1 2012-12-02 00:01:28 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
2 2012-12-02 00:03:40 <gmaxwell> I don't see any.
3 2012-12-02 00:05:51 <gmaxwell> what do we log when a recieved txn has missing inputs? I'm trying to see if I also rejected whatever txn that is when it hit me outside of a block
4 2012-12-02 00:10:12 <gmaxwell> This node is running 578fc800039a99f07c0eb9e256519598a1c9dd27 plus the reindex patch of some vintage.
5 2012-12-02 00:12:22 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
6 2012-12-02 00:12:22 diki has quit ()
7 2012-12-02 00:12:55 <sipa> eh
8 2012-12-02 00:14:35 <sipa> CTxMemPool::accept() : inputs already spent
9 2012-12-02 00:14:35 <sipa> in case the inputs are found (their tx's are not entirely spent yet)
10 2012-12-02 00:14:43 <sipa> otherwise they may be regarded as orphans
11 2012-12-02 00:16:45 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
12 2012-12-02 00:21:07 maaku has joined
13 2012-12-02 00:25:28 Guest6722 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
14 2012-12-02 00:27:39 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
15 2012-12-02 00:27:39 <sipa> gmaxwell: my public HEAD node didn't fail, and 210022 is already out of the debug.log
16 2012-12-02 00:27:39 <gmaxwell> so, it looks like the failure was at the first block after a restart
17 2012-12-02 00:27:50 <gmaxwell> and I don't have the debug log before the restart but I doubt it was failed then as the block was fresh at the time.
18 2012-12-02 00:29:49 <sipa> that's less worrysome, but still a problem to be fixed
19 2012-12-02 00:29:52 <gmaxwell> I guess I should list all the txn in 210023 and see which it doesn't think is unspent.
20 2012-12-02 00:32:00 <gmaxwell> er txn inputs.
21 2012-12-02 00:32:00 eoss has joined
22 2012-12-02 00:33:05 <gmaxwell> well crap, I can't use an ultraprune node for this debugging because some of the txn in that block are spent.
23 2012-12-02 00:35:13 guruvan has joined
24 2012-12-02 00:35:43 noagendamarket has quit (Quit: Leaving)
25 2012-12-02 00:40:47 <gmaxwell> 13fbb84d3aec7643a5a29031347359fffef6409269b556fb468e181e78d76eaa 1168
26 2012-12-02 00:40:51 <gmaxwell> crazy vout index
27 2012-12-02 00:41:14 <gmaxwell> 2040 0_o
28 2012-12-02 00:41:30 <sipa> 2040 what?
29 2012-12-02 00:45:59 Prattler has joined
30 2012-12-02 00:46:02 <gmaxwell> I'm just surprised to see that people are using that many outputs.
31 2012-12-02 00:47:40 * sipa thinks he has parallel script checking working
32 2012-12-02 00:48:46 <sipa> (most simple semantics: block verification pushes sigchecks on a queue, and waits for that queue to become empty)
33 2012-12-02 00:49:04 LittleDuke has left ()
34 2012-12-02 00:50:15 <sipa> 600us/txin -> 200us/txin
35 2012-12-02 00:51:13 bcb has joined
36 2012-12-02 00:51:19 <sipa> with between 300% and 360% cpu usage
37 2012-12-02 00:52:54 <gmaxwell> I'm missing 241 out of 655 txins consumed in that block.
38 2012-12-02 00:53:12 <sipa> ungood :S
39 2012-12-02 00:53:38 <gmaxwell> well it probably means I'm missing the block right before it or something.
40 2012-12-02 00:55:41 <gmaxwell> damnit I can't getblock on the brokennode!
41 2012-12-02 00:55:42 <gmaxwell> ~/bitcoin/src/bitcoind getblock 00000000000002810ead24a2f1f6aca1ec538557fd787841e3082af7fd20fa7c
42 2012-12-02 00:55:45 <gmaxwell> error: {"code":-2,"message":"Safe mode: Warning: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."}
43 2012-12-02 00:56:34 <gmaxwell> okay, so scratch the theory that it's just the immediately prior block.
44 2012-12-02 00:56:43 <gmaxwell> txout index must be totally busted then.
45 2012-12-02 00:57:05 <sipa> meh :S
46 2012-12-02 00:58:24 <gmaxwell> (at least one of the missing txouts is hundreds of blocks back)
47 2012-12-02 01:00:47 <gmaxwell> hm. they're not equally distributed.
48 2012-12-02 01:01:44 <gmaxwell> 94 of 197 the problem txn IDs were block 00000000000004b1002c627c407119b521e3a2d44f2f3f22b2a6c07a986ed8de
49 2012-12-02 01:01:55 <gmaxwell> which _was_ the immediately prior block.
50 2012-12-02 01:03:07 <sipa> that smells like a reorganised block on top of ...4b1002c627, which was not undone
51 2012-12-02 01:04:09 <gmaxwell> yea, so perhaps I was on 210023-prime, restarted and it didn't undo it, but instead attempted to apply 210023?
52 2012-12-02 01:05:02 <gmaxwell> blockchain.info doesn't appear to know of any alternative 210023s.
53 2012-12-02 01:05:28 <sipa> that 210023-prime should be in your block files
54 2012-12-02 01:05:37 <sipa> so a reindex should at least catch it
55 2012-12-02 01:05:57 <gmaxwell> they have a 210025 and 210026 however.
56 2012-12-02 01:06:29 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
57 2012-12-02 01:07:54 <sipa> meh, i'll just assume this was caused by that reorg bug i just pullreq'ed a fix for, and not worry about it unless it happens again...
58 2012-12-02 01:08:16 <gmaxwell> sipa: hm. which one?
59 2012-12-02 01:08:25 <sipa> #2058
60 2012-12-02 01:09:08 <sipa> i don't understand how that bug could cause wrong data to be _written_ though
61 2012-12-02 01:09:24 <sipa> but the implications of an inconsistent state are probably hard to see
62 2012-12-02 01:09:39 <gmaxwell> well, if there isn't anything more were going to try to get out of it, I'll restart it and see if it recovers.
63 2012-12-02 01:09:50 <gmaxwell> And if it doesn't, I'll see if it fails on reindex.
64 2012-12-02 01:10:46 <sipa> restarting won't help
65 2012-12-02 01:10:54 <sipa> it has marked that entire chain as invalid
66 2012-12-02 01:14:38 guruvan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
67 2012-12-02 01:17:19 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
68 2012-12-02 01:22:16 graingert has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat-GNOME)
69 2012-12-02 01:30:34 wizkid057 has joined
70 2012-12-02 01:30:40 Impaler has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
71 2012-12-02 01:36:24 RBecker has quit (Quit: You care. You're there for me. You love me so much, and I never want to let it go. You are the one truly amazing person. MDR 3/6/11 <3)
72 2012-12-02 01:38:48 freewil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
73 2012-12-02 01:39:14 RBecker has joined
74 2012-12-02 01:44:49 unknown45682 has quit ()
75 2012-12-02 01:45:20 agricocb has joined
76 2012-12-02 01:46:00 sgornick has joined
77 2012-12-02 01:51:16 Jamesz has joined
78 2012-12-02 01:51:51 Apexseals has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
79 2012-12-02 01:51:59 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
80 2012-12-02 01:52:06 freewil has joined
81 2012-12-02 01:53:17 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
82 2012-12-02 01:53:55 <riush> hm, what does this flag mean? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.h#L1392
83 2012-12-02 01:56:21 maaku has joined
84 2012-12-02 01:57:08 <sipa> riush: that that block is invalid
85 2012-12-02 01:58:00 <sipa> riush: e.g. BLOCK_VALID_TREE | BLOCK_FAILED_VALID means that the checks to satisfy BLOCK_VALID_TRANSACTIONS failed
86 2012-12-02 01:58:11 <sipa> note that far from all combinations are used right now
87 2012-12-02 01:58:14 PhantomSpark has joined
88 2012-12-02 01:59:01 Apexseals has joined
89 2012-12-02 02:00:28 wizkid057 has joined
90 2012-12-02 02:00:32 <riush> ah, i see.
91 2012-12-02 02:01:37 <riush> so a BLOCK_VALID_TRANSACTIONS | BLOCK_FAILED_VALID would be reconsidered in case of a reorg
92 2012-12-02 02:01:56 <sipa> why would it?
93 2012-12-02 02:02:03 Gladamas_ has joined
94 2012-12-02 02:02:07 <sipa> reorganisations don't change the validness of a block at all
95 2012-12-02 02:02:50 <sipa> validness is a const boolean property of a block, but there are several steps in verifying it
96 2012-12-02 02:03:25 <riush> but a tx that now looks like a doublespend can become valid in a reorg, no?
97 2012-12-02 02:04:12 <sipa> there are no double spends
98 2012-12-02 02:04:31 <sipa> they simply don't exist from the point of view of a single chain
99 2012-12-02 02:05:18 <sipa> if you mean a transaction that tries to spend a spent input... that's invalid, and nothing will change that for a given block
100 2012-12-02 02:05:28 <sipa> for the transaction, yes, it may change
101 2012-12-02 02:05:54 <riush> ah now i see what you mean
102 2012-12-02 02:05:56 Gladamas has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
103 2012-12-02 02:06:09 <sipa> but there is no way that a block (which references its own history) could go from invalid to valid, ever
104 2012-12-02 02:06:34 <riush> of course, the tx will be in a new block after the reorg :)
105 2012-12-02 02:06:49 <sipa> indeed, and for that new block everything will need to be revalidated
106 2012-12-02 02:07:26 <riush> ok.. then what's the use in knowing which validation failed?
107 2012-12-02 02:07:36 <sipa> 0
108 2012-12-02 02:07:44 <riush> ah :)
109 2012-12-02 02:08:23 <sipa> why would there be a use for that?
110 2012-12-02 02:10:50 <riush> well because there are separate flags for them i assumed they might have some kind of deeper meaning
111 2012-12-02 02:11:07 <gmaxwell> It's useful for diagnostics to know what failed (e.g. in logs).
112 2012-12-02 02:12:20 <sipa> riush: those flags don't tell you which transaction failed; they tell you a) which checks still have to be performed b) whether it's considered valid so far or not
113 2012-12-02 02:12:27 <sipa> for a block
114 2012-12-02 02:13:48 <riush> aah! so you don't have to do all checks at once and can store the intermediary result
115 2012-12-02 02:14:00 <riush> (that can be picked up by another thread/process)
116 2012-12-02 02:15:05 noagendamarket has joined
117 2012-12-02 02:15:46 <sipa> exactly
118 2012-12-02 02:17:21 <sipa> the checks are already done is separate steps, by the way: 1) at receive time (e.g. for orphan blocks) 2) at store time (e.g. for stale blocks) 3) at connect time
119 2012-12-02 02:18:18 <sipa> 1) corresponds to BLOCK_VALID_HEADER (+ a bit more), 2) to BLOCK_VALID_TRANSACTIONS, 3) to BLOCK_VALID_SCRITPS
120 2012-12-02 02:21:44 <riush> cool. it seems very well thought out btw. nice work!
121 2012-12-02 02:22:07 <riush> can read all headers/blocks through blktree now in ruby :)
122 2012-12-02 02:23:45 vampireb has joined
123 2012-12-02 02:34:12 <andrew12-> ;;seen noagendamarket
124 2012-12-02 02:34:12 <gribble> noagendamarket was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 8 weeks, 0 days, 20 hours, 37 minutes, and 13 seconds ago: <noagendamarket> thats where you end up with brokers who get squeezed by the feds :P
125 2012-12-02 02:34:21 elkingrey has joined
126 2012-12-02 02:34:32 <noagendamarket> what ?
