sipa> so that dependency doesn't need to go in bitcoin anymore
1488 2012-10-11 19:55:10 <jgarzik> yep
1489 2012-10-11 19:55:17 <jgarzik> well, presuming wallet logdb
1490 2012-10-11 19:55:18 <gmaxwell> freewil: gavin put up a tarball with a testnet3 in a box wallet and chain.
1491 2012-10-11 19:55:27 <kjj_> ugh. I can't bring myself to reply to the coypright guy again
1492 2012-10-11 19:55:38 <freewil> gmaxwell, ok thanks for your help
1493 2012-10-11 19:55:51 <gmaxwell> Ferroh: there is also a block at height .. um 2500ish? with a 100,000 tnBTC fee. so if you cut the chain there you can easily testnet in a box that.
1494 2012-10-11 19:55:57 Joric has joined
1495 2012-10-11 19:56:39 <sipa> jgarzik: also, for reasons of compactness, the blktree and coin databases use (char,key) as db keys, instead of (string,key)
1496 2012-10-11 19:56:56 lggr has joined
1497 2012-10-11 19:56:57 <sipa> i think i should make a list of all those smallish changes
1498 2012-10-11 19:58:05 <jgarzik> sipa: just throw them in an ever-growing gist, or somesuch
1499 2012-10-11 19:58:33 <sipa> well, i don't plan to make many changes anymore before accept/reject/merge
1500 2012-10-11 19:58:46 <sipa> as it would make reviewing hard, i guess
1501 2012-10-11 19:58:54 t7 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1502 2012-10-11 20:02:02 asa1024 has quit (Quit: asa1024)
1503 2012-10-11 20:03:00 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1504 2012-10-11 20:04:55 <kjj_> so, what is the plan with the bootstrap? anyone providing torrents yet?
1505 2012-10-11 20:05:25 <gmaxwell> did we merge that patch?
1506 2012-10-11 20:05:32 <kjj_> yup
1507 2012-10-11 20:05:33 <gmaxwell> IIRC it missed 0.7.
1508 2012-10-11 20:05:45 <kjj_> it is in 0.7.1rc1
1509 2012-10-11 20:06:18 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: how about we both reproduce your clean chain build, and see if we can get identical bootstrap blockchains?
1510 2012-10-11 20:06:38 lggr has joined
1511 2012-10-11 20:06:42 <gmaxwell> (lets only do it to the current checkpoint in the code)
1512 2012-10-11 20:08:51 <jgarzik> note that bootstrap is a single file
1513 2012-10-11 20:09:15 <jgarzik> and includes no indexes
1514 2012-10-11 20:09:32 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1515 2012-10-11 20:09:57 Joric has quit ()
1516 2012-10-11 20:10:29 <kjj_> still 193000 for the current checkpoint? 59f452?
1517 2012-10-11 20:10:34 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: sure. What luke did before was create a orphan free blk0001.dat.. so I'd propose to do that again, up to the highest checkpoint, and cat the blk files to geather.
1518 2012-10-11 20:10:49 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: yup, was already going to do that
1519 2012-10-11 20:10:58 <jgarzik> pynode stores all blocks in a single file already
1520 2012-10-11 20:11:25 <gmaxwell> we should be able to get multiple party independant validation of it to.. which would be nice.
1521 2012-10-11 20:11:41 <gmaxwell> though since there is no indexs it wouldn't matter much.
1522 2012-10-11 20:11:52 <jgarzik> easiest validation is just having multiple parties import, and watch their logs
1523 2012-10-11 20:12:05 <kjj_> I assume that we also want this to be in order?
1524 2012-10-11 20:12:26 <jgarzik> <shrug> it doesn't have to be
1525 2012-10-11 20:12:34 <gmaxwell> kjj_: yes, to do this with bitcoind is easy.. take two nodes.. one with the chain... isolate both and connect to each other.
1526 2012-10-11 20:12:38 <jgarzik> you could do it in bands of, say, 100 reversed-ordered blocks
1527 2012-10-11 20:12:54 <jgarzik> that causes bitcoind to queue up 100 orphans, then merge all at once
1528 2012-10-11 20:12:58 <jgarzik> a tiny bit more efficient
1529 2012-10-11 20:12:59 <kjj_> I've been meaning to write a script to parse the block files. going to use this as my excuse
1530 2012-10-11 20:13:02 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1531 2012-10-11 20:13:11 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: we do grouped updates in the IBD anyways.
1532 2012-10-11 20:13:57 <sipa> jgarzik: ultraprune already caches updates to the coindb
1533 2012-10-11 20:14:23 <sipa> during IBD, it only flushes to the database every time 5000+ transactions are modified
1534 2012-10-11 20:14:45 <jgarzik> Note that it doesn't _have_ to be a clean blockchain
1535 2012-10-11 20:14:46 <gmaxwell> out of order blocks would also make rescans slightly slower I expect.
1536 2012-10-11 20:14:53 <kjj_> gmaxwell: in the example of the two nodes, how do you get it to stop at the checkpoint block?
1537 2012-10-11 20:14:57 <jgarzik> You could intentionally (and publicly) insert bad blocks
1538 2012-10-11 20:14:59 <jgarzik> for testing
1539 2012-10-11 20:15:16 <gmaxwell> kjj_: by modifying the software or just truncating the result..
1540 2012-10-11 20:15:25 asa1024 has joined
1541 2012-10-11 20:15:40 <jgarzik> kjj_: pynode has a height index... just loop 0 ... 193000
1542 2012-10-11 20:15:40 <jgarzik> ;p
1543 2012-10-11 20:16:00 lggr has joined
1544 2012-10-11 20:16:02 <kjj_> meh. that sounds like less fun than parsing it myself
1545 2012-10-11 20:16:03 <jgarzik> or iterate through blocks.dat, stop @ 193000
1546 2012-10-11 20:17:03 MobiusL has joined
1547 2012-10-11 20:17:47 <sipa> jgarzik: i made a list of changes, in the first comment in the pullreq
1548 2012-10-11 20:20:45 occulta has joined
1549 2012-10-11 20:22:13 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1550 2012-10-11 20:24:25 freakazoid has joined
1551 2012-10-11 20:25:27 Lolcust- has joined
1552 2012-10-11 20:25:28 lggr has joined
1553 2012-10-11 20:25:44 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1554 2012-10-11 20:25:56 Lolcust has quit (Quit: Nap time)
1555 2012-10-11 20:25:56 Lolcust- is now known as Lolcust
1556 2012-10-11 20:28:45 Evilmax has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1557 2012-10-11 20:29:23 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1558 2012-10-11 20:31:01 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1559 2012-10-11 20:35:08 lggr has joined
1560 2012-10-11 20:36:02 <MC1984> is there really still an export embargo on the kind of crypto that bitcoin uses
1561 2012-10-11 20:36:16 <MC1984> so the official repo cannot service iran?
