1 2012-10-22 00:00:09 <sipa> and immediately creating a bitcoin transaction to move them to a self-controlled address
2 2012-10-22 00:00:59 <gmaxwell> reindex working very nice.. I'm glad its in the backround.
3 2012-10-22 00:01:16 <gmaxwell> If people wouldn't be silly with it it would almost be cool to have it be an rpc. :)
4 2012-10-22 00:02:57 <gmaxwell> it's interesting that it's fairly slow in valgrind even with only 15000 blocks
5 2012-10-22 00:03:07 <gmaxwell> (i'm running gettxoutsetinfo concurrently with reindex)
6 2012-10-22 00:03:22 <Diablo-D3> >valgrind
7 2012-10-22 00:03:23 <Diablo-D3> >slow
8 2012-10-22 00:03:29 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
9 2012-10-22 00:03:36 <sipa> hmm, that cannot work - the RPC takes cs_main, and reindex needs that for importing a block
10 2012-10-22 00:03:38 <Diablo-D3> ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: MASTER OF THE OBVIOUS
11 2012-10-22 00:03:49 yellowhat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
12 2012-10-22 00:03:53 <gmaxwell> sipa: it appears to temporarily block reindex.
13 2012-10-22 00:04:00 <sipa> yes, expected
14 2012-10-22 00:04:21 <gmaxwell> Right. I didn't mean actually concurrent, but calling it while it's going on. (basically trying to trigger locking bugs)
15 2012-10-22 00:04:30 <sipa> there is some flaw with reindex/loadblock/bootstrap.dat, which we shouldn't forget: it disables the IBD mechanism temporarily; there should be some forced restart of IBD when they're done
16 2012-10-22 00:04:31 <gmaxwell> takes 40 seconds at height 20k to call it.
17 2012-10-22 00:04:37 <Diablo-D3> ooh ooh
18 2012-10-22 00:04:41 <Diablo-D3> I know how to trigger lockup bugs
19 2012-10-22 00:04:44 <Diablo-D3> use threads!
20 2012-10-22 00:04:46 * Diablo-D3 runs
21 2012-10-22 00:07:01 maaku has joined
22 2012-10-22 00:09:06 yellowhat has joined
23 2012-10-22 00:10:24 asuk has joined
24 2012-10-22 00:16:11 <gmaxwell> sipa: hm, I aborted a reindex, restarted.. it seemed to continue an ibd download. then I abored that started with reindex again.. and it seems to be reindexing everything.
25 2012-10-22 00:17:47 root2_ has joined
26 2012-10-22 00:17:49 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: QUIT. puppy: it'd be wise to actual chat on here and not loiter.)
27 2012-10-22 00:18:40 <slush1> can anybody send me to some starting point how to start process with my first shiny BIP?
28 2012-10-22 00:18:59 <sipa> gmaxwell: what did you expect?
29 2012-10-22 00:19:25 <sipa> -reindex means "throw out indexes, and build them again"
30 2012-10-22 00:20:11 asuk has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
31 2012-10-22 00:20:19 <gmaxwell> sipa: two thingsâ you mentioned it not starting ibd, so I expected it to be stuck. I also I kinda of expected reindex to not know the rest of the chain was there after it had been aborted. E.g. if I let it reindex to height X and aborted I expected it to only reindex to X on the restart, having forgotten about the rest of the chain.
32 2012-10-22 00:20:29 asuk has joined
33 2012-10-22 00:21:17 <sipa> gmaxwell: maybe you were lucky and a new block had just been found?
34 2012-10-22 00:21:32 <gmaxwell> maybe.
35 2012-10-22 00:21:39 root2 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
36 2012-10-22 00:21:53 <sipa> anyway, -reindex doesn't overwrite any data, so if you abort, and rerun with -reindex it will still find all old data
37 2012-10-22 00:22:10 <sipa> it just scans the block files for things that look like blocks, and adds them to the index
38 2012-10-22 00:22:18 <gmaxwell> I must be pretty lucky, it just did it four times in a row. :P
39 2012-10-22 00:22:22 <sipa> :o
40 2012-10-22 00:22:33 <sipa> doing normal IBD in between is... interesting I guess
41 2012-10-22 00:22:44 <slush1> Just found something in https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0001, but it is still unclear to me if I should firstly write email to Genjix or not. Is he even alive?
42 2012-10-22 00:23:31 <gmaxwell> slush1: Try and if he's not, you tell us so we can appoint a new bureaucrat?
43 2012-10-22 00:23:46 <sipa> yeah - the bureaucrat shouldn't delay the process
44 2012-10-22 00:23:46 <slush1> gmaxwell: ok
45 2012-10-22 00:24:02 <sipa> but at least some coordination about the numbers is nice (there have been problems in the past...)
46 2012-10-22 00:24:32 <gmaxwell> sipa: obviously we need to use bitcoin for the sequence assignment. :P
47 2012-10-22 00:24:52 <sipa> gmaxwell: what happens is that the block files remain there, but since the metadata is used to find which blockfile has space, most of them are considered empty from the software point of view
48 2012-10-22 00:24:53 <gmaxwell> sipa: ah, I'd forgotten you changed how the space usage in the block files work so it isn't just pure append anymore.
49 2012-10-22 00:25:46 <sipa> i suppose that if there are no stale blocks in both runs, you exactly overwrote the existing blocks with their corresponding instances from IBD
50 2012-10-22 00:25:57 <sipa> so a reindex afterwards still found everything
51 2012-10-22 00:26:01 <sipa> which is kinda nice :)
52 2012-10-22 00:26:47 <gmaxwell> yea, I could see it overwriting out of sequence and then getting stuck.
53 2012-10-22 00:27:08 <gmaxwell> (well it should continue from the networkâ and as I mentioned, the IBD pull seems to still be active for some reason)
54 2012-10-22 00:30:02 <gmaxwell> wow .. okay thats fun.
55 2012-10-22 00:30:22 <gmaxwell> it was trucking along to 188643 and then exploded with hundreds of orphan blocks and is now 'stuck'
56 2012-10-22 00:30:46 <gmaxwell> I'm guessing what we were talking about did actually happen, but only later in the chain?
57 2012-10-22 00:30:49 <sipa> note that orphans found in loadblock/bootstrap/reindex are not stored in memory
58 2012-10-22 00:31:20 <gmaxwell> ah it's not stuck, it's getting blocks from some remote peer very slowly.
59 2012-10-22 00:31:29 <gmaxwell> like .. tens of seconds per block
60 2012-10-22 00:31:39 <sipa> ha
61 2012-10-22 00:31:46 <gmaxwell> I guess it got a new block from the network during reindex.
62 2012-10-22 00:31:46 <sipa> -connect=127.0.0.1 FTW
63 2012-10-22 00:31:55 <Diablo-D3> tens of seconds per block? thats still faster than 0.6.x
64 2012-10-22 00:32:03 <Diablo-D3> :<
65 2012-10-22 00:32:27 <gmaxwell> sipa: yea, though thats a bit ugly. hm.
66 2012-10-22 00:34:40 <sipa> Diablo-D3: try git HEAD :)
67 2012-10-22 00:34:59 <Diablo-D3> nothx.
68 2012-10-22 00:37:16 <jgarzik> ah good, the wallet fix was pushed
69 2012-10-22 00:37:39 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: so you're seeing the orphans/stuck stuff too now?
70 2012-10-22 00:37:54 <jgarzik> I had to restart a few times last night, before getting fully caught up
71 2012-10-22 00:39:07 optimator_ has joined
72 2012-10-22 00:39:20 <jgarzik> ultraprune is clearly a resource win here. disk light barely blips, versus BDB. disk wait (or lack thereof) reflects that.
73 2012-10-22 00:39:40 <jgarzik> haven't looked at CPU usage during IBD post-193000
74 2012-10-22 00:39:40 pnicholson has joined
75 2012-10-22 00:40:21 <sipa> should be >100% :)
76 2012-10-22 00:40:30 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
77 2012-10-22 00:40:37 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: my comment and surprise here was limited to reindex.
78 2012-10-22 00:40:55 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: The orphans during IBD is something we've long (always?) had.
79 2012-10-22 00:41:36 <jgarzik> maybe I did not see them as much, because BDB was somehow slower or different. rate of dups and orphans definitely seems up, here
80 2012-10-22 00:41:37 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: it's not stuck as far as I know though. What happens is during the IBD you'll get a new block far up the chain the you go fetching it's parents backwards and they're all orphans.
81 2012-10-22 00:41:47 <gmaxwell> hm.
82 2012-10-22 00:42:24 <gmaxwell> Well it certantly did it before, irritated the heck out of me because it would stop my fast local pulls and have me fetching from some Apple IIc in south africa.
83 2012-10-22 00:42:43 soaring_eagle has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
84 2012-10-22 00:43:59 <Diablo-D3> on a 2400 baud modem
85 2012-10-22 00:44:13 <jgarzik> Atlas is so fscking useless
86 2012-10-22 00:44:23 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: no, it's a 300 baud acoustic coupler.
87 2012-10-22 00:44:27 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: what now?
88 2012-10-22 00:44:40 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: 2400 baud would actually be enough to keep up with the blockchain currently. :P
89 2012-10-22 00:45:29 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: the thread where you and cascasius(sp?) are talking, and cascasius(sp?) is smacking Atlas around
90 2012-10-22 00:45:49 <jgarzik> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119525.0;all
91 2012-10-22 00:46:18 <jgarzik> nothing remotely considered important
92 2012-10-22 00:46:43 <sipa> (sp?) ?
93 2012-10-22 00:46:51 <jgarzik> sipa: unsure of speling
94 2012-10-22 00:46:53 <jgarzik> ;p
95 2012-10-22 00:47:05 <sipa> casascius
96 2012-10-22 00:47:11 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: oh god. I forgot he was watching that thread.
97 2012-10-22 00:47:24 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I just spell everyone's name wrong. No one seems to complain. :P
98 2012-10-22 00:48:06 <gmaxwell> You can ask amiller, had dinner with him the other night and it took me a half hour to remember wumpus' irc nickâ all I could think of was w<tab> :P
99 2012-10-22 00:48:41 <sipa> gmaxwell: loi
100 2012-10-22 00:50:55 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #110: FAILURE in 1 hr 24 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/110/
101 2012-10-22 00:51:23 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: Atlas works at odds with his stated goals, â he makes me want to centeralized bitcoin just so we can write him out of it. :P
102 2012-10-22 00:52:44 <BlueMatt> ummmm...thats not good
103 2012-10-22 00:53:07 <BlueMatt> does that patch not work on ultraprune?
104 2012-10-22 00:53:43 <sipa> it's the first time PullTester ever tries building/running something derived from ultraprune since the test merges
105 2012-10-22 00:53:52 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: it seems to have accepted some blocks.
106 2012-10-22 00:54:04 <gmaxwell> Which means you may have just prevented the end of the universe, congrats.
107 2012-10-22 00:54:09 toffoo has joined
108 2012-10-22 00:54:17 <BlueMatt> hmm?
109 2012-10-22 00:54:50 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: if I'm not misreading the test output it only starts complaining at height 100, which means the patch that allows the lower difficulty blocks should have worked, no?
110 2012-10-22 00:54:54 <BlueMatt> no, its gotta be a bug with the tester (unless ultraprune is REALLY broken...) bitcoind and bitcoinj acceptance differs on block b1
111 2012-10-22 00:55:05 showard has joined
112 2012-10-22 00:55:12 <gmaxwell> ooh. okay, I'm misreading it.
113 2012-10-22 00:55:30 <BlueMatt> it gets an incorrect result for 66/66 blocks...
114 2012-10-22 00:55:43 <sipa> but the pulltest of the reindex patch is interesting: there actually is a bug in there
115 2012-10-22 00:56:34 <BlueMatt> oh, good, dont have to re-run the test :)
116 2012-10-22 00:56:42 <sipa> anyway, high time to go to bed
117 2012-10-22 00:56:48 <BlueMatt> night
118 2012-10-22 00:57:08 <BlueMatt> wait, am I missing some new place the patch needs to touch to create the altcoin?
119 2012-10-22 00:57:26 <sipa> how does it differ?
120 2012-10-22 00:57:43 <sipa> i can't think of anything obvious
121 2012-10-22 00:58:11 <gmaxwell> - nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 210000);
122 2012-10-22 00:58:11 <gmaxwell> + nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 150);
123 2012-10-22 00:58:21 <sipa> nah, that won't be a problem
124 2012-10-22 00:58:22 <BlueMatt> its just different genesis, powlimit, subsidy change limit, etc
125 2012-10-22 00:58:32 <BlueMatt> and pchMessageStart, but thats it
126 2012-10-22 00:58:44 <gmaxwell> pchMessageStart, block.nNonce (genesis)
127 2012-10-22 00:58:57 <sipa> all fine
128 2012-10-22 00:59:18 <gmaxwell> sipa: do you have special casing of the genesis block? You mentioned acceptblock wouldn't take it before.
129 2012-10-22 00:59:19 <BlueMatt> oh...actually...
130 2012-10-22 00:59:26 <BlueMatt> it is accepting up to the first test-block
131 2012-10-22 00:59:32 <BlueMatt> "ERROR: CheckInputs() : tried to spend coinbase at depth 99"
132 2012-10-22 00:59:35 <BlueMatt> may actually be a bug
133 2012-10-22 00:59:53 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: would be helpful if debug log was stdout in that test.
134 2012-10-22 00:59:58 <gmaxwell> well. maybe.
135 2012-10-22 01:00:08 <sipa> BlueMatt: how does it test whether a block gets accepted?
136 2012-10-22 01:00:09 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
137 2012-10-22 01:00:12 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: Ill see what I can do
138 2012-10-22 01:00:22 <BlueMatt> sipa: it just pings the bitcoind to get its best block
139 2012-10-22 01:00:38 <sipa> ok, should work
140 2012-10-22 01:00:56 <BlueMatt> but debug.log does indicate it did reject a should-be-valid blocks
141 2012-10-22 01:01:01 <gmaxwell> interesting, a difference in the coinbase permissable hight check would be bad indeed.
142 2012-10-22 01:01:02 <BlueMatt> s/blocks/block/
143 2012-10-22 01:01:33 <gmaxwell> Fencepost error in the height in chain? hm. how would that have been introduced.
144 2012-10-22 01:03:30 <sipa> gmaxwell: yes there is special casing for the genesis block, but it shouldn't be affected
145 2012-10-22 01:03:58 <sipa> it tests for hashGenesisBlock, which I assume got updated in BlueMatt's patch
146 2012-10-22 01:04:07 <BlueMatt> yes
147 2012-10-22 01:05:18 <sipa> anyway, if this turns out to be an actual ultraprune bug, i'm personally gonna send PullTester a cookie!
148 2012-10-22 01:06:02 <sipa> but now: sleep
149 2012-10-22 01:06:09 <BlueMatt> night sipa
150 2012-10-22 01:10:02 <BlueMatt> are there no blocks on testnet3 which spend a coinbase at exactly the min depth?
151 2012-10-22 01:10:17 meLon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
152 2012-10-22 01:10:39 meLon has joined
153 2012-10-22 01:10:39 meLon has quit (Changing host)
154 2012-10-22 01:10:39 meLon has joined
155 2012-10-22 01:11:14 Guest56914 has quit (Quit: ircN 8.00 for mIRC (20100904) - www.ircN.org)
156 2012-10-22 01:11:30 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I don't believe I added any that did. I will be surprised if gavin didn't however.
157 2012-10-22 01:12:16 <BlueMatt> hmm...
158 2012-10-22 01:14:39 <gmaxwell> There should be ones in the production chain too.
159 2012-10-22 01:14:46 <gmaxwell> God knows I put a bunch in the namecoin chain.
160 2012-10-22 01:15:14 <gmaxwell> And IIRC some bitcoin pools were spending at the minimum. Maybe they never actually made it? hm.
161 2012-10-22 01:15:19 <BlueMatt> yea...im doubting there exist none...must be a test error
162 2012-10-22 01:16:20 <gmaxwell> well, the test shouldn't be able to distinguish ultraprune from the old code. So that it can is interesting!
163 2012-10-22 01:16:57 <BlueMatt> im still thinking patch issue
164 2012-10-22 01:18:08 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
165 2012-10-22 01:20:06 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: jenkins should archive debug.log after next build
166 2012-10-22 01:20:11 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #111: ABORTED in 28 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/111/
167 2012-10-22 01:25:39 <sipa> it seems to me that ultraprune and preultraprune test for the same thing: the difference in nHeight between the block containing the coinbase and the block spending it should not be structly less than coinbase_maturity
168 2012-10-22 01:25:41 meLon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
169 2012-10-22 01:26:27 meLon has joined
170 2012-10-22 01:26:27 meLon has quit (Changing host)
171 2012-10-22 01:26:27 meLon has joined
172 2012-10-22 01:26:40 <gmaxwell> the preultraprune test is kinda goofy.
173 2012-10-22 01:27:06 <gmaxwell> the stepping backwards and seeing if it hits the same block along the way. 0_o
174 2012-10-22 01:28:43 <gmaxwell> I note that the old test couldn't hit the error if it was walking orphans.. but that wouldn't make it have a validity difference, thought it might change what error you get on an invalid block.
175 2012-10-22 01:29:15 <sipa> orphans never get into the block index
176 2012-10-22 01:29:25 <BlueMatt> the first block (which is rejected) should be valid
177 2012-10-22 01:29:53 <sipa> you got an error in debug.log?
178 2012-10-22 01:29:58 <BlueMatt> there is absolutely nothing special about the first block (though it does spend at min coinbase depth)
179 2012-10-22 01:30:06 <BlueMatt> yea "ERROR: CheckInputs() : tried to spend coinbase at depth 99"
180 2012-10-22 01:30:49 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
181 2012-10-22 01:33:14 theymos has joined
182 2012-10-22 01:33:16 showard has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
183 2012-10-22 01:33:18 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: can you make it print pindexBlock->nHeight and coins.nHeight ?
184 2012-10-22 01:33:23 <gmaxwell> it's not clear to me which is wrong.
185 2012-10-22 01:34:00 <sipa> everything smells like an off-by-one, but i don't see it
186 2012-10-22 01:34:05 meLon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
187 2012-10-22 01:34:19 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #112: ABORTED in 14 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/112/
188 2012-10-22 01:34:24 meLon has joined
189 2012-10-22 01:35:37 <sipa> BlueMatt: just to be clear, it spends at 100 block difference, or at 100 confirmations?
190 2012-10-22 01:35:43 <sipa> i'm
191 2012-10-22 01:35:50 <sipa> your test, that is
192 2012-10-22 01:36:41 meLon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
193 2012-10-22 01:36:41 <BlueMatt> lets see, it should be building exactly 100 blocks on top of genesis, then attempts to spend from the first in the 101st
194 2012-10-22 01:36:48 <BlueMatt> (if Im reading the code right)
195 2012-10-22 01:36:51 <BlueMatt> http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/files/FullBlockTestGenerator.java
196 2012-10-22 01:37:42 <gmaxwell> spend block 1 at block 101, right?
197 2012-10-22 01:38:56 <BlueMatt> yes
198 2012-10-22 01:39:06 <BlueMatt> (where coinbase is 0)
199 2012-10-22 01:39:24 <sipa> genesis, you mean?
200 2012-10-22 01:39:25 meLon has joined
201 2012-10-22 01:39:40 <gmaxwell> so pindexBlock->nHeight should be 101, and coins.nHeight == 1 so 101-1 = 100 which is not < COINBASE_MATURITY. So which value is unexpected?
202 2012-10-22 01:39:41 <sipa> in that case: that should indeed be allowed
203 2012-10-22 01:40:26 <BlueMatt> ok, re-running with a printf("pindex: %d, coins: %d\n", pindexBlock->nHeight, coins.nHeight);
204 2012-10-22 01:40:34 <gmaxwell> thanks.
205 2012-10-22 01:40:36 <BlueMatt> sipa: yea, sorry genesis is 0
206 2012-10-22 01:42:41 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: [OT] if you're taking notes on tests, you should have a test that tries to spend in the very same block. Seems like that would be an easy mistake to make for someone who uses iteration to check this like the old reference code.
207 2012-10-22 01:42:54 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
208 2012-10-22 01:43:35 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ack....Ill add it to my list of to-be-added blocks next time I do
209 2012-10-22 01:44:01 optimator has joined
210 2012-10-22 01:44:01 optimator has quit (Changing host)
211 2012-10-22 01:44:01 optimator has joined
212 2012-10-22 01:44:24 optimator_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
213 2012-10-22 01:45:57 <sipa> BlueMatt: i owe you
214 2012-10-22 01:45:58 mchen has joined
215 2012-10-22 01:46:21 <sipa> that code uses getbestblock as 'current' pindexBest
216 2012-10-22 01:46:35 <sipa> but that is before the currrnt is best is updated
217 2012-10-22 01:46:37 toffoo has quit ()
218 2012-10-22 01:46:45 <sipa> -> off by one
219 2012-10-22 01:47:15 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: you have rescued bitcoin yet again.
220 2012-10-22 01:47:28 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #113: ABORTED in 7 min 16 sec: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/113/
221 2012-10-22 01:47:37 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: and yea, I said before that this was a good part of the testing we needed for ultraprune. :P
222 2012-10-22 01:47:43 <BlueMatt> sipa: hey, thats what jenkins is there for :)
223 2012-10-22 01:47:44 <sipa> so it uses the height of its parent instead of its own
224 2012-10-22 01:48:12 <sipa> BlueMatt: still, i owe you - remind me if i ever see you irl :)
225 2012-10-22 01:48:15 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: do you also have a test which is on the other side of the boundary? e.g. at 99?
226 2012-10-22 01:48:18 <BlueMatt> sipa: will do
227 2012-10-22 01:48:23 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: IIRC, yes
228 2012-10-22 01:48:30 <gmaxwell> okay. good.
229 2012-10-22 01:48:58 <gmaxwell> also, wtf, why isn't there a at boundary test in testnet3. tisk tisk.
230 2012-10-22 01:48:58 <BlueMatt> yea, b20 appears to be: "Attempt to spend a coinbase at depth too low"
231 2012-10-22 01:49:42 <BlueMatt> anyway...back to reverse header syncing bitcoinj :)
232 2012-10-22 01:50:19 <gmaxwell> Ideally it would be a test at 99. Since it's not hard to have a bug thats okay at 70 off but broken at 1 off.