127 2012-12-02 02:34:51 <noagendamarket> :P
128 2012-12-02 02:35:34 bcb has left ()
129 2012-12-02 02:35:38 elkingrey has quit (Client Quit)
130 2012-12-02 02:36:12 <sipa> riush: you're implementing a parser for bitcoin's new data files in ruby?
131 2012-12-02 02:36:30 <andrew12-> noagendamarket: ah you do still exist
132 2012-12-02 02:36:51 <noagendamarket> im a figment of your imagination :P
133 2012-12-02 02:37:10 <andrew12-> i remember you from like two years ago.. weren't you the guy that made that reddit clone that let you upvote things for btc?
134 2012-12-02 02:37:13 <andrew12-> something like that...
135 2012-12-02 02:37:35 <noagendamarket> sort of
136 2012-12-02 02:37:46 <noagendamarket> till the developer stole the site
137 2012-12-02 02:38:01 <andrew12-> fun
138 2012-12-02 02:38:07 <noagendamarket> I seem to have bad luck with that :D
139 2012-12-02 02:38:19 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
140 2012-12-02 02:38:23 <andrew12-> hard to trust people sometimes.
141 2012-12-02 02:38:25 <andrew12-> do you remember me?
142 2012-12-02 02:39:47 PhantomSpark has quit (2!~kvirc@pool-71-190-231-20.nycmny.fios.verizon.net|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
143 2012-12-02 02:40:06 <gmaxwell> sipa: recovered on reindex. No evidence of a reorg anywhere near that block the logs.
144 2012-12-02 02:41:44 <sipa> gmaxwell: meh :S
145 2012-12-02 02:42:31 mmoya has joined
146 2012-12-02 02:43:34 <gmaxwell> hm. the reindex took it as far as "blocks" : 210524,
147 2012-12-02 02:43:40 <gmaxwell> And it seems to just be sitting there now.
148 2012-12-02 02:43:49 <noagendamarket> yes andrew12 I do
149 2012-12-02 02:44:12 <gmaxwell> been about 7 minutes.
150 2012-12-02 02:44:31 <sipa> gmaxwell: yeah, there is no auto-start of IBD after -reindex or -loadblock
151 2012-12-02 02:44:38 <sipa> so you'll need to a wait for a new block
152 2012-12-02 02:44:50 <sipa> or restart
153 2012-12-02 02:45:01 <gmaxwell> ah. okay.
154 2012-12-02 02:45:56 <gmaxwell> ;;bc,blocks
155 2012-12-02 02:45:57 <gribble> 210532
156 2012-12-02 02:46:03 <gmaxwell> k, synced up after a restart.
157 2012-12-02 02:51:02 <Pucilowski> I want to work with secp256k1 in java - what could I use?
158 2012-12-02 02:51:35 <sipa> bouncycastle
159 2012-12-02 02:51:38 <sipa> see BitcoinJ
160 2012-12-02 02:51:50 <Pucilowski> cheers
161 2012-12-02 02:52:02 <gmaxwell> sipa: 2060 is kinda leaky.
162 2012-12-02 02:52:22 <gmaxwell> (I mean it includes commits from your other pulls)
163 2012-12-02 02:52:40 <sipa> gmaxwell: and that is even mentioned :)
164 2012-12-02 02:53:10 <etotheipi_> anyone here use "Coin Control"?
165 2012-12-02 02:53:40 <etotheipi_> I'm trying to figure out what are the common use cases for it
166 2012-12-02 02:53:53 <etotheipi_> (specifically, how people use it)
167 2012-12-02 02:55:19 <sipa> i think it's useful for one purpose only: transparency (letting people see how things work underneath, educationally)
168 2012-12-02 02:55:55 Gladamas_ is now known as Gladamas
169 2012-12-02 02:56:08 <sipa> for every other use case, you either want multi-wallet support or a coin selection algorithm that automatically tries to prevent unnecessary coin linkage
170 2012-12-02 02:56:53 <riush> sipa: yes. the current postgres database we have in bitcoin-ruby ist just too big and slow for regular clients and generally having a separate utxo index seems to be the way to go
171 2012-12-02 02:57:13 <riush> so i figured might as well look at what you've already done, instead of reinventing that wheel
172 2012-12-02 02:57:28 <sipa> you know you can't access those files while bitcoin is running?
173 2012-12-02 02:57:35 <riush> yes sure
174 2012-12-02 02:57:49 <sipa> ok, just making sure
175 2012-12-02 02:58:29 <riush> but it would still be awesome to be able to switch easily, without waiting for ruby to do IBD
176 2012-12-02 02:59:44 <riush> but i guess reading is the easy part so have to see how it goes ;)
177 2012-12-02 03:01:49 pigeons has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
178 2012-12-02 03:02:33 pigeons has joined
179 2012-12-02 03:02:56 pigeons is now known as Guest12710
180 2012-12-02 03:03:11 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
181 2012-12-02 03:04:31 <gmaxwell> sipa: your par pull appears to have added an unexpected shutdown delay?
182 2012-12-02 03:04:32 <gmaxwell> 12/02/12 02:49:57 ThreadMessageHandler exited
183 2012-12-02 03:04:32 <gmaxwell> 12/02/12 02:50:18 Flushed 16266 addresses to peers.dat 17ms
184 2012-12-02 03:05:13 <sipa> that's strange
185 2012-12-02 03:05:16 <gmaxwell> hm maybe just a coincidence.
186 2012-12-02 03:05:38 <gmaxwell> (It isn't like I normally watch shutdown closely)
187 2012-12-02 03:18:27 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
188 2012-12-02 03:18:27 <gribble> 210535
189 2012-12-02 03:18:56 noagendamarket has quit (Quit: Leaving)
190 2012-12-02 03:20:04 forrestv has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
191 2012-12-02 03:20:20 Guest12710 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
192 2012-12-02 03:21:05 pigeons_ has joined
193 2012-12-02 03:22:11 forrestv has joined
194 2012-12-02 03:23:21 forrestv has quit (Changing host)
195 2012-12-02 03:23:21 forrestv has joined
196 2012-12-02 03:26:11 denisx has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
197 2012-12-02 03:26:26 denisx has joined
198 2012-12-02 03:27:00 greenfox_ has joined
199 2012-12-02 03:29:04 greenfox has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
200 2012-12-02 03:29:15 greenfox_ is now known as greenfox
201 2012-12-02 03:36:01 xIsaltee has joined
202 2012-12-02 03:36:56 xIsalty has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
203 2012-12-02 03:40:31 maaku has joined
204 2012-12-02 03:45:59 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
205 2012-12-02 03:49:53 fiesh has joined
206 2012-12-02 03:50:22 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
207 2012-12-02 03:51:17 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
208 2012-12-02 03:59:38 xIsaltee has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
209 2012-12-02 04:06:41 xIsalty has joined
210 2012-12-02 04:09:22 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
211 2012-12-02 04:15:09 TwilightSparklee has joined
212 2012-12-02 04:25:45 forrestv has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
213 2012-12-02 04:27:04 forrestv has joined
214 2012-12-02 04:34:50 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
215 2012-12-02 04:35:19 denisx_ has joined
216 2012-12-02 04:35:43 TwilightSparklee has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
217 2012-12-02 04:35:52 denisx_ has quit (Client Quit)
218 2012-12-02 04:36:06 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
219 2012-12-02 04:36:42 <etotheipi_> well, I am implementing coin control, because of extremely high demand for it... but I am not entirely clear how to tailor it
220 2012-12-02 04:37:06 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
221 2012-12-02 04:37:17 TwilightSparklee has joined
222 2012-12-02 04:37:18 <etotheipi_> I guess I just show them a list of non-empty addresses and let them select a subset from which they want their transaction to be created
223 2012-12-02 04:38:28 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
224 2012-12-02 04:38:30 <etotheipi_> while experimenting with it, I did find one use: I was able to select every address that had more than 4 decimal places, then create a single transaction that splits it in an integer part and non-integer (actually, I donated the non-int)... it really cleans up the wallet
225 2012-12-02 04:39:25 <etotheipi_> collapsing all your BTC crumbles into a single output is probably good for the network
226 2012-12-02 04:40:09 <helo> filtering might be nice... tag various addresses to create sets for filtering?
227 2012-12-02 04:40:50 <etotheipi_> helo: filtering for what?
228 2012-12-02 04:41:17 <helo> "create this transaction using only funds sent to addresses in the "donations" category
229 2012-12-02 04:41:31 <helo> or "tagged with 'donations'"
230 2012-12-02 04:41:38 <freewil> that's what accounts are for
231 2012-12-02 04:41:52 <etotheipi_> that's what multiple wallets are for, in Armory
232 2012-12-02 04:41:58 <freewil> in bitcoind accounts are just groups of addresses
233 2012-12-02 04:41:59 wizkid057 has joined
234 2012-12-02 04:42:04 <etotheipi_> but it doesn't quite have the same flexibility as "tagging"
235 2012-12-02 04:42:31 <helo> expand accounts to tagging, allow tag filtering for coin control?
236 2012-12-02 04:42:48 <helo> would kind of connect receiving and sending
237 2012-12-02 04:42:55 <etotheipi_> helo: it's an interesting idea... I've always been a fan of tag-sorting sets
238 2012-12-02 04:43:11 <Luke-Jr> etotheipi_: I found Coin Control annoying since it didn't give me actual per-coin control.
239 2012-12-02 04:43:31 <etotheipi_> Luke-Jr: selecting source addresses wasn't enough?
240 2012-12-02 04:43:40 <Luke-Jr> etotheipi_: no
241 2012-12-02 04:43:53 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
242 2012-12-02 04:43:58 <etotheipi_> gah, I was afraid someone would complain about that
243 2012-12-02 04:44:02 [7] has joined
244 2012-12-02 04:44:09 <etotheipi_> I don't really want to expand the coin-control further to accommodate per-coin
245 2012-12-02 04:45:03 <etotheipi_> Luke-Jr: but what's the use of that? I thought that most use cases for coin control was really so users could select how their addresses were linked
246 2012-12-02 04:45:31 <Luke-Jr> etotheipi_: sending a specific dirty coin back to its rightful owner
247 2012-12-02 04:45:40 <helo> the best analogy i've heard describing how bitcoin transactions work is "take a bunch of buckets of water, and divide it up into several new buckets"
248 2012-12-02 04:45:59 <helo> so make it easy to select which are the input buckets, and the output
249 2012-12-02 04:46:33 <helo> tagging on both sides?
250 2012-12-02 04:47:20 <etotheipi_> Luke-Jr: I'm not a fan of treating BTC as non-fungible
251 2012-12-02 04:47:37 <helo> it would be nice if it would work with colored coins, btw
252 2012-12-02 04:47:48 <etotheipi_> man, a lot of talk of colored coins these days...
253 2012-12-02 04:48:18 <helo> if you're making something, you might as well factor that in just to cover your bases
254 2012-12-02 04:48:35 <helo> coin control is basically the only requirement for colored bitcoin
255 2012-12-02 04:49:00 <etotheipi_> does it require per-coin control? or per-address?
256 2012-12-02 04:50:04 <helo> it requires some kind of agreement on arbitrary rules regarding how color is transferred in a transaction with colored and non-colored coin :/
257 2012-12-02 04:50:19 <helo> (quickly making coin control a pita)
258 2012-12-02 04:50:44 <etotheipi_> helo: sounds like my interface would need to display individual TxOuts, not just non-empty addresses
259 2012-12-02 04:50:53 <helo> i think sipa was at least talking about atomic transactions...
