1 2012-11-06 00:03:50 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
   2 2012-11-06 00:06:07 freakazoid has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
   3 2012-11-06 00:06:08 freakazoid_ has joined
   4 2012-11-06 00:11:01 Silverion has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
   5 2012-11-06 00:11:52 emryss has joined
   6 2012-11-06 00:17:40 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
   7 2012-11-06 00:19:51 RainbowDashh has joined
   8 2012-11-06 00:22:46 luke-jr_ has joined
   9 2012-11-06 00:23:06 Luke-Jr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  10 2012-11-06 00:24:12 Hasimir- has joined
  11 2012-11-06 00:24:55 freakazoid_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  12 2012-11-06 00:25:08 Hasimir has quit (Disconnected by services)
  13 2012-11-06 00:25:10 Hasimir- is now known as Hasimir
  14 2012-11-06 00:33:28 wizkidO57 has joined
  15 2012-11-06 00:33:59 wizkid057 has quit (Disconnected by services)
  16 2012-11-06 00:34:06 wizkidO57 is now known as wizkid057
  17 2012-11-06 00:34:55 slush has joined
  18 2012-11-06 00:38:48 deadserious has joined
  19 2012-11-06 00:39:12 deadserious is now known as Guest48021
  20 2012-11-06 00:40:05 freakazoid_ has joined
  21 2012-11-06 00:41:03 RainbowDashh is now known as Rabbit67890
  22 2012-11-06 00:42:43 wizkid057 has quit (Quit: wtf... why did chat.us.freenode.net connect me to france?........)
  23 2012-11-06 00:46:03 wizkid057 has joined
  24 2012-11-06 00:51:38 wizkid057 has quit (Quit: reconnect... brb!)
  25 2012-11-06 00:54:24 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
  26 2012-11-06 00:54:36 freakazoid_ is now known as freakazoid
  27 2012-11-06 00:55:09 wizkid057 has joined
  28 2012-11-06 01:01:12 JDuke256 has quit (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
  29 2012-11-06 01:02:10 Rabbit67890 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  30 2012-11-06 01:03:17 RainbowDashh has joined
  31 2012-11-06 01:04:37 EasyAt is now known as !~Easy@81.17.31.43|EasyAt
  32 2012-11-06 01:06:56 enmaku has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  33 2012-11-06 01:08:41 enmaku has joined
  34 2012-11-06 01:11:02 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
  35 2012-11-06 01:13:12 arij has joined
  36 2012-11-06 01:13:36 arij is now known as Guest8170
  37 2012-11-06 01:14:00 Guest8170 has quit (Changing host)
  38 2012-11-06 01:14:00 Guest8170 has joined
  39 2012-11-06 01:17:00 one_zero has joined
  40 2012-11-06 01:25:44 Guest48021 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  41 2012-11-06 01:29:16 luke-jr_ is now known as Luke-Jr
  42 2012-11-06 01:32:03 knotwork has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  43 2012-11-06 01:39:23 Hasimir- has joined
  44 2012-11-06 01:40:00 Hasimir has quit (Disconnected by services)
  45 2012-11-06 01:40:28 Hasimir- is now known as Hasimir
  46 2012-11-06 01:40:45 deadserious has joined
  47 2012-11-06 01:41:09 deadserious is now known as Guest92948
  48 2012-11-06 01:51:33 forsetifox has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  49 2012-11-06 01:54:22 Karmaon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  50 2012-11-06 01:55:15 <etotheipi_> sipa, I don't know what you mean about "unbalanced tries"... a 256-fanout trie will require 32 hops to get to a leaf, no matter how the data is distributed... a PATRICIA or DlB or Hybrid tree will be considerably less (probably only a few hops), and the worst a mischievous person can do is require you do to more hops on some sub-branches ...
  51 2012-11-06 01:55:53 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
  52 2012-11-06 01:56:02 <etotheipi_> sipa: but it would be a lot of work for them to take your runtimes on that branch into territory that you were already comfortable with... 32
  53 2012-11-06 01:56:56 <etotheipi_> In reality, with a PATRICIA tree, you're probably doing 5-6 hops, maybe 7 or 8 if the UTXO space jumps up a copule orders of magnitude
  54 2012-11-06 01:57:29 <etotheipi_> and those top 3 or 4 levels can be cached
  55 2012-11-06 01:57:47 <etotheipi_> they won't change like a binary tree would (which can rebalance and shift your nodes around in and out of the cache)
  56 2012-11-06 01:58:12 <amiller> you're thinking of this as a data structure in ram, and that's probably not going to be the case
  57 2012-11-06 01:58:23 <etotheipi_> uh oh
  58 2012-11-06 01:58:37 <etotheipi_> eto and amiller on the same IRC channel talking about data structures
  59 2012-11-06 01:58:39 <etotheipi_> run!
  60 2012-11-06 01:58:48 <amiller> it's a logical data structure, because we're just talking about what you have to do to compute and _validate_ the updated root hashes
  61 2012-11-06 01:59:07 <etotheipi_> why can't patricia trees be disk-based?
  62 2012-11-06 01:59:38 <amiller> well the thing is neither patricia tries nor binary trees are efficient on disk
  63 2012-11-06 01:59:54 <etotheipi_> probably true, but probably unavoidable
  64 2012-11-06 02:00:08 <amiller> if you want random access disk efficiency you'd want a b-tree, which is problematic because we'd have to pick one cache size for everyone
  65 2012-11-06 02:00:27 <amiller> if you are a full validating light-client
  66 2012-11-06 02:00:38 <amiller> you do not need to perform random accesses
  67 2012-11-06 02:00:47 <etotheipi_> but at the very least, the top few levels of the Patricia tree can be cached into RAM
  68 2012-11-06 02:00:51 <amiller> you can let the network feed you the right answers
  69 2012-11-06 02:00:54 <etotheipi_> which would dramatically reduce random accesses
  70 2012-11-06 02:01:13 <etotheipi_> if you're usually only making 5-6 hops but 3-4 are cached...
  71 2012-11-06 02:01:38 <etotheipi_> (er... 4 is a bit much)
  72 2012-11-06 02:02:43 <amiller> do you agree that a) after-the-fact validation and b) random access queries are two different algorithms / use cases and the ideal data structure for one may be worse for the other?
  73 2012-11-06 02:02:49 <etotheipi_> but I'm sure the same cache optimization is still avialable for the binary trees
  74 2012-11-06 02:03:32 <etotheipi_> no, I haven't seen that distinction... unless I misunderstood you
  75 2012-11-06 02:04:03 <amiller> it's crucial, so let me try rephrasing it so that distinction comes across
  76 2012-11-06 02:05:32 maaku has joined
  77 2012-11-06 02:08:38 <amiller> uh, well lets just say that there are a variety of different size clients on the network
  78 2012-11-06 02:08:47 <amiller> some of them may have enough memory to hold the UTXO set
  79 2012-11-06 02:08:59 <amiller> but many of them may have a smaller size amount of memory
  80 2012-11-06 02:09:24 <amiller> and in addition to having a finite amount of memory they may have various caches
  81 2012-11-06 02:09:45 <wizkid057> how about a distributed hash table? :D
  82 2012-11-06 02:10:03 <amiller> the whole point of doing this merkle tree commitment thing is that it becomes possible for a node with memory limit m < M (utxo set size) to perfectly validate each transaction
  83 2012-11-06 02:10:10 Hasimir- has joined
  84 2012-11-06 02:10:33 <etotheipi_> amiller, correct (following you so far)
  85 2012-11-06 02:10:33 <amiller> if you have less memory than the UTXO set, then you are going to rely on an untrusted service (like the distributed p2p network itself) to provide you with answers, but you're going to check them yourself
  86 2012-11-06 02:10:48 Hasimir has quit (Disconnected by services)
  87 2012-11-06 02:10:48 Hasimir- is now known as Hasimir
  88 2012-11-06 02:11:20 <amiller> so if you only have memory m, and the utxo is size M, then you are definitely not going to store a binary tree with pointers
  89 2012-11-06 02:11:45 <amiller> but what then is the optimal strategy to validate transactions?
  90 2012-11-06 02:12:23 <etotheipi_> amiller, one of my points about PATRICIA trees was that those light nodes can easily store the small subtrees
  91 2012-11-06 02:12:35 <etotheipi_> and only need to retrieve the hash information for each node that leads up to that subtree
  92 2012-11-06 02:12:41 <etotheipi_> to do that validation
  93 2012-11-06 02:13:16 <etotheipi_> in fact, one of my concerns with the binary tree, is that all subnodes of a given address may be distributed across multiple sub-branches
  94 2012-11-06 02:13:16 <amiller> that validation involves computing a lot of hashes
  95 2012-11-06 02:13:18 freakazoid has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
  96 2012-11-06 02:13:38 <etotheipi_> I don't know how you would even specify that, or communicate it... without specifying a lot of other information the node doesn't need
  97 2012-11-06 02:14:27 <amiller> what i want to optimize is, for validation, and with memory size m, what's 1) the minimum number of hashes you have to recompute, 2) what's the least amount of network access you need to have, and 3) what's the fewest number of i/os you need
  98 2012-11-06 02:14:40 <etotheipi_> well, let me state that a little better:  it's going to be complicated for one network node to communicate to another, that its address owns N UTXOs, and here's where they are on the tree
  99 2012-11-06 02:15:37 Garr255_ has joined
 100 2012-11-06 02:15:37 Garr255_ has quit (Changing host)
 101 2012-11-06 02:15:37 Garr255_ has joined
 102 2012-11-06 02:16:33 <etotheipi_> amiller, by those metrics, I agree that trie-based structures are weaker (unless there was a good associative hashing algorithm available)
 103 2012-11-06 02:16:36 <amiller> every chunk of blockchain is a linear sequence of insertions or deletions to the utxo, and validation means checking that each one is valid and that the root hash after every sequence is correct
 104 2012-11-06 02:17:50 <etotheipi_> amiller, quick verification:  is this tree keyed only by address?  address||outpoint?
