1 2012-10-23 00:02:25 Turing_i has joined
2 2012-10-23 00:02:25 Turing_i has quit (Changing host)
3 2012-10-23 00:02:25 Turing_i has joined
4 2012-10-23 00:03:05 Raccoon` has joined
5 2012-10-23 00:04:10 Raccoon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
6 2012-10-23 00:04:10 Raccoon` is now known as Raccoon
7 2012-10-23 00:05:28 Turingi has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
8 2012-10-23 00:07:25 <sipa> jgarzik: #1949 updated with a fix that should greatly reduce the orphans
9 2012-10-23 00:10:28 <orion> Save the orphans!
10 2012-10-23 00:11:15 <sipa> no *reduce* them
11 2012-10-23 00:11:37 MC1984 has joined
12 2012-10-23 00:11:39 <orion> Adoption is easier than you think.
13 2012-10-23 00:11:45 <sipa> orphans--;
14 2012-10-23 00:11:48 <sipa> easy as that!
15 2012-10-23 00:12:18 <Luke-Jr> orion: adoption of orphan transactions is pretty much impossible ._.
16 2012-10-23 00:12:20 xisalty has joined
17 2012-10-23 00:12:34 <orion> Luke-Jr: Think about the children.
18 2012-10-23 00:13:23 <Luke-Jr> orion: let's not go there
19 2012-10-23 00:21:08 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
20 2012-10-23 00:22:26 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
21 2012-10-23 00:26:43 one_zero has joined
22 2012-10-23 00:27:23 nsh has joined
23 2012-10-23 00:29:33 newbie51 has joined
24 2012-10-23 00:32:14 aq83 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
25 2012-10-23 00:34:39 <jgarzik> "Bugfix: actually use CCoinsViewMemPool"
26 2012-10-23 00:34:40 <jgarzik> heh
27 2012-10-23 00:34:47 <jgarzik> sipa: thanks
28 2012-10-23 00:36:00 Faraday32 is now known as Faradayy
29 2012-10-23 00:37:45 jurov has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
30 2012-10-23 00:37:56 gfinn has joined
31 2012-10-23 00:38:05 <sipa> poolsz 1005, created block from it: 730, orphans: 310
32 2012-10-23 00:38:27 <sipa> all those numbers are large, but it seems not reasonable
33 2012-10-23 00:38:58 <jgarzik> indeed
34 2012-10-23 00:39:14 da2ce780 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
35 2012-10-23 00:39:38 <sipa> so, can you test with the bugfix(es...) ?
36 2012-10-23 00:40:05 emryss has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
37 2012-10-23 00:40:54 denisx_ has joined
38 2012-10-23 00:41:00 jurov has joined
39 2012-10-23 00:41:15 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
40 2012-10-23 00:41:15 denisx_ is now known as denisx
41 2012-10-23 00:41:31 JZavala has joined
42 2012-10-23 00:47:18 <gmaxwell> sipa: IS THERE A PULL WILL ALL THESE FIXES YET OR DO I HAVE TO GO DIGGING IN YOUR BRANCHES?
43 2012-10-23 00:48:01 <sipa> gmaxwell: #1949
44 2012-10-23 00:48:11 <gmaxwell> THANKS
45 2012-10-23 00:48:19 <sipa> RIGHT, CAPS LOCK DAY
46 2012-10-23 00:51:54 <jgarzik> oh god
47 2012-10-23 00:52:00 <jgarzik> next thing you know there will be a Tonal Day
48 2012-10-23 00:52:30 OlaHughson has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
49 2012-10-23 00:53:30 <sipa> AND TAU DAY!
50 2012-10-23 00:54:13 <D34TH> i remember finding luke-jr's tonal cheat sheet somewhere
51 2012-10-23 00:55:19 newbie51 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
52 2012-10-23 00:55:44 newbie51 has joined
53 2012-10-23 00:57:13 <sipa> ;;bc,gen 1000000
54 2012-10-23 00:57:15 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 1000000 Khps, given current difficulty of 3072321.7320208 , is 0.327383805577 BTC per day and 0.013640991899 BTC per hour.
55 2012-10-23 00:57:51 <sipa> ;;bc,diff
56 2012-10-23 00:57:52 <gribble> 3072321.7320208
57 2012-10-23 00:58:47 toffoo has quit ()
58 2012-10-23 01:00:02 toffoo has joined
59 2012-10-23 01:00:09 newbie51 has quit (Client Quit)
60 2012-10-23 01:01:20 slush1 has joined
61 2012-10-23 01:02:11 aq83 has joined
62 2012-10-23 01:02:52 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
63 2012-10-23 01:04:46 <gmaxwell> test/test_bitcoin.cpp:35:16: warning: deleting object of polymorphic class type âCCoinsViewCacheâ which has non-virtual destructor might cause undefined behaviour [-Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor]
64 2012-10-23 01:04:50 <gmaxwell> test/test_bitcoin.cpp:36:16: warning: deleting object of polymorphic class type âCCoinsViewDBâ which has non-virtual destructor might cause undefined behaviour [-Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor]
65 2012-10-23 01:06:41 <sipa> well, the variable types match the constructor types, so it should be safe, but it's certainly better practice to make have a virtual destructor
66 2012-10-23 01:11:06 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: its in https://code.google.com/r/bluemattme-bitcoinj/source/list?name=newscripts (https://code.google.com/r/bluemattme-bitcoinj/source/browse/core/src/test/java/com/google/bitcoin/core/FullBlockTestGenerator.java?name=newscripts)
67 2012-10-23 01:11:22 copumpkin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
68 2012-10-23 01:12:33 harkon has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
69 2012-10-23 01:13:46 agricocb has joined
70 2012-10-23 01:14:51 <gmaxwell> THANKS
71 2012-10-23 01:17:52 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
72 2012-10-23 01:24:04 emryss has joined
73 2012-10-23 01:25:54 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
74 2012-10-23 01:33:30 Silverion has joined
75 2012-10-23 01:36:48 emryss has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
76 2012-10-23 01:41:48 nsh has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
77 2012-10-23 01:49:40 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
78 2012-10-23 01:53:20 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
79 2012-10-23 01:59:59 <an3k> looks like armory doesn't support 60s / 4096MB encrypted wallets :(
80 2012-10-23 02:02:51 <gmaxwell> 60s?
81 2012-10-23 02:03:20 <gmaxwell> sipa: something about current git master is triggering a bug in lcov and until I fix it I can't produce a coverage report.
82 2012-10-23 02:03:26 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: excited about a git link much?
83 2012-10-23 02:04:10 <an3k> gmaxwell: yes, standard is 250ns / 32 MB
84 2012-10-23 02:04:24 <an3k> is 60s / 4096 MB too much?
85 2012-10-23 02:04:24 <BlueMatt> ahh scrypt parameters?
86 2012-10-23 02:04:28 <an3k> right ;)
87 2012-10-23 02:04:31 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
88 2012-10-23 02:05:11 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: bisectable?
89 2012-10-23 02:06:21 <gmaxwell> it takes my laptop almost a half hour to compile test-bitcoin I'll let it bisect overnight
90 2012-10-23 02:07:16 <BlueMatt> what laptop is this?
91 2012-10-23 02:07:25 JZavala has joined
92 2012-10-23 02:07:34 <gmaxwell> random core2 laptop with 4g ram and a SSD.
93 2012-10-23 02:07:40 <BlueMatt> ahh, ok...
94 2012-10-23 02:08:53 freewil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
95 2012-10-23 02:10:17 copumpkin has joined
96 2012-10-23 02:10:18 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: want an odroid?
97 2012-10-23 02:10:33 <jgarzik> I want an R2D2 droid
98 2012-10-23 02:10:34 copumpkin is now known as Guest14165
99 2012-10-23 02:10:44 Guest14165 has quit (Client Quit)
100 2012-10-23 02:11:06 pumpkin has joined
101 2012-10-23 02:11:26 pumpkin is now known as copumpkin
102 2012-10-23 02:13:43 RainbowDashh has joined
103 2012-10-23 02:14:54 EPiSKiNG- has joined
104 2012-10-23 02:16:22 <gmaxwell> I'm due for a new laptop, but I don't want to lose my 1400x1050 IPS 12.1" display. Hoping that at the end of the year some reasonable vendors will ship some high ppi parts.
105 2012-10-23 02:17:12 <BlueMatt> meh, just go for a 13" and you can get something close
106 2012-10-23 02:17:42 <BlueMatt> my 13 is 1600x900
107 2012-10-23 02:17:47 <BlueMatt> no, 14, sorry
108 2012-10-23 02:18:00 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, asus zenbook series
109 2012-10-23 02:18:06 <phantomcircuit> 1920x1080 13.1"
110 2012-10-23 02:18:11 <BlueMatt> ooo
111 2012-10-23 02:19:02 <gmaxwell> I understand samsung will be shipping a 2560x1440 13.3" product this year.
112 2012-10-23 02:19:51 <phantomcircuit> i would buy that in a flash
113 2012-10-23 02:20:10 <gmaxwell> though IIRC their laptops have crap keyboards, so I might be waiting a bit longer.
114 2012-10-23 02:22:12 echelon has left ()
115 2012-10-23 02:22:36 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ooooooo
116 2012-10-23 02:22:57 <BlueMatt> apple will, but a pc...
117 2012-10-23 02:27:18 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
118 2012-10-23 02:28:14 RainbowDashh has joined
119 2012-10-23 02:29:36 Arnavion has quit (Quit: ==kimi ni nante okureba ii no==)
120 2012-10-23 02:32:33 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
121 2012-10-23 02:36:36 RainbowDashh has joined
122 2012-10-23 02:43:11 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #114: STILL FAILING in 1 hr 51 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/114/
123 2012-10-23 02:43:37 Arnavion has joined
124 2012-10-23 02:43:51 <BlueMatt> :(
125 2012-10-23 02:44:04 <BlueMatt> /mnt/jenkins/jobs/Bitcoin/workspace/src/leveldb/libleveldb.a: No such file or directory
126 2012-10-23 02:44:09 <BlueMatt> i586-mingw32msvc-g++: /mnt/jenkins/jobs/Bitcoin/workspace/src/leveldb/libmemenv.a: No such file or directory
127 2012-10-23 02:44:12 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
128 2012-10-23 02:44:23 <BlueMatt> sipa: ...
129 2012-10-23 02:45:25 Arnavion has quit (Client Quit)
130 2012-10-23 02:45:36 Arnavion has joined
131 2012-10-23 02:46:00 Arnavion has quit (Client Quit)
132 2012-10-23 02:46:12 Arnavion has joined
133 2012-10-23 02:46:39 fiesh has joined
134 2012-10-23 02:46:48 dvide has quit ()
135 2012-10-23 02:47:27 <gmaxwell> woot. has coverage now.
136 2012-10-23 02:47:40 <gmaxwell> https://people.xiph.org/~greg/bitcoin_coverage/coverage.ultraprune.testbitcoin/home/gmaxwell/src/bax/src/index.html < just test_bitcoin for the moment, still need to run the other tests.
137 2012-10-23 02:50:19 Arnavion has quit (Client Quit)
138 2012-10-23 02:50:31 Arnavion has joined
139 2012-10-23 02:50:40 Diablo-D3 has joined
140 2012-10-23 02:51:02 <SomeoneWeird> u broke
141 2012-10-23 02:51:34 Arnavion has quit (Client Quit)
142 2012-10-23 02:51:45 Arnavion has joined
143 2012-10-23 02:52:59 <gmaxwell> SomeoneWeird: hm?
144 2012-10-23 02:54:56 xblitz has joined
145 2012-10-23 02:56:20 <SomeoneWeird> how large is the testnet now?
146 2012-10-23 02:57:42 <gmaxwell> SomeoneWeird: define large?
147 2012-10-23 02:57:55 <lianj> MB
148 2012-10-23 02:57:56 <xblitz> I dont know if this has been noticed already.. I havent seen it on the forums.. I have been keeping a fork of bitcoind .. and I recompiled it with the lastest commits (including pruning stuff ) I am using it on the testnet and it seems i am running of a different blockchain fork than blockexplorer.info since block 33596
149 2012-10-23 02:58:21 <gmaxwell> SomeoneWeird: 13mbytes
150 2012-10-23 02:58:27 <BlueMatt> xblitz: wat does your fork change
151 2012-10-23 02:58:40 <xblitz> but I mined a couple of blocks.. and other miners too .. so im not alone on it
152 2012-10-23 02:58:50 <gmaxwell> xblitz: you're not running the latest ultra prune code. I intentionally broke the old stuff there.
153 2012-10-23 02:59:00 <SomeoneWeird> oh, small as again
154 2012-10-23 02:59:00 <SomeoneWeird> nice
155 2012-10-23 02:59:01 <Diablo-D3> yay gmaxwell
156 2012-10-23 02:59:04 <xblitz> nothing special.. juste options to display more stuff on the rpc...
157 2012-10-23 02:59:21 <xblitz> gmaxwell : oh!
158 2012-10-23 02:59:27 <BlueMatt> oh, yea, there was a bug in ultraprune, fixed today, that (accidentally) changed block acceptance rules
159 2012-10-23 02:59:28 <gmaxwell> xblitz: and thanks for running testnet!
160 2012-10-23 02:59:36 <xblitz> :)
161 2012-10-23 02:59:43 <gmaxwell> (and git master!)
162 2012-10-23 02:59:56 <gmaxwell> and actually paying attention. I'm shocked.
163 2012-10-23 02:59:59 <gmaxwell> :P
164 2012-10-23 03:00:06 <gmaxwell> There is hope for the future.
165 2012-10-23 03:00:13 <xblitz> oh yeah.. i see the new commits now ;)
166 2012-10-23 03:00:20 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: agreed
167 2012-10-23 03:00:24 <gmaxwell> _and_ we even got your report in less than 24 hours. :P
168 2012-10-23 03:00:33 <BlueMatt> its quite amazing
169 2012-10-23 03:00:36 <xblitz> haha
170 2012-10-23 03:00:46 <gmaxwell> 24 minutes would have been better, but hey it's a start.
171 2012-10-23 03:00:54 <BlueMatt> xblitz: its surprisingly rare
172 2012-10-23 03:01:22 <gmaxwell> We need to discover fork creating bugs on mainnet within probably ~20 minutes to avert a mess.
173 2012-10-23 03:01:30 OneFixt_ has joined
174 2012-10-23 03:01:52 <xblitz> So i guess were a couple running on this "bad" fork were at block 33613 while the "real" fork is at 33630
175 2012-10-23 03:01:54 <BlueMatt> true, but, again, getting reports of fork-creating bugs in the first place is nice...
176 2012-10-23 03:02:12 <gmaxwell> (I have mainnnet nodes here that will page me if they get blocks they reject, but thats not really enough.)
177 2012-10-23 03:02:18 <xblitz> which split at 33596
178 2012-10-23 03:02:26 <gmaxwell> xblitz: yep.
179 2012-10-23 03:02:51 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: Id like to see warning lights all over the place if any node gets far off...
180 2012-10-23 03:02:53 <gmaxwell> xblitz: do you know what transaction caused it?
181 2012-10-23 03:03:00 <xblitz> ok.. so pulling in bitcoin:master will put it back to normal? will i have to do a rescan?
182 2012-10-23 03:03:07 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
183 2012-10-23 03:03:12 <xblitz> I m really not sure.. could even be one of mine
184 2012-10-23 03:03:18 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: well, considering how high difficulty isâ a hearing single invalid block is probably worth waking people up over.
185 2012-10-23 03:03:39 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ack
186 2012-10-23 03:03:48 <gmaxwell> (cause I can't expect someone burning a few hundred dollars just to wake some developers up)
187 2012-10-23 03:03:57 <BlueMatt> speaking of which...I really need to set up a bitcoinj node to do the same
188 2012-10-23 03:04:06 <gmaxwell> xblitz: no, it's mine. You shold look in your debug.log
189 2012-10-23 03:04:18 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: (and if they do, Ill wake up to congratulate them...)
190 2012-10-23 03:04:27 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: hahah
191 2012-10-23 03:04:54 <xblitz> gmaxwell: humm... debug.log is full of stuff haha.. you really want me to dig in it?
192 2012-10-23 03:05:11 <xblitz> gmaxwell: if it would help though Im up for it
193 2012-10-23 03:05:15 <gmaxwell> xblitz: No well, I was just suggesting you do for your own education and gratification. I know what it is.
194 2012-10-23 03:05:24 <xblitz> ok ok
195 2012-10-23 03:05:34 <gmaxwell> xblitz: Whenever there is a rejected block the node will log a reason why. So if you ever see that again you can check the log for it.
196 2012-10-23 03:05:50 <xblitz> yeah ok ill go look then!
197 2012-10-23 03:07:00 <gmaxwell> https://people.xiph.org/~greg/bitcoin_coverage/coverage.ultraprune.testbitcoin-testnet/ < coverage now with testnet (note that the covered percentages are high in these reports because it's counting source files which weren't run at all)
198 2012-10-23 03:07:41 <xblitz> debug.log should be timestamped
199 2012-10-23 03:07:45 <xblitz> :\
200 2012-10-23 03:07:54 <Luke-Jr> xblitz: it is, if you use -logtimestamps!
201 2012-10-23 03:08:01 <xblitz> doh!
202 2012-10-23 03:08:17 <xblitz> rephrase: debug.log should be timestamped by default! haha
203 2012-10-23 03:08:36 <BlueMatt> its a (theoretical) privacy issue if it is
204 2012-10-23 03:09:01 OneFixt_ is now known as OneFixt
205 2012-10-23 03:09:11 <xblitz> really that bad?
206 2012-10-23 03:09:55 <gmaxwell> xblitz: meh. It's not good. It would make it valuable to steal nodes' logs to do timing analysis for transactions.
207 2012-10-23 03:10:15 <Luke-Jr> xblitz: it is, if some evil organization wants to hack a lot of PCs to mine info
208 2012-10-23 03:10:34 <gmaxwell> Not likely, but it's better for people if the motivation isn't there.
209 2012-10-23 03:10:45 <xblitz> ok
210 2012-10-23 03:11:40 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: can you run it again with just test_bitcoin+the bitcoinj tool (ie what is auto-run by jenkins/pull-tester)
211 2012-10-23 03:12:38 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
212 2012-10-23 03:12:46 <gmaxwell> I'm happy to see CTxOutCompressor::CompressAmount with 100% branch coverage.
213 2012-10-23 03:12:48 [7] has joined
214 2012-10-23 03:13:25 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
215 2012-10-23 03:14:57 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I will. I just burned so much time getting lcov working that I haven't had a chance yet.
216 2012-10-23 03:15:15 <BlueMatt> ah, ok
217 2012-10-23 03:15:36 <BlueMatt> tanks
218 2012-10-23 03:16:31 <xblitz> gmaxwell: received block 00000000dc3a9cee3f1b \ ERROR: CheckInputs() : tried to spend coinbase at depth 99
219 2012-10-23 03:16:41 <xblitz> you sneaky bastard! :P
220 2012-10-23 03:16:48 <BlueMatt> thats te one
221 2012-10-23 03:16:57 <xblitz> trying to spend illigal stuff
222 2012-10-23 03:17:00 <xblitz> illegal
223 2012-10-23 03:17:02 <gmaxwell> xblitz: well, it lies! I'm spending at 100. That was the bug, that test was off by one.
224 2012-10-23 03:17:11 <gmaxwell> And for the record, BlueMatt is the sneaky one.
225 2012-10-23 03:17:21 <BlueMatt> shhh
226 2012-10-23 03:17:25 <gmaxwell> he wrote a tool that makes fake blocks that test all these boundary conditions.
227 2012-10-23 03:17:28 <BlueMatt> I didnt mine a block to break it
228 2012-10-23 03:17:51 <gmaxwell> I'm still astonished that there were none at 100 in testnet or mainnet.
229 2012-10-23 03:18:08 <BlueMatt> as you pointed out, the code only allowed easy access to 101, so...
230 2012-10-23 03:18:44 <gmaxwell> _our code_.
231 2012-10-23 03:19:00 <xblitz> so if I rebase to master Will i jump automatically to the good fork?
232 2012-10-23 03:19:27 <xblitz> or i need a rescan
233 2012-10-23 03:20:10 yellowhat1 has joined
234 2012-10-23 03:20:28 stamit has joined
235 2012-10-23 03:21:11 amiller has quit (Excess Flood)
236 2012-10-23 03:21:11 stamit has left ()
237 2012-10-23 03:21:20 amiller has joined
238 2012-10-23 03:21:29 <BlueMatt> xblitz: it should (in theory)
239 2012-10-23 03:21:33 <BlueMatt> xblitz: please report if it doesnt
240 2012-10-23 03:21:37 gfinn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
241 2012-10-23 03:21:40 <xblitz> compiling now
242 2012-10-23 03:21:42 yellowhat has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
243 2012-10-23 03:23:12 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: (and if you do get around to writing in more tests, adding the tests noted at http://pastebin.com/cfXyYqCa (thanks to Matt_von_Mises for the list))
244 2012-10-23 03:23:14 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: SLEEP MODE. puppy: it'd be wise to actual chat on here and not loiter.)