260 2012-12-02 04:51:23 <helo> which imo are colored coin's killer app feature
261 2012-12-02 04:51:31 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
262 2012-12-02 04:52:03 maaku has joined
263 2012-12-02 04:52:55 <etotheipi_> I think I'll leave what I've got and move onto the new wallet format with multi-sig
264 2012-12-02 04:53:06 denisx has joined
265 2012-12-02 04:53:23 <etotheipi_> I think it makes sense to make multi-sig a priority
266 2012-12-02 04:53:36 <helo> when coin control and accounts are rehauled, ideally it would be long term enough to facilitate colored coin
267 2012-12-02 04:53:45 <helo> yeah, and multi-sig... coin control goes pretty deep
268 2012-12-02 04:54:30 moleccc has joined
269 2012-12-02 04:55:49 <helo> i think that's mainly why no work has been done heh
270 2012-12-02 04:58:55 molec has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
271 2012-12-02 05:03:00 TwilightSparklee has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
272 2012-12-02 05:06:20 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
273 2012-12-02 05:11:11 nus- has joined
274 2012-12-02 05:13:21 nus has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
275 2012-12-02 05:13:50 twobitcoins__ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
276 2012-12-02 05:16:47 PhantomSpark has joined
277 2012-12-02 05:18:02 randy-waterhouse has joined
278 2012-12-02 05:23:15 eoss has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
279 2012-12-02 05:29:29 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
280 2012-12-02 05:31:00 wereHamster has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
281 2012-12-02 05:31:20 wereHamster has joined
282 2012-12-02 05:31:26 <etotheipi_> so what are some good places to work that you can work completely remotely? I know Red Hat had some such opportunities...
283 2012-12-02 05:31:38 wereHamster has quit (Changing host)
284 2012-12-02 05:31:38 wereHamster has joined
285 2012-12-02 05:34:28 DaQatz_ is now known as DaQatz
286 2012-12-02 05:35:03 <weex> etotheipi_: i think most places want you to come in 1x per week at least
287 2012-12-02 05:35:28 <weex> but if you go for international coding jobs for btc, it's unlikely you'll need to leave to do anything
288 2012-12-02 05:36:44 AlbusTalpa has joined
289 2012-12-02 05:37:11 <etotheipi_> I'm not sure that I'd be willing to make the leap to getting paid in BTC
290 2012-12-02 05:37:45 Jamesz has quit ()
291 2012-12-02 05:37:58 <gmaxwell> weex: lots of tech companies support teleworking, though it's generally more available to senior positions and people who've previously had a deskjob at the same place.
292 2012-12-02 05:38:50 <etotheipi_> ...or perhaps people who have a history of producing good work at home...? (like, say, 2000 hours on an open-source project in my spare time?)
293 2012-12-02 05:39:19 <gmaxwell> I'm not a big fan of it, I was work-from-home for the first 5 years of my current job and requested the company move me across the company so I could work out of an office.
294 2012-12-02 05:39:48 <weex> there are definite benefits to being in offices with people from time to time
295 2012-12-02 05:39:50 <etotheipi_> I've been working in an office for 6 years, and I'm just so much more comfortable and productive at home
296 2012-12-02 05:40:38 <gmaxwell> I would rather work at home than at an office I lived more than biking distance from though... being in the office is not enough of a benefit to offset a long commute.
297 2012-12-02 05:40:49 <etotheipi_> the last 2 months, I've gotten very little done, because... I'm on four different projects now, constantly going to meetings, and dragged into every problem-solving/troubleshooting exercise everyone else has...
298 2012-12-02 05:42:26 <gmaxwell> Thats something that happen even when you're remote too. Worse, when you get pulled onto a dozen projects and you're falling behind on all of them while remote people assume you're slacking because they only see you when you advance the needle on the project they care about.
299 2012-12-02 05:43:04 <etotheipi_> but at least I can segregate...
300 2012-12-02 05:43:05 <randy-waterhouse> people who are productive working from home are goldmines for the corp since they are cheap to accomodate and by necessity are highly-motivated, independent and focussed
301 2012-12-02 05:43:35 <etotheipi_> the problem at work is that 5+ times per day, someone walks in my office/lab, and drags me out of whatever state of mind I was in
302 2012-12-02 05:43:39 <randy-waterhouse> self-disciplined
303 2012-12-02 05:43:48 <etotheipi_> the context switching is killing me
304 2012-12-02 05:44:22 <etotheipi_> and because of the sensitive nature of my projects, my lab can't have internet... so I have to walk two buildings over to look up stupid stuff
305 2012-12-02 05:44:37 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: just sayingâ that can be fixed in the context of an office. Working from home might also fix that, but it also leaves you less connected unless the org is highly distributed.
306 2012-12-02 05:44:40 <etotheipi_> as you can tell, I'm reaching a threshold...
307 2012-12-02 05:45:19 <gmaxwell> (and a org that doesn't let people concentrate on jobs that need concentration is dysfunctional)
308 2012-12-02 05:45:34 <etotheipi_> my job is great.... but maybe I just don't say "no" enough
309 2012-12-02 05:45:43 <etotheipi_> I have LOVED working there so far...
310 2012-12-02 05:45:51 <etotheipi_> and if I could just do this work from home, I'd be super happy
311 2012-12-02 05:46:19 <gmaxwell> I've certantly run into time management problems from not saying no enough.
312 2012-12-02 05:46:28 <gmaxwell> Perhaps you need a tent: http://www.jwz.org/tent-of-doom/net1.jpg to isolate you from the office. :P
313 2012-12-02 05:46:47 <etotheipi_> haha
314 2012-12-02 05:47:54 <randy-waterhouse> a pair of large headphones and a bad attitude has been known to work also
315 2012-12-02 05:48:35 <etotheipi_> it doesn't work
316 2012-12-02 05:48:47 <etotheipi_> if I'm not talking to someone, I'm prime for question asking
317 2012-12-02 05:48:55 <gmaxwell> A cute "do not disturb, next context switch in N minutes" sign/display might help?
318 2012-12-02 05:49:27 <etotheipi_> I had an idea... I get one stopwatch for each of the four people that take up most of my time
319 2012-12-02 05:49:28 <randy-waterhouse> IRQ flag system on a flipboard?
320 2012-12-02 05:49:36 <gmaxwell> perhaps a ticket dispencer and a NOW SERVING PROJECT [88] display? :P
321 2012-12-02 05:49:55 <etotheipi_> tell them they have 20 min per day of my time, and with a 10 min latency after ascking
322 2012-12-02 05:50:02 <randy-waterhouse> something to handle the context threads would be useful
323 2012-12-02 05:50:45 <etotheipi_> because a lot of times they would just figure out what they're doing without me, if they spent more time... but since I'm *right there* they just ask me
324 2012-12-02 05:50:58 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: I assume that since you're handling security sensitive things that you couldn't work some number of days a week from home with the current employer?
325 2012-12-02 05:51:11 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: that's correct
326 2012-12-02 05:51:45 <etotheipi_> my employer does make such arrangements, but I'm not lucky enough to be on a suitable project for htat
327 2012-12-02 05:52:04 <gmaxwell> is there an unused portion of your building? or just another division thats still security cleared but where no one knows you? and perhaps you could ask to have your seat relocated?
328 2012-12-02 05:52:21 <etotheipi_> haha, interesting idea
329 2012-12-02 05:53:18 <etotheipi_> I think my supervisor really likes me where I am, since I am helping everyone else get their work done, all the time
330 2012-12-02 05:53:57 <etotheipi_> I had tried to get a secure computer in my office, so I could escape the open lab that has 10 people working together
331 2012-12-02 05:54:08 <etotheipi_> but it's been 8 months, and they still havne't approved it...
332 2012-12-02 05:55:27 <etotheipi_> maybe I just need to pester the security people about that, and that would be 50% better....not to mention I could be near an internet connection, too
333 2012-12-02 05:55:49 <etotheipi_> okay, i'm going to stop rambling about my job... I just wanted to know where I could "look around" for remote employment
334 2012-12-02 05:56:26 <doublec> etotheipi_: mozilla has many remote employees
335 2012-12-02 05:56:43 <etotheipi_> doublec: that's a good point
336 2012-12-02 05:56:59 <doublec> etotheipi_: disclaimer being I work for them
337 2012-12-02 05:58:13 Gladamas is now known as Guest198384
338 2012-12-02 05:58:17 Guest198384 is now known as Gladamas
339 2012-12-02 06:00:55 <doublec> etotheipi_: not much listed in the security area but who knows http://careers.mozilla.org/en-US/
340 2012-12-02 06:01:11 <doublec> I'm sure browsers could always do with more security work
341 2012-12-02 06:01:15 <etotheipi_> meh... I'm more interested in algorithm development/optimization
342 2012-12-02 06:01:40 nus-- has joined
343 2012-12-02 06:01:40 nus-- is now known as nus
344 2012-12-02 06:02:13 <etotheipi_> things like image/signal processing... I don't think Mozilla's got that for me...
345 2012-12-02 06:02:26 <doublec> hmm, how about video/audio codec development
346 2012-12-02 06:02:28 <etotheipi_> AI, datamining
347 2012-12-02 06:03:03 <etotheipi_> doublec: probably not
348 2012-12-02 06:03:18 <etotheipi_> but I haven't done it before, so who knows
349 2012-12-02 06:04:36 nus- has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
350 2012-12-02 06:05:11 AlbusTalpa has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
351 2012-12-02 06:05:57 <etotheipi_> gah, maybe I'll just focus on getting that system approved in my office, that would improve a lot of things...
352 2012-12-02 06:05:59 <etotheipi_> for now, bedtime...
353 2012-12-02 06:06:11 <etotheipi_> thanks for listening to my rant
354 2012-12-02 06:26:41 ThomasV has joined
355 2012-12-02 06:27:02 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
356 2012-12-02 06:32:37 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
357 2012-12-02 06:34:10 wizkid057 has joined
358 2012-12-02 06:57:52 zveda has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
359 2012-12-02 07:04:40 Karmaon_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
360 2012-12-02 07:09:27 zveda has joined
361 2012-12-02 07:10:49 nus- has joined
362 2012-12-02 07:10:56 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
363 2012-12-02 07:11:04 nus- has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
364 2012-12-02 07:11:22 nus has joined
365 2012-12-02 07:27:53 AlbusTalpa has joined
366 2012-12-02 07:30:15 nus- has joined
367 2012-12-02 07:30:23 nus has quit (Disconnected by services)
368 2012-12-02 07:30:28 nus- is now known as nus
369 2012-12-02 07:36:16 D34TH has quit (Quit: Leaving)
370 2012-12-02 08:02:05 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
371 2012-12-02 08:07:01 dvide has joined
372 2012-12-02 08:17:58 CodesInChaos has joined
373 2012-12-02 08:26:37 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
374 2012-12-02 08:28:45 maaku has joined
375 2012-12-02 09:08:16 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
376 2012-12-02 09:15:17 BurtyB has joined
377 2012-12-02 09:15:45 wizkid057 has joined
378 2012-12-02 09:25:45 RazielZ has joined
379 2012-12-02 09:27:29 x18882 has joined
380 2012-12-02 09:28:04 one_zero has joined
381 2012-12-02 09:53:52 BurtyBB has joined
382 2012-12-02 09:54:40 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
383 2012-12-02 09:57:56 EskimoBob has joined
384 2012-12-02 10:04:41 x18882 has quit (Quit: Yo!)
385 2012-12-02 10:07:52 BurtyBB is now known as BurtyB
386 2012-12-02 10:13:54 sakkaku has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
387 2012-12-02 10:14:05 denisx has joined
388 2012-12-02 10:14:06 sakkaku has joined
389 2012-12-02 10:18:47 randy-waterhouse has quit (Quit: Out.)