 105 2012-11-06 02:18:13 <etotheipi_> I originally proposed keyed by address, and then that leaf would hold the hash value of a subtree
 106 2012-11-06 02:18:38 Garr255 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 107 2012-11-06 02:18:42 <etotheipi_> if it's keyed by address||outpoint , then the nodes are sorted by address first, but the leaves are the UTXOs
 108 2012-11-06 02:19:05 <etotheipi_> but yes, I understand your comments about validation
 109 2012-11-06 02:19:09 <amiller> hm, no i definitely haven't been thinking of it that way, but i acknowledge that that was around from the beginning
 110 2012-11-06 02:19:31 <amiller> i am tending to think of it keyed by txid|idx and that's all
 111 2012-11-06 02:19:37 <amiller> except that i'm also interested in having arbitrary keys
 112 2012-11-06 02:19:42 <amiller> in which case address could be one of them
 113 2012-11-06 02:20:03 <etotheipi_> well, I didn't mean "address" literally, it would basically be "txout script"
 114 2012-11-06 02:20:06 <amiller> so there would be two leaves for each utxo, one for txid|idx, and another for addr
 115 2012-11-06 02:21:44 <etotheipi_> I just want to make sure we're on the same page in this regard
 116 2012-11-06 02:22:07 <etotheipi_> I originally proposed a master tree that is keyed by address (script) and the leaves are addresses (scripts)
 117 2012-11-06 02:22:17 <etotheipi_> and that those leaves contain the root hash of a sub tree
 118 2012-11-06 02:22:45 <amiller> i don't think it makes any difference for my analysis so i'll try to switch to thinking about it in your terms
 119 2012-11-06 02:22:54 <etotheipi_> I realized that with a trie-based tree... you could have addr|outpoint and then all outpoints for a given address would be nicely contained in the subtree
 120 2012-11-06 02:22:56 <amiller> the most important thing is that the addresses are controlled by arbitrary users
 121 2012-11-06 02:23:13 <etotheipi_> okay
 122 2012-11-06 02:23:15 <amiller> so i am only really focusing on the master tree since i'm going to assume there's no address reuse
 123 2012-11-06 02:23:30 <etotheipi_> why can you assume that?
 124 2012-11-06 02:23:39 forsetifox has joined
 125 2012-11-06 02:24:05 <amiller> well, by default because it's a worst-case and because it's under the control of users
 126 2012-11-06 02:24:25 <etotheipi_> oh, I thought you were making a simplifying assumption...
 127 2012-11-06 02:24:34 <etotheipi_> okay... well carry on
 128 2012-11-06 02:25:31 <amiller> so if you have memory m < M  (M is the number of unique address in the master tree)
 129 2012-11-06 02:25:39 <amiller> how to use that memory most efficiently?
 130 2012-11-06 02:25:48 <amiller> well first of the root node is going to change with every single update, guaranteed
 131 2012-11-06 02:25:59 <amiller> so you can avoid recomputing it twice
 132 2012-11-06 02:26:25 <amiller> some times you branch left sometimes you branch right, suppose that in the worst case the modifications alternate
 133 2012-11-06 02:27:11 <amiller> if you wanted to avoid recomputing that hash twice, you could just store it in memo table of already-computed node->hash(node) entries
 134 2012-11-06 02:27:14 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 135 2012-11-06 02:27:29 <amiller> so here's what i think is the best solution
 136 2012-11-06 02:27:42 <amiller> when you ask the network for the validation data
 137 2012-11-06 02:28:25 <amiller> it gives you a node, and (here's the fun part) a look ahead number that tells you when you're going to need to look at that data again!
 138 2012-11-06 02:28:46 <amiller> you validate the data the first time by checking that it matches the hash you're expecting
 139 2012-11-06 02:28:56 <amiller> then you insert it into a priority queue
 140 2012-11-06 02:29:09 <etotheipi_> okay, now I lost you,
 141 2012-11-06 02:29:15 <etotheipi_> let me ponder what you said for a minute
 142 2012-11-06 02:30:01 <amiller> performing validation involves receiving a stream from an untrusted peer, as well as maintaining a priority queue of pre-validated nodes - and at each step you either read from the front of your priority queue, or from the next element in the stream
 143 2012-11-06 02:31:00 <etotheipi_> you're talking about:  you have a root hash that you know is correct (because it was in the longest chain coinbase), and you have the hash of a node you want to confirm is part of that tree
 144 2012-11-06 02:31:24 theorbtwo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 145 2012-11-06 02:31:41 <amiller> uh it's slightly more than that let me rephrase the last part of what you said
 146 2012-11-06 02:31:58 <etotheipi_> okay, I didn't start at the same place as you
 147 2012-11-06 02:31:59 <etotheipi_> :)
 148 2012-11-06 02:32:35 <amiller> you have the root hash you know is correct, and you also have an element to insert, and you want to determine the correct root hash that results from inserting that element
 149 2012-11-06 02:33:43 <etotheipi_> I didn't think was a problem that needed to be solved
 150 2012-11-06 02:33:57 <amiller> lets do it the other way then and maybe it will be clearly
 151 2012-11-06 02:34:20 <amiller> you have a root hash you know is correct, and you have an element to remove, and you want to determine the correct root hash that results from removing that element (which includes checking that the element is in there)
 152 2012-11-06 02:35:28 <etotheipi_> I guess I'm confused, because I didn't envision this to be a problem that was in our problem space:  if you're not storing the UTXO whole tree, then you're a lite node, and your goal is just to verify the "state" of the tree at a given block, not modify that tree
 153 2012-11-06 02:35:46 <amiller> a block is a patch to the tree
 154 2012-11-06 02:36:02 <amiller> it has a sequence of updates and a new root hash
 155 2012-11-06 02:36:18 <amiller> and even the lite client needs to verify that the root hash matches the correct updates
 156 2012-11-06 02:36:18 <etotheipi_> understood
 157 2012-11-06 02:36:22 theorbtwo has joined
 158 2012-11-06 02:36:28 forsetifox has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 159 2012-11-06 02:36:46 <etotheipi_> yes, it needs to verify correctness at a static moment in time (one particular block), but it doesn't need to predict the root hash for the next block
 160 2012-11-06 02:37:42 <amiller> so verifying correctness involves effectively simulating the update
 161 2012-11-06 02:37:43 <etotheipi_> it already has a mechanism for knowing that it has the correct subset of UTXOs (a verified root has for block N-3, and then 3 blocks of which each TX can be verified)
 162 2012-11-06 02:38:23 <amiller> i don't know what you mean by subset of utxos
 163 2012-11-06 02:38:45 <etotheipi_> the lite node cares about some subset of UTXOs (probably the ones relevant to its own wallet)
 164 2012-11-06 02:39:26 <amiller> no the lite node needs to confirm that the new root hash is correct, given the previous root hash and the current sequence of updates
 165 2012-11-06 02:39:42 <etotheipi_> I don't agree
 166 2012-11-06 02:39:47 <amiller> even a lite node needs to be able to tell the difference between an invalid block and a valid block
 167 2012-11-06 02:39:51 <amiller> otherwise it is unsafe to mine with
 168 2012-11-06 02:39:58 <amiller> or to purchase mining power
 169 2012-11-06 02:40:20 <etotheipi_> something is definitely awry here...
 170 2012-11-06 02:40:27 <etotheipi_> perhaps a root of our disagreement
 171 2012-11-06 02:40:54 <etotheipi_> a lite node does not need to compute/predict and then verify the next root hash
 172 2012-11-06 02:41:36 <etotheipi_> it simply gets the verifiable, relevant branches for its wallet at block N, as a replacement for downloadimng the entire global blockchain history up until t that point
 173 2012-11-06 02:41:46 <amiller> so it doesn't fully validate new blocks
 174 2012-11-06 02:42:05 <etotheipi_> after that, it can carry on downloading new blocks as they come up
 175 2012-11-06 02:42:13 <etotheipi_> and verify them against headers to know that they are legit
 176 2012-11-06 02:43:14 <etotheipi_> it doesn't need to do the ECDSA validation, it only needs to know that the transactions in those blocks relevant to its wallet are valid
 177 2012-11-06 02:43:22 <amiller> my definition for a "lite node" is a node that performs full validation but potentially has a very small amount of ram and disk
 178 2012-11-06 02:43:50 <etotheipi_> that definitely was not my definition...
 179 2012-11-06 02:43:56 <amiller> okay
 180 2012-11-06 02:44:03 <etotheipi_> I figured if you're doing full validation, it's because you have enough disk space to hold the UTXO tree
 181 2012-11-06 02:44:19 <amiller> my point is that's an unnecessary assumption
 182 2012-11-06 02:44:21 <etotheipi_> well wait, what is "full validation"?
 183 2012-11-06 02:44:31 <amiller> you can perform full validation even if you don't even have a disk at all
 184 2012-11-06 02:44:34 <etotheipi_> validating every transaction, even ones that are not relevant to yoU?
 185 2012-11-06 02:44:42 <amiller> yeah
 186 2012-11-06 02:45:21 <etotheipi_> that doesn't sound very "lite"... how can you do that without having the whole the UTXO tree?
 187 2012-11-06 02:45:33 <amiller> that's the whole point of a merkle tree!
 188 2012-11-06 02:45:38 <amiller> let me explain this out
 189 2012-11-06 02:45:49 <etotheipi_> okay, and I'll brb (like 3 min), keep talking
 190 2012-11-06 02:46:29 <amiller> so lets just talk about a single insertion operation. the client knows the initial root hash, and the element to insert, and wants to compute the correct root hash
 191 2012-11-06 02:46:47 <amiller> it receives a 'Validation Object', which is just a chunk of data from an untrusted peer
 192 2012-11-06 02:47:25 <amiller> the validation object consists of the data you would visit if you traversed the tree in order, the root node first, followed by the either the left or right child, and so on - the branch down the tree to the end
 193 2012-11-06 02:48:10 <amiller> you check that each piece of node data matches the hash - starting from the root hash, you're guaranteed to have the hash of the next piece of data you're expecitng
 194 2012-11-06 02:48:27 <amiller> on the way down to the leaf, you put the node data in a stack because you're going to need it again on the way back up the tree
 195 2012-11-06 02:49:01 <amiller> when you get to the leaf, you can check that you're not inserting a duplicate element, and you have all the data in your stack you need to compute the new root hash
 196 2012-11-06 02:49:11 Garr255_ is now known as Garr255
 197 2012-11-06 02:49:42 <etotheipi_> so you're talking about dynamically downloading from peers, the data you need to do full validation, as you find out you need it (as opposed to having it all on hand)
 198 2012-11-06 02:49:43 <etotheipi_> ?
 199 2012-11-06 02:50:17 <amiller> yes, that's what i call an O(1)-storage full validating client
 200 2012-11-06 02:50:33 <amiller> but if you have m < M amount of memory, you sohuld store as much validation yourself as you can and make the best use of it
 201 2012-11-06 02:51:10 <amiller> instead of just downloading a block from a peer, you download a block + a validation support kit
 202 2012-11-06 02:51:57 <etotheipi_> okay, now your original thing about "identifying the next time a node owuld be updated"
 203 2012-11-06 02:52:00 <etotheipi_> makes sense
 204 2012-11-06 02:52:17 <etotheipi_> I just didn't realize this was a problem we were solving...
 205 2012-11-06 02:52:28 <etotheipi_> it's a good problem to solve, I just had never thought about it
 206 2012-11-06 02:52:40 <etotheipi_> you've clearly been thinking about this stuff a lot more than me :)
 207 2012-11-06 02:52:47 <amiller> the best name for this problem is "batch transaction validation"
 208 2012-11-06 02:52:58 MiningBuddy- has joined
 209 2012-11-06 02:53:01 <amiller> and it is _THE_ problem to solve (this is perhaps a good time to debate that though!)