245 2012-10-23 03:23:24 <BlueMatt> would be much appreciated ;)
246 2012-10-23 03:25:42 <gmaxwell> heh. I gave him a couple of those. :P
247 2012-10-23 03:28:20 PhantomSpark has quit (2!~kvirc@pool-71-251-16-25.nycmny.fios.verizon.net|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
248 2012-10-23 03:32:56 <xblitz> cant seem to actualy pull upstream:master to my fork:master ... but i dont have any modifications to my fork:master
249 2012-10-23 03:33:09 <xblitz> it talks about conflict on multiples files
250 2012-10-23 03:33:47 <xblitz> any ideas?
251 2012-10-23 03:34:30 stamit has joined
252 2012-10-23 03:34:31 <xblitz> i just want to put back myfork:master = bitcoin:master
253 2012-10-23 03:34:32 <deedeedeedee> oh god atlas is going on a rant again against development
254 2012-10-23 03:35:56 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I know Ive got most of them, but there are a few still missing
255 2012-10-23 03:36:56 <gmaxwell> deedeedeedee: again today or from two days ago?
256 2012-10-23 03:37:35 stamit has left ()
257 2012-10-23 03:38:30 <gmaxwell> Ah I see again.
258 2012-10-23 03:39:21 <gmaxwell> I think the development community should reject the forums if the forums won't reject persistant irrational assholes like that.
259 2012-10-23 03:39:37 <xblitz> ok.. i fixed my stuff.. back to bitcoin:master :)
260 2012-10-23 03:39:46 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I thought the development community rejected the forums ~a year and a half ago...
261 2012-10-23 03:40:02 <BlueMatt> maybe Im just a year ahead of the development community :P
262 2012-10-23 03:40:03 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt++
263 2012-10-23 03:40:18 <Luke-Jr> I pretty much only look at the forums when someone posts a link
264 2012-10-23 03:40:23 <BlueMatt> same
265 2012-10-23 03:40:56 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: we still make release announcements and discuss technical things there. (well perhaps not you, but it's not effective if only a few boycott it)
266 2012-10-23 03:42:05 <gmaxwell> seriously, in the US it I'm pretty sure would be a violation of employment law for an employer to subject employees to a customer that acted like that guy. He isn't just insane, ignorant, and rude. He's soul sucking.
267 2012-10-23 03:42:40 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I know, it was a joke...still, I generally agree that spending time discussing things on the forum is not generally a good time-use...Id kinda like to see the forums as "its been discussed on #bitcoin-dev/ml and most devs are in general agreement that we should... what does the community think?"
268 2012-10-23 03:42:54 freakazoid has joined
269 2012-10-23 03:43:21 <gmaxwell> ::nods::
270 2012-10-23 03:43:23 <BlueMatt> then you get fewer threads devs have to read and can ignore/highly moderate those few threads
271 2012-10-23 03:44:51 <BlueMatt> anywhoo early class and behind on sleep...see yall tomorrow
272 2012-10-23 03:46:34 <Luke-Jr> ttyl
273 2012-10-23 03:47:06 pjorrit has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
274 2012-10-23 03:47:33 <MC1984> isnt there some sort of extraordinary blackballing procedure tht can be used against atlas
275 2012-10-23 03:48:28 <gmaxwell> MC1984: he was banned and the forum improved considerably while that was the case.
276 2012-10-23 03:48:36 pjorrit has joined
277 2012-10-23 03:48:54 <gmaxwell> I think theymos is actually performing a crossover expirement on the broken window theorem as applied to online communities.
278 2012-10-23 03:49:03 <MC1984> the what now
279 2012-10-23 03:49:20 <gmaxwell> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossover_study
280 2012-10-23 03:50:16 <Luke-Jr> in the meantime, Atlas controls the Wikipedia page for Bitcoin and the mods there of course don't care; so bitcointalk = bitcoin experts and bitcoin = silk road currency
281 2012-10-23 03:51:42 <zveda> really atlas controls wiki ?
282 2012-10-23 03:51:45 <xblitz> oh my.. the current testnet block index is my bank account number!!
283 2012-10-23 03:51:53 <MC1984> just ban him again
284 2012-10-23 03:51:54 <xblitz> wonder if it means something
285 2012-10-23 03:52:03 Arnavion has quit (Quit: Arnavion)
286 2012-10-23 03:52:12 <MC1984> busting dev balls is too important a job for wingnut like that
287 2012-10-23 03:52:15 <zveda> as in en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page ? or wikipedia.org ?
288 2012-10-23 03:52:18 Arnavion has joined
289 2012-10-23 03:52:19 <Luke-Jr> zveda: yeah, look at the edit history
290 2012-10-23 03:52:22 <Luke-Jr> en.wikipedia.org
291 2012-10-23 03:52:27 <zveda> ic
292 2012-10-23 03:52:29 RainbowDashh has joined
293 2012-10-23 03:52:39 RainbowDashh has quit (Changing host)
294 2012-10-23 03:52:39 RainbowDashh has joined
295 2012-10-23 03:52:44 <zveda> but cant we out-edit him ? or he's editing maniacally ?
296 2012-10-23 03:53:42 <gmaxwell> zveda: he'll get himselve banned eventually but it requires several thoughtful and patient people do just keep fixing it while he sets himself on fire.
297 2012-10-23 03:54:27 <zveda> strange.. how can 1 crazy but determined person cause so much trouble lol
298 2012-10-23 03:54:28 <MC1984> howardstrong?
299 2012-10-23 03:54:45 <gmaxwell> I might try; (I edited the article extensively a year and change ago)â but if I touch it now he'll be all over me alleging conflict of interest and I apparently have about zero tolerance for his nonsense.
300 2012-10-23 03:54:50 <gmaxwell> MC1984: yup.
301 2012-10-23 03:54:54 <gmaxwell> thats one of his many identities.
302 2012-10-23 03:55:02 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: he'll edit war and try to get you banned
303 2012-10-23 03:55:18 <gmaxwell> well he can't get me banned.
304 2012-10-23 03:55:31 <MC1984> this is the problem with wikipedia
305 2012-10-23 03:56:01 <gmaxwell> MC1984: nah, I don't really think wikipedia is doing anything horribly wrong. It's an open thing, sometimes nutbags screw it up. Thats just the breaks.
306 2012-10-23 03:56:21 <MC1984> yes nutbags are the problem with wikipedia
307 2012-10-23 03:56:43 <MC1984> people who own certain articles as far as they are concerned
308 2012-10-23 03:56:54 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
309 2012-10-23 03:57:20 <MC1984> as i said one of the only time i contribute was some minor spelling corrections and it got reverted
310 2012-10-23 03:58:09 <zveda> i was annoyed when somebody from pharmaceutical company pwned the wiki page for the buteyko method
311 2012-10-23 03:58:16 <deedeedeedee> what did atlas do to the article?
312 2012-10-23 03:58:17 <zveda> i tried editing it but was no match
313 2012-10-23 03:58:26 <gmaxwell> of the past 500 edits he's made 337.
314 2012-10-23 03:58:33 meLon has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
315 2012-10-23 03:58:39 <deedeedeedee> 0_o
316 2012-10-23 03:58:49 <gmaxwell> deedeedeedee: generally crapped on it in many ways.
317 2012-10-23 03:58:51 <SomeoneWeird> wow
318 2012-10-23 03:59:51 <MC1984> i noticed its basically long winded bullshit which is a shame
319 2012-10-23 03:59:57 <gmaxwell> Here is how it was when I last touched it:
320 2012-10-23 03:59:58 <gmaxwell> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&oldid=433926110
321 2012-10-23 04:00:03 <gmaxwell> which still kinda sucked
322 2012-10-23 04:00:09 <gmaxwell> but I think it was a lot more actually informative.
323 2012-10-23 04:00:13 <MC1984> cos wiki is the first place people go when they have a wtf is that moment
324 2012-10-23 04:00:20 <gmaxwell> The current version doesn't actually tell you anything about how bitcoin _works_ anymore.
325 2012-10-23 04:00:56 <gmaxwell> Which is kinda important, since the distributed consensus algorithim in bitcoin solves a hard problem which otherwise would make it impossible for bitcoin to be secure.
326 2012-10-23 04:01:21 spreelanka has quit (Quit: spreelanka)
327 2012-10-23 04:01:45 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: if it said too much of how it worked, it would expose Atlas's ignorance ;)
328 2012-10-23 04:02:40 <deedeedeedee> bitcoin mining has some stuff
329 2012-10-23 04:02:41 <gmaxwell> It's also full of inaccuracies. It says, for example, that the proof of work prevents double spending (this is the only mention of that whole issue in the current article, just that statement), which isn't true.
330 2012-10-23 04:02:59 <gmaxwell> deedeedeedee: yea, it talks about mining in irrelevant detail because it's something atlas understands.
331 2012-10-23 04:03:27 <gmaxwell> Who cares about how you increment the nonce? It should link to [[Hashcash]] which explains how to use a hash to create a message bound proof of work
332 2012-10-23 04:03:42 <gmaxwell> or even [[Proof-of-work system]]
333 2012-10-23 04:03:44 <Hasimir> tried contacting a wikipedia admin to get it locked down and stop Atlas
334 2012-10-23 04:03:46 <Hasimir> ?
335 2012-10-23 04:04:24 <deedeedeedee> hes readin this :(
336 2012-10-23 04:04:31 <gmaxwell> of course he is.
337 2012-10-23 04:04:41 <gmaxwell> He's probably got three or four socks in the channel.
338 2012-10-23 04:04:52 <SomeoneWeird> ofc
339 2012-10-23 04:05:23 <gmaxwell> Hasimir: Thats just not how wikipedia works. His misbehavior will get him banned eventually, but the process is slowâ and slower when reasonable men sit quietly while he craps all over it.
340 2012-10-23 04:05:24 <Hasimir> who cares? I'd say the same thing in front of him.
341 2012-10-23 04:05:30 <gmaxwell> Hasimir: Exactly.
342 2012-10-23 04:06:02 <Hasimir> might use a cattle prod, though, you never know how the paranoids are going to react. ;)
343 2012-10-23 04:06:23 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: well, despite giving up eventually, I think I can say I tried a little XD
344 2012-10-23 04:07:16 <zveda> this part relaly doesnt sound fair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#As_an_investment
345 2012-10-23 04:09:00 cryptorific has joined
346 2012-10-23 04:09:07 <jgarzik> orphan mapsz 194, mempool poolsz 1012
347 2012-10-23 04:09:11 <jgarzik> fixes looking better
348 2012-10-23 04:09:37 <deedeedeedee> he just edited it again
349 2012-10-23 04:10:56 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
350 2012-10-23 04:11:05 TheSeven has joined
351 2012-10-23 04:12:21 drazak_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
352 2012-10-23 04:12:28 cryptorific has left ()
353 2012-10-23 04:13:28 slush has joined
354 2012-10-23 04:15:02 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
355 2012-10-23 04:15:42 <Hasimir> gmaxwell, maybe just create a bot to revert changes from known troll accounts, like Atlas and all his sock puppets when they're identified
356 2012-10-23 04:15:57 pangaearian has joined
357 2012-10-23 04:16:08 <Hasimir> there are plenty of bots on wikipedia already
358 2012-10-23 04:16:21 <pangaearian> Hi. Can someone help me with maybe a newbie question... Has the bitcoind daemon a memory leak and therefore has to be restarted regularly (eg. daily) ?
359 2012-10-23 04:17:36 <gmaxwell> pangaearian: Not that we know of. We'd consider that a fairly serious issue. How are you observing this?
360 2012-10-23 04:18:08 <pangaearian> On a Debian ARM box
361 2012-10-23 04:18:40 <gmaxwell> Hasimir: Wikipedia doesn't know that atlas is mentally ill and unable to cooperate with others yet. Once it realizes this it will agressively and effectively ban him, and the article can be healed.
362 2012-10-23 04:18:42 <Arnavion> pangaearian That thing you linked in #bitcoin is not a memory leak
363 2012-10-23 04:18:43 <pangaearian> Bitcoind is drawing constantly more memory
364 2012-10-23 04:18:58 <Arnavion> It's Linux's file cache
365 2012-10-23 04:19:20 <gmaxwell> Arnavion: thanks, I'd missed the #bitcoin traffic.
366 2012-10-23 04:19:20 <Hasimir> gmaxwell, good point, but I don't think he'll be the last
367 2012-10-23 04:20:11 trudel_ has joined
368 2012-10-23 04:20:12 <pangaearian> hm ok. You're right. My fault
369 2012-10-23 04:20:13 <gmaxwell> Hasimir: nah, most people aren't as much of a problem as him. Regular editing can take care of the rest. E.g. someone that goes and adds some silly stuff can just be quickly undone, and existing bots will do some of that.
370 2012-10-23 04:20:14 <Hasimir> gmaxwell, there's always more crazy
371 2012-10-23 04:20:32 <Hasimir> true
372 2012-10-23 04:20:32 Impaler has joined
373 2012-10-23 04:20:38 <trudel_> hey everyone
374 2012-10-23 04:20:49 <Hasimir> don't spam the channel again
375 2012-10-23 04:21:11 <trudel_> Sorry for anyone who has already heard this, but I'm writing a handout to promote bitcoins and am looking for people who can review it for errors
376 2012-10-23 04:21:12 <trudel_> http://piratepad.net/x1h9j4w2Ed
377 2012-10-23 04:21:17 <trudel_> there it is^
378 2012-10-23 04:21:19 * Hasimir sighs
379 2012-10-23 04:21:26 <deedeedeedee> whats atlases goal?
380 2012-10-23 04:22:05 <trudel_> Is there anyone here who has read the source code?
381 2012-10-23 04:22:09 <Hasimir> deedeedeedee, Atlas? <shrug> ;)
382 2012-10-23 04:22:12 <gmaxwell> deedeedeedee: he's mentally ill (Not me being rude, he's posted about it) and it makes him obess over stuff.
383 2012-10-23 04:22:24 <gmaxwell> er obsess*
384 2012-10-23 04:22:49 <trudel_> hey is there a good forum or something to find people who might be willing to help me make a handout?
385 2012-10-23 04:22:55 <Luke-Jr> trudel_: ฿ isn't the right symbol :P
386 2012-10-23 04:23:06 <Luke-Jr> trudel_: #bitcoin would be more appropriate IMO
387 2012-10-23 04:23:09 <trudel_> Well it's the closest there is in the ascii char set
388 2012-10-23 04:23:11 xblitz has quit (Quit: Page closed)
389 2012-10-23 04:23:20 <Luke-Jr> trudel_: ฿ isn't in the ASCII char set either
390 2012-10-23 04:23:25 * Hasimir gets popcorn
391 2012-10-23 04:23:32 <trudel_> Well whatever
392 2012-10-23 04:24:00 <trudel_> I welcome the suggestion though and am interested in more
393 2012-10-23 04:24:02 <Hasimir> for a printed doc you can use other fonts to get the right symbol
394 2012-10-23 04:24:06 <gmaxwell> ฿ is a bit unfortunate because its an established currency symbol.
395 2012-10-23 04:24:12 <trudel_> For what?
396 2012-10-23 04:24:16 <Luke-Jr> Thai Baht
397 2012-10-23 04:24:16 <Hasimir> baht
398 2012-10-23 04:24:22 <trudel_> oh interesting
399 2012-10-23 04:24:32 <trudel_> It should have two lines through it for bitcoin?
400 2012-10-23 04:24:39 <Hasimir> yep
401 2012-10-23 04:24:44 <Luke-Jr> "The bitcoins system is the collection of all protocols, software and computers, that work together over the internet to perform the useful tasks that a bank or government in the incumbent currency systems perform." <-- this sounds wrong, but I don't know how to rephrase it
402 2012-10-23 04:24:49 <trudel_> I thoguht as much
403 2012-10-23 04:25:02 <trudel_> Well how would you answer the question luke?
404 2012-10-23 04:25:06 <Luke-Jr> trudel_: I fixed it for you, but you might need to check fonts to print it properly
405 2012-10-23 04:25:07 <Hasimir> I posted an alternative yesterday
406 2012-10-23 04:25:24 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: when in doubt go back to the original post for inspiration: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source
407 2012-10-23 04:25:28 <Luke-Jr> trudel_: I would answer too technically for average people
408 2012-10-23 04:26:10 <gmaxwell> It's always best to describe bitcoin in those terms because (1) it's very well written, and (2) it's the official word on what bitcoin was supposted to accomplish.
409 2012-10-23 04:26:32 <trudel_> I've never been much one for officialdom
410 2012-10-23 04:26:32 <Luke-Jr> this webpage keeps losing its connection
411 2012-10-23 04:26:44 <Hasimir> Oct 22 14:18:27 <Hasimir> trudel, here: Bitcoin is a software protocol based on cryptographic principles which provides transparent, pseudonymous and decentralised transactions. The name is also used to refer to the unit of currency and the main software client.
412 2012-10-23 04:27:13 <Hasimir> that was my alternate second para
413 2012-10-23 04:27:21 <Luke-Jr> the main software client shouldn't be called Bitcoin though
414 2012-10-23 04:27:26 <gmaxwell> "The bitcoin system is a collection of protocols, software, and infrastructure which provide an alterative money system designed to eliminate the trust required by traditional banking and currency systems."
415 2012-10-23 04:27:33 <trudel_> yeah the first one was called bitcoind
416 2012-10-23 04:28:08 <trudel_> Yeah we now have 4 meanings of the term bitcoin, client, system, currency and the "coin" which is a chain of crypto signatures
417 2012-10-23 04:28:13 <gmaxwell> trudel_: thats not correct.
418 2012-10-23 04:28:14 <trudel_> oh well
419 2012-10-23 04:28:23 <trudel_> well at least 4
420 2012-10-23 04:28:27 <gmaxwell> trudel_: you're repeating one of wikipedia's _many_ factually incorrect claims.
421 2012-10-23 04:28:36 <trudel_> which?
422 2012-10-23 04:28:40 <gmaxwell> No no, I'm saying "< trudel_> yeah the first one was called bitcoind" is incorrect.
423 2012-10-23 04:28:51 <Luke-Jr> I bet there's more than 4 now
424 2012-10-23 04:28:56 <trudel_> I read that in a pdf from satoshi, not wikipedia
425 2012-10-23 04:29:02 <gmaxwell> trudel_: you didn't.
426 2012-10-23 04:29:03 <trudel_> the last one
427 2012-10-23 04:29:19 <trudel_> Which I assume is what you're taking issuw with
428 2012-10-23 04:29:28 <Luke-Jr> the first one was called Bitcoin, but that one doesn't exist really anymore (though the core code is used in bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt)
429 2012-10-23 04:29:35 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin was originally a windows gui app only, bitcoind was largely gavin's work I believe, but in any case it came much later.
430 2012-10-23 04:30:33 <trudel_> When a transaction is submitted, the whole value of an address is decanted out, divided into the outputs of the transaction, rather than merely being deducted, right? Thus it is conceptualized as "spending" a whole coin, which is then divided by the system... isn't it?
431 2012-10-23 04:31:02 <trudel_> anyway
432 2012-10-23 04:31:15 <trudel_> Yes the wikipedia article is a big problem though
433 2012-10-23 04:31:28 <trudel_> That is really the thing that is most important to focus on, not a handout
434 2012-10-23 04:31:49 <Hasimir> heh
435 2012-10-23 04:31:50 <trudel_> The bitcoin foundation should put on it's site an expert-reviewed version of ti.
436 2012-10-23 04:32:03 <Luke-Jr> trudel_: for a handout, it might be neat to put some small coin on it via a private key
437 2012-10-23 04:32:06 <trudel_> what hasimir?
438 2012-10-23 04:32:10 <trudel_> Yes I did that
439 2012-10-23 04:32:11 pangaearian has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
440 2012-10-23 04:32:13 <trudel_> 0.02 coin
441 2012-10-23 04:32:22 <trudel_> not much just enough to test things with
442 2012-10-23 04:32:31 <trudel_> I used instawallet.com
443 2012-10-23 04:32:36 <Hasimir> trudel_, we were discussing the wiki page just before you entered the channel
444 2012-10-23 04:32:39 <Luke-Jr> MtGox has a handy import function for private keys
445 2012-10-23 04:32:44 <Luke-Jr> hopefully Bitcoin-Qt will someday too <.<
446 2012-10-23 04:32:48 <trudel_> oh well it's an important topic as I said
447 2012-10-23 04:33:02 <Hasimir> trudel_, you missed the criticisms of that page literally by seconds
448 2012-10-23 04:33:04 <deedeedeedee> trudel_: what do you want to change about wiki?