233 2012-10-22 01:50:24 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
234 2012-10-22 01:50:55 <BlueMatt> yea, if Im reading it right, its short by one
235 2012-10-22 01:51:26 <BlueMatt> (I sure hope I did 99, would be stupid to have done some arbitrarily low value)
236 2012-10-22 01:52:02 one_zero has joined
237 2012-10-22 01:53:04 aq83 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
238 2012-10-22 01:53:25 <sipa> if you didn't you still add one at 99
239 2012-10-22 01:53:43 <sipa> anyway, will fix tomorrow
240 2012-10-22 01:53:46 <sipa> cua
241 2012-10-22 01:53:54 <BlueMatt> gnight (finally)
242 2012-10-22 01:54:16 * gmaxwell moves his mining nodes off ultraprune before someone gets clever. :P
243 2012-10-22 01:54:43 <BlueMatt> (if anyone is waiting on pull-tester for anything, I went ahead and paused it to avoid having this bug cause pulls that get rebased to be marked invalid)
244 2012-10-22 01:58:24 obsv has joined
245 2012-10-22 01:59:25 one_zero has quit ()
246 2012-10-22 01:59:34 one_zero has joined
247 2012-10-22 02:00:45 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: good thing atlas hasn't discovered our true diabolical plans yet.
248 2012-10-22 02:03:52 <theymos> You better watch out; he'll keep posting dozens of threads per day until he defeats you CIA-sponsored demons.
249 2012-10-22 02:04:25 <Diablo-D3> hey its a theymos
250 2012-10-22 02:04:43 <Diablo-D3> theymos: so, since you owned 3.3% of glbse, Im going to sue you for 20k btc.
251 2012-10-22 02:04:46 <Diablo-D3> goat said I can
252 2012-10-22 02:06:10 toffoo has joined
253 2012-10-22 02:06:28 <gmaxwell> theymos: s/day/hour/
254 2012-10-22 02:07:03 <theymos> Diablo-D3: Funny how he forgot about his vehement posts about how he legitimately owns shares in GLBSE... ;)
255 2012-10-22 02:07:19 <Diablo-D3> OOH!
256 2012-10-22 02:07:21 <Diablo-D3> I CAN SUE GOAT!
257 2012-10-22 02:07:26 <gmaxwell> theymos: posts like this are really disappointing, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4384.msg1288826#msg1288826
258 2012-10-22 02:08:26 <BlueMatt> wow...
259 2012-10-22 02:08:29 <theymos> Yeah.
260 2012-10-22 02:08:43 <Diablo-D3> >bloom filters
261 2012-10-22 02:08:50 <Hasimir> gmaxwell, think of it this way; he serves as a demonstration of what happens when people don't take their meds
262 2012-10-22 02:08:52 <Diablo-D3> why the fuck do people even care about those
263 2012-10-22 02:09:05 <Diablo-D3> I mean, its bad enough I use them in my STM impl to great effect
264 2012-10-22 02:09:25 <gmaxwell> theymos: he's also gone basically nuts on every other bitcoin forum available to him. He's most of the edits on the wikipedia article, he's made 5 /r/bitcoin posts today at a minimum (each under another identity)
265 2012-10-22 02:09:52 <Hasimir> yep, not taking his meds
266 2012-10-22 02:10:01 lumberjak has joined
267 2012-10-22 02:10:03 <gmaxwell> I can only hope that he's spending so much time on this that he's not actually eating and will pass out eventually.
268 2012-10-22 02:10:04 <theymos> gmaxwell: I don't ban him because underneath his hyperbole he does often make a few good points. For example, I do think that ultraprune is potentially very dangerous and needs a lot of testing.
269 2012-10-22 02:10:31 <gmaxwell> theymos: I'd like you to look at the logs here about that.
270 2012-10-22 02:11:16 <theymos> I mean that ultraprune is dangerous just because it's a major code change. The idea is fine.
271 2012-10-22 02:11:21 <gmaxwell> theymos: we've have extensive discussion about this, including a recommendation I made that potentially we should have 0.8.0 be advised to be for end users only (not miners or infrastructure)
272 2012-10-22 02:11:37 <Luke-Jr> theymos: what's the excuse for trolls like Diablo-D3 and kano?
273 2012-10-22 02:11:55 <gmaxwell> theymos: This is not a novel idea; his fearmongering has not made a contribution. And the histeria makes me want to reconsider my involvement with bitcoin.
274 2012-10-22 02:12:21 <gmaxwell> theymos: or at least if it expanded to more than him and his socks it would.
275 2012-10-22 02:12:31 <Hasimir> it reminds me of the panic in the Linux world when the NSA announced SELinux
276 2012-10-22 02:12:42 <gmaxwell> theymos: although the ironic thing is that he's gone so overboard he's actually making prudent people look stupid.
277 2012-10-22 02:12:52 <Hasimir> panic from ppl who don't uderstand the diff between comsec and comint
278 2012-10-22 02:13:12 <Hasimir> this is the same, but on a smaller scale
279 2012-10-22 02:13:53 <theymos> gmaxwell: You wanna moderate Dev&Tech so you can remove those posts of his which are not constructive at all?
280 2012-10-22 02:14:12 <Luke-Jr> theymos: I vote gmaxwell for global mod
281 2012-10-22 02:14:14 <gmaxwell> I don't know what I want. :(
282 2012-10-22 02:14:30 <gmaxwell> meh. my disposition lately is not sutable for moderation.
283 2012-10-22 02:14:42 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: sure, but you don't abuse it even then
284 2012-10-22 02:14:58 <Luke-Jr> worst case, IMO, you seem to just not moderate
285 2012-10-22 02:15:00 * BlueMatt votes for "the forum got ddos'd and we cant afford to keep paying the bills, sorry"
286 2012-10-22 02:15:03 <Luke-Jr> which is what happens when you can't anyway
287 2012-10-22 02:15:12 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: hah, +1
288 2012-10-22 02:15:16 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: well I do, I got tired of kanos fear mongering about me editing posts, so I started adding silly messages to the end of his messages every time he accused me of it.
289 2012-10-22 02:15:35 <theymos> Regarding safety, I've always wanted a separate stable release that is 6-12 months behind the main/"unstable" release in terms of features.
290 2012-10-22 02:15:35 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: eh, has anyone complained about that? I thought everyone took it in good humour
291 2012-10-22 02:15:44 <Luke-Jr> theymos: we have those nowâ¦
292 2012-10-22 02:16:03 <gmaxwell> theymos: stable / unstable is not the right metric for a potentially forking change.
293 2012-10-22 02:16:07 <Luke-Jr> pretty sure 0.5.x is 6 months old
294 2012-10-22 02:16:15 <Luke-Jr> 0.4.x certainly is
295 2012-10-22 02:16:32 <Hasimir> gmaxwell, gotta love the one who can't do anything contructive, so they waste everyone's time attacking others
296 2012-10-22 02:16:35 <gmaxwell> theymos: worse a lot of our mandatory must deploy now fixes have been of a magnitude that I would not trust backports.
297 2012-10-22 02:17:14 <theymos> Luke-Jr: Ah, right. There was some reason why I stopped using your stable releases, but I forgot what it was. It should be linked from bitcoin.org somewhere.
298 2012-10-22 02:17:29 <Luke-Jr> theymos: testnet3 probably
299 2012-10-22 02:17:59 <gmaxwell> For a potential fork generating change we really want all the mining to be on it or none on it. Even if its wrong, it's more important to be consistent in bitcoin than correct. :(
300 2012-10-22 02:18:00 <Luke-Jr> before linking from bitcoin.org, it'd be nice to get more people who can reach the 3 signers policy
301 2012-10-22 02:18:05 JZavala has joined
302 2012-10-22 02:18:30 <gmaxwell> And more releases will only further dilute our profoundly inadequate testing concentration.
303 2012-10-22 02:18:33 <gmaxwell> :(
304 2012-10-22 02:18:41 <Diablo-D3> theymos: why havent you made me a global admin by now?
305 2012-10-22 02:19:08 <Hasimir> gmaxwell, what's needed for testing?
306 2012-10-22 02:19:28 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I've been delaying stable releases to avoid taking testing away from master ones
307 2012-10-22 02:19:44 <Luke-Jr> Hasimir: more testing for RCs is always helpful
308 2012-10-22 02:20:07 <gmaxwell> Hasimir: People to actually run pre-release / rc versions and report issues, and maybe beat on them a little. Testing with testnet (so you can move lots of coin without risking real funds) would also be very good.
309 2012-10-22 02:20:16 <Hasimir> well if it helps find the solution to the qt client crashing on my mac I'm in
310 2012-10-22 02:20:55 <gmaxwell> Hasimir: Were you on OSX 10.5 ?
311 2012-10-22 02:21:01 <Luke-Jr> the situation for Macs is bad all around :P
312 2012-10-22 02:21:19 <Hasimir> Luke-Jr, yes, we've had that chat ;)
313 2012-10-22 02:21:43 <Hasimir> I'd rather not test on the server either
314 2012-10-22 02:22:00 <Hasimir> but I may be able to cobble some little linux box together
315 2012-10-22 02:22:23 <Luke-Jr> Hasimir: if you don't want to test bleeding edge master releases on your server, perhaps consider testing the backport for whatever version it's running?
316 2012-10-22 02:22:50 <Hasimir> yeah, might do
317 2012-10-22 02:23:15 <Hasimir> where are the rc versions of the code?
318 2012-10-22 02:23:21 <Luke-Jr> git
319 2012-10-22 02:23:26 <Hasimir> of course
320 2012-10-22 02:23:41 <Luke-Jr> http://gitorious.org/bitcoin/bitcoind-stable for the backports
321 2012-10-22 02:23:50 <Hasimir> cool
322 2012-10-22 02:24:16 <Hasimir> the server is running CuntOS 5, so it needs an overhaul too
323 2012-10-22 02:24:33 <Hasimir> definitely going back to slackware after that experiment
324 2012-10-22 02:24:45 <Luke-Jr> lol
325 2012-10-22 02:25:54 <Hasimir> Luke-Jr, yeah, that typo is intentional
326 2012-10-22 02:27:19 <Hasimir> the other little btc project I've taken on is an attempt to port gribble to the v1 API and get real support for multiple currencies
327 2012-10-22 02:28:04 <Hasimir> that should make a lot of ppl in -otc happy
328 2012-10-22 02:28:21 <Hasimir> including me, of course
329 2012-10-22 02:28:23 cheako has quit (Quit: Client exiting)
330 2012-10-22 02:28:52 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
331 2012-10-22 02:29:36 aq83 has joined
332 2012-10-22 02:32:47 <gmaxwell> ::sigh:: listunspent doesn't show coinbase outputs. How the hell did I miss this before.
333 2012-10-22 02:36:03 <gmaxwell> testnet3 should have a spend at 100 at the block after next.
334 2012-10-22 02:37:03 <D34TH> atomic batteries to power
335 2012-10-22 02:37:06 <D34TH> miners to speed
336 2012-10-22 02:38:13 <gmaxwell> well, it'll probably be an hour, since I'm not going to bother throwing real hashpower at it when I can just wait. :P
337 2012-10-22 02:39:50 deedeedeedee has joined
338 2012-10-22 02:43:39 <BlueMatt> yay! working reverse headers sync at the application layer in bitcoinj...lots of orphans, but its all bounded so..wooo
339 2012-10-22 02:43:53 <BlueMatt> (downloads blocks from all peers +/- slow ones)
340 2012-10-22 02:44:07 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
341 2012-10-22 02:44:24 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I assume you'll need a new protocol message in order to pipeline the header pulls?
342 2012-10-22 02:44:51 <BlueMatt> well, the initial sync is headers-only and just uses existing block download code
343 2012-10-22 02:46:23 <BlueMatt> its more of a two-step download than reverse headers
344 2012-10-22 02:46:37 <BlueMatt> same general effect though
345 2012-10-22 02:47:54 fiesh has joined
346 2012-10-22 02:48:46 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
347 2012-10-22 02:49:08 <gmaxwell> anyone have a testnet ultraprune running right now?
348 2012-10-22 02:49:10 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
349 2012-10-22 02:50:16 MobiusL has joined
350 2012-10-22 02:51:07 bcb_ has joined
351 2012-10-22 02:51:52 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I never really understood the reasoning of why headers need to be downloaded in reverse order?
352 2012-10-22 02:52:11 <BlueMatt> (blocks, sure, populate wallet with txes earlier, etc) but headers too?
353 2012-10-22 02:53:24 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: Because it prevents a dos attack where someone gives you an infinite stream of difficulty 1 headers that can't possibly be the best set.
354 2012-10-22 02:53:33 NaruFGT has joined
355 2012-10-22 02:53:38 dust-otc has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
356 2012-10-22 02:53:42 <BlueMatt> ok, thats what I was thinking...
357 2012-10-22 02:53:54 <BlueMatt> still, could be avoided with more sanity first...
358 2012-10-22 02:54:16 dust-otc has joined
359 2012-10-22 02:54:24 <BlueMatt> (ask >1 peer for initial block list and find common ones...)
360 2012-10-22 02:54:48 freakazoid has joined
361 2012-10-22 02:54:49 <gmaxwell> I'm not sure about that. I mean, there is probably some way of load balancing across multiple header sources... I'd have to think about that. Reverse made it more obviously correct in my mind.
362 2012-10-22 02:54:50 <BlueMatt> anywhoo...that part is easy, its the multi-peer download part thats fun :)
363 2012-10-22 02:55:03 <gmaxwell> But yea, that part isn't a super big deal.
364 2012-10-22 02:57:21 xisalty has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
365 2012-10-22 02:59:22 <gmaxwell> freeking sendraw transaction won't take a transaction at 100. this is probably why the network doesn't have oneâ the test for the block and mempool are not the same.
366 2012-10-22 02:59:44 <BlueMatt> ahh, yea, the 120 rule
367 2012-10-22 02:59:52 <BlueMatt> (it is 120 like wallet, right?)
368 2012-10-22 03:01:24 <gmaxwell> nah, 120 is the wallet. The mempool is using the current best.
369 2012-10-22 03:01:37 <gmaxwell> It should be using +1 since the mempool is testing for the next block.
370 2012-10-22 03:01:55 <gmaxwell> I'm pretty sure I hit this on namecoin and never understood why. :(
371 2012-10-22 03:02:21 <BlueMatt> ahh, ok
372 2012-10-22 03:03:29 xisalty has joined
373 2012-10-22 03:06:03 <gmaxwell> Okay 86eefc0c47a0402d353faf82f5b3dac3995319403aba699ae58e9ed29e412ef2 in
374 2012-10-22 03:06:03 <gmaxwell> block 33596 spends 59f99e31fc5fba5a350a0c932b592ceeb629ef16de36f54ba35c7302fbec2b59:0
375 2012-10-22 03:06:06 <gmaxwell> from block 33496, so ultraprune should be dead on testnet now.
376 2012-10-22 03:06:17 <BlueMatt> nice
377 2012-10-22 03:07:16 <gmaxwell> sipa: when you fix the height 100 bug, you should also make it allow 99 for the mempool, I think. (I just stuck a +!fBlock into the test but I'm tired so there might be more to worry about)
378 2012-10-22 03:11:12 <gmaxwell> (this feeds nicely into my belief that if you don't find bugs in the reference implementation you're not testing your new implementation. :P )
379 2012-10-22 03:12:20 RainbowDashh has joined
380 2012-10-22 03:12:58 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I still disagree with that - finding bugs in the reference implementation (in highly critical code) is still incredibly rare, despite all the smart people writing their own implementations
381 2012-10-22 03:17:14 <gmaxwell> well, not just highly critical code. Working with this ultraprune bug made me find a non-critical mempool bug due to reusing the same code for block and mempool validation. The locktime checks are probably wrong for the mempool too, though I haven't looked yet.
382 2012-10-22 03:17:21 rdponticelli_ has joined
383 2012-10-22 03:17:28 spreelanka has joined
384 2012-10-22 03:18:09 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
385 2012-10-22 03:19:47 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I dont see how this situation applies. you found a bug in a fork which showed you more bugs in the original, not an alt client...
386 2012-10-22 03:20:48 obsv has quit (Quit: Page closed)
387 2012-10-22 03:21:12 <gmaxwell> Ultraprune is partially an altclient from the exposure perspective... and had a bug like an altclient, which exposed the same bug in the reference (but only for mempool). ::shrugs:: Well, I'm not trying to convince you. :P
388 2012-10-22 03:23:11 <BlueMatt> fair enough
389 2012-10-22 03:23:12 <gmaxwell> (in particular, I found the bug by reading the code after my first attempt ended up at offset 101 instead of 100)
390 2012-10-22 03:23:42 <gmaxwell> but I could have found it just the same by working on ultraprune and thinking about how blocks and mempool differ, though I didn't.
391 2012-10-22 03:24:05 <BlueMatt> I find this to be a different case because the bug was found because code was copied from one place to another, which I would think would not effect an alt implementation
392 2012-10-22 03:24:17 <BlueMatt> (or reused)
393 2012-10-22 03:27:22 asoltys has joined
394 2012-10-22 03:31:52 PhantomSpark has joined
395 2012-10-22 03:35:18 da2ce7 has joined
396 2012-10-22 03:42:11 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
397 2012-10-22 03:47:23 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
398 2012-10-22 03:47:31 TheSeven has joined
399 2012-10-22 03:57:22 noagendamarket has quit (Quit: Leaving)
400 2012-10-22 03:57:40 bcb_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
401 2012-10-22 03:57:47 noagendamarket has joined
402 2012-10-22 03:57:48 xisalty has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
403 2012-10-22 03:58:31 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
404 2012-10-22 04:02:23 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
405 2012-10-22 04:02:29 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: you don't use the same code for transaction validity for mempool and blocks?
406 2012-10-22 04:03:05 <BlueMatt> bitcoinj doesnt mine, so there is no (traditional) mempool
407 2012-10-22 04:06:48 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: but you do accept unconfirmed transactions right?
408 2012-10-22 04:07:12 Trudel has joined
409 2012-10-22 04:07:14 mchen has quit ()
410 2012-10-22 04:11:03 <Trudel> Hello, I am writing a handout to give out to help promote bitcoins in my local area. I think we should have such things posted somewhere ready for bitcoin community members to take and use easily and I might as well start here. Although fixing the wikipedia article should also be a high priority of course. the handout is here and I am looking for some people to help make sure it is factually error free, that imo is the most
411 2012-10-22 04:11:39 <Trudel> It is directed at both retailers and users as of course both need to be worked on.
412 2012-10-22 04:12:10 <Trudel> http://piratepad.net/x1h9j4w2Ed my email for this project is r5t6yuiovbnmj@hmamail.com
413 2012-10-22 04:13:57 Trudel has quit (Quit: Page closed)
414 2012-10-22 04:14:09 spreelanka has quit (Quit: spreelanka)
415 2012-10-22 04:14:42 servvs has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
416 2012-10-22 04:14:48 dust-otc has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
417 2012-10-22 04:15:24 dust-otc has joined
418 2012-10-22 04:16:25 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yes, but only to wallets and they arent verified (much)
419 2012-10-22 04:16:27 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: SLEEP MODE. puppy: it'd be wise to actual chat on here and not loiter.)
420 2012-10-22 04:16:54 <gmaxwell> Hm. Interesing.
421 2012-10-22 04:17:11 <gmaxwell> It's bad if that could result in transactions being displayed that can't ever be confirmed.
422 2012-10-22 04:17:20 <BlueMatt> (In other words, I havent touched that code)
423 2012-10-22 04:17:30 <gmaxwell> Yea. :P
424 2012-10-22 04:17:40 freakazoid has joined
425 2012-10-22 04:17:50 <BlueMatt> but, yea, thats another thing that has to happen eventually
426 2012-10-22 04:18:29 dust-otc has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
427 2012-10-22 04:18:58 <BlueMatt> ugg, it took waay less time to write a multi-node block syncer than to write a (still not fully working) dnsseed... :(
428 2012-10-22 04:19:07 dust-otc has joined
429 2012-10-22 04:19:34 <BlueMatt> ^why I hate java
430 2012-10-22 04:21:57 xisalty has joined
431 2012-10-22 04:23:32 drazak_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
432 2012-10-22 04:34:41 maaku has joined
433 2012-10-22 04:38:42 <gmaxwell> ::sigh:: "I'm vehemently opposed to this, as it is economically inefficient and opaque." Meni on payment protocols where the reciever specifies the transaction fees and includes them in the advertised prices.
434 2012-10-22 04:41:54 rcorreia has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
435 2012-10-22 04:42:48 rcorreia has joined
436 2012-10-22 04:53:26 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: ignoring the real world, it sounds like
437 2012-10-22 04:58:37 DerCoin has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
438 2012-10-22 04:59:22 <gmaxwell> he goes on, but I was concerned about forehead bleeding and stopped reading the thread.
439 2012-10-22 05:06:24 tonikt has joined
440 2012-10-22 05:08:23 Karmaon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
441 2012-10-22 05:19:28 * jgarzik wonders if ultraprune has a higher orphan rate, for some odd reason
442 2012-10-22 05:21:03 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: er. are you mining ultraprune on testnet?
443 2012-10-22 05:21:08 <gmaxwell> lol lol
444 2012-10-22 05:21:17 Joric has joined
445 2012-10-22 05:22:07 <gmaxwell> If so I have forked you with with an earlier discovered ultraprune flawâ I stuck the trigger case in testnet.
446 2012-10-22 05:22:55 <gmaxwell> (also found a minor bug in the preultraprune code along the way)
447 2012-10-22 05:23:59 <gmaxwell> "blocks" : 33600,
448 2012-10-22 05:29:55 RainbowDashh has joined
449 2012-10-22 05:30:18 servvs has joined
450 2012-10-22 05:34:52 MC1984 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
451 2012-10-22 05:35:55 an3k has joined
452 2012-10-22 05:40:46 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
453 2012-10-22 05:40:52 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
454 2012-10-22 05:41:04 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
455 2012-10-22 05:47:19 mmoya has joined
456 2012-10-22 05:50:11 <NaruFGT> ;;log
457 2012-10-22 05:50:12 <gribble> Error: "log" is not a valid command.