 210 2012-11-06 02:53:27 <amiller> batch transaction validation is what you need to do to catch up if you've been asleep for a while, it's what you need to do to catch up from a checkpoint in the distant past, including a backup you created for yourself
 211 2012-11-06 02:53:33 <etotheipi_> to allow mining to continue by laymen even when UTXO tree gets too huge for most?
 212 2012-11-06 02:53:49 <etotheipi_> err... full validation
 213 2012-11-06 02:54:00 <amiller> yes precisely
 214 2012-11-06 02:54:11 <amiller> it's also what you need to do to deal with a proposed fork
 215 2012-11-06 02:54:36 <amiller> most of all, it's what's needed for responsible mining
 216 2012-11-06 02:54:40 <amiller> imagine you're on gpu max
 217 2012-11-06 02:54:44 <amiller> and you're just going to pay someone to mine on blocks for you
 218 2012-11-06 02:54:50 <amiller> you must not pay them if they mine on an invalid block!
 219 2012-11-06 02:54:52 <etotheipi_> btw, I don't know anything about gpu max
 220 2012-11-06 02:55:01 <amiller> just say it's outsourced mining
 221 2012-11-06 02:55:41 <amiller> you could have a big mining rack at a colocation and you can check up on it by doing full validation on your phone every night
 222 2012-11-06 02:56:14 <amiller> but yeah, full validation for lite nodes
 223 2012-11-06 02:56:42 eoss has joined
 224 2012-11-06 02:56:43 eoss has quit (Changing host)
 225 2012-11-06 02:56:43 eoss has joined
 226 2012-11-06 02:56:54 MiningBuddy has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 227 2012-11-06 02:57:09 <etotheipi_> ambitious, but good
 228 2012-11-06 02:58:09 <etotheipi_> okay, so at least we're starting at the same place now
 229 2012-11-06 02:58:14 <amiller> phew :D
 230 2012-11-06 02:58:30 <etotheipi_> and just in time for me to leave for 20 min :-/
 231 2012-11-06 02:58:32 <amiller> all these months, i had no idea that was where we were differed
 232 2012-11-06 02:58:33 <amiller> :p
 233 2012-11-06 02:59:12 <etotheipi_> well you were thinking much further ahead than me
 234 2012-11-06 02:59:24 <etotheipi_> or bigger, rather
 235 2012-11-06 03:00:03 <etotheipi_> I had only thought about "lite nodes that would like to get their state with the security of downloading the entire history, without actually downloading it", and "full-pruning nodes that maintain the whole tree"
 236 2012-11-06 03:00:57 <etotheipi_> I didn't consider your thing even possible (but hadn't even tried to think about it)
 237 2012-11-06 03:01:16 <etotheipi_> brb
 238 2012-11-06 03:02:52 JZavala has joined
 239 2012-11-06 03:09:01 unknown45682 has joined
 240 2012-11-06 03:10:22 <da2ce7_d> I just wanted to check with the crypto experts here, is this idea sane: http://pastebin.com/rC3eAe4N
 241 2012-11-06 03:10:32 unknown45682 has quit (2!~unknown45@pool-98-109-228-79.nwrknj.east.verizon.net|Client Quit)
 242 2012-11-06 03:12:09 unknown45682 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 243 2012-11-06 03:12:31 <helo> could a bitcoin-backed currency be created by an organization by issuing btc-denominated bills with the backing bitcoin addresses, with people scanning the bills and checking the backing address's balance when accepting?
 244 2012-11-06 03:13:04 randy-waterhouse has joined
 245 2012-11-06 03:13:14 forsetifox has joined
 246 2012-11-06 03:13:37 <lianj> its not a bitcoin then, just bitcoin backed
 247 2012-11-06 03:14:18 <helo> for every-day low-valued cash purchases, it seems like a good way to allow bitcoin to be used widely for everyday transactions without driving fees up
 248 2012-11-06 03:14:32 <helo> with actual bitcoin transactions
 249 2012-11-06 03:14:41 maqr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 250 2012-11-06 03:15:05 <xenland> helo: Very possible, already done, cassicus coins, Bitcoin checks, etc
 251 2012-11-06 03:15:20 <maaku> helo: you mean like this: http://printcoins.com
 252 2012-11-06 03:15:29 <xenland> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR_zDrzhPgE
 253 2012-11-06 03:15:42 <helo> hard to buy a hamburger with a cassicus
 254 2012-11-06 03:15:47 <xenland> yep
 255 2012-11-06 03:15:54 <helo> maaku: not like that, without the private key
 256 2012-11-06 03:16:13 <helo> maaku: just a bitcoin address showing that the backing funds have no been moved
 257 2012-11-06 03:16:19 <xenland> You need the privatekey, or its just pointless
 258 2012-11-06 03:16:26 <maaku> helo: then what's the point?
 259 2012-11-06 03:16:35 <helo> the issuing organization issues them and ensures they stay backed
 260 2012-11-06 03:16:38 <xenland> Might as well use fiat
 261 2012-11-06 03:16:58 <xenland> helo:Bitcoin block chain insures they are backed
 262 2012-11-06 03:17:04 <xenland> hence privatekey is needed
 263 2012-11-06 03:17:22 <maaku> helo: what's preventing counterfeiting?
 264 2012-11-06 03:17:23 <helo> and makes money on small exchange fees when someone wants to exchange the bills for actual btc
 265 2012-11-06 03:17:35 <lianj> he means a bitcoin backed token
 266 2012-11-06 03:17:37 <helo> maaku: trust in the issuin organization
 267 2012-11-06 03:17:42 <helo> issuing
 268 2012-11-06 03:17:52 <helo> exactly like a gold-backed paper currency
 269 2012-11-06 03:17:53 <xenland> Why exchange bills for actual btc when you have the privatekey to the BTC no need to exchange
 270 2012-11-06 03:17:57 <helo> but bitcoin-backed
 271 2012-11-06 03:20:04 <helo> generally i think bills like the one below is expected to becone a bitcoin transaction when it is claimed by the receiving party
 272 2012-11-06 03:20:19 <helo> *the ones on printbitcoins.com
 273 2012-11-06 03:22:38 <helo> we know bitcoin can't completely replace the transaction volumes of major financial institutions because of blockchain space
 274 2012-11-06 03:24:50 <amiller> something that's been bugging me a lot very recently is that almost anything you can do with a bitcoin requires a lot of trust in the other party
 275 2012-11-06 03:25:13 <xenland> amiller: Bitcoin needs a better Web of trust/rating system seriously
 276 2012-11-06 03:25:22 <amiller> except for a face-to-face transaction where you wait an hour before disengaging, in any exchange some party has to go first
 277 2012-11-06 03:25:23 <xenland> Invite only Web of trust dosen't work  hehe
 278 2012-11-06 03:26:13 <amiller> bitcoin is digital money, in the style of gold
 279 2012-11-06 03:26:28 <amiller> and any economist will tell you that money solves an efficiency problem with barter, specifically the "double coincidence of wants"
 280 2012-11-06 03:26:38 <amiller> does digital money solve the same problem for digital barter?
 281 2012-11-06 03:26:52 <amiller> the problem with digital barter isn't that its inefficient, it's that it's impossible or at least insecure
 282 2012-11-06 03:27:07 pnicholson has joined
 283 2012-11-06 03:28:13 <vazakl-> digibarter
 284 2012-11-06 03:28:48 <amiller> the problem of associating reputation/trust with pseudonyms is more fundamental than the problem money solves, and it's also orthogonal since even perfect money doesn't solve it
 285 2012-11-06 03:29:13 pnicholson has quit (Client Quit)
 286 2012-11-06 03:29:18 <vazakl-> true
 287 2012-11-06 03:30:13 <vazakl-> trusting WoT ratings might have 0 benefit.. once someone gets enough rep theyre happy to cash it in for an epic scam (pir8)
 288 2012-11-06 03:30:36 <vazakl-> or even a disadvantage (my rep is higher than yours, give me a discount or ill penalize your rating!)
 289 2012-11-06 03:33:07 <amiller> i like the idea of a credit graph rather than a ratings graph, since i don't see any way that ratings can't be gamed, but then we're basically talking about ripple (or, effectively, colored coins)
 290 2012-11-06 03:33:40 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 291 2012-11-06 03:34:16 <xenland> a credit graph is a great idea in comaprison then a simple number
 292 2012-11-06 03:36:42 sgornick has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 293 2012-11-06 03:40:53 sgornick_ has joined
 294 2012-11-06 03:43:44 sgornick_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 295 2012-11-06 03:45:12 sgornick has joined
 296 2012-11-06 03:46:12 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 297 2012-11-06 03:49:24 fiesh has joined
 298 2012-11-06 03:51:32 pnicholson has joined
 299 2012-11-06 03:53:20 linkedinyou has joined
 300 2012-11-06 03:54:49 linkedinyou has quit (Client Quit)
 301 2012-11-06 04:00:43 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 302 2012-11-06 04:02:27 BlackPrapor has joined
 303 2012-11-06 04:02:52 TheEslbear has joined
 304 2012-11-06 04:03:00 BlackPrapor has quit (Client Quit)
 305 2012-11-06 04:06:36 Eslbaer has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 306 2012-11-06 04:17:08 Guest92948 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 307 2012-11-06 04:25:49 dust-otc has joined
 308 2012-11-06 04:28:23 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 309 2012-11-06 04:32:39 RainbowDashh has joined
 310 2012-11-06 04:34:28 RainbowDashh has quit (Client Quit)
 311 2012-11-06 04:36:21 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 312 2012-11-06 04:36:31 [7] has joined
 313 2012-11-06 04:55:02 knotwork has joined
 314 2012-11-06 04:55:02 knotwork has quit (Changing host)
 315 2012-11-06 04:55:02 knotwork has joined
 316 2012-11-06 04:57:05 Karmaon has joined
 317 2012-11-06 04:57:05 Karmaon has quit (Changing host)
 318 2012-11-06 04:57:05 Karmaon has joined
 319 2012-11-06 05:03:55 TwilightSparklee has joined
 320 2012-11-06 05:04:26 xIsalty has joined
 321 2012-11-06 05:06:31 conman has left ("Leaving")
 322 2012-11-06 05:14:52 <amiller> i wonder if proof-of-work can be used to straight-up solve prisoners dilemma
 323 2012-11-06 05:15:29 <amiller> "we are a way for the cosmos to know itself"
 324 2012-11-06 05:16:11 B0g4r7 has joined
 325 2012-11-06 05:17:04 <amiller> the blockchain as a whole is a proof-of-work
 326 2012-11-06 05:17:13 RainbowDashh has joined
 327 2012-11-06 05:17:13 RainbowDashh has quit (Changing host)
 328 2012-11-06 05:17:13 RainbowDashh has joined
 329 2012-11-06 05:18:15 <amiller> but while individual blocks are embarrassingly parallel, a long chain of blocks isn't - that requires communication
 330 2012-11-06 05:18:29 <amiller> communication isn't so hard, at least within a macine or a data center
 331 2012-11-06 05:18:34 <amiller> but more than communication, it also requires cooperation
 332 2012-11-06 05:19:28 <amiller> it's proof of work that could have been used for something else but wasn't, it's evidentially directed towards a self-reflective process
 333 2012-11-06 05:19:33 ThomasV_ has joined
 334 2012-11-06 05:19:49 TwilightSparklee has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
 335 2012-11-06 05:28:37 freakazoid has joined
 336 2012-11-06 05:37:27 Icoin has quit (Quit: Icoin)
 337 2012-11-06 05:41:40 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: SLEEP! [11:14:29] <+Tsunami1>	 http://i.imgur.com/t2rz5.png)
 338 2012-11-06 05:43:40 RainbowDashh has joined
 339 2012-11-06 05:48:39 <xenland> Or stop sending people to prison
 340 2012-11-06 05:49:23 <xenland> 1 year of forced education usual outweighs locking someone up for a 1 year
 341 2012-11-06 05:49:34 <xenland> problem solved hehe :P
 342 2012-11-06 05:51:59 <senseless> i thought that's what electroshock therapy was for
 343 2012-11-06 05:52:42 <xenland> heh
 344 2012-11-06 05:52:54 <xenland> probubly quicker too
 345 2012-11-06 05:57:00 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 346 2012-11-06 06:02:12 RainbowDashh is now known as Obama
 347 2012-11-06 06:03:36 DaQatz has joined
 348 2012-11-06 06:07:00 Guest8170 has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 349 2012-11-06 06:07:46 Obama has left ("QUIT! [11:14:29] <+Tsunami1>	 http://i.imgur.com/t2rz5.png")
 350 2012-11-06 06:08:27 <amiller> the southhampton strategy for iterated prisoners dilemma
 351 2012-11-06 06:08:31 <amiller> involves a "self recognition" dance
 352 2012-11-06 06:09:16 <amiller> which technically violates the assumption that the prisoners are not allowed to communicate with each other
 353 2012-11-06 06:09:41 unknown45682 has joined
 354 2012-11-06 06:11:12 <andrew12> so when will bitcoin 1.0 release? when it is verified that all of its functions work (e.g. block reward halving)
 355 2012-11-06 06:11:16 <andrew12> ?