449 2012-10-23 04:33:08 <trudel_> so what is being done about the wikipedia article then?
450 2012-10-23 04:33:29 <trudel_> Well there should be a page on the bitcoin.org which is like the wikipedia page, but expert reviewed
451 2012-10-23 04:33:55 <trudel_> That would be the bees knees. Handouts could be easily compiled from it.
452 2012-10-23 04:34:13 <trudel_> And curious laymen could easily understand it.
453 2012-10-23 04:35:27 <Hasimir> well, there is the bitcoin wiki
454 2012-10-23 04:35:56 <Luke-Jr> http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/code/blankTBC.pdf <-- my handouts :P
455 2012-10-23 04:36:16 <trudel_> The wiki is highlyinferior to an encyclopedia entry for the purpose though
456 2012-10-23 04:36:25 <trudel_> will check that out luke
457 2012-10-23 04:36:52 <Luke-Jr> I'm promoting Tonal just as much as Bitcoin with those of course ;)
458 2012-10-23 04:37:05 drazak_ has joined
459 2012-10-23 04:37:12 <trudel_> Hm, like mt gox is hard to get an account on I hear
460 2012-10-23 04:37:18 <trudel_> You must provide id and so forth
461 2012-10-23 04:37:32 <trudel_> that will be too much bother for new users
462 2012-10-23 04:37:48 <trudel_> due to money laundering legislation.
463 2012-10-23 04:38:27 <deedeedeedee> is bitcoin really a currency?
464 2012-10-23 04:38:38 <trudel_> Blockchain.info supposedly has some way to import a new wallet, but not to merge wallets. The ability to merge secret keys is included in the most recent bitcoin client apparently, but getting it onto a page and back is still hard.
465 2012-10-23 04:38:41 <trudel_> deedee, yes.
466 2012-10-23 04:38:45 <trudel_> I would say so.
467 2012-10-23 04:38:54 <trudel_> Why not?
468 2012-10-23 04:39:07 <deedeedeedee> its weird to me
469 2012-10-23 04:39:17 <trudel_> rolleyes, this is bitcoin-dev
470 2012-10-23 04:39:33 <trudel_> no offense
471 2012-10-23 04:39:37 <trudel_> anyway
472 2012-10-23 04:40:00 <trudel_> so about the wikipedia article, are there any devs that are willing to expert review it?
473 2012-10-23 04:40:16 <trudel_> If we could get the document made we can certainly get it up somewhere.
474 2012-10-23 04:40:44 <Luke-Jr> trudel_: importing private keys is a bad idea generally
475 2012-10-23 04:40:48 <trudel_> Bitcoin.org people will notice and either copy it directly to their site, or it will become well indexed by google, or
476 2012-10-23 04:40:50 <deedeedeedee> its biggest problem is a lack of info
477 2012-10-23 04:41:08 <trudel_> just highly useful in bringing the equilibrium of the wikipedia article towards a more accurate state.
478 2012-10-23 04:41:12 <trudel_> Through referencing.
479 2012-10-23 04:41:51 <trudel_> Yeah, Luke, instawallet works arguably better for various reasons.
480 2012-10-23 04:42:05 <trudel_> however about the encyclopedic article.
481 2012-10-23 04:42:35 <trudel_> I see ther eis a long list of people in this channel.
482 2012-10-23 04:42:49 <trudel_> Are they contactable in some way?
483 2012-10-23 04:42:57 <trudel_> Why are they even here?
484 2012-10-23 04:43:42 <trudel_> also can anyone recommend a forum to find people with authoritative knowledge on bitcoin?
485 2012-10-23 04:43:47 <Luke-Jr> trudel_: new to IRC? :p
486 2012-10-23 04:43:54 <deedeedeedee> authoritative?
487 2012-10-23 04:44:06 <trudel_> well like read the source code and so forth
488 2012-10-23 04:44:07 <Luke-Jr> asking questions here is probably the closest you'll get to that
489 2012-10-23 04:44:24 <trudel_> It doesn't seem to be working too hot, is there a better time of day perhaps?
490 2012-10-23 04:44:53 <Luke-Jr> there's also a development mailing list
491 2012-10-23 04:45:00 <Luke-Jr> a few hours ago was more active
492 2012-10-23 04:45:00 <trudel_> where?
493 2012-10-23 04:45:04 <Luke-Jr> maybe check out the channel logs (see topic)
494 2012-10-23 04:45:05 <trudel_> ok
495 2012-10-23 04:45:13 <Luke-Jr> (for times the channel is most busy)
496 2012-10-23 04:45:26 <trudel_> good idea
497 2012-10-23 04:46:48 <gmaxwell> 21:28 < trudel_> so about the wikipedia article, are there any devs that are willing to expert review it?
498 2012-10-23 04:47:11 <gmaxwell> I've already reviewed it, it is wrong in many places, incomplete almost everywhere else, and shouldn't be used for pretty much anything.
499 2012-10-23 04:47:31 <gmaxwell> Go look at a 9 month old version, which will be much more accurate and complete.
500 2012-10-23 04:47:37 <trudel_> Well it still contains a template for the experts to fill in.
501 2012-10-23 04:47:58 <trudel_> hm, ok, but I am really looking for something more authoritative
502 2012-10-23 04:49:10 <trudel_> In any case, the format and so forth is a very good one to make it easy for laymen to gain enough confidence to use the system. confidence requires knowledge of the system, and right now
503 2012-10-23 04:49:23 <trudel_> they are not able to get it in a atimely manner, so they give up.
504 2012-10-23 04:49:41 <trudel_> I mean try thinking of how you would persuade your local convenience store owner to accept bitcoins.
505 2012-10-23 04:49:55 <trudel_> Not doable with the current state of documentation.
506 2012-10-23 04:50:25 <trudel_> We also should have a set of guidelines on how many confirmations to wait for, as that is a real sticking point that scares a lot of people away.
507 2012-10-23 04:50:34 <trudel_> They think they *have* to wait for at least one.
508 2012-10-23 04:50:49 Impaler_ has joined
509 2012-10-23 04:51:09 <gmaxwell> trudel_: the reference software embodies the recommendations I'd give.
510 2012-10-23 04:51:12 <trudel_> Even though there have never been any reported sucessful double spends even with unconfirmed payments, have there?
511 2012-10-23 04:51:20 <gmaxwell> sure there have been.
512 2012-10-23 04:51:22 <trudel_> What?
513 2012-10-23 04:51:36 <trudel_> Where gmaxwell?
514 2012-10-23 04:51:53 <gmaxwell> Mybitcoin for example, was doublespendable through their shopping cart interface which accepted unconfirmed transactions.
515 2012-10-23 04:52:08 <trudel_> and it was sucessfully exploited?
516 2012-10-23 04:52:12 <gmaxwell> And its utterly trivial to rip people off if they accept unconfirmed transactions.
517 2012-10-23 04:52:27 <trudel_> Well timing needs to be fairly good
518 2012-10-23 04:52:37 <gmaxwell> trudel_: yes, according to them. I mean, there was only like a million dollars in bitcoin taken but hey, no need to wait.
519 2012-10-23 04:52:41 <trudel_> and secondly it is harder if the victim is well connected to thenetwork
520 2012-10-23 04:52:42 <gmaxwell> trudel_: no, not really.
521 2012-10-23 04:52:46 <gmaxwell> No, thats not true.
522 2012-10-23 04:52:58 <trudel_> How good does timing have to be then?
523 2012-10-23 04:53:16 <gmaxwell> I can trivially construct a transaction that won't confirm for months.
524 2012-10-23 04:54:06 Impaler has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
525 2012-10-23 04:54:14 <gmaxwell> And as a result there is no great timing required for it.
526 2012-10-23 04:54:22 <trudel_> oh really
527 2012-10-23 04:54:27 <trudel_> how?
528 2012-10-23 04:54:42 <gmaxwell> By setting the locktime on the transaction in the future.
529 2012-10-23 04:54:56 <trudel_> Well can a client detect yo uar edoing that?
530 2012-10-23 04:55:25 <gmaxwell> Sure but nothing does as far as I know.
531 2012-10-23 04:55:36 <trudel_> Hopefully that hole could be plugged by alerting the user with the client in the futre at least.
532 2012-10-23 04:55:57 <gmaxwell> And connectivity doesn't help for three reasonsâ no software actually exists that detects and does something useful with the existance of conflicting transactions (which happen innocently too); because conflicting transactions aren't relayed so your own transaction will likely block you from hearing it; and because there is no need for an attacker to announce the conflict in any case.
533 2012-10-23 04:56:43 <gmaxwell> And because of the last point, it's possible for me try to rob you with every single transaction and have you not know. So even if I'm only successful 10% of the time I can still rob you blind if you're accepting automatically.
534 2012-10-23 04:56:55 <trudel_> well there are some attack approaches that do not require announcement
535 2012-10-23 04:57:03 <gmaxwell> There is a reason that every serious bitcoin service waits several confrmations.
536 2012-10-23 04:57:16 <gmaxwell> trudel_: no attack requires announcement of the conflict.
537 2012-10-23 04:57:17 <trudel_> Not all do.
538 2012-10-23 04:57:39 <trudel_> Well not of the conflict, but of the conflicting transaction, yes.
539 2012-10-23 04:57:54 <gmaxwell> trudel_: the conflicting transaction does not need to be announced.
540 2012-10-23 04:57:58 <trudel_> Which if propagated properly would be an effective alert to the user
541 2012-10-23 04:58:11 <trudel_> For the race attack it does.
542 2012-10-23 04:58:18 <trudel_> And that is by far the most important attack.
543 2012-10-23 04:58:25 <gmaxwell> trudel_: If you don't have any recourse and you accept at zero confirms you are vulnerable to theft, it's as simple as that. If there is some natural ratelimit or recourse then that might be acceptable.
544 2012-10-23 04:58:30 <trudel_> As it is by far the cheapest and easiest
545 2012-10-23 04:59:00 <gmaxwell> trudel_: I think you should not be presenting on bitcoin to anyone. Your understanding of the system is weak, and you're just arguing with me when I'm trying to educate you some.
546 2012-10-23 04:59:00 <trudel_> Yes but the question is how vulnerable.
547 2012-10-23 04:59:06 <trudel_> That is the important question here.
548 2012-10-23 04:59:24 ovidiusoft has joined
549 2012-10-23 04:59:38 <trudel_> Rolleyes
550 2012-10-23 04:59:38 <trudel_> a real team player
551 2012-10-23 05:00:02 <trudel_> Do you know what a race attack is?
552 2012-10-23 05:00:10 <gmaxwell> ...
553 2012-10-23 05:00:44 <trudel_> Look are you just after a little ego boost or are you interested in helping here
554 2012-10-23 05:01:06 <gmaxwell> trudel_: I was trying to help you, but you don't want to be helped. You want to argue. I don't want to argue.
555 2012-10-23 05:01:13 <trudel_> rolleyes
556 2012-10-23 05:01:42 BlackPrapor has joined
557 2012-10-23 05:02:13 <gmaxwell> The system simply doesn't work the way you think it does. Someone can mine a transaction without ever announcing it to anyone else.
558 2012-10-23 05:02:16 <trudel_> Don't pretend you know more than you do man, we all want to encourage bitcoin use here, and you'll end up throwing a wrench in the works if you're not careful.
559 2012-10-23 05:02:29 <gmaxwell> trudel_: I'm not pretending anything. :(
560 2012-10-23 05:02:46 <trudel_> Look I gotta go, thanks for what little help I did get here, good night everyone, no hard feelings gmaxwell.
561 2012-10-23 05:02:51 trudel_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
562 2012-10-23 05:02:56 <gmaxwell> but ... I have hard feelings.
563 2012-10-23 05:03:07 <gmaxwell> :P
564 2012-10-23 05:04:13 RainbowDashh has joined
565 2012-10-23 05:04:14 RainbowDashh has quit (Changing host)
566 2012-10-23 05:04:14 RainbowDashh has joined
567 2012-10-23 05:04:17 <deedeedeedee> that guy sounds like atlas
568 2012-10-23 05:04:51 <gmaxwell> He was too polite.
569 2012-10-23 05:04:57 <gmaxwell> I feel bad for being a jerk there.
570 2012-10-23 05:06:59 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
571 2012-10-23 05:08:36 * gmaxwell needs a vacation
572 2012-10-23 05:09:32 tonikt has joined
573 2012-10-23 05:15:17 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
574 2012-10-23 05:18:20 RainbowDashh has joined
575 2012-10-23 05:22:59 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
576 2012-10-23 05:30:28 slush1 has joined
577 2012-10-23 05:32:03 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
578 2012-10-23 05:33:21 ThomasV has joined
579 2012-10-23 05:42:47 <DrHaribo> gmaxwell: 1tx blocks are either from long poll (like I believe Eligius does), or because people are using old buggy miners that ddos the pool
580 2012-10-23 05:43:16 <gmaxwell> DrHaribo: I mentioned earlier that Eligius does that, but it's been fairly few times that it's happened.
581 2012-10-23 05:43:29 <gmaxwell> hm. Miners ignoring the LP and hopping perhaps. What payout scheme do you use?
582 2012-10-23 05:43:34 <DrHaribo> gmaxwell: old versions of cgminer and bfgminer can suddenly ddos the pool, 1tx work is slightly cheaper to keep them fed
583 2012-10-23 05:43:39 <DrHaribo> PPLNS
584 2012-10-23 05:43:49 <DrHaribo> it's probably old cgminer users making those blocks
585 2012-10-23 05:44:04 <DrHaribo> I have tried asking people to upgrade, but they keep running old miners
586 2012-10-23 05:44:07 <gmaxwell> oh you're actually continually giving 1tx work to those nodes? kinda sucks. :(
587 2012-10-23 05:44:11 <DrHaribo> suddenly they bombard the server with work requests
588 2012-10-23 05:44:18 <DrHaribo> yes, but I have to keep my server running smoothly
589 2012-10-23 05:44:32 <gmaxwell> sure. I recommend 100% fees. :P
590 2012-10-23 05:44:38 <DrHaribo> not fun being ddosed by your own users :D
591 2012-10-23 05:45:19 <gmaxwell> Which pool software are you using?
592 2012-10-23 05:45:25 <DrHaribo> my own
593 2012-10-23 05:45:59 <DrHaribo> I spent a lot of time lately to build defenses against these buggy clients so they wouldn't lag down the pool anymore
594 2012-10-23 05:46:11 <gmaxwell> You should be able to precompute many tx work in the background and only increment extranonce.. it saves you _1_ sha256 operation. to only have 1 tx there. This shouldn't make a performance difference.
595 2012-10-23 05:46:13 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
596 2012-10-23 05:47:07 <DrHaribo> per request yes.. these guys send requests as quickly as the network will carry them
597 2012-10-23 05:47:18 <DrHaribo> they have bugs where they throw away all the work you give them and ask for more
598 2012-10-23 05:48:42 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
599 2012-10-23 05:49:28 <gmaxwell> Dunno about you, but my cpu can run sha256 about 24 million times per second. :P
600 2012-10-23 05:49:49 leotreasure has joined
601 2012-10-23 05:49:55 <gmaxwell> In any case... how can we help you stop dos attacking the network? You're producing a conspicious amount of 1tx transactions.
602 2012-10-23 05:50:18 <gmaxwell> If we get gavin to post something yelling at people to upgrade miners do you think it will help?
603 2012-10-23 05:51:16 <DrHaribo> I don't know.. I've had slow downs on the server with high reject rates on work.. I've explained why and asked people to upgrade, but nothing..
604 2012-10-23 05:51:20 <Luke-Jr> I don't think that's related.
605 2012-10-23 05:51:31 <Luke-Jr> the miners which are DDoSing the pool *aren't* finding blocks with the work
606 2012-10-23 05:51:53 <DrHaribo> not with the ddosing work, but they do find blocks when they are behaving properly
607 2012-10-23 05:51:56 Impaler has joined
608 2012-10-23 05:52:05 <Luke-Jr> DrHaribo: oh, you're always giving them neutered work? :/
609 2012-10-23 05:52:09 <DrHaribo> yep
610 2012-10-23 05:52:30 <DrHaribo> I also put the old miners on a special work serving queue that uses only 1 cpu core
611 2012-10-23 05:52:35 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
612 2012-10-23 05:53:04 <DrHaribo> I'm quite happy with how smoothly the server us running now
613 2012-10-23 05:53:13 <gmaxwell> If you're identifying them, seriously, why not increase fees for those miners. If they're indifferent they'll not care and you'll gain more income. And the ones who are indifferent will upgrade..
614 2012-10-23 05:53:18 <Luke-Jr> DrHaribo: what I do for Eloipool is just keep a queue full of merkleroots, and another one with blanks for backup
615 2012-10-23 05:53:22 <DrHaribo> Better that they produce a few 1tx blocks, than having the server running badly
616 2012-10-23 05:53:22 leotreasure has joined
617 2012-10-23 05:53:59 <Luke-Jr> DrHaribo: better for whom, though? certainly not better for Bitcoin
618 2012-10-23 05:54:01 <DrHaribo> yeah, I also queue up work when the cpu is idle
619 2012-10-23 05:54:05 <gmaxwell> DrHaribo: Well, not better for people whos transactions are left waiting. Your empty blocks ultimately deny room to pools that can keep up.
620 2012-10-23 05:54:24 Impaler_ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
621 2012-10-23 05:54:55 <Luke-Jr> DrHaribo: my point is that you only need to feed out those blank merkleroots when they're *actually* using up the real ones
622 2012-10-23 05:55:27 <DrHaribo> I always feed from the cache if there is work left, it gives faster response times
623 2012-10-23 05:55:45 <DrHaribo> Look, it's not that I waant to produce 1tx blocks and harm bitcoin... or lose the income from tx fees
624 2012-10-23 05:56:19 <DrHaribo> I'm just trying to keep things running smoothly, and it hasn't been running smoothly before I made these changes
625 2012-10-23 05:56:28 <gmaxwell> ::sigh:: so is this how it has to be? You're going to do whatever greedy thing will work, so to get you not be antisocial we're going to have to make bitcoin nodes delay forwarding of 1txn blocks when there is stuff in the memory pool?
626 2012-10-23 05:57:02 <DrHaribo> why is it greedy? I'm giving up tx fees on some blocks to keep the server afloat
627 2012-10-23 05:57:03 <Luke-Jr> I'm not sure I understand what's going on then
628 2012-10-23 05:57:12 maaku has joined
629 2012-10-23 05:57:13 <gmaxwell> As a short term measure you do what you need to do, but it's not acceptable to leave it in a state where you're accidentally dos attacking for a long time.
630 2012-10-23 05:57:34 <gmaxwell> DrHaribo: I meant greedy in the optimization sense. It's a first solution.
631 2012-10-23 05:57:35 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
632 2012-10-23 05:58:13 <DrHaribo> Sure, it's not the way I want things to stay
633 2012-10-23 05:58:20 leotreasure has joined
634 2012-10-23 05:58:24 <gmaxwell> DrHaribo: In any case, I'm glad to help and to get other people to help.
635 2012-10-23 05:58:26 <DrHaribo> It's more like an emergency measure to keep the server from going down
636 2012-10-23 05:58:34 slush has joined
637 2012-10-23 05:58:43 slush1 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
638 2012-10-23 05:59:07 <gmaxwell> DrHaribo: hm. perhaps stop LPing those nodes?
639 2012-10-23 05:59:13 <DrHaribo> dunno what you can do there... newer cgminer and bfgminer have bugfixes for this kind of thing, but people just aren't upgrading
640 2012-10-23 05:59:48 <gmaxwell> Wellâ it's not like you're the only pool that has miners on olde cgminer and bfgminer. :P
641 2012-10-23 05:59:58 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: what bug causes this?
642 2012-10-23 06:00:11 <DrHaribo> true, but most bigger pools don't run on 1 server like I do
643 2012-10-23 06:00:45 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: when multiple pools are configured, and a secondary pool returns a longpoll, and --failover-only is used, the miner discards all work from its primary pool and hammers it until it gets one with the new block
644 2012-10-23 06:00:48 <gmaxwell> Do you need help setting up a second server? :P
645 2012-10-23 06:00:53 <Luke-Jr> DrHaribo: Eligius does, fwiw
646 2012-10-23 06:01:08 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: to be fair, you have less than a quarter of the hashrate.
647 2012-10-23 06:01:18 <DrHaribo> I need help getting enough donations to pay for a few servers, sure
648 2012-10-23 06:01:39 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
649 2012-10-23 06:02:17 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: not when stress testing with GPUMAX months ago
650 2012-10-23 06:02:18 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: ah, it keeps throwing it away because it's the old block. ..awesome.