458 2012-10-22 05:50:15 <NaruFGT> oops
459 2012-10-22 05:50:25 <NaruFGT> wrong irc channel, sorry guys
460 2012-10-22 05:51:39 orion has joined
461 2012-10-22 05:58:24 lumberjak has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
462 2012-10-22 05:58:32 lumberjak has joined
463 2012-10-22 06:07:42 echelon has joined
464 2012-10-22 06:08:04 <echelon> bitcoind is using 50-75% cpu
465 2012-10-22 06:08:06 <echelon> :/
466 2012-10-22 06:08:15 xorgate has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
467 2012-10-22 06:09:39 xorgate has joined
468 2012-10-22 06:11:20 rcorreia has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
469 2012-10-22 06:13:02 Raziel__ has joined
470 2012-10-22 06:15:23 deedeedeedee has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
471 2012-10-22 06:18:50 CodesInChaos has joined
472 2012-10-22 06:21:23 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
473 2012-10-22 06:24:54 Joric has quit ()
474 2012-10-22 06:24:55 leotreasure_ has joined
475 2012-10-22 06:26:37 leotreasure has joined
476 2012-10-22 06:29:03 leotreasure_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
477 2012-10-22 06:30:02 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
478 2012-10-22 06:30:48 leotreasure has joined
479 2012-10-22 06:32:53 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
480 2012-10-22 06:33:40 leotreasure has joined
481 2012-10-22 06:34:14 BlackPrapor has joined
482 2012-10-22 06:34:23 ovidiusoft has joined
483 2012-10-22 06:36:15 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
484 2012-10-22 06:37:04 leotreasure has joined
485 2012-10-22 06:38:08 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
486 2012-10-22 06:38:52 leotreasure has joined
487 2012-10-22 06:42:20 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
488 2012-10-22 06:43:07 leotreasure has joined
489 2012-10-22 06:44:31 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
490 2012-10-22 06:45:18 leotreasure has joined
491 2012-10-22 06:49:13 <orion> I'm running v0.7.1-64-g2ef1569-dirty-beta. I would like to reduce the size of my ~/.bitcoin directory now that I am using leveldb. What is the recommended way of doing this?
492 2012-10-22 06:49:44 <gmaxwell> orion: What is the current usage?
493 2012-10-22 06:50:04 implee has joined
494 2012-10-22 06:50:21 <orion> gmaxwell: 7.6G
495 2012-10-22 06:51:07 <gmaxwell> Delete the old blk0001.dat blk0002.dat and blkindex.dat. They aren't used anymore.
496 2012-10-22 06:51:28 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: when will 0.7.0 be shipped?
497 2012-10-22 06:51:50 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: um. in -1.5 months or so?
498 2012-10-22 06:51:55 <Diablo-D3> k
499 2012-10-22 06:52:06 <gmaxwell> (you note the negative, right?)
500 2012-10-22 06:52:12 <Diablo-D3> erp?
501 2012-10-22 06:52:18 <gmaxwell> 0.7 has been out for a long time.
502 2012-10-22 06:52:23 <Diablo-D3> wtf
503 2012-10-22 06:52:23 <sipa> 0.7.1 is already out
504 2012-10-22 06:52:24 unknown45682 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
505 2012-10-22 06:52:29 <Diablo-D3> no one ever tells me this shit
506 2012-10-22 06:52:32 <gmaxwell> sipa: good morning.
507 2012-10-22 06:52:42 <sipa> we're now pulling for 0.8.0 :)
508 2012-10-22 06:52:51 unknown45682 has joined
509 2012-10-22 06:53:01 <sipa> Diablo-D3: you may want to read the forums :p
510 2012-10-22 06:53:16 <sipa> gmaxwell: thanks *yaaaaawn*
511 2012-10-22 06:53:31 <orion> gmaxwell: Thank you. I am now down to 3.2G.
512 2012-10-22 06:53:38 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: mining on testnet yes, mining with ultraprune, no
513 2012-10-22 06:53:42 <gmaxwell> sipa: dunno if you saw in the backscroll but you should be able to test ultraprune against testnet now.
514 2012-10-22 06:53:53 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
515 2012-10-22 06:54:06 leotreasure has quit (Quit: leotreasure)
516 2012-10-22 06:54:18 <orion> Also, I opened a pull request, 1945. :)
517 2012-10-22 06:54:36 BitcoinBaltar has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
518 2012-10-22 06:55:03 kreal has quit ()
519 2012-10-22 06:55:15 sudog has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
520 2012-10-22 06:55:15 guruvan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
521 2012-10-22 06:55:16 guruvan_ is now known as guruvan
522 2012-10-22 06:55:29 <gmaxwell> orion: hm. There is BE freebsd, e.g. ppc.
523 2012-10-22 06:55:33 <gmaxwell> (not that we run on it)
524 2012-10-22 06:55:54 mykhal has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
525 2012-10-22 06:55:54 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
526 2012-10-22 06:55:54 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
527 2012-10-22 06:56:21 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: so what were the major changes in 0.7.0?
528 2012-10-22 06:56:33 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
529 2012-10-22 06:56:41 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: switched to tonal
530 2012-10-22 06:57:24 devrandom has joined
531 2012-10-22 06:57:28 <gmaxwell> Plus the CIA backdoor key.
532 2012-10-22 06:57:32 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110243.0
533 2012-10-22 06:57:43 <Diablo-D3> heee those jokes never get old
534 2012-10-22 06:57:52 mykhal has joined
535 2012-10-22 06:58:09 sudog has joined
536 2012-10-22 06:58:44 <sipa> 0.8.0 will be even more fun, we'll switch to scrypt based hashes with 4 KiB of memory
537 2012-10-22 06:58:52 * Diablo-D3 snorts
538 2012-10-22 06:59:36 <sipa> gmaxwell: hmm, why should we allow 99 conf mempool transactions?
539 2012-10-22 07:00:02 BitcoinBaltar has joined
540 2012-10-22 07:00:09 <gmaxwell> sipa: no way to ever mine at 100 if we don't accept at 99.
541 2012-10-22 07:00:39 <sipa> imho, we should only accept coinbase spends with 120 conf...
542 2012-10-22 07:00:43 <sipa> hmm
543 2012-10-22 07:00:50 <gmaxwell> Makes the 100 limit effectively 101, which is almost certantly why we have none.
544 2012-10-22 07:01:09 <Diablo-D3> whats the actual problem?
545 2012-10-22 07:02:03 guruvan- has joined
546 2012-10-22 07:02:32 <gmaxwell> sipa: the same behavior with locktime (I didn't actually check) would also create a weird situation where you could outrun the earliest spend by having a deal with a single modified miner. For the coinbase spends it's not really a big deal... but I don't see any reason to constain spending beyond the protocol rule.
547 2012-10-22 07:02:54 <gmaxwell> The wallet use of 120 is helpful because it makes sure things will propagate even if there is some chain fraying.
548 2012-10-22 07:04:36 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: no real problem, while creating a testcase for an ultraprune bug I discovered that stock bitcoin won't mine a minimum age coinbase spend, because to mine it at the minimum point you have to accept it while its still immature.
549 2012-10-22 07:05:38 <sipa> gmaxwell: ACK
550 2012-10-22 07:11:22 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: it won't mine a lot of things ;)
551 2012-10-22 07:11:55 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: huh.
552 2012-10-22 07:13:30 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: its true, but that one seems less intentional. :P
553 2012-10-22 07:13:45 <orion> Luke-Jr: How old are you?
554 2012-10-22 07:14:02 <Luke-Jr> orion: 27, why? O.o
555 2012-10-22 07:14:11 <orion> You look young in your github photo.
556 2012-10-22 07:14:20 <Luke-Jr> it's an old photo
557 2012-10-22 07:14:23 <orion> ahh ok
558 2012-10-22 07:14:44 <Luke-Jr> though I think only 3 or 4 years old
559 2012-10-22 07:15:03 <orion> I was about to say... I am 21 and I thought I was young.
560 2012-10-22 07:18:51 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: whaha?!?! "Also note that despite many headers/software making the assumption that endian is fixed at build time, that assumption is apparently not necessarily true in theory"
561 2012-10-22 07:19:10 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: do you mean that the _build host_ and the _target_ may not have the same bytesex?
562 2012-10-22 07:19:29 <gmaxwell> Surely you're not saying that it may be runtime different. 0_o
563 2012-10-22 07:19:31 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: no, apparently it's possible for the target to have an unknown endianness
564 2012-10-22 07:19:40 <Luke-Jr> at build time
565 2012-10-22 07:19:41 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
566 2012-10-22 07:19:54 <Luke-Jr> trivia, probably not worth supporting, tho
567 2012-10-22 07:20:27 <gmaxwell> okay, well thats not as bad as runtime endianness.. It's always possible to write neutral code, but it's often not as fast.
568 2012-10-22 07:20:35 <Luke-Jr> right
569 2012-10-22 07:20:45 gfinn has joined
570 2012-10-22 07:21:31 kreal has joined
571 2012-10-22 07:21:33 <orion> sipa: port_posix.h, not env_posix.h
572 2012-10-22 07:22:09 <sipa> orion: thx, fixed
573 2012-10-22 07:22:19 <sipa> (sorry, just woke up)
574 2012-10-22 07:22:28 <orion> NP
575 2012-10-22 07:23:30 <sipa> yeah, i feel particularly non-deterministically polynomial today
576 2012-10-22 07:25:08 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114585.msg1289314#msg1289314 < nice mining as a lottery success story
577 2012-10-22 07:26:11 <gmaxwell> solomined for 10 months with 400MH/s and found two blocks, used them to preorder a 54GH/s mining device.
578 2012-10-22 07:27:37 <sipa> gmaxwell: mempool accepts non-final transactions anyway, and createnewblock correctly uses the new block's height to determine finalness
579 2012-10-22 07:27:44 <sipa> gmaxwell: so no issue for nLockTime
580 2012-10-22 07:27:58 <gmaxwell> sipa: thank you for being less lazy than me.
581 2012-10-22 07:28:42 <gmaxwell> oh yea, I'd forgotten that we accept non-final transactions, thats one strike aganst using nlocktime when replacement doesn't exist. :(
582 2012-10-22 07:34:45 <sipa> gmaxwell: bugfix_maturity branch pushed
583 2012-10-22 07:34:52 PK has joined
584 2012-10-22 07:37:12 <sipa> well, what's the problem with enabling replacement now?
585 2012-10-22 07:37:41 <sipa> (not a decision we should make lightly, but we should at least have an idea why not to do that)
586 2012-10-22 07:43:53 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
587 2012-10-22 07:46:02 ThomasV has joined
588 2012-10-22 07:46:43 <_dr> will i find all relevant leveldb changes by looking for 'leveldb' in the github commits?
589 2012-10-22 07:47:43 da2ce7 has joined
590 2012-10-22 07:47:51 <sipa> _dr: i think so yes
591 2012-10-22 07:48:11 <_dr> okay, thanks
592 2012-10-22 07:51:09 guruvan- has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
593 2012-10-22 07:57:52 TD has joined
594 2012-10-22 08:02:30 guruvan- has joined
595 2012-10-22 08:09:39 <sipa> TD: yeah, i should have seen how much more of your leveldb branch was reusable
596 2012-10-22 08:09:41 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
597 2012-10-22 08:10:02 <TD> the import was a nasty hack. there's a pullreq somewhere from someone that does the rescanning nicer
598 2012-10-22 08:10:23 <TD> i didn't want to change all the code that keeps track of current file position in the leveldb pull to keep it as small as possible
599 2012-10-22 08:10:48 toffoo has quit ()
600 2012-10-22 08:11:59 <sipa> well i adapted jgarzik's -reindex for ultraprune now, which does an in-place upgrade
601 2012-10-22 08:12:09 abrkn has joined
602 2012-10-22 08:13:06 <sipa> in parallel with a running node
603 2012-10-22 08:13:14 <abrkn> i'm working on a card game and i'd like to send the user proof that i'm not cheating him by hashing the result with my pk and sending it upfront. how would i go about this? (node.js and i know nothing of crypto)
604 2012-10-22 08:13:59 <sipa> abrkn: you don't hash with a key - if you do, it is a MAC
605 2012-10-22 08:14:29 <abrkn> ok, my lack of language for this accurately describes how little i know of crypto
606 2012-10-22 08:18:06 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
607 2012-10-22 08:21:12 t7 has joined
608 2012-10-22 08:22:19 jdnavarro has joined
609 2012-10-22 08:24:07 MobiusL has joined
610 2012-10-22 08:29:15 agath has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
611 2012-10-22 08:31:11 agath has joined
612 2012-10-22 08:31:52 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
613 2012-10-22 08:32:02 [7] has joined
614 2012-10-22 09:04:03 pnicholson has quit (Quit: pnicholson)
615 2012-10-22 09:04:59 Raziel__ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
616 2012-10-22 09:11:18 dvide has joined
617 2012-10-22 09:36:01 CodesInChaos has joined
618 2012-10-22 09:37:32 graingert_ecs has joined
619 2012-10-22 09:43:25 iddo has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
620 2012-10-22 09:45:09 iddo has joined
621 2012-10-22 10:02:30 rdponticelli_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
622 2012-10-22 10:04:54 rdponticelli has joined
623 2012-10-22 10:15:45 jdnavarro has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
624 2012-10-22 10:20:52 leotreasure has joined
625 2012-10-22 10:22:42 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
626 2012-10-22 10:23:29 leotreasure has joined
627 2012-10-22 10:25:10 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
628 2012-10-22 10:25:55 leotreasure has joined
629 2012-10-22 10:28:34 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
630 2012-10-22 10:29:25 leotreasure has joined
631 2012-10-22 10:34:38 paraipan has joined
632 2012-10-22 10:46:41 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
633 2012-10-22 10:47:25 leotreasure has joined
634 2012-10-22 10:49:23 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
635 2012-10-22 10:50:09 leotreasure has joined
636 2012-10-22 10:51:40 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
637 2012-10-22 10:51:51 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
638 2012-10-22 10:52:26 leotreasure has joined
639 2012-10-22 10:54:57 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
640 2012-10-22 10:55:41 leotreasure has joined
641 2012-10-22 10:56:12 mortikia has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
642 2012-10-22 10:56:22 mortikia has joined
643 2012-10-22 10:59:35 harkon_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
644 2012-10-22 11:03:32 <Tykling> do any other clients implement the ability to sign messages ?
645 2012-10-22 11:05:15 <zveda> armoury does I think
646 2012-10-22 11:05:26 <zveda> *armory
647 2012-10-22 11:06:01 <zveda> yeh it does: http://bitcoinarmory.com/index.php/start-page/what-is-armory/features
648 2012-10-22 11:06:24 rdponticelli_ has joined
649 2012-10-22 11:07:28 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
650 2012-10-22 11:07:28 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
651 2012-10-22 11:11:57 pjorrit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
652 2012-10-22 11:11:58 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
653 2012-10-22 11:12:21 Titanium2 has quit ()
654 2012-10-22 11:13:24 MobiusL has joined
655 2012-10-22 11:13:50 leotreasure has joined
656 2012-10-22 11:20:58 deedeedeedee has joined
657 2012-10-22 11:26:54 iToast has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
658 2012-10-22 11:26:57 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
659 2012-10-22 11:28:08 MiningBuddy has joined
660 2012-10-22 11:28:08 iToast has joined
661 2012-10-22 11:28:34 ForceMajeure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
662 2012-10-22 11:29:49 ForceMajeure has joined
663 2012-10-22 11:30:24 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
664 2012-10-22 11:31:35 MiningBuddy- has joined
665 2012-10-22 11:31:43 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
666 2012-10-22 11:32:42 leotreasure has joined
667 2012-10-22 11:32:47 MiningBuddy has joined
668 2012-10-22 11:32:49 conman has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
669 2012-10-22 11:34:32 pjorrit has joined
670 2012-10-22 11:35:59 MiningBuddy- has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
671 2012-10-22 11:42:00 aurigae has joined
672 2012-10-22 11:42:54 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
673 2012-10-22 11:42:54 MiningBuddy- has joined
674 2012-10-22 11:44:09 MiningBuddy- has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
675 2012-10-22 11:45:52 Guest73225 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
676 2012-10-22 11:46:09 conman has joined
677 2012-10-22 11:47:26 arij has joined
678 2012-10-22 11:47:35 epscy has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
679 2012-10-22 11:47:47 arij is now known as Guest42200
680 2012-10-22 11:50:05 arij_ has joined
681 2012-10-22 11:50:29 <orion> I am getting 100% CPU usage. :(
682 2012-10-22 11:50:39 <orion> No blocks are being downloaded and verified.
683 2012-10-22 11:50:58 <orion> The best I can do to track it down is this:
684 2012-10-22 11:50:59 <orion> #2 0x00000000005ce57b in ThreadSocketHandler2 (parg=0x0) at src/net.cpp:779
685 2012-10-22 11:50:59 <orion> #3 0x00000000005cfbe6 in ThreadSocketHandler (parg=0x0) at src/net.cpp:647
686 2012-10-22 11:51:07 <orion> Any ideas?
687 2012-10-22 11:52:47 Guest42200 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
688 2012-10-22 11:53:07 MiningBuddy has joined
689 2012-10-22 11:53:08 MiningBuddy has quit (Changing host)
690 2012-10-22 11:53:08 MiningBuddy has joined
691 2012-10-22 11:54:06 <sipa> git head?
692 2012-10-22 12:07:11 <upb> lol @ Handler2
693 2012-10-22 12:07:22 <upb> is that because of the homegrown stack-aslr ?:P
694 2012-10-22 12:09:16 <sipa> orion: which platform and version, and did have earlier version have the same problem?
695 2012-10-22 12:09:34 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
696 2012-10-22 12:13:37 nsh has joined
697 2012-10-22 12:13:47 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
698 2012-10-22 12:14:47 epscy has joined
699 2012-10-22 12:15:57 MobiusL has joined
700 2012-10-22 12:16:53 <orion> sipa: 2ef15697f84208e05764046dd86bcf067029a9b8
701 2012-10-22 12:17:17 <orion> And yes, I believe 0.7.0 had the same problem.
702 2012-10-22 12:17:29 <sipa> BSD?
703 2012-10-22 12:17:29 nsh has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
704 2012-10-22 12:17:30 <orion> FreeBSD 9-STABLE
705 2012-10-22 12:17:55 <sipa> i suppose it's a BSD-specific issue then
706 2012-10-22 12:18:21 <_dr> you could always run a linux binary
707 2012-10-22 12:18:24 <sipa> we're not actively supporting BSD, but patches are welcome
708 2012-10-22 12:19:32 <orion> I'll open another pull request. I am not familiar with the codebase or anything, so I don't even know where to look.
709 2012-10-22 12:20:00 <orion> What I've done so far is to identify the thread causing the issue and switch to it in gdb.
710 2012-10-22 12:20:08 <orion> From there I get unhelpful backtraces.
711 2012-10-22 12:20:27 <orion> Or at least, it appears unhelpful to me.
712 2012-10-22 12:20:32 <sipa> i assume it's related to the select() call
713 2012-10-22 12:20:57 <sipa> which is what that thread is built around
714 2012-10-22 12:20:57 <orion> I assume that too, since that's the thread using all the CPU.
715 2012-10-22 12:28:33 <orion> hmm
716 2012-10-22 12:28:35 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
717 2012-10-22 12:31:29 datagutt has joined
718 2012-10-22 12:31:39 tsche has joined
719 2012-10-22 12:33:35 <orion> sipa: I fixed it. A PR is forthcoming.
720 2012-10-22 12:34:10 slush has joined
721 2012-10-22 12:35:52 rdponticelli_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
722 2012-10-22 12:39:53 gavinandresen has joined
723 2012-10-22 12:47:53 jdnavarro has joined
724 2012-10-22 12:47:55 jdnavarro has quit (Write error: Broken pipe)
725 2012-10-22 12:53:02 rdponticelli has joined
726 2012-10-22 12:53:20 <orion> sipa: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1947
727 2012-10-22 12:54:23 harkon has joined
728 2012-10-22 12:57:12 drizztbsd has joined
729 2012-10-22 12:59:13 agricocb has joined
730 2012-10-22 13:00:58 MagicalTux has quit (Excess Flood)
731 2012-10-22 13:01:54 Guest13124 has joined
732 2012-10-22 13:02:29 _flow_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
733 2012-10-22 13:07:33 <sipa> orion: oh, again the boost ipc failure?
734 2012-10-22 13:07:44 <sipa> so not the socket handler?
735 2012-10-22 13:08:10 <orion> sipa: Correct. I identified the wrong thread when I was talking to you earlier.
736 2012-10-22 13:11:54 <sipa> orion: strange that no progress was made, in that case
737 2012-10-22 13:15:40 _flow_ has joined
738 2012-10-22 13:20:57 jdnavarro has joined
739 2012-10-22 13:34:22 pecket has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
740 2012-10-22 13:35:49 Guest13124 is now known as MagicalTux
741 2012-10-22 13:35:52 MagicalTux has quit (Changing host)
742 2012-10-22 13:35:52 MagicalTux has joined
743 2012-10-22 13:37:12 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
744 2012-10-22 13:38:19 pecket has joined
745 2012-10-22 13:40:34 conman has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
746 2012-10-22 13:41:22 leotreasure has quit (Quit: leotreasure)
747 2012-10-22 13:44:24 <gmaxwell> sipa: your branch fixes testnet.
748 2012-10-22 13:45:06 <gmaxwell> Also, reindex was usefulâ I first reproduced the failure, then restarted with the maturity fixâ node was stuck because got inventory: block 00000000dc3a9cee3f1b have and didn't refetch it.
749 2012-10-22 13:45:34 <gmaxwell> Reindex made it accept it and it continued on.
750 2012-10-22 13:47:49 <sipa> maybe there can be we -softreindex, which only resets the block database and rescans that, but doesn't wipe the coins db
751 2012-10-22 13:48:09 <sipa> that should allow you to recover from such things much more quickly
752 2012-10-22 13:49:43 one_zero has quit ()
753 2012-10-22 13:52:18 <sipa> then again, such things shouldn't happen at all
754 2012-10-22 13:52:59 <Diablo-D3> what exactly is happening?
755 2012-10-22 13:53:13 <gmaxwell> Right, I mean we also could attempt to reattach a detached block when we hear about it from a peer after restart or something.. then it would recover automatically.. but that code would be risker than the problem it solves.