1562 2012-10-11 20:36:28 <helo> i think so
1563 2012-10-11 20:36:38 <helo> the matonis article?
1564 2012-10-11 20:36:48 <MC1984> Simply making the source code available for download worldwide is legally equivilant to selling bombs to Iran.
1565 2012-10-11 20:36:52 <MC1984> the fuck?
1566 2012-10-11 20:37:05 <MC1984> i thought that crypto munitions shit ended in the 90s
1567 2012-10-11 20:37:18 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.3 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1568 2012-10-11 20:37:19 <gmaxwell> MC1984: bitcoin can't encrypt data, and bitcoin itself uses no encryption at all (the implementation has it for wallet security, but it only protects private keys)
1569 2012-10-11 20:37:35 <gmaxwell> MC1984: it did, for open source software, not so for commercial apps.
1570 2012-10-11 20:37:39 <helo> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_United_States#Current_status
1571 2012-10-11 20:37:56 <gmaxwell> See Bernstein vs United States
1572 2012-10-11 20:38:11 <MC1984> whats stopping sourceforge serving iran then
1573 2012-10-11 20:38:17 <MC1984> some sort of embargo
1574 2012-10-11 20:39:21 <gmaxwell> The 9th circut ruling doesn't apply to non-source code; and sourceforge serves more than source... either that or a misunderstanding of the law.
1575 2012-10-11 20:40:00 <helo> gmaxwell: what the encryption is applied to (private keys) isn't relevant, is it?
1576 2012-10-11 20:40:32 <gmaxwell> helo: well _none_ of it is relevant for open source in the US.
1577 2012-10-11 20:40:51 <gmaxwell> Again, see Bernstein vs United States
1578 2012-10-11 20:40:59 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1579 2012-10-11 20:41:00 * helo complies
1580 2012-10-11 20:42:18 <gmaxwell> the IAR restricions are kind of ham fisted writtenâ and also cover other stuff like network interfaces faster than 10gbps and voice codes under 2400 bps... so AES wallet crypto might well fall afoul of the letter of them, though not the intent.
1581 2012-10-11 20:42:29 guruvan has joined
1582 2012-10-11 20:42:43 guruvan- has joined
1583 2012-10-11 20:43:10 <Eliel_> isn't this easily fixed? just setup a download server somewhere else.
1584 2012-10-11 20:43:27 <gmaxwell> IIRC they permit all uses cryptography for 'autentication' (e.g. password encryption) so even the wallet crypto might pass.
1585 2012-10-11 20:43:48 <helo> Eliel_: sourceforge lets project owners lift the restrictions
1586 2012-10-11 20:44:38 <MC1984> In addition, other items require a one-time review by or notification to BIS prior to export to most countries.[9] For instance, the BIS must be notified before open-source cryptographic software is made publicly available on the Internet, though no review is required.[10]
1587 2012-10-11 20:44:45 <MC1984> have you done that?
1588 2012-10-11 20:44:51 lggr has joined
1589 2012-10-11 20:47:22 JZavala has joined
1590 2012-10-11 20:47:29 <jgarzik> mkbootstrap.py in pynode distribution appears to generate a correct bootstrap.dat. Validation @ 120k right now
1591 2012-10-11 20:50:08 <helo> pretty silly that strong encryption source code can be sent anywhere, but not strong encryption binaries
1592 2012-10-11 20:50:27 <sipa> helo: the other way around, irrc
1593 2012-10-11 20:50:29 <sipa> *iirc
1594 2012-10-11 20:50:38 Evilmax has joined
1595 2012-10-11 20:50:41 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1596 2012-10-11 20:51:17 <helo> sipa: Bernstein vs United States ruled that source code is speech, so it can't be restricted
1597 2012-10-11 20:51:23 <sipa> ah
1598 2012-10-11 20:52:37 <jgarzik> true, but the government can always deem certain information as In The National Interest, and restrict the dissemination of the info
1599 2012-10-11 20:52:37 <MC1984> wow thank fuck for tht ruling
1600 2012-10-11 20:52:42 <sipa> jgarzik: actually, a tool that converts the blkindex.dat to coins/ + blktree/ should be entirely possible, without redoing block connection
1601 2012-10-11 20:53:06 <MC1984> this is why i disklike bitcoin being 'headquartered' in the US
1602 2012-10-11 20:53:07 <sipa> jgarzik: i wouldn't do that as upgrade step - it's a nice way to force a recheck of everything
1603 2012-10-11 20:53:09 <gmaxwell> I don't think it's worth the QA.
1604 2012-10-11 20:53:27 <jgarzik> I like how -reindex validates everything
1605 2012-10-11 20:53:33 <gmaxwell> MC1984: the US is generally unusually good wrt free speech of all kinds.
1606 2012-10-11 20:53:51 <sipa> jgarzik: but it is a very nice test for ultraprune as a whole, by verifying that a native-ultraprune gets the same database as a converted-from-bdb one
1607 2012-10-11 20:53:53 <MC1984> yeah only within its borders
1608 2012-10-11 20:54:21 <MC1984> then again i live in a country that just jailed a man for 4 months for an offensive t shirt
1609 2012-10-11 20:54:26 <sipa> though my earlier tests with a hashed export do the same, and are certainly easier to implement
1610 2012-10-11 20:54:27 lggr has joined
1611 2012-10-11 20:54:36 <sipa> MC1984: i'm not in the US, and neither are wumpus or tcatm
1612 2012-10-11 20:55:09 <MC1984> i know but gavin is and so are most of the servers and stuff
1613 2012-10-11 20:55:27 <sipa> bitcoin.sipa.be is in the netherlands (oh, the irony!)
1614 2012-10-11 20:55:39 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: not very effectively, see New York Times vs US (1971)
1615 2012-10-11 20:56:06 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: counterpoint: NSLs
1616 2012-10-11 20:56:27 <MC1984> ^
1617 2012-10-11 20:56:42 * jgarzik starts to compress bootstrap.dat with xz
1618 2012-10-11 20:56:51 <jgarzik> let's see if the fancy new compression favorite works well
1619 2012-10-11 20:57:42 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: xz does .. okay though we could do much better with something blockchain specialized.
1620 2012-10-11 20:58:13 <jgarzik> just for temp transfer. the torrent itself will be uncompressed bootstrap.dat
1621 2012-10-11 21:00:13 <gmaxwell> NSL's are much much narrower than a general supression of speech; and they're fairly new relative to the speed that this stuff advances we'll see how they stand up.