651 2012-10-23 06:02:26 leotreasure has joined
652 2012-10-23 06:04:11 <Luke-Jr> hmm
653 2012-10-23 06:04:26 <Luke-Jr> the older miners had another bug too that might work to effectively bypass this problem
654 2012-10-23 06:04:35 <Luke-Jr> but it would be semi-antisocial too
655 2012-10-23 06:04:43 <gmaxwell> give them a fake new block?
656 2012-10-23 06:04:48 <Luke-Jr> yes and no
657 2012-10-23 06:05:01 <Luke-Jr> they considered the block version to be part of the prevblock header ⦠;)
658 2012-10-23 06:05:31 <gmaxwell> hm. well at the moment, you could do the old version without any major harm except lowering the vote count.
659 2012-10-23 06:05:43 <gmaxwell> Which doesn't harm anything unless we're near the threshold.
660 2012-10-23 06:05:56 <Luke-Jr> or a newer version and risk alerting 0.7.x clients
661 2012-10-23 06:06:05 <gmaxwell> yea, I don't think oging to a new version is a good idea.
662 2012-10-23 06:06:06 <Luke-Jr> but at the same time
663 2012-10-23 06:06:17 <gmaxwell> but there is no harm in every other repeated getwork giving version 0.
664 2012-10-23 06:06:27 <Luke-Jr> using this hack requires being very careful or you'll escalate the problem
665 2012-10-23 06:06:35 <sipa> BlueMatt: why the ...? in gitian it builds
666 2012-10-23 06:06:46 <gmaxwell> understating your support for height in coinbase is harmless I think.
667 2012-10-23 06:07:01 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: yea, you'll trigger it.. hm I wonder if someone isn't already doing that.
668 2012-10-23 06:07:02 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: until we cross the threshold, and then you lose the blocks
669 2012-10-23 06:07:35 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: e.g. loadbalancing a v0 and a newer pool...
670 2012-10-23 06:07:36 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: even if they don't do it, some using v1 and some using v2 will trigger it :/
671 2012-10-23 06:07:52 <Luke-Jr> and for that case, you'd have to use v3
672 2012-10-23 06:08:00 <gmaxwell> uugh. yea. no.
673 2012-10-23 06:08:09 word has joined
674 2012-10-23 06:08:24 <gmaxwell> DrHaribo: if you don't want to up fees on miners that are costing you more to support, perhaps delay their payouts?
675 2012-10-23 06:08:35 <Luke-Jr> but in reality, there are STILL cases that cause pool flooding besides this, just rarer weirder ones :/
676 2012-10-23 06:08:36 <gmaxwell> these people are costing you, and they're making you cost everyone.
677 2012-10-23 06:08:43 <Luke-Jr> which the hack won't help
678 2012-10-23 06:10:03 <DrHaribo> yeah, I suppose it's something to consider
679 2012-10-23 06:10:51 <gmaxwell> DrHaribo: presumably your pool reports stales?
680 2012-10-23 06:11:41 <gmaxwell> and people already recognize stales as a problem with miners? you could report artifically high stales for those users with a link to an explination.
681 2012-10-23 06:12:07 <gmaxwell> but unless those users are most of your pool, I suspect you have multiple issues.
682 2012-10-23 06:12:49 <DrHaribo> 204505 and 204512 were made by the same user
683 2012-10-23 06:12:50 <Luke-Jr> yeah, you could send "broken miner" as reject reasons for good shares 8/10 times I think
684 2012-10-23 06:13:02 <DrHaribo> he also made a block a couple days ago
685 2012-10-23 06:13:10 <DrHaribo> he has no email address registered
686 2012-10-23 06:13:30 <DrHaribo> (I contacted some miners by email and got them to upgrade)
687 2012-10-23 06:14:12 <DrHaribo> yeah, I have been considering sending messages through the reject message mechanism
688 2012-10-23 06:15:09 andyrossy has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
689 2012-10-23 06:15:23 <gmaxwell> it's probably too much coding. ... but you could totally stop paying them and queue their payments, until they log into the webpage to release them.. and that would let you display a message.
690 2012-10-23 06:15:24 andyrossy has joined
691 2012-10-23 06:15:32 <DrHaribo> I am trying to get stuff ready for ASICs.. I'm testing var diff now and next I want to add GBT
692 2012-10-23 06:15:45 <DrHaribo> I didn't want to get bogged down by this, I already spent too much time on it
693 2012-10-23 06:17:04 Turing_i has quit (Quit: Leaving)
694 2012-10-23 06:18:31 <DrHaribo> I would like to put some "upgrade your miner" message in the reject messages though.. can always be useful in the future too
695 2012-10-23 06:21:57 tucenaber has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
696 2012-10-23 06:22:47 abrkn has joined
697 2012-10-23 06:30:49 conman has joined
698 2012-10-23 06:31:36 tucenaber has joined
699 2012-10-23 06:34:48 dhave has joined
700 2012-10-23 06:34:57 umop3plsdn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
701 2012-10-23 06:34:57 one_zero has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
702 2012-10-23 06:35:37 one_zero has joined
703 2012-10-23 06:36:16 word has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
704 2012-10-23 06:40:45 Raccoon` has joined
705 2012-10-23 06:42:24 agricocb has joined
706 2012-10-23 06:42:56 Raccoon has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
707 2012-10-23 06:42:56 Raccoon` is now known as Raccoon
708 2012-10-23 06:47:04 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
709 2012-10-23 06:47:21 Arnavion has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
710 2012-10-23 06:48:01 <MC1984> why dont dupe txns get relayed again?
711 2012-10-23 06:48:14 CodesInChaos has joined
712 2012-10-23 06:48:47 leotreasure has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
713 2012-10-23 06:49:13 <MC1984> are unconfirmed txn only so trivially double spendable because basic things are not done to atleast alert to the fact?
714 2012-10-23 06:49:32 <Diablo-D3> I dont understand
715 2012-10-23 06:50:18 <MC1984> like relaying dupe txnx so that your mark will probably hear about your attempted theft
716 2012-10-23 06:50:38 <MC1984> or some simple check for this locktime months in the future thing, whatever the fuck that is
717 2012-10-23 06:51:32 <MC1984> is it that while 6 conf remains and always will be the gold standard, stugg could be done to make zero conf much less risky?
718 2012-10-23 06:52:32 xisalty_ has joined
719 2012-10-23 06:54:15 root2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
720 2012-10-23 06:54:33 root2 has joined
721 2012-10-23 06:55:41 Arnavion has joined
722 2012-10-23 06:55:41 xisalty has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
723 2012-10-23 06:56:26 leotreasure has joined
724 2012-10-23 06:56:43 RazielZ has joined
725 2012-10-23 06:57:25 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
726 2012-10-23 06:58:11 leotreasure has joined
727 2012-10-23 07:01:15 xisalty__ has joined
728 2012-10-23 07:04:08 xisalty_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
729 2012-10-23 07:16:33 xisalty_ has joined
730 2012-10-23 07:20:23 xisalty__ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
731 2012-10-23 07:22:09 xisalty_ is now known as xisalty
732 2012-10-23 07:23:35 PK has joined
733 2012-10-23 07:26:47 NaruFGT has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
734 2012-10-23 07:26:59 Guest71513 has joined
735 2012-10-23 07:27:12 galambo_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
736 2012-10-23 07:27:44 Guest71513 is now known as NaruFGT
737 2012-10-23 07:28:06 <gmaxwell> as usual, the latest atlas thread is picking up not crazy users too. ::sigh:: I've posted a response which I think will at least give some food for thought: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119885.msg1291680#msg1291680
738 2012-10-23 07:39:39 <_dr> how do people even come up with these ideas?
739 2012-10-23 07:47:59 Karmaon_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
740 2012-10-23 07:48:08 slush1 has joined
741 2012-10-23 07:48:10 Karmaon has joined
742 2012-10-23 07:49:58 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
743 2012-10-23 07:51:41 Impaler has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
744 2012-10-23 07:55:01 nibo has joined
745 2012-10-23 07:55:32 ahbritto has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
746 2012-10-23 07:55:50 xisalty_ has joined
747 2012-10-23 07:56:41 ahbritto has joined
748 2012-10-23 07:56:44 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: SLEEP MODE. puppy: it'd be wise to actual chat on here and not loiter.)
749 2012-10-23 07:56:47 xisalty has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
750 2012-10-23 07:57:30 deedeedeedee has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
751 2012-10-23 07:59:55 xisalty has joined
752 2012-10-23 08:00:14 xisalty has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
753 2012-10-23 08:00:27 xisalty has joined
754 2012-10-23 08:01:20 xisalty_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
755 2012-10-23 08:05:53 xisalty has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
756 2012-10-23 08:08:38 iddo has quit (Changing host)
757 2012-10-23 08:08:38 iddo has joined
758 2012-10-23 08:13:42 t7 has joined
759 2012-10-23 08:16:04 nibo has quit (Quit: Lämnar)
760 2012-10-23 08:17:32 nibo has joined
761 2012-10-23 08:20:14 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
762 2012-10-23 08:23:23 xisalty has joined
763 2012-10-23 08:25:22 toffoo has quit ()
764 2012-10-23 08:28:17 <zveda> gmaxwell: are you atlas' arch nemesis?
765 2012-10-23 08:31:28 Joric has joined
766 2012-10-23 08:36:23 <zveda> looks like he submitted
767 2012-10-23 08:44:42 <sipa> how so?
768 2012-10-23 08:45:42 <sipa> oh, i see... his account must have been hacked!
769 2012-10-23 08:53:13 leotreasure has quit (Quit: leotreasure)
770 2012-10-23 08:56:52 xorgate has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
771 2012-10-23 08:57:51 xorgate has joined
772 2012-10-23 09:02:26 xisalty has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
773 2012-10-23 09:03:26 <sturles> Wow! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119885.msg1291740#msg1291740
774 2012-10-23 09:03:49 <sturles> Oh, I'm late..
775 2012-10-23 09:04:11 slush has joined
776 2012-10-23 09:05:09 Dagger2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
777 2012-10-23 09:05:17 Dagger2 has joined
778 2012-10-23 09:06:15 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
779 2012-10-23 09:06:17 <Joric> whoa Atlas's ignore label went gold
780 2012-10-23 09:06:57 CrazyMF has joined
781 2012-10-23 09:34:42 xorgate has quit (Quit: Take it easy)
782 2012-10-23 09:35:42 <MC1984> I will not questions things any further. I submit. I am gone.
783 2012-10-23 09:35:48 <MC1984> i will eat a golfball if true
784 2012-10-23 09:37:08 xorgate has joined
785 2012-10-23 09:38:54 BGL has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
786 2012-10-23 09:40:47 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
787 2012-10-23 09:47:11 devrandom has joined
788 2012-10-23 09:48:45 CodesInChaos has joined
789 2012-10-23 09:50:42 OlaHughson has joined
790 2012-10-23 09:54:59 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
791 2012-10-23 09:55:07 sneak has joined
792 2012-10-23 09:55:07 sneak has quit (Changing host)
793 2012-10-23 09:55:07 sneak has joined
794 2012-10-23 09:57:54 aq83 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
795 2012-10-23 09:58:16 <NaruFGT> Just out of curiousity, which bitcoin wallet software/site do the developers in #bitcoin-dev trust?
796 2012-10-23 09:58:27 davout has joined
797 2012-10-23 09:58:27 davout has quit (Changing host)
798 2012-10-23 09:58:27 davout has joined
799 2012-10-23 10:00:10 Dazarrr has joined
800 2012-10-23 10:00:15 <t7> none
801 2012-10-23 10:03:33 Dazarrr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
802 2012-10-23 10:07:04 aq83 has joined
803 2012-10-23 10:07:34 Dazarrr has joined
804 2012-10-23 10:12:17 <sipa> NaruFGT: obviously the software we develop :)
805 2012-10-23 10:13:42 deedeedeedee has joined
806 2012-10-23 10:14:47 Dazarrr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
807 2012-10-23 10:17:08 BGL has joined
808 2012-10-23 10:20:07 slush1 has joined
809 2012-10-23 10:21:37 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
810 2012-10-23 10:22:52 keshav has joined
811 2012-10-23 10:28:41 <keshav> I am trying to create a php based website and fetch data from ecoinpool and couchdb can anyone please tell me how to find out the current hash rate
812 2012-10-23 10:30:22 <t7> i dont even trust the official client
813 2012-10-23 10:30:29 <t7> i havnt got time to read every line of code
814 2012-10-23 10:30:44 <t7> and i still might miss something nefarious
815 2012-10-23 10:32:36 leotreasure has joined
816 2012-10-23 10:37:00 leotreasure has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
817 2012-10-23 10:37:51 <NaruFGT> @t7: of course, that kindof review is difficult for anybody
818 2012-10-23 10:38:02 aurigae has joined
819 2012-10-23 10:38:05 <NaruFGT> the general idea is that peer review should be sufficient, but yes I'm sceptical as well.
820 2012-10-23 10:38:51 <NaruFGT> I need a hash comfirmation if somebody doesn't mind taking the time: SHA1 (bitcoin-0.7.1-win32-setup.exe) = 1e6fc42dedb44df4bc0f6e84d20e5f83e971f6ea
821 2012-10-23 10:41:39 root2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
822 2012-10-23 10:43:13 Guest10500 has joined
823 2012-10-23 10:44:40 <jurov> NaruFGT yes: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.7.1/SHASUMS.asc/download
824 2012-10-23 10:46:20 <NaruFGT> Thanks! couldn't find them :)
825 2012-10-23 10:47:50 Guest10500 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
826 2012-10-23 10:48:06 Guest10500 has joined
827 2012-10-23 10:50:38 keshav has quit (Quit: Page closed)
828 2012-10-23 10:51:45 <zveda> whats the point of everyone being a full node if nobody reads the whole code
829 2012-10-23 10:52:27 <zveda> how about peer review of transactions then
830 2012-10-23 10:54:09 <t7> zveda: yes. With wax seals on letters delivered by courier
831 2012-10-23 10:54:31 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
832 2012-10-23 10:54:42 <t7> might take a while to buy stuff but no one buys anything with bitcoin these days, its all about hoarding
833 2012-10-23 10:54:47 sneak has joined
834 2012-10-23 10:54:47 sneak has quit (Changing host)
835 2012-10-23 10:54:47 sneak has joined
836 2012-10-23 10:54:58 Ferroh has joined
837 2012-10-23 10:55:15 Guest10500 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
838 2012-10-23 10:55:21 <Ferroh> bitcoind can receive M of N transactions but cannot send them, correct?
839 2012-10-23 10:55:33 Guest10500 has joined
840 2012-10-23 10:55:58 <NaruFGT> @t7: snoop around the OTC, there are alot of purchases going on :P
841 2012-10-23 11:04:36 Joric has quit ()
842 2012-10-23 11:06:23 <sipa> Ferroh: it can send to p2sh multisig addresses, but can not generally spend funds received on such addresses
843 2012-10-23 11:06:52 <sipa> the raw transaction interface can do everything, though
844 2012-10-23 11:07:57 <Ferroh> sipa: I see. So BIP0016 is implemented then, right? Is https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0019 implemented?
845 2012-10-23 11:07:59 <t7> sipa did you guys have any more ideas about sending transactions around without using p2p network?
846 2012-10-23 11:09:54 <sipa> Ferroh: yes
847 2012-10-23 11:10:13 <sipa> oh, 18
848 2012-10-23 11:10:21 <Ferroh> yes, both are implemented?
849 2012-10-23 11:11:03 leotreasure has joined
850 2012-10-23 11:11:10 <Ferroh> er, bip 18 is implemented...?
851 2012-10-23 11:11:16 <sipa> wait
852 2012-10-23 11:11:24 <sipa> bip16 is implemented
853 2012-10-23 11:11:28 <Ferroh> ok
854 2012-10-23 11:11:30 <Ferroh> and BIP 19?
855 2012-10-23 11:11:49 <sipa> bip19 does not specify anything new
856 2012-10-23 11:12:16 <sipa> it just suggests using a particular script as standard multisig trandaction
857 2012-10-23 11:12:37 <sipa> it's not considered standard by the reference client, but it is valid
858 2012-10-23 11:12:56 <Ferroh> I see, okay thanks :)
859 2012-10-23 11:13:10 <sipa> t7: elaborate?
860 2012-10-23 11:14:02 <t7> i remember you saying that transactions should be sent over email or something, then verified on the blockchain
861 2012-10-23 11:14:10 <t7> maybe im getting the wrong end of the stick
862 2012-10-23 11:14:49 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
863 2012-10-23 11:15:34 leotreasure has joined
864 2012-10-23 11:17:53 Karmaon_ has joined
865 2012-10-23 11:17:53 Karmaon_ has quit (Changing host)
866 2012-10-23 11:17:53 Karmaon_ has joined
867 2012-10-23 11:19:00 <NaruFGT> @t7: transactions can be sent over email, or over regular mail, they just need to be interpereted by some client of sorts.
868 2012-10-23 11:19:37 <NaruFGT> And until they are interpereted and written into the block chain, they can be invalidated by a double-spend.
869 2012-10-23 11:20:00 <NaruFGT> at least that's the way I understand it
870 2012-10-23 11:20:52 <Ferroh> sipa: do we know when spending from multisig addresses is planned to be added? Currently we can't use M of N at all, since we can't spend from multisig addresses, right?
871 2012-10-23 11:21:01 <sipa> Ferroh: use the raw transaction API
872 2012-10-23 11:22:11 Karmaon has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
873 2012-10-23 11:22:22 <Ferroh> wait, you mean the bitcoind API can do M of N transactions now?
874 2012-10-23 11:23:04 <Ferroh> oh, no, you can do it using the _raw_ API
875 2012-10-23 11:23:42 <Ferroh> which I have never used. So there is essentially no "easy" way to use M of N yet, correct?
876 2012-10-23 11:24:39 <sipa> no, it's somewhat intended for third-party applications
877 2012-10-23 11:25:04 <sipa> complex transactions are much harder to consider "received money", especially if you're not the only one who can spend it
878 2012-10-23 11:25:32 <sipa> and many of the more interesting applications require some interaction with the sender or other participators
879 2012-10-23 11:27:42 <Ferroh> that makes sense
880 2012-10-23 11:28:12 <Ferroh> what I dont understand,
881 2012-10-23 11:28:26 <Ferroh> is that you said that you can send funds to a multisig address, but can't spend from that address
882 2012-10-23 11:28:33 <Ferroh> do you just mean that you can't do that in the UI?
883 2012-10-23 11:28:48 <Ferroh> You can do this by using the raw transaction API, right?
884 2012-10-23 11:36:53 aurigae has left ()
885 2012-10-23 11:38:02 <sipa> sending to a P2SH multisig address works in the GUI and in the normal sending RPCs
886 2012-10-23 11:38:20 <sipa> consuming such funds requires the raw transaction API
887 2012-10-23 11:39:43 BGL has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
888 2012-10-23 11:40:47 robocoin has joined
889 2012-10-23 11:41:04 <zveda> but why is peer review good enough for bitcoin-qt code but not good enough for the blockchain
890 2012-10-23 11:41:19 <zveda> suppose everybody verifies random portion of transactions
891 2012-10-23 11:41:40 <sipa> zveda: because for source code, peer review (and automated tests, deterministic builds, ...) is the best we can do
892 2012-10-23 11:41:42 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
893 2012-10-23 11:42:05 <zveda> true but if that's the weakest link in the chain, why make the other links stronger
894 2012-10-23 11:42:39 <sipa> you're talking about a different level
895 2012-10-23 11:42:58 <sipa> well bitcoin is a consensus system - we agree to follow some rules, have software that verifies it for us, and all we have to do is be sure that the software actually follows those rules
896 2012-10-23 11:43:36 <zveda> hm ok
897 2012-10-23 11:43:48 <sipa> humans can't do crypto, you know
898 2012-10-23 11:43:52 <zveda> yeh I guess it's different
899 2012-10-23 11:47:26 nsh has joined
900 2012-10-23 11:47:55 t7 has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.89-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.0.17/2009122204])
901 2012-10-23 11:47:58 <NaruFGT> Humans can do crypto, even primative public/private keys can be done on paper :P
902 2012-10-23 11:48:13 <NaruFGT> symetric keys are very easy to do on paper.
903 2012-10-23 11:48:21 leotreasure has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
904 2012-10-23 11:48:37 variousnefarious has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
905 2012-10-23 11:48:45 variousnefarious has joined
906 2012-10-23 11:48:49 <sipa> doing an ECDSA verification would take me hours, if not days
907 2012-10-23 11:49:36 <NaruFGT> yes but doing a very very small RSA key would only be a few hours or even a few minutes
908 2012-10-23 11:50:41 <NaruFGT> and we do checksums soo seamlessly that we don't even realize we're doing it.