390 2012-12-02 10:29:18 MiningBuddy- is now known as MiningBuddy
391 2012-12-02 10:29:18 MiningBuddy has quit (Changing host)
392 2012-12-02 10:29:18 MiningBuddy has joined
393 2012-12-02 10:31:02 TD has joined
394 2012-12-02 10:38:43 one_zero has quit ()
395 2012-12-02 10:44:09 remiforall has joined
396 2012-12-02 10:46:57 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
397 2012-12-02 10:47:22 gjs278 has joined
398 2012-12-02 10:48:43 <remiforall> hello
399 2012-12-02 10:51:04 remiforall_ has joined
400 2012-12-02 10:51:09 remiforall has quit (Quit: Page closed)
401 2012-12-02 10:51:09 remiforall_ is now known as remiforall
402 2012-12-02 11:17:32 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
403 2012-12-02 11:24:50 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
404 2012-12-02 11:32:27 BlackPrapor has joined
405 2012-12-02 11:42:15 pklaus has joined
406 2012-12-02 11:43:45 darkskiez has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
407 2012-12-02 12:07:33 AlbusTalpa has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
408 2012-12-02 12:07:59 blitzkraig has joined
409 2012-12-02 12:09:48 datagutt has joined
410 2012-12-02 12:41:56 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
411 2012-12-02 12:49:02 MrTiggr has quit (Quit: TTFN- TaTa For Now!)
412 2012-12-02 12:49:33 MrTiggr has joined
413 2012-12-02 12:49:34 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
414 2012-12-02 12:50:03 MrTiggr has joined
415 2012-12-02 12:50:04 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
416 2012-12-02 12:50:33 MrTiggr has joined
417 2012-12-02 12:50:41 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
418 2012-12-02 12:51:02 MrTiggr has joined
419 2012-12-02 12:51:06 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
420 2012-12-02 12:51:54 paraipan has joined
421 2012-12-02 12:52:32 Tiggr has joined
422 2012-12-02 12:52:33 Tiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
423 2012-12-02 13:01:26 AlbusTalpa has joined
424 2012-12-02 13:12:55 TwilightSparklee has joined
425 2012-12-02 13:15:35 darkee has joined
426 2012-12-02 13:17:35 vampireb has joined
427 2012-12-02 13:23:26 someone42 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
428 2012-12-02 13:23:34 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
429 2012-12-02 13:29:45 mmoya has joined
430 2012-12-02 13:30:41 TwilightSparklee has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
431 2012-12-02 13:39:22 AlbusTalpa has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
432 2012-12-02 13:45:54 BitDev has joined
433 2012-12-02 13:46:24 <BitDev> hi all
434 2012-12-02 13:46:34 <BitDev> can some one help me again :)
435 2012-12-02 13:47:05 <BitDev> i dont get it, how to calculate merkle root hash
436 2012-12-02 13:48:03 <sipa> http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1110/how-do-i-implement-a-merkle-tree
437 2012-12-02 13:50:44 <BitDev> yes, and if i have 4 hashes, then First round is: R1 = sha256(H1 + H2); R2 = sha256(H3 + H4); then next round is: result = sha256(R1 + R2) ?
438 2012-12-02 13:50:48 abrkn has quit ()
439 2012-12-02 13:51:29 <BitDev> where in sources i can find how its work?
440 2012-12-02 13:51:34 abrkn has joined
441 2012-12-02 13:51:35 <BitDev> maybe you know sipa?
442 2012-12-02 13:52:34 <phantomcircuit> BitDev, it isn't a straight sha256
443 2012-12-02 13:52:41 <phantomcircuit> iirc it's sha256(sha256())
444 2012-12-02 13:52:59 <BitDev> ow, sorry, i forget that - thnx
445 2012-12-02 13:53:01 <jeremias> hmm is there a specific reason for double sha256
446 2012-12-02 13:53:07 <sipa> indeed, bitcoin always uses sha256^2 or ripemd160.sha256
447 2012-12-02 13:53:14 <phantomcircuit> ;;bc,blocks
448 2012-12-02 13:53:14 <gribble> 210595
449 2012-12-02 13:53:21 <sipa> BitDev: see the obscurely-named function BuildMerkleTree in main.h
450 2012-12-02 13:53:43 <BitDev> sipa thnx!!! you help me so many times, God bless you!
451 2012-12-02 13:53:55 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
452 2012-12-02 13:54:38 <phantomcircuit> sipa, lol when genjix was first starting work on libbitcoin he got to the merkletree and was just like
453 2012-12-02 13:54:39 <phantomcircuit> "wat"
454 2012-12-02 13:54:47 <phantomcircuit> that code is so weird
455 2012-12-02 13:54:55 darkee has joined
456 2012-12-02 13:56:23 <sipa> yes, concatenating the different levels in one vector makes it kinda hard to read
457 2012-12-02 13:56:39 <sipa> also, why does that code use std::vector::reserve()?
458 2012-12-02 13:59:07 <sipa> *doesn't
459 2012-12-02 14:00:21 kamphund has joined
460 2012-12-02 14:01:19 AlbusTalpa has joined
461 2012-12-02 14:02:03 panzer has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
462 2012-12-02 14:04:07 <BitDev> two hashes of txn must be added or some other operation?
463 2012-12-02 14:04:27 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
464 2012-12-02 14:04:35 <sipa> concatenated
465 2012-12-02 14:05:00 <sipa> so the input to double-sha256 in the merkle tree algorithm is always a 64-byte structure
466 2012-12-02 14:05:02 <BitDev> how?
467 2012-12-02 14:05:25 <sipa> the 32 first bytes are the first input hash, the 32 second bytes are the second input hash
468 2012-12-02 14:06:39 <sipa> gmaxwell, jgarzik: reindexing with script check enabled everywhere until block 210000: 1h14m
469 2012-12-02 14:08:14 <BitDev> so first of all i must find out txn hash (T-hash1) then i must double this hash (cuz just 1 txn hash) (T-hash2) after that i must find hash of [T-hash1 32 bytes as high of 64 bytes + T-hash2 32 bytes if low part of 64 bytes]?
470 2012-12-02 14:08:59 <sipa> the output of sha256 is only 32 bytes
471 2012-12-02 14:09:04 <sipa> *sigh*
472 2012-12-02 14:09:18 <sipa> just concatenate the two hashes and feed it to the next hash function
473 2012-12-02 14:09:34 <sipa> gmaxwell, jgarzik: that's with 4 script verification threads; without parallellism, it was 3h22m
474 2012-12-02 14:10:01 mmoya has joined
475 2012-12-02 14:10:08 <BitDev> so i must hash 64 bytes?
476 2012-12-02 14:10:13 <sipa> yes
477 2012-12-02 14:10:27 <sipa> 14:52:15 < sipa> so the input to double-sha256 in the merkle tree algorithm is always a 64-byte structure
478 2012-12-02 14:10:30 <BitDev> ow, its simple )
479 2012-12-02 14:10:30 <BitDev> thnx
480 2012-12-02 14:14:10 eoss has joined
481 2012-12-02 14:17:54 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
482 2012-12-02 14:27:20 daybyter has joined
483 2012-12-02 14:28:23 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
484 2012-12-02 14:32:12 mykhal has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
485 2012-12-02 14:34:12 ibno has joined
486 2012-12-02 14:35:39 mykhal has joined
487 2012-12-02 14:36:23 <Pucilowski> What's the correct practice in converting a user-given BTC input to satoshis in java?
488 2012-12-02 14:39:29 paraipan has joined
489 2012-12-02 14:44:10 AlbusTalpa has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
490 2012-12-02 14:47:03 BurtyB has joined
491 2012-12-02 15:02:05 AlbusTalpa has joined
492 2012-12-02 15:06:00 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
493 2012-12-02 15:07:01 AlbusTalpa has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
494 2012-12-02 15:07:28 darkee has joined
495 2012-12-02 15:11:07 tonikt has joined
496 2012-12-02 15:27:15 <abrkn> how do i make an address show in "receive coins" after i used importprivkey?
497 2012-12-02 15:27:31 <abrkn> trying to get my mywallet-address into bitcoin-qt for signing on otc
498 2012-12-02 15:27:44 <sipa> it should do that automatically
499 2012-12-02 15:27:58 <abrkn> definitely not seeing it
500 2012-12-02 15:27:59 <sipa> but maybe the Qt interface doesn't show it immediately
501 2012-12-02 15:28:05 <sipa> you may need to restart
502 2012-12-02 15:28:13 <abrkn> ok, trying that
503 2012-12-02 15:28:51 <abrkn> :D
504 2012-12-02 15:28:55 <abrkn> thanks again sipa
505 2012-12-02 15:29:07 <sipa> feel free to file a bug for that
506 2012-12-02 15:29:34 <phantomcircuit> mywallet-address ?
507 2012-12-02 15:29:58 <abrkn> phantomcircuit: yeah, a guy on otc wanted to use bitcoin address verificiation while still using blockchain.info wallet to manage his btc
508 2012-12-02 15:30:16 <abrkn> sipa: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/835
509 2012-12-02 15:30:23 <sipa> i was wondering how you got to the private key of a mywallet account
510 2012-12-02 15:30:32 <sipa> but you're talking about blockchain.info?
511 2012-12-02 15:30:35 <abrkn> yes
512 2012-12-02 15:30:52 <abrkn> just used the unencrypted export on blockchain.info/wallet
513 2012-12-02 15:30:58 <phantomcircuit> abrkn, that is mildly strange but ok
514 2012-12-02 15:31:14 <abrkn> phantomcircuit: well, it's just because mywallet doesnt support signing messages that i can find
515 2012-12-02 15:31:14 <sipa> what is mildly strange?
516 2012-12-02 15:31:53 <phantomcircuit> using bitcoin private keys for message signing
517 2012-12-02 15:32:00 <phantomcircuit> i just dont see the point
518 2012-12-02 15:32:06 <phantomcircuit> but i guess other people do
519 2012-12-02 15:32:09 <sipa> proving you own an address
520 2012-12-02 15:32:15 <abrkn> i dont find it strange at all
521 2012-12-02 15:32:40 <abrkn> what better way to prove who you are than proving ownership of your money :)
522 2012-12-02 15:33:47 <abrkn> sipa: i see the issue was closed 7 months ago, but which version is that? im using 70100
523 2012-12-02 15:35:58 <sipa> abrkn: i commented
524 2012-12-02 15:38:02 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
525 2012-12-02 15:38:04 <phantomcircuit> lol
526 2012-12-02 15:38:13 <phantomcircuit> it's ridiculous but i need a faster workstation
527 2012-12-02 15:38:21 <abrkn> workstation? in 2012? :-D
528 2012-12-02 15:38:29 <abrkn> i need a slower one, some kind of tablet with monitor support
529 2012-12-02 15:38:41 <phantomcircuit> yes workstation
530 2012-12-02 15:38:55 <phantomcircuit> laptops are significantly more likely to break than a desktop
531 2012-12-02 15:39:09 <phantomcircuit> and it's almost impossible to get a laptop with >8GB of ram
532 2012-12-02 15:39:51 <sipa> i'm benchmarking my parallel signature check patch for bitcoind on my laptop... i'm afraid i'm killing it, judging by the temperature of the air coming out of the fan...
533 2012-12-02 15:40:04 <phantomcircuit> yeah that's a major issue with laptops
534 2012-12-02 15:40:21 <phantomcircuit> you can only run them full bore for about a minute before they start to overheat usually
535 2012-12-02 15:40:58 <phantomcircuit> i can run this workstation totally maxed out all day and the cpu wont break 60C
536 2012-12-02 15:42:21 <sipa> temp1: +99.0°C (crit = +103.0°C)
537 2012-12-02 15:42:23 <sipa> :S
538 2012-12-02 15:42:42 <phantomcircuit> ahaha
539 2012-12-02 15:43:06 <phantomcircuit> that's not good
540 2012-12-02 15:43:08 <phantomcircuit> mkk?