 356 2012-11-06 06:19:33 <xenland> I think Bitcoin is following the usual version number patterns
 357 2012-11-06 06:20:09 <xenland> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning
 358 2012-11-06 06:22:08 <xenland> based off the developers way of speech I think they will make it 1.0 when its ready for mainstream public fancial use, there is some issues stilll like huge block chain makes it harder and harder/longer and longer to verify things in bitcoin
 359 2012-11-06 06:22:30 <xenland> well thats kind of fixed now but stuff like that
 360 2012-11-06 06:23:57 robbak has joined
 361 2012-11-06 06:25:08 <robbak> It seems to me to be a rather ugly crock to have two comlpetely different build systems for the qt gui and the CLI daemon. Am I alone there?
 362 2012-11-06 06:26:00 <Luke-Jr> they're two different clients
 363 2012-11-06 06:26:13 <Luke-Jr> just lacking a proper abstraction layer around the core/shared codebase
 364 2012-11-06 06:28:01 <robbak> OK. It is less of an issue now that there is a console on the debug window to run commands on, anyway.
 365 2012-11-06 06:32:04 wizkidO57 has joined
 366 2012-11-06 06:32:07 wizkidO57 has quit (Excess Flood)
 367 2012-11-06 06:32:28 jrmithdobbs has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 368 2012-11-06 06:32:40 wizkidO57 has joined
 369 2012-11-06 06:32:41 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 370 2012-11-06 06:32:43 wizkidO57 has quit (Excess Flood)
 371 2012-11-06 06:32:52 jrmithdobbs has joined
 372 2012-11-06 06:34:19 wizkid057 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 373 2012-11-06 06:34:36 wizkid057 has joined
 374 2012-11-06 06:34:37 wizkid057 has quit (Excess Flood)
 375 2012-11-06 06:35:33 wizkid057 has joined
 376 2012-11-06 06:40:15 ovidiusoft has joined
 377 2012-11-06 06:40:34 SupaDupa has joined
 378 2012-11-06 06:40:41 <SupaDupa> something something in the month of may
 379 2012-11-06 06:40:49 <SupaDupa> Bitcoiners like my ePenis cause it's REALLY big
 380 2012-11-06 06:42:35 Ssateneth has joined
 381 2012-11-06 06:42:37 <Ssateneth> /popcorn
 382 2012-11-06 06:42:51 <SupaDupa> Bitcoiners are only good for 3 things
 383 2012-11-06 06:42:54 <SupaDupa> Scamming
 384 2012-11-06 06:42:57 <SupaDupa> Thieving
 385 2012-11-06 06:43:01 <SupaDupa> and Vaginas
 386 2012-11-06 06:43:24 <xIsalty> really supa
 387 2012-11-06 06:43:26 <xIsalty> this channel
 388 2012-11-06 06:43:31 <xIsalty> back to #btc-e
 389 2012-11-06 06:43:39 <SupaDupa> lol
 390 2012-11-06 06:43:40 <xIsalty> Im watching
 391 2012-11-06 06:43:49 <SupaDupa> Bitcoiners are stupid
 392 2012-11-06 06:43:53 <SupaDupa> and I don't respect them
 393 2012-11-06 06:43:55 <Ssateneth> like you
 394 2012-11-06 06:43:57 <SupaDupa> I just scam them
 395 2012-11-06 06:44:07 <SupaDupa> you're talking to me about stuff
 396 2012-11-06 06:44:09 <SupaDupa> why?
 397 2012-11-06 06:44:15 <SupaDupa> I'd much rather see the bitcoins
 398 2012-11-06 06:44:29 <SupaDupa> that's right bitch
 399 2012-11-06 06:44:32 <SupaDupa> now open your wallet
 400 2012-11-06 06:44:37 <SupaDupa> and show me your bitcoins
 401 2012-11-06 06:46:09 Ahimoth_ has joined
 402 2012-11-06 06:47:32 Ahimoth has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 403 2012-11-06 06:47:32 Ahimoth_ is now known as Ahimoth
 404 2012-11-06 06:47:56 sudog has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 405 2012-11-06 06:52:50 MrWubbles has joined
 406 2012-11-06 06:53:05 spq` has joined
 407 2012-11-06 06:53:16 SupaDupa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 408 2012-11-06 06:53:28 ThomasV_ has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 409 2012-11-06 06:53:56 MrWubbles is now known as SupaDupa
 410 2012-11-06 06:54:33 spq has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 411 2012-11-06 06:54:42 spq` is now known as spq
 412 2012-11-06 06:55:09 Icoin has joined
 413 2012-11-06 06:55:11 sudog has joined
 414 2012-11-06 07:01:17 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 415 2012-11-06 07:03:07 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, plz2bansupadupa
 416 2012-11-06 07:05:05 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 417 2012-11-06 07:08:47 RainbowDashh has joined
 418 2012-11-06 07:10:33 <SupaDupa> why for to make ban me?
 419 2012-11-06 07:14:00 <Detritus> your trollfu is weak
 420 2012-11-06 07:14:10 randy-waterhouse has left ("Freedom.")
 421 2012-11-06 07:15:24 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 422 2012-11-06 07:22:17 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 423 2012-11-06 07:26:22 sudog has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 424 2012-11-06 07:26:33 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
 425 2012-11-06 07:26:38 sudog has joined
 426 2012-11-06 07:27:34 <SupaDupa> stfu and sell me bitcoins Detritus
 427 2012-11-06 07:29:39 <SomeoneWeird> no u
 428 2012-11-06 07:32:10 <SupaDupa> the fuck
 429 2012-11-06 07:32:27 <SupaDupa> why would I want bitcoins if I had bitcoins to sell
 430 2012-11-06 07:32:55 wizkidO57 has joined
 431 2012-11-06 07:33:33 <SupaDupa> gtfo wizkid
 432 2012-11-06 07:33:37 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 433 2012-11-06 07:33:38 <SupaDupa> you arn't a dev
 434 2012-11-06 07:33:42 wizkidO57 is now known as wizkid057
 435 2012-11-06 07:33:46 <SupaDupa> ya fuckin right read error
 436 2012-11-06 07:33:50 <SupaDupa> you are bad at reading
 437 2012-11-06 07:34:07 * wizkid057 tries to kickban...
 438 2012-11-06 07:34:56 <xIsalty> lol
 439 2012-11-06 07:35:15 <SupaDupa> haha can't do
 440 2012-11-06 07:35:17 <SupaDupa> muhahahha
 441 2012-11-06 07:35:20 <SupaDupa> stupid non dev
 442 2012-11-06 07:35:31 * SupaDupa points and laughs at wizkid057
 443 2012-11-06 07:36:10 <xIsalty> I have a bet for bitcoin-devs, I bet that you cant build the gui version of bitcoin on windows, and if you can well done :-D.
 444 2012-11-06 07:36:31 <wizkid057> isnt their already a windows GUI ? :P
 445 2012-11-06 07:36:41 <SupaDupa> he means build from source
 446 2012-11-06 07:36:47 <SupaDupa> you can't do cause you scrub
 447 2012-11-06 07:36:47 <xIsalty> you cant build it yourself
 448 2012-11-06 07:36:51 <SupaDupa> he's calling you one
 449 2012-11-06 07:36:55 <xIsalty> its hard work
 450 2012-11-06 07:37:09 <xIsalty> which is why the dev team gave up on it
 451 2012-11-06 07:37:19 <xIsalty> uses nix from now
 452 2012-11-06 07:42:24 sacredchao has joined
 453 2012-11-06 07:45:19 sudog has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 454 2012-11-06 07:46:37 pnicholson has quit (Quit: pnicholson)
 455 2012-11-06 07:46:41 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 456 2012-11-06 07:47:05 robbak has joined
 457 2012-11-06 07:47:37 maaku has joined
 458 2012-11-06 07:52:05 sudog has joined
 459 2012-11-06 07:52:09 maaku has quit (Client Quit)
 460 2012-11-06 07:53:25 CodesInChaos has joined
 461 2012-11-06 07:58:06 ovidiusoft has joined
 462 2012-11-06 08:02:56 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 463 2012-11-06 08:04:15 ovidiusoft has joined
 464 2012-11-06 08:20:49 Ssateneth has left ()
 465 2012-11-06 08:26:52 <sipa> amiller, etotheipi_: can we schedule a point in time to discuss authenticated utxo sets, which doesn't require me to wake up at night? (i.e., before 1am cest)
 466 2012-11-06 08:29:32 <sipa> oh, cet now
 467 2012-11-06 08:31:59 <sipa> xIsalty: most important reason is that no core devs use windows, and gitian uses cross-compilation
 468 2012-11-06 08:32:20 <xIsalty> is it easier
 469 2012-11-06 08:32:52 <sipa> what easier than what?