1622 2012-10-11 21:00:42 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1623 2012-10-11 21:03:56 lggr has joined
1624 2012-10-11 21:06:11 <sipa> gmaxwell: NSL?
1625 2012-10-11 21:07:03 <sipa> Negro Southern League?
1626 2012-10-11 21:07:20 AlexWaters has joined
1627 2012-10-11 21:08:52 <sipa> jgarzik, gmaxwell: preference: remove BDB support for the block databases in ultraprune?
1628 2012-10-11 21:09:16 <sipa> currently it's a compile flag, but the BDB side is not maintained and probably doesn't compile (though that wouldn't be hard to fix)
1629 2012-10-11 21:09:25 <jgarzik> sipa: remove
1630 2012-10-11 21:09:49 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1631 2012-10-11 21:11:47 <gmaxwell> remote
1632 2012-10-11 21:12:49 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1633 2012-10-11 21:13:12 <jgarzik> bigger, fewer, bisectable-working commits > smaller, more reviewable, not bisectable/compileable/usable commits
1634 2012-10-11 21:13:24 lggr has joined
1635 2012-10-11 21:13:59 <sipa> jgarzik: all ultraprune commits should result in a compilable state with working tests
1636 2012-10-11 21:14:19 robocoin has quit (Quit: V)(°,,,°)(V)
1637 2012-10-11 21:15:43 <sipa> jgarzik: there's just a USE_LEVELDB which is default on, but you can turn it off to get a BDB version of ultraprune (or at least could, i didn't apply recent changes in both txdb-leveldb and txdb-bdb)
1638 2012-10-11 21:15:45 <jgarzik> ~60 min until upload complete. where is my fiber-across-the-globe that I was promise?
1639 2012-10-11 21:15:51 * jgarzik curses Einstein for good measure
1640 2012-10-11 21:16:00 <jgarzik> *promised
1641 2012-10-11 21:16:26 <jgarzik> sipa: rip out any unnecessary BDB usage. USE_LEVELDB should be implicitly true ;p
1642 2012-10-11 21:16:46 <sipa> ACK
1643 2012-10-11 21:17:05 * jgarzik goes to hunt wild Tex-Mex boar at a local Moe's
1644 2012-10-11 21:19:45 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1645 2012-10-11 21:20:16 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1646 2012-10-11 21:22:00 <sipa> hmmm, my stronger checks during disconnect fail
1647 2012-10-11 21:22:22 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1648 2012-10-11 21:22:54 lggr has joined
1649 2012-10-11 21:29:49 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1650 2012-10-11 21:31:15 DerCoin has joined
1651 2012-10-11 21:33:00 lggr has joined
1652 2012-10-11 21:34:47 aq has quit (2!~aq83@80.109.197.142|Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1653 2012-10-11 21:35:48 aq83 has joined
1654 2012-10-11 21:37:45 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1655 2012-10-11 21:38:04 eroot has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1656 2012-10-11 21:39:53 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1657 2012-10-11 21:42:28 lggr has joined
1658 2012-10-11 21:42:44 * helo reads 'hunger checks' and heads to the vending machine
1659 2012-10-11 21:44:56 <edcba> i wonder if there is a simple service to do payments that would work like http://paymentprocessor/pay?amount=50&unit=USD&to=1fcze...&return=http://service/delivery/someguid ?
1660 2012-10-11 21:45:11 <edcba> ie you send visitor to some payment processor
1661 2012-10-11 21:45:19 <edcba> he pays with CC
1662 2012-10-11 21:45:47 <edcba> payment processor send you the coins then redirect visitor back to you
1663 2012-10-11 21:45:51 <MC1984> doesnt bitpay do that
1664 2012-10-11 21:46:01 <edcba> maybe i don't really know
1665 2012-10-11 21:46:16 <edcba> but it seems bitpay requires signup ?
1666 2012-10-11 21:46:28 <MC1984> they do it to cash you out to greenbacks immediately
1667 2012-10-11 21:48:39 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1668 2012-10-11 21:49:00 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1669 2012-10-11 21:50:06 maaku has joined
1670 2012-10-11 21:52:07 lggr has joined
1671 2012-10-11 21:52:36 freakazoid has joined
1672 2012-10-11 21:54:48 <edcba> bitpay requires too much information :)
1673 2012-10-11 21:55:14 <edcba> daily # of orders :)
1674 2012-10-11 21:55:23 <edcba> like you know before you start
1675 2012-10-11 21:55:42 <MC1984> requires?
1676 2012-10-11 21:56:24 <gavinandresen> edcba: payment processor would get killed by chargebacks.
1677 2012-10-11 21:57:11 <edcba> just inform visitor which website is risky or not
1678 2012-10-11 21:57:38 <sipa> bah, i won't find this bug today
1679 2012-10-11 21:57:49 * sipa hates not having much free time
1680 2012-10-11 21:57:55 <edcba> and make sure visitor understands payment processor do only provide them bitcoins and transfer services
1681 2012-10-11 21:58:11 <edcba> so they can't really chargeback
1682 2012-10-11 21:58:31 <edcba> of course that won't prevent them to do it :)
1683 2012-10-11 21:58:48 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1684 2012-10-11 21:59:27 <edcba> ok i guess the reputation part is a bit hard to get right :)
1685 2012-10-11 22:00:21 <edcba> but you still could get a fee proportional to your reputation
1686 2012-10-11 22:01:07 <kjj_> ugh. the copyright blockchain discussion makes me want to cry
1687 2012-10-11 22:01:16 <edcba> what
1688 2012-10-11 22:01:30 PhantomSpark has joined
1689 2012-10-11 22:01:30 <edcba> hmm
1690 2012-10-11 22:01:34 <sipa> i wanted to comment "are your browser's cache file copyrightable" ?
1691 2012-10-11 22:01:44 lggr has joined
1692 2012-10-11 22:02:07 <kjj_> the best part is when you tell him that no part of it is a creative work, he just handwaves and says "assume it is..."
1693 2012-10-11 22:02:08 <edcba> so if we put child porn into the block chain (if not already done), are UK ppl prevented to use bitcoin ? :)
1694 2012-10-11 22:02:22 <gavinandresen> it reminds me of the "what if child porn in the blockchain" periodic discussion.
1695 2012-10-11 22:02:26 <edcba> haha
1696 2012-10-11 22:02:52 <gavinandresen> People just love to think of "never gonna happen" issues.
1697 2012-10-11 22:02:57 tazirt3 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1698 2012-10-11 22:03:09 <sipa> gavinandresen: we should have some triggers in the forum that measure the average frequence of some ideas
1699 2012-10-11 22:03:12 <gavinandresen> (reminds me of the "what if there's a RIPEMD160 collision" dicussions, too)
1700 2012-10-11 22:03:20 <sipa> like what if all coins are lost
1701 2012-10-11 22:03:33 <gavinandresen> Need a newbie quiz on old, repeated topics....
