1 2012-10-24 00:01:55 bitcoinbulletin has joined
2 2012-10-24 00:14:42 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
3 2012-10-24 00:16:58 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #115: STILL FAILING in 1 hr 55 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/115/
4 2012-10-24 00:17:55 root2_ has joined
5 2012-10-24 00:20:26 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
6 2012-10-24 00:21:31 root2 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
7 2012-10-24 00:21:46 cande has quit (Quit: Lämnar)
8 2012-10-24 00:23:02 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
9 2012-10-24 00:23:26 Heston has joined
10 2012-10-24 00:23:33 xisalty has joined
11 2012-10-24 00:29:40 Habbie has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
12 2012-10-24 00:29:48 Habbie has joined
13 2012-10-24 00:30:25 Heston has quit (Quit: Leaving)
14 2012-10-24 00:32:25 showard has joined
15 2012-10-24 00:35:46 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
16 2012-10-24 00:37:29 aq83 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
17 2012-10-24 00:38:28 random_cat has joined
18 2012-10-24 00:42:35 ByteUnits has joined
19 2012-10-24 00:42:46 ByteUnits has left ()
20 2012-10-24 00:44:12 ByteUnits has joined
21 2012-10-24 00:44:28 ByteUnits has left ()
22 2012-10-24 00:44:48 one_zero has joined
23 2012-10-24 00:45:35 Faust has joined
24 2012-10-24 00:45:59 Faust is now known as Guest29548
25 2012-10-24 00:46:31 aq83 has joined
26 2012-10-24 00:46:58 nlpplz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
27 2012-10-24 00:47:23 Guest29548 has quit (Client Quit)
28 2012-10-24 00:48:00 twobitsprite has joined
29 2012-10-24 00:54:31 <twobitsprite> I have a bit of an off-the-wall question... I'm looking in to the possibility of using a distributed data-store/trust-net type of system for a p2p idea I have... does anyone know if bitcoin code and/or related systems could be easily adapted for something like this?
30 2012-10-24 00:55:10 <twobitsprite> Basically, I'd like to have certain aspects of the state of a game world and players stored in a verified p2p way similar to bt
31 2012-10-24 00:56:03 Gladamas has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
32 2012-10-24 00:56:05 <gmaxwell> twobitcoins: not bitcoin most likelyâ it's idea of distributed data storage is everyone-has-all-the-data-flooded-everwhere, which makes sense in the context of bitcoin as you need all the data to verify any of it, and because the design makes the data as minimal as possible... but not too much for other stuff.
33 2012-10-24 00:56:43 <twobitsprite> ahh... so it's more designed for small datasets...
34 2012-10-24 00:57:30 <twobitsprite> well... I'm not really looking to hold the complete world-state in this system, just some way to verify that key datapoints weren't tampered, forged or otherwise manipulated... it might just end up being sha hashes stored in this system
35 2012-10-24 00:57:33 <sipa> bitcoin is not a storage system, it's a system for obtaining consensus among parties that do not trust eachother
36 2012-10-24 00:58:02 <twobitsprite> sipa: well, that's basically what I'm looking for... not so much full data storage, but just consensus and consistency
37 2012-10-24 00:58:31 <sipa> oh, with the important property that this consensus is not obtaining in real time
38 2012-10-24 00:58:56 <twobitsprite> what sort of latency are we talking about?
39 2012-10-24 00:59:04 <sipa> +- an hour
40 2012-10-24 00:59:28 <twobitsprite> hmm
41 2012-10-24 01:00:26 <twobitsprite> the idea I'm working on wouldn't really be "real-time", but a hour might be a bit long...
42 2012-10-24 01:01:42 <gmaxwell> the probablity a difference of opinion among connected nodes falls exponentially, it's observably small at an hourish in bitcoin. There are other decenteralized consensus systemsâ at least in academic papersâ but they seem to mostly require crazy things like n^2 traffic and aren't strongly attack resistant.
43 2012-10-24 01:01:53 <twobitsprite> do you think it would be possible or feasible to trim that down to several minutes? my game idea would be able to repair or compensate over a time span like that, but an hour would probably cause problems.
44 2012-10-24 01:01:54 <gmaxwell> twobitcoins: what kind of security do you need?
45 2012-10-24 01:03:12 <twobitsprite> well... the sort of information I need, if not stored, at least verifiable, would be something akin to the level and stats of a character... but impermanent game states like position or trajectory wouldn't need to be
46 2012-10-24 01:03:57 <twobitsprite> so, a level of security such that it wouldn't really be worth it just to cheat at the game
47 2012-10-24 01:04:38 <twobitsprite> twobitcoins: heh, nice nick :P
48 2012-10-24 01:05:27 <gmaxwell> I suspect that a medium level of security is almost worse than noneâ almost no one cheats at tetrinet, â too trivialâ Cheating at a fancy crypto consensus game sounds like a challenge. :P
49 2012-10-24 01:05:53 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
50 2012-10-24 01:06:21 nlpplz has joined
51 2012-10-24 01:06:34 <twobitsprite> I think you underestimate how eager some people are to just "win"... often the easy to exploit games are rife with cheaters and hackers...
52 2012-10-24 01:06:43 slush has joined
53 2012-10-24 01:06:45 <gmaxwell> weee... bool CBlock::ConnectBlock(CBlockIndex*, CCoinsViewCache&, bool): Assertion `pindex->pprev == view.GetBestBlock()' failed.
54 2012-10-24 01:07:03 <twobitsprite> it's so bad in some people, I don't know why they don't just set their desktop image to "you win, game over" and just stare at it feeling good about themselves.
55 2012-10-24 01:07:12 <gmaxwell> twobitcoins: same conclusion in any case. So, do you have reliable player identites?
56 2012-10-24 01:07:37 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
57 2012-10-24 01:07:50 <gmaxwell> e.g. if you have identites, you can just have a consensus formed by all the players signing some state; this can happen quite fast.
58 2012-10-24 01:08:16 <gmaxwell> though it has linear (or somewhat worse) communications cost.
59 2012-10-24 01:08:16 <twobitsprite> do you mean, in my general game design do I require reliable player identies? Or do I already have a system for reliable player identies?
60 2012-10-24 01:08:24 <gmaxwell> The latter mostly.
61 2012-10-24 01:08:53 <twobitsprite> no, I don't have any code or specific game designs worked out... I'm in the early "requirements gathering" phase :)
62 2012-10-24 01:09:07 <twobitsprite> (i.e, less than vaporware, atm :P)
63 2012-10-24 01:09:20 <twobitsprite> mostly tinkering with ideas
64 2012-10-24 01:10:11 <amiller> twobitsprite, you probably can't afford the fees to make it responsive, unless the game really means a lot to your users
65 2012-10-24 01:10:12 <twobitsprite> but you do make a good point... I could just have signed identities... but the problem would be, how do I verify that changes in the state of an identy are legimitate? if it's just "hey, I signed a new version of my character, trust me"
66 2012-10-24 01:10:21 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
67 2012-10-24 01:10:22 <amiller> it seems to work with gambling games of various forms
68 2012-10-24 01:10:34 <gmaxwell> twobitsprite: In any case, the bitcoin model requires conspicious energy expendature and can't give fast consensus (it doesn't converge if the time between blocks goes below the processing delay/latency of the system; and it's not secure if you take consensuss prior to doing an aggregate of computation high enough that an attacker can't muster it)
69 2012-10-24 01:11:05 <twobitsprite> amiller: well... actually, the p2p part would be a subset of users... basically users who choose to run servers and join them to the game world... most players wouldn't really have to worry about it, other than maybe querying the distributed network for validity or something
70 2012-10-24 01:11:25 rdponticelli has joined
71 2012-10-24 01:11:26 <amiller> if you can afford to pay your distributed validity fees then sure
72 2012-10-24 01:11:29 <gmaxwell> twobitsprite: "hey, I signed a new version of my character, trust me"< the player shows the sequence of game rules followed which permitted that change, and you check them yourself... and you check that their signature is valid.
73 2012-10-24 01:11:53 <twobitsprite> gmaxwell: there's a thought...
74 2012-10-24 01:12:22 <gmaxwell> twobitsprite: unfortunately "my hitpoints just went down by X" or whatever.. well... the entire state of the game need to part of the consensus if the entire state may be needed to tell if that was a valid change.
75 2012-10-24 01:13:03 <gmaxwell> Otherwise, e.g. if you don't have the state of mythical golden cups in the consensus, someone can just claim to have found a million of them now please update their bank balance.
76 2012-10-24 01:13:28 <twobitsprite> yeah... that's what I'm trying to avoid :(
77 2012-10-24 01:14:11 <gmaxwell> be happen, in 100 years that kind of thing should be no big deal!
78 2012-10-24 01:14:38 <twobitsprite> which is why I was thinking a bitcoin-like system might work... an instance of the mythical golden cups might work like a bitcoin... but, as you said, with a +- 1 hour latency, a person could fake it long enough, or you wouldn't be able to verify when you're waylaid suddenly
79 2012-10-24 01:15:24 <gmaxwell> To put this in perspectiveâ an implementation of zero trust poker (a simple game)... requires something like 80 MB sent between the players to shuffle the deck.
80 2012-10-24 01:15:41 <twobitsprite> but, something like that could also be complemented by a communal trustworhiness rating system. People who are caught gaming the system could get "down-voted" or something
81 2012-10-24 01:16:08 <twobitsprite> that's an interesting stat... see, I knew you people would know this kind of stuff :P
82 2012-10-24 01:16:14 <gmaxwell> twobitsprite: well even something like bitcoin wouldn't work thereâ bitcoin can only validate that the rules _within_ the system are followed in a fully decenteralized manner... and you don't want to put the whole gamestate into the consensus system because flooding that data won't let you scale.
83 2012-10-24 01:16:26 <Eliel> I believe the blockchain approach could be adapted to be a bit more flexible. That is, realize that some bending of the rules will happen and design that into the game as a feature.
84 2012-10-24 01:16:53 <gmaxwell> Eliel: a game where the game state was only eventually consistent would be quite mindbending to play.
85 2012-10-24 01:17:09 <twobitsprite> Eliel: I have thought about that... but I would need a "counter-balance" so as to not allow rule-bending to be rewarded
86 2012-10-24 01:17:12 <gmaxwell> I guess there is a little of that in current realtime games as client predictive desyncs from the servers sometimes.
87 2012-10-24 01:17:26 <Eliel> also, things that happen "far" away don't matter immediately, most of the time.
88 2012-10-24 01:17:45 <gmaxwell> Eliel: localizing consensus doesn't help
89 2012-10-24 01:17:46 <twobitsprite> gmaxwell: right... which is why it wouldn't be a problem if consensus/consistency could be acheived within the order of a few minutes or so
90 2012-10-24 01:18:14 <Eliel> twobitsprite: I think it's more worthwhile to switch the strategy. Make the rule bending a part of the game, rather than something that needs to be prevented.
91 2012-10-24 01:18:24 <gmaxwell> Eliel: otherwise a bunch of players go to a remote island... and then they achieve a local consensus that a cup of unimaginable power has appeared before them.. then they go carting that consensus off to the rest of the game. :)
92 2012-10-24 01:19:15 <gmaxwell> sipa: ConnectBlock seems to now have a couple issues when mining during the IBD
93 2012-10-24 01:19:17 <twobitsprite> well... there will be boundaries at the local level... each server would basically host it's own "world", which are linked to neighboring worlds and players can travel between them... so the local effects within a world wouldn't have immediate/real-time effects on neighboring worlds... only state changes like "so-and-so died and thus couldn't possibly be traveling to the next world"
94 2012-10-24 01:19:50 <gmaxwell> twobitsprite: I assume you don't trust the servers?
95 2012-10-24 01:20:08 <twobitsprite> gmaxwell: I have thought about the malicious "island" problem... so I was thinking the trust/consensus network would be independent of the in-game worlds network
96 2012-10-24 01:20:18 <twobitsprite> right, the servers are the really p2p part
97 2012-10-24 01:20:33 <twobitsprite> i.e., anyone can install and run the server software and join the network
98 2012-10-24 01:20:42 <twobitsprite> but not all players will be running servers
99 2012-10-24 01:20:42 <Eliel> twobitsprite: what I mean is, design methods to limit the benefit of rule bending rather than trying to outright prevent it.
100 2012-10-24 01:21:14 <twobitsprite> Eliel: right, I got that... and I'm open to accepting some bounded level of rule bending
101 2012-10-24 01:21:21 NaruFGT has left ()
102 2012-10-24 01:21:46 <twobitsprite> I'm just thinking outloud about maybe if there's some way to counter-balance rule bending, instead of explicitely making it impossible
103 2012-10-24 01:21:47 <gmaxwell> twobitsprite: I mean you can make this secure but it requires a lot of data. What you'd do is trace all the actions of the players through the server. And when a player leaves that server to another... you tell all the peers the changes in his stats (he knows the old stats from a past global consensus) then they make you prove the validity of the changes by asking for traces of the gamestate.
104 2012-10-24 01:22:38 <gmaxwell> And then all those traces have to be tractable back to the rules of the game, configuration the serverop is allowed to set, and secure random numbers that the server doesn't control (a byproduct of the consensus algorithim).
105 2012-10-24 01:23:11 <twobitsprite> right... something like that
106 2012-10-24 01:23:13 <gmaxwell> and thats the kind of thinking that lets you make a provably secure trustless system.. and for a realtime game it's probably tens of gigabytes of state to just update one player. :(
107 2012-10-24 01:23:29 <gmaxwell> But, as mentioned, just wait 100 years. Then it's no bigge. :P
108 2012-10-24 01:23:35 <twobitsprite> lol
109 2012-10-24 01:24:20 <twobitsprite> Last Will and Testament: If by the time you read this networking technology has reached such as point as to allow real-time giga-byte transfer speeds... :P
110 2012-10-24 01:24:50 <gmaxwell> hah. Well, I mean, at work I deal with things like 100gbit/sec networking hardware. It's possible. :P
111 2012-10-24 01:24:56 <Eliel> twobitsprite: one thing worth thinking about is perhaps to only require proof for the more extraordinary stuff, not all the mundane stuff.
112 2012-10-24 01:25:13 <twobitsprite> hmm... if I simplify the rules enough, and allow some "fuzziness" in the outcomes...
113 2012-10-24 01:25:28 <twobitsprite> Eliel: right... I don't need every move recorded and agreed upon...
114 2012-10-24 01:25:31 <gmaxwell> But I suspect building that kind of thing will require new kinds of programming languages too. We can barely keep bitcoin strung together and its much simpler than game rules.
115 2012-10-24 01:25:54 <gmaxwell> well, if not everything is recorded then if there is a way to slip in state, people will.
116 2012-10-24 01:26:49 <gmaxwell> For example, say you don't track killing slime moldâ because you don't want to have to deal with proving your random slime mold encounters were random. so then someone just claims to have killed ten trillion slime mold andâ following the rulesâ is now level 9001.
117 2012-10-24 01:26:51 <twobitsprite> gmaxwell: right, but that would be on the server side... and malicious/broken/misbehaving servers can be handled with just a consensus "voting" system... i.e., users notice strange things happening, and they "down-vote" them
118 2012-10-24 01:27:36 <twobitsprite> well... the "player" (non-world-owner) would track that in a straigh-forward client/server way
119 2012-10-24 01:27:50 <twobitsprite> er... the server would track that, the player would just be a client
120 2012-10-24 01:27:57 <twobitsprite> (confused myself midsentence :P)
121 2012-10-24 01:28:03 <gmaxwell> e.g. I run a server and give my friends big stats boosts... then they take those stats to fair servers and bother people. Will people even know of the unfair server to down rate it?
122 2012-10-24 01:28:29 <twobitsprite> right... that's the problem... I wasn't saying that wouldn't happen, just wanted to clarify
123 2012-10-24 01:29:14 <Eliel> also, even if you make the system impossible to cheat directly, people can still write bots to play while you sleep and such.
124 2012-10-24 01:29:41 <Eliel> so, you can end up having killed ten trillion slime molds and being level 9001 even though you haven't personally played at all
125 2012-10-24 01:29:51 <twobitsprite> so, things like the number of slime molds which spawn would be governed by a bitcoin-like system... not so much tracking how many a player has killed, but moreso just the overall "resource generatio rate" or something
126 2012-10-24 01:30:17 <twobitsprite> Eliel: right, because that *never* happens on centralized client/server games... no one runs bots on WoW or anything...
127 2012-10-24 01:30:36 <twobitsprite> It's certainly a problem, but no one unique to a p2p game
128 2012-10-24 01:31:11 <Eliel> it might make sense to introduce elements to the game that synchronize with real time and not just within the game.
129 2012-10-24 01:31:13 <twobitsprite> Honestly, I don't even think I'm going to make it against the rules to run bots... but server admins should be allowed to ban players they suspect of botting, etc
130 2012-10-24 01:31:41 <twobitsprite> Eliel: that's one option I thought about... a day is actually 24-hours in RL time, etc
131 2012-10-24 01:32:26 <Eliel> that way you can limit the benefit one can get from botting.
132 2012-10-24 01:33:07 <twobitsprite> right... you might be able to play 24/7 with a bot... but there's an upper bound on the benefits which isn't orders of magnatude higher than playing for real, etc
133 2012-10-24 01:33:40 <twobitsprite> so, i.e., to use the "slime molds" example, only 10 of them spawn per day per system
134 2012-10-24 01:34:17 <Eliel> eve online, for example, has character skills that are the most important factor in determining what you can do. Those skills are trained real time, no way to learn them faster.
135 2012-10-24 01:35:14 <twobitsprite> right, but the other most important factor is money and items (ore, ships, etc)... but again, if resource/money generation were also time based...