 470 2012-11-06 08:33:09 <xIsalty> building on windows
 471 2012-11-06 08:33:29 <sipa> you haven't answered my question
 472 2012-11-06 08:33:35 <xIsalty> oh sorry
 473 2012-11-06 08:33:46 <xIsalty> is cross compilation easier than building on windows ?
 474 2012-11-06 08:34:46 harkon has joined
 475 2012-11-06 08:34:46 <sipa> well, since gitian only runs on ubuntu, there is no question of easier... it's just the only option for the release binaries
 476 2012-11-06 08:35:26 <xIsalty> fair enough
 477 2012-11-06 08:35:27 dvide has joined
 478 2012-11-06 08:35:57 <sipa> and because of that, only the cross-compilation part is maintained
 479 2012-11-06 08:37:36 toffoo has quit ()
 480 2012-11-06 08:48:29 SuprTiggr has joined
 481 2012-11-06 09:02:07 harkon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 482 2012-11-06 09:02:37 harkon has joined
 483 2012-11-06 09:15:48 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 484 2012-11-06 09:18:05 <xenland> Whats the command to ping my Bitcoin node to send me X amount of blocks?
 485 2012-11-06 09:18:07 _sgstair has joined
 486 2012-11-06 09:18:07 sgstair has quit (Disconnected by services)
 487 2012-11-06 09:18:08 _sgstair is now known as sgstair
 488 2012-11-06 09:19:23 MrWubbles has joined
 489 2012-11-06 09:19:25 MrWubbles has quit (Excess Flood)
 490 2012-11-06 09:19:37 MrWubbles has joined
 491 2012-11-06 09:19:38 MrWubbles has quit (Excess Flood)
 492 2012-11-06 09:19:55 MrWubbles has joined
 493 2012-11-06 09:19:56 MrWubbles has quit (Excess Flood)
 494 2012-11-06 09:20:07 MrWubbles has joined
 495 2012-11-06 09:20:08 MrWubbles has quit (Excess Flood)
 496 2012-11-06 09:20:49 SupaDupa has quit (Disconnected by services)
 497 2012-11-06 09:31:03 <sipa> xenland: getblocks will make it reply with a list of blocks it knows
 498 2012-11-06 09:31:21 <sipa> xenland: getdata is then issued for each that isn't known yet
 499 2012-11-06 09:35:41 <xenland> sipa: thanks mate
 500 2012-11-06 09:50:42 t7 has joined
 501 2012-11-06 09:52:45 bitcoinz has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 502 2012-11-06 09:53:24 bitcoinz has joined
 503 2012-11-06 10:00:32 zooko has joined
 504 2012-11-06 10:13:32 Garr255_ has joined
 505 2012-11-06 10:13:32 Garr255_ has quit (Changing host)
 506 2012-11-06 10:13:32 Garr255_ has joined
 507 2012-11-06 10:14:48 <abrkn> anyone know an escrower online?
 508 2012-11-06 10:14:52 <abrkn> damn timezones
 509 2012-11-06 10:16:55 Garr255 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 510 2012-11-06 10:23:12 ibno has joined
 511 2012-11-06 10:25:08 comboy has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 512 2012-11-06 10:32:57 comboy has joined
 513 2012-11-06 10:33:36 CodesInChaos has joined
 514 2012-11-06 10:40:36 pecket has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 515 2012-11-06 10:45:09 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 516 2012-11-06 10:45:12 pecket has joined
 517 2012-11-06 10:52:32 Bwild has quit (Quit: leaving)
 518 2012-11-06 11:03:17 ThomasV has joined
 519 2012-11-06 11:10:37 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 520 2012-11-06 11:32:38 xIsalty has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 521 2012-11-06 11:37:12 D34TH has joined
 522 2012-11-06 11:37:12 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
 523 2012-11-06 11:37:12 D34TH has joined
 524 2012-11-06 11:46:22 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 525 2012-11-06 11:50:53 PhantomSpark has joined
 526 2012-11-06 11:55:29 PhantomSpark has quit (2!~kvirc@pool-71-251-16-237.nycmny.fios.verizon.net|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 527 2012-11-06 12:01:03 zooko` has joined
 528 2012-11-06 12:04:05 mykhal has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 529 2012-11-06 12:04:16 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 530 2012-11-06 12:05:23 zooko` is now known as zooko
 531 2012-11-06 12:06:13 <robbak> dev q: I've got a small change that I'd like to have looked at.
 532 2012-11-06 12:06:35 <robbak> Where the make file tries to make leveldb, it hardcodes the make command line.
 533 2012-11-06 12:06:53 <robbak> FreeBSD tries to use the stock make, which fails. It needs to run gmake.
 534 2012-11-06 12:07:17 <robbak> This is all sorted out if you use $(MAKE) in the coded line.
 535 2012-11-06 12:07:50 <robbak> If that will not cause problems for other un*cies, should it be done?
 536 2012-11-06 12:08:22 zooko has quit (Quit: Zzz...)
 537 2012-11-06 12:09:40 mykhal has joined
 538 2012-11-06 12:17:41 <robbak> I've got a pull waiting for me to click on the send button, if it is worth it.
 539 2012-11-06 12:19:04 <sipa> robbak: if you submit it, matt's pulltester will try building
 540 2012-11-06 12:19:20 <sipa> if it doesn't break anything on supported platforms, i have no problem merging
 541 2012-11-06 12:20:39 <robbak> OK, I'll give it a shot. Test build just finished happily, and the test program runs error free. Let's see what happens.
 542 2012-11-06 12:21:09 paraipan has joined
 543 2012-11-06 12:25:35 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 544 2012-11-06 12:27:22 daybyter has joined
 545 2012-11-06 12:28:38 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 546 2012-11-06 12:31:29 drizztbsd has joined
 547 2012-11-06 12:36:37 wereHamster has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 548 2012-11-06 12:40:26 djoot has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 549 2012-11-06 12:46:57 graingert_ecs has joined
 550 2012-11-06 13:04:25 wereHamster has joined
 551 2012-11-06 13:04:42 wereHamster has quit (Changing host)
 552 2012-11-06 13:04:42 wereHamster has joined
 553 2012-11-06 13:11:45 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 554 2012-11-06 13:12:53 root2_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 555 2012-11-06 13:12:55 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 556 2012-11-06 13:13:49 root2 has joined
 557 2012-11-06 13:16:39 sudog has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 558 2012-11-06 13:17:33 sudog has joined
 559 2012-11-06 13:19:37 JZavala has joined
 560 2012-11-06 13:27:05 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 561 2012-11-06 13:30:03 senseless has left ()
 562 2012-11-06 13:33:53 datagutt has joined
 563 2012-11-06 13:39:18 deadserious has joined
 564 2012-11-06 13:39:42 deadserious is now known as Guest89967
 565 2012-11-06 13:48:12 gritball_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 566 2012-11-06 13:48:16 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 567 2012-11-06 14:00:41 zooko has joined
 568 2012-11-06 14:10:17 slush has joined
 569 2012-11-06 14:11:37 optimator_ has joined
 570 2012-11-06 14:13:44 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 571 2012-11-06 14:15:41 one_zero has quit ()
 572 2012-11-06 14:22:56 agricocb has joined
 573 2012-11-06 14:29:53 m00p has joined
 574 2012-11-06 14:37:20 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 575 2012-11-06 14:38:21 Guest89967 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 576 2012-11-06 14:44:27 Z0rZ0rZ0r has joined
 577 2012-11-06 14:46:03 MiningBuddy- is now known as MiningBuddy
 578 2012-11-06 14:46:04 MiningBuddy has quit (Changing host)
 579 2012-11-06 14:46:04 MiningBuddy has joined
 580 2012-11-06 14:47:49 shlm has joined
 581 2012-11-06 15:01:56 arij has joined
 582 2012-11-06 15:02:21 arij is now known as Guest95518
 583 2012-11-06 15:09:00 [MOFO] has joined
 584 2012-11-06 15:09:05 <[MOFO]> ur fuckin gay
 585 2012-11-06 15:09:09 <[MOFO]> jeff garzik
 586 2012-11-06 15:09:45 pnicholson has joined
 587 2012-11-06 15:14:49 <jgarzik> for SupaDupa
 588 2012-11-06 15:17:04 copumpkin has joined
 589 2012-11-06 15:34:33 paraipan has joined
 590 2012-11-06 15:36:03 graingert_ecs has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 591 2012-11-06 15:36:41 graingert_ecs has joined
 592 2012-11-06 15:37:51 graingert_ecs has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 593 2012-11-06 15:39:00 djoot has joined
 594 2012-11-06 15:39:01 djoot has quit (Changing host)
 595 2012-11-06 15:39:01 djoot has joined
 596 2012-11-06 15:53:32 zooko has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 597 2012-11-06 16:05:39 maaku has joined
 598 2012-11-06 16:07:08 dinox has joined
 599 2012-11-06 16:10:19 optimator_ is now known as optimator
 600 2012-11-06 16:11:52 root2_ has joined
 601 2012-11-06 16:14:53 harkon has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 602 2012-11-06 16:15:26 root2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 603 2012-11-06 16:15:36 da2ce7 has joined
 604 2012-11-06 16:15:56 Guest95518 has quit (Changing host)
 605 2012-11-06 16:15:56 Guest95518 has joined
 606 2012-11-06 16:16:00 Guest95518 is now known as arij
 607 2012-11-06 16:17:05 harkon has joined
 608 2012-11-06 16:17:12 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 609 2012-11-06 16:19:18 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 610 2012-11-06 16:20:46 harkon has quit (Client Quit)
 611 2012-11-06 16:26:59 harkon has joined
 612 2012-11-06 16:42:03 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: QUIT! [11:14:29] <+Tsunami1>	 http://i.imgur.com/t2rz5.png)
 613 2012-11-06 16:42:07 optimator_ has joined
 614 2012-11-06 16:43:47 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 615 2012-11-06 16:45:39 tonikt has joined
 616 2012-11-06 16:49:52 optimator_ is now known as optimator
 617 2012-11-06 16:59:33 etotheipi_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 618 2012-11-06 16:59:57 ageis_ has quit (Quit: http://ageispolis.net)
 619 2012-11-06 17:01:52 ageis has joined
 620 2012-11-06 17:04:32 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 621 2012-11-06 17:06:56 t7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 622 2012-11-06 17:07:40 daybyter has joined
 623 2012-11-06 17:08:49 Zarutian has joined
 624 2012-11-06 17:09:21 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 625 2012-11-06 17:10:45 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
 626 2012-11-06 17:11:55 etotheipi_ has joined