541 2012-12-02 15:43:11 <phantomcircuit> mkkay?
542 2012-12-02 15:43:23 <sipa> if that is true, indeed it isn't
543 2012-12-02 15:43:48 <phantomcircuit> intel machine?
544 2012-12-02 15:44:00 <sipa> yes, i7-2670QM
545 2012-12-02 15:44:02 Apexseals has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
546 2012-12-02 15:44:15 <phantomcircuit> it's right
547 2012-12-02 15:44:36 <sipa> running at 2.2 GHz now
548 2012-12-02 15:44:47 kamphund is now known as panzer
549 2012-12-02 15:45:06 <sipa> 12k blocks left to go...
550 2012-12-02 15:45:21 <phantomcircuit> the main problem you'll have from that kind of temp isn't the temp itself but the damage from thermo-cycling a lot
551 2012-12-02 15:45:44 <sipa> yup
552 2012-12-02 15:45:55 <phantomcircuit> i have a T61 which is all screwed up because the heat from the gpu caused parts of the mobo to disconnect
553 2012-12-02 15:45:55 <sipa> it smells slightly burnt-pasticy
554 2012-12-02 15:45:57 <phantomcircuit> i uh
555 2012-12-02 15:46:00 <phantomcircuit> "repaired" it
556 2012-12-02 15:46:04 <phantomcircuit> but it's not reliable
557 2012-12-02 15:46:07 <sipa> *plasticy
558 2012-12-02 15:46:15 <phantomcircuit> yeah that smell is bad news
559 2012-12-02 15:46:15 <phantomcircuit> heh
560 2012-12-02 15:46:20 <_dr> where is the crit 103 value from?
561 2012-12-02 15:46:23 <_dr> that doesn't sound right :)
562 2012-12-02 15:47:12 PiZZaMaN2K has joined
563 2012-12-02 15:49:11 <phantomcircuit> _dr, for a laptop it's right
564 2012-12-02 15:51:15 <_dr> running a laptop permanently (>5m) sounds right to you?
565 2012-12-02 15:51:25 <_dr> *at 100C
566 2012-12-02 15:52:07 <_dr> maybe i'm just pampered by my macbooks, they hardly get any warmer than 30C on the outside
567 2012-12-02 15:53:39 Apexseals has joined
568 2012-12-02 15:54:02 <phantomcircuit> _dr, 103C is the critical point for the sensor in the cpu
569 2012-12-02 15:54:13 <phantomcircuit> the case isn't going to get anywhere near that hot
570 2012-12-02 15:54:19 <sipa> i don't care about outside temperature (as long as touching the keyboard doesn't burn my fingers)
571 2012-12-02 15:54:23 PhantomSpark has quit (2!~kvirc@pool-71-190-231-20.nycmny.fios.verizon.net|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
572 2012-12-02 15:54:40 <phantomcircuit> that's the point at which your cpu will start to turn off cores and/or lower the clock
573 2012-12-02 15:54:54 <abrkn> i heard that the new macbooks cant play back a dvd without getting so hot between GH keys that it's unusable =)
574 2012-12-02 15:55:28 <_dr> phantomcircuit: they can actually take much more than that
575 2012-12-02 15:55:29 <phantomcircuit> sigh
576 2012-12-02 15:55:39 <phantomcircuit> stable version of libvirt doesn't support VIR_STORAGE_VOL_RESIZE_SHRINK
577 2012-12-02 15:55:42 <phantomcircuit> oh well
578 2012-12-02 15:55:57 <_dr> intel says they can take up to 125C, but i wouldn't want it ever to actually get that hot :)
579 2012-12-02 15:56:57 <_dr> maybe it's just a psychological barrier, 100C just sounds really hot
580 2012-12-02 15:57:59 <sipa> 94C... what happened?
581 2012-12-02 15:59:44 PhantomSpark has joined
582 2012-12-02 16:00:01 <phantomcircuit> sipa, you probably broke 103.0 which triggered clock to scale back
583 2012-12-02 16:00:33 D34TH has joined
584 2012-12-02 16:00:33 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
585 2012-12-02 16:00:33 D34TH has joined
586 2012-12-02 16:01:54 <sipa> gmaxwell, jgarzik: with 4 threads + Hal's optimization: 1h1m to fully verify 210k blocks
587 2012-12-02 16:02:14 <sipa> 66C !
588 2012-12-02 16:04:43 * D34TH doesn't know what that means, but it seems fast
589 2012-12-02 16:05:39 <phantomcircuit> ludicrous speed
590 2012-12-02 16:06:17 <sipa> D34TH: right now, the code only verifies scripts after block 193k
591 2012-12-02 16:06:39 <sipa> D34TH: i just did a benchmark that has it enabled everywhere, importing 210k blocks in 1h1m
592 2012-12-02 16:07:08 <D34TH> sipa, phantomcircuit: does it go plaid
593 2012-12-02 16:07:33 <sipa> before parallel verification and Hal's optimized secp256k1 verifier, that took 3h22m
594 2012-12-02 16:07:42 <sipa> plaid?
595 2012-12-02 16:07:50 <phantomcircuit> sipa, spaceballs
596 2012-12-02 16:07:54 <D34TH> sipa: spaceballs
597 2012-12-02 16:07:58 <phantomcircuit> oh god my brain is full of useless shit
598 2012-12-02 16:08:10 Apexseals has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
599 2012-12-02 16:08:14 <sipa> i have no clue what you're talking about
600 2012-12-02 16:08:15 <D34TH> phantomcircuit, i came to that realization 6 years ago
601 2012-12-02 16:08:18 <phantomcircuit> D34TH, i was going to make that joke but i could remember how to spell plaid
602 2012-12-02 16:08:23 Apexseals has joined
603 2012-12-02 16:08:23 <D34TH> sipa: funny movie
604 2012-12-02 16:08:35 <D34TH> phantomcircuit, i had to ask someone D:
605 2012-12-02 16:08:41 <sipa> ok, small explanation of the context?
606 2012-12-02 16:08:52 <D34TH> ill get you a youtube link
607 2012-12-02 16:08:58 <phantomcircuit> sipa, millennium falcon at lightspeed
608 2012-12-02 16:09:03 <phantomcircuit> instead of the star pattern
609 2012-12-02 16:09:05 <phantomcircuit> it's plaid
610 2012-12-02 16:09:13 <sipa> eh ok
611 2012-12-02 16:09:21 <phantomcircuit> it's funnier in the movie
612 2012-12-02 16:09:29 <phantomcircuit> also it's funnier when you're 16
613 2012-12-02 16:10:21 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
614 2012-12-02 16:10:27 <D34TH> sipa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ygE01sOhzz0#t=80s
615 2012-12-02 16:13:28 <sipa> eh ok
616 2012-12-02 16:18:18 BitDev has quit (Quit: Page closed)
617 2012-12-02 16:19:57 <_dr> that speedup doesn't seem too high
618 2012-12-02 16:20:06 <_dr> or does your machine only have two physical cores?
619 2012-12-02 16:20:18 <_dr> in which case it's a very nice speedup :)
620 2012-12-02 16:20:39 <D34TH> _dr isnt that like 300%?
621 2012-12-02 16:20:51 d4de has joined
622 2012-12-02 16:20:59 <sipa> _dr: no, but when running single-threaded, it runs at 3.1GHz, and when stressing all cores, it switches to 2.2GHz
623 2012-12-02 16:21:25 <_dr> D34TH: yeah, using 4x the hardware and some software optimization
624 2012-12-02 16:21:56 <_dr> sipa: you could try with 8 threads, crypto-foo tends to have lots of dependencies during calculations
625 2012-12-02 16:22:21 <sipa> _dr: already tried that using more than 4 doesn't seem to give any benefit
626 2012-12-02 16:22:22 <_dr> so SMT could avoid some empty blobs in the pipeline
627 2012-12-02 16:22:27 <_dr> oh, okay
628 2012-12-02 16:22:54 <_dr> did you pin the threads?
629 2012-12-02 16:23:03 <sipa> no
630 2012-12-02 16:23:55 <_dr> if only i had more time :)
631 2012-12-02 16:24:24 <_dr> i'm pretty sure you could even use simd, with avx and 32bit integers that should give another speedup of 8x
632 2012-12-02 16:24:47 <sipa> i have no idea what openssl is already using underneath, but i have no doubt further optimization is possible
633 2012-12-02 16:26:19 <phantomcircuit> sipa, you're pipelining the entire transaction verification or only the script verification?
634 2012-12-02 16:27:06 <sipa> just script verification
635 2012-12-02 16:27:40 <sipa> so there's one thread that verifies blocks, and it pushes script-verification actions to a queue, and then waits for that queue to go empty
636 2012-12-02 16:28:40 <sipa> so far from the most efficient implementation (where block verification doesn't wait for scripts to be finished processing), but certainly a less drastic change for now
637 2012-12-02 16:31:45 rdponticelli has joined
638 2012-12-02 16:32:01 <_dr> ah i see, the block thread not helping with the script-queue explains the 3x speedup
639 2012-12-02 16:32:31 <sipa> yeah, i could improve things a bit by instead of waiting, also working on the queue
640 2012-12-02 16:32:39 <sipa> and only have 3 extra threads instead of 4
641 2012-12-02 16:33:05 <sipa> so there's a bit less switching overhead
642 2012-12-02 16:37:44 ahbritto has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
643 2012-12-02 16:39:02 MC-Eeepc has joined
644 2012-12-02 16:44:29 slush1 has joined
645 2012-12-02 16:48:25 <_dr> mh, using additional threads for the queue means you should get a speedup of 4x nevertheless
646 2012-12-02 16:49:07 <_dr> maybe it's queue contention overhead, since the actual work is pretty small
647 2012-12-02 16:50:05 <sipa> there's certainly some queue contention, but the time for a single entry in the queue is around 0.6ms, which should be enough
648 2012-12-02 16:50:27 <_dr> i'd ditch the queue and use some sort of static scheduling. that way you don't need synchronization
649 2012-12-02 16:50:50 <sipa> the problem is that you have to wait for all threads to finish every time, so they can't remain 100% busy all the time
650 2012-12-02 16:51:15 <sipa> also, cpu speed going from 3.1GHz to 2.2GHz limits potential speedup
651 2012-12-02 16:51:25 da2ce7 has joined
652 2012-12-02 16:51:44 <sipa> i think maybe 10% can be gained still
653 2012-12-02 16:51:51 toffoo has joined
654 2012-12-02 16:52:22 <_dr> the 0.6ms is for the script verification? i'm not entirely familiar with ecdsa and how openssl handles that stuff
655 2012-12-02 16:52:38 <sipa> one script verification averages around 0.6ms here, yes
656 2012-12-02 16:52:57 <sipa> with hal's code it's around 0.45ms
657 2012-12-02 16:53:20 <_dr> does that code use openssl as well?
658 2012-12-02 16:53:25 <sipa> yes
659 2012-12-02 16:53:51 <sipa> it just precalculates some things, and preprocesses it so the actual numbers to work with are much smaller
660 2012-12-02 16:53:53 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
661 2012-12-02 16:53:56 <_dr> where can i find it? maybe there's a way to ditch openssl entirely. i bet the implementation isn't that fast
662 2012-12-02 16:54:22 wizkid057 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
663 2012-12-02 16:54:26 <sipa> i haven't seen any code anywhere faster than openssl's for secp256k1
664 2012-12-02 16:54:43 <riush> strange.. trying to sync a fresh node from a local leveldb bitcoind and it seems the database is corrupted.. but the scary thing is, it's sending me the broken stuff!