756 2012-10-22 13:53:50 <Diablo-D3> btw, that ultraprune shit? that can be turned off, right?
757 2012-10-22 13:54:49 <sipa> no
758 2012-10-22 13:55:10 <sipa> but it doesn't mean your block chain gets pruned
759 2012-10-22 13:55:38 <sipa> the name refers to the fact that it uses an ultra-pruned copy of the chain for validation, instead of an index into the full one
760 2012-10-22 13:56:29 <Diablo-D3> ahh
761 2012-10-22 13:56:30 <gmaxwell> I propose we rename ultraprune 'weeblix' ... because no one will make assumptions about what weeblix does. :P
762 2012-10-22 13:56:44 <Diablo-D3> because I want to keep the chain history
763 2012-10-22 13:57:02 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: good, we want you to do so too.
764 2012-10-22 13:57:17 <sipa> how about "turbo engine" ? :)
765 2012-10-22 13:57:21 <Diablo-D3> well, everyones like they want new clients to start instantly
766 2012-10-22 13:57:27 <Diablo-D3> and not need to store 2gb of data
767 2012-10-22 13:57:33 RazielZ has joined
768 2012-10-22 13:57:36 <Diablo-D3> I dont see how that can be secure =/
769 2012-10-22 13:57:53 copumpkin has joined
770 2012-10-22 13:57:56 <sipa> those are two separate issues
771 2012-10-22 13:58:12 <sipa> a zero-trust node will always need to see the entire history to synchronize
772 2012-10-22 13:58:19 <sipa> but that doesn't mean it needs to keep it
773 2012-10-22 13:58:58 <Diablo-D3> yeah, but if no one has the history anymore, how can you add new nodes?
774 2012-10-22 13:59:30 <sipa> that's another question
775 2012-10-22 13:59:49 veerboot has joined
776 2012-10-22 14:00:04 <sipa> but surely people on a network connection that only supports very slow uploading, better don't serve the entire history (better for them, and better for the rest as well, as it slows them down)
777 2012-10-22 14:00:25 <Diablo-D3> so we end up doing the whole supernode shit
778 2012-10-22 14:00:28 <Diablo-D3> and that shit always goes wrong
779 2012-10-22 14:01:13 <sipa> i suppsoe i'll start referring to ultraprune as "the 0.8 engine" or something
780 2012-10-22 14:02:17 umop3plsdn has joined
781 2012-10-22 14:02:24 <gmaxwell> v8 engine, obviously, if that hasn't been taken
782 2012-10-22 14:02:31 pumpkin has joined
783 2012-10-22 14:02:35 freakazoid has joined
784 2012-10-22 14:02:48 copumpkin has quit (Disconnected by services)
785 2012-10-22 14:02:49 pumpkin is now known as copumpkin
786 2012-10-22 14:02:57 <sipa> gmaxwell: bummer!
787 2012-10-22 14:03:05 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: in any case thats irrelevant now; we're not doing any of that, we're a long way from being able to do that.
788 2012-10-22 14:03:47 <helo> so the goal is to make it comfortable for everyone to run a bitcoin node to the extent that their resources allow it
789 2012-10-22 14:04:04 <sipa> helo: that would be ideal, i guess
790 2012-10-22 14:04:15 <helo> if nobody ever noticed any negative performance impact from running a node, presumably everyone would
791 2012-10-22 14:04:27 <gmaxwell> helo: thats _my_ vision at least.
792 2012-10-22 14:04:28 <helo> everyone being 'all bitcoin users'
793 2012-10-22 14:04:49 <sipa> well, bandwidth and storage aren't free
794 2012-10-22 14:05:05 <sipa> as long as you're relaying on consumer hardware (and for now, we can), that is typically not a problem
795 2012-10-22 14:05:39 <sipa> but as soon as running a (full) node becomes something that requires investment, i'm afraid things can change
796 2012-10-22 14:06:01 <t7> is the difference between signed and unsigned add just the condition for the carry add being set?
797 2012-10-22 14:06:10 <t7> oh wrong channel, excuse me
798 2012-10-22 14:07:14 <Diablo-D3> t7: there is so much wrong with your statement
799 2012-10-22 14:07:32 <t7> add = flag
800 2012-10-22 14:07:50 <t7> oh and minus :)
801 2012-10-22 14:08:04 * t7 shoots self in head :)
802 2012-10-22 14:08:08 <Diablo-D3> wikipedia twos complement
803 2012-10-22 14:08:17 <sipa> is there an implementation difference between unsigned and signed add?
804 2012-10-22 14:08:28 <sipa> i don't think so
805 2012-10-22 14:08:29 <Diablo-D3> sipa: I dont think so.
806 2012-10-22 14:08:48 <Diablo-D3> not with twos complement math and the way processors implement math
807 2012-10-22 14:09:47 <helo> right now say 90% of nodes are full nodes... so the chance that none of eight connections will be full nodes is 1 in 100,000,000. if things are scaled down so that a lower percentage of the network are full nodes, at which point do we need raise the number of default connections?
808 2012-10-22 14:10:18 <sipa> helo: nodes only connect to full nodes
809 2012-10-22 14:10:34 <sipa> as SPV nodes don't relay, they are not interesting to connect to
810 2012-10-22 14:11:03 <helo> oh... only two tiers?
811 2012-10-22 14:11:08 <sipa> for now, yes
812 2012-10-22 14:11:44 <helo> i was thinking some people will have resources to maybe not serve the full chain, but still be useful for something
813 2012-10-22 14:12:34 <sipa> well, i think a first step is separating full nodes into archive nodes and validation nodes (i assume every archive node will also validate, but that's no techncial requirement)
814 2012-10-22 14:12:46 <sipa> you'd only need archive nodes for IBD
815 2012-10-22 14:13:06 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
816 2012-10-22 14:27:55 Joric has joined
817 2012-10-22 14:36:15 Zarutian has joined
818 2012-10-22 14:45:11 showard has joined
819 2012-10-22 14:47:33 GMP has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
820 2012-10-22 14:54:51 <gmaxwell> helo: right now I expect that something like <20% of users are using full nodes.
821 2012-10-22 14:55:06 <gmaxwell> helo: worse, they've mostly moved to insecure webwallets.
822 2012-10-22 14:56:07 <Diablo-D3> why did my brain try to parse that as wallabes
823 2012-10-22 14:56:19 <helo> because they are delicious?
824 2012-10-22 14:56:31 <Diablo-D3> nothx.
825 2012-10-22 14:56:52 <sipa> well, i don't count those as nodes whatsoever
826 2012-10-22 14:57:09 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: Some food for thought while you're working on header fetching. While talking to ThomasV about how electrum is becoming more SPVish and how he'll handler historical headers I thought of a new kind of checkpoint that nodes could use to improve security against isolation.
827 2012-10-22 14:57:24 <Diablo-D3> so wait
828 2012-10-22 14:57:28 <Diablo-D3> people actually use electrum?
829 2012-10-22 14:58:18 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: the thought would be that you'd checkpoint only the total work and not accept as 'real' any chain which is under that threshold. Because it only sets a minimum it doesn't goof with the consensus algorithm (except letting someone who sets it block the user from working at all)
830 2012-10-22 14:58:21 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
831 2012-10-22 14:58:50 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: so someone could be _very_ agressive about updating it. E.g. updating it at the moment a client is downloaded and setting it to their own network tip.
832 2012-10-22 14:59:44 <gmaxwell> (or accepting signed copies of it from the developers over a network connectionâ would only give the developers a DOS attack)
833 2012-10-22 15:00:22 <gmaxwell> (but in exchange would give immunity to isolation)
834 2012-10-22 15:03:06 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, ohai, did you get my messages about the timestamp?
835 2012-10-22 15:03:20 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: hm. No.
836 2012-10-22 15:03:22 * gmaxwell looks
837 2012-10-22 15:04:09 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
838 2012-10-22 15:04:22 slush has joined
839 2012-10-22 15:07:20 PK has quit (Quit: Leaving)
840 2012-10-22 15:12:16 paraipan has joined
841 2012-10-22 15:16:22 Turingi has joined
842 2012-10-22 15:16:25 <molecular> testing ultraprune (git from 20 hours ago): ./bitcoin-qt -loadblock=/home/nick/.bitcoin/blk0001.dat -loadblock=/home/nick/.bitcoin/blk0002.dat
843 2012-10-22 15:16:25 <molecular> Application asked to unregister timer 0x2b000010 which is not registered in this thread. Fix application.
844 2012-10-22 15:17:02 <molecular> then when I try to start bitcoin-qt again, a popup pops up: "Warning: error reading wallet.dat! Alle keys read correctly, but transaction data or address book entries mieght be missing or incorrect"
845 2012-10-22 15:17:21 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
846 2012-10-22 15:17:22 <molecular> and ten another one: "failed to connect best block"
847 2012-10-22 15:17:28 sneak has joined
848 2012-10-22 15:17:28 sneak has quit (Changing host)
849 2012-10-22 15:17:28 sneak has joined
850 2012-10-22 15:17:34 <Turingi> so computational proof of work is the only way to build a distributed crypto money system?
851 2012-10-22 15:18:19 <Turingi> or can we call it, protocol-based crypto money system
852 2012-10-22 15:18:31 <UukGoblin> Turingi, I guess not, e.g. a proof-of-stake is another option
853 2012-10-22 15:18:35 <Joric> lol http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/11vtfk/mining_addresses_is_currently_more_profitable/
854 2012-10-22 15:18:56 <UukGoblin> there's probably lots of other ways
855 2012-10-22 15:20:55 <Joric> looks like mining vanity addresses 10 times more profitable
856 2012-10-22 15:21:00 aurigae has left ()
857 2012-10-22 15:22:15 <Turingi> UukGoblin: thanks, looking at that now https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake
858 2012-10-22 15:22:17 asuk has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
859 2012-10-22 15:22:19 <sipa> Joric: that is sad...
860 2012-10-22 15:22:26 iToast is now known as iToasterman
861 2012-10-22 15:22:35 iToasterman is now known as iToast
862 2012-10-22 15:22:41 iToast has quit (Changing host)
863 2012-10-22 15:22:41 iToast has joined
864 2012-10-22 15:22:43 iToast is now known as iToasterman
865 2012-10-22 15:22:49 <Turingi> what's wrong with vanity addresses?
866 2012-10-22 15:22:54 iToasterman is now known as iToast
867 2012-10-22 15:22:54 <Joric> can't be done with asics though
868 2012-10-22 15:23:37 <UukGoblin> people are paying THAT MUCH for them? :-O
869 2012-10-22 15:24:47 <gmaxwell> Turingi: They weakly violate the bitcoin designâ bitcoin is highly public, the only source of privacy people have comes from minimizing address reuse.
870 2012-10-22 15:25:05 <Joric> might be the next big thing after block mining pools )
871 2012-10-22 15:25:19 <gmaxwell> Turingi: a cute address here or there is harmless but if you're willing to pay a lot for a vanity address you're going to be sure to use it a lot.
872 2012-10-22 15:25:23 <Turingi> there may be a need for a truly anonymous money transfer system, one that doesn't keep transactions visible to everyone
873 2012-10-22 15:26:19 <Joric> eg 1stJune* costs 0.64 BTC
874 2012-10-22 15:26:23 <gmaxwell> Turingi: if it were as simple as saying there was a need we'd have it. Bitcoin is not too far if used correctly (_every_ transaction to a new address).
875 2012-10-22 15:26:28 <UukGoblin> Turingi, to quote Dan Boneh: "Everything that can be done with a central server, can also be done without it"
876 2012-10-22 15:26:57 <Turingi> well, when you try to spend BTC, all those unique addresses point back to you
877 2012-10-22 15:27:12 <Turingi> so does it matter that you create a new one for each transaction?
878 2012-10-22 15:27:46 <Turingi> what about stuff like mixnets?
879 2012-10-22 15:27:52 <gmaxwell> Turingi: yes, because it minimizes the amount of connected informations, and minimizing crosslink. _only_ the person who paid that address can observe the connection.
880 2012-10-22 15:28:27 <orion> I think people who don't understand bitcoin use it horribly. For example, why on Earth would you EVER get a wallet from some random website instead of running the client on your own machine?
881 2012-10-22 15:29:07 <Turingi> some people need to move lots of BTC, you have to use some trading platform for that (like mtgox)
882 2012-10-22 15:29:09 <UukGoblin> orion, a LOT of people these days choose to use random websites rather than install free clients on their own machines
883 2012-10-22 15:29:17 <gmaxwell> orion: because people reason poorly about risks. We use 'social' proxies to determine safty. FooWebWallet is "intutively" safe because the website is very polished.
884 2012-10-22 15:29:21 AndChat567216 has joined
885 2012-10-22 15:29:32 <gmaxwell> orion: and they haven't heard of anyone getting ripped off that way!
886 2012-10-22 15:29:32 <UukGoblin> orion, facebook is a great example
887 2012-10-22 15:29:52 <gmaxwell> Turingi: for the bitcoin inflation-free promise to be upheld the motion of coins must be disclosed so you can tell that the amount isn't being inflated.
888 2012-10-22 15:30:18 <Turingi> gmaxwell: I thought inflation is a tunable parameter
889 2012-10-22 15:30:27 <Joric> gmaxwell, true, coinbase looks so 'reliable'
890 2012-10-22 15:31:03 <Turingi> gmaxwell: you can tune the reward to be slightly inreasing over time with a constant factor (a Milton Friedman-style central bank)
891 2012-10-22 15:31:12 <Joric> not to mention instawallet it was rated 3rd in that bitcoin analysis pdf
892 2012-10-22 15:31:22 <gmaxwell> Turingi: in _bitcoin_, no. In the methods we use, sureâ but if you can't see the transactions, you can't tell what the inflation level is, at least in our kind of distributed system.
893 2012-10-22 15:32:14 <gmaxwell> Turingi: what you're describing is not bitcoin it's something else. Every bitcoin node enforces the scheduled introduction of codes. It's fixed and can't be changed without replacing everyone's software with something else.
894 2012-10-22 15:32:19 <helo> isn't a deflationary bitcoin more valuable than an inflationary bitcoin? why would we want to make bitcoin worth less?
895 2012-10-22 15:32:39 <Turingi> actually, the weak pseudonimity can be exploited by tax authorities, it could make btc legal transactions
896 2012-10-22 15:32:49 <Turingi> since auditing is a matter of data mining
897 2012-10-22 15:32:58 <gmaxwell> But thats an aside and not my point, my point was is that showing the behavior is correct requires the data be available. :(
898 2012-10-22 15:33:27 <helo> bitcoin used on large scales is taxable just as cash on large scales is
899 2012-10-22 15:33:38 <gmaxwell> Turingi: um. Weird idea what all transactions are not 'legal transactions' it's not like coal is illegal because you can trade it without contacting a centeral registration.
900 2012-10-22 15:33:39 <helo> i.e. audits will send you to prison
901 2012-10-22 15:33:44 <echelon> bitcoind cpu usage: 57% :/
902 2012-10-22 15:33:52 spreelanka has joined
903 2012-10-22 15:33:54 <gmaxwell> As helo says. Idiots cheat on taxes, bitcoin doesn't change that.
904 2012-10-22 15:33:59 <echelon> this has been going on for 2-3 days
905 2012-10-22 15:34:27 <gmaxwell> echelon: is the node otherwise working correctly? are you current with the chain? What verison? What OS?
906 2012-10-22 15:34:42 <Turingi> just monitor outflows from known addresses associated with people
907 2012-10-22 15:35:00 <Luke-Jr> Turingi: ok, good. tax evasion is bad, don't do it
908 2012-10-22 15:35:21 <gmaxwell> Turingi: that doesn't work so well with current bitcoin usage, since almost every transaction moves funds to new addresses.
909 2012-10-22 15:35:25 <Turingi> hey, everyone is doing it at some level Luke-Jr :)
910 2012-10-22 15:35:43 <Turingi> gmaxwell: the IRS just needs to work backwards from new addresses
911 2012-10-22 15:35:49 <Turingi> from known addresses, that is
912 2012-10-22 15:35:50 <gmaxwell> Turingi: And "making" everyone use constant addresses makes bitcoin very unattractive because it would be highly non-private.
913 2012-10-22 15:36:07 <edcba> it doesn't make it unattractive
914 2012-10-22 15:36:10 vampireb has joined
915 2012-10-22 15:36:13 <gmaxwell> Turingi: this isn't how tax collection works even on systems where it wouldn't totally ruin privac.
916 2012-10-22 15:36:14 <edcba> it makes it less attractive
917 2012-10-22 15:36:21 <Turingi> when you post a donation addresses associated with your name, any transactions from that address can be monitored
918 2012-10-22 15:36:27 <Turingi> as an example
919 2012-10-22 15:36:37 <gmaxwell> edcba: the first time your mother in law calls and asks why you're buying contraceptives when she wants grandkids you will stop using bitcoin.
920 2012-10-22 15:36:46 <edcba> haha
921 2012-10-22 15:36:54 pnicholson has joined
922 2012-10-22 15:36:59 <helo> afaict because every transaction is public, "laundering" is essentially built into the system
923 2012-10-22 15:37:14 <edcba> hopefully i rarely buy condoms by internet :)
924 2012-10-22 15:37:24 <gmaxwell> Turingi: it's not like every transaction you make at a bank is being constantly streamed to the IRSâ even though it would be completely feasable to do this and would hardly harm banking privacy.
925 2012-10-22 15:37:24 <Luke-Jr> helo: the inverse!
926 2012-10-22 15:37:30 <edcba> i wonder how IRS do with cash...
927 2012-10-22 15:37:32 <Turingi> it is at least one aspect that can make it pallatable potentially to payment processors
928 2012-10-22 15:37:39 <helo> Luke-Jr: because every transaction is private?
929 2012-10-22 15:37:48 <Joric> would it be more appropriate to provide random addresses for donation?
930 2012-10-22 15:38:03 <Turingi> yeah, but eventually you will want to spend the BTC there
931 2012-10-22 15:38:05 <gmaxwell> Turingi: er, generally payment processing _must_ use unique addresses, otherwise you don't know who paid you.
932 2012-10-22 15:38:13 <Turingi> and when you spend it, it's all traced
933 2012-10-22 15:38:16 <Luke-Jr> helo: because every transaction is public
934 2012-10-22 15:38:41 <edcba> i don't see what your problem is
935 2012-10-22 15:38:50 <gmaxwell> Joric: it's a preferred thing to do, but few do it. We haven't created good tools for that yet.
936 2012-10-22 15:38:53 <edcba> either you can justify a transaction either you can't
937 2012-10-22 15:39:05 <sipa> Turingi: but if every address is unique, "tracing" isn't more than linking addresses together
938 2012-10-22 15:39:06 <helo> Luke-Jr: ahh, right :)
939 2012-10-22 15:39:18 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: QUIT. puppy: it'd be wise to actual chat on here and not loiter.)
940 2012-10-22 15:40:16 servvs has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
941 2012-10-22 15:40:57 <echelon> gmaxwell: yeah, peers are connected to me just fine.. bitcoin ver 0.7.1, linux 2.6.37.6
942 2012-10-22 15:40:59 <helo> Turingi: also, recommended practice is that every donor will receive their own donation address, so there will not be a common address to monitor
943 2012-10-22 15:41:19 <helo> Turingi: it is trivial to never show the same address twice
944 2012-10-22 15:41:26 <echelon> i think the chain is still downloading, and the blk index is being processed
945 2012-10-22 15:41:57 <echelon> 188707523 Oct 22 11:29 blk0004.dat
946 2012-10-22 15:42:01 <echelon> 978403328 Oct 22 11:29 blkindex.dat
947 2012-10-22 15:42:04 <Turingi> helo: ok, in that case you will need to set up your donation page through some obfuscation service, i.e. never post a single address, just a web service of sorts
948 2012-10-22 15:42:05 <gmaxwell> echelon: How many blocks do you have? Hovering over the status will tell you the block count.
949 2012-10-22 15:42:14 <gmaxwell> blk0004.dat ?! you've done something .. odd.
950 2012-10-22 15:42:24 <sipa> gmaxwell: he -loadblock='ed himself, i guess
951 2012-10-22 15:42:25 <echelon> what
952 2012-10-22 15:42:34 <echelon> nope
953 2012-10-22 15:42:36 <Turingi> helo: I see now :) pseudonimity reinforced
954 2012-10-22 15:42:40 <echelon> i aborted loadblock
955 2012-10-22 15:43:11 <gmaxwell> Turingi: thats the normal behavior for payment processingâ if you don't give out new addresses you can't tell which person paid you. For donations it's only important for privacy purposes.
956 2012-10-22 15:43:14 <echelon> gmaxwell: i downloaded the archived blockchain from bitcoincharts :/
957 2012-10-22 15:43:17 <Joric> gmaxwell, it's rather trivial, if you delete blkindex.dat it concatenates a new blockchain to the old one =)
958 2012-10-22 15:43:44 <gmaxwell> Joric: or drop in a chain without an index.
959 2012-10-22 15:43:47 <Joric> ^ this
960 2012-10-22 15:44:37 <Joric> bitcoincharts should add blkindex.dat to the archive
961 2012-10-22 15:45:14 <Luke-Jr> Joric: it was just removed
962 2012-10-22 15:45:17 <Luke-Jr> for good reason
963 2012-10-22 15:45:37 <sipa> they should call their downloaded file bootstrap.dat instead of blk000*.dat
964 2012-10-22 15:45:43 * Luke-Jr wonders if bitcoincharts redid their thing to be built upon the minimal blk0001.dat
965 2012-10-22 15:47:03 <gmaxwell> sipa: well, I understand that it will be going away.
966 2012-10-22 15:47:30 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
967 2012-10-22 15:48:07 <echelon> gmaxwell: 197287 blocks
968 2012-10-22 15:49:35 <gmaxwell> echelon: how long has it been syncing since the last time you restarted it?
969 2012-10-22 15:49:49 <echelon> for 2 days now
970 2012-10-22 15:50:11 <echelon> was i supposed to use loadblock for bitcoinchart's tarball'd archive?
971 2012-10-22 15:50:18 <Luke-Jr> of course
972 2012-10-22 15:50:23 <sipa> molecular: is that at startup?