136 2012-10-24 01:35:57 <twobitsprite> but then you still have the "I killed all 10 slime molds in this world just now" problem
137 2012-10-24 01:36:29 <Eliel> well, you could make the world have unlimited slime molds but make it not beneficial to kill more than 10 per day
138 2012-10-24 01:36:32 <twobitsprite> as I see it, the biggest problem I face is server/player colusion...
139 2012-10-24 01:37:03 <twobitsprite> so, if I can find a way to put a trust system around servers, it should solve itself
140 2012-10-24 01:37:08 <gmaxwell> twobitsprite: what stops me from starting 100,000 servers, getting my 10 slime mold alotments each, then 'visiting' all of them and 'killing' all the molds?
141 2012-10-24 01:37:24 <twobitsprite> what stops people from bitcoin mining?
142 2012-10-24 01:37:39 <twobitsprite> I don't care how many servers you run... you're adding to the game space
143 2012-10-24 01:37:59 <twobitsprite> but again, it's the colusion that's the problem, not the number of servers you're running
144 2012-10-24 01:38:13 <gmaxwell> But I'm not really. they're not actually severs.. they just new ids in order to get more alloted resources.
145 2012-10-24 01:38:59 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin works because people expend non-exchangable resources to do the proof of work. They're willing to do this because bitcoin is important to them, which goes back to amiller's initial point.
146 2012-10-24 01:39:04 <twobitsprite> well, you're servers would have to link to other worlds to be in the network... you could run an island of servers, just as you can run your own isolated bitcoin network and generate all the bitcoins you want, but they're worthless on the bitcoin network everyone else uses...
147 2012-10-24 01:39:33 xisalty has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
148 2012-10-24 01:40:10 <gmaxwell> yea, thats not my point. You can't just spin up 100,000 copies of bitcoin on your laptop and get 100,000x the bitcoin of everyone else. They're distributed according to expensive computation which can't be faked.
149 2012-10-24 01:40:12 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
150 2012-10-24 01:40:46 <twobitsprite> right... which is why I'm looking to use a bit-coin like system to prove that you're actually running a real server that people can go to
151 2012-10-24 01:40:53 <gmaxwell> so you could require someone to do expensive computation to get resources for their server.... but they wouldn't bother unless the game was precious to them.
152 2012-10-24 01:41:02 <twobitsprite> I mean, what is running a game server but spending CPU time?
153 2012-10-24 01:41:35 <gmaxwell> Yea, well, don't look to bitcoin for that. Bitcoin made an unsolvable problem solvable by basically punting on the proving that the participants were real people.
154 2012-10-24 01:42:04 <twobitsprite> right... as I said... server ops would be a small portion of the overall player base... and if you don't think people would spend money to run their own servers, look at minecraft... there's a whole cottage industry offering minecraft server hosting and they're making a killing
155 2012-10-24 01:42:47 <gmaxwell> in any case, I think I've given you some stuff to think about! Dunno that I'd have much more to suggest without a very concrete design in front of me.
156 2012-10-24 01:43:11 <twobitsprite> well, I very much appreciate the brainstorming... definitely a lot of good questions and ideas
157 2012-10-24 01:43:44 <twobitsprite> I really didn't intend to crash the channel to talk about something completely different, but I definitely appreciate the time you all have taken to talk this out with me
158 2012-10-24 01:47:48 spreelanka_ has joined
159 2012-10-24 01:47:48 spreelanka has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
160 2012-10-24 01:47:49 spreelanka_ is now known as spreelanka
161 2012-10-24 01:49:57 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
162 2012-10-24 01:50:05 rdponticelli_ has joined
163 2012-10-24 01:52:36 servvs has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
164 2012-10-24 01:53:16 darkee has joined
165 2012-10-24 01:54:09 xisalty has joined
166 2012-10-24 01:55:50 <amiller> twobitsprite, you mentioned trust-net at the beginning of your idea but it didn't come up again in the ensuing discussion, pm me if you want to talk about that at all
167 2012-10-24 01:56:02 <amiller> also perhaps visit #bitcoin-wot or look at bitcoin-otc if you're interested in those
168 2012-10-24 01:57:42 <twobitsprite> to be honest, I'm not really privy on the details of trustnet, it's just a buzz word I've heard wrt bitcoin... I just assume it's the network used to establish consensus... is that a misinformed assumption?
169 2012-10-24 01:57:42 <amiller> gmaxwell, i've been pursuing a line of thought related to "merkle semi-lattices" and i found a possibly interesting idea
170 2012-10-24 01:57:53 Gladamas has joined
171 2012-10-24 01:58:13 <amiller> the skip list thing i've been working over is a semi-lattice, which is more general than a 'tree' because there can be multiple paths that lead to the same node, but it's more specific than a dag because it has a root
172 2012-10-24 01:59:28 <amiller> then i started thinking about the dual of a semi-lattice, which is basically the opposite direction
173 2012-10-24 01:59:37 <gmaxwell> updating that sounds expensive.
174 2012-10-24 01:59:51 <amiller> anyway the idea is this - a commited utxo set would prevent malleability of the hash function from ruining things
175 2012-10-24 02:03:15 <amiller> updating it is somewhat expensive, especially in terms of RAM when you don't know what the updates are gonna be in advance, but it's easier to verify than to update
176 2012-10-24 02:06:46 <amiller> meh, it's not quite as complete a thought as i thought.
177 2012-10-24 02:08:24 toffoo has joined
178 2012-10-24 02:08:33 <amiller> more blocks at a higher difficulty make birthday attacks on a hash collision a bit more viable
179 2012-10-24 02:09:06 <amiller> the point is i think there's a way of making it so even a hash-collision wouldn't undermine everything
180 2012-10-24 02:10:59 root2 has joined
181 2012-10-24 02:12:57 root2_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
182 2012-10-24 02:13:10 <gmaxwell> 'rainbow tree'
183 2012-10-24 02:17:34 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
184 2012-10-24 02:19:11 xblitz has joined
185 2012-10-24 02:21:10 testnode9 has joined
186 2012-10-24 02:22:12 <xblitz> gmaxwell: hey good job.. you've made the other fork on par with the one im currently on ;)
187 2012-10-24 02:23:18 <gmaxwell> xblitz: yea, I only bothered putting 600MH/s on it, cause that was enough to overtake before bedtime.
188 2012-10-24 02:23:23 maaku has joined
189 2012-10-24 02:23:42 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
190 2012-10-24 02:23:48 <gmaxwell> I'm now pinned to that chain.
191 2012-10-24 02:23:55 <xblitz> how many blocks will it take for my node to use that one instead? 6?
192 2012-10-24 02:24:18 <gmaxwell> as soon as it has greater sum difficulty it will switch. lemme see..
193 2012-10-24 02:24:54 <gmaxwell> (it's _very_ important that the decision be stateless: e.g. reorg has to not care about what chain you had before)
194 2012-10-24 02:25:22 <gmaxwell> 10/24/12 01:53:06 SetBestChain: new best=0000000059d94765aaeb height=33651 work=1686775377454366 date=10/24/12 01:55:04
195 2012-10-24 02:25:28 <gmaxwell> whats your highest work number?
196 2012-10-24 02:25:48 <xblitz> 10/24/12 01:53:07 received block 0000000059d94765aaeb 10/24/12 01:53:07 InvalidChainFound: invalid block=0000000059d94765aaeb height=33651 work=1686775377454366 date=10/24/12 01:55:04 10/24/12 01:53:07 InvalidChainFound: current best=00000000fd280811b3e2 height=33651 work=1679019341087110 date=10/23/12 21:43:29 10/24/12 01:53:07 InvalidChainFound: Warning: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade,
197 2012-10-24 02:25:51 <xblitz> oh crap
198 2012-10-24 02:26:00 <xblitz> 10/24/12 01:53:07 received block 0000000059d94765aaeb
199 2012-10-24 02:26:06 <xblitz> 10/24/12 01:53:07 InvalidChainFound: invalid block=0000000059d94765aaeb height=33651 work=1686775377454366 date=10/24/12 01:55:04
200 2012-10-24 02:26:13 <xblitz> 10/24/12 01:53:07 InvalidChainFound: current best=00000000fd280811b3e2 height=33651 work=1679019341087110 date=10/23/12 21:43:29
201 2012-10-24 02:26:28 <gmaxwell> you're rejecting my chain stillâ did you nuke your chain after initially rejecting that block?
202 2012-10-24 02:26:47 <xblitz> i didnt do anything special
203 2012-10-24 02:26:52 <xblitz> im just letting it run
204 2012-10-24 02:26:57 <gmaxwell> in any case, I have more work nowâ you'd be on my chain except you're broken. :P
205 2012-10-24 02:27:11 <xblitz> im using the current node
206 2012-10-24 02:27:22 <gmaxwell> xblitz: right so you ran old ultraprune, rejected that block.. it'll never test it again unless you reindex (not merged yet) or nuke your chain.
207 2012-10-24 02:27:23 <xblitz> current git master
208 2012-10-24 02:27:39 <xblitz> oh... booh for that
209 2012-10-24 02:28:06 <gmaxwell> sorry for not mentioning it before, it's something we've dealt with before so I assumed you knew.
210 2012-10-24 02:28:09 <xblitz> thank goodness its only testnet
211 2012-10-24 02:28:24 <gmaxwell> (the BDB maximum locks issue did this to a lot of nodes on mainnet)
212 2012-10-24 02:28:47 <xblitz> ouch
213 2012-10-24 02:29:03 <gmaxwell> crazy that work is 2^50.5 now.
214 2012-10-24 02:29:57 <gmaxwell> four to five more bits for _testnet_ to have done enough operations to have cracked DES.
215 2012-10-24 02:31:48 <xblitz> okay.. deleted the data.. its redownloading all
216 2012-10-24 02:33:51 nsh has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
217 2012-10-24 02:37:52 slush1 has joined
218 2012-10-24 02:38:15 servvs has joined
219 2012-10-24 02:39:25 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
220 2012-10-24 02:40:08 nsh has joined
221 2012-10-24 02:41:52 TheEslbear has joined
222 2012-10-24 02:43:20 <gmaxwell> sipa: so pindexBest can change while CreateNewBlock runs and will trigger an assert in connect block. Preference for solving that by retrying vs taking a lock?
223 2012-10-24 02:44:09 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
224 2012-10-24 02:45:14 <twobitsprite> how is a new bitcoin account/user/client "bootstrapped" in to the network? Is there a central set of "root" servers, or is there some kind of "discovery" system used?
225 2012-10-24 02:45:56 Eslbaer has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
226 2012-10-24 02:46:18 <gmaxwell> there are no accounts in the bitcoin system
227 2012-10-24 02:46:31 <gmaxwell> sipa: retring seems to make more sense to me- don't want to mine an old block.
228 2012-10-24 02:47:05 <gmaxwell> twobitsprite: the only discovery needed is for bitcoin nodes to find each other. There are several methods used.
229 2012-10-24 02:47:13 fiesh has joined
230 2012-10-24 02:47:26 <gmaxwell> twobitsprite: the primary one is that nodes announce themselves and pass the announcements on.. but that only works once you're connected.
231 2012-10-24 02:48:56 <gmaxwell> twobitsprite: to get connected the first time we have five methods... first, the user can provide a addr.txt file with nodes, or the user can manually -addnode peers, we also can connect to IRC to find nodes (off by default), or query a set of DNS names that resolve to a bunch of recently working nodes, or failing the above the software has a list of 500 randomly selected peers hard coded that it will use as a last resort.
232 2012-10-24 02:49:54 <gmaxwell> beyond that there is no registration. or identication or user tracking. Nothing in the system knows when a user joins, or how many addresses they have. An address is a purely private thing until you ask someone to send to one of yours.
233 2012-10-24 02:52:28 <twobitsprite> gmaxwell: interesting... thanks
234 2012-10-24 02:52:37 <twobitsprite> 22:35 < gmaxwell> twobitsprite: the only discovery needed is for bitcoin nodes to find each other. There are several methods used.
235 2012-10-24 02:52:40 <twobitsprite> 22:35 -!- fiesh [~fiesh@p4FCB7245.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #bitcoin-dev
236 2012-10-24 02:52:42 <twobitsprite> 22:35 < gmaxwell> twobitsprite: the primary one is that nodes announce themselves and pass the announcements on.. but that only works once you're connected.
237 2012-10-24 02:52:46 <twobitsprite> 22:37 < gmaxwell> twobitsprite: to get connected the first time we have five methods... first, the user can provide a addr.txt file with nodes, or the user can manually -addnode peers, we also can connect to IRC to find nodes (off by
238 2012-10-24 02:52:50 <twobitsprite> default), or query a set of DNS names that resolve to a bunch of recently working nodes, or failing the above the software has a list of 500 randomly selected peers hard coded that it will use as a last resort.
239 2012-10-24 02:52:55 <twobitsprite> 22:38 < gmaxwell> beyond that there is no registration. or identication or user tracking. Nothing in the system knows when a user joins, or how many addresses they have. An address is a purely private thing until you ask someone to send to one of yours.
240 2012-10-24 02:52:59 <twobitsprite> crap, sorry
241 2012-10-24 02:53:02 <twobitsprite> stupid putty...
242 2012-10-24 02:56:03 <zveda> hey why doesn't bitcoin-qt use zbar
243 2012-10-24 02:56:09 <zveda> to scan qr code from phone with webcame
244 2012-10-24 02:56:18 <zveda> is ti released under lgpl
245 2012-10-24 02:56:20 <zveda> it is
246 2012-10-24 02:57:28 <zveda> even has qt bindings
247 2012-10-24 03:00:48 guruvan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
248 2012-10-24 03:02:06 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
249 2012-10-24 03:03:18 slush has joined
250 2012-10-24 03:03:25 guruvan- has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
251 2012-10-24 03:03:45 <Luke-Jr> zveda: because you didn't write the code yet
252 2012-10-24 03:04:13 <zveda> but like, it wont be a big waste of time if I do it ?
253 2012-10-24 03:04:19 jgarzik has joined
254 2012-10-24 03:04:27 <Luke-Jr> I can only speak for myself :p
255 2012-10-24 03:04:27 jgarzik has quit (Changing host)
256 2012-10-24 03:04:27 jgarzik has joined
257 2012-10-24 03:04:54 <Luke-Jr> zveda: if you implement it (reasonably), I'll support it :P
258 2012-10-24 03:04:59 <zveda> mm ok
259 2012-10-24 03:05:20 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
260 2012-10-24 03:05:39 <jgarzik> sipa: sadly I think the fseek() in LoadExternalBlockFile() is artificially limiting that routine to 2GB
261 2012-10-24 03:05:45 <jgarzik> due to 32-bit signed long
262 2012-10-24 03:06:49 guruvan_ has joined
263 2012-10-24 03:07:12 guruvan_ is now known as guruvan
264 2012-10-24 03:09:32 guruvan- has joined
265 2012-10-24 03:10:07 xblitz has left ()
266 2012-10-24 03:12:50 <Cory> Does the sum of two ECDSA private keys map to the sum of their public keys?
267 2012-10-24 03:16:34 <forrestv> Cory, i .. think so
268 2012-10-24 03:17:57 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
269 2012-10-24 03:23:10 Detritus has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
270 2012-10-24 03:23:56 zveda has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
271 2012-10-24 03:24:46 gfinn has joined
272 2012-10-24 03:24:56 <Cory> I'm trying to understand https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=84569.0 (Vanity pool), and it makes sense if that's the case.
273 2012-10-24 03:25:11 zveda has joined
274 2012-10-24 03:25:17 showard has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
275 2012-10-24 03:27:09 <Cory> Do all public-key cryptography algorithms work that way?
276 2012-10-24 03:27:22 <twobitcoins> gmaxwell: Regarding pindexBest and CreateNewBlock, there is a longstanding problem that callers of CreateNewBlock read from pindexBest and assume it corresponds to the block returned by CreateNewBlock, when it may not.
277 2012-10-24 03:27:33 Detritus has joined
278 2012-10-24 03:27:36 <twobitcoins> I fix it in my builds by modifying CreateNewBlock to move the assignment "pindexPrev = pindexBest" inside the LOCK2(cs_main, mempool.cs) and also to return it to callers so they can use the same CBlockIndex used by CreateNewBlock instead of reading pindexBest themselves.
279 2012-10-24 03:27:44 <twobitcoins> I'm not sure if that fixes the problem you are seeing.
280 2012-10-24 03:27:46 BitcoinB_ has joined
281 2012-10-24 03:27:47 <forrestv> Cory, btw, it's elliptic curve arithmetic addition
282 2012-10-24 03:28:01 <forrestv> Cory, no
283 2012-10-24 03:28:06 BitcoinBaltar has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
284 2012-10-24 03:28:12 BitcoinB_ is now known as BitcoinBaltar
285 2012-10-24 03:31:23 <Cory> Thanks. :)
286 2012-10-24 03:32:22 <gmaxwell> twobitcoins: er, advancing pindexPrev = pindexBest after the fact can leave you with invalid blocks.
287 2012-10-24 03:33:36 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: should be easy to fix.
288 2012-10-24 03:34:22 <gmaxwell> twobitcoins: e.g. if you pull transactions for block 3 and then mine block 4 you'll mine a bunch of double spends.
289 2012-10-24 03:35:19 <twobitcoins> gmaxwell: The point is to guarantee that pindexPrev correctly matches the set of transactions.
290 2012-10-24 03:35:35 <twobitcoins> So I assign pindexPrev = pIndexBest immediately after taking the lock, which is before the first use of pindexPrev.
291 2012-10-24 03:36:15 <gmaxwell> Gotcha, yes I could do that... but I'd rather not lock, if a new block is coming in just now we don't want to block it, we want to discard our work and make new work.
292 2012-10-24 03:36:36 <gmaxwell> (otherwise we may just end up mining against an old point in the chain)
293 2012-10-24 03:37:41 <twobitcoins> The lock is already there, right? The troublesome case is when pindexBest changes after assigning pindexPrev = pindexBest and before taking the lock. By deferring the assignment to pindexPrev, that case is avoided.