665 2012-12-02 16:54:44 <sipa> but a very specialized implementation will certainly be faster
666 2012-12-02 16:54:46 <riush> http://paste.mhanne.net/p/a217ab2bafb0a2ea4df5f94bea4b6a2512bc25bd
667 2012-12-02 16:54:57 <_dr> sipa: sure, but i bet it doesn't do simd
668 2012-12-02 16:55:53 <sipa> riush: eww :S
669 2012-12-02 16:56:12 <riush> (the corruption might likely be caused by me, but it shouldn't be sending it i guess)
670 2012-12-02 16:56:50 owowo has joined
671 2012-12-02 16:57:00 <sipa> riush: not sure it is sending bad data
672 2012-12-02 16:57:15 <sipa> riush: the first error is GetHash() doesn't match index... which is about data on disk
673 2012-12-02 17:03:54 <riush> sipa: but my node is receiving broken data.. the invs are ok but the blocks are somehow messed up
674 2012-12-02 17:03:57 <riush> http://paste.mhanne.net/p/238b24af637cd957e661416639ef1c724a6dd25a
675 2012-12-02 17:04:20 xIsalty has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
676 2012-12-02 17:05:07 pklaus has quit ()
677 2012-12-02 17:05:28 <sipa> i see no evidence the received data is bad/
678 2012-12-02 17:05:28 pklaus has joined
679 2012-12-02 17:06:49 <riush> at the bottom, the ">> block" lines..
680 2012-12-02 17:07:18 <sipa> yes?
681 2012-12-02 17:07:24 <sipa> what do those mean?
682 2012-12-02 17:07:40 <sipa> it's receiving the same block over and over again?
683 2012-12-02 17:07:41 <riush> that should be the block hashes
684 2012-12-02 17:08:17 <sipa> are you sure your algorithm for calculating block hashes is right?
685 2012-12-02 17:08:21 <riush> yes, at first it seems to be random garbage (not starting with 0's) and then it's always the same
686 2012-12-02 17:08:59 <riush> well it *could* be a bug there of course, but since that always worked, and bitcoind is logging freaky stuff, i don't think that's it
687 2012-12-02 17:09:26 <riush> i can sync fine from random network nodes
688 2012-12-02 17:09:30 <sipa> oh, ok
689 2012-12-02 17:09:32 <sipa> now i get it
690 2012-12-02 17:10:03 <sipa> so in case of a corrupted index, bitcoind may be sending invalid block data (even when it's aware it couldn't read the data)
691 2012-12-02 17:10:15 <riush> yes, that's what i mean :)
692 2012-12-02 17:10:58 twobitcoins has joined
693 2012-12-02 17:11:10 BitDev has joined
694 2012-12-02 17:12:01 <BitDev> hi all, in bitcoin - how to generate my own address?
695 2012-12-02 17:12:29 <abracadabra> use bitcoin client
696 2012-12-02 17:12:35 <abracadabra> click "generate new address"
697 2012-12-02 17:12:36 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
698 2012-12-02 17:12:47 <BitDev> now, i mean by my software )
699 2012-12-02 17:12:51 <sipa> BitDev: i don't mind answering questions, but if you need to ask about such basic things, perhaps you should try to do some research before trying to implement your own client
700 2012-12-02 17:13:21 <abracadabra> heh
701 2012-12-02 17:13:23 <BitDev> i was reading about it
702 2012-12-02 17:13:25 * abracadabra crawls back under rock
703 2012-12-02 17:13:34 testnode9 has joined
704 2012-12-02 17:13:35 <BitDev> i need private and public keys
705 2012-12-02 17:13:58 <BitDev> and two keys is needed for each address?
706 2012-12-02 17:14:42 <sipa> so sorry, i'll stop answering questions until you at least have looked at existing implementations and read about the technologies used (EC crypto in this case); if you don't understand something at that point, please ask
707 2012-12-02 17:14:50 * abracadabra 's irc troll spidy sense is tingling
708 2012-12-02 17:15:16 <BitDev> ok thnx
709 2012-12-02 17:15:19 BitDev has quit (Client Quit)
710 2012-12-02 17:16:10 * abracadabra makes note not to install any software from bitdev
711 2012-12-02 17:17:26 maaku has joined
712 2012-12-02 17:22:47 <sipa> _dr: seems I was wrong; the 3h22m figure is also when running at 2.2GHz
713 2012-12-02 17:26:15 phungus has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
714 2012-12-02 17:27:26 ageis has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
715 2012-12-02 17:28:41 RazielZ has joined
716 2012-12-02 17:29:25 ahbritto_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
717 2012-12-02 17:34:58 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
718 2012-12-02 17:37:31 <gmaxwell> sipa: I wonder how much speed you're losing to queue management? perhaps each thread thould pull out total/(par*2) items at once or something?
719 2012-12-02 17:43:19 RBecker has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
720 2012-12-02 17:43:50 RBecker has joined
721 2012-12-02 17:43:52 slush1 has joined
722 2012-12-02 17:45:17 asa1024 has quit (Quit: asa1024)
723 2012-12-02 17:50:23 maaku has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
724 2012-12-02 17:50:23 <sipa> gmaxwell: well i prefer not to use my laptop as benchmark system anymore, now that i've seen the temperatures it reaches (and dmesg contains reports of overheating and lowering clocks, so it's probably not reliable either)
725 2012-12-02 17:51:02 <sipa> but indeed, processing multiple elements at once can certainly help
726 2012-12-02 17:51:02 maaku has joined
727 2012-12-02 17:51:15 harkon has joined
728 2012-12-02 17:53:18 AlbusTalpa has joined
729 2012-12-02 17:53:19 <gmaxwell> sipa: how are you benchmarking? reindex with checkpoints disabled?
730 2012-12-02 17:53:54 <denisx> sipa: what model is your laptop?
731 2012-12-02 17:58:08 <_dr> i'd ditch the queue entirely and use a static scheduling
732 2012-12-02 17:58:41 <_dr> since each kind of script has a deterministic runtime it should be possible
733 2012-12-02 17:58:53 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
734 2012-12-02 17:59:11 <_dr> queue management and thread synchronization using gcc is evilish slow
735 2012-12-02 17:59:49 <_dr> because GCC uses libpthread for that stuff, i.e. kernel stuff to synchronize, that's in the order of 30.000-100.000 cycles per simple synchrnization
736 2012-12-02 18:00:17 <gmaxwell> GCC???!
737 2012-12-02 18:00:31 <_dr> -openmp
738 2012-12-02 18:00:31 pklaus has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
739 2012-12-02 18:00:38 <gmaxwell> We're not using openmp.
740 2012-12-02 18:00:40 <_dr> or where are you getting your parallelism from?
741 2012-12-02 18:01:42 <gmaxwell> But you're probably right there... just run PAR queues and have the input side fill all of them, then have the readers run to completion.
742 2012-12-02 18:01:42 daybyter has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
743 2012-12-02 18:01:48 <_dr> well, the same argument hold if you're using pthreads directly, of course. synchronization is slow, thus i'd avoid a queue where possible
744 2012-12-02 18:02:01 <gmaxwell> Thats even better than my suggestion to read bigger blocks out.
745 2012-12-02 18:04:02 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
746 2012-12-02 18:05:33 <_dr> could you point me to the routine that does the block chain verification? i'd like to have a look at the openssl functions involved for ecdsa
747 2012-12-02 18:05:48 <_dr> you can switch it for intel's ipp to get an idea how fast it can go with optimization
748 2012-12-02 18:06:11 <_dr> i just found out they have that particular curve in the crypto ipp
749 2012-12-02 18:11:23 <sipa> synchronization is very fast if the lock is uncontended
750 2012-12-02 18:13:40 <sipa> having a queue per worker indeed reduces contention, but does mean that when many elements need to be pushed, you need locks on more queues
751 2012-12-02 18:14:55 xIsalty has joined
752 2012-12-02 18:15:59 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
753 2012-12-02 18:17:21 agricocb has joined
754 2012-12-02 18:17:36 toffoo has quit ()
755 2012-12-02 18:17:51 EskimoBob has left ("WeeChat 0.3.9.2")
756 2012-12-02 18:18:11 <sipa> _dr: also, scripts don't have deterministic runtime (most are between 500 and 700 microseconds, but some can be a lot more)
757 2012-12-02 18:20:17 <_dr> okay, that's a problem
758 2012-12-02 18:20:51 <_dr> i assume that has to do with multiplications in EC? they're somehow translated into $lower_factor additions or something iirc
759 2012-12-02 18:22:08 <sipa> yes, that, but also simply the fact that there are several types of scripts
760 2012-12-02 18:22:39 <gmaxwell> _dr: e.g. we can have a single script that does many EC signature checks.
761 2012-12-02 18:22:43 <sipa> a pubkey script is slightly easier than a pubkeyhash script (an additional sha256 + ripemd16), but that is negligable compared to EC verification
762 2012-12-02 18:23:05 <sipa> but indeed, multisig scripts can do up to 20 EC verifications
763 2012-12-02 18:23:06 PiZZaMaN2K is now known as PiZZaMaN2K|away
764 2012-12-02 18:24:22 <gmaxwell> This still wouldn't prevent you from doing input side roundrobbin over all the writable queues (without spinning if it's not available). A bit of imbalanace is almost certantly better than more time spent handling the locks in the readers.
765 2012-12-02 18:25:04 <gmaxwell> (doesn't boost have lock free queues available?)
766 2012-12-02 18:25:59 <sipa> right, but now the writer needs 1 lock to push many elements, and the readers need to lock once for every N/k elements (contending with eachother)
767 2012-12-02 18:26:25 <sipa> using a per-worker queue means readers only contend with the writer, but the writer needs more locks
768 2012-12-02 18:26:42 <gmaxwell> oh they're already pulling multiple elements? K.
769 2012-12-02 18:26:52 <_dr> why push many elements? you could just push a struct containing a pointer to the first script and the workers will process 100 scripts form that pointer
770 2012-12-02 18:28:04 <sipa> gmaxwell: no, they're not; i'm just comparing the two proposed changes
771 2012-12-02 18:28:30 <_dr> and implement the 'queue' as a blocking ringbuffer. since the workers will take much longer to process 100 elements than the master to push such a struct onto the other end there'll be no contention if the buffer is large enough
772 2012-12-02 18:28:58 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
773 2012-12-02 18:28:58 <_dr> and if it takes one worker twice the time to process 100 scripts than another it won't matter in the long run
774 2012-12-02 18:29:29 <gmaxwell> 12/02/12 17:49:53 -> 12/02/12 18:14:05 from 0->210000 with checkpoints on, par=4, and hal on E31230.
775 2012-12-02 18:29:47 <sipa> 25 minutes? :o
776 2012-12-02 18:29:55 <gmaxwell> _checkpoints on_
777 2012-12-02 18:29:59 <sipa> oh
778 2012-12-02 18:30:43 <gmaxwell> tested that first because thats what people are actually going to see (unless we turn off the 'optimization' wrt checkpoints)
779 2012-12-02 18:31:01 <gmaxwell> thats a big improvement in any case!
780 2012-12-02 18:31:16 <gmaxwell> It was over an hour, to a lower height, a few weeks ago.
781 2012-12-02 18:31:53 <gmaxwell> ;;bc,blocks
782 2012-12-02 18:31:53 <gribble> 210625
783 2012-12-02 18:33:07 <gmaxwell> par probably needs to get hooked up to cpu count detection, and a gui option to adjust the number of CPUs that bitcoin uses for verification (for desktop users irritated that bitcoin is using all their cores)
784 2012-12-02 18:33:31 <gmaxwell> the former should be another commit, though the current code isn't really setup for runtime par changes.