1702 2012-10-11 22:03:36 <edcba> at least CP tx are quite a possibility
1703 2012-10-11 22:03:57 <kjj_> anyone have a size and hash of the bootstrap.dat up to 193,000 ?
1704 2012-10-11 22:04:23 <gavinandresen> Somebody bringing a lawsuit against... well, I'm not sure against who.... to claim blockchain copyright is certainly POSSIBLE, too. Just extremely unlikely
1705 2012-10-11 22:04:37 <gavinandresen> (and I think they'd be laughed out of court)
1706 2012-10-11 22:04:47 <kjj_> gavinandresen: and probably disbarred and jailed for barrity
1707 2012-10-11 22:04:50 * edcba waiting for bitcoin to become mainstream and sue some UK politician
1708 2012-10-11 22:05:26 tazirt3 has joined
1709 2012-10-11 22:07:19 <MC1984> in the uk some conservative mps are tabling a bill to make written works describing child abuse classed as CP
1710 2012-10-11 22:07:42 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1711 2012-10-11 22:08:01 <MC1984> also the using the web is already technically unlawful here under copyright law
1712 2012-10-11 22:08:17 <kjj_> FYI, "Tabling" means opposite things on opposite sides of the Atlantic
1713 2012-10-11 22:08:47 <sipa> what does it mean where?
1714 2012-10-11 22:08:56 <MC1984> oh and a one on one IRC PM was ruled to be a public broadcast for the purposes of obscenity laws
1715 2012-10-11 22:08:57 <gmaxwell> In the US it means putting aside.
1716 2012-10-11 22:09:00 <gavinandresen> ... our side never made sense to me, if I put something on the table that means everybody can see it....
1717 2012-10-11 22:09:12 <kjj_> in the US, it means "put away for later". in the UK, it means "put it where everyone can see and vote on it"
1718 2012-10-11 22:09:28 <gavinandresen> I have to table this discussion. Dinner time.
1719 2012-10-11 22:09:30 <edcba> i thought tabling meant planning ?
1720 2012-10-11 22:09:43 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1721 2012-10-11 22:10:18 <helo> to smash completely flat
1722 2012-10-11 22:11:21 lggr has joined
1723 2012-10-11 22:11:46 <MC1984> the head of public prosecutions who is currently chairing a consultation into how to stop all the silly facebook and twitter trolls convictions, was revealed to have personally intervened to make the public prosecution service press on with a case against the guy who tweeted a joke about blowing up an airport
1724 2012-10-11 22:12:10 <kjj_> doh! I really need to upgrade this old box. hit a 2 GB file size limit writing my bootstrap
1725 2012-10-11 22:13:31 <MC1984> i dont like how america conducts itself in a lot of ways but i am jealous of the first amendment
1726 2012-10-11 22:13:33 <gmaxwell> 0_o
1727 2012-10-11 22:13:43 <edcba> indeed
1728 2012-10-11 22:14:55 <gmaxwell> MC1984: it's not just the 1st amendment here; we have a genuinely adversarial relationship between the higher level judiciary and the other branches of government. A lot of our crap laws are throughly undone by the caselaw. This is one of the big problems with us exporting our law: we don't export the caselaw.
1729 2012-10-11 22:15:42 <gmaxwell> E.g. .au copied our crypto export law. But they don't have the ruling that source code is speech and the munitons law _cannot_ apply to it, nor do they have the legal basis to get that kind of ruling.
1730 2012-10-11 22:15:45 <MC1984> yes
1731 2012-10-11 22:16:02 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1732 2012-10-11 22:16:32 <MC1984> from what i can see our courts up to the high court are happy to toe the line
1733 2012-10-11 22:17:01 ThomasV has joined
1734 2012-10-11 22:17:17 <edcba> ".au copied our crypto export law" :)
1735 2012-10-11 22:17:17 <MC1984> the supreme court comes through sometimes but they dont generally like to usurp parliament
1736 2012-10-11 22:17:33 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1737 2012-10-11 22:17:39 <gmaxwell> Right.
1738 2012-10-11 22:17:41 <MC1984> in fact weve only had a supreme court since 2009, before that it WAS part of parliement
1739 2012-10-11 22:17:45 <edcba> when i see a country copy an US law i usually thinks US imposed its laws :)
1740 2012-10-11 22:17:57 <MC1984> or its judges were
1741 2012-10-11 22:18:51 <MC1984> but weve got these convictions for tweets and facebook stuff getting handed out by magistrates courts willy nilly and they dont even do written judgements most of the time
1742 2012-10-11 22:20:22 <MC1984> the US seems to be on a law exporting bender
1743 2012-10-11 22:20:29 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1744 2012-10-11 22:20:30 <MC1984> or even worse, trade agreements
1745 2012-10-11 22:20:31 <gmaxwell> MC1984: yup. So you're sort of double screwed, you don't have as much foundational basis to undo stupidity as we do, nor do you have a functional mechanism to actually make it happen. This is part of why the US is almost uniquely good for a lot of internet things.
1746 2012-10-11 22:20:36 jdnavarro has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1747 2012-10-11 22:20:38 <kjj_> meh. our books are open, you take what you want
1748 2012-10-11 22:21:01 lggr has joined
1749 2012-10-11 22:21:05 <MC1984> we dont even have a codified law, its all case law and common law
1750 2012-10-11 22:21:07 MobiusL has joined
1751 2012-10-11 22:21:17 darkee has joined
1752 2012-10-11 22:21:46 <MC1984> the (conservative) government wants to bring in a bil of rig
1753 2012-10-11 22:22:09 <MC1984> the (conservative) government wants to bring in a "bill of rights and responsibilities" but they want to repeal the Human Rights Act to do it
1754 2012-10-11 22:22:14 nsh has joined
1755 2012-10-11 22:22:33 <kjj_> I don't know what is in the human rights act. a bunch of fluff?
1756 2012-10-11 22:23:02 <MC1984> no it was probably the only good thing to come out of WW2 in europe
1757 2012-10-11 22:23:15 <MC1984> well alongside the defeat of hitler
1758 2012-10-11 22:23:20 <kjj_> heh
1759 2012-10-11 22:24:34 <kjj_> To be honest, I'm not sure that Hitler for Stalin was a good trade for the world.
1760 2012-10-11 22:24:35 <MC1984> gmaxwell yeah the US is freer on paper than we are
1761 2012-10-11 22:25:21 <sipa> MC1984: where do you live?