294 2012-10-24 03:39:43 JZavala has joined
295 2012-10-24 03:41:26 <gmaxwell> twobitcoins: indeed, we take it to build the transactions and thats an issue, but even if I move it there it can move by the time it gets to ConnectBlock. (that lock is only held while its in the mempool)
296 2012-10-24 03:41:41 <gmaxwell> hm. I'm surprised that this hasn't resulted in invalid blocks on the network.
297 2012-10-24 03:42:15 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: find the rare stuck client bug?
298 2012-10-24 03:42:36 <twobitcoins> As far as I can tell, the lock is held pretty much until the end of CreateNewBlock, including the call to ConnectBlock.
299 2012-10-24 03:42:56 <gmaxwell> twobitcoins: you looking at the post ultraprune code?
300 2012-10-24 03:44:18 <gmaxwell> oh indeed, I fail at indentation reading.
301 2012-10-24 03:45:02 <gmaxwell> Then fine, moving it into the lock is fine, though I'd prefer to still toss the stale work. At least it won't be invalid.
302 2012-10-24 03:46:01 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: no, just an obsecure mining race condition.
303 2012-10-24 03:53:28 xisalty has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
304 2012-10-24 03:55:33 <twobitcoins> Work can become stale at any moment, so it's sort of futile to try to return non-stale work because it may become stale the next instant anyway. CreateNewBlock has to return work based on the state at *some* instant. If it becomes stale, the next call to CreateNewBlock will fix it.
305 2012-10-24 03:56:14 EPiSKiNG- has joined
306 2012-10-24 03:57:16 <twobitcoins> For correctness though, CreateNewBlock should pass the correct pindexPrev to the caller as well as using it itself, otherwise the caller can operate on an inconsistent state of the world and mine invalid blocks.
307 2012-10-24 04:04:34 * Luke-Jr wonders if his LP pullreq fixes this
308 2012-10-24 04:09:54 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
309 2012-10-24 04:10:06 [7] has joined
310 2012-10-24 04:15:18 freakazoid has joined
311 2012-10-24 04:27:46 ThomasV has joined
312 2012-10-24 04:31:10 optimator_ has joined
313 2012-10-24 04:32:49 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
314 2012-10-24 04:37:30 slush1 has joined
315 2012-10-24 04:38:25 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
316 2012-10-24 04:44:51 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
317 2012-10-24 05:08:54 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
318 2012-10-24 05:09:06 <MC1984> fuck yeah 3d printing
319 2012-10-24 05:09:15 <MC1984> post-scarcity rising
320 2012-10-24 05:10:15 <MC1984> but first, a long painful period of prohibition and a 'War on Plenty' akin to the War on Piracy of today
321 2012-10-24 05:13:03 galambo has joined
322 2012-10-24 05:14:27 tucenaber has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
323 2012-10-24 05:15:54 galambo_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
324 2012-10-24 05:22:38 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
325 2012-10-24 05:23:30 davout has joined
326 2012-10-24 05:23:31 davout has quit (Changing host)
327 2012-10-24 05:23:31 davout has joined
328 2012-10-24 05:24:17 <MC1984> i think the end game of 3d printers is literally "push button, receive bacon"
329 2012-10-24 05:24:24 <MC1984> a glorious future awaits
330 2012-10-24 05:24:52 spreelanka has quit (Quit: spreelanka)
331 2012-10-24 05:25:17 pjorrit has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
332 2012-10-24 05:26:54 pjorrit has joined
333 2012-10-24 05:28:31 bd_ has quit (Quit: brb)
334 2012-10-24 05:33:08 bd_ has joined
335 2012-10-24 05:33:33 <gmaxwell> MC1984: we reached post-scarcity in the 1970s. The most important goods and tools today are pure information with zero marginal cost.
336 2012-10-24 05:34:55 <MC1984> not quite
337 2012-10-24 05:35:22 <MC1984> information post scarcity is becoming a reality and its causing a shitstorm
338 2012-10-24 05:35:43 <MC1984> it will push out into the real world eventually
339 2012-10-24 05:37:11 <MC1984> i often wonder if the lack of jobs is consequent of this
340 2012-10-24 05:37:21 <MC1984> if its just the beginning
341 2012-10-24 05:37:57 <MC1984> it seems near 100% unemployment is an end result of post scarcity
342 2012-10-24 05:38:09 <gmaxwell> this is way offtopic.
343 2012-10-24 05:38:14 <gmaxwell> #bitcoin?
344 2012-10-24 05:38:16 EvanR2 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
345 2012-10-24 05:38:36 twobitcoins has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
346 2012-10-24 05:38:49 <MC1984> >implying we will become a civilisation of artists and philisophers when the need to work is removed, instead of sit around in our pants al day pushing buttons and receiving bacon
347 2012-10-24 05:39:30 twobitcoins has joined
348 2012-10-24 05:42:51 ThomasV has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
349 2012-10-24 05:46:01 coresun has joined
350 2012-10-24 05:47:01 EvanR2 has joined
351 2012-10-24 05:58:57 RazielZ has joined
352 2012-10-24 06:10:33 abrkn has joined
353 2012-10-24 06:11:31 slush has joined
354 2012-10-24 06:13:14 <gmaxwell> twobitcoins: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1953 FYI
355 2012-10-24 06:14:00 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
356 2012-10-24 06:16:22 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
357 2012-10-24 06:19:48 PiZZaMaN2K has joined
358 2012-10-24 06:21:48 <twobitcoins> gmaxwell: The comment says "Enforce on CreateNewBlock invocations which don't have a hash." but it seems like the code *doesn't* enforce in that case (if my brain is working properly).
359 2012-10-24 06:23:45 <gmaxwell> yea, fair enough. I meant don't but in hindsight thats kinda dumb, though harmless currently. Long month.
360 2012-10-24 06:27:11 <twobitcoins> gmaxwell: Yeah, not too important either way, just an inconsistency.
361 2012-10-24 06:27:49 ovidiusoft has joined
362 2012-10-24 06:28:04 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
363 2012-10-24 06:29:19 coresun has quit (Quit: Leaving)
364 2012-10-24 06:31:07 <twobitcoins> gmaxwell: Also, I guess you didn't want to pass pindexPrev to the callers of CreateNewBlock? It means the callers may still do things based on inconsistent state, like putting the wrong height into the scriptsig or calculating the wrong mintime in getblocktemplate.
365 2012-10-24 06:33:13 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
366 2012-10-24 06:36:49 <gmaxwell> twobitcoins: haven't decided what I wanted to do with restructing that, nor have I been able to reproduce it yet, but moving the lock was simple and I'd already tested it. I haven't forgotten it though. :)
367 2012-10-24 06:40:57 <twobitcoins> gmaxwell: Okay, no problem. :-)
368 2012-10-24 06:41:09 <twobitcoins> gmaxwell: Thanks for taking a look at these things.
369 2012-10-24 06:44:36 davout has joined
370 2012-10-24 06:45:17 OneFixt has joined
371 2012-10-24 06:46:25 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
372 2012-10-24 06:46:55 maaku has joined
373 2012-10-24 06:47:14 maaku has quit (Client Quit)
374 2012-10-24 06:51:41 CodesInChaos has joined
375 2012-10-24 06:51:45 PK has joined
376 2012-10-24 07:06:29 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
377 2012-10-24 07:09:32 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
378 2012-10-24 07:11:58 nsh has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
379 2012-10-24 07:14:57 <sipa> jgarzik: yes, the fseek use could be avoided
380 2012-10-24 07:16:23 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
381 2012-10-24 07:17:44 ThomasV has joined
382 2012-10-24 07:19:38 <sipa> gmaxwell: i thought i already moved the querying op pindexBest to below the LOCK2 in that block?
383 2012-10-24 07:19:53 <sipa> gmaxwell: oh, no i only suggested that to Diapolo
384 2012-10-24 07:20:30 da2ce7 has joined
385 2012-10-24 07:22:34 conman has joined
386 2012-10-24 07:28:13 <sipa> gmaxwell: oh, that's what you did
387 2012-10-24 07:35:32 kuldeepdhaka has joined
388 2012-10-24 07:37:13 nlpplz has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
389 2012-10-24 07:39:06 nlpplz has joined
390 2012-10-24 07:44:16 sirk390 has joined
391 2012-10-24 07:46:06 BlackPrapor has joined
392 2012-10-24 07:48:03 sirk390 has quit (Client Quit)
393 2012-10-24 07:58:31 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
394 2012-10-24 07:58:44 sirk390 has joined
395 2012-10-24 08:01:42 sirk390 has quit (Client Quit)
396 2012-10-24 08:04:49 ibno has joined
397 2012-10-24 08:06:20 malaimo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
398 2012-10-24 08:06:52 davout has joined
399 2012-10-24 08:06:53 davout has quit (Changing host)
400 2012-10-24 08:06:53 davout has joined
401 2012-10-24 08:08:16 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
402 2012-10-24 08:20:19 gfinn has joined
403 2012-10-24 08:39:46 <ibno> would it be possible to implement mental poker with bitcoin contracts?
404 2012-10-24 08:40:34 <ibno> has anyone tried?
405 2012-10-24 08:43:39 CodesInChaos has joined
406 2012-10-24 08:44:11 jdnavarro has joined
407 2012-10-24 08:44:12 jdnavarro has quit (Read error: error:1408F119:SSL routines:SSL3_GET_RECORD:decryption failed or bad record mac)
408 2012-10-24 08:46:22 jdnavarro has joined
409 2012-10-24 08:47:00 toffoo has quit ()
410 2012-10-24 08:57:05 kuldeepdhaka has left ()
411 2012-10-24 08:59:55 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
412 2012-10-24 09:06:56 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
413 2012-10-24 09:12:55 <zveda> sorta
414 2012-10-24 09:12:58 <zveda> not me but
415 2012-10-24 09:13:39 <zveda> ibno: I think I read bitzino are doing it
416 2012-10-24 09:14:36 <ibno> will they open source it?
417 2012-10-24 09:16:04 gjs278 has joined
418 2012-10-24 09:16:18 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
419 2012-10-24 09:17:32 <zveda> no idea
420 2012-10-24 09:17:37 <zveda> hope so
421 2012-10-24 09:18:08 iddo has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
422 2012-10-24 09:19:16 gjs278 has joined
423 2012-10-24 09:23:20 ThomasV has joined
424 2012-10-24 09:26:57 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
425 2012-10-24 09:29:14 gjs278 has joined
426 2012-10-24 09:38:30 Hasimir is now known as GoldFingering
427 2012-10-24 09:41:16 GoldFingering is now known as Hasimir
428 2012-10-24 09:46:25 guruvan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
429 2012-10-24 09:47:16 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
430 2012-10-24 09:47:22 guruvan- is now known as guruvan
431 2012-10-24 09:48:28 guruvan_ has joined
432 2012-10-24 09:54:36 slush1 has joined
433 2012-10-24 09:56:11 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
434 2012-10-24 10:00:20 iddo has joined
435 2012-10-24 10:04:35 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
436 2012-10-24 10:04:49 edcba__ has joined
437 2012-10-24 10:06:50 TD has joined
438 2012-10-24 10:06:56 edcba has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
439 2012-10-24 10:21:44 graingert_ecs has joined
440 2012-10-24 10:24:13 tucenaber has joined
441 2012-10-24 10:29:54 Internet13 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
442 2012-10-24 10:35:40 CrazyMF has joined
443 2012-10-24 10:38:35 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
444 2012-10-24 10:42:18 TD has joined
445 2012-10-24 10:44:35 twobitcoins has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
446 2012-10-24 10:44:46 drizztbsd has joined
447 2012-10-24 10:44:46 drizztbsd has quit (Changing host)
448 2012-10-24 10:44:46 drizztbsd has joined
449 2012-10-24 10:47:50 Joric has joined
450 2012-10-24 10:48:50 <TD> BlueMatt: ping
451 2012-10-24 10:49:43 PiZZaMaN2K is now known as PiZZaMaN2K|away
452 2012-10-24 10:50:26 Internet13 has joined
453 2012-10-24 10:52:34 ThomasV has joined
454 2012-10-24 11:02:05 Joric has quit ()
455 2012-10-24 11:09:08 twobitcoins has joined
456 2012-10-24 11:19:44 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
457 2012-10-24 11:24:01 <ibno> where can I download the testnet blockchain?
458 2012-10-24 11:24:43 <ibno> nvm, it goes pretty quickly via the client
459 2012-10-24 11:28:55 slush has joined
460 2012-10-24 11:29:06 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #116: STILL FAILING in 1 hr 57 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/116/
461 2012-10-24 11:29:42 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
462 2012-10-24 11:30:14 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
463 2012-10-24 11:49:31 dvide has joined
464 2012-10-24 11:49:43 TD has joined
465 2012-10-24 11:50:38 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
466 2012-10-24 11:57:12 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
467 2012-10-24 12:10:34 BlackPrapor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
468 2012-10-24 12:11:13 paraipan has joined
469 2012-10-24 12:11:22 BlackPrapor has joined
470 2012-10-24 12:15:57 slush1 has joined
471 2012-10-24 12:16:41 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
472 2012-10-24 12:19:45 edcba__ is now known as edcba
473 2012-10-24 12:20:59 t7 has joined
474 2012-10-24 12:24:05 leotreasure has joined
475 2012-10-24 12:26:06 leotreasure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
476 2012-10-24 12:36:34 JZavala has joined
477 2012-10-24 12:37:09 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
478 2012-10-24 12:37:34 CrazyMF has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
479 2012-10-24 12:41:25 <ibno> how is blkindex.dat structured?
480 2012-10-24 12:44:24 conman has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
481 2012-10-24 12:45:55 paraipan has joined
482 2012-10-24 12:46:36 drizztbsd has joined
483 2012-10-24 12:49:21 <Luke-Jr> ibno: bdb 4.8 database
484 2012-10-24 12:49:27 <Luke-Jr> ibno: going away with 0.8
485 2012-10-24 12:49:45 nym has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
486 2012-10-24 12:49:45 mndrix has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
487 2012-10-24 12:51:17 PK has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
488 2012-10-24 12:52:24 optimator has joined
489 2012-10-24 12:52:24 optimator has quit (Changing host)
490 2012-10-24 12:52:24 optimator has joined
491 2012-10-24 12:52:46 optimator_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
492 2012-10-24 12:53:38 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
493 2012-10-24 12:54:52 nym has joined
494 2012-10-24 12:56:05 umop3plsdn has quit ()
495 2012-10-24 12:56:26 <ibno> Luke-Jr: ok, what will replace it?
496 2012-10-24 12:57:18 <sipa> ibno: two leveldb databases
497 2012-10-24 13:01:50 <drizztbsd> sipa: is your tor hidden service always on?
498 2012-10-24 13:02:55 mndrix has joined
499 2012-10-24 13:02:55 mndrix has quit (Changing host)
500 2012-10-24 13:02:55 mndrix has joined
501 2012-10-24 13:02:55 mndrix has quit (Changing host)
502 2012-10-24 13:02:55 mndrix has joined
503 2012-10-24 13:03:15 <sipa> drizztbsd: should be
504 2012-10-24 13:03:20 BlackPrapor has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
505 2012-10-24 13:03:21 <TD> hety
506 2012-10-24 13:03:24 <TD> hey
507 2012-10-24 13:03:51 <drizztbsd> ok, thanks
508 2012-10-24 13:04:22 <drizztbsd> which is the advantage to use the hidden service vs exit node?
509 2012-10-24 13:05:03 <sipa> drizztbsd: the fact that the traffic doesn't need to leave the tor network
510 2012-10-24 13:05:35 <drizztbsd> is it possibile to support i2p?
511 2012-10-24 13:05:41 <drizztbsd> teoretically
512 2012-10-24 13:06:06 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
513 2012-10-24 13:06:21 agricocb has joined
514 2012-10-24 13:07:32 <sipa> not right now; i2p needs 256-bit routable addresses, and we only have IPv6 (which is 128 bits)
515 2012-10-24 13:07:48 <sipa> IPv4 and onion are both mapped into a subrange of IPv6, but for I2P that isn't possible
516 2012-10-24 13:08:09 <drizztbsd> ok, thanks
517 2012-10-24 13:09:57 one_zero has quit ()
518 2012-10-24 13:17:07 dlb76 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
519 2012-10-24 13:17:30 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
520 2012-10-24 13:22:15 PK has joined
521 2012-10-24 13:22:24 <ibno> will everyone have to download the blockchain at new with the 0.8 release?
522 2012-10-24 13:22:29 <sipa> no
523 2012-10-24 13:22:42 <sipa> it will reindex the block chain you already have
524 2012-10-24 13:22:52 <sipa> but that isn't implemented entirely yet
525 2012-10-24 13:22:59 <ibno> ok
526 2012-10-24 13:26:07 luke-jr_ has joined
527 2012-10-24 13:26:35 rdponticelli_ is now known as rdponticelli
528 2012-10-24 13:26:36 Luke-Jr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
529 2012-10-24 13:27:06 xblitz has joined
530 2012-10-24 13:28:52 aurigae has joined
531 2012-10-24 13:29:09 cande has joined
532 2012-10-24 13:29:43 maaku has joined
533 2012-10-24 13:33:40 <TD> sipa: what stops somebody sending a giant message to a peer, to make it OOM?