 627 2012-11-06 17:21:38 toffoo has joined
 628 2012-11-06 17:23:45 harkon has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 629 2012-11-06 17:24:10 Transfusion has quit (Excess Flood)
 630 2012-11-06 17:25:41 JZavala has joined
 631 2012-11-06 17:27:38 andrew12_ has joined
 632 2012-11-06 17:28:16 andrew12 has left ()
 633 2012-11-06 17:34:01 Transfusion has joined
 634 2012-11-06 17:35:32 PhantomSpark has joined
 635 2012-11-06 17:38:13 MobiusL has joined
 636 2012-11-06 17:38:30 gribble has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 637 2012-11-06 17:38:41 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 638 2012-11-06 17:40:45 nanotube has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 639 2012-11-06 17:49:46 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 640 2012-11-06 17:53:06 nanotube has joined
 641 2012-11-06 17:55:28 Garr255_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 642 2012-11-06 17:55:52 Garr255_ has joined
 643 2012-11-06 18:01:12 gribble has joined
 644 2012-11-06 18:05:20 maaku has joined
 645 2012-11-06 18:05:52 harkon has joined
 646 2012-11-06 18:13:08 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 647 2012-11-06 18:13:08 BitcoinBaltar has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 648 2012-11-06 18:15:05 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 649 2012-11-06 18:15:47 optimator_ has joined
 650 2012-11-06 18:16:36 SolitaryMachismo is now known as jurov
 651 2012-11-06 18:17:42 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 652 2012-11-06 18:20:04 optimator_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 653 2012-11-06 18:20:24 datagutt is now known as foreveralone
 654 2012-11-06 18:20:29 foreveralone is now known as javasux
 655 2012-11-06 18:20:31 javasux is now known as datagutt
 656 2012-11-06 18:20:53 optimator has joined
 657 2012-11-06 18:20:54 optimator has quit (Changing host)
 658 2012-11-06 18:20:54 optimator has joined
 659 2012-11-06 18:22:30 random_cat has joined
 660 2012-11-06 18:25:04 optimator_ has joined
 661 2012-11-06 18:25:32 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 662 2012-11-06 18:30:38 CodesInChaos has joined
 663 2012-11-06 18:32:33 agath has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 664 2012-11-06 18:33:21 agath has joined
 665 2012-11-06 18:33:44 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 666 2012-11-06 18:33:46 gfinn has joined
 667 2012-11-06 18:34:04 optimator has joined
 668 2012-11-06 18:35:59 optimator_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 669 2012-11-06 18:36:36 optimator_ has joined
 670 2012-11-06 18:38:37 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 671 2012-11-06 18:39:30 optimator has joined
 672 2012-11-06 18:39:30 optimator has quit (Changing host)
 673 2012-11-06 18:39:30 optimator has joined
 674 2012-11-06 18:41:08 optimator_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 675 2012-11-06 18:42:04 optimator_ has joined
 676 2012-11-06 18:43:08 Diablo-D3 has joined
 677 2012-11-06 18:43:38 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 678 2012-11-06 18:44:45 gavinandresen has joined
 679 2012-11-06 18:51:34 <jgarzik> huh
 680 2012-11-06 18:51:43 <jgarzik> my detect-incoming-payment code works after all
 681 2012-11-06 18:51:43 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
 682 2012-11-06 18:51:47 <jgarzik> it was the test that was broken
 683 2012-11-06 18:54:30 moop__ has joined
 684 2012-11-06 18:57:29 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 685 2012-11-06 18:58:33 TD has joined
 686 2012-11-06 19:02:22 ovidiusoft has joined
 687 2012-11-06 19:02:44 maaku has joined
 688 2012-11-06 19:03:05 <maaku> beware: Virtual machine used to steal crypto keys from other VM on same server: http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/11/crypto-keys-stolen-from-virtual-machine/
 689 2012-11-06 19:05:26 <drizztbsd> maaku: is kvm vulnerable?
 690 2012-11-06 19:05:47 <_dr> 'in which attackers crack a private key by studying the electromagnetic emanations' whatnow?!
 691 2012-11-06 19:06:19 <drizztbsd> like the xbox360 glitch hack :P
 692 2012-11-06 19:07:09 <maaku> The paper used Xen, but unless KVM specifically protects against this, it'd be vulnerable too
 693 2012-11-06 19:07:56 <_dr> i think it's a hoax
 694 2012-11-06 19:08:31 <maaku> _dr: it's a published paper that passed peer review; do you have a reason to think it's a hoax or are you trolling
 695 2012-11-06 19:09:10 <_dr> maaku: from this short synopsis i'd say its a hoax
 696 2012-11-06 19:09:42 <_dr> how can you get 'fragments of the cryptographic(?) square and multiply function' just by looking at what cache lines get evicted from cache
 697 2012-11-06 19:10:20 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 698 2012-11-06 19:10:22 optimator has joined
 699 2012-11-06 19:10:23 optimator has quit (Changing host)
 700 2012-11-06 19:10:23 optimator has joined
 701 2012-11-06 19:10:28 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 702 2012-11-06 19:10:29 root2_ is now known as root2
 703 2012-11-06 19:11:33 optimator_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 704 2012-11-06 19:12:16 <maaku> Read the paper; there's a whole section on that: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~reiter/papers/2012/CCS.pdf
 705 2012-11-06 19:12:20 <_dr> ok, it's kind of a xen bug
 706 2012-11-06 19:12:24 <_dr> http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2012/10/attack-of-week-cross-vm-timing-attacks.html
 707 2012-11-06 19:13:30 <maaku> It's not a bug, unless by bug you mean "xen doesn't automatically kill performance by clearing the cache on each process switch"
 708 2012-11-06 19:13:56 <abrkn> anyone able to send some testnet btc?
 709 2012-11-06 19:14:25 <abrkn> mwbQ9LRrWtW1gaXNyReKmdJ5M7FjzBHeKr
 710 2012-11-06 19:14:29 <_dr> maaku: not that part. i mean the part where you can preempt other vcpus
 711 2012-11-06 19:15:40 <_dr> but it's amazing they can determing which of their level1 instruction cache data has been preempted
 712 2012-11-06 19:15:41 <abrkn> faucet is down...
 713 2012-11-06 19:16:19 ThomasV has joined
 714 2012-11-06 19:16:43 <maaku> _dr: it doesn't preempt other vcpus. it's just normal process scheduling
 715 2012-11-06 19:17:20 <_dr> maaku: yes it does, they use a dedicated vpu that issues interrupts (which in turn makes xen give priority to their other vcpu)
 716 2012-11-06 19:17:52 <_dr> because they have to regain the cpu pretty fast from the victims vcpu
 717 2012-11-06 19:18:04 <abrkn> gentlemen... anyone able to send some testnet money?
 718 2012-11-06 19:18:41 optimator_ has joined
 719 2012-11-06 19:18:45 <maaku> that increases signal-to-noise, but the side-channel attack still exists
 720 2012-11-06 19:18:49 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 721 2012-11-06 19:19:28 <_dr> but kinda with p_success = 0
 722 2012-11-06 19:20:11 <_dr> otherwise the other vcpu will preempt all instruction data from the level one instruction cache (which is about 32kb), then no attack is possible
 723 2012-11-06 19:20:55 <_dr> doesn't change that fact that the attack is pretty ingenious :)
 724 2012-11-06 19:21:23 optimator has joined
 725 2012-11-06 19:21:24 optimator has quit (Changing host)
 726 2012-11-06 19:21:24 optimator has joined
 727 2012-11-06 19:21:49 <maaku> not necessarily--there's a long tail of situations where natural interrupts occur (incoming network packets, for example), and the attacking vm only has to keep priming the cache and waiting
 728 2012-11-06 19:22:11 <drizztbsd> I can register to linode and sniff bitcoin keys :P
 729 2012-11-06 19:22:42 <_dr> drizztbsd: the attack is pretty much tailored for elgamal
 730 2012-11-06 19:22:54 optimator_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 731 2012-11-06 19:23:07 molecular has joined
 732 2012-11-06 19:23:10 <drizztbsd> but it's not impossible
 733 2012-11-06 19:23:17 <maaku> and for high-use keys
 734 2012-11-06 19:23:33 <maaku> you need to observe many signatures before you reconstruct
 735 2012-11-06 19:23:54 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 736 2012-11-06 19:23:56 <_dr> makes me wonder why such attacks haven't been done earlier
 737 2012-11-06 19:24:14 <_dr> i assume you can just allocate huge chunks of memory and search them for 'high entropy'
 738 2012-11-06 19:24:30 dooglus has quit (Quit: leaving)
 739 2012-11-06 19:24:40 dooglus has joined
 740 2012-11-06 19:24:41 dooglus has quit (Changing host)
 741 2012-11-06 19:24:41 dooglus has joined
 742 2012-11-06 19:25:11 <drizztbsd> entropy used to generate the key
 743 2012-11-06 19:25:19 <_dr> or do you guys memset with zero before free ;)
 744 2012-11-06 19:25:49 <drizztbsd> lol maybe openssl does it
 745 2012-11-06 19:26:57 optimator_ has joined
 746 2012-11-06 19:29:11 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 747 2012-11-06 19:31:15 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
 748 2012-11-06 19:33:15 maqr has joined
 749 2012-11-06 19:34:08 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 750 2012-11-06 19:35:32 rdponticelli has joined
 751 2012-11-06 19:35:36 uvelol has joined
 752 2012-11-06 19:36:36 <uvelol> Hi! I can't understand, who creates task for bitcoin miners?
 753 2012-11-06 19:36:50 mykhal has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 754 2012-11-06 19:36:54 <_dr> does bitcoin? addresses should be easily detectable in memory
 755 2012-11-06 19:37:29 <sipa> uvelol: in mining pools, the pools; otherwise typically a local bitcoind
 756 2012-11-06 19:38:01 <uvelol> sipa: and who gives tasks to those pools?
 757 2012-11-06 19:38:38 <sipa> nobody
 758 2012-11-06 19:38:45 <uvelol> as far as I understand, bitcoin is global, but decentralised? Am I right?
 759 2012-11-06 19:38:50 <sipa> yes
 760 2012-11-06 19:39:21 <sipa> they choose their own work, basically
 761 2012-11-06 19:39:31 <sipa> and cryptography is used to prove they did the work
 762 2012-11-06 19:39:54 <uvelol> So, I can create my pool which will be solving travelling salesman problem?