1762 2012-10-11 22:25:32 <edcba> in past :)
1763 2012-10-11 22:25:46 <MC1984> its interesting because it much more of a constructed system than ours which is like 1500 years of twine and gaffer tape
1764 2012-10-11 22:26:13 <MC1984> we have whats is called an "unwritten constitution" :/
1765 2012-10-11 22:26:17 <MC1984> sipa UK
1766 2012-10-11 22:27:12 <lianj> thats not europe :P
1767 2012-10-11 22:27:38 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1768 2012-10-11 22:27:45 <MC1984> huehue
1769 2012-10-11 22:28:04 <MC1984> we are under the juristiction of the ECHR which is good enough for me
1770 2012-10-11 22:28:20 <MC1984> of course the tories want that gone too
1771 2012-10-11 22:30:09 lggr has joined
1772 2012-10-11 22:30:34 <jgarzik> magnet:?xt=urn:sha1:74de24912bd9fa6141094a56dece7ecf442e1abd
1773 2012-10-11 22:31:10 <jgarzik> or http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/bootstrap.dat.torrent
1774 2012-10-11 22:31:16 <jgarzik> but I would prefer the first be tried
1775 2012-10-11 22:31:27 <MC1984> whats this?
1776 2012-10-11 22:31:30 <sipa> i'll download
1777 2012-10-11 22:31:43 <MC1984> thats not a bittorrent magnet
1778 2012-10-11 22:32:01 <kjj_> jgarzik: do you have a size and hash of the file?
1779 2012-10-11 22:32:26 <sipa> indeed
1780 2012-10-11 22:32:29 <jgarzik> sha256sum 91881effea686d94cccacd04ac432a10385737535a203f1343ce2745ca922958 /garz/tmp/bootstrap.dat
1781 2012-10-11 22:32:32 <jgarzik> 2491719489 bytes
1782 2012-10-11 22:32:47 <jgarzik> how does one construct a bittorrent magnet?
1783 2012-10-11 22:32:52 <kjj_> ok. cool. mine should be done in a few minutes
1784 2012-10-11 22:33:45 <jgarzik> got a firewalled node and not-firewalled node seeding the torrent
1785 2012-10-11 22:33:57 <gmaxwell> hm. might actually be fun to put an ultra prune test in it.. anyone have a wallet that had coins created while the difficulty was 1?
1786 2012-10-11 22:34:09 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1787 2012-10-11 22:34:15 <gmaxwell> We could create a 100 block fork early in the chain, that spends coins that the real chain later spends elsewhere.
1788 2012-10-11 22:34:22 <MC1984> urn:btih:torrent infohash goes here
1789 2012-10-11 22:34:30 <sipa> grmbl
1790 2012-10-11 22:36:32 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1791 2012-10-11 22:37:06 KeTheR has joined
1792 2012-10-11 22:39:38 lggr has joined
1793 2012-10-11 22:40:28 <kjj_> so... the state network guys called me up yesterday, they were checking out a problem with the metro WAN and happened to notice bitcoin traffic coming from my pipe
1794 2012-10-11 22:41:09 <sipa> and?
1795 2012-10-11 22:41:20 <jgarzik> the above is the sha1 of the .torrent file... that is the infohash, yes?
1796 2012-10-11 22:41:26 <kjj_> and it only took them like 14 months to notice
1797 2012-10-11 22:42:40 <jgarzik> magnet:?xt=urn:btih:74de24912bd9fa6141094a56dece7ecf442e1abd
1798 2012-10-11 22:42:41 <jgarzik> ?
1799 2012-10-11 22:42:42 <kjj_> mostly they just wanted to make sure I knew about it, that it wasn't a botminer infestation
1800 2012-10-11 22:42:55 <MC1984> jgarzik i dont think infohashes work like that
1801 2012-10-11 22:43:44 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1802 2012-10-11 22:44:23 ThomasV has joined
1803 2012-10-11 22:45:08 <sipa> jgarzik: according to wikipedia, the hash is the SHA1 of the info section of the torrent file
1804 2012-10-11 22:45:29 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1805 2012-10-11 22:45:42 <sipa> jgarzik: transmission can create the magnet link
1806 2012-10-11 22:48:49 <sipa> magnet:?xt=urn:btih:150cbdb9e00e04eb2fde23e071445ac9e45c82c2&dn=bootstrap.dat
1807 2012-10-11 22:49:16 lggr has joined
1808 2012-10-11 22:49:44 <sipa> no trackers, no peers
1809 2012-10-11 22:50:22 <MC1984> no trackers is normal
1810 2012-10-11 22:50:49 <sipa> well how can i find any peer then?
1811 2012-10-11 22:50:58 <MC1984> dht
1812 2012-10-11 22:51:01 <jgarzik> transmission-remote says the hash is 150cbdb9e00e04eb2fde23e071445ac9e45c82c2
1813 2012-10-11 22:51:12 <jgarzik> sipa: yeah in theory DHT should give you peers
1814 2012-10-11 22:51:26 <kjj_> why no tracker?
1815 2012-10-11 22:51:53 <MC1984> sipas magnet link works
1816 2012-10-11 22:51:55 <jgarzik> kjj_: I doubt anybody wants to be a ddos target like that
1817 2012-10-11 22:52:05 KeTheR has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1818 2012-10-11 22:52:41 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1819 2012-10-11 22:52:49 <sipa> i wonder to what extent dropbox/googledrive/... can be used to share files of such size
1820 2012-10-11 22:52:53 KeTheR has joined
1821 2012-10-11 22:53:25 <MC1984> sipa you need to actually be in the dht network for it to work
1822 2012-10-11 22:54:09 <MC1984> what is bootstrap.dat anyway
1823 2012-10-11 22:54:10 <jgarzik> transmission uses DHT here
1824 2012-10-11 22:54:15 <sipa> what do i need to get in that DHT?
1825 2012-10-11 22:54:16 <jgarzik> MC1984: blockchain data
1826 2012-10-11 22:54:31 <jgarzik> sipa: DHT gives you peers, given infohash
1827 2012-10-11 22:54:56 <MC1984> sipa there is only one huge bittorrent DHT, you need a client that supports it and the UDP ports not firewalled
1828 2012-10-11 22:54:59 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1829 2012-10-11 22:55:16 <MC1984> it should just work automagically
1830 2012-10-11 22:55:32 <sipa> all enabled here
1831 2012-10-11 22:55:45 <MC1984> what client u using
1832 2012-10-11 22:55:53 <sipa> transmission
1833 2012-10-11 22:55:57 <MC1984> hm
1834 2012-10-11 22:56:07 <kjj_> hmm. you should at least toss it on a public tracker or something
1835 2012-10-11 22:56:07 <MC1984> can you get it to display dht nodes and stuff
1836 2012-10-11 22:56:30 <kjj_> I can't possibly be the only person around without a DHT client
1837 2012-10-11 22:56:44 <MC1984> i dont know what dht bootstrap transmission uses
1838 2012-10-11 22:57:23 <MC1984> kjj_ you prob are, its been out for like 6 years
1839 2012-10-11 22:57:54 <kjj_> well I have it on my home box on a shitty cable modem. I mean I don't have it on my well connected servers
1840 2012-10-11 22:58:09 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
1841 2012-10-11 22:58:21 <jgarzik> "DHT: Attempting bootstrap from dht.transmissionbt.com"
1842 2012-10-11 22:58:49 lggr has joined
1843 2012-10-11 22:59:13 <MC1984> can you specify a bootstrap node?