534 2012-10-24 13:35:48 cande has quit (Quit: Lämnar)
535 2012-10-24 13:36:21 <sipa> TD: there's a limit on message size, afaik
536 2012-10-24 13:37:12 <helo> gmaxwell: ~2 hours with -loadblock (same system that took ~4hr from network)
537 2012-10-24 13:39:22 malaimo has joined
538 2012-10-24 13:40:36 Silverion has joined
539 2012-10-24 13:43:41 emryss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
540 2012-10-24 13:44:00 <jgarzik> serialize.h:static const unsigned int MAX_SIZE = 0x02000000;
541 2012-10-24 13:44:01 <jgarzik> main.cpp: if (nMessageSize > MAX_SIZE)
542 2012-10-24 13:44:01 <jgarzik> main.cpp: printf("ProcessMessages(%s, %u bytes) : nMessageSize > MAX_SIZE\n", strCommand.c_str(), nMessageSize);
543 2012-10-24 13:45:00 Insti has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
544 2012-10-24 13:46:30 <drizztbsd> -connect supports port?
545 2012-10-24 13:46:36 <drizztbsd> -connect=ip:port?
546 2012-10-24 13:46:49 <sipa> drizztbsd: yes
547 2012-10-24 13:47:06 <sipa> jgarzik, TD: so, max 32 MiB...
548 2012-10-24 13:47:10 <TD> ok
549 2012-10-24 13:47:37 Silverion has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
550 2012-10-24 13:48:28 Insti has joined
551 2012-10-24 13:48:28 BlackPrapor has joined
552 2012-10-24 13:49:26 <drizztbsd> curl -sk https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Fallback_Nodes\#Tor_network | sed -n 's/^<td> \(.*\.onion.*\) <\/td>$/\1/p' | while IFS=: read -r host port; do echo "-connect=`dig +short -p 9053 @127.0.0.1 "$host"`${port:+:}$port"; done | xargs bitcoin-qt
553 2012-10-24 13:49:33 BlackPrapor has quit (Client Quit)
554 2012-10-24 13:49:34 <drizztbsd> very raw, but it works greatly :P
555 2012-10-24 13:49:41 slush has joined
556 2012-10-24 13:50:36 <jgarzik> ;;seen gavinandresen
557 2012-10-24 13:50:36 <gribble> gavinandresen was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 20 hours, 35 minutes, and 37 seconds ago: <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.
558 2012-10-24 13:50:42 <sipa> drizztbsd: bitcoin.sipa.be/seeds.txt has crawling results, including onion nodes
559 2012-10-24 13:50:45 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
560 2012-10-24 13:51:04 <drizztbsd> uhm thanks
561 2012-10-24 13:53:00 spreelanka has joined
562 2012-10-24 13:53:49 <helo> that text file is in swahili according to google Oo
563 2012-10-24 13:56:02 <sipa> TD: who should I talk to, to fix that? :)
564 2012-10-24 13:56:18 <TD> hah
565 2012-10-24 13:56:37 <TD> i think that's a good guess at the language. i mean it might as well be swahili
566 2012-10-24 13:57:07 <sipa> there are only a few words in it, and all of them are english
567 2012-10-24 13:58:04 <sipa> even Japanese would be a better guess, with "Satoshi" occurring a few thousand times in the text
568 2012-10-24 13:59:01 <TD> language detection is based on very aggressive heuristics, probably also bloom filters
569 2012-10-24 13:59:11 <TD> if you give it basically random input you'll get basically random output
570 2012-10-24 13:59:28 <sipa> right
571 2012-10-24 13:59:34 <TD> it has to be rough because the langdet tables have to be in RAM all the time, so size really matters a lot
572 2012-10-24 14:00:31 datagutt has joined
573 2012-10-24 14:00:44 <sipa> still, if you'd do very limited preprocessing before anything else, which drops all obvious non-text data, i think the guess should be good
574 2012-10-24 14:00:49 <sipa> then agian, hard problem indeed
575 2012-10-24 14:01:02 <TD> "obvious non text data" in a world with hundreds of languages? :)
576 2012-10-24 14:01:14 <TD> yeah it's sort of a hard CS problem. obviously server-side language detection is much more accurate
577 2012-10-24 14:01:27 <drizztbsd> curl -s http://bitcoin.sipa.be/seeds.txt | cut -f 1 | fgrep .onion pwnz
578 2012-10-24 14:01:33 <TD> huh
579 2012-10-24 14:01:41 <TD> bitcoin wiki has an SSL cert from the future?!
580 2012-10-24 14:01:47 <drizztbsd> lol
581 2012-10-24 14:02:01 <gmaxwell> TD: Bitcoin is alien technology after all.
582 2012-10-24 14:02:08 <TD> hah
583 2012-10-24 14:02:33 <TD> i've never see this error before
584 2012-10-24 14:02:41 <sipa> Issued On: 12/15/10
585 2012-10-24 14:02:54 <TD> so it should be valid
586 2012-10-24 14:03:08 <drizztbsd> curl: (60) SSL certificate problem: certificate has expired
587 2012-10-24 14:03:10 <TD> i wonder if it's chaining through an invalid cert or to an authority chrome doesn't recognize
588 2012-10-24 14:03:55 <TD> well shit
589 2012-10-24 14:04:00 <TD> startcoms certificate has expired
590 2012-10-24 14:04:10 <gmaxwell> 0_o
591 2012-10-24 14:04:14 <TD> boggle
592 2012-10-24 14:04:17 <TD> i wonder how that happens
593 2012-10-24 14:04:19 <gmaxwell> is there a new chaining cert that we should be using?
594 2012-10-24 14:04:26 <gmaxwell> s/we/the wiki/
595 2012-10-24 14:05:11 <sipa> TD: according to my browser, all three certs in the path are valid
596 2012-10-24 14:05:17 <TD> that's odd
597 2012-10-24 14:05:22 <TD> what browser/version do you have
598 2012-10-24 14:05:45 <sipa> Builtin Object Token:StartCom Certificate Authority: Not After: 9/17/36 (wtf... 2036?)
599 2012-10-24 14:06:17 <sipa> StartCom Class 2 Primare Intermediate Server CA: Not After 10/24/17
600 2012-10-24 14:06:20 <TD> https://forum.startcom.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2534
601 2012-10-24 14:06:37 <TD> those are some weird date formats
602 2012-10-24 14:06:47 <TD> i think Tux has to get new certs that chain through a newer intermediate CA
603 2012-10-24 14:07:10 <TD> i'll pm mark
604 2012-10-24 14:08:09 drizztbsd has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
605 2012-10-24 14:09:06 dlb76 has joined
606 2012-10-24 14:09:54 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
607 2012-10-24 14:10:21 drizztbsd has joined
608 2012-10-24 14:10:22 drizztbsd has quit (Changing host)
609 2012-10-24 14:10:22 drizztbsd has joined
610 2012-10-24 14:10:47 <davout> hey
611 2012-10-24 14:11:04 <davout> can someone in the UK do me a tiny little favor ?
612 2012-10-24 14:12:42 emryss has joined
613 2012-10-24 14:13:57 freakazoid has joined
614 2012-10-24 14:16:10 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
615 2012-10-24 14:17:03 iddo has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
616 2012-10-24 14:17:42 Icoin has joined
617 2012-10-24 14:17:52 <Icoin> hi everyone i run a bitcoind on a raspberrypi by now i reached 181631 blocks with the precompiled 3.2.4 client. I tried to compile the 7 version but i end up with lack of memory in the standard configuration, i try now to load the chain fully to see if that works, but it would be great if there where a source for the binary similar to the ubuntu ppa process just for debian wheezy raspberrypi edition. After successuful chainload i try to ad
618 2012-10-24 14:17:52 <Icoin> 512 mb swap and try to recompile the latest daemon again
619 2012-10-24 14:18:37 iddo has joined
620 2012-10-24 14:19:28 <helo> the reference client isn't really very well suited for a rpi
621 2012-10-24 14:19:53 rdponticelli has joined
622 2012-10-24 14:20:12 <gmaxwell> nothing is really well suited for a rpi.
623 2012-10-24 14:20:16 <helo> it's optimized for machines with much faster procs, and much more ram
624 2012-10-24 14:20:45 <gmaxwell> In any case, I wouldn't even bother trying prior to 0.8.
625 2012-10-24 14:21:25 <gmaxwell> helo: bluematt has bitcoin running on some small arm sbcs... but they are ones which are like 16x faster than the rpi.
626 2012-10-24 14:21:33 <Icoin> gmaxwell: but you understand the significance of running a bitcoind on a pi ?
627 2012-10-24 14:21:48 * helo does not
628 2012-10-24 14:23:56 <gmaxwell> Icoin: The pi is a really handicapped computer, it is an old in order single issue core, which most of the available cache handed over to the useless (to us) dsp on board... and a quite small amount of attached ram. It will never have good performance. And while I'm always amused to see bitcoin run on more limited hardware, it's not a good target for bitcoind.
629 2012-10-24 14:24:05 harkon has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
630 2012-10-24 14:24:17 harkon has joined
631 2012-10-24 14:24:20 <gmaxwell> (or, apparently g++ :) )
632 2012-10-24 14:25:07 <sipa> well it'd be nice if it worked, but it's not a priority to make the user experience of bitcoin running on such low-spec deviced good
633 2012-10-24 14:25:09 <Icoin> gmaxwell: i understand, but its a awesome way for little students become familiar with the toppic
634 2012-10-24 14:25:37 <sipa> students that have a rpi, but no laptop or desktop system?
635 2012-10-24 14:25:38 <helo> hopefully students have access to more of a machine than a pi
636 2012-10-24 14:25:49 <gmaxwell> Icoin: and a way for them to get a low opinion of it when it doesn't work well on hardware that is too small to handle it.
637 2012-10-24 14:26:21 <Icoin> gmaxwell: when we follow the one computer per chide idea then not every child is able to handle a massive hardware infrastructure like in western countries
638 2012-10-24 14:26:34 <helo> wouldn't pi students focus more on the basics of embedded programming input/output?
639 2012-10-24 14:27:10 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
640 2012-10-24 14:27:30 aurigae has left ()
641 2012-10-24 14:27:39 <Icoin> helo: well see it from the perspective that your parents needs to work for a month or so to be able to buy a computer like the rpi, is there an other hardware alternative ??
642 2012-10-24 14:28:16 <helo> children with raspberry pis will be using them to learn, rather than be trying to run a full bitcoin node
643 2012-10-24 14:28:29 <Icoin> helo: yes i agree
644 2012-10-24 14:28:43 <sipa> you'll want to run a lightweight client on a pi, not a full node
645 2012-10-24 14:28:48 <Icoin> helo: its not the purpose of the rpi bitcoind to run a full node
646 2012-10-24 14:28:49 <helo> it really isn't very educational to make; ./bitcoind
647 2012-10-24 14:29:12 pjorrit has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
648 2012-10-24 14:29:19 <sipa> but i do expect an rpi to be fast enough to keep up-to-date, actually, though IBD will be slow
649 2012-10-24 14:29:42 <Icoin> helo: grins, well i wouldnt say so since not many even know there is such a thing like ./bitcoind
650 2012-10-24 14:29:47 <gmaxwell> sipa: I'd be somewhat surprised, it's surprisingly slow.
651 2012-10-24 14:30:04 gavinandresen has joined
652 2012-10-24 14:30:29 <gmaxwell> For learning testnet is good, or even betterâ but unfortunately if you can't compile it... well, not much room for learning.
653 2012-10-24 14:30:48 copumpkin has joined
654 2012-10-24 14:30:50 pjorrit has joined
655 2012-10-24 14:30:51 <sipa> at least for SHA256, it's an order of magnitude slower than a core2 duo 2.2 GHz
656 2012-10-24 14:31:09 <sipa> i expect a core2 duo to still do around a block per second these days
657 2012-10-24 14:31:20 <Icoin> gmaxwell: 3.2.4 was compiled and by now it works
658 2012-10-24 14:31:23 <sipa> the question is how fast I/O is
659 2012-10-24 14:31:34 <Icoin> at least the blockchain load
660 2012-10-24 14:31:37 <sipa> Icoin: if you're only up to 181k, you haven't hit the hardest part yet
661 2012-10-24 14:31:56 <gmaxwell> Icoin: it was a cross compiled binary. Most people don't compile _on_ such limited systems.
662 2012-10-24 14:32:08 <Icoin> sipa: yes i know but memory usage is only 40% by now
663 2012-10-24 14:32:09 vampireb has joined
664 2012-10-24 14:32:22 <epscy> i got bitcoin running on a rpi
665 2012-10-24 14:32:24 <sipa> how long did it take to sync to 181k?
666 2012-10-24 14:32:31 <epscy> realised how slow it was
667 2012-10-24 14:32:36 <epscy> and stopped it
668 2012-10-24 14:32:40 <Icoin> epscy what version ?
669 2012-10-24 14:33:04 <epscy> 0.6 probably
670 2012-10-24 14:33:10 <epscy> i can't remember
671 2012-10-24 14:33:17 <Icoin> did you compile yourself ?
672 2012-10-24 14:33:24 <epscy> i think so
673 2012-10-24 14:33:35 <sipa> Icoin: how long did it take you to sync 181k blocks?
674 2012-10-24 14:33:35 <epscy> i am disspointed with the rpi
675 2012-10-24 14:33:53 <epscy> oh i copied the blockchain from elsewhere
676 2012-10-24 14:34:04 <epscy> i didn't wait for it to sync by itself
677 2012-10-24 14:34:25 <Icoin> sipa: by now like 3 days
678 2012-10-24 14:34:40 <epscy> what i have noticed with the rpi is whenever it writes to the sd card the whole system seems to freeze
679 2012-10-24 14:34:55 <epscy> tried with another sd card now so i don't think it is just me
680 2012-10-24 14:35:10 <sipa> Icoin: impressive, with 0.3.24 even (more recent versions should be faster)
681 2012-10-24 14:35:11 <epscy> this means the rpi is fine for doing stuff that runs in memory
682 2012-10-24 14:35:29 <epscy> but anything using the disk will always be annoying to use
683 2012-10-24 14:35:36 <Icoin> epscy: depends on the raspberian version you use, you ever tried razor ?
684 2012-10-24 14:35:45 <epscy> Icoin: nope?
685 2012-10-24 14:36:14 <Icoin> there are various compilations avalable
686 2012-10-24 14:36:20 <epscy> Icoin: got a link
687 2012-10-24 14:36:24 <epscy> ?
688 2012-10-24 14:36:33 pnicholson has quit (Quit: pnicholson)
689 2012-10-24 14:36:38 <gmaxwell> epscy: the pandaboard has a similar problem with the sd card. Reading/Writing to it is fairly slow and it blocks in the kernel while doing it.
690 2012-10-24 14:36:51 <sipa> leveldb should help a lot on such storage
691 2012-10-24 14:37:06 <sipa> i should unpack my rpi one day...
692 2012-10-24 14:37:09 <Icoin> gmaxwell: use the latest sd cards avalable to solve this problem a bit
693 2012-10-24 14:37:39 <Icoin> i realized it is depending on the speed of the sdcard how fast your rpi realy is
694 2012-10-24 14:37:43 <gmaxwell> I solved it by running my pandaboard off network storage.
695 2012-10-24 14:37:45 <epscy> gmaxwell: would running of a usb flash disk help at all?
696 2012-10-24 14:37:54 <thermoman> Dependency changes: openssl 1.0.1c - do i need this version at runtime or only when compiling? running debian squeeze with openssl 0.9.8o
697 2012-10-24 14:38:05 <epscy> actually i have a small portable HDD
698 2012-10-24 14:38:16 <gmaxwell> epscy: thats what some people do on the pandaboards, but I thought I heard the rpi has usb controller speed issues too?
699 2012-10-24 14:38:18 <sipa> thermoman: when you compile yourself, you'll use whatever openssl is available at compile time
700 2012-10-24 14:38:24 <gmaxwell> thermoman: No.
701 2012-10-24 14:38:24 <Icoin> epscy: yeah that would work aswell
702 2012-10-24 14:38:26 <epscy> it would be interesting to see how it performs running off that
703 2012-10-24 14:38:48 <Icoin> epscy: please try when you have the patience for it :)
704 2012-10-24 14:38:52 <epscy> gmaxwell: oh i haven't heard about that
705 2012-10-24 14:38:56 <thermoman> sipa: then why is this mentioned in the changelog if it's non-relevant?
706 2012-10-24 14:39:14 <sipa> thermoman: because the changelog is about the release
707 2012-10-24 14:39:14 <epscy> i get the impression getting it to boot from a usb device is a fair bit of work
708 2012-10-24 14:39:34 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
709 2012-10-24 14:40:07 <epscy> Icoin: the problem with the HDD is that it would require it's own power source too, so now i have two wall warts for a raspberry pi
710 2012-10-24 14:40:09 <thermoman> sipa: the changelos tells me the new release depends on openssl 1.0.1c - and you tell me i'm fine with 0.9.8c what i have. so i'm confused
711 2012-10-24 14:40:27 <epscy> and that point i start to wonder if the whole endeavour is worth it
712 2012-10-24 14:40:51 <sipa> thermoman: the source code doesn't require a specific openssl version, but released binaries have a dependency on that openssl version
713 2012-10-24 14:41:21 <thermoman> sipa: ok, so i can't run this release on debian squeeze, right?
714 2012-10-24 14:41:29 zaza has joined
715 2012-10-24 14:41:36 <thermoman> that's bad news
716 2012-10-24 14:41:43 <sipa> thermoman: are there even binaries for debian squeeze?
717 2012-10-24 14:41:52 zaza is now known as Guest1458
718 2012-10-24 14:41:57 <kinlo> isn't it possible to just make a static build?
719 2012-10-24 14:42:02 <thermoman> sipa: i just downloaded the 0.7.1 tarball
720 2012-10-24 14:42:07 <thermoman> there are binaries included
721 2012-10-24 14:42:17 <thermoman> these i would use
722 2012-10-24 14:42:18 <sipa> thermoman: well, if you compile it yourself it should work
723 2012-10-24 14:42:30 <Icoin> epscy: i gonna do some more test with the rpi, i like the idea probably the swap extension will solve the compilation problem
724 2012-10-24 14:42:47 <kinlo> in any case, I don't really the problem
725 2012-10-24 14:43:00 <kinlo> I'm using debian squeeze everywhere and it seems to work fine
726 2012-10-24 14:43:14 <kinlo> hmmmz, altough the only 0.7.x versions I'm running are source-compiled...