 763 2012-11-06 19:40:10 <sipa> no
 764 2012-11-06 19:40:32 <sipa> the problem is "low hash resulting from double-sha256'ing contructed block header"
 765 2012-11-06 19:40:48 D34TH has joined
 766 2012-11-06 19:40:49 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
 767 2012-11-06 19:40:49 D34TH has joined
 768 2012-11-06 19:41:32 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 769 2012-11-06 19:42:38 <uvelol> http://blockexplorer.com/ and these are ALL the transactions of the whole bitcoin system listed?
 770 2012-11-06 19:43:08 maaku has joined
 771 2012-11-06 19:43:44 <uvelol> and >Total BTC means that someone has sent to another person 4145 bitcoins or 41450 dollars?
 772 2012-11-06 19:45:59 <_dr> not neccessarily. it means that the last block records N transactions, in which 4145 bitcoins have changed addresses/'owners'
 773 2012-11-06 19:46:00 <uvelol> And what if someone gets 500,000 bitcoins and then sinks his or her hard drive in acid?
 774 2012-11-06 19:46:20 <_dr> then they're gone if he didn't back up his wallet
 775 2012-11-06 19:46:33 <uvelol> _dr: But there is limited amount of bitcoins.
 776 2012-11-06 19:47:02 <uvelol> Will that mean that there are now only 20.5 million bitcoins total possible?
 777 2012-11-06 19:47:13 <_dr> yes
 778 2012-11-06 19:49:31 Karmaon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 779 2012-11-06 19:49:57 Karmaon has joined
 780 2012-11-06 19:49:58 Karmaon has quit (Changing host)
 781 2012-11-06 19:49:58 Karmaon has joined
 782 2012-11-06 19:50:39 <uvelol> uh, and what if two miners, one in UK, another in USA got the same task in different bitcoin pools and solved it simultaneously?
 783 2012-11-06 19:51:36 gribble has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 784 2012-11-06 19:51:57 wizkid057 is now known as wizkid
 785 2012-11-06 19:54:16 <_dr> uvelol: see paragraph 4 https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_chain
 786 2012-11-06 19:56:13 m00p has joined
 787 2012-11-06 19:56:36 wizkid is now known as wk
 788 2012-11-06 19:57:57 moop__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 789 2012-11-06 20:00:14 gribble has joined
 790 2012-11-06 20:00:43 freakazoid has joined
 791 2012-11-06 20:00:58 <uvelol> So, if I understand correctly, I can now about all payments that were made to some person P if I know his wallet number?
 792 2012-11-06 20:01:02 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 793 2012-11-06 20:02:58 wk is now known as wizkid057
 794 2012-11-06 20:05:43 vampireb has joined
 795 2012-11-06 20:06:54 <D34TH> whats the best pushpool right now
 796 2012-11-06 20:07:12 <_dr> uvelol: a wallet has multiple addresses
 797 2012-11-06 20:07:31 Apexseals has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 798 2012-11-06 20:07:33 <_dr> basically, if i sell something to you, and you sent money to my address you know my address
 799 2012-11-06 20:07:58 <_dr> but i can generate a new address, send my money there and you wouldn't know whom the new address belongs to
 800 2012-11-06 20:08:15 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 801 2012-11-06 20:10:07 <uvelol> _dr: but you will have to use your new address in future. and then I will be able to see where you've transfered that money that I've sent to you. Is it true?
 802 2012-11-06 20:11:19 <_dr> uvelol: but how can you know that I own that new address? maybe i've bought something and the address belongs to someone else
 803 2012-11-06 20:11:50 <_dr> all you can see is that the money you to my address is going to some new address
 804 2012-11-06 20:11:59 vampireb_ has joined
 805 2012-11-06 20:17:37 <uvelol> _dr: so, if I owned some address A, and some FBI guys were interested in catching me, and I transfered Btc from wallet A to another wallet A1, then from A1 to A2, .... to An and then bought pizza delivery with my An wallet, than I would be caught?
 806 2012-11-06 20:18:45 optimator has joined
 807 2012-11-06 20:18:46 optimator has quit (Changing host)
 808 2012-11-06 20:18:46 optimator has joined
 809 2012-11-06 20:19:20 optimator_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 810 2012-11-06 20:20:50 kreal has quit ()
 811 2012-11-06 20:22:17 bitcoinbulletin has joined
 812 2012-11-06 20:23:12 <helo> uvelol: yes, because they'd have a trojan installed on your machine, and would know all of your addresses
 813 2012-11-06 20:23:40 <helo> or no, because they couldn't link the addresses to you
 814 2012-11-06 20:24:05 bitbnc28-7789 has joined
 815 2012-11-06 20:24:07 <gavinandresen> is it illegal to buy pizza where you are?
 816 2012-11-06 20:24:40 yossariann has joined
 817 2012-11-06 20:25:20 <uvelol> gavinandresen: no, I'm thinking about the problem when you have a public wallet, which is compromised and you have to convert your bitcoins to something real without being caught
 818 2012-11-06 20:25:50 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 819 2012-11-06 20:25:58 <gavinandresen> lots of people have thought about that problem; see all of the threads in the bitcointalk forums about 'washing' or 'laundering' bitcoins
 820 2012-11-06 20:26:27 <gavinandresen> there are even some services that say they'll wash your coins for you.  Some of them are probably not even scams....
 821 2012-11-06 20:27:11 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 822 2012-11-06 20:27:12 <gavinandresen> And note that we don't claim that bitcoin is anonymous, just that you can get good privacy if you work really hard at it.
 823 2012-11-06 20:30:06 yossariann has quit ()
 824 2012-11-06 20:37:04 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 825 2012-11-06 20:42:09 rdponticelli has joined
 826 2012-11-06 20:46:56 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 827 2012-11-06 20:47:50 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 828 2012-11-06 20:48:02 <maaku> uvelol: if you want anonymity, you're better off not using the block chain; maybe use double-blinded untraceable tokens from Open-Transactions backed by bitcoins, or a multi-user online wallet that doesn't keep logs
 829 2012-11-06 20:49:12 <D34TH> wow, i just wasted alot of work
 830 2012-11-06 20:49:20 <D34TH> trying to setup poolserverj for testnet
 831 2012-11-06 20:49:27 <D34TH> turns out getblocknumber doesnt exist
 832 2012-11-06 20:53:02 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: wait...when was the time for the meetings decided on...?
 833 2012-11-06 20:56:45 mps has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 834 2012-11-06 20:58:16 spaola has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 835 2012-11-06 20:59:07 BitcoinBaltar has joined
 836 2012-11-06 20:59:09 optimator_ has joined
 837 2012-11-06 20:59:48 variousnefarious has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
 838 2012-11-06 21:00:01 variousnefarious has joined
 839 2012-11-06 21:00:39 optimator has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 840 2012-11-06 21:01:30 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 841 2012-11-06 21:02:01 optimator has joined
 842 2012-11-06 21:02:01 optimator has quit (Changing host)
 843 2012-11-06 21:02:01 optimator has joined
 844 2012-11-06 21:03:51 optimator_ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 845 2012-11-06 21:07:15 <topace> from the api, is there a way to get the address that the coins came FROM? (eg, so i can send something back to the address? like satoshi dice does?)
 846 2012-11-06 21:07:59 spq has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 847 2012-11-06 21:08:43 spq has joined
 848 2012-11-06 21:08:51 mpr has joined
 849 2012-11-06 21:09:15 mpr is now known as Guest79949
 850 2012-11-06 21:11:37 <uvelol> Is god able to solve the halting problem??
 851 2012-11-06 21:12:48 <helo> he'll get back to you real soon now
 852 2012-11-06 21:14:59 freakazoid has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 853 2012-11-06 21:17:24 <uvelol> Well, and if the halting problem was solvable in linear time, then TDD would be the only approach to software developing.
 854 2012-11-06 21:17:32 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 855 2012-11-06 21:18:10 <gmaxwell> uvelol: the halting problem is often solvable in linear time. It's not always solvable at all.
 856 2012-11-06 21:24:41 rdponticelli has joined
 857 2012-11-06 21:24:53 bitcoinz has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 858 2012-11-06 21:26:06 Bwild has joined
 859 2012-11-06 21:26:33 bitcoinz has joined
 860 2012-11-06 21:29:25 <uvelol> gmaxwell: But the most interesting cases are when it's not solvable at all. I just can't imagine how would the world change. But are there such theorems that won't be proved or refuted if the haltingproblem was solvable?
 861 2012-11-06 21:29:34 <helo> #bitcoin question regarding a data-hungry peer
 862 2012-11-06 21:32:38 freakazoid has joined
 863 2012-11-06 21:32:41 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 864 2012-11-06 21:32:44 <maaku> uvelol: not necessarily. there are few if any practical programs that cannot be re-factored into a form that are solvable in a reasonable amount of time
 865 2012-11-06 21:33:13 <maaku> err, i mean halting problem can be solved in a reasonable amount of time
 866 2012-11-06 21:34:06 <maaku> singularity/midori is moving in that direction, slowly
 867 2012-11-06 21:34:29 Joric has joined
 868 2012-11-06 21:35:14 <uvelol> maaku: how can midori/singularity help us in halting problem?
 869 2012-11-06 21:36:36 <maaku> it's moving in the direction of the entire software stack from apps to OS/drivers is managed code with provable properties, of which a halting proof would be one example
 870 2012-11-06 21:38:07 ahf has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 871 2012-11-06 21:38:38 <maaku> in singularity an executable is required to present a set of proofs in order to run. right now those proofs only have to do with memory and type correctness, but a halting proof would fit in that model
 872 2012-11-06 21:39:12 <uvelol> maaku: so how would I launch md5 bruteforcing in singularity?
 873 2012-11-06 21:39:59 <uvelol> (if a halting proof is required)
 874 2012-11-06 21:40:36 <copumpkin> types can capture all sorts of correctness
 875 2012-11-06 21:40:40 <uvelol> like, if I launched a bruteforcer to seek for such a string that results into all zeroes md5 digest.
 876 2012-11-06 21:40:49 <copumpkin> including termination
 877 2012-11-06 21:42:50 <maaku> uvelol: you run a brute-forcer that tries a billion hashes and then terminates with error if a match hasn't been found
 878 2012-11-06 21:43:05 <maaku> you can prove that terminates
 879 2012-11-06 21:43:26 <uvelol> of course, but what if we don't know the limit?
 880 2012-11-06 21:43:28 <maaku> not unlike the way bitcoin miners are actually structured
 881 2012-11-06 21:43:59 <maaku> i don't understand the question--the os execution time limit would be well known
 882 2012-11-06 21:44:42 <uvelol> I don't understand it either.