1844 2012-10-11 22:59:33 <sipa> oooh, downloading!
1845 2012-10-11 23:00:08 <MC1984> router.bittorrent.com is the main one
1846 2012-10-11 23:01:48 <jgarzik> sipa: really? cool :) how many peers do you see?
1847 2012-10-11 23:01:53 <sipa> 1
1848 2012-10-11 23:02:10 <gmaxwell> whats the magnet url/
1849 2012-10-11 23:02:18 <gmaxwell> ?
1850 2012-10-11 23:02:28 <sipa> magnet:?xt=urn:btih:150cbdb9e00e04eb2fde23e071445ac9e45c82c2&dn=bootstrap.dat
1851 2012-10-11 23:02:36 <gmaxwell> (18:51:13) Could not find any trackers
1852 2012-10-11 23:02:38 <gmaxwell> aww
1853 2012-10-11 23:02:43 <gmaxwell> rtorrent no like
1854 2012-10-11 23:02:56 meLon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1855 2012-10-11 23:03:14 <MC1984> i saw 1 seed and 3 leechers when i tried
1856 2012-10-11 23:03:53 <Diablo-D3> it should, rtorrent handles those fine
1857 2012-10-11 23:04:11 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: btw, lack of trackers isnt fatal
1858 2012-10-11 23:04:18 <gmaxwell> Unrelated, why am I the only testnet3 miner again?
1859 2012-10-11 23:04:29 <MC1984> ive got a feeling its percolating out seeing as sipas suddenly started working
1860 2012-10-11 23:04:44 <sipa> my vps isn't doing anything yet
1861 2012-10-11 23:04:58 <sipa> ooh, now it is too
1862 2012-10-11 23:05:12 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1863 2012-10-11 23:05:13 <sipa> and it has 2 peers
1864 2012-10-11 23:05:14 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I'm generating on testnet3, still
1865 2012-10-11 23:05:44 <gmaxwell> I seem to have 36 of the last 45 blocks, okay not as bad as I thought.
1866 2012-10-11 23:05:53 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: you're using the internal miner right?
1867 2012-10-11 23:05:58 <MC1984> oh you can specify trackers and even a custom DHT entry node in a magnet URN
1868 2012-10-11 23:05:59 <MC1984> cool
1869 2012-10-11 23:06:03 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: yes
1870 2012-10-11 23:06:27 <jgarzik> my local firewalled torrent node sees a peer
1871 2012-10-11 23:06:32 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: yea thats probably it.. I'm using cpuminer and running 12MH/s on it.
1872 2012-10-11 23:06:58 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: just one core generating here, internal miner
1873 2012-10-11 23:07:55 <jgarzik> sipa: what's your download speed?
1874 2012-10-11 23:07:57 lggr has joined
1875 2012-10-11 23:08:14 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1876 2012-10-11 23:09:16 <sipa> jgarzik: here 180 kByte/s, on VPS 320 kByte/s
1877 2012-10-11 23:09:32 <sipa> but it varies a lot
1878 2012-10-11 23:14:06 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1879 2012-10-11 23:14:46 KeTheR has quit (Quit: Fuck this shit!)
1880 2012-10-11 23:17:20 aq83 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1881 2012-10-11 23:17:25 lggr has joined
1882 2012-10-11 23:20:11 <kjj_> jgarzik: your file is 52073 bytes smaller than mine.
1883 2012-10-11 23:20:25 <jgarzik> kjj_: most likely due to off-by-one
1884 2012-10-11 23:20:38 <kjj_> yup, your doesn't include the block with the checkpoint hash
1885 2012-10-11 23:20:39 <jgarzik> kjj_: my file includes 193,000 blocks... which reaches height 192,999
1886 2012-10-11 23:21:02 BGL has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1887 2012-10-11 23:21:29 <MC1984> everything up the the checkpoint?
1888 2012-10-11 23:21:40 <kjj_> that block is 52065 bytes, plus the magic, plus the size = 52073
1889 2012-10-11 23:22:11 <jgarzik> MC1984: yep. checkpoint is height 193000
1890 2012-10-11 23:22:32 <MC1984> are you guys investigating novel ways of bootstrapping a node
1891 2012-10-11 23:23:13 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1892 2012-10-11 23:23:52 <gmaxwell> MC1984: not all that novel, it's just loadblock made a little more user friendly.
1893 2012-10-11 23:24:08 <gmaxwell> it'll paper over some of the network related IBD shorcomings.
1894 2012-10-11 23:24:19 <gmaxwell> and it doesn't compromise security.
1895 2012-10-11 23:24:35 <MC1984> so for general release?
1896 2012-10-11 23:25:13 <gmaxwell> basically if bitcoin detects a file called bootstrap.dat in the appdata directory it will loadblock it and move it out of the way.
1897 2012-10-11 23:25:27 <MC1984> oh cool
1898 2012-10-11 23:25:28 <kjj_> so, did you leave the checkpointed block off for a reason?
1899 2012-10-11 23:26:01 <gmaxwell> sounds like a fence post error. :P
1900 2012-10-11 23:26:37 <kjj_> I'm about to run my parser on a different box. should I modify it to skip that block so it matches your file, or are you going to re-run yours?
1901 2012-10-11 23:26:39 xIsalty has joined
1902 2012-10-11 23:26:43 lggr has joined
1903 2012-10-11 23:27:10 <jgarzik> it is a pain to regen it, but if people are going to hem and haw about a block, I will re-run it ;p
1904 2012-10-11 23:27:40 <kjj_> heh, mine is pretty easy to change.
1905 2012-10-11 23:28:06 <gmaxwell> there is a neatness in having the last block in it be checkpointed.