909 2012-10-23 11:51:04 <_dr> true
910 2012-10-23 11:51:04 <NaruFGT> When you 'recognize' somebody's face or their voice, that's a checksum.
911 2012-10-23 11:51:10 <sipa> sure, but small-key RSA that doesn't provide any security, in a world where massive electronic computing power is available
912 2012-10-23 11:51:42 <_dr> when i'm entering my bank account number i always suffix it with its sha256 hash to make sure i entered it correctly into my online banking form
913 2012-10-23 11:52:13 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
914 2012-10-23 11:52:34 <_dr> NaruFGT: actually that's what grandfather neurons are for, our brain doesn't implement it using checksums
915 2012-10-23 11:52:40 <NaruFGT> I wonder if there are examples of real asymetric signatures that we use intuatively
916 2012-10-23 11:53:07 <sipa> ok, assume w estart doing that
917 2012-10-23 11:53:19 <NaruFGT> no... assume we already do that
918 2012-10-23 11:53:34 <sipa> at some point, people will start writing software to do the crypto for them, as they trust their own code, and computers are way faster at doing crypto
919 2012-10-23 11:53:35 <_dr> not in the strict mathematical sense
920 2012-10-23 11:53:37 <NaruFGT> and look for elements of our interactions that suggest we do so
921 2012-10-23 11:53:51 <sipa> i'm talking about doing manual blockchain verification
922 2012-10-23 11:54:00 <NaruFGT> Ohh that
923 2012-10-23 11:54:11 <NaruFGT> that's why we have development teams, lol.
924 2012-10-23 11:54:16 <NaruFGT> that's what this is for
925 2012-10-23 11:55:04 <NaruFGT> and as long as multiple implementations exist (not just forks of one project) the network should be fairly trustworthy
926 2012-10-23 11:57:31 slush has joined
927 2012-10-23 11:57:40 <sipa> i wish there were multiple fully-validating node implementations that were used in production, but it's exceedingly hard to validate whether they all work identically in every case
928 2012-10-23 11:57:51 <NaruFGT> If you can trust the routines you've written, and you trust the platform it's being run on, then that's the closest thing to manually verifying the blockchain you can get I would think.
929 2012-10-23 11:57:57 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
930 2012-10-23 11:58:37 <sipa> and the problem with consensus systems such as bitcoin, is that following the same rules is more important than the rules themselves in many cases
931 2012-10-23 11:59:01 <NaruFGT> Well there are enough nodes that have the core functionality that I don't understand why it's important, the protocol is fault tolerant.
932 2012-10-23 11:59:32 <sipa> ok, imagine someone writes a full node, publishes it, and people start mining on it
933 2012-10-23 11:59:43 Apexseals has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
934 2012-10-23 11:59:50 <sipa> however, he never realized that the original node software does not allow the genesis block output to be spent
935 2012-10-23 11:59:53 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
936 2012-10-23 12:00:12 <sipa> at some point, around 50% is using original code, the other half uses this new software
937 2012-10-23 12:00:35 <sipa> now satoshi pops up, and spends the genesis block output
938 2012-10-23 12:00:45 <NaruFGT> as long as there is a client used for the majority of all transactions, protocol mis-implementations are a threat, and can manipulate (whether on purpose or by mistake) the functionality
939 2012-10-23 12:01:01 <sipa> at this point, the network splits in two
940 2012-10-23 12:01:09 <sipa> one which accepts the spend, one that doesn't
941 2012-10-23 12:01:14 <NaruFGT> but hopefully with time we have enough diversity that there is no majority.
942 2012-10-23 12:01:32 leotreasure has joined
943 2012-10-23 12:01:37 <sipa> the same problem exist with 3 implementation that all have around 33%
944 2012-10-23 12:01:46 <NaruFGT> and yes, that would be a temporary problem, an implementation bug causing denial of service.
945 2012-10-23 12:01:55 <sipa> not denial of service
946 2012-10-23 12:01:56 <sipa> theft
947 2012-10-23 12:02:17 <sipa> every coin that existed in the chain before the split can be spent within each fork once
948 2012-10-23 12:02:28 <sipa> and the forks won't know about this about eachother
949 2012-10-23 12:03:04 <sipa> the bottom line is that to participate in the same, you have to agree to follow its rules *exactly*
950 2012-10-23 12:03:04 <NaruFGT> eventually one of the branches would die
951 2012-10-23 12:03:14 <sipa> a lot of damage can be done by then
952 2012-10-23 12:03:42 <NaruFGT> I mean implementation differences resolve with IRL consensus, people change which client they use to reflect their views on the issue.
953 2012-10-23 12:03:42 <sipa> that's somewhat of a worst-case scenario for me, and i think it would instantly kill the economic value
954 2012-10-23 12:04:00 <sipa> there is no 'views', the network rules are not a democracy
955 2012-10-23 12:04:06 <NaruFGT> they are though.
956 2012-10-23 12:04:14 <sipa> no, they're not!
957 2012-10-23 12:04:21 <sipa> the only thing mining is about, is deciding which *valid* chain wins
958 2012-10-23 12:04:35 graingert_ecs has joined
959 2012-10-23 12:04:38 <sipa> but which chain is considered valid is never voted upon
960 2012-10-23 12:04:42 <NaruFGT> and a change in protocol would result in a fork in the chain
961 2012-10-23 12:04:56 <sipa> yes, that's why changing the protocol cannot be done (unless *everyone* agrees)
962 2012-10-23 12:05:04 <NaruFGT> unless the majority agree
963 2012-10-23 12:05:06 <sipa> NO
964 2012-10-23 12:05:08 <sipa> NO
965 2012-10-23 12:05:08 <sipa> NO
966 2012-10-23 12:05:48 <sipa> i just gave you an example: one minor difference in validity of a chain will result in a chain split, with coins being double spent
967 2012-10-23 12:05:56 <NaruFGT> ok.. unless the majority of clients implement the protocol in that manor?
968 2012-10-23 12:06:00 <sipa> NO
969 2012-10-23 12:06:17 leotreasure has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
970 2012-10-23 12:06:19 <sipa> to change the validity rules, *everyone* has to agree, not just a majority
971 2012-10-23 12:06:22 <NaruFGT> Yeah and in the short term, that example leads to a fork in the block chain.
972 2012-10-23 12:07:22 <sipa> bitcoin is a combination of two systems: one part that keeps track of a block of trees, which are fully validated by every full node by every client - no discussion - a chain is valid or it isn't, and everyone agrees about this
973 2012-10-23 12:08:11 <NaruFGT> I could change my client to not 'agree' that a block is valid
974 2012-10-23 12:08:37 <NaruFGT> and it won't result in a permanant branch in the network
975 2012-10-23 12:08:46 <NaruFGT> even if I run it on 1000 machines
976 2012-10-23 12:08:46 <sipa> if you mine, it will
977 2012-10-23 12:08:58 <sipa> you'll start living in your own world
978 2012-10-23 12:09:19 <sipa> as soon as the world creates a block you don't agree with
979 2012-10-23 12:09:22 <NaruFGT> if the other miners acknowledge my blocks as valid...
980 2012-10-23 12:09:28 <sipa> not enough
981 2012-10-23 12:09:30 galambo has joined
982 2012-10-23 12:09:34 rdponticelli has joined
983 2012-10-23 12:09:39 <NaruFGT> then there's a problem with their implementation
984 2012-10-23 12:09:46 <sipa> if they have more hashpower, and you disagree with a block of them, your client wil ignore every block they create
985 2012-10-23 12:10:04 <sipa> and you build upon the last block your node considered valid
986 2012-10-23 12:10:19 <sipa> but you'll never outpace the rest of the world if they have more hashpower
987 2012-10-23 12:10:20 <Luke-Jr> sipa: but if all the miners disagree with you, you are left vulnerable to attacks
988 2012-10-23 12:10:43 <NaruFGT> and the coins I have generated won't be recognized by people outside of my view of the world
989 2012-10-23 12:10:48 <Luke-Jr> well, I guess if the economic majority disagrees with the miners, that risk is reduced
990 2012-10-23 12:11:29 <NaruFGT> and thus I'll have to patch my client or implementation to behave as the rest of the world does to actually use the network
991 2012-10-23 12:11:42 <sipa> simplified: the only thing miners vote about is which *valid* transactions end up in the chain and when - they cannot vote about which transactions are valid
992 2012-10-23 12:12:11 leotreasure has joined
993 2012-10-23 12:12:14 <NaruFGT> they can ignore transactions, that's sortof deeming them not valid, dos
994 2012-10-23 12:12:29 <sipa> they can, that boils down to delaying indefinitely, and that is possible
995 2012-10-23 12:12:49 <sipa> but when another miner puts a valid transaction in the chain, you have to accept it
996 2012-10-23 12:12:55 <NaruFGT> and that's the fork that you described about genesis spending vs not spending the genesis block
997 2012-10-23 12:13:23 <sipa> depends whether you're talking about not accepting into the memory pool, or not accepting when already mined into a block
998 2012-10-23 12:13:33 <sipa> the first is possible, the second isn't (without hard fork risk)
999 2012-10-23 12:13:35 <NaruFGT> and there is no 50/50, there will be a majority of clients implementing or not implementing the spending of those blocks
1000 2012-10-23 12:14:44 <NaruFGT> also there are other forms of denial of service, a merchant can refuse to acknowledge coins from a certain block.
1001 2012-10-23 12:14:58 <NaruFGT> maybe even send it to a btc address that doesn't exist/has no private key
1002 2012-10-23 12:15:14 <sipa> well that'd be stupid :)
1003 2012-10-23 12:15:35 <NaruFGT> it'd be a simple way for a majority of merchants to say "I don't care what you say, this isn't real money"
1004 2012-10-23 12:15:52 <NaruFGT> and if most of the merchants agree, they will disregard that as normal behavior
1005 2012-10-23 12:16:23 leotreasure has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1006 2012-10-23 12:17:22 leotreasure has joined
1007 2012-10-23 12:18:01 <NaruFGT> Seeing how in real life, racism, classful population division, and xenophobia can drive people to do "stupid" things, I can imagine it happening in bitcoin.
1008 2012-10-23 12:18:21 <NaruFGT> "I don't like you and your money is no good here" isn't a new idea.
1009 2012-10-23 12:22:00 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1010 2012-10-23 12:22:01 one_zero has quit ()
1011 2012-10-23 12:27:37 <asciilifeform> NaruFGT: "take your money elsewhere" isn't a bug, it's a feature. (Potentially.) See "Shitcoin": http://www.loper-os.org/?p=988
1012 2012-10-23 12:27:55 nibo has quit (Quit: Lämnar)
1013 2012-10-23 12:29:43 nibo has joined
1014 2012-10-23 12:31:38 <NaruFGT> Of course it's a feature, there are no such things as bugs ;)
1015 2012-10-23 12:32:11 BGL has joined
1016 2012-10-23 12:33:23 <NaruFGT> but I still think it's a cool idea to simply delete (send the coins to a non-existant address, or with some mathematical proof, an address that is proven to have no private key[is that possible?]) the coins. Sortof like burning USD only unlike USD, there is no re-issue or replacement, just more deflation :)
1017 2012-10-23 12:34:10 CrazyMF has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1018 2012-10-23 12:34:17 nibo has quit (Client Quit)
1019 2012-10-23 12:34:40 nibo has joined
1020 2012-10-23 12:38:02 harkon has joined
1021 2012-10-23 12:39:56 <asciilifeform> NaruFGT: that one's easy. Just wipe your wallet.
1022 2012-10-23 12:40:14 <sipa> it's not much a statement if you can't proof you've deleted it :)
1023 2012-10-23 12:40:30 <NaruFGT> If you can prove there is no private key, it'd mean a whole lot
1024 2012-10-23 12:40:39 <conman> no way of doing that
1025 2012-10-23 12:40:40 <NaruFGT> I'm actually really interested in finding such a proof
1026 2012-10-23 12:41:03 <sipa> you can create a transaction with txout script OP_FALSE
1027 2012-10-23 12:41:07 <NaruFGT> I won't be convinced it's impossible until I see a proof that every btc address has an associated private key ;)
1028 2012-10-23 12:41:09 <sipa> that's guaranteed to be lost
1029 2012-10-23 12:41:20 <NaruFGT> oh?
1030 2012-10-23 12:41:46 <sipa> it's not a standard script, so it may not be accepted by any miner or easily relayed through the network
1031 2012-10-23 12:41:49 <sipa> but it's certainly valid
1032 2012-10-23 12:42:45 Hasimir is now known as Hasimir_
1033 2012-10-23 12:42:50 nibo has quit (Quit: Lämnar)
1034 2012-10-23 12:42:52 <NaruFGT> and it's verifyable that the script was performed?
1035 2012-10-23 12:43:05 ibno has joined
1036 2012-10-23 12:43:09 <sipa> if you could perform it, it would be spent
1037 2012-10-23 12:43:18 Hasimir_ is now known as Hasimir__
1038 2012-10-23 12:43:27 Hasimir__ is now known as Hasimir
1039 2012-10-23 12:43:34 <sipa> you can prove that no input exists that makes OP_FALSE return true - trivially
1040 2012-10-23 12:44:27 <NaruFGT> I'm not familiar with how the inputs and outputs work with the scripts o: I'll have to do more reading
1041 2012-10-23 12:44:34 ibno has quit (Client Quit)
1042 2012-10-23 12:44:55 ibno has joined
1043 2012-10-23 12:45:02 <sipa> outputs contain a script; inputs contain data that makes the output they spend evaluate to true
1044 2012-10-23 12:45:23 optimator has joined
1045 2012-10-23 12:45:23 optimator has quit (Changing host)
1046 2012-10-23 12:45:23 optimator has joined
1047 2012-10-23 12:45:42 Eslbaer has joined
1048 2012-10-23 12:45:49 <sipa> when you do a send to btc address X, it will create a script that says "take as input a signature S and a public key P, and check that S is a valid signature from P, and that the hash of P is X"
1049 2012-10-23 12:46:41 optimator_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1050 2012-10-23 12:48:38 <NaruFGT> So deleting coins is possible
1051 2012-10-23 12:48:41 <NaruFGT> that's really kindof neat
1052 2012-10-23 12:49:23 <NaruFGT> although can brute force find (even with nearly 0 probability) another script that will evaluate true?
1053 2012-10-23 12:49:46 <sipa> if the script is OP_FALSE, it will unconditionally always return false
1054 2012-10-23 12:49:55 <sipa> there's no way to make OP_FALSE not return false
1055 2012-10-23 12:50:09 <sipa> there's not cryptography involved at all
1056 2012-10-23 12:50:21 <NaruFGT> that's hash collision
1057 2012-10-23 12:50:44 <sipa> ??? there's no hash involved
1058 2012-10-23 12:51:11 <sipa> OP_FALSE is defined as "return false"
1059 2012-10-23 12:51:15 <NaruFGT> I thought scripts...?
1060 2012-10-23 12:51:45 <sipa> if the script is "return false", tell me which input to that script will make it return true
1061 2012-10-23 12:52:23 <NaruFGT> What are the script hashes then?
1062 2012-10-23 12:52:36 <NaruFGT> I'm feeling more and more naiive
1063 2012-10-23 12:52:38 <sipa> are you talking about P2SH?
1064 2012-10-23 12:53:06 <zveda> address is a hash of the public key
1065 2012-10-23 12:53:30 <sipa> an address is a shorthand for a script
1066 2012-10-23 12:53:37 <NaruFGT> the hashes that begin with 5
1067 2012-10-23 12:53:50 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1068 2012-10-23 12:53:57 <sipa> i think you need to understand more before we dive into that :)
1069 2012-10-23 12:54:21 <NaruFGT> yeah I agree >_<
1070 2012-10-23 12:54:40 <zveda> I remember Mike Hearn talking about parallelizing the blockchain checking
1071 2012-10-23 12:54:45 <zveda> are people still talking about that?
1072 2012-10-23 12:55:12 <sipa> i already implemented that, but there were some bugs, so it's delayed for now
1073 2012-10-23 12:55:28 <zveda> oo
1074 2012-10-23 12:55:30 <NaruFGT> making a non-protocol service for blockchain checking would be a fine feature.. for the non-official clients.
1075 2012-10-23 12:56:03 sipa has left ()
1076 2012-10-23 12:56:08 <NaruFGT> lol I'm going to shut up since I don't know what I'm talking about
1077 2012-10-23 12:56:17 <zveda> so in your implementation.. how does it work. I can have many machines that each check part of the blockchain ?
1078 2012-10-23 12:57:34 <zveda> would be nice if I could prove that I checked a bunch of transactions..
1079 2012-10-23 13:02:02 leotreasure has quit (Quit: leotreasure)
1080 2012-10-23 13:03:51 gavinandresen has joined
1081 2012-10-23 13:07:57 dparrish has joined
1082 2012-10-23 13:10:08 kuldeepdhaka has joined
1083 2012-10-23 13:11:15 Bramz has joined
1084 2012-10-23 13:11:25 Bramz has left ()
1085 2012-10-23 13:11:39 <kuldeepdhaka> help: im a php developer, i want to create a exchange for indian currency, im new to bitcoin
1086 2012-10-23 13:12:03 agricocb has joined
1087 2012-10-23 13:12:28 slush1 has joined
1088 2012-10-23 13:13:53 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1089 2012-10-23 13:15:17 <_dr> can someone enlighten me about this magic number: MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/50?
1090 2012-10-23 13:17:56 kuldeepdhaka has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1091 2012-10-23 13:18:07 spreelanka has joined
1092 2012-10-23 13:26:01 conman has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1093 2012-10-23 13:37:49 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
1094 2012-10-23 13:38:09 ovidiusoft has joined
1095 2012-10-23 13:49:47 dvide has joined
1096 2012-10-23 14:00:21 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1097 2012-10-23 14:03:58 dhave is now known as umop3plsdn
1098 2012-10-23 14:05:00 slush has joined
1099 2012-10-23 14:06:12 freakazoid has joined
1100 2012-10-23 14:17:47 graingert_ecs has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1101 2012-10-23 14:20:40 copumpkin has joined
1102 2012-10-23 14:21:36 <gavinandresen> _dr : that says a block cannot contain more than 1000000/50 == 20,000 ECDSA signature-checking operations
1103 2012-10-23 14:25:26 drizztbsd has joined
1104 2012-10-23 14:29:49 Guest10500 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1105 2012-10-23 14:29:55 emryss has joined
1106 2012-10-23 14:30:02 Silverion has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1107 2012-10-23 14:30:25 root2 has joined
1108 2012-10-23 14:35:58 paraipan has joined
1109 2012-10-23 14:36:33 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1110 2012-10-23 14:39:02 emryss has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1111 2012-10-23 14:43:28 abrkn has joined
1112 2012-10-23 14:44:08 <gmaxwell> NaruFGT: You might find this rant I wrote about the 'majority' beliefs informative https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61922.msg723476#msg723476 certantly if 'all' the users agreed to run bitcoin2 instead of bitcoin then that would be that; but _within_ the system the rules are not defined by a majority and certantly not a simple majority.
1113 2012-10-23 14:45:33 <NaruFGT> Oh?
1114 2012-10-23 14:45:36 PK has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1115 2012-10-23 14:45:51 <helo> what's the "accepted" translation of hashes/sec to flops?
1116 2012-10-23 14:46:36 <helo> (for penis length comparisons between the top500 list and the bitcoin network)
1117 2012-10-23 14:47:43 <upb> the factor could be 0, 1 or infinite
1118 2012-10-23 14:48:28 <helo> i guess down the line if someone is going to do an attack, it is going to be with all asic
1119 2012-10-23 14:48:29 <BlueMatt> there are a few threads, like https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50720.0;all and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=52303.0
1120 2012-10-23 14:48:44 <helo> so we'd have to figure out how many hashes/sec/transistor a good asic will get
1121 2012-10-23 14:48:45 <NaruFGT> "Now it would have been Satoshi's dream to make the entire system work completely like this but sadly Einstein came along and screwed everything up: relativity says that the temporal ordering of events is different for every observer and depends on your mutual locations in spacetime. A decentralized system does not exist in just one place and thus there can be no single constant decentralized
1122 2012-10-23 14:48:45 <NaruFGT> view of the flow of time and ordering of events."
1123 2012-10-23 14:48:52 <helo> and then how many transistors are in the top500 list
1124 2012-10-23 14:49:15 <NaruFGT> I would think the distance to time here, and the latency between transactions would make this irrelevant
1125 2012-10-23 14:49:20 Joric has joined
1126 2012-10-23 14:49:46 <helo> NaruFGT: the principle still holds... there can be no correct order arrived at
1127 2012-10-23 14:49:59 <helo> NaruFGT: no universally verifiable order
1128 2012-10-23 14:50:01 <gmaxwell> NaruFGT: after I wrote that someone directed me to a lovely paper by Leslie Lamport in the 1970s on that subject... I'm kinda bummed that I wasn't the first person to make that physics/distributed systems connection.