727 2012-10-24 14:43:45 Guest1458 has left ()
728 2012-10-24 14:44:14 Zarutian has joined
729 2012-10-24 14:45:39 <Icoin> epscy: if you do something with you rpi i suggest to use berryboot http://www.berryterminal.com/doku.php/berryboot
730 2012-10-24 14:46:12 <Icoin> epscy: try it with razor :)
731 2012-10-24 14:47:02 <Icoin> epscy: the process is very simple: To install extract the contents of the .zip file to a normal FAT formatted SD card, and put it in your Raspberry Pi. This can be simply done under Windows without any special image writer software.
732 2012-10-24 14:47:03 <Icoin> Once you start your Pi it will start an installer that reformats the SD card and downloads the operating systems files from the Internet.
733 2012-10-24 14:47:31 <BlueMatt> helo/gmaxwell/Icoin: I thought I'd heard of people running bitcoind fine on an rpi (skipping IBD by copying blkindex, etc from their own comp though)
734 2012-10-24 14:47:43 <epscy> Icoin: that does sound easy
735 2012-10-24 14:47:58 <Icoin> epscy: it is
736 2012-10-24 14:48:08 <thermoman> sipa, kinlo: started precompiled bitcoind on debian squeeze and it works - should i now compile it myself to be safe or is it good to go?
737 2012-10-24 14:48:41 <kinlo> the precompiled is the safe bet - if you start using your own you might get issues with the databases....
738 2012-10-24 14:48:54 <kinlo> I've seen berkleydb doing very strange things
739 2012-10-24 14:48:59 <thermoman> that's why i would really hate it to use the self compiled one
740 2012-10-24 14:49:01 <kinlo> actually quite happy it will be removed
741 2012-10-24 14:49:16 * thermoman too - berkeley db performance is baaaad
742 2012-10-24 14:49:37 <thermoman> so you run 0.7.1 on squeeze with no problems?
743 2012-10-24 14:49:48 <thermoman> the binary release i mean
744 2012-10-24 14:53:02 <kinlo> I run 0.6.x on squeeze with no problems
745 2012-10-24 14:53:12 <kinlo> and patched/source compiled versions
746 2012-10-24 14:53:25 <kinlo> but since they are patched they are self-compiled so ...
747 2012-10-24 14:53:42 <thermoman> just ran precompiled bitcoind 0.7.1 and it downloads the blocks ... so i guess it's good to go
748 2012-10-24 14:54:03 <thermoman> what do you patch?
749 2012-10-24 14:54:12 gfinn has joined
750 2012-10-24 14:59:19 <BlueMatt> sipa: not sure how I missed this, here is the real jenkins error: "port/port_win.cc:33:21: fatal error: windows.h: No such file or directory"
751 2012-10-24 14:59:54 <BlueMatt> also...why did make continue trying to build after a calling the leveldb make failed?
752 2012-10-24 15:00:43 paraipan has joined
753 2012-10-24 15:02:26 <sipa> BlueMatt: oh, i copy-pasted that line the first time i mentioned the problem
754 2012-10-24 15:02:48 <BlueMatt> oh, ok Im just blind (again)
755 2012-10-24 15:03:09 <BlueMatt> though it does seem like the makefile is broken if it will try to continue after the leveldb stuff fails
756 2012-10-24 15:03:14 <sipa> agree
757 2012-10-24 15:03:27 <sipa> and no, can't expect anyone to see everything said on IRC
758 2012-10-24 15:03:33 <sipa> +problem
759 2012-10-24 15:05:33 ThomasV_ has joined
760 2012-10-24 15:06:58 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
761 2012-10-24 15:08:49 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
762 2012-10-24 15:09:14 rdponticelli has joined
763 2012-10-24 15:10:33 RazielZ has joined
764 2012-10-24 15:12:03 JudgeTheDude has joined
765 2012-10-24 15:12:05 JudgeTheDude has quit (Client Quit)
766 2012-10-24 15:21:27 pnicholson has joined
767 2012-10-24 15:22:36 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
768 2012-10-24 15:23:12 slush1 has joined
769 2012-10-24 15:24:47 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
770 2012-10-24 15:24:54 davout has joined
771 2012-10-24 15:24:54 davout has quit (Changing host)
772 2012-10-24 15:24:54 davout has joined
773 2012-10-24 15:28:23 t7 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
774 2012-10-24 15:30:32 Administrator__ has joined
775 2012-10-24 15:30:33 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
776 2012-10-24 15:30:53 Administrator__ has left ()
777 2012-10-24 15:33:34 Dyaheon has quit ()
778 2012-10-24 15:35:04 usscfounder_ has joined
779 2012-10-24 15:36:11 Dyaheon has joined
780 2012-10-24 15:39:39 pnicholson has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
781 2012-10-24 15:40:57 davout_ has joined
782 2012-10-24 15:43:13 Hasimir has quit (Quit: Vidi, Vici, Veni.)
783 2012-10-24 15:44:36 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
784 2012-10-24 15:46:06 PK has quit (Quit: Leaving)
785 2012-10-24 15:47:45 maaku has joined
786 2012-10-24 15:48:15 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
787 2012-10-24 15:51:46 <TD> BlueMatt: i have a question about initializing murmur
788 2012-10-24 15:51:52 <TD> the bootstrap formula is nHashNum * (MAX_UINT32 / (nHashFuncs - 1))
789 2012-10-24 15:52:00 stamit has joined
790 2012-10-24 15:52:01 <TD> so that means h1 will be zero for the first hash func
791 2012-10-24 15:52:26 <TD> is that an issue? it seems like it could be just as easy to root the hash func ID at 1 and then not subtract 1
792 2012-10-24 15:53:19 <TD> i think it's not really an issue
793 2012-10-24 15:53:38 stamit has left ()
794 2012-10-24 15:55:47 rdponticelli has joined
795 2012-10-24 15:56:16 Joric has joined
796 2012-10-24 15:57:11 <BlueMatt> TD: I dunno, I dont think the hash function is broken with a seed of 0, or I cant see any reason why it would be
797 2012-10-24 15:57:25 stamit has joined
798 2012-10-24 15:57:59 <stamit> you know, i kinda feel like reading the things on -otc now, without having to go through a proxy or a paid VPN or anything
799 2012-10-24 15:58:19 usscfounder_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
800 2012-10-24 15:58:32 <TD> i wonder if the bitcoin wiki supports mathematics notation
801 2012-10-24 16:00:02 <ThomasV> how is a compact converted into bignum?
802 2012-10-24 16:01:11 <ThomasV> is there a doc about that?
803 2012-10-24 16:01:47 stamit has left ()
804 2012-10-24 16:01:49 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
805 2012-10-24 16:02:10 stamit has joined
806 2012-10-24 16:02:51 <stamit> i would also like my $126, my $70.25, my $30 and my 4.6765 BTC
807 2012-10-24 16:03:12 <stamit> *$70.23
808 2012-10-24 16:05:28 <stamit> there is also another 20 EUR, but maybe i'll be able to sort that out without help
809 2012-10-24 16:06:08 <ThomasV> ok, I guess this is the formula: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty#How_is_difficulty_stored_in_blocks.3F
810 2012-10-24 16:08:09 <TD> phew
811 2012-10-24 16:08:11 <gmaxwell> sipa: In the main ultraprune commit,
812 2012-10-24 16:08:11 <gmaxwell> - if (fHelp || params.size() > 1)
813 2012-10-24 16:08:11 <gmaxwell> + if (fHelp || params.size() != 1)
814 2012-10-24 16:08:14 <gmaxwell> Huh?
815 2012-10-24 16:08:15 <TD> BIP 37 for bloom filtering, uploaded
816 2012-10-24 16:09:08 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: yep.
817 2012-10-24 16:09:41 stamit has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
818 2012-10-24 16:10:40 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: it works. but I find it strange that the interval is 2015 blocks long, and not 2016
819 2012-10-24 16:12:25 Arnavion has quit (Quit: Arnavion)
820 2012-10-24 16:12:35 Arnavion has joined
821 2012-10-24 16:13:11 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: it measures 2016 back from the next block, which results in a flaw in the algorithim in factâ where a majority attacker can create inflationâ, because the difficulty windows do not overlap.
822 2012-10-24 16:13:29 <ThomasV> huh?
823 2012-10-24 16:14:38 <sipa> gmaxwell: what RPC?
824 2012-10-24 16:15:02 <sipa> TD: reading BIP37 - why limit the number of matching transactions to 255?
825 2012-10-24 16:15:04 JWU_42 has joined
826 2012-10-24 16:17:41 <JWU_42> ay chance removeprivkey will be added anytime soon?
827 2012-10-24 16:17:46 <JWU_42> *any
828 2012-10-24 16:17:56 <JWU_42> to a stable release that is...
829 2012-10-24 16:20:30 <sipa> TD: what does "each hash and key in the output script" mean exactly? what about the output script in its entirety?
830 2012-10-24 16:20:46 davout_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
831 2012-10-24 16:20:46 gjs278 has joined
832 2012-10-24 16:23:18 <sipa> TD: hmm, is sharing parts of the merkle branches not worth it?
833 2012-10-24 16:25:17 bd_ has joined
834 2012-10-24 16:26:31 <sipa> gmaxwell: in getblocktemplate? hmm, maybe a rebasing conflict...
835 2012-10-24 16:27:39 cypher2045 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
836 2012-10-24 16:29:52 slush has joined
837 2012-10-24 16:29:55 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
838 2012-10-24 16:31:36 jdnavarro has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
839 2012-10-24 16:33:26 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
840 2012-10-24 16:34:40 <JWU_42> ok - so patching bitcoind is my only bet it seems...
841 2012-10-24 16:35:09 Mad7Scientist has joined
842 2012-10-24 16:35:49 <sipa> JWU_42: why do you want to remove a key?
843 2012-10-24 16:35:51 freakazoid has joined
844 2012-10-24 16:37:36 <JWU_42> sipa: I have decided to keep (not sell) coins I solo mine. I created a new wallet as i dumped the privkey from the wallet associated with bitcoind. Now want to remove that privkey from the "mining" wallet
845 2012-10-24 16:37:52 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
846 2012-10-24 16:38:40 <JWU_42> maybe at some point in the very distant future these mined coins will have a greater value - so they go to cold storage...
847 2012-10-24 16:39:28 <jeremias> why not just transfer the coins...
848 2012-10-24 16:39:32 <JWU_42> so having dump without remove seems to allow the potential for misbehaviour
849 2012-10-24 16:39:53 <JWU_42> jeremias: then they are not "as virgin"
850 2012-10-24 16:39:57 <jeremias> lol
851 2012-10-24 16:39:57 <JWU_42> ;)
852 2012-10-24 16:40:06 <jeremias> well, if you care, then you can do it by hand
853 2012-10-24 16:40:18 <JWU_42> yeah - that is what it is coming down too
854 2012-10-24 16:40:19 <jeremias> that feature is definitely a very small niche
855 2012-10-24 16:40:43 <BlueMatt> TD[gone]: the type/size/etc of the filter created on receiving a filteradd message without a filterload should not (IMHO) be set in the spec, it should be up to the serving node to do something reasonable
856 2012-10-24 16:40:44 <jeremias> just because you have fetish with virgin coins, you want that feature
857 2012-10-24 16:40:53 <jeremias> 99% of users won't care
858 2012-10-24 16:41:02 drizztbsd has joined
859 2012-10-24 16:41:35 <jeremias> but I guess with pywallet you can remove the privkey
860 2012-10-24 16:41:39 <jeremias> or patch your bitcoind
861 2012-10-24 16:42:27 <JWU_42> jeremias: I think it has utility beyond my peculiar circumstance
862 2012-10-24 16:42:39 <JWU_42> i just question why have dump without remove
863 2012-10-24 16:42:55 <jeremias> remove is definitely dangerous operation
864 2012-10-24 16:42:56 <JWU_42> the only reason to dump is to then import elsewhere
865 2012-10-24 16:42:56 <jeremias> and useless
866 2012-10-24 16:43:08 <JWU_42> I suspect...
867 2012-10-24 16:43:22 <jeremias> but yeah, even dump is a little bit questionable
868 2012-10-24 16:43:36 <jeremias> import should return the resulted bitcoin address, btw
869 2012-10-24 16:43:42 <jeremias> now it returns nothing
870 2012-10-24 16:43:44 <JWU_42> I suspect that is my main point and why i had used pywallet in the past
871 2012-10-24 16:44:32 <JWU_42> jeremias: yeah - now i have the 50 BTC in two wallets - which makes perfect sense until i can remove the key from one of the wallets
872 2012-10-24 16:45:01 <gmaxwell> sipa: yes, getblocktemplate
873 2012-10-24 16:45:12 <JWU_42> I found some comments via goolging about the removeprivkey being out there but seems to not be of high priority
874 2012-10-24 16:46:29 <gmaxwell> JWU_42: There is no remove private key because it has unexpected results, even beyond the normal danger of erasing data.
875 2012-10-24 16:47:02 <JWU_42> gmaxwell: OK :/
876 2012-10-24 16:49:05 <slush> gmaxwell: sipa: btw genjix didn't respond to my BIP number request.
877 2012-10-24 16:50:58 <sipa> slush: meh, pick BIP38, i suppose
878 2012-10-24 16:51:12 forrestv has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
879 2012-10-24 16:53:00 <gmaxwell> d
880 2012-10-24 16:53:04 <slush> sipa: yes, we have complete workflow described by BIP1, tuned by the community to perfectly fit all our needs. And few months later, this ends with "meh, pick BIP38" on the IRC <sarcasm/>
881 2012-10-24 16:53:32 <slush> sipa: I'll do so. I just hate burreaucracy
882 2012-10-24 16:53:49 <gmaxwell> slush: We'll sort it out.
883 2012-10-24 16:53:59 <gmaxwell> Would you prefer we replace genjix with a distributed algorithim?
884 2012-10-24 16:54:09 <gmaxwell> Merged mined BIPchain?
885 2012-10-24 16:54:18 <slush> gmaxwell: we should vote about bips with coinbase
886 2012-10-24 16:54:27 <slush> the best way is to create another bip for coinbase voting
887 2012-10-24 16:54:35 <gmaxwell> slush: the community is more than miners. :P
888 2012-10-24 16:55:15 <slush> gmaxwell: are you slowly moving bitcoin from capitalist (miners have the power) to communist (community have the power)? ;)
889 2012-10-24 16:55:21 <sipa> how about using randomly generated UUIDs for BIPs? ;)
890 2012-10-24 16:55:23 <gmaxwell> slush: but we do coinbase votes for things that are unsafe without super-majority enforcement... Eventually that will get a standalone spec.
891 2012-10-24 16:55:24 <sipa> *ducks*
892 2012-10-24 16:55:30 Joric has quit ()
893 2012-10-24 16:55:57 <sipa> oh no, just use the double-SHA256 of the markup code!
894 2012-10-24 16:56:16 <sipa> we'll add a nLockTime and nSequence to allow replacements!
895 2012-10-24 16:56:19 <slush> sipa: lol, let's imagine wars between BIP 05f75160-1dfa-11e2-81c1-0800200c9a66 and BIP acd71f04-8bf9-44dd-9b7b-cdc78615c892
896 2012-10-24 16:56:26 forrestv has joined
897 2012-10-24 16:56:26 forrestv has quit (Changing host)
898 2012-10-24 16:56:26 forrestv has joined
899 2012-10-24 16:56:39 <gmaxwell> sipa: just make the bip a bond in jeff's blockchain spammer, the private key that owns the bond can update the bit. :P And to create a new bip you need a merged mined token of at least some difficulty. :P
900 2012-10-24 16:56:51 <slush> gmaxwell: I know about coinbase voting, of course. I was just kidding
901 2012-10-24 16:57:11 slush2 has joined
902 2012-10-24 16:57:30 <gmaxwell> (ah, obviously you know, didn't know if you knew the key point was the security bit. Some people seemed to think we did it as a way to measure approval :P )
903 2012-10-24 16:57:31 <sipa> slush: i'm in favor of some formal process for guaranteeing unique BIP ids, and maybe very limited selection to rule the idiotic parts
904 2012-10-24 16:57:42 <sipa> slush: but if that process becomes a burden, better have not any at all
905 2012-10-24 16:57:54 <gmaxwell> Yea, I'd be fine with something that gives IDs but I really would prefer there exist some selection mechenism.
906 2012-10-24 16:58:29 <gmaxwell> Because otherwise we'll have 20 million "stock split bitcoin!" BIPs. :P
907 2012-10-24 16:58:47 <slush> sipa: honestly, I think that this (dev) community is still so small that assigning BIP numbers on IRC works very well :)
908 2012-10-24 16:58:49 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
909 2012-10-24 16:59:13 <orion> sipa: Thank you for merging my pull request.
910 2012-10-24 16:59:26 TD has joined
911 2012-10-24 16:59:32 <gmaxwell> slush: agreed. Also, IRC works okay for "holy crap, dont do that!"
912 2012-10-24 16:59:45 <slush> :)
913 2012-10-24 17:00:51 <slush> "jeff's blockchain spammer" really entertain me :)
914 2012-10-24 17:01:14 <TD> sipa: i fixed the uint8_t thing
915 2012-10-24 17:01:32 <orion> sipa: What's a BIP?
916 2012-10-24 17:01:44 <sipa> orion: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0001
917 2012-10-24 17:02:11 maaku has joined
918 2012-10-24 17:02:21 <sipa> TD: what if a filter is defined, and one requests a MSG_BLOCK?
919 2012-10-24 17:03:17 <TD> you get the full block
920 2012-10-24 17:04:05 <ibno> in the RPC console, what is n for the command: gettxout <txid> <n>?