973 2012-10-22 15:51:59 <echelon> so is it just redownloading the entire blockchain from the beginning?
974 2012-10-22 15:52:04 <echelon> i never needed to do that before
975 2012-10-22 15:52:49 <sipa> echelon: if the archive doesn't contain an index, it will assume nothing is there, and just download stuff and append it to whatever file is available
976 2012-10-22 15:53:10 <echelon> bah
977 2012-10-22 15:53:22 <sipa> however, supplying the index is a bad idea, since it means you trusted them to do the indexing for you
978 2012-10-22 15:53:31 <sipa> if you do that, you're better off running a lightweight node
979 2012-10-22 15:53:57 <echelon> so i should just abort then?
980 2012-10-22 15:54:01 <sipa> yes
981 2012-10-22 15:55:06 <sipa> abort, put the downloaded files NOT in the datadir, and -loadblock them
982 2012-10-22 15:55:23 <echelon> gotcha
983 2012-10-22 15:55:32 <echelon> and where can i get the version that has your changes?
984 2012-10-22 15:55:40 <echelon> for faster block indexing thingy ^_^
985 2012-10-22 15:56:05 <sipa> i think there are too many problems with it still for a general preview build
986 2012-10-22 15:56:51 <echelon> oh
987 2012-10-22 15:57:16 <gmaxwell> ask again in a week
988 2012-10-22 15:57:18 <sipa> maybe in a few days i'll put a build online with big warnings on it
989 2012-10-22 15:57:21 <gmaxwell> yea...
990 2012-10-22 15:59:00 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: TheBlueMatt opened issue bitcoin/bitcoin#1657 <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1657> || apetersson opened issue bitcoin/bitcoin#1656 <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1656> || gmaxwell opened pull request bitcoin/bitcoin#1655 <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1655> || gmaxwell opened issue bitcoin/bitcoin#1654 <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1654> || gmaxwell opened issu
991 2012-10-22 16:00:05 t7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
992 2012-10-22 16:03:49 <sipa> gmaxwell: i wonder if there could be logic to automatically -reindex, for example when blocks/blk* is available, but blktree/ isn' t
993 2012-10-22 16:07:29 Joric has quit ()
994 2012-10-22 16:07:55 MiningBuddy- has joined
995 2012-10-22 16:08:07 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
996 2012-10-22 16:09:02 showard has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
997 2012-10-22 16:11:25 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
998 2012-10-22 16:15:35 Eslbaer has joined
999 2012-10-22 16:15:42 <molecular> sipa: yes
1000 2012-10-22 16:16:18 <molecular> sipa: I posted report in thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119525.msg1290009#msg1290009
1001 2012-10-22 16:16:50 <sipa> molecular: can you try with a clean datadir, for now?
1002 2012-10-22 16:17:19 <molecular> sipa: redownload or loadblocks= ?
1003 2012-10-22 16:18:07 <sipa> molecular: either is fine
1004 2012-10-22 16:18:41 <molecular> it is possible by blk000x.dat are screwed. I wasn't able to start the old version due to "out of memory" error
1005 2012-10-22 16:18:59 <molecular> s/by/my
1006 2012-10-22 16:19:22 <sipa> you should be able to feed /dev/urandom into -loadblocks without problem
1007 2012-10-22 16:19:24 <molecular> I think I will try both, loadblock= first, if that doesn't work, readownload chain
1008 2012-10-22 16:19:39 <molecular> is it "loadblock" or "loadblocks"?
1009 2012-10-22 16:19:44 <sipa> eh
1010 2012-10-22 16:19:50 <sipa> whatever --help says
1011 2012-10-22 16:19:52 <Luke-Jr> sipa: in theory, or practice?
1012 2012-10-22 16:20:03 <Luke-Jr> I wonder what happens if you get the magic bytes followed by ffffffff
1013 2012-10-22 16:20:08 <sipa> Luke-Jr: in theory, but i've seen no counterevidence in practice
1014 2012-10-22 16:20:14 <Luke-Jr> or really <any 3>ff
1015 2012-10-22 16:20:30 <Luke-Jr> sipa: you run 64-bit I bet ;)
1016 2012-10-22 16:20:49 <sipa> Luke-Jr: nothing will happen in that case, as it checks for MAX_BLOCK_SIZE before reading
1017 2012-10-22 16:20:58 <gmaxwell> "<user> okay I -loadblock=/dev/urandom and I'm not getting any blocks! it's using LOTS of CPU!"
1018 2012-10-22 16:21:19 <sipa> "this sucks, i'm going to use electrum"
1019 2012-10-22 16:21:24 <Luke-Jr> sipa: i c
1020 2012-10-22 16:21:45 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1021 2012-10-22 16:21:54 <sipa> Luke-Jr: the difference between theory and practice, however, is that in theory there is none, but in practice there is
1022 2012-10-22 16:21:56 iToast has quit (Quit: * elkclone has quit (Quit: It's never too late to unplug and run.))
1023 2012-10-22 16:22:35 <gmaxwell> heh. yea, it just pegs the cpu. :P
1024 2012-10-22 16:22:48 <sipa> well, -loadblock does rely on fseek
1025 2012-10-22 16:23:01 <gmaxwell> sipa: well, must not catch the failure then.
1026 2012-10-22 16:23:17 MiningBuddy- is now known as MiningBuddy
1027 2012-10-22 16:23:18 MiningBuddy has quit (Changing host)
1028 2012-10-22 16:23:18 MiningBuddy has joined
1029 2012-10-22 16:23:22 <Luke-Jr> does fseek fail if you're only moving forward?
1030 2012-10-22 16:23:44 <sipa> i don't think you can fseek on a fifo at all, even only forward
1031 2012-10-22 16:26:57 PhantomSpark has joined
1032 2012-10-22 16:27:09 PhantomSpark has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1033 2012-10-22 16:31:37 PhantomSpark has quit (2!~kvirc@pool-71-251-16-25.nycmny.fios.verizon.net|Client Quit)
1034 2012-10-22 16:34:04 DaQatz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1035 2012-10-22 16:35:17 Joric has joined
1036 2012-10-22 16:35:17 Joric has quit (Changing host)
1037 2012-10-22 16:35:17 Joric has joined
1038 2012-10-22 16:38:35 Jouke has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1039 2012-10-22 16:40:05 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: re: checkpoint total chain work: sounds like a cool idea...at least downloading a signed copy of the min total chain work on a regular basis...though Im not sure which potential attack scenarios it really prevents...I mean the only real reason for checkpoints is to prevent the "feed you 1 billion diff-1 blocks" dos (and to sanity-test your acceptance), beyond that you should be able to identify sane chains on your own...
1040 2012-10-22 16:40:32 <BlueMatt> its nice to be able to update the checkpoints more often, but...meh
1041 2012-10-22 16:41:34 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: nah, the other case checkpoints prevent is "You get your bitcoin from a signed software repo / ssl website/ etc; then you start it, but the attacker is your ISP/router/etc and intercepts your network connection and doesn't let you see the real chain"
1042 2012-10-22 16:42:39 <gmaxwell> One of the security assumptions in bitcoin is that the attacker cant totally deny you access to honest nodes. In practice attackers really can do this, though it's usually harder than a random sybil attack (also protected against by checkpoints).
1043 2012-10-22 16:43:11 <BlueMatt> well, yea, ok...still that falls pretty easily under "put an arbitrary checkpoint back three months"
1044 2012-10-22 16:43:23 <BlueMatt> doesnt seem like doing more often updates solves much there
1045 2012-10-22 16:44:03 JZavala has joined
1046 2012-10-22 16:44:12 <BlueMatt> (plus performing any actual attacks by rejecting your access to the real chain is hard to pull off, assuming the client is sane and alerts the user that its not getting new blocks)
1047 2012-10-22 16:44:53 <gmaxwell> Do any do that yet? It's somewhat hard to do, because long gaps happen so you need to be careful with the warnings.
1048 2012-10-22 16:45:24 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: right, I was pointing out that regular checkpoints defend against this tooâ respending to your 'the only real reason for checkpoints' comment.
1049 2012-10-22 16:45:28 <BlueMatt> I thought bitcoin-qt notified you if it was running behind...
1050 2012-10-22 16:45:33 <BlueMatt> maybe not then...
1051 2012-10-22 16:46:05 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: not really. it'll show that it's syncing onces its a couple hours back, but it's not something cautioning you at all.
1052 2012-10-22 16:46:13 <BlueMatt> well, ok, checkpoints really all fall under "sanity test" case, but sure they do prevent a few "attacks"
1053 2012-10-22 16:46:23 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ahh, ok well that needs fixed then ;)
1054 2012-10-22 16:47:00 <BlueMatt> anyway, I suppose a "total height" (and maybe a block height -> total work) checkpoint is probably more useful than static checkpoints if you do reverse header sync
1055 2012-10-22 16:47:23 <BlueMatt> (though block height -> total min work is probably no more useful than block height -> hash because it needs to be sufficiently far back anyway)
1056 2012-10-22 16:48:09 <sipa> the problem with reverse-header sync is that you can't do much with the data (except verify that it is potentially correct, and was as hard to create as they claim) before it's connected to the genesis
1057 2012-10-22 16:48:15 <gmaxwell> yea, It was just a thought. I don't think it's a really important idea. It's just one way to have more frequent checkpoints without worrying about disrupting the consensus algorithim. Dunno that anyone needs more frequent ones. :P
1058 2012-10-22 16:48:35 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ok, fair enough
1059 2012-10-22 16:49:32 <sipa> you could think of an algorithm where you first just ask for the timestamps of the multiple-of-2016 blocks... that's a tiny amount of data, and you'd immediately know the resulting total amount of work
1060 2012-10-22 16:50:21 <BlueMatt> sipa: downloading the full set of 200000-some headers is really cheap (you could even throw away everything but the hashes themselves for most blocks)
1061 2012-10-22 16:50:38 <sipa> yeah
1062 2012-10-22 16:50:46 <sipa> it's probably not worth optimizing this further
1063 2012-10-22 16:50:56 <sipa> at least for now
1064 2012-10-22 16:52:02 <sipa> anyway - what could be done, is then iteratively requesting block headers in between 2016-apart timestamps, starting with the ranges where difficulty is the highest
1065 2012-10-22 16:52:44 <BlueMatt> yea, that would be faster if you were tight on bw
1066 2012-10-22 16:52:51 <BlueMatt> (or there were millions of blocks)
1067 2012-10-22 16:53:34 <sipa> even with a million blocks, which is at a point in time where moore's law will have pushed technology a lot further than we are today, it's only 84 MB to download all headers
1068 2012-10-22 16:53:55 <BlueMatt> yea...
1069 2012-10-22 16:54:12 <gmaxwell> sipa: amiller has an algorithim idea that would require some additional commitments but would allow log time chain selection instead of linear. But I think it's mostly a pointless optimization (though academically interesting)
1070 2012-10-22 16:54:14 <sipa> faking a longer header chain, requires one that has shorter intervals, thus higher difficulty
1071 2012-10-22 16:54:48 <sipa> faking a shorter header chain... well, at most 84 MB of RAM temporarily wasted at the receiver side
1072 2012-10-22 16:55:56 <gmaxwell> yea, mostly the concern is that it's a lot of data.. it's that one doofus with an ASIC could potentially make you waste 84mb*n_hosts pulling a bunch of hopeless chains... since you have to pull ~all offered you to sum them up.
1073 2012-10-22 16:56:15 <gmaxwell> The stuff about fetching backwards is just a hurestic to make early termination maximally effective.
1074 2012-10-22 16:57:26 <sipa> but forward header fetching means you can start downloading actual blocks and validating those, while headers are still being downloaded
1075 2012-10-22 16:57:53 <sipa> (and if the validation fails, you also cut of the header download)
1076 2012-10-22 16:58:25 <sipa> then again, producing valid low-difficulty blocks is about as hard as creating low-difficulty block headers
1077 2012-10-22 16:58:57 DaQatz has joined
1078 2012-10-22 17:00:20 <gmaxwell> Yea, I don't think that helps you with header flooding. Alternatively, just shipping the last 32 bits of all block IDs up to the checkpoint. Would help.
1079 2012-10-22 17:01:14 <gmaxwell> I think after things stablize with the reward halving and asic shipping I'm going to float a BIP to increase the minimum difficulty above some height, to mostly kill these stupid flooding attacks.
1080 2012-10-22 17:01:16 Joric has quit ()
1081 2012-10-22 17:01:51 <sipa> how about just shipping the 2016-cycle timestamp intervals?
1082 2012-10-22 17:02:04 <sipa> that means you know what difficulty every block needs to have in advance
1083 2012-10-22 17:02:11 <gmaxwell> sipa: this is in fact what thomasv is going to do.
1084 2012-10-22 17:02:30 <gmaxwell> Because he plans on only pulling historical headers if the user has older keys.
1085 2012-10-22 17:03:15 ThomasV has joined
1086 2012-10-22 17:03:18 <gmaxwell> But for the anti flooding I don't know that it helps...
1087 2012-10-22 17:03:39 <sipa> it means that an attacker has to redo as much work as the real chain at every point in time
1088 2012-10-22 17:03:39 <gmaxwell> Because for the first years worth of blocks you can compute an enormous number of alternative chains which comply with that rule completely.
1089 2012-10-22 17:03:44 <sipa> agree
1090 2012-10-22 17:04:13 <sipa> well, a combination is also possible
1091 2012-10-22 17:04:16 <gmaxwell> Requring a minimum difficulty of 100k after the first point that we hit 100k+, would seriously complicate attacking and bitcoin would be dead if difficulty ever fell below that. Clients could then ship minicheckpoints (32 bit values) to that height.
1092 2012-10-22 17:04:56 <gmaxwell> (I'd wait until after the halving and introduction of asics before talking about it just because there is hashrate uncertanty from both of these changes)
1093 2012-10-22 17:05:56 ThomasV has quit (Client Quit)
1094 2012-10-22 17:07:29 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1095 2012-10-22 17:08:05 sneak has joined
1096 2012-10-22 17:08:05 sneak has quit (Changing host)
1097 2012-10-22 17:08:05 sneak has joined
1098 2012-10-22 17:08:08 guruvan- has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1099 2012-10-22 17:08:08 mykhal has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1100 2012-10-22 17:08:08 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1101 2012-10-22 17:08:54 freakazoid has joined
1102 2012-10-22 17:09:40 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1103 2012-10-22 17:10:18 random_cat has joined
1104 2012-10-22 17:10:22 <BlueMatt> yea, Im still a fan of shipping the full list of last 32-bit of block hashes up to block N where N has a high diff...
1105 2012-10-22 17:10:59 <BlueMatt> means you can do forward headers sync and not get screwed by 1-diff chains
1106 2012-10-22 17:11:22 knotwork has joined
1107 2012-10-22 17:12:31 newbie01 has joined
1108 2012-10-22 17:12:33 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1109 2012-10-22 17:12:57 [7] has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1110 2012-10-22 17:13:18 TheSeven has joined
1111 2012-10-22 17:14:04 xisalty has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1112 2012-10-22 17:14:46 aq83 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1113 2012-10-22 17:15:19 <orion> Flooding attacks?
1114 2012-10-22 17:15:27 <orion> Bitcoin is under attack?
1115 2012-10-22 17:15:27 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1116 2012-10-22 17:15:55 <gmaxwell> orion: ... No.
1117 2012-10-22 17:16:22 paraipan has joined
1118 2012-10-22 17:16:34 <gmaxwell> orion: bitcoin does not get attacked because we think up the attacks first and make it strong against them.
1119 2012-10-22 17:18:33 guruvan- has joined
1120 2012-10-22 17:18:36 <sipa> ... hopefully
1121 2012-10-22 17:20:15 darkee has joined
1122 2012-10-22 17:21:13 fiesh has joined
1123 2012-10-22 17:22:46 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1124 2012-10-22 17:23:26 <Luke-Jr> well, there's the ongoing SDice attackâ¦
1125 2012-10-22 17:23:47 <sipa> molecular: also, using ~ after -loadblock= won't work i think; the shell only expands that at the beginning of an argument
1126 2012-10-22 17:25:25 root2_ is now known as root2
1127 2012-10-22 17:30:52 da2ce7 has joined
1128 2012-10-22 17:32:30 maqr has quit (Quit: derp)
1129 2012-10-22 17:33:12 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1130 2012-10-22 17:36:53 toffoo has joined
1131 2012-10-22 17:37:53 <slush> sipa: Can you please point me to place in bitcoind sources, where are different validation rules for testnet blocks?
1132 2012-10-22 17:38:29 <slush> I'm still breaking my head on this; code which works on live network don't work on testnet. Even when I'm submitting every block which has at least difficulty 1
1133 2012-10-22 17:39:26 <sipa> search for GetNextWorkRequired
1134 2012-10-22 17:39:44 <Luke-Jr> slush: are you encoding the minimal-length block height?
1135 2012-10-22 17:40:42 <slush> Luke-Jr: I don't know about that, so probably - no
1136 2012-10-22 17:40:51 <slush> you mean block height in coinbase?
1137 2012-10-22 17:40:53 <Luke-Jr> slush: yes
1138 2012-10-22 17:40:59 <slush> yes, I'm doing this
1139 2012-10-22 17:41:08 <slush> im producing v2 blocks
1140 2012-10-22 17:41:15 <Luke-Jr> with Bitcoin it's always 3 bytes for the near future, but on testnet it's probably 2 bytes
1141 2012-10-22 17:41:18 <slush> sipa: thanks, I'll take a look
1142 2012-10-22 17:41:41 <slush> Luke-Jr: I know, I should implement that correctly
1143 2012-10-22 17:41:56 <slush> btw my code worked on testnet without any issue few weeks ago
1144 2012-10-22 17:42:12 <slush> I don't know what happen; I developed stratum pool on testnet3 :-/
1145 2012-10-22 17:42:17 ovidiuso1t has joined
1146 2012-10-22 17:42:49 <Luke-Jr> slush: does the older version still work?
1147 2012-10-22 17:43:37 <slush> Luke-Jr: older version of what?
1148 2012-10-22 17:43:41 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1149 2012-10-22 17:43:42 <gmaxwell> slush: testnet3 may have cross over the header enforcement threshold in that time.
1150 2012-10-22 17:44:00 <jgarzik> testnet differences I can see: (1) difficulty calculation, (2) block nVersion=2 supermajority checking (3) pchMessageStart, (4) bitcoin address id, (5) alert key, (6) checkpoints, (7) IRC usage, (8) testnet mempool accepts non-standard transactions [it does??? sigh], (9) Changing pblock->nTime can change work required on testnet, (10) DNS and hardcoded seeds avoided
1151 2012-10-22 17:44:06 <gmaxwell> slush: what error are you getting when your blocks are rejected.
1152 2012-10-22 17:44:06 <jgarzik> slush: ^^
1153 2012-10-22 17:44:21 <jgarzik> has nVersion==2 requirement kicked in, on testnet3?
1154 2012-10-22 17:44:48 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: of course testnet mempool accepts non-standard txns. Thats how you can actually expirement with them there without having to mine all your own blocks.
1155 2012-10-22 17:45:15 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I would be shocked if it hadn't.
1156 2012-10-22 17:45:20 <slush> gmaxwell: Luke-Jr: http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/block/000000002076870fe65a2b6eeed84fa892c0db924f1482243a6247d931dcab32 This is block produced by my pool. Can you check if height in coinbase is OK?
1157 2012-10-22 17:45:55 <gmaxwell> coinbase there is 020862062f503253482f04b8864e50080800000200000001072f736c7573682f
1158 2012-10-22 17:45:57 <Luke-Jr> slush: looks good to me
1159 2012-10-22 17:46:17 <slush> ad 1) difficulty calculation: I just re-use nbits what I get from GBT
1160 2012-10-22 17:46:27 <slush> ad 2) I use version 2
1161 2012-10-22 17:46:36 <slush> ad 3) Have no idea what it is :)
1162 2012-10-22 17:46:43 <Luke-Jr> slush: also, might note there is an odd corner-case encoding blocks like 0x8000-0xffff etc
1163 2012-10-22 17:46:48 <gmaxwell> slush: okay, so whenever bitcoin rejects a block it logs _why_ it was rejected.
1164 2012-10-22 17:47:03 <Luke-Jr> (that isn't the case with the block you linked tho)
1165 2012-10-22 17:47:15 <slush> gmaxwell: oh, I completely forgot that there may be anything interesting in debug.log ;)
1166 2012-10-22 17:48:38 <slush> hm, hash doesn't match nBits
1167 2012-10-22 17:49:08 <slush> it means "low difficulty", right?
1168 2012-10-22 17:50:05 <gmaxwell> Right it means the share is too low difficulty even for the _claimed_ nbits.
1169 2012-10-22 17:50:12 <Luke-Jr> "high-hash"
1170 2012-10-22 17:50:19 Eslbaer has quit (Quit: Verlassend)
1171 2012-10-22 17:52:19 servvs has joined
1172 2012-10-22 17:55:06 <slush> ok, miner returned hash "1063466275312296339748953154347848099967999507717274656009989480033" as diff1 solution
1173 2012-10-22 17:55:20 <Luke-Jr> â¦
1174 2012-10-22 17:55:22 <slush> and my pool sees current testnet nbits as "133697245282347990925091246082784728529847289082728363897074483200"
1175 2012-10-22 17:56:51 <slush> Luke-Jr: ok, target in hexa is 0000000001450000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
1176 2012-10-22 17:57:10 <slush> Luke-Jr: it looks much higher than diff1, claimed by bitcoind getinfo, right?
1177 2012-10-22 17:57:43 <gmaxwell> getinfo shows the difficulty of whatever the last block was.
1178 2012-10-22 17:57:55 <Luke-Jr> 000000000a1924b018a1b8d8aa0471ce043fa2da55a520a0f5fd3601afcd5e61 > 0000000001450000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
1179 2012-10-22 17:58:15 <gmaxwell> Testnet is currently at difficulty ~200 except for blocks under the 20 minute exception.
1180 2012-10-22 17:58:18 <slush> Luke-Jr: ok, so bitcoind getinfo is here just for fun?
1181 2012-10-22 17:58:31 <Luke-Jr> slush: it's not for miners
1182 2012-10-22 17:58:43 <Luke-Jr> it's for users to see the network's last difficulty
1183 2012-10-22 17:58:52 <gmaxwell> slush: it's always a block behind.