1906 2012-10-11 23:29:36 <sipa> there is also no reason why you shouldn't make the file as large as you can, imho
1907 2012-10-11 23:29:51 aq83 has joined
1908 2012-10-11 23:30:05 <jgarzik> I prefer larger, but gmaxwell didn't like > 193000
1909 2012-10-11 23:30:46 * jgarzik stops the torrent, to regen
1910 2012-10-11 23:31:05 <kjj_> I have a script that pulls a nightly checkpoint so that I can speed-boot my p2pool nodes. I think I could modify that to create a torrent at the same time and upload it somewhere
1911 2012-10-11 23:31:13 harkon has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1912 2012-10-11 23:31:40 da2ce779 has joined
1913 2012-10-11 23:32:02 <jgarzik> kjj_: would rather an infrequently changing torrent, say one per release
1914 2012-10-11 23:32:18 <jgarzik> makes it easier for people to hang on the torrent and seed
1915 2012-10-11 23:32:26 <kjj_> actually, I think people would prefer both ways
1916 2012-10-11 23:32:47 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1917 2012-10-11 23:33:01 <gmaxwell> kjj_: bleh.
1918 2012-10-11 23:33:09 <gmaxwell> the fragmentation will not help fetching performance.
1919 2012-10-11 23:33:28 <kjj_> yeah, bleh. but sometimes things happen with or without us
1920 2012-10-11 23:34:17 <gmaxwell> I'm not following you. Doing that will not help people.
1921 2012-10-11 23:34:27 <gmaxwell> It will just result in slower downloads.
1922 2012-10-11 23:34:38 <kjj_> I'm saying that someone, somewhere will make more frequent snapshots
1923 2012-10-11 23:34:44 <gmaxwell> sure.
1924 2012-10-11 23:34:50 <kjj_> and they won't care if we like it or not
1925 2012-10-11 23:34:51 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1926 2012-10-11 23:34:55 <gmaxwell> waste of time, but so?
1927 2012-10-11 23:35:00 <gmaxwell> kjj_: they also won't matter
1928 2012-10-11 23:35:01 <jgarzik> sure, like http://eu1.bitcoincharts.com/blockchain/
1929 2012-10-11 23:35:42 lggr has joined
1930 2012-10-11 23:36:16 <jgarzik> update the torrent when we update checkpoints
1931 2012-10-11 23:36:30 <gmaxwell> Yep. makes sense to me.
1932 2012-10-11 23:36:47 <gmaxwell> If we'd been thinking about it more we could have made bootstrap actually enforce that the last block is checkpointed.
1933 2012-10-11 23:37:09 <gmaxwell> (detect truncated files fast)
1934 2012-10-11 23:37:33 <sipa> why is a truncated file a problem>
1935 2012-10-11 23:38:07 <jgarzik> kjj_: do you have the byte count and sha256sum of the height=193000 block file?
1936 2012-10-11 23:38:35 <kjj_> 2491771562 a3f258e7af030165360596e4cb0b9beb24b4ce97352c22e65349b89ad5fc5d3e /etc/bitcoin/bootstrap.dat
1937 2012-10-11 23:38:36 <gmaxwell> sipa: it's not a severe problem, but it will make it not work like expected!
1938 2012-10-11 23:39:12 eoss has joined
1939 2012-10-11 23:39:22 <sipa> true
1940 2012-10-11 23:39:24 meLon has joined
1941 2012-10-11 23:39:29 <kjj_> when you create the torrent, why not add a pair of public trackers to it? openbittorrent.com and publicbittorrent.com should both work
1942 2012-10-11 23:39:43 <jgarzik> I'm willing to be swayed, WRT open trackers
1943 2012-10-11 23:39:54 <jgarzik> but I just don't like relying on single sites like that
1944 2012-10-11 23:40:12 <jgarzik> bitcoin could potentially bring abusive users to their doorsteps
1945 2012-10-11 23:40:47 arij_ is now known as arij
1946 2012-10-11 23:40:56 arij has quit (Changing host)
1947 2012-10-11 23:40:56 arij has joined
1948 2012-10-11 23:41:14 <gmaxwell> sweet, i made progress getting that magnet url to work in rtorrent, you apparently have to give it a session directory to make trackerless torrents work
1949 2012-10-11 23:41:24 <jgarzik> DHT at least involves nodes that probably want to share bitcoin data
1950 2012-10-11 23:41:40 <gmaxwell> but it's currently failing to find it in the dht.
1951 2012-10-11 23:41:50 <sipa> gmaxwell: let it run for a while
1952 2012-10-11 23:41:57 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1953 2012-10-11 23:42:22 <jgarzik> well I also took down my two nodes
1954 2012-10-11 23:42:28 <jgarzik> respinning everything for one damn block ;p
1955 2012-10-11 23:42:36 <gmaxwell> :P cool
1956 2012-10-11 23:42:36 <kjj_> well, those two sites in particular exist for the sole purpose of providing "no questions asked" tracking
1957 2012-10-11 23:42:53 <kjj_> ooh. CCC also provides a public tracker
1958 2012-10-11 23:43:03 <MC1984> jgarzik openbittorrent is wide open except for "large deployments" for which they ask for prior notification
1959 2012-10-11 23:43:03 <jgarzik> kjj_: who runs them? how reliable/overloaded are they?
1960 2012-10-11 23:43:08 <gmaxwell> kjj_: but don't DHT's solve everything?
1961 2012-10-11 23:43:16 <gmaxwell> :P
1962 2012-10-11 23:43:43 <MC1984> its also not reall overloaded since they moved to UDP tracking only
1963 2012-10-11 23:43:49 <kjj_> DHT only solves the problem for people with DHT. and if those three trackers all fail for some reason, DHT will still work
1964 2012-10-11 23:44:06 <kjj_> and I totally trust CCC for something like this
1965 2012-10-11 23:44:25 <MC1984> i would say by now not having DHT in your torrents is an outside case
1966 2012-10-11 23:44:44 lggr has joined
1967 2012-10-11 23:44:55 optimator_ has joined
1968 2012-10-11 23:45:17 BGL has joined
1969 2012-10-11 23:45:38 <sipa> let's turn every bitcoin node into a bittorrent DHT node!
1970 2012-10-11 23:45:46 <sipa> serving its own blockchain!
1971 2012-10-11 23:46:26 <jgarzik> the DHT needs a DHT for bootstrapping, too
1972 2012-10-11 23:46:33 <jgarzik> a separate one
1973 2012-10-11 23:46:36 <sipa> hey, since they are already connected, we could reuse the existing TCP connections of the P2P network!
1974 2012-10-11 23:46:38 <jgarzik> you know, to protect against Sybil attacks
1975 2012-10-11 23:47:08 <sipa> oh yes
1976 2012-10-11 23:47:50 <jgarzik> someone needs enshrine "yo dawg, I heard you like DHTs" in a meme graphic
1977 2012-10-11 23:48:13 * sipa nominates gmaxwell
1978 2012-10-11 23:48:14 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: hey I already solved sybil resistant peer identification.. you merge mine address records.