785 2012-12-02 18:33:50 <sipa> shouldn't be too hard to do
786 2012-12-02 18:34:18 <sipa> keep a counter of actually active workers inside the queue object, and have some function to stop/start threads as necessary
787 2012-12-02 18:41:58 <sipa> gmaxwell: trying to the pick-several-objects strategy
788 2012-12-02 18:42:19 <sipa> small optimization: keep a counter of idle threads, and pick up to N/(idle+1)/2
789 2012-12-02 18:43:43 <gmaxwell> or N/(M+idle) (all idle it picks N/M/2 ?
790 2012-12-02 18:44:19 <sipa> with M=?
791 2012-12-02 18:44:26 <sipa> seems better indeed
792 2012-12-02 18:44:31 <gmaxwell> executors.
793 2012-12-02 18:45:40 <gmaxwell> I'd guess that most of the benefit happens in the quantum=2-16 range or so. Above that the improvements are small and it's mostly about not making the imbalance too bad.
794 2012-12-02 18:46:02 pigeons_ is now known as pigeons
795 2012-12-02 18:46:43 <sipa> 16 already means 10ms
796 2012-12-02 18:53:04 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
797 2012-12-02 18:55:34 <_dr> you can't work on more than one block in parallel?
798 2012-12-02 18:56:54 <sipa> i could, but that's trickier
799 2012-12-02 18:57:39 <gmaxwell> _dr: ultimately we will, but sipa's prior attempt at that had some issues and since this is now on the performance critical path having something sooner is better.
800 2012-12-02 18:58:01 <_dr> gmaxwell: i understand
801 2012-12-02 18:58:42 <gmaxwell> (making it work on multiple blocks means that you need to accept a block that you haven't checked yet... then if it fails you blacklist it and trigger a reorg off of it)
802 2012-12-02 18:59:08 dparrish has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
803 2012-12-02 18:59:53 daybyter has joined
804 2012-12-02 19:03:46 <_dr> is there a function like VerifyChain(starting_from)? i'm starting to feel stupid about asking this stuff when it's all there in the code
805 2012-12-02 19:04:08 <sipa> ehh, it not as easy as that
806 2012-12-02 19:04:47 <sipa> because to verify a piece of chain, you need to have thr UTXO set corresponding to its predecessor block
807 2012-12-02 19:05:28 <sipa> SetBestChain moves the "correctly active chain tip" to a given block (wherever it was)
808 2012-12-02 19:06:44 <_dr> then i'll try to start there, thanks :)
809 2012-12-02 19:07:09 Perlboy has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
810 2012-12-02 19:07:16 dparrish has joined
811 2012-12-02 19:07:48 slush1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
812 2012-12-02 19:08:12 Perlboy has joined
813 2012-12-02 19:12:43 maaku has joined
814 2012-12-02 19:16:45 harkon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
815 2012-12-02 19:17:15 harkon has joined
816 2012-12-02 19:21:16 <gmaxwell> 12/02/12 18:23:46 -> 12/02/12 19:07:45 without checkpoints
817 2012-12-02 19:21:47 <gmaxwell> 44 minutes.
818 2012-12-02 19:23:32 <sipa> Nice.
819 2012-12-02 19:24:13 <gmaxwell> I'll see what it is when you post a batching patch.
820 2012-12-02 19:24:22 AlbusTalpa has left ("Leaving")
821 2012-12-02 19:26:40 <sipa> pushed
822 2012-12-02 19:27:25 <sipa> changes: have a CScriptCheck::swap, so the vector in it doesn't need to be copied all the time when passing from one queue to another
823 2012-12-02 19:27:48 <sipa> use a std::vector as a stack instead of a std::deque for the actual queue
824 2012-12-02 19:27:54 <sipa> and batching up to 16 elements
825 2012-12-02 19:28:29 <sipa> ... but i have no idea whether it's actually faster
826 2012-12-02 19:29:25 harkon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
827 2012-12-02 19:29:59 harkon has joined
828 2012-12-02 19:33:51 <sipa> maybe it isn't actually faster, but has lower CPU usage
829 2012-12-02 19:34:05 <sipa> that would also be nice (though being faster at the same CPU usage is better)
830 2012-12-02 19:38:25 twobitcoins has quit (Quit: Leaving)
831 2012-12-02 19:38:54 <sipa> gmaxwell: can you retry?
832 2012-12-02 19:40:09 <gmaxwell> started it seconds after you said 'pushed'
833 2012-12-02 19:40:13 <sipa> haha :D
834 2012-12-02 19:43:58 Gladamas_ has joined
835 2012-12-02 19:46:42 <sipa> gmaxwell: that 44 minutes... with or without Halcode?
836 2012-12-02 19:46:56 <gmaxwell> thats w/ halcode.
837 2012-12-02 19:47:15 <gmaxwell> oh crud. forgot to reapply that patch.
838 2012-12-02 19:47:47 <gmaxwell> hm its a height=178654 ... apply hal and restart or just let it finish?
839 2012-12-02 19:48:03 Gladamas has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
840 2012-12-02 19:48:12 <gmaxwell> I guess I'll let it finish so that it doesn't do anything weird with the aborted reindex.
841 2012-12-02 19:48:31 <sipa> oh you can aboirt a reindex just fine
842 2012-12-02 19:49:18 <sipa> -reindex on commandline just means "wipe databases at startup", so it's not like any corruption from aborting could have any influence
843 2012-12-02 19:50:07 ovidiusoft has joined
844 2012-12-02 19:51:21 <gmaxwell> okay, restarted with halcode. (my prior 44 number was halcode too, I'd just pulled off those commits when I switched your parallel patches)
845 2012-12-02 19:51:54 <gmaxwell> I will eventually do a w/ and w/o hal numberâ though we know its worthwhile already, just so we have some figures to tell hal.
846 2012-12-02 19:52:59 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
847 2012-12-02 19:53:05 <sipa> my test commandline is getting long though... ./bitcoind -connect=vps.sipa.be -dns -dbcache=900 -reindex -debug -logtimestamps -nodaemon -par=4 -benchmark
848 2012-12-02 19:54:08 osmosis has joined
849 2012-12-02 19:57:20 root2_ has joined
850 2012-12-02 19:57:41 <gmaxwell> I'm not botherhering with dbcache, though my node is in tmpfs.
851 2012-12-02 19:58:43 <gmaxwell> sipa: I wonder if disabling the sig cache when 'its unlikely to be helpful' (I'd say IBD but I'm kinda tired of making things conditional on that!) would produce a measurable improvement.
852 2012-12-02 19:59:49 <sipa> iirc i tested that once, and it didn't help (which would mean that the overhead of storing/querying is very low (expected), and the lock on the sigcache is uncontended (maybe not so expected))
853 2012-12-02 20:00:06 <gmaxwell> Yea, I don't expect it to be uncontended.
854 2012-12-02 20:00:11 root2 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
855 2012-12-02 20:00:37 <gmaxwell> (one way to do that, perhaps, would be to make it so that blocks don't add to it, and so it doesn't get tested during block validation when there is <x items it)
856 2012-12-02 20:00:47 <gmaxwell> I can try doing a run with if off entirely later.
857 2012-12-02 20:01:18 <sipa> i suppose numbers with all 8 combinations would be nice: parallelism on/off, halcode on/off, sigcache on/off
858 2012-12-02 20:01:43 <sipa> thought without parallellism, sigcache on/off won't make much difference
859 2012-12-02 20:01:59 <gmaxwell> Right.
860 2012-12-02 20:02:59 <sipa> kind of a pity that reindex now works in parallel with a running node, makes the numbers somewhat less reliable as cs_main also gets used for incoming transactions e.g.
861 2012-12-02 20:03:07 <gmaxwell> Blocks not adding to it might have a general improvement, as they add enteries which are very likely to never be checked again. So elimiating them would lower overhead (unimportant) and increase hitrate (probably more important).
862 2012-12-02 20:03:31 <gmaxwell> well I can do numbers on an isolated node too, though I'm not now.
863 2012-12-02 20:03:32 <sipa> good point
864 2012-12-02 20:04:24 <sipa> actually... there is an even better benchmarking scenario clear coins/ at startup - it will reconnect the best block in the blkindex
865 2012-12-02 20:04:39 <sipa> which also means no overhead from writing undo data or blktree data
866 2012-12-02 20:04:51 osmosis has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
867 2012-12-02 20:05:11 <sipa> ... except 1) it corresponds even less to a realistic situation 2) it's broken
868 2012-12-02 20:06:31 <gmaxwell> I need to head out for a bit, so I'll be a little late getting you the performance numbers on this run. (probably be gone for an hour)
869 2012-12-02 20:09:43 <sipa> no problem
870 2012-12-02 20:11:34 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
871 2012-12-02 20:11:36 slush1 has joined
872 2012-12-02 20:25:34 Gladamas_ has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 90 seconds.)
873 2012-12-02 20:25:49 Gladamas has joined
874 2012-12-02 20:29:51 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
875 2012-12-02 20:34:22 korozion has joined
876 2012-12-02 20:35:05 <korozion> I've made 8 GPUs work, but they seem to be only loading at 60%. When I was working with 6 GPUs, they were loading around 90%. Any ideas?
877 2012-12-02 20:37:24 maaku has joined
878 2012-12-02 20:37:58 daybyter has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
879 2012-12-02 20:39:22 <xIsalty> load balancing
880 2012-12-02 20:39:53 maaku has quit (Client Quit)
881 2012-12-02 20:44:23 yellowhat1 has quit (Quit: yellowhat1)
882 2012-12-02 20:45:01 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
883 2012-12-02 20:46:18 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
884 2012-12-02 20:46:51 pusle has joined
885 2012-12-02 20:51:18 <korozion> how can I make them all work harder?
886 2012-12-02 20:52:40 Diapolo has joined
887 2012-12-02 20:54:06 ahbritto has joined
888 2012-12-02 21:04:34 ThomasV has joined
889 2012-12-02 21:05:13 pklaus has joined
890 2012-12-02 21:07:33 Diapolo has left ()
891 2012-12-02 21:15:24 <_dr> korozion: what are they working on? mining? how do you determine the load?
892 2012-12-02 21:16:21 <gmaxwell> 19:38:06 -> 20:22:15
893 2012-12-02 21:16:42 <_dr> korozion: usually there's an intensity parameter, try increasing it
894 2012-12-02 21:17:50 <korozion> _dr: was using GPU caps to determine the load
895 2012-12-02 21:17:59 <korozion> it also matches up with the hash/s value
896 2012-12-02 21:18:11 <korozion> I'll try intensity
897 2012-12-02 21:18:13 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
898 2012-12-02 21:18:19 <sipa> gmaxwell: 44 minutes...
899 2012-12-02 21:18:59 <gmaxwell> I had the impression that the htop numbers looked more consistent, but I wouldn't really bet on that for anything.
900 2012-12-02 21:22:45 maaku has joined
901 2012-12-02 21:24:41 <korozion> man it's hard to make 8 GPUs stable
902 2012-12-02 21:24:45 <korozion> hrm
903 2012-12-02 21:24:58 <korozion> I wonder if it has _anything_ to do with the fact that cgminer for windows is 32bit
904 2012-12-02 21:25:11 pklaus has quit ()
905 2012-12-02 21:25:14 <korozion> I know the OS has to be 64 bit for 8 GPUs, but I wonder about the problem
906 2012-12-02 21:25:19 <korozion> need to flip back to Linux and test ...
907 2012-12-02 21:25:41 <korozion> *program
908 2012-12-02 21:27:36 osmosis has joined
909 2012-12-02 21:33:38 asa1024 has joined
910 2012-12-02 21:36:45 harkon has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
911 2012-12-02 21:37:05 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
912 2012-12-02 21:41:02 ibno has quit (Quit: Lämnar)
913 2012-12-02 21:41:52 mykhal has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
914 2012-12-02 21:42:17 someone42 has joined
915 2012-12-02 21:43:17 yellowhat has joined
916 2012-12-02 21:51:12 mykhal has joined
917 2012-12-02 21:52:06 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
918 2012-12-02 21:55:14 mmoya has joined
919 2012-12-02 21:56:50 pusle has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
920 2012-12-02 21:57:41 tehace has joined
921 2012-12-02 21:59:46 <gmaxwell> sipa: would probably be good if a corrupted coins had a fighting chance of triggering that.