 883 2012-11-06 21:45:58 <maaku> the requirement in a halting-proof is that program execution finishes--but that doesn't mean the program must terminate or a solution must be found
 884 2012-11-06 21:47:36 ahf has joined
 885 2012-11-06 21:48:20 <maaku> a program could be in an infinite loop waiting on a socket for new data as long as what it does with that data finishes in finite time, or you can batch something like checking for hash collisions so it finishes after X iterations whether it found something or not
 886 2012-11-06 21:49:24 <helo> it's trivial to create an example of a program that does halt
 887 2012-11-06 21:49:27 <maaku> An inability to prove that a program won't get stuck in an infinite loop somewhere is usually a sign of bad software design, or avoidable through good design. Having the OS enforce good software design is not a bad thing ;)
 888 2012-11-06 21:49:58 <uvelol> yeah, I totally understand what you mean. But I wanted to understand how would people live if all theorems were checkable.
 889 2012-11-06 21:50:31 <helo> if you didn't want to set an upper-bound on the number of iterations, your program i guess would refuse to run?
 890 2012-11-06 21:51:42 <maaku> helo: the os would refuse to run your program, yes
 891 2012-11-06 21:53:04 <jgarzik> wow
 892 2012-11-06 21:53:07 <jgarzik> merkle branch stuff was easy
 893 2012-11-06 21:54:34 aurigae has joined
 894 2012-11-06 21:55:03 xenland has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 895 2012-11-06 21:55:58 <aurigae> can anybody tell me what "onion winners" is in stats.php on simplecoin
 896 2012-11-06 21:57:56 <aurigae> https://github.com/simplecoin/simplecoin/blob/master/stats.php
 897 2012-11-06 21:58:57 B0g4r7 has joined
 898 2012-11-06 22:00:41 rdponticelli has joined
 899 2012-11-06 22:01:13 Apexseals has joined
 900 2012-11-06 22:02:30 * jgarzik waits for gmaxwell to mock this thread, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=122632.0 "bitcoind security best practices?"
 901 2012-11-06 22:02:35 <jgarzik> It's an honest question, though
 902 2012-11-06 22:02:47 <jgarzik> A "bitcoin secure best practices" guide would be wonderful
 903 2012-11-06 22:03:40 <uvelol> jgarzik: hey, I'm not very good at lurking in source code, but what are the root servers, from which bitcoin starts downloading data after clean install?
 904 2012-11-06 22:03:53 <maaku> jgarzik: isn't that something the foundation is supposed to provide?
 905 2012-11-06 22:04:02 <uvelol> and what if those root servers are down?
 906 2012-11-06 22:04:22 <kjj_> there are no root servers, no
 907 2012-11-06 22:04:32 <maaku> uvelol: there are no root servers, but you'll find a set of default peers in net.cpp
 908 2012-11-06 22:06:26 <kjj_> do you mean the DNS seeds?
 909 2012-11-06 22:06:52 <uvelol> maaku: bitcoin.sipa.be so this is one of the "root" servers?
 910 2012-11-06 22:07:18 <kjj_> there are no root servers, none.
 911 2012-11-06 22:07:23 <maaku> uvelol: there are no root servers!
 912 2012-11-06 22:07:44 <maaku> `dig bitcoin.sipa.be` will return the IP address of a random bitcoin peer currently on the network
 913 2012-11-06 22:07:47 <kjj_> there are some DNS servers in the code that a node can query to get some nodes to connect to if they have nothing else
 914 2012-11-06 22:08:15 <maaku> kjj_: there's also a list of IP addresses that are tried as well, in case the DNS servers are down
 915 2012-11-06 22:08:19 <kjj_> once you connect to a node, that node will tell you about other nodes
 916 2012-11-06 22:08:26 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 917 2012-11-06 22:09:11 xIsalty_ has joined
 918 2012-11-06 22:09:56 <kjj_> it only does that if you disable dnsseeds, don't enable IRC seeds, and have never connected to anything ever
 919 2012-11-06 22:11:15 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 920 2012-11-06 22:11:58 xIsalty_ is now known as xIsalty
 921 2012-11-06 22:12:09 xIsalty has quit (Changing host)
 922 2012-11-06 22:12:09 xIsalty has joined
 923 2012-11-06 22:12:13 <uvelol> kjj_: but why aren't there anyone on #bitcoinDD on irc.lfnet.org?
 924 2012-11-06 22:12:26 <maaku> because IRC seeding is disabled by default
 925 2012-11-06 22:17:29 ibno has quit (Quit: Lämnar)
 926 2012-11-06 22:18:16 <uvelol> maaku: But if these servers are down, the system won't be able to work.
 927 2012-11-06 22:18:27 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 928 2012-11-06 22:18:30 <uvelol> So it can't be called fully decentralized?
 929 2012-11-06 22:18:44 <maaku> look up the --connect option
 930 2012-11-06 22:18:54 <kjj_> well, there has to be SOME way to make an initial connection.
 931 2012-11-06 22:18:57 <maaku> you can always seed it yourself if you know an IP
 932 2012-11-06 22:19:28 <kjj_> you'll find that all p2p systems always have some way to bootstrapping new nodes
 933 2012-11-06 22:19:42 <uvelol> kjj_: and netsukuku?
 934 2012-11-06 22:21:18 <kjj_> what about it?
 935 2012-11-06 22:21:36 Hasimir- has joined
 936 2012-11-06 22:21:59 Hasimir has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 937 2012-11-06 22:22:00 <uvelol> don't know, is it an unsolvable problem to build a truly distributed network?
 938 2012-11-06 22:22:13 Hasimir- is now known as Hasimir
 939 2012-11-06 22:22:25 <uvelol> Like a halting problem...
 940 2012-11-06 22:23:05 <sipa> there are some theorms about that, yes
 941 2012-11-06 22:23:11 <kjj_> looks like Netsukuku is about building a mesh of locally connected peers
 942 2012-11-06 22:24:25 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
 943 2012-11-06 22:26:01 freakazoid has joined
 944 2012-11-06 22:27:44 Guest10281 has joined
 945 2012-11-06 22:27:50 slush has joined
 946 2012-11-06 22:28:15 <maaku> uvelol: you could always try IP addresses at random
 947 2012-11-06 22:28:56 <maaku> but practically speaking, it doesn't really matter
 948 2012-11-06 22:29:21 kreal has joined
 949 2012-11-06 22:29:26 <maaku> use an onion seed if you're worried about protocol suppression
 950 2012-11-06 22:31:52 <uvelol> maaku: could you say, which states aren't reachable from your current state with time lapse of 10 seconds?
 951 2012-11-06 22:32:21 Guest10281 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 952 2012-11-06 22:32:28 <uvelol> for example, flying in the sky state isn't reachable because you won't be able to catch a heli or invent antigravity in 10 seconds
 953 2012-11-06 22:33:15 <uvelol> Travelling to Mars is also doubtfull because of speed of light
 954 2012-11-06 22:34:09 <uvelol> Well, I hope that after death I will see such a program that draws all possible traces of a human being.
 955 2012-11-06 22:34:55 <uvelol> That's like uh.. halting problem?
 956 2012-11-06 22:36:13 <midnightmagic> uh.
 957 2012-11-06 22:36:20 <midnightmagic> anyone else have any issue with block 206679 ?
 958 2012-11-06 22:36:43 <uvelol> midnightmagic: what's with block 206679?
 959 2012-11-06 22:36:57 <midnightmagic> uvelol: I have no idea. "Displayed transactions may not be correct"
 960 2012-11-06 22:37:41 <forrestv> midnightmagic, maybe your database is corrupt?
 961 2012-11-06 22:38:35 <midnightmagic> forrestv: that's possible. But if someone else had a halting issue at that same block, then I figured perhaps I can just truncate the blk* files and rebuild the blk index.
 962 2012-11-06 22:38:54 <midnightmagic> geh.. really not looking forward to a blk* rebuild again..
 963 2012-11-06 22:39:56 uvelol has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 964 2012-11-06 22:43:38 rdponticelli_ has joined
 965 2012-11-06 22:45:01 ahf has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 966 2012-11-06 22:46:15 D34TH has joined
 967 2012-11-06 22:46:15 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
 968 2012-11-06 22:46:15 D34TH has joined
 969 2012-11-06 22:50:39 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 970 2012-11-06 22:53:36 Joric has quit ()
 971 2012-11-06 22:53:39 dvide has quit ()
 972 2012-11-06 22:54:00 D34TH has joined
 973 2012-11-06 22:54:00 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
 974 2012-11-06 22:54:00 D34TH has joined
 975 2012-11-06 22:54:48 <rdponticelli_> sipa: I'm pretty sure there's some bug on the transactions accepting logic on ultraprune
 976 2012-11-06 22:55:12 sixx has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 977 2012-11-06 22:55:18 <rdponticelli_> I keep seen lots of: 'ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : inputs already spent' on my ultraprune nodes
 978 2012-11-06 22:55:39 sixx has joined
 979 2012-11-06 22:58:13 <rdponticelli_> And none of that on the stable ones
 980 2012-11-06 22:58:17 rdponticelli_ is now known as rdponticelli
 981 2012-11-06 22:59:52 <rdponticelli> sipa: And the number of stored orphans on ultraprune is always way larger than on stable
 982 2012-11-06 23:00:42 <rdponticelli> Most of the conflicting tx seems to be sdice's
 983 2012-11-06 23:00:56 ahf has joined
 984 2012-11-06 23:02:52 <rdponticelli> One of those transactions was accepted by my ultraprune node, and a couple of blocks after that was received again and stored
 985 2012-11-06 23:03:36 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 986 2012-11-06 23:04:17 <rdponticelli> On the stable one, it was accepted and never saw again
 987 2012-11-06 23:06:27 forsetifox_ has joined
 988 2012-11-06 23:08:22 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 989 2012-11-06 23:09:50 forsetifox has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 990 2012-11-06 23:14:46 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 991 2012-11-06 23:22:54 xIsalty has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 992 2012-11-06 23:23:28 forsetifox has joined
 993 2012-11-06 23:23:31 forsetifox_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 994 2012-11-06 23:23:44 xIsalty has joined
 995 2012-11-06 23:23:44 xIsalty has quit (Changing host)
 996 2012-11-06 23:23:44 xIsalty has joined
 997 2012-11-06 23:25:43 JZavala has joined
 998 2012-11-06 23:30:24 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 999 2012-11-06 23:30:33 freakazoid has joined
1000 2012-11-06 23:32:07 MobiusL has joined
1001 2012-11-06 23:32:28 moop has joined
1002 2012-11-06 23:33:52 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1003 2012-11-06 23:35:49 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1004 2012-11-06 23:36:21 unknown45682 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1005 2012-11-06 23:36:25 eoss has joined
1006 2012-11-06 23:36:47 unknown45682 has joined
1007 2012-11-06 23:38:38 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1008 2012-11-06 23:40:17 unknown45682 has quit (Client Quit)
1009 2012-11-06 23:47:48 abracadabra has quit ()
1010 2012-11-06 23:51:33 TwilightSparklee has joined
1011 2012-11-06 23:52:20 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1012 2012-11-06 23:56:53 agricocb has joined
1013 2012-11-06 23:57:38 copumpkin has joined