1129 2012-10-23 14:50:06 <kjj_> why won't people let the FLOP thing go?
1130 2012-10-23 14:50:17 <helo> kjj_: i just did
1131 2012-10-23 14:50:54 <gmaxwell> NaruFGT: no, because no matter what the latency is, an attacker can arrange their timing so they're right on the boundary for some participants and not others. In pratical systems the vulgarities of real networks create a similar effect without the actual physics coming into play.
1132 2012-10-23 14:52:09 <NaruFGT> lol well until the network exists in vastly different general reletivity contexts' it's trivial right?
1133 2012-10-23 14:52:30 xblitz has joined
1134 2012-10-23 14:52:31 <BlueMatt> kjj_: because its a semi-valid comparison, at least when you phrase it as "if we were actually using flops, assuming most of our power is coming from a standard amd gpu, we would have X flops"
1135 2012-10-23 14:53:17 <kjj_> BlueMatt: except that hashes and FLOPS are apples and chairs.
1136 2012-10-23 14:54:47 <BlueMatt> kjj_: yes, but if you assume that most hashes are from a standard amd gpu you can state that the amount of flop power which could otherwise be used, but is instead pointed at bitcoin is X (assuming no intop/flop multitasking on those gpus, which happens some, but not much)
1137 2012-10-23 14:54:50 drizztbsd has joined
1138 2012-10-23 14:54:50 drizztbsd has quit (Changing host)
1139 2012-10-23 14:54:50 drizztbsd has joined
1140 2012-10-23 14:55:32 <gmaxwell> NaruFGT: huh, noâ it doesn't require relativistic speeds. This works as just a consequence of conventional observers as midly seperated locations. Actual networks just exacerbate it by having non-uniform speeds between users. Believe me, we wouldn't bother with this messy consensus algorithim if we knew a better way to do order that wasn't pratically insecure.
1141 2012-10-23 14:55:52 <BlueMatt> kjj_: and unless you have a better way to compare the total energy draw of bitcoin to the energy draw (and other metrics) of eg f@h...
1142 2012-10-23 14:56:23 <helo> NaruFGT: special relativity concepts come into play whenever there is not an infinitesimal latency between participants
1143 2012-10-23 14:56:24 <gmaxwell> kjj_: but when most of the hashpower is asics then that will be even more nuts. Perhaps better to report MIPS. :P
1144 2012-10-23 14:56:32 <kjj_> BlueMatt: I just don't compare them.
1145 2012-10-23 14:56:49 <BlueMatt> kjj_: but...but...epeen...
1146 2012-10-23 14:57:16 <gavinandresen> Yeah, I don't think comparing hashpower to general-purpose computing power is the right thing to do, either.
1147 2012-10-23 14:57:22 <kjj_> I suppose you could tie it all back to entropy, but still, different processors, different processes
1148 2012-10-23 14:57:25 <gmaxwell> NaruFGT: I just invoked the relativity argument to show that the issue is fundimental, we can't just fix it with faster computers/networks.
1149 2012-10-23 14:57:25 <BlueMatt> yea, when asics become a reasonably fraction of hash power, it all goes out the window
1150 2012-10-23 14:58:07 <gavinandresen> It might be good PR, though. Then again, it might not, because it makes people think about all of that "wasted" electricity.
1151 2012-10-23 14:58:15 <gmaxwell> If you want brag point out our sum difficulty.
1152 2012-10-23 14:58:27 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: yea, Ive seen the "wasted" power argument a lot...
1153 2012-10-23 14:58:38 <gmaxwell> But then again, pointing out that we've done more computations that .. well. anything has the problem gavinandresen just mentioned. :P
1154 2012-10-23 14:58:51 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: Its pretty easily dismantled.
1155 2012-10-23 14:59:55 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: hmm? aside from (invalidly) arguing that intop != flop, it is valid to state that bitcoin uses a large amount of power that would (likely) not have been used for anything given no bitcoin-like system in (popular) existence
1156 2012-10-23 15:00:15 <gmaxwell> (Point out the enormous security costs conventional currencies haveâ especially ones that don't have inherent counterfeiting resistance bitcoin has; mostly people complain about energy when they're thinking of mining as a competition for coins rather than a source of security)
1157 2012-10-23 15:00:16 <BlueMatt> (obviously intop != flop, but for the sake of power cost, its similar(ish))
1158 2012-10-23 15:01:08 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: sure, but given that no bitcoin-like system exists, you are still using electricity that would otherwise have gone unused (or uncreated, or...whatever you call it)
1159 2012-10-23 15:02:07 <gmaxwell> And perhaps the power usage is higher or lower than it should beâ but once you're comparing it to prisons for counterfeiters, currency police, armored cars, money counters, bank vaults.. it's not so obviously inefficient anymore. It's true, it's more energy, but if everyone used it would we be better off energy wise than the alternatives it displaces? The answer is not obviously no at least.
1160 2012-10-23 15:02:38 <BlueMatt> ok, thats fair
1161 2012-10-23 15:03:04 <BlueMatt> so now we should argue the "green" (well gov't cost-savings) aspects of bitcoin as a national/international currency replacement
1162 2012-10-23 15:03:26 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1163 2012-10-23 15:04:04 <BlueMatt> :)
1164 2012-10-23 15:06:56 <gmaxwell> Wellâ thats a bit political for my taste.. at the same time currencies aren't the only thing the bitcoin replaces though. E.g. for people that use it can replaces checks. Or escrow systems for large payments. It can potentially replace deed registration systems (e.g. smart property ideas). I guess it's just an argument appealing to the categorical imperativeâ if everyone uses it it doesn't become bad for the enviroment (in fact it should
1165 2012-10-23 15:08:48 <NaruFGT> wow I never thought of the non-trivial latency's effect on consensus
1166 2012-10-23 15:10:14 optimator_ has joined
1167 2012-10-23 15:11:00 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1168 2012-10-23 15:11:01 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yep
1169 2012-10-23 15:13:32 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1170 2012-10-23 15:13:46 da2ce7_d has joined
1171 2012-10-23 15:15:49 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1172 2012-10-23 15:18:05 <helo> so if there is something in nature that requires distributed consensus, part of the bitcoin proto may be out there already :)
1173 2012-10-23 15:21:19 <gmaxwell> helo: sadly not, the weird thing is that bitcoin isn't fully generalizable. If you decouple the economic incentives it may lose its security.
1174 2012-10-23 15:21:42 drizztbsd has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1175 2012-10-23 15:22:09 <NaruFGT> Incentives are abstract, as long as there is a strong drive it will work
1176 2012-10-23 15:26:16 da2ce7 has joined
1177 2012-10-23 15:26:50 <helo> so each time a new ordering of events is established, (some) participants must get some energy
1178 2012-10-23 15:26:51 Joric has quit ()
1179 2012-10-23 15:28:19 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1180 2012-10-23 15:29:30 <helo> yeah, i can't really see that in nature
1181 2012-10-23 15:30:21 <gmaxwell> helo: right, bitcoin requires establishing ordering to have a _cost_, so we don't have to worry about assigning identities to people, we just take the ordering that has the greatest total expenended cost. Without the cost an attacker could start 10,000 clones and use them to gain control of the ordering.
1182 2012-10-23 15:30:55 asciilifeform has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1183 2012-10-23 15:31:07 <gmaxwell> It's viable in bitcoin becauseâ as a currencyâ we can compensate people for that cost, via txn fees.
1184 2012-10-23 15:31:51 maaku has joined
1185 2012-10-23 15:31:53 <gmaxwell> But e.g. if you wanted to use the bitcoin algorithim to decenteralize wikipedia (to reach a consensus on which version of pages was the current one) it's less obvious to me that it would be secure.
1186 2012-10-23 15:32:27 <BlueMatt> merged mining chains are close to a generalized bitcoin (though they obviously depend on bitcoin itself's security)
1187 2012-10-23 15:32:33 freakazoid has joined
1188 2012-10-23 15:34:47 <gmaxwell> Right. Indeed. Though they still have incentive problems. Why bother merge mining something at all? and if few people do it, then a small number that do can still overpower. Though since they copy times from bitcoin (namecoin doesn't but something else could), I suppose some kinds of attacks could be closed even with small numbers of miners.
1189 2012-10-23 15:38:11 toffoo has joined
1190 2012-10-23 15:39:13 <BlueMatt> yea, you need /some/ miners, but in many systems finding "goodwill" miners isnt hard, you just may not get many of them
1191 2012-10-23 15:40:43 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: It's _really_ easy to mergemine random stuff with p2pool, but generally hard otherwise.
1192 2012-10-23 15:40:47 abracadabra has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1193 2012-10-23 15:41:49 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yea, and (hopefully) p2pool grows and systems like it (or p2pool itself) become the majority of pools
1194 2012-10-23 15:42:00 <BlueMatt> at least distributed pools where you can easily merged-mine your own stuff
1195 2012-10-23 15:43:41 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1196 2012-10-23 15:46:27 abracadabra has joined
1197 2012-10-23 15:46:27 abracadabra has quit (Changing host)
1198 2012-10-23 15:46:27 abracadabra has joined
1199 2012-10-23 15:49:23 <xblitz> anybody familiar with the new CCoinsView ?? I had a fork with some modifications to transactions informations display .. and of course it doesnt work anymore.. how would i do this now: http://pastebin.com/BzHDchwQ
1200 2012-10-23 15:49:29 jgarzik has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1201 2012-10-23 15:53:11 <gmaxwell> xblitz: no longer possible to do reliably in ultraprune.
1202 2012-10-23 15:53:42 <gmaxwell> Unless I misunderstand what you're doing there? I assume this was to show the prior inputs on random transactions?
1203 2012-10-23 15:54:24 <xblitz> yup pretty much
1204 2012-10-23 15:54:24 <gmaxwell> Sipa had talked about adding an optional index for historical transactions, but it's not there yet... so you can only look up unspent transactions right now.
1205 2012-10-23 15:54:36 <xblitz> crap...
1206 2012-10-23 15:55:57 <BlueMatt> Ive got some optional code to do that in bitcoinj...come to the dark side (we have cookies!)
1207 2012-10-23 15:56:21 <xblitz> cookies!
1208 2012-10-23 15:57:01 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1209 2012-10-23 15:57:19 <BlueMatt> also, its in java and isnt really production-ready (at least the verification part)...do you like debugging?
1210 2012-10-23 15:59:23 PhantomSpark has quit (3!~kvirc@pool-71-251-16-25.nycmny.fios.verizon.net|Quit: Not all that glitter is gold not all who wander are lost.)
1211 2012-10-23 15:59:24 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1212 2012-10-23 16:00:11 <xblitz> humm.. well Im just kind of having fun on the main client and putting features that i like..
1213 2012-10-23 16:00:55 <gmaxwell> xblitz: sadly thats a feature that is inherently really expensive to support.
1214 2012-10-23 16:01:45 <xblitz> but what about full nodes? will they have to have a different client?
1215 2012-10-23 16:01:46 <gmaxwell> (it's pruning incompatible, requires additional indexes, etc)
1216 2012-10-23 16:01:55 <gmaxwell> xblitz: We're still a full node.
1217 2012-10-23 16:02:00 <BlueMatt> xblitz: its still a full node
1218 2012-10-23 16:02:02 <BlueMatt> aww
1219 2012-10-23 16:02:39 <xblitz> oh .. it still keeps all the blockdata but only indexes the "remaining" coins in memory?
1220 2012-10-23 16:02:49 <BlueMatt> s/in memory/on disk/
1221 2012-10-23 16:02:50 <BlueMatt> yes
1222 2012-10-23 16:02:54 rdponticelli has joined
1223 2012-10-23 16:03:10 <gmaxwell> A fully pruned node is still a full node in the bitcoin systems parlance, though thats confusing... but we're not a pruned node either for that matter. The reason it currently doesn't work is that we don't have an index for fast random access.
1224 2012-10-23 16:03:23 <BlueMatt> there is (theoretically) no set of messages you can send to an old node that an ultraprune node will not respond the same to (over the p2p network)
1225 2012-10-23 16:03:32 <gmaxwell> If you wanted to do a linear rescan of the blockchain you could look up that data.. but you'd wait several minnutes for that. :P
1226 2012-10-23 16:03:54 <xblitz> okay i see!
1227 2012-10-23 16:04:59 <gmaxwell> We'll probably end up with a model where there are {SPV, Full, Archive} which do no validation except longest chain, applies all the rules and has reviewed the history and has full security, can bootstrap new nodes or do historical data queries; respectively..
1228 2012-10-23 16:05:41 <gmaxwell> And then probably later {SPV, SPV-Full, Full, Archive} with SPV-Full being a node that has full security going forward but only SPV security for the past.
1229 2012-10-23 16:05:41 <xblitz> yeah I guess it makes sense..
1230 2012-10-23 16:07:01 <BlueMatt> and Full-Pruned, but SPV-Full is close to that but with less verification of old data
1231 2012-10-23 16:07:10 <BlueMatt> or do you mean Full is also pruned?
1232 2012-10-23 16:07:22 <gmaxwell> I mean full is pruned; only archive is not pruned.
1233 2012-10-23 16:07:26 <BlueMatt> ah, ok
1234 2012-10-23 16:07:44 <BlueMatt> (though archive doesnt necessarily have to do more than store the data, you can be spv-archive)
1235 2012-10-23 16:07:56 <xblitz> okay so about my code at http://pastebin.com/BzHDchwQ .. If I would still like to get the info for unspent coins.. how would i go about?
1236 2012-10-23 16:08:15 <gmaxwell> ugh. Then you're potentially a DOS vector when your serve bad data. But I guess it could be spv validated.
1237 2012-10-23 16:09:39 <xblitz> hummm wait.. i think it doesnt make sens
1238 2012-10-23 16:09:41 <xblitz> sense
1239 2012-10-23 16:09:59 <xblitz> forgetr my question.. i'll reread the code
1240 2012-10-23 16:10:35 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: meh, you could be spv-nonvalidated-archive without much issue...as long as you are only serving up to some checkpoint or a point in the chain fairly far back...
1241 2012-10-23 16:13:10 <gavinandresen> more likely you're serving FROM some checkpoint, I think
1242 2012-10-23 16:13:27 sipa has joined
1243 2012-10-23 16:13:33 <BlueMatt> well that is obv a potential dos issue
1244 2012-10-23 16:14:03 <sipa> BlueMatt: any further problems/progress with building git head on buildtester?
1245 2012-10-23 16:14:22 <BlueMatt> sipa: not afaik (aside from the leveldb thing last night, sorry I havent looked into it much yet)
1246 2012-10-23 16:14:28 <sipa> ok, no prob
1247 2012-10-23 16:14:43 <sipa> it works on gitian, but that's all i know
1248 2012-10-23 16:14:47 optimator has joined
1249 2012-10-23 16:14:47 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: Can you spare me a minute to figure out how to get FullBlockTestGenerator compiled? I don't see it in the maven stuff. I'm mostly java infrastructure ignorant.
1250 2012-10-23 16:14:47 optimator has quit (Changing host)
1251 2012-10-23 16:14:48 optimator has joined
1252 2012-10-23 16:15:14 <BlueMatt> sipa: ok, it may very well be a config/jenkins/pull-tester specific thing then, Ill look further
1253 2012-10-23 16:16:09 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: Im also fairly java infrastructure ignorant...all I know is I did mvn eclipse:eclipse, opened the project in eclipse, opened the file and hit run...
1254 2012-10-23 16:16:29 <BlueMatt> though I suppose you could javac the specific java file and java to run it?
1255 2012-10-23 16:16:35 <BlueMatt> with enough classpath variables, that is
1256 2012-10-23 16:17:00 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: hah. yea, okay I can do that. :P
1257 2012-10-23 16:17:08 optimator_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1258 2012-10-23 16:19:10 <molecular> sipa, ok, my bitcoin-qt (ultraprune) finally is done syncing... should I swap in the old wallet.dat?
1259 2012-10-23 16:20:51 <molecular> sipa, I have the wallet.dat backed up from before I updated to ultraprune. probably try that one?
1260 2012-10-23 16:21:13 <sipa> molecular: that should work
1261 2012-10-23 16:21:49 <sipa> molecular: how long did it take?
1262 2012-10-23 16:23:37 <sipa> molecular: note that several bugs have been found and fixed in git head in the mean time
1263 2012-10-23 16:24:12 <molecular> something like 30 hours
1264 2012-10-23 16:24:47 cande has joined
1265 2012-10-23 16:24:52 <molecular> can I back up the currently synced blockstore by doing "cp -r blocks blktree /tmp/backup" ?
1266 2012-10-23 16:25:09 <molecular> ^sipa
1267 2012-10-23 16:25:24 <sipa> molecular: yes!
1268 2012-10-23 16:25:27 <molecular> sipa, I'll do what you want, should I "git pull" first?
1269 2012-10-23 16:26:16 <molecular> ok, first note: that qt message "Application asked to unregister timer 0x3b000012 which is not registered in this thread. Fix application." seems to show consistently on exit
1270 2012-10-23 16:26:37 <sipa> molecular: it's more interesting that you can also backup coins/ (which is what takes long to build)
1271 2012-10-23 16:26:59 <molecular> ok, and "database"?
1272 2012-10-23 16:27:23 <sipa> database is only used for the wallet anymore, and should contain no valuable data after a clean shutdown
1273 2012-10-23 16:27:56 <molecular> I'll just backup .bitcoin completely...
1274 2012-10-23 16:28:17 <gmaxwell> molecular> something like 30 hours < ouch.
1275 2012-10-23 16:28:32 <molecular> yeah, well. atom 330, nfsroot ;)
1276 2012-10-23 16:28:43 <molecular> also: that stuff seems to run in a single thread, right?
1277 2012-10-23 16:28:54 <sipa> actually, in two threads
1278 2012-10-23 16:29:02 <molecular> at least my cpuload didn't go above 1.5 (4.0 is full load)
1279 2012-10-23 16:29:41 <sipa> yeah, that's expected
1280 2012-10-23 16:29:43 setkeh` has joined
1281 2012-10-23 16:29:44 <BlueMatt> sipa: there is a boost function to get number of logically addressable cores
1282 2012-10-23 16:30:04 <sipa> BlueMatt: good to know, for when we go for parallel sig verification
1283 2012-10-23 16:30:55 <BlueMatt> oh...thought that was a part of ultraprune...keep forgetting it was a separate branch
1284 2012-10-23 16:30:59 setkeh has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1285 2012-10-23 16:31:12 <BlueMatt> sipa: what does it split now?
1286 2012-10-23 16:31:57 <sipa> BlueMatt: nothing
1287 2012-10-23 16:32:06 <sipa> but LevelDB does db syncup in an own thread
1288 2012-10-23 16:32:12 <BlueMatt> ahh, ok
1289 2012-10-23 16:33:49 setkeh` has quit (Client Quit)
1290 2012-10-23 16:33:58 setkeh has joined
1291 2012-10-23 16:36:17 slush2 has joined
1292 2012-10-23 16:37:49 JZavala has joined
1293 2012-10-23 16:37:53 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1294 2012-10-23 16:38:38 <helo> is there likely to be other significant speedups in 0.8?
1295 2012-10-23 16:38:48 <helo> are :/
1296 2012-10-23 16:39:29 Joric has joined
1297 2012-10-23 16:39:51 <sipa> maybe
1298 2012-10-23 16:40:00 <gmaxwell> helo: possibly. Ultraprune is going to take a bit to stablize, this may give us time to add in some other more obviously safe improvements that don't compete with ultraprune for review attention.
1299 2012-10-23 16:41:36 drizztbsd has joined
1300 2012-10-23 16:41:37 drizztbsd has quit (Changing host)
1301 2012-10-23 16:41:37 drizztbsd has joined
1302 2012-10-23 16:44:32 <BlueMatt> helo: ultraprune not enough for you :P
1303 2012-10-23 16:44:39 JordiGH has joined
1304 2012-10-23 16:45:04 <JordiGH> AIUI, open the tarball, go into source, then "qmake && make" to build the 0.7.1 tarball, right?
1305 2012-10-23 16:46:17 <JordiGH> But I see this: http://codepad.org/8UtB4Q60
1306 2012-10-23 16:49:01 <JordiGH> Hm, the first problem about lrelease seems to be that the QT_INSTALL_BINS variable is void.
1307 2012-10-23 16:49:12 <JordiGH> Am I supposed to set that variable somehow?
1308 2012-10-23 16:49:30 <helo> i'm ~fine without ultraprune even, but it will be interesting to see if it cuts down on complaints
1309 2012-10-23 16:50:15 <helo> with or without, it's probably a good idea for most users to start it up before they go to bed
1310 2012-10-23 16:51:17 <helo> i guess ultraprune will preserve "overnight" being enough time to sync
1311 2012-10-23 16:51:18 <JordiGH> Hm, looks like none of the variables in qmake.pro are being defined.