1979 2012-10-11 23:48:15 <jgarzik> I would probably order it in poster size from cafepress, if I could
1980 2012-10-11 23:48:17 <gmaxwell> hahah
1981 2012-10-11 23:48:45 <MC1984> one day bitcoin will make use of some sort of DHT
1982 2012-10-11 23:48:51 <MC1984> mark my words
1983 2012-10-11 23:49:26 <jgarzik> kjj_: match!
1984 2012-10-11 23:49:26 <gmaxwell> I also like people proposing bitcoin 'improvements' that result in a new decenteralized consensus problem "yo dawg, I heard you leik block chains"
1985 2012-10-11 23:49:32 <kjj_> sweet!
1986 2012-10-11 23:49:53 <sipa> kjj_: link?
1987 2012-10-11 23:50:19 <kjj_> sec
1988 2012-10-11 23:50:29 <gmaxwell> MC1984: DHT's have their applications, my mockery of them is mostly related to the (1) the significant lack of attack resistance, and (2) that they're totally inapplicable to many of the problems people are eager to suggest them for.
1989 2012-10-11 23:50:52 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: So when do we get seeding via dht anyway?
1990 2012-10-11 23:50:54 davout has joined
1991 2012-10-11 23:50:55 davout has quit (Changing host)
1992 2012-10-11 23:50:55 davout has joined
1993 2012-10-11 23:50:56 Impaler has joined
1994 2012-10-11 23:50:59 <midnightmagic> =D
1995 2012-10-11 23:51:09 <gmaxwell> See?
1996 2012-10-11 23:51:11 * gmaxwell stabs
1997 2012-10-11 23:51:29 <MC1984> should totally just put the chain in a dht
1998 2012-10-11 23:51:31 <gmaxwell> (this isn't unique to bitcoin, people suggest DHT's for all kinds of crazy things)
1999 2012-10-11 23:51:41 <midnightmagic> I guess that's a.. backwards mockery.
2000 2012-10-11 23:51:44 lggr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2001 2012-10-11 23:51:54 <kjj_> jgarzik: you might want to cry when you hear this, but I made mine with a hacked up 2-pass PHP block parsing script
2002 2012-10-11 23:52:19 <galambo_> what port do dns seeds run on
2003 2012-10-11 23:52:28 <jgarzik> galambo_: what port does DNS run on?
2004 2012-10-11 23:52:33 <MC1984> gmaxwell DHTs are so terrible at attack resistence, why isnt the bittorrent one useless, there are very powerful interests that would love to see it so
2005 2012-10-11 23:52:57 <galambo_> oh so this is a dns server i hadnt bothered to look :) thanks
2006 2012-10-11 23:53:30 * galambo_ runs unknown code on his machine all the time (sheepish grin)
2007 2012-10-11 23:53:34 <midnightmagic> MC1984: A friend of mine works very hard at poisoning torrent networks in subtle and disruptive ways. It already is useless, according to him. :)
2008 2012-10-11 23:53:41 <kjj_> www.jerviss.org/bitcointalk.org/bootstrap_193000.dat.torrent
2009 2012-10-11 23:53:50 <sipa> kjj_: and magnet?
2010 2012-10-11 23:53:55 <gmaxwell> MC1984: Because that isn't so, it's juvenile stick it to the man fantasty. Any of those interests do anything adverse to all the totally legal bittorrent uses the lawsuits will fall like fire from the skies and the winnings would fund new waves of p2p development.
2011 2012-10-11 23:54:04 <jgarzik> OK, here we go: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/bootstrap.dat.torrent
2012 2012-10-11 23:54:11 <kjj_> heh, I have no idea on the magnet part. can someone else extract that part?
2013 2012-10-11 23:54:45 <jgarzik> magnet:?xt=urn:btih:0bb0521942f586ed96203c6f4d136324756f8a9a&dn=bootstrap.dat
2014 2012-10-11 23:54:49 Mobius_ has joined
2015 2012-10-11 23:55:02 lggr has joined
2016 2012-10-11 23:55:06 <kjj_> jgarzik: did you include at least one conventional tracker in yours?
2017 2012-10-11 23:55:35 <jgarzik> no
2018 2012-10-11 23:55:49 <jgarzik> as mentioned above... don't want the official torrent to include any
2019 2012-10-11 23:56:00 <jgarzik> DHT seems to work fine once bootstrapped
2020 2012-10-11 23:56:13 <gmaxwell> Got a node I can bootstrap on?
2021 2012-10-11 23:56:16 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2022 2012-10-11 23:56:19 <gmaxwell> I'm still getting squat.
2023 2012-10-11 23:56:21 <MC1984> gmaxwell there was an anti piracy company in india that just stright up went around ddosing torrent sites
2024 2012-10-11 23:56:44 <MC1984> i dont think that worked out though
2025 2012-10-11 23:56:47 <kjj_> tell me more about this DHT bootstrapping thing.
2026 2012-10-11 23:56:50 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: it will be a while until my upload finishes... an hour or so
2027 2012-10-11 23:56:54 tazirt3 has quit ()
2028 2012-10-11 23:56:58 <kjj_> is there a program I can run on the command line that will do that?
2029 2012-10-11 23:57:04 <galambo_> rm
2030 2012-10-11 23:57:08 <gmaxwell> MC1984: notice the past tense? seriously.. hit a legit use and you will have _well_ funded lawsuits turning you into a smoking crater.
2031 2012-10-11 23:57:12 <jgarzik> kjj_: looks peers via DHT, based on infohash
2032 2012-10-11 23:57:20 <jgarzik> *looks for
2033 2012-10-11 23:57:30 <MC1984> DHT will bootstrap off any node, not just bootstrap nodes
2034 2012-10-11 23:57:40 <MC1984> its actualy quite hard not to get into the network
2035 2012-10-11 23:58:00 <kjj_> yeah, bittornado doesn't support DHT, so unless there is some way to tell the DHT system about my servers, nothing's going to happen there
2036 2012-10-11 23:58:06 <gmaxwell> welp, rtorrent isn't working out of the box.
2037 2012-10-11 23:58:23 <MC1984> kjj_ why are you useing such an old client??
2038 2012-10-11 23:58:29 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: try again in 2 hours...
2039 2012-10-11 23:58:35 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I doubt it would work now
2040 2012-10-11 23:58:51 <kjj_> because it works through torrentflux, and I can do everything I need through scripts, except apparently use DHT
2041 2012-10-11 23:59:33 <MC1984> dude you are about 6 years behind spec
2042 2012-10-11 23:59:55 <kjj_> yeah, but I can seed things through cron jobs