1184 2012-10-22 17:59:06 <gmaxwell> E.g. last difficulty, not next difficulty.
1185 2012-10-22 17:59:08 <Luke-Jr> slush: testnet3 blocks can change difficutly pretty often tho
1186 2012-10-22 17:59:10 <slush> I feel like idiot, really
1187 2012-10-22 17:59:34 <Luke-Jr> slush: always use the 'bits' from GBT ;)
1188 2012-10-22 17:59:40 <slush> Luke-Jr: yes, I'm using it
1189 2012-10-22 17:59:45 <gmaxwell> slush: were you using getinfo to get the target? How did that ever work? :P
1190 2012-10-22 18:00:09 <slush> gmaxwell: I expected that nbits and difficulty should be linked together, so I'm using it for human cross-check
1191 2012-10-22 18:00:24 <gmaxwell> ah! yea, it's confusing, and more obviously so on testnet.
1192 2012-10-22 18:00:28 <slush> of course im using nbits
1193 2012-10-22 18:00:33 <slush> yes, totally confusing
1194 2012-10-22 18:00:55 <slush> so what? testnet diff is just higher? I expected there are some shortcuts to maintain it lower
1195 2012-10-22 18:01:08 <slush> so I wasn't surprised that I see difficulty in getinfo at 1
1196 2012-10-22 18:01:12 <Luke-Jr> slush: if 10 minutes pass since the last block, you can mine at diff 1
1197 2012-10-22 18:01:17 <slush> but now Im confused, because you're talking that it is above 200
1198 2012-10-22 18:01:25 PhantomSpark has joined
1199 2012-10-22 18:01:33 <Luke-Jr> for 1 block
1200 2012-10-22 18:01:42 <Luke-Jr> after that block, it goes back to what it "should" be
1201 2012-10-22 18:01:45 <Luke-Jr> until 10 mins pass again
1202 2012-10-22 18:01:59 <slush> who created these rules?
1203 2012-10-22 18:01:59 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1204 2012-10-22 18:02:06 <Luke-Jr> Pizza Hut
1205 2012-10-22 18:02:13 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: 20 minutes, not 10. :P
1206 2012-10-22 18:02:18 <Luke-Jr> oh
1207 2012-10-22 18:02:41 AndChat567216 has left ("Leaving")
1208 2012-10-22 18:03:03 <gmaxwell> slush: unfortunately people keept mining testnet up to several hundred difficulty then walking away and we'd go many days without a block and people couldn't use it for testing.
1209 2012-10-22 18:03:19 <slush> yes, testnet is currently unusable for testing
1210 2012-10-22 18:03:46 <slush> now I see that my problem was just that I wasnt able to produce diff 200+ block with my testing equipment
1211 2012-10-22 18:03:47 <gmaxwell> slush: You can easily make that disabled for yourself with a small additional change.
1212 2012-10-22 18:03:58 <gmaxwell> oh you mean the diff is too high
1213 2012-10-22 18:04:05 <Luke-Jr> slush: just give it 20 minutes between blocks
1214 2012-10-22 18:04:19 <gmaxwell> well if set your time to +20 minutes since the last block you can mine at diff 1 until you hit two hours into the future. :)
1215 2012-10-22 18:04:35 <slush> Luke-Jr: I'm mining for 40 minutes, but somebody "withdrawn" that "lucky" 20-minute block for me :-P
1216 2012-10-22 18:04:46 <Luke-Jr> slush: TNIAB
1217 2012-10-22 18:05:21 implee has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1218 2012-10-22 18:05:26 <slush> better to setup own testnet :/
1219 2012-10-22 18:05:27 <gmaxwell> slush: you can get the 20 minute blocks early by twiddling your time.
1220 2012-10-22 18:05:27 <gmaxwell> void CBlock::UpdateTime(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev)
1221 2012-10-22 18:05:27 <gmaxwell> { nTime = max(pindexPrev->GetMedianTimePast()+1, GetAdjustedTime());
1222 2012-10-22 18:06:08 <gmaxwell> change to GetAdjustedTime()+1201 ... and you can mine a couple blocks right away.. until you run up against the future test.
1223 2012-10-22 18:06:16 <gmaxwell> (main.cpp)
1224 2012-10-22 18:06:23 <gmaxwell> (or isolate yourself)
1225 2012-10-22 18:06:31 <slush> gmaxwell: Setting up my own rules to testing production software is the way to the hell.
1226 2012-10-22 18:06:39 <slush> That resetting rule on testnet sucks, really
1227 2012-10-22 18:06:45 <slush> I'm going to setup my own testnet :/
1228 2012-10-22 18:06:53 agricocb has joined
1229 2012-10-22 18:06:55 <Luke-Jr> â¦
1230 2012-10-22 18:06:57 <gmaxwell> slush: you're confusing me.
1231 2012-10-22 18:07:14 <gmaxwell> You're complaining about the high difficulty and then also complaining about the only thing that lets you mine a block on it at all?
1232 2012-10-22 18:07:42 maaku has joined
1233 2012-10-22 18:07:43 <gmaxwell> And yea, the production mismatch is a little unfortunate, but then again it causes people to test more corner cases (e.g. that they're actually applying the right nbits)
1234 2012-10-22 18:07:54 <slush> gmaxwell: combination of unlimited difficulty + one "lucky" guy able to mine one block per 20 minutes is backward
1235 2012-10-22 18:07:54 variousnefarious has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1236 2012-10-22 18:08:57 <gmaxwell> slush, meh. It's not luck, it's hashpower based. there is a good 20 MH/s or so on testnet constantly.
1237 2012-10-22 18:09:10 <slush> gmaxwell: I'm not complaining about that you're trying to help me. I'm complaining that this hacking can lead to unexpected behaviour
1238 2012-10-22 18:09:28 <Luke-Jr> slush: only with buggy software
1239 2012-10-22 18:09:48 <gmaxwell> Indeed, but the alternative was that testnet was demostrably useless for many kinds of testing. :(
1240 2012-10-22 18:09:53 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: I dunno about that...
1241 2012-10-22 18:10:26 <slush> Luke-Jr: the basic rule for writing stable software is to test everything with as much similar environment as on production. Compiling my own bitcoind goes across this recommendation
1242 2012-10-22 18:10:41 <Luke-Jr> slush: so use TNIAB
1243 2012-10-22 18:10:46 <slush> what's TNIAB?
1244 2012-10-22 18:11:02 <Luke-Jr> TestNet In A Box; ie, 2 local clients that only talk to each other
1245 2012-10-22 18:11:10 <Luke-Jr> so nobody else can find blocks on your TN
1246 2012-10-22 18:11:23 <slush> Luke-Jr: yes, I was reffering to that by "setup my own testnet"
1247 2012-10-22 18:11:34 <Luke-Jr> i c
1248 2012-10-22 18:12:04 <slush> although it is fucked in another way, like I cannot check blocks in blockexplorer etc
1249 2012-10-22 18:12:23 <slush> but ok, I'll live with that
1250 2012-10-22 18:12:38 <Luke-Jr> slush: yet another reason why I think blockexplorer needs to be integrated into Bitcoin-Qt
1251 2012-10-22 18:13:02 forrestv has quit (Excess Flood)
1252 2012-10-22 18:13:03 <slush> Luke-Jr: oh no,please don't integrate "yet another useful tool" to bitcoin client :-P
1253 2012-10-22 18:13:26 <slush> but okay, it's not my problem
1254 2012-10-22 18:13:34 TD has joined
1255 2012-10-22 18:13:35 <slush> thanks you guys for your help, I appreciate it
1256 2012-10-22 18:14:16 <sipa> i think getinfo dies tell you the difficulty of the next block
1257 2012-10-22 18:14:20 <sipa> not of the last
1258 2012-10-22 18:14:21 freakazoid has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1259 2012-10-22 18:14:35 ghostic777 has joined
1260 2012-10-22 18:14:44 inertia186 has joined
1261 2012-10-22 18:15:22 <ghostic777> Hello all
1262 2012-10-22 18:15:49 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1263 2012-10-22 18:16:29 forrestv has joined
1264 2012-10-22 18:16:34 <gmaxwell> well block explorer is already integrated for that purpose.
1265 2012-10-22 18:17:00 <gmaxwell> slush: getblockhash, getblock basically gives you the blockexplorer detailed view.
1266 2012-10-22 18:17:18 <gmaxwell> About the only thing blockexplorer does that isn't built in is index by address.
1267 2012-10-22 18:17:53 <gmaxwell> well, and fail to work much of the timeâ blockexplorer has gotten pretty good at not working. :(
1268 2012-10-22 18:17:59 <ghostic777> I need someone who can help me to understand and later create my won alternative for bitcoin system.
1269 2012-10-22 18:18:29 <gmaxwell> ghostic777: as people advised you when you asked in #bitcoin; you ought to understand bitcoin first before talking about 'alternatives'
1270 2012-10-22 18:19:21 <ghostic777> Likei said, I need someone who can help me to understand and later create my won alternative for bitcoin system.
1271 2012-10-22 18:19:40 <ghostic777> Does it make sence to people?
1272 2012-10-22 18:20:27 <slush> no
1273 2012-10-22 18:20:39 NaruFGT has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1274 2012-10-22 18:20:57 <BlueMatt> why are you set on making an alternative if you dont yet understand it?
1275 2012-10-22 18:20:57 NaruFGT has joined
1276 2012-10-22 18:21:21 NaruFGT is now known as Guest71513
1277 2012-10-22 18:21:59 <ghostic777> What doyou meanby sayingundersrand? The source code part or ?
1278 2012-10-22 18:22:37 <helo> ghostic777: understand http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
1279 2012-10-22 18:23:18 <ghostic777> I mean the code part, i understand it well,and tes i have seen that pdf before
1280 2012-10-22 18:23:38 emryss has joined
1281 2012-10-22 18:24:13 arij_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1282 2012-10-22 18:24:33 <helo> ghostic777: test question #1: why does the block reward go down every 210000 blocks?
1283 2012-10-22 18:25:10 <ghostic777> I am not understanding the code construction, because it is so complicated written
1284 2012-10-22 18:25:33 <Luke-Jr> ghostic777: you want someone else to do the work behind creating a scam for you?
1285 2012-10-22 18:25:49 <sipa> ghostic777: first explain why you want an alternative
1286 2012-10-22 18:25:52 <ghostic777> Helo, because it is a scheme
1287 2012-10-22 18:26:16 <ghostic777> For myself, sipa
1288 2012-10-22 18:26:23 <sipa> that's no reason
1289 2012-10-22 18:26:54 Guest98336 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1290 2012-10-22 18:27:04 <sipa> "to learn" is a reason, but writing an alternative will still require you to understand what already exists
1291 2012-10-22 18:27:32 <ghostic777> Why is it concerning you that much? Yes i agree with you
1292 2012-10-22 18:28:15 <BlueMatt> "I need someone who can help me to understand" do you have a specific question?
1293 2012-10-22 18:28:15 <sipa> because in general i think it's not a good idea to create an alternative, in my opinion
1294 2012-10-22 18:28:19 <Luke-Jr> ghostic777: because scams built on Bitcoin make Bitcoin look bad
1295 2012-10-22 18:28:35 <Luke-Jr> and like 99% of "alternatives" people made so far are scams
1296 2012-10-22 18:29:11 <orion> Even regular bitcoin services are scams.
1297 2012-10-22 18:29:17 <ghostic777> Scams? Its nothing common in my learning and creating my own system with scam
1298 2012-10-22 18:29:20 <orion> Like those dumb online wallets I mentioned earlier.
1299 2012-10-22 18:29:53 <sipa> ghostic777: writing code is easier than reading code, so you may be inclined to prefer writing an alternative rather than learning what exists first
1300 2012-10-22 18:29:56 <helo> ghostic777: there are a few different bitcoin implementations, aside from the c++ client
1301 2012-10-22 18:30:10 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1302 2012-10-22 18:30:13 Guest71513 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1303 2012-10-22 18:30:29 <ghostic777> Is there anything on python or php or delphi?
1304 2012-10-22 18:30:29 <sipa> ghostic777: first that is a false sense: along the way, you'll discover that you need to understand way more than you originally thought
1305 2012-10-22 18:30:39 <sipa> ghostic777: there's pynode in python
1306 2012-10-22 18:30:45 <helo> ghostic777: https://github.com/jgarzik/pynode
1307 2012-10-22 18:31:05 <ghostic777> I can create alternative b bitcoin with pynode?
1308 2012-10-22 18:31:10 <orion> ghostic777: What is your nationality? I detect a possible language barrier.
1309 2012-10-22 18:31:28 <BlueMatt> orion: possible?
1310 2012-10-22 18:31:43 <ghostic777> I am justtyping on my android, it make mistakes in words for me
1311 2012-10-22 18:32:06 freakazoid has joined
1312 2012-10-22 18:32:40 <ghostic777> Justneglect my mistakes
1313 2012-10-22 18:32:43 <BlueMatt> ghostic777: what is your primary language?
1314 2012-10-22 18:33:11 <ghostic777> Armenian , you wantto speak on armenian?
1315 2012-10-22 18:33:23 vampireb has joined
1316 2012-10-22 18:33:40 <sipa> ghostic777: but if your objective is learning, do you think you'll learn more by writing an alternative than by trying to understand the original?
1317 2012-10-22 18:33:42 <BlueMatt> no, but you didnt answer his question, I was rephrasing it and now you did ;)
1318 2012-10-22 18:34:02 <helo> ghostic777: there is no such thing as a distributed digital currency creation toolkit. it will require a lot of work regardless of where you start.
1319 2012-10-22 18:34:07 TD has joined
1320 2012-10-22 18:35:05 <ghostic777> Sure
1321 2012-10-22 18:35:46 <ghostic777> Thats why i am here
1322 2012-10-22 18:36:41 <helo> ghostic777: most of the implementations (python, c++, java, javascript) have most of the pieces that bitcoin uses. an alternative could use some or none of those pieces.
1323 2012-10-22 18:36:45 <ghostic777> But anyway i need something like framework to be explained on howto, or some tutorials written for me
1324 2012-10-22 18:37:29 <sipa> well we'll certainly answer specific problems with things you fail to understand, but it's not like we can teach you bitcoin in its entirety -- you'll need to learn by reading the wiki, study source code, ...
1325 2012-10-22 18:38:11 <sipa> or just start by using it
1326 2012-10-22 18:38:28 <sipa> and maybe contribute some code to a bitcoin-related project
1327 2012-10-22 18:38:32 toffoo has quit ()
1328 2012-10-22 18:38:35 <sipa> no better way for learning
1329 2012-10-22 18:38:40 <helo> ghostic777: what part of bitcoin do you think should be different in an alternative?
1330 2012-10-22 18:39:08 <ghostic777> Ok thankyou, from what should i start from, i know c++ and other languages, but i have no idea how the system working, the pdf is very complicated fr me me.
1331 2012-10-22 18:39:14 <helo> ghostic777: a _lot_ of different ideas have been discussed before. the devs are usually happy to explain particular decisions.
1332 2012-10-22 18:40:05 <ghostic777> First of all the 1 difference should be the separateing from bitcoin
1333 2012-10-22 18:40:16 variousnefarious has joined
1334 2012-10-22 18:40:36 <sipa> that makes no sense on itself, if you want no properties that are different
1335 2012-10-22 18:40:49 <jgarzik> ghostic777: RE pynode: pynode current does not support mining (though that would be easy to add) or wallet management (time-consuming to add)
1336 2012-10-22 18:40:49 <sipa> unless the reason is "i want more of it for myself"
1337 2012-10-22 18:40:58 <Luke-Jr> the only difference that justifies a competing altcoin is some reasonable economic change, since that can never be reconciled with Bitcoin
1338 2012-10-22 18:40:59 <jgarzik> pynode is just a fully validating network node
1339 2012-10-22 18:41:04 <jgarzik> a blockchain server, basically
1340 2012-10-22 18:41:06 <jgarzik> or router
1341 2012-10-22 18:41:39 <helo> ghostic777: one big part of bitcoin is the network of miners that use their processing power to secure the blockchain. a new alternative would have very low network power to prevent manipulation.
1342 2012-10-22 18:42:05 <jgarzik> well, I take that back. pynode does support submitblock. I should add getblocktemplate support :)
1343 2012-10-22 18:42:06 <helo> ghostic777: bitcoin doesn't exclude anyone from using it, anywhere in the world. if you think people in your area of the world need something like bitcoin, they can just use bitcoin :)
1344 2012-10-22 18:42:39 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: that'd be neat
1345 2012-10-22 18:42:51 <ghostic777> What if i use chain of computers with Beowulf and generate the blocks bymyself, or isit possible to controll the whole system?
1346 2012-10-22 18:43:16 <Luke-Jr> ghostic777: if you want to control the system, then it makes no sense to use Bitcoin as a foundation
1347 2012-10-22 18:43:24 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1348 2012-10-22 18:43:44 ghostic777 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1349 2012-10-22 18:43:51 ghostic777 has joined
1350 2012-10-22 18:44:09 <Luke-Jr> 99% of Bitcoin code is only useful *because* there is no centralized control
1351 2012-10-22 18:44:15 <helo> ghostic777: with bitcoin, the more people that use it, the more powerful it is. starting out at 0 will make your alternative very insecure from certain attacks compared to bitcoin, so nobody would use it instead
1352 2012-10-22 18:44:15 <inertia186> beowulf, he's trolling
1353 2012-10-22 18:44:26 <Luke-Jr> if you accept a central control, then you can do it without any of that code
1354 2012-10-22 18:44:29 <ghostic777> I amnot saying i want to, i am asking is itpossible?
1355 2012-10-22 18:44:33 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1356 2012-10-22 18:44:51 BlackPrapor has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
1357 2012-10-22 18:45:03 <Luke-Jr> ghostic777: I doubt all the CPUs in the world combined could overtake Bitcoin itself right now
1358 2012-10-22 18:45:07 <helo> a system that has a central point of control is not possible using bitcoin's code
1359 2012-10-22 18:45:43 <ghostic777> Ok, the first part regarding beowulf
1360 2012-10-22 18:45:44 <BlueMatt> helo: of course it is: all messages must be signed with a static key, it just makes all the bitcoin code entirely redundant :)
1361 2012-10-22 18:46:50 <ghostic777> But there are alternatives like xcoins etc ....
1362 2012-10-22 18:47:01 <ghostic777> And they exist
1363 2012-10-22 18:47:38 D34TH has joined
1364 2012-10-22 18:47:38 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
1365 2012-10-22 18:47:38 D34TH has joined
1366 2012-10-22 18:48:32 <ghostic777> There is so liitle said on internet about p2p networks, i cant find what i am loking for
1367 2012-10-22 18:48:39 <helo> ghostic777: the altcoins that exist do things 99% like bitcoin. they change 1% of things that they think may make them a useful alternative. to be like this, you have to understand everything about bitcoin extremely well.
1368 2012-10-22 18:49:18 <ghostic777> But if they exist, someone using them, right?
1369 2012-10-22 18:50:10 <Luke-Jr> ghostic777: ixcoins are one of the many scams
1370 2012-10-22 18:50:48 <inertia186> ghostic777, it's a really good troll attempt, I'll give you that.
1371 2012-10-22 18:51:12 darkip has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1372 2012-10-22 18:51:47 <ghostic777> Inertia186 is a troll he joined this channel with me when i change the chatroom
1373 2012-10-22 18:52:30 <helo> ghostic777: without being able to explain something you think should be different to address a bitcoin flaw, it is not possible to know if you are just trying to waste our time
1374 2012-10-22 18:53:11 <ghostic777> I am not going t continue while he is here if anyone wants to help me pease pm me, i have o time either helo
1375 2012-10-22 18:53:25 variousnefarious has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1376 2012-10-22 18:53:30 <inertia186> ghostic777, how many of your friend are you planning to invite to use your alternate currency?
1377 2012-10-22 18:53:55 <ghostic777> Minus you,inerta186
1378 2012-10-22 18:54:33 <jgarzik> Take it elsewhere, please. This is bitcoin-dev, not altcoin-dev.
1379 2012-10-22 18:54:48 <helo> ghostic777: i don't think anyone is going to volunteer to be your private bitcoin tutor. if you have any specific questions about how bitcoin works, this is the place to ask them.
1380 2012-10-22 18:55:34 <ghostic777> You think wrong, i already have.
1381 2012-10-22 18:55:38 CodesInChaos has joined
1382 2012-10-22 18:56:39 <helo> ahh, well good luck then :)
1383 2012-10-22 18:57:09 <ghostic777> I'll be back
1384 2012-10-22 18:57:15 dlb76 has joined
1385 2012-10-22 18:58:30 ghostic777 has quit (Quit: AndroIRC - Android IRC Client ( http://www.androirc.com ))
1386 2012-10-22 18:59:50 <orion> That was exhausting.
1387 2012-10-22 19:00:49 drazak_ has joined
1388 2012-10-22 19:00:52 drazak_ has quit (Client Quit)
1389 2012-10-22 19:01:42 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1390 2012-10-22 19:02:46 molecular has joined
1391 2012-10-22 19:03:40 gimlet90210 has joined
1392 2012-10-22 19:05:54 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1393 2012-10-22 19:07:11 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1394 2012-10-22 19:09:04 <BlueMatt> talking through google translate always is ;)
1395 2012-10-22 19:10:42 <sipa> haha
1396 2012-10-22 19:16:03 ovidiuso1t is now known as ovidiusoft
1397 2012-10-22 19:18:13 variousnefarious has joined
1398 2012-10-22 19:18:13 inertia186 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1399 2012-10-22 19:20:49 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1400 2012-10-22 19:21:54 random_cat has joined
1401 2012-10-22 19:23:45 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1402 2012-10-22 19:25:38 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1403 2012-10-22 19:27:35 datagutt has joined
1404 2012-10-22 19:28:38 DerCoin has joined
1405 2012-10-22 19:29:07 slush1 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1406 2012-10-22 19:29:44 <sipa> molecular: pfork->pprev is null... i have not seen that error before, interesting
1407 2012-10-22 19:30:22 <sipa> that basically means it wants to reorg the genesis block :s
1408 2012-10-22 19:31:29 <molecular> sounds like fun
1409 2012-10-22 19:32:00 <molecular> still 54700 block remaining to see wether it works with fresh .bitcoin dir
1410 2012-10-22 19:32:24 toffoo has joined
1411 2012-10-22 19:32:45 <sipa> but with an clean datadir it syncs at least
1412 2012-10-22 19:32:51 <sipa> loadblock or not?