921 2012-10-24 17:04:09 <gmaxwell> slush: I'm mostly ribbing him at this point. I don't like things that generate blockchain traffic which aren't currency, though I understand what he's doing and why.
922 2012-10-24 17:04:21 <sipa> ibno: the output index
923 2012-10-24 17:04:30 <gmaxwell> ibno: the output index. E.g. which of multiple outputs you want.
924 2012-10-24 17:04:44 <ibno> ok
925 2012-10-24 17:08:55 sccc has joined
926 2012-10-24 17:08:57 <orion> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1719 <-- what other processes does bitcoin need to talk to?
927 2012-10-24 17:09:24 <gmaxwell> sort of a bummer that it would repeat the merkle fragments over and over again. That means that if you set a very permissive filter you'll send MUCH more data than the whole block.
928 2012-10-24 17:10:24 <gmaxwell> orion: Itself for URL loading for example.
929 2012-10-24 17:10:28 <sipa> yes, you should never need more than (total_num_transactions - matching_num_transactions) merkle math entries
930 2012-10-24 17:10:31 <sipa> *path
931 2012-10-24 17:12:12 <sipa> (as you can always just send the hashes of all non-matching transactions; any path element provided higher up the tree is an optimization)
932 2012-10-24 17:12:32 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
933 2012-10-24 17:12:32 sccc has left ()
934 2012-10-24 17:17:31 Joric has joined
935 2012-10-24 17:21:15 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
936 2012-10-24 17:27:20 GMP has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
937 2012-10-24 17:30:23 vampireb has joined
938 2012-10-24 17:32:25 pnicholson has joined
939 2012-10-24 17:32:45 eian has joined
940 2012-10-24 17:33:11 root2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
941 2012-10-24 17:33:30 root2 has joined
942 2012-10-24 17:41:34 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
943 2012-10-24 17:41:42 Shaded has joined
944 2012-10-24 17:42:13 <Shaded> Howdy, I'm looking for a big miner to comment in a news article
945 2012-10-24 17:42:21 yellowhat1 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
946 2012-10-24 17:42:24 <Shaded> Anyone here have a big mining rig?
947 2012-10-24 17:42:39 yellowhat has joined
948 2012-10-24 17:42:56 <ibno> I saw the video presentation by Mike Hearn about contracts, has anyone actually implemented the "micro-payment channel" that he mentions in the talk?
949 2012-10-24 17:43:44 <ibno> how much is used of the contract feature in bitcoin?
950 2012-10-24 17:44:00 <Shaded> ibno: Last I checked, not much has been used yet.
951 2012-10-24 17:44:14 <Shaded> At least from all the things I've read there haven't been any good examples yet
952 2012-10-24 17:44:18 <ibno> I seems that there's so much potential there
953 2012-10-24 17:44:26 <Shaded> Hard to see the potential though ;)
954 2012-10-24 18:02:47 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
955 2012-10-24 18:02:59 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
956 2012-10-24 18:03:04 slush has joined
957 2012-10-24 18:04:08 darkee has joined
958 2012-10-24 18:08:59 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
959 2012-10-24 18:10:42 pnicholson has quit (Quit: pnicholson)
960 2012-10-24 18:12:37 pnicholson has joined
961 2012-10-24 18:13:44 nsh has joined
962 2012-10-24 18:16:47 soaring_eagle has joined
963 2012-10-24 18:16:47 soaring_eagle is now known as paul_nicholson
964 2012-10-24 18:17:03 pnicholson has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
965 2012-10-24 18:18:48 davout has joined
966 2012-10-24 18:18:49 davout has quit (Changing host)
967 2012-10-24 18:18:49 davout has joined
968 2012-10-24 18:20:07 <luke-jr_> Did ultraprune really touch the GBT RPC? #1955 smells like it somehow is accidentally reverting things
969 2012-10-24 18:21:04 <sipa> luke-jr_: yup, that's what happened probably
970 2012-10-24 18:21:38 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
971 2012-10-24 18:21:42 <luke-jr_> sipa: :/
972 2012-10-24 18:22:13 <sipa> it's just that one line, right?
973 2012-10-24 18:22:39 <luke-jr_> sipa: I'm worried about possible things we missed
974 2012-10-24 18:23:03 <sipa> sure, there can be
975 2012-10-24 18:23:23 <sipa> it was a large change, and i've been rebasing it for a long time
976 2012-10-24 18:24:06 <gmaxwell> I went and looked for similar changes.
977 2012-10-24 18:24:24 <gmaxwell> didn't find any. .. but god knows. ... but thats what review for.
978 2012-10-24 18:24:34 <sipa> this bug in particular was probably caused by rebasing onto the moves to rpc* files
979 2012-10-24 18:24:35 agricocb has joined
980 2012-10-24 18:24:38 <luke-jr_> I just glanced at that commit, and I see 2 "obvious" possibilities, but I don't know if they might have been intentional or not
981 2012-10-24 18:24:51 <sipa> well, please ask
982 2012-10-24 18:24:57 <luke-jr_> sipa: did you change it after rebasing?
983 2012-10-24 18:25:05 <luke-jr_> src/db.cpp
984 2012-10-24 18:25:07 <luke-jr_> - "main", // Logical db name
985 2012-10-24 18:25:09 <luke-jr_> + fMockDb ? pszFile : "main", // Logical db name
986 2012-10-24 18:25:32 <luke-jr_> src/wallet.cpp
987 2012-10-24 18:25:34 <luke-jr_> - // txdb must be opened before the mapWallet lock
988 2012-10-24 18:25:36 <luke-jr_> - CTxDB txdb("r");
989 2012-10-24 18:25:45 <sipa> yes, that is intentional
990 2012-10-24 18:25:48 <sipa> both
991 2012-10-24 18:25:51 <luke-jr_> ok
992 2012-10-24 18:26:08 <luke-jr_> I'd be interested in gdd the pre-rebase with the rebase
993 2012-10-24 18:26:10 CodesInChaos has joined
994 2012-10-24 18:26:46 <luke-jr_> gdd=diff(diff(commit^..commit), diff(rebasedcommit^..rebasedcommit))
995 2012-10-24 18:26:50 <sipa> ha
996 2012-10-24 18:26:58 agricocb has quit (Client Quit)
997 2012-10-24 18:27:20 * luke-jr_ ponders the easiest way to get all the pre-rebased versions
998 2012-10-24 18:28:18 root2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
999 2012-10-24 18:28:35 root2 has joined
1000 2012-10-24 18:30:24 <sipa> i think it's too long ago for me to have them still
1001 2012-10-24 18:30:47 <sipa> though i'll check the reflog
1002 2012-10-24 18:31:13 root2 has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1003 2012-10-24 18:31:33 root2 has joined
1004 2012-10-24 18:33:38 root2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1005 2012-10-24 18:37:22 <BlueMatt> sipa: re: why not de-duplicate merkle branch in bip 37: the target is individual spv nodes that are bw limited, for an average bitcoin node that is matching even a few % of a block - you are likely not an individual node on a cell connection, you have the bw you need to just not use a filter...
1006 2012-10-24 18:38:31 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: you don't know in advance which will be smaller.. esp if you've accidentally sent your filter a bit too broad for privacy sake.
1007 2012-10-24 18:38:50 <sipa> BlueMatt: right, i'm not sure the extra complexity either, but there seem to be some outlier cases where it does result in excessive overhead imho
1008 2012-10-24 18:39:06 root2 has joined
1009 2012-10-24 18:39:14 <BlueMatt> sipa: it can, but if you end up hitting those cases, IMHO you shouldnt have been using a filter to begin with
1010 2012-10-24 18:39:29 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: if you set your filter too broad, you are going to fill your bw no matter what, so...
1011 2012-10-24 18:40:59 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: but it ends up being much worse... I'm not sure why you'd intentionally make it substantially ineffcient. Especially with things like contracts and multisig even a conservative filter may still catch a bunch of extra stuff.
1012 2012-10-24 18:42:27 <sipa> well, you could define two versions of a filtered block; one that just sends all txids, and one that contains the matched merkle paths, and have the server decide which to send
1013 2012-10-24 18:42:49 <sipa> but a generic solution seems neater, but harder
1014 2012-10-24 18:43:26 <BlueMatt> yea, gets pretty tricky to prove correctness there, but...not sure
1015 2012-10-24 18:43:36 Joric has joined
1016 2012-10-24 18:47:24 <eian> does anyone have the gist post jgarzik made as a rebuttal to the shamir paper?
1017 2012-10-24 18:48:22 <gmaxwell> https://gist.github.com/3901921
1018 2012-10-24 18:48:28 <sipa> BlueMatt: the one thing that may convince me that the current solution is better, is the fact that it's easy for the verifier
1019 2012-10-24 18:48:48 ThomasV has joined
1020 2012-10-24 18:48:48 <sipa> while every generic solution pretty much implies rebuilding the entire merkle tree
1021 2012-10-24 18:49:11 <gmaxwell> sending all the data is easier still. :P
1022 2012-10-24 18:49:27 <eian> thanks
1023 2012-10-24 18:49:28 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: and less efficient in the common case
1024 2012-10-24 18:49:33 <gmaxwell> and has better worst case bandwidth usage.
1025 2012-10-24 18:49:43 <BlueMatt> sipa: that was the idea...Im just not so sure about how often you match more than 2-3 txes in a block when filtering is my question
1026 2012-10-24 18:49:57 <sipa> also, why do the txids and the merkle root need to be transmitted?
1027 2012-10-24 18:50:01 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: but my point is that you shouldn't ever see the worst case unless you are doing something horribly wrong
1028 2012-10-24 18:50:06 <sipa> they have to be recalculated anyway
1029 2012-10-24 18:50:26 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: in your primary application, but for example, someone making a bond tool might pull a lot more because the filter can't fully distinguish.. but are still only pulling a quarter of the block.
1030 2012-10-24 18:50:29 <jgarzik> eian: it could use a rewrite at this point, as several additional criticisms wound up getting appended
1031 2012-10-24 18:50:45 <eian> :P
1032 2012-10-24 18:50:50 <sipa> BlueMatt: oh, by the way, even though i'm nitpicking about these encoding details, i'm very much in favor of the general idea
1033 2012-10-24 18:50:56 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: meh...then dont bother filtering, if you are only saving that much...
1034 2012-10-24 18:51:16 <sipa> BlueMatt: the problem is what if you accidentally end up setting up a filter that matches way too much?
1035 2012-10-24 18:51:19 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: the biggest goal is not to relay so many TX invs, the block filtering is just a cool side-part...
1036 2012-10-24 18:51:20 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: saving 3/4 of the bandwidth isn't somethiing to sneeze at!
1037 2012-10-24 18:51:28 <BlueMatt> sipa: generally, I dont think anyone would
1038 2012-10-24 18:51:43 <sipa> people rarely want to do things accidentally :)
1039 2012-10-24 18:51:47 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: when the bw is max 10MB/10 minutes...it kinda is
1040 2012-10-24 18:52:11 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: and when you're scanning the history because it's a new node or the history.
1041 2012-10-24 18:52:13 <BlueMatt> sipa: in general, I dont expect the fp rate to be user-configureable (beyond a generic slider that doesnt go beyond like 1%)
1042 2012-10-24 18:52:56 <gmaxwell> 1MB/10 minutes, but a year of history to scan at that rate is 52GBytes. Sending 13 GBytes is much better.
1043 2012-10-24 18:53:13 <gmaxwell> Plus protocols are forever.
1044 2012-10-24 18:53:22 <gmaxwell> ::shrugs::
1045 2012-10-24 18:53:25 <BlueMatt> sipa: txids because you arent actually sending the tx in that message, merkle root: because I was lazy and just sent the block header message using SER_HEADERONLY or whatever it is :)
1046 2012-10-24 18:53:47 <BlueMatt> sipa: (because you usually have the tx already)
1047 2012-10-24 18:54:05 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1048 2012-10-24 18:54:27 <gmaxwell> If we're generally going to filter txid relaying, it might be useful to have a couple extra knobs to pick up some other usecases. E.g. "don't send me txn with fees under X btc/kb"
1049 2012-10-24 18:54:50 darkee has joined
1050 2012-10-24 18:54:53 D34TH has joined
1051 2012-10-24 18:54:55 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: its a fair point, and the answer is mostly: I/others were thinking about the personal-use case of a phone on a mobile network/etc, not so much about bond-matching because those are likely full-verifying nodes anyway (id hope they want more security)
1052 2012-10-24 18:55:02 Shaded has quit (Quit: Shaded)
1053 2012-10-24 18:56:00 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: meh, not sure how much that is needed...
1054 2012-10-24 18:56:04 <sipa> BlueMatt: well the merkle root there isn't going to kill anyway, and it's indeed somewhat nice to just send an extended block header
1055 2012-10-24 18:56:26 <BlueMatt> sipa: yea...meh its only one more hash
1056 2012-10-24 18:56:28 <sipa> BlueMatt: and i misread - i think the actual tx data was sent as well
1057 2012-10-24 18:56:32 <sipa> so, nevermind those
1058 2012-10-24 18:56:40 aurigae has joined
1059 2012-10-24 18:57:05 <sipa> and i understand that what i'm arguing about isn't useful for the intended use case
1060 2012-10-24 18:57:10 <BlueMatt> sipa: the tx is send only if its not currently in the bitcoind's known invs for you, however that could be changed in the future if you are allowed to request txes in the most recent N blocks via P2P
1061 2012-10-24 18:58:33 <sipa> wait... tx data is sent in the filtered block data?
1062 2012-10-24 18:58:38 <sipa> or not?
1063 2012-10-24 18:58:42 <BlueMatt> no, separate message
1064 2012-10-24 18:58:59 <BlueMatt> (immediately after, but only if we think you dont already have it, which should be usually)
1065 2012-10-24 18:59:01 molecular has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1066 2012-10-24 18:59:03 <sipa> ok
1067 2012-10-24 18:59:19 <BlueMatt> (potential issue is if you actually dont already have it you cant get it)
1068 2012-10-24 18:59:28 <BlueMatt> (but thats only if you are broken so...meh)
1069 2012-10-24 18:59:47 molecular has joined
1070 2012-10-24 18:59:48 <sipa> disconnect, reconnect, re-request specific filtered block -> tx certainly sent
1071 2012-10-24 18:59:59 <BlueMatt> yes
1072 2012-10-24 19:00:05 <BlueMatt> true
1073 2012-10-24 19:00:05 <sipa> good enough
1074 2012-10-24 19:00:15 <BlueMatt> ugly hack but, sure
1075 2012-10-24 19:00:21 <BlueMatt> or re-request entire block
1076 2012-10-24 19:00:57 <sipa> also
1077 2012-10-24 19:02:58 slush1 has joined
1078 2012-10-24 19:05:54 slush2 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1079 2012-10-24 19:08:50 <sipa> gavinandresen: you think complicating is the right idea? that's what the sentence says, but not what it sounds like
1080 2012-10-24 19:10:18 <sipa> gavinandresen: also, requiring that the invs remain available is harder than keeping track of what has already been sent
1081 2012-10-24 19:10:26 <sipa> i know
1082 2012-10-24 19:11:08 <gavinandresen> sipa: oops, yeah, NOT complicating....
1083 2012-10-24 19:12:48 <gavinandresen> sipa: and right, I forgot ultraprune doesn't keep the txid --> txn index.
1084 2012-10-24 19:15:32 <sipa> the alternative is including the transactions inline, but that doesn't conform to the "minimize bandwidth" goal
1085 2012-10-24 19:21:43 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: the use case is certantly greater than phones/mobile networks, it's just most important there. Your application should be _all_ SPV nodes. The largest cost difference between running a pruned full node and a SPV node is the bandwidth for the block data. If you're going to see all the block data then you should probably be a (pruned) full node.
1086 2012-10-24 19:22:58 <sipa> signature verification CPU cost may also matter in some environments
1087 2012-10-24 19:23:16 <sipa> though in general i assume those will be bandwidth-limited as well
1088 2012-10-24 19:23:51 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: Id say the CPU cost is the most for most environments
1089 2012-10-24 19:24:16 <BlueMatt> (by far, Id think)
1090 2012-10-24 19:24:19 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: uh. It shouldn't be.
1091 2012-10-24 19:24:36 <BlueMatt> for environments where the bw is limited, the cpu is limited more
1092 2012-10-24 19:24:38 <BlueMatt> eg ibd
1093 2012-10-24 19:24:44 <gmaxwell> Not to mention that you can smoothly reduce your cpu usage trading for security, but not so for data.
1094 2012-10-24 19:24:55 <BlueMatt> for regular operation, neither is limited so...
1095 2012-10-24 19:25:17 <BlueMatt> thats true
1096 2012-10-24 19:25:34 <sipa> how long would an ECDSA verification take on a high-end ARM smartphone chip these days?
1097 2012-10-24 19:25:35 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: every enviroment is limited wrt bandwidth. If bitcoins load had been the maximum since start the chain would be 208 gb. When talking about protocol design you need to look a little further than now.
1098 2012-10-24 19:26:18 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: true, but bw is growing at nearly the rate of cpu power too, so...
1099 2012-10-24 19:26:32 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: hahaha
1100 2012-10-24 19:26:44 <gmaxwell> No way. Bandwidth grows _substantially_ slower than cpu power and storage.
1101 2012-10-24 19:26:51 <BlueMatt> ok, not _that_ much slower
1102 2012-10-24 19:27:12 <BlueMatt> in a lot of places bw caps are growing fast
1103 2012-10-24 19:27:34 <BlueMatt> in charlotte, the bw cap 4 years ago was ~10Mbps if you were lucky, now you can get 50...
1104 2012-10-24 19:27:38 <gmaxwell> Communications has infrastructure driven timelines and cross-section bottlenecks. They're growing, but its linear progress with steps. It's not the kind of growth we have in cpus and storage.