1312 2012-10-23 16:51:30 <JordiGH> That's why I'm getting seemingly absolute paths like /build/build.h
1313 2012-10-23 16:52:13 <sipa> with (significant) further improvements (reduce cs_main, block caching, headers-first sync, decent peer selection for IBD), i think we could get IBD on normal hardware down to an hour or so
1314 2012-10-23 16:53:04 <gmaxwell> helo: it makes 'overnight' enough on more hardware now, right now really slow stuff of truecrypt violates overnight... especially when combined with IBD network stupidity which isn't fixed yet.
1315 2012-10-23 16:53:14 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1316 2012-10-23 16:54:46 <JordiGH> Hm, looks like it builds with qtcreator.
1317 2012-10-23 16:54:57 toffoo has quit ()
1318 2012-10-23 16:55:03 Belkaar has joined
1319 2012-10-23 16:55:12 <sipa> JordiGH: "qmake && make" works fine for me
1320 2012-10-23 16:56:12 <helo> an hour would be pretty incredible
1321 2012-10-23 16:57:18 <gmaxwell> helo: you can get that via a loadblock now at least.
1322 2012-10-23 16:57:39 <JordiGH> sipa: *shrug* Any idea why some of the qmake variables were getting defined for me? Looks like I got a build with qtcreator. What version of qmake?
1323 2012-10-23 16:57:51 <JordiGH> Er, were *not* getting defined?
1324 2012-10-23 16:57:59 <JordiGH> sipa: You don't have special environment variables set, do you?
1325 2012-10-23 16:58:02 <sipa> no
1326 2012-10-23 16:58:05 <gmaxwell> JordiGH: there is a readme with a walkthrough.
1327 2012-10-23 16:58:21 <JordiGH> gmaxwell: Yes, it doesn't say much more than "qmake && make", which is what I tried.
1328 2012-10-23 16:58:37 <sipa> and what failed?
1329 2012-10-23 16:58:49 <JordiGH> http://codepad.org/8UtB4Q60
1330 2012-10-23 16:59:17 <JordiGH> Stuff like "/lrelease" and "/build/build.h" is happening because qmake variables aren't getting defined.
1331 2012-10-23 16:59:29 <sipa> JordiGH: not in the src/ directory
1332 2012-10-23 16:59:35 <sipa> in the directory with the bitcoin-qt.pro file
1333 2012-10-23 16:59:50 <JordiGH> The tarball has src/src
1334 2012-10-23 16:59:56 <sipa> ah
1335 2012-10-23 17:00:04 <JordiGH> And bin/{32,64}
1336 2012-10-23 17:00:28 <helo> i guess blocks are still only ~1/10 of the maximum size, so with 10x the block fullness we'd be at 10 hours at best
1337 2012-10-23 17:00:41 <JordiGH> Hm, let me try it from the build directory, although I can't imagine why this would matter.
1338 2012-10-23 17:01:42 <sipa> maybe something weird happened when exporting to the tarball
1339 2012-10-23 17:01:43 <sipa> try git?
1340 2012-10-23 17:02:34 <JordiGH> I really hate git, but I suppose I can get a tarball from git, right?
1341 2012-10-23 17:03:12 Zarutian has joined
1342 2012-10-23 17:03:36 <sipa> that would be what you already got
1343 2012-10-23 17:03:57 <JordiGH> No, I mean, I hate dealing with that boneheaded DVCS. I can get a tarball of the git repo at a specific hash.
1344 2012-10-23 17:03:58 <gmaxwell> helo: mean size is 200k right now.
1345 2012-10-23 17:04:21 <helo> gmaxwell: i just looked at the last 45 blocks
1346 2012-10-23 17:04:28 <sipa> JordiGH: does the .pro file look like this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.7.1/bitcoin-qt.pro ?
1347 2012-10-23 17:04:40 <gmaxwell> helo: I took the mean of the last 200.
1348 2012-10-23 17:05:37 <helo> it would be interesting to benchmark a fake chain of full blocks
1349 2012-10-23 17:05:51 <JordiGH> sipa: /opt/local?
1350 2012-10-23 17:05:52 <JordiGH> wtf
1351 2012-10-23 17:05:57 <JordiGH> I'm not on Mac OS X.
1352 2012-10-23 17:06:08 <gmaxwell> helo: well, testnet3 has some maximumm size blocks.. but it's not a full chain.
1353 2012-10-23 17:06:26 <sipa> JordiGH: then ignore that
1354 2012-10-23 17:07:27 <sipa> JordiGH: what OS/distro are you on?
1355 2012-10-23 17:07:48 <JordiGH> sipa: http://agora.octave.org/snippet/DPoI/
1356 2012-10-23 17:08:04 <JordiGH> I'm on Debian stable with a bunch of backports.
1357 2012-10-23 17:09:01 <JordiGH> Hm, github doesn't let you download a tarball snapshot of a repo, does it?
1358 2012-10-23 17:09:05 maaku has joined
1359 2012-10-23 17:09:11 <JordiGH> Piece of shit git... fine, I'll clone it.
1360 2012-10-23 17:10:36 <sipa> it does
1361 2012-10-23 17:11:04 <JordiGH> It does? I couldn't find a link in the WUI.
1362 2012-10-23 17:11:19 davout has joined
1363 2012-10-23 17:12:33 <JordiGH> At any rate, I just cloned the git repo, same behaviour with qmake.
1364 2012-10-23 17:12:51 <JordiGH> Oh, crap, I'm an idiot.
1365 2012-10-23 17:12:56 <JordiGH> I got qmake-qt3 installed.
1366 2012-10-23 17:13:21 <JordiGH> Okay, that explains why building with qtcreator works.
1367 2012-10-23 17:13:25 <Luke-Jr> some distro still supports qt3? O.o
1368 2012-10-23 17:13:28 <JordiGH> qmake -> qmake-qt3.
1369 2012-10-23 17:13:34 <JordiGH> Luke-Jr: Debian stable, yeah.
1370 2012-10-23 17:14:07 <molecular> sipa: startup with fresh wallet worked fine, swapping in pre-ultraprune wallet.dat now, startup,... -> works fine. duh!
1371 2012-10-23 17:14:30 <molecular> sipa: so, I can't reproduce this way
1372 2012-10-23 17:14:56 <gavinandresen> sipa: rather than making IBD faster, I think it would be better to work on a headers-first, backfill-in-background mode. It doesn't matter if the backfill takes 1 hour or 11.
1373 2012-10-23 17:16:19 <JordiGH> Is the git version usable yet? Be honest. I'm a dev too and I know what it's like to want to push all bugfixes on my users, but honestly, will the 0.7.1 tarball be good enough?
1374 2012-10-23 17:16:27 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1375 2012-10-23 17:17:11 gimlet90210 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1376 2012-10-23 17:17:50 <sipa> gavinandresen: absolutely, headers-first is the only real solution to IBD problems
1377 2012-10-23 17:17:55 <sipa> imho
1378 2012-10-23 17:18:05 <gmaxwell> JordiGH: you don't want to use git at the moment unless you're planning on hanging out here and reporting issues. Our git is usually pretty stable but we just merged some massive changes.
1379 2012-10-23 17:18:16 <JordiGH> gmaxwell: Thanks.
1380 2012-10-23 17:18:39 <JordiGH> Hm, still getting some trouble building.
1381 2012-10-23 17:18:42 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: headers first will also fix the current stupidity as a side effect by replacing the code.
1382 2012-10-23 17:19:30 vigilyn has joined
1383 2012-10-23 17:19:58 rdponticelli has joined
1384 2012-10-23 17:20:12 <JordiGH> Ah, more Qt 3 problems.
1385 2012-10-23 17:20:23 <molecular> sipa: what now, just ignore it?
1386 2012-10-23 17:21:25 graingert_ecs has joined
1387 2012-10-23 17:22:49 PhantomSpark has joined
1388 2012-10-23 17:22:53 PhantomSpark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1389 2012-10-23 17:28:29 da2ce7_d has joined
1390 2012-10-23 17:28:48 achromic has joined
1391 2012-10-23 17:31:02 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1392 2012-10-23 17:34:29 <helo> with headers first, will blocks still be retrieved and validated in temporal order?
1393 2012-10-23 17:35:37 <JordiGH> Doc patch, if you guys want it: http://inversethought.com/hg/bitcoin/rev/1e67262f9a28
1394 2012-10-23 17:37:55 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1395 2012-10-23 17:38:52 achromic has left ()
1396 2012-10-23 17:40:52 gimlet90210 has joined
1397 2012-10-23 17:40:57 maaku has joined
1398 2012-10-23 17:44:26 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1399 2012-10-23 17:48:09 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1400 2012-10-23 17:55:44 <JordiGH> Thanks for the help guys.
1401 2012-10-23 17:55:45 JordiGH has left ("Leaving")
1402 2012-10-23 17:57:35 drazak_ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1403 2012-10-23 18:00:46 <sipa> helo: yes
1404 2012-10-23 18:02:59 cande has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1405 2012-10-23 18:03:53 drazak_ has joined
1406 2012-10-23 18:04:00 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen/sipa/gmaxwell: yes, and headers-first is surprisingly trivial to implement given an hour or two and some caffine
1407 2012-10-23 18:04:48 <helo> so sequentially wins over * blocks with transactions in wallet.dat first, or * latest blocks first, or * grab blocks randomly?
1408 2012-10-23 18:04:59 <BlueMatt> now thats a fun new warning: src/init.cpp:83:20: warning: deleting object of polymorphic class type ÂCCoinsViewCache which has non-virtual destructor might cause undefined behaviour [-Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor]
1409 2012-10-23 18:07:22 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1410 2012-10-23 18:08:19 <BlueMatt> "Apple adds new 'fusion drive' to iMac"...so in other words "Apple re-brands Intel Smart Response to get headlines" (and the tech press bites)
1411 2012-10-23 18:08:21 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: sounds to me like it wants to say "please make CCoinsViewCache destructor virtual"
1412 2012-10-23 18:08:32 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: sounds like it to me
1413 2012-10-23 18:12:59 <helo> is it possible to know what block a given txid in wallet.dat appears in?
1414 2012-10-23 18:13:34 <BlueMatt> iirc its stored not only in the tx but also appears in the tx info popup dialog?
1415 2012-10-23 18:13:36 <helo> maybe grabbing doing a binary search using the time?
1416 2012-10-23 18:13:39 BitcoinBaltar has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1417 2012-10-23 18:14:06 <helo> just looking at "gettransaction", it doesn't say the block
1418 2012-10-23 18:14:37 <BlueMatt> does it not give a block height/chain depth you can work backwards from
1419 2012-10-23 18:14:47 <BlueMatt> (there is an rpc to get block by height)
1420 2012-10-23 18:15:22 <helo> it would maybe be ~handy after header sync if the client put priority on ensuring no owned outputs have been double spent
1421 2012-10-23 18:16:04 <helo> gettransaction doesn't give a block/height... i suppose that doesn't mean it isn't recorded somewhere
1422 2012-10-23 18:16:17 <BlueMatt> not even for in-wallet txes?
1423 2012-10-23 18:16:21 <BlueMatt> hmm, odd
1424 2012-10-23 18:16:34 <BlueMatt> is there no older wallet-specific method to do so?
1425 2012-10-23 18:16:34 <sipa> sure it doesn't?
1426 2012-10-23 18:16:41 <sipa> gettransaction is a wallet call
1427 2012-10-23 18:16:54 <helo> not for unconfirmed transactions, at least
1428 2012-10-23 18:16:54 <BlueMatt> it doesnt give a confirmation count?
1429 2012-10-23 18:16:58 BitcoinBaltar has joined
1430 2012-10-23 18:17:00 <BlueMatt> well ofc not
1431 2012-10-23 18:17:07 <BlueMatt> for an unconfirmed tx, there is nothing to give?
1432 2012-10-23 18:17:16 robocoin has quit (Quit: !)/ã½(´ã¼ï½)ã\(!)
1433 2012-10-23 18:17:26 <sipa> for confirmed transactions, i think it gave block and/or confirmation
1434 2012-10-23 18:18:08 graingert_ecs has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1435 2012-10-23 18:18:10 <sipa> ... i thought
1436 2012-10-23 18:18:11 <helo> i'm operating in the weird world where transactions have been confirmed, but the confirming block hasn't been synched yet
1437 2012-10-23 18:18:19 <sipa> ah
1438 2012-10-23 18:18:43 <BlueMatt> well if you dont have the confirming block, there is no block info it can give you
1439 2012-10-23 18:18:59 <sipa> helo: the way i see it, headers-only would sync the real block data from old to new, so it can verify along the way
1440 2012-10-23 18:19:19 <sipa> maybe some leeway can be given and start fetching things ahead already, allowing some window with holes in it
1441 2012-10-23 18:19:25 <helo> if doing header only sync, it could do a "confirm all the things" approach initially... not sure if it would be worth it
1442 2012-10-23 18:19:38 <BlueMatt> or maybe wallet creation date -> new, then 0 -> wallet creation date
1443 2012-10-23 18:20:09 <sipa> maybe, yes
1444 2012-10-23 18:20:19 <BlueMatt> (avoid wasting downloading /everything/ only to find out that the cake is a lie)
1445 2012-10-23 18:20:43 <sipa> but if you'd be pruning (in some point in the future), you certainly want old->new
1446 2012-10-23 18:20:52 <helo> so 1) headers 2) blocks with wallet transactions via binary time search 3) those blocks to present time to find any double spends 4) old stuff
1447 2012-10-23 18:21:19 <BlueMatt> sipa: somehow I read that you said you would want to do from new->old...
1448 2012-10-23 18:21:26 <BlueMatt> sipa: I agree that it should generally be old->new
1449 2012-10-23 18:21:51 <BlueMatt> (because it'd be rare to be doing resync on an existing wallet anyway)
1450 2012-10-23 18:22:17 <sipa> BlueMatt: no idea where i'd have said that
1451 2012-10-23 18:22:28 <BlueMatt> sipa: Im apparently dyslexic :)
1452 2012-10-23 18:22:39 <BlueMatt> helo: what is the point of 3)?
1453 2012-10-23 18:23:01 toffoo has joined
1454 2012-10-23 18:23:02 <BlueMatt> if a block has double spends it will be rejected by other nodes (in theory)
1455 2012-10-23 18:23:16 <helo> ahh of course
1456 2012-10-23 18:23:29 <helo> so 2) would fail and the client would alarm
1457 2012-10-23 18:23:35 <sipa> gmaxwell wantd to download headers new->old, but for real blocks data it should go old->new in general
1458 2012-10-23 18:23:57 <sipa> i mean, utxo set building has to happen old->new
1459 2012-10-23 18:24:15 <sipa> so if you don't want to delay that, start at old
1460 2012-10-23 18:24:23 <BlueMatt> sipa: yea, I was thinking you were suggesting to find wallet txn
1461 2012-10-23 18:24:37 emryss has joined
1462 2012-10-23 18:24:41 <BlueMatt> but I cant read so...
1463 2012-10-23 18:24:43 <sipa> unless you give priority to wallet being synced over getting zero-trust
1464 2012-10-23 18:25:20 <BlueMatt> and, again, that should still be rare since usually you would have an empty wallet during sync
1465 2012-10-23 18:25:29 <BlueMatt> (a just-created one, that is)
1466 2012-10-23 18:25:42 <sipa> indeed
1467 2012-10-23 18:26:35 cande has joined
1468 2012-10-23 18:29:43 TD has joined
1469 2012-10-23 18:32:20 CodesInChaos has joined
1470 2012-10-23 18:41:22 slush1 has joined
1471 2012-10-23 18:43:04 D34TH has joined
1472 2012-10-23 18:43:04 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
1473 2012-10-23 18:43:04 D34TH has joined
1474 2012-10-23 18:43:26 slush2 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1475 2012-10-23 18:49:57 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1476 2012-10-23 18:57:13 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1477 2012-10-23 18:58:43 davout has joined
1478 2012-10-23 18:58:44 davout has quit (Changing host)
1479 2012-10-23 18:58:44 davout has joined
1480 2012-10-23 18:59:13 DaQatz has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1481 2012-10-23 19:02:30 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1482 2012-10-23 19:02:47 molecular has joined
1483 2012-10-23 19:02:55 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1484 2012-10-23 19:06:23 maaku has joined
1485 2012-10-23 19:08:40 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1486 2012-10-23 19:09:52 <helo> i suppose 3) would ensure the blocks were being actively mined on, and that the source of the block isn't lying
1487 2012-10-23 19:10:07 <helo> *could
1488 2012-10-23 19:10:11 freakazoid has joined
1489 2012-10-23 19:12:07 * OlaHughson looks to the left
1490 2012-10-23 19:12:11 * OlaHughson looks to the right
1491 2012-10-23 19:12:19 OlaHughson has left ("WeeChat 0.3.9")
1492 2012-10-23 19:12:41 <helo> BlueMatt: ^
1493 2012-10-23 19:13:35 <BlueMatt> you could use it to ensure someone isnt going to ridiculous lengths to fool you, but, then, you shouldnt depend on the data being valid until you've verified it anyway, so, properly written, it wouldn't accomplish anything
1494 2012-10-23 19:16:11 slush2 has joined
1495 2012-10-23 19:18:11 <D34TH> i know there is a detachdb is there an attachdb?
1496 2012-10-23 19:18:21 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1497 2012-10-23 19:18:28 <BlueMatt> you're missing the point of detachdb
1498 2012-10-23 19:18:31 <D34TH> or do i have to loadblocks
1499 2012-10-23 19:18:31 <helo> there is a -loadblock
1500 2012-10-23 19:18:44 <BlueMatt> hold on...wtf do you think detachdb does?
1501 2012-10-23 19:18:57 <D34TH> i dont even have an idea
1502 2012-10-23 19:19:15 <BlueMatt> loadblock has absolutely nothing to do with detachdb
1503 2012-10-23 19:19:28 <BlueMatt> loadblocks loads blocks from a file, detachdb clears db log files at shutdown
1504 2012-10-23 19:20:02 <D34TH> i though detachdb detached the blockchain and allowed it to be used
1505 2012-10-23 19:20:06 <D34TH> boy was i wrong
1506 2012-10-23 19:21:51 <D34TH> bluematt lets say i download blkindex.dat blk0001.dat blk0002.dat how would one go about using that without loadblocks
1507 2012-10-23 19:22:30 <BlueMatt> dont ever download blkindex.dat and use loadblocks
1508 2012-10-23 19:23:26 <D34TH> the solution to not using loadblocks is to use it?
1509 2012-10-23 19:24:26 bitcoinz has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1510 2012-10-23 19:24:59 <BlueMatt> the answer to your question is downloading a formed blkindex.dat is a insecure way of downloading a chain copy
1511 2012-10-23 19:25:34 <helo> maybe -loadblock=blk000{1,2}.dat
1512 2012-10-23 19:25:57 <D34TH> putting it in the scenario of a previous backup from my server
1513 2012-10-23 19:26:02 <BlueMatt> well, you have to do them separately, but yes, that is how you should do it (and you can throw away the blkindex.dat)
1514 2012-10-23 19:26:07 <BlueMatt> copy all three files to .bitcoin :)
1515 2012-10-23 19:27:34 * helo wonders why he has been at height=195751 for 7 minutes
1516 2012-10-23 19:27:46 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1517 2012-10-23 19:29:15 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1518 2012-10-23 19:29:36 PhantomSpark has joined
1519 2012-10-23 19:31:03 deedeedeedee has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1520 2012-10-23 19:35:58 <xblitz> seems like the testnet blockchain fork that refused the block with the basecoins spent at 100 has prevailed! .. and blockexplorer.info seems to be stuck on the other fork! :/ theymos here?
1521 2012-10-23 19:36:20 <gmaxwell> xblitz: which is higher right now?
1522 2012-10-23 19:36:57 <xblitz> the one that refused the block.. i think..
1523 2012-10-23 19:37:18 <xblitz> since blockexplorer.info was on the other one.. and is now stuck at 33630 ...
1524 2012-10-23 19:37:28 <xblitz> and the frok im on is at 33645
1525 2012-10-23 19:37:28 <gmaxwell> okay, Im at "blocks" : 33646,
1526 2012-10-23 19:37:42 <xblitz> yup 33646
1527 2012-10-23 19:38:15 <xblitz> i guess since most client refused that block .. this fork won the battle ;)
1528 2012-10-23 19:38:19 <gmaxwell> no.
1529 2012-10-23 19:38:21 <gmaxwell> It didn't.