1413 2012-10-22 19:32:56 <molecular> what do you mean by "it syncs"?
1414 2012-10-22 19:33:03 <molecular> I used: "./bitcoin-qt -loadblock=/home/nick/.bitcoin/blk0001.dat -loadblock=/home/nick/.bitcoin/blk0002.dat"
1415 2012-10-22 19:33:10 <molecular> sorry
1416 2012-10-22 19:33:12 <sipa> well it is downloading blocks
1417 2012-10-22 19:33:15 <molecular> "./bitcoin-qt -loadblock=/home/nick/.bitcoin_20121022/blk0001.dat -loadb
1418 2012-10-22 19:33:16 <molecular> lock=/home/nick/.bitcoin_20121022/blk0002.dat"
1419 2012-10-22 19:33:17 <sipa> it is making progress
1420 2012-10-22 19:33:26 <molecular> I don't know where it's loading the blocks from, but it is loading blocks
1421 2012-10-22 19:33:28 <molecular> yes
1422 2012-10-22 19:33:35 <molecular> as it did last night
1423 2012-10-22 19:33:43 <sipa> ok
1424 2012-10-22 19:35:13 <orion> ls -l
1425 2012-10-22 19:35:14 <orion> oops
1426 2012-10-22 19:35:20 <molecular> .
1427 2012-10-22 19:35:21 <molecular> ..
1428 2012-10-22 19:35:22 <molecular> file1.dat
1429 2012-10-22 19:40:45 <gmaxwell> bluematt darnit, where is the debug.log? :P
1430 2012-10-22 19:40:46 <gmaxwell> http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/8ea5a8cccdcbee1389e3310129c1f48e8c271c60/test.log
1431 2012-10-22 19:40:54 <BlueMatt> sipa: so looks like ultraprune differs on another of the block acceptance rules...sadly I lost the debug.log :(
1432 2012-10-22 19:41:07 <BlueMatt> (it started another pull test and cleared the temp chroot...)
1433 2012-10-22 19:41:25 <gmaxwell> Blocks which were not handled the same between bitcoind/bitcoinj: 16
1434 2012-10-22 19:41:26 <gmaxwell> Blocks which should/should not have been accepted but weren't/were: 0
1435 2012-10-22 19:41:39 <gmaxwell> what does 'not handled the same' mean if not accepted/!accepted?
1436 2012-10-22 19:41:44 <BlueMatt> the 16 is mostly "got one bad one, then the rest didnt connect, so they are different"
1437 2012-10-22 19:41:54 <gmaxwell> ah.
1438 2012-10-22 19:41:58 <BlueMatt> it means the head after providing the block was different
1439 2012-10-22 19:42:19 <BlueMatt> first one is b9: "Try to create a block that has too much fee"
1440 2012-10-22 19:42:40 <BlueMatt> (it creates a block with a coinbase which has 1 satoshi too much output)
1441 2012-10-22 19:45:08 <BlueMatt> ok, re-running pull-tester with a cp debug.log outdif
1442 2012-10-22 19:47:07 <sipa> you're going to make me look like an idiot :)
1443 2012-10-22 19:47:53 <sipa> because i don't see a check for fees at all in my code :(
1444 2012-10-22 19:49:11 <gmaxwell> hahah
1445 2012-10-22 19:49:28 <gmaxwell> So, we need to order a nice gold star for BlueMatt and a nice dunce cap for sipa. :P
1446 2012-10-22 19:49:46 <gmaxwell> sipa: secretly we know you left that stuff out in order to test the testing infrastructure.
1447 2012-10-22 19:50:26 <gmaxwell> (I'm only mostly kidding there: once pulltester passes what I intend to do is to start going through your code and inverting the logic if(foo) -> if(!foo) and making sure it _fails_.)
1448 2012-10-22 19:53:17 <sipa> i admit that most of my testing was seeing whether the database remained identical, but that is of course only testing using valid blocks
1449 2012-10-22 19:53:54 <sipa> BlueMatt: can you rerun? i updated the pullreq
1450 2012-10-22 19:53:57 <Luke-Jr> I'm all for accepting blocks without checking coinbase reward
1451 2012-10-22 19:54:10 <BlueMatt> sipa: restarted
1452 2012-10-22 19:54:24 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: haha
1453 2012-10-22 19:54:33 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: hell, even I could generate a block if I get inf coins/block
1454 2012-10-22 19:54:39 <Luke-Jr> just trust the miners to pick the right subsidy based on price, ok?
1455 2012-10-22 19:55:09 <sipa> Luke-Jr: g'damnit you're revealing my secret plan!
1456 2012-10-22 19:55:13 <gmaxwell> In other news I hear SIPA is FPGA mining these days.
1457 2012-10-22 19:55:21 DerCoin has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1458 2012-10-22 19:55:42 <BlueMatt> In other news, how many bitcoin-based jokes can be made about a test failure?
1459 2012-10-22 19:56:03 ThomasV has joined
1460 2012-10-22 19:56:43 <gmaxwell> Obvious sipa was hacked and the theves stole the fee code. :P
1461 2012-10-22 19:58:07 * Luke-Jr trolls -otc
1462 2012-10-22 19:58:58 <Luke-Jr> bah, they're too busy calling each other scammers to pay attention :P
1463 2012-10-22 20:01:05 <sipa> Luke-Jr: what did you do there?
1464 2012-10-22 20:01:13 <Luke-Jr> [19:46:15] <Luke-Jr> Bitcoin 0.8 will bring a major upgrade: clients won't check the reward in blocks anymore, enabling miners to pay themselves whatever it cost them to mine the block - this solves the GPU and CPU mining problems without hurting ASICs!
1465 2012-10-22 20:01:24 <sipa> haha
1466 2012-10-22 20:01:29 <gmaxwell> 12:47 <+gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: are you trying to become Atlas 2.0? Twice as self aware but also twice as much a troll?
1467 2012-10-22 20:01:40 <Luke-Jr> I would be very saddened if anyone took that seriously
1468 2012-10-22 20:02:05 <sipa> i just don't understand where those lines went - they didn't even need to be modified
1469 2012-10-22 20:02:20 <gmaxwell> Hackers! they're now with all the bitcoinica bitcoins.
1470 2012-10-22 20:02:32 <sipa> anyway, good that BlueMatt's tests found it - and i hope he doesn't find any more...
1471 2012-10-22 20:02:35 <gmaxwell> And romney's tax returns. Pay now to get htem back! :P
1472 2012-10-22 20:02:51 <gmaxwell> sipa: I hope it finds all the bugs there are!
1473 2012-10-22 20:03:11 <sipa> gmaxwell: can i please keep my exploit for myself?
1474 2012-10-22 20:03:17 <sipa> *puppy-eyes*
1475 2012-10-22 20:03:22 <sipa> s/my/one/
1476 2012-10-22 20:04:10 <TD> sipa: ultraprune deleted the coinbase size checks?
1477 2012-10-22 20:04:17 <sipa> TD: so it would seem :S
1478 2012-10-22 20:04:21 <TD> hmm
1479 2012-10-22 20:04:27 <TD> i guess it needs better review :)
1480 2012-10-22 20:04:54 <gmaxwell> Missing code is hard to spot in reviews.
1481 2012-10-22 20:05:13 drazak_ has joined
1482 2012-10-22 20:05:18 <gmaxwell> This is why I like mutation testing, too bad there are no good tools for it for c/c++.
1483 2012-10-22 20:05:57 gavinandresen has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1484 2012-10-22 20:05:58 bedouin has joined
1485 2012-10-22 20:06:10 <sipa> well, if anything we should have unit tests of our to that detect this...
1486 2012-10-22 20:06:18 bedouin has quit (Client Quit)
1487 2012-10-22 20:06:25 <sipa> and this is probably a perfect time to add them
1488 2012-10-22 20:07:00 <BlueMatt> sipa: my goal is to use the bitcoinj comparison tool's blocks to create another data-driven test
1489 2012-10-22 20:07:34 <sipa> that would be very nice, but smaller tests are also possible since Luke-Jr's fCheckOnly
1490 2012-10-22 20:07:37 <TD> sounds nice
1491 2012-10-22 20:08:14 <TD> it doesn't help that githubs code review tools suck
1492 2012-10-22 20:08:40 <BlueMatt> TD: who actually has good code review tools?
1493 2012-10-22 20:08:44 <TD> google :)
1494 2012-10-22 20:08:53 <BlueMatt> not on google code
1495 2012-10-22 20:09:04 <TD> no
1496 2012-10-22 20:09:12 <TD> unfortunately not. the actually good tools are internal only
1497 2012-10-22 20:09:21 <TD> that said
1498 2012-10-22 20:09:28 <BlueMatt> well thats "evil"
1499 2012-10-22 20:09:30 <TD> can github do side-by-side diffs? if it can i can't find how to activate it
1500 2012-10-22 20:09:36 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: what do you expect? Google is "evil"
1501 2012-10-22 20:09:54 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: I generally expect it to get close to its motto
1502 2012-10-22 20:09:58 <BlueMatt> TD: not afaik
1503 2012-10-22 20:10:02 <Luke-Jr> kdiff3 is nice
1504 2012-10-22 20:10:03 <TD> weak
1505 2012-10-22 20:11:11 <gmaxwell> TD: gerrit is kind of obnoxious... but it does at least collect data.
1506 2012-10-22 20:11:40 <TD> internally we have a tool called critique. it's very good. by which i mean it supports side-by-side diffs :)
1507 2012-10-22 20:11:42 Impaler has joined
1508 2012-10-22 20:11:46 <gmaxwell> haha
1509 2012-10-22 20:11:50 <BlueMatt> heh
1510 2012-10-22 20:12:11 <sipa> side-by-side views are indeed far less confusing than diff-type views often...
1511 2012-10-22 20:12:30 <BlueMatt> significantly (usually)
1512 2012-10-22 20:12:32 gavinandresen has joined
1513 2012-10-22 20:12:32 gavinandresen has quit (Changing host)
1514 2012-10-22 20:12:32 gavinandresen has joined
1515 2012-10-22 20:12:52 <Luke-Jr> I wish there was a nice visualization for diffing diffs
1516 2012-10-22 20:12:55 <jgarzik> github has side-by-side diffs
1517 2012-10-22 20:12:55 <gmaxwell> In any case, a goal for testing should be to make it complete by making sure that every way we can break the applicable code triggers a test failure. I will start spending time working on that, since I think it's a good idea.
1518 2012-10-22 20:13:00 <sipa> jgarzik: :o
1519 2012-10-22 20:13:02 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: how?
1520 2012-10-22 20:13:05 <TD> more helpfully it also supports commenting on revisions that don't get blown away when you rebase your tree
1521 2012-10-22 20:13:06 <jgarzik> I occasionally see them... no idea how to trigger a side-by-side diff though
1522 2012-10-22 20:13:21 <jgarzik> some of the git tools have that too
1523 2012-10-22 20:14:12 <sipa> BlueMatt: pulltester interrupted?
1524 2012-10-22 20:14:49 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: sounds awesome, though would it be possible to keep block/tx tests/etc in one place (bitcoinj test tool or data-driven tests)?
1525 2012-10-22 20:14:55 <BlueMatt> sipa: building: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/d60eeeb4401f0ab708b5dc13db1aa8d71d9b9685/test.log
1526 2012-10-22 20:15:52 <sipa> ok
1527 2012-10-22 20:16:42 * sipa thinks it could use a beefier machine
1528 2012-10-22 20:17:38 <BlueMatt> it certainly could, though Im afraid gavin's new-found money may result in an over-beefy machine (I dont care about run times, only that it never falls behind, which it does now)
1529 2012-10-22 20:18:08 <gavinandresen> mmmm, beefy....
1530 2012-10-22 20:18:08 jdnavarro has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1531 2012-10-22 20:18:18 <sipa> </homer>
1532 2012-10-22 20:19:48 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1533 2012-10-22 20:20:16 jdnavarro has joined
1534 2012-10-22 20:20:38 jdnavarro has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1535 2012-10-22 20:21:01 <TD> sipa: i realize this is satoshis code, but are you sure std::sort on vector<pair<int,T>> is safe?
1536 2012-10-22 20:21:26 <TD> std::pair defines a comparator in a non-obvious way, it's not just "return a.first < b.first"
1537 2012-10-22 20:21:31 <TD> this is // Calculate bnChainWork
1538 2012-10-22 20:21:45 <sipa> TD: i always assumed it implements lexicographic ordering
1539 2012-10-22 20:22:01 <TD> "In inequality comparisons (<, >), the first elements are compared first, and only if the inequality comparison is not true for them, the second elements are compared."
1540 2012-10-22 20:22:13 <sipa> indeed
1541 2012-10-22 20:22:15 denisx has joined
1542 2012-10-22 20:24:36 <sipa> TD: so in this case, it sorts by work, and then by pointer comparison
1543 2012-10-22 20:24:41 <sipa> which is safe
1544 2012-10-22 20:24:57 <TD> albeit odd. but yes.
1545 2012-10-22 20:25:55 freakazoid has joined
1546 2012-10-22 20:26:21 <TD> for nCode the comment says bits 1 2 and 4. shouldn't it be bits 1 2 and 3?
1547 2012-10-22 20:26:39 <sipa> either you call them 0, 1 and 2, or you call them 1 2 and 4
1548 2012-10-22 20:26:56 <sipa> it gets more obvious with higher numbers
1549 2012-10-22 20:27:13 <TD> well, i understand why you selected 4, but that seems like an odd notation for bit positions
1550 2012-10-22 20:27:37 <sipa> i've seen bits denoted both by position and by value
1551 2012-10-22 20:29:41 <TD> this is way better commented than the first version i saw
1552 2012-10-22 20:30:56 inertia186 has joined
1553 2012-10-22 20:31:28 <sipa> some parts
1554 2012-10-22 20:31:39 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1555 2012-10-22 20:32:28 <sipa> SetBestChain / ConnectBestBlock / InvalidChainFound / InvalidBlockFound could use some comments still
1556 2012-10-22 20:33:28 <sipa> BlueMatt: is it done?
1557 2012-10-22 20:33:46 conman has joined
1558 2012-10-22 20:35:29 <BlueMatt> it looks like its gonna pass (its running through the 1 really expensive block now)
1559 2012-10-22 20:35:35 <sipa> ah
1560 2012-10-22 20:36:46 <sipa> 20k sigops?
1561 2012-10-22 20:37:32 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1562 2012-10-22 20:38:27 <BlueMatt> yep
1563 2012-10-22 20:40:01 agricocb has joined
1564 2012-10-22 20:40:35 <sipa> sure takes a while :)
1565 2012-10-22 20:41:03 <BlueMatt> yea...actually it may be stuck its only att 100% cpu, not 200% where it would be if it were running sigops...
1566 2012-10-22 20:41:05 <BlueMatt> not sure where it is
1567 2012-10-22 20:41:42 OneFixt has joined
1568 2012-10-22 20:42:51 <sipa> Blocks which were not handled the same between bitcoind/bitcoinj: 0
1569 2012-10-22 20:42:53 <sipa> Blocks which should/should not have been accepted but weren't/were: 0
1570 2012-10-22 20:43:04 <sipa> \o/
1571 2012-10-22 20:43:08 <BlueMatt> thats a pass :)
1572 2012-10-22 20:43:38 <TD> or at least an equal fail :)
1573 2012-10-22 20:44:02 <BlueMatt> well thats also a good possibility
1574 2012-10-22 20:44:57 * BlueMatt wonders if Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors() is broken on aws
1575 2012-10-22 20:44:58 <sipa> hey if BlueMatt never thought of it, no criminal will either
1576 2012-10-22 20:45:06 <BlueMatt> heh, yea right
1577 2012-10-22 20:45:44 <BlueMatt> sipa: at least you pass 100% code coverage on the old code...
1578 2012-10-22 20:46:18 <sipa> your tests had 100% code coverage? :o
1579 2012-10-22 20:46:31 <BlueMatt> well, line coverage in the block acceptance stuffs
1580 2012-10-22 20:46:40 <BlueMatt> (not script/tx acceptance)
1581 2012-10-22 20:46:55 <sipa> ok, still nice
1582 2012-10-22 20:46:56 <BlueMatt> (and obviously not lines that I saw no way to get to)
1583 2012-10-22 20:50:25 Impaler has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1584 2012-10-22 20:53:52 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1585 2012-10-22 20:55:51 conman has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1586 2012-10-22 20:57:19 JZavala has joined
1587 2012-10-22 20:57:25 Guest71513 has joined
1588 2012-10-22 20:57:39 newbie01 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1589 2012-10-22 20:58:06 aq83 has joined
1590 2012-10-22 21:00:37 NaruFGT has joined
1591 2012-10-22 21:01:01 NaruFGT is now known as Guest27875
1592 2012-10-22 21:01:44 Guest71513 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1593 2012-10-22 21:03:35 freakazoid has joined
1594 2012-10-22 21:09:14 nsh has joined
1595 2012-10-22 21:09:19 <sipa> damn these "endorsements" on linkedin in are annoying
1596 2012-10-22 21:09:47 <sipa> it asks me whether my professor for artificial intelligence knows about artificial intelligence..
1597 2012-10-22 21:10:05 Guest27875 is now known as NaruFGT
1598 2012-10-22 21:10:18 <copumpkin> yeah, they are
1599 2012-10-22 21:10:32 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1600 2012-10-22 21:15:17 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1601 2012-10-22 21:21:23 slush has joined
1602 2012-10-22 21:27:40 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1603 2012-10-22 21:29:55 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: in validation code if there are lines that can't be reached we should consider reordering tests to make them reachable, or prove them not and remove them.
1604 2012-10-22 21:30:43 <sipa> BlueMatt: do you have some code coverage report of your test somewhere?
1605 2012-10-22 21:30:54 <sipa> (even for pre-ultraprune)
1606 2012-10-22 21:31:03 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: of course, wrt tests. Whatever I come up with I'll send to you to merge.
1607 2012-10-22 21:31:19 <gmaxwell> sipa: I ran some on his tester but it was a long time back.
1608 2012-10-22 21:32:06 <gmaxwell> I can do it again a bit later this evening.
1609 2012-10-22 21:32:45 <sipa> i can understand why pulltester lags behind... we're 80 minutes further, and it's still not done
1610 2012-10-22 21:32:54 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: there were a few "test for memory corruption" tests
1611 2012-10-22 21:33:06 <BlueMatt> sipa: uhh...dont think so...probably got rm'd
1612 2012-10-22 21:33:10 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: hm. Okay, thats a littler tricker.
1613 2012-10-22 21:33:59 <BlueMatt> sipa: consider it passed (it just has to re-build for windows, re-test for windows, do qt builds and qt tests (which require a separate full qt build because I didnt do them right))
1614 2012-10-22 21:35:14 <sipa> BlueMatt: sure, just noticing that it takes waaay longer than i exptected
1615 2012-10-22 21:38:50 <TD> sipa: in CBlock::CheckBlock why was a call to BuildMerkleTree added?
1616 2012-10-22 21:38:56 <TD> also what do you have against BOOST_FOREACH :)
1617 2012-10-22 21:39:28 * TD is trying to read through main.cc changes in a rather tired state
1618 2012-10-22 21:40:11 <sipa> TD: buildmerkletree builds the merkle tree, which needs to be done anyway, and has the nice side effect (which should be documented, i guess) that it caches the tx hashes in the block
1619 2012-10-22 21:40:19 <TD> ah
1620 2012-10-22 21:40:28 <TD> it's a performance tweak
1621 2012-10-22 21:40:29 <sipa> TD: which results in far fewer tx hash recalculations (in normal IBD, none at all)
1622 2012-10-22 21:40:46 <sipa> if you see the commits individually, that's probably clearer
1623 2012-10-22 21:40:53 <sipa> but there's many of them, i know :)
1624 2012-10-22 21:41:08 <TD> well, and anyone from now on will see just the code, not the commits :)
1625 2012-10-22 21:41:13 <sipa> true
1626 2012-10-22 21:41:34 <sipa> hmm, at least recently i often use BOOST_FOREACH, but maybe i didn't some time ago
1627 2012-10-22 21:42:06 <sipa> ah, i don't use it for maps
1628 2012-10-22 21:42:15 <TD> some of the changes seem to boil down to just removing it in favor of a regular for loop
1629 2012-10-22 21:42:33 <sipa> really?
1630 2012-10-22 21:43:46 kasimir has joined
1631 2012-10-22 21:43:54 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1632 2012-10-22 21:44:34 <kasimir> is there a reason Ubuntu 12.10 bitcoin PPA only has libdb4.8++?
1633 2012-10-22 21:45:04 <helo> is there a 12.10 ppa now?
1634 2012-10-22 21:45:14 <kasimir> http://ppa.launchpad.net/bitcoin/bitcoin/ubuntu/dists/quantal/main/binary-amd64/Packages
1635 2012-10-22 21:45:19 <kasimir> same PPA (bitcoin/bitcoin)
1636 2012-10-22 21:45:25 <sipa> TD: ah yes, in ConnectBlock - maybe I needed the index position at some point
1637 2012-10-22 21:45:37 <kasimir> only it's missing Bitcoin
1638 2012-10-22 21:46:07 <TD> sipa: in CBlock::CreateNewBlock
1639 2012-10-22 21:46:19 <TD> you changed this: int nConf = txindex.GetDepthInMainChain();
1640 2012-10-22 21:46:27 <TD> to this: int nConf = pindexPrev->nHeight - coins.nHeight;
1641 2012-10-22 21:46:29 <BlueMatt> kasimir: because I started uploading, hit an error and never finished :)
1642 2012-10-22 21:46:39 <TD> isn't that off by one?
1643 2012-10-22 21:46:44 <BlueMatt> kasimir: (12.10 removed libdb entirely, so there is a missing dep)
1644 2012-10-22 21:48:00 <kasimir> BlueMatt: ah, okay :) I did notice that bitcoind (0.6.2.2) was in mainline, wasn't sure if a PPA was needed anymore
1645 2012-10-22 21:48:12 <sipa> TD: yes!