1105 2012-10-24 19:27:47 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1106 2012-10-24 19:28:01 <BlueMatt> true, but its not hugely slower than cpus
1107 2012-10-24 19:28:07 <BlueMatt> its just slower than cpus
1108 2012-10-24 19:28:40 <BlueMatt> the infrastructure grows slowly, but the rate you can push through infrastructure at given cost grows at about the same rate
1109 2012-10-24 19:28:53 <BlueMatt> so when you get new infrastructure, it can grow very fast
1110 2012-10-24 19:29:31 <sipa> 10 years ago, cpu speed was... 10x-20x lower than now for the same price?
1111 2012-10-24 19:31:03 <gmaxwell> For compute bound things like ecdsa, I expect substantially more than thatâ I can measure those. :P
1112 2012-10-24 19:31:47 <BlueMatt> same with ethernet, but internet, probably more like 5x, but its hard to measure thanks to the ever-increasing size itself (average speeds go down as size grows and the size of slow connections increases)
1113 2012-10-24 19:31:56 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1114 2012-10-24 19:32:20 <helo> it takes 1000 times longer to download all the things :(
1115 2012-10-24 19:32:36 <BlueMatt> ...
1116 2012-10-24 19:33:23 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1117 2012-10-24 19:37:51 aurigae has left ()
1118 2012-10-24 19:39:14 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1119 2012-10-24 19:40:38 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1120 2012-10-24 19:41:25 <gmaxwell> So on a E31230 I get 11223 validations per second, on a 164.7 on Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.00GHz
1121 2012-10-24 19:41:59 <gmaxwell> I'm reasonable sure that P4 cost a fair bit more than the E31230 cpu, but we'll ignore that.
1122 2012-10-24 19:46:14 TD has joined
1123 2012-10-24 19:46:55 <gmaxwell> If we assume that maxsize blocks are 4000 checksigs, that E31230 can keep up with about 25mbit/sec of blockchain data, so indeed. Closer than I expected.
1124 2012-10-24 19:47:12 <BlueMatt> :)
1125 2012-10-24 19:47:23 <D34TH> gmaxwell, how does one find the validations per second
1126 2012-10-24 19:47:44 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: But it still shows validation has increased much faster than bandwidth and I expect it to do so.
1127 2012-10-24 19:47:53 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: true
1128 2012-10-24 19:48:01 <BlueMatt> not insanely, but faster
1129 2012-10-24 19:48:04 <gmaxwell> If we had gpu ecdsa code then I expect the discussion would be kind of moot it would be so fast. :P
1130 2012-10-24 19:48:13 <gmaxwell> Small differences add up.
1131 2012-10-24 19:48:29 <gmaxwell> D34TH: Hal wrote a little comparison tool for a faster implementation of the signature validation.
1132 2012-10-24 19:48:45 <D34TH> i can test?
1133 2012-10-24 19:48:45 <gmaxwell> er, which we should merge now. because it would make a visible improvement now that we have ultraprune.
1134 2012-10-24 19:49:16 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3238.msg45795#msg45795 (note speedup numbers it gives are calculated wrong)
1135 2012-10-24 19:49:47 <gmaxwell> e.g. it reports a 20% speedup as a .20% speedup. :P
1136 2012-10-24 19:51:01 <sipa> didn't he report in a later post that you could get up to 40% with another improvement?
1137 2012-10-24 19:51:03 <D34TH> aww i got an error
1138 2012-10-24 19:52:15 <gmaxwell> D34TH: gcc -o hal hal.c -lcrypto
1139 2012-10-24 19:52:22 <D34TH> ahh
1140 2012-10-24 19:52:24 <gmaxwell> (needs openssl with ecc support)
1141 2012-10-24 19:52:25 <D34TH> thats where i went wrong
1142 2012-10-24 19:52:26 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ok fair point on the gpu
1143 2012-10-24 19:52:29 xblitz has left ()
1144 2012-10-24 19:52:53 <BlueMatt> sipa: iirc that was batch checking with a fp rate of N
1145 2012-10-24 19:52:57 <BlueMatt> s/fp/fn/
1146 2012-10-24 19:53:00 <sipa> BlueMatt: no
1147 2012-10-24 19:53:02 <BlueMatt> no, sorry fp
1148 2012-10-24 19:53:08 <D34TH> oh god
1149 2012-10-24 19:53:27 <gmaxwell> D34TH: the numbers it gives are second per check, 1/ to get checks per second
1150 2012-10-24 19:53:30 <BlueMatt> hmm...missed that post somewhere though
1151 2012-10-24 19:53:35 <D34TH> http://pastebin.com/LHnphzdW
1152 2012-10-24 19:53:41 <gmaxwell> I think I missed it too.
1153 2012-10-24 19:53:50 <gmaxwell> Oh I have an arm system to test on..
1154 2012-10-24 19:53:55 <sipa> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103172.msg1138884#msg1138884
1155 2012-10-24 19:54:01 JWU_42 has left ()
1156 2012-10-24 19:55:38 <sipa> by the way, iirc comparing the sigcheck speed by commenting out/in the script verification entirely, vs raw speed of ecdsa verification is still a factor 2
1157 2012-10-24 19:55:40 * jgarzik needs to find a big endian test system for pynode
1158 2012-10-24 19:55:40 <D34TH> gmaxwell, i think my libcrypto is bork for this even though it compiles bitcoind just fine
1159 2012-10-24 19:55:58 <D34TH> jgarzik, would a mac g3 do?
1160 2012-10-24 19:55:59 JZavala has joined
1161 2012-10-24 19:56:30 <BlueMatt> mmm...fun, guess Ill have to look into that (Im still slowly beating java into submission to get remotely close to openssl in sig verif)
1162 2012-10-24 19:56:30 <BlueMatt> odd...I know I had seen that post, mustve forgotten
1163 2012-10-24 19:56:36 <jgarzik> D34TH: probably, as long as it has... > 500MB of RAM
1164 2012-10-24 19:56:40 <D34TH> nope
1165 2012-10-24 19:56:43 <jgarzik> drat
1166 2012-10-24 19:56:43 <D34TH> 64mb
1167 2012-10-24 19:56:46 <jgarzik> he
1168 2012-10-24 19:57:02 <sipa> BlueMatt: how fast is it?
1169 2012-10-24 19:57:04 <jgarzik> well... you could still try it, just reduce the pynode cache size from 750 to 10 ;p
1170 2012-10-24 19:57:12 <jgarzik> and let it run for a few days
1171 2012-10-24 19:57:16 <D34TH> lol
1172 2012-10-24 19:57:27 <BlueMatt> sipa: its something like 3ms/sig vs .5 for openssl, but I just picked it back up like yesterday after a month off
1173 2012-10-24 19:57:30 <D34TH> and you guys think gpu's produce heat
1174 2012-10-24 19:57:35 <D34TH> that will fry bacon
1175 2012-10-24 19:57:36 <jgarzik> heh
1176 2012-10-24 19:57:37 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: worked fine before.
1177 2012-10-24 19:57:40 <BlueMatt> (better than the original ~15ms though...)
1178 2012-10-24 19:57:50 <D34TH> i still cant compile it
1179 2012-10-24 19:57:50 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: want an account on a PPC G4 debian box?
1180 2012-10-24 19:57:53 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: you've tried pynode on BE?
1181 2012-10-24 19:57:55 <D34TH> my libcrypto is bork
1182 2012-10-24 19:58:07 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: yes sir! And I told you I was.
1183 2012-10-24 19:58:31 <D34TH> oh wait
1184 2012-10-24 19:58:31 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: cool. I think I remember that. Vaguely. Too much stuff in brain.
1185 2012-10-24 19:58:33 <D34TH> derpyderp
1186 2012-10-24 19:58:54 <D34TH> i built a windows bin if anybody wants to try
1187 2012-10-24 19:59:32 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: if you've tried it, I'll be lazy and not trouble you for a login
1188 2012-10-24 19:59:39 <D34TH> 21.94% speedup
1189 2012-10-24 19:59:40 <jgarzik> thnx
1190 2012-10-24 19:59:55 <BlueMatt> D34TH: yep, thats pretty much what it always is
1191 2012-10-24 20:00:11 <D34TH> gmaxwell, i had to add -lgdi32
1192 2012-10-24 20:00:27 <jgarzik> assuming you (a) downloaded the chain already and (b) reduce the block cache size to something very small, pynode should be quite low resource
1193 2012-10-24 20:00:52 <jgarzik> bet it could run on an ARM netbook
1194 2012-10-24 20:01:56 <BlueMatt> sipa: sadly, apart from the link you just gave, Im running out of options for speeding it up...afaict, its pretty much where its gonna be (minus opencl and some other crazy stuff)
1195 2012-10-24 20:02:04 <gmaxwell> I should hope so, bitcoin works okay on such hardware.
1196 2012-10-24 20:02:53 <sipa> BlueMatt: JNI :P
1197 2012-10-24 20:03:11 <BlueMatt> sipa: yea...but afaim concerned JNI == give up :)
1198 2012-10-24 20:03:35 <gmaxwell> My older pandaboard gives 240 check/s with hal's code (almost a 25% speedup over openssl on that system).
1199 2012-10-24 20:03:50 <BlueMatt> (plus I dont expect this to get merged...unless someone knows a professional cryptographer to review it, aside from hal I'd think)
1200 2012-10-24 20:04:02 <gmaxwell> (the pandaboard is a 1ghz dual core omap 4)
1201 2012-10-24 20:04:34 <D34TH> gmaxwell, couldnt you take the ecdsa opencl from vanitygen?
1202 2012-10-24 20:04:48 <sipa> D34TH: that can only do EC addition
1203 2012-10-24 20:04:56 <sipa> you need quite a bit more for ECDSA validation
1204 2012-10-24 20:05:16 <gmaxwell> Does anyone have a rpi to test that on, I'm in the mood for a laugh.
1205 2012-10-24 20:05:33 <D34TH> i can boot my virtualrpi
1206 2012-10-24 20:05:35 Detritus has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1207 2012-10-24 20:05:38 <sipa> i wonder whether my pi is already here
1208 2012-10-24 20:05:39 <D34TH> through qemu
1209 2012-10-24 20:05:52 <gmaxwell> yea, thats no good. :P
1210 2012-10-24 20:05:55 <sipa> (not everything's moved to .ch yet)
1211 2012-10-24 20:07:40 <sipa> yup, got it!
1212 2012-10-24 20:10:04 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103172.msg1138884#msg1138884 < 40% comment, btw.
1213 2012-10-24 20:10:42 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1214 2012-10-24 20:14:27 <D34TH> gmaxwell, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1940#issuecomment-9645026 good thing i didnt edit makefile.linux-mingw right?
1215 2012-10-24 20:15:22 <sipa> gmaxwell: way ahead of you :)
1216 2012-10-24 20:16:07 <sipa> good, found micro-usb power, sd card, ethernet cable, usb keyboard, ... only a screen left
1217 2012-10-24 20:16:10 Detritus has joined
1218 2012-10-24 20:16:15 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: sipa linked that while ago...
1219 2012-10-24 20:16:25 <BlueMatt> sipa: screen? wtf do you need one of those for?
1220 2012-10-24 20:16:29 <gmaxwell> sipa: oh, indeed you were! sorry, was benchmarking things and missed a screenfull. :P
1221 2012-10-24 20:16:47 <sipa> BlueMatt: well, i don't suppose it will boot an SSH server by default?
1222 2012-10-24 20:16:52 <D34TH> sipa, whats the amp output on the power?
1223 2012-10-24 20:17:02 <BlueMatt> sipa: you dont have it set up to?
1224 2012-10-24 20:17:35 <sipa> BlueMatt: i never booted my pi - i have no idea
1225 2012-10-24 20:17:42 <BlueMatt> ahh, ok
1226 2012-10-24 20:17:47 <sipa> D34TH: 5V 0.9A
1227 2012-10-24 20:17:56 <D34TH> grab a whole amp if possible
1228 2012-10-24 20:18:06 <D34TH> it will make a large difference
1229 2012-10-24 20:18:11 <sipa> we'll see
1230 2012-10-24 20:18:12 <D34TH> in the usb/ethernet
1231 2012-10-24 20:21:45 PiZZaMaN2K is now known as away!~PiZZaMaN2@host-72-2-137-170.csinet.net|PiZZaMaN2K
1232 2012-10-24 20:23:20 agricocb has joined
1233 2012-10-24 20:25:57 chmod755 has joined
1234 2012-10-24 20:29:23 sirk390 has joined
1235 2012-10-24 20:34:37 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1236 2012-10-24 20:35:11 gfinn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1237 2012-10-24 20:35:24 <sipa> uh... http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/5167/synchronising-official-bitcoin-wallet-for-the-first-time-at-95-started-going-b
1238 2012-10-24 20:35:31 <sipa> actually someone who can't keep up?
1239 2012-10-24 20:35:47 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1240 2012-10-24 20:37:10 <gmaxwell> sipa: doubt it, plus they never would have made it as far as 9500 remaining if they couldn't keep up.
1241 2012-10-24 20:37:30 <gmaxwell> More likely that changing peer mixes moved the estimate forward once or twice.
1242 2012-10-24 20:37:45 Joric has quit ()
1243 2012-10-24 20:37:53 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1244 2012-10-24 20:38:17 slush has joined
1245 2012-10-24 20:38:23 davout has joined
1246 2012-10-24 20:40:38 ThomasV has joined
1247 2012-10-24 20:43:35 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1248 2012-10-24 20:47:01 <D34TH> git head isnt compiling on mingw anymore
1249 2012-10-24 20:47:09 <D34TH> give me a minute and ill look into t
1250 2012-10-24 20:48:13 gfinn has joined
1251 2012-10-24 20:49:18 <D34TH> thats weird, looks just fine after i reran without making changes
1252 2012-10-24 21:05:53 <sipa> gmaxwell: just implemented a more-or-less accurate guess for how small i could serialize full blocks using similar techniques as the one used in ultraprune's txout set encoding
1253 2012-10-24 21:06:29 <sipa> not too much it seems
1254 2012-10-24 21:06:29 <gmaxwell> sipa: odd, I started writing a compressor/decompressor earlier today, though only got a few dozen lines into it.
1255 2012-10-24 21:06:34 <sipa> block 00000000000001a6090f037a564265ea8621d574371a621ec6561e7978d9df12: 496076 -> 373548
1256 2012-10-24 21:06:46 <gmaxwell> ah you're talking block at a time.
1257 2012-10-24 21:06:55 <gmaxwell> I was working on something for bootstrap.dat compression.
1258 2012-10-24 21:07:05 <sipa> oh, that could get a lot more, i suppose
1259 2012-10-24 21:07:33 <sipa> although the majority is still txin scripts, and those are not too compressible
1260 2012-10-24 21:08:08 <sipa> seems pretty systematic a 25% reduction i get now
1261 2012-10-24 21:10:59 <sipa> (it includes using pubkey compression, stripping DER overhead from signatures, varint encoding for all small integers, + everything we already have for txouts)
1262 2012-10-24 21:11:15 <TD> might be an optimization worth mentioning on the scalability page
1263 2012-10-24 21:12:26 D34TH has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1264 2012-10-24 21:13:01 chmod755 has quit (Quit: chmod755)
1265 2012-10-24 21:13:05 <gavinandresen> TD and/or Matt: what does block catch-up look like with Bloom filters, with respect to memory usage for the node that is being fetched from?
1266 2012-10-24 21:13:41 <sipa> i don't see why there'd be more overhead than the size of the bloom filter - one per filtered connection
1267 2012-10-24 21:13:46 <OneFixt> i'm getting "warning: displayed transactions may not be correct" message - upgrading the client didn't help
1268 2012-10-24 21:13:54 <TD> you need to build a CMerkleBlock for each block, of course
1269 2012-10-24 21:14:15 <gavinandresen> e.g. when catching up from (say) 10,000 blocks ago, does the node sending the blocks and filtered transactions add those transactions to the "already seen" list ?
1270 2012-10-24 21:14:16 <TD> but worst case scenario that, what, doubles the size of the block in memory? so 1mb->2mb plus a bit for std::vector overheads
1271 2012-10-24 21:14:20 <TD> doesn't seem worth worrying about
1272 2012-10-24 21:14:34 <OneFixt> what's the best way to fix that? does it require redownloading the entire blockchain?
1273 2012-10-24 21:15:12 <OneFixt> hm, blocks have stopped updating
1274 2012-10-24 21:15:13 <TD> gavinandresen: i don't think so. relevant code is here
1275 2012-10-24 21:15:15 <sipa> gavinandresen: setInventoryKnown is an mruset
1276 2012-10-24 21:15:20 <TD> https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commit/f2ecbb0627851b163fa23c1f94821c78d2fc0662#L0R2660
1277 2012-10-24 21:15:34 <TD> OneFixt: what block are you up to? restarting your client may help
1278 2012-10-24 21:15:42 <OneFixt> i tried that, i'll try again
1279 2012-10-24 21:15:45 <gavinandresen> sipa: mruset with a bounded size? (how big?)