922 2012-12-02 22:00:27 <sipa> triggering what?
923 2012-12-02 22:00:48 <sipa> rebuild the coin db?
924 2012-12-02 22:01:25 <gmaxwell> yes, sorry. .. what? you can't see my screen right now? :P
925 2012-12-02 22:01:41 <sipa> sure i can; i just pretend i don't
926 2012-12-02 22:01:58 <gmaxwell> hah
927 2012-12-02 22:03:02 dvide has quit ()
928 2012-12-02 22:08:10 <sipa> gmaxwell: that's certainly an option... there is some work left on the automatic error detection/correction front
929 2012-12-02 22:08:53 <gmaxwell> alternatively in that case perhaps it should just yell at you to run reindex and shut down... so that people actually report the problems.
930 2012-12-02 22:09:24 <sipa> something that was always missing from the old -checkblocks code was distinguishing between errors in the block tree (which basically means the blocks aren't what you hope they are, and you should just drop them from the index) and errors in the transaction state (coin state now), where you want reorganize to have a chance for recovery
931 2012-12-02 22:10:34 <sipa> i suppose in the reorganize case, if the code detects it needs to reorganize too far back, it probably is indeed better to start over
932 2012-12-02 22:10:40 <sipa> assuming all blocks are still present
933 2012-12-02 22:12:36 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
934 2012-12-02 22:14:36 noagendamarket has joined
935 2012-12-02 22:15:03 <gmaxwell> sipa: running with par=8 21:11:45 -> 21:52:25 (machine has SMT, so a cpu detection would likely come up with 8)
936 2012-12-02 22:15:29 <gmaxwell> interesting that it was faster.
937 2012-12-02 22:18:10 <sipa> not sure if 3 minutes is really significant
938 2012-12-02 22:18:15 vampireb has joined
939 2012-12-02 22:18:20 <sipa> though i'd rather expect it to slow down
940 2012-12-02 22:23:01 <gmaxwell> well, 3/44 is like 6% should probably do a run with 4 again but isolated and just a coins rebuild ... may be that it was faster with the changes but noise masked it.
941 2012-12-02 22:23:11 remiforall has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
942 2012-12-02 22:23:31 molecular has joined
943 2012-12-02 22:24:22 <sipa> gmaxwell: you can try #2062 to benchmark more precisely
944 2012-12-02 22:24:51 <sipa> start with an indexed chain up to or above 210000, shut down, delete coins/ entirely, start up with whathever you want to trst
945 2012-12-02 22:24:55 <gmaxwell> yes, already doing.
946 2012-12-02 22:25:08 <sipa> LD
947 2012-12-02 22:25:09 <sipa> :D
948 2012-12-02 22:28:33 agricocb has joined
949 2012-12-02 22:31:00 da2ce777 has joined
950 2012-12-02 22:32:04 tehace has quit (Quit: Leaving)
951 2012-12-02 22:32:05 cheebydi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
952 2012-12-02 22:32:12 tehace has joined
953 2012-12-02 22:33:30 remiforall has joined
954 2012-12-02 22:37:34 root2_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
955 2012-12-02 22:37:54 root2_ has joined
956 2012-12-02 22:42:37 maaku has joined
957 2012-12-02 22:42:40 emryss has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
958 2012-12-02 22:46:38 greenfox has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.89 [SeaMonkey 2.14/20121118021014])
959 2012-12-02 22:56:20 tehace has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
960 2012-12-02 23:02:35 root2_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
961 2012-12-02 23:03:02 root2_ has joined
962 2012-12-02 23:07:17 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
963 2012-12-02 23:08:35 sta has joined
964 2012-12-02 23:09:00 <gmaxwell> 12/02/12 22:13:56 SetBestChain: new best=00000000839a8e6886ab5951d76f411475428afc90947ee320161bbf18eb6048 height=1 work=8590065666 tx=2 date=01/09/09 02:54:25
965 2012-12-02 23:09:03 <gmaxwell> 12/02/12 22:54:27 SetBestChain: new best=000000000000048b95347e83192f69cf0366076336c639f9b7228e9ba171342e height=210000 work=628963747775700992096 tx=9344662 date=11/28/12 15:24:38
966 2012-12-02 23:09:07 <gmaxwell> thats with par=4
967 2012-12-02 23:10:00 <gmaxwell> running again in the same config with par=8 then will run with the older version of the parallel check patch.
968 2012-12-02 23:10:39 <gmaxwell> or maybe before doing that I'll first try with the sigcache disabled.
969 2012-12-02 23:11:44 <sipa> gmaxwell: maybe it even makes sense to _remove_ entries from the sigcache when they were used in a block
970 2012-12-02 23:12:50 BCBot2` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
971 2012-12-02 23:13:57 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
972 2012-12-02 23:16:33 <etotheipi_> are the Bitcoin Foundation forums being used? is it a good, lower-noise environment than the bitcointalk forums?
973 2012-12-02 23:16:51 denisx has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
974 2012-12-02 23:17:01 <gmaxwell> sipa: ah! point, if we've already taken a lock to do the lookup and found the entry... why not remove it while we're there?
975 2012-12-02 23:17:03 denisx has joined
976 2012-12-02 23:17:03 <sipa> it's certainly a lot lower noise, but there's also less signal :)
977 2012-12-02 23:17:12 cheebydi has joined
978 2012-12-02 23:17:15 <sipa> gmaxwell: exactly
979 2012-12-02 23:17:20 <etotheipi_> is that perhaps a better place to start important conversations?
980 2012-12-02 23:17:31 <sipa> maybe we should try that, yes
981 2012-12-02 23:18:20 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: I'd like it if more of the serious conversations moved there for sure. The forums feel a bit unsalvagable at times. Esp outside of the tech subforum.
982 2012-12-02 23:18:22 <sipa> but i'm worried about not reaching people... now it seems that the dev mailing lists have some number of people who have interest in contributing to discussions, but some are only on bitcointalk
983 2012-12-02 23:18:24 BCBot2` has joined
984 2012-12-02 23:18:46 <gmaxwell> The dev mailing lists aren't working well. I meanâ we've got client authors who aren't on them.
985 2012-12-02 23:18:55 <sipa> yes :(
986 2012-12-02 23:19:11 <gmaxwell> (and they're authors of software people use)
987 2012-12-02 23:19:24 noagendamarket has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
988 2012-12-02 23:20:11 <gmaxwell> sipa: it'll be fun to benchmark this on one of the 32-way machines here.
989 2012-12-02 23:20:20 <sipa> ha
990 2012-12-02 23:20:26 <sipa> please try :)
991 2012-12-02 23:20:43 <sipa> though i don't think the parallellism scales particularly well in this implementation
992 2012-12-02 23:20:49 <gmaxwell> I will, right now I have another job running but when it finishes (probably tomorrow) I'll run it.
993 2012-12-02 23:20:53 anzy_ has joined
994 2012-12-02 23:20:58 sta has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
995 2012-12-02 23:21:06 sta has joined
996 2012-12-02 23:21:26 <sipa> "not particularly well" might mean "no use for more than 6 thread" or "no use for more than 200 threads", though
997 2012-12-02 23:21:55 <anzy_> hi ... Anyone knows how I can delete all the files that Bitchain-qt puts on a Mac? ... It's taking way too much space (Google says ~/Library/Application Support/Bitcoin/ , but the folder is not there and my diskspace is still gone)
998 2012-12-02 23:23:51 <sipa> gmaxwell: it may make sense to change the minimum number of elements taken from the queue to something higher than 1, if switching overhead is significant enough
999 2012-12-02 23:24:25 <sipa> anzy_: hmm, afaik that is where it should store them
1000 2012-12-02 23:24:32 <sipa> anzy_: but i don't have mac experience
1001 2012-12-02 23:26:44 <anzy_> ok, anyone else has any idea? =(
1002 2012-12-02 23:27:08 <sipa> isn't there some nifty search file function in OSX?
1003 2012-12-02 23:27:12 <sipa> look for a file called wallet.dar
1004 2012-12-02 23:27:17 <sipa> wallet.dat
1005 2012-12-02 23:28:25 <anzy_> oh geez found it ... It's really stupidly hidden in the new OS, not even searc finds it
1006 2012-12-02 23:28:31 <anzy_> 5.6 GB :o
1007 2012-12-02 23:29:09 <sipa> anzy_: if you find that excessive, you're problably better off running a light client
1008 2012-12-02 23:30:23 <anzy_> yeah, I'll look into it ... I just have some big programs installed that I really need, so I only have like 6 gigs (including Bitcoin data)
1009 2012-12-02 23:31:49 <anzy_> but thanks for the will to help ;)
1010 2012-12-02 23:34:08 <anzy_> but yeah it'bb
1011 2012-12-02 23:34:11 anzy_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1012 2012-12-02 23:35:00 one_zero has joined
1013 2012-12-02 23:38:22 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1014 2012-12-02 23:38:48 da2ce777 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1015 2012-12-02 23:45:04 TD has joined
1016 2012-12-02 23:47:27 sta has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1017 2012-12-02 23:47:34 sta has joined
1018 2012-12-02 23:48:27 stejin has joined
1019 2012-12-02 23:48:39 stejin has left ()
1020 2012-12-02 23:49:59 <gmaxwell> 12/02/12 22:56:50 SetBestChain: new best=00000000839a8e6886ab5951d76f411475428afc90947ee320161bbf18eb6048 height=1 work=8590065666 tx=2 date=01/09/09 02:54:25
1021 2012-12-02 23:50:02 <gmaxwell> 12/02/12 23:34:10 SetBestChain: new best=000000000000048b95347e83192f69cf0366076336c639f9b7228e9ba171342e height=210000 work=628963747775700992096 tx=9344662 date=11/28/12 15:24:38
1022 2012-12-02 23:50:21 <sipa> settings?
1023 2012-12-02 23:50:47 <gmaxwell> Seems that it really is faster with par=8 on this system. This isn't _that_ much of a shock, the newer ht stuff actually works, and more threads may just make the scheduler happier
1024 2012-12-02 23:51:05 <gmaxwell> This is hal+new-parallel+par-8+coins rebuild.
1025 2012-12-02 23:51:35 <sipa> may also be the case that now smaller chunks are used (because of a larger divider), and the switching overhead is actually really low
1026 2012-12-02 23:51:49 <sipa> so the variance caused by threads not finishing at the same moment is lower
1027 2012-12-02 23:51:56 sta has quit (Client Quit)
1028 2012-12-02 23:52:03 sta has joined
1029 2012-12-02 23:52:04 <gmaxwell> (checkpoints=0)
1030 2012-12-02 23:52:19 <gmaxwell> that may be the case, esp with there being lots of unfilled blocks in this test.
1031 2012-12-02 23:52:31 <gmaxwell> well lemme try the old parallel code.
1032 2012-12-02 23:52:38 <gmaxwell> hm wait, that changes more stuff.
1033 2012-12-02 23:52:47 <gmaxwell> let me try just having it always pull 1.
1034 2012-12-02 23:53:17 <sipa> i think all other changes (apart from the batch processing) are pretty much certain not to harm performance
1035 2012-12-02 23:54:37 root2_ is now known as root2
1036 2012-12-02 23:55:13 sta has quit (Client Quit)
1037 2012-12-02 23:57:25 Joric has joined
1038 2012-12-02 23:57:37 BlackPrapor has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)