1646 2012-10-22 21:48:45 <BlueMatt> kasimir: 0.6.2 is still (somewhat) old, but if they stick to the stable branch and actually update (unlike they tend to)...not really (unless of course you want the latest and greatest)
1647 2012-10-22 21:48:52 <TD> sipa: so that's a newly found bug?
1648 2012-10-22 21:49:01 <sipa> TD: yes, 4 now.. :S
1649 2012-10-22 21:49:14 <TD> ok. well, that's what i was trying to find with this review :-)
1650 2012-10-22 21:49:37 <BlueMatt> sipa: if you find new bugs that a block verification engine /could/ find, can you mention them to me?
1651 2012-10-22 21:50:02 <kasimir> BlueMatt: thanks for the information. I hate being asked this... but any rough ETA on packaging? Are you running into major blocking issues?
1652 2012-10-22 21:50:03 <TD> there are no unit tests around checking which mempool transactions get into blocks, i guess :(
1653 2012-10-22 21:50:19 * TD wishes satoshi had understood his code would be changed by other people one day ....
1654 2012-10-22 21:50:25 <sipa> TD: yes, there are
1655 2012-10-22 21:50:34 <TD> ah ok
1656 2012-10-22 21:50:57 <TD> would be good to make sure the tests are covering the priority calculation at the same time as fixing the bug
1657 2012-10-22 21:50:58 <BlueMatt> kasimir: blocking issues? no, but I hate packaging libdb...will happen by the end of the week, hopefully sooner
1658 2012-10-22 21:51:10 <edcba> i think he didn't think bitcoin would be popular
1659 2012-10-22 21:51:22 <sipa> this bug you found only influences the priority calculation, so it wouldn't have resulted in invalid code, but it surely wasn't the intention to change it
1660 2012-10-22 21:51:24 <kasimir> okay, thanks :)
1661 2012-10-22 21:51:32 <edcba> so now he is retiring :)
1662 2012-10-22 21:52:09 kasimir has quit (Quit: leaving)
1663 2012-10-22 21:55:06 <TD> sipa: btw why specify the concrete CCoinsViewCache type in the signatures of methods like GetValueIn? why not use the interface type
1664 2012-10-22 21:56:12 <sipa> TD: that used to be the case, but the GetCoins() method that returns a reference (optimization) is only provided by CCoinsViewCache
1665 2012-10-22 21:56:17 aq83 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1666 2012-10-22 21:56:48 <sipa> I could have added an interface that extended CCoinsView and included that method, and have just one implementation of it, but that seemed overkill
1667 2012-10-22 21:56:55 <TD> oh, it's to reduce copying?
1668 2012-10-22 21:56:56 <TD> hmm
1669 2012-10-22 21:56:57 <sipa> yes
1670 2012-10-22 21:57:05 <TD> does it really make a noticeable difference?
1671 2012-10-22 21:58:19 <sipa> callgrind showed that as a very significant contributor to the runtime, but its model isn't very accurate
1672 2012-10-22 21:58:44 <sipa> i believe i benchmarked it normally afterwards, and noticed a speedup, but it may have been statistical variance
1673 2012-10-22 21:59:12 <TD> ok
1674 2012-10-22 21:59:20 aq83 has joined
1675 2012-10-22 21:59:41 <sipa> copying a CCoins = 1+N+M calls to malloc, with N the number of vout and M the number of unspent vouts
1676 2012-10-22 22:00:59 <sipa> no, just N+M - but still
1677 2012-10-22 22:01:26 <sipa> i wish someone noticed all these things earlier :)
1678 2012-10-22 22:01:39 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1679 2012-10-22 22:02:21 <sipa> BlueMatt: damnit! mingw32 build of leveldb failed
1680 2012-10-22 22:02:48 <sipa> BlueMatt: port/port_win.cc:33:21: fatal error: windows.h: No such file or directory
1681 2012-10-22 22:04:24 <TD> i don't think this is a bug but in CTxMemPool::accept, there's a loop labelled // do all inputs exist? but tx.HaveInputs(view) appears to do exactly the same check the very next thing
1682 2012-10-22 22:04:34 <TD> or, well, no
1683 2012-10-22 22:04:42 <TD> i guess that wouldn't set pfMissingInputs
1684 2012-10-22 22:05:13 <sipa> it's halfway duplication, indeed
1685 2012-10-22 22:05:33 <sipa> but HaveInput checks more than that loop (it tests for the availability of the specific output as well)
1686 2012-10-22 22:06:06 <sipa> and that loop distinguishes between missing and spent (which is only half-accurate anymore)
1687 2012-10-22 22:06:30 <TD> hm, yeah. a bit confusing
1688 2012-10-22 22:06:38 <TD> btw ::accept doesn't seem to update the view anywhere?
1689 2012-10-22 22:06:55 freakazoid has joined
1690 2012-10-22 22:07:19 <sipa> CCoinsViewMempool calculates the view on the fly
1691 2012-10-22 22:08:29 <TD> the comment says "It does not check for spendings by memory pool transactions."
1692 2012-10-22 22:09:47 <BlueMatt> sipa: fun...
1693 2012-10-22 22:09:48 <sipa> yes, it could do that, but accepttomemorypool has more specific code anyway, as it wants to deal with finalness/replacement (though that part is disabled for now)
1694 2012-10-22 22:10:04 <sipa> so having the view also filter spent outputs would be a waste of time
1695 2012-10-22 22:10:20 <TD> i'm confused (because i'm tired, i think). when a new tx is accepted into the mempool, what removes the connected outputs from the view?
1696 2012-10-22 22:10:23 PhantomSpark has joined
1697 2012-10-22 22:10:27 <TD> what stops me inserting double spends into the mempool
1698 2012-10-22 22:10:38 <sipa> TD: the mempool keeps track of which outpoints are spent by which inputs
1699 2012-10-22 22:10:48 <sipa> s/which/its/
1700 2012-10-22 22:10:50 eoss has joined
1701 2012-10-22 22:11:12 <sipa> and the accepttomemorypool checks that map for spendings
1702 2012-10-22 22:11:47 <sipa> CTxMemPool::mapNextTx
1703 2012-10-22 22:12:15 <TD> yeah i saw that's in pruneSpent
1704 2012-10-22 22:12:20 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1705 2012-10-22 22:13:04 <sipa> CTxMemPool::accept also checks mapNextTx, under // Check for conflicts with in-memory transactions
1706 2012-10-22 22:13:41 <TD> ah yes. it's clearer now i'm viewing the whole file
1707 2012-10-22 22:13:49 * TD stabs githubs diff viewer
1708 2012-10-22 22:15:04 <sipa> hmm, that wouldn't actually be a problem, as CTxMemPool::accept doesn't use CCoinsViewMemPool at all
1709 2012-10-22 22:17:24 * jgarzik needs to run a 0.7.1 and ultraprune node side by side
1710 2012-10-22 22:17:40 <sipa> jgarzik: why?
1711 2012-10-22 22:17:41 <jgarzik> it just "feels" </unscientific> like I've been getting way more orphans in ultraprune
1712 2012-10-22 22:17:48 <jgarzik> need to measure, and prove or disprove
1713 2012-10-22 22:18:15 <jgarzik> mempool tx orphans, to be specific
1714 2012-10-22 22:18:25 <sipa> well if it behaves different with regards to orphans, it's a bug
1715 2012-10-22 22:18:27 <jgarzik> hit the 10,000 limit within 24 hours, twice
1716 2012-10-22 22:18:42 <jgarzik> it is entirely possible (and likely?) that this is unrelated to ultraprune
1717 2012-10-22 22:21:54 Dyaheon has quit ()
1718 2012-10-22 22:25:04 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1719 2012-10-22 22:29:11 <gmaxwell> oh mempool orphans. ! ah
1720 2012-10-22 22:29:19 <gmaxwell> I misunderstood you last night.
1721 2012-10-22 22:29:39 <gmaxwell> I'd have no idea, my nodes block some kinds of transactions... so I see tons of mempool orphpans.
1722 2012-10-22 22:30:58 mmoya has left ("Saliendo")
1723 2012-10-22 22:31:01 Dyaheon has joined
1724 2012-10-22 22:31:45 graingert_ecs has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1725 2012-10-22 22:33:44 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1726 2012-10-22 22:34:37 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1727 2012-10-22 22:35:03 GMP has joined
1728 2012-10-22 22:35:08 PhantomSpark has joined
1729 2012-10-22 22:35:42 PhantomSpark has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1730 2012-10-22 22:35:57 <sipa> https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/8fc2efd0063b70b1988cfb78131ecefe0c08a023
1731 2012-10-22 22:36:00 <sipa> TD: ^
1732 2012-10-22 22:37:10 <sipa> the typo is already fixed
1733 2012-10-22 22:40:44 * rdponticelli also see a ton of orphan tx on ultraprune
1734 2012-10-22 22:42:48 <TD> cool
1735 2012-10-22 22:44:00 <rdponticelli> And I'm not seeing the same behavior on 70099
1736 2012-10-22 22:44:08 <sipa> rdponticelli: interesting
1737 2012-10-22 22:44:35 <sipa> rdponticelli: do you see any transactions being refused for a reason other than inputs missing?
1738 2012-10-22 22:45:11 <rdponticelli> sipa: Yeah, there's some inputs already spent
1739 2012-10-22 22:45:56 toffoo has quit ()
1740 2012-10-22 22:47:12 optimator_ has joined
1741 2012-10-22 22:47:15 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1742 2012-10-22 22:47:40 <sipa> jgarzik, rdponticelli: i think i understand why...
1743 2012-10-22 22:48:36 <sipa> jgarzik, rdponticelli: transactions that depend on another that is spent entirely already (rebroadcast or double spend), its inputs won't be found, as they are pruned
1744 2012-10-22 22:48:49 <sipa> so they are considered orphans
1745 2012-10-22 22:49:12 <TD> rebroadcast should be a no-op
1746 2012-10-22 22:49:30 <TD> are there people flooding the network with double spends?
1747 2012-10-22 22:49:59 <sipa> no, but rebroadcasts of spent transactions happen, maybe
1748 2012-10-22 22:50:12 <sipa> though i wouldn't expect thousands of them
1749 2012-10-22 22:50:22 da2ce7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1750 2012-10-22 22:50:43 <TD> the hash truncation is unfortunate
1751 2012-10-22 22:50:49 <TD> i can't look up tx 61dd6b8fbb in block explorer
1752 2012-10-22 22:51:10 <sipa> you can in block explorer, but not in blockinfo
1753 2012-10-22 22:51:24 <TD> ag
1754 2012-10-22 22:51:25 <sipa> but more importantly, you can't use it in getrawtransaction
1755 2012-10-22 22:51:27 <TD> ok
1756 2012-10-22 22:51:42 da2ce7 has joined
1757 2012-10-22 22:51:46 <sipa> it's been brought a couple of time, but somehow nobody changed it yet
1758 2012-10-22 22:52:03 <TD> my regular node has a giant orphan map too
1759 2012-10-22 22:52:25 <TD> (well this is leveldb minus ultraprune)
1760 2012-10-22 22:52:31 <TD> (i need to update it)
1761 2012-10-22 22:52:45 <TD> mempool is nearly 10k transactions now
1762 2012-10-22 22:52:48 <TD> which is ridiculous :(
1763 2012-10-22 22:52:53 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1764 2012-10-22 22:53:03 <sipa> i think we already keep some list of recently-relayed invs, but if not, we can certainly keep a list of a few thousand most-recently-accepted-into-mempool txids, and ignore those when they arrive again
1765 2012-10-22 22:53:40 <TD> assuming that theory is correct
1766 2012-10-22 22:53:48 <TD> it may be that it's not to do with ultraprune
1767 2012-10-22 22:53:59 <TD> like i said, i see overflowing mapOrphan on a regular(isn) node too
1768 2012-10-22 22:54:08 rdponticelli has joined
1769 2012-10-22 22:54:37 <TD> is there any web view on the memory pool? i know blockchain.info sorta has one
1770 2012-10-22 22:54:39 <TD> but it's not great
1771 2012-10-22 22:55:18 denisx has joined
1772 2012-10-22 22:55:32 <sipa> there was a site that showed them
1773 2012-10-22 22:55:55 <TD> judging from the beeps on blockchain i'm guessing we're averaging close to 1tps now. maybe a bit less.
1774 2012-10-22 22:56:08 copumpkin has joined
1775 2012-10-22 22:56:33 <sipa> http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/txlist/ but it is very slow now
1776 2012-10-22 22:56:38 <TD> ah yeah
1777 2012-10-22 22:56:40 <TD> i remember that
1778 2012-10-22 22:56:57 <TD> we need blocks to be at least 600 txns on average
1779 2012-10-22 22:56:59 <TD> we're nowhere near that
1780 2012-10-22 22:57:14 <TD> so i think it's expected that mempool will bloat up and start overflowing, and then orphan transactions start appearing naturally
1781 2012-10-22 22:57:19 <TD> (if they spend mempool contents)
1782 2012-10-22 22:57:29 <sipa> yes, that seems likely
1783 2012-10-22 22:59:52 <sipa> just started a node
1784 2012-10-22 23:00:03 <TD> it would be useful if the poolsz readout not only told you how many transactions are in the pool, but how many would make it into the current block, even if you aren't mining
1785 2012-10-22 23:00:14 <sipa> mempool and orphan maps seem to grow simultaneously and equally +-
1786 2012-10-22 23:00:34 <TD> are you behind the chain?
1787 2012-10-22 23:00:40 <sipa> no
1788 2012-10-22 23:01:02 <sipa> 99 orphans, 104 mempool
1789 2012-10-22 23:01:08 <TD> stored orphan tx b33c1c4231 (mapsz 9107)
1790 2012-10-22 23:01:08 <TD> CTxMemPool::accept() : accepted 535c52f434 (poolsz 109)
1791 2012-10-22 23:01:09 <TD> stored orphan tx 930db9ca0d (mapsz 9108)
1792 2012-10-22 23:01:16 <TD> that's on my laptop node that's been running for a few hours
1793 2012-10-22 23:01:35 <TD> pretty strange
1794 2012-10-22 23:01:45 <sipa> well, mempool transactions get removed by new blocks coming in
1795 2012-10-22 23:01:50 <sipa> orphans aren't...
1796 2012-10-22 23:02:01 <sipa> well, unless their parents arrive
1797 2012-10-22 23:02:05 <TD> sure, but orphans are supposed to be removed by seeing their parents
1798 2012-10-22 23:02:05 <TD> yeah
1799 2012-10-22 23:03:22 * sipa wonders why an incoming orphan doesn't cause a getdata tx of its missing parents
1800 2012-10-22 23:04:17 <TD> btw what's up with the 5k transactions
1801 2012-10-22 23:04:32 <TD> ignoring large orphan tx (size: 5445, hash: 8557b7fbc6)
1802 2012-10-22 23:04:32 <TD> ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : inputs already spent
1803 2012-10-22 23:05:12 <TD> i keep meaning to write some diagnostic tools with bitcoinj that let you just see the current contents of the mempool
1804 2012-10-22 23:05:26 <sipa> there's getrawmemorypool
1805 2012-10-22 23:05:49 <TD> yeah
1806 2012-10-22 23:05:57 <sipa> getrawmempool
1807 2012-10-22 23:06:37 <TD> praise be to slush for clearing out lots of transactions
1808 2012-10-22 23:06:47 <TD> and boo to BTC Guild. 10 transactions?
1809 2012-10-22 23:06:50 <TD> botnets can do better
1810 2012-10-22 23:06:55 <sipa> ha
1811 2012-10-22 23:06:57 <slush> TD: what?
1812 2012-10-22 23:07:02 <rdponticelli> TD, sipa: My numbers are alike
1813 2012-10-22 23:07:16 <TD> ok, i take it back
1814 2012-10-22 23:07:21 <rdponticelli> 7790 orphans, 218 accepted
1815 2012-10-22 23:07:43 <TD> btcguild seem to have made some big blocks. probably the one with 10 txns attributed to them was just a relay
1816 2012-10-22 23:08:23 <TD> oh no. they do claim credit for it. weird.
1817 2012-10-22 23:08:26 <slush> TD: no, it has "BTC Guild" in coinbase
1818 2012-10-22 23:08:47 <TD> oh right. it was only 20 seconds after the last block
1819 2012-10-22 23:08:56 <rdponticelli> And I've got several "large orphan"
1820 2012-10-22 23:10:21 eoss has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1821 2012-10-22 23:10:39 * TD -> sleep
1822 2012-10-22 23:10:53 <sipa> same
1823 2012-10-22 23:11:32 <gmaxwell> 15:37 < TD> are there people flooding the network with double spends?
1824 2012-10-22 23:11:32 <gmaxwell> 15:38 < sipa> no, but rebroadcasts of spent transactions happen, maybe
1825 2012-10-22 23:11:45 <gmaxwell> kinda, I mean not flooding, but I've certantly seen a fair number of them.
1826 2012-10-22 23:12:16 <gmaxwell> people end up with them from wallet copies/imports/trying to get around confirmation limits to play dice.
1827 2012-10-22 23:13:14 <TD> bitminter does seem to have a problem with 1tx blocks
1828 2012-10-22 23:15:04 <gmaxwell> how did they get all that hashrate?
1829 2012-10-22 23:15:23 <TD> dunno
1830 2012-10-22 23:15:55 <gmaxwell> DrHaribo: So... Whats with the 1tx blocks?
1831 2012-10-22 23:16:17 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
1832 2012-10-22 23:16:31 <TD> they have a neat looking custom gui
1833 2012-10-22 23:17:17 <gmaxwell> DrHaribo: if you're just trying do avoid slow processing from some kinds of transactions I can give you patches to filter things out without leaving you with just 1tx blocks.
1834 2012-10-22 23:19:01 Karmaon has joined
1835 2012-10-22 23:19:02 Karmaon has quit (Changing host)
1836 2012-10-22 23:19:02 Karmaon has joined
1837 2012-10-22 23:20:17 pooler has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1838 2012-10-22 23:20:25 <sipa> i fear
1839 2012-10-22 23:20:51 <sipa> there's another bug: it doesn't consider transactions already in the memorypool for spending
1840 2012-10-22 23:21:09 <sipa> which would explain tons of orphans
1841 2012-10-22 23:21:35 <TD> i was asking about this earlier with the mempool updating the view. i thought it was doing CheckInputs against a consolidated view of all mempool txns
1842 2012-10-22 23:22:01 <sipa> now i remember: i originally wrote CCoinsViewMempool exactly for this
1843 2012-10-22 23:22:04 <gmaxwell> I wonder what it more likely, spends against the mempool or spends against the utxo set?
1844 2012-10-22 23:22:13 pooler has joined
1845 2012-10-22 23:22:21 <sipa> but in one of the optimisations it got swapped out for just using pcoinsTip
1846 2012-10-22 23:22:26 <TD> huh. from the bitminter thread
1847 2012-10-22 23:22:27 <TD> Some server changes are in. CPU usage reduced by 20-25%. The server is now also using Luke-jr's trick of sending pre-computed "empty" blocks (only transaction is the generation transaction) through long poll. So now the load spikes from abusive miners are greatly reduced and long poll is faster.
1848 2012-10-22 23:22:28 Karmaon_ has joined
1849 2012-10-22 23:22:28 Karmaon_ has quit (Changing host)
1850 2012-10-22 23:22:28 Karmaon_ has joined
1851 2012-10-22 23:22:42 <TD> pre-computed empty blocks as a workaround for load spikes?
1852 2012-10-22 23:23:08 <gmaxwell> TD: luke does that but it only results in empty blocks very rarely
1853 2012-10-22 23:23:27 kreal has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1854 2012-10-22 23:23:37 <TD> it sounds like that hack may have gone wrong somehow
1855 2012-10-22 23:23:42 <TD> i'm seeing several blocks in a row be empty
1856 2012-10-22 23:24:02 kreal has joined
1857 2012-10-22 23:24:11 <gmaxwell> yea, I checked four and all four were empty.
1858 2012-10-22 23:24:19 <TD> sipa: oh dear :(
1859 2012-10-22 23:24:41 <TD> sipa: i guess this is a great opportunity to find ways to upgrade the test suite. it'd be nice if every bug found so far, had an accompanying unit test with the fix
1860 2012-10-22 23:24:45 <Luke-Jr> maybe he's neglecting the 2nd longpoll
1861 2012-10-22 23:24:47 <TD> a 20% project maybe
1862 2012-10-22 23:25:20 <TD> does somebody want to post on his thread? i don't know enough about pools to do it
1863 2012-10-22 23:25:55 da2ce780 has joined
1864 2012-10-22 23:26:01 <gmaxwell> I've already emailed our criticial infrastructure POC email address.
1865 2012-10-22 23:26:13 <Luke-Jr> O.o
1866 2012-10-22 23:26:32 Karmaon has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1867 2012-10-22 23:27:11 <sipa> gmaxwell: ?
1868 2012-10-22 23:27:32 <gmaxwell> sipa: You don't have that spreadsheet?
1869 2012-10-22 23:27:38 <sipa> oh yes
1870 2012-10-22 23:27:46 <gmaxwell> Yea, they've got an address on that. I emailed that.
1871 2012-10-22 23:27:51 <gmaxwell> (lets see if it works to reach them)
1872 2012-10-22 23:31:28 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1873 2012-10-22 23:36:27 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1874 2012-10-22 23:36:45 toffoo has joined
1875 2012-10-22 23:41:19 optimator_ is now known as optimator
1876 2012-10-22 23:41:21 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: is there some scm I can pull the blocktester source from?
1877 2012-10-22 23:41:39 <gmaxwell> (I mean, beyond a url to .java file)
1878 2012-10-22 23:45:27 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1879 2012-10-22 23:46:47 inertia186 has quit (Quit: http://i.imgur.com/sfWls.jpg)
1880 2012-10-22 23:54:20 optimator_ has joined
1881 2012-10-22 23:54:22 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1882 2012-10-22 23:56:09 <sipa> gmaxwell: there are sometimes long chains of transactions that depend on eachother
1883 2012-10-22 23:56:30 <sipa> without bringing the mempool into scope, they're automatically all orphans
1884 2012-10-22 23:56:48 <sipa> chain up to 200-300 transactions long
1885 2012-10-22 23:56:56 <sipa> *chains