1530 2012-10-23 19:38:24 <xblitz> humm
1531 2012-10-23 19:38:52 <gmaxwell> 00000000003bedf03747295a09ae1f8658e8bbb886d33d67a657701656616198 is my best block at height 33646.
1532 2012-10-23 19:38:58 <gmaxwell> and it has that transaction in it.
1533 2012-10-23 19:39:33 <xblitz> hummm
1534 2012-10-23 19:39:44 <gmaxwell> oh hey. hm.
1535 2012-10-23 19:40:12 <gmaxwell> 19:54 < gmaxwell> Okay 86eefc0c47a0402d353faf82f5b3dac3995319403aba699ae58e9ed29e412ef2 in
1536 2012-10-23 19:40:16 <gmaxwell> 19:54 < gmaxwell> block 33596 spends 59f99e31fc5fba5a350a0c932b592ceeb629ef16de36f54ba35c7302fbec2b59:0
1537 2012-10-23 19:40:19 <gmaxwell> 19:54 < gmaxwell> from block 33496, so ultraprune should be dead on testnet now.
1538 2012-10-23 19:40:22 <gmaxwell> yea, still there.
1539 2012-10-23 19:41:05 <gmaxwell> I would have been really surprised if most of the testnet hashpower upgraded to ultraprune in less than 24 hours, especially since much of the time _I'm_ most of the testnet hashpower. :P
1540 2012-10-23 19:41:18 spreelanka has quit (Quit: spreelanka)
1541 2012-10-23 19:42:22 slush1 has joined
1542 2012-10-23 19:42:59 slush2 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1543 2012-10-23 19:45:47 <Joric> gmaxwell, really? wonder what hardware are you using
1544 2012-10-23 19:46:34 <gmaxwell> Joric: the spare time of a call center in india, it's amazing what they can do with abacuses.
1545 2012-10-23 19:46:57 bitcoinz has joined
1546 2012-10-23 19:47:18 <Joric> i only managed to takeover a testnet-in-a-box )
1547 2012-10-23 19:48:19 <gmaxwell> Joric: I think jeff and I are the only regular testnet miners right now, and he uses the internal miner.
1548 2012-10-23 19:48:57 <Joric> i just got upgraded to core2duo beware
1549 2012-10-23 19:49:51 <D34TH> osnizzap
1550 2012-10-23 19:50:13 <D34TH> "difficulty" : 201.64615385,
1551 2012-10-23 19:50:14 <xblitz> I mine one in a while when I need to confirm TXs
1552 2012-10-23 19:50:14 <D34TH> D:
1553 2012-10-23 19:50:45 <D34TH> xblitz -connect=grimd34th.co.cc for testnet
1554 2012-10-23 19:50:46 <D34TH> :D
1555 2012-10-23 19:50:49 <xblitz> yeah thats kind of strange.. It goes from 1 to 201 once in a while
1556 2012-10-23 19:52:26 <gmaxwell> Well, not strange, it's at 200 right now from forrest and I doing p2pool testing on it.
1557 2012-10-23 19:52:45 <D34TH> im trying to load up p2pool but its being mean
1558 2012-10-23 19:52:52 <D34TH> since i made a modification to it
1559 2012-10-23 19:53:05 <BlueMatt> p2pool drm!
1560 2012-10-23 19:53:26 <D34TH> D:
1561 2012-10-23 19:53:42 <Joric> heard hamsters in wheels are great for mining but they eat a lot
1562 2012-10-23 19:54:23 <D34TH> i heard if you put them in balls the mh/rotation gets better
1563 2012-10-23 19:55:41 <D34TH> wow my temp quickly shot up
1564 2012-10-23 19:56:04 <D34TH> oh? hw error
1565 2012-10-23 19:56:08 <D34TH> invalid nonce
1566 2012-10-23 19:57:33 kreal has quit ()
1567 2012-10-23 19:57:37 davout has joined
1568 2012-10-23 20:00:33 <xblitz> gmaxwell: the refused block that tried to spend the coinbase at 100 was dc3a9cee3f1b at height 33596 ... but my current bestblock which is at 33647 has a this block 2b11a90783c9 at 33596
1569 2012-10-23 20:01:33 <gmaxwell> xblitz: what is your block at 33646 ?
1570 2012-10-23 20:01:46 <gmaxwell> is it 3bedf0 ?
1571 2012-10-23 20:01:51 <xblitz> 3bedf037472...
1572 2012-10-23 20:02:05 <gmaxwell> man, that would be an ugly bug.. /me checks
1573 2012-10-23 20:02:57 <D34TH> 3bedf037472
1574 2012-10-23 20:02:58 <D34TH> yep
1575 2012-10-23 20:03:56 <xblitz> oh... now blockexplorer.info actualy seems to have the same fork until 33622
1576 2012-10-23 20:04:06 <xblitz> that is strange
1577 2012-10-23 20:04:42 <xblitz> i remember last night was same until 33596 .. it had accepted the 100 coinbase spent and had continued
1578 2012-10-23 20:04:48 <xblitz> but now it seemes to be on a different one
1579 2012-10-23 20:05:14 <gmaxwell> Okay. I'm at 3bed, and my block at is 2b11a907
1580 2012-10-23 20:05:45 <gmaxwell> $ ~/bitcoin/src/bitcoind gettransaction 86eefc0c47a0402d353faf82f5b3dac3995319403aba699ae58e9ed29e412ef2 | grep confirmation "confirmations" : 43,
1581 2012-10-23 20:05:47 <D34TH> hmm my bitcoin isnt listening on 18333
1582 2012-10-23 20:06:36 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1583 2012-10-23 20:06:40 <gmaxwell> xblitz: can you see "txid" : "86eefc0c47a0402d353faf82f5b3dac3995319403aba699ae58e9ed29e412ef2",
1584 2012-10-23 20:06:45 <gmaxwell> :0 in your txout set?
1585 2012-10-23 20:07:37 <gmaxwell> hm. I do actually see a wad of orphan transactions in my history here.
1586 2012-10-23 20:07:49 conman has joined
1587 2012-10-23 20:07:50 <xblitz> yes at block height 33605
1588 2012-10-23 20:08:13 <gmaxwell> well crap.
1589 2012-10-23 20:08:14 <gmaxwell> haha
1590 2012-10-23 20:08:35 <gmaxwell> what happened is some jerk reorged it out of the chain, and it got put back in at a higher hight where nodes accepted it.
1591 2012-10-23 20:08:46 <xblitz> lol
1592 2012-10-23 20:08:50 <gmaxwell> thats why it's nor orphaned, since it was valid at other locations.
1593 2012-10-23 20:09:00 <xblitz> ah true... got replayed
1594 2012-10-23 20:09:04 <xblitz> i guess
1595 2012-10-23 20:09:16 <gmaxwell> whats the full block id that got orphaned out?
1596 2012-10-23 20:09:34 <xblitz> humm which one?
1597 2012-10-23 20:09:38 <gmaxwell> I'm going to checkout it, reindex, and drop 10GH/s on testnet. damnit. Don't remove my tests.
1598 2012-10-23 20:09:40 <xblitz> the 33596
1599 2012-10-23 20:09:41 <xblitz> ?
1600 2012-10-23 20:09:58 <gmaxwell> dc3a9cee3f1b < whats the full hash?
1601 2012-10-23 20:10:38 <xblitz> cant see it in the log.. its always truncated
1602 2012-10-23 20:10:55 <gmaxwell> @#$@##
1603 2012-10-23 20:11:20 toffoo has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1604 2012-10-23 20:11:28 Joric has quit ()
1605 2012-10-23 20:11:28 <xblitz> i might still have it in my cache at home.. will be there in 20 minutes (finished work!)
1606 2012-10-23 20:11:29 toffoo has joined
1607 2012-10-23 20:11:52 <xblitz> my browser cache since i saw it on blockexplorer.info before
1608 2012-10-23 20:12:33 <gmaxwell> 00000000dc3a9cee3f1bb27ba0508f26795f9e6d58098ed9186566a9e841c984 < fortunately p2pool is less dumb
1609 2012-10-23 20:12:48 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: do we know a good security expert?
1610 2012-10-23 20:12:52 <xblitz> lol what are you impliying? :P
1611 2012-10-23 20:14:02 <gmaxwell> xblitz: there was a mildly disagreement between bitcoin developers about printing full hashes for stuff that I lost. :P Most of my nodes I keep local patches, but not testnet ones.
1612 2012-10-23 20:14:16 <gmaxwell> As loser I reserve the right to whine about it.
1613 2012-10-23 20:14:49 <xblitz> lol
1614 2012-10-23 20:14:56 <xblitz> okay going home! see ya
1615 2012-10-23 20:15:10 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: loser? master uses full hashes for blocks I thought
1616 2012-10-23 20:15:36 xblitz has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1617 2012-10-23 20:15:51 <gmaxwell> hm. not 0.7.1â and I gave up on it getting fixed so I dunno.
1618 2012-10-23 20:15:54 <Luke-Jr> O.o
1619 2012-10-23 20:17:01 <Luke-Jr> maybe someone forgot to pull it :/
1620 2012-10-23 20:18:40 <gmaxwell> $ ~/bitcoin/src/bitcoind getblockhash 33596
1621 2012-10-23 20:18:40 <gmaxwell> 00000000dc3a9cee3f1bb27ba0508f26795f9e6d58098ed9186566a9e841c984
1622 2012-10-23 20:18:42 <gmaxwell> $ ~/bitcoin/src/bitcoind getblockhash 33596
1623 2012-10-23 20:18:42 <gmaxwell> 00000000dc3a9cee3f1bb27ba0508f26795f9e6d58098ed9186566a9e841c984
1624 2012-10-23 20:20:56 <gmaxwell> forrestv: p2pool will mine against an isolated bitcoin node. This is not good.
1625 2012-10-23 20:27:34 sirk390 has joined
1626 2012-10-23 20:40:58 xblitz has joined
1627 2012-10-23 20:41:23 drazak_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1628 2012-10-23 20:42:58 ThomasV has joined
1629 2012-10-23 20:45:13 conman has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1630 2012-10-23 20:45:57 gfinn has joined
1631 2012-10-23 20:47:46 drazak_ has joined
1632 2012-10-23 20:48:06 Apexseals has joined
1633 2012-10-23 20:48:42 PhantomSpark has joined
1634 2012-10-23 20:58:33 toffoo has quit ()
1635 2012-10-23 21:04:41 xisalty has joined
1636 2012-10-23 21:04:54 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
1637 2012-10-23 21:07:12 ovidiusoft has joined
1638 2012-10-23 21:11:38 <forrestv> gmaxwell, are you talking about a testnet3 bitcoin node..?
1639 2012-10-23 21:11:48 <gmaxwell> yep.
1640 2012-10-23 21:11:54 <forrestv> testnets are special-cased
1641 2012-10-23 21:12:00 <gmaxwell> ah, nevermind then!
1642 2012-10-23 21:12:31 <forrestv> (it makes the p2p connection before testing getwork)
1643 2012-10-23 21:15:47 slush2 has joined
1644 2012-10-23 21:16:18 erska has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1645 2012-10-23 21:17:10 davout has joined
1646 2012-10-23 21:17:11 davout has quit (Changing host)
1647 2012-10-23 21:17:11 davout has joined
1648 2012-10-23 21:17:42 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1649 2012-10-23 21:18:09 erska has joined
1650 2012-10-23 21:22:07 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1651 2012-10-23 21:24:46 xblitz has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1652 2012-10-23 21:25:07 <helo> almost exactly 4 hours for IBD
1653 2012-10-23 21:25:45 <gmaxwell> helo: on what system, syncing from the network?
1654 2012-10-23 21:26:32 <helo> core 2 quad, 7200rpm sata, from network
1655 2012-10-23 21:27:34 erska has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1656 2012-10-23 21:28:34 <gmaxwell> Cool. Can you time a loadblock on the same system? (if you enable logtimestamps its easy to get the timing)
1657 2012-10-23 21:28:37 erska has joined
1658 2012-10-23 21:28:54 <helo> i'm kind of tempted to make a cron job that will pull and IBD every night, graphing blocks, cpu, network, ram over time
1659 2012-10-23 21:29:17 <helo> unless such an effort would be redundant
1660 2012-10-23 21:29:25 <gmaxwell> pulls from the network are, unfortunately, very noisy.
1661 2012-10-23 21:30:05 <gmaxwell> (and a bit abusive) Timing a loadblock would be usefulâ we all run them periodically but not in an organized/graphed/etc way.
1662 2012-10-23 21:30:15 spreelanka has joined
1663 2012-10-23 21:30:42 <helo> maybe that then
1664 2012-10-23 21:32:21 <helo> loadblock has to be from a version <= 0.7.x?
1665 2012-10-23 21:32:41 <gmaxwell> 0.6.2 I thought.
1666 2012-10-23 21:35:07 <sipa> oh, just realized, -detachdb can be removed!
1667 2012-10-23 21:35:36 <helo> the sourceforge copy is 30K blocks old :/
1668 2012-10-23 21:36:14 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1669 2012-10-23 21:36:40 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1670 2012-10-23 21:36:48 <sipa> gmaxwel: for deterministic timing, the best you can do is start with a fully synced node, shutdown, delete coins/, startup
1671 2012-10-23 21:37:06 <sipa> as that runs single threaded and has no bulk disk writing
1672 2012-10-23 21:37:26 <sipa> then again, it's not representative either
1673 2012-10-23 21:38:08 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1674 2012-10-23 21:39:28 <helo> just to be clear: ultraprune's .bitcoin/blocks/blk%05d.dat are not suitable for -loadblock?
1675 2012-10-23 21:39:39 <sipa> they are
1676 2012-10-23 21:39:45 kreal has joined
1677 2012-10-23 21:39:53 <helo> ahh ok, good
1678 2012-10-23 21:39:57 <sipa> it's exactly the same format
1679 2012-10-23 21:40:11 <helo> i was hoping so, given the names :)
1680 2012-10-23 21:40:18 <sipa> i could have used a more efficient encoding, but preferred to keep backward conpatibility
1681 2012-10-23 21:40:26 <helo> ++sipa
1682 2012-10-23 21:40:56 <sipa> you can cat them together *in order*, to create a bootstrap.dat even
1683 2012-10-23 21:41:05 <helo> a -benchmark mode would be nice... loads all blocks, and exits
1684 2012-10-23 21:41:37 <Luke-Jr> sipa: or out of order <.<
1685 2012-10-23 21:42:29 <helo> i guess it would probably be good to require -loadblock with -benchmark to reduce network abuse
1686 2012-10-23 21:42:32 <gmaxwell> I thinkk at some point we'll probably change to compressed blocksâ probably first supporting it as an option for bootstrapâ, but no urgent need now.
1687 2012-10-23 21:47:47 ibno has quit (Quit: Lämnar)
1688 2012-10-23 21:47:55 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1689 2012-10-23 21:50:25 <sipa> Luke-Jr: that will not do anything
1690 2012-10-23 21:50:25 ThomasV has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1691 2012-10-23 21:50:40 <sipa> orphan blocks are ignored in loadblock and co
1692 2012-10-23 21:51:00 <Luke-Jr> sipa: oh? it used to work
1693 2012-10-23 21:52:43 <sipa> otherwise it'd use gigabytes of ram
1694 2012-10-23 22:00:17 xblitz has joined
1695 2012-10-23 22:02:25 xblitz has left ()
1696 2012-10-23 22:02:43 ThomasV has joined
1697 2012-10-23 22:09:06 CodesInChaos has joined
1698 2012-10-23 22:09:22 galambo_ has joined
1699 2012-10-23 22:11:40 <Luke-Jr> sipa: well, that may be :P
1700 2012-10-23 22:11:44 <helo> looks like -loadblock on this system is likely to be disk write limited
1701 2012-10-23 22:11:58 galambo has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1702 2012-10-23 22:12:22 <sipa> it's always I/O limited (at least before the last checkpoint)
1703 2012-10-23 22:12:50 Perlboy has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1704 2012-10-23 22:15:21 freakazoid has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1705 2012-10-23 22:16:05 Karmaon_ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1706 2012-10-23 22:20:46 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1707 2012-10-23 22:20:48 Perlboy has joined
1708 2012-10-23 22:24:10 kreal has quit ()
1709 2012-10-23 22:24:27 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1710 2012-10-23 22:33:10 freakazoid has joined
1711 2012-10-23 22:36:21 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
1712 2012-10-23 22:40:29 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1713 2012-10-23 22:41:11 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1714 2012-10-23 22:47:52 twobitcoins has joined
1715 2012-10-23 22:48:41 slush has joined
1716 2012-10-23 22:50:11 slush2 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1717 2012-10-23 23:01:11 <gmaxwell> well worse, we seralize network and disk somewhat. (well, I guess less with leveldb), so each of two slow things when doing a network fetch wait on each other.
1718 2012-10-23 23:02:49 <sipa> gmaxwell: i was referring to -loadblock
1719 2012-10-23 23:05:36 agricocb has joined
1720 2012-10-23 23:12:58 slush1 has joined
1721 2012-10-23 23:15:28 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1722 2012-10-23 23:15:54 xisalty has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1723 2012-10-23 23:17:54 slush has joined
1724 2012-10-23 23:19:10 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1725 2012-10-23 23:20:20 <twobitcoins> gmaxwell: You changed CBlock::ConnectBlock to call pindex->GetBlockHash(), but CreateNewBlock calls ConnectBlock with a CBlockIndex where phashBlock is null, resulting in a potential crash risk if CreateNewBlock is called at the wrong time during initial block download.
1726 2012-10-23 23:21:09 <gmaxwell> twobitcoins: in what commit did I do this?
1727 2012-10-23 23:21:17 JZavala has joined
1728 2012-10-23 23:22:21 <twobitcoins> gmaxwell: commit ab91bf39b7c11e9c86bb2043c24f0f377f1cf514 (Apply BIP30 checks to all blocks except the two historic violations.)
1729 2012-10-23 23:23:48 <gmaxwell> awesome.
1730 2012-10-23 23:25:59 <sipa> meh, mining during IBD shouldn't be possible at all
1731 2012-10-23 23:26:01 <gmaxwell> twobitcoins: hm? pindex->GetBlockHash() is only called for pindex->nHeight==91842 and pindex->nHeight==91880.
1732 2012-10-23 23:26:16 <sipa> yes, that's why he says at the wrong time
1733 2012-10-23 23:26:35 <twobitcoins> Right. I think the crash can't actually be reached in the current code, at least on mainnet, because all callers of CreateNewBlock check IsIntitialBlockDownload and there is a checkpoint after those blocks.
1734 2012-10-23 23:26:48 <twobitcoins> It probably means it is impossible to mine block 91842 on testnet though.
1735 2012-10-23 23:27:02 <gmaxwell> ah, e.g. attempting to mine those two heights.
1736 2012-10-23 23:27:29 <gmaxwell> twobitcoins: Thank you. How did you manage to spot that?
1737 2012-10-23 23:28:36 <twobitcoins> My custom mining implementation doesn't check IsInitialBlockDownload.
1738 2012-10-23 23:28:52 PiZZaMaN2K has quit (away!~PiZZaMaN2@host-72-2-137-170.csinet.net|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1739 2012-10-23 23:31:44 slush1 has joined
1740 2012-10-23 23:32:13 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1741 2012-10-23 23:38:10 Karmaon has joined
1742 2012-10-23 23:40:06 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1743 2012-10-23 23:40:26 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1744 2012-10-23 23:41:12 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1745 2012-10-23 23:41:48 <gmaxwell> sipa: any idea if there are BIP30 conformant overwrites in the main chain or testnet3?
1746 2012-10-23 23:42:05 BlackPrapor has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
1747 2012-10-23 23:42:18 <sipa> gmaxwell: can't remember
1748 2012-10-23 23:42:39 <gmaxwell> (a case that needs to be tested for ultraprune... also I can't add one to testnet now because bip34 is enforced there. :-/)
1749 2012-10-23 23:42:47 asciilifeform has joined
1750 2012-10-23 23:43:28 copumpkin has joined
1751 2012-10-23 23:44:18 <gmaxwell> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/30965168/img/image.jpg < oh we're big business now. :P
1752 2012-10-23 23:45:04 <sipa> haha
1753 2012-10-23 23:47:51 optimator_ has joined
1754 2012-10-23 23:49:36 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1755 2012-10-23 23:50:14 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1756 2012-10-23 23:51:21 optimator has joined
1757 2012-10-23 23:51:21 optimator has quit (Changing host)
1758 2012-10-23 23:51:21 optimator has joined
1759 2012-10-23 23:52:07 da2ce7 has joined
1760 2012-10-23 23:52:33 optimator_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1761 2012-10-23 23:53:31 dvide has quit ()
1762 2012-10-23 23:54:44 <upb> [A
1763 2012-10-23 23:55:27 vigilyn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1764 2012-10-23 23:56:58 freakazoid has joined