1280 2012-10-24 21:15:59 <OneFixt> TD: i'm on 204788
1281 2012-10-24 21:16:04 fpgaminer has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1282 2012-10-24 21:16:18 fpgaminer has joined
1283 2012-10-24 21:16:22 <TD> OneFixt: alright. if another restart doesn't help then a debug.log would be useful
1284 2012-10-24 21:16:25 <sipa> gavinandresen: SendBufferSize() / 1000
1285 2012-10-24 21:16:33 <sipa> gavinandresen: (that many invs)
1286 2012-10-24 21:16:48 <OneFixt> TD: oh, thanks, good point - i'll look in there if this doesn't fix it
1287 2012-10-24 21:17:32 <gavinandresen> sipa: thanks
1288 2012-10-24 21:17:49 <sipa> TD: merkle tree can't double the size in memory - it's just a extra vector with size 2*nTx
1289 2012-10-24 21:18:18 <TD> 1 branch per tx
1290 2012-10-24 21:18:19 <OneFixt> TD: https://www.privatepaste.com/6bde0ef8b5
1291 2012-10-24 21:18:31 <TD> you said yourself, for a very deep tree the branch can be the same size as the tx
1292 2012-10-24 21:18:39 <sipa> TD: the tree is serialized into a single vector
1293 2012-10-24 21:18:58 <sipa> so every node is only represented once in it
1294 2012-10-24 21:19:16 <sipa> s/serialized/flattened/
1295 2012-10-24 21:19:27 <TD> i don't understand your point. gavin is asking about the worst case memory usage of a node serving a filtered client
1296 2012-10-24 21:19:44 <TD> if the bloom filter matches every TX then the CMerkleBlock will contain a branch for every transaction
1297 2012-10-24 21:19:54 <TD> and the CMerkleBlock is created from a CBlock
1298 2012-10-24 21:19:58 <sipa> oh, you're talking about the CMerkleBlock
1299 2012-10-24 21:20:00 <TD> yeah
1300 2012-10-24 21:20:07 <sipa> i was talking about CBlock::vMerkleTree
1301 2012-10-24 21:20:11 <TD> ah. no.
1302 2012-10-24 21:20:34 <sipa> yes, sure, you'll always need memory to store the data that will be transmitted
1303 2012-10-24 21:20:35 <TD> OneFixt: odd. it's not even trying to download blocks.
1304 2012-10-24 21:20:43 <TD> OneFixt: i wonder if you keep connecting to stuck nodes or something
1305 2012-10-24 21:20:50 <gavinandresen> I'm trying to think like an attacker who might try to use the new bloom filter stuff to make mischief.
1306 2012-10-24 21:20:59 <TD> yeah
1307 2012-10-24 21:21:16 <sipa> OneFixt: can you send a larger portion of your debug.log?
1308 2012-10-24 21:21:19 <sipa> or upload it?
1309 2012-10-24 21:21:19 <TD> i don't think it's very easy. one of the nice things about the filter construction is that testing membership is fast. some hashing operations + bit checks
1310 2012-10-24 21:21:45 <TD> it's not like a static list where matching time would be linear in the number of included elements
1311 2012-10-24 21:21:53 <gavinandresen> TD: yes, I REALLY like the constant time factor of bloom filters.
1312 2012-10-24 21:22:19 xisalty has joined
1313 2012-10-24 21:22:28 <OneFixt> sipa: here is the log from the restart https://www.privatepaste.com/def61f7494
1314 2012-10-24 21:23:41 <sipa> OneFixt: corrupted blockchain (index)
1315 2012-10-24 21:24:07 <sipa> it thinks block 204789 contains a double spend
1316 2012-10-24 21:24:16 <OneFixt> perhaps due to a pc crash?
1317 2012-10-24 21:24:19 <sipa> maybe
1318 2012-10-24 21:24:30 <gmaxwell> td: I'm disappointed by the gratuitous inefficiency of the redundant hashtree fragments; and I'd really like to understand a justification beyond what I got from bluemattâ which I felt was that being less efficient than grabbling whole blocks when pulling more than a small number of txn isn't required for mobile devices.
1319 2012-10-24 21:24:35 <OneFixt> what's the fastest way to fix it without redownloading everything?
1320 2012-10-24 21:24:49 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1321 2012-10-24 21:25:45 <TD> if you think about the case where you're matching a significant proportion of all transactions in a block, you probably quickly approach the point where just downloading the whole thing is cheaper (considering that server-side filtering does have a cost)
1322 2012-10-24 21:26:00 <TD> the code and encoding to collapse together partial tree segments is also likely to be quite involved.
1323 2012-10-24 21:26:03 <TD> maybe we're wrong and it's trivial
1324 2012-10-24 21:26:06 <TD> but i doubt it.
1325 2012-10-24 21:26:08 <gmaxwell> OneFixt: shut down, move blk0*.dat out of the way, delete the blkindex and start with two -loadblock= pointed to the old blockfiles.
1326 2012-10-24 21:26:19 <sipa> TD: is a server allowed to send a normal block when a filtered block is requested?
1327 2012-10-24 21:26:33 <OneFixt> gmaxwell: thanks
1328 2012-10-24 21:26:38 sirk390 has joined
1329 2012-10-24 21:26:57 <sipa> TD: oh, it's not that hard to construct the necessary data
1330 2012-10-24 21:27:03 <gmaxwell> OneFixt: this is faster than downloading but it still takes a while.
1331 2012-10-24 21:27:24 <OneFixt> thanks, i'll try that right now
1332 2012-10-24 21:27:26 <sipa> TD: but validating it is a lot trickier than just a chain of hashes
1333 2012-10-24 21:27:47 <gmaxwell> Assembling it is trivial, validating requires some more code.
1334 2012-10-24 21:27:48 <TD> i don't think so. perhaps that should be allowed by the BIP, though it seems unnecessary. filtering of blocks really isn't designed for people like SatoshiDice who actually can dominate transaction volumes. the vast, vast majority of wallets will never care about the vast majority of blocks
1335 2012-10-24 21:28:27 <TD> if somebody can come up with a reason why a site might want to process some significant fraction of all network traffic but not just download full blocks, well, i'm all ears
1336 2012-10-24 21:28:31 <TD> but the tradeoff doesn't feel right to me
1337 2012-10-24 21:28:40 <sipa> TD: is a server allowed to send a normal block when a filtered block is requested?
1338 2012-10-24 21:28:50 CluckCreek has joined
1339 2012-10-24 21:28:54 <TD> sipa: "i don't think so. perhaps that should be allowed by the BIP, though it seems unnecessary. "
1340 2012-10-24 21:29:18 <gmaxwell> TD: Allowing that makes sense to me... Though I was also thinking about things like contract tools that may need very broad filter rules and catchâ say 10-20% of the transactionsâ only to throw out most locally.
1341 2012-10-24 21:30:24 <gmaxwell> Thats still a _major_ savings when going through the history, but not with the redundancy in the current BIP.
1342 2012-10-24 21:30:36 <sipa> TD: construct a tree with a leaf for every transaction, containing a boolean in every node; initialize every node with true if it corresponds to a transaction or is the parent thereof; then iterate breadth-first through the tree and output the hash for every false node, while in the process marking them and all their children true
1343 2012-10-24 21:30:55 <TD> yeah, things like bond clients may well want to match a lot of transactions but i doubt it'd ever be as high as 20% of a block. unless we all start using bitcoin in radically different ways to how it's used today, it's hard to imagine contract/smart property style txns dominating
1344 2012-10-24 21:31:46 <gmaxwell> TD: I'd expect high numbers due to the non-specific rules required to match some non-txouts and filter pollution. Bloom filters rapidly start selecting everything when over filled.
1345 2012-10-24 21:31:49 <TD> sipa: i would be tempted to just use a dictionary of hashes and represent independent branches as indexes into that dictionary
1346 2012-10-24 21:31:59 <TD> seems a lot simpler to spec out and implement
1347 2012-10-24 21:32:11 <sipa> ok, fine by me
1348 2012-10-24 21:32:40 <sipa> but that may lead to a blow-up in verification time
1349 2012-10-24 21:32:57 <TD> it's a few hashing operations.
1350 2012-10-24 21:33:05 <TD> a single sigop would blow that away
1351 2012-10-24 21:33:36 <sipa> ok, worst case, 4000 transactions and all over them match: 48000 hash operations
1352 2012-10-24 21:34:01 <sipa> you are targetting clients that do not want to do sigops
1353 2012-10-24 21:34:13 <OneFixt> gmaxwell: is there an option to disable logging while i'm importing the blocks?
1354 2012-10-24 21:34:35 <sipa> OneFixt: you can symlink debug.log to /dev/null :)
1355 2012-10-24 21:34:45 <OneFixt> on windows >_<
1356 2012-10-24 21:34:57 wizkid057 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1357 2012-10-24 21:35:05 <sipa> sure, first install an ubuntu VM, and ...
1358 2012-10-24 21:35:14 <OneFixt> lol
1359 2012-10-24 21:35:22 <sipa> seriously - no idea
1360 2012-10-24 21:35:28 <OneFixt> np, thanks
1361 2012-10-24 21:35:45 <TD> sipa: sure but they aren't that slow!
1362 2012-10-24 21:36:26 <TD> heck ARMv8 actually has hardware opcodes for sha-2 hashing
1363 2012-10-24 21:37:13 <gmaxwell> Bet those works great from java. :P
1364 2012-10-24 21:37:26 <sipa> still, i don't think it's so hard to implement an optimal encoding/verification
1365 2012-10-24 21:38:13 <gmaxwell> There may even me some compact algebraic code that can take an index list and expand it to the tree pattern that people can just ape.
1366 2012-10-24 21:38:43 <gmaxwell> At least this is code that you're unlikely to get wrong and fail to notice.
1367 2012-10-24 21:38:43 wizkid057 has joined
1368 2012-10-24 21:40:17 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1369 2012-10-24 21:41:10 <TD> ok so 48,000 hash ops with each op being on 64 bytes (concatenation of two hashes) == 48k*64 / 1024 / 1024 == 2.92 megabytes of data to hash
1370 2012-10-24 21:41:20 <TD> http://www.bolet.org/sphlib-report-round3.pdf
1371 2012-10-24 21:41:26 <TD> this will take ~1 second to complete
1372 2012-10-24 21:41:33 <TD> on an overclocked _scientific calculator-
1373 2012-10-24 21:41:43 <TD> which is running at 75 Mhz
1374 2012-10-24 21:42:02 <TD> seriously. if you want to argue for a more complicated encoding use bandwidth as a justification
1375 2012-10-24 21:42:39 <TD> on any reasonable system sha2 can crunch hundreds of megabytes per second
1376 2012-10-24 21:42:40 <sipa> i already did that - i was now arguing for just outputting the necessary merkle nodes, instead of an array an indexes into it
1377 2012-10-24 21:42:57 <sipa> which isn't much of a problem, but just feels stupid
1378 2012-10-24 21:44:26 <sipa> anyway, not worth it to keep discussing it
1379 2012-10-24 21:44:49 <TD> btw i think this is the first discussion of the idea: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7972.0
1380 2012-10-24 21:44:50 <TD> may 2011
1381 2012-10-24 21:45:13 <sipa> wow, that long ago already?
1382 2012-10-24 21:45:28 <TD> yeah. it took more than a year to get implemented. and it's not even merged/rolled out yet :)
1383 2012-10-24 21:45:37 wizkid057 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1384 2012-10-24 21:46:10 <TD> it would have been nice to make more progress by now. but i guess it's always more complex than first appears
1385 2012-10-24 21:46:18 <sipa> well, it always takes someone to implement it at least
1386 2012-10-24 21:48:13 wizkid057 has joined
1387 2012-10-24 21:59:36 <jgarzik> heh, that crazy xf2_org character
1388 2012-10-24 21:59:48 <sipa> such a nood
1389 2012-10-24 21:59:50 <sipa> such a noob
1390 2012-10-24 22:05:21 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1391 2012-10-24 22:06:31 <BlueMatt> wait...what? " But I discovered that I had missed an essential optimization in my Koblitz implementation, which is to split the G multiplication into two, with half size exponents." the way I read the original code, he already did...
1392 2012-10-24 22:07:49 <jgarzik> is it possible to create a transaction on testnet that lives in mempool, but never confirms?
1393 2012-10-24 22:08:04 <jgarzik> trying to think how to test aging-out long-unconfirmed transactions
1394 2012-10-24 22:08:09 <sipa> jgarzik: set nLockTime = MAX_INT
1395 2012-10-24 22:08:52 <sipa> won't confirm before 2037
1396 2012-10-24 22:09:28 <sipa> 2038, even
1397 2012-10-24 22:09:51 <sipa> BlueMatt: i haven't tried understanding his code
1398 2012-10-24 22:09:59 <jgarzik> sipa: are those acceptable transactions to prune from the memory pool after X days?
1399 2012-10-24 22:10:38 <sipa> i'm not too confortable with their intended applications (even though those are currently crippled by no tx replacement)
1400 2012-10-24 22:12:21 slush1 has joined
1401 2012-10-24 22:12:24 <helo> TIL blks=(/tmp/blocks/blk*.dat); ./bitcoin-qt "${blks[@]/#/-loadblock=}"
1402 2012-10-24 22:13:01 <sipa> helo: is the * pattern guaranteed to produce sorted matches?
1403 2012-10-24 22:13:42 <helo> not sure about guaranteed, but it appears to
1404 2012-10-24 22:13:59 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1405 2012-10-24 22:15:35 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1406 2012-10-24 22:17:23 <helo> possibly sorted based on disk order
1407 2012-10-24 22:19:24 CodeInChaos has joined
1408 2012-10-24 22:20:52 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1409 2012-10-24 22:23:24 paul_nicholson has quit (Quit: paul_nicholson)
1410 2012-10-24 22:24:47 CluckCreek has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1411 2012-10-24 22:25:59 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1412 2012-10-24 22:28:59 twobitcoins_ has joined
1413 2012-10-24 22:32:03 graingert_ecs has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1414 2012-10-24 22:32:32 twobitcoins has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1415 2012-10-24 22:35:59 agricocb has joined
1416 2012-10-24 22:36:20 pnicholson has joined
1417 2012-10-24 22:41:02 da2ce7 has joined
1418 2012-10-24 22:45:21 CodeInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1419 2012-10-24 22:50:15 pnicholson has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1420 2012-10-24 22:51:18 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1421 2012-10-24 22:53:17 Karmaon has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1422 2012-10-24 22:53:30 Karmaon has joined
1423 2012-10-24 22:53:31 Karmaon has quit (Changing host)
1424 2012-10-24 22:53:31 Karmaon has joined
1425 2012-10-24 22:53:44 pnicholson has joined
1426 2012-10-24 22:58:43 vampireb_ has joined
1427 2012-10-24 22:58:45 pnicholson has quit (Quit: pnicholson)
1428 2012-10-24 22:59:13 Joric has joined
1429 2012-10-24 23:00:40 D34TH has joined
1430 2012-10-24 23:01:06 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1431 2012-10-24 23:10:56 pnicholson has joined
1432 2012-10-24 23:20:21 root2_ has joined
1433 2012-10-24 23:20:48 <D34TH> sorry that took so long
1434 2012-10-24 23:20:59 <D34TH> just flashed 6 wrt54g's with dd-wrt
1435 2012-10-24 23:23:42 root2 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1436 2012-10-24 23:24:36 Joric has quit ()
1437 2012-10-24 23:28:59 <sipa> don't tell me they're now running bitcoind!
1438 2012-10-24 23:31:45 root2_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1439 2012-10-24 23:33:02 root2 has joined
1440 2012-10-24 23:33:54 <gmaxwell> "< D34TH> this bitcoin thing is super slow! it sucks! I'm going back to myblockcoin.info's webwallet with 5%/second interest!"
1441 2012-10-24 23:36:28 root2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1442 2012-10-24 23:37:07 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1443 2012-10-24 23:37:17 <D34TH> lolwut
1444 2012-10-24 23:38:15 <gmaxwell> D34TH: I'm lamenting the twisted paths users sometimes go down; no insult intended towards anyone. :P
1445 2012-10-24 23:38:24 <D34TH> lol
1446 2012-10-24 23:38:32 <D34TH> nah i resell the routers
1447 2012-10-24 23:38:45 * luke-jr_ wonders who on earth would want a WRT54G
1448 2012-10-24 23:39:10 <D34TH> old people who dont want a 70 dollar e1500
1449 2012-10-24 23:39:26 <D34TH> tech stores around here rob people
1450 2012-10-24 23:39:39 <D34TH> and the walmart here is even worse
1451 2012-10-24 23:39:42 <luke-jr_> WHR-HP-G300N is only $47 and ships with DD-Wrt :p
1452 2012-10-24 23:39:51 <D34TH> >old people
1453 2012-10-24 23:40:12 <D34TH> i throw dd-wrt on wrt54g's sell them for $10 and set them up free for old people
1454 2012-10-24 23:40:13 <D34TH> its nice
1455 2012-10-24 23:40:13 <gmaxwell> Step 1. Root WRT54Gs Step 2. Sell super cheap to bitcoin users. Step 3. Profit!
1456 2012-10-24 23:40:16 <D34TH> and they dont complain
1457 2012-10-24 23:40:46 root2 has joined
1458 2012-10-24 23:40:46 <luke-jr_> D34TH: can you build Openwrt packages? ;)
1459 2012-10-24 23:40:56 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1460 2012-10-24 23:41:00 <D34TH> lost that vm
1461 2012-10-24 23:41:00 <D34TH> D:
1462 2012-10-24 23:41:07 <luke-jr_> gmaxwell: Step 1. Install Openwrt; Step 2. Install BFGMiner and plug ASIC Rig into USB port
1463 2012-10-24 23:41:09 <luke-jr_> :P
1464 2012-10-24 23:41:16 <D34TH> in the great HDD failure of '11
1465 2012-10-24 23:42:11 <gmaxwell> luke-jr_: gah more people running thousands of dollars of custom hardware on chopsticks
1466 2012-10-24 23:42:20 <luke-jr_> XD
1467 2012-10-24 23:42:21 luke-jr_ is now known as Luke-Jr
1468 2012-10-24 23:43:13 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: 3. complain that we need to hard fork the network because a 2^40 workfactor reduction between your miner and host isn't enough.
1469 2012-10-24 23:48:16 root2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1470 2012-10-24 23:49:34 root2 has joined
1471 2012-10-24 23:56:09 B0g4r7_ has joined
1472 2012-10-24 23:57:19 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
1473 2012-10-24 23:57:27 JZavala has joined